05.16.08
Posted in Microsoft, DRM, GNU/Linux, Novell, Patents, Europe, America, Patent Covenant, Vista, FOSS at 1:16 am by Roy Schestowitz
At this current pace, the USPTO will be falling down the wastebasket pretty soon (Grand Implosion™), so it remains important to ensure it does not take the EPO down along with it [1, 2]. Here are some highlights from the news.
All Your Typos Are [sic] Belong to Us
VeriSign got criticised out of this planet for profiteering from typos. Now it get the nerve to get a software patent on it.
VeriSign wins patent for Internet typo redirection
[…]
If VeriSign tries to demand licensing fees from others, patent lawyers could claim that similar services existed before Verisign’s was patented. In fact, VeriSign had cited those pre-existing services in justifying Site Finder.
All Your Curve Balls Are [sic] Belong to Use
Will you have a look at this one? It relates to Bilski [1, 2, 3, 4].
So is a curve ball patentable? No one really seemed to want to answer Judge Bryson’s question, and when they did answer the question there was not a lot of intellectual honesty. The answer, of course, should be that a “curve ball” is not patentable because it is still a baseball. There has been no transformation of the baseball in a physical way, so there is nothing new and/or nonobvious.
Microsoft’s Crusade for Intellectual Monopoly
It’s always rather amusing to find articles which speak of “export” when referring to imaginary things that they try very hard to characterise as “property”. All it deserves to be called is a “monopoly”, which in this case applies not to a complex process or a physical product but to human thought — imagination even. The other day we mentioned and commented on Microsoft’s latest patent deal. A day later, Microsoft lovers take their shot at it as well, seemingly trying to create some fear (just what Microsoft needs). Here comes CNET to market some more patent deals:
With Microsoft’s announcement of yet another patent cross-licensing deal this week, it would seem nearly everyone has a deal with Redmond.
CNET has just been acquired, but it also has some promotional arrangements with Microsoft and you must be careful when reading anything from Ina Fried because it’s filled with bias. The reporter is apparently (almost evidently) close to Steve Ballmer. Mary Jo Foley, by contrast, can’t get anywhere near him because she occasionally ‘dares’ to criticise Microsoft (she told me so). Microsoft plays ‘reward and punishment’ with journalists, thereby encouraging them to say positive things, i.e. have more of that existing Microsoft bias. It’s just something to bear in mind, making it a rule of thumb. If you thought that press control in Russia was bad…
Hypocrisy at its finest, yet again.
From Digital Majority
Gratitude goes to Benjamin who has accumulated some good new finds. Here we have what seems like software patent troll du jour.
# May 12
# Fotomedia Technologies LLC vs. American Greetings Corp. et al
# Fotomedia Technologies LLC vs. Fujifilm USA Inc. et al
Plaintiff Fotomedia has filed two separate complaints for patent infringement against 50 different defendants.
According to the original complaints, Fotomedia owns the rights to three patents:
U.S. Patent No. 6,018,774 for a Method and System for Creating Messages Including Image Formation, issued Jan. 25, 2000.
U.S. Patent No. 6,542,936 B1 for a System for Creating Messages Including Image Information, issued April 1, 2003.
U.S. Patent No. 6,871,231 B1 for a Role-Based Access to Image Metadata issued March 22, 2005.
The first complaint names two dozen defendants that offer photo sharing Web sites which the plaintiff alleges infringe the patents, including American Greetings, DotPhoto, Phanfare, PictureTrail, BetterPhoto.com, Kaboose, BubbleShare, Printroom, Scripps Networks, Photogra, Fotki and Zazzle.
Reading further you’ll also find continued attempts to change patent laws in Europe. Typically, reappointments play a role and Sarkozy comes to mind as an example [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. The OOXML scandal was filled with such examples, as was last mentioned yesterday. At the moment in fact, Microsoft appears to be playing a similar card in a proxy fight against Yahoo’s board. But anyway, watch this from the news: (our highlights are in red)
Despite the hard work put into reforming the intellectual property landscape during its presidency of the EU in the first half of this year, Slovenia has admitted there won’t be a breakthrough under its stewardship.
[…]
The only country to oppose this idea is Spain, which has fought hardest against plans to simplify the linguistic requirements of the patent system. The country argues that Spanish is a more important language than both French and German, two of the official languages of the European patent system (the other being English), because of its use in Latin America. It fears that if patents aren’t available in Spanish, then Spain will become an economic backwater.
Spain to the rescue?
But the arrival last month of a new Spanish minister in charge of science and innovation, molecular biologist Cristina Garmendia, gives reason to hope for a change in the Spanish position, Konteas said.
“The Spanish government seems ready to change the focus of the economy from tourism and construction towards innovation-led pursuits. They seem to be going in the right direction.”
Talk about ‘agents for change’. The term is typically used with a positive connotation, unlike “crusader”, which is more imperialistic.
Lastly, have another look at these recent moves in the UK [PDF]. It’s not news, but it’s summarised thusly:
The Intellectual Property Office has revised its guidance on claims relating to computer programs, reflecting the more permissive stance taken by the High Court in the recent Astron Clinica case. The High Court has made a further pro-patentee ruling, this time in the case of Symbian’s application for an improved method of accessing a dynamic link library.
As reported in our last technology update, the practice of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) of flatly rejecting patent claims to computer program products has recently been overruled. The case law in the area, formulated in the 2006 Aerotel and Macrossan decisions (see our Internet & E-Commerce Update of November 2006) was clarified in January 2008 by the decision of the High Court in Astron Clinica & Ors (see coverage in our last Updated dated February 2008).
It is without doubt that the United States will relentlessly continue trying to ruin the European system until it’s ‘equally ruined’, which passes US disadvantage onto competing economies. To use the hypothetical analogy Peter Gutmann made up to explain DRM in Windows Vista, it’s like cutting off the legs or Olympic athletes and seeing who hobbles best on crutches. Still, better than having the Olympic games delivered via the DRM-crippled Silverblight/Silverbullet/Silverfish, right?
Need it be mentioned that Microsoft has many software patents on this technology? And if Mono’s patron and Microsoft partner Novell likes it, should everyone else accept it also? You ought to see the ‘warm’ welcome Moonlight receives at Digg (mind the comments in particular). █
“One Free Software Foundation-backed group–aptly called the End Software Patents Project–is using the [Bilski] case as a platform to argue that no form of software should ever qualify for a patent. Red Hat also argued that the “exclusionary objectives” of software patents conflict with the nature of the open-source system and open up coders to myriad legal hazards.”
–Court case could redefine business method, software patents
Permalink
Send this to a friend 
View as PDF
Posted in Red Hat, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Standard, IBM, Google, FOSS at 12:05 am by Roy Schestowitz
“Bring out the gimp”
Once again, the Dennis Byron ‘analyst’ [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] is trying to characterize FFII (or derivatives) as a front group for Google, IBM, Red Hat and Sun. Oh, he forgot to lump some others like Oracle into this, did he not?
To quote some comments from Dennis himself:
JohnMurphy, interesting analysis. Do you think that English has been somehow influenced by Europeans and terrorists? This worries me. If they attack the language Jesus spoke, who knows what they would do next. Do you think Linux is funded by a vast left-wing anti-business conspiracy? It seems the only plausible explanation to me. What do you suggest?
[…]
BTW, if those Eurolinux fanbois suggest I’m a Microsoft lover, they’d be wrong. It’s true that I run Vista but only because Linux sucks. I tried to plug in a mouse and I had to spend an hour on the forums finding out how to rebuild the kernel with mouse support. It’s ridicolous, and a waste of tax paeyers money. If I owned MSFT stock, which I don’t, I’d sell it all and buy AAPL. I mean, have you seen the iPhone? So, you see, I am not a Microsoft astroturfer.
[..].
time2money: I’m a eurolinuxfanboi and I’m offended by your post. If that’s the best you can do, you’re no better than a fascist terrorist yourself. Anyway I think you’re a windows troll, I’ve seen you on other forums and you always claim to be a linux user yet you can never get your mouse working. C’mon.
[…]
Please stop these posts, thank you.
Gosh, what a self exposition. “Eurolinuxfanboi”? I’m still laughing. Even worse than Rob Enderle [1, 2, 3], who too has implicitly compared Linux users to 9/11 terrorists and zealots. More hilarity at Linux Today. It’s too embarrassing to link to directly.
Amanda McPherson [1, 2] (Linux Foundation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]) fell for an invitation from him a couple of weeks back. Fortunately, some editors appear to be gradually finding out who he really is.
For actual news from Digistan, see the following announcement about the Hague Declaration:
The Hague Declaration calls on governments to:
1. Procure only information technology that implements free and open standards;
2. Deliver e-government services based exclusively on free and open standards;
3. Use only free and open digital standards in their own activities.
Thanks for the laugh, Dennis. █
Update: The FFII folks have just countered with “Alpha-lunatic attack on Digistan and the Hague declaration.”
Update #2: More here from Glyn Moody. It’s quite funny and insightful. He pays attention to the use of the term “anti-Microsoft”, which substitutes “anti corruption”, conveniently enough. We have been through such use of negative labels before.
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.15.08
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Hardware, Antitrust, Open XML at 9:52 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Predatory EULA on chip
One exciting recent bit of news is all about Asustek extending the reach of Splashtop and putting it on pretty much every motherboard. This means that tens of millions of PCs are expected to have Linux installed down at the core, essentially (yet arguably) running it as the ‘default’ operating system.
As rudimentary as Splashtop may be at the moment, this could be the start of something greater that will be extended and improved over time. Splashtop also had its kernel patches released to the public (according to Phoronix), so other hardware makers are likely to follow suit. Phoenix has already found itself on a similar boat and Phoenix’ ubiquity is nothing to sneeze at.
In yesterday’s news, The Inquirer made the following important observation:
Asus to ship all motherboards with Linux
[…]
And, for many casual computer users who make use of web-based applications exclusively, Splashtop Linux might be all the operating system they ever need.
This becomes truer as time goes by. An increasing number of applications become Web-based. Not everyone would use them, but some might. Some will.
Splashtop receives a lot of publicity at the moment, but it’s arguably small potatoes compared to Phoenix HyperSpace, which was described here:
Phoenix Technologies’ new HyperSpace is an instant-on environment for laptops, letting users launch a browser or other apps with booting into the OS.
Today, Phoenix Technologies introduced a firmware product called HyperSpace, which allows PCs to run a number of applications separate from the operating system. What that means is that if you use a PC equipped with HyperSpace, you will be able to quick-boot your notebook into a secure Linux environment, where you can use Web browsers like FireFox and pre-loaded Web-aware apps like Google Earth, Picasa, and the like.
[…]
Also, since HyperSpace is a Linux-based platform, Windows viruses won’t affect it.
As Beta News put it at the time, “New Phoenix BIOS will run Linux apps when Windows fails.”
The basic concept is that an embedded Linux OS will accompany the core system firmware or BIOS, allowing instant-on applications to be run from it at any time.
Even Dell expressed some optimism and showed its enthusiasm about such disruptive technologies at the time, but let’s quickly look at Microsoft’s apparent reaction.
BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies Ltd.’s plans to market a new application platform the company claims will solve a number of problems endemic to Microsoft’s Windows platform might be taken as a provocative gesture at their longtime partner. But Redmond’s immediate reaction was nonchalant.
On Monday, the Milpitas, Calif. software maker announced Hyperspace, a Linux-based virtualization platform that will let OEMs bundle cut-down versions of popular open-source software that end users will be able to access instantly, even without booting Windows.
Based on such report you would think that Microsoft does not care, wouldn’t you? However, this new article brings back memories:
Splashtop is not the only such product on the market. A year ago, BIOS vendor Phoenix Technology launched HyperSpace, an equivalent that has yet to turn up on PCs in any numbers. Microsoft’s view on the movement to embed cut-down operating systems is not known, but Phoenix did launch a pre-emptive strike against it to stop it blocking HyperSpace using restrictive Vista end-user license agreements (EULAs). Microsoft relented.
An antitrust complaint from Phoenix Technology, an eternal Microsoft partner (or so it thought) forced the monopoly to fix the anti-competitive EULA of Windows Vista. Microsoft tried to characterise this change as goodwill and a nice gesture, essentially changing the story which was originally told and claiming credit (even glory) for being abusive. The press underplayed this fiasco, but Mary Jo Foley was rather disgusted.
But the real reason for Microsoft’s capitulation became clear on March 7 via a new joint-status report in the Microsoft-Department of Justice case. It turns out BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies (a long-time Microsoft partner) filed a complaint with antitrust regulators about Microsoft’s virtualization restrictions.
Microsoft has tried to manipulate the virtualisation market in a variety of ways [1, 2, 3] because it had fallen so far behind. Microsoft insulted many people’s intelligence when it claimed that a EULA could or could not define the level of security of the O/S, limited by editions of Windows, i.e. featureset being b/locked.
This wasn’t the first time that Microsoft lied or twisted excuses about ’security’ in order to be anti-competitive. Recall the OOXML/file types incident for example.
Speaking of which, OOXML is still a secret as Microsoft continues to disobey rules. Charles complaint about this only a couple of days ago and now he’s now joined by Bob Sutor, not just Rob Weir, among others.
Will it [OOXML] ever be available? Does anyone care? Do any rules apply to this at all? What are the excuses for this? Just like almost ever other aspect of this particular process, dangerous exceptions and precedents are being set.
To sum up, here we have another case study exemplifying total disregard, market abuse, distortion of stories and a strategic fight against Linux, which escapes the media’s attention. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Patents, GPL, SUN, Oracle, FOSS, Interview, Database at 8:36 am by Roy Schestowitz
Increasingly, as MySQL grows mightier, it is likely to find itself under greater pressure. Part of this pressure is not a competitive one as much as it is pressure which revolves around loyalty. Balancing customer trust against the need for revenue can be hard sometimes. Loyalty to shareholders often antagonizes market requirements, too.
Another vector of risk is the relentless attempt to write and exploit new laws that essentially contradict the GNU Public License (GPL) and therefore sideline or exclude free software, of which MySQL is one. The bigger and more disruptive MySQL becomes, the more attractive a scapegoat it will be. To say this more explicitly, as MySQL attracts more customers at the expense of its counterparts, software patent trolls and vocal critics will more likely paint it their target.
From a public relations and legal perspective, it’s typically easier when you are an underdog because you receive sympathy. But MySQL is growing up, so let’s take a look at some new barriers it will probably face, or is already facing.
Another Storm in a Teacup
In order to better understand the sensitivity of the issue at hand, it’s worth recognizing the importance of MySQL. To many IT professionals, MySQL is a vital ingredient in their stack. It is the engine that organizes and stores personal data. This trend is here to stay, particularly because Web-based applications continue to gain traction. Just as people wish to control their data and escape lock-in, they also wish to have a sense of control over their database, i.e. the software which lies beneath processing, interpreting and delivering this data to other layers of the stack. MySQL offers peace of mind to many.
How quickly things can change though. Inaccurate news broke loose in Slashdot a few weeks ago, insinuating that MySQL was gradually going closed-source. The almost-immediate backlash, which was further fueled and exacerbated by a few sensationalist articles, played a partial role in convincing MySQL to keep the core of the program purely GPL-licensed, essentially backtracking on a decision that had previously been made. Above all, MySQL wanted to keep its users happy. It needed to cope with new types of pressure.
This rather fundamental strategic change was nothing new. Contrary to common belief, MySQL’s revised strategy had been adopted before Sun Microsystems even entered the picture and the company still intends to make some peripheral components (addons) of MySQL proprietary. It’s seen as controversial by those who argue that MySQL’s business potential could equally well be exploited using support and customization services, not sales of proprietary software. Interestingly enough, MySQL did not start off as free software. The same goes for the Linux kernel, which elected the GPL only in 1992.
This latest storm surrounding MySQL has died out by now, but it led me to some amicable conversations with Mårten Mickos, the CEO of MySQL, who is also a Database Senior Vice President at Sun Microsystems following the 1-billion dollar acquisition of his company. Selective responses from him are quoted later on, but I continue to reflect on MySQL’s likely direction with the open confession that I have bias in favor of the GPL’s merits and awareness of existing external threats to it.
MySQL’s Business Model Dilemma
MySQL is unique in the sense that it has become an almost de facto database for GNU/Linux-powered servers (and to an extent Apache also). This gives it an enormous, yet hidden, presence in the World Wide Web. It thrives in a huge userbase and can boast over 100 million downloads of the software so far.
“More recent attempts to change the business model saw a shift from introducing inconveniences to actual restriction imposed on access…”MySQL’s monetization of this success — as measured in terms of popularity or ubiquity — is another story due to its relatively low ‘conversion rate’, i.e. the number of users who turn into paying customers. The ratio recently stood at about 1000:1, which means that only one in a thousand users also becomes a paying customer.
Over the past couple of years, MySQL has earned itself some new critics for subtle changes to its business model. The latest incident, which was mentioned above, is no exception. Examples of controversial moves involve the availability of latest versions of the software and the state of the software which made is available (e.g. pre-compiled program versus source code). There was also a colossal case of misunderstanding last year when discrimination against Debian was wrongly claimed. Unfortunately, such misconceptions and errors live on.
More recent attempts to change the business model saw a shift from introducing inconveniences to actual restriction imposed on access, with the exception of paying customers who receive binaries. In essence, they must handle executable files without accompanying source code, which sometimes translates into lock-in and helplessness, feature- and security-wise. But it didn’t take. MySQL changed its mind. Sort of.
It’s important to remember that when MySQL announced its strategic reversal a week ago, at least as far as the core product is concerned, not much was changed as far as the business model goes. Only its scope was altered and impact thus limited.
To the company’s credit, it did listen. It did take feedback about MySQL into account after the backlash. By all means, it is preferable to inquire about controversial things — keeping users in the loop so to speak — as opposed to making quiet or surprise announcements. The GPL is all about giving users real control, as well as a sense of control over direction of development and whatever they do on their personal computers or servers. Distribution of binaries, for example, does not permit this.
Free software is still scarcely explored in the business sense, but many choose to think of it mainly as a question of control (open source), not just freedom. These two strengths are separate, but not mutually exclusive. One problem that remains with the aforementioned approach, namely the making peripheral components proprietary, is that it turns products as a whole into the equivalent of trial version of software where users get trapped in, then charged premium rates for non-free extensions which they cannot study, modify, or redistribute.
The situation above highlights yet another limiting factor, which can be used as an argument filled with substance against free software — especially software which goes down this particular route at the end. With dual-licensing, the software loses its distinguisher, its added value. For opponents of free software it serves as a fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) argument which may be stronger than “free software relies on support services, so it’s made shoddy for revenue.”
It’s possible to think of all sorts of ways to monetize use with minimal disruption and obtrusion. Some companies already do this with great success. I approached Richard Stallman for his opinion on this and he insisted that it is not just a question of profit. “I don’t think much about the question of what is more profitable, because I am constantly urging people to think about what is ethical and what is not,” he said.
Software Patents
Software patents are an odd duck because they are valid only in a few countries and their economic merits are repeatedly doubted. They typically serve an affluent minority. A controversial issue that came up back in February was the disappearance of MySQL’s rebellious policy on software patents. The acquisition by Sun had an effect on it.
Scott Mace started a big discussion at the time about Sun’s view on software patents and what it all means to MySQL. Sun weighed in, but nonetheless, a fairly brave Web page that protests against software patents did not return after it had been taken down. It has only been amended since then, in order to reflect on convergence or symbiosis of policies. Not everyone was pleased.
“What will prevent MySQL from getting not only further restricted — feature-wise — but also sensitive to software patent baggage?”It’s clear that large companies like Sun can benefit a lot from their patent portfolios. In contrast, how many software patents does MySQL have? MySQL inside Sun can make it an attractive target for patent trolls. Sun has plenty of money and free software projects living under the umbrella of large companies translate into less ‘community backlash’. Think about circumstances where they come under attack that’s akin to that from Trend Micro, as opposed to NetApp, which attacked the titan called Sun. What will prevent MySQL from getting not only further restricted — feature-wise — but also sensitive to software patent baggage? What prevents a company with software patents on database technology from finding ‘artistic’ ways to extract money from MySQL users, e.g. via Web hosts, directly from Sun, or even by approaching customers (especially large companies) and making secret deals, just as Microsoft did?
I approached Mårten Mickos for a comment and his take on this was as follows: “As long as we have software patents legally in our market, the owners of such patents may try to make money on them in FOSS environments, and some will succeed.
“Fortunately there are companies with patents that don’t use them in this way. I am not an expert on Sun’s practice in this regard, but my impression is that Sun hasn’t used it patents for revenue extraction from users or producers of free software,” he concluded.
To be fair, Sun seems to have used its patents only defensively in recent years (examples include NetApp and Kodak). The company’s CEO even offered to defend Linux using Sun’s patents. However, to an extent, it seems like a case of fighting fire with fire while at the same time trying to extinguish the fire by opposing expansion of software patent laws into Europe.
It’s very doubtful that larger companies like Sun will be willing to just throw away their portfolios and annul their software patents altogether, especially after heavy investments that brought competitive advantage. Simon Phipps insists that there is an obligation to shareholders, but by hogging they become not the solution and therefore part of the problem. This may also lead to a separate public relations problem.
As people from FFII might say, based on their extensive experience, a company’s defensive patent becomes offensive when the company gets weaker and therefore feels cornered. The solution lies in invalidation of software patents. To use an analogy, letting more nations have nuclear weapons to neutralize attacks or to counter-attack does not make the world safer. Disarmament does. At the end of the day, large companies that benefit from the existing (and very controversial) system can typically just offer crocodile tears whenever this issue gets raised.
Fighting at All Costs, for Cost
Adoption of free software is still hindered by several key factors. A previous article highlighted problems that tend to escape many people’s attention. A continuous change of laws, for example, can be used to harm free software’s legality or at least put some clouds over its head.
It has unfortunately become a political question. Look not for scientists’ opinions but look mainly at shareholders, lobbyists, lawyers, and lawmakers. It is usually them who call the shots nowadays. Government opposition to an anticipated patent reform, followed by another discouraging outlook further confirmed this very recently. Then again, some say this entire reform was pointless from the very start. It strives to eliminate elements that large companies do not like while keeping in tact the rest which brings benefit to them and ensures monopolization prevails.
The GPL version 3 (GPLv3) was intended to address a few of the problems that are associated with software patents. GPLv4 has already been mentioned by Richard Stallman, who foresees further potential threats to the four essential freedoms that protect and sustain the freedom of software. Free software ought never to turn into something which is neither Free (libre) nor free (gratis). Software patents laws are a great risk to this.
At the moment, MySQL’s CEO does not rule out GPLv3 as a future option and at least a consideration, provided the market matures and adopts this licence too. “We think GPL 3 is great (better than GPL2), and we will move to it when we believe that it is also well accepted among users and customers. Wide acceptance was the reasoning we used for moving to GPL 2 and that’s the reasoning we’ll use for version 3,” says Mårten Mickos. Sun has already made one component of xVM GPLv3-licensed (Ops Center virtualisation to be specific), so it’s apparent that Sun hasn’t any idealogical or fundamental resistance to it.
In summary, MySQL is likely to face issues that are associated with ways of extracting revenue from its users. Another largely forgotten issue is the increased pressure from the outside to extract revenue for collisions involving ideas, especially ones pertaining to algorithms. MySQL ought to ensure that it can keep free software as free as it has always been, but these challenges may not be trivial to address. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.14.08
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Novell, Mono, Patents at 6:33 am by Roy Schestowitz
Says a voice in Slashdot
Novell et al released a complete implementation of WinForms and the Slashdot crowd reacts. The Mono/.NET advocates respond in the same typical way that reminds me of Richard Stallman’s talk where he says that people are taught to judge a program by criteria like “How powerful is it?” Not things like “how does it affect my freedom?” (as a user or developer)
Have a look at this new comment from Free Software Daily, which says that “better development methods are meaningless without being able to own the software.
“Without the ownership of the software, you will continue to be at the developers/corporate overlord’s mercy.”
In this case there are two overloads. One is Microsoft which owns software patents and the other is Novell, which has copyrights. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
Posted in Microsoft, Windows, GNU/Linux, Novell, SLES/SLED, OLPC, IBM at 4:23 am by Roy Schestowitz
A: Offer discounts on XP and encourage OEMs to embrace Microsoft-taxed Ballnux
What happens when you discover that choosing a PC with GNU/Linux means paying more than for the same PC with Windows? Shouldn’t free software be inexpensive? Microsoft would love to change this [1, 2, 3].
“Novell is merely following Microsoft’s lead in this, for its own selfish benefit.”We recently debated this very same problem using China’s server market as an example, where GNU/Linux can be made more expensive than Windows due to Microsoft’s and Novell’s plot. Novell is merely following Microsoft’s lead in this, for its own selfish benefit.
Someone recently raised the concern that many low-laptops these days pick up a Microsoft-taxed GNU/Linux distribution (also known as “Ballnux”). Might Microsoft be helping Novell getting contracts behind the scenes? We recently uncovered some secret deals Microsoft had been making with laptop manufactures/assemblers.
It’s important to defend Free software’s entry point into the broad consumer market. Most recent additions (from the news) include the muchly-anticipated MSI laptop, which turns out to have picked SUSE.
MSI today has firmed up specs for its Wind mini-notebook, including its launch timeframe. The 10-inch system will closely follow ASUS’ practices with the Eee PC and ship in both a low-cost Linux version (based on Novell’s distribution) as well as a more expensive Windows XP edition.
SUSE is described here as “Linux version (based on Novell’s distribution).” Better than “Microsoft’s Suse Linux franchise,” right? Here is another news report:
There will be a Novell Linux version and a Windows XP MSI Wind, similar to how the Asus Eee. I do not know why MSI chose Novell Linux, seems a bit odd.
The selection of SUE Linux [sic] wasn’t quite so odd to the Microsoft-friendly CNET, which said this about the Ballnux-loaded ThinkPad a few days ago.
I was gladdened yesterday when techbargains.com reported a sale on a new Lenovo ThinkPad R61 running SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop ($552, see below).
People need to demand that OEMs do not make a Microsoft-owned Linux their de facto choice. This could have horrendous effects that are summarised in the title of this post. Mark Shuttleworth warned about it just over a year ago.
Microsoft cannot make Windows cheaper than free (gratis). In the case of the OLPC, Intel and Microsoft actually covered the cost of hardware to defeat AMD and GNU/Linux, but that’s dumping, which is illegal. As such, Microsoft will try to elevate the cost of GNU/Linux, using software patents and back-room deals. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
Posted in Windows, GNU/Linux, Debian, Security at 12:49 am by Roy Schestowitz
A flaw which was found in Debian has stirred up a lot of discussion about security. People tend to forget where the real problem lies however, so here is just a quick clarification. I’ve personally accumulated literally hundreds of references about this, but here are a couple of more recent ones that provide the gist of it all:
1. Bots rule in cyberspace
USA TODAY REPORTS that on an average day, 40 per cent of the 800 million computers connected to the Internet are bots used to send out spam, viruses and to mine for sensitive personal data.
2. Botnets Running Rampant
How much money is being stolen by cybercriminals? No one knows, and no one even knows how to go about coming up with that number, IronPort’s Peterson said.
The reason for posting this off-topic story is actually a bit of input from one of our readers, who talks about Microsoft’s back door-happy policy. Looking at this latest article, which in essence shows Microsoft and its buddies at the Partner [sic] Group saving face, he paraphrases: “Microsoft Windows does not need a back door. Crackers, malware code writers and forensic investigators need not worry because Microsoft Windows is so insecure there is no need for a back door.” He also points out this recent Slashdot discussion, adding:
“Crackers, malware code writers and forensic investigators need not worry because Microsoft Windows is so insecure there is no need for a back door.”“It reminds me of the laptops captured near the beginning of Bush’s ongoing wars. The initial boast was that it was insignificant effort to crack the systems because they were running Microsoft Windows. Subsequent boasts steered clear of that and focused on the data captured.
“If you have trouble from the police, then you have bigger worries, with or without data. For the rest of us, there is an important warning:
“Police are never early adopters and usually adopt tools and methods only after they are in widespread use. Those that are stupid enough to default to Microsoft Windows and the compound that by connecting to the net, are asking for trouble from the various criminals and criminal organizations that made cracking Microsoft Windows popular enough for the police to pick up on it.”
It is worth highlighting some recent stories about police departments that have moved or are moving to GNU/Linux and/or Free software. Examples include:
There are many more such examples.
Other stories of interest:
The impact of poor security on the police is only a small part of a colossal problem. Our reader later adds: “It’s even more severe for large companies. Corporate espionage is multi-billion dollar business and can make or break products and even product lines. It still gets under reported, perhaps in part to Bill Gates’ lobbying.”
As the recent article from USA Today showed, 40% of all PCs are zombies. Sarcastically, asks the reader: “40% of all PC’s or 40% of Microsoft Windows PCs?” It’s quite a rhetorical question.
The Partner [sic] Group was mentioned at the start because it helps Microsoft extinguish the fire, so to speak, whenever that’s required. It achieves this by messing about with people’s perception. We’ve already shown in the past some lies from Jim Allchin about Vista security, fueled by the Partner Group, Rob Enderle and the usual suspects who cite one another for pseudo peer-review and validation. They orchestrate a blitz in vapourware-like fashion. The Microsoft-obedient press has for quite some tried not to incite public panic by unleashing the real figures and Mr. Geer even lost his job for ‘daring’ to suggest that “in zombies we trust.” In vapourware and deception need we trust instead? █
“In the face of strong competition, Evangelism’s focus may shift immediately to the next version of the same technology, however. Indeed, Phase 1 (Evangelism Starts) for version x+1 may start as soon as this Final Release of version X.”
–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.13.08
Posted in GNU/Linux, UNIX, GPL, SUN, Java, FOSS, Kernel at 9:55 am by Roy Schestowitz
What does “open” mean anyway, especially these days?
[More Open Than Open]: “I am constantly amazed at the flexibility of this single word.”
–Jason Matusow, Microsoft (for background see [1, 2])
There’s a lot to a name and if Sun Microsystems believes it can fool people with the name “OpenSolaris”, then it ought to remember the effect of keeping Java closed. Until Sun departs from the CDDL (or duality) it’s better to stick with GNU/Linux and not even poke OpenSolaris with a bargepole.
You can’t beat GNU/Linux with a half-hearted Linux, licence-wise. Sun ought to consider taking OpenSolaris — and probably ZFS too — into the realms of the GPL domain, just like Java. The sooner, the better. If Rich Green was correct, then merging will become a possibility too. Here is the latest decent review of OpenSolaris, but like many others it’s focused on technical characteristics alone. It concludes with:
Although the OpenSolaris development community still has a lot of work to do before the operating system is ready to take on Linux on the desktop, the progress so far indicates that the project deserves further attention. We will keep an eye on future releases to see how the platform evolves.
Licence-wise, it’s worth considering what Groklaw has just had to say.
The CDDL can’t hold a candle to the GPL as far as benefits to programmers or end users. Period. CEOs might love it, but programmers? Why would they? What’s in it for them? Sun needs to make up its mind. Is it open source? ? I don’t care if it chooses to be open, proprietary or mixed, but I can’t see any reason why anyone would contribute code under the CDDL for free, unless you just get a thrill out of helping Sun make money from your unpaid labor, as I explained back in 2005. I continue to view the CDDL as a problem, in part due to the Sun-Microsoft agreement, which includes patent elements, and I remind you of what Dan Ravicher of PubPat.org said about CDDL back in 2005: “My advice is that developers should ask themselves if they really want to work on software distributed by a company that has expressly retained the right to sue them for patent infringement if they don’t give their improvements back to the company.”
On the other hand, a recent interview with Rich Green of Sun indicates that at some point Sun will switch the license to GPL.
At the end, the licences play a tremendous role. Just recall the recent lesson that was taught by Zimbra.
Additionally, as pointed out the other day, Sun appears to be offering OpenSolaris as just a ‘free sample’ that gets young people addicted to the proprietary Solaris. This is something to watch out for and be careful of. What about Sun’s view on patents? █
“Business-method patents are an unwarranted and dangerous extension of the patentability standards. As the article suggests, the method in question may have been used for many years in slightly different contexts and is now being transferred to a computerized system; will that now mean that the pencil and paper method becomes an infringing use? And if you as a lawyer advise a client on a tax strategy or a method of doing business, could that advice be a patent infringement? It is too ephemeral for a patent, and ought be knocked down altogether.”
–I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for Bilski!
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
« Previous entries ·
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.