Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Releases Linux Device Drivers As GPL
mjasay writes "Microsoft used to call the GPL 'anti-American.' Now, as Microsoft releases Hyper-V Linux Integration Components (LinuxIC) under the GPL (version 2), apparently Microsoft calls the GPL 'ally.' Of course, there was little chance the device drivers would be accepted into the Linux kernel base unless open source, but the news suggests a shift for Microsoft. It also reflects Microsoft's continued interest in undermining its virtualization competition through low prices, and may suggests concern that it must open up if it wants to fend off insurgent virtualization strategies from Red Hat (KVM), Novell (XEN), and others in the open-source camp. Microsoft said the move demonstrates its interest in using open source in three key areas: 1) Make its software development processes more efficient, 2) product evangelism, and 3) using open source to reduce marketing and sales costs or to try out new features that highlight parts of the platform customers haven't seen before."
Don't forget Microsoft's strategy: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
Microsoft has never been interested in anything other than its self. One must question its motives, and be acutely aware of the potential for unknown dangers waiting to surprise all of us.
Excuse for why is your room always messy?
I guess a few years Microsoft finally got the memo that they can't protect sales of Windows by attempting to force lock-in to their entire Windows ecosystem. They realized that many of their customers mix technologies together. Examples are Java/JBoss on Windows server, Windows desktops and Linux servers (Samba), working with Mozilla developers to port Firefox to Vista, and iPhones connecting to Exchange servers (licensing ActiveSync to Apple).
By taking these actions, Microsoft ensures the continued relevance of the Windows platform instead of potentially dooming it to a proprietary ghetto.
The flip side of this focus is that Microsoft will still push Windows to OEMs to fend off other platforms. An example is their actions in the netbook space among which was to essentially give away XP. So for at least some things, Microsoft is still up to their old tricks.
This space left intentionally blank.
Hyper-virtualisation. Running OS's under other OS's. In other words, this is a patch for Linux to make it run well on Microsoft systems, so customers will feel less need to actually install Linux on servers. It's not a friendly gesture to make normal Linux systems work better, as the title suggests.
The GPL is about maintaining control.
The GPL is about maintaining control huh? Tell that to Oracle. Who has control over the future of MySQL? Oracle or the people who are contributing code to it?
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
The Extinguish usually comes after people become hooked on MS software, to the point where even if its free, MS can dump it and it becomes irrelevent. In this case, the Extinguish could happen after people become dependent upon Hyper-V, and MS could then improve its Windows version, while letting the Linux drivers lag behind, then it continues to lag behind until it becomes pointless on Linux.
But, thats far into the future, right now MS is probably just concerned with undercutting the competition without regards to the future. After all, once they get a monopoly, it wouldent be that much work to drop the Linux support, they could even switch to a new virtualization platform, one that Linux wont support if they wanted to.
This makes the GPL irrelevent, at least in this case of device drivers.
If you have a mixed environment and need to host both Linux VMs and Windows VMs with optimal performance, until now VMWarea and Xen were your best options, because Linux performed sub-optimally under Hyper-V.
Now with this patch Linux will probably perform just as good under Hyper-V as it does in VMWare and Xen.
So now you might be able to be convinced to host your VMs on MIcrosoft's Hyper-V platform, where before it was not even an option.
Forking sounds very nice but for this situation it would require NOT just for people to be willing to DO the fork but then to keep the fork up-to-date.
Remember MS sale technique. The first one is free. What if they release the base module as GPL, then put everything you are going to need once you started to use it as closed source? MS owns the code after all, so they GPL'ed this version but can keep any future version closed source just as long as they keep other peoples code out.
Read up on exactly WHAT Embrace, Extend, Extinguish means and remember that MS has NEVER EVER played nice. It will even hurt it self it thinks it can spite its customers. Look at the Zune. Why did it bend over backwards to introduce all kinds of restrictions? To appease who? The music industry? Why? The iPod didn't and Apple does just fine with the music industry. No, MS did it because MS will ALWAYS try to squeeze the last bit of money out of anything.
I personally do not believe for a SECOND that MS will NOT introduce some sort of tierd service that somehow is going to screw anyone who is going to build their business on this tech. Just as MS did with the MP3 companies that build their business on MS music store only to not enable its own tech in its own player.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If so, Microsoft would have no one to sue but themselves before they demand people stop using the code.
I'm going to take this move at face value and assume that Microsoft is just doing something non-evil. But the notion still amuses me that they could be so fractured that one department may make a move like this only to be sued by another.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was just tone deafness at whatever level the commitment was initiated at (I would speculate that the people actually working on the product and wanting to release the code had to take that request to somebody who could actually commit to the release; the yes probably left his desk with a certain license named, and the legal approval process didn't address/bother changing it).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The usual way is to make their tools and solutions cheap/free, and get people to build their entire operation (code, infrastructure,etc.) around it. Require enough infrastructure that rebuilding is very expensive. Then, once the industry has managed to use your software as the center of their infrastructure, hammer them.
All they seemed to do was ensure linux will run on HyperV, something it has not previously done well, and which puts MS at a disadvantage. Thus customers have not been adopting that platform in droves. Now they'll have fewer excuses not to. Nothing prevents MS from later making the LinuxIC tools incompatible at a later date (or just letting them atrophy, as the technology develops).
Just don't use Microsoft products ever again...if you want to run a business you really shouldn't put all your eggs in their basket anyway.
Ah, so their motive here is try this in court and invalidate the entire GPL!
See, I knew we couldn't trust them.
Releasing something as gpl doesnt mean the come isnt copyrighted
Because kernel patches have to be GPLv2?
"If Microsoft didn't have a past history of trying to sue over Linux, people like me wouldn't be this paranoid."
It is not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
...While you are distributing the code.
(Trust can be lost in a day, but takes a lifetime to earn. MS has spent a lifetime abusing trust. If they want it back, they will have to prove they deserve it.)
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Too bad the software in question is released under the GPL V2 which doesn't have patent clauses in them.
You know, except for the part that says "if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
Which only applies to you when you try to distribute it; this does not cover the initial distribution by Microsoft (one of the flaws which were corrected in GPLv3).
I see it as an amoral (ie neither moral or immoral) part of their marketing strategy.
They are doing this for the simple reason that they want to sell more copies of Windows Hyper-V server. People buy hypervisors because they want to run different operating systems on the one computer. One of the operating systems they will want to run is Linux, and if Hyper-V server doesn't run Linux guests well, they are more likely to chose another hypervisor than chose a different operating system for their guest machine.
A lot of people have been burned repeatedly by Microsoft's empty promises. Most have also had to deal with a lot of astroturfing.
Believe it or not the fanboys who wont change their minds are not a majority. Many are just cautious and have many doubts due to past experience. Such doubts don't vanish overnight, and aren't helped by dismissive comments like the parent here.
Samba never stepped foot into court. MS took that step after losing an appeal in the EU, but the step hadn't been dictated to MS by the EU either. Regardless, that was over two years ago, so for someone today to be claiming MS is actively getting in the way of the Samba project is nothing but FUD.
No, MS's motto was never "dos aint done til lotus won't run", and it frustrates me that people that continually repeat these lies get modded up, which helps to spread the misinformation.
Microsoft puts immeasurable effort into ensuring backwards compatibility. And because Lotus was the predominant spreadsheet for quite a while, Microsoft went to great lengths to ensure that lotus would most definitely run on newer versions of DOS. Who would buy a newer version of DOS if their spreadsheet didn't work on it?
Slashdot itself ran an article that showed it to be a myth. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/02/2219208
Please stop spreading these untruths. And don't bother calling me a shill or an astroturfer - it just makes you look childish.
If the code is GPLed then the competition can use it.
If MS makes shitty code or plays dirty tricks (how could they do that with software that is open to all to see?) it would be obvious to all, and the problems could be fixed and the improvements used by others.
I dislike Microsoft strongly, you just have to read my comments on this website, but I have also argued that if they play fair they should be welcomed, cautiously of course, but I really struggle to see how MS could undo the effects of GPLed software released by them...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
No, but believing that does.
Good to see that the users of /. are completely biased against Microsoft no matter what they do. Glad to see how open minded this community is. This Microsoft = Evil crap gets really old after awhile. They are one of the most innovative companies out, produce quality software, offer much of it for free (Virtual PC? SharePoint Designer?) to the development community, and now they're trying to put out drivers for Linux under a license that garuntees they will be open and free and still everyone on /. is going to bash them and say this is a conspiracy.
I've taken Software Engineering classes at 3 different Universities (Drexel, George Mason, and West Chester). At every University they presented studies comparing open and closed source software. Closed source wins on almost every level; fewer errors, quicker fixes, better performance. Open source is a great ideal but just because someone COULD go through and edit and contribute code doesn't mean someone WILL go through and fix the errors or even find them in the first place. When I was 16 this open source evangelism had me convinced; a Masters Degree in Computer Science and 10 years in the industry have convinced me that open source is more hype than anything else and very few people are going to sit day after day and produce quality code and products if they don't get paid for it. Microsoft has contributed more to computing than any single company but everyone on this site just loves to hate them for no real reason; and I'm sure you'll all be jumping into anything Google produces (such as Chrome OS) despite the fact that your Holy Google is nothing but DoubleClick 2.0.
I thought this was an open-minded community once; now I realize it is nothing but a bunch of like minded extremists who only want to hear their opinions confirmed without any real argument or debate. When Microsoft does something to promote software interoperability with your open source products I would think that these open source advocates would be happy; instead you assume it is a giant conspiracy to overthrow the open-source community. Grow up.
Maybe you want to look into the old "microsoft patent covenant doesn't cover GPLv2 but could be forced under GPLv3" thing.
"we based our code on existing GPL'ed code; by the terms of the GPL itself we must therefore open source our code. This is what the linux devs asked for by choosing the GPL."
Seems pretty clear to me. Nicely done, Microsoft, keep up the good work.
Sure, but I'm even more inclined to say "nicely done, GPL, keep up the good work." This is why copyleft is good for Linux, good for the world.
Property is theft.
I think op meant not so much as the original distribution but rather the code drop. i.e. microsoft "committed" code into the kernel but aren't actually distributing the program themselves. Thus, microsoft could have inserted some chunk of code they have a patent claim on in order to look like the good guys (releasing stuff under the gpl) but make it so that no one can actually distribute the drivers in question without actually running afoul of the gpl
What about all the advances that VMWare makes while Hyper-V is catching up to what they already have?
They may compete with VMWare, but they aren't just going to blow them out of the water.
Worst case VMWare turns its price into roughly the same as the licensing cost for the same sort of Hyper-V setup.
So okay, you'll go with MS because of your discount. I won't. I don't get those discounts. Also, I've seen what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket. I will NEVER be an 'MS' shop, or a 'Linux' shop, or any other product. When you pile all of your stuff onto one product line/company you realize later how that was a retarded move when they go a different direction than you need.
I've been there, done that. I'd much rather deal with integrating several different distinct systems than be completely screwed over AGAIN when the vendor decides to change gears or drop a product. Any of my vendors can disappear tomorrow and I'll have some work to do, but most of my systems won't require complete replacement. You go ahead and tie yourself into MS for everything, and when they drop the product line or whatever, you deal with having to retool EVERYTHING at one time.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The Linux community also requests that you don't charge a royalty or assert any patents covering driver code you are *not* contributing (such as "vfat.ko").