At 05:11 even 9/24/02 -0700, Bhatt wrote:
>Microsoft Corp. has been losing market value rapidly(but it still is the
>number 1 software company) due to the advancement a much more "stable" and
>"secure" operating system called GNU/Linux.
It may be loosing some market share, but the loss of market value is more
related to the US economy going down. More on that must come from an
economist...
> Since the GNU/Linux operating system, licensed under the GPL is
> completely open source, *anybody* is allowed to *see* the code. Lets say
> that Microsoft, to stay at the top,
>employs a few developers who are skilled at both GNU/Linux and Windows.
>Microsoft, then asks them to write a clone of the linux kernel for
>incorporating large chunks of it, maybe even the kernel in its entirety,
>into the next version of windows.
IIRC others have done so, albeit legally. AFAIK, the Mac OSX is based on
the (:very) stable BSD kernel with their (Aqua?) GUI on top. Anyone have
more info on this?
> Since M$ is the still the leader, they have the highest market share.
> Now if almost everybody switches to the new version of windows(based on
> the linux kernel), they will be in for a pleasant surprise. They will now
> get a much more stable and secure OS, which unknown to them, is running a
> replica of the linux kernel. This new OS will please major IT companies,
> using M$, too, as they will not have scratch their heads over switching
> to a more stable operating environment. This will mean an increasing
> demand for the now, stable and secure, OS from Microsoft. Since all
> patches applied to OSS are open too, M$ can easily incorporate those into
> windows update.
sheez 8-@
A few things first. The choice of using Linux for many is the
'open' nature of the source code - stability & security come
second. Though on the PC scene and when compared with M$ windows,
GNU/Linux is indeed superior, for more robust & critical systems one would
prefer the traditional Unices - BSD, HP, Solaris or the IBM machines with
their preparatory OS's.
Secondly incorporating 'ideas' [read stealing] is not new to
Micro$oft. Not even MSDos was developed inhouse from scratch. Windows has
seen extremely bad days but they have the muscle, technical & monitory, to
upgrade it regularly [much to the pain of customers].
> My question is, (discounting the ethical and moral concerns as these
> cant be counted as legal arguments and assuming that M$ pays enough $$ to
> the developers to keep their mouth shut) what
> contract/law/clause/license/etc is there right now to prevent M$ from doing
>something as dastardly as this?
> P.S: i dont think that the GPL can be used at M$ is too smart at code
> obfuscation (i think it means obscuring source code) for people to be
> able to disassemble their OS and claim it to be a rip-off of linux.
The GNU/Linux uses mostly open standards. Due to this M$ would not have
any problems implementing them if they so wanted. But reimplementing the
kernel is not a cake walk. As for stealing it outright - it is not so
easy. Obscuring 'alf a million lines of source code is daft to say the
least. It will be easier to M$ to just patch up their own OS. Which is
goodish at present.
quasi
SSC pass.
'-)
_______________________________________________
http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
