Microsoft's Claims on Open Source

Somewhat recently Microsoft came forth to claim that Linux infringed on 235 patents that Microsoft owns. The validity of these claims depends on whether its willing to disclose those claims. According to Microsoft they do not wish to sue but to make licensing for the infringing patents. Anyone who doesn't see that its like blackmail without proof of the offensive behavior that someone is claiming to have seen you do. Granted when is IBM and others going to start a licensing program to have Microsoft pay up for that its infringing on. Microsoft can't be the only one who doesn't infringe on patents. Linus Torlvolds stated something to that fact in the last few days about how Microsoft needs to publicly disclose its claims for any amount of validity. further more they need to open their source to show that they themselves haven't infringed on age old patents. This is the only way that Microsoft's claims will be taken seriously. It should be pointed out that patents usually have a few requirements two of which I will get into for the purpose of this post. One requirement is that the patent in question not be obvious. For example a patent for jumping, people have been doing that for years and its a natural thought to jump. Second requirement I will mention is that there not be an occasion of prior art. Which basically means that if someone did it before and its published or there is proof then you can't patent it. Of course jumping is a good example of this as well because of all the people that jump and have proof in some way. Double click patent is one of the most infamous of such patents that should never have been granted. On both of those requirements I mentioned it fails miserably but its still a patent, owned by Microsoft in case you didn't know. Microsoft has been bullying people in this fashion for quite sometime and frankly people are tired of it. This is such a transparent attempt at keeping it's stake as a industry leader. Which is starting to fail before it began. For once in the history of Microsoft they are running scared. No more are they the sole leader that sets all the trends. Its become a more fair environment. There are those now willing to oppose Microsoft in its dealing without fear of repercussion. Dell is one who has started to oppose but needs to get off the ground by not bowing to the will of Microsoft. Recently they announced that they were going to offer Ubuntu pre-loaded PC's and not but a week or so later Microsoft was announcing at a Dell press conference that Dell and Microsoft were offering Linux Certificates for Suse Server environment in a partnership. Dell needed to just say no and start the trend of bucking the system so that maybe people will get their choice of environment they run specific to their needs. Maybe its time for Microsoft to become competitive in markets it doesn't dominate like every other company. If Steve Ballmer doesn't take Microsoft back to the basics of making good software they will flounder and die. If they don't stop with the ridiculous claims so as to try to get a strangle hold on the industry Companies will grow tired, drop Microsoft all together and call their bluff. One last thing I will say to Ballmer and Gutierrez is to put up or shut up, be open about the claims or stop making them not one is amused any longer.

Viability to Dell's option of Linux

For once an OEM has decided to offer Linux to users on a pre-built computer. There have been many debates and arguments on why windows is the better choice to cram down the consumers throats. On the idea storm site I witnessed every argument to why this would be bad. None of which had any validity.

First of which was that Users wont buy it if they haven't heard of Linux. Duh, of course but thats not who Dell is trying to cater to! They are trying to cater to well, me. Or more the point Users like me. Dell sees numbers in the amount of people willing to either use Linux or try Linux. Michael Dell himself uses Linux. So its no surprise that an OEM is finally willing to try out letting users decide on trying Linux or using it period to sell computers.

Second argument I saw was that Linux isn't ready for the desktop. This is true in only one respect that there wasn't an OEM that was willing to take the chance of hurting their position with Microsoft over installing an OS besides windows. If windows hadn't spent so many years being pre-installed it would be considered in the same manor as the current state of Linux. Linux has made great strides to make a move to get the credit it deserves. I wont say that Linux is windows, that just simply isn't true. But Linux is getting better and needs to be given the chance to be offered by an OEM. Some of the same reasons that people argue that Linux isn't ready obviously don't remember that windows wasn't in the greatest shape in it's beginning either. Really I can honestly say that people have forgotten what a hassle every Windows edition was until XP. The main thing that makes Linux so difficult is its not Windows. When you are used to an environment its hard to learn the new environment. Linux has its challenges but not ready for the desktop, hardly.

Lastly I have read the comments about distro choice. This is such and old argument its silly. I can understand that everyone has their favorite but its simply about numbers. Dell has a responsibility to customers to provide support. They opted for Ubuntu because of the level of support that its community offers and what Canonical offers itself. Other distro's haven't given support the kind of attention that Ubuntu has. I do mean of course commercial distro's. Dell in its responsibility isn't going to count on Suse or Red Hat to provide support for Newbie users. And community supported distro's don't have the reputation to sway a company to adopt it either. Ubuntu is rare in that its able to offer both a huge community support and even enough commercial support to be viable to use.

Linux has been ready for sometime to be a pre-installed option regardless of whether your grandmother can use it or if its a more tech savvy crowd. basically it amounts to whether it will be supported and supported well. There is not a reason you cant buy a Linux system for your grandmother her get the same usage from it that she would from windows. There has been the consumer presence to validate it but it needed to be reciprocal from the hardware, software manufacturers. There will always be the dissenters in the crowd who wish to see a truly open system and not be in the mainstream but that is the beauty of the choice you get with Linux. There can be the Linux for everyone and the Linux for one. I for one appreciate Dell's Choice in letting some of us who want either a pre-built system or a system that you can't build yourself like a laptop have an OS of our choice. Not having a choice is against the US way of consumerism and competition.

Overwhelming Outcry Dell we want Linux

We have been delivered an outlet to let Dell know that there are enough users that want Linux pre-installed. Dell opened a site giving people the opportunity to let them know what they want. In overwhelming numbers including myself the new thing people want to see from Dell is LINUX! It is about time Dell start taking the user base serious when they say it as well. I will not buy a system from any OEM until they start offering Linux pre-installed or some reasonable compromise. For too long the public has had Windows crammed down our throat. Now you dont even have the option of Windows XP just Vista. Consumer Choice is a good thing Dell. I can tell you that if they offer Ubuntu Fedora Core or OpenSuse my next home PC will be a Dell. If for some reason they offer notebooks with no OS or Linux I will replace my wifes old notebook with a Dell. This is what we as consumers want. I will give more credit to users that what most will in saying that even regular users can benefit from Linux at home. If all you do is surf email and word process a Linux OS will be fine. what more would they need.



http://www.dellideastorm.com/

Dell is finally selling OS Less PC's

I came across this not to long ago but i guess its something they have done for some time. But now you can buy a PC from Dell without an OS. This is great news for people like me. I can finally just buy a PC preassembled without having to pay the Microsoft tax. Here is the link Dell PC's N Series.


update: Apparently Dell has pulled the wool over my eyes! They are selling PC's with no OS at a higher price than the Windows equivalent or at least that is what it seems. They have made it difficult to compare the two by the custom options being completely different from each other. Which leads me to the conclusion that Dell doesn't want them to sell they just want people to think they are more expensive to keep those sales down.

Steve Balmer is the biggest piece of crap

Steve Balmer article


I want to start off by saying where does he get off saying Linux infringes on their innovation? I guess when you are the competing product you have to do something but outright lies probably isn't going to win any fans. Lets break this down, from the beginning Microsoft has either stole other peoples innovation or purchased it out right. I could only spend days reciting all the companies they have acquire to get their "innovation" or ripped of from. If it were possible for the makers of Unix to sue Microsoft they would win due to the TCP/IP stack "borrowed" from it. But thats not even the point this kind of rhetoric is pointless because if Microsoft actually had something they wouldn't partner with the company to make their financial gain they would sue and win. That is where they are at a loss. Microsoft cannot prove on one piece of code that it infringes on Microsoft's "intellectual property". If Mr. Balmer was to read this i would say one thing, Prove It! Hell Mr. Balmer the code is open and your staff cannot prove it. Sounds to me if i had that easy of a job proving it i would go ahead and sue a few people. I think big old microsoft is finally realizing that you cant control one hundred percent of the market forever. Eventually someone will come along with a better less expensive product. You either improve your product, make your product less expensive or get out of the way. Not to mention that when i install my OS at home I don't have to go through the hassle of registering it with you when I feel like re-installing it because I bought new hardware or have problems that warrant it. If i only had a pie to throw in your face! Mr. Balmer acts as if his company is the only ones to think of anything innovative. Well boo hoo you didn't think someone might be smarter than the people you hire.

Kernel Stability Discussion 2.4 vs 2.6

Kernel Version 2.6.17.1 was released this week. I use 2.6.13 on a Slackware machine for my personal Gaming and internet machine. A debate got started over stability in kernel 2.4 vs 2.6 where i felt that 2.6 was just as stable. This debate was ofcourse in a forum. Opinions differed as widely as they always do in a forum. Some explaining that 2.4 is in a maintenance cycle and 2.6 is in rapid development so that contributes to the stability of the new kernels. However in a practicle sense I feel 2.6 is stable enough for my own usage. Many Distros feel the same way and bundle thiers with the 2.6. Others though like i mentioned one being Slackware keeps itself on an older kernel for issues of stability. Debian "stable" is another that does this. Well i have come across distros that chose to stay further back. One in particular uses the 2.2 kernel. Now granted this is not a commonly used distro but an obscure one. Distrobutions should feel free to choose what ever kernel they want. That is one of the glorious things about Linux is the diversity in choices. You are free to choose what every options you want in a distro. Even when a distro doesnt meet your needs you can either customize it, build it from scratch or choose another that does. Linux from Scratch is one of those projects that shows you how. I always advise against developing another distro but creating your own personal distro from scratch I am in favor of. Just dont feel the need to release yet another distro. I will bring this all back around and say that its possible in all distrobutions to upgrade the kernel to a newer release so there is nothing to stop you from unfurling your wings. I feel for most average users 2.4 and 2.6 kernels are just as stable as each other on a standard basis. I think this was the concencious among all in the discussion over which they choose. I still plan on upgrading my core packages to 11 from the 10.2 version i currently run. I will of course still run a 2.6 kernel. I think my disatisfaction in Slackware is more inconvienence of having to go through so much trouble of installing the 2.6 kernel and upgrading the 2.4 packages (modules, alsa, etc) to the 2.6 kernel packages. I think that Pat would make things easier on us if in his installer if you choose a 2.6 kernel that it installs everything you need for the 2.6 kernel even if 2.4 is still default. I think it would help smooth the transition between kernel versions when it comes time for Pat to do so.