Why Microsoft and Linux Companies Are Tying the Knot

>Sorry again. I stopped feeding with a spoon long time ago.

In other words, nobody.

>Not if they are hungry enough. Hunger could make some one do a lot of things otherwise wouldn't do.

Oh come on. If they are hungry, they don't need a Novell deal -- the likes of which they can't get for themselves because they don't have that other business, those patents, etc, that Novell has -- to take Microsoft's money. Really, you should check your own logic before you blather on about spoon-feeding.

> I guess you believe it is OK since it is business.

I guess your thinking cap is not working very well because I haven't said anything on the subject.

> So tell me. What evidence do you have that public perception was changed, let alone has changed in a way that harms Linux?

Seriously, what I read in the business news sections. Every article I've read takes these deals as IP licensing deals, even if they do throw in the interoperability catch phrase. It's clear that's the way the deals are being spun to businesses.

>Dino, I hate to break this to you, but at least from an outsider's perspective, it appears that's often exactly the reason CEO's do things.

Look closer, then.

What is more likely happening is:

1. Factors which influence company 1 also influence company 2.

2. Moves by company 1 alter the market picture for company 2. That's also known as competition...ie, one company cuts its price in half, the other one had better do something.

3. Political or PR pressure -- this might be the closest to following the cool kid.

>It's clear that's the way the deals are being spun to businesses.

OK. Are the businesses buying it? Does that harm Linux?

> It's clear that's the way the deals are being spun to businesses.

You hit the nail on the head. In other words, Novell's deal has had absolutely no effect on anything. It is dishonesty on someone else's part that is the only thing having an effect. Much of that dishonesty comes from within the Linux community. I won't fault Novell for the deal on those grounds.

Bigg, It is their money, they can save it or they can burnt, I wouldn't care, it is their business. What I am talking about is the fiasco that Novell's deal created. It gave MS involvement and control in something they have no business in.

No one is constraining anyone else in their business. The constraints comes in when they are making deals with something they don't own. If or when the GPL 3 is adopted, businesses should abide by it if they still want to do business with it. It is not up to them or any one else, it is the owners of that software who get to decide. If the owners say it is OK with them, then there is no issue.

Like Linus said, It is my code and I want it licensed under GPL2. Period. Well, others aren't saying the same about their code, they want their code licensed under GPL3. Everyone has to respect that too.

>and control in something they have no business in.

Control of what? Certainly not of Linux. Novell didn't have that to offer them.

Face it...You'd rather hate Microsoft than face facts.

Dino:

> 3. Political or PR pressure -- this might be the closest to following the cool kid.

I'm willing to grant that. From an external perspective, it's a difference which makes no difference, so it would be impossible to tell.

> Are the businesses buying it?

Not being on the inside, I can't say for certain. But to external appearances, yes.

> Does that harm Linux?

If people believe Linux is contains stolen IP, yes.

As far as Linux expansion goes, probably not. It's probably not stopping anyone from migrating who wouldn't have found another reason not to.

Bigg:

> In other words, Novell's deal has had absolutely no effect on anything. It is dishonesty on someone else's part that is the only thing having an effect.

Isn't that what I said above? That doesn't change the fact that we may need to come up with a way to counteract the lies. Unfortunately, one of the people who's actually pretty good at this type of PR campaign, ESR, seems otherwise occupied.

>Unfortunately, one of the people who's actually pretty good at this type of PR campaign, ESR, seems otherwise occupied.

Shame on you. Diversity of opinion is against FOSS ideals.

Dino,

You are just so typical.

>You are just so typical.

If typical is your way of saying brutally honest, then yes.

Quoting:If typical is your way of saying brutally honest, then yes.

Actually, that is not what I had in mind, way too far from it.

>Actually, that is not what I had in mind, way too far from it.

Then no, not typical at all. I am brutally honest.

Hmmm. Why does "A Few Good Men" come to mind?

> Diversity of opinion is against FOSS ideals.

It does sometimes seem that way, doesn't it.

>It does sometimes seem that way, doesn't it.

Sometimes. I wonder how many people have actually figured out that having freedom isn't any good if you can't use it?

Quoting:having freedom isn't any good if you can't use it?

It all depends on how and what you use it for.

Using Freedom to take others freedom is one of the forbidden ones.

Even freedom has its limitations too.

One has to believe in freedom before they can exercise it.

>It all depends on how and what you use it for.

If that were true, it wouldn't be freedom at all, but a privilege permitted by your master.

>Using Freedom to take others freedom is one of the forbidden ones.

Umm...not very clear on the concept, are you?

Being free to raise my children also means I am free to limit their freedom.

The freedom to have elected government implies the power to pass laws which, by their nature limit freedom.

The freedom to own my house includes the freedom to exclude others.

One must understand freedom before one's belief has any meaning.

Your thoughts don't seem to be coeherent. Read these two statement you just wrote

Quoting:If that were true, it wouldn't be freedom at all, but a privilege permitted by your master. Being free to raise my children also means I am free to limit their freedom.

So what happens to your children's freedom master. They don't seem to concur, do they?

Freedom means many things to many people. My personal opinion on it is that true freedom as implemented in a functional society should be nothing more or less than the freedom to do what you will as long as it causes no physical or financial harm to another.

There are of course caveats to that, such as in raising your children where you have to keep them safe and hopefully install a modicum of ethical behavior that allows them to function in society. Restricting freedoms because someone might misuse them though is paranoid in the extreme especially when one considers that some of the restricted rights have been retained by the same people who do the restricting.

>Restricting freedoms because someone might misuse them

This concept of misusing freedom is part of the problem. Misuse is a value judgment -- ie, my way is better than your way. Might be true, but freedom allows you to believe that your way is better than mine and restricts my ability to prevent you from exercising the same freedom that I enjoy.

What you can do is exceed your freedom. In a society where others are as free as you are, freedoms are bounded by the degree needed to protect the freedoms of others.

I can sort of see SJVN's points... the problem is that especially for smaller companies, the history of those who seek alliances with or accept overtures from Microsoft has not been very good. When dealing with an 800lb gorilla, small companies often accept one-sided agreements which tend to benefit the bigger player far more, and they are often cast aside once the bigger player gets what they want. The important thing to think about is how many companies in the software business can you name that have really been successful because of (not in spite of) partnering with Microsoft? How many can you name that were run roughshod over and either aquired, are no longer in business or are in the "where are they now" file? Even their partners who were/are large and well funded haven't had a very happy track record of cooperation with Microsoft. And that even includes players who are as big as IBM -- they still bear scars from repeated backstabbing by Microsoft... OS/2 being the worst example. Probably the only major company I can think of that has managed to play with Microsoft and avoid that blade in between the shoulder blades has been Apple... but they are still relegated to being essentially a niche player and have arguably had better success because of things like the iPod where they beat Microsoft to a market than anything related to their deals with Microsoft.

>but they are still relegated to being essentially a niche player

Hmm. Personal computers, servers, software, music players, telephones. Not a bad niche.

Compare Apple before the deal and now. Apple is much better off than it had been. Jobs made the deal because he had no choice -- Apple was spiraling in.

> Hmm. Personal computers, servers, software, music players, telephones. > Not a bad niche.

Of those Apple has little revenue from anything other than Personal computers and music players. They are not a significant player in the server market and they don't make much from software, particularly off the OS X platform -- most of what they make for Windows are freebies... Quicktime Player, iTunes, etc. Their telephone business hasn't even shipped yet... so no telling at this point how successful it will be.

If you just look by market share... the Mac is what, maybe 5% of the personal computer market... looks like a niche to me. The only market you mention where they have a big presence is music players, and then only portable players, which is a niche market. But you are right, its not a bad niche.

> Compare Apple before the deal and now. Apple is much better off than it had been. Jobs made the deal > because he had no choice -- Apple was spiraling in.

Not exactly a resounding endorsement of why one should partner with MS... But even at that, was it the MS deal that saved Apple or was it the iPod? About the only real bone that MS threw Apple with that deal was not pulling the plug on MS Office for the Mac. At the time that was probably a much bigger deal than it is now.

>But even at that, was it the MS deal that saved Apple or was it the iPod?

Stupid question. Try checking your facts.

Throwing no bones? Microsoft threw them 150 million bones. Apple was nearly bankrupt in 1997, 4 full years before introducing the iPod. That hefty infusion of cash may be the reason you could ask your question.

As to PC shares, Apple has a bit more than 6% of the world market, up substantially from 2-3% just a few years ago. That is enough to make them the world's 4th largest PC manufacturer. Not a bad niche.

$150M is not insubstantial, but it also probably save Apple from bankruptcy. It was also an investment in non-voting Apple stock which was later sold. Compared to Apple's revenue even in 1997 it was more of a token amount than anything, especially when you consider that Apple had just spent $430M acquiring NeXT. Continued support for MS Office on Mac reassured a lot of Apple customers that they could still buy Macs, that was probably a lot more important in them sticking around long enough to make it. It obviously wasn't IE on Mac that has contributed to Apple's success since they've basically replaced it with Safari and if anything a larger percentage of Mac users run Firefox than Windows users.

6% may be enough for Apple to be the 4th largest PC manufacturer, but they are still a tiny niche when you consider Windows has over 90% of the market.

We could probably also argue a long time over whether development of Mac OS X (probably in spite of Microsoft rather than because of) or Microsoft's involvement with Apple was more responsible for Apple's successes in increasing their market share in personal computer sales.

>Apple was more responsible

Steve Jobs and his vision were responsible for bringing Apple back from the brink of bankruptcy. The Microsoft deal just provided breathing room to get the mess turned around.

The money was not a token amount to Apple at that time. The appropriate comparison is not with revenue but with profit and relatively liquid capital. They were teetering on bankruptcy. They needed to reassure customers and keep the doors open long enough for Jobs to do the Jobs thing.

Microsoft kept Apple on life support to be their competition fig leaf.

Apples success is entirely to Bill's chagrin. Zune anyone?

>Microsoft kept Apple on life support to be their competition fig leaf.

I doubt that Steve Jobs cares why. He was smart to take the deal and rebuild his company.

Don't know if you watch TV, or, especially, watch "House". There was a great little rant near the end the season finale.

One doctor told House that he didn't want to be like him, viewing each patient as merely a problem to be solved, that he wanted to care about them as people and to feel good about helping them. House asked a pretty darned good series of questions:

"Do you think she cares why I saved her life?" "Do you think her hunsband cares?" "Do you think the children she's going to be able to have because I saved here life will care?"

This is not about getting Microsoft to like us and invites us to their parties. This is about advancing FOSS. If we can do that with Microsoft's money, so much the better. If we can get Microsoft to waste its time and money on a campaign that people won't believe anyway, super.

> This is not about getting Microsoft to like us and invites us to their parties. This is about advancing FOSS. > If we can do that with Microsoft's money, so much the better. If we can get Microsoft to waste its time and > money on a campaign that people won't believe anyway, super.

My original point was just that playing with Microsoft is very dangerous. A lot of companies who have tried it have gotten burned. I am not sure that any of the Linux companies that have signed on with Microsoft so far will get as lucky or are as smart as Steve Jobs. If they fail, they could make it much worse for FOSS. Is it worth the risk? Does FOSS have to take Microsoft's money to win? I don't personally think so.

>My original point was just that playing with Microsoft is very dangerous.

Absolutely.

>Does FOSS have to take Microsoft's money to win?

No, but FOSS doesn't take anybody's money, just like it doesn't eat breakfast or take in a ball game.

Companies that operate in the FOSS arena, however, are a different story. Dealing with Microsoft may or may not make sense, depending on the company's target market and financial position. Microsoft is not a trustworthy partner, but Microsoft money may be a risk worth taking if you need capital. Going out of business isn't the same as losing a job -- you tend to take others down with you.

Quoting:Does FOSS have to take Microsoft's money to win?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecunia_non_olet It's not about the money, it's about the strings attached. But apart from that, the more money the merrier, isn't it? ;)

Quoting:"In the early days of Linux, we had no choice but to bang the 'fight Microsoft' drum (and as you know, no one did it better than Linspire)

?

Quoting: Linspire was first known as Lindows and eventually reached an out of court settlement with Microsoft], because we needed to get everyone's attention, including Microsoft's, and to be honest, back then, Linux didn't work very well on the desktop, so it was pretty much the only thing we could find to say about it to get attention."

?

Quoting: That's no longer the case today, said Carmony. Microsoft has a better understanding of what Linux and open source is, and how to work in a cooperative manner with Linux, and we have a lot more interesting things to talk about."

?

Is this for real?

Squirming, justifications and excuses is what I hear.

I remember when Linspire came out and the Linux I was using worked plenty OK. If it was all "just to get attention" why the big launch? Why the big appeal? I remember the way Microsoft sued in court after court looking for precedence.

Microsoft has a better understanding..... Only because they're being keel-hauled by the inevitability of Linux.



Revamped version -Microsoft are inevitable so we rolled over and played the role of poor cousin because Microsoft told us that's the only role allowed us.

Quoting: I remember when Linspire came out and the Linux I was using worked plenty OK.

I think that when Linspire came out, Debian proper far exceeded it on the desktop and the server.

Still does, in fact.

rijelkentaurus,

Debian proper blew the doors of Lindows...er...Linspire back then. This article is more full of potholes than a NYC street.

Heh.

I just visited and the download count showed 10,988.

Any bets on how long it will take M$ to remove it?

That's pretty low. They're really scared outta their wits aren't they?

Are you familiar with the term, "deer in the headlights" look?

Aptly describes helios a full thirty seconds after reading the web page in mention.

All is not right with The Universe right now. DeJaVoodoo in the Matrix methinks.

I had to go to Netcraft and check if it really was a Microsoft owned website and not just some channel partner.

Does this mean that Microsoft is a linux distributor?

Good Question. It's a MS site, but the actual file is elsewhere.... hmm. So how is a distributor defined?

All I know is that we got Bill Gates and friends all wrong. They've finally delivered on their promise to provide a stable, secure, and powerful operating system with lots of great applications.

Quoting:We are sorry, but the page you are trying to reach does not exist.

this was at 7:26 AM AEST

Over 10,988 downloads, that's pretty impressive.

screenshot :

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1395/582283813_85fd89647b_o.p...

I notice the link was in the BIOS & System Update Downloads section.

Very funny.

Wonder of the person responsible will keep their job?

>"Wonder of the person responsible will keep their job?"

I don't know about that but the guy who posted pictures of Macs being loaded onto Microsoft's loading dock got fired.