Microsoft Fracturing the Open-Source Community 299
TechGeek sends us to eWeek, where Mark Shuttleworth is quoted to the effect that Microsoft has succeeded in fracturing the Linux and open-source community with its patent indemnity agreements. Quoting: "Microsoft's strategy was to drive a wedge into the open-source community and unsettle the marketplace, Shuttleworth said. He also took issue with the Redmond, Wash., software maker for not disclosing the 235 of its patents it claims are being violated by Linux and other open-source software. 'That's extortion and we should call it what it is,' he said." Shuttleworth added, "I don't think this will end well for the companies that slipped up and went down that road."
Letter to Mr. Gates (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I know which one you think you have, but I'm not sure if it's the same as what you're actually displaying.
Re:Letter to Mr. Gates (Score:4, Funny)
No. Don't bring that anywhere near here.
Oh, GATES. Whew! Nevermind.
In other words (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other words (Score:4, Interesting)
The Blame is Not MS (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, the blame is not Microsoft's. It is the community. OSS under GPL3 is fast approaching the stance of the Catholic Church as recently expounded by the Pope. In otherwords, "its all or nothing", "you're either with us, or against us", and so forth.
GPL2 was fine, the lessers are fine. But, brow beating projects into GPL3 is going to make the community rebel, and these people are all about rebellion.
The split is not happening because of MS, it is because of RMS, all holiness to his name.
Re:The Blame is Not MS (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted, GPLv3's been in the offing for some time. But I reckon so was the MS/Novell deal - these things don't happen overnight. Version 3 of the GPL actually has the potential to bring the OSS community closer together by making clear the issues surrounding things like software patents and preventing (or at least severely curatailing) similar deals.
We should be grateful that the only major player to take the Microsoft pill was Novell - it would be far worse if Redhat and Canonical had as well.
Re:The Blame is Not MS (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted, GPLv3's been in the offing for some time. But I reckon so was the MS/Novell deal - these things don't happen overnight. Version 3 of the GPL actually has the potential to bring the OSS community closer together by making clear the issues surrounding things like software patents and preventing (or at least severely curatailing) similar deals.
How does GPLv3 bring people together? Many who've contributed to the Linux kernal as well as others have already said they won't move to it. They don't and OSS is fractured. Sure the bits and pieces that aren't moved can be replaced but the fact is is that by some not moving to v3 OSS is fractured.
FalconRe:The Blame is Not MS (Score:5, Interesting)
Before there were people in the GPL 2 camp sure they argued inside on things but with GPL 3 my making the rules clear means people who were once in the GPL camp are now out. Thus causing fracturing. You are bringing a smaller group of people together at the expense of ostracizing others who don't agree with this view. It took a long time for companies to begin to warm up to the GPL, and began finding ways to use it and make profit off of it. Then RMS with his sometimes hypocritical usually Ultra Leftist views decides that companies are abusing the nature of open source (except for IBM who can't do no wrong... Who probably is a big supporter of the FOSS). Most of us doesn't care about what Microsoft and Novel is doing trading patents in exchange for mutual protection of each others patents are a normal thing that goes on. But GPL 3 is what worries people myself included because we feel that it is going into a direction that is to strict and removes to much freedom from the developer and the user as well. Because a lot of the time Users are Developers too.
Re:The Blame is Not MS (Score:4, Insightful)
GPL3 does not remove any freedom from the developer. The developer either chooses it or not.
GPL3 does not remove any freedom from the user. The user is not subject to the GPL in any version. You are only subject to it if you modify the source code AND distribute it.
With your stunning ignorance of the GPL on such proud display one wonders what kind of a dumbass modded your post up.
Re: (Score:3)
What does that mean? If you are a developer then you can either write your own code, take code others wrote under the BSD/MIT type license or take code under GPL2 or 3. It's your choice.
Except, there is already talk of forking LARGE projects like GCC because of the GPL3 move. There is a lot of in-fighting amongst project developers of other projects concerning the switching of the license, especially where some developers do not want to switch. So, this means they fork a pre-GPLv3 code and guess what, we have splintering. Some kids might be a bit young to remember other big project splits, but they have occurred. Usually these splits occur over other items, but this sort of thing happ
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lets not forget Linspire and Xandros. No, not major, but let's give credit it's due.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I am an everphilskiian! I do not believe in the divinity of RMS! Repent, relicense, or burn in hell!
Re:The Blame is Not MS (Score:4, Informative)
What exactly is wrong with the GPL3 and what makes you think anyone is "brow beating" anyone else into using it?
There are always going a few people who thrive on argument and chaos but most of the people actually involved in the creation of the GPL3 have been pretty civil IMHO and I think that even includes RMS. Just look at how much the GPL3 has improved since the first draft based on input from just about anyone who cared enough to speak up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Disclaimer: IANAD (I am not a developer) but for better or for worse, GPL3 is more restrictive than GPL2 (it's designed to be). I think at the very least this will cause people to re-evaluate the licenses they release their code under, some will switch to GPL3, some will stay with GPL2 (removing the "or any later version" from the license notice) and still others will opt for an altogether different open source license.
For a long time GPL has enjoyed it's position as the de-facto open source license, the
Re:The Blame is Not MS (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. I was unsure of GPLv3 for quite awhile. I read lots of articles and opinions on both sides. I really believe GPL3 and people like RMS, whether you love him or hate him, are important to the long-term survival of FOSS. I understand that people want Linux to be successful and right now we, as a community, are at a pivitol time. Linux has grown and matured and is now poised to claim a respectable percentage of the desktop market. These gains have come slowly and steadily, despite overwhelming odds and powerful enemies. This has happened because of the nature of free software and the GPL.
I believe that we need 'radicals' like RMS in the Free Software Movement to protect against those who would advocate compromise in the name of short term gains, that will in the long run destroy it.
I want FOSS to be around and giving MS sweats for years to come. I want to know that it will still be free, as in both beer and speech, for my kids to experiment with. Not negotiated into corporate mediocrity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I work on a couple of GPLv2 projects and can't wait to release them under GPLv3. No one is "brow beating" projects into going GPLv3, projects are going GPLv3 because it is the better license.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Much ado about nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
installing programs in Linux (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the only thing holding me back from switching to Linux completely is the horrible and useless installation of new apps. Why can't Linux work like Windows - download a setup file, run it and it's there....
Ah but you can install software in Linux by just downloading and running it. I don't really know much about Linux but I know there's apt-get and rpm among others. And Linspire has CNR [linspire.com] for Linspire Linux and they are porting it for other Linux distros [cnr.com]. CNR allow you to select those programs y
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
I tend to agree. If the Linux community is worried about Microsoft trying to fracture them, the simple solution is to not attack each other for dealing with Microsoft.
The Microsoft deal IMHO is a good one for Novel. Their target market is the enterprise. They know that Microsoft is not going to be driven from that market any time soon. Partnering with Microsoft to guarantee interoperability just makes it easier for a suit to decide it is OK to install Suse Linux. I think that anything that results in a greater installed base of any Linux distribution is a win for the Linux community. Ultimately it should lead to greater adoption and acceptance of Linux as a mainstream OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much. One of the major things that's actuall fracturing the open source community are the zealots out there that scream at people for using a solution other than theirs or, even worse, using anything (no matter what it is) that isn't open.
Ironically, they tend to be the same people that say "copying music isn't stealing" but turn aroun
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't copy music, nor do I download games, and I don't own any unpurchased-by-me movies either. I don't participate in copyright infringement, I don't condone it. I recognize that it is illegal and unlawful. But I also recognize that it is not stealing. It is copyright infringement.
Do you realize that murder and manslaughter and aggravated assault are different?
Do you realize that robbery and theft are different?
Do you realize that trespassing, breaking and entering and burglary are different?
If not, then I can understand that you don't know the difference between copyright infringement and stealing. But if you do understand the difference in all of those above, then why do you have such a hard time understanding that there is a difference between copyright infringement and stealing?
I will say it one more time: Copyright infringement, while still an illegal and unlawful act (in jurisdictions where the copyright is held), is NOT stealing. They aren't the same crime. Both are crimes, but they are not the same crime.
I hope that clears it up for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize that robbery and theft are different?
Do you realize that trespassing, breaking and entering and burglary are different?
Bravo! Personally in my daily life, I don't care what words mean sometimes, but I realize if I was ever on the wrong end of a jury that I would help they would understand the difference.
If you killed a kid who jumped out in front of you car by accident on the way home, would you rather be accused
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I never said everyone who uses linux is a zealot. If I did, I'd have to call myself one.
I said the zealots are the ones who yell at anyone using a solution other than theirs or anything that isn't open (no matter what the non-open solution is). And the truth is that those people ARE a problem for the community. They not only sp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pulling the argument of "the information wants to be free" (which is what your basically doing) as a reason why the two are different is complete crap. Both cases are someone taking the work of someone else and
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
A long time side-effect of Linux can be that it can force through enough standards so that a new OS can compete on level ground with Microsoft. That would be extremely bad for Microsoft and thats why they are so afraid. Once the lockin dissapears the biggest reason to use Microsofts products also vanish. There is a reason why Microsoft hates standards and its not because they dont work or is hard to implement.
The only winner is Microsoft, they never do anything to be nice.
Re: (Score:2)
And furthermore, such a distro wouldn't have the broad support of the open source community, and therefore any success that it enjoyed would be more due to marketing
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you, Mr. Shuttleworth! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think what the open source community needs is a patent troll. Hey, SCO's looking to get bought out about now, huh? Maybe with the help of our billionaire friend here and some help from IBM, we could buy SCO and then turn Microsoft's dog against it. That's right. Have SCO sue Microsoft for patent infringement. And, oh, yeah, didn't SCO make some little known Linux distro? Maybe we could taunt them into countersuing and they'd be forced to reveal at least some of those supposed '235 patents'.
Unless it's all complete BS, like I've been saying all along...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thank you, Mr. Shuttleworth! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it is best called Danegeld [wikipedia.org]. It rarely works out well for the target.
Re: (Score:2)
Moderation: +1 Pre-Norman English History reference
Re:He probably started with a different word... (Score:2)
Fractured, schmatured... (Score:5, Interesting)
bickering before Microsoft got involved. Ever since someone noticed the GPL and BSD licenses were different, there's been 3000GW of heat produced by zealots and pragmatists alike (and almost no light).
This is nothing new. Haven't you ever read debian-legal?
Re:Fractured, schmatured... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If they just want to use the software, they should just go and use it. No point in reading trough flamewars.
Re: (Score:2)
Your average user (and often even your average developer) doesn't generally worry about that. Businesses are a whole other story.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, as I stated before, some businesses are wary of using open source because of the license confusion and conflicts in the community between groups of zealots when the sane among us just make and use software.
I have to say that, as a troll, you suck.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you've just been lucky to work in companies that actually have a clue. Most don't, especially about technology. Or perhaps I've just been unlucky. As far as I've seen most people - and businesses - pay about as much attention to software licenses and EULAs as they do to the terms they're agreeing to when they buy a toaster. Unless software is their core business, it's just seen as a necessary but uninteresting expense. Most EULAs you don't even see until you've bought the software, anyway; and if you'
Old FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
The "petty schisms" are all silly and the free software world has gone from strength to strength anyway. Free software encourages people to fork and merge, so disagreements are really a strength because the good results are always picked back up.
Re:Fractured, schmatured... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish. Apparently vi users have taken over and as part of their perniciously evil plot have decided that the documentation for Emacs (which you almost certainly need if you are going to actually use Emacs) is classified as non-free. What's worse now I get an email from "Virtual RMS" warning me about the dangers of documentation written by the real RMS under a license created by RMS.
That's pretty much where I draw the line. If licenses written and approved by RMS are not Free enough for you then we nee
Re: (Score:2)
article/comments don't elaborate on "fracturing" (Score:2)
The Linux Community was quite capable of indulging in ridiculously petty schisms, flamewars, arguments and bickering before Microsoft got involved.
Agreed- and after skimming the entire article, I couldn't find any assertions as to what the supposed split is (does he really think that *anyone* cares except some gullible executives?), what projects it has negatively affected, and so on. No claims about X% of corporations going back to Windows/Solaris/MacOS X, nothing.
It's Shuttleworth simply running of
Capitolism (Score:2, Insightful)
I generally think that the open-source community does this fine without anyone's help. Microsoft saw the opportunity to use it's weakness and exploited it.
Welcome to capitolism.
Re:Capitolism (Score:5, Funny)
Where everybody is forced to live in the city containing the main government buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in the lobby, you can get away with anything, apparently.
Pedantry begets pedantry (Score:3, Informative)
Lesson Learned (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Lesson learned (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethe's_Faust [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master_and_Marga
"Succeeded"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me Shuttleworth is saying the exact opposite of what this Slashdot editor thinks.
Now, now. EWeek is reporting a success, despite what the expert they asked told them. If Slashdot reported it the other way, people would be screaming that EWeek said no such thing. He does believe that Novel has been harmed:
Re: (Score:2)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
One problem that the OSS community suffers from is that there are many licensing forms, and that some are in conflict with what's suitable for some end-users. It is also a challenge to make money from OSS solutions unless you have a good model available. And there are a large number of OSS projects that are sponsored in one way or another.
Anyway - one must recognize that the view of having source code as a valuable asset is about to decay. The source code is just a tool - like a hammer or a screwdriver - that allows users to manage their information. The code in itself is useful to some extent, but the knowledge of how to use it us far more important - and here it's possible to make money even in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
And guns are just tools, but if your going to take over a country and subjugate the populace, you might want to see what you can do about making sure the people don't have any. The source code is the one and only tool that can guarantee that users will be able to retain control of their systems.
Re: (Score:2)
I recognize no such thing. That claim has been made here for 10 years now, and it is no more true today than it was then.
Until I see some significant market share gains by OSS (I'll use desktop Linux as the benchmark), at the expense of Microsoft, then I will remain unconvinced of the threat posed by OSS.
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, the desktop market is the only computing market where Linux isn't a major player. Linux is well established in every other market I can think of (servers, mainframe, supercomputing, embedded, etc).
If "Linux on Servers" had been your benchmark, you would have recognized the threat to MS several years ago. Everybody else did.
fracturing? (Score:2, Insightful)
For some perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Divide and conquer is an age old tactic. Open Source is meant to help us divide and yet still cooperate to use our separate works together, but MS is trying to get us to divide and argue amongst each other so that we no longer cooperate but stand divided on what MS is trying to make into an issue. Come on guys, MS walks in, saying "OK, half you guys get over here, and half you guys get over there because we say so. Hey hey hey, ubuntu guys, check out the way those Novell guys are looking at you...." etc. And it's like we're falling for it.
It all boils down to the fact that the software is not "under" any kind of agreement except the GNU GPL. We all know the patents are crap otherwise they would be disclosed. We all know patents do not even matter, otherwise MS (and any others who would want to squeeze GNU/Linux for some cash) would have made their move by now. All they're doing is prodding us and watching which way we squirm. Why should we squirm? Just get back to using FLOSS, nothing's changed. Except that maybe we're a lot bigger now and they're more scared.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The cat is already out of the bag (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My CEO was shocked when I told him that the accounting software was no longer supported by the original company. But we found some guys who used to work for the company and they'll come here and help us fix the problem. You just have to pay airfare, lodging and $200/hr.
Like they needed help (Score:4, Insightful)
KDE v GNOME
vi v emacs
Linux v BSD
Qt v gtk v tcl/tk v Swing v raw X calls
O(1) scheduler v Completely Fair Scheduler
GPLv2 v GPLv3 v BSD license
stuffing v potatoes
Like the open-source world needs help in becoming fractured. We're perfectly good at doing that ourselves, thank you very much.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
KDE
emacs
BSD
gtk
O(1) scheduler
BSD license
potatoes
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise, but it won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
We can't be divided, we are already utterly fragmented and internecine. Our strength is that we can never be absorbed; once open (and especially if GPLd) the code can never be killed.
Microsoft will try, and try, and try to divide the FOSS community, and each time they'll just make it stronger. Eventually the attempts will change Microsoft; the only real way it can fight and beat FOSS is to become FOSS.
Nothing Microsoft can do, no amount of money, patent blackmail, FUD, ISO corruption and bribery, not even murder and assassination, can stop the Community, because FOSS is not a business, it is a better technology, and like MSN/1.0 in 1995, where Microsoft thought, "let's beat the Internet by making our own private network", you cannot fight better technology. You use it, or your competitors do, and either way it survives.
Of course, in the meantime, Microsoft can and will cause a lot of pain and damage and destroy many careers and corrupt many officials, and mis-educate millions of young people. It's very sad. But in the long term, makes no difference.
Re:No surprise, but it won't work (Score:5, Interesting)
It is absolutely obvious that Microsoft has accepted that Linux will dominate, eventually, and is making plans for keeping its business afloat even after Windows has lost its grip on the market. Patents play a crucial role in this - you may want to run Linux on your machines but you'll have to pay Microsoft a patent royalty.
We're past the stage where Microsoft thinks it can shut-out FOSS. Actually, I expect that Microsoft has already made contingency plans for moving its core products onto either a Linux or a BSD kernel, much like Apple did.
There is no other reason to explain Microsoft's fanatical lobbying for software patents in Europe; it's not because the vendor thinks it'll suddenly be able to out-portfolio IBM, it's because it knows that it only needs 1 (one) valid patent on any key aspect of Linux (one that cannot be recoded), and it has won its game.
They will fail, in this as well, mainly because they are starting to get the whole IT sector lined up against them, with the exception of their puppy Linux vendors, and Intel, who fear Linux because it breaks their monopoly (Linux being totally portable is the ultimate monopoly killer).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
cowards (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Woe is Us (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except maybe both Shuttleworth and said nine year old know something you don't, gramps. It's true, and nothing proves it more than the release of GPLv3. Mainstream Linux has been the victim of assisted suicide. It was already looking to hang itself, and Microsoft, charitable souls that they are, provided the rope.
The only thing that can really fracture (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft didn't fracture the community... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You also better know what game you're supposed to be playing. This is Microsoft's big problem. The best football game in the world won't help you at a tennis match.
"That's a really great, uncounterable move... for chess. Pity we're playing checkers. *tak* *tak* *tak* King me."
Shuttleworth quakes, but not the rest of us..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people have told them directly, and in no uncertain terms, so sue me. The principal of estoppel says that Microsoft will get into hot water unlike any it has ever known should it open the pandora's box of patent litigation against the F/OSS community.
Shuttleworth dances with the devil. No wonder he's hot under the collar.
Linux isn't fractured. Linux isn't hurt. Linux development and FOSS will naturally evolve. It grows stronger. It is principled, where Microsoft certainly is specifically interested solely in shareholder return. Let's see, Linux has been successfully sued how many times? How many countries has busted Linux for restraint of trade and so on? How many attorney generals have sued Linux? Now show me the assets Microsoft gets by suing Linux. There is no Linux; there are multiple OS kernels, and a freighter full of GNU and GPL's apps. There are no assets. There ARE NO VIOLATORS. The lineage of what Linux has become has been more than adequately outlined in multiple different litigations by multiple reference-able authors.
That's why the SCO-IBM litigation farce was underwritten by Microsoft (and others) and why it's so flimsy. Shuttleworth needs to re-examine his motives. Certainly a corp as large as Micorosft can make anyone quake. So can several quarters of very negative revenues make Microsoft change its tune.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe you sue Red Hat. Hmmmmm. That'll be the day.
Maybe you sue Linus. Right. Make him a martyr. Seal your own fate.
Or maybe you sue users. That'll make 'em love you.
Or maybe you sue IBM. Fat chance on that one.
Or maybe you sue me. Go ahead. Sue me. Lot of assets there, buddy.
Or maybe you sue some poor orphanage. That's satisfying. Look at what happened when SCO sued AutoZone, Chrysler, etc. That stuck. Not.
A common enemy unites, not fractures, a community (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, after MS has made patent agreements with several companies, GPLv3 has been released, and several companies have explicitly REFUSED to sign such patent agreements with MS, the community is more cohesive -- more understanding of the importance of Free Software and in agreement that signing such patent indemnification agreements with Microsoft is a Bad Idea(tm).
As the dust settles, there are splits: Novell sits alongside Microsoft. Alongside the FSF we see Redhat, Ubuntu, Debian, and many others.
I'm excited that major vendors such as Dell and Lenovo are offering GNU/Linux pre-installed on their machines. By supporting such vendors, the Free Software community can show them that a strong demand for GNU/Linux exists. Unfortunately Lenovo will be pre-installing SuSE (from Novell) on their machines, and I encourage all of you geeks out there to WRITE to Lenovo and request that instead of SuSE they pre-install a distribution that respects Free Software such as Redhat or Ubuntu. Similarly, write to Dell and tell them that you STRONGLY appreciate the fact that they chose Ubuntu as their GNU/Linux distribution.
So to sum it up:
Keep on using the software, spend your money in support of these companies, and preach the good word of Free Software.
Peace. Love. Linux.
I didn't just write to Dell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slander, Libel (Score:2)
Predictable (Score:3, Insightful)
This is another part of the reason why I view the Linux "community" as such a toxic, virulent sociological sickness. It's because things like this effort on Microsoft's part demonstrate that, while Linux advocates can talk about the community valuing unity to the degree that they do, that's all such talk is; talk. Linux users are a lot quicker to shun each other for imagined violations of Stallmanite philosophy than they are to genuinely stand together against a common enemy. This is easy for Microsoft to see, and in conflict, it is customary to attempt to capitalise on the enemy's weakness. Sun Tzu also wrote that one of the most important things in war is to divide the enemy wherever possible, and to prevent the enemy from forming alliances with anyone.
Microsoft signs one of these agreements with Novell or whoever else, and it wins in two ways. It wins by potentially driving said company out of business, because of said company no longer being able to sell its' distribution, and it also wins by making sure that members of the community are too busy fighting each other to be able to do anything else, because of splits between those who still want to keep using said companies' distros and those who think it is wrong to do so. So they can sign these agreements, and then merely stand back to observe the fireworks. You yourselves do the rest.
The only time I'm ever going to see the Linux community as being a good thing is when said community genuinely starts behaving like one. That means getting some basic maturity. It also means that if someone is doing what you believe is the wrong thing, that rather than shunning that person at the first sign of infraction, you instead at least initially attempt to talk to the person about what it is that they're doing, and also that in such situations you also check your own assumptions. Most importantly, the howling, red eyed zealotry needs to go.
Want to start beating Microsoft, Linux users? Stop thinking and acting like religious fanatics, and in general, grow the hell up. Right now, you're being played like a violin, and if you want that to continue, just keep doing more of the same.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Novells spindoctors are on the job. (Score:3, Interesting)
When I read this article on
"SuSE, it's your Linux"
Which is pretty ironic really. I mean if it was our Linux we would never have let them deal with the devil like they did.
This ad shows that they really are concerned about the fallout from their pact with MS
Damned if they do ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Poorly reasoned article contradicts its own quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
How eWeek's Peter Galli managed to divine that "Microsoft has succeeded in fracturing the Linux... community" from Shuttleworth's clear refutation that "Microsoft is trying to unsettle the marketplace. It isn't working..." is beyond me.
This dubious claim of Galli's is one of the clearest cases of "white is black" reporting I've seen in a while. Shuttleworth clearly, from his own statements, does not agree with the concept that the community is "fractured." At best, he believes that a few insignificant vendors have been "drawn into [negotiations with MS and] have paid a significant price."
I would say, from his clear, concise statements, that he sees the whole, sordid event as "extortion," and a crucible that has purified the community, rather than "fractured."
Read Shuttleworth's statements (in TFA) and see if you don't agree that Peter Galli is either a) a poor reporter who made a gross mischaracterization or b) has a strong agenda and preconceptions and can't even tell white from black in his zeal to follow them.
--
Toro
Re:Im not fractured (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
PHP (or any other scripting language) is a too much of a niche to be very relevant here. As long as enterprise-critical projects (like Samba) are moving to GPL3, and Novell is targeting the enterprise, then the new GPL will be tested... hopefully soon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't much matter what happens with the Linux kernel anyhow - much of the userland (including nice things like glibc and gcc) will be GPLv3 if they're not already. And they are major work to replace.
How so? (Score:3, Insightful)