duh!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Feb 11, 2007 12:18 PM EDT |
"But people who think that Microsoft will now give the information that is needed in order to do that to Novell just because of this deal are delusional. What you have to think about is that essentially Microsoft has been fighting tooth and nail not to give away any of this information to free software projects. So, they may think that just because they signed some patent cross licensing deal with Novell -- even though Microsoft really, really wanted the patent cross licensing deal, just because they signed that, do you think they’re going to give away stuff that they essentially have fought absolutely and completely against the EU and paid billions of dollars in fines to avoid. So, no, that’s not going to happen." |
| cr Feb 11, 2007 2:00 PM EDT |
I'm hoping that at least one of those coerced patent-protection-payers will break cover, and see about getting some RICO action going. I'd prefer to see a coupla cruise missiles hit One Microsoft Way Redmond dead-on, but I'll settle for seeing 'em taken down under RICO. |
| tuxchick Feb 11, 2007 3:06 PM EDT |
what I don't understand is why are they caving on this? They all have battalions of lawyers sitting around. |
| cr Feb 11, 2007 3:35 PM EDT |
My guess: the Caldera/SCO case has so far shown them that, even when you win in court, you lose millions. How much money has IBM spent on this obvious gaming-the-court case, including paying for the famed Nazgul? And still it drags on. Microsoft has enough money to bury you, right or wrong. Pay up or they will, is the take-home message there in my opinion. IBM is defending their reputation and the perception that they're too big to lean on; they need a clear win here. Other businesses without as much on the line cough up the bucks to make the problem go away, because defending F/LOSS is not what they're in business to do. |
| tuxchick Feb 11, 2007 3:50 PM EDT |
I don't see it as defending FOSS, but not caving in to a shakedown racket. |
| cjcox Feb 11, 2007 8:32 PM EDT |
Jeremy's take on all of this is pretty far from the truth. However, it is accurate with most of the misinformation in the media. Jeremy took the easy route and left rather than trying to talk to anyone. In the interview he basically reveals that he doesn't know anything about the actual deal. IMHO, he should have done more research into it before leaving Novell and doing the circuit. Oh well... perception is what most people view as truth. In quote mentioned, Jeremy says that Microsoft isn't going to simply give Novell the inner secrets of their mysterious protocol.. and this is VERY true. It's only in Jeremy's quite vivid imagination that one would find this as part of the "deal"... it was not nor has it ever been part of the deal. The interoperability parts centered mostly on virtualization. The idea being that Microsoft Windows users will want to run Linux inside of a virtual machine, and that Linux users will want to run Windows inside of a virtual machine (the latter is really NOT the emphasis of the deal btw... more on the former). Novell wanted to work with Microsoft because Novell (unlike Jeremy I guess) believes that a company is likely to have both operating systems present. And while Jeremy believes that Microsoft would never sue a Linux user, Novell wasn't so sure about that. However, Jeremy (I guess) is confident after looking over Microsoft's patent portfolio, that Microsoft would never do a SCO-like thing and go after a customer for using Linux if they believe it violated one of their many patents. I could list some of those patents, but feel free to look at them using Google's patent search (just to let you know, Linux probably violates no fewer than 1,000 of Microsoft's patents... now... whether that stands in court IS another issue). The fact that Microsoft has filed and has been granted patents to the most fundamental elements of a modern operating system you'd think would make it pointless to try to enforce the patent... but then again, since I'd say that ALL of those patents were granted with a preponderance of prior work... well... it just boggles the mind. I like Jeremy better when he discusses it strictly in terms of the idea of patents. The patent system is woefully broken in the United States. Companies that used to spend money on doing R&D now sit back on patents and make money from litigation rather than taking risks. Which unfortunately means that most interesting NEW work is taking place outside of the United States where countries still see big reward only when big risks are taken (like it used to be here). One must wonder why Jeremy insists on working for pro-patent companies like Novell and now Google (??). Oh well... I'm not for this Microsoft deal either... but I'm not going to make up stories about it either. I think Jeremy should ask his current employer about their rate of patent filings frankly. Of course, it's possible that Google is our friend.. unlike Novell, which is apparently our enemy (I remember when Microsoft was the enemy... oh well). Maybe Google's large patent portfolio is a "friendly" portfolio. I somehow doubt that the FSF would agree with that though. A good thing is that regardless about Jeremy's disdain for Novell, at least Google is allowing him to continue his work on Samba (however, will Samba license their work under GPLv3 [the anti-Novell version]? I think it's very likely. Just so that can say "There. Take that Novell!"). Hopefully Jeremy will keep his head down and work on what he does best... and avoid the tabloid circuit. With that said, I don't see this or what other have said as having a detrimental effect to Novell... at least not yet. |
| swbrown Feb 12, 2007 1:35 AM EDT |
> Novell wanted to work with Microsoft because Novell (unlike Jeremy I guess) believes that a company is likely to have both operating systems present. The author of Samba doesn't think a company will have both Linux and Windows? Umm, ok. > (however, will Samba license their work under GPLv3 [the anti-Novell version]? I think it's very likely. Just so that can say "There. Take that Novell!") It obviously has nothing to do with closing a license loophole, and one that's likely to be used by many others in the future, of course. Oh wait, it does. Novell can easily change the terms of its 'deal' to not cover it, and they already know that it's against the author's wishes to cover it yet they do so anyway, so shed no tears for Novell. > However, Jeremy (I guess) is confident after looking over Microsoft's patent portfolio, that Microsoft would never do a SCO-like thing and go after a customer for using Linux if they believe it violated one of their many patents. So the strategy you want followed is to cave to any demands before it comes to blows, so that only a few holdouts are left having to defend against an aggressor with the broken patent system while those that could retaliate with patent portfolios of their own like Novell sit on the sidelines? And that this is a solution? > The interoperability parts centered mostly on virtualization. How do you know that it was 'mostly' about virtualization, seeing as they've refused to disclose the full details of the deal outside of Novell? And what about Office formats, seeing as we know that was also part of the deal? > Hopefully Jeremy will keep his head down and work on what he does best... and avoid the tabloid circuit. Do you have a vested interest in seeing people not take a stand for their beliefs on this issue, even when it involves use of their own software under terms they don't agree with? Or do you just prefer people not take a stand for anything? |
| DarrenR114 Feb 12, 2007 10:18 AM EDT |
From the looks of the development roadmap, as publicised by Novell and MS, it looks to me like the deal is *all* about interoperability. |
| Abe Feb 12, 2007 10:34 AM EDT |
Quoting:cjcox... Blah blah blah... Sorry, I don't see any beef in your post to respond to. Period. |
| Abe Feb 12, 2007 10:45 AM EDT |
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? |
| DarrenR114 Feb 12, 2007 11:05 AM EDT |
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? |
| Abe Feb 12, 2007 11:37 AM EDT |
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. |
| tuxchick Feb 12, 2007 11:45 AM EDT |
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? |
| jdixon Feb 12, 2007 11:51 AM EDT |
> 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. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 12, 2007 12:13 PM EDT |
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? |
| swbrown Feb 12, 2007 1:55 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| swbrown Feb 12, 2007 2:16 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| dcparris Feb 12, 2007 3:34 PM EDT |
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. |
| Abe Feb 12, 2007 5:24 PM EDT |
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. |
| Abe Feb 12, 2007 5:39 PM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon Feb 12, 2007 7:40 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| Abe Feb 13, 2007 5:13 AM EDT |
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? |
| jdixon Feb 13, 2007 5:22 AM EDT |
> 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. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 13, 2007 5:23 AM EDT |
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. |
| Abe Feb 13, 2007 5:46 AM EDT |
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? |
| DarrenR114 Feb 13, 2007 5:57 AM EDT |
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? |
| bigg Feb 13, 2007 6:42 AM EDT |
> 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... |
| Abe Feb 13, 2007 7:12 AM EDT |
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. |
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!