EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

02.21.09

Novell’s Jaffe on Novell’s Linux Strategy: .NET, Mono, Moonlight, Nothing About OpenSUSE

Posted in GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, OpenSUSE, SLES/SLED at 4:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Mono, ECMA, Microsoft

NOVELL’S TECHNICAL OFFICER has just outlined the company’s “Linux” strategy (he refers to GNU/Linux). He makes it rather clean that, just as we showed some hours ago, Microsoft technologies are being promoted at the expense of the rest. Here is his summary, in full:

Linux’s ultimate success as a platform lies in getting the right number of exciting applications to Linux. Novell invests to make SLES the prefered landing point for Linux applications. Throughout Mono framework, we also make SLE the perfect landing point for .Net based applications. The payoff is evident with Moonlight—our relationship with Microsoft brings this application to Linux.

OpenSUSE is not mentioned even once! Novell serves Microsoft's interests now that it’s run by former IBM (and Microsoft) executives.

“Our partnership with Microsoft continues to expand.”

Ron Hovsepian, Novell CEO

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

15 Comments

  1. NotZed said,

    February 21, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    Gravatar

    If they want windows apps on gnu, why don’t they just invest effort in wine?

  2. JohnD said,

    March 3, 2009 at 11:14 am

    Gravatar

    Novell learned the hard way with Netware – if people want a certain application and it won’t run your platform – they will change platforms.
    People migrated away from Novell for 3 big reasons:
    1) Netware was hard to write software for. You need to know C/C++ and have a ton of time on your hands. Windows development was much easier – which doesn’t translate to better.
    2) Companies stopped supporting Netware not only hardware, but software as well. Ceridian is/was a prime example – they stated that their software only ran on Windows servers, but it ran just fine using Netware as a backend.
    3) MS FUD.
    People don’t care what OS the server or pc is running as long as their programs run.
    Getting a common development environment is a good first step to removing barriers to adoption.

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    March 3, 2009 at 11:17 am

    Gravatar

    Some day in the near future we intend to document dirty tricks that have not been publicly discussed (nor seen).

  4. JohnD said,

    March 3, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    Gravatar

    I’m well aware of the long list of MS tricks – don’t forget to include “Server Crunch” to the list.

  5. Roy Schestowitz said,

    March 3, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    Gravatar

    I’ll do many more by the end of the year.

  6. Jose_X said,

    March 10, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Gravatar

    You *help Microsoft* if you make sure the best applications run as “dotnet” http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/25/jose-on-mono/ .

    What Novell should do if they want to pretend they care about breaking Microsoft’s stranglehold, given they have committed to “dotnet”, is to strive for a better “dotnet” than MSdotnet and to actively work to get those using MSdotnet to move to Novell’s version. If they can’t manage success there, to get serious marketshare to move from MSdotnet to Novell-dotnet, then how useful is their “clone” strategy?

    As Roy linked.. hasn’t Novell tried the “clone” thing many times in the past without success? Hello, earth to Novell.

    Novell is working to get what otherwise might be quality Linux-y apps to instead be created in such a way so that it is easy for Microsoft to leverage. They want to grow the developer developer developer developer base of “dotnet” rather than work to diminish it. They want to make sure Linux has no or few exclusive must-have apps. They need FOSS to run on Windows (mono is the easiest such way). [I would not be surprised if many people behind mono apps have contracts with or intend to deal with Microsoft to license their code in a way Microsoft can integrate into their products.] And, finally, as a real bonus, while software patents are still a threat: they want everyone to use their API http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/04/the-api-trap-part-1/ .

    Wine is not a new investment avenue. It’s obviously way behind the Win API because it takes a long time to reverse engineer incompatibilities that might even be specific to the specific development environments provided to individual app vendors (or classes of them) by Microsoft. Microsoft doesn’t make money on platforms older than XP and makes less money on XP (vs Vista). Wine focuses not on growing Win API mindshare but on getting existing apps to run on Linux. Microsoft’s platform are forever changing at the flick of an update initiated from Redmond. Wine is a trade-off because it’s always best to get people to stop using anything that even smells like Microsoft API.

    So our focus to grow Linux should be to leverage, extend, and improve upon the points that distinguish us from Microsoft and where Microsoft would be behind the curve and unable to leverage many of their existing gargantuan investments (in dotnet, OOXML, etc).

    To this end, I think more people should know about products like Qt and QtCreator
    http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/05/novell-q1-results/#comment-60226 .

  7. Dan O'Brian said,

    March 10, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    Gravatar

    What Novell should do if they want to pretend they care about breaking Microsoft’s stranglehold, given they have committed to “dotnet”, is to strive for a better “dotnet” than MSdotnet and to actively work to get those using MSdotnet to move to Novell’s version.

    Uh… wow, you really are clueless aren’t you?

    That’s exactly what they are doing. Open your eyes.

  8. Jose_X said,

    March 11, 2009 at 12:50 am

    Gravatar

    Dan, I’ve mentioned this numerous times. I doubt this is the first time you see it. Let me know when you have market share numbers to report.. of people that have left the MSdotnet lock-in, significant market share that now can move their apps right off Windows and onto Linux.

    I honestly wish Novell and anyone else success here. Not more success than those getting developers and user off dotnet, eg onto Qt, but some success nevertheless, to the extent it will be helping to nontrivially dent Monopolysoft’s hold on customers and monopoly income without too much interference with migrations off “dotnet”. I suspect that Novell is interested in going after customers that have already left MSware or are threatening to leave to a different technology. It’s reasonable for them to do this, but they end up serving as a buffer that offers a real measure of protection for Microsoft. [Monopolysoft == Microsoft or whichever company effectively substitutes for them or fills in their lock-in shoes.]

    So long as software patents are still a real threat, the api-trap link above tries to explain the extra foolishness of following along trying to spread MS created standards.

    Also.. Novell is delusional if they expect us to generally believe that Microsoft is going to reveal interop information that would be effective in breaking their hold. It may happen, but I would not partake in that experiment. Software bits can change on the spot. The number of ways to wreck interop when you have such vast and integrated software is too large to count in a lifetime. Not to mention that every bug fix and feature update will be done to keep their software in sync but will create new interop issues for threatening third parties.

    There are various groups that really want to move things in the direction of lock-in, but Novell is signficantly helping the worst of them by far.

  9. Dan O'Brian said,

    March 11, 2009 at 8:22 am

    Gravatar

    If you want numbers, you’ll have to ask Novell.

    Novell isn’t helping lock-in, they are defeating it by providing alternatives for people “locked-in” to .NET. Once they are on Mono, they are no longer locked into anything – it’s Free Software, they can fork Mono if they want to.

  10. Jose_X said,

    March 11, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    Gravatar

    I would say a more accurate explanation is that they are helping Microsoft embrace and extend FOSS.

    As I mentioned at the end, lot’s of commercial companies want to “embrace and extend” FOSS to various degrees, but Microsoft is different and Novell is aiding them.

    ..and then there is the patent question which has nothing to do with whether source is open or closed. Once/if software patents truly get neutered, this will be much less of a concern.

    http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-03-05-001-35-OS-EM&tbovrmode=1
    http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/05/novell-q1-results/#comment-60226
    http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/04/the-api-trap-part-1/

  11. Jose_X said,

    March 11, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    Gravatar

    >> I would say a more accurate explanation is that they are helping Microsoft embrace and extend FOSS.

    I meant to say “they *have been* helping”.

    Many people would prefer Novell change from that path.

  12. Roy Schestowitz said,

    March 11, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Gravatar

    Their business model as of late has been reciprocity with/from Microsoft. Just trace back motives.

  13. Jose_X said,

    March 11, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    Gravatar

    Let me be more specific with what I would support Novell doing.

    Stop advocating the virtues of things “MSdotnet” and start advocating the virtues of “Novelldotnet”. Down with Windows/Vista, up with Linux or NovellLinux. Challenge Microsoft and MSware at every turn. The more strategic the software, ad, or client, the greater the challenging.

    At the same time, start diverging Novelldotnet from MSdotnet. With every version change, diverge more. Perhaps, initially, break a decent amount of backwards compatibility with every single version change (or at least leverage deprecation labeling, with plans to dump these deprecated features within a short time period (say 2 years)).

    If you can, leverage all “interop” bits Microsoft has shared with you, and focus on taking marketshare from them.

    I would also like Novell to publicly announce their intentions to focus on Microsoft marketshare and not on fighting aggressively for the Linux slice. They can also state they have no deals with Microsoft to sell them proprietary licenses to FOSS apps whose copyright Novell owns. [A similar statement from each specific project heavily involved with Novelldotnet would also be desirable.] I’m aware they can play games with proxies, so I would hope they would also take a strong stance towards Novell partners that could be doing that sort of thing.

    In the short-run, you gain marketshare at Microsoft’s expense and bring FOSS to new people. Longer term, the wider FOSS community will more comfortably be able to embrace and participate with Novell. Remember, the problem is Monopolysoft.

    I wouldn’t put my time and money, today, to potentially join with Novell on such a path, but given Novell already seems committed, I would personally find this sort of action from them to be “making the best out of their current situation.” [Not sure if Novell can contractually move in that direction or if its management cares to.]

    The key is to reduce risks for the greater Linux and FOSS “community” if you want the community to eventually embrace and support Novell. This generally means to move away from Microsoft not towards them.

  14. Jose_X said,

    March 11, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Gravatar

    >> They can also state they have no deals with Microsoft to sell them proprietary licenses to FOSS apps whose copyright Novell owns…

    What I mean here is that I would want to make sure that something that has (eg) GPL on the box is not being leveraged by Monopolysoft in a way that bypasses the GPL share-alike safeguards.

    Also useful would be for Novell to publicly back real patent software reform, meaning, to take a stance to end the software patent threat at least in the vast majority of cases.

    I’m aware they have contributed patents to defend a certain amount of Linux/FOSS, so I hope they would support such an overhaul as well. This way, they or the OIN or whoever won’t have to worry about fighting Microsoft in court, eg, against FAT or dotnet, etc, patents.

  15. Roy Schestowitz said,

    March 11, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    Gravatar

    Free software should strive to have Microsoft imitating, not the other way around.

What Else is New


  1. Links 23/4/2018: Second RC of Linux 4.17 and First RC of Mesa 18.1

    Links for the day



  2. The Good Work of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Latest Attempts to Undermine It

    A week's roundup of news about PTAB, which is eliminating many bad (wrongly-granted) patents and is therefore becoming "enemy number one" to those who got accustomed to blackmailing real (productive) firms with their questionable patents



  3. District Courts' Patent Cases, Including the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX/TXED), in a Nutshell

    A roundup of patent cases in 'low courts' of the United States, where patents are being reasoned about or objected to while patent law firms make a lot of money



  4. The Federal Circuit's (CAFC) Decisions Are Being Twisted by Patent Propaganda Sites Which Merely Cherry-Pick Cases With Outcomes That Suit Them

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues to reject the vast majority of software patents, citing Section 101 in many such cases, but the likes of Managing IP, Patently-O, IAM and Watchtroll only selectively cover such cases (instead they’re ‘pulling a Berkheimer’ or some similar name-dropping)



  5. Patents Roundup: Metaswitch, GENBAND, Susman, Cisco, Konami, High 5 Games, HTC, and Nintendo

    A look at existing legal actions, the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101, and questionable patents that are being pursued on software (algorithms or "software infrastructure")



  6. In Maxon v Funai the High 'Patent Court' (CAFC) Reaffirms Disdain for Software Patents, Which Are Nowadays Harder to Get and Then Defend

    With the wealth of decisions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) wherein software patents get discarded (Funai being the latest example), the public needs to ask itself whether patent law firms are honest when they make claims about resurgence of software patents by 'pulling a Berkheimer' or coming up with terms like “Berkheimer Effect”



  7. Today's European Patent Office Works for Patent Extremists and for Team UPC Rather Than for Europe or for Innovation

    The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) and other patent maximalists who have nothing to do with Europe, helped by a malicious and rather clueless politician called Benoît Battistelli, are turning the EPO into a patent-printing machine rather than an examination office as envisioned by the EPC (founders) and member states



  8. The EPO is Dying and Those Who Have Killed It Are Becoming Very Rich in the Process

    Following the footsteps of Ron Hovsepian at Novell, Battistelli at the EPO (along with Team Battistelli) may mean the end of the EPO as we know it (or the end altogether); one manager and a cabal of confidants make themselves obscenely rich by basically sacrificing the very organisation they were entrusted to serve



  9. Short: Just Keep Repeating the Lie (“Quality”) Until People Might Believe It

    Battistelli’s patent-printing bureau (EPO without quality control) keeps lying about the quality of patents by repeating the word “quality” a lot of times, including no less than twice in the summary alone



  10. Shelston IP Keeps Pressuring IP Australia to Allow Software Patents and Harm Software Development

    Shelston IP wants exactly the opposite of what's good for Australia; it just wants what's good for itself, yet it habitually pretends to speak for a productive industry (nothing could be further from the truth)



  11. Is Andy Ramer's Departure the End of Cantor Fitzgerald's Patent Trolls-Feeding Operations and Ambitions?

    The managing director of the 'IP' group at Cantor Fitzgerald is leaving, but it does not yet mean that patent trolls will be starved/deprived access to patents



  12. EPO Hoards Billions of Euros (Taken From the Public), Decreases Quality to Get More Money, Reduces Payments to Staff

    The EPO continues to collect money from everyone, distributes bogus/dubious patents that usher patent trolls into Europe (to cost European businesses billions in the long run), and staff of the EPO faces more cuts while EPO management swims in cash and perks



  13. Short: Calling Battistelli's Town (Where He Works) “Force for Innovation” to Justify the Funneling of EPO Funds to It

    How the EPO‘s management ‘explained’ (or sought to rationalise) to staff its opaque decision to send a multi-million, one-day ceremony to Battistelli’s own theatre only weeks before he leaves



  14. Short: EPO Bribes the Media and Then Brags About the Paid-for Outcome to Staff

    The EPO‘s systematic corruption of the media at the expense of EPO stakeholders — not to mention hiring of lawyers to bully media which exposes EPO corruption — in the EPO’s own words (amended by us)



  15. Short: EPO's “Working Party for Quality” is to Quality What the “Democratic People's Republic of Korea” is to Democracy

    To maintain the perception (illusion) that the EPO still cares about patent quality — and in order to disseminate this lie to EPO staff — a puff piece with the above heading/photograph was distributed to thousands of examiners in glossy paper form



  16. Short: This Spring's Message From the EPO's President (Corrected)

    A corrected preface from the Liar in Chief, the EPO's notoriously crooked and dishonest President



  17. Short: Highly Misleading and Unscientific Graphics From the EPO for an Illusion of Growth

    A look at the brainwash that EPO management is distributing to staff and what's wrong with it



  18. Short: EPO Explains to Examiners Why They Should and Apparently Can Grant Software Patents (in Spite of EPC)

    Whether it calls it "CII" or "ICT" or "Industry 4.0" or "4IR", the EPO's management continues to grant software patents and attempts to justify this to itself (and to staff)



  19. Links 21/4/2018: Linux 4.9.95, FFmpeg 4.0, OpenBSD Foundation 2018 Fundraising Campaign

    Links for the day



  20. As USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu Gives Three Months for Public Comments on 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Software Patenting Impacted)

    Weeks after starting his job as head of the US patent office, to our regret but not to our surprise, Iancu asks whether to limit examiners' ability to reject abstract patent applications citing 35 U.S.C. § 101 (relates to Alice and Mayo)



  21. In Keith Raniere v Microsoft Both Sides Are Evil But for Different Reasons

    Billing for patent lawyers reveals an abusive strategy from Microsoft, which responded to abusive patent litigation (something which Microsoft too has done for well over a decade)



  22. Links 20/4/2018: Atom 1.26, MySQL 8.0

    Links for the day



  23. Links 19/4/2018: Mesa 17.3.9 and 18.0.1, Trisquel 8.0 LTS Flidas, Elections for openSUSE Board

    Links for the day



  24. The Patent Microcosm, Patent Trolls and Their Pressure Groups Incite a USPTO Director Against the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Section 101/Alice

    As one might expect, the patent extremists continue their witch-hunt and constant manipulation of USPTO officials, whom they hope to compel to become patent extremists themselves (otherwise those officials are defamed, typically until they're fired or decide to resign)



  25. Microsoft's Lobbying for FRAND Pays Off as Microsoft-Connected Patent Troll Conversant (Formerly MOSAID) Goes After Android OEMs in Europe

    The FRAND (or SEP) lobby seems to have caused a lot of monopolistic patent lawsuits; this mostly affects Linux-powered platforms such as Android, Tizen and webOS and there are new legal actions from Microsoft-connected patent trolls



  26. To Understand Why People Say That Lawyers are Liars Look No Further Than Misleading Promotion of Software Patents

    Some of the latest misleading claims from the patent microcosm, which is only interested in lots and lots of patents (its bread and butter is monopolies after all) irrespective of their merit, quality, and desirability



  27. When News About the EPO is Dominated by Sponsored 'Reports' and Press Releases Because Publishers Are Afraid of (or Bribed by) the EPO

    The lack of curiosity and genuine journalism in Europe may mean that serious abuses (if not corruption) will go unreported



  28. The Boards of Appeal at the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Complain That They Are Understaffed, Not Just Lacking the Independence They Depend on

    The Boards of Appeal have released a report and once again they openly complain that they're unable to do their job properly, i.e. patent quality cannot be assured



  29. Links 18/4/2018: New Fedora 27 ISOs, Nextcloud Wins German Government Contract

    Links for the day



  30. Guest Post: Responding to Your Recent Posting “The European Patent Office Will Never Hold Its Destroyers Accountable”

    In France, where Battistelli does not enjoy diplomatic immunity, he can be held accountable like his "padrone" recently was


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts