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 179811
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Not surprising
by NotParker on Wed 8th Nov 2006 03:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not surprising"
NotParker
Member since:
2006-06-01

Microsoft has spent 20+ years employing various anti-competitive tactics.

Of course you would say that. You think all closed source software is unethical. But in fact, Microsoft has spent 20 years competing. And manyof their competitors shot themselves in the foot.

The classic anti-Microsoft lie is that poor old Netscape was wiped out because Microsft gave away IE ... when the truth is, Netscape stole Mosaic from the University of Illinois and gave it away for free to destroy all the companies that legally licensed the code from Spyglass (the designated company). And Microsoft won the browser war because IE 4 was better than Netscape 4 and Netscape 5 imploded and IE 5 was fantastic.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Not surprising
by hal2k1 on Wed 8th Nov 2006 03:37 in reply to "RE[4]: Not surprising"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//You think all closed source software is unethical.//

Not at all. There is a vast selection of ethical, quality closed-source software available on the market.

There is just one attribute common to all closed-source software ... and that is that as an end user you have no reliable way to evaluate what is in any given piece of closed-source software, no way to ascertain if it is in fact ethical and quality and value-for-money.

One is forced to look at peripheral attributes of the software to try to evaluate closed-source software. One has try to ascertain if:
(1) the software has good functionality,
(2) the software is good value for its price,
(3) the software competes on its merits with other products and performs well in comparison, and
(4) the software supports documented, open standards so that in using it I can viably move to a competing product if circumstances warrant it, and I can interchange my data with other colleagues who may use a competing product.

Most Microsoft software is characterised by being closed source, by "scoring" relatively well in considerations (1) and (2) above, but failing utterly in considerations (3) and (4) above.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Not surprising
by NotParker on Wed 8th Nov 2006 04:32 in reply to "RE[5]: Not surprising"
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Most Microsoft software is characterised by being closed source, by "scoring" relatively well in considerations (1) and (2) above, but failing utterly in considerations (3) and (4) above.

Then I would have to say you are very ignorant.

Point #3: Since Microsoft doesn't give aways its server tools, the billions in revenue totally contradicts what you say. Maybe you could come up with specific examples - but you are biased anyway.

Point #4: There is no point arguing #4 if you think as you do about point #3. You are hopelessly biased.

When it comes to value I always keep this in mind: Most people would rather pay 5$ for a pirated CD of Office or Windows even when they can run Linux or OpenOffice for free.

Most people, when they buy a PC with Linux installed on it, replaces that install with a pirated copy of Windows. (Gartner study).

Microsoft software is great value for the money.


And it was Twenex who thinks all closed source software is unethical. I happen to think most cultists agree with him.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[5]: Not surprising
by twenex on Wed 8th Nov 2006 12:54 in reply to "RE[4]: Not surprising"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Plenty companies make closed-source software, and yes, I do think that is unethical. But I don't badmouth them the way I badmouth Microsoft. Why? Because not all of them make abominable software at high prices, lie to their customers, and crush all opposition. Then again, it's blindly obvious nothing at all is ever going to change your mind, so keep on lying to yourself.

It's really quite pathetic.

Reply Parent Score: 0