Posted on 06/07/2007 10:27:53 AM PDT by bigdcaldavis
Microsoft should have admitted that Linux matters sooner. For years, the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant seemed to be in denial as the open-source operating software made gains against its Windows franchise. But now a series of deals is finally allowing Microsoft to argue that it's ahead of the curve--with the entertaining upside of making some of the open-source community's truest believers even angrier.
Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) announced a pact with Linux software distributor Xandros Monday that will the offer tiny company's customers so-called "patent covenants," protecting them from the threat of litigation from Microsoft.
So do Linux users need protection? It's an open question. In 2004, software vendor The SCO Group (nasdaq: SCOX - news - people ) sued Linux user AutoZone (nyse: AZO - news - people ) for what it claims are violations of its intellectual property--a case that hasn't yet been resolved. Some now fear Microsoft could play that game after open-source software distributor Novell (nasdaq: NOVL - news - people ) struck a sales and marketing pact with Microsoft last year.
Linux advocates were angered because, as part of the deal, Microsoft agreed not to sue users of Novell's Linux distribution. And Microsoft executives are hinting that trouble could be brewing--claiming last month that open-source products are violating 235 of the company's patents.
Meanwhile, the folks behind open-source software are growing more upset as they see companies aligning themselves with Microsoft to give their customers a free pass against that possibility. "They know their standing in the community is going to take a hit," wrote one commentator on geek site Slashdot.org in response to the news. "So, how much was it worth to them?"
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
It’s not like Microsoft violated any Apple patents!
And it’s not like Apple violated Xerox’s patents. (Or did Xerox never patent their GUI?)
Off the top of my head, I don’t think Xerox ever did patent their work on the GUI, for several reasons. Software was not generally considered patentable at that time, and certainly general concepts like the desktop metaphor, GUI tool kits, etc, weren’t. Also, IIRC, I believe Apple actually bought some of this technology from Xerox. As I say, though, that’s purely off the top of my head.
Definitely worthy of the Sopranos.
My guess is that within ten years, Windows will be a GUI running on top of Linux or some flavor of Unix.
A first step could be something like BootCamp. You could boot Linux, allow it to manage security, and let a light version of Windows launch the apps. Windows used to run under DOS, so it’s been done before.
Quire frankly I see it as an intelligent move on Microsoft’s part.
The agreement basically says that MS won’t sue for patent infringement, and Xandros (as well as Novell from the previous agreement) get to make an operating system that will play more friendly in a Windows environment.
Quite frankly, from a marketing stand point, it’s a good thing for Novell and Xandros, they can claim greater compatibility with Microsoft, which is a boon in the corporate and home computer markets.
And Microsoft is protecting it’s own patents in the process.
And as for MS stealing Apple’s patents, never happened, Apple sued MS over “Look and feel” of it’s desktop interface, anyone who knows computers to any extent knows the the underling technology behind Windows and the Mac OS are completely different beasts running (previously to Mac going to Intel) different processor architectures.
In the end, Apple stole from Xerox, Microsoft Stole from Apple, and they all stole from IBM.
If Microsoft starts throwing around Linux lawsuits, it might be time to take a look at antitrust action again.
I wonder how long until MS takes over the Mono project, which runs Dot Net apps on Linux, especially since they are heavily pushing Silverlight as an alternative to Flash.
Cooperate or the penguin gets it...
Thereby giving validity to Microshaft's claim without the bother and expense of litigating the issue.
Another making a deal with the dragon in the fond hope to be eaten last...
Fortunately, in spite of all of Europe's other negatives, this ploy is not likely to fly there...
What's so hard to understand about "open source"?
IIRC, the Xandros interface is pretty close to WinXP. I ran Xandros enterprise version for a while and Corel (which Xandros bought)
It might have the look and feel of XP, but I doubt if it will run every Windows program. I’m thinking Windows will eventually install on Linux the way it does with Macs.
The core OS will be Linux/Unix, and Windows will run as a GUI interface. This may seem stupid, but there are a lot of applications, including mos games, that only run on Windows.
I am hoping that in five years or so you will be able to hot switch between OSX, Windows and Linux interfaces, and run all their programs. If the OS is secure, Windows exploits would be disabled.
I like the idea - basically like switching between gnome and kde. I’ve used WINE/Crossover for many win-apps on linux, but there are some limitations with functionality and performance.
Leaving only the Linux and OSX exploits?
How about virtualized Windows, OSX, OS/2, VMS, MVS, AS400, HPUX, System V, Solaris and Linux. All running under NetBSD.
Within five years, entry level PCs will have eight cores or more, so why not? With multi-core chips, you could have an IBM mainframe chip, a 400 chip, a VAX chip, all native instruction sets, no emulation.
Getting all that to work together will be damn near impossible for any group. Imagining the NetBSD team doing it was a bad attempt at a geek joke that I should have made on /. not here.
Besides for most desktop applications CPU cycles are already INXS. What I want now is a decent laptop with a reasonable screen and 12 hours or more of battery life. You can keep the extra cores, two will be fine for me for the foreseeable future (and I've been running 2 sense the Pentium Pro).
Virtualization is the way to go. Even if you had the resources to build, for example, dedicated Power cores for the AS400 you'd still be better off just virutalizing the thing. Getting the actual hardware of all those platforms to share a bus would be impossible (and I don't use the word lightly).
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.