If Windows compatibility is such a big issue then just recommend/stay with Windows end to end.
But I bet you want Linux so you can cut your own or your customers costs. But if in the end you have an MS-approved linux distro, you'll end up paying something, somewhere along the line, guaranteed.
MS could always have helped compatibility and interoperability for free if they wanted. But true to their business nature, they have to get something out of a deal like this.
And rightly so - they do have share holders to answer to.
Divide and conquer. Confuse and attack. Assimilate.
Delay the progress of Linux (and opensource) adoption and development. MS wants to sell servers. They could come up with free (linux) desktops that is friendly to their servers and file formats and development platform.
The OpenOffice file formats are already "open", so if MS wanted compatibility with the rest of the world they could have made it happen (with their own products) without a deal like this.
Intersting scenario:) And it just might not be far fetched. Considering MS wants a (bigger) share of the server market - where all the money is. For that to happen it would want a piece or be affiliated with a "free desktop OS". So for that to happen without pissing off current windows users it needed a nice way to get into the arena. Which is where the deal came in. So then by eventually giving a "Windows-server-friendly" desktop version of linux away to its customers, for free, could only help that objective. This could make Suse a defacto "desktop standard" as it would be deemed the natural path for easier migration/conversion from Windows to Linux, thus making it more likely for CIO's to purchase MS Servers, and installing Suse linux in the corporation. So, MS can focus on selling servers and giving desktops free.
MS cannot start giving away Windows XP Home Editions for free or they would have to refund the current install base - that's a lot of cash.
I agree. Samba (and others like it) is probably the most to hurt from here. If Samba could be dead from this deal, what could be used in its place? Surely not web services - that would take a big step back from interoperability.
Personally, I don't see why anyone would want to use Mono. It will always be behind in the.NET maturity level. MS will make sure of that. As they did with Borland, when they didn't divulge the mobility API soon enough for Borland to integrate it into its own IDE's. That really left Borland's.NET IDE behind. Developers ended jumping to VS.NET to start mobility development. In any case Mono will probably only thrive on Suse from this point on.
It's too bad, really... now that Novell has the stigma of MS hanging around, their customers may as well be using Windows and other MS products. If anything Novell will lose their customers, since they chose to be Novell (only) customers to begin with, not a "Novell not sure if I will be sued by MS" customer.
There are other simple things that can be done, like stopping deforestation. Replenish the vegetation that has been destroyed. Grow more trees. Regulate polluting industries or vehicles. Invest in cleaner technology. Invest in cleaner energy. Reward cleaner lifestyles, process, technology and energy (and penalize the opposite). And regulation doesn't necessarily mean the simple man has to pay through taxes, or giving up luxuries cars. But if all the money wasted on building military, wars (and space exploration) can be put into such policies, there could be a whole lot less hunger and a better future for the globe.
We don't feel the problem, now. And we won't find one big solution, later. We won't see the immediate effect of the solution(s), since we don't literally feel any adverse effect of global warming, right now.
Why should we choose to wait and see, to feel the full adverse effect of global warming? When it's painfully obvious that big business rapes and pollutes the earth.
We choose who we want to believe on the future of global warming, but you can't discount the pollution and the deforestation that goes on around the world.
If the earth should ever come across another iceage - which I assume to be more of a freak of nature - there is nothing that we can do. But if the build up of global warming gases is helped by the pollution we make,then we should be able to limit our contribution to the process.
I mean - truth, half-lies or not - how bad could any action be that is aimed at stopping pollution and deforestation, which are major factors to the contribution of global warming gases, and the benefits of R&D into inventing cleaner technology and energy? No, we cannot eliminate CO2. But we also cannot eradicate vegetation that can photosynthesize it into Oxygen.
Slashdot Mirror
If Windows compatibility is such a big issue then just recommend/stay with Windows end to end.
But I bet you want Linux so you can cut your own or your customers costs. But if in the end you have an MS-approved linux distro, you'll end up paying something, somewhere along the line, guaranteed.
MS could always have helped compatibility and interoperability for free if they wanted. But true to their business nature, they have to get something out of a deal like this.
And rightly so - they do have share holders to answer to.
So, don't get your hopes up.
Yep, MS are probably laughing right now.
Divide and conquer. Confuse and attack. Assimilate.
Delay the progress of Linux (and opensource) adoption and development. MS wants to sell servers. They could come up with free (linux) desktops that is friendly to their servers and file formats and development platform.
The OpenOffice file formats are already "open", so if MS wanted compatibility with the rest of the world they could have made it happen (with their own products) without a deal like this.
Intersting scenario :) And it just might not be far fetched. Considering MS wants a (bigger) share of the server market - where all the money is. For that to happen it would want a piece or be affiliated with a "free desktop OS". So for that to happen without pissing off current windows users it needed a nice way to get into the arena. Which is where the deal came in. So then by eventually giving a "Windows-server-friendly" desktop version of linux away to its customers, for free, could only help that objective. This could make Suse a defacto "desktop standard" as it would be deemed the natural path for easier migration/conversion from Windows to Linux, thus making it more likely for CIO's to purchase MS Servers, and installing Suse linux in the corporation. So, MS can focus on selling servers and giving desktops free.
MS cannot start giving away Windows XP Home Editions for free or they would have to refund the current install base - that's a lot of cash.
I agree. Samba (and others like it) is probably the most to hurt from here. If Samba could be dead from this deal, what could be used in its place? Surely not web services - that would take a big step back from interoperability.
.NET maturity level. MS will make sure of that. As they did with Borland, when they didn't divulge the mobility API soon enough for Borland to integrate it into its own IDE's. That really left Borland's .NET IDE behind. Developers ended jumping to VS.NET to start mobility development. In any case Mono will probably only thrive on Suse from this point on.
Personally, I don't see why anyone would want to use Mono. It will always be behind in the
It's too bad, really... now that Novell has the stigma of MS hanging around, their customers may as well be using Windows and other MS products. If anything Novell will lose their customers, since they chose to be Novell (only) customers to begin with, not a "Novell not sure if I will be sued by MS" customer.
I agree.
There are other simple things that can be done, like stopping deforestation. Replenish the vegetation that has been destroyed. Grow more trees. Regulate polluting industries or vehicles. Invest in cleaner technology. Invest in cleaner energy. Reward cleaner lifestyles, process, technology and energy (and penalize the opposite). And regulation doesn't necessarily mean the simple man has to pay through taxes, or giving up luxuries cars. But if all the money wasted on building military, wars (and space exploration) can be put into such policies, there could be a whole lot less hunger and a better future for the globe.
We don't feel the problem, now. And we won't find one big solution, later. We won't see the immediate effect of the solution(s), since we don't literally feel any adverse effect of global warming, right now.
Why should we choose to wait and see, to feel the full adverse effect of global warming? When it's painfully obvious that big business rapes and pollutes the earth.
We choose who we want to believe on the future of global warming, but you can't discount the pollution and the deforestation that goes on around the world.
If the earth should ever come across another iceage - which I assume to be more of a freak of nature - there is nothing that we can do. But if the build up of global warming gases is helped by the pollution we make,then we should be able to limit our contribution to the process.
I mean - truth, half-lies or not - how bad could any action be that is aimed at stopping pollution and deforestation, which are major factors to the contribution of global warming gases, and the benefits of R&D into inventing cleaner technology and energy? No, we cannot eliminate CO2. But we also cannot eradicate vegetation that can photosynthesize it into Oxygen.