Linux Sucks. Java sucks. I'm a Microsoft guy again!

[Alex Libman 14]

From Slashdot -- Linus Calls Microsoft Hatred "a Disease" --

In the aftermath of Microsoft's recent decision to contribute 20,000 lines of device driver code to the Linux community, Christopher Smart of Linux Magazine talked to Linus Torvalds and asked if the code was something he would be happy to include, even though it's from Microsoft.

"Oh, I'm a big believer in 'technology over politics'.  I don't care who it comes from, as long as there are solid reasons for the code, and as long as we don't have to worry about licensing etc. issues", says Torvalds.  "I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease.  I believe in open development, and that very much involves not just making the source open, but also not shutting other people and companies out." 

Smart asked Torvalds if Microsoft was contributing the code to benefit the Linux community or Microsoft.  "I agree that it's driven by selfish reasons, but that's how all open source code gets written!  We all 'scratch our own itches'.  It's why I started Linux, it's why I started git, and it's why I am still involved.  It's the reason for everybody to end up in open source, to some degree", says Torvalds.  "So complaining about the fact that Microsoft picked a selfish area to work on is just silly.  Of course they picked an area that helps them.  That's the point of open source - the ability to make the code better for your particular needs, whoever the 'your' in question happens to be."

It always seemed like Torvalds is one of the more sane people in the Open Source movement, while RMS is a self-righteous commie jerk.  Then again, Torvalds made the huge mistake of picking GPL over BSD, thus prolonging Microsoft's OS domination for at least another decade...

[BobRobertson]

It always seemed like Torvalds is one of the more sane people in the Open Source movement, while RMS is a self-righteous commie jerk.

Nothing to disagree with there.

Then again, Torvalds made the huge mistake of picking GPL over BSD, thus prolonging Microsoft's OS domination for at least another decade...

In complete opposition to this statement, by choosing the GPL Torvalds nullified the tactic Microsoft uses of cherry-picking code out of the BSD and MIT licensed systems for their own benefit. The more time passes, the more in favor of the GPL I become. It is one more very useful tool in preventing Microsoft's tactic of "embrace, extend, extinguish".

So by ensuring that Microsoft cannot embed Linux code legally, Microsoft has been forced to spend vastly more time and treasure trying, and failing, to keep up with F/OSS innovation and progress.

It's been great fun watching as Microsoft announces "new" features for Windows, only to be years late after F/OSS has already implemented those features.

A major point in favor of the GPL is that Microsoft executives have publicly stated that they LOVE the BSD license.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/04/22/gates_gpl_will_eat_your/

[Alex Libman 14]

Ya gotta love the copyleft fanatics trying to pretend that their desktop / productivity software isn't 5-10 years behind Microsoft's, or that they can compete with BSD on the server... 

Microsoft isn't the only one who'd be "cherry-picking code out of the BSD and MIT licensed systems" - their competitors can too, including tiny start-ups.  In fact, being the biggest software-oriented company in the world, Microsoft needs BSD code the least.  BSD is the great equalizer.

Google and especially Apple have done great with the few good BSD resources that are out there, but if the Linux kernel was BSD the OS market would be super-saturated by now.  More competition leads to better quality software and lower prices.

GPL / copyleft has been the great cancer on the software industry, delivering crummy quality that's useless to 80-99% of desktop users, while making it impossible for serious competitors to rise up and challenge Microsoft.

[BobRobertson]

Fascinating. First you say...

Microsoft isn't the only one who'd be "cherry-picking code out of the BSD and MIT licensed systems" - their competitors can too, including tiny start-ups.  In fact, being the biggest software-oriented company in the world, Microsoft needs BSD code the least.  BSD is the great equalizer.

Then you reverse yourself and say...

GPL / copyleft has been the great cancer on the software industry, delivering crummy quality that's useless to 80-99% of desktop users, while making it impossible for serious competitors to rise up and challenge Microsoft.

So which is it? Which does your Microsoft Astroturf Play-Book tell you to use when your contradictions are brought to light?

If it's crummy, then there's no reason to use it and the license is irrelevant. If it's crummy, then ignoring the code under GPL and concentrating on BSD would allow those start-ups to challenge Microsoft, yet you then state that they cannot.

As far as your assertion that I'm just pretending F/OSS is in any way comparable in quality to MS code, then again you're just asserting that it's crud and useless, and again the license is irrelevant because there's nothing to use anyway.

Which is it, Libman? Why do you spend so much time bemoaning something that you say is, with one side of your face a crummy cancer, and the other side of your face "mislicensed" so that it cannot be picked up and used by commercial companies without attribution and thus a danger to Microsoft?

Really, I do wish you'd pick one. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy my "crummy quality" system, the same one that FreeTalkLive.com runs on, the same one that runs circles around Vista and Win7 in desktop effects on hardware that Win7 and Vista won't even enable desktop effects upon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_FaRSJ13yU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HEvLErWh-I

Or the videos from 3 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lawkc3jH3ws

[Alex Libman 14]

Contradictions?  Humbug!

You need to come back to this thread first thing tomorrow morning.  If what you just wrote sounds retarded then, then that probably means you need to cut down on your drinking.  If it doesn't, then you're just plain stupid, at least when it comes to understanding the fundamentals of how the software industry operates.  Copyleft is all about socialist politics, and it has powerful backers!  The only thing it adds to the broader open source movement is the greater imposition of government force!

Perhaps you've somehow missed the fact that Apple and tens of millions of their paying customers are benefiting from the BSD-based Mac OS X, for example, or that a number of companies have been sued for trying to do anything similar with GPL'ed code?  Or, perhaps, you fail to understand that not all talented programmers in the world are willing to do all of their work for free?  When a copyleft license is attached to a piece of code, that code becomes unusable for anyone who actually hopes to make a living with his programming work.

And your claims that Linux is better on the desktop are laughable!  Only around 1% of desktop users choose Linux, and that's also in spite of it being free, and backed by tons of anti-capitalist propaganda, as well as the billions of dollars poured into it by government agencies from all over the world, not to mention James Taggards like IBM and Oracle, all with the aim of hurting Microsoft.

On the server, components with BSD-like licenses are demonstrably better than their copyleft equivalents.  Apache isn't copyleft, and neither is PHP or Python, for example.  PostgreSQL kicks MySQL's butt.  FreeBSD beats Linux in server speed and scalability, while OpenBSD's security and NetBSD's platform support are unmatched.  Copyleft projects may have greater visibility and numbers, but quality programmers tend to avoid them like a plague!

Oh, and to allege that I use a "Microsoft Astroturf Play-Book" is pretty shallow-minded given my affinity for software "piracy", which I've mentioned on this very thread.

[NuroSlam]

The operating system could have been called Tabs for all I care!

Cute. One of the lightweight "desktops" I keep on hand is twm, the "Tab Window Manager" http://xwinman.org/vtwm.php

I notice that OLWM is on their list too, I also keep that on hand just in case I want to party like it's 1992!

Im a ratpoison guy myself

http://www.nongnu.org/ratpoison/
http://penguinpetes.com/XWM_Guide/index.php?mode=Ratpoison

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

Alex, stop being a FUDmonster!

[BobRobertson]

Oh, and to allege that I use a "Microsoft Astroturf Play-Book" is pretty shallow-minded given my affinity for software "piracy", which I've mentioned on this very thread.

Microsoft _loves_ piracy.

Piracy ensures that Microsoft gets to keep Windows in front of people who otherwise could not afford it. Microsoft then uses their enforcement arm, the BSA, to reap profits from prosecuting companies that, wittingly or not, can be charged with copying.

That's why Windows is so easy to crack: It's deliberate. Always has been. Microsoft cries crocodile tears about it all the way to the bank.

As to the rest, I'm curious how "socialist", "cancer", etc, all wordings right out of the Astroturfer's handbook, seem to permeate your writings on the subject of people voluntarily cooperating to write software. Oh, but of course not for the BSD license stuff, after all Microsoft loves the BSD license. Yet Microsoft's use of the government monopoly grant of copyright and patent somehow isn't "socialist"?

Oh well, just another contradiction.

Alex, stop being a FUDmonster!

Wouldn't that be nice.

[Alex Libman 14]

I must admit that with "Microsoft loves piracy" you've actually made a rational point and defended it sufficiently.  Good job.

What's socialist about copyleft is using government force in enforcing it, that is keeping any software companies from using it for their benefit.

Microsoft can make a buck without government force - through business contracts as well as ad revenue.

[NuroSlam]

I must admit that with "Microsoft loves piracy" you've actually made a rational point and defended it sufficiently.  Good job.

What's socialist about copyleft is using government force in enforcing it, that is keeping any software companies from using it for their benefit.

Microsoft can make a buck without government force - through business contracts as well as ad revenue.

Sorry, but there is nothing in GPL that prevents any company from using it to make a profit

[Alex Libman 14]

Have you ever written and sold any software before?

It would have been kinda hard to get people to register my ShareWare if I had to release the source for the full version for free...  Plus they'd see all my spelling and grammatical mistakes in the source code (my English wasn't very good back then)... 

[NuroSlam]

Have you ever written and sold any software before?

I have, written, sold and supported my own software. Thanks for playing, next

[Alex Libman 14]

I have, written, sold and supported my own software.  Thanks for playing, next

Proof?

[NuroSlam]

I have, written, sold and supported my own software.  Thanks for playing, next

Proof?

Rapid Reporting Open Document Center
hardware and software

Not that I have anything to prove.

[BobRobertson]

It would have been kinda hard to get people to register my ShareWare if I had to release the source for the full version for free...

Then you don't understand the GPL.

The GPL says, in short form, that if you redistribute code that YOU received under the GPL, you have to provide that code under the same terms that YOU received it.

If you make changes to other people's code, and redistribute it, then you have to provide the resulting code under the same terms that YOU received it.

That's why Google has made several fortunes using GPL'd code, without providing any (ok, very few) of the changes they have made to anyone else: They don't redistribute it. And yes, they have been taken to task for this tendency:

Greg Kroah Hartman on the Linux Kernel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2SED6sewRw

RedHat, IBM, Novell and others make money by selling support for the otherwise free software, including their own works under the GPL. IBM has always charged nominal fees for their software, provided the source code and then charged for support, so it was no big change for them.

So Alex, since GPL code is cancerous crap anyway, you haven't given any reason why you'd want to use it as the basis for anything you would want to redistribute. So you have no reason to use the GPL if you dislike it so much, nor any reason to so vehemently bemoan anyone else's use of it.