Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Nov 2006 22:56 UTC
Novell and Ximian "Often cast as the peacemaker in free software disputes, Bruce Perens is on the warpath. When we caught up with him, he wasn't in a mood to be charitable to Novell. On Friday the Utah company, which markets the SuSE Linux distribution, revealed that it was entering into a partnership with Microsoft. Redmond would pay Novell an undisclosed sum in return for Novell recognizing Microsoft's intellectual property claims. Novell received a 'Covenant' promising that it wouldn't be sued by Microsoft."It's a case of 'Damn the people who write the software'", he told us. "Novell is in a desperate position - it has a smaller share of the market than Debian,"" he told The Register. Update: Novell responds to community's questions: here, here and here. Update 2: Havoc Pennington's take.
Thread beginning with comment 179800
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
hal2k1
Member since:
2005-11-11

//Besides, I don't think you're going to get very far saying 20,000 free apps when Windows ALSO has tons of homebrew free (and even Free) software out there.//

There is no resource available for Windows that gives people access to 20,000 free applications all via the one common searchable interface, and all guaranteed to contain no malware.

There is nothing comparable in the Windows "application ecosystem" to rival this. Nothing comes even close.

If you go searching for "free applications" for Windows on the web, not only will you encounter a horribly haphazard "interface", but after installing just a few you are bound to end up with adware at the least, if not far worse malware.

Read my lips. 20,000 packages for Ubuntu Linux, all installable via the same interface, all searchable in the one place with descriptions, and all guaranteed to be add free and malware free, and all available at zero cost.

The Windows "ecosystem" for applications isn't a patch on this.

Reply Parent Score: 4

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I'll suspend the "War on Windows" >/sarcasm< for a moment and point out that quantity isn't superior to quality, and even if it were, isn't the (no doubt estimated) total number of Windows apps supposed to be in the 300,000 range? And if, as I suspect is likely, there were more apps around for DOS in its heyday, that would mean DOS is a better OS than Windows! There aren't that many people around who would make that claim today!

Besides, where Windows currently wins is in apps that are end-user, desktop, or vertical-applications (as I believe they're called - is that the same as bespoke?)

Currently a lot of the Linux apps I can get my hands on are as good, better-quality, or better value for money than the equivalent Windows apps; but that isn't true for the needs of every user.

Reply Parent Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//I'll suspend the "War on Windows" >/sarcasm< for a moment and point out that quantity isn't superior to quality, and even if it were, isn't the (no doubt estimated) total number of Windows apps supposed to be in the 300,000 range? And if, as I suspect is likely, there were more apps around for DOS in its heyday, that would mean DOS is a better OS than Windows! There aren't that many people around who would make that claim today!

Besides, where Windows currently wins is in apps that are end-user, desktop, or vertical-applications (as I believe they're called - is that the same as bespoke?)

Currently a lot of the Linux apps I can get my hands on are as good, better-quality, or better value for money than the equivalent Windows apps; but that isn't true for the needs of every user.//

If I ignore your strawman arguments ("War on Windows" and "quantity is superior to quality" ... neither of which I was getting at) and I ignore your unwarranted sarcasm, then the gist of your response here is correct.

However, the gist of what you are saying in no way invalidates the very reason why I brought this topic up in the first place, which was to counterpoint the following perception:
"After all, the reason why people run Windows is because it's where all the apps are".

I still feel that pointing to 20,000+ no-cost, searchable, malware-free packages all installable via the one common interface is a perfectly valid counterpoint to this demonstrably false perception.

There are in fact far, far more viable packages available for Linux than any user could possibly ever hope to use. Not only are they "viable" in the sense that they are guaranteed to do no harm to your system, they are also more accessible to ordinary users to install than are the vast majority of Windows apps.

Windows is not where ALL the apps are.

Reply Parent Score: 1

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

There is no resource available for Windows that gives people access to 20,000 free applications all via the one common searchable interface, and all guaranteed to contain no malware.

Who cares if you have access to 5,123 eMacs clones, or 5,254 desktop managers?

DOwnload.com or Tucows.com have more than 20,000 applications each.

You know, free software isn't new. In the early days of the web you had to go to Strouds to keep up with all the new apps. Thats was something like 1992/1993.

OSS; The cult that thinks it invented "freedom".

Reply Parent Score: 0

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Who cares if you have access to 5,123 eMacs clones, or 5,254 desktop managers?//

Faulty generalization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

//DOwnload.com or Tucows.com have more than 20,000 applications each. //

Does not address the comment to which you are responding, to whit: "There is no resource available for Windows that gives people access to 20,000 free applications all via the one common searchable interface, and all guaranteed to contain no malware."

Neither DOwnload.com nor Tucows.com have those attributes.

Reply Parent Score: 1

DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Oh, in terms of package manager and ease of availability.

Then yes, Linux is much better. I was just pointing out that 20,000 free apps in and of itself isn't a convincing argument.

And some on each side are inevitably bound to be redundant/shoddy... and on the Windows side, no longer available or working. Having someone in charge of packaging the software for your version cuts down on that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Then yes, Linux is much better. //

Agreed.

//I was just pointing out that 20,000 free apps in and of itself isn't a convincing argument. //

It is a perfectly valid point to raise against the false perception that "Windows is where all the apps are". This is just not so. There are in fact far more viable useable applications available for Linux than any end user could possibly ever use. There is no shoratge of apps for Linux.

Therefore, this is a perfectly valid argument to use to counter the false "FUD" perception that there is somehow a shoratge of apps for Linux, and that (presumably) users won't move to Linux because they won't be able to run some type of application. That argument is utterly wrong, and 20,000+ packages proves it to be wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 1