Novell Not Pushing Ximian Onto SuSE
dhunley writes "According to TechCentral, a recent story on Novell's plans following the acquisition of both SuSE and Ximian comments that 'SuSE will continue (to operate) as a business unit of its own', according to John Phillips, Novell's corporate technology strategist for the Asia Pacific region. 'We don't expect to make Ximian the default user interface, and for the medium term KDE will remain the default GUI on SuSE Linux'."
No point trying to merge by force. Novell understands you can't take two things, and make them come together by force. I figure that eventually Novell will have SUSE using Ximian, but it won't be immediate. They may have made some bad decisions in the past, but Novell has learned.
Once they merge, we can finally see S-imian, the new user-friendly desktop monkey butler!
Well what do you expect? You really think Novell is ready to actually do anything? They are probably currently revamping the whole company, working hard on getting thier services completly linux integrated, and figuring out what the hell they still want and need to do.
Dont expect anything revolutionary from Novell in the middle term. In the long term, expect suse to disappear into novell completly and have a really tightly integrated set of OS+Services+GUI.
I think the biggest problem companies have in making linux profitable is how to mix free software with software you have to buy, and how to make the user comfortable with their choices. The problem is that it is hard for them to justify buying something when it is freely available.
I have always loathed working with Novell, in a business environment just because it complicated most things. Everything works easily on Windows but on novell well there were all these extra steps or dead-ends. When I heard someone had novell I cringed. Now, however, it would seem I'm hoping people end up with novell linux so I can do the linux side of things I could never do before. So I really did used to hate it but now I'm wishing for it.
As a loyal SuSE user, I'm happy because KDE default appeals to me (mostly cause its a more mature project). Sure, its a couple clicks during install to switch, but its good that Novell looks at the SuSE crowd and keeps SuSE like it always has been.
Of course, YMMV.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
now that's something I want to see soon. That way those moronic teachers at my college will have to learn Linux or stop telling the world that Netware is the safest and most used Network platform.
A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care.
I understand that it is probably good for Novell to not rock the boat too much rught away. But, can someone with a little more market savvy explain what is in Novell's best interest in the long run? Give the users lots of choices with loose integration? or eliminate some of those choices and work on more tightly integrated line?
considering the support and work SuSE put in KDE in the past, it'd be a shame to become Ximian-centric.
Now, all that's left is for SuSE to integrate with Ximian as well as it does with KDE. And then, well frankly, there will be no opponent to SuSE domination on desktops.
Now if only SuSE were to have a ports-like package management tool and taking NDS from Novell for granted, there will be no competition, from the Linux world or otherwise...
/. Where the truth
QT is open source and a good library. The only major issue is that it's GPL instead of LGPL like GTK. Depending on your view not being able to link comerial apps for free may be a good thing.
IANALBIPOOGL (I am not a Lawyer, but I play one on GrokLaw.)
Given the general efforts by freedesktop.org and the like to improve interoperability between the two largest free desktops, isn't the so-called desktop war is really a mute point? Sure there are two complete systems, but even as a die-hard GNOME user myself, I still want all the KDE desktop available even if only to occasionally try out some KDE app or feature.
I think keeping both desktops as strong and competitive as possible is the best for all of us. In fact, my concern down the road is that through general merging of functionalities and core libraries (even allowing for C v. C++ differences), the whole thing may become one big homogenous effort prone to stagnation. (The wheel gets so big, it gets harder and harder for the community as a whole to re-work efficiencies or pursue dreams beyond current capabilities.)
Perhaps the (justified) business concern of trying to do too much without focus applies here, but why can't the KDE effort simply fork and find supporting funding if abandoned? If the demand is there, no one business can ever kill off Free Software. Maybe how Novell decides to treat KDE (or Ximian) really doesn't have as big an impact as we think. Does corporate funding really prove to be the most significant factor in a desktop's success or effectiveness?
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
In other words, on the long term KDE will not remain the default GUI.
This reminds me of the recent article on deconstruction where the author analyzed the affirmation "JFK was not a homosexual" to be a proof of the inherent homophobia in our society. But he was being absurd on purpose.
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
NDS was launched in '93 with Netware 4.0
NT3.51 was launched in '95.
Even though NDS was fairly unstable until 4.1x, they still were doing stuff with NDS that we had to wait until Win 2000 for Microsoft to do with AD.
I think Novell became a victim of its own success - they were used to admins queing up to get their CNA/CNEs and basically, they got lazy. Their marketing has always been... pretty bad.
As to other stuff Novell has made... Well, ZenWorks was pretty revolutionary when it came out. A lot of their other products are also pretty damn good, like iChain/BorderManager, iFolder, iPrint...
I'm sorry - I must take exception to these "hate" comments -
People who are trained exclusively on Windows should not be *expected* to get Novell, just as people who are trained exclusively on Linux can't see the bright spots in Windows. Novell is a very top-down system--because of this, it takes more time, more thought & more design to really get the system built properly. But as in engineering, the harder it is to build a system the harder it is to tear it down. Contrasted with Windows which grew from a bottom-up approach--it has its strengths, but scalability & mission-critical reliability was never a design goal. Ease of use was.
Windows has gotten a LOT better in the past few years--so much so that the differences between Netware & Windows have become, at least on the surface, negligible. We have many clients running pure Microsoft networks... but for me, I'm clinging to Netware & GroupWise for my own network as long as there's still some life left in those products--they give me tons of features and none of the headaches associated with supporting a pure-Microsoft environment. Their software is *still* better-engineered than most of what else is out there. It just takes time & effort to understand it--you really have to dig into it and get an idea of WHY they made certain design choices--once you do, you can set up a Novell-based system that runs rings around any Microsoft-based network. Compared to Windows, where things are just slapped together & pushed through until they work "well enough."
What ever happened to the "geek" mentality for going out and finding this information on your own? I see lots of blanket statements about how "Novell sucks" or "Microsoft sucks" but usually not a lot of concrete evidence to back these claims up. Everything has its purpose--if you have a knee-jerk reaction to something maybe it's a sign that you need to go invest some time in learning about it before letting the rest of the world know you don't have all of the information?
And yes - I think Novell, maybe, can do a bang-up job with these recent aquisitions. I just hope they don't screw up the marketing end of it like they have so many times in the past.