LWN: Comments on "An apology from Novell's CEO"

Does that mean.....

jeff_couillard — 2003-05-01T18:53:41+00:00

Thats good. I've hated that app since it was released.

Does that mean.....

mjb — 2003-04-29T01:14:23+00:00

The plan is that iManager 1.5, already available, particularly in NW 6.5 and above will become the core web-based admin. ConsoleOne has been EOL for over a year now, and only patches will ever come out for that.

Does that mean.....

jeff_couillard — 2003-04-28T13:14:15+00:00

Yes, and I've been using it since then. Which is how I know that you can't manage GroupWise, ZFD/ZFS, Bordermanager, or NDPS with it.

Does that mean.....

Hamadybrother — 2003-04-23T18:04:33+00:00

http://www.novell.com/products/consoles/consoleone/sysreqs.html

Novell has had a Linux verions of thier management app (ConsoleOne) for some time... ever since eDirectory was available over two years ago.

Main difference between moz, oo, and helix != GPL

jensend — 2003-04-23T16:37:54+00:00

No, no, no. I'm not saying that using the GPL ensures closed development; that's obviously wrong. I'm just saying the GPL doesn't ensure open development. My statement that the GPL is not openness and counterexamples mean "not (GPL implies openness) and not (openness implies GPL)", not "GPL implies not openness".

Main difference between moz, oo, and helix != GPL

babrew — 2003-04-23T15:50:57+00:00

> The GPL *is not* openness. Why do you think the GCC/EGCS saga happened?
> Because the GCC team was a fairly closed team, as were most of the GNU
> teams in the mid 90s.

Why being GPL-licensed software means that developer team has to be closed ?

Is it GPL's fault ?

I have seen "fairy closed" developer teams on BSD-licensed projects...

Does that mean.....

jeff_couillard — 2003-04-22T20:38:53+00:00

Do these inroads to the Linux world mean that we'll finally be able to totally manage NetWare and all the services that snap into it and run on it from Linux? What I want, as a long time customer of Novell, is to be able to manage GroupWise, ZEN for Desktops, and BorderManager from Linux.

Novell Client for Linux..

jeff_couillard — 2003-04-22T17:46:55+00:00

Thanks for the info. I went there, donwloaded the Novel Client, ran the script, and I'm in business.

Now I can hardly wait for the GroupWise Client for Linux to be released.

Thanks

Main difference between moz, oo, and helix != GPL

jensend — 2003-04-22T16:09:02+00:00

The GPL *is not* openness. Why do you think the GCC/EGCS saga happened? Because the GCC team was a fairly closed team, as were most of the GNU teams in the mid 90s.

If you look at the Mozilla project, the move to a GPL tri-license didn't change much at all. There was not a noticeable change in the number of people working on it when they moved to tri-license. Your comment that no company would pay to have people work on MPL licensed stuff doesn't make any sense at all. The MPL is almost functionally identical to the LGPL.

Linux-related forums are always clogged by people who think the GPL is some sort of cure-all, demanding that everybody in the world release under the GPL. These people don't have any idea what they're talking about.

Novell Client for Linux..

david_eliasson — 2003-04-22T11:15:17+00:00

There´s a very nice GUI Novell Client for Linux available at novelclient.sourceforge.net

It´s 100% GPL and does exactly what you want..

Main difference between moz, oo, and helix == GPL

coriordan — 2003-04-22T04:50:55+00:00

Cathederals and Bazaars. What a crap book, it has more nutritional value
than educational value. heh ;)

> The difference is in how open the projects are

I agree, but I say that GPL *is* openness. The NPL was kinda
open, the MPL was pretty open, the GPL put an end to all closedness.

No company is going to hire a programmer to work on code someone else
releases under the NPL, or probably the MPL. Once it was announced that
Mozilla would go GPL, companies were no longer afraid to pay coders to
work on it. The GPL levels the playing field. Completely.

It's no surprise that OpenOffice found it slow to build a developer
community. It's 9 million lines of C++, and the file/directory layout is
hOrrIBle. Throw in a lack of modularity and you find few people can even
compile it more than once per day.

Mozilla is 1 million lines. I haven't looked at the code but the Netscape
guys had a pretty good reputation. Also, in 1998, a web-browser was *the*
most requested piece of Free Software. That made it sexy to work on.

As for RealHelix? Their business model probably couldn't stand up to
openness. Their main selling point is a monopolly on a data format.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Keep up the good momentum

coriordan — 2003-04-22T04:03:51+00:00

> I don't want to disappoint anyone

I'm not dissapointed. Solaris remaining proprietary does not change the
fact that OpenOffice is GPL. I use Free Software. I descriminate by
license, not by vendor.

> when we develop Linux kernel code, we will of course contribute these
> improvements to the developer community under the GPL

(as is required by law)

> Novell is evaluating which of its proprietary technologies are good
> candidates for open source release, and we will likely use the GPL

I look forward to hearing about this, I hope that the GPL'd parts are
independantly useful.

See you in the media.
Ciaran O'Riordan

Keep up the good momentum

kmagnusson — 2003-04-21T17:22:12+00:00

I want to clarify my comment about seeing "Novell" and "GPL" in the same headline--I can see that it was confusing. I don't want to disappoint anyone, but Novell doesn't have plans to release our proprietary services under the GPL--things like our file, print, directory, collaboration, and other services are how we are adding proprietary value to Linux for our customers, and they are what our customers customarily pay for when purchasing NetWare.

What I meant was that when we develop Linux kernel code, we will of course contribute these improvements to the developer community under the GPL. We have staffed up a large team of Linux kernel engineers whose intentions are to become first-class citizens of the Linux developer community in the same way HP, IBM, Red Hat, SUSE, etc. are. Further, Novell is evaluating which of its proprietary technologies are good candidates for open source release, and we will likely use the GPL for the license for these projects. So that's why you'd see "Novell" and "GPL" in the same headline--code contributions to the Linux developer community, and new open source projects of formerly proprietary code. I hope that clarifies things a little bit--I certainly didn't mean to mislead anyone. Thanks for understanding.

................ kris

An apology from Novell's CEO

dlcarraw — 2003-04-21T14:23:02+00:00

>Linux is simply not an option in my (academic) labs until a user can >login via NDS and have their home directory on the server, like MacWin >users have had "forever".

With Novell's Native File Access product, it's possible to publish a NetWare volume via CIFS (aka SMB), which Linux clients can mount; LDAP PAM should enable eDirectory authentication. A native client would clearly be superior, however.

So far, so good, have Novell considered real portability?

leonbrooks — 2003-04-21T04:24:02+00:00

Hi, Mr Magnusson

It seems to me that making the Linux port of Novell's services also work under one BSD
(say, FreeBSD) would not be very hard, and after that almost too easy for each additional
BSD flavour. This implies that for very little additional effort, Novell could do what it
traditionally seems to have done best - be the glue between many disparate systems
right across the enterprise - at least for Linux, Windows (via CygWin, at least), *BSD and
Mac OS X (and presumably Solaris, Irix, HP-UX, AIX et al) from a single code-base. This
would be very attractive to an integrator faced with Active Directory as an alternative.

Before I get taken for flamebait, I should also point out that a good deal of the
functionality that AD and NDS offer can be replicated using OpenLDAP, IMAP and a few
other completely Open Source tools. Novell would be providing seamless integration and
the well-earned reputation for ruggedness and efficiency picked up from NetWare.

A big bonus from the above plan would be that it would make clear to the squillions of
small developers and integrators about the place that Novell were serious about what
they're doing, not just vocally dabbling in the most popular alternative option in search of
easy karma.

Just to confuse you all: I only use Linux, and the only other OS I routinely have to
integrate with is Borgware (AKA Windows) - I don't regularly use any of the others I
listed above. Yet a broad-fronted approach from Novell would very much more incline me
toward recommending them to my clients than a solitary Linux port.

Welcome back, Jack

LinuxAddict — 2003-04-20T19:42:12+00:00

Novell adds to Linux. Linux adds to Novell. It could be a good match.
Okay Jack ... whatcha got? Let's see some cards.

Bill C.
MDLUG (Detroit, MI)

An apology from Novell's CEO

joe21zasada — 2003-04-20T06:06:58+00:00

I am an avid user of Linux - I use it on some workstations and on my servers. Our oganization uses apps that tie it to microsoft operating systems - and, I need something easy to administer and support, while maintaining high levels of security and reliability. That leads me to Netware 6 and eDirectory - both of which work well with linux. I am glad that Novell is continuing to make its products more linux friendly. They have always been known for security and stability - what better way to move ahead than to adopt Linux!

NetWare 7 will be interesting indeed...

Now, All I need is a tie that has Tux holding a Novell flag...

An apology from Novell's CEO

kmagnusson — 2003-04-20T04:34:34+00:00

Novell just released a Linux client for NetWare/eDirectory written in Java that we licensed from a company called N-X, based in Germany. It's supposed to work quite well, though I haven't tried it yet on my Red Hat 8 desktop due to preparations for our BrainShare conference taking up all my time lately. If you send me a private email at kmagnusson@novell.com, I'll tell you how you can get a hold of one.

........... kris

An apology from Novell's CEO

Surreal — 2003-04-19T21:43:07+00:00

It's nice (surprising) they actually noticed the fauxpas. Nice recovery.

The *real* reason I'm posting though is because Kris may read it :-)

I've used Netware since 3.10 was released. Since approximately 4.11 days I've been pestering Novell for a usable Linux client like Windows and Mac users get -- the reply has always been either silence or "here's some lame thing a 3rd party wrote".

If Novell can jump through flaming hoops to reverse-engineer Windows, and even counteract all of the deliberate sabotage MS throws their way, WHY THE HECK can't they give me a freakin' Linux client????

Linux is simply not an option in my (academic) labs until a user can login via NDS and have their home directory on the server, like MacWin users have had "forever".

Please?!?
Surreal

Classy

kmagnusson — 2003-04-19T21:32:57+00:00

You're in luck. The Novell directory service, eDirectory, currently runs on Linux. You might want to take a look at our web site and read the white paper.

............ kris

A welcome change

kmagnusson — 2003-04-19T21:17:09+00:00

Like you said, this ia water way under the bridge. Off the top of my head, I don't know the status of that code. I will ask my attorney counterpart on the Open Source Review Board about it and let you know sometime.

........... kris

Censorship

mslicker — 2003-04-19T19:28:20+00:00

We Have No Right To Censor His Opinions!

Free Software and Open Source philosophies have always meant the most to me because of Freedom and Openness. Disallowing Novell's CEO to speak his mind is absolutely wrong. This kind of social pressure stands against the principles of freedom--you all have your opinions and he can have his.

Yes--responsibility comes with freedom, but this was really uncalled for. If he feels like Linux is immature--well, that's purely an opinion. It's not misinformation. Frankly, I think users and programmers should always see Linux in that way--so it gets better.

Hell, I run a GNU/Linux-based Cyber Cafe and I'll tell you, Red Hat has totally ruined KDE and their XFree crashes weekly. The only desktop distrobution we'd tried that stands the test of time is Lycoris, but it's stripped down so much it takes a lot of work to get it to serve LTSP terminals.

BTW: Red Hat is the worst performing as a Desktop server (Mandrake is second). SuSE is pretty good in terms of overall (properly working) software selection and stands up very well in terms of stability over time. Lycoris is the very best in terms of performance, security, and stability over time. Gentoo is easy to optimize but would be very hard to get to the level of Lycoris in performance or refinement. That's because we have to do so much work, revising and optimizing packages and such. Overall, I prefer Gentoo. This is for the simple reason that they did not *enhance* the various packages like KDE. Everything seems to come as the developers intended them. KDE works exceptionally well. GNOME stuff seems to work well also... But I find it odd calling anything GNOME as the unions seems 90% political and perhaps only 10% technical. GNOME applications are mostly independent applicaitons under a common political banner.

Matthew C. Tedder

Re: A welcome change

Ross — 2003-04-19T19:17:52+00:00

Yes, but just to be clear, I don't believe that anyone is claiming he "reused" the same code. The claim is that he is using knowledge and experience from when he wrote that code -- knowledge he wouldn't have otherwise. So any work on filesystems might be suspect. But since Microsoft hired him to work on NTFS, maybe I shouldn't be too concerned.

Main difference between moz, oo, and helix != GPL

jensend — 2003-04-19T17:58:47+00:00

I don't think the main difference between the success of Mozilla, the relative success of OpenOffice, and the quiet "this doesn't change all that much" reaction to Helix is the use of the GPL as a dual license. People not affiliated with Netscape did lots of work with Mozilla before the tri-licensing movement was started, and it is quite surprising how few the non-Sun contributors to OpenOffice are. The difference is in how open the projects are and how the products are percieved by the open-source community.

Mozilla is an extremely open project- they went to open-source largely based on Eric Raymond's "Cathedral and the Bazaar" paper and so went to a bazaar model. This does have its drawbacks- you get tons of clueless lusers ranting in Bugzilla and wasting developers' time- but it has helped Mozilla become a showcase for open source. Mozilla also started out with a product which many people in the open source community were excited about.

OpenOffice is working to become more open to speed development, and is trying hard to get people to help in the performance efforts. They have taken what is almost a cathedral style tack in development, and it has served them well in making a coherent and feature-complete suite. StarOffice was a product many users were excited about years before Sun even acquired it.

Real, on the other hand, has what is very obviously a cathedral style of development, and this and the fact that RealPlayer was not a product people in the open-source community were excited about (due to its reputation for bloat and closed standards) have made the Helix work a much quieter operation in the open source world than either of the other development efforts. However, Helix has been successful in its own way- the latest RealPlayer, based on the Helix code, is a lot leaner- and the bare-bones helix client is rather good. They'll need to open up more if they want more far-reaching results, though.

Classy

rheggs — 2003-04-19T17:57:18+00:00

+1.

Novell has become embroiled in misunderstandings with one or two FOSS communities and individuals in the past and as a result, rightly or wrongly, has been regarded with some suspicion by those communities and individuals. With this simple and honest apology from the CEO, I think Novell has taken a large and significant step towards mending bridges. Time will judge their sincerity and commitment, of course, but I for one feel that their apparent move towards Linux is genuine. And exciting :)

My current employer has a large Netware installation, and is also interested in Linux and FOSS in general (so far, we've successfully rolled out one very large and two small Linux solutions within the organisation). If Novell bring their directory services to Linux it will go a long way towards ensuring that MS Active Directory never takes root in our network (well, apart from the Citrix farm, but we don't like to talk about that :)

Well done, Novell. I will be watching with interest to see what happens next.

Rich.

"... when we release Netware 7..."

Baylink — 2003-04-19T17:46:22+00:00

That phrasing suggests strongly that you think you've figured out a way to prove that what commercial clients for something like Netware are *paying for* is auditability, accountability, and support, not merely the functionality of the package. And that, by extension, you can stay in business and make a living and still open source your code.

And I *dearly* hope you're right.

Someone makes the point further up the page that Sun "got it right" with StarOffice -- which is only questionably accurate, but not *pertinent*, as OOo is *not* the bread and butter for Sun.

Netware *is* for you.

I'm personally pleased to see that you think that the underpinnings of Linux are sufficiently sturdy even at the current stage to be a good target to port your services subsystems to for commercial sale -- it makes my sales job (for those few who are still Linux scaredycats) even easier.

Best of luck on this one, and good save. :-)

Re: A welcome change

rossb — 2003-04-19T16:08:24+00:00

You mention his "often rambling and/or flame bait" messages on the topic, that's usually a clear sign that someone doesn't understand how "work for hire" functions, or they don't know how to negotiate terms of a contract.

It's easy, you sign up for a stint of writing or producing materials, and you get paid in full for it. The company gets the product, you get paid, they never come after you if you don't try to misappropriate the product.

Rest assured, if there's a real need for a replacement to that code, someone will undertake it. That's the great thing about this community (one of the great things, anyway) the information/code will find a way to be free.

(Different) Ross

Top Marks Novell

bosah — 2003-04-19T08:10:14+00:00

One of the things to remember about open source is that everyone is a voting member of a culture thats very loyal and very active. Also, unlike closed source, many of us can both see and understand where packages are going and try and give them active support.

I hope you guys go all out. Novell has always been technically excellent and I could see you doing very well with a mysql type model. Two formats GPL and Commercial for many of your products. You guys have the technical savvy to stay ahead of generous free offerings, and\or make your support worth paying for. Meanwhile I think you will find that those free offerings are the best marketing you'll ever have.

I'd love to get you guys in the door or back in the door (as the case may be) with some well placed GPL code. If you guys are clear, fair and reasonable with Linux I'm sure it will respond to your generousity in kind.

Good luck.

Best news I've heard out of Novell since Novell 5.

Re: A welcome change

Ross — 2003-04-19T07:08:35+00:00

I know it was a long time ago, but according to his lkml posts (which were often rambling and/or flame bait) he still had problems with threats of legal action just a couple of years ago. Supposedly he left the state of Utah and moved to New Mexico because of it.

He also mentioned that at one point Novell considered him "tainted" due to the doctrine of inevitable disclosure. I'm not sure how long such a thing might last; there are definitely limits to anti-competitive clauses in contracts. Replacing the code wouldn't seem to help because we're talking about trade secrets. Basically someone else would have to write new code without looking at the old to be completely sure there was no problem with "tainting". Of course I could be completely confused since I'm not a lawyer.

Does anyone know the current status of NWFS or MANOS? At one point he was going to assign copyright to Alan Cox, but I'm pretty sure Alan didn't want them.

He also had a run-in with Microsoft over similar issues with the kernel NTFS support. I think those were resolved more conclusively.

A welcome change

BrucePerens — 2003-04-19T05:59:17+00:00

This is water way under the bridge, but it appears that Jeff, unfortunately, brought a good deal of that on himself. Reading through old press coverage, it sounds as if he had some basic misunderstanding of what he could do in his own business with a work-for-hire that he'd produced for his previous employer. All of this is long over, and I assume that Jeff replaced any pieces that were in question with his own code.

That said, I did mention to Kris a while back that we want to clear up any remaining doubt about that code.

Bruce

Keep up the good momentum

kmagnusson — 2003-04-18T22:46:26+00:00

Thanks for your comment. Rest assured that where it's appropriate that we use the GPL, that we will do so. We have no intention of running off and creating our own incompatible license--we've seen that doesn't work. Further, we've done an extensive review of the GPL--we're not at all scared of it, we know what it's about and how it works, and we know how to use it in conjunction with our own proprietary services that will run in user space. So you should see "Novell" and "GPL" in the same headline in the next 18-24 months when we release NetWare 7 based on the Linux kernel.

............ kris

Keep up the good momentum

coriordan — 2003-04-18T21:42:21+00:00

hello kmagnusson,
I'd like to pass on a bit of advice of my own: GNU General Public License

The announcement the Novell will support "Linux" is interesting but has not
gotten me excited. In the past companies have decided to support "Linux"
or to "open source" their software, but all too often this means making up
their own software license and bashing down the corners until the OSI will
certify it (or at least endorse their efforts).

This doesn't work.

Take RealNetworks as an example. They didn't understand Free Software
development at all. Their biggest mistake was making up their own license.
Their next was adding a lot of "We control This" clauses to the license.
And finally they made the whole process complicated and only released
token parts of their software. Nobody cares about them. (As far as I
know, Bruce Perens and the Free Software Foundation both tried to help
RealNetworks do it right but even they couldn't save them.)

Two different examples are TrollTech and Netscape. Both companies were
afraid that the GNU GPL wouldn't work in a commercial environment, they
decided to make up their own licenses (the QPL and the NPL). The community
made it known that this was an annoyance and both groups adopted the GNU
GPL.

Sun did it right from the start. OpenOffice: they GPL'd every single line
they owned. And the parts they didn't own, they wrote GPL replacements
for. Sun didn't GPL every piece of software they owned, but they GPL'd
a complete unit of software, not portions of it. They made it very clear
what was GPL. They even setup openoffice.org to distribute this piece
of Free Software.

Most of the companies that do it wrong don't do it out of malice, it's
just that they can't convince their legal departments to trust the GPL.
Please do what you can, and when I see "Novell" and "GPL" in a headline,
I'll get excited.

Thanks for reading.
Ciaran O'Riordan

An apology from Novell's CEO

minichaz — 2003-04-18T21:33:08+00:00

Well done to Novell. They are an inovative company and I think Linux will be the stronger for their participation, especially if they carry on in the manner expressed above.

Good luck to them and all their OSS ventures.

Classy

cjdewey — 2003-04-18T20:29:34+00:00

Such Humility and Clue are to be appreciated in a CEO. Or in anyone else, for that matter. Here's to hoping Linux and Novell go together like chocolate and peanut butter.

Better than I expected

kmagnusson — 2003-04-18T20:03:46+00:00

Bruce, those are kind words. I appreciate your support. And I'm glad we seem to have done right by you and the community with our apology--that's important to me and to Novell.

A welcome change

jvotaw — 2003-04-18T18:31:56+00:00

This is a welcome change, if it bears fruit, from the Novell that was suing Jeff Merkey, the Linux kernel developer responsible for Netware FS support on Linux. Do a web search for "Timpanogas Research"; I'm sure the Linux kernel mailing list archives have some information on it also.

Joel

An apology from Novell's CEO

LinuxLobbyist — 2003-04-18T16:46:01+00:00

Kudos to Mr. Messman. It is a rare moment to hear this kind of humility from a CEO of a traditionally proprietary software vendor.

Simply put, Linux will continue to grow with or without Novell.

And well put, indeed. I, for one, welcome Novell's increased participation in the world of FOSS.

An apology from Novell's CEO

shahms — 2003-04-18T16:36:26+00:00

I must say this is one of the coolest things I've seen from a CEO in a while. Admitting that he stuck his foot in his mouth and trying to repair the damage. Very nice to see.

Better than I expected

BrucePerens — 2003-04-18T16:23:01+00:00

I talked with them several times, and encouraged them to make an apology, but did not contribute to or review the text. They did this on their own, and excellently. Kris Magnusson is their Open Source point person, and is doing a good job at getting two widely disparate cultures together.

Bruce

Better than I expected

scottt — 2003-04-18T16:07:30+00:00

"Simply put, Linux will continue to grow with or without Novell."
Admitting this made the "clarification" work much better, IMHO.

Was this advised by Bruce Perens ?