Microsoft hypocrites: "there needs to be greater openness and choice for customers"

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Homer

unread,
Dec 4, 2010, 10:43:38 AM12/4/10
to
More aggressive moves and hypocrisy from the Vole:

[quote]
Microsoft has made an investment in TurboHercules, a small French
software company whose complaint of anticompetitive business practices
against IBM helped to stir up a European investigation into the US
computer group.

...

Microsoft sought to depict its investment as a natural alliance.
“Microsoft shares TurboHercules’ belief that there needs to be greater
openness and choice for customers in the mainframe market,” it said.
“Customers tell us that they want greater interoperability between the
mainframe and other platforms, including systems that run Windows
Server. For that reason, we continue to invest in companies like
TurboHercules to develop new solutions for our mutual customers.”

The move echoes investments Microsoft has made in companies that have
become thorns in IBM’s side. For instance, T3, which complained about
IBM’s behaviour in the mainframe market, also had Microsoft as an
investor. The software company also put money into PSI, which complained
to Brussels over the mainframe market, though it was eventually bought
out by IBM.

In another current case, three complaints were made about Google’s
behaviour in the online search market. One came from a company owned by
Microsoft and another from a member of a trade group in which Microsoft
has a strong hand.
[/quote]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0fe173d8-ff19-11df-956b-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=9a36c1aa-3016-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html

Slimy bastards.

--
K. | Ancient Chinese Proverb:
http://slated.org | "The road to Hell is paved with
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | ignorant twits who know nothing
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 1 day | about GNU/Linux."

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

unread,
Dec 4, 2010, 7:34:44 PM12/4/10
to
In message <a64qs7-...@sky.matrix>, Homer wrote:

> More aggressive moves and hypocrisy from the Vole:
>
> [quote]

> Microsoft has made an investment in TurboHercules ...

I dunno, money is money, it doesn’t matter whose money it is. TurboHercules
could do with the investment, and just so long as the software remains Free,
Microsoft cannot use it to stifle competition or control anybody.

In other words, so what if Microsoft is only doing this to spite IBM? :)

Homer

unread,
Dec 5, 2010, 4:31:08 AM12/5/10
to
Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:

> In message <a64qs7-...@sky.matrix>, Homer wrote:
>
>> More aggressive moves and hypocrisy from the Vole:
>>
>> [quote]
>> Microsoft has made an investment in TurboHercules ...
>
> I dunno, money is money, it doesn’t matter whose money it is.

Money is also influence, the sort of influence that determines the
future roadmap for a software project, and how well supported a target
platform remains, if at all. At which point the apparent security of
investment suddenly takes on a rather different meaning. Just take
Microsoft's "investment" in Novell, as one of the prime examples, or
Microsoft's acquisition of GECAD's RAV Antivirus, as another. Microsoft
has the antithesis of the Midas touch: everything they touch turns to
shit.

Microsoft's subversive business tactics are extremely well documented,
so it should be assumed that everything they do, no matter how
ostensibly benign, has an ulterior and sinister purpose. That purpose is
not exactly a big secret: they have the single-minded goal of destroying
all competition, to monopolise the software market, ensuring the
suppression of choice, thus guaranteeing sales of their second-rate
products, whilst greedily hoarding all the wealth to themselves. In more
enlightened times, people would have described this as racketeering.

> TurboHercules could do with the investment

Given the source of that investment, bankruptcy might be preferable.

> and just so long as the software remains Free

Current releases cannot be retroactively re-licensed, so in that sense
the software will always be Free, but the copyright owners do have the
right to re-license future releases, and moreover they also have the
right to form allegiances with other companies ... some of whom may have
a decidedly anti-Linux agenda, like Microsoft.

> Microsoft cannot use it to stifle competition or control anybody.

I wouldn't count on it.

> In other words, so what if Microsoft is only doing this to spite IBM?
> :)

I sincerely doubt that's their only motive. Microsoft only cares about
one thing: securing profit through monopolisation. What profit is there
in "spiting IBM"?

Given Microsoft's recent actions, and comments from Steve Jobs at Apple,
it's clear there's an orchestrated effort under way to begin a major
assault on Free Software, using patents; acquisitions; lobbying; and any
other means at these corporate thug's disposal. Nothing is
insignificant. Every move takes them one step closer to check-mate,
unless somebody makes a move to stop them.

flatfish+++

unread,
Dec 5, 2010, 4:42:02 AM12/5/10
to
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 09:31:08 +0000, Homer wrote:


> Given Microsoft's recent actions, and comments from Steve Jobs at Apple,
> it's clear there's an orchestrated effort under way to begin a major
> assault on Free Software,

Nurse Ratchet!
We need more medication in Mr. [Homer]'s room.
Stat!


--
flatfish+++
Mariana Trench.
Desktop Linux doesn't suck, it's just ignored.
Here are Linux desktop usage figures:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/69108

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

unread,
Dec 6, 2010, 12:59:03 AM12/6/10
to
In message <sn2ss7-...@sky.matrix>, Homer wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:
>
>> In message <a64qs7-...@sky.matrix>, Homer wrote:
>>
>>> More aggressive moves and hypocrisy from the Vole:
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>> Microsoft has made an investment in TurboHercules ...
>>
>> I dunno, money is money, it doesn’t matter whose money it is.
>
> Money is also influence, the sort of influence that determines the

> future roadmap for a software project ...

I never heard of the direction of an open-source project being dictated by
who was supplying the funding. The usual rule is “they who write the code,
make the rules”.

>> ... and just so long as the software remains Free


>
> Current releases cannot be retroactively re-licensed, so in that sense
> the software will always be Free, but the copyright owners do have the

> right to re-license future releases ...

But those copyright owners are the community who contributed code to the
project.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

unread,
Dec 6, 2010, 12:59:22 AM12/6/10
to
In message <enp45uc3rjew$.1vfz04jeezxzh$.d...@40tude.net>, flatfish+++ wrote:

> Stat!

What does that mean?

Homer

unread,
Dec 6, 2010, 6:57:56 AM12/6/10
to
Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:
> In message <sn2ss7-...@sky.matrix>, Homer wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:
>>> In message <a64qs7-...@sky.matrix>, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>>> More aggressive moves and hypocrisy from the Vole:
>>>>
>>>> [quote]
>>>> Microsoft has made an investment in TurboHercules ...
>>>
>>> I dunno, money is money, it doesn’t matter whose money it is.
>>
>> Money is also influence, the sort of influence that determines the
>> future roadmap for a software project ...
>
> I never heard of the direction of an open-source project being
> dictated by who was supplying the funding. The usual rule is “they who
> write the code, make the rules”.

I think you're being naive. Even the Linux kernel, which probably has
more contributors than any other Free Software project, has been heavily
biased towards optimisation for the enterprise customers who funded it
(e.g. Intel). This is exactly what prompted people like Con Kolivas to
develop patches to better support desktop systems, and why the core
developers' reactions to those kinds of changes was so hostile.

http://apcmag.com/why_i_quit_kernel_developer_con_kolivas.htm

>>> ... and just so long as the software remains Free
>>
>> Current releases cannot be retroactively re-licensed, so in that
>> sense the software will always be Free, but the copyright owners do
>> have the right to re-license future releases ...
>
> But those copyright owners are the community who contributed code to
> the project.

That's good protection against software becoming non-Free, if there's a
sufficiently large number of contributors, and that which is contributed
cannot easily be replaced by a future owner. In the case of the Hercules
s390 emulator however, most of the work can be attributed to just two
men: Roger Bowler and Jay Maynard, and the license is already
incompatible with the GPL (Q Public License).

It's not exactly unknown for Free Software to be relicensed. Take Jörg
Schilling's cdrecord, for example. Nor is it unusual for companies to
buy Free Software projects (e.g. CUPS), then offer non-Free versions of
them (e.g. MySQL and Qt). In some cases, Free Software developers have
(or gradually develop) a bias towards certain platforms, then stop
working on the ports for others (e.g. Songbird). Amarok seems to be
heading in the same direction, given the crippling changes they
implemented just to gain compatibility with the Windows platform.

I'm not suggesting that the Hercules emulator is likely to suddenly
become non-Free, I'm merely suggesting that when corporate thugs like
Microsoft get involved in anything then it's for no good reason, and
invariably spells trouble. The exact nature of that trouble has yet to
be determined but, for example, their involvement in XEN, via their new
"partners" Citrix, resulted in an aggressive campaign to squeeze Red Hat
from the server virtualisation space.

The fact is Microsoft spent that money for a reason, and their "reasons"
are never well motivated.

--
K. | Ancient Chinese Proverb:
http://slated.org | "The road to Hell is paved with
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | ignorant twits who know nothing

kernel 2.6.31.5, up 2 days | about GNU/Linux."

Chris Ahlstrom

unread,
Dec 6, 2010, 8:52:12 AM12/6/10
to
Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:

> The fact is Microsoft spent that money for a reason, and their "reasons"
> are never well motivated.
>
> --

> | Ancient Chinese Proverb:


> | "The road to Hell is paved with

> | ignorant twits who know nothing

> | about GNU/Linux."

Heh!

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

unread,
Dec 6, 2010, 5:47:04 PM12/6/10
to
In message <4nvus7-...@sky.matrix>, Homer wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:
>

>> I never heard of the direction of an open-source project being
>> dictated by who was supplying the funding. The usual rule is “they who
>> write the code, make the rules”.
>
> I think you're being naive. Even the Linux kernel, which probably has
> more contributors than any other Free Software project, has been heavily
> biased towards optimisation for the enterprise customers who funded it
> (e.g. Intel). This is exactly what prompted people like Con Kolivas to
> develop patches to better support desktop systems, and why the core
> developers' reactions to those kinds of changes was so hostile.

Who says the Linux kernel doesn’t already work well for desktop systems?
Look at the recent auto-cgroup patch which is generating so much interest,
people are already jumping to try it out even before it makes it into an
official kernel release.

People are free to try out Con Kolivas’ patches, and adopt them if they
really are worthwhile. If the existing kernel developers really were
deliberately holding back development, then like any open-source project the
kernel would fork, quicker than you could say “vendor lock-in”. I don’t see
that happening.

> It's not exactly unknown for Free Software to be relicensed. Take Jörg
> Schilling's cdrecord, for example.

Which was forked. A fork is your ultimate defence against the original
owners of the software being arseholes.

> Nor is it unusual for companies to buy Free Software projects (e.g. CUPS),
> then offer non-Free versions of them (e.g. MySQL and Qt).

MySQL has already forked because of Oracle’s stupidity. Apple, whatever its
behaviour might be like elsewhere, hasn’t managed to screw up CUPS yet. And
Nokia still seems to be doing the right thing with Qt.

> In some cases, Free Software developers have (or gradually develop) a bias
> towards certain platforms, then stop working on the ports for others (e.g.
> Songbird).

That’s where most of their users are, so that seems perfectly reasonable.
Linux seems to have a wider variety of media players, probably because it
offers a more open underlying foundation to build on (e.g. GStreamer).

> Amarok seems to be heading in the same direction, given the crippling
> changes they implemented just to gain compatibility with the Windows
> platform.

What changes?

> The fact is Microsoft spent that money for a reason, and their "reasons"
> are never well motivated.

I’m concerned less with their motivations than with what they are physically
capable of doing. They have a long history of either absorbing or destroying
other companies which conformed to the same proprietary-software rules as
they do; but Free Software doesn’t play by those rules.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages