- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Whither the SUSE Exodus? Novell’s Linux Business Soars
|
|
|
Comments (37)
17 earlier comments in the full thread.
> IT is all to often seen as a cost
Bingo. I have worked in companies (like the old Ross Perot, pre-GM, EDS) where IT WAS the business. It makes a difference.
The place I'm working at now (for the next few weeks, anyway) is like that. They are, for all intents and purposes, organized to send development to India. They might never do that, but they're organized that way, with a layer of project managers and business analysts between developers and customers, developers and non-IT management, etc. They have, for all intents and purposes, organized themselves to prevent development teams from making significant contributions to the company.
The thing that stuns me after talking to a number of people who have gone through there is that this company isn't all that unusual.
Sigh. Too bad Google looks for people who are smarter than I am.
Bingo. I have worked in companies (like the old Ross Perot, pre-GM, EDS) where IT WAS the business. It makes a difference.
The place I'm working at now (for the next few weeks, anyway) is like that. They are, for all intents and purposes, organized to send development to India. They might never do that, but they're organized that way, with a layer of project managers and business analysts between developers and customers, developers and non-IT management, etc. They have, for all intents and purposes, organized themselves to prevent development teams from making significant contributions to the company.
The thing that stuns me after talking to a number of people who have gone through there is that this company isn't all that unusual.
Sigh. Too bad Google looks for people who are smarter than I am.
> Bingo. I have worked in companies [...] where IT WAS the business. It makes a difference.
Good to hear because I'll start working for such a company in three weeks. I'll be glad to be out of the logistcis business.
Good to hear because I'll start working for such a company in three weeks. I'll be glad to be out of the logistcis business.
> I don't know what you think they could or would do about that.
They'll do nothing, which is the problem. If their business would be destroyed by Microsoft attacking the same software they distribute, Novell would have to defend against them as well. By circumventing section 7, they don't have to, and obviously won't. They're hoping it'll mean lots of money for them as customers flee from Microsoft attacking their competitors, and everyone who uses Free Software in the process. Profiting off of attacks on freedom.
They'll do nothing, which is the problem. If their business would be destroyed by Microsoft attacking the same software they distribute, Novell would have to defend against them as well. By circumventing section 7, they don't have to, and obviously won't. They're hoping it'll mean lots of money for them as customers flee from Microsoft attacking their competitors, and everyone who uses Free Software in the process. Profiting off of attacks on freedom.
@swbrown, what's preventing MS from suing Novell?
>By circumventing section 7, they don't have to, and obviously won't.
You presume a lot by presuming that the agreement changes what Novell would or would not have done. The very fact that Microsoft was willing to pay Novell hundreds of millions of dollars says that they didn't relish a legal fight. If they went after somebody, it would be somebody else. Novell would sit on the sidelines unless they had a clear interest in jumping in. From what I can see, there is nothing in the agreement to prevent them from doing that now.
You presume a lot by presuming that the agreement changes what Novell would or would not have done. The very fact that Microsoft was willing to pay Novell hundreds of millions of dollars says that they didn't relish a legal fight. If they went after somebody, it would be somebody else. Novell would sit on the sidelines unless they had a clear interest in jumping in. From what I can see, there is nothing in the agreement to prevent them from doing that now.
Quoting:No. Most of the problems with IT management predate MS by a long time. MS is just the current beneficiary.I don't believe that is accurate.
IBM was the "Big Blue", They were professional and excellence driven and controlled the business enterprise market. But they lived and let live always leaving crumbs to others. MS started with those crumbs.
Then Digital came along and took a good share of the computer market. IT managers new what they wanted, how to use it, and adopt it to their busness. It wasn't marketing that Digital was good at, it was Engineering and good software. Digital always advocated technology and always believed in "A good product will sell itself"
Then Sun came along with Unix/Solaris. IT managers moved to Unix in droves, Again, Technical excellence and know how was the determining factor of what hardware software to purhase.
Then MS came along with their marketing razzle-dazzle and changed the whole culture. MS low cost and cheap products (that is how it appeared initially when buying for a few PCes here and there) and lack of competition got them where they are. Lock-in, trickery, kickbacks and many other sleazy methods converted many start up companies and users (not managers yet). MS had many lucky chances because of the stupidity (in hindsight) of IT companies (IBM, Digital & Sun).
That is how MS changed the IT culture. It wasn't IBM.
>But they lived and let live always leaving crumbs to others.
Umm... The federal government has filed twice as many antitrust suits against IBM as they have against Microsoft.
IBM was anything but "Live and let live."
When I worked at EDS, one of the reasons we bought Amdahls, and one of the reasons EDS partnered with Hitachi to form NAS was to have a counterweight at the "live and let live" IBM.
Umm... The federal government has filed twice as many antitrust suits against IBM as they have against Microsoft.
IBM was anything but "Live and let live."
When I worked at EDS, one of the reasons we bought Amdahls, and one of the reasons EDS partnered with Hitachi to form NAS was to have a counterweight at the "live and let live" IBM.
dino, I'm may not always agree with your viewpoint, but you definitely always bring perspective to the arguments. I actually missed out on the big bad IBM days. In fact, I really didn't pick up on much of the tech news until I began to get serious about GNU/Linux. In scouting around the 'Net for info, I kept running into resources pointing out MS as the big bad evil empire (MS dirty tricks, MS usability, MS original ideas, The Halloween papers, etc.) So I have had to get my tech history from the news and sites like these, and don't necessarily have the history that includes IBM's days as the evil empire.
Essentially, I have little or nothing by which I can compare the two empires. At most, I have a handful of conversations (either threaded or in the form of articles), most of which suggest that MS is even badder and meaner than IBM. However, given what I have learned about the main source I am thinking of, I cannot be certain of the accuracy of that viewpoint.
Essentially, I have little or nothing by which I can compare the two empires. At most, I have a handful of conversations (either threaded or in the form of articles), most of which suggest that MS is even badder and meaner than IBM. However, given what I have learned about the main source I am thinking of, I cannot be certain of the accuracy of that viewpoint.
>MS is even badder and meaner than IBM
Different times, different boogie men. None of them were 'nice'.
Different times, different boogie men. None of them were 'nice'.
> @swbrown, what's preventing MS from suing Novell?
Nothing. That's not what's going to happen, though. Microsoft will patent-attack either a non-Novell GNU/Linux vendor, or some Free Software itself. Novell will stand by going "Gee, that's too bad guys, gosh, we never expected that to happen, and for what it's worth, we 'strongly disapprove' of what our partner is doing despite not canceling our deals or trying to stop them with our patents we pledged we would before we pledged we wouldn't, but hey, we'll sell you back your own software if you want for the low low price of $699 per CPU. We call it our 'Novell Intellectual Property License License for Linux', oops no, wrong press release, 'Novell Patent Covenant for Linux'.".
Now if they hadn't found a loophole, they couldn't do that - Microsoft attacking the software they distribute directly or by proxy would destroy their business as well, as their customers would be just as vulnerable as anyone else's customers. They would have to defend the freedom of the software, instead of the freedom of Novell to poach customers from Red Hat at the expense of the freedom of the software.
Nothing. That's not what's going to happen, though. Microsoft will patent-attack either a non-Novell GNU/Linux vendor, or some Free Software itself. Novell will stand by going "Gee, that's too bad guys, gosh, we never expected that to happen, and for what it's worth, we 'strongly disapprove' of what our partner is doing despite not canceling our deals or trying to stop them with our patents we pledged we would before we pledged we wouldn't, but hey, we'll sell you back your own software if you want for the low low price of $699 per CPU. We call it our 'Novell Intellectual Property License License for Linux', oops no, wrong press release, 'Novell Patent Covenant for Linux'.".
Now if they hadn't found a loophole, they couldn't do that - Microsoft attacking the software they distribute directly or by proxy would destroy their business as well, as their customers would be just as vulnerable as anyone else's customers. They would have to defend the freedom of the software, instead of the freedom of Novell to poach customers from Red Hat at the expense of the freedom of the software.
Quoting:Different times, different boogie men.
It begs a question: what boogie man comes after MS?...
Some claim Google will be next. I don't really see that happening but it's not too far fetched either.
>Essentially, I have little or nothing by which I can compare the two empires
I consider Microsoft to be worse than IBM in one sense:
I believe that IBM played hardball to the Nth degree. I believe they took full advantage of their market power. I believe they were spreading FUD before Microsoft was even imagined. The whole "you don't want vendors point fingers at each other while your systems are down" thing was trotted out with glee.
They could border on malicious - When Perot was seeking his first sale for EDS, IBM sent a team of salespeople behind him to discourage potential customers from signing up.
Microsoft, however, seems to lack anything like ethics.
Oh - and one more thing...
IBM really has put out a lot of pretty good stuff. It's pretty sad that Microsoft, freed from the pressure of competition, has put out so much nasty crap.
I consider Microsoft to be worse than IBM in one sense:
I believe that IBM played hardball to the Nth degree. I believe they took full advantage of their market power. I believe they were spreading FUD before Microsoft was even imagined. The whole "you don't want vendors point fingers at each other while your systems are down" thing was trotted out with glee.
They could border on malicious - When Perot was seeking his first sale for EDS, IBM sent a team of salespeople behind him to discourage potential customers from signing up.
Microsoft, however, seems to lack anything like ethics.
Oh - and one more thing...
IBM really has put out a lot of pretty good stuff. It's pretty sad that Microsoft, freed from the pressure of competition, has put out so much nasty crap.
> most of which suggest that MS is even badder and meaner than IBM.
It depends on your definitions. Like you, most of the IBM misdeeds predate my direct knowledge. From what I can tell MS is more unscrupulous than IBM, and thus willing to do things which they know are flat out illegal. IBM was equally, hmm, perhaps cutthroat is an accurate term (in the business sense), but I get they impression that they knew and accepted that there were rules to the game. I don't think Microsoft acknowledges any rules except the 11th commandment, and even it doesn't apply if they think they can buy their way out.
It depends on your definitions. Like you, most of the IBM misdeeds predate my direct knowledge. From what I can tell MS is more unscrupulous than IBM, and thus willing to do things which they know are flat out illegal. IBM was equally, hmm, perhaps cutthroat is an accurate term (in the business sense), but I get they impression that they knew and accepted that there were rules to the game. I don't think Microsoft acknowledges any rules except the 11th commandment, and even it doesn't apply if they think they can buy their way out.
Also, I think IBM only tried to screw the competition. MS screws their customers as well. IIRC the only anti-customer move by IBM was charging ridiculously high prices.
>the only anti-customer move by IBM was charging ridiculously high prices.
That was one thing. Bundling was another. They were also rather notorious for offering differential service levels depending on how big a customer you were. Not that anyone had to settle fo Microsoft levels of care, but it's nice to have choices when you are not at the top of somebody's priority list.
That was one thing. Bundling was another. They were also rather notorious for offering differential service levels depending on how big a customer you were. Not that anyone had to settle fo Microsoft levels of care, but it's nice to have choices when you are not at the top of somebody's priority list.
Anyone remember microchannel?? That was a technician's dream ... too bad that IBM tried to keep too tight reigns wrt licensing.
> IIRC the only anti-customer move by IBM was charging ridiculously high prices
Lou Gerstner included some stories in his book about his experiences as American Express CEO. One example: they bought a few machines from a competitor, so IBM decided to not support any of AmEx's machines. He was finally able to get that problem fixed, but AmEx was a big customer. The small company with 100 employees would have been out of luck.
Lou Gerstner included some stories in his book about his experiences as American Express CEO. One example: they bought a few machines from a competitor, so IBM decided to not support any of AmEx's machines. He was finally able to get that problem fixed, but AmEx was a big customer. The small company with 100 employees would have been out of luck.
Quoting:The small company with 100 employees would have been out of luck.That is where IBM went wrong and a good thing they did. Digital, Sun & MS, etc... all had a chance to grab the small companies business and in the process became competitors to IBM, which eventually threatened IBM's existence. IBM learned their lesson and had to rejuvenate themselves to survive.
But the key point here is, IBM didn't try to dominate everything, they just dominated the big enterprise business that were worthwhile for them. IBM worked with the vendors who furnished service for the little companies. they charged for their technology but didn't keep it closed like MS does.
MS went the other way; they dominated the little companies and had its eyes ever since trying to dominate the enterprise. If it wasn't for FOSS, MS would have succeeded already. That is why FOSS plays a major role in having IBM supportive of Linux.
Quoting:IBM was charging ridiculously high pricesSupply and demand. when there is no competition, abusive monopoly rules.
Quoting:Bundling was another.You can't avoid bundling in enterprise business. They need it, they want it, and they love it. IBM didn't keep small vendors out of serving small businesses and large business where IBM didn't think it was worthwhile for them. Look how MS got to monopolize the PC technology market that IBM invented. Being stupid or not, they did allow others to play a role in the market.
Quoting:I believe they were spreading FUD before Microsoft was even imagined.Standard way of over powering others when you are a monopoly. FOSS is leveling the playing field.
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
I think there are really two causes for it:
1) The people make the decisions don't understand the technology. Not even of a superficial level. It's all run PHB-style. Management cannot make decisions without understanding the tech because there is no way to make a judgment on the risks involved. This leads to people simply following the market leader / evilo empire of the day - whether that's MS, big blue or anything else.
2) IT is all to often seen as a cost. That's not true. IT is a resource. The more you have it the better (up to a point ofcourse). You don't "pay for" IT, you invest in it. Investing in IT isn't just about getting the cost down in other departments (e.g. HR) but about creating new opportunities, more flexible work processes, more effective competition, etcetera.