On Wednesday 20 July 2011 18:15 in comp.os.linux.networking, Charlie
Gibbs enlightened humanity with the following words...:
> In article <j02kbf$4pd$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)d
> (Aragorn) writes:
>
>> This is exactly why they have released Hyper-V as GPL'd. They
>> got caught red-handed while hard-linking a GPL'd network driver
>> in Hyper-V. They then put a spin on that story and claimed that
>> they were releasing Hyper-V under the GPL in order to allow the
>> Linux kernel to run on Hyper-V. The Hyper-V support code was
>> briefly adopted in the mainline Linux kernel, but from then on
>> Microsoft no longer seemed interested in maintaining the code,
>> and eventually the code was dropped from the Linux kernel again.
>
> Sounds like the Win98/Java fiasco all over again. Some things
> never change.
Well, I don't really know about that one. The only Windows versions I
have used on my own computers are Windows 3.0/3.1 on DOS (for six
months, pending the official availability of IBM's OS/2 2.0) and Windows
NT 4.0 Workstation (for two years).
In my opinion, Win95/98/ME were a scam. And in hindsight, so was NT.
>> I'm not sure on the numbers, but yes, they have what they term a
>> "Linux Lab". But their intent is of course not to develop Free
>> Software, or software that runs in GNU/Linux. Their intent is
>> to try and steal from GNU/Linux, and possibly to look for leverage
>> for patent trolling, although the odds to that must be very small
>> or else they would already have done that by now.
>
> They're probably also looking for subtle ways to break compatibility,
Oh, but of course! If it doesn't have a Microsoft patent attached to
it, they refuse to be compatible with it. That's why they were pushing
MS-OOXML as an internationally acknowledged document format. It gave
them an excuse to not be compatible with ODF.
> like the Win2K patch that would cause any attempts to connect to
> another machine for file sharing to first send an invalid command
> and examine the error message that came back. That way it could
> detect whether the remote machine was running Samba and refuse to
> work if so. (All hail the open source community; a patch that made
> Samba successfully spoof a Microsoft SMB server was out in days.)
And a UNIX machine running Samba actually outperforms a genuine Windows
server, is more stable and robust, and can act as a Samba domain
controller. ;-)
--
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)