Submitted by 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.
While many living in the anti-Microsoft camp will simply despise Novell more for this, fortunately I do not think Novell gives a damn about rabid 16 year old fanboys who see their OS as a religion. Novell on the other hand does have a community of businesses to which they provides services to, most of which happen to also use Windows (ours included). Mixed environments such as ours, and many of our clients, do see this as a very positive way forward. The biggest aspect is this provides Novell with a very strong competitive edge over Red Hat, the only other real player in the Linux corporate world.
I am sure if Novell starts to gain market share with Suse Enterprise, many of Red Hats shareholders are going to be none to pleased with their stance.
I think its good for Linux as a whole…
Its not that I despise Microsoft… its just I couldn’t trust them as far as I can piss. I’d be interested when Microsoft takes advantage of the situation and shafts everybody else in their way. I think you’ll find most people that have dealt with Microsoft dont ‘hate’ them for their products, but the simple fact that they don’t know how to play fair without bankrupting some corporation in the process. Either that or they just buy out the competition and sink it (i.e Frontpage).
Otherwise I’d be quite happy that we might have 2 large industry ‘standards’ working together for the better of humanity.
Seriously, if Microsoft really cared about Novell why would they still be sabre rattling about the supposed 250+ patents they haven’t disclosed yet?
If I were Novell, I’d take the money and run… I wouldn’t have anything further to do with MS.
rabid 16 year old fanboys who see their OS as a religion
I don’t think it’s just about 16 y.o. fanboys. There ought to be a philosophy behind Linux and many believe Novell has betrayed it.
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.
Keep in mind, much of this “riff-raff” helped developers to get you/us/we here in the first place.
First, I am labelling people who advocate the use of proprietary software (in Linux), or people who not only don’t believe in free-software (in Linux), but actively chastise it, as rif-raff.
Unless I’m mistaken these people haven’t done much to support GNU/Linux, except maybe giving away the occasional trinkets, which may be nice to have, but certainly are not necessary, and infact maybe more harmful in the long run because any time money gets involved, the ideals that got us here in the first place become subordinate to $ and an are generally unimportant.
Basically every country in the world founded on a noble idea is now living proof of this.
Edited 2007-11-08 19:41
so by this comment I assume you don’t use MP3s for music nor flash on a website?
else your comment is self labeling…
Whether or not I’m a hypocrite is irrelevant to the points I was raising
But you do realize that there are plenty of free mp3 encoders/decoders/players. etc.? The problem with MP3 is licensing and patent issues. I don’t use it though 😉 Not that it is of any relevance.
The only site that I can think of that has a legitimate non-annoying use for Flash is Youtube. I think gnash is good enough for that.
I don’t know if we’re thinking about the same thing, but I also miss something, which is basically the by coders for coders attitude, without the “enemy” keeping an eye on it [“enemy” ~ closed source company competitors]. In the days which most of today’s users would call the dark middle ages of Linux [which they’ve never seen since they’re mostly new Linux users] I mostly felt the developments were great, I loved what I saw, and I wasn’t held back by an unpolished GUI and by frequent need to solve issues by hand, since the underlying stuff was nice. These days the line of development mostly is driven by mass average user “demands” which is not a bad thing in itself [well, depending on who those “users” are], since the polish is nice to have, still, we just keep fading the whole Linux/FOSS concept. The MS-raised generation gives less and less f*ck about the ideas behind Linux&co. , and the “get the work done” approach is also strong, but I don’t like it being exclusive. You can get the work done and at the same time follow the FOSS ideas, it’s no magic.
These days deals like the Novell-MS pact raises less and less eyebrows, moreover there are masses who congratulae the ideas and the prospects what these deals project. This feels sometimes very disturbing, since it reflects their sometimes unrealistic hopes about the possible outcomes of such an agreement, and is not really based on the past behavior of the agreeing parties.
Thing is, and maybe I’m on drugs that I don’t know about, I wish we’ll see a change in the landscape at least as changing as Linux’s appearance caused in the last 1.5 decade, and soon.
“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
don’t get me wrong MS opening up their formats would be the ideal solution! However, going by history, this is sadly unlikely to happen.
with regards to the threats, we do not know if they ARE unsubstantiated and this is where the FUD comes into play. What needs to happen is for someone to call their bluff.
The trouble with this is if it turns out they are NOT unsubstantiated then linux in the business world would crumble overnight. I also have no doubt that if it looked like the case was going against Microsoft there would be an ‘out of court settlement’ so the judgment was never passed, thereby allowing the FUD to continue..
“with regards to the threats, we do not know if they ARE unsubstantiated and this is where the FUD comes into play. What needs to happen is for someone to call their bluff.
The trouble with this is if it turns out they are NOT unsubstantiated then linux in the business world would crumble overnight.”
They are unsubstantiated…until they produce anything thats the point. What is interesting is that I can remember a time when there was a awful lot of other Os’s around and Office applications. Microsoft is *very* late to the game Thats ignoring a whole host of things like API’s or even networking. Microsoft has more to lose than *anyone*, its gonna make computers unusable. I personally cannot wait for the patent wars to start.
“The trouble with this is if it turns out they are NOT unsubstantiated then linux in the business world would crumble overnight.”
I believe this is incorrect. The BSDs went through something similar in the early 90s. The infriginging lines were removed and BSD carried on. I think the same would apply to GNU/Linux, however, companies such as Suse and RedHat may have to pay some some sort of damages. The code is out there, it’s easy to remove and create new open implementations, but the user base would suffer throughout the transition.
Of course, all this is purely on the speculations of Microsoft stating GNU/Linux is infringing without ponying up the proof.
“””
I believe this is incorrect. The BSDs went through something similar in the early 90s.
“””
No. And this is an *extremely* important point to understand. The BSD lawsuit was about copyrights. The threats OSS faces today are about patents. That is a *completely* different scenario. One cannot simply rewrite sections of code to avoid infrindements. Whereas copyrights are about copying lines of code, patents are about implementing *ideas*. If we are found to be infringing, for the sake of argument, upon a patent which covers having a pointing indicator on the screen which one can control with ones hand, we cannot simply rewrite the code. We must stop using mouse pointers altogether and find a completely different way of interacting with the desktop.
Being called into question on copyrights is, at worst, a major inconvenience. Being found to violate certain patents could be absolutely *devastating*.
What is protecting us now is not necessarily that we are not infringing upon any patents, but that for various reasons, few actual players in the industry, short of pure-play patent trolls, dare to use their patents offensively.
If patent armageddon were, in fact, unleashed some day, OSS would be just a devastated as the closed source companies. Worse, perhaps, since other than Novell, we don’t have much, if any, in the way of cross-licensing deals, and are not in a position to make them in order to save our skins.
Yes, you can, and companies often do.
The patent war myth is just like “the clone war” myth – you have to wait for the fifth movie, 25 years to see if it’s all it’s hyped up to be.
They may not be unsubstantiated, thats my point! until they produce anything we don’t KNOW. (as a mere laymen I am sadly not privi to the details)
You are correct if you intend that to say ‘unproven’ at this point in time.
To say you can’t wait for patent wars is worryingly naive! Imageine for a second everybody and their dog enforced the patents they held. There are patents for sending email, storing them in a folder, having a web interface to view them.There is even a patent held for additional functionality for a web browser via plugins!! Basically in the worst case scenario it could make almost EVERY program you currently run ILLIGAL in some way or another, leaving you potentially liable for the costs
Patent wars have the potential to destroy the industry from which I take home a wage. Call it selfish but if the odd ‘deal’ here and there keeps it together then fine by me
“To say you can’t wait for patent wars is worryingly naive! Imageine for a second everybody and their dog enforced the patents they held. There are patents for sending email, storing them in a folder, having a web interface to view them.There is even a patent held for additional functionality for a web browser via plugins!! Basically in the worst case scenario it could make almost EVERY program you currently run ILLIGAL in some way or another, leaving you potentially liable for the costs
Patent wars have the potential to destroy the industry from which I take home a wage. Call it selfish but if the odd ‘deal’ here and there keeps it together then fine by me”
No I am absolutely perfect in saying unsubstantiated, in not Give me a the list Microsoft has produced. I’d love to see it.
The reason you call me naive is *exactly* the reason I want the patent wars to start. Microsoft are painted all over the place as being *computing*. I *know* they are not. I cannot think of a single thing they did first…I’m not talking the fringe stuff. I’m talking File-system, Word Processor, Spreadsheet; Calculator, Chat Client, Dialog Boxes everything, Toolbars, 3 buttons on the mouse, animated Icons, Browser the list is endless. Ignoring the stuff owned by IBM, SUN etc we have thousands of little companies…and Microsoft are a more attractive target than Red Hat Simply because the risks are the same with the rewards being less. With potential Billions at stake…I’d be tempted for going for a “No Win, No Fee”
There will only be two possible outcomes Patent Reform, or the end of computing in America…both seem very attractive options
The *great* thing about the Microsoft/Novell agreement is it doesn’t cover *clone* technologies which I suspect covers *everything* that Microsoft have done…but I suspect its more about formats. Oddly everything Novell is working on is a clone technology, can’t wait till the knives come out on that one.
with regards to the threats, we do not know if they ARE unsubstantiated and this is where the FUD comes into play. What needs to happen is for someone to call their bluff.
If these threats are not unsubstantiated then list the patented functionalities that are being infringed.
(cricket_chirp.ogg)
OK then.
Until this is done there is no substantiation that there is any infringement, only empty claims and implicit threats over those unsupported claims. MS Legal has publicly said that it is not feasible to list these “infringements”. If that is the case then how are these claims substantiated? How are they ever going to be substantiated? And how valuable are patents that aren’t worth listing?
The call has gone out from open source advocates to list these patents and the infringed functionality. So far no valid response has been provided. So, do we kick MS out of the game for not laying down their cards now that the bluff they are running has been called? If so, how?
Are you sure they are playing the game that you think they are?
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?
Excellent comment! I agree completely with every single point you make. I think you just described _exactly_ what the real problem is, and I’m very glad you took the time to write it down in such a clear manner.
butters,
Excellently written, and spot on. I would however like to add one thing to which you said.
The propieraty applications, the propietary protocols, the difficulties and hindrances which are cause by their usage and the resultant effects on data- that data is held hostage by specific applications, and is only accessible in ways foreseen by the application developers, who wish to maintain their position, and that data exchange is controlled and confined-these issues which plague every corporation and confound end-users, is to a very large extent the raison d’etre of the entire propieraty software market.
Propietary software is an economy, in the first instance an economy of usage. That the data formats were propietary, that the protocols used were propietary was the initial impetus for the creation of the 3rd-party aftermarket for propietary software. Thousand of companies sprung up with products and services to overcome the imprisonment of data -to make it possible to use the files from one propietary application in another.
By artificially delimiting interoperability, compatibility etc Microsoft and other major founders of the propietary software economy(Adobe, Lotus, Novell) created a rich ecosystem of corporations which proved quite successful at monetizing all aspects data access,useage and movement.
The 3rd party after market for propietary software arose like a new organism in a new ecosphere created by the artificial delimitations of software usage and exchange-such artificial delimitations were the mark of the products, so companies like Microsoft made money on Microsoft Word only working good with Microsoft Word documents. So at once companies championed such delimitations as strengths of their products and left the interoperability and interchangeability to smaller propietary applications by 3rd parties.
The major parties of the propietary software industry knew that through the use of propietary API’s,formats, protocols and source, that they were creating of rich ecosphere for 3rd parties to workaround and mitigate the negatives of this propietary system. In fact this entire system was based up lisencing agreements which rendered access to propietary API’s to be able to write software to overcome the softwares own propietarieness. Thus ensued a gigantic symbiotic ecosphere with large hosts and thousands and thousands of parasites.
Interestingly enough the 3rd party aftermarket for propietary software was but one of two answers to the self-imposed limitations(ie. the artificial delimitations) of the propietary market-the other being FOSS. In this light it is quite easy to understand Novells deal with Microsoft. Does it really count as surprising?
1) firstly Novell doing deals with Microsoft is nothing new. In fact Novell came into being by filling a void in the product offering of Microsoft and purchased licences from Microsoft to write software for their operating systems to fill this void. 2) Microsoft has a vested interest in this propietary market-that FOSS had been resistant to attempts to monetize interoperability, instead choosing to reverse engineer protocols, has been a continuous thorn in Microsofts side. 3) I can even imagine their being people at Novell which would love to see Novell as being the gateway between FOSS and the propierty world(and I am sure that Microsoft sold these deals in this terminology).
Novell may have passed on an opportunity to renegotiate the negotiation grounds in their deal with Microsoft. FOSS offers something which simply cannot be bought. Yet the worst that Novell has done in the deal is to reaffirm the propietary market. And potentially something good might come of it: because FOSS has unfettered trading of code via the GPL, many, if not all, of the new offerings resultant of the Microsoft-Novell deal will be usable by all users of free software. If this potential pans out the result would be an actual undermining of the propietary market.
So at worst these deals just signal same-old, same-old, or they could potentially work to weaken the propietary market stronghold.
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 disagree. Why can’t I have some of the more sophisticated programs which are available for Windows or OS X?
“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.
It’s just software, dude. It’s not a lifestyle.
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!
Fix your broken understanding of religion and philosophy please.
The only thing why it is positive is because Microsoft deliberately broke different standards to make them incompatible and now they’re being the saviors of the Linux industry by saying they’re going to work on interoperability. If we really had standards in high-level networking and documents from the beginning I guess the marketshare of Windows would be much less than what it currently is.
fortunately I do not think Novell gives a damn about rabid 16 year old fanboys who see their OS as a religion.
Not every Linux user is a 16 year old kid. I’m a 26 year old structural/construction engineer who makes at least 50 thousand dollars a month. I don’t use Linux at work but my home PC runs ArchLinux and hasn’t seen a windows installation in years.
And for your information, the Novell/Microsoft deal did hurt a lot of businesses. With Novell admitting the parts of the Linux kernel are illegal, a lot of local small to medium vendors here lost business. Stores that used to sell PCs preloaded with Fedora or Mandriva are unable to sell those PCs because customers now think the only legal Linux distribution is SUSE. Even when those vendors can format the hard disks and load SUSE on those PCs, the damage is already done. The economic value of Linux in the market place is a lot worse now because of the Novell/Microsoft deal.
Edited 2007-11-08 21:06
You make 50 grand a month as a structural/construction engineer but don’t have a system that will run AutoCAD?
Its very childish to mention how much you earn, there’s more to life then money. Oder? Or is the size of your income got something to do with your age for you? There are seperate for me. Why do you feel the need to mention it?
For someone who clames the moral highground, it’s funny you choose to open your post talking about how much money YOU are making.
//I’m a 26 year old structural/construction engineer who makes at least 50 thousand dollars a month//
I call utter and complete bull$hit. I doubt there are more than a few dozen structural engineers under the age of 50 who pull down $600K a year.
And none of them would waste time posting here.
I hardly see Stallman, John Hall, and a slew of other Linux Industry standard members as 16yo Fanboys.
Sounds more like the stance taken by a company with a failing business model, much the same as with Linspire as a company. The minute they jump on board with MS, their CEO takes a dive out. Then a few months later turns around to endorse Ubuntu as his distribution of choice.
Its just a front so that MS can destroy linux and bring patent infringement suits again anyone who touches open source!
Novell is pure evil and wants to make money at any cost. First they bought Mono, then they signed with the devil on a patent deal. Its all so clear I can’t believe everyone can’t see it!
If you think otherwise you are obviously just an astro surfing, MS loving fanboy who is clueless!
NOTE: The above rant is a joke, but the thread didn’t feel complete without it.
While many living in the anti-Microsoft camp will simply despise Novell more for this, fortunately I do not think Novell gives a damn…
Alas, Novell will give a damn when Microsoft, who are their biggest competitor, start replacing all the Suse coupons and servers (which have to be under Windows domain controllers under the deal incidentally) and finish off what is left of Novell’s market share from the Netware legacy. Novell are having to get their biggest competitor to sell their own products for them! If you can’t see how idiotic that is then I recommend a padded cell.
Anybody who thinks this is rabid 16 your old fanboy talk simply simply doesn’t have the first clue about what’s going on, and would be best served not commenting. Ask yourself: Microsoft are Novell’s biggest competitor, and are being pretty successful at moving Netware customers to Windows. Why are Microsoft going to help Novell?
It’s a simple question. Really, some of you idiots are exceptionally naive, but it seems Microsoft can count on such an attitude in most places.
Novell on the other hand does have a community of businesses to which they provides services to, most of which happen to also use Windows (ours included).
Alas, Windows is a competitor. Novell are going to have to do as much interoperability as they can, by themselves, until they convince you that Windows is a bad choice and what they have is better.
Real men and companies compete. Wimps stay up late all night, out of their depth, wondering what they’re going to do, and then they whine to the bully to stop and give them their dinner money.
Mixed environments such as ours, and many of our clients, do see this as a very positive way forward.
Does Microsoft’s software really help you in a mixed environment? Now that Microsoft has caught the interoperability bug and are supposedly helping Novell with federated directory services, are they contributing to Samba 4 for AD interoperability?
What specific improvements do you expect to see exactly, or is this just all hot air and hearsay?
I am sure if Novell starts to gain market share with Suse Enterprise, many of Red Hats shareholders are going to be none to pleased with their stance.
The bottom line here is that Novell still has a larger revenue than Red Hat, mostly thanks to Netware, whose customers Microsoft now want to get over to the Windows world at a faster rate as a result of this deal (as well as some patent FUD). Novell have declining revenue from Netware and their Linux business isn’t growing anywhere near enough to compensate, let alone compete with Red Hat. Red Hat’s revenue is going up.
The trend is down, and this deal was a last, desperate throw of the dice – that Microsoft gave to them, and have ones on all sides.
I agree with your post, but you’re missing the argument.
You’re one of the few people on this board that are actually familiar with Novell beyond their blogosphere linux involvement, most of the complaining comes from people who simply see MS as the Big Evil using Novell as an instrument in their destruction of linux through patent claims.
I think the MS/Novell deal was a mistake for many of the reasons you point out, because they’re in the context of a business sense. I remember the glory days when I was selling Netware licenses like they were going out of style, and the Novell reps scoffed at the idea that anyone would every want to put NT in their server rooms. Novell took a deserved beating, as did a veritable army of many other market-leading vendors, for dismissing Microsoft’s capability. To Novell’s credit, they’re one of the few that survived.
But the argument that most frequently comes up is that Novell is somehow undermining linux with the MS agreement because of the patent issue. That’s simply balls off. That’s where the 16 yo fanboy comment comes from, and it’s mostly on the mark, because few of the posters can actually qualify their arguments, they’re simply regurgitating cliches, hyperbole and groklaw dogma.
The Novell deal is questionable for business reasons, but is irrelevant for the philosophical or imaginary patent reasons everybody keeps dredging up.
But the argument that most frequently comes up is that Novell is somehow undermining linux with the MS agreement because of the patent issue. That’s simply balls off.
Not it isn’t. You see, Novell professes to be an open source, Linux based company. The destinies of Linux, Novell and the open source software that Novell relies on to make their products and inextricably linked. Whatever harm is done to Linux and open source software ultimately comes back to bite Novell, and if Novell harms them then it comes around to bite everyone else. Everyone depends on everyone else in a community like that.
What Novell did, because they were so desperate, was to cave in to Microsoft’s specific demands to have some kind of agreement about patents – whatever that happened to be. The way this was eventually spun was that Novell’s customers had some kind of protection from Microsoft, whereas no other Linux distributor’s customers had. Thus Novell were happy to try and claim this as competitive advantage.
What then happened was that Microsoft spun this themselves to the corporate audience they wanted to get their message to, to say that Linux and open source software infringed on Microsoft’s patents and IP and that you weren’t safe unless you got your Linux distro from a company that had signed a similar agreement. This then went beyond Novell and harmed the impression of Linux and open source software further afield.
Novell tried to backtrack on all of this, but the damage had been done and Microsoft got what they wanted. They tried to helpfully tell us that Linux and open source software infringed on no Microsoft patent they could see, but signing a deal to protect their customers and then saying this is a logical fallacy that will not square – and people can see it.
Novell as an open source and Linux company have harmed the wider perception of Linux and open source software. It’s that simple. The amusing thing is that many people point out that Novell is a business and they have done this for their own benefit. However, since the destiny of Novell with open source software is linked, and they have agreed to some other silly things in this deal, they’ve not only harmed the wider perception of Linux and open source software, they’ve harmed themselves and put the noose around their own neck.
Whatever way anyone tries to cut this, Novell is an exceptionally stupid, naive, incompetent and cowardly company. I’m quite impressed that Redmond seems to have kept a lid on any in-jokes regarding this whole thing.
Wake me when something tangible actually comes out of this deal other than “peace of mind”. Interoperability with Windows is Samba, WINE, and OpenOffice reverse engineering of .DOC. WHAT has this deal done to contribute to these efforts?
I think that it is in the best interest of the consumers.It will make Windows and Linux experience more effortless.
They’re ‘now working closely’?
They were working distantly before?
First off, what has the Microsoft/Novell deal done to better 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.
Secondly, calling people who believe in their personal freedoms fan-boys or OS religion freaks is just plain rude. I believe strongly, that I should not have to rely on some company to provide support or features for the hardware and software that I buy. I believe that the Open Source/Free Software (specifically the GPL) model is the best model to ensure that the code generated by the community (although I also quite like the BSD license) can be made better by the community and thus everyone benefits.
Third, when people send me MS Word or Excel files, or even MP3s and Windows Media Videos I point them to other open formats such as PDF or ODF or Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora. I outline the applications that can be used to create them and where they can find them and I find this to be the only way to raise peoples awareness that alternatives exist. Always taking into account whenever possible that the applications also be cross platform so as to not force them to use my choice of operating system.
Finally, while I believe what I wrote above, I must also be pragmatic. I run 5 labs dealing with HPC and high end visualization. I must support closed source software, drivers and proprietary hardware. I don’t like having to do that, and every chance I get I question whether the requested item is a necessity or whether it can be accomplished using other “open” tools.
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.
I have not insulted your apparent willingness to deal with the broken systems that you so readily agree to deal with and your beliefs that “it’s just the way it is”. Please don’t insult mine.
What has it done to harm the GNU/Linux community?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gee thanks, I feel special now.
People who fail to understand what the core business is are frequently the same people who flat out refuse to use anything but OSS (or non-OSS) software. They think their little corner of the company and their agenda is the single most important thing while it usually isn’t.
Of course. Thinking non-OSS is the only way is equally stupid and unprofessional.
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.
I don’t care for FSF and similar organizations, so yes I could benefit from forking OpenOffice. It is much more convenient for me to exchange files directly, than trying to educate people of something that I don’t believe in.
The Linux community might not benefit from this, because they have specific philosophy. Common consumer, on the other hand, might benefit a lot. I count myself as common consumer in this matter. I don’t want to have “software philosophy” at all. Thank you for presenting us yours, but I don’t want to have anything to do with it.
So it wasn’t enough to sleep with the devil only once?
So this means that we will see new Vista client for Netware 4.2 (IPX/SPX protocol) ?
Cheers, Roman
Ha!
The vista client was released. I wonder if it does indeed support ipx.
My OsNews info page is viewable from Google. I only get modded down. I think it’s good press amongst my user base… this site is infested with people who love linux and mod anything anti-linux or not-linux down. Justice will come the day this site is mocked. Bunch of leftist zealots. What’s wrong with capitalism?
You clearly display your ignorance by implying that anything anti-linux is against capitalism. MS is indeed capitalist, but monopoly capitalist, which bears such a resemblance to the centrally planned economies of Soviet Russia it is difficult to believe that such a thing could be called a product of free market capitalism. Open Source in it’s copyleft variants (of which LINUX is counted) would be considered Cooperative capitalism…to imply a left wing bias on cooperative capitalism as opposed to monopoly capitalism is ridiculous
The well documented strategy of Embrace,Extend and Extinguish is being used again by Microsoft against Linux. Only this time it is complemented by a Divide-and-conquer strategy cherrypicking those distributors that cave in to Microsoft IP (whatever it means) infringement claims and patent protection racket in order to advance its destruction strategy against GPLed software.
Time will put everyone in place, and I bet that Novell and the Gnu/Linux community will experience nasty consequences due to Microsoft pushing its involvement in FOSS in order to poison it by sneaking proprietary technologies into Free Software, and to divide the community between Free(dom – Pro-GPLv3, Software that guarantees everyone the 4basic freedoms, aside of the fact that you can make money out of it)-Software and Open-Source(I dont care about philosphy as long as it provides me profit) camps. By the way: Have you noticed that Microsofties never ever refer to “Free Software” but to Open Source? (as it has been the case as of late with many mainstream tech media and websites?)
Edited 2007-11-09 13:41
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
Won’t work this time, though. They can do the EEE on companies, such as Novell et al., but they can’t do it on a movement. That’s why it is important for Linux to remain something outside of any given corporation – otherwise MS can EEE it easily.