Microsoft Tries to Seperate "Linux" from "open source"

[skip0110]

Well, it appears that Microsoft's latest strategy in stunting the growth of Linux is to make the claim that it is not open source. The article is here, but if you are too lazy to read, I'll summarize for you. (Still click the link and read it, please.) Basically, Microsoft's Australian MD Steve Vamos is saying that since companies such as Red Hat offer pay support and pay distros of Linux, it cannot be accurately described as "open source" because this is associated with free software. He is trying to remove the ethical arguments from the choice to use open source code over Windows. Now I thought that open source described a development model, a model followed by Linux itself and much of the software that runs on this platform. Do you agree?

 

[Shannon]

Red Hat also funds the free Fedora project.

Microsoft suck at marketing tactics. Maybe if they released a stable OS without so many flaws, then people mightn't actually consider using Linux. And that new TC technology they are talking about for Longhorn is more offputting than anything else I've heard/seen from Microsoft.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

This is quite an interesting ploy. It points out the distinction between Windows and Linux, in that for Windows you pay for the product, then get the support for nothing, and in Linux, you get the product for nothing but pay for support.

For the average user, this significantly destabilises Linux, because the average user isn't the sort of person that goes off recompiling drivers and the kernel on a daily basis.

The message here is this: if you don't actively re-code Linux, you're better off with Microsoft. And there is some justification in that. Again, from the perspective of the average user.

 

[emad]

Even though you pay for red hat linux, The company is still required by the GNU to give their source code - whether free or paid is to be determined by the manufacturer, but the source code is always supposed to be provided.