Slashdot Mirror
De Icaza Regrets Novell/Microsoft Pact
Ian Lamont writes "Novell Vice President and GNOME architect Miguel de Icaza sounded off at a MIX 08 panel on a number of topics. First, he claimed that he was 'not happy' with Novell's cross-patent licensing agreement with Microsoft, saying that if he had his way, the company would have stayed with the open-source community. He also said that neither Windows nor Linux are relevant in the long term, thanks to Web 2.0 business models: 'They might be fantastic products ... but Google has shown itself to be a cash cow. There is a feature beyond selling corporate [software] and patents ... it's going to be owning end users.' He also tangled with Mike Schroepfer, a Mozilla engineering executive, about extending patent protection for Moonlight to third parties. However, de Icaza did say that Novell has 'done the best it could to balance open-source interests with patent indemnification.' We discussed the beginnings of the deal between Microsoft and Novell back in 2006."
Fortunatly there is a worls out there and there are people like Miguel and a lot others that are human (and not Stallbots) and are somewhere in the middle, can make mistakes, can change their minds and are not so afraid of being politically correct in the eyes of the "community" (oh, what a horrible word).
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
deal with the devil, and you'll be rich-- but you'll lose your soul. Tell Robert Johnson hello, Miguel.
davejenkins.com |
Not sure what he's trying to achieve by saying this.
To people in the OSS camp, this will seem like too little, too late. That ship has already sailed.
To people in Redmond, this isn't exactly inspiring confidence in the reliability of Novell as a partner, and he's bashing their partnership at their own conference, no less.
And the people "above his paygrade" are probably not going to be too happy with him either.
Miguel "OOXML is a great standard" De Icaza
Oh dear - permit me to laugh at Miguel for having the last laugh on him and his 'company'.
Yes Gnome is ok, the ooxml feature in the pipe line well thats a mistake but you got to keep Ron (thats his ceo) sweet don't you
Google is open source. If google had to pay microsoft licensing ms would not sell them to Google. So I submit that Novell isn't relevant and if we take his word that the patent fud has not improved that much Novells prospects then the problem lies in the boardroom at Novell.
Miguel please do look forward to becoming a microsoft employee.
He also said that neither Windows nor Linux are relevant in the long term, thanks to Web 2.0 business models: 'They might be fantastic products ... but Google has shown itself to be a cash cow.
Try running your browser without an operating system! This is why nerds make fun of MBA PHBs, even nerdy PHBs. "Market share" is irrelevent, ESPECIALLY when you're talking about something that can be given away freely.
Money is just a tool, not unlike Windows or Linux. Some people worship their tools, the rest of us construct them.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
What, exactly, would a Web 2.0 3D solid-modeling CAD program be? Or Web 2.0 3D games? Web 2.0 Medical imaging systems?
People who say operating systems are irrelevant because of the web immediately go into the "non-credible tech pundit" bin for me, because they've already shown, by that statement, that they *don't get it*. There are *many* applications we use computers for, which would not be good fits for the "Web 2.0" model. Sure, basic data storage and retrieval apps (documents, databases) can be made "Web 2.0" applications. But what is a Web 2.0 media player (the closest you get is something like Flash or Silverlight/Moonlight, and those are basically native Apps that display their output embedded in the browser window).
Well, not to mention that true web "applications" suck ass. Why would I run a browser that opens a file on my computer which loads an application in a VM sandbox... why? What's the point? And talk about lock-in.. why would I want my personal data on some else's server, only able to retrieve it at thier whim? It's not like we even have reliable internet connections.
This whole "desktop will be irrlevent" is stupid. We were there, did that, it sucked on a LAN, I can't see how it wouldn't suck more on the internet.
Linux matters, because if Microsoft had succeeded in taking over the server market, all those startups wouldn't have happened. Google wouldn't have happened.
And the reason why people are moving to Web 2.0 is not because the technology is necessarily better than doing stuff on the desktop, it's because Microsoft's desktop dominance has caused the desktop to stagnate and their monopolistic practices have kept innovators out of the market (it's also because Sun screwed up the one promising alternative model).
We still need Linux to run all those servers. We need Linux to run handheld devices. We need Linux for scientific workstations. And we need Linux for Web 2.0 desktops, desktops that provide standards compliant browsers, RSS software, HTML editors, E-mail clients, backup, P2P, etc. at a combined hardware+software cost lower than a Microsoft Vista license.
People are allowed to change their mind. I still haven't gotten over all of the contributions of Miguel's to open source/society to have ever considered holding a grudge on the guy.
Eric
Google = free search service therefore advertising revenues are appropriate and I have no objection
My operating system = paid in full, therefore it is an affront to charge me again through advertising
My software = paid in full, therefore it is an affront to charge me again through advertising
What the Web2.0 sheeple seem to believe is that it is perfectly alright to extend double-dipping as a standard business practice even further than it already has become. When an OSS fellow such as this actually has internalized this assumption to the point that he is referring to "owning" a product's users, I do believe it is past time to say "enough is enough" and "shove it".
Icaza was, at one point, an innovator and strong proponent of open source. In this one statement he reveals himself absolutely no different than the supposed "boogeymen" of proprietary software makers and patent trolls... if anything it betrays a sentiment towards a business model that is insidiously more rapaciously greedy.
It is hard to make a reasonable case about OSS being about freedom when he is sitting there referring to owning those that OSS was ostensibly supposed to liberate, is it not?
Actually Microsoft paid Novell the $350 million dollars. Which is why Novell isn't interested in backing out of the deal.
In other words, Microsoft was willing to pay Novell $350 million dollars to put a cloud over Linux and Free Software. Novell, in return has to pay a token amount for each commercial distribution sold. Novell is as happy as can be with the situation. After all, Novell can tell its customers that it has taken care of the Microsoft patent issue. So when Microsoft starts talking trash about Free Software and patents Novell can say that it has the solution.
The real problem is that Novell relies on a lot of hackers that aren't part of Novell, and that, in many cases, actually compete against Novell. Now Novell has a deal with Microsoft that makes it look dangerous to purchase your Free Software from anyone but Novell, and that doesn't make these third party hackers happy.
Make no mistake, Novell made out like a bandit. It received well over a quarter of a billion dollars in cash, it became the "preferred Linux vendor" for Microsoft's sales associates, and SuSE Linux is now differentiated from all of the other Linux vendors because Novell has a patent deal with Microsoft. This differentiation has allowed Novell to snag some big clients that almost certainly would have gone with Red Hat otherwise. Novell doesn't have even a tiny bit of buyer's remorse. Novell just wants to be able to keep the Microsoft deal and not lose the trust of the Free Software community that it relies on for more Free Software.
You always have the *choice* not to use proprietary software, using proprietary software is always *voluntary*. Whether their are alternatives with similar functionality is beside the point and has nothing to do with the use of force or volition.
\u262D = \u5350
"Hey look, it's taxpayer's money! Let's spend it on Microsoft licenses! Yay for Us!"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
De Icaza didn't say that the OS would become unnecessary, only irrelevant, by which he clearly meant that it would become a commodity without the power to lock people in. If the OS you are running makes no different to your apps (which is ideally the case with "Web 2.0" apps, but not really all that much the case given that many "Web 2.0" apps require not only a standards-compliant browser but also require support infrastructure whose availability, quality, and behavior is not consistent across different OS's.)
How critical that flaw is depends on how ubiquitous connectivity is; anyhow, "web 2.0" apps that can operate in an "offline" mode are a big focus and something de Icaza was no doubt considering in making the statement.
Saying that MS and Linux are irrelevant because Google and web 2.0 are the thing is missing the boat just as bad.
The real issue is freedom - people want to be able to use software without being treated like criminals. Get rid of cd keys, license terms, eulas, and stop suing your customers!!!
This is where Google has been getting it right so far.... they don't treat their user base as if they are adversaries. It's not so much about the technology as the presentation - any of these technologies *could* get the job done; what people want is the solution with the least hassle, the most dependability, and where they trust the vendor to not screw them over. MS and Novell have both sunk themselves in this regard.
Novell can say that it has the solution.
It can say it but it'd be lying; with GPLv3 the pact becomes worthless.
This differentiation has allowed Novell to snag some big clients that almost certainly would have gone with Red Hat otherwise.
It probably lost them quite a few too. And those who'd been dubious about SuSE's not-quite-free history but warmed up to Novell most likely placed SuSE straight back in the don't-touch-with-a-ten-feet-pole pile.
I'd say the deal has lost them any trust the free software community had. Any code coming out of Novell is now suspect; potentially patent encumbered and possibly intended as a trap. Novell now has a monetary interest in poisoning the community software pool; thats reason enough to distrust anything they say or do.
"Do you really think the average user feels comfortable storing, say, bank information online?"
From my personal experience? Oh yes. Also, nude pictures of themselves, photos of their marihuana stash, and all manner of things that should really be kept private.
If you don't get the point, why are you on Slashdot? You are using a "web application" right now.
We're working on it.
Now that that's out of the way, the few reasons I can think of not wanting something on the Web all have to do with performance -- real performance, not simply UI latency. Which means you're down to things like games, music and video editing, and graphic design. Wait, nevermind, graphic design is almost done -- so that leaves games and music/video editing.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Don't play stupid, Twitter -- you damn well know I'm talking about the Linux kernel (along with other, less important, projects that are still licensed under GPLv2 without the "or later" clause -- which do exist, I'm sure). And you also damn well know that the GNU toolchain can perfectly well be used to build non-GPLv3 (and even proprietary) applications. Output isn't covered by the GPL unless the program puts it's own code into it (and Bison has an exception for that), glibc is LGPL rather than GPL, etc. Speaking of which, gnu.org's glibc manual still even lists LGPLv2 (not v3) as the license! (I realize it's the COPYING file in the actual source that matters, but I don't have current glibc source available right now and don't feel like bothering to download it to check.)
In other words, I've been around here on Slashdot long enough to know how you can be rather zealous (to put it politely) in your Free Software advocacy, and that means that I can see through your bullshit. But don't misunderstand me: I'm just as big an advocate as you are, and I understand these licensing issues at least as well as you do. I just realize that spreading FUD isn't helpful to the cause, and I look forward to the day that you realize it too.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz