# Micosoft will come after OS X server soon



## Satcomer (May 14, 2007)

After the news today of Microsoft takes on the free world Microsoft  will come after OS X server and maybe OS X itself next.


----------



## fryke (May 14, 2007)

Hm. I don't think so just yet. My guess is that Microsoft will continue to harass development of linux (and maybe with it some parts of OS X, certainly not OS X in total...) - but will try and keep it very much alive. I think the open source _apps_ are what are in danger first. Stuff like OpenOffice.org etc.


----------



## Natobasso (May 14, 2007)

Ya might want to read the entire article, Satcomer... 

This is scare tactics on the part of Microsoft. Due to recent court rulings, it's much more difficult to defend software patents because they are based on mathematical algorithms that not easily patentable. I'd venture to guess that Mac OS X was patented way before MSFT's 2002 late entry into the internet/software game.

And whom do you sue for Linux? It's an open source software with hundreds of companies supporting it.

"For a variety of technical reasons, many dispassionate observers suspect that software patents are especially vulnerable to court challenge."

Mac servers are such a small part of the game, and they are much more easily defended because they are hardware based and the software is owned by Apple. Not sure what vulnerabilities Apple has in the scenario put forth by the article?


----------



## elander (May 14, 2007)

Besides, Mac OS X is based on BSD. Not GNU.


----------



## fryke (May 14, 2007)

Same difference. Erh. I mean: Many, many parts that make up the underlying UN*X of OS X are the very same open source projects that make up linux distributions' parts. Not the kernel, of course.


----------



## nixgeek (May 14, 2007)

elander said:


> Besides, Mac OS X is based on BSD. Not GNU.



Lots of the UNIX command-line apps you find that come with OS X are GNU.  Nano and Emacs to name a few are GNU apps.  But I don't know how affected they will be.

I think this refers more to software that's _licensed _under GPL and other open-source licenses like the BSD License.


----------



## symphonix (May 14, 2007)

How quickly we forget ... its only just over a decade ago now that Microsoft was caught out stealing GPL licensed code for use in Windows - specifically the TCP/IP networking components. The EFF backed the class action against them, and Microsoft ended up losing.

Then, just five years ago SCO tried the same sort of thing against IBM, claiming that Linux was in many ways directly copied from SCO-Unix and that IBM staff were responsible for copying it. It took a few years, but when you decide to sue a company that has no fewer than 20,000 lawyers on their payroll, there is really only one way it can go.

This sort of sabre-rattling happens all the time. Usually it is just that - merely a pose that has been struck for publicity's sake. On the few occassions that software patent issues have gone to court, it has almost always ended up as an expensive disaster for all parties concerned. 

In this case I think it is a serious miscalculation by MS; they felt that by claiming that Linux copies from Windows they could win back waning support by playing the victim, and make hundreds of middle-management types who have the power to choose which OS their companies use just that tiny bit more nervous about the jump to open-source. And I'm pretty sure it will fizzle out long before the lawyers even get their wigs on.


----------



## fryke (May 15, 2007)

Well, I think that aiming at middle-management types could help them, actually. You don't invest in a technology that you believe might fall apart in a couple of weeks or months.


----------



## Satcomer (May 15, 2007)

Well symphonix do you think that this is just a smoke and mirrors by Microsoft to scare businesses away from Linux and buy the Windows server?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (May 15, 2007)

Darwin is a seperate build of a UNIX-like system.

also, Job's paranoia, and paranoia about microsoft and patent dispute, and his fatherly role in OSX's development will mean that OSX is covered by more patents than you can shake a stick at, no doubt.


----------



## fryke (May 15, 2007)

Apple can't patent, say, Apache. If you strip Mac OS X Server of all its open source heritage, you'd have to invent (and patent) quite a lot of software to make it a workable solution again.


----------



## symphonix (May 15, 2007)

Satcomer said:


> Well symphonix do you think that this is just a smoke and mirrors by Microsoft to scare businesses away from Linux and buy the Windows server?



I think you summed it up perfectly: that is _exactly_ what it is all about.

They'll make enough noise to scare some proportion of users away from Linux, then after the story starts appearing in mainstream press they'll announce a really friendly, feel-good committment not to pursue the matter. That way, they avoid a battle for public opinion, and an expensive and drawn-out court battle,  while at the same time doing serious harm to open-source's good reputation.


----------



## fryke (May 16, 2007)

they've already done that now. it's on digg etc. - apparently, they won't litigate.


----------

