From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by neteng.engr.sgi.com (970903.SGI.8.8.7/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) via SMTP id NAA437306 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:33:30 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) id NAA18434 for linux-list; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:32:14 -0800 Received: from sgi.sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id NAA18424 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:32:13 -0800 Received: from contract.kent.edu (denali.contract.kent.edu [131.123.210.5]) by sgi.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/970507) via SMTP id NAA22370 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:32:11 -0800 env-from (mike@contract.kent.edu) Message-Id: <199712052132.NAA22370@sgi.sgi.com> Received: (qmail 23182 invoked from network); 5 Dec 1997 21:31:03 -0000 Received: from denali.contract.kent.edu (HELO contract.kent.edu) (131.123.210.5) by denali.contract.kent.edu with SMTP; 5 Dec 1997 21:31:03 -0000 To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: M$ 's strategy against Linux: nightmare scenario In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:27:22 -0800 (PST) <199712051827.KAA54904@oz.engr.sgi.com> X-Chromosomes: One Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 16:31:02 -0500 From: Mike Acar Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk [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