So, having done its stuff in court recently, Larry has passed the
Footgun™® to Steve. Regardless of what I think about Ubuntu or their
actions, this has to be very good indeed, because M$ will be distributing
FOSS, some of it GPLv2, and even better, some GPLv3, with all the consequences.
There are no "consequences" for honest people who abide by the licence terms,
except that the FOSS community may respect them and buy more of their products,
but if M$ exhibit their usual corporate Gatesian behaviour pattern, I am
sure that there will be severe consequences. Busybox vs M$ perhaps?
(Note that Busybox have a solid track record of winning....) By the way, I am
posting from a machine which has just been upgraded from Debian to Kubuntu
12.04. KDE4 is now well and truly sorted. I consider that Canonical's biggest
mistake was in going with Gnome and Miguel, instead of putting effort into KDE
sooner. But now they have hived it off to someone else, their second biggest
mistake. If I am right, Kubuntu will really flourish. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
So... MS handing out coupons to Suse which Novell then installs - does that
protect you from patent claims? Are you sure?
When I was describing
preventing the hosted OS from functioning properly, I wasn't talking about
patents.
I was simply talking about:
MS providing a functioning API
communication mechanism for the hosted OS, which MS then later pulls due to ...
err.. "performance issues" and claims the hosted OS is
responsible.
Or...
They accidentally use different API's internally for
MS' purposes but the "standard" API's respond much more slowly for the host OS.
Or...
They accidentally partially break the API's being used by the
hosted OS so the hosted OS isn't as stable as it otherwise would be - and then
blame the hosted OS.
You know.... Microsoft's well proven historical
tactics. Only, on the Azure they'll have full immediate control rather than
relying on third parties to install the new patch.
My point about "does
it matter" was referring to the fact that total control will be in MS' hands.
As a result, they can sabotage all they'd like no matter who is handling the
Linux install. So...
Does it matter who handles the initial installation
when you still have to fully trust Microsoft with things they've shown they are
trustworthy on?
I don't think it does matter: Just don't trust
Microsoft!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|