Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NamedCompleted
    replied
    roothorick >What are they planning? I would suggest a slight backing up from specifics. Microsoft's initiatives teams have their own business missions. They operate with relative independence from any technical implementations. Put simply, the PR guys to PR, just like lawyers do law, and the resources are permitted significant time delays on any deliverable production. This means they don't have to 'have a plan'; They have plenty of account streams releasing them from any required production and delivery. Which is part of our complaint against EEE, obviously. That said, the plans will come together specifically where growth projects intersect with social, distribution, and media. Where this is likely to be used incidentally is in steering more web, video, streaming, and streaming codec and app content DRM framework. Google and Apple are already on this. So the 'how' to look out for becomes irrespective of GNU/Linux. It should be clear with RedHat/Poettering/systemd that: (1) once an agent is inside the institution, any process can be steered quite well, (2) this guiding of preference is best used in 'long marches' to influence the adaptation into an implementation with subsequent adoption of said implement into other applications, (3) regardless if Microsoft specifically performs it or not, this process is going to happen, and be reinforced by promoting co-dependency of account/revenue/donation streams, promoting further non-essential and non-technical hires, paradoxically promoting more make-work inefficiency and accounting losses (which justify more, etc), and the solution to choose whatever "just let this already done work pass" lazy attitude will prevail. It should also be noted that this -is- Microsoft, and Google, and Apple (though small teams resistant to this do exist in each of these companies), so the bridging PR between Microsoft and OSI to remove barriers and resistance simply ensures the flood of incompetence Microsoft experiences will flow into OSI faster than it otherwise would. This 'growth' will further ensure all projects will experience the same systemd-like failure (over decade duration if excruciatingly unlucky, drawing out falsehoods for far too long). In this way, it isn't so much specifically Microsoft itself, but the employees and global effects they pursue. This should answer your question for at least how to identify and spot whatever plans there are. The solution would be to build the walls back, but accounting desperation due to work inadequacies (often more imagined than real) will continue to remove such obstacles to inept personnel, thinking, and management (that are sorely needed now more than ever).

    Leave a comment:


  • Geopirate
    replied
    It seems a lot of people haven't been paying attention.

    Microsoft has a lengthy track record of following the direction of their CEO. Their previous CEO was particularly keen on the whole EEE thing, which I don't think anyone is confused about.

    Their current CEO seems to be taking things in a different direction. I'm not sure how many things have to happen before people start to peer out from under their tinfoil hats. He's an Azure guy and that's where they are making money and what he's interested in. He has a vested interest in cooperating because that's the only way for them to get usage of their software on other platforms.

    They redesigned .NET so that you can actually run most of their stuff, directly supported by them on Linux now. They seem to be trying to make as much as they can work with Azure on other platforms....

    They really aren't well positioned to Extinguish anything.....

    Leave a comment:


  • aht0
    replied
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

    You like then:
    - Download 3GB installer instead of 400MB Debian net installer
    If you have ANY sense, you'd download the iso and burn it on a disk. RW disc at that.
    You are also comparing apples and oranges. Netinstall vs standalone, which could be even bigger than ANY windows iso. Check OpenSuse iso sizes for example.
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    - to boot several times during install and wait a long time instead of single boot and fast install
    Plenty of Linuxes that boot multiple times during install.
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    - install drivers to get virus hoover to work instead of running operating system out of the box.
    Nah, like you'd get around drivers on linux. You might get, might not. And when you don't it's like 10^6 times annoying because you never know the extent some driver would work on Linux.
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    - watch blue and black screens instead of reading clear logs.
    Can't remember seeing last BSOD screen. Check your hardware. With bleeding edge Linux like 'Debian testing' (I assume you are singing your usual song) claiming stability is like calling us idiots. 'Testing software and stable'. Yeah, I got splendid piece of real estate for you in the swamp.
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    - install and remove software one by one instead of using Synaptic that allows you to choose like 1000 applications to install and remove at one time.
    - Use your time to figure software dependencies instead of using Debian packaging.
    Might be news for you but Windows does do automatic dependencies. Install all the NET packages and that's usually IT. Never seen dependency hell like you could run on Linux, where 2 pieces of software depend on third but different version of third, which goes into conflict with itself. Sorta common on Linux once user starts using custom repos.
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    - Install software from unsecured sources with viruses instead of using fast and virus free Debian servers around the world.
    You are absolute moron if you think Linux repositories are 'secure'. They run on trust. Windows, depending on settings, might not even let you run unsigned executables.
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    - Use time to virus protection and slow ui instead of using fast and virus free Debian testing Xfce
    HOW do you know they are virus free? Before indignant reply, seriously, think. Just how do you know, there are no viruses? It's like nobody bothered to check and it's all again running on trust. There are plenty of Linux malware in the wild and it's amount is steadily mounting.
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    - Not to change anything and use defragmenting and old file systems where is not even symbolic links.
    You are aware that SSDs are future and do not need defragmenting. In fact defragmenting would increase wear-and-tear on SSD?
    Symbolic links? Yeah why Linux file systems are not supporting alternate data streams? I could also pick out a feature and whine about it..

    debianxfce---- Originally you posted it in another thread where it was absolutely off-topic and unfit (Site discussion)
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

    Facts for you, annoying beginner: Debian "stable" is not stable, you can broke it with testing and sid packages. Debian "stable" uses very old and buggy software. Oibaf and Padoka ppa Mesa packages does not work with Debian "stable". Debian testing is stable modern rolling release os. MS is practicing rolling releases with the win10. The Xfce you can configure freely, so it is up to the user how the Xfce looks.
    You have the facts ass-backwards.

    Stable is "stable". Old, stable, tested code.
    "Debian Testing" is current development state of the next stable Debian distribution. "Testing" get's its packages from Debian UNSTABLE and with "Testing" you can only be sure in the following:
    • Package had been in the "Unstable" up to 10 days
    • The package does not contain already discovered critical bugs.
    • Arch of the particular package fits with the rest of the packages.
    There is no guarantee of stability, very much unlike you are claiming persistently. In fact, you are willfully lying to prospective readers and new Linux users, which may produce their disappointment in Linux and going back to Windows. Is that what you are after?

    With "Testing" you are required to accept the possibility of bugs, which may range from being minor irritants to major problems. It's the deal you are getting with ALL rolling-release distros. It's the nature of rolling releases. Because rolling releases are only 1 step from development itself.

    Producing "Stable" is the end-goal of Debian. Do you even understand that "Testing" is just 1 step towards reaching "Stable", which IS the whole point of it's existence? Do you understand the contradictions in your claims? "Testing" is flawless, "Stable" is old and buggy. When the "Stable" is behind the "Testing" in the development cycle, how in the hell bugs suddenly appeared in it? Out of thin air?

    XFCE is butt-ugly regardless of tuning. Mint has gotten it to nicest but it's still relatively ugly-looking. It's worst in HiDpi screens.
    Last edited by aht0; 09-30-2017, 09:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by alexvoda View Post
    Luke_Wolf, how does it feel to be the voice of reason?
    I had fun reading these 6 pages and observing how others confuse concepts, refuse to give answers and instead just reiterate their belief.
    Reason? He chose to ignore reason and then make up bullshit to excuse MS of all companies. I can post link after after link to all of MS infractions. They have years of history that he completely refuses to acknowledge.

    Leave a comment:


  • alexvoda
    replied
    Luke_Wolf, how does it feel to be the voice of reason?
    I had fun reading these 6 pages and observing how others confuse concepts, refuse to give answers and instead just reiterate their belief.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by roothorick View Post
    All the bickering about EEE is splitting hairs. The bottom line is Microsoft has a lengthy track record of sabotaging competition, real or perceived, in clandestine ways, and EEE is but one of dozens of tactics they have employed. The fact that their angle on the OSI is unclear only makes it more concerning. What are they planning? We're hard-pressed to guess. What prayer do we have of stopping it then?
    Le Gasp!

    You're right! this donation must be a grand conspiracy!

    Or... Not. Microsoft's game here is obviously that they want to make themselves look better in open source. Whether you believe that's part of some conspiracy to kill Open Source like duby, or whether you think their actions are benign... that and only that is what they are doing by making that donation. I can say that because the OSI doesn't really do anything of meaning in relation to Microsoft, particularly as the Microsoft Public and Reciprocal Licenses are already OSI approved. All the OSI does is approve licenses, and advocate for and educate on the use of Open Source Software. They don't develop anything, they don't run anything, there's no infrastructure that relies upon them... However doing this looks really nice, and that's clearly what Microsoft is after.

    Leave a comment:


  • roothorick
    replied
    All the bickering about EEE is splitting hairs. The bottom line is Microsoft has a lengthy track record of sabotaging competition, real or perceived, in clandestine ways, and EEE is but one of dozens of tactics they have employed. The fact that their angle on the OSI is unclear only makes it more concerning. What are they planning? We're hard-pressed to guess. What prayer do we have of stopping it then?

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post

    Like I said... I don't really care why EEE is being performed for the purposes of this argument, nor am I making a value judgement on it's usage, that's irrelevant to the discussion. You're simply giving rationale for why EEE is good in this instance. Which Blink absolutely was EEE to webkit and webkit absolutely was EEE to KHTML. However whether that's good, bad, or neutral is simply irrelevant.

    You have two claims here that I'm much more interested in:
    1. Microsoft can EEE a license advocacy organization.
    2. Copyleft cannot be subject to EEE while permissive is.

    Both of which are simply false. You can't extend or extinguish an advocacy organization, this is a tactic that relies on the existence of a product (there are other tactics that could be being employed such as "paid favors", but EEE is not one of them), and I've given multiple examples of EEE in open source and a variety of tactics that could be used if a company was truly hostile and doing the bare minimum to comply with licensing terms.
    You're thinking so narrow mindedly. MS is not trying to eee a single project or a single type of project, they are trying to eee open source its very self

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post

    No, you totally misunderstand, the reason webkit is dying is because it is absolutely gigantic. It performs badly on even the fastest hardware. It does render web interfaces beautifully, but stupidly slow. It is not something an end user is going to need, it's something web app developers need, and they already know how bad it performs. Khtml is in the same boat, but worse because it is horribly bugged. If you are considering either of them, then you are probably better off with qtwebengine. That's the honest truth and most people already know it. It has nothing to do with eee, it has everything to do with usability and the preferences of web app developers that need it.

    EDIT: It seems to me, if you had your preferences, then we'd all be stuck with one app in every category. And there would be no choice. That would horribly suck.
    Like I said... I don't really care why EEE is being performed for the purposes of this argument, nor am I making a value judgement on it's usage, that's irrelevant to the discussion. You're simply giving rationale for why EEE is good in this instance. Which Blink absolutely was EEE to webkit and webkit absolutely was EEE to KHTML. However whether that's good, bad, or neutral is simply irrelevant.

    You have two claims here that I'm much more interested in:
    1. Microsoft can EEE a license advocacy organization.
    2. Copyleft cannot be subject to EEE while permissive is.

    Both of which are simply false. You can't extend or extinguish an advocacy organization, this is a tactic that relies on the existence of a product (there are other tactics that could be being employed such as "paid favors", but EEE is not one of them), and I've given multiple examples of EEE in open source and a variety of tactics that could be used if a company was truly hostile and doing the bare minimum to comply with licensing terms.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    What -extend- means is to make incompatible. They can do that with BSD and similar licenses.
    no, what extend means is to make your own incompatible version. i.e. to make your own advocacy group and start advocating with incompatible features which is ridiculous idea. they just gave money.
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    Tell me, exactly why do you think MS killed Nokia? Let me tell you honestly, it didn't have shit to do with cell phones.
    ms didn't kill nokia. elop did kill nokia. because he had contract which paid $30 millions for doing that
    Last edited by pal666; 09-27-2017, 03:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X