| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Red Hat downplays Novell/Microsoft deal (ArsTechnica)
Red Hat downplays Novell/Microsoft deal (ArsTechnica)
Posted Nov 7, 2006 11:40 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151)In reply to: Red Hat downplays Novell/Microsoft deal (ArsTechnica) by pcampe
Parent article: Red Hat downplays Novell/Microsoft deal (ArsTechnica)
"Given this, could you really imagine an experienced system administrator, someone who advocates the OSS software and community model being happy to purchase a SuSE product after this deal? Knowing that a bit part of the sell price will be diverted to Microsoft?"
Maybe not an evangelist like you discribe, but certainly the majority of system administrators that have already bought many licenses directly from Microsoft and won't think too much about who get's the money for the new SUSE licenses they purchased as long as the product performs like they want.
There is a difference between religious fanatics, people just thinking long term and knowing that free software will benefit them and people that liking the short- and mid-term benefits they get from offers like SUSE's products.
The first group now sees Novell as tainted because they pay for advertising by Microsoft. The second group may be worried because of the patent stuff in the agreement but may or may not continue buying Novell's stuff. The third group most probably won't care at all.
(Log in to post comments)
Red Hat downplays Novell/Microsoft deal (ArsTechnica)
Posted Nov 7, 2006 12:02 UTC (Tue) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link]
There is a difference between religious fanatics,It is a sad sign of our ultra-materialistic times that those making decisions based on their convictions, instead of immediate material considerations, so easily get labeled fanatics...
Red Hat downplays Novell/Microsoft deal (ArsTechnica)
Posted Nov 7, 2006 12:09 UTC (Tue) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]
Word.
you misunderstood
Posted Nov 7, 2006 12:39 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]
Those making decisions based on their convictions are what I called the second group. They believe that in the long term free software will benefit everyone. I certainly belong to that group.
But there are other people: "Microsoft is Satan and everyone and everything touched by Microsoft is tainted and doomed." That _is_ religious fanatism. And one should watch out not to slip in that direction. It could damage the cause more than help.
Let me explain, why I think this is the case here:
Novell builds products based on free software. It has a certain market share, thus I think one can say, that they fulfill a certain need better than their competition. If one says that Novell is "tainted" and should be avoided without a really good reason, one removes a choice from the market that would for some be better than the competition. Maybe these people switch to free software competitors anyway, maybe they switch away from free software entirely and the whole free software community suffers.
Thus the question is: is the Novell/Microsoft deal a good enough reason to risk this? And I think it is not. Fanatics may only see that for every package Novell sells a part of the money goes to Microsoft.
So what? In return Microsoft advertises Novell products. That's what this part of the deal is: Novell has engaged Microsoft as an advertiser. And it really makes no difference if they pay a certain amount in advance or a certain amount per sold package. That's just payment details.
There was no cryout for any other advertising deal Novell has made and rightly so. So what's the difference here? Only that Microsoft is the advertiser. That's considered bad. Maybe that's right, but what would be if Novell engaged a Microsoft owned advertising company. Would that be good or bad? What if it engaged a company that Microsoft owns a part? What about a company that has a loan from the Microsoft bank? What about an advertising company that has done ads for Microsoft?
Where to draw the line?
Yes, I believe that free software benefits me, my friends, our company, and ultimately the whole world. But no, I don't believe in witch hunts and crying "Satan".
Yes, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and has commited many crimes and free software would get an instant boost if they would cease to exist. But that's only one solution. Even Microsoft publishes free software.
you misunderstood
Posted Nov 7, 2006 13:58 UTC (Tue) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link]
If it really were only about Novell paying Microsoft for advertisement, I wouldn't have any problem with it. But Novell is really paying royalty for some unspecified Microsoft IP in Linux, and that undermines Linux in a rather fundamental way, as discussed by many here, and elsewhere.
Going back to the "who is a fanatic issue", one does not have to believe "Microsoft is the Satan" or something like that in order to want to avoid dealing with them. Obviously the company exists to make money, but I can dislike the way they do that, and prefer companies more in harmony with my values.
you misunderstood
Posted Nov 7, 2006 15:11 UTC (Tue) by jedidiah (guest, #20319) [Link]
> But there are other people: "Microsoft is Satan and everyone> and everything touched by Microsoft is tainted and doomed." That
> _is_ religious fanatism. And one should watch out not to slip in
> that direction. It could damage the cause more than help.
No it isn't. It's simply the conclusion most consistent with the available facts. You are simply attempting to express the truth in an excessively inflammatory manner in an attempt to make it seem less rational.
There are VERY REAL intellectual property landmines to consider here. You do know one any favors by attempting to casually sweep them aside. Members of the development community have already had to deal with this with Microsoft (namely Jeremy Allison).
Attempting to invoke "witch hunts" only cheapens some really serious issues that need to be dealt with in a VERY serious manner here. This will require a great deal of oversight and rigour rather than people just hiding their heads in the sand and hoping that a company known for dirty tricks doesn't pull any.
If it takes a little hysteria to "wake" some people up, then that's not a bad thing in the end.
you misunderstood
Posted Nov 7, 2006 16:11 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]
The original poster said, and I quote again:"Given this, could you really imagine an experienced system administrator, someone who advocates the OSS software and community model being happy to purchase a SuSE product after this deal? Knowing that a bit part of the sell price will be diverted to Microsoft?"
This is what I responded to.
He almost calls for a boycott of a company that employs many good and important kernel-, KDE- and other hackers just because they bought advertising from Microsoft. Now if this is no witch hunt, I don't know what else.
Of course, there's still the patent part of the deal which I lost not a single word about as it's an entirely different matter which the original poster did not touch either.
I did not sweep aside any intellectual property landmindes, simply because I did not even take part in a discussion about them.
But you give a very good example of what I'm warning about: exploding because of a matter that was not even discussed. You projected your discussion and thoughts in my posting and thereby put words in my mouth that did not come from me. And will not, simply because I'm not stupid and certainly know the danger that comes from Microsoft and any patent or intellecutal property deal.
I simply try not to over-react and wait till more information is available.
you misunderstood
Posted Nov 7, 2006 17:13 UTC (Tue) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link]
So you are a religious fanatic. Your religion is, focus on a small bit that is a side issue and ignore the obvious larger problem.
Using "religious fanatic" to describe someone in a context that has nothing to do with religion is bullshit. It serves no useful purpose. All it means is that you disagree with the comments but don't think your arguments are strong enough to support your position, therefore there needs to be some unrelated hot button added.
The "original poster" is not calling for a boycott, but is asking questions.
"just because they bought advertising from Microsoft" <== that is not true, because obviously they didn't just buy advertising.
you misunderstood
Posted Nov 7, 2006 17:44 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]
You obviously did not really read what I wrote, so please excuse me if I do not repeat myself again.
I only want to point out, that you are the only one that has called any one person here a "religious fanatic".
Please let's stick to the LWN tradition of real discussions instead of just flaming.
If a discussion is what you want, let me know.
you misunderstood
Posted Nov 8, 2006 20:21 UTC (Wed) by pcampe (subscriber, #28223) [Link]
>He almost calls for a boycott of a company
First, boycott a company is usually acceptable. Boycott a person is unacceptable.
Second, I have some difficulties in buying a product which contradicts my vision of the world and my ideals.
Third, I'll change my mind if Novell will fund OSS projects for the entire cash they get from Microsoft (250 millions). Otherwise, good bye and good luck, and not on my servers.
Red Hat downplays Novell/Microsoft deal (ArsTechnica)
Posted Nov 7, 2006 15:01 UTC (Tue) by jedidiah (guest, #20319) [Link]
It is not zealotry to realize that Microsoft is a bastard. They destroy friends and enemies alike. Gates started out by blackmailing his first customer and then stabbing him in the back. Wanting to distance yourself from that kind of people is by no means "religious zealotry". It's merely being sensible. It's merely acknowledging the history of these people. To ignore some available facts just because they are inconvenient is IRRATIONAL.
Microsoft wants to be the only game in town. Unfortunately, they don't have the engineering skills to pull it off successfully. They are no AT&T. Neither are they an IBM.
If anything, it's the Microsoft apologists that have assumed the mental role of religious fundementalist: blindly holding onto views contradicted by the available evidence.
I don't want to use Microsoft products because they're crap and they're more trouble than their worth. This is both a personal and professional evaluation. As an IT professional, I would avoid giving Microsoft money anyways. Seeking to avoid doing that through Suse is simply maintaining the long established status quo for many of us.
It's bad enough that the market won't allow VMS to thrive. We shouldn't help Microsoft add Unix (including Linux) to the boneyard. Based on Microsoft's behavior in the past, no rational being can deny that this is exactly what Microsoft will do if it has the power.
This isn't about 'OSS fanatacism', it's about 'engineering fantacism'.
Red Hat downplays Novell/Microsoft deal (ArsTechnica)
Posted Nov 7, 2006 15:59 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]
Microsoft wants to be the only game in town. Unfortunately, they don't have the engineering skills to pull it off successfully.I would be careful about underestimating Microsoft's collective software engineering skills. They hire a lot of smart people.
Red Hat downplays Novell/Microsoft deal (ArsTechnica)
Posted Nov 7, 2006 19:37 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
And then they waste them.
Seen anything come out of MS Research that MS has actually used yet?
(Other than Clippy, that is.)
Red Hat downplays Novell/Microsoft deal (ArsTechnica)
Posted Nov 9, 2006 23:29 UTC (Thu) by pjones (subscriber, #31722) [Link]
Of the top of my head: subpixel font antialiasing (ClearType), the "Windows Media" family of AV codecs ("wmv"), and DirectX.