5 ms·
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_... Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CE
by partycoder 8y ago
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_...
Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO said: "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches"
That is a direct attack to open source licensing and open source software.
Microsoft had to take that back after they were beaten in the market and lost popularity among developers.
Now it's plan B: govern open source projects and infrastructure and put them to the service of Microsoft interests. One way of doing that could be simply mismanaging them and setting them for failure.
- dboon 8y agoThat article is written using very inflammatory language -- I am very wary to take it at face value, because an author using this kind of language is very unlikely to deeply analyze what Ballmer actually said. Furthermore, this was said two decades ago. Take it with a grain of salt.
- partycoder 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... Some brief history refresher: - Apple + Microsoft "collaborating" on Macintosh software = Windows - IBM + Microsoft "collaborating" on OS/2 = the NT kernel, Windows NT - Sybase + Microsoft "collaborating" on Sybase SQL server = MS SQL Server - Sun + Microsoft "embracing" Java = .NET Framework "Take it with a grain of salt".
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoYou were downvoted... What in the hell is wrong with HN users? Are they all children? These events are well within living memory for a lot of us.
- partycoder 8y agoA lot of people do not have a perspective on how greedy Microsoft was. Bill Gates is one of the richest people in the world today, not by gathering in circles and singing happy songs. The guy was a monopolist. They wanted everyone to use Microsoft Windows, code in Visual Studio, do their office work in Office, browse the web in Internet Explorer, have a Microsoft e-mail, chat using Microsoft services, and you get the idea. And a lot of that was possible by having Windows preinstalled in new computers, and bundling software with Windows, like Internet Explorer. You could argue Apple is similar, but I do not think Apple is interested in a monopoly of the size of that planned by Microsoft.
- icebraining 8y agoThe Register is well known for its less stuffy style, it doesn't mean much. In any case, the original isn't hard to find: https://web.archive.org/web/20011108013601/http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html https://web.archive.org/web/20011108013601/http://www.suntim...
- earenndil 8y agoIt seems more an attack specifically on 'viral' licenses like the gpl than on oss in general.
- xfer 8y agoviral how? You think it's morally ok to just use others work without contributing back any improvements/disclosing it to make money?
- earenndil 8y agoI wasn't expressing my own opinion on such licenses; 'viral' is accepted terminology for licenses like the gpl that require derivative works to use the same license. However, if you would like an argument, then yes. Or, rather, I think it's morally ok for people to make software under any license they choose, including licenses that allow big companies to use their work. Personally, I use bsd-3 for most of what I write, and I support other people who do the same. I also bear no ill-will to people who use gpl or apache or mpl or what-have-you.
- xfer 8y ago> I think it's morally ok for people to make software under any license they choose Yes, you can make your own software under any license, GPL has no control over you. But it's not ok to fork a GPL software make internal changes and sell it like you wrote it. If that applied to linux, no hardware vendor would be contributing to linux.