Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Rejects Microsoft Deals
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."
Somebody has some sense! I was starting to wonder.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
from their corp announcement
... its effectively an admission of guilt. Would anyone sign an agreement saying "I'm guilty of unspecified crimes"?
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
I'm glad that there are still F/OSS companies out there that value common sense over greed.
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]
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.
... 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
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
"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
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
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.
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.
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!