Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat And Lineo Respond To MS Embedded Linux FUD
jeffy124 writes: "Red Hat and Lineo, the major spearheads of Embedded Linux, have said that Microsoft's recent white paper comparing Linux and Windows XP embedded is full of inaccuracies, false facts, and overall distorts the value of Linux in general. Lineo has gone as far to say it flat out lies about Linux. ZDNet has Lineo's response, Red Hat comments, and a summary article." Updated by HeUnique: LynuxWorks has also wrote a response (only this one is a bit more detailed).
Why does MS always get the marketing leg up on Linux? Momentum is one thing, but it seems to me that Linux is always playing catch-up as well. Why is that so? Has Linux ever had a successful pre-emptive publicity strike against MS?
Let's face it, if Linux is always reactionary, it will never be seen as anything more than an "alternative" OS. Linux should not be an alternative to Windows. It has a niche all its own. Sure, it overlaps with a lot of Windows functionality, but it's not just "non-Windows". It's much more than that.
I think it's just smart public relations. They make it look like they are afraid of Linux taking their user base and they seem less monopolistic. Microsoft has nothing to fear from other companies... the only real threat is public opinion.
Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
It is very difficult to make a direct correlation between the XP sales and the Microsoft case. PC sales have also decreased dramatically. Joe User doesn't see any reason to upgrade to XP since they are happy with what they have.
I seem to remember also reading how consumer polls people siding with Microsoft. I will try to find them.
The bad thing about this is that people will only see the Microsoft lies and not the rebuttals by Lineo and Redhat.
As far as I know, there was no ZDNet article touting the whitepaper before the Lineo and RedHat rebuttals. The article focuses more on the rebuttals than the original M$ paper.
This is an example of Linux winning the PR war. Probably very few people saw the whitepaper before this article, and their first exposure to it is a ZDNet article painting it as an attempt by corrupt M$ to misrepresent their scrappy Linux competitors.
As for M$ having better consumer-level PR, how many consumers think about embedded OSes (or even know what one is)? Hopefully customers in the embedded space take due diligence a little more seriously and are a bit less likely to accept FUD at face value.
Best,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Speaking of which, does anyone have any figures on how much the other embedded OSes cost per system? I assume they'd have to be rough figures as I expect the various companies negotiate the exact price based on units to be licensed. I'd be curious.
Really the biggest issue we ran in to was with releasing our kernel mods back to the community but I believe we decided to do so. I and my kernel-hacking co-worker were lobbying to do so, and there were really no reasons not to. The interface and higher level software was not going to be released, which is just as well as I'm sure it would have been as dangerous as Monty Python's "Funniest Joke in the World." (A joke so funny you die laughing, for those who missed the skit.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Initially, I would have agreed with your assessment.
But, as per my comment I posted above, I would argue that this is only true for the current embedded software engineers. There was probably a time when user-space applications programmers were extremely talented and technical, and made their own choices. Today this is obviously not the case. If some of these guys are still around today, I wouldn't be surprised if they think back about the good ol' days when programmers were real programmers.
My theory is that if Microsoft has its way, the same thing will happen in the embedded world someday. You'll have clueless "Microsoft Certified Embedded Systems Engineers" providing "100% Microsoft Solutions", and they will be numerous.
I would like to think that the amount of technical ability requied for embedded development is too great to allow this to happen. But then again, the user-space application programmers several years ago probably thought the same thing when they were squeezing every ounce of performance out with hand-optimized assembly.
I fail to overlook your blatant contradiction here. If a crook is a crook, they're going to use your code either way. Obviously security by obscurite doesn't work here either. Now, I can hear you saying "but open sourcing it just makes it easier for them!"
If your whole business model revolves around writing binary drivers for something, maybe you should go do something else. Reverse engineering is still legal. Hiding your code just makes it tough to figure out where it's broken. If your competitors are using your code, then you can force them under the GPL to open up their code as well.
Now I can see the real finger pointing, "see, see, there's the viral GPL in action!" Let's get this straight: your competitors took your code, your code is not an airborne disease that forced itself on them. This is the GPL protecting you. And again, if your whole business model relies on merely writing some drivers for something, it's not a very good one. If you're actually manufacturing a product, your product should be the thing worth something.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Yes but are they lying in that white paper too?. I guess we both know the answer to that one. MS fires emplyees if they don't lie to at least 10 people by lunch. Ok maybe I am going overboard on that one but I can not think of one public statement made by any MS executive or mouthpiece (including the ones that troll here) that did not contain at least one lie. Same goes for white papers.
MS is a corporation of liars. No one can dispute that.
War is necrophilia.