Microsoft-Novell Relationship Hits the Skids
Anonymous writes "According to Channelweb, the bloom might be off the rose in the Novell-Microsoft relationship: the two companies didn't sign a single, solitary large customer to a Novell Linux deal during the most recent quarter. 'So Novell, one of the biggest Linux distributors in the world, and Microsoft, one of the biggest companies in world history, couldn't find a single large customer on Planet Earth to buy into Novell's Suse Linux Enterprise Server software. Novell CEO Ron Hovsepian has stepped up and, rather than point fingers at Microsoft for that performance, put the blame on his company and its inability to strengthen its reseller channel.'"
Who buys Linux in an economy like this?
And I'm sure that all the hiring-freezes, paycuts, forced unpaid furloughs, capital freezes, capital audits, travel restrictions, quarter-by-quarter purchase order approval budget oversight procedures, executive-authorization-required-for-new-staplers, and restructurings that we see in most of the Fortune 1000 have nothing to do with this.
[
Really, Novell doesn't do marketing. They had the most reliable server OS for connecting windows boxes, and Microsoft came and ate their lunch with an inferior (and more expensive) product. Did someone really expect that all of a sudden, Novell would discover the secret to marketing and manage to sell something? Even after striking a deal with Microsoft, they still need to be able to sell their own product - or at least make it look like they are selling their own product.
Being as they won't likely be able to get (many of) the former Novell shops back to NetWare, if they are planning to revive their company by selling Linux, their goose is cooked.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Novell has been clue-less since Version 3.x - If it wasn't for all the old Novell-Fanboys in the world, they would have been belly-up years ago. Not that they HAD bad products - quite the contrary - they just couldn't sell anything to save their soul...
That's quite a violent approach to the problem. Invalidate all software patents? I don't think Apple would approve, as that would be the end of their business.
How do you figure? Half of Apple's revenue is from their PC business where their largest differentiator is OS X, protected more by copyright than patents. Then there is their iPod business, where hardware patents are the major protection. Between hardware patents, copyright, and trademark protections, I don't see Apple being in much trouble if software patents are invalidated... even if it went to extremes and included UI's that include a mix of hardware and software, ala multi-touch.
But you really meant invalidate all of MSFT's right?
Why would you make such an assumption? That's not at all what he said, nor does it even make sense.
Novel needs to pull their collective heads out of their asses if they want to live on...They haven't done a bit of successful advertising since the 2000 superbowl, and that is questionable! They just don't seem to understand the fact that you need to have your shit in front of people in order to get them to buy it. Then they canceled Brain Share, that was the only place anyone ever gets the scoop on what they are doing. Damn! Why are they so stupid?!?
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
I have made sure that no one I know buys Suse as long as Novell has that stupid partnership with Microsoft. If they renounce it, tear up their contract and dance a jig, I might take them back. Til then, I run RedHat, Debian and Ubuntu. No need for any of the crap Novell is peddling.
I'll play some nice slow Irish songs about people drowning on a ferry for Novell, but I won't give them one thin dime. They're whores, and not the good kind.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
> 'So Novell, one of the biggest Linux
> distributors in the world, and Microsoft, one of
> the biggest companies in world history, couldn't
> find a single large customer on Planet Earth to
> buy into Novell's Suse Linux Enterprise Server
> software.
Why can't you simply cut and paste instead of putting your own lying slant on things?
You Imply Novell never signed any SLES customers, which is not true.
The actual article stated:
"During the first quarter of fiscal 2009, we did not sign any large deals, many of which have been historically fulfilled by SUSE Linux Enterprise Server ("SLES") certificates delivered through Microsoft."
So Microsoft didn't even try to sell these certificates for SLES. Novell still sold SLES, probably to the very same customers that send Microsoft packing.
How hard do you suppose Microsoft tried to sell these certificates?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
CEO Ron Hovsepian is right; the buck stops with Novell. They're to blame. Not because their retail channel needs to be tweaked. But rather, they got in to bed with Microsoft! I mean, c'mon. Your hedging your bets on a technology that your partner is busy trying to bury. Yeah, sure... Microsoft is trying to help make Windows and Linux work together. Meanwhile, Microsoft's CEO is discussing Linux and so-called IP law like Eddy Izzard discussing the mortality of Englebert Humperdink. And Novell wants people to pay for the privilege of getting in to the middle of that?
Over the past few years, I've purchased licenses for Windows, Solaris, and Linux. Not once during these procurements did the name "Novell" come to mind.
1. IBM ("We pretend to support open source but ...
I'd say playing "mill of the gods" and grinding SCO exceedingly fine constitutes more than just "pretend" support for open source.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Anybody have any figures for how Red Hat (and Canonical) are doing?
Another issue is the core of the Novell-MS partnership: interoperability. AFAIK, that part is working well.
Not so much.
The last time I played with SLES/SLED was about a year ago, and interoperability was not hugely better than any other generic Linux. They just don't have the manpower now to rewrite core stuff themselves. They do have a nice distro with well chosen components, and a default desktop that is very "Windows-Like", which is nice. They even had the start-bar at the bottom!
However, in the environment where I worked, it all broke down in testing. For example, joining a domain was painful, broken, and flat out didn't work in my client's environment (multi-domain, multi-forest, with users and machines all over the place). It could talk to one domain, most of the time, until you removed a domain controller, which would break it.
A note to Linux devs working on Active Directory compatibility: When 'joining' an AD domain, a Linux desktop is allowed to ask exactly 3 questions:
- The name of the domain (either the 'short NT4 name' or 'long DNS name')
- A user name to connect with
- A password
Lets compare this to instructions I randomly found on Ubuntu's support site:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=91510
That's about 2 pages of config files! NO. Just NO. It's not even slightly correct. I have nothing against config files as such, but "hard coding" parameters that MUST be looked up dynamically is WRONG. You can't state "compatible with Active Directory" when it is clearly NOT COMPATIBLE.
What happens when the machine and the user are in different domains? What happens if domain controllers move? Why doesn't it automatically locate the nearest servers using Sites & Services?
Correct behavior isn't even one of those Microsoft secret proprietary things. The API for dynamically obtaining configuration data for a desktop's AD connection is well documented:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684291(VS.85).aspx
I hope you enjoy "open-source" pharmaceuticals...
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.