but businesses are more likely to purchase support... Oh that's right, Dell wants purchasers to purchase Canonical support so there's no profits for Dell in a business transaction and more likely to be profits for Canonical. Why would Dell be against this and go the extra mile to block these kinds of purchases? Look for the itemized check-mark on the Dell/Microsoft Restrictions list.
The DHS can't fix Microsoft Internet Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, MS ActiveX system or any part of Microsoft Windows. There is no comparison between a mechanics personal car and how "experts" can or can't protect their computers.
But hey, I'd be impressed if it were shown that the DHS, as a policy, used Firefox instead of IE and maybe Thunderbird instead of MS Outlook. I doubt they've even taken those simple steps to mitigate infection/breakin points.
and make sure the deal involves Linux and OSS. They may go kicking and screaming but in 2-3 years, they'll thank you and probably buy IBM services with the extra cash saved from all the OS and apps licensing fees they would not be sending to Microsoft. There's a win for ODF in there too.
I hadn't known that the HD-DVD spec required players to be backward compatible with DVD but even though the Blueray spec does not require backward compatibility with the DVD format, they are building them that way. But playback of old DVD formats is not was I was talking about.
My point was that "DVD" is a format for putting video files and a menu-ing system on an optical disk such that device players can provide standard playback of these video files. Remember VideoDisk? Heard of CDROM? They are also specs for doing standard things on optical disks but we easily know what they are for because the names uniquely identify this. HD-DVD is not a high def MPEG file on the same optical disk format as the old DVD's. It's a new optical disk format and requires a new disk device reader. I don't know if they are using the same menu system but my guess is that they have changed that too so it's only confusing to call it HD-DVD. DVD2 might have been better but, IMO, including the "DVD" name is going to be confusing to the public.
FYI, I can store 1 hour of HD video in about 7GB. What that means is that I could put a one hour segment of HD content onto a dual-layer DVD-W disk. I could not put a menu'ing system on this and make a standard video playback DVD for my regular DVD player, but I could hand the disk to a friend or anybody else who has a PC, DVR, or MythTV device which can play HD content.
I guess we'll just have to see how this plays out in the market.
I've seen recently that a local Borders was listing a movie in 3 formats, DVD, HD, Blueray. I had hoped that they really were putting HD on DVD so I could play it in MythTV but what they really were selling was the standard DVD format, and 2 HD formats( HD-DVD, Blueray ). IMO, HD-DVD is confusing the market since it does not support the DVD format and is a new format( not DVD ) which also happens to be HD. I know the difference but do you think Joe or Jone Sixpack is going to know what it all means?
To the Walmart mention, I doubt that anybody who's purchasing an HD player is going to be doing much shopping at Walmart anytime soon. It'll be a couple of years before prices of players hit the $100-$200 range and current game consoles including these are in the $500-$600 range. So I would not be looking for Walmart to jump onto the HD movie format bandwagon anytime soon.
exactly and if there is anything restricting changes then either drop them like a lead brick or add code to change the search default when a user logs in or something tied to user events.
good point(s). I had once posted that any software tied to MS should be forked to keep its developers and users 'clean' but that is probably what Microsoft wants. Get so many tied to it's contracts that they'll have to fork alot of the projects since many will go GPL v3 and that'll splinter the software market and slow down Linux OSS progress and increase user confusion.
It is really sad to see so many distro's getting suckered into these deals but then again, I've not met a single business management person who'd not take money from Microsoft. They just don't understand that ANY deal with Microsoft is a deal that'll eventually hurt them( not Microsoft ). IMO.
I believe it was also about Linspire getting continued access to MS codecs. Linspire, IIRC, was/is the only distro which ships with full multimedia access/enabled for US users. They got that from the settlement to change their name from Lindows to Linspire, along with a bunch of cash.
It appears that rights to use MS codecs was not unlimited and Linspire wanted to continue with that 'feature' of their distro. My guess is that alot of the motives behind this was the extension of the licensing for those codecs. Like in the Novell deal, Microsoft probably 'requires' the fake IP protection crap or else any other deal would fail or cost too much. It's typically how they operate.
How this will impact the Click-n-Run deal with Ubuntu will be something to look at since I'm sure Microsoft would not want Linspire to just hand out those codecs to just anybody.
I will warn others to not believe this is about Microsoft collecting fees from Linux. Microsoft runs by Windows and without Windows, they fall. Therefore, all this IP licensing stuff is about killing Linux or killing corporate use of Linux one way or another. They've shown before that they're willing to spend billions just to protect the Windows monopoly/gravy-train and Linux is a threat. IMO.
what would be helpful is a fork of every distro that buckles to Microsofts sweet candy of cash for protection. Also, the public should be told that any distro which co-mingles Microsofts software with its Linux code must be isolated since Microsoft will NOT let Linux exist with Windows. Windows is what makes Microsoft work, Windows is what gives Microsoft control, Windows is what Microsoft has gone out of it's way both legally and illegally for almost 20 years. They will not let Linux users continue to use it no matter what you sign today. It won't last forever and they WILL make you pay so much you'll wish you never heard the word Linux.
Forking the distros would be one say to allow current users to keep up and yet be safe from future threats from Microsoft. Even if those threats are just increased licensing fees for unknown claimed IP.
the aspect of the "zero sum game" where only one winner can exist is exactly how Microsoft plays the game. There's where the similarities to Microsoft's 'game' and the "zero sum game" end. They don't play the none-zero-sum game either since they've shown that their partnerships ends with Microsoft taking the partners business, ie, only one winner.
There is just so much history of this that anybody who would even consider a partnership with Microsoft must be playing out their exit strategies for their business. Or they are just really really ignorant of Microsoft's business practices and intent. IMO.
Didn't Microsoft and Sun sign a deal to "interoperate" a few years ago? Where has THAT gone?
BTW, Microsoft does not want to interoperate with Linux and OSS. They want it gone, so any "talk" about deals and smoke-mirror agreements will only flounder, stall, and drag on forever. Anybody who believe otherwise is just fooling themselves.
3) Dell gets alot of money back from Microsoft for putting Microsoft Windows stickers on every part of the PC and their advertising. So much so that it's been said that over 20% of Dell's profits come directly from marketing kickbacks from Microsoft. Therefore, selling Linux on a DellPC means those PCs get no MS marketing kickbacks, no MS support kickbacks, and require expertise Dell doesn't have yet. All this means that the Linux based Dell PC's are a tough way to make a buck for Dell and they have to cut expenses somewhere.
Dell could create/provide a LiveCD for the UbuntuPC they are selling and if needed, have the user boot that. Also on that LiveCD could be their DR-DOS diag stuff( thinking like knoppix memtest ).
None of this is really rocket science and supporting Linux in the same way they support Windows should not be too difficult of they think it through. I do wonder if they're backing off on the hardware support some because they feel Linux provides more ways for a user to damage the hardware than Windows does. Ie, overclocking, hdparm changes, etc. I don't think it's valid but the tools are generally already there in Linux where you probably have to get out and get an addon app to do it in Windows.
really, the federal government got involved in the Internal Combustion Engine( ICE ) development because a developing technology was a financial threat to partners of that administration? I had no idea.:-/
Yes, there is now an amazing awareness of the need for alternate energy systems but what I was stating was the fact that this has all happened without any foresight from the existing administration and actually happened with the administration putting forth efforts to stop such movements.
I think it's great that commercial interests are investigating fuel cell systems and hope that one day, there are the needed break-through(s) required to make it a viable replacement. I also believe the public should know that the recent interest in this fuel cell technology originated as an attempt to slow the publics adoption of technologies which immediately reduced fuel consumption( ie hybrid technology ).
one problem, the current energy generators also own the grid. As it is, they currently put restrictions on how many solar systems can be installed and how large they can be if they are also tied to THEIR grid. You should see the current energy producers pretend like they are pro-green energy while having plans to limit/restrict growth of said green energy. They love electric cars and plugin hybrids as long as there's no tie-in with said vehicle owners generating their own electricity.
That is a massive hurdle to get over and it is why you'll see many going directly at megawatt sized generating systems instead of the distributed model you mentioned. The Utilities are not too unlike the Oil Industry and have massive amounts of puppet strings attached to government officials in order to protect their business interests.
FYI, fuel cells have been around since the early 1800s. They have been widely used by NASA since the 1960s in the space programs and only became a household word in 2001 when George W Bush/Dick Cheney saw Japanese hybrid vehicles as a threat to US oil industry profits. At which time, they terminated the 7 year old US hybrid vehicle program and created a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle program and offered a few billion to the US auto industry to play their game.
We're six years into that program and we still have million dollar prototype vehicles and $175,000 5KWh generators. Not sure if should be called "new technology" or snake oil since there seems to be only nano steps being made to get this 1800s based technology productized here in the 21st century. IMO.
Yikes! The one thing that's never brought up about fuel cell technology when it's being pushed at the public as 'the next big thing' is that it is incredibly expensive technology. I've never heard anybody say it didn't work and this is one of the first times I heard any mention of efficiency. And you hardly ever hear it mentioned that the technology was invented in the early 1800s yet it's still hugely expensive. So much so that any real application for it is pie-in-the-sky-thinking until the price comes down by a factor of 100.
At $175,000 for only a 5KWh system...it would have to generate not only 5KW of electric power but also produce 5 gallons/hour of fuel before anybody would take one. And for crying out loud, Bush created this hydrogen/fuel cell hype six years ago and still there's not even progress enough for small scale use? Are we talking promises of the Holy Grail here or what? I wonder what other pie-in-the-sky hack he'll propose to the public before leaving office to prevent any movement toward fuel efficiency technologies based on fossil fuels? This hydrogen/fuel cell plan has worked great for he, Cheney, and gang. IMO.
I did not bother reading the whole thing and just skimmed it since who would have thought you'd be basing your disdain for Ubuntu and Canonical on a just a couple of sentences.
No, I'd go with Fedora. Given Mark Shuttleworth's admiration for Microsoft [markshuttleworth.com] and the Dell/Canonical deal, I wouldn't be surprised if Ubuntu joins Suse in the MS patent blackmail
Though it does smell of some admiration, most of it is probably true except for the part about them making amazing software. They did make software cheaper in the early days but he fails to notice most of their cheap pricing was to nail the competition since they could still take in billions from Windows. There are probably some people working for Microsoft who want to make great software. Only Balmer and the marketeers don't let them try since everything they do must only work on Windows. Since I don't know his motivation but it could very well be that he's holding his tongue to make sure the Dell deal goes through. Who knows but there surely isn't enough there to run away from. IMO.
and Caldera purchased that( DR-DOS ) from Novell and thus created the monster. Caldera within days sued Microsoft for harming DR-DOS and eventually won millions from Microsoft. The Caldera lawyers learned how to quickly make money from purchased product. Not sure if you know this but SCO purchased Caldera( or visa virsa ) and the SCO-UNIX bullshit started.
Really, the history of Novell/Ray Norda/Linux/Microsft/Caldera/SCO/UNIX is quite the story but in the end, it really shows how dumb Novell has been over the years. The latest junk between Microsoft/Novell is just more of the same. IMO.
WTF are you talking about? Shuttleworth says that Microsoft is probably just as worried about software patents as OSS/Linux people are/should be. Granted, he looks at this as if the whole this is really about patent protection when in fact, it's about Microsoft using FUD to collect fees which they'll later increase in order to make OSS/Linux more expensive than MS Windows but you missed that. So where is Shuttleworth's admiration for Microsoft? And what is with the Dell/Ubuntu deal that's bad for OSS/Linux? For the first time ever, a Microsoft OEM is actually selling a pre-loaded Linux based system at lower prices than the same Microsoft Windows based system.
All and all, there's little substance to your post IMO.
well said and it lends proof that Microsoft must have another plan for how they will stop OSS/Linux growth. I've stated elsewhere that I believe one such plan could be the same plan they used on the Win32-on-UNIX vendors/customers( google for "Microsoft Bristol UNIX" ). In short, hook them on a licensing fee, then when enough customers bite, increase the licensing fee so much that it effectively ends any product(s) covered by the license.
I don't believe that there is any Microsoft interest in collecting money from OSS/Linux projects since Microsoft Windows has done well for them in the past and they fully control that platform. I also don't believe that just splitting the market by "growing" Novell Suse marketshare is enough since it still increases OSS/Linux marketshare and that removes from Microsoft's Windows marketshare.
The only way I can see the failure of the Microsoft plan to 'Bristol-ize' the OSS/Linux market is if as you stated, business stayed away from Suse. If only a handful of Microsoft customers get hammered with huge licensing fees while RedHat, Ubuntu, etc customers do fine, it'll just fizzle out like the "Get the Facts" campaign did. IMO.
There is lots of chatter that Microsoft has no intention of ever taking this to court like SCO did. That the intension is to use FUD to move the market and eventually do the damage to the OSS/Linux image such that businesses will stay away from it and go back to the loving arms of Microsoft. Since it has already been shown that much of the contract is so vague that there is really no protection not to sue left in the deal, adding vagueness to what is and isn't covered sounds just like Microsoft lawyers planned and are good at.
The bad part of all this is that companies are falling for this and purchasing the coupons from Microsoft and therefore paying the protection moneys. Microsoft just needs to hook a dozen or so more high profile corporations over the next few years before the contract ends. Then, they might continue directly with these customers for a short term contract before massive license fee increases or they'll go directly to that if they feel the market is ripe. This way, they'll make using OSS and Linux more expensive than Windows and more problematic and in the process give businesses a foul taste for thinking Linux and OSS was a good move. Effectively keeping businesses away from it for another 10 years or so and keeping it's marketshare down to niche levels.
Continuing to discuss how little this contract really provides might just help keep more companies from signing up and buying the coupons, thereby taking the wind out of this latest Microsoft plan to stop OSS/Linux growth. IMO.
if that is the case and the Novell lawyers knew mostly nothing at all was legally valid in the contract, what will they do once the contract ends and Microsoft starts asking for licensing fees directly from those customers? Will Novell stand up and tell them that there never was any protection, that the original contract excluded pretty much every aspect of the Suse distribution? I don't believe Microsoft will continue to work with Novell for vary long once they sucker enough high profile customers into the MSFT/Novell coupon scam since Microsoft does not care about making money from Linux or OSS on Linux. They care about keeping marketshare for Windows and collecting the billions per month from that which they fully control.
I don't see how this could have been a plan for Novell and its lawyers unless they were only concerned with keeping the company afloat with this deal for maybe 3-5 years. Even with the publicly listed holes in what is/isn't valid in the MSFT/Novell license, large companies have signed up for this and paid the protection moneys. Get a dozen or so more and then yank the rug out from under it by increasing the protection fees and you'll have some very large companies publicly locking out OSS and Linux products like they were Typhoid Mary at the door. So how does this plan work for Novell in the long run( > 3-5 years )?
Slashdot Mirror
but businesses are more likely to purchase support... Oh that's right, Dell wants purchasers to purchase Canonical support so there's no profits for Dell in a business transaction and more likely to be profits for Canonical. Why would Dell be against this and go the extra mile to block these kinds of purchases? Look for the itemized check-mark on the Dell/Microsoft Restrictions list.
LoB
The DHS can't fix Microsoft Internet Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, MS ActiveX system or any part of Microsoft Windows. There is no comparison between a mechanics personal car and how "experts" can or can't protect their computers.
But hey, I'd be impressed if it were shown that the DHS, as a policy, used Firefox instead of IE and maybe Thunderbird instead of MS Outlook. I doubt they've even taken those simple steps to mitigate infection/breakin points.
LoB
and make sure the deal involves Linux and OSS. They may go kicking and screaming but in 2-3 years, they'll thank you and probably buy IBM services with the extra cash saved from all the OS and apps licensing fees they would not be sending to Microsoft. There's a win for ODF in there too.
LoB
I hadn't known that the HD-DVD spec required players to be backward compatible with DVD but even though the Blueray spec does not require backward compatibility with the DVD format, they are building them that way. But playback of old DVD formats is not was I was talking about.
My point was that "DVD" is a format for putting video files and a menu-ing system on an optical disk such that device players can provide standard playback of these video files. Remember VideoDisk? Heard of CDROM? They are also specs for doing standard things on optical disks but we easily know what they are for because the names uniquely identify this. HD-DVD is not a high def MPEG file on the same optical disk format as the old DVD's. It's a new optical disk format and requires a new disk device reader. I don't know if they are using the same menu system but my guess is that they have changed that too so it's only confusing to call it HD-DVD. DVD2 might have been better but, IMO, including the "DVD" name is going to be confusing to the public.
FYI, I can store 1 hour of HD video in about 7GB. What that means is that I could put a one hour segment of HD content onto a dual-layer DVD-W disk. I could not put a menu'ing system on this and make a standard video playback DVD for my regular DVD player, but I could hand the disk to a friend or anybody else who has a PC, DVR, or MythTV device which can play HD content.
I guess we'll just have to see how this plays out in the market.
LoB
I've seen recently that a local Borders was listing a movie in 3 formats, DVD, HD, Blueray. I had hoped that they really were putting HD on DVD so I could play it in MythTV but what they really were selling was the standard DVD format, and 2 HD formats( HD-DVD, Blueray ). IMO, HD-DVD is confusing the market since it does not support the DVD format and is a new format( not DVD ) which also happens to be HD. I know the difference but do you think Joe or Jone Sixpack is going to know what it all means?
To the Walmart mention, I doubt that anybody who's purchasing an HD player is going to be doing much shopping at Walmart anytime soon. It'll be a couple of years before prices of players hit the $100-$200 range and current game consoles including these are in the $500-$600 range. So I would not be looking for Walmart to jump onto the HD movie format bandwagon anytime soon.
LoB
the answer is called "the gift card".
LoB
exactly and if there is anything restricting changes then either drop them like a lead brick or add code to change the search default when a user logs in or something tied to user events.
LoB
good point(s). I had once posted that any software tied to MS should be forked to keep its developers and users 'clean' but that is probably what Microsoft wants. Get so many tied to it's contracts that they'll have to fork alot of the projects since many will go GPL v3 and that'll splinter the software market and slow down Linux OSS progress and increase user confusion.
It is really sad to see so many distro's getting suckered into these deals but then again, I've not met a single business management person who'd not take money from Microsoft. They just don't understand that ANY deal with Microsoft is a deal that'll eventually hurt them( not Microsoft ). IMO.
LoB
I believe it was also about Linspire getting continued access to MS codecs. Linspire, IIRC, was/is the only distro which ships with full multimedia access/enabled for US users. They got that from the settlement to change their name from Lindows to Linspire, along with a bunch of cash.
It appears that rights to use MS codecs was not unlimited and Linspire wanted to continue with that 'feature' of their distro. My guess is that alot of the motives behind this was the extension of the licensing for those codecs. Like in the Novell deal, Microsoft probably 'requires' the fake IP protection crap or else any other deal would fail or cost too much. It's typically how they operate.
How this will impact the Click-n-Run deal with Ubuntu will be something to look at since I'm sure Microsoft would not want Linspire to just hand out those codecs to just anybody.
I will warn others to not believe this is about Microsoft collecting fees from Linux. Microsoft runs by Windows and without Windows, they fall. Therefore, all this IP licensing stuff is about killing Linux or killing corporate use of Linux one way or another. They've shown before that they're willing to spend billions just to protect the Windows monopoly/gravy-train and Linux is a threat. IMO.
LoB
what would be helpful is a fork of every distro that buckles to Microsofts sweet candy of cash for protection. Also, the public should be told that any distro which co-mingles Microsofts software with its Linux code must be isolated since Microsoft will NOT let Linux exist with Windows. Windows is what makes Microsoft work, Windows is what gives Microsoft control, Windows is what Microsoft has gone out of it's way both legally and illegally for almost 20 years. They will not let Linux users continue to use it no matter what you sign today. It won't last forever and they WILL make you pay so much you'll wish you never heard the word Linux.
Forking the distros would be one say to allow current users to keep up and yet be safe from future threats from Microsoft. Even if those threats are just increased licensing fees for unknown claimed IP.
LoB
the aspect of the "zero sum game" where only one winner can exist is exactly how Microsoft plays the game. There's where the similarities to Microsoft's 'game' and the "zero sum game" end. They don't play the none-zero-sum game either since they've shown that their partnerships ends with Microsoft taking the partners business, ie, only one winner.
There is just so much history of this that anybody who would even consider a partnership with Microsoft must be playing out their exit strategies for their business. Or they are just really really ignorant of Microsoft's business practices and intent. IMO.
LoB
Didn't Microsoft and Sun sign a deal to "interoperate" a few years ago? Where has THAT gone?
BTW, Microsoft does not want to interoperate with Linux and OSS. They want it gone, so any "talk" about deals and smoke-mirror agreements will only flounder, stall, and drag on forever. Anybody who believe otherwise is just fooling themselves.
LoB
3) Dell gets alot of money back from Microsoft for putting Microsoft Windows stickers on every part of the PC and their advertising. So much so that it's been said that over 20% of Dell's profits come directly from marketing kickbacks from Microsoft. Therefore, selling Linux on a DellPC means those PCs get no MS marketing kickbacks, no MS support kickbacks, and require expertise Dell doesn't have yet. All this means that the Linux based Dell PC's are a tough way to make a buck for Dell and they have to cut expenses somewhere.
LoB
Dell could create/provide a LiveCD for the UbuntuPC they are selling and if needed, have the user boot that. Also on that LiveCD could be their DR-DOS diag stuff( thinking like knoppix memtest ).
None of this is really rocket science and supporting Linux in the same way they support Windows should not be too difficult of they think it through. I do wonder if they're backing off on the hardware support some because they feel Linux provides more ways for a user to damage the hardware than Windows does. Ie, overclocking, hdparm changes, etc. I don't think it's valid but the tools are generally already there in Linux where you probably have to get out and get an addon app to do it in Windows.
LoB
really, the federal government got involved in the Internal Combustion Engine( ICE ) development because a developing technology was a financial threat to partners of that administration? I had no idea. :-/
Yes, there is now an amazing awareness of the need for alternate energy systems but what I was stating was the fact that this has all happened without any foresight from the existing administration and actually happened with the administration putting forth efforts to stop such movements.
I think it's great that commercial interests are investigating fuel cell systems and hope that one day, there are the needed break-through(s) required to make it a viable replacement. I also believe the public should know that the recent interest in this fuel cell technology originated as an attempt to slow the publics adoption of technologies which immediately reduced fuel consumption( ie hybrid technology ).
LoB
one problem, the current energy generators also own the grid. As it is, they currently put restrictions on how many solar systems can be installed and how large they can be if they are also tied to THEIR grid. You should see the current energy producers pretend like they are pro-green energy while having plans to limit/restrict growth of said green energy. They love electric cars and plugin hybrids as long as there's no tie-in with said vehicle owners generating their own electricity.
That is a massive hurdle to get over and it is why you'll see many going directly at megawatt sized generating systems instead of the distributed model you mentioned. The Utilities are not too unlike the Oil Industry and have massive amounts of puppet strings attached to government officials in order to protect their business interests.
LoB
FYI, fuel cells have been around since the early 1800s. They have been widely used by NASA since the 1960s in the space programs and only became a household word in 2001 when George W Bush/Dick Cheney saw Japanese hybrid vehicles as a threat to US oil industry profits. At which time, they terminated the 7 year old US hybrid vehicle program and created a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle program and offered a few billion to the US auto industry to play their game.
We're six years into that program and we still have million dollar prototype vehicles and $175,000 5KWh generators. Not sure if should be called "new technology" or snake oil since there seems to be only nano steps being made to get this 1800s based technology productized here in the 21st century. IMO.
LoB
Yikes! The one thing that's never brought up about fuel cell technology when it's being pushed at the public as 'the next big thing' is that it is incredibly expensive technology. I've never heard anybody say it didn't work and this is one of the first times I heard any mention of efficiency. And you hardly ever hear it mentioned that the technology was invented in the early 1800s yet it's still hugely expensive. So much so that any real application for it is pie-in-the-sky-thinking until the price comes down by a factor of 100.
At $175,000 for only a 5KWh system...it would have to generate not only 5KW of electric power but also produce 5 gallons/hour of fuel before anybody would take one. And for crying out loud, Bush created this hydrogen/fuel cell hype six years ago and still there's not even progress enough for small scale use? Are we talking promises of the Holy Grail here or what? I wonder what other pie-in-the-sky hack he'll propose to the public before leaving office to prevent any movement toward fuel efficiency technologies based on fossil fuels? This hydrogen/fuel cell plan has worked great for he, Cheney, and gang. IMO.
LoB
No, I'd go with Fedora. Given Mark Shuttleworth's admiration for Microsoft [markshuttleworth.com] and the Dell/Canonical deal, I wouldn't be surprised if Ubuntu joins Suse in the MS patent blackmail
Though it does smell of some admiration, most of it is probably true except for the part about them making amazing software. They did make software cheaper in the early days but he fails to notice most of their cheap pricing was to nail the competition since they could still take in billions from Windows. There are probably some people working for Microsoft who want to make great software. Only Balmer and the marketeers don't let them try since everything they do must only work on Windows. Since I don't know his motivation but it could very well be that he's holding his tongue to make sure the Dell deal goes through. Who knows but there surely isn't enough there to run away from. IMO.
LoB
hmm, I was replying to the AC who linked to Shuttlesworths blog about the MSFT/Novell deal.
LoB
and Caldera purchased that( DR-DOS ) from Novell and thus created the monster. Caldera within days sued Microsoft for harming DR-DOS and eventually won millions from Microsoft. The Caldera lawyers learned how to quickly make money from purchased product. Not sure if you know this but SCO purchased Caldera( or visa virsa ) and the SCO-UNIX bullshit started.
Really, the history of Novell/Ray Norda/Linux/Microsft/Caldera/SCO/UNIX is quite the story but in the end, it really shows how dumb Novell has been over the years. The latest junk between Microsoft/Novell is just more of the same. IMO.
LoB
WTF are you talking about? Shuttleworth says that Microsoft is probably just as worried about software patents as OSS/Linux people are/should be. Granted, he looks at this as if the whole this is really about patent protection when in fact, it's about Microsoft using FUD to collect fees which they'll later increase in order to make OSS/Linux more expensive than MS Windows but you missed that. So where is Shuttleworth's admiration for Microsoft? And what is with the Dell/Ubuntu deal that's bad for OSS/Linux? For the first time ever, a Microsoft OEM is actually selling a pre-loaded Linux based system at lower prices than the same Microsoft Windows based system.
All and all, there's little substance to your post IMO.
LoB
well said and it lends proof that Microsoft must have another plan for how they will stop OSS/Linux growth. I've stated elsewhere that I believe one such plan could be the same plan they used on the Win32-on-UNIX vendors/customers( google for "Microsoft Bristol UNIX" ). In short, hook them on a licensing fee, then when enough customers bite, increase the licensing fee so much that it effectively ends any product(s) covered by the license.
I don't believe that there is any Microsoft interest in collecting money from OSS/Linux projects since Microsoft Windows has done well for them in the past and they fully control that platform. I also don't believe that just splitting the market by "growing" Novell Suse marketshare is enough since it still increases OSS/Linux marketshare and that removes from Microsoft's Windows marketshare.
The only way I can see the failure of the Microsoft plan to 'Bristol-ize' the OSS/Linux market is if as you stated, business stayed away from Suse. If only a handful of Microsoft customers get hammered with huge licensing fees while RedHat, Ubuntu, etc customers do fine, it'll just fizzle out like the "Get the Facts" campaign did. IMO.
LoB
There is lots of chatter that Microsoft has no intention of ever taking this to court like SCO did. That the intension is to use FUD to move the market and eventually do the damage to the OSS/Linux image such that businesses will stay away from it and go back to the loving arms of Microsoft. Since it has already been shown that much of the contract is so vague that there is really no protection not to sue left in the deal, adding vagueness to what is and isn't covered sounds just like Microsoft lawyers planned and are good at.
The bad part of all this is that companies are falling for this and purchasing the coupons from Microsoft and therefore paying the protection moneys. Microsoft just needs to hook a dozen or so more high profile corporations over the next few years before the contract ends. Then, they might continue directly with these customers for a short term contract before massive license fee increases or they'll go directly to that if they feel the market is ripe. This way, they'll make using OSS and Linux more expensive than Windows and more problematic and in the process give businesses a foul taste for thinking Linux and OSS was a good move. Effectively keeping businesses away from it for another 10 years or so and keeping it's marketshare down to niche levels.
Continuing to discuss how little this contract really provides might just help keep more companies from signing up and buying the coupons, thereby taking the wind out of this latest Microsoft plan to stop OSS/Linux growth. IMO.
LoB
if that is the case and the Novell lawyers knew mostly nothing at all was legally valid in the contract, what will they do once the contract ends and Microsoft starts asking for licensing fees directly from those customers? Will Novell stand up and tell them that there never was any protection, that the original contract excluded pretty much every aspect of the Suse distribution? I don't believe Microsoft will continue to work with Novell for vary long once they sucker enough high profile customers into the MSFT/Novell coupon scam since Microsoft does not care about making money from Linux or OSS on Linux. They care about keeping marketshare for Windows and collecting the billions per month from that which they fully control.
I don't see how this could have been a plan for Novell and its lawyers unless they were only concerned with keeping the company afloat with this deal for maybe 3-5 years. Even with the publicly listed holes in what is/isn't valid in the MSFT/Novell license, large companies have signed up for this and paid the protection moneys. Get a dozen or so more and then yank the rug out from under it by increasing the protection fees and you'll have some very large companies publicly locking out OSS and Linux products like they were Typhoid Mary at the door. So how does this plan work for Novell in the long run( > 3-5 years )?
LoB