Novell Dumps the Hula Project

November 28, 2006 Leave a comment

Conspiracy theorists of the Open Source community unite; Novell has just dropped official support for Hula shortly after announcing their agreement with Microsoft. For those unfamiliar with Hula, here's a snippet from the original press release just over 18 months ago:
BOSTON (LinuxWorld Conference& Expo 2005) — Feb. 15, 2005 — Novell today announced the formation of Hula, a new community project to create an open source collaboration server. The server will provide innovative calendar and mail functionality, filling a major void among open source offerings. Hula will be based on code taken from Novell's NetMail collaboration server product, an award-winning, proven technology foundation with an installed base of more than 4 million users.
Novell has donated the core components of NetMail to provide a starting point for the Hula project. Hula today includes standards-based e-mail, calendaring and address book functionality that can scale to 250,000 registered users on a single PC with 50,000 simultaneously connected users. Novell's contribution of such a significant product into open source – more than 200,000 lines of source code – demonstrates Novell's continuing commitment to promoting open source as well as the company's deepening involvement in helping to lead key community initiatives.
So do I think Novell ditching their Exchange replacement is directly related to the Microsoft deal? Realistically, probably not. I know it's hard for some to believe, but it's not always about Microsoft. The truth is, the project never really seemed to gain much traction. It's a shame, because an Open Source Exchange replacement is a critical missing piece right now. I can't emphasize this enough. Many shops I see use Windows (and in some cases end up ditching Linux in an effort to have only one server platform) solely because of Exchange. It's also a shame because Hula showed some promise. While I thought it was odd that they chose to rewrite some of the services instead of just using something tried and true like Postfix, some of the features Hula promised looked very nice. Luckily the project lives on and in the Open Source spirit I hope someone picks it up. Without a corporate sponsor though, it's unlikely a project like this will get much enterprise uptake. Luckily Zimbra just keeps getting better and better every time I look at it. With SOX compliance promised soon, Zimbra could be well positioned to give Exchange a run for its money.
–jeremy
, , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source

How many Microsofties does it take to implement the Off menu?

November 27, 2006 Leave a comment

Sparked by a post Joel recently made, Moishe Lettvin (a former Microsoftie now Googler) gives us a little insight into Windows development. From the post:
So that nets us a conservative estimate of 24 people involved in this feature. Also each team of 8 was separated by 6 layers of management from the leads, so let's add them in too, giving us 24 + (6 * 3) + 1 (the shared manager) 43 total people with a voice in this feature. Twenty-four of them were connected sorta closely to the code, and of those twenty four there were exactly zero with final say in how the feature worked. Somewhere in those other 17 was somebody who did have final say but who that was I have no idea since when I left the team — after a year — there was still no decision about exactly how this feature would work.
By the way “feature” is much too strong a word; a better description would be “menu”. Really. By the time I left the team the total code that I'd written for this “feature” was a couple hundred lines, tops.
But here's how the design process worked: approximately every 4 weeks, at our weekly meeting, our PM would say, “the shell team disagrees with how this looks/feels/works” and/or “the kernel team has decided to include/not include some functionality which lets us/prevents us from doing this particular thing”. And then in our weekly meeting we'd spent approximately 90 minutes discussing how our feature — er, menu — should look based on this “new” information. Then at our next weekly meeting we'd spend another 90 minutes arguing about the design, then at the next weekly meeting we'd do the same, and at the next weekly meeting we'd agree on something… just in time to get some other missing piece of information from the shell or kernel team, and start the whole process again.
What feature is he talking about you ask? It's the shutdown menu. The post in its entirety gives you a good idea of how thing work, but Joel sums it up nicely:
Every piece of evidence I've heard from developers inside Microsoft supports my theory that the company has become completely tangled up in bureaucracy, layers of management, meetings ad infinitum, and overstaffing. The only way Microsoft has managed to hire so many people has been by lowering their hiring standards significantly. In the early nineties Microsoft looked at IBM, especially the bloated OS/2 team, as a case study of what not to do; somehow in the fifteen year period from 1991 – 2006 they became the bloated monster that takes five years to ship an incoherent upgrade to their flagship product.
So why am I posting this? What does it have to do with Linux, or Open Source? 'Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It'. Microsoft seems to have forgotten very quickly, and they are paying the price now. Let's learn from the mistakes of others and not repeat those mistakes. As Open Source projects get bigger and bigger, the chance for bureaucracy and layers of management become greater and greater. Luckily Open Source typically has a way of routing around issues like this, but as the likes or Oracle and Microsoft enter our world, it's important this case study isn't one we forget.
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Linux users to Microsoft: What 'balance sheet liability'?

November 22, 2006 Leave a comment

Continued coverage of a story I've been watching closely. Computerworld has an article the covers the reactions of a couple CIO's to the recent Microsoft-Novell agreement. From the article:
“I do not believe that my company has an “undisclosed balance sheet liability,” Russ Donnan, CIO at business information provider Kroll Factual Data, said in an e-mail response to questions from Computerworld about the Microsoft deal. Kroll Factual, a Loveland, Colo.-based subsidiary of global services provider Marsh & McLennan Companies, uses Red Hat Linux servers along with Windows servers in its data center.
Donnan, who described himself as “not a huge fan of software patents,” said “the threat of such a 'liability' would not in any way influence” whether Kroll would stick with Red Hat or move to SUSE or even Windows. “Steve Ballmer is posturing for mind share to enterprise executives, knowing it will have little to no impact on IT executives,” he said.
Barry Strasnick, CIO of North Quincy, Mass. financial services provider CitiStreet LLC, was even more emphatic.
“Like many IT executives, I took great offense to Ballmer's comments,” Strasnick wrote in an e-mail. CitiStreet uses Red Hat Linux widely in its data centers. “If Microsoft really thinks there is some code in Linux that violates their patents, they should publish those lines of codes immediately instead of just posturing in the press. [Fear, uncertainty and doubt] may have worked for IBM in the 1970s (some of us are old enough to have been around then), but not today.”
And Microsoft's assertions might be even backfire. “There were some applications I had been thinking about moving to a Microsoft platform, but this has now totally alienated me from Microsoft,” Strasnick said.
As mentioned in the last post, if Ballmer was using this as a litmus test, I think the response he got was clear. You'd think if Microsoft really thought they had a legitimate case, they'd probably have sued already. The problem is not only whether Microsoft code exists in Linux, but whether Linux code exists in Microsoft products. One litigation would set off a chain of others, and in the end I think we could likely get rid of any offending code (if there even is any) quicker and with less collateral damage than Microsoft could. Keep in mind that due to the Open nature of Linux code, patent violations are much less likely to exists than in the closed nature of Microsoft code where things can be hidden.
It's also good to see that the industry has gotten a bit wiser to these kinds of issues. I'd say in no small part due to the SCO case, industry tech executives are acutely aware at this point that claims like this are FUD. Not only that, you can see FUD now disenfranchises and alienates people. The industry may be at a watershed moment. One that marks the beginning of a time when the consumer is the one in charge, not the monopoly. We still have a long road ahead, but it's the rays of light like this one that recharge your batteries, rejuvenate your passion and remind you you're on the right path.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source

Open Letter to the Community from Novell

November 21, 2006 1 Comment

Novell has released an Open Letter to the Community. From the letter:
Our interest in signing this agreement was to secure interoperability and joint sales agreements, but Microsoft asked that we cooperate on patents as well, and so a patent cooperation agreement was included as a part of the deal. In this agreement, Novell and Microsoft each promise not to sue the other's customers for patent infringement. The intended effect of this agreement was to give our joint customers peace of mind that they have the full support of the other company for their IT activities. Novell has a significant patent portfolio, and in reflection of this fact, the agreement we signed shows the overwhelming balance of payments being from Microsoft to Novell.
Since our announcement, some parties have spoken about this patent agreement in a damaging way, and with a perspective that we do not share. We strongly challenge those statements here.
We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents.
Our stance on software patents is unchanged by the agreement with Microsoft. We want to remind the community of Novell's commitment to, and prior actions in support of, furthering the interests of Linux and open source, and creating an environment of free and open innovation. We have a strong patent portfolio and we have leveraged that portfolio for the benefit of the open source community.
I think it's clear that Novell may have underestimated the negative response from the community. They may also not have expected Ballmer to do this, which certainly made the situation worse for them. Having Novell stand up clear on the issue is a good thing, and should help to quell fears that Microsoft is using the agreement to plan something. Microsoft has already responded:
“Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents. The agreement between our two companies puts in place a workable solution for customers for these issues, without requiring an agreement between our two companies on infringement.
“Both of our companies are fully committed to moving forward with all of the important work under these agreements. The agreements will advance interoperability between Windows and Linux and put in place a new intellectual property bridge between proprietary and open source software. Customers and participants throughout our industry will clearly benefit from these results.
“We at Microsoft respect Novell's point of view on the patent issue, even while we respectfully take a different view. Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement. At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. We are gratified that such a solution is now in place.”
On the bright side here, if Microsoft was using this to test the water then the decisive and united response from the community and the rapid public response from Novell should have sent the correct message. We will fight for what we believe in, and will do so in an educated and organized manner.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source

Microsoft CEO says Linux "uses our intellectual property"

November 17, 2006 3 Comments

That didn't take too long, did it. From the article:
In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property.
In a question-and-answer session after his keynote speech at the Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) conference in Seattle, Ballmer said Microsoft was motivated to sign a deal with SUSE Linux distributor Novell earlier this month because Linux “uses our intellectual property” and Microsoft wanted to “get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation.”
“Novell pays us some money for the right to tell customers that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered,” Ballmer said. This “is important to us, because [otherwise] we believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability.”
The full transcript of the conversation is also available. I think it's a little more clear now what Microsoft's intentions were with this deal. At least Ballmer is being a little more forthcoming than in some previous situations:
“So we built a technology bridge, and we built an IP bridge and a commercial framework that supports that. Novell said to us, 'Hey, look, if you're serious about this stuff, you better help us promote Suse Linux.' To which we said, 'You know we're trying to sell Windows, that's what we do for a living! Windows, Windows, Windows, baby! We don't do Linux that way here.'
“What we agreed, which is true, is we'll continue to try to grow Windows share at the expense of Linux. That's kind of our job. But to the degree that people are going to deploy Linux, we want Suse Linux to have the highest percent share of that, because only a customer who has Suse Linux actually has paid properly for the use of intellectual property from Microsoft.”
So the question becomes, will Microsoft move forward with litigation or are they just trying to create enough uncertainty in the Linux market to hinder Linux adoption. I'd guess they may not have a solid plan yet and it could potentially go either way. One thing that might hold them back from litigation is something a bit like the mutually assured destruction of the cold war. If they really start the patent suits flying then IBM, Sun and others (who also have massive amounts of patents) could retaliate. The result would almost certainly be ugly for Microsoft. The EU, and to a lesser extent the DOJ, may also be weighing on the mind of Microsoft if they were to sue. I'm sure they don't want any more monopoly headaches than they already have.
As for Novell, I think they are now realizing that the community is strongly against them. It will be interesting to see if this has any impact on their bottom line over the next 4 quarters or so.
–jeremy
, , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source, Red Hat

Samba Team Asks Novell to Reconsider

November 12, 2006 Leave a comment

More on a story I have been closely watching, it looks like the Samba team has officially requested that Novell reconsider the recent patent agreement they made with Microsoft. From the Samba site:
The Samba Team disapproves strongly of the actions taken by Novell on November 2nd.
One of the fundamental differences between the proprietary software world and the free software world is that the proprietary software world divides users by forcing them to agree to coercive licensing agreements which restrict their rights to share with each other, whereas the free software world encourages users to unite and share the benefits of the software.
The patent agreement struck between Novell and Microsoft is a divisive agreement. It deals with users and creators of free software differently depending on their “commercial” versus “non-commercial” status, and deals with them differently depending on whether they obtained their free software directly from Novell or from someone else.
The goals of the Free Software community and the GNU GPL allow for no such distinctions.
Furthermore, the GPL makes it clear that all distributors of GPL'd software must stand together in the fight against software patents. Only by standing together do we stand a chance of defending against the peril represented by software patents. With this agreement Novell is attempting to destroy that unified defense, exchanging the long term interests of the entire Free Software community for a short term advantage for Novell over their competitors.
For Novell to make this deal shows a profound disregard for the relationship that they have with the Free Software community. We are, in essence, their suppliers, and Novell should know that they have no right to make self serving deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community.
Using patents as competitive tools in the free software world is not acceptable. Novell, as a participant in numerous debates, discussions and conferences on the topic knew this to be the case. We call upon Novell to work with the Software Freedom Law Center to undo the patent agreement and acknowledge its obligations as a beneficiary of the Free Software community.
I've also seen multiple sites around the net requesting a full boycott of Novell products. Novell had to see this (or at least some level of community dissent) coming. The question to them may have been whether they'd lose enough business to prevent the deal from being profitable on the whole. Regardless of the legality of the patent deal (I've still seen no official word from the FSF of the Section 7 issue, but Eben Moglen has been granted confidential access to the legal terms of the agreement, in order to scrutinize it and ensure its compliance with the GPL), Novell has clearly gone against the sentiment of the community here and the spirit of the GPL. What long term implications that will have remains to be seen. One shouldn't forget that Novell really isn't an Open Source company in the same way that a company like Red Hat is. Novell still has a lot of proprietary software, sure; but the issue goes much deeper than that. They have a long history as a closed source company and a lot of long time employees who aren't necessarily Open Source people. It comes down to being a systemic cultural thing. While they have many people who really get it, that's not necessarily the case for the average employee. Coupled with the fact that Novell has a long history with Microsoft and I don't find this deal as surprising as some. Do I think Novell will back out of the deal at this point? Unlikely, but it will be interesting to see their response if Eben decides they've violated the GPL. I'd guess we'll know soon.
–jeremy
, , , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source

Is Microsoft Going to Start a Linux War?

November 9, 2006 Leave a comment

On the topic of misunderstanding the GPL, we have this doozy. From the article:
Microsoft has been leery of doing too much with Linux because of all the weirdness with the licenses and the possibility that one false move would make a Microsoft product public domain at worst, or subject to the GPL at best. As far as old-school software companies are concerned, the GPL—the GNU General Public License—is a ridiculous pain to deal with, especially if you have a unique invention that you want to bring to the party—and want to make money doing so.
Sharp operators have been playing with various ways to avoid bumping into the GPL while using Linux in proprietary applications.
Huh? How are we still running into things like this? For better or worse, a ton of proprietary code runs on Linux in a 100% legal and legitimate manner. Just ask Oracle or BEA or Veritas. I'm not sure where this misconception comes from, but we need to get rid of it. Porting your app to Linux in no way puts your application at risk of becoming GPL'd. As to where the “public domain” assertion came from, I won't even venture a guess. As for the “unique invention that you want to bring to the party”, plenty of companies have innovated, used an Open Source license and made money. Sleepycat and Innobase are two examples of innovative companies (neither really have any competition in their space even today) that used Open Source licenses exclusively, became very profitable businesses and then were seen as so good that a proprietary company acquired them and then kept them Open. There are many other examples of companies that are staying independent and making good money doing so. I've said it at least once before, but I'd really like it if the GPL had a Creative Commons style “human-readable summary”. It could go a long way toward clearing up some of these consistent misunderstandings.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source

Novell and Microsoft Collaborate III

November 8, 2006 1 Comment

Some additional information has been released since my last post on this topic, in the form of an 8-K filing from Novell. From the filing:
On November 2, 2006, Novell, Inc. (“Novell”) and Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) announced that they had entered into a Business Collaboration Agreement, a Technical Collaboration Agreement, and a Patent Cooperation Agreement. This set of broad business and technical collaboration agreements is designed to build, market and support a series of new solutions to make Novell and Microsoft products work better together for customers.
Under the Business Collaboration Agreement, which expires January 1, 2012, Novell and Microsoft will market a combined offering. The combined offering will consist of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (“SLES”) and a subscription for SLES support along with Microsoft Windows Server, Microsoft Virtual Server and Microsoft Viridian that will be offered to customers desiring to deploy Linux and Windows in a virtualized setting. Microsoft will make an upfront payment to Novell of $240 million for SLES subscription “certificates,” which Microsoft may use, resell or otherwise distribute over the term of the agreement, allowing the certificate holder to redeem single or multi-year subscriptions for SLES support from Novell (entitling the certificate holder to upgrades, updates and technical support). Microsoft will spend $12 million annually for marketing Linux and Windows virtualization scenarios and will also spend $34 million over the term of the agreement for a Microsoft sales force devoted primarily to marketing the combined offering. Microsoft agreed that for three years it will not enter into an agreement with any other Linux distributor to encourage adoption of non-Novell Linux/Windows Server virtualization through a program substantially similar to the SLES subscription “certificate” distribution program.
The Technical Collaboration Agreement, which also runs until January 1, 2012, focuses on three areas:
* Novell and Microsoft will develop technologies to optimize SLES and Windows running as guests on each other's operating systems.
* Novell and Microsoft will work together and with independent software vendors to develop management tools for managing heterogeneous virtualization environments, which will enable each party's management tools to command, control and configure the other party's operating system in a virtual machine environment.
* Novell and Microsoft will work together on ways to make translators available to improve interoperability between Office Open XML and OpenOffice formats.
Under the Patent Cooperation Agreement, Microsoft commits to a covenant not to assert its patents against Novell's end-user customers for their use of Novell products and services for which Novell receives revenue directly or indirectly from such customers, with certain exceptions, while Novell commits to a covenant not to assert its patents against Microsoft's end-user customers for their use of Microsoft products and services for which Microsoft receives revenue directly or indirectly from such customers, with certain exceptions. Both Microsoft and Novell have payment obligations under the Patent Cooperation Agreement. Microsoft will make an up-front net payment to Novell of $108 million, and Novell will make ongoing payments of at least $40 million over five years to Microsoft based on percentages of Novell's Open Platform Solutions and Open Enterprise Server revenues.
As you can see, quite a bit of money is flowing in from Microsoft to Novell. As this article points out, that money may be coming just in the nick of time:
This news comes just one day following rumors, still unconfirmed by Novell, that the Linux company had laid off some employees. In addition, Novell announced on Nov. 6, for the third time, that it was extending its deadline to get the holders of its Convertible Senior Debentures to not demand immediate payment of the total $600-million owed in 2024.
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. demanded the early payment in full when it claimed that Novell had defaulted on its payment agreement by not turning in its July 31 quarterly earnings report to the SEC in a timely fashion.
This, in turn, had been caused because Novell, like many other technology companies, has delayed its financial reports while it audits its past stock option practices.
It should also be noted that this does not appear to be a patent licensing agreement as some articles were calling it, but a revocable covenant not to sue. That's a big difference, but it's still unclear to me whether the agreement violates the GPL. I'd guess we'll hear more on that issue soon. In the end, on the Novell side this may have just been a move to keep the company going. It's harder to tell the motivation on the Microsoft side. It could be a way to incent Novell not to sue (which it looks like could have been a very real possibility on multiple fronts), it could be a play into a few new markets such as virtualization for Microsoft, it could be an attempt to subvert the Linux community or a variety of other things. I don't think it will be clear for a little while what the motivation(s) are, but as you may have guessed I'll be keeping my eye on this one.
–jeremy
, , , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source

Red Hat Response to Oracle and Microsoft/Novell Moves

November 5, 2006 Leave a comment

Here's a response from Red Hat on the recent upheaval in the Linux world. My take? Half really good points, half disingenuous and/or ridiculous. First, the good points.
Last time I looked, we were still in ring, and we are still standing. The big mistakes companies and employees make is to be focused on stock price in the short-term.
Think back to the Microsoft/Sun announcement from a couple years ago, and today, you haven't seen any of the promised technical collaboration from that partnership whatsoever.
Novell has fallen into the trap of allowing Microsoft to do exactly what it wants to do, which is to trumpet IP (intellectual property) solutions and promises.

He's completely right. These days, far too many people focus on short term stock price. Vision and long term planning is almost a thing of the past. In the end, I think this will be the undoing of many companies – Open Source or not. Second, the highly touted and much hyped Microsoft/Sun announcement from a couple years ago didn't really create anything substantial that I can think of. Whether the Novell/Microsoft deal will bear more fruit remains to be seen, but they both sure did draw a lot of media attention. The last sentence I think speaks for itself.
On to the bad:
Having said that, does Red Hat think either of them has taken the right approach, now that Microsoft and Novell have made 'Microvell'?
We still believe that we will be the dominant player in the Linux market, because by that time there won't be any other Linux players. We will have succeeded once again.
This is not about IP. This is about the freedom to meet customer needs and to create competition. That problem is, you can be either for freedom and collaboration, or you can take a different approach. These companies are trying to do both. I can at least respect Microsoft, because they don't pretend to be an open source company.
The first sentence is a bit disingenuous. This was a partnership (and a loose one at that), not anything close to a merger that would warrant a 'Microvell' moniker. Stating they will be the “only” Linux player is odd on multiple levels. First, they have always claimed that not being the only vendor was one of the big advantages for Linux. Second, in what world will every other Linux player disappear in the next 365 days? I'm not sure where he was going with this one, but this is the kind of hubris that gets companies in trouble. The last one is a nice backhanded jab, but he should have just come out and said what he meant – in his opinion Novell isn't an Open Source company, even thought they claim to be.
I remain interested in how this will play out, not only for Red Hat and Novell; but for Linux in general. As you may have guessed, I'll keep you updated.
–jeremy
Red Hat, RHAT, Novell, Microsoft, Linux, Open Source
Edit: There is now also a more marketing slanted official response on the Red Hat site.

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source, Oracle, Red Hat

Novell and Microsoft Collaborate II

November 5, 2006 Leave a comment

The dust still hasn't settled, but this is a story everyone is keeping a close eye on. A few quick updates on my original posting. First, as you may have guessed, the general community reaction has been mostly negative. I'd guess that's a natural instinct response due to Microsoft's involvement in the deal. I'm waiting to get more information and read as much as I can before making my final decision. One thing I do know is that some of the media claiming this is the “death of Linux” are most certainly way off. Linux isn't something you can kill. That being said, it does seem like Microsoft may have some nefarious plans with this one. From this article:
The distributors of other versions of Linux cannot assure their customers that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement. “If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?' Essentially, If you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd say the answer is yes,” Ballmer said.
“I suspect that [customers] will take that issue up with their distributor,” Ballmer said. Or if customers are considering doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, “they'll think twice about that,” he said.
However, Ballmer did not say whether Microsoft had any plans to file patent infringement suits against other Linux distributors.
That, to me, seems like a thinly veiled threat of litigation, almost like SCO tried to pull. It could be that Microsoft is using this deal to try to get other major distros aboard, so they can get a small piece of every commercial Linux license sold. It could also be a plan to launch litigation against Red Hat or Oracle. Since they now have an “industry partner”, they'd be much less likely to be blocked by a monopoly proceeding. Along the lines of “no no, we don't dislike Linux or competition – just look at our pals Novell. We just think these other guys are infringing on our IP!”. Of course, it could be simpler than that. Also from the article:
Ballmer said developing greater interoperability between Windows and SUSE Linux will actually increase the intensity of competition because it will make it easier for Microsoft to sell its technology into enterprise data centers with a mix of Linux and Windows server technology.
Microsoft has joined into this Windows-Linux collaboration projects because “customers want it” and because “if we're interoperable we are going to take more business from Linux,” he said.
That seems like a more honest statement. They are not getting the acceptance in the enterprise data center that they hoped for, so they are using this deal to get their foot in the door. From what I've seen so far, this deal probably isn't generally good for Linux. I'm still up in the air as to whether it's bad for Linux. As to whether it's good for Novell – that remains to be seen. Ask the long line of now-crushed previous Microsoft business partners what they think.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source, Red Hat

← Older posts

Newer posts →