Proprietary and free software. Star Trek helps them co-exist peacefully. Wait, what?

[monsterstack]

Some guy from Heise Online has this (http://www.h-online.com/open/The-Undiscovered-Country--/features/113367) [h-online.com] bizarre take on the future of the two software distribution models. Excerpt:



The future, the undiscovered country, is not going to be about absolute wins. It is going to be a network of complex intertwined interests held together by diplomacy, goodwill, trust and respect, Not just within communities, but between communities and across cultures. And hostilities, diplomatic or not, should be the last resort. Just look at the complexity of the Star Trek universe if you want an example.

Thoughts, opinions?

[powerpleb]

Thoughts, opinions?

If Linux is to gain any ground it is going to be at the expense of Microsoft. Therefore I think that most likely any co-operation Microsoft shows towards free software should be viewed sceptically, they have everything to lose.

Most likely if we do see a more plural software industry, it will be despite Microsoft's best efforts. Who knows, they may attempt to piggyback on some distribution in the future for a while to boost their cred. But this could easily be a trap to get their intellectual property rights integrated more with Linux in order to nullify and destroy it.

Or maybe I am talking nonsense.:(

[monsterstack]

If Linux is to gain any ground it is going to be at the expense of Microsoft. Therefore I think that most likely any co-operation Microsoft shows towards free software should be viewed sceptically, they have everything to lose.

Most likely if we do see a more plural software industry, it will be despite Microsoft's best efforts. Who knows, they may attempt to piggyback on some distribution in the future for a while to boost their cred. But this could easily be a trap to get their intellectual property rights integrated more with Linux in order to nullify and destroy it.

Or maybe I am talking nonsense.:(

There is that possibility, but the eight-hundred pound gorilla sitting in the corner of the room is the GPL. There's just no getting around the fact that the vast majority of core stuff for Linux is GPL and always will be GPL'd. Even stuff like Mono and Moonlight, in the unlikely event that they do turn out to be very well crafted trojan horses, can be safely jettisoned without breaking everything else. Personally, I find it hard to see just where Microsoft can get their grubby fingers into Linux. And then look at all of the apps springing up by people suspicious of Mono. If even mere vague-association with Microsoft is enough to make people furiously develop alternatives, one is led to assume that if someone did manage to force horribly restrictive stuff into the core operating system, the community would immediately spring into action to provide free alternatives.

[powerpleb]

You are right, and I'm not trying to prophesise the apocalypse of FOSS. But, I guess what I am concerned about is if/when Linux goes beyond the 'community' level most users will not be at all discerning about the licences their software carries. This could open up a comprimising space in which Microsoft could work.

[monsterstack]

You are right, and I'm not trying to prophesise the apocalypse of FOSS. But, I guess what I am concerned about is if/when Linux goes beyond the 'community' level most users will not be at all discerning about the licences their software carries. This could open up a comprimising space in which Microsoft could work.

I think I know what you mean. Code controls. All the more reason it should stay open.

[Mr-Biscuit]

Star Trek is a fantasy.
Man's nature is to destroy everything.

[monsterstack]

Star Trek is a fantasy.
Man's nature is to destroy everything.

Yeah, but that breaks down when you try to apply it to the internet. Whatever you destroy there, someone somewhere still has a copy of it. The only solution: nuke the internet, and nuke everything connected to it. Yeah, an all-out nuclear war would pretty much wrap things up nicely.

[Mr-Biscuit]

Foolish people conform to the standard,
the wise rise above it.

Perception is you are doing the former and not latter.

[catlow]

If you nuke the internet and everything connected to it someone else will start a new internet

[Chame_Wizard]

not someone,WE can start the internet all over again.

With Linux and BSD(MacOSX too).:lolflag:

[monsterstack]

not someone,WE can start the internet all over again.

With Linux and BSD(MacOSX too):lolflag:

Err, the Internet and the Web were founded on completely open principles and protocols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite) [wikipedia.org], so that anybody can implement them. Do you really think we'd have the internet as we know it had some dodgy company tried to license all of it and sell it to those who could pay?

[lisati]

Star Trek is a fantasy.
Man's nature is to destroy everything.
"We come in peace, shoot to kill"
(Stand by with ear plugs on account of bad singing)


There's klingons on the starboard bow,
starboard bow, starboard bow
There's klingons on the the starboard bow
Wipe them off Jim

(From "Star Trekkin'", by "the Firm")

not someone,WE can start the internet all over again.
Count me in!

[catlow]

I agree on that one WE can start the internet over again

[Chame_Wizard]

Err, the Internet and the Web were founded on completely open principles and protocols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite) [wikipedia.org], so that anybody can implement them. Do you really think we'd have the internet as we know it had some dodgy company tried to license all of it and sell it to those who could pay?

let me guess:M$ and mostly USA companies?:lolflag:

[ushimitsudoki]

Tries too hard to cram things into the Star Trek analogy.


Then out of the blue, like Kirk and the Klingon Chancellor shaking hands, the Linux Foundation and Microsoft are writing letters to the American Law Institute saying how implied warranties are bad for the software industry.

The ALI's assertions that software establishes an implied warranty that can not be disclaimed (without regard to the commercial purpose of the software) is so violently idiotic that no-one knowing anything about software can support it. Just because the Linux Foundation and Microsoft agree in this single instance hardly signals an era of hand-holding and long showers together. Portraying it as some sign of agreement is like getting Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore to agree that eating babies is wrong and acting like they are running mates in 2012 or something.


... the disruption that threatened the peace was the Microsoft lawsuit against Tom Tom which sent a chill through the Linux community as it mentioned FAT software patents. “See”, the Kirks of the open source community said, “we cannot trust them.”

We are in a phase of hostile diplomacy as fingers of blame are pointed....

There's only one direction to point fingers. Microsoft used patents aggressively. I know this is hard to believe, but some people used to argue that Microsoft had *never* used patents aggressively, and it was foolish to think they might.

I never understood this defense of Microsoft. The same people that attempt to apologize for Microsoft by asserting they are just doing business how it is done, would often turn around and try to pretend like "lordy no, Microsoft would never use patents aggressively!" Of course they will. They will do it again and again. They are just going to do it a little bit here and a little bit there - it wouldn't make any sense for them to come out swinging with every patent they hold against every possible target.

You might argue that Microsoft's suit was justifiable or "just business" or whatever, but the fact remains they used patents aggressively, and there's really nothing to argue about there.


The future, the undiscovered country, is not going to be about absolute wins. It is going to be a network of complex intertwined interests held together by diplomacy, goodwill, trust and respect,

It is not possible to trust Closed Source software. You can not know what it is doing - furthermore, they intensely do not want you to know what it is doing! To an individual user, this may not matter(*). To a government, it does. This is why even Microsoft shows source code to governments or customers large enough to demand it. The individual doesn't get to see it, because - bottom line - individuals aren't important (to Closed Source vendors).

(*) It may matter a lot if you take a breathalyser test. Or get faced with a speeding charge. Or want your vote to count.