Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

Sabot said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Bass it is a little disrespectful just giving us the 'whatever' because we don't agree with you.

The Open Source community has been very vocal in recent years, it doesn't mean however they are the majority. Please understand that software developers come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, motivations, backgrounds, challenges ... and preferences. This means that one size cannot fit all. 

There is enough room for Open and Closed source communities, we just have to work out a way that we can both get on with each other and benefit from each other to make the whole the development world easier because companies that make money from code aren't going away anytime soon and nor are companies that are happy to give it away but make their money another way ... and companies that do both.

Just like we aim for interoperability between platforms, we should also aim to being interoperable in our communities. As basically, in these financially strap days we shouldn't decry anyone that wishes to make a buck as long as it's legal, decent and honest ... and fair.

I don't think Bass needs to attach a complete list of egregious hostilities perpetrated through patents to be able to credibly whatever you.  Opposition to software patents is not unique to open source communities.  Patents are not "just another way of doing it."  If that were the case they would be used to cover a single implementation of an idea, like copyright does, without disturbing the guy down the road doing his own thing.

You can't put the "live and let live" spin on sth that itself does not live and let live.

k2t0f12d said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

I don't think Bass needs to attach a complete list of egregious hostilities perpetrated through patents to be able to credibly whatever you.  Opposition to software patents is not unique to open source communities.  Patents are not "just another way of doing it."  If that were the case they would be used to cover a single implementation of an idea, like copyright does, without disturbing the guy down the road doing his own thing.

You can't put the "live and let live" spin on sth that itself does not live and let live.

Yes, who I'm I kidding! It's my Bob Dillon side coming out. (Love Bob by the way ... and Metalica!)
 
Applications using both Open and Closed source are being written together everyday from the simple Open Source media player using the DirectX interface, to the Closed source Lotus Symphony built on Open Source Open Office (yes Lotus is 'free', but you have to pay for a support CAL, starting at 2000 heads meaning you need to have an ESSO agreement first, E meaning Enterprise, meaning lots of money to begin with before the 'free' sweetie, ooh they can see us coming)

These are just two examples out of a million more.
 
The real truth is let’s forget about being nice to each other, or not, frankly I couldn’t care less because it's all academic now because only a few of us actually give a stuff. 

Software Copyrights are an exercise in futility, just like the GPL.

Sabot said:

k2t0f12d said:

*snip*

Yes, who I'm I kidding! It's my Bob Dillon side coming out. (Love Bob by the way ... and Metalica!)
 
Applications using both Open and Closed source are being written together everyday from the simple Open Source media player using the DirectX interface, to the Closed source Lotus Symphony built on Open Source Open Office (yes Lotus is 'free', but you have to pay for a support CAL, starting at 2000 heads meaning you need to have an ESSO agreement first, E meaning Enterprise, meaning lots of money to begin with before the 'free' sweetie, ooh they can see us coming)

These are just two examples out of a million more.
 
The real truth is let’s forget about being nice to each other, or not, frankly I couldn’t care less because it's all academic now because only a few of us actually give a stuff. 

Software Copyrights are an exercise in futility, just like the GPL.

So are you saying that software patents actually force mixed source projects where unique and separate implementation could have otherwise been created because one developer had been given statutory power to put Damocles' sword over any other person's work?

k2t0f12d said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

So are you saying that software patents actually force mixed source projects where unique and separate implementation could have otherwise been created because one developer had been given statutory power to put Damocles' sword over any other person's work?

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with software patents, per se, the problem lies in the fact that the whole patent system has been abused to a ridiculous level with no signs of improving. Software patents just expose this because they've been granted on even more tenuous grounds than anywhere else (see the IsNot patent for proof).

The patent system, particularly in the US, needs a complete overhaul to cleanse itself of stupid or incredibly vague patents. Only then can it do what it was originally supposed to do, protect genuinely new inventions and encourage innovation in the market.

AndyC said:

k2t0f12d said:

*snip*

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with software patents, per se, the problem lies in the fact that the whole patent system has been abused to a ridiculous level with no signs of improving. Software patents just expose this because they've been granted on even more tenuous grounds than anywhere else (see the IsNot patent for proof).

The patent system, particularly in the US, needs a complete overhaul to cleanse itself of stupid or incredibly vague patents. Only then can it do what it was originally supposed to do, protect genuinely new inventions and encourage innovation in the market.

I don't necessarily agree that patents in any field are even necessary, but do agree on how incredibly badly they have been used with regards to software.  Pointing at the on-topic discussion, I didn't likewise agree with Sabot that software patents are beneficial to promulgating cooperation between proprietary and free software projects.  I think there is some collaboration that occurs as the natural result of parallel projects seeking mutual benefit and some that occurs because one or both parties use statutory law to prevent the other from pursuing development.  Software patents (vague or specific) do not aid mutually beneficial collaborations and actually prevent parallel developers from racing their own unique implementations against each other.  If such competition were given to fruition, I think we would have invention that would make the so-called incentive of the patent system laughable.

Sabot said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Bass it is a little disrespectful just giving us the 'whatever' because we don't agree with you.

The Open Source community has been very vocal in recent years, it doesn't mean however they are the majority. Please understand that software developers come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, motivations, backgrounds, challenges ... and preferences. This means that one size cannot fit all. 

There is enough room for Open and Closed source communities, we just have to work out a way that we can both get on with each other and benefit from each other to make the whole the development world easier because companies that make money from code aren't going away anytime soon and nor are companies that are happy to give it away but make their money another way ... and companies that do both.

Just like we aim for interoperability between platforms, we should also aim to being interoperable in our communities. As basically, in these financially strap days we shouldn't decry anyone that wishes to make a buck as long as it's legal, decent and honest ... and fair.

I don't know why you keep making this to an open source versus close source thing. Bill Gates, the founder of the BIGGEST proprietary software company in the world has spoken out against software patents. Do you really think Bill Gates is an open source fan?

Software patents hurt software. It hurts closed source software. It hurts open source software. It might even hurt closed source software more then open source, if you look at history and by the companies most hurt by software patents. So stop bringing your ideology about open source into it. It has nothing to do with the issue. Software patents make all forms of software riskier to write. And if you make software development a legally challenging practice, less software will get written. Less software means less jobs and our industry will suffer in the end.

Hello Mr Software

Sabot said:

Hello Mr Software

How are you today?

I'm just fine and dandy Mr

So can you tell me whether you are Open, Closed or a mixture of Both?

Doh, well I don't rightly know Mr ! The developer just put me together from bit's he found laying around from the OS to the big ol' Internet. He just wanted to solve his immediate problem anyway he could.

What about legal boundaries?

Well the developer didn't know about any of that the code, component, class, Cloud service, java-script <insert variant here>  was there so was used. It's not like the I'm going to be sold, like most pieces of software I won't see the light of day much out-side of this company.

So are you safe?

Well the testing guys tested me real good using STRIDE models, load testing and white/black box etc and if they found a problem well the developer just custed allot and went and fixed it, then broke somewhere else which the testers may find.

So do you think it would have helped if lot so developers look at your code?

Well yeah sure but it's not what I look like on the inside it's whether I meet requirement and the customers think I work is what it's really all about.

So in the future are there going to be so many people writting code like you?

Most code these days isn't really that much more re-usable and even if it was it has a short life span till the runtime is out of support or versions behind and stuff isn't really forward or backward compatible. This all means little because the industry hasn't got it's head around SOA which is the only real proven practice that will give sustained re-use and business agility, which is what it's all really about.

So until the house is in order, no chance of anyone losing their jobs unless the company gets fed up with waiting for code and loses confidence that developers will actually deliver anything other than moaning and out-source out of frustration, may as well save some costs somewhere if it's going to be the same-old-same-old as well let someone else take the responsibility and get the kicking.

You shouldn't drink and drug while watching Jurassic Park

Yggdrasil said:

Bass said:

*snip*

I don't see how software patents differe from other patents here? Sure, they have their own complexity, but the essence - protecting innovators and allowing them to profit from their inventions - is the same. If anything, the ease of reverse-engineering and copying is much greater with software, since a company wanting to steal a product and rerelease it doesn't even need manufacturing facilities like a hardware patent does. This isn't a matter of relying on government intervention instead of making a better product, but a case where the market forces are skewed in favor of the late-comer and the plagiarist.

I think the problem most people have is not that software patents are bad (well some do hold this view) but that a lot of patents granted today are for completely obvious things or for things for which there is already an application using it. This seems to be especially true with software patents, where companies are routinely granted patents for completely ridiculous reasons and just sit around sueing anyone who actually tries to innovate.

Microsoft will learn that fighting Linux is so futile.  We have means with which to protect ourselves from patent scroungers like Microsoft.  This isnt about GPS patents, its about GNU/Linux.  If TomTom was using Windows CE they wouldnt have been sued, thats point blank.

Not everything is rosey for Microsoft though, their GNU/Linux wooden horse PC/OS has dropped in the distrowatch rankings. Microsofts stock price just keeps faling and falling.  What do Starbucks and Microsoft in common?  They wont be around this time next year.  The Linux community will rise from the ashes like a phoenix and will make Microsoft obsolete.

k2t0f12d said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

You shouldn't drink and drug while watching Jurassic Park

k2t0f12d - I can do less subtle?

Sabot said:

k2t0f12d said:

*snip*

k2t0f12d - I can do less subtle?

Yggdrasil - I would just like to make two points,

• Essentially Developers aren't really interest if it's not code related, subjects of law and money do not interest them and are uncomfortable when exposed to subjects outside their remit. Why? Because code has it's own natural laws and these are the only ones that are logically relivant.

• The concept of Intellectual Property is somewhat alien to developers, how can you patent an idea? Well you can if you can prove you had it first. The famous line is "the labours of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears". This is actually difficult to apply to code because code it's not tangible and becomes better after review and revision.
  

These two points are the very essense of the Open Source movement and developers are not the only ones that suffer at the hands of the Intellectual Property Patent debate, Mathmeticians have the exact same problem. Can you imagine if Einstein patented E=mc2?

The point I want to make is - most of the software industry is oblivious to patenting software, however this is not true in the commercial sector because code is exposed to a wider more knowledgeable audience.

As most developers are oblivious they actually don't care whether source is 'Open' or 'Closed'.

They only care when something has made their life harder, like raising a justifcation case for a software purchase ... up until then code came from PlanetSourceCode. Suddenly when something is illogical it's a ball-ache and must be stopped.

************************************************

corona_coder  - 

Microsoft's Bill Gates was quoted many time saying the 'right thing' i.e. 'legal' thing, 'keep share-holder happy' thing, 'look I have an opinion' thing, 'Geez I'm a thought leader' thing. When he didn't work out whether it was the 'Smart Thing' to say.

Just like Sir Freddy Goodwin,  Bill became the focus of attention for what is generally a bad situation. He became a focal point to direct the hate at. At last there is an enemy! ... and a good story isn't a good story without a bunch of heros and villans.

The simple fact is that other companies like IBM & Oracle who are arguably just as big realised that Bill had shot himself, and his company, in the foot ... and stoked the fire to get some more market share using the Open Source movement and Linux as patsies. Up until then Oracle and IBM did not have any core products as Open Source ... and you can argue that this is still the case.

Forward-wind to present day and Microsoft is making friends in Open Source and the Linux communities, striking deals and giving money away as well as code. Not repairing the damage but not so much the bad guy after all.

So what I don't get is ... why don't you fire your guns at Oracle or IBM????? ... because their stuff runs on Linux? Oracle's main OS is Oracle Enterprise Linux and Windows, so not bad .... but IBM's main OS is still AIX or zOS !!! Stuff is ported to Linux!

I think that Microsoft is upfront about where it stands. I'm not sure the same can be said elsewhere.

The point I want to make is - life is more complex than heros and villians.

**********************************************

Anyway, here endith the lesson from old man Sabot. This thread has turned into topics best discussed over beer, so when your next in the London, UK, ping me and you can come out with my Open and Closed source loving friends and enjoy the debate over Kingfisher and Curry. So I'm done with this thread.

Sabot: Are you sure this was supposed to be directed at me? I'm all for recognizing the validity of the concept of patents, even while I recognize the atrocious way they've been handled. Regardless, I'd happily go for beer and vindaloo next time I'm in London, whenever that may be.

Bass said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

I don't know why you keep making this to an open source versus close source thing. Bill Gates, the founder of the BIGGEST proprietary software company in the world has spoken out against software patents. Do you really think Bill Gates is an open source fan?

Software patents hurt software. It hurts closed source software. It hurts open source software. It might even hurt closed source software more then open source, if you look at history and by the companies most hurt by software patents. So stop bringing your ideology about open source into it. It has nothing to do with the issue. Software patents make all forms of software riskier to write. And if you make software development a legally challenging practice, less software will get written. Less software means less jobs and our industry will suffer in the end.

Bass: You throw very strong rhetoric around, like "Software patents hurt software". You'll have to back it up with a bit more than just "they make it riskier, so less software is written". I can (and did, actually) bring the counter-claim that without patent protection, spending the time and money to write code is like throwing your efforts into the wind, putting them up for grabs. In a scenario where you have no legal protection for your inventions, less software will be written because it's not economical to do so.