Comments on: What is Microsoft’s real agenda for the Linux community? http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/ Technology news Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:30:06 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: midi-man http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/comment-page-1/#comment-16647 midi-man Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:50:05 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/#comment-16647 Yes, I remember TCP/IP it got renamed to Microsoft TCP/IP in windows 2000. I know MS invented TCP/IP and that UNIX and Vax systems were stealing it while gates was in Diapers. You know Gates was a genus at 6 months old. He and Al Gore invented the internet. Common people read! Xerox invented it all MS stole it so did Jobs. Yes, I remember TCP/IP it got renamed to Microsoft TCP/IP in windows 2000.

I know MS invented TCP/IP and that UNIX and Vax systems were stealing it while gates was in Diapers. You know Gates was a genus at 6 months old. He and Al Gore invented the internet.

Common people read! Xerox invented it all MS stole it so did Jobs.

]]> By: Bobcat http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/comment-page-1/#comment-16576 Bobcat Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:22:36 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/#comment-16576 For one I tend to agree that M$ has ulterior motives. M$ is still M$ and it is still trying to kill off LINUX. I suspect that by tying into LINUX via Novell, Linspiel (or whatever they now go by) et al., that Microsoft has a way into the Open Source Process: Passing proprietary M$ patent protected up the food chain in hopes that it will be incorporated into the kernel and other Open Source products, while being able to download the best of breed open source software which -- following typical M$ EEE strategy they will tweek just enough so that it will closely resemble the open source product, but won't run -- or if it does run, run poorly -- on open source platforms. Of course M$ will change the open source code just enough so that it is not subject to the terms of the GPL, thus it can be slapped under some restrictive M$ license. In short like everything else M$ has produced it will say: NOT INVENTED HERE. By partnering with open source firms, no matter how big or small, M$ has an unlimited inroad to open source code and patents, without having to give anything back to the open source community. These partnerships are more for M$'s protection than anything else. Those who think that this is all about "interoperability" are in for a big surprise: A tiger does not change it's stripes; a leopard does not change it's spots; and M$ does not change its modus operandi. Vista is absolute garbage,and M$ knows it. LINUX is the future, and M$ knows that too. How much do you want to bet that the next version of Windows is going to be a low cost clone of several LINUX "partners" OS's combined into one M$ licensed [ie *NOT* under the GPL] LINUX-like OS that unlike the past versions of Windows, have a core OS and nothing else built on top of it -- that's where the free open source software comes in. And just for fun M$ will want the open source community to maintain and fix the bugs in M$'s software, so they don't have to spend $$ updating patching etc. The whole idea of these "partnerships" is provide M$ with legal cover, while they develop their low cost, almost free LINUX-like clone in hope that the M$ trade name will cause those who are considering abandoning M$ junkware for LINUX and Open Source, to re-consider. At the same time the ultimate goal is still to run LINUX into the ground so it can no longer compete. It will be the browser wars all over again, only it will be over the OS: almost free -vs-free. M$'s pitch will be: Why trust in LINUX, when we have a LINUX like clone that is a composite best-of-breeds and backed by M$? Further you can't be sued because of patent violations. On the other hand if you choose to use some other LINUX distro, who knows what patent violations are out there that might get you sued [aside- maybe by us]. For one I tend to agree that M$ has ulterior motives. M$ is still M$ and it is still trying to kill off LINUX. I suspect that by tying into LINUX via Novell, Linspiel (or whatever they now go by) et al., that Microsoft has a way into the Open Source Process: Passing proprietary M$ patent protected up the food chain in hopes that it will be incorporated into the kernel and other Open Source products, while being able to download the best of breed open source software which — following typical M$ EEE strategy they will tweek just enough so that it will closely resemble the open source product, but won’t run — or if it does run, run poorly — on open source platforms. Of course M$ will change the open source code just enough so that it is not subject to the terms of the GPL, thus it can be slapped under some restrictive M$ license. In short like everything else M$ has produced it will say: NOT INVENTED HERE. By partnering with open source firms, no matter how big or small, M$ has an unlimited inroad to open source code and patents, without having to give anything back to the open source community. These partnerships are more for M$’s protection than anything else. Those who think that this is all about “interoperability” are in for a big surprise: A tiger does not change it’s stripes; a leopard does not change it’s spots; and M$ does not change its modus operandi. Vista is absolute garbage,and M$ knows it. LINUX is the future, and M$ knows that too. How much do you want to bet that the next version of Windows is going to be a low cost clone of several LINUX “partners” OS’s combined into one M$ licensed [ie *NOT* under the GPL] LINUX-like OS that unlike the past versions of Windows, have a core OS and nothing else built on top of it — that’s where the free open source software comes in. And just for fun M$ will want the open source community to maintain and fix the bugs in M$’s software, so they don’t have to spend $$ updating patching etc. The whole idea of these “partnerships” is provide M$ with legal cover, while they develop their low cost, almost free LINUX-like clone in hope that the M$ trade name will cause those who are considering abandoning M$ junkware for LINUX and Open Source, to re-consider. At the same time the ultimate goal is still to run LINUX into the ground so it can no longer compete. It will be the browser wars all over again, only it will be over the OS: almost free -vs-free. M$’s pitch will be: Why trust in LINUX, when we have a LINUX like clone that is a composite best-of-breeds and backed by M$? Further you can’t be sued because of patent violations. On the other hand if you choose to use some other LINUX distro, who knows what patent violations are out there that might get you sued [aside- maybe by us].

]]> By: rupe http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/comment-page-1/#comment-16566 rupe Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:01:59 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/#comment-16566 "So, Microsoft isn't allowed to defend it self from open source thugs that have no respect for patents?" So, FOSS isn't allowed to defend it self from M$ thugs that have no respect for patents? “So, Microsoft isn’t allowed to defend it self from open source thugs that have no respect for patents?”

So, FOSS isn’t allowed to defend it self from M$ thugs that have no respect for patents?

]]> By: Andy Haynes http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/comment-page-1/#comment-16519 Andy Haynes Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:52:27 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/#comment-16519 The whole point of open source is that you can see the code -- There can be no hiding for open source developers, so why would open source developers blatantly breach a patent when it can so easily be spotted? Microsoft use their tried and tested FUD to imply a transgression has been committed. What everyone wants is some clarity. Tell the open source developers what transgressions have been committed and either/or the following will occur: 1. Prior art or the obviousness of the development will rule the patents void 2. The offending code will be removed and/or worked around. Remember the SCO bleating -- That also came to nought. The whole point of open source is that you can see the code — There can be no hiding for open source developers, so why would open source developers blatantly breach a patent when it can so easily be spotted? Microsoft use their tried and tested FUD to imply a transgression has been committed.

What everyone wants is some clarity. Tell the open source developers what transgressions have been committed and either/or the following will occur:

1. Prior art or the obviousness of the development will rule the patents void

2. The offending code will be removed and/or worked around.

Remember the SCO bleating — That also came to nought.

]]> By: Jim http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/comment-page-1/#comment-16517 Jim Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:32:51 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/#comment-16517 PS: If MS was so concerned about patent infringments, you'd think they'd want "open source' companies to remove the code. Funny then, how MS don't tell them what code it is (it's "open" for anyone to look at, after all), therefore it's not willful infringement as one of MS's people said. SCO anyone? How's that lawsuit going? 'scuse me, I mean "SCOX", since their stock is soon to be delisted. PS: If MS was so concerned about patent infringments, you’d think they’d want “open source’ companies to remove the code. Funny then, how MS don’t tell them what code it is (it’s “open” for anyone to look at, after all), therefore it’s not willful infringement as one of MS’s people said.

SCO anyone? How’s that lawsuit going? ’scuse me, I mean “SCOX”, since their stock is soon to be delisted.

]]> By: Ken http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/comment-page-1/#comment-16516 Ken Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:32:30 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/#comment-16516 "Microsoft is simply protecting its interests from theives hiding behind the open source shield, as though the magic words "open source" justify their actions…" Perhaps.... maybe we can ask the folks from Stacker, perhaps IBM can enlighten us about the OS2 partnership support, Novell and NDS, IBM TCPIP, and on and on. Microsoft has a long (in computer years) history of "befriending" companies in partnerships then using the relationship to kill the partner. Open Source thieves indeed. I would like to see one innovation that Redmond hasn't lifted elseware. “Microsoft is simply protecting its interests from theives hiding behind the open source shield, as though the magic words “open source” justify their actions…”

Perhaps…. maybe we can ask the folks from Stacker, perhaps IBM can enlighten us about the OS2 partnership support, Novell and NDS, IBM TCPIP, and on and on. Microsoft has a long (in computer years) history of “befriending” companies in partnerships then using the relationship to kill the partner. Open Source thieves indeed. I would like to see one innovation that Redmond hasn’t lifted elseware.

]]> By: Jim http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/comment-page-1/#comment-16515 Jim Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:30:39 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/#comment-16515 "So, Microsoft isn't allowed to defend it self from open source thugs that have no respect for patents?" The patent system is broken. Isn't it strange that Microsoft is participating and funding patent reform itself? Remember: EOLAS. Lucent-Alcatel. The patent system was designed to protect actual creative innovations, not promote monopolies. Microsoft will face a Walker Process lawsuit if they go through with their threats and they will lose--- that is, if their patents aren't struck down by prior art and non-innovation. The European Commission has already found that for hundreds of Microsoft patents, only four have any innovation at all. KSR v Teleflex has raised the bar for patents. The Supreme Court does not look on the USPTO kindly these days. “So, Microsoft isn’t allowed to defend it self from open source thugs that have no respect for patents?”

The patent system is broken. Isn’t it strange that Microsoft is participating and funding patent reform itself? Remember: EOLAS. Lucent-Alcatel.

The patent system was designed to protect actual creative innovations, not promote monopolies. Microsoft will face a Walker Process lawsuit if they go through with their threats and they will lose— that is, if their patents aren’t struck down by prior art and non-innovation. The European Commission has already found that for hundreds of Microsoft patents, only four have any innovation at all. KSR v Teleflex has raised the bar for patents. The Supreme Court does not look on the USPTO kindly these days.

]]> By: Jason Graves http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/comment-page-1/#comment-16465 Jason Graves Wed, 27 Jun 2007 04:40:57 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/06/26/what-is-microsofts-real-agenda-for-the-linux-community/#comment-16465 So, Microsoft isn't allowed to defend it self from open source thugs that have no respect for patents? I don't think so. Microsoft is simply protecting its interests from theives hiding behind the open source shield, as though the magic words "open source" justify their actions... So, Microsoft isn’t allowed to defend it self from open source thugs that have no respect for patents?

I don’t think so.

Microsoft is simply protecting its interests from theives hiding behind the open source shield, as though the magic words “open source” justify their actions…

]]>