What is Digg?66 Comments
- Sintu, on 01/04/2008, -6/+54First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. --Mohandas Gandhi.
- RogerStrong, on 01/04/2008, -2/+40Perhaps Microsoft is just returning to its roots.
Microsoft was originally a Unix shop. Its first OS was Unix for PC's - Microsoft Xenix - and they were paying royalties to AT&T. Going with OS/2 as the high-end OS was a way to end this.
Xenix had some interesting enhancements (multiple virtual consoles -- later inherited by Linux, record-locking facilities for database programming, user-friendly menus, etc). A guy named Linus much later essentially replicated all the major design decisions that Microsoft put into XENIX for the PC but using an independent codebase. You could call Microsoft the "father" of Linux, just to annoy people. (To provoke violence, mention that Apple's first Unix-based OS was Microsoft Xenix on the Apple Lisa.)
After OS/2 and later Windows NT became Microsoft's high-end OS, Xenix was spun off to SCO as SCO Xenix, which became SCO Unix when they got the naming rights. (Microsoft had contracted out to SCO for much of the original Xenix development. This isn't the lawsuit-happy SCO of today - that's a different company which bought the name.)
In 1990 Microsoft was still shipping DOS software that installed into bin and etc directories. (The mscdex diskette for example.) - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 01/04/2008, -10/+28nice, novell. and all it cost was your soul.
cheers. - peterjmag, on 01/04/2008, -2/+20"This is to bridge the divide between open source and proprietary source software. ... It gives customers greater flexibility in ways they have certainly been demanding."
That's quite possibly the most intelligent thing Steve Ballmer has ever uttered (not that that's saying much, I guess). - inactive, on 01/04/2008, -1/+16Actually, those were not 70,000 SLE servers, they were just coupons for maintenance and support of SLES which MS sells to those customers who wish to run Linux and Windows together.
- luther70, on 01/04/2008, -3/+18Once upon a time Novell own the server market. Now they have been reduced to being a parasite surviving off of Microsoft.
- inactive, on 01/04/2008, -2/+14Perhaps you would like to notify the SEC about Novell "cooking the books". That is a securities offense in the US. Because you *do* have proof of that, correct? Otherwise you wouldn't actually mouth off like that. Let's see the proof. Just keep in mind that none of your lame attack blogs count, obviously. Oh, and proof of those layoffs would also be nice. You wouldn't want people to think that you're some kind of paid shill trying to bring Novell down, would you?
- clickwir, on 01/04/2008, -4/+15I still don't get what Microsofts angle is here with this. But it just stinks of scam.
- baalzebub, on 01/04/2008, -8/+19before its over with novell will be microsoft's b!tch if they are not already (considering microsoft's history with business partners)...
- joe90210, on 01/04/2008, -1/+12wow, you sure like talking out your ass
- cptnspoon, on 01/04/2008, -2/+12Doesn't that tin foil hat get itchy on hot days?
- inactive, on 01/04/2008, -0/+9way to grab the ad as the thumbnail
(isn't there a way to select *no* image? if not, this is proof that there should)
/offtopic - mathcreative, on 01/04/2008, -0/+8Linux represents freedom. Even if people don't use linux, they still want it there, as an ideal, and as an escape from being controlled by other big businesses
- RogerStrong, on 01/04/2008, -0/+8Yeah, but Novell's fall was Novell's own doing. They had a habit of shooting themselves in the foot - nonstop, with a machine gun on full auto.
- Philluminati, on 01/04/2008, -5/+12"It gives customers greater flexibility in ways they have certainly been demanding."
-- That comes from the open source part. The proprietary part has nothing to do with it! - Kloud, on 01/04/2008, -5/+12*whoosh*
Microsoft ignored Linux, then laughed at them, then fought them, and finally Linux won. - inactive, on 01/04/2008, -0/+7very informative and interesting history lesson (I certainly learned something new), digg for that.
but this is really just about licensing deals/profits being passed through MS; essentially nothing to do with the operating system code itself (of windows /or/ linux) - clickwir, on 01/04/2008, -1/+6I disagree with the "sold the blood" comment. Novell doesn't own the linux kernel or the idea of open source or the GPL. They do have, in some fashion, ownership of SUSE. But that is the only one that Microsoft is associated with via Novell. So don't let Microsoft make you believe that they bought linux.
- missingnoh4x, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5"Apple's first Unix-based OS was Microsoft Xenix on the Apple Lisa."
After looking this up, you blew my ***** mind. Holy *****. - UKsHaDoW, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5They get money for every time they helped sell linux
- RogerStrong, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4>> The Lisa's wiki says it ran Unix, no mention of Xenix though. It was Xenix. From experience at the time, not from the Wiki.
As for Scientology, that was Ashton-Tate and Epson. - bobbob1016, on 01/04/2008, -1/+5Some things you left out (from Xenix's wiki):
"Microsoft purchased a license for Version 7 Unix from AT&T in 1979, and announced on August 25, 1980 that it would make it available for the 16-bit microcomputer market.
Xenix varied from its 7th Edition origins by incorporating elements from BSD, and soon possessed the most widely installed base of any Unix flavour due to the popularity of the inexpensive x86 processor."
So Microsoft "incorporated elements" from BSD. The Lisa's wiki says it ran Unix, no mention of Xenix though. So basically you could say everything goes back to BSD, so some extent, or more to the point Unix. Microsoft bought a Unix and played with it, made their own distro, and sold it.
Interesting to read though, and I appreciate the way you presented this. Not in an arrogant tone, just factually, apart from the (to provoke violence) part. Maybe someone became a scientologist and didn't like the name Xenix since it reminded them of Xenu, Xen + Unix = Xenu + nix - u = Xenix. - acontorer, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4Although people think of MS as being a very unilateral actor, they sometimes make surprising deals rather than stay in an unappealing fight. Many Diggers are too young to remember that in 1997 MS invested $150 Million in Apple when Apple was in trouble (http://www.news.com/2100-1001-202143.html).
- known, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3Open source software promotes Competition.
Proprietary source software promotes Collusion. - AlbinoRaven, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Myu favorite is when they told all of the third party developers in 98 that Novell now owned them. Well in kinder words thatn "we pwn you". For those of us that were certified we were offered the choice of quit contracting and work for novell or lose our certification priority, whatever the hell that was. So since they acted all snotty to us, we took our brains and trained for other certs.
no other reasons other than commerce and the fact they acted like dicks to the bunch of us that thought they had a decent product. - stix213, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3Well, it has been over a year since the MS/Novell deal and Linux is still here and doing better than ever. Novell seems to be doing better than they have in a long time (contrary to most predictions I saw), and Microsoft is now somewhat in the business of selling Linux.
I think everyone who prophisized doom have been proven wrong, and if Microsoft actually had anything substantial to their claims of IP over Linux they would have made a move against the organizations that didn't sign up by now.
This entire MS/Novell deal issue seems to have been completely overblown. I'd really like for someone who disagrees to reply with their reasons. (It has been over a year now guys..... wake up to reality and get out of your world of raw GPL/copyright law theory) - stix213, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3Just Digging me down instead of replying with anything contrary only proves my point further. The significance of this deal is entirely overblown. Thanks guys.
- harlowsmonkeys, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Could you point out where there was any proof that Novell cooked the books in that post?
- Giga, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Also, no-one cares if MS claims ownership of parts of Linux. Everyone knows it's not true and just ignore them. SCO claimed to own Unix, and look where it got them.
- TagginNoah, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Get off the crack bro. t's gettin to your head.
- stix213, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Novell and Linux in general are doing better than ever, GPL3 "IS" finalized, and MS has gone from only selling their proprietary crap to actually being a Linux vendor. MS has even begun working with Novell to improve MS/Linux interoperability. I agreed with your position back in 2006, but it is 2008 now.... WAKE UP!!!!
I would love for you to give a single example on how the MS/Novell deal has actually harmed Linux. A single freaking example please! (Not just more GPL law theory garbage that has been recycled here since 06) - burty89, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1GPLv3 has been finalized already, almost nothing has moved to it yet, and I don't think it would cause any problems for Novell if every piece of open source they ship switched to GPLv3 tomorrow.
- Giga, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1They certainly gave enough info to justify that claim. Apparently you were sufficiently annoyed.
- Giga, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Way too soon. You have to wait for someone to break the combo first.
- inactive, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1I would have to agree; so far the only "negatives" that I've seen come out of the whole MS/Novell deal is that perhaps Novell is pulling users away from other distros, and even then it's pretty hard to say whether it is "bad" on the whole for linux. I *could* see it being construed that there are some end users going with a distro (SuSe) that might not be the best choice for their application, simply because it is seen as more "compatible" with the 800lb gorilla of the OS market; just because they have a deal with MS doesn't necessarily make them any more compatible on a software/practical level (though it certainly doesn't hurt), just a legal/corporate level. Even then, though, it's still a long shot from being some sort of evil deal with the devil.
(I'm wondering if my comment above is getting dugg down for the same as yours is/did without replies...) - thinman1189, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Sellouts.
- drakaan, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1That is not the bridge between proprietary and open. Now, the recent open licensing work that SAMBA has recieved thanks to the EU antitrust litigation...*that* is a bridge between open-source and proprietary software. Within a year, anyone will be able to look at the SAMBA team's source code and comments and create a functional SMB2 implementation. All without the spectre of litigation from Microsoft or being forced to guess what patents you might be sued for if you refuse a deal.
If the first part of what you quoted from Ballmer was true, I'd agree that it was smart. Since it's patently untrue, I must disagree with you. - stix213, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1You are using it every time you make a google search
You are using it every time you make a phone call on some mobile phones
You are using it when you visit most web sites
You are using it when you watch TiVo
You are using it...... You get the picture - tobindrake, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Microsoft will never adopt GPLv3. End of story. I doubt Linus will either. GPLv3 long ago stopped being a serious license and only nutjobs and zealots push it. GPLv3 is just garbage and doesn't contribute to the software craft. It's terms aren't business friendly and any business that adopts it is being truely stupid.
- inactive, on 01/04/2008, -2/+2It seems to me like this whole article doesn't really mean all that much.
"... it is not clear how much of this impressive money pile is coming out of Redmond's bank account because it is merely passing on sales revenues from Novell licences..."
In all likelyhood, the money is almost entirely from the end-consumer paying for a Novell "enterprise" license. These end users would probably be buying the same licenses directly from Novell (at the same cost, and end profit) alongside a Microsoft license; this just means that it's a little easier, as it's in a nice little "license bundle".
I was initially *very* skeptical of the MS/Novell "deal"; but it seems to be turning out to be nothing more than some mutually beneficial, free advertising for both sides, and fairly honest at that. So far *nothing* fishy that I know of has actually gone on in terms of theft of code, patent "enforcement", or corporate strongarming (at least, no more than the usual). Of course, i don't know *all* the details, and I'm no business analyst... - iankino, on 01/04/2008, -4/+4This article scares me. Just when I thought Vista was the stone to take down the giant, I feel like this is going to end with Microsoft being back in control again.
- charlietuna, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1I am confused. What part of SuSE GNU/Linux are they licensing. Not the GPL - or is this for a service/support contract?
- Giga, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0OpenSUSE isn't what they are selling. They are selling SLED and support for said product.
- TagginNoah, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1Bill Gates is no genius and never was. He's a capitalist. It doesn't take much to be a good capitalist; just no heart for others and good lawyers - a good firewall to hide behind.
What makes a good capitalist is a greedy man with no real soul or compassion for others. And now he's trying to make up for the fact that he bought and destroyed people's dreams in his own little world's search for domination.
Now he wants to give back?
He's a funny little man.
Linux is a bitch! But well worth it.
Aren't they all? - Giga, on 01/05/2008, -1/+0Don't be an ass. The greater flexibility comes from the combination and inter operation between both systems. Linux can't do everything better than everyone else, Active Directory is actually a very useful solution in enterprise type environments. Samba can't quite pull that off yet.
- MozillaFirefox, on 01/04/2008, -3/+1There's embrace, extend and extinguish. They embrace Novell, which divide the Linux community, they extend it, and when the deal is over nobody is using SUSE anymore. It's all part of a plan to stop Linux. Microsoft has been helping SCO, which is in a lawsuit against Novell. Now isn't that a bit weird?
- Stonekeeper, on 01/04/2008, -5/+2Why is he being dugg down? You asked for proof, there it is. Shills.
- TagginNoah, on 01/04/2008, -4/+1Micro$oft died! When's the funeral?
- mrsteveman1, on 01/04/2008, -6/+2I agree, Linux is gaining a bit because its not Windows. The rest is almost entirely fanaticism for the moment.
Linux has potential but in the absence of Microsofts incompetence it can't really compete on the desktop yet. - ha1f, on 01/04/2008, -8/+4* whoosh *
He knows exactly what OP meant, and he's right. -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is