Comments on: Comes Antitrust: Microsoft’s Attack Plan on GNU/Linux and Today’s Lessons http://techrights.org/2009/08/02/halloween-and-lessons-2009/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:00:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jose_X http://techrights.org/2009/08/02/halloween-and-lessons-2009/comment-page-1/#comment-71819 Jose_X Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:23:32 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=15987#comment-71819 I can't help point out some obvious things. A note on mono: it grabbed the best of the two options >> Pros: Capture some of the Linux dev mindshare by making it easy to bring Linux apps to NT >> Pros: Ride the wave & try to evangelize Win32 While avoiding the negatives: >> Cons: Hurts Win32 evangelization and through proxies that sing the glories of Windows over Linux mostly avoids >> Cons: Dramatically evangelizes Linux & may risk MSFT IP due to GPL license issues Microsoft has to have protocols, API, etc that are difficult to clone and which work better with their software; otherwise, they'd be committing the sin of "giving away the .. APIs". >> Windows clients must always be able to communicate with Linux servers (and vice-versa). However, there MUST be additional value created when a Windows machine is touching another Windows machine. NOT doing this is akin to giving away the Win32 APIs. Every group defining protocols needs to remember this. http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2009080300335OSMSNT >> The fine balance between protecting/financing our innovations and interoperability will get more difficult overtime But, it is relatively easy today. The fine balance meant documenting more of their interfaces (EU order) and ECMA/ISO standards, but adding in patents (and still keeping closed source interop issues alive). >> Additionally, strong patent procurement is a key enabler which allows us to publish more of our source code to leverage evangelization benefits (the patent application process is, in a manner of speaking, a form of source publication) I can’t help point out some obvious things.

A note on mono: it grabbed the best of the two options

>> Pros: Capture some of the Linux dev mindshare by making it easy to bring Linux apps to NT
>> Pros: Ride the wave & try to evangelize Win32

While avoiding the negatives:

>> Cons: Hurts Win32 evangelization

and through proxies that sing the glories of Windows over Linux mostly avoids

>> Cons: Dramatically evangelizes Linux & may risk MSFT IP due to GPL license issues

Microsoft has to have protocols, API, etc that are difficult to clone and which work better with their software; otherwise, they’d be committing the sin of “giving away the .. APIs”.

>> Windows clients must always be able to communicate with Linux servers (and vice-versa). However, there MUST be additional value created when a Windows machine is touching another Windows machine. NOT doing this is akin to giving away the Win32 APIs. Every group defining protocols needs to remember this.

http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2009080300335OSMSNT

>> The fine balance between protecting/financing our innovations and interoperability will get more difficult overtime But, it is relatively easy today.

The fine balance meant documenting more of their interfaces (EU order) and ECMA/ISO standards, but adding in patents (and still keeping closed source interop issues alive).

>> Additionally, strong patent procurement is a key enabler which allows us to publish more of our source code to leverage evangelization benefits (the patent application process is, in a manner of speaking, a form of source publication)

]]> By: Needs Sunlight http://techrights.org/2009/08/02/halloween-and-lessons-2009/comment-page-1/#comment-71773 Needs Sunlight Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:14:56 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=15987#comment-71773 These three points from Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff's Exhibit 06501 were written in *1998* 1. OSS projects have achieved “commercial quality” 2. OSS projects have become large-scale & complex 3. OSS has a unique development process with unique strengths/weakness Note in particular points 1 and 2 were achieved over a decade ago. MS has been holding back, undermining and destroying the IT sector for that long. Osama bin Laden can't even hold a candle to that much destruction when added up in dollars. The body count has to be higher too, if you count MS problems in mission-critical systems and environments. These three points from Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff’s Exhibit 06501 were written in *1998*

1. OSS projects have achieved “commercial quality”
2. OSS projects have become large-scale & complex
3. OSS has a unique development process with unique strengths/weakness

Note in particular points 1 and 2 were achieved over a decade ago.

MS has been holding back, undermining and destroying the IT sector for that long. Osama bin Laden can’t even hold a candle to that much destruction when added up in dollars. The body count has to be higher too, if you count MS problems in mission-critical systems and environments.

]]>