Oh please
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| herzeleid Jul 20, 2009 4:13 PM EDT |
This is all just business as usual, one more step in their conquest of the open source world. Remember, microsoft loves open source - just so long as it runs on top of microsoft windows. If they succeed in garnering any appreciable linux market share this way, expect them to begin making loud noises about efficiency, and about peace of mind over IP concerns. The efficiency angle goes like this: "Sure, you can run your open source apps on linux in windows - but it makes a lot more sense to cut out the middle man and run the open source apps directly on microsoft windows!" The peace of mind angle will build on the efficiency argument and will go like this: "Since you can run all your open source apps on microsoft windows, why subject yourself to the legal risks that come with linux? Dump linux, simplify, and reduce your legal risk today!" |
| azerthoth Jul 20, 2009 4:21 PM EDT |
With the small exception of the fact that the code they released, the released under the GPL. |
| tuxchick Jul 20, 2009 4:38 PM EDT |
Whatever MS intends, and I'm sure their intent is all extend and embrace, the real world has a habit of going its own way. MS might want to ensnare FOSS apps on Windows, but this gives Windows users a way to run Linux in HyperV, in a familiar environment, and to get good performance. Imagine where a good Linux experience on Windows could lead... **edit** Ina Fried quotes an MS spokesmodel: Quoting: The Linux device drivers we are releasing are designed so Linux can run in enlightened mode, giving it the same optimized synthetic devices as a Windows virtual machine running on top of Hyper-V," Tom Hanrahan, director of Microsoft's Open Source Technology Center, said in a statement. "Without this driver code, Linux can run on top of Windows, but without the same high performance levels. |
| justintime Jul 20, 2009 4:46 PM EDT |
herzeleid: Just because Microsoft is working in their own interest with at least some of the kernel drivers doesn't mean that they are working against Linux. Nor does it mean that it hurts Linux (or any Free Software) in any way. Conspiracy theories do not improve things, all it does is make you look silly and hurt cooperation. Microsoft is not likely to disappear anytime soon, and wishing for their destruction is not healthy or even moral. The best thing for people to do is welcome Microsoft to Free Software, encourage them to contribute more by thanking them and giving them credit for their good graces. Disrespect and hostility only begets more disrespect and hostility. Respect and kindness begets more respect and kindness. No one is perfect, but this is what we should strive for. |
| justintime Jul 20, 2009 4:49 PM EDT |
tuxchick: nice quote. That doesn't sound all that selfish to me and we should be very grateful for their work to make Linux run faster in Hyper-V (which ultimately makes Linux look good). |
| jdixon Jul 20, 2009 4:59 PM EDT |
> Respect and kindness begets more respect and kindness. Not always, unfortunately. Some see it as a sign of weakness. :( |
| DrDubious Jul 20, 2009 5:07 PM EDT |
I'm curious about "enlightened mode" though - is that a technical term in Microsoft's virtualization or are they poetically trying to suggest that Linux without Windows is "unenlightened"? |
| tuxchick Jul 20, 2009 5:08 PM EDT |
No justintime, we should not be grateful at all. Microsoft is still the sworn enemy of Linux and the GPL, and would like nothing better than for all of its competitors to be wiped from the face of the earth. The biggest obstacle to interoperability, open standards, transparency, honesty, and innovation has been Microsoft from its birth, and nothing has changed. They are a pestilence and a net drain on the world economy, and have done nearly inconceivable damage to everything they touch-- technology, standards bodies, the retail marketplace, the enterprise market, hardware development, and even governments. MS' intent with LinuxIC is self-serving; any benefit to anyone else is incidental and unintended. The remarkable news is once again MS is forced to react to FOSS. I've long believed that FOSS is more powerful than Microsoft, that it will infiltrate and change MS, and this is one more small bit of evidence of that. Now, what's the MS spin today-- that Linux is a threat to all red-blooded capitalists and their precious bodily fluids, or that Linux is an insignificant 1% nothing? |
| techiem2 Jul 20, 2009 5:09 PM EDT |
Now if they'd GPL Hyper-V.... lol. Someone could port it to Linux. Then you could run Linux...under Linux...in Hyper-V... :P |
| softwarejanitor Jul 20, 2009 5:11 PM EDT |
@DrDubious It wouldn't surprise me. @jdixon "Some" = most of the business world. |
| tracyanne Jul 20, 2009 5:21 PM EDT |
What it boils down to is Microsoft doing what is necessary for their business. It has nothing to do with embrace and extend. It is about about Microsoft protecting it's core business. Linux runs like a piece of dog turd on HyperV, Windows Admins who want virtualised Linux have to use some other Virtualisation software.. VMWare, VirtualBox for example. which means a move away from Microsoft products, any move away from Microsoft products is considered a bad thing by Microsoft marketing, who like to keep their customers focused on Microsoft brand. |
| gus3 Jul 20, 2009 5:26 PM EDT |
Groklaw has two articles on the main page, regarding making a deal with the devi^WRedmond hegemon: 'FSF: FOSS developers "still should not write software that depends on Mono"' http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090717043855128 "Microsoft donates code to Linux: Remember, folks, what comes after 'Embrace'" http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090720134402246 Perhaps the best quote comes from an anonymous comment on the first article: Quoting:To put it simply, the proponents of Mono ask us to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. Yet, experience has shown that giving MS the benefit of the doubt is fatal to the donor.And, as a reply to that comment indicates, "ask Buffalo or TomTom." |
| tuxchick Jul 20, 2009 6:21 PM EDT |
The Linux Plumber claims this happened to correct a GPL violation: http://linux-network-plumber.blogspot.com/2009/07/congratula... |
| herzeleid Jul 20, 2009 6:52 PM EDT |
@justintime - I have no idea what you are talking about. What consipracy theory? |
| herzeleid Jul 20, 2009 7:01 PM EDT |
@azerthoth
Quoting:With the small exception of the fact that the code they released, the released under the GPL.I don't understand which point of mine you're attempting to refute with that statement. Could you elaborate? |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 20, 2009 7:14 PM EDT |
Hey herzeleid & tuxchick, Don't be sore heads. justintime has it exactly right. Remember you do not want to sully the name of either Linux of FlOSS in general. So go by these verities: 1. The Mafia is not going to disappear. Got it? 2. They rightly demand respect, or you get your knees bent. 3. Complaining makes us look like sore losers. 4. Citing past criminal behaviour means you live in the past. Stop it if you want to continue living. 5. Forget History when it is so much fun to relive the past. I cannot tell you how impressed I am with the sagaciousity of JIT, what more could be asked from a compiler? So techie. YBT |
| tracyanne Jul 20, 2009 7:19 PM EDT |
What I want to know is, in what way is GPLed Code dangerous? Microsoft released this as GPLed code because they had to. The whole point of making it possible to run Linux on Hyper-V is to sell more Hyper-V licenses, because it they don't do it Windows Admins will use VMWare or Virtual box, neither of which generates license income for microsoft. |
| herzeleid Jul 20, 2009 7:20 PM EDT |
@TxTEdMacs - As usual, your logic is irrefutable. |
| theboomboomcars Jul 20, 2009 7:37 PM EDT |
TA - Patents. I doubt there is any here, but MS could try to control the code the submitted via patents. I would guess that if that is the case then the patches won't get approved and included in the kernel. It seems the whole purpose of this release is to prevent people from migrating to a different Virtualization server, or to bring new people to use MS' solution. The only problem I can see here is that if you are wanting Linux and Windows in a virtualized environment, why run it on Windows instead of Linux. If you are running it on Windows, you get the security and stability of Windows. Seems illogical to me. |
| gus3 Jul 20, 2009 7:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:What I want to know is, in what way is GPLed Code dangerous?Conversation in the legal department: "What does the GPL mean?" "Whatever you want it to, Mr. Ballmer." |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 20, 2009 8:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:why run it on Windows instead of Linux Because many companies already have Hyper-V servers and they want their non-SLES Linux to run fast. Remember, SLES isn't that big. Many companies prefer Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian or something else. If they can't run it on Hyper-V then they're going to install some Xen or VirtualBox server, and later on they will discover that running Windows on Xen or Windows on VirtualBox is just as fast as running Windows on Hyper-V. Microsoft doesn't want their Hyper-V customers moving to Xen or VirtualBox. Also, they cannot cut deals like the SLES deal to get their drivers into the many different distributions that their Hyper-V customers want to use. So the only viable alternative is contributing those drivers to the mainline kernel. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 20, 2009 8:49 PM EDT |
@tracyanne The fact that Microsoft is doing this because they have to doesn't mean they won't try any shenanigans later. The fact they have to do this in order to keep their virtualization offering from being a last place finisher after VMWare, Red Hat and Novell's, amongst others shows that Linux is starting to get some traction into the enterprise data center. Enough that the PHBs who make the purchasing decisions notice, not just the techies. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 20, 2009 8:58 PM EDT |
@Sander I agree with your arguments why and that it isn't feasible for them to try to cut deals with all the other distros besides SLES. The only argument I'd have is that not it appears that not very many companies have Hyper-V servers. Even many Windows-Centric shops have chosen VMWare, Xen or other products instead. It isn't just MS trying to retain market share it is trying to address why Hyper-V has failed to generate much. By most estimates I've seen its at least a distant 3rd or 4th place right now despite aggressive marketing on Microsoft's part. Microsoft doesn't like to be that far back, especially in their own OS customer base. Microsoft historically has been used to showing up late for the party with a poor product and then use a massive advertising campaign to fool management types that they invited everyone in the first place long enough to play catch up. Signs are starting to show that this sort of reactionary "immovation" (imitation claimed to be innovation) isn't working as well as it used to. |
| jdixon Jul 20, 2009 9:31 PM EDT |
> ...which means a move away from Microsoft products, > ...because it they don't do it Windows Admins will use VMWare or Virtual box, neither of which generates license income for microsoft. Exactly. And perhaps equally importantly, products which are multi-platform, unlike Microsoft's offerings. Once you've settled on using VirtualBox or VMWare, it's a small step to not running them under Windows. > Even many Windows-Centric shops have chosen VMWare, Yes, VMWare seems to be the default choice at most businesses. The one I work at is a prime example. It's very Microsoft centric, but the virtualization boxes are all VMWare. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 21, 2009 9:50 AM EDT |
> So the only viable alternative is contributing those drivers to the mainline kernel. VirtualBox doesn't have their Linux kernel host or guest modules in the mainline kernel. Other than brownie points, I can't quite decide why Microsoft would have to do it the way they have chosen. Maybe they don't think that Microsoft customers are going to know how to compile a Linux kernel module? |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2009 10:06 AM EDT |
> Other than brownie points, I can't quite decide why Microsoft would have to do it the way they have chosen. The obviously want the drivers in the mainline kernel, and they know they'll never get in unless they're GPL'ed. As to why they want that, I couldn't say. |
| azerthoth Jul 21, 2009 10:34 AM EDT |
Now there is food for thought, have a nice hidden patent somewhere, submit code under GPL, pop out the patent. |
| tuxchick Jul 21, 2009 10:36 AM EDT |
az, and then MS could fund a shell corp. to sue themselves for a patent violation! I love it. Something with a nautical theme, like SCOW. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2009 10:42 AM EDT |
> Now there is food for thought, have a nice hidden patent somewhere, submit code under GPL, pop out the patent. Since they're the patent holder and they're the ones submitting the code, I'd think a court would rule that the obvious intent of submitting the code was to grant an automatic patent license to the user. Of course, with a court you never know for certain. |
| bigg Jul 21, 2009 10:55 AM EDT |
I'm not clear on that. If MS holds a software patent and releases the patent infested code under GPL 2, they could still sue? As long as you distribute the code they've written, according to their license, I'm not seeing the grounds to sue. Maybe I'm missing something as I find these issues very boring. |
| justintime Jul 21, 2009 10:55 AM EDT |
azerthoth: you realize that they would be suing their own customers, right? The drivers are to allow their Hyper-V customers to run Linux in their VM on a Windows desktop/server. Then there's the fact that Microsoft would have infringed their own patents as they were the ones who contributed it to the Linux kernel in the first place. All in all, that conspiracy theory is lacking in realism. Hopefully it was meant in jest, as a mockery of Roy Schestowitz's conspiracy theories or some such. |
| justintime Jul 21, 2009 10:57 AM EDT |
bigg: no, they could not sue. Even if they could, it would be a PR disaster for them. |
| azerthoth Jul 21, 2009 11:00 AM EDT |
How did you know I was thinking of Roy when I wrote that? oh, the shiny tin foil hat I was wearing. |
| justintime Jul 21, 2009 11:13 AM EDT |
Yea, the tinfoil hat gave it away ;-) |
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!