Microsft claims Linux is 'anti-commercial'

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Philip, Nov 26, 2005.

  1. Philip

    Impossible Guest

    Exactly. But only in textbooks are all parties equal. Sometimes it's
    the client that has the leverage, sometimes its the developer. It all
    depends on who brings what resources to the bargaining table.
    Presumably the client can't write the software themselves -- that
    makes them dependant on someone out there in the market who can, for a
    price. If there are lots of offers made for the exact same service,
    then, yes, you have competition. But at the high end of the market,
    no -- How many open-source developers do you suppose can compete with
    the likes of IBM for the sort of projects they do?
    True. But IBM has a history of doing much the same. Because the market
    for OSS is still in its relative infancy, IBM is delighted right now
    to have as many developers as possible out there growing the
    open-source business. None threaten IBM because IBM's resources are so
    vast. To the extent that situation changes, you can count on IBM to
    reveal its more ruthless side.
     
    Impossible, Nov 29, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Philip

    Impossible Guest

    See also this interpretation of the GPL by a lawyer who works for
    developers:

    http://www.sitepoint.com/article/public-license-explained
     
    Impossible, Nov 29, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. IBM *is* an open-source developer.

    Why else do you think that IBM is still so competitive?


    Undeniably Sluttish
     
    Mr Undeniably Sluttish, Dec 3, 2005
    #23
  4. "... independent and separate works in themselves"

    In other words, "if a GPL'd programme uses, or is dependent on a DLL, or
    library, or module, or some other completely separate piece of software,
    then that other separate piece of software does not need also to be
    released under the GPL."


    Undeniably Sluttish
     
    Mr Undeniably Sluttish, Dec 3, 2005
    #24
  5. Mr Undeniably Sluttish, Dec 3, 2005
    #25
  6. Philip

    shannon Guest

    Because they are big, Linux has very little to do with it, it is just
    part of their portfolio of services that were previously Unix based.
     
    shannon, Dec 3, 2005
    #26
  7. IBM still offers Unix solutions, and will do so as long as demand exist
    (sic) for them.

    IBM also offers Open Source solutions on top of Unix, as well as on top of
    Linux.


    Undeniably Sluttish
     
    Mr Undeniably Sluttish, Dec 3, 2005
    #27
  8. Philip

    Impossible Guest

    What IBM offers "on top of" everything is proprietary technology. It
    currently holds 40,000 patents worldwide -- software and hardware. It
    gave away 500 old software patents last year to the open-source
    community to play with, but raked in US$1 billion in licensing fees
    for the ones it retained. For 12 years running, IBM has been No. 1 in
    patents granted in the US -- that's No. 1 on the list ALL companies in
    ALL fields, including IT, biotech, electronics, etc.

    IBM's so-called "open-source solutions" are all tied in one way or
    another to this proprietary stock -- processors, big iron, database
    systems, you name it. That's what their business is about.
     
    Impossible, Dec 4, 2005
    #28
  9. In what way do IBM's contributions to Open Source projects deserve the
    epethet "so-called"?


    Undeniably Sluttish
     
    Mr Undeniably Sluttish, Dec 4, 2005
    #29
  10. Philip

    shannon Guest

    That demonstrates that participating in open source development is sound
    commercial practise then, and good value to them.
    They pay three hundred Linux kernel developers, and get the work of
    others back it return.
    Its a joint venture thats worked out better for them than OS/2
     
    shannon, Dec 4, 2005
    #30
  11. Absolutely!


    Undeniably Sluttish
     
    Mr Undeniably Sluttish, Dec 4, 2005
    #31
  12. Philip

    Impossible Guest

    If you want to have discussions in this newgroup, please refrain from
    selectively editing posts. End of conversation.
     
    Impossible, Dec 4, 2005
    #32
  13. Philip

    Impossible Guest

    I agree.
    I'm not sure what this is referring to exactly. IBM pays its own
    developers and those that it out-sources work to. What is it getting
    "back in return" other than what it contracted for?
    I'm still confused. Who's this "joint venture" with?
     
    Impossible, Dec 4, 2005
    #33
  14. Philip

    Murray Symon Guest

    It's a common strategy of his.
     
    Murray Symon, Dec 4, 2005
    #34
  15. LOL - its clueless about how Open Source software projects work!

    Yes - IBM pays the wages of its own Open Source software developers.

    And IBM gets to use the output of all those projects that its Open Source
    software developers contribute to - and more.

    But there are so many more Linux software developers that contribute to
    those Open Source software projects than merely those persons who happen
    to work for IBM. And IBM benefits from all the work of all those
    developers - just like all persons and organisations who employ Open
    Source software solutions.

    Duh!


    Undeniably Sluttish
     
    Mr Undeniably Sluttish, Dec 4, 2005
    #35
  16. It was not selectively edited. I quoted the part of your post that my
    response was addressing. I did not edit in any way what you wrote.

    I note, however, that you have not addressed the question:
    In what way do IBM's contributions to Open Source projects deserve the
    epethet "so-called"?


    Undeniably Sluttish
     
    Mr Undeniably Sluttish, Dec 4, 2005
    #36
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.