| 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 |
 |
Microsoft Tries to Stop Use of Free Software, Journal Reports | |
|
||
| Time: 14:10 EST/19:10 GMT | News Source: Bloomberg | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. has been quietly lobbying to stop government agencies in the U.S. and abroad from using free software that poses a threat to its Windows operating system, the Wall Street Journal reported. Some congressmen have agreed to ask the Office of Homeland Security to avoid funding research that uses certain open-source software, whose instructions can be copied for free and then modified, on behalf of the company, the newspaper said. Microsoft has also taken issue with a report by the Department of Defense on the benefits of using free software, the Journal said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 344 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:46:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at 12/10/2002 4:18:50 PM |
| Good Job baarod!!! |
| #2 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 12/10/2002 4:48:55 PM |
|
veld: And that is how the American corporate system works. Why you think any other company is different, I don't know.
But then again, you're just a moronic troll who obviously knows very little about what you are actually talking about. |
| #3 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/10/2002 4:49:33 PM |
| Linux? They still making that? |
| #4 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at 12/10/2002 5:21:17 PM |
|
Speaking of Linux
http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_42.htm |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/10/2002 5:25:22 PM |
| linuxhippie: Again, if the open source "business model" is valid, why does it need to rely upon charitable and government handouts? |
| #6 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 12/10/2002 5:32:42 PM |
|
#4 I can't stand people using that line... Information doesn't want to be anything! When has information ever told you that it wants to be free?
One other point... what did people expect Microsoft to do with *any* competitor? Lay over and let them do whatever they want? That worked for Netscape didn't it... Obviously they are going to do whatever they can to keep their market share. |
| #7 By 6859 (204.71.100.217) at 12/10/2002 5:59:30 PM |
|
Hey, Veldm0n, your house, car, and bank accounts just told me that they want to belong to me, so you better fork them over since that's what these inanimate objects want.
Ya nutjob.... |
| #8 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/10/2002 6:03:41 PM |
|
lol cthulu.
offtopic - has anybody else noticed a bit less bias out of newsfactor.com ? There articles appear to be shifting a bit, and might even be considered objective. Example: http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/20170.html |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/10/2002 7:13:25 PM |
|
linuxhippie: Hmm, seems to me the only thing Microsoft is lobbying for is a right to include their software in RFP's... This differs from the open source model of coercion and force to prevent commercial software from existing.
Now let's go back and answer the question I asked, shall we? Why can't open source survive by simply be included in the RFPs, and the best product wins the contract? Universities and Governments should be engaged in researching new things, not building word processors and spreadsheet applications just because you want no-cost software because you are reluctant to get a job. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/10/2002 7:14:46 PM |
|
mooresa56: osopinion used to only run contributed articles essentially from readers. The quality of the articles was pretty low and they usually consisted of immature rants that you frequently see here from the ABMers.
They now appear to have regular columnists, and a bit more effort is put into the articles. |
| #11 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 12/10/2002 8:04:37 PM |
|
Will someone please ban veld.
His comments are to the point where they are actually a waste of time. Actually, it reeks of communism. |
| #12 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 12/10/2002 9:29:23 PM |
|
linux: And you even prove my point.
I don't just 'defend' Microsoft, unless some idiot is just being stupid making false claims, etc.... You see, I am objective, meanwhile veld is a communist trolling idiot who adds absolutely nothing to the conversation and states no facts (well, according to his comment, he is, anyway). |
| #13 By 6859 (12.219.44.45) at 12/10/2002 9:40:21 PM |
|
#19, veldm0n,
The "everything" is free model was tried with health care in several countries (many European ones and Canada, for instance) they're falling under increasing debt. Certain scandinavian countries have 80% taxation rates to pay for it, and it's only going up...and these people are still having to buy food, pay rent, etc. Nobody is keeping you from releasing your source code under the GPL. Go right ahead, when you can't pay your bills you'll come around quickly. What you're describing is socialism, and socialism doesn't work. Come back when you have a good idea that doesn't fall on it's face. In other news: I still don't have veldm0n's bank account, car, or house. I guess he wanted to keep them prisoner. Someone should call the police...that's kidnapping. |
| #14 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/10/2002 10:06:22 PM |
|
#19 - "I am sorry but I am very angry at how developers have harmed my ability to create software by closing off avenues of inquiry through abuse of the idea ownership system."
Well, I'm angry at Volvo and Mercedes for making cars cost so much and not giving them to me for free, thereby closing off my avenue of driving a really nice car. Somebody give me a tissue. "They are harming me, and my ability to contribute to the greater good. " Why, because you can't reverse engineer what they've done? You can't figure out how to do it in the first place? Seems to me that you have to be at least as smart as the people whose innovation you wish to build on (or copy) if you want to contribute anything. This is true for software and everything else. "Idea's and all information should be free." Why should ideas be free while physical things like cars or RAM cost money? The only difference is the raw materials used to construct them. RAM takes silicon, germanium, some aluminum, and a bit of gold. Software takes years of school, research, and key strokes. Why should either be free? "Can't you feel it?" I'm sorry... on subjects like this I THINK, not feel. "Music, books, software... Everyone else needs to get with the times and make money through services." Interesting... services have many of the same raw materials as software... years of school, research, and, often, key strokes. Why shouldn't services be free too? "All software should be forced GPL by the government ASAP. You folks are prolly just threated because you immoral vendor lockin monopolys are the only way you can make money." Funny, I work for a company that is about as far from a monopoly as you can get... but with your edict, I would be out of a job. I think the least you can do for me is explain your reasoning. So far, all you've said is that software "wants' to be free. "The forefathers of the US believed in freedom. Freedom for you, me, freedom of words, programs and information." Absolutely... but they also believed in property rights and capitalism. Do I have the right to force you to talk? Nope... you have the freedom to speak IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK; you don't have the freedom to take things from others, which is what you're suggesting. "THings have developed far enough where we don't need the copyright, trademark, patent stufff anymorez." Explain this. What has developed? How does that development warrant the dismissal of the property protections? "All true patriots should stand behind the GPL, cast down the greedy monopolist programmers and have the users take back control." Ah... yes... "You’re only a patriot if"... funny, I've heard that said with regards to McCarthyism and religious (or, rather, anti-atheist) freedom as well. You're only a patriot if you hate the godless commie, and you're only a patriot if you're not atheist. (The later was said by Bush Sr.) Give me a break. "Programmers, Musicians, and all need to learn to deal with relleaseing a free product and rely on services and side jobs for income. Go GPL or be the enemy of the people." Well, guess what... there will soon be fewer programmers and musicians if you get your way. If people WANT to give away their ideas, I praise them. In fact, I do it often myself. But companies should NOT be forced to give away that which they've spent money, time, and man power creating.... whether it's made of wood or electrons and magnetic signatures. In fact, I think the free sharing of scientific ideas is vital to human advancement, and in that respects, I think that it can be immoral to not share those discoveries or ideas. I don't trust private companies to do this, and that is one reason why I'm for organizations like the NSF which is funded with public money. |
| #15 By 5444 (208.180.140.124) at 12/10/2002 10:09:24 PM |
|
Cthulu,
won't go into health care (as america has the highest uninsured children rate in america and Health Insurance rates are only going up with less service provided in a free market enviroment, the point is that Health care for the most part is still available, just that hospitals and the public pays for it) Not to mention that Banks Sell the information they have on you, including your social security numbers and even credit card numbers to 3rd party marketers. Nice society that we live in. I don't get paid for the Information that I generate. Even worse I usually have to pay to get access to it. (credit reports etc) But lets leave the Bad Implementation of Corporate law in Personal privacy out of the picture. GPL is a Virus license, that in and of itself should prevent it from every being used in a Government enviroment. Be it public Funded Universities, or the Government itself. I have no issue with Funding of projects that lead to Open license projects as long as it is under a Berkley license or X10 or other intelligical (and for the sake of national security) privacy based policies. I do believe that we have alot to do in the privacy point of view in America. I personally should decide when and where any information about me is presented. Unfortantly some believe that my info is public domain. Such as My name and Address Phone numbers, Social Security number etc etc. Each time a company sells this info for profit, the individual that isn't informed of this action should be compesated for it. but that is just my opinion. El |
| #16 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 12/10/2002 10:30:19 PM |
|
#19
"Idea's and all information should be free." Just a while ago you said information WANTS to be free.... now it's SHOULD be free.... which is it? "The forefathers of the US believed in freedom. Freedom for you, me, freedom of words, programs and information." What about my freedom as a developer to charge for the software that I have written? Or the freedom of a musician to charge for the music they have created? Ohhhh they don't have freedoms under your system.... they are all slaves expected to work their guts out and produce things to support YOUR freedom. Have you even thought about the crap spewing out of your mouth? "Programmers, Musicians, and all need to learn to deal..." How about YOU learn to deal with the idea that everyone should be free to decide for themselves what they want to do with their creation rather that YOU deciding for them! If they want to release their work for free, that's great, and if they decide to charge you, than it's your right to then choose not to pay that money! Actually, how about you put your money where your mouth is and go off and start working for us all. I want to see you produce software, music and books for free so that WE all can benefit! |
| #17 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/10/2002 10:54:02 PM |
|
"Each time a company sells this info for profit, the individual that isn't informed of this
action should be compesated for it." You are dang right, el! I doubt it'll ever happen though. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/10/2002 11:02:31 PM |
|
linuxhippie: I've read the article, but one of my issues with your kind is your sheer willingness to distort the issues to try to gain favor in your argument.
Microsoft has never lobbied the US government to prevent them from using open source software. They have lobbied to prevent them from using it exclusively, which is the argument you linux zealots keep making. Now are you going to quit changing the subject, or are you going to start addressing my points? Again, what sort of business model does open source provide if it has to rely upon charity? Is that what we really want to bolster an economy? And your buddy nomlev doesn't seem to be helping your case much. |
| #19 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/10/2002 11:53:10 PM |
| linux? isn't there a cream or something to help with that? |
| #20 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/11/2002 2:09:06 AM |
|
vel, just a hunch but it could be that your posts were rather inflammatory and not very civilized.
As for demanding an explanation, what right do you have to demand an explanation from someone who is allowing you to use their services at no cost? If anything, you should depart in peace since they don't seem to want to offer those services to you any longer. This post was edited by BobSmith on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 at 02:15. |
| #21 By 6859 (204.71.100.216) at 12/11/2002 9:03:08 AM |
|
There is one thing I found that could be used to allow GPLed software to be used in (even top secret) US Government projects and none of their modifications would be made public: it's a combo of the age old defense "National Interest" and the Governmental Immunity Act. Add them together and they can do what they want to anything, modify even private code, and nobody get's anything out of it (except a more enhanced paranoia.) So OSS *could* be used under those scenarios, but I doubt it would be, mainly because of the reason that no OSS solution has received classifications like C2 which are requirements.
If Linux wants that they need to go for it, but that's all beyond the point. Is GPL a "virus license" as previously mentioned? Virus? No, but certainly not in the best interest of any business that wants to make a product they can sell and make a profit on. Linux has its uses, I do admit that. And MS want's to sell their product, which may even compete against a free solution available. I think the real issue is trust, which is a lot like faith. Either you have it, or you don't. Paranoia of the "great satin" Microsoft (that just was amazing those quys can't spell) works into it as well, a lot. I see the whole zealot Linux movement as a mix of paranoid delusion and persecution complexes brought into the modern age. |
| #22 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/11/2002 10:45:05 AM |
|
linuxhippie - "Is the above article simply misinformed then? Do you have some better information that you can share here?"
I base my opinion off reading the actual lobbying information from softwarechoice.org, the actual lobbying group in this case. Do you have some other information? I'd be curious to see it, as it seems particularly odd to claim a lobbying group is lobbying for something other than their lobbying site states. "Not sure what charities you are talking about. Do you mean government research grants, university-funded research, government employees working on Open Source, foundation grants like the FSF? " Yes. Why are you trying to change the subject again? Is Open Source a valid business model or not? You keep claiming it is, yet you've provided no evidence to support this claim. Thus far you've stated that it works in somewhat limited circumstances such as supporting the sale of hardware. But I still wonder if you understand the long term impacts of your market. Linux zealots have such a large history of distortions and lies, it's hard to really say, and you certainly don't help your case by continually trying to change the subject. |
| #23 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/11/2002 10:49:18 AM |
|
gg - Heh. So typical, rather than addressing the point you claim that it's worthless because Linux doesn't do it.
Can you be any less predictable? |
| #24 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/11/2002 12:58:28 PM |
|
gg - That's what I'm saying... You are saying it's worthless, because you are a zealot and anything that Windows does that Linux does not do is worthless. "What would you possibly need that for?" is the typical response to any such comparisons.
Microsoft goes through CC E4 and what's the Linux response... "It's worthless, what would you possibly need that for?" Microsoft goes through POSIX compliance and what's the response... "It's worthless..." and on and on it goes... BTW, C2 certification means one main thing... The product becomes available on an approved purchase list in the government. So how could you possibly claim it is worthless for that purpose? Same with CC E4, Posix and so forth. Obviously someone thought these were important, or they would not have made them up or said certain purchases must be based on said acceptance criteria. So you're wrong, simple as that. Oh, BTW, you can claim that these certifications are overstated as more than they actually are, but that's different than saying they are worthless. Just giving you some options here. This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 at 13:00. |
| #25 By 6859 (204.71.100.217) at 12/11/2002 1:00:05 PM |
|
gg, although on the surface the C2 cert may appear to be worthless, once you think about it, the whole point is to stabilize, standardize, and test that particular solution (including hardware, drivers, etc.) Change anything in the mix, and poof! There goes the cert.
That makes sense. It's that way on purpose. But that doesn't make the cert worthless. Could Linux (pick a distro) get C2ed? Maybe, there's a lot of documentation that someone would have to write. And that's the problem, the Linux documentation, in my opinion, has and probably always will suck. It's written by the people that wrote the software, but they're not techincal writers, they're programmers, and programmers as a whole have difficulty in explaining things in the degree that would be needed. Ever read a man page and it is filled with all sorts of great information but none of it is helpful? Happens to me all the time. The Linux movement (if I can call it that) needs to have documentation that any dope can pick up, read and work with. I'm not talking about the standard "make, ./configure" kind of help, but rationalization and explanation. Just saying that "the following are command line paramaters..." isn't sufficient. As a result I don't think there is one Linux distro that could get secure status from any government. Oh, and the NSA's secure linux project was killed. So that's out of the question. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 344 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:46:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
