Linux is not open source, says Microsoft

Tech World ^ | 05 May 2004 | Rodney Gedda

[ShadowAce]

...except there are several ways to get RHEL without a cash outlay. Several web sites, including cAos, have ISO images of that particular system.

Open Source is exactly that--open. What Red Hat can provide, others can too. What you pay for with Red Hat is extremely competant engineers and support staff.

[ShadowAce]

Tech Ping

[Ashamed Canadian]

...and what, pray tell, would Microsoft know about what consitutes open source......absolutely nada.....

[Izzy Dunne]

As the concept of open-source takes hold, not only with fanatical individuals

Now class, can anyone point out an example of journalistic bias in this statement?

Anyone?

[B Knotts]

Microsoft is patenting every minor aspect of Longhorn that they can, to try to prevent interoperability with Linux.

[Charlotte Corday]

One important difference is that when you buy a copy of RHL, you BUY it. You OWN it. You can copy it as you like (except for the Red Hat logos, etc. and their internally developed training documentation) and redistribute it.

[Billthedrill]

I'd comment on this, but I'm busy recompiling my Win2K kernel after making a few tweaks... ;-)

[justlurking]

Linux is not open source, says Microsoft

Small problem: Microsoft did not say that. What [Microsoft's Australian MD -- Marketing Director?] said was:

Open source is not [solely] Linux. [text in brackets added by author of article]

It's a logical fallacy to derive that B is not A, if B is a subset of A. And, it is a true blunder to use that fallacy as the title of the article.

Or, it's an editorial masquerading as news.

[randog]

As the concept of open-source takes hold, not only with fanatical individuals

Now class, can anyone point out an example of journalistic bias in this statement?

Perhaps they're trying to point out that there is no such thing as a Windows fanatic.

[Dominic Harr]

Uh -- it's "open source" because it's source code is "open" to viewing by anyone, free of charge -- isn't that what "open source" means? Like 'Java' is open source, even tho Sun 'owns' the rights to it.

What am I missing here?

Can MS really expect this to not make them look scared?

[mpreston]

"Or, it's an editorial masquerading as news."

I didn't know there was any other these days :-)

[steve-b]

It depends on what the meaning of "open" is.

[Petronski]

I'd comment on this, but I'm busy recompiling my Win2K kernel after making a few tweaks... ;-)

LOL

Microsoft is the very soul of hubris.

[Petronski]

Perhaps Team Astroturf will stop in and explain todays talking points for us.

LOL

[Dominic Harr]

It depends on what the meaning of "open" is.

Open-source's biggest advantage seems to be that closed-source shops just don't even understand what open-source means.

He seems to think you can't have 'for-profit' open-source software. His whole point seems to be based on a mistake.

Man, this makes MS sound scared.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Is this M$ guy a democrat? Sure sounds like one.

Avoid facts and smear.

As I'm sure many before me have already posted - linux is FREE - certain packagers (Red Hat, Suse, etc...) are allowed to charge a fee for packaging and support, but you can get everything for free.... of course you need to be an extreme geek to know what all you need, where to find it and how to put it together - but thats the "fun" part!!

[Petronski]

...of course you need to be an extreme geek to know what all you need, where to find it and how to put it together - but thats the "fun" part!!

A less-extreme geek can legally buy a copy of SUSE on ebay for the cost of media and shipping (about ten bucks).

[justlurking]

of course you need to be an extreme geek to know what all you need, where to find it and how to put it together

You only need one URL to find and download the major distributions:

http://www.distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major

[society-by-contract]

The Halloween Documents Annotated By Eric Raymond

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/