| 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 |
 |
IBM: There are 'forces' trying to wreck Linux | |
|
||
| Time: 12:09 EST/17:09 GMT | News Source: Silicon | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
An IBM executive has claimed that a "set of forces" is attempting to derail Linux, and hinted that Microsoft and SCO Group are among those responsible. Al Zollar, a general manager of sales for IBM eServer iSeries, told delegates attending the company's Asia Pacific Strategic Planning Conference in Queensland, Australia, on Tuesday that a "set of forces" was attempting to stymie adoption of the open source operating system. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 155 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:21:50 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 7/31/2003 1:01:06 PM |
| Cup o' paranoia, anyone? |
| #2 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 7/31/2003 2:16:41 PM |
|
Who said I was bitter?
One cannot claim paranoia because they're out to get you, the fact you think they're out to get you proves paranoia. Besides, the whole OSS/GNU/GPL "movement" (term used loosely) is nothing more than a socialist idea taken to computing extremes. I have had interesting discussions with "experts" (their term not mine) as to if a GPLed piece of code can be un-GPLed. They say "no," without even hearing the second part of my question--which had to do with authority to release the code. If someone doesn't have the authority to release a piece of code to the GPL, but does so anyway, or the code was accidentally released by an underling that code can't be un-GPLed, according to the "expert." Yet the license doesn't mention anything about that at all. Apparently if I steal the source code to Windows Longhorn and release it to the GPL crowd as GPL, even though I don't have the authority to do so, and the act is clearly illegal (or accidental) it's *still* GPLed--now and forever. Once assimilated into GPL/GNU/OSS it can never be re-appropriated. And they call MS the Borg?! Um, hello? Let's see: glaring holes in the license, theft of code from SCO (yet to be totally proven), and zeal that approaches religious ferver. Compared to a company that want's to make a product and make money off that product. If those be the options, I choose the latter. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/31/2003 3:41:28 PM |
|
cba-3.14 - "right... like there are not dozens of posts here of people that have said they want to see Linux/OSS/Mozilla, etc. all die. "
And there's something wrong with that? "Why on earth would anyone care if a Free Browser lives or dies, exactly? Did you once pay to much for it? Now you're bitter? " If they weren't intent on destroying my livelihood, I wouldn't care. "It's not paranoia when they are out to get you. How could anyone not think that SCO, Sun, and Microsoft are out to destroy Linux' viability... or that, for that matter, a good 60% of the people here are too! " Good because Linux/OSS/Mozilla whatever is trying to destroy the livelihood of those in my profession. It's not paranoid to fight back against insurgents. Why do you try to play the victim? It's not your livelihood which is being put at risk by a bunch of bean counters talking idealistic nonsense. |
| #4 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/31/2003 3:42:12 PM |
|
I agree with IBM. Microsoft and Unix vendors should just roll over and play dead and let the Linux hype take over and errode their markets. I mean, Linux is the One True Utopia and no one should stand in it's way.
It sounds oddly Lennist/Stalinist. Linux is trying to compete, so they're going to take heat from competitors. And who is IBM to talk about conspiracies to attack other companies when they were on board with Sun, Oracle, etc all against Microsoft during their trials. There is an interesting truth in there, though. Perhaps MS, et al should let Linux have it's day. It's no where near prime time. IBM and Linux vendors would jump the gun, Linux would fail miserable in the Enterprise and the tail would be fodder for criticizing Linux for years to come. It would be the laughing stock (more so than it is today, I mean). |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/31/2003 5:22:45 PM |
|
linuxhippie - "Just explain the difference between fair competition and destroying livelihoods."
I don't consider laws which ban the competitive marketplace to be fair competition, but rather an attempt to destroy markets through excessive government control. It's not about products... But the point is, this is the same problem Netscape got themselves into. They attacked Microsoft and claimed they were going to replace them... then when push came to shove and Microsoft started reacting back in a competitive way by improving their product, their licensing terms, etc. Netscape started acting like a victim. Microsoft is like any other company or person. You want to work with me, great, let's make something better. You come in here claiming you're going to replace me, well then I'm gonna fight you back and you better be able to carry through on your words. |
| #6 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 8/1/2003 1:00:12 AM |
|
linuxhippie - You can keep avoiding the issues, but whatever.
I saw a wonderful quote on a /. sig which I think explains most software professionals objection to the GPL... "Don't think of it as 'free as in beer', think of it as in 'working for IBM for free'." |
| #7 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 8/1/2003 7:00:08 PM |
|
linuxhippie - "Hehe, no, that's the quote that describes your (and MS's) favorite Opensource licence (the BSD-style licence). With the GPL, I get paid back with the benefit of IBM's changes everytime they distribute my GPL code."
I don't see how. You write code, give it away... IBM goes out sells it in combination with a hardware device, makes $25,000... and you get paid back what? "I like to think of the BSD licence as the roach motel of Open Source. With the BSD licence, my code checks in to IBM (or MS or whoever) and it doesn't check out. " Ahh, that's why there are so many licenses out there and we have choice. The BSD license certainly makes more sense for government funded software, as now I can take the software and add my value to it and not face the risk of finding myself in a position of working for IBM for free. |
| #8 By 12071 (203.217.76.201) at 8/2/2003 1:01:42 AM |
|
#28 "The BSD license certainly makes more sense for government funded software, as now I can take the software and add my value to it and not face the risk of finding myself in a position of working for IBM for free."
And that's exactly the difference between the BSD and GPL licenses. The BSD license best aids the end user (they can take someone elses code and do whatever they like with it) whereas the GPL license best aids the coders (if you take their code and modify it/enhance it and then want to sell it/give it away then you have to give your enhancements away, a sort of payment if you like for getting to use their code in the first place). Whereas I myself do not like the GPL license, I can understand why many oss contibutors choose it over some of the other licenses available, especially the BSD license. They do not want any company (and this isn't just limited to Microsoft!) to be able to take their code if they're not going to give anything back. So I don't think that /. sig is correct, with GPL code you're not working free for IBM, because any enhancements that IBM make to that code will be available back to you - which is not the case if you used the BSD license. Anyways, the thing to remember here is that everyone is free to license their code under whatever license they choose. I won't be licensing any of my code under the GPL for my own reasons but that's no reason why someone else shouldn't be able to. If you don't like the GPL, don't touch someone's code that is licensed under it, find similar code licensed under another license or write it yourself. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 155 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:21:50 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
