[kwlug-disc] Microsoft Patches Linux; Linus Responds | Linux Magazine

[Bob Jonkman]

unsolicited wrote:
>  I hear you, but ... how is the situation you describe different than
>  today's situation (pre-MS code release).

The difference is that with the code release Microsoft will get some 
traction in Linux shops, then siphon that off to their own VM platform. 
By slowly Extending and Embracing this code release they'll get some 
lock-in on HyperV, and then possibly pull out the rug.

Now, my entire argument is based on speculation, but each step has 
precedent and none of it is impossible.

>  [...] It still baffles me why similar success on the desktop still evades
>  us. Especially at MS Office costs.

I've worked for large industry, a major bank, and two levels of 
government. The larger the organization, the more the thinking is that 
it's important to get vendor support.  Not that the vendor support is 
actually used to solve problems, but it's a way to divert blame.  If you 
buy applications from a vendor and the wheels fall off then you can 
always sue the guy that made them.  If you get FLOSS applications you 
can get third-party support, but the only one to blame for lost wheels 
is yourself. 

--Bob.


Unsolicted wrote:
>  I hear you, but ... how is the situation you describe different than
>  today's situation (pre-MS code release). i.e. Consider the MS
>  solution as non-viable / unacceptable, today, or then, and migrate to
>  the other solution. (As noted, e.g. Xen, vmware, etc.)

>  Is vendor lock in the same issue today as it has been in the past?
>
>  No, at least in some ways - e.g. Xen, Open Office.
>
>  Yes, at least in some ways - e.g. MS Project and Visio still seem to
>  be the industry wide standard, without similar, competing, universal
>  industry wide FOSS alternative.
>
>  If Linux servers are finally industry standards, look how long it
>  took for that to occur. It still baffles me why similar success on
>  the desktop still evades us. Especially at MS Office costs.
>
>  Bob Jonkman wrote, On 07/27/2009 4:08 PM:
> > Khalid says:
> >
> >> But as far as the embrace, extend, extinguish thing goes, they
> >> can do the first 2 all they like. The GPL prevents them from
> >> doing the 3rd!
> >
> >
> > The GPL can ensure that the newly released driver code lives on in
> > its current incarnation.
> >
> > But no such restrictions exist for HyperV.  Nothing prevents
> > Microsoft from changing HyperV so that it becomes incompatible with
> > the open source drivers just released.  And open source programmers
> > are not going to invest much time in reverse-engineering HyperV to
> > keep these drivers compatible, when other open source alternatives
> > to HyperV already exist. A business that has invested in HyperV is
> > not going to continue to use an old version of HyperV to maintain
> > compatibility with some open-source drivers. For most businesses it
> > makes more business sense (ie. it's cheaper in the short term) to
> > buy the compatible Microsoft product.
>  . . .