Sendmail

Michael Smith

Sat Jul 26 03:26:33 -0700 2008

manage

Do you have an idea what the patent problem with sendmail is? Given the age of the sendmail codebase it is hard for me to see how MSFT could have been first with any of its features.

Sendmail

Bruce Perens

Sat Jul 26 12:00:20 -0700 2008

manage

Anything that wasn't 21 years old at the time. TLS comes to mind but I've done no research.

Microsoft's 2009 Plan to Sue Apache

lars

Sat Jul 26 05:34:30 -0700 2008

manage

On the surface it looks like one possible reason for going after the Apache Foundation might be to disrupt it directly, like is being done by the ongoing aggression versus Yahoo to rattle the developers and teams.

However, a licensing dependency injects a control and ownership over otherwise Free systems. What is happening to FOSS distros like Fedora and Ubuntu have been getting infected with Microsoft's licensing (e.g. Mono) could be a risk for Apache. The reminder from these HP memos from 2002 is that MS could just be lining up its shots for a future lawsuit by using funding to leverage injecting proprietary material into general projects like Apache, Ubuntu, GNOME, etc., which it appears to be doing, and then cashing in (assuming MS is still around). Think a case like SCO but where MS has had a few years to ensure contamination has occurred before calling in the lawyers.

It's up to regular users to look ahead at the development versions and not be chumps about accepting proprietary licensing in FOSS projects, especially from recidivist organizations.

On an even more serious note, we all know through several recessions that FOSS helps recession-proof companies, organizations and agencies. So MS fight against FOSS is further weakening the country's ability to stay economically viable. We also know that computer security is essential now for both economic stability and physical safety. We further know that double digit man-hours per user per week are lost to MS-specific problems. MS Vista is by all accounts much harder on productivity than any previous versions, each decrease in productivity amounting to the functional equivalent in downsizing services, while conversely increasing costs. Combine all three negatives caused by Microsoftianism and it's powerful injury that no country can survive for long...

Microsoft's 2009 Plan to Sue Apache

Uncle Entity

Sat Jul 26 08:51:24 -0700 2008

manage

MS Vista is by all accounts much harder on productivity than any previous versions, each decrease in productivity amounting to the functional equivalent in downsizing services, while conversely increasing costs.

You got any stats on that?

And I've often wondered about mono since it was first required as a dep in ubuntu. Why they needed another scripting language was beyond me unless they were trying to get people who cut their teeth on .net to develop trivial things for the gnome desktop. I don't know, more bloatware I suppose.

Eyes, ears

lars

Mon Jul 28 08:27:48 -0700 2008

manage

You'd have to have been living in a cave for the last 10 years not to have noticed with your own eyes. I'm sure if you need stats for a lawsuit or to shutdown Gates and his movement to save the economy you could always hire someone. Just interview random non-technical people about "computer" problems. I see that they generally boil down to MS-specific, direct flaws.

Secondary, indirect flaws like spam are also, since open relays were shut down, MS-specific. Other indirect flaws are bad engineering processes (no evaluations, no pilots, no phased roll-outs, etc.) or even the Microsoft Effect itself: bad engineering becomes not just acceptable, but expected, and good tools become ignored because it is assumed they suck as bad as the imitations made by MS. It can be what cracks the thin ice currently holding the recession up out of the cold water.

Then interview about how many work-hours per week are lost due to the direct problems. Usually it's over 8 hours per person. Assuming a 40-hour week, that's effectively a 20% down-sizing of services without a decrease in cost. If anything, the costs go up and no host, even a large one, can survive that level of parasitism.

"Why they needed another scripting language was beyond me unless ..."

Technically, the established ones are better (choose your metric) and definitely more established, more mature, with large user bases and libraries. However, they are not under licensing control, so the payload would be the licensing/ownership issues more than the technology itself.

Eyes, ears

Uncle Entity

Mon Jul 28 08:57:05 -0700 2008

manage

I have no love for the Evil Empire, I was just wondering if someone did a study or something.

Microsoft's 2009 Plan to Sue Apache

Aaron Farr

Mon Jul 28 07:55:05 -0700 2008

manage

How is this supposed to disrupt Apache directly?  Sponsorship gives _no_ special access to the code or special treatment by the foundation beyond a logo on the website.

There is no (new) opportunity for Microsoft to inject anything into Apache.  I don't know where you're making this up from.  The sponsorship doesn't give them commit access.  Hell, MS can't even tell Apache where the money should be spent.

To suggest the this funding is going to somehow get proprietary code into the Apache webserver shows that you clearly don't understand how the Apache project functions and that you don't know any of the committers on that project.

Money and influence

lars

Mon Jul 28 08:16:55 -0700 2008

manage

@Arron Farr: There's no *new* opportunities to inject proprietary technologies into the Apache, just the same old ones, now better funded. Money is not without influence. You're old enough to know that.

Money and influence

Aaron Farr

Mon Jul 28 08:25:36 -0700 2008

manage

Better funded???

The money goes into a general pool of cash at the ASF.  It's used for servers mostly.  Pays the general bills.  But it doesn't go to (1) any particular project (there are 60+ projects at Apache) or (2) to any developer working on the projects.

If MS wanted to fund Apache development, they should have just hired a developer themselves, because the sponsorship money doesn't do this.

Money and influence

lars

Mon Jul 28 08:55:37 -0700 2008

manage

And advertising revenue at magazines just goes into a general pool of cash at the magazine. You can see the effect yourself, especially if you compare printed issues from 10 years ago to todays. If you can't see the effects yourself, then you can always look it up. It's been studied almost to death and you have your choice of more than Prof. Chomsky's material to read.

And campaign funding also just goes into a general pool of cash at the campaign headquarters. No qualms about where that comes from either, because there's no influence there either ...

It's good that you make the reminder about the Apache Software Foundation's 60+ projects. Too little is mentioned about them these days in a way accessible to general audiences. Most of them require little configuration and customization, but being C-, Java-, Perl- or TCL-based they are open for more extreme customization and expansion. However, it's probably time for a visible, general audience overview of what each project is good for.

Microsoft's 2002 Plan to Sue Apache

rubycodez

Sat Jul 26 09:33:18 -0700 2008

manage

Any new patent blustering by Microsoft after last year's burst of hot FUD air?  Maybe they've decided the trouble and consequences aren't worth the effort.

Microsoft's 2002 Plan to Sue Apache

William Boyle

Sat Jul 26 10:16:28 -0700 2008

manage

If you believe that, I have a really nice antique bridge in NYC that you might like to purchase an option on... I think that the comment regarding MS injecting enough proprietary cruft in FOSS codebase to ease future litigation is the more likely scenario. Gah!

Microsoft's 2002 Plan to Sue Apache

Bruce Perens

Sat Jul 26 10:59:24 -0700 2008

manage

Their attorney, Brad Smith, was still at it in the speech he made at the recent Open Source Business Conference.

patent nonsense

zogger

Sat Jul 26 12:05:15 -0700 2008

manage

So back then they were going on about patents, and they still are, and are going to "indemnify" people or orgs against these unamed patents. When the heck will the government force them to reveal exactly what patents they keep going on about? How about instead an actual class action countersuit by people who own public stock in open source companies? Just get it the heck over with once and for all.

patent nonsense

Bruce Perens

Sat Jul 26 12:15:07 -0700 2008

manage

When the heck will the government force them to reveal exactly what patents they keep going on about?

Well, Microsoft is holding on to the particular patent numbers on the assumption that the Doctrine of Laches - a case-law defense based on the plaintiff waiting for the market to grow in size before bringing suit - will not be a problem for Microsoft unless Microsoft tells us about the patents. If I had to go to court, I'd try to make the point that MS has made enough noise about their patents that the Doctrine of Laches defense is now valid.

patent nonsense

guest

Sat Jul 26 12:27:33 -0700 2008

manage

The Doctrine of Laches is a reasonable legal point. But it is also an affirmative defense. A position that I would not care to take, without at least also presenting some very good arguments in the alternative --which might be a bit difficult to do given the nature of a Laches defense.