Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Microsoft's Little Doll Novell Annoys Canonical's CTO

Hash: SHA1

Launchpad and Microsoft

,----[ Quote ]
| Novell’s Chief Marketing Officer John Dragoon has taken the opportunity to 
| compare Canonical with Novell partner Microsoft on his blog. As 
| he “commend[s] Microsoft for taking this very significant step”, he points 
| out that the 20,000 lines of source code contributed by Microsoft to the 
| Linux kernel “will far surpass those contributed by Canoncial[sic]“.    
| John credits Novell colleague Greg Kroah-Hartman for helping Microsoft to 
| achieve this historic milestone. Greg is fond of counting lines of code in 
| the Linux kernel, and based on his commentary elsewhere, I’m sure it was his 
| pleasure to provide this statistic. I haven’t checked the figures myself, but 
| it’s certainly believable that our contributions to the Linux kernel haven’t 
| amounted to 20,000 lines of code.     
| Before we congratulate Microsoft and Novell too heartily, though, let’s get 
| beyond the numbers, and look at what those 20,000 lines of code actually do. 
| What can Linux do now that it couldn’t do before Microsoft’s contribution? 
| According to Microsoft’s press release, it’s a device driver which enables 
| Linux to run much faster—<b>on Windows servers</b>. That’s right, it helps us 
| to get more value out of our expensive Windows Server 2008 licenses by 
| consolidating our Linux servers into Windows Hyper-V virtual machines. It 
| lets us put Windows in control of our hardware, and rely on Microsoft to 
| allow it to perform well, for as long as that makes sense for them 
| strategically.         
| [...]
| Microsoft’s contribution to Linux creates new business opportunities for 
| Microsoft by locking customers into their technology. Canonical’s 
| contribution of Launchpad helps free software developers do what they do 
| best, and benefits Canonical by making it easier for us to package, 
| distribute, maintain, and provide services for free software.    



Mono actually is dangerous

,----[ Quote ]
| In a recent iTWire article titled "The elusive, royalty-free patent licence
| for Mono", Sam Varghese contacts Ecmea for the patent terms surrounding Mono.
| Remember that the mono camp always throws the argument at people that mono
| follows an Ecmea standard and as such is free to implement?
| [....]
| He reaches a very simple conclusion:
| "To me, it looks this licence is as real as the unicorn. Or maybe Santa
| Claus. I think Mono fans need to think of a fresh defence when people talk
| about the dangers of patent suits arising over this technology. The licence
| talk has worn more than a little thin."
| Thanks for a great piece of investigation to Sam.
| Now, can we please take a real look into this before we rip out Rhythmbox in
| favour of Banshee in Ubuntu and can we please reinvestigate making Gnome
| depend on mono (currently by virtue of Tomboy)?

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index