M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Ariel Faigon]

[One of my filters just hit this on  comp.os.linux.misc
 I think the guy has a point and I thought it was interesting]

  Subject: M$'s strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario 
  From: mito@aparima.com (Louis-David Mitterrand) 
  Date: 4 Dec 1997 19:06:27 GMT 
  Message-ID: <slrn68dvpj.s84.mito@shell4.ba.best.com> 
  Organization: Aparima inc. 
  Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc  , comp.os.linux.advocacy  

  Using Linux every day, one never ceases to learn and be amazed at the
  creativity and cleverness of Linux contributors worldwide. This platform
  is seriously coming of age: some major institutions are starting to rely
  on it for production work. 

  Like Microsoft software at some time, Linux entered the enterprise
  through the back door right under the nose of IT staff sometimes. Now
  network admins are discovering its reliability, "suits" never had a
  chance to veto it because it never was a budget item, engineering likes
  to work with it at home. Then one day you wake up and you realize Linux
  has become ubiquitously present in your enterprise without having been
  officially invited. And everybody learns to like the Penguin: friendly,
  never raises a fuss, does its job, doesn't eat much.

  OK, now what's next? Linux means business, *is* business. The coming of
  age is very real: RedHat 5.0 is winning rave reviews for its ease-of-use
  and idiot-proof installation "even easier than NT", the  Wine project
  (windows emulator) is starting to make serious progress and some major
  win32 apps are beginning to work. It won't take much more than another
  year to see comprehensive support for Win95/NT apps under Linux. Next
  thing, people will ask "why shell out $800 for NT Server, when I can get
  the same more reliable services from a $50 RedHat CD? These MS support
  people never answer the phone anyway, and I can run Office97 with Wine."

  Hmmm.. I see a pattern there. NT 5.0 delayed (again..) and RedHat is
  there today. Anyway the next question I have is a major one (two): 

  - now that Linux is starting to appear on MS's radar screen what is MS
    going to do about it? 

  - How should the Linux community ensure Linux's future, freedom and
    copyrights against a big, greedy, powerful corporation whose central
    product (NT) is threatened by a free unix clone?

  I want to rely on Linux for everything I do in my little consulting
  operation. "rely" means I want to be sure nobody will be able to
  highjack Linux. 

  Bill Gates is not a fool and he is certainly not one to underestimate
  the power of grassroots movements. I'm sure he already has a strategy to
  deal with Linux at some point. Or he is seriously thinking about one.
  The problem is: I bet this strategy doesn't rely on fair competition in
  open markets and feature-to-feature comparisons. Why? Simply because it
  is impossible to compete against the Linux community's talent pool on
  the basis of performance and features. And I'm deeply concerned. What is
  the man preparing? Call me a paranoid and I'll answer "only the paranoid
  survive" (dixit Andy Grove, 95% market share).

  One main concern I have is Transmeta, inc., Linus Torvalds' employer.
  This company is more or less controlled by Paul Allen, the Seattle
  billionaire and Microsoft founder. Mr Allen is still a MS board member
  and 10% (?) shareholder. Mr Allen is also one of Bill Gates' closest
  friends (is he has any) and confidants. Weren't they together on Fortune
  Magazine's cover less than a year ago? It is of public knowledge that
  they consult regularly one a variety of subjects, especially on the
  Microsoft Corporation strategy. Now in my nightmares a conversation
  between the two of them often recurs:

  - B.G: "Hey Paul, this guy Linus Torvalds is finishing his studies out
    there in Finland, the stuff he's making - this Linux OS - looks pretty
    neat, why don't you make him an offer he can't refuse?"

  - P.A: "No problem Bill, I'll park him at Transmeta, they're making hot
    stuff and I'll give him plenty of free time to keep developing this
    Linux thingy, under our watchful eye."

  - B.G: "Right. Then if it gets out of control we can buy you out and put
    our stamp on the stuff. After a couple years we can claim all this was
    developed on company time. Then we'll just merge it into NT."

  - P.A: "I'll give you an option to take over at $xxx,xxx,xxx."

  This is a nightmare scenario of course. I have a deep respect for Linus'
  work and way of managing the kernel development. But isn't he a bit
  young and inexperienced against the West Coast's big guns? Hasen't he
  fell into a huge trap?

  Imagine Microsoft taking over Transmeta at some point in the (not so
  distant) future and saying that Linux code is tainted with MS
  copyrighted code because Linus worked on it while at Transmeta (now an
  MS affiliate)... Imagine RedHat, Caldera, Debian obliged to take down
  their FTP servers because of the legal tangle about Linux... Even if MS
  is rebutted in court and Linux comes out clean as *truly free* software
  it will take at least two years (or more) to clear out the smoke.
  Meanwhile NT will have made major inroads everywhere. And the Linux
  threat will be seriously diminished.

  I hear people yelling "how about the GNU license you dork?". Hmm.. and I
  answer: has anybody challenged the GPL in the courts? Has the FSF ever
  had to defend it against a mean, influential and deep-pocketed
  corporation? Like Stalin asking "The Pope? How many armored divisions?"
  I ask "GNU? How many lawyers, lobbyists, cash-on-hand at the bank? Up to
  now nobody cared about GNU software. No software company saw it as a
  threat. These bearded, suspender-wearing UN*X idealists didn't bother
  anybody. Today GNU software is becoming essential and a competitive
  threat. SUN should be even more worried than MS on that count.

  Please somebody tell me this nightmare scenario is just plain stupid,
  impossible and I'll be happy and go away and sleep better...

  Cheers.

  -- 
                          
  Louis-David Mitterrand  
  mito@m2.sprynet.com


-- 
Peace, Ariel

M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Ariel Faigon]

[One of my filters just hit this on  comp.os.linux.misc
 I think the guy has a point and I thought it was interesting]

  Subject: M$'s strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario 
  From: mito@aparima.com (Louis-David Mitterrand) 
  Date: 4 Dec 1997 19:06:27 GMT 
  Message-ID: <slrn68dvpj.s84.mito@shell4.ba.best.com> 
  Organization: Aparima inc. 
  Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc  , comp.os.linux.advocacy  

  Using Linux every day, one never ceases to learn and be amazed at the
  creativity and cleverness of Linux contributors worldwide. This platform
  is seriously coming of age: some major institutions are starting to rely
  on it for production work. 

  Like Microsoft software at some time, Linux entered the enterprise
  through the back door right under the nose of IT staff sometimes. Now
  network admins are discovering its reliability, "suits" never had a
  chance to veto it because it never was a budget item, engineering likes
  to work with it at home. Then one day you wake up and you realize Linux
  has become ubiquitously present in your enterprise without having been
  officially invited. And everybody learns to like the Penguin: friendly,
  never raises a fuss, does its job, doesn't eat much.

  OK, now what's next? Linux means business, *is* business. The coming of
  age is very real: RedHat 5.0 is winning rave reviews for its ease-of-use
  and idiot-proof installation "even easier than NT", the  Wine project
  (windows emulator) is starting to make serious progress and some major
  win32 apps are beginning to work. It won't take much more than another
  year to see comprehensive support for Win95/NT apps under Linux. Next
  thing, people will ask "why shell out $800 for NT Server, when I can get
  the same more reliable services from a $50 RedHat CD? These MS support
  people never answer the phone anyway, and I can run Office97 with Wine."

  Hmmm.. I see a pattern there. NT 5.0 delayed (again..) and RedHat is
  there today. Anyway the next question I have is a major one (two): 

  - now that Linux is starting to appear on MS's radar screen what is MS
    going to do about it? 

  - How should the Linux community ensure Linux's future, freedom and
    copyrights against a big, greedy, powerful corporation whose central
    product (NT) is threatened by a free unix clone?

  I want to rely on Linux for everything I do in my little consulting
  operation. "rely" means I want to be sure nobody will be able to
  highjack Linux. 

  Bill Gates is not a fool and he is certainly not one to underestimate
  the power of grassroots movements. I'm sure he already has a strategy to
  deal with Linux at some point. Or he is seriously thinking about one.
  The problem is: I bet this strategy doesn't rely on fair competition in
  open markets and feature-to-feature comparisons. Why? Simply because it
  is impossible to compete against the Linux community's talent pool on
  the basis of performance and features. And I'm deeply concerned. What is
  the man preparing? Call me a paranoid and I'll answer "only the paranoid
  survive" (dixit Andy Grove, 95% market share).

  One main concern I have is Transmeta, inc., Linus Torvalds' employer.
  This company is more or less controlled by Paul Allen, the Seattle
  billionaire and Microsoft founder. Mr Allen is still a MS board member
  and 10% (?) shareholder. Mr Allen is also one of Bill Gates' closest
  friends (is he has any) and confidants. Weren't they together on Fortune
  Magazine's cover less than a year ago? It is of public knowledge that
  they consult regularly one a variety of subjects, especially on the
  Microsoft Corporation strategy. Now in my nightmares a conversation
  between the two of them often recurs:

  - B.G: "Hey Paul, this guy Linus Torvalds is finishing his studies out
    there in Finland, the stuff he's making - this Linux OS - looks pretty
    neat, why don't you make him an offer he can't refuse?"

  - P.A: "No problem Bill, I'll park him at Transmeta, they're making hot
    stuff and I'll give him plenty of free time to keep developing this
    Linux thingy, under our watchful eye."

  - B.G: "Right. Then if it gets out of control we can buy you out and put
    our stamp on the stuff. After a couple years we can claim all this was
    developed on company time. Then we'll just merge it into NT."

  - P.A: "I'll give you an option to take over at $xxx,xxx,xxx."

  This is a nightmare scenario of course. I have a deep respect for Linus'
  work and way of managing the kernel development. But isn't he a bit
  young and inexperienced against the West Coast's big guns? Hasen't he
  fell into a huge trap?

  Imagine Microsoft taking over Transmeta at some point in the (not so
  distant) future and saying that Linux code is tainted with MS
  copyrighted code because Linus worked on it while at Transmeta (now an
  MS affiliate)... Imagine RedHat, Caldera, Debian obliged to take down
  their FTP servers because of the legal tangle about Linux... Even if MS
  is rebutted in court and Linux comes out clean as *truly free* software
  it will take at least two years (or more) to clear out the smoke.
  Meanwhile NT will have made major inroads everywhere. And the Linux
  threat will be seriously diminished.

  I hear people yelling "how about the GNU license you dork?". Hmm.. and I
  answer: has anybody challenged the GPL in the courts? Has the FSF ever
  had to defend it against a mean, influential and deep-pocketed
  corporation? Like Stalin asking "The Pope? How many armored divisions?"
  I ask "GNU? How many lawyers, lobbyists, cash-on-hand at the bank? Up to
  now nobody cared about GNU software. No software company saw it as a
  threat. These bearded, suspender-wearing UN*X idealists didn't bother
  anybody. Today GNU software is becoming essential and a competitive
  threat. SUN should be even more worried than MS on that count.

  Please somebody tell me this nightmare scenario is just plain stupid,
  impossible and I'll be happy and go away and sleep better...

  Cheers.

  -- 
                          
  Louis-David Mitterrand  
  mito@m2.sprynet.com


-- 
Peace, Ariel

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Mike Acar]

[Snip: Linus works for Transmeta, which Microsoft might buy in order to
"acquire" Linux. Legal or not, the legal fight might hamper Linux's spread well
enough to significantly reduce the threat to NT.]

This isn't a particularly big worry to me. The GPL aside, Linus's contract with
Transmeta almost definitely states specifically that Transmeta has no rights at
all to software Linus wrote before he was employed there; similarly, it almost
definitely excludes rights to software Linus writes on his own time. Further,
I'm not sure how much of the kernel Linus actually "owns" anymore; my
understanding (flawed it may be) is that he's primarily coordinating kernel
release and design, and not actually writing nearly as much code as he did. If
this is the case, Linus himself might not be able to claim ownership of the
kernel anymore.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I speak from a position of significant
ignorance; handfuls of salt all round. But I really don't think that MS is going
to be able to use intellectual property to attack Linux.

What does worry me, however, is that Intel, MS and others are making significant
progress in taking control of the PC architecture. With the patented Slot-One
and Slot-Two, Intel is putting serious pressure on its competitors in the
motherboard markets; between Slot-One, Slot-Two, and buying the Alpha, I expect
the threat to Intel's dominance of the PC CPU market to virtually disappear.
The I2O SIG will control access to the hardware docs on the next generation of
fast PCs, and the licensing terms - let alone the SIG member's veto power over
membership applicants - are in fundamental conflict with Linux and the other
free PC Unices. Microsoft might not need to try to crush Linux directly; there's
a distinct possibility that Linux simply won't run on the next generation of
PCs.

But maybe that's just my negativity speaking. I doubt that even a large part of
the PC industry would like to see the architecture grow proprietary; perhaps SGI
could lead the way in providing a design for a new PC-class architecture which
is Open Hardware compliant/approved.

Along those lines, are there any plans for providing Linux drivers for the
Wintel hardware SGI's announced for next summer?
-- 
Mike Acar - mike@contract.kent.edu - "This autumn is sad beyond belief." - Kafka

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Ariel Faigon]

Mike wrote:
:
:[Snip: Linus works for Transmeta, which Microsoft might buy in order to
:"acquire" Linux. Legal or not, the legal fight might hamper Linux's spread well
:enough to significantly reduce the threat to NT.]
:
:This isn't a particularly big worry to me.
:
Just to make it clear, I just forwarded the piece and I don't necessarily
agree with the poster on most points.

To me the day MS starts using legal threats and acquisitions in order
to stop Linux can be declared the day Linux has won.  Unfortunately
for us Linux lovers, before Wine can run _all_ the Win32 apps without
_any_ problem (not so close IMHO) and before Linux has a dumb-user GUI
that really hides all the incredible (for the average Windows user)
Unix complexities from the majority of the user base it doesn't have
a chance of world domination, not even in the enterprise servers
low-end space.


:
:What does worry me, however, is that Intel, MS and others are making
:significant progress in taking control of the PC architecture.
:
Excellent and valid point.  Note that there are new forces on the
rise which directly clash with Intel interests.  I'm refering to
both the existing National-Semiconductor + Cyrix merger and AMD,
and to the (about 9 at last count) startups working on x86 compatible
designs.  The next few years will be interesting and Intel might very
probably not emerge as the winner.


:
:Along those lines, are there any plans for providing Linux drivers for the
:Wintel hardware SGI's announced for next summer?
:
I can understand the curiosity and interest.  Please note that SGI
future products and plans are highly confidential and are not supposed
to take place on this public forum.


-- 
Peace, Ariel

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Ariel Faigon]

Mike wrote:
:
:[Snip: Linus works for Transmeta, which Microsoft might buy in order to
:"acquire" Linux. Legal or not, the legal fight might hamper Linux's spread well
:enough to significantly reduce the threat to NT.]
:
:This isn't a particularly big worry to me.
:
Just to make it clear, I just forwarded the piece and I don't necessarily
agree with the poster on most points.

To me the day MS starts using legal threats and acquisitions in order
to stop Linux can be declared the day Linux has won.  Unfortunately
for us Linux lovers, before Wine can run _all_ the Win32 apps without
_any_ problem (not so close IMHO) and before Linux has a dumb-user GUI
that really hides all the incredible (for the average Windows user)
Unix complexities from the majority of the user base it doesn't have
a chance of world domination, not even in the enterprise servers
low-end space.


:
:What does worry me, however, is that Intel, MS and others are making
:significant progress in taking control of the PC architecture.
:
Excellent and valid point.  Note that there are new forces on the
rise which directly clash with Intel interests.  I'm refering to
both the existing National-Semiconductor + Cyrix merger and AMD,
and to the (about 9 at last count) startups working on x86 compatible
designs.  The next few years will be interesting and Intel might very
probably not emerge as the winner.


:
:Along those lines, are there any plans for providing Linux drivers for the
:Wintel hardware SGI's announced for next summer?
:
I can understand the curiosity and interest.  Please note that SGI
future products and plans are highly confidential and are not supposed
to take place on this public forum.


-- 
Peace, Ariel

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Alan Cox]

> The I2O SIG will control access to the hardware docs on the next generation of
> fast PCs, and the licensing terms - let alone the SIG member's veto power over
> membership applicants - are in fundamental conflict with Linux and the other
> free PC Unices. Microsoft might not need to try to crush Linux directly; there's
> a distinct possibility that Linux simply won't run on the next generation of
> PCs.

I2O is in hand, most I2O vendors I've talked to are very determined to see
the spec become open and the general public vendors are taking from all
sides - including where it counts with the "We wont buy i2o boxes as it ties
us to unsuitable OS's". The SIG may also move in that way given time. If not
we'll just break it. The fact they erroneously published the spec helps a lot

You arent watching hard. The microsoft strategy is NT for servers, and Windows
CE embedded in everything from your TV, telephone to toilet. CE is on ROM..

Alan

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Alan Cox]

> The I2O SIG will control access to the hardware docs on the next generation of
> fast PCs, and the licensing terms - let alone the SIG member's veto power over
> membership applicants - are in fundamental conflict with Linux and the other
> free PC Unices. Microsoft might not need to try to crush Linux directly; there's
> a distinct possibility that Linux simply won't run on the next generation of
> PCs.

I2O is in hand, most I2O vendors I've talked to are very determined to see
the spec become open and the general public vendors are taking from all
sides - including where it counts with the "We wont buy i2o boxes as it ties
us to unsuitable OS's". The SIG may also move in that way given time. If not
we'll just break it. The fact they erroneously published the spec helps a lot

You arent watching hard. The microsoft strategy is NT for servers, and Windows
CE embedded in everything from your TV, telephone to toilet. CE is on ROM..

Alan

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Warner Losh]

In message <199712052220.OAA60317@oz.engr.sgi.com> Ariel Faigon writes:
: To me the day MS starts using legal threats and acquisitions in order
: to stop Linux can be declared the day Linux has won.  Unfortunately
: for us Linux lovers, before Wine can run _all_ the Win32 apps without
: _any_ problem (not so close IMHO) and before Linux has a dumb-user GUI
: that really hides all the incredible (for the average Windows user)
: Unix complexities from the majority of the user base it doesn't have
: a chance of world domination, not even in the enterprise servers
: low-end space.

Keep in mind that there are other free unix implementations that are
also likely starting to appear on the radar screen of Microsoft.
FreeBSD has made significant inroads in many places, for example.

The only reason that I have Win95 on my laptop at all is to run
quickbooks, quicken and the odd Word or Execel thing.  Wine can't run
quicken well enough yet for me to be able to rely on it for my day to
day activities.

: Excellent and valid point.  Note that there are new forces on the
: rise which directly clash with Intel interests.  I'm refering to
: both the existing National-Semiconductor + Cyrix merger and AMD,
: and to the (about 9 at last count) startups working on x86 compatible
: designs.  The next few years will be interesting and Intel might very
: probably not emerge as the winner.

The whole effort to gain control of the architecture reminds me of the
micro channel fiasco that IBM did.  Granted, the I2O stuff is less
restrictive than that, but if Intel goes too far on this, they might
find themselves w/o a market.

Also, there are people on the FreeBSD mailing lists who claim to have
unencumbered access to the I2O specs.  I don't see that the free
unixes will be locked out of that area for very long, even if the SIG
folks want them to.  There is just too much vested interest in having
them run on the next generation of PCs to hold back the tide for long.

BTW, there are some folks around here getting rid of Indigo's with a
fair amount of disk/memory on them (2G disk, 64M memory) with
monitors.  They are currently up for bid.  How different are these
beasts than the Indy?  Would Linux run on them?  What would be a fair
price to bid on them?

Warner

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Warner Losh]

In message <199712052220.OAA60317@oz.engr.sgi.com> Ariel Faigon writes:
: To me the day MS starts using legal threats and acquisitions in order
: to stop Linux can be declared the day Linux has won.  Unfortunately
: for us Linux lovers, before Wine can run _all_ the Win32 apps without
: _any_ problem (not so close IMHO) and before Linux has a dumb-user GUI
: that really hides all the incredible (for the average Windows user)
: Unix complexities from the majority of the user base it doesn't have
: a chance of world domination, not even in the enterprise servers
: low-end space.

Keep in mind that there are other free unix implementations that are
also likely starting to appear on the radar screen of Microsoft.
FreeBSD has made significant inroads in many places, for example.

The only reason that I have Win95 on my laptop at all is to run
quickbooks, quicken and the odd Word or Execel thing.  Wine can't run
quicken well enough yet for me to be able to rely on it for my day to
day activities.

: Excellent and valid point.  Note that there are new forces on the
: rise which directly clash with Intel interests.  I'm refering to
: both the existing National-Semiconductor + Cyrix merger and AMD,
: and to the (about 9 at last count) startups working on x86 compatible
: designs.  The next few years will be interesting and Intel might very
: probably not emerge as the winner.

The whole effort to gain control of the architecture reminds me of the
micro channel fiasco that IBM did.  Granted, the I2O stuff is less
restrictive than that, but if Intel goes too far on this, they might
find themselves w/o a market.

Also, there are people on the FreeBSD mailing lists who claim to have
unencumbered access to the I2O specs.  I don't see that the free
unixes will be locked out of that area for very long, even if the SIG
folks want them to.  There is just too much vested interest in having
them run on the next generation of PCs to hold back the tide for long.

BTW, there are some folks around here getting rid of Indigo's with a
fair amount of disk/memory on them (2G disk, 64M memory) with
monitors.  They are currently up for bid.  How different are these
beasts than the Indy?  Would Linux run on them?  What would be a fair
price to bid on them?

Warner

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Eric Kimminau]

> BTW, there are some folks around here getting rid of Indigo's with a
> fair amount of disk/memory on them (2G disk, 64M memory) with
> monitors.  They are currently up for bid.  How different are these
> beasts than the Indy?  Would Linux run on them?  What would be a fair
> price to bid on them?
> 
> Warner

There are several models of Indigo. If it is an R4000, its fairly close
to an Indy without the multimedia things. The problem you will find is
that there were also several levels of graphics.

Bid price 64MB ram, 2GB disk, 19-20" monitor, R4k - $500.00


-- 
Eric Kimminau                           System Engineer/RSA
eak@detroit.sgi.com                     Silicon Graphics, Inc
Voice: (248) 848-4455                   39001 West 12 Mile Rd.
Fax:   (248) 848-5600                   Farmington, MI 48331-2903

                 VNet Extension - 6-327-4455
              "I speak my mind and no one else's."
       http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/perl-rsa-sig.html

    When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing 
    it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
	
         "I am the great supportfolio, do you have http?"

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Chad Campbell]

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Ariel Faigon wrote:

This is not a reply to Ariel, but how I would respond to the author of
Ariel's forward.

>   - B.G: "Hey Paul, this guy Linus Torvalds is finishing his studies out
>     there in Finland, the stuff he's making - this Linux OS - looks pretty
>     neat, why don't you make him an offer he can't refuse?"
> 
>   - P.A: "No problem Bill, I'll park him at Transmeta, they're making hot
>     stuff and I'll give him plenty of free time to keep developing this
>     Linux thingy, under our watchful eye."
> 
>   - B.G: "Right. Then if it gets out of control we can buy you out and put
>     our stamp on the stuff. After a couple years we can claim all this was
>     developed on company time. Then we'll just merge it into NT."
> 
>   - P.A: "I'll give you an option to take over at $xxx,xxx,xxx."
Keep in mind that all of Linus' work and the whole kernel is GPL'd.  Also,
M$ would have to prove that Linus was on company time to assert copyright
on any code.  From what I have read, Linus has a contract with TransMeta
which specifically allows him some amount of time to work on Linux, so
they would not only have to prove Linus was on company time, they would
have to prove he was working out of bounds of the time specifically
allowed by his contract.  This would be tough to say the least.  Also,
remember that all kernel code is not by Linus, so even in the worst case
we would just have to remove whatever code was truly TransMeta copyright
and re-implement Linus' contribution some other way.

>   This is a nightmare scenario of course. I have a deep respect for Linus'
>   work and way of managing the kernel development. But isn't he a bit
>   young and inexperienced against the West Coast's big guns? Hasen't he
>   fell into a huge trap?
Maybe, but Linux does not live or die by its creator.  I think that if M$
messes with Linus, every other developer will be so pissed, that the
kernel and maybe every other part of Linux will improve at an even faster
rate..  That would certainly give me motivation to burn the midnight oil,
if only I wasn't burning too much trying to graduate.

>   I hear people yelling "how about the GNU license you dork?". Hmm.. and I
>   answer: has anybody challenged the GPL in the courts? Has the FSF ever
>   had to defend it against a mean, influential and deep-pocketed
>   corporation? Like Stalin asking "The Pope? How many armored divisions?"
>   I ask "GNU? How many lawyers, lobbyists, cash-on-hand at the bank? Up to
>   now nobody cared about GNU software. No software company saw it as a
>   threat. These bearded, suspender-wearing UN*X idealists didn't bother
>   anybody. Today GNU software is becoming essential and a competitive
>   threat. SUN should be even more worried than MS on that count.
I've read the GPL and it seems very secure, if it actually applies to the
code Linus rights.  I don't think M$ would even try to argue against
the GPL, they would simply argue that since Linus was on company time that
he did not have the authority to place his code under the protection of
the GPL.  Also, I don't think GNU would have any difficulty getting
support from the rest of the industry in testifying against M$ and in
support of the GPL were M$ to actually challenge the authority of GPL'd
code.

>   Please somebody tell me this nightmare scenario is just plain stupid,
>   impossible and I'll be happy and go away and sleep better...
No way, it's a very valid point, but I think that Linux is now strong
enough to function without Linus if it has to, so while your nightmare
could be real, you may be overestimating the danger.

One other point.  I don't think M$ could support any claim of being an
innovator of any new methods of OS design.  They simply bark the loudest
when they finally figure out how to implement 20 year old ideas.  So
even if they succeeded in copyrighting Linus' code, we could just
rewrite it in a different way and then they would have to prove either
that the new code was a more or less direct copy of their code or a
result of disassembling Windoze.  Of course no self respecting Linux
developer would even consider copying or disassembling an inferior OS.

All the same, It might not be a bad idea to keep old kernel sources lying
around just in case this nightmare happens.  I would guess that this has
always been the case anyway.

Chad

Chad Campbell
Web Manager, University of Kansas Natural History Museum

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[William J. Earl]

Warner Losh writes:
...
 > BTW, there are some folks around here getting rid of Indigo's with a
 > fair amount of disk/memory on them (2G disk, 64M memory) with
 > monitors.  They are currently up for bid.  How different are these
 > beasts than the Indy?  Would Linux run on them?  What would be a fair
 > price to bid on them?

      The Indigo R4000 is pretty close to the Indy in many respects,
although the I/O and graphics are earlier generation in the same family.
The Indigo (R3000) has similar graphics and I/O, but is of course an
R3000, and the memory controller is a different design.  Linux could
run on either, but more porting would be required.  Many of the drivers
could be shared, with some adjustments, but the graphics would definitely
require significant work.

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[William J. Earl]

Warner Losh writes:
...
 > BTW, there are some folks around here getting rid of Indigo's with a
 > fair amount of disk/memory on them (2G disk, 64M memory) with
 > monitors.  They are currently up for bid.  How different are these
 > beasts than the Indy?  Would Linux run on them?  What would be a fair
 > price to bid on them?

      The Indigo R4000 is pretty close to the Indy in many respects,
although the I/O and graphics are earlier generation in the same family.
The Indigo (R3000) has similar graphics and I/O, but is of course an
R3000, and the memory controller is a different design.  Linux could
run on either, but more porting would be required.  Many of the drivers
could be shared, with some adjustments, but the graphics would definitely
require significant work.

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Chad Campbell]

> Bid price 64MB ram, 2GB disk, 19-20" monitor, R4k - $500.00
If it'll run Linux, I'll give that much too, maybe a little more.  That
bid seems real low to me though, so if it was a joke, I'll be a stupid
little undergrad now and go sit in my corner. :)

Chad

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Michael Neuffer]

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Alan Cox wrote:
> I2O is in hand, most I2O vendors I've talked to are very determined to see
> the spec become open and the general public vendors are taking from all
> sides - including where it counts with the "We wont buy i2o boxes as it ties
> us to unsuitable OS's". The SIG may also move in that way given time. If not
> we'll just break it. The fact they erroneously published the spec helps a lot

Unfortunately the spec got updated to 2.0 and from my sources I hear
that it is not exactly upwards compatible. 

We will surely be able to break it given time, since somene somewhere
will surly leak it at some point, but time is unfortunately also all that
Billy Boy needs to gain an unfair advantage.

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Lige Hensley]

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Ariel Faigon wrote:

> [One of my filters just hit this on  comp.os.linux.misc
>  I think the guy has a point and I thought it was interesting]
> 
>   Subject: M$'s strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario 
>   From: mito@aparima.com (Louis-David Mitterrand) 
>   Date: 4 Dec 1997 19:06:27 GMT 
>   Message-ID: <slrn68dvpj.s84.mito@shell4.ba.best.com> 
>   Organization: Aparima inc. 
>   Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc  , comp.os.linux.advocacy  
> 
>   OK, now what's next? Linux means business, *is* business. The coming of
>   age is very real: RedHat 5.0 is winning rave reviews for its ease-of-use
>   and idiot-proof installation "even easier than NT", the  Wine project
>   (windows emulator) is starting to make serious progress and some major
>   win32 apps are beginning to work. It won't take much more than another
>   year to see comprehensive support for Win95/NT apps under Linux. Next
>   thing, people will ask "why shell out $800 for NT Server, when I can get
>   the same more reliable services from a $50 RedHat CD? These MS support
>   people never answer the phone anyway, and I can run Office97 with Wine."

Even more important than Linux being easier to install than NT is 
reliability.  I am in the middle of a project to remove about $200,000
worth of NT servers and replace them with Linux boxes.  Of the servers
installed thus far, we've seen our incidence of problems go from about 2
a week to zero (and peformance boasts out the wazoo).

I'm currently working on an article for LJ about our project and how to do
it yourself.  The possibly of Linux as an NT replacement is not only real,
it's happening. 


-lige

"Live Free Or Die"

----------------------------------------------------------------
Slam Foot Neck!  Ride the wave.  Touch Touch Touch.  I'm cereal.
e-mail: lige.hensley@carpediem.com 
www: http://www.iusd.iupui.edu/~henslelf
  o__            
  ,>/'        Network Coordinator.  Compression, Inc.
 (_)\(_)  	http://www.carpediem.com	

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Greg Chesson]

LJ is not as widely read as one would hope.

I'd suggest sending the article to Red Herring, Upside,
and the Wall Street Journal.  It would probably not be accepted
in the same form that is appropriate for LJ, but it might very well
be excerpted.

g

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[cypher]

> The whole effort to gain control of the architecture reminds me of the
> micro channel fiasco that IBM did.  Granted, the I2O stuff is less
> restrictive than that, but if Intel goes too far on this, they might
> find themselves w/o a market.

Actually this would probably put the companies using I20 specs in a very
similar position that many of the big unix workstation vendors find
themself in now. What more, if Linux did (it will I'm sure) run on this
architecture it would put itself in a great position, espiecially if
Microsoft stop supporting the old architecture while other companies
continue to produce them. (How badly does Bill Gates want it to go his
way?)

---
Todd M. Shrider                         Unix Workstation Support Group
(812)855-2627                           2711 E. 10th Street
tshrider@indiana.edu                    Indiana University,
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/            Bloomington, IN 47408-2671

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[cypher]

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Ariel Faigon wrote:

> To me the day MS starts using legal threats and acquisitions in order
> to stop Linux can be declared the day Linux has won.  Unfortunately
> for us Linux lovers, before Wine can run _all_ the Win32 apps without
> _any_ problem (not so close IMHO) and before Linux has a dumb-user GUI
> that really hides all the incredible (for the average Windows user)
> Unix complexities from the majority of the user base it doesn't have
> a chance of world domination, not even in the enterprise servers
> low-end space.

Does this need to be some kind of project then? (Not that I haven't
thought of this already). I realize the KDE and Gnome people are out 
and making fairly decent ground on the WM problem, but maybe this type of
effort should go deeper into the kernel, kinda like BeOS or Rhapsody... 
These are UN*X like oses that are trying to cater to the "I don't give a
shit" crowd of users who don't want to learn anything too indepth about
there computers or who don't have time to deal with stuff because there
trying to work on higher level problems (many academic people, etc.).

What would it take to come up with a Linux distribution in this sort of
flavor that could still use kernel patches and old legacy apps, but also
might have a more standarized GUI/development environment. All this of
course still with a GPL/FreeSoftware attitude...

I know Linus talked about the usability of linux in atlanta this past
summer, so your average joe wouldn't have to deal with such a steep
learning curve, compared to MacOS and Windows... 


> Excellent and valid point.  Note that there are new forces on the
> rise which directly clash with Intel interests.  I'm refering to
> both the existing National-Semiconductor + Cyrix merger and AMD,
> and to the (about 9 at last count) startups working on x86 compatible
> designs.  The next few years will be interesting and Intel might very
> probably not emerge as the winner.

On these lines what about the stuff that Digital is now doing with Intel.
Digital has been pretty good to the linux community... maybe thats our
"in".

> 
> -- 
> Peace, Ariel
> 

---
Todd M. Shrider                         Unix Workstation Support Group
(812)855-2627                           2711 E. 10th Street
tshrider@indiana.edu                    Indiana University,
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/            Bloomington, IN 47408-2671

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[cypher]

> Snip: Linus works for Transmeta, which Microsoft might buy in order to
> "acquire" Linux. Legal or not, the legal fight might hamper Linux's spread 
> well enough to significantly reduce the threat to NT.

Isn't this the point where anarchy ensues? Think of it this way: How many
linux boxes are out there. Basically for every linux box out there we have
a backup of the code. If the M$ people got legal rights to Linux they
couldn't possibly enforce a NDA agreement on the most current version of
Linux. So then there would be MS Linux product line, and we would still
keep developing Linux, at worst witha different name. Not that this
wouldn't piss us off, but we would overcome and continue... right!

So, the point is that Linux has this subtlety about it that it can't ever
really die. It's sort of taken on it's own life. 

---
Todd M. Shrider                         Unix Workstation Support Group
(812)855-2627                           2711 E. 10th Street
tshrider@indiana.edu                    Indiana University,
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/            Bloomington, IN 47408-2671






> 
> This isn't a particularly big worry to me. The GPL aside, Linus's contract with
> Transmeta almost definitely states specifically that Transmeta has no rights at
> all to software Linus wrote before he was employed there; similarly, it almost
> definitely excludes rights to software Linus writes on his own time. Further,
> I'm not sure how much of the kernel Linus actually "owns" anymore; my
> understanding (flawed it may be) is that he's primarily coordinating kernel
> release and design, and not actually writing nearly as much code as he did. If
> this is the case, Linus himself might not be able to claim ownership of the
> kernel anymore.
> 
> Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I speak from a position of significant
> ignorance; handfuls of salt all round. But I really don't think that MS is going
> to be able to use intellectual property to attack Linux.
> 
> What does worry me, however, is that Intel, MS and others are making significant
> progress in taking control of the PC architecture. With the patented Slot-One
> and Slot-Two, Intel is putting serious pressure on its competitors in the
> motherboard markets; between Slot-One, Slot-Two, and buying the Alpha, I expect
> the threat to Intel's dominance of the PC CPU market to virtually disappear.
> The I2O SIG will control access to the hardware docs on the next generation of
> fast PCs, and the licensing terms - let alone the SIG member's veto power over
> membership applicants - are in fundamental conflict with Linux and the other
> free PC Unices. Microsoft might not need to try to crush Linux directly; there's
> a distinct possibility that Linux simply won't run on the next generation of
> PCs.
> 
> But maybe that's just my negativity speaking. I doubt that even a large part of
> the PC industry would like to see the architecture grow proprietary; perhaps SGI
> could lead the way in providing a design for a new PC-class architecture which
> is Open Hardware compliant/approved.
> 
> Along those lines, are there any plans for providing Linux drivers for the
> Wintel hardware SGI's announced for next summer?
> -- 
> Mike Acar - mike@contract.kent.edu - "This autumn is sad beyond belief." - Kafka
> 

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[ralf]

On Sat, Dec 06, 1997 at 06:26:41PM -0500, cypher wrote:

> On these lines what about the stuff that Digital is now doing with Intel.
> Digital has been pretty good to the linux community... maybe thats our
> "in".

Which reminds of a discussion with Jon "Maddog" Hall (introduction
superfluous, I guess).  He said Linux the best thing of having Linux on
the Alpha was that is was actually helping Digital helping to sell
more Digital UNIX systems.  He explained the effect by users starting
with Linux on their Alpha systems but then finding that they're actually
in the need of the advanced capabilities of Digital UNIX.

  Ralf

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[cypher]

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Michael Neuffer wrote:

> Unfortunately the spec got updated to 2.0 and from my sources I hear
> that it is not exactly upwards compatible. 
> 
> We will surely be able to break it given time, since somene somewhere
> will surly leak it at some point, but time is unfortunately also all that
> Billy Boy needs to gain an unfair advantage.

Actually, all linux needs to win is for Billy Boy to get enough unfair
advantages... then by by Microsoft... ;-)

---
Todd M. Shrider                         Unix Workstation Support Group
(812)855-2627                           2711 E. 10th Street
tshrider@indiana.edu                    Indiana University,
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/            Bloomington, IN 47408-2671

Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario

[Eric Kimminau]

Chad Campbell wrote:
> 
> > Bid price 64MB ram, 2GB disk, 19-20" monitor, R4k - $500.00
> If it'll run Linux, I'll give that much too, maybe a little more.  That
> bid seems real low to me though, so if it was a joke, I'll be a stupid
> little undergrad now and go sit in my corner. :)
> 
> Chad

It won't run Linux yet, but an R4k will run IRIX 6.5 when its released,
and is therefore, still a useful system. If its an R3k, it isn't worth
that much unless you want the monitor (which is probably 80% of that
bid)


-- 
Eric Kimminau                             System Engineer
eak@detroit.sgi.com                       Silicon Graphics, Inc
Vox:(810) 848-4455                        39001 West 12mile Road
Fax:(810)848-5600                         Farmington, MI 48331-2903
            "I speak my mind and no one else's."
    http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/perl-rsa-sig.html

-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
http://bs.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=Eric+A.+Kimminau&fingerprint=on