At 05:11 even 9/24/02 -0700, Bhatt wrote:
Microsoft Corp. has been losing market value rapidly(but it still is the number 1 software company) due to the advancement a much more "stable" and "secure" operating system called GNU/Linux.
It may be loosing some market share, but the loss of market value is more related to the US economy going down. More on that must come from an economist...
Since the GNU/Linux operating system, licensed under the GPL is completely open source, *anybody* is allowed to *see* the code. Lets say that Microsoft, to stay at the top, employs a few developers who are skilled at both GNU/Linux and Windows. Microsoft, then asks them to write a clone of the linux kernel for incorporating large chunks of it, maybe even the kernel in its entirety, into the next version of windows.
IIRC others have done so, albeit legally. AFAIK, the Mac OSX is based on the (:very) stable BSD kernel with their (Aqua?) GUI on top. Anyone have more info on this?
Since M$ is the still the leader, they have the highest market share. Now if almost everybody switches to the new version of windows(based on the linux kernel), they will be in for a pleasant surprise. They will now get a much more stable and secure OS, which unknown to them, is running a replica of the linux kernel. This new OS will please major IT companies, using M$, too, as they will not have scratch their heads over switching to a more stable operating environment. This will mean an increasing demand for the now, stable and secure, OS from Microsoft. Since all patches applied to OSS are open too, M$ can easily incorporate those into windows update.
sheez 8-@
A few things first. The choice of using Linux for many is the 'open' nature of the source code - stability & security come second. Though on the PC scene and when compared with M$ windows, GNU/Linux is indeed superior, for more robust & critical systems one would prefer the traditional Unices - BSD, HP, Solaris or the IBM machines with their preparatory OS's.
Secondly incorporating 'ideas' [read stealing] is not new to Micro$oft. Not even MSDos was developed inhouse from scratch. Windows has seen extremely bad days but they have the muscle, technical & monitory, to upgrade it regularly [much to the pain of customers].
My question is, (discounting the ethical and moral concerns as these cant be counted as legal arguments and assuming that M$ pays enough $$ to the developers to keep their mouth shut) what contract/law/clause/license/etc is there right now to prevent M$ from doing something as dastardly as this? P.S: i dont think that the GPL can be used at M$ is too smart at code obfuscation (i think it means obscuring source code) for people to be able to disassemble their OS and claim it to be a rip-off of linux.
The GNU/Linux uses mostly open standards. Due to this M$ would not have any problems implementing them if they so wanted. But reimplementing the kernel is not a cake walk. As for stealing it outright - it is not so easy. Obscuring 'alf a million lines of source code is daft to say the least. It will be easier to M$ to just patch up their own OS. Which is goodish at present.
quasi SSC pass. '-)