Source (original): Rospatent

Summary: An interview prepared by Battistelli’s department, inclusive of all the ‘official’ narratives, is now translated into English and responded to succinctly (for accuracy and a more complete record of events)

THE EPO‘s President is basically a politician, and like most politicians he habitually lies with apparent sincerity. We recently asked for a translation of an article from Juve, which is essentially a written interview in which Battistelli and his PR people stick their ‘official’ story. We now have a complete translation to which we respond in-line (below the quotes):

Here is the introductory part:

EPO PRESIDENT BATTISTELLI IN INTERVIEW: “I AM DELEGATING RESPONSIBILITIES”

In July, the European Patent Office reformed its Boards of Appeals. This reform must be implemented by the beginning of 2017. To achieve this, a President of the Boards of Appeal has to be found. Critics complain that the reform will not give the EPO Boards enough independence. In this JUVE interview, EPO President Battistelli gives his view and explains why patent renewal fees will not necessarily reduce if the UK leaves the EU and, with it, the new European patent system.

We gave a sort of translation of the mirage of independence for the boards. AMBA later refuted that as well.

Regarding the UK, it does not have to leave the EPO if it leaves the EU as the EPO is not an EU organisation and it includes several member states outside the EU.

JUVE: The Administrative Council and the Office describe the reform of the Boards of Appeal as a milestone for the strengthening of status, efficiency and sustainability of the EPO appeal system. Why?

BENOIT BATTISTELLI: The reform is pioneering because attempts at a structural reform have already failed twice, in 1995 and 2004. The Administrative Council gave the Office the mandate to develop a reform proposal which was within the boundaries of the European Patent Convention (EPC). This allowed, in spite of the scope of the reform, a fast implementation. Because otherwise a protracted process would have been needed, including a diplomatic conference and ratification by the parliaments of all 38 member states.

What he is trying to say is, suddenly he cares about the EPC, even though we showed many times in the past that Battistelli arrogantly defies the EPC.

What “fast implementation” means in this context is a forced implementation that does not allow much time for discussion and potentially resistance (same as in patent appeals). It’s just autocracy. To him, diplomacy is just a nuisance that needs to be overcome. We have seen a lot of this in the UPC.

JUVE: What have you achieved?

BENOIT BATTISTELLI: The Boards of Appeal play a very important role in the European Patent System. The reform shall emphasise that and ensure the sustainability of the EPO appeal system: it strengthens the organisational and managerial autonomy of the boards, the perception of their independence, and their efficiency. In addition, a series of measures will be introduced, that will allow the Administrative Council and the future President of the Boards of Appeal to improve legal proceedings for the parties – for instance, by shortening process times and making the appeal procedures more consistent.

In reality, all that’s being achieved is shrinking of the appeals body, less opportunities to appeal (not to mention less time), higher financial barriers (for access) to appeals and no substantial separation at all, given that Battistelli is, according to Board 28, continuing to attack a judge.

JUVE: Nevertheless, not only EPO Boards of Appeal members have criticised that the emphasis has been too much on efficiency and less on the independence of the EPO Boards. How do you respond?

BENOIT BATTISTELLI: The independence of the Boards of Appeal is clearly incorporated in the EPC, and their role as an independent judicial institution has always been recognised by the highest European and national courts. Therefore, the reform shall primarily improve the perception of independence. To achieve this the current DG3 will be restructured into a Boards of Appeal Unit with its own President. The President of the Boards of Appeal will be given tasks and powers which have been delegated to him by the President of the EPO. As far as management duties are concerned, he is only answerable to the Administrative Council. This is a substantial change. This is because as well as improvements to independence the President of the Boards of Appeal shall also increase the efficiency of the Boards of Appeal.

When Battistelli alludes to the EPC he basically admits that he violates it. Why? Because it’s abundantly clear that he has not respected their independence and continues doing so. He keeps speaking about “perception of independence” perhaps because he knows that he wants to give them no real independence; he’s faking it.

JUVE: Why is this at all necessary?

BENOIT BATTISTELLI: The current backlog and the protracted length of the procedure need sorting out. The continuous increase in litigation in the last couple of decades is, however, in no way only limited to the EPO Boards of Appeal. However, it is necessary to confront this situation with appropriate measures.

In other words, quality control is a nuisance to Battistelli because it means that the whole process is slower and there is a queue. God forbid! He acknowledges an increase in litigation, as though this is desirable or somewhat of a given. So in short, speed and raw quantity (quantified using a dumb politician’s yardstick) trump quality now. It’s quite evident from what he is saying.

JUVE: By having, with the new Boards of Appeal Committee, a joint right of proposal for the new President you will have further influence on the Boards of Appeal. Why is the participation of the EPO President at all necessary in this matter?

BENOIT BATTISTELLI: It is stipulated in the EPC that the Chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal shall be appointed by the Administrative Council upon a proposal by the President of the Office. According to the reform, the Office President and Boards of Appeal Committee shall jointly propose the President of the Boards of Appeal, who will be delegated managerial responsibilities. In this way the President of the EPO will share the right of proposal with the Committee – currently he alone has this right. This will allow the President of the Boards of Appeal to lead his unit without influence by the management of the EPO.

Given that the Administrative Council is almost in bed with Battistelli (hardly overseeing him at all), and given the track record of bad faith from both, it seems apparent that the above answer is lots of hogwash and hot air.

JUVE: Once more: why, as Office President, will you continue to participate in these matters?

BENOIT BATTISTELLI: At the end of the day the President is legally responsible for ensuring that the whole Office functions in a proper way, including the budget. Hence, he must be able to trust that the person that takes over his powers exercises them properly. The decision to appoint the President of the Boards of Appeal lies, anyway, with the Administrative Council.

…which in itself is somewhat in the pocket — some believe almost literally — of Battistelli.

JUVE: When will you delegate your powers?

BENOIT BATTISTELLI. As soon as the President of the Boards of Appeal has been appointed I will be able to sign a document to transfer powers.

One can safely assume that Battistelli will have veto power and can therefore ensure that the person is subservient or obedient to begin with.

JUVE: Has it already been decided who the first President of the Boards of Appeal will be?

BENOIT BATTISTELLI: He shall be appointed by the Administrative Council before the end of the year. It is planned that he will take up his duties when the reform comes into effect in January 2017.

Notice the word “he” (maybe an artifact of translation from German). Given the lack of diversity at the Office, it would not at all be surprising if the person turned out to be white male, possibly French and right wing.

JUVE: In the future the Office and the Boards of Appeal shall be separately housed in Munich. Has there already been a decision over the future location of the Boards of Appeal?

BENOIT BATTISTELLI. Negotiations with property owners in Munich are already very advanced and hence the decision can be made in October.

They already decided, but they are playing a game here.

JUVE: The disciplinary procedure against the judge that you suspended has still not been concluded. In June the Enlarged Board of Appeal deviated from the recommendation, by the Administrative Council, of dismissal. By October Jesper Kongstad, Chairman of the Administrative Council, has to draw up a proposal as to how to further proceed. According to the statutes he has to propose that the judge be reinstated. You wouldn’t favour that?

BENOIT BATTISTELLI: According to our Convention the Administrative Council has disciplinary authority over Boards of Appeal members, while the President has the power to suggest disciplinary measures and furthermore carries total responsibility for the proper functioning of the Office. In the case in question the Council decided in December 2014, because of the knowledge of serious misconduct, to suspend the Boards of Appeal member from service. After the submission of an extensive investigation report the Council, in March 2015, initiated a disciplinary procedure. Under the chairmanship of a former ECJ judge, a disciplinary committee, which also had members of the EPO Boards of Appeal and experienced external lawyers, came unanimously to the conclusion that the serious misconduct of the Boards of Appeal member demanded his dismissal. In decisions in June and October 2015 the Council followed this review and requested that the Enlarged Board of Appeal submit a proposal for dismissal. However, almost a year after this request the Enlarged Board of Appeal decided to not follow the request, because I pointed out that at the EPO disciplinary proceedings are confidential and cannot be carried out in public. These are the facts. Let us be clear: this isn’t about personal sensitivities, but the integrity of the appeal system at the EPO.

Complete nonsense. Battistelli’s lips just move a lot.

Regarding confidentiality, it’s quite likely Battistelli and his goons who leaked smears to the media in order to defame the accused, making the Office look worse than bad, one might even say “corrupt”. A short time afterwards they began attacking me too — all this shortly after they had signed the FTI Consulting contract that was later expanded to dominate Dutch and German media (separate from the EPO’s payments to media giants which soon turned into EPO mouthpieces).

JUVE: The Brexit decision endangers the start of the new European patent system. The EPO is involved in this system. What chance do you see that the Unitary Patent and hence the whole system will start in April 2017 as planned?

BENOIT BATTISTELLI: The EPO hopes to find a solution that lets the Unitary Patent come into force as soon as possible. It is here crucial that partaking member states ratify the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. After the referendum the Dutch parliament agreed to ratification and so sent out an important political signal. Independently from the political decisions it can be assumed that the system will come, albeit very probably with a delay. The work is, however, far too advanced, and has generated too much positive momentum, for it to be shelved.

No, the UPC is almost certainly dead (in its current form), if not just in the UK then in the whole of Europe. They’ll probably try to repackage it and maybe even rename it again. This can take years and there’s no guarantee anything will come out of it. In the mean time, the EPO is rotting and there's expectation of layoffs within a couple of years if Battistelli's vision gets implemented.

JUVE: If the UK can’t take part in the system will the renewal fees for the EU patent have to be recalculated?

BENOIT BATTISTELLI: It is too early to estimate the impact on the renewal fees for the Unitary Patent. They have been so determined to correspond to the sum of the renewal fees for the four countries in which classical European patents are most frequently validated. This so-called “Top 4” solution was preceded by very long and difficult discussions of the member states. By the way, the level of the fees was already decided before the accession of Italy and wasn’t increased afterwards, because the member states didn’t want to reopen the debate. This could also be the case if the UK leaves. Finally, the model would even then still offer excellent value, because it would give patent protection in a multitude of EU member states at a very attractive cost.

The patent trolls would certainly love it, but again, why assume this can ever happen? Why suppose an inevitability? The UPC is about as dead as the EU Patent or Community Patent, which several years ago we were told were inevitable and only a matter of time. Remember Charlie McCreevy‘s and Michel Barnier‘s lobbying for this? The latter, incidentally, became the key person in Brexit negotiations.

At the end of last week IAM remarked on this Brexit update, asking, “lawyers, would this have UPC implications?”

“Depends which lawyers one asks,” I replied. Patent lawyers (especially those who invested in UPC) are not David Allen Green, who writes a lot about Brexit these days (one of the most prominent commentators on the subject in the UK). Incidentally, David Allen Green is the person who defended me from several vicious attacks from the EPO.

“Theresa May,” told us a reader last night, “said at the Conservative Party Conference that after Brexit the UK will be “a fully-independent, sovereign country” that will no longer be in the “jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice”, Bang goes the UPC then!”

“Anybody claiming from now on that UK should ratify the UPC soon should loose their illusions,” wrote another person last night [1, 2]. To quote the full comment:

It has just become known that procedure according to Art 50 will be started fore the end of March 2017.

The European communities act of 1972 will be repelled and a Great Repeal Bill will be decided.

It becomes thus clear that the Brexit is on its way. Any ratification before this date has been transferred to dream world…..

Anybody claiming from now on that UK should ratify the UPC soon should have lost its illusions; it would better think how UPC could progress without UK.

Battistelli is a chronic liar (with a track record to prove it). He said the UPC would be in effect this year (he said this as recently as last year) and he keeps changing his story every time he’s caught in a lie. Don’t believe anything that Battistelli and Team UPC say about the unitary patent system, or whatever they will choose to call next year. █

Summary: New interview with Robin “Roblimo” Miller on behalf of FOSSForce

Earlier today we explained why the Council's statement serves to disprove the narrative floated by Battistelli’s EPO. We are still unable to actually see/read what Battistelli told Managing IP (we’ve even tried Google cache, to no avail) because the original is behind a rather stubborn paywall. All paywalls, whether by intention or not, are a tool of soft censorship or limitation of access by particular audiences. They can help ensure that one only preaches to the choir and can hear back from the choir (patent lawyers in this case) because it’s hard if not impossible to examine what was said, especially as an outsider (to the microcosm) cannot become aware of what was actually said internally. It’s like a closed event/conference/meeting. Maybe like EPO-organised events which are either expensive or invite-only. It becomes an echo chamber.

Managing IP has just published some blog post with afterthoughts about this interview. These are publicly accessible, so we can examine and rebut what is essentially a sort of roundup.

“Battistelli told us he believes he has the support of the majority of staff for his reform programme,” according to the blog. At best, what Battistelli can say about “majority of staff” is that by a rather small (and ever-shrinking) margin, most staff is still afraid to publicly protest. That’s not an expression of consent, just a testament to the fear. Here is a direct quote: “I am convinced I have the support of the majority of staff, and the results we are obtaining would not be achieved by staff which are not fully behind this policy.”

“Battistelli is either deluded or he simply hopes that repeating this lie will help it stick (in the minds of those who are desperate enough to believe it).”This is nonsense. It’s a delusion. Battistelli is either deluded or he simply hopes that repeating this lie will help it stick (in the minds of those who are desperate enough to believe it).

The blog says: “As to where the Boards should be based, the president emphasised that to preserve the appearance of independence, they should be moved outside of the EPO premises, whether in Munich or another city. He also said it was necessary to have rules on conflicts of interest, to prevent members of the Boards going directly into private practice firms.”

Funny that EPO management worries about “private practice firms” in the boards when the management itself seems to be guilty (more on that in an upcoming series).

“Notice how Battistelli basically paints himself and the management as the “victims”.”“Battistelli acknowledged that the reputation of the EPO has been damaged by recent criticisms,” according to this blog. Well, that’s his fault. He blames the criticism rather than what the criticism is about/against.

Battistelli said: “It is true that politically this campaign has had some impact, we have to be realistic about that, and because of our protective roles we couldn’t indicate what was at stake. We will be able in the near future to inform the public on the kinds of attacks and behaviour we have been victims of.”

Notice how Battistelli basically paints himself and the management as the “victims”. Imagine the NSA painting itself, not the people whom it illegally spied on, as the victim. What a terrible PR strategy.

To quote further from the blog: “Disciplinary proceedings are now underway against some senior members of SUEPO, and Battistelli said he would follow the recommendations of the disciplinary committee.”

The “recommendations of the disciplinary committee” are basically a shadow of whatever Battistelli wants. It’s a mock trial, which Team Battistelli keeps trying to make secret not because it jeopardises the so-called ‘investigation’ because it embarrasses the accuser and shows what a laughable ‘trial’ is really happening (we have access to the texts and we have already refuted some ludicrous parts).

“If people want the hogwash, Managing IP will quite likely provide it.”To continue, again from the blog (quoting Battistelli: “There are some individual behaviours which are not acceptable and which need to be sanctioned, such as harassment cases. It is not legitimate to harass somebody because you are a staff representative.”

Complete nonsense! The so-called ‘harassment’ case is suggestive of the Hardon case, where something which happened almost two years ago suddenly (magically!) becomes relevant because Battistelli is determined to crush the unions by any means possible.

If people want the hogwash, Managing IP will quite likely provide it. Provided people are willing to pay Managing IP for access to pro-patents (or patent maximalism) articles.

Last but not least, the blog says: “We put as many of these [question] as we could to Battistelli, and there were no topics he declined to discuss” (except the questions we sent Managing IP). Did Managing IP even ask Battistelli any truly hard questions? █

Dr. Richard Stallman from the Free Software Foundation has been a special guest on our weekly shows over the years. The new year is a suitable (reasonably quiet) time to tidy up a bit, so below is a summary of episodes in which he appeared. █

2014, Oxford

• Richard Stallman About Protests, Boycotts
• Richard Stallman on Censorship and Libel
• Richard Stallman on Splitting Companies
• Richard Stallman on Software Patents in Europe
• Richard Stallman on Government Aggression Without Trial
• Richard Stallman on the Penal System
• Richard Stallman on Banks and Foreclosures
• Richard Stallman on Lobbying
• Richard Stallman on Employment
• Richard Stallman on Plutocracy
• Richard Stallman on Steve Jobs and Apple
• Richard Stallman on Control by Users
• Richard Stallman on Corporate Press
• Richard Stallman Discusses War on Sharing
• TechBytes Video: Richard Stallman on Wasted Votes
• TechBytes Video: Richard Stallman on Privacy

2014, Lincoln

• Happy GNU Year: Richard Stallman on How He Created GNU on Proprietary Systems 30 Years Ago
• Happy GNU Year: Richard Stallman Talks About His First GNU Programs
• Happy GNU Year: Richard Stallman on How Many People Contributed to GNU in the 1980s
• Happy GNU Year: Richard Stallman on Naming GNU
• Happy GNU Year: Richard Stallman on Meeting Goals of GNU
• Richard Stallman on How He Started GNU
• Richard Stallman Explains His Position on Google
• Richard Stallman Talks About Diaspora and Whether It’s Worth Joining
• Richard Stallman Explains His Account in Identi.ca and Distributed Social Networks
• Richard Stallman Talks About Facebook ‘Useds’
• Richard Stallman on Storing Files Online
• Richard Stallman on Google+ and Twitter
• Richard Stallman on YouTube and Video Formats Issues
• Richard Stallman Talks About Internet Trolls Who Demonise Him
• Richard Stallman Explains How He Became Political

2013 (audio only)

• TechBytes Episode 86: Debian GNU/Linux and Firmware
• TechBytes Episode 85: Listeners’/Readers’ Questions About FreedomBox, FSF Sponsorship, and Technical Decisions by Canonical and Red Hat
• TechBytes Episode 84: Tracking by Facebook and Mobile Phones (Cellphones)
• TechBytes Episode 83: Richard Stallman on Data Collection and Encryption
• TechBytes Episode 82: Richard Stallman on Data Protection, Collective Responsibility as Tyrannical Tool, and Encryption of Data
• TechBytes Episode 81: Richard Stallman on Anonymity, Censorship, DPI, and Copyright Policing
• TechBytes Episode 80: Richard Stallman on Universal Back Door in Microsoft Windows and His Search Engine Habits
• TechBytes Episode 79: Richard Stallman Speaks About Back Doors
• TechBytes Episode 78: Richard Stallman Speaks About Surveillance in the Post-Leaks Era
• TechBytes Episode 73: Richard Stallman on Corporate Secrecy and US Politics
• TechBytes Episode 72: Richard Stallman on News Sources Bias, GPL.next Misinformation, and Software Patents
• TechBytes Episode 71: Richard Stallman on Surveillance, the NSA, and Mobile Phones
• TechBytes Episode 70: Richard Stallman on How Browsers and Social Networking Sites Facilitate Surveillance
• TechBytes Episode 69: Richard Stallman on Restricted Boot (UEFI), Coreboot, GRUB, and Boot Freedom

Software patents are gradually losing their grip on the industry, not just in the world at large but also in the US (genesis of software patents). A few days ago an interview was published in which Simon Phipps (OSI) spoke about the goal of eradicating software patents and explained the latest turn of events as follows: “The Supreme Court in their judgment created a very clear test to work out whether a software patent was going to be valid or not. What they said was that, they said that there could still be software patents, but that simply taking something that is not patent‑eligible like an algorithm and then claiming that it’s patentable because it runs on a computer is not sufficient to actually establish patentability.

“They said that to get a software patent, the software that you have has got to improve the computer significantly. Because of that, the standard for getting software patents has been dramatically increased by the Alice decision.

“The federal circuit court then referred to the Alice decision, and decided not even to proceed to find out if there had been infringement on the Digitech case because they declared that the image processing software was not a significant improvement to the computer. Rather, it was a computer implementing a non‑patent‑eligible technique.”

Based on the article “Appeals court knocks out computer bingo patents” and some that are citing it, yet another software patent has just dropped dead. “Silly software patents are finally on notice at the Federal Circuit,” says the summary and lawyers do some legal analysis (not challenging the ruling but interpreting it). Progressive sites like TechDirt use a clever headline and say: “Another day, another story of stupid software patents getting stomped out of existence thanks to the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank ruling. As we’ve been noting, this ruling is looking like it’s going to invalidate a ton of software patents (and that’s a good thing). The latest one dumped was an attempt to patent bingo online. Yes, bingo. The lower court had already rejected the patent using previous Supreme Court rulings against patenting “abstract ideas.” Now, with the Alice ruling in hand, the Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) completed the stomping out of the bingo patent.”

Based on this same site, citing the post “Patent Troll Landmark Technology Sues eBay For Challenging Its Patents; EBay Responds With Anti-SLAPP Motion”, there is bullying over the suggestion that some patents need re-examining. To quote: “Over at Popehat, there’s a fascinating story about the depths to which patent trolls will go to “protect” their business models. The story involves Landmark Technologies, a troll we wrote about earlier this year for its rather aggressive take on patent trolling. Landmark holds patent 6,289,319: ‘Automatic Business and Financial Transaction Processing System.’ Or, as the EFF puts it more succinctly: paying with a credit card online. eBay recognized that Landmark’s trolling was bad news, and filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a re-exam of three patents. The USPTO initially recognized eBay’s request, noting that there were “substantial” questions about the patentability in those patents. While it eventually left two of the patents alone, it dumped many of the claims in a third patent.”

Remember how back in early August an invalidated patent caused much trouble for that aggressor called Apple.

There is a real opportunity here for change. Patents on software can now be eliminated. Rather than actively fight software patents Google is just promising not to sue. What a wasted opportunity and misguided strategy.

Back in 2013, Google announced its plans to not sue anybody who had implemented open-source versions of its MapReduce algorithm. Since then, the company has expanded what it calls its “Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge” to a number of other patents. Today it is announcing its largest expansion of this program to date, with the addition of 152 additional patents. This brings the total number of patents included in this program to 245.

Google ought to do more to end software patents, not just acquire some and then promise not to sue.

Meanwhile down in New Zealand, a lawyers’ site claims that changes are coming:

On 13 September the new Patents Act will come into force – whether you’re ready for it or not. So, too, will the Patents Regulations 2014 which were ratified by an Order in Council on 11 August.

Everything, then, is set. This article thus serves as something of a recap on the extent of the changes under the new regime.

Many of the provisions of the new Act are the same as the current Patents Act 1953. There will then be some continuity for patentees and businesses. However, two very significant changes are being implemented which concern how IPONZ examiners consider patent applications and the limits placed on the patentability of software.

IPONZ examiners will shortly have to examine patent applications to determine whether the claims made in respect of, for example, a product involve “an inventive step”. The inclusion of the law of “inventive step” in the new Act represents a higher threshold for hopeful patentees to meet.

There was lobbying by proprietary software giants to bring software patents to this island, but they have not been exceptionally successful. This is of course good news that reminds us that the end of software patents as elusive as we once assumed it to be. █

Summary: A short interview with Jim Whitehurst, who spoke to us about Red Hat’s performance

A

COUPLE of days ago a company working on behalf of Red Hat contacted us, whereupon we asked for some answers from Red Hat. We are pleased to have received them from the company’s CEO, Jim Whitehurst. Here is the quick Q&A.

How has the economic climate affected Red Hat’s performance? Has it been beneficial?

Year to date through November 30, 2011 (three quarters) we have experienced rapid growth; revenue 26%, income from operations 42% and net income 50%. Historically, we have performed well in both up and down economic cycles.

There have been numerous reports recently about Red Hat’s expansion and relocations. How does Red Hat view the prospect of expanding in Europe, where software patents are less of a problem?

Red Hat is expanding globally, including in Europe, with more than 70 offices now in over 30 countries. Software patents are not a criteria in our expansion plans.

How can a community of Free/open source software enthusiasts ensure that Red Hat — a key developer of pertinent components of the GNU/Linux operating system — maintains growth?

Red Hat is responsible for Red Hat’s growth based on our own strategies and business plans. The open source community is important to us and we actively work to encourage, cultivate and grow the community, but only Red Hat can drive its growth.

Have CentOS, Scientific Linux, and Oracle had any noticeable impact on Red Hat’s ability to sell support contracts?

No. █

If anyone can host an Ogg equivalent (YouTube only has a beta phase WebM option), please post the URL below.

Summary: Interview about Free software, media, and patents (most of the information is still relevant but a tad outdated)

A couple of months ago I was approached by the editor of Muktware — a news site that I had followed since its early days because it didn’t mince words and it didn’t comply with the mindset of the “Wintel press”. Informal correspondence with Swapnil Bhartiya led to this interview and for those who read Techrights and never saw the interview, here is the communication in its raw form (pre-editing)

Can you tell us more about yourself, where you come from and your background?

Depending on the circumstance, the answer may vary. I am currently involved in a handful of activities, ranging from programming to fitness. But I see myself primarily as a science and technology person, whose main passion is commenting on what’s observable and explaining matters of interest to other people.

When was the first time you came to know about Free Software, what attracted you towards it?

I had used GNU/Linux my entire adult life, but GNU philosophy only came to my attention when I worked on a development project largely based on GTK and GNU tools. I was attracted to it for purely pragmatic reasons; it gave me a lot of freedom or control and later helped me a lot with my Ph.D.

You are more on the philosophy part of Free Software, are you a pragmatist or idealist?

A bit of both. These are not mutually-exclusive and those who claim otherwise are presenting us with a false dichotomy. My detractors paint me as an idealist, whereas in my technical writings I mostly emphasise the pragmatic benefits of sharing software (and keeping it in circulation rather than boxed).

There is a rift between RMS and Linus, when I met RMS I asked the reason he told me. What do you think is the bone of contention?

Linus Torvalds chose the GPL for pragmatic reasons, just as many (and perhaps most) Free/open source developers choose the GPL. It is a good licence that incentivises participation, protects the interests of developers, and arguably speeds up development by its nature of transparency maximisation. In my conversations with Torvalds the recurring argument had something to do with software patents and the GPLv3 — a subject that Dr. Richard Stallman is trying to tackle. Despite overlap among financial backers, Torvalds and Stallman have points where they disagree. They are finding ways to find the commonalities though and these days they hardly ever argue, and that is good news. Infighting between Linux and GNU is unfruitful.

How have you gotten involved with FOSS advocacy?

Advocacy started when I first re-entered USENET, partly as means of passing time while running some experiments or compiling code. It did not take long for me to join Linux newsgroups and help with technical issues. Soon thereafter the newsgroups’ participatents were harassed by anti-Linux trolls, who in turn led me to the Linux advocacy newsgroup where I got increasingly involved.

What was the inspiration and goal behind Boycott Novell? Did you run any project before that?

The site was intended to pressure Novell to revoke or gradually cancel its patent deal with Microsoft. That was back in earlier days, right after the deal had been signed and Bruce Perens set up a petition. In later days, as Novell was clearly not going to escape the commitment to hundreds of millions of dollars from Microsoft (in exchange for favours), we identified several other sources constituting a threat to GNU/Linux. Novell and software patents were primary among those (Microsoft recently got nearly 1,000 of Novell’s patents). Regarding projects, yes, I did run some projects before that.

When and why Boycott Novell transformed into TechRights, what is the new goal of the site?

In 2009 or thereabouts, following a DDOS attack that had us offline for several days, we were already focused on Microsoft more than we were focused on Novell. To properly operate and have an aptly-named ‘umbrella’ we needed to rethink the strategy. Some readers, however, insisted that we keep pressuring Novell as it was still a considerably serious threat. It wasn’t until a year later that a Novell sale seemed imminent, so we made the necessary changes and put Boycott Novell under the Techrights umbrella.

Media

We write a lot about controversial issues (criticising Apple, MS, Oracle and Mono) and some friends call us biased, how do you see living with that tag?

“Biased” is a word people use to describe one whose convictions are strong and vocal. In order to appeal to the opposition and get one’s point across, one might choose to use subtleties and even humour, even for the mere appearance of being “objective” (“fair and balance” as Fox News laughably calls it). The art of communicating or engaging with those on the other side of the fence is a tricky one. But it can also be an exercise in futility when the ‘opposition’ of a dyed-in-the-wool proprietary software proponent, e.g. Microsoft MVP. People who call you “bias” to discredit a claim are probably not fence sitters, i.e. these are people whom you may never have been able to convince in the first place. The use of the word is a shrewd attempt to discourage fence sitters from assessing the opposing point of view. To be labeled “bias” may sometimes mean that you are effective at what you do. Being called “libelous” is another matter altogether.

What is your opinion about tech media houses. Do you think they present an unbiased picture?

That is a very broad subject which can take hours to tackle. I myself used to write for an online magazine (no longer published in paper form) and I saw how editors remove paragraphs that — while truthful — are not beneficial as means of attracting advertisers. It’s not that these were abrasive, it is just that they deal with criminal activity, which to many is the elephant in the room or even a taboo subject (associated high risk to one’s job).

A notable problem we have in the corporate media these days if that if it’s not profitable, it will perish, no matter the importance and accuracy of the expressed idea or the subject matter. When the media puts business before information, we become susceptible to biased priorities, which is also why we continue to have all sorts of disinformation outside the field of computing. If it sells (i.e. high ratings), it will get covered more, irrespective of accuracy or importance. Those who stick to the truth often fail to attract advertisers, writers, etc. and therefore they cannot survive and we never hear about them again.

One has to distinguish between something like an academic journal and a news journal like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Their paradigm is different and putting aside corruption at Elsevier (pharmaceutical companies planting papers in there, as though they are peer reviewed), the accuracy there is high and the revenue comes from reward for accuracy, which determines whether a library will stock it or pass it by, weather the impact factor (based on citations indices) will improve or drop to the levels corresponding to obscurity. There are many different approaches to selling bias (e.g. PR, lobbying) and also to providing alleged information (e.g. analyst reports, endorsements). One approach which we emulated when we sat on a pile of thousands of court documents showing Microsoft misconduct is the Groklaw-type approach. Then there is Wikileaks with its notion of “scientific journalism”, wherein it provides raw material (redacted nonetheless) to support the allegations, thus respecting the readers’ right to audit and validate what they are reading. A lot of news sites that emulate old-style newspapers (usually a succession) contain no bibliography, links, and not ever cross-citations that help verify the claims independently. They make poor use of hypertext and a vast web of knowledge. Sites must not be autonomous anymore; sharing is required for higher quality (sometimes referred to as open source intelligence of crowdsourcing).

Mainstream media is primarily Apple user and you can see influence, do you think that is wrong when they think the world starts and ends with “OMG I love my iPad”

Apple spends billions of dollars on advertising, in order to sell commodity at a highly inflated price. One way to perceptualise advertising is that a company pools some budget and then channels it down PR agencies, trickling this allocated sum all the way downwards to journalists and bloggers (e.g. free gadgets for ‘assessment’). The mainstream media (I call it corporate media) does a fantastic job given its goal, which is to increase its revenue. Some of the bribery of the media comes through advertising contracts, which are in some sense analogous to what came to be called the ‘”analyst tax” (a price to be paid to analysts to ensure they are on the payer’s side). The Techrights community has identified and amassed a large volume of hard evidence to solidify these claims. I recently had to confront IBM PR people on the phone for over an hour, as they too — just like Microsoft — try to seed positive coverage while not being visible to the outside world. The PR industry can truly corrupt investigative journalism sometimes, but then again, in academia it is grants of a commercial nature that often lead to similar corruption (strings attached explicitly or implicitly, through future prospects).

People must embrace critical thinking skills and always question what they are told, what vested interests are at play, and whether claims can actually be verified. These are often left hidden — an absence which endless repetition cannot compensate for. Over the years I have had to confront many PR agencies and sometimes reported them to the FTC, which needless to say only responds to a volume of complaints (based on their letter back to me). The FCC is equally clawless and toothless and it won’t do anything to challenge those who collude, bribe, and generally step out of line. By outsourcing these dubious activities — either to countries with weak regulations or to a peripheral agency — liability remains weak. It is essentially an exploitation of loopholes in the law and it’s everyone who suffers from it. I quite admire some nations’ regulations that ensure citizens remain well informed, but these nations are few and as media converges across nations (especially because of the Internet), signal gets lost in the noise, which is by far better funded (PR transcends advertising where there is disclosure).

I see sometimes authors who pretend to be FOSS users try to show how bad FOSS is, do you think that’s genuine experience or they are proxies to weaken FOSS?

I call this the “but troll” strategy or the “curious troll” strategy. The former is a tactic for pretending to like something before bashing it. Creationists use this strategy sometimes and so do politicians. Think along the lines of, “I like Linux and I tried Linux on my PC, but…”

These types of provocations cannot be reliably countered without knowing the background of the writers and their real agenda. To give one actual example, a few years back Microsoft sent some Microsoft reporter on an expedition to Brazil, whereupon she met a Gartner analyst (Bill Gates is one of the funders of Gartner and Microsoft one of its biggest client) who started giving her talking points against GNU/Linux, in order for her to publish those in CNET. This sort of strategy helped counter the huge growth of GNU/Linux in this massive country, boasting of the world’s largest populations. That is just one example among many. Based on my research I have been trying to teach people who is who and what agenda they really have (based on my reading of their many previous articles). It should be no surprise that Microsoft sends freebies like laptops to some people who leave comments favourable to Microsoft in widely-read sites like CNET and ZDNet. These too need to be named, even though they keep changing names (even genders) to evade bad reputation and gain credibility, at least temporarily.

There are couple of fan sites like OMGUbuntu which seem to miss the point why they exist. They endorse everything that is bad for the health of Free Software, what is your opinion about such sites?

OMGUbuntu is generally a decent site. Its target audience is people who are new to GNU/Linux and are usually young (which tends to repel some older people who frequent the site). I had some disagreement with the site when it gave a podium to people who promote Mono and also have an undisclosed vested interest in Mono’s success. Thankfully, Mono seems to be going the way of the dodo now.

Do you think there is an organized propaganda against Android tablets/Linux, where mainstream media acts as if Android tablets don’t even exist. [The other day I was watching an interview of Sean Parker with Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy did not even mention Android tablets. All he was talking about the iPad. He was smearing Android, arguing that even Droids have apps! ]

I am not familiar with those people, but I do know that several sources, such as the BBC, are far from objective and therefore they tend to mention Android only when it has bad news (in which case the BBC misreports it too). Needless to add, a few years ago many former Microsoft UK executives joined the BBC, which whether they intend to or not, will likely result in bias (tinted glasses vision). It is gratifying to see many pro-Android sites mushrooming, probably outnumbering or outweighing by now the impact of so-called Linux sites. Android can be viewed as complementary to Linux and it is freer than other Linux-based operating systems such as WebOS. The way to counter the Linux-hostile media is probably to outgrow it. It should be perfectly acceptable to criticise it as well. Through scrutiny the editors and author will get the message that they must straighten up their act and be more honest.

We do publish about non-free apps for Android, to keep users informed that Android as a platform has everything, or even more, than what iOS has. It conflicts with our philosophy of not promoting non-free applications. Desktop users do care as they chose Linux for freedom aspect Mobile users just want a good phone that works. But if we don’t write about such apps, we can’t convince people that Android is better than Apple. They are already bombarded by Apple’s propaganda machine. What is your opinion?

I have had a similar dilemma. About 3 years ago I was occasionally told by readers that I promoted proprietary software in my daily links postings (for example, an announcement of some proprietary package coming to Red Hat servers). Some people are more upset by this than others because it helps proprietary endeavours gain at the expense of free/libre counterparts (where the workable surrogate exists). So I created a subsection designated to “Proprietary”, where it is clearly indicated that the said package is non-free (as in not freedom-respecting).

What is your opinion about recent Firefox criticism, do you think it was exaggerated by Microsoft’s proxy bloggers? (I noticed de Icaza reposted a lot of threads against FF)

While the talking point about version numbers is based on valid concerns, it is being vastly exaggerated, often by those whose agenda is to promote Microsoft (i.e. IE). Chrome has been sticking with version bumps of 1.0 for several years and hardly anyone has complained. Numbers are there for marketing reasons nowadays, perhaps more often than not. Firefox 5 is mostly backward-compatible, so not even for plug-in developers — let alone enterprises — should the version number be much of a consideration or cause for doubt. I anticipate FUD about Linux going “3.0″ — FUD that has already begun and needed to be countered before it spread further. By ridiculing the lies early on we can suppress their continued spreading. Journalists prefer not to perpetuate claims that have already been debunked to death as it would make the journalists look foolish, gullible, or dishonest. In my humble assessment, the community has done fantastic work over the years addressing Linux myths, which forced the enemies of Linux to shift to a new FUD strategy, principally centred around software patents and their effect on Linux/Android.

Patents

How do you see the situation of Software Patents changing? Are the lobbyists winning?

They win some battles, but they have not won the war because software patents are only legal in a handful of countries. We need to ensure that our legislators understand who is lobbying for whose pocket and what the public opinion really is. It is similar when it comes to copyright law. There is a major disconnect between what the public wants and what the government actually implements, usually in order to align with foreign laws that mostly serve few super-wealthy corporations and their clients.

There are attempts to tame lobbyists by enforcing disclosures (lobbyists like to avoid questions about their clients to the extent that they can legally get away with it), but these are mostly futile because they are typically not obligatory, so the underworld of influence for sale will continue to thrive, unless we are willing to investigate and publicly expose the culprits. An exposed lobbyist is significantly weakened as no companies will wish to be associated with him/her.

When coming across a pro-software patents view, be sure to check if the source is in the business of patent law (patent trolls, patent lawyers etc.) or a large corporation with a vast arsenal of patents whose aim is to provide protectionism, i.e. impede competition. The lobbyists of these companies are harder to spot and they typically pretend to represent the opposition of who they really serve. Microsoft has those types of lobbyists in Europe, e.g. ones that pretend to represent small businesses while in fact pushing Microsoft’s agenda everywhere (while on Microsoft’s payroll). It’s the same tactic some big polluters and the tobacco industry use extensively.

What are the chances are that Google form an alliance along the lines of Open Handset Alliance — Android Patent Group (I hate the idea of patents at all so a bit conflict here) so that they can defend smaller player from getting exploited by Microsoft/Apple and also amass enough power to discourage any attack on Android community?

The strategy was attempted by OIN already. I am not a believer in OIN, whose main backers — just like those of the Linux Foundation — are also proponents of software patents (IBM and Intel for instance). Their work helps legitimise some software patents rather than eradicate the problem at its root. Peer to Patent suffers some similar problems. One must also bear in mind that patent pools cannot deter a patent troll, which while lacking any real products simply cannot be counter-sued. There is no deterrence there. The only long-term solution is elimination of software patents (preventing their spreading to other countries would help too), but this is a monumental task as companies worth trillions of dollars (aggregated value) are working against us all the time, sometimes behind the scenes. We must unionise, e.g. gathering the power of small businesses, and also consider exposing those who betray the public by representing multinationals/monopolists at taxpayers’ expense. Politicians, for instance, can be shamed out of outrageous stances by showing their voters the extent of betrayal. Many people already shy away from software patents and Mono (they are aware of the controversy), so this strategy is effective. One might say that public perception leads to self-censorship, but in this case the ‘censored’ opinion is one which mostly arrives from 1% (or less) of the population with the self-serving brainwash that they pay for dearly (they sure can afford to).

How do you see the Android eco-system? Some companies had to sign deals with MS for so-called Linux patents. What do you say about such deals? Where do you place Samsung one of the leaders of Android ecosystem, they had a deal with Microsoft in early days?

Yes, I called for a boycott of Samsung way back in 2007 when it was the first company of its kind to pay Microsoft for unsaid patents relating to Linux. Back then, people could choose between a lot of Linux-based phones, so putting Samsung in a mental blacklist (out of the list of consideration) would not be a major loss. Currently, Microsoft targets mostly tiny companies whose use of Android I did not know about. Microsoft is desperately trying to pave the way towards universal ‘Android tax’, which gigantic companies like Sony would not be so willing to pay. Microsoft got a bit of a shock when it tried suing Motorola for refusing to pay for Linux; Motorola, in response, sued the hell out of Microsoft and also threatened to have some of Microsoft’s products banned from the United States. Microsoft now faces the possibility of losing some of the patents it allegedly uses to shake down Android-using companies. Microsoft met a similarly-shocking opposition/antagonistic experience when it failed to extort Barnes & Noble. Instead, the documents (under NDA, albeit conditionally) got out of hand and they can now be used as evidence to prosecute Microsoft for racketeering, under the US RICO Act. Microsoft is treading in dangerous territories and its recent extortions are very symbolic, perhaps high in number but very low in terms of magnitude. I predict that many of the remaining Microsoft mangers will leave the company when they realise that they work for an aggressor, not a creator. Watch what happened to Unisys.

Since 2007 or thereabouts I have been tracking Microsoft quite closely. I kept track of products it axed (about 60 in just 2.5 years) and top managers who left (almost everyone but Mundie and Ballmer is gone). When Apple surpassed Microsoft in terms of market cap (IBM recently did too) I left Microsoft aside, but I do recognise the fact that it will remain a patent parasite for a good while to come. The writings were on the wall in 2006 when we sent out early warnings and encouraged people to abolish software patents.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the attacks on Linux/Android are evidence of a win. Google recently confirmed this by claiming to have gone past half a million Android device activations per day. Microsoft used to ignore and then just laugh at Linux. It really started to threaten Linux in June of 2007 and in 2009 it started attacking (suing), choosing TomTom as the first lawsuit target — yes, TomTom, which was already in financial trouble (and thus less inclined to sustain a fight in court). I am fairly convinced that Android will overcome the patent attacks from Microsoft, Apple, and some of the patent trolls (which are sometimes tied to those). But in order to defend the customer and keep Android free we must carry on fighting against software patents, which are morally and practically unjust. They also put in jeopardy the good work of GNU and the FSF.

Mono. We were concerned about Mono from the very beginning and opposed Canonical’s decision to make Banshee the default music player. Now Mono is in a limbo. Do you think communities like Banshee feel betrayed? Has mono betrayed all those Free Software developers who wasted their time in building on top of Mono? What future do you see of Mono?

Mono is a complicated subject. There are many facets to it. Referring to the aspects that you have just named, Novell is no more, the lead developer of Banshee left Novell (Banshee is still a Novell or Attachmate product), and Canonical remains with this Mono dependency which is spurious for practical as well as legal reasons. Canonical’s CTO, who is formally leaving the company right about now, once expressed his concerns about being dependent on Mono (Microsoft APIs). I have confidence in the Ubuntu community, which managed to keep Banshee away since 2009 when the Mono lobby promoted it for inclusion in Ubuntu by default. Only in 2011 did the lobby get its way, which is rather ironic because Novell and Mono got dissolved around the very same time and Banshee gave Canonical nothing but bad publicity at the same period of time, due to a dispute over revenue from music sales. Then we must remember that Banshee depends on libraries which Microsoft explicitly excluded from the Microsoft Community Promise, thus it is ripe for Microsoft litigation. A few years back, Robert Scoble, a former Microsoft evangelist, said: “I saw that internally inside Microsoft many times when I was told to stay away from supporting Mono in public. They reserve the right to sue” (source: Twitter)

What is your opinion about Oracle as an open source company? Do you think the contributions of the company are greater than the damage it has done to the FOSS world? Do you think Oracle is a friend or foe of FOSS community?

Oracle is a friend of Oracle. The company sure makes use of Free software to the extent that is helps the company sell proprietary software, its crown jewels. Oracle never cared so much about public perception among the Free software community, but it did foster some Free software efforts and also contributed in some ways prior to the Sun takeover. Personally, I am a little apathetic towards Oracle as I believe that chastising it too much without specificity may prove to be counter-productive to Free software interests. To simplify a bit, the damage it has done is two-fold: one is the attack on Java developers (by extension) and Android; another is the attack on Red Hat’s lifeline (RHEL support contracts). The latter has hardly worked to Oracle’s benefit and as for the former, we have yet to find out. █

Introduction:

As someone who deals with Puppet quite a lot at work, I had the great pleasure of speaking to longtime open source pundit James Turnbull, who recently co-authored his latest book “Pro Puppet” through Apress Media with colleague Jeffrey McCune of Puppet Labs. This is his fifth technical book about open source software. “Pro Puppet” is an in-depth book about how to install, use, and develop Puppet, the popular open source systems management platform used by organizations including Twitter, Rackspace, Digg, Genentech and more.

Q&A with James Turnbull

1. What in your estimation is the number of servers (including virtual instances) that run Puppet at any level of capacity?

A: This is a question that I ponder every few months. Our largest installation is around 50,000 nodes and we have several more at the 25,000 to 50,000 node range. Given the size of the community, I think we’ve quite easily reached the million plus node mark.

“Given the size of the community, I think we’ve quite easily reached the million plus node mark.”
      –James Turnbull2. Throughout your work on the book, have you had a chance to
measure/survey the operating systems on which Puppet is deployed? Have you any insight regarding the distribution of usage?

A: Puppet Labs did a survey earlier in the year and gathered some data about usage. Based on that and interactions with the community I think we can pretty comfortably say that our core operating systems are Linux-based with Red Hat (and derivatives) and Ubuntu/Debian being the biggest platforms. The next largest block is Solaris with a smaller number of OSX, *BSD, HP UX and pSeries/AIX systems also being represented.

3. There is a common perception that Free/Open Source software suffers from deficient documentation and lack of support (despite this being the business model of many companies). How do you challenge these types of allegations?

A: This is a common perception that regularly makes me laugh. I usually respond that all software has deficient documentation and lacks support! It’s true some open source tools lack documentation but others, for example MySQL, have exemplary documentation. Some open source software communities are hard to get help from and others fall over themselves to help people out. I’m always immensely proud of how the Puppet community, which is largely made up of some of the busiest people in IT – sysadmins, goes out of its way to help newcomers and share knowledge.

Of course this same problem is present across enterprise and commercial software. Otherwise authors wouldn’t be able to sell books offering insights into using commercial software. It’s even perhaps somewhat worse for enterprise software where submitting a bug request can lack transparency and where examples of how others have solved issues can be hard to find or perceived as proprietary information.

4. How can your book address or assist a crowd of people with no prior knowledge of UNIX/Linux and how can it assist those who are familiar with everything but Puppet?

A: Pro Puppet is aimed at users with some Linux/Unix knowledge, albeit at a fairly basic level — a few friends and I created an earlier book called Pro Linux System Administration designed to teach someone with zero Linux knowledge how to be a Linux sysadmin. Pro Puppet is aimed at junior and mid-level sysadmins looking to get started with Puppet and take them through to advanced topics like scaling and extending Puppet.

5. What impact do you foresee the licensing changes from the GPL to the Apache licence as having?

A: Both the GPL and Apache licenses are free and open source licenses and we’re very much staying true to our open source roots. However where we are with Puppet now we need a license that people, for whatever reasons, consider easier to integrate with. In the open source world that license is Apache and we’re already starting to see Puppet being used heavily as an integrated tools in Cloud and Infrastructure/Platform as a service (IAAS, PAAS) offerings as a result.

6. Manual operators of Puppet seem to rely mostly on the initial setup. What proportion of the work would you say a Puppet expert needs to invest in setting up the software compared to the overall lifetime of a box and its operation?

A: With Puppet, the large proportion of the work you need to do to get started is up front. Once you’ve done that work setting up new boxes becomes a routine and easy task. Maintaining and managing them is also fast and simple. Indeed, one of the benefits of Puppet is that not only do you get fast and automated setup, but you can make sure they stay the way you configured them for as long as you need. That ability to stem the tide of configuration drift and limit the potential for human error and entropy causing issues is an enormous timesaver.

7. What is the most eccentric/fascinating/uncommon use of Puppet that you have come across?

A: One that fascinated me recently is the Deutsche Flugsicherung, the German air traffic control network, who use Puppet to ensure all the operator workstations and tower servers are up to date. They have a very strict and structured work flow and an interesting deployment model where any configuration drift is anathema. I also find Air Traffic Control really interesting (I’m a geek it’s true) so it was pretty exciting to see Puppet being used in such an interesting arena.

8. Puppet functionality lags behind in platforms such as Windows. What would you advise organisations that choose to run it on this platform?

A: We’re actively working on Microsoft Windows support but we’re not there yet. What we’d love to see is people telling us what they need. I’m not primarily a Windows guy so I actually don’t know what the pain points are for Windows sysadmins. If a few of them could tell us “If you automated these 4, 5, 10 things that would make my job easier!” then that would help us structure that future support.

9. How does Puppet compare to its proprietary counterparts?

A: I think the key difference is time to value or as I prefer “how long before I’m doing something useful”. Often when you install one of the larger proprietary tools it can take significant time and people to deliver value or to get things done. We find people can download Puppet, install it and be doing something useful in a matter of minutes or an hour rather than months.

“One of the new features in Puppet 2.6.0 though was a Ruby DSL for Puppet. This allows any developer (and sysadmins too) to write their Puppet manifests in Ruby.”
      –James Turnbull10. If one receives proper training or learns from your book, how would the difficulty of using Puppet compare to the difficulty of using other products that are out in the market?

A: I think Puppet is pretty easy to use (but I’m also biased!). It does have rough edges and things that are hard to get your head around though. One thing I think we do really well in the book is build on knowledge. You can start simple and grow into the more complex topics. I think having that sort of resource makes it really easy for people to learn how to use Puppet. The other resource I’m really excited about is a new section in the documentation called Learning Puppet (http://docs.puppetlabs.com/learning/) that offers a similar “grow into using it” experience.

I think as a result of having the book plus documentation and training available that makes Puppet a lot less difficult to understand than some of the alternatives out there.

11. How would you say the Puppet learning curve compares if a programmer and non-programmer were both faced with the task of learning it?

A: I recently came to the conclusion that I now spend more time cutting code than I do being a sysadmin which is a big change in my life. As a result I’ve been thinking about how both groups approach learning and problems. I think for a lot of sysadmins Puppet is very easy to engage with. Puppet’s language is a logical extension for people use to dealing with configuration files and scripts.

For developers that’s perhaps not as natural a progression and some have struggled in the past with learning Puppet. One of the new features in Puppet 2.6.0 though was a Ruby DSL for Puppet. This allows any developer (and sysadmins too) to write their Puppet manifests in Ruby. This approach is something that may make more sense and make it easier for developers to learn Puppet.

As a result of this Ruby interface (which we cover in the book too) I think the learning curve for both non-developers and developers is rapidly approaching parity.

Conclusion:

We would like to thank James for being available for this interchange of insights and we hope his literature will spread Puppet to more and more companies, aiding the spread of Free/open source in systems management. Puppet sure helps the company that I work for. █

(ODF | PDF | English/original)

Summario del Articulo: entrevista a Techrights en diciembre 2010 de la revista Linux Format

PARA AQUELLOS que no lograrón comprar la edición de diciembre de Linux Format, hay una entrevista a mí no, como se señaló hace unos meses[http://techrights.org/2010/10/18/linux-format-coverage/]. He aquí el texto en bruto como es de esperar, explica un poco más sobre Techrights y su servidor.

* ¿Cómo te involucraste en Open Source?

Me hice consciente por primera vez de UNIX y Linux en algún tiempo en los años 90, cuando algunos amigos de la escuela lo utilizaban experimentalmente. En las clases de ciencias de la computación (mis mayores) había muchos de nosotros los geeks. No fue sino hasta hace diez años que me introducieron a Red Hat y se convirtí en un usuario de inmediato. Me encantarón muchas cosas al respecto. En 2001 estaba escribiendo y compartiendo todos mis programas como software libre y en 2002 conseguí un trabajo en el que escribía el código con la Licencia Pública General, GPL (en su mayoría programas basados en GTK). Esto entonces me introdujó a GNU y pronto aprendí más sobre su filosofía asociada. En ese momento yo no estaba usando el término “código abierto”, aunque era consciente de la palabra. No fue hasta mucho más tarde (alrededor de 2005)cuando me di cuenta de que el término debe ser utilizado con el fin de armonizar mejor con la gran prensa, que tienden a caracterizar como “Open Source” el código que todo el mundo comparte de esta manera. Para mí, el intercambio de código fue siempre natural y nunca escribí ningún software propietario en toda mi vida. No tengo la intención de hacerlo, tampoco. Es posible ser pagado por escribir código para que tu conserves todos los derechos sensibles. Es más gratificante y motivador, no sólo beneficioso para los compañeros. No hay sensación mejor que ayudar a aquellos que te ayudan. Este período de mi vida también me hizo participar como colaborador en varios proyectos libres y proyectos de código abierto, en particular, WordPress que he usado mucho.

En los casos en que el código de mis colegas no eran realmente licenciados (sólo con derechos de autor, naturalmente), trató de fomentar el intercambio de código porque como científico sé que nuestro trabajo conjunto tendría un mayor impacto si se ha adoptado y utilizado por otros. Por lo tanto, mi participación en “Open Source” era más que sobre el código, una forma de vida y yo todavía trato de promover los principios de software libre/código abierto en el contexto de los datos, del hardware, de la literatura, y las ciencias en general . La transparencia no es la ventaja clave en mis ojos, es más que ver con la promoción de la abundancia en vez de la escasez en que las limitaciones en el acceso sólo son artificiales. Restricciones que potencian mas a los que ya están en el poder y no tiene por qué ser de esa manera, sobre todo, no en el mundo digital.

* ¿Qué es TechRights?

TechRights es una plataforma en la que se expresan una cadena de ideas, prestandonos de los establecimientos influyentes e importantes como la Fundacón del Software Libre FSF sin embargo, actuando con absoluta independencia (no hay fuentes de financiación y por lo tanto no hay autocensura o prejuicio). TechRights puede considerarse como un complemento a algunos grupos, pero cualquier similitud tal es sólo la percepción como nunca hubo ninguna afiliación. TechRights tiene 3 nombres de dominio y una serie de actividades/componentes, tales como un blog, un wiki, y tres canales de comunicación en tiempo real (IRC), divididos por temas. Hace varios meses también hemos añadido las distinciones basadas en ángulo, clasificados bajo las banderas llamado “TechRights”, “TechWrongs”, y “TechChoices”. El enfoque del sitio es Novell, Microsoft, e incluso a veces Apple no porque son la única amenaza a las libertades de las personas y los derechos digitales, en el campo del software éstas son las áreas en las que tienen mayor interés, antes de material de apoyo, y la experiencia.

* ¿Cuál es la historia de TechRights?

TechRights es el nombre del sitio propuesto por Tracy, el que nos aloja el sitio Web. Necesitábamos un nombre nuevo al alcance del sitio se había expandido. Fue hace mucho tiempo. Esperamos que para invertir la connotación de la palabra “derechos”, que es cada vez más secuestrada por aquellos que se apropian de los derechos de las personas.

* TechRights se llamaba Boicot Novell, ¿por qué el cambio de nombre?

Sí, “Boycott Novell” fue creada por Shane pocos días después de Novell y Microsoft habían firmado su problemático acuerdo de patentes . El sitio se esperaba tenga un estrecho enfoque y tratamos precisamente este aspecto uno de los problemas que el software libre estaba teniendo. Según recuerdo, “Boicot Novell” era en realidad un nombre de categoría en el blog personal y técnica de Shane, pero se convirtió en su propio nombre de dominio y muchas personas muy pronto se subscribieron al sitio. Como sus lectores creció, la gama de temas fue ampliada. En el momento de unirse al sitio – muy poco después de su creación – Yo estaba trabajando en mi doctorado tesis y tenía un montón de tiempo libre que yo solía escribir un gran número de puestos para el sitio. Por el momento tenemos alrededor de 11.000 entradas del blog, un poco más de un centenar de megabytes de los registros de IRC, y varias otras páginas que ha editado activamente por la comunidad. Esperamos que la cantidad no ha comprometido la calidad.

* ¿Todavía siento que todos debemos Boicotear a Novell?

No estoy en condiciones de decirle a la gente lo qué va hacer, pero les aconsejo que la gente piense cuidadosamente acerca de las tácticas de venta de Novell *SLE (SUSE Linux Enterprise) con las patentes de software. Novell ha intentado cambiar las reglas al IMPONER a GNU/Linux, UNA RESTRICCION que no existía previamente. Novell se acerco a Microsoft y negocio por cerca de medio año lo que más tarde se convirtió en un acuerdo de patentes. Esto puso a Novell en una posición de percibida ventaja sobre Red Hat y otros. Desde entonces, Novell ha instado a las empresas a comprar SuSE basado en las patentes de software de Novell (Novell eufemísticamente llama “la tranquilidad de PAZ DE PROPIEDAD INTELECTUAL”), el cual Novell convirtió en un punto de venta en este campo de batalla donde las patentes de software son antitéticos.

El nombre de “Boicot Novell” nunca fue mi idea y siempre he sentido cierta inquietud acerca del nombre (que sonaba demasiado negativo y el 80% de mi impresiones fueron positivas), pero sí animo a la gente a votar con sus carteras y recompensar a las compañías que no están utilizando las patentes de software para vender sus productos. Para GNU/Linux que el mercado prosperen y que para las nuevas empresas que se derivan o sagan de ella, las patentes de software tendrá que ser detenidas. Novell no es única en ese sentido y TechRights intenta hacer frente a los problemas, no sólo a los jugadores individuales.

* TechRights ha sido un lugar controvertido, ¿cuál es su opinión sobre la controversia?

Cada persona o plataforma que se atreve a tocar temas delicados está destinado a ser etiquetados como “controvertido” o ser caracterizado como “irracionales” por sus adversarios. Esto es especialmente cierto cuando uno se aparta de los debates puramente técnico. Con los años hemos tenido personas que distorsionan o tergiversan nuestras opiniones, que son más difíciles de controlar o manejar cuando se trabaja dentro de un marco de participación de muchas personas o cuando la gente propaga falsos rumores (desinformación) desde el exterior. Por ejemplo, algunas personas empezaron a asociar el puntos vista formal del sitio con la gente que acaba de dejar comentarios en él, o entrar en el canal de IRC. Algunas personas erróneamente suponían que una protesta en la India – va bajo el lema “Boicot Novell” – fue de alguna manera organizada por el sitio Web.

Lo que encontramos alentador, es aunque que cuando la gente viene a hablar con nosotros directamente pronto se dan cuenta que somos gente decente y los estereotipos/caricaturas que a veces flotan por ahí son sólo demonizaciones diseñado para marginar a nuestros puntos de vista. Es evidente que hay algunas empresas por ahí que no está contento con nuestro trabajo. Pero la verdad duele a veces. Dado que estamos abiertos a comentarios, las empresas tienen la oportunidad de impugnar todas las demandas, no a traves de ataques ad hominem, sino de un debate racional. Ya hemos tenido anónimos empleados de Novell tirando barro a los mensajeros en el sitio y desde fuera del sitio. Por lo general, se exponen al final y luego se desvanecen.

* ¿Qué cambios le gustaría ver que suceda en el Open Source para aliviar algunas de sus preocupaciones?

Hay muchas cuestiones que deben corregir y por permanecer pasivos nunca nada va a mejorar, sino sólo va a empeorar. Una de las áreas en las que participamos activamente es la terminación de las patentes de software, que deben ser eliminados, incluso en el mundo Open Source (IBM, por ejemplo, deberían replantearse su política de patentes porque estan a favor de las patentes de software). El Open Source y la comunidad de software libre debe estar abiertos a la crítica desde dentro, incluso si esta crítica es un poco incómodo a veces. El objetivo final es permitir que más usuarios y desarrolladores, que con el tiempo parecen ser cada vez más draconianamente capturados por las entidades centralizadas, como tiendas de aplicaciones que censuran, los llamadas “nubes” que se gestionan desde lejos, y licencias restrictivas que ratificar y consolidar DRM -Digital Restrictions Management , matan a los aparatos, y invasiones y violaciónes a la vida privada de las personas.

* ¿Cuáles cree que es el futuro de TechRights?

TechRights es una plataforma que está en manos de muchas personas y si ayuda a los asuntos de fuera vista diferente, entonces sabemos que hicimos nuestra parte. La mayor parte de la actividad se lleva a cabo en el IRC, así que mientras nuestra comunidad conduce el programa en determinadas direcciones, que será el futuro de la plataforma.

En el futuro esperamos mantener los recursos de información por escrito en un idioma que es más defensiva que ofensiva. Cuando se trata de temas difíciles, donde los detractores de la libertad se maliciosamente activos, existe la tentación de perder la compostura. El objetivo final es educar más, menos de hacer campaña. Nosotros no organizamos campañas de difusión, pero a veces los memes cómicas que ayudan a advertir sobre los peligros de la etiqueta con el fin de crear conciencia. Por ejemplo, podemos escribir constantemente “Vista 7″, “Niebla de Informática”, y “hypePad”, todos los cuales son términos diseñados para transmitir las desventajas reales de las últimas amenazas a la libertad de software.

Si la gente tiene ideas que se quieren promover o problemas que quieren que se traten, son bienvenidos y alentó incluso, para que puedan entrar y conocer a nuestra comunidad, preferentemente en el IRC. Muchos de nuestros artículos de divulgación fueron posibles gracias a filtraciones de información (los denunciantes anónimos), que arrojan luz sobre actos ilícitos que habían presenciado. Si no hubiera sido por todas estas aportaciones, TechRights no estaría aquí. La plataforma es cada vez más crowdsourced en su mayor parte, lo que hace más eficaz y precisa. █

[Many thanks to Eduardo for his translation.]

Summary: Techrights interview from the December 2010 issue of Linux Format Magazine

FOR THOSE who did not managed to buy December’s issue of Linux Format, there’s an interview with me there, as noted some months ago. Here is the raw text which hopefully explains a little more about Techrights and yours truly.

* How did you get involved in Open Source?

I was first made aware of UNIX and Linux some time in the 90s when few friends from school used them experimentally. In computer science classes (my majors) there were many of us geeks. It wasn’t until ten years ago that I got introduced to Red Hat and became a user immediately. I loved so many things about it. In 2001 I was writing and sharing all my programs as Free software and in 2002 I got a job where I wrote GPL-licensed code (mostly GTK based). This then introduced me to GNU and I soon learned more about the associated philosophy. At the time I was not using the term “Open Source” although I was aware of the term. It wasn’t until much later (around 2005) that I realised the term ought to be used in order to better align with the mainstream press, which tended to characterise as “Open Source” code that everyone shared in this way. To me, sharing of code was always natural and I never wrote any proprietary software in my entire life. I don’t intend to, either. It is possible to get paid to write code to which you retain all sensible rights. It’s more rewarding and motivational, not just beneficial to one’s peers. There is no better feeling than to help those who help you. This period of my life also got me involved as a contributor in several Free/Open Source projects, notably WordPress which I used a lot.

In cases where colleagues’ code was not truly licensed (just copyrighted, naturally), I did try to encourage the sharing of code because as a scientist I knew that our joint work would have greater impact if it was adopted and used by others. Thus, my involvement in “Open Source” was more than about code; it was a way of life and I still try to advance the principles of Free software/Open Source in the context of data, literature, hardware, and the sciences in general. Transparency is not the key advantage in my eyes; it is more to do with promoting abundance rather than scarcity where limitations on access are only artificial. Restrictions empower those already in power and it doesn’t have to be that way, especially not in the digital world.

* What is TechRights?

TechRights is a platform where a strand of ideas are expressed, borrowing from influential and important establishments like the Free Software Foundation yet acting completely independently (there are no sources of funding and thus no self censorship or bias). TechRights can be seen as complementary to some groups, but any such similarity is only perceptual as there was never any affiliation. TechRights has 3 domain names and several activities/components, such as a blog, a wiki, and three real-time communication channels (IRC) divided by topics. Several months ago we also added angle-based distinctions, categorised under the banners named “TechRights”, “TechWrongs”, and “TechChoices”. The site’s focus is Novell, Microsoft, and sometimes even Apple not because they are the sole threat to people’s freedoms and digital rights; in the field of software these are the areas where we have greater interest, prior supportive material, and expertise.

* What is the history of TechRights?

TechRights is the site name proposed by Tracy, the guy who is hosting the Web site. We needed a new name when the site’s scope had expanded. It was long overdue. We hope to invert the connotation of the word “rights”, which is increasingly being hijacked by those who take people’s rights away.

* TechRights used to be called Boycott Novell, why the name change?

Yes, “Boycott Novell” was created by Shane just days after Novell and Microsoft had signed their problematic patent deal. The site was expected to have narrow focus and deal with just this one aspect of the problem Free software was having. As I recall it, “Boycott Novell” was actually a category name in Shane’s personal/technical blog, but it became its own domain name and soon enough many people subscribed to the site. As readership grew, the range of topics expanded. At the time of joining the site — very shortly after its inception — I was working on my Ph.D. thesis and I had a lot of spare time which I used to write a large number of posts for the site. At the moment we have about 11,000 blog posts, just over a hundred megabytes of IRC logs, and various other pages that are actively edited by the community. We hope that quantity has not compromised quality.

* Do you still feel we should all Boycott Novell?

I am not in a position to tell people what to do, but I advise people to think carefully about Novell’s tactics of selling SLE* (SUSE Linux Enterprise) using software patents. Novell has attempted to change the rules by imposing on GNU/Linux a restriction that never existed beforehand. Novell came to Microsoft and negotiated for about half a year what later became a patent deal. This put Novell in a position of perceived advantage over Red Hat et al. Since then, Novell has been urging businesses to buy SUSE based on Novell’s software patents (Novell euphemistically calls it “IP peace of mind”), which Novell turned into a selling point in this battlefield where software patents are antithetical.

The name “Boycott Novell” was never my idea and I have always felt some unease about the name (it sounded too negative and about 80% of my output was positive), but I do encourage people to vote with their wallets and reward companies that are not using software patents to sell their products. For the GNU/Linux market to thrive and for new businesses to be derived or emerge from it, software patents will need to be stopped. Novell is not unique in that regard and TechRights attempts to deal with the issues, not just individual players.

* TechRights has been a controversial site, what is your take on the controversy?

Every person or platform that dares to touch sensitive subjects is bound to be labelled “controversial” or be characterised as “irrational” by its adversaries. This is especially true when one departs from purely technical debates. Over the years we have had people distort or misrepresent our views, which are harder to control or manage when one works within a framework involving many people or when people spread false rumours (disinformation) from the outside. For instance, some people began to associate the site’s formal views with people who just leave comments in it or enter the IRC channel. Some people wrongly assumed that a protest in India — going under the banner “Boycott Novell” — was in some way organised by the Web site.

What we find encouraging though is that when people come and speak to us directly they soon realise that we are decent people and the stereotypes/caricatures that sometimes float out there are just daemonisations designed to marginalise our views. There are clearly some companies out there which are unhappy with our work. Truth hurts sometimes. Since we are open to feedback, companies have an opportunity to challenge every claim, not by ad hominem attacks but by rational debate. We have already had anonymous Novell employees smearing messengers from within the site and from outside the site. They usually get exposed at the end and then they vanish.

* What changes would you like to see happen in Open Source to alleviate some of your concerns?

There are many issues that need correcting and by staying passive nothing will ever improve, it will only get worse. One of the areas we are active in the ending of software patents, which need to be eliminated even in the Open Source world (IBM, for example, ought to rethink its patent policy because it’s pro-software patents). The Open Source/Free software community ought to be open to criticism from within, even if this criticism is somewhat discomforting at times. The ultimate goal is to further enable users and developers, who over time seem to be increasingly captured by draconian/centralised entities like application stores that censor, so-called ‘clouds’ which are managed from afar, and restrictive licences that ratify and solidify DRM, kill switches and violations of privacy.

* What do you see as the future for TechRights?

TechRights is a platform which is in many people’s hands and if it helps outsiders view matters differently, then we know we did our part. Most of the activity takes place in IRC, so as long as our community drives the agenda in particular directions, that will be the future of the platform.

In the future we hope to maintain information resources written in a language which is more defensive than offensive. When dealing with difficult subjects where detractors of freedom become maliciously active, it is tempting to lose one’s composure. The ultimate goal is to educate less than to campaign. We don’t organise campaigns but we sometimes spread comical memes that help warn about dangers which we label in order to raise awareness. For example, we consistently write “Vista 7″, “Fog Computing”, and “hypePad”, all of which are terms designed to convey the real downsides of those latest threats to software freedom.

If people have ideas which they want to promote or problems that they want to see addressed, they are most welcome and even encouraged, so they can come and meet our community, preferably in IRC. A lot of our popular articles were made possible by leakers of information (anonymised whistleblowers), who shed light on wrongdoings they had witnessed. Had it not been for all these contributions, TechRights would not be around. The platform is increasingly crowdsourced for the most part, which makes it more effective and accurate. █

YESTERDAY night we showed that ITNews unfairly accused Dr. Stallman of “crashing” an event (as in “Stallman crashes European Patent session”). Liz Tay has just posted a more polite article/headline which contains evidence of what the so-called ‘crashing’ was (in video form) and also the following interview with Stallman.

Thanks to ITNews for making the effort producing an Ogg version. Here is the remainder of their videos.

Techrights attempts to make everything available as Ogg and often it’s a compromise in the sense that there are interesting videos that cannot be shared. █

BILL GATES does not like to be asked hard questions. At least once he abandoned an interview in the middle because he was asked a hard question (he probably bailed out of others before they could take place because his PR agents, e.g. Waggener Edstrom from Microsoft and the Gates Foundation, is known to be compiling dossiers on reporters to determine if communication with them is ‘safe’).

Essentially, Gates is using PR people to ensure in advance it’s just a few softball questions he will get, trying to control what the interviews (public appearances) ever cover. To quote from “Barbarians Led by Bill Gates”, a book composed by Pam Edstrom’s (of Waggener Edstrom) daughter:

By May of 1994, Gates’s patience was growing so thin that not even a public relations pro like Pam Edstrom could muzzle him.
On May 19, one of Edstrom’s biggest nightmares unfolded on national television. Gates had agreed to be interviewed by CBS’s Eye to Eye host Connie Chung. Chung said she wouldn’t ask Gates sensitive questions, particularly ones regarding the current Justice Department investigation. With that, “Gates’s keeper” swung open
the doors.
Gates was patient and accommodating during the interview, even when Chung asked him to jump over a chair from a standing position, a skill he demonstrated at various times, including once during COMDEX at the Shark’s Club in Las Vegas in front of a packed crowd of admirers and computer junkies. So, once again, Gates complied, successfully jumping over a chair for the camera crew and their network TV audience.
But by then Connie and company had outstayed their welcome. Gates turned to Edstrom.
“Is this five minutes up? Pam, I mean, do you know five minutes?” he drilled.
Edstrom replied with a simple yes, but Chung continued with her questioning, drifting further and further off limits. She asked about his wife, Melinda. Then she brought up the STAC lawsuit.
In early 1993, STAC Electronics, which made data compression software, had sued Microsoft for patent violation, claiming Microsoft had used these patents in DOS 6.0. STAC said Microsoft had been in negotiations to license “Stacker,” but talks disintegrated when Microsoft refused to pay the royalties STAC wanted. It was one of the only lawsuits Microsoft ever lost for patent infringement.
In preparation for her interview, Chung had talked to the CEO of STAC, Gary Clow, as well as other Gates rivals. She quoted a Clow comment to Gates on the air.
“A lot of people make that analogy that competing with Bill Gates is like playing hardball,” she had Clow saying. “I’d say it’s more like a knife fight.”
“I’ve never heard any of these things,” Gates said. “You know, you’re saying like a knife fight. That’s silliness. It’s—childish. I mean, why be a mouthpiece for that kind of—of silliness? Why doesn’t he just—just say them—anyway, it—because it has nothing to do with the patent lawsuit. It has to do with just, you know, creating a—you know, sort of a David versus Goliath thing out of it. Well, I’m done.”
And with that, Gates walked off the set.
“Can I just ask you one more question, Bill?” Chung said. His voice trailed off into the distance, “No, I don’t think so.” It wasn’t much later that Chung left CBS, and many people wondered if Gates had had something to do with it.

He chickened out. Now, watch the following new video, which somebody titled “Bill Gates Wants Death Panels: Dying People VS Teachers”

There are many comments here, such as the insinuation that Gates said: “SAVE A LIFE, FIRE A TEACHER”

And this is the person some people feel comfortable putting on top of the educating system? █

Summary: Novell’s proprietary business assets and what they have been up to in the past week

NOVELL news coverage has recently been overwhelmed by the big bid [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Novell’s PR team has been very active despite all of this and it hardly even mentioned the bid, instead choosing to focus on fluff like SaaS and a survey that Novell was conducting itself in order to support its position, apparently.

Interestingly enough, Novell recently conducted a survey of its customers and discovered that 43% of them would be more inclined to consider and purchase an SaaS offering if it included just such a solution.

Pulse

Will Novell’s Pulse be more connected to Wave than anyone has anticipated? Maybe.

Do the Wave: Rasmussen Dishes on Google’s New Collaboration Tool

[...]

What kind of other companies do you envision becoming Wave providers?

Rasmussen: For example, Novell (News – Alert). They have product coming up [in 2010] called Pulse, which they describe as an enterprise social network-type product. And they announced, and we’re working pretty hard with them, that they will support Wave. So when you’re insidePulse ( News – Alert) you can start a Wave inside Pulse using Novell technology.

If I’m a Google user, you can add me to that Wave, and we can Wave together even though you’re using Novell’s product and I’m using Google’s product.

At the same time, Google challenges GroupWise and costing Novell a lot of money. Novell’s PR team is promoting the following new video (one of a series of two so far) about Pulse.

Misc.

The ballot which Microsoft uses to pretend [1, 2, 3, 4] that there is choice in the market (as long as Internet Explorer remains installed) gets Novell mentioned in IDG. Novell used to actually stand up for what’s right and not be so supine.

Well, it’s the direct result of a long-standing legal dilemma between Microsoft and the European Union. The whole issue began in 1993, brought on through a complaint by Novell that Microsoft’s licensing arrangements with computer manufacturers violated Europe’s competition rules.

Can Novell thrive by being a jack of all trades? That’s the question this person asks.

One IT vendor that faces such a problem is Novell. It once had a clear market-leading position – in the 1980s and early 1990s Novell’s NetWare network operating system was the network operating system of choice for sharing files among workgroups. The ascendancy of Windows, Linux, the IP protocol, among other things, led to a fall in demand for NetWare and left Novell seeking a new identity.

Hungary still considers buying from Novell, which makes the following predictions.

Software distributor Novell projects 5%-10% revenue growth in 2010 in Hungary even though it sees the Hungarian IT market expanding only modestly during the year.

Can Hungary press on with a company other than Microsoft and Novell now that standards are required?

Finance

Mentioned some weeks ago was Ron Hovsepian's ridiculous bonus, which takes up a lot of the revenue of this ~3,900-person company. IDG has this to say on the subject:

Novell president and CEO Ron Hovsepian’s total compensation fell 17% in 2009, amid declining annual revenue and a wider net loss.

Hovsepian received compensation in fiscal 2009 valued at $5.7 million, compared to $6.9 million in 2008, according to documents filed late last week with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

People concentrate on the relative decline, but not on the absolute value. What did Hovsepian actually do which makes him deserving of this “compensation” (euphemism for bonus)?

In other financial news we have:

• Novell Zenwork Asset Management Renewal

• U.S. Stocks Rise as Jobs Report, Takeovers Lift Confidence

• ETF Preview: Mixed Early Action for Broad Funds; Novell Offer Could Lift Tech

• The S&P 500′s Biggest Movers

• Notable Biggest S&P Stock gainers (Sprint, YUM, SWN, NOVL, WYNN, NVDA, ODP)

• Interesting Options Volume for Novell Inc (NOVL)

Networks

An anonymous writer recalls “cleaning up after a networking vendor’s bad behavior”. Novell is mentioned right at the start.

Back in the late ’80s, I worked for a group specializing in Novell networks. Sharing network resources among PCs was a new and upcoming field, and the Novell operating system was quickly turning into the standard among small businesses. We had a prospective new client in an upscale community: a law firm that wanted to replace its current vendor and its network.

Virtualisation

This new article from David Strom quotes Novell on the subject of virtualisation.

“If you lose one of these servers entirely, you could have a problem, particularly since on average, eight or more VMs are typically running on a single box,” says Carl Drisko, a Novell executive who specializes in virtualization.

Novell has this new video promoting Intelligent Workload Management on YouTube and the state of XenApp for Windows 2008 is also worth mentioning.

Mail

Novell’s GroupWise is included in the list of products which CompanionLink supports and in YouTube there is a new video featuring bits from GroupWise.

People

Novell’s CTO becomes the W3C's CEO and this is covered in many more places [1, 2, 3] including the in-print media.

Filling a position left open since 2008, former Novell CTO Jeffrey Jaffe has taken on the role of chief executive officer for the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium).

Here is Jaffe’s first post at the W3C blogs. Can he be trusted?

Additionally, there’s this person being appointed:

Before that he spent five years running his own Australian-based consultancy specialising in IT security, VoIP services and training. Stevens is also a certified Cisco instructor, a certified Novell engineer, and a qualified Microsoft trainer.

Partners

Novell makes some more links around India.

Novell today announced that the Novell India Partner Academy, a training programme exclusively developed for Novell’s partners to assist them in selling, distributing and supporting Novell’s suite of enterprise IT solutions and held for the first time in Colombo, was a major success. Novell partners graduating from the training will be able to provide pre-sales consulting and professional services in addition to post-sales support and training to their own customers.

There is also this:

The IDenium server integrates into Microsoft AD, Novell eDirectory and Citrix, providing great flexibility in deployment and user management.

Novell gets mentioned in a couple of press releases [1, 2] and an article about Utah.

Marketing

Novell is promoting Identity Management with “guest blogs” [1, 2] and security problems are found too (but hardly mentioned anywhere).

The following new videos were created/uploaded by Novell some days ago:

• SAP vs Unity: Reports
• SAP vs Unity: BopIt
• SAP vs Unity: Hold Please
• SAP vs Unity: Home Junction

It is believed that SAP might buy Novell or just parts of Novell. █

Summary: News touching on Novell’s non-Free/libre component of the business

THIS is the third part which covers Novell news from the first two weeks of February. This part covers Novell’s proprietary side, of which there is a lot (Novell is predominantly a closed-source company). What we happen to have found along the way this week is that Novell is not just a company that makes jewelry; there is yet another company called Novell Pharmaceutical Laboratories. Here is what we gather from the press release:

Company Report is a private Company Report that provides up to date insight into the structure and operations of privately-held pharmaceutical, biotechnology and biomedical companies.

Well, Novell is many other things. There are at least two more companies with the name Novell and it is also a surname (often mentioned in the case of murder, martial arts, and basketball).

Anyway, let’s move on to the news.

Novell’s CMO John Dragoon asks himself whether Twitter is the next CB Radio. With new products like Pulse, Novell is trying to ride tomorrow’s wave, so far without success. Here is a fairly new article which covers Wave and mentions Novell.

Since then the firm’s wonks have been working on extension ideas for the tool, and reminding anyone that might want to listen that the likes of Novell and Salesforce.com have also been happily toying with it.

Here is another news article that recalls Novell’s affair with Lotus. This contains religious elements for some reason:

Novell wanted to take over Lotus but the deal fell through in New York City when the Lotus atheists had a wee bit too much to drink and the Mormon Novell folk pulled the plug on the deal. Lotus was always going to be the kind of company IBM – originally a Quaker company – would buy.

“Mormon Novell folk,” eh? Well, anyway, here is some more news from Utah.

SCO

Groklaw seems to be the only site that looks at the SCO-Novell case. The latest sample of articles actually happens to show the relationship between SCO and Maureen O’Gara. Here is a key part:

SCO’s materials on its website are not really what I expect them to bring up at trial, by the way. Paul Murphy, for example, isn’t likely to be used any further than on that list, I would think. SCO calls him an analyst. And even the witness list isn’t for sure. For example, while Maureen O’Gara is listed still on SCO’s witness list, I can’t imagine what usefulness she has now that the court has just ruled that a decline in stock value isn’t special damages SCO can claim. But with SCO, who knows? It’s a very small group of willing helpers now.

Other coverage of the SCO case includes:

• Two More Bills From Pachulski Stang – Still no MORs – Updated: Ocean Park’s 3rd Bill

• Novell Asks For Extension to File with Supreme Court & Judge Stewart Issues Trial Order – Updated

Novell has filed a second request for an extension of time to file its appeal with the US Supreme Court. It would like until March 4th.

• Novell Motion in Limine No. 1 – Let’s All Live by the Mandate Rule, Shall We?

Novell has filed its first motion in limine [PDF], the full title of which is Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Concerning Claims Not Included in SCO’s Appeal or the Tenth Circuit’s Limited Mandate. It’s making me chuckle.

• A Blizzard of Motions in Limine in SCO v. Novell – Updated – SCO’s as text (many texts here)

More texts in:

• Novell’s Motions in Limine, as text, #s 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 – Slander of Title Motions

• Novell’s Motions in Limine – to Exclude Testimony, #s 12-19

• Novell’s Motions in Limine #s 9, 10, 11, as text – RE: SVRX Licenses, Substantial Performance, Arbitration

• SCO’s Opposition to Novell’s Motion in Limine No. 1: Hey! No Fair, You Guys!

SCO has filed its response to Novell’s Motion in Limine No. 1. And Novell has added another lawyer to the team, Daniel P. Muino.

SCO’s opposition in essence says, “No fair, Novell! We appealed the copyright ownership issue, and the slander of title is sort of related, and so that should be enough.”

Here’s what I don’t see SCO saying: “We *did* appeal the slander of title decision.”

Finance

In less than two weeks from now, Novell will deliver its financial results. It comes on February 25^th:

Novell, Inc. (Nasdaq: NOVL) today announced it will issue a press release providing its first fiscal quarter 2010 financial results on Thursday, February 25, 2010, following the market close.

It was over $200,000,000 in losses the last time, under rather exceptional circumstances

Other financial coverage of Novell (fairly minor) includes:

• Unusual Options Activity Review – SCSS, NOVL, CY, CPB, OSG, FLO, ELX, PNRA, VIX, XLU

Bullish trading was also seen in Novell (NOVL), Cypress Semiconductor (CY), Campbell’s Soup (CPB).

• SmarTrend’s Candlestick Scanner Detects Bearish Inside Day Pattern for Novell (NOVL) (also here)

• Looking ahead to McAfee, Inc. earnings; MFE, NOVL, CHKP

MFE is in the Security Software & Services industry group where it competes for investor dollars with companies like Novell Inc. (NOVL), which is set to release its earnings on 02/25 and last reported a -1331.16% decline in quarter-over-quarter EPS.

Back to Back

One of Microsoft’s favourite liars, the Yankee Group, is cited right here in relation to Novell:

Zeus Kerravala, a distinguished research fellow at Yankee Group, said Cisco needs to be careful that its plan doesn’t backfire, recalling how Novell drove away many customers because of its frustrating 90-day reinstall cycle for trial software in the early 1990s.

It is not entirely clear if the following article refers to SUSE or to Netware.

Several other ATUS staff are testing Windows 7 in different applications, such as faculty and administrative environments, and Nichols said the only problem has been with using a mix of Novell and Microsoft servers.

Another related new article:

VTB24’s IT infrastructure is a distributed heterogeneous system that includes Microsoft Windows, as well as UNIX and Novell network operating systems.

Here is how Active Directory and Novell act as barriers to Mac adoption in businesses:

“Apple’s traditional structure was that they were rather closed off; for ten years or so they were rather an insular solution,” he said. “But a lot the integration we are doing these days is putting Macs into Active Directory environments, putting Macs into Novell environments. Vendors like Novell are also coming to the party… and there are a bunch of standards that traditional enterprise customers are familiar with. The other place we have being doing a lot of stuff with enterprise is in with multimedia and digital education content delivery. It is a vehicle we are talking more and more with customers at the moment.”

GroupWise is mentioned in this related piece which is titled “Why Apple Won’t Let the Mac and iPhone Succeed in Business”

Macs in enterprise: The bigger you are, the harder it is One factor working against Apple’s prospects in business environments is that fact that businesses that have gone all-Mac have had to figure out themselves how to make it work. For smaller businesses, that’s not so hard to do. Microsoft Office for Mac has perhaps 90 percent of the capabilities of the Windows version, for example, and if you need Visual Basic support, you can use the older Office 2003 version rather than the VB-less Office 2008 version. For email, there are clients for Exchange, Lotus Notes, and Novell GroupWise available. The Mac OS, of course, supports POP and IMAP email servers as well.

Mail

Speaking of GroupWise, it gets mentioned in quite a few articles, but none is focused just on GroupWise. For example we have:

• New York Consolidating E-Mail Statewide

But another 24 agencies (totaling 93,000 users) currently work on one of at least five other e-mail systems, most which are Lotus or Novell. Those will be migrated. “We don’t know what we’ll encounter in terms of their own applications that might have been embedded in their own e-mail systems,” Mayberry-Stewart said.

• Global partnership brings better email archiving to Alfresco

OpsMailmanager enables enterprises to store and search for email messages and their attachments in an Alfresco repository. Leveraging open standards-based technologies, OpsMailmanager provides easy integration with all leading email clients including MS Outlook, Lotus Notes and Novell Groupwise.

• Global partnership brings better email archiving to Alfresco

Leveraging open standards-based technologies, OpsMailmanager provides easy integration with all leading email clients including MS Outlook, Mozilla Thunderbird, Lotus Notes and Novell Groupwise.

• Choice of Messaging Architects’ M+Archive in Migration Project Results in 30% Cost Savings for Deer Park School District (also here)

Messaging Architects, global experts in email risk management, announced today a complimentary online seminar, at which Deer Park Independent School District will share with attendees the strategies they employed for a successful and painless email migration from Novell GroupWise to Microsoft Exchange.

GroupWise was also mentioned in some other places, but it’s never important. Tomorrow we will show that GroupWise continues losing in the market.

Virtualisation

“Virtual Desktop with a Twist” is an IDG article that mentions Novell in the context of virtualisation.

This approach is ideal for server virtualization where multiple servers each are running different operating systems like Novell, NT or Linux on a single “real” server through virtual machines. We in turn virtualize individual users under a single operating system.

This new report about Xen — and one that mentions Novell in fact — has just been published, but it is merely being promoted as it is not simple to get hold of. Here is another new bit of analysis:

For example, Novell’s PlateSpin Recon can help create a list of applications in your data center and provide some of their characteristics and processing requirements.

PlateSpin never gained much popularity under Novell’s wing. Here is something from VMware which supports SUSE.

Some of the features included in this release support secure tunnelling using SSL, two factor authentication with RSA SecurID, Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Thin Client Add-On RPM package and a full command line interface.

Security

Novell suffered from some flaws in SUSE and in its proprietary software too [1, 2]. SUSE was also mentioned in the following batch of stories:

• ESET is First To Win 60 VB Awards

February’s Virus Bulletin report focused on the Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 platform. Of the nine vendors participating, six passed and three failed. Neither Symantec nor McAfee were able to provide products supporting the Novell Suse Linux server platform.

• ESET: First Company to 60 VB100 Awards

• ESET breaks records with 60th VB100 award win (also in here)

ADAOX Middle East, the exclusive distribution partner and the regional business development centre of ESET NOD32 Antivirus, announced that ESET, the leader in proactive threat protection, has captured a record 60th VB100 award from Virus Bulletin, the widely-respected independent comparative testing group. February’s report focused on the Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 platform. Of the nine vendors participating, six passed and three failed.

• ESET: First Company to 60 VB100 Awards

• Novell on Aurora Breach – new threats to watch

What are your thoughts on the Aurora breach? Post your comments and let’s start a discussion.

No comments posted. Novell fails to gain attention even when it asks for attention.

People

CBR has a new interview with Novell’s CEO Ron Hovsepian, but it is available in a Microsoft format only.

I caught up with the president and CEO of Novell, Ron Hovsepian recently, to find out more about the company’s recently announced Intelligent Workload Management strategy.

Of course, I also took the opportunity to ask whether he still believes that the firm’s controversial agreement with Microsoft on Windows-Linux interoperability and virtualisation was in the firm’s best interests, considering how the open source community reacted to the deal for the most part (angrily).

I’ve listened to the whole interview and it’s pretty decent. Both sides made a good case for themselves and Hovsepian was not given an easy time, either. Hovsepian was speaking at this event too:

Among the key speakers were C S Venkatraman, GM (Electrical and Electronics), ERC, Tata Motors, Ronald W Hovsepian, President and CEO, Novell and Francois Guibert, Corporate Vice President, STMicroelectronics. The Technovation Awards 2010 were also presented at the summit.

Some former Novell employees are entering other companies and John Donovan, who is not CEO as the following text suggests, embarks on a mountaineering trip with other businessmen:

Philip Cronin, the CEO of Intel Australia, is proud of his achievement as a mountaineer. Together with three other Australian businessmen – John Donovan, CEO of Novell, Peter Wright, owner of Priceline, and Enda Mahoney, vice-president of Blackrock – he reached the base camp of Mount Everest. By doing so, the group raised $A50,000 for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

According to this report and a press release, Kryterion’s new Chief Scientist has a 7-year history with Novell.

Kryterion, the world leader in online secure testing and a prominent firm in traditional test delivery, has announced that William Dorman has been appointed as chief executive officer.

[...]

Kryterion has also announced the appointment of Dr. Dave Foster as Chief Scientist and Executive Vice President.

Foster is currently a board director of Kryterion. He founded Galton Technologies in 1997 and Caveon in 2003. Earlier, he directed the test development efforts at Novell from 1990 to 1997, introducing many new innovations, including adaptive testing, testing in multiple languages, and simulations-based testing.

Experience with Novell spotted here:

Zerbib has 16 years of professional experience from employment at QUEST Software, Compuware, SoftCompany, NEURONS and EMS Concept, working with IT and networking products and services from such providers as Alcatel, Checkpoint, Cisco, Citrix, HP, IBM, Novell, and Nortel Networks.

The new Director of a Technical Engineering Team at Messaging Architects has a past with Novell:

Messaging Architects, global experts in email risk management, today announced that Richard Cabana has joined the company as Director of the new Technical Engineering Team.

[...]

“…As we start to deploy our next-generation of Identity-Driven and Policy-Based products, the expertise he acquired while at Novell and then at Red Hat will be of tremendous value to both our current and prospective clients.”

Utah Technology Council (UTC) has added someone with a past at Novell too:

* David Bradford (photo) – Bradford is currently the CEO of Fusion-io. Previously he was with Novell, Inc., where he served as Senior Vice-President and General Counsel. He was instrumental in taking the company from a small start-up to a multi-billion dollar corporation. He has also served as chairman of the Business Software Alliance, the world’s leading trade association for business software companies. Bradford was also approved as a member of UTC’s Executive Committee.

Here is SD Times advertising a job opening at Novell:

James Bottomley, distinguished engineer at Novell and maintainer of the Linux SCSI subsystems, has learned how to deal with such problems. As the Linux community is larger than the Rails community, there are more egos to butt up against, he said. He has three pieces of advice for smoothing over the inevitable social friction that can occur within an open-source project.

[...]

Joe Brockmeier worked with Bottomley at Novell until the end of January, when he left the company to pursue other interests. At Novell, he served as openSUSE community manager, and also oversaw the documentation development processes on the platform. Brockmeier said that “community manager” is a misleading title.

Partners

Here is a training milestone for Novell and TAR College.

These include incorporating professional certification curriculum such as Cisco Certified Network Associates (CCNA) and network security into networking-related courses, Novell Certified Linux Professional programmes into information systems programmes, SAP modules into business information systems courses as well as incorporating the latest programming concepts and tools governed under either Java development teams or Microsoft Developer Network Academic Alliance (MSDN AA) into the respective programme of studies.

Due to concerted efforts to promote students to go for the CCNA certification, TAR College was awarded “In Recognition of Great Collaborative Efforts for Student Certification” during the 4th Cisco Networking Academy Annual Conference 2009. The college was also awarded the “Best Novell Academic Training Partner 2009″ at the NATP Summit 2009. The NCL Solutions and TAR College collaboration has led to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on SUSE Linux Innovation Club Evangelist (SLICE) programme to mark a higher level of synergy for more new and dynamic collaborative activities.

Novell is also mentioned in relation to SIEM:

With much of the interest in SIEM products driven by compliance initiatives, the market for SIEM products is jam-packed with vendors, many competing with similar products. Established names include Arcsight Inc., CA Inc., Intellitactics Inc., IBM, NetIQ Corp. and EMC’s RSA Security division. Other vendors include LogLogic Inc., NetForensics Inc., Novell Inc., Sensage Inc., Symantec Corp. and TriGeo Network Security Inc.

Other press releases and articles where Novell is mentioned are:

• Unitrends Appoints Philip Eliot Chairman of the Board
• Novosoft Partners with 1C Company to Bring the Leading Backup Solution to Eastern Europe
• Makara’s do-it-yourself platform cloud
• Computer Technology & Networking Program offered at CollegeAmerica’s Phoenix Campus for Students to enter Technology Industry
• VMware Partner Exchange 2010 Kicks Off With Record-Breaking 2,600+ Attendees, 55 Sponsors and 45 Countries Represented
• Infor Takes Ad Campaign Global to EMEA, Latin America and Asia
• Koenig Now offers training for CANAC – Implementing NAC Appliance
• ASAP Releases Winners of 2010 Alliance Excellence Awards
• Unitrends Free Shirt Promotion Draws “Amazing” Response
• Implied Volatility Falling on Novell Inc.; NOVL, ASIA, CHKP
• What is cloud computing and how do I use it?
• Computer Service & Networking @ Northland Community & Technical College

Marketing

A YouTube account called “IBMInnovation” has uploaded this video which sheds light on the current relationship between IBM and Novell.

John Dragoon, the marketing manager, writes about GNU/Linux in relation to Apple’s latest hypefest [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

I believe Linux is the ideal operating system for creating and delivering the “Platform Specific User Experience”. The market, however, is moving rapidly and we must focus on the magic formula for success if reality is to match the vision.

Novell is still offering some real estate for Utah events, based on this assorted report.

Networking » The Utah Valley Entrepreneurial Forum presents local author Larry Myler, who will give the keynote address at the forum’s luncheon event, 12 p.m., Novell Building A, 1800 Novell Place, Provo. Free for UVEF members, $25 for nonmembers. RSVP at www.uvef.com.

There hasn’t been a word about BrainShare for quite a while. What’s up with that? Might it be canceled again due to lack of interest? █

Who are you, and what do you do?

I‘m Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Movement. I campaign for computer users’ freedom — for instance, your freedom to control the software you use, to redistribute the software to others. Software that respects the user’s freedom is what we call free software.

In 1983 I announced the plan to develop a complete free operating system called GNU. The system that millions of people use, and often refer to as “Linux”, is a variant of the GNU system.

What hardware are you using?

I am using a Lemote Yeelong, a netbook with a Loongson chip and a 9-inch display. This is my only computer, and I use it all the time. I chose it because I can run it with 100% free software even at the BIOS level.

And what software?

To initialize the machine and boot, it uses PMON. Above that, it uses gNewSense, one of the totally free GNU/Linux distros.

I spend most of my time using Emacs. I run it on a text console, so that I don’t have to worry about accidentally touching the mouse-pad and moving the pointer, which would be a nuisance. I read and send mail with Emacs (mail is what I do most of the time).

I switch to the X console when I need to do something graphical, such as look at an image or a PDF file.

Most of the time I do not have an Internet connection. Once or twice or maybe three times a day I connect and transfer mail in and out. Before sending mail, I always review and revise the outgoing messages. That gives me a chance to catch mistakes and faux pas.

What would be your dream setup?

I would ideally like to have a machine with the speed and memory of a laptop, and the display size of a laptop too, combined with the same freedom that I have now on the Yeelong.

Until I can have them both, freedom is my priority. I’ve campaigned for freedom since 1983, and I am not going to surrender that freedom for the sake of a more convenient computer.

I do hope to switch soon to a newer model of Yeelong with a 10-inch display. █

This interview is available under the Attribution No Derivatives license.

LAST WEEK we argued that some time in 2010 Novell is likely to be acquired or merged. Several days later, CIO UK published this list of predictions, which include the following:

June: The silly season begins in earnest. Google and Microsoft buy some companies you’ve never heard of. Novell is acquired.

As we wrote last week, it is possible for Microsoft to acquire Novell, but this might not be the best strategy.

Another UK-based publication has just published this first interview with Ron Hovsepian in a very long time. Here is an important question that he answered at the end:

How does the interoperability agreement with Microsoft relate to the IWM launches? [The Microsoft/Novell Partnership announced in 2006 gives interoperability and virtualisation solutions for firms using both Windows and Linux]

The agreement means that Microsoft can run their virtualised applications on our environment and we can run ours on theirs.

I think it works really well. Our core assumption is that customers are Microsoft customers and have multiple Java technology stacks. So in a virtualized environment, this relationship allows us to support and optimise those workloads.

This puts us in a stronger position than competitors such as Red Hat for example.

So our strategy is built on that assumption of heterogeneity. Where firms have multiple technology stacks, we can optimise and build security and governance into them.

Microsoft could do that too. A couple of years ago it was argued that Microsoft could buy the WordPerfect lawsuit along with Novell. █

This will hopefully keep quiet the “Ubuntu is sexist” crowd.