extortion is never cheaper
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Nov 22, 2006 7:22 AM EDT |
"D'Aprano believes that the FUD created by Microsoft has been siezed upon by Novell to create a commercial advantage for the company. "At the end of the day, Novell has an obligation to do the things that will maximize profits for its shareholders," he says. "Novell probably feels that spending the money with Microsoft will gain it commercial advantage in the Linux space. If you're a Linux user who's nervous about a possible law suit, who are you going to go to for your Linux?" Not Novell, sheesh. " So why hasn't Red Hat reached the same conclusions as Novell? "It's probably the case that in Red Hat's estimation it will cost them less to prove Microsoft has no case than to pay Microsoft for indemnification," says D'Aprano." Whatever Novell's and Red Hat's real reasons are, once you give in to extortion you just keep on paying. Oh, and here we are with that old "obligation to shareholders" excuse again. I don't buy it. Unless they mean "top execs escaping with the swag and leaving everyone else holding the bag." |
| dcparris Nov 22, 2006 7:46 AM EDT |
> Not Novell, sheesh. Well, not now, anyway. I have used and enjoyed SUSE up to the recent past. I've always found it relatively easy to use and slap full of software. Yast is pretty cool, imo. But Novell trying to make a buck off Microsoft's FUD - which is what I think is at play - is disturbing. |
| tuxchick Nov 22, 2006 8:50 AM EDT |
"Novell trying to make a buck off Microsoft's FUD -" Yes, I agree, that is the main issue. Microsoft has no legal weapons against FOSS, and it can't compete on the basis of quality products. So all it has left is lies, and Novell buying into that is rather uncool. |
| jdixon Nov 22, 2006 9:02 AM EDT |
> So all it has left is lies, and Novell buying into that is rather uncool. Agreed, but it's more serious than that. Microsoft's history of lies is well documented and known to everyone in the software industry. So why did the CEO of Novell think he could cut a deal with them and trust them to keep it? This lack of judgment on his part is the equivalent of not being able to tie your shoelaces. It completely eliminates Novell from serious consideration as a provider of software or services. |
| tuxchick Nov 22, 2006 9:08 AM EDT |
It's easy to call it "Son of SCO". Troubled "Linux" software company replaces upper management and starts attacking Linux. Hmm, where have we seen this before....the main difference is the dirty hand of the evil empire is more apparent. |
| dinotrac Nov 22, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
PEOPLE --- KEEP THE FACTS STRAIGHT!!!! Of course Novell is finding their deal cheap. They aren't paying anything to Microsoft, Microsoft is paying them! Just because you see a funny money column labelled "from Novell to Microsoft" it doesn't mean that Novell is paying any money. What matters in any business deal is the net, and Microsoft is paying Novell hundreds of millions of dollars. From what I can tell, Novell gets a lot and gives up very little. Hard to call that a bad deal in business terms. |
| jdixon Nov 22, 2006 9:37 AM EDT |
Dino, the fact that the money is flowing from Microsoft to Novell has no effect on my comment, which concerns the lack of judgment on the part of Novell's CEO. Regardless of how you look at it, making a deal with Microsoft and expecting them to keep their end of it does not show good judgment, and a lack of judgment that severe calls in to question the competency of the entire company. That completely ignores the details of the agreement, about which I've already voiced my concerns. |
| dinotrac Nov 22, 2006 10:01 AM EDT |
jdixon - My comment was not directed at any individual so much as everybody talking about Novell paying Microsoft. They're not. RE: The Novell CEO... Yeah. I don't know about the judgment because I haven't read the agreement (and don't plan to) and I don't know everything that drove it, but... The guy might have been advised to wait until he had a better sense of what it's like to be on Microsoft's enemies list before entering into a far-ranging deal. |
| tuxchick Nov 22, 2006 10:06 AM EDT |
dino, technically you are right. I think the Rev's point about the FUD aspects of the deal is the important bit. Novell is seeing a short-term financial gain, but how smart is it for the long-term to partner with someone who is the very publicly sworn enemy of your main product line, and the entire community and infrastructure that creates and supports it? Microsoft's top bosses make no secret of their hatred of FOSS and the GPL. It borders on mental illness- they could have chosen to use it just like anyone else, and benefited from it. Instead they keep trying the same deceit and backstabbing they always use. The question of the effectiveness of their usual scorched-earth tactics is up in the air. I've puzzled on this until my puzzler is sore, and it seems their only real weapons are FUD and propaganda. I think Ballmer and Gates are incapable of telling the truth or making a simple, straightforward, declarative statement. It's all Wormtongue. I'm a lot less concerned about the potential impact on FOSS than I was before- as we have discussed in other threads, the GPL is strong and the worldwide FOSS community too diverse to attack. But that won't stop them from trying. You know the much-overused saying "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." MS has two products in an extensive product line that turn profits- Office and Windows. Everything else they touch turns into a money sink. You'd think that fact alone would cause the decision-makers to consider different tactics. I believe that over the long-term Microsoft will become friendlier to FOSS. It won't survive if it doesn't, and I'll wager there are a lot of folks in the rank-and-file who understand its value. But I doubt we'll see any changes in policy or tactics until Ballmer and Gates are gone. They have too much invested in boneheaded macho posturing to make any substantive changes. If Novell comes out on top in their dealings with MS, or at least not toasted to a crisp, I will be happily surprised. Like the Rev, I am not happy at their being partners in MS' anti-Linux campaigning. |
| jimf Nov 22, 2006 10:10 AM EDT |
> I believe that over the long-term Microsoft will become friendlier to FOSS Well, they'll 'pretend' to be friendlier... > It won't survive if it doesn't One can only hope that's true. |
| jdixon Nov 22, 2006 10:30 AM EDT |
> My comment was not directed at any individual so much as everybody talking about Novell paying Microsoft. They're not. Understood and agreed. Novell is actually coming out quite well in the deal, and has gained the blessing of SUSE as a "Microsoft approved" version of Linux. I can understand why they made the deal, they just forgot the cardinal rule of the software business: You can never trust Microsoft. |
| mdl Nov 22, 2006 10:47 AM EDT |
> My comment was not directed at any individual so much as everybody talking about Novell paying Microsoft. They're not. But yes, they are. I agree that the net $ transfer is to Novell as a result of the patent "agreement". However I suspect it was structured as a two way payment at Microsoft's demand so that they could claim it as a precedent. In other words "Look everyone, Linux is paying us for our intelectual property!". |
| tuxchick Nov 22, 2006 11:06 AM EDT |
jimf, this has probably been said already- MS doesn't need a formal deal with a commercial Linux vendor to do better interoperability. Duh. :) I wonder if Novell gets access to Windows and other MS application internals? That's the missing piece in true interoperability. So yeah, it's all a shuck. It's still going to be interesting to see how it all plays out. The ink on the agreement isn't even dry and Ballmer's already foaming about litigation. That sure shows you where their minds are at. Not innovation, and not interoperability, that's for sure. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 22, 2006 11:22 AM EDT |
>That sure shows you where their minds are at. Can you guess where their heads are at? |
| dinotrac Nov 22, 2006 11:33 AM EDT |
>However I suspect it was structured as a two way payment at Microsoft's demand so that they could claim it as a precedent. In other words "Look everyone, Linux is paying us for our intelectual property!". I have no doubt that is why Microsoft wanted it done that way. |
| dcparris Nov 22, 2006 1:53 PM EDT |
TC: I wonder if Novell gets access to Windows and other MS application internals? My understanding is that, yes, Novell gets to play nicer with AD. So there is some improved interoperability, and I can kind of understand them wanting to get at that, even if I disapprove of their strategy. Not that they sought my approval to begin with, but... Novell has a right to seek better interoperability, even while the rest of us are trying to convince MS to use the existing standards. You're correct about my primary point. Novell had to be aware of MS' position unless they have been under a rock for the past several years. I've only been paying attention for the last two or so, and I know. Still, My guess is that they realized they could gain from MS' FUD, which helps them compete against Red Hat, assuming the FUD is effective. Well, we know some will buy into it, even if not the controller where I work. I think most (even Windows admins) realize what game is being played. So Novell gets some potential Red Hat customers, and possibly a few of the more gullible current ones. I find it difficult to respect Novell's decision to accept the patent terms, regardless of their desire to put their customers at ease, because it plays into Microsoft's hand, and helps divide the community at just the moment when the community should be most united. Remember that MS is launching Vista! |
| tuxchick Nov 22, 2006 1:57 PM EDT |
While it is impossible to fathom the "brains" behind Microsoft, does anyone here believe they would really sue anyone like the article says? It seems pretty far-fetched. Sure, they have all the money in the world, but it takes more than that to win a lawsuit, even here in the good ole US of A. So far they've been successful with little more than bluff, bluster, bullying, and pure propaganda. I can't imagine what they would hope to gain by suing a Linux user, even in the delusional Redmond universe. Seems to me there is far more to lose, like accelerated customer defections. This Inquirer article has a table of noteworthy losses: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=24621 Groklaw, of course, goes into much more detail on everything: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107... Does anyone know if it's typical of large companies to be involved in so many lawsuits? |
| tuxchick Nov 22, 2006 2:05 PM EDT |
Don, the other thing I wonder about are the real goals of the new management team at Novell. Are they really there to run the company, or were they imported like Darl and his henchpeople for a different purpose? Those ole boyz in the executive suites inhabit a different world from us mere mortals anyway. I wonder, in this case, how different. We all take for granted the vast flow of information exchange that's available to us these days, and the passions that come with being a part of the FOSS world. But a lot of people are still living in the pre-Internet era where it was safe to ignore the peons, and have no idea what they're getting into when they run afoul of FOSS users. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 22, 2006 2:07 PM EDT |
>I can't imagine what they would hope to gain by suing a Linux user I made my point regarding this in another thread, but here's the gist: When Bill's Secret Army sues someone for using non-licensed software, they're suing Windows users. If they sue a Linux user for using infringing software, they're suing, among others, Red Hat and Oracle. There's no way they want that sort of battle, especially since they'll have to show what Linux is infringing upon (probably nothing). |
| dcparris Nov 22, 2006 2:48 PM EDT |
TC: I think it's hard to say about Hovsepian & Co., whether they are really Son of SCO, though that isn't impossible. I should hope they have seen the light, especially since they are the ones claiming SCO doesn't really own the rights to their UNIX platform. That said, you are correct in that many, especially in the upper echelons, simply pay little or no attention to anything coming from the bottom of the totem pole. It's really easy for a guy like Hovsepian to cut a deal, possibly even with good intentions, only to discover that he's the only one that thinks much of it. I guess that's one reason it gets lonely at the top. ;-) Also, I could kind of understand claims of patent infringement in Samba, but how would Linux infringe on MS patents? |
| Scott_Ruecker Nov 22, 2006 7:32 PM EDT |
my 2 cents, This was stated near the beginning, I have and continue to enjoy using SuSE. I know shoot me now. I have never tried to explain it but of all the distro's it is the one that I have been able to get to do the things I want it to do. All of this has nothing to do with recent events..so.. Any wrath from the decision to sleep with the devil does not deserve to be transferred to the people who contribute to OpenSuSE. Money going this way or that is not the fault of the community of developers who have tried to make SuSE worth using. We all know why M$ agreed to the deal and we all have opinions, including Novell on why they did the deal but the GPL is clear on who must benefit. We all must.. I guess I lost my point but all I hear from Microsoft is Ballmer trying to scare people and so far no one is buying it. Sorry for the rant. |
| dcparris Nov 22, 2006 7:35 PM EDT |
Well, that's just it. Ballmer is beating the water to scare the fish. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 22, 2006 8:24 PM EDT |
>Well, that's just it. Ballmer is beating the water to scare the fish. Beware the piranha.... |
| jimf Nov 22, 2006 9:40 PM EDT |
> Beware the piranha.... They're really just carp ;-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!