Open Source > Linux > LQ
August 31, 2004 Leave a comment
Looks like the binary kernel module I commented on earlier is continuing to make some waves. It looks like the driver, minus the binary hook, will remain in the kernel. This issue also brought up questions about whether a kernel contributor should be willing to remove code that they contributed. On a bright note, the new maintainer is… Alan Cox!
–jeremy
August 30, 2004 Leave a comment
In this short interview Stephen Toulouse, Microsoft's security program manager, admits two interesting things:
1) He uses firefox
2) Securing Windows is something he thinks will take about 10 years (with them being about 2.5 years in at this point).
Thanks for the honesty.
–jeremy
August 29, 2004 Leave a comment
I have two comments on this article.
From Microsoft Australia platform strategy manager Paul Roworth: it's quicker to get patches for holes in Microsoft products – 25 days on average compared with 57-82 for various flavours of Linux, according to Microsoft's statistics. I'm not entirely sure how this statistic was formulated, what “flavours” of Linux they are talking about or how in any way they came up with these numbers – but I sure would like to see the empirical evidence to back it up. It certainly seems contradictory to my experience.
Next, Microsoft Australia managing director Steve Vamos said “the days when the open source-proprietary software debate was an ideological one are over.” It's good to see that they realize that OSS software has clear and demonstrable technical merit. Now, it's great to be able to avoid vendor lockin, be able to scratch your own itch and have a technically superior solution…isn't it ;)
–jeremy
August 29, 2004 Leave a comment
Seems some people don't consider Linux a threat. I find it hard to believe the following statement:
“Linux is no threat to Microsoft and any claims to the contrary are simply a misconception created by sensationalism and media hype, Microsoft Australia's platform strategy manager Paul Roworth said this week.”
With a couple large high profile wins under its belt and continued advances by multiple companies, I think it's clear that Linux is not a fad and is here to stay. Why Microsoft continues to flip flop on whether they consider Linux a threat is beyond me. While their desktop monopoly is not quite in danger yet, I'm sure they can here the footsteps.
–jeremy
August 29, 2004 Leave a comment
With Red Hat AS now EAL3 certified on a variety of IBM servers, you now have multiple options for EAL3 compliant Linux distributions. This should be a win for Government adoption, which is a huge market. This will allow agencies to be compliant and avoid vendor lockin.
–jeremy
August 29, 2004 Leave a comment
Looks like the dislike of binary kernel modules has caused one person to stop supporting a device. While I personally would like to see all kernel modules released under an OSI approved license and available in source format, I think it's unrealistic at this point for all companies to “get it” to this extent. Good hardware support is critical for the mainstream adoption of Linux. While you and I may care about items such as licensing, we have to remember that aunt Tilley does not care. Beyond that, she shouldn't have to care. She just wants to have the items she purchases at the local electronics store to work with Linux. One of the great things about OSS is choice – shouldn't that choice remain, even if it's a choice we don't agree with?
–jeremy
August 25, 2004 Leave a comment
I was happy to see that the horrible MSFT campaign that compared the cost of running Windows on a dual 900MHz Xeon vs the cost of Linux running on a z900 IBM mainframe was declared misleading by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The fact that Microsoft needs to run ads like these speaks volumes in my opinion. My favorite part of the ad:
The ASA said the asterisk linked to a footnote that said: “Results may vary outside the United States”.
Evidentially, computers somehow operate differently outside the US it would seem ;)
–jeremy
August 24, 2004 Leave a comment
For those of you who are unaware, some time ago Microsoft and SPF-proponent Meng Wong agreed to merge SPF and Caller-ID into Sender-ID. The license for Sender-ID has just been released, and it looks like it will likely stifle the adoption of Sender-ID. A cursory looks shows that “This patent license is incompatible with the Open Source Definition, the Free Software Definition, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and the GPL and LGPL licenses specifically”. It also appears that, to use the license, a signed agreement with MSFT is required. Looks like embrace and extend strikes again. While SPF did have it's problems, it was a step in the right direction. We'll have to see how this one plays out.
–jeremy
August 24, 2004 3 Comments
Seems at least one person at Microsoft would see them do a little more in the Open Source arena. On a side note, I wonder what being a “chief community evangelist” at MSFT is like?
–jeremy
August 24, 2004 Leave a comment
This post yet again brings up the point that MSFT funds “independent” studies, and them uses them in their “fact-based” strategy. On the bright side, even the mainstream media is catching on. Unfortunately , some CxO's are still being fooled.
–jeremy
Jeremy's Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.