- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The New Distro
|
|
|
Comments (94)
There will be a divide created
23 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:all it takes is a change in managementJdixson, I don't believe It is a matter of management, it is a culture created by BG & SB. That is not easy to change and I doubt it will. A monster doesn't change its feeding habits and eventually will self destruct.
Tracyanne:
> The interoperability agreements give Microsoft control of how interoperability is implemented, the pace of that implementation and who has legal access to the standards used.
OK. That's what I meant by "more legal sense". Understood.
Abe:
> it is a culture created by BG & SB.
Yes, it is. But that doesn't matter. Good management teams change corporate cultures all time. The examples are numerous. Given proper management, the company would change. Whether that will happen or not is anybody's guess.
> The interoperability agreements give Microsoft control of how interoperability is implemented, the pace of that implementation and who has legal access to the standards used.
OK. That's what I meant by "more legal sense". Understood.
Abe:
> it is a culture created by BG & SB.
Yes, it is. But that doesn't matter. Good management teams change corporate cultures all time. The examples are numerous. Given proper management, the company would change. Whether that will happen or not is anybody's guess.
> Those who purchase Linux from Suse, can they exercise the rights granted to them by the GPL?
Absolutely they can, because neither Microsoft nor Novell has the power to take those rights away. Nothing in the agreement can change that, even if the agreement said, in big bold print, "We hereby rescind all rights granted by the GPL."
You should know that.
>Not necessarily
Yes necessarily. Whip out your handy dictionary and look up the word "need".
>And what is your guess of the chance of this happening?
Doesn't matter. If it happens, it's good. Your stated position was that it's bad. >GPL wouldn't allow MS to monopolize FOSS No kidding. But FOSS ain't going away. If MS wants to make money, it will have to co-exist.
>MS will abandon software business and go with other more lucrative ones.
So how's that been working out for them?
Absolutely they can, because neither Microsoft nor Novell has the power to take those rights away. Nothing in the agreement can change that, even if the agreement said, in big bold print, "We hereby rescind all rights granted by the GPL."
You should know that.
>Not necessarily
Yes necessarily. Whip out your handy dictionary and look up the word "need".
>And what is your guess of the chance of this happening?
Doesn't matter. If it happens, it's good. Your stated position was that it's bad. >GPL wouldn't allow MS to monopolize FOSS No kidding. But FOSS ain't going away. If MS wants to make money, it will have to co-exist.
>MS will abandon software business and go with other more lucrative ones.
So how's that been working out for them?
Quoting:Given proper management, the company would change
OK, strange things happen, I give you that. On the other hand, there is no indication it will and I prefer to assume it wont until I see it happen.
Quoting:If MS wants to make money, it will have to co-exist.
Knowing its track record and the latest deals they are orchestrating, I am firmly convinced that MS will never join FOSS to do good, It will only join FOSS if they are sure they can sabotage it.
If they change, then it is a new chapter. Time will tell. For now, this is the safer stand.
You are being too optimistic Dino, I would be very concerned if you had any decision making powers in FOSS.
>You are being too optimistic Dino
Optimistic about what? I don't think I've made any predictions, except perhaps, that FOSS has a rosy future that Microsoft will not be able to squash. That seems to be stating the obvious: Microsoft has been trying to squash FOSS for the last ten years to no avail.
Optimistic about what? I don't think I've made any predictions, except perhaps, that FOSS has a rosy future that Microsoft will not be able to squash. That seems to be stating the obvious: Microsoft has been trying to squash FOSS for the last ten years to no avail.
Quoting:Optimistic about what?
About the intentions of MS towards FOSS.
Yes, FOSS has a rosy future. The issue is whether that future is here in couple of years or 10 years due to the FUD campaign MS is spending a bundle to conduct.
The Nazists used to say "Propaganda is half the war". MS sure learned few things from.
>About the intentions of MS towards FOSS.
I defy you to find a single thing from me that is optimistic about the intentions of MS towards FOSS.
Read carefully, grasshopper.
I defy you to find a single thing from me that is optimistic about the intentions of MS towards FOSS.
Read carefully, grasshopper.
> Microsoft has been trying to squash FOSS for the last ten years to no avail.
Not necessarily agreeing Dino, but I will add that if anything their ability to do so now is weaker than ever. As little as 5 years ago Micorosft was touted as having a $40 billion warchest. That has such shrunk by almost over $2 billion (from Google: Cash + Short Term Investments + Long Term Investments = $37.86 billion). Their cash is no longer growing. Now, that would be very simple to fix. All it would require is for them to jettison their non-money making products and concentrate on those which are making money (i.e., Windows and Office), but they show no signs of doing so.
Not necessarily agreeing Dino, but I will add that if anything their ability to do so now is weaker than ever. As little as 5 years ago Micorosft was touted as having a $40 billion warchest. That has such shrunk by almost over $2 billion (from Google: Cash + Short Term Investments + Long Term Investments = $37.86 billion). Their cash is no longer growing. Now, that would be very simple to fix. All it would require is for them to jettison their non-money making products and concentrate on those which are making money (i.e., Windows and Office), but they show no signs of doing so.
> The Nazists used to say "Propaganda is half the war".
And how well did that work out, Abe?
Please note that I fall somewhere between you and Dino on this matter.
And how well did that work out, Abe?
Please note that I fall somewhere between you and Dino on this matter.
>but they show no signs of doing so.
That's kind of interesting, isn't it?
Nothing they can ever do will make the kind of money that Windows and Office make, and yet they continue to seek out inferior income sources.
Maybe, just maybe, somebody sees the writing on the wall.
If so, they won't go down without a fight. A $37 billion fight.
That's kind of interesting, isn't it?
Nothing they can ever do will make the kind of money that Windows and Office make, and yet they continue to seek out inferior income sources.
Maybe, just maybe, somebody sees the writing on the wall.
If so, they won't go down without a fight. A $37 billion fight.
>>MS sure learned few things from.
The entire MS strategy has been posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
The entire MS strategy has been posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Quoting:And how well did that work out, Abe?
Not far, but it did help them initially. MS is in the same situation today and they are trying to win the propaganda part of the war.
I know you do, and I know where Dino falls. He is enterprise sympathetic and I think he wishes that FOSS can be commercialized right now and doesn't really care if it is MS or anyone else. Well, he will get his wish sometime in the future but not very soon. The nice think about GPL is it allows free/Free distributions for non-commercial users. Why do I see FOSS as commercial product? Well, it will be too superior to MS products and the enterprise demand for it will be high enough to be 1st choice even it it cost money for services and support.
>I think he wishes that FOSS can be commercialized right now
If by commercialized, you mean sold as a product, you are wrong.
I really don't care one way or the other. What matters to me is that freedom be maintained. They may not understand it, but corporate users need the freedom every bit as much as, maybe more than, individual users.
Free software everywhere - that is what I want to see. Not because it is good software, but because it is free software.
Anything that spreads free software without curtailing its freedom is a good thing to me. On the other hand, I see no benefit in imagining a parade of horribles every time Microsoft sneezes. I don't care about Microsoft. It can fall into the ocean with every copy of every Microsoft product anywhere for all I care. It can also get twice as big and twice as rich. That would be fine with me, too, but not at the expense of software freedom.
If by commercialized, you mean sold as a product, you are wrong.
I really don't care one way or the other. What matters to me is that freedom be maintained. They may not understand it, but corporate users need the freedom every bit as much as, maybe more than, individual users.
Free software everywhere - that is what I want to see. Not because it is good software, but because it is free software.
Anything that spreads free software without curtailing its freedom is a good thing to me. On the other hand, I see no benefit in imagining a parade of horribles every time Microsoft sneezes. I don't care about Microsoft. It can fall into the ocean with every copy of every Microsoft product anywhere for all I care. It can also get twice as big and twice as rich. That would be fine with me, too, but not at the expense of software freedom.
DIno,
Sounds great to me. You are for software freedom and so are many others.
The issue is MS relentless attempts to subvert any software freedom. I am sure you agree!
I guess we disagree on the means of responding and preventing MS from doing that.
For some reason and from the sound of your posts, I feel that you are less concerned about MS threats than other people. What MS is trying to do, by all means and fashion, is to kill FOSS like they did with many other products. They tried so hard and ended up with failure, but they haven't given up.
Their failure so far is no comfort to me and to many others, we still need to take their attempts serious and never let our guard down a bit. We can't afford to because we already know how sneaky, devious, powerful etc... MS is.
MS ruthlessness is still is and will remain a big problem as long as they have the bigger share of the market. It is still not time to relax and ignore them. When MS accepts and honors the GPL, then and only then we can relax.
Sounds great to me. You are for software freedom and so are many others.
The issue is MS relentless attempts to subvert any software freedom. I am sure you agree!
I guess we disagree on the means of responding and preventing MS from doing that.
For some reason and from the sound of your posts, I feel that you are less concerned about MS threats than other people. What MS is trying to do, by all means and fashion, is to kill FOSS like they did with many other products. They tried so hard and ended up with failure, but they haven't given up.
Their failure so far is no comfort to me and to many others, we still need to take their attempts serious and never let our guard down a bit. We can't afford to because we already know how sneaky, devious, powerful etc... MS is.
MS ruthlessness is still is and will remain a big problem as long as they have the bigger share of the market. It is still not time to relax and ignore them. When MS accepts and honors the GPL, then and only then we can relax.
>I feel that you are less concerned about MS threats than other people.
I am less concerned. Microsoft's biggest threat came 8 or 9 years ago. It had complete control of the Desktop and NT looked like it would knock the competition out of the server room. Apple was on life support, kept alive by Microsoft charity.
Linux absolutely and completely destroyed the Microsoft master plan. Microsoft's arrogance and incompetence took care of the rest.
Microsoft is still big, ugly, and nasty. They have tons of money and can cause tons of pain. They can grease palms. They can do a lot of things. What they can't do is kill FOSS.
Too many people have tried it -- including people in corporate IT departments -- for it to go away.
Microsoft is fat Elvis. Everybody knows the name and the name still opens doors. The hits have faded away, however, leaving past glories to live on.
I am less concerned. Microsoft's biggest threat came 8 or 9 years ago. It had complete control of the Desktop and NT looked like it would knock the competition out of the server room. Apple was on life support, kept alive by Microsoft charity.
Linux absolutely and completely destroyed the Microsoft master plan. Microsoft's arrogance and incompetence took care of the rest.
Microsoft is still big, ugly, and nasty. They have tons of money and can cause tons of pain. They can grease palms. They can do a lot of things. What they can't do is kill FOSS.
Too many people have tried it -- including people in corporate IT departments -- for it to go away.
Microsoft is fat Elvis. Everybody knows the name and the name still opens doors. The hits have faded away, however, leaving past glories to live on.
>Microsoft is fat Elvis.
I saw it. I saw it here first. The new metaphor for Microsoft. It's perfect, it's beautiful. Dino you're a genius. I hope I'm not embarrassing you with my praise but I just love it when someone sticks it to Microsoft. It's funny though, something as silly as a metaphor could actually do a lot of damage to a company if it circulates in wide use. I hope you don't mind if I help out with the circulation.
Then again I could just be late to the party as usual and it has been in use for sometime now.
I saw it. I saw it here first. The new metaphor for Microsoft. It's perfect, it's beautiful. Dino you're a genius. I hope I'm not embarrassing you with my praise but I just love it when someone sticks it to Microsoft. It's funny though, something as silly as a metaphor could actually do a lot of damage to a company if it circulates in wide use. I hope you don't mind if I help out with the circulation.
Then again I could just be late to the party as usual and it has been in use for sometime now.
dino,
Quoting: Microsoft is fat Elvis. Everybody knows the name and the name still opens doors. The hits have faded away, however, leaving past glories to live on.can I quote you on this one? Please?! This is hilarious!
>This is hilarious!
How can that be? Humor usually requires some small element of surprise. Microsoft as fat Elvis seems so obvious...
How can that be? Humor usually requires some small element of surprise. Microsoft as fat Elvis seems so obvious...
Perhaps I Should Change My Wallpaper To MS-Linux
31 earlier comments in the full thread.
devnet -
Using my logic, that is true. But, remember, I attached strings. I believe that the Novell deal was a good deal for Novell. Even if it completely sinks SuSE it may be a good deal for Novell. Let's not forget that Linux barely tops 10% of Novell revenues.
It is appropriate to be suspicious of Microsoft, but the precedent has been set:
Steve Jobs took a lot of heat for taking $150 million from Microsoft ten years ago. Last I looked, Apple's done OK.
Using my logic, that is true. But, remember, I attached strings. I believe that the Novell deal was a good deal for Novell. Even if it completely sinks SuSE it may be a good deal for Novell. Let's not forget that Linux barely tops 10% of Novell revenues.
It is appropriate to be suspicious of Microsoft, but the precedent has been set:
Steve Jobs took a lot of heat for taking $150 million from Microsoft ten years ago. Last I looked, Apple's done OK.
Dinotrac: Good for Novell perhaps, but what about the GNU/Linux community? Sure it'll survive, but that doesn't mean we should let them slow our progress down any way they like nor does it mean we must cut Novell some slack for being basically a traitor of the community which made it possible for them to earn that 10%.
Am I supposed to justify the deal by merely the fact that Novell will in some way benefit from it? What about the GNU/Linux community as a whole? What about RedHat? What about all the other vendors? Novell payed the tax, shouted how it isn't really a tax, but "whatever" says MS, "you others in the field now pay up like Novell did or we'll sue".
That's the picture and Novell could have refused to do this to the GNU/Linux community. There is no excuse in sight here.
Am I supposed to justify the deal by merely the fact that Novell will in some way benefit from it? What about the GNU/Linux community as a whole? What about RedHat? What about all the other vendors? Novell payed the tax, shouted how it isn't really a tax, but "whatever" says MS, "you others in the field now pay up like Novell did or we'll sue".
That's the picture and Novell could have refused to do this to the GNU/Linux community. There is no excuse in sight here.
Quoting:Let's not forget that Linux barely tops 10% of Novell revenues.
Let's also not forget that it's their fastest growing product as well...
Let's also not forget that the 150 million in apple was an investment...there was no talk of patent indemnification or eye pee.
> There is no excuse in sight here.
Sure there is. Normal human incompetence. Novell was snookered.
Now, recognizing that means that Novell has some obligation to make matters right, and they haven't done so. Whether this is more incompetence or willful refusal to see the truth is something I'm not capable of judging. It may be that they've decided to let the GPLv3 take care of the matter for them.
Sure there is. Normal human incompetence. Novell was snookered.
Now, recognizing that means that Novell has some obligation to make matters right, and they haven't done so. Whether this is more incompetence or willful refusal to see the truth is something I'm not capable of judging. It may be that they've decided to let the GPLv3 take care of the matter for them.
> but what about the GNU/Linux community?
The deal hasn't done one blessed bit of harm to the FOSS community. Not one bit. See my comments elsewhere on why companies should cease to care about the FOSS community. One mis-step and you're the devil. Novell gave a lot and supported a lot. One small clause in a larger agreement, and they are the devil. With friends like that, you might as well make deals with Microsoft.
>Am I supposed to justify the deal
No. You don't matter for crap and neither do I. Novell management was supposed to justify the deal based on what it could do for the company. That's their job.
The deal hasn't done one blessed bit of harm to the FOSS community. Not one bit. See my comments elsewhere on why companies should cease to care about the FOSS community. One mis-step and you're the devil. Novell gave a lot and supported a lot. One small clause in a larger agreement, and they are the devil. With friends like that, you might as well make deals with Microsoft.
>Am I supposed to justify the deal
No. You don't matter for crap and neither do I. Novell management was supposed to justify the deal based on what it could do for the company. That's their job.
>that means that Novell has some obligation to make matters right,
What obligation?
They have clarified their position on the deal. They have clarified that no admission of infringement was involved. They have expressed regret over the outcome.
What do you think they should do?
Frankly, they've been a lot nicer about the community's nasty reaction than I would.
What obligation?
They have clarified their position on the deal. They have clarified that no admission of infringement was involved. They have expressed regret over the outcome.
What do you think they should do?
Frankly, they've been a lot nicer about the community's nasty reaction than I would.
Quoting:The deal hasn't done one blessed bit of harm to the FOSS community. Not one bit.
Maybe I should clarify. The harm is to the cause of a movement in which a large part of the community belongs. Community is, after all, formed around certain common interests which mostly also includes the cause, whether this is an ideological Free Software cause or more expedient Open Source one doesn't matter. Microsoft's FUD campaign seems to end up hurting both, because we are basically forced (if we care, and we do) to disprove the lies which are supposed to mislead people away from our cause.
Quoting:See my comments elsewhere on why companies should cease to care about the FOSS community. One mis-step and you're the devil. Novell gave a lot and supported a lot. One small clause in a larger agreement, and they are the devil. With friends like that, you might as well make deals with Microsoft.
You know, that's interesting. I thought the community, the *people*, are supposed to be the ones whose voice should be heard for a world to be a better place, rather than some top down management. I thought that this was the whole point of the Free Software movement and a larger movement for freedom and equality to which it fits, to restore the rights and freedoms and influence to the ordinary people in the community, so that they can have a say in how the world works.
So if Novell can't accept this and instead expects the community to, against its nature, act a blind eye on some things just because they did some other good things before, what's the point?
You know how I interpret the processes that the Free Software movement is stirring? As the mere "consumers" being turned into full blooded participants in a society: a community. A community of people who care, who will shout when they see a wrongdoing and applaud when they see good being done to them. The consumer. That is the breed which should be dieing in favor of a respected customer and community member - each one of us, and each citizen of the world.
So I'm sorry, but I just can't accept your reasoning about companies not having to listen to the FOSS community. I believe just the opposite. A fair business should be one who is there to serve the community with utmost respect, ESPECIALLY when it is this community which provides a product that your business depends on.
>The harm is to the cause of a movement in which a large part of the community belongs.
Now you may be getting a little closer. I don't agree that any harm has been done to the cause, but that wording can support a defensible position.
> I thought the community, the *people*, are supposed to be the ones whose voice should be heard for a world to be a better place, rather than some top down management.
You don't think Novell -- comprised of people, in case you haven't noticed -- can be a member of the community? It's certainly contributed more than most community members. How about IBM and its people? Red Hat?
>A fair business should be one who is there to serve the community with utmost respect ESPECIALLY when it is this community which provides a product that your business depends on.
This community? I wonder. Where was the respect and compassion for Novell, a community member that certainly contributed a lot more than you or I have?
Novell should have been treated like a family member who screwed up. Even one who screwed up badly. Instead, this so-called "community" got out the knives.
Now you may be getting a little closer. I don't agree that any harm has been done to the cause, but that wording can support a defensible position.
> I thought the community, the *people*, are supposed to be the ones whose voice should be heard for a world to be a better place, rather than some top down management.
You don't think Novell -- comprised of people, in case you haven't noticed -- can be a member of the community? It's certainly contributed more than most community members. How about IBM and its people? Red Hat?
>A fair business should be one who is there to serve the community with utmost respect ESPECIALLY when it is this community which provides a product that your business depends on.
This community? I wonder. Where was the respect and compassion for Novell, a community member that certainly contributed a lot more than you or I have?
Novell should have been treated like a family member who screwed up. Even one who screwed up badly. Instead, this so-called "community" got out the knives.
Quoting:I don't agree that any harm has been done to the cause
Maybe not. I could argue that it ended up strengthening it, but this may very well be exactly because the community reacted the way it did. However, the deal was potentially harmful and if the community just ignored the whole thing the harm may have manifested itself.
However, much of the consequences are still pending. The mounting fear campaign is something we must deal with now, a campaign fueled by the kinds of deals like with Novell and Xandros.
Quoting:You don't think Novell -- comprised of people, in case you haven't noticed -- can be a member of the community? It's certainly contributed more than most community members. How about IBM and its people? Red Hat?
Yes, all the companies are just groups of people. Novell, Red Hat, IBM and others are just official labels for these groups. That said what Novell contributed is not to be treated as something comparable to a contribution of one man, but a contributor of a rather big group of people. And that said, the average contribution of a Novell member might not be all that much bigger than an average contribution of any other equal number of people outside of Novell.
Quoting:This community? I wonder. Where was the respect and compassion for Novell, a community member that certainly contributed a lot more than you or I have?
Novell should have been treated like a family member who screwed up. Even one who screwed up badly. Instead, this so-called "community" got out the knives.
Reiterating the above, Novell is a group, not a person, hence its contributions shouldn't be compared to only yours and mine, but in fairness to an equal number of other community members. :)
When you make a distinction between people and an entity they represent it is easier not to generalize so I would agree that a bit of compassion for many of the people associated with Novell is in order. Many of the employees didn't even know about the deal before it came. There are only a few people, likely, which may be held accountable for it so the question is what to do about them?
I personally didn't look at Novell's CEO as some sort of a villain even immediately after the deal and especially after reading him say that they don't admit violations, but the fact remained that they (the management) did something for business purposes which is against the cause of the community. Any rage that followed may have been misdirected to specific people, but the cause was the deal, not even the whole deal but a specific part of it. That is where the rage comes from and what its primary target is.
That said I'm not saying the community is perfect nor that the people in it are all full of wisdom and whatnot. People when enraged often easily misdirect it and generalize. I agreed from the start, for example, that abandoning OpenSuSE was out of line. These people are by far not guilty of anything.
But, the harsh criticism against the deal itself must remain, and should continue to be loud as long as the deal continues to be valid. We are now waiting for Novell to do something about that big mistake that they made (the top management who are responsible at least). It hasn't been undone yet.
All of this in no way suggests that companies shouldn't listen to the community. They do however bear a greater responsibility to the community when their collective power is bigger (making their collective moves much more relevant and of higher impact), which is another angle I could have approached from (if we assumed Novell was a person, it would be a very powerful person and hence with greater responsibility and accountability).
> What obligation?
The obligation of someone who's actions have had an undesired effect to make things better.
> They have clarified their position on the deal. They have clarified that no admission of infringement was involved. They have expressed regret over the outcome.
I haven't seen any regret, at least not from those in charge. Do you have a cite? A statement to that effect from the CEO with a promise to work to make things better and not to make any further such mistakes in the future would go a long way with me. I can't speak for anyone else.
Of course, I still wouldn't use SuSE. :)
> What do you think they should do?
I wish I knew Dino. If I did I'd write the CEO and tell him. I'd like nothing better than for Novell to fix this mess they inadvertently started. However, not being either a lawyer or a CEO, much less a combination of the two, I'm not certain how to do so.
The obligation of someone who's actions have had an undesired effect to make things better.
> They have clarified their position on the deal. They have clarified that no admission of infringement was involved. They have expressed regret over the outcome.
I haven't seen any regret, at least not from those in charge. Do you have a cite? A statement to that effect from the CEO with a promise to work to make things better and not to make any further such mistakes in the future would go a long way with me. I can't speak for anyone else.
Of course, I still wouldn't use SuSE. :)
> What do you think they should do?
I wish I knew Dino. If I did I'd write the CEO and tell him. I'd like nothing better than for Novell to fix this mess they inadvertently started. However, not being either a lawyer or a CEO, much less a combination of the two, I'm not certain how to do so.
>I wish I knew Dino.
Honest and to the point. The kind of answer everybody likes and rarely gets.
It is also the correct answer. They can't go back in time and they sure don't want to give the money back.
Methinks the real answer is to learn from their mistake and do the best job of distributing Linux they can while making whatever contributions they can make. Time heals most wounds. If Novell doesn't show a repeated tendency to do the wrong thing, they will be ok.
I'm still bit a frosted, however, that the community has been so kind to Dell and its latest initiative -- a company that has really been disdainful to FOSS folk and is a Johnny-come-lately while roasting Novell over the coals.
Honest and to the point. The kind of answer everybody likes and rarely gets.
It is also the correct answer. They can't go back in time and they sure don't want to give the money back.
Methinks the real answer is to learn from their mistake and do the best job of distributing Linux they can while making whatever contributions they can make. Time heals most wounds. If Novell doesn't show a repeated tendency to do the wrong thing, they will be ok.
I'm still bit a frosted, however, that the community has been so kind to Dell and its latest initiative -- a company that has really been disdainful to FOSS folk and is a Johnny-come-lately while roasting Novell over the coals.
Well wasn't Novell once quite disdainful for GNU/Linux as well? Quite a few companies which are behind GNU/Linux have such history so.. I don't see such a big difference on that front.
Cheers
Cheers
>Well wasn't Novell once quite disdainful for GNU/Linux as well?
Novell has a tortured history towards Linux.
They were the parent to Caldera, and that didn't turn out so well. However, as parent to SuSE, they've been involved in some goodness that should have earned at least a little love. Dell may reach that point soon, but, so far, they are just dipping toes.
Novell has a tortured history towards Linux.
They were the parent to Caldera, and that didn't turn out so well. However, as parent to SuSE, they've been involved in some goodness that should have earned at least a little love. Dell may reach that point soon, but, so far, they are just dipping toes.
Something that occurred last week involving Dell:
The owner of a small company in Iowa called me in FL (I've been friends with his son for decades and I've even stayed overnight at his house) last week because his MS-Windows server wouldn't boot all of the sudden - they shut it down before thunderstorms hit and when it came back on, it kept giving a FAT32.dll error and something about the registry.
After talking on the phone with the Dell tech and having on-site service (there wasn't anything physically wrong with the harddrive, just the MS-Windows install,) it was suggested to Joe, by the Dell technician, that he try using a LiveCD with Linux to see if he could get the data off the drive before re-installing MS-Windows.
So, I've been trying to tell the guy over the phone how to download the ISO for DamnSmallLinux and burn it onto CD using MS-Windows, but he's having trouble following the directions at the DSL website (and they are specific to his particular CD burning program even!!) As far as I can tell there is no active Linux group nearby that I can refer him to.
Bottom line: Dell is NOT out of the Linux doghouse as far as I'm concerned - not with the way they've left this guy high and dry. They made a suggestion and didn't give Joe any help as how to follow through on that suggestion.
Looks like I'm going to have to byte the bullet and send him an already burned CD by mail. And *then* I'm going to have to teach him how to mount drives and do copying - all of this over the phone.
The owner of a small company in Iowa called me in FL (I've been friends with his son for decades and I've even stayed overnight at his house) last week because his MS-Windows server wouldn't boot all of the sudden - they shut it down before thunderstorms hit and when it came back on, it kept giving a FAT32.dll error and something about the registry.
After talking on the phone with the Dell tech and having on-site service (there wasn't anything physically wrong with the harddrive, just the MS-Windows install,) it was suggested to Joe, by the Dell technician, that he try using a LiveCD with Linux to see if he could get the data off the drive before re-installing MS-Windows.
So, I've been trying to tell the guy over the phone how to download the ISO for DamnSmallLinux and burn it onto CD using MS-Windows, but he's having trouble following the directions at the DSL website (and they are specific to his particular CD burning program even!!) As far as I can tell there is no active Linux group nearby that I can refer him to.
Bottom line: Dell is NOT out of the Linux doghouse as far as I'm concerned - not with the way they've left this guy high and dry. They made a suggestion and didn't give Joe any help as how to follow through on that suggestion.
Looks like I'm going to have to byte the bullet and send him an already burned CD by mail. And *then* I'm going to have to teach him how to mount drives and do copying - all of this over the phone.
> And *then* I'm going to have to teach him how to mount drives and do copying - all of this over the phone.
Don't current versions of KDE have a remote control feature built-in? I seem to remember somesuch from my many ramblings about on the web. If you both have broadband, you may be able to take remote control of the machine and show him rather than telling him.
Don't current versions of KDE have a remote control feature built-in? I seem to remember somesuch from my many ramblings about on the web. If you both have broadband, you may be able to take remote control of the machine and show him rather than telling him.
DarrenR114 -- you don't mention where in Iowa your friends are... but there is at least one Linux user group in Iowa I could point you to: CIALUG (Central Iowa Linux User Group) in the Des Moines area. http://www.cialug.org
I believe there are some Linux user groups elsewhere in the state, the CIALUG guys can probably point you to them if need be.
I believe there are some Linux user groups elsewhere in the state, the CIALUG guys can probably point you to them if need be.
@softwarejanitor ...
I wish they lived in Central IA ... but alas they live in Eastern IA ... the CR area. There's a http://crlug.org but the mail I've sent to their contact has been undeliverable (temporarily unavailable for three days in a row.)
I'll be calling the company in Hiawatha that sponsors that group - so wish me luck.
I wish they lived in Central IA ... but alas they live in Eastern IA ... the CR area. There's a http://crlug.org but the mail I've sent to their contact has been undeliverable (temporarily unavailable for three days in a row.)
I'll be calling the company in Hiawatha that sponsors that group - so wish me luck.
@jdixon ...
I thought of that idea, the problems with that are: 1. getting him to open up the correct ports on the router 2. getting him to load the LiveCD with the proper "Remote Access" packages enabled. 3. getting the information I'd need to be able to log in remotely.
IF there was someone with a modicum of an IT clue (this guy is not stupid - he just knows his business - Auto recycling - and not the IT business) then that would probably be the best route to go.
I thought of that idea, the problems with that are: 1. getting him to open up the correct ports on the router 2. getting him to load the LiveCD with the proper "Remote Access" packages enabled. 3. getting the information I'd need to be able to log in remotely.
IF there was someone with a modicum of an IT clue (this guy is not stupid - he just knows his business - Auto recycling - and not the IT business) then that would probably be the best route to go.
> the CR area.
The closest person I know is in Burlington, and they're not too mobile. :(
> ...the problems with that are...
Understood. If all else fails, try to get ssh set up. That will at least let you get into the machine and look at things, and it's a single port to open.
The closest person I know is in Burlington, and they're not too mobile. :(
> ...the problems with that are...
Understood. If all else fails, try to get ssh set up. That will at least let you get into the machine and look at things, and it's a single port to open.
Quoting:One mis-step and you're the devil. Novell gave a lot and supported a lot. One small clause in a larger agreement, and they are the devil. With friends like that, you might as well make deals with Microsoft.
Now that Novell have made it clear what they agreed to and what they did not agree to, and the same with Xandros, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Microsoft's alleged 235 patents are more Microsoft vapour. They are not doing deals on these alleged patents, they are doing deals on patents they have in their proprietary connectivity standards, the 235 patents are FUD, quite possibly because Microsoft know that this is the easiest way to stir up the hornets nest that is the Linux community. As Dino points out the community is a fickle friend, everything is seen in terms of black and white. As I've said already, I believe Microsoft seeks to control Linux through the use of interoperability, by attempting to make Linux vendors dependant upon Microsoft's proprietary standards, and by controlling access to those standards. In addition, I believe they see this as a means of ensuring income off of Linux.
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
The interoperability agreements give Microsoft control of how interoperability is implemented, the pace of that implementation and who has legal access to the standards used. That give Microsoft control. It also gives them an income from Linux sales, something they are obviously not getting from their alleged 235 patents. It also means that Microsoft control the dialogue (they are doing that already, all you need do is read the headlines), and they can use this to keep the perception alive, that Linux owes Microsoft, for an extended period of time. Ask yourself who's responding to whom, and that will tell you who controls the dialogue, and therefore who is currently pulling the strings. I don't see Microsoft currently in the position of having to justify their actions to anyone, but I see plenty of Linux vendors in the position of having to justify their actions.