Posted on 06/22/2005 1:34:16 PM PDT by N3WBI3
Microsoft wasted no time after tying up the acquisition of email security firm Sybari Software on Wednesday before axing sales of the latter's line of anti-virus products for Unix and Linux servers.
Post acquisition, Syabri becomes a Microsoft subsidiary focusing on marketing anti-virus and anti-spam protection for Microsoft messaging and collaboration servers. It will continue to market Sybari's Lotus Domino products but will not sell Antigen versions for Unix and Linux. Microsoft said it plans to continue to support Sybari products under existing pricing and licensing terms and support existing users on non-Windows platforms.
Sybari's security packages incorporate multiple third party anti-virus scanning engines. Microsoft plans to add the scanning technolgy from GeCAD, the Romanian anti-virus firm it acquired in 2003, to the mix. Microsoft ditched GeCAD's Nix product lines after that acquisition so it comes as no great surprise that there's no future for Antigen on Nix either. Anti-virus products for Unix servers occupy a useful niche in the market not because there are many viruses that infect Unix platforms but because they help prevent these servers from hosting Windows malware. ®
It seems to me that one could make a fortune by making such products for 'nix - and then get bought out by MS.
I know some Assembly language, and love to tweak programs at times, so having had a look 'under the hood' as it were, some of these programs are not just fascinating from a coding standpoint, they are also blazingly fast and take up a minuscule amount of hard disk space and use only a tiny fraction of memory -which makes Me all the more interested in working with them. I am simply wary of putting pounds of effort into them and then later on losing not only all the advancements I developed for them but also any products that came about as a result of using the programs. Quite a few of them are simply phenomenal, and the only reason I can think of that they might not have succeeded at the time is either a lack of promotional advertisement of the product, or simply declining interest in further development of the program, if not simple maintenance over time.
Now I just need to determine how to most effectively cover My bases in using them...
Excellent point.
My point is that when a company engages in buying up competitor's key technology base to eliminate the competitor, this is anticompetitive. Microsoft has always been predatory and it hasn't changed one bit.
You can apologies for them all you like. It won't change the fact that they are working to keep you from having a choice other than Microsoft on your desktop.
GPL was designed precisely for this, but the costs of going GPL have to be considered as well. This choice is made by the original author. You can make it for them in retrospect.
The other side of this is that, most software dies if it isn't fed. You can normally write more efficient code (at least from the stance of maintaining it if nothing else) on your own based on a specification of what the product is suppose to do. This avoids the Copyright entanglements and normally gets the job done faster anyway.
Microsoft doesn't necessarily play fair when they make an aquisition of this sort. They have a long history of companies expressing strong regrets after the "deal" is done.
Having examined the code, could it not be argued that any product I developed after that was actually produced as a result of said examined executable? Therefore, I want to work with a program that is already coded and simply refine it and possibly re-port it, not restart the entire concept from scratch. Which might add months to the time needed to develop My products. Not to mention the in-house project(s) I am working on is/are not (a) software offering(s). I am developing hardware, but using software programs to do so.
Classic Microsoft marketing strategy: pillage and rape.
Two, Unless you are working on an 8088 processor or something.. the low level code may be cool but not terrifically easy to move forward with. But, perhaps it will be fine.
Three, The problem is that commercially, the whole enterprise is poisoned. Basing a product on something stolen just gives any profits you may enjoy to the aggrieved party just when you are enjoying them the most.
Four, if you have the source, it cannot be said to be a trade secret and if you learn from it but not copy it, than it is no different than any other writing enterprise where you employ a similar plot but do not copy the text. If you use any of this person's code without permission you are screwed. They have to find you and sue you but if they can prove it, each copy is like $50,000+ in fines and damages. Not something you want to play with.
Secondly, 8088 or no, low-level instructions are low-level instructions. An instruction of MOV, CALL EAS, COMP EAS SS, or even three NOPs in a row is the same for every version of the x86 family, and some instructions are specific to each seperate version. Thus, massaging the instructions to take advantage of faster commands and larger registers is a fascinating prospect indeed. When you can generate a simple generic function and refine it down until it takes only about 15k of disk space, scaling that function and others to achieve greater speed and less memory requirements can only lead to better programs, I believe.
Thirdly, if I were attempting to enrich Myself purely on the backs of other previous programmers by following this path, I would agree with you that the entire concept and final product would be tainted (if not 'poisened') in all stages of its construction. However, I am not attempting to produce new software based upon old programs. I am attempting to work on and possibly produce electronic hardware, and am currently searching for software that can assist Me in this endeavour. It must also of necessity be VERY inexpensive to acquire, because despite whatever indications of individual wealth you might have surmised My possessing from any previous posts I might have generated, I am really quite limited in what meagre 'income' I bring in these days. Thus, 'Abandonware' is of interest to Me, and no few of the older programs I have examined to date strike Me of possible useability in My endeavours
Finally, I am also looking ahead to the future, and one of the possibilities I see is that for one reason or another, a particular program I have been working with might turn out to be unsuitable for the work I require it to perform. That being the case, why not contribute it to the general public? If a particular piece of software can not have its programmer or producing company located after a reasonable search period, and the most recent version of the program is over ten years old, should not someone be looking into the possibility of producing something from it? Bearing in mind that the statute of limitations for legal matters is seven years at the most, if I recall correctly. I mean, for example, if someone leaves an automobile unattended to and uncared for for a period of a decade or more, I hardly think that the last owner would have any legal standing to demand its return if someone were to rescue it and fix it up for their personal use.
Again, I am not in the software business. I am R&D'ing hardware, with the thought of perhaps producing a new product in the future.
Clyde, have fun playing with Linux, if you dont mind me asking what distro? what GUI?
Right now Im on my Windows2K laptop, so I dont look my nose down on Windows users..
As far as "abandonware." Computer ethics would agree that this is the nature of all software sooner or later. Still, as far as copyright law is concerned, "abandonware" doesn't exist. This was decided for now in the form of a case in the Supreme Court decided back in January 2003. Eldred v. Ashcroft. This case established that copyrights will exist 70 years for now, assuming Disney doesn't need to beat Mickey another 20 years, after the death of the author. Essentially forever! Eldred, owner of Eldritch Press, was publishing books that are out of print and the authors are dead and no relatives could be found to authorize the publication. These books were deteriorating and at risk of being lost forever. This is a big big problem. Every year many books are being lost forever. These books were being published on the internet in a great library of pdf's. The whole story is here. How I lost the Big One by Lawrence Lessig
Because of this, it will be probably another 100 years before you can use this code at least. Sorry.
If you dont mind me asking what is "Clear Type".. BTW FC3 is a great distro though I use the lighter weight interfaces like xfce, or xfwm..
OK, strike that, nautilus is running after all. Gnome-panel and Gnome-system monitor, too.
Don't hold your breath. Every time Microsoft gives something away for free, the "thank you" it receives is a big fat lawsuit from someone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.