Dvorak On Microsoft/Novell Deal

zaxios writes, "John C. Dvorak has weighed in on the recent Novell-Microsoft pact. Among his insights: 'Microsoft has been leery of doing too much with Linux because of all the weirdness with the licenses and the possibility that one false move would make a Microsoft product public domain at worst, or subject to the GPL at best.' But now, 'the idea is to create some sort of code that is jammed into Linux and whose sole purpose is to let some proprietary code run under Linux without actually "touching" Linux in any way that would subject the proprietary code to the GPL.' According to Dvorak, it's only a matter of time before Linux is 'cracked' by Microsoft, meaning Microsoft figures out a way to run proprietary code on it."

Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[Salvance]

As scary as a 'Microsoft Linux' sounds, there'd actually be some significant advantages to Microsoft apps being able to run on Linux (as pointed out to me by another /. reader yesterday). To a system administrator, the prospect of having servers that cooperate better, and possibly a single secure desktop, is enticing. Hardcore Linux users probably scoff at the idea of running Office on a Linux box, but as a IT manager myself it sounds like a great idea. All of a sudden, I could rollout a single secure Linux O/S to all desktops and servers, then have the ability to run Windows apps when needed.

Is this Microsoft's intent? Unfortunately, probably not. I don't see them providing users with the ability to get rid of their Windows PCs ... they will probably either maintain a cooperative capability (a la Virtualization) that the Novell deal provides, or use their Linux foothold as a means to eventually entice Linux users back to Windows.

Who knows, the end result will be interesting for sure.

why are we publicizing this FUD?

[dAzED1]

yeah, because Oracle cracked Linux. So did Veritas (which I was personally running products from on Linux servers as much as 5 years ago).

Bullsh*t. By putting this on the front page of /. taco, you're merely assisting MS's propaganda machine further demonize the GPL and Linux in general. I don't suppose you made charitable donations to SCO too, did you?

Re:I call bullshit

[Gleng]

That was my first thought. There are many proprietory, closed source apps that run on Linux, with no legal or technical problems at all.

I am beginning to suspect that this Dvorak chap can't tell his arse from his elbow.

Huh?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

... meaning Microsoft figures out a way to run proprietary code on it.

What, like writing a program and distributing it as a binary-only for-pay title?

It's only GPL if you use someone else's code. Why in the fucking hell are we still hearing stupid shit like this in 2006?

Re:Sounds familiar....

[nuzak]

> Nice reference to World War 1.
> Too bad that most Americans wont get it.

You certainly don't, considering that you didn't even reference the right war.

Or was I just treated to a demonstration of Dvorak's journalism technique?

Re:Meta-flamebait

[drinkypoo]

I couldn't agree more. Dvorak has been proven to be an asshat so many times I can't begin to count them. I mean read this paragraph:

With a shim, Microsoft could possibly do the following: Take a Linux distro, say SUSE; then create a shim that talks to the SUSE kernel. Publish the source code of the shim and what it does. Then take a proprietary Microsoft optimizer that lets various apps run on Linux perfectly with modifications to the Linux core--but that actually runs on the shim, not Linux.

We already have something like that. It's called Java. Java hasn't put Linux to the torch. What makes Dvorak think that Microsoft will be able to do it?

Re:There is an old saying

[petrus4]

Monopoly abuse to be sure, but it has worked for them in the past....

The only way they can do that in this case would be to destroy access to the toolchain...because without the toolchain, nobody can create new distributions.

This is where, as much as it pains me to admit it, with the GNU/Linux stuff, in a way RMS is right. The GNU project is very much the centre of gravity where Linux is concerned, because it is how Linux propogates itself.

Microsoft *could* sink Linux if it took out the FSF...but the good news there is that the FSF is very well protected by public opinion. If there is one thing Stallman genuinely *is* extremely good at, it's at least developing the appearance of holding the moral high ground. ESR was right when he wrote that Stallman has a thirst for martyrdom...Stallman recognises the power that martyrdom contains. He uses Gandhi's scorpionic [allaboutfrogs.org] tactics extremely well.

Re:Meta-flamebait

[jsebrech]

I have come to think of any Dvorak story posted by Slashdot as meta-flamebait. They know it is just going to cause the comments to degenerate into a total circus of hatred.

They're not just flamebait, they're flamebait on purpose. The purpose of the dvorak flamebait articles is generating clicks on the articles in question, and generating the ad revenue linked with those clicks. This has even been admitted by dvorak (or one of the dvoraks, since it's likely to just be a name they assign to writers), and this admission of guilt [slashdot.org] has appeared on slashdot.

The key thing to learn about this is to never, ever, browse to a dvorak article, because that is exactly what they want you to do.

Re:why are we publicizing this FUD?

[_Sprocket_]

By putting this on the front page of /. taco, you're merely assisting MS's propaganda machine further demonize the GPL and Linux in general.

I'm glad this stuff gets posted from time to time. I don't read Dvorak's writings. But plenty of other people do. Its not a bad thing to have some idea of what memes this guy (and others of his ilk) are putting out there. Otherwise the first I hear of this silliness is during some IT strategy meeting or whatnot. Having read the article, I'll know what Dvorak claims and know exactly what his flaws in reasoning are - and be prepared to point them out.

Re:Meta-flamebait

[Creepy Crawler]

Better yet, if Xen would work properly with Win98, I could run fresh virtualized images for each app.

Win98 on current machinery is friggin FAST. Now, run each app in its own environment, with limited network access (network ONLY to host running virtualization). Instant win98 network with 1 "computer" for each program.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Meta-flamebait

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Maybe he's thinking that they'll write a kernel module to enforce DRM and product activation. Possibly also using it to try and make Microsoft apps only work under SUSE.

Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[davidsyes]

Hmmm... Maybe it would make it unnecessary for me to have Win4Lin? What would this do to Win4Lin? Run them out of business?

1. Divide and Conquer?
2. Win4Lin dying out? / Xen/virtualization alternatives..

1. I think that msoft is trying to "divide and conquer" Linux by giving Novell cold hard cash and partnership, which equate to having an existence. Once ms defines what is and is not supported (seems they've been saying such things), then ANY companies "daring" to use Linux will start to (like sheep) feel that if msoft is supporting only Suse, then Suse will become the corporate Linux distro of choice, meaning Mandriva, Ubuntu, Debian, and maybe 5 other solid distros will be summarily cut off. Eventually, regardless of claims to not sue, companies will still be wary. But, since the Linux developer base is nimble and versatile, they'll likely keep improving code but directing much more of it toward Suse, meaning msoft will benefit. If the code is directed away from Suse in an effort to "crack" the code the way X-box/Hexed-Box is under siege, then ms can always lash out and in that way undermine non-Suse corporate use of msoft/Novell code. Yes, No, Maybe?

2.I could try to learn Xen (not trying to rhyme here...). I am using Lotus SmartSuite in Win98, running in Win4Lin running in Mandrake 10.1, and I have absolutely no advantage in buying the bloated XP or 2k. But, what sucks very much is that the last Win4Lin kernel I can use is mated to 2.6.8, and that means I cannot run it in Mandriva 2007 Free, which uses 2.6.17..... Not even in Mandriva 2006 Free.

What sucks is that although I am interested in finding out whether Xen would run a virtualized instance of my knonw-good disk containing Mandrake 10.1 inside of Mandriva 2007 Free or Mandriva 2007 Powerpack, I don't have the resources or skill to hack through any code or related problems.

Painfully, Win4Lin (maybe under duress from msoft?) dropped W98. It is NOT as if we users using 98 NEED tech support from Win4Lin. It is NOT as if Win4Lin maintaining the "bootability of W98" would seriously damage their reputation. There ARE still hundreds of thousands of (of course, poorly secured/unprotectable) W98 installations. Many probably run legacy software and don't neet to directly touch the Internet. But, for some reason, Win4Lin decided to support only XP and 2K. If Win4Lin would make a third version of their software that didn't force me to upgrade to xp or 2k, or didn't presume I'd want only TWO options: run a huge lan needing a virtual server, or run an XP/2K-only environment, then I would spring for it and pay up to $80.

So, I wonder if ms' potential product would explicityly check the OS signature and flat-out refuse to let W98 or W98 apps run even in Novell/Suse setups.

I think, though, that maybe ms figured out that the virtualization game is something they can win at ONLY if they gut the primary reason for VMWare and Win4Lin and Transgaming/Cedega, Bochs, and Wine to exist: multi-OS/no-dual-booting environments. If they write and sign the code that supports heterogeneous Linux/windows environments and decreases sales of VMWare/Win4Lin products, then it probably will have to happen by enabling windows (specific or certified) apps to run, as mentioned in this thread, IN Linux without TOUCHING Linux.

But, I can't help but think that one company, Win4Lin will be a victim of this out of prior coercion by ms, or by W4L's own attitude toward users who NEED W98 to work in even the latest Kernel. I kinda will feel sorry for them if they bite the dust, but at the same time I am so pissed at how they ditched 98. They COULD have installed a component that would virtualize and sand-box W98 WITHIN their latest product offering. Instead, they chose the route they felt would coerce users into ponying up money for a product it now seems many people (well, by judging from complaints about the sitation and inadequate, convincing response to the ire of those posting) will be ambivalent about the future of at least W4L. But, again,

Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[k12linux]

Except then they couldn't charge a per-PC fee as well as fees for each app. I think MS will only be satisfied if you have to pay them for a "Windows service layer" (WSL) that you run on top of Linux which then runs their apps. Then you could get the Windows XP Home WSL for $178 and the XP Pro WSL for $299.

Then they can turn around and tell the courts that they make their software available for Linux but that consumers don't want it and aren't buying it.

Re:Meta-flamebait

[BRSloth]

We already have something like that. It's called Java.

Oh man, you almost had it. It is, actually, called Mono, and it could run almost every code written for .NET. And guess who are the main developers of Mono?

Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[Creepy]

Microsoft and others have stated that a parts of Paragraph 3 and 4 of the LGPL are ambiguous and depending on interpretation, could force them to be construed a derivative work. After reading that section, I decided that I can't link LGPL into my mac apps as well.
My best guess as to the meaning of sections of those paragraphs:
The LGPL essentially forbids you from statically linking a library into your work
The LGPL allows dynamically linking (though this may be interpretable, as there are wording conflicts with the previous paragraph)

Mac applications, however, make an ambiguity between the 'application' and the library if the library is built as an embeddable framework. Essentially an embeddable framework is a dynamic library that gets bundled into a specially formed directory tree that is seen by the GUI as an application. It is built and functions exactly the same as a dynamic library, aside from that it isn't placed in a globally accessible place like /usr/lib and that it has a special install path (@executable_path/../Frameworks). Since the finished application bundle is seen as an application and not a directory tree, this could be interpreted as part of the application as per the LGPL and therefore is a violation of the LGPL.
    A project I'm working on decided not to use any LGPL code in our project and instead only provide hooks to such code (for instance, someone added OpenAL hooks) because we don't want to be superseded by the LGPL. Actually, I don't believe we can even switch licenses if we wanted to at this time unless we freeze and fork the current Zlib licensed version due to several co-authors using commercial pieces (that forbid becoming derivative code).