“OrangeCrate is pleased to announce an interview with Justin Steinman, Director of Marketing for Novell. Novell has announced a major deal with Microsoft in the last few weeks that has caused some in the community to question the validity of the deal announced, and has already been characterized by Microsoft as somehow verifying that Linux violates Microsoft’s intellectual property. While I disagree with that statement from Steve Ballmer, I do understand that it is only fitting to offer Novell the chance to speak directly to the questions we all want addressed.”
Glad to see orangecrate is still going strong, I had forgot about them. Orangecrate was the first place I read about the lindows deal http://www.orangecrate.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2…
Does Justin REALLY believe that they are going to put in massive effort to sell Suse? I think Chuck had it right when he said When I worked at a previous company, we had an agreement with Microsoft wherein they had claimed they would recommend our products to their clients. We found in practice that they spent a great deal of their time actually making up pure crap about our products – and never once recommended anything that they had agreed to. Has Novell actually protected itself through any penalties for non-performance or can that even be discussed publicly?
Edited 2006-12-04 20:48
“Right now, it’s a tremendously exciting time to be in…”
OMG.. — ok, I think he didn’t press all too hard on the questions everybody is really interested in relating to the MS deal. So this didn’t really tell me anything I already knew: opensuse = playground; SLES for enterprise, etc.. — I don’t want to read about that in December ’06 – there are other questions.
It’s like what SCO did, frightened Linux customers into thinking there OS patented so SCO would sue and linux customers would pay for protection.
Interoperability, yes lets talk about it, it’s one sided, linux cannot interoperability with Microsoft software because they use there own specs. Linux uses open spec so why would Microsoft want “Interoperability” with Linux?
I smell something bad and it’s from Novell’s way now as well.
Edited 2006-12-04 21:20
I jumped on this interview hoping it would elay all the fear mongering going on and clarify the bits that many of us find troubling. Instead I found yet another ambiguous press statment, just in the format of an interview..
He’s a marketing guy. He only knows what they tell him we should know. If you want the real dirt you have to go to the mailing lists.
He’s a marketing guy. He only knows what they tell him we should know. If you want the real dirt you have to go to the mailing lists.
Basically. It was a canned statement at best. I was hoping for more.
Marketing = Sales.
Since when has the marketing department been in the know about the inner working of a company. And when it does have the true info, release an info that may make the company look bad?
By the very job definition of marketing this is the department that is least likely to release information about anything bad in the company. The legal department’s statement (weasel words and all) are more likely to approach the truth.
I jumped on this interview hoping it would elay all the fear mongering going on and clarify the bits that many of us find troubling. Instead I found yet another ambiguous press statment, just in the format of an interview..
Exactly. And the interviewer did everything in his power to suck up to the guy. From TA:
I’d like to start out by asking a tough question. I know that there is quite a bit of furor surrounding the recent Microsoft and Novell agreements. Many people have been shocked by the agreements, some see any agreement with Microsoft as inherently bad (especially given their penchant for deals that are eviscerated as soon as they make them), others are busy proclaiming that Microsoft bought Linux (something they can’t do)…
This is soo typical – he basically presents the anti Novell/MS deal side through posting extreme views found on various message boards, not the real issues presented by the Samba team, the FSF, or groklaw. Though question my ass. The purpose of the GPL is to guarantee the same rights for every recipient. Novell successfully worked around this purpose, by entering a deal where MS grants indemnification directly to the customers of Novell (and not to Novell per se). The purpose of such a deal is to work around the letter of the GPL, and Novell knew full well what it is doing (otherwise they would have worked with Moglen & FSF before the deal, not with Microsoft lawyers). Thanks to this deal, if you are a user of free software, being a Novell customer makes a difference patent-protectionwise. Even if it is BS, every time Novell advertises SuSE with this deal, it emphasizes this difference (and provides free ammunition to Ballmer & Co. to spread FUD about linux). Discussing this would have been a “tough question”, not citing random message board rants.
I understand what Justin is. He is payed by Novell to defend the deal, and there is nothing new in what he has to say (in other words, he carefully avoids the real problems of this deal, just like Nat Friedman & co. did a week ago): it’s BS. But the interviewer?
Steinman:
“I really think this is a win-win-win-win deal.”
My first impression was a cheer using an abbreviation for MSWindows. I agree: it is a MSWindows deal.
Can anyone point me to a concrete example from Novell how this is a win-win-win? I read it as a “Microsoft offered us $$$$$!!!111!!1 We had to take it!”
Can anyone point me to a concrete example from Novell how this is a win-win-win? I read it as a “Microsoft offered us $$$$$!!!111!!1 We had to take it!”
The question you really want to ask yourself is this. Why on Earth would Microsoft want to agree to this deal?
Microsoft are the dominant player, certainly from a desktop point of view, and Microsoft are taking customers and potential customers from Novell in their own Netware market, and potential Linux customers. They’re in a dominant, comfortable position. Hovsepian admitted that in a previous interview. The Linux move hasn’t arrested that, far from it.
Why in God’s name would Microsoft want to interoperate with Novell’s software (which Novell will strangely not get, at the last minute, incidentally) in order for that trend not to continue? Anybody?
When you peel away the layers (and there aren’t many), the facts are that Microsoft is skipping down the street arm-in-arm with Novell, making them feel good, whilst pilfering from their pockets. Microsoft payed a few hundred million for Novell to effectively give up and fold their business – with some free FUD, ‘open source is tainted’ marketing thrown in! You can’t beat it. Yep, Hovsepian couldn’t even get that right. He is selling a company with over $1 billion in cash and assets down the river for a measly few hundred million of dollars!
But not only that ladies and gentlemen. Novell are actually paying royalties to Microsoft for copies of SLES sold! That’s right. They’re paying royalties for the privilege of being waltzed to the block, awaiting the executioner. But that’s not all. Novell are the ones who contacted Microsoft about the possibility of executing themselves!
But we’re still not finished. Microsoft are sending covenant letters to all of Novell’s customers, promising them that they won’t be sued. How much do you want to bet that Microsoft is wording those letters, and confirming all the untrue FUD they’ve been throwing at Novell’s customers, delivered by Novell’s own hand?!
The Marx brothers couldn’t have come up with anything like this, and I’m astonished Ballmer kept a straight face.
‘Tis the season of goodwill. No?
Don’t give me any of that “This is all about customers” and “Novell live in a business world, not an open source fantasy one” crap. This is an even more incredibly stupid deal from a business perspective than it is from an open source one.
Edited 2006-12-04 22:43