Is this another "covert" attack by Redmond ?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ridcully Apr 11, 2010 4:12 AM EDT |
I may be dense (don't answer that, :-) ), but I do not clearly see the point of this move by Microsoft - or I am missing "summat". Why in heaven's name would Linux developers want to develop new open source software specifically to run on a Windows platform as a huge library of Linux software applications ? They already have the Linux platform which is more secure and stable........and free. Sure, like OpenOffice and FireFox, you can have a Windows version, but basically, those two items were developed for Linux based systems with Windows based coming afterwards. I tend to look for a more hidden and underlying reason, like developer percentages. Could it be that increasing numbers of software developers are deserting Microsoft coding ? So is this move an attempt by Microsoft to subvert Linux developers away from Linux and then get them to write their software initially for Windows.......with Linux coming a long distance second if at all ? I really don't know and I could be awfully wrong here.......but my nostrils are already twitching with the Redmond aroma of -------- (You can fill in the blank with roses or otherwise depending on your slant on the matter). Wiser minds than mine are needed here so I'm looking forward to more comments because it might be Microsoft really trying to play nice - but my second thoughts are saying "no". |
| gus3 Apr 11, 2010 4:54 AM EDT |
Ridcully, if your observation of M$'s efforts is correct, it won't work. Every time some proprietary software house has tried to expropriate the term "open" for its own purposes, it has failed. For a recent example, take a look at "Office Open XML," a deliberate attempt by M$ to confound people into saying "Open Office XML," thus creating confusion with OpenOffice.org. It failed not only in the mass media (especially blogs), but also in real-world software development: OpenOffice.org supported ODF fully, and OOXML partially, sooner than M$ supported either. |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 11, 2010 10:39 AM EDT |
Ridcully, More [serious]: First Firefox is not now optimized and developed for Linux*. Sorry but I was at least a casual beta tester on a few of the 2.x series (perhaps including 1.5), but even then the main focus was Windows. I could see it in the reporting, fixes and seeming earlier finished state of the Windows version. That is, until the end when the Linux version was fine**. Open Office, since I have been running behind on the version and have never been a tester I must admit ignorance. However, there too I would not be surprised if more Windows users employed it than those on Linux***. The originator of the Open Platform [for Windows] is a MS employee working on the latter's dime. Thus, the focus being (as it has been always) to generate an advantage to MS's version of reality should come as no surprise. How devious their plans are, I cannot tell. Despite my public shill persona, which gladly seeks compensation for bogus stories, I must sadly admit to have never been an employee or even a stringer. Thus, the good life has eluded me. * It may have started that way. [My first use was version 0.99.] ** Though I had a release candidate that was terrible on my hardware, until fixed. *** In raw number, that is the count total not percentage. [/serious] YBT |
| tuxchick Apr 11, 2010 12:09 PM EDT |
I'm sure this is a sincere effort by MS. |
| jdixon Apr 11, 2010 2:55 PM EDT |
> I'm sure this is a sincere effort by MS. Yep. A sincere effort to undercut the current FOSS ecosystem and replace it with their own, which will be completely tied to Windows. Just think of it as the desktop equivalent of the .Net/Java and Silverlight/Flash wars. |
| gus3 Apr 11, 2010 4:03 PM EDT |
Well, well, well, speaking of covert attacks from Microsoft: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2010041107355659 |
| Rob_on Apr 12, 2010 9:16 AM EDT |
"First Firefox is not now optimized and developed for Linux*. Sorry but I was at least a casual beta tester on a few of the 2.x series (perhaps including 1.5), but even then the main focus was Windows." I couldn't agree more, the reason for that to my knowledge was to gain a Windows market, as now some software that was Windows only, is developed for Linux to gain a Linux market. The problem and therefore the reason for the foucs on Windows, was using technology that is non-opensource in most cases, but always the case where Microsoft comes in. Microsoft made so many changes trying to kill the idea by anyone to use another browser, that FireFox (and not only), found itself having to "keep up". Microsoft taking up "opensource" should bring questions, but not to the point that any idea should take hold that anyone active in opensource is unable to avoid it. Microsoft using proxies is nothing new when after seven years we just may reach the end of the SCO case. In my opinion very much the same way SCO used it's claim to Unix and the work done by Caldera, and because IBM had a hand in it, the target was clear to SCO to set the stage for what *we* all have seen over the past seven years. Not saying anyone has to care, it just should be something that *we* have a good idea it's going to happen and has nothing to do with, who the target(s) are, because I am sure it doesn't matter, to reach the result to harm opensource. |
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!