Home > Microsoft > Microsoft Puts Money in Windows-Linux IntegratorMicrosoft Puts Money in Windows-Linux Integrator Eugenia Loli 2004-11-28 Microsoft 48 CommentsIn a move dear to the hearts of conspiracy theorists, Microsoft has taken a minority position in Vintela Inc, a sister company of the SCO Group by virtue of the Canopy Group, their common investor.About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 48 Comments 2004-11-28 8:15 pm As far as i remember, i was bit surprised, when visited page at microsoft.com dedicated to Unix “support” and “integration” – main message on that page was “Why and how you should move from Unix to Windows” 2004-11-28 8:51 pm The article mentions how there is a possibility of Microsoft putting out it’s own branded version of Linux. It’s unlikely that something like this will have in the near future. While Linux is making it’s marks on the desktop and server market, it’s not making marks dark enough fast enough to warrent such a product from Microsoft. Microsoft can’t buy Linux either like it has bought out most of that competition rather than compete with it and then there is the GPL which would make the playing field much more even for everyone. 2004-11-28 9:06 pm If it ever came down to Microsoft adopting anything but their own proprietary code, I’d guess first that they would take BSD over Linux. They’ve used some BSD code already, I believe. 2004-11-28 9:07 pm What would Microsoft get from having its own “Linux distribution” (if it can be called like that). Any improvement that they make would have to be shared under GPL, which will only favor the open source community ( unless they use Linux as a base(open source), and something different than GNU applications(proprietary), hmmm, am I wrong? ). Microsoft will not invest in something that they cannot put a IP stamp so they can control the market, like they have done for so many years. 2004-11-28 9:08 pm and everything to do with MS expanding their backoffice suite to manage workstations and workgroups on all platforms and stop companies from switching completely to a rival platform.The talk of a distribution is nothing more than the writer’s brain hyping out of control.Why replace that backoffice server when you can retain your investment in hardware, admins, and software because it now can manage your Linux boxes?A crafty move, indeed. Or is it one foot in the grave, the other on a banana peel? 2004-11-28 9:13 pm Haven’t we agreed that her penchant for sensationalism, as well as obvious pro-Microsoft bias, have seriously affected her credibility?I’m all for a bit of sensationalism to fuel flame wars, but that’s two O’Gara articles (almost) in a row. Add one by Rob Enderle in the mix and the flames will burn ’til Friday!Now, to stay on-topic (and avoid moderation…), let me say that this completely fits the pattern of Microsoft’s underground war against Linux. Everyone now knows that MS funnelled money to SCO, who has now made it clear that their goal was never to really protect their IP, but rather damage Linux’s reputation.I’ll believe that Ballmer and all really embrace Linux and open-source when they put out a version of MS Office for it… 2004-11-28 9:23 pm when does a consipracy become reality?Pinch me, i’m still dreaming… 2004-11-28 9:37 pm Microsoft could easily make a Linux distribution that offered all the ‘great’ things of XP in a propriatary way, and not need to contribute anything back to Linux via the GPL. OSX is based on BSD and the kernel is still mostly free, yet all of what makes OSX so great is fully owned by Apple. Propriatery apps have long been a part of un*x. The GUI, wizards, and middle API’s are what make an OS what it is (to the average user.) None of these things need touch the GPLed code. MS Linux would be an Linux app, like X and WINE rolled into one convient closed-source Microsoft product. So if Microsoft did make a Linux distribution they would not need to ‘give away the farm.’ They could leverage the power of Linux’s kernel and apps, while still providing a propriatery environment for their own apps to run in. The user could use MS Office, and MS could fracture the Linux market all at the same time! 2004-11-28 9:53 pm How true. It would not be a far stretch for them to use a “basic” linux kernel, with a “frontend” like Wine-X or some such to make a proprietary product. let’s hopw to hell they don’t or better yet, let’s hope they do and it gets hacked and cracked so the average linux user can use it, and make their own choice distro all that more veritile and powerful, while still taking more from this monopolizing giant that is Microsoft./2 cents 2004-11-28 10:05 pm Those nasty capitalists! Imagine!!!? They’re trying to compete!Imagine a company, whose primary objective is to make money and grow, would exploit an opportunity to do so…legally even!How completely DEVIOUS!!Honestly, who cares. IMO, both Windows (and other Microsoft products) are great, they do the job, they make good software. Linux and other open source applications are also great, they’ve proven themselves time and time again.The market will decide and Microsoft (nor the dept. of [in]justice) can control the market and the forces that govern it.A Microsoft-based distro would be interesting, I’d love to see something like that just out of pure curiosity, however, it’s very unlikely.What’s more likely is MS trying to integrate with *nix platforms further, given their existing (and rising) popularity. 2004-11-28 10:08 pm Maureen O’Gara is right on this one. This noob I mean dweeb called Dvorak has some pretty strange ideas about this MS move. It is sometimes hard to know if this guy makes sense.http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&site…It would have been better if he read Maureen article first. 2004-11-28 10:29 pm The market will decide and Microsoft (nor the dept. of [in]justice) can control the market and the forces that govern it.One of the main arguments of free-market proponents (which you seem to be part of) is that the market is self-regulatory – and therefore the government should stay out of it. The jury’s still out on this one, though things like 1929 and 1987 tend to prove that it isn’t in practice.What you’re saying, however, is that the market should be allowed to create monopolies (not just companies) and that these monopolies should be allowed to use their monopoly position to prevent the development of other businesses.Free-market theory can only work if the premise of a “level playing field” is adopted. Monopolies, however, make such a level playing field impossible, because they can use their status to gain a lot more market leverage.So in fact you cannot be a true capitalist, and honestly try to explain its merits over other economical systems, and be in favor of monopolies. 2004-11-28 10:34 pm now all you LinSux’s Lusers won’t stop calling M$ or micro$oft, I hate to call Linux as LinSux but as said a dirty fish makes the whole pond dirty.In other words, you let others dictate how you behave…If you want to prove that you’re as immature as those who write M$, go ahead – though in fact one can make the case that that Linux doesn’t suck, while Microsoft is indeed the richest corporation out there, and therefore is more deserving of its derogatory sigil than Linux is of your own attempt at derision.Hence i will from now on call LinSux…You go ahead, though one troll does not a meme make. 2004-11-28 10:45 pm This noob I mean dweeb called Dvorak has some pretty strange ideas about this MS move. It is sometimes hard to know if this guy makes sense.Dvorak is sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but one thing he isn’t is afraid to think outside the box.One thing he certainly isn’t, however, is a noob or a dweeb. He’s followed the development of the computer industry for more than 20 years…I don’t believe that MS Linux will happen either, but I’m not going to say it’s impossible. 2004-11-28 10:51 pm I did a bit of research on the lady and it seems I’ve been a little harsh regarding her stance towards MS and Linux. She’s not that biased, and the article – though not very profound – is still an interesting read.However, does anyone else find Linux Business Week’s “embedded” text ads very intrusive and confusing? I mean, you have to scroll down through 11 paragraphs of ad texts before reaching the article text – which is the same size but a different color. What’s the deal with that?It’s not good marketing to annoy those who read your ads like that… 2004-11-28 11:03 pm It would not be a far stretch for them to use a “basic” linux kernel, with a “frontend” like Wine-X or some such to make a proprietary product.The issue there is that what they’d be using from ‘Linux’ after all would be the kernel and drivers – and Windows already has both. Precisely what isn’t good in Windows is the UI, both featurewise, architecturewise and implementationwise. MS isn’t exactly an artist when it comes to UIs. They’re only better than Sun, but who isn’t?If MS should want a better OS, they should make it GUI-free, and then build a GUI from scratch on top of it, with the possibility of it being substituted by X, for instance, if one so wished (this of course would not be supported). 2004-11-28 11:17 pm Those pro-free market fanboys always make me laugh when they use that to defend Microsoft. First, because Microsoft now officially commited a crime by not playing by the rules and settled others. Second, because our current societies are not free market pur sang because the government restricts the market by a set of rules, such as copyright and patents.@ A nun he moos: better keep your eyes open from anything she says. Here, have a look atMaureen O’Gara Records SCO’s Latest Spin and Performs a Public Service: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040830102724105The Truth About Compuware v. IBM: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041024021922796I expect PJ to look into this very story soon. 2004-11-28 11:37 pm …and the trolls will call you a whiner. From today’s delightful crop, I can tell we’re doing something right!Hey, Wolf, how about trying to counter other people’s arguments instead of insulting them? You’ll have more credibility and you’ll avoid being modded down. 2004-11-28 11:41 pm “Those nasty capitalists! Imagine!!!? They’re trying to compete!Imagine a company, whose primary objective is to make money and grow, would exploit an opportunity to do so…legally even!How completely DEVIOUS!!Honestly, who cares. IMO, both Windows (and other Microsoft products) are great, they do the job, they make good software. Linux and other open source applications are also great, they’ve proven themselves time and time again.The market will decide and Microsoft (nor the dept. of [in]justice) can control the market and the forces that govern it.A Microsoft-based distro would be interesting, I’d love to see something like that just out of pure curiosity, however, it’s very unlikely.What’s more likely is MS trying to integrate with *nix platforms further, given their existing (and rising) popularity.”Really making money shouldn’t get in the way of human advancement. Closedsource software slows our advancement!Imagine if no one ever let you know that two plus two equals four, dont get me started!., you wouldn’t even be able to build a house that fit properly together.Lift up your anchors people! Lets get sailing. 2004-11-28 11:45 pm Of course, the story is never entirely reported and is never entirely as it seems, and this is what makes propaganda/disinformation so successful.Anyhow, this is a discussion for another time but if you read up on the details, the historical details that is, government had the biggest hands in the chaos of 1929, 1987, 2000, and so on, in the form of central-banking and inflationary policy. Read up on how quickly the money-supply was expanded throughout the 1920’s and how it lead to the “great depression”. Do some research on fiat-currency and central-banking’s role in the S&L disaster of the 80’s as well. Check into the expansion of the number of US dollars in the 1990’s and how, by way of forcing the Fed to raise interest rates rapidly (to stem hyper-inflation), we still get to enjoy the wonderful economic results today.However, facts such as these are never popular as they expose the state’s *monopoly* on the money supply.The fact that the state is given (ahem…excuse me, has taken) the power to interfere with market forces *allows them to create monopolies*! Otherwise, without regulation, competitive advantages would only come by way of consumer choice. Without limits on competition, anyone can level the playing field. Where the state has intervened or taken control (think USPS, Amtrak, or even as far back as the first American railroads).In other words, when industry can steer the decisions of politicians, monopolies are created in their favor when the state has the power to regulate.Truth be told, government creates monopoly and yes, the market is self-regulating. You wouldn’t try to control your heartbeat by constantly regulating it, would you? How about breathing? Of course not, attempts to control such natural functions would result in mismanagement and chaos.State-run, centrally-planned economic theory, of which you espouse, is the (amazingly still) popular economic theory of socialism. Though socialism has proven to be a complete economic failure, and has led to the death of over 100 million human beings in the last 100 years, it is still spewed forth in universities and public schools everywhere in the US.It is unfortunate to hear folks like you parrot the same absurd “the state should rightly intervene” arguements. I suppose we’ll just have to wait for the complete collapse of the US, then the world, economy in order for people to better understand. 2004-11-28 11:49 pm Could be better for Microsoft use BSD instead of Linux, they can keep the changes made to the source closed and BSD has no legal problems with SCO. 2004-11-29 12:03 am government had the biggest hands in the chaos of 1929, 1987, 2000That’s one interpretation of it, but I disagree with it. If governments had a role in it, it was because their policies exacerbated a problem that is inherent in markets, i.e. that they are not self-regulatory. They made things worse, but the problem was already there – which is why markets are regulated up to this day.Truth be told, government creates monopoly and yes, the market is self-regulating.This is opinion, not fact. Simple logic dictates that the more successful a private company is, the more money it will accumulate and the more power it will have over competitors, making a “level playing field” impossible.The government didn’t have anything to do with Microsoft gaining a monopoly.I’m sorry, but the “invisible hand of the market” is a matter of faith, not science. If markets were self-regulatory, proof of it would have been demonstrated by now.Though socialism has proven to be a complete economic failure, and has led to the death of over 100 million human beings in the last 100 yearsSocialism has not been proven a complete economic failure, since many of its aspects have been successfully integrated in modern economies. It has certainly not led to the death of over 100 million human beings over the last 100 years – that would be totalitarianism, which shares as much with capitalism as it does with socialism.You’re simply regurgitating the official right-wing laissez-faire rhetoric here.It is unfortunate to hear folks like you parrot the same absurd “the state should rightly intervene” arguements. I suppose we’ll just have to wait for the complete collapse of the US, then the world, economy in order for people to better understand.The state should rightly intervene in order to protect the economic well-being of its citizen, if they so desire. This is called democracy, and I’m sorry to say that democracy trumps capitalism any day.In any case, the U.S. isn’t a pure capitalist country: it is as interventionist and protectionist as they come.Anarcho-capitalists such as yourselves are enamored with the elegant simplicity of laissez-faire free-market theory, however it is not a belief that is supported by facts. Just because you believe in the Invisible Hand doesn’t mean she exists…. 2004-11-29 12:06 am Isn’t it a bit ironic MS will now use the power of open source to compete against it. I’ve long thought the rise of open source to be a very good thing for the Windows platform. There are MANY open source Windows projects, and most of the best open source applications also have ports available for Windows. It comes as no shock to me MS could have been working on a version of MS-Linux. In the grand scheme of things the cost for them to develop a version of their own would amount to little more than a few pennies added to their overall budget. Time will tell what happens with this, but to be sure they are not going to be the odd man out. 2004-11-29 12:10 am That’s two threads that veer off into political/economic arguments, and I know Eugenia isn’t too keen on these kind of off-topic discussions.In any case if I don’t get busy with dinner I’ll be in trouble, and arguments about planned vs. free vs. mixed economies won’t get me out of it! We’ll argue about this another time… 2004-11-29 12:59 am Linux = Losers Idiots Numbnuts Un-stable X-windowsStallman = Atheist dopesmoking loser from faggotvilleROFL at the second one it is not even an acronym.ADLFF huh? :bI just broke out in laughter when I read Unstable X-Windows. X-Windows was the trigger I can’t associate it with Losers or Idiots or Numbnuts, because one describes software the other people.BTW this is a news website. You need to set up your own website where you can post useless trash. 2004-11-29 1:02 am Look it up if you like. How odd, the company that msft is investing in, shares the same office as the company that msft is paying to put a legal cloud over linux. You don’t suppose that msft is trying to funnel more money to scox, do you?You also must consider that canopy has an enron like history of shifting assets between companies. Anybody remember the Vultus scam? 2004-11-29 1:17 am But it ain’t going to work. Linux cannot be attacked like Novell was attacked in the past. Sorry MS nice try but you cannot defeat a idea/technology. 2004-11-29 2:22 am It’s known that Microsoft supports Windows Media running on linux DRM and all, for set tops and the like. See here http://www.vnunet.com/news/1140128This is just another way Microsoft can make money as the article says, from the growing interest in Linux. Office is next (In about 10 Years). By that time however, Microsoft’s Consumer Operating system will be so seamless that any whiny anti-MS geek still complaining about BSOD (From the Windows 95 era) (currently 10 years ago) will spend most of their time supporting the HUGE on demand streaming media infrastructure using Windows Media on the two major forks of linux (Either Red Hat or Novell). Also at that time the GNU/Mach kernel will be where linux is today and most “free software” Puritans would have flocked over to GNU/Mach and the HURD.Also if you can actually imagine a Microsoft Linux you need to go outside and see the Sun and get some fresh air. All that pot smoke must be getting to you. 2004-11-29 2:25 am Wow, really intelligent comments there. How old are you? I hope you’re an adult, if so please act your age. Not everyone wants to hear your drivel.Yes, Vintela shares the same premises. They are owned by the same parent company – Canopy. And i’m pretty sure that Microsoft is now funnelling monies to SCO via Vintela as people and the media and the US DOJ are aware of the donations that Microsoft made to SCO earlier. I posted about this a few weeks ago, but if memory serves me correct my post was moderated down.It’s fine for a pro Microsoft person to say Department of [In]Justice, implying that Microsoft were hard done by, but it’s not fine for myself to post that the US DOJ is corrupt and is deliberately letting Microsoft get away with things because of the amount of income that Microsoft brings into the US Economy. It’s the same with cigarette companies – why not just *ban* smoking, make it illegal? Because governments earn nice taxes from it. A bit hypocritical methinks. I’m just saying what many people think.How obvious to the US DOJ does it have to be before they realise what Microsoft is doing, and that they are stifling competition in anti competitive practices?Dave 2004-11-29 2:41 am Good work Dave, keep dreaming up those conspiracy theories.And the reason they don’t ban tobacco is because PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK. They tried it 60 or 70 years back with alchohol. People kept drinking. They just had to buy their drink off some very powerful criminals. I’m sure that it seems like a good idea in your little fantasy land, but it would cause more trouble than it’s worth in the real world. 2004-11-29 3:21 am It could just be an escalation of what, in my opinion, has been a fairly neat diversification of the company into other areas. Microsoft is big enough now that they aren’t going anywhere for a long time, but so long as their main product is software they remain quite vulnerable to piracy, or just OSS running on the same commodity hardware.It makes sense to adopt a position that insulates the company against future threats, even if they don’t turn out to be real. Besides, their hardware has always been pretty good. 2004-11-29 4:45 am why not just block them? In the past 2 years, i haven’t seen anyone who uses them give any sort of decent additions to the conversation.I forgot what this topic was after reading all the stupid comments…time to re read the article. 2004-11-29 5:04 am What a retarded site despite content I had to scratch my head where the news started. I guess the webmaster at LWN needs a kick in the back for the horrible site. 2004-11-29 5:08 am I could understand this Tacoman at some point. Windows gave him a chance to make a contact with humanity. 2004-11-29 8:21 am “Microsoft is not, nor has it ever been, a “monopoly” regardless of the garbage propaganda the DOJ was feeding the public”Don’t make laugh, Microsoft certainly has over 50% of the desktop OS market, how can it NOT be a monopoly? 2004-11-29 10:16 am mo·nop·o·ly P Pronunciation Key (m-np-l)n. pl. mo·nop·o·liesExclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently… arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.A commodity or service so controlled.Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.[Latin monoplium, from Greek monoplion : mono-, mono- + plein, to sell; see pel-4 in Indo-European Roots.]mo·nopo·lism n.mo·nopo·list n.mo·nopo·listic adj.mo·nopo·listi·cal·ly adv.Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.courtisy of http://www.dictionary.com... this isn’t the whole thing, just the first entry. And yup, by this definition I can see exactly how having more than 50% marketshare implies a monopoly <sarcasm>. Last time I checked you had a choice. In fact, quite a few of them are reported here on a regular basis. MacOS, Linux, Open/Free/NetBSD (I’m sure there are others) and quite a few others that aren’t nearly as mature (ReactOS, MorphOS and SkyOS to name a few). Just because all the apps you like aren’t available for your OS of choice doesn’t mean that it’s MICROSOFT’s fault. Complain to the dev/publisher of that app (not likely that the listen though, but again, thats typically not MS’ fault).I don’t use windows a whole lot (mostly games). Otherwise I’m a Linux/MacOS user, but not because I hate MS <GASP>. No, it’s simply because I like them better. Please, at least know the definition of a word before you make statements like that. Normally I wouldn’t even respond to something like that, but I just get sick of the lack of knowledge of the english language by its speakers sometimes. 2004-11-29 10:18 am I guess you, like many others, don’t understand what the word “monopoly” means by definition.It is not a monopoly because MS is not the only player in its market, it is not your only choice, and no consumer has ever been forced to buy a Windows-powered computer in order to use a computer.Anyhow, I posted a definition of monopoly in my last post, check it out. 2004-11-29 10:21 am I fail to grasp what your point is. My understanding of what a monopoly is or is not is perfectly clear.Microsoft cannot be described as, nor has it ever been a single one of the things listed in your many definitions.I am also a Linux user by the way, Gentoo all the way, however Windows is a great product as well and I use it quite often for projects that require it.The fact that I’m able to do that, dual-booted on the same piece of hardware, only proves my point. 2004-11-29 10:43 am do a search on microsoft.com for linux and a load of links all show up at the top of the search results about indemnification and IP patents…now open one of the links, any of them, and actually try to find out what they mean by “indemnification”… you will not.Microsoft only says it is BAD and pay for windows licenses because it is GOOD.hmmm……why ?also, one of the pages is actually a copy of a microsoft commisioned report about IP and Linux, (note not Unix). The report said that the actual risk of being “audited” was very low, but in the next sentence she said..“However, no organization should discount the importance of indemnification in 21st century networks: Low risk can still equal high cost. The threat of shelling out their own money to pay for damages is the reason that the majority of consumers purchase homeowner’s insurance, car insurance and life insurance.”hmmmm does this mean she recommends people pay microsoft for a license to run windows, just as an insurance ???BUT the real gem of the peice was this….Before SCO’s decision to initiate a $1 billion copyright infringement suit against IBM in March 2003, Linux and open source users thought little about indemnification. That’sbecause Linux and open source products were not widely deployed in enterprise environments. It was not an issue.what planet is this woman from ? 2004-11-29 3:58 pm Microsoft could easily make a Linux distribution that offered all the ‘great’ things of XP in a propriatary way, and not need to contribute anything back to Linux via the GPL. I’m sure they could. The real question is why ? This isn’t a company searching for an OS. They already have the most widely used one on the market. 2004-11-29 4:46 pm Pow!!! The empire strikes back!! Wow, making a linux/unix box an icon on an MS console screen with admin capabilities! How devious and devilish….I like it. MS finds a way to make even *nix servers into a client. How evil! 2004-11-29 6:14 pm it’s not fine for myself to post that the US DOJ is corrupt and is deliberately letting Microsoft get away with things because of the amount of income that Microsoft brings into the US Economy. I’m ok with you saying it. I’ll admit it and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.It’s the same with cigarette companies – why not just *ban* smoking, make it illegal? Probably because the last time the US banned anything as widespread as cigs all hell broke lose and a large illegal trade started up cutting the goverment out of tax money on a product people were going to use anyway. The US learned their lesson with banning alcohol years ago.Because governments earn nice taxes from it. A bit hypocritical methinks. I’m just saying what many people think. Also because all hell would break lose and someone would be supplying people with these goods regardless. Look at the history of alcohol prohibition for answers to all these questions. 2004-11-29 6:15 pm Geez. Were you people born yesterday? The MS-Linux thing was thrown is as a distraction, so everybody will talk about that, and ignore the real news.If msft wanted to create “ms-linux” then what would msft need vintela for? The vintela purchase would be completely irrelevant, so why was the ms-linux joke even thrown into the story? Pop-media “jornalists” have been writing about ms-linux for years. It hasn’t happend, it won’t happen. Figure it out, it’s not that hard. Does it even make any sense at all? “Msft invests in vintela – now there could be ms-linux!” Ever hear of a non-sequitur? 2004-11-29 7:13 pm http://www.mslinux.org/he he he heIt’s been around for a while now. 2004-11-29 7:38 pm Whatever dictionary definitions and etymology might be is utterly irrelevant. What is relevant is what the courts think about it.Does anyone get the definitions of their trade’s slang from dictionaries? Didn’t think so.Duh. 2004-11-30 1:24 am Agreed with walterbyrd. Most of you have fallen for ths typical journalistic Bullshit that is floating around. Someone makes a humourous concept, and some of you take it literally.Let’s break it down to a level where even the folks that post idiotic comments can understand.MS hates linux, its done everything to discredit it and such for the past two years. Its produced and sponsored schemes to produce FUD (security reports, SCO, etc). Linux stands in MS’s way for total domination…So WHY THE FLYING F**K would they want to adopt it? 2004-11-30 1:46 pm How long are we expected to play stupid and think that Microsoft is a bunch of nice guys that play nice?-Nx 2004-12-01 11:55 am How long are we expected to play stupid and think that Microsoft is a bunch of nice guys that play nice?Who has ever suggested we should ?