>> Yawn. Childish, really. No real analysis, …

I found more analysis there (of no worse quality) than within your reply. You should try to be critical in a positive manner if you have little analysis you are otherwise going to contribute.

>> Not having them means that Linux in those environments are a plain and simple no-go.

Who told you this? Are you saying that Microsoft is giving those customers of theirs that are 100% faithful an opportunity to leave them when they otherwise would stick it out?

Are you trying to imply that customers that would not leave Microsoft (Microsoft shops) now have a path onto Linux thanks to Microsoft facilitating this, encouraging it, and paying Novell for the honor?

Are you out of your mind? Do you think Ballmer is out of his mind?

Ever heard of legacy? Ever heard of keeping around what you have for the lifetime of the current investments but starting new projects on something else? I’ve only just stuck my head inside where nonFOSS developers spend their days, and that was enough to know that when management is disappointed or wants to hedge, developers acquire new skills beyond the Microsoft stuff.

How about this “new” theory instead: Microsoft doesn’t want former Microsoft shops that are thinking of making a real attempt with Linux to see what Linux at its best can provide; hence, Novell enters the picture to help Linux look inferior. “Interop” with a closed source monopolist depends on Microsoft’s generosity at all times and Linux will look weak(er). Also, with Novell, Microsoft gets a cut that they would not get if Red Hat entered the picture. So for a “comparison” to even be possible, have Novell follow Microsoft rather than Microsoft follow neutral standards that Linux follows.

FOSS is a great deal because there is always the implicit second source that is 100% no charge. The transparency means that investments are not lost. Developers know they will be learning something that will be around and can be supported by them or anyone else far off into the future. They can also contribute to make it better, and they can carry their skills and sometimes even their projects to new jobs. The acquire new skills as they find a need rather than as Microsoft determines it’s time for their little “rats” to start another lap.
[From http://boycottnovell.com/comes-vs-microsoft/text/msg00067.html .. I don't know too many that enter rat holes besides rats:
>> We do not suggest that we "merge CDA and OLE" or any of the other hundred rat holes that could be entered .. Long term I can't imagine their current world surving so I frankly think we are helping their future.]

Microsoft will lose money, and they want a way to keep little rats investing in their products and on the treadmill and at least getting a cut of the proceeds for Linux use.

Microsoft is legacy ..if you care about control on your terms and privacy.

Novell can redeem itself to an extent as follow: When the contract is over (maybe even anger Microsoft quickly to have them end it), drop everything and then tell the newly acquired customers that you needed to remain alive so took the money from Microsoft but otherwise think Microsoft is screwed in the brain. Show them what Linux is like in a Linux only environment and tell them first thing is to dump Vista as the virtualization host. Later on Novell can help these customers migrate to anything else (eg, ODF…), and Novell can start contributing well to FOSS again. Make Microsoft lose time and money having to come play on our terms (even if they will try and cheat.. eg, as they will almost certainly do with ODF). Hopefully, Novell hasn’t signed away its rights to do these sorts of things or to pass on the names or particularly valuable clients.

The fact that Novell can theoretically redeem itself at some point doesn’t change anything today. Microsoft, too, can redeem itself. The failure of mono, OOXML, and many other things today means that Microsoft would not be helped out that much today.

[Actually, Novell forking dotnet could be useful to Novell and hurt Microsoft. Help MSDotNet people learn and use something that is different enough. In fact, Novell can even go closed source for those customers that are confused beyond hope. In this case, NovellDotNet will not work with MSDotNet and that might be an advantage with some of these customers. Actually, you can keep existing code working in the new version but change the binaries.. maybe even consider Parrot Virtual Machine as a base (if possible ??) instead of CLR. Deprecate MSAPI in favor of LinuxAPIs.]

“Dotnet” is not something I support. Anything that helps Microsoft retain their position, grow, hedge, etc, I don’t support proportionately with how much that helps Microsoft after the pros and cons are weighted (as I judge it naturally). Help port to Linux and to Linux/open technologies and standards. Help grow mind share for Linux, FOSS, and real standards.

Microsoft’s aspiration — in which Novell is a bystander or an accomplice — is to have us stand deep inside the Mono quicksand (or mud). This way, GNU/Linux users become more legally sensitive. Why can’t you see this? Novell already pays Microsoft _per unit sale_ of software Microsoft has not contributed a single line of code to.

Comment from Groklaw (hours ago): “[PJ: Here's where he should start: The Microsoft deal has to be dealt with. Until it is, it will not go away as an issue. And the promise to fix the developers' agreement was never kept. And selling Miguel to the community is going to be a very hard sell.]“

Linux and Free Open Source Applications that directly compete with Microsoft’s money makers unquestionably infringe on Microsoft Copyrights. Distibutions such as Red Hat, Fedora, Ubuntu, Puppy Linux, Damn Small Linux, Debian, Mepis, Knoppix, Slackware, Gentoo and a bunch of others (includng derivative works) are infringing on Microsoft patents.

Anyone using a Linux distribution is currently operating under an “undisclosed balance sheet liability” (as stated by Steve Ballmer), except those that signed copyright deals with Microsoft.

Every single Linux distribution owes Microsoft current and retroactive licensing fees for the following unsubstantiated claims:

Linux kernel – 42 patents infringed
Linux graphical user interfaces – 65 patents infringed
Open Office – 45 patents infringed
Email programs – 15 patents infringed
Other unnamed “assorted programs” – 68 patents infringed.

Novell (including OpenSUSE) have already made this statement with the signing of the deal. Novell includes this rhetoric on their site. Please have the courage to defend their position on copyrights which I have yet to see anywhere.

If you can include this in your argument and make a case for this, it won’t sound like you are misinterpreting the facts – which some are clearly trying to do. Really. Please include the core argument without flying off into unrelated arguments and name-calling that have little to do with the reasons why so many people oppose this deal.

Computer World reported the following on November of 2006, so this isn’t old news:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9005171

[... Ballmer said Microsoft was motivated to sign a deal with SUSE Linux distributor Novell Inc. earlier this month because Linux "uses our intellectual property" and Microsoft wanted to "get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation." ...]

[... A key element of the agreement now appears to be Novell's $40 million payment to Microsoft in exchange for the latter company's pledge not to sue SUSE Linux users over possible patent violations. Also protected are individuals and noncommercial open-source developers who create code and contribute to the SUSE Linux distribution, as well as developers who are paid to create code that goes into the distribution. ...]

openSUSE developers need to be aware of the impact the deal has on their work. We wrote about this several times before.

What’s next ? “no you said it first!” – “no it was you!” – “no you!” ?
You’re just interpreting anything with an extreme bias to make it turn out like Novell and the openSUSE community is …. what ? An evil conspiration that wants to infiltrate Microsoft into the Linux community ? omg

Not that I really care, you’re obviously a pretty unexperienced person in the IT world, you don’t really have a clue what you’re talking about, and it’s just whatever you can turn into some sort of negative argumentation against Novell and openSUSE is pumped up to a terrific headline for your hate site. Point is just that this is both _almost_ complete nonsense (sometimes a few points are valid and interesting to think about, but the rest just makes it so incredibly irrelevant on your site, too bad), and really insulting towards the many volunteers who commit their free time, motivation and efforts into the openSUSE distribution and community.
And no, this isn’t shooting the messenger, because there isn’t a message, there’s just you and your hate of openSUSE and Novell.
Get a life, contribute something useful.

And what about Red Hat, Canonical, Mandriva, Nokia, Oracle, ……….. ? They’re all selling products based on the work of thousands of Open Source developers.

They don’t put the developers at risk.

Long live Linux!!!

“The statement above has additional negative value as more and more Microsoft related technology enters Linux.[...], is a motivating factor with .Net making headway into Linux.”
“More and more” ? .NET, AD and OOXML. Show me more. Point is, you’re putting it like MS is polluting Linux through Novell, but OTOH when you’re in a scenario where the customer has AD, has .NET applications, has MS Office and you can’t change a thing about it, then it’s more than welcome to have support for those protocols, platforms, formats on Linux. Not having them means that Linux in those environments are a plain and simple no-go. Assuming that you can just turn up at a customer and tell him “oh yeah, just drop everything you have, we’ll replace it with Linux altogether, at once” is ridiculous. If you can, great, but if you don’t, it’s a much better situation if you’re able to integrate with existing MS solutions than just having to take the door and leaving the lost customer with a 100% MS infrastructure.

My favourite one is the following though: “This is where Microsoft rides the coattails of the efforts of thousands of Open Source developers whose work span an excess of 16 years. They get to make money off Linux without doing a thing.”
Oh really. And what about Red Hat, Canonical, Mandriva, Nokia, Oracle, ……….. ? They’re all selling products based on the work of thousands of Open Source developers. And not only them. Myriads of commercial businesses make money off of Open Source software.
“without doing a thing” — yeah, sure, Novell isn’t contributing anything to Open Source or Linux, right ? You gotta be kidding.

And it goes on and on, just interpretation with the glasses of “oh I want to hate Novell so bad”.