No, I didn't read anything making the claim, or even predicting it. I read this article about Microsoft breaking into the list of TOP contributors to the Linux kernel.
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise...gn=Interesting
Of course, they had no choice. It was contribute or be sued for violation of the GPL. Microsoft has been getting increasingly bold about taking code from GPL projects to include in their OS. After several Windows apps and utilities were shown to contain GPL code Microsoft was forced to abide by the GPL and contribute the changes to the GPL code back to the projects they were "borrowed" from. So, either there was a LOT of "borrowed" code, or Microsoft has turned over a new leaf and decided that if they can't whip Linux then they should join Linux.
The contributions by Microsoft has been beneficial to both sides.
The Linux kernel dev crew takes 20K lines of code from Microsoft's dev crew and whittles them down to 7K lines but also ADDS support for several new devices and newer releases of the Hyper-V system? That says volumes about the comparative skill levels of the two groups of coders.
But, the main reason why I posted this story: I've mentioned in the past, both here and other places, that Microsoft is not seeing the forest for the trees. They laid a HUGE egg with VISTA, and by all accounts are getting ready to lay a bigger one with Win8. Their smartphone market share is dropping below 1%, making them essentially invisible in that market, even after buying/hijacking an OEM that held over 40% of that market, and turning a silk purse into a sow's ear. What if Microsoft either created its own Linux distro and then made version of its office products to run on it, or, made versions of its office products that ran on, say, Debian based distros, and got out of the OS business altogether?
With their monopoly on the PC OEM desktop they could jam their Winux distro down OEM throats just like they jammed Windows. Imagine PCs flowing out of DELL, HP, Toshiba, ACER, ASUS, Lenovo and other major PC makers that were preloaded with "Winux". Better yet, imagine PCs flowing out of those OEMs that were pre-loaded with Debian and contained native demos of Office, Word, Excel. The user could select the DE they wanted to use and it would be installed during the customer setup: enter the name, password, timezone and DE choice. For tablets and smartphones the consumer could be offered Plasma-Active-Two. Microsoft could establish a "Debian Store"/repository and offer GPL apps, proprietary apps, sell movies and music, or charge for listening or viewing them. Microsoft does not support their OS unless given a credit card number, and most warranty problems are handled by the OEMs, so moving to Linux wouldn't change their OS support expense by much, if at all, unless people didn't mind giving MS their CC number get educated about Linux, even when such help is freely and widely available on the web. The OEM would tailor their hardware to work with Debian, writing video and audio drivers as an LGPL3 kernel module.
What business plan could Microsoft adopt that would benefit both them and Linux?
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise...gn=Interesting
Of course, they had no choice. It was contribute or be sued for violation of the GPL. Microsoft has been getting increasingly bold about taking code from GPL projects to include in their OS. After several Windows apps and utilities were shown to contain GPL code Microsoft was forced to abide by the GPL and contribute the changes to the GPL code back to the projects they were "borrowed" from. So, either there was a LOT of "borrowed" code, or Microsoft has turned over a new leaf and decided that if they can't whip Linux then they should join Linux.
The contributions by Microsoft has been beneficial to both sides.
Greg Kroah-Hartman tells Wired, is that the code originally contributed by Microsoft in 2009 has now been whittled down to less than half its size. “When it first was released by Microsoft, it was about 20,000 lines of code. Now it is 7,000 lines, and supports more devices, [including] mice and newer releases of the Hyper-V system,” he says. “Merging their code into the kernel tree caused it to get smaller overall, making it easier to maintain, and have less bugs.
“Pretty big proof that getting the code into the main kernel tree was the right thing to do.”
“Pretty big proof that getting the code into the main kernel tree was the right thing to do.”
But, the main reason why I posted this story: I've mentioned in the past, both here and other places, that Microsoft is not seeing the forest for the trees. They laid a HUGE egg with VISTA, and by all accounts are getting ready to lay a bigger one with Win8. Their smartphone market share is dropping below 1%, making them essentially invisible in that market, even after buying/hijacking an OEM that held over 40% of that market, and turning a silk purse into a sow's ear. What if Microsoft either created its own Linux distro and then made version of its office products to run on it, or, made versions of its office products that ran on, say, Debian based distros, and got out of the OS business altogether?
With their monopoly on the PC OEM desktop they could jam their Winux distro down OEM throats just like they jammed Windows. Imagine PCs flowing out of DELL, HP, Toshiba, ACER, ASUS, Lenovo and other major PC makers that were preloaded with "Winux". Better yet, imagine PCs flowing out of those OEMs that were pre-loaded with Debian and contained native demos of Office, Word, Excel. The user could select the DE they wanted to use and it would be installed during the customer setup: enter the name, password, timezone and DE choice. For tablets and smartphones the consumer could be offered Plasma-Active-Two. Microsoft could establish a "Debian Store"/repository and offer GPL apps, proprietary apps, sell movies and music, or charge for listening or viewing them. Microsoft does not support their OS unless given a credit card number, and most warranty problems are handled by the OEMs, so moving to Linux wouldn't change their OS support expense by much, if at all, unless people didn't mind giving MS their CC number get educated about Linux, even when such help is freely and widely available on the web. The OEM would tailor their hardware to work with Debian, writing video and audio drivers as an LGPL3 kernel module.
What business plan could Microsoft adopt that would benefit both them and Linux?
Comment