Date: 09 Mar 2001 20:16:00 +0200
From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <7xWQFvVHw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <3AA7DFCD.1000502@trustix.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
In-Reply-To: <1355693A51C0D211B55A00105ACCFE64E952C3@ATL_MS1> <3AA7DFCD.1000502@trustix.com>
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

larsg@trustix.com (Lars Gaarden)  wrote on 08.03.01 in <3AA7DFCD.1000502@trustix.com>:

> Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
>
> > Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is
> > the thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for
> > full blown GPL!!!!
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
>
> I'm not so sure about that. It is going to be heavily NDA'ed
> and look-but-not-touch.
>
> Enterprise customers are beginning to see the value of having
> source available, and MS is doing this as a half-baked
> solution to give decition makers one less reason for switching
> to Open Source.

And remember that other companies have been doing similar things since  
just about forever. It's not as if MS invented this thing.

Or maybe I have to take that back. The "must not modify" clause certainly  
seems non-standard.

AT&T Unix source didn't carry a "must not modify" rider.

IBM's big iron OS source certainly didn't carry a "must not modify" rider.

In fact, making modifications was very much the *point* of this excercise.

Yet again. Microsoft is copying something yet failing to realize the  
point. Am I surprised? Nope.

> This also gives MS an opportunity to do PR. Expect some "We
> provide our customers with the good benefits of Open Source
> without the danger of fragmentation and market confusion" from
> their marketroids soon.

Which is, of course, the exact opposite of what they _are_ doing.

> Compare this to the release of W98SE. The main reason for SE was
> to stop home users being introduced to Linux because of ipmasq'ing.

That's a new one for me. I certainly never heard an argument for SE that  
was even remotely in that area.

> You can accuse MS of a lot of things. Being stupid and ignorant
> of the market is not one of them.

I'm not so sure about that. If they really did, why would they need to  
resort to unfair tactics so often? It's not as if a 1000 pound gorilla  
couldn't easily survive a fair fight, if he wasn't a complete idiot.

MfG Kai
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/