| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Open source closes in on Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 10:57 EST/15:57 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
For years, Bill Gates and other top executives at Microsoft railed against the economic philosophy of open-source software with Orwellian fervor, denouncing its communal licensing as a "cancer" that stifled technological innovation. Today, Microsoft claims to "love" the open-source concept, by which software code is made public to encourage improvement and development by outside programmers. Gates himself says Microsoft will gladly disclose its crown jewels--the coveted code behind the Windows operating system--to select customers. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 332 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:34:36 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/14/2002 2:15:48 PM |
|
From Microsoft's position there is no confusion.
However if you look at this from the bias being invoked by the software communists, there is confusion... but only because they like to create that by using examples from BSD licensing to prove the GPL licensing and so forth. |
| #2 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 2:16:53 PM |
| This article bugs me. Microsoft long ago conceded that Linux was a competitor. Corel, Novell, Sun, IBM, and Oracle are also competitors. I don't see any earth shattering changes occuring in the Microsoft world due to Linux. Gradual changes, yes. Revolutionary, I doubt it. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 5:27:59 PM |
|
Ahh, you beat me, rant. At the time, Ballmer was too ignorate (nevermind, if he's confused or not) to callout the GPL, but he applied "cancer" to Linux. Most of the talk several months before the "cancer" flub was just as militant and colorful and generally just referred to 'open source." They didn't focus in on GPL until they got beat upon quite heavily for weeks at the usual OS outlets.
It wasn't until mid-July that they had Mundie running around apologizing, backpedaling, and revising history. "Long ago conceded that Linux was a competitor," my ass, Bob--unless you consider a couple of months long ago. And hasn't Ballmer been touring the world for the past 3 weeks talking to the countries considering OS software, and didn't Gartner grill him on pricing and competitive pressures all weekend? Not earth shattering, but this is relevent. And I'm not as PC as RANT, but yes cancer eats away at living bodies--Linux, OS, or the GPL aren't eating away at anything but MS's profits (and not even that, really. Everyone else in the industry is embracing it with some fits and starts--so what is it eating, Stevie?). Why would anyone in the OS community want confusion, soda? They are best served by public awareness, that everyone knows all the options and their differences, whereas MS is trying to confuse everyone to treat all OS as evil, and then have the apologists tow the line with revised hsitories like "MS doesn't have anything against OS, it's just the GPL that they have a problem with." This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 17:53. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 5:57:39 PM |
|
>>Everyone else in the industry is embracing it with some fits and starts
Wow, broad statement... no facts... pointless... as with the rest of your post. Do I need to list the companies for you? Are you that ignorant? Jesus, even Sun ships boxes with Linux. IBM, HP ship Linux. Even Dell too. Apple has embraced BSD and other OS tools and apps and has contributed to several OS projects. Oracle, Corel, Borland and others produce their products for Linux. I could keep going but those 7 are certainly enough. I'm aware you're just trying to be an ass. (Or do I presume too much?) |
| #5 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 6:04:12 PM |
|
It isn't exactly an oranges to oranges comparison, when you compare software companies to hardware vendors. Hardware vendords don't have intellectual property at stake by using GPL'ed software. Furthermore, there are a great many companies in the idustry, the software industry, that don't support GPL.
Considering Microsoft is currently the largest company on earth, the question you might ask is, what is wrong with the other companies for not following in Microsoft's footsteps. Microsoft seems to be doing quite well. The same can't be said for their competitors. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/14/2002 6:48:22 PM |
|
RANT - Ok, then we shall call the GPL an ulcer, or perhaps a cankerworm...
Do you think it's intellectually honest to try to deflect criticism of the GPL by whining about the particular words used to describe it? |
| #7 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 6:56:35 PM |
| Do we employ intellectual integrity on this board, blue? ;-) |
| #8 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 7:30:59 PM |
| I wasn't referring to you, RANT. That was a little venting from disputes in other threads with jerk. I quite agree, that intellectual integrity would do us all quite a bit of good here. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 7:36:42 PM |
| lol |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 7:58:56 PM |
| zooker, I wasn't trying to create an argument for Linux. I was creating an argument for OS because I understand that Microsoft is trying to lump everything in. You may specifically be beefing with GPL, but I know MS has bigger sites in their eyes. So... you say it is the biggest threat to mankind--well, every other company is embracing OS strategies in part or whole... where's the armageddon? They're not new players or new solutions, but the slightest embrace of OS in any strategy certainly has to be radical if it can destroy humankind? Well, they are doing it, and we're all still here. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 8:25:53 PM |
|
Oh, zook, I know you didn't say mankind, but I was paraphrasing the general gist of your "GPL-hate poem", whatever that nonsense was... Why is everyone so desperately literal around here.
Okay, let's try this again, are all the companies I mentioned in some way integrating OS software into their hardware and/or software product offerings, and/or integrating OS philosophies and licenses into their strategy? I think we can all say yes, but with the amount of idiocy floating around today maybe we can't accept that. And doesn't this show that MS is alone in their position of trying to generate both fear and hate of OS? |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 8:28:37 PM |
|
Besides, are you still suggesting that my claim is baseless--that other companies aren't embracing OS? I think that's a pretty retarded position, which didn't need being backed up in the first place.
I also think it's funny that you equate the GPL to education. I think you meant it the other way around. Although I'd agree that GPL is like education -- it destroys ignorance. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 21:23. |
| #13 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/14/2002 10:09:14 PM |
|
Absolutely correct.
While the Free Software Foundation is generally fairly dishonest about it's use of language to distort, they do not hide their agenda. As you read in the GNU Manifesto, their goal is to eliminate the job of private software developers and instead bring all software creation under governmental control. Statement's like this one... http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html "What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned. " The word banned has a particularly strong meaning. I went and looked it up... http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=banned As a verb ... "To prohibit, especially by official decree." As an adverb ... "Forbidden by law" RANT wrote - "Call it what it is..a restrictive license. If it's -that- bad, then let the market deal with it. " I'm all for letting the market decide. However that is obviously not the goal of the FSF, as again they are trying to circumvent the markets through propaganda and government intervention. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-949241.html "Open-source software advocates will unfurl a legislative proposal next week to prohibit the state of California from buying software from Microsoft or any other company that doesn't open its source code and licensing policies. " When they actually started down their path of attempting to ban software development by law, they crossed the line from being part of the free market to being enemies of Capitalism. I'll call them what they are, that is Software Communists. And while that might be red baiting, the description is entirely accurate. This post was edited by sodablue on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 22:10. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 10:20:40 PM |
| RANT, I wanted to honestly thank you for being a source of sanity and intelligence today in the midst of so much FUD, ignorance, and idiocy. |
| #15 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 10:39:21 PM |
| Do you really have the opinion, jerk? or do you just like stirring up the "softies"? |
| #16 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 11:06:15 PM |
| Some might call it tenacity. Others would call it being stubborn. |
| #17 By 3339 (67.116.252.114) at 10/14/2002 11:33:35 PM |
|
Thanks, Rant. I would add something else about this : "When they actually started down their path of attempting to ban software development by law, they crossed the line from being part of the free market to being enemies of Capitalism. " bit though... Who is "they"? Since this proposal didn't even make it into the State House, was proposed by a tort lawyer primarily as a response to the Cal Oracle contract dispute, wasn't aimed at MS, wasn't the work of any particular OS spokesperson (although they tried to capitalize on LinuxWorld for a crowd), and was aimed at preventing cooshy contracts instead of being guided by any OS zealotry or philosophy, big freaking deal. Do you have any clue how many hundreds, maybe thousands of nutjob bills get drafted by people trying to get someone in the Cal State House to get behind them? This is nothing, a blip. That's like saying the druggies have already won the war and are corrupting the entire principle of sobriety because of medicinal marijuana laws, etc... The Green Party has tried to get a whole lot whackier than some San Diego lawyer with no technology background.
Sorry, soda but in this case you are the conspiracy theorist, and there is no war on capitalism within California if you have half a brain. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 23:36. |
| #18 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 11:54:55 PM |
| It's more of a war on common sense than it is a war on capitalism. |
| #19 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/15/2002 12:10:15 AM |
|
RANT - "The same cannot be said of you and Microsoft. You see, MS did the same thing. "
Actually no they did not. You then go on to quote this... "While Software Choice's principles rarely mention open-source initiatives directly, they include a provision that governments should promote a "broad availability" of the results of publicly funded research by making sure these results are kept clear of such open-source licenses as the GNU General Public License (GPL), used by Linux. " I see nothing inconsistent or necessarily wrong with Microsoft's position on this. For reference you should look at the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, which encourages cooperative research between government institutions and private industry. Then look at the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 which discusses the rights of government research labs to license and patent their work. http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/legis/techtran.htm http://www.crf.cornell.edu/bayh-dole.html These laws codify fundamental attitudes of our nation as they relate to government research and it's use in the private sector. The FSF doesn't agree with these, feeling instead that government research should be restricted from being utilized in private industry to create products that will benefit consumers. "We agree. Well, I would agree it was wrong on both points...I'm not sure you will be as consistant. " I see nothing inconsistent with my interpretation. |
| #20 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/15/2002 12:17:50 AM |
|
I find it interesting that sodajerk hopes to deflect legitimate criticism of the Free Software Foundation, as well as it's advocates by:
- Claiming that the FSF is not the same as Open source - Claiming that the FSF is inept and has not been able to pass their proposals. Neither of these are particular valid arguments against my criticism. With regards to the first claim, in my arguments in this thread the "they" I refer to are the Software Communists. This is quite clearly stated in the very first post in this thread. With regards to the second. I am glad that the FSF is inept and incapable of making legitimate arguments for their proposals. That does not mean the proposals are not worth attacking with regards to their merit. Sodajerk's response really does nothing but confirm my initial statement, that the Software Communists seek to deceive by distorting the arguments and creating confusing between Free Software and Open Source. They do this because it is easier to try to claim a conspiracy exists than to respond to the issues at hand. Oh, I would like to add... The tactics of the Software Communists are the same used by Right-Wing attack radio like Rush Limbaugh. Which is not surprising since neo-conservatives are 60's liberals with a new layer of paint. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, October 15, 2002 at 00:19. |
| #21 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/15/2002 12:25:40 AM |
| I'm sure the right wingers would say that same thing about the liberals of today. That's some interesting commentary, blue. |
| #22 By 3339 (67.116.252.114) at 10/15/2002 1:07:41 AM |
|
Boy, blue, not only are you going off on the rhetoric, but I haven't said any of the things you said I was saying.
Where did I say that the FSF is not the same as open source? I didn't, but of course I agree with that. You do know about subsets and supersets and stuff, right? How the hell can the FSF be all of, equal to OS? The FSF has a political ideology and represents a small segment of the OS community. Absolutely, but I didn't say that. Where did I say the FSF is inept and cannot enact their proposals? I didn't and don't care. I was talking about the DSSA, right? The FSF had nothing to do with it, soda. (Is this another conspiracy theory, soda? That Stallman and the FSF wrote the DSSA? Laughable.) What I did say was the DSSA was proposed by a bunch of tort lawyers out of San Diego trying to capitalize on the flap over the excessive Oracle contract, and that no one in the State Office got behind it or took it seriously (you do realize that Cal probably makes as much or more on proprietary software than 40 other states combined, right? That the industry was born here), no one of note supported it (except Tiemann but he's a moron), and only 25 people showed up to support it (out of the thousands of people who would have been in front of City Hall anyway in San Fran, not to mention the thousands of LinuxWorld Conference attendees). Guess what? On any given Wednesday I can wander into Berkeley and see a demonstration 3 times bigger for Palestine or whatever other issue the activists are playing with that day. In other words, this was an irrelevent story like many a Inquirer or Reg story that you get into a tizzy about--just this one you are holding onto like it was a new Bible; guess what? It was a joke that only got press because the press likes Linux stories, they like to ruffle your feathers. Does that mean the War has begun? Please, having a hard time not busting a gut laughing. Umm, soda, show me where I said any of the things I supposedly said; explain to me how the FSF represents all of open source (let's just talk licensing--explain how the FSF (GPL/LGPL) is open source when there are about 35 OSI-approved licenses)... and then maybe we can talk about how what you are doing now is not "seek[ing] to deceive by distorting the arguments and creating confusing between Free Software and Open Source." That you aren't creating your own bizarre little conspiracy where we revolt and take your money and shrink-wrapped software away from you. Until then I'll be laughing my ass off at your paranoid ass! Boo. Bwaaa-Bwaaa. Boooo. Scary Software Communist Theory. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, October 15, 2002 at 01:38. |
| #23 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/15/2002 4:00:36 AM |
| Richard, that is more than one variety of cancer. As z00ker pointed out, cancer doesn't always refer to a disease. |
| #24 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/15/2002 5:23:15 AM |
| Looking at the industry as a whole, I'd say Microsoft generally is one of the better ones with regard to attacking competitors. They certainly have attacked competitors, but overall, I think they are better than most in this regard. Most of the time, their keynotes are full of marketing hype. Sun and Oracle keynotes, though, are usually full of anti Microsoft rhetoric. |
| #25 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/15/2002 10:53:48 AM |
|
RANT -
"Actually they did. They lobbied a state gov't to ban even looking at OSS as a viable solution. " Actually no they didn't. Again you are distorting the issue. All Microsoft is lobbying for is free market access, that is that government should pick the solution which is best for the job at hand, not one which is based upon some arbitrary criteria outside of the technical and financial considerations. This is called 'open access'. 'closed access', which is what the FSF lobbied for, was a ban on commercial software. Can you not understand the distinction? "It may not be inconsistent, but it is exactly what the FSF did. " No, it's not, the actions were fundamentally polar from one another. "We'll agree that the gov't (or anyone) cannot take a piece of OSS software, modify it and then patent it. Can they do the same with a piece of MS software? There are OSS compilers out there ya know. " Uhh, you are seriously confused. I brought up the Bayh-Dole Act, as well as the Stevenson-Wydler act in reference to lobbying done by the Software Choice group for consistent access to government funded research. The Act's codify a goal of government working together with private industry to get research into the hands of the citizenry. Bayh-Dole allows for research labs to do this by patenting and licensing their work. The other alternative would be for the research to simply land into the public domain. The idea here being that a research lab could then sell a license to the work to a commercial entity, thus recouperating much of the costs entailed from the initial lab research. This then satisfies multiple parties. Those who want to make certain citizens have ready access to research, and those who are concerned with the government being free research agencies for private industry. "How did the OSS community attempt to do this but MS did not. " Reading is fundamental. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 332 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:34:36 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
