Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
[
And even stupider, who'd want to strengthen software patents and give Microsoft leverage by caving into their FUD and paying for this "protection" racket? All efforts to invalidate all software patents should be taken by all companies and citizens.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
"Who buys Linux in an economy like this?"
People still buy Red Hat. Check their numbers.
Novell was warned (since the beginning of its relationship with Microsoft) that Microsoft 'partners' consistently get stabbed in the back. It took Novell a couple of years to take the toll.
My Linux - (L)ove (I)s (N)ever (U)tterly eXPensive
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.
OK, cue the violins! Now, all of you at once!
AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Who buys a proprietary operating system in any economy when you can download and use linux free. And if you need support then you can pay for linux support without ever having to pay for a license, unlike our favorite proprietary software vendors that charge for a license and for support and in in some cases for every client connection to said software. I guess you can't fix stupid.
TFA seems to muddle together a bunch of different issues.
One is the purely Novell issue of not being good at selling stuff. Which might be true (though I spend a lot of time dealing with SLES issues at the hardware vendor I work for) but really doesn't have anything to do with the Novell-Microsoft deal.
Another issue is the core of the Novell-MS partnership: interoperability. AFAIK, that part is working well.
Finally, there's the fact that MS is committed to supported mixed Windows-SLES installation, but hasn't bothered to actually sell any SLES licenses. Really, what else do you expect? People actually making deals based on technology they've worked with for years are not going to change their strategies just because management says so. IBM never could get its people to sell OS/2 instead of Windows, and Sun salespeople often continue to push SPARC products to all their customers, even though Sun is now in the x86 business. And in the case of MS, they have particularly limited motivation to sell Linux, since doing so would not actually generate any extra profits for MS.
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.
Well, did you send flowers? No. Did you write anything but crappy emo poetry? No. Actually, no poetry at all. How about flaunting yourself in tight outfits, or at least making some minimal effort to be sexual? No there too. And apparently Microsoft is a louzy kisser (way too much tongue). Big surprise the relationship failed.
More seriously: What do these people expect? The economy is crap. Nobody's going to be trying anything new right now. And neither side spent much on marketing from everything I'm reading. And at any rate, their marketing strategy is crabbed -- you open with support, not a feature set. Whatever feature set is being offered better be one for one what they have now or don't even bother. Support is the key here -- they should have been screaming "We have technicians trained for this! Really! More than you can fit on a bus!" Except that would be a lie. So they focus on what they can effect: Which is some limited marketing propaganda that won't fool anyone. Microsoft lost its crown jewels when Vista tanked. Now everything they say comes under scrutiny -- Apple's been taking free potshots at them in the general media for about a year now and I see average people parroting those "Hi, I'm a Mac; Hi, I'm a PC" commercials. This relationship needs some pizzaz back in it, and instead Novell comes home to Microsoft wearing a familiar wonderbra and fishnet stockings?! Seriously, we're all supportive of Microsoft getting in touch with it's softer, less monopolistic side, but crossdressing in linux is not the answer. -_-
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Microsoft 'partners' consistently get stabbed in the back. It took Novell a couple of years to take the toll.
Not limited to Microsoft, if "partner" implies some sort of revenue sharing then in bad times you'll find they work find hard to find solutions not involving their partners. In ways it can be more frustrating than a straight-up competitor that you know where you got.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Novell was warned (since the beginning of its relationship with Microsoft) that Microsoft 'partners' consistently get stabbed in the back. It took Novell a couple of years to take the toll.
Not to mention that Novell should have known damned well that Linux is the Microsoft alternative. If you tie it in with Microsoft, suddenly it's the Microsoft partner, not the Microsoft alternative. TONS of Linux customers went to Linux specifically to avoid Microsoft lock-in. They're trying to get further away! It's pretty fucking sad when Novell and Sun are both in Microsoft's back pocket.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
> '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.
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
Someone who wants to do anything in a GUI? Linux makes a powerful server, but its desktop applications (even OpenOffice) lag far behind their proprietary counterparts in features, or are non-existent (where's the Photoshop or InDesign clones?).
Uh, the photoshop clone is called the gimp. Whether you think it's a valid replacement or not, it has all the same features, except the most important one: Adobe plugin support. You can do the things you can do in InDesign in Scribus or Inkscape, but neither one is much of a contender.
On the other hand, since less than 1% of the world's population needs to use those two programs to get their work done (graphic artists are a severe minority in computer professionals - a term pretty loosely applied there, since most of them are about as computer-savvy as a pygmy warrior from ubangme) this is probably not a big deal. Most people need an office suite that will let them write papers and letters, and a web browser, and a media player. Since any operating system offers all of these, Linux will work for most people. Kind of like Electric cars... they can only meet the needs of what, 95% of the population? How terrible!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Someone who wants to do anything in a GUI?
What are you talking about? Installing? Almost all distros have a GUI for installing. Changing settings? For any day-to-day settings, there is a GUI for that. Etc. About the only time you don't have a GUI (assuming of course that this is on Ubuntu or similar, not Gentoo or Arch) is when you change a setting that to do the approximate Windows setting you would edit the registry.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Who buys Linux in an economy like this?
Lots of people, including the fortune 100 company i work for. In fact, the linux demand has gotten much stronger, as my employer is dumping old school platforms and moving to linux in the server room.
The tough times motivate them to maximize their bang for the buck.
Oh, and trust me, big companies want the official paid support - so that basically means Novell or Redhat, though debian/ubuntu are there in some cases now too, since you can purchase support for either one from HP now.
As for GUIs I can safely say my Ubuntu install is far less consistent than the Windows install I have in a VM.
What are you on? Just take a look at most Windows programs, different looks everywhere. (there used to be a nice screenshot that someone took highlighting this fact, but I can't seem to find it on google at the moment) Just look at Office 2007, it has a different look then XP's native toolkit, that looks different then Windows Live Messenger, that looks different then Visual Studio, etc. Mix MS's own inconsistency (remember that aside from the base GNU toolkits, almost all the software is from different people/organizations) with programs almost every Windows user uses (iTunes, etc) and you get tons of interfaces. On the other hand, most Linux software is either QT or GTK.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Novell should have already known the don't be a Microsoft Partner lesson. Novell owned WordPerfect when Windows 95 came out. Microsoft gave so much incorrect documentation to the WordPerfect developers, that the lawsuit was still going on 13 years later. In fact, the lawsuit on-going when Novell signed the Linux deal with Microsoft.