[LWN Logo]
[LWN.net]

Sections:
 Main page
 Security
 Kernel
 Distributions
 Development
 Commerce
 Linux in the news
 Announcements
 Linux History
 Letters
All in one big page

See also: last week's Letters page.

Letters to the editor


Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@lwn.net. Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.

February 1, 2001

   
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:54:52 -0600
From: Michael Coyne <coynem@airwire.com>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Being scared of IBM

There seems to be a lot being made in various places on the web about
the dangers IBM could pose to the Linux community.  It's
understandable.  As last Thursday's LWN mentioned, IBM dominated the
computing industry for a large part of its period.  It was only its
financial woes caused it to reinvent itself as the "kindler, gentler
IBM".  There's a perception that IBM is going to stomp onto the lovely,
free and open playground that is Linux, close all the gates, and start
beating up some of our favourite kids, such as Bob Young in his little
red hat, or Larry Augustin.

I feel that much of this talk floating around is fear-mongering
rhetoric.  What we in the Linux community have to remember is that,
ultimately, we're not *reliant* on any corporate entities for anything. 
Sure, it's nice when companies support and fund Linux development... but
Linux thrived before any of that went on, and it can thrive in the
future even without it.  We can always take Linux as it is today, and
move in a completely opposite direction if we don't like where Linux is
going under the corporate sponsorship of IBM and others.  And that's
true on a smaller scale.  If an individual doesn't like where *Linus* is
taking Linux, that individual can go and make Linux be whatever he or
she wants it to be.  That's another aspect of "free" software.  Not just
freedom to see and add to the code--freedom to take that code whereever
we want and call it whatever we want to.

So if we want to, we can always "take our ball and go home."  Or, if not
home, at least to another playground where IBM isn't knocking down all
the smaller kids.


Regards,
Michael
   
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:08:32 -0600
From: Dub Dublin <dub@conservor.com>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: BROWSER good, but not enough

I applaud Eric Raymond's attempt to jump-start the BROWSER environment
variable, which was badly needed in 1994.  Although I suppose I'd be
moderately happy if it became ubiquitous in the Unix-flavored world, I'd
be ecstatic if it were to become usable in other OS environments as
well, since like most, I find I don't have the luxury of enforcing my OS
preference on all those I work with.  (I find this is particularly
awkward with clients.)  Of course, bringing back a reliance on
environment variables will send the folks from Redmond screaming off the
cliffs, but that's a small price to pay to bring them into compliance
with the rest of the world.  (And now that OS X is based on real OS
guts, at least some of the consumer PC crowd should be able to handle a
BROWSER environment variable.)  On second thought, I'd just settle for
some way to transparently use the same Netscape browser configuration
and mail files from multiple platforms without a lot of unnatural a
priori setup...

Of course, we could go and build a real configuration database (a
registry that works) for Linux and other Unix derivatives.  Naaah,
that'd be too elegant, and might require as much cooperation as a new
environment variable...  Oh, that's right, I already wrote that letter
two years ago, didn't I?
(http://lwn.net/1999/0401/backpage.phtml#backpage)  Funny how the more
things change, the more they remain the same...  If Eric succeeds with
this, I wish him Godspeed in taking it further and solving the real
problem, which requires far more than an environment variable band-aid.

Dub Dublin
dub@infowave.com


   
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:42:46 -0700
From: "Jim Easter" <jre@fpcc.net>
To: msfin@microsoft.com
Subject: Linux to "Fall by the Wayside"?


Dear Microsoft:

The following is an excerpt from
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/serverappliance/kempin.asp.  It is an
interview by Nikkei Industry News with Mr. Joachim Kempin, senior vice
president in charge of Microsoft's operating system OEM strategy at the
Microsoft US headquarters.
_____________________________________________________________________________

But it is true that Linux are actually rapidly increasing their market
share in the US also. Doesn't this pose a threat?

Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media and is
destined to fall by the wayside in time. Windows 2000 will gradually
overtake the Linux share in the server market. In fact, the advent of
Linux has spurred Microsoft's developers to move up a gear. The arrival
of new competitors in applications or operating systems development
provides us at Microsoft with the driving force to create even better
software products."
____________________________________________________________________________

This is of particular interest because Mr. Kempin's thoughts on
potential competitive threats were the subject of testimony at the U.S.
v. Microsoft trial, where a Microsoft defense attorney argued that Mr.
Kempin had felt such threats to be large enough to justify holding off
on price increases for NT, and went on to describe the Linux threat in
more detail:
____________________________________________________________________________

From U.S. v. Microsoft, Trial transcript from 19 November, 1998,
available from http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/transcripts/
(Note that “Q” is Michael Lacovara, Esq., for the defense and "A" is
Frederick W. Warren-Boulton, an economist):

Q.   AND WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT LINUX HAS MADE A
MORE VIABLE COMPETITOR TO MICROSOFT BY THE FACT THAT IN
THE BOX YOU GET ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT WE HAVE JUST
DISCUSSED?
A.   I THINK AS I SAID BEFORE, THE BETTER THE PRODUCT THAT
YOU MAKE, IN YOUR TERMS, THE MORE VIABLE COMPETITOR YOU
ARE.  THE ISSUE IS, HAVE YOU BECOME A SUFFICIENTLY VIABLE
COMPETITOR, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DEFINE IT, SO THAT THE
AVAILABILITY OF YOUR PRODUCT LIMITS THE PRICING BY THE
FIRM WHICH WE ARE LOOKING AT TO SAY DO THEY HAVE MONOPOLY
POWER, AND THAT'S THE CENTRAL QUESTION.
         AND THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE SEEN--I HAVE SEEN NO
EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF LINUX, IN ITS
PAST OR CURRENT FORM, IN ANY WAY, IS LIMITING THE PRICE CHARGED BY
MICROSOFT.
Q.   OKAY.  AND YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS PRODUCT EXISTED
TEN MINUTES AGO, DID YOU?
A.   IN WHAT SENSE?  IT EXISTS AS A GENERAL PRODUCT?  DID
I KNOW IT WAS A RED HAT LINUX, YES.
Q.   THAT THERE WAS A DESKTOP PRODUCT CALLED RED HAT LINUX
THAT INCLUDED ALL OF THIS APPLICATION SOFTWARE THAT YOU
SAY IS THE PRINCIPAL BARRIER TO ENTRY, THE SUCCESSFUL
ENTRY, INTO THE DESKTOP OPERATING SYSTEM BUSINESS.
A.   NO.  I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS BOX BEFORE.
Q.   DID YOU KNOW THAT ALL OF THESE APPLICATIONS EXISTED
TODAY FOR LINUX AND COULD RUN ON A REGULAR PC?
A.   I KNEW THERE WAS A LINUX WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF
APPLICATIONS.  I DIDN'T GO AND LOOK AND SEE EXACTLY HOW
MANY APPLICATIONS WERE IN 5.1.
Q.   AND DO YOU UNDERSTAND LINUX TO BE THE FASTEST GROWING
OPERATING SYSTEM IN THE WORLD TODAY?
A.   AS I SAID, GIVEN THE BASE IT STARTED FROM, I WOULDN'T
BE SURPRISED.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Has Microsoft and / or Mr. Kempin changed position on whether or not
Microsoft faces real competition?  Just curious.

Yours,

Jim Easter



 

 

 
Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright © 2001 Eklektix, Inc., all rights reserved
Linux ® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds