A thought just occured to me, and as they are so rare I actually savored the feeling… 
ahhh…
Anyway, there was an article recently about Silverlight working on Moblin and that it is specifically NOT Moonlight (the Mono-based implenentation).
While Linux users have been paranoid about the inclusion of Mono into Linux (which I don’t want to bring down this thread with that subject), what is keeping Microsoft from taking Mono and Moonlight code and including it into their proprietary .NET and Silverlight frameworks?
It would enable them to make it actually cross-platform without spending any research dollars (let’s Novell do that instead) as well as possible other improvements? Of course then comes the issue of maintaining it after Mono would effectively lose reason to continue?
the really comical thing would be if Microsoft open sourced .NET!
Now that I properly think of it, I’ve realized MS is just too greedy for money and power. Plus, it’s too protective of its products, which means it’s not getting open-source anytime soon, perhaps never. (But there’s always a possibility :). Of course it won’t become free as in beer, but it just might become free as in freedom (like SUSE Linux Enterprise, that costs money and is yet open source.) Or MS might make their own Linux distro. That’s perhaps more likely.
That Novell-Microsoft deal is not a sign of Microsoft’s ‘companionship’ to Linux; I’m sure they have something horrible and clever up their sleeve for our dear Linux.
Best keep our eyes peeled. 
Or MS might make their own Linux distro.
Please everyone, stop saying that. Do you want me to have nightmares??? :’(:’(:’(
- suse amd64x2 wrote, On 10/01/2009 01:46 PM:
>> Or MS might make their own Linux distro.
>
>
> Please everyone, stop saying that. Do you want me to have nightmares???
Okay: Why?
Given the manpower and the QA Microsoft has, how long would it take them to create an open source operating system which would make Linux obsolete?
Uwe
From the ground up, including brand new kernel? Years… you don’t just write a complete OS in a few months, one that is on par with existing solutions and offers the same abilities if not more, no matter how much manpower you have
Even if MS made a fully open source OS, I highly doubt it’ll make Linux obsolete. First Linux runs on a lot of HW platforms, it took years to make it so and optimize it, including the help of giants like IBM, Sun, Novell, Cisco, Intel, etc. Second, knowing how MS operates, it’ll still try to bend industry standards and play lock-up, even with this open source OS of theirs and a lot of people don’t like this. This is one of the primary reasons why people run away from MS products, not just because it is closed
Microsoft is a business out to make money. That in itself is not a bad thing. How they go about it, how the let money get in the way of progress… I can just see them and what they would do to the good Linux name. A horror story to say the least.
If MS is to roll its own Linux distro, they’ll do so with $$$ in mind. What does this mean? It means that if MS wants to make $$ out of it, it’ll have to assure and provide stuff that other distros either don’t have or are very poor at it since if it doesn’t, there’s no reason for someone to pay $$$ to MS if he can get a free distro or pay someone like RH or Novell to get a pro one. So MS really has to offer something really outstanding here
Secondly, don’t underestimate MS when it comes to UNIX-like systems. In the 80s, MS virtually ruled the UNIX world with Xenix, which had the largest install base out of all Unices and this was not just related to marketing but also it was a pretty good UNIX implementation at that time
Years… because they are still trying to make a non-open source operating system to make Linux obsolete. Why would making it open source do any better?
That’s because more people (especially closed-source software haters) will be tempted to try out the OS. What’s more, even end-users might be tempted to try a MS open-source OS because:
-
It’ll have the ease of use they like (though I completely disagree that Windows is less easy to use than Linux)
-
Also, they’ll be able to use it as they like, and they won’t be as restricted as they are with closed source Windows.
MS winning over Linux…
Such nightmares… Sob :’(
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:16:01 +0000, BrownieCat wrote:
> dragonbite;2046369 Wrote:
>> Years… because they are still trying to make a non-open source
>> operating system to make Linux obsolete. Why would making it open
>> source do any better?
>
> That’s because more people (especially closed-source software haters)
> will be tempted to try out the OS.
Unlikely; those who you would describe as “closed-source software haters”
are a very small group, but the larger group would be “those who despise
all things Microsoft” - and going OSS wouldn’t change that groups’ mind.
Just have a look at the general response to Codeplex.
> What’s more, even end-users might be
> tempted to try a MS open-source OS because:
>
> 1. It’ll have the ease of use they like (though I completely disagree
> that Windows is less easy to use than Linux)
Ease of use is very much in the eye of the beholder. Things that work
the way you have been trained to tend to be easier to use. Wordstar was
easy for those who trained on it, but for many people the commands make
no sense at all. vi. emacs. Blender. It’s all up to the individual
user. 
> 2. Also, they’ll be able to use it as they like, and they won’t be as
> restricted as they are with closed source Windows.
Like many closed-source products, Windows undoubtedly uses licensed
technology that they would be restricted from releasing as open source.
But if you want an OSS alternative to Windows that’s like Windows, have a
look at ReactOS.
Jim
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Moderator
M$ and Linux together … Arrrrrgh! please not in my lifetime!
- Microsoft has a bad track record developing a good stable system.
- Linux is supported by real people, eager to work and contribute
- Microsoft has a bad track record dealing with others and providing support
- Microsoft style backstabbing and legal positioning history is contrary to the concepts of GPL.
- M$ is a profit born business where profit takes precedence over sound development
- Other big business IBM, Novel, Cisco are quite concerned with product performance first so as to command a better price value for their offerings.
- Most of what M$ based technology is aquired not original development, look at Xenix, CP/M (DOS), etc… As I recall, a recent ruling in the UK won out specifically because M$ was claiming patent for aquired work rather than original work.
The best way to discredit and or shed bad light on the Linux community is to offer the public a similar OSS passing it off as Linux so people will confuse the inferior M$ product with all of Linux offerings.:\
Reading this just made me remember this thread.
Microsoft Linux: Why one free software advocate wants it | NetworkWorld.com Community
Plus it’s nearly Halloween, so time for zombies…
Interesting perspective in the audio, having now listened to that…
Good to hear such ideas from a ‘Microsofty.’
Still, I wonder whether he really knows what he’s talking about. He claims, for example, that RMS ‘invented’ open source software. Surely RMS’ entire point is that all software used to be open source in the early days, and that the notion of proprietary, closed source software is as far as he’s concerned a temporary aberration. Call me pedantic, but the guy’s touting his book about the development of open source software.
It’s all in the details…
One of these companies is Visual Technologies. They specialize in monitoring social media such as forums, blogs and tweeters. Interestingly, the CIA’s investment arm, In-Q-Tel, is putting cash into Visual. Be careful what you post here!