Topic: If its good enough for Microsoft ...

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

Earlier this year Microsoft and Aruba Networks jointly announced the two companies will work to replace Microsoft's existing Cisco wireless network with Aruba's centrally-managed infrastructure, which eliminates the need for individual changes on the access points.

Aruba Networks was selected to provide the networking equipment for what is considered to be one of the world's largest next-generation wireless LANs, serving more than 25,000 simultaneous users a day in some 60 countries. According to an Aruba press statement, Microsoft's new WLAN will be deployed in 277 buildings covering more than 17 million square feet using Aruba mobility controllers, mobility software and some 5000 wireless access points.

What the press statement didn't mention is that Aruba mobility controllers run the Linux operating system which Microsoft has aggressively targeted as being inferior to Windows as part of its "Get the Facts" marketing campaign.

Mark Robards, Aruba Network's Asia-Pacific vice president, said the company's mobility controller switches provide integrated security, including a firewall, VPN, and hardware encryption, and they are "all Linux-based".

[Just plain old Punisher]

Linux is a superor network operating system.

[GE-Raven]

What else would it use?

MS isn't gonna spend money developing a competor to the OS on network hardware.  No point... much cheaper (and smarter) to just hire someone.

Nothing new here... MS has been buying rather than developping (Roxio cd writing engine in XP) for years.

Sounds to me like a good business decision.

Pretty sure most Cisco network hardware OS is based on Unix code. 

GE-Raven

[Dracho]

Actually, a lot of it has used IIS in the past.

[Just plain old Punisher]

The archetecture for networking has been open source for quite some time. There is a lot more to an operating system than just networking.

[Nemesis]

Microsoft have not been above using Open Source Unix based code and incorporating it into their Operating System, passing it off as their own...

You and I went over that some time ago.

1/  Microsoft has used some BSD code and fulfilled the license requirements.

2/  Microsoft as part of fulfilling those license requirements has NOT passed the code off as their own and includes acknowledgements within Windows and on their publicly accessable web site.

You know that I am no Microsoft fanboy but I won't stand by when falsehoods are stated about them so unless you can back up these claims I suggest you stop making them.  I hope that in the future you will be willing to back up your claims with sources and specifics.  If not I will be forced to take actions that I would rather avoid.  Please don't force me to act.

Just as I won't knowingly tolerate lies about Linux I won't tolerate them against other groups or  companies, not even those I dislike. 

[Nemesis]

What else would it use?

MS isn't gonna spend money developing a competor to the OS on network hardware.  No point... much cheaper (and smarter) to just hire someone.

Nothing new here... MS has been buying rather than developping (Roxio cd writing engine in XP) for years.

Sounds to me like a good business decision.

Pretty sure most Cisco network hardware OS is based on Unix code. 

GE-Raven

There is Windows CE embedded and Windows XP embedded which they have promoted.

Considering Microsofts public statements about Linux being "a toy operating system" and "viral" not to mention Linux developers being "communists" and "unAmerican".  To then turn around an use Linux themselves is rather hypocritical when they do have alternatives using their own OS.

[prometheus]

Microsoft have not been above using Open Source Unix based code and incorporating it into their Operating System, passing it off as their own...

You and I went over that some time ago.

1/  Microsoft has used some BSD code and fulfilled the license requirements.

2/  Microsoft as part of fulfilling those license requirements has NOT passed the code off as their own and includes acknowledgements within Windows and on their publicly accessable web site.

You know that I am no Microsoft fanboy but I won't stand by when falsehoods are stated about them so unless you can back up these claims I suggest you stop making them.  I hope that in the future you will be willing to back up your claims with sources and specifics.  If not I will be forced to take actions that I would rather avoid.  Please don't force me to act.

Just as I won't knowingly tolerate lies about Linux I won't tolerate them against other groups or  companies, not even those I dislike. 

Just as you wish...   I'll remove the post, and as you are in charge here I won't mention this again, however that does not alter my opinion on the matter...

[Nemesis]

Just as you wish...   I'll remove the post, and as you are in charge here I won't mention this again, however that does not alter my opinion on the matter...

The problem is not the opinion but stating it in a manner that makes it appear that it is an established fact.  State it as a belief and acknowledge the lack of evidence to back it up and I won't have a problem with it as moderator.  As a poster I may well challenge your beliefs.

If you actually find evidence to back it up that I would be interested in.  But (my belief) is that it hasn't happened and therefore there is no such evidence.  I'd be fascinated to be proven wrong.

Microsoft has enough faults and guilt that has been documented and provable that allegeding things without facts actually makes them look the victim when they are far from the victim in the majority of cases.  If you want proof of Microsoft pirating software look for a lawsuit in France where Microsoft is convicted of that, but its not Open Source and its not networking or OS code.

[prometheus]

Just as you wish...   I'll remove the post, and as you are in charge here I won't mention this again, however that does not alter my opinion on the matter...

The problem is not the opinion but stating it in a manner that makes it appear that it is an established fact.  State it as a belief and acknowledge the lack of evidence to back it up and I won't have a problem with it as moderator.  As a poster I may well challenge your beliefs.

If you actually find evidence to back it up that I would be interested in.  But (my belief) is that it hasn't happened and therefore there is no such evidence.  I'd be fascinated to be proven wrong.

Microsoft has enough faults and guilt that has been documented and provable that allegeding things without facts actually makes them look the victim when they are far from the victim in the majority of cases.  If you want proof of Microsoft pirating software look for a lawsuit in France where Microsoft is convicted of that, but its not Open Source and its not networking or OS code.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1859439,00.asp

It's pretty common knowledge that microsoft have allowed OS code to find it's way into Closed operating systems...  While this is not illegal, it is not, IMO, really in the spirit of the GNU... 

[Nemesis]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1859439,00.asp

It's pretty common knowledge that microsoft have allowed OS code to find it's way into Closed operating systems...  While this is not illegal, it is not, IMO, really in the spirit of the GNU... 

It may not be in the spirit of GNU but neither was the code.  The code was BSD and Microsoft did adhere to the agreement.

From the article you linked to:

Asked by eWEEK what Microsoft will give back to the open-source community for the MPI component, which is licensed under the BSD and not the GNU General Public License (GPL), Faenov said all fixes will be given back, while "we'll probably give the changes back as well."

Microsoft has also learned a lot about what is required for a software company to include an open-source technology component in its product, from ascertaining who has contributed that code to being able to make sure that all the licenses and permissions are in place, he said.

I wouldn't call it common knowledge but a common assumption among those who dislike Microsoft. 

The BSD Daemon -

[prometheus]

I wouldn't call it common knowledge but a common assumption among those who dislike Microsoft.

I dislike Microsoft, I make no secret of that...  One thing that I can back up with undeniable fact is that in the EULA that ships with windows, Microsoft contend that if I buy ten PC's, I should purchase ten identical copies of windows, one for each system, despite the fact that one disk could do them all... 

That, in my opinion is an absurd and inherently grossly inefficient way for anyone who does business using large numbers of PC's to work...  I paid 80 quid ($150) for my copy of Windows XP, so if I owned ten computers, we are talking about $1,500.00.  Now, if I ran a business using a couple of hundred PC's we are then into the realms of stupid amounts of money...  $30,000.00.  That's someone's salary, wasted on nothing but sheer greed!

If I were using PC's in this fashion, I would certainly not be using windows when there are many other proven networking solutions out there for business that are not subject to this kind of restriction...

[Just plain old Punisher]

Why shouldn't you have to pay for all 10 licenses? Microsoft does indeed give bulk discounting for multiple licenses.

[Nemesis]

I dislike Microsoft, I make no secret of that...  One thing that I can back up with undeniable fact is that in the EULA that ships with windows, Microsoft contend that if I buy ten PC's, I should purchase ten identical copies of windows, one for each system, despite the fact that one disk could do them all... 

Unless your software supplier says otherwise then legally you are bound that way due to copyright laws.  However Microsofts claim (made retroactively) that the OS is licensed to a given motherboard is something I think that they will lose on if it is ever fought out in court.

My big problem with EULAs is that they commonly are used to remove rights legally granted by the law from the customer and give more rights to the product creator.  I don't think that corporations should be allowed to write laws for themselves and with the EULA everytime they issue a patch they get to rewrite the EULA on the fly.

That, in my opinion is an absurd and inherently grossly inefficient way for anyone who does business using large numbers of PC's to work...  I paid 80 quid ($150) for my copy of Windows XP, so if I owned ten computers, we are talking about $1,500.00.  Now, if I ran a business using a couple of hundred PC's we are then into the realms of stupid amounts of money...  $30,000.00.  That's someone's salary, wasted on nothing but sheer greed!

If I were using PC's in this fashion, I would certainly not be using windows when there are many other proven networking solutions out there for business that are not subject to this kind of restriction...

I dislike Microsofts business practices but if you don't like their prices then choose from the alternatives.  Because I dislike their practices I have 2 of my machines running OpenSuSE and expect to move a 3rd that way in September.  Only my gaming machine stays Windows (2000 Pro).  When that ceases to work for games (or Microsoft manages to shut it down assuming the kill switch is real and works on 2000 Pro) that machine goes Linux as well.

Punisher is right Microsoft does office bulk deals.  There are 5 packs of Windows available from Microsoft where you get one copy and 5 License codes.  There are also site licenses of businesses.  Either of those would cut the cost / copy significantly.

Slowly businesses, government and private individuals are slipping the Microsoft leash.  One way to help is to let those proprietary software dealers know that you want to use a non Microsoft OS and will use whatever software works on that OS and though you would like  to continue using theirs you won't be able to unless they support the other OS that you move to.  One person doing so won't have much effect, but one multiplied by all those who want to move from Microsoft are a large enough number to at least cause software companies to think about it.

[prometheus]

It is an inefficient way of operating...  If I had ten CD players in my house, I wouldn't buy ten copies of Dark Side of The Moon either, nor would I be legally required to, and yet every member of Pink Floyd lives a very comfortable lifestyle from one person, one lisence...

Legally, microsoft are entitled to sell their product under this lisence I'm sure.  I choose to disregard their terms, and if and when I am taken to court over the matter, I will stand and be counted for my actions and challenge their practices...  As it happens, my spare machines all run Linux anyway at them moment, and there are a couple of old clangers kicking around that run Win 95, so this is not particularly an issue, but if and when I require two or more machines to run windows XP, I will use the same installation disk, becuase that is the most sensible and logical approach...

If one of you can point out an advantage that I have missed to having ten identical windows installation disks in my possession, I will take it on board of course, but until then I am forced to dismiss this "one box, one copy of windows" license as serving no other purpose but to satisfy one company's sheer greed...

[prometheus]

Punisher is right Microsoft does office bulk deals.  There are 5 packs of Windows available from Microsoft where you get one copy and 5 License codes.  There are also site licenses of businesses.  Either of those would cut the cost / copy significantly.

I trust that anyone can see my point is not the actual sum of money that is involved, but the fact that large sums of money are being wasted for no good reason...  Billions must be wasted every year across the Western World as businesses buy duplicate windows lisences that serve no obvious function...

One person / firm, one lisence would have given Bill Gates more money than he would ever have required to spend in a lifetime...

[Nemesis]

Punisher is right Microsoft does office bulk deals.  There are 5 packs of Windows available from Microsoft where you get one copy and 5 License codes.  There are also site licenses of businesses.  Either of those would cut the cost / copy significantly.

I trust that anyone can see my point is not the actual sum of money that is involved, but the fact that large sums of money are being wasted for no good reason...  Billions must be wasted every year across the Western World as businesses buy duplicate windows lisences that serve no obvious function...

One person / firm, one lisence would have given Bill Gates more money than he would ever have required to spend in a lifetime...

So who pays the extra for the support costs at that company with 10,000 machines and one licence?  Who pays the extra support costs of your multiple machines and one license? 

[Just plain old Punisher]

There is a big difference between a computer operating system and music.

What it comes down to is this: If you don't require everyone to have their own valid license, then you open the door for everyone to put as many copies of windows on as many computers as they like.

[MrCue]

What it comes down to is this: If you don't require everyone to have their own valid license,

ONE licence, to use the software for my own (or my familys) private use.
Much like i get with a music CD i buy.

then you open the door for everyone to put as many copies of windows on as many computers as they like.

So long as the computers remain in my (as in my households) possesion, why shouldn't i install it on all the computers i own.

I use a router to provide internet access to all 4 machines, but i dont have to pay my ISP 4x the monthly fee.

Thats the thing that p*sses me off about MS.
I have 3 computers, and a laptop in my house and for some unfathomable reason i am required to have 4 copies of XP.

Why can i not have 1 licence which allows me to install XP onto any computer that is mine, or my familys?

Its pure greed on MS's part, that is all.

If i could swap all the computers to linux, and still have everyone be able to run all the programs they need/want to i would do it in less than a heart beat.

[prometheus]

What it comes down to is this: If you don't require everyone to have their own valid license,

ONE licence, to use the software for my own (or my familys) private use.
Much like i get with a music CD i buy.

then you open the door for everyone to put as many copies of windows on as many computers as they like.

So long as the computers remain in my (as in my households) possesion, why shouldn't i install it on all the computers i own.

I use a router to provide internet access to all 4 machines, but i dont have to pay my ISP 4x the monthly fee.

Thats the thing that p*sses me off about MS.
I have 3 computers, and a laptop in my house and for some unfathomable reason i am required to have 4 copies of XP.

Why can i not have 1 licence which allows me to install XP onto any computer that is mine, or my familys?

Its pure greed on MS's part, that is all.

If i could swap all the computers to linux, and still have everyone be able to run all the programs they need/want to i would do it in less than a heart beat.

you are absolutely 100% right...