by giving the gPhone away to handset makers and to put Microsoft Windows Mobile out of business Er, Isn't this what Linux is about? I mean, what's so innovative about this approach of "giving away"?
In any case, I don't believe that ths sole fact of being free (as is beer) will be enought to motivate handset maker to jump into it, mostly when there are other initiatives for linux based mobile devices including phones.
Ah, maybe I should mention that I worked for Novell some years ago and even when we had a HUGE Netware install base, revenue was steady declining, bot for services and licenses. I don't believe UnixWare or OpenServer has such a big installed based to sustain any significant revenue
I'm don't like conspiracy theories in general, but in this case I'm curious about what those guys found so interesting....
Some facts. If you look at the SCO's financial reports http://ir.sco.com/results.cfm, you will see a couple of interesting things. First, revenue sinked from 36 M in 2005, to 29 M in 2006 and made just 12 M in the first two quarters of 2007 (so a 24M by end of year is a good approximation). Second, the revenue from SCO licenses is just ridiculous, it is in the order of a few K, not even a million! Most of the revenue comes from services, which are not an asset you can sell easily (I might be wrong here).
With respect of Facebook, I agree it is insane, as most of the Internet era businesses. But the basic idea is that you buy the tens of millions of recurring users, which MAYBE represent a source of revenue. Hey, is the classic "built it and they will come" approach. Facebook is not in the business of making money out of the user, but to get them in the first place. Then others will come to make money (or not, that's a big risk, if not ask eBay about Skype!)
I mean, what is the REAL business case for buying a company which only "assets" are some IP rights that they apparently do not own after all. It looks to me that some one else is pulling the strings behin escenes to continue the litigation agaist Linux.
First, thanks for such informative description of what kind of shit technology are putting in their products.
However, I think you are missing the point here. The issue is not if Apple is still using toxic sustances in their products. The point is IF Greenpace is right in manipulating media in this way, targeting one company because is highly visible to the media.
In other words, those sustances you mention, are less toxic if a less known company uses them?
This is clearly a biased report which jeopardizes Greenpeace's credibility as the reporting policy is not transparent for us, the consumers. Greenpace should state clearly which media reporting policy is using and it should be based on some objetive metric such as the environmental impact or the recurrence of faults by companies.
Well, what I exposed is called "the innovator's dilemma". It is a well known problem in almost any industry: once you have a dominant position it becomes more and more difficult to introduce innovations. That's why innovation usually comes from outsiders.
So what are you suggesting? That they take a one-of-a-kind helicopter made from car, bike, and 747 parts seriously?
Well, this description matches very closely what the first Apple computer looked like and I guess you know what happened with that kid named Steve Jobs. . . I mean, unless you had been too busy fying arround in a helicopter the last 20 years or so . . . .
The problem is that as the balance goes in favor of big corporation instead of the community, in terms of who contributes more to Linux, there are less and less chances of any disruptive innovation in Linux for two reasons: firt, as big companies invest more in linux, any dramatic change in Linux threatens their insterest. It is well know that in the past IBM, for instance, didn't release some technological advances because was worried about cannibalizing their own custumers in very profitable markets. Second, there is no advantage in doing such innovations if your competitors will have it for free.
I think that big companies will focus on issues like hardware compatibility, manageability and few other things. Therefore Linux will mature, but will never develop its full potential.
I'll not wait at home while these guys heat or freeze a Katrina like hurricane . . . just in case there is a software glith or a calculation error or something, you know.
The GNU project is an extend/embrace/extinguish operation, much like Microsoft. Well, you have a point in that GNU guys some times play to the "last man standing" game and try to prevail over other open source guys. But this is FAR, FAR from being the pogrom-like approach of Microsoft, which is close to Klingon mentality.
well, they had done this before: when they face a emerging technology they can't compete with, they first spread FUD while they prepare to be competitive. They did this with sun's network pc, with Internet, with java and now with open source. I don't believe they will try to "extinguish" open source (they can't) but are just trying to gain some time to prepare better.
Let me ask you developers who are kernel guys a question: When you contributed code to the kernel, was it your intent that it be used against Red Hat? That's pure Manichaeism!
To start with, Novell is not selling the kernel as better than Red Hat's, as it is the same. What they are selling is that the SUSE distribution, that has some thousands of packages besides the Kernel (including propitary code) is more compatible with Windows than others.
If you live in a submarine, then maybe you don't care about interoperability, but most companies do because they have a mix environment.
THAT is why foreigners outnumber Americans in these topics. It's not because they're smarter, not because they love engineering more, and not because education is better in their country. It's because they want to immigrate here That's not totally true. Of course that we foregneirs are not in general smarter than americans,BUT people who apply to a scholarship to study in USA or Europe are generally the SMARTER guys in their countries, not the "average Joe".
Also they outnumber americans by a factor of almost 10 (if you add the population from India and China alone), so all those guys you see are just an insignificant number of the engineers there, but the best one probably.
Finally, education is different in these countries and children learn to work really hard (too hard, actually) and be very competitive since they are in the basic school. So the hard work of a PhD will not prevent them to apply.
With respect of the possibility to stay in USA as the ONLY reason, I don't agree. Maybe then years ago that was true, but nowdays people form China and India want to go back home a start their own companies.
This actually is true. Advanced societies that are governed by the rule of law and that require complex rules will naturally require more lawyers. Actually, trully advanced societies should require LESS laws and less lawyers.
You believe what they actually say, when in reality you should be looking at what they're actually doing and asking yourself why Have you done so? I guess again the answer is no, you haven't. It seams to me that you are just saying what other people says that CIOs said.
With respect of Gartner and Forrester, sorry, I didn't catch what you mean. Some think they are too Microsoft friendly, but reallity is that they help me a lot to convince CIOs to use open source.
Microsoft paid Novell to participate in a plan to embrace, extend, and extinguish Open Source. Something that really surprises me about Open source advocates is that most seams not to understand the most important thing about it: open source is not a single entity, it is a collective or, more precisely, a "network army" and therefore the tactics used by microsoft to attack former rival (Novell among them) are hardly been effective.
I'm not saying they will not try neither than there is no serious risk, but I think Open Source community should realize that the tactics needed here are different and that is VEYY dangerous to enter in Microsoft's game of spreading FUD.
They're asking for things to work and a completely viable alternative from someone who knows what they're doing. They're not demanding Microsoft interoperability at all
Indeed? Well, I don't know to how many CIOs of large companies you have talked, but I have talked to some and ALL OF THEM are asking for that. Also look for instance at Gartner's or Forrester's research studies and they will say the same (and at the same time aknowledging that open source is growing in the big enterprises). Also take a look at the result of surveys in CIO magazine, you will probably change your mind . . . well if you are interested in understanding the complexities of real world decisions regarding IT investments.
Again, agree. Now, if you were the CEO of a billion dolar a year company as Novell and your customers were asking you to interoperate with MS products, what will you do? Do you really think that "throw away all your investment in IT and switch all you software to open source" would be welcome as an answer? C'mon. Let's be serious here.
Even those companies who don't like MS understand that switching will take time. While in Novell I had such talks with CIOs of big companies many times and learned that doing business with open source it is not an easy task. Understand this: CEOs and CIOs don't only consider technical merits when selecting technologiesm they must also consider other aspects. Thery are not ignorants, just are business men and are acountable for what they decide. Sometime I would like them to take more risks, but unfortunatelly few reach such high positions taking changes and are very conservative.
Then you clearly don't understand the first thing about the free software you're presumably using.
Actually, I do. The difference is that I don't beleive that those who think differently are ignorants, evil or paid by MS.
Also, I'm not so naive to think that ALL software can be made open and free from night to morning. It will take time and quite frankly, I'm not even sure if such a think could hapen or would be beneficial. Only time will tell.
In the mean time, I use and cotribute modestly to open source, avoiding any "moral supuriority" actitude, as yours.
if msft wants to interoperate, what's stopping them? Don't get me wrong. MS doesn't want interoperability, but their costomers does and Microsoft has started to feel the presur from them. Actually MS will try to make this "interoperability" as dificult as possible and also will try to even take advantage proposing their technologies as "standards".
With respect of the patents I don't believe it has to do with patents in the linux kernel, but many people forgets that reverse engineering a product can lead to violations in patents. Some example: Evolution, Mono, Open Office. All those are products that need to interoperate with MS products and Novell has been supporting quite actively.
I agree entirely. I think that most of the people in the FOS community completely misunderstood the deal (an some purposefully trolled this misunderstanding)
I worked for Novell until late 2004, well before the Microsoft patent issue. Novell's main business areas then and now are not SUSE incenses, but solutions for platform management and identity management. Both areas require a strong interoperability with Microsoft products, as most big companies have and will continue to have mixed environments. That's is the core of the deal: make possible a better integration between linux and Microsoft product. Just see the recent annoucement about a join laboratory.
it is for sure that some people in the FOS community would prefer to see Microsoft products just vanish from the enterprises, but this is unlikely to happen any time soon, so Novell must take a more conservative approach and accept that they are here to staly for some time. But don't get me wrong: Novell people never liked Microsoft and this is marriage for convenience and unfortunately business are like this.
I think it would be a sign of maturity that the FOS community accepted the facts of life.
Slashdot Mirror
In any case, I don't believe that ths sole fact of being free (as is beer) will be enought to motivate handset maker to jump into it, mostly when there are other initiatives for linux based mobile devices including phones.
I'm don't like conspiracy theories in general, but in this case I'm curious about what those guys found so interesting ....
Where is the revenue comming from OpenServer and Unixware?
EXACTLY! So, why buying SCO?
With respect of Facebook, I agree it is insane, as most of the Internet era businesses. But the basic idea is that you buy the tens of millions of recurring users, which MAYBE represent a source of revenue. Hey, is the classic "built it and they will come" approach. Facebook is not in the business of making money out of the user, but to get them in the first place. Then others will come to make money (or not, that's a big risk, if not ask eBay about Skype!)
Well, you are supposing they want to make a profit. Maybe they just want to keep this show going on . . .
I mean, what is the REAL business case for buying a company which only "assets" are some IP rights that they apparently do not own after all. It looks to me that some one else is pulling the strings behin escenes to continue the litigation agaist Linux.
However, I think you are missing the point here. The issue is not if Apple is still using toxic sustances in their products. The point is IF Greenpace is right in manipulating media in this way, targeting one company because is highly visible to the media.
In other words, those sustances you mention, are less toxic if a less known company uses them?
This is clearly a biased report which jeopardizes Greenpeace's credibility as the reporting policy is not transparent for us, the consumers. Greenpace should state clearly which media reporting policy is using and it should be based on some objetive metric such as the environmental impact or the recurrence of faults by companies.
I found this link in wikipedia with an interesting introduction to the idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
Well, this description matches very closely what the first Apple computer looked like and I guess you know what happened with that kid named Steve Jobs. . . I mean, unless you had been too busy fying arround in a helicopter the last 20 years or so . . . .
I think that big companies will focus on issues like hardware compatibility, manageability and few other things. Therefore Linux will mature, but will never develop its full potential.
I'll not wait at home while these guys heat or freeze a Katrina like hurricane . . . just in case there is a software glith or a calculation error or something, you know.
well, they had done this before: when they face a emerging technology they can't compete with, they first spread FUD while they prepare to be competitive. They did this with sun's network pc, with Internet, with java and now with open source. I don't believe they will try to "extinguish" open source (they can't) but are just trying to gain some time to prepare better.
We don't need this! We already have Mono, which is 100% open source.
To start with, Novell is not selling the kernel as better than Red Hat's, as it is the same. What they are selling is that the SUSE distribution, that has some thousands of packages besides the Kernel (including propitary code) is more compatible with Windows than others.
If you live in a submarine, then maybe you don't care about interoperability, but most companies do because they have a mix environment.
please, stop treating us as UNINFORMED IDIOTS!
Also they outnumber americans by a factor of almost 10 (if you add the population from India and China alone), so all those guys you see are just an insignificant number of the engineers there, but the best one probably.
Finally, education is different in these countries and children learn to work really hard (too hard, actually) and be very competitive since they are in the basic school. So the hard work of a PhD will not prevent them to apply.
With respect of the possibility to stay in USA as the ONLY reason, I don't agree. Maybe then years ago that was true, but nowdays people form China and India want to go back home a start their own companies.
With respect of Gartner and Forrester, sorry, I didn't catch what you mean. Some think they are too Microsoft friendly, but reallity is that they help me a lot to convince CIOs to use open source.
I'm not saying they will not try neither than there is no serious risk, but I think Open Source community should realize that the tactics needed here are different and that is VEYY dangerous to enter in Microsoft's game of spreading FUD.
Indeed? Well, I don't know to how many CIOs of large companies you have talked, but I have talked to some and ALL OF THEM are asking for that. Also look for instance at Gartner's or Forrester's research studies and they will say the same (and at the same time aknowledging that open source is growing in the big enterprises). Also take a look at the result of surveys in CIO magazine, you will probably change your mind . . . well if you are interested in understanding the complexities of real world decisions regarding IT investments.
Even those companies who don't like MS understand that switching will take time. While in Novell I had such talks with CIOs of big companies many times and learned that doing business with open source it is not an easy task. Understand this: CEOs and CIOs don't only consider technical merits when selecting technologiesm they must also consider other aspects. Thery are not ignorants, just are business men and are acountable for what they decide. Sometime I would like them to take more risks, but unfortunatelly few reach such high positions taking changes and are very conservative.
Actually, I do. The difference is that I don't beleive that those who think differently are ignorants, evil or paid by MS.
Also, I'm not so naive to think that ALL software can be made open and free from night to morning. It will take time and quite frankly, I'm not even sure if such a think could hapen or would be beneficial. Only time will tell.
In the mean time, I use and cotribute modestly to open source, avoiding any "moral supuriority" actitude, as yours.
With respect of the patents I don't believe it has to do with patents in the linux kernel, but many people forgets that reverse engineering a product can lead to violations in patents. Some example: Evolution, Mono, Open Office. All those are products that need to interoperate with MS products and Novell has been supporting quite actively.
I worked for Novell until late 2004, well before the Microsoft patent issue. Novell's main business areas then and now are not SUSE incenses, but solutions for platform management and identity management. Both areas require a strong interoperability with Microsoft products, as most big companies have and will continue to have mixed environments. That's is the core of the deal: make possible a better integration between linux and Microsoft product. Just see the recent annoucement about a join laboratory.
it is for sure that some people in the FOS community would prefer to see Microsoft products just vanish from the enterprises, but this is unlikely to happen any time soon, so Novell must take a more conservative approach and accept that they are here to staly for some time. But don't get me wrong: Novell people never liked Microsoft and this is marriage for convenience and unfortunately business are like this.
I think it would be a sign of maturity that the FOS community accepted the facts of life.