Slashdot Mirror

I think this is what you're looking for.

How long before we see a version of "Microsoft Linux"?

Old news.

You're welcome. I'd recommend at least scanning the "hot topics" before purchasing and installing the system.

http://www.mslinux.org/

That distro was about to be released more than one decade ago (2003) on the GPL (Gates Private License).

Because this is real and that was a joke. And that joke wasn't done very well and is so old it isn't even amusing anymore, much less funny.

That distro was about to be released more than one decade ago (2003) on the GPL (Gates Private License).

This is not the first Linux released by Microsoft.
The first one was released in 2003. http://www.mslinux.org/
It was released under GPL (Gates Private License).

How about Microsoft Linux? http://www.mslinux.org/ They even have Linux Genuine Advantage in place already :) http://www.linuxgenuineadvanta...

Out of boredom I googled "Microsoft Linux", and found this ancient joke site. A joke news from 2000: "MS Linux to have Start Button". Well, with fairly minor differences and a different name such as "Menu" button, damned if it isn't right there at the bottom left corner, on quite a few Desktop Linux themes nowadays, e.g. the standard on Mint Mate.

microsoft linux? i've heard of that http://www.mslinux.org/

http://www.mslinux.org/

It is old, but http://www.mslinux.org/

Microsoft has been embracing Linux for over a decade now as well - They're obviously open-source friendly and showing their worth as a team player http://www.mslinux.org/

Non sequitur. The argument that Dell being or not being a Linux-integrator (or a Windows-only integrator) is logically independent of MS position (and ulterior motives, whichever they might be) with respect to Linux and/or open source.

In fact, the truth or falsehood of one company X using and providing services based technologies Y is based solely on one yes/no question and nothing else: does company X provides services based on Y? Their position, promotions and motivations (ideological or economical) are of no consequence to true/false value of that question.

Besides, the original question and statement centered about whether Dell had experience doing integration with Linux, not about its allegiance to open source (and the former does not depend on the later independently of what the FOSS chickenhawks would like to sing). If that had been the topic under discussion, then maybe your post might have had some logic. But it wasn't.

Microsoft has been embracing Linux for over a decade now as well - They're obviously open-source friendly and showing their worth as a team player
http://www.mslinux.org/

10 years too late. already been done:

http://www.mslinux.org/

Microsoft 12-10? Sure it will released on time. I'll be called:
      Quixotic Quail.

Here's a preview:
http://www.mslinux.org/ :-)

Or if you want to be more avant-garde about being modded down, rant about how Ubuntu is vastly inferior to your favored microdistro.

Ubuntu is for noobs; Microsoft Linux is vastly superior for those that know what they're doing.

Dis be ma favit, disto, bitch: http://andrebocassa.tripod.com/

Or if you want to be more avant-garde about being modded down, rant about how Ubuntu is vastly inferior to your favored microdistro.

Ubuntu is for noobs; Microsoft Linux is vastly superior for those that know what they're doing.

Yes! There's Microsoft Linux. It's only $249.99. Make sure you provide all your credit card details!

customers have a way of figuring out how to pay the least amount of cash possible to use Microsoft's software

Yes. It's "Format C:" followed by installing some flavor of Linux and Open Office.

Ah yes, you must be referring to Microsoft's linux distro.

Microsoft Linux shipped in 2003 already: http://www.mslinux.org/

I tested searching for "Microsoft Linux".
The results were biased towards articles in swedish; I'm from Sweden, but it seems that that wasn't the only bias...

1st result: http://www.mslinux.org/A "MS version of Linux" spoof.
2nd: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.236944/sa-krossar-microsoft-linux&prev=hp"Så krossar Microsoft Linux" - "How Microsoft crushes Linux" (via Google Translate)
3rd: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http://blogs.technet.com/microsoftnyheter/archive/2009/07/21/microsoft-sl-pper-kod-till-linux.aspx&prev=hpAn article from one of MS' sites about their GPL code donation. (via Google Translate)
4th: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.236944/sa-krossar-microsoft-linux?articleRenderMode=listpostings&prev=hpThe comments page for the "Så krossar Microsoft Linux"-article. (via Google Translate)
5th: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/default.mspxGetthefacts 2.0
6th: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http://opensource.idg.se/2.1014/1.236944/sa-krossar-microsoft-linux?articleRenderMode=listpostings&prev=hpBasically the 4th result, but on a different page. (via Google Translate)
7th: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http://www.datormagazin.se/nyheter/article485456.ece&prev=hpAnother article about the GPL contribution. (via Google Translate)
8th: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Jul09/07-20LinuxQA.mspxMicrosoft.com GPL code contribution.

GPL means Gates Private License

It happened when Microsoft invaded Cuba.

http://mslinux.org/

Next up, Microsoft Linux!

http://www.mslinux.org/

What are you smoking?

Microsoft have been distributing Linux since 2003! Get with the program.

http://www.mslinux.org/

Only if it's MS Linux.

I can't believe This web site still exists. Of course it was just a farce......

Does anyone remember this? I think it was written sometime in 2000, but since then, things like graphical RPM managment have started to appear in various Linux distros.

Why, isn't it already there- Microsoft Linux :)

err, no. Here's the link: http://www.mslinux.org/ It's GPL: MS Linux is released under the provisions of the Gates Private License, which means you can freely use this Software on a single machine without warranty after having paid the purchase price and annual renewal fees. Could we mod Dvorak -1, Troll on a permanant basis?

http://mslinux.org/

Microsoft has just released MS Linux. More details here

http://www.mslinux.org/

http://www.mslinux.org/

Way expensive if you ask me though :p

It could be my memory playing tricks, but I can't for the life of me recall the "Run in Compatibility Mode" to run my DOS games in Linux.

Anyone remember this ???? MSLinux http://www.mslinux.org/

http://mslinux.org/ could beg to differ

I read this on the web so it has to be true. http://www.mslinux.org/ I am so glad that there is a version of Linux that most IT managers will embrace without question. Happy Days!

http://www.mslinux.org/

The devil wears snowshoes.

Here is the real link: http://www.mslinux.org/

this is from a few years ago... http://www.mslinux.org/

http://www.mslinux.org/

First Microsoft Shell and now this? Looks like MS Linux is nearly becoming a reality!

Microsoft Linux

Doesn't belong here. Take a look at this.

Well actually, MS has been marketing Linux for a few years already http://www.mslinux.org/

Look, I do not have a Linux distribution, nor have I even contributed to the Linux kernel, nor have I made any substantial amounts of money (even for hire) off of Linux, although I have recommended it to several people over the years.

Apparently I may have been mistaken in that notion (of recommendation of Linux) and this is going to do nothing IMHO but fracture the FOSS community even more. If that is your objective, you have succeeded.

As far as $200/year... yes, that is going to keep people like myself from "trying the waters out" and doing things that might make a huge difference. Linus himself would never have started Linux under such a license with what he first released back ages ago... he wouldn't have been able to afford it as a young hacker/college student. And for myself, I'm an American, not somebody from Ethiopia, and I have some very dear friends that are from Ethiopia that such are remark is very offensive as well from their viewpoint. That this is common in the computer industry is besides the point.

As far as a certain person spending a 1/4 of a million dollars on some legal stuff... perhaps he should have sought community support for such legal costs through a non-profit foundation or some other legal structure to organize the effort to defend such a fight. Pure donations (especially for a mere $250,000 to defend a trademark?) would have been more than enough to cover these expenses, particularly over 10 years as you point out. And defend from what? Microsoft releasing a distribution called MS-Linux? Yes, there have been expenses, and perhaps the name Linux was being abused from time to time. But there is more than merely a name and a formal trademark.

I don't mind Linus trying to "get back" from the investment of time and effort he has put into his little project. What I am objecting to is the change in ground rules well after it has "matured" and common practice has long been established. Major brands like Red-Hat and others who are vested in using the Linux trademark have no choice but to pay the required fee, and apparently you are also assuming that everybody else can pay as well. Many people asked Linus and other FOSS "leaders" what it meant to have the name trademarked, and there were worries that precisely this sort of thing would happen. At the time everybody was "reassured" that nothing of the sort would happen, so "go about your business and keep contributing to the community."

I have made my own contributions in my own way, to the larger FOSS community, and plan to do more. I am glad that I haven't contributed to the kernel, and with this issue if it isn't resolved I seriously doubt that I care to do any contributions either. Or even encourage anybody I know to do so.

More to the point, Linux as an OS kernel is part of a volunteer effort from a great many people whose only "reward" was that they got a better kernel from contributing to the group than what they possibly could have come up with on their own. By charging for the trademark in this manner, it is a slap on the face of all of these volunteers and in effect telling them to go away, they aren't needed anymore now that commercial enterprises are around that can foot the bill. "Shut up and leave the computer OS software to us big guys and you little guys can play around in ignorance." Without these volunteers and others who contributed to the growth of Linux over the past many years, Linux as a trademark would have little if any value what so ever. It is from those labors that I am raising an objection, and noting that very few of the contributors to the Linux kernel are ever going to see even a single penny from these "royalty" payments, nor does it seem as though there is any effort to further the efforts of this community.

They already have one...You Insensitive Clod!!