Microsoft was the biggest presence at a recent Linux conference in Washington. Your thoughts?
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
Linux Fest Northwest, which is a yearly conference in Washington state, has grown a lot over the years. Not only in growth of attendees, but also corporate sponsors. This year, one of the biggest sponsors and presence there is Microsoft, which is giving off the impression that they heart Linux and they are big supporters of open source software.
We all it is a business decision and a business decision alone to get Linux users to like them better and use their .NET platform on Linux. They have been releasing source code for parts of their .NET stack, but as we all know, they aren't releasing ALL of it and are very selective in what is open and not. They are keeping their most important code locked down as non-free software to keep vendor lock-in to their platform for developers and/or corporate users.
Here's a video where they interview someone at Microsoft during the fest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWpzbBHDlU8&t=24m13s
Thoughts? I'd be curious to see what jxself has to say about it since he lives in the Seattle, WA area and is well aware of the influence that Microsoft continues to have in that area.
Oh and if you want the WebM file instead of Youtube, the direct link is http://201406.jb-dl.cdn.scaleengine.net/las/2015/linuxactionshowep362-432p.webm
You will have to fast forward to the 24 minute and 13 second mark.
I guess a big part of it is fighting free software tooth and nail. They realized they can't win so they try to water the thing down to open source.
What is implied are non-copyleft licenses or copyleft licenses that are incompatible with the GPL. And calling the operating system "Linux".
Divide and conquer.
1.) Most of their code is under the MIT license
2.) I used "Linux" since the conference was named "Linux Fest" and when GNU/Linux was referenced as a whole during the show and the interview, it was just "Linux" so I kept the naming.
If Microsoft release complete programs under GPL I have no problem. But if they release part of a program under GPL but that code is depended on proprietary software or service I have a problem.
Microsoft is like a slimy boss or politician that tries to act like a buddy or friend but you know is an asshole. Their is a plan behind their buddy behavior. No matter how good Microsoft act we all know it is pure evil inside at the core. As Google, Facebook, Apple and other global companies. They always want to be in control and use all they can to keep the power. Instead of releasing the source code of a outdated old program to the public they prefer to kill it to force people to go their way.
I am a translator!
I prefer if they stay far far away..
Embrace, extend, and extinguish.
I totally agree with SuperTramp83, for me it's like trying to destroy the system from within... bad behavior/strategy
I have now seen the program and the first Microsoft guy seemed to be a genuine good guy trying to do the best in the Microsoft world.
What I am happy about this is that customers to Microsoft want Linux and Microsoft can no longer say no to them. Their customers isnt satisfied with Microsofts software. Microsoft dominance is breaking. This force Microsoft to employ people and work with Linux and its flexibility and integrate at least the open source thinking closer to Microsofts core. Microsoft is forced to use what it thinks is a poison.
Just hope that the "open source" distraction will loose it's grip and more people will start thinking in freedom and change thinking and to free software and GNU+Linux.
Good plug for Think Penguin that gave Angela penguin sticker.
It is part of their plan and Microsoft is not alone. Microsoft, Google and Apple all use the opensource community for their ideas, they take, take and take more, then contribute little to nothing back. Google contributes some back.
The end game for all three is for the opensource world to go back to being only for the domain of hackers, fine with that actually.
Look at what Microsoft did several years ago with Novell/SUSE, they still control that company and by extension openSUSE as well.
Even RedHat cannot be fully trusted as they are beginning to dictate to the opensource community of how things should be, ie systemd, gnome3, SELinux etc... Whether you like systemd or gnome3, you cannot deny they were forced on the larger community by RedHat.
This is one more reason why truly free distros need to be supported, and yes, I do include Debian in this category. Their 20+ year stance cannot be argued with.
Whether you like systemd or gnome3, you cannot deny they were forced on the larger community by RedHat.
Unless you provide evidences (references) that RedHat "forced" systemd and GNOME 3 onto Debian, I would deny...
Notice that Debian has been using GNOME as its default desktop since GNOME 1 and systemd was adopted after a long technical discussion and a vote by the the Debian Technical Committee.
Hey Magic,
One is how quickly programs were tightly integrated into systemd, according to some developers the integration was required. In other words, many programs are so tightly integrated with systemd that if you remove systemd those new programs will no longer work. I would qualify that as forcing it on the community.
Same with SELinux...Even though SELinux is not enabled by default on Debian and its derivatives, it still includes some of the libraries etc... Why even do that, most likely because RedHat is going to force a fork in the road for GNU/Linux, those that use SELinux and those that do not. And Debian seems to be moving slowly, their method, towards SELinux.
RedHat has a much larger influence on the larger community than alot of people are comfortable with or willing to admit.
Again, not saying that systemd is bad or that SELinux is terrible, just stating that they were not community decisions.
This would probably be a seperate post though. :)
I've seen a lot of applications which depend on the X Window System. Does this mean X is being "forced" on the community? I don't think so. Programmers choose what other programs their programs depend on for all kinds of reasons, but I don't think some sort of conspiracy to "force" the dependency on others is one of them.
Another example: I, as a Python developer, prefer Python 3 over Python 2. If I write a Python 3 program that doesn't work on Python 2, it's not because the Python developers are trying to force people who don't like Python 3 to use Python 3! All the Python developers did was appeal to me with the improvements in Python 3 over Python 2. In other words, they wrote better software. I don't think writing better software is a bad thing, or a sign of something bad (unless that better software is proprietary, but neither systemd nor GNOME 3 is proprietary).
Interesting comparison, but not the same thing.
Systemd complaints are not based on a language or X Window System functions. It was/is based on the principle that Unix and GNU/Linux programs are supposed to be designed to do one thing and do that one thing well.
Systemd is a program that literally runs the entire system, more Microsoft in nature than Unix or GNU/Linux. That is why the old developers are still upset and the newer ones are not, because they do not understand the underlying fundamental change that occurred, and yes that change came down from RedHat. Even some Debian dev.'s are considering a systemd free fork etc...
systemd is not a program. It is more of a software suite. systemd literally provides dozens of small binaries that rely on common libraries. Only one of them is PID 1.
"It was/is based on the principle that Unix and GNU/Linux programs are supposed to be designed to do one thing and do that one thing well." I really don't see how GNU was supposed to be designed around the do one thing and do it well thing. I don't think they care about anything other than fredom and compatibility with UNIX programmes.
You said:
"[M]any programs are so tightly integrated with systemd that if you remove systemd those new programs will no longer work. I would qualify that as forcing it on the community."
You described a dependency on systemd components as "forcing [systemd] on the community". I brought up X because X is a dependency of a lot more programs than any systemd component. Who's trying to force X on the community?
People are writing programs that depend on systemd components (I think logind is the most common one, but I'm not sure) because they're useful for one reason or another. Not because Red Hat is trying to "force" anyone to use it. That idea is just conspiratorial garbage.
> the principle that Unix and GNU/Linux programs are supposed to be designed to do one thing and do that one thing well.
... and GNU Emacs is a clear example of this principle. ;)
I don't understand why they think they can earn our trust by buying a
cake for Debian after nearly two decades of anticompetitive behavior.
One is how quickly programs were tightly integrated into systemd, according to some developers the integration was required.
What are those "programs" you are talking about? Maybe GNOME Session that now uses logind rather than ConsoleKit? Well, ConsoleKit is not maintained anymore. That is even written in bold face on its Web page: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/ConsoleKit/
Why even do that, most likely because RedHat is going to force a fork in the road for GNU/Linux, those that use SELinux and those that do not.
You are aware that SELinux was merged into Linux (where RedHat certainly has some influence but is not "dominant") some 12 years ago and that, until now, we have GNU/Linux distributions such as Debian and its derivatives that do not use it by default? How is that "forking GNU/Linux" (whatever that means)?
RedHat has a much larger influence on the larger community than alot of people are comfortable with or willing to admit.
RedHat contributes a lot to free software projects upstream (the Linux kernel, GNOME, OpenJDK, LibreOffice, etc.). And many distributions adopt their work what gives RedHat much influence. I am "willing to admit it". But, again, I see no evidence that Red Hat is "forcing" anything. I would not even say that RedHat is dominating any of the projects I listed above.
That is to be compared with Canonical Ltd. The company behind Ubuntu only contributes to its own projects (Upstart, Unity, Mir, Bazaar, etc.) that, apparently, nobody wants (Upstart was abandoned, Bazaar is dying, only Ubuntu uses Unity by default, Mir is repetitively postponed and nobody but Canonical pushes it because Wayland is better, etc.). Not to mention that, contrary to RedHat, Canonical imposes CLAs (it can relicense your contribution under a proprietary license). And Canonical has a past of not releasing all the code its employees write (it took more than four years for Canonical to release Launchpad under a free software license).
Isn't there a rumor floating around that if Canonical was friendlier with their Upstart CLAs that systemd wouldn't have been created? At the time, it was considered to be better than SysV and even Red Hat adopted it for RHEL6 and CentOS 6.
Canonical has a habit of being really bad with their CLAs and their free software lives in a GPL licensed bubble. Many developers don't want to give their changes back to Canonical for free as Canonical has the intention to re-license copylefted GPL code you contributed as non-free. Canonical feels the need to do this for their support customers and phones.
I actually liked the convenience of Upstart where I created a basic script, threw it in /etc/init/ and called it a day. I would easily run NodeJS and Python web applications as system processes. I have no clue how easily systemd scripts will be to drop in and be simple system processes for my web applications.
If that was the case, Upstart would have just been forked. The reason systemd was developed is the initial developer of systemd didn't believe Upstart ultimately did the job right, and figured it would be best to start over from scratch.
Microsoft wants to steal the headlines and look cool with the kids. Nowadays embracing "open-source" is a PR stunt to make people see your company positively.
Take Debian's newest release for example. Microsoft stole all the media attention by sending the Debian team a birthday cake.
According to that video I linked, they wooed people with food, beer, and "after parties" to show how "cool" they are now.
I'd be curious if jxself or anyone else who is a part of this community went to one of the Microsoft parties.
This isn't really surprising. Microsoft seems to be throwing around a
lot of money at 'open source events'.
A few years ago I went along to a meeting for an "Open Source Group" at
my university. The organiser told the group that they received
AUD$20,000 in total from three sponsors, one being Microsoft. It was
also mentioned that speakers at the events would have to be 'civil'
about the sponsors of the group.
The group only produced two small events and then faded away due to lack
of interest. I have no idea what happened to the money...
Andrew
Microsoft is just a big company like any other, they will find the best way to make money on software even if it is to move to a Free software model. They will fight and resist the move but they don't want to look like jerks while it is happening - thus these sponsored events.
Just a little update on systemd, since it played a role in this post...
Devuan (Debian fork) is expecting a systemd free version of Jessie to be released sometime this summer...
antiX (based on Debian), is currently working on a systemd free version of Jessie. Uses nonfree, however, they provide instructions on how to remove/purge the programs and block them so the system is "free/libre"...
Manjaro (based on Arch) offers a version with openRC instead of systemd.
Slackware has no plans on adding systemd, Gentoo gives the user the option of using it or not....FreeBSD no systemd..
gNewSense not systemd...for now...
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios