Richard Stallman (younger days)
"Proprietary software divides the users and keeps them helpless, and that is wrong."
--Richard Stallman
Summary: Novell is left vulnerable by Microsoft while Microsoft proceeds to similar strategies further up the (G)LAMP stack
WHILST Ron Hovsepian receives his huge bonus [1, 2, 3, 4] and goes on luxurious vacations, "the ship is sinking," one of Novell's VARs told me about 3 weeks ago.
Novell can deny this all that it wants. The company can also try to come up with explanations to shed light on
its abandonment of SUSE workforce, but it won't change the fact that Novell looks for love in the wrong places (e.g. Microsoft, Citrix, software patents, .NET, Silverlight [
1,
2]). Well,
it shows. As Ed Moltzen points out two weeks after this quarter's financial results came,
Novell is unable to attract big businesses, whereas
Red Hat is doing just fine.
So Novell, one of the biggest Linux distributors in t5673he world, and Microsoft, one of the biggest companies in world history, couldn't find a single large customer on Planet Earth to buy into Novell's Suse Linux Enterprise Server software.
Novell CEO Ron Hovsepian has stepped up and, rather than point fingers at Microsoft for that performance, put the blame on his company and its inability to strengthen its reseller channel. In a conference call with financial analysts last month, he said ". . . we don't have the partner ecosystem to the level of performance that we needed it to be." Novell, not Microsoft, is responsible for goosing its own market, Hovsepian said.
There are
lots of comments in Slashdot. Bruce Perens
writes sarcastically: "OK, cue the violins! Now, all of you at once!"
Perens was
never ever appreciative of this deal with Microsoft because
he knows how Microsoft operates and he understands the SCO saga very profoundly. Speaking of Perens,
some days ago he said that Microsoft uses Novell as a "mouthpiece", probably in order to enter the FOSS world and snatch people to enrich Windows and embrace Microsoft technologies like .NET. He also
publicly criticised Apache's willingness to collaborate with Microsoft. Glyn Moody, whose analysis often intersects with ours, is already seeing (
and warning) that Microsoft is trying to isolate GNU/Linux from Apache (and other parts of the Free software stack).
This has been going on for a while, and is part of a larger move by Microsoft to weaken the foundations of open source - especially GNU/Linux - on the pretext that they are simply porting some of the top layers to its own stack. But the net result is that it diminishes the support for GNU/Linux, and makes those upper-level apps more dependent on Microsoft's good graces. The plan is clearly to sort out GNU/Linux first, before moving on up the stack.
It's clever, and exactly the sort of thing I would expect from the cunning people at Microsoft. That I understand; what I don't get is why these LAMP hackers are happy to cut off the branch they sit on by aiding and abetting Microsoft in its plans? Can't they see what's being done to their LAMP?
Don Marti disagrees with this assertion, but I personally do not. This was Microsoft's plan with projects like Apache since the very beginning of such relationships [
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17].
⬆
Comments
JohnD
2009-03-14 14:44:55
JohnD
2009-03-14 14:45:32
Roy Schestowitz
2009-03-14 15:24:24
There is actually nothing wrong with Java, which is still by far most dominant.
David Gerard
2009-03-14 22:41:48
I do agree that "if Microsoft likes it, it's probably bad" is a generally reliable heuristic. But it's only a heuristic. As closely as I examine this particular example, I still can't see how it works for them without a large number of much more significant worries coming to pass first. I really do not see how it's going to work in this case *in detail*.
Here's what cross-platform, including working on Evil OS, does for free software:
1. It's good for the apps themselves, because cross-platform means a more robust, more cleanly layered and deeply better program. IBM's work to port Apache to NT did wonders for its internals, for example.
2. Users want computers for applications and couldn't give a hoot about the OS. If they can get the same app on two operating systems, the one without enterprise volume licensing has obvious advantages.
3. (part of 2) This allows people in idiot companies that mandate Windows to run open source apps; (a) this proves open source apps are good, and (b) they can triple performance on the same hardware just by swapping the OS out from underneath and look like rock stars. IT staff like to look like rock stars to the CxOs. I have done this. It really works.
3a. Noteworthy performance discrepancies will be taken as bug reports, much as the Mindcraft reports were. Linux took the hideously slanted Mindcraft test, treated it as a working condition and *won anyway*.
4. Open source is a gateway drug. Firefox or even (IME) Gimp on Windows lures people to feel comfortable with the same app on Unix. Could users tell Firefox on the Eee 701 with Xandros from Firefox on XP? No, because there's no difference. So Microsoft had to resort to blatantly dumping XP at $0-5 a copy, to such an extent it trashed their bottom line numbers for January. Amazing what actual competition can do.
I admit this is anecdotal, but all these are real life phenomena that actually happen, and I'd put that against theoretical worries.
I really don't understand what Microsoft think this will do for them. A ridiculous number of other bad things would need to happen first for them to win - patent lockin, free (libre) software no longer being even possible to make gratis, CentOS/Debian/Ubuntu becoming legally questionable to give away ... all of which are much bigger worries than this one. I really can't see an even slightly plausible plan of action for them to take.
LAMP is where free software is ridiculously strong and it could lose some share to Windows. However, see point 3 above for how this plays out in practice.
Free software is fundamentally *better* ("open source"; science rather than alchemy) - if it wasn't, it would have been stillborn. So we can't actually lose. Trying to pressure people not to port things to Evil OS may or may not be a tactical win (I don't think it will) but it will be a strategic failing. Either our stuff is better or it isn't.
What is Microsoft's actual plan here, based on the poison in their past behaviour? What plans could they make that aren't self-sabotaging by the nature of open source and free software, and that don't have preconditions (e.g. free software becomes expensive or legally questionable) that would be much worse than losing market share to Windows? I really don't understand what *Microsoft* are supposed to be thinking here.
rofranco
2009-03-16 23:42:04
I don't know what could be the result of M$ forking a successful open source product, and making their own version only available for their OS, but it certainly is a concern.
David Gerard
2009-03-16 23:49:37
And by the way, one of my amusements these days: http://wiki.winehq.org/WineOnWindows - we're getting closer to having it compile on Interix on Vista/7. Now, imagine Microsoft's most reliable option for backwards compatibility being the project to replace them ...
Roy Schestowitz
2009-03-16 23:50:36
--Ben Slivka, Microsoft
David Gerard
2009-03-16 23:54:56
Roy Schestowitz
2009-03-16 23:59:07
David Gerard
2009-03-17 00:02:04
(Oddly enough, Wikipedia contributions actually from Microsoft IPs tend to be as good as any. They are staffed by geeks, after all.)
Roy Schestowitz
2009-03-17 00:04:09
G. Michaels
2009-03-17 06:38:33
Now now David, you're going to damage the boy. Remember, Bill Gates = Adolf Hitler. Everything's simple once you jump over that wall. Or crawl into that sewer, depending on your motivations.
Jose_X
2009-03-19 04:23:15
>> 1. It’s good for the apps themselves, because cross-platform means a more robust, more cleanly layered and deeply better program. IBM’s work to port Apache to NT did wonders for its internals, for example.
You can't design for everything and expect to gain. Some architectures should be dumped. Maintenance costs can go up and performance can suffer. Some designs are not very compatible with each other.
I do understand your point even though the details of specific cases are always debatable (I'm not familiar with the Apache case).
There are many other platforms that can be kept in mind when designing. Is this being done? What makes Monopolyware special over other platforms wrt design? Should we write code in Esperanto as well?
Performance is an important consideration. It's not crucial in all cases, but it is a an important feature to many users. Just watch how frequently it is sited as a positive (both in favor of FOSS and against (eg, OO.o vs MSO)). Overly general design will have a negative impact on performance (and maintenance). There is a reason the LSB exists. It's so that app writers don't have to design to every possible way of doing all things. Focus can be very good.
I do like the multi-platform perspective, but that doesn't mean I think we should follow Microsoft's lead and changing interfaces. It's better to look towards better design instead of trying to fit in with anything in particular. We should ask, not is MSware different, but is it better?
Let's not forget that changing designs midway is the sort of reason why Monopolyware has the security issues it has.
You can't build a palace and army barrack at the same time. Each is acceptable when built in focused fashion. Don't try to build a building that serves all purposes or you will be good in neither. It's OK to build for lots of things, but not necessarily within the same app. It's OK to build for many things, but not simply for the sake of doing so.
I think we generally do a good job, but Microsoft will only push harder for us to become like them, regardless of there being any other reason (or will fabricate reasons that have little to do with technical merits). Trying to be ultra-flexible is time not spent building utility, simplifying design, etc. We should be flexible to where we have to gain.
In the end, we have to ask ourselves, is there a positive reason to want to adapt to Microsoft's way while necessarily taking a hit in terms of costs? The design will be more complex. This is costlier. If it becomes simpler, then maybe our initial design was simply that bad, in which case, the particular design decision was a good one and was done for the right reason.
Finally, Roy had a quote on this thread: "Do encourage fragmentation of the Java classlib space." Well, Microsoft is doing it again. They are encouraging Linux devs to take into account all their dotnet garbage despite the huge overlaps with what exists. They are encouraging ports, which is nothing but an internal fragmentation of the classes and libs originally created optimized for Linux. Microsoft can use internally anything they want. Meanwhile they can expose dotnet, OOXML, and anything else with aim to achieve the greatest negative impact on those that try to follow or incorporate those design decisions. Microsoft has been known for arbitrarily making changes in things to throw off everyone else (undocumented bugs do this automatically, btw, when you control the market and people must interface with you).
>> 2. Users want computers for applications and couldn’t give a hoot about the OS. If they can get the same app on two operating systems, the one without enterprise volume licensing has obvious advantages.
So then why don't we focus on improving our applications? What does WinFOSS have to do with this? Isn't Linux free? Doesn't it run on most hardware? What is the problem with Linux+FOSS?
Cloning actually slows down as it's a look towards the past and overlooks that there may be better design decisions that can be made.
We should work on having the best of any given functionality. We only stand a chance of being in that position if we control all layers of the stack.
Here are a few reasons to avoid Windows.
Microsoft has many levers and control at their disposal. They can adopt open source much as IBM and others have adopted it and use it to lead the game their way. Their specific optimized (not general) software with lock-in features will give them an advantage *on Windows* over all FOSS apps and open source software layers lying on top. The closer the apps are in design to Monopolysoft's investments, the easier it is for them to study code and build their optimized version with all the lock-in and exclusive proprietary trimmings.
Our hope is when focused and accessing the source of all layers.
>> 3. (part of 2) This allows people in idiot companies that mandate Windows to run open source apps; (a) this proves open source apps are good,
That is done when Linux runs circles around Windows. This can be shown in many ways. We can publish numbers, videos, other marketing materials, and let the market know that the ones leading are using Linux and FOSS (eg, Google). We can do live demos. Linux is free (the cost of a download).
WinFOSS is a horrible compromise that actually puts FOSS in the inferior position.
Show our best with all the trimmings, not a compromised effect. Firefox and Apache getting hit by worms, virus, etc, shows bad for FOSS. It makes it appear that the fault is totally or mostly of the app or is an unavoidable issue.
>> and (b) they can triple performance on the same hardware just by swapping the OS out from underneath and look like rock stars. IT staff like to look like rock stars to the CxOs. I have done this. It really works.
Ah! So performance is important! Glad you also agree.
Anyway, 3x performance increase, besides not usually achievable and almost certainly not sustainable, has its best chance to be achieved with a full FOSS solution.. not with WinFOSS. Ditto for 2x, btw.
The more we accommodate Microsoft's designs, the less likely we are to find a way to stand out in terms of performance ..and hence to become Rock Stars.
Time spent on Winports and redesigns to accommodate MSware is time Microsoft works on their features and less time we do.
There is also a human tendency to lean on the platform. Linux will suffer as Windows specific hooks are leveraged by the Windows devs.
Redesigning to Microsoft's next greatest and latest (without design input and without being able to track the development) leads to more wasted time. Dealing with unavoidable bug/feature interop issues is a big time waster. Having apps break later on without warning is a time waster and speaks bad for professionalism. Getting second hand treatment as suits Microsoft strategically over time speaks bad for out ability to execute. It's also a big time/resource waster.
I'll repeat, running over Windows is not a way to try and beat Microsoft at almost anything.
Here is a link with more examples: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/25/jose-on-mono/
>> Could users tell Firefox on the Eee 701 with Xandros from Firefox on XP? No, because there’s no difference.
I replied directly to this wrt some other issues, here: http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/03/shining-light-on-why-microsoft-loves.html?showComment=1237376400000#c1250602402856177969
People don't really care if something looks a little different. If you have a different look and design (that is usable of course) and people see it in action and see it is, eg, faster, this will elevate the entire platform, methodology, philosophy, etc. Conversely, if your differences perform worse, it will not help your cause (particularly true if Windows stability and malware problems and other quality negatives get inherited.. as would be the case with WinFOSS).
If you want a perfect clone, copy IE on all accounts for Linux.. or run MS IE with Linux+wine (the latest IE may not run, but then, the assumption was you were after identicalness, in which case, you are running an older IE anyway, one that may very well run with wine).
If people can change to new IE and Vista, etc, then clearly there are more important issues here than total sameness.
We can't win the lock-in game, and through levers and deals (and proprietary access), Microsoft can win the cost game as well (pre-loads deals). Look at the netbook market share evolution if you don't believe. The existing MS partners (the OEM industry) are not giving Linux a fair competing presentation, neither in hardware power, nor in pricing.
Anyway, Firefox is not about sameness or we would have cloned IE. Actually differentiating, as I stated, is a plus. Plug-ins are what sell Firefox. Allowing the user to do new things.
Variety is interesting. Don't help Microsoft along. If Linux can run a bit older IE, or if people can keep their Windows boxes around, we achieve success in the department of "similarities". But let's not help them with the more important features war.
To belabor the point further: Features trumps performance, which itself trumps familiarity. And Microsoft can use their levers with partners (as well as the feature game through closed source exclusives) to win the full battle if we help them leverage the features of FOSS and compete on their platform.
To win the feature game, make Microsoft have to reproduce all our features -- don't port for them or make ports easy.
To win the performance game, control and have access to all software layers.. and integrate -- don't port or design overly general.
To win the similarity game, spend time cloning IE or getting wine to work for existing apps, but keep perspective. The feature and performance are more important and add more to brand for a greater number of use cases than does similarity. So if you have to pick, work on features and performance ahead of cloning. Similar enough, need not be identical.
>> I admit this is anecdotal, but all these are real life phenomena that actually happen, and I’d put that against theoretical worries.
Unfortunately, the "theoretical" side also has many anecdotal examples. The "theories" I'm talking about are based on actual things that have happened.
>> I really don’t understand what Microsoft think this will do for them.
Well, that much seems clear. I suppose it is a good thing you don't work for Microsoft because Microsoft has, for many years, been using many of these techniques and goals I have been talking about in order to successfully thwart competition and preserve their monopolies and extend them into new areas.
Not all theory is wrong. Believe it or not, you actually covered many theoretical reasons to explain your pov. In particular, it is a theory that WinFOSS does anything except waste FOSS dev resources on an imperfect uncontrollable solution.
I also think the theories you are championing in this thread are inconsistent in a number of ways.
>> A ridiculous number of other bad things would need to happen first for them to win - patent lockin, free (libre) software no longer being even possible to make gratis, CentOS/Debian/Ubuntu becoming legally questionable to give away ... all of which are much bigger worries than this one.
I don't follow your argument (not to mention I don't agree with the earlier part of your posting), but let me say a few words about these points you mention here.
Patent lock-in is something they are working hard on. Currently it is the law and has been for a while. Patent would be an easy play.
Let's keep in mind, they did not use patents in the past to achieve their successful and defend it. One very important reason was trade secret: they don't reveal the source of everything that ships (if even of anything). Another reason is because of deception in the market place. Just look at this: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/08/microsoft-evilness-galore/ . For example, they get people to champion Microsoft as if they were independent observers and regardless of what is the truth or accuracy (frequently in spite of it). Microsoft wins many battles because they are willing to stoop to lower levels than their adversaries. Let's not take Microsoft deception for granted.
Wrt cost: The netbook story and many other scenarios show that Microsoft can overcome costs to some degree by pulling various levers. They have extensive partnerships and current monopolies that carry much weight in determining which partners succeed or fail. The antitrust authorities are always many years late and many dollars short in trying to stop these abuses.
So long as patents affect the Linux commercial scene, as obviously it has to a nonnegligible degree, Microsoft automatically overcomes $0 to a growing degree.
Besides $0, there are patent conditions [RAND] that add a lot of gum to the gears of FOSS.
As an aside, Red Hat supporting patents to try and defend against something like CentOS would be them gaining a small sword while enabling their opponents with heavy artillery. The greatest gain to Red Hat is to continue to work against patents. That's one way to deal a massive blow to their strongest adversaries. It's OK to hedge (I expect this from a corporation) to a limited degree, but you want to continue to work against patents. Red Hat should not spurn those working against patents. I hope they don't because they probably couldn't afford that, and may ultimately short-change their stockholders. [Shareholders may not have liked Red Hat working with the FFII.. I don't know. Red Hat should try to argue their case better. They need the support of the community to survive against Microsoft's levers.]
>> LAMP is where free software is ridiculously strong and it could lose some share to Windows. However, see point 3 above for how this plays out in practice.
This much was mentioned by Glyn in that other article. I don't understand your pt "3" rebuttal though.
>> Free software is fundamentally *better* (”open source”; science rather than alchemy) - if it wasn’t, it would have been stillborn.
Let's say that FOSS will be around forever. This doesn't mean it can't be embraced and extended. It doesn't mean Microsoft will fail to leverage it to help preserve their controls and high profits. They may take a hit, but ... well.. call me greedy, but I want more than simply for them to take a hit. I want to break their stranglehold 100%.
Obstacles that will be around forever, don't mean they will play a significant role .. ever, even.
>> So we can’t actually lose.
You just argued we might be like scrapes and cuts -- around forever. Microsoft likely agrees to some extent as they have decided to "embrace" having gotten past the denial stage.
You haven't argued FOSS will flourish.
Will Linux flourish? Will full FOSS platforms flourish?
In case you also mean WinFOSS when you use the term FOSS, WinFOSS is a shell of openness just like HTML code is a shell of openness when managed by Internet Explorer. In both cases you "make calls" that get implemented/extended/etc by the underlying platform.
Tomorrow Microsoft can easily choose to implement the html tags badly (even within IE) if IE+MSwebtools+MSserver have control. This would foil all parties working on html tools, websites, browsers, etc. Of course, that day doesn't seem to be near, but surely Microsoft is working on it. If they lock in an important server market (like the web) at some point in time (Novell can really help here), they can really be deadly (if they continue to hold on to the desktop). On the other hand, on Windows, they have a much stronger position today than they do on the web.
>> Trying to pressure people not to port things to Evil OS may or may not be a tactical win (I don’t think it will) but it will be a strategic failing. Either our stuff is better or it isn’t.
You haven't convinced me.. except that, since "our stuff" does not include Windows, that, yes, either our stuff, Linux+FOSS, is better than theirs or it isn't. Linux+FOSS being better won't be enough to break Microsoft's hold, but it's a start.
And surely I don't want to give Microsoft any help.
WinFOSS is a dead end in many ways.
>> What plans could they make that aren’t self-sabotaging by the nature of open source and free software
Grabbing our features for cheap and overall having us add value to their platforms, getting us to ignore Linux more while running their rat race, making it easier for them to embrace and extend us (eg, mono)....
Jose_X
2009-03-19 04:29:47
Without examples of both, I can't judge; however, control over software gives Microsoft greater power. This is what I judge.
>> (Oddly enough, Wikipedia contributions actually from Microsoft IPs tend to be as good as any. They are staffed by geeks, after all.)
I'd have to see examples; however, I will say that their examples are likely to be biased if the subject is one near and dear to them. Unless of course, they go to pains to present the other side and there is a vast "other side".
I don't doubt they are smart. I doubt they are trustworthy in a number of scenarios.
Remember Gates' start and much of Microsoft's life was spent trying to cheat others out of the worth of their "IP".
Roy Schestowitz
2009-03-19 09:35:42
They need to maintain better value, e.g. KDE.
As for FOSS in general: these won't flourish if they are encapsulated in a platform that calls the shots and favours non-Free software.