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."

66 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Ah. I see. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh, well, that just makes it all better now, doesn't it? Miguel says he's sorry, guys. Will you forgive him?

  2. Miguel by z80kid · · Score: 2, Funny

    .. who?

    1. Re:Miguel by calebt3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Miguel "OOXML is a great standard" De Icaza

  3. Not slashdottish by El+Lobo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That's the kind of things people cannot understand on /. Here you are always "there" or always "here". You are always black or always white. There cannot be middle tones.

    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!!
    1. Re:Not slashdottish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't about someone who's neutral to the whole Microsoft/Linux thing. This is about a guy who has consistently attempted to push Microsoft-controlled technologies into the core of the Linux desktop. Anyone who's been around for the past 10-20 years knows that Microsoft has a really bad habit of perverting standards to screw competitors in the most unethical way imaginable. Miguel's insistence on pushing .NET and OOXML has been at best confusing, and at worst damn suspicious.

      And now, after years of being abused for this, he's putting the icing on the cake of making an ass of himself by finally admitting that, yes, it really is a damn stupid idea.

    2. Re:Not slashdottish by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Funny

      This isn't about someone who's neutral to the whole Microsoft/Linux thing That's okay, neither is he.
    3. Re:Not slashdottish by Foofoobar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The parent implied as 'popularity contest'. But if you doubt a crusade against open source technologies with comments by microsoft such as 'cancer' and 'communism' then you are very naive sir. If a pattern exists and continues to persist, all likelihood points to the pattern being repeated again.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Not slashdottish by dan_bethe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's the kind of things people cannot understand on /. Here you are always "there" or always "here". You are always black or always white. There cannot be middle tones.

      Do you realize that you just stated a polarized viewpoint of a polarized viewpoint? You took a web site full of participants of every background and perspective, and reduced them to a single characteristic -- that of bipolarity.

      [ponders carefully with an analytic memory, having been a long time slashdotter] ...Seriously, everyone does that. :/

    5. Re:Not slashdottish by Amtiskaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seems to me his comments relate specifically to Novell's patent deal with Microsoft, not his efforts to produce free software implementations of Microsoft's stuff.

      I'm always disappointed when I see the abuse heaped on de Icaza by the Slashdot crowd, simply because he doesn't quite hate Microsoft enough. The guy has spent years developing free applications, and has likely written ten times more open source code than his detractors will ever produce. If you actually read his opinions or listen to him speak, it's clear that he is committed to the ideals of free software, he just doesn't buy into the whole partisan "micro$oft sux!" attitude. I wish people would get some perspective on this issue and learn that you can disagree with someone in an informed manner without resorting to childish name-calling. That kind of behavior reflects far worse on the abusers, and confirms the wider perception of Slashdot geeks as childish and belligerent fundamentalists.

      Microsoft's dominance is a fact, we (e.g. the free software community) may not like it, but we have to deal with it. De Icaza's stance is that people will use .NET and Silverlight regardless of whether they are available for Linux or not. If they're not available then it is Linux that will suffer, as it will not be able to offer as rich a user experience as Windows. So he has undertaken the job of helping produce compatible open source implementations for Linux (and other OS's). I don't imagine many people have a problem with this in concept. It's no different from what the Wine project is doing, and they don't seem to get keelhauled for being Microsoft shills every time they are mentioned on Slashdot.

      His more controversial stance is that suggesting that the Microsoft technologies like .NET, Silverlight and OOXML are actually quite good, and that free software developers should make use of them to develop software, instead of just seeing them as a way to help migration away from Windows. This I have difficulty with. I support open standards, and while parts .NET are standardised, their development is hardly open in the way say HTML or C++ is open. But in truth, the free software community has failed to provide a real alternative to technologies like .NET or Silverlight. For example, where is the open standard alternative to Flash and Silverlight? Sure, a combination of SVG, JavaScript and a few other things might get you a similar level of functionality, but the end-to-end ecosystem of a coalesced product, browser plug-ins, developer tools, examples and learning material just isn't there, despite the community having had years to produce it.

      Ultimately, it isn't good enough to say to users and developers, you can choose between great proprietary solutions and mediocre open ones. Free software needs to be as good as or better than non-free software if it is to succeed. If it isn't, then most people will inevitably choose the proprietary solutions and free software developers will have to clone them to keep up. So if people don't agree with Miguel de Icaza, then maybe they should concentrate less on attacking him and more on producing great open solutions that will blow Microsoft and everyone else's out of the water.

    6. Re:Not slashdottish by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is simple, Gnome people will get rid of Mono requiring stuff (if there are) , openly say "We have nothing to do with Icaza", openly stand up against OOXML.

      They don't do these. Can you blame people? It is up to me to choose which desktop environment to use. I see KDE lot more neutral, professionally coded, nobody blogs how great OOXML is, nothing requires Mono and especially on Gnome case, doesn't bitch amateurly about the OS I use (OS X) and its filesystem down to bugzillas. So I type install bundle-kde instead of bundle-gnome on my OS X.

      Novell is dead once they stopped being rival/alternative to MS. RIP for a long time. They took that great distro with them too. I know people who ordered Suse Linux CD from 5000 kilometres away before broadband age because they loved it. Now why should they choose Suse? Not to get sued by MS?

  4. The crossroads by davejenkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    deal with the devil, and you'll be rich-- but you'll lose your soul. Tell Robert Johnson hello, Miguel.

    1. Re:The crossroads by dhasenan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, C#'s pretty good, too.

    2. Re:The crossroads by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 2, Funny

      Although an unusual tone for a blues song.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    3. Re:The crossroads by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2, Funny

      How can something which doesn't exist be ironic?

  5. Poor judgement by bitserf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Poor judgement by Unoti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe what he's trying to accomplish is saying what he's thinking. Perhaps he's not a corporate drone that values the "good of the company" above truth.

    2. Re:Poor judgement by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People at Microsoft that spun the deal are grinning ear-to-ear right now... he's making them very happy! Microsoft successfully "collared" a once 100% closed source company from embracing open source business and they gave them enough money to buy the second most successful Linux vendor and "collar" them too.

      He just realized what slashdot "jerks" were saying from the start. Any Novell open source is "fruit of the poisoned tree" to the community. Even previously open projects they worked on like samba were in serious trouble of being hijacked by MS IP. (note how MS tried to hijack them in the EU settlement after trying to pay off Novell failed) Novell can only "share" stuff like Moonlight and Mono with other COMPANIES that have Cross-license agreements with MS... SCO, Apple, IBM, etc. Even if they write stuff from scratch (they're not covered for copying MS technology either!!) it's always considered "poisoned" because nobody outside Novell can prove that MS IP wasn't looked at to develop the tech. (That's what SCO started suing IBM for at the beginning) The agreement they signed didn't allow them to DEVELOP technology WITH Microsoft, only not to have their customer sued for using the products Novell provided. He's realizing that's a BIG difference to what he was selling when telling every body the deal was so great.

      In short the suits "above" him knew this up front, what the deal really meet and they took the money anyway. He's the only person "surprised" by this.

    3. Re:Poor judgement by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I don't think the ship has sailed, as you say. We (I say that with trepidation) talked about MS slowly going down the drain some months ago. Even the MS haters didn't want to hear that kind of thing said. The trouble is that MS has been consistently doing things ever since that will help push them down the drain. It matters not how you look at MS these days, they are not doing so well. It's very difficult to keep going once you hit the top of the heap - The only direction is down in all directions. They can't buy Google or Yahoo. MSN is toast. It's just not looking good.

      To say that this is the beginning is not inappropriate. The beginning of a world where MS does not have a stranglehold on all things related to computing. It may have cost Novell quite a bit to figure it out, but they did, and in admitting as much they set an example for others to use in deciding their own personal courses.

      Lately, more and more people are taking up some variant of GNU/Linux and writing off any investment they have in MS only software that won't run under Wine. I feel confident enough to say that we'll see more business/countries/education systems/people saying good bye to MS forever... or at least until they who will remain in Redmond decide to create something worth switching back for.

    4. Re:Poor judgement by msuzio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You cannot be a corporate officer of a publicly held company and do that. That will get you sued by investors. You don't need to be a corporate drone to understand that you have to be circumspect and held to a higher standard once you're a VP. If you can't learn when to STFU, don't take a job that is going to involve that.

    5. Re:Poor judgement by jhoger · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course, anything can get you sued. It requires no action on your part other than existence. The bar is pretty damn low.

      Do you have any examples of where a company has been sued because one member of the management team stated a prefaced, personal opinion contrary to the corporate strategic decision?

      Yes he has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders and the corporation. But a personal opinion is unlikely to become a legal issue as long as he handles it right and the board is OK with it.

      (IANAL)

      -- John.

  6. Re:Ah. I see. by harry666t · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, sure

  7. Web 2.0 eh? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First .NET, now Web 2.0 (I hate that phrase). He knows a bandwagon when he sees one.

    But I still fail to see how Web 2.0 will make an operating system irrelevant. The browser has to run on something. The server has to run on something too. And with the talk about "local web 2.0 apps", they might even be the same machine. Then you'll really need a good OS to schedule and mediate the needless and vast layers of extra complexity.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:Web 2.0 eh? by mhall119 · · Score: 3, Funny

      So it all finally comes back to Java then?

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    2. Re:Web 2.0 eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its virtual servers all the way down...

    3. Re:Web 2.0 eh? by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Funny

      But I still fail to see how Web 2.0 will make an operating system irrelevant. The browser has to run on something.

      No, it's web browsers all the way down.

    4. Re:Web 2.0 eh? by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think he means this in the same way that Marc Andreessen meant it back in ~1996 or so when he talked about making the Browser as the new platform. In same ways, the way Java is a platform, and makes the OS "irrelavent". Essentially, all of them see Web Applications as the destroyer of coupling and vendor lock-in (well at least to Vendor desktop software, you'll be just as locked in to the Web 2.0 applications if they have your data, and won't let you share or mix and match). The thought being that, as long as the OS/platform has a decent Web Browser, it doesn't matter if it's Linux, FreeBSD, QNX, Windows XP/Vista, or MacOS. The experience you have with Google Mail is mostly derived from the quality of the browser implementation of specific technologies, and Google's ability to deal with the sub-standard aspects of that implementation across browers. It's pretty much identical to me on my Windows machine, on my Linux machine, or my MacOS machine. Thus the OS is irrelevant.

      I'm not sure I believe in the mindset of these folks. They are moving off into a land of even less reliable, less robust, and less secure. However, having control of the central server, and only being dependent upon the browser and less dependent upon DLL's upon a remote machine is interesting. However, I'm not convinced that in the long run it'll be a viable solution. I really like owning my data. I really like having it all work off line. I know work is being done in those areas, it'll definitely be interesting.

      Again, the point of this isn't the the Operating system will be less useful, or necessary. It is just that any good user agent will get you access to enough "applications" that are good enough, it won't matter what Operating System you run. Any "native" OS applications that aren't browsers could just as easily be replaced with Web 2.0 applications, and move along with life.

      Not that I agree with any of it, it's merely my explaination of the perspective I think those folks are bringing to the problem.

      Kirby

    5. Re:Web 2.0 eh? by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Web 2.0 eh? by msuzio · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I remember when Marc and some other bigwigs demoed their initial vision for Netscape 4.0 to a firm I was with in 1996 (maybe they just called it "Communicator", I don't remember the exact package we were being sold on). It looked like a complete desktop environment, the browser went full-screen and suddenly widgets were flying all over and we were pretty much being shown a WebOS.

      I have never seen an audience so under-whelmed and outright scared. They just could not deal with the notion that Netscape was proposing that the OS was irrelevant. "But... but... where's my Windows desktop?".

      They left essentially being told "no, please don't work on this -- we wouldn't want it". I had the strange feeling they heard that a lot, and whatever this concept was it died pretty stillborn. The version of Communicator they finally came out with was far far less ambitious than the demo I saw that day.

    7. Re:Web 2.0 eh? by Mex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    8. Re:Web 2.0 eh? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      If you don't get the point, why are you on Slashdot? You are using a "web application" right now.

      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?

      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!
  8. Owned? by snl2587 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... it's going to be owning end users.

    Just as long as they don't whip me and make me pick cotton...

    1. Re:Owned? by jscalbny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

  9. Re:Ah. I see. by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let he who has never used proprietary software cast the first stone.

  10. Re:Ah. I see. by Applekid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Forgiveness? Pfft. In this day in age, you know how long it took for me to find this pitchfork?

    Next time, *I* get the torch.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  11. GNOME going in too many directions by lotzmana · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To me de Icaza was always the leading technologist of GNOME. Sadly he went into a direction that contributed to the loss of focus of what GNOME is. With indemnification or not, many of the main contributors to GNOME will not include anything that uses Mono.

    Sun for certain will not work with a direct competitor to Java. Red Hat will rightfully avoid including something that requires them to go in bed with Microsoft over patents.

    Linux kernel development shows that big free software projects need both enthusiast but also corporate contributors. So GNOME, not unlike the kernel, garnered support by companies like Sun, but also countless small guy contributors. With Mono de Icaza put powerful centrifugal forces that work against GNOME.

    just my .02$

  12. sigh by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He also said that neither Windows nor Linux are relevant in the long term, thanks to Web 2.0 business models
    web 2.0 is fine and all but I suspect that in the long term you're still going to need an OS to do the work required to access web 2.0 in the first place. Then there's the fact that everything based on web 2.0 will not function without a connection and that is a critical flaw. web 2.0 is *not* a replacement, it is complementary.
    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  13. No by sjwest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You speak the truth. Novell is the one that is moving towards irrelevancy. It's deal with Microsoft is meaningless. Microsoft won't dare sue anyone over its patents, particularly as the EU looks for any excuse to truly do the company massive damage.

      Other than Evolution, is there any reason at all to give a damn about Novell? And if some of Microsoft's protocols do finally see the light of day, I'm sure the FOSS community will be able to come up with some groupware clients.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:No by cloakable · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about Evolution. Given that it's in maintenance mode now, and apparently will be for the rest of it's lifetime, I can see Evolution stopping maturing, and starting aging, very quickly. I've been unable to hook it directly to a Kolab server, for example.

      To be fair, about the only things I've seen that can hook directly to Kolab are Kontact and Horde, though. But still, Kolab works extremely well for me as a personal Exchange replacement.

      --
      No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
    3. Re:No by Your.Master · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Novell actually makes money off of the deal. Why wouldn't they do it?

    4. Re:No by leenks · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pretty much the whole compute facility runs open source operating systems.

    5. Re:No by vic-traill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Novell is the one that is moving towards irrelevancy

      I can't touch base with this. Novell's death watch has been on so long it reminds me of 'imminent death of net predicated' Metcalfe-style comments. Novell's 2007 fourth quarter results (Note: PDF) reported a net income of $245 million, around $10 million more than the same quarter the year before.

      No juggernaut, but Yahoo Finance reports a market cap of $USD 2.19 billion.

      Gone are the giddyup days when Novell owned the NOS market, but Novell keeps on cranking out software products for a remarkably loyal user base. When you contrast Novell's braindead marketing with Microsoft's predatory marketing machine, it's amazing Novell is even alive, let alone a stable, profit-generating company.

      e-Directory is a mature, scalable and stable enterprise directory product. The ZEN family of products is pretty cool. They've almost finished up removing e-Directory dependencies from their apps line in favour of full-feature LDAP interfaces, and they still sell enough Groupwise licenses - but I'll give you than one, because there is no excuse for that.

      Netware is dead, but they know it, and they've got two solutions for replacement (OES2 and SLES), but their apps line isn't even tied to those solutions. So they've got a bit of coming and going there.

      I think Novell hasn't done badly, given Microsoft's outright attempts to fsck them (most recently screwing their desktop management product line via Vista). *Plus*, they've held the line on SCO, even if they didn't know what they were doing at the time and it was all an accident, which is all quite possible.

      Their great blemish in this community is the deal with the MS devil, and I can't find anything good about that, although, as other posters have noted, the bean-counters probably have a different view on that, to wit the cash.

      Our view of Novell on /. - which I share in spirit and some of the details - doesn't mean they're going away anytime soon. My 2 cents worth, anyway ...YMMV.

      --
      [17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
  14. Career paths by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I will assume that Microsoft told Miguel once and for all that they weren't going to hire him, so he decided to quit sucking up to them.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  15. Re:Linux not relevant? by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  16. Re:Ah. I see. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let he who has never used proprietary software cast the first stone. How about he who does not use any proprietary software now? /me takes aim at a soft spot
    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  17. Re:Google? No way. by bendodge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    GMail, Picasa, Google Earth and Sketchup all work. Yeah, they've got a lot of garbage apps, but there are a few gems.

    --
    The government can't save you.
  18. Web 2.0 can only cover a small portion of apps by JSBiff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  19. Linux matters by nguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  20. Exactly! by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What, exactly, would a Web 2.0 3D solid-modeling CAD program be?

    Probably, the closest thing I can think of is something like mfg.com -- and that's a Web 2.0-ish business that interacts with a program like a Solidworks and the people using it -- not something that tries to replace it.

    It'd be unnecessary and a little silly to run a CAD program on that scale in a browser, and it's boggling to me that de Icaza doesn't seem to see that.

  21. Re:Ah. I see. by Eric+Pierce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  22. Re:Ah. I see. by Jason+Earl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  23. Re:Ah. I see. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  24. Re:Ah. I see. Ahhhh, will those stones be by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whetstones? Drystones? Gelatenous Cajones stones? Can these stones break windows?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  25. Re:I don't get it by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.
  26. Irrelevant != unnecessary by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    web 2.0 is fine and all but I suspect that in the long term you're still going to need an OS to do the work required to access web 2.0 in the first place.


    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.)

    Then there's the fact that everything based on web 2.0 will not function without a connection and that is a critical flaw.


    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.

  27. Novell, sure. Miguel? Not in this lifetime, by trolltalk.com · · Score: 5, Informative

    He also said that neither Windows nor Linux are relevant in the long term, thanks to Web 2.0 business models

    And Miguel De Icaza hasn't been relevant for __DIETY__ knows how long. The original microsoftie wannabe shill-boy.

  28. Still missed the boat by mortonda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  29. Re:Ah. I see. by Znork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  30. Lando Calrissian . . . by matt_hs · · Score: 2, Funny

    . . . regretted his deal with the Empire too . . .

  31. Re:Ah. I see. by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

    It can say it but it'd be lying; with GPLv3 the pact becomes worthless.

    Only for the patents used by those projects that have adopted the GPLv3.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  32. Beer Goggles by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 3, Funny

    Taken from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_goggles

    "Beer goggles is a slang term for a phenomenon in which consumption of alcohol lowers sexual inhibitions to the point that very little or no discretion is used when approaching or choosing sexual partners.[citation needed] The term is often humorously applied when an individual is observed making advances towards, later regretting sexual contact with, a partner that is deemed unattractive, unacceptably scandalous, or repulsive when the prospect of sex is considered while sober. The "beer goggles" are considered to have distorted the "wearer's" vision, making unattractive people appear beautiful, or at least passably attractive. Beer goggles are also known as "Stellavision", "Beerglasses" and "The Cider Visor"

    Modified slightly

    "Patent Indemnification is a term for a phenomenon in which promise of immunity from lawsuit lowers corporate inhibitions to the point that very little or no discretion is used when approaching or choosing corporate partners.The term is often applied when a corporation is observed making advances towards, later regretting contact with, a partner that is deemed unattractive, unacceptably scandalous, or repulsive when the prospect of partnership is considered while sober. Patent indemnification is considered to have distorted the company's vision, making unattractive corporation appear beautiful, or at least passably attractive."

    It really sounds like he's regretting a one-night stand.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  33. Re:Ah. I see. by sconeu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I see.

    So I should quit my job because they use MS Windows as their platform?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  34. Re:Ah. I see. by Bananenrepublik · · Score: 4, Informative

    Novell can say that it has the solution.

    It can say it but it'd be lying; with GPLv3 the pact becomes worthless. You may want to check the facts again. The GPLv3 explicitly didn't include provisions that apply retroactively, as would be the case in the Novell patent agreement. The GPLv3 authors did so because of this agreement.
  35. Re:Ah. I see. by DarkProphet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh, well, that just makes it all better now, doesn't it? Miguel says he's sorry, guys. Will you forgive him?
    <Engage flame retardant vestments of the pious>
    No. I swear this idiot thinks he is the next Linus or something. He has made one stupid decision after another in regards to Microsoft and pseudo-MS technology, and now its biting him in the ass. His stupid mistakes are the reason I can no longer run SuSE in good conscience. I hope MS ends up shoving it up his ass and Novell takes a hit for their trouble. Thats what they get for screwing up my fave Linux Distro.

    OTOH, if it wasn't for their collective ignorance, I'd have never discovered Kubuntu, which totally rocks. So, thanks Miguel for being a sellout. You have been assimilated and I have been freed. Have a nice day.

    --
    What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
  36. Re:They have nothing. by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  37. Re:Ah. I see. by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You really think Novell hiring Icaza right before/after MS deal is a co-incidence? If there is one day I will defend Novell is this day. He is acting very dirty now even more dirtier than the day he started Mono. "Forgive me guys, those evil Novell guys gave the orders, I have nothing to do with it".

    He owes a great apology to Gnome people, Mono developers, soon Silverlight developers and the original, real Suse people.