It seems clear to me that Microsoft is scared
because of the quality of code in FreeBSD
and Linux is higher than their own. Therefore
they want to assimilate it to remain competitive.
In other words, I don't think their true issue
with Open Source has anything to do with the
loss of IP, but rather that _they_ can't use
GPLed code without releasing source.
Looking at the admittedly flawed OS comparison
yesterday, one thing jumped out at me. The
scaling curves of Linux and Windows 2000 were
_very_ similar (go look at them again if you
have a chance).
So Microsoft appears to be benchmarking Windows
2000 carefully against open source offerings
and finding themselves lacking, then increasing
performance to match. "Unfortunately" in the
case of Linux they can't legally use the code.
I wouldn't be surprised if IIS is using Apache
code as well, since it is a very proven web
server and still dominates the market. It
would be interesting to find out for sure.
Even though Microsoft's usage of BSD-style
code is totally legal, it weakens their recent
campaign against open source where they have
not been clear at all about the GPL vs. BSD
license distinctions. (I personally think
this is an intentional oversight)
No, *you* missed the point - Microsoft said
they switched everything over from FreeBSD to
Windows. Apparently they did not, and they
admitted this Friday. (FreeBSD still runs
DNS and ad tracking apparently).
Additionally, FreeBSDers found that Windows
2000 software uses FreeBSD code.
Yes, I agree with you that WSJ has clout, but
this is new information about Microsoft's
use of open source and an admission of it.
"
Microsoft acknowledged its repeated use of open-source code Friday, in response to
questions about the matter. Just two days
earlier, it had specifically denied the
existence of any such software at Hotmail.
"
Netcraft only looks at web servers. If they
have FreeBSD running DNS and other functions,
it wouldn't be detected.
Sounds like they made a reasonable business
decision to me. It didn't seem like the
company was promoting and supporting the
Linux product well anyway.
Besides, it looks like the features of Freedom
are similar to those available in free software
packages. Why should I pay $40 more for bad
support?
I agree with what you're saying, but I still think the original poster muddled social issues with technical issues.
As far as your question about choosing between two platforms: I don't think an IT organization would make a decision based on security alone, it would be a decision driven more by cost of ownership and other logistical (e.g. in house expertise) / economic factors.
Access to the authorized keys means that the
intruder(s) could have added their own public
keys, thus ensuring future access. The problem
is not public key hashes being stolen.
The gripe isn't Windows per se, but
that most Windows utilities seem single-minded
unlike Unix utilities which can be used to
do multiple things (because you can combine
them in the shell), and also that Windows
often requires third-party apps for some
capabilities that are common on Unix systems.
Neither of these issues have anything to do with
the Windows OS itself (the kernel).
Perl is indeed its own culture. It's a clique where Larry Wall and Perl are worshipped.
You even sound like Larry.
Perl is "legendary" (notorious) outside the Perl clique for being unreadable and unmaintainable.
Perl programmers tend to use regular expressions
and bizarre syntax far too frequently just because you can. I don't see that as a good thing for
people who will have to maintain that code.
I do not see anything Damian's document to convince me otherwise: Perl has gotten way out of hand from its simple beginnings. Perl 4 had a grammar that mere mortals like me could understand. Perl 5 was okay if you didn't use
its weird hacked on pseudo OO. Smalltalk,
Java, Python, and Ruby are all powerful OO
languages that are much easier to work with
IMNSHO. Perl 6 is just going off the deep end.
Perl has become too clever for its own good. In a company you just can't plan on many people being motivated enough to learn complex nuances like that. I think a simpler, less context-sensitive, and more orthoganal language is better for long-term, large scale development.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems clear to me that Microsoft is scared
because of the quality of code in FreeBSD
and Linux is higher than their own. Therefore
they want to assimilate it to remain competitive.
In other words, I don't think their true issue
with Open Source has anything to do with the
loss of IP, but rather that _they_ can't use
GPLed code without releasing source.
Looking at the admittedly flawed OS comparison
yesterday, one thing jumped out at me. The
scaling curves of Linux and Windows 2000 were
_very_ similar (go look at them again if you
have a chance).
So Microsoft appears to be benchmarking Windows
2000 carefully against open source offerings
and finding themselves lacking, then increasing
performance to match. "Unfortunately" in the
case of Linux they can't legally use the code.
I wouldn't be surprised if IIS is using Apache
code as well, since it is a very proven web
server and still dominates the market. It
would be interesting to find out for sure.
Even though Microsoft's usage of BSD-style
code is totally legal, it weakens their recent
campaign against open source where they have
not been clear at all about the GPL vs. BSD
license distinctions. (I personally think
this is an intentional oversight)
-Kevin
No, *you* missed the point - Microsoft said
they switched everything over from FreeBSD to
Windows. Apparently they did not, and they
admitted this Friday. (FreeBSD still runs
DNS and ad tracking apparently).
Additionally, FreeBSDers found that Windows
2000 software uses FreeBSD code.
Yes, I agree with you that WSJ has clout, but
this is new information about Microsoft's
use of open source and an admission of it.
-Kevin
Did you even read the WSJ article above?
"
Microsoft acknowledged its repeated use of open-source code Friday, in response to
questions about the matter. Just two days
earlier, it had specifically denied the
existence of any such software at Hotmail.
"
Netcraft only looks at web servers. If they
have FreeBSD running DNS and other functions,
it wouldn't be detected.
-Kevin
Why would Mac IE5 be more standards compliant?
It must be a completely different code base
(???)
-Kevin
Sounds like they made a reasonable business decision to me. It didn't seem like the company was promoting and supporting the Linux product well anyway.
Besides, it looks like the features of Freedom are similar to those available in free software packages. Why should I pay $40 more for bad support?
-Kevin
Yes!
I wish people would read the articles before
commenting.
-Kevin
-Kevin
>the sintums then vanished except for her bust >being a size larger.
Try it again!! Try it again!!
-Kevin
>and this system is only a couple months old.
Do you think that has anything to do with it???
Sheesh.
-Kevin
>Somehow this behavior
>does not strike me as beneficial to the
>evolution of the species as a whole.
Versus being a vegetable in front of the TV
and/or computer monitor?
I think it's interesting. The world needs more
people who do things other than just become
sheep.
-Kevin
This sounds a lot like the speech software
/ te _1.html
you describe:
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/speech/enterprise
-Kevin
I prefer Photoshop LE (all I have so far) or Paintshop Pro under Windows.
I've spent a lot of time using the Gimp (what else is there for Linux et al, really) but I just don't like the interface.
Now if someone could take the guts of the Gimp, more or less, and put a (preferrably non-Gtk) interface on it, that would be pretty cool.
-Kevin
The Internet is decentralized.
...
Maybe we could throw it all on one server.
Take a look at SwarmCast, Freenet,
There's a lot of cool stuff going on in the
P2P space.
-Kevin
I agree with what you're saying, but I still think the original poster muddled social issues with technical issues.
As far as your question about choosing between two platforms: I don't think an IT organization would make a decision based on security alone, it would be a decision driven more by cost of ownership and other logistical (e.g. in house expertise) / economic factors.
-Kevin
I bet Windows systems are just targetted more than Linux and other Unix systems.
I think inferring relative OS security based on web site defacement would be a mistake.
-Kevin
No, you're wrong.
Access to the authorized keys means that the intruder(s) could have added their own public keys, thus ensuring future access. The problem is not public key hashes being stolen.
-Kevin
The gripe isn't Windows per se, but
that most Windows utilities seem single-minded
unlike Unix utilities which can be used to
do multiple things (because you can combine
them in the shell), and also that Windows
often requires third-party apps for some
capabilities that are common on Unix systems.
Neither of these issues have anything to do with
the Windows OS itself (the kernel).
-Kevin
should've mentioned that. most systems call
what Linux's strace is truss
-Kevin
you could run strace -o
on it, but you'll get a lot of detail to
wade through unless you give more options
you'd see all file accesses though
-Kevin
Perl is indeed its own culture. It's a clique where Larry Wall and Perl are worshipped.
You even sound like Larry.
Perl is "legendary" (notorious) outside the Perl clique for being unreadable and unmaintainable.
Perl programmers tend to use regular expressions
and bizarre syntax far too frequently just because you can. I don't see that as a good thing for
people who will have to maintain that code.
I do not see anything Damian's document to convince me otherwise: Perl has gotten way out of hand from its simple beginnings. Perl 4 had a grammar that mere mortals like me could understand. Perl 5 was okay if you didn't use
its weird hacked on pseudo OO. Smalltalk,
Java, Python, and Ruby are all powerful OO
languages that are much easier to work with
IMNSHO. Perl 6 is just going off the deep end.
Perl has become too clever for its own good. In a company you just can't plan on many people being motivated enough to learn complex nuances like that. I think a simpler, less context-sensitive, and more orthoganal language is better for long-term, large scale development.
-Kevin
Hey, I thought this comment was funny.
Please mod it up.
-Kevin
testing - ignore