Slashdot Mirror


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."

34 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Red Hat/SCO legal docs by viewstyle · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    1. Re:Red Hat/SCO legal docs by RevMike · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

  2. not to compete with M$? by gurisees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but that they are not out to compete with Microsoft


    so, will they install Ximian on XP?

    --
    ... information wants to be forwarded ...
    1. Re:not to compete with M$? by Havokmon · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  3. How come by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 3, Interesting

    RedHat didn't purchase Ximian?

    --
    --------
    Free your mind.
    1. Re:How come by _|()|\| · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

  4. Oh yeah, they'll go for that. by slusich · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Oh yeah, they'll go for that. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  5. Right... by mschoolbus · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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

  6. Bet they hadn't thought of this by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 5, Funny

    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 have over 70 freaks, do you?
    1. Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this by JanneM · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:Bet they hadn't thought of this by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

  7. Don't buy SCO. by nuggz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Fund by ultrabot · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

    --
    Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
  9. This is why Mono is such a bad idea by FreeUser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea by KamuSan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea by alienw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea by alienw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:This is why Mono is such a bad idea by Malcontent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  10. Yay! by donmiguel42 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "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!

    1. Re:Yay! by chef_raekwon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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...

      --
      We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
  11. "the copyright thing" by _|()|\| · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

  12. SCO Teleconference by jmkaza · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Great exposure for Linux by lrandall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  14. 10 years later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

  15. Re:Reread On Title... by kpansky · · Score: 3, Funny

    > 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.

    --

    --Kevin
  16. IBM? by Erwos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
  17. Chris Stone and Novell Linux Distributions by alistair · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Chris Stone and Novell Linux Distributions by Red+Rocket · · Score: 3, Informative


      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)

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
  18. LOL by JoeLinux · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  19. Ah, would you negotiate with terrorists? by dido · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
  20. For another perspective by wahgnube · · Score: 5, Informative
    Check out this phone interview with Miguel on OSNews.com.

    Seems like all is well, for now anyway.

  21. Absolutely DO NOT buy SCO by CowardX10 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.