Hi

I've just read in a newsletter(maybe some of the German guys here know it (heise)), that Bill Gates is speculating that there could be Microsoft Code in the Linux Kernel.
I can hardly imagine that. Maybe there is linux code in the windows kernel, but ... .

What do you think about this attacks against Linux from SCO, MS and the other companys?
And hey,.. did you get a SCO License for the Kernal ?

I dunno how likly it is, but at some point in time people are eventualy going to write some of the same code.
But I dunt trust GNU and more than MS, they both have their own agendas and will do whatever it takes to carry them out; whether it means communising or capitalizing code.

Linux is a cult. Linux is almost as bad as Apple, and they try to put Microsoft over. They do this by saying things, claiming things and even campaigning against them.

It is like the founders of the two Companies are out to get Gates, and it doesn't seem as if Bill Gates really cares.

My feelings exactly. While I don't particularly like Gates, that doesn't mean we need to actively persecute him. [addsig]

I mean, he made a product easy-to-use when most OS' were like black crap with white type. Even thouhg I feel his product should be quite solid [He's had around 20 years to make it really good, and sofar it hasnt quite happened:P ]

Well, I wouldnt say linux is a cult, but GNU definatly [ie, GNU is at war with Linux {even thouhg half their crap is made for Linux:P } they dunt even like the term Linux, they insist on GNU/Linux or GNU OS]

Sooo, in the end, we have the communists and the capitolists evening things out as yin and yang.

The only reason it's easier to use than Linux is because all of the drivers and stuff for hardware are created directly by the companies who made the hardware. With Linux, other programmers have to do all of that. The security and stability of Windows is awful compared to Linux. Honestly, would you use IIS over Apache? Windows 98 over Debian GNU/Linux for a serious environment with multiple users? Don't bash it just because you weren't successful with it.

Interesting opinions.
For me it's important to have the sources. I can't understand how you can use code from which you don't really know what it does (yeah, windows) in a security sensitive environment...

I don't think that the idea of Linux (not GNU) has communistic backgrounds or so
At least the communists don't come up with TCPA or such bullshit(sorry, had to be said)!

What i think about windows: For so much money, you should get a working/stabel/secure system.

[ This Message was edited by: nh on 2003-07-30 01:53 ]

Well sorry, I said I would not write on this forum again but this is an interresting discussion.

Note that I'm not 100% pro-Windows, nor 100% pro-Linux. I'm happily using the best of both world.

[flame mode on ;D]

Quote:
For me it's important to have the sources. I can't understand how you can use code from which you don't really know what it does (yeah, windows) in a security sensitive environment...


It's pretty ridiculous to think that anyone compiling the kernel with systematically examine each line of code. Having the source is in no way a guarantee of security!

Having the source sure gives Linux an advantage over Windows because security fix can be distributed as a code patch that can be applied on live software quicker than it takes for Microsoft to acknowledge a bug in their product...

But, see this example:

Company A sells software Z: 5000$ for software Z with no source, 15000$ for software Z with source... Source for software Z is heavyweight and the software is not very popular so the only source of update will be company A.

Do you think the company will pay 10000$ for the sources? No of course! If you say yes, I dare you challenge my example

Of course, there are NUMEROUS other reason to chose OOS over prioritery software, the cost being without doubt the best one.

Quote:
I've just read in a newsletter(maybe some of the German guys here know it (heise)), that Bill Gates is speculating that there could be Microsoft Code in the Linux Kernel.
I can hardly imagine that. Maybe there is linux code in the windows kernel, but ... .


You are right, there can't be any Microsoft code in the kernel since very few people outside Microsoft were allowed to see Microsoft source code. Those who did probably did it under the threat of a heavy NDA.

But, there can be Microsoft intellectual property in the Linux code and other GNU software. The first example that comes through my mind is Samba. Microsoft mutilated the SMB protocol for Windows 2000, probably deliberatly. It had to be reverse-engineered for Samba to work with Windows 2000 workstations and servers. This is an example of thing that could be regarged by Microsoft as violation of their IP. There are probably numerous other example like that everywhere. We can't blame Linux programmers for that because they are only trying to make Linux works better with Windows but this argument won't hold in court! WINE could also be including things Microsoft consider as their IP.

I consider SCO is trying to scare the world before their trial... why? I don't know. I don't see how that can benefit them beside the little amount of money they will get from scared companies who license their Linux kernel. If their claims is proven true though, that will a big blow to the Linux community. I don't know what will happen but something will happen if Linux looses...

In the meantime, SCO is just what they seems to be looking for: EVIL!

_________________
Screw this forum! Let it die. Come to HProg wiki at http://www.hprog.org!

[ This Message was edited by: Neu[Mann] on 2003-07-30 02:36 ]

"Windows 98 over Debian GNU/Linux for a serious environment with multiple users? Don't bash it just because you weren't successful with it"

By serious environment with multiple users, I think of an office. I don't know any place more serious with more users than a large office place.

Over in EA in Seattle, I see plenty of Windows screens. EA has lots of multiple users, a majority are professional programmers.

My father works for an extremely large company. Everyone uses Windows, including 98'. It has been very successful, and even the programmers use it.

Windows RULES the most serious place with multiple users, the office.

The only place I've seen Linux in action at work is in a small, family-owned Chinese restaurant that my Grandparents go to. It keeps track of orders and acts as a cash machine.

I see Mac, besides in my house used for graphics and publishing, not much else.

I believe Neumann, who has blessed us with his return say that Linux did include some Windows kernal.

Funny, the cult of Linux continues to bash Windows, yet they include parts of it. Very ironic.

Apple is in somewhat of a partnership with Microsoft? Yet they campaign against them. Another example of irony.

What does Microsoft do? Nothing. Bill Gates is sure easy going.

Quote:
[...] believe Neumann, who has blessed us with his return say that Linux did include some Windows kernal.


No. I see I need to clarify. To my knowledge, there is nothing from Microsoft that has been included in Linux because the Microsoft version was working better than what the OSS community could do. Microsoft IP as been included in Linux in order to facilitate Linux interroperability with Windows: Samba and WINE are pretty good example.

I have yet to see something where developper reverse-engineering Microsoft code said: "Hey! That part of code would make our system run better than it is with Linus code, let's include it". Of course, I could be wrong, because SCO claiming that something similar happened, but including Microsoft Windows code into Linux is different matter than including SCO Unix code in Linux.

On the other hand, I can hardly believe that there is no Linux code anywhere in Windows! If so, that's a violation of the GPL.

Gates isn't doing anything against IP violation in Linux because that would cost him more than it could potentially return him. He is not even sure he would win either!

If SCO wins the fight against Linux, you can be sure Microsoft will hit it while it is still on the ground, and also push the government into accepting scary stuff like Palladium and TCPA (I'm not that informed about this), in order to 'protect' companies IP from the OSS movement. Microsoft is simply letting SCO, a company that is _expendable_ in the market (they were close to brankuptcy), do the dirty work. That's a public relation job too, they don't want to look more evil than they are now.

I'm not for full frontal flaming of everything Microsoft do but before calling Bill Gates 'easy going' I suggest we look at the potential advantage$ he has by doing or not doing something...

_________________
Screw this forum! Let it die. Come to HProg wiki at http://www.hprog.org!

[ This Message was edited by: Neu[Mann] on 2003-07-30 06:04 ]

Kenikov, just because it's not currently in use everywhere, doesn't mean it's not the best solution. If I am not mistaken, Microsoft tries to get companies to use their products by giving them deals often and such. Also, Joe Business Major just learned to use all Microsoft products in college, and that's probably what he wants to use.

Then again, I'm speaking naively, never having worked in a corporate environment.

Hmm, that's pretty neat how the Chinese restaurant uses it.

The only place I've seen Linux in action at work is in a small, family-owned Chinese restaurant that my Grandparents go to. It keeps track of orders and acts as a cash machine.
At the university and this stuff in my city, i just saw unix boxes. Guess why.

Let's assume Linux goes down because of SCO Microsoft and other things, who cares?
Most people just don't know what the basic idea of linux was and still is (ok, not for many out there). I'd still use it and go on developing.

By the way, you can't copy kernel code. The architecture of Windows and Linux are too different.

And why is the WinAPI IP of Microsoft. Oh well, the oxigen in this room is mine too...so keep away
Wine is nothing more than a big wrapper.
So, what is .NET. Microsoft says it improves interopabilities what is very important to them. But then i ask myself: Why don't they publicate the SMB Protocol? (Oh yes, there are so much inovative/superior new technoligies in it)

And with --> Open Source = better security

I haven't even said anything about the original topic.

I doubt there is any MS code in the Linux kernel, but there may be some stolen ideas from free software in Microsoft's code.

.NET is there to improve interoperability between Microsoft products and... other Microsoft products! It's a big unification of all the API that made programming Windows a nightmare. It succeeds pretty well a that.

Quote:
And with --> Open Source = better security

I'm doubting the value of the Software+Source code combo since most people don't have time, money, competence or all of the above, to understand the source code and even less modify it.

Government is probably no different. They'd rather pay $$$ to get the companies do maintenance work on their software. Having the source-code available is a sort of guarantee that the producer has nothing to hide, but it's not a true guarantee. I have read somewhere that a backdoor in old UNIX versions of the 'login' had a long life undiscovered, even if the code has always been available.

That said, I don't want to say providing the source with a program is bad. It's just not as Good as some Linux geeks likes to say. There are a lot of other better Good Things in the Free Software movement.

And that too, was just my opinion

_________________
Screw this forum! Let it die. Come to HProg wiki at http://www.hprog.org!

[ This Message was edited by: Neu[Mann] on 2003-07-30 06:03 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Neu[Mann] on 2003-07-30 06:05 ]

Good grief! I haven't seen this many long posts in ages . About Windows and big companies: Conoco Phillips, dad works for them, uses Win2K and they're no small company either. And what about MS, they use Windows [addsig]

I don't think Linux is ready for wide desktop usage. But this could be SOOOoo argued that I won't dare discuss that!

In entreprises where 100% of secretaries have been taught to master MS Word, I think it would be amazing to see Linux box. But for places where all people need is 1 app to do data entry, I think major economy could be made by entreprises. Hell! you can grab 1 5$ Debian Linux CD and install it on 10000 computer if you want... try to equate that with Windows It's just not practical to install Linux in most situations.

But, if you start a small e-commerce web entreprise with a WINDOWS server, well, you are in for big, BIG spendings. I'd myself go with the 5$ CD, Apache and MySQL

Of course, with the SCO problem, I might as well go for the FREE *BSDs.

I don't really understand why there is that many Windows 2003 out there. Not that it's a bad OS, I'm using it myself, but I really believe Linux is cheaper in 95% of the situations.

Actually-- as a lot of people have heard -- Microsoft used FreeBSD to run their Hotmail email servers at one time .

I'm sorry about this, I thought I was quoting from this, not editing - dxprog

[ This Message was edited by: dxprog on 2003-07-30 11:56 ]

People use windows because;
1. thats what the "popular" or name brand software runs on [ie, AOL for Linux isnt exactl advertised; and I dont think MSN for Linux exists].
2. it has the most best known games [only the best of the best get ported to nix flavours and Mac]
3. it gets their job done...most people aren't exactly buddy buddy with their comps, they coulndt care less how secure or stable their system is [untill it crashes or gets cracked obviosly] or the technicalities
4. since windows it what the masses use, it would logically be more lucrative to develop for windows.
5. because it is most the costly, it is assumed to be the best.

As for the IT guys, most [sys admin-ish type figures] would probly rather use some sort of nix flavour...but persuading the higher ups to switch [similer to your experience with yur teacher] is like walking the opposite way as the trafic flow during rush hour in tokyo...

Quote:
"I don't really understand why there is that many Windows 2003 out there. Not that it's a bad OS, I'm using it myself, but I really believe Linux is cheaper in 95% of the situations."


That is okay for desktop usage when people are more or less informed about the other options...

But a server admin deploying Windows because "everyone is using it" would look pretty silly, especially if using something else could make the company save $$$$$$$....

Quote:A movie, I believe Monsters Inc.? Was made with everything Linux, because of the cost of Windows.

You must remember who ran Pixar at the time of that movie, Steve Jobs. I doubt it had anything to do with the price of Windows. Pixar is most-likely a multi-million dollar company and could afford something like that [addsig]

It was something of that.

I read on PCMagazine, it wasn't Pixar. I forgot the movie, but it was also fully animated.

You're probably thinking Shrek. I saw that on the cover of some magazine too. [addsig]

Yeah, I believe so.

I know it wasn't Pixar though.

The only other rescent all animations i can think of are Ice Age and FF [I really dont think it was FF, it was made by Soni, right?].
It seems like i do remember somehting how ice age was like on budget and such, but dunno.

BTW, maya unlimited 5 (used by many/most of the large effects houses, ILM etc.) retails at $6999.00 USD per node - a $100-200 saving is trivial.

Yeah, I think thats after they lowered the price too...But if they're getting 1000G+ in return, then I geuss its not tooo bad pay off =/

Yeah, the last time I checked before this, I think it was ~ $18k - $22k per node
Oh, and 1000G+ ~ $1+ Tril. ?

[ This Message was edited by: Yjo on 2003-08-01 21:53 ]

lol
buy anyway, atleast they let one download a LE version for free.

They have an LE version? Ooooooo [addsig]

yeah, learning edition...still not as good as pirating it yourself, but you get the idea:P

Quote:
On 2003-07-30 13:51, dxprog wrote:
You're probably thinking Shrek. I saw that on the cover of some magazine too.


Titanic was made on Linux too.

Also - M$ code in vmlinuz? It's opensource - we could prove none is there in court. And since they won't release their code, they can't compare the code and prove it.

We know BSD code is in M$. They have said it! But I could understand linux - they want to put worthwhile code in their so-called kernel. [addsig]