>From you article at:
http://www.cooltechzone.com/Departments/Featured_Story/Why_Microsoft_Should_Acquire_Linux_200702262810/
Your article is indented my responses are not:
Alright, I’m going to say this. I think Microsoft should acquire
Linux.
They already *CAN* acquire a Linux distro and improve/redistribtue it
for NOTHING. They only have to abide by the License measures. The GPL is
what they keep saying is keeping them from doing it.
Now, I understand that Linux is not as independent of an OS as
Windows;
Linux is an OS Kernel. Much the same as Windows has the Win32 Kernel.
But not in as much as the OS and GUI and other applications are tied
into the kernel and API. The GUI is completely optional. Not required.
it’s a movement towards the open environment for applications;
therefore, the standard M&A process won’t work.
It is a realization that proprietary closed non-documented programs are
a bane to businesses and individuals that rely on quick and open
resources.
However, it wouldn’t hurt to acquire the makers of Mandriva,
SuSE, Red Hat, Ubuntu and a host of other popular distributions
from their corporate or volunteer makers. Trust me; it’s only
for the better.
You seem to forget, some Linux distributions are wholly supported by
Non-Profit organizations with charters that require the that the distro
remain free. Free as in Free Speech and free as in free beer. There are
many, many, many distributions Microsoft could never even come close to
"owning"... remember the License of 99.99% of the software included in
most (I mean most, there are exceptions) Linux distributions require
releasing the source code as well. Or in the case of the GPL, giving
back the improvements made by said organization that has released said
distro. Such is the fact that you do not understand the Licensing of the
software and kernel involved in most Distributions.
A lot of Linux enthusiasts claim that Microsoft sabotages Linux
and the open source software movement for pure revenue, but
let’s think about it.
No, Microsoft sabotages its own protocols, just to make it difficult to
"connect" with Microsoft servers. There are also numerous examples of
Microsoft "embracing and extending" IEEE and W3C standards...
"Javascript" ring a bell? What about Java? How about even XML and HTML,
colluding Active-X as a Web standard requiring the use of Internet
Explorer, of which there is none available for Linux or FreeBSD or other
similar.
If Microsoft acquires the aforementioned distributions and in
essence, controls much of the Linux market, Microsoft wouldn’t
need to sabotage such a rapidly growing market. After all, if
Microsoft controls the direction, it wouldn’t be threatened
anymore.
If they were to buy all of the commercial Linux Distributions, Microsoft
would only control the direction of the Distributions they own. Yet they
would still not *OWN* "Linux" and the "Open Software" included with the
Distros. They would have to reproduce the code used to extend the
distro... and its software that they use. That is unless they do not use
any of the software or libraries, etc... in the existing one s they
bought... but then it wouldn't be Linux.
You also forget, about the FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD OSes out there.
If in fact Microsoft were able to beat back and force ownership of
"Linux" as you claim, they would fall into the exact place vacated by
the stolen Linux stuff. But then, you would still have to somehow deal
with the Non-Profit organizations that support things like Debian
Linux... the FSF and SPI would not sit idly by and watch Debian Linux
become acquired.
Since Microsoft is a public company, driven solely by revenue
numbers, it could benefit from enterprise customers that rely on
Linux distributions as a base for their infrastructure. That
would help recover some of the revenue that Microsoft has lost
to Linux enterprise OS.
Oh it might for a short time, but realistically, in about 6 months after
the hostile takeovers were done, the Linux from the Non-Profits would
spawn a whole new round of Linux for Microsoft to have to battle.
Assuming Microsoft makes such a move, it will obviously concern
the Linux community, and rightfully so. What would prevent
Microsoft from killing Linux just so Windows could continue to
be the dominant OS maker? Nothing, to be honest. I suppose the
various Linux distributions that Microsoft may acquire would
have to work on that with the software giant.
You are right, Microsoft could try to Kill Linux, but it can not do
this. There are too many people and organizations that stand in
Microsoft's way of being able to complete anything of the like.
Microsoft is trying with Patent's, tactics like SCOg suing, Microsoft
impinging Linux's good name with idle threats that have zero providence.
Even though there is a serious concern of Linux destruction from
these high-profile acquisitions, I personally don’t think it
would do Microsoft any good to destruct an entire industry. This
may be Microsoft’s only chance to change people’s mind about the
company as a whole. I mean, sure, let’s say Microsoft acquires
all of these distributions and kill their development entirely.
It won’t do them any good. The Linux community could rise again
from the ashes, thanks to volunteers, and take a stab against
Microsoft much harder than previously. Not to mention, I don’t
think Microsoft would want to take on sub-industries, such as
Internet Service Providers, Dot Com companies and the PC
industry as a whole for purposely killing Linux. Microsoft may
be powerful, but it’s not invincible.
Microsoft is on the way down, it is using "dead company" tactics to try
to get more money out of its customers, using threats and innuendo.
Microsoft by "killing" the commercial Linux distributions cannot even
come close to killing Linux and the free portions of the whole OSS
community. Heck even Sun Microsystems, HP and IBM and others are seeing
the benefit from not using Microsoft's OS or its applications. If you
want a god example of this, look at what Microsoft is trying to do with
the Open Document Format (ODF) vs. its "Open but still Proprietary"
OOXML. The OOXML is a competing standard, and once a standard is
adopted (which ODF is) any competing standard has to be PRESSURED into
approval state... and since OOXML is hugely bloated and contains a large
amount of Binary Blobs that are "encapsulated .DOC" formats, I would
have to say that it is not as open as one would think.
On the other hand, Microsoft could win the hearts of millions by
contributing financially and through its development resources
to help build its acquired Linux distributions and complimentary
applications.
Acquired, no... the company that develops the Linux Distribution. If
Microsoft were to try and change the licensing it would bite its own
hand off.
It could continue to monetize from the closed and open apps to
fluff its bottom line. As such, it would have both markets
cornered. What more could it possibly want?
Nobody in the Linux and OSS camps WANT Microsoft to be involved, as long
as they view the Open Source licenses Linux and most distros are built
upon, as viral or bad for business. Once they *SEE* the benefits, then
after a long healing time would any truly want them involved. The mere
mentioning of "monetize" means wring every last cent out of this and
throw it away. That is not what the open source "movement" as you call
it is about. It is about you using my stuff and if you improve it,
sharing that back with me so I can perhaps improve it more. And so on.
Microsoft, here’s something for you to consider. For the Linux
enthusiasts reading this, don’t be offended. Just because I’m
suggesting Linux to become a division of Microsoft, it doesn’t
mean I’m condoning a closed source environment for Linux. With
the amount of resources Microsoft has, and its potential threat
to Linux, it only makes sense for the two competitors to merge
and keep everyone satisfied.
Unfortunately, if Microsoft were to purchase these companies, these
companies would still be required to make source code available under
the GPL or BSD or other licenses that the distro is built upon. Many of
the things like Fedora Core, OpenSUSE, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Mandriva would
all fork new versions to avoid Micrsoft's influence. Most (if not all)
volunteer developers would move to the forked versions. Leaving
Microsoft in the dark. And once again in an adversarial position.
In any case, I just thought I'd let you know, that Microsoft itself
teaches its SMB protocol stack using the Samba code... mainly because it
isn't spaghetti code and it is bug-for-bug compatible. If that doesn't
tell you anything, nothing will.
--
greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's
Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive
product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at
the playfield. -- Thane Walkup
