Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft & Linux Should Co-Exist In China
alabamarasta writes "In a recent report from China titled "Embattled
Linux fights back", it appears that Microsoft is just as embattled." From the article: "Citing an executive at Microsoft headquarters, Lu said Linux and Windows should co-exist. Microsoft in recent years has been struggling with an increasing number of security flaws on its Windows platforms while Linux is generally regarded as more secure. 'For users, openness increases the trustworthiness,' said Lu."
The Chinese market will be the decisive battle ground between Linux and Windows. Indeed, whoever manages to become the leader in that market will soon become the world leader. Why is that? Because the Chinese market has the potential to completely dwarf both the American and European markets. Once the Chinese market has matured, investors will think of American and the EU as they today think of Luxembourg and Jamaica.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Lu, also a former senior government official, was responding to a report released by the China Software Industry Association (CSIA) in late August which called for the government to review its preference for open-source software. The government's "excessive preference" for the open-source Linux platform is harming the domestic software industry, and Linux's business model is flawed as the low, or no, charge is thwarting the profitability of Linux developers, the CSIA asserted in the report.
/.ers make a living writing code and take offense at the notion that they should have to give up a living because someone else does their job without asking for money. But consider the fact that no one charges you for the air you breathe. I'm sure that someone, somewhere, would love to charge you for that air and the fact that you get it for free means some poor schmuck can't make a profit from it. Hell, we should demand that the government get involved and require everyone who breathes to pay a toll to some company who will ensure that air is always available for us to breathe.
Now while I am not opposed to people making money from their work, nor am I opposed to people making huge profits from their businesses, I find rediculous the whole idea that government should intercede in a free market because somebody can't make money from a commodity. If you can't make a living or profit from something, then find a new line of work or business. Why should the government demand that something make money?
So what is the solution to their "problem"? Are they going to ban open source software because it drives profit making companies into the ground? Does this mean you have to get a license to write software, or work for a profit-making company to write code? Where does this protection racket end?
I know that many
What is funniest about this whole 'software industry can't make money' discussion is that no one considers the huge profit potential of every thing someone does for another person just because they like them or want to help.
Charities rob profit-making enterprises.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
If this is the spread of a flawed business model with nearly no ad budget, just think how successful it could have been if it had followed the antitrust-attracting model of some well known competitors!
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
Lu said Linux and Windows should co-exist (and then you put square brackets around what was inferred ... however this is what I am guessing was inferred) ... [so that Microsoft can get its foot in the door, however MS still doesn't care about Linux.]
Not every relationship is mutually beneficial. Parsitic relationships are valid relationships too. That's what business has to do to get the foot in the door whether it be Microsoft or somebody else.
Steve must be going nuts over this article
Seriously though, not even Microsft can stop the widespread adoption of Linux and this article is just the beginning.
Especially when it comes to China and India. These countries have loads of good engineers and they can't be held hotage to someone in Seattle. Microsoft is forced to play nice.
Seems to me that the issue at hand is not the way F/OSS works, but how China can work F/OSS.
FTFA: "If China manages to set up a Linux community, it could take advantage of the talents and resources of the global community to better develop and promote Linux and foster top-notch software developers, Lu said."
While MS has had a good run of dominating the software industry, it would appear that there are those that don't want to play ball with MS, and are looking at ways to go around that little licensing issue.
Linux can milk a cow, but how do you milk an industry without a licensing scheme that fills your bank account? Is there plans for China to be the next big 'outsourcing' server for software development?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Microsoft have been incredibly slow to realise that Windows can always go back to being what it was when it first got really successful at version 3.1, a GUI. Most people don't know what an OS even is, and wouldn't be aware of any difference (except increased stablility) if what they bought from Microsoft was a GUI for Linux instead of an actual operating system with GUI built in. Taking this approach (albeit with a Unix core) hasn't hurt Apple's OSX.
AS soon as Microsoft realise this, they can cut their development costs massively, and keep the same sales figures. I have no idea why their shareholders are not demanding this already!
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
M$ has been aiming at countries like china, thailand, india, brazil etc. with stripped down Win XP. Who on earth would in right minds pay $300 or so in these countries for a full fledged OS when alternatives are available for free. Even pirated copies are sold at every street corner with no watchdog around. M$ seriously needs to rethink its marketing strategy to penetrate these economies and counter growing support for OSS. Maybe a different pricing strategy or leasing out the lisence for a period of time might work.
IMO, it is currently very difficult to make a profit selling software (or indeed anything distributed digitally) in the Chinese market. Protections against illicit copying (which is rampant) are rarely enforced, and black-market copies are ubiquitious (this goes for Windows, DVDs, music CDs, other software titles). As China evolves these protections will have to be developed and enforced; they'll need them to protect their own content-creators, not just foreign ones. Only then will it make sense for Microsoft to aggressively pursue the Chinese market. Until then, "co-existing" with Linux is the smart strategy to adopt.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Hell, most of the networks I encounter have Linux and Windows co-existing. Sometimes even interoperating!
Click here or here.
Yeah, we all know that the best way for China to make more money is to spend gobs of cash on Microsoft. Don't tell Bill that China is robbing him blind that way, he'll have Steve throw a chair at you.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's not that easy. They'd still have to find a way to maintain backwards compatibility with existing Windows applications. And that's not necessarily very easy to do over a system like Linux, as shown by the Wine project. Sure, some apps work, but it's nothing like real Windows. Often times it is more unstable than Windows, and that is unfortunate.
While they may be able to reduce their development costs on the software underlying the GUI, they'd immediately lose such benefits because they'd need to reimplement much of that functionality over the Linux (or BSD, etc.) kernel.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
How do you say "monkey dance" in Chinese?
Easy: Ballmer dance.
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
Only in China.
Yes, given the huge problems in the world, Slashdot's anal focus on Microsoft used to bother me also. But, Slashdot is nothing if not about small things: gadgets, nanobots, lego hacks and crazy conspiracy theories float endlessly down a collective river of desire for free software, free music and free movies. We keep reading because there are occasional flashes of brilliance and once in a while the editors actually post some "Stuff that Matters".
. htm ]
BTW, the "demoicde" numbers you post are interesting -- and depressing. I don't see the United States listed on the chart though. Seems like killing 240,000 people with nukes during WW2 would count as democide: [ http://www.freep.com/news/nw/hiroshima5e_20050805
Is this sig nificant?
I don't think that Microsoft would have as hard a time turning MS Windows into a GUI on top of Linux as the WINE project has. Microsoft has a better knowledge of what the MS Windows API is. The WINE folks have to reverse engineer part of it.
Even more...
:?
My first assumtion before RTFA
Yeah, Rob Enderle (aka. MS payed public (dis)figure) is a new viral plague.
It sounds like any MS battle plan:
1. Prepare for the holy war
2. Kill and screw anything and everything by disregarding any moral issue or humanity
3. In case you find your self on a loosing ground start runing and franticaly screaming "NOT FAIR, NOT FAIR..."
After RTFA
My thesis completely fails here because of "Lu Shouqun, president of the China Open Source Software Promotion Union."
?? If I would only know where this world is going
??? And next week, pope preaching about safe usage of nuclear bombs in terrorism and how baptizing people before killing them is a thing to do, a show entitled "who cares for Geneva convention if you have to kill, at least do it properly! says your favorite pope"
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
They should coexist everywhere. Just as with any other useage the proper tool should be used. For most people, who don't care to learn that much about an operating system Windows is a fair tool, it's relatively easy to install the OS, install applications, and use (though the Mac beats Windows in ease of use and installing apps). Linux, although getting better, isn't easy to the average person to use. However unlike Windows Linux is stable and doesn't crash nearly as much.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The 2003 Chinese directive that government ministries must use exclusively locally developed or open source software was not just based on perceived better code quality or cost. The Chinese authorities at the time (and probably still now) were very concerned about possible backdoors for US security agencies in US closed source products. IMHO, their concerns have some merit. A Google search for "Lew Giles" is interesting.
The US gets first "dibs" on international oil. China doesn't have any oil of its own outside of small deposits like the South China Sea.
Ah but China has trouble with some of that oil, Viet Nam has claims on some of it as well.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If America is such trash and the jobs are all going to China, how can we all move to China? What the hell are us programmers and engineers going to do for a living? Buy stock?
The problem is that the GNU trolls are likely to be just as opposed to co-existence on Linux's side of the fence as Microsoft are.
People continue making out that Microsoft is always the sole bad guy in any such argument...but the truth is that there are a lot of people associated with Linux who don't appreciate diversity of opinion, either. The GNU crowd want just as much a monoculture of their own as Microsoft does. Try advocating the use of *any* other license to a GNU zealot sometime and watch what happens, if you don't believe me.
openness increases the trustworthiness
It's teh communism!
What about workers? Will workers have the ability to move back and forth? Will telecommuting make it so that workers all over the world can keep or find a job?
The idea of having an expanded workforce is good, but we need to find ways to efficiently put these workers and markets to use. We need to be profiting for a reason other than for profits sake, what are our goals?
Lu Shouqun, leader of a Linux advocacy group believes the Chineese govt should make more use of Linux and open source.
The CSIA (an industry group, likely funded in part by Microsoft) claims (in a "report") the govt preference for open source is harming the software business.
Lu says open source is high quality, low cost, and can coexist with Microsoft, openness is good. Lu cites (but no actual citation info is given, no link, no name, no exact quote, no date, nothing) that someone at Microsoft said Linux and Windows should co-exist.
CSIA says GPL destroys profitability. Lu says they misunderstand the GPL, admits China linux businesses are unprofitable, and claims that community and international collaboration is needed.
CSIA spews FUD... patents might destroy linux. Lu replies that proprietary software faces more patent risks.
Lu says community in China is needed.
.
The other article is pretty much the same thing rehashed and edited down a little.
Pretty much more of the same. Linux/open source/free software advocates say one thing, Microsoft shills say the opposite.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
America is successful because it accepted all of the best people in the world. China is not welcoming immigration, in fact China is xenophobic about foreigners at this time. China may accept you in, but doing business in China is like going to war on their turf.
So when the Chinese economy is built, will China accept American workers in the same way America accepted Chinese workers? If China is about to become the new America isnt it time that we think about moving there?
Does anybody else notice how silly it is to suggest true competition between the two should take place in a communist country?
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
Linux: Can we negotiate a truce? is there room for co-existance?
[...]
Can there be peace between us?
Miscrosoft (with alien voice): Peace? No peace.
Linux: What is it you want us to do?
Microsoft (with alien voice): Die.
Mandrin: hóu wû
FalconCantonese: haùh móuh
Should there be a Law?
It's called Inkscape. Fairly familiar with the program, are you?
Be heard || Be herd
Shouldnt we be microfinancing in Africa about now?
As much as I support investment, why should we put all our eggs into the Chinese basket? Yes Linux should be spread to the third world, and yes there will be new markets in the third world 40-50 years from now, but why is China the central focus?
We should be spreading linux everywhere and investing everywhere we can, basically if a country is not at war and has a growing economy we should invest. Microfinancing would allow average citizens to invest in the third world and profit in the same way that billionaires are investing in China.
Show me a mutual fund which we workers can use to microfinance the third world. Use this chance to give us an education on microfinancing, because China for most of us is just too risky of an environment to invest, and too competitive.
Linux is one thing because its easy to spread linux, but to invest and get your money back in a market like China's, you are going to have some problems.
I wonder how much of the Chinese determination to use open source, develop their own microprocessors, and generally make moves towards implementing an internally self-sustaining IT infrastructure may be driven by a profound distrust of Western governments and companies. After all, both have treated China pretty badly in the past, and they probably feel that we only allow them to trade with us today if they play by rules which benefit us far more than them. Add to this the fact that the US in particular has displayed a penchant for suddenly prohibiting the sale of certain technologies to countries that it doesn't like, and you have a set of very good reasons why the idea of not becoming dependent on Microsoft, Intel, or any other Western company could look very attractive to them.
It is also likely that they are telling the truth about Linux' better security being a key feature for them. Totalitarian regimes are invariably paranoid, and even if MS could prove that the versions of Windows being sold in China haven't got back doors that the US government can use to spy on them, the fact that it is rife with keyloggers, bots, etc. is pretty good evidence that the CIA or similar could infect their systems with spying software quite easily. Far safer then to use not only an OS with a pretty good security track record in its own right, but also one with source code that they can examine for freedom from back doors, and modify with their own specialised security features if they want.
Read up on the history of Sino-Western relations over the last couple of centuries, and then ask yourselves one question: if you were them, would you trust us not to totally fuck them over if there was a buck in it somewhere?
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Let's have a plan. What is the plan? Give all our money to China? Why? Oh I know!
The national debt!
Look, if we have to pay China back this way to make up for our debts to China, then fine, we should at least admit that we are paying what we owe. Otherwise we make our workers into suckers and our investors get to lose their money.
A little on slow side are we? Adobe and Macromedia are western companies, they dont want to buy their software either. They will develop their own solutions to these tools also.
Well, the media only reports Windows problems since most people don't even know a server from a copying machine. The market share argument doesn't hold any water -- look at apache, squid, etc. These are servers and are more targetted than simple desktop clients. Why do you think people 'own' Windows desktops? To attack the servers where the real money is controlled! Do I have to trot out the well-known numbers of httpd market share as example?
;)
Your argument to prop up Window's lack *social responsibility and inter-business policies is akin to saying 'all bridges are basically just as safe as the other'. Generalizations in reguards to comparisions show you didn't dig very deep. I think you can see why I'm underwhelmed by your reasoning. Also Firefox has a much quicker turn around on patching any issues they encounter, and you can't say that Microsoft is anywhere near on par.
Please try again.
As of writing, Internet Explorer 6 has 20 unpatched vulnerabilies, one or more of which are marked as highly critical. Firefox has 3 vulnerabilities, with one or more marked as less critical. So yes, Firefox is more secure than IE.
I would not rate a 30-40% webserver marketshare as 'incredibly tiny', and yet Red Hat, the most popular Linux distribution for servers has 0 unpatched vulnerabilities whilst Windows Server 2003 suffers from 8 unpatched vulnerabilities and Windows XP Professional suffers from a full 26 vulnerabilities one or more of which are marked as as highly critical.
How can claim that Linux is less secure than Windows, when it has less unpatched vulnerabilities?
Your statement is just as groundless as the ones you're ridiculing... Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe you do have a reliable study that proves this? In that case, please give us some references.
Currently I'm using an HP with Windows ME. I use it mostly at home and it's the newest I have, I got it in 2000 or 2001. To my left I have a Power Mac 7300/200 I got used at about the same tyme. And to my right I have a Microway DEC Alpha running both Windows NT 4.0 and Linux I got in 1997. However I haven't even booted up either the Mac or the Alpha in more than a year. For my next computter I plan on getting a Mac Powerbook, probably in January or February.
When firefox was first released, it was declared rock-solid. Now it is being used by a wider audience, they are discovering more 'holes'. (Anyone know of the status of Opera on security?)
Nothing should ever be declared "rock-solid" in security. Given enough tyme more than likely someone will break it. As for the status of Opera I don't know. Years ago I used it but I haven't in since about 2000. I've got the new version but haven't gotten around to installing it. Though I'm not using it right now I have both Firefox and Netscape 8 installed, right now I'm using Netscape 7. Occasionally I use IE 5.5, but mostly to save a webpage. I can use Netscape and Firefox for this but when I save using IE IE inserts the url of the webpage being saved whereas neither Firefox nor Netscape does. Sure I can open the page once saved and insert the url into it but why go through the extra steps, and yes I save a lot of webpages. For a previous reply I made I opened a page with special charactors I had saved so I could see how to type different accents.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Whether China has "killed tens of millions of people" in the past is not relevant to a discussion about Linux being adopted there today. You must be new here if you haven't realised that Slashdot is a site for technology and IT news; if you want to discuss politics or history there are plenty of other sites for that. It is off-topic here.
As for ranting about the evils of MS, the ethics of MS are entirely relevant to a discussion like this because we are talking about business deals between Chinese entities and MS. The alleged evils of MS *are* in its business dealings. OTOH alleged human rights abuses by China have no bearing on its adoption of Linux because no-one in the west, no blockade, could prevent that adoption - all China needs is one DVD copy or one phone connection to the rest of the world to download it and start distributing it anyway.
If you have an issue with China, why not approach MS youself to persuade them not to do business there? The very fact that you and others might succeed is one of the good reasons why China wants to adopt Linux.
Is that a new distribution?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
I did google "Lew Giles" and nothing came up. AltaVista however came up with 55, Mooter came up with 13, and Teoma came up with 72.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It sure looks as if Microsoft is faced with a lose-lose in China and most likely the other major developing powers. Essentially it boils down to the fact that those powers use piracy as a political tool. The argument is really "Let us use Windows on a pirated basis, or at least a token-cost basis, until our economies are stronger otherwise we will take up Linux en masse and you will lose this huge market forever." What is left unsaid is that as soon as their economies are stronger, these powers will take up Linux or something else en masse anyway. They are never going to make themselves dependent on a US corporation. In the meantime, Microsoft is left doing darn near give-away deals (as in Indonesia) or issuing dinky cutdown editions for these markets that fool no one.
Perhaps what we are really seeing is the beginning of a Microsoft withdrawal from swathes of the world that will accelerate in the years ahead. Microsoft's bastions are North America and Europe. The colony in China turned out to an expensive venture that led nowhere. The locals had other plans. They decided to produce not merely their own software but their own computers too.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
They're the ones with all the patents and lawyers and restrictive EULAs.
An open-source OS adopted by a Communist government /sing w/ me, ironyyyyyyyyy
I would not rate a 30-40% webserver marketshare as 'incredibly tiny', and yet Red Hat, the most popular Linux distribution for servers has 0 unpatched vulnerabilities whilst Windows Server 2003 suffers from 8 unpatched vulnerabilities and Windows XP Professional suffers from a full 26 vulnerabilities one or more of which are marked as as highly critical.
Just wondering... how can Red Hat have no vulnerabilities, when the 2.6 linux kernel alone has 15 unpatched vulnerabilities?
Perhaps you don't understand how to read those pages?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
"These countries have loads of good engineers and they can't be held hotage to someone in Seattle."
As a resident of Seattle I can assure you that there isn't nearly enough hotage here.
Physics is good
Your implication and the article seem to be in contradiction. Anyhow, since you brought up the issue I'd like to point out a few flaws in your arguement:
I think there is some truth the to bullet proof remark as many people assumed there would be no holes in Firefox because they had not seen continual bug reports like they had seen for the Intenet Explorer counter part. However, I think there is still some justification to the perception of a more secure product from the mozilla foundation than from Microsoft. I am basing this opinion off the statistics at secunia.com:
Internet Explorer stats
http://secunia.com/product/11/
Fire Fox stats
http://secunia.com/product/4227/
Pay close attention to the statistics charts and you can draw the following conclusions:
1) The rate at which bugs are found in the two applications is very nearly the same. On average about 2 per month for each application.
2) Internet Explorer tends to have more bugs which are unpatched or partialy fixed. Fire Fox is much better at patching.
3) The severity of the bugs found in Internet Explorer tend to be much higher than those of Fire Fox. The bugs in Internet Explorer are more than 3 times likely to be of extreme severity when compared to Fire Fox.
4) And more of the bugs found in Internet Explorer tend to give system access when exploited than Fire Fox bugs.
So the perception that Fire Fox is more secure than Internet Explorer is justified. But bullet proof, far from it.
Somehow I doubt that most of the hackers out there do what they do to make money. But I'm more concerned with you "incredibly tiny" market share theory. Perhaps in desktops the linux market share is small, however, there are a significant number of linux servers out there especially in the web server space. I tried searching for data but the only thing I could find was some old 2001 data from a Netcraft survey.
http://survey.netcraft.com/index-200106.html
But based on that survey in June of 2001 there were about 8.5 million linux web servers alone. That is 29% of the market. And if the market share numbers are the same today that number is over 21 million. So I'd say there are plenty of linux boxes just waiting to be hacked.
And interestingly, when you compare the secunia reports for similar products, Windows 2003 Web Server and Red Hat Enterprise AS 3, you find similar results to the web browsers:
Windows 2003 Web Server
http://secunia.com/product/1176/
Red Hat Enterprise AS 3
http://secunia.com/product/2534/
One may look at the number of reported vulnerabilities and say ooh open source security sucks, but then when you dig a little deeper you see that on average Windows security bugs are patched slower, the severity is greater, and they are more likely to provide system access if exploited.
I'd say its rather dishonest to put some Slashdot poster FUD on the same level as the expensive marketing campaigns used by Microsoft to spread FUD. Not quite the same thing. And besides, could you give some examples of non-blog/message board FUD spread about Mic
"openness increases the trustworthiness, said Lu."
Might want to mention that to your government, Mr. Lu. On second thought, you might want to wait till you're out of the country before you mention that to your government.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Yes, they can CO-Exist, however, China is a communist country and one of the few where those ideas work for the most part. Therefore providing a free operating system for the people is the way that they will eventually g0----with Microsoft mostly for the new crowd that is in business for themselves and doing business for the US and Canada--like programming for Microsoft. I would like to point out that not all programs for Linux are free. If you don't want a canned program, you have to pay the programmers, so people DO GET PAID.
John W....
And what the grandparent poster also neglected to mention (and most do, because it sounds so much cooler to say that the U.S. is the only country that "nuked" someone, the implication being that we did it irresponsibly just to see the big flash of light and murder a bunch of innocent civilians because we're, you know, like, evil) is that the fire raids leading up to the dropping of Fatman and Littleboy actually caused substantially more devastation and loss of life. I mean, I understand that napalm is a mere "conventional weapon", hardly worth mentioning in comparison to atomic munitions. But when you drop thousands of tons of the stuff on cities built of bamboo and paper ... well. That would have put paid to any ordinary enemy. But the Japanese stood up to the fire raids! After entire square miles of cityscape were leveled, they still wouldn't surrender.
... some serious questions should have been asked. But it's hard to second-guess history.
More recent historians claim that the Japanese diplomats did, in fact, try to surrender before the bombs were dropped but had their entreaties rebuffed. I don't know if that's true or not. If it's not, dropping those weapons was justified, I think. If it was true, if they did try to surrender
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
5 years ago this was true... Then, nobody cared about Linux because Windows was 'free'. With the help of the US Government, Microsoft pressured China to start enforcing copyrights. Suddenly Windows isn't free anymore, and now China is running Linux.
In China 99.9999% of computers run Windows.
99.999% of them run pirated Windows.
Why would the Chinese switch to a free OS (as in FOSS) when, to them, Windows is also free (as in pirated)?
It would take MS enforcing their licensing to cause a change so great as that. And what are the chances of that when MS knows they will still make money on all of their other products that are too difficult to pirate, secure, or install without MS's help? They will turn a blind eye to the nearly 100% pirated desktop OS when the companies that use the desktops must pay for their servers, etc. And when the Chinese government itself is using pirated Windows, good luck trying to stop the average person.
GP: "Once the Chinese market has matured, investors will think of American and the EU as they today think of Luxembourg and Jamaica."
Parent: "Extremely unlikely."
Agreed, but not for the same reasons you offer. Every time I see people writing about the 'China Market', I want to repeat the words a friend of mine (and professional China expert) said to me:
There Is No China Market
The China Market is a fiction. It is a fanciful conception of how market forces can be imposed on China, promoted by wild-eyed capitalists trying to find the next Gold Rush. The government of China does nothing to dissuade them, because it has the salutary effect of causing major corporate leaders to fawn over them, bestowing loss leader after loss leader in vain pursuit of the billion-plus imaginary 'consumers' that await them if they can only get into the proper, er, position.
Before anyone attempts to slap me with their Invisible Hand, I'd recommend the position of power from which the Chinese government - and in particular the People's Liberation Army, which is the largest property owner in China - negotiates:
The thing that people forget about China is that this is not an emerging nation. It has a very long history, and has dealt with the issues of governing a huge populace for longer than just about any other nation. The Chinese take a long view of things and they are just as ruthless in business as they are in government.
There is a reason that China has always been known to the Chinese as the Middle Kingdom. If they decide to trade with barbarians now and then, that's all well and good. But don't for a moment think they can't stop whenever they like.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
hou zi tiao wu
And it's not as though Japan was the only country to get such treatment. How about the residents of Hamburg and Dresden, don't they count?
I have a better idea. How about we shut all the Adobe-Macromedia zealots out of the whole conversation? The whole world does not revolve around Adobe-Macromedia and you A-M zealots absolutely never miss an opportunity to try to turn everything into a Gimp-vs-Adobe flamewar, even things that have nothing to do with it at all. I'm starting to think that Adobe is just as bad as Microsoft.
Now, then: What is "our" best strategy? Do we want to see our software continue to improve and be freely available to everyone else as it was to us? Or do we want to give up, all of us give control of the world's computers to a few guys in suits to own forever, while we pay them for the priviledge of being enslaved? OK, not to prolong the straw-man's agony another minute - the public has already shown that it prefers to own and control it's own software, given the choice. It doesn't matter that the choice isn't unanimous - somebody else's decision to keep software free for all gives *you* the right to own and control a piece of it - whether you choose to depart from paid corporateware or not. If you don't pick Linux this year, it will be here next year to pick again. It can't go bankrupt because it doesn't live on money, so refusing to buy it cannot kill it.
That's the problem that MS is having. They're armed to fight lions and tigers and - dragons (oh no!) unaware that a bacteria is coursing through their veins, defeating them from the inside out. The truth is, Linux belongs to Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, too. So it belongs to everyone who works under them. It even belongs to real dickheads. But nobody can take it away from anybody else. How do you defeat air? or a cloud? or a dream? Linux is just that immaterial.
So it's silly to say what's in Linux's best interest. Linux doesn't have one. It is just an element. A corporation, on the other hand, is either making money and "alive" or not making any money and "dead". Since, unlike Linux, it *can* be killed, *it* has to worry what a best strategy is. In *their* best interest - is it better to spend the last fibre of your being trying to defeat something that can never go away? Or better to adjust to this new element and live peacefully with it - perhaps even support it?
'For users, openness increases the trustworthiness,' said Lu.
That's certainly self incriminating, isn't it.
Heard any good sigs lately?
Ya - it just reminded me of a simpsons episode they ran again last nite in sydney .. where France sends a neutron bomb to springfield with an "intel inside" sticker on the nosecone...hee hee .. how do you spell intel inside in chinamaneses
RedHat doesn't use a stock kernel.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Microsoft have been incredibly slow to realise that Windows can always go back to being what it was when it first got really successful at version 3.1, a GUI.
That's because Microsoft didn't become spectacularly successful by marketing a extraordinary GUI that everyone wanted. Their 'success' hinged on a stranglehold on the channel and then locking out the competition.
There's no way for them to go back to that situation.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Pray tell, how would you read this:
Personally, from this I conclude that Secunia know of no unpatched vulnerabilities in RedHat Enterprise Linux, but clearly there's a hidden meaning! Perhaps you could decipher this message for me?
Because RedHat don't use the stock 2.6 kernel. No major distribution does.
I read your post and I think it is rated at 1 for good reason. You don't offer and evidence to support your point "There Is No China Market". You talk about injustices, but nothing that has to do with the size or existence of the Chinese market. Frankly your post is incredibly flawed at so many levels I really can't address them all in a post. I'll try to just highlight the absurdity of your statement.
You are incredibly short sited to think that 1 billion people don't represent an enormous potential for revenue. They are in fact an enormous MARKET that is growing at staggering rates. China is what the world refers to as a developing nation. They are not quite the level of the US or Britain, but they are far from Zimbabwe.
Here are two definitions for market (China fits them perfectly):
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=market
"A geographic region considered as a place for sales: grain for the foreign market; the West Coast market"
"The opportunity to buy or sell; extent of demand for merchandise: a big market for gourmet foods."
Now to one of your most ridiculous points; Red China requiring Chinese trained employees at China based offices doesn't mean Google, Yahoo, or MSN can't make money. It means that China is investing in their people and developing their nation. It's smart. For both China and Businesses that want to make money in China. The more money the Chinese people have, the more they spend/buy, and the larger the market becomes. Many people also believe this is what will lead to the downfall of the Red Party, but that is an entirely new topic.
Just because all of the Chinese don't drive BMW's that doesn't mean the Chinese don't buy things. They do. and they also buy lots of things on the internet. They have a higher percentage of broadband users then the US. Now follow this tricky train of thought... those people see click ads, and click on them! Guess what that is. Revenue! In the Chinese Market! It didn't matter that Chinese workers worked at the datacenters hosting Google or MSN's websites. Google and MSN still make a profit off of the clicks.
Now as far as the questionable things those companies do for china... I tend to agree they are morally wrong. However getting in at the ground floor offers amazing potential for MS, Google, and Yahoo. They have the opportunity to shape the impressions of a billion people. Create brand recognition for generations. There is lots of money to be made.
The Chinese government (to date) is not in the business of building search engines (really no software at all for that matter). That is why they allow US companies to provide those services. They do have some rules, but it's still a profitable business for the big three. The profit margins will grow astronomically as more and more people in china connect. In other words, as their existing MARKET grows, the companies will see larger profit margins.
I'd continue to point out the absurdity of your other points, but I think this should suffice. No offense but maybe you should take an economics class or something.