"In conclusion? I'm going to stick with it. It really is impressive with a great set of software installed by default (taking away perhaps a lot of my need for massive repos), nice touches like the new menu and use of Gnome control center etc." More here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-11
//What "theory" is that? That Linux is open? If msft wants interoperability so bad, then why didn't msft open the APIs to Samba? Why did msft fight that so hard in Europe? Why is msft so desperately fighting the ODF standard? Why doesn't msft publish the specs for NTFS? //
Spot on.
It is not that Linux lacks interoperability, but rather that Microsoft goes out of its way to deliberately prevent interoperability.
Member since:2005-07-06
Make no mistake, msft wants the world to belive that linux is a legal mine field. It's pure fud, and it's working. Novell is now msft's bitch.
A lot of people use linux because they hate msft, so why use novl when other distros that embrace the foss philosophy are out there?
A lot of that FUD(I'm really starting to hate that acronym) is being generated by the "open source community". Microsoft, or specifically Balmer, said one negative thing about Linux and it was a piece of unsubstantiated BS which Novell denied. Just because Balmer is a billionaire, doesn't mean he's unable to make himself out to be a major boob. Whether or not Novell made the correct move in making this deal is ancillary but not directly a cause of the legal doubt. People like Bruce Perens and Pamela Jones have generated enough FUD to do Microsoft's job for them. Nothing like having your biggest opponents do all the damage for you.
Why use Novell? Well, because we're talking about business here, which was the crux of the whole deal. Novell has a variety of of proprietary products that you won't find any equal to on Gentoo, or Ubuntu, or Slack. And let's be serious about something here. Is IBM using Linux because of open source values? Same with Novell, or HP, or RedHat, or Canonical, or Sun? I'm willing to bet the answer is no all around. They're supporting open source software because it's the only economically viable way to fight Microsoft.
Member since:2005-12-31
>>Balmer, said one negative thing about Linux and it was a piece of unsubstantiated BS which Novell denied.<<
Wrong. Ballmer *threatend* every linux user who does not use Novell. Yes, it's a big deal.
Besides, what are saying? Everything is cool because Ballmer probably would not really sue? That misses the entire point. It is the *threat* of the lawsuits that is the FUD. And Ballmer certainly threatened.
>> Whether or not Novell made the correct move in making this deal is ancillary but not directly a cause of the legal doubt.<<
Bullsh!t. Msft is just wrapping up pulling the exact same scam with scox. And you can be certain that Novell knows that, since novell is also being sued by scox as part of the same scam. Of course novell knew what msft was up to, what else would even make sense? Msft agrees not to sue novell, and only novell, so where does leave every other distro?
Novell very obviously wanted to be the seen as the only company that could legally distribute linux. Because only novell has msft's blessing. Caldera, and sunw, tried to pull the same scam.
>>
People like Bruce Perens and Pamela Jones have generated enough FUD to do Microsoft's job for them.
<<
Oh? Exactly what have they said, or implied, that was not true? Be specific.
>>
Why use Novell? Well, because we're talking about business here, which was the crux of the whole deal.
<<
Exactly, and novell is one business whose days are numbered. 1) Msft always screws their business partners. 2) Novell has betrayed, and made bitter enemies of the very people who provide them their product - paybacks are a bitch.
Now, let's be totally pragmatic about business: do you want a linux supplier who won't be able to supply you in the near future? Didn't think so, neither does anybody else.
Member since:2006-07-13
"Now, let's be totally pragmatic about business: do you want a linux supplier who won't be able to supply you in the near future? Didn't think so, neither does anybody else."
If Novell dies, do we still have linux?
I'd think so, just like anybody else....
Thanks for feeding the FUD troll..
Member since:2005-07-06
Novell very obviously wanted to be the seen as the only company that could legally distribute linux. Because only novell has msft's blessing. Caldera, and sunw, tried to pull the same scam.
Nothing but conjecture on your part. I could say that Novell would be fine with any other Linux company making a similar deal and that it was meant to increase potential and current customer uptake of Suse Linux. But that's conjecture on my part as well.
Oh? Exactly what have they said, or implied, that was not true? Be specific.
Perens: "Coming just as the SCO case is winding down, the timing is interesting. Novell is the new SCO."
Pamela Jones: "Well, if there are any Novell supporters left, here's something else to put in your pipe and smoke it. Novell is forking OpenOffice.org."
Dynamically linked modules are not a fork. Novell hasn't sued anyone and beyond that, Novell has some very good and useful products, something SCO doesn't have.
Exactly, and novell is one business whose days are numbered. 1) Msft always screws their business partners. 2) Novell has betrayed, and made bitter enemies of the very people who provide them their product - paybacks are a bitch.
Novell's days might be numbered. Time will tell. Microsoft does not always screw their business partners. Granted, it happens more than not. Also, it might come as a shock to you, but Novell's revenue streams aren't all based on open source offerings. In fact, those offerings are a minority of their revenue. They are trying to move that to a majority, but it's not there. The operating system, Suse Linux, is merely a platform to deliver their main money making products like GroupWise, ZenWorks, and IdentityManager.
Didn't think so, neither does anybody else.
You probably shouldn't talk for anyone else. I'm not sure what servers you're running, but I've got a few SLES boxes heating my server room right now and I don't have any plans on giving them the old flatten and reinstall with anything else. In fact, I plan on adding more Suse linux servers down the road to replace my aging NetWare boxes when OES2 comes out.
I guess the point is, there is concern about this deal. However, going off and using speculation as fact is irresponsible and potentially damaging, aka FUD.
Edited 2006-12-11 13:51
Member since:
2005-12-31
>>
Really? So all the stuff about making sure each other's operating systems can function well virtualized was smoke? Can you provide some evidence for this theory?
<<
What "theory" is that? That Linux is open? If msft wants interoperability so bad, then why didn't msft open the APIs to Samba? Why did msft fight that so hard in Europe? Why is msft so desperately fighting the ODF standard? Why doesn't msft publish the specs for NTFS?
>>
Do you have any idea how comical it is that the proponents of this theory have to rely on Steve Ballmer for "proof"?
<<
In case you didn't know: Ballmer is president and CEO of a $300 Billion dollar international mega-corp, a corp with a long standing reputation for ruthless behavior, a corp which funded the entire scox-scam, a corp that is a convicted monopolist. When Ballmer makes a threat, it is fair to assume that threat will be taken seriously.
Even if msft has no grounds for a lawsuit, would you want to be sued my msft? Scox had absolutely no case what-so-ever, but they still cost msft many millions in legal fees. And gave msft nearly four years of FUD.
Make no mistake, msft wants the world to belive that linux is a legal mine field. It's pure fud, and it's working. Novell is now msft's bitch.
A lot of people use linux because they hate msft, so why use novl when other distros that embrace the foss philosophy are out there?
All JMHO, of course.