OSNews

one more flame war thread ?

Edited 2007-05-12 21:51

The words 'straws', 'at' and 'clutching' sping to mind when reading that article.

Edited 2007-05-12 21:54

That's really far from reality, specialy now that after years trying to use Linux I finally feel like using Linux as my only OS, Ubuntu and GNOME made it possible.

Linux doesn't exist in 2007.

I don't know if this is funny because it's blatantly misinformed FUD, or because that has always been Microsoft's stance on Linux--until nearly 2007 when that whole Novell deal thing went down.

Edited 2007-05-12 22:01

Ok, dude - you haven't understood a bit about open source but you boast in having all the answerers. If I were your boss I'd fire you immediately, because you are spreading FUD (and that's not even good for MS, simply because most of it are lies).

I think a world without open-source is such a sad idea. It's basically saying there has to be money behind something to have innovation. I think more and more people are seeing they have more choices other than Vista for example. They have more choices other than Windows Media Player or Outlook Express. I think Microsoft is scared because in a lot of cases, these open-source progs are better than what they've been working on for decades. What a thick-headed thing to say...

Wow.... MS are *really* getting desperate...... :-)
"Free Software" dead? It has never been healthier!
Witness the *dozens* of companies, cities, states and even governments switching to open-source software.

I run both Linux and OpenBSD, and regardless of anyone's views on those, the fact that MS can't make an OS which even *remotely* approaches their quality speaks volumes. The """quality""" of MS' so-called "operating systems" is not even in the same universe as open-source ones.

A tiny sample of really neat OSS projects: Haiku, Voyager (OS/2 clone) and the great up-and-coming MonaOS too -
http://sourceforge.net/projects/monaos

I'll also mention the great little IDE called Geany -
http://geany.uvena.de

... and the very-cool public-domain "yeanpypa" parsing library written in Python. That lets you write parsers/interpreter directly in Python code using a very-similar-to-BNF syntax. Very much like C++'s Boost::Spirit (which it is inspired by) -
http://www.slash-me.net/dev/snippets/yeanpypa/documentation.html

Sheesh... this guy must have the easiest job in the world. Wander along to MS each morning, collect a fat pay-cheque and spread FUD!

Edited 2007-05-12 22:28

okay so their argument sumed up:
- some developers have jobs
- some programs are cross plateform
- some programs/projects are funded by corporations

the conclusion:
Linux is dead?

makes about as much sence as 1/0 = 5
:)

If it doesn't exist, who are you preaching to? Wndows users that stranded from the One True Path?
And "complex balance between innovation and standardisation" is priceless. Tell you what, the world isn't ready for the breakneck pace of Microsoft innovation. It has better stop.

Hahaha it's sounding like Microsoft are becoming desperate now, what was that saying of Gandhi's? Something like, first they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then they lose... It sounds like Microsoft are stepping in to the fighting stage now. I don't think there is much they can do to survive, the empire is going to crumble eventually.

>Even Linus has got a job today.

Yes and even Linus eats something every day. Gosh what a moron. Microsoft is already dead if they are in need of such nonsense sayings.

such utter drivel about not needing standards etc and how the world doesn't need the odf standard etc, laughable really.

"When I talk to open source developers, at least half are talking about Windows, from SugarCRM, MySQL, PHP. Every single one,"

Wait, first it's "half", then less than ten words later it's "every single one"? Either he got misleadingly quoted or he fell over his own hyperbole...

Anyway, didn't we (Linux people) used to suck because we were all hippies and no-one would pay us? And now we suck because we have jobs? I'm so confused! I think I'll suggest we start running 'tie-dye Fridays' at the office...

http://www.muppetstore.com/pics_big/407.jpg

Death is Dead! Long live Death!

that "linux doesn't exist in 2007", then why has Microsoft been paying so much attention to it lately?
They shouldn't have anything to worry about, hmmm?

Shooting down the rest is like shooting fish in a barrel, anyway.

The bit about the input system - well, there was a rather famous series of videos of someone not remotely related to Microsoft doing that last year. Microsoft in stealing idea and presenting it as their own shock, hold the front page! No, wait, that goes on page 15 with the rest of yesterday's news. Secondly, it's a straw man: the EU hasn't told Microsoft to 'open up' anything like experimental input systems, and no-one's even asked them to. Thirdly, it would be extremely straightforward to standardize, because we *already* have USB input standardization and no matter how jazzy the human interaction side of things is, as far as representing the input to the computer goes, it's just the same as any other input device.

Honestly, you'd think Microsoft would be able to do better than this.

I think he has a point concerning MS's relations with the open source movement.

Microsoft has always treated open source software as a business asset to be sold, not as a service to be provided.

This is the exact same line of reasoning followed by Novell, Red Hat, Linspire, and most other commercial distributors.

HOWEVER, I get the feeling that he's implying that these commercial vendors constitute the majority of distributors; and that most developers of applications used in the vendors' respective distribution are being paid an income by these companies.

He's wrong in both cases.

So this is what I criticize about his statement as the head of Microsoft's OS Lab: why, is it that they have such an obviously myopic view of open source software - or, for that matter, software in general - that limits them to speaking of and regarding it as far as their commercial competitors are concerned?

When they speak of Linux in their "Get the facts" campaign, they're really using "Linux" as a code word for "Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server" (and mention Novell in some ads); they don't even mention Red Hat, or Canonical, just Novell, a company with whom they have history.

All I'm asking for them to do is this: LIGHTEN UP.

Stop confusing an entire ideology for a single company. Stop saying stupid stuff in your marketing speak to piss off the already-disillusioned.
Just stop, sit down, take a breather, and clear your head.

Or at least just specify who you're aiming for, so that the other open-sourcers can get out of the shooting range.

Did I understand that the guy is trying to claim: "free software = freeware"? That is, of course, not true at all. It seems to be an intended misrepresentation or else the man hasn't done his homework at all like read the IT news for the recent 10 years or so. Open source and free software can be as commercial as closed source software (and, on the other hand, there's also lots of closed source freeware that doesn't cost a penny). So being paid and working in a company as an open source (like Linux kernel) programmer has always been perfectly ok within the open source / free software community.

What Microsoft doesn't seem to learn is that it is just that kind of FUD against their competitors - that is plentiful in that article too - that is turning more and more people away from them - me included. Morals and truth do matter in business too. Usually lies and FUD are going to hit your own legs in the end.

Of course, Linux and open source / free software people may often not be perfect angels either, and, for example, some of them may have sometimes been using too harsh words about Microsoft too. I don't like that either (base your criticism on clear facts, don't just badmouth others) although I can understand why some people may be very frustrated with Microsoft and may thus sometimes overreact.

I have nothing against Microsoft or their products in themselves. The usability of MS Windows has usually been quite good (although their product security has been somewhat poor at least until recent times). But to my regret I must say that I've just learned from many, many stories on and on not to trust Microsoft and their words very much anymore. It has, of course, also influenced me in my IT buying decisions...

Microsoft should learn how to do more cooperation instead of just trying to kill everyone who competes with them. Then people, governments and also other companies, might learn to trust and like them again...

Edited 2007-05-12 23:29

The mind of a delusional company is a marvel to behold. Good-bye McSoft.

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
"Their infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad. Be assured, Baghdad is safe, protected."

The creators of the worst OS, now give us the worst FUD.

The fact that open source developers now have jobs at IBM, Red Hat, Novell and others, is a sign that Linux is succesful.

As many others here have pointed out there is nothing wrong in making money from free software. The problem to Microsoft is that they are far ahead of Microsoft in converting to a service oriented business model. Microsoft will be forced to go there too in the near future, as OSes, Office Suits and databases will be commodities that nobody will be prepared to pay for.

Naturally open source companies like MySQL and others talk about supporting windows. This no indication that windows is supperior in any way. It is an indication that there are a lot of windows users to sell support to. The money of windows users are as good as anybody else's.

Expanding into Windows territory is actually the best way for free software to beat Microsoft. If a lot of windows users run cross platform free software, that will lower the barrier to switch to an OS with lower licensing costs. Having free software competing with schrink wrapped software on the windows platform forces the providers of such software to lower their prices.

As a result the value of the windows market will diminish, and as a result some companies may consider widening their offerings. With toolkits like Trolltech QT it is very easy to support Linux, MacOS as well as windows. The ongoing work on standardization of the basics in Linux will make it even easier.

I have some issues with the replies, and for these reasons:

1) The Free Software Foundation isn't some sort of anti-business, anti-freemarket, anti-make-money-off-software organisation - I've yet to year Stallman or any one of the other official spokespersons for the organisations come out and declare that their mission operandi is to destroy all software company's.

This is about Microsoft using its voice in the IT marketplace to some how declare that unless your product is closed source, you have no product at all - and so therefore, because FSF advocates free (libre) software, it some how is destroying value because the code isn't kept secret.

It is based on this notion that value of a product is only derived from the fact that no one has the source code, and people are purely paying for just the code itself (in binary form) and nothing else.

That is sort sighted to say the least - talk to any company as to the reason why they purchase software, rather than use a freeware/shareware or simply download and compile it, and they'll tell you that they want more, they want services like maintenance, support, consultancy - the value added that are sometimes bundled with proprietary applications.

All free software is doing is unbundling the software from the services and giving not only the end user a lot more freedom as to where they acquire those services from, but allows businesses to compete in a whole new way - competition based on value and quality rather than how well they've kept their secret sauce secret.

2) This person is obviously clueless to the background of Linux and how it actually got it start; I don't want to sound smug, but clue to the clueless, it has nothing to do with AMP (Apache, MySQL, php) - the fact that Linux was in front of the acronym is a side effect of the real reason for Linux taking off.

Linux took off outside the 'halls of geekdom' over 10 years ago on the basis that it was a UNIX-like operating system which could easily slide in an replace large expensive UNIX's systems being provided by the likes of Sun, IBM, HPUX, and SCO (in the form of software on x86).

ISP's were the first beneficiary of this by virtue of the fact that back when the internet boom started, margins were razor thin, those whose who started up the company had little in the way of finance - in the case of New Zealand, very few banks, if at all, were interested in risking large amounts of cash to a rather radical business proposition.

So this is where Linux falls into place, ISP's saw this as the platform where by they could weld together low cost x86 machines running a free UNIX like operating system - ideal for a start up who wanted all the perks of UNIX, stability, security and reliability, but without the price tag.

The best example of this was IHUG (Internet Home Users Group) which started off using Linux, which today still a large portion of their business is running off the back of Linux infrastructure (assuming the recent buy out hasn't changed anything).

Then the ball began to roll, with ISPs, came hosting companies, and with hosting companies came businesses, end users and the rest, as they say is history.

Linux success isn't derived from AMP. AMP's success one could say is derived from Linux's success - with that being said, if one wanted to play the parlour game of 'what if', one could argue that FreeBSD, had it not been tied up in legal wrangling, could have been what we see as Linux today, in regards to usage.

(rest on my blog as it would have gone over 8000 characters - http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/2007/05/microsoft-director-out-to-debunk... )

Edited 2007-05-13 00:07

yes, many companies have contributed to Linux but the inability to contribute to Windows is the problem.

I'll be removing Vista and running a dual boot XP/Linux configuration.

Microsoft is doing good things though. They were smart enough to get Microsoft hosting up on 1and1.com and i really like the WPF SDK as well as their singularity OS.

Come the revolution, this guy and his scarily close-together eyes will be among the first into the tumbrils! Time to sharpen the blade, mes braves.

Seriously, there are plenty of interesting points to be made about open source, but Mr Hilf doesn't seem to be making them.

His essential point is that Linux in reality is a commercial eco-system like any other. Its "staff" are paid employees, its distros are commercial outfits, so it follows that its strategy must be to beat the competition, make lots of money for shareholders and drop all pretence to morals or idealism because corporations don't do either. On the contrary, they'll suck up to any totalitarian with a few bob in a dodgy Swiss bank account. As for "standards", well those are just commercial weapons in Mr Hilf's world, as the EU is now "learning" (in his breathtakingly amoral and patronizing description of current Microsoft-EU legal proceedings).

Before this BS I would place Debian, with its pledge to create a free and universal operating system, freely available to anyone, anywhere, who wants it. Amazingly simple, and devastatingly effective as an idea because for the Microsofts of this world there is no way round it. They cannot buy it, take it over or argue it away. They can of course try to destroy it by purchasing legislation from corrupt governments, but we're not quite there yet.

More interesting points around Linux for me are, for example, whether a project in a state of permanent betaware is ever going to succeed. The problem with trying to build a new Jerusalem is always the same: it cannot be built. Then there is the question of whether the present way of putting the kernel together is really all that sensible (regardless of whether the devs are paid employees). There is the open-source old-boy network - the Mouths - who crop up time after time at conferences and in the press. Are they really spokesmen? For whom? Are they even any good at speaking? And there are the questions about open source methodology and whether a project "owned" by sophisticated developers is ever going to be able to understand the needs of ordinary users.

Oh well, we'll all have long and very different lists and interests. An often overlooked one, though, is that every new generation needs a space in which to play, to experiment and to kick against the pricks. It's the only way that skills are honed, innovations happen and the next generation's true geniuses emerge. Open source (and especially Linux, imho) currently provides this. The corporate world, typified here by Microsoft but no other large corporation is really any different, is incapable of seeing beyond ownership. In seeking to own and therefore stifle the aspirations and basic intelligence of each new generation, this corporate tendency is in fact preaching stagnation and its own destruction. So I guess there'll be no need for a guillotine for Mr Hilf and his chums after all: they are quite capable of stagnating to vanishing point up their own ass without any help from us.

Edited 2007-05-13 00:14

So, if he's the guy in charge of OS at Microsoft... and if OS is dead... then it makes full sense to go do something different, right?

How about being the carpenter that provides the chairs for cousing Stevie to throw around? :-D

"He said that most customers run a distribution - RedHat, Novell, Suse or Mandriva. Most of the work on maintaining the Linux kernel is done by developers working for these distributions, he noted"

"They are full-time employees, with 401K stock options. Some work for IBM or Oracle. What does that mean? It means that Linux doesn't exist any more in 2007"

This assumes that free software was ever about everyone working for free. This is not the case. Free software is about people having the opportunity to fix and change what they are being sold or given. If people have regular jobs making money working on free software then that is actually a validation of the free software movement.

The free software movement was never about a free lunch.

waiting for CrazyDude0 and tomcat to come to MS' rescue?