Those are both rather large ingredients for a successful product. For whatever reason, there is essentially zero marketing of Linux to consumers. And obviously that affects perception, or in this case, a lack thereof.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Are we counting the euro government offices that have made announcements about migrations to Linux on their worker's desktops? I haven't kept up with how many of them have succeeded but there sure have been a lot of announcements over the past few years. And Linux is a lot more popular in non-US nations so it's possible, and IMO probable, that Linux has a greater marketshare than OS X worldwide. Although I don't know of any way to prove or disprove that.
You can Expect a "Suse Genuine Advantage Notification Tool " for use with "Microsoft Share per device, per instance per user per processor, only one usage EULA for software that definetly have a probability to function in a single kilobyte of entire suse"...
It's mandatory that you activate this software to run on any device of Suse Linux. Microsoft will check your Suse Linux to be sure you are using a original copy of that kilobyte, otherwise your X will restart after 2 minutes. This check is periodically defined by the time you use Suse and the colour of the chameleon you are seeing today.
OMG. They are shooting everything...
It's mandatory that you activate this software to run on any device of Suse Linux. Microsoft will check your Suse Linux to be sure you are using a original copy of that kilobyte, otherwise your X will restart after 2 minutes. This check is periodically defined by the time you use Suse and the colour of the chameleon you are seeing today.
OMG. They are shooting everything...
why does Novell need protection from patent lawsuits from Microsoft and vice versa? Is Microsoft about to lauch lawsuits against Linux vendors?
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Why do you need auto insurance? Are you about to wreck your car?
No one really knows what MS full plan is, but even if they do manage to kill of RH what will it buy them? It won't kill off Linux and now Oracle's started supporting their own brand of Linux so most RH customers will probably just move there or to Novell.
Novell management itself is pro-software patents and the vast majority of their customers run Windows..
So the idea of getting a cross software patent licensing deal that leads to greater compatability with Windows is a no-brainer. It can only make sense as far as they are concerned.
As far as the rest of the 'linux community' goes it's not a good thing. It's highly likely that Microsoft suckered Novell into something they shouldn't of gone into, but only time can tell. It doesn't help anybody else, if you work for a living with Linux it doesn't afford any sort of protection or anything like that.
So the idea of getting a cross software patent licensing deal that leads to greater compatability with Windows is a no-brainer. It can only make sense as far as they are concerned.
As far as the rest of the 'linux community' goes it's not a good thing. It's highly likely that Microsoft suckered Novell into something they shouldn't of gone into, but only time can tell. It doesn't help anybody else, if you work for a living with Linux it doesn't afford any sort of protection or anything like that.
how can anything in suse / novell linux be under a software patent? linux is opensource software under gpl, which means anyone can redistribute it. what parts of suse linux are under patents which belong to Micro$oft and would therefore require Novell paying M$ royalties? the whole idea is preposterous. Is Microsoft going to do a SCO and claim that chunks of linux/ gnu belong to it?
Novell has a lot of stuff they do which is propriatory, btw. They've done a lot of operating system work on Unix operating systems and on their own Network operating systems as well as their groupware stuff and edirectory stuff, all of which is huge.
You have to know the difference between copyrights and software patents before this sort of thing makes sense.
Copyrights are awarded automaticly when you make some sort of creation. You doodle on napkin at a bar.. that is automaticly copyrighted to you. You write a book or write some peice of software that is now owned by you and is protected by copyright.
So copyright is something that is given automaticly and it covers your work, what you produced.
Patents aren't like that. Patents cost a lot of money and time to get and they have to reviewed and approved by the government's patent office.
Patents give you a monopoly on a idea or proccess or concept. Only you can use that idea. For instance say I figure out a new way to build lawnmowers to make them more durable. Now anybody who uses that same idea, even if they never heard of me or my patent or seen any lawnmower I made, they are automaticly liable to me.
That's not the same as copyright. Say I make a nice new web browser, some company can come along and copy it and such as long as they don't use any of my code. However say I patented 'tabs' for instance then nobody else can use tabs in their browser or text editor or website or anything like that unless they pay me money first.
The tricky part is that with software patents it's nearly impossible to NOT violate patents. This is simply due to the nature of software. Read this for more details: http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html
But just assume now that I am correct. Microsoft IS violating Novell's patents. Linux IS violating patents. Mozilla browser IS violating software patents. You can't avoid it. You can hire a thousand lawyers to review your code and it's still have a 70% chance of violating some patent somewere.
So big companies like Microsoft and IBM get as many patents as possible for everything possible. Then since they are violating each other's patents then they do patent exchanges.
This is how they work around the broken patent system.
Software patents are a big big threat against Linux and Free software. Since 90% of the programmers work for small and medium businesses or do it individually then it's impossible to afford the legal fees nessicary to protect yourself. So by doing this they are legitimizing patents to a certain extent and making it easier for MS to sue other developers, at least in theory.
So far Microsoft hasn't sued anybody yet. They only have used software patents as a threat to scare OEMs (Dell, HP, etc) enough that they don't sell Linux on desktop PCs (not so much anymore it seems like it) and they use software patents to make sure that their media and office formats remain incompatable with other software unless that software's developers are willing to play by Microsoft's rules (which generally means it can't be open source or gpl'd).
You have to know the difference between copyrights and software patents before this sort of thing makes sense.
Copyrights are awarded automaticly when you make some sort of creation. You doodle on napkin at a bar.. that is automaticly copyrighted to you. You write a book or write some peice of software that is now owned by you and is protected by copyright.
So copyright is something that is given automaticly and it covers your work, what you produced.
Patents aren't like that. Patents cost a lot of money and time to get and they have to reviewed and approved by the government's patent office.
Patents give you a monopoly on a idea or proccess or concept. Only you can use that idea. For instance say I figure out a new way to build lawnmowers to make them more durable. Now anybody who uses that same idea, even if they never heard of me or my patent or seen any lawnmower I made, they are automaticly liable to me.
That's not the same as copyright. Say I make a nice new web browser, some company can come along and copy it and such as long as they don't use any of my code. However say I patented 'tabs' for instance then nobody else can use tabs in their browser or text editor or website or anything like that unless they pay me money first.
The tricky part is that with software patents it's nearly impossible to NOT violate patents. This is simply due to the nature of software. Read this for more details: http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html
But just assume now that I am correct. Microsoft IS violating Novell's patents. Linux IS violating patents. Mozilla browser IS violating software patents. You can't avoid it. You can hire a thousand lawyers to review your code and it's still have a 70% chance of violating some patent somewere.
So big companies like Microsoft and IBM get as many patents as possible for everything possible. Then since they are violating each other's patents then they do patent exchanges.
This is how they work around the broken patent system.
Software patents are a big big threat against Linux and Free software. Since 90% of the programmers work for small and medium businesses or do it individually then it's impossible to afford the legal fees nessicary to protect yourself. So by doing this they are legitimizing patents to a certain extent and making it easier for MS to sue other developers, at least in theory.
So far Microsoft hasn't sued anybody yet. They only have used software patents as a threat to scare OEMs (Dell, HP, etc) enough that they don't sell Linux on desktop PCs (not so much anymore it seems like it) and they use software patents to make sure that their media and office formats remain incompatable with other software unless that software's developers are willing to play by Microsoft's rules (which generally means it can't be open source or gpl'd).
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
I'm no lawyer, but AFAIK the fact that the source is open is irrelevant, they can still have the algorithm or idea patented. Lots of physical devices are patented that when you look at them you can see how they work, the patent exists so that you can't copy the idea without paying the original author some fees since he thought of it first.
It's not even copying a idea. Simply _using_ a idea, even if you thought of it all on your own with absolutely no prior knowledge, is enough to get you sued if somebody else thought of it first and patented it.
in other words, M$ has no legal basis to win any suit against a lunux distributor, but they want to foster the fear that they might sue, to intimidate businesses into avoiding open source/ linux software. Novell is playing along with that. which is rather sickening.
what aspect of Linux did M$ "think of first" and patent..?
Considering "Linux" is comprised of a kernel, plus a zillion and one open source or free software components, any of which can be switched out or replaced at the drop of a hat, you would have to be pretty dumb to swallow M$'s bluff.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
It's hard to say because MS has so many patents, I'm sure as hell not going to go through them all and wade through the legalese to figure out what applies to what. For a good example look at the SCO suit, one of the things they allege that IBM stole from them and put in Linux was the RCU code which is pretty obscure from a user's standpoint.
Actually that would be the opposite, the fact that there's so much software in a Linux distribution means there's more of a chance that they've violated one of MS' patents.
linux is built on components that come from an entirely different OS lineage than m$ windows, and which were in existence long before m$ windows. It is FAR more likely that the various stakeholders within the unix/ linux world, and of course Apple, have strong grounds to sue M$ than the other way around.
It is also safe to say that if M$ had any ground to sue, they would have done so by now. They are not exactly shy about getting laywers involved to benefit their business cause.
The historical components and concepts underlying linux were in existence long before M$ windows arrived on the scene. Those fundamental or core components are hardly the property of M$. As for a comtemporary linux desktop, M$ does not have a patent on a windows desktop. At best, M$ might be able to complain about software that enables linux boxes top cooperate with Windows boxes on the network. But actually they wouldn't have a hope in hell of winning that kind of lawsuit.
If I had to guess, I would say a significant number of the patent violations would involve the hardware detection technologies in Windows.
Oh and, M$? People still use that?
Oh and, M$? People still use that?
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
The actual code doesn't matter most of the the time, it's the ideas that are patented. And Linux was written from scratch without any licenses from those commercial unix companies so if anyone is at fault it's more likely to be Linux.
Maybe. But they probably also realize that even if they could kill of RH it wouldn't buy them much since Linux would still be available.
Some of them might be, core parts of Linux have been rewritten in order to make them faster and more scalable. Sure the stuff that you see is pretty basic and can only be tweaked so many ways, but the core stuff like the SMP, RCU, networking, I/O elevators, etc are things that are very complicated and from the perspective of MS, Sun, DEC/HP/Compaq, etc would make prime suspects for software patents and it's virtually impossible to tell who's infringing on whom without some sort of lawsuit.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Maybe, but that seems unlikely to me. Older versions of the installers would just use the PCI ID information and look it up in a database to figure out which module to load for it, I would imagine that the Windows stuff has to be a lot more complicated than that to support all of the 3rd party drivers out there. And the current stuff uses regular expressions to match against the PCI ID, for instance you can run 'modprobe pci:v00001022d00002001sv*sd*bc*sc*i*' and it'll load the pcnet32 module.
It's very very difficult to say what patents may be violated.
Software, as you know, is very complex and just because a patent title says something like 'large filename support in fat' doesn't mean that it won't apply to a web browser or even how the different layers of mysql + php + apache + web application interact with each other.
For instance the old (now defunct) patents they had with GIF files applied to many much more different types of software other then just *.gif files. That patent could cover stuff that didn't have anything to do with image files, it would just have to use the same concepts or algorythms or whatnot on a different set of data.
Remember that software is mostly just a filter at it's most basic form. Take input DataA, perform calculations, output result DataB. Who cares if it's a gif image or a bitmap of a database? It's all just data proccessing when you strip away the layers of abstraction. Realy. The 'gif patent' was realy just a patent over a way to compress data. (Plus what made it more horrible is that code for compression was put in trade journals of the time by the authors of the patent and so people assumed that it was ok to use it since it was published publicly, which they were absolutely wrong in assuming.)
That's what is so horrible about software patents. It's realy quite impossible to tell which is why it's standard practice to do these cross patent licensing stuff that big businesses do.
The semi-effective way to defend yourself would be to higher a team of lawyers who are not only experts in patent law but also experts in programming and have then audit your code line by line and then have them also audit your major applications and how they interact between the different abstraction layers. (which obviously nobody including Microsoft or IBM can afford to do)
It's sort of like what is happenned before WW1. Everybody knows that everybody is vunerable to war so they team up and make it so horrible to sue anybody since they'd be immediately sued back that nobody will do it. Also this is why most (if not all) the high-profile patent lawsuites, especially against Microsoft, come from companies that don't actually produce any software, they are just those sort of 'ip holding companies' which buy out patents (from failing software companies, for instance). Since they don't actually produce any software or any innovations then those companies are invunerable to counter lawsuites.
Software, as you know, is very complex and just because a patent title says something like 'large filename support in fat' doesn't mean that it won't apply to a web browser or even how the different layers of mysql + php + apache + web application interact with each other.
For instance the old (now defunct) patents they had with GIF files applied to many much more different types of software other then just *.gif files. That patent could cover stuff that didn't have anything to do with image files, it would just have to use the same concepts or algorythms or whatnot on a different set of data.
Remember that software is mostly just a filter at it's most basic form. Take input DataA, perform calculations, output result DataB. Who cares if it's a gif image or a bitmap of a database? It's all just data proccessing when you strip away the layers of abstraction. Realy. The 'gif patent' was realy just a patent over a way to compress data. (Plus what made it more horrible is that code for compression was put in trade journals of the time by the authors of the patent and so people assumed that it was ok to use it since it was published publicly, which they were absolutely wrong in assuming.)
That's what is so horrible about software patents. It's realy quite impossible to tell which is why it's standard practice to do these cross patent licensing stuff that big businesses do.
The semi-effective way to defend yourself would be to higher a team of lawyers who are not only experts in patent law but also experts in programming and have then audit your code line by line and then have them also audit your major applications and how they interact between the different abstraction layers. (which obviously nobody including Microsoft or IBM can afford to do)
It's sort of like what is happenned before WW1. Everybody knows that everybody is vunerable to war so they team up and make it so horrible to sue anybody since they'd be immediately sued back that nobody will do it. Also this is why most (if not all) the high-profile patent lawsuites, especially against Microsoft, come from companies that don't actually produce any software, they are just those sort of 'ip holding companies' which buy out patents (from failing software companies, for instance). Since they don't actually produce any software or any innovations then those companies are invunerable to counter lawsuites.
It´s simple to understand:
Palladium tecnology by the fear of piracy is being concepted out of users opinion, secretly they are achieving a way to control users and control what you have in your machine to determine if you are a criminal or not, they can avoyd to sell software to you, banks can negate service to your computer, you cannot listen music if your computer or hardware changes, you cannot show Videos with non HDCP Monitor and Video card Compliant and a hardware key with software key to let it function really. You cannot use other instant messaging and cooperate with other software if they do not want by the hash the software gives to a Palladium platform.
OK:
Palladium = Vista
Since the tecnology is leaded by Microsoft, and no Linux distro start using it the same way Microsoft is using, the interoperability will be a major problem for people who do not have a Palladium compatible platform. They can avoid comunicate with your computer.
Most of the Linux distros think it will be a good thing if the user can control it, and they are certain in the way the users can control it´s own life.
But Microsoft is secretly doing it in a manner that they will find a way to at the same time combat piracy and make some extorsion to the user elevating the prices at higher levels and this support is extensible to all of the ecosystem of proprietary stuff.
What SUSE did is to join them to make interoperability faster than the others, giving SUSE an REAL advantage, but of course Palladium will have to be revised to support more O.S. . The bad thing is Microsoft can always do it´s own implementation and try to leave others to oblivion. I t will be the future and the war of Attestation.
For now they all know that if propaganda of interoperability is good, the image of gangsters will be lower for now and people will at least try to belive Microsoft is embracing Linux. It´s a lie.
SUSE will not pay fees for a while to use the tecnology and people can interoperate with the majority of the comercial operation in that period, and when Paladium growth are suffucient, banks and others will run for it, with the promess they can control everything and everyone who make comercial things in form of electronic transactions.
The others will be treated as criminals or stay out of the way, and it will include for now the vast majority of softwares inside the market, most of Linux and older versions like 98, 2000, and even XP will stay out of the way of Palladium since they do not met the requirements of software/hardware Microsoft is doing.
Obviously they will patent and register the software/hardware and the way they do transactions, and then does not matter if you have Linux, Windows, Mac, FreeBSD, or anything like, if you do not have Palladium like software, you will not be able to do all the stuff they will probably show to your son into the TV.
It´s the REAL secret behind SUSE/VISTA. It is not for now, it is for future Palladium.
More explanation ?
For daniel49 (reposted)
Palladium tecnology by the fear of piracy is being concepted out of users opinion, secretly they are achieving a way to control users and control what you have in your machine to determine if you are a criminal or not, they can avoyd to sell software to you, banks can negate service to your computer, you cannot listen music if your computer or hardware changes, you cannot show Videos with non HDCP Monitor and Video card Compliant and a hardware key with software key to let it function really. You cannot use other instant messaging and cooperate with other software if they do not want by the hash the software gives to a Palladium platform.
OK:
Palladium = Vista
Since the tecnology is leaded by Microsoft, and no Linux distro start using it the same way Microsoft is using, the interoperability will be a major problem for people who do not have a Palladium compatible platform. They can avoid comunicate with your computer.
Most of the Linux distros think it will be a good thing if the user can control it, and they are certain in the way the users can control it´s own life.
But Microsoft is secretly doing it in a manner that they will find a way to at the same time combat piracy and make some extorsion to the user elevating the prices at higher levels and this support is extensible to all of the ecosystem of proprietary stuff.
What SUSE did is to join them to make interoperability faster than the others, giving SUSE an REAL advantage, but of course Palladium will have to be revised to support more O.S. . The bad thing is Microsoft can always do it´s own implementation and try to leave others to oblivion. I t will be the future and the war of Attestation.
For now they all know that if propaganda of interoperability is good, the image of gangsters will be lower for now and people will at least try to belive Microsoft is embracing Linux. It´s a lie.
SUSE will not pay fees for a while to use the tecnology and people can interoperate with the majority of the comercial operation in that period, and when Paladium growth are suffucient, banks and others will run for it, with the promess they can control everything and everyone who make comercial things in form of electronic transactions.
The others will be treated as criminals or stay out of the way, and it will include for now the vast majority of softwares inside the market, most of Linux and older versions like 98, 2000, and even XP will stay out of the way of Palladium since they do not met the requirements of software/hardware Microsoft is doing.
Obviously they will patent and register the software/hardware and the way they do transactions, and then does not matter if you have Linux, Windows, Mac, FreeBSD, or anything like, if you do not have Palladium like software, you will not be able to do all the stuff they will probably show to your son into the TV.
It´s the REAL secret behind SUSE/VISTA. It is not for now, it is for future Palladium.
More explanation ?
For daniel49 (reposted)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter