Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Nov 2007 17:33 UTC, submitted by WillM
In the News One year after sealing their surprise alliance, Novell and Microsoft have announced an expansion of their technical collaboration to 'link together the existing Windows and Linux frameworks'. The firms will extend their existing collaboration to focus on virtualisation, standards-based management, directory and identity federation and document format compatibility. As part of this process, Microsoft said that both companies are 'now working closely' at the Microsoft and Novell Interoperability Lab in Massachusetts.
Thread beginning with comment 283782
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Good for Novell
by elsewhere on Fri 9th Nov 2007 06:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Good for Novell"
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

First off, what has the Microsoft/Novell deal done to better the GNU/Linux community?


What has it done to harm the GNU/Linux community?

Forking OpenOffice to include MS proprietary features? Quite frankly I've seen little if any "benefit" at all from the deal.


Oh please, that was debunked long ago. Novell hasn't forked openOffice. There are patches that Sun has refused to accept, and there are patches that some of the non-Novell employed Suse developers refuse to assign copyright to Sun for.

Novell is second to Sun in their number of paid OOo2 developers. Few people can even understand the code to begin with. Novell's patches are released publically. Sun refuses to accept some, and insists on being able to re-license them at will. How can anyone claiming support of the GPL, OSS development and/or the four freedoms find Novell at fault in that situation?

Quite frankly I've seen little if any "benefit" at all from the deal.


Then you're most likely not a Novell customer. Are Novell's customers seeing a benefit? Who knows, only they do. But the issue is whether there is a detriment to you or anyone else, and I've yet to see a rational explanation as to how there is one.

I am not a fan boy, OS religious freak, I believe in open source, free software and the sharing of knowledge to benefit all. I am unwilling to compromise my belief at home (where I use OSS/FS exclusively). I vote with my pocketbook and so don't support, condone or recommend proprietary formats. Even though I do this, oddly enough, I'm still able to get "real work" done.


This is an excellent argument that I wish people would make an effort to understand. Access to FL/OSS is a privilege, not an entitlement. Sometimes it requires extra effort, or sacrifice, on behalf of the users, but if they truly believe in the principles, the ideals, the philosophy or simply the benefit, then they *MUST* be willing to make the effort and the sacrifices necessary. As you point out, voting with your wallet is the most effective tool.

It's very frustrating to see arguments from people demanding this and that for what they need from the FLOSS developers, when as you point out, it is often possible to accomplish what you need yet requiring extra effort or inconvenience.

It's easy for people to say they support linux or Gnome or GNU or whatever, yet fall back to Windows because they *need* to play their games or use Office or MSN or whatever. That doesn't help the cause.

There's nothing wrong with using a mix of open and proprietary software in my opinion, I do myself, but then I don't sit in an ivory tower making proclomations about the compromises OSS companies make when I'm not willing to make compromises myself.

If you've made the effort to only use FL/OSS exclusively for your personal day to day, then at least you're qualified to give an opinion. Sadly, most people aren't.

/end rant.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Good for Novell
by Soulbender on Fri 9th Nov 2007 06:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Good for Novell"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

There's nothing wrong with using a mix of open and proprietary software in my opinion, I do myself, but then I don't sit in an ivory tower making proclomations about the compromises OSS companies make when I'm not willing to make compromises myself.


I increasingly get the feeling that those who do sit in the ivory tower are people who either dont work at all and freeload off their parents while living in the basement or dont work in a company or position where they need to make any I.T decisions (ie, they're flipping burgers at McDonads).

For you guys and gals in the ivory towers here's something you can try. Next time/if you get hired as an IT manager make it your first agenda to transfers all systems and software to Linux, regardless of operational cost or lost business, and see how well that goes down with the boss. You'll be back at McDonalds faster than you can say "dualboot".

Many people dont seem to understand that for the majority of companies I.T is in itself not the core business. The core business is selling flowers or burgers or insurances or whatnot. I.T is there to *support* the core business making money. The core business is not to change to Linux. Hey, sure, if you can find a solid business reason to change then go ahead but otherwise you are just costing the company money.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Good for Novell
by marcgo on Fri 9th Nov 2007 11:31 in reply to "RE[3]: Good for Novell"
marcgo Member since:
2007-11-09

You are either a demagog or you have limited understanding capabilities. I agree with you that the core business is selling, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. Besides, your argument can easily be rebated by changing transfer to Linux with transfer to Vista.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Good for Novell
by segedunum on Fri 9th Nov 2007 13:11 in reply to "RE[3]: Good for Novell"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

For you guys and gals in the ivory towers here's something you can try. Next time/if you get hired as an IT manager make it your first agenda to transfers all systems and software to Linux, regardless of operational cost or lost business, and see how well that goes down with the boss. You'll be back at McDonalds faster than you can say "dualboot".

Yes, because what's happened there usually is that the 'boss' has been taken to dinner and on free trips by various software companies, and has then come out with some kind of edict that the company will use said software companies' software without the faintest idea of what is or isn't technically possible. The poor technical saps have to then try and implement it, but they usually let the disaster unfold, whereby more software is bought.

The best people don't work for companies like that, and if they do, they aren't there for very long. IT managers are there to make things work and make decisions, and if that means using Linux then fine. The way to get people using Linux is not via big deals in corporate boardrooms as some people think, but at a low level where people simply pick up open source software because it does what they need. Before you know it, the 'boss' and the people in the boardrooms have no choice but to use open source software because everyone else is. That's the way they work.

Hey, sure, if you can find a solid business reason to change then go ahead but otherwise you are just costing the company money.

I'm sure you can always find a justifiable cost reason. I always can. Doing nothing is constantly costing you money.

Reply Parent Score: 3