OSNews

well said.

In the corporate world there is only one philosophy and that is Money.

There used to be this stuff about charters and serving the public interest, but the industrial revolution came along and declared that stuff to be as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.

Right, but we all know where it breaks (limited resources, human is not a machine etc.).

Well yes, unless you're a non-profit corp, that's generally the idea. To make money.

I see this Novell thing as a good thing, because we're not getting away from MS anytime soon at my employment, and making things a bit more cohesive between Windows and Linux would be nice.

You keep your moral high ground, I would rather get work done.

If this partnership helps me do that, I'm all for it

Why I miss the good ol' days and hope Linux is a failure gaining desktop market share. It'll still be a good desktop for me though All this rif-raff is harmful to the ideals that got us here in the first place.

"You keep your moral high ground, I would rather get work done.

If this partnership helps me do that, I'm all for it"

Why is being moral, and getting work done mutually exclusive. I have yet to see any *benefits* to Linux from this partnership, I actually see Linux being threated by Microsoft *weekly*. I can only see possible short term benefits to Novell, at the expense of Linux as a whole.

Although its about defending Novells and Microsoft's corrupt actions by calling everyone fan boys or 16-year olds or religious whatsisnames. When its about Microsoft Making unsubstantiated threated against *ME* personally.

Of course if you *really* want to talk interoperability which I think is what you mean. Why doesn't Microsoft *release* their specifications years ago, at the request of the EU no less, rather than delay for years.

Is there anything new here? GPL3 blah blah blah

Edited 2007-11-08 19:25

Can't you see the practical argument that underlies the morality?

For many years, Microsoft has prevented competitors from creating software that interacts with their software and the data it creates. They have embraced not only proprietary software (which I can tolerate) but also proprietary interfaces, protocols, and formats.

There is a moral argument against this, but I believe that the practical argument is much stronger. For years Microsoft has impeded your ability to get your work done by preventing competitors from delivering potentially superior drop-in replacements. This is part of a cynical market strategy that assumes that customers won't switch to competing products if it requires a disruptive infrastructure transition and a problematic data migration.

By radically lower customers' expectations of interoperability, Microsoft now receives enthusiastic praise for any amount of cooperation. That Novell had to play rotten patent games with Microsoft in order to gain highly limited cooperation on interoperability is absurd. The same offer has not been extended to Red Hat because they refuse to validate the false relationship between patents and interoperability.

Absent from this interoperability agreement is some really critical sticking points such as Exchange. Microsoft proprietized corporate email, and they just won't let go. This is an artificial barrier to competition. Undocumented protocols should be illegal in the absence of an open-source implementation. This isn't a philosophical or moral argument. It's purely practical.

If you really want to get your work done, then you should demand that Microsoft unconditionally release royalty-free specifications for its software products. Otherwise you're not getting the the quality of software you deserve, because potential competitors are being stifled. Microsoft has no right to pick and choose its competition. That's your job as a customer. Nor should Microsoft have the right to charge for the privilege of interoperability. Otherwise there is no pretense of a free market for software.

Microsoft has good products and plenty of smart developers. What are they afraid of? Why don't they want to compete unless its on their terms? Why are vendors like Novell so willing to agree to an unequal playing field? And why are people so delighted to see token cooperation from a company that has so brazenly refused to compete to the detriment of software users everywhere?

Your 2 sentences are the paradigm of the blind horse. People thinking like you, which are a vast majority, are the cause of the monopolization of basic IT.

Most of free software users and advocates are for
getting work done. But they tend to be quiet, while you may only hear the noisiest ones.

You know, open source is mainly about get some very basic use from *your* computer : browsing the web, sending email, writing documents, etc. Not about designing aerospace components, or fortune 1000 management software.

It's like if you could only buy bread made from company X flour. Not about eating the most expensive caviar. Basic things.

We are in 2007, and still these simple things are monopolized by that nice company.





At any cost? This is a bit like saying as long as I can eat meat, I don't mind if there are slaves producing it.

Look, if Novell and MS bring out some useful agreement, I won't oppose. But the history of MS partnerships have only been on the opposite direction.

"i run a grocery store, and nobody buys from me - oh well, i guess i'd better start burning down my competitors"

"There ought to be some laws regarding what people can do, and you cannot burn down other people simply cause they have better services for lower prices!!"

"you keep your moral high ground! i would rather get some work done!"

And in the year since the original deal, what has come out that has "helped you get your work done".

This isn't about a moral high ground, it's about calling the "deal" out for what it is. If you think it's for "interoperability" (which is a problem predominantly because of microsoft spitting in the face of standards in the first place), then you're living with your head stuck in the sand. This may help Novell customers because they now have ease of mind, but this is hurting Red Hat and other legitimate businesses who do not comply. And that's what Microsoft is after, not "interoperability".

excellently put

By saying there "ought" to be a philosophy means there isn't, and if there isn't then it's very hard for Novell to betray it I guess ;-)

I think most people see these moves by Novell as bad is because of the track record and nature/culture of MS (or most corps). MS would like to see nothing better than a 100% MS dominated world (and fair enough, from their perspective (not mine) that is a great thing)...

To extend that thought, I completely believe that any public corporation wants no less than dominance in whatever market segment they are in. That goes for Microsoft, Novell, Red Hat, Sun, GE or Lockheed Martin. Some companies go about trying to obtain that goal(or as close as they can get) in different ways which are very open to criticism.

I have difficulty buying into the notion that there are good companies and bad companies or moral and non moral companies. There are bad strategies and then there are strategies that might not align with my idea of "the right way" while someone else might disagree.

Good for you and I or not, Microsoft is acting in a way that they think a dominate market leader need to act to preserve or even strengthen themselves. I don't think moral indifference plays any part in this one way or another.

Thavith_osn, just so you know, I'm not claiming that you implied any of that. I just took your comment and expanded it based on what I think.

Who's philosophy? RMS?

We're not talking about copyright, we're talking about patents. All FOSS projects, no matter which licenses they choose, are threatened by software patents. A lot of these non-Linux, non-GPL projects incorporate code that is covered by the Novell patent covenant. Therefore these projects are in a situation where certain commercial vendors are validating new protections that may become necessary for smaller projects in the future.

"""

"""

I would agree with this. More specifically, as a long time Linux advocate who *does* have concerns about the deal for reasons which could be considered partly practical, and partly philosophical, I'm more than happy to stand up and be counted. On the other hand, the fanboys, whose fervor sometimes borders on religious[1], *are* an unfortunate reality. So I'm glad you said that it is not *just* about them.

[1] Please, no pedantic hair splitting with links to dictionary definitions. The meaning of the word "religious" in this context should be quite clear to anyone not interested in engaging in that kind of double-talk.

Edited 2007-11-08 20:32

Yet the people that want a philosophy behind Linux generally aren't the ones actually writing the code and making the investments.

That's coming from corporate donors. The kernel, the GNU toolchain, Gnome, Xorg etc. are all far more dependent upon paid development support from corporate interests than they are on grassroots OSS developers.

The community has been enjoying the largesse of corporate welfare, while the corporate interests have been enjoying the benefit of community support. So far it's been a good balance.

I'm a strong proponent of the strength behind the reciprocal development model we see in most OSS projects, but I don't bend a knee to the altar of the four freedoms. I respect the work the OSS community has accomplished and am grateful for it, but I can't help thinking that the biggest threat to the future of linux comes not from evil proprietary software companies, but from the zealotry against the very same corporate interests that the community is dependent upon.

Linus created linux and has stated ad nauseum that his interests lie in the power of the shared development model, not the four freedoms. Novell has done nothing to betray this, in fact they have contributed far more than many of those that complain the loudest.

There is a philosophy behind linux, it just doesn't seem to be in line with what many of the more zealous free software advocates would like, and so they do protest. That's where the core issue lies.

Did that "linux philosophy" you mention contain the rule: You have to hate microsoft.

That is really an interpretation of all the fanboys (though I'm not so sure if they were all 16 years old). Novell is just a business like most other business, still they're a very open source friendly business and at least I respect that (like I respect red-hat, sun and sometimes IBM).

The fight for freedom and open-source has to be won by making a better software world by actively writing free software, not be fighting microsoft!