05.02.11
Gemini version available ♊︎In Its Last Days Novell Still Marketed Proprietary Software, Not Free/Open Source Software
Summary: A gentle reminder that Novell is another case of proprietary software companies dying, not anything else (despite attempted revisionism)
Novell does not deserve to be remembered as a Free software, open source software, or even mixed-source software company. As we have shown over the past year or two, almost everything that Novell is pushing these days (when not spreading Microsoft’s APIs with Mono and Moonlight) is proprietary software. Let’s just look at the latest Novell-related posts, videos, and headlines. There probably won’t be many of them anymore, for obvious reasons.
There are some recent videos promoting a Novell “Success Story” and such PR fluff [1, 2]. Now much about FOSS there, eh? How about [1, 2]? Nothing.
“Novell is just another case of a proprietary software company imploding. Buying S.u.S.E. was too little, too late.”What Novell wins dubious awards for is an area where Novell offers proprietary software like the stuff it promotes with a press release. Well, some news sites reposted as though it (the press release) was news and some just pasted it, not merely reposted with a different headline. There is better coverage from Dan Kusnetzky, who actually knows technology. But again, this is proprietary software (sometimes painted as “cloud”). This is what Novell is spreading. Here is another new example. It’s marketed as “cloud” (Fog Computing) and we recently showed how Novell even imposes that on colleges, just like Microsoft does. It’s not ethical.
The only other new videos that we found are about Novell’s proprietary software [1, 2, 3], GroupWise for example [1, 2]. This one reminds us of Novell’s proprietary past and another about Novell’s proprietary partners, which help it sell proprietary software like this one (or vice versa).
The point of this post is, when reporters claim that Novell’s death is a failure of an open source company they should be reminded that Novell was never an open source company at all. That was just marketing. Novell is just another case of a proprietary software company imploding. Buying S.u.S.E. was too little, too late. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Needs Sunlight said,
May 2, 2011 at 8:12 am
Too bad. When Noorda was alive, Novell was a really great company. After his death, it turned bad quickly and extremely. After what it has become, it is good to have it end.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 9:41 am
The Microsoft/Novell deal came about just weeks after he had died.
http://techrights.org/2007/04/08/tribute-to-novells-founder-who-never-trusted-microsoft/
http://techrights.org/2007/12/29/quotes-from-the-past/
http://techrights.org/2007/08/25/jack-messman-ray-noorda/
Another valuable article has just gone 404. It said: “That weekend Gates and Noorda met in the American Airlines Admirals Club lounge at San Francisco Airport. Gates barely took time to say hello before he reiterated his interest in a corporate marriage. “There was only one stipulation,” says Noorda, “Gates told me, That DRI thing has to go.”‘ Ballmer confirms this, but says the reason was that it was clear to Microsoft that a merger with Novell would never get government approval if it included the purchase of Microsoft’s only MS-DOS competitor. But when Noorda raised the possibility that Washington might block a merger anyway, Gates replied, according to Noorda: “Don’t worry, we know how to handle the Federal Government.””
I see a partial copy in http://blog.javier-carrete.com/2010/10/wikileaks-publishes-documents-on-plan.html
Can anyone help us find the full text? Old articles rot along with mirrors. This information loss impedes learning.
Needs Sunlight Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 10:49 am
Groklaw users might know or have stashed a copy.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 11:22 am
Someone has just mailed us this one which resembles the above.
http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1993/b333863.arc.htm
We might need to build Techrights Legal to store old documents (bar copyright constraints).