Microsoft has claimed that its self-serving loadable module for Linux [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], which only advances Microsoft's interests by polluting the kernel with Microsoft APIs, comprises 20,000 lines of code. Not quite the case, alleges Slated, who has taken a look at the code. Last night he wrote about this patch (managed by a Novell employee by the way):
For those who might want to keep an eye on what the Vole is injecting into the software we use:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/gregkh..
The consolidated patch is here:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh...
This is essentially what it adds:
. Microsoft Hyper-V client drivers . Microsoft Hyper-V virtual storage driver . Microsoft Hyper-V virtual block driver . Microsoft Hyper-V virtual network driver
The kernel config options are listed as:
. CONFIG_HYPERV . CONFIG_HYPERV_STORAGE . CONFIG_HYPERV_BLOCK . CONFIG_HYPERV_NET
Here's the license:
Copyright (c) 2009, Microsoft Corporation.
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License, version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
This program is distributed in the hope it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA.
Authors: Hank Janssen <hjanssen[at]microsoft.com> ######
Oh and BTW, after removing all the non-Microsoft copyrighted code from the above consolidated patch, all the diff declaration headers, and all the empty lines, the number of lines remaining (i.e. the actual code Microsoft generously "contributed") is 14,010, which is a good six thousand lines short of Microsoft's claim.
That's OK though ... it's six thousand fewer lines for me to remove.
“Microsoft funded SCO's lawsuit against Linux (more than once) and right now Microsoft is suing companies for using Linux (also more than once).”Whenever Microsoft claims that it "contributes" to Linux, remember that its long-standing CEO, Steve Ballmer, said: "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches."
Ballmer never retracted that statement and under his leadership Microsoft has also paid SCO, as confirmed in the courtroom under oath. For background about the past month's SCO developments (a little from June too), see:
So those are the various possibilities I see. Do you see any good ones, if you are SCO management? I don't see even one. If we are marking on a curve, SCO's suggestion in its letter is the least toxic, but none of the possibilities now are really ideal from SCO's point of view, and how realistic do you think it is as a suggestion at this late date, considering all that came out in discovery and at the hearing?
I think this may be the very first time in the entire SCO saga where SCO seems to have no really good options on the table that I can see.
And that's probably why after the hearing on the 27th, I was overwhelmed by the incandescent realization that we had just turned a real corner, one that changes everything, and that we're in end-game territory, at last.
--Heise
Comments
JohnD
2009-08-04 13:00:52
Jose_X
2009-08-04 18:35:45
JohnD
2009-08-04 20:06:03
Jose_X
2009-08-04 21:21:51
Eg, to patch a file, the patch program requires context lines and the file name to find out where to patch in the lines of code. These context lines (existing lines in the kernel) and file name headings are not source code to the kernel but rather are information created by "diff" for use by "patch" to carry out its work of patching the kernel properly. These lines are not written by Microsoft developers but are written by the diff program automatically using the existing kernel.
I haven't looked at the diff file but that is what I expect is going on here.
zatoichi
2009-08-07 15:38:24
"I don't actually know what I'm talking about, but that doesn't stop me from talking about it anyway."
zatoichi
2009-08-07 15:30:37
The fact is that you're not in support of "Freedom Zero" here, the freedom to "run the program for any purpose", Roy: you want to deny the folks who choose to run a Linux distro virtualized on a Windows Server 2008 system the liberty to do so.
Why is that, Roy? (And do you support the FSF? If so, how, specifically? I'm still waiting to hear an answer on that one...)
verofakto
2009-08-07 04:36:15
Just curious.
zatoichi
2009-08-07 15:34:38
Roy is about "advocating" "freedom the way Roy tells you to."