Everyone needs to keep in mind that the pending doom and gloom predictions are only slightly more than the pending doom and gloom predictions stated when SCO first sued over IP in Linux.
There are no IP violations in Linux, the kernel, nor any other product in the Open Source arena until a court says there are. Even if Microsoft stood in front of the judge and jumped up and down and went all blue in the face bellowing and throwing chairs there's still be no IP violations in the kernel or any part of Linux until a judge and jury says that there are.
There are also many factors that have to be taken into consideration here. What are the actual damages and how are those impacting of Microsoft's business? The amount of damage has to be assessed and it is likely not going to amount to much. It would be crazy to award Microsoft large amounts of damages for a program that implements an IP in violation that is used to click on an object. In other words, the average IP violation, even if it exists isn't going to seriously damage Microsoft and hence all that will be factored into any judgment, especially if that click of the mouse is only a tiny part of the overall of the program.
DON'T you people get it? There's no violation in Linux until the court says there is. Even if they were to prevail the damages would be mitigated by them NOT disclosing the IP violations thus contributing to their own damages. Then, the IP would have to be judged against the whole of the project in which the IP is contained. So, even if they were to win, the amount of damage would be incredibly small because it is unlikely that those violations are large enough over the scope of the programming project to have any impact on Microsoft loosing profit.
If Microsoft made these claims directly against IBM we'd see IBM pushing back, not with their own IP violation threats but with the demands that Microsoft put up or shut up because making patently false claims such as this does damage to their overall business. But because Linux is open source and very decentralized they feel they can threaten with impunity and fear of reprisals.
I think Microsoft has a rude awakening coming to them and pretty soon because doing what they are is only going to piss some big guys off and that will result in demands that Microsoft put up or shut up.
This goes without saying. It is the productivity of the hundreds of thousands of corporations that matter, not just the pocketbook of Microsoft that drives this economy. We'd be no where if we had to rely on Microsoft to drive the economy alone.
This has nothing to do with Stallman fanboys. This has everything to do with NOT wanting to violate the IP of Microsoft and asking Microsoft to tell us which IP they believe is being violated. We aren't telling them NO, we won't change. We are telling them YES, tell us which ones and we will change. Microsoft doesn't want anyone to know so the changes aren't made so they can continue to milk larger corporations.
This thread is about discovering why Microsoft won't tell us even though they are publicly accusing us.
And as far as I know, there are no convicted monopolists in the Open Source community.
The GPL roughly states that if you take the code, you change the code, you plant to make money off the code then you give back the changes you made. If you don't want to do that then don't use the code. (This is a rough approximation of what I believe the GPL to mean).
So, it isn't even anti-close proprietary software. It simply says that if you use and you plan to make money off it then you have to give back the changes, otherwise don't use it. What is so hard to understand about that?
So, you have an idea. Your brother asks you if he can use it because he thinks he can improve it and make some money. You tell your brother that if he does you want him to give you rights to the changes otherwise he can go reinvent something else on his own. Your brother can either agree or not use it. It is that simple. Maybe you feel some commitment to your brother. Consider the same scenario with your neighbor. Well, you might think about a neighbor that has lived next to you for 20 years. How about a new neighbor. Would you feel the same way and just give it to them?
What if your neighbor tried to finagle a way out of paying you and just used your idea without your permission, without giving you rights, or without paying you? You'd not be happy and you'd try to recoup.
This is all that the open source community is asking. If they are in violation of Microsoft's IP that Microsoft tell them which ones so that they can be examined, challenged, or removed. If Microsoft isn't entitled to the IP because of prior art or obviousness then they should be challenged. If they are entitled then the open source community should remove them. That's all we want.
This is sort of interesting. Microsoft, in the Z4 case believed that Z4 was too small and ill-equipped to protect their own IP (this is according to the ruling made by the Judge in the case). According to the Judge there were many cases of misconduct on Microsoft's part. His ruling for special damages covered those acts of misconduct. His ruling also stated that his ruling didn't state all the acts of misconduct--only some of them.
One of the major things that Microsoft did in the Z4 case was to bury the defendant and the court in paperwork in an attempt to keep the relevant pieces which proved Z4's case hidden. According to the ruling Z4 discovered the material only 1 day before the trial began. Had they not found this the case certainly could have gone the other way.
What was the Z4 case? It was where Z4 held the IP for on-line activation of a software product. Microsoft and Autodesk took and used those patents. Both were sued by Z4. Both lost the case. Autodesk appealed the verdict yet never participated in acts of misconduct. Microsoft disagreed and appealed the final verdict. The appeals were denied and Z4 prevailed. In the appeal ruling the Judge also noted the acts of misconduct.
What the end result of this means is essentially that the patent infringed by Microsoft was used to help them activate your Windows XP over the internet. As we all know what that activation process is used for (to keep you from stealing their software), effectively Microsoft was found guilty of stealing the IP used to keep you from stealing their IP. When caught they were approached by Z4 to get them to stop using it or to license it. Microsoft ignored them. When they were sued they participated in numerous acts of misconduct and got caught there too. In the end they wound up having to pay another $25 MILLION in special damages. According to the Judge he could have awarded 3 times the amount of the damages (I believe punitive), but he chose no to. Nonetheless, $25 million in special damages is significant.
Now I read a lot about this as I was researching it for a journalist who questioned me about it. I pointed him to the link which was hard to locate. It was to the actual document in.pdf format of the Judge's ruling. I was somewhat dismayed by how difficult it was to find the actual documents, but I was even more dismayed when the various journalists reporting the case used very vague terms to describe the extra $25 million in special damages, and few if any actually stated that there were special damages at all.
This is a major view into the ethics and morality of Microsoft's claims and their history of dealing with IP violations.
Why does Microsoft not want to take legal action? Because they loose so many of the cases.
Yes the FSF does have something to do with Linux as it isn't just the kernel that was called into question. Microsoft stated various and sundry products were in violation. If any of those are owned by the FSF they can and should force Microsoft to specifically state which patents are being violated by which products.
It is really implausible to tell someone they own you X amount of money and not tell them why. If they sent you a bill for say $500.00 would you expect them to also include the reason why you owned them the $500 or would you just pay them?
It is ridiculous to make these claims without telling us why.
According to Novell they do not agree that any IP has been violated even though Microsoft claimed that these IP violations have been discussed openly with companies such as Novell and Red Hat.
Let's get Novell and Red Hat to tell us exactly what the claims are if Microsoft won't.
To be honest with yourself Windows does not either. Windows still requires that a more advanced user set it up in order to make it usable by the average "dolt" as you put it. Even after the initial set up it still takes a considerable amount of hand holding to get the average "dolt" to be productive, that is beyond playing cards or browsing the web.
As far as Ubuntu goes, it is pretty damn close to doing what we want. Give a person the hand holding that most get under Windows and you have a competing product that exceeds the value of Windows, hands down.
Let me put it another way.
Windows requires someone to set it up and after it is set up a lot of hand holding must be there for the average "dolt".
Linux (rather ubuntu) requires someone to set it up and after it is set up a lot of hand holding must be there for the average "dolt".
When all is done and all is set up, which product has more to offer? With Windows you get cards, a browser, some cheap mail program, and a few other programs of value.
Under Ubuntu you are supplied with the software provided by the community which is far more vast than what you get for free with Windows. To purchase equivalent packages you'd be paying a fortune under Windows.
The good and the bad of it is that the majority of users don't need or use more than a few extras purchased after they buy the computer and many of those are small programs such as greeting card apps, etc. What the Linux user gets are a vast storehouse of all sorts of sophisticated software for free including every imaginable product to perform every imaginable task.
I do not believe that NTFS and FAT drivers are included in the kernel. I understand any/all of these are additional facilities provided by other parties.
I don't think the amount of money would be enough to shut down any project. As the court has ruled that even tho Microsoft has violated numerous patents they have not been forced to stop using them and this isn't because they agreed to license them.
In the Z4 case they wanted to force Microsoft to cease using it which would have effectively shut down the activation process of Windows. Their attempt at getting an injunction was denied. This has happened numerous times since. It means the courts are forcing Microsoft to pay royalties and to license the product. Microsoft has stated, at least in the Z4 case, they will be modifying their product to not use the infringing IP.
As far as Vista goes. It is actually doing quite poorly overall. We'll see this in the next couple of quarters when all those special circumstances that they managed to get included in their financial statements could no longer apply. Any pro Vista sales numbers are really just being exaggerated to increase the stock value to address festering sores such as: employee benefits, shareholder value, etc. Microsoft is worried horribly about loosing their key players to other companies and the only way they can keep their stock pile of cash and continue to develop is to provide big stock options to the employees. If the stock stays flat as it has been for the past few years employees feel jilted by Microsoft and are more given to find other work.
Microsoft is pretty close to getting a computer rule a piece of junk unless it has an OS. It isn't a computer until it has an OS after all. What Microsoft wants is to ensure that the system of rule and government see that the only OS out there is Microsoft so it is not a computer without Windows. This has some serious ramifications. The US government wants this because it allows them the opportunity to insert control over your computer by inserting code provided to Microsoft. I'm no conspiracy theorist. The reality of this is that if the courts recognize your computer as a pile of junk unless it has an OS then anyone providing that OS has tremendous power over other aspects such as that company's ability to dictate how a computer should work. If 90% of the world's computer work the way Microsoft says then that's a great amount of leverage in getting the OS and other more restrictive features (such as DRM, and the spying that goes with it) set as standard thus allowing companies legally to search your system for whatever they want. Take that a step further and you have companies that sell you things being given the right to say monitor your driving with computerized collection mechanisms in order to prove you were liable for an accident and not them. Not that that is all bad but to have a company such as Microsoft spying on what you do day in and day out is tremendously bad. To have that standardized by the government and accepted by law gives a company such as Microsoft tremendous power over you. Truly it reminds me of the corporations in the movie Robocop. All powerful and controlling.
I wanted to make a few more comments regarding Microsoft's claims.
1) The claimed issues are comprised of how much liability? Are we talking a factor of hundreds of dollars per Linux install or are we talking a matter of a few cents to a few dollars per install?
From an individual stand point I'd say to Microsoft to go ahead and sue me. Yes I know that large businesses have larger investments and have a greater potential liability. But overall, I can't see Microsoft suing the vast majority of home users.
2) 235 (238) patents is a pretty small number overall. Considering the complexity of the kernel and of other applications potentially infringing I don't think that there's enough there to turn the thumb screws on any individual or company.
3) How many of those patents were already licensed to the likes of IBM or Sun? It seems pretty empty and stupid to make claims without stating the specifics especially when some or all of those might be covered by someone else. If I recall correctly, SUN entered into an agreement with Microsoft when Sun prevailed against Microsoft in that Open Office was indemnified against IP violations.
4) Of the remaining IP claims how many of them are covered by the likes of the EU anti-trust convictions? I know they are still entitled to their claims but if any/all of those are covered that'll serious reduce the liability of any given company or individual.
5) Why is the Open Source community not standing more firmly in forcing Microsoft to be forthcoming about which IPs are alleged in violation? It would seem that if we all just shut up and told Microsoft to put up they'd have little to hold against us.
This isn't a battle where the parties remain at odds over which patents each other violate. This only plays into Microsoft's hands and allows them to use FUD against the community. With FUD they will keep big corporates from investing in Linux. With the latest near absolute victory against SCO, IBM probably doesn't have much taste to further battle another company like Microsoft. I'm pretty sure IBM will stay mute until it is absolutely necessary to put the foot down and lay into the monkey that is Microsoft by driving it's Mac Truck over it on the freeway.
Let's bear in mind here that these words from Ballmer are mostly baseless unless they state specifically which patents are violated. You can't claim that you were harmed without telling the parties where they are harming you. If you do you have very little solid ground to stand on. I'm sure any jury deciding damages would mitigate them due to how Microsoft claims problems but tells no one what the problems are or what they need to do to resolve them.
Let's also bear in mind that Microsoft has lost nearly 100% of its patent lawsuits over the history of their legal affairs. Recent losses are pretty sizable affairs totaling in billions of dollars. Microsoft is also a convicted monopolist in more than one country and they have participated in some very nasty anti-competitive practices which have harmed the consumer (individuals, as well as businesses). By the very nature of this harm they have harmed the development of software and harmed the economy. Granted some of that last sentence is my own conjecture, but there's good cause to believe that if the money they have stockpiled in the banks of a few people had been distributed to a greater number of people that money would have been used to further the economy in more beneficial way.
Let's also keep in mind that Microsoft lost the lawsuit against a company called Z4 and it was upheld on appeal, regarding the violation of Z4's IP for online activation. In fact, they were found to have participated in numerous acts of misconduct during the trial, as noted by the Judge. He clearly stated in his ruling, when he awarded Z4 an additional $25 million in special damages above and beyond the normal punitive damages, that Microsoft had acted with such misconduct because they felt Z4 was incapable of defending its own IP.
The IP they stole from Z4 was the technology used to perform the activation of XP over the internet. This equates to essentially stealing the technology which they used to keep you from stealing their software. That's pretty atrocious if you ask me.
They have consistently operated in a malformed way and to this day they continue to spy on you with their hidden technology called Windows Genuine Advantage Notification. This same technology (and more) is incorporated into Vista. It is being done without the consumer's knowledge and is the equivalent of them coming into your home (because your computer is an extension of your home) in order to search it. No company does this nor should be allowed to do this, and just because it is done in a hidden way makes it no less a violation of your privacy. It's the equivalent of a hidden camera. No one would allow the Police authorities to place a hidden camera in your home and certainly would not agree to do that without the oversight of a court and Judge. This is the equivalent of allowing Walmart to enter your home to search it in order to determine if you have stolen any of their goods just because you are a regular shopper at Walmart.
So, they are not on the up and up and they should not be trusted in this matter. This commentary from their lead attorney is not being done in good faith and none of these claims have ever been proven in a court of law. Upon a trial with a judge and jury where the facts are laid out and one party prevails we'll see who has the strongest IP, otherwise all of this is just FUD.
Why is this coming out so hard and so fast at this point? It is because Microsoft Vista is doing
gksu is sudo for GUI as best I know. In Ubuntu you are prompted with graphical boxes asking for a password for tasks requiring admin privs. That's a lot better than simply giving a OK or Cancel box. Both could do with displaying more information about what and why the user is being prompted for, but so far Ubuntu's implementation is superior to Vista's.
I use gksu when I want to launch specific programs as admin and I will periodically launch it with nautilus as a parameter so I can copy/delete some file graphically. I create launch icons all the time with gksu.
At it's most basic form UAC is simply an attempt to work like sudo under linux. Am not sure there are others like it under other OSes such as Solaris, Unix, etc. The Macintosh OSX has had similar features for a long time. I use both Macs, Windows, and Linux. Linux being my primary and Mac/Windows being about equal. But it is foolhardy to say that Windows is the leader here. They aren't. Not only that it isn't even a security feature (according to Microsoft), it is a feature meant to make users more aware that they aren't running as the admin account. So, it is stupid to say that everyone should follow Microsoft's lead. This Microsoftie should be called out so that the world knows Microsoft had very little to do with inventing this stuff--they are just implementing what others have had for many years.
So that means that SAMBA isn't in violation of any patents relating to Windows protocols as long as the distributions are created outside the US. Granted any patent owned by anyone as long as it is created for copy or production outside the US. Sounds like Microsoft lost more than it gained. I'd say it was a rather stupid move on their part and the ramifications are not fully known yet. But ALAS they'll claim this applies to others and not to them.
He did a great job. The only problem is that he doesn't tell you where to install the compiled files. There's no readme file and most every reference is in french. Not his fault for the french but he could have put an installer in there or a readme telling you where to place the newly compiled files.
You are right. Microsoft wants to compel them to buy it. It is like compelling them into a glass room so they can be spied on and monitored. Get rid of that crap and we all might be more willing to pay the higher price. No more spying, get rid of the DRM and promise not to put anything like it back. One can envision Ballmer and Gates in a meeting all excited that they've pulled the wool over the consumer's eyes. They are all giddy that they have managed to get all this spying shit into the computer and have customers pay them to do it, albeit even if they aren't aware of that or how important it is to now allow such a thing to happen.
But your argument about compelling them is just a description of the fact that a monopoly like Microsoft can get imply there's no such thing as an alternative.
There is an alternative. OSX and Linux are two very viable alternatives.
And where's the outcry for Microsoft holding a lock on 90% of the world's computers via their registration, activation, and spy utulity (Windows Genuine Notification)? Why would these entities complain about someone that is able to bring advertisements to the world--especially about privacy issues when Microsoft violates your privacy every day and they are going unchecked? Listen, you have a company with unprecedented access to the world's computers, information about the users, information about governments, access through whatever means they choose to install, and no piddly group such as these are complaining that Microsoft is unchecked.
When they installed WGN onto your computer and they then started reporting back to their website about your legitimacy they were spying on you. It is akin to having Walmart employees come into your home and search it to determine if those things you have in your home are paid for given the fact that you visit their stores as a customer. This is essentially what Microsoft is doing and they are doing it repeatedly, on a regular basis. Microsoft should get away from it because they installed the equivalent of a hidden camera on your computer? You wouldn't let the government invade your home and you certainly wouldn't allow Walmart to enter it, and you damn certainly should not be allowing Microsoft to do what they are with their WGN program or any other.
This complaint is utter nonsense and loonacy at best. There are greater issues out there for these agencies to complain about. Let's get them complaining to the FTC about Microsoft's WGN utility and the various other things Microsoft is and will do to invade your privacy.
And Microsoft forcing hardware manufacturers to put their DRM scheme into action isn't another monopoly in the making? You must realize, everyone, that DRM equates to market control. All you have to do is look at Apple's DRM and the iPod and then look at how the EU is seeing Apple as very anti-competitive.
Looking at this from the perspective that DRM is a locking mechanism (e.g., Apple's DRM locks you into the iPod) you have to understand that this is worse than anything Google could do with advertisements. Not only that Microsoft's DRM operates as a spying mechanism and it equates to the fact that they are entering your home and your business to spy on you. It is like purchasing goods at Walmart and then having Walmart enter your home to ensure that the goods you have are actually paid for. You would no more let a Walmart employee enter your home to do this sort of search than you should allow Microsoft to do this. You wouldn't even let the government come in and search your home and most certainly would not let them do it repeatedly. So, why on earth are you letting Microsoft enter your home/computer to search it and then allow them to search it repeatedly?
This complaint by Microsoft is an utter farce. Google doesn't force you to use their products. You aren't locked into their products. Google isn't acting in an anti-competitive manner by forcing vendors and consumers into little or no choice. Hell, if you don't want to view the ads get an ad blocker. If you don't want to follow through on the ads don't click them.
Being in a position where you are forced essentially to purchase Microsoft products because you can't use your hardware without it and then to have Microsoft force vendors to do certain things to your desktop or they loose a competitive edge due to having to pay higher costs is a far cry from Google owning a large segment of the market.
Microsoft is just representing to the world how pathetic they are. They can't compete on a level field. They can't innovate. They can't produce DRM free environments where people are empowered to use their content in any way they wish. This is a sad day when everyone (the government, the corporations, the people) are being led astray by such utter nonsense. Now Microsoft is abusing their relationship with the government powers. The richest men in the world complaining of anti-competitive behavior?
All we can hope for is that the government sees that companies such as Microsoft grow so large that complaints of this nature will become so commonplace and maybe they'll enact laws that break up companies and/or prohibit companies from growing in this way. If our government doesn't start to understand the true motivation behind Microsoft's complaint then we are truly lost.
This is not Microsoft being put in a position where they can't compete fairly on a level field. This is a situation where Microsoft chooses not to compete on their own merits and expects the government to come to their aid. We aren't talking about a small company who is being swindled nor are we talking about the fact that other entities can't compete or sell advertisements. We are talking about a company that is envious of another which is capable of doing something they can't.
Microsoft is lost. This is a loser's tactic. It motions in the beginning of their downfall. To that, we can realize we have a solid company capable of defending itself against such ludicrous accusations.
There's no reason to tell OEMs not to sell XP. The reason is that there's not enough wrong with it to force customers to upgrade. Yes, I'd say Microsoft is getting quite desperate. I do not relish the idea of having to force my customers to install Vista on their new machines no matter how pretty it looks. The fact remains, Microsoft is spying on the customer and is taking control of the computer away from the consumer.
What this will mean to hardware sales is that a rather significant number of people will get the recommendation to upgrade their existing hardware instead of purchasing a new one. More people will try to xfer their existing license to new motherboards and other upgrades--I'd expect Microsoft to be on the offensive on this one.
Vista is a DRM nightmare. There someone said it, lol.
Do you guys really want to permit Microsoft to violate your privacy and potentially lock out your computer? Do you want them looking at and forcing you to use certain technologies which monitor your content consumption? Do you really want to contribute to Microsoft remaining a monopoly, which clearly has been a negative thing for our economy? Yes, I firmly believe that if that money wasn't in Microsoft's coffers it would be in a larger number of coffers--not that it would be less--just more people would have the benefit of the sales.
I certainly feel that Linux will benefit from this. I feel hardware manufactures and other sales will suffer from it. If Microsoft were to drop the unethical and near criminal DRM spying technology from Vista and redo the AERO to be more in line with lower hardware requirements then Vista might be a sellable item.
I know many people in my community that are completely unwilling to upgrade to Vista. They'll go for the next 5 years running XP or they'll switch over to Linux.
Linux is a very viable desktop OS today. The vast majority of computer users could jump onto Linux (a properly pre-configured box) and be right at home. They'd have a great desktop, excellent performance and stability, a overabundance of software to choose from and peace of mind from the spying and DRM found in Vista. No one in the Linux community would even consider supporting DRM at the hardware level in sound, video, and motherboards. It isn't going to happen.
In a year Linux will have improved significantly more and I truly believe there's a significant surge in interest in Linux on the desktop. Distro's such as Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS are excellent examples of quality desktops with significant support systems with lots of howtos and a huge base of people ready and willing to politely help anyone with every type of problem.
Some of the biggest barriers to linux were: real world end user support, lack of complete quality applications, lack of hardware drivers, lack of a universal distro applications installer, weak or bulging desktop managers, lack of gaming, and a few other things, including things that programmers can't overcome such as patent issues (dvd & mp3 playback, for example).
1) The real world end user support has greatly been improved due to distro's such as Ubuntu.
2) The quality of applications has gone up significantly as programmers began to realize their target audience is no longer other programmers. Applications such as Open Office, Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird, and a large number of other programs do more than what the vast majority of users want.
3) Lack of drivers isn't much of a problem as the vast majority of even the most exotic devices can be installed easily (except maybe for wireless devices).
4) Gnome is a decent desktop manager but the programmers behind it are stuck in the mindset of OS9 and can't seem to get past what they were trying to accomplish in OS9, while the rest of the world has moved on way past OS9's desktop features. Yeah, more features are there but they are relatively slightly evolutionary and are not as revolutionary as could be. They need to drop their intense desire to sta
I've never considered Office a barrier for acceptance for home users. When most of the people I support become aware of Open Office they are just very pleased at the fact that they can get a free word processor, spreadsheet, etc. This isn't to say that there aren't barriers there. Some are pretty major.
Microsoft has been scanning the horizon to ensure that no one begins to kick at the blocks that prop up their monopoly. They are constantly looking for new ways to create more blocks. Some of these blocks are directx, drm, application/windows APIs, network interoperability (or the lack thereof), WGA/WGN lie, FUD, patents. Writing for OpenGL means you are writing for multiple platforms which gives a greater overall share.
Another new block is DRM. Yes they have had DRM in their product in one fashion or another for decades--copy protection on software back in the 80s, activation keys in the 90s. The WGN/WGA lie in the 00's is a psychological game meant to make the consumer less in control but to give them a feeling they are being protected. They are essentially forcing the consumer to allow Microsoft to spy on them under the guise of protecting the consumer from organized pirating--this is the fundamental lie. The average consumer is already covered because they generally purchase from the likes of Dell, Gateway, etc. Only a small percentage of sales are from systems integrators and the odds of getting one that is dishonest is even more minuscule. Today it is the essential arm-twisting/drafting of the hardware manufacturers to comply with their draconian DRM/CRM procedures.
Their APIs, not just DirectX, are also locking blocks, that block you from other platform development. Most companies don't have the time to learn multiple platform APIs in order to develop software. Apple recognized this (well NeXt computers did) when they were creating their development tools. Another block they use today are patents. Microsoft is not making a patent portfolio to protect itself, it is making it to prop up the monopoly and to attack competitors such as Linux. Software APIs for productivity applications aren't the barrier they once were. You can see that they will, over time, become less and less important as more and more programs build up for the competitor's platform. Since that form is diminishing there must be other ways for Microsoft to lock you into their platform. Gaming is a key API that they can change regularly. If they can keep changing the gaming API regularly then no entity can conceivably create a 100% compatible layer for other platforms. That's another reason why it is just silly to have game developers writing for directx instead of for OpenGL.
Networking interoperability is another key block that Microsoft uses to block migration from Windows to other platforms. If the interoperability is difficult or impossible even over the short term, large, medium, and small companies will very likely decline migration to Linux (or even OSX).
Patents and FUD seem to go hand in hand. Microsoft knows that if they say enough negative about Linux and threaten enough that migration will be slowed. If they create enough of a patent portfolio that will also slow development as competitors are constantly attempting to figure out what they can legally do and what they can't. DRM is similar in that it can't be copied and used in competitors platforms. The DMCA destroys all hope of that, at least if the user wants to stay 100% legal.
I don't know what the current installed base of Linux is and I'm sure most developers don't either. My estimate is that it is somewhere between 10 and 50 million computers.
When you use all of these together, including FUD and attempting to hide the sheer number of Linux (or any competitors true numbers) you can see how strong these blocks are. It only takes companies and individuals to start knocking more of these blocks out faster to bring down the monopoly. It isn't just having a product or even advertising your product or even gi
I believe there's a Doom 3 client for Linux and I know for certain there's an Enemy-Territory version for Linux. What's the point of benchmarking? They trying to show that the CEDEGA implementation is good when compared to the client running natively under linux and how that cmopares to those clients running under windows?
New name please. Pigdin sounds fat and lazy and makes one feel like it is a pig wallowing in its own shit. Sorry, but that's what the word evokes in me. They need to come up with something better. Can't imagine then coming up with such a name.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone needs to keep in mind that the pending doom and gloom predictions are only slightly more than the pending doom and gloom predictions stated when SCO first sued over IP in Linux.
There are no IP violations in Linux, the kernel, nor any other product in the Open Source arena until a court says there are. Even if Microsoft stood in front of the judge and jumped up and down and went all blue in the face bellowing and throwing chairs there's still be no IP violations in the kernel or any part of Linux until a judge and jury says that there are.
There are also many factors that have to be taken into consideration here. What are the actual damages and how are those impacting of Microsoft's business? The amount of damage has to be assessed and it is likely not going to amount to much. It would be crazy to award Microsoft large amounts of damages for a program that implements an IP in violation that is used to click on an object. In other words, the average IP violation, even if it exists isn't going to seriously damage Microsoft and hence all that will be factored into any judgment, especially if that click of the mouse is only a tiny part of the overall of the program.
DON'T you people get it? There's no violation in Linux until the court says there is. Even if they were to prevail the damages would be mitigated by them NOT disclosing the IP violations thus contributing to their own damages. Then, the IP would have to be judged against the whole of the project in which the IP is contained. So, even if they were to win, the amount of damage would be incredibly small because it is unlikely that those violations are large enough over the scope of the programming project to have any impact on Microsoft loosing profit.
If Microsoft made these claims directly against IBM we'd see IBM pushing back, not with their own IP violation threats but with the demands that Microsoft put up or shut up because making patently false claims such as this does damage to their overall business. But because Linux is open source and very decentralized they feel they can threaten with impunity and fear of reprisals.
I think Microsoft has a rude awakening coming to them and pretty soon because doing what they are is only going to piss some big guys off and that will result in demands that Microsoft put up or shut up.
Support AMERICA, Use Linux.
This goes without saying. It is the productivity of the hundreds of thousands of corporations that matter, not just the pocketbook of Microsoft that drives this economy. We'd be no where if we had to rely on Microsoft to drive the economy alone.
This has nothing to do with Stallman fanboys. This has everything to do with NOT wanting to violate the IP of Microsoft and asking Microsoft to tell us which IP they believe is being violated. We aren't telling them NO, we won't change. We are telling them YES, tell us which ones and we will change. Microsoft doesn't want anyone to know so the changes aren't made so they can continue to milk larger corporations.
This thread is about discovering why Microsoft won't tell us even though they are publicly accusing us.
And as far as I know, there are no convicted monopolists in the Open Source community.
The GPL roughly states that if you take the code, you change the code, you plant to make money off the code then you give back the changes you made. If you don't want to do that then don't use the code. (This is a rough approximation of what I believe the GPL to mean).
So, it isn't even anti-close proprietary software. It simply says that if you use and you plan to make money off it then you have to give back the changes, otherwise don't use it. What is so hard to understand about that?
So, you have an idea. Your brother asks you if he can use it because he thinks he can improve it and make some money. You tell your brother that if he does you want him to give you rights to the changes otherwise he can go reinvent something else on his own. Your brother can either agree or not use it. It is that simple. Maybe you feel some commitment to your brother. Consider the same scenario with your neighbor. Well, you might think about a neighbor that has lived next to you for 20 years. How about a new neighbor. Would you feel the same way and just give it to them?
What if your neighbor tried to finagle a way out of paying you and just used your idea without your permission, without giving you rights, or without paying you? You'd not be happy and you'd try to recoup.
This is all that the open source community is asking. If they are in violation of Microsoft's IP that Microsoft tell them which ones so that they can be examined, challenged, or removed. If Microsoft isn't entitled to the IP because of prior art or obviousness then they should be challenged. If they are entitled then the open source community should remove them. That's all we want.
This is sort of interesting. Microsoft, in the Z4 case believed that Z4 was too small and ill-equipped to protect their own IP (this is according to the ruling made by the Judge in the case). According to the Judge there were many cases of misconduct on Microsoft's part. His ruling for special damages covered those acts of misconduct. His ruling also stated that his ruling didn't state all the acts of misconduct--only some of them.
.pdf format of the Judge's ruling. I was somewhat dismayed by how difficult it was to find the actual documents, but I was even more dismayed when the various journalists reporting the case used very vague terms to describe the extra $25 million in special damages, and few if any actually stated that there were special damages at all.
One of the major things that Microsoft did in the Z4 case was to bury the defendant and the court in paperwork in an attempt to keep the relevant pieces which proved Z4's case hidden. According to the ruling Z4 discovered the material only 1 day before the trial began. Had they not found this the case certainly could have gone the other way.
What was the Z4 case? It was where Z4 held the IP for on-line activation of a software product. Microsoft and Autodesk took and used those patents. Both were sued by Z4. Both lost the case. Autodesk appealed the verdict yet never participated in acts of misconduct. Microsoft disagreed and appealed the final verdict. The appeals were denied and Z4 prevailed. In the appeal ruling the Judge also noted the acts of misconduct.
What the end result of this means is essentially that the patent infringed by Microsoft was used to help them activate your Windows XP over the internet. As we all know what that activation process is used for (to keep you from stealing their software), effectively Microsoft was found guilty of stealing the IP used to keep you from stealing their IP. When caught they were approached by Z4 to get them to stop using it or to license it. Microsoft ignored them. When they were sued they participated in numerous acts of misconduct and got caught there too. In the end they wound up having to pay another $25 MILLION in special damages. According to the Judge he could have awarded 3 times the amount of the damages (I believe punitive), but he chose no to. Nonetheless, $25 million in special damages is significant.
Now I read a lot about this as I was researching it for a journalist who questioned me about it. I pointed him to the link which was hard to locate. It was to the actual document in
This is a major view into the ethics and morality of Microsoft's claims and their history of dealing with IP violations.
Why does Microsoft not want to take legal action? Because they loose so many of the cases.
Yes the FSF does have something to do with Linux as it isn't just the kernel that was called into question. Microsoft stated various and sundry products were in violation. If any of those are owned by the FSF they can and should force Microsoft to specifically state which patents are being violated by which products.
It is really implausible to tell someone they own you X amount of money and not tell them why. If they sent you a bill for say $500.00 would you expect them to also include the reason why you owned them the $500 or would you just pay them?
It is ridiculous to make these claims without telling us why.
According to Novell they do not agree that any IP has been violated even though Microsoft claimed that these IP violations have been discussed openly with companies such as Novell and Red Hat.
Let's get Novell and Red Hat to tell us exactly what the claims are if Microsoft won't.
To be honest with yourself Windows does not either. Windows still requires that a more advanced user set it up in order to make it usable by the average "dolt" as you put it. Even after the initial set up it still takes a considerable amount of hand holding to get the average "dolt" to be productive, that is beyond playing cards or browsing the web.
As far as Ubuntu goes, it is pretty damn close to doing what we want. Give a person the hand holding that most get under Windows and you have a competing product that exceeds the value of Windows, hands down.
Let me put it another way.
Windows requires someone to set it up and after it is set up a lot of hand holding must be there for the average "dolt".
Linux (rather ubuntu) requires someone to set it up and after it is set up a lot of hand holding must be there for the average "dolt".
When all is done and all is set up, which product has more to offer? With Windows you get cards, a browser, some cheap mail program, and a few other programs of value.
Under Ubuntu you are supplied with the software provided by the community which is far more vast than what you get for free with Windows. To purchase equivalent packages you'd be paying a fortune under Windows.
The good and the bad of it is that the majority of users don't need or use more than a few extras purchased after they buy the computer and many of those are small programs such as greeting card apps, etc. What the Linux user gets are a vast storehouse of all sorts of sophisticated software for free including every imaginable product to perform every imaginable task.
I do not believe that NTFS and FAT drivers are included in the kernel. I understand any/all of these are additional facilities provided by other parties.
I don't think the amount of money would be enough to shut down any project. As the court has ruled that even tho Microsoft has violated numerous patents they have not been forced to stop using them and this isn't because they agreed to license them.
In the Z4 case they wanted to force Microsoft to cease using it which would have effectively shut down the activation process of Windows. Their attempt at getting an injunction was denied. This has happened numerous times since. It means the courts are forcing Microsoft to pay royalties and to license the product. Microsoft has stated, at least in the Z4 case, they will be modifying their product to not use the infringing IP.
As far as Vista goes. It is actually doing quite poorly overall. We'll see this in the next couple of quarters when all those special circumstances that they managed to get included in their financial statements could no longer apply. Any pro Vista sales numbers are really just being exaggerated to increase the stock value to address festering sores such as: employee benefits, shareholder value, etc. Microsoft is worried horribly about loosing their key players to other companies and the only way they can keep their stock pile of cash and continue to develop is to provide big stock options to the employees. If the stock stays flat as it has been for the past few years employees feel jilted by Microsoft and are more given to find other work.
Microsoft is pretty close to getting a computer rule a piece of junk unless it has an OS. It isn't a computer until it has an OS after all. What Microsoft wants is to ensure that the system of rule and government see that the only OS out there is Microsoft so it is not a computer without Windows. This has some serious ramifications. The US government wants this because it allows them the opportunity to insert control over your computer by inserting code provided to Microsoft. I'm no conspiracy theorist. The reality of this is that if the courts recognize your computer as a pile of junk unless it has an OS then anyone providing that OS has tremendous power over other aspects such as that company's ability to dictate how a computer should work. If 90% of the world's computer work the way Microsoft says then that's a great amount of leverage in getting the OS and other more restrictive features (such as DRM, and the spying that goes with it) set as standard thus allowing companies legally to search your system for whatever they want. Take that a step further and you have companies that sell you things being given the right to say monitor your driving with computerized collection mechanisms in order to prove you were liable for an accident and not them. Not that that is all bad but to have a company such as Microsoft spying on what you do day in and day out is tremendously bad. To have that standardized by the government and accepted by law gives a company such as Microsoft tremendous power over you. Truly it reminds me of the corporations in the movie Robocop. All powerful and controlling.
I wanted to make a few more comments regarding Microsoft's claims.
1) The claimed issues are comprised of how much liability? Are we talking a factor of hundreds of dollars per Linux install or are we talking a matter of a few cents to a few dollars per install?
From an individual stand point I'd say to Microsoft to go ahead and sue me. Yes I know that large businesses have larger investments and have a greater potential liability. But overall, I can't see Microsoft suing the vast majority of home users.
2) 235 (238) patents is a pretty small number overall. Considering the complexity of the kernel and of other applications potentially infringing I don't think that there's enough there to turn the thumb screws on any individual or company.
3) How many of those patents were already licensed to the likes of IBM or Sun? It seems pretty empty and stupid to make claims without stating the specifics especially when some or all of those might be covered by someone else. If I recall correctly, SUN entered into an agreement with Microsoft when Sun prevailed against Microsoft in that Open Office was indemnified against IP violations.
4) Of the remaining IP claims how many of them are covered by the likes of the EU anti-trust convictions? I know they are still entitled to their claims but if any/all of those are covered that'll serious reduce the liability of any given company or individual.
5) Why is the Open Source community not standing more firmly in forcing Microsoft to be forthcoming about which IPs are alleged in violation? It would seem that if we all just shut up and told Microsoft to put up they'd have little to hold against us.
This isn't a battle where the parties remain at odds over which patents each other violate. This only plays into Microsoft's hands and allows them to use FUD against the community. With FUD they will keep big corporates from investing in Linux. With the latest near absolute victory against SCO, IBM probably doesn't have much taste to further battle another company like Microsoft. I'm pretty sure IBM will stay mute until it is absolutely necessary to put the foot down and lay into the monkey that is Microsoft by driving it's Mac Truck over it on the freeway.
Let's bear in mind here that these words from Ballmer are mostly baseless unless they state specifically which patents are violated. You can't claim that you were harmed without telling the parties where they are harming you. If you do you have very little solid ground to stand on. I'm sure any jury deciding damages would mitigate them due to how Microsoft claims problems but tells no one what the problems are or what they need to do to resolve them.
Let's also bear in mind that Microsoft has lost nearly 100% of its patent lawsuits over the history of their legal affairs. Recent losses are pretty sizable affairs totaling in billions of dollars. Microsoft is also a convicted monopolist in more than one country and they have participated in some very nasty anti-competitive practices which have harmed the consumer (individuals, as well as businesses). By the very nature of this harm they have harmed the development of software and harmed the economy. Granted some of that last sentence is my own conjecture, but there's good cause to believe that if the money they have stockpiled in the banks of a few people had been distributed to a greater number of people that money would have been used to further the economy in more beneficial way.
Let's also keep in mind that Microsoft lost the lawsuit against a company called Z4 and it was upheld on appeal, regarding the violation of Z4's IP for online activation. In fact, they were found to have participated in numerous acts of misconduct during the trial, as noted by the Judge. He clearly stated in his ruling, when he awarded Z4 an additional $25 million in special damages above and beyond the normal punitive damages, that Microsoft had acted with such misconduct because they felt Z4 was incapable of defending its own IP.
The IP they stole from Z4 was the technology used to perform the activation of XP over the internet. This equates to essentially stealing the technology which they used to keep you from stealing their software. That's pretty atrocious if you ask me.
They have consistently operated in a malformed way and to this day they continue to spy on you with their hidden technology called Windows Genuine Advantage Notification. This same technology (and more) is incorporated into Vista. It is being done without the consumer's knowledge and is the equivalent of them coming into your home (because your computer is an extension of your home) in order to search it. No company does this nor should be allowed to do this, and just because it is done in a hidden way makes it no less a violation of your privacy. It's the equivalent of a hidden camera. No one would allow the Police authorities to place a hidden camera in your home and certainly would not agree to do that without the oversight of a court and Judge. This is the equivalent of allowing Walmart to enter your home to search it in order to determine if you have stolen any of their goods just because you are a regular shopper at Walmart.
So, they are not on the up and up and they should not be trusted in this matter. This commentary from their lead attorney is not being done in good faith and none of these claims have ever been proven in a court of law. Upon a trial with a judge and jury where the facts are laid out and one party prevails we'll see who has the strongest IP, otherwise all of this is just FUD.
Why is this coming out so hard and so fast at this point? It is because Microsoft Vista is doing
cNet is owned by Microsoft I believe.
gksu is sudo for GUI as best I know. In Ubuntu you are prompted with graphical boxes asking for a password for tasks requiring admin privs. That's a lot better than simply giving a OK or Cancel box. Both could do with displaying more information about what and why the user is being prompted for, but so far Ubuntu's implementation is superior to Vista's.
I use gksu when I want to launch specific programs as admin and I will periodically launch it with nautilus as a parameter so I can copy/delete some file graphically. I create launch icons all the time with gksu.
At it's most basic form UAC is simply an attempt to work like sudo under linux. Am not sure there are others like it under other OSes such as Solaris, Unix, etc. The Macintosh OSX has had similar features for a long time. I use both Macs, Windows, and Linux. Linux being my primary and Mac/Windows being about equal. But it is foolhardy to say that Windows is the leader here. They aren't. Not only that it isn't even a security feature (according to Microsoft), it is a feature meant to make users more aware that they aren't running as the admin account. So, it is stupid to say that everyone should follow Microsoft's lead. This Microsoftie should be called out so that the world knows Microsoft had very little to do with inventing this stuff--they are just implementing what others have had for many years.
So that means that SAMBA isn't in violation of any patents relating to Windows protocols as long as the distributions are created outside the US. Granted any patent owned by anyone as long as it is created for copy or production outside the US. Sounds like Microsoft lost more than it gained. I'd say it was a rather stupid move on their part and the ramifications are not fully known yet. But ALAS they'll claim this applies to others and not to them.
He did a great job. The only problem is that he doesn't tell you where to install the compiled files. There's no readme file and most every reference is in french. Not his fault for the french but he could have put an installer in there or a readme telling you where to place the newly compiled files.
Well, the concept is bullshit. If they can spy on you they will. Period.
You are right. Microsoft wants to compel them to buy it. It is like compelling them into a glass room so they can be spied on and monitored. Get rid of that crap and we all might be more willing to pay the higher price. No more spying, get rid of the DRM and promise not to put anything like it back. One can envision Ballmer and Gates in a meeting all excited that they've pulled the wool over the consumer's eyes. They are all giddy that they have managed to get all this spying shit into the computer and have customers pay them to do it, albeit even if they aren't aware of that or how important it is to now allow such a thing to happen.
But your argument about compelling them is just a description of the fact that a monopoly like Microsoft can get imply there's no such thing as an alternative.
There is an alternative. OSX and Linux are two very viable alternatives.
And where's the outcry for Microsoft holding a lock on 90% of the world's computers via their registration, activation, and spy utulity (Windows Genuine Notification)? Why would these entities complain about someone that is able to bring advertisements to the world--especially about privacy issues when Microsoft violates your privacy every day and they are going unchecked? Listen, you have a company with unprecedented access to the world's computers, information about the users, information about governments, access through whatever means they choose to install, and no piddly group such as these are complaining that Microsoft is unchecked.
When they installed WGN onto your computer and they then started reporting back to their website about your legitimacy they were spying on you. It is akin to having Walmart employees come into your home and search it to determine if those things you have in your home are paid for given the fact that you visit their stores as a customer. This is essentially what Microsoft is doing and they are doing it repeatedly, on a regular basis. Microsoft should get away from it because they installed the equivalent of a hidden camera on your computer? You wouldn't let the government invade your home and you certainly wouldn't allow Walmart to enter it, and you damn certainly should not be allowing Microsoft to do what they are with their WGN program or any other.
This complaint is utter nonsense and loonacy at best. There are greater issues out there for these agencies to complain about. Let's get them complaining to the FTC about Microsoft's WGN utility and the various other things Microsoft is and will do to invade your privacy.
And Microsoft forcing hardware manufacturers to put their DRM scheme into action isn't another monopoly in the making? You must realize, everyone, that DRM equates to market control. All you have to do is look at Apple's DRM and the iPod and then look at how the EU is seeing Apple as very anti-competitive.
Looking at this from the perspective that DRM is a locking mechanism (e.g., Apple's DRM locks you into the iPod) you have to understand that this is worse than anything Google could do with advertisements. Not only that Microsoft's DRM operates as a spying mechanism and it equates to the fact that they are entering your home and your business to spy on you. It is like purchasing goods at Walmart and then having Walmart enter your home to ensure that the goods you have are actually paid for. You would no more let a Walmart employee enter your home to do this sort of search than you should allow Microsoft to do this. You wouldn't even let the government come in and search your home and most certainly would not let them do it repeatedly. So, why on earth are you letting Microsoft enter your home/computer to search it and then allow them to search it repeatedly?
This complaint by Microsoft is an utter farce. Google doesn't force you to use their products. You aren't locked into their products. Google isn't acting in an anti-competitive manner by forcing vendors and consumers into little or no choice. Hell, if you don't want to view the ads get an ad blocker. If you don't want to follow through on the ads don't click them.
Being in a position where you are forced essentially to purchase Microsoft products because you can't use your hardware without it and then to have Microsoft force vendors to do certain things to your desktop or they loose a competitive edge due to having to pay higher costs is a far cry from Google owning a large segment of the market.
Microsoft is just representing to the world how pathetic they are. They can't compete on a level field. They can't innovate. They can't produce DRM free environments where people are empowered to use their content in any way they wish. This is a sad day when everyone (the government, the corporations, the people) are being led astray by such utter nonsense. Now Microsoft is abusing their relationship with the government powers. The richest men in the world complaining of anti-competitive behavior?
All we can hope for is that the government sees that companies such as Microsoft grow so large that complaints of this nature will become so commonplace and maybe they'll enact laws that break up companies and/or prohibit companies from growing in this way. If our government doesn't start to understand the true motivation behind Microsoft's complaint then we are truly lost.
This is not Microsoft being put in a position where they can't compete fairly on a level field. This is a situation where Microsoft chooses not to compete on their own merits and expects the government to come to their aid. We aren't talking about a small company who is being swindled nor are we talking about the fact that other entities can't compete or sell advertisements. We are talking about a company that is envious of another which is capable of doing something they can't.
Microsoft is lost. This is a loser's tactic. It motions in the beginning of their downfall. To that, we can realize we have a solid company capable of defending itself against such ludicrous accusations.
There's no reason to tell OEMs not to sell XP. The reason is that there's not enough wrong with it to force customers to upgrade. Yes, I'd say Microsoft is getting quite desperate. I do not relish the idea of having to force my customers to install Vista on their new machines no matter how pretty it looks. The fact remains, Microsoft is spying on the customer and is taking control of the computer away from the consumer.
What this will mean to hardware sales is that a rather significant number of people will get the recommendation to upgrade their existing hardware instead of purchasing a new one. More people will try to xfer their existing license to new motherboards and other upgrades--I'd expect Microsoft to be on the offensive on this one.
Vista is a DRM nightmare. There someone said it, lol.
Do you guys really want to permit Microsoft to violate your privacy and potentially lock out your computer? Do you want them looking at and forcing you to use certain technologies which monitor your content consumption? Do you really want to contribute to Microsoft remaining a monopoly, which clearly has been a negative thing for our economy? Yes, I firmly believe that if that money wasn't in Microsoft's coffers it would be in a larger number of coffers--not that it would be less--just more people would have the benefit of the sales.
I certainly feel that Linux will benefit from this. I feel hardware manufactures and other sales will suffer from it. If Microsoft were to drop the unethical and near criminal DRM spying technology from Vista and redo the AERO to be more in line with lower hardware requirements then Vista might be a sellable item.
I know many people in my community that are completely unwilling to upgrade to Vista. They'll go for the next 5 years running XP or they'll switch over to Linux.
Linux is a very viable desktop OS today. The vast majority of computer users could jump onto Linux (a properly pre-configured box) and be right at home. They'd have a great desktop, excellent performance and stability, a overabundance of software to choose from and peace of mind from the spying and DRM found in Vista. No one in the Linux community would even consider supporting DRM at the hardware level in sound, video, and motherboards. It isn't going to happen.
In a year Linux will have improved significantly more and I truly believe there's a significant surge in interest in Linux on the desktop. Distro's such as Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS are excellent examples of quality desktops with significant support systems with lots of howtos and a huge base of people ready and willing to politely help anyone with every type of problem.
Some of the biggest barriers to linux were: real world end user support, lack of complete quality applications, lack of hardware drivers, lack of a universal distro applications installer, weak or bulging desktop managers, lack of gaming, and a few other things, including things that programmers can't overcome such as patent issues (dvd & mp3 playback, for example).
1) The real world end user support has greatly been improved due to distro's such as Ubuntu.
2) The quality of applications has gone up significantly as programmers began to realize their target audience is no longer other programmers. Applications such as Open Office, Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird, and a large number of other programs do more than what the vast majority of users want.
3) Lack of drivers isn't much of a problem as the vast majority of even the most exotic devices can be installed easily (except maybe for wireless devices).
4) Gnome is a decent desktop manager but the programmers behind it are stuck in the mindset of OS9 and can't seem to get past what they were trying to accomplish in OS9, while the rest of the world has moved on way past OS9's desktop features. Yeah, more features are there but they are relatively slightly evolutionary and are not as revolutionary as could be. They need to drop their intense desire to sta
I've never considered Office a barrier for acceptance for home users. When most of the people I support become aware of Open Office they are just very pleased at the fact that they can get a free word processor, spreadsheet, etc. This isn't to say that there aren't barriers there. Some are pretty major.
Microsoft has been scanning the horizon to ensure that no one begins to kick at the blocks that prop up their monopoly. They are constantly looking for new ways to create more blocks. Some of these blocks are directx, drm, application/windows APIs, network interoperability (or the lack thereof), WGA/WGN lie, FUD, patents. Writing for OpenGL means you are writing for multiple platforms which gives a greater overall share.
Another new block is DRM. Yes they have had DRM in their product in one fashion or another for decades--copy protection on software back in the 80s, activation keys in the 90s. The WGN/WGA lie in the 00's is a psychological game meant to make the consumer less in control but to give them a feeling they are being protected. They are essentially forcing the consumer to allow Microsoft to spy on them under the guise of protecting the consumer from organized pirating--this is the fundamental lie. The average consumer is already covered because they generally purchase from the likes of Dell, Gateway, etc. Only a small percentage of sales are from systems integrators and the odds of getting one that is dishonest is even more minuscule. Today it is the essential arm-twisting/drafting of the hardware manufacturers to comply with their draconian DRM/CRM procedures.
Their APIs, not just DirectX, are also locking blocks, that block you from other platform development. Most companies don't have the time to learn multiple platform APIs in order to develop software. Apple recognized this (well NeXt computers did) when they were creating their development tools. Another block they use today are patents. Microsoft is not making a patent portfolio to protect itself, it is making it to prop up the monopoly and to attack competitors such as Linux. Software APIs for productivity applications aren't the barrier they once were. You can see that they will, over time, become less and less important as more and more programs build up for the competitor's platform. Since that form is diminishing there must be other ways for Microsoft to lock you into their platform. Gaming is a key API that they can change regularly. If they can keep changing the gaming API regularly then no entity can conceivably create a 100% compatible layer for other platforms. That's another reason why it is just silly to have game developers writing for directx instead of for OpenGL.
Networking interoperability is another key block that Microsoft uses to block migration from Windows to other platforms. If the interoperability is difficult or impossible even over the short term, large, medium, and small companies will very likely decline migration to Linux (or even OSX).
Patents and FUD seem to go hand in hand. Microsoft knows that if they say enough negative about Linux and threaten enough that migration will be slowed. If they create enough of a patent portfolio that will also slow development as competitors are constantly attempting to figure out what they can legally do and what they can't. DRM is similar in that it can't be copied and used in competitors platforms. The DMCA destroys all hope of that, at least if the user wants to stay 100% legal.
I don't know what the current installed base of Linux is and I'm sure most developers don't either. My estimate is that it is somewhere between 10 and 50 million computers.
When you use all of these together, including FUD and attempting to hide the sheer number of Linux (or any competitors true numbers) you can see how strong these blocks are. It only takes companies and individuals to start knocking more of these blocks out faster to bring down the monopoly. It isn't just having a product or even advertising your product or even gi
I believe there's a Doom 3 client for Linux and I know for certain there's an Enemy-Territory version for Linux. What's the point of benchmarking? They trying to show that the CEDEGA implementation is good when compared to the client running natively under linux and how that cmopares to those clients running under windows?
New name please. Pigdin sounds fat and lazy and makes one feel like it is a pig wallowing in its own shit. Sorry, but that's what the word evokes in me. They need to come up with something better. Can't imagine then coming up with such a name.
Remember, it was lawyers that fucked up the legal profession, not paralegals.
This is nothing more than harassment. They are trying to teach her a lesson. It is simply the lawyers trying to prove they are superior.
Bottom line, SCO has lost and are lost.