[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: WSJ.com - Linux Backers to Support Standard -- Microsoft "leads fragmentation"

[Bryan J. Smith]

Quoting from the article:  
  'Microsoft has been highlighting the specter of Linux fragmentation
   recently as it works to stifle the spread of the rival in the
   marketplace. It has run advertisements in Europe showing Linux
   penguins with various appendages such as elephant trunks and frog
   feet, as a warning to customers that its rival is likely to fragment
   into incompatible variants. "It's a pretty good advertisement, I've
   got to admit," says Mr. Zemlin.'

Stuart Johnston wrote:
> Does anyone know more about this ad?  I would be interested to see it. 
> Even if I disagree with its message, it sounds amusing.

Microsoft itself "leads fragmentation."  It has _failed_twice_ now to
put Windows on a course for security -- unifying business and consumer. 
The first was the failure of "Cairo."  Now we have "Longhorn" -- which
was obvious over 18 months ago, with Microsoft only admitting partial
defeat publicly.

The GNU platform has been more standardized than ever.  GLibC 2 and GCC
3 were the two major ABI (application binary interface) components for
long-term compatibility.  It isn't so much of an issue of vendors, but
of the base GNU APIs.  Everything else is minor detail.

Microsoft itself has _never_ been able to standardize on a single API. 
Even the community has been able to "accommodate" porting with the
WINELIB implemention for Win32 API (not to be confused with WINE, the
run-time component) and, now, the Mono implementation for .NET API. 
WINELIB is so good that it is typically _more_compatible_ with legacy
Win16/Win32 code than native Win32 code -- much like Samba for CIFS/SMB.

So I laugh when I hear about "fragmentation."

If anything, I think IBM should run an ad that is like this.  It would
be _dirt_cheap_ to make.

[ Dark room, voices speaking very prompt and abruptly back and forth ]

Voice 1:
"Okay, this Linux stuff is really taking off.  They've innovated new
servers, even more compatible with our own stuff.  Now they've
infiltrated the desktop.  Even my kids think our stuff isn't cool
looking in comparison.
So, how can be embrace and extend it?"

Voice 2:  
"We can't.

Voice 1:
"What do you mean we can't?  We did this with UNIX prior?  We needed
Internet compatibility, so we used the UNIX code.  Handheld computing,
Internet service, we've taken all those or bought them out before."

Voice 2:  
"We can't this time.  The license is different."

Voice 1:
"What do you mean it's different?  It's free, it's all free!"

Voice 2:
"Not exactly.  We can't just use the code without compensating the
authors."

Voice 1:
"I don't understand.  There are other company's selling it?"

Voice 2:
"You see, unlike the old UNIX stuff, which is free to use commercially,
we either have to return our changes back to the authors that wrote it,
or license differently with them."

Voice 1:
"You mean we either have to work with the community or pay the
developer?"

Voice 2:
"Yeah, and the worst thing is that it is the most US copyright friendly
software license ever devised.  It puts completely control in the
copyright holders hands, while he allows people to legally use it as
long as they agree to the terms of a public license.  This license is at
the heart of Linux.
Since we don't, we can't use it, unless we license it from the
developer."

Voice 1:
"So we're back to paying to keep up.  Damn, we just had to do that with
Java."

Voice 3:  (New person)
"But it sounds like communism to me."

Voice 2:
"That is a common misconception.  People have a choice to work with the
community or not.  It's still about choice.  Many people who write Linux
software also license it commercially.  The most profitable Linux
companies dual-license software for both the community and for companies
who do not want to belong to the community.  They are both part of the
community and are a capitalist entity.
No one forces you to use it, and you can build your own software to the
same published standards."

Voice 1:
"So we're back to either writing it or paying for it.  And it's the same
stuff others can get for free if they don't want to control it.  This
sounds like a nightmare."

Voice 2:
"It gets worse.  Because everyone either chooses to work together or
not, it never seems to fragment.  When someone in the community comes up
with a better idea, typically only one or two ways survive and
continue.  This is unlike UNIX before it, with its license, which
fragmented because companies took the code and never returned their
changes, leading to aforementioned fragmentation."

Voice 1:
"You mean companies like us.  We cannot even get our consumer and server
software to work together.  And security has become a nightmare as a
result."

Voice 2:
"Exactly.  They have one system, all compatible for users and developers
alike, server and desktop."

Voice 1:  
"So that's why IBM, Novell and many other companies are standardizing on
it.  Because it is a non-fragmenting implementation for all to use for
anything."

Voice 2:  
"Exactly."

Voice 1:
"So, how do we beat it?"

Voice 2:
"Well, we first tried to ignore it.  That did not work.
 Then we tried to dismiss it as viable.  That only backfired.
 Now we're trying to fight it with marketing.
 If that fails, we'll try to use our newly acquired patents thanks to
 change in licensing policy where our partners give away their patents
 to us for no charge."

Voice 3:
"How ironic, we are telling everyone that Linux and its license is a
destroyer of IP, when our own licensing terms do far worse."

Voice 2:
"Exactly.  And people know it."

Voice 1:
"So what do we do?"

Voice 3:
"As a man once said, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they
fight you and then you win."

Voice 1:
"Who said that?"

Voice 4:  (New voice)
"Ghandi.  They labeled him a communist too because they didn't
understand him either."


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                  b.j.smith at ieee.org 
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
"Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community
 have rights. ... That idea of community rights is firmly rooted
 in the 'Communist Manifesto.'" -- Michael Badnarik