Controlling the opposition
Microsoft’s clever (but secret) attacks on Linux expansion
Summary: How Microsoft is making both Linux and Free software in general more dependent on Microsoft, the convicted monopolist
MICROSOFT wants MLAMP stacks to become more common. The “M” stands for “Microsoft” and it sits beneath or underneath the “L”, which is Linux. One example of this is the deal with Canonical and another is OpenStack [1, 2, 3]. Microsoft really wants to use Linux (with Novell) to push its proprietary layer underneath Linux (hence dependence) and persistence might eventually pay off. This is a world where Microsoft can literally switch Linux off, or hold it hostage (ransom payments for patents or so-called “subscription”). Here is bad news:
Microsoft is attempting to reintegrate support for Hyper-V back into OpenStack, months after the open source cloud-building project dropped support for the hypervisor in its latest release.
If it is “Open” stack, then there should be no question about it. Proprietary software should be rejected. How naive can people be here? Microsoft has also worked to make Linux dependent on Microsoft for 'permission' to boot. Those who aid criminals are doing us FOSS developers no favours. They merely help the criminal do reputation laundering while at the same time gaining more control in exchange for slush funds.
Groklaw‘s new coverage of the antitrust Novell case helps remind us of Microsoft’s abusive behaviour. This is not over yet:
PACER is showing that, without any notice to the public, the hearing on Microsoft’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law in the Novell v. Microsoft antitrust case happened behind our backs on June 7. It was scheduled for June 22.
Because it’s the weekend, I can’t find out what’s what until Monday. This judge tried to dump this case once before, if you recall, then was overturned on appeal, and then seemed to have a bit of an attitude about it, so that is what is giving me hives. But let’s not jump to conclusions, I keep telling myself, and wait for the explanation. There could be one. But it was a hearing on whether the judge should grant Microsoft’s request to declare it the winner of the entire dispute, without going to a second jury. The first, if you recall, was deadlocked. Microsoft is asking to avoid a second trial. In other words, they held a hearing without public notice on the entire enchilada, not some minor hearing on scheduling or about some administrative issue. I’m stunned.
Why can’t more people learn from the past? Microsoft is an anti-social and anti-competitive company; it’s a mistake to depend on it in any way at all. █
“Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!”