Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Interested In More Linux Deals
eldavojohn writes "Microsoft has announced that it would be open to more deals similar to the one it just made with Novell. 'We will love to put that kind of agreement in place with anyone who distributes Linux software, Red Hat, whoever else,' Steve Ballmer told India's Economic Times. Considering the recent reactions to the Microsoft Novell deal, it would be interesting to see who else takes them up on the offer. Novell is due to receive USD $348 million in up-front payments. Will Red Hat cash out on this offer if it feels the impending pressure from Oracle's Linux? Will non-profit Linux distributions attempt to make deals with Microsoft?"
"We will love to put that kind of agreement in place with anyone [everyone] who distributes Linux software, Red Hat, whoever [everyone] else," Steve Ballmer told India's Economic Times.
Way too obvious.
"Mr Ballmer, on a visit to India, said that while he believed software would be increasingly downloaded and managed off the internet,"
As in apt-get?
""I would say we are moving to a world where there is a lot more electronic distribution. It is a new style of software, not the old-style distributed electronically.""
He's obviously not taking his meds - as in the 'raise my IQ above that of a carot' pill he must need each morning to get out the door.
"The next frontier for us is to embrace a new business model. And if we embrace it well and that business model is subscription and advertising,"
Curious that he left out 'make good software' and 'support'...
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Microsoft has always "gotten it".
When competition becomes serious, "embrace and extend." This is exactly what MS's outlandish purchases in the 90s were about, and it seems they just forgot about it for a while (and were probably concerned about antitrust).
Meet the new Microsoft... same as the old Microsoft.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Cringely's latest column (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20 061110_001188.html) is all about the Microsoft/Novell deal and Balmer's statement re other deals. He thinks Balmer's statement is deliberate deception to sow discord in the Linux space
FTA: "People point to Google because Google is the emblem for somebody who has embraced a different business model than we have," he said.
I'm guessing that that would be the "Do No Evil" part, Mr. Ballmer?
Realistically Red Hat should at least go to the table with Microsoft, though presumably it will do so quietly behind the scenes. If nothing else it lets Red Hat get a much better idea of what Novell has signed on for and, through negotiations with Microsoft, a better idea of what Microsoft is willing to offer. Just testing the boundaries of what sorts of licensing and patent agreements Microsoft is willing to make could be very informative, and there's no compulsion for Red Hat to take the deal. It makes sense to at least find out what exactly is on offer.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
LINUX: I'm not dead!
CUSTOMER: What?
MIRCOSOFT: Nothing. Here's your money.
LINUX: I'm not dead!
CUSTOMER: He says he's not dead!
MICROSOFT: Yes, he is.
LINUX: I'm not!
CUSTOMER: He isn't?
MICROSOFT: Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.
LINUX: I'm getting better!
MICROSOFT: No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.
The ink on the Novell-MS deal isn't even dry yet and Ballmer is publicly announcing his intention to violate it.
In case nobody noticed, one of the clauses is that Microsoft won't cut any similar deals with Linux companies for at least three years. It's barely three days and they're already trolling for more.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I've been looking at all of the threads here -- interesting points for and against what Microsoft is doing. For any other large dominant company I might look at this as an encouraging development that could help the Linux movement. But Microsoft's history and habits lead me to different conclusions, or at least instincts about their intent.
I could list the litany of Microsoft's trespasses, not the least of which includes their DOJ conviction and subsequent Consent Decree which Microsoft seems to only loosely honor. Buy I need only look to the very recent past to find typical strong-armed and bullying Microsoft behavior, specifically their introduction of Zune and its associated music store silo.
Microsoft brought big guns, and big players (Samsung, Creative, among others) to develop and create the portable music industry of "Plays for Sure". The idea was to have players and music compatible across a wide swath of hardware with a large musical repertoire for purchase.
But Microsoft has thumbed its nose at that effort and struck out on its own with an incompatible "other" way of doing music... heck it's even incompatible with the old Microsoft Music Store! What the heck?
So, while I can't predict or summon up the specifics of Microsoft's intentions to harm the Linux community and how Microsoft would do just that, but I sure have seen enough to be pretty sure their ultimate goal is to squash Linux, or make it completely theirs to the extent and extreme it no longer looks anything like the Linux of today.
I hope the other Linux distros can withstand the Microsoft juggernaut.
Now, can any slashdoter tell me why this deal is really bad and should be avoided?
I'm not saying either of those things - but I don't have the warm and fuzzies over this. Why? Because there is no immediate answer to the most obvious question; What does Microsoft believe they are getting for their 348 million dollars?
I mean - they ponied up a third of a bill so that you'd be protected from lawsuits...from them. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to - say - not sue? I'd have to double-check my figures; but I'm pretty sure that will cost you nothing.
They're getting something out of this (or at least they believe they are), and if you've directly benefited, then it's reasonable to believe that it's costing you something as well (TNSTAAFL).
Maybe it's a good trade, maybe not, but Microsoft has earned a certain reputation among this audience.
Time, and the trust of Linux users other than myself, will tell.
Running Windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H OSX and Linux in the home. (I don't have time for Solitaire any more.)
You've hit it right on the head. There are quite a few things Balmer is leaving out; and what he's not saying speaks volumes. He's also deliberately not saying that Microsoft wishes to become a good citizen of the Linux community.
Or, in short, what he's telling us is that Microsoft is up to its old tricks again. One needs to ignore the smoke and mirrors, and instead read between the lines.
That's why I object to Novell's deal. What they have done is to deliberately attempt to go around the rules that everyone must play by. That's not being a good member of the community; that's telling everyone else to f*** off, they don't have to play by the normal rules. Pure sleeze, which is the unfortunate norm of the closed source world. I had expected better from Novell.
If Microsoft and Novell wish to foster respect and trust, they need to play by the GPL and not try to figure out ways to go around it.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
Linux can't be buried in the same way that a proprietary piece of software can, granted, but I think that Microsoft thinks that it can be buried -- or at least made irrelevant -- through use of software patents.
Basically, you engage in Novell-like patent cross-licensing deals with all the major Linux manufacturers, and push them towards one distribution ("MSLinux"). You drop hints about possible liability if anyone uses non-licensed distributions, discouraging their adoption and funding. Plus, you create a lot of proprietary, MSLinux-only 'compatibility extensions' that let it work with Windows. In the end, once "MSLinux" has captured a significant portion of the market, you cut of its air supply and let it die. This leaves people with little choice but to migrate to Windows, since the other Linux distributions are either perceived to be dangerous (due to patent landmines) or have simply been neglected and underfunded for so long, that they can no longer compete.
It's not a total endgame against Linux, but it's a pretty significant move. The GPL prohibits Linux from ever being killed completely (particularly outside the U.S.); but if you get enough software patents, it might be basically impossible to use in any significant, competitive way, without opening oneself up to legal problems.
The real unknown variable in all this is where IBM stands. They're obviously pro-Linux, but their support is generally indirect. You don't see them buying or operating their own Linux flavor or distribution outright. I wonder if Microsoft started buying up the competition, and the field started to narrow, would IBM jump in and pick up one of the players?
IIRC, the Linux desktop that IBM was going to deploy companywide (which would have been significant in itself, they have something like 300k employees) was a RHEL derivative. I wonder if they have some relationship with RH that would make them a likely buyout, or at least patent cross-licensing target?
That would be interesting; Novell and Microsoft and their patents on one side, and Red Hat and IBM on another, with the biggest repository of patents in the U.S. That would be an interesting showdown.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."