On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:51:47 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
> thad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <thad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> So far, Red Hat have refused Microsoft's attentions, and none of the
>>> remaining distros have yet become powerful enough to gain the interest
>>> of Microsoft, /however/, I'm quite sure that their invest and destroy
>>> approach will be repeated with depressing regularity.
>>
>> I've been a loyal Red Hat user for years, but I've increasingly
>> impressed with Debian and Ubuntu. If Red Hat imploded, I would
>> not really be concerned. Linux is Linux is Linux... it lives on
>> no matter what happens to any individual distro. Microsoft will
>> be playing an expensive and fruitless game of wack-a-mole if
>> they try to kill Linux by buying out the distros.
>>
>
> My suspicion is that Microsoft do not intend to kill linux, however, I
> think that they /do/ intend to kill the perception that it is safe,
> free, secure, reliable and so on. If they can keep knocking out the
> leading distro in any particular 2-3 year period, they will be able to
> create the impression that somehow it just isn't a safe bet. They have
> deep enough pockets to do this for many years.
>
> Having said that, I think that they're buying themselves time to a) get
> another round of lock-in from Vista and b) time to establish some new
> business units or models to replace Windows in the longer run. I think
> that they will have some success at this.
i thought the consensus was that microsoft's linux strategy was to use
patent protection to divide & conquer by creating the illusion that
microsoft-backed linux distributors are "safer" (from patent litigation)
than those that are not. it's my understanding that the open source
development community is confident that microsoft (or any other) can not
make a valid patent case against linux because of the simple fact that as
soon as any infringing code is found (if there is any) it will be
immediately replaced or eliminated, that is after-all what the GPL license
explicitly states. i believe this is the reason why open source
developers will be fairly vehement about shunning companies that make
deals that give the appearance of lending credibility to the notion that
linux is subject to patent litigation risk. i think the open source people
want to make it clear that there is no risk despite the nearly
overwhelming misinformation/propaganda/FUD campaign being waged by
microsoft. imo, if it weren't for the fact that msft has billions of
dollars to spend brainwashing the masses, this probably wouldn't even
be an issue but given the amount of money involved msft could probably
prove 1 = 2 and it would be accepted as the defacto standard for the new
math. if you've read this far, sorry for rambling, and have a nice day. :)
|
|
