posted by Thom Holwerda on Sun 17th Jul 2011 20:58 UTC, submitted by fran
IconIt's strange. Microsoft has been patent trolling the heck out of the Linux kernel for a long time now, and is still using these patents against Android today in its protection money scheme. However, as LWN.net illustrates, Microsoft makes quite a few contributions to the Linux kernel. Shouldn't this invalidate their patent claims?

LWN.net regularly investigates and summarises the various contributions to the Linux kernel, making lists of who contributes the most. Now that version 3.0 of the Linux kernel is about to hit the big wide world, it was time for another one of these investigations.

Microsoft proposed a total of 361 changes to the Linux kernel, putting it in seventh place on the list of companies contributing the most to the kernel. To give you an idea - Red Hat provided 1000 changes, and Intel 839. Independent developers contributed 1085 change sets.

Now, this doesn't say a whole lot, since it doesn't take the size of the changes into account. As H-Online notes, Microsoft's changes are small and touch only a few lines of code; Microsoft changed 11564 lines of code (1.3%), while Intel, for instance, changed a whopping 163232 lines (18.1%). Most of Microsoft's code revolve around the driver for its HyperV virtualisation interface

Still, this got me thinking. In The Netherlands, there is this TV show called 'De Rijdende Rechter' ('The Travelling Judge'), which revolves around a judge taking on all kinds of small and hilarious cases, like trees hanging over neighbour's gardens, fences protruding 3 inches onto other people's property, and so on. It's hilarious.

Now, imagine Microsoft is bringing a case to the Rijdende Rechter. Microsoft claims that his neighbours (a family) are building a shed a few inches over the property line so that it actually covers a minutely small strip of Microsoft's land. The shed is usable as it is, but the neighbours continuously improve it inside and out, painting it, replacing some of the wooden panelling, installing lights, and so on. Microsoft demands that the judge orders the neighbours to either pay rent for the small strip of land, or tear down the tiny sliver of the shed on Microsoft's land.

How strong would Microsoft's case be if the neighbours building the shed told the judge Microsoft had actually been helping in building the shed, even though it knew about the placement of the shed and the property line issue? I can assure you - it would make Microsoft's case considerably weaker. Helping to build the shed while knowing it protrudes on his land would would constitute a form of approval.

But then, maybe I'm applying too much logic here.
http://www.osnews.com/story/24960/Microsoft_Contributes_361_Changes_to_Linux_3_0

I suspect this small amount of collaboration is only for the sake of innoculating Micr$oft against future anti-trust claims and to satisfy requirements in some jurisdictions that Microsoft make some anti-monopoly gestures.

Compare these actions to what Apple has done in the arena of open source/ Unix, and they pale by comparison.


-Kerry O.

Lightweight Portable Security
Last Update: Tuesday 19 July 2011 22:58 GMT

Lightweight Portable Security

Based on: Thinstation
Origin: USA
Architecture: i386
Desktop: IceWM
Category: Live Medium, Privacy, Security
Status: Active


Lightweight Portable Security (LPS) is a Linux-based live CD with a goal of allowing users to work on a computer without the risk of exposing their credentials and private data to malware, key loggers and other Internet-era ills. It includes a minimal set of applications and utilities, such as the Firefox web browser or an encryption wizard for encrypting and decrypting personal files. The live CD is a product produced by the United States of America's Department of Defence and is part of that organization's Software Protection Initiative.

I am glad to see the Department of Defense contributing some.

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=lps

15 June 2011: LPS-Remote Access was certified by AFNIC to connect to the GIG for general telecommuting use.

Lightweight Portable Security (LPS) creates a secure end node from trusted media on almost any Intel-based computer (PC or Mac). LPS boots a thin Linux operating system from a CD or USB flash stick without mounting a local hard drive. Administrator privileges are not required; nothing is installed. The ATSPI Technology Office created the LPS family to address particular use cases. LPS-Public is a safer, general-purpose solution for using web-based applications. The accredited LPS-Remote Access is only for accessing your organization's private network.

LPS-Public allows general web browsing and connecting to remote networks. It includes a smart card-enabled Firefox browser supporting CAC and PIV cards, a PDF and text viewer, Java, and Encryption Wizard - Public. LPS-Public turns an untrusted system (such as a home computer) into a trusted network client. No trace of work activity (or malware) can be written to the local computer. Simply plug in your USB smart card reader to access CAC- and PIV-restricted US government websites.

LPS differs from traditional operating systems in that it isn't continually patched. LPS is designed to run from read-only media and without any persistent storage. Any malware that might infect a computer can only run within that session. A user can improve security by rebooting between sessions, or when about to undertake a sensitive transaction. For example, boot LPS immediately before performing any online banking transactions. LPS should also be rebooted immediately after visiting any risky web sites, or when the user has reason to suspect malware might have been loaded. In any event, rebooting when idle is an effective strategy to ensure a clean computing session. LPS is updated on a regular basis (at least quarterly patch and maintenance releases). Update to the latest versions to have the latest protection.

To get started, download the LPS-Public ISO image and burn it to a CD. Read the Quick Start Guide for more information.

http://www.spi.dod.mil/lipose.htm

I don't see how microsofts contribution invalidates their patent threats. Isn't linux still under gpl 2? and didn't gpl 2 fail to close paten loopholes?



Naturally, all the companies that contribute are self serving. This is how MS is being self-serving - improve the HyperV.



The real news here, for me, is.... 3.0????

They've been using 2.6.x for SEVEN YEARS.

When I saw 3.0 I was hoping for some radical new development behind the new version number.... alas:

I think that is nice since it coincides with Gnome 3.