mnmlst notes a Wall Street Journal story (picked up at Total Telecom) on the move of some patents originally held by Microsoft to the Open Invention Network, where they will join a portfolio whose purpose is to inoculate open source companies against patent trolls. OIN is near a deal to buy 22 patents from another patent-protective group, Allied Security Trust, whose members include Verizon, Cisco, and HP. AST won the patents in a private auction Microsoft put on earlier. An AST executive says that "Microsoft presented the patents to potential bidders in its auction as relating to Linux." While OIN's acquisition of the patents will act to protect the Linux community, AST, by contrast, exists to protect only its corporate members, not the community as a whole. But by selling the patents to OIN, they are cooperating in the protection of Linux. And by allowing the patents to go to AST in the first place, Microsoft may (the article implies) be signaling at least their lack of active intent to disrupt the Linux marketplace.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
why isn't microsoft doing everything possible to destroy linux? Is this a "saved apple" moment all over again??
Not quite. Saving Apple was (presumably) to help stave off the anti-trust suits against Microsoft by preserving a weak but "potentially credible" competitor. Helping Linux seems much more straightforward: Linux's overlap with Windows is much smaller than its overlap with HP, IBP, and Sun/Oracle. So, Microsoft might well help Linux to weaken HP, IBM, and Sun/Oracle, reckoning that Linux is unlikely itself ever to be a credible threat to Microsoft's own sales. Which (Linux-cheerleading aside) is an understandable assessment as most commercial purchasers tend to run different software on Linux machines than on Windows machines, and it is more often the software decision that drives the hardware purchase (rather than the other way around). So, Microsoft doesn't primarily need to "compete Windows with Linux", they need to "compete SQL-Server with Oracle", "Exchange with Lotus Notes", "IIS with Apache and JBoss", etc.
Not quite. Saving Apple was (presumably) to help stave off the anti-trust suits against Microsoft by preserving a weak but "potentially credible" competitor.
There was no "save Apple" moment.
When MS invested millions of dollars in Apple, Apple had billions of dollars in the bank. The investment was merely a part of a settlement between Apple and MS that ended the lawsuits Apple had against MS, and for Microsoft's part, they had to buy some Apple stock and promise to keep selling Office for a number of years.
When MS invested millions of dollars in Apple, Apple had billions of dollars in the bank. The investment was merely a part of a settlement between Apple and MS that ended the lawsuits Apple had against MS, and for Microsoft's part, they had to buy some Apple stock and promise to keep selling Office for a number of years.
You're mostly correct. When MS invested in Apple, they had a little over a billion dollars in cash available. The bigger problem was that their market share and stock price had been tumbling for years (1997-1998 was a huge low point, the lowest in some 10 years). Apple wasn't in tremendous financial trouble just yet, but they were worried about the direction things were going, and (as Apple should know better than anyone) public perception of a company's performance is just as important as the real numbers.
The $150 million was really a drop in the bucket. What was more important was that they paid Apple that via purchasing stock which they weren't allowed to sell for 3 years. As you said, they also agreed to continue writing and selling Office for the Mac. They agreed to collaborate on Java to ensure interoperability. Best of all was the agreement to make IE the default browser on the Mac!;)
Basically, it was Microsoft showing faith in the Apple platform that "saved Apple". Yes, they are competitors, but as Steve Jobs said, "We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose, and for Microsoft to win, Apple has to lose." Considering Microsoft is a publicly-owned company, their motives were obviously more than just being buddy-buddy with Apple. That's not really the point, however.
This video is pretty neat [youtube.com] to watch now (some 12 years later). It's Jobs announcing the new partnership with Microsoft and the reation of the audience (imagine what it would be like now).
I remember those days - Mac users would brag about "Think Different" due to not running Windows, and then run a whole suite of Microsoft products such as Office, Internet Explorer etc...
(Although I see that now, "Think Different" is replaced with "Get an iSomething to be like everyone else"...)
Eh, Apple's "billions of dollars in the bank" was basically Enron accounting, and that was reflected in the stock price.
Um, no. It was actual cash on hand.
The Microsoft "investment" provided a serious boost for Apple in their times of dire need, and there is no need to pathetically try to rewrite history.
The boost wasn't the cash. It wasn't even, directly, the deal with Microsoft.
The deal with Microsoft was the result of a change in direction for Apple. At most, it was a "vote of confidence" from MS, especially the commitment to continue to provide MS Office.
No, the boost was Jobs' redirection of Apple which appeared to be increasingly rudderless at the 90s wore on.
Unless you are one of those late 90s-era melon-headed downsies mac zealots who actually believed Apple was not in serious financial conditions. In that case a shithouse OS like MacOS 8 is exactly what you deserved.
Apple wasn't hurting for cash, they were hurting for direction. MS's $150 million had essentially zero direct effect for Apple financially.
Linux's overlap with Windows is much smaller than its overlap with HP, IBP, and Sun/Oracle.
This may be a large part of their considerations, although helping your enemy's enemies is a strategy that has backfired many times in the past. Another part of it is likely that they want to be seen as not so much of a threat by the growing crowd of FOSS users; by betting so heavily on the corporate world, Microsoft have managed to push away a large part of the people who are going to be important and influential decision makers in the future: the students, who can't afford to pay for an expensive OS, MS O
It's not a given that MS wants to do everything possible to destroy Linux, at least not immediately.
Having a (bad) competitor can be better than not having one at all, as it's a useful tool to deny having a monopoly. They can use this as an example to show to the EU commissisions in order to prove they're not trying to stop Linux from competing.
Linux can help MS... it can get companies that are still using proprietary UNIX such as HP-UX, AIX on SPARCs or Itaniums to switch to Xeon over time. Adopting
It may also be the first shot in an attempt to embrace and extend, too. After all, there's quite a lot of rather nice technology in Linux. Apt-get and the open source infrastructure is a heck of an improvement over Microsoft's "Add or remove programs" feature, in my opinion, to say nothing of the dog. Just one example.
I wonder if future convergence will ever reach a point where I'll be writing this on my favorite (yet to be developed) operating system, an outgrowth of some mixture of a number of them.
Or maybe I'll just chuck it all and go back to VMS.
"Apt-get and the open source infrastructure is a heck of an improvement over Microsoft's "Add or remove programs" feature, in my opinion, to say nothing of the dog. Just one example."
There are always alternatives, it's just that some don't "feel" like MS stuff enough, so they fall by the wayside. I think this is the biggest hurdle that Linux has to leap before it can gain any serious traction on MS. Until it "feels" more like Windows, etc. the vast majority of average users out there won't use it.
Case in point, your example.
I use a program called Revo Uninstaller instead of MS's "Add/Remove Application" software. It is far more useful, actually uninstalls things and is free. It runs an application's built in uninstaller, then goes back afterwards and searches for leftover registry entries and files. It then allows you to manually remove them.
It is so accurate and downright honest about it, I actually use it to test an application for "trustworthyness". I will install an app, then immediately uninstall it with Revo and take note of how much the applications uninstaller left behind. You'd be amazed at how much crap some apps leave behind, most intentionally. Adobe is the worst. I uninstalled one of their apps (reader, I think) and the entire program was still on my hard drive. The Adobe uninstaller straight up fucking lied to me.
It must work because attempting to uninstall Adobe Flash Player gives you a message that says Adobe refuses to uninstall while Revo is running. Essentially, they want to leave shit on your HD and they KNOW Revo will subvert this.
Sounds great, right? So why doesn't everyone use it?
Simple. It doesn't "feel" like the "Add/Remove" app that people are used to. It is hard to convince people that the application they are using doesn't do what they want it to once they have been using it long enough, even if you have the evidence right on the screen in front of them. Some sort of mental block, I suppose. I don't understand it, but I certainly recognize it when I see it.
I can only talk about openSUSE as that is what I know best. I assume the same will be available in some sort on other distributions.
The big difference with Add/Remove and the way Linux works is that Linux distributions work with Repositories. e.g. if I want to install slrn, I go to http://software.opensuse.org/search [opensuse.org] and do the search there and click on "One-Click Install". That will add the needed repositories if they are not yet available.
If I want to remove a program, I go to the openSUSE version of Add/
My point is that it is different from how it is done on Windows and that the "feel" of this difference is what drives typical Windows users away from Linux, among other differences.
Fear of the unknown, maybe, or maybe something like putting on somebody else's underwear. It just don't feel right, so they don't do it.
Humans are creatures of habit, and Linux developers need to take that into account.
There are always alternatives, it's just that some don't "feel" like MS stuff enough, so they fall by the wayside.
I'm not a patent lawyer but I should think an "Add/remove" programs feature that actually adds programs is sufficiently innovative in the Windows world to merit patent protection.
why isn't microsoft doing everything possible to destroy linux?
It is.
Microsoft isn't a homogeneous organisation. Parts of it are still in the "Embrace" part of the plan while others are working on "Extinguish" [arstechnica.com]
I think you have a point about it not being homogeneous, perhaps old school culture persists at the chair throwing top and maybe mid level is quietly steering towards a more sensible money making approach.
why isn't microsoft doing everything possible to destroy linux? Is this a "saved apple" moment all over again??
You seem to be making a strange equation between "maximizing profits" and "destroying Linux." The goal of most corporations, Microsoft included, is to make money. Utterly destroying a competitor which, although vocal, represents only a single-digit threat to their market share, seems like a rather irrational expenditure of resources.
You have an awfully pessimistic world view if you equate the maximization of your own success with the downfall of all others.
Possibly because according to the news, Microsoft has far more problems with patent trolls and their ilk than they do with Linux infringing on their intellectual property.
I can see how it makes sense to ally with the "good guys" (including the the biggest patent assholes aka IBM) to create a broad patent pool for mutual self-defense. This also benefits the OSS community because its only a matter of time until a patent troll goes after Firefox or OpenOffice instead of Microsoft.
Speculation [groklaw.net] is that Microsoft only invited non practicing entities (aka "patent trolls") to this auction. It is very possible that the intent was to sell the patents to a company that could wield them against Linux companies without fear of retribution, but AST managed to step in and get the highest bid on them, and then turned around and sold them to the OIN. This is a subversive plan by MS that backfired.
This possibility is why Mono is dangerous, and why Microsoft's promise not to sue is worthless. Since the promise not to sue is not a patent license, it doesn't bind any future purchasers of Microsoft's patents on.Net.
All Microsoft has to do is sell a couple of their more critical patents to patent trolls, after first granting themselves and all the Microsoft.Net users a suitable non-revokable license to them. *BANG*! No more Mono, and all the apps written for it become illegal to run in the US - unless you run them on Microsoft.Net. This is perfectly safe for Microsoft since they and their customers are protected by the patent licenses.
This is a really expensive way to dodge a tiny part of the software patent problem, and it involves paying Microsoft millions. And for every such trick we win, how many did we lose?
The upcoming Bilski review is the first time in 28 years that the Supreme Court in the USA will review the patentability of software - that's were we can get a real victory. I'm working on an amicus brief which'll have to be submitted within about two weeks. If anyone wants to help, it would be very useful to expand the swpat.org wiki's information about studies which show the harm of software patents:
All this talk of "defensive patents" that supposedly "protect the community" is just a fraud. To protect the community, take all the documentation of the patent, and put it in the public domain. Then, anyone who wants can implement the tech, without restriction, forever. Keeping it patented retains the power of the patent holder to deny implementation to someone, sometime.
If they were really serious about merely protecting the community, they'd give up the patent control entirely. But it's clear that "the" community just means whoever the patent holder wants to defend from someone else who they exclude. That's entirely against what the Linux way of real open development means: anyone, anytime can join the community by coding and releasing.
These "defensive" patent orgs will bite us in the ass. Otherwise they wouldn't be investing time and money in not just the patent portfolios and all the work to maintain them, but also in conning us into believing it's for our own good.
Well seems to make sense to me. First get linux community to seem to agree with the fact Microsoft holds valid patents, second with previous patent validity established destroy linux distros that become a threat by claiming they violate other patents not in this 'portfolio' of what they can use.
Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.
take all the documentation of the patent, and put it in the public domain.
That's what a patent does in the first place!
It just provides monopoly protection for actually using said patent.
In fact, this was the whole point of patents. Say I invented lemonade. Without a patent, I'd keep it my secret family recipe for generations, and anyone who wanted to make lemonade would have to reverse engineer it -- but if someone did, I wouldn't be able to say much.
With a patent, I would publish the documentation ("It's just sugar, water, and lemon juice.") and then only I can make lemonade. Or I can license the recipe to others -- it's not like they don't know how to make it now, it's that they legally can't unless I let them.
If they were really serious about merely protecting the community, they'd give up the patent control entirely.
I'm not sure it's legally possible to do that, is the problem. Moreover, having a process patented provides clear documentation that you patented it first, thus putting the burden on anyone's infringing patent to prove that they invented it before you did.
No, my big problems with this are not that I think the result is bad, but because I think it should be unnecessary -- I highly doubt Microsoft has any stunning invention that Linux "stole" for which prior art doesn't exist a thousandfold, and even if there were, I'm not sure software patents should exist at all.
But if I'm going to accept that they exist, and that someone has to hold them, I'd much rather that someone not be Microsoft, no matter how legally binding their "covenant not to sue" is.
Though it would be pretty slimy if this new organization doesn't have some sort of "covenant not to sue." Maybe that's the motive? Blech, now I have to go wash the evil from my brain...
A patent doesn't put anything in the public domain. I think you just don't know what "public domain [wikipedia.org]" means. It means there is no owner, no one can exert property rights in it, there's no legal way to exclude anyone from using it.
A patent is a registration that prohibits anyone else implementing what's patented. That's its entire point. Publishing it doesn't endanger that exclusive ownership, and lets everyone else know what they're excluded from implementing (unless they get a license from the patent holder
All this talk of "defensive patents" that supposedly "protect the community" is just a fraud. To protect the community, take all the documentation of the patent, and put it in the public domain. Then, anyone who wants can implement the tech, without restriction, forever. Keeping it patented retains the power of the patent holder to deny implementation to someone, sometime.
You have completely misunderstood the point of a defensive patent. The idea is that if someone sues over one of the technologies that the OIN is protecting, OIN can look in its portfolio for a patent that the suer is infringing, and that can be used against the suer.
No, I have completely called BS on the need for a patent to do what "defensive patents" claim.
If the OIN (or anyone else) simply released all their patents into the public domain, then there would be completely clear defense for anyone using them without restriction - which is what "the point" is supposed to be. If the OIN wanted to also deliver legal advice or representation to people using something OIN put in the public domain, that would actually be useful to protect users of OIN's "portfolio".
Rethink your position. The point of defensive patents is to leverage what you have to make up for what you don't have.
If you sue me over patent A, I can countersue you over patent B, and force you to settle with me amicably in a sharing arrangement.
If I give away by patent B so that unicorns dance among sunshine and rainbow farts, then I end up fucked when you sue me over patent A. I am also powerless to help anyone else in the open source community being attacked over patent A, because I gave away my leverage to the public domain.
I'm all for beating swords into plowshares, but if you're likely to show up and stab me with your sword, I better keep my sword around, too.
No, releasing an invention into the public domain negates any patent. If one has the right to do it, like if one holds the patent. Or if one just releases into the public domain instead of the long, costly and complex process of patenting.
Covenants not to sue can have wriggle room. And to be enforced, someone has to sue the party making the covenant. Public domain prevents suing much more effectively (though nothing is perfect protection from a frivolous lawyer) than any patent and covenant can be.
“Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.” — meringuoid (568297) @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454) [slashdot.org]
This is being covered over at Groklaw [groklaw.net], and PJ's theory is that Microsoft intended that these patents be used against Linux, but they wanted clean hands. Hence the auction, but it backfired when the trolls didn't win.
Sure Microsoft could have arranged a private sale to known trolls, but their hands would have been a little grimy if not dirty.
It's not paranoid when they actually are out to get you.
And really -- I know you're often pro-Microsoft, borderline fanboy, but even you should be able to see that Steve "FUCKING KILL GOOGLE" Ballmer would love a chance to cut Linux off at the knees.
I don't forsee Apple dominating the Unix based server market or to geeks who want to build their own systems (many of which use linux either some or all the time).
As near as I can tell, there has been almost 0 UNIX marketshare falling to Apple. Apple doesn't make a UNIX; they make a UNIX spec compliant desktop operating system for home users and artistic types - and the associated hardware to go with it.
It's a nice thought, but no. Apple is nowhere near stable or supported enough for that.
UNIX is bigger than US patents. It is a culture that became an OS that became a culture. Linux gave the poor man a way to run a UNIX-like OS without having to shell out big bucks to Sun, HP, AT&T, SCO, or another UNIX vendor. Linux has become a culture in its own right. If MS were smart, they'd drop the "we hate all things UNIX" attitude and develop their own OSX-style distro that could be run on cheap PC hardware which would put them in position to actually take back some of the market Apple has claimed, and Google is about to claim. Besides, copying Apple is what they do best.
That would really be a stupid thing for MS to do. It would simply make them another commodity dealer for UNIX.
MS's blessing and curse is all the applications that need Windows to run. It's a blessing because it has protected them from competitors, but it's a curse because it limits how they can evolve Windows.
If they really wanted to throw away their legacy advantage they'd be better off creating a brand new OS than switching from one set of legacy baggage to another.
"And by allowing the patents to go to AST in the first place, Microsoft may (the article implies) be signaling at least their lack of active intent to disrupt the Linux marketplace."
Im much more inclined to believe that the intent was some patent troll getting their hands on the patents. They want a new SCO, no doubt.
Linux is fine becuase it is developed globally. It is the USA with these weird software and business method patents that has the problem which affects both open and closed software. There can always be US compliant distros with the patented portions removed just as Redhat already does with mp3 software. It's just like the stupid encyption export limitations which led to companies like RSA incorporating out of the USA and moving development out of the USA.
You may notice that Microsoft never offered the patents to OIN or anyone directly involved in developing Linux, but instead sold them in a private auction. If one didn't suspect Microsoft of being evil, one would suspect them of releasing the patents to third parties, in the hope that they would engage in patent litigation. Is there a precedent for MS funneling finance to companies who go on to sue people for using Linux?
That all sounds very reasonable. And if I didn't have personal knowledge of what its like dealing with Enterprise IT providers that partner with your company, I might think what you've described is The Truth. However, I know that running Linux in a Microsoft dominated industry is troublesome. Most of my work involves Unix systems, so a Linux desktop is mostly feasible. But we have to be really careful when looking at purchasing tech unless it comes with a Windows trojan horse. No - not malware. Rather
'By understanding Microsoft's history of anticompetitive conduct [www.ecis.eu], developers, consumer groups, and government authorities will be better equipped to recognize current and future Microsoft misconduct at an early stage and intervene to prevent Microsoft from using tactics other than competition on the merits'
Explain this to me (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Explain this to me (Score:5, Insightful)
why isn't microsoft doing everything possible to destroy linux? Is this a "saved apple" moment all over again??
Not quite. Saving Apple was (presumably) to help stave off the anti-trust suits against Microsoft by preserving a weak but "potentially credible" competitor. Helping Linux seems much more straightforward: Linux's overlap with Windows is much smaller than its overlap with HP, IBP, and Sun/Oracle. So, Microsoft might well help Linux to weaken HP, IBM, and Sun/Oracle, reckoning that Linux is unlikely itself ever to be a credible threat to Microsoft's own sales. Which (Linux-cheerleading aside) is an understandable assessment as most commercial purchasers tend to run different software on Linux machines than on Windows machines, and it is more often the software decision that drives the hardware purchase (rather than the other way around). So, Microsoft doesn't primarily need to "compete Windows with Linux", they need to "compete SQL-Server with Oracle", "Exchange with Lotus Notes", "IIS with Apache and JBoss", etc.
Parent
Re:Explain this to me (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite. Saving Apple was (presumably) to help stave off the anti-trust suits against Microsoft by preserving a weak but "potentially credible" competitor.
There was no "save Apple" moment.
When MS invested millions of dollars in Apple, Apple had billions of dollars in the bank. The investment was merely a part of a settlement between Apple and MS that ended the lawsuits Apple had against MS, and for Microsoft's part, they had to buy some Apple stock and promise to keep selling Office for a number of years.
Parent
Re:Explain this to me (Score:5, Interesting)
When MS invested millions of dollars in Apple, Apple had billions of dollars in the bank. The investment was merely a part of a settlement between Apple and MS that ended the lawsuits Apple had against MS, and for Microsoft's part, they had to buy some Apple stock and promise to keep selling Office for a number of years.
You're mostly correct. When MS invested in Apple, they had a little over a billion dollars in cash available. The bigger problem was that their market share and stock price had been tumbling for years (1997-1998 was a huge low point, the lowest in some 10 years). Apple wasn't in tremendous financial trouble just yet, but they were worried about the direction things were going, and (as Apple should know better than anyone) public perception of a company's performance is just as important as the real numbers.
The $150 million was really a drop in the bucket. What was more important was that they paid Apple that via purchasing stock which they weren't allowed to sell for 3 years. As you said, they also agreed to continue writing and selling Office for the Mac. They agreed to collaborate on Java to ensure interoperability. Best of all was the agreement to make IE the default browser on the Mac! ;)
Basically, it was Microsoft showing faith in the Apple platform that "saved Apple". Yes, they are competitors, but as Steve Jobs said, "We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose, and for Microsoft to win, Apple has to lose." Considering Microsoft is a publicly-owned company, their motives were obviously more than just being buddy-buddy with Apple. That's not really the point, however.
This video is pretty neat [youtube.com] to watch now (some 12 years later). It's Jobs announcing the new partnership with Microsoft and the reation of the audience (imagine what it would be like now).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember those days - Mac users would brag about "Think Different" due to not running Windows, and then run a whole suite of Microsoft products such as Office, Internet Explorer etc...
(Although I see that now, "Think Different" is replaced with "Get an iSomething to be like everyone else"...)
Re:Explain this to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Eh, Apple's "billions of dollars in the bank" was basically Enron accounting, and that was reflected in the stock price.
Um, no. It was actual cash on hand.
The Microsoft "investment" provided a serious boost for Apple in their times of dire need, and there is no need to pathetically try to rewrite history.
The boost wasn't the cash. It wasn't even, directly, the deal with Microsoft.
The deal with Microsoft was the result of a change in direction for Apple. At most, it was a "vote of confidence" from MS, especially the commitment to continue to provide MS Office.
No, the boost was Jobs' redirection of Apple which appeared to be increasingly rudderless at the 90s wore on.
Unless you are one of those late 90s-era melon-headed downsies mac zealots who actually believed Apple was not in serious financial conditions. In that case a shithouse OS like MacOS 8 is exactly what you deserved.
Apple wasn't hurting for cash, they were hurting for direction. MS's $150 million had essentially zero direct effect for Apple financially.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux's overlap with Windows is much smaller than its overlap with HP, IBP, and Sun/Oracle.
This may be a large part of their considerations, although helping your enemy's enemies is a strategy that has backfired many times in the past. Another part of it is likely that they want to be seen as not so much of a threat by the growing crowd of FOSS users; by betting so heavily on the corporate world, Microsoft have managed to push away a large part of the people who are going to be important and influential decision makers in the future: the students, who can't afford to pay for an expensive OS, MS O
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a given that MS wants to do everything possible to destroy Linux, at least not immediately.
Having a (bad) competitor can be better than not having one at all, as it's a useful tool to deny having a monopoly. They can use this as an example to show to the EU commissisions in order to prove they're not trying to stop Linux from competing.
Linux can help MS... it can get companies that are still using proprietary UNIX such as HP-UX, AIX on SPARCs or Itaniums to switch to Xeon over time. Adopting
Re:Explain this to me (Score:4, Insightful)
It may also be the first shot in an attempt to embrace and extend, too. After all, there's quite a lot of rather nice technology in Linux. Apt-get and the open source infrastructure is a heck of an improvement over Microsoft's "Add or remove programs" feature, in my opinion, to say nothing of the dog. Just one example.
I wonder if future convergence will ever reach a point where I'll be writing this on my favorite (yet to be developed) operating system, an outgrowth of some mixture of a number of them.
Or maybe I'll just chuck it all and go back to VMS.
Parent
Re:Explain this to me (Score:4, Insightful)
"Apt-get and the open source infrastructure is a heck of an improvement over Microsoft's "Add or remove programs" feature, in my opinion, to say nothing of the dog. Just one example."
There are always alternatives, it's just that some don't "feel" like MS stuff enough, so they fall by the wayside. I think this is the biggest hurdle that Linux has to leap before it can gain any serious traction on MS. Until it "feels" more like Windows, etc. the vast majority of average users out there won't use it.
Case in point, your example.
I use a program called Revo Uninstaller instead of MS's "Add/Remove Application" software. It is far more useful, actually uninstalls things and is free. It runs an application's built in uninstaller, then goes back afterwards and searches for leftover registry entries and files. It then allows you to manually remove them.
It is so accurate and downright honest about it, I actually use it to test an application for "trustworthyness". I will install an app, then immediately uninstall it with Revo and take note of how much the applications uninstaller left behind. You'd be amazed at how much crap some apps leave behind, most intentionally. Adobe is the worst. I uninstalled one of their apps (reader, I think) and the entire program was still on my hard drive. The Adobe uninstaller straight up fucking lied to me.
It must work because attempting to uninstall Adobe Flash Player gives you a message that says Adobe refuses to uninstall while Revo is running. Essentially, they want to leave shit on your HD and they KNOW Revo will subvert this.
Sounds great, right? So why doesn't everyone use it?
Simple. It doesn't "feel" like the "Add/Remove" app that people are used to. It is hard to convince people that the application they are using doesn't do what they want it to once they have been using it long enough, even if you have the evidence right on the screen in front of them. Some sort of mental block, I suppose. I don't understand it, but I certainly recognize it when I see it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can only talk about openSUSE as that is what I know best. I assume the same will be available in some sort on other distributions.
The big difference with Add/Remove and the way Linux works is that Linux distributions work with Repositories. e.g. if I want to install slrn, I go to http://software.opensuse.org/search [opensuse.org] and do the search there and click on "One-Click Install". That will add the needed repositories if they are not yet available.
If I want to remove a program, I go to the openSUSE version of Add/
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand how installing apps on Linux works.
My point is that it is different from how it is done on Windows and that the "feel" of this difference is what drives typical Windows users away from Linux, among other differences.
Fear of the unknown, maybe, or maybe something like putting on somebody else's underwear. It just don't feel right, so they don't do it.
Humans are creatures of habit, and Linux developers need to take that into account.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are always alternatives, it's just that some don't "feel" like MS stuff enough, so they fall by the wayside.
I'm not a patent lawyer but I should think an "Add/remove" programs feature that actually adds programs is sufficiently innovative in the Windows world to merit patent protection.
Re:Explain this to me (Score:5, Insightful)
It is.
Microsoft isn't a homogeneous organisation. Parts of it are still in the "Embrace" part of the plan while others are working on "Extinguish" [arstechnica.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Same reason there isn't a "-1 Ad-Hominem" mod.
Slashdot ran out of 'em within a week of opening.
Re:Explain this to me (Score:5, Interesting)
why isn't microsoft doing everything possible to destroy linux? Is this a "saved apple" moment all over again??
You seem to be making a strange equation between "maximizing profits" and "destroying Linux." The goal of most corporations, Microsoft included, is to make money. Utterly destroying a competitor which, although vocal, represents only a single-digit threat to their market share, seems like a rather irrational expenditure of resources.
You have an awfully pessimistic world view if you equate the maximization of your own success with the downfall of all others.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly because according to the news, Microsoft has far more problems with patent trolls and their ilk than they do with Linux infringing on their intellectual property.
I can see how it makes sense to ally with the "good guys" (including the the biggest patent assholes aka IBM) to create a broad patent pool for mutual self-defense. This also benefits the OSS community because its only a matter of time until a patent troll goes after Firefox or OpenOffice instead of Microsoft.
Re:Explain this to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Speculation [groklaw.net] is that Microsoft only invited non practicing entities (aka "patent trolls") to this auction. It is very possible that the intent was to sell the patents to a company that could wield them against Linux companies without fear of retribution, but AST managed to step in and get the highest bid on them, and then turned around and sold them to the OIN. This is a subversive plan by MS that backfired.
Parent
This is why Mono is dangerous. (Score:5, Insightful)
This possibility is why Mono is dangerous, and why Microsoft's promise not to sue is worthless. Since the promise not to sue is not a patent license, it doesn't bind any future purchasers of Microsoft's patents on .Net.
All Microsoft has to do is sell a couple of their more critical patents to patent trolls, after first granting themselves and all the Microsoft .Net users a suitable non-revokable license to them. *BANG*! No more Mono, and all the apps written for it become illegal to run in the US - unless you run them on Microsoft .Net. This is perfectly safe for Microsoft since they and their customers are protected by the patent licenses.
Parent
This isn't what's called winning (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a really expensive way to dodge a tiny part of the software patent problem, and it involves paying Microsoft millions. And for every such trick we win, how many did we lose?
The upcoming Bilski review is the first time in 28 years that the Supreme Court in the USA will review the patentability of software - that's were we can get a real victory. I'm working on an amicus brief which'll have to be submitted within about two weeks. If anyone wants to help, it would be very useful to expand the swpat.org wiki's information about studies which show the harm of software patents:
And to add more info about arguments for abolishing software patents:
This is our big chance and might be the last one for decades.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Patents Don't Protect the Community (Score:4, Insightful)
All this talk of "defensive patents" that supposedly "protect the community" is just a fraud. To protect the community, take all the documentation of the patent, and put it in the public domain. Then, anyone who wants can implement the tech, without restriction, forever. Keeping it patented retains the power of the patent holder to deny implementation to someone, sometime.
If they were really serious about merely protecting the community, they'd give up the patent control entirely. But it's clear that "the" community just means whoever the patent holder wants to defend from someone else who they exclude. That's entirely against what the Linux way of real open development means: anyone, anytime can join the community by coding and releasing.
These "defensive" patent orgs will bite us in the ass. Otherwise they wouldn't be investing time and money in not just the patent portfolios and all the work to maintain them, but also in conning us into believing it's for our own good.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Patents Don't Protect the Community (Score:5, Insightful)
take all the documentation of the patent, and put it in the public domain.
That's what a patent does in the first place!
It just provides monopoly protection for actually using said patent.
In fact, this was the whole point of patents. Say I invented lemonade. Without a patent, I'd keep it my secret family recipe for generations, and anyone who wanted to make lemonade would have to reverse engineer it -- but if someone did, I wouldn't be able to say much.
With a patent, I would publish the documentation ("It's just sugar, water, and lemon juice.") and then only I can make lemonade. Or I can license the recipe to others -- it's not like they don't know how to make it now, it's that they legally can't unless I let them.
If they were really serious about merely protecting the community, they'd give up the patent control entirely.
I'm not sure it's legally possible to do that, is the problem. Moreover, having a process patented provides clear documentation that you patented it first, thus putting the burden on anyone's infringing patent to prove that they invented it before you did.
No, my big problems with this are not that I think the result is bad, but because I think it should be unnecessary -- I highly doubt Microsoft has any stunning invention that Linux "stole" for which prior art doesn't exist a thousandfold, and even if there were, I'm not sure software patents should exist at all.
But if I'm going to accept that they exist, and that someone has to hold them, I'd much rather that someone not be Microsoft, no matter how legally binding their "covenant not to sue" is.
Though it would be pretty slimy if this new organization doesn't have some sort of "covenant not to sue." Maybe that's the motive? Blech, now I have to go wash the evil from my brain...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
A patent doesn't put anything in the public domain. I think you just don't know what "public domain [wikipedia.org]" means. It means there is no owner, no one can exert property rights in it, there's no legal way to exclude anyone from using it.
A patent is a registration that prohibits anyone else implementing what's patented. That's its entire point. Publishing it doesn't endanger that exclusive ownership, and lets everyone else know what they're excluded from implementing (unless they get a license from the patent holder
Re: (Score:2)
All this talk of "defensive patents" that supposedly "protect the community" is just a fraud. To protect the community, take all the documentation of the patent, and put it in the public domain. Then, anyone who wants can implement the tech, without restriction, forever. Keeping it patented retains the power of the patent holder to deny implementation to someone, sometime.
You have completely misunderstood the point of a defensive patent. The idea is that if someone sues over one of the technologies that the OIN is protecting, OIN can look in its portfolio for a patent that the suer is infringing, and that can be used against the suer.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I have completely called BS on the need for a patent to do what "defensive patents" claim.
If the OIN (or anyone else) simply released all their patents into the public domain, then there would be completely clear defense for anyone using them without restriction - which is what "the point" is supposed to be. If the OIN wanted to also deliver legal advice or representation to people using something OIN put in the public domain, that would actually be useful to protect users of OIN's "portfolio".
The only
Re:Patents Don't Protect the Community (Score:5, Insightful)
Rethink your position. The point of defensive patents is to leverage what you have to make up for what you don't have.
If you sue me over patent A, I can countersue you over patent B, and force you to settle with me amicably in a sharing arrangement.
If I give away by patent B so that unicorns dance among sunshine and rainbow farts, then I end up fucked when you sue me over patent A. I am also powerless to help anyone else in the open source community being attacked over patent A, because I gave away my leverage to the public domain.
I'm all for beating swords into plowshares, but if you're likely to show up and stab me with your sword, I better keep my sword around, too.
Inside Mac OS X Snow Leopard: 64-bits [roughlydrafted.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Publication doesn't negate the patent itself.
Only covenants not to sue negate patent rights.
Re: (Score:2)
No, releasing an invention into the public domain negates any patent. If one has the right to do it, like if one holds the patent. Or if one just releases into the public domain instead of the long, costly and complex process of patenting.
Covenants not to sue can have wriggle room. And to be enforced, someone has to sue the party making the covenant. Public domain prevents suing much more effectively (though nothing is perfect protection from a frivolous lawyer) than any patent and covenant can be.
Re:Patents Don't Protect the Community (Score:5, Insightful)
He said it best:
“Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.”
— meringuoid (568297) @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454) [slashdot.org]
Parent
Groklaw Theory (Score:5, Interesting)
This is being covered over at Groklaw [groklaw.net], and PJ's theory is that Microsoft intended that these patents be used against Linux, but they wanted clean hands. Hence the auction, but it backfired when the trolls didn't win.
Sure Microsoft could have arranged a private sale to known trolls, but their hands would have been a little grimy if not dirty.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not paranoid when they actually are out to get you.
And really -- I know you're often pro-Microsoft, borderline fanboy, but even you should be able to see that Steve "FUCKING KILL GOOGLE" Ballmer would love a chance to cut Linux off at the knees.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not paranoid when they actually are out to get you.
Allow me to point to Occam's Razor.
Hey Microsoft! If you're serious you could always (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, I don't know. Stop funding Darl McBride. [builderau.com.au]
That would be a nice start.
Apple? (Score:2)
May be this is Microsoft's way of countering Apple? Support Linux to keep unix-like marketplace from falling entirely into Apple's hands? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you serious?
As near as I can tell, there has been almost 0 UNIX marketshare falling to Apple. Apple doesn't make a UNIX; they make a UNIX spec compliant desktop operating system for home users and artistic types - and the associated hardware to go with it.
It's a nice thought, but no. Apple is nowhere near stable or supported enough for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no Apple fanboi, but Mac OSX is UNIX. Who they market it to is irrelevant.
Patents are so 1999... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That would really be a stupid thing for MS to do. It would simply make them another commodity dealer for UNIX.
MS's blessing and curse is all the applications that need Windows to run. It's a blessing because it has protected them from competitors, but it's a curse because it limits how they can evolve Windows.
If they really wanted to throw away their legacy advantage they'd be better off creating a brand new OS than switching from one set of legacy baggage to another.
Yin/yang (Score:2)
For every good thing MS does it makes sure to do some evil.
See:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/ms_linux_pitch/ [theregister.co.uk]
Not so fast. (Score:3, Insightful)
"And by allowing the patents to go to AST in the first place, Microsoft may (the article implies) be signaling at least their lack of active intent to disrupt the Linux marketplace."
Im much more inclined to believe that the intent was some patent troll getting their hands on the patents. They want a new SCO, no doubt.
Linux is fine, US software industry in trouble (Score:4, Interesting)
misleading title .. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Since Ballmer isn't the face in the Borg icon, what's your point?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That all sounds very reasonable. And if I didn't have personal knowledge of what its like dealing with Enterprise IT providers that partner with your company, I might think what you've described is The Truth. However, I know that running Linux in a Microsoft dominated industry is troublesome. Most of my work involves Unix systems, so a Linux desktop is mostly feasible. But we have to be really careful when looking at purchasing tech unless it comes with a Windows trojan horse. No - not malware. Rather
Re: (Score:3, Informative)