Dvorak on How Microsoft Can Kill Linux

gewg_ writes "John C. Dvorak thinks he knows the way Redmond can kill Linux. Basing his premise on the relative dearth of device drivers available for Linux (compared to what is available for Windows), he sees an opportunity for the Borg to embrace and extinguish." From the article: "The immediate usefulness of Linux running under Windows is obvious. You can use all the Windows drivers for all the peripherals that don't run under Linux. Drivers have always been an issue with Linux as PC users have gotten spoiled with Windows driver support. Today's user wants to grab just about anything and not worry about installing it and making it work."

Comments

Windows drivers on Linux

[blirp]

What he's missing is projects like NDisWrapper that simply allows us to run standard proprietary Windows drivers on Linux.

M.

Dvorak's a big windbag

[YellowElf]

Dvorak seems to have these amazing insights from time to time, but I can't seem to remember one that really came to fruition. In the aritcle, he makes all these assumptions about technology but he doesn't know what he's talking about. Then he uses his unfounded assumptions to conclude that all MS needs to do is embrace and extend Linux. For a more thorough discussion on this very article, see this discussion on Groklaw. Search for the second "Dvorak". --dv

Re:There is one small problem...

[BacOs]

John Dvorak didn't invent Ethernet - Bob Metcalfe did

effect of the GPL

[DM9290]

the article said:
"Well, except for the fact that Microsoft would be unable to produce such a product without allowing the other vendors access to the driver code as part of the open-source Linux license arrangement (GPL)."

If the device drivers are not derived from any GPL code (and as they is currently proprietary, presumably they are not GPL derived), then Microsoft can make a version of Linux which uses the drivers. The modified linux is based on GPL code (i.e. the base linux kernal) and the modified linux is based on propietary code (device drivers).

GPL does not require that copyright holder of the original software to agree to anything (in respect of the original software). Only the author of the derived software (in respect of the derived work) agrees to license the software under the GPL.

This artical is simply FUD.

Proprietary device drivers which work under linux today.

Moreover: The majority of device drivers in MS Windows are not even owned by microsoft at all, but belong to the companies which manufacture the respective devices, and licensed to Microsoft.

Re:Don't click

[KhaZ]

If you really want to read it, but don't want to generate hits, here's a link to Google's cache (via tinyurl, to make it nicer looking. :) )

http://tinyurl.com/4kwgr

Basically, I'm just looking for an easy way to get a +Something Informative. :)

cygwin

[scovetta]

Actually, it sounds more like cygwin. Run your linux apps on Windows. That didn't kill Linux either.

Re:Jesus, What a MORON!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yeah. Maybe. You can do this already, today too.

The NTFS.sys vcan be loaded as a userspace filesystem, and Aetheros/Broadcom cards have Windows NDIS drvers that have linux wrappers/stubs.

Dvorak is still talking through his hat.

Re:Jesus, What a MORON!

[runderwo]

This would truly be one of the holy grails of computing: the device manufacturer would only need to write and maintain a single driver, and everything from Windows to BeOS would be able to use it.

UDI has already been proposed, hyped up, and subsequently ignored. It turns out that getting the best performance on a given platform is more important to anyone involved than having driver source compatibility across platforms.