Comments on: Ballmer repeats threats against Linux

In no-nonsense presentation to New York analysts, Microsoft's CEO warns Linux sellers that open-source "is not free."

[Jim Hubbard]

Thank you Novell!

Novell's actions are the only thing that gave this whole ridiculous idea any credence whatsoever.

Thanks Novell.....

[System Tyrant]

BS

Microsoft's been babbling on about this same crap for years. At best Novell's deal with Microsoft only put a spotlight on the subject, but it certainly didn't start it or change it much.

The fact is that Microsoft know that simply spreading rumors about possible lawsuits can hurt sales of a product.

[1jclark]

intellectual property?????

Intellectual property?, how dare he. Where was that concept
when he and Gates stole the intellectual property of Apple OS in
the '80's??

[BattleAce7101]

BackFire

This will backfire on MS and hurt their sales even faster. No one believes that they have a case. They are just alienating their customer base, the people who are interested in an open source mix. Providing Novell as a solution is not going to work. I was Pro Novell at one time but they made an error joining MS and threatning Linux. Novell could have risen out of MS ashes but now they will continue to crumble and now it is Red Hat that will be King. Dont get me wrong, I love the .NET framework but MS's intimidation tactics hurt their public reputation.
Balmer's statement is a sign that Open Source is a threat and he fears the financial damage.
If they do not stop linux then their market share will dwindle. MS is just like IBM but they just do not see it yet.

[heystoopid]

Nice one

Nice one , but then again , where would we be if we didn't have Linux to analyse and immunise against all the assorted net nasties aimed at crippling and/or pirating all M$ powered home and work PC's ?

One should say , clean thy house first , let ye be condemned to the stake for being a false prophet !

[rhexz]

These digital dark ages

The problem with software patents - these classical examples of feudal privileges - is that are easy to receive, most of them can be invalidated with prior arts (do not forget that computer science and most of concepts working todays do exist since 70thies (even 60thies) - academic publications of many solutions also are
available), the best target of them is a rich target and finally all of them will expire (but disgusting after them will left). Almost all solution useful today related to office applications and operating systems have been developed in 80-90thies (all unixes, apple os, amiga, atari, commodore etc. etc... ) - they are obviously prior arts for the most of non-checked but received by MS patents after y2k in US and the software patent explosion (do not talking about the rest of world that mostly do not patent software so they may use foss freely) they are working systems so linux core parts will survive free (maybe without some unnecessary functionality like FAT or NTFS access which can be replaced easily with own free solutions like ext2/3). BTW The most funny patent I have seen in Europe has been granted in 2006 on desktop clipboard (used in many OS'es since early 90thies - I personally have a copy of Rhat linux from 99 containing clipboard) justified as a solution to speedup computer hardware :)))) . So most of "so dangerous" patents should be in fact invalid wastes. As such they should be easily provable in the face of justice (who will pay for cleanup?).
The software patents are much easier to workaround because abstract world in infinitely flexible space. They are cheap to achieve because at the current level of quality validation the "invention" deserved for patent is cheaper in developing that writing a book (that's a cause that wise men in past forbidden these patents for a long time because they did not wanted to do a mess in the market and they did not wanted to do thinks that they surely would be done wrongly). Observable exponential explosion is a natural consequence of bad policy - it is impossible to patent each abstract solution - and efficiently verify them is such a huge space. Who is the best target for a small patent holder (most of patent owners) - rich guy or poor gay (the most of FOSS developers). Easy to answer - the most attacked companies will be a big players in industry, with easy cheap and reliable weapon. Why reliable - because it is easy nowadays to create a patent for solutions selling by big, rich player. Lawyers are happy, industry crying. Summarizing, as a protection of innovation software patents are worthless (easy to workaround or invalidate on the base of rich prior art space). As a protection of investitions in new technologies unnecessary because developing of solutions and code is cheap in fact - easier than writing a good, interesting book. The only "efficient" purpose of software patents is a doing mess with anticompetitive practices and threating or suing but in fact only a rich guys because probability of invalidation is always a risk for holder.
So, the most useful foss software is free today and strongly backed by prior arts (what gives it additional value on market), the rest will be free back again soon or later and software patents will naturally die out with the awful stink around. Or will concentrate around really innovative niches and hardware related applications (as should do after 45 years of computer science history).
Keep secure your old linux distros, old amigas, atari software etc.! All of them are your insurance polises in these digital dark ages where lawyers shot first ask later.

[bobbymyles]

The vista isn't what he expected

I guess he's looking at the Vista sales figures (not impressive from what I've read) and figures he'll need a new revenue stream...shades of SCO?

If you can't beat'em, sue'em...

[richb12]

microsoft is selling junk

and always has, Ballmer is a threat, apple is taking market share
and the world community will not them to create this mononpo;y
of junk. the usa government will not even use their trash!

[dansterpower]

Boycott MicroSoft

I am so done with Microsoft.

This is the icing on the cake.

Their products are garbage. They bully. They intimidate.

And we Microsoft users get excited because we can build their
our own boxes, etc, all the while we are dying from the rising
temperatures of Microsofts mediocre, bloated slow products --
like zune, office, and vista.

I am done.

[i_made_this]

Ballmer's hubris is unreal...

...he assumes as fact something that is not - that Vista will take off like a rocket in the marketplace. As well, he's straight out wrong saying Linux costs. Yes Red Hat and SUSE do, but most other distro's don't cost a thing. And some of them like Ubuntu which we've had disk-bootable on our XP Professional SP2 for the past year are great, with great software like a free office suite in OOe that kicks MS' Office Suite as well.

Ballmer can't sue anyone for any product whose asking price is $0 and which was created in an open source contributory and collegial setting which infringes on no copywrite on earth by definition.

All this "Google Chair Throwing Take Two" act of his tells me that Vista's doing even worse in the marketplace than we all had thought. And that must be bad. This, in turn, I take as excellent news. Vista wasn't actually RTM when it was released - virtually no programs work on it (ironically mostly Windows programs at that!) - we're lucky to see a proper software-supported RTM Vista released by SP1 time in early 2008 a year from now.

Me? I'll pass altogether for the foreseeable future and upgrade XP to SP3 when it's released and be just fine. That should last us til Google releases their operating system - the one that will kick Redmond's butt where it hurts worst once and for all.

[ozidigga]

Microsoft is boring

They always use the same rhetoric, whether it's marketing a new OS or making threats.

[thedreaming]

What kind of FRAKING strategy is this?

I love the fact that he's threatening to sue linux sellers for intellectual property infringement, but never says what intellectual property they are infringing on.

It's more FUD, plain and simple. He hooks up with Novell, which has their own distro. They promise each other they won't sue one another, then the spreads FUD around so other companies that were thinking of going open source choose Suse as their linux.

Selling more copies of Suse makes Novell more money, but is Microsoft also getting a cut?

[befuddledms]

no thanks Steve.

I support windows XP machines and Windows 2003 servers. I even have a computer at home with XP. Now that I can't buy a new consumer oriented computer without Vista, I am seriously thinking about buying a Mac when it is time to upgrade at home. Steve Jobs is no saint but every time I even see a picture of Steve Ballmer it makes me sick thinking that I am helping him to amass an even larger fortune. It is not accurate to say that Vista will be a hit. It will be successful because you have no choice when you buy a consumer PC but to get some flavor of Vista unless you are willing to buy a separate copy of XP. Even if you do that, you have helped MS even more because not only did you buy a license of Vista, but you also bought a license of XP. Ballmer and Darl McBride are cut from the same cloth. If you can't innovate and succeed in the marketplace, just threaten to sue the competition and those who use the competition's product.
Sad Sad Sad.

[binsurf]

Am I the only one that sees it?

Let's see, Microsoft has a lot of enemies; Linux, Apple and the open source community. In order to rise above them, knowing their Vista OS will create much agony and resentment in the MS user pool, they align with a Linux company, say they'll help distribute the OS and not sue each other. Then, MS goes out and says, everybody who makes Linux is infringing on patents. This looks like a hostile take over to me. MS will try to strike fear in everyone who tries to decide to switch to Linux by threatening action against their distributors. I guarantee, once that is accomplished sufficiently, they will pull Novell into the wood and dissolve the company. MS doesn't invest in floundering companies. There is a hidden agenda here. And it's to destroy Linux. Is Apple next?

[1jclark]

I see it.

Don't sell Apple short. If MS wants anything from Apple, it would
be Apple itself, because MS has never been able to improve their
own "copy" of the Mac OS. They stole the, as Ballmer puts it,
"intellectual property" of the Mac OS in the '80's, but have never
been able to do as good as Apple has with it. Those MS guys
might be tech grads, but beleive me, they are not smart enough
to put Apple out of business. They may have the money, but not
the brains!

[Bladewolf]

This is bull****

I'm sorry, this is just the kind of underhand, low down and dirty I have come to expect from Microsoft.
I converted to Linux a year ago and am very attached to my new life, no reboots, not BSOD, no GPF, no struggling with the cursèd point-and-drool interface.

the thing is, Microsoft have absolutely no evidence. Their claims are just scare tactics. Unlike Microsoft, we here who use linux can prove where our code comes from, and it's all completely legal.
Microsoft, OTOH, will not disclose where they get their code from because they don't want you to see the bits they've stolen from others.

It's a pity that a company that had a promising start, seeing a gap in the market and filling it, now have to resort to muck spreading to gain any market share.
I can't wait until all the MS employees start selling their shares and leaving, like rats from a sinking ship.
:D

[Bladewolf]

This is absolute stupidity

I'm sorry to have to say this but, this is just the kind of underhand, low down and dirty I have come to expect from Microsoft.
I converted to Linux a year ago and am very attached to my new life, no reboots, not BSOD, no GPF, no struggling with the cursèd point-and-drool interface.

the thing is, Microsoft have absolutely no evidence. Their claims are just scare tactics. Unlike Microsoft, we here who use linux can (and have) prove where our code comes from, and it's all completely legal.

It's a pity that a company that had a promising start, seeing a gap in the market and filling it, now have to resort to muck spreading to gain any market share.

[the1kingarthur]

RE: Am I the only one that sees it?

Thank you for your post. Are you the only one that sees it? No, but unlike most others who suffer from a cancer like apathy, you have provided readers with an example of what every one needs to do. You can honestly consider yourself a true American who can stand proud and don't ignore what's right in front of you. Everyone needs to get involved. Read, write, demonstrate your feelings in the IT market by buying Linux, or not upgrading to Vista, but most importantly. THINK!

[enriquezrene]

Apple + Intel + Linux

Apple + Intel + Linux

It was once unthinkable that Apple would switch to Intel CPUs, but Apple's engineers with NeXT roots have been developing OS X (then called OpenStep) on Intel hardware longer than they have on PowerPC.

When Steve Jobs started NeXT, he soon realized that no existing OS matched his vision and determined that the Mach kernel (a variant of Unix) would be the best foundation for his new object-oriented operating system. That was 1986, and the NeXT computers ran their Unix-derived OS on Motorola 68030 CPUs - the same used in Macs.

In 1991, Linus Torvalds began writing the Linux kernel, a Unix-like operating system designed for the popular, powerful Intel 80386 CPU. The first version of Linux was released in Sept. 1991, and since then programmers around the world have contributed to extending and improving Linux. This is arguably the most extensive and successful open source project to date.

By 1992 NeXT has begun porting NeXTstep to Intel CPUs, and there was another project to port it to PowerPC. However, that project was halted when NeXTstep 3.1 (a.k.a. NeXTstep 486) was released in 1993.

NeXT's next project was separating the rest of the operating system from the kernel, which helped create OpenStep.

NeXT was committed to the Mach kernel five years before Linus Torvalds began his OS, and it took a while before Linux began to approach the maturity of other Unix-like operating systems, so there would have been no reason for NeXT to consider switching from Mach.

In the 14 years since the first Linux release, Linux has grown into a full-fledged operating system that has been tweaked and optimized by a host of programmers - and their work reviewed by other programmers. In fact, Linux is so robust that IBM has embraced it.

Now let's put the pieces together. NeXT already learned how to put their interface on both Mach and Solaris kernels. Linux has grown into the most popular non-Microsoft operating system on x86 hardware, but it's held back by dozens of distributions and two different GUIs.

Mach: OS X's Achilles' Heel
What if Apple were to build the equivalent of OpenStep for Linux? That is, take the whole of OS X and build it around a Linux kernel instead of Mach. (This would be the exact opposite of MkLinux, Apple's project to build a PowerPC version of Linux on the Mach microkernel that Apple abandoned after they acquired NeXT.)

The problem with Mach is that microkernels are inefficient because of all the communication taking place between different parts of the operating system. A monolithic kernel is more efficient because processes don't have to move in and out of the kernel. The current Wikipedia article puts it thus:

Microkernels generally underperform in comparison to traditional designs, sometimes dramatically. This is due in large part to the overhead of moving in and out of the kernel, a context switch, in order to move data between the various applications and servers. It was originally believed that careful tuning could reduce this overhead dramatically, but by the mid-90s most researchers had given up.

It seems sensible to move OS X to a more efficient kernel than Mach (Apple has been making Mach more efficient since 10.0 shipped), but there's one big obstacle: Avie Tevanian, one of the developers of the Mach kernel, worked at NeXT and came to Apple with Steve Jobs. Egos and personalities seem to mean a lot at Apple these days, so unless Tevanian were to become convinced that microkernel architecture is hampering OS X and then convince Jobs of that truth, change is unlikely.

We can dream, can't we? Dreams of the best kernel and the best GUI working together. An OS and installers that are truly ready for the masses. No more beach balls of death. Real competition for Microsoft Windows present and future.

The transition to Intel would be the perfect time to make the switch.
----
I found this above on another site
But My Plan is to start a website where people can petition apple or reverse engineer & port macos so it can rin on a linux. It's been a while since ive played with linux so if anyone know of a group thats already doing this just reply

[sohrob76]

Great post!

Thank you for posting that. I think a Mac OS interface on top of Linux would be awesome. I'm actually surprised that such an endeavor hasn't already been taken up.

[cekortech]

Sorry Steve

Bill Gates and Paul Allen were the greats along
with some of the other developers. Does Ballmer
even know truly what open source is? Open Source
are the people associated with the code, so go
ahead Steve cry your patent infringement
statements, we will just change things around,
remember Linux people are flexible, motivated
and can improvise.