Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:26 UTC
Novell and Ximian "Someone just asked me whether, now that Novell's become buddies with Microsoft, I'll be turning away from Novell/SUSE as one of my favorite Linux distributions. My answer is no. I'm sticking with SUSE Linux on both my desktops and servers. Here's why."
Order by: Score:
Er.... Content?
by Devilotx on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:42 UTC
Devilotx
Member since:
2005-07-06

the only points made in defense of SLED are:

"I like the KDE 3.5.5 interface. I like -- now that's it's finally fixed -- the easy YAST update system. And, I like the combination of powerful and up-to-date software programs like Evolution, OpenOffice.org, GAIM, and Firefox."

with the exception of Yast, I've got all that on my desktop too, leaving out Yast you've pretty much hit EVERY major Distro out there... that is not a reason, that is convenience.

Fedora Core 6 has and easy update system (Yum) up to date software as well, So does Ubuntu/Kubuntu, so do Mandriva...

I dunno, maybe I'm nitpicking, but there didn't look like anything was written there to answer the "here's why" statement

I'm running "X" because it works out of the box (or would it be out of the burner?) with my hardware, gives me an up to date OS, ease of use, easy access to the software I need

You could plug any number of variables into X there and have a perfectly legitimate statement.

this article was a "bash Novell for joining with the devil, but I'll use em anyway" statement.

*sigh...*

Reply Score: 5

RE: Er.... Content?
by WarpKat on Mon 6th Nov 2006 19:03 UTC in reply to "Er.... Content?"
WarpKat Member since:
2006-02-06

"with the exception of Yast, I've got all that on my desktop too, leaving out Yast you've pretty much hit EVERY major Distro out there... that is not a reason, that is convenience. "

And that's exactly what a customer would want - CONVENIENCE. I, for one, don't have much time during the day to compile source, choose-download-install packages on my own. This can be likened to Microsoft's update manager - whatever it's called - which downloads the updates but doesn't install them. This is a very big (in)convenience because MS has botched updates before to the point of breaking. I've yet to see one of my Linux updates go down in flames - it's a convenience. A very GOOD one.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Er.... Content?
by Lunitik on Mon 6th Nov 2006 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Er.... Content?"
Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

"I've yet to see one of my Linux updates go down in flames"

Way too broad a comment... I'd like to remind you of the Ubuntu LTS X updates a while back...

Which is exactly why people go to companies like Novell for Linux support, they have more on the line, and can be trusted more.

Similarly Red Hat of course, however they certainly don't have the support infrastructure that Novell has.

Business customers want promises and guarentees, and they want someone to blame.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Er.... Content?
by narcissus on Mon 6th Nov 2006 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Er.... Content?"
narcissus Member since:
2005-07-06

""I've yet to see one of my Linux updates go down in flames"

Way too broad a comment... I'd like to remind you of the Ubuntu LTS X updates a while back...

Which is exactly why people go to companies like Novell for Linux support, they have more on the line, and can be trusted more.

Similarly Red Hat of course, however they certainly don't have the support infrastructure that Novell has.

Business customers want promises and guarentees, and they want someone to blame."

I think the original poster meant "I have yet to see one of my YAST updates go down in flames..."

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Er.... Content?
by somebody on Mon 6th Nov 2006 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Er.... Content?"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Which is exactly why people go to companies like Novell for Linux support, they have more on the line, and can be trusted more.

Similarly Red Hat of course, however they certainly don't have the support infrastructure that Novell has.


:) and that would be based on?

RH is larger than Novell, RH has more developers than Novell, RH has 1 hour response time. In all times I contacted their support I received satisfactory result.

Most of Novell developers is focusing on Novell products (just remember how many original SuSe people were laid off few months ago). While RH in general employs a lot of people on various fields. Not that Novell lacks, for example Novell employs Jeremy Allison from Samba...

As far as my experiences tell me both companies have very good support. And if you would force me to choose which one is better, I would say RH after a long thought. Just as is RHEL more robust than SLED in my opinion.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Er.... Content?
by Lunitik on Tue 7th Nov 2006 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Er.... Content?"
Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

Novell has around 4,500 employees or something...

Red Hat has less than 1,000...

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Er.... Content?
by bryanv on Mon 6th Nov 2006 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Er.... Content?"
RE[2]: Er.... Content?
by twenex on Mon 6th Nov 2006 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Er.... Content?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

And that's exactly what a customer would want - CONVENIENCE.

What was it Ben Franklin said? "Those who sacrifice a little freedom in return for security deserve neither", or words to that effect. I'm not an Amnerican, so I don't have the words off pat, and I'm not going to look it up. You also have to look at whether your vendors interests are in conflict with yours. As a Linux user, Novell's may be. Not a dead cert, but they MAY be.

I, for one, don't have much time during the day to compile source, choose-download-install packages on my own.

Nor do most users; but in fact it's quite easy to set up a cron job to do this kind of thing automatically - and keeping track of what's installed is a lot easier on Gentoo (which I assume you're alluding to) than it is on, say, FreeBSD. Not only that, but once you've used a package cd to install pre-compiled packages, you can then sit and use THOSE whilst your upgrades are compiling.

I view the whole Gentoo stage 1 thing, which again I assume you're alluding to, as a "learn-how-Linux-works" thing, which can be useful if you get into trouble (with any distro). It's the same with, say, books: Most of us read them, but in order to become good at writing them, you need practice, whether you want to do it as a hobby or professionally. And if you don't set aside enough time to practice, then you won't improve any.

As a final point, it's not as if installing SUSE with everything preloaded and Gentoo's stage 1 are the only choices - there's everything in-between, too. Mandriva, for example, has a lot of preinstalled software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Er.... Content?
by Adam S on Mon 6th Nov 2006 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Er.... Content?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

>> I, for one, don't have much time during the day
>> to compile source, choose-download-install packages
>> on my own.

> Nor do most users; but in fact it's quite easy to
> set up a cron job to do this kind of thing
> automatically

Um... easy for whom?? Who exactly can setup a cron job to download sources and compile applications? I'd venture to say that the vast majority of people IN THIS FIELD don't know how to do that.

If that's not a techie talking to a techie crowd, I don't know what is!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Er.... Content?
by twenex on Mon 6th Nov 2006 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Er.... Content?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

There's such a thing as KCron, you know.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Er.... Content?
by somebody on Mon 6th Nov 2006 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Er.... Content?"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Wow, I really wonder in which century you live:)

Up from FC5 (now FC6), I decided to have one desktop where not even one piece of software is not compiled by me, you could call it "point'n'click fun experiment"

While FC5 lacked few things FC6 lacks nothing. And it is regularly updated without any cron job or compile. I even installed 32-bit FFox2 with flash9 on it, without a single terminal usage.

The only advanced action was running Alacarte (after first boot) and disabling Terminal menu icon, so I can't mistakenly take a shortcut.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Er.... Content?
by Adam S on Mon 6th Nov 2006 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Er.... Content?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I decided to have one desktop where not even one piece of software is not compiled by me

You're joking, right? I know you are. Ha ha ha, you're funny! See, because you're implication is that everyone compiles from source right? And we know this is true.

That's why people have coded APT/DEB, Synaptic, Yum, Yast, Xandros Networks, PBIs, Click N' Run, Conary, etc. Because building from source is such a commonplace thing, right?

Most desktop users don't use cron for anything. In fact, I'd wager most don't even know what it is.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Er.... Content?
by somebody on Mon 6th Nov 2006 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Er.... Content?"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

You're joking, right?

Yeah,... and not, more sarcastic. My typical reaction on Gentoo talk. Beside the point, there always were limits what you could do with p'n'c, no matter how many installers you mention. FC6 is the first distro, except ubuntu that went trough my test of complete desktop setup without one single line in terminal.

You see, in the past I was always setting up desktops for my non-techie friends and suddenly that became boring and troublesome (I don't have as much time to spare as I had). This is probably the reason why my brains start making hoops when I see people preaching things like cron as easy.

This is why I started testing this. To be able to predict where Joe User can slip up and limit my help to that places only.

And yeah, it is just as you say. cron, KCron, means shit to Joe User. He doesn't know what cron is, he doesn't know what to look for to install KCron. How would this be easy. Well, if a techie would hold his hand trough install. But, that would kill all reasons for my little experiment.

Lucky me, it's very rare to hear two hardcore Gentoo users talking lately. It seems like those went down the road where dodo and dinosaurs vanished and use precompiled packages now.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Er.... Content?
by Adam S on Mon 6th Nov 2006 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Er.... Content?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

It seems like those went down the road where dodo and dinosaurs vanished and use precompiled packages now.

Shouldn't they, though? I mean, seriously, who WANTS to compile packages? Isn't the idea to make computing easier?

I would love to never have to compile anything ever again. Installing Bugzilla was a nightmare - setting up CPAN, modifying the settings, editing the config files, installing all the modules, fighting with some of them. This kind of stuff should just go away in favor of simpler computing.

Sometimes, I think people enjoy making things difficult because it gets you into an imagined elite. But believe me, the goal of computing ought to be to make things EASIER.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Er.... Content?
by twenex on Mon 6th Nov 2006 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Er.... Content?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I'm not a hardcore Gentoo user. O'm not even a techie.

I'm also not convinced that cron is easy; but for people who don't know KCron on Linux, is the Windows Scheduler any easier? The point is that SuSE Linux is far and away NOT the only "easy" Linux.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Er.... Content?
by twenex on Mon 6th Nov 2006 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Er.... Content?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Most people on Gentoo compile packages to get only what they need out of a package.

There's far more "Gentoo users are elite fascist bastards" crapola from Gentoo-haters than there is "non-Gentoo users are lazy know-nothings" or even "G0sh 1'm s0 l33t I c0mp1l3 G3nt00!!!" crapola from Gentoo users. Far more.

Edited 2006-11-06 22:51

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Er.... Content?
by ACarlow on Tue 7th Nov 2006 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Er.... Content?"
ACarlow Member since:
2005-10-18

"...and keeping track of what's installed is a lot easier on Gentoo (which I sume you're alluding to) than it is on, say, FreeBSD. Not only that, but once you've used a package cd to install pre-compiled packages, you can then sit and use THOSE whilst your upgrades are compiling."

Please explain how it is "a lot easier" to see what's installed on Gentoo than typing "pkg_info". Also, every version of FreeBSD for at least the last 5 years has had pre-compiled packages as well....

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Er.... Content?
by twenex on Tue 7th Nov 2006 00:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Er.... Content?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

OK, you got me there! I didn't know about that one.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Er.... Content?
by Clinton on Tue 7th Nov 2006 08:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Er.... Content?"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

Maybe things have changed during the last year, but I wouldn't call YaST a convenience.

It has the promise of convenience to it; certainly. I mean it is shiny and has an asthetic, calming, "grandmother bringing you a cup of tea and a biscuit" quality to it, but once you dig in, it always leaves you wishing it were different. At least it does me.

It seems to do too much and not enough all at the same time.

Reply Score: 1

He is right, well mostly
by lostnerd on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:42 UTC
lostnerd
Member since:
2005-07-27

I still think the jury is out on the whole deal really and no I am not trolling. I honestly think nothing is going to come of the deal outside of maybe giving a little street cred to Novell and Microsoft making a little coin. It may come back to bite MS though. Regardless, I'm pretty sure I'm sticking with Suse.

Reply Score: 4

No surprise.
by Lunitik on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:44 UTC
Lunitik
Member since:
2005-08-07

I'm not sure why this is a huge surprise.

SUSE has long been working for Microsoft interoperability, long before Novell came along. Ximian also always cared about this factor... and of course, Novell wants similar things.

Why is making it official a big surprise? I think the exact opposite of most it seems, I see a perfect fit. I see a fit that Microsoft can't screw up. The software in question isn't owned by Novell, and so long as Novell stays true to community commitments, this can't be bad.

Microsoft is a business, Novell is a business. They want to make money, and they want to protect their investments. Thats their choice, I think IBM will have something to say if Microsoft tries running amuk here...

I think that $50 million investment from IBM is the factor that will keep this deal honest.

Edited 2006-11-06 18:46

Reply Score: 5

RE: No surprise.
by lostnerd on Mon 6th Nov 2006 19:02 UTC in reply to "No surprise."
lostnerd Member since:
2005-07-27

I think that $50 million investment from IBM is the factor that will keep this deal positive.

I think IBM is a major reason that keeps MS in line. Can't say if MS initiated the SCO fiasco, probably not, but its pretty clear they took advantage of it with minimal pay out and very little dirt on their hands. Even MS knows what caliber they are dealing with when they take on IBM. Of course IBM patent portfolio is pretty impressive regardless. I would venture to guess they got something on just about everyone. MS included.

Reply Score: 3

Microsoft funded advertising
by tsume on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:46 UTC
tsume
Member since:
2006-07-24

Everyone has to remember, Ziff Davis is an advertising frontend for Microsoft. A simple search of google will show it to be true.

In all seriousness, this article needs to be labeled as marketing material. They're just trying to stop the affects of the merger. Many of the Linux savvy users are switching to another Linux distribution.

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Everyone has to remember, Ziff Davis is an advertising frontend for Microsoft. A simple search of google will show it to be true.

Then Google is wrong. Before throwing around accusations, please look at the author. Steven J-something-Nichols is a Linux zealot. Has been, always will be. Ziff Davis or not.

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I'm not sure it's fair to label someone who praises SCO OpenServer (but not SCO in general), and has come out in favour of the MS/Novell deal a "Linux zealot". Unless of course you believe that anyone who advocates Linux (by which I mean "does something as innocuous as using it but never telling anyone about it") is a Linux zealot. In which case I would say you're just a troll.

Reply Score: 5

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Then Google is wrong. Before throwing around accusations, please look at the author. Steven J-something-Nichols is a Linux zealot. Has been, always will be. Ziff Davis or not.

and

Linked by Thom Holwerda

??? This just makes me wonder how OSNews is desperate for articles. To link at something you consider zealotry articles? Or you just enjoy pushing obvious flamewar articles? Either way, it doesn't reflect good on OSNews.

Beside the point, SJN is often wrong, even "very, very wrong",... but "zealot"...? No, he's not. If you think he is, then I suggest you read his articles instead of looking at the pictures.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Microsoft funded advertising
by NotParker on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:50 UTC in reply to "Microsoft funded advertising"
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Many of the Linux savvy users are switching to another Linux distribution.

That is an excellent reason why businesses should stay away from Linux.

If a business does choose one distro over another, and the cult gets offended by something that distro does, then suddenly all the Linux "Admins" will be demanding the business switch to a more "ideological pure" Linux distro.

Stay away from cults. It will bring you nothing but grief.

Reply Score: 1

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I'm not a system admin, but I would guess that they are more driven by how good a product is than by ideological purity. It's one thing post on OSNews, but it's quite another to move your company from one product to another.

Reply Score: 5

IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not a system admin, but I would guess that they are more driven by how good a product is than by ideological purity. It's one thing post on OSNews, but it's quite another to move your company from one product to another.

Well put. I'm a sys admin for Novell products and I'm put off by Novell over this whole thing. However, I'm not about to run down to the server room and format all my NetWare and SLES boxes.

Actually, I'm still more steamed at Novell over the fact that they can't get a single management tool sorted out. iManager, Console1, Nwadmin. I need one tool with all the snapins, not five!

Reply Score: 4

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Agreed. As a single user, getting rid of whatever distro in one day is one's own business. Deleting every copy of the distro on all computers in your datacentre and sending them back with a snotty letter is irresponsible.

Reply Score: 2

steviant Member since:
2006-01-11

I'm a system administrator for a very Microsoft centric company, and I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole affair, but I will say this.

I think I'll have a much easier time encouraging customers to switch to a Linux distribution that has (on the face of things) an endorsement from Microsoft and the support of a company with a familiar name that conjures memories of the old workhorse Netware, which drove many businesses off impossibly meagre hardware for years in the 90s.

Even Microsoft's announcement that there may be IP issues with other Linux distributions doesn't necessarily bode badly for Linux in general. It just means that people worried about IP problems with Linux have a clear course now.

Those who doubt that Microsoft would want to be seen making trouble for their competitors (myself included), or who live in a software-patent free regime (myself included), need not pay any attention to Microsoft's announcement.

Finally, to anyone who is being forced by their employer to migrate to SuSE because of Microsoft's FUD regarding this agreement, my condolences. But at least you still get to work with Linux.

Reply Score: 1

startxjeff Member since:
2006-09-29

That's the exact reason why I advocate NOT using Windows.

Anytime MS comes out with a new OS, MS "Admins" demand that the business switch to the more "updated" Windows, else the business can't recieve updates and "fixes".

And no thought is given to the fact that some applications don't work on the new MS windows.

I agree. Stay away from cults and forced upgrade artists. They will bring you nothing but grief.

Reply Score: 5

DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't know any Microsoft SysAdmins who think upgrading as soon as a new product is released is anywhere near a good idea.

Microsoft supports many of their products beyond what most Linux distros do. Windows 98, and agreeable crappy OS was receiving security updates until just a few months ago. It was supported with "fixes" for nearly 8 years. Ubuntu's only last 18 months until the recent LTS of 5 years.

Windows 2000 has been receiving updates for 6 years and will likely continue for another year or two, which would again make that an 8 year product cycle.

Indeed I know a few MS Admins who refuse to deploy the the latest version of Windows on current company computers --even on the desktops and especially on servers-- until a first or even second service pack is released, just to give time to iron out any possible major issues.

So, yeah, stay away from cults.

Reply Score: 2

IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know any Microsoft SysAdmins who think upgrading as soon as a new product is released is anywhere near a good idea.

I don't know of any admins, microsoft or not, who think upgrading as soon as a new projuct is released is a good idea.

Reply Score: 2

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Anytime MS comes out with a new OS, MS "Admins" demand that the business switch to the more "updated" Windows, else the business can't recieve updates and "fixes".

I'm assuming you are running an old, old distro like RedHat 7.0 and never upgrade ...

All joking aside, upgrading from one version of Windows to a new version to keep current on a reasonable business cycle (which most businesses do) is not comparable like the cult members advocating the dumping of Novell/SLED for another distro because of their hatred of Microsoft.

Reply Score: 0

deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

Ask yourself why MS is hated. Try to understand. Once you've accomplished that, come back and post again. But think first, then post. Thank you.

Reply Score: 1

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Typical MS cult lifetime card carrying member, "it's not a cult", "I'm not a member", "I could quit any time", "I'm in control...", heard it all before, none of them will ever recognize it in themselves, just too close to the problem.

Reply Score: 1

startxjeff Member since:
2006-09-29

Actually, RH 7.3 to be fair.

And I just cooked Fedora Core 6.0

I also have Debian and Ubuntu, but I prefer Debian to all these just because I can change it any way that I like it. =)

Oh... and Winderz XP SP2.

And I might get Vista. Then again - maybe not. I don't know yet. I think that I might let XP SP2 just die EOL and then I'll get a PS3 for games.

Nothing is new under the sun.

Linux is the airplane. Windows is the Rail Road.

Reply Score: 1

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Linux is the airplane. Windows is the Rail Road.

If Linux is an airplane, its a home built experimental model ... and there are hundreds of models each with its own cult of devotees.

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Whereas Windows is a rail road that hasn't been finished, with a "cult of devotees" hundreds of times more numerous, clueless, repetitive, and unimaginative than the totality of the Linux cults.

Reply Score: 0

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

You're totally wrong.

First, admins typically recommend waiting a couple cycles of service packs before going to a new Windows version.

Second, MS has extended Windows 2000 support for 8 years. There aren't many other vendors who will support an OS version for that period of time or longer.

Third, the reason that admins don't recommend going to a new version of Windows when it's released is precisely because it takes time to test an organization's applications with a new release. Most problems are generally resolved in subsequent service packs.

There's no such thing as a "forced upgrade artist". That's a figment of your imagination.

Reply Score: 1

Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

Second, MS has extended Windows 2000 support for 8 years. There aren't many other vendors who will support an OS version for that period of time or longer

And there you are caught in a big big lie.
But I'm not surprised, you Windows zealots are making things up all the time.
MS will only give security fixes to Win200 if you pay HIGH prices, and won't fix it AT ALL. The company I work for now detected a big flaw (and there probably others) in the TCP/IP stack of Win2000. The answer of MS is clear : they will NOT fix it, they DON'T fix it anymore, only security fixes will be made available if the problem is critical and youpay high prices.

Reply Score: 0

gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

No problem! Just download the kernel source, find the defect and fix it! It's much cheaper then a full enterprise-wide upgrade to W2K3!

Oh wait... Never mind.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 0

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Lies. MS never charges for security fixes.

Reply Score: 1

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

MS will only give security fixes to Win200 if you pay HIGH prices, and won't fix it AT ALL.

Nope. Windows 2000 gets extended support until 2010.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&p1=7274&x=13&y=14

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

Non-security fixes cost money.
Security fixes are free.

Reply Score: 1

Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

Look, I'm talking to you about a real case from 2 weeks ago, NOT PR like you point to me !
The fact is that MS won't fix their IP stack on Win2000, even if you want to pay. They won't even fix other bugs unless they're critical (which means none).
So stop your BS.

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I believe that business should confine themselves to ethical business practices, and since MS have no type of regulatory or governmental authority over anyone, spreading FUD like "if you don't use our approved version of Linux, we'll sue your asses" is not one. I may be more vocal on the subject when it comes to MS, but if I am it isn't because of any double-standard: it's because I feel I can do more to make sure they are eventually confined only to ethical business practices.

If you believe that the most important thing is money, then that's your business, but if you do, and I ever find out I've been dealing with your company in any way, I reserve the right to drop you like a hot potato.

Reply Score: 5

Murrell Member since:
2006-01-04

That is an excellent reason why businesses should stay away from Linux.

If a business does choose one distro over another, and the cult gets offended by something that distro does, then suddenly all the Linux "Admins" will be demanding the business switch to a more "ideological pure" Linux distro.

Stay away from cults. It will bring you nothing but grief.


Speaking as a Sys-Admin in a predominantly (85%+) Linux company, we run Ubuntu, because it works, and because the GPL makes sense from a bussiness perspective. We use propietry nVidia drivers because they work, and if they became an issue*, we could switch to something else.

Ideaology is set by the owner of the company. If I decided to change the software on the machines to something more 'pure', I'd be out of a job.

Also - generally speaking, a cult is something associated with religon. If someone confuses the use of an a particular operating system with the worship of a god, then that person probably needs to get out more.

* An issue being along the lines of unfixed security problem or spyware issues.

Reply Score: 4

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Also - generally speaking, a cult is something associated with religon.

Sure. But there are other definitions.

And I think many of the ideas expressed on this site are very cult like.

"great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?cult


"3. idolization of somebody or something: an extreme or excessive admiration for a person, philosophy of life, or activity ( often used before a noun )
the cult of youth
a cult hero


4. object of idolization: a person, philosophy, or activity regarded with extreme or excessive admiration


5. fad: something popular or fashionable among a devoted group of enthusiasts ( often used before a noun )
has taken on cult status"

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861601866/cult.html

"5) Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
The object of such devotion.

6) An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

Reply Score: 0

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""Stay away from cults. It will bring you nothing but grief."""


NotParker,

One thing that I have noticed is that you like to pidgeon-hole Linux advocates all into one neat category.

You can't do that and retain an accurate view of that nebulous thing we call "the community". (This is really true of any group.)

I've been an advocate and administrator of Unix, and later Linux, since 1988. My primary attraction to Linux is that it is a great unix and has done a lot of things right that the proprietary vendors never got around to, like having a usable desktop. I am also a strong open source supporter; I strongly prefer open source software to proprietary for various reasons. Some of them practical, some of them could be considered idealistic. I would never go as far as RMS and the FSF on that point since I feel that being an extremist does more harm than good. And sometimes I am forced to go the proprietary route because I don't have an OSS solution that would work as well for my customers as a proprietary one. (For example, business accounting and Point of Sale are very weak areas for OSS.)

And guess what, NotParker? There are a *lot* of people in the community just like me; more than your realize. And the reason you don't realize it is that *we don't talk as much* as the people with more extreme opinions. (This is also probably true of most any group.)

I believe that this is the first post that I have made in *any* of these threads about the Novell-Microsoft deal, mainly because I am still making sense of it all. I've never really liked SUSE (personal preference) so I don't have any SUSE installations to delete.

If I did though, I suspect I might be considering a move to a different distro for my own workstations, since my feelings about SUSE's move are generally, at this point, negative. As an individual user, I have that luxury.

Now, if I had clients' servers on SLES or SLED, that's a whole different ball of wax. To move them to something else, I would have to have some good solid business reasons to do it. Oh, I could make up something and my customers would believe me because they have confidence in our company. But I would not do that. It would not be ethical. There is more to ethics than software freedom; There is my responsibility to do what makes the most business sense for my clients. That does not always have to mean "in the short term", though. Sometimes I recommend things, like a move from Windows to Linux, based upon gains that I see after the initial migration is over, and I'm usually pleased with the results, and so is the client. (I've never had anyone ask to move back, or say that they were dissatisfied, but then again, I only move the ones that I know will benefit.)

Certainly, at this point, there is not nearly enough reason to uproot a client and move them to a new distro.

And I consider myself to be a big Linux advocate. I sympathize with some of the FSF philosophy, but believe that if I let my attraction to OSS overshadow my responsibilities to my clients, I am doing a disservice to both the client *and* to OSS.

So please remember that "the community" has more depth to it than may sometimes be immediately apparent.

Some of us live our lives in what sometimes seems like a perpetual moral dillemma. ;-)

I don't really want to make a long thread out of this. But please, just think about it, OK?

Sincerely,
Steve Bergman

Edited 2006-11-06 21:31

Reply Score: 5

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Oh well said, sir!

Reply Score: 0

stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

I went to mod you up, but you were already +5 ;)

Reply Score: 1

gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

/+1.

First, I'm no OSS purist. I rather use OSS when I can, but I use nVidia/VMWare/etc when I can't.
Second, I don't use SLED. I got burned by Novel in the past and I never let anyone screw my twice. (Needless to say, I'm not that surprised by the Novel/Microsoft pact).

If I was using SLED, I would have began making long term preparation to jump ship to another enterprise level distribution. Here's why:
A. This deal helps Microsoft sue other distributions, which in-turn, locks me into SLED. In the long term, I have a vested interest in breaking any attempt to lock me to a certain platform. (That's why we decide to [try and drop] Windows as a target platform to begin with)
B. This deal helps Microsoft impede the progress of the OSS movement and in my view, less OSS means less choice (in selecting which software to use) and higher prices (limited selecting of developers). As a consumer I have a vested interest in keeping the market alive and competitive.

While in the short term, I'd continue to use SLED, using it in the long term means platform lock-in, higher prices, less features and less freedom. Call me crazy, but funding someone as he tried to screw me doesn't look like a good business plan.

- Gilboa

Edited 2006-11-07 16:09

Reply Score: 1

gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

/ Please ignore bad English. too much work, not enough sleep, edit doesn't seem to work.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Microsoft funded advertising
by hal2k1 on Mon 6th Nov 2006 22:16 UTC in reply to "Microsoft funded advertising"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Everyone has to remember, Ziff Davis is an advertising frontend for Microsoft. A simple search of google will show it to be true.

In all seriousness, this article needs to be labeled as marketing material. They're just trying to stop the affects of the merger. Many of the Linux savvy users are switching to another Linux distribution.//

Exactly.

Why?

"I like the KDE 3.5.5 interface. I like -- now that's it's finally fixed -- the easy YAST update system. And, I like the combination of powerful and up-to-date software programs like Evolution, OpenOffice.org, GAIM, and Firefox."

I like these things as well. I have just one word to say ... Kubuntu.

Reply Score: 1

OK
by KenJackson on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:47 UTC
KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

In other words, before throwing out the baby of a great Linux distribution with the bathwater of open-source political correctness, I want to see how Novell's role in all this plays out.

That's a good line, and not altogether unreasonable.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. What I like isn't proprietary or open-source software. What I like is software that works, and works well. And, by that pragmatic yardstick, SLED is still the desktop to beat, in my book.

Very pragmatic. I'm not a SUSE user, so I can't comment on how it works, but I find this viewpoint to be reasonable.

Also, he didn't say this, but the mass abandonment a favorite distro is a powerful weapon which shouldn't be shouldered lightly. It would be better if users wait until Microsoft or Novel does something abhorrent and then abandon SUSE en mass to drive home the point.

Reply Score: 5

RE: OK
by r_a_trip on Tue 7th Nov 2006 20:01 UTC in reply to "OK"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

The people considering to drop Novell, are driving home a clear enough point. They don't like Microsoft from an ideological standpoint and they don't like anything that is peripherally connected with MS.

I personally suspect something abhorrent to happen regardless of Novell's intentions. This is to good an opportunity for MS to wield the FUD stick and actually have some real fear in the FUD. This could very well be the start of the cold patent war.

I won't be dropping Novell again though. I already dropped SuSE the moment Novell became their steward. Failing companies make bad long term prospects.

Reply Score: 3

Why I am sticking w/ Novell SLED 10!
by bullethead on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:52 UTC
bullethead
Member since:
2005-07-10

Two words, "it works". I haven't found a more professional workstation distro which can even begin to compare itself to SLED 10. The $50 support license per year is more than worth it.

I have been using SLED 10 since the day it came out. I am sticking with it. In my mind I say this.

"If you are a GNU GPL v3 gung ho free software nut, well then work on the GNU/HURD OS". Stop complaining and get some real work done. Use your aggression as to what's happening now and develop something truly free, for the benefit of us all.

Reply Score: 5

Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

GPL is what ensures the Linux ecosystem will always be fruitful.

GPL is why companies feel they can contribute safely. A 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' mentality. GPL ensures companies can feel safe that another won't just steal their work for their own profit.

I think its also the reason that previous rules in the software world don't apply. Microsoft can't come in and take over, its simply not legally possible.

Reply Score: 5

brewmastre Member since:
2006-08-01

"I think its also the reason that previous rules in the software world don't apply. Microsoft can't come in and take over, its simply not legally possible."

Thank you! I've tried saying that in the past but I just get modded down. The Linux world will continue and will progress regardless of what happens with Novell/MS. I don't think that everybody should be freaking out on Novell like this. They may have made a deal with the devil, but that doesn't mean that every other Linux distro will lose their soul too.

Reply Score: 3

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>
I think its also the reason that previous rules in the software world don't apply. Microsoft can't come in and take over, its simply not legally possible.
<<

But can msft litigate linux out of existance? Why do you think msft funded the scox-scam? Ballmer essentially commented that any linux vendor who doesn't play ball with msft is open for a lawsuit.

Furthermore, msft was claiming, at least as early as 2002 that msft was going to use litigation to crush linux. Here is something ripped from investorvillage.com:

http://catb.org/esr/halloween/halloween7.html

Halloween VII. ESR got it in early November 2002. It is an analysis of a survey MS commissioned on the perception of Linux in the market.

A few interesting bits:

<<
“Linux patent violations/risk of being sued” struck a chord with US and Swedish respondents. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Americans and 82% of Swedes stated that the risk of being sued over Linux patent violations made them feel less favorable towards Linux. This was the only message that had a strong impact with any audience.
.

Messages that rely on an abstract discussion of intellectual property rights are not effective.

* The discussion of IP rights needs to be tied to concrete actions.
* Note that as with the International Government Elite Survey (IGES) project, here respondents do not see the connection between Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and a strong technology industry.
>>

It's been my contention for some time that with this floating around in late 2002, either someone on the SCO side heard about it and contacted MS or vice versa. I'm glad they did too because otherwise MS might have launched some patent petards back then. Instead someone chose the stupidest group for the weakest IP attack that MS could sponsor. The net result has been to allay those IP fears.

Reply Score: 1

rklrkl Member since:
2005-07-06

> The $50 support license per year is more than worth it.

I've been trying various Linux distros on a Dell Optiplex at work and I did quite like SLED 10, but it's actually the $50 a year support that made me strike it off the list (way before this MS/Novell nonsense cropped up).

There's a myriad of free Linux distros aimed at desktop users and don't forget that XP and Vista are one-off purchases (and are usually shipped with desktops, even eliminating that separate purchase) - updates come free for 5 years or so. There's very few cheap (not annual payment) distros out there that work as both a solid desktop and server OS, IMHO.

I might have considered Fedora Core, but I don't like how fast Fedora Legacy are dumping updates to older FC releases, so my current "favourite" is probably going to be CentOS 5 (based on RHEL 5, in turn based on Fedora Core 6) - free to download, free to use commercially, plus free updates for 5 years.

Yes, some stuff will have to be manually updated (e.g. SpamAssassin/clamav on servers, Firefox/Thunderbird/Open Office on desktops) during that time because RHEL/CentOS tend to lag quite a way behind on those items due to their long-term outlook, but it's probably going to be the best OS to use both on a desktop and server.

BTW, looking on the CentOS site, I see zero mention of any plans for CentOS 5, which is bizarre considering RHEL 5 Beta 1 has been out for a few months now. Anyone any clue as to when work will start on CentOS 5?

Reply Score: 1

I don't know what to make of this.
by twenex on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:55 UTC
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

It's SVN's business what distro he uses, and I think if it hadn't been for the patent threat everyone would have been cheering the MS/Novell deal - except of course for the ones who hate Microsoft just because they're Microsoft, and yes, they do exist. And if you're using a licence which allows people to charge for support, then why shouldn't they get a royalty on the support if they have reached a support agreement with another party?

But I think he places too little importance on the GPL - not because it is a free software licence (which yes, is important to me) but because it's a licence. If, for example, RedHat had somehow gotten hold of Windows code and/or started violating the licence by handing copies of Windows w/ source code out free of charge to all comers, wouldn't people (including MS) start bellowing at RH, and wouldn't they (including MS) have a right to? Similarly, I don't think that saying it's ok to violate the GPL, as long as that helps Linux in the short term, will be good either for the GPL, FOSS licences, or licences in general.

Reply Score: 4

GPL
by happycamper on Mon 6th Nov 2006 19:18 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

The deal also enables Microsoft to wield the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) of patent lawsuits against the other Linux companies.



I believe i read an artilce stating that this kind of deal that was made between micorsoft and novell violated the GPL. And if MS thinks about suing other linux distros. well, they would probably also get sued along with novell for violating the GPL

Edited 2006-11-06 19:23

Reply Score: 1

RE: GPL
by tomcat on Tue 7th Nov 2006 00:11 UTC in reply to "GPL"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

The deal also enables Microsoft to wield the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) of patent lawsuits against the other Linux companies.

Illogical. It's been doing that, anyway. This deal doesn't legitimize claims of patent infringement.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: GPL
by Don T. Bothers on Tue 7th Nov 2006 00:40 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL"
Don T. Bothers Member since:
2006-03-15

"Illogical. It's been doing that, anyway. This deal doesn't legitimize claims of patent infringement."

Except now Microsoft can call Novell, the second largest commercial Linux vendor, to be a witness for them when suing anyone. Microsoft never had that capability before. Now try protecting yourself legally against Microsoft when some other major player in the market, selling the same product you are, has basically admitted that there are patent violations in the product. And what would happen with Linux if RedHat signs a contract with Microsoft or if RedHat loses a legal battle against Microsoft? As I said in an earlier post, a dead Novell is a good Novell.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: GPL
by somebody on Tue 7th Nov 2006 01:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPL"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Except now Microsoft can call Novell, the second largest commercial Linux vendor, to be a witness for them when suing anyone.

No,that is not a problem. Novell saying "yes, we break IP" would mean flying dick in court, MS would have to present what IP you are breaking and show the evidence.

In this case you're just where you were before the deal.

Microsoft never had that capability before. Now try protecting yourself legally against Microsoft when some other major player in the market, selling the same product you are, has basically admitted that there are patent violations in the product.

Trouble is with Novell-Only products like mono. Mono get its "yes, it is free of fear" because Novell entered in OIN.

Now that Novell is both: in voluntary OIN and legal "no sue" agreement, this creates two completely opposite bindings. So in case MS would sue someone, guess which way would Novell turn?

/*IANAL*/
Although I doubt it would serve any purpose. Patents are ownership of OIN members and as far as I studied, any member can assert any OIN patent against possible suing party, Which would mean RH could use Novell patents too. But I guess MS bought right to use them already so it would be pointless. MS could buy rights for those anyway.

But, let's say we believe deIzaza when he said mono will never contain IP troubles and mono is a community project. Let's give this guy some faith. It is not that situation changed from yesterday.

You can only be unsure using Novell products, other,... cleared of IP problems you can still use.

Beside the point "RH offered indemnification with RHEL".

And what would happen with Linux if RedHat signs a contract with Microsoft or if RedHat loses a legal battle against Microsoft? As I said in an earlier post, a dead Novell is a good Novell.

Not really, Novell is just as it was before agreement. Except that, unless they clarify this really good and lose the FUD stickers, they just lost their reputation as OSS contributor.

BUT HERE IS WHERE NOVELL SCREWED US ALL.

They started putting their OSS products with FUD stickers (as in "You can only use it legally with Novell Linux" or "Novell Linux is only Linux that is legal"). Those stickers are the worst part of agreement if you ask me. It is shameful enough to say you're OSS company, and provide FUD stickers for your projects. But using FUD stickers on the work of others is gas chamber execution worth. Basically, Novel just killed spirit of OSS.

And no, you won't see lawsuits. But you will see mountain of FUD. And this FUD attack will be solely based on legal uncertainty.

Probably the only result people will notice is:
Pushing non-Novell linux will be harder if two FUD machines are at work, than now when only one was working. And if they don't like pushing Novell linux, less linux will go into the wild.

Well, Novell will only lose in the long track. Instead of gaining customers it will lose. And so it should, but not for entering the agreement with MS. It should go down as a clean example of companies who would like to screw OSS community. But in the long track MS will be the only one to gain from this deal.

Edited 2006-11-07 01:59

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: GPL
by tomcat on Tue 7th Nov 2006 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GPL"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

They started putting their OSS products with FUD stickers (as in "You can only use it legally with Novell Linux" or "Novell Linux is only Linux that is legal"). Those stickers are the worst part of agreement if you ask me. It is shameful enough to say you're OSS company, and provide FUD stickers for your projects. But using FUD stickers on the work of others is gas chamber execution worth. Basically, Novel just killed spirit of OSS.

Whatever. It's smart business on Novell's part. I don't blame them at all for leveraging their strengths.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: GPL
by hal2k1 on Tue 7th Nov 2006 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPL"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"Now try protecting yourself legally against Microsoft when some other major player in the market, selling the same product you are, has basically admitted that there are patent violations in the product."

I don't see that anywhere.

What was said in this deal, as I understand it, is that Microsoft & Novell would work together to give SuSe Linux interoperability with Windows in terms of development platform (via Mono), networking & domain logon (via Samba) & OOXML (via OpenOffice).

This does not say that these areas currently infringe on any patents. It does say that after they have had the "Windows interoperability treatment", that Microsoft then feels SuSe then needs to license some Microsoft patents.

For myself, I think this is rubbish. It should not be possible for Microsoft to deliberately obscure interoperability protocols, then charge another platform for interoperating.

But regardless, I see nothing yet which amounts to an admission (let alone even a solid claim) that current Linux in any way violates any Microsoft patents.

Edited 2006-11-07 03:25

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: GPL
by elsewhere on Tue 7th Nov 2006 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GPL"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I don't see that anywhere.

What was said in this deal, as I understand it, is that Microsoft & Novell would work together to give SuSe Linux interoperability with Windows in terms of development platform (via Mono), networking & domain logon (via Samba) & OOXML (via OpenOffice).

This does not say that these areas currently infringe on any patents. It does say that after they have had the "Windows interoperability treatment", that Microsoft then feels SuSe then needs to license some Microsoft patents.

For myself, I think this is rubbish. It should not be possible for Microsoft to deliberately obscure interoperability protocols, then charge another platform for interoperating.

But regardless, I see nothing yet which amounts to an admission (let alone even a solid claim) that current Linux in any way violates any Microsoft patents.


Part of the agreement is that MS and Novell are providing patent coverage for each other's customers. That's an inference that there is concern about patent infringment, which while not a legal admission is fairly convincing.

The problem and reason for the FUD slinging is that nobody knows exactly what the hell Novell is paying those royalties for. Is it a blanket payment amounting to corporate extortion? Is it solely for the questionable patents involved in mono's windows stack? Is it for patents MS feels are infringed by GPL products or technologies Novell is shipping (which would constitute a GPL violation but is speculation without knowing that for sure) ? Nobody except Novell and MS know.

So rather than clearing anything up, they've basically created an ambiguous cloud now that creates a safety zone for Novell customers against real or imagined patent infringmenets.

The Windows-interoperability is smoke and mirrors. Novell would likely have ported OpenXML to OOo2 anyways, just as they developed the macro patches for SLED. The EU is already in the process of bitch slapping MS over protocol interoperability problems faced by projects like Samba or commercial competitors. That's all publicity, little more. If any of those mods for integration required patent licensing, they would violate the product licensing (Samba is GPL, OOo2 is LGPL with Sun owning copyright assignment for all code). So the payment has nothing to do with that.

Everything is still speculation until more details are made evident. But I can't help thinking that Novell has turned unsubstantiated FUD against the mono project into possibly substantiated FUD. Mono is hardly at an entrenchment point for it to be a decisive factor over Red Hat for the majority of organizations, and by effectively closing it off in favor of their own paid customers as a fully-fledged Windows-like development framework, Novell has shot themselves in the foot and neutered the project as far as other distributions will be concerned.

Be interesting to see more depending upon how much info each company has to provide for the SEC filings on this.

Personally, I'm quite happy with my mono-free openSuse and I'll stick with it for now. Heck, in Suse 10.2 they've eliminated the zmd-dependency for KDE users, giving them a much needed mono-free package management framework. Good stuff.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: GPL
by hal2k1 on Tue 7th Nov 2006 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: GPL"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"Part of the agreement is that MS and Novell are providing patent coverage for each other's customers. That's an inference that there is concern about patent infringment, which while not a legal admission is fairly convincing.

The problem and reason for the FUD slinging is that nobody knows exactly what the hell Novell is paying those royalties for. Is it a blanket payment amounting to corporate extortion? Is it solely for the questionable patents involved in mono's windows stack? Is it for patents MS feels are infringed by GPL products or technologies Novell is shipping (which would constitute a GPL violation but is speculation without knowing that for sure) ? Nobody except Novell and MS know.

So rather than clearing anything up, they've basically created an ambiguous cloud now that creates a safety zone for Novell customers against real or imagined patent infringmenets.

The Windows-interoperability is smoke and mirrors. Novell would likely have ported OpenXML to OOo2 anyways, just as they developed the macro patches for SLED. The EU is already in the process of bitch slapping MS over protocol interoperability problems faced by projects like Samba or commercial competitors. That's all publicity, little more. If any of those mods for integration required patent licensing, they would violate the product licensing (Samba is GPL, OOo2 is LGPL with Sun owning copyright assignment for all code). So the payment has nothing to do with that.

Everything is still speculation until more details are made evident. But I can't help thinking that Novell has turned unsubstantiated FUD against the mono project into possibly substantiated FUD. Mono is hardly at an entrenchment point for it to be a decisive factor over Red Hat for the majority of organizations, and by effectively closing it off in favor of their own paid customers as a fully-fledged Windows-like development framework, Novell has shot themselves in the foot and neutered the project as far as other distributions will be concerned.

Be interesting to see more depending upon how much info each company has to provide for the SEC filings on this. "


See: "Novell-MS: Why This Deal Will Backfire For Both Sides" for an interesting viewpoint, not dissimilar to yours, but which reaches a different conclusion.
http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_management/2006110701826OPLL

The consensus seems to be that there is no actual infringement in Linux at this time, and that Microsoft are pushing the "IP protection" line of FUD in a not-too-subtle attempt to get unearned payment from Linux users for "interoperability" with their platform.

The speculated outcome according to the article linked above is:
" [Loser] Novell will develop libraries to tie their Linux offerings and MS together and will have to pay Microsoft royalties for their NDA agreement to do so. Novell will (have to) do this as add-on standalone software that is not distributed under the GPL license. This may prove difficult because the very software they may need to modify to succeed is GPLed software (OpenOffice.org, Samba, etc). Any hooks added (if not already there) to those software bases must be signed off and under the GPL, otherwise they will not get into the respective trees. As long as the GPLed code bases are not tainted with non-GPLed code then who cares what Novell does with their junk.

I do urge all GPLed projects to go back and review any submissions coming from Novell since their acquisition of SUSE to ensure the code is properly signed off. When all is said and done, Novell will gain very little and possibly lose more from this deal with Microsoft.

[Loser] Microsoft will gain a pittance in royalties from Novell. And, by its own admission Microsoft has given Linux the mass credibility it has tried to negate for years... checkmate!

[Winner] Linux! The core GNU, KDE, Linux, et al trees are still managed by principled people and every Linux distributor needs them. I doubt they will allow years of hard work and the community at large to be tainted. Red Hat and other non-Novell distributions will flourish through defections from Novell-linked projects.
"

Reply Score: 0

Novell made a big mistake
by Don T. Bothers on Mon 6th Nov 2006 19:23 UTC
Don T. Bothers
Member since:
2006-03-15

I say dump SuSE and dump it for good. What Novell has done cannot be forgiven and a dead Novell is a good Novell for opensource. Think about it, from now on, whenever Microsoft decides to sue someone, Novell will be their poster child witness as to the patent infringments made by Linux. And as the second largest commercial Linux vendor, whatever they say will hold a lot of sway on the decision made by the court systems. Novell, from this day on, rather than protecting Linux, will have to get on the stand and give witness to the prosecution that they believe there are patent violations by Linux. This whole situation really gets me really mad. Not that I really ever trusted Mono, but from now on, I will never trust anything that comes out from Novell.
BTW, on a slightly different topic, Miguel de Icaza is a sell out. I am glad that the open source community saw him for the clown that he is and ignored his pleads to make .net as part of the gnome base. It is sad how far he has fallen.

Edited 2006-11-06 19:25

Reply Score: 5

RE: Novell made a big mistake
by fsckit on Tue 7th Nov 2006 07:53 UTC in reply to "Novell made a big mistake"
fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

Interesting. It actually just occured to me that we have not yet heard anything from RMS of the FSF on this and they could be the ones that have the power to put an end to this craziness. Imagine this for a sec. The GPLv3 already has some verbage in it to protect against this sort of patent extortion. If the FSF were to put in even more expressly forbidding this kind of behavior and then release the GPLv3, they could then immediately send cease and desist letters for all the GNU software in SUSE that's licensed as "GPLv2 or later". That should cover the simple things, coreutils, gcc, bash, etc. The message to Novell being that screwing with the free software community is all real f--king cute, till your SUSE don't boot.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Novell made a big mistake
by Ookaze on Tue 7th Nov 2006 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Novell made a big mistake"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

It actually just occured to me that we have not yet heard anything from RMS of the FSF on this and they could be the ones that have the power to put an end to this craziness

Wrong ! Eben Moglen already said sth about this. But the worry will come when the GPL is violated, not before.

The GPLv3 already has some verbage in it to protect against this sort of patent extortion

The GPLv2 too, but it's more implicit. It works the same as GPLv3 in the USA, but we're not sure it works as well elsewhere, which is why it is explicit in GPLv3.

they could then immediately send cease and desist letters for all the GNU software in SUSE that's licensed as "GPLv2 or later"

They can't do that until there's an actual violation. FUD is not a license violation.

Reply Score: 0

Likewise
by Xaero_Vincent on Mon 6th Nov 2006 19:33 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

I'm using openSUSE and have no intention to abandon it just because of a business agreement between Novell and Microsoft.

While a mutual patent covenant adds to piece of mind, Microsoft really doesn't stand a chance at launching litigation against Linux. Not only would that further corrupt their corporate image and initiate civil war against every free software advocate, but big players such as IBM might try and countersue Microsoft for a taste of their own medicine.

I obviously believe the patent system is broken and advocate for its extermination. If there wasn't any leniency in the corporate world, it would be nearly impossible to develop software that didn't land you into a courtroom.

Edited 2006-11-06 19:35

Reply Score: 5

Re: Suse desktop
by hitest on Mon 6th Nov 2006 19:47 UTC
hitest
Member since:
2006-10-28

I like Suse it is a good desktop; I'm a big fan of the K desktop environment. The last time I used Suse, version 10.1, I found that YAST was broken and I could not easily update my system.
I use Slackware 11.0, running 2.6.17.13, as my distro of choice now. Slackware is fast, stable, secure. I also have deployed six Ubuntu 6.06 boxes at work.
I love Linux:-)

Reply Score: 1

If you prefer convenience ...
by deb2006 on Mon 6th Nov 2006 19:51 UTC
deb2006
Member since:
2006-06-26

take Windows. If you - for whatever reason - prefer convenience without Windows, take SLED, SLES etc. If you prefer a real operating system, take Debian, Slackware, or an OpenSolaris distribution. It's choice that matters.

Reply Score: 0

RE: If you prefer convenience ...
by twenex on Mon 6th Nov 2006 20:58 UTC in reply to "If you prefer convenience ..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Don't forget that there are lots of occasions when Windows is LESS convenient than Linux. It still seems to be less responsive than at least some Linux distros, for example.

Reply Score: 0

Suse
by santana on Mon 6th Nov 2006 21:26 UTC
santana
Member since:
2006-10-22

I have Suse10 on my home and work machine for years, and am actually pretty unsatisfied for a quite a long time with it. Somewhat slow, has issues with sound card sometimes (losses sound out of the blue), Yast is sometimes pain in the ass. I was actually considering the switch to something else even before this deal. As I don't use Mono or Samba or OpenXML, I don't see a need to update to new Suse now, and pay MS royalities for it. I think I'm ready to try Kubuntu, lots of my friends are using it, and find it very nice to work with. So, kind of mixed decision.

Reply Score: 1

Stay cool
by moleskine on Mon 6th Nov 2006 22:05 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

The only thing to do is wait and see what happens and to try to keep an open mind. SuSE has always been a topflight distro and Novell has poured money into Linux development from which everyone has gotten benefits.

Nor has the Microsoft-Novell tie-up really altered the picture. Novell's annual revenue is declining, it has huge overheads and its Linux side has failed to pick up more than a very small turnover being soundly thrashed by Red Hat by a factor of 4-1 in the marketplace. In other words, this deal hasn't altered the fact that on the basis of its finances, Novell has a very, very shaky future. In this regard, SJVN doesn't convince me SuSE is a good long-term bet and I'm pretty dubious that Mono is ever going to fly.

Personally I run another version of Linux because I like the idealistic appeal of "the universal operating system" which my distro aspires to be. The danger with Novell surely is that in trying to keep its business afloat Novell will risk wreaking havoc with patents, to Microsoft's benefit and the F/OSS movement's loss. SuSE may be an excellent distro, but ...

Edited 2006-11-06 22:22

Reply Score: 1

Good for you
by fsckit on Tue 7th Nov 2006 05:12 UTC
fsckit
Member since:
2006-09-24

Good for you Steven. Run whatever suits you. As for me, it will be a cold day in hell before SUSE finds it's way onto my hard drive. Pay Microsoft a tax to run sub-standard mono code on my Linux boxes? Not this guy.

Reply Score: 1

Only one thing...
by kaiwai on Tue 7th Nov 2006 05:29 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

If they can get Banshee working with mtp devices (like the Creative M:Vision), I'd be a very happy camper; whilst they're at it, how about licencing WMA/WMV 9.2 off Microsoft; I don't care about DRM, just give me the ability to encode and decode, and I'll be as happy as Larry.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Only one thing...
by Ookaze on Tue 7th Nov 2006 13:00 UTC in reply to "Only one thing..."
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

If they can get Banshee working with mtp devices (like the Creative M:Vision)

And then these people wonder why they can't get higher market share : they can't even do a Linux friendly device.

whilst they're at it, how about licencing WMA/WMV 9.2 off Microsoft; I don't care about DRM, just give me the ability to encode and decode, and I'll be as happy as Larry

That's a lie. You won't be happy at all. More precisely, you will be happy until 9.3 version is out, and then, you will ask the same thing again.
Besides, only decoding woudl be useful (I don't know if MPlayer decodes it), as WMV 9.2 is one of the worst (if not the worst) codec around, in quality, speed, ...
Of course, if your gadget can play only WMV, you were screwed from the start anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Only one thing...
by kaiwai on Wed 8th Nov 2006 05:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Only one thing..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

And then these people wonder why they can't get higher market share : they can't even do a Linux friendly device.

Ehm, iPod work'ish; the problem with Linux companies is that they're unfocused; they seem to drift from project to project rather than just knuckling down and focusing on getting their 'selection' working and integration properly.

That's a lie. You won't be happy at all. More precisely, you will be happy until 9.3 version is out, and then, you will ask the same thing again.

Babe, 9.2 has been the audio standard for quite some time; I want CODEC 9.2 support; its the default in Media Player 9.0, 10.0 and 11.0.

Besides, only decoding woudl be useful (I don't know if MPlayer decodes it), as WMV 9.2 is one of the worst (if not the worst) codec around, in quality, speed, ...

Mp3 quality absolutely shit when it comes to variable compression rate; I compress my music at 135-215kbps variable, and it is far superior to using mp3 varibale at 320kbps - instead of senselessly bashing Microsoft, how about accepting that maybe, *shock horror*, Microsoft has actually created a good product!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Only one thing...
by Ookaze on Wed 8th Nov 2006 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Only one thing..."
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

Ehm, iPod work'ish; the problem with Linux companies is that they're unfocused; they seem to drift from project to project rather than just knuckling down and focusing on getting their 'selection' working and integration properly

Except I was talking about Creative there, not Linux companies.

Babe, 9.2 has been the audio standard for quite some time; I want CODEC 9.2 support; its the default in Media Player 9.0, 10.0 and 11.0

If that's true, then that support is native in MPlayer since months, so what are you talking about ?
It still does not remove the point that once a 9.3 is out, you will repeat the same thing.

Mp3 quality absolutely shit when it comes to variable compression rate

Yes, constant rate is better. Now remember I was talking about WMV.

I compress my music at 135-215kbps variable, and it is far superior to using mp3 varibale at 320kbps - instead of senselessly bashing Microsoft, how about accepting that maybe, *shock horror*, Microsoft has actually created a good product!

WMV is the worst codec available, now if you don't believe me, look at all the benchmarks on the net, they come with screenshots for trolls like you.
As for WMA, it has no interest as MP3 is the standard and WMA is patent encumbered. If I was to encode anything, I sure enough wouldn't use a patent encumbered format that can be removed under my feet at any time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Only one thing...
by kaiwai on Thu 9th Nov 2006 04:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Only one thing..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Mp3 is patent encombered to; about about learning some stuff before you make a fool of yourself; local ABM'er.

Reply Score: 1