11.03.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft, Patents at 3:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A new interview with the lead developer of Linux covers the issue of patents, bringing to the surface some important viewpoints
Linus Torvalds has always been quite outspoken in his stance against software patents. In a new interview he emphasises this view and explains his own patents, which he says are on hardware. To quote:
I have filed at least 3 patents during Transmeta times. They were about hardware so I am happy about them. It was an interesting experience. I am not saying they were wonderful patents–I am saying it was interesting to see the crazy patent language you have to have and that’s the reason you have to have a patent lawyer because the language makes no sense. In US it’s technically English but it’s not really English. It’s like using English words but there are different meanings to them. There is a whole different set of rules about what things mean when they do a patent application. As I said it was a very interesting experience and I am not unhappy about that. It’s not as horrible as many patents.
I think patents probably work better in certain areas than they do in ours. Software patents? No. Process patents? No. They just don’t make sense.
“Personally,” he added, “I am of the opinion that going to court is a sign of a business that is dying. I am not saying that Microsoft is dying, it’s a sign, not a complete indicator.”
Let’s remember that companies are able to have patents also without being racketeers. IBM, for example, does not tend to sue companies using patents. Now that it applies for a patent on GPU-accelerated databases (partly hardware) we are reminded that IBM cannot be ignored either. “IBM is a heavy supporter of software patents,” adds the FFII’s president, who links to this article which says:
IBM has an idea how database access and data processing can be accelerated. IBM wants to take advantage of graphics processors to launch and execute database queries. Instead of traditional disk-based queries and an approach that slows performance via memory latencies and processors waiting for data to be fetched from the memory, IBM envisions in-GPU-memory tables as technology that could, in addition to disk tables, significantly accelerate database processing. According to a patent filed by the company, “GPU enabled programs are well suited to problems that involve data-parallel computations where the same program is executed on different data with high arithmetic intensity.”
Our goal is to get rid of those patent monopolies altogether. One step at a time we might get there. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.02.11
Posted in Kernel, Microsoft, Security, Windows at 6:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A couple of new posts/articles about Microsoft Windows and what they teach us about this platform’s viability
THE PLATFORM which made “computer viruses” analogous and often synonymous with Windows viruses just keeps delivering and disappointing every time. According to this, the Windows kernel has unpatched flaws with exploits out there. To quote:
The Duqu malware used to steal sensitive data from manufacturers of industrial systems exploits at least one previously unknown vulnerability in the kernel of Microsoft Windows, Hungarian researchers said.
It is without great shock that we also learn why Windows can never be used reliably on a server, which — if compromised — makes is hard to diagnose the cause. To quote a new post:
Imagine if there were 50 PCs, 100, or more. I would be scared to look and see what other errors are occurring on other Windows 7 PCs in the company. Administrators have better things to do, than comb through useless log files. Way to go Microsoft, a quality operating system here with Windows 7. It’s no wonder Windows isn’t used for mission critical appliances, and GNU/Linux is instead. I’m not saying that GNU/Linux logs are the best, but they are pretty good and usually have information that I can use, to help pinpoint the error a little bit. GNU/Linux does not, and I repeat, does not have this amount of useless garbage in its logs like Windows does.
How long before Microsoft Jack appears at the scene to produce some promotional Microsoft comments in ZDNet UK? Usually it does not take long for Microsoft zealots like Jack to do this in that site.
A reader sent us some more links, one about the decline of Microsoft’s Web browser and another titled “Microsoft unlikely to patch Duqu kernel bug next week” (evidently).
“Time [for the] world to choose Linux,” concluded our reader. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.16.11
Posted in FUD, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft at 11:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Threats by proximity and dependency, as covered in the news
Patents
Microsoft is attacking its competition with patents while IDG’s Microsoft boosters take a break from openwashing and whitewashing Microsoft, instead raving about the patents Microsoft gets with Skype. They also write about embrace & extend moves that put Microsoft nearer to the core of Linux, as we saw elsewhere recently.
Microsoft Linux
Mac Asay writes about Microsoft’s latest embrace and extend (for more proprietary lockin), which he comments on here (ignore the headline, Asay does not write the headlines). Microsoft exploits hooks even in the kernel, which is not new. We have explained Microsoft’s goals dozens of times before.
Black Duck
When releasing proprietary scareware is “Support[ing] Open Source” (news here too), then we know that Black Duck is lying again. But then again, Black Duck was created by a former marketing exectuive from Microsoft.
We already have a detailed idnex page about Black Duck. It explains what’s wrong with it, unlike newspapers that just repeat the deceitful press releases. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.01.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft, Novell, Servers, Virtualisation at 9:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Novell-Microsoft agreement still helps Microsoft ‘pollute’ open stacks and tax Linux
NOVELL was obliged to give Microsoft several big gifts in exchange for money, as we have shown over the years (it is right there in the contract too). One of those gifts was the pushing of Microsoft deep into the kernel, Linux. Jos does not like to talk about it. As OpenSUSE’s community manager and a paid employee he would rather ignore all those “hard” subjects and instead talk about happy news. But the matter of fact is, just as we repeatedly showed, Microsoft used Novell to make a hook for Microsoft inside Linux and now it is using this hook to interfere with GNU/Linux domination in so-called “clouds”. Microsoft tries to shove proprietary into open after help from its slaves at Novell/SUSE, as shown by this Microsoft booster who tries to put a positive spin on it.
“Microsoft is already making a fortune from “Linux tax”, which Novell helped standardise nearly 5 years ago.”The short story is (not to entertain the booster’s own spin), some people are trying to establish an open/free stack with Linux at the centre, so Microsoft exploits the hooks Novell planted in there (as per the contract) to make this stack Microsoft- and proprietary-dependent.
Well done, Novell. Microsoft is very proud. Microsoft is already making a fortune from “Linux tax”, which Novell helped standardise nearly 5 years ago. This is the legacy of Novell — a legacy we still need to cope with before it’s eradicated for good (or Microsoft goes out of business █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.21.11
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Google, Kernel, Marketing, Microsoft, Novell at 7:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Response to Microsoft’s latest public perception manipulations; a note about Mono portfolio and its proprietary nature under Xamarin’s wing
THE “killing with kindness” trick is a very effective one and it’s one that Microsoft’s PR people have used for a long time in order to paint critics of a convicted monopoly abuser (which engages in bribery, extortion, defamation, etc.) as “intolerant”, essentially characterising the victim as the offending party. We saw some of these tricks being used by pro-Microsoft lobbyists as well, e.g. in order to describe companies that Microsoft is attacking as the “bad” companies.
A new Microsoft video for the Linux Foundation — like a cake for Firefox — is part of this tactic which we have covered here for years. This comes around the same time as other PR efforts which we have been seeing this week [1, 2, 3], culminating perhaps in the suggestion that Microsoft “contributes” to Linux. Well, as the Microsoft booster from IDG points out, the real story is that Microsoft is kept aside after Microsoft violated the GPL and then needed to comply. A lot of people forget the background of Microsoft’s Hyper-V driver, which involves a well bribed Novell, a GPL violation complaint, and then massive PR/spin campaign from Microsoft. We covered this at the time and we covered it very exhaustively. As Larry reminds people:
So don’t get me started on those who would be like Neville Chamberlain trying to achieve “peace in our time” with Microsoft when the results would more than likely be, well, catastrophic as they were in Europe in the late ’30s and ’40s.
A leopard (even a Snow Leopard, but we’re getting off-topic) can’t change its spots, and to hear folks even discuss bringing up the possibility of working with Microsoft arguably is akin to collaborating with the enemy.
Microsoft’s participation in contributions to the Linux kernel, as discussed here yesterday, is based on fixing virtualization code they contributed to the kernel when it appeared that they had taken GPLed code to include in their program. So their original contribution of the code to the Linux kernel a couple of years ago was to comply with the GPL; fixing it, too, was their responsibility as outlined by the license as well. Do they deserve any special consideration for doing what they’re supposed to do?
A lot of this debate started due to bad headlines from the Linux community, later resulting in an open question for a Linux audiocast whose answers got summarised here (more in part 2). To quote one example:
spangwich said, “Microsoft’s ideology is diametrically opposed to that embodied in the Free Software movement. One is about owning, controlling and profiteering from doing so, and the other is about sharing, collaborating and (using the word carefully) ‘democratising’.”
Consider those in the ‘community’ who sidle with Microsoft, the Microsoft MVP Miguel de Icaza for example. As Microsoft's booster Anderson points out, de Icaza’s projects (hinged on Mono) became proprietary software-selling products, not an open source set of projects. According to de Icaza’s own blog, they now target Macs (with Microsoft API). Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has another rather deceiving headline which implies that MonoDroid and MonoTouch are open-source .NET when these are in fact proprietary products with patent risk.
It is a tad disturbing that sympathisers and collaborators of a company with criminal past (and present) are described as “peaceful”, whereas those who want justice are made to be seen as “radical”. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.19.11
Posted in Deception, FUD, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft at 4:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Commentary on journalists who trick people into reading articles that say the opposite of what their headlines say
THERE IS a new pattern of Linux FUD this week. Well, actually, it is not so new and we addressed it a couple of years ago. It’s to do with Microsoft’s proprietary-boosting patches for Linux, which Microsoft managed to sneak into Linux through Novell (which was paid hundreds of millions of dollars by Microsoft). Rather than delve into the FUD with some sources and links to the bait headlines from The H, a few others that followed, and Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka SJVN (who admitted to me he was link-baiting), we will just link to the following older posts [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and advise against feeding those who bait (it typically goes something along the lines of, “Microsoft a top Linux contributor”).
What we prefer to deal with in Techrights is not PR spin but Microsoft’s patent attacks on Linux, especially in light of older Linux FUD that Jun Auza summarises in this timely new post which opens as follows:
rom the buggy-yet-popular Windows 95 to the god-knows-what-it-is and upcoming Windows 8, Microsoft has come a long way. Unlike the 90’s, they aren’t just making computer software, today they manufacture almost anything your tech-savvy mind can dream of. But after all these years, what hasn’t changed is the fact that Microsoft is still a company full of uptight nerds who think that attacking their competitors is what makes them no 1.
Microsoft’s long war against Linux, Android and all things related to Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is something that can’t be ignored anymore.
It cannot be ignored, so Microsoft is actively attacking, along with Apple (more on that in imminent posts that are longer). Speaking of bait headlines, we sometimes write about articles whose headline says the opposite of the body of the article says. We gave numerous examples over the years and SJVN himself yields many new examples these days, especially when he writes for ZDNet (we truly hope he will stop doing this). Over at IDG there is also a new piece titled “Why enterprises will skip Windows 8″ (we have a wiki page about the vapourware). This is supposed to sound like bad news for Microsoft, but it starts with “Enterprise IT had a good business case for moving off the nearly decade old Windows XP operating system and onto the more modern Windows 7.”
A little promotional, no? We’ve seen that before. Here is how “Homer” addressed this in USENET several hours ago:
> Why enterprises will skip Windows 8
>
> http://blogs.computerworld.com/18634/why_enterprises_will_skip_windows_8
[quote]
Enterprise IT had a good business case for moving off the nearly decade old Windows XP operating system and onto the more modern Windows 7.
[/quote]
Really?
That statement will come as a surprise to the ~74% of businesses still using XP.
[quote]
Make of this what you will, but according to Microsoft, some 74 percent of businesses are still running Windows XP, an operating system now two generations old.
That number comes from Tammi Reller, CVP of Microsoft Windows, who stated as much during the company’s Worldwide Partner Conference this week. What Reller didn’t do, however, is view this negatively.
According to Reller, this statistic just means that Microsoft is in a great position to capitalize on would-be converts to Windows 7.
[/quote]
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/maximum_it/microsoft_74_percent_businesses_still_run_windows_xp
“Great position to capitalize” … LOL!
Back to the original article:
[quote]
Vista introduced moderate changes to the UI that forced a jarring adjustment upon some enterprise users.
[/quote]
“Moderate”?
My, my. The spin doctors are out in full force, aren’t they?
Vista was a freakish alien from another planet compared to XP. It looked totally different, it behaved totally different and it was largely incompatible with existing Windows software. /That/ was why it was universally slated and ignored by consumers, and why Vole central had to rush a new release out the door in a panic. About the only thing Vista had in common with XP was its bugs and malware. And Vista 7 is just a scam to hide the fact it’s just Vista with a new name.
“Moderate” my ass.
[quote]
Windows 8 will be far more challenging.
[/quote]
No shit Sherlock. It’s a bloody phone OS, for goat’s sake. I can justsee server admins trying to keep their servers going by shuffling tiles around on a touchscreen. Yeah, that’ll work.
[quote]
No doubt IT will be asking why enterprise desktops and laptops need touch right now.
[/quote]
ROTFLMFAO!
Is this guy on prozac, or what?
Yes, well… this is probably an example of articles we wrote about — those that try to attract Microsoft sceptics while in fact doing some pro-Microsoft whitewash. Thanks, IDG, but no thanks. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.23.11
Posted in Finance, GNU/Linux, IBM, Kernel, Microsoft, Patents at 11:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The stance of the Linux Foundation resembles that of the OIN and Peer-to-Patent, which makes it a peril to real progress in the fight against software patents
OIN and LF (Linux Foundation) are tightly related entities whose position on patents we wrote about a few years ago. Not much has changed since then, except that we have a lot more evidence to validate and solidify this relationship this year (the older post is from 2008).
Those who have followed this site for a while would probably know that we are sceptical of the OIN because rather than abolish software patents it is validating a strategy of getting more software patents to ‘cancel out’ those of enemies of GNU and Linux (more of the latter). Peer-to-Patent takes a similar approach in spirit. We have just found out that Peer-to-Patent liaised with patent lawyers. Are they wasting students’ time and legitimising patents? Read the following from a UK-based patent lawyers’ blog:
Last week’s Peer-to-Patent (P2P) seminar, organised by the IPKat and kindly hosted in Olswang LLP’s cosy rooftop nest in Holborn, is gone but not forgotten. For one thing, this blog is privileged to have some notes from one of those present, Dr Roger J Burt (a European and Chartered Patent Attorney with huge experience of software-related patents).
[...]
There is a particular hope that university students, particularly computer science students for the present pilot, may take part and benefit from learning about the patent system and how it works”.
What a silly idea. If anything, British students need to be taught to reject the patent system and antagonise companies that lobby for software patents. These companies are enemies of their prospective occupation. They are monopolising the field and reducing the number of available jobs in computer science. We were even more saddened to see Jim Zemlin closing his latest interview with the following brow-raising statement:
Zemlin: I think we were speaking around patent reform. I think everyone in the tech industry related specifically to software would like to see a higher bar in terms of quality for patents issued around software because the lack of quality leads to a lot of needless litigation.
The problem is not “quality for patents issued around software”, the problem is “patents issued around software,” right? The head of the FFII interprets this as “Zemlin of LinuxFoundation a supporter of swpats [software patents]” and given the OIN’s approach, it is not exactly shocking. Both the OIN and the Linux Foundation are a bit like front groups for large supporters of Linux, especially the big companies that engage in kernel development for their own benefit. If the LF is a front to software patents proponents like IBM and like Intel, then we need to reassess our take on the LF’s position regarding patents, not just the OIN’s position (which we never truly supported, with exceptions). IBM’s Rob Weir tweets about fake patent 'reform' which goes under the nose of the IBM veteran-led USPTO (Kappos):
Fascinating congressional patent reform bill debate on CSPAN.. Debating first-to-invent versus first-to-file
That’s not the reform we should focus on. The real reform people want and need would stop monopolies like IBM from getting ‘ownership’ of algorithms. Let us remember that IBM and Intel — not just Microsoft — are behind the push for software patents in NZ — an important subject at this moment because US-based Web sites try to impose their power upon the kiwis, e.g. by claiming “widespread criticism of proposed exclusion and examination guidelines”. This is an utter falsehood. The only criticism comes from US-based giants, their few partners in NZ, and patent lawyers. The population of NZ rightly retests the idea of software patents in this country. To quote the part that is true:
The future of software patents in New Zealand remains in doubt following an almost unanimous rejection of a proposal to exclude computer-implemented inventions from patentability in a recent public consultation.
Let us hope it stays this way. Patent cartels would just love to validate their monopolies in NZ, which would in turn put NZ-based programmers in a position of needing permission from the US to just write simple computer software, however original.
Software patents never made sense, but they made a lot of money for those who produce the least. To insist on the burial of existing software patents (in the US) is not to be armed revolutionists or rebels; it’s just the only rational, progressive thing to do. Developers like yours truly are being assaulted with sanctions so that monopolists can improve their profit margins. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.31.11
Posted in Bill Gates, FSF, GNU/Linux, IBM, Kernel, Microsoft at 12:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
[Deliberate use of the word "hatred" because Microsoft criticism is not "Microsoft hatred" (loaded term [1, 2, 3) as he once called it.]
“It’s certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does [...] Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousands of really ‘fundamental’ patents [...] The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection.”
–Linus Torvalds, 2007
Summary: Defense of Torvalds’ stance on patents and criticism of the spineless ‘Guardian’, which has become preoccupied and entangled with bizarre corporate agenda
IT HAS got to be hard for Torvalds to speak out. When he criticises Microsoft or Apple technologies, then the Wintel press portrays him as a basher, as someone who is immature and disrespectful. When he announced Linux 3.0 Microsoft Jack decided to go with a rather malicious headline and spin that negatively, as expected. When he speaks out against software patents Microsoft Florian repeats his smears of the funding sources of the Linux Foundation (which have the same inclination as many of the FSF’s funders) and other Microsoft boosters point to Torvalds’ patents that are not software patents and were acquired on behalf of an old employer of his. Linus Torvalds does not advocate software patenting and he never caved and got lured into it. “Muchas patentes son totalmente ridículas” says a new headline from Argentina (in Spanish), which basically quotes Mr. Torvalds. It is abundantly clear what his position is and nevertheless, Microsoft apologists for the most part wish to distort this fact. Likewise, some detractors of Techrights tried to portray yours truly as an apologist or hypocrite on the subject of software patents because some people in my field — not myself — are pursuing patents. I do not publicly attack other people my field or even my colleagues, but I do attack the practice of patenting in general. To expect Torvalds to attack his paymaster IBM in public is unreasonable. He probably knows IBM's stance and just being paid by IBM (like the FSF is) does not mean he inherits the same principles. There is some serious distortion of views these days, sometimes being the fault of lawyers who try to make it seem like their views are the views of programmers. Likewise, news which professes to be a watchdog has in fact become the rich men’s attack dog.
Glyn Moody, who used to write for the now-Gates-funded Guardian (which is promoting patents, even in Europe), has had enough of that. Not only does he show that Gates is a hypocrite but he also shows that the Gates-funded Guardian has lost its way. To quote:
That’s what Bill Gates said in 1991. He changed his mind, of course, when he realised that Microsoft could use its huge wealth to acquire vast numbers of software patents and deploy them as a weapon to crush or tax competitors. Granting software patents in the UK would simply allow that strategy to be applied here. It would be insanity to hand over such a huge advantage to the well-funded, established US software houses in this way.
That’s why the Hargreaves report was quite correct that the status quo must be preserved: to do anything else would probably spell the end of the UK software industry as we know it.
If the errors of the article are easy enough to rebut, there remains one more troubling issue: why on earth is the Guardian running it? At least the attack on open source that it published last week was flagged up in the headline as a comment piece – that’s fair enough. But the current post in the Guardian Technology Blog has no such heading. The author’s background is given at the foot of the piece, but a naïve reader would still assume that his views are shared by the Guardian. Are they? Does the Guardian really believe that the UK should emulate the US and allow software patents? If so, what on earth is it the guardian of, these days – intellectual monopolies?
I have occasionally read The Guardian since I was a teenager, even on this PDA on which I am typing this blog post. This publication is no longer to be treated as defender of the people. Many publications perished because of the Internet; The Guardian is now surviving in rich men’s pockets. It is no way to be credible. It’s more like controlled opposition, depending on who pays.
One of Gates’ boosters, Heim, wrote that “Cooper, the journalism professor, finds it “laughable” when media claim Gates money doesn’t influence their coverage.”
“It would be naive to believe big-money foundations don’t play the same game that corporations and other special interests do,” wrote Cooper. Since Gates owns a lot of key outlets and uses them to seed his propaganda, we should not expect much resentment against patents coming from these sources. Gates adores patents, it’s what he is all about and what he invests his money in.
In order for GNU/Linux to ‘win’ software patents must die. Do not expect those in power to want software patents to vanish. Protectionism supports and increases the power of those already in power. This includes patent bullies like Steve Ballmer. █
‘A fund manager from one of Microsoft’s largest shareholder’s reportedly told Reuters, “Bill Gates is a ruthless capitalist. If he wanted to, he’d walk Ballmer to the door himself”.’ [Four days ago]
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
