It is necessary to prevent open source from being looted by commercial corporations.
Now that Microsoft is becoming more and more like Unix, what prevents them from stealing the kernel and embed it in their operating system? We cannot look at their source code.
Has anybody tried to make sense of what is really going on, and for what purpose does SCO (an obviously sinking ship) try to scuttle Linux intellectual property?
Here are interesting developments to think about:
1. Microsoft buys Apple stock. Microsoft ports MSOffice for the Mac. By developing apps for a Unix-like OS such as Apple, Microsoft developers can gain valuable programming experience for the Unix platform.
2. Microsoft develops Windows 2000 Server. Several important Unix security concepts gets implemented, like tighter file permissions and streamlined kernel operations.
3. Microsoft develops Windows XP. Much of the Unix concepts gets reimplemented in the desktop operating system.
4. Microsoft develops Windows 2003 Server. It is seen as a stop-gap release between Win2003 Server and WinXP while users wait for the ultimate OS in the works -- Longhorn.
On a side but very interesting note, Win2003 Server is now more Unix-like. Configuration files are no longer housed in a cryptic registry but are simple text files. Services can be configured individually.
"...products, where they facilitate Unix-to-Windows
interoperability. Services for Unix is comprised of commands, utilities and libraries drawn from BSD Unix, a Posix layer developed by Microsoft, and GNU utilities, among other elements, Miller says. And Windows Server 2003 comes with new Unix-based command-line administration tools."
"But Microsoft needs to improve its Unix-interoperability pitch, a message that's coming from the top. "We must invest in better support for developers who want to move Unix applications to Windows, or extend Unix applications with additional functionality on Windows," CEO Steve Ballmer wrote in a state-of-the-company E-mail that went to all Microsoft employees on June 4.
"We have made great strides on Services for Unix, and Unix class-library support on Windows. There is still more to be done to support Unix APIs and scripts on Windows."
That push, more than anything else, may explain why Microsoft needed SCO's Unix code. And it's worth noting that Microsoft's Unix-interoperability strategy is essentially the same as its Linux-interoperability strategy. "We see Linux as yet another variant of Unix," Miller says. Services for Unix, he says, can be used to run Linux applications on Windows..."
5. Microsoft buys a chunk of SCO and takes a look at SCO's codebase. In this manner, they leverage the theoretical knowledge gained from working with MacOS, BSD, and their own implementation of these concepts on Win2K, Win2003 Server, and WinXP.
6. Meanwhile, MS unsuccessfully tries to stem the tide of Linux migrations around the world, most especially with lucrative government agencies. In a bid to boost up this effort, MS funded SCO to raise serious doubts on Linux IP, target IBM, and spread FUD. So far, this campaign has been somewhat successful in making potential migrators
think twice of Linux.
7. Meanwhile, MS core developers tries to emulate Unix, trying to make libraries and APIs compatible with everyone else.
Why engineer an OS to become more and more Unix-like? Big question, any answers?
If Microsoft finishes the compatibility problem, then they can complete the stage which they have been working for so long.
Embed (or steal) the greatest Linux kernel into their core OS.
Since no one can take a peek at their source code, they can do this, then build "decoy wrappers" around it to mask its true core design.
Microsoft suddenly has a powerful core. Why bother designing your own when you can steal the greatest kernel for free, as long as you don't get cau
Has anybody tried to make sense of what is really going on, and for what purpose does SCO (an obviously sinking ship) try to scuttle Linux intellectual property?
Here are interesting developments to think about:
1. Microsoft buys Apple stock. Microsoft ports MSOffice for the Mac. By developing apps for a Unix-like OS such as Apple, Microsoft developers can gain valuable programming experience for the Unix platform.
2. Microsoft develops Windows 2000 Server. Several important Unix security concepts gets implemented, like tighter file permissions and streamlined kernel operations.
3. Microsoft develops Windows XP. Much of the Unix concepts gets reimplemented in the desktop operating system.
4. Microsoft develops Windows 2003 Server. It is seen as a stop-gap release between Win2003 Server and WinXP while users wait for the ultimate OS in the works -- Longhorn.
On a side but very interesting note, Win2003 Server is now more Unix-like. Configuration files are no longer housed in a cryptic registry but are simple text files. Services can be configured individually.
A very interesting article on the net opines that Microsoft is becoming more and more like Unix.
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=10300922
Comments from the article:
"...products, where they facilitate Unix-to-Windows interoperability. Services for Unix is comprised of commands, utilities and libraries drawn from BSD Unix, a Posix layer developed by Microsoft, and GNU utilities, among other elements, Miller says. And Windows Server 2003
comes with new Unix-based command-line administration tools."
"But Microsoft needs to improve its Unix-interoperability pitch, a message that's coming from the top. "We must invest in better support for developers who want to move Unix applications to Windows, or extend Unix applications with additional functionality on Windows," CEO Steve Ballmer wrote in a state-of-the-company E-mail that went to all Microsoft employees on June 4.
"We have made great strides on Services for Unix, and Unix
class-library support on Windows. There is still more to be done to support Unix APIs and scripts on Windows."
That push, more than anything else, may explain why Microsoft needed SCO's Unix code. And it's worth noting that Microsoft's Unix-interoperability strategy is essentially the same as its Linux-interoperability strategy. "We see Linux as yet another variant of Unix," Miller says. Services for Unix, he says, can be used to run Linux applications on Windows."
5. Microsoft buys a chunk of SCO and takes a look at SCO's codebase. In this manner, they leverage the theoretical knowledge gained from working with MacOS, BSD, and their own implementation of these concepts on Win2K, Win2003 Server, and WinXP.
6. Meanwhile, MS unsuccessfully tries to stem the tide of Linux migrations around the world, most especially with lucrative government agencies. In a bid to boost up this effort, MS funded SCO to raise serious doubts on Linux IP, target IBM, and spread FUD. So far, this campaign has been somewhat successful in making potential migrators think twice of Linux.
7. Meanwhile, MS core developers tries to emulate Unix, trying to make libraries and APIs compatible with everyone else.
Why engineer an OS to become more and more Unix-like? Big question, any answers?
If Microsoft finishes the compatibility problem, then they can complete the stage which they have been working for so long.
--Embed (or steal) the greatest Linux kernel into their core OS.--
Since no one can take a peek at their source code, they can do this, then build "decoy wrappers" around it to mask its true core design.
Microsoft suddenly has a powerful core. Why bother designing your own when you can steal the greatest kernel for free, as long as you don't get caught in the act of stealing?
How can the underfunded FSF and OSI police this act? How can the rest of the open source community ensure that their work doesn't get plagiarized behind the scenes?
The dark side is very dangerous indeed. Sound the alarm now!
It seems like Expose has nice ideas for the advancement of the "virtual desktop" paradigm in Linux UI. KDE/Gnome developers will not have a hard time reimplementing the same functionality in their respective desktops, and I don't have to pay, nor upgrade my machine for the feature to be included.
I think I'll stick with Linux in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
It is necessary to prevent open source from being looted by commercial corporations.
Now that Microsoft is becoming more and more like Unix, what prevents them from stealing the kernel and embed it in their operating system? We cannot look at their source code.
How can we prevent this from happening?
(Umm..Err..sorry, left out the tags...)
Has anybody tried to make sense of what is really going on, and for what purpose does SCO (an obviously sinking ship) try to scuttle Linux intellectual property?
Here are interesting developments to think about:
1. Microsoft buys Apple stock. Microsoft ports MSOffice for the Mac. By developing apps for a Unix-like OS such as Apple, Microsoft developers can gain valuable programming experience for the Unix platform.
2. Microsoft develops Windows 2000 Server. Several important Unix security concepts gets implemented, like tighter file permissions and streamlined kernel operations.
3. Microsoft develops Windows XP. Much of the Unix concepts gets reimplemented in the desktop operating system.
4. Microsoft develops Windows 2003 Server. It is seen as a stop-gap release between Win2003 Server and WinXP while users wait for the ultimate OS in the works -- Longhorn.
On a side but very interesting note, Win2003 Server is now more Unix-like. Configuration files are no longer housed in a cryptic registry but are simple text files. Services can be configured individually.
A very interesting article on the net opines that Microsoft is becoming more and more like Unix.
Comments from the article:
"...products, where they facilitate Unix-to-Windows interoperability. Services for Unix is comprised of commands, utilities and libraries drawn from BSD Unix, a Posix layer developed by Microsoft, and GNU utilities, among other elements, Miller says. And Windows Server 2003 comes with new Unix-based command-line administration tools."
"But Microsoft needs to improve its Unix-interoperability pitch, a message that's coming from the top. "We must invest in better support for developers who want to move Unix applications to Windows, or extend Unix applications with additional functionality on Windows," CEO Steve Ballmer wrote in a state-of-the-company E-mail that went to all Microsoft employees on June 4.
"We have made great strides on Services for Unix, and Unix class-library support on Windows. There is still more to be done to support Unix APIs and scripts on Windows."
That push, more than anything else, may explain why Microsoft needed SCO's Unix code. And it's worth noting that Microsoft's Unix-interoperability strategy is essentially the same as its Linux-interoperability strategy. "We see Linux as yet another variant of Unix," Miller says. Services for Unix, he says, can be used to run Linux applications on Windows..."
5. Microsoft buys a chunk of SCO and takes a look at SCO's codebase. In this manner, they leverage the theoretical knowledge gained from working with MacOS, BSD, and their own implementation of these concepts on Win2K, Win2003 Server, and WinXP.
6. Meanwhile, MS unsuccessfully tries to stem the tide of Linux migrations around the world, most especially with lucrative government agencies. In a bid to boost up this effort, MS funded SCO to raise serious doubts on Linux IP, target IBM, and spread FUD. So far, this campaign has been somewhat successful in making potential migrators think twice of Linux.
7. Meanwhile, MS core developers tries to emulate Unix, trying to make libraries and APIs compatible with everyone else.
Why engineer an OS to become more and more Unix-like? Big question, any answers?
If Microsoft finishes the compatibility problem, then they can complete the stage which they have been working for so long.
Embed (or steal) the greatest Linux kernel into their core OS.
Since no one can take a peek at their source code, they can do this, then build "decoy wrappers" around it to mask its true core design.
Microsoft suddenly has a powerful core. Why bother designing your own when you can steal the greatest kernel for free, as long as you don't get cau
Has anybody tried to make sense of what is really going on, and for what purpose does SCO (an obviously sinking ship) try to scuttle Linux intellectual property? Here are interesting developments to think about: 1. Microsoft buys Apple stock. Microsoft ports MSOffice for the Mac. By developing apps for a Unix-like OS such as Apple, Microsoft developers can gain valuable programming experience for the Unix platform. 2. Microsoft develops Windows 2000 Server. Several important Unix security concepts gets implemented, like tighter file permissions and streamlined kernel operations. 3. Microsoft develops Windows XP. Much of the Unix concepts gets reimplemented in the desktop operating system. 4. Microsoft develops Windows 2003 Server. It is seen as a stop-gap release between Win2003 Server and WinXP while users wait for the ultimate OS in the works -- Longhorn. On a side but very interesting note, Win2003 Server is now more Unix-like. Configuration files are no longer housed in a cryptic registry but are simple text files. Services can be configured individually. A very interesting article on the net opines that Microsoft is becoming more and more like Unix. http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=10300922
Comments from the article:
"...products, where they facilitate Unix-to-Windows interoperability. Services for Unix is comprised of commands, utilities and libraries drawn from BSD Unix, a Posix layer developed by Microsoft, and GNU utilities, among other elements, Miller says. And Windows Server 2003
comes with new Unix-based command-line administration tools."
"But Microsoft needs to improve its Unix-interoperability pitch, a message that's coming from the top. "We must invest in better support for developers who want to move Unix applications to Windows, or extend Unix applications with additional functionality on Windows," CEO Steve Ballmer wrote in a state-of-the-company E-mail that went to all Microsoft employees on June 4.
"We have made great strides on Services for Unix, and Unix
class-library support on Windows. There is still more to be done to support Unix APIs and scripts on Windows."
That push, more than anything else, may explain why Microsoft needed SCO's Unix code. And it's worth noting that Microsoft's Unix-interoperability strategy is essentially the same as its Linux-interoperability strategy. "We see Linux as yet another variant of Unix," Miller says. Services for Unix, he says, can be used to run Linux applications on Windows."
5. Microsoft buys a chunk of SCO and takes a look at SCO's codebase. In this manner, they leverage the theoretical knowledge gained from working with MacOS, BSD, and their own implementation of these concepts on Win2K, Win2003 Server, and WinXP.
6. Meanwhile, MS unsuccessfully tries to stem the tide of Linux migrations around the world, most especially with lucrative government agencies. In a bid to boost up this effort, MS funded SCO to raise serious doubts on Linux IP, target IBM, and spread FUD. So far, this campaign has been somewhat successful in making potential migrators think twice of Linux.
7. Meanwhile, MS core developers tries to emulate Unix, trying to make libraries and APIs compatible with everyone else.
Why engineer an OS to become more and more Unix-like? Big question, any answers?
If Microsoft finishes the compatibility problem, then they can complete the stage which they have been working for so long.
--Embed (or steal) the greatest Linux kernel into their core OS.--
Since no one can take a peek at their source code, they can do this, then build "decoy wrappers" around it to mask its true core design.
Microsoft suddenly has a powerful core. Why bother designing your own when you can steal the greatest kernel for free, as long as you don't get caught in the act of stealing?
How can the underfunded FSF and OSI police this act? How can the rest of the open source community ensure that their work doesn't get plagiarized behind the scenes?
The dark side is very dangerous indeed. Sound the alarm now!
It seems like Expose has nice ideas for the advancement of the "virtual desktop" paradigm in Linux UI. KDE/Gnome developers will not have a hard time reimplementing the same functionality in their respective desktops, and I don't have to pay, nor upgrade my machine for the feature to be included. I think I'll stick with Linux in the future.