Microsoft's Good-Cop/Bad-Cop

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 11, 2009.

  1. As far as Open Source is concerned, Microsoft's "Good Cop" is Sam Ramji
    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/10/ramji_open_source_microsoft/>. But
    his main role seems to be to deflect the blows of those who accuse Microsoft
    of being anti-Open-Source. He isn't high enough in the corporate hierarchy
    to make much difference to the company's culture. If the company were really
    serious about Open Source, they would make him a Vice President reporting
    directly to Ballmer. This is telling:

    ...Ramji had admitted that despite being two years into his current
    position at Microsoft, he's only a year into engaging with Microsoft's
    lawyers when it comes to open source.

    But on the plus side, this is heartening to hear:

    ...Ramji said his team in Redmond, Washington is finding and fixing bi-
    directional bugs in Samba and in Microsoft's implementation on Windows
    that he said the company is fixing.

    Samba helping Microsoft fix the latter's bugs?? Whatever next...
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 11, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In message <grpqeh$5ag$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > As far as Open Source is concerned, Microsoft's "Good Cop" is Sam Ramji...


    More here <http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/04/microsoft-rep-faced-tough-questions-at-linux-summit.ars>:

    He also emphatically distanced himself from Microsoft's anti-Linux
    marketing campaigns and said that he doesn't support that approach to
    competition.

    But so bloody what? Is he here to represent himself or his company? That's
    his company's position, and nothing he can say can change that.

    Which proves, really, how low his status is in the organization.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 14, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Apr 12, 9:58 am, "Alan" <> wrote:

    >
    > If SMB is 'owned' by Samba (and presumably GPLd hence 'owned' in
    > quotes) then surely if MS are using it, they have to GPL that part of
    > their code too?


    AFAIK SMB is a Microsoft protocol and the MSDOS / Windows code was
    written or purchased as proprietary code.

    SAMBA is separately written code intended to run under *NIX to provide
    SMB server and client interfaces on *NIX machines.

    >
    > It is totally unacceptable for MS to use someone else's code in
    > contravention of their license - morally if not legally?
    >

    Which MS do not appear to be doing. It seems now that MS has
    recognised that some of their customers expect Windows SMB to operate
    properly with *NIX SAMBA servers.This customer base is of sufficient
    significance that MS no longer seems to be wanting to play 'silly
    buggers' with SAMBA.
    peterwn, Apr 14, 2009
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Party Animal Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > On Apr 12, 9:58 am, "Alan" <> wrote:
    >
    >> If SMB is 'owned' by Samba (and presumably GPLd hence 'owned' in
    >> quotes) then surely if MS are using it, they have to GPL that part of
    >> their code too?

    >
    > AFAIK SMB is a Microsoft protocol and the MSDOS / Windows code was
    > written or purchased as proprietary code.
    >
    > SAMBA is separately written code intended to run under *NIX to provide
    > SMB server and client interfaces on *NIX machines.
    >
    >> It is totally unacceptable for MS to use someone else's code in
    >> contravention of their license - morally if not legally?
    >>

    > Which MS do not appear to be doing. It seems now that MS has
    > recognised that some of their customers expect Windows SMB to operate
    > properly with *NIX SAMBA servers.This customer base is of sufficient
    > significance that MS no longer seems to be wanting to play 'silly
    > buggers' with SAMBA.


    It includes all the MacOSX users who also buy MSOffice for instance.
    Party Animal, Apr 14, 2009
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Party Animal Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <grpqeh$5ag$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> As far as Open Source is concerned, Microsoft's "Good Cop" is Sam Ramji...

    >
    > More here <http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/04/microsoft-rep-faced-tough-questions-at-linux-summit.ars>:
    >
    > He also emphatically distanced himself from Microsoft's anti-Linux
    > marketing campaigns and said that he doesn't support that approach to
    > competition.
    >
    > But so bloody what? Is he here to represent himself or his company? That's
    > his company's position, and nothing he can say can change that.
    >
    > Which proves, really, how low his status is in the organization.
    >


    Lots of open source software runs on Windows, its quite possible for
    them to be pro open source and also have a competitive approach to Linux
    which isn't too much different to your own approach in pointing out
    competitive advantages of your favoured operating system
    Get over it.
    Party Animal, Apr 14, 2009
    #5
  6. In article <gs1iid$84g$>, Party Animal <> wrote:
    (snip)

    >Lots of open source software runs on Windows, its quite possible for
    >them to be pro open source and also have a competitive approach to Linux
    >which isn't too much different to your own approach in pointing out
    >competitive advantages of your favoured operating system
    >Get over it.


    Much windows s/w also runs in linux (under wine and similar products).

    And please don't feed the trolls :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Apr 15, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Party Animal Guest

    Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article <gs1iid$84g$>, Party Animal <> wrote:
    > (snip)
    >
    >> Lots of open source software runs on Windows, its quite possible for
    >> them to be pro open source and also have a competitive approach to Linux
    >> which isn't too much different to your own approach in pointing out
    >> competitive advantages of your favoured operating system
    >> Get over it.

    >
    > Much windows s/w also runs in linux (under wine and similar products).
    >
    > And please don't feed the trolls :)
    >
    >

    I mean open source software specifically compiled for Windows and open
    source software exclusively written for Windows.
    There is probably more open source software running on Windows systems
    than on Linux if you look at Firefox Thunderbird and Apache.
    http://www.theopendisc.com/programs/
    Open Source doesn't mean Linux
    Party Animal, Apr 15, 2009
    #7
  8. In message <gs3m6b$d0h$>, Party Animal wrote:

    > There is probably more open source software running on Windows systems
    > than on Linux if you look at Firefox Thunderbird and Apache.


    All of which run on Linux. So how much open-source software is there that
    doesn't?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 15, 2009
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Party Animal Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <gs3m6b$d0h$>, Party Animal wrote:
    >
    >> There is probably more open source software running on Windows systems
    >> than on Linux if you look at Firefox Thunderbird and Apache.

    >
    > All of which run on Linux. So how much open-source software is there that
    > doesn't?
    >


    Wrong end of the stick there chap.
    There are a lot more installs of Firefox etc on Windows than on Linux

    I regularly come across GPL licensed applications like cdex or
    pdfcreator or shareaza for Windows. There are perfectly serviceable
    alternatives in linux so no need for linux versions.

    Being an operating systems bigot you probably don't see any GPL software
    running in Windows because of your la la la la not listening blinkers
    and fingers in the ears.
    Party Animal, Apr 15, 2009
    #9
  10. In message <gs45k5$vj8$>, Party Animal wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> In message <gs3m6b$d0h$>, Party Animal wrote:
    >>
    >>> There is probably more open source software running on Windows systems
    >>> than on Linux if you look at Firefox Thunderbird and Apache.

    >>
    >> All of which run on Linux. So how much open-source software is there that
    >> doesn't?

    >
    > There are a lot more installs of Firefox etc on Windows than on Linux


    Is that all? Just Firefox? Given the tens of thousands of open-source apps
    included in the standard repositories of the major Linux distros, you're
    going to need more than just one, admittedly high-profile, example, to tilt
    the balance towards Windows.

    > I regularly come across GPL licensed applications like cdex or
    > pdfcreator or shareaza for Windows. There are perfectly serviceable
    > alternatives in linux so no need for linux versions.


    Still, more the exception than the rule, isn't it?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 15, 2009
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Party Animal Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <gs45k5$vj8$>, Party Animal wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>> In message <gs3m6b$d0h$>, Party Animal wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> There is probably more open source software running on Windows systems
    >>>> than on Linux if you look at Firefox Thunderbird and Apache.
    >>> All of which run on Linux. So how much open-source software is there that
    >>> doesn't?

    >> There are a lot more installs of Firefox etc on Windows than on Linux

    >
    > Is that all? Just Firefox? Given the tens of thousands of open-source apps
    > included in the standard repositories of the major Linux distros, you're
    > going to need more than just one, admittedly high-profile, example, to tilt
    > the balance towards Windows.


    Sorry but I have no idea what your point is and I don't think you do either.
    The apps have to be installed and have actual users to have any
    significance.


    >
    >> I regularly come across GPL licensed applications like cdex or
    >> pdfcreator or shareaza for Windows. There are perfectly serviceable
    >> alternatives in linux so no need for linux versions.

    >
    > Still, more the exception than the rule, isn't it?
    >


    Yes, the license means more to the developers than the end users, there
    are enough instances to show that there are no impediments to using an
    open source license for software for Windows systems.
    Party Animal, Apr 16, 2009
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joseph Russo
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    724
    Two Pi R
    Jul 8, 2003
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    451
    DVD Verdict
    Jun 28, 2004
  3. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,866
    Michael Alan Chary
    Feb 23, 2005
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    470
  5. John

    Bad media, bad files or bad Nero?

    John, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,189
    Keith
    Jan 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page