"thinking with great interest" about opening up Windows source code means that they are happy to grab some positive publicity by talking about nice friendly concepts without actually putting a time frame on any activity or specifying what that activity will be.
Ballmer said there were some drawbacks to making Windows code widely available because he wants to make it sound like his main concern is for the customer. Microsoft's main concern, of course, is how to leverage, decommoditise, cut off air supplies, and rake in millions, and going truly open source will undoubtedly cause more substantial problems for these corporate goals than the horrors a typical corporation faces by receiving source code to software it already uses. Microsoft is well aware that for the purposes of PR, one must pretend not to have such introverted concerns, especially if they might not be in perfect harmony with the good of the customer.
He offered no further elaboration because it might have meant actually committing to a concrete course of action, rather than scoring cheap positive PR points.
They are looking at opening the Windows NT kernel, which means they aren't so foolish as to make the source to an entire operating system available. They know the value of secrecy, and they aren't going to give away more secrets than they feel will be best for them on the whole. Opening up the entire operating system would merely attract hoards of programmers who wanted to make a free compatible version, a la WINE.
Valentine characterized Linux as "momentum without a lot of design wins," because (and this information comes from a highly reliable source -- my imagination) it is official Microsoft policy to mention Linux only in the context of FUD, combined with the reassurance that they are making all the possible real advantages of Linux available in Windows, only better because it's Microsoft in control.
If the company continues to see Linux "popping up everywhere," Valentine said, it will move to keep its competitive edge. This is a shot across the bow to Linux-boosters, of course, but it's real significance is not directed to us. The main reason for it is that the market likes to be reassured that their bazillion dollar investments in Microsoft software (and stocks, for that matter) are in no danger of being marginalised. "Please, Microsoft," says the market, "speak words of hope and reassurance to us," and Microsoft only too happily obliges. "Can't they see that Linux is better for them," you may ask. Have you met some of these people? But I digress...
There are all different types of ways you can do open source, such as making the source available to people who already have the license for the software, but under strict nondisclosure and with no right to give away "derived works". That isn't "Open Source", of course, but one could call it "open source" in some plain English sense, just like you could call Internet Explorer "free software" in a plain English sense. Didn't IBM used to provide source to their mainframe operating systems? Didn't this cause troubles because local "fixes" weren't necessarily compatible with IBM's future releases? The systems weren't Open Source, of course, which was part of the problem. This, no doubt, is what Mr Ballmer was referring to when he talked about the disadvantages of open source, which may in turn give us some clues as to how he's thinking.
The deal here is that Intel is buying advertising space, talent, and labelling restrictions from OEMs. Is this legal? Is this fair? The only problem I see here is the labelling restrictions. Would it be legal and fair for Intel to offer a flat sum of money to an OEM to package only Intel chips in a successful line of machines? That depends on the situation. If the market is such that a chip manufacturer must have the support of a popular brand name OEM to enjoy success and exclusive support is available to the highest bidder, the cost of entrance is then raised to the cheapest such support. If an established chip manufacturer offers to buy all such exclusive support in such a market, it effectively raises the cost of entrance into that market. An established competitor (and I use the word loosely) able to directly affect the cost of entrance is a Very Bad Thing. The question (and the aforementioned crux) now becomes "Is the corporate market for PCs such that an entrant requires the support of an established line of brand name PCs?" While this may be debatable, I personally believe so. I believe that companies like Dell have established a history of reliable products and services that procurement departments trust. AMD, Cyrix, or any entrants are now forced to "match" Intel's "bid" by either offering similar discounts, plain lowering their prices, or handing OEM execs suitcases of cash. It all amounts to the same thing: raising the cost of entrance by that much more. The whole advertising deal is just icing for Intel. The only matter for concern here is the sale of exclusive OEM support for Intel microprocessors.
I have to post... literally just got SMP working on this quad-Pentium!:)
The best way I know to find hardware is to know people unless you want to pay a lot of money. The best way to know the right ppl is to start a Linux User Group at your local University, either that or become President. Then after you become the Linux "expert" for the whole University, you are in a good position to meet people who are willing to make trades on hardware. Hold a hardware swap, you'll be amazed at what turns up. Maybe it's crazy, but it's a ton better than that 486DX4 120 I've been using for a couple years now:)
I'm a bit disappointed to see five choices. That's a shame, considering many of the two hundred or so entered were great.
I admit, I contributed a few myself... where did they go? First of all, the requirement to make the logo with GIMP limits it quite a bit. Vector is the only way to create a logo, period. How well does a bitmap scale? Are we really going to just make an icon and call it the logo for everything that Debian stands for?
Under these circumstances, lots of people made great logos, and I don't see any of those on the list of five. That's a big shame. I had a feeling this would happen. How can you choose between those?
I was anticipating seeing a better logo for debian, but I agree that we're wasting our time with this skimpy selection and poor criteria. I think this should be re-evaluated.
I think this vote should be put off, for now. I completely agree with alpha's points.
Pentium II's only have breq's for 2 processors, you can read about it in the intel manuals. Maybe you can modify the PII to get a couple extra breqs out of it like you can the celeron, but I doubt it.
I know its been said already, but vote Libertarion. It DOES count. In Min. they had two looser canditates (I.e. Presidential race '99:) and Jesse Ventura ended up winning. Democrat==No money for you, I.E. Communism/Socialism Republican==Say good things (somewhat) and then vote with the democrates. Libertarion==Vote for Less taxes (I.e. 10% of curren t taxes. Vote for less buricratic laws (Laws are like computer code, the more you have the more they screw up) Etc.
I'm not exactly leaping to the defense of the FSF, because I don't think they're particularly right, nor do I think you're particularly wrong.
I'm replying so that you can start to understand the mental processes that go on in RMS's head, and the reasons why I don't find him offensive.
Linux is not considered part of the complete GNU system because the complete GNU system uses the Hurd running on Mach instead. That's the same reason why the NetBSD kernel is not considered part of the complete GNU system, even though it's free software too.
GNU/Linux means the complete GNU system, but instead of the Hurd and Mach, it uses Linux.
What makes something GNU software? The same thing that makes it Linux software. Linux software is called Linux software because it interoperates with the Linux kernel. GNU software is called GNU software because it interoperates with the GNU C Library, GNU Emacs, GNU Wget, GNU cc, etc.
Note that GNU software and Linux software are not mutually-exclusive terms. Think postmodernist: is Perl GNU software or Linux software? The answer is both, plus even more. Perl is Win32 software, Perl is Solaris software, Perl is Artistic software, Perl is GPLed software, etc.
Before you leap to using Ghostscript as an example of RMS stealing credit from Aladdin, write to L. Peter Deutsch, and ask him what he thinks of the matter.
Also, before you claim that RMS is censoring the commercial testimonials, you'd have to talk with those people to find out what they think about the issue. I'd be surprised if they were as angry as you are about it.
RMS tends to respect peoples' wishes for privacy if they don't grant him permission to use them as examples. Committed to freedom and diversity.
They tried this. Remember the old CD caddies in the first generating CD players? Unfortunately, they failed miserably, most likely because so many people would refuse to buy more than 1 or 2, so they just turned out to be a hassle. If they were in a solid-state cartridge like MiniDiscs, that would be excellent though. I guess we can't get everything.
The FSF is trying to strengthen the definition against things like the FIG License.
However, as I wrote in a submission to Slashdot, I don't believe there is a conflict between the FSF's and FIG's idea of free software. Committed to freedom and diversity.
Language is constantly evolving. What a wonderful euphemism for 'language use is degenerating thanks to those too lazy to use the language properly.' Ask a linguist? A real one, or one cranked out by the diploma mill universities we have today, where any idiot with 10 thousand dollars can receive a piece of paper certifying he could remember things long enough to take a test?
[Insert 3 hour diatribe on the decline of Western Civilization here.]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this definition dovetail a little better with what the Open Source Initiative is pushing? If so, then this is a good thing. If Stallman, Raymond and everybody else can agree on this definition (or another) and run with it, that can only be good.
I like it, but it's not like I write software. I write about software. What does everybody else think?
Slashdot Mirror
"thinking with great interest" about opening up Windows source code means that they are happy to grab some positive publicity by talking about nice friendly concepts without actually putting a time frame on any activity or specifying what that activity will be.
Ballmer said there were some drawbacks to making Windows code widely available because he wants to make it sound like his main concern is for the customer. Microsoft's main concern, of course, is how to leverage, decommoditise, cut off air supplies, and rake in millions, and going truly open source will undoubtedly cause more substantial problems for these corporate goals than the horrors a typical corporation faces by receiving source code to software it already uses. Microsoft is well aware that for the purposes of PR, one must pretend not to have such introverted concerns, especially if they might not be in perfect harmony with the good of the customer.
He offered no further elaboration because it might have meant actually committing to a concrete course of action, rather than scoring cheap positive PR points.
They are looking at opening the Windows NT kernel, which means they aren't so foolish as to make the source to an entire operating system available. They know the value of secrecy, and they aren't going to give away more secrets than they feel will be best for them on the whole. Opening up the entire operating system would merely attract hoards of programmers who wanted to make a free compatible version, a la WINE.
Valentine characterized Linux as "momentum without a lot of design wins," because (and this information comes from a highly reliable source -- my imagination) it is official Microsoft policy to mention Linux only in the context of FUD, combined with the reassurance that they are making all the possible real advantages of Linux available in Windows, only better because it's Microsoft in control.
If the company continues to see Linux "popping up everywhere," Valentine said, it will move to keep its competitive edge. This is a shot across the bow to Linux-boosters, of course, but it's real significance is not directed to us. The main reason for it is that the market likes to be reassured that their bazillion dollar investments in Microsoft software (and stocks, for that matter) are in no danger of being marginalised. "Please, Microsoft," says the market, "speak words of hope and reassurance to us," and Microsoft only too happily obliges. "Can't they see that Linux is better for them," you may ask. Have you met some of these people? But I digress...
There are all different types of ways you can do open source, such as making the source available to people who already have the license for the software, but under strict nondisclosure and with no right to give away "derived works". That isn't "Open Source", of course, but one could call it "open source" in some plain English sense, just like you could call Internet Explorer "free software" in a plain English sense. Didn't IBM used to provide source to their mainframe operating systems? Didn't this cause troubles because local "fixes" weren't necessarily compatible with IBM's future releases? The systems weren't Open Source, of course, which was part of the problem. This, no doubt, is what Mr Ballmer was referring to when he talked about the disadvantages of open source, which may in turn give us some clues as to how he's thinking.
Executive summary: Linux FUD, and weasel words.
Posted by Joker_X:
I can see MS getting smaller and smaller in the rear-view mirror. Like many, I'm sure, games are the only reason I keep my (choke) Winbox around.
Posted by JoeyRamone:
It's like all opposition is vanished within Microsoft. Maybe the borg invaded them (now there's a nice thought).
Well at least it could offer us a change to see how crappy the programmers at MS really are (I'm thinking spaghetti). I applaud it...
BTW:
What could prized operating system mean?? Are they serious?
Posted by Bird, MP:
The deal here is that Intel is buying advertising space, talent, and labelling restrictions from OEMs. Is this legal? Is this fair? The only problem I see here is the labelling restrictions.
Would it be legal and fair for Intel to offer a flat sum of money to an OEM to package only Intel chips in a successful line of machines? That depends on the situation.
If the market is such that a chip manufacturer must have the support of a popular brand name OEM to enjoy success and exclusive support is available to the highest bidder, the cost of entrance is then raised to the cheapest such support. If an established chip manufacturer offers to buy all such exclusive support in such a market, it effectively raises the cost of entrance into that market.
An established competitor (and I use the word loosely) able to directly affect the cost of entrance is a Very Bad Thing.
The question (and the aforementioned crux) now becomes "Is the corporate market for PCs such that an entrant requires the support of an established line of brand name PCs?" While this may be debatable, I personally believe so. I believe that companies like Dell have established a history of reliable products and services that procurement departments trust. AMD, Cyrix, or any entrants are now forced to "match" Intel's "bid" by either offering similar discounts, plain lowering their prices, or handing OEM execs suitcases of cash. It all amounts to the same thing: raising the cost of entrance by that much more.
The whole advertising deal is just icing for Intel. The only matter for concern here is the sale of exclusive OEM support for Intel microprocessors.
Posted by mhamblin:
:)
:)
I have to post... literally just got SMP working on this quad-Pentium!
The best way I know to find hardware is to know people unless you want to pay a lot of money. The best way to know the right ppl is to start a Linux User Group at your local University, either that or become President. Then after you become the Linux "expert" for the whole University, you are in a good position to meet people who are willing to make trades on hardware. Hold a hardware swap, you'll be amazed at what turns up. Maybe it's crazy, but it's a ton better than that 486DX4 120 I've been using for a couple years now
Posted by rayola:
I'm a bit disappointed to see five choices. That's a shame, considering many of the two hundred or so entered were great.
I admit, I contributed a few myself... where did they go? First of all, the requirement to make the logo with GIMP limits it quite a bit. Vector is the only way to create a logo, period. How well does a bitmap scale? Are we really going to just make an icon and call it the logo for everything that Debian stands for?
Under these circumstances, lots of people made great logos, and I don't see any of those on the list of five. That's a big shame. I had a feeling this would happen. How can you choose between those?
I was anticipating seeing a better logo for debian, but I agree that we're wasting our time with this skimpy selection and poor criteria. I think this should be re-evaluated.
I think this vote should be put off, for now. I completely agree with alpha's points.
-raymond
Posted by Fleeno:
Those crazy teens, what will they come up with next?!
Posted by hardwarewhore:
Pentium II's only have breq's for 2 processors, you can read about it in the intel manuals. Maybe you can modify the PII to get a couple extra breqs out of it like you can the celeron, but I doubt it.
Posted by Futron:
:) and Jesse Ventura ended up winning.
I know its been said already, but vote Libertarion.
It DOES count. In Min. they had two looser canditates (I.e. Presidential race '99
Democrat==No money for you, I.E. Communism/Socialism
Republican==Say good things (somewhat) and then vote with the democrates.
Libertarion==Vote for Less taxes (I.e. 10% of curren t taxes. Vote for less buricratic laws (Laws are like computer code, the more you have the more they screw up) Etc.
Posted by Gordon Matzigkeit:
``No, nooooooo! Not Emacs! AAAAAAAAHHH!!!!''
Committed to freedom and diversity.
I'm not exactly leaping to the defense of the FSF, because I don't think they're particularly right, nor do I think you're particularly wrong.
I'm replying so that you can start to understand the mental processes that go on in RMS's head, and the reasons why I don't find him offensive.
Linux is not considered part of the complete GNU system because the complete GNU system uses the Hurd running on Mach instead. That's the same reason why the NetBSD kernel is not considered part of the complete GNU system, even though it's free software too.
GNU/Linux means the complete GNU system, but instead of the Hurd and Mach, it uses Linux.
What makes something GNU software? The same thing that makes it Linux software. Linux software is called Linux software because it interoperates with the Linux kernel. GNU software is called GNU software because it interoperates with the GNU C Library, GNU Emacs, GNU Wget, GNU cc, etc.
Note that GNU software and Linux software are not mutually-exclusive terms. Think postmodernist: is Perl GNU software or Linux software? The answer is both, plus even more. Perl is Win32 software, Perl is Solaris software, Perl is Artistic software, Perl is GPLed software, etc.
Before you leap to using Ghostscript as an example of RMS stealing credit from Aladdin, write to L. Peter Deutsch, and ask him what he thinks of the matter.
Also, before you claim that RMS is censoring the commercial testimonials, you'd have to talk with those people to find out what they think about the issue. I'd be surprised if they were as angry as you are about it.
RMS tends to respect peoples' wishes for privacy if they don't grant him permission to
use them as examples.
Committed to freedom and diversity.
Posted by alanx:
Not me, but I'm willing to be convinced.
Send me a URL, recommend a book, anything... I'm not a fan of inner classes, probably only because I haven't seen their usefullness.
Please, explain...
Posted by Gordon Matzigkeit:
As I've said before, you may be interested in the FIG License.
Committed to freedom and diversity.
Posted by Gordon Matzigkeit:
You may be interested in helping me work on the FIG License.
Committed to freedom and diversity.
Posted by some2:
They tried this. Remember the old CD caddies in the first generating CD players? Unfortunately, they failed miserably, most likely because so many people would refuse to buy more than 1 or 2, so they just turned out to be a hassle. If they were in a solid-state cartridge like MiniDiscs, that would be excellent though. I guess we can't get everything.
Posted by Akira410:
:-)
:-0
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
AL GORE IS GOD!
HAHAHA
Ok this is getting VERY funny!
The FSF is trying to strengthen the definition against things like the FIG License.
However, as I wrote in a submission to Slashdot, I don't believe there is a conflict between the FSF's and FIG's idea of free software.
Committed to freedom and diversity.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Has Cygnus also simplified their C++ compiler to get rid of all that class stuff?
Hello! VM's are what Java is all about! If you get rid of the VM, what's the advantage of Java? Buzzword compliance?
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
1) The story implies that these guys INVENTED wearable computers--but all they did was build one (and it sounded pretty big, BTW).
2) The story fails to mention how much money it took to build this thing.
Posted by Art Pepper:
we see if Al Gore would start wearing one of these during his "open source" presidential campaign?
Posted by Mike@ABC:
OK, first impressions suck. Glad everyone chipped in to clarify. I'm glad I asked.
Posted by Roland the Gunslinger:
Language is constantly evolving. What a wonderful euphemism for 'language use is degenerating thanks to those too lazy to use the language properly.' Ask a linguist? A real one, or one cranked out by the diploma mill universities we have today, where any idiot with 10 thousand dollars can receive a piece of paper certifying he could remember things long enough to take a test?
[Insert 3 hour diatribe on the decline of Western Civilization here.]
Posted by Buffy the Overflow Slayer:
Just checked out his website long enough to see
that Mr. Open Sore uses IIS as his server. So
much for an interest in Open Source software.
-buffy
If the Titanic was filled with lawyers, it would
not have been a disaster.
Posted by proteusrage:
'kept crashing all the time, though... ah, well.
Posted by Mike@ABC:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this definition dovetail a little better with what the Open Source Initiative is pushing? If so, then this is a good thing. If Stallman, Raymond and everybody else can agree on this definition (or another) and run with it, that can only be good.
I like it, but it's not like I write software. I write about software. What does everybody else think?