Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: News
Ballmer impugns the character of the free/open source world
By Joe Barr
on
February 21, 2007 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Commentary -- At a recent news conference, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer sought to impugn the character of the free/open source world by implying that it had no respect for the intellectual property rights of others. It's not just the enormous ignorance embodied by this duplicitous braggadocio that caught my eye, it's the fact that the claim is coming from a man associated with Microsoft, which is far and away the most notorious IP thief of all time.
One thing should be obvious. It's difficult for an open source project to steal code. After all, access to the code is offered up to all comers. That transparency is the basis for the trust and respect open source has garnered for itself in every corner of the world. Everyone who is curious about the code can see it for themselves. With his assertion, Ballmer has joined SCO's leadership as being among either the stupidest, or the most dishonest, IT execs on the planet. Take your pick. I choose both.
But let's leave that malodorous lie on the ground, where Ballmer tossed it. Instead, let's consult our modern-day oracle (sorry, Larry) and ask Google about Microsoft and patent infringement suits. Wow. Searching with the terms +"sues Microsoft" and +"patent infringement" returns more than 90,000 results.
Remember Stac Electronics?
Obviously, lots of patent infringement suits have been filed against Microsoft over the years. A firm called Stac Electronics was the first big winner, and that case was probably the genesis of the term "Extend and Embrace," which became famous when the Department of Justice used it in its antitrust suit against Microsoft to describe one of its more egregious monopoly practices.
Apple's suit against Microsoft predates the Stac suit, but Apple eventually lost in court. Many feel a secret deal protecting Microsoft against further patent infringement suits by Apple was done at the time Gates ponied up $150 million to help a failing Apple back in 1997.
Don't think all of Microsoft's patent infringements occurred last century. They are stacking up faster than Vista is selling. Let's take a look at the list of those who have sued Microsoft this century: Carlos Armando Amado, TV Interactive Data, Alcatel, VirnetX, ATT, Sun Microsystems, Arendi, TimeLine, 3M, Sendo, Forgent, and Symantec, to name but a few.
Granted, we live in a litigious society and the patent laws (and litigation) are insane, but it's still hard to imagine that anyone from Microsoft, let alone the longtime CEO, would step up to a microphone and question anyone else's respect for IP.
And all those cases have happened in spite of Microsoft's best efforts to force everyone in the PC business to agree not to sue them for patent infringement. That's right, they used the club of Windows 95 licensing to coerce their customers into giving up their rights. As Greg Aharonian noted in 1995:
Last week, the US Department of Justice send out civil subpoenas to 150 software and hardware companies with questions for the companies dealing with their relationship with Microsoft, in particular, Microsoft's practice of requiring companies that license Windows 95 to refrain from bringing patent infringement lawsuits against Microsoft or other licensees. Supposedly some of these companies had complained to the Justice Department that such a licensing requirement was an unfair restraint on their businesses.
There is nothing new here. Microsoft is famous for accusing competitors of what it is doing itself. Today, Microsoft continues to purloin the IP of others, through patent infringement as well as false claims for patents. Ballmer accuses the free/open source software communities of not respecting the IP rights of others? Sorry, but Microsoft's dirty-dealings are as transparent and well-known as its penchant for spreading FUD.
Comments
on Ballmer impugns the character of the free/open source worldNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
<p>"But that can't be the case here. Ballmer just recently predicted that Vista would sell five times as many copies as Windows 95 in the next three months. Pretty impressive considering that Windows 95 was Microsoft's best launch, ever. On top of that, they're going after Google with Windows Live and Office Live. Gee, Steve. Life must be good, right?"</p>
<p>Well the computer market is much bigger these days than it was 12 years ago. Could it be even.. errr.. five times bigger?</p>
<p>Actually Ballmer has admitted that <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnew<nobr>s<wbr></nobr> /D8NAEOPO0.htm>Vista sales expectations have been too high</a></p>
<p>AFAIK, Windows Live has not been doing very well either...</p>
<p>Well the computer market is much bigger these days than it was 12 years ago. Could it be even.. errr.. five times bigger?</p>
<p>Actually Ballmer has admitted that <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnew<nobr>s<wbr></nobr> /D8NAEOPO0.htm>Vista sales expectations have been too high</a></p>
<p>AFAIK, Windows Live has not been doing very well either...</p>
I should now hope that those who claimed the Microsoft-Novell deal was good, and that anybody against it was some sort of conspiracy theorist, now understand the real nature of the deal.
Yes, it is good for Novell, and good for Novell's customers; however, it is bad for any other Linux/Open Source software vendor.
Instead of fighting for Microsoft to open its file formats, protocols, and APIs, Novell fell in with Microsoft because of its lust for money.
As I have said many times before, if the HTML file format is open, and Microsoft hasn't complained, why not open all Microsoft file formats? If the POP3, SMTP, FTP, and IMAP protocols are open, and Microsoft hasn't complained, why not open all Microsoft protocols? You'll find that the answer is the same as in the Novell deal. Money.
Yes, it is good for Novell, and good for Novell's customers; however, it is bad for any other Linux/Open Source software vendor.
Instead of fighting for Microsoft to open its file formats, protocols, and APIs, Novell fell in with Microsoft because of its lust for money.
As I have said many times before, if the HTML file format is open, and Microsoft hasn't complained, why not open all Microsoft file formats? If the POP3, SMTP, FTP, and IMAP protocols are open, and Microsoft hasn't complained, why not open all Microsoft protocols? You'll find that the answer is the same as in the Novell deal. Money.
"As I have said many times before, if the HTML file format is open, and Microsoft hasn't complained, why not open all Microsoft file formats?"
I don't know how somebody can still be this ignorant.
The fact is that Microsoft has been trying to change the HTML format by introducing their own proprietary extensions and ignoring open standards from w3c. This is why cross browser web development has always been a nightmare, and why alternative browsers have difficulties to render the many "IE only" web sites.
"If the POP3, SMTP, FTP, and IMAP protocols are open, and Microsoft hasn't complained, why not open all Microsoft protocols? You'll find that the answer is the same as in the Novell deal. Money"
Microsoft would change these protocols if they could (remember Kerberos?), but they came to the internet game a little too late for that.
And yes the answer is money. They don't care about their customers - they don't need to. They only care about keeping their monopoly, vendor lockin and making more money for them and their shareholders.
The fact is that Microsoft has been trying to change the HTML format by introducing their own proprietary extensions and ignoring open standards from w3c.
Microsoft has not complained that HTML is open. Microsoft has not attempted to create a browser that uses a completely new format that only operates via its IIS Webserver. Microsoft has not complained that HTML is open, which was my argument.
I am well aware that Microsoft has attempted to hijack the HTML format, and add its own proprietary extensions in order to gain some control over it; however, that has not prevented other browsers/operating systems from using the standard HTML format. Running IIS server doesn't mean that you cannot serve standard HTML pages.
Microsoft has not complained that HTML is open. Microsoft has not attempted to create a browser that uses a completely new format that only operates via its IIS Webserver. Microsoft has not complained that HTML is open, which was my argument.
I am well aware that Microsoft has attempted to hijack the HTML format, and add its own proprietary extensions in order to gain some control over it; however, that has not prevented other browsers/operating systems from using the standard HTML format. Running IIS server doesn't mean that you cannot serve standard HTML pages.
As I have said many times before, if the HTML file format is open, and Microsoft hasn't complained, why not open all Microsoft file formats? If the POP3, SMTP, FTP, and IMAP protocols are open, and Microsoft hasn't complained, why not open all Microsoft protocols? You'll find that the answer is the same as in the Novell deal. Money.
The good name of the FOSS community isn't the only potential casualty, here.
The predatory behaviour of Microsoft and a number of other contemporary corporations are causing many people within said community to forget that hybrid capitalist societies have genuinely enabled a very large number of the people living within them to create positive living conditions for themselves. People need to recognise that it is current *abuses* of the system which are causing problems. Microsoft should have been successfully convicted under the Sherman Act, and appropriate remedies applied. They were not due to the corruption and fascist aspirations of the Bush government.
As seductive as it may be to believe, it is imperative to remember that equally extreme Marxism on its' own provides no answers. The suffering which was caused in the USSR under Stalin, and the suffering still experienced by the people of North Korea, should serve as ample demonstration of this.
I believe myself that the answer is a careful blending of the two; a strong social welfare apparatus on the one hand, with a vigorous capitalist economy to support it on the other. However, said capitalist economy cannot exist if the very concept of earning money becomes demonised entirely.
Money in and of itself is not evil, and I continue to see evidence that the only people who truly believe that it is are people who have none of it themselves. What is truly evil is the tremendously distorted and harmful attitude held by some individuals that says that money is more important than life itself. If you want to demonise anything, demonise that attitude itself...because it *is* distorted, it *is* unspeakably bad, and it *is* a threat to all life. Money itself however is not.
Goerge W Bush can sign for billions of dollars to be used towards manufacturing arms which will kill people in Iraq and other places. Or you can sign for $20-$30 a month to be sent to a child in Ethiopia, to allow said child to be innoculated and fed, or to help have irrigation systems and buildings developed so that that child can drink clean water and go to school, and so that the child's parents can water crops so that they can eventually feed themselves.
Both of the above examples involve the use of money. In one example the money is used to give life, and in the other, to take it away. Money by itself is value neutral.
Think about it.
The good name of the FOSS community isn't the only potential casualty, here.
The predatory behaviour of Microsoft and a number of other contemporary corporations are causing many people within said community to forget that hybrid capitalist societies have genuinely enabled a very large number of the people living within them to create positive living conditions for themselves. People need to recognise that it is current *abuses* of the system which are causing problems. Microsoft should have been successfully convicted under the Sherman Act, and appropriate remedies applied. They were not due to the corruption and fascist aspirations of the Bush government.
As seductive as it may be to believe, it is imperative to remember that equally extreme Marxism on its' own provides no answers. The suffering which was caused in the USSR under Stalin, and the suffering still experienced by the people of North Korea, should serve as ample demonstration of this.
I believe myself that the answer is a careful blending of the two; a strong social welfare apparatus on the one hand, with a vigorous capitalist economy to support it on the other. However, said capitalist economy cannot exist if the very concept of earning money becomes demonised entirely.
Money in and of itself is not evil, and I continue to see evidence that the only people who truly believe that it is are people who have none of it themselves. What is truly evil is the tremendously distorted and harmful attitude held by some individuals that says that money is more important than life itself. If you want to demonise anything, demonise that attitude itself...because it *is* distorted, it *is* unspeakably bad, and it *is* a threat to all life. Money itself however is not.
Goerge W Bush can sign for billions of dollars to be used towards manufacturing arms which will kill people in Iraq and other places. Or you can sign for $20-$30 a month to be sent to a child in Ethiopia, to allow said child to be innoculated and fed, or to help have irrigation systems and buildings developed so that that child can drink clean water and go to school, and so that the child's parents can water crops so that they can eventually feed themselves.
Both of the above examples involve the use of money. In one example the money is used to give life, and in the other, to take it away. Money by itself is value neutral.
Think about it.
Basically well-stated. But remember, in a truly capitalist society, when a new technology comes along which renders an earlier technology obsolete (e.g. one-off sales of content no longer valid in the digital era) then that truly capitalistic society would allow new sections of the economy to open up from companies manufacturing unfettered devices taking advantage of the new technologies. No capitalist government would ever throw its support to DRM or pass a law like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Despite all its faults, America is still a great country, and I have never seen evidence that any other country on earth is better. The original American ideals retain full validity. The problem is getting back to those ideals, and away from the perversions which religious and corporate fascists have foisted on this great place.
Despite all its faults, America is still a great country, and I have never seen evidence that any other country on earth is better. The original American ideals retain full validity. The problem is getting back to those ideals, and away from the perversions which religious and corporate fascists have foisted on this great place.
America is a continent god damnit! A continent! Maybe you meant United States of America.
America is a concept. It will never die, outlasting all men in purple dresses 4ever.
sadas <a href="http://www.google.com/" title="google.com">guglak</a google.com>
I'd like to ask the author if he uses USB stick. Or reads or writes to floppies formatted with FAT file system. If so, he benefits from the intelectual property that belongs to Microsoft. Without their permission and without compensation. Someone might say that he, in fact, steals from Microsoft.
DG
DG
DG,
you're right, all USB sticks have to be sold in EXT3 format and all MP3 players have to become OGG players.
More than that. All PC have to be sold without the M$ OS but with the choice of an open source OS (Linux, BSD, Hurd,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...).
No more thieves, just free people.
We're all so agree with you.
you're right, all USB sticks have to be sold in EXT3 format and all MP3 players have to become OGG players.
More than that. All PC have to be sold without the M$ OS but with the choice of an open source OS (Linux, BSD, Hurd,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...).
No more thieves, just free people.
We're all so agree with you.
The FAT filesystem is an evolution of the CP/M filesystem. The first version, back in DOS 1, was extremely similar to the CP/M filesystem. Extra ideas, such as subdirectories, were borrowed from Unix and other operating systems and hacked in as DOS and then Windows evolved.
Furthermore, the basic data structures that make up FAT are trivial and clearly not patentable on the basis of prior art.
Trying to patent a specific implementation of a well known data structure is like buying a car, and then trying to patent the specific set of options you chose. You contribute nothing creative yourself, but you just might manage to convince the patent people otherwise.
FAT never was an original invention. It was never more than a set of obvious upgrades to existing technology. It's value has always been as a convenient well-supported standard only.
Tell me - did Microsoft ever pay for any of the ideas underlying FAT that it got from elsewhere?
Tell me - how come Microsoft thinks it has the right to earn money from other peoples implementations of other peoples ideas?
You might as well call Microsoft an IP thief for supporting other suites file formats in Office. This claim is equally invalid for exactly the same reasons - the file formats are just specific implementations of well known prior art.
A description of FAT (or of a particular file format) can be copyrighted, of course, as can any specific code to work with these data structures. But the file format itself is an abstract. The biggest danger is that your description or code can be considered a derivative work.
It's like the standards published by ISO and others. The copyright on the text of the standard is owned by ISO or whoever, but anyone can write a book about C, C++, or any other standardised field so long as they don't plagiarise anyone elses work.
Furthermore, the basic data structures that make up FAT are trivial and clearly not patentable on the basis of prior art.
Trying to patent a specific implementation of a well known data structure is like buying a car, and then trying to patent the specific set of options you chose. You contribute nothing creative yourself, but you just might manage to convince the patent people otherwise.
FAT never was an original invention. It was never more than a set of obvious upgrades to existing technology. It's value has always been as a convenient well-supported standard only.
Tell me - did Microsoft ever pay for any of the ideas underlying FAT that it got from elsewhere?
Tell me - how come Microsoft thinks it has the right to earn money from other peoples implementations of other peoples ideas?
You might as well call Microsoft an IP thief for supporting other suites file formats in Office. This claim is equally invalid for exactly the same reasons - the file formats are just specific implementations of well known prior art.
A description of FAT (or of a particular file format) can be copyrighted, of course, as can any specific code to work with these data structures. But the file format itself is an abstract. The biggest danger is that your description or code can be considered a derivative work.
It's like the standards published by ISO and others. The copyright on the text of the standard is owned by ISO or whoever, but anyone can write a book about C, C++, or any other standardised field so long as they don't plagiarise anyone elses work.
do you have heating in the house? do you use pans for cooking? do drink water coming from the water grid?
Do you pay IP to all people who invented this stuff or do you break IP rights?
Do you pay IP to all people who invented this stuff or do you break IP rights?
You say like as if there were UFS formatted sticks around in the market...
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Appeal" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Tabl<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> #Appeal</a wikipedia.org>
Yep, patented.
Yep, patented.
Meh, there's virtually no valuable intellectual property in FAT anymore. It's only value is the interoperability.
mke2fs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sdb1
Microsoft's FAT patent was found invalid - it was overturned by re-examination. See <a href="http://www.pubpat.org/Microsoft_517_Rejected.htm" title="pubpat.org">http://www.pubpat.org/Microsoft_517_Rejected.htm</a pubpat.org>
If you really want to fit a lot on your stick, use Reiser4.
Reiser4 is great, it especially packs small files well.
The following indicates the difference in disk usage (MB) when identical copies of the same data (in this case 3 differnet copies of the Linux kernel source) are stored with each of the filesystems.
Reiser4 is great, it especially packs small files well.
The following indicates the difference in disk usage (MB) when identical copies of the same data (in this case 3 differnet copies of the Linux kernel source) are stored with each of the filesystems.
<nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>.---------------.
| File |Disk |
| System |Usage|
.---------------.
| REISER4 | 692 |
| (tails)| 673 |
| EXT3 | 816 |
.---------------.</tt>
If you really want to fit a lot on your stick, use Reiser4.
Especially if the "stick" is the one you're using to beat your wife with....
<ducks from flying tomatoes>
The status -- real or imagined -- of FAT as intellectual property has absolutely nothing to do with the story.
If you are implying that free/open source distributions are not being respectful of the IP rights of others because they offer support for that puny toy file system, you are as ignorant as Ballmer is.
FAT has been supported by every -- or nearly every -- alternative OS that has run on the PC, proprietary or free. That list includes Apple, Be, OS/2, and DrDos, none of which are open source.
The partial patent MS obtained on FAT -- on the 3rd attempt, by the way, after 2 failures to do do so -- doesn't even cover the orginal FAT.
When MS begins the patent wars, and it probably will before all is said and done, because it is dying and will degenerate over time into a SCO-like entity, it will bring forth its own destruction.
But my point in the story is that Ballmer is a liar and Microsoft is notorious for stealing the IP of others, and this FAT nonsense has little to do with that.
If you are implying that free/open source distributions are not being respectful of the IP rights of others because they offer support for that puny toy file system, you are as ignorant as Ballmer is.
FAT has been supported by every -- or nearly every -- alternative OS that has run on the PC, proprietary or free. That list includes Apple, Be, OS/2, and DrDos, none of which are open source.
The partial patent MS obtained on FAT -- on the 3rd attempt, by the way, after 2 failures to do do so -- doesn't even cover the orginal FAT.
When MS begins the patent wars, and it probably will before all is said and done, because it is dying and will degenerate over time into a SCO-like entity, it will bring forth its own destruction.
But my point in the story is that Ballmer is a liar and Microsoft is notorious for stealing the IP of others, and this FAT nonsense has little to do with that.
Nothing coming from MS has any content--it's all marketing. It's the same old recipe for FUD: IP sabre-rattling to freeze businesses from jumping ship.
If they were serious, they would've shown up in court by now. And if they did, it would be the stupidest PR move in history. Think of the universal bile earned by SCO and multiply it by the size of MS' bank account.
If they were serious, they would've shown up in court by now. And if they did, it would be the stupidest PR move in history. Think of the universal bile earned by SCO and multiply it by the size of MS' bank account.
But it wouldn't make an ounce of difference. Most IT managers have never heard of SCO, but they have heard of Microsoft. Since they are sheep they will believe what Microsoft says.
Thanks Joe for so accurately describing Balmer.
"With his assertion, Ballmer has joined SCO's leadership as being among either the stupidest, or the most dishonest, IT execs on the planet."
He's stupid, dishonest, mean, petty, immoral and downright flatulent. I still say his hot air gas bag monkey dance shows his true character more than any other visual he's ever done.
I've always liked your pithy and relevant commentary on people in the news and the way you tell it as it is. Very refreshing!
Yeah. I'm a warthawg fanboix. That's one heck of a lot better than being a gas bag Balmer monkeyboix. Microsoft will never own my soul.
And to the poster who started the red FAT herring thread. I'm curious, just how much are you paid by MS PR? We know for a fact that MS engages in extensive astro-turfing. The fact that MS does so has come up in court and been revealed in various fact checking exercises. So what's the going rate for selling your soul now-a-days?
It never ceases to amaze me that so many articles which are critical MS, SCO et al always seem to instantly attract indignant attack posts which ever so conveniently deflect from the thrust of the article. Your post being a prime example.
I used to use and swear by Stac Electronics. I remember many instances of IP theft on the part of MS. Some of them as recent as the last few months.
Balmer is a complete flaming idiotic crook. The proof is in his own words out of his mouth and the actions of MS in court. Period.
As it applies to Balmer and MS in general: 'Tis better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to remove all doubt. If there is any precious IP in open source which may belong to MS, then MS should put it's money where it's mouth is and go to court. Accusing people of theft without telling them what they are accused of stealing is far, far beyond acceptable.
{White Fang}
"With his assertion, Ballmer has joined SCO's leadership as being among either the stupidest, or the most dishonest, IT execs on the planet."
He's stupid, dishonest, mean, petty, immoral and downright flatulent. I still say his hot air gas bag monkey dance shows his true character more than any other visual he's ever done.
I've always liked your pithy and relevant commentary on people in the news and the way you tell it as it is. Very refreshing!
Yeah. I'm a warthawg fanboix. That's one heck of a lot better than being a gas bag Balmer monkeyboix. Microsoft will never own my soul.
And to the poster who started the red FAT herring thread. I'm curious, just how much are you paid by MS PR? We know for a fact that MS engages in extensive astro-turfing. The fact that MS does so has come up in court and been revealed in various fact checking exercises. So what's the going rate for selling your soul now-a-days?
It never ceases to amaze me that so many articles which are critical MS, SCO et al always seem to instantly attract indignant attack posts which ever so conveniently deflect from the thrust of the article. Your post being a prime example.
I used to use and swear by Stac Electronics. I remember many instances of IP theft on the part of MS. Some of them as recent as the last few months.
Balmer is a complete flaming idiotic crook. The proof is in his own words out of his mouth and the actions of MS in court. Period.
As it applies to Balmer and MS in general: 'Tis better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to remove all doubt. If there is any precious IP in open source which may belong to MS, then MS should put it's money where it's mouth is and go to court. Accusing people of theft without telling them what they are accused of stealing is far, far beyond acceptable.
{White Fang}
The real issue hear is that Balmer and company are in a bit of a pickle. Vista is not selling as well as they were hoping and they have to start talking about something else causing the problem.
And I think they are right, some of their problems are directly related to open source. Not all but enough they can use it for an excuse to placate share holders for awhile.
And I think they are right, some of their problems are directly related to open source. Not all but enough they can use it for an excuse to placate share holders for awhile.
The real issue hear is that Balmer and company are in a bit of a pickle.
Wow, if they're in a pickle, I wish I was too. Ballmer is one of the richest guys on the planet. His net worth increases every week by more money than I will earn in my entire lifetime. Gates is the richest guy on the planet. There are a lot of things one could say about Microsoft, possibly using words like "dishonest", "duplicitous", etc. But they are not in any kind of pickle. The toughest problem facing Gates and Ballmer is how to spend the kind of money they have got. In the case of Gates, it's so tough a problem he's decided he can't possibly solve it, and is giving billions away to charities in the hope that that will make him look good, or at least, make him look less of a scumbag.
Vista will sell more copies than any previous version of Windows. The very most that Linux can do is reduce Microsoft's market share from maybe 94% to maybe 89%. Since the total number of PCs sold increases every year, by more than 10%, that won't put much of a dent in the steady increase of Microsoft's profits.
"I am breaking the law because he is breaking it, too" is not an argument. Important thing is what is legal, not what is right or wrong. Right or wrong, good or evil, is a matter of personal opinion.
DG
DG
I don't think I have used FAT for a while, but a lot of people believe that patent can be overturned. I guess it is a matter of Microsoft sueing first. If it gets overturned then everyone using fat in some way that Ballmer might consider illegal effectively had a good reason for not ponying up.
What I think happened is that Microsoft had no legitimate patent claims to FAT but managed to get the office bureaucrats to stamp the application. This is why we have courts. To keep people semi honest.
If Microsoft thinks it has a good claim, what are they waiting for? Certainly they don't lack the money to file and they stand to make a lot when you consider how widespread fat is.
What I think happened is that Microsoft had no legitimate patent claims to FAT but managed to get the office bureaucrats to stamp the application. This is why we have courts. To keep people semi honest.
If Microsoft thinks it has a good claim, what are they waiting for? Certainly they don't lack the money to file and they stand to make a lot when you consider how widespread fat is.
Is this the official Wag Ed position?
FAT32 is a TOTAL DOG.
FAT32 is the worst filesystem ever designed. Why would anyone want to use it, let alone pay for it.
To see just how bad FAT32 is: consider that FAT32 takes 988 Megabytes to store the same amount of information that REISER4 (with tails) stores in 673 Megabytes.
Using REISER4, instead of the awful FAT32, saves you a MASSIVE 988 - 673 = 315 Megabytes (a 32% saving).
FAT32 is the worst filesystem ever designed. Why would anyone want to use it, let alone pay for it.
To see just how bad FAT32 is: consider that FAT32 takes 988 Megabytes to store the same amount of information that REISER4 (with tails) stores in 673 Megabytes.
Using REISER4, instead of the awful FAT32, saves you a MASSIVE 988 - 673 = 315 Megabytes (a 32% saving).
<tt> ---------------
| File |Disk |
| System |Usage|
---------------
| REISER4 | 692 |
| (tails)| 673 |
| NTFS3g | 772 |
| NTFS | 779 |
| REISER3 | 793 |
| XFS | 799 |
| JFS | 806 |
| EXT4 | 816 |
| EXT3 | 816 |
| EXT2 | 816 |
| FAT32 | 988 |
---------------</tt>
FAT32 is a TOTAL DOG.
FAT32 is the worst filesystem ever designed. Why would anyone want to use it, let alone pay for it.
To see just how bad FAT32 is: consider that FAT32 takes 988 Megabytes to store the same amount of information that REISER4 (tails) stores in 673 Megabytes.
Using REISER4, instead of the awful FAT32, saves you a MASSIVE 988 - 673 = 315 Megabytes (a 32% saving).
Where there are also HOWTOs on:
1) cloning your windows XP/2000 installations using Linux (back-ups).
2) installing windows XP/2000 on a spare partition with Linux.
3) accessing and writing to Windows XP (formatted with the NTFS) from Linux.
4) a script to walk you through a Gentoo Linux installation.
5) remix those 14 Debian installation CDs as 2 DVDs.
6) the entire book "Linux Device Drivers 3" as a single web-page (ie in HTML format).
7) 3D acceleration for ATI cards (simple procedure, works for SuSE and Mandriva and Debian).
8) some discussion on the GPL and non-free third party kernel modules.
9) and some politics, eg: Israel Fakes a Provocation for War (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Shalit).
10) and on compiling the worlds best DVD/Movie/Video/MP3 Player and Encoder (MPlayer and MEncoder).
FAT32 is the worst filesystem ever designed. Why would anyone want to use it, let alone pay for it.
To see just how bad FAT32 is: consider that FAT32 takes 988 Megabytes to store the same amount of information that REISER4 (tails) stores in 673 Megabytes.
Using REISER4, instead of the awful FAT32, saves you a MASSIVE 988 - 673 = 315 Megabytes (a 32% saving).
Jade @ <a href="http://linuxhelp.150m.com/" title="150m.com">http://linuxhelp.150m.com/</a 150m.com> (<a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/" title="domaindlx.com">mirror</a domaindlx.com>)<nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>.---------------.
| File |Disk |
| System |Usage|
.---------------.
| REISER4 | 692 |
| (tails)| 673 |
| NTFS3g | 772 |
| NTFS | 779 |
| REISER3 | 793 |
| XFS | 799 |
| JFS | 806 |
| EXT4 | 816 |
| EXT3 | 816 |
| EXT2 | 816 |
| FAT32 | 988 |
.---------------.</tt>
Where there are also HOWTOs on:
1) cloning your windows XP/2000 installations using Linux (back-ups).
2) installing windows XP/2000 on a spare partition with Linux.
3) accessing and writing to Windows XP (formatted with the NTFS) from Linux.
4) a script to walk you through a Gentoo Linux installation.
5) remix those 14 Debian installation CDs as 2 DVDs.
6) the entire book "Linux Device Drivers 3" as a single web-page (ie in HTML format).
7) 3D acceleration for ATI cards (simple procedure, works for SuSE and Mandriva and Debian).
8) some discussion on the GPL and non-free third party kernel modules.
9) and some politics, eg: Israel Fakes a Provocation for War (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Shalit).
10) and on compiling the worlds best DVD/Movie/Video/MP3 Player and Encoder (MPlayer and MEncoder).
Microsoft is obviously scared.
In the past they could just ignore open source software, it was just some small hobby thing, but open source has grown and keeps growing, and it is commonplace for business to use open source, and lately business are looking more and more into open source.
Linux is growing in the corporate world.
They cant ignore it anymore.
Microsoft desperately tries to hinder adoption of Linux and open source, battling it with FUD and threats.
Microsoft has made Xbox, Zune, etc I wonder if they looking to enter more markets if the software market gets too tough for them.
In the past they could just ignore open source software, it was just some small hobby thing, but open source has grown and keeps growing, and it is commonplace for business to use open source, and lately business are looking more and more into open source.
Linux is growing in the corporate world.
They cant ignore it anymore.
Microsoft desperately tries to hinder adoption of Linux and open source, battling it with FUD and threats.
Microsoft has made Xbox, Zune, etc I wonder if they looking to enter more markets if the software market gets too tough for them.
Funny how microsoft has come from saying that Linux poses no threat to their market share, to begging to be protected from the loss of their market share, and accusing the Open Source community of stealing.
Yeah...and "640KB should be enough for anyone."
Yeah...and "640KB should be enough for anyone."
There is something you need to understand.
Steve Ballmer is not stupid.
Steve Ballmer is smarter than you, me, and 99.5% of the people who read linux.com. There is a lot of competition to get where he is. The stupid do not make it to first base.
HOWEVER, to achieve what he has achieved, you do not have to be ethical, truthful, or anything else admirable. He says what he says to further his and his company's goals, not because he believes it. That's the Microsoft Way.
He's not that bright. You keep pushing trash uphill, and sooner or later, you can't keep going. The shortest distance between two points is *never* a straight line, it just looks that way. Ballmer, et al., have been taking the seemingly most direct route, and what happened? IBM, the old evil empire, got religion. The Justice Department, until a change of administration, trying to do a saw-the-lady-in-half trick. If Clinton had kept it in his pants, Gore would have won, and MS would have gotten more than a slap on the wrist. Free and open software became the only viable option to Microsoft after they carpet-bombed a healthy software industry out of existance.
Their problems are their own making. The security flaws and instability in their software comes from years of taking shortcuts, and now they can't fix it. They haven't changed, nor will their issues. Next time, maybe they could try just a little live-and-let-live philosophy. Maybe just taking a tiny detour now and then isn't a bad thing, despite their straight-line mindset.
Geek Unorthodox
Their problems are their own making. The security flaws and instability in their software comes from years of taking shortcuts, and now they can't fix it. They haven't changed, nor will their issues. Next time, maybe they could try just a little live-and-let-live philosophy. Maybe just taking a tiny detour now and then isn't a bad thing, despite their straight-line mindset.
Geek Unorthodox
Steve Ballmer is smarter than you, me, and 99.5% of the people who read linux.com. There is a lot of competition to get where he is. The stupid do not make it to first base.
Ballmer may be bright about some things, certainly not overly so, in any way, but I'll give him a luke-warm reptilian bright about, oh, being successful in the rat race.
The attributes that led to his becoming CEO at MS are not so much about his "brightness." Rather, his long friendship with Bill Gates, his blind fealty to him, his ruthless, pugnacious manner, and -- most importantly -- the total absence of any ethic whatsover which might stand in the way of increasing the bottom line, are what made him what he is today.
About software, he is a stupid, ignorant buffoon. You let him code your next OS if you like, I'll stay with those who are truly bright, and much brighter than he is by several lightyears.
eom
Yeah, even thieves and other kinds of crooks can be smart. Just call 'em a businessman and all is forgiven, I guess. That damn sure don't make 'em right.
There was that bunch of scum down there in Houston at Enron. I guess unlike bill and steve, they didn't rip off a large enough number of people, since they went to jail, except for the one that suicided.
Let's not forget that microshaft was found GUILTY by the justice department. Just because no one in the government had the gonads to do anything about it doesn't make it right.
There was that bunch of scum down there in Houston at Enron. I guess unlike bill and steve, they didn't rip off a large enough number of people, since they went to jail, except for the one that suicided.
Let's not forget that microshaft was found GUILTY by the justice department. Just because no one in the government had the gonads to do anything about it doesn't make it right.
Ballmer says we're dishonest scumbags.
We say Ballmer is a dishonest scumbag.
But there's a difference. Ballmer is smart enough to know he's lying. And that makes us right.
Has her body ever been found?
Lucent Alcatel won their patent infringement lawsuit against MS. The jury awarded Lucent/Alcatel $1.5 BILLION<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... So who are the thieves who do not respect IP?
Got a link for that?
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/technology/23patent.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/technology/23pa<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ent.html</a nytimes.com>
An excerpt:
Microsoft was ordered by a federal jury yesterday to pay $1.52 billion in a patent dispute over the MP3 format, the technology at the heart of the digital music boom. If upheld on appeal, it would be the largest patent judgment on record.
The ruling, in Federal District Court in San Diego, was a victory for Alcatel-Lucent, the big networking equipment company. Its forebears include Bell Laboratories, which was involved in the development of MP3 almost two decades ago.
At issue is the way the Windows Media Player software from Microsoft plays audio files using MP3, the most common method of distributing music on the Internet. If the ruling stands, Apple and hundreds of other companies that make products that play MP3 files, including portable players, computers and software, could also face demands to pay royalties to Alcatel.
An excerpt:
Microsoft was ordered by a federal jury yesterday to pay $1.52 billion in a patent dispute over the MP3 format, the technology at the heart of the digital music boom. If upheld on appeal, it would be the largest patent judgment on record.
The ruling, in Federal District Court in San Diego, was a victory for Alcatel-Lucent, the big networking equipment company. Its forebears include Bell Laboratories, which was involved in the development of MP3 almost two decades ago.
At issue is the way the Windows Media Player software from Microsoft plays audio files using MP3, the most common method of distributing music on the Internet. If the ruling stands, Apple and hundreds of other companies that make products that play MP3 files, including portable players, computers and software, could also face demands to pay royalties to Alcatel.
Great. Thanks a lot.
Re:It's a ploy and the same as the openDocument is
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 23, 2007 08:38 AM
You forgot to mention that much of their so-called spec refers to other closed formats, as in 'autoSpaceLikeWord95', 'uiCompat97To2003', and 'useWord97LineBreakRules'. See the GrokLaw objections wiki for a lot more: <a href="http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Ecma_376_relies_on_undisclosed_information" title="grokdoc.net">http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objection<nobr>s<wbr></nobr> #Ecma_376_relies_on_undisclosed_information</a grokdoc.net>
Later . . . Jim
Later . . . Jim
Im just going to ignore balmer and gates let their stock holders deal with their lip services, when microsoft start comming up with some real inovative software then they can talk, The LINUX community does noe have to steal any code from microsoft and even if the LINUX community did point it out and shut your pie hole balmer.
Oh, I think he's somewhere in the middle. I still think Ballmer is pretty business-smart, but his greed has so blinded him that he's wildly careening down the wrong path. A smart man realizes when he's lost control, and tries to change his path, or make some kind of compromise with his enemy, in order to guarantee his long term survival. A man consumed by greed has to have it all, and compromise is out of the question. To Ballmer, owning 75% of the industry is not good enough. He has to own everything, or at least enough of it (95%?) to be in control of the rest. Open Source drives these people absolutely nuts, because there is no way to control it. So, the only answer is to either co-opt it, or totally crush it, or to be destroyed in the process.
A really smart man knows when to change course. There are some really smart people in Microsoft, but Ballmer isn't one of them.....
It's not just the enormous ignorance embodied by this duplicitous braggadocio
Funny that the article never explorers the alleged ignorance. Perhaps the author could expound on this.
It's a ploy and the same as the openDocument issue
Posted by: Administrator on February 22, 2007 04:02 AM
They complained that IBM was trying to squash their new open xml bid.
They put out a 6000 page spec and complained when it got opposition. Yet the existing open spec predates theirs but they didn't choose to support that one. So how is it possibly being open by trying to now "compete" with an open spec?
Their spec is 6000 pages. That does not make it open since the length alone prevents small developers from implementing it.
This is 2007, and software is developed by creating small, manageable units. 6000 pages does not qualify. Anyone can easily rebut that as not an open spec. It's 12 specifications put together, and they would just monopolize in the future by creating confusion that will take years to settle down.
They are trying to build up an image that they have been bullied by open companies?
For years they have been competing in a capitalist arena and now they think that they need soft treatment.
If they are so smart they will just go ahead and implement their "better" spec themselves and sell this custom tool to the market they so loudly claim exists and let the other trashy spec play its own future out and be condemned by a community who comes to realize microsoft was right.
They are liars since that's the only way they can be inept enough not to be able to find a way to participate in an open community and have fun at it -- the lack of fun can only be created through lies.
I am not a fool. An open community does not close people out.
They put out a 6000 page spec and complained when it got opposition. Yet the existing open spec predates theirs but they didn't choose to support that one. So how is it possibly being open by trying to now "compete" with an open spec?
Their spec is 6000 pages. That does not make it open since the length alone prevents small developers from implementing it.
This is 2007, and software is developed by creating small, manageable units. 6000 pages does not qualify. Anyone can easily rebut that as not an open spec. It's 12 specifications put together, and they would just monopolize in the future by creating confusion that will take years to settle down.
They are trying to build up an image that they have been bullied by open companies?
For years they have been competing in a capitalist arena and now they think that they need soft treatment.
If they are so smart they will just go ahead and implement their "better" spec themselves and sell this custom tool to the market they so loudly claim exists and let the other trashy spec play its own future out and be condemned by a community who comes to realize microsoft was right.
They are liars since that's the only way they can be inept enough not to be able to find a way to participate in an open community and have fun at it -- the lack of fun can only be created through lies.
I am not a fool. An open community does not close people out.
Anyone who has been around IT for even a _short_ time knows the truth of your article, but it feels great to hear someone take the gloves off and call the spade the spade.
I get so tired of MS just lying and cheating and stealing _constantly_ and everyone giving them the verbal "benefit or the doubt".
Yes, their "projection" of their sins on others is nearly constant, and was especially accurate with the whole "cancer" analogy, they are, at the corporate level, nothing but a cancer.
I have a friend working their (dev) that I beg to flee, If only Google would hire him.
By the way, has everyone seen Dell's request on how they can improve customer satisfaction?
Linux preinstalled is the runaway winner.
<a href="http://www.dellideastorm.com/" title="dellideastorm.com">http://www.dellideastorm.com/</a dellideastorm.com>
I get so tired of MS just lying and cheating and stealing _constantly_ and everyone giving them the verbal "benefit or the doubt".
Yes, their "projection" of their sins on others is nearly constant, and was especially accurate with the whole "cancer" analogy, they are, at the corporate level, nothing but a cancer.
I have a friend working their (dev) that I beg to flee, If only Google would hire him.
By the way, has everyone seen Dell's request on how they can improve customer satisfaction?
Linux preinstalled is the runaway winner.
<a href="http://www.dellideastorm.com/" title="dellideastorm.com">http://www.dellideastorm.com/</a dellideastorm.com>
what's he upset about?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 22, 2007 09:42 AMBut that can't be the case here. Ballmer just recently predicted that Vista would sell <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/012907-ballmer-gates-speak-at-vista.html" title="networkworld.com">five times as many copies as Windows 95</a networkworld.com> in the next three months. Pretty impressive considering that Windows 95 was Microsoft's best launch, ever. On top of that, they're going after Google with Windows Live and Office Live. Gee, Steve. Life must be good, right?
#