Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds on Linux and Microsoft
Sniper223 writes with a link to an interview on the Network World site with Linus Torvalds. Linus goes through the usual spiel about stuff like why he released the Linux OS in the first place, and how the future is open source. He also has some interesting commentary on the Microsoft/Novell deal: "I actually thought that whole discussion was interesting, not because of any Novell versus MS issues at all, but because all the people talking about them so clearly showed their own biases. The actual partnership itself seemed pretty much a nonissue to me, and not nearly as interesting as the reaction it got from people, and how it was reported ... I don't actually personally think the Novell-MS agreement kind of thing matters all that much in the end, but it's interesting to see the signs that the sides are at least talking to each other. I don't know what the end result will be, but I think it would be healthier for everybody if there wasn't the kind of rabid hatred on both sides. Some people get a bit too excited about MS, I think. I don't think they are that interesting." An interesting contrast to our earlier conversation.
That is what a discussion is. A bunch of people giving their opinions, or "biases" as Linus calls them.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
Some people get a bit too excited about MS, I think. I don't think they are that interesting.
"When Microsoft writes an application for Linux, I've Won." - Linus Torvalds
So Linus doesn't care about a company spreading FUD about systems based on his kernel so they can essentially elicit protection money? If so, then I am disappointed in him.
Richard, is that you?
"I think it would be healthier for everybody if there wasn't the kind of rabid hatred on both sides. Some people get a bit too excited about MS, I think."
And here we have a perfect example of why Microsoft has spent the last couple of decades utterly dominating their two main markets:
1) Competitors who want to prove to the world that 'reasonable guys' and forever falling all over each other with the same tired old "maybe Microsoft isn't ALWAYS evil" BS
2) Microsoft execs with a laser tight focus to destroy all that lie in their path and merciless action against any who threaten their marketshare and cashcows
Apple(in the desktop OS market), Linux, the myriad failed office software vendors, Microsoft doesn't hate you, they DESPISE your weakness. Reminds me of that Mars Attacks! movie where the humans are open source developers and Microsoft are the Martians, except grandma's record collection isn't there to save you.
It is crap like Linus just spewed that lets things like the Mono fiasco happen to the open source world.
No offense, but that's why he's Linus and you're a fanboy...
News at 11.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The one thing he's known for, the Linux kernel, isn't something I particularly like (BSD--more liberal license, Windows--better desktop, Linux? I only use it because of work); but I tend to agree with him on a lot of things. That he would downplay the controversy, and point out that it only illustrates bias doesn't surprise me. He seems to have a gift for cooling things down, for steering clear of immature games and sticking to a clear analysis of the situation.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
To be fair though, Linux (the kernel) is what started it all: without the kernel, the GNU tools would hardly be as advanced as they are today, because the Linux attracted so many people. Without the GNU tools, well there would be other programs to replace them. There are a LOT more people who can write a userland tool than a kernel. That's why Linus gets a lot of credit, because there are few other people who could have done what he did.
"What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Agreed. For the developer, the kernel is the operating system. For the user they have all sorts of apps and things but when developing a "userland tool" when you're trying to interface with the OS you're trying to interface with the kernel. It's the basis of the whole OS and every single userland dev has to be familiar with the kernel, not each others tools.
you like Linus, he is right that the hate for hate's sake between some (and I stress some) Linux and MS users helps nothing. Beyond that, as he is the creator of the kernel, I see him as a parent watching his kid grow up to be something he didn't envision or desire for it. He needs to learn to let go, Linux now belongs to the community.
[Linus has a gift for] steering clear of immature games and sticking to a clear analysis of the situation.
Linus's analyses are usually clear, indeed, but almost always short-sighted. He doesn't seem to notice anything beyond the end of his nose, and so doesn't recognize the potential for bad things to happen as a result of people being bad.
It was so with BitKeeper. It was so with TiVO. It is so with Microsoft.
Linus treats everyone as if they were fair, generous, and cooperative. Unfortunately the real world is not like that. It's full of deceitful, self-serving, and non-cooperative people and companies who talk nice but do evil.
If all of FOSS and not just the Linux kernel were in Linus's hands, we'd be in trouble. Fortunately almost nobody else in the community is that naive.
Linus's genius is in design and coding (and in herding cats). It most definitely is not in foresight.
Let's see them for what they are: Organised crime. One day justice will be done, Muslims will be obliterated and the world will be a better place for it.
Let's see them for what they are: Organized crime. One day justice will be done, America will be obliterated and the world will be a better place for it.
Let's see them for what they are: Organized crime. One day justice will be done, Jews will be obliterated and the world will be a better place for it.
Let's see them for what they are: Organized crime. One day justice will be done, Gays will be obliterated and the world will be a better place for it.
Let's see them for what they are: Organized crime. One day justice will be done, Blacks will be obliterated and the world will be a better place for it.
Extremism serves no one. And yes I do realize the discussion of Linux and Microsoft is not comparable to the examples above, but you sound no less ridiculous.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
He probably hit on the topics that needed to be public most, for him, and the project. He is very blunt. He probably wants to concentrate on Linux and he's probably tired of people coming to him with fud. I don't think he is scared to say what he feels, he just wants to use his time on what he loves, family and programming.
Let's see them for what they are: Organised crime. One day justice will be done, Microsoft will be obliterated and the world will be a better place for it. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your post is deliberately ironic.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
I've never met anyone that was excited about windows.
Talk to some directX nuts sometimes. They get pretty excited about it.
I saw people get excited about Vista.
I think they'd got bored and forgotten about it by the time it was actually released though.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
What, falsifying video evidence for court isn't illegal? Surely you jest.
Sam ty sig.
Well, it should be a given for us to accept that Microsoft marketing types are gonna fein excitement about 'the product.'
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
Know the battles that need to be fought and disregard the rest. It's a good way to lose precious energy and resources if you fight against everything without knowing what you are really fighting for.
Arguably, as neat as Linux might have been at the time, it would *never* have picked up speed without a solid set of userland tools on top, so there would never have been a set of tools specifically written for it. Sure, people could've used a BSD toolchain rather than the GNU set, but ultimately the Linux kernel was always dependent on somebody else's userland to carve its space in IT.
With whom?
What?
You mean Linus isnt a rabid MS-hating fanboy? I feel so disillusioned.
In all seriousness though it is nice to hear someone who actually matters in the open source community coming out against fud that comes from his own 'side'. (as if open source was about taking sides) The zealots who spread fud on the pro-linux side get way too much publicity and really make everyone associated with them look foolish.
They broke monopoly laws. By your own definition, that makes them criminals. Calling them organized crime is entirely accurate. I personally think every exec of MS should have been barred from ever working for a public corporation the minute MS was found guilty. We treat white collar crimes far too lightly- if a person steals $100, they go to jail for years. Someone makes decisions that costs the country millions if not billions, and they get a slap on the wrist and a fine for their company. Its fucking ridiculous- every corporate crime should require jail time for the CEO.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
1. And it came to pass that the Prophet, Holiness and Peace be upon him, did rise up in the morning and despaired.
2. Behold, a vision I have had, he spoke.
3. God has shown me a terrible vision of heretics and wolves amongst the fold, those who deny his Holy Word the Third GPL.
4. And the Prophet went out unto the People of GNU and raise up his hand from the holiness of his loins, for he had been chatting, and said, I declare a holy fudwah upon the heretic Linus. From this point hence, he shall suffer the wrath of the /. masses.
5. And it came to pass that they rose up, worshiping his glory, and put on their AC guises and did post great numbers of words.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
I think it's ironic that so many people defend microsoft's illegal practices and policies. It's funny how people can see things in shades of grey when associated with a big entity (government or corporation) but everything is black and white when it comes to individuals. Just because MS products are more popular and it may seem easier to use/support MS in some cases doesn't make it more justified. They are a giant corporation who can afford to "lose" some money to competition which is why it's more outrageous when they break the law. Why is their management punished so much less than someone who robs a bank or sells drugs out of desperation? That person who robbed the bank/sold drugs is always considered a criminal eventhough they almost always had way fewer options than a big entity does, eventhough in the long run the robbery/drugs affects way fewer people and the criminal has way fewer options. Why does the big entity get defended more? Is it because the big entity is less criminal or because more people think it's in their own best interest to defend them?
I *really* need to stop posting these so zealously and preview/format appropratiely, haha. Let's just pretend the paragraph breaks are there ;)
Microsoft is credited with breaking anti-trust law and this is not just one case...
The Rieser (sp?) file system creator is credited with what, besides the file system? Killing his wife?
I think it shows Linus's bias to dismiss the illegal activities of Microsoft and to hide it by saying it is the rest of us showing bias.
Linus is not the only one outside of Microsoft doing kernel work, there are plenty others. BSD flavors, BeOS, ReactOS, AROS, Dragonfly (kernel changed enough to not really be tagged with BSD flavoring), Minix, MacOSX, etc...
For those who want to credit Linus with the kernel being used by a lot of Free Software, the fact is that had Linus not done so then somebody else would have, perhaps even the Hurd would have had better development and focus. And not to forget that the same Free Software is being run on other systems with kernels created by others.
If there is anything to realize here it is that people moved away from Microsoft for any number of reasons, I have my own user frustration related reasons and have additional frustration with the industry as a whole. When something better comes along I will move to it, as will others too. It might just be DragonFly.
Oh no, here we go again..
"Linux just made the kernel; it's irritating when he gets credit for Linux"
"Yeah, but at least he made the Kernel -- Gates just made the Basic compiler"
"That's news to me - have you ever heard of this guy called Paul Allen?"
"Doesn't matter - personally I think the Linux kernel isn't all that - I use BSD"
"Screw Linus -- he was wrong about Bitkeeper and Tivo so he's wrong about MS & Novell"
"Yeah, well at least he's not a convicted monopolist"
"Yeah, until M$ stops treating me like a criminal I refuse to buy their software"
Also insert random quotes and mis-quotes such as:
"When Microsoft writes an application for Linux, I've Won." - Linus Torvalds
"640kb ought to be enough for everybody" - Bill Gates
That about cover it? Can we have a non-childish discussion now? If there's any other slime to be thrown, just reply to this post -- let's keep the forum clean for an actual discussion.
"Microsoft simply isn't interesting to me."
"I don't actually personally think the Novell-MS agreement kind of thing matters all that much in the end"
"Some people get a bit too excited about MS, I think. I don't think they are that interesting."
Why anyone thinks this means he's pro-MS beats the hell out of me.
Hans Reiser has been convicted of nothing and that is a personal case that has nothing to do with the software world. That case is as wierd as a case can get so where do you get off assuming that he is guilty? How can you compare that to the plethora of convictions that M$ have received for unethical business practices around the world? Are you dissapointed when an apple doesn't taste like an orange?
"A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
That could be true, except that most GNU tools were written before the Linux kernel was even usable.
If it weren't for the GNU project, Linus ("the guy") wouldn't have released the kernel under the GPL (as he says, it could have ended being just another one of his pets projects).
BTW, Linus gets all the credit for the kernel too, but there's actually an army of people working on it. Linus is no longer the irreplaceable hacker you seem to believe (if it ever was).
You don't win by sleeping with the enemy.
I disagree with Linus. I think the whole partnership is an extremely negative thing and falls into the same trap that Microsoft pursued through partnerships of the 80s and 90s. The end result was/is always bad for everyone but Microsoft.
In fact, I believe we should be significantly more hostile toward Microsoft because Microsoft is a convicted predatory monopolist that has claimed earlier this year that every user has to pay some dues to Microsoft and they also threatened to kill Open Source, with one of their representatives stating that 2007 was the year of the death of Open Source.
I think Linus is falling into a trap, by virtue of his relationship to many high end corporates, particularly those paying his bills. This is a tremendous influence on him and it is beginning to clearly show.
Microsoft is not the "necessary evil" of the computing industry. I fervently believe that the industry has been stifled in the long run because of what Microsoft has done in being predatory and killing off competition while being a monopoly. It used its power in a criminal way and has created a path down which we may never be able to recover. The hopes are that we can branch and have a 50-50 choice in software or even a 30-30-30. But being 90-10 is not the way to go for any industry. Only through competition with lots of car companies have we been able to produce some exceptional cars that are praised world-wide. Having only one software company essentially stifles all that.
The good thing is that in the short and long term IP will eventually begin to stifle Microsoft because clearly their employees can only produce so much IP each year. The rest of the industry is producing against them in a significantly greater amount, though, maybe not through IP filings but at least through prior art and obviousness. This means that either Microsoft will hit a wall on IP because there are millions of programmers world wide while there are only so many people at Microsoft capable of producing IP worthy of being patented. They also only have so many employees and only so many of those have the jobs doing the development and only so many of those have the skills to create new IP that can be patented. The rest of the world has vastly more people all capable of competing on the IP front.
The other thing that will kill some of their hopes is Vista. Recent, and past, denunciations of that OS have come down hard branding it world-wide as a product that is hostile toward the customer--an adversary of the customer. It can't long endure. The next piece is that DRM in some media is going out the door which was an important locking technology to lock you into Windows. The next bit are that Linux and OSX are growing considerably. This means that people are understanding that there is a choice.
The key to winning this is to educate the people about the fact that there are some solid and wonderful alternatives to Windows. The other thing is to educate them about the DRM, spying, manipulation, and generally bad faith in which Windows has been built to hide the fact that so much spying is going on on the user. Listen, your computer is an extension of your home. You would no more allow Walmart to put a hidden camera in your home to monitor to ensure you are not using stolen merchandise--and hence you should not be allowing Microsoft to install 47+ program on your computer to monitor your usage to determine if you are using stolen merchandise.
When people are educated and understand we all will have a much safer and more protected world free of the nasty privacy stealing immoral and unethical software being installed.
Be loath to accept SP3 for XP as I am sure it also has a slew of technologies to force you to give up XP and move to Vista or live with the same spying nastiness that Microsoft has incorporated into Vista. Be forewarned.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I am no fan of Stallman and I have some gripes with him about demanding only and all free software. But he clearly had created GNU before Linux (the kernel) was introduced and they were working in that direction. Clearly Linux (the kernel) was better than what they were working on and it was adopted by the industry, but let's not forget to give credit where credit is due. Stallman and his followers were the ones that created this whole thing and it would be unfair to put the credit in someone else's lap.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
It's basicly "I'm over here doing Linux, and I'll keep improving Linux regardless of whatever Microsoft does or doesn't do." That's not just in relation to MS, but seems to be the general case with tivoized kernels, DRM, patents and everything else that's not about improving the code. It's like an athlete saying he's competing against the clock and himself, constantly improving regardless of whether he's far behind or far ahead of the competition.
Usually, that's a very healthy attitude. And if everyone was running their own race, it would be. But Microsoft has proven time and time again that if they can't provide a superior product, they throw all kinds of dirt on the competition. He might not care if Linux is competition to Microsoft or not, but Microsoft certainly does. That's not to say he should start fighting FUD with FUD, but it'd be nice if he showed that he at least understands the game being played.
Microsoft can not kill Linux the kernel, because of the GPL. But there are many ways to kill Linux the market, and Microsoft is an expert at it. Again, I think Linus doesn't care all too much about that, or assume that if only Linux gets good enough the other "distractions" won't matter. Well, I care that Linux can be a mainstream OS that can handle mainstream media, interact with Windows networks and protocols, use common document formats and in general function like a first class citizen. If it's a stunning good kernel too, that's good but it's no good being exceptional at everything but the things I want to do.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The irony is it's your freedom at stake here with the GPLv3. RMS doesn't care much about credit. You're biting the hand that feeds you because it has a beard & is slightly overweight. It would be a joke of cosmic proportions if it weren't so tragic.
But it is in shades of gray dude..
Firstly antitrust law is actually very murky territory. Prior to the antitrust cases, expecting the execs and sales people to be aware 100% of the time that some (potentially dirty tactic) is an antitrust violation isn't realistic IMHO. For example, if Apple has a monopoly of the MP3 player market and they refuse to license FairPlay, thereby leveraging their monopoly to expand into the online music sales market, is that illegal or not? Maybe it's illegal when iPods have 80% of the market but legal if they only have 65%?
Next, many countries don't even have antitrust laws. And even in the US, a company actually getting hauled up for anti-competitive behavior tells you more about the lobbying dollars spent by its competitors to get congress to ask the Justice Department to look into it, than anything else.
I don't mean any of this to condone M$ actions - penalizing a vendor for offering alternatives to windows is not nice. (though with over 30% of windows copies being pirated - IMHO they do have a limb to stand on when they say "don't sell a PC without an OS on it". Not a strong limb, but a limb nonetheless).
I don't even mean this to be a defense for any of their subtle protocol-changing dirty tricks etc. But the fact remains that all companies do nasty things like this all the time. That's why it's all shades of grey.
Why does the big entity get defended more? It doesn't! Quite the reverse from what I see on this thread..If you're going to go by LOC, then the operating system should be called "Sun/Linux" because Sun contributed a lot more code than GNU. OpenOffice dwarfs the GNU toolchain in terms of LOC.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Hurd is the kernel, GNU is the userspace.
"I live in a good-sized house, with a nice yard, with deer occasionally showing up and eating the roses (my wife likes the roses more, I like the deer more, so we don't really mind). I've got three kids, and I know I can pay for their education. What more do I need?"
...What more do I need?
In a culture dominated by the words "I need more", this question looks erroneously out of place. Greed is so commonplace that to see such an authentic lack of it is refreshing.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Well, what would jailtime for the CEO get us? Given the dog-eat-dog world of corporations, a lot of Vice-CEOs that drive their company deliberately into shady and outright illegal deals to get the CEO out of the way.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And why should he care? He's the originator and technical lead of a project, albeit one with his name firmly attached to it. He shouldn't care about anything Microsoft says or does, except maybe if/when they present evidence of 'his' kernel infringing on Microsoft's patents or copyright.
Linux vendors, on the other hand... they might have reason to care about the FUD.
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
you are so right. Hans's guilt or innocence has NOTHING to do with reiserfs.
I seriously can't see any difference between Microsoft and the OSS community. This and most of the comments this topic has thrown up suggest that's a fair enough view. Certainly, it's a good enough view and I can't be bothered much with it beyond that point. It's pretty sad when fundamentals like this have to be discussed. This sort of stuff should be sorted out by the time most people reach adulthood.
Microsoft has done some good and so has Linux et al but neither is unalloyed perfection. This should give people something to think about, and instead of picking sides and revving the engine taking time out to soberly reflect could be a smarter course of action. There's plenty of books on stuff like this and examples abound. As I said before, so what? People don't listen or give a damn. Best let them learn on their own.
Nothing lasts forever that is not of the Tao. Nothing. Certianly, not arrogance and vanity, and there's a lot of that flying around with Microsoft and OSS. Windows and Linux are, merely, shadows on the wall. Ghostlike images, flickers of nothing compared to the eternal. Is it pathetic that such things are so concrete in our minds and demand so much loyalty? One day they will be as the idols of old - long forgotten dust. Same shit, different day.
Let us go further than that. OS X is built with GCC. And (with GCC installed) it has quite nearly as many pieces of GNU software as your average linux distro does. Do I need to start calling my operating system GNU/OS X. No. It's fucking stupid. It's fucking stupid with Linux too.
And I know I'm probably either not going to be modded at all or modded -1 troll, but the fact is linus is pretty much right, and you rabid gnu fanboys are wrong. He may be wrong about some predictions, which is obviously a terrible, terrible crime, but his stance on the Microsoft vs. Linux "war" is pretty much correct. And for all those who say he isn't qualified to talk about the subject, piss off. You (or I) are almost definitely no better qualified to speak about it than he is.
Face it people, Microsoft is a company. A company that produces pretty shitty software, but has risen to glory by marketing. And like most companies they have bad ethics. And if truth be told you hate Microsoft because they don't follow your software idealism (and the belief that all software should be Free is idealism if there ever was any, but we won't talk about that today), and you hate them because they make a successful product that is sub par. And neither one is a valid reason to hate a company, to wage "war" on them, or any other such nonsense.
I doubt MS invented shady business deals. I think they existed since the time when Grog made Brok give him a gazelle for a piece of rock since he was the only one who knew how to make that rock sharp.
That doesn't make it right, of course. But here's the problem: What should be done about it? What can be done? When a corporation gained a certain size and weight, they cannot be touched by the law anymore. Horrible, ain't it? What do you want to do about MS?
What could be done? Well, you could tell them they're no longer allowed to do business in your country. Nobody may use MS products anymore (because, in turn, that's what MS will demand). What does that mean for your economy? Your game stores can close their doors. Companies would have to switch to another OS and Office product. And while Linux is IMO quite capable of making that transition easy, at the very least you have to retrain and/or rehire your IT staff. Compatibility of the companies in your country with foreign companies suffer. And so on.
What country can afford that?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Knock it off!
Its about people and what people do. The Rieser file system is on hold as the legal system is crediting Hans with a crime, guilty or not, which will be decided in a court room (perhaps regardless of what ever really happened).
The point is, it is not unjust bias when one considers facts of criminal activities, it is caution.
In the case of Hans, it is fact that he has been charged with a crime and as such the software is on hold.
Linus dismissing the wrongs of Microsoft is even more wrong then those who doubt Hans, as MS has been found guilty and Hans has yet to be judged.
Need another example of the reaction of people to criminal activity stated..... Michael Jacksons trial or Bushes war on Iraq and the Dixie Chicks comment and reaction by the music industry.....
Careful of the media mouth of the beast of man....its rather convincing, right or wrong...
Now do you really want to distort the point and in the process say something about your bias?
Linus shows indifference towards the MS/Novell deal and he also disagress with the GPLv3, and he is free to do so, but he should see his own bias rather than claim he has none while placing judgement on the nature of others bias.
excellent argument. I was getting ready to say the same thing... Mirroring what anonymous said before, the seven digits (UID) say it all.
I'm not fat, just big boned...
Let's just call it "Linux" as Linus does and we can start calling the toolchain the "GNU/Linux toolchain"? This seems the most appropriate thing to me.
The Farewell Tour II
It's not like they've done anything that hasn't been done before Yeah, since rape, murder, extortion, etc haven't ever been done before I can see why you make the exception.
Regarding the Novell-MS stuff though... if MS wants to somehow support an open source operating system, for whatever reason; well, is that a problem? As long as Novell is careful and whatnot. Nobody seemed upset about Dell offering Linux boxes, even though Dell hasn't appeared to care all that much until it was somewhat financially profitable for them to care.
So, I agree with Linus that these sorts of situations DO show biases.
The TiVo is sitting on the dresser. It's the old one, the hobbyist has a newer one too. So he decides to try and get Linux to talk to the TiVo hardware by shoehorning. Lo and behold, he can get most of the hardware - the network ports, the hard drive (of course), and the video input hardware too after a bit of fiddling. The system it turns out is fairly easy to control.
... yet.
If it's possible, the hobbyist will try to do it, and why shouldn't he? After you get a shoe box at the shoe store, you can take it home and mark it up inside, cut holes in it, use it how you like. I see no moral or ethical difference between the shoe box and the TiVo. And I wonder if the TiVo company is worried about it, really. Every device can be used for evil, potentially, but I don't see bands of pirate TiVos marauding across the Internet
By our right of free expression and free exchange, given that no harm is done, once Linux kernels for TiVo exist, people must be free to share them with their friends. Let the chips fall where they may... call it an experiment.
If the hardware vendor is concerned he can attempt to prevent access by technical means - for example using an exotic processor architecture with elaborate fail-safe devices. Smart hobbyists will overcome the countermeasures inevitably. The manufacturer ought to accept such events gracefully.
I just don't see how courts would ever prosecute people for spawning shells on their household appliances. It sounds too much like the movie Brazil. (Damn, but that movie is prescient...)
.
-- thinkyhead software and media
It's not like anyone asked him a question or something.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
UID digits don't mean too much, unless they're really low. I've been around this site for a long long time, just never signed up. Now off that topic.
How I feel about this could be perhaps put like saying that World War II was won just by the Americans, and that the British had nothing to do with it. The British had done most of the work, only for the Americans to then enter at the end when most of the battle had been fought... Thankfully we don't just credit the Americans with winning the war... Same with GNU/Linux, at least that's how I feel about it.
Free software, free thought, free society.
Accountability, and someone at the top who acts to stop corporate abuses, because its their ass if they don't.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Last time I checked, violating anti-trust laws is a criminal act. Last time I checked lying under oath is a criminal act. What's your definition of a "crime"?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
GNU was a project to make a free operating system. "Linux" is a free operating system based in part on most of the GNU components. Therefore, "Linux" is a fork of GNU. To contrast, World of Warcraft is not, because it used GNU components for a fundamentally different purpose: an MMORPG. I think it's somewhat silly to get worked up over the semantics of GNU/Linux, but the overarching principle behind it is right. Linus just finished what GNU was working on.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
I think Linus is just happy doing what he's doing. He didn't seek fame (or infamy). But if his focus *really* was servers with absolutely no biases we'd have a stable api allowing proprietary vendors to develop closed drivers for Linux servers and then more or less forget about them.
I don't know what your relationship with Linux is but I work professionally as a server admin for a mid-sized company. Proprietary driver updates with each kernel release is a major pain in the ass and often requires you use older kernels while you wait for your vendor (EMC/Oracle/etc) to release an updated module.
I'm not making a political statement here one way or the other. But as the benevolent dictator this is something he could make happen if the server market was his only concern.
Quack, quack.
In martial arts one must keep ones mind clear and focused, free of hatred and emotion. Open source ideology is about embracing freedom, not hating Microsoft. Sure Microsoft are currently a barrier to freedom and by no means should we embrace them like long lost children just because they say something or act a little enlightened. But by the same token we should not shoot friends in the head just because the deviate from our ideology.
By letting an irrational hatred of Microsoft sour the relationship between Novell and the community we face a danger that the newly confirmed copyright ownership Novell has in Unix will be used by them the same way SCO did. Instead of finding a way to educate Novell we have taken a extreme and non productive approach which will tend to alienate not only Novell but any other companies considering working with the open source community.
The fact is that there are many companies out there which may make deals with Microsoft for their own reasons. We cannot expect companies to make a black and white decision about what "side" they are on. IBM for example is acting in its own self interest amd while that self interest is in the interests of the community all is well. But lets not deceive ourselves that they would fight for open source to the bitter end. They would settle. They would make a deal if it meant survival.
Novell may have been in a similar situation, and while I don't like these deals being done its a reality for companies in a way that it isn't for individuals. Microsoft won't sue you for personal use of a patent without a license, but they will sue Red Hat into the ground given the chance. Red Hat may yet need to make a deal if Linux does end up infringing, even if the Linux community can remove the infringement in quick order.
In truth Microsoft is USING our hatred against us. Already the Novell deal may have driven a wedge in the open source community between GPL 2 and GPL 3. Once again we see reactionary actions being driven by Microsoft to their advantage. Linus sees that hating Microsoft is no way forward. We need to examine, evalaute and develop strategies which allow us to define the ball game. Microsoft won when they turned the conversation to Total Cost of Ownership. They won when they got CEO's concerned about legal issues around Linux.
To win we must be more clever, less reactionary, and keep a clear head with a focus on what important; bringing open source to the world.
You use GNU tools? Yeah, I hate badge-ware too. :rollseyesoutofhead:
You can fine them vast amount of money, through their executives in jail, force them to provide source to competitors, and generally make their life hell until they co-operate. They can, if they want, pull out of your market, but they won't unless it's a rather small one like Romania. They'll behave themselves if they are made to. They will of course, try to push the boundaries, but as long as there is a powerful legal system that will severely punish them for every single attempt to get past the law, they will have no choice but to behave.
This should apply to all corporations, and not just to Microsoft, and it should be swift justice. The crapola nonsense of the SCO trials is a good example of how the legal system has failed. The very moment in SCO vs. IBM where SCO attempted to alter their claims, the lawyers should have been disbarred and sent to jail, and SCO should have been shown the door and forbidden to ever petition the courts again.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Amen! to your first two paragraphs, but not to the last one. Last weekend I went out to buy a notebook computer and the only way I could buy one without buying a Microsoft license was to get a Macintrash. So, I did. I live in the San Jose, CA area, it's not like I'm in a first world country like Japan or something.
... it plays WoW in a way I never dreamed was possible and it runs circles around Microsoft Windows XP in terms of usability and speed and stability. Now if it only installed XEmacs by default ...).
I want to run Unix and when I ask for a command line I want zsh, be it Apple OS X, or Linux. Answer me this, Microsoft fan boys, why do I have to buy a computer with an O/S I will never use? (The Mac Powerbook Pro is a nice machine, I have to say
How is asking MS to be a good citizen 'extreme'? Why SHOULD the community accept someone that is so active anti-social?
That would be 'extremely' stupid. Anyone here could give a million examples of what MS has done in the past, but most would work with them right now if they committed to acting properly. Being silly with OpenGL on Vista (initially), the whole OOXML thing, the SBA and the way they treat their own customers -- it still goes on and on...
I think I have an open mind and forgiving heart, but I'm not an idiot. I don't trust them yet just because some PR agent or even Linus says I should. How is that extreme?
He made the kernel, at the very least you generally need the GNU tool chain to have something usable, plus a couple of other little things.
/dev, a few configuration files in /etc, and a Linux kernel." Notably, you need nothing from the GNU project, just the two binaries (Linux and busybox).
The term "GNU toolchain" usually refers to their compiler stack (gcc, as, make, autoconf, etc.) rather than their regular userland tools, aka coreutils (ls, cp, du, stty, su, etc.), or other stuff that are more than just "little things", like init and sh. I usually wouldn't nitpick, but you seem way too sure of what you're talking about.
And yes, I believe the original discussion centered on Linus's credentials as kernel author and made no claim that he wrote coreutils or anything else. Writing a functional coreutils isn't that amazing of an achievement, actually - take a look at BusyBox, a single binary that does all the useful coreutils plus (working imitations of) init, sh, insmod, ifconfig, dpkg, wget, etc., so that, "To create a working system, just add some device nodes in
Let's see them for what they are: Organized crime. One day justice will be done, Extremists will be obliterated and the world will be a better place for it.
:head asplodes:
If you or I do that, it is perjury, and we do jail time. If Allchin does it, it is called a "controversy". Allchin wasn't even FIRED, in fact, I think he got a raise.
I think you missed the point.
I would never use OS X, so why should I buy one of their computers with an operating system I'll never use? Or is it just wrong when Microsoft does it?
My freedom to use Linux the way I want is indeed at stake. At the moment I can do what I want as long as I distribute the code (if I choose to distribute it at all). If the GPLv3 takes there'll be some ifs and buts added to that, which I don't want and which won't stop software being improved and passed on.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Stop being logical. It's got a lot of the fanboys of that big unkempt hairy guy upset.
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
I want to run Unix and when I ask for a command line I want zsh, be it Apple OS X, or Linux. Answer me this, Microsoft fan boys, why do I have to buy a computer with an O/S I will never use?
You seem to be confused. Microsoft don't sell laptops. Your complaint is with the PC hardware vendors that won't sell you a laptop without Windows.
What about the barefoot presentations and knowingly dropping his hair in his soup?
"Free" Software doesn't feed me.
It's a nice idea, I like it and I use a lot of it, but it's by no means the best option out there.
Just look at how many Linux distros include non-free software.
Why? Because there's no decent "free" equivalent.
Why limit yourself?
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
Most people use userland libraries and don't interface directly with the kernel. glibc, GTK+, lib*, etc. GNU isn't "just" tar, grep, sed, etc (i.e. coreutils), it really does provide a large chunk of the system and I think anyone in a GNU dev's shoes would be a bit annoyed about the credit Linus gets. Also don't forget that Linux, and just about every FOSS app, is built using GCC.
To be honest I think it's just down to the naming, and not any misconceptions about importance or quibbles about the mission of free software. I've never heard anyone say GNU correctly in person (it's always G.N.U.), because it's such a terrible name and doesn't roll off the tongue like Linux. "Debian Sarge Guh-noo slash Linux", "Fedora Core Guh-noo slash Linux", "Damn Small Guh-noo slash Linux".
If they had put a few moments thought into the name, perhaps an acronym that describes what it is instead of what it isn't, and perhaps an acronym that can be pronounced. Off the top of my head perhaps Onix for open unix, or instead of the arbitrary 'G' in GNU they could have chosen a vowel; ANUs Not Unix, ENUs Not Unix, INUs Not Unix, ONUs Not Unix, UNUs Not Unix. "Freeax" was only marginally worse than "Guh-noo".
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
You seem to be confused. I don't want Microsoft Windows. Most other people wouldn't either if they had any clue what they were buying. My mother (who is computer illiterate) used a Linux box for years to do her stuff on the internet.
The big lie you and all the other Microsoft fan boys are propagating is that Linux isn't ready for the desktop because no one uses it. If Linux distros were sold like Microsoft is sold, the world wouldn't end and Linux would have a similar market share.
Linux was ready for the desktop in the last millennium. Plain and simple.
>I doubt MS invented shady business deals. Microsoft may not have invented the shady business deal, but that doesn't mean they don't own the patent.
And if you're a hot girl, too, then everybody watching wins as well.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Everyone always calls MS a convicted monopolist... however, based on what I know the conviction is unjust. How is putting I.E on by default ... bad? The same kind of people that use I.E because it's already there would complain that there was no browser if there wasn't a default browser.
(This may be entering the realm of logical fallacy here, not intended) Imagine if the penalty for abortion was jail time. Would you agree with it? Would you go around labelling those who had abortions as "convicted abortionists"?
Well, for an (Unix-like) operating systems there are two vital parts: the kernel and the C library (few programs communicate directly to the kernel; even language support libraries for other languages tend to go through the C library on Unix-like systems; also the C library is probably the one userspace component which is the most OS specific). The kernel on Linux systems is Linux. The C library is glibc, i.e. GNU. Thus it makes sense to call the system GNU/Linux.
... no, that's clearly to long. But then, Linux already has an x, so we can just make that uppercase to properly attribute the X part of it. Also, KDE has the history of simply adding a K to the beginning of everything it touches.
If it were for all the userland tools commonly used, I guess many current Linux installations would be more properly named KDE/X/Linux (although those running GNOME as desktop would be properly named GNU/X/Linux, since GNOME is GNU).
Ok, maybe make it KDE/X/GNU/Linux
Only problem: Should it now be KNU/LinuX, or GNU/KLinuX?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
But I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider OO.o a part of the Linux "operating system". Even desktops like GNOME and KDE are pushing the definition, but OO.o is definitely an application suite.
The changes can be summarised reasonably well by altering your sentence to say "as long as I distribute the code and don't do anything else to stop people using it".
"...without the [Linux] kernel, the GNU tools would hardly be as advanced as they are today..."
C'mon, everybody was using GNU tools on SunOS back in the day. You might be wrong.
What, me? Never.
You seem to be confused. Microsoft don't sell laptops. Your complaint is with the PC hardware vendors that won't sell you a laptop without Windows.
Are those the same PC hardware vendors which Microsoft has systematically browbeaten into offering Windows? The ones which (at least until recently) were almost to a man terrified of offering you something with any OS other than Windows lest some Terrible Beat of Redmond descent upon them?
Things are changing - Dell's recent foray into Linux systems demonstrates that - but to imagine that the Windows monopoly is entirely down to PC hardware vendors simultaneously, independently deciding to ship Windows and nothing else is pure folly.
You seem to be confused. I don't want Microsoft Windows.
I don't recall saying you did.
Most other people wouldn't either if they had any clue what they were buying.
Given how trivially simple it is to buy a computer without Windows, I'm afraid harsh reality blows your fantasy out of the water.
My mother (who is computer illiterate) used a Linux box for years to do her stuff on the internet.
Personally, I bought my mum an iMac. Sadly I was unlucky enough to do so only a month or two before Apple switched to x86.
The big lie you and all the other Microsoft fan boys are propagating is that Linux isn't ready for the desktop because no one uses it. If Linux distros were sold like Microsoft is sold, the world wouldn't end and Linux would have a similar market share.
I don't recall ever making those arguments either.
Linux was ready for the desktop in the last millennium. Plain and simple.
The market does not agree.
If people disliked Microsoft or Windows anywhere near as much as zealots like you thought they did, Apple would own the home PC market and Linux on the desktop would be csondiered even more of an oddity than it is now.
The real pronunciation sounds ridiculous, thats why no one uses it, and im not quite sure why they insist on saying it that way.
As far as i am concerned, an acronym like Gnu's Not Unix, should be spelled out when speaking.
Agreed. All hail RMS!
"Some people get a bit too excited about MS"
Same thing can be applied to the Linux vs BSD debate, shown by the debates followed the report on systrace.
Well he said he made Linux, not GNU/Linux, so you should be happy...
I've never heard anyone say GNU correctly in person (it's always G.N.U.), because it's such a terrible name and doesn't roll off the tongue like Linux. "Debian Sarge Guh-noo slash Linux", "Fedora Core Guh-noo slash Linux", "Damn Small Guh-noo slash Linux".
You can shorten it to just "GNU" or "Stallmanix" if you want.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
They were sued because you could not remove IE from the system.
You've obviously not seen any films about WW2. America did indeed win the war single handedly. They are famous for things like the victory in the Battle of Britain.
I guess I may be called a DirectX ntut for that, despite the fact that I spend most of my time coding on SDL+OpenGL, but hey, a risk I am willing to take :)
Credit is at best a secondary concern. The real issue here is the technical lead of this OS's kernel gets credit for the movement but doesn't care about your freedoms as much as you might wish. And you can't do anything about it except talk about the guy who's really been fighting for you all along. I find myself almost wishing for a Bitkeeper-like debacle this time involving the GPLv3.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Well said. and don't forget Klaus Knopper. Without his contribution, the world would be minus about 200 or so interesting and useful distros.
The list of dedicated, talented contributors goes on and on.
Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
Some might say the same thing about the majority of the GNU userland...
yet bsd.slashdot.org does still exist... I wonder what's up there.
Stallman and his followers (diciples?) have indeed contributed significantly, but claiming that they created the whole thing is probably stretching it a bit too far. Assuming that you by this whole thing refer to the various Linux distributions, then none of them would have gained any momentum if it wasn't for (ignoring Linus for a moment) Apache, Mozilla, PERL/PHP/Python/Ruby, the Eclipse Foundation, OpenOffice.org, ect.
I'm not trying to downplay the importance of the GNU toolchain, but personally I actually consider the GPL to be Stallman's most significant contribution.
I'm however not so sure that he still has any role to play in this story ...besides perhaps as the comic sidekick ;-)
Stallman, who ought to know, does not spell it out, so why do you think it needs to be? when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
"guh-NEW" -- pronounce the hard "G".
Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
If you mail a book to someone, are you using that book?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
And if Linux hadn't been created, they would have made or found another kernel. I think that the point is that GNU and Linux have a symbiotic relationship.
Sent from my computer.
Now GET OFF MY LAWN!
The whole Linux thing was driven by choice and the freedom to choose, so GNU or Kernel or Open Source, it was all about individuals working together in what ever capacity they choose to achieve a wide range of shared goals.
In a manner of speaking every one involved was a sidekick to Tux, a symbol representing a shared ideal, and what ever that ideal was, it was left up to each and every individual own interpretation.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
He doesn't, he's saying that that's how he always hears other people say it!!
No one said you should care, but if the interviewer ASKS him his opinion... And ehm... you accuse him of accusing people who disagree with him of being biased or idealistic, but then in your last sentence you imply that YOU don't agree with him, and he should therefore shut his mouth. nuff said
Most people who are still debating this have not heard of the old LiGnuX suggestion that was in the gnu newsletters long ago which is the same sort of idea. I found the argument a bit weak at the time and still do - just as I find the gnu/linux renaming argument a bit weak. Your impression may vary but I suggest taking a look at the gnu webpage and reading those bits of those newsletters.
As far as I see it whoever puts a distribution together gets to name it - and gnu did not put a distro together since they do other stuff. There is a debian gnu/linux though.
Not entirely true. I saw GNU stuff on Solaris, and it was far better than the original stuff provided by Sun. What is true, that Hurd is nowhere and wouldn't get anywhere as far as Linux has gone. I think Linus found the right path between zealotry and pragmatism because his only goal was to create something working.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
... ms not that interesting ? what was it .. something along the line "The devils biggest achievement was to convince man that he did not exist" ... rock on!
Bingo. And that's why this argument seems so stupid to me. It's impossible to credit every person (or even organization) who deserves credit in the name of the operating system. That's why the kernel has a CREDITS file.
In the end, people usually get to name the things they create. So Linus gets to call it "the Linux kernel" because he wrote the first version of it. And whoever the people were the packaged the first distributions called them "Linux distributions". Stallman has no more right to rename Linux to GNU/Linux than he does to rename Microsoft to StallmanCorp or my son Mike to Harold. Of course, he can SUGGEST to Microsoft that they start calling themselves StallmanCorp, or to me that I start calling my son Harold, but he shouldn't be too surprised if he gets a lot of "no" answers...
Good luck selling this to corporate with a name like GNU/Clinic !!!!
-- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
The GNU system started a decade before Linus wrote the first version of his kernel.
Also, the GNU system was widely used with proprietary kernels by that time. In fact, most Unix systems were based on the GNU userland because of their quality.
And GNU already had a kernel at the pipeline when Linux was released. And just a few years later it was as functional as Linux 0.1. Linux just being out a little earlier gained the advantaje of having all developers working on it, but things probably wouldn't be much different if that didn't happen.
Rethinking email
Stallman, who ought to know, does not spell it out, so why do you think it needs to be? You misunderstood. He was saying, to put it differently, "I've never heard anyone pronounce it correctly - they always pronounce it G.N.U. instead."
If there's anyone I hate more than stupid people, it's intellectuals.
only an Anonymous Coward would presume to speek for the typical ST.
Additionally and in consideration of the unique tool computers are, suppression of human advancement with computer technology is by far more evil than even suppression of honest observation (re: catholic church and the suppression of galileos observations).
Just because a reporter asks you something doesn't mean it's always wise to give a full answer. It's called "restraint". Heck, in many cases, it's called "not breaching your confidentiality agreement" or "maintaining the privacy of your customers' information" (not that this applies here).
And ehm... you accuse him of accusing people who disagree with him of being biased or idealistic, but then in your last sentence you imply that YOU don't agree with him, and he should therefore shut his mouth. nuff saidDid you read the Groklaw comments where Linus spouted off about the first draft of GPLv3? He was straight-out asked what his legal objections were to the draft, and his answers showed that he didn't have the first clue about that law (U.S. law, anyway). He knows he's not a lawyer, and he has no interest in studying law, but he was perfectly willing to blabber on about the "problems" with the GPLv3 draft. It was embarrassing.
There are people who have put in a lot of time and effort to learn the minute details about things like the Novell-Microsoft deal. Linus has not, but he has no qualms about, on the one hand, knowing very little about the subject, and on the other hand, denouncing these peoples' work as "unimportant".
I'd rather listen to RMS talk about why Debian isn't free enough. At least he's put in the time and effort to try to understand the issues.
http://outcampaign.org/
If people disliked Microsoft or Windows anywhere near as much as zealots like you thought they did, Apple would own the home PC market and Linux on the desktop would be csondiered even more of an oddity than it is now. The market, the market, the market. Standard fanboy corpspeak without a factual base. A free market still exists in IT, but it is a rather small niche outside of the Microsoft monoculture. The average user isn't so political. His laptop comes with Windows, but it doesn't really matter to him. If it breaks down, it is replaced or fixed by a friend. The majority of end users don't have the competence to decide for quality software, they just want the "standard" software they know. So Microsoft and friends can happily continue to shovel stuff down their throats. That's your beloved market: Powered by Dumbness(tm).
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat
It is certainly a pleasure to see *somebody* who still knows what "FUD" means. I clicked on your response, expecting to find a link to a "microsoft sucks", but you actually limited yourself to a real example of Linux FUD.
Unfortunately far too many people seem today to think FUD means "lie", or even "anything negative said about the competition".
In fact FUD could be perfectly truthful or a fabrication. What it means is spinning some fact (or falsehood) into *fear*, where you say "yea that might seem ok, but just maybe, in the future, it could change into this horribly contrived scenario that I will now state...". Saying anything bad about *right now*, whether it is true or false, is NOT "FUD".
If you limit to true examples of FUD, Microsoft is way ahead in number of statements. In particular almost everything they say about the GPL is FUD, and the patent stuff is FUD. I don't think most of what they say about Linux itself is FUD, even the cost arguments, as they typically just state the immediate cost of changing from Windows to Linux (obviously non-zero), rather than any kind of prediction of future costs, which would be FUD. Sometimes they insert the cost of switching back from Linux to Windows as a cost of using Linux, that just maybe is FUD.
Best example I think of FUD on the Linux side is the dire warnings about what DRM will do. It probably is not going to be anywhere near as bad as stated, worst is that it probably means you have to buy Windows and new hardware if you want to watch any popular entertainment. Your example is also quite good, saying that this feature of Windows could be used for evil purposes, is certainly FUD as well.
Seriously, it's because the laws and policies of American society are built upon the premise of class warfare. Rich individuals use corporations to shield themselves from the repercussions of their actions. It's a feature, not a bug. It's that simple: a wealthy and powerful elite using a political and economic system that allows them to exploit the lower classes with impunity. It's all about power, and who's wielding it.
And i wasn't trying to defend him, just merely making a point. I really don't care for what he says/thinks. But he indeed shouldn't talk about stuff he doesn't fully understand.
Do you know how many times I've heard LEO or judges say "ignorance of the law is no excuse" or some such? I suppose that only applies to petty/poor criminals as well. All though I don't feel it is an exactly fair outlook I do believe the law should be applied fairly to everyone regardless number of lawyers, total income or position in society.
It doesn't get defended more? How many of the people who so passionately defend M$ would even think twice about or feel sorry for a drug dealer who gives a small few the option to hurt themselves rather than intentionally lie to/mislead great masses into hurting themselves or forcing them out of business (and their employees out of income)? Because they are rich the completely apathetic/complacent beliefs our society has come to embrace pretty much gives them right to get away with whatever they want? Because a bunch of people got screwed repeatedly growing up it becomes an accepted fact of life to be embraced as long as you are doing the screwing or someone else is getting screwed? This endorsement of abuse of authority will screw everyone in the long run, not just the few you hear about. We are all be silently screwed whether we like to admit it and defending it only exacerbates the problem until enough people voice their opinions and demand action.
In the mean time, MS and the like are helping to create more individuals who are more likely to become desperate to the point of committing crime (just look at the piracy caused by overpriced software and the potential poverty inflicted on the families of employees of businesses they screwed). Since they are more desperate and have fewer options they seem more likely to be indiscriminate and therefore more of a personal threat which I suspect is why so many people who dismiss MS's more harmful actions hold the petty crooks with such contempt...
The simple fact of the matter is such monopolistic practices cost way more damage and affect way more people than the crimes of many people who are spending decades in prison and it's a total injustice for so many people to defend them.
The guy who started this thread may be modded as a troll, but he isn't the one who burned most of the bridges, charges $200 tolls for the one he lives under and attempts to kill anyone who tries to build more
A feature to the wealthy 10-20% of the population, a bug for the rest. It will become more apparent as the rich percentile gets lower and wealthier, forcing the rest to suffer more. I hope that by the "feature" statement you weren't indicating approval. Hopefully it won't take *too* much longer for everyone to get fed up enough to start protesting/boycotting more, thereby helping to fuel competition while concurrently informing monopolistic/criminal companies that their actions aren't tolerated and that their client base cares more about credibility and technical innovation than marketing schemes and business size.
Lol, it's been years since I've heard someone spell it, everyone I know says it. I guess I don't hang with enough microsoft users.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Actually, you do get some pretty militant Buddhists in Sri Lanka. And a few years ago there were, well, difficulties with Sikh militants in the Golden temple in Amritsar. I'm not here to criticise Sikhs or followers of the Buddha - I'm just pointing out that pretty much any cause attracts some militant folk, somewhere. For goodness sake, you get holy wars about the right source code editor, or the correct place to put curly brackets in C.
It's human nature!
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
Just to clarify: no, I certainly didn't mean to imply approval! What do ya think I am, a libertarian? ;) I was just trying to point out that the differences in punishment meted out to petty criminals versus white collar criminals is an intentional element of a system that rewards and protects the upper classes in exploiting the lower. It's doing what it's meant to. I'm not so sure, however, that merely boycotting certain companies is much of a solution. If people want change, they will have to pursue it at least partly in the political arena, I suspect. The elite have no problem fighting in that arena. What's needed is a sustained critique and challenge to (the contemporary construction of) capitalism itself, I suspect. I don't know exactly what shape or form that movement will take, but I personally doubt we'll see it within the US anytime soon at all. Change is much more likely, I think, to originate in other parts of the world where US (and capitalistic in general) ideology and exploitation is not so ingrained. I think the US is more likely to collapse into something unrecognizable than to transform itself into a more just and egalitarian society. Political and economic power may be too firmly intertwined and entrenched for moderate reforms to stand a chance.
"The actual partnership itself seemed pretty much a nonissue to me, and not nearly as interesting as the reaction it got from people, and how it was reported ... I don't actually personally think the Novell-MS agreement kind of thing matters all that much in the end..."
Right on, Linus. It was a tempest in a teapot, mostly stirred up by FSF fanatics who wouldn't think twice about sinking the second most important Linux distro just to prove they're more "moral" than everybody else.
I kinda disagree about Microsoft not being "interesting", though. I understand what Linus is saying because he's focused on his technology and isn't interested in Microsoft. So for him, they're not interesting. Plus, he's confident OSS is the way to go and thus will inevitably take over. I think Microsoft are assholes and a major impediment to improving computer use worldwide - which makes them "interesting" at least.
Which is not to say that Linux wouldn't be the impediment if the market share were reversed - but at least Linux is making improvements. Vista ain't an improvement to Windows and definitely isn't an improvement in the OS space.
In the end, though, we need a serious reevaluation of how software is developed. Because right now EVERYTHING IS CRAP - including Linux. But Linux is at least FREE crap.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"It's irritating when Linus is given all the credit for the operating system."
It's irritating to me when FSF fanatics think a tool chain makes an OS.
It's irritating to me when they want their tool chain name tacked onto the OS name - when KDE and GNOME have just as much right to ask for that since nobody uses an OS today without a desktop. Yeah, yeah, some bozos may be CLI only - lots of luck. And the choice to run servers without a GUI is not relevant to the issue.
What part of "Linus" in LINUX don't you understand? You want it called GNUOS - be my guest. Come back when somebody cares.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
we should name it "find /bin -name *"
What ? Me, worry ?
"If you're not outraged [about the harm MS is doing to society] then you're not paying attention."
Get the facts. Start here...
you had me at #!
Why is that so unlucky? Does it really bother your mom that her computer's running on PPC?
Because the intel iMacs were twice as fast as the PPC iMacs. Given OS X's thirst for hardware, that's a non-trivial difference.
This is before getting into things like being able to boot to Windows. An intel Mac is much more flexible piece of hardware than a PPC Mac.
How is this a valid answer to the GP's conclusion that people wouldn't buy Windows if they had a clue WHAT they are buying?
Because for the vast majority of people using computers, the last one they bought wasn't their first exposure to Windows.
Like I said, if "dumb" people hated Windows anywhere near as much as "smart" people like you thought they do, Microsoft wouldn't own 90% of the market.
The market, the market, the market. Standard fanboy corpspeak without a factual base.
What "facts" do you feel are lacking ? Buying computers without Windows is easy. Apart from a few niche areas, there has always been at least one near-drop-in replacement for a Windows machine for the last couple of decades.
A free market still exists in IT, but it is a rather small niche outside of the Microsoft monoculture.
The free market in IT includes the "Microsoft monoculture".
The average user isn't so political. His laptop comes with Windows, but it doesn't really matter to him. If it breaks down, it is replaced or fixed by a friend.
I'm glad you agree that issue is not one of functionality. Now, why do you feel you shoudl be able to tell people what computers they should use ?
The majority of end users don't have the competence to decide for quality software, they just want the "standard" software they know. So Microsoft and friends can happily continue to shovel stuff down their throats. That's your beloved market: Powered by Dumbness(tm).
Standard anti-Microsoft superiority complex. How unsurprising.
Dare I ask whether or not you think "sycophantic hero worship" of Stallman is acceptable? Chances are it's never even dawned on you at all...in fact, if you're like a lot of people, you probably worship the ground Stallman walks on without paying a lot of attention to the fact that you do.
I mean, it's just so completely normal to mindlessly idolise Stallman, (but nobody else, of course) that why on Earth would you bother to reflect on it at all? It's a lot like questioning why the Sun comes up in the morning. Pointless, and entirely unthinkable.
Good grief, there are some mentally diseased freaks among the Linux users of Slashdot.
;-)
Sometimes when a Linux related story comes up, and I read some of the replies, I honestly find myself wondering...Who the hell left the basement door unlocked?
Yes, you may dare ask. Sycophantic hero worship of any person is wrong. Period.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Haha. Read my reply to the previous post.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
I appreciate the fact that you were down-modded into oblivion, as is only right and proper. There are times when the bias of the moderators distresses me, but others where I am given cause for optimism. This is evidence that the system does work the way it's supposed to, at least some of the time.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. FSF cultists, please do not attempt to pass the basis of your mind control off as fact.
Heard of b/pmake, or nbtar, as but two examples? I'm guessing not.
I'm talking about the BSD userland; one that to a very large extent has been written entirely independently of the GNU project. The only real element of the GNU toolchain that the BSDs haven't replaced is GCC.
Stallman's minions are not merely obnoxious in continuing to promote the lie that the GNU system is the only toolchain in existence, but they're also wrong. As I said, GCC is the only critical element. Everything else is entirely replaceable, and has been re-implemented several times, under open source licenses.
Your adamancy would not be so grating if it was not based in such unbelievable ignorance.
Are those the same PC hardware vendors which Microsoft has systematically browbeaten into offering Windows?
No, they're the same PC hardware vendors who don't see any profit in not selling Windows.
The ones which (at least until recently) were almost to a man terrified of offering you something with any OS other than Windows lest some Terrible Beat of Redmond descent upon them?
The only thing a business is terrified of is going out of business. The only reason they'd go out of business if the "Terrible Beat of Redmond" comes knocking is if there was no money to be made selling non-Windows PCs.
Things are changing - Dell's recent foray into Linux systems demonstrates that - but to imagine that the Windows monopoly is entirely down to PC hardware vendors simultaneously, independently deciding to ship Windows and nothing else is pure folly.
To think PC hardware vendors wouldn't be selling Linux PCs if there was profit to be made in it is sheer stupidity. Even dumber than thinking they're all part of some huge conspiracy against Linux on the desktop.
If there's money to be made selling Linux PCs to home users, then they'll do it. If there isn't, they won't. It's that simple.
RMS doesn't care much about credit.
Do you really believe that? Really?
Most of the time, I can take the brainwashed utterances of Stallman's footsoldiers in stride, but every so often one of you comes out with something that truly makes me gasp.
How can you be so deluded? How is it possible?
The other thing is to educate them about the DRM, spying, manipulation, and generally bad faith in which Windows has been built to hide the fact that so much spying is going on on the user.
I can just hear the mental chorus which is accompanying this post. It starts off quietly, but gradually gets louder until it's at the level of shouting.
"Fear...fear...fear...fear...fear...fear...FEAR!"
And you, sir, are a first class asshole for comparing the Microsoft with the victims of racism.
...the law should be applied fairly to everyone regardless... Strongly agreed. I didn't suggest that the outcome of the antitrust cases should have been different. M$ violated whatever laws, got it's ass hauled into court, and got penalized.My point was: Every business leverages everything it can for an advantage (synergy between product lines, undercutting competitors, exclusivity contracts, negative advertising etc. - it's all fair game). After you cross a certain market share threshold, there's this code of ethics that is supposed to apply to you, but not to your competitors. This 'code of ethics' isn't always clear because there are many arguments that can be made about what constitutes 'leveraging a monopoly' -- that's why it's shades of gray -- I belive that's what you mentioned: "it's funny how people can see things in shades of grey". It doesn't get defended more? No, it doesn't.. just tally up the pro-MS, anti-MS stuff in the thread. Public opinion is strongly against MS. I'm not saying it shouldn't be. I get the feeling you're passionately anti-MS so you're getting annoyed a lot more by the pro-MS posts and taking more note of them (no offence - if I'm wrong, I apologise). But again, the antitrust issue has shades of grey -- to expect zero posts supporting MS is unrealistic. To expect a minority (say 30%) is much more realistic. How many of the people who so passionately defend M$ would even think twice about or feel sorry for a drug dealer That's completely unrelated, and no point continuing down that thread.. There are all kinds of drug dealers - some you can feel sorry for and some maybe not. There are arguments for legalizing all controlled substances, and arguments for banning them all.. More shades of grey here as well.. We are all be silently screwed whether we like to admit it and defending it only exacerbates the problem How so? If you don't like windows don't use it. The common response is, "your average non-geek buys a budget PC for email and net use -- and has to get windows on it". Well, I don't see that as people "getting silently screwed". This budget PC will do what it's supposed to do. The cost of windows on that PC was about $50 -- so nothing took place that bears comparison with drug peddling/killing/whatever. OEM's haven't offered linux as an option -- that's on them (or on Linux for not appearing to be a viable alternative). For the last 7 years (since the antitrust judgement) MS has not had the ability to penalize OEMs for offering alternatives to Windows. If Apple was historically absent from the budget PC segment -- well -- that's on them. In the mean time, MS and the like are helping to create more individuals who are more likely to become desperate to the point of committing crime (just look at the piracy caused by overpriced software and the potential poverty inflicted on the families of employees of businesses they screwed). That's overly dramatic. People don't pirate stuff because they are 'desperate to the point of committing a crime'. Like getting that latest song using a P2P app (instead of getting the single from iTunes) was an act of desperation. And why do you not feel that, say, Apple charging $1500 for a laptop drives people to poverty? You give MS too much credit -- in the big picture of US/world poverty, Windows license fees are just noise. The guy who started this thread may be modded as a troll, but he isn't the one who burned most of the bridges, charges $200 tolls for the one he lives under and attempts to kill anyone who tries to build more Parent was indeed a troll. (for calling for MS to be obliterated). And when you say MS "...attempts to kill anyone who..." you are trolling as well.
All true, but the machine was good enough when you bought it. Does your mom have such a tech-lust that it's no longer good enough now?
All true, but the machine was good enough when you bought it. Does your mom have such a tech-lust that it's no longer good enough now?
No. Nor is it relevant to my comment that buying a machine that was replaced only a month or two later with a vastly more capable one is quite reasonable cause to be disappointed. One does not need "techno lust" to wish they'd gotten a better deal.
No, not marketing nuts. Programmers. Its a 'free' as in beer API. I've programmed in it on and off over the past two years or so, and if you hang out at the usual places (gamasutra, gamedev.net, the official mailing list, etc.) you will find lots of users, most hobbyists and garage type programmers, who love the stuff and are digging deep into the API's and gladly help out the new comers. Just go look at the width and breadth of tutorials, sample code, etc. generated by non-Microsoft employees out there. It really is a community, in the truest sense.
If OpenGL could drum up the kind of community, you could generate some kind of seague into open source. But what do they have, really, beyond NeHe? a few college classes, really. Try comparing Riemers XNA Tutorial to say NeHe. IMO, Riemer is more in-depth, he goes over the derivations more than NeHe does (no offense to NeHe, I've drawn a lot from his work too learning OGL). And at the end you have a simple, functional game. Stuff like that, I think, is all the difference.
Carmack has reversed prior statements about OGL being better than DirectX. He now seems to prefer DirectX. It would be infinitely cool if DirectX could become a platform unto itself, with implementations for Mac and Linux. Then you would have a universal gaming language, per see, and they would (essentially, as if they don't already) have an exclusive lock on PC gaming, and be able to leverage that towards XBOX gaming.
There was a major release of emacs (19? something in the mid 90's) in which "linux" had been replaced with "lignux" in the shipped version. leading to the big commotion.
hawk
It wasn't even the unremovability. They put time and effort into destroying netscape (resources offered to make sites not work with netscape), java, and so forth. They were *not* sued for including IE, and the difficulty removing it wasn't a major issue. It was the actual use and abuse of monopoly power.
hawk
Not sure why I'm responding to such a clear troll (you didn't even call the MacBook Pro by its correct name) when I have mod points, but what the heck.
1. You don't have to buy a computer - even a laptop - with *any* OS. You can also, with some vendors, refuse the MS license and demand a refund for the OS if you format it off the hard drive. Finally, there are a couple companies selling Linux laptops (System76 sells nothing else).
2. Although I personally rarely interact with Macs except when my computer-illiterate friends and family members need me to troubleshoot theirs, one source I've found for installing a lot of great F/OSS programs is NetBSD's pkgsrc, a package management tool that can work with either binaries or (more often) build from source. Although not the same as the Ports system found on other BSDs, it has a similar ability to almost completely automate the whole installation and updates process, including configuration of source packages. More importantly, it runs on a wide variety of platforms, including Interix in Windows (see #3) and Darwin (Mac OS X). It's pretty easy to install and generally works well.
3. In Windows, if you want a POSIX environment and shell (I prefer bash but zsh is also available) you can install the Services for Unix (SFU, WinXP and earlier NT versions) or Subsystem for Unix Applications (SUA, Server 2003, Vista, and above), which will install what I guess could be called a "parallel OS" called Interix. The only particularly noticeable lack is that it still goes through the NT kernel for device IO (using the POSIX subsystem rather than the Win32 subsystem, but the same at the kernel's lowest level) which offers no direct block device access. You don't have to worry about finding compatible drivers though. It's not fantastic but it makes the XP machine I'm forced to use at work usable. I haven't managed to get a native X server running, but there are Windows-based X servers and they work well enough for a desktop environment, let alone XEmacs. In theory it should be possible to install KDE or similar, although you'll need to compile from source. All the common Unix shells, including zsh, are available (although only csh and ksh are initially installed). You can get more software for it either from Interopsystems.com (binaries built specifically for SUA/SFU) or NetBSD pkgsrc (will require building most packages from source).
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Your point about businesses law being a bit harder to interpret and varying more is relevant to some degree but doesn't really address *my* point. MS screws over 10 million people and costs people/businesses like $500k in one swift blow (as a hypothetic example). This damage is the result of their [feigned] ignorance of some law/regulation. For retribution, they are forced to pay .005% of the profit they make in 1 month. If a hypothetical drug dealer gets busted selling selling a gram of crack to a crackhead, he is only costing that one crackhead like $50 (or however much a gram of crack costs) and is only directly hurting that one individual as far as can be legally proven/known. However, the crack dealer is automatically taken to jail no matter what and, if he cannot afford bail, will very likely have to spend at least a year incarcerated in most jurisdictions and pay like 10-50% of his entire monthly income. This also affects his family by removing whatever income he might have provided.
/.) would trust MS over a majority of other entities. This whole notion that "anything goes in capitalist businesses/society" is no excuse IMO, and it's destructive both in the long and short term. People need to overcome this whole survival of the fittest ideology. It doesn't apply to everything and is mostly only applicable to nature and *gasp* humanity is the most unnatural thing in nature. We need to grow a pair and start living up to our human values rather than ignore them and attribute some unalterable cycle of repetition based on the past and other animals. We aren't those animals and the past doesn't have to repeat. We are ultimately responsible for our future and what happens to our society and that doesn't change all at once but it also doesn't change from accepting/supporting it.
Why do MS and other white collar criminals get penalized so little for causing so much more harm? In my mind intentional deceit and apathy makes their crime 10x worse than the drug dealer's crime or any crime of desperation.
"No, it doesn't.. just tally up the pro-MS, anti-MS stuff in the thread. Public opinion is strongly against MS. I'm not saying it shouldn't be. I get the feeling you're passionately anti-MS so you're getting annoyed a lot more by the pro-MS posts and taking more note of them (no offence - if I'm wrong, I apologise). But again, the antitrust issue has shades of grey -- to expect zero posts supporting MS is unrealistic. To expect a minority (say 30%) is much more realistic."
Well, this is slashdot you're talking about, I'm thinking more of society in general and in business. Despite being directly lied to and misled repeatedly for decades most people or businesses (including many on
"That's completely unrelated, and no point continuing down that thread.. There are all kinds of drug dealers - some you can feel sorry for and some maybe not. There are arguments for legalizing all controlled substances, and arguments for banning them all.. More shades of grey here as well."
It is relevant/related IMO. Society shuns one offense and punishes it more despite causing much less damage. That is the entire basis of my post. That shade of grey surrounding a dealer who gives freedom (from pain, reality, monotony and of choice and because of desperation) is much lighter than the shade that surrounds the giant company that intentionally deceives everyone and tries to force all competition out of business without regard for those it's hurting or their freedoms. Pointing that out is my entire point in posting. There is nothing wrong with calling MS criminal when they are committing more harmful crimes (in so far as the number of people they affect but also the degree of harm in many cases) than most of the people currently incarcerated.
"How so? If you don't like windows don't use it. The common response is, "your average non-geek buys a budget PC for email and net use -- and has to get windows on it". Well, I don't see that as people "getting silent
The MS/white-collar-crime/drug dealers thread is really difficult to agree with. It's impractical for me to refute everything, so let me summarize by saying you draw too many conclusions based on hypothetic situations, and take too many things as being absolute that are far from it.
Let me just concentrate on this instead:
Hrm... you dont' see perversion of standards as being screwed? What about the resulting lack of software choices that result? Perhaps the choices that might have been provided by one of the companies they put out of business? Maybe I miss the ability to buy hardware that is compatible with my os. I consider all of that being screwed because they are all freedoms that would exist (or at least be a lot more likely to) if MS or other giant corps didn't exist or engage in their current practices. I also consider being forced to work in POS MS environments to pursue my career being screwed (and trying to work out the problems they introduce with their products because their own development teams apparently cant).
No. Whether its blue-screens, poor standards compliance, philosophical difference about proprietary software, any other problem -- everybody has a simple choice -- don't run windows if you don't like it. The lack of compelling alternatives is not MS's fault. It is the fault of their competitors.
You have choices for all the things you're complaining about. You can choose to be a dev for a FOSS project, or work on J2EE related technologies, or Apple/IBM/Sun/whatever technologies. Like it or not, if MS is present everywhere it simply means that they're doing a good job. This answer might upset you, but it's the simple truth. Nobody used to use IIS as a webserver in critical scenarios until a few years ago -- because it sucked. IIS adoption is on the up now, because it doesn't suck now. Nobody used to use SQL server until 7 or 8 years ago because it sucked. Nobody used to use Macs 9 years ago because they sucked. People don't like things that suck.
I don't even understand what you mean when you say you "miss the ability to buy hardware that is compatible with my os". By OS do you mean windows or linux? Even with the current issues Vista is going through, windows hardware support is phenomenal. MS has done a fantastic job of keeping their driver model stable over the years, working with vendors when there are changes, etc. And with windows being present on 90% of machines, it's obvious that any vendors 1st priority is windows drivers. There's no blame to assign for this, and no apologies to be made.
Now, if you're complaining about lack of Linux drivers -- well, by what logic can you blame that on MS?
Even when you talk about poverty inflicted on families of companies forced out of business by MS, this is completely non sequitur on your part. By that logic, any time you interview for a job and succeed in getting it, you are inflicting poverty on those who didn't get it. Or the Japanese car makers are inflicting poverty on the employees of GM/Ford/Chrysler. Companies don't go belly-up overnight. They know when they're making crap products, and they know the competitive landscape and what it means in terms of how long they can survive if they don't get their stuff together. Nobody is *entitled* to having 'x' slice of a market so they can survive no matter how non-viable their products are.
Nothing illustrates this example better than Firefox. They came into a market which was pretty much owned by IE (90%+). IE already shipped with windows, and was set as the default on virtually everyones computer. Yet they have been gaining market share for the last 4 years by making a superior product.
Now when Netscape started getting challenged by IE, at that time Netscape had 90% of the market already. Even if IE shipped as a part of windows at the very least Netscape was already the incumbent. How come Firefox can thrive from such a disadvantaged position whereas Netscape sank from such an advantageous position?
The
"No. Whether its blue-screens, poor standards compliance, philosophical difference about proprietary software, any other problem -- everybody has a simple choice -- don't run windows if you don't like it. The lack of compelling alternatives is not MS's fault. It is the fault of their competitors"
That is somewhat debatable. Whether it was legal for them to do so or not, it is still wrong/unethical IMO for them to ever force OEMs to sale only Windows and by doing so it has tainted the entire industry, over time, for most of it's competitors. MS may have originally gotten to number 1 because of the quality of their software but that quality quickly deteriorated and it has since maintained itself primarily on it's own past popularity, marketing and questionable/unethical business practices. The lack of compelling alternatives most certain is MS's fault if/when those alternatives *did* exist and MS intentionally went of their way to squash them by other means than technical merit (ie patent-squatting, exclusive contracts, closed protocols, coercing higher-education institutions to incorporate MS-only curriculums in their science and business departments, etc).
"I don't even understand what you mean when you say you "miss the ability to buy hardware that is compatible with my os". By OS do you mean windows or linux? Even with the current issues Vista is going through, windows hardware support is phenomenal. MS has done a fantastic job of keeping their driver model stable over the years, working with vendors when there are changes, etc. And with windows being present on 90% of machines, it's obvious that any vendors 1st priority is windows drivers. There's no blame to assign for this, and no apologies to be made."
Sorry, I meant for Linux although the same problem exists for any non-Windows OS on PC hardware, AFAIK. No blame to assign? That is debatable when there are literally hundreds of FOSS developers who are eager to develop the drivers if they could get decent specs and not have to reverse-engineer all of the drivers from scratch so often. I don't necessarily blame that on completely MS (although I wouldn't be surprised if they offer hardware vendors "incentives" for not aiding the FOSS community) but I don't doubt that the 90% of windows machines you mentioned would be considerably lower if they hadn't forced OEMs to use MS only, which caused most people to become familiar with MS and nothing else. This familiarity influenced future purchases that didn't consider quality, only marketing/branding and gave little incentive for OEMs to develop drivers for other platforms. This problem is slowly getting better but it would never have gotten so big if not for MS's monopolistic practices/strategies.
"By that logic, any time you interview for a job and succeed in getting it, you are inflicting poverty on those who didn't get it. Or the Japanese car makers are inflicting poverty on the employees of GM/Ford/Chrysler."
Not exactly... When I interview for a job, I pretty much *need* that job to support myself and/or my family and I am trying to do so based on my own skills and credentials. I am not trying to stop the other guy from ever being able to compete with me or get another job in the same field. I am not trying to remove his only means of supporting his family, I am just trying to support my own. Now if I already have a giant trust fund and there is a very limited opportunity for that career field in that particular reason and I don't have a family to support and intentionally do things to try to make the other applicants look bad, *then* I'd be doing what MS does (which is criminal and immoral, IMO).
"Companies don't go belly-up overnight. They know when they're making crap products, and they know the competitive landscape and what it means in terms of how long they can survive if they don't get their stuff together. Nobody is *entitled* to having 'x' slice of a market so they can survive no matter how non-viable their products are."
If 'x' is a fair ch
it is still wrong/unethical IMO for them to ever force OEMs to sale only Windows
These allegations were not proved during the antitrust cases, so MS was not penalized for this. In any case, for an OEM, offering an OS choice has a cost associated with it. They need to validate each model with each OS, and then automate the install process for all options the customer might choose. If that costs 'x' dollars, they generally spend that 'x' on windows and get 90% of the market. After that do they spend 'x' to get another 2% of the market? The economics don't add up, so usually OEMs don't give you an option. There have been exceptions of course. This isn't the first time Dell is flirting with Linux -- it started selling Linux on the precision line around 2000. HP has had free dos as an option on many machines for a long time now. For many years now there have been countless OEMs (mwave, discount laptops to name a couple) from which you could buy machines without an OS installed. The fact that windows adoption hasn't changed means that the alternatives have not been compelling to customers.
...patent-squatting, exclusive contracts, closed protocols, coercing higher-education institutions to incorporate MS-only curriculums...
Patent-squatting: this is when you patent something, wait for somebody to release a product and make big bucks, and then you sue them for patent infringement to get a slice of their pie. MS doesn't do that. They actually make and sell products that are protected by thier patents. Their patent strategy has historically been defensive (read this memo by bill gates for details: http://www.bralyn.net/etext/literature/bill.gates/ challenges-strategy.txt)
Exclusive contracts: these are a part of any business. You sign an exclusive contract everytime you renew your cell phone contract. Apple and AT&T have an exclusive contract for the iPhone. There are countless examples -- this is the norm in the business world.
Closed protocols: If you're complaining about NTLM/MAPI/SMB -- well these things were designed by MS. Why should they allow others to profit from their work? In any case since the antitrust ruling they have had to license all thier protocols and APIs. That ruling expires in 2007. MS has stated that it will not object to extending that ruling to 2012. So again, if there are no compelling alternative implementations, that is not MS's fault. Where there are good alternatives (for example Samba for SMB), people can and do use them. I fail to see the issue.
Coercion, cirriculum, etc: This is unfounded. I have two degrees in Engineering and save CS101 I have never taken an MS-specific course. CS101 had a whole bunch of MS Office stuff in it. Makes sense -- that's the most common productivity s/w used. As a teacher I'd want to give my students the best chance of success possible -- that means exposing them to tools they are most likely to use in the real world. Similarly the media labs were full of Macs w/ Photoshop. No conspiracy. Success begets success -- that's life. OTOH, during all my CSE courses, I cannot begin to count the number of Solaris and Linux machines I used. Aside from hobby stuff, school was the last time I coded on those platforms. I've coded J2EE web apps that have run on Tomact/DB2/Linux in production -- but when developing the app the entire team used Eclipse/Tomcat/MySQL/Windows. Our CVS was on Ubuntu. So people basically use what's most convenient for them. If cost is prohibitive they find alternatives. The cost of windows is worth it for what we needed to do. If a team member didn't think so (or just wanted to be different) they were free to switch to Linux or OS-X or whatever.
there are literally hundreds of FOSS developers who are eager to develop the drivers if they could get decent specs and not have to reverse-engineer all of the drivers from scratch
KMuch Kado Kabout Knothing.
KWho Kthe Kfuck Kgives Ka Kshit.
Exclusive contracts etc: Because they are part of "any" business doesn't necessarily make them moral/ethical. They are robbing the consumer of freedoms they should have and often expect when they pay for something.
Coercian/Curriculum: I've been to three different colleges (although I admit they were community colleges) and *none* offered *any* form of *nix in any of their curriculums. IIRC, even the universities in the areas didn't offer it (which was one of the main reasons I quit). The entire CS curriculum was nothing but Business classes, VC++, java and windows networking stuff. I've also heard students who help manage departments at other colleges say that MS offers them various incentives for offering MS curiculums.
Driver Development: When I mentioned eager driver developers, I didn't mean "for hire". There are plenty who would do it for free if only they had the proper specs. I've read of plenty of offers to do just for various hardware vendors and they are repeatedly rejected. They refuse to even hand over specs, let alone the code for Windows drivers.
Job thing: In that context I was speaking of myself specifically. If I had a decent job I could support myself on and liked OK, I wouldn't bother trying to get a second one, and if I give up the first there is still going to be something for whoever my competition is. This isn't what MS does by completely depriving large numbers of people unnecessarily (which is more harmful than most criminally prosecuted crimes).
Web Standards: I believe you have to be crazy to think the perversion of standards didn't contribute to Netscape's demise. I've pretty much been a diehard Linux user for years and even *I* have been tempted to use a windows box on occasion just to see what a given site was about or how it looked when displayed properly. When suddenly half of the web is using protocols your current browser can't interpret properly and you don't have any sort of allegiance or care about computers/computing, your natural reaction is going to be to just go with whatever seems to work right and generally don't switch without a compelling reason.
Availability: Yes, Firefox is distributed the same now, but it doesn't take 5 hrs of phone/connection-blocked download time for most and *everyone* has cdroms. It was available back then but it wasn't *as* available as IE and not worth the time since it quit working with a lot of sites anyway.
Netscape Quality: Thanks for letting the comment slide. I remember it being a bit slower since it wasn't integrated into the OS but it (Communicator, which is what was "cutting edge" when I came around) seemed to have some decent features of it's own and seemed to work for most sites I used frequently. They seemed to be doing what they could to compete with IE. IIRC, they made more frequent releases/updates at any rate.
Exclusive contracts etc: Because they are part of "any" business doesn't necessarily make them moral/ethical.
Doesn't make them unethical either - ethics is a complicated subject - hating MS for doing what every other company does is quite pointless.
Business classes, VC++, java and windows networking stuff
Business classes are not an MS technology. Teaching VC++ is good. Java is not an MS technology. Windows networking - not sure what you mean: if you mean administering a windows AD-based network, that's good. If its protocol-level stuff it's quite impossible to do that without starting at TCP/IP which is not a MS technology. None of this is unjustified.
I've also heard students who help manage departments at other colleges say that MS offers them various incentives for offering MS curiculums.
This is a vague unsubstantiated claim, and hating MS for that makes it sound like you just hate MS period, and will use any reason, however unfounded, to back that up. This way anyone can say "I've heard that Sun/Apple/Google/whoever offer incentives.....".
I didn't mean "for hire". There are plenty who would do it for free if only they had the proper specs
Not MS's fault! Take it up with the vendor. The specs are their IP (Itellectual Property), the code for the windows drivers is their IP. There is no law, or code of ethics that says they should hand it over. There are good reasons for them to not hand it over (because of the information that their competitiors get from the specs and driver code). The only thing that will work is pressure from customers, and that will take time. MS has no voice here.
If I had a decent job I could support myself on and liked OK, I wouldn't bother trying to get a second one
What about if your spouse is earning enough for your family? What about all those families where both parents are working? Are they depriving other families by holding two jobs when there is so much unemployment out there? The analogy stands. MS will continue to do the best it can, and will always assume that the day it stops doing that it's competitors will make it irrelevent. All business operate on that principle -- some forget it when they taste success. You can't blame MS for it's competitors shortcomings.
I believe you have to be crazy to think the perversion of standards didn't contribute to Netscape's demise.
I lived it, and I explained what happened. If you refuse to accept that, I guess we should agree to disagree.
I've pretty much been a diehard Linux user for years and even *I* have been tempted to use a windows box on occasion just to see what a given site was about or how it looked when displayed properly
And now you can on Firefox. At least FF on windows is perfect and FF on Linux is pretty close to it with a few exceptions. There's no reason this could not have been done earlier. As usual you blame MS for the lack of a compeliing alternative when there is nothing MS can do about it. FF adopted IE's defacto standard. This could have been done by any browser a long time ago. If the Linux folks could not make a compelling browser, why blame MS? Until Konquerer/Safari there has been no such thing as a browser that comes even close to standards compliance. This is such a complicated topic - your view of 'MS subverted the standard and killed everyone' is so simplistic when you consider the fact that there has never been a single browser ever made that is completely standards compliant. Your complaint is also invalid that 90% of the people designed websites for IE only -- well what are they supposed to do? No coercion is necessary for them to see that 90% of traffic needs thier site to be IE-compatible. And after that any effort only gets them a small gain, so usually they don't bother. Success begets success -- that's life. If you don't like anything from MS and chose to use alternatives, that your choice. But if you think
You might also want to check out Linus' latest interview on openITis.com ahref=http://www.openitis.com/openitis/comment_art icles.php?cpath=25&a_id=306%23rel=url2html-4727htt p://www.openitis.com/openitis/comment_articles.php ?cpath=25&a_id=306#> He answers 35 questions put forth by the Indian FOSS community. Super questions, BRILLIANT answers. The interview ROCKS!
Only that the C library is replaceable (there are other free and high-quality C libraries), while the Linux kernel is not (Hurd, are you there?).