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."

Comments

Meta-flamebait

[2.7182]

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.

Re:Meta-flamebait

[drinkypoo]

I couldn't agree more. Dvorak has been proven to be an asshat so many times I can't begin to count them. I mean read this paragraph:

With a shim, Microsoft could possibly do the following: Take a Linux distro, say SUSE; then create a shim that talks to the SUSE kernel. Publish the source code of the shim and what it does. Then take a proprietary Microsoft optimizer that lets various apps run on Linux perfectly with modifications to the Linux core--but that actually runs on the shim, not Linux.

We already have something like that. It's called Java. Java hasn't put Linux to the torch. What makes Dvorak think that Microsoft will be able to do it?

Re:Meta-flamebait

[mordors9]

I am just glad I can go back to breathing. Ever since the big announcement came out, I have been holding my breath until Dvorak told us what to think about it.

Re:Meta-flamebait

[number6x]

I think its more that Dvorak is almost completely clueless, but is very well spoken and is a good writer. He sounds competent to the PHB's, but to anylone who is familiar with the GPL and open source, he sounds like a complete ignoramous. All GPL'd code must be copyrighted. The GPL cannot be applied to public domain software, and it cannot make proprietary code into public domain code. Just read the GPL. The GPL and Copyright go hand in hand. So no matter how well he writes, he just comes off as an idiot. Since so many paople take him seriously, this leads to the flame wars over the well written non-sense he prints.

Re:Meta-flamebait

[jsebrech]

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.

They're not just flamebait, they're flamebait on purpose. The purpose of the dvorak flamebait articles is generating clicks on the articles in question, and generating the ad revenue linked with those clicks. This has even been admitted by dvorak (or one of the dvoraks, since it's likely to just be a name they assign to writers), and this admission of guilt has appeared on slashdot.

The key thing to learn about this is to never, ever, browse to a dvorak article, because that is exactly what they want you to do.

Re:Meta-flamebait

[Havokmon]

I think its more that Dvorak is almost completely clueless, but is very well spoken and is a good writer. He sounds competent to the PHB's, but to anylone who is familiar with the GPL and open source, he sounds like a complete ignoramous.

If you read the whole thing, and reword it in your head, it makes sense :) MS has kernel optimizations for their software. MS Software, without these kernel optimizations would run like crap on any other OS. MS needs shims in the kernel to get these optimizations to Linux without actually having to expose their optimizations to the world - see the pwc driver hell for an example.

I used to like Dvorak - back in the Computer Shopper days - but I guess I liked his hardware rants more than software. I think he has technical knowledge, but he's moved into the wrong forum: He's a perfect example of how not to explain things to laymen.

Re:Meta-flamebait

[Creepy Crawler]

Better yet, if Xen would work properly with Win98, I could run fresh virtualized images for each app.

Win98 on current machinery is friggin FAST. Now, run each app in its own environment, with limited network access (network ONLY to host running virtualization). Instant win98 network with 1 "computer" for each program.

Re:Meta-flamebait

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Xen will run Win98 now if your processor supports virtualization. Otherwise, run VMWare player. Win98 works very well under it.

Re:Meta-flamebait

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Maybe he's thinking that they'll write a kernel module to enforce DRM and product activation. Possibly also using it to try and make Microsoft apps only work under SUSE.

Re:Meta-flamebait

[T-Ranger]

Yes, but if the GPL is broken, its broken closed. By default, you have zero rights to use arbitrary software (let alone compile it, change it, redistribute it). With the GPL, users are granted some rights (with some obligations). If the GPL is invalidated, then the code reverts back to the "no license" mode of distribution: not allowed to do anything with it. Contract failure-mode is to shut things down, not open them up.

Re:Meta-flamebait

[BRSloth]

We already have something like that. It's called Java.

Oh man, you almost had it. It is, actually, called Mono, and it could run almost every code written for .NET. And guess who are the main developers of Mono?

Re:Meta-flamebait

[DeepZenPill]

Here's him explaining his trolling strategy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAWDYaWAVQQ

Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[Salvance]

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.

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 ... 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.

Who knows, the end result will be interesting for sure.

Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[Salvance]

Another thought ... what if Microsoft just released their .NET framework (basically taking over the Mono project) on Linux? Since .NET (C# in particular) is an interpretted language, it would then be possible to run closed-source C# programs on Linux. This would give MS the Linux "in" that they apparently desire. Then all they'd need to do is rewrite Office (or any other apps) under .NET, and they'd have cross platform apps. I realize that this isn't trivial, but it seems a lot easier than supporting multiple code bases over a long period of time.

Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[morgan_greywolf]

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).

There is absolutely no reason why Microsoft can't write code that runs on Linux and still have it be proprietary.

Absolutely no reason at all.

The kernel is GPL, yes, but Linus' license modification clearly states that closed source code can run on the Linux kernel and shall not be considered a 'derivative work'.

Tons of proprietary code runs on Linux with absolutely no GPL issues: Oracle, Veritas Netbackup, WordPerfect, StarOffice (pieces are proprietary), etc.

As for toolkits, GTK+ is LGPL. Meaning Microsoft could target closed source GUI applications for GTK+ with no issues. QT is GPL unless you make arrangement$$$ with TrollTech.

As for desktops, some parts of GNOME are GPL, others are LGPL. Gotta be careful there, but if you just link against GTK+ and not GNOME libraries, Microsoft should be okay.

Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[nschubach]

Why would they bother?

Java already exists as a higher level interpreter to the main O.S.

Microsoft doesn't have full control over Java.

Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[truthsearch]

Those who actually bothered to read some details of the deal know it's all about virtualization. Microsoft realizes there's soon going to be a huge virtualization market. If they don't play into it they will simply lose control of big customers. So to control the virtualization market they can now tell customers they offer a more complete solution with the help of Novell. They can also use Novell to control the user experience. They need to make sure that customers that go multi-OS with relative ease still license Windows. If they alienate too many customers then those that try Linux may just switch completely.

So this is a play at the corporate market to retain control while use of virtualization grows.

Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[truthsearch]

Never gonna happen. Part of the deal is for Microsoft to make no patent violation claims over Mono as it stands now. Microsoft would rather people virtualize Windows since it means more control plus more licenses. And that's the point of the deal: to control virtualization.

Making .NET more cross-platform would be nice for customers, but it's not in Microsoft's interest.

Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[ebyrob]

Haven't you read their latest moves in virutal licensing?

Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[davidsyes]

Hmmm... Maybe it would make it unnecessary for me to have Win4Lin? What would this do to Win4Lin? Run them out of business?

1. Divide and Conquer?
2. Win4Lin dying out? / Xen/virtualization alternatives..

1. I think that msoft is trying to "divide and conquer" Linux by giving Novell cold hard cash and partnership, which equate to having an existence. Once ms defines what is and is not supported (seems they've been saying such things), then ANY companies "daring" to use Linux will start to (like sheep) feel that if msoft is supporting only Suse, then Suse will become the corporate Linux distro of choice, meaning Mandriva, Ubuntu, Debian, and maybe 5 other solid distros will be summarily cut off. Eventually, regardless of claims to not sue, companies will still be wary. But, since the Linux developer base is nimble and versatile, they'll likely keep improving code but directing much more of it toward Suse, meaning msoft will benefit. If the code is directed away from Suse in an effort to "crack" the code the way X-box/Hexed-Box is under siege, then ms can always lash out and in that way undermine non-Suse corporate use of msoft/Novell code. Yes, No, Maybe?

2.I could try to learn Xen (not trying to rhyme here...). I am using Lotus SmartSuite in Win98, running in Win4Lin running in Mandrake 10.1, and I have absolutely no advantage in buying the bloated XP or 2k. But, what sucks very much is that the last Win4Lin kernel I can use is mated to 2.6.8, and that means I cannot run it in Mandriva 2007 Free, which uses 2.6.17..... Not even in Mandriva 2006 Free.

What sucks is that although I am interested in finding out whether Xen would run a virtualized instance of my knonw-good disk containing Mandrake 10.1 inside of Mandriva 2007 Free or Mandriva 2007 Powerpack, I don't have the resources or skill to hack through any code or related problems.

Painfully, Win4Lin (maybe under duress from msoft?) dropped W98. It is NOT as if we users using 98 NEED tech support from Win4Lin. It is NOT as if Win4Lin maintaining the "bootability of W98" would seriously damage their reputation. There ARE still hundreds of thousands of (of course, poorly secured/unprotectable) W98 installations. Many probably run legacy software and don't neet to directly touch the Internet. But, for some reason, Win4Lin decided to support only XP and 2K. If Win4Lin would make a third version of their software that didn't force me to upgrade to xp or 2k, or didn't presume I'd want only TWO options: run a huge lan needing a virtual server, or run an XP/2K-only environment, then I would spring for it and pay up to $80.

So, I wonder if ms' potential product would explicityly check the OS signature and flat-out refuse to let W98 or W98 apps run even in Novell/Suse setups.

I think, though, that maybe ms figured out that the virtualization game is something they can win at ONLY if they gut the primary reason for VMWare and Win4Lin and Transgaming/Cedega, Bochs, and Wine to exist: multi-OS/no-dual-booting environments. If they write and sign the code that supports heterogeneous Linux/windows environments and decreases sales of VMWare/Win4Lin products, then it probably will have to happen by enabling windows (specific or certified) apps to run, as mentioned in this thread, IN Linux without TOUCHING Linux.

But, I can't help but think that one company, Win4Lin will be a victim of this out of prior coercion by ms, or by W4L's own attitude toward users who NEED W98 to work in even the latest Kernel. I kinda will feel sorry for them if they bite the dust, but at the same time I am so pissed at how they ditched 98. They COULD have installed a component that would virtualize and sand-box W98 WITHIN their latest product offering. Instead, they chose the route they felt would coerce users into ponying up money for a product it now seems many people (well, by judging from complaints about the sitation and inadequate, convincing response to the ire of those posting) will be ambivalent about the future of at least W4L. But, again,

Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[k12linux]

Except then they couldn't charge a per-PC fee as well as fees for each app. I think MS will only be satisfied if you have to pay them for a "Windows service layer" (WSL) that you run on top of Linux which then runs their apps. Then you could get the Windows XP Home WSL for $178 and the XP Pro WSL for $299.

Then they can turn around and tell the courts that they make their software available for Linux but that consumers don't want it and aren't buying it.

Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux?

[Creepy]

Microsoft and others have stated that a parts of Paragraph 3 and 4 of the LGPL are ambiguous and depending on interpretation, could force them to be construed a derivative work. After reading that section, I decided that I can't link LGPL into my mac apps as well.
My best guess as to the meaning of sections of those paragraphs:
The LGPL essentially forbids you from statically linking a library into your work
The LGPL allows dynamically linking (though this may be interpretable, as there are wording conflicts with the previous paragraph)

Mac applications, however, make an ambiguity between the 'application' and the library if the library is built as an embeddable framework. Essentially an embeddable framework is a dynamic library that gets bundled into a specially formed directory tree that is seen by the GUI as an application. It is built and functions exactly the same as a dynamic library, aside from that it isn't placed in a globally accessible place like /usr/lib and that it has a special install path (@executable_path/../Frameworks). Since the finished application bundle is seen as an application and not a directory tree, this could be interpreted as part of the application as per the LGPL and therefore is a violation of the LGPL.
    A project I'm working on decided not to use any LGPL code in our project and instead only provide hooks to such code (for instance, someone added OpenAL hooks) because we don't want to be superseded by the LGPL. Actually, I don't believe we can even switch licenses if we wanted to at this time unless we freeze and fork the current Zlib licensed version due to several co-authors using commercial pieces (that forbid becoming derivative code).

I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I call bullshit

[Gleng]

That was my first thought. There are many proprietory, closed source apps that run on Linux, with no legal or technical problems at all.

I am beginning to suspect that this Dvorak chap can't tell his arse from his elbow.

Re:I call bullshit

[Rob T Firefly]

Not only could Dvorak completely fail to distinguish his arse from his elbow, he could then get paid by a magazine to write a rant about why elbows are evil things that should never be allowed near arses in the first place and clearly anyone not thinking with their elbows agrees. He could then get it posted to Slashdot, rake in another round of ad hits for his bosses, and increase his own notoriety.

It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an article where the tag is appropriate. Amazingly, even Dvorak thinks it's a trap.

why are we publicizing this FUD?

[dAzED1]

yeah, because Oracle cracked Linux. So did Veritas (which I was personally running products from on Linux servers as much as 5 years ago).

Bullsh*t. By putting this on the front page of /. 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?

Re:why are we publicizing this FUD?

[digidave]

Are you trying to tell me that not every program that runs on Linux somehow gets stripped of its copyright and becomes public domain? That clearly flies in the face of all the sound logic I've been hearing for years from closed-source Linux competitors.

Re:why are we publicizing this FUD?

[_Sprocket_]

By putting this on the front page of /. taco, you're merely assisting MS's propaganda machine further demonize the GPL and Linux in general.

I'm glad this stuff gets posted from time to time. I don't read Dvorak's writings. But plenty of other people do. Its not a bad thing to have some idea of what memes this guy (and others of his ilk) are putting out there. Otherwise the first I hear of this silliness is during some IT strategy meeting or whatnot. Having read the article, I'll know what Dvorak claims and know exactly what his flaws in reasoning are - and be prepared to point them out.

Doesn't proprietary code already run it?

[petabyte]

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)?

Dvorak once again shows his cluelessness

[GauteL]

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.

Re:Dvorak once again shows his cluelessness

[drsmithy]

[setting the wayback machine to the 1990s] ...lessee, Microsoft here. What are we going to do next? I see, let's do a web browser. Let's put it into the kernel! Yeah, that'll impress the Department of Justice!

No version of Windows has ever had any version of IE in its kernel.

And hey, let's move some multimedia stuff into the kernel.

I don't know what you're referring to by "multimedia stuff", but I'd be fairly willing to bet you're wrong about that as well.

And of course the whole graphical subsystem should be in the kernel....

Most (especially on x86) OSes trying to get high performance video run the drivers in kernel space, so this was hardly unusual, unexpected or unreasonable.

run proprietary code on it?

[zotz]

"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

Re:run proprietary code on it?

[lightyear4]

Perhaps more is meant by "run on it"???

Ah that was a mere prepositional mix-up by marketing. I do believe that 'run over it' was the intended meaning.

Sounds familiar....

[Himring]

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

Re:Sounds familiar....

[nuzak]

> Nice reference to World War 1.
> Too bad that most Americans wont get it.

You certainly don't, considering that you didn't even reference the right war.

Or was I just treated to a demonstration of Dvorak's journalism technique?

Read COPYING

[ettlz]

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. This would include 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, as is required by the GPL.

i.e., what nVidia and ATi have been doing for years now?

Nevertheless: Not In My Kernel.

Proprietary code runs on Linux

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

Re:why ... Good question! Can anyone explain...

[irenaeous]

what the heck Dvorak is saying? Don't we already have an open source "shim" in the form of the LGPL?

Dvorak's column does not seem to be coherent to me.

Open source "at best"

[Mateo_LeFou]

Public domain at worst, according to Dvorak. The man's grasp of licensing is astounding, isn't it?

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 .. is the GPL that much tougher to comprehend than, for example, the Windows EULA?

It's the license, stupid!

[__aaclcg7560]

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.

Huh?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

... 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?

It's the Dvorak Clown!

[DittoBox]

John C. Dvorak has weighed in on the recent Novell-Microsoft pact. Among his insights [...]

That's not a group of words we see very often when coupled with that man's name.

Re:There is an old saying

[petrus4]

Monopoly abuse to be sure, but it has worked for them in the past....

The only way they can do that in this case would be to destroy access to the toolchain...because without the toolchain, nobody can create new distributions.

This is where, as much as it pains me to admit it, with the GNU/Linux stuff, in a way RMS is right. The GNU project is very much the centre of gravity where Linux is concerned, because it is how Linux propogates itself.

Microsoft *could* sink Linux if it took out the FSF...but the good news there is that the FSF is very well protected by public opinion. If there is one thing Stallman genuinely *is* extremely good at, it's at least developing the appearance of holding the moral high ground. ESR was right when he wrote that Stallman has a thirst for martyrdom...Stallman recognises the power that martyrdom contains. He uses Gandhi's scorpionic tactics extremely well.

No, you can't mod him

[Colin Smith]

But you can tag him "fuckwit".

Who is this guy?

[SQLz]

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.

Linux will be cracked

[budgenator]

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.

So what?

[houghi]

The fact that SUSE (and other distributions) have ran non-GPL stuff before seems to elude him.

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_opensour ce.html

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

Re:Not the LGPL

[Funkcikle]

Dvorak is being an itiot or a shill.

You are being rather narrowminded - he could easily be both.

Re:Meta-flamebait - Yes

[SpaceLifeForm]

meaning Microsoft figures out a way to run proprietary code on it

There is nothing to figure out. You can run proprietary software on Linux today. Look at Oracle.

Re:The Dvorak

[chphilli]

You must be new here... all the people who are visiting his stories...

Hmm... something tells me that it's you who are new here ;)

Stop posting Dvorak stuff

[Sangbin]

Clearly, he is an idiot. Why are we still listening to them?
Stop submitting his articles. Stop accepting his articles.

Should I bother to RTFA?

[kimvette]

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.