What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
62 Comments
- imerlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18They've been singing that tune since Windows NT 4.
Windows has come a long way since but I still don't see the point of having an "always-running" graphical user interface on a server. It's just a waste of resources. - vixenk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@rodrigo74: Linux can be used via a command line instead of a GUI, so there is no need for running a GUI at all, or even installing one for that matter. ;)
- TritonX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"...to allow Novell's open-source Linux software to work with Windows." argh, I would prefer to see "...to allow Microsoft proprietary software to work with Linux." I can still dream.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9You're right, it is bemusing. Also going by the numbers, it seems Novel and Linux is far more valuable to MS than MS is to Novel. Maybe this has something to do wth Micosoft's plans for after Vista?
- nickm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+160 day exploit + *HACKER* = bye bye london stock exchange
please, we arn't america... - drag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8One of the major cons is that Novell has entered into a cross patent licensing sceme with Microsoft. Basicly:
Novell sells licenses to it's software patents to Microsoft. Microsoft sells licenses to it's software patents right back to Novell.
This is standard thing large software companies do. It's very difficult and expensive to determine weither or not software is violating software patents. (patents in generally are ok, but software patents are fundamentally broken) So this sort of thing is used as a basic agreement to not to sue each other if one side or the other is found violating the software patents. Not unusual.
Well the major problem is that Novell is using this as advertising basicly saying:
"If you pay us for Linux, then Microsoft won't sue you!"
That in itself would be ok, but the problem is the GPL.
The GPL is copyleft license, which basicly means that you can't put additional restrictions on it like you can with Mozilla, Apache, or BSD licenses. For example it's ok to make BSD licensed code-based software illegal to redistribute, but it's not ok to do that with GPL licensed code-based software.
So the conflict comes in because your not allowed to sell licenses for GPL'd software. It's either your able to promise not to sue people that use the code for using that code that you distribute, or you don't distribute it. This means anybody that may end up with that code.
I know it doesn't make much sense, but with software patents it's possible.
For Example:
Say I am a corporation that produced code and I took that code and put it on a FTP server saying anybody can download it under the MIT software license. Now say you download it and use it in a successfull commercial software product.
Now even though you got the code from my FTP server and the MIT license allowed you to use it in your software I can still sue you because MIT license only covers copyrights, not patents. Realy f-ed up stuff, but it's just how it works.
/Example done
Well the GPL says that is not ok.
So if you download somebody else's GPL'd code and use it in your products and then you sue somebody else for using the same GPL'd code in their products then you have violated the GPL and have automaticly lost the rights to distribute it. (after a certain time period. There is some leeway to avoid accidents and misunderstandings)
Well with Novell promising that Microsoft won't sue it's customers if they pay Novell money that is almost the same thing. You pay Novell or Microsoft sues you.
So if Microsoft then sues Redhat for patent violations then Redhat can turn around and sue Novell (Redhat owns a large amount of copyrights in Linux) and now Novell has lost the ability to distribute Linux themselves since they violated the GPL!!
Now this is the major issue. HOWEVER I don't know if it's a valid one. It's seems a bit far fetched, but this is what people are worried about at the moment.
Microsoft has gotten them in a very akward spot that Novell shouldn't be in. They are normally a very good Linux company and is second only to Redhat for the amount of code, time, and effort that they have put into improving Linux. - subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@drag:
Not since the London bombings and the more recent airline plot was intercepted. The UK is putting the screws to those fundamentalist jerks. You need to quit listening to right wing radio. - forgetfulca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I don't think you realize that "looks like" is the key portion of your statement. This company does business exactly one way: it endeavors to own every area it enters.
I would pessimistically be more inclined to think that they picked Novell because at this stage, Novell is the soft target and they will try to use these contracts as a mallet to hit anyone who tries to write windowsLinux stuff with.
The bottom line is, MS makes their money from volume licensing of os' and office. That's currently in jeopardy (or at least, is stagnating on them) and I imagine their analysts are having a great time projecting negative trends outward to the crack of doom. The only way to continue supporting their current business model is to remain the monopolist, and there's no real warm, fuzzy, coexist with OSS way to do that (imo) - imerlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Novell has been struggling financially so this doesn't surprise me after learning of the pact.
However I'm not sure if this will help or hurt the open source community. Novell is sponsoring alot of great projects such as Gnome, Evolution and Hula.
Time will tell... - nickm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@drag, well they have every right to say it.
- tegrady, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The deal will allow you to run a virtualized instance of Suse Linux on a Windows server, and run virtualized Windows on a Suse Linux server. It also opens up collaboration on a few existing OSS projects In addition, Microsoft agrees to not sue individual, non-commercial developers for Patent infringement.
Novell has a nice page with a lot of related docs. http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Sicarul
But why? Why have they suddenly changed their tune? What do they expect to happen when they do become much more interoperable with Linux?
I'm not buying the obvious motive here. - dwhitbeck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Borland is an example of what Microsoft is trying to do with Novell. When Microsoft could not compete against Borland's compiler technology, they hired away Borland's top programmers than paid Borland one hundred million plus dollars to become essentially a supporting company for Microsoft. They eliminated the competition and gained all of Borland's expertise. Borland survived and feeds off crumbs dropped from Microsoft's table.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm sure MS (AKA M$) is going to use this to attempt to fragment the Linux community and cause various legal problems as it tried via SCO.
But on the bright side, at least this proves that Linux is no longer something MS (and the rest of the industry) can ignore. - Sicarul, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It's just a project to make Linux work together with Windows in networks and virtualization, it has nothing to do with a "MS Linux" or stuff like that, they would actually buy Novell if that's what they wanted. Also, i don't really think it's going to either hurt or help the Open Source Community, but it will help some companies where they could use both OS.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The actual cause is Java. Sun is going to open it up soon and this scares Microsoft's .Net. Using Novell they can push .Net into Linux, and hope to hold on to .Net's marketshare.
- drag, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5One of the major problems with using Windows in the enterprise environment is that Windows is very difficult to deal with.
You see when your running all windows desktops and all windows servers then it's simple. But in larger datacenters you have a mixture of Linux workstations, Windows desktops, Linux server clusters, Windows desktop servers, big iron Unix, mainframes or whatever the hell people like to get together. You know, the best tool for the job sort of thing.
Well despite what people may think it's generally Windows that is the odd man out. Linux is compatable with everything, so it's used like the glue to hold all the various different types of systems together.
Well when Linux is relatively easy to integrate into legacy systems and Windows is very difficult this makes Windows very expensive to deploy and manage. So it's seen as a great cost cutting measure to get rid of Windows altogether and go with just Linux, which Linux is now capable of doing (just a few years ago it wasn't).
Were I work having to deal with Windows servers is a big problem and requires having Linux sitting between it and everything else.
At least that's my guess at why MS is wanting to do this sort of thing.
I don't think it realy have much to do with Vista or anything. I am pretty sure that Microsoft sees absolutely no threat coming from Linux on the desktop and that it's going to take Linux 4 years to catch up to Vista like it's taken 4-5 years for it to catch up with XP. (for desktop usability latest version of Ubuntu is probably about were XP was when it was originally released, for the average current Windows-using population) - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The guys at the Linux Action Show podcast ( http://www.linuxactionshow.com/ ) discuss it quite lengthy at the latest episode (21), you should check it out.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Well anyway, whatever is happening, it looks like MS has finally capitulated and has realised the absurdity of fighting against OSS. So long as people have spare time and a willingness to give something back - and a mistrust of large corporations, the OSS movement is here to stay - which means too that it is pretty much here to stay forever.
So maybe the reality is that MS has simply realised that OSS software is just another market in which they can compete. It doesn't need to impinge on their existing markets - and even if it does - at least they are strategically placed within the OSS market in order to be able to compete. In other words, maybe they are really just hedging their bets? - kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3bruce perens - "Novell is the new SCO"
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=16415
sounds like there's going to be a backlash. - benb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yeah, this whole deal has me somewhat conflicted. I work with and enjoy using both Windows and Linux. OpenSuse is one of my favorite Linux distros. This turn of events could be very good for the Linux community, but it seems to mainly benefit MS and Novell. While I've never subscribed to the "Microsoft is an evil empire" theories, they have made some unsettling choices when it comes to dealing with partners in the past - Novell being one of them.
This deal seems, at least on the surface, to rely on trusting in Microsoft. They can either screw over Novell and other open source options, or as I hope, work with them to make both OSs better. Nobody is going to argue about better interoperability. It just seems like the patent agreements serve as a scare tactic to dissuade buyers from going with non-partners like Red Hat. - subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Uhhh.....say what????
- satipip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2drag thinks:
"Novell sells licenses to it's software patents to Microsoft. Microsoft sells licenses to it's software patents right back to Novell."
No, drag -- not quite. Novell does not sell any specific software patents licenses to Microsoft, nor happens the same the other way round.
What they *do* sell to each other is a general insurance policy, granting the counterpart's respective *customers* a 5 year protection against lawsuits resulting from potential patent violations. (But both are keen to say that "we don't know any of our patents that the other violates"... curious, ain't it).
They are both playing a game to make their agreement look like it is not violating paragraph 7 of the GPL. The script of their game is, that both have to say this, while they are on stage, watched by the public and the SEC:
-----------------------------
1. We have customers, and you have customers.
2. We have code, and you have code.
3. We have EULAs, and you have EULAs.
4. We have patents, and you have patents. (Which specific ones, doesn't matter here).
5. If *you* use *your* code with *our* patents, and we use *our* code with *your* patents, then we will not sue *your* _customers_ for using *our* patents if *you* do not sue *our* _customers_ for using *your* patents.
6. But we are not saying that you can use our patents, and you are not saying that we can use your patents.
7. How our patents got into each others' software shall remain confidential.
8. Nevertheless we (MSFT) will pay you $US 300 million, for allowing our customers to use our software and not be sued for using your patents and you (NOVL) will pay us $40 million for allowing your customers to use your software and not be sued for using our patents.
9. We may threaten your customers (hey, just kidding) and you may threaten ours (hey, just kidding). Together we can threaten everyone (no kidding here!).
10. So we don't give you permission to distribute your software with our patents, but just do what you like.
11. So you don't give us permission to distribute our software with your patents, but just do what we like in any case.
12. That complicated GPL is irrelevant.
13. In 5+ years (after January 1st, 2012), at the latest, everything may be different again.
----------------------------- - stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's going to make a Redhat vs. MS-Novell battle in the Linux world. Microsoft will license their stuff with Novell only, and try to squish Redhat. But Redhat is strong. They have an extensive support system, and many satisfied big name clients.
I think it's bad for Suse overall. They will loose Linux fan base. - angulion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Maybe MS is trying to protect itself from consequenses of its involvement in the SCO case, Baystar? After all, Novell would at least before this probably have gone after SCO & Co once IBM was finished.
- kangaegoto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A clear sign of the changing times. For years Microsoft has discounted Linux as a viable server/desktop OS. This signals an about face in policy.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Pros:.... what pros? Novell gets a few bucks from Microsoft with some HUGE restrictions on how they can spend those bucks.
Cons: ..Microsoft gains control over the direction Novell takes Linux (and in a big way, GNOME).
Microsoft starts suing the hell out of other vendors of Linux who don't agree to their terms over bogus patents (which means legal wars, which is something Linux can't really pay for).
Those are just two of the cons I can come up with off the top of my head, there's at least a dozen more that I haven't listed. - dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3In return Microsoft requests Novell's soul...
I don't think any good will come from this. Microsoft has proven time and time again that they deal with competition by crushing it. I just hope the damage is localized to Novell only and does not trickle out to the OSS community in general. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 So do I. Maybe us Linux users are reading more into this than is there..or maybe not.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Doubtful, Novell's been about dead for ages now. Until they snapped up SuSE and some powerful GNOME developers, they really had no business model at all except "we're the miniature (low cost) version of Cisco". Then with those purchasing and some reorganization they're now Sun; just as close to death, but they hold one or two key pieces of IP which makes the company survive.
This money's just going to put enough in the coffers to keep Novell going, but at the same time rip the Linux communities to shreds. - miker71, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Microsoft are merely studying the competition.
- rysmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From Vaughn-Nichols, "Novell is not SCO": http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4287912423.html
- rysmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1$348M overall, $240M now, $40M Novell will have to pay back. Net $308M
- generalbeard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2dood, don't be such a baby, this is why the green and red icon is next to your name. it's the community that runs the content, yo.
- shuffle2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have seen 4 versions of this story so far, each reporting a different price. What is real? (go check google news)
- edosmund, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@khafra
Dugg up for the "Dr. Strangelove" reference. - rysmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A lame Tommy Boy quote
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I can't get my head around what's going on here. What is going on? Are we going to see an MS version of Linux?
That would definately be interesting - but given everything they have said, totally weird too. - XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is the extreme case, in any case they WILL rape Novell :)
- khafra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@nickm: I'm not so sure they have the right to seditious speech; kinda like fighting words, obscenity, and shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre (that's not on fire).
Or maybe it's just that I can no longer stand idly by and allow muslim infiltration, muslim subversion, muslim indoctrination, and the international muslim conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. - madcat87, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I don`t like all of this.I think Microsoft will try to rape GNU/LINUX.
- rysmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't be surprised if Scoble was right: http://scobleizer.com/2006/11/02/patents-bring-novell-and-microsoft-together/
Novell could've had some dirt on Microsoft and getting them to interoperate with virtualization, documents, and .Net is huge for customers and developers. - rysmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@drag Read the FAQ: http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html
from Q1:
Our agreement with Microsoft is focused on our customers, and does not include a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft to Novell (or, for that matter, from Novell to Microsoft). Novell's customers receive a covenant not to sue directly from Microsoft. We have not agreed with Microsoft to any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL and we are in full compliance. - envec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1the deal makes sense from novell's part, they would have really a hard time should oracle enter the linux os market
- Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Windows Server Core is going to be Longhorn with a command-line. It still technically has a GUI, but no explorer-like interface and no IE.
http://www.redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?EditorialsID=640
One of the things I don't understand about Digg is that this story of Server Core has been posted several times and has yet to make it to the front page. You'd think an OS in direct competition to Linux from MSFT would be newsworthy but I guess not. - Justathought, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1To see what this really means you have to go where the real Linux insiders and thinkers hang out. For example:
www.linuxtoday.com
You'll get more informed and insightful comments about this than here. - L0phtpDK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2While I love the idea of open source and *gasp* Microsoft embracing the movement...
But what is Microsoft gaining from this? They already have competitive products that they could have put that money towards...
I'm not exactly sure what they are purchasing? Rights to have someone else's API to run on their system? Just re-engineer it WITHOUT reverse engineering the API. - Evil-Dragon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Yeah, cons: It involves Microsoft, yet again.
- gu014, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1tegrady:
we can already do this...so, what is new about it? was it not permitted, in the past, to run suse or m& within the other? - drag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh sorry I forgot the disclaimer. 'I am not a lawyer'.
So that above is only my layman's understanding (or lack thereof) of the current situation.
It is worth noting that with the exception of the patent mess it seems that Microsoft and novell working together is a fairly positive thing for Linux, commercially speaking. -
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is