Microsoft: Steward of Linux, protector of competition
Summary: If Microsoft or any other software vendor thinks they will improve their market standing by suing users and partners -- we would have seen a lot more of that already. Fortunately these companies remain mostly run by salespeople, and not lawyers. It's not been kumbaya, it's been mutual assured survival -- as long as the growth has been in double-digits. High growth has always protected and insulated the software industry from itself.
Peter Yared, CEO at ActiveGrid, has penned a CNET commentary on the Microsoft-Novell Linux agreements that seems to call into question Linux's "special" status going forward. The notion that open source and GPL licensing differentiates Linux (and other open source products) from commercial operating systems is now moot, Yared seems to be saying.
Consumers will benefit anew as commercial products and open source products compete on equal legal footing -- as long as the players reach detent based on individual legal pacts. Let's walk away from the mutual-assured legal-costs destruction that, he says, has allowed open source (and even a lot of commercial code products) to even exist.
Well, I agree that more competition benefits users. But should we just escrow all that's happened with Linux over the past 10 years into some collective amnesia account because Novell and Microsoft set a precedent to pretend that the differences between open source and commercial source don't necessarily jibe with their intended business partnerships?
Would Microsoft, if it had the legal leverage that Yared alludes to, have allowed Linux to emerge as the industry-use standard it has while withholding the legal means to prevent such growth? Not on my planet. Oh, perhaps Microsoft saw Linux doing more damage to Unix than Windows in the short term and so allowed it to bloom?
One of the boasts that Microsoft can make about Vista is that it carries, roughly, the same cost as XP. Would that have been likely without the price-pressure the Linux has brought to the global market? Speaking of global, wouldn't software patents as clubs against the competition be a tough strategy to maintain from country to country, and so isn't the whole notion of software patents in the global economy mostly moot, at least in practice?
As Yared points out, the software industry is brutal and ruthless. But not enough to sue your own customers and partners, apparently. I for one am thankful that Linux and open source has provided a monstrous speed bump before the rapacious locomotives of the commercial software industry. And, lo, innovation has not been smitten from the network. But unlike Yared, I see no reason to remove those speed bumps now that they are truly proving effective.
If Microsoft or any other software vendor thinks they will improve their market standing by suing users and partners -- we would have seen a lot more of that already. Fortunately these companies remain mostly run by salespeople, and not lawyers. It's not been kumbaya, it's been mutual assured survival -- as long as the growth has been in double-digits. High growth has always protected and insulated the software industry from itself.
Yared appreciates that as the growth slows, the ugly nature of corporate survival increases. It's too soon to think that slow growth will hurt an open source business model any more than it hurts the high-volume monopoly model. In other words, time is on Linux's side. No need to change course now, Novell or no Novell.[poll id=10]
Consumers will benefit anew as commercial products and open source products compete on equal legal footing -- as long as the players reach detent based on individual legal pacts. Let's walk away from the mutual-assured legal-costs destruction that, he says, has allowed open source (and even a lot of commercial code products) to even exist.
Well, I agree that more competition benefits users. But should we just escrow all that's happened with Linux over the past 10 years into some collective amnesia account because Novell and Microsoft set a precedent to pretend that the differences between open source and commercial source don't necessarily jibe with their intended business partnerships?
Would Microsoft, if it had the legal leverage that Yared alludes to, have allowed Linux to emerge as the industry-use standard it has while withholding the legal means to prevent such growth? Not on my planet. Oh, perhaps Microsoft saw Linux doing more damage to Unix than Windows in the short term and so allowed it to bloom?
One of the boasts that Microsoft can make about Vista is that it carries, roughly, the same cost as XP. Would that have been likely without the price-pressure the Linux has brought to the global market? Speaking of global, wouldn't software patents as clubs against the competition be a tough strategy to maintain from country to country, and so isn't the whole notion of software patents in the global economy mostly moot, at least in practice?
As Yared points out, the software industry is brutal and ruthless. But not enough to sue your own customers and partners, apparently. I for one am thankful that Linux and open source has provided a monstrous speed bump before the rapacious locomotives of the commercial software industry. And, lo, innovation has not been smitten from the network. But unlike Yared, I see no reason to remove those speed bumps now that they are truly proving effective.
If Microsoft or any other software vendor thinks they will improve their market standing by suing users and partners -- we would have seen a lot more of that already. Fortunately these companies remain mostly run by salespeople, and not lawyers. It's not been kumbaya, it's been mutual assured survival -- as long as the growth has been in double-digits. High growth has always protected and insulated the software industry from itself.
Yared appreciates that as the growth slows, the ugly nature of corporate survival increases. It's too soon to think that slow growth will hurt an open source business model any more than it hurts the high-volume monopoly model. In other words, time is on Linux's side. No need to change course now, Novell or no Novell.[poll id=10]
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Or HOW to get FOSS/Linux to Innovate
Mabey its true that when you were just cloning Unix apps, and Operating system, and taking away Unix users. I would expect that Microsoft would not really care what you did.
but after taking your share of Unix users, you then turned your attention to MS and windows.
Since that time, you've been actively trying to "clone" windows in Linux.
Ive said it often.
But it appears to be true.
You see Microsoft develop a system or technology, that the world LIKES and that everyone is willing to pay a fair price for.
The FOSS/Linux people see this model, and copy it for their own systems.
For NO TECHNICAL benifit
NO INNOVATION, or NEW IDEA's we just get a constant stream of second hand, (and second rate) products from Linux/FOSS, that kinda look like MS Windows, and their applications,
but dont quite meet the same levels of quality and finish.
AND ALWAYS *AFTER* MS have had their product on the market.
What this says about the FOSS model is that its fundamentaly FLAWED.
WHAT are the technical reasons that Linux/FOSS incorporate things like NTFS support ??
is this to enable Linux to "talk" in MS Windows, and to allow Linux to take away Microsoft users, while being able "see" windows machines.
Now we ALL know who owns the IP to NTFS, if you dont its Microsoft..
so how can the linux community say they did not "reverse-engineer" NTFS so they could take away MS Windows USERS.
Why not instead develop your OWN leading edge apps, and Operating System ?
why, DONT WE EVER see innovation from Linux/FOSS ?
Linux itself is a clone of UNIX, (says so on the Linux web page).
everyone knows this, how much INNOVATION was required to clone as Operating system developed by someone ELSE ??
Microsoft is as successful as it is now because people like their products and are prepared to pay for it.
and as things are turning out, everyday its look even worse for FOSS/Linux.
you've cloned and copied and stolen too many things, i think you are starting to "annoy" the BIG BOYS, by stealing their products.
And as much as you think you're up to it, if you want to play with the big boys you will have to play by THEIR RULES.
as much as you might like to play by your own rules, YOU CANT. :)
And lets face it,, if Microsoft was really scared of FOSS/Linux, he would destroy you. (he might).
If he decided to destroy FOSS/Linux it would happen and there would be basically NOTHING you could do about it.
FOSS would be even more marginalized than it is now.
FOSS/Linux are on THIN ICE, so dont jump up and down too much, lest you fall through.. :)
Its always the fanatical ones that are the last to see what is happening, time will tell, but i would say FOSS/Linux have BIG BIG BIG problems.. probably TOO BIG for them to deal with.
The "Model" is allready being questioned by some of the TOP FOSS people.
and ALOT DONT TRUST Torvalds or stallman, for the extreemist attitudes.
Original story is correct
IF you actually want Linux and Open source to still be in existance in 2 years. !!!
or is "Denial" a US condition these days ??
internationalization
Linux and Open Source seem to be growing quite happily outside the US, and will probably continue to do so...
I try not to get into zealotry, but honestly, MS can't crush Linux worldwide. it's sort of like the black market... the harder you suppress it, the more it'll fight back, and the more prolific it will become. Except, there won't be price hikes like the black market does, since the GPL is still around... and if someone successfully can fight the GPL, the other licenses are out there.
I do not see any way that Linux will be removed from existance. If it was to be quashed, it'd just go back to the hobbyist/hacker roots, where no one would be able to really trace it, and it wouldn't matter.
Price of Windows and Patent encouragement.
Answering rhetorical questions.
Quoting:
"One of the boasts that Microsoft can make about Vista is that it carries, roughly, the same cost as XP. Would that have been likely without the price-pressure the Linux has brought to the global market?"
Yes.
The anti-trust trial looked at this. Microsoft has long charged less than monopoly prices for Windows.
There are a number of advantages, including being consistent with the declining costs in many areas of IT and the encouragement of repurchase by people and organizations satisfied with the versions they already have.
Why shiould Linux, a defeated competitor on the desktop, influence pricing?
"Speaking of global, wouldn't software patents as clubs against the competition be a tough strategy to maintain from country to country, and so isn't the whole notion of software patents in the global economy mostly moot, at least in practice?"
Patents are part of the way top obtain foreign payments for IP. The US being an IP economy, this is a focus. Expect the WTO and the bi-lateral agreements and any other vehicle to be used to increase patent payments.
Idiotic Nonesense
News flash! If you display it in public, you can't keep people from looking at it. If you don't like that, make it invisible, so no one CAN see it.
It would appear that ANY Windows user would WANT a Linux user to communicate with a Windows user. What idiot wants his system to be cut off from the rest of the world?