Posted on 06/06/2002 10:38:39 AM PDT by Redcloak
Microsoft DOES have a comprehensive Linux strategy - it's called FUD.
Click here: tech_index
Applications can be made to run on either platform. IBM developed their ViaVoice product on Linux and ported it to Windows. The open source project GIMP (photoshop like graphics editor) has a version that runs on Windows. Even Richard Stallman's Emacs editor runs on Windows.
I don't think the Linux community would worry or complain about a MS-Linux. Given Microsoft's track record with software quality the other distributions would still be better.
Actually Microsoft could not legally integrate the Linux kernel and Windows because of the license that Linux is released under. The GPL forbids outsiders from closing the source. Only a joint effort by every single person that contributes to a project released under the GPL can result in a relicensing of the code. To add more fuel to the fire, that relicensing isn't retroactive. All previous releases are still GPL'd therefore Microsoft would have to get a list of every single last person that put code into the official kernel distribution's core and bribe them to relicense. What they would end up getting at the most would be maybe bits and pieces of the kernel.
If Microsoft were to put any linux kernel code in Windows the entire Windows product would have to be released under the terms of the GPL. That is a requirement of the GPL, if you use any code from a product released under the GPL then you have to release your product under the GPL. The GPL simply put doesn't tolerate freeloaders. So RedHat, et al would go after Microsoft for a contract violation on behalf of the FSF, not anti-trust violation. It could also result in a criminal indictment of Microsoft officials for copyright infringement.
;^)
1. Linux is cool, even if it doesn't do anything useful for a typical end user except to let them browse the WWW.
2. Apple OSX is cooler than Linux, which is what everyone who fiddles with a Linux PC ought to really be using.
3. IBM's adoption of Linux is akin to what they were doing ten years ago with OS/2, which was another OS superior to anything MS had. OS/2 is still around running ATMs flawlessly. This is the future of Linux.
4. There's nothing that a Linux PC can do that a Sun system can't do better -- even though it may cost a little more.
5. Hell with all this Linux crap anyway. I use WinXP on my home PC.
Linux is getting a lot of attention in the corporate world now. Lotus has a Domino server for Linux (and I've got the beta). Citrix, Real, Adobe and others have supported this platform for years. Good to see.
Is Microsoft fighting a losing battle? Will it continue to distance itself from all things Open Source? Dunno... Office runs on Macs now and there was a time I never thought I'd see that happen. MS could, if it wanted, port some apps over and distribute them Object Code Only (OCO), and only need to arrange licensing with the folks who make KDE and Gnome... but to the detriment of their own desktop. Perhaps write their own Display Manager to emulate the Windows desktop, which no self-respecting Linux user would ever install... and DON'T bother porting IE. ;-)
Hey, MS can have the desktop; There's lots more to it than that. I just don't think there's much of a market for MS products on Linux.
Entry level Sun systems are $1000 and anything decently big will set you back a lot more than that! LinuxPPC and Linux-Alpha brings more value than Solaris in low end systems. An entry level system for Linux is the cheapest off the shelf PC you can find. Solaris is also as useless as a tit on a bull for embedded systems. There are also no Solaris-based laptops. I can easily install a Linux-PPC distribution on my powerbook if I need to.
5. Hell with all this Linux crap anyway. I use WinXP on my home PC
Your point? I use it too, but I didn't buy my copy. It's a free MSDN copy from my CS department's academic alliance package. I can assure you, I wouldn't be using it if I had to deal with the product activation $hit that off the shelf copies have.
I have 2 PC's at home, one with Linux RedHat 7.1 (win98SE barely works on the same hardward and Linux runs greate). The other is a new one running WinXP. I've found that WinXP is only slightly better than Win98SE. The computer now occasionally hangs when I try to log out. I still can't get any useful tech support from the manufacturer or MS web site. This problem started after installing one of the updates, but there are so many I can't figure out which one it was!
My conclusion is WinXP is just more of the same....
5. My XP is a site-license rip-off too. ~:-D
Embedded systems should be running WinCE or LynxOS anyway.
Yes, I already know that a working copy of Linux can run on a single floppy. I've also seen embedded Win2k PCs that are smaller than a pack of playing cards.
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.