- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Microsoft, Novell Expand Interoperability Partnership
|
|
|
Comments (36)
16 earlier comments in the full thread.
@gus3:
>"If the sky isn't falling, it's because we are propping it up."
Or, maybe it's because a free market balances itself over time. MS and the like appealed to the entire computing market with a combination of meeting its needs, and manipulation. Said manipulation is coming back to haunt them now, as OSS starts meeting users needs - in a free and open way.
I promise you, the zealotry currently "propped up" by the FSF and their ilk will never become the norm. While freedom is ideal and sustainable, "freedom as long as it's how we define it" is not. The FSF, so long as it enforces terms of use for the sake of ideology, will never be more than the other side of the proprietary coin. Control is still control, no matter what the motive is behind said control. Additionally, the motive of zealotry is blind promotion of ideology, not serving the needs of end users - so they don't even have that going for them anymore.
(edit:)
The FSF started out in the right direction, with a solid methodology, I simply believe they have grown drunk with their perceived influence and assumed power. I hope to see said "community" return to a more rational course, but I'm not optimistic.
>"If the sky isn't falling, it's because we are propping it up."
Or, maybe it's because a free market balances itself over time. MS and the like appealed to the entire computing market with a combination of meeting its needs, and manipulation. Said manipulation is coming back to haunt them now, as OSS starts meeting users needs - in a free and open way.
I promise you, the zealotry currently "propped up" by the FSF and their ilk will never become the norm. While freedom is ideal and sustainable, "freedom as long as it's how we define it" is not. The FSF, so long as it enforces terms of use for the sake of ideology, will never be more than the other side of the proprietary coin. Control is still control, no matter what the motive is behind said control. Additionally, the motive of zealotry is blind promotion of ideology, not serving the needs of end users - so they don't even have that going for them anymore.
(edit:)
The FSF started out in the right direction, with a solid methodology, I simply believe they have grown drunk with their perceived influence and assumed power. I hope to see said "community" return to a more rational course, but I'm not optimistic.
Quoting:At first I was skeptical at the zeal Roy was showing in hounding MS, but now I see the necessity of documenting the spread of that plague on humanity.
Quoting:You mention Roy's zeal, but you don't seem to understand the damage such zeal (including your own) does to "the community" as a whole, and particularly to potential new members of the community who just want to actually do some work.
IMHO Roy has the same problem that Helios has: Good idea but not well communicated. I think the both of them would be a lot more effective if they were less zealous and more business-like about there message. They could both do with someone helping out in PR :-)
Thing is, I can understand this from Helios. It's who he is. But Roy should know better. Roy's articles on other websites are always very well written but he lowers his standard on his own website. A shame really.
Rule 1 of effective communication: Don't just say what you think. Say what you need to say to get your point across. Your message (article, presentation, speech) is not the goal but merely a transportation layer. Your goal is what will be in people's heads after they read/listened/watched you.
@Dumper4311
Is the code open, or not? Are there open standards you can store your data in? If so, what exactly are you worried about? Microsoft can't take that away.
Open doesn't cut it. It needs to be unencumbered. Absolutely no strings attached, except attribution and, at the coders option, reciprocal code sharing.
A license alone doesn't support FOSS. You need a group of people who realize that restrictions on code use need to be a major consideration when picking a software package to use. MS end game is to dilute the mental aversion against restricted software amongst FOSS supporters. MS is like a spider, they want you in their web. "A little proprietary doesn't hurt?! We aren't even asking full price for it, just a little payment on the side. Look at what convenient utilities it delivers? You can mix and match Windows with MS approved distro's. Why are people so against this? We are playing nice here."
Proprietary is a dead end in FOSS. You either end up with a free core OS laden with closed applications on top, making your day to day use no better licensing wise than a pure MS environment or you start to commingle proprietary layers with free ones an end up with a mish-mash that is neither free nor completely proprietary, but which has nasty restrictions nonetheless.
Proprietary should be stopgap, but since the Free Software message has been massively diluted, more and more people are chipping away at the idea of a fully free OS ecosystem. A shame really. If enough people let go of that ideal, we'll see the demise of GNU/Linux as a free (as in speech) OS.
Is the code open, or not? Are there open standards you can store your data in? If so, what exactly are you worried about? Microsoft can't take that away.
Open doesn't cut it. It needs to be unencumbered. Absolutely no strings attached, except attribution and, at the coders option, reciprocal code sharing.
A license alone doesn't support FOSS. You need a group of people who realize that restrictions on code use need to be a major consideration when picking a software package to use. MS end game is to dilute the mental aversion against restricted software amongst FOSS supporters. MS is like a spider, they want you in their web. "A little proprietary doesn't hurt?! We aren't even asking full price for it, just a little payment on the side. Look at what convenient utilities it delivers? You can mix and match Windows with MS approved distro's. Why are people so against this? We are playing nice here."
Proprietary is a dead end in FOSS. You either end up with a free core OS laden with closed applications on top, making your day to day use no better licensing wise than a pure MS environment or you start to commingle proprietary layers with free ones an end up with a mish-mash that is neither free nor completely proprietary, but which has nasty restrictions nonetheless.
Proprietary should be stopgap, but since the Free Software message has been massively diluted, more and more people are chipping away at the idea of a fully free OS ecosystem. A shame really. If enough people let go of that ideal, we'll see the demise of GNU/Linux as a free (as in speech) OS.
> SCO is a recent and perfectly fitting example of why this argument stands up fairly well.
SCO, while well funded, had neither the law nor the facts on their side. A truly unscrupulous opponent will use their money and influence to get the law changed in their favor and fabricate the facts in a convincing manner. Do you really think Microsoft isn't capable of either or both?
> Roy has the same problem that Helios has: Good idea but not well communicated.
I'd say that's true, yes. While I generally agree with Roy's base points, I find his articles too difficult to read. The difference for me is that while I find Helios' writing is entertaining, that's not true for Roy.
SCO, while well funded, had neither the law nor the facts on their side. A truly unscrupulous opponent will use their money and influence to get the law changed in their favor and fabricate the facts in a convincing manner. Do you really think Microsoft isn't capable of either or both?
> Roy has the same problem that Helios has: Good idea but not well communicated.
I'd say that's true, yes. While I generally agree with Roy's base points, I find his articles too difficult to read. The difference for me is that while I find Helios' writing is entertaining, that's not true for Roy.
@r_a_trip:
>"Open doesn't cut it. It needs to be unencumbered. Absolutely no strings attached, except attribution and, at the coders option, reciprocal code sharing."
You must hate the GPLv3 then. :) For what it's worth, I agree with the above statement as an ideal.
>"A little proprietary doesn't hurt"
I don't think proprietary is inherently evil. You've been drinking the kool-aid my friend. Ultimately what matters is who owns your data. Are you able to use it without obstruction or hindrance? Is your access to it safe if a given vendor dies? So long as those conditions are met, proprietary software is no more evil than "free" software. Note, I'm talking about proprietary software in general - not MS's business tactics in particular. It's important to be clear on who and/or what we disapprove of.
>"but since the Free Software message has been massively diluted"
Massively diluted? Please tell me you're joking. Since their inception, the FSF has sharply tuned their message, in the form of a more restrictive license and a propaganda campaign that rivals any from MS in it's redefinition of language. The "Free Software message" is great, but their methods are just as dirty as MS's methods. They simply manipulate for what they believe is right, instead of corporate profit. Either way, users loose.
@jdixon:
>"A truly unscrupulous opponent will use their money and influence to get the law changed in their favor and fabricate the facts in a convincing manner."
Are you claiming SCO isn't truly unscrupulous? :) As I understand it, this is exactly the (partially and indirectly MS funded) method SCO attempted - through the courts and FUD slinging.
(edit:) admittedly, SCO's legal manipulations are aimed at interpretation of existing law, but the intended end is the same.
I think MS has attempted (with varying degrees of success) both methods you mention. I also think such methods ultimately amount to so much smoke. Remember, people want to get things done. When the propaganda, abuse, or bad laws prevent such progress, things change out of necessity. Note the rise of open source as the best example of such change.
(edit, again:) I'm not suggesting we go merrily on our way ignoring MS and their kind. I'm simply suggesting that we don't do any more damage to our own "community" by freaking out and herding ourselves off the other edge of the same cliff. Extremism is generally bad, in one direction or the other.
>"Open doesn't cut it. It needs to be unencumbered. Absolutely no strings attached, except attribution and, at the coders option, reciprocal code sharing."
You must hate the GPLv3 then. :) For what it's worth, I agree with the above statement as an ideal.
>"A little proprietary doesn't hurt"
I don't think proprietary is inherently evil. You've been drinking the kool-aid my friend. Ultimately what matters is who owns your data. Are you able to use it without obstruction or hindrance? Is your access to it safe if a given vendor dies? So long as those conditions are met, proprietary software is no more evil than "free" software. Note, I'm talking about proprietary software in general - not MS's business tactics in particular. It's important to be clear on who and/or what we disapprove of.
>"but since the Free Software message has been massively diluted"
Massively diluted? Please tell me you're joking. Since their inception, the FSF has sharply tuned their message, in the form of a more restrictive license and a propaganda campaign that rivals any from MS in it's redefinition of language. The "Free Software message" is great, but their methods are just as dirty as MS's methods. They simply manipulate for what they believe is right, instead of corporate profit. Either way, users loose.
@jdixon:
>"A truly unscrupulous opponent will use their money and influence to get the law changed in their favor and fabricate the facts in a convincing manner."
Are you claiming SCO isn't truly unscrupulous? :) As I understand it, this is exactly the (partially and indirectly MS funded) method SCO attempted - through the courts and FUD slinging.
(edit:) admittedly, SCO's legal manipulations are aimed at interpretation of existing law, but the intended end is the same.
I think MS has attempted (with varying degrees of success) both methods you mention. I also think such methods ultimately amount to so much smoke. Remember, people want to get things done. When the propaganda, abuse, or bad laws prevent such progress, things change out of necessity. Note the rise of open source as the best example of such change.
(edit, again:) I'm not suggesting we go merrily on our way ignoring MS and their kind. I'm simply suggesting that we don't do any more damage to our own "community" by freaking out and herding ourselves off the other edge of the same cliff. Extremism is generally bad, in one direction or the other.
> 'm not suggesting we go merrily on our way ignoring MS and their kind. I'm simply suggesting that we don't do any more damage to our own "community" by freaking out and herding ourselves off the other edge of the same cliff. Extremism is generally bad, in one direction or the other.
See, we agree. :)
Microsoft is a threat, and due vigilance is called for, but I don't think they're anywhere near the threat Roy thinks they are.
Avoiding Novell the other distributions which have reached agreements with Microsoft seems reasonable precaution. Avoid Microsoft derived technologies may also be reasonable, where possible. I don't think either is a necessity.
See, we agree. :)
Microsoft is a threat, and due vigilance is called for, but I don't think they're anywhere near the threat Roy thinks they are.
Avoiding Novell the other distributions which have reached agreements with Microsoft seems reasonable precaution. Avoid Microsoft derived technologies may also be reasonable, where possible. I don't think either is a necessity.
@jdixon:
>"Avoiding Novell the other distributions which have reached agreements with Microsoft seems reasonable precaution."
Well, we agree right up until here. While caution is always reasonable, paranoia never is. I try to follow the model of: avoid something you don't like based on efficiency and function, not out of prejudice or ignorance.
I'm not calling you ignorant, by any means. In fact, I appreciate the rational discussion we've had - we really are closer on most of these issues than not. I'm just suggesting there's much more prejudice and paranoia to the "always avoid the taint of MS" argument than there is reason.
>"Avoiding Novell the other distributions which have reached agreements with Microsoft seems reasonable precaution."
Well, we agree right up until here. While caution is always reasonable, paranoia never is. I try to follow the model of: avoid something you don't like based on efficiency and function, not out of prejudice or ignorance.
I'm not calling you ignorant, by any means. In fact, I appreciate the rational discussion we've had - we really are closer on most of these issues than not. I'm just suggesting there's much more prejudice and paranoia to the "always avoid the taint of MS" argument than there is reason.
@Sander_Marechal
Thanks for the advice. I'll be more careful.
The quality of the writing is to do with pace. I write BN in a single pass, just like I do in other sites and USENET. Articles are a different monster.
Thanks for the advice. I'll be more careful.
The quality of the writing is to do with pace. I write BN in a single pass, just like I do in other sites and USENET. Articles are a different monster.
Roy I have said before your outside articles are wonderful, the BN posts, to be honest I can not stomach following the mix of tortured logic and zealotry. You shouldnt consider BN posts as a seperate specie from your outside articles, in truth your the only one making such a distinction.
Quoting:The quality of the writing is to do with pace. I write BN in a single pass, just like I do in other sites and USENET. Articles are a different monster.
You should try give the same care and attention to your own blog than you do on your other articles. The subject is important enough to merit that kind of attention IMHO.
And if I may make another suggestion: Remember that discussion here on LXer about BN a while back, over how most of your links in an BN article point to other BN articles, making it hard to verify external material? Perhaps you should make a couple of static pages that summarize the most important information link to your internal articles and all external references from there. Kind of what Groklaw does with the topical pages in the left-hand menu. That way you can still link to your own pages for a deeper explanation of some topic, but you don't make other people hunt for links six articles deep.
Thanks. I'll try slowing down a bit.
Good code will always win out (eventually) over bad laws or self-serving interests.
When is eventually? the statement is not true if people do not know the code exists.
Our rather limited research shows that one out of six computer users are ripe for change. If they don't know they have a choice, then it can be the salvation of the world for all anyone knows...if it's not available to them, then it doesn't exist.
Trees falling in the forest sort of thing.
Is "Zen" spelled with a capital letter?
h
When is eventually? the statement is not true if people do not know the code exists.
Our rather limited research shows that one out of six computer users are ripe for change. If they don't know they have a choice, then it can be the salvation of the world for all anyone knows...if it's not available to them, then it doesn't exist.
Trees falling in the forest sort of thing.
Is "Zen" spelled with a capital letter?
h
>"When is eventually? the statement is not true if people do not know the code exists."
Yep, you're right. As I've said in other threads in the past, the only kind of advocacy worth pursuing is that which allows users to actually get work done. Championing blind ideology for its own sake is worthless. Programs like Komputers4Kids provide measurable results to real people, and demonstrates options they wouldn't otherwise know were available.
I just think that showing people a better way is far more effective than constantly railing against the other "evil" choices. Yes, part of that process is demonstrating the benefits of your solution over the other guys, but there are factors that matter much more than "we" think this is "right". That's not something you can effectively force, people have to be ready for that change for it to have any meaning or use for them - so 'eventually' is whenever the user is ready.
Yep, you're right. As I've said in other threads in the past, the only kind of advocacy worth pursuing is that which allows users to actually get work done. Championing blind ideology for its own sake is worthless. Programs like Komputers4Kids provide measurable results to real people, and demonstrates options they wouldn't otherwise know were available.
I just think that showing people a better way is far more effective than constantly railing against the other "evil" choices. Yes, part of that process is demonstrating the benefits of your solution over the other guys, but there are factors that matter much more than "we" think this is "right". That's not something you can effectively force, people have to be ready for that change for it to have any meaning or use for them - so 'eventually' is whenever the user is ready.
Thing is, I can understand this from Helios. It's who he is. But Roy should know better.
What?
You know, if I were a bit less thick-skinned, I might interpret this as meaning I am just not intelligent enough to heed counsel or adjust my message to different audiences. I personally don't see how it could mean anything else.
Of course if I were a bit more thick-skinned, I wouldn't have bothered to post this at all. It's good to know what your peers think of you...
edit - in re-reading this, it would appear that my need for "tongue in cheek" tags is obvious. Personally I don't care which way it was meant because I'm going to do as I see fit...we've had over a decade of soft-pedaling our ideas and philosophies...What some people conceive as "attacks", others see as simply presenting a strong argument for the other side. I was just having a bit of fun.
h
What?
You know, if I were a bit less thick-skinned, I might interpret this as meaning I am just not intelligent enough to heed counsel or adjust my message to different audiences. I personally don't see how it could mean anything else.
Of course if I were a bit more thick-skinned, I wouldn't have bothered to post this at all. It's good to know what your peers think of you...
edit - in re-reading this, it would appear that my need for "tongue in cheek" tags is obvious. Personally I don't care which way it was meant because I'm going to do as I see fit...we've had over a decade of soft-pedaling our ideas and philosophies...What some people conceive as "attacks", others see as simply presenting a strong argument for the other side. I was just having a bit of fun.
h
>Dino and some others didn't think so. With the benefit of hindsight I think they were right.
OMG!!!! Did my BFF TC really say that!!! It's like....like...well, I don't know what it's like.
Seriously, though, I think it's very hard to get used to Microsoft the "fat, clumsy, and not so almighty" after years of Microsoft the unbeatable.
And, I'm thinking that lots of self-professed FOSS advocates still don't give it credit for being the force of nature that it really is. Guys -- FOSS, GPL'd software win particular, is powerful stuff. It is the enemy that Microsoft can't fight because there is nobody to punch. In the end, they have little choice but to get along.
The young folks, or, for that matter, folks who weren't in the middle of a Microsoft battle, might find it hard to believe, but FOSS has absolutely spanked Microsoft's butt and destroyed it's grand plan.
I worked at an ERP firm that bought the pitch and veered away from investing in Unix products to creating an NT product. They went bankrupt before it was ever delivered, but...never mind that.
The pitch was beguiling: Cheap, cheap, cheap. Commodity hardware running Windows and using the skills you've got now (how this applied to a Unix shop is beyond me -- but who ever said managers were bright?). No pitch to technical excellence, just a pitch to technical "it-can-be-done-and-it-can-be-done-a-bunch-cheaper"ness.
They were going to own the desktop and they were going to own the Glass House.
Linux and FOSS blew their pitch to pieces. A Unix shop can go to Linux more easily and cheaply than to Windows. Linux may draw sales away from proprietary Unix vendors, but it also legitimizes Unix as a viable modern platform.
Microsoft itself might not be toast, but their grand plan is.
OMG!!!! Did my BFF TC really say that!!! It's like....like...well, I don't know what it's like.
Seriously, though, I think it's very hard to get used to Microsoft the "fat, clumsy, and not so almighty" after years of Microsoft the unbeatable.
And, I'm thinking that lots of self-professed FOSS advocates still don't give it credit for being the force of nature that it really is. Guys -- FOSS, GPL'd software win particular, is powerful stuff. It is the enemy that Microsoft can't fight because there is nobody to punch. In the end, they have little choice but to get along.
The young folks, or, for that matter, folks who weren't in the middle of a Microsoft battle, might find it hard to believe, but FOSS has absolutely spanked Microsoft's butt and destroyed it's grand plan.
I worked at an ERP firm that bought the pitch and veered away from investing in Unix products to creating an NT product. They went bankrupt before it was ever delivered, but...never mind that.
The pitch was beguiling: Cheap, cheap, cheap. Commodity hardware running Windows and using the skills you've got now (how this applied to a Unix shop is beyond me -- but who ever said managers were bright?). No pitch to technical excellence, just a pitch to technical "it-can-be-done-and-it-can-be-done-a-bunch-cheaper"ness.
They were going to own the desktop and they were going to own the Glass House.
Linux and FOSS blew their pitch to pieces. A Unix shop can go to Linux more easily and cheaply than to Windows. Linux may draw sales away from proprietary Unix vendors, but it also legitimizes Unix as a viable modern platform.
Microsoft itself might not be toast, but their grand plan is.
Quoting: OMG!!!! Did my BFF TC really say that!!! It's like....like...well, I don't know what it's like.
No!! My LXer account has been compromised! Call security!
Quoting: it's very hard to get used to Microsoft the "fat, clumsy, and not so almighty"
Indeed, that's a good way to describe it. Though I think more credit than we realize goes to Linux and FOSS for providing viable alternatives. Much of MS' competition has been better at shooting itself down than MS was at beating it- Novell and Apple are the poster children for that. Remember how Apple owned the PC space, and they owned education. Schoolkids had Macs, not grotty Windows machines. Novell used to own the LAN, but threw it away.
Then there were expensive, stodgy, stuck-in-a-rut proprietary Unixes. Their refusal to progress and to provide better administration and management tools hurt them a lot, and still does. Even now poor oppressed Unix admins hunt down and manually install GNU tools and all the nice familiar Linux utilities we take for granted to give them a fighting chance at sanity.
The biggest running joke in the industry is "innovation". Proprietary software vendors have no idea what innovation is. They don't even copy the good stuff that's legal for them to copy.
TC -
You make me want to cry. I have been saying precisely that for years.
Microsoft won it's mighty position because everybody else let them!! Too busy pursuing fat profit margins to see the wolf at the door.
Of course, American managers have a great history of that -- Look at American automakers vis-a-vis Toyota and Nissan.
Makes you wonder what they put in the water at those pricy business schools.
You make me want to cry. I have been saying precisely that for years.
Microsoft won it's mighty position because everybody else let them!! Too busy pursuing fat profit margins to see the wolf at the door.
Of course, American managers have a great history of that -- Look at American automakers vis-a-vis Toyota and Nissan.
Makes you wonder what they put in the water at those pricy business schools.
Quoting:Makes you wonder what they put in the water at those pricy business schools.
Shredded Microsoft Marketing Materials?
Quoting:You know, if I were a bit less thick-skinned, I might interpret this as meaning I am just not intelligent enough to heed counsel or adjust my message to different audiences. I personally don't see how it could mean anything else.
Ken, I don't think you quite understood me. Let me explain what I meant by that remark.
You have a very specific and recognisable style of writing and communicating. I can read an article not knowing the author and instantly tell if you wrote it or not. That's a good thing. When that style of communication isn't the most effective one you're quite sensible enough to heed counsel and adjust the message, with the help of others if need be. Look at the HeliOS Solutions websites for which we wrote the texts together. Different target audience, different message. Your native/usual communication style would probably not have been as effective on the HeliOS Solutions website.
What I was arguing is that Roy should have realised that his native communication style on BN isn't the most effective one either. I thought that strange because his communication style in his off-site articles is always very well targeted at the audience he tries to reach.
I hope this makes more sense?
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
If the sky isn't falling, it's because we are propping it up.