| 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 |
 |
MS exec rattles sabre, suggests Linux could infringe patents | |
|
||
| Time: 00:41 EST/05:41 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
The CEO of Microsoft Israel has played the FUD card against Linux, raising doubts about the provenance of the intellectual property in the software, and advising potential customers to seek indemnification from the supplier in the event of patent infringement. Or at least we think that's what Arie Scope said in an article here last week. If your Hebrew is enough to get you past the registration page you'll no doubt be able to cope with the whole piece, which provides a response to open source initiatives in Israel. These include proposed legislation on the use of GPL software by the government. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 162 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:58:22 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 11/19/2002 2:16:02 AM |
| Microsoft is watching Linux absolutely KILL Solaris and other Unix flavors... and like any good company... they are beefing up their defense, in case the would-be competitor comes calling on Microsoft customers. So far, outside of a 100k or so desktops (statistically insignificant)... Microsoft has seen little in the way of market share deterioration to Linux. |
| #2 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 11/19/2002 4:03:36 AM |
|
Exactly. If Palm or Netscape or any of the other competitors to MS had been this smart when they had majority marketshare (Palm still does), they would probably be in better positions today. Competition of any size should be taken seriously.
Ironic, since MS is a large company, but no one ever took them seriously as a competitor until it was too late. This post was edited by n4cer on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at 04:10. |
| #3 By 7390 (63.211.44.114) at 11/19/2002 9:49:24 AM |
| #4 bas, I don't understand your comment. Would you mind elaborating? I think I know what you are trying to say but I will leave it to you to explain. |
| #4 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 11/19/2002 9:49:50 AM |
|
Oh for heavens sake. The MS-FUD department is indeed well staffed these days.
This is just pathetic. TL |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/19/2002 10:21:33 AM |
|
bas - Yes, Linux used to ignore Microsoft in the early 90's. Then in the late 90's they laughed at Microsoft. Now Linux is trying to fight Microsoft.
Microsoft will win. |
| #6 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 11/19/2002 10:31:40 AM |
|
"Why is it pathetic? It could very well be true"
And THAT'S what makes MS so famous about it's FUD. A few examples. My monitor COULD blow up in my face and kill me. My Golden Retriever could go mad and bite my foot off. My car COULD blow all four tires at once. I COULD miss the paper, and accidently stab myself in the forehead with my pencil. Show me PROOF, don't show me damaging FUD where no proof is provided whatsoever. TL |
| #7 By 931 (67.35.51.179) at 11/19/2002 12:56:56 PM |
|
#12 - only in servers and I really don't think MS is going to take over there
How would they take over when they already own it. Unless your talking about the very high end of the specturm which they've been attacking and making significat progress in over the last 3 years.. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/19/2002 2:07:21 PM |
|
TechLarry - "Show me PROOF, don't show me damaging FUD where no proof is provided whatsoever. "
Ok, so it's kind of like the Palladium claims? i.e. what is possible does not equate to what is probable. gg - Yeah, that was sort of my point. :) This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at 15:25. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.204.186) at 11/19/2002 3:26:04 PM |
|
blue, i liked the unedited version of your post better.
From blue's previous post, used without permission: "This is weird. Generally you are the one who is making claims about what is possible, and we have to all point out that possible does not equate probable." This post was edited by BobSmith on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at 15:29. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/19/2002 5:49:47 PM |
|
soda, I think you are misplacing the hypocrisy here; this isn't analogous to Palladium. But as you agree with gg, the same can be said of Microsoft. In fact, if you look at the matter, it is much more likely that Microsoft is guilty of infringing patents than GNU/Linux is. This is purely a logical matter. As stu pointed out, and I don't get why it was brought up to defend this "argument", Linus refuses to observe any patented materials or code so he cannot be infected by it, if you aren't exposed to a patent, there is no way you can infringe on it--anyone who holds a patent can look for themselves for another thing. On the other hand, we know MS has acquired 3rd party software which is in their software, we know they are currently being sued by a number of companies for stealing patented code which they were allowed to view after a partnership that mysteriously fell through, MS's whole history is based on this behavior with many past settlements or businesses ending, and we can't verify whether or not it's their code at all, and never will be able to. So, again, Microsoft is being hypocritical.
Call us hypocritical when we support a Red Hat hardware-secured OS/box, okay. Until then I think it's perfectly logical to say that--anything is possible, but MS is shooting themselves in the foot and being hypocrites by using an argument which is more applicable to them. What happened to the whole idea of not painting linux as the devil because people weren't buying bullsh!t? Oh yeah, MS is the one with the fork-tongued, I forgot--they'll say they won't and when you turn your back, do it again and again. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at 18:03. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/19/2002 6:10:02 PM |
|
Bob, do you think the hypocrisy was apparent to soda? I bet that's why he edited that:
"This is weird. Generally you are the one who is making claims about what is possible, and we have to all point out that possible does not equate probable." Yeah, well, okay, it's a bullsh!t argument. Accept it. Why can't softies say, "This is bullsh!t. When will Microsoft just shut the fsck up with these idiotic arguments and let them be as they said they would." Instead you are saying--I can't defend this argument, but I can tell you it mirrors the time where I called your argument weak, so... well, then it's a weak argument, but I won't say that, even though I am, because I can't say anything against "Them," but I'll sit here giggling over a line that I don't realize exposes my own hypocrisy. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/19/2002 7:19:01 PM |
|
bluejay, don't know much about supercomputers, huh? Before you decide to get up on someone's @ss, make sure you aren't sh!tting in your own pants first.
http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/top500/top500.list.html This doesn't list OSes, but it's easy to verify that NONE of these top 500 supercomputers are running windows. Why don't you do some research? |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/19/2002 7:30:12 PM |
|
By the way, if you are a little slow on the math too: if there had been 1 in the top 500, and there's not, that would mean 99.8% are running non-Windows OSes... If you follow the top500 list you would know, that many of these sc's are new and previous ones were also Nix systems. You actually picked on one of the most accurate and verifiable claims posted today on this site. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at 20:27. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/19/2002 8:52:15 PM |
| okay, Gilligan, so back to the math... 1 out of a thousand is what? 2 out of 2000? 5 out of 10,000? Are we getting close to pulling numbers out of our ass, or are we still in the same ballpark? |
| #15 By 1845 (12.254.206.177) at 11/19/2002 9:31:45 PM |
| Jerk, just to clarify, I wasn't defending or attacking Microsoft or Linux writers for patent infringement or defense of patents. I don't know enough about the subject to say much about it. My comment addressed TL's FUD posts. He doesn't like it when Microsoft FUD's its competitors, but TL has no problem FUDing Microsoft. Whether Microsoft is hypocritical on the patent issue or not has no bearing on my opinion that TL is a hypocrite with respect to FUD. |
| #16 By 1845 (12.254.206.177) at 11/19/2002 9:38:35 PM |
|
From KnightHawk "Unless your talking about the very high end of the specturm which they've been attacking and making significat progress in over the last 3 years.. "
Kaboom (#17) I'm not sure how Knight is defining "high end", but certainly if there is such a thing as high end, a super computer would qualify. I'm not saying that I agree with him or with you, just that your super computer comment has absolutely no bearing on Knight's argument. One might argue that two of the most trafficed sites on the Internet more than likely run on high end servers, so quite possibly none of your three points actually address Knight's argument. FYI, Yahoo is transitioning to PHP, but as far as I'm aware, the majority of the site is still written in their proprietary YahooScript. |
| #17 By 1845 (12.254.206.177) at 11/19/2002 9:41:03 PM |
| Jerk and Gilligan, am I missing something (I am rather tired right now)? I've looked at both of your links and very few entries state the operating system. If the operating system isn't stated is it fair to assume that it isn't Windows? |
| #18 By 3339 (67.116.254.121) at 11/19/2002 11:27:55 PM |
|
Bob, it's not an assumption. These computer systems simply are not built with Windows for th most part. Look at the chips, look at the companies who produced them, follow the links if you want to look at each individual facility and research further. I hadn't meant to use old results, I just used the link I followed first through Google--but that link, I know provides manufacturer, chip, and links to the facilities' site if you want to research it for yourself.
It's a very accurate statement to say that 99.9% of supercomputers are not running Windows. Parker, TPC results have nothing to do with it. When you need years and years of sustained GigaFlops on advanced computational research you do not build a several hundred million dollar computer facility running Windows. You may see a few here and there popping up, which I would bet was why the original poster allowed for some decimal of Window usage at all, but this isn't really a question worth arguing over. |
| #19 By 3339 (67.116.254.121) at 11/19/2002 11:38:06 PM |
|
Oh, and Bob, I don't particular care if you're just attacking a person, okay, carry on. Have at it.
And I apologize if I rolled you in with an attack on an idea or argument that seemed to be trying to be made ever so badly. I'm sorry if I used your name; at times I thought I was addressing individual arguments and at other times a "side" which seemed to have formed. And If you are saying that MS's argument is idiotic and hypocritical, I appreciate that too. I agree. |
| #20 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 11/19/2002 11:42:40 PM |
|
sodajerk - Point to me where I've come out in defense of software patents. You can't, because I think they are a bad idea.
That doesn't mean I can't still make fun of people, does it? BTW, It would be a very accurate statement to say that the OS means very little in the world of supercomputers. Ideally, you would want to build your own as you really have no need for a filesystem, user interface , virtual memory, or any of the overhead it represents. Now how this relates to me deploying app servers, I'll never figure out. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at 23:47. |
| #21 By 1845 (12.254.206.177) at 11/20/2002 1:15:11 AM |
| jerk, no harm no foul. FYI, a lot of times I attack a person's argument whether I agree with their point or not. Quite often I agree with the sentiment of mooresa, but equally as often I think his "arguments" are zealotry rather than good logic. |
| #22 By 1845 (207.173.73.201) at 11/20/2002 12:41:48 PM |
| gg, you are harsh and way off base. Cool down a bit before rampaging, eh? |
| #23 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/20/2002 7:02:24 PM |
|
"Open Source and Free Software are two REALLY different things by the way."
Yes and no. If I'm not mistaken most Open Source software is licensed under the GPL. If I'm not mistaken the GPL is GNU's license. If I'm not mistaken there is very little difference between GNU and FSF. If all that is true, then all open source software is also free software. I can say this much. If I can download the code at no cost, then the product is free to me, because I'm a developer and can compile it on my own. |
| #24 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/20/2002 9:19:24 PM |
|
I didn't say that all Open Source software was GPLed. I said most of it is. I still stand by that. Yes free and open are not the same, but the overwhelming majority of open source software is also free GPLed. I consider all GPLed softare as free software for the reasons already stated. In short - I agree with you on the definition, but in practice, they are nearly synonymous.
As examples, I'd say that most famous Open Source projects are GNU/Linux and Apache. Yes there are hundreds of others, but none which have the noteriety that these two have. Both of these are also free. |
| #25 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/20/2002 9:21:32 PM |
| I just thought of an interesting parallel. I've been saying for some time (as has Microsoft) that Palladium is not DRM and DRM is not Palladium. If Palladium is used primarily for a DRM platform, you may well use the arguement I just used against me, namely that if Palladium's main applications are DRM apps, then in practice Palladium is DRM. For the time being though, Palladium isn't DRM and DRM isn't Palladium. We'll see what the future holds. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 162 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:58:22 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
