Novell calls FUD on Microsoft

even crude Reverse

even crude Reverse engineering will show you how much open source code is buried in that binary blob called windows.
They try to disguise it by randomizing really efficient code: which is where the bloat comes in..
I WANT MS to go toe to toe with linux on this: and let's see if Stevie's up to the insides of a cell for grand theft and trying a protection racket:
How i know about the code: I have access to the outsourced code that MS says it never buys.
remember the revelation that someone had used a hacked version of a program for a sound scheme aawhile back?
Or the Linux flaw that is so closely duplicated in windows that the linux patch works on windows?-- several of these around.. and guess what: MS programmmers are usually incapable of fixing those vulnerabilities: Because to fix something you need to know how the darn thing works in the first place, heh

What I want is to run ssdeep

What I want is to run ssdeep against MICROSOFTS source code and against any Linux distros sorce code and find where Microsoft has GPL code hidden away.

The real problem is that

The real problem is that people should be getting copyrights on their exact work and not patents on the idea. For example,if I come up with an idea like the classic IBM pc are we better off as a group if I protect the hardware and prevent anyone else from making it (think Apple and marketshare here) or if I make the architecture freely useable and allow competitors to mimic it(think IBM pc "compatible" and market share here). If you believe that the marketplace rules the freely useable version is better for the consumer. While IBM no longer exactly controls the pc architecture it can (and does, although in China - but that's another topic entirely) make computers. The best implementation of the architecture gets the most customers. This is not the way software is being treated and it will ultimately hurt consumers. Based on Microsoft's apparent claims most likely no on can make a new operating system because it will need to use proprietary (think Apple hardware again...) patented (by someone somewhere) intellectual property. I mean we all want to use a mouse and keyboard and visualization device, right? We all want to connect to the network right? Maybe someone should patent the idea of an IP stack. When that software construct was first introduced it was not as obvious as we think it is now. And to really make some big bucks maybe they should go for the "linked list". Ohh, not very obvious at all... Don't even make me think about the actual words used in the command line - let's see I think I should retain the rights to the word(s) "shutdown" and "boot". Please pay now. At this point I think the people in Xerox Park made a big mistake by not patenting the mouse and making everyone pay for it forever.

It blows me away how quickly

It blows me away how quickly a lot of people in the community are rushing to conclusions before all the facts have been examined. I mean even the Free Software Foundation who has been given exclusive and unfettered access to the real secret details of the Novell/M$ deal have yet to find anything damaging to Linux, and they are are actual attorneys unlike the armchair pundits who leave all of these wildly bogus comments on blogs. Novell has invested millions of lines of code in the FOSS community. They have paid full time software engineers whose sole purpose in life is to write code for projects that Novell makes ZERO dollars from. SAMBA, Beagle, XGL, Gnome, iFolder, just to name a very small sample. Can we please wait for the actual evidence of damage to the FOSS world before we crucify them? please? If it turns out Novell has really betrayed the community then I am all for a swift ass-whooping. But until then please just keep the hysterics to a freaking minimum eh?

It has always baffled me

It has always baffled me about people who espouse "open source" software. To me, they have always appeared to be hold-outs of the 1960's socialist/hippie movements, some sort of utopians that believe there is really such a thing as a free lunch. There obviously isn't. The apparent belief asserts that a person is somehow not entitled to being compensated for innovative thinking, taking the necessary risks to develop and market new technologies and ideas, and having the drive to make a better life for themselves. Very few intelligent people want to sit around smoking weed and reeking of poor hygiene on a regular basis. The passers by are not laughing with you at the drug-induced hallucinations playing in the theater of your impared mind, they're laughing at you.

From my point of view, not only should code not be open to public scrutiny, it should be completely closed and irreversibly encrypted to prevent malware writers and thieves from perusing the code for their nefarious purposes. It should be up to the market to determine if a particular software writer's wares have any value. If someone writes sloppy code that is unstable or is easily exploited by malware writing deviants, then the writer should suffer economically for their poor skills and negligence. If someone writes tight code that runs correctly and thwarts malicious exploitation, then the author should be economically praised for their innovation and diligence.

The issue surrounding software patents should be cut and dry, like plagiarism -- if you didn't write it, you must site it, and compensate the original author if so requested. Just because you're crafty with a hex editor or dissembler, can strip all references to the original author from the code, insert your own name in the code, and manipulate a few text strings to make the code look different, your dishonest actions don't make the code actually different, or make the code yours. If it wasn't your idea in the first place, you should have found your own way to accomplish the task without stealing someone else's hard work. If you couldn't accomplish that with your own mental abilities, then you should have licensed the code and acknowledged the source.

There are only three choices: You're either inventive and create new ideas, you're honest and acknowledge the source of the ideas, or you're a thief. Plain and simple.

"A preacher cannot just

"A preacher cannot just "preach to the choir" he or she has to go outside the walls of the sanctuary to save those who need saving."

Really bad analogy... First: Who 'needs' to be 'saved' here - on either side?

Second: There is nothing wrong with proprietary code... or Open Source code. But the two don't mix.

In case you do not understand that, I'll briefly explain: Closed source is controlled by a company or other entity - the user is a passive, but paying customer. Open source is code developed for the free use of the community - and they are not forced to be (but can be) passive. Neither are they customers (you may pay for support, or go it on your own - as you please).

Open Source = Freedom

Closed Source = Serfdom

You can be, or may chose to be, either - but no one can be both Free and a serf at the same time.

I was a strong Novell supporter, but unless things get set right I will be moving over 1800 servers and many desktops elsewhere. A drop in the bucket compared to the millions Novell got from M$, but from my view a considerable bunch of support dollars are headed to RHEL.

I've been dabbling with

I've been dabbling with various Linux distros for more than a decade, and have yet to find all the software and drivers that I need for my small business. I sit on the sidelines as various individuals proclaim Linux as the next great operating system, and I have every reason to believe they are correct in their conclusion. But, the reality is that while certain factions of the Linux using world embrace the newness and scalability of Linux of the open source code, they fight any change other than their own. The change from a commandline-based system to one with a GUI was initially resisted and resented.
Some say Suse has made a pact with the devil. If we are going to make religious comparisons, maybe we should accept that Novell and Suse are not trying to make a pact, they, in fact, are trying to convert the devil to believe in open-source. A preacher cannot just "preach to the choir" he or she has to go outside the walls of the sanctuary to save those who need saving.
While I understand the business decision to protect their converts, I am by no means a great fan of the Novell business plan. After all, it was the company's fault that a great network system lost its place among the elite.
Go forth and conquer. Accept change, and spend your time, talent and money where you want.
Novell Suse seems to be filling a need by buying safety for all its users.
thanks.

I too have been using SuSE

I too have been using SuSE Linux for many years. It has been a good operating system with features I need and use. My reasoning for using such is to get away from paying a yearly homage to MS and other vendors, and to use an environment that works, not full of security holes, and is easy to install and use. In addition to use software developed independently that worked hard to come up with good solutions.
Now we have the Novell / MS collaboration with MS mudding up what it is really about right off the bat. MS's interest has and will be always questionable. I expect in the near future that MS will buy out Novel just so they can get into the Linux market.
To add to the conspiracy theorists, I have to wonder if some programmer, that was really MS sponsored, deliberately put code into Linux to give ammunition to MS's claims.
Should Novel keep to their schedule, a new release of SuSE Linux will be due out within a few months. At that time I will be considering other Linux distributions. After evaluating other distributions and implementing one, I will be making recommendations to my clients that they switch.
Linux has been free and the source code has been freely available and will continue to be free as it is independently developed and supported. So if Microsoft is so interested in developing to collaboration, then why buy into a Linux distribution company? Microsoft always has been a take-over type of company who are inflexable and want other companies to be flexible with them. Why doesn't MS just develop an add-on function that can be downloaded and installed on to Linux as users want from their website? It appears that with the MS / Novel partnership that MS wants to introduce their own code into Linux thus corrupting the purposes of the GPL and bypass the normal code introduction philosophy.
Another consideration is that IBM has in the past worked with SuSE and now Novel to provide S/390 versions of Linux software. With the SCO lawsuits against IBM, with MS's backing of SCO in their folly, one has to wonder if this is not another way of fighting IBM? I suspect one day it will come to a head where MS will file suit directly against IBM instead of cowering behind middle mouse (I mean men).
This whole deal certainly sounds shady to me. MS's intentions were and continue to be shady at best and should be viewed as such.