Linked by fran on Tue 27th Mar 2012 22:24 UTC
Legal "Linus Torvalds just can't help but be a thorn in Microsoft's side. First, he created an open source project that completely upset Microsoft's business model. And now, he has helped shoot down an important Microsoft patent in Redmond's crusade to wring licensing dollars out of Google Android and other versions of Linux."
Order by: Score:
v Not so fast
by alexz on Wed 28th Mar 2012 00:46 UTC
RE: Not so fast
by galvanash on Wed 28th Mar 2012 02:08 UTC in reply to "Not so fast"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Where does Microsoft make the most money: server or desktop? Desktop you say? There we go...


Microsoft 2011 Revenue:

Business Software: $5.78B
Windows: $4.74B
Server: $4.64B
Entertainment: $1.49B
Online: $662m

Just saying, its pretty damn close...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not so fast
by WorknMan on Wed 28th Mar 2012 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Not so fast"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Just saying, its pretty damn close...


Ya, Linux has never been a serious threat to Microsoft on the desktop and never will be. But on servers, it's a different story ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not so fast
by shmerl on Wed 28th Mar 2012 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not so fast"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

It will be. But not today yet.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[4]: Not so fast
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Mar 2012 06:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not so fast"
v RE[5]: Not so fast
by RaisedFist on Wed 28th Mar 2012 06:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not so fast"
RE[5]: Not so fast
by einr on Wed 28th Mar 2012 06:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not so fast"
einr Member since:
2012-02-15

Fragmented Environments.

You mean like the Metro start screen vs. the traditional desktop, neither of which can run each other's programs, in Windows 8?

You mean like how I can boot up Windows 7 right now, start five different Microsoft-supplied programs, and find five completely different UI:s?

Ribbon here, toolbar there. Menus? No menus? Who knows! XP this, Windows 3.1 that, and oh look, Windows Media Player has a custom bitmap skin! And so does Outlook! And wow, this new Visual Studio sure looks like NO OTHER WINDOWS APP. Cool!

It gets even worse if we're including commonly used things like Photoshop and Firefox, which draw their own widgets and ignore many OS conventions. Or how about anti-virus? There are a trillion anti-virus apps, but is there ONE that adheres to the Windows UX guidelines?

So: I'm going to say with a straight face that my XFCE/GTK based desktop is much cleaner and more consistent across applications. I couldn't say that ten years ago, when Windows looked better and Linux looked worse, but there it is. Windows in 2012 is an UI fragmentation disaster on a level unheard of, and it's only going to get worse in 8.

Reply Score: 27

RE[6]: Not so fast
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Mar 2012 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not so fast"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

If you happen to use XFCE and XFCE apps it is consistent.

And as everything being not consistent on Windows o'rly ...

http://i.imgur.com/fpGQ4.jpg

HMM lots of common UI between applications.

Up until the release of 8 the Windows UI has worked exactly the same as it did from Windows 95 with some minor changes in 7 with the taskbar.

If AV programs and the new Metro interface is all you can really bring up than tbh you are just grabbing the lowest hanging fruit.

Even if the UI was the problem (It isn't).

There are soo many damn forks of what is exactly the same thing. Sooo many other problems and most of the development money is being put into server not the desktop.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Not so fast
by einr on Wed 28th Mar 2012 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not so fast"
einr Member since:
2012-02-15

Right in that screenshot: why does Task Manager have a different menu bar than Visual Studio, to begin with? What's with the orange Firefox menu in the top left; what guidelines of anything ever does THAT conform to?

I'd adress some other things, particularly with Visual Studio, but what you've taken a picture of is close to a best-case scenario so I'm not going to bother. Instead, I'm going to play your game and pull up some other common apps:

http://i.imgur.com/Sg5LH.jpg

Let's see what we have here:
* Security Essentials draws its own UI that looks like... I don't even know.
* Outlook draws not only its own widgets that do not conform to the system theme, but even its own title bar and close/minimize/maximize buttons
* So does Photoshop (whose UI is a mess of Flash and other non-compliant random stuff that looks more like Mac OS 7 than anything)
* The standard colour picker is still identical to the one in Windows 3.0 (1989) -- note the font. MS Sans Serif.
* Log viewer has toolbars and XP-style icons & layout. And where do these gradients come from exactly?
* Paint has ribbons that do not honour system colour/style settings
* You can have fun counting the number of different UI fonts used if you want! I spot at least Segoe UI, MS Sans Serif, Tahoma, and that Adobe UI font. Can you find more?!

This is a MESS. It looks like GARBAGE.

Edited 2012-03-28 07:37 UTC

Reply Score: 15

RE[6]: Not so fast
by WorknMan on Wed 28th Mar 2012 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not so fast"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

You mean like the Metro start screen vs. the traditional desktop, neither of which can run each other's programs, in Windows 8?


Yes, that's exactly what he means. Windows 8 is a huge clusterf**k of an OS, and if there was any time for Linux to make some headway, it would be now. Unfortunately, there is no 'Linux'. There's only 900 different distros all competing with each other. If all these distro makers would combine their efforts and make a nice, cohesive experience, where ALL apps work under one or two distros, using ONE desktop environment to rule them all, they could probably carve out a nice chunk of the desktop for themselves. Unfortunately, they either clearly do not want this to happen, or just lack the vision to make it happen.

I don't know what Linux Evangelists expect to happen on the desktop, but whatever the case, they've done little to nothing up to this point, and I don't see any rabbits being pulled out of hats. If MS loses market share to anyone, it'll probably either be to tablets like the iPad, or to OSX. On the desktop, Linux is a joke. A great OS with all kinds of potential, but way too many cooks in the kitchen, and no unified direction whatsoever.

Edited 2012-03-28 08:15 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Not so fast
by einr on Wed 28th Mar 2012 08:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not so fast"
einr Member since:
2012-02-15

I had a larger reply going, but I don't think it is worth posting. These are common arguments, and while I can understand them I have a hard time relating to them personally, so I'm just going to address this little gem:

they've done little to nothing up to this point

Really? You're going to claim this? When I started using Linux on the desktop (1998-ish,) it was pretty gosh-darn bad and often looked much like this:

http://fvwm95.sourceforge.net/screenshot-full.gif
http://xwinman.org/screenshots/fvwm95-daBorg.gif

There has been a LOT of progress, and although I personally think some of the newer developments are detrimental (Unity, GNOME 3, the pulseaudio mess), consistency and usability of the Linux desktop now is lightyears beyond what it was even five or ten years ago.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Not so fast
by Gone fishing on Wed 28th Mar 2012 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not so fast"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Unfortunately, there is no 'Linux'. There's only 900 different distros all competing with each other. If all these distro makers would combine their efforts and make a nice, cohesive experience ...


You really don't seem to get it the distro's are the OSes and Linux a kernel. There is no reason why they should all join together and would be worse off if they did. It is good that you can use Parted Magic for partition/disk management, Ubuntu on the Desktop or Mint or Fedora and Backtrack for penetration testing or Android on a phone/pad. This is good and something you can't do in Windows.

I don't know what Linux Evangelists expect to happen on the desktop, but whatever the case, they've done little to nothing up to this point [...] A great OS with all kinds of potential, but way too many cooks in the kitchen, and no unified direction whatsoever.


Wrong - Linux on the desktop has come a long way over the last few years KDE is a very good Desktop and whatever one thinks of Unity, Ubuntu and Canonical certainly are heading in a determined direction and has a unified vision of what it wants. It does make me wonder if you have used Linux in the last five years

Ubuntu etc are not simply distro's they are OSes

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Not so fast
by Brendan on Wed 28th Mar 2012 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not so fast"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

No it won't.

Fragmented Environments.
Fragmented Distros.
Bugs that are never fixed.
Constant Churn with hardware support.
Constant Churn with APIs.
Far too much choice.

I could go on.


It's sad when people lack the ability to do more than simply shoot the messenger, and I expect the same will happen to me, but...

What you're describing are only symptoms of the real problem.

The real problem is that, for the "bazaar" model it's nearly impossible to achieve consensus. If 10 different people have 10 different ideas about how something should be implemented, you end up with 10 different/competing implementations. It only really works when there's a strong leader (Linus, Google) or no decisions are involved (e.g. cloning existing software rather than developing something new). In theory, eventually (after a large amount of wasted effort on implementations that are discarded/superseded) the best ideas should float to the top; yet in practice this process of attrition is likely to take several hundred years of "churn" and may never really stabilize.

For someone like Apple or Microsoft, someone near the top of the hierarchy can say "this is how it will be", and all the developers have no choice but to create software that is consistent with their decision. Essentially, consensus is enforced. This is far more efficient, and should produce much better/consistent results in the short term (but isn't likely to produce results that are as good as the "bazaar" model in the "very long term").

- Brendan

Reply Score: 2

v RE[6]: Not so fast
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Mar 2012 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not so fast"
RE[4]: Not so fast
by Ultimatebadass on Wed 28th Mar 2012 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not so fast"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

And how many years have we been hearing this? Since the 1990s?

"Desktop linux" is a mess of ideas and projects that may be good for progress and testing out new concepts but as a platform to develop for it's a failure by nature.

EDIT: By "develop for" i mean the for the big guys. Adobe, avid, autodesk, the whole friggin gaming/entertainment software industry.

Edited 2012-03-28 17:57 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not so fast
by freeduck on Wed 28th Mar 2012 07:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not so fast"
freeduck Member since:
2012-03-28

Off course Linux is a thread to Microsoft and always has been. Why else would Bill Gates call it a cancer on society back in 98.

Microsoft has kept its position by paying off hardware manufactures and politicians. Denmark where I come from is a prime example of this.

Edited 2012-03-28 07:02 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE[3]: Not so fast
by Lennie on Wed 28th Mar 2012 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not so fast"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

It is an unpopulair subject on OSNews and I'm not a big fan of it either.

But the share of desktop-machine use is getting smaller.

So maybe Linux won't ever have the year of the Linux desktop. But maybe the desktop computer market will eventually end up as a niche market. Like workstations for CAD/CAM. If that still is a market at all, maybe that is now part of the normal desktop market ?

Edited 2012-03-28 20:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not so fast
by Morgan on Wed 28th Mar 2012 04:44 UTC in reply to "Not so fast"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Read the full linked article, not just the summary. This has little to do with GNU/Linux on the desktop, rather with Android and the various lawsuits Microsoft has against phone makers. Microsoft knows they can't go after an open source project directly, so they target hardware manufacturers that seek to incorporate the project into their phones (which of course are designed with the Android platform in mind).

If the outcome of this case is not in Microsoft's favor, then presumably they will no longer be able to use a specific patent related to long file names against Android phone vendors, and therefore will also not be able to extort patent royalties.

If that happens, I'm also hoping for a snowball effect regarding software patents in general, though I'm not holding my breath.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Not so fast
by AmigaRobbo on Wed 28th Mar 2012 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Not so fast"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

Too late, some peoples interest is only Linux on the desktop, and 'M$'.

These people tend to post a lot. And they tend to be of "the Opinion won't be changed, and won't let you change the subject" school of thought.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Not so fast
by Laurence on Wed 28th Mar 2012 08:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not so fast"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Too late, some peoples interest is only Linux on the desktop, and 'M$'.

These people tend to post a lot. And they tend to be of "the Opinion won't be changed, and won't let you change the subject" school of thought.

I disagree with that and think we should chat about desktops some more

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Not so fast
by MOS6510 on Wed 28th Mar 2012 10:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not so fast"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Let's not.

The common user often doesn't even know what version of Windows he's using. For us technical people it's hard to imagine someone can use the same OS for years and not know what it is, but people are like that.

Years ago people bought computers, because they wanted a computer. Today people buy computers, because they want to do stuff on the Internet or work with some program. The computer isn't a goal anymore, it's just something you apparently need to do what your really want to do.

The result is that people have no idea what they have, nor any interest to learn it.

Don't believe the penguins, Linux is more difficult than Windows. Worse, things are (very different) between distributions and even between version of the same distro. Ubunto for example swapped Gnome for Unity, completely changing the user interaction.

If people can't figure out what version of Windows they have and well, can't figure out all the other basic stuff how on earth can they figure out how Linux works? It's difficult enough to talk someone through basic Windows stuff on the phone when you know where everything is or should be, imagine how mission impossible it is when you don't.

Sure they can use it if they have a geeky family member who can set up the system, install what they need and give them some training, but those users will be stuck in that situation and would never upgrade their system.

It's a reason, amongst others, why Linux on the desktop has utterly failed, yet blossomed on the server (where able IT people have to work with it). Android phones are in a way just like the geek family member. The manufacturer does the install, adds the apps and provides an "easy" interface.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Not so fast
by Morgan on Wed 28th Mar 2012 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not so fast"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

The thing is, GNU/Linux was never really meant for the desktop. The kernel started out as a free alternative to Minix, throw in some GNU and you have a usable operating system. As it has grown and adapted over the years, it has begun to shine in the server, mobile and embedded spaces where it generally outperforms the competition in several ways.

It wasn't until the early 2000s that we really started to see consumer oriented GNU/Linux based distributions come to the forefront. Until then it had been Red Hat, Corel, Slackware, Mandrake and similar enterprise-level distros leading the pack. The earliest purely consumer oriented distro I remember was Lindows, and it was terrible! It wasn't even a suitable replacement for Windows 95, let alone Windows ME/XP that it targeted. Mandrake slowly began a consumer focus, and as always Debian was a dark horse, considered an obscure hacker's distro in the OSS circles I ran in back then but slowly becoming more mainstream.

Then Ubuntu burst onto the scene in 2004, and suddenly you started to see Linux commercials on TV, Microsoft really started to ramp up their FUD campaign, and the SCO lawsuit filed the year before began making headlines.

Now I'm not saying it's solely due to Ubuntu's popularity that we talk about "Linux on the desktop"; that particular topic had been thrown about long before I first heard of the OS in the mid 90s. And my answer to the question of "when will it ever be ready for the desktop"? There is no definite answer; it's completely dependent on the individual user's needs. That's not a cop-out, it's pure common sense.

For my desktop needs, Arch Linux, Slackware and occasionally Ubuntu all suit me just fine. For others, it's Ubuntu or nothing. Still others wouldn't function properly without their beloved Fedora/Mandriva/PCLinuxOS/{insert distro here}. And a great many gave up on trying to make GNU/Linux work for them in any form, and went back to whatever commercial OS they despise but can't function without.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Not so fast
by MOS6510 on Wed 28th Mar 2012 11:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not so fast"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Linus created Linux to use UNIX on his desktop PC, but he'd probably (guessing 'n' assuming here) he wanted to use it as a CLI based system.

I have often wondered what would have happened if there had been less choice. While we in general think of having a choice is good, the Linux world offered a lot of bad and shaky choices. How many of us have had periods where we changed Linux distribution, changed GUIs and hoped the new version would get things right.

Had there been one desktop Linux with just one GUI all devs could have concentrated on it, made sure their apps worked fine with it. Users could recognize a Linux system, learn to use it, help others out.

When I install, let's say Ubuntu, it looks okay. But the moment I install a different theme some icons don't play along. Things already go wrong there. And it gets worse when you install software using the Ubuntu software tool. Stuff that refuses to start, stuff that gets installed, but doesn't show up in the menu, stuff that doesn't crash but doesn't work either. A sharp contrast with the Apple app store for example.

But it seems it's the GUI software that's often bad 'n' buggy, CLI based stuff is often excellent.

The Linux world needs to get realistic. No matter how great they think Linux is, if people don't want it for free something must be wrong with it. Those people do fork out a lot of money for an iPhone or iPad.

I just don't think this free 'n' fun way of the open source Linux world is an effective way of creating stuff on a large scale. It would probably work a single application level, with a few people. But loads of people with loads of projects with no accountability to anyone, all with they own ideas and preferences... to get them all on the same playing field isn't easy. Nor is Linus a leader that can unite the bunch, he's far too rude to be political.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Not so fast
by Laurence on Fri 30th Mar 2012 09:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not so fast"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I have often wondered what would have happened if there had been less choice. While we in general think of having a choice is good, the Linux world offered a lot of bad and shaky choices. How many of us have had periods where we changed Linux distribution, changed GUIs and hoped the new version would get things right.

Had there been one desktop Linux with just one GUI all devs could have concentrated on it, made sure their apps worked fine with it. Users could recognize a Linux system, learn to use it, help others out.

While I agree with you that the choice in Linux is a double edged sword, I don't think you can argue that the success of Windows is due to it's single release. Over the years there has been plenty of other OSs better than Windows with a single unified interface that have all failed - AmigaOS being one example.

Windows isn't successful because it's a single OS, Windows is successful because it's marketed well.

When I install, let's say Ubuntu, it looks okay. But the moment I install a different theme some icons don't play along. Things already go wrong there. And it gets worse when you install software using the Ubuntu software tool. Stuff that refuses to start, stuff that gets installed, but doesn't show up in the menu, stuff that doesn't crash but doesn't work either. A sharp contrast with the Apple app store for example.

If you're installing from the testing repositories, then yeah, you'd have those issues. But the main repositories for most distros are pretty stable.

The Linux world needs to get realistic. No matter how great they think Linux is, if people don't want it for free something must be wrong with it. Those people do fork out a lot of money for an iPhone or iPad.

The soft of people who wouldn't pay for Linux are the same people who likely pirate Windows and it's software. I think it's a great leap of faith to say that users of Linux are only using it because it's free yet are willing to pay through the nose for Apple gadgets. I think you're mixing up two completely different types of consumers and casually passing them off as the same.

I just don't think this free 'n' fun way of the open source Linux world is an effective way of creating stuff on a large scale. It would probably work a single application level, with a few people. But loads of people with loads of projects with no accountability to anyone, all with they own ideas and preferences... to get them all on the same playing field isn't easy.

There's plenty of large scale open source projects that are highly popular on Windows and OS X as well: Firefox, VLC, XBMC, VirtualBox, and so on.
Plus you're arguing that the decentralised application development model for Linux development doesn't work yet that's how every commercial OS runs as well. Windows and OS X don't exclusively run Microsoft / Apple software. Users will install Photoshop, Paint.NET or GIMP (two of which are also open source ;) ), their own FTP client (many of which are open source) and a non-MS browser (most of which are either open source or based on open source components).

What's more, I find it ironic that you mention how the open source model doesn't work when OS X is built heavily on it.

Nor is Linus a leader that can unite the bunch, he's far too rude to be political.

You mean compared to Steve Job who made a career of shouting at people and Bill Gates who compared Linux to communism?

I don't think Linus is any ruder than any typical CEO /MD. In fact I'm not even convinced you can manage such a large project nor business by being a nice guy.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Not so fast
by Laurence on Fri 30th Mar 2012 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not so fast"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Let's not.

Sense of humour fail :p


The common user often doesn't even know what version of Windows he's using. For us technical people it's hard to imagine someone can use the same OS for years and not know what it is, but people are like that.

Years ago people bought computers, because they wanted a computer. Today people buy computers, because they want to do stuff on the Internet or work with some program. The computer isn't a goal anymore, it's just something you apparently need to do what your really want to do.

The result is that people have no idea what they have, nor any interest to learn it.

Don't believe the penguins, Linux is more difficult than Windows. Worse, things are (very different) between distributions and even between version of the same distro. Ubunto for example swapped Gnome for Unity, completely changing the user interaction.

If people can't figure out what version of Windows they have and well, can't figure out all the other basic stuff how on earth can they figure out how Linux works? It's difficult enough to talk someone through basic Windows stuff on the phone when you know where everything is or should be, imagine how mission impossible it is when you don't.

Sure they can use it if they have a geeky family member who can set up the system, install what they need and give them some training, but those users will be stuck in that situation and would never upgrade their system.

It's a reason, amongst others, why Linux on the desktop has utterly failed, yet blossomed on the server (where able IT people have to work with it). Android phones are in a way just like the geek family member. The manufacturer does the install, adds the apps and provides an "easy" interface.


Linux isn't massively more complicated than Windows. You're whole argument is based on the assumption that most people can do upgrades on and install Windows etc. In fact most people cannot. Windows comes pre-installed (like Android on smart phones - that was actually a very fair comparison). So really the issue isn't Linux is hard to set up - it's that few OEMs ship desktop Linux. If desktop Linux was the pre-installed standard and MS were pushing users to manually install Windows, then I'm sure we'd be having the same discussion about how Windows is too complicated to install (let's not forget that the default install isn't secure - you need anti-virus and so on. stuff an average user might struggle with) and that WinPhone7 only works because the OEM acts as the nerdy friend.

The fact is, distro's like Ubuntu are incredibly easy to install. Just as easy as Win7 and makes updates just as easy too. Installing applications in Ubuntu is actually even easier than in Windows because you don't have to hunt around the web. Just open your update manager, type an approximation of the soft of app you want and then download whatever has the most votes next to it. It's as easy as installing on Android or iOS.

Edited 2012-03-30 09:15 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Not so fast
by MOS6510 on Fri 30th Mar 2012 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not so fast"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I don't think I have said people can install Windows, if I made that impression let me say that they probably could if they really tried (and install Linux too), but honestly most won't as, like you say, Windows comes preinstalled.

I can't be too harsh on those people I guess. I drive around in a car and have no idea how it works and I won't change a tire myself even though I probably could.

Most people have no clue regarding Windows, but with clues from other clueless users they can often figure stuff out. With Linux there are no clues from other users. Even if you manage to find another Linux changes are he uses a different flavor.

And at least Windows has stayed pretty consistent regarding its GUI. Just like OS X. They may be a limited choice, but it's a choice that keeps improving, whereas Linux is a choice that keeps changing (and improving).

We can handle changes, but the common man can not. Well, he probably can if he put in the effort. But hey, I won't change a tire either.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Not so fast
by Laurence on Fri 30th Mar 2012 10:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not so fast"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Yeah, I can't disagree with any of the points you've made there.

Choice is a double edged sword - while I love it, I'd be naive to say it was a win-win scenario

Reply Score: 2

Patent
by bouhko on Wed 28th Mar 2012 10:52 UTC
bouhko
Member since:
2010-06-24

Reading Linus' mail that helped invalidate this patent really show how much these patents are stupid.

I mean, take 20 programmers, ask them how they would handle long filenames and you'll probably get 10 answers pretty close to Linus' one.

Reply Score: 4

de-facto standards
by dsmogor on Wed 28th Mar 2012 19:14 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

That's the bonus you get with so called "de-facto industry standards".
I hope MS trolling on trivial stuff will make HW makers think twice before implementing something that isn't a proper standard.

Reply Score: 4

The vFAT patent
by siki_miki on Thu 29th Mar 2012 11:57 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

Finally going down. Who'd think that Linux himself had the idea before Microsoft?
This one is very important for Microsoft, vFAT is standard for USB keys, and so phones pretending to be one have to pay to MS. Since Windows will not read any other format besides that (or NTFS), companies selling them have no choice but to use vFAT and license the patent (or stick to 8.3 naming). This will strip MS of a significan cash flow, if it is upheld, and is incredibly good news.

Reply Score: 6

Hilarious
by vodoomoth on Sun 1st Apr 2012 18:14 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

The thread started by the @Parazo on the linked page is hilarious.

Reply Score: 2