Slashdot Mirror
Dvorak On Microsoft/Novell Deal
zaxios writes, "John C. Dvorak has weighed in on the recent Novell-Microsoft pact. Among his insights: 'Microsoft has been leery of doing too much with Linux because of all the weirdness with the licenses and the possibility that one false move would make a Microsoft product public domain at worst, or subject to the GPL at best.' But now, 'the idea is to create some sort of code that is jammed into Linux and whose sole purpose is to let some proprietary code run under Linux without actually "touching" Linux in any way that would subject the proprietary code to the GPL.' According to Dvorak, it's only a matter of time before Linux is 'cracked' by Microsoft, meaning Microsoft figures out a way to run proprietary code on it."
I have come to think of any Dvorak story posted by Slashdot as meta-flamebait. They know it is just going to cause the comments to degenerate into a total circus of hatred.
I think microsoft is trying too hard, all they need is to "shim" the kernel and no more worrys about the gpl!
In traditional weather lore, the community gathers around to watch a very special groundhog. If the groundhog emerges from its burrow on this day and fails to see its shadow because the weather is cloudy, winter will soon end. If the groundhog sees its shadow because the weather is bright and clear, it will be frightened and run back into its hole, and the winter will continue for six more weeks. It's odd that they pay attention to this particular groundhog because it's essentially no smarter or stupid than any other groundhog.
As scary as a 'Microsoft Linux' sounds, there'd actually be some significant advantages to Microsoft apps being able to run on Linux (as pointed out to me by another /. reader yesterday). To a system administrator, the prospect of having servers that cooperate better, and possibly a single secure desktop, is enticing. Hardcore Linux users probably scoff at the idea of running Office on a Linux box, but as a IT manager myself it sounds like a great idea. All of a sudden, I could rollout a single secure Linux O/S to all desktops and servers, then have the ability to run Windows apps when needed.
... they will probably either maintain a cooperative capability (a la Virtualization) that the Novell deal provides, or use their Linux foothold as a means to eventually entice Linux users back to Windows.
Is this Microsoft's intent? Unfortunately, probably not. I don't see them providing users with the ability to get rid of their Windows PCs
Who knows, the end result will be interesting for sure.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
He has no idea of what he is talking about. Of course one can already run proprietary code in Linux. Many libraries are available under the LGPL instead of GPL. This deal does not change much to that fact.
Here's an article where the tag is appropriate. Amazingly, even Dvorak thinks it's a trap.
yeah, because Oracle cracked Linux. So did Veritas (which I was personally running products from on Linux servers as much as 5 years ago).
/. taco, you're merely assisting MS's propaganda machine further demonize the GPL and Linux in general. I don't suppose you made charitable donations to SCO too, did you?
Bullsh*t. By putting this on the front page of
Umm, so I know I've run proprietary code on Linux. Nvidia Drivers at the moment as well as Flash and Java. Codeweavers, Oracle, and that small company called IBM ...
...
I'm sure many people can run MS Office in Wine. Now why you'd want to is another matter
Can I mod his comment -1 (not so insightful)?
Supposedly, the GPL is some sort of virus which, once touched, makes all proprietary software into open source. Microsoft has good reason to be afraid. Symantec can't innoculate against that type of virus.
Love Microsoft and others develop software for Linux. It would give Linux much needed credibility to the people who only agree with Microsoft. And best yet, I would like to have things like Microsoft Office, Crystal Reports, and other MS based apps.
And most of all, I'd have the stability of Linux and could run MS programs (there's not much in terms of business productivity apps in Linux).
1. Use of a bit of GPL code mixed with proprietary code does not mean that All Your Code Are Belong To Us, it means that Microsoft would have to remove the GPL infringing code, and possibly pay damages to the copyright owner.
2. Nothing at all is stopping you from running proprietary code on a GNU/Linux system, as long as the GPL license on the GNU/Linux parts of the system is honoured. You can easily use the Linux kernel, the GNU Tools and put a proprietary graphical system on it or just running proprietary software packages. Apple uses quite a few GNU tools, yet keeps Aqua closed, and lots of vendors have released proprietary software packages for Linux.
welcome our new Microsoft Suse overlords!
"According to Dvorak, it's only a matter of time before Linux is 'cracked' by Microsoft, meaning Microsoft figures out a way to run proprietary code on it."
Gee, everyone else knows how to run proprietary code on linux. MS can't be too swift if they can't figure that.
Perhaps more is meant by "run on it"???
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel
CC BY-SA
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
As I offered earlier:
"Under the patent cooperation agreement, Novell's customers receive directly from Microsoft a covenant not to sue. Novell does not receive a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft, and we have not agreed with Microsoft to any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL. Our agreement does not affect the freedom that Novell or anyone else in the open source community, including developers, has under the GPL and does not impose any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL. Therefore, the agreement is fully compliant with the GPL,"
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4685037869.html
That reminds me of another, historical, agreement:
"Under the treaty, England receives directly from Germany a promise not to attack Poland. England does not receive a promise not to attack Germany, and we have not agreed with Germany to any condition that would contradict the conditions of previous treaties. Our agreement does not affect the freedom that Poland or any other country in Europe, including France, has under previous treaties and does not impose any condition that would contradict the conditions of such treaties. Therefore, the treaty is fully compliant with all previous treaties."
Sincerely,
Neville Chamberlain
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
i.e., what nVidia and ATi have been doing for years now?
Nevertheless: Not In My Kernel.
It is no big deal. Tons and tons of proprietary code runs on Linux. Almost all the CAD companies, EDA companies and CFD companies and so many others support Linux for their proprietary products. It is very difficult for MS to port its product to Linux because it is a huge spaghetti tangle of activeX and COM and .NET and other MS-only technologies. But Dvorak, in his infinite ignorance finds some completely untenable theory.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Dvorak's column does not seem to be coherent to me.
Since when can we not run proprietary software on linux? Did Quake3 get "infected" with the GPL because I purchased Id Software's binaries? Isn't this article summary complete nonsense?
Ok, so complex Windows 32-bit software on Linux sounds farfetched. I haven't gotten a DOS emulator to work. I have to use 2 of them, one for FCB legacy programs and another to run programs the first won't run. Let's get the simple, single-tasking DOS emulation working, THEN worry about Win32...
Public domain at worst, according to Dvorak. The man's grasp of licensing is astounding, isn't it?
.. is the GPL that much tougher to comprehend than, for example, the Windows EULA?
BTW when he says "Microsoft has been leery of doing too much with Linux because of all the weirdness with the licenses" I think it's pretty hilarious because:
-(obv) he's projecting his own confusion about licenses onto microsoft
-(also obv) he and his ilk are the creators of the confusion b/c they love writing columns about what they do not understand
-Sorry
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I, for one, welcome our new Microvell overlords. Or is that Novesoft?
I gotta duck 'cos Ballmer is throwing a chair my way..
In all seriousness, though...
MS Office is where it is. It's standard corporate feed. OOo is ok, but only ok. It's a clone of Word. But it's a LOT slower and doesn't support everything that Word does (Try to open a complex doc in OOo that Word saved). Oh, and it's not compatible with ALL documents. Try a seriously complex spreadsheet that uses ODBC to talk to a Faircomm database server and uses VB based macros to compute things that would normally be done by hand. Oh yeah, and there are 15 worksheets in this spreadsheet. OOo wouldn't get anywhere CLOSE..
= Grow a brain...
Microsoft is loosing to Linux the the set-top box, DVR, and many other interesting little markets in a big way.
Maybe this is a way for Microsoft to get the WMP, Windows Codecs, and IE7 in to the Linux world.
Or it could be because of mono. Trying to kill of Java once and for all.
Or it could be China. China is moving to Linux and that could be a HUGE market.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I'm pretty sure anyone can sell proprietary code for linux with no problems. Many companies do it already, including Oracle. The problem is if you want your code to be part of the kernel.
I know that. Just about everyone here knows that. The top guys at Microsoft know that. Why doesn't Dvorak?
P.S. Don't click the link to his article. You'll just encourage him to write more drivel.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Microsoft has been leery of doing too much with Linux because of all the weirdness with the licenses and the possibility that one false move would make a Microsoft product public domain at worst, or subject to the GPL at best.
Comparing the GPL and Vista EULA, Microsoft is winning the weirdness license war hands down.
... meaning Microsoft figures out a way to run proprietary code on it.
What, like writing a program and distributing it as a binary-only for-pay title?
It's only GPL if you use someone else's code. Why in the fucking hell are we still hearing stupid shit like this in 2006?
That's not a group of words we see very often when coupled with that man's name.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
"If you can't beat them...buy them out"
I have no idea what MS is attempting to do by partnering themselves with Novell/SuSE, with the possible exception of buying out (and shutting down) all competitors to its desktop (and server) OS.
Monopoly abuse to be sure, but it has worked for them in the past....
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
you have got to be kidding me ...
"According to Dvorak, it's only a matter of time before Linux is 'cracked' by Microsoft, meaning Microsoft figures out a way to run proprietary code on it.""
Figure out a way to run proprietary code??? Dvorak is "cracked". What the hell is he and/or MS talking about?
It isn't much harder than:
1. Write the code
2. Compile it
3. Ship binary
4. Profit!
I mean, seriously, how hard would it be, in any "legal entanglement" sense, to ship a version of Office that ran under Linux? Companies have shipped plenty of proprietary software that runs on Linux, and unless it is compiling GPL source code into it, there is no entanglement. The fact that the OS is GPL doesn't mean a thing to the applications, in the same way that you can ship a GPL program on the MS Windows proprietary OS and it doesn't magically become proprietary(unless MS has written something stupid into the EULA). There's nothing to "crack" here. If all your code is proprietary, ship it. It stays proprietary. If you start incorporating other people's work into it, then, yeah, obviously you have to license it from them or abide by their pre-existing license. DUH! So, don't do that. Write it yourself. Problem solved.
If Dvorak means that MS would find it tough to channel people into the same kind of unfair monopolistic advantages and constraints that MS can control under Windows to get the upper hand over its competitors, yeah, they'd find that harder to do under Linux. That's a feature, not a bug. It would be harder for them to create the uneven playing field they prefer. Poor Microsoft. Will they ever figure it out?
DOSBox or VMWare Player + FreeDOS.
Really, though, who still uses dos apps?
Win32 compatibility is decent with Wine, though it has to be the most user hostile piece of software I deal with. Crossover Office is worth the money if you need to run Windows apps.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
I refuse to use MicroSuse. And everyone that I know and support that uses Linux WILL be changing to another distro.
The poisoning of the well has begun.
Traitors..
Dvorak yet again has no idea what he's talking about. None at all. Thinks that by running an application on Linux (the kernel) you must GPL it. For some reasons thinks that "a false move" when creating an application for Linux might make your app public domain (wtf?). Also seems to think that MS must do anything special to make Windows and Linux interoperable (when in reality they just have to stop going out of their way to prevent interoperability).
Geez.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
So, we all know that running proprietary software on linux has been done. Some distributions actually ship with it.
What I'm wondering is if microsoft can find some dumb way to make its product vulnerable to attacks. What if they actually weaken the security on the entire system (not just their app)?
I know, that's pretty unlikely to happen, but I have an exagerrated fear of microsoft.
I can run quake4 on my Linux system today.
Microsoft is allied with SuSE to sue all users of any version of Linux that is not SuSE in the future. This strategy was not successful for SCO however Microsoft has much more money.
Yi. 'gcjt xpr,b urq hcwlo rk.p yi. na;f eriv
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
http://www.microsoftlinux.com/
Sort of weird but interesting page here.
"Cracked" and all. So what if you want to run your distro with your (proprietary) code or not? What do I care, as long as I have my Fedora Core/RHEL/CentOS/Ubuntu/Gentoo/whatever else?
Do what you want with your download or distro or fork of Linux. That's what's always been the beauty of it.
In fact the "shim" is Linux itself. You can run proprietary applications on Linux just fine. You might say it's because of the LGPL libc, but it is legal to write a closed-source executable that uses no libraries and just uses system calls.
Dvorak is being an itiot or a shill. He has once again perpetuated the myth that the GPL is some sort of "virus" that "infects" code and makes it all GPL. That is nonsense. Nothing has happened to your code. If you remove the GPL portions, you can do anything you want with the part you write.
But you can tag him "fuckwit".
Deleted
FUD
That is all
Kk thx
Every time Dvorak farts, /. sniffs
The key words are patent exchange and protection from lawsuits. Novel will include Microsoft GPL'd code giving Microsoft oportunity to sue anyone else who is trying using it.
Novell is new SCO...
Dvorak is fricken idiot. Linux will be 'cracked' by Microsoft? What about all the other hundreds of companies with closed source commerial products that run on Linux? Did they hack Linux as well? I'm not sure why what this guy says is important enough to be on Slashdot, he obviously can't even grasp the basics of what Linux is, and the GPL for that matter.
Seriously.
/. I believe Dvorak and his like-thinking journalists can be used to promote Linux use.
I agree Dvorak stories are flamebait on
The more PHB's that can't think for themselves and think (somehow) Dvorak is making sense, the more they will hang themselves with a Microsoft noose. The more they misunderstand the GPL and discredit Linux the better.
Meanwhile the critical thinking PHB looks at who provides the better tool for the job, factors in cost and chooses from there.
Linux will be chosen in many instances and many more to come.
Like fleas on a Microsoft dog, Linux will be everywhere and nowhere if there's enough Dvorak spouting confusing rhetoric. This is the ideal scenario for Linux competing against a very powerful monopoly. Eventually, the dog is covered in fleas and is exausted, confused and miserable trying to deal with them. To abuse the analogy some more, Dvorak and his kind promote more fleas.
Let Dvorak do it some more. I'm going over to his publishers site right now to agree with Dvorak if I can leave a comment on the article. If you want more Linux adoption, I suggest you do the same.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
IBM doesn't seem to have any problem with DB2, Websphere, or Lotus Notes, running on Linux.
Oracle doesn't seem to have any problem with Oracle.
If Oracle managed to build some GPL code into their database (and ship it) in such a way that they might become obligated to ship the source code for Oracle, then I believe they have the alternative of ceasing to ship their product, reworking it without the GPL part (presumably by employing their own programmers to write a replacement in a 'cleanroom' fashion from specification), and then resuming shipments. A small commercial upset, because of the delay and embarrassment, but not a commercial disaster.
If you want to keep your code proprietary, by all means keep it proprietary. If you prefer to share it, by all means share it. Different strokes for different folks, and we can get along just fine.
I once made a jpeg of this man's face with a caption of "John C. Dvorak is a big fat idiot." I'm glad to see my insight was not wrong.
they don't watch functionality within linux, they want to invalidate the GPL so they can steal Linux outright.
guess they aren't smart enough to just steal BSD, but then, that would be legal. it's more fun to push the law in the persuit of oxygen supply cuttoff exercises
what would you expect, ethics?
I have been saying for years that Novell cannot be trusted. NEVER trust novell. ever.
SCO is a good example of what comes from Novell.
Cause I cannot find their source code for Linux anywhere. Most likely they have created a nice (mythical) shim layer themselves to prevent the GPL from taking away their trade secrets. I call "dvorkism" ...
Dvorak is not talking about simply running proprietary apps on Linux. He probably chose his words poorly (big surprise :), but if you actually RTFA, you'll see that he is talking about some sneaky way (which he calls a "shim") of getting proprietary code into a special Novell/Suse Linux. He talks about "mechanisms that alter the internals of Linux without having to publish the code and changes as open-source or allow them to be used by others". He goes into more detail in the article (read the 2nd page) about how this "shim" would work. I'm not sure I agree with the feasibility of that, but Microsoft didn't go into this deal on the spur of the moment and they very well may have spent a lot of time developing such a method to get around the current GPL. And Dvorak mentions how this may highlight a weakness in GPLv2 and why Stallman has been pushing for GPLv3. Dvorak is usually dead wrong on most matters, but he may have something here. Microsoft's involvement in this, plus veiled threats about lawsuits by Ballmer, is making me nervous.
Am I the only person who hears the Benny Hill music in their heads when they hear the name Dvorak?
He just seems like such a fuck-up who is just out to have some fun.
This wouldn't be available in a Vorbcast would it?
Dvorak's credibility has been commented on time and time again on Slashdot, and yet this guy STILL gets stories on the front page every time he takes a shit! Why the fuck are Dvorak stories still posted on this site?
MiSuSe.
So, Dvorak is *basically* saying that Benevolent and All-Power Microsoft would've ported their software to Linux *ages* ago, but IE and MS-Office and Outlook all require "OS Integration," which would make it so they have to release those applications under the GPL, or the Pink Unicorn Squad would hunt them down and gore them with their horns, and if they took to the sea, The Vengeful Narwhal would gore them in the same fashion as the pink unicorns.
Yep. That's about Dvorak's insightful grasp of reality.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"According to Dvorak, it's only a matter of time before Linux is 'cracked' by Microsoft, meaning Microsoft figures out a way to run proprietary code on it."
This is a fairly ignorant statement. There is no problem running proprietary code on Linux if you follow the rules. i.e. you don't extend anything already covered by the GPL.
There are already many examples of closed source code that runs on Linux. Just look at X-Develop as one example. That's a first class IDE that is not open source.
No, I don't believe that Microsoft paid over three hundred million dollars so that they could develop closed source software for Linux. I think it's far more likely that at worse it's the first step in a plan to make Linux irrelevant in the future and at best they bought a FUD card that they plan to play over and over again for many years.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Linux eventually will be cracked
Pssst! Hey Guys, seems you missed the memo, all of that stuff is available in CVS or SVN anonymously! You don't need to crack anything, it's all there, you don't even need a Password. We actually want you to use it, we'll even let you help us make it better for everyone if you want.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Tongue in cheek - but DOSBox does not support FCB so older apps have trouble in it.
>>> Really, though, who still uses dos apps? Probably no one but history buffs, but it was a joke - if DOS won't run on Linux, how can C++/MFC/COM/Win32 apps? I did get Paint Shop Pro running in Wine once, but it crashed when I tried to do certain things. PSP is fairly trivial compared to, say, Office. MS can barely get their own OS to work...
A lot of the comments here claim that Dvorak doesn't "get it".
Consider for a moment something demonstrably true: Microsoft doesn't "get it".
Given infinite time, a thousand Dvoraks with typewriters will eventualy concoct a valid reason why anything happens. That says nothing about the faulty and overly verbose logic constructed to support it.
Microsoft still doesn't "get" open source. They're trying every angle they can conceive of within their narrow, myopic view.
That's all Dvorak had to say.
The fact that SUSE (and other distributions) have ran non-GPL stuff before seems to elude him.
r ce.html
Novell is even in the process of making the code more vanilla and has ripped out non-OSS stuff from the kernel, even though this might mean some hardware won't run anymore.
Also read the following:
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensou
It is fun/sad to see that the FUD is coming only from people who are 'pro OSS'. I start to think they are not pro anything. They are just anti M$.
For all those who think that Novell is suddenly the anti-christ, understand that they support more then just one OSS project:
http://en.opensuse.org/Novell_Supported_Projects
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Actually, it's the M$ EULA that's weird, not the GPL, which is very clear and easy to understand.
"But now, 'the idea is to create some sort of code that is jammed into Linux and whose sole purpose is to let some proprietary code run under Linux without actually "touching" Linux in any way that would subject the proprietary code to the GPL.' According to Dvorak, it's only a matter of time before Linux is 'cracked' by Microsoft, meaning Microsoft figures out a way to run proprietary code on it."
Hahaha, there is no need to 'crack' Linux. It's perfecly possible to run proprietary, closed source apps on top of Linux. Why would you need to license such code under the GPL, unless it contained existing GPL code ?
For a supposed "expert", Dvorak shows amazingly little understanding of either Linux or the GPL.
MS doesn't need to develop a shim. There already IS a very good open source
shim out there they can extend for their own use.
It's called WINE. (And they already got to see it from their Corel deal).
The only cases where "shims" are used in Linux that I am aware of is in getting proprietary drivers to run under Linux. Examples are the nvidia driver and some wifi drivers. The shims are necessary because normally a driver is compiled into the kernel and thus subject to the GPL. But Microsoft has little interest in selling drivers (they write them, as do other companies, as a necessary evil, not as a source of income). Microsoft can port proprietary apps to Linux in the same way that numerous other companies have done without violating the GPL. And of course the GPL can not force any code to be public domain. In fact GPLed code is copyrighted itself and not in the public domain.
There is nothing to figure out. You can run proprietary software on Linux today. Look at Oracle.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Should we bother sending Balmer & Dvorak copies of the LGPL, or should we just let them Google for it?
This has got to be one of the dumbest things this man has ever spewed forth.
That is such typical Dvorak bullshit. If MS were interested in just running MS proprietary code inside a Linux OS, they could have picked whichever open source distro they wanted, and programmed it themselves. There's no special Novell tech in Novell's Linux that lets MS do so. For $348M, Microsoft could have paid 1000 programmers a quarter-million dollars and all the best toys for a year, to produce whatever MS Linux they wanted, just like anyone else with a third of a $BILLION to spend.
No, what MS got was twofold. One, they've finally destroyed Novell, their only serious "network OS" competition for over a decade. The same way they destroyed IBM on the desktop by coopting OS/2, and destroyed Sybase at the database, by coopting their RDBMS for SQLServer. Just when Novell was starting to look like a contender for #1 in networking again, with SuSE, Ximian and their own groupware competing with MS Exchange. That coup alone was worth $348M, which MS can make back in a few years just by taking business from Novell.
But the bigger strategic win is MS attacking Linux with patents. They'll "cross license" patents with Novell, to protect Novell, then attack every other distro. Driving people to Novell. Then MS will use Novell's dependency on MS to kill Novell.
Maybe Dvorak should get a new keyboard, so he can type straight.
--
make install -not war
Dvorak is clearly as clueless as Ballmer with respect to the GPL. If you want to link your software to GPL software (not LGPL e.g. GTK) then you must make your code GPL. Otherwise, you're fine. The only obstacle to Microsoft running proprietary code on Linux is that most Linux users wouldn't touch MS software with /dev/bargepole.
Dvorak needs his own /. logo, I recommend the goatse guy or something akin to (_|_) .
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
But the next version of windows after Vista is based on a 2.6.x.xx or possibly a 2.7.x.xx kernel...Of course, this will be the repackaged SCO version...
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Even though I might agree with his feelings on Microsoft, that layout is the sort of thing that makes me want to stab the author.
That's probably one of the first pages I've read (since they got rid of the BLINK tag, anyway) that's actually easier to read if you just open up the source, rather than looking at the actual rendered page.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I'd think that making DOS applications run on Linux is harder than their Win32 equivalents, at least without considering the size of the Win32 API. DOS programs expect direct hardware access in many cases, but Win32 applications don't. Writing a compatibility layer for the latter is technically easier than writing a DOS emulator, if we assume that the Win32 API would be well documented (which does not always seem to be the case), just more time-consuming (again, because of the size of the Win32 API).
I think Dvorak is kinda like skeet for /.ers. He's so easy to flame, we kinda use him for target practice, or even just as a way to relax after a hard day.
"Honey, bring me my coffee, my slippers, my newspaper, and oh, John Dvorak. Its been a hard day."
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
It's simple: Dvorack is the voice of this generation of technologists.
Wow. As usual, Dvorak shows that he not only missed the point, but that he doesn't have a basic grasp of the subject material in the first place.
My congratulations.
Yes, there have been "wrappers" to make some proprietary windows drivers work with Linux for years now. At this point everything cannot be open source, and neither is everything going to be proprietary, so at present there has to be some sort of software meeting point work around. (I know the open source fanatics will not agree with this.)
Eventually most common software will become a commodity, like say memory chips, and will be marketed as Software as a Service, instead of on a licensing model.
"According to Dvorak, it's only a matter of time before Linux is 'cracked' by Microsoft, meaning Microsoft figures out a way to run proprietary code on it."
Like there's something tricky here?
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Lovely.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Does any one really want to install and run that Suse ? How many system admins start to planning move current production servers from SuSE to another distro ?
Owners of SuSE can't get any support from local boards. Penguinistas will deny even bash them...
After this announcement SuSE was history.
So I'm really asking
Who cares Microsoft Linux ?
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
Microsoft doesn't know that yet! We're trying to keep them in the dark. Sheesh, get with the program.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The only power of linux and also its biggest problem was there are so many version of it, and new version were born on the fly. Call it evolution or whatever.
... i can explain that better by a sample:
No Novell supports suse, but not other version of linux
So this means no evolution.
it means Novell will be friends to suse (not linux) AND microsoft.
Even better Novell got money from MS.
However do you realy think MS is affraid of Novell ???
Rather i think this money, will stop linux inventions.
It will also this is the main reason for the contract, protect MS and Novell against court suites of code usage when they take over a software company.
what do you think would happen if novell would buy VMware..
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
My Roflcopter goes Soy soy soy
Disscuss:
Clearly, he is an idiot. Why are we still listening to them?
Stop submitting his articles. Stop accepting his articles.
If Microsoft could have or wanted to crack the GPL, they would have done so already. A company with tens of billions of dollars in the bank can afford enough lawyers to find a loophole. Either they don't want to crack it, or they don't think they can.
>>According to Dvorak, it's only a matter of time before Linux is 'cracked' by Microsoft, meaning Microsoft figures out a way to run proprietary code on it."
I used to have some respect for Dvorak, about 20 years ago. Has he encounted some sort of brain damage since then? Any idiot could write better articles.
Dvorak is smoking some good stuff this month. Oracle etc. have been selling proprietary software running on Linux for ages without resort to the kind of stuff he describes. Let's face it, the only decent software (well okay, at any rate the biggest commercial piece of software) MS have is Office, and there's nothing stopping them selling a Linux version already (and nothing that would require them to GPL it or anything remotely like that). Even if they want to do something with the kernel (and why would they, since they sell their own distinctly different OS already?), nVidia have shown it's possible to get away with binary modules there, too. Fud fud fud...
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Let 'em!
That is their first mistake; when you encourage people to use Linux, at first all they might care about is the cost, but after a while, obtaining the source for everything becomes a real concern.
This announcement is a win-win for the IT industry and consumers because it will provide greater choice and peace of mind: greater choice to deploy the best of open source and proprietary software side-by-side, and peace of mind with respect to liabilities resulting from intellectual property protections.
In >20 years how many times has Dvorak actually been right?
Also, last I checked, there is already proprietary software for Linux already and GPL hasn't stopped them due to any viral "tainting."
(Yeah I know one of those is going GPL soon but isn't yet)
Then there are those which skirt the GPL and where the legality is questionable, such as NVidia's and ATI's video drivers.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I think Dvorak is right and that MS has for years now tried to stop/cope with OSS GPL-GNU-Linux.
MS wants to have products for the future home, office, and Internet. MS makes products for Apple/Mac.
So, whats the problem [NONE]?
I will continue to use OSS, because OSS GPL products are as good/acceptable as MS products and
far better for global development and always more compliant the international/open standards
that must be supported for a real global community and economy to succeed.
MS wants to compete globally, then MS must get on board with the rest of humanity. MS can keep code
proprietary, but it will be a loser not a leader in technology and society and lose market share.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Come on... let's face it, this is a man that back in the days when bitching about DOS was popular, he fit right in. In fact, I would assume that more people know his name than Charles Babbage or Alan Turing. On the other hand, I assume less people know what value has been brought to computing by Dvorak than by either of those two, and justifiably so.
Slashdot is more of a trivia website in the style that the news here is often tomorrow's trivia. In fact, I find that for IT geeks, the greatest value of Slashdot is to make better lunch table conversational topics among nerds. With the exception of BOFH, I would imagine that The Register is a far more valuable source of usable market information than Slashdot.
That brings me to Dvorak. I don't think I've ever met anyone with half a brain that does in fact agree with him. Dvorak makes comments on the industry based on his own crazy form of journalistic data gathering. He for lack of a better term is "The Tabloid of Computing". If middle aged housewives gave a shit about technology (maybe some do), then Dvorak could publish his own 40 page rag each week between the TV guide and latest Fabio romance novel in the grocery store.
So really, what I'd like to know is, if Dvorak tends to spew the same tired old coversation of "Who give's a rats what Dvorak has to say", then I must wonder, why the heck are we actually still getting stories on Slashdot about what he says?
To make matters worse, when Microsoft tries to add features to its OS, it gets attacked by companies who provide these functions as third-party vendors. This includes the antivirus and firewall companies, a few of which are threatening to sue Microsoft on the same grounds as the old antitrust case. I find it hard to believe the author could even say these words with a straight face. This quote is functionally similar to, "Well Officer, he assaulted my fist with his face, and now my fingers are really black and blue."
Shim? Mechanical? I'd like to stick a mechanical shim up his ass and turn it up to full.
I am not willing to increase the page hits of a person that is so uninformed about Linux and the GPL.
/. editors keep posting articles related to this individual beats me.
Why
Must be an strange fetish of some kind.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The GPL totally obviates a EULA by saying "you can run the program for any purpose whatsover, have fun". The point stands about Dvorak implying that the GPL is weird, tough to parse, rife with gotchas, etc.
If you want to distribute free software under the GPL, it's fairly easy to understand in what circumstances you can do so. If you want to take other people's code that they've licensed under the GPL, and distribute it under terms of your choosing, then I agree it is kind of difficult to figure out how to do that. The reason, though, is not that the GPL is weird or difficult but that distributing other people's code under your own terms is not currently allowed by our copyright system
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I happen to agree, but there is a lot of controversy these days about what counts as a "derived work." Microsoft, in particular, has a stake in asserting that any sort of interoperability results in derived works. They want that viewpoint to win and this deal helps to establish a crude form of "evidence" for what the culturally-established industrial practices are.
It's not really law, but managing perception of law can sometimes approach the value of writing the law itself, because once something is well-established, judges tend to try avoid being "disruptive" to society.
This is a common error, and partly responsible for the controversy.
A license cannot define what is considered a derived work, and Linus has no say in what is considered a derived work of Linux. A license can merely permit some types of derived works. Only Congress can define a derived work (and they've done a damn poor job of it, judging from the volume of discussion about what is or isn't one). By the time you start reading a license to determine whether or not you are allowed to do something, you have already assumed that the law considers it either a derived work, or something else which isn't permitted (by copyright law) without permission from the copyright holder.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.