I do not know if it is time to worry or to rejoice in front of the latest events that are happening around various companies that distribute Linux distros and the proprietary software giant Windows. What is true is that allowing Linux to run on Windows can be a rather risky move that, if it is favorable for the Linux environment, will bring with it the incorporation of many more applications to our operating system.
But it is important that we reflect on the intentions of the representatives of this organization with the incorporation in the first instance of tools that allow the Linux console to be present in Windows 10 and now with the announcement that in the future (seemingly immediate) we can access ubuntu from the Windows Store.
What is Linux gaining from this?, Does Windows want Linux to be one of your products?, Will Linux lose some of the market share who had won?, Does Windows feel threatened by Linux?. These and many other questions should be asked by each of those who today enjoy Linux and the philosophy of Free software.
Little by little, Microsoft and its flagship software Windows have been getting closer to free software and Linux, but honestly, the contributions it has made are very few compared to what it has received in return. But we must also understand that if we want an accelerated growth of Linux, we have to support all agreements that bring benefits in one way or another to this free operating system.
In my personal opinion, I believe that Linux and free software should create barriers that protect us before the influence of Microsoft and all proprietary software, but avoiding denying the possibility of improving and taking advantage of the contributions that this industry can offer.
Others cannot be allowed to consume for their own benefit what others have developed for the benefit of the world, and in the worst case, once stolen what is not theirs, they create campaigns to exterminate the primary idea.
I am one of those who believe that we must avoid at all costs that free software becomes socialist, understanding this phrase, as the process of giving the same to everyone and taking away from those who have the most to give them to those who have the least. Linux and Free Software must create clear mechanisms to avoid parasites, which benefit from third-party development without the slightest intention of not even thanking them for such contributions.
All this should awaken in us a critical vision, which allows the entire community to have a clear vision of the events that are taking place, managing to determine the pros and cons of Microsoft's movements around free software. And I am not saying with this that the critical vision must revolve around the boycott, on the contrary, it must revolve around channeling the necessary mechanisms so that free software is the beneficiary.
We know that the communities in some cases will not influence the agreements already established, or the future agreements, but it is important that we make our position clear and above all that we make the best of these circumstances.
It will dawn and we will see, but meanwhile, Tux protect us.
PS: GNU / Linux but we know that Linux is what it is and we have already talked about that
My dear, I think you have no idea what the word socialism means and what it means!
regards!
Wait for a comment of this type, it is an ideology that personally seems to me a bit lacking in the common sense it claims to offer. Since I saw that word I went straight to the comments to see who was the first to try for that word, obscure the context that matters.
Hahaha an offended communist, not wanting to overshadow the article and the main idea and without wanting to create a comment thread on another topic. Let me tell the commenter that socialism is an equal sharing of misery, someone who lives in the country that for a time had as president a character quite emblematic of socialism such as Hugo Chavez. That man destroyed this country.
It is an offense because it distorts the vision of socialism. The analogy it creates, if you think about it, is stupid. According to him, socialism is "... to give the same to everyone and to take from the one who has the most to give it to the one who has the least." and then he continues with "Linux and Free Software must create clear mechanisms that avoid parasites"; So the ones who have the least are the "parasites"? Create a definition subjective of socialism and then fall into a fallacy.
Apart from the above - which is a simple error of analogy, nothing to write home about - what he wants to demonstrate falls through the existence of GNU licenses; all it does is stoke a non-existent fire.
stop fighting the only bad thing that is happening here is that windows is trying to step on linux, it does not matter whether one country or another is socialist or not what matters is that we must not let windows beat our beloved operating system ...
is a comment with encouragement to call for unity among Linux users ...
You should not go there pouring opinions about what is not known, and if possible stick to the truth, Venezuela has never been socialist, with the constitutional referendum of 2007 it was intended to constitute a socialist state in Venezuela, it is the only election that Hugo Chavez lost.
Socialism is when there is no private bank and the shareholders of the companies are the workers. That is, an economy without capitalists, without people who are rich at the cost of the surplus value of the work of others.
I'm just stating the definition, not taking sides on whether it's good or bad.
And according to that definition in Venezuela there has never been socialism, only politicians talking about socialism while sitting in a totally capitalist economy. Just like in pre-Nazi Germany.
Neither in Venezuela nor in the USSR.
In the Soviet Union, the means of production were never managed by the workers, if not by the state itself; There is no excuse that the state is a kind of "representative" when in the RFS of Yugoslavia there was a real self-management on the part of the workers following the Marxist theory.
In the end Trotsky was right, the state property of the USSR did not differ from the capitalist production relations and his mode of government of a fascist regime, a penalty that he was exiled and assassinated for telling the truth.
You confuse it with communism where if it is owned by the proletariat, in socialism the production goods belong to the state.
No, in socialism the goods of production belong to the proletariat. I mean, the economic classes are over.
In communism, the goal of eradicating all classes goes further, because there is neither government nor religions (political class and ecclesiastical classes). Thus in communism the utopian state is reached where there is only one social class (worker / proletariat) with nothing above it living in anarchy (absence of government).
That is why socialism is an intermediate step to communism (which does not always mean that socialism seeks to lead to communism since many socialists consider socialism with an end in itself since they consider that this is "the only part viable 'of communism).
Exactly, that is nothing more than State Capitalism.
In Venezuela, the choice was for the hybrid formula of socialism coexisting with capitalism, a formula called "XNUMXst century."
The result was not very different from Allende's Chile or pre-Nazi Germany.
Same story same mistake.
I think that a mutual collaboration between microsoft and the GNU / Linux community is somewhat risky, we know in advance that microsoft does nothing just for free, obviously there are not one, if not several reasons why they do this, but I think those that can limit how far this supposed "alliance" and "collaboration" will go, they are the largest heads of opensource projects such as debian, ubuntu, and redhat with all their derivatives, and where users who love and passionate about the penguin and the Wildebeest, let us participate in tests, documentation, development. Of course, microsof can contribute and can grab things from the opensource, but always respecting the idea of community and freedom, such as the Full Metal Alchemist anime is, this must be an equivalent exchange xD. Great Article by the way, greetings from Mexico.
Do you need Linux from Windows? Who benefits (or vampirizes) whom?
Aguyro, well said ¡¡¡¡¡¡
Now, someone explain to me, here we talk about open source and the hackers told me: please promote only free software, in fact I don't know if I'm doing it right, because sometimes I filter open because I find it interesting; For my LINUX it is synonymous with free and everything is open source, which is not what worries me because I do not understand at all how to handle it, but I have become totally adept at free and contrary to proprietary
Can anyone shed light on this question? because the information I receive is viralized in groups where they named me administrator
Thanks to whoever reads me and thanks a lot to whoever answers me
You should be careful, as many people confuse that concept. Free in English means free and free. A free software is one that is free code (free software), that is free even though it is not free (freeware), or that is both.
It is safer to look for open software because it only refers to the concept of 100% free software, regardless of its price. There are versions of Ret Hat Enterprise that cost money but are still open because they are distributed under GPL licenses.
Free Software or OpenSource, in many ways are the same, both in code and definition.
Basically they only differ in the coherence of the movements, in which OpenSource has managed to sell its hidden incoherence with the parapet of «pragmatism», as if they were vegetarians who have made their lives saying that vegetarian food should reign because it is what better, healthier, tastier and ultimately superior, but when it comes to eating they "have to be pragmatic" and they eat whatever best suits their interests at the moment.
That is the reason why these people tell you to talk about FreeSoftware and not OpenSource, because the former maintain and apologize for its principles.
In both cases, they can be free or paid. That aspect is irrelevant in the controversy.
Clearly linux benefits from any company that interests you, since there are many resources around to contribute to linux.
Does the company do it for its own benefit? Of course, companies are businesses, what they say above about Windows wants to destroy Linux, Windows wants to make money, not destroy anything seems childish.
On the other hand, surely Microsoft can implement and develop things for Linux that a bored bearded man around the house in his spare time would take years.
Totally true. And the reality is that today Linux would be in prehistory decades behind if it were not for the contributions of multinationals (identical to Microsoft) that have put the money and paid professionals to develop Linux to what it is today. Bearded men may have the best intentions, but the reality is that their human resources are not enough to keep up with the market demand.
Microsoft does not give anything for free, in the past we have seen how libraries that were allowed to be used as "free" once used by non-Microsoft software were licensed (c) and were charged for copyright. Microsoft has lost the mobile war, and is now trying to destroy gnu / linux. They do not contribute anything, they control everything. Do not say nonsense such as that multinationals develop Linux because it is a lie. The problem with linux is precisely the amount of people who use it because it is free, install wine (micro-shit emulator) to play silly games "free" without paying royalties for its sigstema or for games "cracked" and downloaded of some web page that there are many.
this is something concrete and quite eloquent on the subject ...
DOES NOT want it to be one more of your products, IT IS ALREADY ONE MORE OF YOUR PRODUCTS BECAUSE FEDORA, SUSE AND THE ETERNAL PU_A DE UBUNTU are already available in the Windows store Windows will never buy Linux (the kernel) but that does not prevent take over the gnu / linux distributions, at least the ones that are not community but business like fedosusubuntu.
I invite you to take a look at the bsd and start moving away from linux, on the desktop TrueOS is a good option for newbies to unix.
As well as it is another product in Azure.
Indeed, Linux is already one more Microsoft product.
Hello, Microsoft intends the same as always, to destroy GNU / Linux and anything else that is not an invention and is imposed by Microsoft.
1 - What is Linux Gaining with this?, R = Absolutely nothing
2 - Will Linux Lose Market Shares? , R = In servers no, in End Users, it is possible that but if a person had enough coherence and decision to migrate the operating system, he will not return from the one migrated.
3 - What had he gained with these movements? , to what or who are you referring precisely?
GNU / Linux, absolutely nothing
Microsoft Windows, projecting a false "Love" towards GNU / Linux so that they would allow it entry to begin with its tricks of slow and prolonged destruction, wanting to replace the alternatives by software of its creation, for example with Microsoft Visual Studio.
When they themselves told us between 2000 ~ 2005 "Microsoft will never create Software compatible with GNU / Linux, because it is a lousy operating system"
Which is why I have always told them not to use exclusive Microsoft software, the only intention is that they replace the open standards of the community with proprietary ones, for long-term purposes, make their properties a standard so that everyone becomes dependent. from microsoft.
Novell (SuSE Professional) and Cannonical (Ubuntu 11.04) were the first to allow Microsoft to harm them, and now they go for "Debian, Fedora, OpenSuSE, ArchLinux" from afar I clearly see their intentions to harm communities and their philosophies in favor of your company.
4 - Does Windows feel threatened by Linux? Without a doubt, if not, they would not have that eagerness to want to destroy it from within.
As the masses are stupid and domineering, surely Microsoft will succeed, since few are those who are opposed to the non-standardization of proprietary software of a particular company.
Because if they weren't, we wouldn't have had SystemD for a long time, but since most end users are too stupid to care about Free Software licenses and philosophies, you have no idea how that might impact you in the future.
The only thing that the vast majority of new and intermediate users will tell you is "I installed a distro, and it works, and it is the only thing that matters to me", but they are not careful with the software they use and their respective licenses. and the few who really want to learn from the many who already know, many of those who already know have become a fairly toxic community for the most part.
It is because of this that we must educate each other, to form solid and determined communities that prefer Free Software and GPL licenses, since in the end it will be more convenient for everyone, both for its preservation and study, as well as software optimizations. with such licenses.
INUKAZE, what you say would be the great solution, but it is rare for people to think this way, you have to start by training children, on that you should make a great revolt, that depends a lot on the future, here in Argentina , many people continue with XP, because it is what they know and do not want anything else, and it is difficult to convince of the benefits of free software, only children would be able to see that there is something better and at hand
I hope that proposals and solutions arise in this world that the proprietary is already intoxicating us to deadly levels
Hello, well I will expand, and I will give you a summary and my opinion regarding the years that I have been using GNU / Linux.
Precisely one of the things that is against GNU / Linux is that they do not have a standardized point in certain things like
Audio Systems {OSS, OSS4, Alsa, Pulse, Roar, Gstremer, Phonon, Esd, Arts}
Package {.tar.bz2, .tar.gz, .tar.xz, .xz, .txz, .tgz, deb, rpm} -> I sincerely hope Flatplak solves this issue but at the system level it currently solves it at the level of user. for now I am trying to create some "AppImages" (Portables)
Which for me does not make much sense, it is like with PlayOnLinux, which installs the versions of Wine in the particular user, instead of installing it at the system level for all users so as not to repeatedly occupy the same space with the same version of wine in different users.
Graphic System {XFree86, X.Org, Wayland, Mir}
Versioned libraries and are not backward compatible
Drivers: nvidia, amd, amd / ati, intel, printers, wifi, bluetooh, touchpads, wacoms
Desktop Environments: Plasma 5, KDE4, Trinity Desktop (KDE 3), Mate (Gnome 2), Xfce 4, LXQt, LXDe, Razor-Qt, Techcisa Desktop, Olix Desktop, Rox Desktop, Étoilé, Equinox Desktop, Unity, Cinnamon , Budgie Desktop, Pantheon Desktop, Solus Desktop, Moshka Desktop.
Where I see that the problem mainly lies in
1 - The developers never directly consult the communities about their frequently used equipment, to determine which is the average of high-end, medium, low-end and discontinued equipment in use.
2 - When figuring out which are the discontinued computers in use, they can focus on creating an extremely lightweight desktop environment limiting themselves to specific hardware. in case although to many it sounds like something completely absurd. it is better to make a desktop environment for discontinued hardware for example for
Pentium MXX, 233 MHz
Ram memory: 64 Mb
Video: 8 MB with OpenGL 1.0
As they read it, if they ask why it is because if you make a desktop for those limitations, they stabilize it, then debug it and optimize it so that it is robust, solid and stable, when used on a computer with greater resources, this will only have a positive impact in terms of resource consumption.
Also make it a modulated desktop, that is, as firefox was at the beginning, and as there are several desktop environments today, being able to install extensions and depending on which they are used they will increase the consumption of resources.
3 - Optionally have Compiz's forgotten effects, since when creating a general-purpose desktop environment for the end user, many, even if they use it only for work, like it to be visually pleasing.
Obviously for that, ask for at least 64 MB of Video (As compiz worked in 2007 with almost all its features turned on)
4 - The other thing is that it is customizable, and preferably base the design on Vectors instead of pixels, in order to avoid having to create, for example, the same icons in different scales than if «128 × 128» «64 × 64» «48 × 48 »« 36 × 36 »« 32 × 32 »« 24 × 24 »« 22 × 22 »« 16 × 16 »« 8 × 8 »
5 - Establish a module that allows choosing to draw the windows in the system that the user can choose from among those available, for example:
QT -> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
GTK -> 1, 2, 3, 4
EFL -> 0.17, 0.18, 0.19, 0.20, 0.21
XForms
Basing the creation of said desktop environment on the guidelines of GNUStep and FreeDesktop.org.
When they manage to establish those standards, it is that they will be able to attract all types of users and developers. Because many developers have told me that they really waste a lot of time creating compatibility with multiple sound systems, even through SDL.
Others who sometimes use so many different packages and libraries that they cannot determine the requirements of the software they have created. although many use the LXC to solve as much as they can sometimes it is not as effective.
For example developers like mednafen seem to use distributions like ArchLinux always up to date, so for example when a user of Slackware 14.2 tries to compile their source code, this is not possible. because Slackware handles more with older software but also much more stable.
But anyway, that's just something that won't happen because
1 - Desktop Environment developers most have their own ideas, and as long as they can use them on their PCs, those with older PCs don't matter.
2 - Other types of developers, for example Window Manager such as Enlightment, although the idea is good, those developers do not use it daily, so its progress is slow, and incidentally it will not become a desktop environment, although performance level and consumption, this is the best
But so much so that they don't even know what to do with their project that Bohdi Linux decided to create a derivative from the E17, because the E21 although it is more stable, completely lost the objective and the compatibility with itself.
3 - The developers who could develop it, each one will want to impose their idea on that of another, and in the end, they can reach an agreement to include both, worse at the cost of sacrificing the low requirements of the desktop environment to be developed.
4 - Toxic Users, that community that only complains and complains and does not really contribute anything, the only thing that they end up doing is that the projects are abandoned. Since they don't even give suggestions, they just complain about everything and everything.
For those reasons, I think it is impossible for them to make and apply the most logical and simple solution, which is to create software for those who cannot financially purchase a newer equipment. When I migrated to GNU / Linux in 1998, one of the things that I particularly loved was its extremely low requirements compared to Windows 98SE.
And When I installed my SuSE 5.2, after suffering specifying the partitions, by Sectors, Cylinders and Heads of the hard disk. When I started KDE1, although it seemed horrible graphically, its fluidity and stability made me fall in love with the system.
But currently developers of both desktop environments and video games, they believe that absolutely everyone has access to the internet, and the economy of each country is so prosperous that they can purchase a computer with the following minimum specifications
Processor: Quad Core, i7, 12 GHz
Ram: DDR4, 16GB
Video: 2 GB NVRAM, Nvidia, ATI / AMD or Intel
Especially 3D video game developers. even more especially those that use Unity to create games. When there are millions of engines with which you can create your games, they are free software, and much less requirements.
Not long ago I saw 3 clones of Mario Bros from Nes on Github
The first was made in Unity (The game engine not the desktop environment)
The second was made in Unreal Engine 4
EL Tercero was made in CPP + Allegro + SDL
The requirements are:
Unity: Ram -> 4 GB, Video -> 1 GB NVRam, Processor: Quad Core at 6 Ghz
Unreal Engine -> 2 GB Ram, Video -> 512 MB NVram, Processor: Dual Core 3,00 GHz
The Third -> 256 MB Ram, Video -> 8 MB, Processor, Pentium IV at 600 MHz
Where the communities of most current developers think more about how to create a game quickly regardless of the requirements they are going to ask for.
Instead of creating a source code optimized according to the type of game you are creating, because I have even tried very good projects like an «Adventure Time» made with Blender + Python and it doesn't consume much
In short, many of the developers have abandoned the structured code, and well optimized for the machine, in favor of being able to create more that requires more just to be able to create it more quickly, sacrificing stability.
Anyway. I mean in the absence of a serious standardization of programs made in Free Software, it makes it difficult to create more objective software. This also results in great discomfort when looking for software for specific tasks that are stable and easy to use, for example an AutoCad clone, there are not, we have alternatives, and although many are good, some are a bit strange to learn. use.
Software focused on children is another challenge too, many times I have discussed with game developers, and I always tell them, if they can create video games, that they can teach general culture without the player knowing that they are cultivating them, it is the best they can do. . since there are people like me who do not learn anything by reading books, if not we learn through video games I learned a lot from
Ages Of Empires -> History
Broken Sword -> History
Civilization -> History
Pokémon -> Logic
Stronghold -> Logic
Diablo 1/2 -> Fantasy
Doctor Who -> Science / Fiction
Math Blaster -> Math
The Incredible Machine -> Logic
SafeCracker -> Logic
Call Of Duty 1/2 -> History
Medal Of Honor: Allied Assault, Pacific Assualt -> History
Rainbow Six -> Logic
Agatha Cristie -> And there is none left (Based on the book 10 Negritos, I know because my friends who read told me) -> Drama
I really like Fantasy and Science Fiction things, because I lack imagination 😀.
I extended myself too much more than necessary, but the point is that I think that we must establish more standardized bases for the end user, which can be used by everyone, and from there be more objective when it comes to having tools and alternatives to do progress more optimally to free software.
I think the documentation would be missing.
The developers assume that you know a language, you are a linux geek and you know MVC, you can decipher its developments, with its own model, lack of documentation, mainly its classes, modules, etc. that sometimes are not standards. lead companies or mini / companies to discard the use of free software, due to the need to invest time in «translating» what the developer did, and when you ask developers about the implementation of it in their system, they simply tell you , «Well, learn to program».
Documentation is even more important than sharing your code and expecting them to use it.
I've had to "scrap" 2 or 3 projects due to poor documentation or the developers' unwillingness to explain what they tried to do with their software.
an example that I can put is GNU Health, yowsup 2
That although re-implementing some things of the software and adapting it to the needs of the clients is very good, some clients are not patient enough for one to adapt said software to their needs, and they prefer to pay for expensive microsoft software to implement free software.
What will be the underlying intentions in this? is the only thing I can ask myself.
There is always the possibility of an ace up the sleeve is that all that has been achieved in years of work and good six operating issues in Linux apart from their distributions, it cannot be that in a blink of an eye it is always that he is profitable
Too much we have become very suspicious. It is the freedom that Microsoft has, in the end who can prevent it from making its own Linux subsystem? We must be attentive as a community to these movements. Destroying Linux would be impossible. I don't know how it could destroy in the 90's with aggressive competition and all the obstacles and dirty games of MS. See if today is going to be possible, which are less relevant every day.
It is a dirty move for developers to stop working on their distributions and move to MS-Windows (why work for free or for almost nothing when they can pay you well for it). When this happens, the distributions will be increasingly lacking, then users will be forced to switch to MS-Windows.
Your analysis is very interesting. There are some points that are controversial and hardly impartial. For example, the contribution Microsoft has made to the (f) oss community has been quite helpful. He has contributed to the Kernel and released good projects, such as .NET core and VS Code. In addition, he is known to collaborate with open projects such as Node.js foundation, OpenLightDay, Open API, R consortium, among others. For all this, we must be grateful, because in some way, Microsoft's resources have done their bit to make the community better.
Since Satya assumed the role of leader things, apparently, they've changed. Cooperation or EEA? We don't know and it certainly shouldn't keep us awake. At this point, the foundations of the free and open source community are well planted, the ideology is strong and, from what I see and like, well defended by its members.
I firmly believe that Microsoft, today, has no choice or interest in making some kind of "maneuver" to destabilize the free software ecosystem, and the reason is quite logical: Microsoft also benefits from the community. A clear example are your projects that are on GitHub, such as NET core, VS Code, EntityFramework Core, etc .; they are getting tremendous support from the community and the results are good. Another example is Azure, adopting Linux on your cloud is simply a matter of cost effectiveness.
In short, IMHO, Linux and their great commonality means profitability for Microsoft, yes, perhaps more than what we get from them.
Before writing so many gunshots, read the licenses, so they wouldn't have to talk so many shit together, from the article to the comments FATAL !!!
OS X has brought more Linux developers to its side. And the world keeps turning. As a developer, if I need to work on Windows I will be super comfortable.
So that you can see how bad it works, since it does it through a virtual machine. It's not going to make Windows users very happy and they are going to think Linux is crap. So Linux will lose new users?
First ... good morning !!!
In my view, it is much simpler to deduce the intentions of "Microchofff."
The subject in question Bill Cates has not ceased to be a playboy and opportunist who at one point in his life knew how to "steal" the ideas of others and take advantage of them for his own benefit.
In other words, "PROFIT" with the sweat of others.
What makes you think that his internal mechanism is going to change and he will become a model man who will contribute interesting things to the community in a way that does not benefit.
This man turns what he touches into gold and gives alms to those who know how to work it out.
I mean… .usurerooooo !!
As a linux touch, we can say goodbye to something worthwhile.
What an article nonsense! . Gnu / Linux will continue as usual, because the licenses will not change and the four freedoms will not change either. GÜINDOS will continue his roll, doing business with whatever it is and at whatever cost.
What happened to Gnu / Linux because Android is based on it? Has Google eaten it? . What do you offer to install distributions on a virtual machine from your app-store is the problem? Amoss walks !!! Let's see if you dedicate yourself to writing more interesting articles than wasting time with this nonsense.
If you dislike this blog so much, you can go to another one, please
If I disliked the blog I would not have even commented on the article because I would not have read it. What I criticize is the article itself, the content, which is not the same. And if you dislike the criticism, deactivate the comments and matter resolved.
Android is not based on "GNU / Linux". Android is based on a modified linux kernel. If at first you do not know the differences between those concepts, what else you say is of no interest.
It is true that I made a little mistake saying, "based on Gnu / Linux" when I should have said "based on Linux". But I must add, that what you say is not completely correct either, because Android does not "modify" the Linux Kernel.
The truth is, it does not use the full Kernel, it only uses the modules that interest it, but it does not make modifications as you claim. Anyway, the fact that you have made this small mistake does not invalidate your arguments ... Ahh, excuse me ... but you haven't used a single argument!
Microsoft I just want money the vast majority of people feel free with linux vote because linux continue to feel free
The phrase that describes socialism is not what you say but "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Which is quite different from your description.
MS's strategy has always been "adopt, extend, extinguish." "Adopt" because it supposedly adopts new standards and technologies, then "extends" them, enlarges them to the point that only its own version of those technologies ends up being "compatible" due to its degree of market imposition. After breaking the consensus, it "extinguishes" the technology that it "adopted" and "exploded."
There's no more. Keep doing the same.
Greetings.
Your worries are too many.
First of all: MicrosoftLike any commercial company, it seeks profitability in its business; the nod to Linux it can be a strategy for profit.
PS: Your "analogy" on socialism is lousy.
Microsoft, unlike many mercantilist companies, makes money by breaking laws. It is a company that day after day, together with its laptop friends (HP, ACER, ASUS, LENOVO,…) continue to violate the laws of the European Union by imposing the purchase of Windows with the laptop. Prohibited by the legislation that transfers directive 2005/29 / CE in its annex I, article 29 on abusive and aggressive practices (imposing the purchase of one product together with another), in Spain law 29/2009, article 31.2. In Italy conviction Corte di Cassazione n. 19161 of 11/09/2014. They are two products, not a pack, due to: a) different nature (tangible good-software), b) different applicable legislation (sale of property, physical good-system use licenses), c) different contract (one for the purchase and another for the open and accept the license). Give back what was stolen, stop stealing and then we talk.
We already know that, the question is: Canonical, Suse, the Linux Foundation and the FSF what do they say? To be a "danger" for free software I don't see any movement.
At the end of all, Richard Stallman will be right in the whole matter of allowing proprietary devices or mixtures of proprietary with free devices to be used as the Linux kernel does, I don't ... I don't see a good face to what Microsoft does.
I completely agree with your position ... what do you intend?
GREETINGS
Microsoft's EEE strategy (Embrace Extend Destroy) is well known. Today is Linux's turn. Only today Linux is a solid and mature platform, very widespread on servers, it is not something incipient as HTML was when HTML was born for example.
»Avoid parasites that do not deign to thank» I have been in Linux practically from the first ubuntu, and if something clear I left the relationship with Linux during all this time, it is that their communities the people who develop, at least in their majority it does "disinterestedly" that is, they do not intend to be deified or put you in a plane of superior people, and yes, my friend, the whole Linux environment is communist, it is based on the community, there is not a single developer who does it alone, it is more all contribute and create linux,
but there are always the black sheep that when they start with something new and pray that PEOPLE USE IT MAKING IT POPULAR AND WHEN THEY DO IT, THEY WANT TO BECOME MILLIONAIRES, THE BEST THING IS THAT THIS KIND OF DEVELOPERS DO NOT GET DIRECTLY INTO LINUX
Well said!
One of the things that I loved about GNU / Linux is how the community has worked (Something "utopian" according to the detractors of communism).
The truth is that the author of the article, by promoting a type of barrier, is to destroy everything that free software means; the situation will be fine as long as the licenses are respected.
According to Joussef, the author does not seem to know the meaning of socialism, for the rest, the article raises something very interesting. Is Microsoft taking advantage of GNU / Linux to enrich itself even more ...? and the one above does not seem to live in Venezuela and see the tangible and intangible achievements of de Chavez
A large corporation close to the system that sustains a high percentage of the planet's technology doesn't sound good at all.
and in relation to the questions posed by the author, I have some answers in a personal capacity.
What is Linux gaining from this? Nothing, does Windows want Linux to be one of its products? I believe more than being a product would be Absorbing the knowledge acquired thanks to Free Software, will Linux lose part of the market share it had gained? I don't think Windows feels threatened by Linux? For a long time, but now with everything related to IoT, Cloud, Mobile, etc. Microsoft is light years away from many developments. In short, time will tell.
systemd, in lower case, as its developer Lennart Poettering wants to be called the replacement for "System V", which is the "init" system of UNIX, the father of all "UNIX Like" operating systems. Inukaze is the only one that mentions it in all the previous comments. In my humble opinion, the adoption of systemd by almost the entire Linux Community marked the beginning of the end for much of Linux freedom. If not, live to see. systemd is highly optimized for Desktop. Poettering defends Linux development at the expense of breaking its compatibility with POSIX and with other operating systems such as BSD and derivatives, which are UNIX. Sometimes the biggest problems are inside or are internal, and not outside or external. And as they already commented, in most cases the Community cannot influence long-term millionaire agreements signed by powerful companies. The money.
Trunk of article, dear Lizard !.
Free Software unites open-minded and positive human beings to achieve freedom of choice. To have a viable alternative to private software. To be more free.
Putting these kinds of barriers goes against the fundamental freedoms of free software. Free licenses are for everyone, and that includes Microsoft. On the other hand, this benefits linux a lot, now porting applications will be much easier because they will use the same tools.
The author does not put on the table that Microsoft constitutes a technological monopoly in many countries of the world and that it has earned him millionaire lawsuits for that reason, all lost. Nor does he comment on the turnaround that many countries have had - and continue to have - in favor of free software, even putting it "in place of" Microsoft and not "with" as is the case with Germany and others. The turn towards free software in government agencies is not only because of the licenses but because they are better, more complete, easier to maintain and a long list of etceteras (it can be said that I am part of the latter)
Joining Microsoft is making the biggest company in the world the fat soup to exterminate GNU / Linux, and it is not a joke or a tall tale, it is the purest truth.
Does anyone really believe in some altruistic principle on the part of Microsoft?
If someone answers yes, I ask them to do a quick google or duck on the company and its news today and forever so that you wake up to reality and get out of the cosmic fart.
Here and on Mars and in the entire universe, what governs everything is the Money God and they only go to that.
The GNU / Linux world is not only a question of "licenses" but a philosophy of thought and work of life and action completely different and completely opposite to Microsoft.
“My work with free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: to spread freedom and cooperation. I want to promote the spread of free software, replacing proprietary software that prohibits cooperation, in order to improve our society. " (Richard Stallman)
The book is called "Free Software for a Free Society." Do you think Microsoft and other big companies want a free society? Come down to earth !!!
Microsoft is the worst thing that could have happened to us computer scientists because a person with a lot of imagination and some money formed an empire based on marketing and deception.
Deception that still continues because Windows 10 is a "software machine" created to spy on you and meet you for the sole purpose of selling you merchandise.
On «Pragmatic Idealism» read this article that I wrote a few years ago and that explains something else about what lies behind free software:
https://www.migueltuyare.com.ar/software-libre/105-el-idealismo-pragmatico.html
And this other one that talks about «The Naturalness of Free Software»:
https://www.migueltuyare.com.ar/software-libre/132-resumen-de-la-naturalidad-del-software-libre.html
Finally, I leave you this one about «Information Socialism», in relation to what the author of this article quoted:
https://www.migueltuyare.com.ar/variete/80-socialismo-informatico.html
I don't know in your country. In Spain, in the administration politicians fill their mouths talking about the LinuX that they politicize (There are distros by regions, one for the Catalans ... another for the La Mancha ... another for the Andalusians ... Yes, little lights. Instead of join all in one or stop playing the creators of operating systems outdated at least a year with respect to the base distro (Ubuntu almost always) ... Anyway. I was not going to that. I was going to have LinuX enacted by our dear politicians to Educational Centers and Universities. But then the upper-middle-ranking officials want Güindos with ofis. And when we jump to the upper class, the politicians. These only want Macs, Ipones and ipads and then send wasaps and 4 emails ... between games of Candycrash
This is the truth of free software in Spain: «Linux? Free software? for what? If in commerce they already impose Güindo $ on me with the collusion of those who govern us. If I can have the ofis and the potorroshop for free if only to adjust the brightness of a photo. The guy from the store says he gives me them for free, I don't do anything illegal »
Ha ha ... well we don't have
My point of view on what issue is that Microsoft / MS-Windows is doing this is for a strategy that according to me I think (if you can not with your enemy and his friends join him and destroy him from the inside) in fact this strategy It has already been applied in the past with the famous battle between microsoft and java (Sun MicroSystems) and according to me I do not know what others think we should prevent Windows from touching the hand although on second thought we also have a bit of guilt for the re-implementation of the WIN32 API in WINE to which microsoft has responded by launching the famous Adopt, Extend and Destroy strategy, although we do not want to recognize it, there will always be users who like office than free linux alternatives or Windows users who would like Bash or a part of the linux kernel is there on your native system
And to tell the truth, although Linux has not yet surpassed Windows in its desktop quota, Linux has won for example in Android, in the infrastructure lot, and in the cloud with its servers running business mind that is where linux should attack more. to its competitors because let's look at the benefits of linux that in fact what can affect companies linux is an attack by expert hackers in the linux kernel due to some bug or error in the code of this while the companies that use Windows in its server or business version will always have errors in it, that if there is a ransomware attack then the company has to turn off its computers or wait for a quick response from Microsoft so therefore you yourself draw your conclusions in which already I say that linux is better than windows since linux has support for old devices and others so I leave this to you
Desdelinux Do you have a telegram channel?
I just know that it is necessary to be very careful with what Microsoft does, you should not forget the Halloween documents and deduce that there are many more like that.
If you can not beat them, join them.
Enemies better to have them close.
Whoever gets close to a good tree ...
Business strategies, nothing new.
You have to mature in reflecting on this!
Microsoft wants to focus on selling itself as an "excellent tool for developers", no longer highlighting Windows as its flagship product, but rather, as to compete with companies like Oracle and alternatives like Docker.
I have the impression that windows is targeting new users, who have some interest in linux but without leaving the windows environment either for games, some program or simply fear or comfort. Basically it is to stop a total migration of your system and keep users captive.
Yes, it is true, the problem lies in benefiting foss in all these agreements, and giving the FSF and Linux Foundation a slap on the wrist for making these agreements that are of little or no benefit, let's remember how many arrangements microsoft has made together with intel to Caparnos all Intel products so that it is only compatible with windows, secure boot, uefi and many other joys more, if they are such friends? Why don't they release drivers?
Windows is evil incarnate. Death to windows !.
The peña that talks about politics in this post instead of not talking about distros and linux indicates that they confuse bacon with speed.
Linux is the alternative to Windows even though the market is 100% for windows. There are programs that still cannot be run on linux and many are still familiar with linux even though the large servers are unix. There must be a reason…
Yes but people have talked about things that were getting into the article. Like it or not.
Clearly lizard is very confused, if something here is part of the new liberalism is windows or mac, they pursue profit, it is massive and expensive software, on the other hand linux is accessible and open source, open to reciprocity, when sharing, you can even contribute with adding your own libraries, that is, if something is socialist and nobody has noticed it is Linux. It is part of the philosophy that at some point Karl Marx tried to explain, but that with so much shameless and unconscionable ambitious cannot be put into practice, perhaps when we have evolved sufficiently, a free and egalitarian world with a reciprocal character will be possible.
Virgilio already said it in The Aeneid: "Timeo danaos et dona ferentes." Microsoft is a company that wants to maximize its profits and that happens by selling more and more for which it has to eliminate its competition. And that can be done by destroying or engulfing them. But never collaborating.
Good
I am new to the blog.
I work with linux centos, suse, ubuntu servers, I use oracle, zimbra, samba, apache, etc. on these servers. I connect to all of them with Windows stations. This is what people without computer education know the most.
They all cost me something to install. I am not a linux developer.
What I want to get to is lack of education as in almost all our towns, if someone does not teach it, it will never reach everyone.
The good thing would be to start from the beginning, teach it to use it, not just learn it for yourself.
Linux users as I know them are very jealous of their knowledge, they create dependency and ideally, if it is to have a greater scope and surpass MS, it would have to implement teaching policies to use the product and developers will have more opportunities to create new applications.
Android is the example, all the mobile brands that the people use have it, some who believe a little more as a society use iPhones, for what? I don't know what additional benefits it will bring you, if even MS applications are already installed on Android.
WIKI
Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel. It was designed primarily for touchscreen mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets, and also for smart watches, televisions, and cars. Wikipedia
Package management system: Google Play, APK and alternatives like F-Droid
Latest stable version: 8.1.0 "Oreo" /; December 5, 2017 (15 days)
Core Type: Monolithic
Development model: Open source
Initial release: September 23, 2008 (info)
Market Type: Smart Phones; Tablets; Android TV; Android Auto; Android Wear
THIS IS LINUX gentlemen and you have to take advantage of it because it is safer and windows does not work well so far on mobile phones.
What does MS want to attack that market by grabbing onto something that until now cannot be MONOPOLY, here there is no socialism, they only want the market that is being won by another product and what better way is to reach it? Associating in some way. The famous if you can not against them join them !!!
It is my humble opinion