Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:08:42 -0700 | From | Herman Oosthuysen <> | Subject | Re: Is this going to be true ? |
| |
MS once described the GPL as a 'cancer'. One of the 'features' of cancer is that it grows fast and can't be stopped easily, so I suppose they were correct...
MS history shows that they did and does support various flavours of *nix. So, it is not beneath them to release apps for Linux too one day and it would be a good thing if they do. Competition is always good. It inpires people to do better.
Joseph D. Wagner wrote: >>I am just curious if someone has an opinion for the >>following link? >> >>Research Firm: Microsoft Will Use Linux by 2004: >>[trim] > > > Over Bill Gates' dead body. The Microsoft Corporation (and by that, I mean > the people running it: Chairman of the Board, CEO, CIO, CFO, Board of > Directors, most of the stockholders, etc.) is of the genuine belief that > Microsoft Windows is the operating system of the future. (Whether you > believe it or not is a separate topic.) Developing products for the Linux > platform is both 1) an admission that this belief was wrong, and 2) an > admission that their own current version of Microsoft Windows is somehow > shoddy, not-up-to-par, insufficient, or even on an equal footing with Linux. > The Microsoft Corporation will never admit either of those two things. > After all, it's the MICROSOFT CORPORATION. If they didn't believe these > things, they would go somewhere else. > > The following scenarios are far more likely. > > 1) Future development of the Windows operating system or some of its > components will be *BSD based. The Microsoft Corporation will never touch > Linux. Period. The lawyers simply wouldn't allow it. The lawyers think of > GNU GPL as an infectious disease, and so anything Linux is out of the > question. The BSD license is far more favorable to proprietary development, > since it allows you to close off the source. Hence, assimilating a *BSD > structure, component, or piece of code is far more likely. > > In fact, Microsoft Windows 2000/XP already did that with Kerberos. > > 2) Lower prices for Microsoft Licensing or more broadly interpreted > licensing. It may be that to better compete with Linux that Microsoft > lowers the prices of some of its Microsoft products. > > One thing Microsoft has already done in this regard is to change the > licensing on Terminal Server. On Windows NT 4.0, each copy of Windows NT > Workstation needed a Client Access License and a Terminal Server Client > Access License to connect to a server and a server's Terminal Server, > respectively. Now, with Windows 2000 and XP Pro, a Terminal Server Client > Access License is included with either a regular Client Access License or a > Windows 2000 or XP Pro operating system license (I forget which). > > 3) Develop kits, wizards, and other software to help people convert from > Linux to Windows. Microsoft already has Unix for Windows Services (or > something like that with a similar name). It's purpose is to help people > convert from SCO UNIX to Windows. I see no reason that Microsoft can't > develop a similar such kit for, say, Red Hat Linux. (Sure, it would be one > heck-of-a-kit and very complicated, but I can see it). > > *Sigh* Yet, another topic for the linux-politics list. There is no such > list, BTW, but this email highlights the need for one. > > Joseph Wagner > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |