Linux users owe Microsoft

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!

Postby Lavene » 2006-11-22 07:31

I'm starting to find this simply hilarious. It's only a few days since they sign this 'agreement' and they are already slugging it out in public... jeez.

Here and here is chapter two :)

Tina
Lavene
Site admin
 
Posts: 5096
Joined: 2006-01-04 04:26
Location: Oslo, Norway

Postby bluesdog » 2006-11-22 07:49

And Microsoft's assertions might be even backfire. "There were some applications I had been thinking about moving to a Microsoft platform, but this has now totally alienated me from Microsoft," Strasnick said.
Oh, I LOVE this!

I really DO owe Microsoft! Especially Mr. Ballmer! -- A great big 'Thank you', for giving me a laugh :lol:
Tips & Tricks

Something more to read while waiting

If you obviously have not read THIS, don't expect too much...




*winter bluesdog....*
User avatar
bluesdog
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: 2006-02-01 09:02
Location: Similkameen, British Columbia, Canada

Postby PingFloyd » 2006-11-22 08:03

At least Linux doesn't have anything to hide. The source is out in the open for all to see. This to me sounds like Microsoft's usual behavior of throwing stones while living in a glass house. If anyone/anything is most likely guilty of infringement of intellectual property, it would have to be Microsoft and Windows. In their case, there is no source code available for anyone to scrutinize outside of MS. If the world could see all of it, I wonder just what would be found.

Like sort of mentioned, it's typical Microsoft FUD rehtoric.

I wonder if it's them being paranoid, or they're trying to be controlling. The usual assumption with MS is the latter, but sometimes I'm not completely sure, and I definitely wouldn't discount it either. But sometimes I wonder if it may be more of an issue that MS tends to have a bit of the forest through the trees syndrome going on. I do think they have goals to want to build the best software that they can (by their standards and values), but I think they tend to get a little blind sided and lose sight of the big picture alot. They of course want to profit off of such software as well. It's just that some of the reading I've done, about how their company is organized and managed, it leads me to believe that they have the goal of trying to be the best at software, but that the way they have their company structured, it tends to create a vaccuum where everyone that is a part of MS gets really out of touch with reality. So a part of me tends to believe that alot of their stupidity and mistakes, are more likely the result of that.
PingFloyd
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 2006-10-05 23:17

Postby sargek » 2006-11-22 15:03

It's funny - at first this whole agreement between m$ and Novell made me worried, but when I really think about it, we have nothing to worry about. The entire FOSS, Opensource community is a HUGE jugernaut, moving forward, creating innovation, and adapting to adversity, all while doing so in a friendly, completely open way. Our way of doing business is completely unfathomable to m$ because they are in the business of making money, period. We do what we do for the common good, nothing more. I love belonging and contributing to this community 8)
sargek
 
Posts: 59
Joined: 2006-06-24 15:06

Postby Bulkley » 2006-11-22 17:40

When I send documents, which I create using open-source, I get all these complaints from Microsoft users. I can read their stuff, they can't read mine. I have to do these stupid conversions so that they can read it. So, what's Balmer accusing us of? Stealing crap code? Hahahahahahahahaha :lol:
Bulkley
 
Posts: 5396
Joined: 2006-02-11 18:35

Postby Lavene » 2006-11-22 18:28

I always send documents in .odt format the first time when sending stuff to public offices. And when I get a mail back stating that they can not read it and that they need it "in office" I rant and rave about how they lock people out, how they force people to buy expensive software etc. And if it's not urgent I save it in every conceivable format and resend the whole thing... as a tarball. Which of course they can not untar and have to scramble their IT people. Hey, it's my tax money... I demand to have some fun... :twisted:

Tina
Lavene
Site admin
 
Posts: 5096
Joined: 2006-01-04 04:26
Location: Oslo, Norway

Postby Grifter » 2006-11-22 19:43

I think that sounds like awesome fun lavene (:
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines...
Grifter
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: 2006-05-04 07:53
Location: Svea Rike

Postby Bulkley » 2006-11-22 21:46

Lavene wrote:I always send documents in .odt format the first time when sending stuff . . . .


Hey, me too. It's amazing how open source users get blamed when MS can't open it.

I am beginning to send things in PDF, partly to prevent tampering at the other end.
Bulkley
 
Posts: 5396
Joined: 2006-02-11 18:35

Postby jjmac » 2006-11-25 10:17

PingFloyd wrote:

>>
I wonder if it's them being paranoid, or they're trying to be controlling.
>>

I think one feeds on the other. And like true solisticles, they learn nothing from experiance.

Carn't help remember, that when SCO started their claim push, as crazy as everyone said it was ... It still put a few hundred people out of work in Germany at the time, due to small companies hesitating on planed deployments.

Hopefully business will be more immune to the FUD this time, as it seems they are.

One would have thought that a MS exec, would have at least followed the SCO debacle, and at least tried to learn a few of the realities with regard to FOSS. But as mentioned above, they just don't 'get it' ... a monkey can only be a monkey in the end i suppose.

Lavene wrote:
>>
And if it's not urgent I save it in every conceivable format and resend the whole thing... as a tarball. Which of course they can not untar and have to scramble their IT people. Hey, it's my tax money... I demand to have some fun..
>>

hehehe ...

I propose AliG ! to be the official FOSS advocate, in any case involving MS over the next decade.


jm
jjmac
 
Posts: 387
Joined: 2005-12-28 23:34
Location: Australia

Postby simen » 2006-11-25 18:25

PingFloyd wrote:This to me sounds like Microsoft's usual behavior of throwing stones while living in a glass house.

Or rather, throwing chairs in a glass house (:
What I also find interesting is how this whole mess is giving GPLv3 some momentum, since Eben Moglen promises that the new version will certainly not allow this kind of antisocial behaviour. A worst case scenario could (if I've understood some of this) leave all software licenced under GPLv2 "tainted" and liable to law suits (or at least FUD). SUSE will certainly not be able to incorporate GPL3-licenced stuff without breaking their agreement with MS. A big question of course is what's going to happen to the kernel, since Torvalds has been adamant against going with GPL3. Maybe this means we'll all be running HURD kernels much sooner than expected?

--Simen
User avatar
simen
 
Posts: 206
Joined: 2005-07-02 15:00
Location: Berlin

Postby Lavene » 2006-11-25 19:15

I think, as sort of a worst case scenario, that a fork of Linux is much more likely than a sudden burst in the HURD development if Linus decides to stick with GPLv2. But hopefully he will ultimately see the danger of not going with v3 and everything will be cool is ice :)

Tina
Lavene
Site admin
 
Posts: 5096
Joined: 2006-01-04 04:26
Location: Oslo, Norway

Postby Grifter » 2006-11-25 20:54

Lavene wrote:But hopefully he will ultimately see the danger of not going with v3 and everything will be cool is ice :)

Tina


No I don't think so, I think it's the opposite and he sees danger in gplv3, you can read their comments and debates on www.kerneltrap.org

What bothers me about this whole thing is...

FSF and Moglen all know Linus's stance, and instead of being adamant about the suse-ms thing, they're basically giving in in order to further a political agenda of pushing gpl3 - I think that's being inordinately stupid: this is all just politics - Linux will never go gpl3, and this is FSF and Moglen's way of trying to push the kernel into their fold, but they are too bloody arrogant, it's not going to work, the kernel will stay gpl2, and because of that a lot of programs/developers will stay with gpl2 aswell - which ultimately means that Moglen has opened the flank wide open for evisceration, by abandoning gpl2 instead of fighting for it

This is a game of politics and economic warfare, and ms is very good at this game, and because there's "noone" (of the top brass) left to defend gpl2 the injury will be crippling once the enemy strikes

But that's just my take on it, I hope I'm wrong
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines...
Grifter
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: 2006-05-04 07:53
Location: Svea Rike

Postby Lavene » 2006-11-26 05:55

The real problem is, as we often see, lack of communication. Linus don't like Stallman and see him, maybe righfully, as a fanatic. And to some extent I can agree with that. Stallman and the FSF has made their definition of freedom and is not willing to discuss it. Linus on the other hand see that definition as a restriction. He basically says "Here is Linux, it's free... do what you want with it." So if someone wants to implement stuff like DRM it's fine with him. That is his definition of freedom.

FSF can not agree to this of course since DRM by definition is limiting and takes away the users freedom. The paradox is that the FSF/ Stallman definition of freedom in it self is limiting since it clearly say that you can not implement DRM and other 'anti-freedom' stuff.

And since neither of them is willing to listen to the other the standoff will continue.

Tina
Lavene
Site admin
 
Posts: 5096
Joined: 2006-01-04 04:26
Location: Oslo, Norway

Postby DeanLinkous » 2006-11-26 17:21

Well, I think v3 could probably be skirted also if someone put their mind to it. But this issue does show that v2 is very easy to skirt around anymore. This issue shows that v2 is old and is not up to todays technology. SO while I don't think this issue specifically screams "v3 now" it should make you realize that v2 is old and full of holes and just does not take into account a lot of newer technology.

I agree with Lavene that communication needs to be improved. Kernel devs have been asked to participate AFAIK and from what I can tell they just dismiss that and claim the FSF doesn't really want input. Yet, if you compare draft one and draft two you can see some things that have really changed.

The "exceptions" clause should be enough to basically *allow* DRM use while still essentially providing for a non-DRM copy as well.

Remember is isn't JUST tivo. Numerous others either aren't providing the tools to build the code or are locking it with a sig and so forth. This isn't JUST about the kernel either so IMO it is silly to say this is just FSF trying to enforce its will on the kernel. It affects all GPL covered software and the kernel just happens to be one of those.

I still wonder if anyone would dare to fork it, boy then the poop would fly! :D

Oh well, wait and see. I personally will be using whatever kernel is v3!
User avatar
DeanLinkous
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: 2006-06-04 15:28

Postby Grifter » 2006-11-26 17:42

Who would fork it? Who _could_ fork it? Or maybe more importantly - who would maintain the fork? It's not a small project (:
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines...
Grifter
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: 2006-05-04 07:53
Location: Svea Rike

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sunrat and 1 guest

fashionable