If only a bogus perceived risk was not part of this. It was ‘shoved’ into the equation to fuel FUD. SCO’s case ought to have taught us that apathy is a cure to an unnecessarily worried mind.

I agree 100% that OIN is a powerful tool in protecting from patent threats, as well as other factors you mentioned. Still, if I were running a business (in the US), I would want the assurance of formal patent indemnification from my vendor. Sure, some patent cases have dissolved, but others have gone through – e.g., the recent billion-dollar verdict against Microsoft for MP3 patents. The problems with the patent system are too great to be ignored, sadly.

But anyhow, as I said, patent indemnification is already offered by the major commercial Linux vendors (Red Hat, etc.), so this isn’t a problem in practice.

Well, actually that is 100% accurate. There is a need for SOME form of protection, because of the extremely unhealthy US patent system. Ignoring the danger (for the enterprise, at least) is reckless.

Which is exactly why Red Hat (and Oracle, and others) provides indemnification for their Linux users (and Microsoft does the same for Windows). Patent indemnification is in fact the correct form of protection; unfounded and detrimental ‘patent covenants’ like the recent Microsoft-Linux distro deals are very wrong.

We should fight the Microsoft-Novell (and other) deals all we can, but we shouldn’t claim that there isn’t a need for protection from patents.

It’s clear that any objectivity she professes to have for the Yankee Group (supposedly an objective consulting firm) was lost a long-time ago because her own objectivity was called into question.

Her feelings have been hurt with a nickname labelling her as “DiDiot” and one can only surmise that her emotions play a major role in the performance of her job. It’s a shame and a crime that the integrity of people like DiDio continue to be an issue (and a hurdle) when it comes to Open Source Software Technologies aimed at improving the lives of so many.

I’m sure that a lot of us come across as if we have a religious fervor, particularly out of frustration with seeing people that we care about paying for a cheesburger when they could eat lobster for free. Let’s say you give a damn about, oh, your mother. Would you want her using a computer that has a guaranteed lack of security through a monolithic design with a welded-in browser or a computer with a modular, intrinsically more secure operating system (of course, this could also appeal to your self-interest, since an insecure operating system could help crackers rob her of what otherwise could someday be your inheritance)? Would you rather that she had to continually pay to upgrade hardware when the monopoly forces her to use the latest bloatware?

Yeah, it’s hard to not come across as foaming at the mouth when we see the zombies all around us. However, we need to occasionally take a deep breath (or three) to calm down and remember how Linux got to the point where it is. While fans helped get the word out, performance is what clinched the deal. I did not convert because of anyone’s enthusiasm. I converted because XP had unacceptably poor performance, reliability, and configurability. I converted because I figured that, even with no training, trying Linux out would be a relief from the frustration I’d experienced with a year of XP. Within a day or so, Fedora had me working less to keep my PC going and keep it going faster than XP.

Performance got us here, and performance will keep us going. As long as we have that, and a commitment to keep the GPL strong and clean, MS is hopelessly outgunned.

Regards.