De Icaza Regrets Novell/Microsoft Pact 264
Ian Lamont writes "Novell Vice President and GNOME architect Miguel de Icaza sounded off at a MIX 08 panel on a number of topics. First, he claimed that he was 'not happy' with Novell's cross-patent licensing agreement with Microsoft, saying that if he had his way, the company would have stayed with the open-source community. He also said that neither Windows nor Linux are relevant in the long term, thanks to Web 2.0 business models: 'They might be fantastic products ... but Google has shown itself to be a cash cow. There is a feature beyond selling corporate [software] and patents ... it's going to be owning end users.' He also tangled with Mike Schroepfer, a Mozilla engineering executive, about extending patent protection for Moonlight to third parties. However, de Icaza did say that Novell has 'done the best it could to balance open-source interests with patent indemnification.' We discussed the beginnings of the deal between Microsoft and Novell back in 2006."
Ah. I see. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Novell, sure. Miguel? Not in this lifetime, (Score:5, Informative)
And Miguel De Icaza hasn't been relevant for __DIETY__ knows how long. The original microsoftie wannabe shill-boy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will you forgive him?
Why does he need forgiveness, that was a brilliant business move!
I still don't see what he regrets, Novell only paid the low low price of $350 million [cnet.com] and what do they have to show for that? They can put "Microsoft won't sue us and we'll be interoperable with Windows" on their asset sheet. Buyer's remorse? How could that possibly be! Their investors must be please as punch!
Re:Ah. I see. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually Microsoft paid Novell the $350 million dollars. Which is why Novell isn't interested in backing out of the deal.
In other words, Microsoft was willing to pay Novell $350 million dollars to put a cloud over Linux and Free Software. Novell, in return has to pay a token amount for each commercial distribution sold. Novell is as happy as can be with the situation. After all, Novell can tell its customers that it has taken care of the Microsoft patent issue. So when Microsoft starts talking trash about Free Software and patents Novell can say that it has the solution.
The real problem is that Novell relies on a lot of hackers that aren't part of Novell, and that, in many cases, actually compete against Novell. Now Novell has a deal with Microsoft that makes it look dangerous to purchase your Free Software from anyone but Novell, and that doesn't make these third party hackers happy.
Make no mistake, Novell made out like a bandit. It received well over a quarter of a billion dollars in cash, it became the "preferred Linux vendor" for Microsoft's sales associates, and SuSE Linux is now differentiated from all of the other Linux vendors because Novell has a patent deal with Microsoft. This differentiation has allowed Novell to snag some big clients that almost certainly would have gone with Red Hat otherwise. Novell doesn't have even a tiny bit of buyer's remorse. Novell just wants to be able to keep the Microsoft deal and not lose the trust of the Free Software community that it relies on for more Free Software.
Re:Ah. I see. (Score:5, Insightful)
It can say it but it'd be lying; with GPLv3 the pact becomes worthless.
This differentiation has allowed Novell to snag some big clients that almost certainly would have gone with Red Hat otherwise.
It probably lost them quite a few too. And those who'd been dubious about SuSE's not-quite-free history but warmed up to Novell most likely placed SuSE straight back in the don't-touch-with-a-ten-feet-pole pile.
I'd say the deal has lost them any trust the free software community had. Any code coming out of Novell is now suspect; potentially patent encumbered and possibly intended as a trap. Novell now has a monetary interest in poisoning the community software pool; thats reason enough to distrust anything they say or do.
Re:Ah. I see. (Score:4, Informative)
Only for the patents used by those projects that have adopted the GPLv3.
Re:They have nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't play stupid, Twitter -- you damn well know I'm talking about the Linux kernel (along with other, less important, projects that are still licensed under GPLv2 without the "or later" clause -- which do exist, I'm sure). And you also damn well know that the GNU toolchain can perfectly well be used to build non-GPLv3 (and even proprietary) applications. Output isn't covered by the GPL unless the program puts it's own code into it (and Bison has an exception for that), glibc is LGPL rather than GPL, etc. Speaking of which, gnu.org's glibc manual [gnu.org] still even lists LGPLv2 (not v3) as the license! (I realize it's the COPYING file in the actual source that matters, but I don't have current glibc source available right now and don't feel like bothering to download it to check.)
In other words, I've been around here on Slashdot long enough to know how you can be rather zealous (to put it politely) in your Free Software advocacy, and that means that I can see through your bullshit. But don't misunderstand me: I'm just as big an advocate as you are, and I understand these licensing issues at least as well as you do. I just realize that spreading FUD isn't helpful to the cause, and I look forward to the day that you realize it too.
Re:Ah. I see. (Score:5, Informative)
It can say it but it'd be lying; with GPLv3 the pact becomes worthless.
Re:Ah. I see. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ah. I see. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ah. I see. Ahhhh, will those stones be (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So I should quit my job because they use MS Windows as their platform?
Re: (Score:2)
* Godwin's law invoked purposely and is used in a sarcastic manner. Author of this post in no way endorses the view that proprietary software is evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ah. I see. (Score:4, Funny)
Next time, *I* get the torch.
No (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh dear - permit me to laugh at Miguel for having the last laugh on him and his 'company'.
Yes Gnome is ok, the ooxml feature in the pipe line well thats a mistake but you got to keep Ron (thats his ceo) sweet don't you
Google is open source. If google had to pay microsoft licensing ms would not sell them to Google. So I submit that Novell isn't relevant and if we take his word that the patent fud has not improved that much Novells prospects then the problem lies in the boardroom at Novell.
Miguel please do look forward to becoming a microsoft employee.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than Evolution, is there any reason at all to give a damn about Novell? And if some of Microsoft's protocols do finally see the light of day, I'm sure the FOSS community will be able to come up with some groupware clients.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
To be fair, about the only things I've seen that can hook directly to Kolab are Kontact and Horde, though. But still, Kolab works extremely well for me as a personal Exchange replacement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Novell is the one that is moving towards irrelevancy
I can't touch base with this. Novell's death watch has been on so long it reminds me of 'imminent death of net predicated' Metcalfe-style comments. Novell's 2007 fourth quarter results [novell.com] (Note: PDF) reported a net income of $245 million, around $10 million more than the same quarter the year before.
No juggernaut, but Yahoo Finance reports a market cap of $USD 2.19 billion.
Gone are the giddyup days when Novell owned the NOS market, but Novell keeps on cranking out software products for a remarkably loya
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eric
Re:Ah. I see. (Score:4, Interesting)
<Engage flame retardant vestments of the pious>
No. I swear this idiot thinks he is the next Linus or something. He has made one stupid decision after another in regards to Microsoft and pseudo-MS technology, and now its biting him in the ass. His stupid mistakes are the reason I can no longer run SuSE in good conscience. I hope MS ends up shoving it up his ass and Novell takes a hit for their trouble. Thats what they get for screwing up my fave Linux Distro.
OTOH, if it wasn't for their collective ignorance, I'd have never discovered Kubuntu, which totally rocks. So, thanks Miguel for being a sellout. You have been assimilated and I have been freed. Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He owes a great apology to Gnome people, Mono developers, soon Silverlight developers and the original, real Suse people.
Miguel (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Miguel (Score:5, Insightful)
Not slashdottish (Score:2, Insightful)
Fortunatly there is a worls out there and there are people like Miguel and a lot others that are human (and not Stallbots) and are somewhere in the middle, can make mistakes, can change their minds and are not so afraid of being politically correct in the eyes of the "community" (oh, what a horrible word).
Re:Not slashdottish (Score:5, Insightful)
And now, after years of being abused for this, he's putting the icing on the cake of making an ass of himself by finally admitting that, yes, it really is a damn stupid idea.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not slashdottish (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm always disappointed when I see the abuse heaped on de Icaza by the Slashdot crowd, simply because he doesn't quite hate Microsoft enough. The guy has spent years developing free applications, and has likely written ten times more open source code than his detractors will ever produce. If you actually read his opinions or listen to him speak, it's clear that he is committed to the ideals of free software, he just doesn't buy into the whole partisan "micro$oft sux!" attitude. I wish people would get some perspective on this issue and learn that you can disagree with someone in an informed manner without resorting to childish name-calling. That kind of behavior reflects far worse on the abusers, and confirms the wider perception of Slashdot geeks as childish and belligerent fundamentalists.
Microsoft's dominance is a fact, we (e.g. the free software community) may not like it, but we have to deal with it. De Icaza's stance is that people will use
His more controversial stance is that suggesting that the Microsoft technologies like
Ultimately, it isn't good enough to say to users and developers, you can choose between great proprietary solutions and mediocre open ones. Free software needs to be as good as or better than non-free software if it is to succeed. If it isn't, then most people will inevitably choose the proprietary solutions and free software developers will have to clone them to keep up. So if people don't agree with Miguel de Icaza, then maybe they should concentrate less on attacking him and more on producing great open solutions that will blow Microsoft and everyone else's out of the water.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't do these. Can you blame people? It is up to me to choose which desktop environment to use. I see KDE lot more neutral, professionally coded, nobody blogs how great OOXML is, nothing requires Mono and especially on Gnome case, doesn't bitch amateurly about the OS I use (OS X) and its filesystem down to bugzillas. So I type install bundle-kde
Re: (Score:2)
He, as a vice president, was think
Re:Not slashdottish (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not slashdottish (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you realize that you just stated a polarized viewpoint of a polarized viewpoint? You took a web site full of participants of every background and perspective, and reduced them to a single characteristic -- that of bipolarity.
[ponders carefully with an analytic memory, having been a long time slashdotter] ...Seriously, everyone does that. :/
It involves de Icaza... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The crossroads (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell Robert Johnson hello
But it was worth it to play a guitar like that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Poor judgement (Score:5, Insightful)
To people in the OSS camp, this will seem like too little, too late. That ship has already sailed.
To people in Redmond, this isn't exactly inspiring confidence in the reliability of Novell as a partner, and he's bashing their partnership at their own conference, no less.
And the people "above his paygrade" are probably not going to be too happy with him either.
Re:Poor judgement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poor judgement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poor judgement (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have any examples of where a company has been sued because one member of the management team stated a prefaced, personal opinion contrary to the corporate strategic decision?
Yes he has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders and the corporation. But a personal opinion is unlikely to become a legal issue as long as he handles it right and the board is OK with it.
(IANAL)
-- John.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Poor judgement (Score:4, Interesting)
He just realized what slashdot "jerks" were saying from the start. Any Novell open source is "fruit of the poisoned tree" to the community. Even previously open projects they worked on like samba were in serious trouble of being hijacked by MS IP. (note how MS tried to hijack them in the EU settlement after trying to pay off Novell failed) Novell can only "share" stuff like Moonlight and Mono with other COMPANIES that have Cross-license agreements with MS... SCO, Apple, IBM, etc. Even if they write stuff from scratch (they're not covered for copying MS technology either!!) it's always considered "poisoned" because nobody outside Novell can prove that MS IP wasn't looked at to develop the tech. (That's what SCO started suing IBM for at the beginning) The agreement they signed didn't allow them to DEVELOP technology WITH Microsoft, only not to have their customer sued for using the products Novell provided. He's realizing that's a BIG difference to what he was selling when telling every body the deal was so great.
In short the suits "above" him knew this up front, what the deal really meet and they took the money anyway. He's the only person "surprised" by this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of this aside... I don't think the last chapter of the book about Microsoft buying Yahoo! is written yet. Not that I'm predicting MS will successfully buy Yahoo! in the near future either, but I doubt the initial offer was much more than your choice of an opening gambit or a shot across the bow.
It'll never pass Europe's Antitrust laws. Look at how long it took for them to approve Google's acquisition of DoubleClick. And Google didn't have any $multi-hundred-billion fines to pay the EU, either.
Web 2.0 eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
But I still fail to see how Web 2.0 will make an operating system irrelevant. The browser has to run on something. The server has to run on something too. And with the talk about "local web 2.0 apps", they might even be the same machine. Then you'll really need a good OS to schedule and mediate the needless and vast layers of extra complexity.
Re:Web 2.0 eh? (Score:5, Funny)
No, it's web browsers all the way down.
Re:Web 2.0 eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think he means this in the same way that Marc Andreessen meant it back in ~1996 or so when he talked about making the Browser as the new platform. In same ways, the way Java is a platform, and makes the OS "irrelavent". Essentially, all of them see Web Applications as the destroyer of coupling and vendor lock-in (well at least to Vendor desktop software, you'll be just as locked in to the Web 2.0 applications if they have your data, and won't let you share or mix and match). The thought being that, as long as the OS/platform has a decent Web Browser, it doesn't matter if it's Linux, FreeBSD, QNX, Windows XP/Vista, or MacOS. The experience you have with Google Mail is mostly derived from the quality of the browser implementation of specific technologies, and Google's ability to deal with the sub-standard aspects of that implementation across browers. It's pretty much identical to me on my Windows machine, on my Linux machine, or my MacOS machine. Thus the OS is irrelevant.
I'm not sure I believe in the mindset of these folks. They are moving off into a land of even less reliable, less robust, and less secure. However, having control of the central server, and only being dependent upon the browser and less dependent upon DLL's upon a remote machine is interesting. However, I'm not convinced that in the long run it'll be a viable solution. I really like owning my data. I really like having it all work off line. I know work is being done in those areas, it'll definitely be interesting.
Again, the point of this isn't the the Operating system will be less useful, or necessary. It is just that any good user agent will get you access to enough "applications" that are good enough, it won't matter what Operating System you run. Any "native" OS applications that aren't browsers could just as easily be replaced with Web 2.0 applications, and move along with life.
Not that I agree with any of it, it's merely my explaination of the perspective I think those folks are bringing to the problem.
Kirby
Re:Web 2.0 eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have never seen an audience so under-whelmed and outright scared. They just could not deal with the notion that Netscape was proposing that the OS was irrelevant. "But... but... where's my Windows desktop?".
They left essentially being told "no, please don't work on this -- we wouldn't want it". I had the strange feeling they heard that a lot, and whatever this concept was it died pretty stillborn. The version of Communicator they finally came out with was far far less ambitious than the demo I saw that day.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, just like StarOffice was when Sun first got hold of it, and like Office 2007 is today, and like any number of vertical suites are. It's dreadfully common, and tends to irritate the hell out of anyone trying to get real work done. I call them "Pinky and the Brain" applications. Their mission: t
Re: (Score:2)
He did, in a way, but not exactly. Netscape was flush with IPO money and continued success in the as of yet unresolved browser wars when they started talking about "collaboration" and "groupware". They wanted to turn their product (Navigator) into something that would allow people to collaborate seamlessly in many different ways (something that no one really accomplished until Ray Ozzie took the lessons he learned with Notes and and created Groove). Th
Re:Web 2.0 eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole "desktop will be irrlevent" is stupid. We were there, did that, it sucked on a LAN, I can't see how it wouldn't suck more on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
But for the average person, it's cool to be able to connect with other people on Facebook, and play Scrabulous, even if they can do whatever they want with your information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Web 2.0 eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
From my personal experience? Oh yes. Also, nude pictures of themselves, photos of their marihuana stash, and all manner of things that should really be kept private.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't get the point, why are you on Slashdot? You are using a "web application" right now.
We're working on it. [dataportability.org]
Now that that's out of the way, the few reasons I can think of not wanting someth
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Web 2.0 eh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And if the VM mediates everything (including, presumably hardware access and scheduling on the real CPU), then it is an operating system. In fact you appear to have simply proposed a microkernel OS running in a VM.
Re:Web 2.0 eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Meet the new web, same as the old web... (Score:2)
That's not to say that we didn't see a lot of money out of the dot com era, or that the Web isn't much more relevant to life than it was then... but I'm not really seeing OSes become irrelevant in the near future. There's always a guy out there saying that everything will happen on the Web, and Google Documents or no Google Documents, we're not there yet and I'm no
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO the real failing of Web 2.0 is the lack of integration that small businesses can pull off. Take your local Pizza place. The chains all have websites where you can order on line and even pay online. The local place which has much better pizza has to use the phone and hope you have the phone number or remember it.
Just about e
Web 2.0 can only cover a small portion of apps (Score:5, Insightful)
People who say operating systems are irrelevant because of the web immediately go into the "non-credible tech pundit" bin for me, because they've already shown, by that statement, that they *don't get it*. There are *many* applications we use computers for, which would not be good fits for the "Web 2.0" model. Sure, basic data storage and retrieval apps (documents, databases) can be made "Web 2.0" applications. But what is a Web 2.0 media player (the closest you get is something like Flash or Silverlight/Moonlight, and those are basically native Apps that display their output embedded in the browser window).
Exactly! (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably, the closest thing I can think of is something like mfg.com -- and that's a Web 2.0-ish business that interacts with a program like a Solidworks and the people using it -- not something that tries to replace it.
It'd be unnecessary and a little silly to run a CAD program on that scale in a browser, and it's boggling to me that de Icaza doesn't seem to see that.
Re: (Score:2)
Owned? (Score:4, Funny)
Just as long as they don't whip me and make me pick cotton...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google = free search service therefore advertising revenues are appropriate and I have no objection
My operating system = paid in full, therefore it is an affront to charge me again through advertising
My software = paid in full, therefore it is an affront to charge me again through advertising
What the Web2.0 sheeple seem to believe is that it is perfectly alright to extend double-dipping as a standard business practice even further than it already has become. When an OSS fellow such as this actually has
Linux not relevant? (Score:2)
On the desktop, sure -- and maybe that's all he meant, of course I didn't RTFA -- but in general? No, Linux is going to be relevant for a long time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try running your browser without an operating system! This is why nerds make fun of MBA PHBs, even nerdy PHBs. "Market share" is irrelevent, ESPECIALLY when you're talking about something that can be given away freely.
Money is just a tool, not unlike Windows or Linux. Some people worship their tools, the rest of us co
GNOME going in too many directions (Score:5, Interesting)
Sun for certain will not work with a direct competitor to Java. Red Hat will rightfully avoid including something that requires them to go in bed with Microsoft over patents.
Linux kernel development shows that big free software projects need both enthusiast but also corporate contributors. So GNOME, not unlike the kernel, garnered support by companies like Sun, but also countless small guy contributors. With Mono de Icaza put powerful centrifugal forces that work against GNOME.
just my
sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
Irrelevant != unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
De Icaza didn't say that the OS would become unnecessary, only irrelevant, by which he clearly meant that it would become a commodity without the power to lock people in. If the OS you are running makes no different to your apps (which is ideally the case with "Web 2.0" apps, but not really all that much the case given that many "Web 2.0" apps require not only a standards-compliant browser but also require support infrastructure whose availability, quality, and behavior is not consistent across different OS's.)
How critical that flaw is depends on how ubiquitous connectivity is; anyhow, "web 2.0" apps that can operate in an "offline" mode are a big focus and something de Icaza was no doubt considering in making the statement.
Career paths (Score:5, Funny)
I will assume that Microsoft told Miguel once and for all that they weren't going to hire him, so he decided to quit sucking up to them.
I don't get it (Score:2)
Seriously, I read the Novell's Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org], but aside from some fond reminiscing of one-upon-a-times, do they do anything other than collect old buzzwords?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm currently employed at a small county-level government facility, and over that last 2 years we have (mostly) phased out our remaining Novell boxes in favor of FreeBSD based SAMBA servers. For now anyways. There's an internal push to get rid of the FreeBSD machines now and go to "r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Talk about regret (Score:2)
Let me be the first to say... (Score:2)
Linux matters (Score:5, Insightful)
And the reason why people are moving to Web 2.0 is not because the technology is necessarily better than doing stuff on the desktop, it's because Microsoft's desktop dominance has caused the desktop to stagnate and their monopolistic practices have kept innovators out of the market (it's also because Sun screwed up the one promising alternative model).
We still need Linux to run all those servers. We need Linux to run handheld devices. We need Linux for scientific workstations. And we need Linux for Web 2.0 desktops, desktops that provide standards compliant browsers, RSS software, HTML editors, E-mail clients, backup, P2P, etc. at a combined hardware+software cost lower than a Microsoft Vista license.
Please friend, I bef of you (Score:2)
Re:Please friend, I beg of you (Score:2)
Still missed the boat (Score:4, Insightful)
The real issue is freedom - people want to be able to use software without being treated like criminals. Get rid of cd keys, license terms, eulas, and stop suing your customers!!!
This is where Google has been getting it right so far.... they don't treat their user base as if they are adversaries. It's not so much about the technology as the presentation - any of these technologies *could* get the job done; what people want is the solution with the least hassle, the most dependability, and where they trust the vendor to not screw them over. MS and Novell have both sunk themselves in this regard.
Beer Goggles (Score:4, Funny)
"Beer goggles is a slang term for a phenomenon in which consumption of alcohol lowers sexual inhibitions to the point that very little or no discretion is used when approaching or choosing sexual partners.[citation needed] The term is often humorously applied when an individual is observed making advances towards, later regretting sexual contact with, a partner that is deemed unattractive, unacceptably scandalous, or repulsive when the prospect of sex is considered while sober. The "beer goggles" are considered to have distorted the "wearer's" vision, making unattractive people appear beautiful, or at least passably attractive. Beer goggles are also known as "Stellavision", "Beerglasses" and "The Cider Visor"
Modified slightly
"Patent Indemnification is a term for a phenomenon in which promise of immunity from lawsuit lowers corporate inhibitions to the point that very little or no discretion is used when approaching or choosing corporate partners.The term is often applied when a corporation is observed making advances towards, later regretting contact with, a partner that is deemed unattractive, unacceptably scandalous, or repulsive when the prospect of partnership is considered while sober. Patent indemnification is considered to have distorted the company's vision, making unattractive corporation appear beautiful, or at least passably attractive."
It really sounds like he's regretting a one-night stand.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Google has, so far, enjoyed ample mindshare (almost everyone, myself included is a Google "fanboy"), but if they keep overextending themselves, they will crash and burn before they real
Re: (Score:2)
The nature of Linux is such that Miguel would have a very hard time "damaging" Linux. Competition is helpful and healthy, but the only way Linux will ever truly die is with competition.
Let us imagine a prey animal and a predator. I don't know if wolves actually eat deer in real life, but that's what I'll use. One sick deer does not hurt the deer species. Predation by wolves hurts individual deer but strengthens the species. Of course, it's possible for wolves to hunt the deer t