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?
Thread beginning with comment 374973
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: I agree...
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Jul 2009 02:31 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: I agree...
by Vanders on Fri 24th Jul 2009 09:42 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: I agree...
by Kalessin on Fri 24th Jul 2009 17:11 in reply to "RE[7]: I agree..."
Kalessin Member since:
2007-01-18

"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.
"

Free Software is an ideology. Open Source is a development methodology. FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) is referring to software created as a result of the Open Source development methodology by people who may or may not subscribe to the Free Software ideology.

Now, many non-Free Software, Open Source developers (such as Linus) have the ideology that Open Source is the best - if not only - methodology which should be used to create software, but that's an ideology about Open Source rather than Open Source itself actually being an ideology.

In any case, talking about ideology and FOSS isn't entirely incorrect because the Free Software side of things is indeed an ideology, but it confuses things because Open Source is, as you say, a development methodology.

Reply Parent Score: 2