Why Is Dell Buying SLES certificates from Microsoft, Not Novell?
,----[ Quote ] | So, is it possible Microsoft just wants to get out of the SLES | certificates business quick, most specifically before GPLv3 is final? `----
,----[ Quote ] | So far, the impulse of the FOSS movement has been to use GPLv3 to | torpedo the MSFT-NOVL deal and discourage interoperability, not | exactly a customer-friendly strategy. One of the interesting | implications of the Dell announcement is that Dell must be | writing off the possiblity that GPLv3 will be adopted for | Linux. Or it is willing to support a fork into v2 and v3 versions. `----
On 2007-05-10, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> claimed:
> Why Is Dell Buying SLES certificates from Microsoft, Not Novell?
Because Novell's soul isn't theirs any more. They've traded it in on the privilage to become a failed puppet.
> ,----[ Quote ] >| So, is it possible Microsoft just wants to get out of the SLES >| certificates business quick, most specifically before GPLv3 is final? > `----
That might have some bearing as well. But MS could be just as happy letting Novell kill themselves slowly by being in violation of GPL3 for years, tying it up in court, generating more FUD-points to sell the PHBs on.
Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> espoused:
> Why Is Dell Buying SLES certificates from Microsoft, Not Novell?
> ,----[ Quote ] >| So, is it possible Microsoft just wants to get out of the SLES >| certificates business quick, most specifically before GPLv3 is final? > `----
> ,----[ Quote ] >| So far, the impulse of the FOSS movement has been to use GPLv3 to >| torpedo the MSFT-NOVL deal and discourage interoperability, not >| exactly a customer-friendly strategy. One of the interesting
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The reason being to protect the customer from Microsoft's threats of legal action at some random point in the future, possibly, when and if they feel like it...
Indeed, the *whole point* of GPL3 is to protect the customer. And the developer, and the user, and the distributor, and the vendor, and the support house, in fact, pretty much everyone.
>| implications of the Dell announcement is that Dell must be >| writing off the possiblity that GPLv3 will be adopted for >| Linux. Or it is willing to support a fork into v2 and v3 versions. > `----
Seems most unlikely. I think they'll look at v3 and say something like *this protects us from Microsoft - let's have it!*.
Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
> Why Is Dell Buying SLES certificates from Microsoft, Not Novell?
> ,----[ Quote ] > | So, is it possible Microsoft just wants to get out of the SLES > | certificates business quick, most specifically before GPLv3 is final? > `----
MS have an overstock of unsold certificates, and they're dumping them while they still can. For those who still don't understand exactly what these "certificates" are, here's a nice summary:
"These certificates entitle companies to run virtualised Windows on Suse Linux Enterprise Server, or virtualised SUSE Linux Enterprise Server on top of Windows. The certificates were part of an upfront payment to Novell of $240 million. Microsoft can use, resell, or distribute them over the term of the agreement. The certificates can then be used to redeem single or multi-year subscriptions for SLES support from Novell."
What I found more interesting was the video clip of the Think Tank conference. Microsoft's Open Source Software Lab director, Sam Ramji, is asked several times by members of the audience to clarify precisely *what* IP Microsoft's thinks Linux infringes, and each time he avoids the question, only going as far as hinting about "cloning issues". It's the most obvious case of bullshit I've ever heard.
Erik will be disappointed to note that contrary to his claims, according to Ramji Microsoft *has* in fact used it's patents *offensively* twice before, although Ramji did not elucidate any further.
I was also intrigued to discover that, according to Novell's Solutions Manager - Justin Steinman, Novell consulted with the Open Source Community before signing off on the Microsoft pact. Problem is, the segment of the "Open Source Community" that Novell "consulted" with was their own employees, members of their own advisory committee, specifically people like their CTO for Open Source - Nat Friedman, and their VP of Developer Platform - Miguel de Icaza. To say that this was a consultation with "all the Open Source leaders" is a bit misleading, to say the least. He even went as far as citing Jeremy Allison's support for the deal, which is quite ironic, since Allison subsequently *resigned* from Novell "due to the Microsoft/Novell patent agreement" and because "even if it does not violate the letter of the licence it violates the intent of the GPL licence the Samba code is released under".
When asked directly "what's in it for Novell", Steinman made it very clear that Novell's primary motivation was getting a leg up over Red Hat, by "differentiating" Novell's Linux from theirs by making SuSE "work better with Windows" than Red Hat's offerings. He then goes on to cite the specific examples of virtualisation, and OOXML compatibility, and how they managed to get a foothold in Walmart off Microsoft's back.
I think it's clearer than ever that SuSE is simply "Microsoft Linux" with proprietary extensions, ultimately deigned to bastardise Linux into some grotesque proprietary monster, and poison the FOSS Well.
I was also rather disturbed to hear that Ramji had discussed with Mike Milinkovich, executive director of the Eclipse Foundation, the possibility of tainting Eclipse with Microsoft's .NET technology, presumably to mutate Linux into the same bloated unstable mess that Windows is now, and try to diminish Linux's technical advantages.
He also waxed lyrical about Microsoft's SOAP based WS Management, and about how it really was open and free, honest, even going as far as to say that everyone is free to use this technology and "we'll never call you, or bug you, or worry about anything".
.---- | 'Also, no one calls it PCI-X even though that's the "official " | shortening of the much more commonly used "PCI Express".' | - Hardon Quirk, COLA's resident "genius". `----
> Erik will be disappointed to note that contrary to his claims, according > to Ramji Microsoft *has* in fact used it's patents *offensively* twice > before, although Ramji did not elucidate any further.
Well Erik may be a little embarrassed about that one, putting forth his claim that Microsoft would never, never sue anyone, only a few days before the latest threats of lawsuits. Obviously he's so far down on the organizational chart that he's out of the loop on everything.
<ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > Erik will be disappointed to note that contrary to his claims, according > > to Ramji Microsoft *has* in fact used it's patents *offensively* twice > > before, although Ramji did not elucidate any further.
> Well Erik may be a little embarrassed about that one, putting forth > his claim that Microsoft would never, never sue anyone, only a few > days before the latest threats of lawsuits. Obviously he's so far > down on the organizational chart that he's out of the loop on > everything.
It seems that IBM has no problem going to court with "very broad and questionable patents" however.
"Amazon Pays IBM To Settle Pointless Patent Dispute" Tue, May 8th 2007
Last year, we were a bit surprised to see IBM sue Amazon over some very broad and questionable patents. After all, IBM has been going on and on about the importance of a better patent system and doing away with such bogus patent suits.
> > Erik will be disappointed to note that contrary to his claims, according > > to Ramji Microsoft *has* in fact used it's patents *offensively* twice > > before, although Ramji did not elucidate any further.
> Well Erik may be a little embarrassed about that one, putting forth > his claim that Microsoft would never, never sue anyone, only a few > days before the latest threats of lawsuits. Obviously he's so far > down on the organizational chart that he's out of the loop on > everything.
>> Erik will be disappointed to note that contrary to his claims, according >> to Ramji Microsoft *has* in fact used it's patents *offensively* twice >> before, although Ramji did not elucidate any further.
> Well Erik may be a little embarrassed about that one, putting forth > his claim that Microsoft would never, never sue anyone, only a few > days before the latest threats of lawsuits. Obviously he's so far > down on the organizational chart that he's out of the loop on > everything.
He does seem to have lost his hotline of late. Once upon a time, I think he was getting good quality information, but I don't think that he is any more. It could be indicative of Microsoft's continued internal problems, of course.
On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:02:23 -0700, John Bailo wrote: > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Does Dell Know Something?
>> ,----[ Quote ] >> | So far, the impulse of the FOSS movement has been to use GPLv3 to >> | torpedo the MSFT-NOVL deal and discourage interoperability,
> Yeah, Novell is torpedoing the U-Crap-U deal and interjecting a real > Linux onto Dell hardware.
I've been reading a lot about the building hatred of Ubuntu. Why does you/they/everyone seem to have this opinion now? Surely Ubuntu has only done good for Linux in general? Is it human nature to hate a success story?
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:02:23 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Does Dell Know Something?
>>> ,----[ Quote ] >>> | So far, the impulse of the FOSS movement has been to use GPLv3 to >>> | torpedo the MSFT-NOVL deal and discourage interoperability,
>> Yeah, Novell is torpedoing the U-Crap-U deal and interjecting a real >> Linux onto Dell hardware. > I've been reading a lot about the building hatred of Ubuntu. Why does > you/they/everyone seem to have this opinion now? Surely Ubuntu has only > done good for Linux in general? Is it human nature to hate a success story?
> Tony(UK)
I wholeheatedly agree. Some people hate Ubuntu Linux with passion and it helps nobody. Ubuntu helps Linux as a whole. Admittedly, I do not recommend SUSE because Novell only harms Linux as a whole. We had a reminder as to why just a couple of days ago.
-- ~~ Best regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Yes, I know, but does it run Linux?" http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E roy pts/4 Wed May 16 02:48 - 02:49 (00:01) http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:37:21 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote: > __/ [ Tony Smith ] on Wednesday 16 May 2007 07:46 \__
>> On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:02:23 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> Does Dell Know Something?
>>>> ,----[ Quote ] >>>> | So far, the impulse of the FOSS movement has been to use GPLv3 to | >>>> torpedo the MSFT-NOVL deal and discourage interoperability,
>>> Yeah, Novell is torpedoing the U-Crap-U deal and interjecting a real >>> Linux onto Dell hardware. >> I've been reading a lot about the building hatred of Ubuntu. Why does >> you/they/everyone seem to have this opinion now? Surely Ubuntu has only >> done good for Linux in general? Is it human nature to hate a success >> story?
>> Tony(UK)
> I wholeheatedly agree. Some people hate Ubuntu Linux with passion and it > helps nobody. Ubuntu helps Linux as a whole. Admittedly, I do not > recommend SUSE because Novell only harms Linux as a whole. We had a > reminder as to why just a couple of days ago.
Well bailo isn't a linux advocate. IMO he's a MicroNovell shill with a vested interest.
Tony Smith <tony_smith...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I've been reading a lot about the building hatred of Ubuntu. Why does > you/they/everyone seem to have this opinion now? Surely Ubuntu has only > done good for Linux in general? Is it human nature to hate a success story?
> Tony(UK)
In almost any human endeavor where multiple teams or versions of something exist, there will always be some people who 'pick sides' and passionately defend that choice even to the point of denigrating all alternatives. It is less common within the sub-categories of Linux, but it does occur and is hardly surprising.
As Ubuntu gains in popularity and begins to outshine other distros, it is only to be expected that some fans of other distros will be aggravated and make a bit more noise than before. This is no big deal. Its all just part of the healthy rivalry that spurs on the continuing innovation and advancement of Linux in general. If everyone agreed, where would the new ideas come from after all?
> Tony Smith <tony_smith...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I've been reading a lot about the building hatred of Ubuntu. Why does >> you/they/everyone seem to have this opinion now? Surely Ubuntu has only >> done good for Linux in general? Is it human nature to hate a success >> story?
>> Tony(UK)
> In almost any human endeavor where multiple teams or versions of > something exist, there will always be some people who 'pick sides' and > passionately defend that choice even to the point of denigrating all > alternatives. It is less common within the sub-categories of Linux, but > it does occur and is hardly surprising.
> As Ubuntu gains in popularity and begins to outshine other distros, it > is only to be expected that some fans of other distros will be > aggravated and make a bit more noise than before. This is no big deal. > Its all just part of the healthy rivalry that spurs on the continuing > innovation and advancement of Linux in general. If everyone agreed, > where would the new ideas come from after all?
Many distros that used to 'compete' with Ubuntu are now Ubuntu-_based_.
-- ~~ Best regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: mint and self-contained 'out of the box' http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E 1:05am up 18 days 9:27, 6 users, load average: 0.74, 0.98, 1.11 http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
