×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Groklaw Guts the Novell/Microsoft Deal

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the something-to-read dept.

Microsoft 267

walterbyrd writes "Pamala Jones, at groklaw, totally rips apart the Novell/Deal patent protection deal. From the article: 'Justin Steinman reveals that to market their SUSE Linux Enterprise Server against Red Hat they ask, "Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn't?" It's just appalling. Let me ask you developers who are kernel guys a question: When you contributed code to the kernel, was it your intent that it be used against Red Hat? How about the rest of you developers? Is that all right with you, that your code is being marketed by Novell like that? I also have questions about antitrust issues, with Microsoft being Novell's partner in such deals and sales pitches. Nothing speaks louder about Microsoft's true determination never to be actually interoperable than this conference.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

267 comments

Self-serving (-1, Troll)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808845)

Well its rather self-serving that an IBM employee would rip apart the Novell/Microsoft deal. Now if an uninterested and unbiased third party had something to say about the deal that would be insightful.

Re:Self-serving (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20808927)

Maybe if she didn't keep speaking in terms of competing with RedHat, then she'd appear to be more neutral.

But nooooo... Microsoft monopoly == bad, RedHat Linux services monopoly == good.

Re:Self-serving (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20808933)

Urgh !!! I guess you meant "Well it's rather self-serving that IBM employeeS would ..." since it's all well known that PJ is a TEAM of IBM employees... right ?

Well I, for one, welcome our new red-dressed overlods ... :)

proof please .. (3, Insightful)

rs232 (849320) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808965)

"Well its rather self-serving that an IBM employee would rip apart the Novell/Microsoft deal"

Isn't it curious that the entire SCO/Microsoft legal team hasn't been able to come up with any evidence for this. But you carry on not commenting on the article and engage in a dishonest and personal attack - TROLL !!

was: Re:Self-serving

Re:Self-serving (4, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808971)

Well its rather self-serving that an IBM employee would rip apart the Novell/Microsoft deal. Now if an uninterested and unbiased third party had something to say about the deal that would be insightful.
Pamela Jones? An IBM employee? PJ has stated, oh, I don't know, like a few dozen times that she most certainly does not work for IBM and never has. She's a paralegal who works for a law firm. Which one, I don't know, but I'm betting it's not Swain and Cravath, LLC., IBM's legal representation. Especially since she has to get the court filings off of the public legal databases like everyone else and she relies on readers living in Utah to report on court hearings.

But never mind that. Thing is that IBM has a standing relationship with Novell to sell and market SuSE. They also happen to have a similar relationship with Red Hat. But IBM tends to push SuSE more for high-end enterprise stuff than they do Red Hat. I think it boils down to YaST vs. Anaconda/Kickstart. Whatever.

Re:Self-serving (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809141)

Pamela Jones? An IBM employee? PJ has stated, oh, I don't know, like a few dozen times that she most certainly does not work for IBM and never has.
Oh well if its been written on the internet then it must be true!

Just kidding. I was going for +1 Funny with my first post rather then a +1 Serious.

Re:Self-serving (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20810379)

"She's a paralegal who works for a law firm."

I think this is out of date. She now states that she is a journalist.

Re:Self-serving (2, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809075)

And it's rather humorous that you've just recounted SCO's slanders about Pamela being a shill for IBM. Even when the Nasdaq is throwing them out, their fraudulent claims continue as ideas in the minds of people who've never looked deeper.

Did Smith & Wesson want its gun to kill Lennon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809101)

Did Smith & Wesson want its gun to kill John Lennon (maybe Yoko, but not John!)? Did it ask itself this, and then do anything different? Just kidding about Yoko - her music makes blackboard screeches sound good now.

Re:Self-serving (3, Informative)

init100 (915886) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809471)

Now if an uninterested ... third party had something to say about the deal that would be insightful.

Why would any uninterested party say anything about anything?

I don't mean to.. (0, Redundant)

js92647 (917218) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808857)

I don't mean to troll, but with the audience she's tending to, isn't this a bit like preaching to the choir?

Re:I don't mean to.. (4, Interesting)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808923)

I think that some more "mainstream" journalists have written articles on topics after seeing her coverage. It seems like a lot of the tech writers in big media don't bother doing the type of digging that PJ is known for and instead wait for her to do a most of the real work before they decide whether or not to voice their own opinions.

Re:I don't mean to.. (2, Funny)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809029)

It seems like a lot of the tech writers in big media don't bother doing the type of digging that PJ is known for and instead wait for her to do a most of the real work before they decide whether or not to voice their own opinions.

Strike the bit about "deciding whether or not to voice their own opinions" and you perfectly describe the "blogging" community.

Re:I don't mean to.. (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809579)

I swear I read that three times as "I think that some more "mainstream" journalists have written articles on topics after seeing her cleavage" I knew it didn't make sense I go kept rereading it.. Now I'm gonna have to go looking for pics"

Re:I don't mean to.. (5, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809041)

I think the thing that particularly set her off was Novell's Justin Steinman claiming that "the community was no longer upset about the deal" (quoting PJ, not Steinman). She disagrees, and I think the intention of the article was to bring to a wider audience the way Novell are misrepresenting the situation.

And I have to say, I think it's an valid point. I won't claim that we've been unanimous in condemning Novell, but to claim all the objections are yesterdays news smacks of either deliberate deception, or a worrying detachment from reality.

Either way, it reflects poorly on Novell.

Re:I don't mean to.. (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810251)

I don't mean to troll, but with the audience she's tending to, isn't this a bit like preaching to the choir?

Like slashdot would ever preach to the choir.

This is just appalling! (-1, Flamebait)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808867)

I have never been so shocked in my life! The thought of companies like Microsoft and Novell stooping to such tactics over a competitor is just....

Seriously, anyone that didn't see that one coming must have been asleep for a few years. SSDD for MS/Novell.

Re: Groklaw Guts the Novell/Microsoft deal (1)

denelson83 (841254) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808873)

..."totally rips apart the Novell/Deal patent protection deal"... Who's Deal?

Re: Groklaw Guts the Novell/Microsoft deal (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808891)

Typo of Dell perhaps?

Re: Groklaw Guts the Novell/Microsoft deal (1)

denelson83 (841254) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808907)

If true, that's one hefty typo, considering that A and L are at completely opposite ends of the QWERTY keyboard.

Re: Groklaw Guts the Novell/Microsoft deal (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809431)

Dude, the keyboard isn't flat, it is an oblate spheroid. Flat keyboard are so 1490's :)

Re: Groklaw Guts the Novell/Microsoft deal (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809449)

The amazing thing is that CmdrTaco has enough time on his hands to change the OP title to something more appropriate (compared to how it appears in the Firehose), and expands the link to contain more words, but can't be bothered to fix the three other typographical errors that all occur within the first 10% of the OP.

No problem here... (4, Insightful)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808903)

"Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn't?"

The one that doesn't, of course.

To me, that's like asking, "Do you want the wrench that works with the Edsel, or the one that doesn't?"

I guess if I was an Edsel mechanic, that would matter. But since the Edsel sucks, and my business isn't repairing other people's Edsel's, I really couldn't care less... Yes, I am being glib, and I understand the needs of "the Enterprise" ... but my enterprise needs computers that work and people who are competent enough to use something like pre-installed Ubuntu (hoo boy, guess they'll have to go back to school for that!)

You are right, for you. (1)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808979)

And possibly for all the other geeks out there.

This is all oriented to the PHBs out there that have been told to "investigate this Linux thing" and are afraid to step out from under the Microsoft umbrella.

Re:You are right, for you. (2, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809403)

Well, if this is for the PHB's investigating that linux thing, What is the message being sent? Is it stay away because we will attempt to attack the Linux distro who looks like they are going good in the commercial offerings? Or is the point that there would be no easy inter-operation with MS operating systems?

Actually, this article is just more FUD at a time when Linux should be doing quite well. It is as if people are afraid of success or something. Most developers wouldn't care about Novell Out doing business with RedHat because they write Free Software and if competition isn't free then what is?

So far, most of the problems with MS-Novell deal have materialized only in the minds of critics with something to gain. They have even went as far as putting words into Novells mouth and acting like it was the gospel. This article illustrates quite a bit of this and the summery reminds me of 4 year olds on the playground saying Don't like him because I don't like him. Maybe a reason that linux doesn't look like a mature platform to many is because the people surounding it aren't mature. Maybe There is more to this stuff then good working Code?

Re:No problem here... (2, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809015)

To me, that's like asking, "Do you want the wrench that works with the Edsel, or the one that doesn't?"

The Edsel was a commercial failure (wikipedia says, "The car brand is best known as one of the most spectacular failures in the history of the United States automobile industry"), so...how exactly is your analogy relevant given that Windows is the dominant operating system?

Unfortunately, (1)

JustJim0183 (747076) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809051)

To strain your analogy, there happen to be an awful lot of "edsel mechanics" out there.

To be fair to the "edsel mechanics", quite often they are not "edsel mechanics" by choice. For some unfathomable reason, the corporate world is in love with M$ and quite often the poor techie finds himself forced to work on edsels rather then jags.

Ever had a real job? No? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809209)

Yeah... Let's see you tell upper management that they need to pay to retrain the entire user base so that they can use *your* desktop operating system of choice rather than the desktop OS that both the company and everyone else in their business space has been using successfully for over a decade. Let's see you do that so you can get fired. Sounds like someone is still in school and has never had a real job. Trust me, kid, when you get out into the real world your thinking is going to get much more realistic.

Re:No problem here... (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809703)

Perhaps if the Edsel was the Model T...

Because the Edsel was a flop- Windows is the most profitable and popular software franchise ever. The Edsel would better be compared to a failed linux distro such as (too many to name).

Terrible metaphor. C-

Re:No problem here... (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810375)

The Edsel would better be compared to a failed linux distro such as (too many to name).

Is someone forgetting Windows Millenium, the {former} bastard child of the Windows lineup?

YADAA.... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809913)

Yet Another Dumb Automotive Analogy.
"my enterprise needs computers that work and people who are competent enough to use something like pre-installed Ubuntu".
I really hate to point this out but Windows 2000 and XP do work. In an enterprise setting where they are behind a fire wall and locked down correctly Windows XP and 2K work pretty well. Add in the huge amount of custom software that many enterprises have written over the years in VB and you have a system that works well for many companies. So yes Linux is technically a better OS than Windows XP/2K but Windows isn't an Edsel.
I am interested just how Suse works better with Windows than other Linux servers do. This could be nothing more than marketing spin or Novell does have access to some hooks that other Linux providers don't

Funny summary (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808919)

"Pamala Jones, at groklaw, totally rips apart the Novell/Deal patent protection deal."

What's that Novell/Deal? Something along the lines of GNU/Linux?

Classic Microsoft - Shades of the Apple deal (5, Interesting)

he1icine (512651) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808945)

Classic Microsoft - leverage a partnership with a company seen as your enemy, yet try to do so to keep them at the mercy of the guys in Redmond. That's why MS has always tried to do with Apple - prop them up so they can be seen as viable, but make them your bastard stepchild anyway. This is just a more appalling trespass as they managed to get Novell in a position to market the hard work of thousands of contributors, who simply wanted a free viable alternative for those not wanting to be held to MS's will, in a way quite opposite of the motivation of that work.

I've always liked SUSE as a distro, but once the Novell deal went through, I knew it was only a matter of time until the sour taste was just a little too sickening, making it unconscionable to fathom dealing with them for the foreseeable future. There are better distros out there anyway.

Re:Classic Microsoft - Shades of the Apple deal (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809179)

Hmm... Sorry but that have that half worng. MS wanted to work with Apple but I'm sure that Apple was more willing to work with MS than the other way around. Remember that in those times, Apple was a dying company, Stevie Jobie was not back yet and the Mac was losing more users than I'm losing my hair. Apple needed desperatly some cash (and moral) injection and this is when MS came in.

In this case, I would say that Novell is in absolutly the same situation. When Ubuntues and RedHats and Mandrivas and the whole world is releasing distros that are more popular than you, you NEED something to stick out. So, yes, MS is interested on a partnership, but they are always searching new business fields. But the other part... they are those who are REALLY interested.

Re:Classic Microsoft - Shades of the Apple deal (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809931)

"I've always liked SUSE as a distro"

SuSE the company had a long history of straddling the fence, never quite embracing the freedom in free software. The Novell takeover seemed promising for a while, but now it's back to the old proprietary language and attitude.

I find such vendors inherently untrustworthy. Perhaps it's internal wrangling or bad habits from a long history in the proprietary business, but it makes it very difficult to extend any benefit of the doubt to them.

"There are better distros out there anyway."

Yep. There are several Linux vendors who have consistently shown their dedication to free software in both words and actions. Personally I prefer doing business with people who've shown themselves to have a solid sense of business ethics any day.

Re:Classic Microsoft - Shades of the Apple deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20810221)

Better distros? You mean like Debian Mouldy or Debian Stale? Or maybe you're refering to "I won't play your Mp3s', I might break any minute and I definitely will shove at lest parts of Gnome down your throat" Fedora? Or maybe you're refering to Ubuntu wich is pretty much the same? Please don't get me started on Kubuntu..

So what are you refering to as "better distros", exactly? Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:Classic Microsoft - Shades of the Apple deal (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810381)

Considering where Apple was back then, and where Apple is now... if the same happens with Linux, its more than we could have expected any other way, IMO.

oh, shut the fuck up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20808975)

Contrary to the dreams of minority evangelists, the GPL outside of academia has only really been effective in the way Linus has used it - as an engineering choice, not a stamp of socialism. If you are contributing code under the GPL, then you are granting anyone the right to use that code however they please in accordance with the GPL - and if that means competing against your company, so be it. I'd be rather more surprised if a competitor didn't use your GPL code to gain a competitive advantage, if they could do so.

Stallman needs to either come out and say "I dislike capitalism" (and I'm not making a moral judgement on that statement) then incorporate an anti-capitalism clause in his license, or he needs to accept that firms work with the license because it is profitable for them. By extension, the various pro-GPL lawyers can either come out and declare their dislike for capitalism (in which case, they should be a lot more careful about where they practice and who they teach) or stick to worrying about the legal implications of the GPL rather than warm fuzzy feelings that some people associate with it that simply don't exist.

Re:oh, shut the fuck up (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809057)

Stallman isn't anti-capitalist. GPL V2 was written specifically to make it clear that people could make money off of GPLed code. The GPL doesn't try to 'eliminate' capitalism by any stretch. In fact, it creates more capitalistic opportunities than closed source software. The GPL, the way I see it, isn't socialist, but libertarian. It seeks to prevent people from manipulating markets and eliminating competition through the control of software and copyright law.

Re:oh, shut the fuck up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809275)

BSDL is libertarian, GPL is socialist. GPL creates the _illusion_ of more capitalistic opportunities than closed source. It's in very narrow fields that it isn't true; for example if you're in the hardware business, it might be a plus.
If you're a mediocre doctor you want a socialist medical system, so that you can reap the benefits of the illusionary value of you profession instead of your actual medical skill. If you're a great doctor, you want a libertarian so that you can reap the benefits of your own skills. The same with BSDL vs. GPL. If you're skilled you probably prefer BSDL as you can reap the benefits of your skills. While the GPL, you can reap the benefits of others, _combined_, efforts.
So, from a strict capitalistic view: socialism is the belief that common men together brings greater benefits than those of geniouses. I'm not arguing against it in the common case. However, without the works of great inventors like Håkan Lans we wouldn't be where we are today. Yet, socialist assholes want to take his stuff and not reward him for it. So, in the end we might not great expensive advances but a lot of free mediocre stuff.

GPL is pure communism (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809371)

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

By making you redistribute your changes under the GPL, that's what the GPL does. The BSD license is libertarian: "Do what you want with this."

Software is probably the only place in the universe such a theory could work, too. Because you can make a copy of software and leave the original intact. You can't do that with any other type of resource, so the "from each according to his abilities" and the "to each according to his needs" parts of communism fail - demonstrably and miserably.

But because in the software world, making a copy doesn't disturb the original in any way, that concept does not fail at all - it actually works really well. All because one can take a software resource without actually taking it from someone else.

shut up yourself, leech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809825)

For someone who's sucked more out of the community than has made any contributions, your opinion is worthless.

Shock! Horror! (-1, Troll)

ricky-road-flats (770129) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808977)

Marketing comes to the Linux world!

Seriously, so fricking what? This is how marketing works. If Linux wants to make it good in the big, bad business world, it needs marketing. Marketing involves half-truths, white lies, one-sided comparisons with competitors, massive amplififcation of small features, and a big dose of out-and-out bullshit. All Red Hat have to do is reflect in their marketing that their stuff works with Windows too - and I'm sure they already have people working on that.

Re:Shock! Horror! (2, Funny)

Krondor (306666) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809107)

Introducing the brand new steam motor carriage, courtesy of Stanley Motor Carriage Company! Featuring the latest in horseless carriage technology! Steam powered and built with pride!

Stanley Motor Carriage Company would like to take this time to talk to you about a growing concern for all of us. As you might have heard several NEW companies such as, Ford Motor Company, are selling horseless carriages based around the internal combustion engine. Did you realize that the internal combustion engine would be more accurately named the internal explosion engine! There are literally thousands of explosions an hour happening right in front of the driver every hour. Just imagine what could happen if one of them went wrong!

Stanley, on the other hand, is committed to maintaining our safe steam powered vehicles. Everyone knows that through the magic of steam, clean and safe travel is assured. And of course water won't explode.

Thank you for your continued patronage.

Re:Shock! Horror! (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809241)

There are literally thousands of explosions an hour happening right in front of the driver every hour. Just imagine what could happen if one of them went wrong!
That would be libel. Given that these companies also have BIG corporate sponsors who have a vested interest in seeing Microsoft fail, they could sue them and win. That is, of course, if your automobile analogy was accurate.

Re:Shock! Horror! (1)

Krondor (306666) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809545)


That would be libel...


Of course back in 1920 who knows what would have held up in trial, but that is probably a line more likely to be said by the Stanley salesman with a nod and wink.

Just using the obligatory auto analogy to illustrate how marketing has always worked.

Re:Shock! Horror! (1)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809213)

Seriously, so fricking what? This is how marketing works. If Linux wants to make it good in the big, bad business world, it needs marketing.

Fair enough. And just as soon as Novell get of their arses and write their own operating system, they can market it however they like without fear of criticism.

But until that glorious day should come, I would urge them to show a little more respect for the people whose hard work makes it possible for them to bring a product to market.

Re:Shock! Horror! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809553)

Huh? Is the free in free software something that carries the You are as free as I let your be type freedom? I mean we can redefine freedom to mean you can't use it either. I guess that would make it more free for some, wouldn't it? Well, maybe if they said it would.

As for those who made it? Novell/SuSE has planted a lot of code there. You would think that someone wanting respect from a company over code that company wrote would be willing to give some respect in it's own right. I Imagine that if the Free software community didn't want supported interoperability with MS software or large companies marketing their software, they would have wrote something in the license to make that point. They haven't so I don't see why doing so isn't respecting anything.

Maybe this respect your talking about is something only you and a handful of others want but never had it written into a license being used? Is this more of a case of the GPL being overtaken by zealots and losing practical meaning? Meaning that can only be interpreted to those with the loudest voice? Or is it a case of misguided people injecting their personal preferences and a website struggling to stay in the highlight now that they purpose is starting to go away? I would expect Groklaw to move onto other things now that SCO is going the way of the Dodo bird, But this type of made up sensationalism is just garbage from the get go.

Re:Shock! Horror! (1)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810081)

Huh? Is the free in free software something that carries the You are as free as I let your be type freedom? I mean we can redefine freedom to mean you can't use it either. I guess that would make it more free for some, wouldn't it? Well, maybe if they said it would.

Free software doesn't enter into it. They are free to do as they please within the terms of the licence. However, they might nevertheless be wise not to aggravate the community of developers who produce so much of the code they sell. And if they do deliberately set out to subvert the clear intent of those developers as reflected in their choice of licence, well they needn't act all baffled when people get angry with them.

As for those who made it? Novell/SuSE has planted a lot of code there. You would think that someone wanting respect from a company over code that company wrote would be willing to give some respect in it's own right.

They had plenty until they decided to do an end run around the terms of the GPL. They might have plenty again if they stop. In the meantime, it's not their code to do with as they please, and until they understand that, they may find respect a little harder to come by.

Is this more of a case of the GPL being overtaken by zealots and losing practical meaning?

See, a lot of the people getting upset are the people who wrote the code. I think they're entitled to an opinion on the subject, and I don't really think you can dismiss them as zealots.

Like Jeremy Allison said - if we found a loophole that let us sell MS office legally, do you suppose Microsoft would be happy? Or slow to close it? Why then do Novell suppose free software developers would feel any differently?

Re:Shock! Horror! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20810117)

Novell has contributed more code to the Linux kernel than all the ranting GPL sychophants on groklaw put together. And I don't recall you people showing Linus much respect either whenever he hasn't marched to your drumbeat.

Re:Shock! Horror! (2, Insightful)

burnin1965 (535071) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810187)

Marketing involves half-truths, white lies, one-sided comparisons with competitors, massive amplififcation of small features, and a big dose of out-and-out bullshit.

You are confusing marketing [google.com] with fraud [google.com].

Its an understandable mistake considering the level of fraud that is used in marketing but they are still not the same thing.

All Red Hat have to do is reflect in their marketing that their stuff works with Windows too - and I'm sure they already have people working on that.

Red Hat usually does put forth an effort to counter marketing FUD like this so I to expect to see a response. But its also nice to see such questionable marketing tactics criticized in the media and by a popular blogger.

Excellent Attitude (0, Flamebait)

frankxcid (884419) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808991)

This is just the attitude that will keep Linux out of the main stream. Instead of praising the one organization that is actually gaining market share for a Linux OS, The /. community is branding them unworthy of geekdom. Reminds me of the novices asking for Linux advice being ridiculed and call noobs by the establishment.

Re:Excellent Attitude (4, Interesting)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809037)

One of the primary reasons that Novell/SuSE were gaining market share was Samba. Guess what? Jeremy Allison, one of the core Samba authors, left Novell over what he sees as the illegal behavior of Novell in this deal. He now works for Google.

If Microsoft wanted to try to control Samba development, they may have done so. But I'd expect Google to run with the network storage work, now, with Jeremy in place.

Re:Excellent Attitude (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809459)

If you read the article on Friday, Novell has gained more market share since joining Microsoft then they had in years past. $100M in new business. All in all, may have been a good trade.

Re:Excellent Attitude (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809055)


Nice Troll.

If you are not going to read the article why bother posting? You have no knowledge of the facts, so stop masturbating in public.

Moron.

Re:Excellent Attitude (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809339)

Wait company bosses actually listen to anonymous people on the internet? Shit what companies do you know that have these sort of bosses? I'd hate to accidentally work for one of them.

This isn't the worst. (1)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808993)

Nothing speaks louder about Microsoft's true determination never to be actually interoperable than this conference.

Really? Nothing speaks louder? How about Internet Explorer? Why would Microsoft spend so much resources to create it's own inferior browser, rather than just including Firefox, if not to get people hooked on something that only works in their OS? Ever heard of MOO-XML? How about the Halloween documents?

I don't grok Novell's motivations (5, Interesting)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808997)

On the one hand, there is the M$ deal.

On the other hand, there are the Good Things that Novell has done, and does, for GNU/Linux and F/OSS.

On the third hand, there is me, and others like me, that I'm sure wonder about the MPD that Novell exhibits. To whit: I understand and agree that Open-solution based entities should be willing and able to work with proprietary companies. But it seems that in this instance Novell is going about that the completely wrong way, with the completely wrong company.

It's like there is Novell Darkside, and Novell Lightside, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Maybe these are just the actions of a corporation that is so large that the different divisions inside of it are unaware of what others are doing, a la Sony.

Re:I don't grok Novell's motivations (1)

rbochan (827946) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809737)

On the one hand, there is the M$ deal.

Yes, and Novell should know better - they've been dicked over my Microsoft before.

 

On the other hand, there are the Good Things that Novell has done, and does, for GNU/Linux and F/OSS.

Novell, to some extent - yes. SuSE - absolutely - but don't confuse the two.

 

On the third hand, there is me, and others like me, that I'm sure wonder about the MPD that Novell exhibits. To whit: I understand and agree that Open-solution based entities should be willing and able to work with proprietary companies. But it seems that in this instance Novell is going about that the completely wrong way, with the completely wrong company.

I'm right there with you, but 'Open-solution based entities' need open standards and API's to remain open. Microsoft doesn't give a shit about that... they _only_ care about their bottom line - make no mistake.

 

It's like there is Novell Darkside, and Novell Lightside, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

It would seem to me to be the difference between Novell and SuSE.

 

Maybe these are just the actions of a corporation that is so large that the different divisions inside of it are unaware of what others are doing, a la Sony.

Honestly, I see that an merely an excuse. And just as in Sony's case, excuses are bogus.

Re:I don't grok Novell's motivations (1)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810213)

Novell, the ingenius company that tried to sell UNIX to SCO until Novell realized that SCO didn't have the cash.

Marketing and producing (3, Interesting)

saterdaies (842986) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808999)

As disgusting as this might be, it's going to have very little impact on Linux. It's marketing and unfortunately even Free Software is not immune from marketing. RedHat markets as well with slogans like "more than mission critical".

While I can't defend what Novell is doing here, I do want to point out that after buying SuSE, they created an open-source community project around a distribution that was one of the most closely kept. The openSUSE project now releases free SUSE downloads - something SUSE had been against. Novell also bought Ximian which I think has a great reputation in open-source development and Novell has been continuing the work that they have done.

Is it possible that Novell needs this marketing to overcome the fact that it is a late entrant? Maybe, judging by the other things that Novell has done (opening up a formerly closed distro and continuing important work on open-source projects) it is ok to forgive them for this highly annoying example of stupidity? Maybe I'm just naive and this actually is a bigger deal.

Re:Marketing and producing (1, Informative)

muffel (42979) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809305)

The openSUSE project now releases free SUSE downloads - something SUSE had been against
Huh? SuSE has (had) always been free to download via ftp.suse.com.

Re:Marketing and producing (3, Informative)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810073)

It used to only be 6 months after the release of the commercial distro. This changed with 10.0, IIRC.

Re:Marketing and producing (0, Troll)

jkrise (535370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809337)

The openSUSE project now releases free SUSE downloads - something SUSE had been against. Novell also bought Ximian which I think has a great reputation ...

I think Novell, Ximian (Xandros) and other similar companies are approaching Linux from a totally wrong angle - in Mono, Moonlight and Evolution... they are APIng Microsoft's Defective By Design APIs; instead of defining a truly Open platform, Open Protocols and Open Implementations of said protocols.... like Zimbra for instance; which probably explains why Yahoo (another friend of MS bought them over.

This Novell approach will result in mediocre quality implementations of poor products; and only hurt Linux in the long run. The value proposition of Linux is NOT that it can do Windows better... it is that there are much better ways to do things which Windows purportedly aims to achieve.

GPL and Intent (5, Insightful)

JerryLove (1158461) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809061)

Let me ask you developers who are kernel guys a question: When you contributed code to the kernel, was it your intent that it be used against Red Hat?
I know it's a small piece of a bigger article: but since when does it matter what someone who submitted something to GPL intended their code to be used for. The licese is explicitly and intentionally designed to allow open-source code to be used for any purpose by anyone, as long as it's credited and open-source. I'm sure there's someone out there who wrote code who thinks cell-phones cause cancer and dislikes his LINUX code running on a cell; or someone who'se pissed about millitary research done on LINUX clusters, or most anything else. It's a really baseless argument intended to appeal more to emotion than reason; and I have to say that I'm prone to dismissing the author based on just such an example.

Re:GPL and Intent (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809259)

I know it's a small piece of a bigger article...

Nowhere else in the article does she come up with any valid legal point of the sort that "totally rips apart" would suggest. There's nothing there but "OMG Teh Community!" ranting.

Re:GPL and Intent (3, Insightful)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809621)

since when does it matter what someone who submitted something to GPL intended their code to be used for. The license is explicitly and intentionally designed to allow open-source code to be used for any purpose by anyone, as long as it's credited and open-source.
You're quite right, of course. But I don't think the intention with that statement was for legal action against Novell for breaking the GPL, or a rewrite of the GPL itself.

Rather, I think the intention was a "call to action" more along the lines of publicly criticizing Novell/Microsoft, and thereby putting pressure on them.

You can agree with the GPL and the universal freedoms it provides, while simultaneously putting pressure on particular companies to not be jerks. The "when you contributed code" statement was, in my estimation, intended to imply that Novell is generating bad will among the very people it depends upon for continued software improvements. What Novell is doing may be legal, but that doesn't mean we have to like it, and sit by silently.

Most important quote from the article (4, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809065)

How can Novell not care about that? They are benefiting from code that was written by people who are now not protected from patent claims from Microsoft, and Novell is making money from doing a deal with the company threatening them.

Need I say more. This deal is a shame.

Re:Most important quote from the article (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809901)

Yea, you need to say more.

The GPLed code is written and released under a license that says it is Perfectly OK for anyone else to use for anything and for anyone else take advantage of. If Novel had done this and the only thing making the ordeal bad is the Idea of Patents, then I think whoever wrote the code should have made sure they didn't violate any patents. The GPLv3 doesn't do anything to fix this either.

Microsoft Platform Strategy (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809093)

"Before, Linux was this cloud we didn't get. I was high-fiving everyone I could find when Novell bought SuSe. We already won once against Novell." Martin Taylor, Microsoft General Manager of platform strategy link [forbes.com]

Much ado about nothing... (2, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809119)

Even windows isn't working with Windows these days... what with Vista breaking so many apps that worked on all previous versions upto XP SP2. Novell making money from big corporate customers is only a very transient issue... once they figure out that Linux can work as well as Windows on servers and web-based services on Firefox-Linux desktops; they will eventually explore other non-tainted distros as well.

For a hospital where I consult, for instance, we have decided to go in with PACS-One deployed on top of Cent OS, not even RedHat. Other corporates will do likewise, once they understand what benefits Linux can bring them. This is a very transient and pyrrhic victory for Microsoft-Novell, and rightly so.

Competition is good (2, Insightful)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809123)

Let me ask you developers who are kernel guys a question: When you contributed code to the kernel, was it your intent that it be used against Red Hat? How about the rest of you developers?
If they wanted to contribute code to a kernel that wouldn't hurt Red Hat, they should have released it under some license that would prohibit competition against Red Hat.

What Ms. Jones doesn't seem to realize is that competition between software companies is a good thing. It leads to more innovation and a better end-user experience (after all look at Microsoft Word. We had only one major office suite and we have the same interface for over 10 years with minimal changes between 98, 2000 and 2003. OOo comes along and despite its small marketshare it still provided the impetus for Office 2007 to actually make real changes to the interface. Same with IE).

all sales are Microsoft sales to some degree now.
Except they're not. Red Hat sales aren't Microsoft sales. Neither are Mac sales. Only Microsoft (which is the majority of sales) and Novell sales. People migrating to Novell due to Microsoft's teeming with them is actually a good thing. This will help get people use to the Linux environment and allow other competitors such as Red Hat to offer better deals then Microsoft which will allow even further migration away from Microsoft. Or it could cause Microsoft to eventually dump its closed-source code and pitch in entirely with open source code. Now these last two options are going to take a long time to come to fruition (with it being doubtful if Microsoft will ever dump its closed source OS), however Linux has been around for a long time and it is only slowly gaining marketshare. If the Microsoft/Novell deal does increase the adoption of SUSE in favor of Windows, then this should actually help people move away from Microsoft in the long run.

My opinion is that Novell offers MonopoLinux
This is the first Groklaw article I've read and if this hyperbole is typical of its offerings I'm amazed so many people listen to it. This is of the quality one would typically find in a slashdot rant. I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.

Long-term, that is the death of Linux as we know it, if Microsoft were successful in getting everyone to sign such a deal.
That's a pretty big if. Somehow I find myself doubting that Microsoft's fud campaign will manage to do little more then stagnate the small tide of people moving away from Windows for a short time. Eventually if you cry wolf long enough without producing one, people stop listening. If Microsoft doesn't ever go to court but simply continues to keep the fud campaign going year after year, people will stop listening.

But taking other peoples' code and going against their wishes, as reflected in the license
Which part of the GPL v2 says that people should be able to use, modify and distribute their patent infringing code without any repercussions? As I said, the FUD campaign will only work in the short term if all Microsoft does is provide fud.

The Microsoft lawyer there says the company is "very active" in looking for ways to work with the Open Source community without violating GPLv3, arrangements "similar" to the Novell deal. In other words, that type of exact deal is blocked. They are trying to figure out how to get around v3 in some way that is similar but not blocked.
And good luck to them. Personally I hope they fail. But if they don't try, then sometime down the line someone else will. Its better the loopholes be found now so it can be revised early on before v3 gains too much widespread acceptance and we have the difficulty of migrating to v4 that we're seeing with v3.

Of course, the large customers don't understand the implications of this deal to the FOSS ecosystem, but Novell should.
What concerns are these? Given this is my first article from groklaw all I'm seeing is fear, uncertainty and doubt being spread in the article. I don't fancy looking through the other articles if this is an accurate representation of the website's work either.

Microsoft avoids true interoperability
Of course it does, as is its right. However despite this we're seeing people moving away from IE to Firefox. Microsoft's interoperability is helping to avoid Microsoft from losing its customer base, but it isn't stopping it. Its interoperability is also working against it with people having difficulty with Office 2003 documents being worked on in Office 2007. Whereas OOo doesn't have this problem as people can upgrade to the latest version at anytime. The second OOo gets some better marketing (like Firefox has) is the second we'll see an increase in OOo adoption. Although I'm noticing university computers have OOo installed in XP as well as Linux while I imagine a few years ago it only had Microsoft Office. So adoption is progressing.

We're also seeing people talking about legislation mandating the government use open document formats, something we weren't seeing a mere 10 years ago. Microsoft is losing the war, everything it does lately is only having the effect of slowing down the degree of which its losing.

It's very plain that this was driven by marketing on Novell's side. Steinman actually praises Silverlight and the Moonlight tagalong. Miguel will be speaking about Moonlight on a Microsoft stage, he says, and he's proud of that.
What's the open source alternative to these patent-laden programs? There isn't one? Well I guess we know which one people will use then.

1. Both Nat Friedman and Miguel de Icaza are reported to have visited Microsoft to say that the patent agreement as written isn't acceptable, and Microsoft said itself publicly that a change was needed. Where is the rewrite? When might we expect it? What will the changes be?

2. For Mr. Palfrey: If Linus or Groklaw or any FOSS developer sent a registered letter or published an Open Letter to Steve Ballmer, asking for a specific list of Microsoft patents that he believes support his claim that Microsoft has "IP" in Linux or FOSS, if Microsoft failed to provide the list, would the defense of waiver later be available? What other strategy might be successful, since no one in the FOSS community is interested in violating Microsoft patents, if any actually existed, but no one can ameliorate without specificity? How can such a specific list be forced out of them?

3. For Novell: You promised the community that you would use your patent portfolio to protect Linux. Now you ally with this Microsoft statement, that the deal is "enabling both companies to recognize commercial value from their respective patent portfolios." Why did you break that promise? Do you care that the majority of the FOSS community is opposed to software patents? How do you reconcile the clear intent of GPLv2 that no restrictions, such as a patent license, can be added to the GPL and what you signed?
All good questions. Shame you decided to vent because you couldn't ask them.

Re:Competition is good (5, Interesting)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809437)

What Ms. Jones doesn't seem to realize is that competition between software companies is a good thing. It leads to more innovation and a better end-user experience

That largely depends on how they compete though. If I compete with you by blowing up one of your offices, that doesn't improve the quality of my software, and does nothing for the end user. If you compete back by killing my top developers, the only innovation we're going to see will be in weaponry.

You can see this in Microsoft: world class PR machine, but in terms of software... well, they can't even design a power-off button without five years of committees, meetings, and focus groups.

all sales are Microsoft sales to some degree now.
Except they're not.

mmm... you cut that paragraph a little too short, I think. Here's a longer section:

He actually says that before this deal, a customer wanting Linux would go 100% Linux. Microsoft was out of the picture. Now that the deal is in place, Microsoft gets to stay involved with Novell on the sales calls, staying in the picture, and don't forget that Novell is paying Microsoft, so I guess you could say that from Microsoft's perspective, all sales are Microsoft sales to some degree now.

Keep on like that, and you'll have to change your handle to "quotes_out_of_context"

This is the first Groklaw article I've read and if this hyperbole is typical of its offerings I'm amazed so many people listen to it. This is of the quality one would typically find in a slashdot rant. I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.

Go read some of the legal research. Look at how closely the Groklaw analyse the legal filing in the SCO case. Look at the care they take to be accurate. That's why PJ is so widely respected. For her hard work and dedication to defending free software from a threat against which of the Linux hackers wouldn't have known where to start.

Granted, when she moves off law and on to wider subjects, she can sometimes go a bit over the top. I don't think she has in this particular article, but even if she did - I figure all that hard work earns her the right to voice the occasional opinion.

Re:Competition is good (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809659)

Keep on like that, and you'll have to change your handle to "quotes_out_of_context"
I misunderstood (and still do) the quote as to me it sounds like she's still saying all sales are Microsoft sales. Although I'll bow to your claim that she only means Novell sales are Microsoft sales.

Re:Competition is good (1)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809887)

I think they key was "from Microsoft's perspective".

I'll grant that it's not phrased with her usual clarity, but I don't think she was trying to suggest that RedHat sales were somehow irrelevant, or had gone away.

Truth or troll? (1)

zjbs14 (549864) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810041)

Nice self-deprecation, although I did read your (now modded down) post below [slashdot.org] that claimed PJ was an IBM employee. So, I find your claims of this being the first Groklaw article you've read somewhat suspect.

Re:Competition is good (2, Informative)

c (8461) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809479)

> This is the first Groklaw article I've read and if this hyperbole is typical of its offerings
> I'm amazed so many people listen to it.

As with slashdot, you gotta pick and choose.

Groklaw's articles following the SCO lawsuits are second to none. Okay, the lawyers and judges involved might have better seats, but otherwise you want to go with Groklaw. A bit of bias, sure, the odd bit of self-referential hyperbole, but generally things are well done.

Groklaw's coverage of more general "community" issues... I really don't have anything good to say about how it's done. I pretty much ignore it (sometimes it links to better stuff), and suggest you do the same.

c.

Re:Competition is good (1)

radarjd (931774) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809555)

This is the first Groklaw article I've read and if this hyperbole is typical of its offerings I'm amazed so many people listen to it. This is of the quality one would typically find in a slashdot rant. I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.

I tend to agree with you. Another response to you claims that PJ's analysis is respected -- and that might be true of the people who agree with her opinion before she writes it. I think her analysis is sometimes correct, and sometimes not. I think you have to remember it's her blog -- she's not an attorney.

Re:Competition is good (3, Informative)

non (130182) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810069)

have a look at this user's first comment on this story here [slashdot.org]

Re:Competition is good (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810247)

> I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.

It is when it comes to covering the SCO case. They not only post blow-by-blow detail with the source legal documents themselves, they've scored a few scoops, like being the first to dig up the purchase agreement between Novell and SCO (which for those not following along, is what ultimately hung SCO). Even with those stories though, you have to ignore much of the taunting tone of the analysis.

And it's not that groklaw's ever been dispassionate, but it's still declined nonetheless. I no longer see any insightful analysis in most of the comment by the likes of Quatermass or actual lawyers chipping in; instead, it's glued the word "sychophantic" firmly into my vocabulary, and the comments provide nothing but filler in a boring day.

groklaw won; time to close up shop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809151)

Groklaw served its purpose - SCO has been defeated and our victory was glorious.

This seems like PJ is desperately grasping at straws, trying to find another issue to keep her and her site relevant.

The great thing about Open Source... (3, Interesting)

tuxisthefuture (906335) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809203)

Developers are free to join a project to help improve it, they are also free to abandon such projects enmass to equally stifle the products development and therefore screw those companies who are relying on the developers efforts to bring to market a good product!

The big picture (4, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809311)

Microsoft has some emerging issues it has to deal with:

- the threat of a free OS commoditizing what they worked so hard to keep unique in Windows
- the emerging of accepted open standards that turn Microsoft's proprietary alternatives against themselves and wall them from the rest of the world
- the emerging of plenty of companies ready to deliver free OS components and support to Microsoft's corporate customers (which will directly affect Microsoft's bottom line and the industry trends in adoption of Windows)

Microsoft's business strategists have done a careful and detailed analysis of their situation and arrived at the infamous "patent deals". They have drawn the decision chart and figured, there's no way for them to lose, no matter how the market or their competition moves.

Possible outcomes & side effects:

- The patent threats split Linux community and cause unrest in corporate clients who consider adopting Linux for their servers or even desktops.
- Novell and the other distros in the patent deal are rejected by the community and Microsoft eliminates one of its more dangerous competitors should Linux' adoption really take off. -OR-
- Red Hat and the other distros OUT of the patent deal get destabilized and abandoned by the corporate clients and Microsoft gets to "coown" the Linux code together with Novell by means of the patent implementations all over the code. They can't just buy Novell now since it'll destabilize their Windows brand, and cause antritrust lawsuits. But should Windows go down next 5-10-15 years, you can be sure Microsoft will be talking to merge with Novell and offer their Linux distro with all the windows IP in it.

In essense Microsoft either gets to split the OSS movement, eliminate some of their stronger competirors, and improve the Windows brand and adoption, or gets a second route to quickly enter the market with Linux OS should Windows go horribly down, by utilizing all their Windows IP inside the Linux system.

What about standards:

- Where Microsoft has their own standard opposed to an open competing standard, they try to promote it to a full standard (OOXML, Exchange server integration with SUSE, ActiveDirectory integration with SUSE etc., XPS)
- Where Microsoft doesn't have their own standard, they adopt the publicly accepted standard, and extend it in attempt to create added-value dialect (RSS with own extensions in IE7, .NET and Silverlight competing with Flash and AJAX web apps, XML markup base for Microsoft's new standards such as OOXML and XPS, IIS7 configuration XML files etc.)

So Novell's deal helps Microsoft make better penetration of Microsoft standards and technologies as something that comes standard with Linux. We're talking about Mono, Moonlight, Exchange integration, Samba integration and all those technologies which might have alternatives outside the Microsoft world.

This is marked to the public outside as interoperability effort. It sure is improving interoperability, but at the cost of putting more and more MS IP in Linux's distributions.

So was Novell wrong to sign the deal? If they had the pure intention to move the OSS community and help Linux as a whole, it was wrong. But as a company that competes against *OTHER* Linux distro companies, it was half right.

Right now if you see above all the outcomes from this deal (which are all good for Microsoft) there's 50/50 about who will survive (the non-patent deal Linux companies, or the patent deal Linux companies). Novell and RedHat are on the opposite sides of a gamble that'll play out in the next years.

While they're the gamble players, Microsoft is the casino. Never mind who wins, the casino always wins. Good job, MS :)

Open source companies are the real problem (0, Troll)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809423)

Beyond perceived deceptions and the toying of Microsoft, Novell is making money off open source developer's backs, so is RedHat, so a myriad of other companies that deal with any open source offering. I think if the article didn't pinpoint the Microsoft deal, its context could be expanded to cover the point of why people work hard for free and others make money. That doesn't seem ethical either. If open source falls it's not going to be solely because of Microsoft. It's going to be because the companies who make money from open source will gradually drive away the good developers who got nothing from it. Sure the odd developer will be picked up and paid for the effort but overall the synergistic nature of open source cannot support this load.

Re:Open source companies are the real problem (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809765)

uh.. but Novell employs a lot of people to work on open source projects, like the Kernal and Samba.

I didn't realize the GPL applied to sales pitches (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809447)

Not to defend Suse/Novell, but if Suse claims its distribution offers better Microsoft interoperability than Red Hat's distribution, that certainly seems to be within Suse's rights.

Does Pamela not think Red Hat slammed Suse's product before the Microsoft agreement?

I'm sure Linux vendors and promoters have used sales pitches claiming Linux is better than other open source operating systems like various BSD variants and Solaris. And I am sure the reverse is true.

Groklaw Guts the First Amendment (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809467)

Seriously, Im glad this discussion is on slashdot, because you sure as hell arent allowed a dissenting opinion on Groklaw. Any dissent immediately results in a post deletion by Pamela Jones.

Yes... (3, Interesting)

gillbates (106458) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809521)

I want a Linux that works with Windows.

But if I invest in Novell's (Suse) Linux(TM), will my Windows work with Linux? Or will I have to buy the Novell version of Windows for that to happen?

Those of us old enough will remember when Microsoft had certain licensing deals with Compaq, and if you bought a Compaq server, you also had to buy Compaq Windows NT, which was quite a bit more expensive than the Redmond version. If you tried to get around this by just buying the server and installing Microsoft's Windows NT, you'd find yourself with a dead machine - the BIOS actually checked the Windows version, and if it didn't have the Compaq magic number, would refuse to continue loading it.

I can foresee a time when Windows will check to see if it is connecting to an "authorized machine" - presumably, to improve security - and that it will simply fail to connect to a Linux box, unless it is running an MS-approved version. (aka, Suse).

The only reason why Microsoft tolerates Novell is because they realize that Linux has replaced UNIX in a lot of corporate environments. As soon as Linux becomes widely used on the desktop, Microsoft will treat Novell as they've treated all of their past partners. Novell seems not to understand this - they can market their version of Linux only to the extent that Redmond blesses it, and that is truly sad.

Divide and conquer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809747)

They want Linux split to be able to taint the product, Microsoft got what they wanted. Novell stupidly falls into the trap.

Old colonial plan (2, Insightful)

styryx (952942) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809877)

Divide and conquer:

"Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn't?"
Might want to watch for those in-community divisions, and then try not to take sides.

Open letter to Linus Torvalds (0, Troll)

alexborges (313924) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810067)

Hi Linus,

This one is a short letter. My expresso awaits for me. Its reallty this simple bro: take away from Novell the right to use the Linux trademark. Just threaten them to do so, theyll start behaving right away.

This are not just my 2 cents, im pretty shure most here will agree to me that this course of action is legal, tough and will get all vendors to play decently.

so funny (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20810139)

"free software; open source; freedom to choose; freedom to use software anyway you want to"

"As long as you only choose my way of thinking! If you are not thinking the same way I am you are against freedom!"

I'll give you whining Microsoft bashers credit for so perfectly following the US administrations ability to rename and make up things so that it fits your agenda. Way to fight FUD with better FUD!

Hypocrites.

Yu0 fail 1t! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20810331)

one common goal - Problems that I've then disappeared Website Third, you And Michael Smith
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...