Comments on: Has Novell’s Deal with Microsoft Ruined Red Hat Desktop? (Updated) http://techrights.org/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:41:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.14 By: cuss http://techrights.org/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/comment-page-2/#comment-8078 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:56:09 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/#comment-8078 Silverlight and OOXML certainly don’t delay the Red Hat Global Desktop; don’t try to distract from the topic!

What delays the Global Desktop on the licensing-front (meaning aside from the mentioned technical and market-specific problems) are the most-widely used codecs; and these are Flash and the diverse MPEG-codecs, which are licensed through MPEG-LA and VIA Technologies.

And it doesn’t matter whether or not any users of ‘free’ (meaning irrelevant) Linux desktops have been sued over them or not – this is a COMMERCIAL desktop product, and Red Hat will only bunde LEGAL, i.e. LICENSED codecs with it!

]]>
By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/comment-page-2/#comment-8075 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:59:33 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/#comment-8075 We also have Novell to thank for GPL-hostile OOXML and Silverlight, which they clearly have helped promote. Microsoft will threaten Linux vendors. Now show me a case where Linux users got sued or even threatened for using MP3s, DivX, Flash, etc.

]]>
By: cuss http://techrights.org/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/comment-page-2/#comment-8071 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:37:36 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/#comment-8071 Oh, and BTW: You might not know this, but the relevant codecs today are NOT Microsoft codecs! We can live perfectly well without Windows Media. The relevant codecs are MP3 (there is a free and legal codec for that from Fluendo), MPEG-2 and -4 (these are given out by global licensers – OTHER than MS…) and Flash. If you believe Microsofts licensing terms are unfriendly, go check out MPEG-LA’s!

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

]]>
By: cuss http://techrights.org/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/comment-page-1/#comment-8070 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:34:29 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/#comment-8070 You are speculating.

At least quote the only releveant source – the original announcement:
“There have, however, been a number of business issues that have conspired to delay the product for almost a year. These include hardware and market changes, startup delays with resellers, getting the design and delivery of appropriate services nailed down and, unsurprisingly, some multimedia codec licensing knotholes.”

As you see multimedia codecs are NOT the only problem; they are not even the most prominent problem.

Don’t INVENT your news.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

]]>
By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/comment-page-1/#comment-8068 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:09:49 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/#comment-8068 Red Hat was prepared to unleash its desktop last year, but Microsoft gave Red Hat a hard time with codecs. It wanted a patent deal. Watch the second reference (the update) from SJVN. There is a combination of factors at play. Mind the question mark in the post title. It’s not just because of Novell, but Novell is part of the problem.

]]>
By: cuss http://techrights.org/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/comment-page-1/#comment-8067 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:05:30 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/#comment-8067 No, as usual you got it wrong because you don’t do research.

1) Red Hat has NEVER planned to market a new desktop product world-wide; the Global Desktop is strictly aimed at ‘emerging markets’. No changes here. There is _no_ change of plan; just a clarification that the Desktop Team posted (http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-hat-desktop-systems-an-update/#more-330) and that others made into ‘news’.
2) Novell has nothing to do with that because – as said – the plans for Global Desktop haven’t changed. Red Hat and Novell agree that there currently is no market for a _commercial_ desktop Linux for private users.
3) What you quote in your article are reasons for the _delay_ of the Global Desktop, NOT reasons for any change of plan! Please don’t warp meanings by incomplete quotations!
4) That you get things wrong on a regular basis might not be your fault; it is because you consult unreliable sources like theregister.
5) Don’t try to force a connection with Novell and Microsoft for any- and everything that happens on our home-planet! Next thing you’ll tell us that Novell is responsible for war, famine, cancer, and the bad weather…

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

]]>
By: CoolGuy http://techrights.org/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/comment-page-1/#comment-8046 Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:54:41 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/#comment-8046 Major deciding factor with Linux distros now is

1. Out of the box hardware support
2. Ease of package installation and availability

Rest are just cosmetic changes.

]]>
By: CoolGuy http://techrights.org/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/comment-page-1/#comment-8044 Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:24:51 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/17/red-hat-versus-codecs/#comment-8044 bad news…. :(

Atleast they didnt $ell out like novell. Kudos for that !!

]]>