Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Rejects Microsoft Deals

Posted by Zonk on from the don't-tread-on-this-penguin dept.

Kurtz'sKompund passed us an article detailing another loss in Microsoft's licensing push: Red Hat has summarily rejected Redmond's offer of an alliance. The article also touches on Ubuntu's rejection of the same offer, which we discussed this past weekend. ZDNet reports on comments from Mark Shuttleworth and the Red Hat organization, with Shuttleworth stating "Allegations of 'infringement of unspecified patents' carry no weight whatsoever. We don't think they have any legal merit, and they are no incentive for us to work with Microsoft on any of the wonderful things we could do together." Red Hat was even more blunt, stating the organization refused to pay an "innovation tax" to Microsoft. "Red Hat said there would be no such deal. Referring to previous statements distancing itself from Microsoft, the company insisted: 'Red Hat's standpoint has not changed.' The company referenced a statement written when Microsoft revealed it was partnering with Novell, saying that its position remained unaltered. Red Hat director of corporate communications Leigh Day added: 'We continue to believe that open source and the innovation it represents should not be subject to an unsubstantiated tax that lacks transparency.' Many open-source followers argue that Red Hat, as the largest Linux vendor, would have a lot to lose from partnering with Microsoft."

69 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. Thank goodness by symbolset · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Somebody has some sense! I was starting to wonder.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me tell you -- Microsoft doesn't "partner" with anyone. Companies that try to make that deal are brought, crushed or otherwise disposed of by Bill G.

    2. Re:Thank goodness by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Makes sense and makes sense... How much do you think SCO vs IBM has cost IBM so far, including digging up every document for their fishing expendition, answering all the bullshit motions, writing up all the reasons SCO is wrong, double wrong and still wrong? Think they'll recover a dime when SCO folds? Nope. The coffers are empty if Novell get their motion through, and if not they'll burn on lawyers long before the case has come to a close.

      I think the Microsoft deal isn't about whether Microsoft has or doesn't have anything, it's about not being the victim of it. Given the insanely trivial things that can be patented, it'll be a huge undertaking to defend yourself. I doubt you'll find any way to recover those costs, certainly not turn it into a profit. And even if you did, it's a cheap bill for Microsoft for throwing you on the wayside - many companies have ended up there with Microsoft paying them a few bucks while laughing all the way to the bank with the market they captured.

      Sooner or later, Microsoft will have to have a show of hands, but not before Novell etc. start getting impatient about "what did we pay for, really? everyone else is doing the same as us, and you're not striking down on them". Until then, FUD beats facts in marketing every day of the week. I bet Novell got a decent deal too for being first, credibility witness and all that. It's the latecomers who say "hmm, maybe we should have a deal too" which they bleed. So yeah, it might make business sense even if the claims are utterly and completely bogus. Sad but true, but they still deserve the flogging they get here.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Thank goodness by LibertineR · · Score: 2, Funny
      Many companies successfully partner with Microsoft.

      All it takes is a clear understanding of just who wears the condom, and who bends over and assumes the position.

    4. Re:Thank goodness by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, I'll call your bluff... sues on what grounds?

      Microsoft already tried the FUD tactic with the 237 infringing patents in the Department of Defense^W^W^W^WLinux. There's people out there literally begging Microsoft to sue them and MS hasn't yet.

      So what, exactly, would the claims be?

    5. Re:Thank goodness by 1800maxim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RH and Shuttleworth idiots? On the contrary, if anyone is an idiot, that would be Novell. How so? For paying protection money against being prosecuted for unknown (and perhaps even made-up) crimes.

      What RedHat and Ubuntu are doing is what Novell should have done. This way, there would be no players in bed with MS.

      Perhaps Novell thought that this deal will attract any Linux migrator to them, as in "I guess if these guys partner with MS, their products must clearly interoperate with Windows, not like other untrusted types aka RedHat."

      Time will show who the winners and who the losers of this are.

    6. Re:Thank goodness by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Makes sense and makes sense... How much do you think SCO vs IBM has cost IBM so far, including digging up every document for their fishing expendition, answering all the bullshit motions, writing up all the reasons SCO is wrong, double wrong and still wrong? Think they'll recover a dime when SCO folds? Nope. The coffers are empty if Novell get their motion through, and if not they'll burn on lawyers long before the case has come to a close.

      This is different because:

      1. Microsoft is not SCO. Microsoft is a real company that will not fold over any lawsuits related to this issue.
      2. Microsoft funded SCO. The USDOJ has obviously been bought off but you can only push them so far.
      3. Microsoft claims to know the precise number of patents, where SCO claimed to only have a vague idea of the number of alleged infringements. It is easy to demand that they put up or shut up in court, especially since patents are filed with the USPTO whereas copyright doesn't require any registration.

      I think the Microsoft deal isn't about whether Microsoft has or doesn't have anything, it's about not being the victim of it.

      That is the only way in which this is similar to the SCO vs. Linux issue.

      Sooner or later, Microsoft will have to have a show of hands, but not before Novell etc. start getting impatient about "what did we pay for, really? everyone else is doing the same as us, and you're not striking down on them". Until then, FUD beats facts in marketing every day of the week.

      It's not necessary to win in the short term. And in the long term, Linux sells itself.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Thank goodness by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nonsense. They can't come after the users because most of the users are Microsoft customers as well. Suing RedHat or Ubuntu or anyone else would be suicide. There is an organization that exists solely to hold defensive patents that protect open source software. That of course ignores the fact that IBM the largest patent holder of all has an extremely vested interest in shutting down any attempt by Microsoft to sue a Linux distributor.

      All of that assumes that Microsoft has any legitimate patents (if we pretend software patents are legitimate in the first place) that cover anything in the Open Source world. Just like a DA will pile on bogus charges to give himself a better bargaining position IT companies slip through hundreds of junk patents that would never withstand scrutiny for the same reason. If Microsoft sues anyone they run a serious risk of having their precious patents invalidated.

    8. Re:Thank goodness by fbjon · · Score: 2, Funny

      The catch is that the condom always breaks.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    9. Re:Thank goodness by r1_97 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe some lawyer can answer this. Why doesn't some Linux co. ask for declaratory relief from court to force MS to put up or shut up?

  2. Go Redhat by niceone · · Score: 3, Funny

    You are David, MS is Goliath, your slingshot is GPL'd, Linus' rocks are... um lost it a bit there.

    --
    ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
  3. I ordered a new box with RHEL 4 on it 2-3 days ago by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    apparently my choice was wise. can trust these people.

    --
    Read radical news here
  4. It's really time for MS to put up or shut up by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Show us the patents. Enough said.

    1. Re:It's really time for MS to put up or shut up by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My question is this: aren't patents on the public record? Aren't things like Ubuntu/Red Hat open source? How hard is it for M$ to say "Look at patent 5,656,565 and lines 1-3,000 of kernel.c. This is a violation of our IP rights."

      This is exactly why a lot of people are very suspicious that Microsoft doesn't do this. Instead, they just make vague statements, e.g. "Linux violates x Microsoft patents" and never specify which ones.

      Although the patents are public, Microsoft has so many of them, and many of them are so crappy/broad, that it's nearly impossible for anyone to work backwards to find the ones that they're talking about and might, by some stretch of someone's imagination, apply to Linux.

      So basically, it's a totally opaque threat, and I'm similarly at a loss as to why anyone would negotiate with them without first demanding to see the goods.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:It's really time for MS to put up or shut up by FireFury03 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      aren't patents on the public record?

      Yes, they are - as are several million other patents, and you have absolutely no idea what sort of patent you are alledgedly infringing so good luck trying to find the right needle in the haystack.

      Aren't things like Ubuntu/Red Hat open source?

      Yup, which makes it incredibly easy for any patent holder to find infringing code (these days it really is impossible to write any software without infringing someone's patent - the only thing that protects the propriatory vendors is that closed code is much harder to examine for infringements).

      How hard is it for M$ to say "Look at patent 5,656,565 and lines 1-3,000 of kernel.c. This is a violation of our IP rights.

      Very easy. However, they have said that they won't disclose which patents are being violated because:
      1. The Free software community would be able to discredit the patents (e.g. provide evidence of prior art, show the code isn't infringing, etc).
      2. The Free software developers would be able to remove the offending code.

      Microsoft doesn't want to licence the patents, they are simply using them as a FUD campaign to scare people away from switching to Linux - if the patents are discredited or the offending code is removed they have lost all their leverage.

      To people not in the know, this is perceived as a big risk - if you switch to Linux then MS has threattened to sue you. Of course, to those of us who can see what's going on it's obvious that MS can't possibly sue anyone because:
      1. That would involve disclosing the patents.
      2. MS doesn't seem at all confident that it's patents are valid since the cited reason for not disclosing them is that they would be discredited.
      3. MS themselves will certainly be infringing a large number of patents held by organisations who have a vested interest in Free software (IBM, the Open Invention Network, Sun, etc.) - firing off lawsuits at Free software users will almost certainly invite retaliation from those patent holders.

      The patent system is nolonger about protecting your innovations, it's an arms race - everyone is infringing everyone else's patents anyway (since it's practically impossible to produce any code which isn't infringing) and whoever holds the least patents is crushed since they cannot retaliate to any threats. The whole patent system needs to be abolished - it once served a useful purpose, but these days the merits are far outweighed by the abuses.

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    3. Re:It's really time for MS to put up or shut up by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The patent system is nolonger about protecting your innovations, it's an arms race -..."

      The nature of software and the industry makes that statement true for software, but in other areas it works just fine.

      The patent system should not be abolished. It's a good system. Software and business methods need to not be patented. Clearly that should be a copyright matter.

      Or, make it so all patented software myust be open it inspection. Including all code in any application that uses patented code.

      BTW, for 12-15K you could have an attorney to a patent search. Hell, you could do it yourself for free. Of course, time is money but I think you know what I mean.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:It's really time for MS to put up or shut up by Luft08091950 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The point isn't really to stop the infringement because it is doubtful that there really is any and if there were and Microsoft showed us it would probably be trivial to recode so there wasn't any infringement.

      Microsoft wants a couple of things. They want Linux to stop being free as in beer and free as in speech.

      Ultimately they want Linux to go away.

      If you look at Microsoft's history in regards to partners you may notice that to partner with Microsoft is often the kiss of death. They are known for stabbing partners in the back.

      Be sure that they paid well to partner with the distributions that have signed up. Novell got over 300 million dollars. It only cost them their good standing in the OSS community. I don't know the specifics of the other deals but Microsoft is paying out big to try to make this happen. You can bet that regardless of what the astro-turfers try to say this IS a big deal and we SHOULD NOT relax and think everything is fine.

      I believe that Microsoft is setting the stage for its next act. I hope IBM and other large corporations who claim to support the OSS movement are watching and planning.

      If Microsoft succeeds the playing field will continue to be tilted in their favor for the foreseeable future. If they fail the playing field will become level again where true innovation and competition can thrive to the benefit of all.

    5. Re:It's really time for MS to put up or shut up by ISoldat53 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      MS is trying to get all of its arm twisting done now while they still have a compliant Department of Justice.

    6. Re:It's really time for MS to put up or shut up by TechForensics · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Very easy. However, they have said that they won't disclose which patents are being violated because: 1. The Free software community would be able to discredit the patents (e.g. provide evidence of prior art, show the code isn't infringing, etc). 2. The Free software developers would be able to remove the offending code.

      Will some lawyer out there who knows more than I do tell me how in the h**l you can win a patent suit against a defendant who has begged to be told what infringes so he can take it out? Where the heck are your damages in such a case?

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    7. Re:It's really time for MS to put up or shut up by swillden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or, make it so all patented software myust be open it inspection. Including all code in any application that uses patented code.

      I think the same logic should apply to copyrights. Companies that want copyright protection should be required to disclose the code in order to get it. If they want to keep the code secret (which does occasionally make sense, though much less often than people think), then they should use contract and trade secret law to protect it.

      My rationale is, basically, the rationale used to justify copyright law's existence in the first place. Copyright protects expressions in order to help ideas be widely disseminated. The authors of copyright law never considered that it might some day be possible to publish your expression in a form that hid the ideas in it, so that others were unable to learn from them. How would you write a book so that people could read it but not learn from it? Binary-only software achieves exactly that, and in doing so it undermines the rationale for supporting copyright law in the first place.

      Note that requiring publication of source code would not imply that others can take the published source and use it. Arguably, under current copyright law they probably couldn't even compile it, since compilation creates a binary which is a derivative work of the copyrighted source code. They could, however, read it and learn from it. They could also analyze it for security weaknesses, bugs, etc. I think that under such a copyright regime the quality of commercial code would increase substantially, and also that the amount of copyright infringement that goes on would decline dramatically. There is a lot of commercial software that infringes copyrights of commercial libraries and of F/LOSS code, but gets away with it because no one can see the source. That would change.

      In the case of patents, I think software simply should not be patentable.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  5. And so did Mandriva by dotpavan · · Score: 5, Informative

    from their corp announcement

  6. And if they did partner... by micromuncher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... its effectively an admission of guilt. Would anyone sign an agreement saying "I'm guilty of unspecified crimes"?

    --
    /\/\icro/\/\uncher
    1. Re:And if they did partner... by pembo13 · · Score: 3, Informative

      others have: Novel, Xandros, Linspire

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    2. Re:And if they did partner... by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      others have: Novel, Xandros, Linspire

      But in so doing they have gained a lot of bad feeling in the Free software community. And these companies do need the community's support - Red Hat, etc. have their roots in the Free software world and understand this. Novell on the other hand is a well established propriatory software company who has jumped into the Free software world and I don't think they yet fully understand how important it is to not piss off the community.

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    3. Re:And if they did partner... by shaitand · · Score: 2, Informative

      Novell did it for $300,000,000.

  7. Two camps? by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting
    While the GPL is the GPL is the GPL, I wonder if this will lead to any kind of animosity between, say, RH and SuSE?

    Even worse (serious question), will this lead to less interoperability between those who refuse MSFT and those who sold their souls (IMHO)? Sure, YaST vs. YUM type stuff will always be present, but what of deeper items, say things that would otherwise wind up being incorporated in kernel.org? I wish I had a better way to articulate the question ATM, but the jist is that maybe the whole 'divide and conquer' plan may work more than most folks think it will, in that either by necessity of 'patent deals' or by necessity of what-have-you, the coders @ Novell won't or can't spread their improvements to RH and vice-versa.

    IMHO, that is a greater danger than any lawsuit blustering and posturing that has been coming out of Redmond.

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Two camps? by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Informative

      being a linux programmer i wouldnt want my software being a part of the ones that make deals with M$

      You can word the licence you release under however you want, you can even put in a clause specifically excluding any distributor who has made a deal with MS. However, then the licence ceases to be Free.

      It seems that you should look at a more generic licence which still allows the 4 freedoms but is also incompatible with aspects of these deals. For example, the GPL 3 looks like it will be incompatible with this sort of patent protection deal, since it requires any patent protection to be extended to *all* users of the software, not just a small subset.

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
  8. How many of you... by iknownuttin · · Score: 5, Funny
    when you read this, had this image of Gates, dressed as Darth Vader with the breathing, holding out his hand to Red Hat (or whomever), and saying, "Come with me to the Dark Side and we can rule together!"

    No? I guess it's just me.

    Or what about, "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." No?

    Never mind.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:How many of you... by CautionaryX · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's funny, all I heard was a loud "NOOOOOOOOOO!".

    2. Re:How many of you... by Tatisimo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I always pictured Gates as the Emperor and Ballmer as Vader standing over a small company. As the small company person nurses a wound from a chair expertly thrown at it, Emperor Gates steps in front of Darth Ballmer and says: "Throw yours at him. Let your unethical business instinct fill your soul. Together, we can monopolize the software!"

      --
      Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
  9. Glad by spungo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm glad that there are still F/OSS companies out there that value common sense over greed.

    1. Re:Glad by BalkanBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you work for free? Or can you not use an extra $1000/month (or whatever amount)?

      I understand the context from which you are calling others 'greedy' - but before you do that, try and have a look in the mirror to see if there was any instance where you may have been less than, shall we say, humble...?

      It's only fair ...

      --
      'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
  10. What you're asking is ... by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    will there be any issues with patches submitted by the pro-Microsoft segment with regard to copyrights or patents or such?

    Will the pro-Linux segment refuse such?

    Well, that's part of what the GPL v3 is supposed to address. Just in case.

  11. This is a war by cloudkiller · · Score: 5, Funny

    It looks like the MS & Linux war is finally starting to take shape. At least now I have a side to stand on. Someone get me my red hat and a cup of ubuntu, I've got partitions to make.

    --
    [an error occurred while processing this sig]
  12. A Microsoft Deal is More Than Just Patents by segedunum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A lot of people have made a lot of the Novell/Microsoft deal because of patents that open source software supposedly infringes. However, once you buy in with Microsoft on one of these deals, it's a whole lot more.

    I discovered a few weeks ago that as part of the Novell deal, and Microsoft selling SLES coupons supposedly, SLES actually has to be a subserviant within a Windows domain controller set up. Ergo, SLES can quite easily be replaced with Windows at a later date without anyone being any the wiser. Presumably, when this deal runs out in five years Microsoft will have hoped that they'll have replaced all the SLES and Netware servers with Windows, replaced a lot of Red Hat servers with SLES replaced with Windows, and Novell will be no more.

    That deal Novell struck will do quite a bit of damage if any more like it are agreed.

  13. Microsoft's strategy... by pieterh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... divide the Linux community, starting with the smallest weakest firms. Build up a credible patent claim against Linux (where "credible" means "incredible but nonetheless believable if you are borderline insane, as many firms are"). Attack Red Hat, and avoid annoying IBM directly.

    Microsoft is doing a classic patent ambush on the Linux community, and it's significant. We're not seeing an attach on Linux, but on the Linux market. Microsoft wants to own the market.

    I'd be surprised if MS actually threatened any FOSS developers, and I'd expect eventually MS to start supporting some free software projects, and eventually even the GPL, if it does get its planned iron grip on the Linux market via its unnamed patents. Free software is so much cheaper to build than the classic kind. Eventually, MS will port its stack of patent-protected lock-in technologies to a BSD or Linux core.

    The weakness in Microsoft's armour is those unnamed patents. If they were to be named, they would be disarmed, and Microsoft's entire gambit would fail. In the US there is no need to detail a patent infringement claim. In Europe, Microsoft's claims come very close to illegal unfair competition; IIRC there is a clause in the European Patent Convention that says a claim of patent infringement must be backed by details of what patents are concerned.

    --
    My blog
  14. Wasn't sling or rock that killed Goliath by Dareth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .. David killed him with his own sword.

    Live by the patent sword.. die by the ... well you get the picture.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Wasn't sling or rock that killed Goliath by Deagol · · Score: 2, Funny
      That's not quite how I remember it:

      "What say you now, Goliath? Without your hair, you no longer possess your fantastic strength!"

      --
      Method of processing duck feet
    2. Re:Wasn't sling or rock that killed Goliath by niceone · · Score: 3, Funny

      Live by the patent sword...

      Surely: Live by the patent method-and-apparatus-for-inflicting-stabbing-type- wounds-on-your-enemies...?

      --
      ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
  15. Time to vote with our wallet....when we can..... by budword · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't buy support myself, but I do quite a bit of small time consulting for individuals and a few small businesses, and I'll be recommending RedHat without reservation. Ubuntu and Mandriva also, for those without a need for a distro certified to work with Oracle or similar product. Vote with your wallet, when you can folks. Novell drank the cool aid, RedHat, Ubuntu, and Mandriva turned down millions simply to avoid pissing us off, time to reward them for it, when we can.

  16. Re:Bye-bye Red Hat by curious.corn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm italian, sicilian no less, and I know what mafia means. This Microsoft thing sounds like pizzo, a tip given to avoid having your stuff burnt to the ground or getting shot in the back while walking back home... fsck it...

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
  17. Probably drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We have all been frustrated by lack of driver support for Linux. I suspect that MS will wind up using partnerships with hardware vendors to write proprietary Linux hardware drivers, release them binary-only and compile them into the kernels of their minion-distributions by default, thus giving the sell-out distros an functional advantage over the pure distros.

    Furthermore, users of the pure distros won't be able to swipe or reverse-engineer the binaries without being at risk for infringement lawsuits.

    The end result will be a market-perception of superior functionality and legal saftey when using Linux distributions that include a Microsoft tax.

    1. Re:Probably drivers by kasperd · · Score: 4, Informative

      I suspect that MS will wind up using partnerships with hardware vendors to write proprietary Linux hardware drivers, release them binary-only and compile them into the kernels of their minion-distributions by default, thus giving the sell-out distros an functional advantage over the pure distros.
      Doing so would be a very clear violation of copyright. If anybody starts selling such a distribution, I predict they will receive a cease and desist letter from some Linux developers. (I might consider writing it myself, but probably some larger contributor would do so before me).

      Furthermore, users of the pure distros won't be able to swipe or reverse-engineer the binaries without being at risk for infringement lawsuits.
      That depends on where they live. There are countries that have a law that clearly states such reverse engineering is legal, and the right to reverse engineer cannot be given up by a contract.

      In effect you are suggesting that the copyright violator sues the copyright owners over something the owners does with their own code, which would be legal in many parts of the world even if they didn't own the code in the first place.
      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  18. Re:Bye-bye Red Hat by codepunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You said it yourself you are a all MS business(owned), I doubt you have any intention of running Linux
      so why would RedHat care what you do.

    The bigger problem if you ever did decide to run linux is that the MS blessed distro's are as good
    as dead. Go ahead and ask for some help using your new blessed linspire distro on here and see where it
    get's you.

    --


    Got Code?
  19. Re:So... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's saying that they're willing to stand up to Microsoft's aggressive anti-OSS tactics.

    And, as the biggest name in enterprise Linux (correct me if I'm wrong) that says a hell of a lot both to the OSS development and support community as well as the community's growing customer base.

    If you support OSS then this is a positive step that can only build confidence in Linux and OSS in general. The alternative would, I'd argue, have been devastating.

    I really don't see the reason for your negativity. Did someone at Red Hat murder your family or something?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  20. so... by everphilski · · Score: 2, Funny

    So Bill Gates ... is ... Linus' ... Father?

  21. Re:Bye-bye Red Hat by splict · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whether on purpose or not I'm not sure, but you are definitely missing the point. As far as I know, Red Hat, Ubuntu, and Mandriva all see interoperability as a good thing. No one is fighting that. And if you can find something that says otherwise I would be happy to see it.
    What you are suggesting is that these companies should pay money to a competitor for (so far) baseless claims and admit a weakened and reliant position when none in fact has been shown to exist - all in order to possibly get some help with interoperability. Interoperability which, if Microsoft took the attitudes these companies did, would already be there. You are thinking very short term. If Microsoft got its way, you wouldn't have a Linux server option down the road. Good luck with your business...

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a yo-yo.-Enoch Root
  22. Well finally by el+cisne · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well freeking finally; Someone at least managed to have a pair;
    A pair of cerebral lobes, of course, what were you thinking!!!
    Oh, THOSE cerebral lobes....never mind....I guess those would work also

  23. Re:I ordered a new box with RHEL 4 on it 2-3 days by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    apparently my choice was wise. can trust these people.

    RedHat is definitely one of the good guys. While Google's Evil-o-meter has been slipping of late, RedHat has consistently been true to their mission. They develop technology that's open and freely available a-la CentOS and have some of the finest hacks around working full time on open stuff. (Alan Cox, et al)

    RedHat tends to get dissed around here a bit because they target servers rather than workstation/desktop Linux. They are focused on making money the honorable way, and some people seem to have problems with anybody making money.

    But look at their track record. They've consistently been true to the spirit and purpose of the GPL and free or open source software in general, and have been both profitable and successful in doing so. (Hint: Ubuntu is not yet profitable)

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  24. Re:So... by ettlz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What do you mean by that? In what way are Red Hat "sell-outs"?

    Does the fact that Red Hat makes money out of Linux and uses this to plow tons of resources into Free Software projects unnerve you?

    Red Hat may take, but they sure as hell pay it back with interest.

  25. Re:Licenced to steal by bmo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "I never payed for my XP software"

    Lord Vader (er, Ballmer) sends you his regards.

    If you think that pirating XP is "sticking it to the man" you're wrong. Microsoft _depends_ on you doing that, because for every illegitimate copy of Windows installed, it means one less "alternative" installed.

    You don't think that WGA will ever become bulletproof, do you? It won't, ever, despite Steve Ballmer's bombastic assertions that it will.

    "Although about three million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

    Bill Gates - about 9 years ago.

    --
    BMO

  26. Re:Bye-bye Red Hat by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are not alone. There are lots of misinformed people thinking like you do.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  27. I think I speak for the entire OSS community... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...when I say, "We'll really miss the non-business you did with us, all the expanded capabilities that our non-installed software failed to provide to your business that didn't need them anyway."

    Maybe, one day, long in the future, you'll see fit not to install us again. Until then though, we'll have to accept that we had a good long non-run, and leave it at that.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  28. Sue me Microsoft by cyborg_zx · · Score: 2

    What utter FUD. One does not sue the users of patent infringing software - one sues the makers of it. I'd like to see Microsoft try and sue me for using Ubuntu in a country which doesn't even acknowledge software patents. What bollocks.

  29. Delilah by Dareth · · Score: 2, Funny

    I believe Delilah has cut out your brains... Samson.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  30. Are we surprised? by petrus4 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Red Hat are pretty much the oldest Linux company in existence of any reasonable size. When asked, they consistently make noises that very strongly suggest that they're aware that anyone who wants to in any way make money with Linux should consider themselves Stallman's bitch by default.

    As such, they're not going to sign agreements with Microsoft or do anything else which might upset the "community" of red eyed fanatics in any way. They know who their father is. ;)

  31. The fact that you're 100% MS is proof by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that you're clueless.

    Giving in to a bullies demands for protection money is NEVER a good idea. That should be simple enough for even a MS fanboy to understand.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  32. Re:Bye-bye Red Hat ... (um, you never said hello) by mergy · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I have little to no reason to even *consider* software that is going to give me extra integration headaches, and I can't believe that I'm alone in my thinking."

    This coming from someone who is running an all Windows shop. MS products are unable to integrate with themselves. Why START thinking now?

  33. Re:Bye-bye Red Hat by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have every reason to support Free and Open Source software
    Blind, unwavering faith in an idea with no reason or facts to back it up.

    I believe that you are an asshole. I back this belief up with the fact that you have made ignorant assumptions about whether or not I have reasons or facts to back up my belief, and then chosen to share your stupidity with the rest of us.

    You're not an Islamic or Christian Fundamentalist also, by any chance, are you?

    Sorry, no. Actually, if you dug way way WAY back into my slashdot comments, you could find me badmouthing the GPL and complaining about its viral nature, saying that when I make a release it is typically under the BSD license, et cetera.

    But along the line someplace (I don't remember when, but slashdot remembers - although finding information on slashdot is a lost cause) I changed my mind. I came to the realization that Freedom for software is the only way to ensure freedom for users. And I have come to believe that the GPL, perhaps even version 3 of the GPL, is the way to best ensure that.

    However, I have never been a Microsoftie. This is probably because I had experience with multiple other systems before I ever spent much time with Windows or even DOS. In elementary school and at home it was the Apple ][. In junior high and at home (by then) it was the Macintosh. Then I got an Amiga, and had a real taste of what computers could be like and haven't been happy since. Sure, AmigaDOS had its failings, and there were plenty of them. But they never did anything so horrible as did Microsoft.

    Microsoft, however, has been doing bad things to the industry since their inception. If your paper tape of altair basic was defective, Microsoft would not replace it. You had to buy it all over again. And I'm talking about reading the tape the first time in a known good reader. Since then Microsoft has been caught red-handed time and time again engaging in anticompetitive business practices, including leveraging a combination of a virtual monopoly over desktop computing (on the wane now, but only slowly, and very much still in effect) and the proprietary nature of their applications to force users to stay with their so-called "solutions".

    More recently, Microsoft has found itself unable to compete on technical merit, and so has engaged in a FUD campaign against Linux, the major thrusts of which were funding SCO in order to get them to carry out a Pyhrric lawsuit against IBM and Novell in order to produce a cloud of FUD, and now the patent agreements and their refusal to put up or shut up about the patents that Linux supposedly infringes. If Microsoft knew that they could nail Linux, they would absolutely do so because it would send a clear message: Run Microsoft, or Run Away. But they know no such thing, because any patents Linux supposedly infringes would have to fail a test for obviousness. Microsoft knows it doesn't have a leg to stand on, and will only keep the FUD machine going as long as possible.

    If you want me to go on longer about how the GPL can save us all or at least is our last best hope for interoperability, I will. But I don't think you do. So I won't. Suffice to say that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, that your attack on me is utterly unwarranted, and I would appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. There are plenty of both in their respective places already.

    P.S. Isn't accusing me of following a party line while you're buying Microsoft's FUD at wholesale a little hypocritical?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  34. Re:Bye-bye Red Hat by abaddononion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Again, this shows pretty much a lack of any sort of looking into things on your part. Linux pretty much has a competitive application on every front. And all it takes to find it is pretty much a google search with the word "linux" in it. For example, "Linux video editing software" or "linux accounting software", ad nauseam.

    I think what you're trying to say is "a lack of proprietary apps on linux is why I cant consider it", because most likely, you dont want apps that actually do the job best, as much as you want apps where, when something goes wrong, you have a company that you can point a finger at and say "It's not my fault, it's theirs. Call them and make them fix it." Plenty of companies run on linux machines. I run a full OS server shop here at the University I work at. Do you think I am handicapping myself to a subset of applications? No. When I need an app for something, I google for it, and so far I havent had that fail for me yet.

    The only option linux tends to have trouble with is games. So maybe you cant convert your Windows shop to linux because you dont want to lose the ability to play World of Warcraft at work?

    Im sorry, but I have a hard time taking any of your statements with any sort of merit. You're nothing more than a troll with backwards, dated ideas on what linux is, and you have no intention to do any research or ever attempt to change them. Have fun living in the 1980s.

  35. Re:Bye-bye Red Hat by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

    RedHat sells support. And it's a DAMN GOOD support - much better than from MS. We had a problem with IPX/SPX network stack in W2K3 and it took ages to debug and resolve problem.

    But when we had a problem with SAMBA on Linux (winbindd did not work well) - it was resolved in little less than an hour with RedHat support.

    As for mission-critical apps - usually you can run them under emulation. We have a couple of legacy apps working happily in Xen. And of course, Linux can interoperate quite nicely with Windows, so you can have mixes Windows/Linux environment.

  36. Priating Windows is NOT doing your part by businessnerd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd like to take this chance to try and set the record straight when it comes to pirating Windows. Without getting into the morality of pirating in general, pirating Windows is still helping Windows. Sure Microsoft doesn't get the revenue for the software, but they get the market share. And that's really what the OS market is about. First you get the OS market share, then you push the OS exclusive apps, then you get money, then you buy the khakis, then you get the girls (or something like that). Why do you think Microsoft has sold Windows to parts of the developing world for as low as $3? They don't care if you pay for their OS as long as you use it.

    The moral of this story: The only way to "stick-it" to Microsoft, is to not use their products at all, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

    --
    "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
  37. Re:I ordered a new box with RHEL 4 on it 2-3 days by notamisfit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really, what did you expect? The boxed desktop Linux market just isn't there; it wasn't there in '98 when venture capitalists were tripping over themselves trying to throw money at Linux anything, and it isn't there now. Novell had to move into the enterprise to keep SuSE alive; ditto with Linspire and OEM's. Unlike Canonical or SPI, Red Hat has to make money, both in the short and long term.

    --
    Jesus is coming -- look busy!
  38. EXCELLENT! by larryau · · Score: 3

    WOOT!

    Way to go Red Hat.

    Obviously someone was listening to the community. Way to step up Red Hat.

  39. Re:So... by 644bd346996 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wrong. I have absolutely nothing against RedHat, and I already have access to all their enterprise systems. In fact, I have several friends that work for RedHat and I use RHEL daily.

    What you failed to understand is that making a deal with Microsoft is the most evil thing RedHat can do right now. That they respond initially with a flat "no" is truly not saying much. All it really says is that they are not very evil (which we already knew). If, for example, RedHat publicly announced that they considered MS's tactics to be racketeering, that would be news. As it currently stands, RedHat's actions just aren't that significant. They haven't hurt Microsoft in any way, and they haven't challenged Microsoft to "put up or shut up." All they've said is "we aren't playing."

  40. Re:So... by ettlz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What you failed to understand is that making a deal with Microsoft is the most evil thing RedHat can do right now.
    I think we all understand that.

    That they respond initially with a flat "no" is truly not saying much. All it really says is that they are not very evil (which we already knew). If, for example, RedHat publicly announced that they considered MS's tactics to be racketeering, that would be news.
    But that language would be brazenly combative (Truth Happens is just an ad campaign). Might it not alienate enterprise customers?

    As it currently stands, RedHat's actions just aren't that significant. They haven't hurt Microsoft in any way, and they haven't challenged Microsoft to "put up or shut up." All they've said is "we aren't playing."
    Why would they want to hurt Microsoft? That's stooping to the enemy's level. Neither does their stance add up to appeasement. Choosing to not get involved and carrying on as normal, rather than letting loose with (potentially expensive) sound and fury, would seem to make tactical sense.
  41. Microsoft... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...must be very sad to be so alone, shunned and unloved. How tragic.

    ;-P

  42. Re: Thank geedness by http · · Score: 2, Informative

    Umm...urm...Debian and Damn Small Linux come to mind without putting in any research.

    --
    If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
    3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
  43. Re:Bye-bye Red Hat by Nibs+Niven · · Score: 2, Informative

    "I own a business that's all MS right now..."

    Really? Then please explain this: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?display=uptime &site=phydeauxpets.com&find_site=GO.

    If your business is "all MS", then why are you using CentOS for your web site? I guess ISS couldn't do the job for you...

    What a troll...