4 ms·

I remember a certain Microsoft executive stating: "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches" Times ha

I remember a certain Microsoft executive stating: "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches" Times have changed, however it's reasonable to question if the Microsoft DNA radically changed or "not really".

onion2k 8y ago
That was Steve Ballmer, and he was talking about how using libraries licensed under the GPL affects the software built on it. His words were very poorly chosen[1] but his sentiment is actually one that a lot of people in open source seemingly agree with - we have the LGPL and many other licenses because people don't agree that the way one dependency is licensed should affect the whole application. [1] 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_...
- syshum 8y ago
  What you see there is the different between open source and Free Software Free Software is a ethical movement and position around software and information Open Source is a business model for collaborative development where most often the end product is not open but the tools used to create the end product are. Thus you can not use Copy-left Licenses if you intend to close source your final product. Free Software is about Developer and User freedom Open Source is about developer freedom exclusively Ballmer's Microsoft disliked both Open Source and Free Software. Today's Microsoft sees the profitability that can some from Free labor of open source, but continues to be Hostile to Free Software
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    Holy crap this thread is getting absurd. > Today's Microsoft sees the profitability that can some from Free labor of open source, but continues to be Hostile to Free Software Microsoft donates more dev time to open source then they will EVER get out of their own use of it. But sure, let's pretend the multi-billion dollar company is spending billions upon billions on open source in order to save money. That makes SO much sense!
    - hashkb 8y ago
      > Microsoft donates more dev time to open source then they will EVER get out of their own use of it. This can't be true, or they wouldn't be doing it. They put dollar signs on positive attention. Obviously.
    - syshum 8y ago
      That is laughably and provably wrong. One primary example of them "donating" dev time is their Advancment of the Linux Kernal of which they have "become a top contributor" like the article says. Why did they do this? To make Linux a First Class citizen on Azure so they can take on AWS... they did not "donate" this work out of some ethical kindness or wanting to "give back to the community" they did it to make money on Azure. Every single one of the Open Source projects and initiatives can be traced to the same monetary reason, and largely traced to get Linux to work with some MS Commercial product of some kind, be is Azure or some other product.
      - jhall1468 8y ago
        > Why did they do this? To make Linux a First Class citizen on Azure so they can take on AWS... they did not "donate" this work out of some ethical kindness or wanting to "give back to the community" they did it to make money on Azure. Are you as virulent towards people that donate their time for recognition or their resume? Nobody doesn't anything altruistically. Microsoft doesn't have to either. > Every single one of the Open Source projects and initiatives can be traced to the same monetary reason VS Code and open sourcing their closed source .NET modules? Those are about building trust in the dev community. They have no direct correlation with profit. And even if they did that's ok. > Azure or some other product. So?
        syshum 8y ago
        >Nobody doesn't anything altruistically. Microsoft doesn't have to either. I nave claimed they did. That is the claim that was made, MS is "donating more time then they will ever get out" that was the claim That is factually incorrect. They are getting more value from the Dev time they are putting into open source projects thus it is incorrect to say they are "donating" it, nor are they "giving more than they are getting" which was the comment I was replying to, You can attempt to strawman and move the goal posts if you desire but it does not change reality
abiox 8y ago
wasn't that quote about gpl's virality rather than about linux?

onion2k 8y ago

That was Steve Ballmer, and he was talking about how using libraries licensed under the GPL affects the software built on it. His words were very poorly chosen[1] but his sentiment is actually one that a lot of people in open source seemingly agree with - we have the LGPL and many other licenses because people don't agree that the way one dependency is licensed should affect the whole application. [1] 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_...

syshum 8y ago
What you see there is the different between open source and Free Software Free Software is a ethical movement and position around software and information Open Source is a business model for collaborative development where most often the end product is not open but the tools used to create the end product are. Thus you can not use Copy-left Licenses if you intend to close source your final product. Free Software is about Developer and User freedom Open Source is about developer freedom exclusively Ballmer's Microsoft disliked both Open Source and Free Software. Today's Microsoft sees the profitability that can some from Free labor of open source, but continues to be Hostile to Free Software
- jhall1468 8y ago
  Holy crap this thread is getting absurd. > Today's Microsoft sees the profitability that can some from Free labor of open source, but continues to be Hostile to Free Software Microsoft donates more dev time to open source then they will EVER get out of their own use of it. But sure, let's pretend the multi-billion dollar company is spending billions upon billions on open source in order to save money. That makes SO much sense!
  - hashkb 8y ago
    > Microsoft donates more dev time to open source then they will EVER get out of their own use of it. This can't be true, or they wouldn't be doing it. They put dollar signs on positive attention. Obviously.
  - syshum 8y ago
    That is laughably and provably wrong. One primary example of them "donating" dev time is their Advancment of the Linux Kernal of which they have "become a top contributor" like the article says. Why did they do this? To make Linux a First Class citizen on Azure so they can take on AWS... they did not "donate" this work out of some ethical kindness or wanting to "give back to the community" they did it to make money on Azure. Every single one of the Open Source projects and initiatives can be traced to the same monetary reason, and largely traced to get Linux to work with some MS Commercial product of some kind, be is Azure or some other product.
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      > Why did they do this? To make Linux a First Class citizen on Azure so they can take on AWS... they did not "donate" this work out of some ethical kindness or wanting to "give back to the community" they did it to make money on Azure. Are you as virulent towards people that donate their time for recognition or their resume? Nobody doesn't anything altruistically. Microsoft doesn't have to either. > Every single one of the Open Source projects and initiatives can be traced to the same monetary reason VS Code and open sourcing their closed source .NET modules? Those are about building trust in the dev community. They have no direct correlation with profit. And even if they did that's ok. > Azure or some other product. So?
      - syshum 8y ago
        >Nobody doesn't anything altruistically. Microsoft doesn't have to either. I nave claimed they did. That is the claim that was made, MS is "donating more time then they will ever get out" that was the claim That is factually incorrect. They are getting more value from the Dev time they are putting into open source projects thus it is incorrect to say they are "donating" it, nor are they "giving more than they are getting" which was the comment I was replying to, You can attempt to strawman and move the goal posts if you desire but it does not change reality

abiox 8y ago

wasn't that quote about gpl's virality rather than about linux?