The excuse about unusual expenses is just that, an excuse. And Hurd never prepared his own expense reports--the guy was the CEO. Most of the time they just submit their receipts, or someone else takes care of *all* the expenses.
As the HP lawyer said, the amount had no material impact on HP.
What's the name of the website that allows you to upload case law so others can freely search it? There was a firefox add-on that expedited it for you.
Hurd has overall knowledge but non-specific. His job was to direct the goals of the company. It wasn't to design chips, OSes, etc. His knowledge is about the direction the company was going, how to set up their priorities, how to spend and grow. He didn't have specific knowledge about the coding of projects or the design of hardware, just the direction those would take.
Oracle and Ellison are not really competitors to HP in the vast majority of areas where Oracle generates revenue (Oracle is primarily a relational database company selling to big companies). HP's competing OS is a non-starter. Even Oracle's acquisition of products from Sun wouldn't be such a major threat in any market to HP. As far as business models go Oracle's and HP's are probably quite different as they target different markets for the most part, as Oracle doesn't make printers nor desktop PCs and what they do compete with is probably limited to server markets where HP just doesn't have that much moxy.
If they try to limit Hurd's overall knowledge exposure they'll loose, they'll have to overcome years of legal history where one CEO goes to work for another company. And, this is HP's burden. HP must prove what they claim.
Ellison isn't a stupid man. He is also a multi-billionaire. I'm sure he and Hurd worked out the specifics of the separation package and any signing bonus.
If we accept that at the CEO level then we must accept the massive compensation packages these guys get because then they'd never be able to work. Any CEO making the big money also has the big bills which have to be paid.
And if that were the case then the middle level guy would forever be shunned unable to find work because he knows to much about the workings of the company.
There's a limit to what they can force non-disclosure on. Otherwise, it would be a one hit wonder for so many managers and executives.
This has happened before. I think it was with some Microsoft employee living in CA that went to work for Google. I can't remember the specifics. Though they still hired the guy it was agreed that he wouldn't be used in a position that directly exposed his knowledge gained from his prior job.
In reality, though you can't limit it all. Some people need to work and some are highly specialized. It would be onerous to force people to comply with non-compete clauses (if they were valid in CA). In this case, the termination would probably play a bigger role than if he were to have left on his own. Had HP sued him for leaving on his own with the intent of disclosing trade secrets that would have been another matter. But he was fired and to find gainful employment at his level of expertise he would have to disclose some information. This has to be accounted for.
Frankly, this is simply spiteful behavior on HP's part. In the end, after the suit has ended, if it goes to trial, I'm sure we'll find out more about how HP and Hurd parted ways--particularly the fact that their now in charge CEO illegally aired Hurd's dirty laundry--which it is well known that an employer is forbidden from doing that. I'm sure Hurd will have his own leverage against the board and Chairman.
When I worked for a company in CA they wanted me to sign a non-compete document. I asked what would happen if I didn't want to sign it. They just told me not to sign it. I gave it back blank. It didn't affect my hiring or future employment.
They dropped the rape charge. They stated there was no attempt at rape. The rape allegation was made in order to try to compel him to take a STD test because he had unprotected consensual sex. They conducted further investigation into molestation of an adult (which isn't rape, and as far as I have heard doesn't even carry a penalty of jail time).
What I see in this is some chick at Wikileaks doing a power play.
I hope people reading the parent post realize this guy has absolutely zero understanding of intellectual property (copyright and patents). His remarks flagged as troll seem quite appropriate.
The term freetard was conceived by a guy that maintained a website that had the intent of trying to humiliate those that wanted free choice. He is now defunct (his own choice). The rebut to freetard is proprietard. Those that think that proprietary software is the only thing of value.
Linux and FreeBSD came into being through the hard work of others. Those individuals sat down and began working in earnest with the goal of providing everyone with choice. They were not copying the proprietary code of others or even trying to violate any patents or copyright. Their efforts reflect those of the generation of shareware authors, except they chose to give theirs away freely and to release the source code so that others could use it and improve it.
Windows 7 though significantly better than Vista is still Vista and Vista was still XP as XP was 2000 and earlier. They were incremental changes to previous OSes. Win phone 7's future is as questionable as Zune's. Considering that this is paid software that must be licensed on a per unit basis (whereas Android doesn't have those costs/requirements) makes Win Phone 7 hardly a sure win.
If you count that Android can be (and is being) modified by virtually every handset maker it bears fortune as it shows that Android represents the future of the smart phone and tablet market across the board. A paid closed proprietary one-size fits all Win Phone 7 isn't guaranteed success. As well, the development tools, the products, and features of Android on both the smart phone and tablet really shine making it a high mountain to climb.
Microsoft isn't a company that can't afford to fail. If it were to fail the orbiting markets that fed it and others would still exist for some time while the competition came in to chew up chunks of the market. In other words, Microsoft's failure wouldn't be as devastating as the parent's post makes it out to be. Also, considering that the failure of Microsoft wouldn't be like a light switch where it is on one day and off the next. The competition would already have come in and chewed away at segments of the market. Nothing about Microsoft's failure could seriously hurt the computing market. There are some incredibly smart businesses out there that would step in and ease our transition.
Apple has invested billions also in creating a good user experience. Linux has too. Large corporations have invested considerable money. To make a kernel on par with the Linux kernel by today's standard would run a company 5+ billion dollars. FOSS software also has had billions invested in it. This is from large companies such as IBM, Sun, Oracle, NASA, Red Hat to name a few.
Many of the more modern features of Microsoft Windows came from other OSes. In fact, most of what they created comes from copying others. The latest task bar in Win 7 is a copy of the features of Apple's dock. The desktop itself is a copy of Apple's product (I know, it was copied from other companies). The transparent window borders, and other 3d affects were copied from the likes of Linux. The UAC is a copy of the Mac and Linux. There are features that Linux has that exceed anything Microsoft offers and you should expect copies of that to occur in Windows.
The point is that *all* OSes today take considerable commitment, even in the billions of dollars. The features of any given OS and the user experience behind that are common between virtually every OS. Microsoft's paid model for Win Phone 7 and the fact that they are late players and doing nothing more than emulating the already successful Andoid and iOS foretell of slow adoption, higher costs, and a weaker user experience due to the lack of apps, the lack of refinement as is found by revising your product over the years.
Essentially, the parent's post is a weak attempt. He demonstrates an almost complete lack of knowledge about anything of which he is speaking. His perspective is utterly one-sided and he's showing his prejudice throughout. He reminds me of a wanna be Glen Beck of/.!
Dell was and is a company that offers Linux pre-installed. No more than a few weeks ago they expanded their offerings.
There's no factual evidence that more Linux pre-installed machines were returned than Windows machines. In fact, several of the most prominent companies that offer Linux as a choice stated that there was no greater a percentage of Linux returns than Windows returns. In fact, no company stated that Linux return ratios were higher.
I totally agree that Android is a massive push toward OSS. Though this is the case, and Android is a top notch product, and it has quality oozing from it, it is not generally considered to be anything more than a gadget control system. That's much different than Linux on the desktop or many of the other OSS projects.
Granted that will create developers developers developers for the platform and some of that will engender support for Linux itself. But really... TiVO is Linux underneath yet it doesn't actually get much acclaim as a Linux product. It is a gadget control system.
I'd heard the educational system in India emphasized math. To what degree I guess I don't know. I was under the understanding that it was the primary emphasis of the educational system in India.
These stats only represent the purchased licenses. They don't represent the whole market percentages. Microsoft, only a month or so ago, tried to pass that off as their success story--by only presenting paid licenses when Linux is free.
Sun Microsystems created Java and licensed it to Microsoft. The terms were that Microsoft (nor anyone else) couldn't change it to add proprietary extensions. Microsoft agreed. A couple years later they were creating extensions that only benefitted Windows users. Effectively that caused programmers to write only for Windows.
Sun sued Microsoft and won. Microsoft was ordered to remove their VM from Windows. Today, no one uses Microsoft's version of Java.
This was Microsoft's embrace, extend, extinguish for all to see. If you look at the effect they were able to effectively eliminate Java as a competitor without actually fully embracing it. That is the nature of their monopoly power.
You are living proof that embrace, extend, extinguish works.
Open source was defined many years ago in an effort to ensure that it would not be subjugated and perverted, and that has done it's job for the past 17 years. Microsoft's posted open source license directly conflicts with that definition. Hence, it isn't the real thing.
In terms of time frames, in the real scheme of things, comparatively, over the past 3 decades, this is an over night change. And, even if it works for Microsoft it might not work for open source. Just as easily as they allege change in support of open source that can also change over night.
My comments have little to do with trust, except in regards to trusting their commitment to open source, and their willingness to adhere to the definition of open source.
Tainting the waters is pretty self explanatory. Many people didn't want to look at some "leaked" Microsoft code for the possibility that Microsoft could claim Linux was tainted by the release. Think SCO, in how they claimed that Linux was copying huge chunks of code.
SCO's code contributions seemed clearly in favor of Linux and open source when they contributed and even began producing their own distribution. Later SCO sued IBM, Novell, and several other companies that contributed (and some who simply used open source). SCO's claims were wide and varied, and even radical. Claims were made that there were millions of lines of copied code in Linux. Later they claimed that Linux copied the structure of Unix and thus that structure gave them dominion over all Linux. And, they were even selling patent indemnification.
I did not say "*trust" a person or company before we *let* them join". I said that we don't want to trust them to adhere to the concept of open source as it was defined some 17 years ago, because they have been known to embrace, extend, extinguish. I question your understanding of the history of open source, Microsoft, and their policy of embrace, extend, extinguish. Microsoft's definition of open source is clearly in conflict with the definition of open source as it was defined 17 years ago. I doubt few would claim the definition has evolved in any significant way due mainly to the fact that it hasn't had to.
The GPL is only a single license. V2 is a single release of that license. V3 was created to close a loop hole that was exploited in the V2 version of that license by Microsoft. It came about because of the actions of a company that made a commitment to kill Linux and to destroy open source (they described it as a cancer). You find it hard to comprehend that Microsoft was doing the same thing as SCO as a process of their agreements with Novell (and others) don't you?
Please go back and read Microsoft's definition of open source as they have it posted on their web site. Then at least try to show you have an understanding of open source (and that it isn't at all just one license), and try to understand that it has nothing to do with public domain.
The point is that companies can support open source, can contribute, and in the end sue claiming patent and other violations. It is possible to embrace, extend, extinguish open source. During this process they bring fear and distrust while reinforcing their own vision of it. Creation of licenses that conflict with the true definition can be used to muddy the waters. Open source gains influence as the software is used (not only in its' creation) and if a company committed to killing open source can diminish true open source by selling a cheap knock off that is limited to one operating system (Windows) and business thinks it is the real deal, then you are effectively extinguishing the real deal.
The guys that make the WUBI product are from India.
I know India is heavily into math. It really would make sense to have more in India using Linux because more people would have examples to learn by, especially complex code such as the OS kernel.
If India is a lot like their nearby neighbors in Asia most people would be pirating Windows.
The slide in your editorial demonstrates Microsoft's vision of OSS during initial announcement a couple years ago. They were all for OSS as long as it fit their definition of it. They were working quite hard to get enterprise businesses to embrace their vision of OSS. If they had business following their vision then the vision of true open source would be blurred and out of sight.
What was identified by the OSS community regarding their definition of OSS those couple years ago was exactly what you have identified here. They showed that Microsoft's definition of OSS was only OSS if it was done for Windows. Of course, that's not what true OSS is nor how it was defined some 17 years ago.
Their definition of OSS was released not too long after several Microsoft employees spoke out about how Microsoft was going to kill Linux. One of them went so far as to predict that that year was the start of the death of Linux.
Their definition is nothing less than embrace, EXTEND, extinguish. By getting business to embrace their view they can reduce the reach of OSS into business because they believe Microsoft's version is the only true OSS. That in effect will cease adoption of OSS by business and hence the death of Linux.
I must admit that Linux adoption seems to have slowed and the amount of press has considerably declined. Certainly some areas have continued to expand.
Microsoft may be interested in open source, but the real question is, is the real open source interested in Microsoft? Tainting the water is a bad thing. Patent battles are going on like crazy today. It probably isn't a good thing to get open source involved in that if at all possible.
And, Microsoft's seemingly over night change of heart can be changed over night again. There's no historical evidence that they should be trusted.
Microsoft's version/vision of open source is much different than the official definition of open source. Even if they are making happy with something it isn't true open source.
We might not want to trust Microsoft at all, ever, because of their preexisting policy of embrace, extend, extinguish.
The few instances where some code was contributed are infinitesimally tiny overall. The size of open source code universe makes those Microsoft contributions look like an amoeba compared to the sun.
Get Google voice. Then go to SIPGate and get a phone number. Install FreePBX on a cheap used computer you have lying around. Add an unlocked Linksys pap2 VOIP adapter. Plug in a phone. Set FREEPBX to work with GV and your number from SIPGate. Tell your VOIP adapter to work with FreePBX.
Works wonders and operates like a regular phone except without paying $30.00 a month in charges. Or using FreePBX's offering to get unlimited trunks for $25.00 a month. You can even set up extensions throughout your house if you get multiple Linksys pap2 VOIP adapters.
Free incoming and outgoing local and long distance calls in the US and Canada.
Slashdot Mirror
The excuse about unusual expenses is just that, an excuse. And Hurd never prepared his own expense reports--the guy was the CEO. Most of the time they just submit their receipts, or someone else takes care of *all* the expenses.
As the HP lawyer said, the amount had no material impact on HP.
What's the name of the website that allows you to upload case law so others can freely search it? There was a firefox add-on that expedited it for you.
Hurd has overall knowledge but non-specific. His job was to direct the goals of the company. It wasn't to design chips, OSes, etc. His knowledge is about the direction the company was going, how to set up their priorities, how to spend and grow. He didn't have specific knowledge about the coding of projects or the design of hardware, just the direction those would take.
Oracle and Ellison are not really competitors to HP in the vast majority of areas where Oracle generates revenue (Oracle is primarily a relational database company selling to big companies). HP's competing OS is a non-starter. Even Oracle's acquisition of products from Sun wouldn't be such a major threat in any market to HP. As far as business models go Oracle's and HP's are probably quite different as they target different markets for the most part, as Oracle doesn't make printers nor desktop PCs and what they do compete with is probably limited to server markets where HP just doesn't have that much moxy.
If they try to limit Hurd's overall knowledge exposure they'll loose, they'll have to overcome years of legal history where one CEO goes to work for another company. And, this is HP's burden. HP must prove what they claim.
And Hurd will be in a position to bring up all the dirt about the board and it's chairman.
This is just HP acting spitefully, IMHO.
Ellison isn't a stupid man. He is also a multi-billionaire. I'm sure he and Hurd worked out the specifics of the separation package and any signing bonus.
If we accept that at the CEO level then we must accept the massive compensation packages these guys get because then they'd never be able to work. Any CEO making the big money also has the big bills which have to be paid.
And if that were the case then the middle level guy would forever be shunned unable to find work because he knows to much about the workings of the company.
There's a limit to what they can force non-disclosure on. Otherwise, it would be a one hit wonder for so many managers and executives.
This has happened before. I think it was with some Microsoft employee living in CA that went to work for Google. I can't remember the specifics. Though they still hired the guy it was agreed that he wouldn't be used in a position that directly exposed his knowledge gained from his prior job.
In reality, though you can't limit it all. Some people need to work and some are highly specialized. It would be onerous to force people to comply with non-compete clauses (if they were valid in CA). In this case, the termination would probably play a bigger role than if he were to have left on his own. Had HP sued him for leaving on his own with the intent of disclosing trade secrets that would have been another matter. But he was fired and to find gainful employment at his level of expertise he would have to disclose some information. This has to be accounted for.
Frankly, this is simply spiteful behavior on HP's part. In the end, after the suit has ended, if it goes to trial, I'm sure we'll find out more about how HP and Hurd parted ways--particularly the fact that their now in charge CEO illegally aired Hurd's dirty laundry--which it is well known that an employer is forbidden from doing that. I'm sure Hurd will have his own leverage against the board and Chairman.
When I worked for a company in CA they wanted me to sign a non-compete document. I asked what would happen if I didn't want to sign it. They just told me not to sign it. I gave it back blank. It didn't affect my hiring or future employment.
I'm sure he got a signing bonus.
They dropped the rape charge. They stated there was no attempt at rape. The rape allegation was made in order to try to compel him to take a STD test because he had unprotected consensual sex. They conducted further investigation into molestation of an adult (which isn't rape, and as far as I have heard doesn't even carry a penalty of jail time).
What I see in this is some chick at Wikileaks doing a power play.
I hope people reading the parent post realize this guy has absolutely zero understanding of intellectual property (copyright and patents). His remarks flagged as troll seem quite appropriate.
The term freetard was conceived by a guy that maintained a website that had the intent of trying to humiliate those that wanted free choice. He is now defunct (his own choice). The rebut to freetard is proprietard. Those that think that proprietary software is the only thing of value.
Linux and FreeBSD came into being through the hard work of others. Those individuals sat down and began working in earnest with the goal of providing everyone with choice. They were not copying the proprietary code of others or even trying to violate any patents or copyright. Their efforts reflect those of the generation of shareware authors, except they chose to give theirs away freely and to release the source code so that others could use it and improve it.
Windows 7 though significantly better than Vista is still Vista and Vista was still XP as XP was 2000 and earlier. They were incremental changes to previous OSes. Win phone 7's future is as questionable as Zune's. Considering that this is paid software that must be licensed on a per unit basis (whereas Android doesn't have those costs/requirements) makes Win Phone 7 hardly a sure win.
If you count that Android can be (and is being) modified by virtually every handset maker it bears fortune as it shows that Android represents the future of the smart phone and tablet market across the board. A paid closed proprietary one-size fits all Win Phone 7 isn't guaranteed success. As well, the development tools, the products, and features of Android on both the smart phone and tablet really shine making it a high mountain to climb.
Microsoft isn't a company that can't afford to fail. If it were to fail the orbiting markets that fed it and others would still exist for some time while the competition came in to chew up chunks of the market. In other words, Microsoft's failure wouldn't be as devastating as the parent's post makes it out to be. Also, considering that the failure of Microsoft wouldn't be like a light switch where it is on one day and off the next. The competition would already have come in and chewed away at segments of the market. Nothing about Microsoft's failure could seriously hurt the computing market. There are some incredibly smart businesses out there that would step in and ease our transition.
Apple has invested billions also in creating a good user experience. Linux has too. Large corporations have invested considerable money. To make a kernel on par with the Linux kernel by today's standard would run a company 5+ billion dollars. FOSS software also has had billions invested in it. This is from large companies such as IBM, Sun, Oracle, NASA, Red Hat to name a few.
Many of the more modern features of Microsoft Windows came from other OSes. In fact, most of what they created comes from copying others. The latest task bar in Win 7 is a copy of the features of Apple's dock. The desktop itself is a copy of Apple's product (I know, it was copied from other companies). The transparent window borders, and other 3d affects were copied from the likes of Linux. The UAC is a copy of the Mac and Linux. There are features that Linux has that exceed anything Microsoft offers and you should expect copies of that to occur in Windows.
The point is that *all* OSes today take considerable commitment, even in the billions of dollars. The features of any given OS and the user experience behind that are common between virtually every OS. Microsoft's paid model for Win Phone 7 and the fact that they are late players and doing nothing more than emulating the already successful Andoid and iOS foretell of slow adoption, higher costs, and a weaker user experience due to the lack of apps, the lack of refinement as is found by revising your product over the years.
Essentially, the parent's post is a weak attempt. He demonstrates an almost complete lack of knowledge about anything of which he is speaking. His perspective is utterly one-sided and he's showing his prejudice throughout. He reminds me of a wanna be Glen Beck of /.!
Dell was and is a company that offers Linux pre-installed. No more than a few weeks ago they expanded their offerings.
There's no factual evidence that more Linux pre-installed machines were returned than Windows machines. In fact, several of the most prominent companies that offer Linux as a choice stated that there was no greater a percentage of Linux returns than Windows returns. In fact, no company stated that Linux return ratios were higher.
I totally agree that Android is a massive push toward OSS. Though this is the case, and Android is a top notch product, and it has quality oozing from it, it is not generally considered to be anything more than a gadget control system. That's much different than Linux on the desktop or many of the other OSS projects.
Granted that will create developers developers developers for the platform and some of that will engender support for Linux itself. But really... TiVO is Linux underneath yet it doesn't actually get much acclaim as a Linux product. It is a gadget control system.
Twitter posts are about as cheap a PR release as you can get. PR is nothing but private reality.
I'd heard the educational system in India emphasized math. To what degree I guess I don't know. I was under the understanding that it was the primary emphasis of the educational system in India.
These stats only represent the purchased licenses. They don't represent the whole market percentages. Microsoft, only a month or so ago, tried to pass that off as their success story--by only presenting paid licenses when Linux is free.
Sun Microsystems created Java and licensed it to Microsoft. The terms were that Microsoft (nor anyone else) couldn't change it to add proprietary extensions. Microsoft agreed. A couple years later they were creating extensions that only benefitted Windows users. Effectively that caused programmers to write only for Windows.
Sun sued Microsoft and won. Microsoft was ordered to remove their VM from Windows. Today, no one uses Microsoft's version of Java.
This was Microsoft's embrace, extend, extinguish for all to see. If you look at the effect they were able to effectively eliminate Java as a competitor without actually fully embracing it. That is the nature of their monopoly power.
You are living proof that embrace, extend, extinguish works.
Open source was defined many years ago in an effort to ensure that it would not be subjugated and perverted, and that has done it's job for the past 17 years. Microsoft's posted open source license directly conflicts with that definition. Hence, it isn't the real thing.
In terms of time frames, in the real scheme of things, comparatively, over the past 3 decades, this is an over night change. And, even if it works for Microsoft it might not work for open source. Just as easily as they allege change in support of open source that can also change over night.
My comments have little to do with trust, except in regards to trusting their commitment to open source, and their willingness to adhere to the definition of open source.
Tainting the waters is pretty self explanatory. Many people didn't want to look at some "leaked" Microsoft code for the possibility that Microsoft could claim Linux was tainted by the release. Think SCO, in how they claimed that Linux was copying huge chunks of code.
SCO's code contributions seemed clearly in favor of Linux and open source when they contributed and even began producing their own distribution. Later SCO sued IBM, Novell, and several other companies that contributed (and some who simply used open source). SCO's claims were wide and varied, and even radical. Claims were made that there were millions of lines of copied code in Linux. Later they claimed that Linux copied the structure of Unix and thus that structure gave them dominion over all Linux. And, they were even selling patent indemnification.
I did not say "*trust" a person or company before we *let* them join". I said that we don't want to trust them to adhere to the concept of open source as it was defined some 17 years ago, because they have been known to embrace, extend, extinguish. I question your understanding of the history of open source, Microsoft, and their policy of embrace, extend, extinguish. Microsoft's definition of open source is clearly in conflict with the definition of open source as it was defined 17 years ago. I doubt few would claim the definition has evolved in any significant way due mainly to the fact that it hasn't had to.
The GPL is only a single license. V2 is a single release of that license. V3 was created to close a loop hole that was exploited in the V2 version of that license by Microsoft. It came about because of the actions of a company that made a commitment to kill Linux and to destroy open source (they described it as a cancer). You find it hard to comprehend that Microsoft was doing the same thing as SCO as a process of their agreements with Novell (and others) don't you?
Please go back and read Microsoft's definition of open source as they have it posted on their web site. Then at least try to show you have an understanding of open source (and that it isn't at all just one license), and try to understand that it has nothing to do with public domain.
The point is that companies can support open source, can contribute, and in the end sue claiming patent and other violations. It is possible to embrace, extend, extinguish open source. During this process they bring fear and distrust while reinforcing their own vision of it. Creation of licenses that conflict with the true definition can be used to muddy the waters. Open source gains influence as the software is used (not only in its' creation) and if a company committed to killing open source can diminish true open source by selling a cheap knock off that is limited to one operating system (Windows) and business thinks it is the real deal, then you are effectively extinguishing the real deal.
The guys that make the WUBI product are from India.
I know India is heavily into math. It really would make sense to have more in India using Linux because more people would have examples to learn by, especially complex code such as the OS kernel.
If India is a lot like their nearby neighbors in Asia most people would be pirating Windows.
Giving away a product for free is not the same as open source.
The slide in your editorial demonstrates Microsoft's vision of OSS during initial announcement a couple years ago. They were all for OSS as long as it fit their definition of it. They were working quite hard to get enterprise businesses to embrace their vision of OSS. If they had business following their vision then the vision of true open source would be blurred and out of sight.
What was identified by the OSS community regarding their definition of OSS those couple years ago was exactly what you have identified here. They showed that Microsoft's definition of OSS was only OSS if it was done for Windows. Of course, that's not what true OSS is nor how it was defined some 17 years ago.
Their definition of OSS was released not too long after several Microsoft employees spoke out about how Microsoft was going to kill Linux. One of them went so far as to predict that that year was the start of the death of Linux.
Their definition is nothing less than embrace, EXTEND, extinguish. By getting business to embrace their view they can reduce the reach of OSS into business because they believe Microsoft's version is the only true OSS. That in effect will cease adoption of OSS by business and hence the death of Linux.
I must admit that Linux adoption seems to have slowed and the amount of press has considerably declined. Certainly some areas have continued to expand.
Microsoft may be interested in open source, but the real question is, is the real open source interested in Microsoft? Tainting the water is a bad thing. Patent battles are going on like crazy today. It probably isn't a good thing to get open source involved in that if at all possible.
And, Microsoft's seemingly over night change of heart can be changed over night again. There's no historical evidence that they should be trusted.
Microsoft's version/vision of open source is much different than the official definition of open source. Even if they are making happy with something it isn't true open source.
We might not want to trust Microsoft at all, ever, because of their preexisting policy of embrace, extend, extinguish.
The few instances where some code was contributed are infinitesimally tiny overall. The size of open source code universe makes those Microsoft contributions look like an amoeba compared to the sun.
Get Google voice. Then go to SIPGate and get a phone number. Install FreePBX on a cheap used computer you have lying around. Add an unlocked Linksys pap2 VOIP adapter. Plug in a phone. Set FREEPBX to work with GV and your number from SIPGate. Tell your VOIP adapter to work with FreePBX.
Works wonders and operates like a regular phone except without paying $30.00 a month in charges. Or using FreePBX's offering to get unlimited trunks for $25.00 a month. You can even set up extensions throughout your house if you get multiple Linksys pap2 VOIP adapters.
Free incoming and outgoing local and long distance calls in the US and Canada.