Misleading Rubbish

Story: Top Five Linux Contributor: MicrosoftTotal Replies: 57
Author Content
Fettoosh

Jul 19, 2011
1:13 PM EDT
Quoting:... Microsoft—was the fifth largest contributor to the soon to be released Linux 3.0 kernel? Believe it....


What is this supposed to tell us?

1) That MS is now a FOSS GPLed code supporter? Not at all, MS still attacks FOSS every chance it has.

2) That MS is now a GPLed code contributor to enhance Linux? Not at all, it is just serving itself by making sure that their current consumers stay with Windows if they absolutely have or need to run Linux.

3) That MS is contributing essential code to the Linux kernel? Not at all, it is contributing only what it needs to make sure Windows is not replaced by Linux. Whatever code they contribute can at any time be totally removed without even a minor impact on Linux.

So what the heck is the big deal about being the "fifth largest contributor " when the measure is nothing more than changes to a very specialized, useless code to anyone, and does nothing more than serve MS objectives?

Nothing more than rubbish journalism.

JaseP

Jul 19, 2011
1:40 PM EDT
Tell us how you REALLY feel,... (not that I disagree, but the M$ contribution is obviously self-serving).
dinotrac

Jul 19, 2011
1:55 PM EDT
@JaseP -

Self serving does not remove the recognition of FOSS's place in the IT ecosystem.

Are Microsoft's contributions any more self-serving than IBM's, Red Hat's, or Oracle's?
JaseP

Jul 19, 2011
2:13 PM EDT
@dinotrac:

Yes, a little more self-serving, since M$'s code contributions exist for the sole purpose of making Linux play nice while being run on a virtual machine on an M$ box... Again I expect this behavior from them.
flufferbeer

Jul 19, 2011
2:40 PM EDT
@JaseP,

I think you're completely correct about this; Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

I do believe that M$ is $howing off that it is trying to Embrace Linux through its contributions, and perhaps to somehow Extend it. The bulk of M$'s current attempts to Extinguish Linux, OTOH, are carried out by its notorious legal team(s).

lcafiero

Jul 19, 2011
2:48 PM EDT
The article says:

" . . . [T]hat Microsoft was the fifth largest corporate contributer (sic) to Linux 3.0. While only 15h (sic) overall, that still puts Microsoft behind only Red Hat, Intel, Novell, and IBM in contributing new code to this version of Linux."

I'm assuming that "15h" is 15th overall, which leads me to believe that there are 10 other non-corporate contributors that go with the four corporate contributors ahead of Microsoft. That's a fairly impressive stat to me and says more about FOSS than the corporations who are contributing for their own gain as opposed to out of the goodness of their corporate hearts.

[Oh, and in case anyone is curious, I'm not going anywhere near asking why Canonical is not mentioned as a corporate contributor in this article. Uh uh. No way. Not me.]

(edited to fix misspelling)

gus3

Jul 19, 2011
3:26 PM EDT
It seems to me that Canonical isn't really concerned with the kernel, anyway. Their focus is more in the UI.
dinotrac

Jul 19, 2011
3:29 PM EDT
@JaseP --

Which, of course, is completely different from IBM's contributions of code to support z series boxes, etc.
JaseP

Jul 19, 2011
3:30 PM EDT
Actually the stats can be misleading, because I do not believe they are cumulative. In other words, M$ is the 4th largest corporate contributor THIS TIME... Next relase they could be absent altogether. And a big factor that goes into this are the particulars of the update, what was being included, and what was not...
Fettoosh

Jul 19, 2011
4:15 PM EDT
Quoting:Are Microsoft's contributions any more self-serving than IBM's, Red Hat's, or Oracle's?


The more appropriate question to ask is "has MS contributed any FOSS code that is not self-serving"?

The answer is NO.

We can't say the same about the others, or can we?

Grishnakh

Jul 19, 2011
4:32 PM EDT
This is really rather silly. Most, if not all, corporate contributors, contribute only because it's self-serving. They contribute stuff that helps them. It's true for Intel, IBM, and most others. Intel's a big, big contributor to Linux, but it's not because they really want to help "the community", or for Linux to work better on AMD systems. It's because they want you to buy Intel hardware. With so many businesses using Linux these days, it's in Intel's interest to make sure that all their stuff works great with Linux, so that businesses don't try to buy competitors' hardware.

It's the same for MS. Their customers are demanding solutions so they can run Linux on their Windows servers (why, I have no idea). So MS has put some work into making their Hyper-V system work better with Linux. If they don't, their customers will go to someone else like VMware, or worse, using Linux servers natively and maybe phase out Windows servers. But, as with anything involving the Linux kernel, the code really needs to be integrated into the mainline kernel, or else you're going to be constantly fighting to keep up with all the kernel changes, which is a maintenance nightmare. It's much easier when your drivers are part of the mainline, and then the kernel devs do most of the maintenance for you, so your customers can use any kernel they want.

Linux device driver head Greg Kroah-Hartman has said that everyone should contribute their drivers, even if it's for some obscure product that only a handful of people are using. There's a reason for this: it serves as a reference to people solving similar problems, and it helps devs see commonalities in drivers, so that parts of them can be replaced with common code. This can happen even with MS's code: it's not the only virtualization code in the kernel, there's also Xen and KVM. MS's code can be helpful to these other devs, or parts of it might be shared with the others, reducing the number of bugs overall by reducing the total amount of code.

As for MS threats, this contribution actually makes MS dependent on goodwill from the Linux kernel devs, because if they act up too much, their drivers can be kicked out, causing problems for MS's Hyper-V customers. Obviously, MS went to the trouble of developing and contributing this code for a reason, so this would be taken into account by them if they come up with any evil plans to harm Linux.

BernardSwiss

Jul 19, 2011
4:55 PM EDT
It's just the flip side of how Windows vulnerability patches are counted.

When one single line got fixed several times, then that's been counted as several "contributions". And fixing one line counted as much as fixing an entire block of code.

Also, as I understand this, there are also issues about how much of this work is actually making it past the "staging" code base. Apparently some of this MS code has been in gathering dust in staging for a couple of years...

More useful summary here: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Microsoft-contributes...

tracyanne

Jul 19, 2011
6:57 PM EDT
Goodness me the things some people get their knickers in a twist about. Microsoft contributed this code 2 or 3 years ago, apparently didn't maintain it properly for a while, so I'm guessing they finally paid someone to do some proper maintenence on it, that could easily account for the high commits.
Fettoosh

Jul 20, 2011
9:59 AM EDT
@Grishnakh,

I wasn't going to address your naive rant, but here is something that tells you why MS had to share.

Quoting: As revealed by Stephen Hemminger - a principal engineer with open-source network vendor Vyatta - a network driver in Microsoft's Hyper-V used open-source components licensed under the GPL and statically linked to binary parts. The GPL does not permit the mixing of closed and open-source elements.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/23/microsoft_hyperv_gpl...


Now to answer your specific points.

Quoting:This is really rather silly. Most, if not all, corporate contributors, contribute only because it's self-serving. They contribute stuff that helps them.


Wrong: Most corporate contribute because they have mutual interest in FOSS, while MS doesn't. A big difference

Quoting:It's the same for MS. Their customers are demanding solutions so they can run Linux on their Windows servers (why, I have no idea).


Wrong again: Their customers started using native Linux (No virtualization), which got MS worried and concerned that Linux would replace Windows servers. It rushed into developing their own virtualization technology to preempt that.

Quoting:This can happen even with MS's code: it's not the only virtualization code in the kernel, there's also Xen and KVM. MS's code can be helpful to these other devs, or parts of it might be shared with the others, reducing the number of bugs overall by reducing the total amount of code.


You are not really serious about this, are you? Learn from MS the one who copies and rip code from any where and every where to keep up with competition? Besides, see at the top why MS released their specific drivers as open source. They copied GPLed code and was concerned they would be caught in violation of the GPL.



fewt

Jul 20, 2011
1:03 PM EDT
Angry Linux Youth are angry today for sure.

> Not at all, MS still attacks FOSS every chance it has.

They have a chance every second of every minute of every hour of every day. Certain employees of the company have attacked Linux, but not in recent years.

> it is just serving itself by making sure that their current consumers stay with Windows if they absolutely have or need to run Linux.

Certainly they are serving themselves, if not would they be profitable? Probably not. Your comment about keeping customers on Windows is nonsensical since the commit was code to allow Linux to run on the Microsoft hypervisor.

> fifth largest contributor

Well, one of the things that makes it a big deal is that they contributed more than the leading Desktop Linux vendor. I'll let you guess who that is.

> Wrong: Most corporate contribute because they have mutual interest in FOSS, while MS doesn't. A big difference

Wrong. Companies are contributing because it improves mindshare and directly relates to improving their bottom line. IBM, and Oracle are examples of this.

> Wrong again: Their customers started using native Linux (No virtualization), which got MS worried and concerned that Linux would replace Windows servers. It rushed into developing their own virtualization technology to preempt that.

Wrong, Microsoft created Hyper-V to compete with VMWare, not Linux.

> They copied GPLed code

Prove it.

Using $ is pretty childish, and your anger is pretty strange. I'm sorry that you have such a hatred for a company, but let me be the one to tell you that the problem you have is between your keyboard and chair and no-one-else. :)
herzeleid

Jul 20, 2011
1:50 PM EDT
fewt:
Quoting:Certain employees of the company have attacked Linux, but not in recent years.
Heh - that's a good one. "Certain employees" indeed - I assume you mean Gates, Ballmer, Guiterrez, etc. The top-down direction has been to attack linux, as they are doing now with every method at their disposal. You are too easily fooled if their PR moves have convinced you that they are somehow no longer interested in destroying the linux threat. They smile at us in public while working to torpedo us behind the scenes where the deals are done.
fewt

Jul 20, 2011
1:50 PM EDT
@herzeleid you forgot to include: /tinfoil hat
lcafiero

Jul 20, 2011
2:30 PM EDT
fewt --

It's been documented that Microsoft copied GPLed code, which is the reason that they contributed the code back to the kernel a while back (a couple of years ago, I think). As part of the license, they were required to do so and they were also responsible for assisting in its maintenence, per the GPL. Otherwise, Microsoft would be nowhere near contributing to the Linux kernel. To Microsoft's credit, it took them long enough to comply with the GPL and fix it, and in a nutshell this is why there's a spike in Microsoft's contributions to the Linux kernel.

You're also entitled to think that anyone who finds that Microsoft's constant attempts at squelching competition deserves a tinfoil hat. However, historically speaking, one of Microsoft's many failures as a company -- along with consistently producing subpar software -- is to kill off the "cancer" that they consider Linux to be; and while they're not done yet, it's getting harder for them to do so. If you believe that Microsoft doesn't act in this manner, perhaps you're up for a tinfoil-hat fitting yourself.

Shameless self-promotion: I blogged about this topic here -- http://wp.me/p6IMd-hw
Fettoosh

Jul 20, 2011
2:48 PM EDT
Quoting:Your comment about keeping customers on Windows is nonsensical since the commit was code to allow Linux to run on the Microsoft hypervisor.


Running Linux over Windows?! Hah, and how is that not trying to keep their customers running Windows? May be you are the one who should have tinfoil hat on.

Quoting:Well, one of the things that makes it a big deal is that they contributed more than the leading Desktop Linux vendor. I'll let you guess who that is.


Code contribution is not the only way to help and support FOSS, there are many ways, forms, & shapes to help.

Quoting:Wrong. Companies are contributing because it improves mindshare and directly relates to improving their bottom line. IBM, and Oracle are examples of this.


I guess you don't understand what mutual interest is. IBM, Oracle have mutual interest with FOSS, on opposite side, MS has mutual animosity with FOSS.

Quoting:Wrong, Microsoft created Hyper-V to compete with VMWare, not Linux


I didn't say compete, I said preempt a Linux proliferation by replacing Windows. Linux doesn't compete with MS Hyper-Visor, others do.

Quoting:Prove it.

Using $ is pretty childish,...


I guess you missed the link, here it is again for you Mr. troll.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/23/microsoft_hyperv_gpl...

And where did I use $ in my post? And so what if I did? did it hurt you feelings? Are you a designated MS paid public defender ? You must be, otherwise you wouldn't care.

[Edited- Fixed a missing closing quote]
fewt

Jul 20, 2011
3:41 PM EDT
@lcafiero -

> However, historically speaking, one of Microsoft's many failures as a company

Which failures would those be? Windows? No. Office? No.

Microsoft is not failing, which means we need to try harder to compete. We can scream Microsoft is evil all day long but that doesn't help sell Linux.

Note, I don't mean sell as in sell for dollars, I mean sell as in mindshare.

> If you believe that Microsoft doesn't act in this manner, perhaps you're up for a tinfoil-hat fitting yourself.

I didn't say that they haven't ever acted in that manner, however there is ample evidence in recent years to show they have improved. Is there animosity? Certainly, is that partly our fault? Yes.

@Fettoosh -

> Hah, and how is that not trying to keep their customers running Windows?

There are instances where it makes more sense to run Windows. Microsoft is going out of their way to make it easier to run Linux servers on the Windows Hyper-V platform. This isn't a problem, it's a solution to a problem even if you don't like it or want to believe it.

> Code contribution is not the only way to help and support FOSS, there are many ways, forms, & shapes to help.

Certainly, but posting 'oh noes the sky is falling' 'evil M$' doesn't help any of them. It makes the community look like it's made up of children having temper tantrums.

> I guess you don't understand what mutual interest is. IBM, Oracle have mutual interest with FOSS, on opposite side, MS has mutual animosity with FOSS.

I certainly do understand what mutual interest means. Microsoft contributes to multiple FOSS projects and hosts some of their own like Codeplex. It is an outright lie to imply that they are anti FOSS. If you said Anti Linux or Anti OpenOffice, you could build an argument from that, but that isn't what you are doing here.

> I didn't say compete, I said preempt a Linux proliferation by replacing Windows. Linux doesn't compete with MS Hyper-Visor, others do.

What you said was - "Wrong again: Their customers started using native Linux (No virtualization), which got MS worried and concerned that Linux would replace Windows servers. It rushed into developing their own virtualization technology to preempt that."

You implied that Microsoft created Hyper-V to compete with Linux. This is dead wrong. Hyper-V was created to compete with VMWare, and not Linux. VMWare is not Linux.

I'm certain that Microsoft would prefer that everyone run Windows servers, that's their desired business goal, but that doesn't make your comment less wrong.

> Mr. troll.

Of course, I'm a troll. You may as well have said 'The sky is blue your argument is invalid'. Not able to defend your argument, so start calling names and hope I go away.

Typical of a Linux Youth losing an argument.
lcafiero

Jul 20, 2011
3:57 PM EDT
I'll stop laughing in a minute. Here's your cookie, fewt. Now go outside and play.
fewt

Jul 20, 2011
4:03 PM EDT
@lcafiero -

> I'll stop laughing in a minute. Here's your cookie, fewt. Now go outside and play.

Read: D@mn, he called my bluff, so I'll just say something condescending and hope it sticks.
lcafiero

Jul 20, 2011
4:16 PM EDT
Wrong again, fewt.

Read: Dang, this guy really needs a hobby or some friends or something -- at least more constructive use of his time.
Grishnakh

Jul 20, 2011
4:23 PM EDT
tracyanne wrote:Microsoft contributed this code 2 or 3 years ago, apparently didn't maintain it properly for a while, so I'm guessing they finally paid someone to do some proper maintenence on it, that could easily account for the high commits.


That's exactly what has happened.

Icafiero wrote:As part of the license, they were required to do so and they were also responsible for assisting in its maintenence, per the GPL.


Wrong. There is NO requirement in the GPL to "assist in maintenance". All it requires you to do is make source code available to anyone that you also distribute binaries to. That's it. There's no requirement to "share it with the community", "assist in maintenance", or anything else. All MS really had to do to comply with the GPL was provide the source code to any customers who wanted it. In practice, most people simply send the code upstream to meet the requirements, because then they can just point any customers to that source, and of course because they usually get free maintenance that way. The idea that GPL contributors are required to assist in maintenance is wrong and insane; lots of contributors just send a bundle of code and wash their hands of it. It's up to the upstream maintainers to do the maintenance/integration, if they care to merge any changes in.

Assisting in maintenance is required with the Linux kernel IFF you want to get your code merged into the mainline trunk. The only reason to expend any effort in this is because you think the benefits of being merged into the mainline exceed the cost of that work and effort. If you don't bother, your code will likely be rejected, but if all you care about is complying with the GPL so you don't get in trouble, all you have to do is send it in, or even just stick it on a web server somewhere in case anyone asks for it. It can be completely old and unable to compile any more, but it doesn't matter.

The kernel devs actually threatened to drop the MS code from the kernel a while ago precisely because they just threw it at them (not meeting kernel standards and full of problems) and didn't stick around to assist in cleaning it up. So MS came back and started working on it. The fact that they did this, instead of just saying "we met our obligations, good-bye" means they have some business reason to want that code merged (knowing MS, it certainly isn't altruistic).

fewt wrote:Certain employees of the company have attacked Linux, but not in recent years.


That's not really true either. MS has been actively attacking vendors that use Linux, or Android (a fork of the Linux kernel though there's efforts underway to merge them) with patent attacks. MS claims there's 200+ patents being infringed, but won't say what these our outside of NDA, and is extorting mobile phone makers to pay them a per-device license fee. In addition, it wasn't long ago that MS sued TomTom for using FAT32 in their Linux-based products. I think I read recently that MS makes more money from Android phones now, due to this licensing, than it does from their own Windows phones. I'd call this an "attack".

The only difference between now and years ago is that MS is actively attacking anyone who uses Linux in a commercial product using secret patents, rather than directly attacking Linux projects themselves as they did in the past.
fewt

Jul 20, 2011
4:28 PM EDT
@lcafiero -

> Wrong again, fewt.

> Read: Dang, this guy really needs a hobby or some friends or something -- at least more constructive use of his time.

You really called me out there. I should go find a hobby, or get some friends, or maybe even a job.

What will I do? Oh poor me.

A job would be nice. Then I can leave the basement.

If I had friends, man I don't even know.

A hobby, oh boy now we are getting somewhere!

It's called multitasking, which isn't hard to do if you have more than a little bit of computer skill. One of these days you might become sufficiently capable with your computer to be able to give it a shot. Maybe you'll even get good at it and be able to do more than one thing at a time all the time! Oh boy!

The funny thing with your comment though is that you seem to be replying pretty darned fast, do I smell a pot calling a kettle black? I think so.

By the way, if you are going to pretend to be a condescending jerk, you should at least try to be good at it. ;)
fewt

Jul 20, 2011
4:42 PM EDT
@Grishnakh - That is a very fair argument. Unfortunately Patent law is a very real thing, and Microsoft I'm sure is taking advantage of it.

Companies that back Linux have their own patents to defend against cases like this though, the question becomes .. why aren't we using them to defend these companies?

We don't have sufficient information to make an argument either way.
jdixon

Jul 20, 2011
5:15 PM EDT
> Which failures would those be? Windows? No. Office? No.

That's a list which would take far too long to type. It would make an interesting finance study though.

> I didn't say that they haven't ever acted in that manner, however there is ample evidence in recent years to show they have improved.

Personally, I find the evidence lacking, and countered by more compelling evidence they have not. That's a judgment call though, and you're free to disagree.

Of course, I'll then proceed to ignore any future judgment calls on your part, but...

> Is there animosity? Certainly, is that partly our fault? Yes.

Unless you consider the effects of Linux and Open/Libre Office cutting into their profit margins "our fault", I'll have to not so respectfully disagree.
flufferbeer

Jul 20, 2011
6:36 PM EDT
@lcafiero, You wrote

- begin quote --

You're also entitled to think that anyone who finds that Microsoft's constant attempts at squelching competition deserves a tinfoil hat. However, historically speaking, one of Microsoft's many failures as a company -- along with consistently producing subpar software -- is to kill off the "cancer" that they consider Linux to be; and while they're not done yet, it's getting harder for them to do so. If you believe that Microsoft doesn't act in this manner, perhaps you're up for a tinfoil-hat fitting yourself.

Shameless self-promotion: I blogged about this topic here -- http://wp.me/p6IMd-hw

- end quote --

Thanks for the link; my thoughts exactly. I fully agrEEE w/ you to the tune of Micro$uck'$ continued Embrace, Extend, Extinguish!! (already wrote about it above.)

......and it seems to me we have a bona fide M$ SHILL lurking around here who is _heatedly_ focused on somehow trying to "Extinguish" the GPL.

-fb

Fettoosh

Jul 20, 2011
6:43 PM EDT
Quoting:There are instances where it makes more sense to run Windows.


The only time that makes sense is when the application(s) is Windows dependent. In every other situation, it makes much more sense to run Linux.

Quoting:Microsoft is going out of their way to make it easier to run Linux servers on the Windows Hyper-V platform


Please tell them that they don't have to, Linux will run fine and much better without any help from Windows. Making such a statement makes it very obvious who you are trolling for.

Quoting:Certainly, but posting 'oh noes the sky is falling' 'evil M$' doesn't help any of them. It makes the community look like it's made up of children having temper tantrums.


Please remove the tinfoil hat and stick to the subject. I can't take any more of this rubbish.

Quoting:Microsoft contributes to multiple FOSS projects and hosts some of their own like Codeplex. It is an outright lie to imply that they are anti FOSS.


More evidence of being a dedicated and committed troll. You must have failed their training.

Quoting:You implied that Microsoft created Hyper-V to compete with Linux. This is dead wrong. Hyper-V was created to compete with VMWare, and not Linux. VMWare is not Linux.


I will try one more time. VMWare is not a general purpose OS, Linux is just like Windows. So MS is a lot more concerned about the threat of Linux replacing Windows than VMWare competition, which only involves MS Hyper-Visor. Again, MS is more concerned about Linux replacing Windows because it is its bread and butter. Hyper-V is NOT. Comprendo?

Quoting:Of course, I'm a troll.


Isn't that what I said! What is the matter with you?

fewt

Jul 20, 2011
7:15 PM EDT
@flufferbeer and @Fettoosh

> a bona fide M$ SHILL

> Making such a statement makes it very obvious who you are trolling for.

Yes, a troll paid by Microsoft to write open source software, and lead a successful project thats output is a Linux distribution.

You two win the dumbest people on the internet award, congrats.

>The only time that makes sense is when the application(s) is Windows dependent. In every other situation, it makes much more sense to run Linux.

Wrong. There are several instances where it makes sense to run Windows. Like when your core body of knowledge is Windows. Not every company runs Linux as their primary infrastructure, nor should we ever mandate that they do.

> Please tell them that they don't have to, Linux will run fine and much better without any help from Windows.

Ugh, you can't fix stupid. Hyper-V is a hypervisor technology designed to virtualize servers. This includes Windows and Linux platforms. Why shouldn't Linux be virtualized under Hyper-V? Are you implying that we should limit the platforms Linux functions on?

I think you are.

> Please remove the tinfoil hat and stick to the subject.

I'm sorry you are unhappy with my comment, but it is on subject and obviously on target too.

> More evidence of being a dedicated and committed troll. You must have failed their training.

Very dedicated.

> I will try one more time.

You still don't get it. They were your words, and they were wrong. They are still wrong. Making up another story doesn't make you right. Admitting you are wrong would be a start, but we all know that won't happen because you obviously don't have the grey matter needed to understand your own words.

> Isn't that what I said! What is the matter with you?

I guess I just haven't gotten my check yet. Let me know when they send it, ok?
flufferbeer

Jul 20, 2011
7:45 PM EDT
@fewt, > You two win the dumbest people on the internet award, congrats.

No, two is the set-number of the three words on this: Pot, kettle, black. YOUR turn now.

-fb
Fettoosh

Jul 20, 2011
8:05 PM EDT
Quoting:Yes, a troll paid by Microsoft to write open source software, and lead a successful project that's output is a Linux distribution.


Now we know that, you are not only a troll, a shill, but also a mole.

Quoting:You two win the dumbest people on the internet award, congrats.


If you say so

Quoting:....Like when your core body of knowledge is Windows... nor should we ever mandate that they do...


And if your core body can't learn to handle Linux servers, then they are not worth keeping. And why should a company require from their IT group to be able to handle Linux? Is it not part of their job to handle any situation that involves IT technology? Don't they require training every time MS releases a new version of Windows? In my book, I say they should after some Linux training.

Quoting:Why shouldn't Linux be virtualized under Hyper-V?


Because the host server (Windows) is not reliable, stable, robust, or scalable enough.

Quoting:They were your words, and they were wrong


I stand by my words and you are wrong and unable to understand what I said.

Quoting:I guess I just haven't gotten my check yet. Let me know when they send it, ok?


I was being silly with you, silly you.

fewt

Jul 20, 2011
8:20 PM EDT
@Fettoosh -

> Now we know that, you are not only a troll, a shill, but also a mole.

You just can't make this stuff up, I guess people really are this dumb.

Oh well.

kill -9 -1
Fettoosh

Jul 20, 2011
8:36 PM EDT
Quoting:I guess people really are this dumb.


Yes, and it works every time with trolls.

fewt

Jul 20, 2011
9:00 PM EDT
> Yes, and it works every time with trolls.

Except that I am not a troll. Unfortunately for you, you now look even more stupid than you did before. Good job, champ.
Fettoosh

Jul 20, 2011
10:55 PM EDT
Quoting:Except that I am not a troll


You need to attend Troll Anonymous. It is no different than Alcoholic Anonymous. So don't be afraid, they will really take care of you.

tuxchick

Jul 20, 2011
11:03 PM EDT
Dangit, I missed a name-calling brawl. I hate when work gets in the way.
Fettoosh

Jul 20, 2011
11:05 PM EDT
Anyone seen this yet?

http://digitizor.com/2011/07/20/microsoft-video-linuxs-20th-...

BernardSwiss

Jul 20, 2011
11:27 PM EDT
That's not merely propaganda, it's a fairly clumsy attempt to revise history. As a "peace offering" it is distinctly barbed.

I can only assume that the video is actually aimed at some other audience than the Linux community.
vainrveenr

Jul 20, 2011
11:43 PM EDT
Quoting:That's not merely propaganda, it's a fairly clumsy attempt to revise history. As a "peace offering" it is distinctly barbed.
Could also be a non-historical, non-computer Trojan horse. This definition of a Trojan horse is from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Trojan+horse :
Quoting:Trojan horse n. 1. A subversive group or device placed within enemy ranks.
With a slight spelling change, here:
Quoting:Trojan Horse n 2. a trap intended to undermine an enemy


-----

Quoting:I can only assume that the video is actually aimed at some other audience than the Linux community.
OTOH, the video could conceivably be aimed at the "Linux community" to put them on notice concerning a possible Trojan horse given in the above non-historical, non-computer meaning.

gus3

Jul 20, 2011
11:45 PM EDT
Windows not a failure? Who actually LIKES to use it?

People like to use MacOS. People like using Unix and Linux. People tolerate Windows, only because other people tolerate Windows. One only has to contrast the presentation styles of Ballmer and Jobs to see what I mean.
Jose_X

Jul 23, 2011
1:54 PM EDT
@fewt Microsoft has significant opportunity costs if people wanting to run linux and Windows end up running Windows over Linux. They will see Linux run well in comparison to Windows. The alternative allows Windows to slow down, make unstable, corrupt, data-analyze and intercept, etc, Linux as much as suits them for competitive advantage. This is not tin-foil hat territory. It's rather easy to have apps on your platform (and Linux would be an "app") have issues and lack integration in contrast to your "apps", which in this case would be any competing software feature Microsoft offers over Windows that a Linux virtualization would also be running.

For not recognizing this and perhaps past comments, I think many people view you as a shill, etc. Do you recognize that Microsoft has clear advantages in having customers pick to run Linux over Windows rather than vice-versa?

As for the degree of self-interest of corporations like IBM and Oracle, Microsoft competes aggressively directly against Linux. IBM and most others leverage Linux to a greater extent because they have significant income streams on hardware, services, and other areas that complement Linux. Then you have firms like Red Hat which leave all of these firms behind in terms of contributions to Linux and support of open Linux platforms. Canonical contributes at a different level than the kernel; however, as has been stated here already, Microsoft contributing drivers can certainly be seen as a negative to the Linux ecosystem (especially given what Linux has to gain potentially), regardless of the existence, generally, of a call for Linux drivers. If Microsoft were to be bringing a net negative to Linux, surely we it's possible to understand how Canonical and others who contribute less quantity of code to the kernel would still end up potentially very far ahead. The main question is, to compare Canonical and Microsoft, if Microsoft were not actively paying attention at all to Linux, would Linux be better or worse off? And we'd ask the same question of Canonical, Red Hat, etc.
Jose_X

Jul 24, 2011
1:34 AM EDT
...I have criticism of IBM and others who I believe have proprietary products and platforms they try to push onto those using Linux, attacking the value of Linux and openness. Society rewards this kind of behavior in business because we have rules of the game (including tax policy) that empower and encourage those who want to place money above most everything else. We give increasingly more privilege to those who are already wealthy and excel at trading and other business skills. At the same time, we are rather harsh on a fair number who aren't particularly aggressive and leveraged in these areas. The result being that many talented people find it hard to have their own modest business or interesting job under non-profit and free sharing conditions and instead are pulled into the sphere of influence of potentially very greedy and already powerful individuals. FOSS (for software) has made significant change on this landscape from how it was and where it might have been headed, but much more can be done, for software and for other areas as well.
fewt

Jul 25, 2011
8:05 AM EDT
Quoting:Microsoft has significant opportunity costs if people wanting to run linux and Windows end up running Windows over Linux. They will see Linux run well in comparison to Windows.


Windows and Linux are typically used to solve different business problems, and don't often conflict which is why I would argue there isn't a significant opportunity cost.

Linux and Windows both perform well in their respective functions.

Quoting:The alternative allows Windows to slow down, make unstable, corrupt, data-analyze and intercept, etc, Linux as much as suits them for competitive advantage.


This is pure speculation. In the desktop sense, you may have a point in that Windows can and sometimes will slow down and become unstable over time. On the other hand we have a completely different problem set with Linux in that often times we will find software or hardware work for a while and then no longer function the same or work at all after an upgrade.

There really is no competitive advantage. For example, in a datacenter, RHEL is more expensive than Windows.

Quoting:This is not tin-foil hat territory. It's rather easy to have apps on your platform (and Linux would be an "app") have issues and lack integration in contrast to your "apps", which in this case would be any competing software feature Microsoft offers over Windows that a Linux virtualization would also be running.


The exact same could be said of Windows as an app on Linux (KVM or Xen).

Quoting:For not recognizing this and perhaps past comments, I think many people view you as a shill, etc. Do you recognize that Microsoft has clear advantages in having customers pick to run Linux over Windows rather than vice-versa?


I don't recognize nonsense, no. If that makes me a shill, then I guess people can believe that I'm a shill. To be honest, I don't really care what other people think, it isn't my problem that the people making these baseless claims are simple minded, and ignorant. :)
JaseP

Jul 25, 2011
10:21 AM EDT
fewt, fewt, fewt,...

You're spitting out "facts" like they came out of the M$ playbook...

The only "problem" that running Windoze rather than Linux in the data center solves is when you have applications that only run on Windoze. As far as the jobs that an infrastructure type of server is asked to do, file serving, database serving, print serving, web serving, etc., I can think of no reason to pick Windoze over Linux, short of a proprietary database format, or a particular proprietary communications protocol. In many instances there replacements for those, as well.

As far as losing hardware functionality when upgrading a Linux distribution, it is almost always a regression that is fixed inside a week, and almost always involves hardware that's appropriate to a desktop workstation, and inappropriate on a server. I don't know why most servers need to be updated immediately when running Linux, anyway. The majority of Linux security patches are for patching local privilege escalation threats, not to prevent outside attack. And there are things that can be done to configure around most of those to make them irrelevant. That provides the time to study the upgrade plan and evaluate it for the kind of regressions that break hardware.
fewt

Jul 25, 2011
10:51 AM EDT
JaseP said:

Quoting:fewt, fewt, fewt,...

You're spitting out "facts" like they came out of the M$ playbook...

The only "problem" that running Windoze rather than Linux in the data center solves is when you have applications that only run on Windoze. As far as the jobs that an infrastructure type of server is asked to do, file serving, database serving, print serving, web serving, etc., I can think of no reason to pick Windoze over Linux, short of a proprietary database format, or a particular proprietary communications protocol. In many instances there replacements for those, as well.

As far as losing hardware functionality when upgrading a Linux distribution, it is almost always a regression that is fixed inside a week, and almost always involves hardware that's appropriate to a desktop workstation, and inappropriate on a server. I don't know why most servers need to be updated immediately when running Linux, anyway. The majority of Linux security patches are for patching local privilege escalation threats, not to prevent outside attack. And there are things that can be done to configure around most of those to make them irrelevant. That provides the time to study the upgrade plan and evaluate it for the kind of regressions that break hardware.


Why don't you tell us a little bit more about what makes you qualified to imply that I'm wrong when bugzillas and Launchpads everywhere seem to drastically conflict with your opinion.

Then, take the immature childish comments out of your reply, and maybe you'll be worth the time of day.

Until then..
JaseP

Jul 25, 2011
11:44 AM EDT
Take the insults out of your reply, and maybe I will...

For the record I have used microcomputers and Unix mainframes since the early to mid 1970s, since before the IBM PC was even developed. My first use of computers was with Unix CLI commands, on an ADM-3A crt terminal, connected through an acoustic coupler modem... that well before DOS came out as a poor-man's CP/M "clone." I'm no Linux script kiddie in my teens, twenties or even thirties...

About the only thing I have done nearly as long as computers is Martial Arts,... and I am the senior ranking practitioner and instructor of my particular martial arts style in my geographic region (and it's not an obscure style, it was Chuck Norris's first style).

Your "experience" doesn't meet up with real world practice. What are these particular Bugzillas and PPAs of which you speak??? I would like to see if they are obscure hardware bug reports that shills use to spout meaningless statistics, or whether they have any basis as a serious real world complaint.
fewt

Jul 25, 2011
12:03 PM EDT
Quoting:Take the insults out of your reply, and maybe I will...


Sorry, you first.

Quoting:For the record I have used microcomputers and Unix mainframes since the early to mid 1970s, since before the IBM PC was even developed. My first use of computers was with Unix CLI commands, on an ADM-3A crt terminal, connected through an acoustic coupler modem... that well before DOS came out as a poor-man's CP/M "clone." I'm no Linux script kiddie in my teens, twenties or even thirties...


No no, I want a resume.

My experience and credentials are easy to find, but you come up empty. Experience talks, bullsh#t walks.

Quoting:About the only thing I have done nearly as long as computers is Martial Arts,... and I am the senior ranking practitioner and instructor of my particular martial arts style in my geographic region (and it's not an obscure style, it was Chuck Norris's first style).


Good for you, but unrelated to the thread.

Quoting:Your "experience" doesn't meet up with real world practice. What are these particular Bugzillas and PPAs of which you speak??? I would like to see if they are obscure hardware bug reports that shills use to spout meaningless statistics, or whether they have any basis as a serious real world complaint


I didn't say PPAs. There's the silly baseless S word again.

The problems are really simple to find if you try.

For example:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/natty/+source/linux/+bug/712082 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/natty/+source/linux/+bug/755066 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/natty/+source/linux/+bug/751689 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/natty/+source/linux/+bug/774563

Those are just some recent bugs, from Ubuntu. There are more, many many more.

My experience paints a very real world picture. Take off your blinders, and put away your Linux Youth t-shirt.

From google: Fedora Kernel Panic - 735,000 results, Ubuntu Kernel Panic - 1,310,000 results.

You can pretend that I'm a shill, but who was it that spent 12 hours yesterday building Kernel 3.0.0, and bringing it and it's associated dependencies into Fuduntu?

Oh right, that was me.

I'll let you guess how much I was paid for the time spent doing it (hint, it's a number less than 1)....
Jose_X

Jul 25, 2011
1:58 PM EDT
>> Windows and Linux are typically used to solve different business problems, and don't often conflict which is why I would argue there isn't a significant opportunity cost.

There is definitely overlap and this probably is increasing (eg, with Microsoft discovering the "open source" on Windows religion and striking deals with numerous FOSS projects and with hw vendors supporting Linux more and more).

There is also the impression of which system is better. That one that runs on top gets the short end of the stick. People might virtualize to save on hardware for example and have to decide which to have right above the hardware.

>> On the other hand we have a completely different problem set with Linux in that often times we will find software or hardware work for a while and then no longer function the same or work at all after an upgrade.

Not sure what you mean since you are contrasting with Windows. Do you mean upgrade of.. OS? app? hw drivers?

>> There really is no competitive advantage.

No competitive advantage for running native and managing the other platform through virtualization?

>> This is pure speculation.

Each layer of software you add extra has a very good chance of degrading performance, stability, and fidelity. This is even more so when (a) the software are managed by different entities, (b) especially if these compete, (c) one is closed source, and (d) there is much on the line for the firm in consideration (Microsoft sw as host to Linux).

>> The exact same could be said of Windows as an app on Linux (KVM or Xen).

Absolutely. This composes part of the opportunity cost. ..why the Linux drivers are a gain to Microsoft.
fewt

Jul 25, 2011
2:09 PM EDT
Quoting:There is definitely overlap and this probably is increasing (eg, with Microsoft discovering the "open source" on Windows religion and striking deals with numerous FOSS projects and with hw vendors supporting Linux more and more).


I agree with the increase in overlap as Microsoft discovers and "embraces" Open Source (however you decide to read that).

I don't think Microsoft is very successful in creating deals to keep vendors off of the Linux bandwagon anymore, at least it isn't as bad as it used to be. More and more vendors are releasing drivers daily which is fantastic, if it could only have happened 10 years ago...

Quoting:There is also the impression of which system is better. That one that runs on top gets the short end of the stick. People might virtualize to save on hardware for example and have to decide which to have right above the hardware.


I don't think you can really count a Hyper-V license like a Windows license, even though to be fair it is (a service that runs on Windows).

In my mind, people virtualize Windows and Linux on a hypervisor which could be Hyper-V, Xen, KVM, or VMWare. The most important decision in choosing which hypervisor to use really boils down to supportability.

Can your existing resources support VMWare, Xen, KVM, or MS Hyper-V.

Today, it's arguable that most can support VMWare, with few running KVM or Xen and even fewer running Hyper-V.

It isn't really a matter of which is "better', but one of which "solves the problem we have best".

Quoting:Not sure what you mean since you are contrasting with Windows. Do you mean upgrade of.. OS? app? hw drivers?


OS which normally includes app and hw drivers. Specifically I was referring to hardware drivers in the kernel which sometimes see regressions that can cause problems like kernel panics.

Also true of Windows of course, but less often (which is a sharp contrast to historical Windows).

Quoting:No competitive advantage for running native and managing the other platform through virtualization?


Not really, when in nearly every case you would run both platforms on top of that hypervisor.

Remember, a Windows Hyper-V instance wouldn't normally also do anything else.

You wouldn't see a Hyper-V domain controller / Exchange server. It is a platform solution like VSphere.

Quoting:Each layer of software you add extra has a very good chance of degrading performance, stability, and fidelity. This is even more so when (a) the software are managed by different entities, (b) especially if these compete, (c) one is closed source, and (d) there is much on the line for the firm in consideration (Microsoft sw as host to Linux).


I agree with everything except the implication that closed source reduces stability and performance, because there isn't any evidence to prove this to be true.

Quoting:Absolutely. This composes part of the opportunity cost. ..why the Linux drivers are a gain to Microsoft.


Fair enough.
JaseP

Jul 25, 2011
2:10 PM EDT
Why on Earth are you trying to replace a working kernel on your distro with one that is less than 96 hours old??? I can appreciate trying to be cutting edge, but let the Red Hats and Canonicals of the world work out the kinks. By the way,... Looked at the Fuduntu screen shots, and it looks remarkably like the modified Ubuntu that I use. Looks decent,... Although I prefer to hide the panel, and relocate it to the bottom left. It frees screen real estate. Oh, and I prefer Cairo-dock to Avant (or whatever that dock is). Gets more "Ooos" and "Ahhs."

Oh, and Googling "Kernel Panic" is not how you get serious stats on bugs. I bet I'd get worse stats by googling Microsoft and Virus...

Oh, and I wasn't calling you a schill, I was just implying that you sounded like one... As in you're "smoking" too much of what M$ brought over.
fewt

Jul 25, 2011
2:22 PM EDT
Quoting:Why on Earth are you trying to replace a working kernel on your distro with one that is less than 96 hours old???


I'm not replacing my stable kernel, but if it doesn't get tested it can never become stable. The work was done to make it ready for testing. This morning it was released to testing.

Once it's sufficiently tested we'll move it to stable for everyone else.

Quoting:I can appreciate trying to be cutting edge, but let the Red Hats and Canonicals of the world work out the kinks.


No thank you. I have a great amount of respect for RedHat, but one issue I find consistently is that problems in released kernels remain in released kernels across distribution subreleases (Fedora).

RedHat backports a lot security fixes, (and hardware support in the enterprise product) but many problems remain through the lifecycle of a distribution release.

I trust Linus, and I have found the best way to resolve regressions in the kernel is to follow the latest (stable) kernel.

I had more problems with Canonical's "release" kernels than any other kernel. They make it painfully obvious that they lack kernel maintainers (evidenced by their lack of upstream contribution).

Quoting:By the way,... Looked at the Fuduntu screen shots, and it looks remarkably like the modified Ubuntu that I use. Looks decent,... Although I prefer to hide the panel, and relocate it to the bottom left. It frees screen real estate. Oh, and I prefer Cairo-dock to Avant (or whatever that dock is). Gets more "Ooos" and "Ahhs."


Glad you like it.

Quoting:Oh, and Googling "Kernel Panic" is not how you get serious stats on bugs. I bet I'd get worse stats by googling Microsoft and Virus...


No doubt, but it does make the case that it's not all blue skies and pink ponies which was my point.

Quoting:Oh, and I wasn't calling you a schill, I was just implying that you sounded like one... As in you're "smoking" too much of what M$ brought over.


It certainly sounded like it, my apologies for misinterpreting your wording and reading it with a hostile tone. I'm not smoking anything though, Linux has been my primary desktop since the mid 1990s, and I certainly don't drink Microsoft kool-aid. That said though, I don't find fault in everything they do either. I give credit where it's due.
Fettoosh

Jul 25, 2011
2:32 PM EDT
Quoting:You can pretend that I'm a shill, but who was it that spent 12 hours yesterday building Kernel 3.0.0, and bringing it and it's associated dependencies into Fuduntu?


Well, in this case you are not a shill, but rather a mole and a Trojan Horse. We now know that Florian Mueller is not alone and has good company.

Quoting:FUDuntu


With a name that starts with FUD and a Distro uglier than its name, there is nothing that could give or restore credibility.



vainrveenr

Jul 25, 2011
4:53 PM EDT
Clearly, some background information is in order.

1st, in reverse order, is info concerning the naming of Wyatt's distro.
Quoting:Fuduntu - Behind the name Fuduntu Pronounciation: [fuhduhntoo]

Fuduntu is a fusion of the names Fedora and Ubuntu.

Fedora - F and D from Fedora Ubuntu - U and UNTU from Ubuntu

The name is a pun, intended to be fun, and funny, while implying that the distribution fits in-between Fedora and Ubuntu. The fun uses of the name mean that it is successful, so go ahead, have fun with it!
Source: http://www.fuduntu.org/name.html

~~~~

2nd is identifying Florian Mueller.

Florian Mueller is the author of 'FOSS Patents'; a blog that "covers software patent news and issues with a particular focus on the competitiveness of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS)"

Source: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/

~~~~ (Both near-identical variants of "Trojan Horse" are defined above.) ~~~~

3rd is the definition of a mole.
Quoting:mole n.

3. A spy who operates from within an organization, especially a double agent operating against his or her own government from within its intelligence establishment.
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mole

~~~~

4th is the definition of a shill.
Quoting:1. shill

A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.


Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shill

~~~

From the same Urban Dictionary, there is yet another appropriate definition; that of the troll.
Quoting: 1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

~~~~

JaseP

Jul 25, 2011
5:04 PM EDT
Quoting: No thank you. ... I trust Linus, and I have found the best way to resolve regressions in the kernel is to follow the latest (stable) kernel.


Too much G__ D___ work, if you ask me... Recompiling the kernel is the very reason I don't have a 100% functional Viliv S5 UMPC, ... yet. But, if that's how you roll, more power to you.

On a related note, ... How is Fuduntu with Marvel SD8686 SDIO interfaced Wifi chipsets, ps/2 port interfaced touch screens and the Intel GMA500 graphics chipset???
fewt

Jul 25, 2011
5:31 PM EDT
Quoting:Too much G__ D___ work, if you ask me... Recompiling the kernel is the very reason I don't have a 100% functional Viliv S5 UMPC, ... yet. But, if that's how you roll, more power to you.


Even more G__ D___ work when you distribute one. lol.

Quoting:On a related note, ... How is Fuduntu with Marvel SD8686 SDIO interfaced Wifi chipsets, ps/2 port interfaced touch screens and the Intel GMA500 graphics chipset???


I don't know anything about the SD8686, so YMMV but your GMA500 is not currently supported. I believe you will have OK 2D support, but on my list of things to do is to backport xorg from Fedora 15 or rawhide at which time we will be able to provide a working Poulsbo driver.

I tried bringing the newer Intel driver down and building out Poulsbo support but it was pretty ugly so I pulled it until I can build all of Xorg to correct the issues back porting the driver causes.
Jose_X

Jul 26, 2011
12:22 PM EDT
>> In my mind, people virtualize Windows and Linux on a hypervisor

But if that is Windows proprietary code, then that is Windows proprietary code, the impression you, I, or customer X has in their mind notwithstanding.

Microsoft is not engineering a black box towards their own OS. I've heard of no such verifiable firewall as concerns Hyper-V (not that I've really checked). Microsoft has always touted the benefits of integration (eg, you don't get a browser, you get an extension of the OS). We don't have to assume or speculate.

If you want clear separation, then you get that in writing from Microsoft (and the accompanying license to reverse engineer as necessary) or you take the safer chance by going with a third party for the virt host (eg, open source version of Xen or even vmware).

>> Remember, a Windows Hyper-V instance wouldn't normally also do anything else.

I actually don't remember (never got the source code), nor know about the "abnormal" conditions.

I don't know for example (and certainly suspect) that a cooperating Windows on top can get extra privileges and access that any other OS would not be able to achieve.

If you have source code that proves otherwise, I might consider looking at it. And it isn't difficult to write software that favors any "app" you run and know intimately.

Without source code we can all just speculate. This is why I try to avoid as much proprietary code as I can. I trust independent third parties and myself with source code on hand, not vendor vague marketing brochures and then hostile EULAs.

>> I agree with everything except the implication that closed source reduces stability and performance

Well, in terms of probability, the size of the door to problems increases if the software must be treated as black boxes best case v. if you have the extra option to study the internal details. All extra information helps avoid problems and resolve odd bugs. This is one reason why open source exists as open and why mega proprietary software houses exist (where lots and lots of software functions are aggregated under one roof, with source code kept closed to outside world largely just because of this help that would otherwise be afforded to the competition).

>> Fair enough.

So that is an important implicit point that goes hand in hand with what I have tried to cover on this thread, that, not only has the door been opened for superior integration when you can control the virtualization software in addition to your own OS software, but there is an opportunity cost of not having that integration potential while the competition does.
JaseP

Jul 26, 2011
1:33 PM EDT
Quoting: I don't know anything about the SD8686, so YMMV but your GMA500 is not currently supported. I believe you will have OK 2D support, but on my list of things to do is to backport xorg from Fedora 15 or rawhide at which time we will be able to provide a working Poulsbo driver.


Thanks. The SD8686 is supported in the kernel, but there are regressions from patches made to the SDIO code for it that break support without patching. The chipset is used on a variety of handhelds for its low power wifi support. Some of those handhelds, like the now defunct Viliv models are x86 machines (Intel Atom processors). Support for that and Poulsbo would elevate Fuduntu to "must have" status on these machines. The other issue is touch screen support for ps/2 port connected touch screens. The touch screen issue has to do with udev rules for the ps/2 ports which ends up giving random event numbers to the devices, such that the drivers cannot consistently find or work with them...

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]

Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!