According to an article from www.linuxworld.com (http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld...enguin_4.html, read the paragraph where it says "The good, the bad, and the ugly")
Micro$oft is dedicating resources at analizing and applying linux code to "winblows" (no wonder xp is but a bit stable!!)
and is not openning the source code nor giving it back which of course goes against the GPL
the problem is, the laws!!(which is pretty complicated) but still i don't think this is good!!!





This is no good!!

It's quite possible that there is BSD-licensed code included into Windows. And that's perfectly legal. I don't think MS will use anything on GPL. They understand OS licenses.

This is not good. BUT keep in mind that ms is a business and there main goal is to gain more users (sales) so with that in mind their current movement with licensing, not to mention there lack of security will remain. They made a small step that may benifit them that the free software and open source communities have worked hard to create but they are still completely missing the objective that WE help acheive every day, which is preserving our freedom as a computer user.

They may have the code but they will never have our community! Mwahuahuahu!

so what ?
it will be good for windows users

To bkeating:
Remember that Open Source is providing OPEN software. So everyone can use it. We can't decide who can use it and who cannot. In that case it's Open Source no more.

Im pretty sure software released under the GPL, atleast most of it is 'free software' and not 'open source' I may be wrong on this becuase I am not sure what sections of what software they are using but even before this becomes a concern it's not that big of an advantage for MS (IMO).

Most techs will understand what they did but I think this is more of a 'bridge' to bring people into the GNU/Linux community. They will see code being used that greatly improves the stability and functionality BUT they will still be left with software they don't actaully own. There freedoms are taken away and with that they loose options, secuirty and many more attributes.

I think they will see the difference and question 'well if this small addition made such a great improvement, why not switch over to the completely 'free' solution and get all the benifits plus the freedom?"

Im convinced most people and all Businesses could care less about the internals, they just want to get there email and bid on ebay. BOTH systems are capable of doing this, I just think we lack advertising but hell, we're doing a great job, we're not even a company and we're going head to head with MS.

The future of GPL and the GNU/Linux projects are determined by what we value as a community. Freedom being the foundation of this goal, You can already consider all the projects under open source and free software a major sucess.

Today Im working on a Windows XP theme for KDE3 which will be ran on my Moms Machine. She loves it already and shes a MOM... She got us one step further.

date 20-11-2000

As a lawyer, I can tell you that the GPL license would bind Micro$haft if they used parts of the code in their product, and they could be sued by some of the GPL foundations out there. I'm sure their lawyers know this and have given the gearheads explicit instructions about what they can get away with and what they can't.

They probably take a look at Linux code and see if there is a way that they can implement soimilar solutions under their OS. Then they write original code which does a similar job. There is always more than one way to skin a cat. The only way to catch them at pure piracy would be to inspect the code for instances of duplication of GPL stuff.

Remember that M$ spends more on R&D than most countries' militaries. They have enough cash reserve to purchase the airline industry twice over (over $40 Billion). You're not going to beat them at R&D. The only thing you can beat them at is release frequency. All that money means that they are constantly having to go through many iterations of QA to release any patch or new product...

Thanks for your replies and comments!!
After i read all your answers to this post and thought this through
(i was bit furious about the rumor when i wrote this post)


Regards

Micro$oft copied the BSD TCP/IP and calls it 'Microsoft TCP/IP' (whatever it means).
If that's the kind of money they spend upon 'innovation', it's shame on them.

i read in one aritcle that winXP have buffer overflow problem and MS had released patch for that. with my limited knowledge i think that bufferoverflow is the problem related with *nix OS. and if MS also face it shall we beleve that they adopt the design technique of *nix.

this may be a foolish idea. forgive me

Wait a minute, if micro$oft is using Linux code in XP, then m$ has to make winbloze open source, and freely availible over the internet, right?

I am correct? Or am I wrong?

-glockage

-----------------------------------
that b4574rd bill gates, can't think of his own code, so he has to rip Linus's.

To be procize: in that case this part/program/library must be released under gpl.
Edit: BSD system are not Linux and they are not gpled. They use BSD license. You can use code on BSD and not make it public (example: Mac OSX).

In response to sakeeb, buffer overflows are definitely not limited to *nix, theyre also common on M$ OS's aswell including win2k & as you mentioned XP
But just cos M$ released a patch for one of XP's buffer overflow exploits only means it is a patch for that particular exploit, subscribe to bugtraq & youll see what I mean, there's alot more than you think.

Cheer's

Questions:

1) If Bill Gates or M$ is using source from BSD or *nix is it a bad thing? Windows becomes more stable and more reliable for the customers that they have already dummy downed and yes they may gian some more. Some may even be *nix users just for the availability of more software.

2) Does Bill Gates or M$ actually know what they are still doing with an OS? The system is still truly not multitasking and multiuser. Most users who want power and production out of there computer at a high quality level without fear of crashing or data lost will still use a *nix, Solaris, BSD, MAC etc.. OS because they are proven.

3) Didn't Bill Gates Steal (oops I'm Sorry Buy) DOS from another programmer, to make a ton of money? Point here is that Bill is a businessman first then PC first. So if Bill sees something that will make him more money of course he is going to jump on it.

4) How did Bill Gates or M$ not get penalized with thier trial?
If that had been me would have slapped the cuffs on me in the court room, took my bank card, made me sign over my house divorce my wife, give my kids up for adoption, thrown me in a cell shankeld and blind folded with Bubba who has been locked up for 15 years and is looking for fresh meat.

Must be nice to have money. Sorry about my ranting and raving.

So in general Bill using some parts of BSD or *nix is not a bad thing for the general public. It is up to the general public to understand that Bill did not create this stable system for them and that there is other choices out there.