Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.
Lionfire writes "Recently, Microsoft aquired a patent for a "Method and system for installing and updating program module components"." Read the description and replace a few key words, and you have a very nice description of *cough* Debian's apt. Neat!
The conclusion was that this is not like apt since apt figures out the (local) dependencies at the client and not the server. And even if it would be considered the same thing then apt/dpkg did have this functionaly long before Microsoft applied for the patent. Just look at the Changlog for dpkg-ftp.
The registry is just an implementation detail. RPM keeps track of which packages are installed, though I would guess it does so in flat files.
It does have to do with RPM because one of the features is being able to tell what version of something is installed, which, in additional to making it easier to install stuff, is the purpose of RPM.
The only possibly novel thing is checking the website automatically, which probably has prior art. I can't remember when I first saw something automatically check the web for updates, but I doubt Microsoft invented it. The patent abstract sounds like it's describing Windows Update.
--Kevin
Hmm.. dig a little deeper
by
Hardwyred
·
· Score: 5
At face value, this has no effect on linux, but dig a little deeper. Yes, it mentions that a key is taken out of a registry, but Linux doesnt have a registry, or does it? What is a registry, is it that hellish tree that MS products use, or could it be more? What worries me is that this patent doesnt explicitly state what a registry is. If MS decided to go balls to the wall on this, it could be argued that a registry is any file or system that contains version information on anything other then itself. If that is the case, then what about Mandrakes AutoRPM. It completes the same job using a version file, that if you really wanted to, could be referred to as a registry. I dont think this patent should be taken too lightly. Its main threat is its ambiguity. Imagine that, Microsoft king of security by obscurity, being vague.
...and the geek shall inherit the earth...
-- www.linux-skunkworks.com
Why don't they patent the good stuff...
by
Shotgun
·
· Score: 5
Note to Microsoft:
You're not getting patents on the good stuff, the things people haven't done before. In the interest of showing that not everyone on/. is biased against you, here is a little help, the title for your next patent application:
A method for allowing random users to execute arbitrary code within a secure network.
/**Describe your email program here**/
This patent will not be attacked by the prior art argument, but that just may be because previous programmers actually thought about what they were putting in their email programs. You know, they had a clue.
To the rest of/.: This is offtopic, but we've been fruitlessly brainstorming here all morning. Is there any valid business use for having an email execute itself?
-- Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Who the hell moderated this up?
by
Malcontent
·
· Score: 5
Look bub. The patent doesn't define what a registry is. Anything can be registry even a text file. If you think the word "registry" protects debian or red hat from a suit you are truly stupid.
The fact is MS has gotten a patent on a widely used technology. This allows them to sue anybody they don't like. This is not a Good Thing but it is just another "innovation" from MS. If you can't think of something new get a patent on somebody elses idea.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't mention anywhere the 16 reboots.
t
The MS package management system has certain features that improve performance over the Debian system
Instead of spending precious cycles checking for dependancies the MS system saves time by blindly overwriting everything.Perhaps Debian should apply for a patent for SAFE software updates over the net
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Patented package management? I believe the first thought to come to my mind was:
Think of the tarballs! Won't somebody please think of the tarballs!
-Denor
http://www.debia n.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0005/msg00000.h
The conclusion was that this is not like apt since apt figures out the (local) dependencies at the client and not the server. And even if it would be considered the same thing then apt/dpkg did have this functionaly long before Microsoft applied for the patent.
Just look at the Changlog for dpkg-ftp.
The registry is just an implementation detail. RPM keeps track of which packages are installed, though I would guess it does so in flat files.
It does have to do with RPM because one of the features is being able to tell what version of something is installed, which, in additional to making it easier to install stuff, is the purpose of RPM.
The only possibly novel thing is checking the website automatically, which probably has prior art. I can't remember when I first saw something automatically check the web for updates, but I doubt Microsoft invented it. The patent abstract sounds like it's describing Windows Update.
--Kevin
At face value, this has no effect on linux, but dig a little deeper. Yes, it mentions that a key is taken out of a registry, but Linux doesnt have a registry, or does it? What is a registry, is it that hellish tree that MS products use, or could it be more? What worries me is that this patent doesnt explicitly state what a registry is. If MS decided to go balls to the wall on this, it could be argued that a registry is any file or system that contains version information on anything other then itself. If that is the case, then what about Mandrakes AutoRPM. It completes the same job using a version file, that if you really wanted to, could be referred to as a registry. I dont think this patent should be taken too lightly. Its main threat is its ambiguity. Imagine that, Microsoft king of security by obscurity, being vague.
...and the geek shall inherit the earth...
www.linux-skunkworks.com
Note to Microsoft:
/. is biased against you, here is a little help, the title for your next patent application:
/.:
You're not getting patents on the good stuff, the things people haven't done before. In the interest of showing that not everyone on
A method for allowing random users to execute arbitrary code within a secure network.
/**Describe your email program here**/
This patent will not be attacked by the prior art argument, but that just may be because previous programmers actually thought about what they were putting in their email programs. You know, they had a clue.
To the rest of
This is offtopic, but we've been fruitlessly brainstorming here all morning. Is there any valid business use for having an email execute itself?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Look bub.
The patent doesn't define what a registry is. Anything can be registry even a text file. If you think the word "registry" protects debian or red hat from a suit you are truly stupid.
The fact is MS has gotten a patent on a widely used technology. This allows them to sue anybody they don't like. This is not a Good Thing but it is just another "innovation" from MS. If you can't think of something new get a patent on somebody elses idea.
War is necrophilia.