01.26.07
Posted in Finance, Novell at 3:33 pm by Shane Coyle
After filing to delay their annual report, it was not unexpected that Novell would hear from Nasdaq again with an additional non-compliance notice.
In response to the first notice of non-compliance, Novell requested a hearing before a NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel (the “Panel”). On Jan. 9, 2007, the Panel granted Novell’s request for continued listing subject to the requirements that, on or before March 1, 2007, Novell provide the Panel with certain information relating to the Audit Committee’s review and, on or before March 13, 2007, Novell file the Third Quarter Form 10-Q and any necessary restatements.
The current NASDAQ notice requests that Novell make a new submission to the Panel. Accordingly, Novell intends to provide the Panel with a submission describing its efforts to file the Form 10-K and requesting a further extension to make that filing.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.25.07
Posted in Boycott Novell, Deals, GNU/Linux, GPL, Microsoft, Novell, Petitions at 9:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
An new article at CRN pays careful attention to the Novell boycott—that which is argued to have led to community division following the controversial deal. The article goes into considerable depth as it deals with issues that justify our criticism.
Linux Advocates Act
Some members of the open source community have decided to do more than watch and wait. Bruce Perens, primary author of the GNU contract, has organized a petition urging Novell to recant the patent protection portion of the deal with Microsoft.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Interoperability, Microsoft, Novell, Samba, Servers at 8:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
On the 13th of January, we reported that a new site had been set up, which aims to report on and encourage interoperability. It now turns out that some interopearability efforts are being curtailed.
There is going to be a postponement of the announced “Building Bridges” meeting originally announced for Monday, so both Microsoft and Novell can get different speakers to answer those questions. I think that’s a good thing, as long as it’s a postponement and not a cancellation, and I’m glad if they are taking the questions seriously.
At risk of repeating ourselves, this is looking worrisome, according to the following old piece of analysis/advice.
“Consider the publication and execution of a joint Microsoft-Novell roadmap as the critical missing piece of this agreement, with the potential to make or break its long-term value,” the pair wrote.
The companies promised a first roadmap in March. If there’s no document by then, look elsewhere for your next opportunity.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deals, Finance, Novell, Oracle, Red Hat, SUN at 12:25 pm by Shane Coyle
Talks of acquisitions in the industry continue to abound, with recent speculation over possible moves by Oracle and Novell.
On Tuesday, Sun posted better-than-expected quarterly results and also announced they received an influx of cash from private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. Now industry analysts and Sun shareholders are looking for indications from Sun as to how they are planning to use these funds, including potential acquisitions. Two names that are mentioned as targets are Red Hat and Novell.
In recent years, Sun has pushed deeper into open-source technology by opening up the software code for its Solaris operating system, driving hardware sales of its proprietary hardware. The move amounted to an admission that Linux, a rival operating system to Sun’s Unix platform, was gaining ground among its high-end corporate customers, leading some experts to speculate that Linux specialists Red Hat or Novell could make tempting acquisition targets for the company.
With Red Hat and Novell each offering Linux operating-system software and support, a deal would give Sun a top offering for Linux, as well as Unix, users. And although both companies would be expensive–Red Hat sports a market capitalization of $4.2 billion and an enterprise value of $3.7 billion, compared with $2.7 billion and $1.9 billion for Novell–they would not be out of Sun’s price range.
It will be interesting to see if Jonathan Schwartz comes to a different conclusion than Larry Ellison had about the potential for acquiring either Novell or Red Hat. So far, the Oracle move hasn’t really panned out, has it?
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Boycott Novell, VBA, Virtualisation at 7:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Paying for changes to Wikipedia content by proxy is one thing, whilst paying a third party to discredit or attack someone is another. The latter case seems more severe because its consequences are often irreversible.
Consider financial backings for litigious battles that put in jeopardy a person or a company. If done indirectly, this avoids customer backlash and alienation, as demonstarted by the mistake made by Ballmer when he openly spoke about “balance-sheet liability”. We have witnessed fierce attacks embodies the form of SCO, which while backed by Microsoft, targetted companies that use GNU/Linux. I suspect that Linux distributors other than Novell are bound to become the next victim. The dark clouds that are cast by tsunamis of FUD make them a victim already. But what happens when one goes deeper and targets an individual rather than a large company? I caught an interesting bit in a new interview with Dr Andrew S Tanenbaum, the creator of Minix.
[Andrew S Tanenbaum:] A couple of years ago this guy called Ken Brown wrote a book saying that Linus stole Linux from me, from Minix, and therefore the intellectual property rights are unclear and therefore companies shouldn’t use Linux because I might sue them.
It later came out that Microsoft had paid him to do this — and I defended Linus. I wrote on my Web site saying that this guy Brown came through, visited me and I gave him the [correct] story.
While the above may be no news to you, it is to me. And just recall the fact that Microsoft funded SCO’s lawsuit against companies that make use of the Linux kernel.
According to the Declaration, Richard Emerson was not the only Microsoft employee Goldfarb was dealing with in connection with the BayStar investment in SCO. He mentions by name two others, from two other departments.
Nothing but malice, unsurprisingly.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.24.07
Posted in FUD, GNU/Linux, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Novell, OpenSUSE, Patent Covenant, Patents, Red Hat at 10:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
This item brings together a collection of Novell-related news.
Let us begin with a new Red Hat hire. It is rather interesting that a former executive of SuSE has just decided to work for Novell’s fierce rival. Could he be following the same road as Jeremy Allison due to similar sentiments involving bitterness and disdain?
Red Hat Hires Ex-SUSE Sales Exec to Run EMEA Channels
Linux distributor Red Hat said last week that is has brought on Petra Heinrich to be its new director of channels an partners in its Europe, Middle East, and Africa region.
This article’s description of his background seems to suggest that everything remains possible. A departure that results from the divisive Microsoft/Novell deal, however, did not seem to repel the co-founder of SuSE.
Moving on, have a look at the worrisome choice of words in the following article:
Novell-Microsoft Deal Is Mixed Bag
“People who read into the Novell-Microsoft pact that Novell has any intention of doing anything other than figuring a way to sell more Novell Linux — and do it in a way that protects its customers [from patent disputes] — are seeing hobgoblins,” Amy Wohl, founding analyst for Wohl Associates, said.
Yet again, patents are being mentioned as though they have some validity.
On a brighter note, Novell contributes some nice new tools.
Novell Enhances Linux Development With New Open Source Services
Novell today announced the open source availability of the openSUSE Build Service, an innovative framework that provides an infrastructure for software developers to easily create and compile packages for multiple Linux distributions.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in ECMA, Europe, Formats, Office Suites, Open XML, OpenDocument, OpenOffice, Standard at 3:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
As you must have heard by now, Microsoft has resorted to gutter-level tactics in its race to have a monopoly enabler approved as a standard. It gets worse.
Open source lobby fury over Office format fast-track
Open source lobby fury over Office format fast-track
The duo claim the process means Europe is being ‘railroaded’ into accepting an ‘inadequate’ standard.
This gives even less time for criticism to be expressed and rebuttals revisited, through documents such as that which Groklaw has just produced:
Others have expressed that the ISO standardization of Ecma 376 in its present state would result in an international standard that no vendor other than Microsoft could fully implement. And still others expressed doubts whether a Microsoft-sponsored plugin for its office suite will be able to provide sufficient fidelity in conversions/transformations between Ecma 376 and ISO/IEC 26300.
Some of these recent developments have “corruption” written all over them. It should not be surprising though. With the future Office lockins, there are tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in stake.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, Formats, Interoperability, Microsoft, Novell, Office Suites, Open XML, OpenDocument, OpenOffice at 2:31 am by Shane Coyle
Here are two articles on the da Vinci plugin for Microsoft Word, which is promising full fidelity transformations from Microsoft legacy binary formats to ODF from within Office itself.
The articles are extensive, covering the history of the ODF/OOXML arguments, including Massachusett’s open file format policy, as well as technical and procedural/workflow aspects and ramifications of the converters.
This article discusses full fidelity transformations, and some of the impact that lossy conversions could have on preventing ODF adoption, as well as how da Vinci handles "dark objects" in MS file formats (the "elusive 15% just beyond the reach of the OpenOffice.org conversion engine.").
Most people believe that full fidelity file conversion is impossible, largely influenced by the poor fidelity generally experienced in converting documents from one vendor’s binary file formats to another vendor’s binary file formats. The major reason some people transfer such beliefs to the daVinci plugin is that they do not realize the plugin works natively inside Microsoft Word. The Word program itself performs the conversions using its internal processes for native support of a file format. The da Vinci plugin triggers the native Microsoft Word conversion process, intercepts the output at precisely the right moment, and maps it to ODF. When opening an ODF document, da Vinci simply reverses the process (although there is nothing simple about what da Vinci does or how da Vinci does this).
Think of it this way. The Microsoft Compatibility Pack is a EOOXML plugin for older versions of Microsoft Office. If these versions of Microsoft Office can use a plugin to perfect a conversion process between legacy binary formats and EOOXML, the same process can be used for ODF. In fact, it’s actually easier to perfect a similar conversion process to and from ODF instead of EOOXML, particularly for Microsoft. Easier in that the ODF specification is lean and clean by comparison and very carefully structured. Even easier if you have the blueprints for those binary file formats.
Here are some technical details on how the da Vinci plugin works, including a simplistic overview that is really a simple and elegant solution that leverages Microsoft’s own XML conversion. The article also outlines some of the other Office to ODF converter projects and the manner in which they address the problem, usually leveraging OpenOffice.org’s conversion engine.
When a user loads a binary document (or creates a binary document in Microsoft Office applications), the apps themselves convert the binary documents to IMBR (the Microsoft Office apps in-memory-binary representation).
The user works the document in IMBR mode. This means all application features, business process adaptations, assistive technology add-ons, whatever, are available and cooking without disruption or change.
When an internal MS conversion process of IMBR is triggered, daVinci intercepts the results, and maps to ODF. The ODF version is saved to file.
An internal conversion process is triggered whenever functions like save, save as, open, or open most recent is called for.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the da Vinci plugin is that it provides the ability for users to select ODF as the default file format within Office, providing the native support for ODF that Stafford Masie was expecting, and neither Novell nor Microsoft delivered on the promise, but rather it was the OpenDocument foundation.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA