SUSE May Be a Non-Starter

Dr. Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-12 11:08:41 UTC
Modified: 2007-11-12 11:08:41 UTC

Novellsoft

As we stated a couple of hours ago, SUSE is not really free. In fact, it isn't quite so good either, even from a technical perspective. Among almost a dozen GNU/Linux distributions which were tested, only OpenSUSE refused to load.

All of these distros except OpenSuse (couldn't load) are great options for those wanting to move to Linux (I will try Mint again later).

Having been taught that OpenSUSE "always works" where other do not, the above series of tests ought to raise a brow. Perhaps it is a case of perception and marketing replacing and superseding actual experience.

”Microsoft and Novell exclude those who do not pay for mythical patents.“In other news that we mentioned over the weekend, SUSE has just reached Dell's PCs in China. The Novell/Microsoft/Dell relationship and partnership has always been a mysterious one and these new preinstalls raise even more suspicion.

Frankly, Dell ought to offer more choice. If Microsoft starts getting paid for GNU/Linux sales (yes, it's being paid per-unit royalties for SLED), then it's the end of Free software as we know it. It's also the point where Microsoft can crush Linux as though it was a company. Microsoft and Novell exclude those who do not pay for mythical patents.

Skeptics can deny the truth all they want, but they are just punishing yourselves. Microsoft is not that stupid and if people don't wake up soon, long-term consequences will kick in and harm GNU/Linux as we know it.

Comments

eet

2007-11-12 16:22:28

...and in another review, openSUSE was the only one booting on two different laptops while Fedora 8 booted on none of them.

http://blogbeebe.blogspot.com/2007/11/tale-of-four-distributions.html

Serously, it has as little statistical value as the test you quoted. Get a life, boys!

openSUSE 'not really free'? You are totally bonkers! Oh, you meant SLED/S? Oh, wow, what a surprise! I guess you are writing all this shite on a machine with Red Hat Enterprise Linux?

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
tonz

2007-11-12 17:12:52

... oh come on. novell is one of the biggest sponsors of linux and kde. true, they make their share, but that's what companies are all about: makin' money. they made a deal: "don't hurt me, so i don't hurt you". well, very evil.

like eet said: get a life
Ian

2007-11-12 19:14:38

You have to watch using anecdotal evidence to make a point. They not only lend any credibility to the post or comment, they can actually detract.
Limulus

2007-11-12 19:25:25

Here's an image I made a while back which you guys are more than welcome to use ;)

http://members.shaw.ca/Limulus/files/msuse.png
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-12 19:33:36

Thanks, Limulus. We'll use it soon.
SubSonica

2007-11-12 19:39:05

hi tonz and eet, whereas I aknowledge and commend the enormous contribution of the OpenSuse community, as well as the KDE and Novell hackers and developers -and I am most thankful for that- , the truth is that the -to say the least- "naivety" of Novell executives has allowed Microsoft to abuse the "pact" using Novell as justification in order to set a precedent to attack the rest of the community and to set up a racket protection scheme in order to divide-and-conquer the community and at the same time they are trying to draw a line between so to say "legal" (those distros, which, commercially, pay Microsoft a "tax") and "illegal" Gnu/Linux distros (RedHat, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Debian, Slackware... and for one thing, openSuse falls into the "illegal" camp), and Novell seems to be -at the very least passively- tolerating this, which might be in Novell's execs' interest in the short term but is utterly damaging both for Novell and the rest of the community at large in the medium/long term.

Microsoft knows it and is exploiting it as much as it possibly can figure out, whereas Novell keeps on kind of state of denial, and so do some developers and openSuse/suse advocates.

I don€´t think there is anything wrong with protesting and denouncing the maneovers Microsoft is striving in order to suffocate the competition from Free Software and Open Source, if we don't do that, they will go away with that comfortably and the commons' code and software will be privatised , legally encumbered and/or Eeed to death, and anyone who wants to use a distro without paying the Microsoft "tax" will be made liable, thanks to Novell exec's collaborationism.

For me it is clear that the very moment Novell had to declare they were in no way substantiating Microsof's IP claims, and when afterwards some Microsoft exec cynically declared "they had agreed to disagree" (WTF?), the pact should have been broken by Novell. Since they are insisting into collaborating with Microsoft attack, they have become part of the problem. (By the way: IMHO There has been no advance whatsoever in the interoperability camp: Microsoft protocols and formats are kept as closed and locked as they ever were, and they keep trying to force-throat the market with their incompatible "altenatives" to standards: namely, MSOOXML, Silverlight, etc... with the collaboration of egregious Novell employees much to the dismay of the rest of people in the community who are working hard for open standards)

And of course, dennouncing these facts is by no means an attack to any of the hard working contributors of the community, if we say "boycott novell" is to protest with our wallets and at the same time make people wake and become aware of what is most probably going on and what are the dangers and the intentions of the proprietary software monopoly (by the way, Novell always was a proprietary software company until they bought SuSE Gmbh.)
SubSonica

2007-11-12 20:14:18

hi tonz and eet, whereas I aknowledge and commend the enormous contribution of the openSuse community, as well as the KDE and Novell hackers and developers -and I am most thankful for that- , the truth is that the -to say the least- "naivety" of Novell executives has allowed Microsoft to abuse the "pact" using Novell as justification in order to set a precedent to attack the rest of the community and to set up a racket protection scheme in order to divide-and-conquer the community and at the same time they are trying to draw a line between so to say "legal" (those distros, which, commercially, pay Microsoft a "tax" -of which Novell happens to be the only relevant one- ) and "illegal" Gnu/Linux distros (RedHat, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Debian, Slackware... and for one thing, openSuse falls into the "illegal" camp), and Novell seems to be -at the very least passively- tolerating this, which might be in Novell's execs' interest in the short term but is utterly damaging both for Novell and the rest of the community at large in the medium/long term.

Microsoft knows it and is exploiting it as much as it possibly can figure out, whereas Novell keeps on kind of state of denial, and so do some developers and openSuse/suse advocates.

I don€´t think there is anything wrong with protesting and denouncing the maneovers Micrrosoft is striving in order to suffocate the competition from Free Software and Open Source, if we don't do that, they will go away with that comfortably and the commons' code and software will be privatised , legally encumbered and/or Eeed to death, and anyone who wants to use a distro without paying the Microsoft "tax" will be made liable, thanks to Novell exec's collaborationism.

For me it is clear that the very moment Novell had to declare they were in no way substantiating Microsof's IP claims, and when afterwards some Microsoft exec cynically declared "they had agreed to disagree" (WTF?), the pact should have been broken by Novell: In these circumstances, alleged "protection" for Novell customers (you actually should read the terms of the pact to realise that there's no such protection, as Microsoft excludes every piece of software that poses a useful replacement for MSFT's offerings from the deal as "clone" products) implies a threat to the rest of us. Since they are insisting into collaborating with Microsoft's attack, they have become part of the problem. (By the way: IMHO There has been no advance whatsoever in the interoperability camp: Microsoft protocols and formats are kept as closed and locked as they ever were, and they keep trying to force-feed the market with their incompatible "altenatives" to standards: namely, MSOOXML -with the mean maneovers at the ISO included-, Silverlight, etc... with the collaboration of egregious Novell employees much to the dismay of the rest of people in the community who are working hard for truly open standards)

And of course, dennouncing these facts is by no means an attack to any of the hard working contributors of the community, if we say "boycott novell" is to protest with our wallets and at the same time make you people wake and become aware of what is most probably going on and what are the dangers and the intentions of the proprietary software monopoly (by the way, I remind you of the fact that Novell always was a proprietary software company until they bought SuSE Gmbh.)
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-12 22:03:47

Also today

I am one to extol the virtues of openSuse, but have to say that I too had difficulty with an install last week. It was hardware I knew was good and the openSuse 10.3 (64bit) was downloaded straight from the horses mouth. I haven't had a Suse that was so hard to get onboard. This is something in 10.3 because I never had troubles with previous. I was in a hurry so slipped back to previous for that machine otherwise I would have looked into it to see what was wrong.
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-12 22:10:26

SubSonica,

I still think of Novell as a proprietary software company. They use GNU/Linux as the underlying platform to run proprietary software. The rest of your assessment is great and it underlines some of the huge issues that justify this boycott.
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-13 13:23:16

In fact, it is Microsoft the one who is trying to provoke the “split” (divide-and-conquer)

Yes, so no choice was left. With or without protest, Microsoft divides code. Never mind the communities...
eet

2007-11-13 08:05:30

Some points to make you secessionists think:

- you have been evoking IP-Armageddon for a year now - nothing happened - the ones trying to split the community are _you_ - your language ('purity', 'infection', 'contamination') points to a very dangerous mindset

Another thing you misguided crusaders like to ignore: So companies that make a living on proprietary software are bad for Linux? Big 'proprietary' companies: IBM, Sun, Novell. Eliminate those from baddies from Linux and what have you got? Right, you loose almost all kernel-, KDE- and Gnome-developers, and you have no OpenOffice at all. Congratulation for making the community 'pure'...

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
SubSonica

2007-11-13 11:44:50

Dear eet: As said in my comment above, the problem is not making business with Linux, and as fas as it goes, for me it is OK IBM, Sun, RedHat, SuSE (and now Novell), heck, even Apple, whose MacOS has a Darwin kernel is making money out of FOSS! (ant the more money they can make without restricting users freedoms, the better), the problem is Novell's executives shorsightedness when they rush to sign the deal with Microsoft.

It has nothing to do with the "purity" of the code. There are many OpenSource projects that started with closed source and afterwards they opened up, like Netscape->Mozilla or StarOffice->OpenOffice, and that's plain OK.

What seems to be happening nowadays is that Microsoft has found a tool (patents) to try and reverse this trend and de-facto privatise back the code that has been released to the commons by and for the community -either as invdividuals or businesses-, and at the same time are trying to establish a legal-extortion scheme by I-threat-to-sue-you-for-patent-infringement-unless-you-pay-me that at the same time would enable to extend their stranglehold over a market (FOSS) that was a no-touch for them previously.

The saddest part is that some members of the community seem to be too much comfortable (even happy) with that happening, and we are trying to alert of the dangers that the Microsoft movements entails for the continuity of the FOSS model of development: Don't tell me that I am splitting the community because of that.: In fact, it is Microsoft the one who is trying to provoke the "split" (divide-and-conquer) by wooing some distros into substantiating their extortionating IP claims with vague and never fulfilled interoperability promises and some "pocket money". Moreover, I think they would be laughing at us if they saw free software advocates discussing with each other because of the disruption they have introduced by the "deal".
eet

2007-11-13 12:42:30

Yes, you are (trying) to split the community. But it doesn't matter, as most people just don't give a toss about ideology and simply use what works best for them.

I haven't seen any signs of an actual split in the community - except for your party of uninhibited 'the-end-is-nigh'-cryers. Some companies partner with M$, get a little more successful after that, it seems; some don't, and they don't get sued by M$, either. Microsoft makes money with Linux, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Red Hat makes money with Linux, too.

It is only _you_ who is trying to trying to split the community in a rightful and a not-rightful part. It hasn't caused any disruption but for you.

------------------------------------------------------------- "de-facto privatise back the code that has been released to the commons by and for the community" Now this sentence is completel nonsense. Tell me; just how exactly does Microsoft 'privatise' GPL'd code?

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
eet

2007-11-13 13:27:08

Where does it divide code. I haven't seen any division.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
SubSonica

2007-11-13 14:02:51

"Yes, you are (trying) to split the community."

I repeat again: That is Microsotf, It is not me or people like the editors of boycottnovell: Why should I try to split anyone out of the community ?? It is not in my best interest to do so, morevoer, how could I do it ? or please try to explain me how I am trying to do it ??? I dont have the financial resources to bribe or "make a deal" with anyone neither the legal resources to threaten anyone with a lawsuit. It IS Microsoft the one that has these resources and are using it. It is in Microsoft's best interest to achieve it.

What we are trying to do, quite on the contrary is to UNITE people who cares for Free Software and/or Open Source and/or Open Standards in order to RESIST and OPOSE the extortion through patent-related threats, and businesses that are trying to take an advantage out of them. I ask you: What is wrong with that? Would you be so kind as to explain me that, please?

Letting alone the false assumption that "no one cares about ideology" (why do you get so mad at me if "we" are so insignificant?) , what do you call "ideology"? If you call ideology to be concerned about the freedom to use, study, modify, and redistribute GPLed software anyway you want without having to pay a TAX to Microsoft or its satellites for it, well yes, that could you call my "ideology" and you should be concerned as well.

If you really mean you JUST care wether a piece of software works or it doesn't, why are you talking about FOSS in such a strong opinionated way in the first place?

You say any piece of software would do for you, as far as it works, wouldn't it? its only when its distributors close shop and you have a problem with the program and the code is closed and you dont have any way to look at it when the advantages of software with certain features beyond "just works for me" will become apparent, alas too late for you.

I am not crying "the_end_is_nigh", just pointing out dangerous and aggressive movements by Microsoft. And calling for action in order to neuter them. If no company had signed the damned "deal" with them we would not be in this situation. You don€´t care? Vey well. But I am not using SuSE Sled or Xandros or Turbolinux, I use Ubuntu, Debian, and other distros everyday, and I am not happy with anyone threatening me or telling me I pay them any money-for-nothing or else... even OpenSuse is out of the deal!!!

The way of "de-facto" privatising free software is through patents, if you attach a "protection" tax on top of GPLed software you are de facto subverting the advantages of the licence: If no one can freely use, re-distribute, study it, etc for fear of being liable of patent infringement, you are destroying the very essence of the Free and Open Source Software development model, and at the same time severely undermining its adoption by risk-averse businesses (the ones which have the most money): That is why Microsoft is insisting to death in their IP claims. That is why they are lobbying as much as they can inside the European Institutions in order to see laws passed that lealise software patents in Europe (Yes, fortunately they are illegal right now, but MSFTies are working damn hard to change that) Apart from that: It is for something that Microsoft has being convicted of monopoly in the US., the EU and South Korea. Didn€´t you know? Go, document yourself and look for FUD, Forced Obsolescence, Customer Lock-in, Embrace extend extingsh, in the wikipedia to begin with.

I don€´t know if you are a troll (please, take into account that I haven't attacked you or called you names at any moment, I just try to argument my position) or otherwise you seem utterly clueless and should know better what is going on here.
eet

2007-11-13 16:41:37

"What is wrong with that? Would you be so kind as to explain me that, please?" You are not enlightening people here, you are twisting the facts your way, that's what's wrong with it. People like you think that twisting the facts is OK, as long as it serves 'a higher cause'. But it's not okay. I am very much in favor of free software but I don't want free software to be associated with your kind of foaming-at-the-mouth ideologists.

"Letting alone the false assumption that “no one cares about ideology” (why do you get so mad at me if “we” are so insignificant?) , what do you call “ideology”? "

I am referring to ideology in the negative sense as a view with fixed preconceptions that won't be changed by counter-evidence. And since you interpret the world based on this view, it results in a completely warped image of reality. Your fixed preconception is to believe that there exists a 'plot' (by Microsoft to destroy Linux) behind unconnected events and you draw radical and aggressive conclusions from it - which is also a typical sign of ideologists.

Everything you put forward here is either circumstantial, utter speculation, or simply slander. Has M$ sued any Linux, vendor since they signed that deal a year ago? NO, they didn't. Because they couldn't win, as we all know. Is anyone paying a Microsoft-tax? Nobody is. openSUSE, Ubuntu and whatever else is free (beer) as ever. But is there a call for better Windows-Linux interaction from uses/firms? Yes, there is; very definitely.

So, I basically disagree with you writing things that are not true. Is that understandable? For a year(?) you've been writing non-true crap, and it starts to get old...

There isn't much that sets you apart from other conspiracy theorists; only that the object of your obsession is Microsoft and not the CIA, the Illuminati or god knows what.

You are by no way speaking for the Linux community, nor for its developers, you are not representing a relevant number of people in the community, and you are not working for the good of the community. This is only your self-righteous imagination.

If you care about Linux, write code.

What you do here is not useful (as much as I enjoy reading your blog) but rather harms the image of Linux-users.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
SubSonica

2007-11-13 17:49:13

"You are not enlightening people here, you are twisting the facts your way"

Ok, so please, allow me to comprehend in which way am I twisting which facts. And also, please inform me which one you think is "my way": also notice that I never intended it to be personal, and you seem to be taking it quite personally, at which point, unless you are someone paid by Microsoft or for whom Microsoft success is in its best interest, I cannot quite grasp why.

"fixed preconceptions that won’t be changed by counter-evidence"

Which ones do you think are my "fixed" preconceptions?. Perhaps you call the well-documented record track of anti-competitive practices that are the history of Microsoft a "fixed preconception"?. It is not. All is public, well documented and documents are available. It has even been acknowledged so by the justice in many countries: excuse me but that is not a pre-conception.

"that won’t be changed by counter-evidence."

What evidence? Where is the counter-evidence that proves that Microsoft is not anymore advancing in the strategy laid down by the Halloween Documents towards Linux? Where is the evidence that they wont use patents to attack sucessful Linux distros -or any other competing piece of software- that are not caving in to Microsoft IP claims and deals. I would seriusly like to see that evidence. The fact that Microsoft has not -directly- attacked any Linux distro means nothing when you take into account their past strategy with SCO in which they funded the lawsuit through Baystar. Just follow the money: It would be a strategic suicide for Microsoft to engage in a full-blown patent war against Free Software, they instead are chosing operating through proxies: like it might be the case with Acacia, and fighting one-at-a-time: either buy them or crush them.

You are right that everyone should be considered innocent until proved otherwise, but Microsoft already had that benefit and proved to be guilty of shady business practices many times in the past, so no wonder now it has become the usual suspect.

"I am very much in favor of free software but I don’t want free software to be associated with your kind of foaming-at-the-mouth ideologists."

Yes, much as I don't like free software being associated with greedy corporations that side with the "open source" fashion , because it is what best fits its PR campaigns, while at the same time they keep devising the way of destroying the Free Software movement and Open Source development model (I am not speaking of Novell here); but that is life.

By the way, I would like you be more educated and not go over there name-calling people you dont agree with, (since I think that has been my attitude towards you from the beginning) and try to argument their reasons in order to be able to reach a constructive conversation. Calling me names does not make your points more valuable.

"Everything you put forward here is either circumstantial, utter speculation, or simply slander. " Microsoft has sucessfully made of FUD, Eee, lock-in and forced obsolescence usual business practices:

"So, I basically disagree with you writing things that are not true." I don't like liars either so tell me where am I lying here. Patent encumbered interoperabilty would allow Microsoft to Eee linux into something that is not anymore free for everyone on an equal basis. They keep distributing FUD at every chance they have. They rely on the lock-in they have on their customers to avoid them jumping ship and adopt Linux and Open Standards in documents and keep using the forced obsolescence cylce in order to force-feed Vista through the OEM distribution channel despite the fact that many computer buyers de-install it to downgrade to XP or install linux straightaway. Appeasement won 't work with them no matter what they say in their PR release about the deals they make with Linux distributors.

" Is that understandable? For a year(?)" Well, I speak about many other things in my blog (and with some exceptions like some loose quotes, it is not in english) and it has been online for more than three years and a half now, you might be thinking I am a different person??€¿€¿ or maybe you can understand spanish without any problem: Miguel, is it you?

"If you care about Linux, write code." Yeah, and there are many more ways of caring about linux besides writing code, like writing and translating documentation, fixing bugs, reporting errors, etc, and I keep doing all that inside my limited spare time... as well as watching the monoply maneovers...
SubSonica

2007-11-13 17:51:31

it has been online for more than three years and a half

Sorry, I meant "TWO years an a half", dont call me "liar" for that.
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-13 20:27:29

If you care about Linux, write code.

I have written a lot of code (I'm a software engineer by trade), but if someone 'sells' my GPL-licensed code to patent liabilities, then I need to fight against it. Companies try to redefine the law behind our backs, by setting a precedence and bribing one another.

This is not an advocacy site or a development site. Think about it as a case of defending developers' (and contributors', to genaralise a bit) rights.
eet

2007-11-13 23:13:39

It is amazing how difficult you two find it to deal with someone who disagrees with you.

Let me answer to the most worthwhile points of your lengthy post, SubSonica:

"Ok, so please, allow me to comprehend in which way am I twisting which facts."

Easy. How about the title "SUSE May Be a Non-Starter". This is really, really cheap slander. Taking the one report of booting-trouble out of the dozens and questioning the technical merits of SUSE based on it. But, as I read in another blog-entry here: 'as long as it hurts Novell it is good'.

"And also, please inform me which one you think is “my way." Easy. You take any bit of information, like Dell selling pre-installed SLED and make it part of your MS/Novell conspiracy-theory (although Dell also sells desktops with other Linuxes). This is so cheap, it stinks out of sheer embarassment.

"Which ones do you think are my “fixed” preconceptions?. Perhaps you call the well-documented record track of anti-competitive practices that are the history of Microsoft a “fixed preconception”?."

Your fixed preconception, as I wrote, is that Microsoft partnering with Novell is part of its conspiracy to destroy Linux. There is no evidence that M$ aims at anything else but making money (which would be quite rational behavior for a company), yet you insist on your conspiracy-theory. Think rational, because companies do: Microsoft aims at making money. Huge sums of money. If destroying Linux makes money, good. If destroying Linux costs more money than it makes, not good. Shareholders don't reward kamikaze-action (patent-war).

"What evidence? Where is the counter-evidence that proves that Microsoft is not anymore advancing in the strategy laid down by the Halloween Documents towards Linux? Where is the evidence that they wont use patents to attack sucessful Linux distros -or any other competing piece of software- that are not caving in to Microsoft IP claims and deals. I would seriusly like to see that evidence."

The evidence is that nothing of the sort has happened although you predicted the world would end this year. The year is almost over, we are still standing.

How can I prove that Microsoft doesn't have a secret plan to destroy the world, err, Linux? Well, basically the same way that I can prove the Martians won't invade us this Christmas, or the same way that I can prove we are not already ruled by them. It is just not the most plausible explication for what we see. War in Afghanistan is much more likely explained by human stupidity than by extraterrestrial intervention; Microsoft partnering with Linux-companies is much more easily explained by Microsoft's intention to make money in a sector that they have only made losses till now than by one great, devilish scheme. It's called 'Ockham's Razor'.

You want harder evidence? Take those things that must have really puzzled Microsoft-haters, like the opening-up of .NET-sourcecode, the opening-up of their UI-automation APIs. You really, really must twist the facts to see this as a part of a conspiracy.

Be realistic, M$ is one of the biggest software companies in the world; they are incredibly diversified; and while part of it is sorta 'the SCO-branch', spreading FUD, the more realistic part of it is a mature and serious business which is very unlikely to risk its whole shareholder-value for a lost cause like patent-war, and all the more likely not to be scared by new concept like open-source if they just are profitable.

To put it in simple words: You are the unsympathetic bunch here. And this is irritating for me. How can it be that the Linux guys are the mean jerks and make M$ look good in comparison? It shouldn't be that way. That's why I can't stand the like of you crusaders; you lay any good cause to waste.

BTW, thank you for believing I could be Miguel.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-14 05:25:26

To put it in simple words: You are the unsympathetic bunch here. And this is irritating for me.

Please understand that Novell chose to exploit, not to collaborate. That's why they lose. They still think proprietary. They are greedy and selfish.

Their products are probably better than Red Hat's (honestly), but they are Novell, not Red Hat. Until they stop selling developers' souls, they'll be treated as they they should.

A programmer that you hire you can trash, but a programmer whose code you borrow for free you cannot hand over to someone else who will then claim ownership of that code and attack the volunteer programmer. That's just what Novell does.
SubSonica

2007-11-14 10:12:16

eet: "Easy. How about the title “SUSE May Be a Non-Starter”." Please consider that I did not write the post, and the title is not mine. In fact, I used SuSE from version 5.2 to 7.0 (in fact I bought a boxed version) when it was SuSE Gmbh and I thought it was great, no, in fact for me was the best distro around...at the time... that was before I discovered apt-get and Debian...

"You take any bit of information, like Dell selling pre-installed SLED and make it part of your MS/Novell conspiracy-theory" No, I dont, and in fact I posted a comment elsewhere here reminding of the fact that Dell is also distributing RedHat and Ubuntu pre-installed machines, which seems wise to me as it is a way of diversifying your providers (although Microsoft keeps being the overwhelmingly dominant one)

There is no evidence that M$ aims at anything else but making money

There is not conspiracy theory.Killing Gnu/Linux and FreeSoftware (GPL, especially GPLv3) is part of the core strategy for Microsoft long-term survival.. They have **officially** stated that Gnu/Linux and the Free Software development model is the main threat to their business and their shareholders, I mean **Officially**. Once and again. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312507225854/d10q.htm

Linux and open source are perceived as Risk Factor 1: "In recent years, certain “open source” software business models have evolved into a growing challenge to our license-based software model. Open source commonly refers to software whose source code is subject to a license allowing it to be modified, combined with other software and redistributed, subject to restrictions set forth in the license. A number of commercial firms compete with us using an open source business model by modifying and then distributing open source software to end users at nominal cost and earning revenue on complementary services and products. [...] the popularization of the open source software model continues to pose a significant challenge to our business model, including continuing efforts by proponents of open source software to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of open source software in their purchase and deployment of software products. To the extent open source software gains increasing market acceptance, sales of our products may decline, we may have to reduce the prices we charge for our products, and revenue and operating margins may consequently decline."

Then there are of course the Halloween Documents (**officially** acknowledged by Microsoft) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/

Apart from the valuable exhibits of the uncountable lawsuits the company has been engaged into, where Microsoft's execs speak their mind. And the occassional slip of the tonge of some bully executives that like to call Free Software "cancer", "comunism", etc... So, no conspiracy theory here. Everything is well documented and public.

"Microsoft’s intention to make money in a sector that they have only made losses" Not quite. You cannot make "losses" in a market you have never entered. Only FOSS is not just a "market" is a different set of playing rules. Microsoft needs to change these rules in order to be able to keep using their usual business strategies, by first entering a market with second-rate products and gradually displace every other player in it until they totally control that market. By insisting on patents and cherrypicking collaborationists' distributions who will attach a tax to Gnu/Linux, it is trying to change the rules of the FOSS "market". As I quote in my blog: "Business usually follows Machiavelli’s “the ends” (making short term profits) “justifies the means” (killing a competitor, or spreading FUD). However, it doesn’t follow that the FOSS community has to accept those principles, but the other way around. If a business wants to be part of the FOSS community it should accept the community values of freedom and competition based on merits not on “dirty” tricks. If Microsoft, Sun or Oracle can’t live with those values, then don’t pretend to be part of a community. Freedom is not a popularity contest, it’s a value worth to fight for."

"like the opening-up of .NET-sourcecode, the opening-up of their UI-automation APIs." ROTFLMAO!!! Oh, yeah, totally useless for anyone willing to contribute to Free Software, it is a "read-only" licence: you can look but you cant touch. That is exactly what Microsoft understands by "open":

"Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read only form, for the sole purposes of debugging your products, maintaining your products, or enhancing the interoperability of your products with the software, and specifically excludes the right to distribute the software outside of your company." http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/referencelicense.mspx

"this is irritating for me. How can it be that the Linux guys are the mean jerks and make M$ look good in comparison?" You seem to be too easy to irritate, anyway you keep being rude at someone who just tries to justify and document his position and you keep doing vague and dellusional claims about what is going on here without any proof or basis whatsoever.. IMHO you are behaving either like a troll or a Microsoft shill (probably both).

"BTW, thank you for believing I could be Miguel." Dont thank me, it was not intended to be a compliment.
eet

2007-11-14 11:36:31

"They still think proprietary. They are greedy and selfish."

You seriously speculate about a company's mindset, as if it were a person? A company wants to make money; you don't need to interpret this behavior any further. It would be like attributing motivation to the weather: "That's a mean bastard of rain coming at us - the evil son of a bitch tries to ruin every outing we're having."

Companies don't sell souls, they sell products. Full stop. By choosing a partner you don't like, this company doesn't loose the right to sell their service. Remember, they _don't_ sell Linux-code, they sell their service and proprietary code, like Zen Works. No developer-souls were harmed in the process.

Don't you ever get a funny feeling from making this whole thing a pseudo-religious event with some 'racist' vocabulary thrown in? M$ features as the devil, cooperation with them 'tains' the 'purity' of poor Linux which features as the damsell in distress - which seems to need saving by you. Are you a grown-up? Then reflect a bit on that.

Fact is, M$ is not going away. This is not the apocalyptic battle between good and evil with only one winner. Linux is not going away, either.

Some Linux-vendors recognize that fact, as well does MS. They decide to work with each other instead of against each other and save a whole lot of trouble.

GPL-software stays GPL-software regardless.

If you want companies stop making money with Linux you'll have to get rid of market-economy. Meanwhile don't chastise companies for behaving like companies.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Sebastiaan Veld

2007-11-14 11:42:27

" Please understand that Novell chose to exploit, not to collaborate."

I believe it is not that black and white. Exploit can be explained positive as well as negative. Indeed they exploit the benefit of open source as we all do, and for that give back to it. Giving back is collaborate, despite having a collaboration agreement with MS which benefits them promoting Linux there's also already quite some stuff that was (Novell) propriety before that they opened up and they participate actively in many projects funding, coding, bringing in experience in many forms and shapes. Sure they bring up the IP discussion, but they cannot beat the system by just ignoring it. Large companies form an easy target for patent troll's as we have recently seen by the IP Innovation LLC attack on Novell and Red Hat. Why did they choose not to attack like Ubuntu? To avoid be trialled to dead Novell chose to work with both MS and the open source community. Mind, as Novell claims, this is also on customer request. Things will certainly get interesting what Novell will do to defend open source when more patent holders start attacking that, trying to exploit what's part in the base of Novell's solution stack.
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-14 12:36:43
“BTW, thank you for believing I could be Miguel.”

Dont thank me, it was not intended to be a compliment.

That sums it up perfectly. eet => de Icaza supporter => Microsoft/Novell apologist.

Just to complement that good comment, Microsoft changes the rules by:
1. Putting price tag (tax) on Free software
2. Certalising GNU/Linux inside companies
It's possible to crush companies. It's harder to defeat a community. With the current model where you have exclusion (Novell), Microsoft can gather people around under the Novell umbrella. It will get around to crushing Novell later.

The above is well documented too. Ballmer worried that Linux was not a company. He said this to the press or the shareholders.
eet

2007-11-14 15:39:13

@SubSonica: Of course MS recognized Linux as a dangerous opponent. But your 'master plan' to destroy Linux still is only a figment of your imagination. The so-called Halloween documents are far from such a 'master plan', they are a study. The big thing about these was that a) Linux is recognized as technologically even for the the first time, b) the use of proprietary protocols as a conscious, strategic decision is admitted for the first time. Everyone knew they were, but here it is admitted. That's it. Nothingm more. No master-plan

The most interesting thing about them is acutally that they recognize the futility of FUD as a means to fight Linux.

Your ideas of how companies _should_ behave when they enter the realm of FOSS are very idealistic indeed. You either have no idea of market economy or just a hell of a lot of illusions about how business among Linux distributors is done.

@Sebastiaan Veld: "Why did they choose not to attack like Ubuntu?"

Ubuntu is financed by a Billionaire, you don't f*** with such a man's hobby; Ubuntu don't really have a business, yet, they are no competitor in the commercial arena - and last not least they are located on the Isle of Man...

"To avoid be trialled to dead Novell chose to work with both MS and the open source community." Quite right, Sebastiaan. Not to forget, they still fight with M$ in the courts; the agreement with MS only covered not sueing each other's clients! This is often forgotten by these Anti-Novell-Trolls.

@Roy Schestowitz : "eet => de Icaza supporter => Microsoft/Novell apologist" Thanks again for the comparison. I really wish I'd be as talented as he is.

"It’s possible to crush companies. It’s harder to defeat a community. " You ARE NOT the community; you are just a bunch of crusading trolls. Get this into your head.

You handed your brain in long ago and swapped it for a paranoia, it seems.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-14 22:15:19

You ARE NOT the community; you are just a bunch of crusading trolls. Get this into your head.

We are not the community. That is correct. Where did I claim that we ARE "the community"?
eet

2007-11-15 18:05:50

The both of you are speaking of the 'community' all the time as if you were speaking in its name. I am not the community. You are not the community. Don't try to make the impression as if you were speaking for your behalf. You are only speaking on your behalf and on that of a minority-group within that community.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-15 19:23:24

We're not speaking of behalf on anybody. Personally, I just study articles and pieces of information that I have and then write my mind down and publish the findings. If somebody else finds that useful, that's great.
eet

2007-11-16 09:47:19

Perhaps you should throw in a quick round of thinking before you 'write down your mind'.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Jim

2007-11-20 19:24:22

What bugs me about this site is that so many allegations and pure nutjob tinfoil-hat-conjecture are "reported" as "fact" yet when called on it the authors and boycott-novell apologists do nothing more than ad-hominem attacks on the critics, and resort to childish "prove it" remarks.

Did anyone at "boycottnovell" ever consider the other possibility - that Novell did it to suck some handy cash out of Microsoft, and Ballmer & Co. caved under threat of Novell pressing suit against THEM for IP that Novell owns and Microsoft has been using, unlicensed? That Novell attempted to use this so-called "unholy alliance" to their advantage, to COUNTER the FUD M$ has been spreading about MS's so-called IP they claim to be in Linux and other FOSS? To PROMOTE the corporate adoption of Linux and other FOSS in companies that had been made skittish by M$'s FUD? To gain even more foothold in the corporate world through the easing of corporate fears that using FOSS would lead to interoperability problems? That maybe, just maybe, this deal is actually GOOD for FOSS?

NOOOoooo, instead you have to go off the deep end. I'm glad to read so many posts by people like me that can see your anti-Novell propaganda for the steaming pile of crap it is.
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-20 21:14:54

Did anyone at “boycottnovell” ever consider the other possibility - that Novell did it to suck some handy cash out of Microsoft, and Ballmer & Co. caved under threat of Novell pressing suit against THEM for IP that Novell owns and Microsoft has been using, unlicensed?

It is always amusing when that fantasy is mentioned. Many journalists wished to believe (at the time) that the deal with Novell was a sign of the maturity of Linux. After a few weeks or months, the truth was discovered. This is all well recorded, so there's little need to repeat all the evidence.
eet

2007-11-20 21:18:09

Oh, yes, please; repeat your 'evidence'... Endulge us.

Noooo? I thought so...

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-20 21:26:57

For you, eet? You've been trolling this site, so why bother?
eet

2007-11-20 21:35:36

You don't _have_ evidence.

Who do you think you can fool?

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-20 21:37:54

The story is a very long one. Here is a good place to start:

http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/30/novell-patent-portfolio/

There are many external references.
eet

2007-11-20 21:48:43

That another link to an absolutely fact-less article of your own making. I rather meant actual facts, as in 'proper journalism'.

Never mind. Let's talk about your 'product' there: As in so many other of your mental constructs you simply claim that Novell admitted that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents. As a proof for that your offer - a statement by a Microsoft's own Steve Ballmer; surprise!

Now, what kind of fact is that?

That Novell promptly protested against this is a fact you so very conveniently omit; as you omit any fact that doesn't fit into your carefully built pseudo-religious delusions.

You _have_no_facts_.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
eet

2007-11-20 21:49:57

I still wonder whether you don't know logic reasoning and fact-finding or whether you willfully abstain from it.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-20 21:55:18

Follow the links, as I suggested. For starters:

' In mid-November, shortly after the pact was announced, Microsoft chief Steve Ballmer said companies that sell or run Linux, but aren’t covered under the Novell deal, are illegally using Microsoft’s IP. “We believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability,” he said.

He said in a later meeting: “I do think it [Novell deal] clearly establishes that open source is not free.” '

http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=8771&pagtype=all

There's a lot more, but as I said, I wouldn't bother convincing a troll.

Then come to consider all the things Novell does for OOXML and its mud-slinging against other (supposedly 'illegal)' Linux distributions. You can bury your hand in the sand. Do it at your own risk, but don't force everybody else to bury their heads in the sand also.
eet

2007-11-20 22:00:39

That is what I said; you say Steve Ballmer saying Novell admits Linux infringes on M$' copyrights is proof of Novell admitting Linux infringes on M$ copyrights.

So, in short, you believe what Steve Ballmer says. Now, that is a sight to behold. (Taking a moment to watch Roy believing Steve Ballmer.) I guess it is an IP-expert you wouldn't choose to believe if it didn't fit into you theory.

Ohhhh; Novell does things _for_ OOXML. So that means they probably want OOo dead? Wait a sec! Wasn't that the OOo Novell co-develops and sells with the SLED?

Something is wrong in this picture. Or rather 'somebody', and that body is you...

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-20 22:03:34

So, in short, you believe what Steve Ballmer says. Now, that is a sight to behold.

That, along with the attacks in May, was an indication that the optimists were wrong and the skeptics were right. Microsoft signed a deal with Novell (and dumped a lot of money on Novell) just to play the software patent card, among other things.
eet

2007-11-20 22:36:55

[in an Eric-Idle-like voice:]Oooooh; an 'indication'. Not 'proof' anymore, is it?

And how they played the software patent card! Just look at how anti-Linux patent lawsuits are popping up like daisies everywhere!

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-20 22:44:01

You are completely missing the point. Microsoft wants to tax and control Linux through 'licensing'. It's not about lawsuits.
SundayRefugee

2007-11-21 07:12:43

@Jim - It's simple, actually. A) Novell would have a louder voice against MS currently if that were the case, and B) MS would not be actively pursuing the same deals with other Linux companies were that the case. If anything, it would be Novell making those "Xandros" deals. Who is making these Linspire/Xandros?Turbo deals, Jim?

@eet - You want some sort of smoking gun, a video secretly recorded. Sorry, no such thing. There is a thing called logic, and one method of logic is called "inference". It's used here ;)
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-21 07:41:22

There are many smoking guns, but how far need one go?

Here's just one among many examples:

http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf

Bill Gates: "If seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work. Maybe we can define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open. Or maybe we could patent something related to this."
eet

2007-11-21 10:51:34

How does this prove your conspiracy theory? It is just standard behavior of proprietary companies. MS tries to exclude others from their system by use of APIs, Apple tries to block other hardware vendors by using proprietary sockets on the new iPods. This doesn't exactly destroy Linux (and BTW M$ was recently forced by the EU to open up quite considerably).

All the time you are bringing forward teensy-weensy pieces of unfriendly but basically boring statements of M$ executives and claim these really smallish pieces would prove a big, big conspiracy. That is ridiculous. Don't they teach logic at where you studied?
eet

2007-11-21 10:58:38

"Microsoft wants to tax and control Linux through ‘licensing’. It’s not about lawsuits."

So you're not saying anymore that M$ will destroy Linux? Well, so much for all the doomsday-anticipatory excitement. Weren't you all about patent lawsuits endangering Linux some short while ago?

Taxation is not a voluntary thing; you cannot opt out of it. Linux is not being taxed.

And HOW in the big, wide world do you control Linux by voluntary, reciprocal agreements?

You have absolutely _no_ logical foot to stand on.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-21 11:05:25

Don't use Apple as an example because in many ways they are even worse than Microsoft.

[Ad hominem attacks left unreplied to /]
eet

2007-11-21 11:14:34

By god, you people seem to be pretty proud of your two words of Latin.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Roy Schestowitz

2007-11-21 11:17:53

There you go again.

SUSE May Be a Non-Starter

Comments

Recent Techrights' Posts