Ralph Nader tells government buyers to use Linux, release Microsoft source code.

World Tech Tribune.com ^ | Copyright June 5, 2002 | Scott McCollum

[Scott McCollum]

> Prove that Microsoft hasn't licensed or paid for every technology their software engineers used in the creating of their software (or as you've said "stolen"). When I mean proof, I mean PROOF, kids - not "X-Files" conspiracy theories of alleged backdoor deals you found on "www.SupaLinuxHizzouse.org". If your proof is a civil lawsuit settlement, I'll show you proof that IBM, HP, et al. "stole" just as much tech over the years.

> Linux is already begining to diverge into two separate kernel forks - Torvalds' and Cox's. I thought ESR claimed such forking was bad and would never happen?

> It's easy for to blame Microsoft for anything because they are a public company, but what happens in the Open Souce Happy-FunLand future when a cyber terrorist organization opens a back door embedded deep within the Linux code and selectively takes down every server in America? Don't give me a "but that would never happen" response - who do you BLAME? The hacker or Linus?

If the answer is the hacker, why not blame the hacker when a "Microsoft bug" is found and exploited?

If the answer is to never blame Linus because he doesn't "own" Linux, I think you find the answer to why Linux has no marketshare. No, I'm not throwing out that for shock value - that's the fact originally stated by Ed Zander from Sun Microsystems: "yet Linux has achieved no market share in the industry."

Nader wants Microsoft along with the secondary and tertiary hardware/software industries that have been created around them destroyed by government intervention. Nader's got it wrong - If Linux is better, let the Linux companies turn on the marketing charm and convince customers to pay for it... That's the bottom line.

[Bush2000]

The government created Microsoft, the government should destroy it.

Wipe the drool away, Toddy.

[dheretic]

Microsoft is a monopoly in the PC market. There are no true monopolies if you want to get hyper technical. Some joe could have gone out and sold buckets of oil on the street during Standard Oil's height of power, but would that have made him competition? That Microsoft is a monopoly is in and of itself irrelevant. The fact that that monopoly is backed by unbalanced licensing terms and the US patent office, is quite relevant. Microsoft would be no threat to anyone if it couldn't patent its file formats, programming languages and network protocols. Patents are fundamentally at odds with how software is developed. Software development requires interoperability without restrictions. Free and commercial software alike have to be able to work together. That is how networking works. FR wouldn't exist if Larry Wall had taken Microsoft's approach to PERL, the government had not released control of TCP/IP to the public domain and the W3C restricted the ability to create open and commercial implementations of HTTP. If you are using Windows, you are using the BSD networking system to post to FR. Yes, that's right. Windows' networking system was taken from BSD, not written from scratch.

[AmishDude]

This is ALMOST enough to make me go back to microsoft, but in truth, Linux IS much better.

Full-time sysadmins love Linux. It does everything they want it to do. Unfortunately, switching to Linux will make you a full-time sysadmin whether you want to be or not.

[Liberal Classic]

I don't have to get "hyper-technical" to suggest Microsoft has competitors, and that Microsoft cannot raise prices forever without their customers going elsewhere. While Microsoft currently enjoys a position of market dominance, they are not guaranteed to keep it. Microsoft is not a Standard Oil or an Alcoa Aluminium.

However, you will find that I am highly critical of some of Microsoft's business practices. They have in the past, and apparently they continue to steal software belonging to their competitors; this past month Microsoft was levied a multi-million franc fine for packaging some small French software company's software as their own. This isn't the only time they have resorted to outright theft. Mircosoft stole Stac Electronic's Stacker software that automatically compressed your hard drive in DOS 6.0. A few years before that Microsoft released Video for Windows which was nothing more than a plagerized Apple Quicktime that ran on Windows version 3.0.

When you take these incidents with their sometimes deceptive advertising, then yes I have a problem with Microsoft management. I do not think that Microsoft Corporation is a monopoly. Rather I believe that some of their upper executives are guilty of some very shady behavior. I do not believe that Microsoft could accidentially package three different competitors' software packages by mistake. This is not monopolistic behavior, it is criminal behavior, and should have been dealt with at the time.

[dheretic]

Prove that Microsoft hasn't licensed or paid for every technology their software engineers used in the creating of their software (or as you've said "stolen"). When I mean proof, I mean PROOF, kids - not "X-Files" conspiracy theories of alleged backdoor deals you found on "www.SupaLinuxHizzouse.org". If your proof is a civil lawsuit settlement, I'll show you proof that IBM, HP, et al. "stole" just as much tech over the years.

I and a lot of people who aren't fans of MS (I personally don't hate them, I just happen to use Windows XP Pro till I get a new Mac) have never claimed that they stole IP. Stop trying to put the raggedy ass script kiddies in our camp. You're pathetic if you think that we respect or agree with them on just about anything.

On that note Scott, if you want to be less of a target for the "cut-and-paste" script kiddies that you railed about why don't you stop trolling. Your trolling attracts script kiddies like sharks to a crashed oil tanker filled with blood. Another thing lest I forget, rather than trying to drag MIT's reputation through the mud, why don't you take up your issues with their doctoral program with the appropriate people there.

Linux is already begining to diverge into two separate kernel forks - Torvalds' and Cox's. I thought ESR claimed such forking was bad and would never happen?

http://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/alan/linux-2.4/2.4.19/ seems to be full of patches. You know, patches? Not full kernel distributions. Maybe you should check out the FTP repository at kernel.org next time.

It's easy for to blame Microsoft for anything because they are a public company, but what happens in the Open Souce Happy-FunLand future when a cyber terrorist organization opens a back door embedded deep within the Linux code and selectively takes down every server in America? Don't give me a "but that would never happen" response - who do you BLAME? The hacker or Linus?

And you think a company that made an OS that could be taken down by sending corrupt data to a certain port (it's called a WinNuke) can be trusted? Your argument can be applied to any homogenous environment, especially a Windows one.

If the answer is the hacker, why not blame the hacker when a "Microsoft bug" is found and exploited?

Because Microsoft made the bug possible and they sold me software that they claimed was highly reliable. In the computer industry Scott, highly reliable means I shouldn't have any problems running mission critical systems with it. I don't see Linus running around making claims about Linux. He may say that he's really confident or he thinks that it is good to go, but I have never seen him personally stick his neck out and say that he can guarantee that your box isn't going to get rooted.

If the answer is to never blame Linus because he doesn't "own" Linux, I think you find the answer to why Linux has no marketshare. No, I'm not throwing out that for shock value - that's the fact originally stated by Ed Zander from Sun Microsystems: "yet Linux has achieved no market share in the industry."

Right. Linux has no marketshare. Seems the sales of Linux-based servers that account for about 25% of all server sales now just end up being thrown in the trash before their opened if we listen to you. Sun is just pissed because it's losing in the low end to Linux and FreeBSD-based systems and that its got growing competition from Apple in the workstation market.

Nader wants Microsoft along with the secondary and tertiary hardware/software industries that have been created around them destroyed by government intervention. Nader's got it wrong - If Linux is better, let the Linux companies turn on the marketing charm and convince customers to pay for it... That's the bottom line.

And this coming from the guy that likes the idea of not having a "transparent" internet. What about human rights activists in China? Oh good idea. Let's make it easier for the PRC to uncover their identities! Hate to break it to you, but anonymity exists only because of logistics in most cases. If you don't understand why that is then I've wasted my time even replying to you.

[Mike Fieschko]

> Linux is already begining to diverge into two separate kernel forks - Torvalds' and Cox's. I thought ESR claimed such forking was bad and would never happen?

Even worse ... there's three ... you forgot David Jones' 'fork'.

That's a joke, son.

[Scott McCollum]

And this coming from the guy that likes the idea of not having a "transparent" internet.

This quote says it all, folks. Anyone who has read my columns know I'm the man who along with author David Brin has called for more transparency on the Internet to protect all web surfers. Who wants to take a bet that there will be a smarmy reply to this post about the loss of freedoms, the destruction of choice because of corporate rule and other New World Order hyperbole?
Honestly, do you know anyone that knows it all who doesn't have to get in the last word on something like this? C'mon, it's easy money to take this bet...

[dheretic]

I meant anonymity. My mistake. From Scott's article:

We need an end to the anonymity on the Internet. Look at how hackers and other cheaters on the Internet operate and you’ll see that it’s all about hiding, anonymity, disregard for private property and a rejection of the social norms.

Keep that in mind before any of you think that he is anything less than an avowed statist. He knows very well that his plan cannot be brought to fruition without a very large growth of state police power.

[dheretic]

As I said, I don't care if they are a monopoly. The software industry by nature will correct itself, but the government will not allow that because it will allow Microsoft and companies like it to use patent law to crush incipient competitors. As always, the government as at least a part of the problem.

[dheretic]

As I said, I don't care if they are a monopoly. The software industry by nature will correct itself, but the government will not allow that because it will allow Microsoft and companies like it to use patent law to crush incipient competitors. As always, the government as at least a part of the problem.

[Scott McCollum]

Ah, the statist elitist hyperbole posted right on cue and just as I predicted!
Anyone who took that bet: Pay up!

[The Great Satan]

Whenever I have to use Linux, it's like being transported back in time 30 or 40 years -- or like being in the Soviet Union. Everything is old and moldy, nothing works, there's no service, no documentation, everything is "being fixed." That is "no accident," as the Marxists like to say, because having no-nothing idiots like Ralph Nader dictate what software everybody should use is the very essence of Communism.

[Rate_Determining_Step]

As a new Linux sysadmin myself, from the Windows world, there are a couple of things...

1. What the h@ll am I doing compiles and makes?! I'm not a programmer. I can't review source. I don't know makefiles. The programmers I work with dont' like messing with other's code and I would never ask them to help. But, here I am doing ./Configure makeclean make make install. From DejaNews (Google), I see other Linux "experts" dispensing wrong advice, haphazardly, all over the place. What percentage of the people doing this stuff can actually go in there and fix a broken makefile? You get good at separating bull from decent advice. I can fool most people into thinking I'm an expert, but I'm not kidding myself. I'm at the mercy of people who write this stuff and if it doesn't work - tough - write your own. If there was no Internet, Linux would die in a heartbeat.

2. Try to get tech support for mcrypt. Why no tech support? No incentive. No one cares.

3. Try to set up sendmail. The docs for simple instructions just point you to the 100 page user manual. simple.

4. Latest php (4.2.1) has a bug in the makefile when run under RH 7.x. Put /libs in the source tree before "make". How do I know that? It was mused on the net somewhere. This is a rediculous way of doing software. But they say it's better.

That being said, IF you don't give up, it can work - well. I can't even think "support" and Linux in the same sentence. If it ain't in the docs or in newsgroups, you're done. End of story. There needs to be much discipline administered to the community. Which I can't see ever happening.

And lastly, why should anybody pay a bit of interest to what a socialist & luddite has to say about any technology?! Listening to Ralph Nader on technology is like listening to Rosie O'Donnel address supermodeling.

[dwollmann]

Whenever I have to use Linux, it's like being transported back in time 30 or 40 years -- or like being in the Soviet Union. Everything is old and moldy, nothing works, there's no service, no documentation, everything is "being fixed."

No documentation?

• The Linux Documentation Project, searchable online HOWTOs and other documentation
• xman ('man' if you prefer console)
• info <topic> or info and use info's built-in search functions
• apropos <search string>
• /usr/share/doc/ (/usr/doc/ on older distributions)
• if you still can't find it, this will search all the online man pages:
  $ find `man -w | tr : ' '` -type f | xargs zgrep -l '<search string>' | sed 's!.*/\(.*\).[0-9]$!\1!'

[The Great Satan]

Oh please, what BS! I mean real, usable documentation, not cheesy, half-finished UNIX man pages with lame, apologetic little geek jokes and TODO placeholders.

[dwollmann]

I don't know which Linux distribution you're using, but the man pages, info files and other documents on all my systems (Debian, Mandrake, two different Red Hat releases) are very thorough and quite useful.

[The Great Satan]

I guess it depends on what you are used to. The UNIX man pages did seem pretty cool, when I first encountered them twenty years ago. What the linux weenies fail to recognize is, the rest of the world on has moved on since then.