Welcome to our website

To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.

How to Kill Linux

Posted by: duke on: 02/23/2005 03:04 PM [ Print | 85 comment(s) ]

OSNews posted a link to an "opinion column" by a John C. Dvorak... he seems to have a way for Microsoft to kill Linux.

The idea here would be to cut the driver layer out of Windows and attach it to Linux directly. This would become MS-Linux. If Microsoft actually produced an MS-Linux that was the standard Linux attached to the driver layer of Windows, giving users full Plug and Play (PnP) support of all their peripherals, nobody would buy any other Linux on the market.

What do you think about this? [Ed - You have to love flamebait posts like this!]

Comment

DucoNihilum SMP Newbie Posts: 24 Joined: 2005-02-15

#34796 Posted on: 02/23/2005 08:48 PM It would just be another step in Microsoft's plan of world dominiation Please visit my web site, http://DNPEN.com

Comment

Beng3000 Registered User Posts: 698 Joined: 2002-01-22

#34797 Posted on: 02/23/2005 09:05 PM I think there are people out there who would starve before they gave Microsoft a nickel of their money, and I'm sure we'll hear from some of those people later in this thread.

Comment

KimVette Corvette Fanatic Posts: 945 Joined: 2002-07-30

#34798 Posted on: 02/23/2005 09:06 PM I'd love it. Think about it: Microsoft would be FORCED to release the source code because it'd be based on GPL code to begin with. Basically, he only restriction which can be applied to such a distribution by Microsoft is that anyone else who uses the code and derives other works from it must also make the source available and distributable in an otherwise-unrestricted manner. My configuration: Many hopelessly outdated SMP boxen. Any system which is shipping is already obsolete! u r lame if u insist on trying 2 b l337 by abbrev evythng u type when asking ppl 4 hlp. kiddie speak is teh sux. ppl. plz stop teh kiddie speak. thx. hint: aol kiddie speak is not cool, it just makes people not want to read your post.

Comment

cmost Back in St. Olaf.... Posts: 416 Joined: 2002-08-13

#34799 Posted on: 02/23/2005 09:10 PM I for one have about had it with Microsoft's strong-arm and blatently unethical business tactics. They're not just out to dominate all software and operating system markets, they also intend to squeeze every single dime out of every possible consumer in the process. Just look at the new "Windows Genuine Advantage" program to be implemented (mandatory) later this year. I've happily been using Linux for the past 1.5 years, with only occasional forays into Windows on an as-needed basis. If Microsoft finds a way to pull the rug out from under Linux, i'll simply move to the Mac platform and be done with it. I'm certainly not going to give them another dime of my hard earned cash for more of the same buggy, "everything but the kitchen sink" bloatware! AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 4096 MB DDR 400MHz DDR2 RAM GeForce 9400 GT w 512 MB DDR2 Primary OS: Parsix GNU/Linux (built from Debian Testing) Compiz-Fusion Git Other OS: Windows Server 2003 SP2 (as workstation); Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs; Windows XP Pro. SP3 - via VirtualBox

Comment

Slaughter111 Registered User Posts: 728 Joined: 2002-12-22

#34800 Posted on: 02/23/2005 10:20 PM i don't think this would work out as Dvorak supposes. the beautiful thing about Linux is that it is open source and just as snappy and stable as Windows. as far as i'm concerned, the only advantages that Windows has over Linux is the support that M$ gets from hardware manufacturers. they make it easy for M$ to have great drivers for virtually all hardware available for the x86 platform. features like HyperThreading, EAX, etc. have more complete support under Windows because of this advantage. the only other major advantage is the software base, but there are many alternatives in the Linux world for this, and most are also open source. well, then there's the ease of use for Windows, which provides a very minute learning curve for users compared to Linux. if anyone ever provides a way for Linux to automate features such as kernel recompiles and customizations and hardware gets supported better, Windows will in fact be on the endangered species list. RPM is good, but Linux needs a way to install programs and customize the OS as simply as can be done with Windows, i.e. just double-click an icon and the app does whatever it needs to do to customize itself for your system and just install. add this to drivers that just simply recognize my Lexmark Printer/Scanner/Copier and my modem or broadband internet connection and Windows starts not to look so good at $150+ to consumers. M$ cannot change the fact that Linux is open source, so they can't do what Dvorak is implying. they can, however, release applicatons such as Office and Visual Studio for Linux and make great profits, although this may be a conflict of interest for them since they're mainly in the OS business. i, personally, think Linux is an excellent alternative to Windows and that the learning curve is not all that bad when you consider the fact that you can obtain the OS for free and get all subsequent updates for free. i love Linux for that and it customizibility options. A+ | MCSA | MCITP | CommVault CVSA/CVSE | VMware VCP 4 Heatware: Slaughter111

Comment

HEMI Registered User Posts: 2467 Joined: 2001-12-18

#34801 Posted on: 02/23/2005 10:25 PM How to kill Linux? Well, I think running the 2.6 kernel line is a good way to start...It's great when they uproot/replace large portions of the kernel between versions. We've had SCSI enumeration change, certain NICs stop working, SATA controllers stop working and lots of other idiocy on the machines at work that happen to be stuck running 2.6. 2.6 may perform better than 2.4 in certain areas, but it seems like a step backwards as far as "safety in updates" goes. They really need a development kernel branch so they can stop messing with 2.6. Ok, no more ranting. Back to the question at hand... Hey, if Microsoft managed to market the thing in such a way that the average user could get things running without much change from regular Windows, it could possibly work. I seriously doubt any of the crowd using Linux due to philosophical disagreements with Microsoft would move over. I doubt Microsoft would bother messing with Linux, honestly. Why would they bother messing with that viral GPL stuff when they can (and have been already) use superior code from FreeBSD? Unix is user-friendly; it's just picky about its friends.

Comment

ConVicTioN SMP Newbie Posts: 30 Joined: 2004-11-11

#34802 Posted on: 02/23/2005 10:44 PM LOL you all are funny I will leave this alone

Comment

AssKoala Anti-Zealot @ GATech Posts: 3309 Joined: 2002-01-02

#34803 Posted on: 02/24/2005 12:09 AM Originally posted by KimVette IThink about it: Microsoft would be FORCED to release the source code because it'd be based on GPL code to begin with. That's not the way the license works. Anything that didn't start out as GPL can stay non-GPL. Microsoft's driver layer would, doubtfully, start out as GPL, hence they wouldn't have to release jack shit. That's how kernels get "tainted". Anything that they modify that was GPL would have to be released (in other words, modifications to GPL code that makes calls to non-GPL code would have to be released). [Quote]Originally posted by ConVicTioN LOL you all are funny I will leave this alone

Pray tell, why is the thread funny.

I know I would love to be enlightened as to what you find so funny. Though, I can't guarantee anything being the commoner that I am.

---

Me Webpage | If you always think like an expert, you'll always be a beginner. | "A handful of knowledgeable people is more effective than an army of fools" -Writing Secure Code, 2nd Ed.

Comment

Hooz Administrator Posts: 2337 Joined: 2000-03-29

#34804 Posted on: 02/24/2005 12:09 AM Originally posted by cmost If Microsoft finds a way to pull the rug out from under Linux, i'll simply move to the Mac platform and be done with it. Yeah... That will show them! How much of Apple does Microsoft (Bill Gates) own now? [size=1][url="http://www.2cpu.com"]2CPU.com[/url] - Because two are always better than one! Are you folding? [url="http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_summary.php?s=&t=3074"]2CPU.com Folding@Home Team[/url] [url="http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=19979"]My Heatware[/url][/size]

Comment

DPMitchell Retired Researcher Posts: 155 Joined: 2004-08-21

#34805 Posted on: 02/24/2005 01:02 AM Why don't people run Linux on the Mac?

Comment

AssKoala Anti-Zealot @ GATech Posts: 3309 Joined: 2002-01-02

#34806 Posted on: 02/24/2005 01:21 AM Originally posted by DPMitchell Why don't people run Linux on the Mac? Probably because it's waste of money to buy Apple Hardware to run Linux. Me Webpage | If you always think like an expert, you'll always be a beginner. | "A handful of knowledgeable people is more effective than an army of fools" -Writing Secure Code, 2nd Ed.

Comment

locovaca That's what she said Posts: 176 Joined: 2001-07-17

#34807 Posted on: 02/24/2005 01:26 AM Originally posted by DPMitchell Why don't people run Linux on the Mac? Price of macs, performance, availability of software, hardware support. 1. Macs cost more 2. Performance of most optimized applications on a mac doesn't live up to a x86 based linux machine at same price level 3. Software that has inline ASM doesn't work, period. Generally it's not the mainstream application's fault but dependencies on libraries which haven't been ported. 4. Ever tried running an Airport Extreme card under Linux? And, many x86 drivers DO have ASM built into the driver, which means it won't run under PPC Linux. This is coming from a PB 17" owner and a Gentoo Linux user...

Comment

snowsquirrel Sheik of SMP Posts: 190 Joined: 2001-03-26

#34808 Posted on: 02/24/2005 01:28 AM Er... IMHO, a lot of windows problems arise from drivers. While linux drivers are rarely as functional as windows drivers, they are usually more stable. HEMI, why don't you give Solaris 86 a shot. Sun is pretty good at backwards compatibility. Solaris 10 is leaps and bounds ahead of 8 and 9, IMHO. ~S

Comment

scheme SMP user Posts: 259 Joined: 2002-01-18

#34809 Posted on: 02/24/2005 01:46 AM Originally posted by AssKoala That's not the way the license works. Anything that didn't start out as GPL can stay non-GPL. Microsoft's driver layer would, doubtfully, start out as GPL, hence they wouldn't have to release jack shit. That's how kernels get "tainted". Anything that they modify that was GPL would have to be released (in other words, modifications to GPL code that makes calls to non-GPL code would have to be released). That's incorrect. Anything the links to gpl'ed code needs to be gpl'ed. So if the microsoft layer used any kernel headers or linked to the kernel in anyway then, the layer would have to be released as gpl.

Comment

SuperDude Registered User Posts: 17 Joined: 2004-06-13

#34810 Posted on: 02/24/2005 02:12 AM I find it very unlikely that MS are considering this. It just seems like a crackpot conspiricy theory, cooked up my a hack with too much spare time. I just cannot get over how much people feel the need to go on and on and on and on and on about Linux v's Windows. Its the my dad is going to beat your dad up mentality. But then thats not suprising considering most IT guys are a bunch of geeks who were probably picked on at school. If I was a shrink I could get sooo much material out of all this stuff. And with that most of slashdot would be sectioned/instuitusionalized/banged up in a mental hospital.

Comment

AssKoala Anti-Zealot @ GATech Posts: 3309 Joined: 2002-01-02

#34811 Posted on: 02/24/2005 02:16 AM Originally posted by scheme That's incorrect. Anything the links to gpl'ed code needs to be gpl'ed. So if the microsoft layer used any kernel headers or linked to the kernel in anyway then, the layer would have to be released as gpl. Is that so? How does nvidia pull it off. Or many others for that matter. That is, they HAVE to release the links, which is what I said, they don't have to release the things that are linked. EDIT: Oh, because I don't feel like arguing this, here's the GNU's FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic Specifically, this: "But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL." The modified source code would be the code that contains the links to the MS driver layer. Much like nvidia releases the code that links their binary driver to the kernel. Me Webpage | If you always think like an expert, you'll always be a beginner. | "A handful of knowledgeable people is more effective than an army of fools" -Writing Secure Code, 2nd Ed.

Comment

cmost Back in St. Olaf.... Posts: 416 Joined: 2002-08-13

#34812 Posted on: 02/24/2005 02:55 AM quote:Originally posted by cmost If Microsoft finds a way to pull the rug out from under Linux, i'll simply move to the Mac platform and be done with it. Yeah... That will show them! How much of Apple does Microsoft (Bill Gates) own now? Yeah, you're probably right Hooze. Considering the mere existence of Apple is pretty much all that Microsoft could grasp at to defend itself from being a monopoly power. I'm sure Microsoft probably infused Apple with just enough capital to continue existing. Oh, and they need Apple around so that they will continue to have a fertile source of good ideas to steal...er...inspire them. AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 4096 MB DDR 400MHz DDR2 RAM GeForce 9400 GT w 512 MB DDR2 Primary OS: Parsix GNU/Linux (built from Debian Testing) Compiz-Fusion Git Other OS: Windows Server 2003 SP2 (as workstation); Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs; Windows XP Pro. SP3 - via VirtualBox

Comment

opus13 misanthrope. Posts: 1628 Joined: 2002-04-05

#34813 Posted on: 02/24/2005 03:45 AM Originally posted by cmost Yeah, you're probably right Hooze. Considering the mere existence of Apple is pretty much all that Microsoft could grasp at to defend itself from being a monopoly power. I'm sure Microsoft probably infused Apple with just enough capital to continue existing. Oh, and they need Apple around so that they will continue to have a fertile source of good ideas to steal...er...inspire them. i completely forgot about that. what year was that where MS bailed out apple of bankruptcy to teh tune of 4 billion?

Comment

ConVicTioN SMP Newbie Posts: 30 Joined: 2004-11-11

#34814 Posted on: 02/24/2005 04:22 AM http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm

Comment

AssKoala Anti-Zealot @ GATech Posts: 3309 Joined: 2002-01-02

#34815 Posted on: 02/24/2005 05:01 AM Originally posted by ConVicTioN http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm Do you wear a levitating tin foil hat? Edit: By the way, just skimming down that link... It's pretty funny. Do you actually realize how stupid most of those are? How about the "Microsoft purposely cripples its own File System so you can't make a backup". Yeah. That's it. Me Webpage | If you always think like an expert, you'll always be a beginner. | "A handful of knowledgeable people is more effective than an army of fools" -Writing Secure Code, 2nd Ed.

Comment

VincentVega Xeon-powered Posts: 102 Joined: 2004-12-17

#34816 Posted on: 02/24/2005 05:39 AM Originally posted by Hooz Yeah... That will show them! How much of Apple does Microsoft (Bill Gates) own now? According to this, MS originally bought $150 million of stock in Apple but has since sold it all. I am not sure where opus13 gets his $4 billion figure from. Was Apple even worth that much when Bill made his investment?

Comment

ConVicTioN SMP Newbie Posts: 30 Joined: 2004-11-11

#34817 Posted on: 02/24/2005 05:49 AM Do you get spoon fed from ms or is it a bottle. Microsoft Windows XP is crippled. It is designed to be unable to copy some of its own operating system files. This article from Microsoft discusses the policy of not supporting the making of functional complete backups under Windows XP: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation [microsoft.com]. See the section, Microsoft Policy Statement, that says, "Microsoft does not provide support for computers on which Windows XP is installed by duplication of fully installed copies of Windows XP. Microsoft does support computers on which Windows XP is installed by use of disk-duplication software and the System Preparation tool (Sysprep.exe)." The meaning of Microsoft's policy, "Microsoft does not provide support" is also that, if you have tools from other companies for making backups, Microsoft could make changes that prevent those tools from operating. The wider significance of Microsoft's policy is somewhat hidden. Since almost all programs use the XP operating system's registry file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that make products for creating functional backups, but these products don't work well. They cannot, for example, run under Windows XP, because XP actively prevents that. The backup tools from other companies must run under another operating system; to use them it is necessary to exit Windows XP, restart the computer, and load the other operating system. As was mentioned, Microsoft could break the third-party backup software at any time by issuing necessary software upgrades that also prevent the third-party backup software from functioning, as the company has done in other cases. See, for example, Sneaky service packs [infoworld.com], an August 26, 2002 column by InfoWorld writer Brian Livingston, who is perhaps the best-known computer industry columnist. I have seen this first hand as has most Competent admins.

Comment

AssKoala Anti-Zealot @ GATech Posts: 3309 Joined: 2002-01-02

#34818 Posted on: 02/24/2005 06:10 AM Originally posted by ConVicTioN Do you get spoon feed from ms or is it a bottle. I'm breast fed. I have seen this first hand as has most compitant admins. "as have most competent admins" Competent Admins being a group to which you don't seem to be belong. However, I'm going to invoke HEMI's Law of the Convservation of Time for this one. Me Webpage | If you always think like an expert, you'll always be a beginner. | "A handful of knowledgeable people is more effective than an army of fools" -Writing Secure Code, 2nd Ed.

Comment

Murdock Captain Posts: 1398 Joined: 2001-07-02

#34819 Posted on: 02/24/2005 06:18 AM Originally posted by ConVicTioN LOL you all are funny I will leave this alone Always trust your first instinct. On a seperate note... Is it just me or is Duke throwing all sorts of flame bate as of late? The pathetic state of our government will never change unless we stop electing politicians and start electing public servants. Remember: There was once a time when the term "politician" had a very negative connotation.

Comment

AssKoala Anti-Zealot @ GATech Posts: 3309 Joined: 2002-01-02

#34820 Posted on: 02/24/2005 06:22 AM Originally posted by Murdock On a seperate note... Is it just me or is Duke throwing all sorts of flame bate as of late? At least I'm not alone in thinking that. Me Webpage | If you always think like an expert, you'll always be a beginner. | "A handful of knowledgeable people is more effective than an army of fools" -Writing Secure Code, 2nd Ed.