[Gllug] Microsoft was distributing Ubuntu

Richard Jones rich at annexia.org
Tue Jun 26 10:31:28 UTC 2007

On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 11:27:06PM +0100, Bernard Peek wrote:
> In message <20070625114512.GA22040 at furbychan.cocan.org>, Richard Jones 
> <rich at annexia.org> writes
> >They wouldn't muscle _in_ on Linux because the license prevents them
> >from embracing and extended the code,
> It doesn't. Microsoft could embrace and extend the Linux kernel, 
> effectively forcing all of the other distros to re-engineer their own 
> kernels to maintain compatibility with the new de facto standard. They 
> could throw in some binary components that everyone else would have to 
> license and make some money.

Right, so your position is that Microsoft will blatantly disregard the
law and the licensing terms of the kernel.

> The recent patent agreements haven't been made to protect Linux distros 
> from patent issues. They have been created so that Microsoft can produce 
> its own Linux without fear of lawsuits.

Microsoft are going to introduce their own Linux?  This is a good
troll ...

> > and because there is no way that
> >Microsoft could turn around the company and become a pure support
> >organisation which could compete with the likes of IBM, Red Hat, etc.
> Bill Gates executed a similar turnaround when Silicon Valley told him 
> about the Internet. A friend of mine was in the audience and watched it 
> all happen. It took Microsoft six weeks to become an Internet based 
> company. Don't underestimate them.

They didn't "become an internet based company".  They bought a browser
off someone else and released it, then worked hard to bundle their
proprietary stuff into it (the exact opposite of the cooperation that
the web was designed to foster), and illegally leveraged their Windows
deals with ISVs to ensure that every ISV had Microsoft's browser on
the desktop, cutting off Netscape's air supply.

> >Their culture is proprietary, in-house, Windows, uncooperative.  It's
> >almost directly the opposite of what is needed to collaborate with
> >upstream developers to build supportable solutions in a Unix culture.
> They don't have to collaborate with upstream developers, there aren't 
> going to be any.

What are you on about ...

> >Anyhow, the signs are that Microsoft are efficiently putting
> >themselves out of business at the moment, so I'm not too worried.
> Their current business isn't supportable in the long term because Linux 
> is holding down their margin on new sales, and Vista isn't the success 

Ha ha.  Microsoft have a ~ 80% margin on Windows sales.  (86% in 2002,
77% in 2006).

> they badly needed. But their exit plan has been up and running for 
> nearly ten years now, I expect to see the results - at a guess Microsoft 
> Linux in October 2008 (except that it won't use the Linux kernel.)

Oh man, well I guess we've just got 14 months to wait to see how
ridiculous your prediction is.


Richard Jones
Red Hat
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk

More information about the GLLUG mailing list