By the way, you are putting words in my mouth — words I did not ever say, e.g. “implying that distinguished, established and long-time members of the FOSS community were being asinine.”

Please don’t try to phrase what you believe I /imply/. What I think above all is that some of them are being /used/ without realising it. I believe, for example, that this is the case with Miguel de Icaza.

Thank you for showing to you have resorted to Microsoft-esque, Bush-like techniques for discrediting critics.

There is no need for me to discredit you as a source in order to discredit your arguments. Indeed, I’ve only been addressing your arguments until you started implying that distinguished, established and long-time members of the FOSS community were being asinine. Which I find appalling.

Please, stop trying to damage the FOSS community.

Can you please address the core of the issues that were raised.

I see no reason to address any of your points when you have persistently ignored questions put forward to you (though also when you don’t accept IMO standard inferences), and refused to answer them even when you have explicitly said that you will.

Conspiracy theories get… psychoanalyze… paranoia so severe, and your megalomania

Thank you for showing to you have resorted to Microsoft-esque, Bush-like techniques for discrediting critics.

Can you please address the core of the issues that were raised. Are you aware of Microsoft’s love for this relationship with Novell? Do you believe that Microsoft is happy about the fact that Linux is being sold, unless of course Microsoft has other plans for it?

How familiar are you with Microsoft’s behaviour? To them, this is “Jihad” (a word used even internally). Their goal is to destroy Free software, or at least turn it to Fee software in order to boost or secure revenue. They haven’t interest in the profits of others, unless it’s a kickback-type affair like the one with Intel (again, do some studying on the Trust).

One of the most amusing things to find nowadays is that people actually believe Microsoft changed its ways. They obviously don’t keep their eyes open. Only days ago we found yet more corruptions and briberies. Guess who against?

It is pushing for what we have come to know as “Ballnux”.

Another emotive statement and snide remark which probably makes you feel better somehow, but utilizes only logical fallacies (non sequitur) to reach a faulty conclusion.

Novell is a fool if it thinks that GNU/Linux will thrive as a slave to Microsoft.

Conspiracy theories get very boring, very fast. How you’ve managed to drag it on for months is a mystery to me. Or perhaps not.

The contributions that you mentioned above, Francis, are made by people who don’t understand how they are used or allow themselves to be used as long as they receive their weekly paycheck.

How incredibly arrogant of you to superimpose ignorance upon so many distinguished members of the FOSS community (one of which you are barely part of, which makes it all the more curious).

It’s this exact type of attitude that I find appalling (and since you feel inclined to psychoanalyze such members of the community, I will do so too for you) — you think you have “inside knowledge” and that everyone else is being asinine, since your prejudices are so deeply ingrained, your paranoia so severe, and your megalomania so hungry that you can still entertain ideas like this. It’s really something.

Oh, and you’re still ignoring the questions which you said you would answer.

Apparently they do, as they are pushing for the Linux desktop more than anyone else in the world.

Novell is not pushing for Linux. It is pushing for what we have come to know as “Ballnux”. It is what Microsoft considers to be a Microsoft IPR-encumbered desktop that Microsoft views as part of its own property. It’s hardly surprising that when someone installs SUSE Linux (non-’hobbyist’) Microsoft gets its share of ‘tax money’. Ever learned anything from the Trust?

Novell is a fool if it thinks that GNU/Linux will thrive as a slave to Microsoft. By sticking to and pushing to promote Microsoft technologies like .NET, Silverlight and OOXML, Novell becomes nothing but a slave to Microsoft’s agenda of owning the Web, the operating system (Linux) and developers.

Hours ago I compared Novell’s role to that of Intel. Along with Microsoft, they just hope to squeeze as much money as possible at the expense of everyone else, including GNU developers, Red Hat and anything else which Microsoft investors see as a threat.

The contributions that you mentioned above, Francis, are made by people who don’t understand how they are used or allow themselves to be used as long as they receive their weekly paycheck.

They have at least a couple of hundred developers who write code for Linux. They have more developers working on the Linux *desktop* than any other company in the world. A couple hundred people working on something for 5 years is not going to result in a small change. But just for a summary:

* Second largest contributor to OpenOffice.org
* more KDE developers than anyone else (most of which are core developers) except possibly tied with Trolltech
* more GNOME developers than anyone else (not just Mono, but contributing to:gnome-panel, GDM, gnome-desktop, GTK, Nautilus, gnome, session, Evolution.. you get the idea)
* GCC developers
* several in the ALSA team
* Xen developers
* Kernel developers (small people like Greg KH)
* and I presume more X developers than anyone else (haven’t fully checked this one, but there are several)
* Compiz
* etc etc.

All of these software packages would — without a doubt — be non-functional today if you removed the SUSE code from them (which is why “boycott” statements are so irrational). In pretty much none of the above cases are the developers who are employed “small time contributors” — in most cases they are core contributors, making a huge difference (for example, in KDE 3 of the 7 people on the Technical board are employed by SUSE).

> If the “contribution” you’re alluding to is Mono, then I am more than happy to remove it.

Mono is one of the great contributions (don’t just take my word for it — RMS says the existence of Mono is a *good* thing), but it’s nothing in comparison to the rest of its contributions.

> You sound like you’re confused about the motivation of people like Roy and myself (Why do these vicious people attack Novell? Why do they hate them?). If you don’t understand by now, then you must have been living in a cave for the last year.

I perfectly understand them, which is precisely why I think you are both so wrong, as you are grossly, grossly over-exaggerating the issue, speculating wildly, twisting information, and then completely ignore Novell’s contribution to FOSS (which is astounding). See http://opensuse.org/FAQ:Novell-MS

> Novell slept with the enemy (still does), and the friend of my enemy is also my enemy.

And snide emotive comments like this don’t help anyone except the person who’s making them to erroneously establish a position. They didn’t sleep with anyone, they made a business deal (you know, things that happen in business). See http://opensuse.org/FAQ:Novell-MS

> The fact that Novell may have contributed software to the community is completely negated by their betrayal of that community, by allaying itself with the (self-declared) enemy of Free Software.

When you have an irrational hatred of Microsoft (I don’t like them too), you start to see the deal in the wrong way. The fundamental problem that you will come across is that it is possible to make a good deal (or not an incredibly horrible/bad deal) with a bad company.

> Apparently Novell don’t.

Apparently they do, as they are pushing for the Linux desktop more than anyone else in the world.

Let’s find out how much supposedly vital functionality we’d all lose by being “deprived” of Novell software.

I think you are making far too much of Novell’s contribution. Apart from a rather short-lived and failed encounter with UNIX, which they subsequently sold to SCO, Novell isn’t even traditionally a Linux vendor. They’ve only been in the game for under 5 years, and the last year of that has been spent pandering to the Vole, and poisoning Free Software with garbage like Mono.

If the “contribution” you’re alluding to is Mono, then I am more than happy to remove it. In fact I already have, but please feel free to detail all the other poisonous software that I’d have to remove to become Novell-free, including kernel patches.

Seriously … I want to know, so I can purge that software from my distribution.

You sound like you’re confused about the motivation of people like Roy and myself (Why do these vicious people attack Novell? Why do they hate them?). If you don’t understand by now, then you must have been living in a cave for the last year.

Novell slept with the enemy (still does), and the friend of my enemy is also my enemy.

What’s difficult to understand about that?

The fact that Novell may have contributed software to the community is completely negated by their betrayal of that community, by allaying itself with the (self-declared) enemy of Free Software.

Boycott Novell? No I don’t want to “boycott” them … I want to extricate them from Microsoft, then purge every scrap of Microsoft “IP” from the Free Software community. Then for an encore, I’d like to fscking bury Microsoft in a deep hole somewhere, down in the depths of Hell where they belong.

Apparently Novell don’t.

Of course, they can always change their minds. It’s never too late.

There is no way to avoid pieces from contributors x and y and z

There are very easy ways if you have patches. Would you like me to send you some? You know that you would not have a functional system Roy, which only highlights the absurdity of your site’s request.

(and no need to, either).

I agree 100%, but you do not — as you are calling for a boycott.

“Boycott” doesn’t mean picking and choosing to boycott what is convenient for you. Again:

“And yet you know very well that you don’t boycott the software created by Novell. Picking and choosing what is convenient for you completely undermines your statement, position, and integrity.”

why does Novell still use Red Hat-contributed code?

Novell isn’t calling for a boycott of anyone. You, on the contrary, are.

These attempts to create guilt in the mind of Novell antagonists is nothing new. Other companies use the same tactics.

Well, I’m not a company nor am I part of one, but I do believe in veracity, common sense, and bringing joy to the world whenever I can.

Naturally I think you should indeed be very guilty if you had a conscience and were aware of what you were doing, but I’ve come to not expect much at all from this website and from you Roy, sorry.

You seem to be more than happy to use an awful lot of Novell code, Roy.

The code is being shared and weaved together. There is no way to avoid pieces from contributors x and y and z (and no need to, either). Given Novell’s cheap shots at Red Hat, let alone their compromise of them (more recently it was mutual), why does Novell still use Red Hat-contributed code?

It is a similar situation. We are all supposed to collaborate and this relies on the element of trust. Novell betrayed this trust, which is why many people call Novell a sellout.

It’s a long story, Francis, and we could go on forever discussing those very same issues that were discussed here many times before. These attempts to create guilt in the mind of Novell antagonists is nothing new. Other companies use the same tactics.

“Ok Roy, then please do answer them, yes [as you don't have a problem with doing so]. I don’t think they’re personal issues in any way.”

“I haven’t a problem answering them, but this type of discussion just become a distraction because it’s personal and hypothetical.”

Could you point to a single case, anywhere, that Novell upper management insisted that an application be written in Mono?

“Insisted” is too strong a word. Novell hires .NET developers though (based on press articles), so it’s clear to me that Novell likes Mono to-be developers. At the same time, many developers get sacked. Some rumours say that 1,000 people in Novell will lose their job this year, but the number cannot be confirmed. So, all in all, as far as I can tell, it’s Mono up while Novell goes down. That’s just what Microsoft wants. Microsoft _loves_ it when Mono is adopted. Should we be all happy for Microsoft? Is it possible that Microsoft knows something that many of use simply refuse to accept as truth?

Please answer those questions as you said you would.

> That’s Linux as Fee software, not Free software. Moreover, it’s an imitation of Windows, not Linux.

Please don’t be childish or ridiculous with your snide remarks. You seem to be more than happy to use an awful lot of Novell code, Roy.

> With Novell around, expect more Mono. KDE already has some Mono bindings and Novell developers are involved in KDE development.

Non sequitur (yes, this is a logical fallacy), but I know you like to speculate wildly.

Believe it or not, it was *GNOME developers* who decided to create application X, Y, Z using Mono. Could you point to a single case, anywhere, that Novell upper management insisted that an application be written in Mono?

All the KDE developers (most of which are KDE core developers, again, doing amazing work for KDE and free software) don’t really like Mono at all, so your statement is ridiculous at best, though of course you haven’t done one bit of research before making such remarks.

Novell has affirmed and fully positioned itself and its future in Linux.

That’s Linux as Fee software, not Free software. Moreover, it’s an imitation of Windows, not Linux.

Novell fully positioned itself with emphasis on Mono. This is not imagination. This is just what they say (not in those exact words).

With Novell around, expect more Mono. KDE already has some Mono bindings and Novell developers are involved in KDE development.

Mark Fink,

> 1. petition Google not to accept any GSoC projects for any Novell projects (e.g. Tomboy, Beagle, Mono, etc). Anything that helps Novell should not be allowed.

So no Linux projects should be allowed, then? Novell has affirmed and fully positioned itself and its future in Linux. Please just read http://opensuse.org/FAQ:Novell-MS

It contributes more to free software than you can imagine, I’m sure.

> We’d be doing Free Software another service by having a list of these people so that project leaders can check to see if any of these developers try to submit patches (which could potentially be tainted), possibly under email addresses other than their @novell.com or @suse.de addresses (to weasel around any suspicions about their credibility).

The fact is that all the people doing actual real work for FOSS barely think about the MS-Novell issue, at all. People in all FOSS projects know very well that they’re working with SUSE/Novell employees and I don’t think they could care less (honestly). I know this from interacting with SUSE employees (hearing their experiences) and from speaking to hundreds of people from other free software projects (at events like FOSDEM).

It’s only vocal, self-appointed people like Roy who think they’re some kind of speakers for free software (when they are NOT — they’re barely involved in actual free software), who are vocal about their irrational hatred for the deal, and spread lies about one of the greatest contributors to free software ever. But hey.

About 2, it sounds rather harsh and personal (blunt), but we already do something similar. Would you like to maintain a page that lists these people? Former Novellers like Jody Goldbeg (OOXML apologist) are worth adding to it also.

A couple of ideas:

1. petition Google not to accept any GSoC projects for any Novell projects (e.g. Tomboy, Beagle, Mono, etc). Anything that helps Novell should not be allowed.

2. Should we maybe start a list of Novell employees so that the world knows who these people are? We’d be doing Free Software another service by having a list of these people so that project leaders can check to see if any of these developers try to submit patches (which could potentially be tainted), possibly under email addresses other than their @novell.com or @suse.de addresses (to weasel around any suspicions about their credibility).

The list could also be of benefit to companies who wish not to ever hire Novell refugees once Novell collapses.

What do you think?

Bookmarks, feeds, and ALL links/comments etc. are 100% preservable with no problem from the user at all. If you don’t believe me, then I’ll do it for you (or give you easy instructions — up to you).

> visual/verbal identity

Your visual and verbal identity, and “site status” is as “Boycott Novell” — I thought this was something you’d “regret”. If so, you shouldn’t be sad to part with it. The only reason you would like to maintain this identity is if you approve of and are happy with it.

> Stating it like this is just wishful thinking and you know this, Francis.

It’s a simple question, please answer it

> You and I probably share oxygen (you live in London, IIRC), but it doesn’t mean any of us should reconsider breathing.

It’s not even remotely the same as I can explicitly point you to the code which Novell brought about, which you are using, and therefore not boycotting (in which case you’re just picking and choosing what is convenient for you). You can’t point to the oxygen of yours that I am breathing.

Please, have the — not sure what to call it, let’s say decency — to actually do what you’re proposing and preaching for everyone else to do. If you can’t do it yourself you shouldn’t be preaching to others to do it. Is that not hypocrisy?