Were testing RedHat as a replacement for all our SLES/SuSE clients. Testing should be done next week. When is Novell going to compensate thier current clients that have been using OpenOffice and Samba for years? Lost sales, way to go Novell. Alienate current clients and move them to a different distribution. There is a reason I dumped your stock after OpenSuSE.
Folks, you want to know why OSS is having such a hard time gaining market and mindshare? The OP is a prime exhibit of the reason - too many zealots who confuse philosophy with business.
IMHO your being a bit unfair. Have you ever seen Microsofts sales force in action? They are just as much zealots (If your a MS salesforce rep, I apologize, but you are a zealot).
OSS has market share in Apache right now. OSS has market share (or double digit growth, gaining market share) in Linux servers and embedded Linux products right now. Linux owns the cluster space, where is the Microsoft costly solution?
My company shipped 2000+ embedded Linux boxes this year. Were looking at 5000+ boxes next year. Were not OSS zealots, our server products are currently only Windows. We have a business case for using embedded Linux and OSS. Cost, security, ease of use (our own Linux configuration UI), and support.
Mind share is in the eye of the IT director saving the budget. He/She knows that accountants mark IT down as a necessary cost center, not revenue. A savings of thousands or tens of thousands dollars to the company means a bonus for the IT director regardless of how many free dinners the Microsoft Sales Rep takes them to.
Your absolutely correct about the parent poster not having a business case for his deploying of OSS solutions. But don't be cruel. I don't think Bill Gates had a business case for BASIC (Authored by someone else) on the Altair either:)
We are being way to harsh on Microsoft when it comes to orginal ideas. Lets list some truly orginal Microsoft innovations.
1) Secure Audio Path in Vista. No other O/S will block what those pesky users want to do with thier music. 2) Tying the O/S to the BIOS/Computer. Why would a user want to move thier hard drive? 3) Universal Music fee for every media player sold. Only thieves buy music players. 4) Software Assurance. Lets get users to pay for nothing. 5) OEM license fees. Lets get users to pay us even when a computer ships with no O/S.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft is the only company thats done any of these things. Did I forget anything?
I have several customers that now want more than my word about the security of the systems that have worked for them flawlessly for over 5-6 years now with minimal expense outside of upgrades and patching for security.
This week I received calls from 4 different customers that they were warned that they are dangerously insecure because they run Open Source Operating systems or Software because 'anyone can read the code and hack you with ease' they are being told.
I'd have your sales rep call your clients and let them know that your company shares thier concern. At the same time remind them of SQL Slammer, Code Red, Melissa, Blaster, etc. Point out all the other companies using OSS products, Google, Wall Street, etc.
Of course I'm just a programmer, so take my comments with a grain of salt. Enjoy,
Microsoft PowerShell is the most impressive operating system shell that's been released in a long time, an innovative, object-oriented departure from the old Unix shell paradigm.
Does PowerShell script desktop objects? We were scripting Workplace Shell/System Objects under OS/2 back in the 90's. Lookup System Object Model (SOM) sometime.
1. DirectX
2. Xbox Live
3. ASP
4. Powerpoint
5. Optical mice
1) MMPM/2 for OS/2 Was the first high-end sound/graphics wrapper API. Microsoft even helped develop it. 2) We were playing on-line games on mult-line BBSs back in the 80's. 3) CORBA. 4) PowerPoint 1.0 was released in 1987 for the Apple Macintosh by Bob Gaskins. 5) You obviously never have used a SUN workstation.
Except for #5, everything you list has a better implementation by Microsoft. They are hardly unique or innovative to someone who has been in the industry for a while.
I'm not sure what that means in ranking terms. I'm waiting until after Christmas for both.
I'm getting a PS3 for the computer room just so I can play with programming the Cell Processor. I'd imagine IBM would sell the Cell Workstations (POWER 7?)for upwards of $2k. The PS3 is a steal. I can't wait to do some Ray Tracing/Mandelbrot calculations.
Were getting a Wii for the family room. I asked my oldest son who is just now getting into programming/animation what game he would design for the Wii Controller. He said he would write an orchestra game. I said what? He said picture yourself as the director of a band. You can use the controller like a baton to control an animated orchestra. Smart kid, I might have to pay for a Wii Dev Kit.
"We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents...Our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property," Hovsepian said in the letter.
Instead of hiding this announcement on a web site, call a press conference and state that Microsoft is full of shit. Ballmer shows he has balls in going public with his retarded rants. Why doesn't Novell come out publicly and make sure everyone knows the truth?
According to Kuhn: 'The patent covenant only applies to software that you develop at home and keep for yourself; the promises don't extend to others when you distribute.
You know, I can build anything damn thing I want to with my Craftsman tool set and sell it. Sears has never had to promise that they won't sue me. I can even build, sell, and distribute competing products as long as its done under a different brand name.
Microsoft seems to be forgetting all those nice shareware programs built for Windows that added value to the platform (Paintshop, Pkzip, TextPad etc). I wonder if those applications would have been written if the Programmers thought they were going be sued by distributing them.
This is my second, but different post on the subject.
Novell needs to explain to me why as of now they need patent indemnification on products they have sold since buying SuSE two years ago? Novell already ripped out the copyright/Patent violating programs in SuSE (Can't do MP3/Video in a stock SuSE install).
My company has recommended SuSE/SLES to all our clients (a lot) but we support Redhat as well. Its the customers choice. We also recommend Windows 2003 Server for the other clients. Most want Oracle/MySQL on Linux/Windows.
I'm pissed. What patents has Mono/OpenOffice/Samba violated? Are these submarine patents Novell was aware of all along?
IBM also needs to help me out here. That stupid IBM VP comment from the press release does nothing for me. Is IBM still supporting SuSE on the X series or not? IBM owns SMB/CIFS. Is IBM dumping Redhat? I need to know before I recommend IBM/HP for the next client. Dell is advertising Linux enterprise Linux support these days.
Don't give me any of the "Benevolent Microsoft" crap. Ballmer said in the Q&A There will be no Microsoft technology in Linux. In other words, your not getting Microsofts marketing driven programming in linux.
Now I'm Confused about Enterprise Linux choices. Maybe that was Microsofts plan all along?
Thanks for the post. All I can say is WoW. What a two-faced asshole Miguel is. You should start a new thread with his comments. Apply all the past Miguel posts (all on file at slashdot) stating that Mono was patent free.
I didn't buy into Mono, but I know people who did (Gnome for one).
Today's Miguel says there are serious patent issues, and only Novell customers are safe from Microsoft litigation.
Did you read a quote from him today or are were you being a skeptic like me? All these years Miquel has been saying Mono is fine. I'd like to hear his reponse to all this.
KDE/Gnome could be patented by Microsoft...like old Apple/MS lawsuits over the GUI in the first place.
The judge ruled in the orginal Apple/Microsoft case that you can't patent "Look and Feel". Microsoft could no more sue KDE/Gnome than they could sue Fisher Price.
I was all for this at first until I read the patent agreement for OpenOffice, Samba and.Net.
If Microsoft wanted to interoperate with OpenOffice, all they had to do was support ODF.
According to Miguel de Icaza. there are no patent concerns with Mono because Microsoft has granted RAND+Royalty Free licenses to any patents they might own that are required to implement the ECMA 334/335 standards.
Didn't the EU just recently decide the SMB/CIFS implementation was legal?
I personally think Microsoft is trying to plant a patent FUD turd inside the head of any CIO thinking of deploying Linux.
Hey Miguel de Icaza, what are your thoughts on this?
Wow, you both seem to be trolling. The Microsoft Shared Source Licenses are actually quite simple to read and easy to understand. The GPL is actually far more complex, imho.
IMHO, your opinion is lacking. By calling me a TROLL, serves no purpose. You didn't read the article or reseach anything before your non-sense post.
GPL = you can use for free,ship for free, and cannot change without giving changes back. I can benchmark and publish results. Its a pretty simple license.
In order to explain what CE 6.0 OS and related software components are available to developers and companies under each of the above three licenses -- i.e. Shared Source, Premium Derivatives, Premium Redistribution -- Microsoft has generated a downloadable map that can be used to explore the entire hierarchy of CE 6.0 software components.
Which of the three Microsoft Licenses is more readable to you? Hint, WinCE 6 is not being released under Microsofts Shared Source license. Its not free to use. Its not free to ship. Its not even free for you to benchmark and publish your results. Your free to ridicule Linux as much as you like. You can't ridicule Windows or you get sued.
If you want to limit yourself to the 2% of Windows desktop Computers versus the 98% of embedded computers existing in the world, then so be it. Should we address you as a computer programmer or a Windows only programmer?
I looked into the CE 6 offer this morning just like any other embedded Developer/Engineer should. This announcement is clearly aimed at the clueless PHBs/Middle Manager types.
1) You need to have a passport account to even download the CE 6 evaluation kit. 2) You need to purchase the Microsoft YOU_NEED_AN_ARMY_OF_LAWYERS_TO_READ_AND_SIGN_THIS_ LICENSE (TM) License Agreement. 3) From what I understand, when you finally get authorized to see the source, you can only look. You can't touch/modify/customize it for your target device. Thats a separate license aggreement. 4) CE 6 License fees are not listed. Previous versions were from US $3 to $15 depending on volume.
I found no business case or compelling reason for us to switch our product from embedded Linux. I did see where Microsoft stated that our customers would be filled with joy, peace and karma having purchased a Microsoft based product.
but I haven't seen much if any effort by any of the other mainstream OSes to prevent kernel patching at all. It is downright trivial to write a Linux kernel module which hooks all sorts of critical data structures,
Nope, I can build my Linux kernel without module support. Your module is not going to get loaded.
Ignoring the argument of Binary vs OSS drivers for a minute.
The root of this problem is 'C'. The nVidia programmers have way too much power. Buffer overruns, string comparisons, memory access, pointer arithmetic. These features need to be banned from modern computing.
Just last week over prune juice, I was telling Linus, Theo, and Dave Cutler why they should only allow C#/Java/Python based video drivers in their kernels.
After all, we have decided that the survival of our business is more important for us then 'do-good' ideas.
Survival of your business model depends on customers who want to purchase your services.
OSS is about freedom of choice. All your other points are null and void because there are several OSS alternatives to choose from. To complain that Red Hat charges $299 where SuSE charges $70 (with support) is just plain dis-information.
This Ask Slashdot reads like a Microsoft marketing campaign. OSS doesn't work for us, Microsoft has all the solutions. Hey Taco, how about a rule against anonymous Ask Slashdot submissions (except in the case of whistle blowers and torrid sex tales)?
If linux was more user friendly it would be more popular.
Linux is user friendly. The distribution you selected wasn't.
Video driver installation under SuSE = YaST (control panel), Software Installation, Updates, (Select ATI/NVidia) from the list. Ubuntu was pretty easy the last time I tried it as well. Neither method requires the use of a keyboard.
Slashdot Mirror
Were testing RedHat as a replacement for all our SLES/SuSE clients. Testing should be done next week.
When is Novell going to compensate thier current clients that have been using OpenOffice and Samba for years? Lost sales, way to go Novell. Alienate current clients and move them to a different distribution.
There is a reason I dumped your stock after OpenSuSE.
Enjoy.
Folks, you want to know why OSS is having such a hard time gaining market and mindshare? The OP is a prime exhibit of the reason - too many zealots who confuse philosophy with business.
:)
IMHO your being a bit unfair. Have you ever seen Microsofts sales force in action? They are just as much zealots (If your a MS salesforce rep, I apologize, but you are a zealot).
OSS has market share in Apache right now. OSS has market share (or double digit growth, gaining market share) in Linux servers and embedded Linux products right now. Linux owns the cluster space, where is the Microsoft costly solution?
My company shipped 2000+ embedded Linux boxes this year. Were looking at 5000+ boxes next year. Were not OSS zealots, our server products are currently only Windows. We have a business case for using embedded Linux and OSS. Cost, security, ease of use (our own Linux configuration UI), and support.
Mind share is in the eye of the IT director saving the budget. He/She knows that accountants mark IT down as a necessary cost center, not revenue. A savings of thousands or tens of thousands dollars to the company means a bonus for the IT director regardless of how many free dinners the Microsoft Sales Rep takes them to.
Your absolutely correct about the parent poster not having a business case for his deploying of OSS solutions. But don't be cruel. I don't think Bill Gates had a business case for BASIC (Authored by someone else) on the Altair either
Enjoy,
We are being way to harsh on Microsoft when it comes to orginal ideas. Lets list some truly orginal Microsoft innovations.
1) Secure Audio Path in Vista. No other O/S will block what those pesky users want to do with thier music.
2) Tying the O/S to the BIOS/Computer. Why would a user want to move thier hard drive?
3) Universal Music fee for every media player sold. Only thieves buy music players.
4) Software Assurance. Lets get users to pay for nothing.
5) OEM license fees. Lets get users to pay us even when a computer ships with no O/S.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft is the only company thats done any of these things. Did I forget anything?
Enjoy,
To follow up my own post.
a ug05/08-10OpenSourceLab.mspx
Microsoft wants you to run OSS on thier stuff. Point your clients to this site:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/
Enjoy,
I have several customers that now want more than my word about the security of the systems that have worked for them flawlessly for over 5-6 years now with minimal expense outside of upgrades and patching for security.
Try IBM,
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/opensource/
Download some of the report PDFs and send them to your clients.
This week I received calls from 4 different customers that they were warned that they are dangerously insecure because they run Open Source Operating systems or Software because 'anyone can read the code and hack you with ease' they are being told.
I'd have your sales rep call your clients and let them know that your company shares thier concern. At the same time remind them of SQL Slammer, Code Red, Melissa, Blaster, etc. Point out all the other companies using OSS products, Google, Wall Street, etc.
Of course I'm just a programmer, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
Enjoy,
Microsoft PowerShell is the most impressive operating system shell that's been released in a long time, an innovative, object-oriented departure from the old Unix shell paradigm.
Does PowerShell script desktop objects? We were scripting Workplace Shell/System Objects under OS/2 back in the 90's. Lookup System Object Model (SOM) sometime.
Enjoy.
1. DirectX
2. Xbox Live
3. ASP
4. Powerpoint
5. Optical mice
1) MMPM/2 for OS/2 Was the first high-end sound/graphics wrapper API. Microsoft even helped develop it.
2) We were playing on-line games on mult-line BBSs back in the 80's.
3) CORBA.
4) PowerPoint 1.0 was released in 1987 for the Apple Macintosh by Bob Gaskins.
5) You obviously never have used a SUN workstation.
Except for #5, everything you list has a better implementation by Microsoft. They are hardly unique or innovative to someone who has been in the industry for a while.
Enjoy,
I'm not sure what that means in ranking terms. I'm waiting until after Christmas for both.
I'm getting a PS3 for the computer room just so I can play with programming the Cell Processor. I'd imagine IBM would sell the Cell Workstations (POWER 7?)for upwards of $2k. The PS3 is a steal. I can't wait to do some Ray Tracing/Mandelbrot calculations.
Were getting a Wii for the family room. I asked my oldest son who is just now getting into programming/animation what game he would design for the Wii Controller. He said he would write an orchestra game. I said what? He said picture yourself as the director of a band. You can use the controller like a baton to control an animated orchestra. Smart kid, I might have to pay for a Wii Dev Kit.
Enjoy,
"We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents...Our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property," Hovsepian said in the letter.
Instead of hiding this announcement on a web site, call a press conference and state that Microsoft is full of shit. Ballmer shows he has balls in going public with his retarded rants. Why doesn't Novell come out publicly and make sure everyone knows the truth?
From a pissed off ex-SuSE user.
Enjoy,
http://www.linuxcommand.org/man_pages/bsod1.html
We all know that Windows most innovative feature is the BSOD. They want thier royalties.
Enjoy,
According to Kuhn: 'The patent covenant only applies to software that you develop at home and keep for yourself; the promises don't extend to others when you distribute.
You know, I can build anything damn thing I want to with my Craftsman tool set and sell it. Sears has never had to promise that they won't sue me. I can even build, sell, and distribute competing products as long as its done under a different brand name.
Microsoft seems to be forgetting all those nice shareware programs built for Windows that added value to the platform (Paintshop, Pkzip, TextPad etc). I wonder if those applications would have been written if the Programmers thought they were going be sued by distributing them.
Enjoy,
IMO, java is a better server side language. Please don't use it for desktop applications! :(
Look at GCJ http://gcc.gnu.org/java/. When they finish XLib/GTK/AWT/Swing support you will have a nice native Linux RAD environment.
Enjoy,
This is my second, but different post on the subject.
Novell needs to explain to me why as of now they need patent indemnification on products they have sold since buying SuSE two years ago? Novell already ripped out the copyright/Patent violating programs in SuSE (Can't do MP3/Video in a stock SuSE install).
My company has recommended SuSE/SLES to all our clients (a lot) but we support Redhat as well. Its the customers choice. We also recommend Windows 2003 Server for the other clients. Most want Oracle/MySQL on Linux/Windows.
I'm pissed. What patents has Mono/OpenOffice/Samba violated? Are these submarine patents Novell was aware of all along?
IBM also needs to help me out here. That stupid IBM VP comment from the press release does nothing for me.
Is IBM still supporting SuSE on the X series or not? IBM owns SMB/CIFS. Is IBM dumping Redhat? I need to know before I recommend IBM/HP for the next client. Dell is advertising Linux enterprise Linux support these days.
Don't give me any of the "Benevolent Microsoft" crap. Ballmer said in the Q&A There will be no Microsoft technology in Linux. In other words, your not getting Microsofts marketing driven programming in linux.
Now I'm Confused about Enterprise Linux choices. Maybe that was Microsofts plan all along?
Enjoy.
Thanks for the post. All I can say is WoW. What a two-faced asshole Miguel is. You should start a new thread with his comments. Apply all the past Miguel posts (all on file at slashdot) stating that Mono was patent free.
I didn't buy into Mono, but I know people who did (Gnome for one).
Thanks again for the response.
Enjoy,
Today's Miguel says there are serious patent issues, and only Novell customers are safe from Microsoft litigation.
Did you read a quote from him today or are were you being a skeptic like me? All these years Miquel has been saying Mono is fine. I'd like to hear his reponse to all this.
Enjoy.
KDE/Gnome could be patented by Microsoft...like old Apple/MS lawsuits over the GUI in the first place.
The judge ruled in the orginal Apple/Microsoft case that you can't patent "Look and Feel".
Microsoft could no more sue KDE/Gnome than they could sue Fisher Price.
Enjoy,
I personally think Microsoft is trying to plant a patent FUD turd inside the head of any CIO thinking of deploying Linux.
Hey Miguel de Icaza, what are your thoughts on this?
Enjoy,
Wow, you both seem to be trolling. The Microsoft Shared Source Licenses are actually quite simple to read and easy to understand. The GPL is actually far more complex, imho.
IMHO, your opinion is lacking. By calling me a TROLL, serves no purpose. You didn't read the article or reseach anything before your non-sense post.
GPL = you can use for free,ship for free, and cannot change without giving changes back.
I can benchmark and publish results. Its a pretty simple license.
In order to explain what CE 6.0 OS and related software components are available to developers and companies under each of the above three licenses -- i.e. Shared Source, Premium Derivatives, Premium Redistribution -- Microsoft has generated a downloadable map that can be used to explore the entire hierarchy of CE 6.0 software components.
Which of the three Microsoft Licenses is more readable to you? Hint, WinCE 6 is not being released under Microsofts Shared Source license. Its not free to use. Its not free to ship. Its not even free for you to benchmark and publish your results. Your free to ridicule Linux as much as you like. You can't ridicule Windows or you get sued.
If you want to limit yourself to the 2% of Windows desktop Computers versus the 98% of embedded computers existing in the world, then so be it. Should we address you as a computer programmer or a Windows only programmer?
Enjoy,
I looked into the CE 6 offer this morning just like any other embedded Developer/Engineer should. This announcement is clearly aimed at the clueless PHBs/Middle Manager types.
_ LICENSE (TM) License Agreement.
1) You need to have a passport account to even download the CE 6 evaluation kit.
2) You need to purchase the Microsoft YOU_NEED_AN_ARMY_OF_LAWYERS_TO_READ_AND_SIGN_THIS
3) From what I understand, when you finally get authorized to see the source, you can only look. You can't touch/modify/customize it for your target device. Thats a separate license aggreement.
4) CE 6 License fees are not listed. Previous versions were from US $3 to $15 depending on volume.
I found no business case or compelling reason for us to switch our product from embedded Linux. I did see where Microsoft stated that our customers would be filled with joy, peace and karma having purchased a Microsoft based product.
Enjoy,
but I haven't seen much if any effort by any of the other mainstream OSes to prevent kernel patching at all. It is downright trivial to write a Linux kernel module which hooks all sorts of critical data structures,
Nope,
I can build my Linux kernel without module support. Your module is not going to get loaded.
Enjoy,
Yeah, that's ClearType - a very nice Microsoft innovation that uses subpixels of LCD displays to make smoother text
Minor correction, your sentence should say assimilation not innovation .
Microsoft did not invent ClearType.
http://www.grc.com/ctwho.htm
Enjoy,
Ignoring the argument of Binary vs OSS drivers for a minute.
The root of this problem is 'C'. The nVidia programmers have way too much power. Buffer overruns, string comparisons, memory access, pointer arithmetic. These features need to be banned from modern computing.
Just last week over prune juice, I was telling Linus, Theo, and Dave Cutler why they should only allow C#/Java/Python based video drivers in their kernels.
Enjoy,
You're missing the point of MS being a company, they're in business to make money.
Then why are they selling XBox and Zune for a loss? Name one other company that sells its product for a loss?
Food for thought,
Enjoy.
After all, we have decided that the survival of our business is more important for us then 'do-good' ideas.
Survival of your business model depends on customers who want to purchase your services.
OSS is about freedom of choice. All your other points are null and void because there are several OSS alternatives to choose from. To complain that Red Hat charges $299 where SuSE charges $70 (with support) is just plain dis-information.
This Ask Slashdot reads like a Microsoft marketing campaign. OSS doesn't work for us, Microsoft has all the solutions. Hey Taco, how about a rule against anonymous Ask Slashdot submissions (except in the case of whistle blowers and torrid sex tales)?
Enjoy,
If linux was more user friendly it would be more popular.
Linux is user friendly. The distribution you selected wasn't.
Video driver installation under SuSE = YaST (control panel), Software Installation, Updates, (Select ATI/NVidia) from the
list. Ubuntu was pretty easy the last time I tried it as well. Neither method requires the use of a keyboard.
Enjoy,