Ballmer: Linux users owe Microsoft

[jturning]

You know, I'm new to Linux, so openSUSE is my first distro, but I like it a lot over XP. I only keep the XP partition around for a couple programs, and am just waiting to drop Microsoft when replacements are worthy. I think Novell has done a nice job with SUSE and like where they're going.

We should all ignore Ballmer and Microsoft realizing that they are just trying to cloud the water. I think they are trying to hurt Red Hat. Let Novell have the money they probably justly deserve from Microsoft from previous wrongs, and let Microsoft help SUSE continue to improve. If we turn on Novell we hurt ourselves. And more robust competition will just make Red Hat and Linux better.

35 I have seen a wicked and ruthless man
flourishing like a green tree in its native soil,

36 but he soon passed away and was no more;
though I looked for him, he could not be found.

Bugz

[greggh]

You know, I'm new to Linux, so openSUSE is my first distro, but I like it a lot over XP. I only keep the XP partition around for a couple programs, and am just waiting to drop Microsoft when replacements are worthy. I think Novell has done a nice job with SUSE and like where they're going.

We should all ignore Ballmer and Microsoft realizing that they are just trying to cloud the water. I think they are trying to hurt Red Hat. Let Novell have the money they probably justly deserve from Microsoft from previous wrongs, and let Microsoft help SUSE continue to improve. If we turn on Novell we hurt ourselves. And more robust competition will just make Red Hat and Linux better.

Bugz

You say yourself that you think one of the reasons for MS doing this deal is to hurt Redhat. Well, taking aim at the number one Linux vendor is an attempt to hurt Linux in general. Novell should not be forgiven with going along with something that is designed to damage the Linux community. We should all boycot Novell.

Here's a piece in the NY Times...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/techn ... f=business

The deal was also regarded as a way for Microsoft to try to undermine its leading open source competitor, Red Hat, whose customers would not enjoy the same patent pledge as Novell customers.

Preferential treatment for one distributor or group of developers of Linux over others is something the new version of the Linux software license, which is nearly complete, will seek to prohibit, said Eben Moglen, general counsel of the Free Software Foundation.

I'm beginning to realize that Stallman knows exactly what he's doing with GPL v3 and that it is indeed a critical and needed change to the GPL.

Also from the article...

The new version, the General Public License 3.0, is in the final public comment stage, and is scheduled to become effective next March. A major aim of the license revision is to deal with the spread of software patents, and patent lawsuits, in recent years. And the new license will almost certainly make it difficult for companies to make selective patent pledges to some Linux distributors, developers and users, and not to others, Mr. Moglen said.

He said the concern was that Microsoft could use such patent promises as a competitive weapon to undermine companies who are rivals or to threaten independent Linux software developers.

“Microsoft should take back the patent promise to Novell customers or extend the promise of patent safety to everyone, not just Novell customers,” he said.

[jturning]

You say yourself that you think one of the reasons for MS doing this deal is to hurt Redhat. Well, taking aim at the number one Linux vendor is an attempt to hurt Linux in general. Novell should not be forgiven with going along with something that is designed to damage the Linux community. We should all boycot Novell.

I still think boycotting Novell hurts Linux. We need a strong Novell and Red Hat. And I think everyone sees through Ballmer's stunt. Microsoft isn't going to sue any customers. And if they had the goods on what patents are there to sue over they'd be making their move on Red Hat without paying Novell $500,000,000. If we ignore it, Novell can put the money to good use and perhaps in the long run solidify Linux's place in the enterprise space. Moreover, Novell isn't admitting that they violate any of Microsoft's patents with Linux, and they are netting $460,000,000 out of the deal. And this gets Microsoft to admit that Linux is a solid player in the enterprise space instead of the normal dismissal they try to give. If the Linux community and IT professionals don't buy the hype and overreact, this could work for Linux.

And I may be mistaken, but the GPL 3 wouldn't affect what is already under GPL 2 per my understanding.

And as a side note, I think we have to be real with spreading Linux and related software. The fanatical free software movement is great, but if only a small fraction of people ever use the software and it never reaches its potential, what good is the movement? I think if we can get the open source software movement to gain a significant percentage of users we could over time transition to the free software model once people understand the benefits and differences. And to make that transition would take significant numbers.

Bugz

[Tsuroerusu]

I still think boycotting Novell hurts Linux. We need a strong Novell and Red Hat.

I'm the resident SUSE (the distro itself) fan on this board, and to be honest with you, if Sun goes ahead and GPLs Solaris, I, frankly, almost see Sun as a much bigger player in this game than Novell.
Sun folks have kept hammering on about them open sourcing all of their software technology, and they are thinking about what to do about hardware designs, and with this recent announcement of the GPLing of Java, and potential GPLing of Solaris, I think it's starting to be credible.

And I think everyone sees through Ballmer's stunt.

Yes, everyone in the free software and open source community that is. All the Windows wankers, Yakee-cracker type of people eat it all up like Apple whores would toss Uncle Steve's salad if they had the chance.

Microsoft isn't going to sue any customers. And if they had the goods on what patents are there to sue over they'd be making their move on Red Hat without paying Novell $500,000,000.

Microsoft knows that a lot of their customers uses both Windows and Linux, for all kinds of reasons, and by giving SUSE Linux their "blessing " and promising not to sue Novell's customers, users of Red Hat Enterprise or Debian may say "OH CRAP, WE MIGHT GET SUED, LET'S GO PRAY AT THE CHURCH OF NOVELL", and then Microsoft can go to some of Red Hat's big customers and say something like "Look folks, our unlicensed intellectual property is in there, you are violating our patents, pay up or use Novell's Linux, there's a safe one for you!!".
In other words, they have excuses that all kinds of American courts probably would buy.

And I may be mistaken, but the GPL 3 wouldn't affect what is already under GPL 2 per my understanding.

Correct, but remember that the Free Software Foundation, of which Richard Stallman is president, owns the copyrights for things like GCC, glibc, Grub, and the whole toolchain in general. This software is currently licensed as "GPLv2 or later", in one version change, they can change this to "GPLv3 or later", which I am sure they will do.
To get around this, Novell will have to fork off the entire toolchain and GNU development, and just use the last GPLv2'ed versions of glibc, GCC etc. etc. and to fix bugs and stuff they need to reimplement the fixes, since they can't take upstream fixes, that may be coming from Red Hat or Debian, and integrate them into SUSE. And also, I seriously doubt that Novell has the resources to management millions of lines of code that they didn't write themselves. There is the potential of Novell forking stuff, but it's just so immensely unfeasible that I doubt they're gonna do it. And oh by the way, what was that desktop that Novell decided to make their default about this time last year? What's it's name again? Oh yeah! GNOME!!!
Look at what GNOME originally stood for: GNU Network Object Model Environment.

GNOME is part of the GNU project, and even though the FSF doesn't own all the copyrights for everything that's in GNOME, neither Sun or Red Hat has come out and said "We're against the GPLv3!", actually Red Hat is part of the GPLv3 discussion groups! Sun has even expressed interest in MAYBE using the GPLv3 for something like Java or Solaris, when the time is right.

So imagine that both GCC, glibc, GNU coreutils and all the other GNU stuff, including Novell's default desktop all goes to GPLv3. Do you really believe that they are gonna try and maintain all of that themselves? Plus, GNOME comes out with a new version every six months, if Novell could only use one particular version because the newer ones being GPLv3'ed, Red Hat would be WAY ahead of them in no time at all.

And as a side note, I think we have to be real with spreading Linux and related software. The fanatical free software movement is great, but if only a small fraction of people ever use the software and it never reaches its potential, what good is the movement?

WHAT THE F U C K IS FANATICAL ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD FOR EVERYBODY TO BE ON!!!

That is the biggest amount of bullsh!t I have heard since Mr. de Icaza in his ignorance still maintained that Qt is still not free software (Miguel, have you been living under a rock for over six freaking years?).

Sorry for cursing and yelling at you, but if market share and popularity is more important than equality, then I'd actually prefer Linux to stay at about 2 or 3 percent of the market. If Novell ended up having the only Linux that people could use without getting sued by Microsoft, then what would we need the free competition, that the GPL is designed to ensure, for when Novell essentially would have a monopoly of fear?

And even if Microsoft didn't sue people, but just made threats and crap like that, then people would still back away from Red Hat or Debian, because if you're running a small business you probably do not like even the theoretical idea of you being sued by a multi billion dollar corporation! Because remember, what is it that Microsoft has the most of? Oh yeah. CASH!!
If the MPAA can buy US senators, I think Microsoft could buy themselves through a few patent lawsuits or two, unless they're dealing with the European Commission of course!

I think if we can get the open source software movement to gain a significant percentage of users we could over time transition to the free software model once people understand the benefits and differences.
And to make that transition would take significant numbers.

Alright, you go ahead and do that, in the mean time, I'll make sure to do as much as possible to make sure that the original freedoms that the GPL gives to the users will be ensured in the future of patents, DRM, TPM and all that crap.

[sweetnsourbkr]

I have heard a rumor that the reason Ballmer referred to Linux users owing Microsoft IP was because of virtualisation. Apparently, people can run multiple copies of Windows Server software on their Suse platforms in virtual machines, without having to register them (possibly due to a bug in the registration part). This is obviously a violation of the Microsoft Windows EULA. Some people think Ballmer may have been referring to those Linux users who use this sort of virtual server scheme.

We all know Ballmer knows not of what he blabbers about. Why get all worked up over an issue that we know he will do nothing? This is all hot air and we should be so enlightened as to see through it. Microsoft doesn't have a history of suing individual users.

[jturning]

WHAT THE F U C K IS FANATICAL ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD FOR EVERYBODY TO BE ON!!!

Have you listened to Stallman and other proponents of the free software movement? I think the idea is wonderful, but to label them fanatical is not a stretch.

Bugz

[Tsuroerusu]

Have you listened to Stallman and other proponents of the free software movement?

You bet I have, and I happen to agree quite a lot with Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and some other people.

I think the idea is wonderful, but to label them fanatical is not a stretch.

I think using the word "fanatical" about Richard Stallman is bullsh!t, so you'd argue that it would be fanatical for South Korea, Japan and China to be very upset with North Korea for developing nuclear weapons?

Look, Richard Stallman just stands by his principles and ideals (Like I stand by those of my own), it was those principles and ideals that made him start the free software movement, the GNU project and the FSF to begin with, why should he change those principles and ideals just because time changes and "users demand" more proprietary crap in their desktops?

That's like saying Martin Luther King should change his principles and ideals because Africa, or some other region, might be over populated, and there weren't enough food for everyone, and minimizing the number of people to make it better for the majority there. For instance, China has tried something like this, they have this fucked up stuff where people can only have X number of kids, that's fucked up man!

This is a harsh comparison I know, but I'm trying to improvise to get the points across.

[metrolinux]

It's very difficult to keep from overgeneralizing Stallman, especially considering they way he acted with Linc, but on paper (mainly the GPL) he does know what he is talking about and has some good ideas. Do I think he should be the leader of Free Software? No, there is no royalty in this process and he didn't sneak in provisions of a monarchy in the GPL. It takes a team of developers from all over the world to build the code we all use. The GPL is a good idea and when people collaborate on software they further that idea.

Novell acted out of the fact that they couldn't get a footing against Redhat in the Enterprise Market. The only way for them to make this up now is to release even more of their code, maybe eDirectory? It would be a damn shame if the three projects Novell hired the inventors of were suddenly not an option for them.

As for Microsoft, the standard custom when a corporation would like to participate is to release something of value to the community as a commitment. They can only straighten this out by firing those involved and legally releasing all claim to Linux. I believe Ballmer's comments were slanderous and his corporation is responsible for his actions according to my country's laws.

[jsusanka]

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7359/53/

here is an article about what has been on my mind lately
I thought someone would write something eventually.

I sort think microsoft will go after a company that does not use their product and strictly uses linux.

I think it would great if they went after Ernie Ball again - I think he would fight tooth and nail. Just a thought though. I think they are up to something. Since that SCO thing they started didn't work out too well.

[jturning]

I think using the word "fanatical" about Richard Stallman is bullsh!t, so you'd argue that it would be fanatical for South Korea, Japan and China to be very upset with North Korea for developing nuclear weapons?

Tsuroerusu, relax man. You're going to give yourself a heart attack, . I think you are taking fanatic to be more than it is.

Fanatic:

Adjective: Marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea

It's not wrong or disrespectful in it's use.

Bugz

[Tsuroerusu]

I think using the word "fanatical" about Richard Stallman is bullsh!t, so you'd argue that it would be fanatical for South Korea, Japan and China to be very upset with North Korea for developing nuclear weapons?

Tsuroerusu, relax man. You're going to give yourself a heart attack, . I think you are taking fanatic to be more than it is.

Fanatic:

Adjective: Marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea

It's not wrong or disrespectful in it's use.

Bugz

Well, when people say "fanatics" I think of Islamic terrorists or similar bastards. When people use the word "nazi" (Linus says "interface nazis") I think of shit like this: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q ... rch+Images


Anyway, that's why I may have reacted a little strongly, sorry about that.

[snarkout]

I think Stallman's constant likening of closed-source software to anti-human brutality in despot nations is sickening. I don't think it helps his cause at all - lets face it, having your eyes pierced with needles, your cock and balls dissolved with acid, and having your hands and feet fed into a shreding machine isn't in any way comparable with saying "No - you can't see the source code." The man is a fanatic in the worst sense of the word. He has also done an amazing amount of good for the FOSS world and should be thanked for that. He needs to gain some perspective, though.

[jturning]

IBM weighs in on the Novell Microsoft deal:

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4468266798.html

Bugz

[Tsuroerusu]

I think Stallman's constant likening of closed-source software to anti-human brutality in despot nations is sickening. I don't think it helps his cause at all - lets face it, having your eyes pierced with needles, your what uncle leroy showed at a party one summer and balls dissolved with acid, and having your hands and feet fed into a shreding machine isn't in any way comparable with saying "No - you can't see the source code." The man is a fanatic in the worst sense of the word.

As far as I remember (And excuse me if I remember wrong, but I have only gotten a little over an hour of sleep in the last 28 hours) I have not seen Stallman say that making proprietary applications is the same as torture. Actually I have seen him say that making proprietary software if someone pointed a gun to your head, because something worse was going to happen to you than the people receiving the software. I can't remember where I saw him state this, if I find it I'll let you know.

He has also done an amazing amount of good for the FOSS world and should be thanked for that. He needs to gain some perspective, though.

Some people say that Richard Stallman needs to be "pragmatic" etc. etc. but let's say he was like that back in 1983, during that incident of a proprietary printer driver, which was what pissed him off and made him go ahead and found the free software movement, start the GNU project etc. etc.
If RMS didn't stick to his principles and ideals back then, he may never have started GNU, and where would we be today? Why should he not continue to stick to his principles and ideals today? Since the original incident, that was a huge influence on him to do what he did, is still very much alive.

Anyone, go ahead and enlighten me, should Stallman change his principles and ideals just because time passes?

[Erik_]

The current storm that the Microsoft-Novell deal is making, will make Linux stronger in the future. The Linux and the open source world is full of brilliant and clever people, a way will be found
Nearly all the businesses got scared when SCO went on their rampage... a few laters, and thanks to IBM, the whole design and programming of GNU/Linux has better itself.

Ed Burnette on his ZDnet blog at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/index.php?p=206 describes some very interesting moves from the FSF.

To combat the patent covenant (er, "IP bridge" in Microsoft-speak), the Free Software Foundation's next draft of GPLv3 is expected to include a new clause that any promises not to sue would automatically apply to everyone using the new license...

This might be the key to get both the GPL v2 guardians to compromise with the GPL v3 advocates. Maybe both teams need to make some consessions, but a GPL v3 with a no-sue clause would be the solution.

I say bring it on Microsoft, we will adapt and expand
Erik