[bigdcaldavis]

Get ready for Microsoft to announce an actual/staged acquisition of Linspire (I say "staged" because of persistant rumors that Linspire is secretly owned by Microsoft) and abandoning Windows XP/Vista in favor of.....get ready.....Microsoft LindowsOS. :)

[EagleUSA]

Attn: Mr. Gates. Nothing is forever.

[knighthawk]

Gates knows never to bet on just one horse

[Paleo Conservative]

(I say "staged" because of persistant rumors that Linspire is secretly owned by Microsoft)

Then how did Microsoft sue itself? They sued Lindows.

[sittnick]

On what basis can you say that Microsoft owns Linspire? They were suing the former Lindows all over the place. With the Novell/SuSE intrigue, they are going after bigger fish. My guess is that they want a pirce of IBM's and Red Hat's action, or at very least to make themselves more indispensible.

[MadIvan]

I use Ubuntu Linux and PC BSD. Microsoft has no place in this house.

Nor will any Microsoft distro.

Regards, Ivan

[Psycho_Bunny]

[antiRepublicrat]

Microsoft realizes that Linux uptake is growing very fast and has a huge presence in the server business. With a deal like this they can produce a tight VM setup using both Windows and Linux, and sell that to customers using the vouchers they bought. If that increases SUSE visibility and creates more demand, then Novell itself may sell more SUSE separately, and Microsoft gets a chunk of that according to the deal.

Removing all vestiges of the tin foil hat, and ignoring previous Microsoft predatory practices, this could be a win-win. Microsoft gets some Linux money, Linux gets even more validation in the corporate world, and Linux and Windows operate better together.

[VeniVidiVici]

Oh brother. I'm going to need to go out and get a 100ft roll for this hat.

[Jumper]

Those who hate Microsoft around the world fall into two categories, e.g., those who have a vested interest due to thier own professions/training and the uninitiated into economics. As a member of the greater than PC network IT community, Microsoft has done for people what Ford did in making a product that gets quickly into useful hands of the public. Without MS around and their Windows, the view of computing for individuals would be very incoherent - of course all those little companies would have a chance to become big enterprises like the massive MS if they led the way.

I think MS is a fine product and very responsive to the needs of government and business; if the EU or IBM/LINUX were so wonderful (and open source as well), the marketplace would have long ago responded by rewarding these competitors.

[RoadTest]

Believe it or not, we have people here on FreeRepublic that defend Microsoft. You may have one of them pop up.

[GretchenM]

.

[Constantine XIII]

There is no particular reason why a "For Dummies" Windows-style OS couldn't be built on a Linux foundation. Heck, todays Windows apps can run fine in a Linux environment, as long as it has the proper dlls and what not.

However, it'll be another long train trip down the failroad if they don't distribute the source code or try to prevent users from fiddling with the kernel via other means.

[Sam Ketcham]

The demise of the Windows Operating System has been obvious for awhile. Third world countries such as India are not inclined to pay for a product when they can get it for free. MSFT has been enforcing its patent rights so vigorously that third world countries no longer want to use pirated MSFT O/Ss.

The real killer?... India alone has over 300,000 LINUX programmers! Why pay for MSFT when you have millions of LINUX programmers World Wide willing to write the needed drivers, software and other programs?

Basically, MSFT just woke up.

[MarkL]

I think that a part of this is to allow Microsoft access to some of Novell's technologies, like eDirectory and Zenworks. As someone who's worked with Novell's directory services since NetWare v4.0 was released, and someone who's relatively new to Active Directory, it seems that eDirectory is 4 or 5 years ahead of AD. And in many cases, Zenworks is better at managing Microsoft networks than Microsoft's management products! And don't forget that this agreement will have MS adding support for SuSe Linux to their virtual server product. But it will also allow Windows to run virutalized in a SuSe Linux environment... And SuSe Linux will run natively on IBM's "Big Iron:" Their mainframes. This means that you could have hundreds of virual Windows servers running on a single IBM mainframe.

Mark

[kevkrom]

This is just me riffing and pondering, but consider...

What's Microsoft's big weakness in the PC industry? Server operating systems, which is why you do see Linux or BSD variants showing signs of competitive life, but why Mac (a client-focused OS) is little more than a niche.

On the other hand, Microsoft does have a large installed based of server software (backoffice apps like Exchange, et. al.)

So maybe, just maybe, this deal is intended to start migrating Microsoft away from developing server operating systems, and to focus more on software, client/workstation OS, and other consumer appliances (media PC, gaming, portables, etc.), especially if they don't see Linux as a workstation threat. (Which, at the moment, looks like a safe bet.)

[goldstategop]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft eventually ditches Windows in favor of Linux.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[TChris]

Microsoft has a long history at killing competition. They started with Novell’s Server market, they tried to do with Java, and today they are trying to do it against the Anti-Virus vendors. They succeeded against Netscape, gained significant grounds against Sony’s Playstation, and killed a thousand other products that I can’t name because I forgot about them after Microsoft obliterated them out of the market. If any of you are XBox lovers, I don’t have to tell you that in the war over consoles Microsoft has been losing money on every XBox it sells. Zune (the competition to iPod) is said to have a similar strategy. In short Microsoft has a huge bank balance and can pump in a lot of money until the competition goes bankrupt.

This is the point where I think the free market is screwed up. Capitalism is about competition, not annihilation. Olympic athletes compete to determine who is best. They aren't allowed to sneak around before the race trying to kill one another, winning the race simply because nobody is left to run.

Similarly, the benefits of capitalism arise from the forces of competition, and are decreased or eliminated as competition is decreased or eliminated. Competing companies must continually produce better products at a lower cost, or lose customers as a result. When they turn to strategies other than honest competition to stay in business, it throws a wrench in the works.

More and more, businesses don't seem to be interested in competing, but in eliminating competition by various means, destructive and cooperative.

The strategy of simply spending the competition into the ground because you have piles of cash is one that I find particularly unethical. It severely tilts the playing field, yielding victory not to the best product, nor to the most efficient producer, but to the one who can muster enough cash to cover all his inadequacies!

That's harmful to the market and to the consumer. It's anti-capitalist and should be illegal, IMO.