- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Novell-Microsoft pact not about interoperability, says Open Source leader
|
|
|
Comments (28)
8 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:From the looks of the development roadmapLooks could be highly deceiving. would care to explain why did MS insist on including the patent part in the agreement or else wouldn't sign? That is an indication that the contract to MS was all about patents and nothing but patents. Interoperability & Virtualization are nothing but nice attractive cover and good sounding buzz words. Please, take a break, we are talking about MS here, don't you realize that?
Regardless of patents - the development roadmap shows that the deal is about interoperability.
Or would you rather take the word of someone who admittedly doesn't know all the details of the deal?
Or would you rather take the word of someone who admittedly doesn't know all the details of the deal?
Quoting:Regardless of patents - the development roadmap shows that the deal is about interoperability.The development roadmap DOES NOT show the whole contract either. And Yes, I would take his word because the contract was explained to him when he was still at Novell.
In another interview, Jeremy indicated that he tried to convince Novell people not to agree to the patent part, but, as he put, it was too late. Allison has a lot more credibility than anyone at Novell, At least in my opinion.
Yes, I definitely think Jeremy Allison has a lot more credibility in this than the mouthpieces and suits, who only want to put a pretty face on the deal, and all the outsiders having millions of opinions.
Y'all did see the part about the secret patent payments, didn't you?
Y'all did see the part about the secret patent payments, didn't you?
> Allison has a lot more credibility than anyone at Novell...
I trust Jeremy to tell the truth as he knows it. I don't trust Novell to have told him the whole truth.
I trust Jeremy to tell the truth as he knows it. I don't trust Novell to have told him the whole truth.
Exactly my point, jdixon - Mr. Allison is spouting off about an agreement even he admits to not knowing all of the pieces and parts.
One of those pieces is interesting to me - "Directory and Identity interoperability". This goes right to the heart of Filesystem Connectivity. In other words, if Novell and MS pull this off - there will no longer be a need for Samba.
I've been at more than one job where I read the writing on the wall - and you get out before they tell you that they don't need you anymore.
So Abe, in reading the Press Release at http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=... Where exactly is Novell deceiving us? Where are they lying?
One of those pieces is interesting to me - "Directory and Identity interoperability". This goes right to the heart of Filesystem Connectivity. In other words, if Novell and MS pull this off - there will no longer be a need for Samba.
I've been at more than one job where I read the writing on the wall - and you get out before they tell you that they don't need you anymore.
So Abe, in reading the Press Release at http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=... Where exactly is Novell deceiving us? Where are they lying?
> Exactly my point, jdixon - Mr. Allison is spouting off about an agreement even he admits to not knowing all of the pieces and parts.
[one hour earlier..]
> Regardless of patents - the development roadmap shows that the deal is about interoperability.
lol?
No, wait,
> Or would you rather take the word of someone who admittedly doesn't know all the details of the deal?
NOW lol.
[one hour earlier..]
> Regardless of patents - the development roadmap shows that the deal is about interoperability.
lol?
No, wait,
> Or would you rather take the word of someone who admittedly doesn't know all the details of the deal?
NOW lol.
> One of those pieces is interesting to me - "Directory and Identity interoperability". This goes right to the heart of Filesystem Connectivity. In other words, if Novell and MS pull this off - there will no longer be a need for Samba.
Btw, judging by Novell's latest press release about paravirtualizing parts of Windows by hand with Intel, Microsoft wouldn't even let Novell use the already written 'Xen talking directly to Microsoft's hypervisor' implementation Microsoft had XenSource write for them a while back. That would be a vastly superior method if you /really/ wanted interoperability - as-is, a Windows guest will still be a black box when it comes to resource reallocation if using Linux as the dom0. They're obviously strictly defining 'interoperability' as a one way street here. Novell's job appears to be to help pave that street. So, you might want to hold off on that "no need for Samba" bit.
I mean, maybe someone out there will get all happy and joyous over having more one way street 'interoperability' things to follow, but "Let's make Linux Windows's bitch", like what's happening re virtualization, isn't something I tend to get warm fuzzy feelings from. If I were to guess what'll be coming next, it'll be pushing Active Directory integration with standard pam / BIND setups in SUSE but not getting Microsoft to support authentication via LDAP (no, emulating a PDC does not count). One way street.
Btw, judging by Novell's latest press release about paravirtualizing parts of Windows by hand with Intel, Microsoft wouldn't even let Novell use the already written 'Xen talking directly to Microsoft's hypervisor' implementation Microsoft had XenSource write for them a while back. That would be a vastly superior method if you /really/ wanted interoperability - as-is, a Windows guest will still be a black box when it comes to resource reallocation if using Linux as the dom0. They're obviously strictly defining 'interoperability' as a one way street here. Novell's job appears to be to help pave that street. So, you might want to hold off on that "no need for Samba" bit.
I mean, maybe someone out there will get all happy and joyous over having more one way street 'interoperability' things to follow, but "Let's make Linux Windows's bitch", like what's happening re virtualization, isn't something I tend to get warm fuzzy feelings from. If I were to guess what'll be coming next, it'll be pushing Active Directory integration with standard pam / BIND setups in SUSE but not getting Microsoft to support authentication via LDAP (no, emulating a PDC does not count). One way street.
Hmmm... Is MS trying to use Linux - specifically Novell's distro - as a key to more UNIX to Windows migrations?
UNIX --> SUSE Linux --> Windows
Considering that much of the migration to Linux is from UNIX systems, using SUSE as a one-way interoperability gateway, would put Novell in a position to profit quite handsomely from such migrations. It's purely conjecture, of course. Still, it would be one route I would try were I in MS' shoes right now.
UNIX --> SUSE Linux --> Windows
Considering that much of the migration to Linux is from UNIX systems, using SUSE as a one-way interoperability gateway, would put Novell in a position to profit quite handsomely from such migrations. It's purely conjecture, of course. Still, it would be one route I would try were I in MS' shoes right now.
Quoting:Where exactly is Novell deceiving us? Where are they lying?
Right here
[url=http://news.com.com/Microsoft Novell deal a milestone despite squabbles/2100-7344_3-6158001.html]http://news.com.com/Microsoft Novell deal a milestone despit...[/url]
If they are not lying, they would show the contract. If MS lead lawyer is lying, Novell can sue them.
Quoting:"Directory and Identity interoperability"There is a lot more than that in data exchange and transfer between disparate file systems. This is hardly a start of a whole protocol that Samba will be in 4.0. Novell is dependent on Samba for that.
Quoting:there will no longer be a need for Samba.I believe you know very little about Samba, especially 4.0.
> If they are not lying, they would show the contract.
They may not be allowed to. Part of the contract may be a privacy or NDA clause. That would be very much like Microsoft.
They may not be allowed to. Part of the contract may be a privacy or NDA clause. That would be very much like Microsoft.
Quoting:They may not be allowed to. Part of the contract may be a privacy or NDA clause. That would be very much like Microsoft.Then, they shouldn't have entered the agreement. It involves GPLed software which Novell doesn't own. The GPL is a license that Novell agreed to. FSF is trying to find out the details of the contract from Novell to determine if there is any violation. Guess what? Novell declined any dialogs, why? do they have something to hide? Something is fishy, don't you think?
> Something is fishy, don't you think?
Abe, we're talking Microsoft here. Something is always fishy where they're concerned. That's like saying the sky is blue. Yeah, the Novell CEO is an idiot for even considering making an agreement with Microsoft. They'll use it however they want to their advantage, and when it's no longer convenient they'll either dissolve it or simply break it they way they did with the Sun Java agreement. But this isn't news to anyone here.
Abe, we're talking Microsoft here. Something is always fishy where they're concerned. That's like saying the sky is blue. Yeah, the Novell CEO is an idiot for even considering making an agreement with Microsoft. They'll use it however they want to their advantage, and when it's no longer convenient they'll either dissolve it or simply break it they way they did with the Sun Java agreement. But this isn't news to anyone here.
Abe,
Get a grip - and answer the question: I asked where in that Press Release Novell was lying. You didn't even point anywhere within it. So I take it that you can't show where Novell is lying.
So you really should stop making accusations you can't back up. When it's in writing, what you're doing is called 'libel'.
And I know a lot more about Samba 4.0 than you think. I also know that DAV is easier to deal with than Samba, except with regard to shared printers since DAV isn't intended for shared printers.
Get a grip - and answer the question: I asked where in that Press Release Novell was lying. You didn't even point anywhere within it. So I take it that you can't show where Novell is lying.
So you really should stop making accusations you can't back up. When it's in writing, what you're doing is called 'libel'.
And I know a lot more about Samba 4.0 than you think. I also know that DAV is easier to deal with than Samba, except with regard to shared printers since DAV isn't intended for shared printers.
Quoting:I asked where in that Press Release Novell was lying. You didn't even point anywhere within it. So I take it that you can't show where Novell is lying.In the article is specifically says "That same month, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer claimed that the deal amounted to an admission that Linux infringes on Microsoft patents. Novell CEO Ron Hovsepian took issue with that in an open letter.
"Our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property," Hovsepian said in the letter. " They contradicted each other. It could be a matter of different interpretations or one of them is lying. Now, why wouldn't Novell have a dialog with FSF about the details to find out which? There are flat open lies and there are hidden lies. When hidden, you just have to interpret and deduct. Is that good enough answer?
abe,
That article has *NOTHING* to do with the Press Release that I indicated.
Now, if that article is contradicting the Press Release, then it has something to do with it - but the article doesn't contradict the Press Release ...
I'll ask the same question a third and final time: Where in the Press Release that I linked to is Novell lying or being deceitful?
That article has *NOTHING* to do with the Press Release that I indicated.
Now, if that article is contradicting the Press Release, then it has something to do with it - but the article doesn't contradict the Press Release ...
I'll ask the same question a third and final time: Where in the Press Release that I linked to is Novell lying or being deceitful?
> They contradicted each other. It could be a matter of different interpretations or one of them is lying. Now, why wouldn't Novell have a dialog with FSF about the details to find out which?
Microsoft already answered that question, which I posted in an earlier thread. Here's the whole thing:
"Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents. The agreement between our two companies puts in place a workable solution for customers for these issues, without requiring an agreement between our two companies on infringement.
“Both of our companies are fully committed to moving forward with all of the important work under these agreements. The agreements will advance interoperability between Windows and Linux and put in place a new intellectual property bridge between proprietary and open source software. Customers and participants throughout our industry will clearly benefit from these results.
“We at Microsoft respect Novell's point of view on the patent issue, even while we respectfully take a different view. Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement. At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. We are gratified that such a solution is now in place."
Microsoft Corporation November 20, 2006
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-20Sta...
Microsoft already answered that question, which I posted in an earlier thread. Here's the whole thing:
"Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents. The agreement between our two companies puts in place a workable solution for customers for these issues, without requiring an agreement between our two companies on infringement.
“Both of our companies are fully committed to moving forward with all of the important work under these agreements. The agreements will advance interoperability between Windows and Linux and put in place a new intellectual property bridge between proprietary and open source software. Customers and participants throughout our industry will clearly benefit from these results.
“We at Microsoft respect Novell's point of view on the patent issue, even while we respectfully take a different view. Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement. At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. We are gratified that such a solution is now in place."
Microsoft Corporation November 20, 2006
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-20Sta...
Quoting:Where in the Press Release that I linked to is Novell lying or being deceitful?I didn't say Novel lied in this particular article. If I did, it wasn't intentional and I was referring in general that they are not telling the whole truth. This whole press release is nothing more than covering all the other things they are not saying and to divert attention away from what is in the contract and everyone is trying to figure out.
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
Sorry, I don't see any beef in your post to respond to. Period.