Hubert Mantel Returns to Novell

Krondor writes "Hubert Mantel, SUSE Co-Founder, has confirmed in an interview with Data Manager Online that he has returned to employment with Novell. When asked why he left Novell to begin with, Hubert responded that he was 'burned out' and 'following unpleasant experiences with our investors needed some time off.' Slashdot had reported previously Hubert's departure from Novell approximately one year ago shortly following Novell's acquisition of SUSE and subsequent layoffs. Hubert also provides his opinions on the Novell-Microsoft Agreement, which he characterizes as 'a good thing.'"

Comments

Mantel doesn't address issues on MS/Novell

[KWTm]

I anticipate some derisive comments about how Mantel is a bad guy, and Jeremy Allison is a good guy for quitting. If this does happen, it would start to become a mudslingfest like the name calling at the start of the Iraq war.

I had been hoping to hear Mantel's views on the MS/Novell deal, seeing what further insight he could provide. Disappointingly, he only points to the good side of the deal, and doesn't explain why this outweighs the bad side. We already know the good part: that MS has acknowledged the importance of Linux. No one is arguing with that. But the point is, MS is poisoning the waters, as pointed out by Allison's statement, and that is definitely a bad thing.

It's like some small Pacific island country who has just acquired nuclear weapons, and now the USA is going to come invade them with two navy fleets. The island country's president says: "I see this as a good thing: the USA is now taking us seriously." Yeah, right.

Maybe Mantel hasn't had time to formulate his thoughts and reactions to the negative aspects of the deal yet. But you can't make something good just by pointing out the positive aspects and ignoring the negative. You might try it on those populace of those states whose IQ's are in the lower half, but it's not going to work here on Slashdot.

Re:Mantel doesn't address issues on MS/Novell

[kjart]

I don't know, his answer is fairly comprehensive to me. FTFA:

6. What do you think about the Microsoft/Novell deal? I think it is a good thing especially for the users. If you think some years back, Linux was not taken seriously. Now even Microsoft acknowledges that it exists and will not go away. I understand that many people don't like it as Novell is collaborating with the "evil empire". But I don't like this way of thinking; we are not working against somebody, but we are working FOR Linux. Fundamentalism always leads to pain. What's important is that Linux is free and will remain to be free. The source code is open to everybody, this is what counts for me. Some people seem to be torn in an interesting way: On one hand they want "world domination", at the same time they don't like the feeling that Linux has grown up and needs to deal with the real business world out there. We have a saying here in Germany that goes along the lines of "wash me, but do not make me wet". If you want Linux to succeed, you cannot live in your own separate universe.

Re:out of bounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Behold, the beauty of the Internet.

Explanation, please

[Brandybuck]

Some please explain the controversy over the MS/Novell deal to me. It seems that in everyone's rush to bemoan the fate of all mankind, the actual specifics of the problem have been lost. So after several weeks of trying to sort it out, I now humbly ask clarification. No snarky comments please, I'm being serious.

My understanding is that this is an indemnity deal. Microsoft says it won't sue Novell over patents. While this may be interpreted as a statement of intent to sue non-Novell distros, that still doesn't explain attitude towards Novell. Shouldn't they be considered equivalent to shopkeepers who knuckle under and pay protection fees to the mob? At most they should be treated as cowards, and not as traitors who have sold out the future of Linux.

And what's the big deal with the GPL? I've turned it upside down and inside out, and I can find no restriction against entering into indemnity deals. Not even in spirit. Microsoft may not sue Novell if it incorporates patented code into GPL sources, but the GPL licensors certainly will! So again, what's the problem?

I'm coming to the conclusion that this is merely MDS. Microsoft Derangement Syndrome. It's the mere mention of the name "Microsoft" that has everyone foaming at the mouth. I greatly suspect that if the exact same deal had been made with IBM (who owns more patents than Microsoft ever will) no one would even be batting an eye. It's for these reason I've not asked this question before, out of dread that I would be flamed to oblivion. So please take a step back, count to ten, and calmy explain why Novell is so evil for entering into this agreement.

Re:Explanation, please

[Arker]

Yes, they've cut a separate peace with MS, essentially. The GPL doesn't allow this, it has the 'live free or die' clause. There's a saying, we must all hang together, for if we do not, we shall assuredly hang separately. Novell has attempted to find a sneaky way to subvert the live free or die clause. This may not make them evil, but it certainly isn't behaviour to be rewarded. And it won't be. They just destroyed their own credibility with the community that develops the software they've bet their future on. In the process, they've converted themselves from a major player to a bit player, whether they realise it or not.

Re:Explanation, please

[Arker]

There is no chance of that, however. For it to become 'better' than the others, they would need good relations with the community that produces the software, that's the point. The better their relations are with the community, the better the community supports them, the more likely the community is to be responsive to their needs, and so forth. If you alienate the community, they don't care what you need anymore. That's the place Novell has put itself. Think about Samba, or instance. When Novell had good standing in the community, they had Jeremy Allison working for them, if there were things they had a need for in Samba they could just give him a call and know he'd put that on the front burner. Now, their desires are no longer relevant. If they need something they'll have to do it themselves, and if it's helping them and not the rest, they'll have to maintain a fork.