Slashdot Mirror
Linus Calls Microsoft Hatred "a Disease"
Hugh Pickens writes "In the aftermath of Microsoft's recent decision to contribute 20,000 lines of device driver code to the Linux community, Christopher Smart of Linux Magazine talked to Linus Torvalds and asked if the code was something he would be happy to include, even though it's from Microsoft. 'Oh, I'm a big believer in "technology over politics." I don't care who it comes from, as long as there are solid reasons for the code, and as long as we don't have to worry about licensing etc. issues,' says Torvalds. 'I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease. I believe in open development, and that very much involves not just making the source open, but also not shutting other people and companies out.' Smart asked Torvalds if Microsoft was contributing the code to benefit the Linux community or Microsoft. 'I agree that it's driven by selfish reasons, but that's how all open source code gets written! We all "scratch our own itches." It's why I started Linux, it's why I started git, and it's why I am still involved. It's the reason for everybody to end up in open source, to some degree,' says Torvalds. 'So complaining about the fact that Microsoft picked a selfish area to work on is just silly. Of course they picked an area that helps them. That's the point of open source — the ability to make the code better for your particular needs, whoever the "your" in question happens to be.'"
That was a succint overview of the difference between open source and free software, though to be fair, even pragmatic free software supporters would find this new contribution by Microsoft as a positive thing.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
That's the sexiest thing to come from the Linux community in forever.
I'm no fan of microsoft either however I think Linus really does have the interests of the kernel and the greater linux community at heart. I agree with him that we need to be very careful to make sure there are no potential licensing issues involved here but as long as the lawyers give it a good look and make sure there are no hidden patent claims, etc. then I think there is no reason not to include the code in the kernel.
-Buck
It's really refreshing to hear some level headed comments from high profile open source guys once in a while. I tire of all of the "watch out for X!" and "Y are just out to get you!" stories, no matter how relevant they may or may not be.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
RMS is going to helicopter out of his grave. 'The Ride of the Valkyries' is going to start playing and innocent civilians will be killed. Theo will say he loves the smell of 'Fresh Napalm in the Morning'. Mark my words.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Unless I'm mistaken (and I very well may be) the code released is under the GPL, which seems to me to eliminate any worry about "licensing etc. issues", regardless of Microsoft's history.
I mostly agree with him, but just to be anal (nerdly prerogative)... Stupid, irrational fanboyism isn't really a disease, it's just tribalism. We're apes. We choose some stupid tribe to identify with, be it PS3 or XBox or Windows or Linux or Mac whatever and death to all outsiders. The more underdog the group, the more rabid the members are (Linux, Mac, Amiga). Religion is one of the best, if not the best, strategies for cementing loyalty and killing all competitors, so it shouldn't be a surprise that even something as secular as this takes on strongly religious overtones.
Not so strangely, as Linux continues to spread its influence the fanbase is getting less stupidly polarized (but then the old guard entrenches further, to combat this 'threat'). Generally this eases up as you get older and your penis stops ruling your brain, but not always.
Sounds very reasonable. Linus is correct. The point of open source is to do something you need done. Sharing it with others gives you satisfaction and reward. What's wrong with that!
Disease is just your body's way of letting you know that some part of the body is going rotten. Diagnosing something as a disease does not invalidate the cause nor does it cure what is rotten.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I don't think I can say anything, other than the fact this confirms my assumptions that Linus is an extremely level-headed, perceptive person.
Do you honestly believe the whole open source movement depends on people uniting around a hatred for Microsoft, as opposed to sharing a love for innovation and technology?
Sorry if that sounds kind if "hippy", but saying that the entire FOSS world is based around nothing but hatred for a particular corporation really cheapens the accomplishments of the people involved.
If hating a company that lies, cheats, and steals its way to the top is a "disease", then I don't want to be well.
If you hate anything so much that you injure yourself or your cause in the process of avoiding it, then yes, you have a disease.
No no no, the is the opportunity for us to say to Microsoft, look it really isn't that bad, is it? You benefit from open source, other people benefit, and it's a model you can profit from as well.
MS is scared of open source because it has been seen as a threat. But what if at the end of all of this, MS realizes that giving people the source code, while selling a product and related support, benefits everyone? It will happen slowly, but they are coming around.
WiX was the first shot, and now they are realizing that helping others helps them. So maybe somewhere down the line, we can get for example explorer.exe source code. Or something else that they give away free - so we can customize and fix bugs instead of whining that it sucks.
If the "average open source developer" is supposed to hate microsoft, and not evaluate anything simply because it's Microsoft, we're going to have some very out of touch projects and non-interoperable software and an overall loss of quality.
I think its quite healthy to dislike ( ok, hate ) an entity whose stated goal is to wipe you from the face of the earth. We arent talking about some bully in a school yard, we are talking about a well funded organized corporation that wants you eradicated..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Microsoft-hating is a disease that you catch from doing business with Microsoft.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Microsoft created the disease. Microsoft is the cancer on software--and I'm sure we all have heard Microsoft claim Linux is a cancer on software.
I used to be like you. I really cared about all the drama that surrounds Microsoft vs Linux and then later, in my mid-twenties and continuing into my thirties, I stopped giving a shit. Why? Because it just doesn't matter anymore. I suggest you listen to Linus' words and take heed. The man is a visionary. He wants you to stop concentrating on the bullshit and start concentrating on what matters--supporting what you want to support.
I can definitely drink to that and I think I will. Bell's Lager FTW. Cheers.
GP is talking about the fact that Dave Cutler, the dude who architected VMS at DEC later went to work for Microsoft and ended up architecting Windows NT. Either GP is ignorant of this fact, or they were being intentionally misleading and trying to imply that someone at Microsoft stole something from VMS. Which isn't true. (unless you count Cutler's freely choosing to change jobs "stealing" somehow.)
MS released a server product. They recognized that for it to be as profitable as possible, it needed to support Linux, so they produced the drivers to make that happen.
Result: MS makes more money, Linux is usable on more systems. Everyone's happy.
Obviously MS only cares about the money part, but who cares as long as:
1. The code is of sufficient quality. (The reviewers will determine this.)
2. There's valid reason to include it. (There is.)
and 3. They're not trying to exert control or otherwise screw with the Linux model (they GPLed this code, so they pretty much can't.)
There's a LOT of reasons to fear some of MS' moves, especially when it comes to open source, but in this case, we're simply looking at a business decision that happens to be beneficial to all parties involved, so why not just take the code (assuming it doesn't suck) and move on? There are MS decisions that need to be fought, but I really, really, don't think this one of them.
Yeah, they did.
So why the mod up to +5 with no working link to support the assertion?
Why the Fastest Chip Didn't Win" (Business Week, April 28, 1997) states that when Digital engineers noticed the similarities between VMS and NT, they brought their observations to senior management. Rather than suing, Digital cut a deal with Microsoft. In the summer of 1995, Digital announced Affinity for OpenVMS, a program that required Microsoft to help train Digital NT technicians, help promote NT and Open-VMS as two pieces of a three-tiered client/server networking solution, and promise to maintain NT support for the Alpha processor. Microsoft also paid Digital between 65 million and 100 million dollars.
Interestingly, throughout the 1990s, Digital introduced many NT features to VMS, and Microsoft has added VMS developments to NT. For example, VMS featured native clustering support in 1984, and 64-bit memory and system APIs in 1996. Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story [1998]
Digital began spinning off bits and pieces of the corporation in 1992 - the last remnants going to Compaq in 1998. Digital Equipment Corporation You could argue that when the VMS team abandoned ship, Microsoft was there with a lifeboat.
It happens in this business.
And "celebrities" are no different, apparently.
After all that Microsoft did, does, and will probably always do, the hatred for Microsoft is completely rightful and perfectly founded on those actions.
It's like calling it "a disease" to call a murderer and mass scammer what he is, just because some of it was some time ago, and some of it is still happening, but more or less sneaky.
If that someone got what he deserved, then it's acceptable to stop the hatred. But not before that.
I will treat Microsoft for exactly what they are, as long as it takes go give them their rightful punishment.
And it's not only Microsoft. By far. MS looks like a joke in the light of criminal giants like Monsanto & the rest chemical industry, the defense industry, RIAA/MPAA, etc. But still, they are close followers.
Inform yourself, before you mod this comment. *Really* inform yourself. There are many lists out there about what Microsoft did.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Hatred of Microsoft has nothing at all to do with the virtue of the alternatives. If there was nothing but Microsoft anything to use, Microsoft would still be hated. Bell telephone was quite hated when there were no alternatives simply because of the abuses it put people through. Microsoft is an extremely abusive company and hasn't faced competition is nearly 20 years. Linux isn't a challenger and wasn't born of hating Microsoft either. Microsoft and those who love, support and admire Microsoft might see all others as challengers, but that is not truly where why others exist or have existed. In fact, that particular view is one of the reasons why Microsoft is so contemptible. They tend to view everyone and everything else as a challenger and do whatever they can to keep then down. Linux started as a school project, for god's sake. OS/2 was born of IBM with the enlisted help of Microsoft before Microsoft ripped off IBM. Apple..? You tell me why Apple has never made it into the business enterprise despite its quality and serious users. DR-DOS existed because someone thought they could do it better... and pretty much did until Microsoft wrote Windows in such a way that it denied DR-DOS access. The list is longer than I know to be sure. But none of them existed as an "enemy" of Microsoft... it's just that Microsoft saw them that way and attacked.
No, it's a lie that not even Torvalds believes.
In 2005 Torvalds chose the politics of siding with Bitkeeper proprietor Larry McVoy over fellow coder Andrew Tridgell when Tridgell dared to write an interoperating program that was compatible with Bitkeeper API. Tridgell had figured out that by telneting to a Bitkeeper repository server and typing "help" he could get a list of relevant commands. Torvalds took McVoy's side saying Tridgell "screwed people over" blaming Tridgell for somehow causing McVoy to no longer allow Torvalds to use the proprietary software source code manager (as opposed to recognizing that as McVoy's choice as it was). Torvalds' arguments against software freedom come off badly for multiple reasons including how often Linux kernel hackers leverage their software freedom to continue improving that kernel. In this case where Microsoft contributes Linux code, it seems prudent to consider if a self-declared enemy of FLOSS would contribute a trojan horse to a prominent program. But this is not a consideration one can take if one views code only in terms of code quality and developmental efficiency. Given how much proprietary software is in Torvalds' fork of the Linux kernel (I'm sure the Linux-libre project can tell you all the details) it seems clear that Torvalds is not as concerned with licenses as the /. quote would indicate. Nor is Torvalds apparently concerned with his users' freedom to know what code is in that fork of Linux.
The phrase "technology over politics" is also a naive position to take: it tries to frame technology and politics as non-overlapping things. In the real world no collaboration is free of politics, that includes technological collaboration. The reason the open source movement exists is because its founders wanted to break away from the older free software movement over a disagreement on politics. The open source movement argues for a technocratic developmental method aimed primarily at benefiting businesses, while the free software movement fights for social solidarity, community, and specific freedoms for all computer users.
Generally, Torvalds gets way more press than he deserves on politics. His views on the proper approach to solving certain problems with the Linux kernel might be well worth one's time to understand and abide by (particularly if one wishes to get their code into his fork of the Linux kernel). But his views in computer-related politics are so often wrong (either in framing the issue or in the side he takes) one wonders why anyone would bother to give him such heed.
Digital Citizen
I don't claim to know what happened in your previous discussions, but I would venture to guess that people stated that Holland was Socialist not because of their social freedoms, but because of your 6%/19% VAT, your income tax that goes as high as 52%, and your "wealth tax".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_Netherlands
I think there are two separate things: rational dislike of Microsoft, and irrational hatred of Microsoft. Bot exist, and are distinct - and you will see both on /. I think that Torvalds, as the figurehead for Linux, hears more of the foaming irrational hatred than, perhaps, you do, and is responding to that. There are people who have suggested rejecting Microsoft's OSS contribution purely on the grounds that they are from Microsoft - that is the hatred side. The dislikers would accept any good quality, proprely licenced code - as Torvalds has done.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.