Mixed source company?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| swbrown Dec 29, 2006 6:13 AM EDT |
More like a mixed up company. Kinda funny that the last GNU/Linux distro company to declare this 'mixed source' direction was Caldera, and we all know how Microsoft involvement in that turned out. |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 6:20 AM EDT |
>Kinda funny that the last GNU/Linux distro company Don't know that Novell is a Linux distro company. They were selling software long before they bought SuSE. I consider them to be a software company with a Linux distribution. As to mixed source, that would be a fair description of IBM, who also deals with Microsoft and tons of software patents. |
| Rascalson Dec 29, 2006 6:44 AM EDT |
And therein lies a key difference. IBM does indeed play on both sides of the closed and proprietary line, however they do not actually distribute a Linux distribution of their own. Novell however does. It is a very important distinction. Even though Novell has refuted the FUD that Balmer has been spewing before and after the deal. They are the ones that signed on the dotted line. They had no right what-so-ever to even innocently be involved in a deal that implied what it did about code they don't actually own. The only distribution privileges they have to most of that code is the GPL. The original authors of the GPL and many of the developers that have licensed their code under it have cried foul, and rightly so IMO. |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 6:50 AM EDT |
>It is a very important distinction. Maybe so, but they are a major linux distributor through their consulting business, so I don't know how important the distinction is. >l that implied what it did about code they don't actually own. They would be idiots to turn away from a good deal because they were afraid of what people might imply about it. The deal is what it is, not what a bunch of self-appointed Inquisitors "feel" it to be. |
| swbrown Dec 29, 2006 7:35 AM EDT |
> They would be idiots to turn away from a good deal because they were afraid of what people might imply about it. The deal is what it is, not what a bunch of self-appointed Inquisitors "feel" it to be. You've not really got a good track record on this considering you were vigorously defending Caldera and trashing RMS the last time this kind of deal happened according to Google. :) The "Now they're dead" crowd was proven right. RMS identifying them as parasites was proven accurate. Now it's Novell following in those footsteps. Learn from the past, as we're about to repeat it. |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 7:59 AM EDT |
>You've not really got a good track record on this considering you were vigorously defending Caldera and trashing RMS Refresh my memory. Details matter. And, I might add, your characterizations of what I say and what I actually say tend to have little, if anything, in common. |
| jsusanka Dec 29, 2006 8:28 AM EDT |
"They would be idiots to turn away from a good deal because they were afraid of what people might imply about it. The deal is what it is, not what a bunch of self-appointed Inquisitors "feel" it to be." I agree short term they look like geniuses - but time will tell if they turn out to be idiots in the long run. I believe sco used this same sort of short term business thinking and it doesn't seem to be turning out to good. |
| Rascalson Dec 29, 2006 8:45 AM EDT |
Dino: You have some links from an IBM site to backup your WAS? After all details matter right? Maybe you meant to type "promoter" instead of "distributor"? Nice near miss on an ad hominem btw. |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 8:51 AM EDT |
>but time will tell if they turn out to be idiots in the long run. Time and Novell's own actions. SCO is a different case, like Novell only in that their ship was also sinking. SCO had a product -- Unix that ran on commodity boxes -- that competed with Linux without offering any tangible benefits. Worse...Linux has mindshare and currency that SCO does not. SCO chose to attack Linux by attacking IBM (OK, you can make a dumber move, but I'm hard-pressed to think of what it is) and Linux users (Wait - that might be the dumber move). In the case of Linux users, they attacked with threats and the demand for payment. In the case of IBM, they went to court. Novell still has time to do stupid things and to do things that will establish the Microsoft deal as a dumb move, but, to date, Novell has not attacked Linux or Linux users. To the contrary, they have a Linux distribution of their own. In fact, they've managed to get Microsoft (Microsoft!!!) distributing Linux to corporate clients. Now, getting Microsoft into the Linux business may not be a great thing, but it's not overtly hostile. The key for Novell is to recognize that they are under more scrutiny now, and that they laid a big egg with many folks in the Linux community. Let's hope their tin ear has healed, because they need to more aware than before of how their actions play amongst the people who actually provide the software, not to mention all the free testers they get through opensuse. Right now, people are mad, which is no big deal. People are always mad in the free software world. Compounding that anger, or justifiying it, could be fatal. Step careful and be a good citizen, and the anger (at least amongst reasonable souls) will fade away. |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 8:52 AM EDT |
>Maybe you meant to type "promoter" instead of "distributor"? Their folks sell and install Linux solutions. Sounds like a distributor to me. |
| Rascalson Dec 29, 2006 8:59 AM EDT |
Details and links dino. It does not matter what it sounds like in this instance. And besides since when did "Reseller"="Distributor" ? |
| swbrown Dec 29, 2006 9:06 AM EDT |
> And, I might add, your characterizations of what I say and what I actually say tend to have little, if anything, in common. When I drove your argument into the ground re KDE and Debian, I seemed to do pretty well on that account. :) Here's an example, you were getting all uppity about RMS on Caldera like you have been with RMS on Novell, despite his accurate identification of their motives which now should be blatantly obvious in hindsight. 'Ridiculous uncalled for and tasteless attack'(?) in your oppinion about Stallman saying Caldera were now parasites in a talk. You were apparently the last person on earth to realize they were parasites or that they needed to change course before, you know, becoming the SCO lawsuit: http://als.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-25-00... "Seriously, how should Love react to RMS's uncalled for and tasteless attack? "Oh gee, Richard. You're right. We're parasites. Guess we'll go out of business now." I'm sure the stockholders would love that. Not only is it reasonable to respond to such a ridiculous attack angrily, but, given Love's legal obligations to his stockholders, it is almost obligatory." You just really have a thing against RMS despite his always being right about this kind of thing: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-05-29-00... "Caldera is a parasite because Ransom Love questions whether the GPL is good for business? I've often wondered what RMS means by free, as in speech, when he refers to the GPL. I now wonder what he means by free, as in speech, when he refers to speech. My oft-repeated take on the real reasons for RMS's GNU/Linux rants is starting to look a little better now." And you're unable to see a disaster in the making like those of us in the "Now they're dead" crowd, who accurately saw what was coming re Caldera moving to 'per seat' licensing and further into a proprietary world: http://features.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-... "I also wonder how many of the "Now they're dead" crowd ever actually shelled out a buck or two to buy a Caldera distribution?" [...] So what is evil here? I can't see a damned thing wrong with this." So it kinda follows that if you're running the same patterns re the Novell deal when the rest of us are in the "Now they're dead" crowd and RMS is once again pointing out the parasites, you might not be the most accurate oracle. :) |
| swbrown Dec 29, 2006 9:09 AM EDT |
> Right now, people are mad, which is no big deal. Like the last time when programmers were mad at Caldera? :) That sure turned into no big deal alright. |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 9:19 AM EDT |
>When I drove your argument into the ground re KDE and Debian, I seemed to do pretty well on that account. :) I'm glad you're happy with yourself. >You were getting all uppity about RMS on Caldera Gosh, sounds bad if you leave out the first two lines. I wonder why you did that? For other readers' benefit: I wonder how many people here would like to be called a parasite? I've been called enough names on Linux Today alone to know that it's no fun. Your comments on the second link need no elaboration. Your position seems to be that it is wrong to question RMS. If that is your value system, you're welcome to it. re link 3: Ah, the lovely ellipsis. Perhaps you skimmed over: In spite of a ground-breaking distribution with OpenLinux 2.2, in spite of being the first to conveniently package up a 2.4 distribution (Linux Technology Preview), Caldera never made many inroads into the Linux community. or: If Caldera can figure out a model for getting that kind of customer to use Linux, it is pure gain. Again: nothing has been taken away. Linux is still free. They can't do anything about that. If you were capable of reading in context and understanding what you have read, my point at the time was in fact similar to my point WRT Novell. Caldera was in trouble as a company. What they were doing wasn't working. What did they have to lose by going after the channel? Why was everybody so hyped up? Caldera, like many small businesses, did not survive. It happens. |
| Rascalson Dec 29, 2006 10:39 AM EDT |
This line is interesting:
The Novell executive said he understood the basis of the open source community's grievances, and revealed that there are ongoing discussions to sort things out. "Generally, my experience with these situations is that people will eventually compromise and everyone gets on with their lives," he said. Might this be discussions still ongoing with Eben Moglen? |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 10:53 AM EDT |
>Might this be discussions still ongoing with Eben Moglen? Don't know, but it's a good sign that Novell recognizes that the MS deal went over like a lead balloon and that a little love is needed. At this point, I need to moderate my earlier statements just a bit... Although Novell should make deals according to its business needs and the advice of its counsel, they should have been better prepared for the flak from the Microsoft deal. If the deal makes sense, you've got to due, no matter whose feathers you ruffle, but...you've got to get hard to work smoothing those feathers ASAP. |
| bigg Dec 29, 2006 11:47 AM EDT |
> you've got to get hard to work smoothing those feathers ASAP. No kidding. Three weeks (or whatever) after the deal, Ron Hovsepian comes out and says they made no admission that Linux infringes on Microsoft's IP. Why the heck didn't he say that the day of the announcement? They have a lot of smart people at Novell, including a lot of well-paid attorneys. Not one person foresaw the problems? If they had just explained that the deal included no such admission and that there is no licensing of Microsoft IP, most (though admittedly not all) of the criticism would not have come about. I mean, even Microsoft has stated that there is no such admission in the deal. In an interesting side note, sjvn was the skeptic who originally alerted me to the problems with the patent deal. |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 11:54 AM EDT |
>Why the heck didn't he say that the day of the announcement? Who the heck knows. I wonder if they even know? We'll have to keep an eye out to see if they get any smarter as they go, and linux developers aren't the only audience to be concerned about. Remember that Red Hat already has a going business as Linux supplier to corporate America. I wonder how many CEOs and CIOs will feel comfortable signing on with a company that consistently lead foots the community? At the very least, it would raise questions about their judgment and reliability, patent deal or no. Here's hoping they learn quickly and well. |
| swbrown Dec 30, 2006 3:46 AM EDT |
> Your comments on the second link need no elaboration. Your position seems to be that it is wrong to question RMS. If that is your value system, you're welcome to it. My point is that the same noise you make about RMS and Novell today was the same noise you were making about RMS and Caldera right before SCO. You missed the boat on the SCO thing, and are about to again as SCO 2.0 forms despite having a front row seat. 5 years from now, if they've not changed course, we'll likely be reading about their exploits on Groklaw and I get to link back to this post if I remember it. :) I assume it will be Novell passively and an agent (stooge) delegated by Microsoft with the ability to litigate their IP vs. Red Hat either directly or indirectly (some key component of their platform, or one of their customers). The "SCO Linux License" will be resurrected as a "Microsoft IP Covenant" and "Microsoft Authorized Software". |
| dinotrac Dec 30, 2006 3:48 AM EDT |
>You missed the boat on the SCO thing, and are about to again as SCO 2.0 forms despite having a front row seat. How did I miss the boat on the SCO thing? Your fondness for making things up is impressive. |
| swbrown Dec 30, 2006 3:53 AM EDT |
> How did I miss the boat on the SCO thing? When all the outrage was going on over Caldera, and those with clues started identifying them as parasites, and the writing was on the wall, you seemed to take more offense that someone would call them parasites than that they were being parasitic. |
| dinotrac Dec 30, 2006 4:33 AM EDT |
swbrown - I will leave you to your fantasy world. Discussion is possible, even enlightening, with somebody who disagrees. It is fruitless with someone who cares nothing for the truth. |
| jdixon Dec 31, 2006 7:49 AM EDT |
> Three weeks (or whatever) after the deal, Ron Hovsepian comes out and says they made no admission that Linux infringes on Microsoft's IP. Why the heck didn't he say that the day of the announcement? They have a lot of smart people at Novell, including a lot of well-paid attorneys. Not one person foresaw the problems? If I had to make a guess, I'd guess that Hovsepian was working with a select group in the negotiations, and the rest of the company didn't know. This is (unfortunately) a fairly common event at the highest levels in large companies. |
| jdixon Dec 31, 2006 7:56 AM EDT |
swbrown: > My point is that the same noise you make about RMS and Novell today was the same noise you were making about RMS and Caldera right before SCO. You missed the boat on the SCO thing, and are about to again as SCO 2.0 forms despite having a front row seat. Well, while I disagree with Dino about the Novell/Microsoft deal, I have to point out in his defense that Caldera != SCO. There was a complete change of management and a large change in assets involved in the migration from the Caldera under discussion to the SCO which launched the lawsuit against IBM. Regarding the two as being the same company is a mistake which largely invalidates your position. That said, I also strongly disagreed with a number of Caldera's actions at the time, which is why I never used their distribution. |
| swbrown Dec 31, 2006 9:48 AM EDT |
> I have to point out in his defense that Caldera != SCO. There was a complete change of management and a large change in assets involved in the migration from the Caldera under discussion to the SCO which launched the lawsuit against IBM. Regarding the two as being the same company is a mistake which largely invalidates your position. It was the setup period for Caldera becoming SCO. They were being turned into a bomb with a fuse much the same way Novell is today, which is what alarmed people. Get rid of the values and the staff that supports them, start making deals that could be used as weapons in the wrong hands, and presto, just takes a quick change at the management level and it's lit. |
| jdixon Dec 31, 2006 10:07 AM EDT |
> just takes a quick change at the management level and it's lit. Given the assets of even a medium sized company, that's true even without the steps which took place at Caldera and which you allege are taking place at Novell. Anyone with sufficient funds and an agenda against Linux could do the same type of things SCO is doing, probably with the same result. Regardless, it looks like you just admitted my point. I agree that the transition to the current SCO was made possible by what Caldera's actions, but those actions made business sense at the time, and I don't think you can demonstrate that Ransom Love's management team would have taken any of the actions that the current SCO has taken. In fact, they were working in the exact opposite direction. |
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!