"But the main takeaway, as they might put it, for me is that this [Novell/Microsoft deal] is an anti-Red Hat deal, and Novell is thrilled about that. Justin Steinman reveals that to market their SUSE Linux Enterprise Server against Red Hat they ask, “Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn’t?” It’s just appalling. Let me ask you developers who are kernel guys a question: When you contributed code to the kernel, was it your intent that it be used against Red Hat? How about the rest of you developers? Is that all right with you, that your code is being marketed by Novell like that?"

--Groklaw, 2007

Selling fear. That's just what Novell does along with Microsoft, but it's not alone. Novell tries to cause damage to friendly (Free software) rivals for the benefit of Microsoft and increased profit at Novell.

There are different patterns of fear. The one Novell spreads is that GNU/Linux won't inter-operate and that it requires protection against software patents (even where they are neither valid nor legal). The latter point is emphasised more by Microsoft.

Others play this game of fear as well, so the issues is once again being raised in the embedded space where several companies share a common kernel (Linux). They make up or accentuate deficiencies in order to sell their own services. But what are the motives? Here it is from the latest commentary:

...Green Hills Software is hardly a neutral observer. The company sells its own operating systems, so it stands to benefit by sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) about Linux. Indeed, every vendor I have spoken to has taken a distinctly self-interested position on Linux. Here's a sampling of the claims I've heard...

The important thing to note here is that none of this FUD affects price of compatibility.

There are some other new examples of using fear to sell, such as this one from Sydney's press. It's a small company which badmouths Drupal in order to draw business in. It's the use of FUD to market services around Free software. Here is one myth from the article.

There's a tendency in companies to keep information and answers close to the chest, as there's a fear that they won't be needed any more.

It is truly a shame that those who do a great service to the adoption of Free software on the one hand are also the ones spreading some myths in order to make better business for themselves.

The big difference between what Novell does and what those 2 (or more) other companies are doing is that Novell changes the cost, availability and legality of the software, whereas the latter only mess about with perception. ⬆