Microsoft Becomes A "Premium Sponsor" To The Open Source Initiative

[TheLexMachine]

Windows 10 is intended to be a multi-generational product that is updated regularly. So, the Windows 10 that you got this year will be updated with current features and tech six years from now, even if you install it 5 years and 347 days after you bought it on CD or USB or whatever. The equivalent for us would be a Linux LTR distro that just keeps on going and going with updates.

[eydee]

EEE in action..

Just came to check if the first comment is something like this. No surprises.

[gbcox]

And how ironic that the next article in my news feed following this Phoronix article was: Microsoft Brings it's GNULinux-Hostile Patent Scheme to China

Bottom line... don't kid yourself. Microsoft IS NOT a friend of Open Source. If they're are anything, it's a Trojan Horse.

[mphuZ]

Just came to check if the first comment is something like this. No surprises.

We are happy for you!

[duby229]

Windows 10 is intended to be a multi-generational product that is updated regularly. So, the Windows 10 that you got this year will be updated with current features and tech six years from now, even if you install it 5 years and 347 days after you bought it on CD or USB or whatever. The equivalent for us would be a Linux LTR distro that just keeps on going and going with updates.

Oh great, so instead of 300 binary updates, totaling no more than 200MB, that take more than 6 hours to install while thrashing the drive the entire time, it'll be thousands of them..... I can't imagine how much worse windows updates are gonna be. MS is going to have to do something about BITS.....

EDIT: I mean really, those updates are generally tiny and yet they thrash the drive horribly and take hours. wtf?

[theriddick]

Developer: This is my code, Microsoft: "Yes, this is my code! TM"

[Luke_Wolf]

Look up the definition of eee, It's Embrace, which is where we are now. Then it's Extend, which is to make it incompatible, and as long as they choose licensing like BSD or similar they can do that, And then it's Extinguish, which requires no explanation.

EDIT: That's why licensing with a copyleft is so important, it makes eee completely impossible.

Someone is shouting buzzwords without knowing what they mean...

Copyleft doesn't stop anyone from EEE tactics, all Microsoft would have to do is fork Linux into their own distribution and then use their manpower to make their version of everything better than everyone elses, but put no effort in upstreaming it, have private repos and just do a Source.tar.gz drop every patch tuesday with the entire distro's source in it. No version history, no nothing but the source. As long as they can keep ahead of their competition then it's easy to EEE under copyleft.

And this has happened multiple times in the real world, not with Microsoft but for example the Linux Router distros, dd-wrt was EEE'd by OpenWRT, which was in turn EEE'd by LEDE. Now you might say "Oh but those happened for good reason" and I don't really care, why they happened is besides the point, what matters is there are two dead router projects that were eaten by their successors who took their source code and forked them.

Now what you're proposing here however is that Microsoft is going to EEE the Open Source Initiative... how pray tell exactly do you think they can do that? They're an advocacy/lobbying group that endorses and reviews particular licenses... they don't develop software, they don't really do much of anything outside of their advocacy role... so... what are they going to extend here?

[duby229]

Someone is shouting buzzwords without knowing what they mean...

Copyleft doesn't stop anyone from EEE tactics, all Microsoft would have to do is fork Linux into their own distribution and then use their manpower to make their version of everything better than everyone elses, but put no effort in upstreaming it, have private repos and just do a Source.tar.gz drop every patch tuesday with the entire distro's source in it. No version history, no nothing but the source. As long as they can keep ahead of their competition then it's easy to EEE under copyleft.

And this has happened multiple times in the real world, not with Microsoft but for example the Linux Router distros, dd-wrt was EEE'd by OpenWRT, which was in turn EEE'd by LEDE. Now you might say "Oh but those happened for good reason" and I don't really care, why they happened is besides the point, what matters is there are two dead router projects that were eaten by their successors who took their source code and forked them.

Now what you're proposing here however is that Microsoft is going to EEE the Open Source Initiative... how pray tell exactly do you think they can do that? They're an advocacy/lobbying group that endorses and reviews particular licenses... they don't develop software, they don't really do much of anything outside of their advocacy role... so... what are they going to extend here?

You already admitted you don't care so there's no explanation needed. MS is clearly in their embrace role.

[Luke_Wolf]

You already admitted you don't care so there's no explanation needed. MS is clearly in their embrace role.

Look you, I know you can read so I really don't want to be doing this, but if you're going to pretend you can't... I'm just going to have to spell it out for you:

Why EEE happens doesn't matter, this is an irrelevancy... it happens in software proprietary, copyleft, and permissive for better and for worse... however... what I'd like you to explain to me is just how you think an advocacy organization that doesn't actually deal in code or really have any product at all and instead just lobbies for open source and reviews licenses can fall prey to EEE.

[duby229]

Look you, I know you can read so I really don't want to be doing this, but if you're going to pretend you can't... I'm just going to have to spell it out for you:

Why EEE happens doesn't matter, this is an irrelevancy... it happens in software proprietary, copyleft, and permissive for better and for worse... however... what I'd like you to explain to me is just how you think an advocacy organization that doesn't actually deal in code or really have any product at all and instead just lobbies for open source and reviews licenses can fall prey to EEE.

Let me tell YOU one more time.... MS is clearly in their -embrace- role. Duh.

I like how you retardedly equated forking open source projects as eee. It's kinda the whole fucking point. Open source philosophy of any kind wouldn't even be possible if you couldn't. We have LEDE because of it. We have Libreoffice because of it. We have xorg because of it. We have cinnamon because of it. I can go on and on. Please get real.