Microsoft To Announce Linux Partnership

Hell called. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:38 · Score: 5, Funny

They want their ice back.

Re:Hell called. by morgan_greywolf · 2006-11-02 08:47 · Score: 5, Funny
And in other news...
- Duke Nukem Forever was released today.
- Hell froze over.
- SCO v. IBM trial over.
- Apple uses Intel Processors.
oh wait, that last one is true...
--
My blog
Re:Hell called. by WilliamSChips · 2006-11-02 08:58 · Score: 3, Funny

And don't forget that Debian Sarge was released.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Hell called. by fistfullast33l · 2006-11-02 08:59 · Score: 1

And in the wayback machine, Sun Microsystems and Microsoft formed a partnership over Sun's Java development platform. Microsoft was quoted as saying they were looking forward to a "fruitful relationship in which we could include constructive input to the Java community."
Re:Hell called. by rocjoe71 · 2006-11-02 09:01 · Score: 4, Funny
...And in yet more news:

Four horsemen arrived in Seattle today. When approached one horseman was quoted:
Sorry guys, we could have arrived sooner to put a stop to this but we couldn't find a flight in time that would take the horses-- not even Southwestern. Besides, Horseman Tim is afraid of snakes.

So, to wrap it up:
- Dogs and cats are sleeping together
- Pat Robertson simultaneously converts to Judaism and Islam.
- Osama gets laid, changes his mind about destroying world.
- Scientists discover smoking is good for you.
- Microsoft is supporting Suse Linux.
--
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
Re:Hell called. by c6gunner · 2006-11-02 09:17 · Score: 1

AND, even more amazingly, a Slashdot thread goes for more than 10 minutes without anyone making fun of Bush or complaining about the US.
Re:Hell called. by rhartness · 2006-11-02 09:20 · Score: 0

AND, even more amazingly, a Slashdot thread goes for more than 10 minutes without anyone making fun of Bush or complaining about the US.

Mega-dittos c6.
Re:Hell called. by wumpus188 · 2006-11-02 09:31 · Score: 1

You forgot Mass Histeria.
Re:Hell called. by smilindog2000 · 2006-11-02 09:38 · Score: 1

It's a trap!!!

Microsoft is just propping up the #2 threat to damage the #1 threat. Microsoft is doing this to hurt RedHat, who scares them more. Offering not to sue Novell??? Guess that means they're gearing up to take down RedHat, and they need a Linux distros on their side, preferably one that hates RedHt, one they can buy cheap.

This is just the sleazy way of doing exactly what Oracle is trying to do: drop RedHat down a notch or two so they can be taken out (through buyout or bankruptcy)

Looks like Linux has finally arrived on the radar.

--
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Re:Hell called. by ClosedSource · 2006-11-02 09:48 · Score: 1

And it pretty much worked out that way if you equate "the Java community" to Sun, Inc (which was pretty much the case back then). The "constructive input" consisted of millions of dollars paid to Sun for making Java more attractive on Windows without Sun's permission.
Re:Hell called. by brewstate · 2006-11-02 09:48 · Score: 1

Maybe they could start by creating a Xen enabled MS kernel. Virtual Windows sounds much safer.
Re:Hell called. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2006-11-02 09:50 · Score: 1

A catastrophe of biblical proportion!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Hell called. by ccarson · 2006-11-02 09:52 · Score: 0

Zing!

I guess pessimism and negativity is the order of the day, especially on Slashdot.

Go on, I know you want to flame me.
Re:Hell called. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:00 · Score: 0

And radical leftists quit whining about stolen elections (2004) that weren't.

You Lost - you deserved to. Kerry was an idiot and a horrid campaigner (as he has proven ever since). Its not like the Republicans gave you a hard guy to beat, someone like Guiliani. They gave you GW Bush and you still LOST! Whats it take to realize your shrill whiney attitude and crappy candidates simply dont go far - its not that the Repubs stole it, its that your guys sucked so bad that they got BEAT!

FYI, A guy named Gore is available and probably learned from his mistakes in 2000. I say he would make a better candidate than Hillary the Polarizer (talk about driving p the Republican turnout!). Remember Nixon lost to Kennedy and ran and won again later legitimately in 68 (before he watergated it in 72!). So if Tricky Dick can come back from a loss and roll up a legitimate win, Al Gore can too.

You Lost - Get over it. Run a better candidate.
Re:Hell called. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:15 · Score: 0

Alternatively, it may be that Microsoft are adjusting their business model. The idea of 'crushing the competition' has got them into trouble with regulators in their two biggest markets (the USA and the EU), so it might make more sense to settle for something like 60-80% market share, if they can make sure the entire 60-80% are paying. The rest, who probably aren't willing to pay for Windows anyway, can be left to use a cheap/free alternative like Suse Linux.

From a financial perspective, it would probably mean higher turnover (if every Windows customer were really paying), and it would also get the regulators off Microsoft's back.

This is just a guess, of course, based on what I think might be good business choices, and I've no idea if Microsoft's management have even remotely similar ideas.
Re:Hell called. by cp.tar · 2006-11-02 10:25 · Score: 1

I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!

Say what?

Reboot after installing Quake 3?

Say what you will, that is retarded.

This ancient troll still offers something new every time it appears...

P.S. I have never tried Quake 3, but I think I saw it somewhere in portage... so the install would probably look more like "emerge quake3"

--
Ignore this signature. By order.
Re:Hell called. by obsidianpoet · 2006-11-02 10:32 · Score: 1

I am just waiting for CmdrTaco to come out with a OMG PONIES!!!!! http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/01/152621 6

--
"Gentlemen, You cannot fight in here, this is the War Room...." - Dr Strangelove
Re:Hell called. by wolff000 · 2006-11-02 10:58 · Score: 1

Easy is a relative term. I think it is is extremely easy to replace a logic board in a xerox machine, but I serisouly doubt it would be easy for you unless you have done it quite a few times. At the same time you can't say all linux distros are difficult to install cause I seriously doubt you have ran an install on all of them. I'm no fan of either OS they both have major pitfalls and security holes. I'm still waiting for a decent OS to be brought out and yes I have tried BSD and in my opnion it's no better than the other 2.

--
WTF?
Re:Hell called. by jc42 · 2006-11-02 11:25 · Score: 1

On a related topic, on the way home a while ago I noticed a flock of pigs overhead, migrating southward.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:Hell called. by WilliamSChips · 2006-11-02 12:32 · Score: 1

And yet the first response is yet more "OMG SLASHDOT IS TEH EVIL FOR NOT WORSHIPPING BUSH" crap.
And I would like to EX-TER-MI-NATE the lameness filter.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Hell called. by WilliamSChips · 2006-11-02 12:34 · Score: 1

holy crap, somebody actually fixed the ">1%" error! Too bad they don't know how to make < or else they wouldn't have to spell it out.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Hell called. by itwerx · 2006-11-02 12:47 · Score: 1

crushing the competition' has got them into trouble with regulators

Er, no, in the grand scheme of things it really hasn't.
Re:Hell called. by c6gunner · 2006-11-02 12:56 · Score: 1

Have you considered Valium?
Re:Hell called. by livewire98801 · 2006-11-02 14:51 · Score: 1

Actually, he's right. Well, partially. The quake3 packages are just the open sourced engine. To actually get the game to run, you have to load the game itself. The analogy would be that you can get a free chessboard, but the pieces are sold seperatley. I couldn't even use the Q3Ademo on my Linux box :-/

--
"He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
Re:Hell called. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 17:43 · Score: 0

Remember Nixon lost to Kennedy and ran and won again later legitimately in 68 (before he watergated it in 72!)

Seeing how you admit that Nixon cheated in '72, it seems odd that you assume he did it honestly in '68, just because he didn't get caught.
Re:Hell called. by sisimon · 2006-11-02 18:53 · Score: 1

Microsoft may consider Google as a big threat. I think they are preparing their arms to fight with Google.
Re:Hell called. by cp.tar · 2006-11-02 19:19 · Score: 1

Then I guess, "emerge quake3" is "gimme Linux support", then you install the game. AFAIK id Software is very very friendly towards Linux...

Doesn't sound too bad.

--
Ignore this signature. By order.
Re:Hell called. by livewire98801 · 2006-11-02 19:33 · Score: 1

It isn't bad, but it IS complicated. There are RPM packages that I installed, but couldn't finish because I didn't have a full retail install of the game. I had the demo, but it doesn't count.

--
"He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
Re:Hell called. by rvirga · 2006-11-02 22:32 · Score: 1

Osama gets laid, changes his mind about destroying world.
Bobby Brown kills Osama and Whitney after finding them in bed together, gets arrested, but is ultimately absolved by the jury because Chewbacca living on Endor doesn't make sense.
Re:Hell called. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 22:50 · Score: 0

Mary Howitt (1799-1888)

The Spider And The Fly

"Will you walk into my parlor?" said the spider to the fly;
"'Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you may spy.
The way into my parlor is up a winding stair,
And I have many curious things to show when you are there."
"Oh no, no," said the little fly; "to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again."

"I'm sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high.
Well you rest upon my little bed?" said the spider to the fly.
"There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin,
And if you like to rest a while, I'll snugly tuck you in!"
"Oh no, no," said the little fly, "for I've often heard it said,
They never, never wake again who sleep upon your bed!"

Said the cunning spider to the fly: "Dear friend, what can I do
To prove the warm affection I've always felt for you?
I have within my pantry good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome - will you please to take a slice?"
"Oh no, no," said the little fly; "kind sir, that cannot be:
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"

"Sweet creature!" said the spider, "you're witty and you're wise;
How handsome are your gauzy wings; how brilliant are your eyes!
I have a little looking-glass upon my parlor shelf;
If you'd step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself."
"I thank you, gentle sir," she said, "for what you're pleased to say,
And, bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day."

The spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew the silly fly would soon come back again:
So he wove a subtle web in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready to dine upon the fly;
Then came out to his door again and merrily did sing:
"Come hither, hither, pretty fly, with pearl and silver wing;
Your robes are green and purple; there's a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!"

Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer grew,
Thinking only of her brilliant eyes and green and purple hue,
Thinking only of her crested head. Poor, foolish thing! at last
Up jumped the cunning spider, and fiercely held her fast;
He dragged her up his winding stair, into the dismal den -
Within his little parlor - but she ne'er came out again!

And now, dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words I pray you ne'er give heed;
Unto an evil counselor close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale of the spider and the fly.
Re:Hell called. by GNious · 2006-11-02 23:21 · Score: 1

So does virtual sex, but that doesn't make it a good idea!
Re:Hell called. by PastaLover · 2006-11-03 05:21 · Score: 1

So basically you're complaining that you didn't get the game for free? what the hell?
Re:Hell called. by Bugs42 · 2006-11-03 05:52 · Score: 1

I hope that you die so much, in fact, that I am willing to take my life if you are willing to jump in front of a charging rhino
Yet not willing to login to post, Mr. AC....

--
Programmer: an ingenious device that converts caffeine into code.
Re:Hell called. by SkunkPussy · 2006-11-03 06:01 · Score: 1

mass hysteria

--
SURELY NOT!!!!!
Re:Hell called. by cp.tar · 2006-11-03 09:52 · Score: 1

Yeah, that puzzled me, too... I mean, I'm a freebie lover as much as the next guy (NeXT guy? who would be that?), but don't think that just because Linux is free, the games for Linux must be as well.

Then again... imagine id Software making the Linux version of one of their new games free.
How much would that do for the adoption of Linux?

Of course it'll never happen, but I do like the mental image...

--
Ignore this signature. By order.
Re:Hell called. by livewire98801 · 2006-11-03 12:47 · Score: 1

Well, sorta complaining. I have Q3Arena for free on my Windows partition on this computer, why can't I do the same thing for free on my Linux machines? I see why I don't get to install the full retail verson for free, but why can't I use the same process on the demo?

I'm not really complaining though, just kinda frustrated about it. My point was that the install process is not 'easy' to install retail games on Linux. I can't 'yum install half-life' and the above Gentoo user can't 'emerge WoW'.

--
"He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
Re:Hell called. by cp.tar · 2006-11-03 15:26 · Score: 1

But for most games, there's still Cedega. And it works quite well in my experience.

Installing games takes about two clicks more than in Windows.

--
Ignore this signature. By order.

Typicial. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:39 · Score: 0

Embrace, extend, extinguish...

Re:Typicial. by lucabrasi999 · 2006-11-02 08:43 · Score: 1

From an MS perspective it's just "Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer".
From Novell's perspective it's "Hey! Where did all this money come from?"
Re:Typicial. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:51 · Score: 0

From Novell's perspective it's "Hey! Where did all this money come from?"

The answer, as always, is "From your former customers."

Hey Novell! by snuf23 · 2006-11-02 08:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?

--
Sometimes my arms bend back.

Re:Hey Novell! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:41 · Score: 0

Yep (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov 06/11-02NewsConferenceMA.mspx)
Denis the SQL Menace http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
Re:Hey Novell! by smittyoneeach · 2006-11-02 08:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Why, yes, to the tune of Zappa's "Keep it greasy (so it'll go down easy)"

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Re:Hey Novell! by gt_mattex · 2006-11-02 08:48 · Score: 1

Wait, I know this one.
Never rub another man's rhubarb?

--
"No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture." - Learned Hand
Re:Hey Novell! by WilliamSChips · 2006-11-02 09:36 · Score: 1

JACK O'NEILL: One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
DANIEL JACKSON: A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
JACK O'NEILL: ...Don't run with scissors?

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Hey Novell! by clubin · 2006-11-02 09:50 · Score: 1

Is that just a quote from the Joker (used in the original Batman movie), or is there a well-known source that both him and you are quoting that from?
Re:Hey Novell! by walstib · 2006-11-02 10:46 · Score: 1

JACK DANIELS: Cheers!

--
The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps. - Benjamin Disraeli
Re:Hey Novell! by WilliamSChips · 2006-11-02 11:00 · Score: 1

whoosh!

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Hey Novell! by r_j_howell · 2006-11-02 11:09 · Score: 1

Yes they have, and last time, Microsoft slaughtered them.
Re:Hey Novell! by Crayon+Kid · 2006-11-02 11:20 · Score: 1

Oh, you want a devil quote? Here's one: "When you dance with the devil, the devil doesn't change. The devil changes you."

--
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
Re:Hey Novell! by bilgebag · 2006-11-03 01:14 · Score: 1

"When you dance with the devil, the devil doesn't change. The devil changes you."

Not in Soviet Russia!

wow. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:39 · Score: 0

Didn't see that one comming.

Remember that scene from Scanners? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:39 · Score: 0

*HEAD EXPLODES*

"And in other news, Hell has frozen over and pigs fly!"

It's a trap! by draos · 2006-11-02 08:39 · Score: 1

It's a trap!

Re:It's a trap! by t0rkm3 · 2006-11-02 08:52 · Score: 1

Get an AXE!
Re:It's a trap! by ebob9 · 2006-11-02 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

--Conspiracy-Tinfoil hat required content--

Yknow, Microsoft didn't get any millage out of SCO. So they thought, "Hey, lets butter up Novell. Partner with them and help them get some market share."

In 12 months, when Novell hasn't gotten much market traction, Microsoft may suggest "It's because of all the Linux companies competing against *your* UNIX business.. Don't you own the rights to that?"

*lawsuits ensue*

--Safe to remove Conspiracy-Tinfoil hat--
(or is it??)

-ebob9
Re:It's a trap! by flynt · 2006-11-02 09:24 · Score: 1

I give you props for the quote, but it really should be "It's a trick, get an axe".

What a great movie!
Re:It's a trap! by thebeforeguy · 2006-11-02 10:22 · Score: 1

couldn't resist:

Those software patents are fully operational (exercisable)!
Re:It's a trap! by init100 · 2006-11-02 12:10 · Score: 1

In 12 months, when Novell hasn't gotten much market traction, Microsoft may suggest "It's because of all the Linux companies competing against *your* UNIX business.. Don't you own the rights to that?"

*lawsuits ensue*

Sorry, they would have to transfer Darl McBride to Novell first. And I don't see that happening, Microsoft partnership or not. :)

HAHAFHAHAP by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:39 · Score: 0

hahaMyPosthahaisFirst.

Re:HAHAFHAHAP by Morphine007 · 2006-11-02 08:43 · Score: 1

hahaYouhahaFail.

--
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!

wtf? by Morphine007 · 2006-11-02 08:40 · Score: 1

Did I not RTFA correctly, or is Satan breaking out his ice-skates??

Does this mean that SUSE is now as good as dead, or poised to take over?

--
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!

Re:wtf? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:50 · Score: 0

Well, I guess that depends on how the resulting software looks. IANAL but it seems like, with this agreement only being between Novell and Microsoft, that any GPLed code resulting from this agreement would not be protected in any other distro. This would make Suse the de-facto "official" Windows-integration distro, so it would have that as an edge. On the other hand... Microsoft might have qualms about software that is compatible with their OS being used in a truly open-source way, and we've seen them shut out competitors in the past. If they have anything to say about this, they'll be sure that resulting programs are either closed-source, or so locked-down, encumbered, and dangerous for the greater community (beyond Novell) that it is not worth it to develop in a community-driven way.

Then again, it would be a nice surprise to be wrong about this.

please type the word in this image: boasting. How appropriate.
Re:wtf? by computersareevil · 2006-11-02 09:00 · Score: 1

If they have anything to say about this, they'll be sure that resulting programs are either closed-source, or so locked-down, encumbered, and dangerous for the greater community (beyond Novell) that it is not worth it to develop in a community-driven way.

So maybe now some people can see the benefit of the patent-protection clause in GPL V3 draft?
Re:wtf? by IWannaBeAnAC · 2006-11-02 09:11 · Score: 1

Nice theory. Unfortunately, the GPL simply doesn't work like that. Microsoft agreeing not to go after SuSE means they cannot go after the code full stop. Electrons do not distinguish which webserver you download from.
Re:wtf? by EvanED · 2006-11-02 09:26 · Score: 1

The GPL v2 doesn't contain patent provisions. So you could GPL code that's protected by patents and release it still be able to sue users.

Hence the debate over how best to add protections in the GPL v3, all the OSI licenses that aren't GPL compatible because of patent restrictions, etc.
Re:wtf? by IWannaBeAnAC · 2006-11-02 09:38 · Score: 1

Well, as far as I know the USA is the only country that recognizes software patents, so realistically most of the world doesn't care anyway. But it would be an interesting court case, because usually you either license patents or you do not, going after one company that has not licensed the patent but not going after another is pretty questionable, and I reckon a court would see it as strange too (although of course IANAL). And there has been no mention of SuSE licencing patents - of course - if there was Microsoft would have to reveal what those patents were, which would itself be very interesting.
Re:wtf? by AJWM · 2006-11-02 09:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

The GPL v2 doesn't contain patent provisions.

Yes it does. The gist of them being: if you can't grant downstream distributers the same licenses to any patents in the code that you have, then you can't distribute.

So, this is either a clever way to keep Novell from distributing SUSE, or a clever way to keep Novell as nervous as hell about what it distributes as part of any GPL'd code. (MS is just promising not to prosecute Novell over patents, it's not (AFAICT) granting a license much less any sub-licensing rights.)

Now, never mind just SUSE, think about Mono for a bit.

--
-- Alastair
Re:wtf? by sillybilly · 2006-11-02 09:46 · Score: 1

Most of the world doesn't care "yet." Do not think this will last forever, that the software patent clause that won't get resurrected year after year after year as long as there is money to pay the lawyers doing the dirty work trying to resurrect it, and there is money to campaign against politicians who are against it, sooner or later the whole world will have to care. Money talks, roll over, rover, sunny side up, nice and easy.
Re:wtf? by Knuckles · 2006-11-02 09:48 · Score: 1

The GPL v2 doesn't contain patent provisions. So you could GPL code that's protected by patents and release it still be able to sue users.

Yes it does and now you can't. See the preamble as well as sections 7 and 8. GPLv3 strengthens and clarifies them ,but they are there in v2

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:wtf? by smilindog2000 · 2006-11-02 09:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Microsoft agreeing not to go after SuSE means they cannot go after the code full stop.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. They can secretly license their patents to Novel for $1, making it perfectly legal for them to sue the heck out of every other Linux distro in US courts. This kind of thing is done all the time. Patent portfolio companies often offer to license their technology for free or cheap to the top one or two players in a field, and then make their money suing everyone else. For example, these pricks pretty much gave away their patent license to Intel, and are now suing the heck out of everybody.

--
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Re:wtf? by Knuckles · 2006-11-02 09:50 · Score: 1

should have read "no you can't"

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:wtf? by IWannaBeAnAC · 2006-11-02 10:04 · Score: 1

You are talking about licensing. But no one else is. I'm not sure its possible to 'secretly' license a patent, eventually it will come out. Until that happens, and we find out exactly what patents M$ is talking about (or vaporing about), its a vacuous question.
Another interesting question is, what happens if said 'other distro' claims in court that they downloaded the code from a SuSE server?
Re:wtf? by smilindog2000 · 2006-11-02 10:11 · Score: 1

Microsoft never agreed to the GPL. They can say to Novell, "For you're license fee of $1, your direct users will have the right to download your Linux distro, so long as they do NOT redistribute it or modify it. If they do, we'll sue them. Also, we'll need your users to agree to this EULA..." Software patents are just bad. I've got several, and I'm not happy about it.

--
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Re:wtf? by IWannaBeAnAC · 2006-11-02 10:24 · Score: 1

Right, but the point is that Novell have to agree to the GPL in order to distribute their software. But if they have a secret agreement with Microsoft that violates the GPL, they cannot in good faith distribute. Also, the GPL explicitly states that there can be no additional conditions (such as an EULA).
Re:wtf? by smilindog2000 · 2006-11-02 10:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're probably right about the EULA. One less thing to worry about. However, the GPL does not indemnify users from being sued by Microsoft (nor SCO). Novell is free to license patents from Microsoft, SCO, or whoever in order to protect their users, but if I were Novell, I'd make sure that protection didn't apply to anyone who redistributes my distro. Software patents pose a real danger to Linux. Did you hear that Microsoft has been funding SCO to pursue the lawsuits? It remains to be seen what Microsoft will do once SCO goes down in flames. Without Bill Gates at the helm providing some level of insight, they just might come out strong with their lawyers. After all, it's not statistically likely for a complex project like a Linux distro to be completely clean against such a massive software patent portfolio as Microsoft's, no matter how hard we try.

--
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Re:wtf? by EvanED · 2006-11-02 10:59 · Score: 1

because usually you either license patents or you do not, going after one company that has not licensed the patent but not going after another is pretty questionable, and I reckon a court would see it as strange too (although of course IANAL)

No it isn't; licensing patents to just a limited number of clients happens ALL THE TIME.
Re:wtf? by EvanED · 2006-11-02 11:02 · Score: 1

Hmmm, thanks for the correction. I've been under a misconception for quite some time.
Re:wtf? by IWannaBeAnAC · 2006-11-02 11:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post I think, the issue is not whether you can selectively license patents. That is obvious that is no (legal) problem. The issue is whether, out of a group of companies that have no license agreement, you can slectively sue some of them but not others. To repeat: there has not been any suggestion of M$ making a formal licence agreement with Novell.
Re:wtf? by Crayon+Kid · 2006-11-02 11:26 · Score: 1

I got another theory. Oracle deals with Red Hat, Microsoft deals with SuSE. Somehow, don't know how. Who'll be left in the Linux business then? Mandriva? Ubuntu? Pfft.

I know it's a long shot, but sometimes you realize how fragile the whole thing is. If both SuSE and Red Hat would suddenly go under or sell out it would be quite a kick in the groin for Linux.

--
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
Re:wtf? by EvanED · 2006-11-02 13:09 · Score: 1

Reading it again I think you were clear, I just misread it. I'm sorta making a fool out of myself in this thread. ;-)

Also, I doubt that Novell will knowingly incorporate anything into Suse that's patented without a formal agreement, especially if the patents are MS-owned.
Re:wtf? by IWannaBeAnAC · 2006-11-02 13:25 · Score: 1

Well, the big battles in Europe have mostly been fought, and it was a victory for the no-software-patents clan.
There is a fear, in some circles, that the eventual unification of European patent law will end up introducing software patents via the back door. The basis for this is that, under current proposals, the European Patent Office would also be responsible for administering the European Patent Court. Basically a fox guarding the henhouse situation, and the scenario is that the EPO would appoint judges that simply interpret the European law that clearly states "software patents are not allowed" to mean "software patents are encouraged". After all, its just a goddamn piece of paper, right?
This is a pretty far-fetched scenario to begin with - such a blatant violation of the EPO's mandate would surely not no unnoticed by the european parliament (which, admittedly, is pretty powerless, but it does have the final say). Also, I had a long discussion about this with a friend that is a patent lawyer (no really, he is actually a nice guy - only a couple of years out of a science PhD in the research group I am currently in), and he says that the pace of the bureaucracy is such that it is a decade at least before the unified European patent law will hapen anyway, at the earliest.
True, we need to remain vigilant, but for the time being, at least, Europe is safe from software patents.
Re:wtf? by tacocat · 2006-11-02 13:45 · Score: 1

Debian will always be in the Linux business.

So will Slackware.
Re:wtf? by rpdillon · 2006-11-02 13:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

The GPL v2 stipulates that you may not redistribute code if you cannot grant downstream users the same patent use that you have. So, if MS decided to license to Novell and ONLY Novell, Novell can no longer distribute their distro open source under the GPL. Which, of course, means they cannot redistribute at all.
Re:wtf? by smilindog2000 · 2006-11-02 16:14 · Score: 1

That's a damned good clause! I'll have to go back and read it, again.

--
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Re:wtf? by lucychili · 2006-11-02 20:03 · Score: 1

Under the patent agreement, both companies will make up-front payments in exchange for a release from any potential liability for use of each others patented intellectual property, with a net balancing payment from Microsoft to Novell reflecting the larger applicable volume of Microsoft's product shipments. Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source products.
Re:wtf? by HiThere · 2006-11-03 06:03 · Score: 1

I don't know. I think that the GPL terms mean that if the people you distribute to are limited in their ability to alter, recompile, reuse, and redistribute...then you didn't have the right to distribute in the first place.

It's true that this is enforced via extensions to basic copyright permissions...but it covers everything. If there's a law saying that you can't modify a chunk of code, then you aren't allowed to distribute it. Copyright, patent, trademark...it doesn't make any difference.

N.B.: If Novell were the sole owner of the copyright then this argument wouldn't apply. The copyright holder is allowed to distribute the work without any extra rights beyond those of the copyright law, so that wouldn't depend on the GPL allowing the code to be distributed to enable the distribution, even if the license used was the GPL. But it would mean that Novell couldn't distribute under the any GPL code that it wasn't the copyright holder for that included a Microsoft patent, regardless of any patent sharing agreement that the two companies might have UNLESS Novell was the copyright holder. (In that case they wouldn't be distributing the code under the GPL, but rather under their right as copyright holders...so people who received it would not have any rights under the GPL to redistribute it, even though the code was covered by the GPL, because it was also covered by a patent that did not have the appropriate permissions. [If Novell owned the patent, then as I understand things it would be implicitly granting all necessary permissions...])

CAUTION IANAL!

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:wtf? by Jon_S · 2006-11-03 06:04 · Score: 1

No Shit. RMS may not have the most endearing personnality, but he is a genius (and not just because he got the McArther grant).

Some Open Source people have been dissing the GPL for years, saying it is too much of a burden and gets in the way of some development (for example, the QT kerfuffle before it went GPL), but RMS was visionary enough to see this day coming, and we are all glad that he did.

It's his long-view vision that will not allow just an MS-blessed version of Linux to be distributed.

WOW! by certain+death · 2006-11-02 08:40 · Score: 0

Let's see...it is not April 1st... WTF?!?

--
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus

Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:40 · Score: 0

I er..yeah. I think I'll go lie down.

Re:Huh? by chaoticgeek · 2006-11-02 09:49 · Score: 1

I woke up from a nap to find this as the first story on my slashdot rss feed.

--
hello

Temperatures drop in Hell by joeyspqr · 2006-11-02 08:40 · Score: 1

Cats and dogs living together!!
Pool Halls in River City!!
Duke Nukem released!!

the end of the world!!

--
+1 fashionably cynical

Re:Temperatures drop in Hell by Doctor+Memory · 2006-11-02 08:43 · Score: 1

Heh, that was my first thought: "Hey, where are my skis? There's sure to be some champagne powder at Satan's place tonight!"

--
Just junk food for thought...
Re:Temperatures drop in Hell by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:54 · Score: 0

And all over Slashdot monkeys are flying out of people's butts.
Re:Temperatures drop in Hell by Viper+Daimao · 2006-11-02 10:05 · Score: 1

Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"? Dr. Raymond Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... Winston Zeddmore: The dead rising from the grave! Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - MASS HYSTERIA!

--
"In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR

A reminder to all the people at Novell by JamesP · 2006-11-02 08:40 · Score: 1

Drugs are bad mmmkay...

"But I was just playing chess with Mike Tyson!!!"

--
how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?

Re:A reminder to all the people at Novell by hr.wien · 2006-11-02 09:32 · Score: 1

But I was just playing chess with Mike Tyson!

Is that about analogous to playing with a Wookie?

- Aha.. check m...
- Rrrraaaaaaarghh!! *biff* *biff* *thud*

*quiver* by bflong · 2006-11-02 08:41 · Score: 1

Um... er... but... wtf... *Head Explodes*

--
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?

Whats in it for Microsoft? by Billly+Gates · 2006-11-02 08:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

I dont understand why Microsoft has been so friendly to OSS sofwtare on windows, but this is well strange.

Microsoft has been nicer since Bill Gates left the CEO position to Steve Balmer but Microsoft must have an incentive. Why would Microsoft help a competitor? Especially one that is very entrenched in the server market which MS wished it owned like the desktop market.

I wonder if there are clauses in that agreement for MS to pull a SCO if they feel to threatened? This is the same microsoft that screwed IBM twice with DOS and OS/2 and Netscape so I am skeptical.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2006-11-02 08:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

The most obvious explanation I can think of is that they have decided Linux is not going to displace Windows on the desktop, and that the technologies in question are useful on the desktop rather than on servers. If SuSE (and others) take up Microsoft solutions on the desktop, they will not be developing parallel solutions.

--
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by ebob9 · 2006-11-02 08:49 · Score: 1

Well, in the past, Microsoft has had huge success with it's OS collaboration projects.. OS/2 anyone?

-ebob9
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by morgan_greywolf · 2006-11-02 08:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why would Microsoft help a competitor?

Maybe you could ask Steve Jobs. I think he might know.

--
My blog
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by jpvlsmv · 2006-11-02 08:51 · Score: 1

From the summary...
In addition, Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux,

Microsoft gets out of this deal a public statement that there "may be patented technology" in Linux.

--Joe
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by VEGETA_GT · 2006-11-02 08:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think it has to do with the fact hey are going to develop software to run both suse and windows at the same time. think about it, getting suse users to run windows on thre sytem while not having to lose suse, its another license and more cash for M$. Also they could make the software buggy specifically towards suse and O darn, its easer to deal with windows in this setup, then guess what people well use.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by yurik · 2006-11-02 08:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

I suspect Microsoft needs a common programming platform, and its Mono they are after.

The adaption of .NET in the enterprise was very slow, mostly because most backends have been exclusively Unix/Linux based. Having two infrastructures at the same time is fairly expensive to maintain - an enterprise basically needs two groups of admins.

Mono solves the problem of running .net on Unix, but its legal status makes many people worried, thus Java is much heavier present in the enterprise, thus eventually it will get to the point of having as nice UI as WinForms from both visual and developer's perspective. The moment it happens, being a cross-platform Java will run on both Unix & Windows - not good for MS.

This partnership sends a clear message to all enterprise architects: Mono is OK, we won't sue you. The extent of this is unclear... Will wait and see :)
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by head_dunce · 2006-11-02 08:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Microsoft is seeing open source applications, like SugarCRM, come into the business market and fast. These open source applications have to run well on Microsoft operating systems, but right now they run better on Linux. For example, that's why they're partnering up to make PHP run better on M$ products. I think they tried to do this on their own with Longhorn, and although it may come out at the end of the month, I doubt it's what they originally had planned. With Novell losing their top 3 kernal programmers to Oracle in the last few months here, this may be exactly what Novell needed to keep SuSE alive.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by tiocsti · 2006-11-02 09:01 · Score: 1

Maybe this is the only way they could ship vista on time?
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by LWATCDR · 2006-11-02 09:05 · Score: 1

IE for Linux and MSN for all searching?

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Proud+like+a+god · 2006-11-02 09:14 · Score: 1

Hasn't it got to the point where there may be patented technology in breathing?
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by betterunixthanunix · 2006-11-02 09:28 · Score: 1

I am also very surprised at this announcement. Microsoft has been very careful to make sure that none of their employees actually see any GPL'ed code, for fear that they will be forced to GPL one product after another (the viral license theory). Of course, they have a separate GNU lab, which is responsible for "services for UNIX," and which will probably be involved in this Suse deal...

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by gstoddart · 2006-11-02 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft has been nicer since Bill Gates left the CEO position to Steve Balmer but Microsoft must have an incentive. Why would Microsoft help a competitor?

Specifically, so they can prove they have competitors is my cynical response.

When people say MS is a monopoly, they get to point to Apple and Linux and say "see, we have competition". By helping Linux, they can keep that interpretation in place. In this case, specifically in the enterprise segment.

As soon as it looks like they have no viable competition in the server market, they are wide open for getting smacked down for doing things they oughtn't be doing.

But, I could be way off base on this one. It's happened before. :-P

Cheers

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by mnmn · 2006-11-02 09:34 · Score: 1

Tell the 'people' to stop smoking the illegal stuff since April is far away.

The people should know that Microsoft knows Linux is their capital enemy and that if they lose the binary compatibility market, customers will simply choose the superior and free OS along with the free office suite. Microsoft knows thats bad. And the people are not in the know.

--
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by TechForensics · 2006-11-02 09:35 · Score: 1

M$ wants a piece of the support revenues for Suse. Watch the cost of Suse support climb.

--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by edmicman · 2006-11-02 09:40 · Score: 1

Maybe they could extend Mono to actually have an MS backed cross-platform .NET? A Visual Studio for linux, and ASP.NET for Apache? SQL Server even? That'd be awesome to be able to run MS tools on something other than Windows...
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by ZoneGray · 2006-11-02 09:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Pretty simple, really. It's a defensive move. They NEED to be involved in Linux, especially overseas, where they can't get away with charging US prices (and can barely enforce the licenses anyway).

And don't expect MS to try and make SuSe proprietary; they're doing this precisely because they need an alternative product line, to gain an entry with customers who won't use Windows.

Expect to see a LOT of SuSe in China.

The lesson from this and the Oracle move is that it makes more economic sense for huge software companies to handle the distribution, and to benefit from the various synergies and good will that it creates, rather than to start a company that does nothing but Linux (and trying to figure out how to monetize free software). MS will eventually profit more from Linux than Red Hat ever did, but not by charging for the software.

Linux has "won", in a sense.... it's reached enough critical mass that there's a mad rush to be the one who gives it away. It may never outnumber Windows, but it will ALWAYS be a factor from here on out. The only question remaining is who will eventually buy Red Hat (sure, they may try to restructure, but they'll never be able to make a go of it with MS and Oracle trying to outdo each other at giving it away). SAP and HP are the first names that come to mind. Maybe Sun, but they couldn't afford it. Intel would have antitrust problems. Not sure if IBM would still be interested.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:52 · Score: 0

Well, of all the Linux flavours, Novell is one of the more conventional business models. This is just speculation, but maybe Microsoft is thinking that by allying with Novell they are giving legitimacy to a business model they prefer and hopefully pushing some of the other ones under.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by jvkjvk · 2006-11-02 09:57 · Score: 1

Because if the reps get into the linux accounts they can "upsell" them to MS windows. Not very hard to figure that out. It's been a long-standing tactic for a lot of companies (IBM I *am* looking at you!) and can be used to push their server products.

Not only that, they get to see first hand what issues Linux has in enterprise applications and FUD the hell out of them.

Not only that, they can get real world understanding of what is missing from their own offerings that caused these clients to choose Linux.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by tuck3r · 2006-11-02 10:12 · Score: 1

Awesome? And have M$ have power over both the mainstream market and the admin market? besides M$ products have been proven too large and very crash worthy with rarely updated security loopholes.

--
tuck3r
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by thethibs · 2006-11-02 10:15 · Score: 1

Microsoft didn't screw IBM on DOS. The deal was that IBM would make PCs and Microsoft would provide the operating system; that deal is still on.

In the case of OS/2, IBM was trying to put a mainframe operating system on a personal microcomputer. I was in the PC systems business at the time and what I saw of OS/2 appalled me; for the market at that time, it was too much, too late. It was attractive to the guys in the Fishbowl, but they weren't buying many PCs.

What might seem prescient in 2006 was suicidal in 1988 and I was one of the many OEMs to so tell Microsoft. Gates' decision to take a simpler, more incremental approach was either a clever response to customer demand or astounding luck, since it turned out to be so effective against not just OS/2 but the other dozen PC OS' available at the time (remember CPM, DR-DOS, GEOS, Convergent Unix,...?).

IBM didn't need Microsoft to build OS/2; they had thousands of programmers on their payroll. The success of OS/2 is ample evidence of the bullet that Microsoft ducked.

--
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by quentin_quayle · 2006-11-02 10:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

The clue is in this line: "The two companies have also agreed to develop technologies to make it easier for users to run both Suse Linux and Microsoft's Windows on their computers."

Remember the recent MSoft/Xen collaboration? MS is making a version of Windows that can serve as the hypervisor that other OS's run on top of. Microsoft's interest here is to make sure Windows is at the bottom layer so they can enforce DRM, "trusted computing" and ultimate control of the box, and collect fees when everyone is using virtual Linux etc.. What they want to prevent is a future where free software is at the bottom of the stack and virtual Windows instances are brought up when needed.

That's my guess. To make this happen they have to get their hooks into at least one big Linux distro so they can say, here, you can run virtual Linux on Windows.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by TemporalBeing · 2006-11-02 10:27 · Score: 1

I dont understand why Microsoft has been so friendly to OSS sofwtare on windows, but this is well strange.
I think this is largely the Gates & Balmer legacy. Much has seemed to be changing at Microsoft in the last few months, especially with Ray Ozzie taking over.

Microsoft has been nicer since Bill Gates left the CEO position to Steve Balmer but Microsoft must have an incentive. Why would Microsoft help a competitor? Especially one that is very entrenched in the server market which MS wished it owned like the desktop market. I wonder if there are clauses in that agreement for MS to pull a SCO if they feel to threatened? This is the same microsoft that screwed IBM twice with DOS and OS/2 and Netscape so I am skeptical.

Frankly, I won't be surprised if this was at least partly Ozzie's doing. It makes sense - they need to redefine Microsoft, and redefine the platform Microsoft's products run on. They have been pushing .NET, but getting a lot of resistance as people see it as MS lock-in, and as others have said .NET has issues on other platforms - Mono & dotGNU are decent, but they are no where near complete. This will let Microsoft help make Mono complete, giving them a foothold in the Linux market - something they desperately need if they are going to survive the next 10 years.

From what I've read and heard, Microsoft is getting ready to dump their backwards compatibility with the version of Windows that is coming after Vista. This may also be setting them up to survive that if they lose the entire OS market there too - though, that might actually be beneficial for the company to lose it.

One can only hope that Office gets ported to Linux as well, or at least access to the protocols/etc is opened up to the F/OSS community through this. One thing that has kept Linux back as far as growth is the lack of complete, and supported, compatibility with Office. If they ported Office over - even if it was a .NET/Mono port - this would really bolster Linux, and set up Microsoft to be a post-Windows company.
Personally, they should get rid of Windows, and focus on making a desktop OS that is based on Linux - fund a distro and put all their applications into the Linux environment. They could get rid of the headaches of being (however rightfully) accused of an insecure OS, and get on to making good products - something they can do, though they don't do it very often.

Ever notice how in the last 5 years or so Microsoft has become a deluge of products - no longer just Office and Windows. If they drop Windows (or make Windows an overlay API by supporting WINE) they could pull it off.

Of course, this is more or less a pipe-dream, but it is possible and perhaps Ray Ozzie is the guy to get them to do it. Balmer might go along just to keep his job; but he's not going to be too far away from retirement either, so there is a good chance that this might just turn around the company and actually happen.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by crush · 2006-11-02 10:28 · Score: 1

Some wild guessing: SuSE is a "European" GNU/Linux distro and MS is in trouble with EU regulators. SuSE are desperate to make up ground on Red Hat (and they've always had a slightly "compromising" attitude to the whole F/OSS insistence on not relying on proprietary bits, e.g. they've been very happy to push XGL which relies on proprietary nvidia drivers as opposed to Red Hat's AIGXL which was supported on X.org drivers, Novell also partnered with RealPlayer for proprietary codec support and kept YaST non-GPL for a very long time). So, given that Novell are not committed to F/OSS and MS wants to look less anti-F/OSS to the EU it's a perfect partnership.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:54 · Score: 0

and who ever is on the bottom gets to determine whoever is permitted to interface with them.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:57 · Score: 0

This is the same microsoft that screwed IBM twice with DOS and OS/2 and Netscape so I am skeptical.

How did Microsoft screw IBM over MS-DOS? IBM agreed to a non-exclusive licence up-front, so maybe they were stupid, but without MS-DOS, the PC would probably have been cancelled. Digital Research, recommmended to IBM by Microsoft, refused to sign IBM's extensive NDA, so Microsoft agreed to supply an OS in order to prevent the whole project being cancelled.

Microsoft actually had a huge part in the development of the IBM PC, with a larger team working on it than the small team IBM assigned to the project. Bill gates personally laid out the 1024k of address space (notoriously picking 640k for the user and 384k for the system, but 1024k was the hardware limit of the 8088, so there wasn't really a better option), and convinced IBM to add graphics (the CGA video card) to what had originally been planned as a text-only system (i.e. only the MDA video card was in the original plan). I believe Gates even did some work on the EGA video card.

OS/2 is another matter, but IBM share a lot of the blame. They refused to support the '386 early on (fearing it was too powerful, and would allow PCs to compete with their higher-margin systems), so Bill Gates turned to Compaq, and encouraged them to develop a '386-based PC (the original Compaq DeskPro). That wasn't a nice thing to do to IBM, but if they hadn't stubbornly refused to support the '386, it would never have happened.

On the software side, IBM also insisted on targeting OS/2 at the '286, because of some guarantees to customers who had bought '286-based IBM machines, whereas Microsoft wanted to move straight to the '386. IBM eventually came round and supported moving OS/2 2.0 to the '386, but the delay proved to be fatal. By 1988, Windows/386 was taking advantage '386 features to pre-emptively multi-task MS-DOS processes, whilst OS/2 could only run a single DOS process until version 2.0 in 1992.

If IBM had agreed to the '386 from the start, Microsoft wouldn't have really had an incentive to develop a '386 version of Windows. As it was, OS/2 was so crippled by its '286 focus that if Microsoft hadn't developed Windows/386 (which evolved into Windows 3.x/9x/Me), there was a very real chance that a competitor offering a '386-capable GUI might have displaced them.

The long and short of it is that the IBM/Microsoft partnership fell apart because the companies had different goals. Microsoft saw the PC as the future of computing, whereas IBM wanted to keep it confined to the bottom of the market, with expensive, high-margin proprietary systems at the top. That plan was never going to work, because general-purpose microprocessors (not only the '386, but also the 68020/30 and Risc processors) available to PC vendors had simply become too powerful.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Locutus · 2006-11-02 11:47 · Score: 1

This could be it. Microsoft provides something with some so-called MS IP and requires Novell to provide monthly shipment numbers to Microsoft so that can keep track of how much their IP is being used. Or some other lame excuse to track this. Then, Microsoft can tie those numbers into the 'throttle' of advertising revenue to fight off possible spikes of OSS and Suse growth.

Remember how much they fought SCO to keep a $1 license fee into SCO UNIX when nobody even used Xenix code? This was when SCO actually had a business in the pre-Linux breakout days of the early/mid 90's.

There is definately a dastardly motive behind this and eventually it'll come to light. I only hope that it is BEFORE it is effective.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by grrrgrrr · 2006-11-02 11:47 · Score: 1

A lot of people in charge of server-rooms are considering m$ lock-in as a problem nowadays. Also on servers I think there will be a trent to operating systems becoming a commodity like you have seen for computers in the p.c. market and windows is not that commodity operating system but linux is. I am sure they see that trent also see for example http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/06/23/1748249.shtml so M$ is just trying to stay alive.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by crush · 2006-11-02 11:48 · Score: 1

Here's the Press Release So, common document format, virtualization, and immunity from patent attacks.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Pwipwi · 2006-11-02 11:58 · Score: 1

"I dont understand why Microsoft has been so friendly to OSS sofwtare on windows, but this is well strange."

I think that this just shows some kind of trend of Microsoft pulling out from the OS world.

Look at it : their main product (windows) just has brought them trouble, trouble, trouble, and oh, bad reputation also. Lately, they have opened up to lots of other markets, most of them being infinitely more profitable than their main product (and let's not talk about Vista, nor piracy).

My thoughts on it is that they want to pull out of it. Maybe not completely, but mostly.

Now, if you look at it, there are tons of people out there working free to better a free OS. So why not help them in the end and set foot there ?

Another thing, the main apps we use now are more and more migrating to web solutions instead of software being installed on your drive : just look at all what google offers. Which again is yet another reason to forget about the OS crap which is pulling them back.

I wouldn't be surprised if they turned into some kind of service company completely web-based..
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by certain+death · 2006-11-02 12:08 · Score: 0

I could be wrong, but I believe M$ still owns a portion (Stock?) in Apple, so them doing well is just dandy with M$. This could be the case with Norvell (yes, I know, it is spelled wrong, inside joke!)

--
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 12:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

Ok, 2 ways I see this;

1) they wanted Apple out of their hair, make them partners, stop direct competition, provide IE and Office to pander to the niche, and make sure Macs remained a niche.

All that did was buy Apple some space to reorganise and come back. Their latest moves (an offical way to boot XP on intel macs) puts them head to head with Microsoft. They're wooing people who still need XP for something in the hope that those people will switch to OsX.

2) Make Microsoft not look like a monopolist. Invest in your competition and suddenly your competitors are now your partners.

In this case, I suspect it's more a case of point 1. Novell has the Ximian boys, it has a leading server distro and what's starting to look like a de facto *corporate* linux desktop, so this is a move to head off a linux push to the desktop.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Locutus · 2006-11-02 12:27 · Score: 1

Good one. I also see Microsoft doing anything and everything they can to keep Windows 'under' the VM layer and Xen could be the key motive for this 'deal'.

BTW, did you like how they have the Vista license prenting Vista Basic and Vista Home from running in ANY VM's? As you mentioned, they do NOT want Windows just popping up now and then in a VM without getting some hefty bucks for that version of Windows.

I'll have to keep my eyes open for more of this being a Xen/VM thing.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by sproketboy · 2006-11-02 12:28 · Score: 1

"I suspect Microsoft needs a common programming platform, and its Mono they are after."

Maybe. More likely this is a precursor to getting MS office on this distro where they stand to make real money and knock OO off the planet.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 12:35 · Score: 0

Mono & dotGNU are decent, but they are no where near complete.
Mono is unnecessary, unwanted and anything but decent.

One can only hope that Office gets ported to Linux as well...
...

Personally, they should get rid of Windows, and focus on making a desktop OS that is based on Linux...
...stupid.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by falconwolf · 2006-11-02 12:39 · Score: 1

"I suspect Microsoft needs a common programming platform, and its Mono they are after."

Maybe. More likely this is a precursor to getting MS office on this distro where they stand to make real money and knock OO off the planet.

I don't see it happening simply because there are so many Linux distros, all this would do is knock off Suse. And with the way many are immigrating to Open Office any sales in MS Office woud be marginal, they'd have to give it away for MS Office to keeps it's market share.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by humphrm · 2006-11-02 12:41 · Score: 1

Honestly at first I liked 'yurik's explanation, room to grow Mono. But yours makes a lot of sense...

- Linux and OSS proponents have been howling about making Linux take over the desktop / retail / home market for some time. It hasn't happened. And honestly, it probably won't, not while maintaining it's technical lustre.

- Microsoft has been howling about Linux for some time. It hasn't changed anything either.

The only flaw in this theory is that SuSE Linux is used extensively in enterprise shops as a server platform. Hmm. Dunno. Maybe you're right. :)

--
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Locutus · 2006-11-02 12:47 · Score: 1

was MS Windows really 386 capable in 1988? I remember when OS/2 2.0 came out with it's Windows 3.0 compatibility and a year or so later made an upgrade MS Windows 3.1 compatible. I guess that would have ment that MS Windows 2.0 was 386 capable and just how much effect did THAT really have?

I do remember hearing about the 286/386 problems between IBM and Microsoft but I was messing with UNIX on the 286 and 386 back in those days( Microport, Consensys, etc ). I didn't get to mess with Gem, DrDOS, Windows, and OS/2 until around 1990/1991. OS/2 just blew my socks off compared to what I saw of Microsoft Windows NT and what this new XWindow thing was on UNIX. I say "new" because it took some time before it was financially possible to run X on a PC let alone have enough RAM to run it.

I never heard of Gates doing any of what you mentioned but I did hear that when Microsoft provided IBM with the first version of MSDOS, it was so bad that IBM needed the source code to fix it before shipping it as PCDOS. It seemed all versions of PCDOS were 'fixed' versions from there on out for some reason or another.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by kevlarman · 2006-11-02 13:45 · Score: 1

i don't care why microsoft is doing it, as long as they stop overwriting the mbr when i decide i can't live without windows for gaming.

--
A mouse is a device used to point to the xterm you want to type in
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Goeland86 · 2006-11-02 13:53 · Score: 1

Maybe, maybe not?
To be honest, I doubt that this will happen. Most MS devs are, well, used to develop on Windows. Having to deal with an other OS's calls (compiling Visual C++ isn't about just taking the source, unpacking, running ./configure and make) is something that is going to be scary at least. The idea of a .NET move is pretty interesting however, as it gets MS standards on both Unix/MS platforms, and tries to shut out Mac, but afaik there's a Mono port on MacOS.
So they're probably trying to steal some of the pie from Sun and RedHat, in one single move. Good try. We'll see how it works out, but I'm not moving from Gentoo, and that's a road I KNOW MS won't want to go, because even some linux zealots refuse to... *evil laugh*

--
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 15:06 · Score: 0

"Mono is OK"

You'll be singing a different tune if you kiss someone that has it. Sick. Sick Sick......
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by quux4 · 2006-11-02 15:36 · Score: 1

Specifically, so they can prove they have competitors is my cynical response.

So ... then we don't have a monopoly. And that's a **good** thing.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by VGPowerlord · 2006-11-02 15:50 · Score: 1

There were two versions of Windows 2.0. Want to guess their names?

1. Windows/286
2. Windows/386

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by oohshiny · 2006-11-02 17:09 · Score: 1

Mono solves the problem of running .net on Unix, but its legal status makes many people worried,

The legal situation with Mono's .NET implementation on Linux is far better than with Java: Mono is already an open source implementation, it has been carefully analyzed against Microsoft's patents for several years, and there are no known patent violations. Furthermore, most FOSS uses of Mono are not based on .NET at all, they are based on the Gnome APIs.

For Java, the situation is pretty sad: the only fully usable implementation is Sun's proprietary Java implementation, Sun has an extensive patent portfolio and other copyrights, and Sun has already legally threatened open source projects that didn't fit into their strategy. Furthermore, there are no real open source API alternatives to Sun's APIs: if you're using Java, it makes little sense to use anything other than Sun's sanctioned APIs.

thus Java is much heavier present in the enterprise, thus eventually it will get to the point of having as nice UI as WinForms from both visual and developer's perspective. The moment it happens, being a cross-platform Java will run on both Unix & Windows - not good for MS.

After 10 years of Java, all we get is AWT, Swing and GridBagLayout; what makes you think that Sun will ever be able to deliver a decent GUI toolkit? Gtk# is a better toolkit after barely 2 years than Sun has managed to produce in 10.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by bckrispi · 2006-11-02 17:20 · Score: 1

I suspect Microsoft needs a common programming platform, and its Mono they are after.
But where's the revenue stream in that? The reason Ballmer kept pushing "Developers, developers, developers!" is because for every single Microsoft developer, there are Visual Studio, SQL Server, Commerce Server, Windows, and Office licenses that will be sold to enable that developer to do his job, not to mention the licenses sold to the end user when the developer's product ships.
Backing mono makes no sense that I can see. If Microsoft developers can use mono tools instead of Visual Studio, Linux instead of Windows, MySQL instead of SQL Server, etc, where will MS make their money? SUN tried this with Java. They thought that they could make a fortune on Hardware, J2EE app server licenses, and developer tools by giving Java away for free. Now, the entire Java/J2EE stack, aside from Java itself, is all but ruled by Open Source.

--
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by kripkenstein · 2006-11-02 19:01 · Score: 1

What's in it for Microsoft? I don't think anyone has the answer, at this point. But here's another bit of speculation: perhaps the patent segment of the Microsoft/Novell agreement is more important that it seems at first. On the one hand, Microsoft have plenty of patents, but if they (ab)use them against their competitors, they may become vulnerable to antitrust action. Novell, on the other hand, can assert their patents more freely. Perhaps Novell have patents that Microsoft are wary of. In that case, Microsoft benefit from a mutual don't-sue pact, since they wouldn't be able to sue anyhow.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by gbobeck · 2006-11-02 19:40 · Score: 1

More likely, M$ is going to port Clippy to KDE / Gnome, causing (in the long term) user flee in terror (and annoyance).

--
Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by jiipee · 2006-11-02 22:08 · Score: 1

If MS Office was available to SUSE platform, lot of companies would switch desktop OS.

--
-- life is such and it gets sucher and sucher --
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by gtall · 2006-11-02 23:10 · Score: 1

They sold their Apple stock long ago.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Ginger+Unicorn · 2006-11-03 00:54 · Score: 1

to kill red hat, who are a far more viable competitor teh register's take on this

red hat are reeling from the oracle stunt, now MS are putting the boot in. i imagine they'll keep kicking till they dont get up.

--
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by photonrider · 2006-11-03 02:49 · Score: 1

and OS/2 still multi-tasks better than XP.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Degrees · 2006-11-03 03:22 · Score: 1

Another possibility is focus-deflection. Which is better for Microsoft? Microsoft versus IBM, Novell, Oracle, and RedHat, or Novell versus IBM, Oracle, and RedHat?
If you watched the TV show Big Brother this summer, you know the value of a puppet-master keeping the little guys squabbling.

--
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-03 05:38 · Score: 0

Mono solves the problem of running .net on Unix, but its legal status makes many people worried, ...
It goes far beyond .NET. Windows doesn't scale. Linux does, in fact Linux clustering was more advanced in Slackware 2.0 and easier to use than Windows is today. 10 years later. You can load up a Linux/Apache server and get two nice side effects. You can put at least twice as many sites on it and it does not get hacked/crash as often.
Posted anonymously as I sure the M$ fanboys are out clicking and moding down hard today.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Locutus · 2006-11-03 06:51 · Score: 1

that does ring a bell. But IIRC, the only real difference was that the 386 version let you run more than one DOS application. Windows still was 16bit and still was cooperatively tasking. And IIRC, himemory using memory managers were still used in DOS on the 286 and since Windows was a shell on DOS, it still sucked. Maybe the 16bit/286 version of OS/2 upset people because they wanted to run more DOS applications...

I didn't get into OS/2 in the 1.x days but I'd heard from many how they hated IBM in those days. Not to mention the cost they charged for dev tools for the OS. None ever said OS/2 technically sucked or anything like that but I did hear a Windows developer called the OS/2 WorplaceShell the WorkplaceHell. But then again, he was in an OOP class and he wasn't any good at it...

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Harmonious+Botch · 2006-11-03 07:19 · Score: 1

Bill: I'm worried, Steve. We're losing more ground to Linux. It's on the verge of becoming a non-nerd OS.

Steve: I'v got an idea. Let's buy another version of Linux.

Bill: Are you crazy? The SCO gambit didn't fool anybody.

Steve: No, not like that. Instead of trying to fool a judge about the nature of Linux, we'll try to fool our customers.

Bill: So? That's already company policy.

Steve: Yes, but we'll release our own version. We tell the public that we're joining the Linux bandwagon, and with our marketing clout, it will soon become the dominant version on the market. Then when the public is convinced that MSLinux IS Linux, we make gradual changes to turn it into an unusable bloated wreck. Linux will be finished!

Bill: Sounds good so far, but where are we going to get a bunch of programmers to do that?

Steve: We have all the guys who wrote Vista. I think they could do it.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by falconwolf · 2006-11-03 08:22 · Score: 1

If MS Office was available to SUSE platform, lot of companies would switch desktop OS.

MS Office is already available for Linux, of course you have to use CrossOver Office.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-03 08:22 · Score: 0

was MS Windows really 386 capable in 1988? I remember when OS/2 2.0 came out with it's Windows 3.0 compatibility and a year or so later made an upgrade MS Windows 3.1 compatible. I guess that would have ment that MS Windows 2.0 was 386 capable and just how much effect did THAT really have?

Windows/386 was the '386 version of Windows 2.0, and was able to pre-emptively multi-task multiple DOS processes. This was by far the most important feature to early Windows users (since there were very few Windows applications), and is something OS/2 simply couldn't do.

Windows 3.0 was released in 1990, and was also offered in a '386 version (but not given a special name like Windows 2.0 for the '386 had been). It was the first version of Windows to really take off, and there was arguably a positive feedback loop, with people buying it to graphically run multiple DOS applications, thereby creating an installed base that led applications developers to target the Windows API.

With OS/2 for the '386 still years away (because of all the wasted effort on OS/2 for the '286), and applications beginning to arrive in a big way on Windows, Microsoft decided that it was essential to give developers a similar API on the new system. The result was the Win32 API, a 32-bit version of the Windows API that Microsoft added to NT OS/2. IBM demanded that Microsoft remove Win32 from NT, Microsoft refused, and so IBM ended the partnership. NT OS/2 thus became Windows NT, with the OS/2 subsystem restricted to running character-mode OS/2 1.x applications (IBM took ownership of OS/2 2.0).

I never heard of Gates doing any of what you mentioned

Bill Gates described his involvement in the IBM PC project in an interview back in the 90s. A transcript of the interview, from the Smithsonian Institution, can be found here. Gordon Letwin, one of the original eleven Microsoft employees, has also given an insight into the extreme hostility certain individuals at IBM had to Windows, and IBM's refusal to allow Win32 to exist even alongside the OS/2 API (i.e. the ultimatum to remove Win32 or IBM would pull out of the partnership).

but I did hear that when Microsoft provided IBM with the first version of MSDOS, it was so bad that IBM needed the source code to fix it before shipping it as PCDOS. It seemed all versions of PCDOS were 'fixed' versions from there on out for some reason or another.

That sounds like the sort of story bitter old OS/2 supporters might have invented. I doubt if IBM had enough people devoted to the PC project to have rewritten MS-DOS, even if they had wanted to. More to the point, given the extremely tight schedule, there almost certainly wouldn't have been enough time, and Microsoft's team arguably had more experience in the area anyway.
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by VGPowerlord · 2006-11-03 10:00 · Score: 1

True, the only real change from Windows/286 to Windows/386 was the memory mode that the kernel ran in, as far as I know.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:Whats in it for Microsoft? by IntergalacticWalrus · 2006-11-12 11:45 · Score: 1

After 10 years of Java, all we get is AWT, Swing and GridBagLayout; what makes you think that Sun will ever be able to deliver a decent GUI toolkit?

It doesn't matter, anyone serious about making Java GUIs is using SWT now.

Gtk# is a better toolkit after barely 2 years than Sun has managed to produce in 10.

Please correct me if things have improved now, but last time I checked, GTK on non-X11 platforms was just awful. (Anyway I never liked GTK, it's a joke compared to Qt, but that's another subject and I won't elaborate any further)

Those BSD guys are sooo jealous... by warpSpeed · 2006-11-02 08:42 · Score: 1

Now BSD will die for sure....

Re:Those BSD guys are sooo jealous... by clesters · 2006-11-02 09:04 · Score: 1

Well maybe not where you work :)

I don't think I overslept.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:42 · Score: 0

It isn't april 1st yet is it??

MS is considering pulling out of china.. and now they're thinking of supporting SUSE??!??!?

What's next..

a service pack for XP and Vista that removes DRM and a law suit against the MPAA/RIAA for monopolistic practices??

Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by Cruxus · 2006-11-02 08:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

How will the open-source community view SuSe Linux now? I can only imagine the brand will soon have the same stigma as Windows does. Will there be exaggerated anecdotes about how frequently SuSe "WinLinux" crashes compared to "real" distros?

--
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.

Re:Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by FerretFrottage · 2006-11-02 08:47 · Score: 5, Funny

I doubt it. My Suse system is rock solid and I'm doing an update via Yast right now. Wait, what the hell is KWGA/LGA and why is it a kernel patch?

--
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Re:Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:56 · Score: 0

... and a fat white guy who is threatened by change.
And why do all those people have their hands in his pocket?
Re:Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by Moofie · 2006-11-02 09:49 · Score: 1

"How will the open-source community view SuSe Linux now?"

Umm, with a wide variety of viewpoints, values, and opinions? Kinda like most things nowadays?

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by kirun · 2006-11-02 09:49 · Score: 1

I'll tell you how I currently view SuSE... I've used it since 8.1, and I can say that 10.1 is the worst revision in a long time. They tried to bolt together YaST with some other junk, and ended up with a whole pile of junk that doesn't work very well. SuSE was always a KDE-biased distro, and I can't imagine its popularity with Gnome users going up now Ubuntu is around. However, the powers-that-be have replaced KDE-based components (like SuSEWatcher) with GTK-based ones.

This move seems insane - it's like marrying a serial killer. Every Microsoft partner thinks they aren't going to be treated like the last lot were. Novell also seems the type to pick the wrong partners (United Linux anyone?).

My interest in Kubuntu has just shot up.

--
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
Re:Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:50 · Score: 0

I believe the appropriate brand consolidation would be 'Winux'.
Re:Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by und0 · 2006-11-02 10:29 · Score: 1

And you are forgotting the crazy mono push done by ex-Ximian's (ok Novell bought them because of mono), blah...

Every Microsoft partner thinks they aren't going to be treated like the last lot were.

Exactly.
Re:Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by J-Doggqx · 2006-11-02 11:05 · Score: 3, Funny

We are Windows Genuine Advantage. Lower your firewall and surrender your distro. We will add your secure and stabile source code to our own. Your kernel will adapt to service ours.

Resistance is futile.

--
END OF LINE
Re:Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by Pecisk · 2006-11-02 11:10 · Score: 1

Repeat after me. There is NO open-source community. There is no free software community either. Please stop spread opinion that people who are really interested in openess and sharing of knowledge are some kind of cultists - they are different and prefer those things for totally different reasons. Yes, there are groups, but even in them opinions varies from member to member.

I don't use SUSE, but I love lot of Novell Enterprise stuff, like eDirectory, Groupwise, I like their work on Evolution. So call Novell "evil" would be totally flayboytant.

By the way, Fedora Core is unstable as hell, even comparing to SUSE, don't talk about Ubuntu.

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Re:Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by steve_l · 2006-11-02 11:27 · Score: 1

Wow, YaST worked for you? Since Suse 10.1 and move to using mono behind the scenes, it's been a heap of instability. I dream of it downloading WGA...
Re:Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 12:06 · Score: 0

Microsoft Novell SuSE WinLinux Enterprise XP
Re:Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by gurudyne · 2006-11-02 12:13 · Score: 1

10.1 YaST was unstable and couldn't update itself to the stable version very well.

I recently used the 10.1 Remastered DVD and YaST has been stable in this version ever since.

--
Hey, Mom! Is it beer, yet?
Re:Just Call It Microsoft SuSe WinLinux Already! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-03 05:46 · Score: 0

I doubt it. My Suse system is rock solid and I'm doing an update via Yast right now. Wait, what the hell is KWGA/LGA and why is it a kernel patch?

Me too, but I got M$/NSAKey2.

If you can't. .... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:43 · Score: 0

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

It's the end by mkswap-notwar · 2006-11-02 08:43 · Score: 1

It's the end of the world as we know it!!!

--
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!"

Re:It's the end by WilliamSChips · 2006-11-02 08:52 · Score: 1

And I feel fine.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.

Opiate Addiction by turgid · 2006-11-02 08:43 · Score: 1

As Scott G. McNealy said to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown back in 2001, "The first hit of heroin's always free."

--
Stick Men

U are kidding me by VEGETA_GT · 2006-11-02 08:44 · Score: 1

For a second there I thought it said M$ was going to be working together with suse linux. What it dose, how come it suddenly feels cold here.

Re:U are kidding me by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:33 · Score: 0

They have the internets down in hell?
Re:U are kidding me by WilliamSChips · 2006-11-02 09:42 · Score: 1

Well, Adam could communicate with Jamie on the infinite featureless plane of Death.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.

Microsoft Linux? by Digital+Pizza · 2006-11-02 08:45 · Score: 1

Could this be the first step on the path to Microsoft Linux? Maybe they plan to embrace-and-extend their competition (Redhat) away, at least in the server room.

--
We apologize for the inconvenience.

Re:Microsoft Linux? by MarkGriz · 2006-11-02 09:04 · Score: 2, Funny

"Could this be the first step on the path to Microsoft Linux?"

Yep, they've already trademarked the name Microsux

--
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Re:Microsoft Linux? by damirl · 2006-11-02 09:07 · Score: 1

http://www.mslinux.org/
Re:Microsoft Linux? by finity · 2006-11-02 10:03 · Score: 1

As long as they don't embrace-and-extend in the bedroom, I'm ok.
Re:Microsoft Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 11:45 · Score: 0

MS-POSIX 6.2
Linux 3.11
Microsoft Linux 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP
Linux Vista
Linux Live
Slackware 1.0
Plan 9

As a Dalek, by WilliamSChips · 2006-11-02 08:46 · Score: 1

I'd just like to say THAT IT IS NOT EX-TING-UISH. IT IS EX-TER-MI-NATE!

Don't use so many caps. IT IS LIKE YEL-LING!

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.

Re:As a Dalek, by paralaxcreations · 2006-11-02 10:02 · Score: 1

EX-TER-MI-NATE!

*shoot parent with gunstalk while plunging the sink*

Cooperation by StormReaver · 2006-11-02 08:47 · Score: 1

On the surface, this seems like a good thing. So was is my skin crawling?

IE for Mac by porkThreeWays · 2006-11-02 08:47 · Score: 2, Funny

and I'm sure it'll have all the quality of IE for mac...

--
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.

Re:IE for Mac by ScaryFroMan · 2006-11-02 10:20 · Score: 1

Actually, when it was released, IE for Mac had a lot of developments that made it superior to the Windows version. It was when they stopped working on it that it went downhill.

--
In Soviet Russia, backwards is everything.
Re:IE for Mac by falconwolf · 2006-11-02 16:45 · Score: 1

and I'm sure it'll have all the quality of IE for mac...

The Mac versions of IE were more standards compliant an dworked better.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

One thing is certain by pembo13 · 2006-11-02 08:47 · Score: 1

This is an omen. Something big is going down soon. I doubt it will be pretty.

--
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft

Assimilation. by daemon_mf · 2006-11-02 08:47 · Score: 0

Something about relative proximity to friends and enemies comes to mind...

Its A Trap! by iluvcapra · 2006-11-02 08:47 · Score: 1

After all the news lately, Admiral Akbar isn't even surprised anymore.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.

In other news... by WhoWhereWhat · 2006-11-02 08:47 · Score: 1

Microsoft announced their plan to freeze hell..

Re:In other news... by zfractal · 2006-11-02 09:10 · Score: 1

Microsoft Hell(TM) 2006? Isn't this just a rebranded version of Windows ME?

I felt a sudden disturbance by AdamKG · 2006-11-02 08:47 · Score: 1

As if millions of Admiral Ackbars cried out in unison, "It's a trap!" and were suddenly silenced by a flying blue chair of death.

Seriously, this is too weird for words.

--
groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.

What's the catch? by kbob88 · 2006-11-02 08:47 · Score: 1

There's got to be some sneaky, devious, underhanded motive behind this for Microsoft...

Maybe they'll do such a bad job supporting it that Suse Linux will get a bad rep? Or they want to stick to Oracle and their Red Hat support deal?

The best idea I can come up with is that they can show this off to the EC's antitrust regulators as non-monopoly behavior.

Of course, stranger things have happened: the Red Sox did win the World Series a few years ago..

Re:What's the catch? by teslar · 2006-11-02 09:28 · Score: 1

Maybe they'll do such a bad job supporting it that Suse Linux will get a bad rep?
Don't worry about that, the damage is already done. Suse is now an outcast. It is one of them now. Shame... it was so beautiful.

Wait For It! by mpapet · 2006-11-02 08:48 · Score: 2

1. It's a trap!
2. Embrace (today) Extend (tomorrow) and Extinguish (next year)
3. There's going to be a whole lot more newsgroup traffic from MS support phone jockies from whatever developing country they live in this year.
4. MS says "All your corporate monies belong to us!".
5. Redhat should be renamed DeadHat.

Good thing I'm on Debian Etch. Which has been running beautifully despite the "testing" moniker.

--
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html

Final proof... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:48 · Score: 0

...that Vista will never come out.
They're getting ready for their transition to Linux .

Hmmm... by eno2001 · 2006-11-02 08:48 · Score: 1

Microsoft? Linux? Pact? Did someone leave out the word Devil? And is it really MicroFAUST? ;P

--
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o

Re:Hmmm... by $RANDOMLUSER · 2006-11-02 09:05 · Score: 1

Try to think of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for some historical perspective.

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill

Smoething nagging my brain by Bucc5062 · 2006-11-02 08:48 · Score: 1

I read that and I hear, very faint, "resistance is futile, you will be assimulated." Is this not the pattern; "Hey, let's be buddies", soon followed by "How's that knife I stuck in your back feeling?".

I have been a lifelong user and developer on MS, but it is not to say I would trust them ever in business. In the last year I've started to gain ground on understanding Linux and though I have my gripes, I do find a lot of positives. MS does not innovate their way to success, they acquire it or bury it. So, perhaps a side complement to Linux, but I'd just as soon see them run away, run away!

--
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter

Very simply... by turgid · 2006-11-02 08:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

I dont understand why Microsoft has been so friendly to OSS sofwtare on windows, but this is well strange.

By getting their technology ("Intellectual Property", patents etc.) into SuSE Linux, the automatically get Novell and all of its SuSE customers hooked on MS IP. Then, other users will succumb, because they will see the features in SuSE and either migrate or demand it in their own distros.

Then, Microsoft goes back on the deal and wipes out corporate Linux, and probably forces all of those users on to Windows by some upgrade plan that's impossible to refuse.

Anyone remember OS/2? It was going to run DOS, Windows and OS/2 programs.

Then NT came along...

Plan B is if Windows dies, Microsoft has a foot in the door of corporate Linux.

--
Stick Men

Re:Very simply... by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2006-11-02 09:07 · Score: 1

Don't blame Microsoft for OS/2's deficiencies, blame IBM. Gates tried to convince IBM not to use so much assembler, but IBM were drawing on centuries of experience - or something - and were not listening. It took the Cookie Monster (Gerstner) to pull IBM's arrogance.

If the Linux side play their cards carefully, Microsoft will not be able to go back on agreements. Insisting developments are Open Source will be essential.

--
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Re:Very simply... by OwnedByTwoCats · 2006-11-02 09:14 · Score: 1

Microsoft found it very convenient to tell WordPerfect that OS/2 was the answer. That they should put all of their efforts into WordPerfect for OS/2. And then Microsoft pulled out Windows 3, and Word for Windows.
Re:Very simply... by turgid · 2006-11-02 09:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

And do you think Microsoft's "promises" not to charge for patents, and so forth, will be worth the paper they're written on, if they are indeed written down at all?
RMS is indeed a wise man.

--
Stick Men
Re:Very simply... by EvanED · 2006-11-02 09:28 · Score: 1

RMS is indeed a wise man.

If a bit crazy at times.

But back to the subject, do you think that Novell's lawyers are just going to be like "oh, MS promised they wouldn't sue us. Go to it!"? They aren't exactly stupid either...
Re:Very simply... by turgid · 2006-11-02 09:42 · Score: 1

But back to the subject, do you think that Novell's lawyers are just going to be like "oh, MS promised they wouldn't sue us. Go to it!"? They aren't exactly stupid either...
Who's got the most money?

--
Stick Men
Re:Very simply... by AJWM · 2006-11-02 09:51 · Score: 1

Microsoft and Bill Gates were actively pushing OS/2 to everyone, and most especially to 3rd party application vendors (Lotus, WordPerfect, etc), right up until NT was ready to roll.

By a strange coincidence, the Microsoft Office suite was also available for NT at that time, but applications from other vendors weren't.

Hmm...

--
-- Alastair
Re:Very simply... by spun · 2006-11-02 10:27 · Score: 1

Later, Microsoft's lawyers will claim that they promised not to charge for pants-tents, not patents.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Very simply... by Therilon · 2006-11-02 10:40 · Score: 1

Dude, it's called a 'contract'. These 'contracts' are 'legally binding'. A contract doesn't even have to be written down. Verbal contacts are legally binding. This isn't exactly rocket science. When MS and Novell enter into this contract, both parties will be legally bound by the terms of the agreements.
Re:Very simply... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 12:20 · Score: 0

I'm guessing that the Novell/SuSE + MS collaboration is meant to stop Novell/SuSE from opposing software patents in Europe. Once software patents are allowed there, MS would gain another advantage.

Maintaining an illegal monopoly often requires this sort of business practice.
Re:Very simply... by wordsnyc · 2006-11-02 17:05 · Score: 1

and a bit further down the road, MS lawyers will grind Novell into mush through extended legal wrangling over that contract.

--
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.

Ulterior Motives by LordDracula · 2006-11-02 08:48 · Score: 1

Given Microsoft's history, I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking there has got to be some ulterior motive here. From the article:

Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux

What's concerning me here is the "into Suse Linux" phrase. Is it possible that MS might go after other Linux vendors, saying, "hey, we have an agreement with Novell, but not you."? This seems less pure paranoia given this line in the article:

By forging a peace pact with one seller of Linux, Microsoft could raise pressure on Red Hat Inc., the leading provider of Linux, and a Novell rival.

Either that, or Duke Nukem Forever is just around the corner...

--
Your Friend,
D

Re:Ulterior Motives by d00ber · 2006-11-02 09:44 · Score: 1

Mod parent up.

I think Microsoft could be trying to split the Linux market by propping up the #2 and doing the FUD thing.

Also, notice the timing relative to Oracle's announcement of Linux support.

Both of these seem aimed at Red Hat to me.

It may be that red Hat has enough of the market that the big boys figure that is where the Linux center of gravity is. At least as far as the commercial world is concerned. Yes Linux is Free so it can't be cornered blah blah blah but in terms of market it *could* be if most of the eggs were in one basket.

Ed

pigs are flying by beui · 2006-11-02 08:49 · Score: 0

I thought it was minnesota snow, but no; those are pigs flying outside.

--
openbsd. gentoo. blfs. public key: 0x7EA13687 http://npt.ath.cx "All unix, all the time."

Well, this is a... by thewiz · 2006-11-02 08:49 · Score: 1

shove away from SuSE. Looks like it's time to complete my switch to Ubuntu.

It makes my head hurt to think of the number of ways Microsoft can screw over the Linux community by including code in a distro and later claiming it's proprietary.

--
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?

Re:Well, this is a... by houghi · 2006-11-02 10:25 · Score: 1

Why running away from SUSE if there is an anouncement of a possible working together of which nobody has the details?

Here is what I do. Instead of panicking, I keep on using my SUSE for at least the year I have security upgrades for it. Even if I would install SUSE now, I would still have the solid version it is. 10.2 will be out beginning of december, so even that one will be non-Windows if they want to go that way.

And Linux can now also include code into Linux if they would wanted to do that. Say that they do that, they will have to sue themselves and answer why they have enterd itr and then released it under the GPL.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Microsoft shenanigans by Bandraginus · 2006-11-02 08:50 · Score: 1

"The two companies have also agreed to develop technologies to make it easier for users to run both Suse Linux and Microsoft's Windows on their computers."

Develop technologies? The technologies are already there! You mean that Microsoft is going to remove the boot loader software it's put in Vista to prevent just a thing?

Ahh. I see. Their game plan is to push it too far and then look like a hero when they bring things half-way back.

Maybe just a case of "why not" by phorm · 2006-11-02 08:51 · Score: 1

Unlike many competing products, the linux market doesn't require you to buy out rights to use the software. MS can join in the linux market, rather than fighting it tooth-and-nail, and probably manage to make a profit from it alongside their windows products. If their offering are good enough, competing linux products might also dropped off, which puts the ball in MS's side of the court.

Re:Maybe just a case of "why not" by theshibboleth · 2006-11-02 10:29 · Score: 1

Maybe that's exactly what's going on: they're seeing what Novell is able to do and planning to buy them out if the results are good enough.
Re:Maybe just a case of "why not" by Locutus · 2006-11-02 11:40 · Score: 1

THAT's funny. A Microsoft which bases their marketing and business descisions on profits from making better product. I've NEVER heard of that from Microsoft and it would be such a surprise and out of character it's just too funny to not laugh.

What would it be like if Microsoft actually only made products which made money? Where would the Xbox be? Where would Windows CE/PocketPC be? Hey, where would Palm be? Where would Coopers and Peters be? Where would Dimension X be? Oh the list just goes on and on.

"MS can join in the linux market..." What a ball buster. ;-)

LoB
PS, there is probably and IP hammer here or a progress tracking fee involved. Surely, it is all about how to prevent GNU/Linux from progressing and about protecting the Windows monopoly( and therefore the MS Office monopoly and the MS server application space ). Again, IMO.

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus

flush by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:52 · Score: 0

sure thing, *that* wasn't pretty

m10

Reliable sources? by swab79 · 2006-11-02 08:52 · Score: 1

In addition, Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux, the people said.

I don't know about you, but I always believe the people...

Oh get yourself gone, Microcrap by gd23ka · 2006-11-02 08:53 · Score: 1

Really. Do we need them involved here who with their upcoming Vista soft crap want
to tax us silly and tell us what we can or cant do with it?

- whether they can delete anything they want on our boxes ("Defender")
- how many times you can move the license from one box to another
- how much you can modify your box before you need a new license
- whether they can track each and every of our moves
- whether we can benchmark their Vista against our operating systems
- make you unlock "features" for $$$ like the ability to burn dvds etc. ... ...

and _THAT_ list goes on and on.

Maybe... by AdamKG · 2006-11-02 08:54 · Score: 1

SuSE:Microsoft::Microsoft:IBM?

--
groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.

Patents? by phorm · 2006-11-02 08:54 · Score: 1

In addition, Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux

Against SUSE or against linux/competitors in general? Perhaps they'll allow SUSE use of patented technology but still bar it from the rest of the linux community.

Re:Patents? by killjoe · 2006-11-02 20:09 · Score: 1

That's the idea. Novell paid them license fees for their patents. This deal solidifies MS patents in the eyes of the law. Now when they sue ubuntu or or whoever they can point to novell license as evidence.

This is MS gearing up to sue linux users, developers and distros for patent infringement.

--
evil is as evil does

Am I alone in thinking.. by bitserf · 2006-11-02 08:54 · Score: 1

..the fuck?

Re:Am I alone in thinking.. by rts008 · 2006-11-02 09:12 · Score: 1

Nope. I can't get enough of a mental grip on this to eve speculate what is going on, but that don't stop me from having a real bad feeling about this.

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti

It's not just *any* Linux distro by blindd0t · 2006-11-02 08:54 · Score: 1

It's one M$ is hoping to control/sway considerably:

In addition, Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux, the people said. Businesses that use Linux have long worried that Microsoft would one day file patent infringement suits against sellers of the rival software.

Microsoft support... by kittenthief · 2006-11-02 08:54 · Score: 1

I assume Microsft's sales support of Suse will including charging like $895.00 for a copy of Suse..and including a "FREE" copy of SBS 2003 ....

Re:Microsoft support... by ZonkerDude · 2006-11-02 10:38 · Score: 1

Wrong. MS will distribute free versions of SUSE, 70,000/year according to conf call.
Re:Microsoft support... by crush · 2006-11-02 10:42 · Score: 1

I'll bet that on the contrary they'll be charging very little for SuSE so that they can use their considerable war-chest to undercut Red Hat just when Red Hat is poised to make a serious splash with the complete Free java-based stack in the enterprise market. That's where the money is and if Microsoft can squeeze them out now then Oracle and Microsoft can go after Sun next.

Linux watch out! by fernandoh26 · 2006-11-02 08:55 · Score: 0

Careful Linux! MS may (and by may I mean will) pull some funny business (and by funny business I mean backstabbing)

"Et tu, Microsoft?"

--
Chums up, let's do this!

perhaps... by Lord_Slepnir · 2006-11-02 08:55 · Score: 1

Perhaps they're gearing up for Microsoft Linux.

April 1st Not Here Yet by jo42 · 2006-11-02 08:55 · Score: 1

Dear Microsoft,

Yesterday was November 1st. April 1st is five months from now.

Regards,

The Crew @ /.

Re:April 1st Not Here Yet by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:15 · Score: 0

Maybe they're using OpenXML with backwards Excel date "compatibility"... about 7 months back, I suppose...

8-P

I speculate that MS's intent is to placate ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:56 · Score: 0

regulators all over the world.

"See, we're playing along nicely with our competitors ..."

They have had trouble over not opening up Vista enough (antivirus, media players, active directory, SMB), so I guess Novell would be the ideal candidate with which to demonstrate that they are willing to allow interoperability.

This should help with antitrust issues in places like the EU, Korea, Japan, etc.

We do Linux too! by jhines · 2006-11-02 08:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

It sounds like some ammo for the sales force, when the client mentions Linux, and keeps MS in the bidding.

Mono by Esekla · 2006-11-02 08:56 · Score: 1

Since Novell are the developers of Mono, this has potential to be more far reaching than it currently sounds. With all the anti-trust troubles, maybe M$ is realizing that that OS brand recognition is non-profitable, whereas MS Office for Linux (via Mono) is an easy entry into emerging markets.

Re:Mono by RShearman · 2006-11-02 09:07 · Score: 1

Mono is for .Net applications and all MS Office versions (up to and including the 2007 beta) are not .Net applications. However, if Microsoft is planning to port any of its existing applications to Linux, then Wine could be a very important tool for them.

Strange Timing? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:56 · Score: 0

Is MS trying to make nice now that Novell has SCO against the ropes? Are they hoping to make friends with Novell to avoid being implicated in more monopolistic behavior?

Perhaps this is a boon for Linux. If Microsoft tries to appease Novell and IBM so they won't go for MS's jugular by leaving GNU-FOSS-Linux alone, maybe Linux can grow to a point where it can't ever be killed and Microsoft will be forced to share the desktop (which was all that was ever wanted).

MS sales support for Suse Linux by Dystopian+Rebel · 2006-11-02 08:57 · Score: 2, Funny

MS Salesman: Hello, you left a voice message for us. You said you are looking for Susie. There's no Susie here. My name's Steve. How may I help you?

Customer: Oh, hi Steve. Not "Susie", "Suse".

MS Salesman: No one here by that name. But how may I help you?

Customer: Well, we need highly scalable, robust Web services with low cost-per-seat and low TCO running on older hardware with industry-leading uptime.

MS Saleman: Gotcha! I'll ship you some Windows Vista licences right away. Don't worry, there's a GUI for all that Interweb stuff.

--
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.

Re:MS sales support for Suse Linux by JoeCommodore · 2006-11-02 09:21 · Score: 1

Actually it's bronounce Sooh-Zah, and Microsoft will say "Why, sure you can play your John Phillip Sousa music on Windows!"

--
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield

We need clarity... by Eric+Damron · 2006-11-02 08:57 · Score: 1

"In addition, Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux"

But that's not the same as saying that they won't assert rights over patents over software technology that was originally incorporated into Suse Linux but later ported to other distributions. It would be nice if they made it clear.

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

Re:We need clarity... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 13:27 · Score: 0

It *is* clear.
MS are franchising Suse Linux. Suse pays a ULA on MS patents.
This could comproimise other distributions, and positions MSuse to sue other businesses developing and using FOSS who are not partners. Oracle and Novell seem a similar model.
Developers are free to develop code for FOSS but MSuse and similar groups are positioning themselves as entities which control the right to generate profit from development and distribution.
ie This is your first model of using DMCA, Patents and DRM to colonise FOSS.
The clarity we need is about what foss community values and what it is prepared to do to secure that.
ie Can FOSS be more than a way to contribute code to a franchise.
Are patents and FOSS mutually exclusive given that these groups can segment the right to profit from FOSS code?

Never Forget... by Zombie+Ryushu · 2006-11-02 08:58 · Score: 1

Microsoft may not be the biggest enemy Linux has, but they are an enemy. They still want to destroy us, they won't stop until we are all destroyed. They will attempt to subvert us. Linux Users are starting to have troubles with "taking the easy way out." in some cases. They probably want to slow the march of Linux advancement. Giving us something sweet and sugary, something we don't have we really want, like a MS SQL Server Client, or, something related to AD, or a better MAPI Exchange server.

Like idiots, we will take it, because like the binary Nvidia driver it will be "free as in beer." this will slow our research into our own F/OSS replacements. It may not kill us, just let us be slowed to the point of getting MS far enough ahead to make us unable to compete.

You've made a mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:59 · Score: 0

Halloween != April Fools Day

Patent Issues? by miyako · 2006-11-02 08:59 · Score: 1

From the article...
In addition, Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux, the people said. Businesses that use Linux have long worried that Microsoft would one day file patent infringement suits against sellers of the rival software.
It worries me that this might end up causing problems where MS agrees not to sue Novell for something the put in suse, so novell develops something and releases it under the GPL, then other distributions get sued for including it.
I would love to think that Microsoft really is going to play nice with Linux, but I have the feeling that this is some sort of ploy that is going to end up hurting the entire Linux community, and quite possibly putting Novell out of business.

--
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"

Re:Patent Issues? by Dan+Ost · 2006-11-02 10:15 · Score: 1

SUSE can't release it under GPL unless the patent protection applies to anyone who might use it or modify it. If it's not legally redistributable, it can't be GPL'd.

You can bet that Novell's lawyers were very careful to get the wording they wanted in whatever contracts they signed with Microsoft.

--

*sigh* back to work...
Re:Patent Issues? by miyako · 2006-11-02 10:26 · Score: 1

Isn't this one of the things that is being addressed with the GPL3? As I understand it, this could happen with the GPL2 and is being specifically addressed and disallowed under the v3.

--
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Re:Patent Issues? by falconwolf · 2006-11-02 16:57 · Score: 1

It worries me that this might end up causing problems where MS agrees not to sue Novell for something the put in suse, so novell develops something and releases it under the GPL, then other distributions get sued for including it.

From what I understand of patent law, which isn't much, if Novell GPLs something then they are the ones held responsible for any patent infringment. If MS didn't go after Novell for patent infringment when Novell GPLed it them MS couldn't go after any who used it.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

I always figured ... by monopole · 2006-11-02 09:00 · Score: 1

That M$ would go with the inventors, SCO!

Grow Up by M4N14C · 2006-11-02 09:01 · Score: 1

Devil, Ice skates, Blue SuSe Lizzard of death.

Microsoft is a company with the resources to make money selling linux support and contribute fixes back to the community.

The ice cube in hell was funny the first 38 times it was posted.

Grow Up.

Re:Grow Up by tolan-b · 2006-11-02 09:25 · Score: 1

"[...]and contribute fixes back to the community."

Hahahahahahahaha!

HAHAHAHA!

Oh stop it you're killing me!

Come on, you are aware of what has happened pretty much any time Microsoft has made a deal with a competitor aren't you?
Re:Grow Up by sesshomaru · 2006-11-02 09:31 · Score: 1

If not, they did an episode of the Simpsons about it, "Buy him out, boys!"

--
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."

Is this to spite Oracle? by Luke+Dawson · 2006-11-02 09:01 · Score: 1

As far as I am aware, Oracle and MS aren't exactly great friends...is it me, or is it a little too convenient that this is announced just days after Oracle's latest foray into the Linux world? Does this mean we could start seeing SQL Server for Linux soon? God forbid!

Re:Is this to spite Oracle? by jsolan · 2006-11-02 10:17 · Score: 1

When I read this, I had a very similar thought. Ellison and the MS camp certainly aren't friendly... with Oracle sudo-owning a linux distro, perhaps Microsoft felt they needed to compete? Oracle 'steals' the biggest market share of enterprise linux, and two weeks later MS goes out and 'partners' with the 2nd most popular version enterprise linux... Seems too odd to be coincedence in my mind.

Let me be the first to say... by smilingman · 2006-11-02 09:01 · Score: 1

HUH?

SuSe, the new SCO by wulfbyte · 2006-11-02 09:02 · Score: 1

as SCO didn't work out too well as a M$ puppet, they are looking for a new approach.

"Give Linux a Boost?" by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:02 · Score: 0

Does Linux need a boost? Maybe the other way around.

Oracle by Tony · 2006-11-02 09:02 · Score: 1

I do wonder if this is related to Oracle's recent announcement in any way?

Or I wonder if they have decided to use a Linux kernel for their next iteration of MS-Windows the same way Apple used a *BSD kernel in OSX?

Or I wonder if someone wanted some ad impressions, and so cooked up this baloney story to get some page hits?

Or I wonder if there just isn't enough evidence to say one way or the other if this deal is in any way real?

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

(OT) Wow... by revlayle · 2006-11-02 09:02 · Score: 1

As I post this... 86 comments were before me. NONE rated above 2 yet. None were sticking out as a post.. i had to individually click every post to read them.

It's like /. was spotlighted for a moment or something with this news.

Re:(OT) Wow... by swab79 · 2006-11-02 09:19 · Score: 1

Perhaps nobody has any mod points?!? What a time for the system to fail!!

I saw this coming by Imexius · 2006-11-02 09:02 · Score: 0

"If we ever woke up and said, 'Wow, Novell is the Microsoft of Linux', the Linux movement would be over." Greg Mancusi-Ungaro

--
find / -iname life 2> /dev/null Error: Life could not be found

It is, of course, a trap by mlwmohawk · 2006-11-02 09:03 · Score: 1

Let's face it, the probability of "partnering" with Microsoft and coming out ahead is pretty slim.

What we need to think about is what Microsoft can "do" to Linux.

My big concern is MS Office on Linux, specifically, only available for one distro.

Microsoft releases a MSOffice for linux, but supports *only* Linux distributions that incorporate Microsoft DRM and invasive software. Projects like [k]ubuntu will be left in the dust by a distro like suse with MSOffice for Linux. Then, ISVs will start supporting only suse and completely ignore other distros. Worse yet, start relying on MSOffice shared libraries making Linux, ignoring the GPL/LGPL regulars already inplace, in the end, no better (or freer) than Windows.

Re:It is, of course, a trap by b0s0z0ku · 2006-11-03 02:50 · Score: 1

Projects like [k]ubuntu will be left in the dust by a distro like suse with MSOffice for Linux. Then, ISVs will start supporting only suse and completely ignore other distros.
Why? OpenOffice and various other free alternatives do all of what the average user needs to do in Office. Yes, VB macros are nice, but they're not used universally. Besides, who's to say that Linux Office will even have macro support - after all, MS is dropping VB macro support for the next release of Office for OS X.
The only advantage that Office may have is the collaboration features of Outlook, and this may be done better by various web-based groupware products in the end (Outlook isn't the most stable product ever invented).
-b.

scary by Lord+Ender · 2006-11-02 09:04 · Score: 1

The blurb implies that Microsoft will enforce their patents against distributions other than SuSE.

Yipe!

The IBM patent portfolio may be the only thing holding Microsoft back from the destruction of the Linux OS.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.

Re:scary by KokorHekkus · 2006-11-02 09:19 · Score: 1

The blurb implies that Microsoft will enforce their patents against distributions other than SuSE. Yipe! The IBM patent portfolio may be the only thing holding Microsoft back from the destruction of the Linux OS.
On the other hand IBM has the ultimate patent portfolio. They even have a patent on how to search a patent portfolio. I don't belive for a second that IBM has any truly altruistic motives but that we should be greatful for having them in the Linux corner.
Re:scary by cptnapalm · 2006-11-02 09:59 · Score: 0

The world will stand still watching the two titans battle it out in a duel to the death:

IBM vs Microsoft
Steel Cage Grudge Match!

Mono is only safe on SUSE? by Qwavel · 2006-11-02 09:05 · Score: 1

Does this mean that using (parts of) mono will only be safe on the SUSE distribution?

That would effectively make mono a proprietary technology.

Source Code by slackmaster2000 · 2006-11-02 09:05 · Score: 3, Funny

The motivation here is obvious: Microsoft is trying to find a way get its hands on the source code for this new "Linux" technology.

Re:Source Code by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:54 · Score: 0

Couldn't they just buy a license from SCO?
Re:Source Code by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:10 · Score: 0

I have to comment, what the hell, windows idiot on the loose, perhaps, remember that 'thing' linux OSs are fond of, oh yeah, being open source, and what does that mean, what that you can actually look at the source code *shock* *gasp*
Re:Source Code by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:49 · Score: 0

Wow, that joke flew right over your head.
Re:Source Code by slackmaster2000 · 2006-11-02 10:50 · Score: 1

joke /johk/ noun, verb, joked, joking.
-noun
1. something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act: He tells very funny jokes. She played a joke on him.
Re:Source Code by Grishnakh · 2006-11-02 10:50 · Score: 1

*whoosh*

eee Eats everything by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-11-02 09:05 · Score: 1

Much as I wish your plan B were the case, I think your first stab is more likely.

--
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love

Novell already integrate with Windows environments by protactin · 2006-11-02 09:06 · Score: 1

Novell have done a lot of work in integrating their Enterprise Desktop OS with Active Directory etc, and have hired Samba people to work on this.

See http://reverendted.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/linux- goes-mad/ for a large article on these features going into SUSE.

I'm not really sure what MS get out of this aside from maybe stopping companies from moving entirely to Linux?

The camel's nose by mollog · 2006-11-02 09:07 · Score: 1

The camel's nose is now in the tent. Expect Microsoft to poach Novell customers.

Ask IBM and HP about 'partnering' with EMC. The EMC sales reps used the 'partnership' to get sales contacts for their direct sales force. You can't prove that they did this deliberately, but the result is the same; sales lost by one of the partners to the other 'partner'.

Microsoft has always played hardball. Batter up!

--
Best regards.

Re:The camel's nose by soft_guy · 2006-11-02 09:16 · Score: 2, Funny

The camel's nose is now in the tent. Expect Microsoft to poach Novell customers.

This is the Microsoft from Redmond, WA we are talking about? The same ones that can't do anything right lately? The ones who are trying to sell the Zune? The same ones who lose money on everything they do except Windows, Office, Exchange, and SQL? You think they are going to poach Novell's customers? They might try, but I suspect that these potential customers will be turned off when Ballmer throws a chair at them and yells "Developers, Developers, Developers!"

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:The camel's nose by sillybilly · 2006-11-02 09:36 · Score: 1

First I read that as: expect Microsoft to patch Novell customers.
I'm like yeah, Windows Update now available for Suse Linux! Just let us take care of your systems, then we'll slowly upgrade it to whereever we want to take it. Oh you thought you were still running linux? Hah, we have already replaced everything unbeknownst to you, the kernel, the whole underlying system, including DRM players, etc. You've been clicking the "update now", "install latest security patch" button meaning you've digitally signed your agreement to all kinds of licenses and eula's we've attached to that button, which, as far as the current legislation stands, has the same agreeing power as a hand written signature. Oh you mean you didn't bother to read our 900 page eula pointing to 900 page disclaimers and subclauses, with each button click? Suck0rrrr....
Re:The camel's nose by rozz · 2006-11-03 01:39 · Score: 1

This is the Microsoft from Redmond, WA we are talking about? ... The same ones who lose money on everything they do except Windows, Office, Exchange, and SQL?

so what? i hear Google loses money on everything except search, but noone complains about them being bad and incompetent and...
plus, MS still counts their profit in billions per year and they have an amazing profit margin.
i'm far from being a MS fan, but that was gratuitous & useless bashing

--
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Microsoft supports Linux by kwiqsilver · 2006-11-02 09:07 · Score: 1

Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse?

Allright! I am going to get laid! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:08 · Score: 0

Good news for all us geeks, we are going to get some now, cause it is a cold day in hell.

So who cares if this is one of the signs of the apocalyse, at least we won't be facing eternity as virgins.

Then again, MS doing anything to linux that ain't designed to destroy it? Nah. There got to be a catch.

Actually, this kind of makes a weird kind of sense by $RANDOMLUSER · 2006-11-02 09:08 · Score: 1

You have to think about all the recent chatter about Oracle having their own Linux distro, and suddenly 2 + 2 = 4...

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill

Preparations for Change in Power by CRMeatball · 2006-11-02 09:09 · Score: 1

I suspect that Microsoft becoming friendly with a competing OS is actually in anticipation of the fact that the Democrats may gain control of Congress in a few days. Back in the 90's, it was a Democratic White House putting pressure on them for Anti-Trust violations. Once the Republicans gained power, that threat went away. Now that the pendulum is swinging back, perhaps Microsoft is making some preemptive moves so they don't get slammed again, like the EU is doing to them. I may disagree with the Democratic Party on most issues, but slapping MS is something I can agree with.

Re:Preparations for Change in Power by Mr.+Underbridge · 2006-11-02 09:34 · Score: 1

I suspect that Microsoft becoming friendly with a competing OS is actually in anticipation of the fact that the Democrats may gain control of Congress in a few days. Back in the 90's, it was a Democratic White House putting pressure on them for Anti-Trust violations. Once the Republicans gained power, that threat went away. Now that the pendulum is swinging back, perhaps Microsoft is making some preemptive moves so they don't get slammed again, like the EU is doing to them. I may disagree with the Democratic Party on most issues, but slapping MS is something I can agree with.
Problem: President has control over DOJ. 2008, we'll see. Even then, I'll wait to see who's appointed AG.
Re:Preparations for Change in Power by LifeWithJustin · 2006-11-02 10:36 · Score: 1

I know I'm going to get the 'troll' for this, so enjoy that. But this really has to be said (again)

I remember those days. Those were awesome ! The DOJ spending millions of dollars on no ROI. Forcing M$ to start a well funded lobby.

We all had money coming out our asses so we didn't care. Heck we were so bored we went after the President because he got a bj from an ugly girl. I would have really liked to keep going after M$. I'm sure that would be a better use of the DOJ today.

Wait...

It's SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:09 · Score: 0

Novell is likely to come into possession of SCO when they win their lawsuit. There are some nasty and illegal secret deals locked up in that company, and a trail that leads back to MS. This deal will make sure that Novell buries the information.

I take an 8 in tinfoil.

Microsoft still refuses to acknowledge open source by cucucu · 2006-11-02 09:09 · Score: 1

Don't confuse yourselves.
Microsoft continues to refuse any admission of the existence of open source. This is done with the proprietary version of SUSE Linux, not with opensuse.

(BTW, in other opportunity we should discuss the phenomenon of companies that take -not develop- an open source project and derive from it its proprietary flagship product, like RedHat and SUSE and any others?).

They do the same in their MSDN, in every reference to Python (not that there are so much) they state that it works with ActiveState Python (no python.org, God forbid)

Is it April 1st? by wumpus188 · 2006-11-02 09:10 · Score: 1

Hard to tell from the basement here...

It's Not a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:10 · Score: 0

Microsoft has been changing slowly towards being more friendly towards the open source community. Soon they may even move towards open-source themselves by actually opening their code.

Re:It's Not a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:26 · Score: 0

Whatever dope yer smokin', I want some.

You are out of your stinking gourd if you think this is a "friendly" move. Unless you mean "Friendly" like SCO's friendly Linux license offer.

Twat.
Re:It's Not a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:15 · Score: 0

Like the old saying goes 'If you can't beat em, join em.'
Re:It's Not a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:32 · Score: 0

If you can't beat em, arrange to have em beaten.
Re:It's Not a trap! by dhasenan · 2006-11-02 16:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Perhaps it is a trap, but you can't deny that Microsoft has been acting very strangely lately.

In the early days of Microsoft, they took care of the hackers and hobbyists, and gained market share against Apple partly for that. Two years ago, the situation was reversed: Visual Studio was expensive, and Apple offered cheaper development tools. Now Visual Studio Express is available for free, and is sufficient for most tasks.

For years, now, since the Halloween documents of 1998, Microsoft has been aware and wary of open source. In 1998, the issue was less pressing than it is today; Microsoft has responded by becoming more open with its newer file formats and starting its shared source initiative.

And now they're allying themselves with a popular, professional Linux distributor.

Things are changing at Microsoft. The bottom line is money, and that's going to be achieved through control of their projects. However, that control need not be so tight as it has been. And they don't need to be the originator of the product in order to have control--they don't even need to buy out the originator.

In short, Microsoft is changing rapidly and becoming more flexible. They're prepared to consider what they need to do to survive, and will do so. If that means not being the Great Devil, then so be it.
Re:It's Not a trap! by Fred_A · 2006-11-02 22:48 · Score: 1

Microsoft has been known to change directions pretty quickly before like it did back when it started promoting its great "Microsoft Network" thing while predicting the whole internet would be a fad, quickly dying off. A few months later, the Microsoft Network was quickly brushed under the carpet. "Microsoft what ? Never heard of it. Did you see our great portal web site ?"
At the time I was fairly surprised, given the size of the behemoth.

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.

Novell maybe has dirt from SCO case? by stabiesoft · 2006-11-02 09:11 · Score: 1

Could this be a case where SCO found something very bad for microsoft during discovery and this is the carrot microsoft is offering to prevent the info from seeing the light of day???

Novell the new SCO? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:12 · Score: 0

Yeah, first there was Caldera Linux, now there's Novell. People bash RedHat, but at least they're not selling their souls over to the Devil. When companies enter into deals with Microsoft there's always a catch. Look at all the companies that had dealings with them and ended up being screwed over. Novell is just the new SCO.

NTFS by Expertus · 2006-11-02 09:13 · Score: 1

I really hope this means it's time for some proper write support to NTFS

Possible reason for the agreement by avaspell · 2006-11-02 09:13 · Score: 1

One has to ask themselves, what does Microsoft have to gain by entering into such an agreement? And what does Novell have to gain? There are some possibilities here that aren't too farfetched: Virtual Servers - Microsoft missed the first boat on virtualization, and as far as I can see Microsoft Virtual Server doesn't have much in the way of market share. By entereting into an agreement with Novell, Microsoft is attempting to gain relevance in this space. This is actually a good move for Microsoft. At the same time, Novell could help with Windows running on top of Xen. They both have a common enemy here: EMC. Patents - Let's face it, any large company wants to avoid patent wars with another large company. It just saves tons of money. No real news here to speak of.

Re:Possible reason for the agreement by Shados · 2006-11-02 09:14 · Score: 1

Another reason, is a similar one to which Microsoft "helped" Apple back in the days: if they push alternate operating systems, they're less likely to get the anti-thrust suits on their butts.
Re:Possible reason for the agreement by avaspell · 2006-11-02 09:19 · Score: 1

Yeah, I had a sinking feeling that Microsoft's problem with the EU helped to push them into a deal. However, I don't think that MS would do this for goodwill only.

What was that sound? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:13 · Score: 0

Just the sound of hell freezing over and pigs flying. Nothing to see here...move along.

Suse Linux is dead by jonfr · 2006-11-02 09:14 · Score: 1

Based on history, it is farly save to say that Suse Linux is dead the day this "partnership" starts.

Compatibility. by headkase · 2006-11-02 09:14 · Score: 1

Novell could be Microsoft's "gateway" into the open source world. They are compatible in that they are both for-profit corporations and therefore share the traits of monetary goals and risk-based aversion. They think more alike. Microsoft and Novell can make contracts that gives Microsoft the needed sense of security that the circumstances of their relationship would not change overnight. Novell gains credibility as Microsoft gives them a vote of confidence in the business world and Microsoft gets to build a business web within open-source and also gains real-world experience with *nix based contracts developing in-house expertise as they go along.
As speculative as is goes ;).

--
Shh.

Novell Buyout Prelude? by blueZhift · 2006-11-02 09:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just more crazy speculation on my part, but could this partnership be a prelude to a future Microsoft buyout of Novell? Such a buyout would kill two big birds with one stone. First it would get Netware completely off the table as a competing NOS, not that it has been much lately, but there are still a lot of Netware installations out there. And two, it would get them into the Linux world with one of the best distros around, which also happens to be one of the corporate favorites. A grand strategy, I think, if true. This opening partnership approach might even steer them clear of antitrust entanglements during any subsequent buyout/merger.

--
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started

Look out linux by jrspur2003 · 2006-11-02 09:14 · Score: 1

They are seeing how well linux is eating into their marketshare so they are probably working on a window linux version... Winux? Course it could be a good thing if they can help improve gaming on linux only reason i dont completely switch over is because i cant play my fav games... Cedega works ok though it still a hassle be nice for an out of box or (out of download)for those whom download linux ability to 90-100% of the games... I know that wont happen but it would be nice...

Re:Look out linux by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:32 · Score: 0

"Course it could be a good thing if they can help improve gaming on linux only reason i dont completely switch over is because i cant play my fav games."

Don't worry. When you grow up, you won't be playing them that much. And what serious gammer doesn't have multiple mobo's, CPUs, memory and video cards laying around due to the constant upgrade factor? Enough, usually, to build 3 or 4 boxes. One can be a gaming box only.

Ok, let us break this down... by T.Louis · 2006-11-02 09:15 · Score: 1

Linux Server market, check.

Support market, check.

"In addition, Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology", um, well, ok, check.

Steve Balmer screaming "Linux Linux Linux" at the next dev conference, priceless.

Devilishly Brilliant by asdavis · 2006-11-02 09:16 · Score: 1

Is it just me, or is this just about the most brilliant move on Microsoft's part? Hot on the heels of Oracle's announcement to compete directly with RedHat for Enterprise Linux support, this "partnership" only serves to destabilize the clear market leader for Enterprise Linux (RedHat). Microsoft knows that their influence in the Enterprise computing market will help sway people away from RedHat and towards SUSE. I'm not knocking SUSE, I like the distro, but the fact remains that RedHat is the 800 lb. gorilla in the Enterprise Linux space. RedHat's success is a direct threat to Microsoft. I'm sure the arrangement will help Novell in the short term, but the possibility exists that this move could further fragment the EL space, hurt RedHat and at the same time aid MS in preventing further erosion of their monopoly. Whether you like the RHEL distro or not, you have the admit that the inroads they have made with ISVs and hardware vendors has dramatically helped the adoption of Linux as an enterprise computing platform, especially among the Fortune 1000. Needless to say, I'm a little bit concerned.

--
TECMATIC - Intelligent Technology News

To continue with Star Wars analogies... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:16 · Score: 0

Novell should be wary of any "free" Clone Troopers from Microsoft, lest they suddenly execute code 66.

Ducks and runs by microsuse · 2006-11-02 09:17 · Score: 1

I'll get flamed here, but I am dancing with joy today. Longtime Suse lover, but have to use MS for all my work-related programs (and no, GnuCash is not a good replacement for the latest, greatest litigation support software from LexisNexis). If these two companies could play nice together for awhile, and I could start running windows software decently (as in better than cheap, slow wine emulation), I would be in OS heaven. Certain that I am one of the very few that feels this way....

hmmmm.... by spectro · 2006-11-02 09:17 · Score: 1

SCO is in the ropes in their case against Novell, if that case goes down, IBM wins its own case... hmmm ...</tinfoilhat>

--
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.

An attempt to capture virtualization marketshare? by _iris · 2006-11-02 09:17 · Score: 1

It sounds to me like this, in conjunction with the release of Virtual PC for free, MS is gearing up for a fight in the virtualization market. They want to say "You need to run Linux for X, Y, and Z but you need Windows for A, B, and C? Run them on Virtual Server, with our bundled Windows Server + SuSE Linux! It will be a snap, just like Virtual PC has been for you for years" (which may or may not be true, but is a good sales line).

First the FCC, Now this? by grassy_knoll · 2006-11-02 09:18 · Score: 1

First, the FCC does something right and now Microsoft is getting into Linux?

The "Gates of Hell are open and Satan is ice skating" trifecta is now in play.

--
A Human Right

It's a trap by sd790 · 2006-11-02 09:20 · Score: 1

I think that this could effectively take Suse out of the Linux community for good. If Suse has a free pass on Microsoft's patents, they will want to take advantage of those patents in FOSS to give themselves a competitive edge. Other distros will not be able to safely use those modifications because they will still be susceptible to Microsoft's legal wrath.

Just my opinion...FWIT

Microsoft? Boost? by abshnasko · 2006-11-02 09:20 · Score: 1

"Microsoft .... that gives a boost to Linux"

a boost? When's the last time Microsoft's involvement changed anything for the better?

Force-Migrate Back to Windows by ewhac · 2006-11-02 09:21 · Score: 1

The first trap that pops into my mind is that Microsoft will offer some proprietary server/service software for both Windows and SUSE Linux. Probably some kind of ActiveDirectory support or something. It will be easy to set up and use, and will work well in corporate environments where there are tons of Windows desktops.

Fast-forward two years, after Vista's gotten entrenched (they wish) and Vista SP1 rolls out. SP1 depends on a newer version of the service. Microsoft releases a new version of the service as well, but only for Windows, and end-of-life's the Linux version as "too difficult to support." Linux boxes that once were solidly in the server room suddenly get re-imaged to Windows to run the new "required" service update. Poof! Linux takes a big hit.

So Linux itself is not attacked directly, but it suffers just the same. Just off the top of my head, of course...

Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

same as oracle vs r.h.? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:21 · Score: 0

when oracle announced that they would work on red hat to improve it/secure it, red hat shares dropped....
are thay trying to do the same with suse?

Could be by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2006-11-02 09:21 · Score: 1

In response to Oracle's interest in RH perhaps?

--
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.

Ballmer announcement by Azul · 2006-11-02 09:22 · Score: 1

Ballmer is going to be making the announcement at 2 p.m. PST. It's going to be transmited as a webcast in online (probably in a crippled patent-encoumbered file format). It seems a transcript will be posted 2 hours after it ends.

Keeping up with the Jones' by FellowConspirator · 2006-11-02 09:25 · Score: 1

... or, at the very least the Ellison's.

Strangers with candy by pseudorand · 2006-11-02 09:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

> Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux...

The implied part missing from this statement is "against Novell". Novell will now be free to develop stuff that steps on MS patents, all open source and GLP-compliant, but other distros won't be able to use it for fear the MS will sue them. Esentially this is a move to try to biforcate the Linux market. They want infighting to slow down Linux development instead of the big feel-good code-sharing orgy that has given Linux so much great software in so little time.

The solution: boycot SuSE. Honestly, there is no shortage of reasons to do this anyway. Its crappy GUI admin tools are MS-like except for the fact that they don't actually work half the time. It's possibly suitable as a desktop OS for users who are afraid of the command line but for some strange reason still want to use Linux. It's NOT very useful as a server product.

Long Live Gentoo!

Re:Strangers with candy by chmod+a+x+mojo · 2006-11-02 11:21 · Score: 1

Uhhh sorry to burst your fanboy "bubble" but suse is the same as any other distro when it comes to admining it... you can do it the GUI way or the commandline way, your choice. My Suse laptop is configured / install everything from command line. Suse does some stuff right, it is the only distro that I have found that actually WORKS with my 2 Compaq laptops. Debian and derivatives still do not detect my X server settings correctly, and give out wierd errors when trying to access my WLAN card. Fedora i didn't mind much, it was just a pain to set up for my preferences, the WLAN cards worked but i had to write scripts to bring them up and connect to my AP's at boot since RH STILL didn't have networkmanager integration with KDE. I tried gentoo (my favorite desktop linux) but could not for the life of me get X to work AT ALL once it was compiled, neither the "radeon" driver or "fglrx" driver worked with my graphix card for some reason or another.

As a slight side note, i do not beleive Suse is even after the server market, so i don't see why you even posted that it isn't.
They market SLED ... you know Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop

--
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
Re:Strangers with candy by pseudorand · 2006-11-07 04:06 · Score: 1

Okay, I will admit to being a fanboy (as if it was required). I'll also agree that Gentoo has quite the learning curve, and that SUSE wants the server market. I just don't think SUSE DESERVES the server market. I have a SLES server set up by a consulting company and after getting tired of fucking with the ridculious admin tools, I went through Gentoo's learing curve and now all of my other servers and workstations are Gentoo. It's simply worth the trouble.

It's a Trick. by Bananas · 2006-11-02 09:26 · Score: 1

Get an axe.

(Seriously, you expect me to believe that they don't have something planned?)

New tag by booch · 2006-11-02 09:29 · Score: 1

Not sure how to popularize a new tag, so I figured I'd let everyone know the new tag I added to this story:

strangebedfellows

--
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.

Re:New tag by B00yah · 2006-11-02 11:43 · Score: 1

strange doesn't begin to cover it. This is very odd worlds colliding.

--

How Jaded Are You?
Re:New tag by booch · 2006-11-02 17:51 · Score: 1

Now how did your comment score better than mine?

--
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.

Develop togheter? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:30 · Score: 0

We will finally see clippy even on Suse Linux!!
yahoo! i waited for it for ages...

Ladies and Gentlemen we've just lost the picture.. by rdp36 · 2006-11-02 09:30 · Score: 1

...but what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over -- 'conquered' if you will -- by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."

Raises an interesting question, however... by ctid · 2006-11-02 09:33 · Score: 1

Given that the kernels are not significantly changed by the distribution sellers, could Microsoft sue (eg) RedHat for patent infringement while not sueing SuSE over the same piece of code? It would seem a bit strange to say of GPLed software that it can only be used if it was obtained as part of a SuSE distribution - the same software obtained from RedHat is infringing a patent. After all, under the terms of the GPL, SuSE can't prevent anybody else from getting access to the GPLed software in their distribution. I think that will be a very interesting launch, especially as Steve Ballmer of all people is going to be there!

--
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room

Re:Raises an interesting question, however... by Lord+Ender · 2006-11-03 04:12 · Score: 1

It would seem a bit strange to say of GPLed software that it can only be used if it was obtained as part of a SuSE distribution

GPL is a copyright license. Patents have nothing to do with copyrights. Microsoft can license their patents who whomever they choose, at any price.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:Raises an interesting question, however... by ctid · 2006-11-03 10:03 · Score: 1

You're right that Microsoft can license their patents to whomever they choose. You're right that GPL is a copyright licence. But you're wrong that patents have nothing to do with copyrights, as part of the extended rights offered by the GPL are contingent on a patent issue. This is the paragraph to which I refer:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

The problem that SuSE has is that if they release their product with Microsoft's "patent covenant, the GPL says that they are not allowed to restrict someone else's use of it. So if I buy it from them, they cannot stop me from offering "CtID's Linux" which offers the GPLe'd portions of their product at a "low low price". But if I am going to get sued by Microsoft because I'm infringing their patents then SuSE loses its rights to distribute their product. The problem is SuSE's, not Microsoft's.

--
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Re:Raises an interesting question, however... by Lord+Ender · 2006-11-03 15:43 · Score: 1

When you download GPL code, you are agreeing to a license between YOU and the code AUTHOR.

You have made NO agreement with any third party.

If I have a patent on "a computer system which counts sheep," and Linus Torvalds writes a piece of software which counts sheep, then licenses it to YOU under the GPL, YOU have an agreement with Linus, not with me. I can sue your ass no matter what license you have with Linus. The license between you and Linus has NOTHING to do with my patent.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:Raises an interesting question, however... by ctid · 2006-11-03 23:34 · Score: 1

I think you either didn't understand my reply or you don't understand the licence. You're not agreeing to a licence when you download GPLed code. How could you? The GPL says you're licensed to use it no matter what. It's when you come to redistribute a binary that the GPL gets involved. The GPL recognizes that if I give you some executable which I alone have produced (not using anybody else's libraries or code), you have no rights to redistribute that binary. What the GPL does is to give you more rights - in other words you can redistribute the binary if you want to, so long as you include the source or an offer to provide the source. However, there are certain other caveats and the patent issue is one. The GPL says (in the section I posted before) that if there is some patent issue that is preventing you from passing on the rights defined in the GPL to somebody you distribute the program to, you lose the right to redistribute the code. This affects SuSE, not Microsoft. What SuSE says is that you're covered in patent terms if you use SuSE Linux. But if I buy or download their software and then redistribute it under my name (CtID's Linux), my customers are not covered by the patent covenant. Therefore, I and my customers are liable to a patent attack from Microsoft whereas SuSE and their customers are not. For GPLed code, this is a no-no. As I stated before, this doesn't relate to Microsoft's patents; it relates to SuSE's right to redistribute other people's GPLed code.

--
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Re:Raises an interesting question, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-04 04:58 · Score: 0

The GPL recognizes that if I give you some executable which I alone have produced (not using anybody else's libraries or code), you have no rights to redistribute that binary. What the GPL does is to give you more rights - in other words you can redistribute the binary if you want to, so long as you include the source or an offer to provide the source.

That doesn't really follow logically. What gives you more rights isn't the GPL, but the author's decision to (a) give out source code, and (b) allow modification/redistribution of the binary and/or source. If I write source code and license it as public domain, you have the most possible rights. If instead I use a very liberal licence like the MIT or BSD, the rights granted to you are decreased slightly. Moving to a more restrictive licence like the GPL restricts the rights granted to you further, with fewer and fewer rights granted as the licence becomes more and more restrictive.
Re:Raises an interesting question, however... by ctid · 2006-11-04 11:02 · Score: 1

I think you're just arguing against the GPL, but what you're saying isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. The point I was making was that if I don't say anything at all about copyright, the default position is no rights at all. Of course public domain and the BSD licences give you more rights than the GPL, but so what? The critical thing in the deal between MS and Novell is the relationship with the GPL, because that's what Linux is licensed under.

--
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room

Ok, Mr. Funt, you can come out now. by psbrogna · 2006-11-02 09:34 · Score: 1

I had to check my calendar, for a moment I thought it was April already. We did just change the clocks.

I didn't RTFA, but I'm going to take a guess by RLiegh · 2006-11-02 09:35 · Score: 1

If Novell goes belly up, or gets in trouble financially, this will give MS at least a tenuous claim to the UNIX source code (or whatever part of UNIX Novell owns the rights to), thereby putting them in a great posistion to litigate the hell out of every free *nix in existence?

Of course, I'm just speculating wildly here; but that was my first thought when I saw this article.

Re:I didn't RTFA, but I'm going to take a guess by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 13:32 · Score: 0

Microsoft already owns UNIX IP: it's called xenix.

Suse != OS X by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:35 · Score: 0

I think this move is to show consumers that Microsoft can play well with other O/S vendors, and they didn't want to partner with Apple. Since the Intel Macs can dual-boot with Boot Camp and their existing hardware partners (Dell, HP) now offer pre-configured linux alternatives, partnering with Suse gives them a way to get back onto these boxes before they leave the plant.

This is about Mono, isn't it? by neiras · 2006-11-02 09:35 · Score: 2, Informative

It's gotta be (at least partially) about Mono. Novell's legal folks were doing a major patent review on it last I heard. I guess the "It'll all be okay! Trust us!" approach to handling potential legal action from Microsoft ended up not holding water with the sharks.

Read Seth Nickell's thoughts on the issue, particuliarly the section entitled "The Horror Story". It's happening.

It's bad enough that Tomboy is in GNOME and F-Spot (Novell again) is so damned nice. Users are already demanding these applications, because the alternatives suck. Developers love C# 'cause it's so nice to build with. The first few hits are free.

The whole Mono patent issue really strikes me as a Novell play for market share - they work a deal with Microsoft, write gorgeous apps in C# that everyone wants, encourage competing distros to integrate those apps, then laugh as Microsoft takes out their competition in court. Or something. IANAL, obviously. Hopefully I'm just being paranoid.

Re:This is about Mono, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:10 · Score: 0

While I agree with your assessment of Novell's (and Microsoft's) strategy, I don't agree with your opinion about how great C# is, how great Mono is, or how popular Mono apps are with Linux users. I've seen Beagle, Tomboy and F-Spot and am totally unimpressed. Beagle especially is slow, buggy and bloated. I would definitely not call it "gorgeous". There may be a small percentage of Linux users who like those apps, but I still think that the vast majority of Linux users still shun Mono because of its association with Microsoft's .NET. And this new deal will just make that worse. Of the many Linux users I know, I'd say at most 5% of them use Mono apps.
Re:This is about Mono, isn't it? by crush · 2006-11-02 11:09 · Score: 1

write gorgeous apps in C# that everyone wants, encourage competing distros to integrate those apps, then laugh as Microsoft takes out their competition in court. And coincidentally distract developer and user attention from the steadily emerging Free Java which is swimming along nicely with the addition of SWT on to the base of GCJ with the recently merged GNU Classpath libraries. And coincidentally helps to put extra pressure on Red Hat after their JBOSS acquisition. I think we're looking at a convergence of multiple interests antagonistic to Red Hat here and Microsoft is going to eat up the Linux distributors one at a time. Right now Red Hat is the biggest threat and so Oracle and Microsoft want to acquire or destroy. Either will do fine.
Re:This is about Mono, isn't it? by TobascoKid · 2006-11-03 01:06 · Score: 1

Tomboy is nice, but it's hard to why it needed to be written in mono (it's the sort of thingyou would think would be easy in python), and much could be said for F-Spot (python, with the odd c library for performance. All three apps you mention are hardly shining examples of why anyone should take the risk and code with mono.

--
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Re:This is about Mono, isn't it? by neiras · 2006-11-03 09:13 · Score: 1

All three apps you mention are hardly shining examples of why anyone should take the risk and code with mono.

Never said they were or held them up as such, and I wouldn't encourage anyone to build a product with Mono.

They are examples of popular applications that have been accepted by distros as best-of-breed, and in the case of Tomboy included as part of the GNOME Desktop.

My point is that it's a slippery slope. If developers can rely on Mono being present in GNOME or being distributed with a distro, they'll write more apps in Mono - particuliarly if they're familiar with C# and are coming from a Windows environment. What happens a few years down the road when Microsoft grabs the patent rug under our feet and gives it a yank?

It's too late... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:35 · Score: 0

I've already given up on Suse. My guest computer crashed all the time with it.
Cent OS works just fine for us.
If this deal goes thru; I'll never give is a second chance.

Suse is now totaly dead for me!

Remember Corel LInux? by lotusleaf · 2006-11-02 09:36 · Score: 1

I wonder what this latest partnership will be like six years from now.

Consider:

"Interview: Corel's Linux VP on the Microsoft deal"

Interesting possible strategic move... by fitten · 2006-11-02 09:36 · Score: 1

So, by entering into a partnership with Novel/SuSE Linux, Microsoft can develop tools/services/apps that can be used on SuSE to interoperate well with Microsoft offerings but may be prohibited on other Linux distributions... Speculating... an actual Microsoft Exchange backend that runs on SuSE Linux, and interoperates well with the various Windows Exchange client flavors, and not available for other Linux distributions (think of the back-end pieces that this could apply to...)

This means that *the* Linux distribution you'd want to use in a mixed house (basically all houses... and even those that aren't heavily will have a couple of Windows boxes in it) will be Novell/SuSE Linux.

This alone may be enough to make the default business/corporate Linux distribution Novell/SuSE Linux.

Plus, Microsoft may possibly strenghten Mono a great deal to make cross-platform .NET a reality.

This could possibly play out to be a fairly huge deal (not speculating on goodness/badness for any particular community at this time, though).

It's all about the customers by thethibs · 2006-11-02 09:37 · Score: 1

One thing many /. don't seem to understand is that Microsoft is and has always been a market-driven company (except when the courts interfere).

There are two things CIOs like: Single-source support, and Linux servers. With this deal, Microsoft can provide both; what's good for the client is good for Microsoft. Novell gets access to Microsoft's enterprise install base; what's good for the client is good for Novell.

Servers aren't that big a share of Microsoft's profit, so it improves it's standing in the market without risking anything significant. This is a win-win-win deal.

--
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.

New Technology by proxy318 · 2006-11-02 09:37 · Score: 1

The two companies have also agreed to develop technologies to make it easier for users to run both Suse Linux and Microsoft's Windows on their computers.

I thought we already had technology to do this, called lilo and grub.

--
Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".

Re:New Technology by gregleimbeck · 2006-11-02 09:41 · Score: 1

They are not talking about dual booting; they are talking about inter-operation between the two OS's.

--
P.S.,

This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
Re:New Technology by proxy318 · 2006-11-02 09:47 · Score: 1

I know. That was a (apparently weak) joke.

--
Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".

Partners by gregleimbeck · 2006-11-02 09:37 · Score: 1

Now Novell's got Microsoft as a partner. Any problems, they go to Microsoft. Trouble with the bill? They can go to Microsoft. Trouble with the cops, deliveries, Tommy, they can call Microsoft. But now Novell's gotta come up with Microsoft's money every week no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning huh? Fuck you, pay me.

--

P.S.,

This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.

Pffft by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:39 · Score: 0

You know, I don't believe it. Yes the article is on WSJ, but even they can get it wrong. Also note that the "pact" isn't final, and there are no sources quoted.
And to fuel the FUD, it does make sense for MS to do it to squash RH, but I doubt they would do it this openly.
It is more likely that it rumours and speculation, or just a plain misunderstanding.

And if true, STFA from any offerings, if the past is any indications MS will viral infect it and spring a gotcha contract clause later.

In other news.... by Roger+W+Moore · 2006-11-02 09:40 · Score: 1

...a reporter from The Onion takes a job at the Wall Street Journal.

Unix War II: the Linux Years by cptnapalm · 2006-11-02 09:40 · Score: 0

Red Hat is the dominant Linux vendor (for some reason).

Novell is (I think) a distant number two.

Windows and Linux compete in the server market.

Microsoft made its inroads during the Unix Wars.

Machiavelli's advice: support the weaker party, they will be dependent on you for support.

Microsoft supports #2 Linux vendor Novell to take down #1 Linux vendor Red Hat. Bloodletting is entirely on the Linux side. Microsoft approaches the Novell and Red Hat's customers, lamenting how horrible it is that Linux is so fractured; "wouldn't you be better off only having one stack to support? See how we cut the price, just for you? We, of course, will never drastically increase the price. We promise."

Re:Unix War II: the Linux Years by rubies · 2006-11-02 10:54 · Score: 1

I think that's close to how it will play out, but last time there was also a bunch of proprietary technology in the form of competing GUI and API standards which made customers think twice. I worked for Bull at the time and we received an awful lot of marketing gumpf from our "partner" DEC who was pushing OSF rubbish. We were supposed to be "on the same side" but competition was pretty fierce in the also-ran Unix market (i.e. everybody who wasn't Sun). who was Microsoft rooting for? You guessed it, OSF (i.e. second place).

Watch what happens if Microsoft inject a bunch of .NET into SUSE. .NET is useful and kinda cool, would make SUSE an alternative (but deliberately flawed) server for ASPX websites. Everybody else rallies around Mono and then watch the fur fly as the catchup games ensue. Mission accomplished as Linux servers for paying customers get relegated back to boutique duties.

It's .Net /Mono people! by nothingbetter2do · 2006-11-02 09:41 · Score: 1

'Windows software on linux' could be .Net Novell has been a major sponsor of Mono, so it'd make sense.

Microsoft to blah blah blah... by esmrg · 2006-11-02 09:42 · Score: 1

Right before I clicked on the article, I bet myself 50 bucks that the first tag of the story would be itsatrap.
I won.

Of course I don't deserve (or have) $50 since itsatrap and microsoft stories go together like, - well - micro$oft and that dollar sign. If only I could get $50 back from microsoft for that overpriced mouse I bought from them. :)

Crafty Strike at Red Hat by codepunk · 2006-11-02 09:44 · Score: 1

I see this as another strike at redhat and a very crafty way to do so. Suse linux has a much smaller market share but they are hoping to get redhat customers to jump I think. Once that happens they will yank the rug out and leave them sitting.

--

Got Code?

Hmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:46 · Score: 0

First Ray Noorda dies, then Longhorn will adopt the Netware 3.11 console mode, now this...... Maybe I've dreamt the last 15 years and Wordperfect still rules!

ms should support open filesystems first! by aleator · 2006-11-02 09:46 · Score: 1

the first step in "making it easier" to run MS windows and linux would include native support of more file system formats on windows. the source is open, so please, developers of microsoft, feel free to add them to the windows kernel, so that we can access nonFAT nonNTFS partitions natively in windows.

- D

OSS vs. Proprietary fight is becoming meaningless by morganew · 2006-11-02 09:47 · Score: 1

After the smoke clears, the key elements of this deal are obvious;

No one thinks the world is going to be all one or the other (ok, no one but RMS and his flock). MSFT understands that linux in the server room is here to stay, and it's better to make money off of mixed environments than to lose money pouting.

On the Novell side, there is a recognition that "hey, maybe it would be nice to get some value out of the IP created when we used to spend money on R&D". So by cross licensing, they get protected, and get access to all the other valuable ideas that they might have been concerned about using for fear of patent violations.

The adults in the room at saying that there may actually be something to the notion that ideas themselves are valuable - and microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas.

The biggest question now will be 'do Red Hat and ubuntu strike similar deals?'

--
A sig?!? I don't think so.....

Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:48 · Score: 0

Why do Novell want to associate with a malware vendor? Are non-mono related code contributions from Novell now tainted too?

DRM and software patents are incompatable with freedom, the foul stench from Redmond should be cause for alarm. Good thing GPL3 provisions will give this suspect deal the "blessing" it deserves.

Well, so I guess... by tacokill · 2006-11-02 09:52 · Score: 1

I guess Microsoft is now in the Linux support business. Like Oracle. Like RedHat. Like IBM. And many others...

It's only a matter of time before the "divide and conquer" strategy rears it's head, no? They'll slowly corrupt, pollute, and confuse the marketplace and slowly but surely diminish the public's perception of Linux and all its flavors. The method isn't obvious right now but history suggests this will be their strategy. You and I know the real deal, but the genreal public doesn't. And the general public listens to Microsoft. Since they are now associated with Linux, they gain greater power over Linux - while still maintaining their own competing product.

Smart move.

Novell wishes they could lose money like that too by ClosedSource · 2006-11-02 09:55 · Score: 1

"The same ones who lose money on everything they do except Windows, Office, Exchange, and SQL?"

That's pretty much the situation for Novell except they don't have the billion dollar exceptions that you listed for MS.

they always say by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:55 · Score: 0

keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

Divide and Conquer by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:56 · Score: 0

One Linux distribution versus another.

Embrase and extend by SnarfQuest · 2006-11-02 09:59 · Score: 1

It's obvious: The Microsoft "Embrase and Extend" method of destroying the competition.

--
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.

Scorpion and the Toad by Esion+Modnar · 2006-11-02 10:00 · Score: 1

That is all.

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...

That *splop!* sound you just heard? by Viper+Daimao · 2006-11-02 10:01 · Score: 2, Funny

it's as if a million /.'ers heads exploded at once, and then silence.

--
"In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR

My interpretation of this move by Microsoft by bartmank · 2006-11-02 10:06 · Score: 1

I have a feeling this is just a form of Microsoft protecting its self against anti-trust lawsuits.

With more active "competition", Microsoft could perhaps be seen as a smaller target for the DOJ to aim at for antitrust lawsuits, anti-competitive behavior etc.

"We can't be anti-competitive! Just look at Novel and Apple! We compete!"

Not that old chestnut again by ClosedSource · 2006-11-02 10:07 · Score: 2, Informative

WordPerfect was available on many different platforms. They should have been working on a Windows version long before OS/2 was imminent (Ironically WordPerfect's eventual owner, Corel, didn't made that mistake). The reason they didn't had nothing to do with OS/2, it was because their word-processing philosophy was totally against everything Windows stood for. They prided themselves on having a "blank sheet" interface uncluttered by menus or other user-friendly devices (yes, they added a menu very late, but it was turned off by default).

I remember the president of WordPerfect Corp saying that they really didn't want to do a Windows version but they were going to due to customer demand. When they finally delivered a Windows version it was crap. I crashed it in the first 15 mins of use.

press announcement webcase link by simoncrute · 2006-11-02 10:07 · Score: 1

For those that are interested.

http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/webcast.html

So, you had to... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:08 · Score: 0

...call a Linux guy to help you install your Windows software? You know, that's been my experience, too. Sure wish I could find wireless LAN drivers for Windows X-64. Oh, well.

Direct link to streming video of the announcement by Angostura · 2006-11-02 10:10 · Score: 1

About to start here:

http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/webcast.html

Re: FUDware by TaoPhoenix · 2006-11-02 10:12 · Score: 1

I have to coin a term for this, because piecing this story together from the posts, it's just SO wrong on SO many levels. A lot of them imply M$ is stupid. I don't think so. Not ... quite. Unable to compete creatively, unable to understand real customer needs, etc. But not quite stupid. But we all agree they ARE sneaky. Time to invent a word: FUDware.

1. In their partnership, they first acquire "usage" to someone's hot core tech they could never reverse engineer.

2. Team A proceeds to make Vista ports of the stuff. They'll need forever, which is what their entire rest of the plan is desiged for.

3. Team B shares a worthless early version of something, plus some tasty cash. True to their word, CodeFragment1 will indeed be "Free OSS". But if the free portion has swiss cheese holes in it, someone is going to have to write patchware for it. M$ beats them to the punch, with "proprietary" patchware "today".

4. This slows down external developers, who don't wish to duplicate M$'s direct work. Magically, M$'s Patchware slips a deadline or three.

5. Then M$ has bought themselves enough time to bury it all in BlackComb, then drill everyone with a snaky glare and dare them to sue.

EVEN if all those myriad other examples are ignored as "the Net was young", the Zune move M$ pulled on all its PlaysForSure partners silences all doubt.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Ask former partners by LPrecure · 2006-11-02 10:13 · Score: 1

I'm trying to remember: Is IBM the ONLY company to EVER partner with Microsoft that's still in business?

a few month ago steve ballmer saied by AlgorithMan · 2006-11-02 10:16 · Score: 1

hmmmm only a few months ago steve ballmer saied microsoft will fight linux... why do i have the feeling that there might be a connection to this announcement?

--
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes

The Truth. by FatherOfONe · 2006-11-02 10:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ok, the real thing here is that Novell is all for the use of MONO and .NET. Microsoft likes that idea and will try and write some apps that currently will work with the .NET framwork that Novell has going for it now with SuSE 10.x. So it technically would be possible to buy a Microsoft app and run it on a Novell server. Will anyone do this?

How many organizations want to run a .NET app on anything but Windows?

Honestly how many .NET developers out there that want to target Linux?

Now, how many Java developers out there that develop and use Linux?

Most people would agree that there is around 1000 Java developers using Linux to every .Net developer, yet Novell appears to have an infatuation with .NET. Yet Novell seems to want to make Linux a .NET server at all cost.

To be honest I really like SuSE 9ES and OpenSuSE 10 (for home), and I have for the most part overlooked the tools that now require .NET to work with SuSE, but I can only imagine that this is going to get far worse, and at some point I will have to switch distros because of Novells desire to become this "sub Vista" operating system.

So the truth is that you won't see Microsoft write some cool application in Java or PHP or even C, but in C#, and it will somewhat work on SuSE 10.x or 11, then break with one "Windows Update". Of course nobody will ever use it in production except a handful of people, so it really won't matter.

Novell isn't doing much here and neither is Microsoft. The only "good" this might do is make MONO better, but given it's track record that shouldn't be hard to accomplish.

Poor Novell, they use to be a great company, and now they are reduced to begging Microsoft for applications. Just think what they could have done if they would have GPL'd NDS back in 1993. It could have become the defacto standard by now. Ahh, but you guys can at least open source all those cool .NET apps you have that nobody cares about.

--
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.

openSUSE Build Servce? by houghi · 2006-11-02 10:17 · Score: 1

Pitty the details are so vague. I wonder about the technical part. Novell is busy with the Build Service a servcie that will build all kinds of OSS software.

At this moment they have obviously software for the different SUSE distro's, but also for Debian, Mandrake and RedHat. An example can be seen on this page

During the anouncement it was said that building for Windows would not be completely out of the loop. So it can very well be that Microsoft gives Novell the needed tools so that they can compile for Windows as well.

The advatage is that people will be able to get programs only available in Linux now for Windows as well. The big advatage for developers of software is that they can use the build service and make their software available for many distributions, instead only e.g. Debian or SUSE or ...

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re: Close by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:20 · Score: 0

Some creative interpretations of "close" might apply here. Also, apply these same interpretations of "embrace and extend".

Buy MSUSE* by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:21 · Score: 0

With all the polish, reliability and attention to detail you'd expect from the people who brought you Windows ME and SUSE 10.1!

* all sales ABSOLUTELY final - NO exceptions

Heh. by dr_strang · 2006-11-02 10:22 · Score: 1

APRIL FOOLS!

--
This is a sig. It is like every other sig in the world, except that it is mine, and it is different.

Seems obvious to me by michaelmalak · 2006-11-02 10:23 · Score: 1

Microsoft won't sue Suse users, but it will sue all the other Linux users. Microsoft will be leveraging its patents to sell mafia-style insurance. Microsoft has figured out how to make per-copy money off Linux beyond just support and distribution costs.

April Fools by eyeball · 2006-11-02 10:24 · Score: 1

April fools. /me looks at calendar.

Oh wait-

--

_______
2B1ASK1

Mono Patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:25 · Score: 0

I think they're hinting about Mono.

Proprietry flash or proprietry WMA? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:26 · Score: 0

Dear Novell,

Where's the theora bitch?

If you stop blowing MS, you should be able to get a decent format in place before MS bends you over the table.

Re:Microsoft still refuses to acknowledge open sou by ZonkerDude · 2006-11-02 10:28 · Score: 1

They are signing a deal with Novell tosupport and interoperate with SUSE Linux. That sounds like recognition doen't it?

They're Burying the Hatchet by twmcneil · 2006-11-02 10:29 · Score: 0

... in Novell's back.

--
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"

Uhummmm..... by Savage-Rabbit · 2006-11-02 10:31 · Score: 1

Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Jes... änd we were böth näked.... *wink* *wink*

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow

Look out RedHat by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:34 · Score: 0

It's the RedHat Server market share they are going after. Wait and see.

Like the old saying by alienzed · 2006-11-02 10:37 · Score: 1

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

--
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!

Re:OSS vs. Proprietary fight is becoming meaningle by SEE · 2006-11-02 10:41 · Score: 1

Exactly. Anybody at Microsoft who has been paying attention the last ten years would realize the Microsoft effort to take over the server room has failed, foiled not by any success of commercial Unix, but by Linux. Vista is not a sufficient improvement over XP/Server 2003 to revive the progress Microsoft was making with NT, and the next release will be some time in the 2010s. Like it or not, Microsoft is facing a world where it must co-exist with the Linux boxes in the server room for years to come.

MS doing Linux, that's a scary thought by MadJo · 2006-11-02 10:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux

But what about Fedora Core, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Mepis, Debian, Gentoo, and all those other distributions. Are they too exempt from possible prosecution?
I doubt that.

--
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7

Re:MS doing Linux, that's a scary thought by ZonkerDude · 2006-11-02 10:47 · Score: 1

According to the conf call, this is protection for Novell only. If other companies want this then they need to sign as well?

Useable... Linux? by NineNine · 2006-11-02 10:48 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Is this possible? I think it is. I think that this might be the end result of it. If MS takes an interest in SUSE, I think that we'll finally see a useable version of Linux for the desktop. I personally would *LOVE* to use a version of Linux that MS has made useable.

Also, maybe even more importantly, tt would be like another OSX, but it would run on regular hardware. If anything, Apple may be in serious trouble...

Re:Useable... Linux? by aurelian · 2006-11-02 11:57 · Score: 1

I personally would *LOVE* to use a version of Linux that MS has made useable.
You mean like they made their own OS useable? I don't see what exactly would MS add to Linux to make it more useable. You think they are going to strongarm all the third party hardware vendors to write up-to-date Linux drivers? Because that's about the only significant thing they could do.
Re:Useable... Linux? by NineNine · 2006-11-02 14:11 · Score: 1

Consistent UI. Consistent API making development easier (ala VB6). Streamline updates. Make it less easy to break. Consolidate 5000 flat files and make a registry-like thing.

There are about a million things that they could do to improve it. I still say I'd really like to see what they could do with it.
Re:Useable... Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 17:55 · Score: 0

Wolf Bearclaw will eat your heart and gut you.

- Wolf Bearclaw
Re:Useable... Linux? by b0s0z0ku · 2006-11-03 02:45 · Score: 1

Consolidate 5000 flat files and make a registry-like thing.
That's the most *fucking horrible* idea that I've ever heard. Flat files are actually a *good* thing in many cases, since security on each file can be controlled individually, and all applications aren't dependent on a single non-transparent object that's somewhat easily broken.
If anything, Microsoft tends to overuse the giant opaque database in their software. We don't need more of that, especially not for a desktop OS.
-b.
Re:Useable... Linux? by NineNine · 2006-11-03 04:04 · Score: 1

Oh yeah. That's why people are flocking to Linux on the desktop. So that they can edit each and every individual flat file by hand. Oh sure. That's what I like to do on a Friday night. Why have a life when you can be a slave to your PC? You know what... why stop there? I want to be able to manually edit what goes in each block of memory at any one particular time. I don't want to USE my PC. I want to perpetually FIX my PC! Yeah! Who are these crazy people who want to be able to easily install and use programs on their PC's? What are they thinking?
Re:Useable... Linux? by b0s0z0ku · 2006-11-03 04:14 · Score: 1

Oh yeah. That's why people are flocking to Linux on the desktop. So that they can edit each and every individual flat file by hand. Oh sure. That's what I like to do on a Friday night. Why have a life when you can be a slave to your PC?
There's no reason why automated tools to edit flat files can't (and do!) exist. See: YaST. Also, many applications have their own options editors. I'm saying that keeping all of one's eggs in one basket is pathetically stupid.
Your post shows that you have no real understanding of Linux.
-b.

Signing contract by __aahlyu4518 · 2006-11-02 10:49 · Score: 0

They'll be signing the contract on april 1st next year.

nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:49 · Score: 0

The skull and bones millionaire globalist party nominee won the election. What his name was makes no difference there between the two wings of the same power sharing "party".

The only way there will ever be constructive change is to dimantle the D and R parties, I mean outlaw them, ban them, because they are both corrupt and engage in illegal practices.

They have hijacked government and share it fully as a jobs and power accumulating mob racket.

Open Source Developers should worhsip Novell by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:51 · Score: 0

From the official announcement at the press conference: Novell has negotiated an agreement that MS will not sue individual, non-commercial open source developers for patent infringement. THAT is a great thing.

Re:Open Source Developers should worhsip Novell by lucychili · 2006-11-02 19:28 · Score: 1

MSNovell seem to think so. You code for us. Free. Not for profit.
We keep the patents. If you code FOSS, make a profit and are not a partner.
Then we sue.

Sort of nice for them really they dont need to hire devs anymore, just lawyers.
Dont have to worry about any of that messy innovation stuff, just fence it off and sue.
Litigation as a business model. How far can you bend patent and DMCA law before it
looks so broken that no one wants to go near any of it.
I hope the EU are watching.

What Really Killed OS/2 by reallocate · 2006-11-02 10:52 · Score: 1

What really killed OS/2 was the fact that only a few independent software vendors saw a reason to develop and market OS/2 products. Why write an OS/2-only product when IBM keeps telling everyone it will run the Windows version just fine?

Why buy OS/2 to run OS/2 apps that aren't there?

That claim was, by and large, true back in the days of 16-bit Windows 3.1, which was the era in which OS/2 was built. OS/2 couldn't handle 32-bit Windows.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by Locutus · 2006-11-02 11:31 · Score: 1

Oh yeah, 16bit segmented memory and cooperative pseudo-multi-tasking of Windows 3.x was so much better than a flat 32bit memory model and preemptive-multi-threading-multi-tasking of native OS/2 applications. Sure THAT's the reason.

It had nothing to do with heavy handed and illegal tactics by Microsoft on ISVs to ONLY make Microsoft Windows applications. And the fact that the Microsoft was found guilty of illegally protecting it's OS monopoly in the latest( 2nd one ) DOJ vs MSFT case was all just a dream....

Gawd, OS/2 did run 32bit Windows when Microsoft Chicago( codename for Windows 95 ) until Microsoft caught wind of that and then made a small change in how the application resources structure was addressed. Once that change was inplace, a 32bit Windows application put a small amount of the application in address space above the 512MB limit of OS/2 and BANG, OS/2 could no long run 32bit Windows.

This is about how Microsoft is going after GNU/Linux and not how Microsoft protected Windows in the early 1990's. New tactics or re-makes of old ones are in play so forget what didn't or did happen with IBM, Microsoft and OS/2. But be sure, this has nothing to do with HELPING Novell, Linux, or any customer. It is about how they'll subvert control, hinder the development community, or somehow undermine the threat that is OSS and GNU/Linux. IMO.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by reallocate · 2006-11-02 12:13 · Score: 1

You're putting words in my mouth.

Customers don't care and don't know about memory models. They're interested in the stuff software does. With or without MS pressure on ISV's, there was no economic reason to develop OS/2 apps or port Windows apps. Besides, IBM was going out of its way to be obnoxious to ISV's.

What MS did to keep a competitor from running its software wasn't nefarious, just good business. Given a chance, IBM would have done the same thing to MS.

But, even without that, no one had a reason to develop OS/2 apps. Why buy an OS to run Windows apps when you can buy Windows?

As someone who bought and ran three different OS/2 releases, I think it was technically superior to the Windows of the time. But, no one cares about technical superiority so long as the software works and doesn't set the hardware on fire.

When IBM made OS/2 able to run Windows apps, it gave MS the pen to sign the product's death certificate.

Maybe MS is bent on screwing Novell. Maybe not. But, certainly, no one cares about developers other than developers. And, sometimes products fail not because of Evil Corporate Doings, but because no one wants to buy them.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by Locutus · 2006-11-02 14:16 · Score: 1

I mentioned those features because they actually made application better, faster, cheaper, etc. Sure, if customers only wanted what was already out and didn't want or care about better, faster, cheaper, etc applications then sure, running old clunky Windows 3.x apps on OS/2 was 'good enough'. But, IMO, customers NEVER are happy with what they have and ISVs many times can come up with ways to make the next version better, faster, cheaper, etc and therefore get customers to move to that new version and pay for it.

I will say that many, but not all, Windows ISVs are ignorant to what is outside of the Microsoft platform. Back then and even now. So for many, even if some kind of super-duper new computer system was created, many many Windows ISVs will have no clue it exists and just keep on waiting for some kind of new restriction or feature to be released in some MS patch or bundled OS upgrade.

Anyways, we don't agree that there WAS a reason for Windows ISVs to move their software to the advanced features of OS/2 so that's where this thread stands. IMO.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by reallocate · 2006-11-02 14:39 · Score: 1

ISV's who have built a career and a business with Windows aren't going to abandoned that and rush to a new OS just because they think it is technically superior, regardless of what MS does or doesn't do. That's not how business decisions are made.

For example, let's pretend the next version of the GIMP is recognized as technically superior to Photoshop: faster, more features, more capabilities. Are professionals who depend on Photoshop going to abandon it? Not a chance.\

ISV's, then as now, are in the business of selling software. They balanced the cost of learning OS/2 and the cost of porting to it versus continuing to sell the same product into the Windows market. The money was with Windows.

Even today, people don't use the "advanced features" that OS/2 had in comparison to Windows 3.1. People concentrate on one, fullscreen, app at a time. They don't multitask. They care more about appearance, ease of use and reliability more than technology. More than anything, they don't won't to have to relearn how to use a computer. Look, Linux is arguably superior to Windows. It's free, and its been around for about 15 years. MS can't stop people from using it and can't stop people developing for it. And yet, a tiny fraction of the market uses Linux. Linux is to software as the Segway is to transportation.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by Weedlekin · 2006-11-02 23:39 · Score: 1

"It had nothing to do with heavy handed and illegal tactics by Microsoft on ISVs to ONLY make Microsoft Windows applications. And the fact that the Microsoft was found guilty of illegally protecting it's OS monopoly in the latest( 2nd one ) DOJ vs MSFT case was all just a dream...."

You're right, it actually had very little to do with any of those things, but the following did have a notable effect:

1) IBM charged small ISVs an exorbitant amount for dev. tools, but gave them away more or less for free to their big partners. This significantly reduced not only the number of shops who could afford to develop for OS/2, but by generating ill will, also resulted in fewer _wanting_ to develop for it.

2) The run-away success of Windows 3 meant that a rich tool ecosystem quickly grew up around it, making development both cheap and easy. And in contrast with IBM's attitude of "pay through the nose for everything unless you're big and rich", Microsoft expended considerable effort to ensure that small ISVs could obtain the tools and information they needed to develop for Windows, even if that meant directing them to a competitor's products (not something they do now!).

3) IBM would only supply beta versions of OS/2 to a select range of partners, whereas MS would send 3.X betas free to anyone who was willing to sign and fax the relevant NDA (betas of a future OS are important to ISVs for obvious reasons). I remember working for a little 3-man ISV in Spain, and obtained the Windows 3.1 beta with a full SDK, test applications from various vendors, the DDK, and masses of documentation in a huge box containing over a hundred 3.5" floppies that MS mailed from the US without even charging us for shipping. Then, because we'd actually responded with some bug reports, they sent us two boxed retail versions of the final product (one on CD which was then a fairly new thing for computers, and another on floppies) plus MS C, Word, and various other things, with a letter telling us it was a small token of thanks for helping them make a better product. Compare this with IBM, who wanted us to pay a fair amount just for accessing OS/2 developer documentation, and it becomes pretty obvious why that particular company wrote for Windows despite having bought an OS/2 C++ compiler from Borland (and a compiler as what one got, for the same price as Borland's entire C++ tool suite for DOS and Windows 3.X).

So by treating small developers as third class citizens whose only value was as a source of revenue, IBM managed to permanently piss off a lot of companies that later became significant players, but whose CEOs would rather saw their own dicks off with the edge of a brick than develop a product for anything remotely connected with Big Blue, irrespective of how technically wonderful it might be.

--
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by Locutus · 2006-11-03 06:30 · Score: 1

ISV's who have built a career and a business with Windows aren't going to abandoned that and rush to a new OS just because they think it is technically superior, regardless of what MS does or doesn't do. That's not how business decisions are made.
They would and some did when they found that the platform provided features which made their applications better and more useable. THOSE ARE business descisions. But besides pressure from Microsoft on some ISVs, Microsoft also pumped up Chicago so much that on paper, it was a better product than OS/2. Those press releases and advertisements kept many ISVs waiting for Chicago instead of building a better product on OS/2. It also helped that Microsoft threatened any OEM thinking of pre-loading OS/2 and thereby prevented an install base from growing. Only hardcore techies would install from dozens of floppies or even CDROM though millions did.
For example, let's pretend the next version of the GIMP is recognized as technically superior to Photoshop: faster, more features, more capabilities. Are professionals who depend on Photoshop going to abandon it? Not a chance.\
I don't think an application like Photoshop or GIMP can compare to an OS platform which all applications are built from/on. But if this new GIMP provided the ability to run Photoshop plugins but also provided much needed and advanced plugins from this new GIMP so they could do their jobs better, faster, etc, then I believe professionals would move to the newer product. It's about money right? Doing the job better right? What is being left out of this 'pretend' scenario are the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by the "Photoshop" maker to spread FUD about the new "GIMP" product in attempts to keep the professionals from moving. Anyways, this is not quite the same as an OS platform IMO.
ISV's, then as now, are in the business of selling software. They balanced the cost of learning OS/2 and the cost of porting to it versus continuing to sell the same product into the Windows market. The money was with Windows.
The money is in getting customers to want to purchase your software and a big part of that is making the product better, faster, etc. OS/2 provided that platform and a few ISVs did go there. Again, there was hundreds of millions of dollars spent by Microsoft to stop this and there was pressure on large ISVs and OEMs to stay away from promoting, porting, or shipping OS/2 or products for OS/2. A famous example is the one of the 1994 L.V. Comdex computer show. HP had 50% of their PCs on the show floor running OS/2 the night before the show opened. Somebody at Microsoft called HP and said something which resulted in all those PCs going missing from the show the next morning and for the remainder of the show.
Even today, people don't use the "advanced features" that OS/2 had in comparison to Windows 3.1. People concentrate on one, fullscreen, app at a time. They don't multitask. They care more about appearance, ease of use and reliability more than technology. More than anything, they don't won't to have to relearn how to use a computer. Look, Linux is arguably superior to Windows. It's free, and its been around for about 15 years. MS can't stop people from using it and can't stop people developing for it. And yet, a tiny fraction of the market uses Linux. Linux is to software as the Segway is to transportation.
Well, I can tell you that there are/were Windows ISVs which were so excited by the "new" features in Windows 95( multi threading ) that they mentioned how cool and great the feature was and that their applications ran so much better using them. A fullscreen application can and sometimes does use multi-threading and therefore also uses preemptive multitasking. The user is clueless but only knows that the appliction is more responsive than before( when these are not used or are poorly implemented ). Regarding Linux, it's all about pre-installs and Microsoft can and does pressure the OEMs to NOT SHIP LINUX products and

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by Locutus · 2006-11-03 07:11 · Score: 1

I had heard about that but came in later when IBM was trying to get small ISVs on OS/2 and priced things better. I'd run across people who were pretty pissed at them though and I'm sure that did lose them alot of buisness/partners.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by reallocate · 2006-11-03 08:24 · Score: 1

>>"(ISV's) would and some did..."
Yes, some did, but not enough to make the platform viable. Of those who moved, many went out of business or moved back to Windows.

>>"Microsoft also pumped up Chicago..."
Of course, they did. That's marketing. If someone bet their business on MS market-speak, they were foolish. Ditto if they believed IBM's PR.

>>"..hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by the "Photoshop" maker to spread FUD about the new "GIMP"

Adobe is spending hundreds of millions on Gimp FUD? Be serious. Look, there's an entire industry built around Photoshop. Thousands of people have invested many thousands of their dollars and their hours to become expert Photoshop users. They aren't going to abandon that investment, no matter how good Gimp gets. Gimp may attract new designers, open source advocates, and people who can't/won't pay for Photoshop, but it obviously isn't going to make inroads into the current base of professional Photoshop users. Besides, the biggest complaint about Gimp is that the interface isn't like Photoshop. Few people see a reason to spend time learning a new program that has only some of the capabilities of the Photoshop they already own and use every day.

>>" A famous example is the one of the 1994 L.V. Comdex computer show. HP had 50% of their PCs on the show floor running OS/2,,,"
Yes, dirty tricks by MS. They probably told HP they stood to lose the right to preload Windows. I'm sure IBM would have done pretty much the same thing had the situation been reversed. When you decide to compete against a powerful market leader, you're naive if you expect everyone to play "fair".

>>"The user is clueless but only knows that the appliction is more responsive..."
Yes, obviously. But, my point was that users don't multitask.

>>" Regarding Linux, it's all about pre-installs and Microsoft can and does pressure the OEMs to NOT SHIP LINUX ..."
I'm sure they do. If pre-installed Linux ever becomes a real threat, I expect MS to sell a cheap DVD that wipes out Linux ,saves user data, and install Windows.

I was around and paying attention during the IBM-MS feud. I saw a lot of the less-than-gentle MS tactics, and some bonehead IBM moves (like tieing the initial releases to their PS/2 hardware; IBM didn't understand the consumer market). But, I'm convinced that OS/2 would have failed regardless. (Remember, too, that initially IBM was almost hostile about the prospect of ISV's developing for OS/2. Contrast that with MS's assertive wooing of developers. By the time IBM got a clue, it was too late.)

As for Linux, I agree that its future may be in the web. Frankly, if you remove the ideologically inclined and the people who know how to install Linux from the number of people who might want to try it on their desktop, you very likely have a pretty small number. I've used Linux for 10 years, and can rip through a Slackware or Debian install. I can partition my drives umpteen different ways. But, everyone else I know is scared to death of monkeying with their drives. Such fear keeps the local PC shop in business.

OTOH, if someone marketed a cheap Linux-in-ROM machine with a big cheap drive, sans monitor, into the toy market for $199, they just might make some money. (Think Commodore 64. I bought mine at Toys-R-Us, just like lots of people.) Bring it home, hook up your existing monitor, and you're good to go. Put the OS in ROM and everything else on the drive. Don't worry about OS upgrades: people hate them.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by ckaminski · 2006-11-05 03:46 · Score: 1

OS/2 was murdered by the insanely high price of memory at the time. If memory had been $4 per megabyte and not $40, OS/2 would have made much greater inroads. Around 1993-1995 most consumer computer builds were 4MB, maybe 8MB. In 4MB, OS/2 2.1 was barely useful. At 32MB of memory, OS/2 would have been fantastic, where Windows 3.1 would have foundered.
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by Locutus · 2006-11-05 08:00 · Score: 1

IMO it would have 'helped' some but is not the main reason. I will agree that OS/2 2.1 in 10MB on a 386/40 did a pretty good job of multitasking and running both OS/2 and Windows applications where 4MB was not desired if anything but OS/2 apps were run. You might be interested to know that in Germany where a few of the top PC makers provided pre-loaded OS/2, it gained a 25% marketshare in just one year.

Also, IIRC, OS/2 v4.0 had the WorkplaceShell using ~4MB and the OS using ~4MB where NT v4.0 required ~16MB just for its OS/desktop. And the speed optimizations in OS/2 from v2 to v3 were significant. so much so that a dual processor NT system was benchmarked to run slower than a single CPU OS/2 system. So, at the low end, it would have helped some if OS/2 ran better on tiny amounts of RAM but IMO, it was the stranglehold on OEMs and pre-installs which really did the most damage to OS/2 in the 90's.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-05 08:26 · Score: 0

...it was the stranglehold on OEMs and pre-installs which really did the most damage to OS/2 in the 90's.

The OEMs were acting in their own best interests. If they thought offering OS/2 would increase their sales, they would have done it (and indeed some did, as you pointed out, but later stopped, because it turned out to have been a bad idea). Prior to signing the 1994 consent decree with the US DoJ, Microsoft may have been able to prevent installation of OS/2, but that consent decree barred the company from entering into any licensing agreement that restricted an OEM's ability to offer competing operating systems or other software.

The 1994 consent decree also prohibited the tying of products, which was the basis for the later suit against Microsoft for tying Internet Explorer to Windows. Given that there was never any lawsuit alleging that Microsoft had prevented OEMs offering competing systems like OS/2, it can be assumed that that part of the consent decree wasn't violated. Microsoft did, however, offer a lower price for Windows 95 to OEMs who agreed to promote it in their advertising, etc.

It's important to recall that in the 1990s, most OEMs still had a deep distrust of IBM, since it was a huge competitor with a history of attempts to monopolise various computer markets. For that reason, it's not really surprising that once OS/2 became an IBM-only product, most OEMs weren't very interested in offering it (even if it was technically a good system). The lack of native software also meant most consumers didn't particularly want it, so there was no consumer pressure on OEMs to add it (in contrast to, e.g., Windows 95).
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by Locutus · 2006-11-05 15:43 · Score: 1

Right AC, and HP was operating in its best interest when Microsoft threatened it to pull all of its OS/2 PC off the Comdex showroom floor the night before the show opened and it was all on the up-and-up for a monopoly to do this. Sure.

And some wonder why NO OEMs in the US preloaded OS/2... Hey, there are still people who think that the latest MSFT and Novell deal is going to help GNU/Linux and FOSS too.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-05 19:09 · Score: 0

HP was operating in its best interest when Microsoft threatened it to pull all of its OS/2 PC off the Comdex showroom floor the night before the show opened and it was all on the up-and-up for a monopoly to do this.

That doesn't make any sense. Microsoft threatened to pull all of HP's PCs off the Comdex showroom floor? If someone from Microsoft had threatened to steal HP's PCs running OS/2, that would obviously have been a matter for the police. If it had threatened to penalise HP for offering OS/2, that would have been a violation of the 1994 consent decree, and grounds for the regulators to step in.

And some wonder why NO OEMs in the US preloaded OS/2...

Most people realise it's because hardly anyone there wanted OS/2. Hardly anyone over here in Europe wanted it either. Why would anyone want an OS with no software? Why would a PC vendor want to buy its OS from a competitor? OS/2 had so many problems (lack of software, made by a company competing with other PC vendors, higher memory requirements, fewer device drivers, worse backwards compatibility), it would have been a miracle if it hadn't failed. Microsoft's system (Windows 3.x/9x) may have been technically inferior, but it was a much better fit consumer requirements, and that's what matters.

One of the best examples against the old OS/2 conspiracy theory is Linux. If Microsoft did anything at all to try and stop any OEM preloading Linux today, it would immediately face sanctions from the European Commission, and probably the DoJ as well. Even so, hardly any OEMs include Linux, even though it's free. Why? It isn't because of a 'stranglehold' Microsoft have over them, it's because hardly anyone wants Linux, so the marginal cost of offering it (i.e. the cost of adding another variable to production systems, and installing Linux where requrested) is higher than the marginal income Linux sales would provide. It's basic economics.
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by Locutus · 2006-11-06 06:00 · Score: 1

One of the best examples against the old OS/2 conspiracy theory is Linux. If Microsoft did anything at all to try and stop any OEM preloading Linux today, it would immediately face sanctions from the European Commission, and probably the DoJ as well. Even so, hardly any OEMs include Linux, even though it's free. Why? It isn't because of a 'stranglehold' Microsoft have over them, it's because hardly anyone wants Linux, so the marginal cost of offering it (i.e. the cost of adding another variable to production systems, and installing Linux where requrested) is higher than the marginal income Linux sales would provide. It's basic economics.
Wow, you just don't get it...The DOJ vs MSFT Settlement left huge holes for Microsoft to continue leveraging it power over PC OEMs. Did you know that Dell gets around 20% of its PROFITS directly from Microsoft marketing programs? Ship a Linux box and lose 20% of your profit...Knowing Microsoft, they won't touch this in an email but I'd bet its been put on the table verbally once or twice already. Another example, I've heard that a former HP project manager had 2 Linux projects killed off by HP finance because if those projects went forward, HP would lose profits on existing products running Microsoft Windows. The markets were handhelds and mediacenter PCs and it was, IIRC, around 2002 that this occurred.
So don't kid yourself if you think Microsoft is not doing everything it can to keep Linux off PCs and that includes 'discussing' existing and future relationships with them if Linux is promoted.
So you want to talk about economics? See if you can get and OEM to talk about the costs of supporting Microsoft Windows as it relates to virus, spyware, adware, and related issues. Granted, in some cases, Microsoft actually pays them to support it but in most, their margins are so low that one or two support calls cleans the profits from the books. I've talked with a few consultants who specialize in 'repairing' Microsoft Windows and they love the product for its continued revenue stream for them. I've also moved a handful of friends off Windows because it was so problematic and costing too much to keep running. So, IMO, without those Microsoft 'financial' strings attached to OEM profits, most OEMs would probably love to put Linux on their boxes.
and I believe that stuff about HP pulling its OS/2 PCs off the Comdex floor after getting a call from Microsoft is in the court documents from the DOJ vs MSFT case. BTW, you sound like you're pretty young or have not read up on any of the tactics used by MSFT in the past to kill off various products.
LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:What Really Killed OS/2 by Weedlekin · 2006-11-06 23:29 · Score: 1

IBM's attitude changed when OS/2 v. 2.X (i.e. the first version they wrote themselves rather than having MS do it for them) failed to take off in a big way despite a concerted and extended marketing campaign, thereby forcing them to consider the fact that they may have made some bad decisions when they forced MS to change various technical and marketing aspects of the system in its early days, e.g.:

-- MS had originally planned to make OS/2 a 32-bit OS, but IBM (who'd sold a lot of '286 machines to customers with a promise that they'd be able to run the new system) insisted that it target the 80286. This meant that OS/2 1.0 (which was a text-only OS until 1.1) could only run 1 DOS app at a time, and DOS apps were what most people had, so few saw a reason to spend extra money for something that could run their existing software almost as well as DOS, which came with their machines. This restriction continued to have an adverse effect until OS 2 2.0, by which time IBM were Microsoft competitors rather than partners.

-- The original design for OS/2 1.1's Presentation Manager was based on an extended version of the Windows API, because MS (who seemed to have a far better idea of how ISV minds worked than IBM at that point) reckoned that a high degree of source code compatibility would result in more applications for OS/2. IBM however felt that the Windows API was deficient (which was true), and insisted on a new, much more advanced but totally incompatible system for OS/2, which MS duly provided, albeit under protest.

-- Because they were the authors of both systems, MS were very amenable indeed to having OS/2 bundled with new PS/2 computers instead of PC-DOS. IBM on the other hand felt that OS/2 should be an extra cost option that gave more capabilities to their then considerable corporate customer base, while home and small business users would be content with the more restricted feature set offered by PC-DOS. This differentiation model had served them well during their mini and mainframe days, but (as Bill "a computer in every home" Gates predicted at the time), attempting to divide the PC market in this was way meant that most ISVs simply targeted both systems' common denominator (i.e. DOS) to ensure the widest possible market share for their products.

I remember attending an OS/2 developer conference in the UK in 1987 or 1988, where Bill Gates was the keynote speaker, and his enthusiasm for OS/2 was obvious, especially in the Q&A session following his presentation, where he fielded mostly hostile questions from an audience that was obviously less than convinced by it all. In each and every case, he ended by saying that while he understood why people might feel that way _now_, the fact of the matter was that DOS would be replaced by OS/2 fairly quickly, and the compatibility box was a legacy feature that would eventually be deprecated, so we'd all better start learning how to program for the OS/2 APIs right away. Yet within two or three years, Microsoft had abandoned OS/2 completely due to their dissatisfaction with various technical and marketing decisions by IBM that they felt had squandered any chances of success it might once have had. If IBM had listened to MS just a little, then they would likely have maintained their early enthusiasm, and 90% of desktops would now be running OS/2 XP and awaiting OS/2 Vista.

--
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.

Re:Microsoft still refuses to acknowledge open sou by Grishnakh · 2006-11-02 10:54 · Score: 1

They are signing a deal with Novell tosupport and interoperate with SUSE Linux. That sounds like recognition doen't it?

Yes, but it also sounds like a trap.

If and when this goes through... by zogger · 2006-11-02 10:56 · Score: 1

...how many people are still going to want to run Suse? Any folks here currently running it going to switch to something else?

Re:If and when this goes through... by b0s0z0ku · 2006-11-03 03:06 · Score: 1

Yep. Not going to give money and/or support to a Microsoft stooge.

Re:Microsoft still refuses to acknowledge open sou by ZonkerDude · 2006-11-02 10:56 · Score: 1

Is Novell that stupid? NOVL is mure business-like and less religious about Linux than, say, RedHat.

Seattle Times' article by Planetes · 2006-11-02 11:01 · Score: 1

I just noticed the Seattle Times has a fresh article about it..

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstech nology/2003338593_webmsnovell02.html>Microsoft throws support behind longtime rival Novell's Linux platform

--
Planetes
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promo Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitl

Interesting by Pecisk · 2006-11-02 11:02 · Score: 1

When Microsoft starts to act somehow reasonable (PHP, Firefox support, etc.), it is sure feels very suspicious, so let's take everything with big spoon of salt.

First of all, I can see clearly why Microsoft done this - because of .NET. Like it or not, Miguel with it's Mono team have proven that C# is winning game if it is done right, t.i. multi-platform/free software style. Also we should take phrase "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer" into account.

Well, it will be interesting. About "evil empire", bla bla bla - get grown up, Microsoft sure has need to dominate, and it has not been very trustworthy partner, but maybe they got a point - for them to remain on the top of the game, they should start to act a little bit less arrogant. Of course, it is wishful thinking, but...

And yeah, it COULD be stunt to silence Oracle.

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!

Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 11:04 · Score: 0

1.) MS will offer sales support of Suse.

Great, most Linux users will probably take advantage of this... right.

2.) ...make it easier for users to run both Suse Linux and Microsoft's Windows on their computers...

Yay, a boot loader, that's fantastic.

3.) ...Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux...

MS won't sue Linux users.

These things mean nothing for me or my business.

I'm curious about... by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2006-11-02 11:06 · Score: 1

...certain underdeveloped projects, and how they'll be affected by this partnership. Wine and NTFS support, most notably. I doubt Microsoft will be able to ignore them, but to support them could be quite damaging to their Windows market share. Perhaps they will develop closed source alternatives exclusively for Suse? Perhaps that is what this entire thing is about. To boost Suse as a standard distro through developing closed source applications for it, and thus helping to make closed source more acceptable in Linux.

--
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.

I should have bought Novell shares years ago by wonkavader · 2006-11-02 11:09 · Score: 1

So I could sell them next month.

Novell will look good for a few months with this, then Microsoft will SCREW them like they do every single company they've ever touched.

I hope it doesn't destroy Novell. Probably will, though. It's Microsoft's secondary reason for any partnership they go into.

IT'S A TRAP! by rnmartinez · 2006-11-02 11:15 · Score: 1

Sorry I had to - I couldn't resist! But I think some good could come out of this. I run linux for my personal desktop and thats it - so I am excited about the fact that MS wants to contribute to OOo. Some better filters for opening ms docs would really help make it more viable and hopfully it would go the other way, with MS offering real support for saving in ODF format. It will be interesting to see where it goes

is this like the Corel partnership? by Locutus · 2006-11-02 11:15 · Score: 1

Something is obviously up Microsofts sleeve here and I wonder what it could be. There is just no way in hell Microsoft is doing this because customers or Novell are asking for this. Protecting Windows is all and everything to Microsoft and doing ANYTHING which will 'help' a GNU/Linux provider is NOT going to protect the Windows monopoly.

This is not going to be quite like the Corel/Microsoft deal of years ago since Microsoft nor Corel ever mentioned the deal had anything to do with Corel Linux. IIRC, it was sold as something to move Corel to promote Microsofts new .Net thing-a-ma-jig. Killing Corel Linux was probably just part of the verbal 'discussions'/requirements for the millions Microsoft paid Corel.

There is something cooking here and it's not anything that'll 'taste good' to the GNU/Linux crowd in the long run. My first guess is that Microsoft will try and get some proprietary API's into Suse so they can shut them down at some later date, or, maybe it's another $1 licensing fee agreement so Microsoft can track exactly how many sales are going through. They've used that one before so I wouldn't be surprised if they're using it again. After all, they've already told investors they'll be spending billions on marketing over the next year and it'll help if they know more exactly where to direct those dollars.

Regardless, yet another company is playing the fools game with this lit stick of dynamite called Microsoft.
IMO.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus

Re:is this like the Corel partnership? by lotusleaf · 2006-11-02 11:41 · Score: 1

Yeah, did you see my post with a CNN news link for comparison here ?
Re:is this like the Corel partnership? by Locutus · 2006-11-02 14:06 · Score: 1

Nope but I did now. :-)

You know, there's talk about this having to do with MS.Net and mono so there really might be something more to the Corel/MSFT tie-in...

It does amaze me that these 'deals' are happening considering the obviously visible roadway full of dead or dieing Microsoft 'partners'. Gawd, 10 years after the Microsoft-Sun JAVA deal noless. :-/

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus

That's the last straw by airlynx · 2006-11-02 11:16 · Score: 1

No more, I'm moving to BSD now, goodbye fluffy little penguins, I'm joining the devil

--
I got into Linux for the free beer, but nobody seems to have any

If they got smart, it could be to late. by Qbertino · 2006-11-02 11:17 · Score: 1

If they actually got smart, it could be to late. 4 years ago they could've switched to Linux and everybody would've thought 'they bought Linux'. Vista could've easyly been something like an extreme Linux Distribution. Now it's to late I suspect.
Then again, Vista probably is the last old-school OS from MS. Unix has won. Nothing cheaper than pushing a Linux Distro with a custom Direct X 10 layer, .Net and Active Directory as the successor to Vista. I recall Balmer actually sweet-talking about Linux a few years ago (before the 'commieware' thing) and just critisizing that they should get they're 'Desktops' under one roof.
MS probably has had a distro in the drawers for years - they just have to pull it out when the time seems fit.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

Re:If they got smart, it could be to late. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 13:15 · Score: 0

> [My english is better than most other people's german, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]

Sure:

to late -> too late
easyly -> easily
critisizing -> criticizing
they're 'Desktops' -> their 'Desktops'

Mein Deutsch ist besser als dein Englisch, sorry...

Red Hat by wateriestfire · 2006-11-02 11:17 · Score: 0

First Oracle sells its own support for Red Hat Linux and undercuts the buisness while Microsoft raises pressure on Red Hat trying to kill it. :( it is so sad to see Red Hat, a great company for open-source, choke to death like this.

Details by invisik · 2006-11-02 11:18 · Score: 1

Visit http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft for official details...

-m

--
http://www.invisik.com

WordPerfect for Windows: The Early Years by Kelson · 2006-11-02 11:20 · Score: 1

When they finally delivered a Windows version it was crap. I crashed it in the first 15 mins of use.

I remember spending ~90 minutes on the phone with WordPerfect tech support trying to solve the problem where WP would crash whenever I tried to run a spell check. It wasn't resolved until the next version of the software.

WordPerfect 5 was a fantastic DOS app. But they bungled the transition to Windows terribly. By the time they had a decent release, 2 or 3 versions had gone by, the software had changed hands at least once (Novell, interestingly) if not twice (Corel), Microsoft Word was firmly entrenched, and everyone was expecting full-up office suites, not stand-alone word processors.

A very thinly veiled threat by ctid · 2006-11-02 11:20 · Score: 1

"If you want to run Linux, you had better be running SuSE Linux, because we're going to start attacking people based on our patent portfolio." That was unbelievably ugly.

They did say two things about Linux developers: First of all for those people who work on Linux as a hobby (but specifically do not get paid for this work), they don't have to worry about the patent issue. Secondly, those people who do get paid for working on Linux were protected so long as their work was available in (or to) OpenSuSE - it wasn't clear whether that meant that you had to have a specific relationship, or whether you were allowed to do what you like so long as OpenSuSE could in principle use your work. It was hard to understand that part because anyone contributing the the GPLed Linux Kernel is of course making their work available to SuSE because the GPL specifically prevents them from excluding any person or group from using your software.

Rather a depressing press conference, IMHO.

--
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room

MS wants consolidation in the Linux market by Infonaut · 2006-11-02 11:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fewer players in the Linux world, and preferably one dominant vendor, means one opponent for Microsoft. Would you rather fight a distributed and decentralized enemy, or a centrally-controlled one with a well-defined center of gravity?

The more standardized and less fragmented Linux is, the more Linux is like the traditional competitors Microsoft is used to crushing. My guess is that Microsoft's current attitude toward Linux is based on this assumption. Will Microsoft's attempts to manipulate the Linux market succeed? Probably not. But that won't stop them from trying.

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ

The pressrelease by houghi · 2006-11-02 11:31 · Score: 1

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov0 6/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx

A quote:
Good for the Open Source Community

Novell officials noted that one of their priorities in working toward the agreement with Microsoft was making sure the agreement made sense for the open source community. As part of today's agreement, Novell and Microsoft are announcing three important commitments. First, Microsoft will work with Novell and actively contribute to several open source software projects, including projects focused on Office file formats and Web services management. Second, Microsoft will not assert its patents against individual noncommercial open source developers. And third, Microsoft is promising not to assert its patents against individual contributors to OpenSUSE.org whose code is included in the SUSE Linux Enterprise platform, including SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:The pressrelease by houghi · 2006-11-02 11:33 · Score: 1

Missed two:
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/openletter.h tml
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq.html

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

arse-covering by doodlelogic · 2006-11-02 11:41 · Score: 1

Microsoft make a lot of money from Windows, but they make even more from Office. By going into a partnership with a 'standard linux' and offerring office on it they can ensure that it remains the only office suite across cost-cutting customers like public bodies and retailers.

They keep a toe in the market - if Linux takes off they will keep a future for the company.

You'd be wise to remember Corel by enmane · 2006-11-02 11:46 · Score: 1

Recall what happened last time when MS "helped" out a Linux OS creator. Corel- who? -MS "helps" Corel with a cash infusion - Corel spins off Xandros Linux - Corel goes private & shareholders (me included) lose their shirts

Excellent..... by whoppo · 2006-11-02 11:47 · Score: 1

Recently hired Microsoft executive, Montgomery Burns, was recently overheard saying...

"...Smithers.... get me Novell on the phone.... I've got... a plan...... Mwaahaahaahaaa!"

--
chown -R us /base

Did anyone happen to notice this? by JayTech · 2006-11-02 12:11 · Score: 1

"In addition, Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux, the people said."

LOL. Who are "the people"?

Put on your tin foil hat now....... by budword · 2006-11-02 12:13 · Score: 1

Please tell me this isn't MicroSofts plan. 1. Pump up SuSE 2. Sue all comercial Linux distro's for software patents, EXCEPT Novell. 3. Buy Novell. 4. Take over the world. 5. Profit!!!, well, profit some more. Maybe do step 3 before 2, but I don't really think it would matter.

Re:Microsoft still refuses to acknowledge open sou by Grishnakh · 2006-11-02 12:15 · Score: 1

Is Novell that stupid? NOVL is mure business-like and less religious about Linux than, say, RedHat.

There's a couple of points to be made in response to this.

1) Is any company stupid? I'd say, definitely yes. In fact, the majority of them make really stupid decisions at some point, usually countless times throughout their history. Check out Sony; a long-lived company that's made countless idiotic moves, such as the recent rootkit fiasco, the way they handled Beta vs. VHS, and lots more. MS is quite successful even today, yet they have tons of boneheaded moves to their credit. IBM is a huge company, and they made some utterly disastrous moves (several of which caused them to lose out in a big way to MS, e.g. OS/2). So I wouldn't ever put it past any company to make a stupid move, even one so disastrous as to destroy the company.

2) Novell doesn't seem to be looking very closely at Microsoft's history. Behind MS lies a bloody trail of destroyed companies that tried to work with or partner with MS. Partnering with MS has never, to my knowledge, gone very well for anyone except MS itself. Even the antivirus companies, which many would argue owe their very existence to MS's buggy and poorly-written software, are sweating bullets now because of MS's inclusion of its own antivirus software. Furthermore, MS has called open-source software a "cancer" and all but declared it MS's mortal enemy, and has gone so far as to fund a big FUD campaign against Linux in the form of SCO. What makes Novell think that MS is suddenly now going to act honestly? The same management is in charge as when all these other horrible things happened.

Lastly, Novell itself isn't exactly known for brilliant corporate maneuverings. They had a pretty good business long, long ago with Netware (which, like the antivirus software, depended on MS software being ubiquitous on the desktop), and over the past 10+ years have done very little to diversify and continue to do well. They tried out a few things which didn't go anywhere, like UnixWare, and most recently have basically bought SUSE since they could see that their regular business was doomed. This doesn't really seem like a formula for success to me.

here real information from Novell web site by netdur · 2006-11-02 12:18 · Score: 1

Joint letter to the Open Source Community From Novell and Microsoft, the fuck (FAQ) and webcast

--
"Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES

[OT] Re:NTFS by Dark_Gravity · 2006-11-02 12:18 · Score: 1

I really hope this means it's time for some proper write support to NTFS

Have you tried Captive NTFS?

--
Bring back Sirius Punk!

Let's see if it's for real by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · 2006-11-02 12:29 · Score: 1

Can I have a Microsoft-supported Linux driver for NTFS please?

Memory and survival instinct by krisbrowne42 · 2006-11-02 12:30 · Score: 1

Novell of anyone should know exactly how Microsoft plays with others. They partnered for networking solutions in the early 90's, that certainly went well for them, right? Microsoft will take Novell to hell with them as they ride their monopoly into the ground.

Active Directory by ddoctor · 2006-11-02 12:46 · Score: 1

To me, the reason is clear - Suse Linux allows you to log into Active Directory... and it actually works. I've tried setting up AD domain logins using Fedora 5, Ubuntu 6.06 and SUSE and SUSE was the only one that worked out-of-the box. I got the rest working, but it was a bit of rocket science. Microsoft realises that Active Directory is a key component for the enterprise market, and that it's valuable for it to be supported by a variety of client OS's - SUSE seems to be the only client OS that's taken this requirement seriously. Microsoft sees a strength in its AD server market, but sees clients switching to Linux desktops and needs to still keep them. Also, in the directory services market, Novell is their biggest competitor. Novell directory services support Windows and Linux clients, which gives them a big advantage. If Microsoft also had this capability, they would be better able to compete. Microsoft is also desperate to try and be seen as "open-source friendly"... as a lot of people have switched from MS to Linux because MS isn't open-source friendly. They're trying to win back some cred with these people. If only MS would work with the Samba team... or compete with them. AD can feasibly be as useful to a Linux client environment as a Windows one, if only the right integration projects were happening... which could be given a big push if MS supported the Samba team. Does anyone think MS could even buy Novell? I guess the antitrust boffins would have a field day if that happened.

OS/2 is dead??? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 12:46 · Score: 0

That's odd, I could swear I saw it just a month or two ago when my ATM rebooted.

Makes sense actually by theendlessnow · 2006-11-02 12:47 · Score: 1

If you look at how disastrous the 10 year parternership between Sun and Microsoft was... I think Microsoft has found that the easiest way to destroy a company, especially an open source company is to partner with them.

Xgl/compiz is being modified already to support a 3-D animated paperclip that pops up randomly and gives you the KDE startup tips.

Expect to see a LOT of SuSe in China. by falconwolf · 2006-11-02 12:48 · Score: 1

No, Red Flag is the dominate Linux in China. Specifically it is the Chinese version in Linux.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

How does it feel to be Microsoft today? by McNihil · 2006-11-02 12:50 · Score: 1

"If you can't beat them join them"

mmmm how does it feel now Microsoft?

Want us to ease the pressure?

Not until Windows is insignificant.

I wonder if It's like WWII? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 13:00 · Score: 0

With Microsoft and Oracle making a secret deal to carve up Linux the way Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to carve up Poland? And RMS as the leader of the Polish army?

Just the other day by JustNiz · 2006-11-02 13:01 · Score: 1

Bill taught Steve a new phrase.
"Embrace and Extend"

MS and Linux by caspper69 · 2006-11-02 13:12 · Score: 1

Did anyone ever stop to think about MS and Unix? It was my understanding that they're unable to distribute a Unix variant due to various past agreements. Therefore, they spend ~$50m to get SCO into a lawsuit with IBM over whether Linux is Unix. Then, with reams of court docs and precedents set that Linux is NOT Unix, all of the sudden they can distribute such a system again without fear of lawsuits. Seems to me that if this was their strategy all along, they got off pretty cheap.

Billy boy and Co. work in mysterious ways...

Erm.. by itomato · 2006-11-02 13:28 · Score: 1

Don't you mean the Hurd?

(Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 (a.k.a. sarge) was released on the 6th of June, 2005)

hah by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 13:28 · Score: 0

this is definitely weirder than microsoft sending mozilla a congratulations cake on the release of firefox. it's like the trojan horse all over again

Macrosoft by NoMorePoints.com · 2006-11-02 13:36 · Score: 0

Is this a preview of what's to come.....a single unified OS? It seems with Mac allowing MS OS, and MS hooking up with Linux, that we are hedded for armegeddon.....Macrosoft? NoMorePoints.com

Micro$haft has a change of heart? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 13:57 · Score: 0

Let's reason this out, shall we?

Given that Micro$haft finds it fundamentally impossible to tell the truth or do good (this is an axiom which needs no proof) we can infer:

* Novell has been conned
* This is another mile down the toboggan ride to hell
* Everyone BUT Novell will be sued to oblivion while M$ will embrace, extend and extinguish Novell, SUSE, and Linux

Mods, to help you decide, this should be marked Funny, Insightful, Flamebait and True, but not Informative since everyone should know this already.

Apple OsX-Windows Microsoft Suse-Windows by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 14:00 · Score: 0

Microsoft is covering the Apple bet.

Think like a MS customer, not like an OSS fan!

Tread softly. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 14:00 · Score: 0

If Microsoft really wanted cross-compatability with Linux, they would have done it by now. They already grab OpenBSD code and use it in their Services for Unix. If there's any code that can be reverse engineered or just taken, it's open source code. If there's any company out there with the resources to do it, it's Microsoft. This isn't what it seems.

Good Gag... by triso · 2006-11-02 14:09 · Score: 1

Jumping Jee-ho-sha-phat! Is it April in Australia?

embrace by Spetiam · 2006-11-02 14:21 · Score: 1

...and extend

Re: FUDware by quux4 · 2006-11-02 15:28 · Score: 1

OK, this is conspiracy theory ... and could never work.

Here you posit MS forming entire teams of people to ... pretend to develop software in order to throw the FOSS community off the scent. Meanwhile, other teams on the same campus will ACTUALLY develop the same or similar software, which of course beats the pants off the stuff developed by the faux-coders.

And no one will ever figure this out and blog it. Riiiight.

they gave a boost to OS/2 as well by dindi · 2006-11-02 15:32 · Score: 1

they gave a boost to OS/2 as well and that wonderful OS was gone.

I think we are lucky, that NOVELL != Linux, otherwise I would be installing BSD (solaris/whatever else) on my desktop, if not right now, in the near future for sure.

IT IS A TRAP by bussdriver · 2006-11-02 15:44 · Score: 1

IT IS A TRAP.

Variation on the SAME old tricks they did before. Free (at a loss) now, screw you later.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

Microsoft Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 15:59 · Score: 0

is called Suse.

A few years ago this (the release of Microsoft Linux) was jokingly hinted at as when Linux would have officially achieved world domination.

All this really means is that Microsoft resellers can sell Suse easier if people want it, and Microsoft can use this to get into a few more data centers. Suse might be able to use it to get on a few more corporate desktops. The article is probably right that it might benefit both organizations.

I seem to remember a previous partnership on different OS's. That one was called OS/2. Anybody remember how that turned out?

Will Bill fix Virtual PC 2004 by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 16:08 · Score: 0

> The two companies have also agreed to develop technologies to
> make it easier for users to run both Suse Linux and Microsoft's Windows on their computers.

When Windows bought out Connectix they stripped Linux support from Virtual PC. How blatant a whipping of the Anti-Trust Statute. But with Darth Cheney siphoning off America in the White House, hardly surprised the DOJ ignored this.

So, will MS now restore Linux support to Virtual PC 2004? (available as a free download from MS BTW)

Ballmer: by charlieman · 2006-11-02 16:17 · Score: 1

Community, community, community, community!!!

... no subject ... by Imajica · 2006-11-02 16:22 · Score: 1

... and then you win ...

--
((((DO SOMETHING!) SMALL) USEFUL)NOW!)

Coincidently had some Novell guys at work today... by !eopard · 2006-11-02 16:26 · Score: 1

The only comment they made I haven't seen here is "how many virtual windows servers do you want to run on your SuSe install?" MS keep their license income, while Novell score the host OS.

--
Boolean logic: True, False, and File not found.

mslinux.org anyone? by ValiantSoul · 2006-11-02 16:26 · Score: 1

www.mslinux.org anyone?

mod parent up (some more) by toadlife · 2006-11-02 16:32 · Score: 1

This is exactly what I was thinking as I read the Novell announcement.

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.

FUD by oohshiny · 2006-11-02 16:36 · Score: 1

By getting agreements that Microsoft won't assert patents, Microsoft manages to create the appearance that they actually have valid patents; these sorts of agreements are a way spreading FUD.

To be quite clear: this deal doesn't hold water and it doesn't protect anybody from anything, not even SuSE users. Should Microsoft selectively assert any patent against GPL'ed software that SuSE ships, then SuSE users won't be able to use that software anymore either because the GPL prohibits redistributing software that a third party has patent claims on. That was a deliberate decision in the GPL, with the specific goal to prevent just these kinds of selective deals.

In reality, there are no known, valid Microsoft patent claims that are violated by software SuSE ships; if there were, the sofware would already have been changed.

Fedora Will Never Compromise like This by Laven · 2006-11-02 16:36 · Score: 1

http://wtogami.livejournal.com/11305.html
(Disclaimer: These are my personal feelings and opinions. This is copied verbatim from my blog post of a few minutes ago.)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200611021 75508403
"Novell has effectively traded Long-Term Liberty for Short-Term Safety."
- me 2006/11/02

The Primary Goal of the Fedora Project:
Rapid Progress of Free & Open Source Software.

Red Hat engineering invests millions every year in FOSS development. These developers contribute in a great many ways to stimulate growth in the FOSS ecosystem and the community itself. Red Hat makes this investment for three key reasons:

It makes business sense: A healthy relationship with community builds quality products faster, and with lower expense. It is indeed possible to make money and not compromise on values.
Perhaps the technology leaders who made many of these key FOSS improvements are best able to support business customers.
Many of the people at Red Hat believe in the ethical values of FOSS and the benefit that it brings to society.

As long as I work on the Fedora Project, Fedora will never compromise on the essential liberties of FOSS nor will it betray the community. But the price of liberty is not free, nor is it comfortable. And unfortunately, some "leaders" of our community are willing to compromise liberty for short-term convenience. I am disgusted by people like this, and by Novell's betrayal of the community today.

Red Hat supports causes that matter like providing the original seed money for Creative Commons. Or being a key partner in the anti-software patent movement during the miraculous last-minute turnaround at the European Parliament last year. I am proud to be part of an organization that demonstrates such moral and ethical commitment.

But ultimately, Red Hat cannot change the world alone. That is why the Fedora Project exists. We want to enable the community to work together to improve FOSS at a rapid pace, in partnership with the large and consistent contributions from our engineers. We strongly believe that this is the most effective way for the entire FOSS movement to advance. Yes, we made some big mistakes in our community relationship earlier, but we are learning, and continue to improve at an ever accelerating pace.

For these reasons that I urge the FOSS community to support the Fedora Project through volunteer contributions of time and effort. Or if you lack time to contribute, please consider monetary donations toward any of the shared causes that we are fighting for.

Contribute to Fedora
The Fedora Project needs your contributions in many ways. If you know how to make RPM packages, you can become a maintainer in Fedora Extras where you can contribute your favorite FOSS software into the central repository for all to benefit. We have many opportunities for even non-developers to get involved. We need help with things like Documentation, Artwork, or promoting Fedora in the Ambassadors team. Even simply using Fedora, responsibly reporting bugs in Bugzilla, and helping each other helps the entire community.

Donations
The Fedora Project does not need your money[1], but I hope that you would consider donating to one of the major charities that fight for your liber

Itty bitty baby, itty bitty boat. by Ayanami+Rei · 2006-11-02 17:08 · Score: 1

I DON'T BELIEVE IT

--
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON

Re:Itty bitty baby, itty bitty boat. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 17:19 · Score: 0

HABEEB IT

hairy bastards by round1 · 2006-11-02 17:11 · Score: 1

The hairy bastards hated it when Novell bought Suse, adulterated the bred. But round guys like me saw them as reasonable surviors. Now the round guys (read XP) are cosy together. It's good!

Re:hairy bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-03 02:20 · Score: 0

You mean "hariy slashdot bastards", right?

Netware by falconwolf · 2006-11-02 17:11 · Score: 1

Novell itself isn't exactly known for brilliant corporate maneuverings. They had a pretty good business long, long ago with Netware (which, like the antivirus software, depended on MS software being ubiquitous on the desktop)

No, Novell didn't depend on MS software. The first tyme I ever saw Netware, that would be round about '85 MOL, was on a Mac network without any MS OS on a connected computer.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Yes, it is a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 17:59 · Score: 1, Informative

Microsoft is just extorting Novell. I don't know how this has been spun so positively for Microsoft.

http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;20186091 85;fp;2;fpid;1

...under the patent cooperation agreement, both companies are paying each other upfront in exchange for a release of patent liability. Additionally, Novell also will make running royalty payments to Microsoft based on a percentage of revenue from open-source products.
Basically, the agreement ensures that Novell Suse customers are protected against patent litigation from Microsoft.

Re:Yes, it is a trap! by WhiteWolf666 · 2006-11-03 02:05 · Score: 1

If you read Novell's page on the subject, they indicate that the balance of payments will be going Microsoft -> Novell, because Microsoft has more customers, and hence, needs more patent licensing.

They can't really lie about it either, because they are a public company.

--
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Re:Yes, it is a trap! by maxwell+demon · 2006-11-03 02:29 · Score: 1

So in short, now Novell/SUSE buyers will pay a Microsoft tax as well.

Indeed, with this deal it probably is in Microsofts interests for Novell to gain market share of sold versions (not in replacing Windows, of course, but in replacing other Linux distributions, and in replacing Unix machines and Macs). Maybe MS will even offer Linux versions of some MS software exclusively through Novell, or something like that. This way they can at the same time demonstrate their "openness" (cooperation with a Linux vendor), fill their pockets (since every Novell/SUSE user also pays to MS) and increase vendor lock-in (through the exclusive software).

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Mono .Net by hackus · 2006-11-02 18:02 · Score: 1

Interesting commentary on the .net stuff.

Mono is pretty much irrelevant to me. .Net isn't even a business solution. I think most people see it as a response from Microsoft product/marketing divisions to destroy Java and has nothing to do with providing tools to solve business or computing problems.

What I can't understand, is people pick a Linux distro to avoid the heinous costs of doing business with Microsoft in the first place.

If I was a Novell exec and I knew this, why would I form a relationship with Microsoft and risk alienating my customers?

Something bizarre is going on here.

In any case, I am worried about this as 90% of my server infrastructure is SuSe and 10% Redhat/Fedora Core at the moment.

Who knows what went on behind closed doors with this stuff. Whats next? I have to load Active Directory on all my SuSe servers to log in?

This isn't going to be a long term positive thing for Novell. But before Novell bites it, the executives will get nice golden parachutes for thier efforts.

-Hack

--
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.

I think I know why Microsoft is doing this.... by christoofar · 2006-11-02 18:47 · Score: 1

Microsoft wants to put XGL into another release of Windows to improve Glass.

I just know it.

I use XGLcompiz constantly and need it because I don't have room for another monitor. Now I can do the work of four monitors easily with a smoother interface than MacOS.

I think Microsoft's UI guys want this on the Windows desktop---BAD.

Where do you get this information? by jbn-o · 2006-11-02 19:12 · Score: 1

The legal situation with Mono's .NET implementation on Linux is far better than with Java: Mono is already an open source implementation, it has been carefully analyzed against Microsoft's patents for several years, and there are no known patent violations.

What's your source on this—that Mono's .NET implementation has "no known patent violations"? I remember an amazing silence from Red Hat when they went from not shipping Mono or Mono-based programs to shipping them in Fedora Core. I recall reading only one or two blog entries that said a full explanation was forthcoming, but nothing in detail materialized.

--
Digital Citizen

Re:Where do you get this information? by oohshiny · 2006-11-02 22:11 · Score: 1

What's your source on this--that Mono's .NET implementation has "no known patent violations"?

None have been submitted to the Mono bug tracker or mailing lists, none are described in the distribution, and there has been no lawsuit or threat of a lawsuit by Microsoft or Sun or anybody else.

If you know of a specific patent violation, please submit it to the Mono developers. However, suggesting that there might be without actually saying what they are is spreading FUD.

If you should manage to find one, please be clear about whether it is in the Microsoft .NET APIs (which are mostly not used by open source software, but are available for Mono) or in the FOSS APIs (which are the ones that count as far as FOSS development is concerned).

I remember an amazing silence from Red Hat when they went from not shipping Mono or Mono-based programs to shipping them in Fedora Core. I recall reading only one or two blog entries that said a full explanation was forthcoming, but nothing in detail materialized.

What is there for them to say? They were uncertain about the legal situation before, then they looked into it, and they decided that there wasn't a problem. Isn't that enough of an annoncement?
Re:Where do you get this information? by jbn-o · 2006-11-02 22:37 · Score: 1

However, suggesting that there might be without actually saying what they are is spreading FUD.

Relax, I made no such suggestion. Challenging someone who asks you to stand behind a point you raised without attribution makes you look hyper-defensive.

What is there for them to say? They were uncertain about the legal situation before, then they looked into it, and they decided that there wasn't a problem. Isn't that enough of an annoncement?[sic]

What exactly was Red Hat uncertain of before? How did Red Hat go about determining that their uncertainties were not an issue? According to the language used in the announcement from Microsoft and Novell, only their customers are covered under whatever patent agreement those two corporations have set up (the specifics of which are said to be revealed later). Has Red Hat determined that their users are under no threat of losing a patent infringement lawsuit from Mono or the Mono-based programs Red Hat distributes, or is only Red Hat under no threat? The details are missing, so no, it's not enough to explain what happened.

--
Digital Citizen
Re:Where do you get this information? by oohshiny · 2006-11-04 14:05 · Score: 1

How did Red Hat go about determining that their uncertainties were not an issue?

I don't know; presumably, they consulted their lawyers, and after a few months or years, they came back with the answer.

According to the language used in the announcement from Microsoft and Novell, only their customers are covered under whatever patent agreement those two corporations have set up (the specifics of which are said to be revealed later).

Such agreements are impossible under the GPL or LGPL. If there is an enforceable patent, then neither Novell nor RedHat can ship the software.

The details are missing, so no, it's not enough to explain what happened.

And my point is: there is nothing to explain. Companies don't ship software for all sorts of reasons. Your inference that this tells you anything about patents is bordering on the bizarre.

The simplest explanation is that RedHat simply wasn't interested in Mono. Now that Mono is an official language for Gnome and applications start being written in it, they are. That's why they did their legal research, like they probably do for everything, and started shipping it when they got the "all clear".

Please provide details. by jbn-o · 2006-11-02 19:14 · Score: 1

If a bit crazy at times.

Please do name at least 3 of these times. If /. threads are allowed to get away with unjustified namecalling, people come away thinking that that is right and proper to behave that way.

As for Novell's lawyers, I don't see why I should care what they think. The announcement of the Microsoft-Novell patent detente says that their customers will be covered for some things. Since most of the free software community isn't a customer of either Microsoft or Novell, I don't think their agreement helps the free software community.

--
Digital Citizen

It's the monopoly, stupid by perrin · 2006-11-02 19:19 · Score: 1

My guess would be that this is similar to Microsoft's investments in Apple some years ago when that company was struggling. While Microsoft are very aggressive about always being the top dog, they may not actually want total market domination, because being too dominating would lead to more government regulation through uses of anti-monopoly laws. You can get away with a lot more when there is competition, and it would not look good if they were to go after Apple in a big way and with the old dirty tactics, if Apple was seen as the only competitor in the market.

Oracle, Novell, what next... by Kynde · 2006-11-02 19:51 · Score: 1

Oracle decides to make it's own distro causing RedHat stock to dive and rumors about Oracle eventually buying the RedHat are circulated.

And now this. Microsoft backing up Novel and SuSe. What next?

After Google buys/takes-over Gentoo and we lose Debian to, say, Exxon. I suppose then it's finally time for me to get me coat...

--
1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW

Ars has coverage on this by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 20:19 · Score: 0

Strange bedfellows: Microsoft, Novell ink pact

Microsoft Lista! by DavidApi · 2006-11-02 21:15 · Score: 1

Isn't it obvious?

First Apple did it, then Novell, and now Microsoft. Microsoft is ditching its own kernel and putting its GUI/Win32 API set on top of a Linux kernel.

And it'll be called Microsoft Lista - available early 2008...

Finally!

Can M$ pick the FLOSS players it likes better? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 22:01 · Score: 0

The issue here is whether Microsoft's cash, patent portfolio and control on OEM enable it to pick specific free/libre/ppen source software players that for one reason or another it likes better. Afraid of FUD, go for Novell or ...! Tired of complex installs get our Win/Linux PC! That's sure better for them than users installing Ubuntu and asking for a refund of Windows XP or Vista that they have erased. The only competitor Microsoft is afraid of is the commons.

Yepp. Novell must fork Linux? What about WinE? by egghat · 2006-11-02 22:32 · Score: 1

What is the patent stuff worth when it only applies to Novell employees? What about the gazillion other committers outside Novell? For example Codeweavers? What about ReactOS? What about OpenOffice and ODF (they mention ODF, but most of the committers to OO are from Sun, not from Novell)?

This is very very puzzling. I have a lot of questions and not a single answer (OK, one answer: This is good for Mono).

Bye egghat.

--
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel

HP will likely back SuSe, not Red Hat by I'm+Don+Giovanni · 2006-11-02 22:56 · Score: 1

The only question remaining is who will eventually buy Red Hat. ... SAP and HP are the first names that come to mind.

I watched the MS/Novell press event, and HP is on board with the deal, nodding in approval. HP had one of their head honchos speak at the event. Look to see HP bundling SuSe for its Linux offerings rather than buy Red Hat.

I really don't see what Red Hat brings to the table anymore, besides inertia from having been the biggest Linux player up to now. There software is available from others for free, and their support isn't any better than anyone else and many times worse (I assume the latter from reading message boards).

--
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000

Copying Apple again? by bombshelter13 · 2006-11-02 23:13 · Score: 1

Is Miscrosoft just going to copy Apple again?

Mac OS X is a proprietary layer on top of an open source BSD core.

Will the next Windows after Vista be a proprietary layer on top of an open source Linux core?

Re:Copying Apple again? by Zarf · 2006-11-09 02:19 · Score: 1

That's the big idea floating around at my shop.

--
[signature]

Be weary of your bed-fellows. by defsdoor · 2006-11-02 23:27 · Score: 1

So Microsoft and Novell have gotten into bed together - http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/openletter.h tml

Is this a good thing ?

Of course it isn't. Under the thinly veiled "sharing" agreement lies the real reason Microsoft want to do this -

Novell will develop the code necessary to bring support for Office Open XML into OpenOffice, and we will contribute that support back to the OpenOffice.org organization. We will also distribute the Office Open XML plug-in in our own edition of OpenOffice. In addition, we will participate in the Open XML Translator open source project.

This gives Microsoft a means to prevent entire countries from switching from Microsoft Office to openoffice.org - after all - if their only real competition can now work with their standard "open" document format why should anyone need to switch ? And with this Microsoft retain the thing most dear to their hearts - control.

And with this control they will bring change - change that they will be first to adopt in their own office suite and the open solutions will inevitably be left behind.

So, just when standards and openness was beginning to fight back Novell has delivered a crushing blow.

Thanks.

Flash news by Andrei+D · 2006-11-02 23:54 · Score: 1

Microsoft has just released MS Linux. More details here

--
We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us

"Novell's shares shot up 92 cents" -AP by psyshrike · 2006-11-03 01:55 · Score: 1

Anybody remember Mosaic? How about Java? When has a strategic relationship with Microsoft EVER been in favor of the smaller company? Microsoft will proprietarize Suse, and then release their own distro that directly competes with it. Then they will stall Novells lawsuit until any revenues for Suse have been completely destroyed. This is the pattern, and there is no reason to suspect that it will change. This is probably a warning that MS will create their own release. The current major distros are quite fragmented at the moment with a lot of interoperability problems. They've already ripped off a lot of Linux and put it into windows. There is no reason to think that Win2008 won't be Linux based, and Suse by that time will no longer exist. But the market rewards Novell. Bwahahahha ha!

Novell wants NDS/Netware Clients on Windows by HighOrbit · 2006-11-03 02:48 · Score: 1

I suspect that Novell is may making sure that Microsoft continues to support NDS/NetWare (which is now the Linux-based Open Enterprise Server) by having the client software on Vista. Microsoft wants to make sure Mono becomes a gateway drug to .Net, given the prevalence of linux/unix backends. They both get something out of the deal. Novell gets Windows desktops to provide a market for their server products. MS gets Mono-based servers to provide a market for the desktop and application products.

Re:Novell wants NDS/Netware Clients on Windows by PenguSven · 2006-11-13 17:27 · Score: 1

have you SEEN how much support microsoft "provide" for an eDirectory/NDS network with windows? i think i coughed up more support this morning in the shower. i get the feeling MS want to use this new "alliance" to make sure the moon is really made of cheese, as Google say so.

--
What is...?

Re:Coincidently.... Xen cometh by ancientt · 2006-11-03 03:05 · Score: 1

Suse 10 includes Xen.

Three guesses what type of virtualization Windows is working on supporting (not in Vista.)

Currently you have to get specific processors to run Windows virtual machines, but don't have to for Linux virtual machines. There is currently development on supporting virtualization in the next release of Windows so that you could run Windows VMs on a Xen Linux primary OS or run Linux VMs on a primary Windows OS. (Dom0 for the nitpickers.)

I've seen a lot of questions on why Microsoft would be interested in a partnership with Novell, but if Microsoft can sell 10 Win2K7 on a box also running Linux with Apache, then they get a bigger share of a very nice system. People are doing something like that with Linux now, but not much with Windows. If we could do that now, we'd probably have three servers instead of 15 in our Data Center, but would have paid MS the same amount of money, maybe more, for support.

The alternative right now is to use VMWare. Three guesses what type of virtualization VMWare announced in September they are moving to support.

Yesterday (!) before I had read this article, I got a quote for a server so that we could use Xen to virtualize (and thus consolidate) three Linux servers and one Windows server. If they move fast enough, when it comes time to install/upgrade I will be installing Win2K7 and Suse instead of Win2K3 and RHE.

--
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.

Re: FUDware by Lonewolf666 · 2006-11-03 04:16 · Score: 1

In 1), do you mean Open Source hot tech?? Then 2) through 5) might go like this instead:

2) Team A proceeds to make Vista ports of the stuff. They'll need forever... possible if they are not too competent. Let's assume they DO need forever ;-)

3) If Team B's something is worthwile at all (interesting to users?), some people will grab the code and start fixing it. I'll call them Team OSS.

4) M$'s Patchware finds itself in a race against Team OSS, who don't have an interest in delaying things.

5) By the time BlackComb comes out, there is also a well-established and working OSS version. Now M$ is one of multiple vendors, exactly the situation they usually want to avoid.

--
C - the footgun of programming languages

Don't forget Dell by Dareth · 2006-11-03 04:55 · Score: 1

Dell now offers PC to customers with AMD Processors!

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling

TWINKIE HOUSE! by Ayanami+Rei · 2006-11-03 05:29 · Score: 1

&nbsp&nbsp
&nbsp

--
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON

Nonsense. by jotaeleemeese · 2006-11-03 06:02 · Score: 1

They would need a lot of explaining to do to a judge to justify why they enforce their patents selectively.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Smells like OS/2. by Kadin2048 · 2006-11-03 06:54 · Score: 1

And if it wasn't for the fact that IBM is an absolutely massive organization, and had cash and asset reserves sufficient to survive while they totally reinvented themselves, they would never have made it through Microsoft's betrayal in the OS/2 days.

Is Novell big enough to withstand a blow like that and keep on ticking? I doubt it.

Maybe Novell should take a hard look at OS/2. There are probably one or two people left at IBM who know what it is well enough to fill them in on the details.

Getting in bed with Microsoft is like crawling into an iron maiden.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

Re: FUDware - the secret is holes by TaoPhoenix · 2006-11-03 10:41 · Score: 1

In fact, this is very easy. The guys on the "Linux partnership team" will certainly be different from the guys coding front line Windows software. They'll get about 75% of something coded to some level of Beta stage for Linux. Then some manager will decide "This use of resources is no longer in keeping with our direction". Thus all effort will be removed towards "other priorities".

Imagine for example if PlaysForSure were open source. The way Microsoft dropped it in favor of Zune is exactly the cycle I am describing. (I'm dying to see the Quarterly report for that one!)

Of course Slashers will figure it out. But since when does Microsoft care about something as harmless as a blog? They take on entire countries worth of AntiTrust units daily.

The Preview word for this post is Penguin. (Note to self: Get test machine to explore Linux Distros.)

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Re: Lovely Visions by TaoPhoenix · 2006-11-03 10:44 · Score: 1

Please let this happen. {:>

"Always post the Doomsday Scenario. Good Luck can take care of itself."

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

alas poor SuSe we knew ye well by floydvoid · 2006-11-05 01:34 · Score: 1

SuSe has been my favorite and most used distro for years . I havent run windows since 98 and wont have anything to do with MS.I guess I had better get serious about trying out other distros I just got a new box to play with and it may not end up with SuSe 10.2 on it . ANYONE that kisses Microsoft's ass gets screwed in the end (pun intended) look at history to see what will happen in the future, and it don't have to be history ,look what Vista will do AV and firewall compaines.

Finding new partnershipers by mrtbone42 · 2006-11-08 17:17 · Score: 1

Despite the claims by some elements of the open source community that OSS is a religion or a way of life, it's a commercial business model. One that has attained a great deal of success, as proven by the important deal.

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft To Announce Linux Partnership

534 comments