PDA

View Full Version : Ballmer: Linux users owe Microsoft



greggh
November 17th, 2006, 08:19 AM
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;2;fpid;1

Microsoft is getting very scared now...

First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win

We are now at stage 3 according to Ghandi. From the article...


"Novell pays us some money for the right to tell customers that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered," Ballmer said. This "is important to us, because [otherwise] we believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability."

Jones also challenged Ballmer to "put his money where his mouth is" and detail exactly what part of the Linux kernel source code allegedly infringes upon Microsoft patents, so that "folks will strip out the code and work around it or prove his patent invalid."

Ballmer did not provide details during his comments Thursday. But he was adamant that Linux users, apart from those using SUSE, are taking advantage of Microsoft innovation, and that someone -- either Linux vendors or users -- would eventually have to pay up.

"Only customers that use SUSE have paid properly for intellectual property from Microsoft," he said. "We are willing to do a deal with Red Hat and other Linux distributors." The deal with SUSE Linux "is not exclusive," Ballmer added.

aysiu
November 17th, 2006, 08:22 AM
Ballmer? Microsoft?

I've moved this to Windows discussions...

greggh
November 17th, 2006, 08:26 AM
Ballmer? Microsoft?

I've moved this to Windows discussions...

Could you please move it back to the cafe? This is really much more about Linux, Open Source, Big Business, etc... than it is about Windows. I'd appreciate your consideration. Thanks.

23meg
November 17th, 2006, 08:33 AM
OK, now they've come clean; they are planning to cause trouble, and Novell has made one fatal move that will most likely end up with it being the next SCO in the eyes of the FOSS community. Good to hear that Red Hat doesn't sound like it will play along.

aysiu
November 17th, 2006, 08:40 AM
Could you please move it back to the cafe? This is really much more about Linux, Open Source, Big Business, etc... than it is about Windows. I'd appreciate your consideration. Thanks.
Moved back.

greggh
November 17th, 2006, 08:51 AM
Thank you aysiu. :)

steven8
November 17th, 2006, 08:56 AM
@Ballmer - The check is in the mail. . .

DC@DR
November 17th, 2006, 09:21 AM
Why don't the hell on earth that IBM,Google or HP, some of big names, just come around and support FOSS/GNU/Linux on its way to fight for FREEDOM? We need some big guys stay right behind us and protect freedom lovers from such devils like MicroSH*T. DAMN!

steven8
November 17th, 2006, 09:27 AM
Fear. Those guys are big, but I believe they all fear Microsoft. In a world where your future depends on how well you can provide for your shareholders, you don't want to do anything to jeopardize that. Big business is not about freedom. Quite the opposite.

newbie2
November 17th, 2006, 09:35 AM
Groklaw - Digging for Truth ;)
http://www.groklaw.net/

slimdog360
November 17th, 2006, 10:52 AM
He can give me my money back for XP first

Bells
November 17th, 2006, 10:55 AM
Moved back.

Another BS PHEAR post has gotten the UC reacting like it matters...

You ever actually READ the GPL?

You should.

Bells
November 17th, 2006, 11:02 AM
Why don't the hell on earth that IBM,Google or HP, some of big names, just come around and support FOSS/GNU/Linux on its way to fight for FREEDOM? We need some big guys stay right behind us and protect freedom lovers from such evils like MicroSH*T. DAMN!

They have and patent encumbered code is the result, of course they pay FSF more than the collective user community ever will so it's not something worth mention.

It's like the exploit in Nvidia's drivers, for YEARS it was known but no biggie, right? kiss and make up with Nvidia, after all they do provide hardware drivers.

At the same time Intel who are providing REAL free drivers are hardly mentioned in a positive light anywhere...

AMD is going to release documentation as soon as they get their first in house invention running and that is great news...

For those not in the know, the Novell/MS deal is a benefit to XEN and virtual server by taking down VMWare a notch, not neccessarily a bad thing.

Tomosaur
November 17th, 2006, 11:18 AM
Microsoft's threats are nothing new. Until they provide some proof that linux is impinging on its patents (besides which, software patents are incredibly stupid anyway), we'll all just carry on happily. Which bits of linux, incidentally, do they think is 'stolen'?

DoctorMO
November 17th, 2006, 11:23 AM
The FUD miester strikes again, no content in his threat

cat Steve\ Balmer > /dev/null

The Grum
November 17th, 2006, 11:23 AM
Ballmer:

the fact that that product [Linux] uses our patented intellectual property

Its like 2003 all over again. Groklaw will be doing overtime.

gnomeuser
November 17th, 2006, 11:26 AM
It's pretty clear that Microsoft needs to slow us down over the next 6-12 months while they roll out Vista. They can't risk a company like Dell rolling out cheap machines with Linux preinstalled to compete with Vista before it's an established standard.

gosh
November 17th, 2006, 11:32 AM
First he says "Linux is a cancer" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/ , now he want money from us "sick" people.

loell
November 17th, 2006, 11:47 AM
i think this is another interview ,with same topic,
linux, patent, microsoft

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/108806.asp
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/library/DS_20212.mp3

steven8
November 17th, 2006, 12:05 PM
From: Ballmer: “Linux is a cancer”


Microsoft CEO and incontinent over-stater of facts Steve Ballmer said that "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches,"

I think Mr, Ballmer needs to deal with his 'incontinence' problem. or perhaps it was, 'incompetent', misspelled?

:mrgreen:

ehird
November 17th, 2006, 12:05 PM
Countdown till Microsoft tries to pass law making Linux be classified as an "illegal drug": 3 months, 5 days, 4 hours, 23 minutes and 1 second.

shining
November 17th, 2006, 12:23 PM
Countdown till Microsoft tries to pass law making Linux be classified as an "illegal drug": 3 months, 5 days, 4 hours, 23 minutes and 1 second.

Well, I'm an addict, but I'm not a dealer, so I guess I'll be fine. Though, it'll be probably harder and more dangerous to get my favorite drug.

Kannisto
November 17th, 2006, 01:13 PM
Countdown till Microsoft tries to pass law making Linux be classified as an "illegal drug": 3 months, 5 days, 4 hours, 23 minutes and 1 second.

Excellent :twisted: Linux will be even more popular among the teens. :)

ComplexNumber
November 17th, 2006, 04:22 PM
i think what ballmer has said in the link in the first post of this thread gives the reasons why the deal was struck by MS in the first place. a few points of note:
a) how can balmy ballmer claim that linux infringes on their IP when their code isn't open for people to see?
b) in the eyes of developers and ISV's etc, this gives weight to MS's speeches claiming that linux infringes on their intellectual property.
c) MS won't sue any linux companies because linux doesn't infringe upon any MS IP's and even if they did it would hurt MS deeply.
d) another reason why their deal was done was to (try to) kill off red hat, so thats why they are appearing to back a nobody such as novell.


the bottom line: the deal was struck to give weight to microsofts FUD machine. microsoft can now turn round to developers and companies to say: "the very fact that novell did the deal with us shows that linux does indeed infringe on our intellectual property. that gioves a very good reason not to choose red hat".

hizaguchi
November 17th, 2006, 04:28 PM
If Linux is infringing Microsoft's intellectual property, why the hell don't they use that IP in their Windows operating systems? Obviously it works, because I'm very happy with Linux. Seems like Microsfot would put their own ideas to use. :confused:

d3v1ant_0n3
November 17th, 2006, 04:36 PM
So basically, Ballmer has said Linux contains code that infringes MS patents. But he's not saying what code or what patents.

I want money from MS from that thing I did in that thing that they use. But I'm not being more specific than that. That should get them scared.

jbtito03
November 17th, 2006, 04:38 PM
Join the party!

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=301554

justin whitaker
November 17th, 2006, 04:45 PM
So basically, Ballmer has said Linux contains code that infringes MS patents. But he's not saying what code or what patents.

I want money from MS from that thing I did in that thing that they use. But I'm not being more specific than that. That should get them scared.

Touche.

Look, with all the geniuses that code the kernel, you think that some proprietary non-distributable code somehow slipped past them? Not bloody likely.

Could there be some open source application that does? Sure, way to many out there to check. Unless the distribution creator is vigilant, something could have snuck their way in....but even then, the ultimate responsibility is the original coder, not the distributor.

Ballmer just wants to drum up business for microsoft, and he's using the Novell deal as leverage. He probably wants to have the top 10 all under similar agreements, then will litigate one or 2 distros to prove his point, then go away.

AlphaMack
November 17th, 2006, 05:49 PM
We ought to send him a cake with a few little plastic folding chairs on top of the frosting.

ComplexNumber
November 17th, 2006, 06:08 PM
We ought to send him a cake with a few little plastic folding chairs on top of the frosting.
best to make them foam chairs - we don't want to have anyone get hurt when they next get thrown. oh, and best make it a big cake to fit in as many chairs as possible.

EdThaSlayer
November 17th, 2006, 06:48 PM
How can M$ say that the Linux kernel used their intellectual property? Even though it didn't?Another evil plot by this gigantic company.

jhenager
November 17th, 2006, 06:48 PM
Did anyone see the recent quotes by Steve Ballmer indicating that all Linux users owe Microsoft money because Linux uses their Intellectual Property?
"… we want Suse Linux to have the highest percent share of that, because only a customer who has Suse Linux actually has paid properly for the use of intellectual property from Microsoft."

First of all, I think when you make statements like that, you lose the right to talk about anything intellectual, but second of all, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
Discuss.

David Corrales
November 17th, 2006, 06:52 PM
I just read this FUD article and I'm happy that no other company has been as stupid as Novell. I hope Suse goes to hell now for all it's worth. After years of taking benefit from free work from thousands of people, they get "covered" by those stupid statements. Wow!

dataw0lf
November 17th, 2006, 06:58 PM
First of all, I think when you make statements like that, you lose the right to talk about anything intellectual, but second of all, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
Discuss.

I call this 'Ballmerodrama'. He's always been insane. And a liar. Or maybe he's just too stupid to realize that the crap he spouts is nonsense.

If making statements of this kind decided whether you were allowed to talk about anything intellectual, Ballmer probably would have been shut up around age 11 or so.

ago
November 17th, 2006, 07:11 PM
Touche.

Look, with all the geniuses that code the kernel, you think that some proprietary non-distributable code somehow slipped past them? Not bloody likely.

That's not the issue. Do not confuse MS case with SCO. MS is complaining about IP violation, not code injection. And they might even be right, but simply because the patentents they talk about are likely extremely broad (patentX: "click a button to do something"). It is probably not possible to go around such patents by rewriting the code, but if we are in violation then chances are that almost anyone else will be (BSD, Mac, Sun, IBM and a bunch of other people MS stole IP from in the first place...).

Moreover winning a court case on those broad claims is not granted AT ALL. But I doubt MS will ever go to court... And not only because they may get hammered, but mostly because that will make very bad PR, it is much better to claim generically that we stole "something" without taking any real action. This way they even look like the good boy in town ("look you stole from us, and we do not even bring you to jail"). Most importantly they can go along with that tune for years...

In the worst case (for them), they take down Novell (and possibly purchase Novell's patents) and spread some FUD for a few years, in the best case they take down RH and create a very successful MS-Linux brand, marginalizing true FOSS to a hobbyst/underground movement. For them it is a win-win situation.

What you can do is very simple, boycott MS, Novell and all their products, including Suse, Mono and related apps. If you develop in Mono/C#, switch to Python or Java and help porting those nice Mono apps. If you work in a company try to make them switch away from .Net. As for Linux companies that want to protect their concerned customers, they should in NO case sign bilateral agreements with MS, but simply give them a guarantee that they will take care of any litigation about IP violations on their behalf. Because we ARE looking forward to litigations...

justin whitaker
November 17th, 2006, 07:13 PM
Did anyone see the recent quotes by Steve Ballmer indicating that all Linux users owe Microsoft money because Linux uses their Intellectual Property?
"… we want Suse Linux to have the highest percent share of that, because only a customer who has Suse Linux actually has paid properly for the use of intellectual property from Microsoft."

First of all, I think when you make statements like that, you lose the right to talk about anything intellectual, but second of all, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
Discuss.

Yes, it is the pot calling the kettle black. What they have come up with is that the usual Microsoft MO of either outright stealing or buying and burying will not work with the GPL, so they have resorted to a protection racket.

Now, I actually admire Steve in a perverse sort of way.

He's a pure capitalist, and he makes no apologies for it. He's taking a play out of the Mafia movie playbook, and he's not the least bit ashamed of himself for doing it.

I could never do that. Ever. I mean, I'm all for making money, but not at the expense of my soul.

"Protecting our R&D." What? Even Gartner, Microsoft's Consultant shill said R&D does not impact any Fortune 1000 company's revenue growth. If anything, it is a sunk cost as you keep pace with your competition, in essence, reinventing the wheel.

But there is Ballmer, acting like he is being the good corporate champion.

justin whitaker
November 17th, 2006, 07:17 PM
That's not the issue. Do not confuse MS case with SCO. MS is complaining about IP violation, not code injection. And they might even be right, but simply because the patentents they talk about are likely extremely broad (patentX: "click a button to do something"). Now winning a court case on those claim is a different matter. But I doubt MS will ever go to court...

In the worst case (for them), they take down Novell (possibly purchasing their patents) and spread some FUD for a few years, in the best case they take down RH and create a very successful MS-Linux brand, marginalizing true FOSS to a hobbyst/underground movement.

What you can do is very simple, boycott MS, Novell and all their products, including Suse, Mono and related apps. If you use Mono/C#, switch to Python or Java and help porting those nice Mono apps.

Good point. I thought he was saying there is actual code in there, but when I read the actual transcript, it was much more subtle and nuanced.

I was going to buy an Xbox 360, but now, I'm going to boycott Microsoft. I can't stomach a public company that emulates Hollywood mobsters.

jhenager
November 17th, 2006, 07:19 PM
I call this 'Ballmerodrama'. He's always been insane. And a liar. Or maybe he's just too stupid to realize that the crap he spouts is nonsense.

If making statements of this kind decided whether you were allowed to talk about anything intellectual, Ballmer probably would have been shut up around age 11 or so.

Agreed. I was also a little surprised that he would fire a shot across the bow of Open Source so soon after making a pact with the SuSE 'devil'.

jhenager
November 17th, 2006, 07:26 PM
Yes, it is the pot calling the kettle black. What they have come up with is that the usual Microsoft MO of either outright stealing or buying and burying will not work with the GPL, so they have resorted to a protection racket.


I remember my first day on the phone taking Windows 3.1 support calls for Microsoft, and our class of 30 or so tech support reps were called into a room to let us know that DOS 6.0 was being replaced with DOS 6.2, and that DoubleSpace was now being called DriveSpace, due to the fact that Billy Boy got caught with his hand in the Stacker intellectual property cookiejar. :p
So we were no longer to refer to it as DoubleSpace, because that was bad, reverse engineered stolen code.
That, and the fact that we were forbidden to even acknowledge a bug in 3.1 running on a Novell network called 'The Black Screen of Death' (precursor to the BSOD) told me I was supporting an unethical at best, and probably a criminal organization.
It is ironic to me that years later, Microsoft and Novell are sleeping in the same bed.

jhenager
November 17th, 2006, 07:37 PM
OK, now they've come clean; they are planning to cause trouble, and Novell has made one fatal move that will most likely end up with it being the next SCO in the eyes of the FOSS community. Good to hear that Red Hat doesn't sound like it will play along.

Red Hat basically said Microsoft can go format themselves. :-D

chaosgeisterchen
November 17th, 2006, 07:49 PM
I owe Steve Ballmer nothing.

ago
November 17th, 2006, 07:56 PM
Have you noticed that MS is using far stronger wording with Linux users than with pirated-windows users?

That is not surprising, for MS it is far better that you use a pirated version of windows rather than Linux, and they stated that quite explicitly in the past. The idea is that if you use a pirated version of windows, you spread windows and its codecs/formats and help create a lock-in, then they can collect in 5-10 years time...

ComplexNumber
November 17th, 2006, 08:04 PM
I owe Steve Ballmer nothing.
i owe steve balmer....a kick where it hurts most. thenmore of the same until he is on the ground begging for forgiveness.

chaosgeisterchen
November 17th, 2006, 08:10 PM
Hmh.. is he really worth the effort? You can ignore pointless statements like thie one he is always placing.

ComplexNumber
November 17th, 2006, 08:15 PM
Hmh.. is he really worth the effort? You can ignore pointless statements like thie one he is always placing.
most of us know that, but i doubt all the ISV's and people/companies looking to linux as a possible development platform do. they're the people who mr ballmer wants to install FUD into.

zgornel
November 17th, 2006, 08:18 PM
It's pretty clear that Microsoft needs to slow us down over the next 6-12 months while they roll out Vista. They can't risk a company like Dell rolling out cheap machines with Linux preinstalled to compete with Vista before it's an established standard. Very good point. Most of the machines out there hardly meet the recommended system requirements of Vista and the cost of training employees in using any linux distro is much lower than upgrades. Vista is a gamble which I hope they'll loose.

deeptingler
November 17th, 2006, 08:34 PM
We are at the tipping point now and Linux must take its chance to push against Vista.

Most machines you need for Vista are pretty extreme, yet Linux will run on lower specced hardware just fine. This is a cost issue for business (imagine the thousands of pcs in a call centre)

Do you think we have finally reached the tipping point where big business is SERIOUSLY considering Linux? Is that why Microsoft is going into overdrive with FUD as it has basically bet itself on Vista?

Sounds like mr ballmer doing the usual damage control....

aysiu
November 17th, 2006, 08:40 PM
Merged the two Ballmer threads.

Henry Rayker
November 17th, 2006, 08:43 PM
I was going to buy an Xbox 360, but now, I'm going to boycott Microsoft. I can't stomach a public company that emulates Hollywood mobsters.

I bought my original Xbox to use as a relatively sweet media center. I'll do the same under the following conditions: 1) The Xbox360 is as easily moddable and 2) M$ is still losing money off each unit (They are still losing on each console, right?)

chaosgeisterchen
November 17th, 2006, 08:52 PM
The consoles will be in the red up to 2008 as far as I know. Zune up to 2012 if it follows the expected roadmap.

Microsoft is approaching thin ice, doubtless. Only that the majority of desktop users do not notice the approaching storm of revolution initiated by the Linux users. I hope it will blow them away.

Bigbluecat
November 17th, 2006, 08:54 PM
According to iSuppli MS are now making a profit on each Xbox. This is from an article today on the PS3 costs.


In contrast, the HDD-equipped Xbox 360 (MSFT) has a manufacturing and materials total of $323.30, based on an updated estimate using costs in the fourth quarter of 2006. This total is $75.70 less than the $399 suggested retail price of the Xbox 360.

ComplexNumber
November 17th, 2006, 08:54 PM
They are still losing on each console, right?apparently not. read this (http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2006/11/16/ps3-loses-up-to-306-per-unit-xbox-360-profits-76-per-sale.htm).

PS3 loses up to $306 per unit, Xbox 360 profits $76 per sale

chaosgeisterchen
November 17th, 2006, 08:54 PM
Oh.. I mixed up Zune with the X-Box figures, shame on me :(

Henry Rayker
November 17th, 2006, 09:13 PM
DANGIT!!

oh well.

ChadMMc
November 17th, 2006, 09:20 PM
I fully expected this from m$. It is there usual triple-E strategy (Extend, Embrace, Extinguish).

I agree that m$ should be boycotted. (I stopped using microsoft when my system kept crashing and I switched 100% to Ubuntu).

Which brings up a question. If Linux is using m$ codes, etc... Then why does Linux run so, so much better and not have nearly bugs in the code?

Henry Rayker
November 17th, 2006, 09:25 PM
They're not suggesting that we've used their code (I believe). They are suggesting we're using their "innovations"; these can be patented (and those patents are BS).

One of their patents could be as simple as, "Three buttons in the upper right corner. One minimizes, one maximizes, one closes." Totally bogus crap (and a lot of patents are issued on the grounds that something COULD be made and MIGHT look this way or MIGHT work that way.)

chaosgeisterchen
November 17th, 2006, 09:35 PM
Interesting is that they sell their innovations as if they were really their own innovations. In fact they are mostly copied from OS X or Linux during the last time...

mo79
November 17th, 2006, 10:21 PM
Ballmer is just weird...

I noticed in a catalogue today, for example, if you look at a USB pen drive they note OS requirements as: Win98+, Mac OS 8.6+ and Linux Kernel 2.4+

I have *never* seen Linux mentioned as a requirement for a product before. Maybe I look a bit more now, but that's a 'wow' in itself.

Linux is losing it's acne. :p

23meg
November 17th, 2006, 10:27 PM
Though I have yet to do more research to be totally convinced, I feel I'm getting closer and closer to the "boycott Novell and MS" point as well. Not that I've actually ever bought anything from either in the last few years, but a total boycott would be a strategy that can get a strong point from Linux users across to them, as well as remaining Linux vendors.

This would also have to be a paradigm shift of sorts: we warn against immature MS bashing, we help people dual boot with Windows, we try to make FOSS apps work as smoothly as possible on the Windows platform and so on, and it would be schizophrenic to say "boycott MS" at the same time. We get features and patches from Suse and give them as well, and it would be schizophrenic somehow to say "boycott Novell" at the same time, though maybe less.

Just some food for thought.

InsomniacUK
November 18th, 2006, 12:07 AM
Ballmer did not provide details during his comments Thursday. But he was adamant that Linux users, apart from those using SUSE, are taking advantage of Microsoft innovation.

Oh, the ironing.

chaosgeisterchen
November 18th, 2006, 12:10 AM
Though I have yet to do more research to be totally convinced, I feel I'm getting closer and closer to the "boycott Novell and MS" point as well. Not that I've actually ever bought anything from either in the last few years, but a total boycott would be a strategy that can get a strong point from Linux users across to them, as well as remaining Linux vendors.

This would also have to be a paradigm shift of sorts: we warn against immature MS bashing, we help people dual boot with Windows, we try to make FOSS apps work as smoothly as possible on the Windows platform and so on, and it would be schizophrenic to say "boycott MS" at the same time. We get features and patches from Suse and give them as well, and it would be schizophrenic somehow to say "boycott Novell" at the same time, though maybe less.

Just some food for thought.

I have no boycott in mind but we also have to face reality and the status quo. Microsoft still has a majority market share and now tries to kill Linux by buying all the major forces of leading development. Well, they are trying. But I doubt that RedHat and/or Mark Shuttleworth are willing to cooperate and/or sell their company and with this act all their achievements for the success of FOSS. We have go walk our own way, undermining the Microsoft monopoly bit by bit so it will break apart by itself once.

effoff
November 18th, 2006, 12:45 AM
For the past several years M$ has filed for thousands of patents.... -not for stuff and protocols they themselves invented, but for anything that wasn't nailed down by some kind of license. The act of clicking a mouse, double-clicking, even tabs now they are now using them with less success than Firefox... Thousands of patents and thousands of ambulance-chasing, unethical corporate pig lawyers to file suits against those too poor to adequately defend themselves.

DoctorMO
November 18th, 2006, 01:59 AM
I have a number of points:

1) The guy that helped IBM earn lots of money from patents now works for Microsoft
2) the term 'Intellectual Property' is immoral, don't support the idea that owning ideas is valid.
3) Patents are supposed to protect the start up against the entrenched industry; patents should be stripped from monopolies such a Microsoft as a matter of course.
4) None of their software patents are valid in the EU, yes bill Gates was having a 'word' with EU ministers and people about getting software patents in the EU; without software patents in the EU linux would always be safe here.
5) Linux kernel fat32 module infringes on a fat32 patent for long file names, samba is known to infringe several other patents. the problem is that these patents are so specific and obvious that they should be thrown out and would be if ever contested. anything that couldn't be contested could be worked around.
6) Patents are restrictions on methods of implementations not the end results, not formats and not protocols. it's how you get there not where it is. thats what makes software patents so ineffectual because if it doesn't break the rules of obviousness then you can work out another way to achieve the same result.

blastus
November 18th, 2006, 02:41 AM
In my opinion, Ballmer has no credibility regarding anything he says or claims about Linux (or open source for that matter.) He has proven to be an ignorant fool and/or liar/deceiver when it comes to such matters. I'm sure he has lost credibility even with some people who work for Microsoft.

scrooge_74
November 18th, 2006, 12:51 PM
MS will keep on trying to take Linux by trying to scare people of, specially business. But they can't win because Linux is like the Hydra: you chop one head and a couple more take its place.

Patents may scare some people, but true believers will continue to use Linux and every day it gets better and more powerfull.

The other big companies will not face MS directly but will use Linux in a sort of proxy war to debilitate MS. Is going to be a long road, but inevitable MS will be defeated, without a face to face confrontation. It will be a slow death by attrition just as any big old empire when face with a new more flexible, robust and at the beginning not so big threat to them.

3rdalbum
November 18th, 2006, 03:14 PM
When he pays Apple for the use of their intellectual property (having "OK" as the label for a confirmation button, for instance) then I will lobby to have the Gnome and KDE projects pay Microsoft for the Taskbar and the order of window-manager buttons.

MaximB
November 18th, 2006, 03:24 PM
or we just change the order of the buttons ;)

.t.
November 18th, 2006, 03:29 PM
God I hate capitalism. Why should companies just be to make money, regardless of everything else? And then others are scared to react for fear to lose money... It's not how it should be.

Protostar
November 19th, 2006, 12:27 AM
God I hate capitalism. Why should companies just be to make money, regardless of everything else? And then others are scared to react for fear to lose money... It's not how it should be.

You shouldn't hate capitalism because thats not what this is. Its corporate socialism. There would be no IP or corporate personhood if this was truly capitalism.

.t.
November 19th, 2006, 12:38 AM
Thanks for widening my economic understanding. Could you elaborate more on your opinion of capitalism, however, and why this isn't a result of it?

JAPrufrock
November 19th, 2006, 04:14 AM
Capitalism that is driven by pure competition is generally a fair economic system (the good old days!). Capitalism that is perverted by the proliferation of monopolies and oligopolies is not a fair, equitable system (the current state of the world). The very existence of Linux threatens Microsoft because Linux is its opposite- a free community based open source system vs the largest monopoly in the world- David vs Goliath. Linux is fighting an ideological war with Microsoft, and the future of the world will depend, to some degree, on how it all turns out. Viva Linux! Viva Ubuntu!

Chicken001
November 19th, 2006, 06:01 AM
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/11/17/ballmer/index.php

Hm?

Discuss?

po0f
November 19th, 2006, 06:04 AM
Discuss here (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=301389) instead?

chaosgeisterchen
November 19th, 2006, 04:38 PM
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/11/17/ballmer/index.php

Hm?

Discuss?

Nothing new. I assume merged threads here.

Still I think that Steve Ballmer is widely overextending. Maybe he will once get the bill for all he has done and said. Maybe not. I can not influence that.

But he would do everything to see Linux still crawling around at 5% market share or less in 5 years time.

the.dark.lord
November 20th, 2006, 02:34 PM
i owe steve balmer....a kick where it hurts most. thenmore of the same until he is on the ground begging for forgiveness.

So do I... the above... and thanks for abusing me enough to try Linux. MS wouldn't have the guts to sue Linux, and then they would have to show their... which would show they're plain copycats... and what s**t Windows is.

BarfBag
November 20th, 2006, 05:21 PM
Groklaw - Digging for Truth ;)
http://www.groklaw.net/

Thanks for the new site! I love this place. :mrgreen:

This scares me. I hope Red Hat doesn't go with it. They play a major role in the community.

jhenager
November 22nd, 2006, 09:43 PM
Thanks for the new site! I love this place. :mrgreen:

This scares me. I hope Red Hat doesn't go with it. They play a major role in the community.

Red Hat has already politely declined the blackmail offer. Even Novell is probably thinking annullment right now....

denver
January 12th, 2007, 11:38 PM
I wonder if they patented the Blue Screen Of Deth...that would be something...huh?

But serioucely now...Balmer sounds just like a big baby that just found out that he has the smallest d**k in the world. This whole thing went from "HA!...linux..." to "hmmm...Linux..." to "linux..." and finaly "yeah...but they got that ideea from us...its not fair".

Kateikyoushi
January 13th, 2007, 02:07 AM
The man is doing what got him to his position and he is going to do this for a while, this isn't very surprising. He is a soulless piece of MS.

Rhapsody
January 13th, 2007, 02:07 AM
I wonder if they patented the Blue Screen Of Deth...that would be something...huh?

If they did, then my system with XScreenSaver is certainly in violation. :p

foxy123
January 30th, 2007, 03:22 PM
This is from the Ballmer's interview published in FT yesterday:


When somebody comes with a different business model, that's where you get… or a phenomenon comes with a different business model.

What was the number one different business model that our company has confronted in the last six years? It's Open Source. Open Source is not a technology phenomenon; it is a business model phenomenon. Frankly speaking, exactly what that business model is, is still unclear.

But that is a different business model and we had to ask ourselves: What do we do to compete? And we wound up saying it's all about value and total cost of ownership, and high performance computing is a good example. It's about 30 per cent of Linux share, and we are saying: Hey look, this is actually an area where we can take a lot of share with the right innovation, and the right total cost of ownership.

How do you deal with that business model? Do we embrace it? Do you compete with it? How does it affect the broad product line? That took a lot of energy and it will continue to take energy, but it was a primary focus for me and many of our senior people in the 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 time frame.

I guess it is extremely difficult for MS guys to understand what Open Source really is. They just cannot get that programming is not always about the money. So they are keep looking for the ultimate answer: how to make a big buck with Open Source.

Brunellus
January 30th, 2007, 03:29 PM
This is from the Ballmer's interview published in FT yesterday:



I guess it is extremely difficult for MS guys to understand what Open Source really is. They just cannot get that programming is not always about the money. So they are keep looking for the ultimate answer: how to make a big buck with Open Source.
Everything is just about the money. Free Software is no different. It simply takes the view that rather than have people pay for air, you make the air free and then build your business around the needs that air-breathing customers will have.

And you know what? We *do* owe Microsoft something, as well as IBM. Without all those cheap x86 boxes running MS-DOS all those years, we would have never achieved the level of ubiquitous computing that turned the internet from isolated academic relay to a mass phenomenon. That mass phenomenon, in turn, generated Linux and kicked off perhaps the biggest explosion of development for Free Software. RMS and GNU.org had been working on their GNU OS for years, but despite having all the userspace, never had a kernel to show for it. Enter Linus and the internet, and now there's a totally free OS.

Sepp1
January 30th, 2007, 03:41 PM
Intelectual property??

They hire "Chairs - Monkeyboy" and actually wants us to belive the own anything of intelectual value.

Sepp

Oki
January 30th, 2007, 04:19 PM
“We are at the tipping point now and Linux must take its chance to push against Vista.”
Indeed: http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT3453502692.html

Red Hat is doing fine:-) http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2088210,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594

“They are suggesting we're using their "innovations"; these can be patented (and those patents are BS).” Perhaps in the US, but not in the rest of the world. They cant stop Linux.

xhaan
January 30th, 2007, 04:24 PM
I just had a thought.
Let's say there are patent violations in Linux. Maybe Microsoft doesn't want to say what they are because they don't want to give developers a chance to get by the patents because it would make it harder to hurt Linux distros.

If there were patent violations, I think MS would want them to stay there so they have something to fight against, telling what the patents are so they can be avoided would be like letting Linux off the hook.

foxy123
January 30th, 2007, 09:16 PM
Everything is just about the money. Free Software is no different. It simply takes the view that rather than have people pay for air, you make the air free and then build your business around the needs that air-breathing customers will have.

And you know what? We *do* owe Microsoft something, as well as IBM. Without all those cheap x86 boxes running MS-DOS all those years, we would have never achieved the level of ubiquitous computing that turned the internet from isolated academic relay to a mass phenomenon. That mass phenomenon, in turn, generated Linux and kicked off perhaps the biggest explosion of development for Free Software. RMS and GNU.org had been working on their GNU OS for years, but despite having all the userspace, never had a kernel to show for it. Enter Linus and the internet, and now there's a totally free OS.

I do not think that we owe Microsoft anything. We paid for these cheap PCs with MS-DOS and Microsoft was and still is a very profitable business.

Brunellus
January 30th, 2007, 09:26 PM
I do not think that we owe Microsoft anything. We paid for these cheap PCs with MS-DOS and Microsoft was and still is a very profitable business.
without that installed base, Linux simply wouldn't exist. It's churlish to suggest otherwise. What makes the modern free software system possible--and what makes it sustainable--is an overabundance of commodity hardware and ubiquitous internet access. Microsoft, Intel, and IBM brought about the first.

Imagine the consequences for progress if Apple had won: closed specifications and even more vendor lock-in.

manmower
January 30th, 2007, 09:31 PM
What he said. ^^

Wise words.