Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Jul 2009 22:53 UTC, submitted by Remy Chi Jian Suen
Editorial So, Microsoft submits 20000 lines of code to the Linux kernel, all licensed under the GPL. Microsoft, who considers Linux a great threat, and once called the GPL a "cancer". Opinions on this one are flying all around us, but what does Linus Torvalds, Linux' benevolent dictator, think about all this?
Order by: Score:
Linus is cool
by kragil on Thu 23rd Jul 2009 23:07 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

He is just a very logical smart guy and he seems to have his emotions under control (although he can be quite harsh at times, but most very smart people are .. )

Even better are his thoughts on creationism (posted in his blog comments)

Reply Score: 5

I agree...
by cefarix on Thu 23rd Jul 2009 23:09 UTC
cefarix
Member since:
2006-03-18

Well said, Linus!

Reply Score: 3

RE: I agree...
by drstorm on Thu 23rd Jul 2009 23:31 UTC in reply to "I agree..."
drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

I agree, too. I like when people are being realistic.
Stallman is a bit mad, I think.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: I agree...
by J.R. on Fri 24th Jul 2009 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE: I agree..."
J.R. Member since:
2007-07-25

I agree, too. I like when people are being realistic.
Stallman is a bit mad, I think.


I agree as well. One thing is being skeptical, but when certain people need to bash Microsoft at any cost it makes the entire community and culture look less serious, which is bad for Linux. Truth is that many of the most vocal Linux supporters keep focusing on the negative of Microsoft rather than the positive of Linux. I think people that consider switching to Linux need to see that its an inclusive culture built on positive values, rather than a culture built on hate.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: I agree...
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I agree..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I agree, too. I like when people are being realistic. Stallman is a bit mad, I think.
I agree as well. One thing is being skeptical, but when certain people need to bash Microsoft at any cost it makes the entire community and culture look less serious, which is bad for Linux. Truth is that many of the most vocal Linux supporters keep focusing on the negative of Microsoft rather than the positive of Linux. I think people that consider switching to Linux need to see that its an inclusive culture built on positive values, rather than a culture built on hate. "

I think you may find that the hate is coming from the Microsoft side of the fence.

Microsoft and its followers hate FOSS (Freedom Open Source Software). They have stated this openly, many times. They attack it constantly. Typical language Microsoft has used to describe FOSS in the past include terms like "cancer", "virus", "un-American", "communist" and "destroyer of IP" (as if FOSS somehow cannot have IP of its own). FUD and misinformation about FOSS floods the internet and much of the mass media. Microsoft are trying to turn the word "collaboration" into a dirty word.

Truth is that many of the most vocal Microsoft supporters keep focusing on trying to allege negatives of Linux, or simply making stuff up, rather than the positives of Microsoft software. Typically, if you do hear a rant from a FOSS supporter, it will be a reaction to this.

The need to do this (spread disinformation and negative vibes about Linux) is due to the fact that, from a consumers point of view, there are no positives of Microsoft software (relative to FOSS software).

Edited 2009-07-24 00:55 UTC

Reply Score: 11

RE[4]: I agree...
by Delgarde on Fri 24th Jul 2009 01:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I agree..."
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I think you may find that the hate is coming from the Microsoft side of the fence.


In part, yes. But it's far from exclusive - Linus is right that there are a lot of people who feel that the goal of open-source development is (or should be) to destroy Microsoft. Which is nonsense - the goal of open-source development is to produce open-source software, and contributions from Microsoft should be as welcome as those from anywhere else.

Now, that's not to say that Microsoft is a great friend to the open-source community, which is blatantly false. But there's a big difference between justified criticism, and the paranoid, unreasoning hostility that some demonstrate.

Reply Score: 9

RE[5]: I agree...
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 01:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I agree..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I think you may find that the hate is coming from the Microsoft side of the fence.
In part, yes. But it's far from exclusive - Linus is right that there are a lot of people who feel that the goal of open-source development is (or should be) to destroy Microsoft. Which is nonsense - the goal of open-source development is to produce open-source software, "

Agreed. Precisely. Spot on. With you 100%.

and contributions from Microsoft should be as welcome as those from anywhere else.


Not sure about that ... given Microsoft's self-admitted intentions towards FOSS (i.e. to destroy it), and Microsoft's long and well documented history of using tactics such as "embrace, extend and extinguish" and "divide and conquer".

Now, that's not to say that Microsoft is a great friend to the open-source community, which is blatantly false. But there's a big difference between justified criticism, and the paranoid, unreasoning hostility that some demonstrate.


Agreed ... so why is there such a huge, overwhelming amount of paranoid, unreasoning hostility directed at FOSS coming from Microsoft and its supporters?

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: I agree...
by Hiev on Fri 24th Jul 2009 01:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I agree..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Looks like you are trying to justify the hate to MS at any cost, But hate whatever it comes from id bad.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I agree...
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 02:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I agree..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Looks like you are trying to justify the hate to MS at any cost, But hate whatever it comes from id bad.


True.

But please recognise that the hate is coming from Microsoft in the first instance. If anyone (including Microsoft) wants to stop it ... then that is where it must be stopped ... at the source from whence it comes.

If Microsoft were to stop hating FOSS, then there is absolutely no reason why Microsoft cannot be treated by FOSS in a similar fashion as any of the companies whose logo is visible on this page:

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php

or this one:

http://www.patentcommons.org/

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I agree...
by niemau on Fri 24th Jul 2009 03:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I agree..."
niemau Member since:
2007-06-28

Looks like you are trying to justify the hate to MS at any cost, But hate whatever it comes from id bad.


you're misrepresenting the parent's statements as justifying hate, when that's obviously not the case.

my position goes like this, and is far more common than the 'hate' you would assign to anybody uninterested in MS:

microsoft *is* an agressive company whose highest ranking corporate officers have made plainly clear their intentions to essentially do away with FOSS.

because of their repetitive reliance on unfair business practices and willingness to, quite frankly, illegally destroy competition, we as consumers are given a choice. we can use MS products and technologies or we can choose to NOT use MS products and technologies.

note: this is NOT hate. this is a rational response to a repeated threat vector. MS is a corporation. it is not a person. corporations do not deserve a persistent benefit-of-the-doubt scenario as would be given to a human being making human mistakes. they should have been shut down or split up years ago.

i certainly don't *hate* microsoft. MS isn't worth my hate. i just want them out of my life, because they do me more harm than good. this is the position of most people who choose to avoid MS products.

i want to facepalm every time somebody calls me a blind MS-hater. it isn't blind; and, it isn't hate. i just want to maintain the ability to ignore them, as best as possible.

Reply Score: 14

RE[7]: I agree... - always someone
by jabbotts on Fri 24th Jul 2009 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I agree..."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I've had anti-foss a comments back from many posts that simply mention a non-Windows platform. The topic could be completely removed from any comparison of OS platforms yet someone will pipe up to spin it into another "US vs Them" debate. It's not unique to one side either was topics focusing only on Windows will quickly devolve into the same "US vs Them" nonsense.

I suggest that being able to mount a Documents and Settings directory as non-executable like I can with *nix platforms and I'm called a Windows hater being told I'm simply out to scare people away from the OS. I suggest that choosing an alternative to Windows is not always possible and I'm the enemy again. Some fanboy from one side or another will always find fault with not praying at there idol's alter.

Once the politics is removed from the topic, I've been reminded of things forgotten from my growing up on Windows machines. I used to climb through the registry like a freaking spider-monkey. Dig through the autostarts and services; a habit evolved out of years as an Autoexec and Config.sys tuner. Now after years of focusing on non-Windows platforms and a detrimental stint of employment outside of IT, I'm relearning these basic skills.

From any side, someone will always make it a pissing contest. It's very hard to get any good points one has to make considered when they are so well berried amongst personal attacks and "my daddy's OS can kick your daddy's OS" crap. If more people focused on the technical discussion and less on the emotional baggage, everyone would benefit.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: I agree...
by polaris20 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 02:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I agree..."
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06


Not sure about that ... given Microsoft's self-admitted intentions towards FOSS (i.e. to destroy it), and Microsoft's long and well documented history of using tactics such as "embrace, extend and extinguish" and "divide and conquer".


I think much of the FOSS community already does a great job of the "divide" part of "divide and conquer".

I think Linus is spot on with his comments, and it's good to see such words coming from him.

Edited 2009-07-24 02:20 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: I agree...
by Delgarde on Fri 24th Jul 2009 02:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I agree..."
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Agreed ... so why is there such a huge, overwhelming amount of paranoid, unreasoning hostility directed at FOSS coming from Microsoft and its supporters?


Because FOSS is an ideology that not everyone subscribes to? Because it threatens existing businesses that have invested vast amounts of money into products, only to see FOSS equivalents springing up and undercutting them? Large companies generally don't like change, and open source is a much more serious threat than mere commercial competition.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I agree...
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I agree..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Agreed ... so why is there such a huge, overwhelming amount of paranoid, unreasoning hostility directed at FOSS coming from Microsoft and its supporters?
Because FOSS is an ideology that not everyone subscribes to? Because it threatens existing businesses that have invested vast amounts of money into products, only to see FOSS equivalents springing up and undercutting them? Large companies generally don't like change, and open source is a much more serious threat than mere commercial competition. "

OK. At least this identifies where the "hate" problem stems from. Big companies who want to charge people a fortune for a given service or product absloutely hate it when the people get it for themselves.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I agree...
by Vanders on Fri 24th Jul 2009 09:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I agree..."
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Because FOSS is an ideology that not everyone subscribes to?


"Ideology"? Wow, that gives it fat too much credit. It's a development methodology. That's all.

Because it threatens existing businesses that have invested vast amounts of money into products, only to see FOSS equivalents springing up and undercutting them?


There's a word for being undercut in the market. I'll have to go look it up, hang on. Oh yeah, that's it. It's "business".

Getting undercut by the competition is what happens. Weather the competition is Open Source is not is utterly irrelevant. If your product is any good, it'll be able to compete.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: I agree...
by ErrantX on Fri 24th Jul 2009 09:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I agree..."
ErrantX Member since:
2009-07-24

> I think you may find that the hate is coming from the Microsoft side of the fence.

What rubbish. Your exactly the person Linus is talking about.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: I agree...
by CatZ on Fri 24th Jul 2009 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I agree..."
CatZ Member since:
2009-07-24

I believe Microsoft meant Intellectual Property when they said IP.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I agree...
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I agree..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I believe Microsoft meant Intellectual Property when they said IP.


Precisely so.

GNU/Linux is IP. It is copyright code just as much as Windows is copyright code.

Ergo, writing new code for GNU/Linux cannot, by definition, be an act of destroying IP.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: I agree...
by Richard Dale on Fri 24th Jul 2009 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I agree..."
Richard Dale Member since:
2005-07-22

"I believe Microsoft meant Intellectual Property when they said IP.


Precisely so.

GNU/Linux is IP. It is copyright code just as much as Windows is copyright code.

Ergo, writing new code for GNU/Linux cannot, by definition, be an act of destroying IP.
"

Yes, what it is really doing is destroying an 'Intellectual Monopoly', which isn't quite the same thing as destroying 'Intellectual Property'.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: I agree...
by katelin on Fri 24th Jul 2009 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I agree..."
katelin Member since:
2008-10-06

I think you may find that the hate is coming from the Microsoft side of the fence.


Are you saying that you are on the Microsoft side of the fence?

I'm asking because you post a LOT of hate in your comments on OSNews from what I've seen.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: I agree...
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I agree..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I think you may find that the hate is coming from the Microsoft side of the fence.


Are you saying that you are on the Microsoft side of the fence?

I'm asking because you post a LOT of hate in your comments on OSNews from what I've seen.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: I agree...
by evangs on Sat 25th Jul 2009 06:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I agree..."
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07
RE: I agree...
by The Mad Hatter on Sat 25th Jul 2009 06:22 UTC in reply to "I agree..."
The Mad Hatter Member since:
2009-07-25

Cefarix,

You shouldn't agree. Because Linus isn't quoted as saying that. The title to the article is misleading.

Reply Score: 2

Don't hate them - but be careful!
by bralkein on Thu 23rd Jul 2009 23:26 UTC
bralkein
Member since:
2006-12-20

I basically agree with what Linus says in TFA, but of course since MS has made threats against Linux in the past I think it would be wise to treat them with a little bit of healthy suspicion!

Reply Score: 4

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Of course, Microsoft has done a lot of despicable things and they've been caught doing it several times. For example they were caught red-handed bribing the ISO committee... You'd be a fool for trusting them, but blind hatred towards them ain't any saner either.

There's lots of F/OSS advocates/fanbois who don't want Microsoft to have anything to do with F/OSS software. Some have gone even so far as to suggesting to modify GPL license so that Microsoft nor it's employees can use that software or code. That's the kind of people Linus doesn't want to get labeled as and I do have to agree with him. F/OSS is all about sharing, even with your most hated enemies.

Reply Score: 3

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I followed the OpenXML conflict pretty closely. Microsoft was not caught bribing any ISO body. The even you're referring to is probably the one which happened in Sweden.

In that circumstance, Microsoft itself reported an inappropriate offer by an employee, who didn't know better, to give marketing benefits to partner companies for joining that national body. The situation was reported voluntarily by Microsoft, the offers were withdrawn very soon after they were sent, and it's unlikely that it had an effect on the outcome.

I'd say that's a pretty honest way for the company to behave given that a mistake was made by an employee.

Reply Score: 0

redbeard Member since:
2006-03-11

If you followed the OpenXML conflict pretty closely then you know that MS subverted the process and pushed through an unusable "standard" (unusable even for MS). Now they continue to abuse ISO and are trying to revise the standard to match their product, to the detriment of any possible competitor.

I don't have a problem with a company pushing their agenda, but MS in my opinion, goes much further too often. All one has to do is review their history of abusing their "business partners" and people and organizations that are in the way. So one should be extra careful when dealing with MS.

That said I use MS products as well as Linux products.

Reply Score: 4

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

You ought to consider some viewpoints not derived from Groklaw or the NoOOXML crowd. OpenXML is not a perfect standard, but it's quite usable and specifies almost all constructs you will see in a conforming document. On what basis do you think the standard is "unusable even by Microsoft?"

Reply Score: 1

redbeard Member since:
2006-03-11

Please identify a product that has implemented the the standard including MS? When will MS have a compliant product released 2011? Why are they making changes to the standard that ignores what was agreed upon in the final standard?

How do you implement a standard that says do X like Word 95 does?

BTW I think MS Word 2003 is the best word processor out there (I want my old menus back in 2007 and it would move to 1st) so I don't just hate MS, just the way they do business in a lot of areas

Edited 2009-07-24 18:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Why are they making changes to the standard that ignores what was agreed upon in the final standard?

They can do that, as well as Google does with HTML standars, make changes firts and commit them to the commite later, that's an usual practice.

If the change is never commited then that change cannot be considered a standar.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by lmjabreu
by lmjabreu on Fri 24th Jul 2009 00:38 UTC
lmjabreu
Member since:
2009-07-24

I don't get it, what about this: http://www.osnews.com/story/21882/Microsoft_s_Linux_Kernel_Code_Dro... ? Doesn't Mr Linus know about the nature of that gpl code?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by lmjabreu
by J.R. on Fri 24th Jul 2009 00:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by lmjabreu"
J.R. Member since:
2007-07-25

I don't get it, what about this: http://www.osnews.com/story/21882/Microsoft_s_Linux_Kernel_Code_Dro... ? Doesn't Mr Linus know about the nature of that gpl code?


What about it? The code is GPL now right? So basically, Microsoft complied with the GPL as required, and should therefore not be bashed for it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by lmjabreu
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 00:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lmjabreu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I don't get it, what about this: http://www.osnews.com/story/21882/Microsoft_s_Linux_Kernel_Code_Dro... ? Doesn't Mr Linus know about the nature of that gpl code?
What about it? The code is GPL now right? So basically, Microsoft complied with the GPL as required, and should therefore not be bashed for it. "

Precisely so.

However, the same incident is being used by Microsoft supporters to try to add to a negative smear on FOSS that the GPL "is viral". That is just not so.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by lmjabreu
by Hiev on Fri 24th Jul 2009 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lmjabreu"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

However, the same incident is being used by Microsoft supporters to try to add to a negative smear on FOSS that the GPL "is viral"

And you have any evidence of this?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by lmjabreu
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by lmjabreu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

However, the same incident is being used by Microsoft supporters to try to add to a negative smear on FOSS that the GPL "is viral" And you have any evidence of this?


http://www.osnews.com/permalink?374843

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?374840

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?374874

Quite a few similar comments can be found here:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/23/1327205/Microsofts-Code-Con...

Edited 2009-07-24 01:16 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by lmjabreu
by Hiev on Fri 24th Jul 2009 01:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lmjabreu"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Well, first, they don't say they support MS, they just give their opinion on how they think the GPL is "viral". And opinion as valid as anyone who thinks the contrary, no need for paranoia.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by lmjabreu
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by lmjabreu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well, first, they don't say they support MS, they just give their opinion on how they think the GPL is "viral". And opinion as valid as anyone who thinks the contrary, no need for paranoia.


If you read a typical FOSS misinformation post, the very first thing that is claimed is that the poster is not a supporter of Microsoft.

It is like a form letter ...

"I'm no fan of Microsoft, but ..."

It must be a template from the very first pages of the "Astroturfing 101" textbook.

An opening phrase of this form is, paradoxically, becoming a kind of a flag that you can use to find astroturfing posters.

Edited 2009-07-24 01:26 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[7]: Comment by lmjabreu
by Hiev on Fri 24th Jul 2009 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lmjabreu"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Yeah, but all is circunstantial, no need for paranoia.

The problem is when people assume the rol of police of the "GPL".

Those are just a bunch of randon and circunstantial opinions, why take it so personal?

The web is full of those.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by lmjabreu
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 24th Jul 2009 14:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lmjabreu"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

If you read a typical FOSS misinformation post, the very first thing that is claimed is that the poster is not a supporter of Microsoft.

It is like a form letter ...

"I'm no fan of Microsoft, but ..."

It must be a template from the very first pages of the "Astroturfing 101" textbook.


And with that comment, the Freetard paranoid persecution complex has now surpassed that of fundamentalist christians. Congratulations, you've earned it.

For that matter, just replace the word "Microsoft" with "theory of Evolution" and your posts could be a direct copy-paste from a Kent Hovind lecture.

An opening phrase of this form is, paradoxically, becoming a kind of a flag that you can use to find astroturfing posters.


Ah-ha, now I see your strategy:

- make knee-jerk assumptions that everyone who disagrees with you is a Microsoft employee/shill/astroturfer
- in doing so, reveal yourself as a paranoid with a terminal case of unwarranted self-importance
- which makes you a tempting target for any troll looking for easy pickings (after all, you've admitted that just starting a post with "I'm no fan of Microsoft, but..." will get a rise out of you)
- and when you get trolled, you use that as further "evidence" of your paranoid fantasies
- which makes you an even more tempting piece of trollbait, keeping the cycle going

You really should seek a patent for that idea - a strategy for perpetually feeding delusions of persecution.

Reply Score: 3

Embrace Extend Extinguish
by Lo_Phat on Fri 24th Jul 2009 01:34 UTC
Lo_Phat
Member since:
2009-07-08

Microsoft has a long history of very dirty business tactics to snuff out ALL competitors ruthlessly. Thats why they are a monopoly and will remain so for the forseeable future.

I caution anybody dealing with them to never forget this.

Edited 2009-07-24 01:35 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by Hiev on Fri 24th Jul 2009 01:36 UTC in reply to "Embrace Extend Extinguish"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Microsoft has a long history of very dirty business tactics

True, but there is another one who has done worse thinks and nobody say anything, yes, im talking about IBM.

But since IBM donates money to the FSF nobody dares to say anything.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 01:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Embrace Extend Extinguish"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Microsoft has a long history of very dirty business tactics True, but there is another one who has done worse thinks and nobody say anything, yes, im talking about IBM.


Historically, yes, correct. IBM had a huge anti-trust case against it for this.

IBM's reaction was to change their corporate behaviour. Turn it around completely.

But since IBM donates money to the FSF nobody dares to say anything.


Actually, IBM donates more than money ... they have donated code. Vast amounts of it. Probably more so than anyone else. See the above comment about "change their corporate behaviour. Turn it around completely". This is an excellent example of exactly that turn-around.

Microsoft also had a huge anti-trust case against it. Microsoft's response was to turn the DOJ around completely, and utterly corrupt them. Now we have the US government anti-trust investigators saying things like "Microsoft is not the problem" and going after Google.

Can you say "stooges"? Can you say "bought"?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by Hiev on Fri 24th Jul 2009 02:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Embrace Extend Extinguish"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

IBM changed?

Just search for google for their latest unetique behavior, it was a few months ago.

But MS is the horse to beat, right?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 02:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Embrace Extend Extinguish"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

IBM changed? Just search for google for their latest unetique behavior, it was a few months ago. But MS is the horse to beat, right?


You are getting it all wrong.

Microsoft is the source of the hate, not its object.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by Hiev on Fri 24th Jul 2009 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Embrace Extend Extinguish"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Honestly, you are helpless.

Keep on with your twisted crusade, its your life getting wasted and not mine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 02:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Embrace Extend Extinguish"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Honestly, you are helpless. Keep on with your twisted crusade, its your life getting wasted and not mine.


If people collaborate with each other, and provide themselves with tools and knowledge through their collaboration, and consequently free themselves from a large abusive corporate who wants to extract a fortune from them for those same things, then how is that a waste?

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by Hiev on Fri 24th Jul 2009 02:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Embrace Extend Extinguish"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

In your own twisted world I said all that.

I think Linus is rigth and people like you do more arm than good to the free software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by ssa2204 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 03:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Embrace Extend Extinguish"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

"Honestly, you are helpless. Keep on with your twisted crusade, its your life getting wasted and not mine.


If people collaborate with each other, and provide themselves with tools and knowledge through their collaboration, and consequently free themselves from a large abusive corporate who wants to extract a fortune from them for those same things, then how is that a waste?
"

He has a point, you have crossed the line from normal appreciation to obsession. You are free, as you love to point out many times, to install whatever the hell you want on your computer. So it begs the question, how far does this obsession go? Well clearly you feel that any business is an evil entity for being profitable, ever thought of moving to Cuba?

Large abusive, some might also say this is called competition. You know the old saying, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. You know the statement :

I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease. I believe in open development, and that very much involves not just making the source open, but also not shutting other people and companies out.

There are ‘extremists’ in the free software world, but that’s one major reason why I don’t call what I do ‘free software’ any more. I don’t want to be associated with the people for whom it’s about exclusion and hatred.”

That really refers to people like you. Believe it or not, there is a world much more interesting out there outside of these stupid little ones and zeros. When you have reached a point where the boogey man is hiding around every corner, that is usually a sign to move on in life and seek a different path.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by stone on Fri 24th Jul 2009 07:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Embrace Extend Extinguish"
stone Member since:
2005-07-06

You are getting it all wrong.

Microsoft is the source of the hate, not its object.

you need to take a good look at yourself. you are the personification of fanaticism, hatred and trench digging. thank you for making a good example as to why linus wouldn't want to identify himself nor his software with people like you.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I'd be interested to read more on this IBM issue if you have a link or more clear title to drop in my preferred internet search engine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by bnolsen on Sat 25th Jul 2009 13:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Embrace Extend Extinguish"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

IBM lost their monopoly status.

Nothing wrong with having a monopoly.

Problems occur when a company has a monopoly position and abuses that position to try to wipe out competitors and strong arm partners.

When referring to MS please put these two together: "abuse of their monopoly position". It actually accurately describes the conviction and situation.

Edited 2009-07-25 13:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

IBM's reaction was to change their corporate behaviour. Turn it around completely


Comedy gold. Google is also not evil.

Actually, IBM donates more than money ... they have donated code. Vast amounts of it. Probably more so than anyone else.


You don't seriously think they do that for some altruistic reasons, do you? It benefits them to do so and the moment it no longer does they'll stop.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

The quote from Mr. Torvalds states blatantly that no one gets into FOSS without some personal angle. Developers have a software need, hardware companies have a driver support need, I have multiple machines and VMs at home that would be unaffordable if limited only to retail software licensing. Everybody has a selfish reason and that's part of what keeps FOSS evolving.

Of course IBM has selfish reasons for contributing. Of course, as an amoral corporation, it will follow the profits for the benefit of it's shareholders over the benefit of it's customers. It's still contributing though and that was the key point presented previous to the point on fanaticism.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And now Microsoft is contributing. Please explain the difference between IBM contributinh for selfish reasons and Microsoft contributing for selfish reasons. No wait, there is none.
Thankfully the people in charge of Linux and the ones actually making the decicions arent rapid anti-MS morons.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

http://www.osnews.com/thread?375047

In short, IBM has outlasted it's history to a greater extent. Microsoft continues many of it's predatory practices and anti-FOSS sentiments from it's highest ranking management. If it's abandon such strategies, this is only very recently. It too may outlast it's history and prove itself through it's own actions as IBM has been doing.

The difference is age and demonstrated actions.

Reply Score: 2

spanglywires Member since:
2006-10-23

IBM's reaction was to change their corporate behaviour. Turn it around completely.

Hehe, you've obviously never dealt with the money grabbing monster that is International Business Machines. Its interesting that Linus brings them up, as they are the epitome of big bad business in a way that Microsoft can only have wet dreams about.

Actually, IBM donates more than money ... they have donated code. Vast amounts of it. Probably more so than anyone else. See the above comment about "change their corporate behaviour. Turn it around completely". This is an excellent example of exactly that turn-around.

Remember the B in IBM. Where they donate code it is only to ditch unmarketable internal code to boost their open source credentials or to kick a rival (eg Eclipse vs Netbeans). Linux is 'tolerated' only to the expense of SPARC/Solaris at IBM, when the shoe is on the other foot and AIX starts losing share to Linux watch the stance change.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Embrace Extend Extinguish"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Actually, IBM donates more than money ... they have donated code. Vast amounts of it. Probably more so than anyone else. See the above comment about "change their corporate behaviour. Turn it around completely". This is an excellent example of exactly that turn-around.

Remember the B in IBM. Where they donate code it is only to ditch unmarketable internal code to boost their open source credentials or to kick a rival (eg Eclipse vs Netbeans). Linux is 'tolerated' only to the expense of SPARC/Solaris at IBM, when the shoe is on the other foot and AIX starts losing share to Linux watch the stance change.
"

Au contraire, IBM would probably use Linux in its own products where it made sense. AIX for mainframes, and Linux embedded in products such as this:

http://www-03.ibm.com/products/retail/products/pos/

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_processor

Edited 2009-07-24 11:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by SReilly on Fri 24th Jul 2009 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Embrace Extend Extinguish"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Why oh why would IBM use AIX for Mainframes? High end UNIX servers yes, Mainframes definitely not! UNIX is neither stable nor secure enough to be run as a Mainframe OS.

The only bit of UNIX code in zOS is the sandboxed UNIX subsystem, used to enable TCP/IP support in the operating system. In no way does that subsystem have access to the rest of the system without jumping through security hoop after security hoop first.

There are specific processors built in to the Mainframe where the sole reason is to run Linux, but the only reason they are there is so that businesses can run a FLOSS stack on their Mainframes in a sandboxed environment. Mainframe software usually costs a fortune to buy and maintain, the price of which makes the cost of the hardware pail in comparison, so being able to run Tomcat on zLinux is far cheaper than say Websphere on zOS.

But if IBM where to announce the replacement of zOS with AIX, I can guarantee that customers would no longer be renewing their contracts.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Embrace Extend Extinguish"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Remember the B in IBM. Where they donate code it is only to ditch unmarketable internal code to boost their open source credentials or to kick a rival (eg Eclipse vs Netbeans). Linux is 'tolerated' only to the expense of SPARC/Solaris at IBM, when the shoe is on the other foot and AIX starts losing share to Linux watch the stance change.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner

Roadrunner is a supercomputer built by IBM at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, USA. Currently the world's fastest computer, the US$133-million Roadrunner is designed for a peak performance of 1.7 petaflops, achieving 1.026 on May 25, 2008, and to be the world's first TOP500 Linpack sustained 1.0 petaflops system. It is a one-of-a-kind supercomputer, built from off the shelf parts, with many novel design features.

In November 2008, it reached a top performance of 1.456 petaflops, retaining its top spot in the TOP500 list. It is also the fourth-most energy-efficient supercomputer in the world on the Supermicro Green500 list, with an operational rate of 444.94 megaflops per watt of power used.


The Roadrunner uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux along with Fedora as its operating systems.


Edited 2009-07-24 11:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

IBM did unspeakable things in the past. The cloned BIOS was a response to the desktop monopoly they held. Affordable IBM pricing only came after true competition with them in the general software market.

I see two differences though, IBM was knocked out of the top position and has since aged. They promote FOSS solutions and directly provide service contracts for multiple OS including FOSS platforms. They also contribute a huge amount of code along with being a member of the FOSS patent guild (whatever the exact name of that is). IBM's abuse of the market and consumer is mostly in the past unless there is some ongoing predatory practice I've not heard about; and if there is, I want to hear about it.

IBM, like any inherently amoral big business, should be considered with healthy skepticism.

On the other hand, MS abuses of the market are very recent and predatory practices seem to be ongoing. They are still basing marketing campaigns on attacking FOSS in general and Linux specifically. If they demonstrate and ongoing history of promoting and supporting FOSS either as a business service or through code submission and patent agreements and similar good-will participation. As it stands now, the history remains too recent to be comparing them to IBM though MS could also manage to outlast there own negative history.

Edited 2009-07-24 14:12 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Embrace Extend Extinguish
by Soulbender on Fri 24th Jul 2009 05:49 UTC in reply to "Embrace Extend Extinguish"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Good thing people have forgotten/forgiven all the nasty business tactics IBM has deployed over the yeas now that they're one of the darlings of OSS.
Big companies are basically assholes, news at 11.

Reply Score: 2

hate is bad, but so is blindness
by TechGeek on Fri 24th Jul 2009 02:00 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Hate is a bad thing in general. But so is blindness. Just this week I found an article on PCworld where Microsoft is extracting royalties from Buffalo Group for their use of Linux on their NAS products.

So we shouldn't hate, but that doesnt mean we should cooperate either. They want to be the bully, fine. We will build a new playground. We don't have to let them play on it though.

One last thought: One indication of insanity is performing the same action over and over and expecting different outcomes. Do we really think Microsoft is going to change? And if we do, does that make us crazy?

Reply Score: 7

There was a time that i thought...
by juvenile4909 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 03:57 UTC
juvenile4909
Member since:
2007-08-04

The Linux communities biggest issue was a "company".

Reply Score: 2

Linux would have died a decade earlier ...
by tyrione on Fri 24th Jul 2009 05:15 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

without Billions of corporate sponsorship that added massive amounts of GPLd IP we all benefit from and that is one of the main reason Linus should be objective and indifferent towards anyone who acts as if Linux miraculously advanced solely from a bunch of disgruntled people in their basements.

He's not going to bite the hand that feeds and as long as he sees no poison pill he will continue to be indifferent towards the FUD on both sides.

Reply Score: 1

Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

So like Apple would've died if not for Steve Jobs's Second Coming? No need for anything that His Steveness didn't nurture or bless.

It's nice to know that Linux distros will support old PPC Macs longer than Apple will.

Reply Score: 2

Pot calling the kettle black
by Karitku on Fri 24th Jul 2009 09:09 UTC
Karitku
Member since:
2006-01-12

I think that sums up pretty much whole thing.

Reply Score: 1

Amen!
by rramalho on Fri 24th Jul 2009 10:05 UTC
rramalho
Member since:
2007-07-11

Amen Linus!
Amen Thom!

:)

Reply Score: 1

Here we go again
by abraxas on Fri 24th Jul 2009 13:27 UTC
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

I see the freaks have come out in force to defend their blind hatred. I think it's obvious from Microsoft's actions the past two years that they have accepted that Linux is here to stay and have been actively working with the open source community on several fronts. I think some people forget that Microsoft is a company that needs to compete with Linux directly. There is never going to be some kumbaya moment when Microsoft gives away their entire business. Do I wish they were more open? Sure, but things have definitely been getting better and we should happy that things are progressing in the right direction. Patience is a virtue. IBM was once the evil empire. Look how far they have come.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Here we go again
by makomk on Fri 24th Jul 2009 20:07 UTC in reply to "Here we go again"
makomk Member since:
2009-07-24

No, Microsoft haven't accepted Linux. They've accepted open source software - and are on a charm offensive to make Windows a major platform for it, including throwing a moderately decent amount of money and development effort at making popular open source programs like Apache run better on Windows. Linux is still something they see as a threat. Witness the recent lawsuits against embedded Linux vendors, or their FUD about Linux patent risks.

Reply Score: 4

v Linus is insane and brainwahsed ...
by Moulinneuf on Fri 24th Jul 2009 15:02 UTC
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Wow, a lot of words, but with that title I couldn't be bothered to read them ;)

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Moulinneuf... I do think I speak for everyone here at OSNews when I say that you are a moron. Please, go away.

Reply Score: 3

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Moron is an ** upgrade ** thousand mark above what some no name cowards like you think of me here ...

It's called an opposite view , read it again and try to understand it's underlined message , if you can.

Reply Score: 2

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Moulinneuf... I do think I speak for everyone here at OSNews when I say that you are a moron. Please, go away.


Awwww, go easy on him - it's not nice to mock retarded people.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Oliver
by Oliver on Fri 24th Jul 2009 15:07 UTC
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

Well Linus doesn't care about Microsoft, but he does care about Sun since the beginning. Well it is his very own Sun-disease :-)

E.g. http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/12/232

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Oliver
by Delgarde on Sat 25th Jul 2009 11:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by Oliver"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Well Linus doesn't care about Microsoft, but he does care about Sun since the beginning. Well it is his very own Sun-disease :-)

E.g. http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/12/232


Did you actually read that post you linked to? It's a reasoned, factual set of comments about Sun's position towards open source. A little cynical in places, but finishing on quite a positive note.

Reply Score: 2

Who complained about it
by nachokb on Fri 24th Jul 2009 15:17 UTC
nachokb
Member since:
2009-07-13

I might have missed something, but who complained about the contribution?

nachokb

Reply Score: 1

RE: Who complained about it
by Soulbender on Sun 26th Jul 2009 14:43 UTC in reply to "Who complained about it"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

A lot of people who aren't important enough to actually make these decisions.

Reply Score: 2

value of Microsoft contribution
by przemek on Fri 24th Jul 2009 17:24 UTC
przemek
Member since:
2009-07-24

I just spoke to the Microsoft guys involved with the Linux-for-HyperV paravirtualization patch in their booth at OSCON. They seem well-intentioned and competent, and Linus makes an excellent argument why they should be taken at face value.

The real question is how does this code integrate with other virtualization frameworks. While it is perfectly fine for Microsoft to write it in a way that helps their own use case (and their demo showed that it does well indeed), it is also fair to ask them to consider other environments, so that their paravirtualization drivers are useful for Linux running under KVM, Xen, VirtualBox, VMware, etc.

Seeing their reaction to such request will be an interesting gauge of their intentions and degree of cooperativeness.

Reply Score: 2

Butt kissing 101
by demopoly on Fri 24th Jul 2009 19:15 UTC
demopoly
Member since:
2009-07-24

This is the proper way to kiss up to someone. Flatter them endlessly, put them on a stage, and insult anyone who disagrees with them.

The only disease is in the mind of the person writing this article.

When a person slaps you every day for 20 years, it's right to hate them. I don't care to listen to people who say "don't hate." They can go rot.

MSFT has hit Linux every day for 20 years, and is a criminal corporation. I know Linus is a conservative, and I do not respect his opinions just because I use his software. Linus's attitude is the very reason why GNU came into being.

Linus is a boomer, and has his own blinders on, just as the person who wrote this vitriolic sham piece that poses as news.

Now they release drivers, and I'm supposed to say, 'oh thanks kind MSFT, for publishing drivers, after attempting to destroy me for 20 years.' Thanks. Yeah, not bloody likely.

Intel and MSFT are criminals, and dinosaurs, and it's right to hate them with the same intensity that one hates Pedophiles.

I do not buy MSFT "certified" hardware. I do not buy MSFT software. I've had it shoved down my throat everywhere, and I feel no reason why I should aplogize to some troglodyte for hating MSFT.

Go cuddle your MSFT stocks and enjoy your wet dreams of being a "journalist."

You disgust me, why don't you go to work for CNN? or FOX?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Butt kissing 101
by fretinator on Fri 24th Jul 2009 19:28 UTC in reply to "Butt kissing 101"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

//Time Saver 0.47
arrayBadGuys = {"Blacks", "The Poor", "The Rich", "Conservatives", "Liberals"}

for(badguy in arrayBadGuys)
{
newComment = strReplace(oldComment, "MSFT", badguy)
submitComment()
}

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Butt kissing 101
by stestagg on Fri 24th Jul 2009 20:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Butt kissing 101"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Ugh, don't speak Java to me. I'm allergic, choose some decent or interesting language next time please ;)

kthxbye

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Butt kissing 101
by Ender2070 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Butt kissing 101"
Ender2070 Member since:
2009-07-24

like ms-mono?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Butt kissing 101
by Soulbender on Sun 26th Jul 2009 14:44 UTC in reply to "Butt kissing 101"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You're a loony.

Reply Score: 0

Comment by ssa2204
by ssa2204 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 22:42 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

Anyone else see the irony in many of the comments made here actually go to support the statements made in this interview?

Reply Score: 2

The best technology...
by Aristaeus on Sat 25th Jul 2009 00:27 UTC
Aristaeus
Member since:
2009-07-24

I'm not sure that I agree that the best technology will just magically *rise to the top* on its own.

Many may agree that democracy is a "superior technology" for a society, but non-democratic systems continue to exist in many areas of the world (and -- notably -- in many organizations and companies like Microsoft). Democracy has not just always magically risen to the top (without major social upheaval and conflict).

I think that this also may be the case here. There are many forces at work keeping Microsoft in a position of power and dominance (financial clout, financial/political influence, financially-fueled legal might, financially-fueled advertising influence, a dominant OS platform to use through which to exert power, and so on). Technical excellence is just one of these factors (a factor which Microsoft largely lacks, at least according to some implications that Linus has made in the past). Linux is a perfect example of a superior technology which still has not caught on with most of the public, due to these and other factors which Microsoft uses well to counter and suppress the uptake of superior, free technologies like this. VHS, after all, won out over Beta.

So, just sitting here and methodically developing superior technology, I fear, is an ineffective tact to take in order to "compete" with the huge power that Microsoft has ballooned into, and I think that Linus is wrong about this. I don't think Stallman's more fanatical tact is the right way to go, either (may alienate as many people as it sways), but certainly it should not be that hard to take a middle path, and use the so-called "six degrees of separation" to communicate with others and propagate the uptake of superior -- and often free -- technologies such as Linux (which are not specifically designed to oppress and subjugate others). I am doing my part so far (have helped many to swap free Linux and open source software in place of proprietary Microsoft systems). And I do not think disliking Microsoft and its many aggressive actions against open source is necessarily a bad thing in this respect (as long as it does not become an all-consuming "religious war").

Reply Score: 2

RE: The best technology...
by evangs on Sat 25th Jul 2009 07:07 UTC in reply to "The best technology..."
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07


Many may agree that democracy is a "superior technology" for a society


That's because it isn't "superior technology", it's just an alternative. As with any society, you'll live well if you do not rock the boat. If you do, trouble comes your way. The difference being that totalitarian regimes rely on the secret police while democracies rely on the media.

Reply Score: 2

The Mad Hatter
Member since:
2009-07-25

Your title is Inaccurate. You have no quote from Linus saying that. Furthermore you said:

While I think it's perfectly acceptable to for the Free and open source community to be a little more vigilant when it comes to Microsoft's forays into this world, the outright blind hatred is nothing but a detrimental force that holds the Free and open source community back.


Do you have any proof that "outright blind hatred" is how I, or for that matter anyone else feels about Microsoft? No, you don't. So why did you write this article? Is it to make the community look bad?

Congratulations, you've succeeded. In many ways this is one of the stupidest articles I've ever read. No documentation. No evidence. Just a statement, which appears to be your opinion only.

Well, your article has had one effect. You've just been promoted onto my "IDIOTS" list.

Reply Score: 3

evangs Member since:
2005-07-07


Do you have any proof that "outright blind hatred" is how I, or for that matter anyone else feels about Microsoft?


Ahem. Just read the comments in the article and you will have your proof.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Your title is Inaccurate. You have no quote from Linus saying that.


Are you blind? Did you actually read the article? It's right in there. Like, RIGHT THERE.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well, we all know hate is blinding.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Wow, this article sure must have hit close to home for you and some other people here. You're not even mentioned yet you think it's directed at you?

Reply Score: 0

woodrobin
Member since:
2009-07-25

While I admire Linus Torvalds greatly, I must strongly disagree with his characterization of 'hatred' of Microsoft as a disease. Hatred for Microsoft is a symptom, a defensive reaction to an infection that disrupts the proper functioning of the computer and its user. The disease is Microsoft software. Other symptoms can include increased blood pressure, sudden outbursts of profanity, mood swings ranging along a spectrum of rage through depression, and chronic hemorrhaging of cash.

As for trusting the maintainer, and by extension Microsoft, well, Mr. Torvalds does say he is an engineer and not a politician, so this extreme naivety can certainly be ascribed to that tight focus on the code.

Microsoft does not just make false statements, it lives upon and was created by false statements. Their first sale: An Altair Basic they hadn't even begun to write code for, misrepresented as already being in an advanced stage of completion. The first version of Windows was arguably based on code reverse engineered from Macintosh computers acquired under false pretenses. The list exceeds by far the number of characters allowable in this comment.

As for trusting the maintainer of the driver code, he works for Novell, which has an overly cozy and extremely disturbing and divisive contractual covenant with Microsoft. This puts Torvalds in the unenviable position of trusting the fox to watch the hen house, or at the very least trusting someone to whom the fox has paid millions of dollars in order to get them to sign on to yet another false statement, since no one who is exercising common sense takes Microsoft's word on its own.

It is well and widely known that Linus Torvalds and Richard M. Stallman do not get along well, and opportunities to take shots at Free Software are therefore rarely passed up. This is sad, however, as it is like the left hemisphere of my brain deciding it dislikes the right hemisphere. Stallman is a dreamer and an idealist, and Torvalds is a pragmatist who often looks toward the immediate practicalities and misses broader implications, as in this case. Together, their strengths would complement each other. In their opposition, the whole community suffers.

I would urge members of both the Free Software and Open Source communities to lay aside their differences and recognize that we are not the enemy. We are not even in opposition, any more than a telescope is in opposition to a microscope. They merely have a different kind of focus.

While this contribution of code itself may be entirely innocent, though I doubt it, we should not forget that it is in Microsoft's practical interest to eliminate Linux as a threat to its bottom line, and we should examine any interaction they have with us in that light.

Edited 2009-07-25 17:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

mikefarinha
Member since:
2008-06-25

The bending of the truth, the conspiracy theories, the militant partisan views seem to be similar between the Bush Derangement Syndrome and the Bash Everything Microsoft mentality.

Sure it's all fun and games to poke fun and someone else's way of life but too many people make it into a life-long passion.

Reply Score: 1

No Linus, it's not about Microsoft-hating.
by Ex-Expat on Mon 27th Jul 2009 18:45 UTC
Ex-Expat
Member since:
2009-07-27

As time goes on, I like Linus Torvalds less and less. He's all too willing to allow people to wrongly credit him for the whole free software movement instead of Richard Stallman. He doesn't actively claim it, but neither does he make any effort to set the record straight when mistakenly given this credit or when erroneously introduced as "the one who started it all." To add insult to injury, he does this while minimizing the role of the GNU programming and debugging tools that made the Linux kernel possible, the GNU GPL that enabled its popularity, and the entire GNU operating system started in 1984 that it fits into, all while teaching against the free software principles that put all those things in place. He's happy to have people call this combination "Linux," rather than GNU/Linux, even though Linux is just the kernel and makes up only about 1/10 as much code as the GNU software in a given "Linux" distribution.

I respect Linus highly as a programmer, and for his contributions to GNU/Linux' success. But I don't trust him as my IT morality compass - I think he's got it wrong and I am not impressed with his lack of integrity either.

Contrary to what Linus would have you believe, this is not about hating Microsoft. It's about fighting against those who wish to compromise our freedom by actively stifling competitors - especially free/libre open source software competitors. Microsoft has been convicted of a wide variety of antitrust practices, on numerous occasions, by U.S. and E.U. federal courts - and was recently fined again by the E.U. for not complying with the terms of the judgement against them. Just do a web search for "Microsoft antitrust" and see just how far down the rabbit hole goes. Anyone who so actively fights consumer choice is the enemy of the consumers and of the IT free market as a whole. Microsoft is but one exceptional example, but there are many others. And remember, there's a big difference between hating someone vs. hating what they do.

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Contrary to what Linus would have you believe, this is not about hating Microsoft. It's about fighting against those who wish to compromise our freedom...

And the best way to accomplish that is to work on making the best alternative possible, promoting our alternative in a positive way, voting with our wallets, and presenting reasonable arguments for direct action against objectionable practices on the parts of those entities which are abusing their powers.

It's not about completely refraining from expressing disapproval of MS or other companies which infringe upon our freedoms and/or upon the workings of the free market. It is about not *obsessing* upon anti-Microsoftism, banging out post after slavvering post, radidly attacking Microsoft, deserved or not, making even OSS supporters nauseous with one's constant flow of bile.

It's about balance. It's about having a life, Ex-Expat.

And if you read OSNews regularly, you know that we have a few of those bile-spewers right here who need to take this issue very seriously, as they are doing more to hurt the OSS cause than Microsoft ever has.

Edited 2009-07-27 19:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2