Novell Vice Chairman on Ximian, SCO

dotnothing writes "microsoft-watch.com has an interview with Chris Stone, who is the Vice Chairman of Novell. Stone says that Novell will be introducing a Linux distribution with Novell products and the Ximian desktop, but that they are not out to compete with Microsoft. He also expressed some gratitude to Red Hat for countersuing SCO."

Comments

Red Hat/SCO legal docs

[viewstyle]

Speaking of Red Hat -- SCO released some of their legal threats which I found to be entertaining. Excerpts are in this story...

Re:Red Hat/SCO legal docs

[Phoenix823]

"I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux," McBride wrote.


Pot. Kettle. Black.

Re:Red Hat/SCO legal docs

[Havokmon]

Speaking of Red Hat -- SCO released some of their legal threats which I found to be entertaining. Excerpts are in this story...

What Iwould like to know, is how do we know that the code SCO is guarding, wasn't taken from Linux in the first place?

SCO is guarding their code, because they say it's theirs, but with Linux code is already out in the open. So how do we know WHEN SCO created their code?

Re:Red Hat/SCO legal docs

[Trigun]

Easy. CHeck SCO source for code. Compile said code. SHA1 compiled binary and compare to widely available distributions.

The part that would be hard would be verifying comments.

Re:Red Hat/SCO legal docs

[RevMike]

Compilers don't always produce the same binary from the smae source.

Besides the obvious issues - which compiler/linker, precisely what version, what patches, which static libraries, what versions, etc - there is also the issue of alignment. I've worked with compilers/linkers that would not zero out empty space within the created images. Therefore the binary image would contain random gibberish that happened to be in memory when the compile ran. Thus, the "same" binary could generate different checksums.

Re:Red Hat/SCO legal docs

[hkmwbz]

From the story:

"SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of Unix."

Yeah. In other words, they have been spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. Isn't that what we've all been saying all along? Good thing SCO is finally admitting it, at least in the second sentence.

Re:Red Hat/SCO legal docs

[japhmi]

Easy. CHeck SCO source for code.

Yes, but that wouldn't prove that SCO didn't take it from Linux and then put it into their codebase. They can change their internal dates, etc.

Re:Red Hat/SCO legal docs

[Anonymous Coward]

Sentence. Verb. None.

Re:Red Hat/SCO legal docs

[stefanlasiewski]

SCO is guarding their code, because they say it's theirs, but with Linux code is already out in the open. So how do we know WHEN SCO created their code?

SCO has had a pretty extensive version control system for a number of years, which contains code checkin dates, code author, etc. It's easy to forge some dates at a superficial level, but I'm hoping the judge would require a code audit of some of the sources which are harder to forge, such as backup tapes or the institutional memory of some ex-employees (SCO has thousands of bitter, layed-off ex-employees).

However, SCO doesn't have to prove it to you Mr. Slashdot reader, just to the courts. So you and I will probably always remain in the dark unless IBM or RedHat let us know more.

Re:Red Hat/SCO legal docs

[cshark]

The thing I thought was the most interesting about this interview the comment about the copyright issues with SCO not being over just yet. A subtle hint at document forgery, perhaps? This is going to be interesting.

not to compete with M$?

[gurisees]

but that they are not out to compete with Microsoft


so, will they install Ximian on XP?

Re:not to compete with M$?

[Havokmon]

but that they are not out to compete with Microsoft

so, will they install Ximian on XP?

Well, I work for a small company running Netware 5.1 and Win98 desktops. I'm looking into doing an LTSP+Mosix type setup, because we only use about 4 applications on older PII hardware.

I'd hate to give up my Netware box, file permissions alone (Inherited rights/filters) are enough to keep me on it. Getting a seemless login (legally - I have an awesome NDS Pam module from France ;) from a Linux box would be awesome.

So, no. In my case, they're not competing with MS, because MS isn't being considered.

Re:not to compete with M$?

[snarfer]

Whoa! BAD IDEA! Microsoft isn't going to see it that way! They better realize that Microsoft is going to try to kill them and take steps...

I remember Be tried that strategy -- don't make the other guy mad. Ha!

Re:not to compete with M$?

[T-Ranger]

NDS can be exposed with LDAP. There is a PAM LDAP module.. What wouldnt work here? Im actualy asking, as I might have to do the same thing in the future.

Re:not to compete with M$?

[Havokmon]

NDS can be exposed with LDAP. There is a PAM LDAP module.. What wouldnt work here? Im actualy asking, as I might have to do the same thing in the future.

Oh, I'm not saying that wouldn't work. (I had a web-app that used LDAP from NDS for auth) But I want MORE than just a user/pass auth.

• I want home directories mounted
• I want local users autocreated
• I want contextless login

That's what I can think of off the top of my head. IMHO, doing a 'PERFECT' PAM module leads to NDS integration. For a good example of NDS integration, look at Pegasus Mail. Pegasus Mail can be installed once on a server, and using NDS API calls, can tell _who_ started it, and use the proper home directory for email.

I want Linux applications (Evolution) to do that. ;) I want the desktop PC to be user-agnostic. Pegasus Mail provides that. The full Zen package provides that. I want that for Linux. (Actually, I want to provide that with LTSP - but application integration would make it even easier)

If you want to see what that French PAM module can do, go here You might have to check Google Cache - it appears to be down right now.

Re:not to compete with M$?

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting a seemless login

What the hell is that? A login that's not what it appears?

How come

[Gortbusters.org]

RedHat didn't purchase Ximian?

Re:How come

[Anonymous Coward]

... how come? Redhat is sluggish enough as it is. Why WOULD they? To get Ximian Desktop?

Re:How come

[RickySilk]

Didn't redhat contribute alot to gnome?

Re:How come

[yobbo]

Why didn't you?

Re:How come

[Anonymous Coward]

Novell has money.

Re:How come

[azzy]

Why didn't I?

Re:How come

[_|()|\|]

Novell probably paid a lot more than Red Hat would have paid. Red hat is not interested in .NET. Ximian Desktop is largely redundant with its own packaging and customization. Now that Red Hat Linux has changed from a product to a community project, I don't think it's looking for more pacakagers. Red Hat might be interested in the programmers (esp. Evolution), but why buy a company for the privilege of paying their salaries?

Re:How come

[HiThere]

The benefit of paying a person's salary is that you get to say what they're going to work on. Red Hat is predominantly a services company, so they benefit by:
1) ensuring that the packages they want work with their distribution
2) they have the expertise to quickly solve their client's problems
3) they have "well known" figures to speak for their point of view
4) etc.

How much this is worth... that's what they've got to decide. Right now Linux is already "good enough", it's the applications that need work. Yes, 2.6 will improve things. But when something is "good enough", improvement is only a marginal gain (important, but not vital).

What Red Hat is interested in is things that make their expensive versions more attractive to corporations. A great word processor. (They seem to have selected OpenOffice for this role. A good choice, particularly as Red Hat is still not enamored of KDE.) Presentation software. Printing. Etc.

(Of course their main focus is still the server, but they pretty much have that covered what with "redhat-config-network" and "redhat-config-printer", etc. But I'm sure that they already see the desktop as the next growth area.)

Won't somebody end this already?

[idiotnot]

Buy out SCO. Hostile takeover. Somebody. I guess they're waiting for the price to fall a bit, but jeeze.....

I am curious to see what Novell is going to come up with next to challenge those bozos.

Re:Won't somebody end this already?

[olderchurch]

Why the hell does anybody wants to buy SCO? They are only worth the money if they are gonna win the lawsuit, and I hope that never happens.

Re:Won't somebody end this already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote Dean! America needs another Jimmy Carter!

You mean America needs a soft-skinned, easily shaken left-wing religious geek who cannot run a covert military operation without it ending up in a total disaster?

Re:Won't somebody end this already?

[AndyFewt]

SCO wants someone to buy them, therefore buying out SCO effectively means they get what they *really* want.

Re:Won't somebody end this already?

[golgotha007]

Buy out SCO.

as much as I would like to see SCO go away, it pains me to think that the SCO crooks can walk away from this with pockets full.

also, buying SCO to 'go away' sets a bad precedent and I would really rather not see this kind of business plan to be considered successful one.

Re:Won't somebody end this already?

[Anonymous Coward]

as much as I would like to see SCO go away, it pains me to think that the SCO crooks can walk away from this with pockets full.

It pains me to see that in this day and age there isn't as much racketeering going on as there used to be. These damn corporations hide behind lawsuits and lawyers. Why doesn't anyone send out good old fashioned henchmen anymore? If IBM knocked off a few SCO execs maybe they would have a change of heart. Rough up their family and torch their houses. These people just have no sense of imagination anymore. It's not just limited to SCO, it can be applied to anyone really. Spammers for instance should be shot in the groin for every mass mailing. :-/

Re:Won't somebody end this already?

[Micro$will]

This is why everyone should wait until after the legal dust settles, SCO's stock price is
Welcome to hell, Darl.

Re:Won't somebody end this already?

[confused one]

You don't want to do this because it will reward them for their current actions. You'd also be buying into a liability.

Wait until their stock drops when it's apparent to Wall Street that IBM's gonna trounce them.

Re:Won't somebody end this already?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You mean America needs a soft-skinned, easily shaken left-wing religious geek who cannot run a covert military operation without it ending up in a total disaster?"

but we allready have Bush on the Right.

Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[slusich]

Stone: We are going to continue to push it. .Net on Linux is a great idea. We just hope Microsoft isn't against the idea.

I cannot imagine a world in which Microsoft would even consider allowing such a thing to happen.
Still this looks like a good thing overall.

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[grennis]

I think they have considered allowing such a thing to happen.

I seem to recall that Microsoft released over 1 million lines of code in their shared source effort to get .Net running on Linux, etc.

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[myside]

Imagine a world where linux has 40+% of the desktop world.

There you go.

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[IamTheRealMike]

They've allowed Wine. Why? Because they have no choice in the matter.

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

No choice? Hardly - if Microsoft wanted to they could throw a truckload of patent infringement claims at Wine without even breaking into a sweat. The only problem with that would be the "Microsoft crushing the competition" backlash, and given the wrist tapping (it isn't even a slap) they got from the DoJ I doubt they'd care less about that.

No, either they don't view Wine as a significant threat, or the fact that it can run Office apps == bigger market for one of the things that makes Microsoft money I don't know..

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[mshiltonj]

I seem to recall that Microsoft released over 1 million lines of code in their shared source effort to get .Net running on Linux, etc.

Yes, Microsoft loves to give back to the community out of the goodness of its own heart. I'm positive they did not have any alterior motives at all.

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary. Microsoft is keen on .NET running on as many platforms as possible; this is a good thing for them in the long run. .NET is not a bad framework, and I'll take it over Java any day, although I like Java as well.

Having Mono on Linux increases Linux's compatibility with MS software, and allows those programs to run natively on Linux. I fail to see how that is a bad thing.

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[IamTheRealMike]

There is nothing innovative in the Windows APIs. Even the more windows specific stuff like DCOM has plenty of prior art available.

Considering Microsoft has made moves against Wine before (copyrighted header files springs to mind) but have never mentioned patents, I am 100% confident that they cannot shut it down via that route.

In the unlikely event that they may have patents on the API implementations, Wine would do what every open source project does in such a scenario and work around them or get them invalidated. The chances of them having a patent that is required to implement an API is practically nil and has never been encountered in 10 years of reverse engineering Windows. The DMCA causes more problems.

People throw around the bogey man of patents whenever big corporates are involved. "Just you wait and see, they'll never survive". Too bad that it's grounded more in paranoia than reality.

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[kylef]

There is nothing innovative in the Windows APIs.

The Windows API was pretty innovative for something created in 1984, years before X was publicly released (Athena was started in 1984 but X wasn't publicly released until 1988). I think you're failing to understand how truly old the Windows API really is.

I don't think you'll find any other pre-1985 GUIs that perform event handling the way Windows does it (whether you like their solution or not). I'd say that alone makes it an original implementation, and would make a reasonable patent.

Considering Microsoft has made moves against Wine before (copyrighted header files springs to mind)

You call that a move? That's just something they forgot to do, and Wine may have reminded them. When a move against Wine happens, you will know about it.

The chances of them having a patent that is required to implement an API is practically nil and has never been encountered in 10 years of reverse engineering Windows.

Well, I guarantee you that if someone created a Macintosh API emulator, they'd get their ass sued off (reverse engineered or not). Microsoft isn't exactly on unheard-of legal ground here, and all it takes is sufficient legal resources to quash a project like this under a mountain of legal paperwork.

Personally, I think it is quite remarkable that MS hasn't really taken any action against Wine. It apparently just isn't worth their time, yet.

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[IamTheRealMike]

I don't think you'll find any other pre-1985 GUIs that perform event handling the way Windows does it (whether you like their solution or not). I'd say that alone makes it an original implementation, and would make a reasonable patent.

Windows message passing and routing is just an implementation of message passing and routing. There's nothing innovative about that, and I can tell you if they managed to patent this they would go after bigger fish than Wine.

Well, I guarantee you that if someone created a Macintosh API emulator, they'd get their ass sued off

Well, MacOnLinux seems to be doing OK. And anyway, just because a company might sue somebody for building an emulator doesn't mean the law agrees with them.

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[MrResistor]

I don't think you'll find any other pre-1985 GUIs that perform event handling the way Windows does it (whether you like their solution or not). I'd say that alone makes it an original implementation, and would make a reasonable patent. ...which would expire within a year.

If they had such a patent, they surely would have used it before now.

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it could be an antitrust nightmare. Imagine Microsoft trying to justify why they should be allowed to keep2 million developers to themselves. There is a reason nobody got rich inventing a programming language. Its a LANGUAGE, a means of expression. Trying to say people on Linux should not speak a certain language is stupid, and also nearly indefensible in court. Though I must, I have seen stranger things come out of these courts. But MS wouldn't want the antitrust nightmare.

The court could not possibly let Microsoft lock in developers too. Imagine (All your skills are useless if you do not want to work for MS)

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[Degrees]

When I read that, I assumed he said it with a twinkle in his eye, and the reporter would have been justified in adding a "wink smiley."

It isn't like Microsoft can do much about code on another platform that happens to be compatible with what third-party developers are writing....

Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that.

[kylef]

And anyway, just because a company might sue somebody for building an emulator doesn't mean the law agrees with them.

Agreed. But then again, the law doesn't really have to be on the side of the party that "wins". After a mountain of legal fees and paperwork, some projects simply fold, even if they eventually win in court. I still have an Aureal sound card around here somewhere as a reminder to what can happen...

Right...

[mschoolbus]

"but that they are not out to compete with Microsoft"

"Uh... Yeah... We want to sell this but, uh.. not a lot of it..." - Chris Stone

Bet they hadn't thought of this

[Sir Haxalot]

Stone: We are going to continue to push it. .Net on Linux is a great idea. We just hope Microsoft isn't against the idea.
I'd 'just hope' Linux users aren't against the idea.

Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this

[Lord_Slepnir]

I don't see why they could be against this idea. One thing that keeps many people away from switching to linux is that there are a lot of products you can't get for linux that you can get for windows. By making .Net for linux, software makers can easily port products from windows to linux. If done right, it would just be a matter of compiling it on a linux version of .Net and including a .run file with the distribution CD.

Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this

[Sir Haxalot]

It was a joke, laugh.

Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this

[Spellbinder]

i think there is a problem
if i remember right the language etc of .net is open but the librarys you use for ms .net are not
that means you cant just recompile a program writen with the ms librarys on mono
maybe someone could correct me if i'm not right :p

Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other side... One thing why many people switch to linux is that there are some windows "features" *ARE* missing ;-)

Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this

[JanneM]

You are right; the WinForms stuff, specifically are not only protected (AFAIK), they aren't even functional outside a Win32 environment (they more or less just wrap the Win32 api). Of course, that means a lot less than you may think. The portability is likely to be important mostly for server stuff, where you won't have an UI anyway. And as we've already been seeing, apps written under mono will tend to use GTK anyway.

I don't really think the promise of portability bewtween Win and Linux is the important part of mono. It is rather that the system is a pretty clean, well-designed one. Also, it _does_ offer excellent portability between Linux versions - run the same binary on whatever distro, on whatever hardware. Redhat on x86, Linux on an iPaq, Debian on a Sparcstation, RH on an IBM s390 - it will just work, without recompiling or installation issues.

The core of .net is a standard, and the IP is offered royalty free. MS is unlikely to be able to change that. Beyond the core, it would be nice to keep compatibility wherever it makes sense to do so, but if MS makes a fuss, just dump the pieces they want to keep to themselves. Mono doesn't live or die on 100% compatibility the way Wine does, for example.

In fact, given Linux' steadily increased prescence as a server, if MS goes off and makes mono incompatible with their own version (whether by API changes, implementation secrets or licensing stupidity), chances are developers who use .net for server stuff will decide to use the mono equivalents instead (since they are feee to move over to the windows side). WIth enough mono deployments, MS may well find itself locked in from raising too much of a fuss. But again, the real benefit of mono doesn't lie there anyway.

Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this

[Lord_Slepnir]

There are three ways to get around that.

(a) have some software layer that can use windows .dlls in linux, just like Wine. Software will be significantly slower, however.

(b) have something that can compile .Net code the way .Net does, but uses Linux libraries instead. You'll get things to run a bit faster than option a, but it's going to be quite an undertaking to rewrite every microsoft library to be completly compatable with linux, especially the DirectX stuff. Wine has already done a lot of that, but thier windows libraries don't function exactly like the native windows ones.

(c) Microsoft decides to open-source thier libraries, embraces linux. Then I'll be able to port my copy of Duke Nukem Forever to Linux. This will be the second largest article on slashdot that week, right behind the second coming of Christ.

Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this

[IamTheRealMike]

(a) have some software layer that can use windows .dlls in linux, just like Wine. Software will be significantly slower, however.

There is no speed penalty to using MS native code on Linux, whether it's via Wine or Mono. When to use, or not to use, native code is an interesting topic in its own right, but speed rarely plays a part in it.

Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this

[LarsG]

(a) have some software layer that can use windows .dlls in linux, just like Wine. ..which would ensure that MS would go after you for patent or copyright infringement if your product becomes successfull. MS has not gone after Wine or Mplayer yet, because 1) they are not significant in the market and 2) that last DoJ dance is still a bit fresh.

Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this

[MrResistor]

If done right, it would just be a matter of compiling it on a linux version of .Net

That's true of C also, and various other languages as well, but the big catch is the "If done right...". I think history proves that it will not be done right.

Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this

[Anonymous Coward]

but it's going to be quite an undertaking to rewrite every microsoft library to be completly compatable with linux, especially the DirectX stuff.

Not to mention most linux coders have this stupid holy war mentality towards deliberately introducing security holes.

Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this

[Grizzlysmit]

Stone: We are going to continue to push it. .Net on Linux is a great idea. We just hope Microsoft isn't against the idea.

I'd 'just hope' Linux users aren't against the idea.

I for one am against it, but I just don't install numbo, or is that dumbo, no monodo rock no.., who gives a shit I refuse to use it. :-)

Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this

[PAjamian]

but if MS makes a fuss, just dump the pieces they want to keep to themselves. Mono doesn't live or die on 100% compatibility the way Wine does, for example.

Hrmmm, this would be good, Linux to "embrace and extend" .net!

Don't buy SCO.

[nuggz]

Don't buy out SCO, it is a bad investment.

To buy SCO you would need a reason why this is a good use of money, to make them go away is probaly not a good use of corporate funds.

Those millions could do a lot of legal fighting, or development, or even advertising. All with a better ROI then removing SCO.

Re:Don't buy SCO.

[-stax]

Are you kidding? SCO has some great licenses on IP that could finally push linux into the enterprise OS realm. Buying SCO and integrating the unix IP with linux or BSD would create a great product.

Re:Don't buy SCO.

[nuggz]

Okay, even if we assume that SCO has some great IP, once it is thrown into a GPL product you lose the competative advantage of it.

A few million in development work would probaly give a better return.

Re:Don't buy SCO.

[-stax]

Shh, don't tell IBM...

Fund

[ultrabot]

"He also expressed some gratitude to Red Hat for countersuing SCO."

He knows what to do, with the fund and all.

Re:Confidence...

[olderchurch]

They are using freshmeat: 280 users only, 0 friends.

This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[FreeUser]

Microsoft Watch: What's the future of Mono, Ximian's implementation of .Net on Linux?

Stone: We are going to continue to push it. .Net on Linux is a great idea. We just hope Microsoft isn't against the idea.

And therein lies the fatal flaw in pushing a Microsoft-controlled (and possibly patented) standard on a free platform ... it puts you in the position of looking over your shoulder for as long as it is deployed. Indeed, were the GNU/Linux desktop and server implimentations to fully embrace it, Linux servers and desktops could well put themselves in the position of existing solely at the pleasure of Microsoft ... which would be a fleeting thing at best.

It isn't about 'sucking up valuable developer time and effort' (plenty of things suck up valuable developer time and effort, indeed, that is the very essence of free software and the freedom for people to explore solutions wherever they lead) ... it is about ceding authority to an avowed enemy of software freedom ("Linux is Unamerican" Microsoft may or may not be inherently evil, but that they are an enemy of free software is indisputable), be it authority in unilaterally defining a standard or, worse, authority in having the legal clout via patent (and perhaps copyright) law to kill a free project dead ... perhaps an entire genre of free projects if said project provides critical underlying infrastructure.

We dismiss such concerns at our own, rather substantial, risk.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[KamuSan]

It's a bad idea.

Remember OS/2? No? See? Nobody remembers OS/2 (Bill Gates quote!).
OS/2 ran Win3.1 apps natively, so nobody wrote OS/2 apps, but Win3.1 apps.

The lesson is that as soon as you support somebody else's standard, then nobody has any reason to use your standard.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

fair enough. now there needs to be a F/OSS VM language to compete with .Net (and Java) that exists on the majority of platforms.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[alienw]

Why don't you people get a clue first? No underlying Mono infrastructure is threatened by patents, since ECMA requires that all patents be licensed at no charge, and .Net is standardized with them. There are a few pieces which could potentially be patented, but their removal would not significantly harm Mono. If Microsoft still hasn't sued the Wine project, there's a very slim chance they could sue Mono.

Your other side of the argument is basically the "not invented here" thing. If Microsoft invented it, it must be bad for free software. It's not like Microsoft can force Mono to change its ways, so I fail to see your point. Mono is not a Wine clone, it's a development framework for Linux, one that could potentially be very useful for writing portable software.

I don't see anyone here bitching about Java, even though it's also a similar, proprietary technology controlled by one party -- Sun. Hell, I would say that Linux is more of a threat to Sun than Microsoft. So why isn't Java a threat to Linux?

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[alienw]

OS/2 ran Win3.1 apps natively, so nobody wrote OS/2 apps, but Win3.1 apps.

If OS/2 hadn't run Windows apps, nobody would have ever used it. The reason it died was the high price and poor hardware support (it didn't run on non-IBM machines without a lot of tweaking). Stop using that example, for fuck's sake.

The lesson is that as soon as you support somebody else's standard, then nobody has any reason to use your standard.

Does linux have anything remotely resembling .Net? Other than mono, of course.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Planesdragon]

The lesson is that as soon as you support somebody else's standard, then nobody has any reason to use your standard.

Maybe you're not familiar with Internet Explorer, or Windows, or Microsoft Word?

MS has made their market by supporting other folk's standards and--this is the important part--GIVING THE USER A REASON TO USE MS! Historically, this has been cost...

and I'm sure that an OSS .NET implementation can beat MS on dollar-cost. Maybe even time-cost too.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, OS/2 pretty much just ran Windows 3.1 natively and shared the desktop. OS/2 required a copy of Windows or the more pricey OS/2 that included Windows binaries.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[lrandall]

Totally irrelevant example. IBM never marketed OS/2, and the hardware support was terrible. I couldn't even get OS/2 Warp to work on my IBM PS/2.

The point is, what stops a lot of people from adopting Linux, especially in corporate environments, is the lack of specific niche or in-house applications. Get them to run natively and the problem is solved.

Linux is cheaper than Windows, more secure than WIndows, and starting to gain a lot of public interest, so yes OS/2 never made it, but for entirely different reasons.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that people wrote Win3.1 apps couldn't have killed OS/2 unless consumers didn't know OS/2 could run Win3.1 apps.

If they'd advertised and promoted OS/2 and its featureset more, it'd still be around.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[avdp]

The whole point of .Net on Linux (in my opinion) is interoperability. However, at least two of the key technologies (Windows Forms and Web Forms) are not part of the ECMA standard. They are owned (patented? copyrighted? not sure which) by Microsoft.

The "underlying Mono infrastructure" in itself is of little interest, other than possibly as some sort of "neat" technology.

This is like saying that Java runs on every platform except for swing only works on Solaris.

Microsoft may not have sued Wine (who should they sue?) but now that Mono is owned/developed by Novell (a big target) things may change. I think that's what the Novell guy is implying.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Jungle guy]

Java is a threat to Linux. At least, according to Stallman. When I talked to him personally, I asked what is the equivalent to the KDE issue today. He answered in a second: Java. He thinks that anyone that writes Java code and make it free software should only use classes avaliable on Kaffe, and not those that are only on Sun's JVM.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Does linux have anything remotely resembling .Net? Other than mono, of course.

You mean, somthing like dotGNU?

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough, Java is *always* brought up in this argument. Why? It make no sense.

The items submitted to ECMA are only part of the specification. Like PERL core, but no PERL::CGI, PERL::Net, .... There is a fair bit of "toy" programming you can do, but the sphere of programming without these additions to PERL is very much smaller. It's exactly the same as with the .Net architecture.

MS cannot sue Wine, because they are reverse engineering the API. They are using the published spec (oddly enough, the fact that Wine doesn't work, depsite running to the spec is not seen as a MS documentation failure...). No toehold. They HAVE stopped FoxPro from being run under Wine, though.

Lastly, the ECMA proposal is not binding on MS - they explicitly have the ability of changing .Net at whim, breaking other .Net apps. They can also extent the ECMA standard with no problems. Java has at least a little more protection from Sun than that. Add to that the fact that much of Java is being done outside Sun, and that most of the capability needed today is already fixed, you can ignore Sun if they decide to pack it up. Whereas .Net is so newly out there, there is no base to work from if MS should bow out.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Xerithane]

And therein lies the fatal flaw in pushing a Microsoft-controlled (and possibly patented) standard on a free platform ...

You mean ECMA. Not Microsoft controlled. Guaranteed royalty free.

Indeed, were the GNU/Linux desktop and server implimentations to fully embrace it, Linux servers and desktops could well put themselves in the position of existing solely at the pleasure of Microsoft ... which would be a fleeting thing at best.

Indeed, my ass. Does that mean that Bjarne Stroustrup can call to term the existence of every C++ application? Didn't think so.

Microsoft may or may not be inherently evil, but that they are an enemy of free software is indisputable

Do you even know what evil means? You do realize that Bill Gates contributes more to charities every year than 90% of the population makes in their life times?

That sounds really evil to me.

We dismiss such concerns at our own, rather substantial, risk.

Get a clue. Stop spreading FUD. Go work at SCO.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[T-Ranger]

Stallman is a lot of things. But when it comes time to be throwing quotes from powerfull people around when discissing the future of the computer world, his name should be at the bottom of the list.

Java might be a threat to his free software utopia that exists (only in) his mind, but in the real world its not a problem.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[The Lynxpro]

...following that logic, the Linux community should ensure that Java applets won't work on Linux based machines... Or, perhaps the Linux community should use something else besides OpenGL because heaven forbid something gets ported over to OS X from it...

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason it died was the high price and poor hardware support

Don't forget to add poor marketing, nonexistant developer evangelization, and that Microsoft's licensing agreements with all major computer manufacturers (Including IBM) stated that they had to pay for each computer they made, regardless of weather it had Windows on it or not.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[pointwood]

Quote from Steve Ballmer: Responding to questions about the opening-up of the .NET framework, Ballmer announced that there would certainly be a "Common Language Runtime Implementation" for Unix, but then explained that this development would be limited to a subset, which was "intended only for academic use". Ballmer rejected speculations about support for free .NET implementationens such as Mono: "We have invested so many millions in .NET, we have so many patents on .NET, which we want to cultivate."

You can find it here

And what about this: .Net patent could stifle standards effort

Patents will never be a problem for Mono? Not sure I believe that...

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Malcontent]

Interesting that the PRO MS posts on this thread are all modded up the wazoo even when they are factually incorrect.

1) ECMA requires RAND not "free and clear"
2) MS controls patents on ado.net and forms and many other parts of .NET
3) MS has publicly said that they will enforce their property rights when it comes to .NET.
4) MS sues businesses all the time.
5) Giving away .0001% of your income does not make you good and neither does it undo all the evil things you have done in the past. Especially if you got the money in an evil way in the first place.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a threat in the real world, it's onlt not a problem in the ridiculous fake world of American IP lawyers.

FUCK COPYRIGHT!

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[squiggleslash]

Ran fine on non IBM machines. Outside of the US, it was widely sold as an alternative to Windows by the box shifters (I have an old OS/2 Warp 3 box sitting around somewhere branded by Escom.)

It was killed because Microsoft made it difficult for IBM to get hold of Windows 95 up until the release of that OS, and told IBM effectively that if they didn't stop marketing OS/2 and Smartsuite, offering it cheaply to other vendors and bundling it with their own PCs, they could kiss goodbye to distributing Windows 95 at anything close to a reasonable price.

This is all laid out in Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact. It also matches my memories of around 1995, when Warp was being heavily promoted in the UK, on TV ads, in every computer shop, bundled with PCs, etc, right up until the day Windows 95 came out, whereupon it practically disappeared.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[awfar]

Applications people wanted to run were on Windows; some applications they *had* to run was on OS/2.

I found OS/2 much simpler and reliable than Windows to implement, and deploy (once you weeded the bad memory and MBoards out), especially 2.x on.

Early on, Microsoft eliminated certain network DLLs from their OS/2 SMB network distributions which prevented browsing, etc. from an OS/2 machine. making it's viability worse, but hedging their bets in case it took off.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

You do realize that Bill Gates contributes more to charities every year than 90% of the population makes in their life times?

If you exploit something to make your millions and then give away a portion of it, you are not being very charitable...

Think of it this way... If I cut down all the forests and eliminate all the endangered species, enriching myself by $2.7billion in the process, and then turn around and donate $700million, am I really being charitable and fair?

Absolute actions mean nothing when it comes to morality... a poor person giving half his bread is far more admirable than a rich person giving a full loaf of bread!!!

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Sortof like Win4Lin.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Rinikusu]

As a poor person, I'd rather have the full loaf.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Xerithane]

Think of it this way... If I cut down all the forests and eliminate all the endangered species, enriching myself by $2.7billion in the process, and then turn around and donate $700million, am I really being charitable and fair?
Well, considering Microsoft didn't kill off any endangered species the analogy is incredibly flawed.

Microsoft destroyed it's competitors by using very shrewd (and in the case of Netscape, illegal) business tactics. They guaranteed their place in the world by making software that people buy.

I'm not understanding how that is evil.

Absolute actions mean nothing when it comes to morality... a poor person giving half his bread is far more admirable than a rich person giving a full loaf of bread!!!

Yes, but the rich support the poor. So, you are biting the hand that feeds you.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Tokerat]

It's GNU/Stallman, dammit!

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought just C# was an ECMA standard! Just the language, not the runtime or any other part of .NET.

Why are these posts getting modded up?

And I really couldn't give two shits about how much Bill Gates donates. I'd just like my money back from all those Windows licenses I never used once.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[jcast]

You do realize that Bill Gates contributes more to charities every year than 90% of the population makes in their life times?

You mean `charities' like Planned Parenthood? Yeah, sure, support Bill Gates the baby-murderer.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The rich only donate to charity to create "goodwill" and to keep from being killed and eaten by those poorer than they. It's not out of any charitable feeling.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Grizzlysmit]

I don't see anyone here bitching about Java, even though it's also a similar, proprietary technology controlled by one party -- Sun. Hell, I would say that Linux is more of a threat to Sun than Microsoft. So why isn't Java a threat to Linux?

Well I'll fix that for you as far as I'm concerned Java is crap, just like .Shite, .But ... ag shit, but seriously it is Shite, yeah, theres all those proprietary issues, but the main reasons for me are:

1. their a security hole waiting to happen (esp .Net)
2. their a kludge, their the wrong soln to the wrong problem
3. Java is too slow.
4. Their both part of the network computer push, which is just a stupid greedy move to get us to pay for stuff which could be better done by an application on our own box.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

You are right... however I am not poor (at least not yet, although at the rate my life is going... :( ). I do not want the bread. All I'm doing is passing judgement.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Well, considering Microsoft didn't kill off any endangered species the analogy is incredibly flawed. Microsoft destroyed it's competitors by using very shrewd (and in the case of Netscape, illegal) business tactics. They guaranteed their place in the world by making software that people buy. I'm not understanding how that is evil.

Evil is probably too strong of a word (let me downgrade that to undesirable). I'm anti-capitalist so we clearly have different value systems. To me, the vast majority of corporations are nothing but exploiters of society and MS is no diffrent. Many who have worked for the company have profitted immensely but that doesn't mean anything...

BTW, I probably hate Microsoft less than most people here. Intel, for example, is far worse than MS IMO...

Yes, but the rich support the poor. So, you are biting the hand that feeds you.

Are you referring to income taxes? If yes, then you are right. But if you count all taxes, then the middle class probably pays more (on sales tax and property tax).

In any case, I was simply passing a moral judgement. I am neither poor nor rich and none of it matters. I am simply an observer. If I did take the food, I am sure I would be very grateful. But it doesn't change the value of the action...

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should try the recent IBM OS/2 4.52 on current hardware rather then an old IBM PS/2.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

remember it?
I use it daily.
You either can get 4.52 from IBM or go with the Serenity Systems licensed version called Ecomstation.
Current hardware support, latest patches, and continued development.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Xerithane]

I'm anti-capitalist so we clearly have different value systems. To me, the vast majority of corporations are nothing but exploiters of society and MS is no diffrent. Many who have worked for the company have profitted immensely but that doesn't mean anything...

All the things the anti-capitalist folks living in the US have, wouldn't be there if it weren't for capitalism. You realize that the lower 80% of the population could effectively stop paying tax and the government wouldn't notice that much? This is because of the upper 20% and the corporations. Capitalism is a necessity for technological advancements.

Are you referring to income taxes? If yes, then you are right. But if you count all taxes, then the middle class probably pays more (on sales tax and property tax).

Read above. Upper class pays more than anything, because they still buy just as much (usually more) of anything that the middle class buys. They also own more land, typically, thus providing more property tax.

If the upper 20% of the population (in terms of wage/net worth) disappeared the economy would crumble. In the lower 80% of the population disappeared, there would be a hard time finding replacement for the work.

Being anti-capitalist means being anti-realist. The reality of life is that everything you have today is driven by capitalism.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

All the things the anti-capitalist folks living in the US have, wouldn't be there if it weren't for capitalism.

I just love how capitalists take credit for everything in the world. Some have even claimed that the free scientific research done is because of capitalism. Yeah right. What's next? Some guy helping the homeless is due to capitalism? :( .. Anyway, you capitalism-worshippers fail to realize one thing. Your so-called present "successes" are nothing more than an illusion. I'll tell you how you gained your "success". It's called DEBT. Maybe you have heard of it. USA has been doing well over the last 70 years or so for only one reason: debt. It's not just USA--any capitalist country. USA rose over a period of say 100 years and in that period it amassed 7 trillion(?) in debt. I just wonder if you'll even pay that off in the next 100 years. Your WHOLE life (what you would credit to capitalism) is nothing more than a life subsdized by imperialism and national debt. USA has trade deficits with nearly every country; Americans consume more than they can; the interest you pay on the debt will totally destroy you (along with every other country which relies on debt--which is like 80% of the countries); etc

You know... capitalism may not need any enemy to collapse. It already has one within. Since you love capitalism so much, I suggest that you get to work ASAP to avoid a debt default and a consequent collapse of the system...

Upper class pays more than anything, because they still buy just as much (usually more) of anything that the middle class buys. They also own more land, typically, thus providing more property tax.

I don't think that's true but I'm not too sure about USA. Since there is a massive discrepancy of wealth in USA, what you are saying may be true but I doubt it. I did the figures for Canada a while ago, and this is how it worked out: upper class pays most of the income tax, middle class+lower class pays most of the sales tax, and middle class+lower class pays most of the property tax. (NOTE: property tax is widely divergent and hard to figure out. There are rich areas and poor areas so it has more to do with the area than anything else (eg. I suspect if you did for California, it would be different from Nevada). However, from what I could gater about property tax, the middle and lower classes paid the most). Just to complete the discussion, let's include the other tax that is not mentioned: corporate tax. From what I can gather, most of the corporate tax is paid by large corporation (although I suspect that this will change over the next 50 years since small businesses already outnumber the large ones and are growing).

Upper class pays more than anything, because they still buy just as much (usually more) of anything that the middle class buys.

That's generally not true. The middle class buys the most by a long shot. You don't need to listen to me, just pay attention to what (capitalist) economists say. Then even point out that the economy is 2/3 run by consumption and it is mostly due to middle and (to some extent) lower classes. This is coming out of capitalists (people who live and breathe capitalism). The reason you are wrong is because there are FAR more middle class and lower class people than the upper class people. If I had to make a guess, I would say that for every upper class person, there is probably 1,000 in middle class, and probably 60 in lower class. The numbers just aren't there to support your view. The population is much larger!

They also own more land, typically, thus providing more property tax.

Irrelevant. People who rent the place pay the property tax in the form of rent.

If the upper 20% of the population (in terms of wage/net worth) disappeared the economy would crumble. In the lower 80% of the population disappeared, there would be a hard time finding replacement for the work.

Neither of this is true IMO.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Xerithane]

Some guy helping the homeless is due to capitalism?

Where else did the guy get his money to help? Uh, oh that's right.. Capitalism!

You know... capitalism may not need any enemy to collapse. It already has one within. Since you love capitalism so much, I suggest that you get to work ASAP to avoid a debt default and a consequent collapse of the system...

Sorry chief, I'm 90% liquid. Capitalism isn't pushed from debt, either. What do you suggest? Communism? In case you failed to notice, communists tend to starve. Apparently history is lost on you. Capitalism means one thing: Working harder/smarter for more wealth. It works on the basic human nature and instinct for more comfortable survival. Your dislike for capitalism is irrational. Just because there is a high debt rate at the moment doesn't mean that's because of the nature of capitalism. Corrality and causality are very different things.

A pragmatist view... We didn't get to where we are by supporting the status quo and pretending it is the best system. With your attitude we will still be living under a monarchy... The problems are there; too bad you just ignore them :(

No, I don't ignore them. You just assume I do. I just accept the good and the bad, and weigh them together. Which system do you think works?

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[1010011010]

Sivaram_Velauthapill is a troll. He chooses an article, and tries to turn it into a manifesto for "utilitarism socialist revolution and overthrow of the capitalist state."

Just ignore him.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Sivaram_Velauthapill is a troll. He chooses an article, and tries to turn it into a manifesto...

That's nothe definition of troll. Troll is someone who says or does something to generate a reaction. The vast majority of the time, a troll simply says something inflamatory and then leaves (the troll doesn't even take part in the discussion).

In any case, if you don't like what I am saying or think I'm a troll, fine, you don't have to read my stuff. If you want to go around claiming that I'm a troll, that's ok too although it is a complete waste of time...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Where else did the guy get his money to help? Uh, oh that's right.. Capitalism!

I don't want to even get into that. Suffice to say, you don't seem to have a grasp of capitalism. Even capitalists will admit that people make money in EXCHANGE for labour. People don't get FREE MONEY. Maybe if capitalists just gave away money then you may have a point...

Sorry chief, I'm 90% liquid.

What YOU are is irrelevant (I don't mean that in a rude way). The reason is because YOU, like me, and everyone else, is part of the system. Others will have a greater impact on you than you imagine. So say you are rich and are fairly independent (ie. you don't rely on others, the economy, etc). If everyone else around you becomes poorer, there is a probability that crime will go up (you WILL feel the impact of that). If USA enters a deflation and never gets out of it, you WILL feel the impact of the unemployed. If the US currency depreciates a lot, you WILL lose hundreads or millions of dollars. And I haven't even touched on things like kids (if you have any), or the environment and so on. Even if YOU are "safe" your kids may not me... The question is: do you care?

Capitalism isn't pushed from debt, either.

That's what all capitalists say :) Capitalism does not create debt per se, but it relies on it heavily. Money is the oil that makes the wheels of capitalism turn. Therefore, debt is a big part of it. I'm not saying that capitalism is the only system which will create debt. But it is one relies on it a lot..

What do you suggest? Communism?

I'm a socialist but you don't have to follow me. I personally like a system called participative economics (parecon; www.parecon.org). But all I ask is that you consider the possibilities. Don't be a slave to capitalism!

Your dislike for capitalism is irrational.

When you talk about econopolitics, there is no such thing as rationality. If there were, ONE system will always be accepted by the vast majority of the people, but it hasn't happened. The reason is because the choice depends on value systems and what you desire. For instance, a fascist believes in fascism because he/she likes an elitist system where a certain group/ethnicity/religion/etc are valued more than others; a socialist on the other hand tries to create a egalitarian world (every equal; no classes) with utilitarian principles; and so on. The fascist would consider fascism to be the most rational to him/her; a socialist would consdier socialiasm; etc... If you try rationalizing the systems, you won't get anywhere. After all, how do you value something like equality? Can you really measure it?

No, I don't ignore them. You just assume I do. I just accept the good and the bad, and weigh them together. Which system do you think works?

I can't answer that. I don't KNOW what works. All I know is that capitalism does not work (especially looking at it from a world perspective). I personally prefer parecon but this is something that YOU must figure out yourself. I don't know. Maybe you do BELIEVE that capitalism is the best and will be forever. If that's the case, fine. You will be my enemy though... Just be prepared for the collapse of capitalism--I think it will happen within my lifetime (although I don't think it will happen in USA first)...

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Xerithane]

I don't want to even get into that. Suffice to say, you don't seem to have a grasp of capitalism. Even capitalists will admit that people make money in EXCHANGE for labour. People don't get FREE MONEY. Maybe if capitalists just gave away money then you may have a point...

You are the one who doesn't get capitalism. People do get free money, in the form of charity and grant donations.

What YOU are is irrelevant (I don't mean that in a rude way). The reason is because YOU, like me, and everyone else, is part of the system. Others will have a greater impact on you than you imagine. So say you are rich and are fairly independent (ie. you don't rely on others, the economy, etc). If everyone else around you becomes poorer, there is a probability that crime will go up (you WILL feel the impact of that). If USA enters a deflation and never gets out of it, you WILL feel the impact of the unemployed. If the US currency depreciates a lot, you WILL lose hundreads or millions of dollars. And I haven't even touched on things like kids (if you have any), or the environment and so on. Even if YOU are "safe" your kids may not me... The question is: do you care?

You mean like the fall of communism? Name one capitalist government that has fallen and maybe your stance is remotely justified.

All I know is that capitalism does not work (especially looking at it from a world perspective).

It works just fine. Why do you think it doesn't?

You will be my enemy though... Just be prepared for the collapse of capitalism--I think it will happen within my lifetime (although I don't think it will happen in USA first)...

People think aliens are going to come liberate them and kill themselves off. You are entitled to think whatever it is that you want to think. Just reject the capitalistic system and you don't matter.

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

People do get free money, in the form of charity and grant donations.

We are not talking about that; we are talking about a typical person who spends his/her time helping others.

You mean like the fall of communism?

Yeah like that but... Collapse of any system (not just communism) will do that. Other examples include collapse of monarchy in France (during the French revolution), collapse of colonialism in African, Asian and South/Latin American countries. And so on..

Name one capitalist government that has fallen and maybe your stance is remotely justified.

Actually I'm not saying the capitalism has collapsed. If it did, it would fall like a deck of cards and few other countries would be practicisng it. My point is that it is going to happen. Capitalism almost collapsed during the 20's and 30's. The rise of Communism and fascism has more to do with what was happening with capitalism than anything else. Right now, I think most poor and developing countries are on the verge of collapsing. You already see signs in Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador(?), and Indonesia. Argentina, in particular, is a good one to track since it is the poster child for capitalists and their free-market ideals.

If capitalism fails in even one country, you'll feel its impact. I see a domino effect happening, with neigbours all doing teh same thing. For instance, if one country defaults fully on their debt, refuses to pay any of it, and possibly re-nationalizes their resources (no one has done that yet), I'm sure all their neighbours would copy that. This is the reason countries like USA pump billions (far more than they ever give as charitable money) into the IMF.

It works just fine. Why do you think it doesn't?

I'll make it quick:

• exploits workers (why do you think companies are moving to poor countries? Because they love the countries so much? :( )
• destroys the environment (WTO agreements put business/commerce ABOVE environmental issues. There have been some cases where strong environmental laws were struck down because the free trade agreement calls for weaker standards)
• elitist: capitalism strengthens the class structure. Capitalism takes us further and further away from an egalitarian society.
• discrepancy in wealth: Under capitalism, a few hoard resources and wealth. This wouldn't matter in and of itself (I don't care if you are rich) but the problem is that wealth translates to POWER. If you are wealthy, you can control others, influence policies, gain more in return, etc. For instance, you almost need to be a millionare to run for the US govt nowadays. If you are not rich, the two parties, Democrats and Republicans, won't even look at you.
• leads to oliopolies and monopolies: Capitalists will deny this but my theory is that capitalism leads to oligopolies and monopolies. You just need to look at industries like cars, airplanes, media, banks, and so on. There are very few companies controlling these industries. Capitalism FORCES companies to merge and become larger and larger.
• different value system: Capitalism does not adhere to my value system so I don't like it. For instance, capitalism rewards and encourages greed, something I detest.
• many more...

Hope that gives an idea of why I hate capitalism.

People think aliens are going to come liberate them and kill themselves off.

Do these people know what planet the aliens are coming from? ;) I don't think I want the aliens brainwashed by the capitalists. Last thing we need is another lifeform being enslaved by capitalism ;)

Just reject the capitalistic system and you don't matter.

I don't know what this means. So are you saying that if you DON'T reject capitalism then you matter? Do YOU matter? You are just a consumer and a worker--nothing more :(

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea

[Xerithane]

We are not talking about that; we are talking about a typical person who spends his/her time helping others.
No, you aren't talking about it because you want to cloud your reality.

exploits workers (why do you think companies are moving to poor countries? Because they love the countries so much?

Wow. You are a fucking idiot. You claim to be a humanitarian yet you object to companies increasing the GDP of another nation?

destroys the environment (WTO agreements put business/commerce ABOVE environmental issues. There have been some cases where strong environmental laws were struck down because the free trade agreement calls for weaker standards)

And communism doesn't? Socialism? Right. Living destroys the environment. Kill yourself, it's the only way to do your part in saving the world.

elitist: capitalism strengthens the class structure. Capitalism takes us further and further away from an egalitarian society.

It also takes us away from turning into pink elephants. Which is more likely than becoming an egalitarian society. People aren't equal. Get a better grip on reality and understand that.

leads to oliopolies and monopolies: Capitalists will deny this but my theory is that capitalism leads to oligopolies and monopolies. You just need to look at industries like cars, airplanes, media, banks, and so on. There are very few companies controlling these industries. Capitalism FORCES companies to merge and become larger and larger.

I guess the Fortune 1000 is just a misnomer then.

different value system: Capitalism does not adhere to my value system so I don't like it. For instance, capitalism rewards and encourages greed, something I detest.

Really? You hate greed? What type of computer do you run? How much do you leave it on? Do you drive a car? Take the bus? Are you healthy enough to walk. Humans are greedy. It's reality, sport.

I don't know what this means. So are you saying that if you DON'T reject capitalism then you matter? Do YOU matter? You are just a consumer and a worker--nothing more :(

Funny that you don't know who I am yet are convinced I don't matter. Do you always speak with such assumptions?

The meaning was simple: You don't matter. You won't matter. If you live your life trying to be different you are going to be living in your parents basement trying on your next invention to help humanity and ultimately failing because you are too dense to figure out the best ways to help humanity.

Yay!

[donmiguel42]

"We will have an Evolution-Groupwise connector."

They aren't going to destroy Evolution AND they're going to make it work with GroupWise. Ahh... for those of us running Novell/Linux in the academic world who are getting rather tired of Microsoft's mafia-esque licensing tactics (software assurance, anyone?), this is great news. One less major hurdle between now and a Linux desktop rollout. Yay Novell!

Re:Yay!

[chef_raekwon]

not to mention the dent this should put into Micorsoft's low end server sales...
(and more market share for Linux)

who in their right mind would place a windows server in an environment, when linux(novell) is a choice?

so what do we call this, Novell's GNU/Linux?, or Novell/GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux + Novell NDS? better yet GNU/Linux/NDS...

Re:Yay!

[donmiguel42]

who in their right mind would place a windows server in an environment, when linux(novell) is a choice?

Well, we would. The masses like their M$ Office apps, and they run okay on 2000 Server boxes running Citrix Metaframe. Although this wonderful little deal may (read: probably will) give us a better way to do it.

As far as the naming goes, my vote is for Ninix ;)

Re:Yay!

[jayhawk88]

I think the one thing you really have to remember here is that we're talking about Novell. I'm just waiting for them to do something Galactically Stupid, like deciding to make Groupwise a Java-based-only client, or drop it entirely.

The blinding obvious

[ACK!!]

He is happy RedHat is suing SCO. No sh*t guys! I don't blame you because you just frickin' bought a linux focused company. Duh.

Did he reveal that the sky is blue in this interview as well?

Re:The blinding obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Did someone suggest that this was some kind of amazing insight into his thoughts?

The interviewer asked a question; he answered the question. What the hell do you want?

"the copyright thing"

[_|()|\|]

And remember, we never said the copyright thing between us and SCO was over. We'll see.

These VPs can ham it up all they want, but if they worked for me, I wouldn't let them out of the executive wash room. I'm sorry, but Novell's copyright stunt embarassed them at least as much as it did SCO. To allude to it ominously like the preview of a summer reality show is just tacky.

Re:"the copyright thing"

[Ender Ryan]

Maybe, maybe not. Remember, SCO shut Novell up by showing them a document wherein Novell assigned copyrights of certain things over to SCO. The funny thing is, Novell has no record of said documents. So who knows, maybe some sort of foul play is involved.

Or he could just be blowing smoke :)

They're glad about the Counter lawsuit

[AndyFewt]

I hope Stone knows where he can send that nice fat check for the fund.

what a hypocrite

[jfinke]

In a second letter between Red Hat and SCO, dated today and written by SCO chief executive Darl McBride to Red Hat's Szulik, McBride expressed surprise that Red Hat had chosen to sue. "I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux," McBride wrote.

This coming from the company who has zero interest in the long term survivability of Linux...

Reread On Title...

[Tsali]

Novell Vice Chairman on Ximian, SCO

I'm sure it was just me, but did a first glance at this headline read sorta like "Novell Vice Chairman on Ximian *and* SCO?

I got chills up and down, but then I read the article.

Whew. Close one.

Re:Reread On Title...

[kpansky]

> I got chills up and down, but then I read the article.

There's your problem. As anyone on /. knows, you should never *actually read* the articles. Next time, be sure to post before reading the articles or you will confuse all the veterans.

SCO Teleconference

[jmkaza]

This may be a bit off topic, but I didn't want to submit a story and have two SCO headlines in a row. Darl's holding a teleconference today to answer questions about the Red Hat suit. The press release is here.
Call 1 (800) 238-9007 and enter 274040 as the access code.

bit short

[SkunkPussy]

this review was the shortest i've ever seen! I want a full review, maybe a chat with the ceo about novell's future strategy. (anybody got a link for one?)

And what was the mysterious comment about "we never said the copyright thing between us and sco is over"? I wanna hear more about this!

No problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

[Novell: Can we?]

M$: No.

Novell: Ok.

Why should Linux (Linux != (Ximian || Mono)) cease to exist?

XD2 for Mandrake?

[azzy]

Will I ever see XD2 for Mandrake 9.1 or 9.2 or any future version? What's in it for Novell to develop XD for any other distribution?

Great exposure for Linux

[lrandall]

This can only be a good thing. Despite what a lot of people say, Novell has lots of customers, and most are really commited to Novell products. Thus with them starting to move to Linux, and push it to their customers, we will see a lot of corporate Novell users switching to Linux. Novell has great tools for Windows, and if they port them to Linux (seems like they plan too), it will make convincing people to use Linux that much easier. PHB's still love to pay for software, let them pay for Novell Linux

Re:Great exposure for Linux

[MyHair]

PHB's still love to pay for software, let them pay for Novell Linux

Knowing Novell, they'll probably call it LinuxWare.

Don't buy them out...

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

You could probably purchase a nice yeild thermonuclear weapon for considerably less than a purchase or lawsuit, just ensure that the SCO board is in a meeting when you let it off.

Sure, it'd irradiate a chunk of Utah, but nobody would notice the difference...

Long-term Linux dies anyway, so what?

[DrSkwid]

"Unix is dead, long live unix"

10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

I found this bit interesting:


Microsoft Watch: Now that you are buying Ximian, will Novell offer a Linux desktop distribution?

Stone: Yes. The plan is to package the Ximian desktop with some of our products. Specifics are yet to be determined. But we want to cover Linux from the desktop to the server.


Ten years ago, Novell was the owner of DR-DOS, Netware, and Unixware, and had the potential to be a solutions provider for everything from the desktop, to medium sized workgroups, to enterprise scale solutions, but what did they do? They tried to compete against Lotus Smartsuite and MS Office with an office suite based on Quattro Pro and WordPerfect.

NT wasn't even ready yet, they coulda been a contender...

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

Novell didn't fail because the market wasn't ripe, Novell failed because the bungled the whole thing. I think the market is riper now for a legit MS contenter from server-workstation. There wasn't as much an interest in alternate OSes then.

The biggest problem Novell had then was getting over their reputation as a "file & print" vendor. Novell = NetWare, which isn't as much the case anymore. Novell isn't known as just a server OS maker, they aren't known at all. Ironically this may work in their favor since we're into a new generation. They can use their experience and amazing programmers in a relatively fresh market, perhaps not being hampered by their stigma this time.

Re:10 years later

[Red Rocket]

Novell didn't fail because the market wasn't ripe, Novell failed because they bungled the whole thing.

Don't forget, the market was also rigged. Even if they had made nothing but perfect decisions, they still would have failed.

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

When the house is cheating, the solution is to take your money and play elsewhere.

WordPerfect never had any technical rationale at Novell. UnixWare (sold for pennies to SCO) and Linux (spun off to Caldera) did.

Re:10 years later

[Red Rocket]

When the house is cheating, the solution is to take your money and play elsewhere.
Yeah, I hear the software market on Mars is really starting to heat up.

WordPerfect never had any technical rationale at Novell. UnixWare (sold for pennies to SCO) and Linux (spun off to Caldera) did.
Did I say anywhere in my previous post that Novell had made good marketing decisions?

Re:10 years later

[Malcontent]

All they had to do was to make perfect office run as a NLM. That would have been huge for corporations.

Ray had the right idea of combining Unix and Netware. It seems like he had some sort of a vision but just couln't carry it out.

Bad management, bad decisions, bad outcome. Predictable really.

Not a hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

This coming from the company who has zero interest in the long term survivability of Linux...

Wrong. Like any good parasite, SCO wants Linux to survive so it can feed. If it died, who would they extort license fees from?

Posting as AC from work (but you know who I am)
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO

IBM?

[Erwos]

You know, Stone's little talk reminds me of what I've heard coming out of IBM lately. I can't help but wonder if Novell took a look at IBM, decided that they've done quite well for themselves with Linux, and decided to jump ALL the way onboard too.

Evolution-Groupwise by itself is enough for this merger to produce some great things.

-Erwos

Chris Stone and Novell Linux Distributions

[alistair]

Chris Stone is an excellent guy for Novell to have as a VP, as well as being a well respected chair of the Open Group he also used to be base player for the band that became Aerosmith (he left 6 months before they had their first big hit).

However, I have to wonder about the wisdom of producing yet another Linux distribution, particularly one aimed at the desktop arena. Although you may not know it from the figures, many internaional companies have already standardised on SuSE or Red Hat for their Linux vendors and the name Novell still has some bad connertations in the Corporate world.

Much of Novells strategy today seems to be selling very high value (expensive) products based around XML and Web Services (see their Silverstream aquisition) to Fortune 500 / FTSE 100 companies. I know as an implemetor for their excellent DirXML Meta Directory in a 100,000 employee company.

To my mind they would be better forming an alliance of the sort that SuSE and Sun announced yeterday, where Sun support and Distribute SuSE Linux and SuSE use Sun's Java in all their distributions. Novell could add their tools to SuSE and Red Hat, such as Directory Clients and Xen Works clients, concentrate on selling their servers on the SuSE and Red Hat platforms they already support and bundle SuSE and RedHat desktops for Netware customers. This would give them client penetration and server sales opportunities without having to compete with the Linux vendors. They could also leverage the relationship these vendors have with Sun and IBM who would be happy as the Novell server components also run on Solaris and (I think) AIX. Thoughts?

Re:Chris Stone and Novell Linux Distributions

[MyHair]

Much of Novells strategy today seems to be selling very high value (expensive) products based around XML and Web Services (see their Silverstream aquisition) to Fortune 500 / FTSE 100 companies.

I'd say their strategy is to sell add-ons to NetWare, of which DirXML is only one example. And, of course, they license per-seat/per-client and offer incentives to pay for support contracts.

My read is that Novell would rather control the client. In my view their Windows (& DOS) clients have always tried to "take over" the client machine and duke it out with Windows rather than peacefully coexist with it. That's my personal bias from years of Novell clients on Win boxen, though. (Windows is far from blame itself.)

So I think--from their point of view--it makes perfect sense to create yet another Linux distro. If they do it right, other vendors will be able to incorporate the NetWare-friendliness into their distros, too, and Novell can make sure its client just works will with NetWare and Zenworks and all the other NetWare add-ons. And, of course, since a lot of their business is support contracts, it's easier to support a Linux distro you compiled yourself.

I just had an odd thought. You've seen the available Java GUI on the NetWare console, right? I wonder if they'll try to make that the Linux client desktop? . . . Nahhh, they aren't that crazy.

Re:Chris Stone and Novell Linux Distributions

[David Gerard]

Perhaps they will just use United Linux and leave the technical heavy lifting up to SuSE. Sun eventually got the clue in this regard, after trying and failing with their own gratuitous distro.

Re:Chris Stone and Novell Linux Distributions

[Red Rocket]

My read is that Novell would rather control the client. In my view their Windows (& DOS) clients have always tried to "take over" the client machine and duke it out with Windows rather than peacefully coexist with it. That's my personal bias from years of Novell clients on Win boxen, though. (Windows is far from blame itself.)
That is a backwards reading of how things happened. When DOS and Windows were just desktop OSes, there was no other network client on the box for the NetWare client to "duke it out" with, so there was no conflict. When Microsoft decided to destroy Novell they began introducing dirty tricks into Windows to hamper the Novell client. One example is the NT GINA (the gizmo that asks for your login credentials on boot-up) which will only pass credentials on to the Microsoft networking client. In order for the Novell client to get a login, they had to replace the GINA. While this appears to be a "take over", it's actually their only choice if they want the client to work without asking the user to reenter their credentials (and then everyone would bitch about how clunky that was.) The Novell GINA is egalitarian in that it passes credentials on to all clients on the box. The "take over" line is FUD.

I just had an odd thought. You've seen the available Java GUI on the NetWare console, right? I wonder if they'll try to make that the Linux client desktop? . . . Nahhh, they aren't that crazy.
That would be kind of silly since they just bought Ximian. The Java GUI was just a quick-and-dirty implementation used to impress the PHBs. I don't know anyone who actually uses it unless they have to (like during the install). It's for people who say, "Man, that Ferrari is really nice...except it doesn't have an automatic transmission."

Ain't skeerd (of a command line)

Re:Chris Stone and Novell Linux Distributions

[Red Rocket]

I doubt if Novell would actually evangelize a new distro. They're more likely to create one that works seamlessly with their server and directory software and include it with those products. That would grease the path of Linux into the corporate environment without precluding the use of other distros. Novell would effectively be saying, "You want to use Linux? Here, we'll make it easy for you. Want to use a different distro? Knock yourselves out, it's a free country and an open OS. More power to ya." It's an effective strategy if you want to displace Windows.

Ain't skeerd (of a command line)

Re:Chris Stone and Novell Linux Distributions

[MyHair]

Oops. I meant to say something in the spirit of "Windows is far from blameless itself" since I know Windows makes life difficult on successful Windows software vendors when trying to take over their innovations. I didn't know the details but was pretty sure Windows was hostile to Novell clients. Instead I goofed up the statement and made it sound like I was promoting MS. I feel ill now.

Okay, my Java GUI comment was stupid, too. It's just one of those things that popped in my head while typing, and Novell seems to really like Java. Of course that would be stupid in every aspect; besides if they wanted to go that direction they could've done it already with a Java VM on a PC or a Java PC.

And I also only see the console GUI when a particular app requires it for install. I've always thought it's idiotic to have a GUI on a server class machine. Put the GUI on the client tools; that's why they call it a server.

Re:Chris Stone and Novell Linux Distributions

[Degrees]

+5 insightful

Re:Chris Stone and Novell Linux Distributions

[Red Rocket]

Hey, don't beat yourself up too bad, that's what we're here for. :)
And besides, you're good enough...you're smart enough...and, doggonit, people like you.:)

Ow, my face hurts from all those smileys.

Ooops

[Micro$will]

This is why everyone should wait until after the legal dust settles, SCO's stock price is less than $1, and all they have left is the shirt on their backs. You'll be able to buy out SCO with a half eaten cheeseburger and a warm Coke.

Welcome to hell, Darl.

Re:Ooops

[cptgrudge]

And meanwhile, all the SCO execs are eating prime rib steak dinner and excellent wine since they started selling off their stock when the price went up.

If anyone is "ceding authority" it is you

[Chuck Chunder]

by letting fear of Microsoft dictate what you think people should and should not build.

You're yielding, not those building Mono.

What did Novell buy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It only shows how clueless Novell really are. They bought Ximian for what ? Evolution ? MONO ? Ximian Desktop 2 ?

They could have the software without buying Ximian because it's all opensource and developed through many people. What they did was putting money into the throath of Ximian's CEO Icaza and Friedman for the work of other people. Evolution is opensource and it will stay opensource, MONO is opensource and it stays opensource, Ximian Desktop 2 is only a polished GNOME (which is made by other people). So what did Novell actually purchase ?

They could have all this stuff w/o paying anything.

Re:What did Novell buy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You Pro-Ximian Task Force Troll!

Re:What did Novell buy ?

[chef_raekwon]

So what did Novell actually purchase ?

there are many answers to this question (of which i know none), but the one that forks in my mind is the actual 'control' of the future 'direction'. This will be used for Novell, and their purposes (which happens to be 'making money'). That in itself should be worth the dollars that were spent...

Re:What did Novell buy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

-> the actual 'control' of the future 'direction'.

Ok, but what will they 'control' and what 'direction' ? Is the direction and control not in the hands of those supplying the code ? How do you think Novell 'controls' the developers. Say when I contribute code to GNOME how will Novell control me and force me to go in some direction ? I have no contract with them, nor do I owe them something. All Novell can do is to thank me (or any else developer) for having contributed the work. I think that in the future everything continues the same way it did now. Novell's or Ximian's gonna paying their few employees, people outside Ximian continue working on all the opensource title (Evolution, Mono, GNOME). If Novell really tries to force control or direction to the developers then it will mirror back to them in no time.

Re:What did Novell buy ?

[chef_raekwon]

Is the direction and control not in the hands of those supplying the code ?

good question. is all of the code that is submitted to GNOME, used in the project? or, are there some regulations, some stuff that is cut, some 'direction' given by someone? ofcourse, Novell will run 'control' and 'direction' simply by stating what goes into the final product (of Ximian products)...that and paying Miguel De Icaza to keep him onside....

Re:What did Novell buy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

-> good question. is all of the code that is submitted to GNOME, used in the project?

Yes. Ximian Desktop 2 is based 100% of the code supplied by volunteer work of others. Everything that Ximian uses to make money is based on work of volunteers.

- OpenOffice
- MONO
- Ximian Evolution
- Ximian Desktop 2

OpenOffice has countless volunteers that work on OpenOffice, provides patches, fix bugs, translate things.

MONO one of the developer of MONO is not even hired by Ximian

Ximian Evolution has many volunteer work e.g. translating strings, supply patches etc.

Ximian Desktop is 100% volunteer work, the only thing that Ximian provides is taking the 2.2 version of GNOME and polish it with a bunch of new icons, a new background and redesign the menu entries.

Now what actually does Ximian do ? Now tell me how Novell gonna control and direct this project ? Even if Novell takes the GNOME code and direct it into another direction, then at the end they always need to come back to GNOME and take it's new version today it's 2.2 next week it's 2.4 and again Novell need to base their own work on that version. What I'm trying to say is they can control and direct what they use in their company but they can't direct and control the community the people doing the work. Hope you understand this.

Example:

Novell can't come and tell the guy who wrote GThumb to go into another direction or control how GThumb has to work and look like. Reason, the creator of GThumb simply does his own work, his visions, his volunteer work on it. He cares less for the wishes of Novell and control is probably impossible.

Re:What did Novell buy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What many people don't understand is that Ximian Desktop 2 is NOT created by Ximian. People usually see it like "wow Ximian created a fabolous Desktop it's better than GNOME" while on the otherhand it IS GNOME. Only new background, splashscreen and new icons. E.g. cosmetical surgery.

It's NOT Ximian who created GNOME (even if Miguel de Icaza is called the founder of GNOME) this is not entirely true GNOME was found by RMS back in the 80's but Icaza is the one that physically went into the direction. But you may agree here that the immense amount of volunteer work is what GNOME is today. If a guy like de Icaza would have done all what is GNOME today then it may have been a lifetime work for him. GNOME is not the result of Ximian, GNOME is the result of volunteer work. That's what people need to understand. It's not Ximian who hosts and maintain GNOME at the end.

What Novell actually bought is the company Ximian but not the technology. Regarding to the terms of GNU/GPL and GNU/LGPL and it's puhilosophy the software put under these terms have NO owner (only a copyright holder). So bascially by byuing Novell they only bought Ximian but not the technology.

Re:What did Novell buy ?

[chef_raekwon]

these are all valid points..
and I understand that it is 100% Volunteer work, but my point was this: if i decide to write some really buggy/shaky code, and submit it, will it be included?
probably not...

so ofcourse, it is 100% voluteer work, but, the decisions of what to include, and what not include of ALL of the volunteered work, has to be done by someone....

now, i have no idea of what 'actually' goes down with the GNOME or Ximian projects...if I did, I'd probably not be posting on slashdot...

but, inregard to Novell-- they would start to also 'Volunteer' their code, and their code would(or may) take precedence over other code...and thus, providing the direction. again i claim to not know anything - -im just offering a hypothesis to the situation (so dont flame me)

Re:What did Novell buy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

-> and I understand that it is 100% Volunteer work, but my point was this: if i decide to write some really buggy/shaky code, and submit it, will it be included?

Yes, usually those who wrote the software are maintaining the code as well. Either a maintainer is seeked for the software or as said the author is the maintainer. Regardless of that it's mostly volunteers. So the volunteer who is actually the maintainer decides wether code wents in or not. No company behind it. It could be you or me.

Re:What did Novell buy ?

[HiThere]

If Novell bought the company, and the company owned the copyrights, then Novell also bought the right to distribute the software under other licenses, and to include it within it's own commercial offerings without also distributing the source for those offerings. And to sell modified versions without making the changes public.

Note that all of these steps are taken by well regarded members of the FOSS community, e.g., TrollTech. But this *could* be a significant advantage for them vs. other companies in the same market. (E.g., it could enable them to allow Groupwise to communicate with MSOutlook servers, perhaps. [Maybe they can already do that, but it was only an example.])

Re:What did Novell buy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What Novell did buy was the work (present and future) of some GNOME programmers that know how it works from inside. This is a faster way to make NetWare and GNOME interact than to train some number of programmers from Novell and make them do a NetWare port. Novell can insert code on Ximian's code to link better both products. It's not about copyrights or IP or making another distro.

At least is what I think.

A little semantics is in order here...

[Anonymous Coward]

And therein lies the fatal flaw in pushing a Microsoft-controlled (and possibly patented) standard on a free platform ... It isn't about 'sucking up valuable developer time and effort' (plenty of things suck up valuable developer time and effort, indeed, that is the very essence of free software and the freedom for people to explore solutions wherever they lead) ... it is about ceding authority to an avowed enemy of software freedom ("Linux is Unamerican" Microsoft may or may not be inherently evil, but that they are an enemy of free software is indisputable), be it authority in unilaterally defining a standard or, worse, authority in having the legal clout via patent (and perhaps copyright) law to kill a free project dead ... perhaps an entire genre of free projects if said project provides critical underlying infrastructure. We dismiss such concerns at our own, rather substantial, risk.

If you think that the GPL [were it intelligible, rather than the rambling, incoherent, mumbo-jumbo mess that it is] is not [or would not be, were it intelligible] every bit the blueprint for slavery that its progenitor was, you are a fool.

God forbid that men might construct a society whose citizens were free to choose to own both tangible and intangible private property [or neither, or one and not the other, or whatever the hell else they might desire]...

Re:A little semantics is in order here...

[-brazil-]

I see one fool here, and that is you. You do not "choose" to own property, owning property is the only thing that enables you to have significant choices.

LOL

[JoeLinux]

As located here, RedHat calls SCO's practices "likely to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive". Is that legalese for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt"?

Just a thought,

Joe

Ah, would you negotiate with terrorists?

[dido]

Wouldn't buying out SCO be just like negotiating with terrorists? Make no mistake: they want to be bought out! McBride and his cronies get themselves a golden parachute, SCO disappears, and the lawsuit disappears, and everyone is happy. Until one fine day a new piddly-ass failing SCO wannabe corporation with some semi-valuable "intellectual property" tries to do the same. There will be no end to it then.

IBM and RedHat and everyone concerned should do their utmost to grind SCO into the dust, so as to give a clear message that this sort of "terrorism" will never be tolerated.

Re:Black economy

[Anonymous Coward]

From 1995 to 1997, he spent ... $230,000 on pagers and cellphones

What the fuck? Did he fill his swimming pool with pagers? Did he give one to every crack dealer in the universe?

How the fuck can you spend a quarter million on pagers and cellphones?

Didn't you hear?

[Anonymous Coward]

We save 5 cents per XML transaction.

Never underestimate the power of a multibillion dollar marketing budget.

Standards

[ae]

The lesson is that as soon as you support somebody else's standard, then nobody has any reason to use your standard.

A standard does not belong to any particular entity. As long as you are refering to your or their standard, it is not a standard. You might want to talk about your (or their) protocol, API, file format or whatever, but then you're not talking about standards.

The fact that there is a formal specification of something does not make it a standard.

Not really...

[krinje]

You make it sound simple. .Net on Linux doesn't imply the Windows libraries are being ported as well; just the Common Language Runtime for running code (byte) compiled for it. Unless the Wine guys or someone else decides to integrate their Windows emulation stuff with MONO (I hope they're listening...) you won't be able to run the same code on each platform.

Of course, MS will probably change the .Net spec in version 2 thereby making Mono obsolete and byte-code incompatible anyway... As is their way.

Please ask this question at the conference call!

[yeremein]

Blake Stowell on Moglen's statement that users don't need a "copyright license":

Copyright absolutely applies. For the same reason that a commercial user must have a valid licence to run Microsoft Word, a user must also have a valid licence to run our Unix source code.

It was my understanding that the Microsoft EULA is the "use" license for Word--Linux customers have made no agreement with SCO.

In addition, Stowell admits that IBM holds the copyrights to the code in question (emphasis mine):

While IBM owns the copyrights on these derivative Unix programs, SCO owns the control rights to these and they cannot be contributed to open source. The contracts between IBM and SCO state all of this.

Someone please ask SCO this:

Since IBM has the copyrights to the code in question, what recourse can SCO possibly have against end-users?

It looks to me like all they can do is go against IBM for breach of contract. But they're inventing a new kind of intellectual property, "control rights", which allow them to go against end-users, or so it looks to me.

You Mean ...

[FreeUser]

If anyone is "ceding authority" it is you ... by letting fear of Microsoft dictate what you think people should and should not build.

You mean, like the way a motorist cedes authority to a precipice they drive along, by chosing not driving over the edge?

Microsoft has a history of bullying tactics and abuse of their monopoly to shut down competitors, even small upstarts who pose no real immediate threat. They have a history of moving development targets and changing standards with little or no warning (and at great cost to their customers) to keep their competition off-balance. They have intimated an intention to use copyright and patent law to bury free software. Microsoft has a history of discriminatory licensing targetted specifically at the GPL, and vitrolic rhetoric accusing free software developers of being 'unamerican' (a strong accusation in American culture and politics).

And you suggest it is unreasonable to look at these facts, observe that Microsoft unilaterally controls this standard, that Microsoft has publicly stated it intends to destroy free software, and that it is the one who points this out that is somehow 'ceding authority', rather than those who wish to promote a unilateral Microsoft standard into a fundamental standard inherent in the infrastructure of future network based free software projects?

One does not 'cede authority' by recognizing a risk and chosing to avoid it. One does 'cede authority' when one places the standard of one's basic infrastructure into the hands of another. For free software projects to build upon a standard controlled unilaterally by their staunchest opponent (philosophically, ethically, politically, and economically), and incorporate said standard at a fundamental level of their infrastructure, is most definitely to cede authority to that opponent.

Indeed, much like driving off a cliff ("see, I'm not ceding authority by letting my fear of the precipice influence me!"), doing so is not only foolish, it is downright suicidal.

Your doublespeak skills are quite formidable, but fortunately for most of us, unconvincing.

For another perspective

[wahgnube]

Check out this phone interview with Miguel on OSNews.com.

Seems like all is well, for now anyway.

Re:For another perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Love this bit of question:

"Many casual and business Linux users know Ximian for adding polish and UI changes to an otherwise rough interface."

Huh?! Polished? When did Gnome cease to be the most coyote ugly excuse for an interface bar none?

I believe that ECMA require RAND, which is not RF

[expro]

Who marked this insightful, when it is wrong?

ECMA only requires RAND, which means almost nothing in real terms.

In some cases, Microsoft and others have said "royalty-free", which is still clearly not GPLable and does not seem to extend much beyond a very basic core of C#, which I believe is far less than you get with a Java distribution, for example.

On the reference implementations I find mention of the mplementations being limited to "non-commercial" uses.

I complain about Java's lack of openness all the time, but the one thing Sun has never done (yet, to the best of my knowledge) is threaten third-party Java implementations with patents. Unfortunately, .net is not open, including specific technologies that Mono has said they would try to be compatible.

I really wish

[phorm]

That we could do something without hurting the workers in SCO. Yes, as a company they are being very very bad. But what about the actual workers? Do they agree with management? Do they have somewhere else to go?

Unfortunately, there's no way I could see to buy out SCO and put those in the "idiot management division" or "idiot shareholder division" out on the streets without first handing them a hefty chunk of change. But really, SCO and the OS community used to get along to some extent, and I'm sure there are still a fair bit of workers there very worried about their jobs (without yet finding alternate employment) who are both competent and not ignorant.

Re:I really wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Those workers need to start looking for jobs now (actually, they need to have started a few months ago) now that their employer is getting out of the "having a product" business.

I'm not blaming the techheads at SCO for what the PHBs are doing, but they can't claim to be ignorant of PHB's destructive acts against their own company. They better wake up and find new jobs.

Novell should be cheering for SCO.

[glrotate]

If Novell is going to release their own distribution it would be helpfull if SCO won. That way Novell and SCO would be the only ones authorized to distribute Lunix.

Re:Novell should be cheering for SCO.

[MrResistor]

If Novell is going to release their own distribution it would be helpfull if SCO won. That way Novell and SCO would be the only ones authorized to distribute Lunix.

No they wouldn't, because they'd be violating the GPL, and therefor violating the copyrights of all the various contributors who didn't plagarize SCO code. Care to take bets on which group represents a larger portion of the Linux codebase?

By the same coin..

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember OS/2? No? See? Nobody remembers OS/2 (Bill Gates quote!).
OS/2 ran Win3.1 apps natively, so nobody wrote OS/2 apps, but Win3.1 apps.

The lesson is that as soon as you support somebody else's standard, then nobody has any reason to use your standard.

Remember Win 3.1? Win3.1 ran DOS apps natively..

The lesson is that support of preexisting platforms helps adoption of your own.

Ximian is all about

[sICE]

Primate Programming... ;-)

I dont like this..

[Bruha]

Maybe it's time to fork the code in case what Novell plans does not run well with the regular users of Ximian.

Their plans only talked about bundled versions with novell's products noting about any standalone versions.

We'll have to wait for the announcements at linuxworld I guess.

When did we start sowing our own FUD?

[Chuck Chunder]

Mono isn't akin "driving off a precipice".

At the very most your scenario of Microsoft atacking Mono is nothing more than a possibility. (It's also not a possibility that people are blind to. The approach of the Mono team to potential IP related problems seems completely sensible).

So perhaps it's akin to driving along the edge of a precipice. I've driven up my fair share of mountains and perhaps it is a bit more dangerous than a trip down to the local shops but sometimes the place you want to go to happens to be at the top of a mountain. Of course we could wrap ourselves in a big roll of cotton wool but we'd never get anything done.

Microsoft got where they are today by aggressively invading their competitors space. Look in the help menu of IE, Excel or Word and you'll see "Help for Netscape users", "Wordperfect help", "Lotus 1-2-3 help".

C# exists. The CLI exists. Microsoft has enough power to guaruntee they are successful in their own right regardless of Mono. Ignoring that doesn't help anyone.

Microsoft are indeed strongly competative but we know that of all of the models the Open Source/Free Software model is a highly resiliant one.

Microsoft is the incumbant and it is up to the Free Software/Open Source movement to engage them and encourage people to come accross. As Wine and Samba have and continue to help make inroads so will Mono.

Your doublespeak skills are quite formidable, but fortunately for most of us, unconvincing.

Very funny. Fortunatly for us Mono continues to progress nicely so your FUD is presumably viewed appropriatly by those who count.

Why not Java?

[iamacat]

.NET languages do have some advantages over Java, but just trivial things that can be implemented on top of Java VM, with a modified compiler and some JNI code. Classes with attributes for example, can be compiled as JavaBeans. There are not so many existing .NET apps and they can probably run under Wine.

So the question is, why not focus on Java?

OT: Vertu

[BreadMan]

You can put down quite a bit on a cell phone. For entertainment, I was able to put together one for about 25K using the configurator on thier site and I was going cheap. They call the phones instruments, just like Lilly Tomlin. :-)

Absolutely DO NOT buy SCO

[CowardX10]

To those who wish that IBM or whoever would simply buy out SCO, consider the following:

1) America is rampant with frivolous lawsuits. Hell, we invented the term, along with nuiscience suit. What big company doesn't have one or more?

2)There will be more to follow. Count on it. When you get big enough, you get sued. If you're intimidated now(or your manager is), then you might as well drop Linux because this won't be the last. This lawsuit is as full of s*** as they come, and if we as a community concede to their desire for a buyout under these circumstances, we have no chance of surviving.

3)The only thing which gives this lawsuit any legitimacy is the fact that SCO bought some UNIX licenses in the past. Everything else about it is made up of lies and contradictions:

1. They attack Linus for not carefully checking and preventing proprietary code from infecting Linux, yet SCO itself continued(continues?) to distribute Linux, apparently oblivious to violation of their own IP.
2. Their inability to decide on what type of IP case this is; copyright? patents? contract violations?
3. They claim ownership of all code related to Unix. As the BSD case has established, this is impossible. If they claim ownership only of work derived specifically from Sys V, then all they can ask for is for those "stolen" parts to be removed.

4)The only thing that matters is what is done in court. "Cease and desist" letters, random claims of ownership of IP, threats to sue anyone and everyone, look pathetic. Despite all the fears of FUD scaring users away, most people understand this. This is why smart companies have a policy of silence during litigation.

5)Be grateful SCO's claims are so outrageous. It's as if I were to send Microsoft a letter claiming they stole some of my IP and therefore the entire company is mine. Or that some MS employee sneaked some SCO code into Windows, and therefore SCO owns all of Windows XP.

The best thing to do is point people to articles like Eric Raymond's and ANUPAM CHANDER's as well as the fact that in the first court challenge by LinuxTag, SCO backed off.

Not competing with Microsoft?

[dokhebi]

What kind of double-speak is that? It sounds kind of like "...I'm buying a National League baseball team but I'm not competing with the LA Dodgers."

That rumble you hear is George Orwell rolling over in is grave.

Remember BeOS?

[lilbudda]

When Be first came out that was their montra too... "we're not out to compete with M$". Does that mean NW/Linux will suffer the same fate?

Let me help you with your brain logic blockage.

[jotaeleemeese]

In Colombia very often the drug barons, that make a fortune out of the misery of many other people, regularly give to good causes in their towns of origin: public services, schools, even help building the local church.

Not surprisingly the locals normally love these criminals and more often than not are willing to do anything (and here I mean anything) in favour of their patrons.

Draw your own analogies, it is not difficult (keep a sense of proportion, there are degrees of black here), but to say that somebody does not behave like a truly bastard in one field because he behaves like a saint in another is absolutely naive, childish and frankly stupid.

Re:Let me help you with your brain logic blockage.

[Xerithane]

In Colombia very often the drug barons, that make a fortune out of the misery of many other people, regularly give to good causes in their towns of origin: public services, schools, even help building the local church.

Comparing Microsoft to a Columbian drug lord? Right, and you think I need help with my logic.

Draw your own analogies, it is not difficult (keep a sense of proportion, there are degrees of black here), but to say that somebody does not behave like a truly bastard in one field because he behaves like a saint in another is absolutely naive, childish and frankly stupid.

I don't need analogies. I look at facts. Bill Gates acts in the best interest of his stock holders and for the longevity of his company. He made Microsoft what it was before there was any issues with monopolies or illegal practices. Making Windows run on MS-Dos was a good business move.

Almost every programmer in the world should thank Microsoft for pushing personal computing, because we wouldn't have a job otherwise.

And I'm a unix programmer. I've only produced one windows application, written in Qt and developed under Linux.

Re:Let me help you with your brain logic blockage.

[Sique]

Almost every programmer in the world should thank Microsoft for pushing personal computing, because we wouldn't have a job otherwise.

Personal computing was pushed by the Commodore PET, by Apple's II and successors and by the hundreds and thousands of companies building IBM compatible personal computers.

And by Microsoft when they looked away when students used their pirated version of MS Works or MS Word.

Re:Let me help you with your brain logic blockage.

[Xerithane]

Personal computing was pushed by the Commodore PET, by Apple's II and successors and by the hundreds and thousands of companies building IBM compatible personal computers.

And why were the "hundreds and thousands of companies" (nice exaggeration, btw) building all of them? To run Microsoft software.

And by Microsoft when they looked away when students used their pirated version of MS Works or MS Word.

Nice way of discounting reality! I wish I had that power, too.

Re:Let me help you with your brain logic blockage.

[Sique]

• Personal computing was pushed by the Commodore PET, by Apple's II and successors and by the hundreds and thousands of companies building IBM compatible personal computers.
  

And why were the "hundreds and thousands of companies" (nice exaggeration, btw) building all of them? To run Microsoft software.

In Germany were I live we had at one time (about 1991) more than 250 companies assembling their own IBM compatible computers. So "hundreds and thousands" is to be taken litterally.

And even though they were using software compatible to Microsoft products, many of them rather installed DR DOS. The market leader in Germany at the time, VOBIS, moved to OS/2 3.0 and Warp instead of Windows 3.1. And we students were busily trading MS Word 4.0, 5.0 and 5.5 because the university's computer for printing had MS Word installed. Most of the more experienced computer users used TeX and LaTeX instead though.

Re:Let me help you with your brain logic blockage.

[Xerithane]

In Germany were I live we had at one time (about 1991) more than 250 companies assembling their own IBM compatible computers. So "hundreds and thousands" is to be taken litterally.

Well, that's just utter bull-shit first off. I worked in a very small computer shop being the only person building computers. I produced on average 10 computers a day. This was because we had several business clients that sold computers we provided. Within a year, I produced over 3,000 computers. If there were 250 shops, that is 750,000 computers in a year. They would put themselves out of business in less than a year at that rate. So... uhm, you are full of shit.

And even though they were using software compatible to Microsoft products, many of them rather installed DR DOS. The market leader in Germany at the time, VOBIS, moved to OS/2 3.0 and Warp instead of Windows 3.1. And we students were busily trading MS Word 4.0, 5.0 and 5.5 because the university's computer for printing had MS Word installed. Most of the more experienced computer users used TeX and LaTeX instead though.

Congratulations, you have a limited selection. Let me tell you what life was like where even more computers were sold in the early 1990's. They all ran Windows.

OS/2 had issues running on non-IBM hardware, too. Remember that? I doubt it, because your whole post reeks of making shit up.

Re:Let me help you with your brain logic blockage.

[Sique]

They would put themselves out of business in less than a year at that rate.

They did. So what? There was a statistic available that the average computer manufacturer in Germany had a lifespan of about 11 month in the early Nineties. If you look at the top 5 german PC manufacturers from 1992 (VOBIS, ESCom, Comtech, Siemens and Pyramid), none of them exists anymore.

Yes, the SIEMENS brand still exists, but Siemens doesn't sell their own computers anymore. They sold their computer assembling business to Fujitsu, and they now sell Fujitsu-Siemens branded computers. The other Siemens PC brand (Siemens-Nixdorf) has completely vanished.

So... uhm, you are full of shit.

Just for stating facts?

OS/2 had issues running on non-IBM hardware, too. Remember that? I doubt it, because your whole post reeks of making shit up.

It had issues when you were installing it at your own. But the VOBIS computers came preinstalled with OS/2, so the hardware issues were already solved. Once in time, OS/2 made up for 30% of all IBM-compatible PC-OS-sales in Germany.

Re:Let me help you with your brain logic blockage.

[Xerithane]

Just for stating facts?

Back up your facts, and lets talk some more.

It had issues when you were installing it at your own. But the VOBIS computers came preinstalled with OS/2, so the hardware issues were already solved. Once in time, OS/2 made up for 30% of all IBM-compatible PC-OS-sales in Germany.

30%, and so the other 70% was Microsoft then?

Re:ZENworks on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the FUCK is this off topic?

ZENworks is a desktop management product made by Novell. I think it is a great product.

Right now, it only manages Windows workstations.

I assume it will manage Linux workstations in the near future.

Moderation doesn't mean "I'm a stupid fucking son-of-a-bitch and I don't know what this means. Thereforem, -1 offtopic!" Fuck you shits.

Again, I state: IT WILL BE SWEET TO SEE ZEN FOR LINUX.

Someone already did

[RdsArts]

Looks like someone already did.

Check their website.

Re:ZENworks on Linux

[CoolCash]

FYI... "Stone: ZenWorks is a great software-distribution package. We can now cover Windows, Linux and NetWare with it." Your answer is in the article.