VMware Looks To Acquire Novell's SUSE Unit
minutetraders writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, VMware is attempting to acquire Novell's SUSE Linux operating system business. This move would give VMware a full stack of enterprise software and allow it to establish itself as a full-blown infrastructure and software vendor in direct competition with Red Hat."
The WSJ report is behind a paywall, but it's accessible in full through a Google search.
It won't be taken as seriously. You can *say* it's as good as an Enterprise Distro, it might even *be* as good. People that buy OSes for companies want to see a name they recognize. Right now those names are Red Hat (not available), SuSE, and to a less extent Canonical/Ubuntu (not available). Red Hat would probably be the one everyone wants to buy, but between being the market leader and being fairly profitable (not Microsoft or Apple levels of profitable, but plenty of money to keep everyone in kibble for sure), that's not much of an option.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Discovers that it now "accidentally" "owns" "Linux", and GRRRRRAARGH! BALLMER SMASH PUNY KERNEL!
You read it here first, although doubtless many more times below. It's coming. I can feel it coming in the air tonight (drum break).
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This news seems to me to be another bad omen. We run NetWare, Border Manager, ZENworks and Groupwise and have been very happy for many years. However, Novell seems to be a ship without a rudder and as the IT Director will cause me to consider other alternatives, including Microsoft.
Conservative, mod down for violating
Back in the day before "desktops" we had these things called window managers. And as a system admin, if a project is too big to be fixed with Perl, then it probably requires something in C. These are just my personal feelings on the matter though. I did buy a Mac 'cause I was sick of poor power management and lame wifi support on both FreeBSD and Linux, though. I have servers I don't run GUIs on, and I have VMWare for small experiments. I'm happy with the setup.
... does that mean we'd eventually see versions of vCenter Server and vCenter Client that run on something other than Windows? That would be nice.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Erm, like a lot of folks, I disagree with Miguel's position on the desirability of promoting MS standards; but you need to get a grip. The guy has done FAR more for the F/OSS world than most. I think his business acumen is suspect, but his coding ability and commitment to F/OSS are unassailable, as far as I can see. Use Linux? Try turning off every bit of software Miguel has touched, and see what you're left with.
Microsoft is giving away their shiny new hypervisor with their operating systems. What would be more fair than for VMWare to give away operating systems with their hypervisor?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Dude, whatever you are smoking can you please share it.
Gnome perpetrates Winhoze coding practices into the unix world. Just take any piece of gnome code and read it. Carefully. And follow the code design, not just the code "quality".
Let's just take ekiga as an example, though any gnome app will do.
The state machine is tightly coupled with the UI just like a Windows application. As a result making it use multiple CPUs properly or reusing the code for anything other than another Gnome application is impossible. Not surprisingly it triggers races in underlying (similarly badly coded) libraries like there is no tomorrow. Same for having the UI stripped away. This is impossible. And just do not get me started on the subject of trying to integrate something to a piece of gnome code. Because the apps state machines are built around the UI half of the key functions that should show up on dbus end up as inaccessible. Taking same ekiga as an example - call is exposed while hangup is not because it is so UI-tied up that there is no way in hell to expose it.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
If you don't want to use .net and java, but looking for something similair, why not Vala ?
New things are always on the horizon
[..] Theo De Raadt is more worth debating (and only just a little more), but the OpenBSD project, whether you use it or not, is responsible for OpenSSL and OpenSSH and damned near the entire world relies on those.[..]
OpenSSH yes.. OpenSSL no.. OpenSSL has nothing to do with OpenBSD other than the word "Open" in their name. The fact is the OpenSSH developers keep bashing in the OpenSSL developer's skulls in every time they do something stupid like change an API for no good reason.
Let's just take ekiga as an example, though any gnome app will do.
The state machine is tightly coupled with the UI just like a Windows application. As a result making it use multiple CPUs properly or reusing the code for anything other than another Gnome application is impossible. Not surprisingly it triggers races in underlying (similarly badly coded) libraries like there is no tomorrow. Same for having the UI stripped away. This is impossible.
That's why GNOME has switched to Empathy, just another GNOME app but done right.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
I would tend to agree with you about Apple's contributions. However, they are currently in a spat with the FSF over the GCC project. The FSF runs GCC and requires copyright assignment for all code contributions. Presumbably this is so they can quickly upgrade to the newwst GPL license (the Linux kernel is configured almost the opposite way, making the "upgrade" GPLv3 a non-option). Apple has spent a lot of time improving the Objective-C compiler in GCC, but isn't going to assign copyright for that work.
What this means:
1) All code created by Apple is still GPL (not sure of version). Copright: Apple, Inc.: Licensed: GPL.
2) Apple's code is not merged to the official GCC source tree.
3) Not really any user disrruptions.
Mac OS X/iOS are basically the only systems that use Object-C, and Apple provides the best implementation of Ojective-C via Apple's source tree. Other GCC-using platforms probably won't go through the effort of merging Apple's patches, but it's not likely that their users would even be interested in Objective-C.
Really the only thing that matters is that the FSF and Apple have not done a good job of working with one another.
Otherwise, Apple does a good job of working with free software projects. I think one of the best examples is CUPS. About three years ago Apple purchased all of the CUPS code. Apple has kept the project open, and nothing bad happened. Granted, there wasn't much fear of anything bad happening, and CUPS isn't exactly breath-taking technology, but everything worked out great.