The big difference...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 11:00 AM EDT |
The big difference between ten years ago and now is that it makes sense for Microsoft to get along with Linux. Ten years ago, NT looked like it might really go someplace. Linux, at least to business folk, was a communal gathering of geeks with little to say to ordinary people. Microsoft was gong to extend its desktop monopoly into the glass room. Why bother with all the geeks? They were not where the money was. Things change. Microsoft is still big and nasty, but can no longer sustain their delusion of setting the computing agenda. FOSS ain't goin' anywhere. Microsoft's been trying to kill it for more than a decade, but it keeps getting bigger, stronger, and better-looking. Outside the US, governments look out for it. Maximizing profit means living with FOSS. |
| Abe Jun 18, 2007 11:38 AM EDT |
Quoting:I think one that far too many Linux fans miss is that Microsoft is surrendering to Linux.No, this fan doesn't think so. When MS stops all the FUD, especially about IP, then I might think about it. MS is making deals and all what we hear from it is, Linux infringes our IP and those are IP deals, and we have the option to sue. That is not a company who is acknowledging it. You are free to believe whatever you want, I personally don't until Linux has 50% of desktop market share. Linux is winning battles, but not the war yet. There is a huge difference between the two. One more point. Why should we look at MS any different now than before? FOSS always did best to inter-operate with any company, MS chose not to. FOSS is open for all, MS is not. They still do whatever it takes to sabotage any interoperability. FOSS is not fighting MS, it is just chucking along with its business and there is no reason to change. The ball is in MS's court, cooperate and you shall be welcomed. Other than that, forget about it. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 11:48 AM EDT |
>That is not a company who is acknowledging it. How do you figure? Because they say things that hurt your feelings? Of course Microsoft is going to say a lot of mean things. That is what they do. They are not nice people. Microsoft will not reach out to FOSS because it is nice, but because it has little choice in the matter. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 18, 2007 11:59 AM EDT |
> Microsoft will not reach out to FOSS because it is nice, but because it has little choice in the matter. I'm of the mind that Microsoft is reaching out to FOSS companies because it wants to draw them in close enough for knife range. Seriously, Abe is right -- interoperability has always been a one sided thing with Microsoft. FOSS has built all the bridges in software between the two worlds. Microsoft talks like they would like to build bridges, but it seems like since they only do it with these "deals" that they only intend to build TOLL bridges. If Microsoft was SERIOUS about interoperability they'd build the tools to for their side of the world and give them away as FOSS. They'd openly publish the specs necessary to build the other side to every developer that wanted them -- no "deals" necessary. When Microsoft is that serious, then they will be "acknowledging it". Its not what they say, its what they do -- or don't do. You are right though. Microsoft are not nice people as a whole. There are a few nice people who work for MS, don't get me wrong... and there are unfortunately a few not-so-nice people in the FOSS world too... |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 12:12 PM EDT |
>FOSS has built all the bridges in software between the two worlds. Doesn't matter. It's true, but completely irrelevant. >If Microsoft was SERIOUS about interoperability they'd build the tools to for their side of the world and give them away as FOSS. Depends on who's defining serious. From the standpoint of Microsoft, serious means as serious as they have to be. Period. There is no point in playing Pollyanna here. |
| Abe Jun 18, 2007 12:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:... build the tools to for their side of the world and give them away as FOSS.I wouldn't go that far, especially when they will not release them as FOSS. I would understand that, MS is a pretty hungry monster they need to survive. Porting their application to Linux would be for their own good and a good start. They could start joining in the development of open standards instead of sabotaging them, like ODF. There are many others, as we all know. I personally haven't seen any serious effort by MS yet in reaching out to FOSS. Quoting:Microsoft will not reach out to FOSS because it is nice, but because it has little choice in the matter.FOSS is not in a big hurry, when MS is ready to play ball by the rules, I am sure no one is going to refuse them. Thanks SJVN for the advice. I think the community knows exactly when to welcome MS. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 12:39 PM EDT |
> I think the community knows exactly when to welcome MS The more important question is how to deal with Linux-oriented companies who have dealings with Microsoft. Does it make sense to revile a business for business decisions that do us no harm? That is how I view, for example, the Novell deal. A bunch of people getting their dander up for no good reason. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 18, 2007 12:47 PM EDT |
> Does it make sense to revile a business for business decisions that do us no harm? That is how I view,
> for example, the Novell deal. A bunch of people getting their dander up for no good reason. I'm not so sure that the Novell deal does us no harm. On the other hand, rather than making as big a stink about it as some I am content to quietly shun Novell/SuSE. Not that it was a big deal since I've not been using SuSE for several years now. |
| jdixon Jun 18, 2007 1:00 PM EDT |
> I'm not so sure that the Novell deal does us no harm. As far as I can tell, the deal itself doesn't. Microsoft's trumpeting the deal far and wide as proving that Linux infringes on it's patents does. Both sides admit that it does no such thing, and it's not like Microsoft lying is anything new, but the public perception is that Microsoft must have something or these deals wouldn't be taking place. > I am content to quietly shun Novell/SuSE. I never used them before the deal, so there's no reason for me to start now. |
| Abe Jun 18, 2007 4:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:for business decisions that do us no harmDino, You keep saying no harm done. I disagree, and in my opinion there are two harms that Novell's deal did. Like Jdixon & softwarejanitor said, the public perception was one of them and it is a big harm if I might add. There are some that didn't care, especially those overseas companies that know MS can't reach them because they are in countries that don't have software patents. No harm here. Companies which were planning to adopt Linux with or without MS covenant now are going with the MS option. Those companies don't care about the cost and they use Linux because it does a better job at what they want done than Windows does. This is harmful because of MS control which shouldn't have or deserve. Others are willing to wait to see the end of it before they jump in.There are also companies who just decided it is not worth it. Both are important harms because MS succeeded in slowing down the proliferation of Linux. On the other hand, there are US companies who either went ahead because they believe MS has no case. The other harm is the encouragement that Novell's deal generated. That resulted in the additional deals with Xandros, LinSpire, and others that even had no relation with Linux or FOSS at all. We wont know what kind of impact that might have, but If MS does sue, the deals might help MS in court as those contracts COULD be used as supporting evidence in court in an IP case. We wont be sure now, and there is a chance that they might play a vital role for MS. The contracts might be worth while business deals for those companies, at the same time, they are of no value for FOSS at all instead harmful. FOSS interest overrides any company's interest. I started using Linux with Suse. I kept using Suse for the last 6 years until Novell made the deal with MS. Shunning those MS collaborators is important. It is a strong message to those who did and those who are planning on having such contracts to be ware that the community is not going to tolerate such sleazy contracts, even if their survival depends on them. Undermining FOSS is a serious matter, it could be the end of FOSS as we know it and want it. that is a serious issue. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 4:59 PM EDT |
>Like Jdixon & softwarejanitor said, the public perception was one of them and it is a big harm if I might add. So tell me. What evidence do you have that public perception was changed, let alone has changed in a way that harms Linux? Methinks you're like the little kid who can't stand to hear those mean old stinky boys in the hallway say unkind about his shoes. >Companies which were planning to adopt Linux with or without MS covenant now are going with the MS option. Who? >The other harm is the encouragement that Novell's deal generated. Encouraged who to do what? Are you seriously telling me that you think Novell's deal -- unlikely to be matched by others because it applies to a business that is 90% something else and only 10% Linux -- actually encouraged other companies to sign up? What kind of an idiot do you take me for? The reaction to Novell's deal was overwhelmingly negative. That would discourage others, not encourage them. If others made a deal with Microsoft, it is because Microsoft was able to offer them something that made the deal worth taking. This is not junior high. All the little companies don't fall in and do something just because the "cool kid" did. |
| bigg Jun 18, 2007 5:10 PM EDT |
> Companies which were planning to adopt Linux with or without MS covenant now are going with the MS option. If they paid extra for that protection (I haven't heard of any such companies, so I don't know that they did) that should be their choice. If they didn't pay extra, they would be fools to turn it down. Microsoft very well could start suing. It makes no difference if it is a bogus lawsuit, it could still happen, and it would cost money. Microsoft is the one pushing the issue. Microsoft is the one that could sue. How users react to the threat should be up to them. I wouldn't pay a penny for the protection, but why should someone with different beliefs be constrained by my view of the world. |
| Abe Jun 18, 2007 5:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:Methinks you're like the little kid who can't stand to hear those mean old stinky boys in the hallway say unkind about his shoes.Sorry Dino, some of us just can't help it, we never seem to grow up. Quoting:Who?Sorry again. I stopped feeding with a spoon long time ago. Quoting:...90% something else and only 10% Linuxthe 90% something else is diminishing faster than the speed or light (there is such a speed). Novell is banking on FOSS to survive. Quoting:What kind of an idiot do you take me for?Slow down Dino, please don't put words in my mouth. Quoting:That would discourage others, not encourage them.Not if they are hungry enough. Hunger could make some one do a lot of things otherwise wouldn't do. Quoting:If others made a deal with Microsoft, it is because Microsoft was able to offer them something that made the deal worth taking.Exactly, and the deal Novell made was the precedence. Quoting:This is not junior high. All the little companies don't fall in and do something just because the "cool kid" did.No, it sure isn't. Money does have a big influence though. I guess you believe it is OK since it is business. Myself, I don't think it should, business or not. |
| jdixon Jun 18, 2007 5:58 PM EDT |
> This is not junior high. No this is a CEO club. More like a fraternity than a junior high. > All the little companies don't fall in and do something just because the "cool kid" did. Dino, I hate to break this to you, but at least from an outsider's perspective, it appears that's often exactly the reason CEO's do things. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 6:01 PM EDT |
>Sorry again. I stopped feeding with a spoon long time ago. In other words, nobody. >Not if they are hungry enough. Hunger could make some one do a lot of things otherwise wouldn't do. Oh come on. If they are hungry, they don't need a Novell deal -- the likes of which they can't get for themselves because they don't have that other business, those patents, etc, that Novell has -- to take Microsoft's money. Really, you should check your own logic before you blather on about spoon-feeding. > I guess you believe it is OK since it is business. I guess your thinking cap is not working very well because I haven't said anything on the subject. |
| jdixon Jun 18, 2007 6:02 PM EDT |
> So tell me. What evidence do you have that public perception was changed, let alone has changed in a way that harms Linux? Seriously, what I read in the business news sections. Every article I've read takes these deals as IP licensing deals, even if they do throw in the interoperability catch phrase. It's clear that's the way the deals are being spun to businesses. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 6:05 PM EDT |
>Dino, I hate to break this to you, but at least from an outsider's perspective, it appears that's often exactly the reason CEO's do things. Look closer, then. What is more likely happening is: 1. Factors which influence company 1 also influence company 2. 2. Moves by company 1 alter the market picture for company 2. That's also known as competition...ie, one company cuts its price in half, the other one had better do something. 3. Political or PR pressure -- this might be the closest to following the cool kid. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 6:06 PM EDT |
>It's clear that's the way the deals are being spun to businesses. OK. Are the businesses buying it? Does that harm Linux? |
| bigg Jun 18, 2007 6:10 PM EDT |
> It's clear that's the way the deals are being spun to businesses. You hit the nail on the head. In other words, Novell's deal has had absolutely no effect on anything. It is dishonesty on someone else's part that is the only thing having an effect. Much of that dishonesty comes from within the Linux community. I won't fault Novell for the deal on those grounds. |
| Abe Jun 18, 2007 6:17 PM EDT |
Bigg,
It is their money, they can save it or they can burnt, I wouldn't care, it is their business. What I am talking about is the fiasco that Novell's deal created. It gave MS involvement and control in something they have no business in. No one is constraining anyone else in their business. The constraints comes in when they are making deals with something they don't own. If or when the GPL 3 is adopted, businesses should abide by it if they still want to do business with it. It is not up to them or any one else, it is the owners of that software who get to decide. If the owners say it is OK with them, then there is no issue. Like Linus said, It is my code and I want it licensed under GPL2. Period. Well, others aren't saying the same about their code, they want their code licensed under GPL3. Everyone has to respect that too. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 6:21 PM EDT |
>and control in something they have no business in. Control of what? Certainly not of Linux. Novell didn't have that to offer them. Face it...You'd rather hate Microsoft than face facts. |
| jdixon Jun 18, 2007 6:25 PM EDT |
Dino: > 3. Political or PR pressure -- this might be the closest to following the cool kid. I'm willing to grant that. From an external perspective, it's a difference which makes no difference, so it would be impossible to tell. > Are the businesses buying it? Not being on the inside, I can't say for certain. But to external appearances, yes. > Does that harm Linux? If people believe Linux is contains stolen IP, yes. As far as Linux expansion goes, probably not. It's probably not stopping anyone from migrating who wouldn't have found another reason not to. Bigg: > In other words, Novell's deal has had absolutely no effect on anything. It is dishonesty on someone else's part that is the only thing having an effect. Isn't that what I said above? That doesn't change the fact that we may need to come up with a way to counteract the lies. Unfortunately, one of the people who's actually pretty good at this type of PR campaign, ESR, seems otherwise occupied. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 6:28 PM EDT |
>Unfortunately, one of the people who's actually pretty good at this type of PR campaign, ESR, seems otherwise occupied. Shame on you. Diversity of opinion is against FOSS ideals. |
| Abe Jun 18, 2007 7:00 PM EDT |
Dino, You are just so typical. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 7:07 PM EDT |
>You are just so typical. If typical is your way of saying brutally honest, then yes. |
| Abe Jun 18, 2007 7:40 PM EDT |
Quoting:If typical is your way of saying brutally honest, then yes.Actually, that is not what I had in mind, way too far from it. |
| dinotrac Jun 19, 2007 4:24 AM EDT |
>Actually, that is not what I had in mind, way too far from it. Then no, not typical at all. I am brutally honest. Hmmm. Why does "A Few Good Men" come to mind? |
| jdixon Jun 19, 2007 5:10 AM EDT |
> Diversity of opinion is against FOSS ideals. It does sometimes seem that way, doesn't it. |
| dinotrac Jun 19, 2007 5:24 AM EDT |
>It does sometimes seem that way, doesn't it. Sometimes. I wonder how many people have actually figured out that having freedom isn't any good if you can't use it? |
| Abe Jun 19, 2007 5:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:having freedom isn't any good if you can't use it?It all depends on how and what you use it for. Using Freedom to take others freedom is one of the forbidden ones. Even freedom has its limitations too. One has to believe in freedom before they can exercise it. |
| dinotrac Jun 19, 2007 6:40 AM EDT |
>It all depends on how and what you use it for. If that were true, it wouldn't be freedom at all, but a privilege permitted by your master. >Using Freedom to take others freedom is one of the forbidden ones. Umm...not very clear on the concept, are you? Being free to raise my children also means I am free to limit their freedom. The freedom to have elected government implies the power to pass laws which, by their nature limit freedom. The freedom to own my house includes the freedom to exclude others. One must understand freedom before one's belief has any meaning. |
| Abe Jun 19, 2007 7:47 AM EDT |
Your thoughts don't seem to be coeherent. Read these two statement you just wrote
Quoting:If that were true, it wouldn't be freedom at all, but a privilege permitted by your master. Being free to raise my children also means I am free to limit their freedom.So what happens to your children's freedom master. They don't seem to concur, do they? |
| azerthoth Jun 19, 2007 8:17 AM EDT |
Freedom means many things to many people. My personal opinion on it is that true freedom as implemented in a functional society should be nothing more or less than the freedom to do what you will as long as it causes no physical or financial harm to another. There are of course caveats to that, such as in raising your children where you have to keep them safe and hopefully install a modicum of ethical behavior that allows them to function in society. Restricting freedoms because someone might misuse them though is paranoid in the extreme especially when one considers that some of the restricted rights have been retained by the same people who do the restricting. |
| dinotrac Jun 19, 2007 9:24 AM EDT |
>Restricting freedoms because someone might misuse them This concept of misusing freedom is part of the problem. Misuse is a value judgment -- ie, my way is better than your way. Might be true, but freedom allows you to believe that your way is better than mine and restricts my ability to prevent you from exercising the same freedom that I enjoy. What you can do is exceed your freedom. In a society where others are as free as you are, freedoms are bounded by the degree needed to protect the freedoms of others. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!