OK, I won't say much of anything, but...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2007 5:47 AM EDT |
>with its "you must pay me forever to use Linux" aspect, ? |
| pogson Jun 25, 2007 9:56 PM EDT |
Quoting the whole sentence from GROKLAW: "Microsoft evidently knows it is over for them going forward as the dominant player in that area, and the deal, with its "you must pay me forever to use Linux" aspect, likely flows from that stark awareness." The "you must pay me forever..." part obviously refers to the agreements recently made between M$ and several Linux distributors. The Novell agreement is known to include a per-seat tax payable to M$. M$ stands to benefit forever from each distro sold by its new partners. see http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/758004/000075800406000109... for an 8-K filing by Novell on Nov 2, 2006 which contains this information: " Microsoft will make an up-front net payment to Novell of $108 million, and Novell will make ongoing payments of at least $40 million over five years to Microsoft based on percentages of Novell's Open Platform Solutions and Open Enterprise Server revenues." On the face of it, one might think Novell made a profitable deal. That depends on the volume Novell develops. With big brother M$ promoting sales, a spike in Novell sales will return a handsome profit to M$ beyond the FUD and divisiveness/collateral damage. Am I the only one here that thinks it immoral for M$ to profit from sales of Linux which it has FUDed against for many years? If M$ had a true conversion on the road to Damascus (miracles can happen) they would likely put out their own distro and profit from it. Why bother with subverting members of the community? Could it be that the $100 million is just pocket change in the FUD campaign and not part of a true partnership? |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2007 3:13 AM EDT |
A. The deals do not go on forever. Novell's is a five year deal.
B."On the face of it, one might think Novell made a profitable deal." One might think? The deal was tremendously profitable for Novell. First, they actually got more like $300 million. You can't forget that the deal covered a lot of ground and that the patent protection part is actually a small part of the whole. And, business 101, children: To pay a per-seat license, they've got to sell some Linux. The only way for the deal to by unprofitable is if the per-seat license exceeds their profit per-copy. I know Microsoft is big, bad, and ugly. That doesn't mean we should stop thinking when their name comes up. |
| Abe Jun 26, 2007 9:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:pogson: Am I the only one here that thinks it immoral for M$ to profit from sales of Linux which it has FUDed against for many years?No, you are not alone. This was debated at length on LXer before. You see, Dino has a soft spot for business. He happens to believe that business are free to do whatever they want and whatever it takes to make profits (correct me if I am wrong Dino). In other words, their goals justify the means. Personally, I am not anti-business, on the other hand, I think businesses too much stepped out their boundries. Governments are supposed to be a watch dog to make sure they don't, unfortunately, govs are now being owned and controlled by businesses and simply not doing what they are supposed to. Back to the deals MS is making with companies doing business based on Linux. Ethically speaking, these companies are making deals on something they don't even own. Who gave them the rights to make deals that involves FOSS? Novell has no right, Xandros have no right, any company who is strictly in FOSS business has no rights to make such deals. Sure, they make it look like company to company doing normal business, but it is very clear that the deal involves FOSS and only FOSS even though they make it look like cooperation and inter-opreability for the benefit of the consumer is the primary objects. Who do they think they are kidding? They made the deals to survive, well FOSS doesn't need them to survive. If they can't make it on their own, they shouldn't be selling what they don't own. Business used to be ethical because they were either privately owned or most stock holders were employees. That has changed and corporation now owned by stock holders who care about nothing but making a big buck. CEOs are getting their big fat salaries and bonuses just to make more money the quickest way possible for the stock holders, damned with ethics, damned with employees and damned with the whole country. That will catch up with them eventually. Quoting:A. The deals do not go on forever. Novell's is a five year deal.Sure, they are only for five years. But, do you know what terms MS has in those deals? Don't you think that there is a chance that MS have clause(s) to guarantee it some rights that we don't know about? Don't you think that there is a chance that the deals might have legal implication like MS has IP in Linux? Novell made the deal out of desparation, what makes you sure that they didn't agree to other thing that will surprise us down the road? Why didn't Novell insist on making the terms of the deal open like FOSS being open? What is there to hide? Does anyone know for sure what will happen after five years? No one knows. Quoting:B. "On the face of it, one might think Novell made a profitable deal."It appears that Novell made good money on the deal, but the issue here is, MS is making money of every license Novell sells, Why? What give Novell the right to do that? And what is this payment for? Shouldn't the customers know what they are paying for? How could they use a loop hole to circumvent the very GPL that facilitate all this software to them? I guess business knows no ethics. If Novell thought they will have an advantage over other distros being the only outfit who had such a deal, what do they think it now after Xandros, Linspire and others make similar deals? The whole advantage they have been hoping to keep is all gone now, isn't? What did they gain so far other than few bucks that will be gone soon? what are they going to do next? Beg MS for more? Or make another deal selling their soul if they haven't already! All in all, Novell did an outrageous deal and deserve every consequence it is and will be getting. |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2007 10:03 AM EDT |
>correct me if I am wrong Dino You are very wrong. If you are going to put words into somebody's mouth, you could at least make a tiny effort to find out if they might reasonably belong there. Presuming, of course, that you have some respect for the truth. |
| Abe Jun 26, 2007 11:03 AM EDT |
Quoting:You are very wrong.I this would have been sufficient. Quoting:If you are going to put words into somebody's mouth, you could at least make a tiny effort to find out if they might reasonably belong there.I didn't put any words in your mouth and the little effort was in my question. I was simply stating my opinion, which was based on your posts and the way I understood them. There is a difference. Quoting:Presuming, of course, that you have some respect for the truth.I call them as I see them and I speak nothing but the truth. If you don't agree, that is your issue not mine. |
| jdixon Jun 26, 2007 11:33 AM EDT |
> I call them as I see them and I speak nothing but the truth. Now Abe, there you're making the same mistake which (I believe) you're accusing Dino of making. For that to be literally true, you would always have to be absolutely correct. That's beyond any of us. You speak nothing but the truth "as you see it". We should always keep our own fallibility in mind. Not that I'm perfect about doing so myself. :( |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2007 11:38 AM EDT |
>I call them as I see them and I speak nothing but the truth. Not when you incorrectly ascribe beliefs to others. The truth is the truth, not what you wish the truth to be. |
| Abe Jun 26, 2007 1:18 PM EDT |
ok, let me explain. I call them as I see them. This has nothing do with truth or no truth, but has everything to do with the way I see them. I don't change what I saw or lie about it. I just say what my eyes see, my brain registers and interprets. I speak nothing but the truth. I simply don't lie period. If you are talking about my opinions, that is a different subject. They are just opinions, they are subjective like opinions of any one else and have nothing to do with facts. If you are talking about absolute truth, I think no one knows what that is. |
| jacog Jun 27, 2007 3:10 AM EDT |
Sooo, shall we break out the oversized boxing gloves? |
| Abe Jun 27, 2007 6:06 AM EDT |
Quoting:Sooo, shall we break out the oversized boxing gloves?No idea what you are talking about, What are they used for? |
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!