Just like the Microsoft-Novell deal.

I’d also like to point out that Novell specifically *bought* a bunch of patents to contribute to OIN. No one else has done that.

His mosquito stunt and the B&M Foundry are examples. He goes in and, in words (not actions), seizes control of the high ground so that the eventual poisons and deceptions he will deliver are accepted. You usually don’t have to lie (and preferably never will). It’s about controlling the conversation and using incorrect but reasonably sounding logic when necessary or else changing topics, etc. Some people perform this feat very very well.

You won’t beat Microsoft as long as people buy into their poison. You first have to show the poison for what it is. If you don’t.. good luck.

The truth is much closer to our side. We may not be perfect, but we show what counts the most. We give up the greatest lock-ins by necessity if not by choice (although many do it by choice, and, unexpectedly perhaps, the GPL has empowered many commercial entities).

Open source is about leveling the playing field. What brought chunks of the (commercial) industry over to this approach was Microsoft’s ruthlessness and monopolizing.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008019929_webgatesmemo271.html

“They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meetings they show up at.“

..against Microsoft.

Microsoft will work to convince customers that interop is a fair deal and in the best interests of customers. That is far from the truth because interop benefits Microsoft over Red Hat, and a stronger Microsoft hurts customers as it gives them less leverage and options, more so because of how closed, abusive, and monopolizing Microsoft is.

Red Hat needs to make clear that interop work is a bad use of resources that will lead to them having a less competitive position against Red Hat.

If Red Hat makes that clear, customers will simultaneously question the “value” proposition being offered by Microsoft.

No source. No dice.

[Obviously, you would need source to a build tool chain so that you could effectively do all the building yourself (or have a third party do it) for verification/control/audit purposes.]

I think it’s terribly irresponsible not to demand source code from major suppliers. Aren’t there laws about this.. about accountability and audit trails? No source code from minor suppliers might be OK, though. It’s a matter of degree (as with most things in life).

The only snake hiding in the shadows is Microsoft. Those that are untrustworthy need to hide and fear the light.

Snakes can be beat, but you have to give them respect. Red Hat can’t embrace the snake. They need to keep their head on straight if they expect to win. A win by Red Hat is a win for all customers.

You have to market hard to beat Microsoft. Sell on the FOSS values. Show how Microsoft marketing is misleading or incorrect. Repeat, over and over.

Red Hat can always turn to principles. If they play the interop game at such a disadvantage, they likely will be weakened, and this would be a negative result for their customers. Do their customers want a weakened supplier, which will mean less leverage against closed source monopolies?

I was about to read that but got side-tracked into this thread.

I read it, now. I don’t agree with interop.

I do think that Red Hat could do almost nothing here (ie, waste few resources and don’t allow the snake too close to your assets), but even in this case, they may come out looking incompetent (for achieving little) depending on how this plays out.

The best card to play is the high ground card, the openness card. Explain to customers how you can’t divorce untrustworthiness from closed source. The degree may differ from circumstance to circumstance, and in Microsoft’s case, you can expect there will be little to trust.

Red Hat may not be willing to play this card since it may alienate some partners or upset some of their plans; however, the OS and all low layers are particularly important to have opened. You need a level playing field in the minimum, even before considering whether the other team is pumped with steroids.

This deal could theoretically turn out to be almost a no deal. I’m only saying that continuing along the “interop” path and implicitly accepting Microsoft’s terms (“interop”) is weakening your hand.

I wanted to get a pdf done today if possible. Would it help if I tackle one of the ones on that page?

Yes, by all means. All those in the page are “pending publication”. We have not covered them yet as they require the full text to be extracted from the PDFs.

Whatever you come up with can be improved in reiterative fashion.

I wanted to get a pdf done today if possible. Would it help if I tackle one of the ones on that page?

[I would like at some point to do a coherent posting on interop-ing with closed source monopolies]

As a principled company (which in many ways they already are), they can rally a lot of support behind themselves. They don’t need to be the only such company or lead by themselves.

Note that part of the astroturfing campaign against Red Hat (from what I can tell) is about saying how bad Red Hat is and how similar they are to Microsoft. Microsoft knows they have to isolate Red Hat. It’s much worse for Microsoft is Red Hat has developers and users gathered behind and around them. Microsoft is more than willing to fight Red Hat one on one (of course, with Microsoft using their levers).

Red Hat’s best chance is to embrace openness and other good qualities more each day that Microsoft attacks them. It is a slower road, but it’s also a surer road.

I won’t cry if Red Hat sells out or caves under pressure, but, until that day comes, I think their best shot is to campaign vigorously against Microsoft’s inherent untrustworthiness. When Microsoft falls, there will be a huge market opened. Old code will get replaced, all the faster if it is with open source (which is free to taste test).

[the Microsoft perspective:] You have 100 incompatibilities between each other. Great. Now fix 20 of those and pay someone to say how wonderful you are, have your “partner” waste their time fixing another 20. Make another 20 almost impossible to fix but give them hope. Don’t tell them about the next 20 but don’t deny it if they discover them over time. Deny/hide that that last 20 exist (or keep moving these around). ..And then create 100 more incompatibilities. Meanwhile leverage your time working together to learn about their weaknesses (and strengths), etc… Eventually, you move in for the kill.

Novell was put (fell) into a difficult situation. Red Hat is constantly being pressured. Many others have fallen or been reduced to shadows.

[We could talk about patent poisons from spreading/embracing their openness, but I'm not in the mood right now.]