General discussion


Does Linux belong to Microsoft?

By Kiltie ·
In a recent Q&A session, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer declared his belief that the Linux operating system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property.

I won't post any links, the tech news is buzzing about it.

Is not paying SCO to sue IBM and buying out Novell not enough?

(these aren't my comments, I've been just reading news, but i am concerned.)

Any comments folks?

EDIT: an obvious typo

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Ty for the correction

by Kiltie In reply to Pretty scary guy, huh??

I actually thought it had the word "used" in, but felt that leaving it out was on the cautious side (I'll learn more American, when my fiancee returns from the US next spring)

About "scary" ...... I've been trying to think of which horror film actor he reminds me of.

It's those eyes of his that are scary.

Brian Blessed?

Collapse -

He often looks like...

by TechExec2 In reply to Ty for the correction

He often looks like the monster in Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein". If you saw that movie and remember the monster, he looks a lot like him.

This is an outstanding spoof of Steve Balmer as the monster in Young Frankenstein. I'll bet you REALLY enjoy this! :-)

Young FrankenSteve

Another scary one (disco remix version :^0 ):

Collapse -

That's scarry!

by drew6235 In reply to I think this is an Americ ...
Collapse -

What do you think of this??

by drew6235 In reply to Does Linux belong to Micr ...

back when IBM released the first "PC", they had a monopoly. Becuse they didn't include an exclusionary clause in their contract with MS, Microsoft could sell their DOS to anybody they wanted to. IBM wasn't worried, because it wouldn't work without their BIOS. You know the story: group of techs write up what the BIOS does, another group writes a BIOS that does the same thing, without using any IBM code. ergo the IBM clone, running microsoft's Disk Operating System. Runs any programs written for the original IBM PC!!!! No more PC monopoly. about the time DOS 4.0 came out, there was another DOS on the market (by of all people Novell!), It could run any software written for Microsoft's DOS! What we ned is NOT linux, Mac OS, but an OS that can run (nativly) any program written for Microsoft windows (and use hardware drivers). Than Microsoft would no longer have a monopoly on the PC os market. They would have to consider their customer's wants and needs, produce code that is not full of bugs, competitivly price the OS, and have an EULA that we (consumers) can live with. I don't recall what happend to Novell dos, but I am sure it wasn't pritty (I used it and found it superrior to microsoft's DOS) This will never happen, as microsoft would never tolarate any compatition Which is a shame, as we, the end user lose! I think that the only hope is for the government to apply anti monopoly laws to microsoft. But again, that will never happen.

Collapse -

You also mention EULAS

by Kiltie In reply to What do you think of this ...

A Question I have is: Are they lawful?

I mean outside of the context used (or even within it!).

Now, as far as I understand, EULAs fall within CONTRACT law.
That is a law drawn up between two parties where both agree to abide to the terms of it.

[An aside here, a BIG one, a EULA never lets one of the parties negotiate it, it's a take it of leave it contract. No self respecting lawyer in the world would ever let his client sigh one of those]

However, there are higher laws than contract law, State Law, Federal Law, National Law, International Law that overrule these.

An example of one is the Australian Consumer Laws, which make many EULAS worthless.

Europe is digging its heels in too......

What do you think about EULAs?

(This is NOT OFF TOPIC, au contraire, this is the very crux of the current attack against Linux)

Collapse -

Yes the whole attack on linux does prove one thing:

by drew6235 In reply to You also mention EULAS

Thhat Microsoft has so alianated it's clientel that they are attacking anything they preceive as compatition. The assertion that Linux contains code copywrited by M$ is pretty far out there. as for EULAs being legal, the only possable why, IMHO, is that the concept of common law be applied: because they are in common usage and have been for some time, but as you noted above, Kiltie, no self respecting lawer would allow a client to signe one!

Collapse -

EULA's aren't the problem

by binarypc In reply to You also mention EULAS

The problem here is FUD on Microsoft's part. They are afraid that Linux is going to cut into their profits.

The lack of competition has made them sleepy, so instead of being competitive in the OS arena they figure they need to do it in the legal arena.

Unfortunately, if they continue this course, they will send themselves the way of beta max and a free, supported OS like Ubuntu will turn them into a has-been.

Microsoft needs to compete with a low to medium cost quality OS that will make companies want to purchase from them, not run to more stable, secure solutions in Linux, BSD or Unix.

And all of this is sad coming from me, because I have been supporting and building Microsoft based technology solutions for years, this latest move by them appears to be similar to the person who slaughtered the golden goose or akin to a drowning man choking the person trying to save him.

If Microsoft threatens to sue the end users (businesses and individuals alike), they are stabbing the customers in the back that have made them what they are today and will force an even stronger exodus to Open Source. I think the reality will be that they actually accelerate the run to Open Source, and that by their biggest customers.

When was the last time anyone heard of the US government saying, oh yeah... company so and so, please... tell me what I have to buy and what I have to do.

Microsoft is going alienate even their staunchest supporters with this kind of move.

Related Discussions

Related Forums