Why Microsoft Can't Afford To Let Novell Die

geek4 sends in an analysis indicating that Microsoft may have the most to lose if hedge-fund operator Elliot buys Novell. (The eWeekEurope piece is based on a longer and geekier writeup by Andy Updegrove on how the mechanics of unsolicited tender offers can play out in the tech world.) To avoid meltdown or asset-stripping, Novell can try and find a preferred bidder — a company with some interest in running Novell as a business, and preferrably a tech company. Or another company may make a move independently. But who might that be? A couple of analysts have suggested IBM, Oracle, or SAP. These all have problems... Microsoft is in a similar category, with one added problem. ... Microsoft has staked any open source credibility that it has on Novell's SUSE distribution. If Novell falls to bits, then Microsoft's efforts to gain open source cred pretty much disappear with it. It's something that would have been impossible to imagine a few years back, but if we're looking for someone to prop Novell up, Microsoft would now be a prime candidate."

Comments

Microsoft the tar-baby

[Bruce Perens]

Once you start with MS your paths close up until the only remaining one is: they own you. Maybe if Novell had stayed away from Microsoft they'd be doing better now. Red Hat is doing really very well.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Do you think that they did badly because they touched Microsoft, or that they touched Microsoft because, for some other set of reasons, they weren't doing well enough against Red Hat and thought that it would provide them with competitive distinction?

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Bruce Perens]

I think SuSE understood what they had to do to make a business out of a Linux distribution. And Ubuntu/Canonical has, and they started later. I don't believe that Novell ever has. Like Caldera before them, they ended up alienating the very communities that would have pushed their own product in the enterprise, because they didn't understand that those communities were grass-roots engineering staff within their corporations - and were already connected to Open Source developers if they weren't themselves the developers - rather than the IT management that Novell focused upon.

So, Novell was doing poorly, and saw MS as a fast and easy source of some third of a Billion dollars if they'd just do what Microsoft wanted, which would also endear themselves to those same IT managers that Novell was after, while further alienating the engineers.

It was a short-term strategy.

Want to bet that Novell becomes a litigation factory eventually? We're starting to see the symptoms.

Bruce

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[lennier]

Being signatory to a dodgy, borderline-illegal, patent protection racket which offended anyone who understood the GPL certainly was one way to differentiate their Linux product from all the rest, yes.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't like Ubuntu because they support that evil Mono.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[cptdondo]

Novell has a long, long history of making short-sighted decisions that eventually turn out badly.

It failed to see the shift from dedicated, limited network OS to distributed peer-to-peer networking.

It didn't react in time to dump IPX/SPX and got left out of the whole internet thing.

It bought Wordperfect about the time it tanked, then couldn't make a go of it.

Then it bought Suse, and screwed that up too.

Now it's got wads of cash. How much do you want to bet it will make a short-term decision that ends badly?

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[TheRealMindChild]

Have you ever taken an MSDN certification for Windows NT 4 (long time ago, required for a contract). ALL questions revolved around migrating to/from Novell networks and integrating them. However they depended on one another, they certainly did.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[jim_v2000]

There's no such thing as "borderline-illegal". That's just stupid shit people say when they don't like something someone else is doing.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Bruce Perens]

Treason never prospers, what's the reason?
For if it prospers, none dare call it treason.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[linumax]

+5 Insightful? Really?! Microsoft has hundreds of partners of different sizes, many have been with them for decades, some competing at the same time and are still alive and well and some have been bought out.

In Novell's case however, it's not like they were taking over the world before "closing paths" with MS, they were already in dire straits and had nothing like the growth rate of Redhat. It's all guesswork but their partnership extending Novell's life seems like a much more likely outcome than your assessment of what happened.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Once you start with MS your paths close up until the only remaining one is: they own you.

Apple did pretty well with that 'investment' by MS a decade or so ago.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Yes there is such a thing as bordering the illegal.

When something is per se illegal, but a team of lawyers with questionable ethics find a way to phrase it that somehow circumvents the law, that situation is certainly in the border of the illegal.

When something goes against the spirit of the law, but steps carefully over regulations, and is "technically" legal, that is bordering the illegal too.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[jpobst]

Without Microsoft, Novell would have hit this crossroad many years ago. Novell could not have slowly and organically built a Linux business fast enough to replace lost revenue from the decline in things like NetWare. Microsoft gave them cash, marketshare, and mindshare (with paying enterprises, not the FOSS community of course).

Indeed, the Linux business of Novell has steadily increased and is one of the bright spots if they are allowed to continue. But it is doubtful that an investment firm is going to be interested in slow but steady, long-term growth when they can gut the company and make a quick buck.

Novell may ultimately fail, but they have already made it much further with Microsoft then they would have without.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[cgenman]

I would agree. The Microsoft deal with Novell seemed to be a question of momentary face saving at a time when Microsoft seemed religiously opposed to open source. The Novell deal changed that perception to just being opposed to open source on financial grounds.

I'm not seeing, really, what Microsoft has to lose if Novell and SuSE fall down. "Saving Face" is not an underlinable financial statement, and nobody ever got rich saving face in front of the open source community. Microsoft could turn and partner with Red Hat for far less than it would cost to keep Novell on life support indefinitely.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[RMS Eats Toejam]

I think SuSE understood what they had to do to make a business out of a Linux distribution. And Ubuntu/Canonical has, and they started later.

Indeed, Canonical has made a business. Just not one that turns a profit.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[aztracker1]

My biggest issue, is if MS bought out Novell and maintained SuSE, it would drive a wedge in the Linux community even farther than has already happened. It may do better to spin off Mono in a joint partnership with MS to a non-profit foundation to maintain the platform. This could improve distribution beyond SuSE into other areas. Then Novell could concentrate on their service line, and perhaps let SuSE die, or release all of the SuSE specific bits to the community, for introduction into other distros. Novell could easily go the IBM path and become a systems integration and management company concentrating on Linux, over being a specific software provider. Mono as a separate foundation could promote the platform with funding from MS etc. It could really be a win-win.

I don't think any of this will go down the way I describe though. I do think that Mono as a platform is very important to MS and their solution partners, simply because it allows their partners to offer limited integration on linux platforms, while allowing them to push Windows + MS-SQL server as a preferred solution.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[CODiNE]

Watch out for that term. You used it correctly but if you say "Tar-baby" on TV they'll call you a racist. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1221764,00.html

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Bruce Perens]

They did. But then Microsoft owns them at least partially.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Bruce Perens]

Jeremy Allison explains this better than I do. Sure, there are companies that aren't stratigic for Microsoft. But they do tend to eat their partners or take over their partner's niches to their partners detriment. Who do you think is Logitech's largest competitor?

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

They did. But then Microsoft owns them at least partially.

I'm too lazy to google it up, but I'm pretty sure they unwound that a couple of years ago.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Nico3d3]

Once you start with MS your paths close up until the only remaining one is: they own you. Maybe if Novell had stayed away from Microsoft they'd be doing better now. Red Hat is doing really very well.

Not true, Apple was once close to Microsoft. M$ even bought shares from Apple but now, Apple is a big competitor.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Bruce Perens]

I think I heard that too. In which case Apple could be the exception. But then again we don't have full visibility of Apple - Microsoft agreements. We only hear about the ones that they say materially effect their stock.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[hklingon]

I once emailed RHovespain @ Novell because I saw a tremendous opportunity for Novell -- to be the SUSE/Ubuntu of the small business world. I was very excited about SLES / SLED and the possibilities for our small business customers (who typically use SBS2003 and now SBS2008). To have something like eBox/samba/ldap in one box with a well-maintained package repository.. seamless virtualization for legacy apps.. Their press releases were making me really excited with the possibilities. All the pieces exist independently, pretty much... All Novell has to do is put the pieces together.

The Novell website for potential enthusiasts like me was nigh impossible to navigate. I spent the better part of 2 days buring about 11 CDs (no DVD distribution was available) of SLES/SLED 10 and after that.. being thoroughly underwhelmed. I basically wanted SBS in a box (something for file serving, something for intranet, ldap, workstation management and exchange type functionality) and seemed to be advertised as such (with groupwise) but I just couldn't make it materialize after playing with it for a couple days. I lost interest after that.

The point is that Novell very much has missed the boat in terms of knowing what their would-be customers want.. While it would have been easy to anticipate the licensing snafu I don't think this would have been a real problem especially if this was prelude to tighter integration with microsoft stuff. That certainly would have been an easier pill for businesses to swallow, I think, if they could have their "business in a box" app.

I would like to see the Novell name on a such product that appeals to small businesses and certainly they could make this happen on a modest budget with the talent they still employ.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Degrees]

This was a really big part of it. The other aspect that people seem to ignore was the back-and-forth sales calls on big customers by both Novell and Microsoft.

Novell: "We've got this great OS now, and it is inexpensive, and if you later want to part ways, there's Red Hat and other companies who you can turn to for support. It's the new thing, and Microsoft is 'Legacy'. You want the newest and the best, don't you?"

Customer: "Well Microsoft does kind of suck, and is expensive."

Microsoft: "So Novell is telling you to become the next AutoZone, hmmm? They got sued for running an OS with patent problems you know."

Customer: "Dang. We're already a big company that attracts frivolous lawsuits. Novell - we are not interested."

The Novell sales reps goes back to their bosses. They hatch a plan. Microsoft takes the bait.

Novell: "Remember how Microsoft was warning you about Linux? Well, they sell Linux now. Ours! You interested?"

What is Microsoft going to counter with? "Uh, we'll take your money, but we might sue you later." What would that do to their future sales (of all types)?

You are 100% correct that Novell did think about Red Hat as a competitor, and that drove a big part of the decision. It was a huge mistake to turn on Red Hat. When you try to feed your teammates to the alligator, all you are really doing is trying to be eaten last. With your teammates, you could have slain the alligator.

But they did choose to say "We and Microsoft are buddies now, and you won't have any trouble running Windows VMs under SLES, or SLES VMs under Hyper-V. Neener neener neener Red Hat." It may have gotten them a few sales, but the taunting of a beloved teammate sure pissed a lot of people off. Not to mention becoming best buds with the alligator.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a myth. Microsoft's investment in 1997 was for $150 million in *non-voting* shares, which is not ownership by any standard definition, and a small fraction of Apple's market cap even then. MS sold those shares for a tidy profit just a few years later.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Antique Geekmeister]

Jeremy Allison shows that precisely the reverse is what happened. Novell lost a lot of open source credibility: any gains for Microsoft were extremely shortlived, and ruined by their OOXML manipulations, their support of SCO, their mysterious claims of Linux patent infringement for which they've refused to name a single example but keep claiming that such a list exists, etc.

Novell lost Jeremy due to their violations of the GPL in their collaborations with Samba, and Jeremy's work with Samba was one of the absolutely _key_ elements that Microsoft wanted to control in their deal with Novell. But Jeremy left, rather than be crippled that way.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

You have said wright.
I am fully agree with you and yes Red Hat is doing really very well. ..................
johnrock

Junk Removal Toronto

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[kholburn]

Novell made all these bad decisions but still has wads of cash? Must've made some good decisions then.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Degrees]

I agree. It is all gain for Microsoft when Novell burns.

No more competition in the user directory space: Active Directory for the ultimate win. (Local data center) Email is down to Exchange versus Domino. MS SMS no longer has to compete with ZENworks. (Note that Novell has ZENworks for Linux now, too). The Google Wave server that Novell is working on will go down in the flames too.

Most of the migrations will be from SuSE to Red Hat - but some will be from SuSE to Windows. And all those Red Hat users will have to authenticate to Active Directory. It won't be any surprise when the Windows clients get right in to Windows servers, but the Red Hat boxen have inexplicable delays, random timeouts, and "what we have here... is a failure to... authenticate".

It's all win for Microsoft when their potential (hold-out) customers lose an alternative.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Every time I've disagreed with you, I've been proven wrong. You've shaken my confidence in pursuing a future career in industry analysis. So, I think I've learned my lesson. I'll just parrot what you say with a few weasel words against and a few bolder predictions along your main line of thought, to protect me either way.

Its now clear that Microsoft, the true architect of the SCO IBM lawsuit may successfully removed the wrench that was thrown into its machiavellian machinations by subverting Novell into a leveraged buyout by a private equity firm. If successful, the buy out will only strengthen the MS IP claims against Linux. Novell is fighting for its survival, as all lovers of free software fret while trying to find a lifesaver to throw its one time savior.

Gartner? Forester? Canalys? Any of you out there? I'll just be waiting for your email, phone call, fax ... telegraph, ... uhm armored car full of gold bullion, what every you feel is necessary to secure my valuable services.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[hairyfeet]

Question: Have you tried Xandros? I really think it would be more likely to give you want you want a lot easier than SUSE. It plays nice with AD, has Scalix built in to give you your Exchange like email and group calendaring, and the XMC makes it easy to switch over Windows admins. If you want tight intgration in a mixed environment it would probably be your best bet, and they have a free trial if you want to fire up a VM and give it a spin.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Insanity Defense]

their mysterious claims of Linux patent infringement for which they've refused to name a single example but keep claiming that such a list exists, etc.

The whole "I have a LIST" scam worked so well for Senator McCarthy why shouldn't Microsoft think it will work for them too?

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

You have bad memory.

I think SuSE understood what they had to do to make a business out of a Linux distribution.
Back in the days, SuSE was in the red for $50 000 000 and survived because IBM injected them cash. They already were not very much in control any more. Later, IBM gave another $50M to Novell wich then bought SuSE. Is that the way to make a business out of a Linux distribution? To get in the red to get bought?
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:jaPNE148pE0J:techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/novell_suse.html+ibm+novell+deal+suse&cd=3&hl=fr&ct=clnk
I don't believe that Novell ever has. ... they ended up alienating the very communities that would have pushed their own product in the enterprise, because they didn't understand that those communities were grass-roots engineering staff within their corporations - and were already connected to Open Source developers if they weren't themselves the developers - rather than the IT management that Novell focused upon.
Basically, SuSE was doing business around IBM big iron, they had (and have) a good relationship with IBM (frankfurt iirc) and work well.
Apart from that, they alienated every (popular) community gathering around them long before the novell buy out by not freeing YaST, their management tool. The thing is, they tried to get some money from the people using their distro before you could download it. Which didnt work either, which leds to the $50M loss. (Others tried to not get money from their users, and it did work).
Apart from that, as for the grass-roots engineering target, it is an entranched place where you find people either deeply tied to debian or to red hat. They don't give a damn about anything else, even if it's a nice piece of engineering as SuSE has always been. So is it really unwise to have aimed at another target? Maybe an already untouched area, like compagnies already doing microsoft that want to go linux too? I don't think so.

those same IT managers that Novell was after
AS FOR NOVELL, once it bought SuSE, they freed everything that wasnt already free in SuSE and then they freed some NOVELL software too. They hired people, they had for example 3 engineers on the ATI drivers, they have developed new distribution tools like the build system and the SuSE studio which are excellent and innovative.
So would they have done this if they werent really trying to do a very good distro (and it is) and build a business AND a community around it?
Also there is a text online from one of SuSE founder that says that after the buyout, the 5000 NOVELL people listened to the 500 SuSE people and got along with the program.

The only meat in what you say is of course the MS deal which infuriated many persons (and me too). But this problem arise from the existence of patents and of a broken patent system. That is the real problem that needs to be fixed. You need a new Jefferson.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Kennon]

I pretty much agree with every point you make here except this "Then it bought Suse, and screwed that up too." I don't understand why so many people repeat this. If I recall correctly SuSE was failing as a commercial Linux company when Novell acquired them. They were on their way to Mandrake-ville. Where I work we have hundreds of SLES servers in production today and they are rock solid. Fast, reliable, super easy to manage. I would put my SLES datacenters up against a Red Hat shop any day of the week. And Novell licensing is so much cheaper than Red Hat we basically have a site license for the cost it would take to license half our servers for support to Red Hat. Not to mention the fact that Red Hat basically abandoned the Desktop a while ago and SLED is a great windows replacement for a significant portion of our end users who don't require the few remaining windows client-servers apps we have left.

The stupid MS agreement and not ending support for these crap legacy apps is what is killing them. If you look at the numbers, the Linux division of Novell is profitable. The problem is the boat-anchor of closed source legacy BS they are still supporting is dragging down the whole company. Instead Novell has too many old timer bean counters at the helm who don't understand that the word Free does not mean free.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[houghi]

Yeah, because if they stayed away from Microsoft, then they would not have gotten attention from a hedge-fund company. Novell is not trying to sell itself because they are doing something bad, Elliot is trying to buy because they are doing so good.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[couchslug]

"Want to bet that Novell becomes a litigation factory eventually?"

SCO is dead. Long live SCOvell!

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[cerberusss]

There's no such thing as "borderline-illegal". That's just stupid shit people say when they don't like something someone else is doing.

Sometimes, yes. Other times, please realize there are shades of grey.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

I can personally vouch for trying different flavors of Linux to solve issues. I've never tried either, but went instead from having a troubled Fedora install and then a less trouble Ubuntu installed followed by a resoundingly successful Kubuntu install.

I'm afraid I can offer no other assistance other than, if I were you, I'd do this because sometimes, it works.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Your.Master]

What "standard definition" of ownership excludes non-voting shares?

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

"If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. " - Yoda

Seems oddly appropriate.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[binarylarry]

They don't really "support mono," they package it along with a few associated applications.

This could easily change from release to release. Everyone I know avoids those apps anyway. Not for legal or religious reasons, but simply because they suck.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[JamesP]

No, really, there are reasons why Novell is going under:

1 - Their proprietary stack stinks

Not as bad as IBM, and cheaper too, but I mean, Exchange / Outlook, you get the idea, still, when compared to what the competition does, it would be my first pick. And there's also... Zimbra *sigh*

Really, Groupwise is like a Ford Taurus

2 - Their OSS offerings are not much better

OpenSUSE is AWFUL. I mean pretty much ALL distros comes with configured repositories, c'mon. YAST now manages to be worse than YUM. Not to mention the ONE time I tried installing OpenSUSE on my machine it utterly messed my HD and my work. I only use OpenSUSE in a VM from now on.

Also, the lizard. I can't stand that lizard!

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[segedunum]

I think SuSE understood what they had to do to make a business out of a Linux distribution. And Ubuntu/Canonical has, and they started later.

Canonical has yet to prove that it has built a viable business out of Ubuntu, as Red Hat has done with their distribution.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

They did. But then Microsoft owns them at least partially.

I'm too lazy to google it up, but I'm pretty sure they unwound that a couple of years ago.

And made a handsome profit since the stock price when up a lot.

Since Jobs' return, AAPL has been split 2:1 roughly ten times. So if you think today's price of $200 is kind of high, image what it would be if it wasn't split.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Eskarel]

Get real. Novell were slowly bleeding to death before they even bought SuSe.

They've been noxious to their few customers for years and the few instances where they had a better product(which hasn't happened for a long time) they failed to turn it into succes.

Unfortunately they took SuSe with them practically giving it away to support their other failing product lines.

It's a bit of a tragedy but it's a long time coming.

As for Microsoft buying them, not a chance in hell. Even if they wanted to it would never be approved. Microsoft has other open source initiatives and the death of Novell won't hurt them all that much, and to be honest seeing open source fail wouldn't kill em.

The interesting thing at this point is who picks up the pieces and what they do with them.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[segedunum]

Back in the days, SuSE was in the red for $50 000 000 and survived because IBM injected them cash.

Not particularly accurate. It's not unusual for such companies to take some time to break even, and the same was true of Red Hat. The $50 million injection was purely as part of the Novell deal and no they weren't in the red to that figure. There wasn't a second payment that I'm aware of. Novell have also only just about, with some creative accounting, managed to make their Suse Linux business break-even. Would Suse have done better by themselves? It's a matter of some debate.

Apart from that, they alienated every (popular) community gathering around them long before the novell buy out by not freeing YaST, their management tool. The thing is, they tried to get some money from the people using their distro before you could download it. Which didnt work either, which leds to the $50M loss. (Others tried to not get money from their users, and it did work).

You're going to have to qualify that statement and set of assumptions with some facts I'm afraid. Trying not to make money from something to get money is a contradiction in itself. Many open source companies around Linux have tried it and they've burned their VC money and went to the wall. It's a stretch to assume that because Suse didn't open YaST it was in trouble, but it would have probably had to have happened eventually. They didn't open it purely because they had some competitive advantage at the time. It was hardly a reason for people not giving Suse money for the distro, which is ultimately what counts.

Additionally, Novell has done the very thing you accuse Suse of doing - and it has cost them. They haven't opened Groupwise or any of their other archaic pieces of software and as such no one was using them. That was the real problem at the time Novell bought Suse. That's sometimes even worse than people not paying for your software! They've also retro-fitted Novell on to effectively a proprietary Suse Linux in OES which has not only alienated Linux users but has also completely alienated and failed to attract existing Netware users - who've usually gone to Windows Server. They've handled that so badly it's unreal.

Apart from that, as for the grass-roots engineering target, it is an entranched place where you find people either deeply tied to debian or to red hat. They don't give a damn about anything else, even if it's a nice piece of engineering as SuSE has always been.

I'm not entirely sure what that means, but that sounds like a problem with Novell's management and leadership.

AS FOR NOVELL, once it bought SuSE, they freed everything that wasnt already free in SuSE and then they freed some NOVELL software too.

They freed some Suse and Novell software they didn't care about, and much of the Novell software they did free like Hula fell by the wayside very quickly. The important software that they should have open sourced and found a business model around like Red Hat's to get people really using it again they didn't, and it's all been left to rot and stagnate. Novell's revenue has steadily declined since just as it did before the Suse takeover.

They hired people, they had for example 3 engineers on the ATI drivers, they have developed new distribution tools like the build system and the SuSE studio which are excellent and innovative.

What money have they made off that? Their much touted 'Enterprise Linux Desktop' is absolutely nowhere to be seen. Suse Studio is possibly the most different thing they've done, but again, they need to turn that into revenue. They just haven't made the money from Suse that they should have done.

Also there is a text online from one of SuSE founder that says that after the buyout, the 5000 NOVELL people listened to the 500 SuSE people and got along with the pro

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you know.. Novell IS a Litigation factory. Who sued the pants out from under SCO? Novell did. Over and over again. :-)

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[segedunum]

I pretty much agree with every point you make here except this "Then it bought Suse, and screwed that up too." I don't understand why so many people repeat this.

Probably because it's true.

If I recall correctly SuSE was failing as a commercial Linux company when Novell acquired them.

Well, Suse as part of Novell is still failing if you think it was before, and it's only recently that through some creative accounting they have allegedly broke even.

They were on their way to Mandrake-ville.

It's not unusual for companies like Suse to take several years to turn some solid revenue and then profit. Suse certainly wasn't failing. Mandrake went through the same process and they are very much still around. Red Hat took some time to hit their stride.

Where I work we have hundreds of SLES servers in production today and they are rock solid. Fast, reliable, super easy to manage.

That'll be as a result of the work that Suse put in before and after they were bought by Novell.

...and SLED is a great windows replacement for a significant portion of our end users who don't require the few remaining windows client-servers apps we have left.

Hmmmm, this is the part where I smell some astroturf. SLED is so far away from being a Windows desktop replacement it is unreal and it is very, very, very, very seldom used. God knows how small a part of Novell's Linux revenue it is. Suse's own desktop offerings before Novell's takeover probably made more. To mention SLED is, frankly, a joke and backs up Red Hat's decision to largely leave the desktop behind. As it is, it isn't viable.

If you look at the numbers, the Linux division of Novell is profitable. The problem is the boat-anchor of closed source legacy BS they are still supporting is dragging down the whole company.

The Linux division has broke even, thanks to Microsoft's coupons, but the point is it is still a drop in the ocean when compared to the total revenue from Netware and other software - even if it is declining. They just haven't worked out what to do with that older proprietary software and haven't worked out what business model they want.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[cptdondo]

They make decisions which profit them greatly in the short term, and end up failing in the long term. Good policy to line the pockets of top management, bad policy for the life of the company.

Compare that with, say, Red Hat, which makes good long term decisions (or has so far), often at the expense of short term profit.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[solferino]

Bruce, I've been reading your comments on Slashdot for the last ten years. Appreciate your input.

Now a small request. Can you leave off signing your name at the end of your comment? Your name is clearly spelt out at the top of your comment (as your user name). You and a few other people have this habit and it's quite annoying.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is not logical. If Novell is such a screw up, how'd they get all the cash? The fact is Suse is strong, very strong. Perhaps one of their best decisions. It is true that Novell has a fundamental timing issue. During the times they are good, they are very good. When they are bad, they are very bad. Also, lest we not forget Eric Schmidt. IMHO, he is the one that tanked Novell. Now he is the "success" of Google. Either he learned from his mistakes, or he is merely a figurehead.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[StuartHankins]

So the score is... 254 to 1. Bravo.

Now who's going to clean up all the dead bodies of other companies that partnered with Microsoft? It's a bloody mess.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[neurovish]

The Linux division has broke even, thanks to Microsoft's coupons, but the point is it is still a drop in the ocean when compared to the total revenue from Netware and other software - even if it is declining. They just haven't worked out what to do with that older proprietary software and haven't worked out what business model they want.

I was actually surprised to see that Novell's "Open Platform Solutions" account for about 21% of their positive operating income ("Identity and Security Management" and "Workgroup" are the other units that made money last year) for 2009 (2008 was about 10%, 2007 was about 6%). Novell still posted a $206M operating loss for the year (SuSE profit was $87.355M). The only time Novell has ever made a yearly profit in the last five years were in 2005 and 2006, thanks only to agreements with Microsoft and lawsuit settlements from Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

Not particularly accurate. ... The $50 million injection was purely as part of the Novell deal and no they weren't in the red to that figure. There wasn't a second payment that I'm aware of.
here it is:
http://www.networworld.com/news/2001/0830ibmsuse.html
It was prior to the novell deal as I said, it was in 2001 when SuSE laid off a quarter of its employees and was dying, not just having difficulties to break even.

Trying not to make money from something to get money is a contradiction in itself.
I was being a bit sarcastic, you could even tell it was big irony.

I'm not entirely sure what that means
That going after Red Hat or Debian market share is a waste of time. They had to create a new road.
I'm not saying they were particularly successfull, my point was that saying that SuSE did succeed before Novell was factually wrong, (see the link above), and therefore blaming Novell for spoiling everything after was factually wrong also.
Another point wich is just wrong is the community side, the community side of SuSE is much better than it used to be prior to Novell.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

When something is per se illegal, but a team of lawyers with questionable ethics find a way to phrase it that somehow circumvents the law, that situation is certainly in the border of the illegal.

When something goes against the spirit of the law, but steps carefully over regulations, and is "technically" legal, that is bordering the illegal too.

You could sum that up, "Pretty much all of politics."

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[BitZtream]

At any point during your day do you stop and realize how incredibly paranoid you are? Just curious.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[BitZtream]

It failed to see the shift from dedicated, limited network OS to distributed peer-to-peer networking.

Unlike Linux, which failed to realize that its primary purpose is a limited network OS and not a desktop OS even if you shoehorn it into one?

Peer to Peer networking isn't freaking popular in any business anywhere. Yes, you might download your Linux distro with BitTorrent or use peer to peer for WoW updates, but there has been no jump to peer to peer networking, contrary to popular belief we really aren't moving backwards in time 30 years while you young'ns rediscover shit we stopped doing 20 years ago.

It didn't react in time to dump IPX/SPX and got left out of the whole internet thing.

Which had almost 0 effect on them since their primary focus is on internal networks and routing IPX internally as painless as routing IP. We're not talking about NETBEUI here. Sure they were a little late adding IP, but it really only would effect tiny installations that wanted to run a web server on their Novell server rather than a dedicated box. Only effects a tiny part of the customer base, one they didn't even particularly care about anyway.

It bought Wordperfect about the time it tanked, then couldn't make a go of it.

WordPerfect was dead long before then, you were just too blinded by your 'I HATE MICROSOFT' view point to realize it.

Then it bought Suse, and screwed that up too.

Again, no, it was screwed before Novell got involved.

If you wanted to point out how they buy losers and can't save them, fine. You failed however to point out them buying anyone who wasn't a failure already, nor did you point out anything that was clearly a marketing failure on a large scale as far as their operations daily.

In short, you're going on about how badly they do, yet they've been in business longer than 95% of the IT world has worked in IT, and they've most certainly been around since before Linux was even an after Christmas code project.

Yea, they've made some mistakes and aren't the shining star they'd like to be, but they are still here.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been said before, but lest we forget the MS mantra......"embrace, extend, extinguish".

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[jim_v2000]

You know what the correct word for something that's "borderline illegal"?

Legal.

You could make the argument that pretty much anything is borderline illegal. Driving the speed limit is borderline illegal. Filing your taxes on April 15 is borderline illegal. Stopping at a red light is borderline illegal.

Good use of the lawyer imagery though to get support behind you though. Everyone hates lawyers.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Bruce Perens]

Segedunum has answered this better than I could have. It's true that I didn't spend much time around SuSE back then, I was a Debian developer. It may be the case that there was never room for SuSE, but this doesn't explain the Ubuntu phenomenon.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Bruce Perens]

At the risk of feeding a troll, I will just assume that you are very young. If you look into my writing, you will find that I am involved in court cases that go on for years, many of them with Microsoft involvement. Also, national (or international like EU) legislation where Microsoft is on the other side, going back to the W3C patent debate where MS and IBM were on the side of embedding royalty patents in the basic standards of the web. I have dealt with them directly and know their methods.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Bruce Perens]

Yes. But they built market share really well. At the expense of at least one Free Software project that I know.

It is possible that they made a wrong turn with the new management. Matt Asay was not the most clued-in person in the Open Source world, judging by his columns and the frequent hostility he experssed in them toward the Free Software community. If they are smart they will keep him working exclusively on operations.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Bruce Perens]

There is actually a parameter setting in your slashdot profile that will turn off the presentation of signatures. I put the signature there because it's a link, not just a signature.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[h4rr4r]

The Ubuntu phenomenon is just what happened when someone decided to take all that is good about Debian add in a little easy to installness and market the hell out of it.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[h4rr4r]

Apple is is no way a big competitor, apple does not exist in the enterprise and server space. MS traded a small percentage of homeuser desktops for a fake competitor.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[shentino]

Just like with intel and amd, microsoft is helped by competition.

MS needs some challenge in the market or it will have the DOJ on its arse.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[solferino]

Unless I'm mistaken, in the comment I replied to, your name appears as plain text at the end of your comment. I have had signatures turned off since when I created my account (for so long actually that I'd forgotten that I'd even turned them off). But I still see a plain text signing off.

The reason I find your name (or anyone else's name) distracting at the end of a comment is it takes away from the pure content of the comment. I read it, process it, and then [thunk] your name momentarily derails my chain of thought as I move on to the replies. I want to just focus on the debate, or conversation. If I want to, I can see who wrote the comment in the comment title. Where there is also a place to link to your website or personal page.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Bruce Perens]

That's odd. Over here, I see a line with two dashes, and then a link. Clicking on the link works. Perhaps a software bug.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[A1rmanCha1rman]

They did. But then Microsoft owns them at least partially.

Not likely. Netscape seemed to be the one have paid the price for Apple's freedom from their clutches. QuickTime was to be the other sacrifice demanded by M$, but Apple stood firm (thank goodness), and the rest is glorious history...

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[segedunum]

here it is: http://www.networworld.com/news/2001/0830ibmsuse.html

The link doesn't work (all you have to do is copy and paste for fuck's sake), which doesn't aid your credibility nor does the AC.

It was prior to the novell deal as I said, it was in 2001 when SuSE laid off a quarter of its employees and was dying, not just having difficulties to break even.

You'll have to qualify that with some facts, like I said. If it was dying it would have died. It had pretty much the whole Linux market in Europe to itself, and like I said, while I don't doubt they had difficulties as all those companies have done it certainly isn't what you're painting it as. Novell wasn't some white saviour. It was an IBM/Novell initiated deal.

I was being a bit sarcastic, you could even tell it was big irony.

No, you couldn't. It's irony where there was no logical need for irony. I suppose it is ironic, but not in the way you think.

That going after Red Hat or Debian market share is a waste of time. They had to create a new road.

As a Linux distributor Red Hat was primarily what they were competing against. In Europe, they certainly succeeded. The new road was as a replacement for Netware and competitor to Windows Server, and Novell ballsed that up clearly.

I'm not saying they were particularly successfull, my point was that saying that SuSE did succeed before Novell was factually wrong, (see the link above), and therefore blaming Novell for spoiling everything after was factually wrong also.

Your link doesn't work, no Suse succeeding before Novell's takeover is not factually wrong as I've explained and no you can't not blame Novell for mucking things up - even if the former was true.

Another point wich is just wrong is the community side, the community side of SuSE is much better than it used to be prior to Novell.

It may or may not be, depending on your definition of 'community', but before the Novell takeover Suse still employed a lot of people to work on open source software and they had more software available like OpenXchange which went by the wayside for Groupwise. The 'community' still has nothing to do with Novell being able to make money from Suse.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[segedunum]

I was actually surprised to see that Novell's "Open Platform Solutions" account for about 21% of their positive operating income

Let's be honest, it is ridiculously easy to redefine what the 'Open Platform Solutions' division is in order to make the figures look better.

Novell still posted a $206M operating loss for the year (SuSE profit was $87.355M). The only time Novell has ever made a yearly profit in the last five years were in 2005 and 2006, thanks only to agreements with Microsoft and lawsuit settlements from Microsoft.

It's rather pointless pointing out a profit for Suse when the overall loss is so much bigger. The point is that Novell's losses are increasing and revenue is decreasing at a rate that any gains from Suse cannot make up. They're still getting payments from Microsoft for Suse coupons, which makes the situation even worse.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Degrees]

Yeah - depends on your valuation of 'good'. "Better to make stronger products Good" - yes, Microsoft needs the competition. "Easier to rake in the money Good" - Microsoft would prefer to have less competition.

Although it would be good for consumers if the DOJ applied pressure to Microsoft, I don't see it happening in any administration in the next eight years.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[solferino]

Thanks for your replies, and yes maybe it is a bug. I've checked my profile settings and confirmed that I still have sigs turned off. Here is how your comment appeared when viewing from my account. Your name at the end is plain text and not clickable.

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

Novell DOS 7

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

here is the link:
http://www.networld.com/news/2001/0830ibmsuse.html

The 'community' still has nothing to do with Novell being able to make money from Suse.
It's possible but it's the OP that made this relation:
they ended up alienating the very communities that would have pushed their own product in the enterprise
from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1575568&cid=31409370

Re:Microsoft the tar-baby

[Anonymous Coward]

My apologiesn here is the real link:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2001/0830ibmsuse.html

Microsoft and Open Source

[dawilcox]

I didn't know that Microsoft was trying to gain open source credibility. Last I checked, they were the kings of proprietary software.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source

[aztracker1]

They've provided a great deal of developer support towards cross-platform tools and integration for C#, the DLR, Silverlight/Moonlight, ASP.Net MVC and the list goes on.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm struggling to see how this is a troll.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Cross platform is *NOT* open source. In fact all this cross platform shit they are pushing is all proprietary in some way (as mentioned above) and ultimately MS controls it all.. and that's why they are pushing it so they can 'control it'. In order to leverage more sales and market power. This is any but open source or free.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source

[makomk]

They've changed. Now they're quite happy to work with Open Source software, so long as it (a) runs best on Windows (or preferably only on Windows) and (b) doesn't compete with anything of theirs. Why do you think they're supporting Mono and C#-based apps so much?

Re:Microsoft and Open Source

[Eskarel]

Microsoft has quite a few Open Source initiatives. They quite like Open Source as far as I can tell(not enough to open source their OS of course, or affect their bottom line in anyway). Some of the open source stuff they encourage or support is even GPL.

That said, part of your last sentence is true. As far as I can tell, Microsoft has absolutely zero interest in free software.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source

[h4rr4r]

Which is why moonlight is so compatible, oh wait it is not. Moonlight is a way for MS to say they offer linux support but to make sure it never really works.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source

[aztracker1]

No, but the DLR, IronPython, IronRuby and ASP.Net MVC are. Moonlight and Mono are as well. Though not MS products like the former list, MS has provided a lot of resources to aid the Novell developers in Moonlight/Mono development and integration.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source

[aztracker1]

For the most part their OSI compliant open-source offerings tend to be mostly limited to MS-PL (basically BSD/MIT with a patent deterrent clause), which I actually prefer. For the most part, when I put something out there I go MIT license, so the "I won't sue if you don't" clause doesn't bug me.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source

[aztracker1]

Wild, the dev branches worked for watching the Olympics.

Cred

[inode_buddha]

Buying ity won't necessarily get Microsoft any cred. However, they can *earn* it.

Re:Cred

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

No, they can't. No matter what Microsoft does they will always be trashed by people who believe Microsoft is the devil incarnate in technology co. form. You'd think releasing their file formats for broad use under legally binding promises and other software projects under OSI approved licenses would have been enough.

Re:Cred

[MightyMartian]

Yes, they do all these friendly things, and then they try to scam through a bloated monster of an "open" document format which they haven't even been able to fully implement by basically buying it through the standard's phase.

If Microsoft wants to be trusted, they should start behaving like a good corporate citizen instead of behaving like some sort of Viking raiding party, raping and pillaging wherever they go.

Re:Cred

[Robert Zenz]

That's because with one hand they're feeding and stroking you, with the other they're trying to break your feet with a sledgehammer.

OOXML was too late, it was too bad and it violated the ISO in many ways (http://www.noooxml.org/). But I have to agree on C# and .NET...I believe that those promises are legally binding and they'll stick with them (including releasing the 4.0 Micro-Framework under an OSI License)...but I'm afraid of that other hand...

Re:Cred

[Anonymous Coward]

"If Microsoft wants to be trusted, they should start behaving like a good corporate citizen instead of behaving like some sort of Viking raiding party, raping and pillaging wherever they go."

So, they should not behave like Apple, Oracle or Sun?

Or even, they should not believe like FOSS projects that exist only to copy some microsoft product, instead of providing their own solution?

Re:Cred

[MightyMartian]

Delightful double standard, Redmond whore. Name a product that Microsoft has produced that doesn't ultimately imitate the function of some other software. Microsoft has built an empire out of taking other peoples' and other companies' ideas.

Microsoft Has Already Moved On To Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

While Linux supporters have been off writing yet another "To 10 Reasons Why Linux Is Better Than Windoze" blogs or making BSOD jokes in online forums Microsoft has been working their way into every part of Ubuntu through proxies.

Microsoft is perfectly happy to leave Novell's rotting corpse on the trash heap of computing. It served its purpose of getting the message out to the commercial world that Linux is a Patent Minefield.

Re:Microsoft Has Already Moved On To Ubuntu

[postbigbang]

Except that it's not a patent minefield.

It's a blowhard's way of stanching competition with bogus citations. Ubuntu doesn't have the enterprise penetration of any of the community versions of SUSE or Red Hat. Novell's stupid, and hampered by the FOSS community's perception that they're a Microsoft sell-out because of their license agreement with Microsoft.

Still, the openSUSE community thrives. It's Novell's legacy problems (hello Eric Schmidt!) and their incapability of appealing to enterprise systems designers that they're in the undervalued column. Microsoft won't buy them. They'll get broken into pieces, and sold off that way. My guess: to Oracle, whose Linux version languishes. At least Oracle knows how to excite developers.

Re:Microsoft Has Already Moved On To Ubuntu

[93 Escort Wagon]

Microsoft is perfectly happy to leave Novell's rotting corpse on the trash heap of computing. It served its purpose of getting the message out to the commercial world that Linux is a Patent Minefield.

Everyone's going to have a different take on this of course, depending on their personal views regarding Microsoft and Linux. Me, I think the main point is it's no longer the 1990's. Microsoft has very short coattails, and anyone planning to ride them to success nowadays is in for a rude awakening.

But I really don't get your "patent minefield" comment at all. That's what Microsoft was HOPING to accomplish, but frankly it seems obvious they failed miserably - that's why for the past couple years they've made significant moves towards coexistence and interoperability with Linux. It's not like they managed to even slow down Red Hat, let alone turn the corporate world against them.

Re:Microsoft Has Already Moved On To Ubuntu

[ducomputergeek]

Why would Oracle buy Novell for linux when Oracle now has Solaris?

Re:Microsoft Has Already Moved On To Ubuntu

[Bruce Perens]

All software is a patent minefield. You can't write any significant software without infringing upon a granted patent. If existing patents were enforced at all well, there would be no software industry.

MS continues to make gains in licensing its "Linux patents", and there's nothing that says they won't decide it's time to enforce them against you and me tomorrow.

The worst part is that we have no credibility in fighting this at the government level any longer. When Open Source was people doing good for other people, we had the credibility to kill a proposal for uniform enforcement of software patents across the EU. Today, Open Source is big business, and there is no such credibility if it's Microsoft vs. Red Hat rather than Microsoft vs. do-gooders and non-profits. So, this means that our commercial success is likely to kill us through software patents eventually.

Re:Microsoft Has Already Moved On To Ubuntu

[Firkragg14]

At least Oracle knows how to excite developers.

Star trek slash fiction and free coffee?

Re:Microsoft Has Already Moved On To Ubuntu

[Shompol]

But I really don't get your "patent minefield" comment at all. That's what Microsoft was HOPING to accomplish, but frankly it seems obvious they failed miserably - that's why for the past couple years they've made significant moves towards coexistence and interoperability with Linux. It's not like they managed to even slow down Red Hat, let alone turn the corporate world against them.

Does not mean they are not working on it: http://www.techworld.com.au/article/333351/illuminating_elephant_open_source_room

Re:Microsoft Has Already Moved On To Ubuntu

[BikeHelmet]

Maybe they're like Google?

Or maybe they won't, and will instead just try to hire some of the best developers, if the company does get broken up.

Re:Microsoft Has Already Moved On To Ubuntu

[postbigbang]

You'd own both the Unix and BSD branches..... well, certain IP components of them. A portfolio that could embarrass both Ballmer and Jobs.

Re:Microsoft Has Already Moved On To Ubuntu

[postbigbang]

And each twit that licenses them, sells justice down the tubes. One org needs to fight representatively for all. I'd donate lots of money to that organization. Extortion is a hideous crime.

Errr what?

[pookemon]

Microsoft loses credibility by letting the owner of it's chosen open source project die? Ummmm... It's an open source product. They just put a copy of it on their web site and they're covered.

Re:Errr what?

[TheSHAD0W]

Yup, or fork it and take over administration of the fork.

I can't see how they could have been getting that much cred from SUSE anyway.

MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[ipquickly]

Why would MS even care?
In fact if Novell fails, along with what recently happened with MySQL and Open Solaris, MS can brag about how proprietary software is the way to go.

Call my cynical, but any inroads into open source software by MS have been either because they had to, or because they had a direct benefit from the public image attained by playing nice with open source software.

At the end of the day, the fact remains. MS would like everyone to use their proprietary software. MS would like everyone to forget about open source.

The only way this will ever change is if open source becomes more profitable to them than proprietary software.
Then MS would transform into the #1 proponent of open source.

Think of the shareholders!

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

MySQL is a very, very bastardized form of "open source". For all intents and purposes, it is a commercial product. Compared to database systems like PostgreSQL and SQLite, both of which are released under very liberal open source licenses, MySQL's licensing is fucked to hell and back.

OpenSolaris was a commercial project for about a quarter of a century.

Any failures of those two projects are failures not of true, community-driven open source projects, but rather of commercially-driven products that sought to appeal to the open source crowd by some half-assed source releases.

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[williamhb]

Why would MS even care? In fact if Novell fails, along with what recently happened with MySQL and Open Solaris, MS can brag about how proprietary software is the way to go.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if MS bought Novell for precisely that reason. They might even push WINE and Mono so that SUSE can be seen as "the cheap (connotation of rubbishy) system that you play with before buying Windows licenses when you want to do things for real." Turn your competitors into loss-leaders (as Oracle seems intent on doing with MySQL).

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[virtualXTC]

MySQL is a very, very bastardized form of "open source".

Troll much? The GPL is the most open of "open source" because the licensing locks the code open for everyone to see and modify.

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[moosesocks]

In fact if Novell fails, along with what recently happened with MySQL and Open Solaris, MS can brag about how proprietary software is the way to go.

And, actually, Microsoft would have a good point. If I were a Sun admin right now, I'd be very, very worried. Similarly, if you built an enterprise around SuSE, you'd likely be facing some pretty steep transition costs to move over to Red Hat.

On the other hand, Windows will be around forever, and Microsoft (god bless/curse them) will ensure that binary compatibility is maintained until the apocalypse, and that upgrades are fairly trivial affairs. When we replace a server, we install whatever version of Windows is current, and forget about it. Win2008's got quite a few new features that make it extremely competitive with Linux and Solaris.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm an open source advocate through and through, and use a Mac at home. However, since working in a mostly-MS-based shop for a few months, I can honestly see the allure of the platform. It's here today, and it'll definitely be here tomorrow. Even if Windows isn't necessarily the best or shiniest option in town, it'll always be sitting comfortably in second place. Corporations like stability, and it's really not hard to see why.

That all said, it's no secret that competition from Linux, Solaris, and OS X have scared the pants off of Microsoft, which definitely shows in Windows 7 and Server 2008R2, both of which were fantastic upon first release (which is something that Microsoft has never done to my memory, and something that even the Linux and Apple folks have a tough time pulling off).

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[bitsmith]

At the end of the day, the fact remains. MS would like everyone to use their proprietary software. MS would like everyone to forget about open source. The only way this will ever change is if open source becomes more profitable to them than proprietary software. Then MS would transform into the #1 proponent of open source.

We've already seen MS transform this way, in Browser Wars.

This whole "We are Borg" attitude makes them look scary.

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[dAzED1]

Troll much? The GPL is the most open of "open source" because the licensing locks the code open for everyone to see and modify.

Funny you say "code" there...you might want to check out why he said what he said, before responding.

It wasn't code licensing that got the OSS annoyed at MySQL and how they were earning a bad rep and pissing off companies who would, and had, otherwise contributed. It was the gpl "protocol" stupidity, where they claimed anything that connected to a mysql database was also subject to the GPL. Plus, they didn't just publish under GPL...they started the dual-licensing bit.

To some, "open source" is a culture which promotes freedom of use, not just availability of source to look at...something mysql absolutely did not do. Feel free to disagree with us, I suppose.

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[gbjbaanb]

Yes I know... its a shame MS isn't as bad as everyone would like.

However, look at the things they do do wrong, its mainly complexity and partly 'new stuff'. I'm looking to port one of my old apps to the new Visual Studio... and its all changed beyond recognition so I have to go learn a brand new framework (again) to do the same thing I did last time, which in itself required learning a new framework. Its like they can never quite get it right, so continually replace the old 'crap' with new shiny stuff.. until they want to replace that and the 'new shiny' becomes the 'old crap ' all over again. It can be difficult to maintain and keep up.

This has occurred a little recently, the cult of the backwards-compatibility is being sacrificed to the cult of the new and shiny.

The other aspect is complexity. In Linux, everything sits in a directory and runs independently, and is hooked together using standard mechanisms. Lovely. Its a breath of fresh air when you don't have to install a framework, a toolkit, a patch set, an upgrade and then fix some really obscure part of the system that was invented to make things complicated. I recall installing MS Small Business package which required a MS-SQL install, which in turn required WMI updates which failed. Eventually I found the WMI DB needed rebuilding completely. It made the worst linux configurations look like childs play.

I see a lot more of that nowadays compared to old versions of Windows, too much 'stuff' crammed in there (and then see the first para for why its never quite good enough and maintained properly - they realise the stuff they've slapped in is crap, and replace it with an alternative shiny thing).

I think a lot of customers are realising this. We're a Microsoft shop ("replace everything with WCF services") but we support Oracle on Redhat for some reason, and our largest customers have all specified Redhat to run their DBs on. Considering they have to admin Windows for the rest of the product system, I find that quite intriguing.
 

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

True freedom isn't defined by restriction. Being forced to make any modifications publicly available is a restriction. Thus the GPL is more restrictive, and hence offers less freedom, than the MIT/X11 license, the BSD license, the zlib license, and so forth.

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[zsau]

What recently happened to MySQL? Last I heard, Oracle bought Sun and (in December 2009) pledged to continue supporting MySQL, which didn't/doesn't compete with their main products (as I understand it, in a similar way to how Wordpad doesn't compete with Word, except scaled up a billion times on both sides). Has something else happened since then? Google News and Wikipedia aren't telling me anything interesting.

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[domatic]

Yes but MySQL insisted on a very novel interpretation of the GPL. They insisted that the socket interface to make SQL queries was also covered by the GPL effectively meaning that merely querying a MySQL instance was sufficient to require that the app doing the querying had to be GPLed or one of their commercial licensees. Even RMS himself has taken pains to get across that merely using GPLed software over customary interfaces doesn't "infect" anything else with the GPL unless you have something like bison that emits GPLed structures that you incorporation into your own source. And this happenstance doesn't apply to MySQL.

If someone had wanted to press it and take them to court over this, there is sufficient precedent for a good lawyer to prevail but of course that would have been costly so they have never been called on this in an official way though plenty of developers have told them they're full of it. We can only hope that Oracle doesn't continue insisting on this stupidity. I would think they are involved in enough GPLed codebases to see the madness it leads to.

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[david_thornley]

Of course, the GPL doesn't require anybody to make anything publicly available, so your argument loses there. Not to mention that your argument applies equally to the US Constitutional amendment banning slavery - it's a restriction, and by your argument makes the country less free.

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[neurovish]

Why would MS even care?
In fact if Novell fails, along with what recently happened with MySQL and Open Solaris, MS can brag about how proprietary software is the way to go.

If Novell fails, then whoever ends up with the corpse gets their patents...like the ones for Unix that SCO was throwing about until Novell stepped in and mentioned that they're the real owners. Why do you think a huge company like Microsoft would enter into a lopsided deal like they did a few years ago? It was all about patent protection and the SLES certificates were just the bribe. Microsoft was reselling those at a substantial loss.

Re:MS doesn't need Novell, not now, not ever.

[magus_melchior]

Think of the shareholders!

This reminded me of a recent legal movement to allow a corporation to not necessarily put shareholders first. The linked story refers to Ben & Jerry's, who were forced by threat of shareholder litigation to literally sell out.

Rubbish article

[Gorobei]

Trying to pretend this is some giant strategic cat-fight is a waste of time. I can only assume the author of the article is trying to gin up his importance and earn a few thou in consulting fees.

The big companies have already figured out that Linux works just fine in datacenters. Most managers don't know or care if they are running Redhat, Ubuntu, Suse, or a home-roll. They do know that Linux isn't going to vanish just cos some random firm gets bought out.

Re:Rubbish article

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they sure as hell arent running Ubuntu in no datacenter, at least they better not be :p Its the windows ME of linux, and you all know it.

Re:Rubbish article

[Gorobei]

Hmm, I've got 10K+ cpus running right now. I 'd bet at least three nodes are actually running Ubuntu: some of our SAs like it, and I'm guessing a few boxes got booted manually and left in some random mode. Me, I don't much care, as long as the node can fork and exec and return the right results.

Re:Rubbish article

[JackieBrown]

Most of the people I know at rackspace that work on the linux side(which is a pretty big employeer in San Antonio) run Ubuntu and OpenSuse at work.

Re:Rubbish article

[CAIMLAS]

If your manager doesn't care which Linux distribution you're running (especially if it's a difficult-to-maintain home roll) please don't be an ass: pick something sane and maintainable, with good version control and reporting.

If it "doesn't matter" then pick what works best; it'll allow you to concentrate on the important sysadmin tasks like reporting, performance metrics, and the like - not security exploits, difficult-to-patch source trees, and god knows what else mindrotfuck.

Re:Rubbish article

[icebraining]

Well, Wikipedia does.

Re:Rubbish article

[drsmithy]

Most managers don't know or care if they are running Redhat, Ubuntu, Suse, or a home-roll.

Yes, they do - and if they don't, they're incompetent.

Amazing How Easy It Has Been For Microsoft

[MediaStreams]

When Novell sold out to Microsoft you had open source kooks falling all over each other to proclaim that they would go right on using Novell products and projects so they could brag about how 'open minded' they were to the rest of the world(who didn't give a shit one way or another).

You have to imagine the execs up in Redmond were just shaking their heads in disgust that they had disrupted the open source/Linux world with so little effort.

I don't think Microsoft is really actively wasting time with Ubuntu. They don't have to. Linux marketshare is going nowhere outside of statistical blips. They have Miguel de Icaza doing so much damage to desktop Linux adoption and application development with the Gnome/KDE split and the Mono fiasco that they surely must be entirely focused on Google and Apple(commercial companies run by grownups and staffed by competent people who put in 40+ hour a week work on the unglamorous work that goes into creating polished consumer ready software).

Re:Amazing How Easy It Has Been For Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

KDE started after Gnome. Additionally, it's impossible to use from languages other than C++ and a bunch of ginormous blobs of code, MSFT style. If I wanted to run Windows, I'd run Windows.

~Gnome Troll

Re:Amazing How Easy It Has Been For Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, GNOME was the open source answer to the proprietary license encumbered KDE back in the day. Fail troll.

Re:Amazing How Easy It Has Been For Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time you saw Microsoft going -actively or passively- after Apple. That's right: NEVER.
Apple is just a second brand of Microsoft these days. The one that targets the upper market segment. Just like FIAT and Ferrari.For those of you who don't know, FIAT is an auto maker from Italy that does cheap and uggly (hey, my personal oppinion!) cars. Lots of them. And there's Ferrari, that makes those Extremely expensive sport cars everybody knows. I will let you figure out who owns who.

Re:Amazing How Easy It Has Been For Microsoft

[colinrichardday]

Does that mean that Linux is Lamborghini? Would *BSD be Bugatti?

IBM should buy them.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Novell still has the copyrights to Unix.

If Microsoft were to buy them we could see a re-run of IBM vs. SCO, with Microsoft playing SCO but, having learned from SCO where the land mines are and having the REAL copyright ownership, going after any places where they might win and winning. They might be able to collect a "Microsoft Tax" on any remaining Unix vendors that are still running under ongoing licenses. They might find places where other vendors weren't covered by previous licenses. They might find some code leakage from Unix to open source projects and go after them, beating them into submission or bankruptcy, maybe winning on the merits, maybe winning by just having big pockets while open-sourcerers live on a shoestring. This could be a disaster for IBM, open source, any remaining proprietary Unix vendors, etc.

If IBM buys Novell they are protected from this sort of attack on their current business model from now on. They have the option of releasing the Unix code base under open-source licenses. I could go on.

IBM has the bux, the incentive, and the smarts. So I'm not just hoping, but betting, on them.

Re:IBM should buy them.

[Bruce Perens]

Forget about Unix copyrights. No litigation value remaining because of the time they were in the public domain, and the time they were released under the BSD license. Look how far it got SCO.

Re:IBM should buy them.

[Stephenmg]

Why would any other Linux distributer want to purchase Novell after the deal they made with microsoft? That would make them part of that agreement as well.

Re:IBM should buy them.

[H0p313ss]

Forget about Unix copyrights. No litigation value remaining because of the time they were in the public domain, and the time they were released under the BSD license. Look how far it got SCO.

Yes, but having them is a heck of a lot better than NOT having them. Add in the Novell customer base and an active and popular (in Europe) linux distribution and it looks like a nice package.

Re:IBM should buy them.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I hope you're right, Bruce. (Did the terms of the BSD deal ever come out publicly? If so I missed it.)

My concern is that SCO only had a license, while Novell has the actual copyrights, for whatever they're worth. IMHO that could make just enough of a difference that we could be in for another ride on the legal mill-of-the-gods merry-go-round - with Microsoft funding it openly and directly from their Marianas-Trench-deep pockets.

Or (worse!) that the perceived potential for such an action could be used to put the fear of litigation into potential open-source adopters once again. THAT could last as long as the copyrights - which means effectively forever - while Microsoft doesn't have to do ANYTHING but whisper a little untraceable FUD while publicly claiming (in a non-binding way) they don't intend to ever actually sue. B-(

One thing seems clear to me: Microsoft isn't about to run out of money if they decided to hit the courts one more time. (Fortunately they ARE perceived as a monopolist.)

Re:IBM should buy them.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Why would any other Linux distributer want to purchase Novell after the deal they made with microsoft? That would make them part of that agreement as well.

You mean the deal that, if IBM bought Novell and ran it as a wholly-owned subsidiary, would give IBM access to all Microsoft's patents while Microsoft had access only to Novell's?

Naw. NO open-source company would want to be thrown into THAT brier patch, would they?

Re:IBM should buy them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you want IBM, the largest patent troll in history, to buy them? After all you don't get billions in patent revenue each year by being nice.

IBM is everything that slashdot accuses IBM of being.

Re:IBM should buy them.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Why would you want IBM, the largest patent troll in history, to buy them?

Because IBM has built a large business supporting open source solutions in large corporate customers. They're smart enough to feed the goose that lays their golden eggs - and have a track record of doing so.

IBM was ONCE a problem. But they've been through a mid-life crisis since then, and came out as one of the best "corporate citizens" the Open Source community could have for a neighbor. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, but recent past behavior is a better predictor than distant past behavior.

Re:IBM should buy them.

[sconeu]

Groklaw has the BSD settlement here.

Re:IBM should buy them.

[selven]

proprietary unix vendors

Wait, does that include OSX?

Re:IBM should buy them.

[Bruce Perens]

How is having them better if they are arguably in the public domain and obsolete too? Be concrete.

Re:IBM should buy them.

[Bruce Perens]

The BSD I am talking about is a Caldera release of the Unix source code under the BSD license. It's well-documented. Regarding USL v. BSD, the key part is known, which is that Unix was released to Berkeley and the BSD users without a proper copyright statement, and before the Bern Copyright Convention was ratified by the US. At that time material without a proper copyright statement was in the public domain.

Re:IBM should buy them.

[moosesocks]

If Microsoft were to buy them we could see a re-run of IBM vs. SCO, with Microsoft playing SCO

Microsoft is trying to clean up its image, and avoid as much attention as possible from the EU and DoJ.

They won't do this. I'd put money on it.

PS. Mono/moonlight is safe. The absolute worst Microsoft could do would be to fork C#, which also hurt its image, attract regulators, and piss off windows-based .NET developers. A legally-binding promise not to sue is a legally-binding promise not...to...sue. Microsoft would have a tough time even finding a judge who would agree to bring such a case to trial.

Re:IBM should buy them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a former IBMer - IBM has at best, a lukewarm interest in supporting open source solutions for corporate customers. The goose that lays their golden eggs is AIX and OS400. That's what their sales teams are pushing. Mostly for fear of not making their sales quotas unfortunately.

Re:IBM should buy them.

[makomk]

No, the worst they could do is sell one of the C# patents to a patent trolling firm and point them in the direction of Mono. The promise not to sue only binds Microsoft and not future purchasers of the patents (whereas a proper patent license, which is what Microsoft would use to protect itself and its customers if it did this, does bind future purchasers).

Re:IBM should buy them.

[icebraining]

Moonlight is so safe that it depends on proprietary codecs that can only be distributed by Microsoft.

Re:IBM should buy them.

[domatic]

Buying Novell just to use them as an anticompetitive weapon would once again draw unwelcome regulator attention to MS. The MS way would be to bankroll proxies to do their dirty work for them just as they did with SCO.

Microsoft buys Linux!

[Shompol]

http://www.bbspot.com/news/2000/4/MS_Buys_Evil.html
Upcoming Windows 8 Ultimate Server will feature an OpenSuse virtual engine!!!
Competing distribution of Linux will be quietly forced into an acquisition by Elliot...

MS and Apple seem to be best friends these days

[alen]

Apple has a fully licensed MS Exchange client on 50 million or so iphones and ipods
Snow Leapard has a fully licensed MS Exchange 2007 client
MS Office for Mac will have Outlook in the next version
Rumors are Bing is going to displace Google as the default search engine on the iphone
Apple is big in Open Source since OS X is based on some version of BSD. FreeBSD I think
Microsoft doesn't seem to want to compete in the mobile space or with MP3 players. the Zune was a total waste of great hardware
Apple doesn't seem to want to compete in the Enterprise Software market where MS likes to be these days

And Google with their vision of the cloud is the common enemy to Apple and Microsoft's fat client strategy

Re:MS and Apple seem to be best friends these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm. That's a lot of words.

Re:MS and Apple seem to be best friends these days

[cgenman]

Microsoft doesn't seem to want to compete in the mobile space or with MP3 players. the Zune was a total waste of great hardware
Apple doesn't seem to want to compete in the Enterprise Software market where MS likes to be these days

Microsoft just announced their revamped phone interface, which looks like they spent a lot of effort to go head-on with Apple. Their electronics division continues to pour money into the hole that is Zune: the Xbox 360 just got full Zune support.

Apple, on the other hand, by your comments about exchange is going after exactly the sort of corporate customers that would traditionally have been all-windows shops. They know nobody can compete for the e-mail server software itself, so they're offering hosted mail support.

Apple has had a cloud strategy for years with MobileMe. It hasn't had the penetration of Google's offerings, since Apple sought to charge for the service and Google earns through ads. But they have been throwing not inconsiderable weight behind what is becoming more and more a compelling cloud-based feature set.

Re:MS and Apple seem to be best friends these days

[shutdown -p now]

Apple has had a cloud strategy for years with MobileMe. It hasn't had the penetration of Google's offerings, since Apple sought to charge for the service and Google earns through ads. But they have been throwing not inconsiderable weight behind what is becoming more and more a compelling cloud-based feature set.

And Microsoft has Azure. So it's not about "burning the Web" in hope to bring Google down with it - it's a fight for whose turf it will end up being.

Re:MS and Apple seem to be best friends these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually believe it or not the apple email services within the XServe are pretty good. However they don't scale to the levels that most large corporates require. The second item is that for small businesses its easy to setup a small email server using this hardware and it instantly integrates with all your mac desktops. Its a tightly integrated package that will and does compete with exchange/outlook with a much more simplistic product to configure for john doe end user.

Re:MS and Apple seem to be best friends these days

[mjwx]

What do you mean by "these days"?

MS and Apple have always been the best of friends. It was MS who saved apple from bankruptcy in 1997, even Darth Jobs said that "People must get over the idea that in order for Apple to win Microsoft must lose". Apple's business tactics practically mirror that of a much smaller Microsoft with less ethics.

If Linux or Google makes any inroads into the desktop you can practically bet on a Microsoft/Apple merger, especially if Apple falls into financial trouble (not that hard for a non-fanboy to see, they basically bet the farm on popular gadgets and popularity is a fickle mistress, it will take one high profile failure for the house of cards to come falling down). Apple will be the consumer brand, Microsoft will be the business brand.

Re:MS and Apple seem to be best friends these days

[Anonymous Coward]

MobileMe was garbage. I worked as tech support on it, and more than half the time the problems were something with no fix because the engineers had screwed up again. Every update brought a whole slew of new complaints. After I ran screaming from that job I haven't looked back, so I don't know if they ever fixed it, but boy was it ever a nightmare to support.

Re:MS and Apple seem to be best friends these days

[JAlexoi]

OMFG! MobileMe is a classic central server system. In no way MobileMe is a cloud! Branding something a "cloud" just because some idiot baboons at Apple corporate marketing decided to does not make it true.
A cloud is a "multiplicity", not a "singularity". MobileMe, and most of Apple's products, are as far from the cloud concept as they ever were.

News just in!

[Fex303]

In news just to hand, it seems that Microsoft might have ever had any open source credibility whatsoever.

"Oh yeah, Microsoft are totally all over that open source shit," according to Richard M Stallman, the open source movement's supreme leader by virtue of prime beardiness and epic ninja skills. "If they let Novell die, then I'll have no choice but to see them as money-grubbing organisation who simply try to wring every last cent from their customers, rather than the benevolent and inspiring open source leaders that they are today."

Mr Stallman was later spotted sharpening his katana.

Stay tuned for more updates, unfounded speculation and general craziness masquerading as 'analysis' as it comes to hand.

Re:News just in!

[buttle2000]

RMS believes in free software, not in open source software.

Same Story with Apple in the 90's

[filesiteguy]

Microsoft did the same thing with Apple in the '90s. They bought a huge stake in Apple, right when they were sinking down the toilet and then proclaimed that they were not a monopoly. Having competition - even propped up competition - is better for business.

If Microsoft were the only kid on the block then you know the government is going to be looking closer at them.

No suprise, either, that Novell is going down the tubes. I've been hearing about them for several years in the data center. However, I can see how tech managers don't have a compelling reason to switch from Microsoft to SLES. I personally would run SLES over Win 2008 but can see how many are afraid. (Disclaimer: I ran openSUSE for several years on my laptop and since switched to Ubuntu for all desktops since I didn't feel Novell had the mindshare needed.)

Re:Same Story with Apple in the 90's

[dangitman]

Microsoft did the same thing with Apple in the '90s. They bought a huge stake in Apple, right when they were sinking down the toilet and then proclaimed that they were not a monopoly. Having competition - even propped up competition - is better for business.

No. Microsoft bought a small number of non-voting shares as part of a court settlement. There was nothing "huge" about it, and it had nothing to do with the appearance of competition or anything like that.

Re:Same Story with Apple in the 90's

[filesiteguy]

That's funny. I seem to remember numerous articles discussing just that, nevermind the fact that there were several opinion pieces relating how Microsoft used Apple to help leverage the DOJ to get off their backs.

Re:Same Story with Apple in the 90's

[dangitman]

Well, those articles would be wrong. That wouldn't be unusual, the tech media is full of inaccurate articles constructed from pure bullshit.

Re:Same Story with Apple in the 90's

[drsmithy]

That's funny. I seem to remember numerous articles discussing just that, nevermind the fact that there were several opinion pieces relating how Microsoft used Apple to help leverage the DOJ to get off their backs.

Microsoft and Apple don't compete in any "markets". This was even more true then than it is today.

Re:Same Story with Apple in the 90's

[dangitman]

P.S:

nevermind the fact that there were several opinion pieces relating how Microsoft used Apple to help leverage the DOJ to get off their backs.

If the aim of this settlement was to get the DOJ off their backs, then why did it include an agreement for Apple to make Internet Explorer the default browser on Mac OS? Surely, that would have the opposite effect - and the DOJ would see it as MS extending their monopoly to the Mac, which was the only commercially viable desktop OS aside from Windows.

I don't see how extending IE's presence to practically 100% of consumer personal computers would help Microsoft's case with the DOJ. Previously, the default Mac browser was Netscape. How does eliminating Netscape on the Mac indicate a desire for competition?

That's what I always wondered.

[khasim]

Instead of buying a distribution, how about hiring some of the coders and providing them with specs to get your money-making products ported to ALL Linux distributions?

Then pay bounties for improvements you need/want in other areas of Linux.

Your company and products end up distribution-agnostic and you have lots of good will from paying the coders who are furthering Linux. And you can do it for a LOT less than the price of buying a whole distribution.

Re:That's what I always wondered.

[Bruce Perens]

Instead of buying a distribution, how about hiring some of the coders and providing them with specs to get your money-making products ported to ALL Linux distributions?

Because we don't really need those money-making products. We've got our own products that are already across distributions.

Re:That's what I always wondered.

[toastar]

Instead of buying a distribution, how about hiring some of the coders and providing them with specs to get your money-making products ported to ALL Linux distributions?

Then pay bounties for improvements you need/want in other areas of Linux.

Your company and products end up distribution-agnostic and you have lots of good will from paying the coders who are furthering Linux. And you can do it for a LOT less than the price of buying a whole distribution.

I'm all for that, As long as it reduces costs.

which costs more redhat support or microsoft licenses?

Re:That's what I always wondered.

[JackieBrown]

Do MS licenses come with free support at the same level as red hat support?

Re:That's what I always wondered.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do MS licenses come with free support at the same level as red hat support?

You mean 30 days installation support only?

Who will own Unix?

[Billly Gates]

SCO lost because Novel owns Unix, the utilities, posix, and how it operates.

I am afraid of someone like Microsoft buying Unix only to cease and desist any Unix like product that looks similar. What better way to get back at Oracle and kill Linux then to own the unix standard?

Re:Who will own Unix?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two things:

1. Novell was found to own the UNIX copyrights, etc. This meant the end for the SCO suits because even if they had proven infringement at trial (which they couldn't have anyway) they wouldn't have been entitled to anything anyway. I doubt they have any useful claim to POSIX, which is an IEEE standard which has been vendor-neutral for decades. It would be pretty hard to base a look-and-feel suit around a standard that you helped write.

2. Back in the Novell (or maybe back in AT&T/USL) days, Sun bought a very open-ended license to UNIX technologies (IIRC, they were the only vendor that didn't have to pay a per-unit licensing fee). Assuming that transfered to Oracle they are probably safer than anybody else from abuse at the hands of a Novell-buyer.

Besides, if linux were somehow "hurt" wouldn't that just drive more people into the arms of Solaris? If anything Oracle might benefit

Re:Who will own Unix?

[Anonymous Coward]

This won't get back at Oracle. Sun bought out their Unix license stream years ago. So Solaris is totally unencumbered.

Re:Who will own Unix?

[sowth]

If AT&T couldn't do it to BSD, then what makes you think Microsoft will have a better chance with Linux? USL v. BSDi

Re:Who will own Unix?

[Billly Gates]

... and where exactly is FreeBSD today?

Gnu/Linux totally creamed its marketshare as the result of that lawsuit.

Re:Who will own Unix?

[shentino]

Point one is currently in dispute.

SCO v. Novell

Re:Who will own Unix?

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO lost because Novel owns Unix, the utilities, posix, and how it operates.

I am afraid of someone like Microsoft buying Unix only to cease and desist any Unix like product that looks similar. What better way to get back at Oracle and kill Linux then to own the unix standard?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Re:Who will own Unix?

[Bruce Perens]

The problem is that the law that made ATT lose that case by placing Unix in the public domain has since been changed. If that case was held today, ATT might have won. Also, it didn't help ATT that the Berkeley folks were able to show that ATT plagirized them.

Don't know how appealing it is..

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM is in an interesting situation. They've avoided distributing Linux like the plague, yet they invest a lot of development into it. They base a lot of firmware and utilities around Novell-sourced linux, but simultaneously make every effort to not make that obvious. Novell I don't think is that appealing in and of itself, but IBM would be left having to rework their linux sourcing strategy, which is not a technical difficulty (switch to RH or just live without SuSE maintaining the codebase), but their lawyers may make it highly difficult to continue without significant impact. Owning Novell would also put them in an awkward position relative to frequent partners RH and MS.

SAP, I can't comment on. I could see it in theory, but practically speaking the partnership I've seen with SuSE is probably not worth the price of the company compared to the price of just jumping to RH.

Oracle I seriously doubt. They have Solaris and a RHEL derivative already in terms of platform. Maybe they can get some credibility in broader enterprise directory or systems management, but it seems to be stretching it and I just don't see it.

MS I don't see as giving a rat's ass. In terms of the legal circumstance MS wanted to project in the world about linux, that pretty much was over with the moment RH called their bluff and didn't get sued. I think they tried to grandstand a little around the MS-Novell partnership to make the best out of the situation, but it comes off as a salvage operation of a move that didn't pan out rather than a strategic investment to preserve.

If Novell/SuSE is on the verge of dying out, I don't see any companies investing any money in salvaging. The companies that want to be a distributor of linux already do. The ones that don't would be better off with a rebuild of RHEL or Ubuntu. A company thinking they could make a better run of making something of SuSE's assets than Novell is deluding themselves.

Come again?

[Angst Badger]

Microsoft has staked any open source credibility that it has on Novell's SUSE distribution.

I hate to break it to the author of TFA, but Microsoft does not have, never had, and never will have "any open source credibility". I'm sure there are people dumb enough to think that the Microsoft-Novell deal had any beneficial effects whatsoever for FOSS, but none of those people matter because they already bankrupted themselves in a series of repeat sales of the Brooklyn fucking Bridge.

Have we really reached the point where someone can wave around a huge wad of cash and say that night is day and everyone just nods and smiles? Even people who aren't getting any of the cash? Really?

Re:Come again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your hate is blinding you.

They had some decent products.

[khasim]

I still prefer their file/directory rights system. And eDirectory was decent. And GroupWise was decent.

Re:They had some decent products.

[sethadam1]

And NWAdmin - 10 years later - is still more robust than Active Directory in its default format.

Re:They had some decent products.

[Anonymous Coward]

GroupWise? Really?! Only if you compare it with Exchange and Outlook.

Novell killed itself with its choices

[deanston]

Nothing Novell does is special or cost effective any more. Groupwise? Still sucks on the web and on mobile and feels like desktop email from 2000. Netware? Plenty of competition there. Suse? The lizard's cute but can't beat RedHat/CentOS in farms or Ubuntu and others at home. Mono? Regardless of your opinion about dotNET, the sure thing is Mono will always lag behind latest MSFT version and never gain significant production and commercialization. The closer they get with Microsoft, the easier it is for shops that used to run both Novell and MSFT to drop the extra Novell piece and just go with all MSFT. Same old story.

Re:Novell killed itself with its choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Another uninformed person who still thinks Novell=NetWare. Novell has the top-rated Idm suite, eDirectory of course, Zenworks, etc. People who keep bringing up the NetWare is dead argument therefore Novell should die, really show their ignorance.

Open source cred? Important to whom?

[jasmusic]

People really think Microsoft gives a flying fuck about its open source cred when their entire product line is bolted away?

As a former Caldera customer

[Burz]

...I predicted just days after Novell signed their patent deal with MS that Novell would eventually follow a similar path as Caldera/SCO.

But I don't want to be proven right.

Really bad idea

[azrider]

This could improve distribution beyond SuSE into other areas. Then Novell could concentrate on their service line, and perhaps let SuSE die, or release all of the SuSE specific bits to the community, for introduction into other distros. Novell could easily go the IBM path and become a systems integration and management company concentrating on Linux, over being a specific software provider.

For enterprise level systems (think SAN storage), the two major distributions that are supported are RHEL and SLES. At least in the IBM Storage Systems arena, those (along with Windows, AIX and z/OS) are the only platforms that are officially supported. Novell would be insane to forgo that market.

Novell, SuSE, proprietary soft, bad, long ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Novell was never an open source enterprise and then they bought SuSE. Another company that used proprietary software in its business strategy. Now under the direction of Novell SuSE did go open source and allot changed so I will give them some benefit of the doubt... but they also teamed up with Microsoft. I think you have to wonder if they have a firm grasp of how to get where they are going. While it was unclear at times where Redhat was going (desktop, server, etc) it was never unclear that they were an open source operation. Redhat never aligned themselves with the devil. It might be one thing to include proprietary drivers and I might even argue license technology from Microsoft under certain circumstances- but what Novell did has really stretched it. Despite all of this I wouldn't completely cross Novell off the list of companies I'd do business with. The problem for Novell is that Redhat has comparable products and services. I have no reason to choose Novell over Redhat and Redhat is a purely open source company that doesn't align itself with my enemy. So why would I choose to support a company that aligns itself with my enemy?

Right now my company is a start-up and we're not yet at a point where we need to contract with a major distributor for support. So we don't need the services of Redhat, Novell, or Canonical. When we do I'll definitely choose Canonical, Redhat, and then Novell in that order and we're already prepared to transition to distributions and get support from companies in that order for the reasons above. Canonical supports GNU/Linux users- on the desktop- they go above and beyond the call of duty, then Redhat- they support open source unquestionably, and finally Novell, they exist, they put out open source software, but they don't always make the best business decisions from an ethical perspective.

The problem for Novell is that third place means you loose out on allot of money. Novell could be the Microsoft of the GNU/Linux world. They aren't though all because of the decisions they've made. I think allot of that has to do with the fact they've failed to retain their old customers during transition to the new GNU/Linux product line and certain hire-ups didn't get that aligning themselves with Microsoft was going to undo the "good-will" (even if it was purely selfishly motivated reasons rather than for principle) initiatives (opening up SuSE and other non-free GNU/Linux software).

RedHat should step in

[jroysdon]

I hate to see Novell die (I was a CNA way back in the day, and learned NetWare 3.x in high school), but I think it'd be for the best interest of FOSS due to their taintedness with Microsoft.

Here's what I think should occur:
RedHat should set up a third-party company that they own. That company should buy Novell. That company should sell all non-tainted assets to RedHat.

Then what is left are the tainted bits the third-party is holding. Let it just die or shut down or whatever it is that you can do with a corporation to put it out of its misery.

Red Hat should worry a little.

[Degrees]

Novell was under systemic attack by Microsoft for decades. It worked, too.

When Novell is gone, Microsoft's only real competitors left in the corporate data center will be Red Hat and Solaris. Those people currently running SuSE will migrate to Red Hat, making them a bigger target for MS. Solaris is still there, but seems to be floundering a bit under Oracle. So one is a rising star, and the other, not. (I say that, but I don't know. OpenSolaris may be way more popular than I think).

Luckily for Red Hat, Microsoft is more worried about Google and the cloud at the moment. But that can easily change, if Microsoft has a few extra-lean quarters. Particularly if it is found that some large portions of the cloud run Red Hat.

The other lucky thing for Red Hat is that the hard-charging leader of Microsoft is gone, and the resultant internal squabbling keeps the MS VPs distracted. But that too can easily change, if Microsoft has a few extra-lean quarters. Taking it to extremes... if Bill Gates gets bored with the charity thing and comes back to 'rescue' Microsoft, I'd take short-sell positions on Red Hat.

Re:Red Hat should worry a little.

[tsotha]

Novell was under systemic attack by Microsoft for decades. It worked, too.

I think the word you're looking for is "systematic". In any event, what you characterize as an "attack" was just normal business competition. Microsoft had the better product and charged less for it. By the time Novell jumped on the Linux bandwagon the writing was already on the wall.

Re:Red Hat should worry a little.

[Degrees]

You are correct - I meant the word systematic. Thanks.

The thing with Microsoft went further though. Specific coding by Microsoft to crash or hinder Novell software. Somewhere there is a list of five coding changes Microsoft did to make various Novell products crash or appear to fail.

Novell has been disfunctional since Netware 3.

[Futurepower(R)]

Agreed. Novell has been disfunctional since Netware version 3, in my opinion.

"It bought Wordperfect about the time it tanked, then couldn't make a go of it."

Novell buying WordPerfect for $885 million was an amazing decision. What amazed me most was that apparently Novell top managers apparently had no serious intention of being in the business of selling word processing software.

In 1996, 2 years later, Novell sold WordPerfect to Corel.

Re:Microsoft "investment"

[warrigal]

That "investment" of $150Mill worth of non-voting shares was cashed in at a good profit a few years later.
Apple had a cash heap of over $15Billion at the time and no debt. The $150Mill was simply a confidence move.
If anybody did well out of it it was Microsoft. They got to keep using the Quicktime code they were illegally using in Windows and Apple's promise to keep putting IE for Mac as the preferred browser. In return Microsoft promised to keep pumping out MS Office for the Mac for several more years. That latter agreement has long ago expired but MS Office is going as strong as ever.

Interesting timing...

[shentino]

...considering that the SCO v. Novell trial is just around the corner.

I smell a car analogy!

[WebCowboy]

You might ponder why Novell would associate itself with Microsoft--a business of the kind Novell most think would be best to stay far away from. I think that in this case we've seen the story play out in the automotive industry. Perhaps Novel should've heeded the lesson.

Novell is like Chrysler. At one time, not so long ago, both companies were "second bananas" in their respective industries that despite past troubles and having to face major crossroads were showing promise and were prosperous and improving...

Novell: it was direction-less and fighting a losing battle with Microsoft. The flagship products like Netware and the stepchildren it acquired like WordPerfect were starting to look antiquated and were losing market share to WinNT and MSOffice. Then at some point they remade themselves. They embraced open source and did a stellar job acquiring SuSE and Ximian in the face of doubters to building a sustainable, quality business around their Free software and though they've never achieved #1 spot over Red Hat they became a very respectable part of the "big three" Linux-based OSes.

Chrysler: it was direction-less and fighting a losing battle with imports from Asia and Europe. When OPEC was closing the taps and drivers had to hunt for pumps that hadn't run dry and cute, little round imports like the Beetle and the Civic and the Corolla were taking America by storm...and there was Chrysler building big, thirsty, stodgy boxy road boats. Finally facing the prospect of bankruptcy and pleading for a government bailout (the first time) they were forced to face reality. Iaccoca came in as chairman and embraced an whole new set of smaller more efficient front-wheel-drive platforms resulting in early successes like the Aries and Caravan. Chrysler did a stellar job in acquiring AMC from Renault and making the Jeep brand part of a sustainable, increasingly quality business that though far from #1 was a leader in design and once again a respectable part of the "big three" American-based automotive companies.

---

Novell: at the peak of its game it started to lose momentum again and though still in a very good financial condition felt the pressure to shake things up again and find a new growth strategy. This time, however they lost sight of their customers and the culture of the company. Someone who clearly didn't "get it" decided Novell should associate themselves with Microsoft. The flawed logic was that as the IP trolls gained prevalence and MS seemed here to stay for eternity that Novell would be the "safe harbour" from litigation and the Linux you could go with for superior interoperability with Windows infrastructure. But the cultures of the two partners could never mix and Linux customers were about OPEN systems and were offended that Novell would poison that openness just to get some cash and potentially check off some boxes on "the facts" list. Furthermore, for all the bad will the deal generated that hurt Novell's business Microsoft did nothing to promote the use of Linux amongst those that received its "SuSE Certificates". In the end MSFT did more to damage Novell than to nurture it.

Chrysler: They finally had more products that scored above average than below in performance and reliability, and it was the "cab forward" era when the cars were sleek, roomy and comfortable without being big lumbering boats. However they were hitting a plateau and needed investment to keep relevant and growing. Against common wisdom they chose to get with Daimler--a company that serves a completely different market segment, were known for quality but rather stodgy designs based in a country with a much more button-down way of doing business. Mopar fans' reactions were rarely favourable to the idea and nobody seriously thought Daimler REALLY thought of Chrysler as an "equal partner". Instead of getting the best of both worlds we got the worst--Chrysler's level of quality and MB's design influences! As the "cab forward" era ended MB did NOTHING to help Chrysler and in fact starved it

SCO lawsuit surely not in question ?

[Laxator2]

I saw that things are picking up in the SCO v.s. Novell lawsuit, and according to Groklaw SCO is in a pretty bad position with Novell owning the UNIX copyrights. Asset stripping sounds suspiciously convenient, especially if somebody wants those pesky copyrights out of the way.

Re:Microsoft "investment"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Apple had a cash heap of over $15Billion at the time and no debt.

Seems you are off by at least an order of magnitude.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html

I doubt that Apple was debt free either, I'm just too lazy to google it.

are Novel problems caused by their "friendship"?

[hany]

Is there any relation between Novel's problems and Novel's "friendship" with Microsoft?

Something like ... maybe ... "Novel is loosing customers because they are friendly towards Microsoft"?

Microsoft? IBM is morelikely...

[JAlexoi]

There is one problem with assumption that Microsoft will prop up Novell. The problem is Microsoft itself. They are not in the business for the "cred", they are there for the money.
And as business sense goes, the company that actually has any business interest in keeping SuSE alive is IBM. Last time I checked, SLES11 was the Linux that came from a non-competing company. RedHat does run on IBM's platforms, but face it, RedHat's JBoss is a competitor to IBM's WebSphere stuff.

Bye bye Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are supporting Microsoft's assimilation of open source, your days are numbered, Mr SUSE. Take note any other company that is thinking of offering similar support, you will surely suffer a similar fate, mainly due to Mafiasoft's lack of care and destroying a competitor whilst gaining protection money in the process.

SuSE were failing, but were a good company

[Anonymous Coward]

SuSE were failing, but were a good company. Red Hat had the support of big US companies and SuSE had weird capitalisation and a basically German slant. Therefore RH got the big money from commerce and SuSE were a better *Linux* company.

BSD Settlement on Groklaw.net

[Lorien_the_first_one]

You can find it here:

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/USLsettlement.pdf

Enjoy.

Novell?

[Niubi]

They should be going the way of the dinosaur. Dubli is where it's at, these days.

The Microsoft Curse

[T.E.D.]

After a couple of failing companies submit to Microsoft's "Linux patent" extortion, and then go under, people will start talking about a "Microsoft Curse". That'll do more damange to them than they were hoping to do to Linux.

Re:are Novel problems caused by their "friendship"

[Eskarel]

As someone who works with Novell's proprietary stack and SLES every day, not really. Certainly the Microsoft deal hurt them, a lot of what makes open source profitable is getting people to do work for free and when the raving loons decided that they'd done a deal with the devil(by taking cash from Microsoft in exchange for a whole lot of nothing in return) it would have cut into that quite a bit, but mostly their product offerings suck.

SLES is quite good, but it's slightly less well supported by third party vendors(that is to say if you want to run some proprietary software on a Linux offering you'll have more options if you go with RHEL). It's really very good though, and unlike RHEL isn't stuck with config utilities built and designed in the dark ages of Linux gui design. The consistent feel between the NCURSES and the X implementations of YAST is quite nice too.

SLED is of course a fantasy, the only people running it as a primary corporate desktop are doing it because they were forced by their IT department or for reasons of principle, and most of them are using a VM or Microsoft server somewhere to fill in the gaps. I honestly don't know why corporate Linux desktops didn't take off, but they haven't.

The biggest problems are that Groupwise, eDirectory, and even Zenworks(which used to be fantastic) are steaming piles of crap. Even if they weren't, I've dealt with too many vendors who basically laugh at you when you ask them for support and tell then you're running Novell. I had a vendor once blame Novell for a fault in their product when I could replicate it on a system which had never had any Novell software installed on it and wasn't connected to the network. They spent most of the 90's and early 00's arrogantly screwing their few remaining customers, failing to get new customers and generally screwing their profit margins into the ground. The few new sales they've picked up in the last 5 years or so have been based around their new middleware products and they don't even Demo those connecting to anything other than AD and Exchange anymore. Nothing like seeing a Novell sales rep coming to sell you in IDM and showing it connected to exchange and AD with no Novell backbone products in sight.

Novell have started to get a little better in the last few years, but like Sun they came in too little too late.

Microsoft doesn't need open source cred

[OrangeTide]

They only need to hold up examples of open source companies that are being strip mined to show the failure of the open source business model, that is one way to spin what is going on. The best strategy for Microsoft is to do nothing in this case.

Agreed.

[einhverfr]

I have actually done some contract work for Microsoft after going into business for myself. I wrote the paper featured here on Slashdot a few years ago on running PostgreSQL on Windows, for example. While if I do business with a company I make sure I am protected, this project turned out extremely well.

Folks in the FOSS community love to hate Microsoft. While I am not someone who thinks that Microsoft is a perfect company, and the company usually does get whatever they are after, I don't think one can blame Novell's issues today with their open source collaboration efforts with Microsoft. If you are going to blame Microsoft, you have to go back at least a decade.

Novell's recent problems stem, IMO, from making some fundamental mistakes about open source models. This is their own fault, not anybody else's.

Really?

[Dirtside]

I think I speak for us all when I ask...

Novell still exists?

Hmmm - It all became clear now

[Anonymous Coward]

The patents asserted by Microsoft on Linux are actually owned by Novell and once Novell is a fully owned subsidiary of Redmond said patents can be transferred to uncle bills treasure chest and the onslaught against FOSS can finally commence ;) The patented business concept is called "Future Patent Assertion"...

disagree: keep signing the name

[KWTm]

Now a small request. Can you leave off signing your name at the end of your comment? Your name is clearly spelt out at the top of your comment (as your user name). You and a few other people have this habit and it's quite annoying.

Counterpoint to this: I don't agree. The user name fails to stand out and blends in with the block header for that comment, which does not jump out at me. When Bruce (or whoever) signs a name, it is concise and does not have a string of text (user ID, subscriber options, email address, comment #) after it. If it bugs you, just pretend that the name is part of the sig.

Not that I'm telling Bruce not to make the requested change to the way he signs. But I want to speak out that not everyone finds it annoying.

Get back to ORACLE? How?

[jotaeleemeese]

SCO lost because Novel owns Unix, the utilities, posix, and how it operates.

I am afraid of someone like Microsoft buying Unix only to cease and desist any Unix like product that looks similar. What better way to get back at Oracle and kill Linux then to own the unix standard?

Oracle owns Solaris.

If MS would be foolish enough to try a dirty trick against Oracle then they would just turn off Linux (assuming they would not want to flex their legal muscle).

Client32

[Anonymous Coward]

Any one who worked in IT during the days of the decline of Novell Netware and the rise of Windows NT Server knows that it was not Microsoft that killed Novell, it was Novell's own "Client32" that killed Novell.