Microsoft and the GPL 400
rleyton wrote in to tell us about yet another Microsoft related GPL story. He says "The Linux Journal has an interesting article analysing why Microsoft is attacking the GPL. It makes for interesting reading, and ends with a comment on the possibility that Microsoft will be seeking to pursuade the U.S. Government to forbid distribution of federally funded software under the GPL."
Re:this is getting too easy ... (Score:2)
Actually this made me think of something from the anti-trust trial.
Billy said that getting another browser was as easy as ocnnecting to www.netscape.com.
How do you do this without using IE, which is the only installed browser on Windows?
And if you cannot agree to the terms of the EULA for IE, you are effectively preveted from downloading a competing browser, are you not?
Re:Microsoft (Score:2)
So petty petty petty... (Score:3)
These Microsoft issues are just so petty. Even if they aren't beaten on technical merits (which they will, one day, like all technology companies), even if they dominate, their evil is just so minor and petty compared to true abuse in the world. You really have to be living a life of luxury to think that someone who makes computer operating systems in the anti-christ.
Open your eyes, people... there are just so many things in the world which are far more deserving of your rage. If you want to work on Linux, if you want to beat Microsoft, hey, go ahead, but the way so many Slashdotters obsess about this like Gates is the next Hitler is just sick.
Re:Read the article, and... (Score:2)
Michael Sims (Score:2)
Slashdot should definitely do an article on this whole issue. Has kuro5hin? Maybe I'll submit something.
MS fears US will mandate "OSS only" like Brazil. (Score:3)
Live free or DIE!
How hard would it be for MS to release Linux apps? (Score:2)
Word Perfect had their WP on Linux. Many games have come out for Linux. There are other apps that have been released.
So, how is the GPL the thing (as the article mentioned) stopping MS from releasing stuff on Linux?
If they wanted to, they could have IE, Word, etc... on Linux - without GPL problems.
However, that eats directly into their core market - x86 machines. That person no longer need boot to windows for Word/Excel or to view that IE only web page. Sure - some people may be able to get by or around those limitiations, but MS products on Linux means anyone can get around those problems, and there goes the Desktop OS battle.
Then again, IE on Solaris/HPUX blew.
All or nothing (Score:2)
Read the article, and... (Score:5)
Significant kernel and userland code has and continues to come from coders under gov't employ or grad students. Most of the Linux network drivers were written by Donald Becker of NASA, and the copyright is in fact assigned to the US Gov't, administered by the NSA (!).
It's true that currently, most code produced directly by the Federal gov't must be released without copyright. But it's also true that this code can be relicensed and distributed under the GPL (it's public domain, remember?), and it's also true that not all institutions that recieve federal funds are required to release code to the public domain (think universities).
Now, MSFT doesn't have a prayer of getting a bill blocking the GPL passed on its own, but it might be able to slip in a rider on some other bill.
My nightmare is MSFT sweet-talking the gov't on the issue with the siren song of licensing revenue. You know, sort of like how universities already do with patents, where they take public cash for research and sell to the highest bidder?
Watch out.
-Isaac
Re:.NET (Score:2)
Chris Cothrun
Curator of Chaos
didn't read the article (Score:5)
does anyone actually believe that microsoft attacking gpl could have any impact whatsoever, besides making them look like a whiney gorilla?
Re:moderators on crack again... (Score:2)
Nope. The original post had an offensively condesending tone, e.g. the title ``Petty petty petty". The original poster was not stating that there was more worthwhile targets for our energies, but that we shouldn't concern ourselves about what Microsoft is doing. My response remains, ``We all rise to fight the evil we think we can defeat."
If the original poster *truly* felt that we should battle these other -- & I'll concede, more immediately important goals -- why didn't she/he offer ways we can contribute to these struggles? I suspect that the posters intent was to silence criticism of Microsoft whether justified or not.
> I can see modding down the original post (Offtopic, perhaps?) but modding up that "you sound like you're from a cult" drivel?
If it makes you feel better, this is the first karma point I've gotten for any of my posts in about a month or two. And I gave up long before that trying to understand how people awarded them; sending email about possible issues to Cowboy Neal doesn't even result in a form letter acknowledging he even reads his email. So I merely look for reponses to whatever I post.
Geoff
Re:So petty petty petty... (Score:3)
> technology companies), even if they dominate, their evil is just so minor and petty compared to true abuse in the world.
We all rise to fight the evil we think we can defeat. Some of us take on an even more powerful evil. (All of you who dream of going deep-sea fishing against Cthulhu raise your hands.
> Open your eyes, people... there are just so many things in the world which are far more deserving of your rage. If you want to
> work on Linux, if you want to beat Microsoft, hey, go ahead, but the way so many Slashdotters obsess about this like Gates is
> the next Hitler is just sick.
Your logic sounds suspciously familiar . . . say, weren't you one of the sock puppets that used to defend Hubbard's pathetic little cult on alt.religion.scientology? Or have Microsoft apologists exhausted all of their fresh ideas, & have come to the point that they sound like every other group of cult apologists?
Geoff
Not Just Sticks and Stones (Score:2)
Well, when companies have laws passed that restrict the development of free software (by making the authors liable for problems), then maybe you'll start to worry.
Oh, wait. Read up on the UCTIA. Start worrying now.
Re:Little Federally Funded GPL (Score:2)
Re:I wish everyone would cut the shit already (Score:2)
This is why microsoft has a monopoly, because by including it, you appease the lazy man, who constitutes a large chunk of the software market.
Re:this is getting too easy ... (Score:3)
Anything but sitting up at the top of your "tree" and looking down at everyone else down on the ground while thinking "if only they knew what was up here...."
What's stopping them? (Score:2)
Easy. They're in the business of making money. Linux has a miniscule desktop marketshare, about 1% at last count, and negligible corporate desktop presence. Now why again are they supposed to spend all this money to try to grab a piece of such a small market? Sounds like a losing proposition, especially since so many Linux users will tell anyone who will listen that they don't want any Microsoft software. They're not a charity, so seriously, why would they produce those products for Linux?
Cheers,
Maybe for a little while... (Score:3)
So Microsoft continues to do its thing as it has been, blocking channels of distribution, locking people into their products, and charging outrageous prices. In the mean time, GPL software will still be there because as long as a small band of skilled people want it to exist it will. So it will evolve, it will grow, and companies will end up using it, as they always have, because it works and does so very cheaply. It might not get the headlines but it will be grinding away in the trenches as it always has.
Maybe Linux fades from the spotlight a bit. Maybe it goes back to being the toy of hackers for while. But fundamentally in the long run it will not die and eventually Microsoft will screw up. Either their monopolistic practices will finally get trimmed by the government, they'll jack their prices up too high, or they'll get behind the 8-ball on development. They aren't infallible, they are just very clever.
When the PC came, they saw it coming and got in early and rode it until the Internet came. Initially they saw a threat, they stumbled a bit but recovered and are now moving to make it their own. Free software though is so contrary to their way of doing things that I don't know that they can change. They certainly aren't going to keep people from making and using GPL software and eventually it will be their demise.
---
Re:MS fears US will mandate "OSS only" like Brazil (Score:3)
--
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
Bill's Quote (Score:5)
Yet I'm quite sure that if RMS uttered the following, Microsoft would be crying Communism.
It's not what Microsoft executives say that surprises me anymore. It's that most media just print it as if it was coherent.
Peace PatientZero
Re:This really scares me. (Score:2)
Our saviours come in the form of China, India, France, and Brazil (among others). They get a leg up on development (look at all that tasty source!) without playing BS games or paying BS licensing fees.
And yes, right now, in 2001, the US is the economic 800 lb. gorilla. But by the time my son (five weeks old this past Tuesday) is old enough to vote, you better belive various brown/slant-eyed/'furrin' speakin' communists are going to be showing their shit. And quite frankly, it doesn't involve paying Bill and the fam squat.
Let's say that tomorrow, China alone (ignoring India, which would make this more pathetic) had as many PCs per capita that the US did. Furthermore, let's imagine that most of them ran some Open Source OS. All of the sudden, Micro-Soft's 92% domination of the market shrank to what, about %20?? What happened to the monopoly power?
Quite frankly, if either Linux or Micro-Soft wants to get ahead, it's time to have easy-peazy Mandarin support. Or give the Chinese a few years. They'll take care of it themselves. A billion people with a little motivation and direction can really mess things up (or change them for the better depending on your POV).
(Better stop. This is starting to sound like that Chinese or communist tide sketch from Python)
Re:this is getting too easy ... (Score:2)
Maybe if Netscape/Mozilla marketed its product to the general public, there would be more awareness among that group?
Fault for that lack of awareness lies with the organisation.
If I try to create a car brand to compete with the massive companies, I'd need to do some serious advertising/marketing/PR to get people aware, interested, and buying. If people trust existing brands, and ignore my car brand, then that is hardly their fault - they've worked hard to build up awareness and trust in their name.
Re:No, no, no, no! (Score:2)
To her mom, a computer is just a computer. It sends her e-mail, she can put picture from her digital camera on it, but she doesn't even think about things like licensing or freedom
And that's how it should be. You should use what works best for you. If you don't want to be bothered with anything technical, just send email, write recipies, etc., then use what is easiest, which is probably Windows. I'm quite happy for Linux to stay away from the mass market - it means it will stay oriented toward the areas which are best for me.
Don't assume that the operating system space should be a monoculture. For all the wierdos harping about Windows, it's a very good product, particularly given the (mostly achieved) objective of maintaining compatibility with code going all the way back to Windows 2.
Re:Read the article, and... (Score:2)
Re:It's all about the economy... (Score:2)
When companies operate less efficiently, the overall economy suffers. The extreme example is, you could have 100% employment by having people harvesting food and performing other manual tasks that are currently automated.
If you have to pay again for something you already bought (i.e. pay for a new Windows license when you replace your old computer), you are operating less efficiently. Unlike other subscription-based schemes, Microsoft isn't adding any additional value for the subscriber (cable companies, satellite providers, etc. must keep their systems going in order for subscribers to use their services). On the other hand, someone could nuke Redmond and the MS software would still keep going - at least until hit hit the artificially imposed deadline.
I would argue that in the long run, this approach hurts the economy.
Even if you disregard subscription software, though, you could still argue that heavier reliance on open/free software eventually improves the economy, since companies can operate more efficiently - there is a good solid framework for new development and you don't have a single company trying to place barriers to development in order to maintain their monopoly.
Never forget that all that money that Microsoft makes eventually comes out of our pockets - either directly or indirectly.
Then again, you could also argue that I'm full of it.
Re:I wish everyone would cut the shit already (Score:3)
>Has anyone ever had a gun stuck down their
>throat by an MS employee and been forced to
>purchase MS software? No so what the hell is the
>big deal?
Well, in corporation alas, it doesn't works like this. Most of time, the easiest and less risky solution is to go with an M$ product. To swim against the tide, you need to be highly motivated and you need really a lot of energy, to convince the upper management. Most of the time people just give up, as they don't want to add the this burden for projects which migh be already difficult.
Re:No, no, no, no! (Score:3)
C'mon people. Ask yourself, and really think about this. Do you really think that most companies are going to switch to PC clones, if IBM continues with it's bullying of corporate clients, strong-arming of minicomputer manufacturers and subscription models?
I am so sick of all the "DOS will win out in the end" fervour. It's not happening anytime soon, guys. Market penetration and an established userbase are working against you.
Enough said.
--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)
Re:Microsoft is a monopoly? I think not. (Score:2)
The problem is that people don't (and often can't) choose due to Microsoft having a racket going with supply to OEMs. Which effectivly puts them in the position of "if you want to supply Windows at all you do so on our terms". Microsoft's terms tend to be "Supply the latest version", "only supply our software", "use only the default install", etc.
Re:I wish everyone would cut the shit already (Score:2)
Does Microsoft do an actual site licence anyway? Remember that they have years experience in intimidating and FUDding OEMs. Sounds like they are simply extending their tactics.
Re:Last time this argument broke out... (Score:2)
And it gets even sillier. Microsoft wants a situation where they can end up being paid twice for Windows per machine.
Trying to say that an OEM licence dosn't cover putting Windows on the machine using drive imaging software.
Re:What kind of self-respecting geek wants an HP? (Score:2)
If they still want Windows it will cost them considerably more per unit.
The only suppliers likely to be flexable are those too small to have these special OEM deals in the first place. Indeed they might prefer Linux since they can charge a lower price with higher markup.
I think(and i'm just stating my opinion), that's a pretty questionable practice.
The term you are looking for is "racket". Can anyone even find other examples of this kind of thing which do not involve organised crime?
Re:Last time this argument broke out... (Score:2)
You are missing that the overhead costs of installing Windows are non zero. What makes you think that pre-loading Linux would be more expensive. It's quite possibly less since the process can also perform diagnostics, with Windows you need to put a special image on, rather than a fully working system, so how do you test it?
Re:Make companies pay for software they can't use? (Score:2)
The GPL isn't "open" enough since it dosn't allow the software to be converted into proprietary software. An interesting kind of "logic". The real reason Microsoft don't like the GPL is that it makes software immune to their normal business practice of "asymilate or kill".
The only parts of their code it would "force" the opening of would be derived works from CPL software. If they don't like this then maybe they should first think about changing the way US copyright law handles "derived works".
Re:That's spot on... (Score:2)
That would be anti-discrimination legislation. In the case of the US Federal government the US consitution explicitally forbids any discrimination.
Re:You take it so personally (Score:2)
Or rather libel, since it is written rather than spoken. (A more serious situation.)
Another aspect here is "projection", Microsoft is accusing the GPL of being "viral" when if there is a viral licence involved here it's Microsoft's.
Re:No, no, no, no! (Score:2)
So what advantages does it actually have over Win2K then?
It dosn't help matters that Microsoft appear to be selling software using the same methods GM invented to sell cars.
Re:Article misses the boat (Score:2)
The critical issue here isn't how much DOS sold for, so much as Microsoft's contract with IBM for supply of DOS.
Re:Microsoft (Score:2)
The difference here is that the early 80's was a competitive market. Whilst Microsoft were a big player in supply of BASIC they wern't the only player. Indeed the one project to carry the Microsoft name (MSX) fell flat on it's face. MSX machines just couldn't compete with those from Commodore, Acorn, Sinclair, Oric, etc.
Re:Microsoft (Score:2)
Probably more credit is due Compaq than Microsoft. Who turned the hardware into a commodity product with competition at many levels.
The reason why I dont like MS is because of their "below the belt" business tactics.
The top of the list must be their contracts with OEMs...
Re:Microsoft (Score:2)
See "search for actual Microsoft innovation threads"
You might note that this was the primary reason behind Apple's UI suit of the early 90s - which, if you recall, they lost mostly because they'd written a license for MS with enough loopholes to drive a small carrier group through.
Did Apple actually write this licence?
Re:That's spot on... (Score:2)
How does that explain the long standing bug in Word being able to save to floppy?
Re:Microsoft (Score:2)
Note that "everybody" in this context also includes business. If anything rather than being "unamerica" something like the GPL at least in agreement with the US constitution. Where the whole point of IP protection is the promotion of "science and useful arts".
Making a profit from IP wasn't intended as being an end in itself so much a "carrot" to publish.
Re:Microsoft (Score:2)
There is one in London available too.
2. People hate Microsoft Corporation because they are successful. No. Perhaps some people do. People hate Microsoft for the same reason that some people dislike television. It plays to the lowest common denominator. That does not appeal to me.
People also dislike Microsoft because they find their business practices distasteful, in some cases very similar to those employed in organised crime...
5.Quality is an issue. I know people who love Windows. They think it is so easy to use, that it's easy to install (they think the 20 questions game Microsoft plays with you to register when booting a new machine is 'installing')
It's hardly an endorsement to say in effect that it's easy to do something you should never need to do in the first place anyway...
6.Arcane filesystems. Did I read correctly? Do you have a problem with read/write permissions? I know I love mine. The last thing I need is some script kiddie getting into my machine (with no account even) and having full write access to command.com.
In a corporate environment you want to be able to sit a box on someone's desk and be sure that it isn't easily broken. You just can't do this with Windows, since there is no proper distinction made between "user" and "administrator".
7.Grandmas. I'll grant you that Linux (and the other *N*X flavors aren't *inherently* the most user-friendly thing out there, but that's improving.
Nor is Windows that user friendly. e.g. grandma is upset and insulted when the computer says she did something "illegal".
Also, when set up properly, it's a lot easier for grandma to kill important files in Windows than it is in a non-root account on a *N*X box.
It's trivial for anyone, being a woman or having grandchildren isn't really a factor here
Do you know what the best part was? She could copy the songs to her own 'home' folder (Hmm, a concept borrowed in Windows XP? Innovators...bah.)
XP also "borrows" having a login screen with icons for users from KDM.
Re:Little Federally Funded GPL (Score:2)
Maybe they were looking at something like making a trivial change, then trying to create uncertainty about which version the corporate actually used...
Whilst this tactic might work when used by a large corporate its unlikely to be useable against one.
It's the kindof abuse of the law where you need deep pockets.
Re:Bill's Quote (Score:2)
They are being deprived of the ability to be a monopoly in supplying the result and to place conditions on what whoever they supply it to can do with it. Further they cannot sell a binary only product and thus have a monoploy in support and modification.
So what if they have to release the source code for their modified version? They can still sell it, and make a profit.
But they can't use the same business techniques and methods which they are used to. Attempt to sell GPL software as though it is proprietary and the most likely result is going bankrupt.
Re:MS fears US will mandate "OSS only" like Brazil (Score:2)
Whatever it costs this money is likely to stay in the Brizilian economy, rather than winging its way North.
What is Brazil's current balance of payments situation?
Re:Microsoft is just trying to minimize the damage (Score:2)
Also OS code is more likely to be written to be easy for someone to understand. Thus your analysts have less work to do. Let alone if they actually find something they don't like they can do something about it.
Whilst the US military might be able to see MS source code are they able to build custom versions?
You don't want any little surprises when state secrets are on the line.
This applies even more when you are not the US government and have no close diplomatic ties with the US.
Re:This really scares me. (Score:2)
In this case Microsoft would loose, since they would be fighting court battles to protect their own licencing systems.
Re:What's so wrong with not using the GPL? (Score:2)
Complete and utter rubbish. All the GPL would oblige them to distribute under the GPL would be any GPL and GPL derived works they used.
Since IP is a published specification the only changes which would have been likely would be of the bug fixing kind. What GPL does prevent is "embrace and extend".
The only situation where GPL would force giving away their IP would be if they had attempted to contaminate GPL code with proprietary additions. Or their code was complete "sphagetti". It structured modular programming is beyond them then probably best the go out of business anyway!
Forcing the openness of all the software would have been wrong and anti-American.
Actually the only way you could actually make it "anti-American" would be to ammend the constitution. The sole reason IP laws even exist in the USA is to promote publication.
Re:What's so wrong with not using the GPL? (Score:2)
Anyway even lawyers and judges can understand the concept of modular programming.
Re:Fine with me (Score:2)
Fine except that the meaning of "everybody" changes mid sentence...
Re: This scares me... (Score:2)
Certainly not in the USA without a consitutional ammendment. For the simple reason that the GPL is about encouraging publication...
Re:Organized crime? (Score:2)
Simply because it isn't Politically Correct to do so.
I think the definition of "organized crime" needs to be broadened to mean more than just the Mafia... The shoe seems to fit corporations such as Microsoft just as well. Bonus points for RICO action on them (not that that will happen with the current political environment)...
There was another post recently about RICO being applied to a medical charity, so the definition does appear to be broad anyway.
Re:No, no, no, no! (Score:3)
But you also have an established attitude of "change everything every 18-24 months", which greatly complicates things. It means that Microsoft's desktop monopoly actually has its foundation built in quicksand....
Look, I firmly believe that any MS server platform is and will continue to be utter SHITE. But, most people that use computers are not even interseted in the damn things.
They probably do care when they don't work. They might even care when things can work better with less money being spent.
Until Linux as easy to install,
Except that end users shouldn't be installing operating systems in the first place, in the main they don't. The issue here is education as to why users shouldn't have the chore of installing software and why it's a bad idea in the first place.
use and has the applications that we all know and love (or hate),
Not really so critical as it might appear because of the way things keep changing
and is no more confusing or intimidating as Windows
Windows is very confusing and intimidating in one critical area. That is when something goes wrong
Has anybody used XP yet? It looks like an OS for toddlers. Big, gawdy Fisher-Price/Tonka Truck icons and buttons. Very non-intimidating, and I'm using the professional beta. They really dumbed the OS down. I wonder what the final "server" release will be like?
Non intimidating to who? Also it could easily end up being just as intimidating to adults.
The problem is doing this to a "server" is actually part of the problem, not only do you get an interface which does not help system administrators you get a situation where end users think theu know what they are doing...
Re:Please develop software Microsoft. (Score:3)
Including Microsoft, as someone said on CNN last night.
Lets face it Bill Gates is a very corrupt person and no matter how much money he gives away he will still be corrupt.
He's more someone who is obsessed. Which is not to say the methods used to further the obsession (of Windows everywhere) arn't utterly corrupt.
Re:GPL extends the life of software (Score:2)
Re:Little Federally Funded GPL (Score:2)
I assume so, but so what? Any corporation that wants to use the code can just grab a public-domain copy and do whatever they want with it. The GPL will only protect the changes made to your own derived strain.
If you're hoping to eliminate the public-domainness of the original release, it seems very doubtful that that would have any legal force. Otherwise, corporations would circle like vultures waiting for any any public-domain release, and instantly remove the release for the public domain. This doesn't happen. Instead, corporations must rely on tactics like embrace-and-extend, where the legal rights only apply to their derivative works but not to the original.
Re:Little Federally Funded GPL (Score:2)
Corporations have been known to pay taxes too.
Re:GPL extends the life of software (Score:3)
You take it so personally (Score:3)
So why can't you guys do that with Linux and Microsoft? Sticks and stones (and lawsuits and anti-competitive measures) may break your bones, but names won't ever hurt you. You can't spent a lot of time worrying about this crap. Just write good programs, put together a good operating system to fit peoples' needs, and you will be a success no matter what. I honestly don't know why you get so worked up over nothing, really...
Re:Nothing new in this article (Score:2)
Yet another good point - some moderator give +1 (Score:2)
Of course, it raises the question on whether companys should benefit from University's research. Also, once the research is done once and GPL'd, it doesn't take much effort to research the results and write your own code from it. You may want to use a chinese wall situation but it should still assist.
Of course, this means University research is highly favoring the Free Software movement, but I've not really formed an opinion on that yet. Someone else want to form one for me?
Re:Nothing new in this article (Score:2)
Nothing new in this article (Score:3)
I would have expected more from a professor.
Microsoft has many reasons for attacking the GPL but by far the biggest reason is to attack Linux. I don't think they are too upset about not being able to embrace and extend Linux - they could do that anyway by simply putting a Linux ABI on NT (which is entirely possible and less work than most people think). What really concerns them is the increase in server sales of Linux. The best way to stop people using and developing for Linux is to attack the GPL. It's simple really - make people afraid of the license and Linux suffers.
It's naive to think the MS attacks on Linux are somehow special. Look at their site and you'll see plenty of vitriol against Sun/Solaris, Oracle and other systems - just they attack a different way because different systems have different perceived weaknesses. Linux is nothing special in this regard. Microsoft has just started to take notice. Competition is good, but don't complain if the heat gets turned up.
I did like one bit where he brazenly states that adding instructions to a CPU won't speed it up. I think people will find the 386 faster than the 286, MMX faster than non-MMX and Altivec faster than non-Altivec. The comments are silly - of course new instructions can speed up a CPU. They just have to be useful and well implemented.
.NET (Score:3)
Now the "application services" side of
I hate
Re:Bill's Quote (Score:2)
If that argument were sufficient, I would be drop in at Andrews Air Force Base and demand a ride on one of the planes of which I am a "co-owner".
/.
Re:Bill's Quote (Score:2)
The point of the GPL is to prevent someone from modifying GPL code and releasing the modified version as closed-source executables only. I trust that I needn't bore the /. crowd with a detailed explanation of how the release of a similar but not-quite-compatible version of an existing standard can be "disruptive to normal ongoing operations".
/.
Re:You take it so personally (Score:2)
It would be more expensive because (Score:2)
And no, there are no diagnostics done. Why would anyone do that? This is an economy of scale--you set up one PC to have a crisp OS install, and since the hardware in all the others for that model will be identical, you image the drive and duplicate it down to the bit for each and ever PC that has the same hardware. If the hardware is imperfect the store or buyer will send it back--it's cheaper that way than testing each PC, since they churn them out by the thousands and only a tiny fraction will be flawed.
So the point is, it doesn't benefit most companies anything to add a Linux option. It adds cost to have two OSes instead of just one, even if the second OS is free it still costs an incredible amount of overhead compared to just having to install one, since we're talking about having to fork one assembly process into two. If there were a large enough demand for Linux desktop PCs, then companies like HP would make them. But there is not enough demand to offset their costs, since almost all customers want Windows--as I pointed out, few geeks buy desktop systems from big manufacturers, and geeks and their associates are the only end users who would run Linux in all likelihood. So, there's no profit. Hell, even VA Linux just got out of the hardware business--not enough geeks were buying Linux machines from them for them to make a profit from it, and we're talking VA Linux here, the company whose banners have been right here in the heart of geekdom since before they even bought
I wish everyone would cut the shit already (Score:2)
Solution: Don't buy the thing for fucks sake. Has anyone ever had a gun stuck down their throat by an MS employee and been forced to purchase MS software? No so what the hell is the big deal?
Placing a firewall with all these moronic attacks taking place is a good thing definitely nothing wrong with MS doing so. Bundling a media player, OH MY GOD SAY IT ISN'T SO! Don't you think people would appreciate listening to music on their PC. Again no one is stopping anyone from using alternatives they can download, MS never threatened anyone for creating an alternative MS based media player.
OH MY GOD STOP IT!! An email client!! NO!!! What will they think of next, heaven knows no one really needs an email client. Nope they need a bare bones OS they can spend hours on end downloading everything from scratch. Evil Microsoft, how dare they.
All this bashing is making me sick. Shit I don't use MS, way I see it, out of sight out of mind, my opinion is let them be, they can self destruct on their own.
Proprietary software is a cancer. GPL is the cure (Score:2)
Little Federally Funded GPL (Score:4)
The US National Archives can require this (Score:3)
The situation is compounded by the use of proprietary software with its ever-changing formats (MS Word being the most prominent offender). The National Archives could give proprietary formats a poke in the eye, reduce costs, and improve service if they would choose an archival digital format (CD-ROMs might be acceptable, given appropriate testing), and state that they will accept digital submissions in formats that are published and blessed by standards bodies.
Re:This really scares me. (Score:2)
Microsoft isn't going to purposely violate the GPL (Score:2)
Subscriptions (Score:2)
I guess my point is that sometimes a subscription is a good way to purchase software. It depends on the software, and the price. As long as MS continues to offer the software on a non-subscription basis as well, and they don't artificially inflate the price, this my work out well for many consumers.
I pay taxes too (Score:2)
If you limit government funded to being released under GPL, then you prohibit that software from being used in software under almost every other license.
Re:Make companies pay for software they can't use? (Score:2)
While this is true, it's kind of misleading. Microsoft didn't pay income tax because they were able to count the stock options they gave their employees as an expense. This just shifts the tax burden to their employees. This means that although Microsoft itself didn't pay any taxes directly, Microsoft still generated an enourmous amount of this country's tax base.
COTS (Score:2)
The standard answer I hear to this is that the money will be made through selling hardware and support. The problem with this is that is doesn't spread the costs out among the people who need the software very well. You'll always have those who won't pay for the software to be developed, and then undercut the prices of those who do. It's not a level playing field. It is possible for a few companies to make money selling hardware and services for GPLed software, but it's not something you can base your economy on. The system isn't self limiting. Those who chose to not pay for the innovation have the lowest costs, and can make the most money. This discourages innovation, even though the tools for innovation (the source code itself) are more available.
If you think I'm wrong then let me know. I will read your posts and listen to your facts and opinions. If you flame me or just repeat some unsupported dogma, then my opinion isn't likely to change.
Re:Little Federally Funded GPL (Score:2)
Federally funded software is most generally distributed without a copyright of any kind (Title 17, Section 105).
If it's released without any copyright, thus into the public domain, then can't anyone just appropriate it, alter it trivially, and claim copyright on the whole work? And thus GPL their trivially different strain?
Re:Microsoft is just trying to minimize the damage (Score:2)
Linux just happened to be the first project that got completed. NSA has been playing with different ideas for secure systems on several different OS's.
Re:COTS (Score:2)
The thing about GPLed code is, as your base increases, you'll have to do less and less development. There's really enough stuff out there now to do a lot of jobs. Though I must admit that one of the things I'm for is forcing Government employees to learn LaTeX. I'm solidly convinced that they'd be able to generate necessary documents much faster after they got over the learning curve and would be much more reluctant to generate unnecessary paperwork. Anyway, as your code base increases, your development costs drop off. This effect would almost certainly snowball as non-government users start using the software. And they would, because if it's suitable for government work, it's suitable for a lot of stuff outside too.
The other thing about the GPL is it prevents anyone from subverting the code in any way. If you want to play with the code, you have to show your cards. Given past history, it is obvious that such restrictions are necessary to get everyone to play nice in the community.
Will this put programmers out of work? Probably less than you'd think. Every programming job I've had in the past 13 years has been custom programming -- some company wanted an application written or maintained that was not available outside the company. Everything from dogtrack management to extending inventory systems to developing custom embedded code. You can't go get any of what I did off a shelf. Those jobs would have existed even if Microsoft was giving away every bit of code they ever owned.
That's spot on... (Score:5)
Furthermore, storing or distributing any files in a proprietary file format should be forbidden for all government offices. They should only be allowed to use a given file format if full specs for the format are publically and freely available and are unencumbered in any way by patents or other IP law.
Re:Little Federally Funded GPL (Score:2)
This would be a derivative work and the copyright would only apply to the changes.
Re:Read the article, and... (Score:2)
Now this is a bit simplistic of course, and I'm certainly open to debate
Now on that last point, granted, code can be copied, so (like all other information) it's not like Microsoft using BSD'd gov-funded code means the code is unavailable for use by anyone else... but it DOES mean that Microsoft can now benefit from that *at the expense of the public*. I'm not comfortable with that, particularly.
Of course, this is all debatable -- as a matter of law, I don't know whether BSD or GPL (or some other scheme entirely) is the legitimate answer... but generally I would tend to think that the GPL is the more "ethical" answer.
Re:No, no, no, no! (Score:2)
Game Theory vs Drama Theory (Score:5)
What Microsoft doesn't want you to understand is that by playing their rational game, you lose, they win.
Doing business is much like playing games. No wonder some praise Go or other strategy games for learning business tactics. It's not just business, but all competition, such as evolution, is much based on "games".
Game theory is a branch of mathematics that deals with identifying winning strategies and situations in games, such as business.
Drama theory [mailbase.ac.uk] is a generalization of the game theory that takes into account irrationality. Irrationality, in this case, means just short-term irrationality. On long term, or on another scale, it's very rational.
Drama theory gives explanations to why people get mad, envious, revengeful, bullying, and what not. These are usually considered very negative aspects of life, and I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't be, but their function really is just level the playing field when you get stuck in a losing situation. They are rational at some level.
Revolutions, violent demonstrations, and wars (''war is just a continuation of politics'') are examples of trying to change the rules. Others more accepted ones are boycotts, work strikes, and so on. Religions are not usually rational - but amazingly they are often helpful to the followers. Even if a certain God of Vows (such as Mithra) doesn't exist, believing in his powers and making business deals or marriages in his name helps in building a strong society. Irrationality pays, big.
Microsoft wants businesses to play by the traditional rules of the business game. Supporting the proprietary business model may be rational in many cases. But the problem is that Microsoft has attained a game-theoretically sustainable winning position. You can only win by changing the rules, which may require slight "irrationality".
It's perfectly rational to get red mad at Microsoft, and give up short-term business opportunities, to perhaps be able to compete in a healthy market later.
Microsoft is also trying to talk generally about the ''best'' business model for software industry, although Linux and Open Source movements are an ad hoc response of the IT world to combat specially against Microsoft's unhealthy monopoly. The rationale for general context is completely irrational and irrelevant for the current specific situation in the operating system industry.
GPL means changing the rules, especially for this particular situation. It means starting a revolution, which may in some cases mean giving up the proprietary model even where it might have been useful otherwise. The target is Microsoft.
This is what Microsoft is afraid of.
Article misses the boat (Score:5)
If we backstep 3-5 years, we see a different computing environment. Microsoft OWNS the desktop and office. UNIX OWNS servers.
Then, we look back another 15 years. CP/M is the best OS available. Microsoft buys DOS for $50000, ports BASIC to DOS, and undersells CP/M by a substantial amount, and owns desktops.
Then, to 1995. OS/2 comes out. Windows 95 comes out. OS/2 is good, Windows 95 is junk. Windows 95 sells for under $100. OS/2 sells for a few hundred. Microsoft owns graphical user interface environments. Mac could have owned it, but they made the same error made by CP/M and IBM - they went after the high end.
The low end takes over. This pattern has repeated itself over and over.
Back to the mid to late 1990s. Microsoft was concerned. As networking became more relevant, they needed a network presence. Hence Windows NT. It rapidly looked like NT would take over the low end server market. It didn't matter that it sucked badly compared to UNIX - it cost a third of UNIX. The low end would rule again.
However, as NT was starting to make ground, enter linux. UNIX admins EVERYWHERE set up linux boxes to do server tasks for free instead of tolerating NT. This ate into Microsoft's market.
Microsoft would OWN the low end server market today if it were not for open source OSs, primarily linux.
And now Microsoft is attacking the GPL. They are attacking it because it owns markets that otherwise would rightfully belong to Microsoft, following the age old rule that the cheaper system wins independently of function. They can now see the writing on the wall. Linux (and *BSD) has eaten the low end server market, and Microsoft is not getting it back. You cannot undersell free, and Microsoft has never won by competing on quality of software.
This is alien to their entire business strategy. They make crappier products, sell them cheaply, provide no support, and own the market. Once they own one market, they leverage into other markets as strongly as possible.
This strategy today makes them a PROFIT ABOVE TAXES OF A BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH. And Microsoft wants more. If they could merely keep new quality software out of the GPL, they have a chance.
The GPL, you see, does not prevent a business from using software. But it does assign the IP to the open source community. And that scares Redmond to death. Open source has already eaten markets Microsoft had earmarked. They are now worried about the home base - the main monopoly, the billion dollar a month monopoly.
Now THAT is something to worry about.
Microsoft is just trying to minimize the damage... (Score:3)
They can change the law (Score:4)
Re:this is getting too easy ... (Score:4)
In addition to that you said yourself that you installed everything, that's uneccessary (I do it too, so if I learn about a new tool I don't have to bother installing it), but you are given complete freedom to install just the OS or the OS plus any extra software you want (that is provided that is).
Re:Isn't it more fun... (Score:3)
Microsoft made the conscious, corporate-level choice to attack Linux and its philosophical and community underpinnings on a legal front. It falls to the Linux / Free Software community to respond in kind. Simply ignoring them and taking the high road here will not work, since Microsoft is adept at changing the rules of whatever game it plays to its own liking. Should Free Software advocates simply play wait-and-see, they will undoubtedly find the political and marketplace climates turning very chilly, very quickly.
Free software is winning on its own merits; it's Microsoft that recognized its own basic inability to compete fairly and has resorted to bringing out the All-Terrain Assault Lawyers.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
this is getting too easy ... (Score:5)
_f
GPL extends the life of software (Score:4)
Tha ability of GPL'ed software to outlast companies and organizations that create them is an interesting feature to focus on. Because of this capability, GPL software would seem to have more chances to "get it right" than Microsoft's traditional competitors.
I know why Microsoft Attacks the GPL (Score:3)
Deven Phillips, CISSP
Network Architect
Viata Online, Inc.
Re:This really scares me. (Score:4)
Of course if the GPL is upheld and a case like that gets kicked all the way up to the Supreme Court then they really would be up a creek (if the Supreme Court upheld the GPL), so that might be a good reason not to. And maybe that's what they're afraid of.
I think they've already played out that scenario and looked into the GPL and they have good reason to think they would lose (in spite of all their lawyers).
So barring that what can they do? They could try and blacklist GPL programmers and call us all socialists or communists or something =) Unfortunately for them, McCarthy already tried that and look where it got him.
They could go after the developers by persuading Congress that GPL programs are written by hackers and that it is illegal to write software with a compiler which doesn't embed some unique id into the binary which allows the developer to be tracked down.
I don't know - what's the worst possible thing M$ could do that would cripple Open Source? M$ is trying to discredit and destroy a philosphy, which is historically a lot more difficult to do than going after an individual or a corporation. Even countries that have used much more extreme measures than anything M$ has tried have failed when it comes to that.
Re:didn't read the article (Score:3)
Here's the difference between /. and MS:
-
Slashdot budget: a couple of $million max
- MS FUD machine budget: Win XP gets $1Billion marketing blitz [zdnet.com]
That's enough money to buy a slightly used aircraft carrier, all spent on shiny pastel brochures, magazine ads, etc (with some reserved for campaign contributions), all targeted at clueless PHBs and other decision makers.Slashdot legions could scream there heads off for centuries and still not get as much exposure as MS is buying.
No, no, no, no! (Score:4)
ARRRGH. C'mon people. Ask yourself, and really think about this. Do you really think that most people are going to switch to Linux, if MS continues with it's smarttags, self-avoiding cookies, subscription models, and forced registration?
I am so sick of all the "linux will win out in the end" fervour. It's not happening anytime soon, guys. Market penetration and an established userbase are working against you. Look, I firmly believe that any MS server platform is and will continue to be utter SHITE. But, most people that use computers are not even interseted in the damn things. It's just part of their job. They go home and vegetate in front of the TV. They are office drones and are concentrating on the BBQ this weekend, not contemplating the IPO of Mandrake. Mandrake what? All they know about Linux is the FUD they will hear about from major online news feeds, and sorry to say, but for the majority of computer (L)users, /. is not their source for news that matters.
They have no idea what the GPL is. Or what a BSD license is. --Now, this next part is crucial-- if they see the words "linux" and "virus" in the same sentence, you can bet that their 6'oclock-news-conditioned brains are going to latch on to that real tight. All the discussion on these MS topics for the last while has been never-ending posts about how wrong MS is and endless justifications about how much better Linux is than windoze. That's nice, but the users DON'T KNOW THAT. Let me state this another way, with extra emphasis -- MOST PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY IGNORANT ABOUT THEIR COMPUTER. (In fact, 90% of respondants to my fictional survey said they find computers downright uninteresting.) File that away in your brain for future reference please. Because although we are knowledgeable and they are not, they pay our salaries, they make the bulk of the purchases, they run the companies we work for.
Those bad hackers use Linux, hippies use Linux, RMS never showers, chicks dig Windows, Linux is a virus, GPL kills the U.S. economy, GPL kills market innovation, Linux is bad for the ecology, Linux-distro IPO overvalution burst the .com bubble. You name it, MS will say it, people will eat it up. If not MS, someone else would. Hell, I wouldnt be suprised if MS went to court ( on a pretense just to test the GPL in court) and argued that Linux is leveraging it's "free" ( as in beer) status and bundling everything under the fscking sun into its OS, and is therfore anti-competitive to the software industry as a whole.
So the ultimate test is this:
Until Linux as easy to install, use and has the applications that we all know and love (or hate), and is no more confusing or intimidating as Windows, AND have a defensive marketing strategy to fend off whatever crap MS or whoever else is threatened by Linux, OSS, GPL, or whatever, then maybe you have a chance of making MS eat our collective shorts. In short, until the OSS movement IS Microsoft.
P.S. Has anybody used XP yet? It looks like an OS for toddlers. Big, gawdy Fisher-Price/Tonka Truck icons and buttons. Very non-intimidating, and I'm using the professional beta. They really dumbed the OS down. I wonder what the final "server" release will be like? *shudder*
Re:this is getting too easy ... (Score:3)
which is why Windows XP will come bundled with a browser, media player, fire-wall, email client, and ISP.
How evil of them.
This got me to thinking: Whenever I install RedHat I click the "everything" box, because I have the disk space and I'm lazy. This past time (7.1) I got:
And let's not forget:
It seems the only objection to bundling is that it's done by MS.