Ms Linux Server / Google Linux Desktop

[brentoboy]

Biggest Fear:
Microsoft Linux Server

Biggest Hope:
Google Desktop Linux

I am totaly afraid that instead of fighting linux, microsoft will up and make a server os based on linux that has a proprietart SMB protocol and a propietary asp server thing that is really cheap at first, but stays proprietary. - even makes it easy to pirate, until they get it all mixed up in existing servers, and then turn tail and start suing people for pirating thier stuff. I know a bunch of business owners that wouldnt have a problem using an MS linux server - so long as MS says its a wonderful thing.

I would seriously welcome a Google Desktop Linux - doing exactly what ubuntu is doing, except, google has a big name and marketing dollars, and the computer ussing masses trust them well enough to switch wihtout fearing for thier precious mp3 collection, and their *.doc files!

With a big name like google, maybe some of the 3d-game producing crowd would start pumping out linux games, and we could dump our widows partitions.

[aysiu]

As far as I know, there's no legal way to make something based on the Linux kernel proprietary. The GPL is perpetual. If something is based on the General Public License, it is also bound by the General Public License. I cannot take Ubuntu, create a new distro based on it and say that my distro is a closed source distro.

Am I wrong? Can someone who knows more about this expound a bit on the issue?

[Brunellus]

yeah, but it may be possible to leave the kernel GPL'd and just put your proprietary software on top of it, without modifying the kernel.

or then again I could be talking complete ****.

[Arktis]

Yes, I believe you are correct. Selling a distribution that is a mix of GPL and proprietary software has already been done before, no? Linspire comes to mind; am I correct?

[KrisDwyer]

Have to agree brunellus was onto something there...

[brentoboy]

Or, even worse, Ms could take the kernel, modify the headers (like every distro does) compile their version. (which would have to be open source)

And then, write prop software tools for businesses that are "cheap" and pirate-able. That are compiled to run with their header files. So, sure, you can have the underlying stuff, but their tools only work on thier version of the kernel, becuase the source to their control panel apps is proprietary.

Then, they could promise other vendors "kernel stability" a set of headers they can compile against once, and distribute in binary form.

Thus taking the parts of linux that are better than what they have (the core) and poluting it with thier pile of crap, and put a billion dollars into marketing it as "The power of linux... from a name you can ?trust?"

I woke up this morning from a bad dream, I'm just sharing the ugly details as a way of venting off the nervous sweat I found myself in.

[frippz]

Mac OS X is a perfect example of mixed OSS and proprietary. The Darwin kernel is OSS, right?

[brentoboy]

yeah, darwin is open source.
in fact I heard of a project to make it run on x86, there is downloadable stuff that works, there are just no drivers for anything but MAC stuff, because... well, no one ever needed them in there before.

[brentoboy]

The way that my dream/nightmare worked out was this...

Google launched a desktop linux product in 2008, and gave it a marketing push to "directly compete with windows vista" they got a bunch of folks on board - like toshiba and some other PC systems resellers to jump on board, and, as a group they made linux a "free" but consumer oriented product.

People started using them as servers, becuase even with a gui, it is still more efficient than a MS server, and it doenst have the client access licensing crap. All the cool tools that google offered as part of their desktop OS made linux easy to the windows based businesses.

Ms realized that Ms Windows Server was toasted, becuase no one really cares about all the new server technology ms is offering (active directory, .net passports ... etc) and that most people just want a file server.

So they took ASP, some .net framework server stuff, echange and all their other products that are server oriented, and offered a linux version of them - so long as you run it on their version of the Linux kernel. The did this as a move to make sure their other proprietary server oreiented packages didnt fall off the map - hoping that people who use outlook excange would rather continue to use a prop exchange server - so long as they could do it on linux. You get the idea.

Then, the dream went from bad to worse... and I woke up shaking my head at the fact that this stuff isnt as unlikely as you'd think. businesses act and re-act in whatever way the must in order to keep up.

[lingnoi]

yeah, but it may be possible to leave the kernel GPL'd and just put your proprietary software on top of it, without modifying the kernel.

or then again I could be talking complete ****.

Motorola are doing exactly this with their Linux smart phones. I wanted to change some stuff on the Linux smart phone I bought until I found out that they were not releasing the code they are using on top on the kernel which makes coding around with the phone almost completely useless.

Even worse they have setup an opensource section for the pure purpose of getting people to translate the propriety part of their code into different languages.

In other words they are leeching off the community, while only giving the minimum amount back.

[tehhaxorr]

Motorola are doing exactly this with their Linux smart phones. I wanted to change some stuff on the Linux smart phone I bought until I found out that they were not releasing the code they are using on top on the kernel which makes coding around with the phone almost completely useless.

Even worse they have setup an opensource section for the pure purpose of getting people to translate the propriety part of their code into different languages.

In other words they are leeching off the community, while only giving the minimum amount back.

Isn't that what open darwin was about :P

[ssam]

Mac OS X is a perfect example of mixed OSS and proprietary. The Darwin kernel is OSS, right?

or ubuntu feisty which will have proprietary drivers

[Kimm]

Mac OS X is a perfect example of mixed OSS and proprietary. The Darwin kernel is OSS, right?

Darwin WAS Open Source, it closed now. And it was based on FreeBSD (which is under a BSD license, not GPL).

[ssam]

Darwin WAS Open Source, it closed now. And it was based on FreeBSD (which is under a BSD license, not GPL).

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

there are also quite a few other opensource bit in mac os x.

[Kimm]

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

there are also quite a few other opensource bit in mac os x.

In that case something has changed. I read the darwin source was closed a while back. And I know that OS X uses some GNU tools.

[dca]

It won't matter, MS will never scrub their current lineup of MS Server 2003, etc, etc. Something tells me Google runs Ubuntu desktop & server on some of their systems. Think I read that somewhere... As far as them coming out w/ an OS. If they did, it would be desktop only for as mentioned, just to **** MS off and steal market share from MS just on principle because they can. Hmmm, I hope that taking the GPL'd kernel, hot-rodding it, close source it, and release it doesn't become a habit... ie: TiVO....

[joflow]

It won't matter, MS will never scrub their current lineup of MS Server 2003, etc, etc. Something tells me Google runs Ubuntu desktop & server on some of their systems. Think I read that somewhere... As far as them coming out w/ an OS. If they did, it would be desktop only for as mentioned, just to **** MS off and steal market share from MS just on principle because they can. Hmmm, I hope that taking the GPL'd kernel, hot-rodding it, close source it, and release it doesn't become a habit... ie: TiVO....

Tivo has open sourced the changes they have made to the kernel: http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp

[Kimm]

Besides, if MS where to make a Linux based server OS, they could just as well put "Hey! Our server OS stinks! try this Linux-based OS instead!" on the box. And they would loose marketshares to free/cheaper distros in areas where Software Patents are illegal (like in the EU, even though the EU doesn't fully comply with their own rules....) and proprietary protocols like smb can be reverse-engineered by the free software movement and used freely.

Besides, if it where to happen, you can bet Novell, IBM, Sun or any other OpenSource/Linux savvy company would create their own, legal implemention of the protocols. That would eighter be available free-of-charge, or for a cost lower than the MS Server.