Jump to content

Ballmer on the Novell deal


dexter11
 Share

Recommended Posts

Alas, poor SuSE. We knew it well!
:lol2::lol2::lol2:

 

I have worked with Comcast and there is nothing about it that excludes Linux. Well, except their techs, that really don't even understand networking! :lol:

 

I am very disappointed with SuSE. I have used it a couple of times and found it very nice. Oh, well, more opportunity for other distros to step up.

A bit off-topic but things really are changing, at least here.

My ISP is the 2nd biggest in France (and growing very quickly) .. only 3-4 yrs ago your choice was almost nil... and one operator did phones, internet etc. and you even had to pay local calls ...

 

Now there is lots of choice and the offers are amazing.... free worldwide calls (excepting some weird places) and my isp not only uses linux but encourages it... and advertises the fact. Im now paying far less for a 22Mbit/1Mbit line than I was 3 yrs ago for a 512k line ........ €30 a month, for cable TV, FREE phone and network...

 

(The phone line alone was €15 a month on the old contract, even before I used the phone and €40 something for a paltry 1/2 Mbit)

 

I have heard a lot about the CEO of Comcast .. he seems an OK guy ... and does a lot of good stuff in his own time. (See the link in my sig)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just removed SUSE from my machine, and I'm back with Mandriva 2007.

When I think of SUSE, I think of the Trojan Horse. I wonder what the poor folks at SUSE in Nürnberg say to all of this. Maybe they feel like surfs, or sold slaves.

 

Cheers,

Helmut

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Helmet, I guess many of them are wondering if they can continue working on non-Novell specific Opensource.

 

Balmer has finally managed to make his words come true about the GPL being a cancer ...

 

Any of the devs who release any non Novell OS will be suspect ... because the burden of proof is now on them that they haven't seen any MS code ...one by one they will be forced to sign non disclosure agreements and these will then constitute legal proof they have SEEN the MS code. It doesn't matter so much if they use it... they have to prove they didn't use the ideas in it... and that is much harder to prove legally...

 

Equally since Novell don't have to worry (LOL) then they will include code and any of that code which finds its way into the OS community will spread. The purging of any questionable IP was a big move for the kernel team and its now undone unless kernel.org quarantines Suse fast and removed any suse employees from the dev teams....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but there are only so many ways you can do something when it relates to interoperabillity...

 

Since we started on Samba ... samba needs CIFS support... so the algorithms have to be within certain parameters... so only so much variation is likely...

 

When I worked in one job I often had to reverse engineer software to fix faults or work out why it wasn't working. The SW Im talking about read files of a known format ... that varied within bounds.(an industry standard)..so sometimes the SW was unable to read a specific format...

 

There are basically only so many ways to do it.... and usually one simplest way..

 

A good friend of mine works for the vendor btw... and I had quite a few of my own programs which I used to replace parts of the vendors with .. completely written from scratch and reverse engineered ...he had access to the source code and the two were pretty much the same...

 

When your dealing with a standard format the chances of the code being very similar are high...

and if Im having probs convincing you guys then think how hard to convince a judge.... (pre-trial)

 

As an example I would bet that khtml and gecko are really very similar... they both render html and though mozilla often does a better job ad bad html this is nit the core part but the html-tidy plug-in...

Following this logic Samba developers could already be sued for reverse engeneering the SMB protocol. MS doesn't need a deal for this.

If MS shows the SMB protocol or any of their closed specification to an open source developer that means they agree with an open source software using their closed data format.

Do you think that Novell is that stupid? Not thinking about an obvious trap like this means they are idiots, which I'm sure they're not otherwise they wouldn't lead a company which worths several billion dollars.

Or do you think they are corrupt? They sold out the open source world? Everybody would stop using their software and would start develop from the codebase before the MS deal. So that doesn't make any sense either to me. Besides reading the Novell open letter to the Foss community mean to me that they wanna follow their own way as they did it before. They made a deal, a business with MS and that's all. No need for conspiracy theories. If there's a trap in this agreement somewhere it's much more hidden.

What makes sense to me is the spreading of Linux makes MS to acknowledge it. They have to make interoperability better or they out of business in that segment and they don't want that. So "if you can't beat them join them" they make it easyer to work the two system together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following this logic Samba developers could already be sued for reverse engeneering the SMB protocol. MS doesn't need a deal for this.

Nope for a analogy look at the IBM bios reverse engineering ... done by AMI, phoenix etc.

When AMI first did it they had a complete clean room and another room full of lawyers...

Every document passed from anyone who understood IBM bios had to go through lawyers ... and be squeaky clean that is the purpose of the code could be passed but nothing specific about the code itself...

Noone who had EVER worked for IBM was allowed on the development team...

Samba are presently clean... (one presumes) they can stand up and say nono of the devs has ever seen a line of MS CIFS code... so its a clean re-engineering...

 

If MS shows the SMB protocol or any of their closed specification to an open source developer that means they agree with an open source software using their closed data format.

I don't think so, I think it means (to them) exactly what Balmer says it means...that as far as they are concerned Opensource has a debt of payments. That is they can say they disclosed code merely for the interoperability with their stategic partner Suse/Novell... Suse cannot use that source as is and still be GPL... so they either re engineer it or non GPL it... either of which is bad for the open source community.

 

Do you think that Novell is that stupid? Not thinking about an obvious trap like this means they are idiots, which I'm sure they're not otherwise they wouldn't lead a company which worths several billion dollars.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Had Novell not been stung already by MS... they might be worth 10x what they are worth today...

Or do you think they are corrupt?
Define corrupt? Is political lobbying corrupt? some people say yes, others say no... on the whole those being paid to do it say no... those getting screwed over say yes ...
They sold out the open source world?
This I can give a simple YES...
Everybody would stop using their software and would start develop from the codebase before the MS deal.

No, lots of people believe MS is corrupt... but they still use the software!

So that doesn't make any sense either to me. Besides reading the Novell open letter to the Foss community mean to me that they wanna follow their own way as they did it before. They made a deal, a business with MS and that's all. No need for conspiracy theories. If there's a trap in this agreement somewhere it's much more hidden.

What makes sense to me is the spreading of Linux makes MS to acknowledge it. They have to make interoperability better or they out of business in that segment and they don't want that. So "if you can't beat them join them" they make it easyer to work the two system together.

This is where I disagree... MS have been trying to kill linux for a long time... however they lack expertise in dealing with an organisation that cannot be purchased, bribed or threatened. MS have successfully set out to break companies simply because they are competition doing what they do best... bribery, threats and perverting the course of justice...

Netscape, Corel, stacker and an endless list of companies have been broken... at a cost much higher to MS than any tangible gain. Take netscape... they spent 10's of millions, possibly billions breaking netscape because it competed with a product they don't even charge for... thus zero tangible benefits EXCEPT ... it prevented competitors... like for instance Sun who bundled netscape with Solaris... for a time it provided IE for Solaris (just like it did with Mac) just long enough for people to get used to it and then it pulled the plug...

 

What they have always lacked in linux is something to attack financially... because they cannot compete technically but they have gone after any commercial companies...

 

Take Lindows.... sounds like Windows .. so they took them to court... but there is something fundamentally wrong here... MS didn't invent windows... I was using Dec Windows before DOS existed... who? Dec an ex mutli-million $ company destroyed by MS... and then this goes back via Apple and Xerox... to the point where calling Windows an MS trademark is laughable... but Dec played no hold poker with the worlds richest company and unsurprisingly lost...

And this is fundamental to MS... if they can get you to the table they win... they simply have more money by far and the stakes are too high... so what they do is they slip you 10 million or so as a stay quiet payoff and raise the stakes until your choice is loose everything or take the 10M for a company that was worth 500M...

 

Almost all MS IP cases are actually settled out of court... why? Because they include the sweetner in the bitter medicine... walk away now and we won't see you pennyless and homeless ... continue and we won't stop until you can't afford to rent a sleazy hotel room ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Following this logic Samba developers could already be sued for reverse engeneering the SMB protocol. MS doesn't need a deal for this.

Nope for a analogy look at the IBM bios reverse engineering ... done by AMI, phoenix etc.

When AMI first did it they had a complete clean room and another room full of lawyers...

Every document passed from anyone who understood IBM bios had to go through lawyers ... and be squeaky clean that is the purpose of the code could be passed but nothing specific about the code itself...

Noone who had EVER worked for IBM was allowed on the development team...

Samba are presently clean... (one presumes) they can stand up and say nono of the devs has ever seen a line of MS CIFS code... so its a clean re-engineering...

Then let's follow this analogy. First SAMBA developers already told their opinion about this deal. Yes I remember you telling me about they have to choose between their job and thier ethics.

But

1. Samba is an essential part of all the major distros so they won't let it die

2. not all Samba developers work for Novell, aren't they?

So in the unlikely case MS starts to shout they put propietary code in Samba and they proove it in front of the court they take it out in matter of minutes since they have a version tracking system like every project nowadays. So they know exactly who put what into Samba. And I agree with tyme here. Showing a couple of for loops ar any general code is just not enough. You have to proove it comes from your closed source and it's unique.

If they choose to develop a closed source application for SUSE, then what? Nothing changes.

If MS shows the SMB protocol or any of their closed specification to an open source developer that means they agree with an open source software using their closed data format.

I don't think so, I think it means (to them) exactly what Balmer says it means...that as far as they are concerned Opensource has a debt of payments. That is they can say they disclosed code merely for the interoperability with their stategic partner Suse/Novell... Suse cannot use that source as is and still be GPL... so they either re engineer it or non GPL it... either of which is bad for the open source community.

Well then maybe they don't share code. MS engineers just help test the two system together. Who knows? That's why I think it's too early to critisize this deal.

One thing is sure if they share some code it can't be GPL'ed AND only for SUSE.

Everybody would stop using their software and would start develop from the codebase before the MS deal.

No, lots of people believe MS is corrupt... but they still use the software!

I meant the FOSS community. Windows and MACOS users are not relevant in this point of view.

So that doesn't make any sense either to me. Besides reading the Novell open letter to the Foss community mean to me that they wanna follow their own way as they did it before. They made a deal, a business with MS and that's all. No need for conspiracy theories. If there's a trap in this agreement somewhere it's much more hidden.

What makes sense to me is the spreading of Linux makes MS to acknowledge it. They have to make interoperability better or they out of business in that segment and they don't want that. So "if you can't beat them join them" they make it easyer to work the two system together.

This is where I disagree... MS have been trying to kill linux for a long time... however they lack expertise in dealing with an organisation that cannot be purchased, bribed or threatened. MS have successfully set out to break companies simply because they are competition doing what they do best... bribery, threats and perverting the course of justice...

Netscape, Corel, stacker and an endless list of companies have been broken... at a cost much higher to MS than any tangible gain. Take netscape... they spent 10's of millions, possibly billions breaking netscape because it competed with a product they don't even charge for... thus zero tangible benefits EXCEPT ... it prevented competitors... like for instance Sun who bundled netscape with Solaris... for a time it provided IE for Solaris (just like it did with Mac) just long enough for people to get used to it and then it pulled the plug...

 

What they have always lacked in linux is something to attack financially... because they cannot compete technically but they have gone after any commercial companies...

 

Take Lindows.... sounds like Windows .. so they took them to court... but there is something fundamentally wrong here... MS didn't invent windows... I was using Dec Windows before DOS existed... who? Dec an ex mutli-million $ company destroyed by MS... and then this goes back via Apple and Xerox... to the point where calling Windows an MS trademark is laughable... but Dec played no hold poker with the worlds richest company and unsurprisingly lost...

And this is fundamental to MS... if they can get you to the table they win... they simply have more money by far and the stakes are too high... so what they do is they slip you 10 million or so as a stay quiet payoff and raise the stakes until your choice is loose everything or take the 10M for a company that was worth 500M...

 

Almost all MS IP cases are actually settled out of court... why? Because they include the sweetner in the bitter medicine... walk away now and we won't see you pennyless and homeless ... continue and we won't stop until you can't afford to rent a sleazy hotel room ...

You talk about MS like it was an evil person. Well it's not. It's a huge company with a sole purpose of generating profit for its owners but it's not good or bad. They are (MS) sometimes using questionable methods for saving their monopolistic position on the market like any other big company. But this monopoly is giving them hard times too. Think about the EU retributions.

I truly believe that they will open source Windows or release their own Linux distro if they think they can earn more money that way. Look at codeplex. That's certainly a huge step from "open source is a communist cancer".

MS killed Netscape because they could control the internet technologies that way. They invented the protocols, the big part of the web pages worked only in IE because they were built by their costly web editors (e.g. Front Page) or a web editor which was using their patents therefore payed for them. So it was for profit not from some ill will.

Just some correction on Lindows. IIRC all native English speaking contries denied using Windows as a trademark. So Lindows could have used that name in those countries but should have used another name in other coutries like Belgium where Windows become an MS trademark. Not because they sold their soul but because they don't use the word Windows in their everyday life or when they use it they are using it for MS Windows. But I think you understand that as a non-native-English speaker. It's the same in my language too. I admit though that the 20something million $ from MS surely helped to settle the case. But Linspire still exists today.

The same for Novell. Suse was the most closed distro out there. With its own closed tools. And even then they had their user base. Then came Novell bought Suse, released YAST code, created OpenSUSE and became the good company. Now they made a deal with the bad company and they become bad too.

We still don't know what the technological benefits or disadvantages of this deal are because they only just made it. OTOH they declared they won't sue each other for five years AFAIK. Nothing wrong with that. But in the same time MS and Ballmer made an implication that they will sue everybody else using their so called intellectual property. Whoooooo I'm scared. Come back to me when you won in front of the court against Redhat, IBM, HP and the rest. What's new in this? MS is threatening the FOSS community since it acknowledged its existence. If they have a malice in their minds then its this divide the FOSS community which they are doing now. You know the old Roman expression divide et impera. That's why I think all this "IwontuseSUSEever"s are all childish, foolish etc. Because we don't know yet if it will be harmful for open source yet. I think it won't. And Novell doesn't care because if their systems work better with Windows they can get more money from the companies than from thier OpenSUSE users. So I say people keep using SUSE if that's what fits for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talk about MS like it was an evil person. Well it's not. It's a huge company with a sole purpose of generating profit for its owners but it's not good or bad.

Its hard to say, can a company be evil? For that matter can a regime?

I guess Ix can answer that better than me, he usually does on philosophy :D

 

Im not sure what the purpose of MS is but it doesn't seem to be to make money for Bill any more.... since he's giving it all away... indeed I don't think its been about money for a while, certainly not money in a sense of money to buy material goods...

 

This begs the question why ??? I think on a simple level you can say "for kicks" or "its what he does" but I can be pretty sure he's not saving for a yacht or new plane... maybe a small country??

I suspect its something of a power trip.... that he has a psychological need to own what everyone needs... and if they don't need it to make sure they do? Lets face it for 'good' or 'bad' his name will live on rather longer than individuals like Grace Hopper... or in a more pervasive way...

 

In some ways "Windows" has become MS and Bill Gates...

 

2. not all Samba developers work for Novell, aren't they?
No of course not but it does drive a wedge into the project...
So in the unlikely case MS starts to shout they put propietary code in Samba and they proove it in front of the court they take it out in matter of minutes since they have a version tracking system like every project nowadays. So they know exactly who put what into Samba. And I agree with tyme here. Showing a couple of for loops ar any general code is just not enough. You have to proove it comes from your closed source and it's unique.

 

As I say, MS only have to get it into court. They don't need to win.... they can drag it out for years and unless someone like IBM backs Samba who will pay the fees?

Well then maybe they don't share code. MS engineers just help test the two system together. Who knows? That's why I think it's too early to critisize this deal.

One thing is sure if they share some code it can't be GPL'ed AND only for SUSE.

 

As I say, I don't think they need to share code...

When I was at school I had a woodwork teacher who gave us all a story... he did metalworking as a hobby and one day designed these fantastic candle sticks... he was really proud until months later he saw the candlesticks he designed in a photo of him in a museum...

I think the point of this is he really thought he had designed them... and was 100% convinced but they were something his subconcious had stored... and he reproduced nearly exactly while thinking they were his own design... leastwise I think that's why he chose to share this story...

 

This is what I believe MS is trying to do.... if you were working on (we started on Samba so) ... Samba and were wondering over a tricky bit of code then you just happen to see an oblique reference to it ... in some other code (for instance Exchange code for accessing Windows shares) then how can that not influence you but yet you can't remember exactly the code.... just how it worked ..... its almost like subliminal messages in advertising...

the aim being tho get the programmer to make the code more like the MS code... and there are a fairly finite number of ways to do it and Samba provide the "evidence" that this code changed after theprogrammer saw there code for Exchange CIFS integration....OS and CVS become a double edged sword...

 

Do Novell realise this? I think so... are they happy about it? Probably not they did try and release YaST as OS but who would want to use it? In many ways Suse IS YaST ... or look at it this way... what would Suse be without YaST.... ? Basically Slackware with RPM???

 

I meant the FOSS community. Windows and MACOS users are not relevant in this point of view.

Erm many FOSS users also use MS and OS-X ... even 'hardcore' distro users like Gentoo or Debian (by which I mean distro's with social codes/contracts etc.) Debian is fanatical about no closed source... and only marginally OK with non GPL... OS... and yet many Debian and Gentoo users still use Windows....

 

So if hardcore OS distro's have significant Windows users then Suse has even more.... so in answer if you were using Suse and Windows would you stop using Suse if "Everybody would stop using their software and would start develop from the codebase before the MS deal. " ... I don't think so....

Not because they sold their soul but because they don't use the word Windows in their everyday life or when they use it they are using it for MS Windows.
Good point ... but equally Dec Windows did exist in Europe (I was actually chatting a guy the other week about VMS... ) this is a but like Disney's little mermaid.... ask a bunch of kids today who wrote it and 9/10 will say Disney... ask them how it ends and they won't say she dies...

Two generations of people make this fact... Hans Christian Andersen... who's he?

 

Windows is like this.... it has become synonymous... and history will record how they invented it with a small footnote to Xerox... MS donates vast sums to propogating this myth...

Just yesterday ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4350972.stm

Note no Apple II with a GUI ....no xerox or Dec ... indeed it will almost look like Apple copied MS....

 

This last 15M happened yesterday.... its one of many ....

but google for more

http://www.msichicago.org/scrapbook/scrapb...ates_visit.html

 

The same for Novell. Suse was the most closed distro out there. With its own closed tools. And even then they had their user base. Then came Novell bought Suse, released YAST code, created OpenSUSE and became the good company. Now they made a deal with the bad company and they become bad too.

We still don't know what the technological benefits or disadvantages of this deal are because they only just made it. OTOH they declared they won't sue each other for five years AFAIK. Nothing wrong with that. But in the same time MS and Ballmer made an implication that they will sue everybody else using their so called intellectual property.

As i am trying to say, they only need spread doubt....

Compay A thinking of Linux head of IT says "will save 15M in 3 years."...

"OK.... cool... what are the risks? "

"Erm.. we could conceivable get sued.... its not likely but we could...."

This 15M.... can you say for usre, Ive been reading some TCO reports...

"well that spredicted of course from present licensing fee's and support"

"So if someone gets sued...might we have to pay licesne fees too?"

"possibly but its unlikely they are more likley to sue the distro like Red Hat"

"and this 15M... you need 5M for the rollout so its really only 10M"

"yes but thats over 5 yrs.... we break even on year one and a bit...because we need to phase the rollout with 50,000 employees.... "

"but in 5 yrs ..then Red hat might not exist, they might loose to MS"

"I don't think so"

"Can you say for sure"

"No as I explained the MS source code is secret so I can't audit it and check that linux doesn't use any and MS won't even say which bits, surely if they had something they would use it?"

"Perhaps but why should we take the risk, lets look again in 5 yrs and see if RH is still around"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Novell's CEO <<We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents [...]>>

extracted from

open letter of Novell to the OSS community: http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/comm...pen_letter.html

 

Well guys, I had wondered a lot about the Novell deal.

Read a few things here and there. Am not working in IT industry, so a bit more difficult to think it through. Gowator's arguments tipped the balance, and the quote above convinced me all the way as it shows that maybe the agreement signed was not what Novell thought it was.

What I mean, is that I read a lot in this quote, understand "signed one's life away, sh_t!"

 

So devide and conquer, make water muddier. Quasi monopolistic approach with deeeeep pockets. Traw spanners in the works. You name it, it is there. Never seen smaller guys signing huge agreement with huge cooperation without being either swallowed, digested, phagocyted, dismantled...

(got to do some good reading on this topic in case there are nice stories)

 

Suse is gone from my HD. Suse is gone from my newbie recommendations list (I do not post only here). I do not like having to take that decision. The devide objective has been met.

I do not see a better alternative (support or not support Suse), do you?.

Keep promoting Suse and take longer term risk for the linux community, I do not think so.

Lets see it as a fork, bye Suse (Maybe opensuse will fork?)

 

Zinblows already made me lost one post that could have helped a newbie

:wall::angry: :sad: :cry:

Edited by emmanuel_uk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...