Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Invests In Open Source Software Company
joabj writes "In what may be its first investment in an open source software company, Microsoft has quietly invested in TurboHercules, which maintains the Hercules open source IBM mainframe emulator. Perhaps the potential for purloining customers from the juicy mainframe market outstrips any misgivings Microsoft may have about open source. You might remember TurboHercules: In March, it filed an antitrust complaint with the EU over IBM's tying of its mainframe OSes with its hardware."
A story from earlier this year gives more information on the related conflict between Hercules and IBM over patents.
Perhaps the potential for purloining customers from the juicy mainframe market outstrips any misgivings Microsoft may have about open source.
The only misgivings MS ever had about open source is for the potential it has for giving away what it has always charged money for, thus eroding their profit share. I've often wondered why they don't leverage it to their own advantage more, much like the way they appropriated BSD code for much of their networking utilities, like netstat et al.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
If the courts make IBM give in this could be huge for Microsoft. Turbo Hercules could be used to make an easy migration to Windows. Or maybe Microsoft will make an IBM mainframe compatibility layer like the Posix layar using Turbo Hercules? If you could run your mainframe software on a Windows server things would really start to suck for IBM.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Besides the people behind this case, the case itself is quite interesting too.
The European Commission (or Court of Justice) will have to decide if IBM has harmed TurboHercules through anti-competitive behaviour. IBM has also asserted patents. This means that if the European institutions find that IBM is doing wrong, then they will also have to decide if IBM can use its patents to continue the wrong. I.e. what trumps? Competition law or patents?
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IBM_and_TurboHercules,_2010
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Competition_law_defence
If competition law trumps, then this opens a new path for breaking down the problems that software patents are doing to standards and interop.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Apple ties OSX to it's own hardware and no one argues that is wrong, although I think it is.
Conversely, IBM should invest serious money/time in ReactOS and WINE ... and encourage the liberation of Mono...
IBM should invest serious money/time in ReactOS and WINE ... and encourage the liberation of Mono...
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
While I'm happy Microsoft is investing in open source, I find that their target is fairly suspicious.. what easier way to take on IBM indirectly than to give money to an open source company who is already in conflict with them.
In addition, it's not like Microsoft isn't already trying to embrace open source. You'd be surprised at just how much stuff is released under MS-PL licence. And while that may anger you, as it's their own licence, it's rather free.
As time goes by, most MS senior management will realize that open source is neither good nor bad, but an instrument that can be more useful than closed source under many circumstances.
En un lugar del estado de Washington cuyo nombre quiero olvidar...
Is there anyone online that lets you remote in to a public copy dedicated for educational purposes?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The fact is Microsoft is funding TurboHercules and thereby funding the lawsuit. Now why Microsoft is funding TurboHercules may have little or nothing to do with said lawsuit.There's room for conspiracy theories there and those who are into such things can (and likely will) take that ball and run with it but I don't know or care to speculate. Still, "Microsoft is funding TurboHercules lawsuit against IBM" [sic] is a statement of fact. They weren't funding it at the start, but they are now.
MSFT have form, remember SCO? Why else would they invest in this company?
You can get accounts on them for fairly reasonable prices, but you're essentially buying time as a user. From what I've seen it's more useful for developers who want a machine to code on when they're aware from work. From a system administrator perspective, you just don't have the access capabilities to learn how to do things like OS upgrades and the like.
For Unix comparison, it'd be like being given an account on a machine with no root access. You can code, run apps, etc, but no fiddling with the setup.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
really? It's pretty much actual confirmation of it.
A complaint is not a ruling of law, nor is a settlement a ruling of law. Has the EU even ruled yet?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
M$.. investing in open source.. good.. evil.. must.. classify.. DOES NOT COMPUTE!
To the conspiracy theorists (hello, Boycott Novell!), Microsoft was secretly behind the lawsuit from the start, and this is seen as some sort of proof they were right about that.
Watching those wackos on the history channel conspiracy shows gives me a huge appreciation for rational thought.
Admit it, "they" have gotten to you. What did "they" have to do to ensure your silence?
> You know this has been decided before in favor of IBM.
Oh? Got a link?
My understanding was, as is mentioned in the story summary:
"You might remember TurboHercules: In March, it filed an antitrust complaint with the EU over IBM's tying of its mainframe OSes with its hardware."
I.e. no decision has been taken.
If you can give a link to show it's been decided, I'll be happy to admit I wasn't up to date on the case.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Why can't it be a conspiracy theory and be true?
"Disregard" that: "I" suck "cock" 4U!
APK
Microsoft's entire IP stack is based off the BSD model
It's a very old factoid that became an enduring myth a long time ago. It was really only true back in the days of Windows NT 3.1, the TCP/IP stack for which was a third-party implementation bought by MS. That one was mostly BSD-derived. Since then, however, it was rewritten from scratch (several times, in fact), and NT 3.5 and 95 already included that rewritten version, which is not derived from BSD.
However, the original userland utilities (nslookup, ftp, telnet, a bunch of other stuff) were originally BSD-derived and remain such. That's where the strings "Berkeley" etc (which are usually used as a proof of BSD derivation) come from. So GP is absolutely correct.
Hereis a more detailed treatment of this.
"It's a very old factoid that became an enduring myth a long time ago. It was really only true back in the days of Windows NT 3.1, the TCP/IP stack for which was a third-party implementation bought by MS. That one was mostly BSD-derived." - by shutdown -p now (807394) on Thursday December 02, @05:50PM (#34424564)
That's where I was "coming from", but some of the sources in my search query also said it was the same for Windows 2000 (in beta, which IS possible).
I say it was possible, especially during beta for Win2k, because Windows 2000 was the "Direct Descendant" of Windows NT (of which you note now, good post by the by, if I forget to say it, on YOUR part).
I know that the IP stack altered, substantially, in Windows 2000 (when TCP/IP took over vs. LanManager/NetBIOS based communication being the default before that in NT 4.x downwards as one major change as an example thereof), so you're probably correct that it's now "Microsoft Code" via a rewrite... but from myself having written millions of lines of code in my time, I can tell you right now, that I severely SEVERELY doubt it's a "COMPLETE REWRITE" because it works the same for the MOST part (boot up turn on of the IP stack changed since 2000 too, it kicks on FULLY once a user or the system makes an internet bound/IP bound call from Windows XP onwards, as an example for that much also)...
I.E.-> You might be surprised how little is truly "complete rewrites" out there that says it is, & mainly because most coders use prebuilt routines they have stashed over time, that came from WHO KNOWS WHERE, usually code from books adapted has been something!
Thanks for the link too - I can use it in the future during posts like this one I suppose, as a reference.
He's correct, the GP, as you said... I never said he wasn't, but I did want to point out that the IP Stack had BSD roots is all (historical trivia type thing).
APK
P.S.=> Nice post shutdown -p now - if I had "mod points"? I'd give you an upwards mod, but alas, I do not (I don't keep a registered user account here)... apk
You realize your only proof is speculation that is 10 years and three full OS versions old, right?
That's about as weak as you can get.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
I know of a great tool to help convert your DATACOM databases to DB2. It's called 2BDB2 at http://www.isi.com.au/2bdb2.html
I found that thread enlightening.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
While you sometimes have valid points, your style is quite... unique, and that's made it prone to mockery, unfortunately. An account wouldn't be the worst idea, even if you don't care about mod points or any of the rest of it. After all, signing your AC posts kind of defeats the point of posting as AC.
Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
I hope you'll be happy when your alien overlord paymasters are eating your brains.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
They aren't investing in the company because it's open source, they are investing in a company that just happens to release their product as open source.