Re: [tlug] Novel embraces Microsoft

[stephen@example.com]

Edward Middleton writes:

 > It could also end up being developed/maintained in a company or
 > consortium hostile to Microsofts interests.

That's a given.  Microsoft considers anything that it doesn't control
hostile.

And in this case, there's clear reason to presume hostility.  Core
Samba development is led by the guy who went out of his way to screw
up the kernel development process simply because the company that
contributed the repository keeps its product proprietary.  No?[1]

A patent infringement action would be a perfect way to chill the
market for Samba, at least in the U.S.  Are there any other markets
that matter?  (I'm not sure I'm kidding.)


Footnotes: 
[1]  The excuse that dependence on a proprietary product was a threat
to the kernel was either stupid or a lie.[2]  Linus proved otherwise
by developing git, and anybody who has ever watched a real hacker at
work knew that was what would happen when the free software fascists
got their way.  Aside from Larry McVoy's personal support of open
source (for others<wink>, but nonetheless real), Bitmover wanted the
kernel for its posters far more than the kernel needed Bitkeeper for
its repository.

[2]  I think most of those who mouthed this excuse were lying to
themselves.