Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 17th Jul 2011 20:58 UTC, submitted by fran
Linux It's strange. Microsoft has been patent trolling the heck out of the Linux kernel for a long time now, and is still using these patents against Android today in its protection money scheme. However, as LWN.net illustrates, Microsoft makes quite a few contributions to the Linux kernel. Shouldn't this invalidate their patent claims?
Thread beginning with comment 481343
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: say what
by Delgarde on Sun 17th Jul 2011 21:54 UTC in reply to "say what"
Delgarde
Member since:
2008-08-19

If it makes you feel better, imagine the old lady is a hostage. Because Microsoft *isn't* doing this to be nice and community-minded - they're doing it to ensure compatibility with their HyperV products. They obviously believe that even if people are going to run Linux servers, MS can still make money if those servers are VMs on top of a MS virtualisation infrastructure.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: say what
by lucas_maximus on Sun 17th Jul 2011 22:44 in reply to "RE: say what"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Because Microsoft *isn't* doing this to be nice and community-minded - they're doing it to ensure compatibility with their HyperV products. They obviously believe that even if people are going to run Linux servers, MS can still make money if those servers are VMs on top of a MS virtualisation infrastructure.


How is this any different than Redhat and Oracle contributing patches? Their motivations are selfish as well.

Edited 2011-07-17 22:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: say what
by _txf_ on Sun 17th Jul 2011 23:01 in reply to "RE[2]: say what"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

How is this any different than Redhat and Oracle contributing patches? Their motivations are selfish as well.


For starters RedHat and Oracle patches tend to contribute to Linux itself and not act as a virtualization shim. Yeah, the motivations are similar but the end result is vastly different.

And it should be noted that RedHat also funds a lot of development of software that has no direct bearing on it's business and as a result enriches the linux ecosystem.

Edited 2011-07-17 23:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: say what
by Lennie on Mon 18th Jul 2011 00:21 in reply to "RE[2]: say what"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Selfish ?:
1. Just as selfish as any contributor to any open source project. RedHat and Oracle don't want to keep their own patches in a separate kernel that takes a lot of work to keep porting it.

2. Microsoft has contributed a bunch of drivers. That is what this is. They are just as selfish as any hardware vendor in trying to get their drivers accepted.

3. Major contribution ? Not really, yes there are a lot of changes. But that doesn't mean it is a lot of code (it isn't very little code either).

They changed pretty much every single line of the patches as Microsoft submitted them at first.

Because the style of the code in Windows as very different from the style in the Linux-kernel.

A lot of changes needed to be made and they all are separate commits and thus counted as changed.

Just read this blog-post on the first attempt by Microsoft to get their code accepted:

http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/review-hv-patches.html

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: say what
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 18th Jul 2011 02:55 in reply to "RE[2]: say what"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

The microsoft patches only help lnux users that use Hyper VM a microsoft product.

The Redhat patches help anyone using Linux for a variety of purposes.

I think its good that Microsoft is working to make it easier to use linux when working with their software, but its not as good as just general purpose Linux work.

But, this is probably all the help one could expect Microsoft to give. And, how suspicious would developers be of Microsoft's code if they moved to more mainline kernel development? Would they be doing it for the good of the kernel, or to sabotage development by introducing code that looks good but leads to a dead end path?

Reply Parent Score: 6