Well that's a nice thought, but one has to keep in mind that their number one goal is remaining firmly seated in a position of control, and making sure nobody can threaten their monopoly.
It's inevitable IMHO that as they continue their conquest of the open source world, they will begin to argue for efficiency: "Sure, you can continue to run your open source apps on linux under microsoft windows, but it would be a lot simpler and more efficient to just cut out the middle man and run your open source apps directly on microsoft windows!"
Microsoft contributes Hyper-V drivers to the kernel
Posted Jul 20, 2009 18:42 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
[Link]
> It's inevitable IMHO that as they continue their conquest of the open source world, they will begin to argue for efficiency: "Sure, you can continue to run your open source apps on linux under microsoft windows, but it would be a lot simpler and more efficient to just cut out the middle man and run your open source apps directly on microsoft windows!"
Well yes. That is what they are doing, it's pretty obvious. For example they pay money to Apache and PHP folks and have worked to make PHP support Windows much better then it did in the past.
> Well that's a nice thought, but one has to keep in mind that their number one goal is remaining firmly seated in a position of control, and making sure nobody can threaten their monopoly.
Well their number one goal is to keep making money, and they probably do see that protecting their hegemony is critical to that.
But times change. It may become advantageous for Microsoft to stop competitors by starting to have a Linux distro of their own someday. :)
Microsoft's goals
Posted Jul 20, 2009 23:08 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054)
[Link]
[K]eep in mind that their number one goal is remaining firmly
seated in a position of control, and making sure nobody can
threaten their monopoly.
Keep in mind that their number one goal is to make the
maximum amount of money.
This is a requirement of being a publicly-owned corporation
in the U.S.
If they could make noticeably more profit by putting
Windows 7 under GPL v3, they'd do it.
So long as they're the almost-monopoly they are,
though,
it's unlikely that's how to increase profits.