ORLY? Novell?!?!
This post addresses an ongoing problem that we've already covered in:
“Novell's open source side of business accounts for under 20% of its overall identity, based on some estimates and criteria.”"[This event] is taken by FOSDEM crooks," tells us one person. And in response to Rui's letter, off come some gloves at Philip Paeps' blog. Michael Douglas writes: "Your pathetic excuses to ban Novell from contributing to FOSDEM only goes to show how childish you and the rest of the BoycottNovellers actually are, throwing temper tantrums whenever you don't get your way."
This is an ad hominem attack that targets people using labels such as "childish", "kids", "brats", "angry", "zealots" and so on and so forth. Labels are cheap [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], explanations are not.
This troubling situation has already escalated to ComputerWorld and we heard that Slashdot or Richard Stallman might have something to say on the issue too.
“Free software” or “open source”? It's a perennial question that has provoked a thousand flame wars. Normally, the factions supporting each label and its associated theoretical baggage manage to work alongside each other for the collective good with only a minimal amount of friction. But occasionally, the sparks begin to fly, and tempers rise. I think we're in for another bout of this particular fever.
--Matt Asay, April 21st, 2008
Comments
AlexH
2009-01-13 18:55:57
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-13 19:01:36
Roy Bixler
2009-01-13 19:17:55
Roy Bixler
2009-01-13 19:18:44
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-13 19:21:23
They do the same in some LUGs.
Ian
2009-01-13 19:43:17
They do the same in some LUGs.
What do other vendors do?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-13 19:50:29
Ian
2009-01-13 19:52:08
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-13 19:53:13
Ian
2009-01-13 20:02:45
Roy, I'll be honest with you here. Your bitterness towards Novell doesn't inspire much objectivity as far as in conference advertising goes. And really, who actually pays attention to any of that junk and puts any weight on it?
mpz
2009-01-13 21:38:29
I don't necessarily think they should refuse any sponsorship from Novell myself, but it's certainly an issue they should expect to come up. I might add that since they have accepted money, it would be better if they kept their thoughts to themselves, since there's no way any comment can be seen as entirely impartial (if these particular commentators are in any way related to the organisation). They are introducing politics themselves by abusing people with different views (pretty much the definition of politics).
Anyway, people should be free to disagree - and certainly there can be valid personal reasons for each side to have the positions they do, but there's no need for insults, all it does is help polarise and divide, which is exactly what the proprietary world wants. It doesn't lend much weight to the insulter's arguments either, and just makes them look like the childish ones.
"And really, who actually pays attention to any of that junk and puts any weight on it?"
Well think of it this way - if nobody cared why would they bother? Why would they spend the money? It's part of a marketing and branding strategy to invest in these events, and they expect wall-space as a result.
I might add that I was involved in a Novell presence at a trade show where their banners dominated the 'open source' section by a massive margin (it really looked like it was a whole Novell box from the other side of the floor, even though we had less than a quarter of the floor space from memory). I think it's partly to do with the fact that they have a lot of gear from their glory days, so it's no effort to roll it out whenever there's an opportunity.
Ian
2009-01-13 21:53:09
Fair enough. I like to think I normally don't get swayed by marketing material. That might not be the case for everyone and I'm probably unfairly extrapolating my own stance on everyone else.
Actually, arguing about Novell marketing when they're actually trying to promote themselves is funny because Novell marketing is generally considered non existent when the topic comes up around a group of "Novell users". The general response is, "what marketing?".
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-13 22:21:16
Victor Soliz
2009-01-14 00:21:48
Victor Soliz
2009-01-14 00:24:34
I will "move on" once MS and Novell show any signs of having moved on. But they still seem to push their little agenda of a Linux that requires MS Licensing, so, it seems I will not move on yet.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 00:28:04
In FOSDEM, companies put money in a bag to be sold developers (the product) and grab market share/mindshare. The speeches may be "fill".
JohnD
2009-01-14 00:58:57
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 01:09:20
That's not how it works. Microsoft pays Novell to admit/do all sorts of things that include OOXML support (in 2006) and admission that Linux supposedly infringes on Microsoft patents and therefore customers must buy Microsoft patent licences for SLE*.
"Software communism"? Funny how many Linux developers are well paid for this "software communism"...
You can internalise explanations about how Free software may mean more money and better distribution of control/wealth: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
Why recite myths? How many proprietary software companies make money in a world of monopolies and lock-in?
ushimitsudoki
2009-01-14 03:23:06
That says it all right there. They have "Free" in the name, but don't really mean it, what matters is money; so there's no point in asking them to refuse Novell -- or any company's -- sponsorship.
James Likmeghn
2009-01-14 07:07:48
You sound really concerned about Novell - when were you exited from the company?
AlexH
2009-01-14 08:59:21
Novell made no such admission, and you know it - in fact, they said publicly precisely the opposite (Q3).
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 09:25:11
AlexH
2009-01-14 09:29:22
Come on Roy, you know this, we've been over this so many times. Neither Microsoft nor Novell admit they infringe each other's patents.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 09:32:44
So, tell me, can Microsoft sue Red Hat customers for patent infringement? That's the message Novell appears to be sending. It markets itself using FUD.
AlexH
2009-01-14 09:35:13
Sorry? What would stop Microsoft doing that before their agreement with Novell?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 09:36:32
ushimitsudoki
2009-01-14 09:39:17
Actually, Q3 says: "Novell makes no admission that its Linux and open source offerings infringe on any other parties' patents." (emphasis added)
This could be Novell's way of saying "our Linux stuff isn't infringing, but you never know about their Linux stuff."
Normally, I would say this is nitpicking - but we know for a fact that Microsoft has said on multiple occasions that Novell has paid for patent rights / respects IP / etc., and other Linux vendors need to follow suit.
We also know that Novell has hinted around that its offerings are "safe" and offer "IP peace of mind", which I think implies that other companies' offerings do not.
This is a minor point, but I don't think it's fair to point at Q3 of that FAQ and say that is is "precisely the opposite". I would say it's ambiguous intentionally, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me on that.
AlexH
2009-01-14 09:41:34
I'm not sure why you think it's ambiguous: Novell won't and can't speak for other people's code.
@Roy: it's not precedence.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 09:41:37
This is really 'news' and discussions that go back 2 years ago.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 09:42:13
But Novell pays Microsoft. That's the point.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 09:42:53
Please explain.
AlexH
2009-01-14 09:51:23
ushimitsudoki
2009-01-14 09:54:48
I think it is ambiguous because of just the kind of exchange we had in this thread: one person says Novell insinuates that Linux infringes patents, and another person responds by referring to the FAQ.
People that know Linux may agree that SLES and RHEL are basically the same thing - but the man in charge of purchasing at HugeMcLarge Inc. might not hear that from a Novell salesman.
Again, I realize it is a very minor point in one sense, but in another it goes to a larger issue of how Novell tries to position itself in respect to other Linux vendors by trumpeting the Microsoft deal - and perhaps spreading Microsoft FUD while doing it.
All that being said, I don't want to make too much hay out of one word - just pointing out why I think that Q3 specifically is a bit ambiguous and not a good response to the assertion that Novell insinuates Linux infringes on Microsoft patents.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 09:55:40
AlexH
2009-01-14 09:58:09
Given that the balance of payments is clearly Microsoft->Novell, the money doesn't really follow either.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 09:59:54
AlexH
2009-01-14 10:00:19
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 10:01:53
AlexH
2009-01-14 10:10:44
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 10:15:17
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html
That's damage control, not a policy.
AlexH
2009-01-14 10:16:36
You're saying they admit patent infringement with absolutely no evidence whatsoever!
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 10:18:25
AlexH
2009-01-14 10:27:15
Novell aren't the only company who do this.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 10:28:58
AlexH
2009-01-14 10:33:03
Trying to interpret Novell's opinion for them, though, isn't. We've caught you out trying to talk for corporations before, remember?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 10:37:50
AlexH
2009-01-14 10:47:41
No so obvious, since Sun corrected you and you reverted to a "it was always my opinion" (note that you still didn't correct the story, which to this day states "Sun [..] seems to be responding in a subtle fashion to Novell").
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 10:50:20
AlexH
2009-01-14 10:51:38
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 10:53:28
AlexH
2009-01-14 10:55:05
Except that Sun wasn't responding :D
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-14 11:20:46
AlexH
2009-01-14 12:46:26
What is interesting is that OOo 3.0 doesn't have this feature, but "supports" ODF 1.2. ODF 1.2 will presumably have the overline feature (when it's finally ratified), so OOo 3.0 is just going to throw away any overlining as per the feature document.
Slightly sad it took over six years to get that feature, but then I guess there are other notable projects like that (e.g., Mozilla).
Chris
2009-01-14 15:31:43
I was just wondering if you ever heard of http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/ and if we can now expect the same trolling as for Mono?
Or is this one good because it is done by "mighty fine GNU" (tm) and not by "bad bad Novell" (tm) ?
Sincerley yours ...