Oracle intersted in buying Ubunutu

[Alexander Jacob Tsykin]

On Thursday 20 April 2006 17:03, Peter Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:32:52 +1000
>
> Alexander Jacob Tsykin <stsykin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am familiar with the monopoly case. In this, microsoft was at least
> > partly a victim of its own success.
>
> *Cough* Excuse me if I don't think success is an excuse for predatory
> business practices like those used against Netscape. Excuse me if I don't
> think that fabricating videos used under oath in a courtroom is acceptable
> behaviour for a "successful" company, or anyone else. I could continue, at
> length and in detail, but my post would turn into a small book.
>
partly. They ultimately have a monopoly because they are popular. The reason 
they had the case brought against them was that they have a monopoly. Lets 
face facts, their conduct is often unethical, but their success is the reason 
that this conduct was in issue.
> > As for the halloween memorandum, the quotes he isolates seem to say only
> > that OSS is a threat, go figure, and suggest a strategy to combat it.
> > What is so evil about that.
>
> If that was all the Halloween Documents said, perhaps I could agree with
> you. Sadly, it isn't.
>
> A few quotes from "Halloween" below, with my comments.
>
>
> "Linux's homebase is currently commodity network and server infrastructure.
> By folding extended functionality into today's commodity services and
> create new protocols, we raise the bar & change the rules of the game. "
>
> Create new protocols - this is something MS love to do. Find a new and
> different way of doing things, but make sure it isn't open: thus only MS
> product users can use it, and it breaks interoperabity with other systems.
>
> Have you read about Microsoft's version of Java? That was just one blatant
> example of "improving" something that was cross-platform, breaking it in
> the process. MS are scared to death of anything cross-platform, because it
> threatens their domination of the market.
>
a strategy to combat it. Microsoft is right that OSS is a threat, so they have 
to fight it. simple. This is as far as I can see a very effective way to 
combat it.
>
> "The effect of patents and copyright in combatting Linux remains to be
> investigated. "
>
> Does this seem like a nice way to compete? Or are you an apologist for
> software patents?
>
no. They have their place. I don't like them personally, but some software 
(e.g. games) simple cannot make money from open source because they cannot 
sell support. Also, some software trades chiefly on its uniqueness. open 
source can hurt it badly. I most definitely do not apologise for software 
patents, because no apology is needed, sometimes they are necessary.
> * Linux can win as long as services / protocols are commodities.
>
> Do you see the pattern here? The whole thrust is to pervert services and
> protocols. Protocols are supposed to make it possible for diverse systems
> to communicate. MS wants all the plumbing to fit only MS - tough luck if
> you want to connect to their non-standard protocol.
>
> Someone works out how to connect to one of these so-called protocols? Oh,
> we'll move the goalposts so they have to figure it out again....
>
a strategy to combat OSS, and an effective one. It is not in any way 
reprehensible. This company is struggling for its survival in its current 
state as the overwhelming leader of the market, if it does nothing, it will 
fail.

Sasha