Mr. Dell opens up about Desktop Linux

Desktop Linux ^ | Mar. 07, 2006 | Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Michael Dell, chairman of Dell Inc. believes in offering Linux on the desktop, server, and workstation. What he doesn't believe in, for now, is giving Linux full support on the desktop. In an exclusive interview, Dell explained his company's Linux desktop strategy to DesktopLinux.com's Steven J. Vaughan Nichols.

"People are always asking us to support Linux on the desktop, but the question is: 'Which Linux are you talking about?'," Dell asked.

[Redcloak]

Assuming that you're right about total American investment in Linux and Linux apps (Why not toss them in too?), so what? All of that development was done under the GPL. Those who did the work knew the terms of their involvement. And if you were to actually read the GPL, you'd see that working on a GPL'd project does not give you ownership of that project or an exclusive right to use the product. You own a copyright to your additions; but, by using GPL'd code as a basis for your work, you agree to license that work to anyone who wants it. If you can't abide by that, then don't use GPL'd code in your project.

The American investment you mention was not for purely original code; it was built upon someone else's work. The Americans did not need to pay for that original work any more than the Chinese, or you, would have to pay for their subsequent additions. Those are the terms of the GPL. It's that whole "Free as in speech, not as in beer" thing; a mighty subversive concept if you're a RedFlag kinda guy.

[N3WBI3]

WEll that would help our national security if we were not using it.. ;)

[Petronski]

*lol*

[Petronski]

Three of ten is exactly 30%, not ~33%.

[Petronski]

So, why DO you feel it necessary to lie so much? And, once again, where have I said anything about Google OS, Dell making Linux desktops, Linux deployment within IBM, or now, anything about liking Richard Stallman? Why can't you give me ONE POST that backs up what you say, instead choosing to fling more lies to cover your trail?

He's not going to answer. That much is clear.

[Golden Eagle]

The American...The Americans...

Yeah I wonder how many of you actually are.

[Redcloak]

Whatsamatta Brass Buzzard? Did I stump you?

[FLAMING DEATH]

Well, gotta admit. It was one of the better turkey roasts we've had in a while.

Looks like it's all but over now, though.

[FLAMING DEATH]

I've already caught him in multiple lies on this thread. To explain his way out of this would just entail telling even more lies. He doesn't dare at this point.

[ShadowAce]

[Salo]

Actually, it's Steak and a Lewinsky day. ;-)

[antiRepublicrat]

Sun refers to Open Solaris on their own website as a "project" that provides "an open development environment", and "is not a product offering".

I guess you didn't download and run that OpenSolaris live CD link I gave you. Sun itself doesn't offer a whole package, but a live CD was up a few days after Sun released the code to the general public. Such is the nature of open source -- receive, modify, re-release, wash, rinse, repeat.

Again from Sun's website, read the language of section 2.1(b), patent protections are only granted to those using quote "original software", which would clearly not include any attempted fork.

You are interpreting it incorrectly. Read the definitions. That section is saying that the Initial Developer (Sun in this case) grants a patent license for the software initially released under the CDDL (their OpenSolaris). The Original Software is the starting point, and 2.1(a) allows modifications from it -- which could result in a fork. The case where Sun revokes the patent license under this license is where a contributor removes code covered by the patent (in which case the revocation is moot).

China faces LESS legal risk in using OpenSolaris than in using Linux, since they can easily take a huge chunk of OpenSolaris, tightly link it to their code, and re-release the whole thing without releasing their code (except for actual modifications to the OpenSolaris code itself).

Sun is currently in China, and it is pushing OpenSolaris hard, organizing user groups, giving seminars, pushing it to universities, and even getting awards from China's major open source magazine. They're building quite the community of Chinese open source developers over there.

So, to sum it up from your POV: Chinese can have Linux, bad. Chinese can have OpenSolaris, good.

The only thing I can figure from this is that I was wrong, you aren't against open source. You are just against GPL software, especially Linux. But your arguments are irrational since your main objections to Linux apply to OSS software you have no problem with, such as OpenSolaris.

[antiRepublicrat]

Yeah, instead, they should buy copies of Windows and use THAT against us militarily.

I hope so, Windows does horribly in supercomputing environments.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Nice. Be interesting to hear a spin...er...response to this one.

BTW, anyone else have trouble getting Freerepublic to load today?

[Golden Eagle]

LMAO Flamer, you and what appear to be your foreign friends haven't proven anything, other than you want to provide free software to terrorists communists and the like, create countless threads of BS claiming victories for Linux that all turned out to be lies, and attack me for being exactly right from the beginning. I've dealt with lots of Linux loonies on this site, but don't think I've ever seen any as delusional, but I'm not really surprised since I've seen several who were close LOL.

[Golden Eagle]

You're wrong, of course. Take it from a Linux site if you refuse to believe me. Quote "CDDL does not license any patents for use in derived products". Period. It couldn't be any more straightforward,whatsoever.

http://lwn.net/Articles/114839/

[FLAMING DEATH]

Whatever, Turkey. You're the one, five days on, that still can't provide one post that proves the accusations you made about me. Biggest, most delusional liar I've ever dealt with. You mischaracterize what I say, what you say, and what everyone else says, then when you're caught, you claim victory. As I've told you before, we're all embarrassed for you.

BTW, you lied again...I have not created one Linux thread on this forum, ever. Almost didn't catch that one; the lies have become so abundant, I'm starting to miss them as they go by.

[Redcloak]

Yo BB! Did I stump you? Are you going to address my post or are you going to run off and hide?

Are you an eagle or a chicken?

[Golden Eagle]

I addressed it, clearly, pointing out that when you refer to us as "the Americans" (at least you capitalized it unlike your comrade N3WBI3 who rarely does) you lost any credibility to speak on behalf of "the Americans", making your attempted contributions to the discussion extremely suspect.

As for your attempted point, what was it anyway? That if legal transfer of technology for free to Cuba and North Korea is allowed, it will actually happen? Duh, I think we've figured that out already, Mr. Red Cloak.

[Redcloak]

We're usually referred to as "Americans", but let's ignore your pathetic attempt at diving off on a tangent...

The point is (And I'm trying to use small words here so that I won't upset you) that American companies and the US government involved themselves in GPL'd software while understanding the terms of that license. No one forced them to add to the projects. They took pre-existing code for free and the passed along their additions for free; that's how it works. You can do the same thing if you wish or you can choose not to. It's a freedom thing.

How about it, Rubber Chicken? Can you respond to that or will you run off and hide again?