Even though patent talks between Microsoft and Red Hat broke down last year before Microsoft went on to sign a technical collaboration and patent indemnity deal with Novell, Red Hat is still willing to work with the Redmond software maker on the interoperability front. But the Linux vendor wants to limit those talks to pure interoperability between Windows and Red Hat Linux, with the goal of solving real customer problems, Paul Cormier, Red Hat’s executive vice president of engineering, told eWEEK.
What’s the problem RedHat? is Novell eating a big part of your cake and now want to talk about interoperability with MS?
All the FUD spreaded by your puppet Bruce Perens didn’t help?
Bussines are bussines and trolling can’t help you there.
Edit:
Typo
Edited 2007-07-03 21:45
What’s the matter with you ? Your “busines” is call people “puppets” ?
You are about to create your own religion, and your holy word is “FUD”.
Don’t insult people that deserve respect!
Excuse me, but isn’t interoperability one of the golden points of using open source? Why give Red Hat a hard time.
This is a positive move that should be encouraged.
“Excuse me, but isn’t interoperability one of the golden points of using open source?”
No, interoperability is about open, unencumbered standards.
Not really. Microsoft design their infrastructure and client environment products to be interoperable, all within their own “encumbered” standards.
In any event, I don’t know why you’re trying to deny what I said isn’t accurate. Interoperability IS one of the points that Linux operating systems boast about, rightfully so I might add.
“Microsoft design their infrastructure and client environment products to be interoperable”
No. Microsoft design their infrastructure and formats, let others implement them, and then they charge license fees.
Linux has never boasted about interoperability, ever. It’s always been: “We use these (open & interoperable) standards”.
That is completely inaccurate.
Linux boasts about using open and interoperable standards not about the OS itself being interoperable. Its the standards that are interoperable, their is a difference. Anyone can use and integrate the standards, they are after all standards. MS chooses not to use already established standards instead creating their own often encumbered standards in-order to ensure that they have control of it. RedHat wants MS to use open standards MS refuses and wants REdHat to use their standards instead. Using MS’ version of standards means that only a few in the community benefit (like only Novell users get “enhanced” interoperability), while RedHat is known for being an opensource company that wants its software used throughout the community, not just y RedHat users.
Are you sure about that?
http://de.xandros.com/news/enpress/Xandros_Delivers_Windows-Linux_I…
http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/features/interop.html
I am sure about that. I said Linux doesn’t boast. My statement is still accurate.
And advertising said capabilities is not boasting, how interesting. I thought that is part of what advertising was about is showcasing features, here’s Webster’s definition of boasting in case you are not clear on the use of the word:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/boasting
So your statement is not accurate. And modding me down (whether it was you or somebody else) is so lame.
You fail to see the difference between Linux, and companies that use Linux.
I’m perfectly clear on the definition of boasting though, thank you.
So because the Linux kernel and the people who work on the Linux kernel do not advertise interoperability with Windows (or something along those lines) you are right.
Whatever.
“””
Edit:
Typo
“””
There is a lot more wrong with your post than just typos.
You obviously did not read the article. And I have to wonder what you could have against RedHat being interested in talks to improve interop with Windows.
RedHat gave MS the boot regarding talks about any sort of patent deal, the patent deal being what MS *really* wanted.
Now, RedHat is about to demonstrate how, in the absence of any chance of using them to generate fear, uncertainty, and doubt about FOSS regarding IP, MS is not really interested in talking interop with them at all.
Edited 2007-07-03 22:13
“”I want to talk to the folks at Microsoft about our two operating systems and how we can work together to solve real customer problems without attaching any unrelated strings, such as intellectual property,” he said.”
sounds pretty decent to me., and they make dam good software too and they support Fedora (my favorite distro)
so go Red Hat !
cheers
anyweb
Interop is not the highlight issue here. The necessary tools essentially exist already. Interopability is a blanket statement used by Microsoft executives. These deals are merely about money and gaining a foothold in the FOSS territory.
The GPLv3 and LGPLv3 take care of any single entity trying to pry themselves to close and take advantage of the situtation.
Patents are a very dangerous threat but the worst case scenerio would be the inability to exist in the USA; a far more ideal concept than being invalidated (become unfree), thus serve no purpose for existance anywhere.
Edited 2007-07-04 06:59
“What’s the problem RedHat? is Novell eating a big part of your cake and now want to talk about interoperability with MS?
All the FUD spreaded by your puppet Bruce Perens didn’t help?
Bussines are bussines and trolling can’t help you there. ”
Yeah, because we all know thats all RH knows how to do. Not like they haven’t contributed heavily to Linux and what not. Its common knowledge that RH was in talks with MS long before the Novell deal and just refused to sell out like Novell. How dare they… MS will never negotiate a fair deal, so I dont know why RH bothers to try. MS just wants a cut of all the IT market whether you use MS products or not. Just look at the memo that came up in the SCO case last week. MS was making SCO pay for code that SCO wasn’t using and didnt even want. And MS would still be doing so if the DOJ hadnt stepped in and made them stop. IF it loks like a turd and smells like a turd, guess what, its probably a turd.
As someone else has said, I think Red Hat “bothers to try” for strategic as well as purely technological reasons. By seeking genuine interoperability with Microsoft, while refusing to sell out to their FUD campaign, they expose Microsoft’s complete lack of genuine interest, and complete dishonesty in its stated goals. It’s a win-win situation for Red Hat. Either Microsoft does step up and start to work toward proper interoperability (unlikely, but good); or they don’t, and it is openly revealed how dishonest and two-faced they are (likely, and also good for the software-involved public).
It is called publicity.
“But it is necessary to have a conversation about intellectual property when it comes to open source, and you can’t just sit back and talk about interoperability for interoperability’s sake without fully solving the customer issue. Unless you actually address the issues around IP, you haven’t fully solved the customer’s interoperability problem,” Muglia said.
um, your meaningless ‘intellectual property’ has zippo to do with interoperability.
1) embrace open standards. and i don’t mean *your* definition of ‘open’ standards. i mean established open standards.
2) stop making interoperability a moving target. pick something and stick with it. case in point: zune not supporting ‘plays for sure’. which brings up a different point…
3) quit with the entertainment industry ass-kiss-fest and give up on the DRM.
4) stop getting into mature markets with the express intention of fragment, divide, conquer. for example: silverlight.
well, those examples are obviously only the tip of the iceberg. seriously, though… red hat’s comments are pretty telling:
“I want to talk to the folks at Microsoft about our two operating systems and how we can work together to solve real customer problems without attaching any unrelated strings, such as intellectual property,” he said.
microsoft obviously doesn’t want interoperability. they want to shower everybody with IP doublespeak.
You’re pretty clueless if you think that all open standards are patent and royalty free. Take 3G for example, a good part of it, which actually makes it useful, is patented by Qualcom for example (hence the big hoo-ha made over some Asian mobile phone manufacturers and the US bodies which regulate trade).
Just because something is ‘openstandard’ doesn’t mean that it is useful – another thing people forget; C# and very small parts of .NET framework are openstandardised, but it makes it pretty useless without the higher level components which are patented.
I could go on and on about openstandards and how they mean diddly squat in the grand scheme of things, but I guess its easier to bash Microsoft than view the so-called ‘saints of Linux’ give how many patents they hold (and screw other companies over in terms of payments).
Most of these ‘openstandards’ are basic at best; take LDAP for example, there is no documented standard relating to the sharing of Windows configuration, for example, which Active Directory provides.
Also, if you are going to ‘flog a dead horse’, then why not scream about the evils of IBM and their proprietary software and protocols – their ‘pay us or we’ll screw you into the ground’.
I’d love to know the reason behind that choice – trying to screw people into using only Microsofts owned online store – basically tryign to immitate Apple/iTunes I guess.
I hate DRM too, but please, if you’re going to ‘bash’ Microsoft, please include such scum as Apple, Real Networks (who also infest computers with spy and adwaer) and the likes.
How so; if Microsoft made tomorrow, Silverlight, 100% royalty free, thus allowing *anyone* to implement it, I would cheer it celebration, and the ultimate death of Adobe. If there was a bigger scum sucking roach on this earth outside Microsoft, it would be Adobe and their anti-Linux and anti-UNIX agenda.
Their constant ignoring the now just yelling, but *screaming* from the Linux community for their design products on Linux – there is a *HUGE* demand, not just from Linux users, but Mac users who are happy to purchase a generic PC loaded with Linux but are forced to use Mac because the applications they need aren’t on Linux. There is a *HUGE* opportunity there, if only Adobe could pull their head out of their ass for a moment.
What is the alternative? well, there is JavaFX – having seen some of the demo’s – maybe once Sun get together a decent quality IDE which allows non-programmers to put together easily online stuff, the reason for being handstrung to Adobe/Macromedia will stop existing.
are you insane?
i said meaningless intellectual property because that’s exactly what it is. they have thus far refused to tell us exactly what is being infringed. period. that is unforgivable. i never said all ‘open standards’ are patent and royalty free. but that calls into question how one defines ‘open’. for example, i don’t consider .NET truly open. C# might be ‘open’-ish; but their implementation is not. the mono project is chasing a moving target for compatibility’s sake.
and yes, there are plenty of useful open standards. just because you’re too daft to admit it doesn’t make you correct.
as far as my DRM comment goes, why the hell would i mention apple, real, etc. in the context of this article? and your IBM whining, as well. it’s about microsoft. not about how apple is trying to get a myriad of linux companies to sign ip/patent agreements. not about how IBM is evil.
you know, i’d really like to know (well, not really) why you’re so keen on constantly bringing up apple. it’s almost like you think that by commenting on the article, which was about microsoft being full of crap, that i must be championing apple. newsflash, i don’t particularly like them, either.
Dear god, please ‘unforgiveable’ – this isn’t a person we’re talking about. Its a damn company. If you’re trying or expecting to have some sort of symbiotic relationship with a company, quite frankly, you’ve got more issues at hand besides lacking a shift key in your keyboard.
For me, I believe that *all* players in the industry infringe on some patent somewhere; the issue isn’t whether they have, but whether the holder of the patent can be bothered actually investigating into these things.
What needs to be resolved is moving away from patents for the sake of nudging out companies from their market and instead concerntrate on developing the better product and the better implementation. There is one standard, but many ways to implement that standard – each vary in quality.
But it is standardised by a openstandards body – hence the reason I don’t trust these so-called ‘standards body’. We’re talking about the likes who are going to (ISO) standardise OOXML; how on earth can something like that be legitimately ‘standardised’ given how overly complex and tied to Office/Windows it is, can it truely be ‘open’?
All very nice to have ‘standards bodies’ but when they’re corrupt and fail uphold true, impartial and transparent standardisation process, are they openstandards really that open or trustworthy?
So when you can’t make a valid contribution, you attack the messenger – very nice, shows the depths of your arguments – when in doubt, abuse those who have an apposing point of view.
State some ‘useful openstandards’ which aren’t either hamstrung by patents or wowefully undocumented/standardised.
No, excuse me. When you start bashing Microsoft, the position of others within the IT industry also comes under scrutiny. Microsoft is not an island unto itself.
Because if you think that Microsoft exists as the sole company of evil in the world, you’re ignorant to the IT industry as a whole.
Also, if you are going to reply, actually spend a little time formatting your post, it looks pathetic, hurried – assembled to something akin of a 5 year old pulling a temper tantrum.
you really had me going there for a second! and to think i was seriously considering having a conversation. you’re quite the clever troll.
you’re the first to have ‘abused’ anybody. the first sentence of your first reply started with ‘you’re pretty clueless’. your posts are loaded with aggression and useless hate. and to top it off, you’re wrong.
i didn’t just ‘start bashing microsoft’. the article that you and i are discussing (for lack of a better word) is about microsoft.
it’s not about the other’s in the IT industry.
you have done nothing but attack, name-call, and make an embarrassment of yourself.
i choose not to argue with someone so intent on juvenile posturing.
now, i’ll get back to my lazilly formatted, all lowercase, but otherwise well-adjusted world.
Which goes to prove that if you can’t go to the effort of basic formatting, you’re obviously not willing to actually engage in a debate that goes to the core of the issue at hand – patents, and their use in the IT industry.
This is what the debate is about; not *just* Microsoft but the whole IT industry and how not only they compete, but how they relate to each other in terms of patents, agreements and so forth.
But hey, if you want to turn this into little more than a symplistic Microsoft vs. the rest of the know universe, then go ahead, be my guest. It will merely descend this forum into little more than the childish rantings that go on at Kryshin, Slashdot and Digg – Screaming and yelling whilst avoiding the bigger issues at play.
As for you, you seem to suffer from the George Bush complex – trying to narrow everything down into isolated, boxed issues when the reality is, everything is linked to each other. To say that Iran is akin to religious fanaticism is completely ignoring the complex geopolitical issues that go back historically in the region.
You seem to ignore those very complete linkages that exist within the IT industry and try to simmer it down to “Microsoft vs. Everyone Else” as if it were easy as so. Some how, if you castrated Microsoft, some how, it would herald in a golden era of IT.
Edited 2007-07-06 03:44
I like how Red Hat is coming across as lets shake hands Microsoft and not asking how high when Microsoft says jump.
Then again, RHCE has more clout than MCSE..heh heh.
“Then again, RHCE has more clout than MCSE..heh heh.”
Even if that’s true (subjective, and probably varies by region and industry) what the hell is it’s relevance?
This is a good example of corporate politics people. Microsoft introduces their “licensing deals” and casually mentions how Linux infringes their patents in the FUDpress. They say that they would love to work together with redhat and maybe even sign an agreement with them.
Redhat counters by saying they want to work together with Microsoft about interoperability without signing contracts. If Microsoft says yes, Redhat gets better interoperability with Windows technologies. If Microsoft says no, they look bad for going back on their word about working with Redhat.
No matter how you look at it, Redhat wins this round. Simply brilliant.
“””
No matter how you look at it, Redhat wins this round. Simply brilliant.
“””
Yeah. My guess is that MS is going to say “yes” very publicly and then proceed to waste RedHat’s time by dragging things out and never providing anything of real value.
Of course, then RedHat could call them on it in a public way. I imagine MS might ask for some sort of NDA regarding public comments on the project. If I were RedHat, I’d say “no” right there, and make that attempt public knowledge. 🙂
Microsoft has to give in to Red Hat. The Novell deal made interoperability and patent covenants hot-button issues in the tech media. Interoperability has been sold as a good thing and the patent covenants have been described as anywhere from FUD to the end of Linux as we know it.
Red Hat’s position is directly aligned with public sentiment: interop good, patent covenant bad. Microsoft’s continued reluctance to address interoperability concerns without patent shenanigans will generate bad press. Terms like “convicted monopolist” will be trotted out to describe their behavior.
All Red Hat has to do is keep reminding people that they want to work with Microsoft on interoperability. Microsoft can’t spin this without equivocating to the point of hypocrisy. They need Red Hat more than all the other Linux vendors combined. The fact that they can’t get Red Hat to the table on their terms is embarrassing for Microsoft.
The longer the stalemate continues, the more pathetic Microsoft will look, while Red Hat looks more and more like a top-tier platform vendor with the clout to give customers what they really want. The free software community respects vendors like Red Hat and Canonical that aren’t afraid of Microsoft. But CIOs are also looking for Linux vendors to look Microsoft right in the eyes and tell them to cut the crap and give their customers what they deserve.
Customers deserve a choice of IT vendors. Interoperability expands choice, while exclusive patent deals restrict choice. Red Hat will continue to push this message, and they will look good doing it. Microsoft? Not so much.
… So Microsoft should make their patent deal with OIN and the Patent Commons (promise not to sue Linux and MS won’t get sued back … straight exchange of promises, no license restrictions or royalties involved), and Microsoft should make an interoperability deal with RedHat.
The only thing is, the interoperability deal should involve proper support for ODF on Microsoft’s Windows/Office platforms.
OK, sweet. That would be a reasonable outcome.
Anything else, Microsoft can whistle dixy.
Edited 2007-07-04 15:31
Red Hat will continue to push this message, and they will look good doing it. Microsoft? Not so much.
I don’t know. From the perspective of someone who doesn’t have a foot firmly in either the Microsoft or the FOSS camp, it simply looks like posturing from both sides. Microsoft is flexing its muscles for its business partners and Red Hat is doing the same for the community.
Am I surprised? Not really. It’s business as usual. Maybe I need to get some of those rose colored glasses that let so many people view Red Hat as some sort of altruistic entity instead of a publicly traded corporation.
It doesn’t matter if Red Hat is being altruistic or merely pandering. They’re doing the right thing both morally and for their shareholders. My point is based purely on the grounds of marketing and public relations. Even if it’s pure posturing, Red Hat has the upper hand.
Talk doesn’t really seem the problem. Microsoft’s spokesmen can barely stop talking. They never use one word when three will do and collectively they could talk the hind legs off a battalion of donkeys.
What some folks would like is evidence of action. Evidence of products and progress from these famous Windows-Linux interoperability projects Microsoft is so keen to trumpet – the labs, the supreme soviets, coding teams and grand councils. Anyone noticed anything emerging from these mighty works?
I’m sure that if Microsoft could produce something from all this effort – which must be taking place, because Microsoft have assured us it is – then they would have some practical things to talk to Red Hat about. It must be so embarrassing for Microsoft to say they want to talk about real customer improvements, only to discover there’s nothing in the cupboard apart from a spokesman’s (incredibly extensive) thoughts on patent and IP issues. Tut tut!
You all trolls are modding me down w/o seeing the facts:
First: The first one and only one spreading FUD and crying the wolf at the beginning of the MS/Novell deal was RedHat, not Linus, even RMS dind’t made such a big deal.
Why the FUD?
RedHat had the hope that with the FUD spreading that deal wouldn’t success to the customers eyes,
but guess what?, the deal was all a success and brought to Novell a lot of new custormes, RedHat FUD dind’t workout after all.
And because the MS/Novell deal was more than IP stuff like you trolls like it to see it, the deal also
means technical interoperability between SUSE and Windows, that interoperability RedHat is seeking right now because w/o it the customers will start ignoring RedHat or they already have started to doing it.
But how to get the deal w/o the disaprobal of the “community”?, simple, make it public.
At the end RedHat is a bussines and it would do everything to please the customers and not to please
the “Community”.
And now you trolls, are free to mode me down.
Edited 2007-07-03 23:24
You’re right. You deserve to be modded down. And since you begged for it, I won’t.
you really don’t get the point.
interoperability is awesome. what microsoft is doing is basically saying that linux vendors only deserve assistance with interoperability if, and only if, they explicitly state that there are intellectual property violations in gnu/linux, all the while refusing to state what is being violated.
how would you like it if i said that you were allowed to try some of my delicious cookies, but only if you admit that you stole my recipe, you thieving little jerk?
you wouldn’t.
that’s the problem. no, it’s not okay. no, nobody here is trolling for redhat. think outside the box, for heaven’s sake.
I got news for you, MS also admited Patent Inf. too, so the it was:
I stoled your coockies and you stoled mine, lets admit it and work it out.
But that’s not the point to discuss anyway.
This is OK. All Microsoft have to do is accept the Open Invention Network Patent License Agreement deal … which is basically this:
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/patents.php
“Open Invention Network believes that one of the keys to innovation in the Linux community is the ability to share software code and ideas. Open Invention Network acquires patents and makes them available royalty-free to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against the Linux System.”
In your terms, this deal essntially means: “I stoled your coockies and you stoled mine, lets call it quits”.
“We need to slaughter Novell before they get stronger […] If you’re going to kill someone, there isn’t much reason to get all worked up about it and angry. You just pull the trigger. Any discussions beforehand are a waste of time. We need to smile at Novell while we pull the trigger.”
Just a little hint of the kind of company they’re dealing with. The reference to the SCO Xenix royalty issue, AKA a way to control the competitor earlier was spot on.
Microsoft is the barrier to interoperability (embrace + extend standards and programs, get sued, pay hush money), and they will be until the company undergoes a substantial change in mindset.
Edited 2007-07-04 00:32
“””
First: The first one and only one spreading FUD and crying the wolf at the beginning of the MS/Novell deal was RedHat, not Linus, even RMS dind’t made such a big deal.
“””
RedHat, as I recall, responded at the time that it was “Unthinkable” for them to enter into a patent agreement like the Novell/MS deal, and they have stuck to that, while still maintaining interest in the totally separate issue of interop.
What problem could any reasonable person possibly have with that?
I’m pretty cynical when it comes to publicly traded corps. But Redhat has so far shown themselves to be, in most every way, the exception to the rule by sticking to the straight and narrow when other companies might have succumbed to the temptation to take the short-sighted and “easy” way.
The thing that you have to understand about Redhat is that the management truly believes, deep down in their corporate executive hearts, that if they stick to their philosophy they will not only continue to feel good about their work, but they and their stockholders will also be rewarded with success in the long run. (And viewed in that way, they are not really an “exception” at all. Just forward-thinking, which is , in its own way, an exception for publicly traded corps, I suppose.)
It may not last forever. And the true test is when times are bad and the stockholders are antsy. But I see nothing in what they’ve said or done to make me think that they are about to change philosophies.
You might want to take a valium and ponder that for a while.
Edited 2007-07-04 03:34
That’s a lot of bs, if RedHat is all that, why are they still using and impulsing mySQL? you know? the company that parnered with SCO? the ones that tried to destroy Linux?
Don’t give me that “Redhat has strong believe… blah blah blah”.
News Flash, RedHat is a bussines that will do anything to get customer like spreading FUD to their competition, is not the Bodyguard of the “community”, it just manipulate it in its favor.
Edited 2007-07-04 03:51
“””
That’s a lot of bs, if RedHat is all that, why are they still using and impulsing mySQL?
“””
RedHat promotes PostgreSQL, not MySQL. Although, like most distros, they do include the popular MySQL in RHEL, along with about 2000 other packages.
Also, if you are going to dislike MySQL AB, do it because their business model is selling closed source licenses for a FOSS DBMS, and not because they helped bring the benefits of FOSS to people trapped using OpenServer and Unixware. Would you prefer that they *not* have MySQL available to them?
I really mean it about the valium. 🙂
Im poiting the double moral of RedHat, but hey, how about a waith and see?, lets see what happens from now to 6 months with RedHat and the strategy they will take.
Lets see how this “interoperability” request ends, it may be to soon to to talk, yet.
I’ll take the valium and you take a dope, you really need it.
Edited 2007-07-04 04:23
RedHat has never spread FUD.
The deals with Microsoft were wrong for a certain reason (patents + IP infringements), and RH has always said that they’ll work together if and only if it’s about open standards.
Go read their PR statements from the time…
Maybe MS has a point about so called IP. It works both ways. MS is almost certainly in breach of patents held by the OIN. RH should demand that MS signs up to the Open Innovation Network, thus preventing it from suing FOSS users, developers and distributors.
In return RH would undertake not to sue MS customers. Sound familiar – eh ?
Well, it’s not a breach if you’re paying for the license. MS pays rather a lot of money to the OIN, and other patent holders in other companies; that drives up the cost of their products, and that money in turn gets used in attack ads against Microsoft and ads for Microsoft’s competitors. It’s part of why Microsoft has been trying to get software patents done away with.
Could you post a link to where you got this information? Not trolling, just curious.
The only statement that I could find on MS’s patent stance is as follows
‘”Many of these proposed reforms are positions that have been debated heavily in recent years, especially relating to the congressional diversion of patent fees from the PTO, and world harmonization by granting patents to the first person or company to file a patent application rather than the first to actually invent, as is currently the case only in the U.S. said David Ferrell, chairman of the Carr & Ferrell LLP law firm’s intellectual property practice group.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1775152,00.asp
As far as I can tell, MS is not in the least interested in getting rid of the patent system. In fact, they want to stream line the system by bringing in, among other changes, a first to file a patent reform thereby allowing them to further abuse the US patent system.
As stated above, if you have other information and could provide a link, I would be grateful (not to mention suprised).
Say what?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2151687,00.asp
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
Basically, the idea is that a company can join OIN, perhaps pay some money and/or perhaps donate some patents as well, and in return the company is assured that none of the OIN patents will be asserted against it. Of course, part of the deal is that the joining company must agree to refrain from using any of its patents against Linux.
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/patents.php
Microsoft can easily be assured that none of OIN’s patents will be used against Microsoft by the simple expedient of Microsoft joining OIN and agreeing not to assert any Microsoft patents against Linux.
So I don’t understand what you meant. Microsoft is not currently a member of OIN.
Edited 2007-07-04 05:02
MS pays rather a lot of money to the OIN
No it doesn’t. You don’t pay money to license OIN patents, you obtain one on agreeing not to persue patent actions against open source software.
MS is violating OIN patents and refusing to take out a license for them.
Microsoft have already said they wont do this.
edit: lemur2 has the link in the above comment.
Edited 2007-07-04 10:23
Microsoft have already said they wont do this.
That’s why I am saying RH should hold MS’s feet to the fire on this one.
Edited 2007-07-04 12:16
I think the last time Red Hat tried to make products that were interoperable with Microsoft’s, they demanded so many changes to Microsoft’s products (breaking compatibility with all other software, etc.) that the deal was quietly dropped. I doubt Red Hat will have changed their ways this time around, either.
Additionally, knowing their poor records for fixing bugs (heck, with Red Hat, it’s not when the bug will get fixed, but if), I’m pretty sure Microsoft won’t exactly be chomping at the bit to have their products associated with them.
Isn’t that the whole point of working together on interoperability, changing your own apps? It’s OK for the rest of the computing universe to have to bend over backwards to interoperate with Microsoft’s products (and yes, breaking compatibility with our own apps while we’re at it), but you feel Microsoft is justified in dropping collaboration because they had to make changes to their hallowed works?
Fanboy much?
The fact remains that Microsoft has claimed loudly, frequently and publicly that they are finally willing to sit down as equals and work on interoperability with the Linux community. Red Hat knows that this is a crock of $#!t and chose to call Microsoft’s bluff. Now MS will either have to admit that they really just wanted the entire open source universe to falsely admit infringing on spurious patents or they’ll have to follow through with their offer to interoperate with no strings attached. Either way, this works to the advantage of everybody, since we either reaffirm that, yes, Microsoft is just thugging again or we get applications and protocols that work across multiple environments.
I’d really like to know what you’re smoking that makes you think that Red Hat is the predator here. You’ve got some seriously MS-colored glasses on.
I don’t think so.
I would think it is far more likely that RedHat just asked for changes that would remove or seriously undermine the Microsoft lock-in, and that is really why “the deal was quietly dropped”.
…. just sign here, and here, and here, and here, oh and here.
Don’t bother reading it either, it’s just lawyer garbage. We’re all friends here right?