Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 1st Apr 2007 21:56 UTC, submitted by suka
Novell and Ximian "Nat Friedman has been one of the driving forces behind the development of the Linux desktop for a few year now. First with his own company Ximian, founded together with Mono chief architect Miguel de Icaza, after its acquisition now inside Novell. A few months ago he has been named 'Technologist of the Year' by the VarBusiness magazine for his work around the SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop. Since then he has been promoted to Chief Technology and Strategy Officer for Open Source, besides the desktop he is also overseeing Novells server business now. During Novells Brainshare Andreas Proschofsky had the possibility to sit down with Friedman and talk about the Linux desktop, the consequences of the Microsoft agreement and the mistakes of the Hula project."
Thread beginning with comment 226435
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Some Interesting Bits
by jpobst on Mon 2nd Apr 2007 00:52 UTC in reply to "Some Interesting Bits"
Member since:

I wouldn't exactly call someone like Jeremy Allison a commentator.

I wouldn't exactly call your example of one person as 'people'.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Some Interesting Bits
by segedunum on Mon 2nd Apr 2007 20:01 in reply to "RE: Some Interesting Bits"
segedunum Member since:

I wouldn't exactly call your example of one person as 'people'.

Oh, you wanted a list? I merely used Jeremy as an example, considering he used to be employed by Novell. I'm sure you can find an awful lot of people contributing to an awful lot of quite important open source projects who thought the Novell/Microsoft deal was a seriously bad idea. There's was too many people everywhere commentating on it to get a full list of names. Quite how he claims to know this, I don't know.

Unfortunately for him, Nat Friedman trying to dismiss the whole thing as a lot of fuss from commentators doesn't make the deal Novell made any less ridiculous, stupid, any less of a legal circumvention of the GPL by a supposed open source company or any less damaging to the perception of open source software. Which is the real point.

Reply Parent Score: 5

natfriedman Member since:

My point was just that people in a position to accept patches don't seem to be saying "Hmm, this patch came from a Novell person, I won't accept it!"

Or at least, I haven't heard of any cases of that.

I think part of the reason is that relationships in the community are between individuals, not companies, and hackers in general are not held responsible for the actions of their companies.

Reply Parent Score: 1