I missed one word in the sentence. It does not invalidate what I said in general. I have no confusion with evidence. The definition of "evidence" I am using is the one you can find in the dictionary here.
As in evidence is used to prove or disprove. But as I said, a negative proof is a logical fallacy. A negative proof and disproving something shouldn't be confused as the same thing, though.
Your assertion is just wrong. Human beings are indirect proof of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere. The fact that we haven't found/been given/detected evidence is immaterial.
Regardless, you are attempting a negative proof or proof of impossibility. This is a logical fallacy. Interestingly, it works both ways. You can't prove a Yeti doesn't exist or that life (intelligent or otherwise) exists on other planets because you don't have evidence and vice versa. People can't prove either exist for lacking evidence. While the Yeti argument is another kettle of fish since life on earth is indirect evidence of life on other planets, it is a bit of a stretch but can be argued that the different primate groups are indirect evidence of the possibility.
Interestingly, Yeti and ETs share the distinction that there exists no clear evidence of either. It is possible that we will never have proof of the existence of either. Equally, we will likely never exhaust all possibilities to satisfy ourselves that neither definitely don't exist. Unless we plan on leveling all forests, excavating every square inch of earth (for archaeological evidence) and visiting every solar system and planet in the Universe. Both of which are equally absurd.
Server virtualization is disruptive because it is a giant leap towards marginalizing the server space where servers become more like applications that can be loaded/unloaded at a whim, moved from server to server in real time and backed up with incremental changes logged so that you can roll a server back to a previous state in very little time. Of course, Linux and the BSD variants stand poised to take quick advantage of this since there are no licensing costs. Want a new DNS server? Create a virtual machine from whatever Linux or BSD ISO you want. Need to install some new hardware or replace a component in one server? Move your virtual machines in real time from one server to another without the clients even noticing.
Yes, it is highly innovative. But it is also highly disruptive to server economics. You have to look at how it can improve and change the lives of IT shops before you can grasp why it's disruptive. Hint: ridiculous server licensing costs are going to become a blatant stumbling block to IT very fast.
Sarcasm and humor aside, the first thing you need to realize is that the declaring of Linux as "legitimate" and "ready for prime-time" is not directed to you as an early adopter in any way. In general, I would argue it is directed to the old school slow to change crowd.
Keep in mind that Linux and OSS in general is a heck of a shift in the standard business paradigm. While some enterprising and forward thinking companies and individuals very quickly saw a great thing early on, many have not and still do not for a variety of reasons.
Research and analysis firms should know by now how true this is. If they know anything at all (which for some is arguable) then they've known for some time. The fact that studies continuously come out every so often is a testament to the fact that they are trying to see what the general consensus is.
I think their purpose for doing this is so they can provide insight to those holding out as a way of basically saying, "Hey silly, your competition is likely using this as a way to get an edge. You might want to look into it so you aren't at a competitive disadvantage." Or, alternatively, if they find quite a few companies that have tried and failed, they get to warn, "Danger Will Robinson! Others have tried and failed. You might not want to waste your time."
This would explain why Microsoft tried to trumpet alleged failures at Linux migrations. They want to try to foster this notion. Of course, all of this isn't rocket science. But I think it is important for everyone to understand the underpinnings behind the thought processes and purpose of these studies. It helps to gain insight to the conclusions they reach. Of course, the next logical step is to follow the money behind the studies to see if there is intrinsic bias due to the funding sources.
With the support of the CFO and CEO, I've developed the policy that we won't even entertain Vista until a minimum of SP1 and a year of full release has passed. In other words, we won't even begin testing until January 2008. I doubt our company is alone.
I don't doubt Vista will make some traction, but it seems to me that the likelihood is in a very slow adoption rate. By the time businesses are ready to take it seriously, many companies may be very open to alternatives that will have matured quite nicely. After all--with quite a few perfectly good computers sitting around that won't run Vista either at all or very well, why should we ditch those resources when we can reallocate them as a Linux desktop?
The first suggestion I have is that you re-evaluate what it is you want. Based on #2 and #5, it sounds like one of the things you want is a complete one to one conversion. If so, you are barking up the wrong tree. Switching from Windows to Linux is something that requires either A) Researching the availability of the applications you want/need based on either vendor ports or WINE compatibility OR B) Accepting a new way of computing and find suitable replacements.
If option B is completely unacceptable, you have some work cut out for you with A. Some people might choose a combination of A/B where they drop down their list of must-have applications to what is supported by WINE/Crossover (such as Word and Excel).
#1 I just can't relate. But a suggestion is that if it bothers you that bad, leave your burning software open all the time or follow other suggestions of changing permissions. Problem solved. By the way, if you hate having to type your password in frequently, brace yourself for Vista. You're gonna hate it with every breath.
#3 I'm not certain about. I switched my desktop from 2000 Pro to Ubuntu 6.06 and I'd say it is about an even trade for speed.
#4 I would have to disagree mostly. I find XP Wireless unpredictable, unreliable and mostly cumbersome. You gotta love how XP will randomly switch APs even if your "default" AP has the best signal. My personal favorite is how XP randomly loses WEP/WPA keys. One final note on this one--if Wireless vendors would be more forthcoming about their hardware specs, you can bet that their products would work flawlessly with Linux. Driver code monkeys out there for Linux have a track record of writing great drivers from reverse engineering, trial and error and great research. With specs in hand, they could do a better job.
Since converting, I can say that my computing experience is MUCH better. I'm of the opinion that if there are things in the Windows world you absolutely have to have, then you can either consider dual booting or wait until either the tide shifts and Linux gets a large enough market share that everything you want is ported or WINE reaches a level that all your applications work flawlessly. Whatever path you choose, good luck.
I don't hate the company, but rather their business practices. Although, at times it is difficult to separate one form the other. I dislike most of their products. I detest their licensing and find administering their products to be mostly annoying.
Why do people "hate" Microsoft? The true answer is a simple question--what is there to love?
Because legally wrangling over gray areas in copyright requires some fancy lawyering that he as an individual is unlikely financially capable of supporting. Unless he has millions and millions of disposable income sitting around waiting to be burnt.
The cheapest and best way for developers is, as Linus said, to work closely with and thus rewarding vendors that play by the rules and play fair. In other words, pressure companies by exclusion. If, for example, ATI were to cozy up closely with kernel developers to get high quality and highly optimized open source drivers in the kernel, what graphics card do you think would get installed in graphics workstations around the world?
Not only that, but contrary to popular belief, a Linux distro company is not required by the GPL either to provide the source for download or even to provide the source with a copy of the distro disks. Section 3 of the GPL makes it very clear that the minimum required is a written offer to provide the source.
The companies that include by default do so out of good practice and community spirit.
I want it to fail because it is unacceptable that by adding your own non-DRM'ed music to it that the Zune puts it under DRM.
Say I'm an artist. I put my own music on my Zune. Then I beam it to someone else's Zune (squirt just sounds dumb). By Microsoft's reckoning, that person can only listen 3 days or 3 plays. Whichever comes first. What gives Microsoft the right to determine the conditions under which I get to distribute my music?
When has Microsoft EVER worked with GPL'ed products for interoperability? I'll give you a few decades to research that and feel quite confident you won't find an example.
So if interoperability with GPL'ed products isn't on their agenda, what is? Don't think too hard. Look at Ballmer's comments only a few days with the announcement out of the gates for clarity.
I'd say [Novell} was clueless.
I don't think clueless even scratches the surface of the level of ineptitude required on Novell's part to make them innocent in this deal. Egregious incompetence comes close, but even that seems to fall short IMO.
In previous posts, I've made it very clear how I firmly disapprove of Novell's selling of their soul.
That being said, I see no problem with this. With the likelihood of developers on the project scratching their heads and wondering what they should do, he extended an invitation. It's up to them whether to accept. It isn't surprised that some on both sides would disapprove and feel threatened.
I can see where some would think this is in bad taste, but letting them know they have a place to go if they want one is a good thing IMO.
Wish I had that problem. On my honeymoon on Oahu a few weeks ago, my family got a call (from emergency contact list) who then got in touch with me at the resort. I just so happened to bring a laptop because the wife had to take a test for an online course she was taking while we were there.
The problem? A print queue on an old AIX box had locked up. We had a high priced consulting agency on call to fill in for me (I'm the alpha and the omega of the IT department), but they couldn't seem to do it. Took me 5 minutes tops.
On the positive side, I made my company reimburse me for costs of in-room high speed internet which wasn't free. I also told them I wanted a bigger bonus because of that interruption. Won that too. But I still don't think it was worth it.
There is nothing wrong with picking some middle-ground best for most/average choice and letting people either stick with it or choose something else if they want to.
If what you are saying is that people should be force under any circumstances to accept what they are given, then that's pure nonsense. For those people that choose when they shouldn't and choose in a harmful way, then let Darwinism take its course. At some point, you have to let people make mistakes so they can learn.
By your theory, restaurants should just bring you your food. Groceries would carry only one flavor and brand of every single item in the store. We would all wear the same thing every day of our lives. All cars would be the same. So would our haircuts. Or, alternatively, you would simply be told what all of these would be. Because, after all, making choices would be bad for you.
Regardless of the potential to make bad decisions, the ability to make them is essential for many people. Software isn't any different. Heck, I have some corrupted pictures on a digital camera and the default application in Ubuntu craps out when you try to download them. Others don't. Are you suggesting that the best thing for me in that case was to accept that I couldn't download the pictures?
As a member of the Linux community, I personally am disappointed by your maneuvers. While I can only speak for myself, I feel confident others share my sentiment.
Let's not beat around the bush on this. Your actions reek of the proprietary and closed mindset--not open source. It is clear this is a deal meant to benefit you first and foremost. While your customers may (or may not) benefit, the community at large seems to be left pissing in the wind. This is profoundly confusing since the vast majority of the Linux product you purport to protect has been written and continues to be written by that community and not your engineers.
While I'm not anyone famous, I am one of surely many decision makers looking for well supported open source solutions. I had been considering you for several projects and would have considered you in the future. Given that you push your idea of what is best for the community despite fairly blatant protests to the contrary from prominent community members, I cannot include your products in any projects until you correct your course of action.
Until that day comes, good luck making deals allegedly protecting a product with a company that has shown enormous contempt for and a desire to kill off that product. I find it overwhelmingly ironic that the market dominance you enjoyed long ago was taken by the very company with which you are now spooning. I guess you didn't learn your lesson the first time around.
To gauge Robert Cresanti's comments, it is important to first grasp where he comes from. So who is Robert Cresanti? He is a former Vice President of Public Policy for the BSA. Yes, that BSA. Before that, he was the Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the ITAA.
Why is this important? Both of these are groups that are all about the interests of big corporations. The BSA, in particular, protects those interests without regard for anyone in its path. So when someone of this mindset says they need to import more workers, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where he's coming from. There are two basic ways that companies in the US could increase the number of qualified workers. One is to increase salaries significantly enough to entice capable students of pursuing a career in IT. The second is to import workers from other countries often willing to work for the same or less.
For government, the two basic ways are to increase educational funding to lower the barrier for students to pursue higher education in IT and the second is to ease restrictions on workers from other countries to work in the US.
The second option is the quickest and "cheapest" solution from both a private and government perspective. The fact that he is promoting this as a solution shows that he thinks short term and not long term. It also means he thinks from the perspective of what is best for big business and not the American worker. This isn't totally surprising considering where he comes from and who got him in his position.
If you suspend your disbelief for a minute, it isn't hard to imagine that with a few tragic events, a civil war could indeed have started out of the deep political divisions in the 2000 and/or 2004 election. The fact that it didn't doesn't conflict with what Titor claimed about different world lines at all.
The problem is that whomever Titor really was could have claimed just about anything and then it becomes possible to write off the failure of his "predictions" to materialize as a difference in world lines.
What is interesting is at least one of the things he said that seemed like it could have been an indirect mention of the tsunami disaster a little while back that did happen. I don't have a reference handy, but it didn't take much to connect the statement to the incident. I say this is interesting because the motion of the tectonic plates mostly isn't affected by any human activities by and large (as I understand it). Therefore, it isn't impossible to think that IF the world line theory is accurate that the motion of the plates might not vary much from world line to world line. So his mention of the event is a bit intriguing.
I am not suggesting his story is real, but that there is enough in his story to make me wonder with an imagination reminiscent of my childhood.
There is a difference between "promote" and "recommend" in sales. Promote is actively suggesting one product whereas recommend is usually a response to a customer's request. Microsoft employs reps that work on site of some of their largest customers (such as government entities). These people are there to assist in solution design and purchasing so that those entities get the "right" products.
If, as you seem to think, these reps discuss Suse Linux, you can bet that it will almost always be when the customer asks the rep about integrating Linux into the mix. If, instead, the customer ASKS what product would work best in situation A, what I'm suggesting is that I believe the rep will virtually ALWAYS suggest a Microsoft solution even if Linux would be the better fit.
Samba 4 will be able to integrate quite nicely into Active Directory without Microsoft's help as a full domain controller. You can already integrate the latest versions of Samba 3 into AD as a file server and it works quite well actually. With version 4 you will allegedly be able to, theoretically, run an Active Directory network without a single Microsoft product on the server side.
What further integration do you need since Samba 4 will be distro agnostic?
I'll bet you a cookie. Do you really think Microsoft reps are going to promote another company's products let alone a Linux product? Think again.
I'll throw you a cross bet--this is just one more link in the FUD chain for Microsoft to suggest Linux has "intellectual property" problems and, more specifically, it has patent issues.
Microsoft shops that want to deploy Linux must have something very specific in mind. I'd wager they'll use whatever they think is best. It may very well be Suse, but that will probably be for reasons that have nothing to do with Novell and Microsoft forging some sort of strange and obscure patent deal.
OSS would not be so widely deployed if it were not OSS. This seems common sense, but understanding why takes a bit more gray matter. First, as a developer you have a huge testing group when you put your software out there. The best part is all the testing is free. Second, a small but important subset of those users will modify the code to make it better and return the source back to the project. These two forces combined allow the more popular projects to achieve a development group larger and more powerful than any commercial company can achieve due to the lack of economic pressures such as stock holders and the bottom line.
You use the term "exploited" and I find that interesting because when commercial companies use OSS (at least GPLed OSS), the exploitation is fairly mutual. For companies such as Google, they have a vested interest in seeing those OSS projects succeed. So not only do they make donations that the projects otherwise never would have had, but they also donate code back from some of the brightest developers on the planet.
Overall, I think it is fairly difficult to make an argument that paints OSS developers as exploited. They chose to develop OSS software.
Slashdot Mirror
I missed one word in the sentence. It does not invalidate what I said in general. I have no confusion with evidence. The definition of "evidence" I am using is the one you can find in the dictionary here.
As in evidence is used to prove or disprove. But as I said, a negative proof is a logical fallacy. A negative proof and disproving something shouldn't be confused as the same thing, though.
Your assertion is just wrong. Human beings are indirect proof of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere. The fact that we haven't found/been given/detected evidence is immaterial.
Regardless, you are attempting a negative proof or proof of impossibility. This is a logical fallacy. Interestingly, it works both ways. You can't prove a Yeti doesn't exist or that life (intelligent or otherwise) exists on other planets because you don't have evidence and vice versa. People can't prove either exist for lacking evidence. While the Yeti argument is another kettle of fish since life on earth is indirect evidence of life on other planets, it is a bit of a stretch but can be argued that the different primate groups are indirect evidence of the possibility.
Interestingly, Yeti and ETs share the distinction that there exists no clear evidence of either. It is possible that we will never have proof of the existence of either. Equally, we will likely never exhaust all possibilities to satisfy ourselves that neither definitely don't exist. Unless we plan on leveling all forests, excavating every square inch of earth (for archaeological evidence) and visiting every solar system and planet in the Universe. Both of which are equally absurd.
Server virtualization is disruptive because it is a giant leap towards marginalizing the server space where servers become more like applications that can be loaded/unloaded at a whim, moved from server to server in real time and backed up with incremental changes logged so that you can roll a server back to a previous state in very little time. Of course, Linux and the BSD variants stand poised to take quick advantage of this since there are no licensing costs. Want a new DNS server? Create a virtual machine from whatever Linux or BSD ISO you want. Need to install some new hardware or replace a component in one server? Move your virtual machines in real time from one server to another without the clients even noticing.
Yes, it is highly innovative. But it is also highly disruptive to server economics. You have to look at how it can improve and change the lives of IT shops before you can grasp why it's disruptive. Hint: ridiculous server licensing costs are going to become a blatant stumbling block to IT very fast.
Sarcasm and humor aside, the first thing you need to realize is that the declaring of Linux as "legitimate" and "ready for prime-time" is not directed to you as an early adopter in any way. In general, I would argue it is directed to the old school slow to change crowd.
Keep in mind that Linux and OSS in general is a heck of a shift in the standard business paradigm. While some enterprising and forward thinking companies and individuals very quickly saw a great thing early on, many have not and still do not for a variety of reasons.
Research and analysis firms should know by now how true this is. If they know anything at all (which for some is arguable) then they've known for some time. The fact that studies continuously come out every so often is a testament to the fact that they are trying to see what the general consensus is.
I think their purpose for doing this is so they can provide insight to those holding out as a way of basically saying, "Hey silly, your competition is likely using this as a way to get an edge. You might want to look into it so you aren't at a competitive disadvantage." Or, alternatively, if they find quite a few companies that have tried and failed, they get to warn, "Danger Will Robinson! Others have tried and failed. You might not want to waste your time."
This would explain why Microsoft tried to trumpet alleged failures at Linux migrations. They want to try to foster this notion. Of course, all of this isn't rocket science. But I think it is important for everyone to understand the underpinnings behind the thought processes and purpose of these studies. It helps to gain insight to the conclusions they reach. Of course, the next logical step is to follow the money behind the studies to see if there is intrinsic bias due to the funding sources.
I got modded down? I understand if I don't get modded up, but down? I see the Microsoft mod trolls are hard at work.
With the support of the CFO and CEO, I've developed the policy that we won't even entertain Vista until a minimum of SP1 and a year of full release has passed. In other words, we won't even begin testing until January 2008. I doubt our company is alone.
I don't doubt Vista will make some traction, but it seems to me that the likelihood is in a very slow adoption rate. By the time businesses are ready to take it seriously, many companies may be very open to alternatives that will have matured quite nicely. After all--with quite a few perfectly good computers sitting around that won't run Vista either at all or very well, why should we ditch those resources when we can reallocate them as a Linux desktop?
The first suggestion I have is that you re-evaluate what it is you want. Based on #2 and #5, it sounds like one of the things you want is a complete one to one conversion. If so, you are barking up the wrong tree. Switching from Windows to Linux is something that requires either A) Researching the availability of the applications you want/need based on either vendor ports or WINE compatibility OR B) Accepting a new way of computing and find suitable replacements.
If option B is completely unacceptable, you have some work cut out for you with A. Some people might choose a combination of A/B where they drop down their list of must-have applications to what is supported by WINE/Crossover (such as Word and Excel).
#1 I just can't relate. But a suggestion is that if it bothers you that bad, leave your burning software open all the time or follow other suggestions of changing permissions. Problem solved. By the way, if you hate having to type your password in frequently, brace yourself for Vista. You're gonna hate it with every breath.
#3 I'm not certain about. I switched my desktop from 2000 Pro to Ubuntu 6.06 and I'd say it is about an even trade for speed.
#4 I would have to disagree mostly. I find XP Wireless unpredictable, unreliable and mostly cumbersome. You gotta love how XP will randomly switch APs even if your "default" AP has the best signal. My personal favorite is how XP randomly loses WEP/WPA keys. One final note on this one--if Wireless vendors would be more forthcoming about their hardware specs, you can bet that their products would work flawlessly with Linux. Driver code monkeys out there for Linux have a track record of writing great drivers from reverse engineering, trial and error and great research. With specs in hand, they could do a better job.
Since converting, I can say that my computing experience is MUCH better. I'm of the opinion that if there are things in the Windows world you absolutely have to have, then you can either consider dual booting or wait until either the tide shifts and Linux gets a large enough market share that everything you want is ported or WINE reaches a level that all your applications work flawlessly. Whatever path you choose, good luck.
I don't hate the company, but rather their business practices. Although, at times it is difficult to separate one form the other. I dislike most of their products. I detest their licensing and find administering their products to be mostly annoying.
Why do people "hate" Microsoft? The true answer is a simple question--what is there to love?
Because legally wrangling over gray areas in copyright requires some fancy lawyering that he as an individual is unlikely financially capable of supporting. Unless he has millions and millions of disposable income sitting around waiting to be burnt.
The cheapest and best way for developers is, as Linus said, to work closely with and thus rewarding vendors that play by the rules and play fair. In other words, pressure companies by exclusion. If, for example, ATI were to cozy up closely with kernel developers to get high quality and highly optimized open source drivers in the kernel, what graphics card do you think would get installed in graphics workstations around the world?
Not only that, but contrary to popular belief, a Linux distro company is not required by the GPL either to provide the source for download or even to provide the source with a copy of the distro disks. Section 3 of the GPL makes it very clear that the minimum required is a written offer to provide the source.
The companies that include by default do so out of good practice and community spirit.
If it proves to be a desired feature, others will follow.
I want it to fail because it is unacceptable that by adding your own non-DRM'ed music to it that the Zune puts it under DRM.
Say I'm an artist. I put my own music on my Zune. Then I beam it to someone else's Zune (squirt just sounds dumb). By Microsoft's reckoning, that person can only listen 3 days or 3 plays. Whichever comes first. What gives Microsoft the right to determine the conditions under which I get to distribute my music?
When is the last time you looked at Zimbra? The latest release is getting good reviews.
Good enough in fact that I'm going to deploy it as our internal mail server of choice very soon.
Out of curiosity, what are the serious problems you allege?
whats the difference?
You'll have to remind me what science the KKK deals with. You know, the "S" in NSTA?
Novell wanted a deal on interoperability.
When has Microsoft EVER worked with GPL'ed products for interoperability? I'll give you a few decades to research that and feel quite confident you won't find an example.
So if interoperability with GPL'ed products isn't on their agenda, what is? Don't think too hard. Look at Ballmer's comments only a few days with the announcement out of the gates for clarity.
I'd say [Novell} was clueless.
I don't think clueless even scratches the surface of the level of ineptitude required on Novell's part to make them innocent in this deal. Egregious incompetence comes close, but even that seems to fall short IMO.
In previous posts, I've made it very clear how I firmly disapprove of Novell's selling of their soul.
That being said, I see no problem with this. With the likelihood of developers on the project scratching their heads and wondering what they should do, he extended an invitation. It's up to them whether to accept. It isn't surprised that some on both sides would disapprove and feel threatened.
I can see where some would think this is in bad taste, but letting them know they have a place to go if they want one is a good thing IMO.
Wish I had that problem. On my honeymoon on Oahu a few weeks ago, my family got a call (from emergency contact list) who then got in touch with me at the resort. I just so happened to bring a laptop because the wife had to take a test for an online course she was taking while we were there.
The problem? A print queue on an old AIX box had locked up. We had a high priced consulting agency on call to fill in for me (I'm the alpha and the omega of the IT department), but they couldn't seem to do it. Took me 5 minutes tops.
On the positive side, I made my company reimburse me for costs of in-room high speed internet which wasn't free. I also told them I wanted a bigger bonus because of that interruption. Won that too. But I still don't think it was worth it.
Availability of choice != Forced to choose
There is nothing wrong with picking some middle-ground best for most/average choice and letting people either stick with it or choose something else if they want to.
If what you are saying is that people should be force under any circumstances to accept what they are given, then that's pure nonsense. For those people that choose when they shouldn't and choose in a harmful way, then let Darwinism take its course. At some point, you have to let people make mistakes so they can learn.
By your theory, restaurants should just bring you your food. Groceries would carry only one flavor and brand of every single item in the store. We would all wear the same thing every day of our lives. All cars would be the same. So would our haircuts. Or, alternatively, you would simply be told what all of these would be. Because, after all, making choices would be bad for you.
Regardless of the potential to make bad decisions, the ability to make them is essential for many people. Software isn't any different. Heck, I have some corrupted pictures on a digital camera and the default application in Ubuntu craps out when you try to download them. Others don't. Are you suggesting that the best thing for me in that case was to accept that I couldn't download the pictures?
As a member of the Linux community, I personally am disappointed by your maneuvers. While I can only speak for myself, I feel confident others share my sentiment.
Let's not beat around the bush on this. Your actions reek of the proprietary and closed mindset--not open source. It is clear this is a deal meant to benefit you first and foremost. While your customers may (or may not) benefit, the community at large seems to be left pissing in the wind. This is profoundly confusing since the vast majority of the Linux product you purport to protect has been written and continues to be written by that community and not your engineers.
While I'm not anyone famous, I am one of surely many decision makers looking for well supported open source solutions. I had been considering you for several projects and would have considered you in the future. Given that you push your idea of what is best for the community despite fairly blatant protests to the contrary from prominent community members, I cannot include your products in any projects until you correct your course of action.
Until that day comes, good luck making deals allegedly protecting a product with a company that has shown enormous contempt for and a desire to kill off that product. I find it overwhelmingly ironic that the market dominance you enjoyed long ago was taken by the very company with which you are now spooning. I guess you didn't learn your lesson the first time around.
To gauge Robert Cresanti's comments, it is important to first grasp where he comes from. So who is Robert Cresanti? He is a former Vice President of Public Policy for the BSA. Yes, that BSA. Before that, he was the Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the ITAA.
Why is this important? Both of these are groups that are all about the interests of big corporations. The BSA, in particular, protects those interests without regard for anyone in its path. So when someone of this mindset says they need to import more workers, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where he's coming from. There are two basic ways that companies in the US could increase the number of qualified workers. One is to increase salaries significantly enough to entice capable students of pursuing a career in IT. The second is to import workers from other countries often willing to work for the same or less.
For government, the two basic ways are to increase educational funding to lower the barrier for students to pursue higher education in IT and the second is to ease restrictions on workers from other countries to work in the US.
The second option is the quickest and "cheapest" solution from both a private and government perspective. The fact that he is promoting this as a solution shows that he thinks short term and not long term. It also means he thinks from the perspective of what is best for big business and not the American worker. This isn't totally surprising considering where he comes from and who got him in his position.
If you suspend your disbelief for a minute, it isn't hard to imagine that with a few tragic events, a civil war could indeed have started out of the deep political divisions in the 2000 and/or 2004 election. The fact that it didn't doesn't conflict with what Titor claimed about different world lines at all.
The problem is that whomever Titor really was could have claimed just about anything and then it becomes possible to write off the failure of his "predictions" to materialize as a difference in world lines.
What is interesting is at least one of the things he said that seemed like it could have been an indirect mention of the tsunami disaster a little while back that did happen. I don't have a reference handy, but it didn't take much to connect the statement to the incident. I say this is interesting because the motion of the tectonic plates mostly isn't affected by any human activities by and large (as I understand it). Therefore, it isn't impossible to think that IF the world line theory is accurate that the motion of the plates might not vary much from world line to world line. So his mention of the event is a bit intriguing.
I am not suggesting his story is real, but that there is enough in his story to make me wonder with an imagination reminiscent of my childhood.
There is a difference between "promote" and "recommend" in sales. Promote is actively suggesting one product whereas recommend is usually a response to a customer's request. Microsoft employs reps that work on site of some of their largest customers (such as government entities). These people are there to assist in solution design and purchasing so that those entities get the "right" products.
If, as you seem to think, these reps discuss Suse Linux, you can bet that it will almost always be when the customer asks the rep about integrating Linux into the mix. If, instead, the customer ASKS what product would work best in situation A, what I'm suggesting is that I believe the rep will virtually ALWAYS suggest a Microsoft solution even if Linux would be the better fit.
Samba 4 will be able to integrate quite nicely into Active Directory without Microsoft's help as a full domain controller. You can already integrate the latest versions of Samba 3 into AD as a file server and it works quite well actually. With version 4 you will allegedly be able to, theoretically, run an Active Directory network without a single Microsoft product on the server side.
What further integration do you need since Samba 4 will be distro agnostic?
I'll bet you a cookie. Do you really think Microsoft reps are going to promote another company's products let alone a Linux product? Think again.
I'll throw you a cross bet--this is just one more link in the FUD chain for Microsoft to suggest Linux has "intellectual property" problems and, more specifically, it has patent issues.
Microsoft shops that want to deploy Linux must have something very specific in mind. I'd wager they'll use whatever they think is best. It may very well be Suse, but that will probably be for reasons that have nothing to do with Novell and Microsoft forging some sort of strange and obscure patent deal.
OSS would not be so widely deployed if it were not OSS. This seems common sense, but understanding why takes a bit more gray matter. First, as a developer you have a huge testing group when you put your software out there. The best part is all the testing is free. Second, a small but important subset of those users will modify the code to make it better and return the source back to the project. These two forces combined allow the more popular projects to achieve a development group larger and more powerful than any commercial company can achieve due to the lack of economic pressures such as stock holders and the bottom line.
You use the term "exploited" and I find that interesting because when commercial companies use OSS (at least GPLed OSS), the exploitation is fairly mutual. For companies such as Google, they have a vested interest in seeing those OSS projects succeed. So not only do they make donations that the projects otherwise never would have had, but they also donate code back from some of the brightest developers on the planet.
Overall, I think it is fairly difficult to make an argument that paints OSS developers as exploited. They chose to develop OSS software.