Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Guts the Novell/Microsoft Deal
walterbyrd writes "Pamala Jones, at groklaw, totally rips apart the Novell/Deal patent protection deal. From the article: 'Justin Steinman reveals that to market their SUSE Linux Enterprise Server against Red Hat they ask, "Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn't?" It's just appalling. Let me ask you developers who are kernel guys a question: When you contributed code to the kernel, was it your intent that it be used against Red Hat? How about the rest of you developers? Is that all right with you, that your code is being marketed by Novell like that? I also have questions about antitrust issues, with Microsoft being Novell's partner in such deals and sales pitches. Nothing speaks louder about Microsoft's true determination never to be actually interoperable than this conference.'"
Are you saying that Pam Jones is an IBM employee? Wasn't that what SCO tried to push?
"Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn't?"
... but my enterprise needs computers that work and people who are competent enough to use something like pre-installed Ubuntu (hoo boy, guess they'll have to go back to school for that!)
The one that doesn't, of course.
To me, that's like asking, "Do you want the wrench that works with the Edsel, or the one that doesn't?"
I guess if I was an Edsel mechanic, that would matter. But since the Edsel sucks, and my business isn't repairing other people's Edsel's, I really couldn't care less... Yes, I am being glib, and I understand the needs of "the Enterprise"
I think that some more "mainstream" journalists have written articles on topics after seeing her coverage. It seems like a lot of the tech writers in big media don't bother doing the type of digging that PJ is known for and instead wait for her to do a most of the real work before they decide whether or not to voice their own opinions.
Classic Microsoft - leverage a partnership with a company seen as your enemy, yet try to do so to keep them at the mercy of the guys in Redmond. That's why MS has always tried to do with Apple - prop them up so they can be seen as viable, but make them your bastard stepchild anyway. This is just a more appalling trespass as they managed to get Novell in a position to market the hard work of thousands of contributors, who simply wanted a free viable alternative for those not wanting to be held to MS's will, in a way quite opposite of the motivation of that work.
I've always liked SUSE as a distro, but once the Novell deal went through, I knew it was only a matter of time until the sour taste was just a little too sickening, making it unconscionable to fathom dealing with them for the foreseeable future. There are better distros out there anyway.
Ignorance is the Agent of Fear; Fear Is the Agent of Violence - >1
"Well its rather self-serving that an IBM employee would rip apart the Novell/Microsoft deal"
Isn't it curious that the entire SCO/Microsoft legal team hasn't been able to come up with any evidence for this. But you carry on not commenting on the article and engage in a dishonest and personal attack - TROLL !!
was: Re:Self-serving
davecb5620@gmail.com
But never mind that. Thing is that IBM has a standing relationship with Novell to sell and market SuSE. They also happen to have a similar relationship with Red Hat. But IBM tends to push SuSE more for high-end enterprise stuff than they do Red Hat. I think it boils down to YaST vs. Anaconda/Kickstart. Whatever.
My blog
On the one hand, there is the M$ deal.
On the other hand, there are the Good Things that Novell has done, and does, for GNU/Linux and F/OSS.
On the third hand, there is me, and others like me, that I'm sure wonder about the MPD that Novell exhibits. To whit: I understand and agree that Open-solution based entities should be willing and able to work with proprietary companies. But it seems that in this instance Novell is going about that the completely wrong way, with the completely wrong company.
It's like there is Novell Darkside, and Novell Lightside, and ne'er the twain shall meet.
Maybe these are just the actions of a corporation that is so large that the different divisions inside of it are unaware of what others are doing, a la Sony.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
As disgusting as this might be, it's going to have very little impact on Linux. It's marketing and unfortunately even Free Software is not immune from marketing. RedHat markets as well with slogans like "more than mission critical".
While I can't defend what Novell is doing here, I do want to point out that after buying SuSE, they created an open-source community project around a distribution that was one of the most closely kept. The openSUSE project now releases free SUSE downloads - something SUSE had been against. Novell also bought Ximian which I think has a great reputation in open-source development and Novell has been continuing the work that they have done.
Is it possible that Novell needs this marketing to overcome the fact that it is a late entrant? Maybe, judging by the other things that Novell has done (opening up a formerly closed distro and continuing important work on open-source projects) it is ok to forgive them for this highly annoying example of stupidity? Maybe I'm just naive and this actually is a bigger deal.
It seems like a lot of the tech writers in big media don't bother doing the type of digging that PJ is known for and instead wait for her to do a most of the real work before they decide whether or not to voice their own opinions.
Strike the bit about "deciding whether or not to voice their own opinions" and you perfectly describe the "blogging" community.
Please help metamoderate.
One of the primary reasons that Novell/SuSE were gaining market share was Samba. Guess what? Jeremy Allison, one of the core Samba authors, left Novell over what he sees as the illegal behavior of Novell in this deal. He now works for Google.
If Microsoft wanted to try to control Samba development, they may have done so. But I'd expect Google to run with the network storage work, now, with Jeremy in place.
I think the thing that particularly set her off was Novell's Justin Steinman claiming that "the community was no longer upset about the deal" (quoting PJ, not Steinman). She disagrees, and I think the intention of the article was to bring to a wider audience the way Novell are misrepresenting the situation.
And I have to say, I think it's an valid point. I won't claim that we've been unanimous in condemning Novell, but to claim all the objections are yesterdays news smacks of either deliberate deception, or a worrying detachment from reality.
Either way, it reflects poorly on Novell.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Stallman isn't anti-capitalist. GPL V2 was written specifically to make it clear that people could make money off of GPLed code. The GPL doesn't try to 'eliminate' capitalism by any stretch. In fact, it creates more capitalistic opportunities than closed source software. The GPL, the way I see it, isn't socialist, but libertarian. It seeks to prevent people from manipulating markets and eliminating competition through the control of software and copyright law.
My blog
How can Novell not care about that? They are benefiting from code that was written by people who are now not protected from patent claims from Microsoft, and Novell is making money from doing a deal with the company threatening them.
Need I say more. This deal is a shame.
-- Cheers!
And it's rather humorous that you've just recounted SCO's slanders about Pamela being a shill for IBM. Even when the Nasdaq is throwing them out, their fraudulent claims continue as ideas in the minds of people who've never looked deeper.
"Before, Linux was this cloud we didn't get. I was high-fiving everyone I could find when Novell bought SuSe. We already won once against Novell." Martin Taylor, Microsoft General Manager of platform strategy link
Introducing the brand new steam motor carriage, courtesy of Stanley Motor Carriage Company! Featuring the latest in horseless carriage technology! Steam powered and built with pride!
Stanley Motor Carriage Company would like to take this time to talk to you about a growing concern for all of us. As you might have heard several NEW companies such as, Ford Motor Company, are selling horseless carriages based around the internal combustion engine. Did you realize that the internal combustion engine would be more accurately named the internal explosion engine! There are literally thousands of explosions an hour happening right in front of the driver every hour. Just imagine what could happen if one of them went wrong!
Stanley, on the other hand, is committed to maintaining our safe steam powered vehicles. Everyone knows that through the magic of steam, clean and safe travel is assured. And of course water won't explode.
Thank you for your continued patronage.
Even windows isn't working with Windows these days... what with Vista breaking so many apps that worked on all previous versions upto XP SP2. Novell making money from big corporate customers is only a very transient issue... once they figure out that Linux can work as well as Windows on servers and web-based services on Firefox-Linux desktops; they will eventually explore other non-tainted distros as well.
For a hospital where I consult, for instance, we have decided to go in with PACS-One deployed on top of Cent OS, not even RedHat. Other corporates will do likewise, once they understand what benefits Linux can bring them. This is a very transient and pyrrhic victory for Microsoft-Novell, and rightly so.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Let me ask you developers who are kernel guys a question: When you contributed code to the kernel, was it your intent that it be used against Red Hat? How about the rest of you developers?
If they wanted to contribute code to a kernel that wouldn't hurt Red Hat, they should have released it under some license that would prohibit competition against Red Hat.
What Ms. Jones doesn't seem to realize is that competition between software companies is a good thing. It leads to more innovation and a better end-user experience (after all look at Microsoft Word. We had only one major office suite and we have the same interface for over 10 years with minimal changes between 98, 2000 and 2003. OOo comes along and despite its small marketshare it still provided the impetus for Office 2007 to actually make real changes to the interface. Same with IE).
all sales are Microsoft sales to some degree now.
Except they're not. Red Hat sales aren't Microsoft sales. Neither are Mac sales. Only Microsoft (which is the majority of sales) and Novell sales. People migrating to Novell due to Microsoft's teeming with them is actually a good thing. This will help get people use to the Linux environment and allow other competitors such as Red Hat to offer better deals then Microsoft which will allow even further migration away from Microsoft. Or it could cause Microsoft to eventually dump its closed-source code and pitch in entirely with open source code. Now these last two options are going to take a long time to come to fruition (with it being doubtful if Microsoft will ever dump its closed source OS), however Linux has been around for a long time and it is only slowly gaining marketshare. If the Microsoft/Novell deal does increase the adoption of SUSE in favor of Windows, then this should actually help people move away from Microsoft in the long run.
My opinion is that Novell offers MonopoLinux
This is the first Groklaw article I've read and if this hyperbole is typical of its offerings I'm amazed so many people listen to it. This is of the quality one would typically find in a slashdot rant. I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.
Long-term, that is the death of Linux as we know it, if Microsoft were successful in getting everyone to sign such a deal.
That's a pretty big if. Somehow I find myself doubting that Microsoft's fud campaign will manage to do little more then stagnate the small tide of people moving away from Windows for a short time. Eventually if you cry wolf long enough without producing one, people stop listening. If Microsoft doesn't ever go to court but simply continues to keep the fud campaign going year after year, people will stop listening.
But taking other peoples' code and going against their wishes, as reflected in the license
Which part of the GPL v2 says that people should be able to use, modify and distribute their patent infringing code without any repercussions? As I said, the FUD campaign will only work in the short term if all Microsoft does is provide fud.
The Microsoft lawyer there says the company is "very active" in looking for ways to work with the Open Source community without violating GPLv3, arrangements "similar" to the Novell deal. In other words, that type of exact deal is blocked. They are trying to figure out how to get around v3 in some way that is similar but not blocked.
And good luck to them. Personally I hope they fail. But if they don't try, then sometime down the line someone else will. Its better the loopholes be found now so it can be revised early on before v3 gains too much widespread acceptance and we have the difficulty of migrating to v4 that we're seeing with v3.
Of course, the large customers don't understand the implications of this deal to the FOSS ecosystem, but Novell should.
What concerns are these? Given this is my first article from groklaw all I'm seeing is
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
Developers are free to join a project to help improve it, they are also free to abandon such projects enmass to equally stifle the products development and therefore screw those companies who are relying on the developers efforts to bring to market a good product!
How did the Edsel / Vista thing get in this conversation?
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Microsoft has some emerging issues it has to deal with:
.NET and Silverlight competing with Flash and AJAX web apps, XML markup base for Microsoft's new standards such as OOXML and XPS, IIS7 configuration XML files etc.)
:)
- the threat of a free OS commoditizing what they worked so hard to keep unique in Windows
- the emerging of accepted open standards that turn Microsoft's proprietary alternatives against themselves and wall them from the rest of the world
- the emerging of plenty of companies ready to deliver free OS components and support to Microsoft's corporate customers (which will directly affect Microsoft's bottom line and the industry trends in adoption of Windows)
Microsoft's business strategists have done a careful and detailed analysis of their situation and arrived at the infamous "patent deals". They have drawn the decision chart and figured, there's no way for them to lose, no matter how the market or their competition moves.
Possible outcomes & side effects:
- The patent threats split Linux community and cause unrest in corporate clients who consider adopting Linux for their servers or even desktops.
- Novell and the other distros in the patent deal are rejected by the community and Microsoft eliminates one of its more dangerous competitors should Linux' adoption really take off. -OR-
- Red Hat and the other distros OUT of the patent deal get destabilized and abandoned by the corporate clients and Microsoft gets to "coown" the Linux code together with Novell by means of the patent implementations all over the code. They can't just buy Novell now since it'll destabilize their Windows brand, and cause antritrust lawsuits. But should Windows go down next 5-10-15 years, you can be sure Microsoft will be talking to merge with Novell and offer their Linux distro with all the windows IP in it.
In essense Microsoft either gets to split the OSS movement, eliminate some of their stronger competirors, and improve the Windows brand and adoption, or gets a second route to quickly enter the market with Linux OS should Windows go horribly down, by utilizing all their Windows IP inside the Linux system.
What about standards:
- Where Microsoft has their own standard opposed to an open competing standard, they try to promote it to a full standard (OOXML, Exchange server integration with SUSE, ActiveDirectory integration with SUSE etc., XPS)
- Where Microsoft doesn't have their own standard, they adopt the publicly accepted standard, and extend it in attempt to create added-value dialect (RSS with own extensions in IE7,
So Novell's deal helps Microsoft make better penetration of Microsoft standards and technologies as something that comes standard with Linux. We're talking about Mono, Moonlight, Exchange integration, Samba integration and all those technologies which might have alternatives outside the Microsoft world.
This is marked to the public outside as interoperability effort. It sure is improving interoperability, but at the cost of putting more and more MS IP in Linux's distributions.
So was Novell wrong to sign the deal? If they had the pure intention to move the OSS community and help Linux as a whole, it was wrong. But as a company that competes against *OTHER* Linux distro companies, it was half right.
Right now if you see above all the outcomes from this deal (which are all good for Microsoft) there's 50/50 about who will survive (the non-patent deal Linux companies, or the patent deal Linux companies). Novell and RedHat are on the opposite sides of a gamble that'll play out in the next years.
While they're the gamble players, Microsoft is the casino. Never mind who wins, the casino always wins. Good job, MS
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
By making you redistribute your changes under the GPL, that's what the GPL does. The BSD license is libertarian: "Do what you want with this."
Software is probably the only place in the universe such a theory could work, too. Because you can make a copy of software and leave the original intact. You can't do that with any other type of resource, so the "from each according to his abilities" and the "to each according to his needs" parts of communism fail - demonstrably and miserably.
But because in the software world, making a copy doesn't disturb the original in any way, that concept does not fail at all - it actually works really well. All because one can take a software resource without actually taking it from someone else.
Well, if this is for the PHB's investigating that linux thing, What is the message being sent? Is it stay away because we will attempt to attack the Linux distro who looks like they are going good in the commercial offerings? Or is the point that there would be no easy inter-operation with MS operating systems?
Actually, this article is just more FUD at a time when Linux should be doing quite well. It is as if people are afraid of success or something. Most developers wouldn't care about Novell Out doing business with RedHat because they write Free Software and if competition isn't free then what is?
So far, most of the problems with MS-Novell deal have materialized only in the minds of critics with something to gain. They have even went as far as putting words into Novells mouth and acting like it was the gospel. This article illustrates quite a bit of this and the summery reminds me of 4 year olds on the playground saying Don't like him because I don't like him. Maybe a reason that linux doesn't look like a mature platform to many is because the people surounding it aren't mature. Maybe There is more to this stuff then good working Code?
Why would any uninterested party say anything about anything?
I want a Linux that works with Windows.
But if I invest in Novell's (Suse) Linux(TM), will my Windows work with Linux? Or will I have to buy the Novell version of Windows for that to happen?
Those of us old enough will remember when Microsoft had certain licensing deals with Compaq, and if you bought a Compaq server, you also had to buy Compaq Windows NT, which was quite a bit more expensive than the Redmond version. If you tried to get around this by just buying the server and installing Microsoft's Windows NT, you'd find yourself with a dead machine - the BIOS actually checked the Windows version, and if it didn't have the Compaq magic number, would refuse to continue loading it.
I can foresee a time when Windows will check to see if it is connecting to an "authorized machine" - presumably, to improve security - and that it will simply fail to connect to a Linux box, unless it is running an MS-approved version. (aka, Suse).
The only reason why Microsoft tolerates Novell is because they realize that Linux has replaced UNIX in a lot of corporate environments. As soon as Linux becomes widely used on the desktop, Microsoft will treat Novell as they've treated all of their past partners. Novell seems not to understand this - they can market their version of Linux only to the extent that Redmond blesses it, and that is truly sad.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
You are confusing marketing with fraud.
Its an understandable mistake considering the level of fraud that is used in marketing but they are still not the same thing.
Red Hat usually does put forth an effort to counter marketing FUD like this so I to expect to see a response. But its also nice to see such questionable marketing tactics criticized in the media and by a popular blogger.
I have decided not to waste my time condemning Novell over the deal, however I no longer recommend their distributions to clients.
When clients ask for SuSE or Novell Linux I usually explain that Microsoft and Novell have signed a 5 year deal that allows Novell to use some Microsoft patented code in their Linux Distro. There is no telling if the deal will be renewed at the end of the 5 years or if users will have to start paying a license fee to either Novell or Microsoft. Novell and Microsoft have kept details of the deal a secret, but these details could incur costs for users. It is impossible to know what will happen.
I tell them that because of this ambiguity over the deal I no longer recommend Novell SuSE Linux as this could leave my clients in a legally questionable situation.
So I recommend Red Hat because they indemnify their users against legal harm and debian because their commitment to open source guarantees that any legally questionable code will be removed or replaced
It took very little convincing on my part to get the management to see the benefits of Ubuntu on the normal users desktops and we'll be doing a nearly-full rollout (some manager computers will remain windows) in a couple months.
The 'retraining' argument is mostly FUD as most computer users are familar enough with the desktop (any desktop) to use a "start" or "applications" menu. There's practically no difference from a user stand point between IE and Firefox and Word (pre-tabbed interface) is close enough to OpenOffice to not make much difference. Oh, and did I mention it makes my job and the manager's jobs easier by leaps and bounds due to the enormous configurability of linux? I can put exactly what the users need in the menus and lock down the machines so they can do only what they're supposed to do for their jobs. Sounds like someone is still in school and has never had a real job. Trust me, kid, when you get out into the real world your thinking is going to get much more realistic. Huh. Condescending and incorrect at the same time! Just because you don't have the sack to anti-up and try to improve the technological world around us, doesn't mean you should FUD-storm those of us with the will and determination to try.
Looks like you're the one that needs to 'grow up'.
Oh, my, where to begin?
First, why do you assume everyone in his business space has been using Windows successfully for over a decade?
Second, why do you assume that the "entire user base" must be retrained?
Third, why is it more realistic to stay with Windows than to switch to an alternative that offers a competitive advantage?
For the first, a few areas not dominated by Windows "for over a decade" would included computer animation (SGI Irix held that title 10 years ago), open source software development (Linux succeeded Unix, with no Windows era at all), and pretty much any embedded device (e.g., medical equipment - where the first Windows-powered cardiac stress tester was inflicted on me just last year, and it crashed after 30 minutes of jogging and breath-holding, forcing me to start the test over after the technicians did the three-fingered salute). Just because your business space has been Microsoft's profit center for over a decade doesn't mean that's been the reality for the rest of the universe.
For the second, major transitions in the market virtually never follow a "big bang" model. Windows replaced Unix in the engineering space over a period of at least 10 years - but in small steps, such that the engineers picked up their new skills in small batches and often by self-training. Same with desktop publishing (where Macs are still a potent force) and education (ditto). It's even true with Window's succeeding DOS in the general purpose business desktop space, where each Windows release (3.0, 3.1, 95, and 98) saw another fragment of the market switch. Thus, the retraining was very gradual and manageable. Why would a theoretical transition to Linux be any different?
For the third, Linux offers market advantage today in modest but growing markets. I'm very aware of this in my own job, where we've replaced several hundred Windows-based engineering desktops with Linux desktops because the 4 GB limit of 32-bit desktop Windows is inadequate for the applications, and only on Linux is a 64-bit version of the application available. The proposed Vista migration just makes this problem worse, as the OS consumes even more desperately needed RAM. As a side benefit, the new Linux computers are not bogged down with constant virus scanning, so the applications themselves run almost twice as fast on the same hardware - and that's a benefit upper management understands all too well. The success of this transition has led to proposals for transitions in other business areas - where it makes sense, and where a competitive advantage can be demonstrated.
And yes, I'm a 25+ year continuously employed veteran of the computer market, starting before IBM conquered the world with DOS. Would you care to compare "real job" credentials? ;-)
Linux replacing Windows in the business space is as much of a long shot today as Windows replacing Unix in the engineering space was in the early 1990's - yet the latter happened, incrementally but inexorably. I wouldn't bet my career against Linux if I were you - it's showing a remarkably similar pattern as previous successes such as (say) Windows itself.
Those "kids" you dissed today may well have the last laugh.
See, a lot of the people getting upset are the people who wrote the code. I think they're entitled to an opinion on the subject, and I don't really think you can dismiss them as zealots. I don't understand why they would be upset? They wrote the code and used a license that allowed this. Unless it is a problem where not as many people as we are led to believe are upset and all this FUD from zealots is lillte more then a campaign to get them upset. So far everything I have heard accused is the result of someone's imagination.I'm not sure Jerome Allison is a good source to be quoting on this. He has made a very stupid move in using the GPLv3 for a project that works with MS software. Not only are they directly liable now for any patents they might have been brought into the GPLv3 versions of Samba, they have opened themselves up to the possibility of MS changing their product licenses in a way that makes everyone a mini-novell which of course means the GPLv3 would stop them from distributing code licensed under the GPLv3. But Samba needs the MS software to test against so they will/could end up in a situation where they have to pack pedal, ignore the GPLv3 license or even wilt away into non-existence.
As for selling code, nothing in the GPL stops anyone from doing so. There are lots of people doing this right now. They presented the code as GPLed which would allow this to happen so why should anyone be outraged once it happens? And no, this isn't directly comparable to MS office Code. The two couldn't contrast differently. One is marketed in a closed way making you expect to have to pay for it. The other is marketed behind buzzwords like free and open source. It actively makes the claims that you can take it and make money from it, it actively makes claims that you can change it and use it outside the original context.
I don't think I need to explain which is which but I will says that you should represent something one way and then complain when it get used that way. If you don't like it, use a different license. And if you want to impload by shooting yourself i the foot during the process, fine. just don't complain when others aren't committing suicide alongside you and don't complain when they laugh at you later.
I'm wondering if Microsoft wants anything to be interoperable. We practically have to pull strings to get different version of MS Office to work with itself. XP and Vista have serious issues when sharing resources (such as printers). Vista network and audio step on each other for performance. These are just a few examples of Microsoft's own products.
Does anyone have a citation for this quote? There is no link to it from Groklaw. I searched Google for both the quote, and also for Justin Steinman to see if I could find it printed anywhere. I could not find anything. Other than Pamala Jones' I cannot find anyone elses reporting this statement. I do remember an article last week, but in it Mr Steinman does not say that Red Hat does not work with windows, only the Suse is reccomended by Microsoft. Saying he is dissing Red Hat is quite a jump from there.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
You seem to have replied to some post other than mine, but attached it to my post.
I said nothing about patent protection for Novell or its users.
I did say:
Are you saying that the interoperative software you speak of will not be part of the Novell Linux Distro? Or that it will not contain any code that users would need patent protection for using? If the interoperative software wasn't part of the distro or didn't use Microsoft owned patented techniques, why would the end users need patent protection.
I believe that the selling point of the deal is that the code will be available with the Novell distribution and that it will contain Microsoft patented techniques, thus requiring protection for Novell's users. I mean if it doesn't, then what is the point of the agreement?
The deal is ambiguous. It delivers unknown benefits and may or may not be extended beyond the original 5 year window. This ambiguity raises a cloud of uncertainty around the Novell Linux distro. It is better to avoid it than use it at this time.
The GPL is about as communist as:
"We The people"
or
"E Pluribus Unum"
Ever here of an old fashioned frontier barn raising?
Let's see about this "Windows just works" thing - yes, Windows apps are generally quite stable these days, and the system rarely bluescreens. However, on my 1 GB laptop with XP, running quite a few browser/office apps but nothing unusual, and fully patched as a corporate laptop, I have had the following issues
- have to forcibly reset the system every few weeks when it completely locks up - most recently this morning when I tried to do a standby and the whole system locked up
- install a new ATI driver to solve a bluescreen a few weeks ago - seems OK now, but I've never had a video driver crash on Linux
- on Saturday, found that every time I tried to run Windows Explorer, it crashed, taking down the main Explorer task bar - so I couldn't even browse filesystem to see what is wrong! Luckily I could work around this to discover that a particular copy protection DLL, which put itself in the temp directory, had been deleted by temp file cleanup, causing the crash. But why doesn't Explorer lock such DLLs? Of course, the copy protection DLL wouldn't be needed with open source apps, so this is something of an app bug.
- every few days I have to restart because Windows says 'insufficient memory to complete operation' - this is on a 1 GB box with a huge pagefile, and I'm only using 1.5-2 GB total! What on earth happened to virtual memory???
Meanwhile on my Ubuntu box, the admin is really zero now I'm using Feisty - my HP printer was discovered on the network by the HPLIP setup tool, and just worked. The only lockup I had was when Google's Picasa went mad and used 100% CPU, and even then I could kill it from an SSH login, so I didn't even need to restart X.
The point is that Windows does work, but it takes a huge amount of effort to keep it working, unless you have a very vanilla or locked-down system where you run only one or two apps and don't install third party software. Linux, and particularly Ubuntu or other distros with good package management, enables you to install a huge number of apps very easily *and they keep working*. My uptime on my Ubuntu box is regularly up in the months, but on my Windows box it's down to a few days, mostly due to the lockups.
BTW my Windows laptop above is behind a firewall but it isn't locked down fortunately. I'm sure a locked down Windows box is stable, but with Linux you can have a configurable, extensible system that can still be centrally administered for the core components and apps.
SuSE's whole 'we work better with Microsoft' is mostly marketing spin, and the Novell/Microsoft deal is incredibly dangerous. SuSE does apparently work well with MS networks, but so do some other distros, and there's nothing (apart from this sort of patent deal) preventing any distro picking up on SuSE's improvements.
Microsoft is not doing the Novell deal to help the Linux world - over time it will try to limit and encumber Linux with all sorts of required licenses, to control more and more of the Linux ecosystem.
Yes, Novell is presenting the main thrust of the Microsoft-Novell deal as being interoperability. But another way of stating the same thing is "embrace, extend, and extinguish". Microsoft has focused on competing with Open Source. In typical Microsoft fashion competing with Open Source means destroying Open Source. Part of Microsoft's attack on Open Source is that Microsoft paid Novell to participate in a plan to embrace, extend, and extinguish Open Source. Open Source is a producers co-operative and Novell is a member of that co-operative. If this attack succeeds in destroying the Open Source co-operative then Novell will end up in the position of having no product to sell.
Open Source has no choice but to defend itself against Microsoft's attack. In particular we have to defeat the Microsoft-Novell agreement. If Novell insists on hugging Microsoft then Novell runs the danger of becoming collateral damage in the war between Microsoft and Open Source.
Since Novell is being paid to help Microsoft embrace, extend, and extinguish Open Source then all of Novell's actions become suspect. Novell actively campaigned for OOXML in the fight between ODF and OOXML. Novell tried to get one of their employees appointed as head of standards at the Linux Foundation. Novell is actively introducing Microsoft proprietary standards into Open Source code in the Mono project and the Xen project. And there is the major problem that the Microsoft-Novell agreement is an attempt to use Microsoft's patent portfolio as a bludgeon to impose a Microsoft tax on all of the other distributions starting with Red Hat as the first intended victim.
Novell has contributed a lot to Open Source. But since the Microsoft-Novell agreement we are forced to view every Novell action through the lens of suspicion. As an example:
Novell has recently announced that a Novell employee will be paid to work full time on coordinating projects to write open source device drivers for Linux. On the face of it that is a great idea and a valuable contribution by Novell to Open Source. On the other hand the Microsoft astroturf gang made an effort about two years ago to promote the idea of writing Linux device drivers to Windows interface standards. That way the same driver could be used in both Windows and Linux. We ignored the idea.
So now we have to question Novell's motives in paying to support Open Source device driver projects. We cannot blindly trust Novell to be acting in Open Source's best interest instead of carrying out their embrace, extend, and extinguish obligations under the Microsoft-Novell agreement. Are they working on device drivers in a good faith effort to contribute to Open Source or are they trying to introduce device drivers written to Microsoft proprietary standards into the kernel?
----------------
Steve Stites
Please read Pamela Jones' referenced article. The quote you are asking about is taken from a netcast linked in the first paragraph in Pamela's article. The page with the link to the netcast is here, clicking on this link will launch the mp3 file with that netcast. Those same links are pasted in their respective orders below, in case any one needs to copy and paste:
http://www.peapodcast.com/msc-oss-sig/index.html#osssig-2007-09-26-18-00-48
http://www.peapodcast.com/msc-oss-sig/MTLC-MS-Novell-2007-09-26.mp3
One thing that I really liked about this netcast: At one point, one of the Microsoft guys makes a huge concession, without really realizing it, because he states it so much as a matter of fact, and so much as an after thought. He says something like, "yeah, most of the students coming out of university are trained on Linux. I was a computer science student, and so I appreciate how great it is to be able to see the source code."
As IBM said in its GNU Linux commercials, "the future is open."
Another interesting thing: one of the Microsoft guys says "We've got the largest Linux server farm west of the Rockies!" All of these quotes are summaries, not verbatim quotes. Listen for yourself if you want the exact quote.
And yet another interesting quote by one of the Microsoft guys. "We walk around talking to our engineers, and they say, 'open source is such a cool way to get feedback. No wonder developers like to work in an open source environment.' " Again, that is a summary. Please listen for yourself to get the exact quote.
People just want to start pointless arguments.
Who cares if Novell wants to run attack ads against Red Hat? Where does it say in OSS that companies built on it have to love each other?
If the ads don't help Novell's pocketbook, they'll go away. If they do help, a Linux company get more business and Linux gets into more shops. That's a plus for Linux. If the ads work, Red Hat will try to become more interoperable with Windows. That's also a plus for Linux.
At the moment, some companies running Linux and Windows want interoperability. Eventually they're going to see that it's a waste of time and money - i.e., that Windows is a waste of time and money - and they might as well switch to Linux entirely. Then the issue becomes moot - and Linux wins again.
The problem with PJ is that she's too much into the adversarial nature of law. Everything is a big moral issue and needs to be fought over.
Ignore all of this. It's a non-issue. Microsoft is still losing against Linux and will continue to do so for the next ten or fifteen years until there is no Microsoft.
Relax and enjoy the show.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!