Comments

• Serenitude

  2007-10-05 06:43:20

  I have a general question. I like to use the best tool for the job. I just downloaded 10.3, and I have to say, at this moment it's the distro to beat, and by a longshot. If Gutsy, Mandy, or Fedora 8 are better, then I'll use them. I have things I want to do on my PC, and I'll use whatever gives me the best tools. So, I am not a *fanboi* of anything other than using my PC. I personally think de Icaza's "Superb" OOXML statement is the single-most absurd comment on the internet, but that doesn't change the fact that at this moment in time, OpenSUSE 10.3 is beyond superb.
  
  So, that being said, I don't understand why RedHat isn't boycotted by this site also. As I understand it, they also signed a deal with Microsoft which included interop and liscencing. The only difference I can see in the deal (which granted, I have a very low understanding of), is patent protection. But if Novell denies MS IP, then at the end of the day, what is the difference? RedHat also uses some cut-throat marketing, at both the press-release and blog level. Fedora is a superb distro, but I'm having trouble coming to grips with what exactly the differences are, and why the different treatment? RedHat uses the courts to get that interopability, which is always funny to watch happen to MS, but at the end of they day, their goals are the same.
  
  Ubuntu also has proprietary code, ships Mono apps, is setting up a "buy-it-here" repo in Gutsy (more damaging to Free Software than anything else I've seen, outside of OOXML), and Shuttleworth is on record as saying he'd love to do an MS interop deal, if they lose the IP tone. How is this different than what Novell is trying to do?
  
  I'm not trying to troll or flame - I'm trying to understand the differences, and I'm guessing they are subtle, as I can't see them. I'm guessing that many other viewers ask these same questions to themselves?

• Gopal

  2007-10-05 06:48:36

  The only thing missing is IE7.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-10-05 07:25:26

  You are right about Red Hat and even Mark Shuttleworth balancing the "racketeering" and "extortion" calls by welcoming an IP-FREE deal with Microsoft. There is no problem with interoperability that respects open standard (see Red Hat's words in the press), but the introduction of closed source code and software patent through an exclusionary deal was a step too far and Novell knew it. There is a lot more that could be said and we covered this before. I can provide pointers if it helps. Just let me know...

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-10-05 07:30:12

  @ Gopal: sarcasm aside, I believe it has been possible for over 6 months (and quite trivial to set up too).

• Serenitude

  2007-10-05 07:47:37

  I'm sorry if it's been covered before. I don't mean to waste your valuable time by rehashing old business :( If the closed source code is Mono, I know Novell, through de Icaza, develops Mono, but Ubuntu defaults with at least 2 Mono apps that I can think of, RhythmBox and F-Spot, and even Redhat ships Evolution as a default on it's desktop. It seems most, if not all, of the major GNOME players are taking using these products to enhance their desktop with one hand, and denouncing it with the other. In fact, with Gutsy, who is including Evolution, F-Spot, and App-Armor, it's getting hard to tell the difference between the two without seeing the SLAB menu....
  
  I'm not stating I LIKE the deal, but that it's subtelties are lost upon me when veiwing the deals and moves other, "respected" distros have made. I'd rather see NO deals, but am having a hard time seeing the difference between them :( If it's not too much trouble, some pointers for reading would help alot, to be able to understand the differences - where we are today - between the various deals and desires for interoperability. Thanks for your patience and time.
  
  Serenitude

• Serenitude

  2007-10-05 07:52:00

  BTW: As an aside, for a conspiracy theory, has it ever occured to anyone that Microsoft may, in the long run, be after Unix itself? To base an OS on, and lock Linux as a whole up? If MS could go to court as the official owners of Unix... If Novell became so dependant, as this website suggests, upon Microsoft, that aquisition/selling Unix rights became an issue - that, I'm afraid, is what I fear MUCH more than interoperability ;)
  
  Sorry - wouldn't be fun if I just looked at things logically. Some conspiracy fun can be had as well ;)

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-10-05 08:01:04

  If the closed source code is Mono,

  
  
  Mono's problem are not related to closed source code, but to software patents and Microsoft's total control over the way .NET evolves. Most examples of closed source code are related to interoperability which is based on what we call 'binary bridges'. Novell gets exclusive access to Microsoft source code, which is an SCO-type alarm bell in its own right.
  
  

  It seems most, if not all, of the major GNOME players are taking using these products to enhance their desktop with one hand, and denouncing it with the other.

  
  
  Red Hat said that it would avoid Mono, but it is becoming increasingly hard because various parties are (supposed to be) working in tandem with joint goals.
  
  

  In fact, with Gutsy, who is including Evolution, F-Spot, and App-Armor, it’s getting hard to tell the difference between the two without seeing the SLAB menu….

  
  
  I believe that Canonical was never aware of (or too apathetic towards) the effects of depending on Mono. By association, they are affected by Microsoft's decisions, so it's an unhealthy dependency. Microsoft hasn't a positive history when it comes to playing fair with technologies it controls. There are many examples of this and the leaked Halloween Memos reveal a mouthful.

• Serenitude

  2007-10-05 08:13:41

  Thank you for your thoughtful and patient replies. Looks like I have some reading and Googling to do ;)