Why Microsoft won't assault Linux (ZDNet) [LWN.net]

John Carroll - who happens to work for Microsoft - talks about why he thinks Microsoft will not go after Linux in this ZDNet posting. "It sure looks like Microsoft is working very hard to achieve a detente with open source. They are working with Zend to improve the PHP developer experience atop Windows. They are granting full access to the source code for Windows CE 6.0 (though that benefits Microsoft as much as programmers). They just blessed Mono, an open source version of the .NET runtime, through their Novell agreement. What's the point of all that if they are just going to light the world on fire with a subsequent legal bombs on Linux?"

(Log in to post comments)

Why Microsoft won't assault Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Nov 8, 2006 21:41 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

not OSDL or FSF?

That's the answer. There are OSDL, FSF, X.Org Foundation, etc, etc. It's easier to "achieve a detente" when you are talking with single corporate entity... and it's also easier to attack single corporate entity when (not if!) Microsoft will decide that it does not need any "detente" anymore and has good chance of killing free software. Perhaps when software patents will become reality in EU and few other important countries ?

The word "detente" is telling enough: we do know what followed after it, right ?

Why Microsoft won't assault Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Nov 8, 2006 22:12 UTC (Wed) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]

Glasnost, Perestroika, and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact?

Assume that Microsoft is the Soviet-style power in this equation (which fits better, the FOSS world being a lot more chaotically democratic and capitalist, oddly enough), and I don't see a problem.

Why Microsoft won't assault Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Nov 9, 2006 6:00 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Glasnost, Perestroika, and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact?

Nope. It was later. Much later. After detente world got war in Afgan, problems in Iran, etc.

Assume that Microsoft is the Soviet-style power in this equation

History rarely repeat itself. It rhymes. So we can not be too sure who'll win the next phase (starting in 2012?), but we do know it's not the end of story...

Why Microsoft won't assault Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Nov 8, 2006 23:46 UTC (Wed) by ajross (subscriber, #4563) [Link]

The reasonable response to this, of course, is that Microsoft has never once been known to pursue a "detente" with anyone, ever*. Winning has historically been part of the corporate culture, not compromise, nor even cooperation. Now, is it possible that this has changed? Sure. But lacking further evidence you will have to forgive us in the open source world our paranoia.

*Maybe someone can come up with a good counterexample here. Certainly they have pursued partnerships in the past, but to my knowlege never with a company with whom they could be considered in competition. The closest I can come is the investment in Apple a few years back, but that was when they were under the shadow of an impending anti-trust verdict and had an affirmative need for "competition".

Why Microsoft won't assault Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Nov 9, 2006 0:20 UTC (Thu) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963) [Link]

Didn't they sign a similar deal with Sun a couple of years ago?

Why Microsoft won't assault Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Nov 9, 2006 16:23 UTC (Thu) by riel (subscriber, #3142) [Link]

And look what good it did Sun.

It appears that most of the software companies that went to bed with Microsoft ended up catching something nasty. The track record certainly isn't good...

They just blessed Mono, an open source version of the .NET runtime

Posted Nov 9, 2006 2:03 UTC (Thu) by kheine7 (guest, #41582) [Link]

I am interested in how so. If the license says Novell only then what about the other distributions that want to use the mono developed stuff, are they allowed or is it only for Novell client which is another way of saying 'Proprietary'.

Why Microsoft won't assault Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Nov 9, 2006 9:52 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

They put some money that way as they could hide their motive as agreeing with SCO over claimed IP rights, to those who didn't want to see this for what it was. MS would prefer to attack Linux using proxies for PR reasons, but there are limits to how something that isn't owned by any single person or company can be effectively attacked. If MS wants to retain any goodwill from those credulous enough to still have any, this limits the dirty tricks they can use.