![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jul. 23rd, 2009 05:07 pmI'm amused and a little concerned at the lack of comprehension being shown on the Ubuntu mailing lists concerning Microsoft's moves to support Linux on Hyper-V. Firstly, people are not registering what Hyper-V actually means, and secondly, MS is getting credit for releasing its VM additions as GPL, when actually it was just a way of getting itself out of trouble for using GPL code in a proprietary program.
So I wrote this...
Hyper-V is *exactly* the same sort of move as Internet Explorer was.
Secondly, MS did not choose to give away the source, it had to, because it has been caught violating the GPL.
For those too young to remember or with short memories, when Windows 95 came out, it did not include a Web browser. Instead it had a client for MS' proprietary online service, the Microsoft Network, MSN - which is now totally gone, dismantled, but the name lives on as that of a MS promotional website and a proprietary instant-messaging client.
Then Netscape came along. It offered a multiplatform web browser and email client which ran on Windows, Mac and Unix. Closed-source, proprietary, but free for home and non-commercial use.
Netscape did very well. Its browser soon dominated the Web. MS had totally failed to see that the Web was coming, as demonstrated by its very basic v1.0 web browser being relegated to a paid-for optional add-on for Windows called the Plus Pack, which mainly contained extra themes and some games.
Microsoft responded by aggressively developing Internet Explorer, giving it away for free to all users of Windows 3.1, 95 and NT and bundling it in with Windows 95B and Windows NT4.
This was anti-competitive behaviour - there are laws against this kind of thing, for good reasons which are today mostly forgotten. The same sort of laws used to protect us from bank speculation and so on, were dismantled in the 1980s and 1990s and resulted in the current stock markets crash and worldwide recession.
Microsoft's legal defence against accusations of illegal bundling were that IE - remember, originally an optional extra - was not bundled with Windows, it was an integral part of it. Despite demonstrations in court that this "integral part" could be removed, MS was not prosecuted.
Result: in the end, Netscape went broke.
Now, VMware is making good money off the MS platform, just as Netscape did. So, MS bought Connectix for its VirtualPC hypervisor, gave the Windows versions away for free, built the core into Windows Server and called it HyperV - which is also free.
It's specifically designed to stab VMware in the back by undercutting VMware's product with a free equivalent. It is exactly the same illegal action that MS took with IE 14 years ago. It got away with it then and it will now.
But for HyperV to be accepted, it must support the other OSs people use - which, today, means Linux.
So, MS produces add-ins for guest OSs running under VirtualPC/Server/Hyper-V.
In this case, it used GPL code to produce the add-in, was caught, and rather than fighting the case, it's chosen to release the whole lot as GPL. Doubtless many inside MS are not too happy about this, but it means the company can buy good PR out of what originated as a careless mistake.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/23/microsoft_hyperv_gpl_violation/
http://www.osnews.com/story/21882/Microsoft_s_Linux_Kernel_Code_Drop_Result_of_GPL_Violation
And some cogent analysis:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1469009/microsoft-donates-code-linux
So I wrote this...
Hyper-V is *exactly* the same sort of move as Internet Explorer was.
Secondly, MS did not choose to give away the source, it had to, because it has been caught violating the GPL.
For those too young to remember or with short memories, when Windows 95 came out, it did not include a Web browser. Instead it had a client for MS' proprietary online service, the Microsoft Network, MSN - which is now totally gone, dismantled, but the name lives on as that of a MS promotional website and a proprietary instant-messaging client.
Then Netscape came along. It offered a multiplatform web browser and email client which ran on Windows, Mac and Unix. Closed-source, proprietary, but free for home and non-commercial use.
Netscape did very well. Its browser soon dominated the Web. MS had totally failed to see that the Web was coming, as demonstrated by its very basic v1.0 web browser being relegated to a paid-for optional add-on for Windows called the Plus Pack, which mainly contained extra themes and some games.
Microsoft responded by aggressively developing Internet Explorer, giving it away for free to all users of Windows 3.1, 95 and NT and bundling it in with Windows 95B and Windows NT4.
This was anti-competitive behaviour - there are laws against this kind of thing, for good reasons which are today mostly forgotten. The same sort of laws used to protect us from bank speculation and so on, were dismantled in the 1980s and 1990s and resulted in the current stock markets crash and worldwide recession.
Microsoft's legal defence against accusations of illegal bundling were that IE - remember, originally an optional extra - was not bundled with Windows, it was an integral part of it. Despite demonstrations in court that this "integral part" could be removed, MS was not prosecuted.
Result: in the end, Netscape went broke.
Now, VMware is making good money off the MS platform, just as Netscape did. So, MS bought Connectix for its VirtualPC hypervisor, gave the Windows versions away for free, built the core into Windows Server and called it HyperV - which is also free.
It's specifically designed to stab VMware in the back by undercutting VMware's product with a free equivalent. It is exactly the same illegal action that MS took with IE 14 years ago. It got away with it then and it will now.
But for HyperV to be accepted, it must support the other OSs people use - which, today, means Linux.
So, MS produces add-ins for guest OSs running under VirtualPC/Server/Hyper-V.
In this case, it used GPL code to produce the add-in, was caught, and rather than fighting the case, it's chosen to release the whole lot as GPL. Doubtless many inside MS are not too happy about this, but it means the company can buy good PR out of what originated as a careless mistake.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/23/microsoft_hyperv_gpl_violation/
http://www.osnews.com/story/21882/Microsoft_s_Linux_Kernel_Code_Drop_Result_of_GPL_Violation
And some cogent analysis:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1469009/microsoft-donates-code-linux
