Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Red Hat Says They'll Be In Linux Long After Novell 150

Posted by Zonk from the fighting-words dept.
Jane Walker writes "Red Hat general counsel Mark Webbink goes to the mat for his company regarding the Microsoft/Novell partnership, in this SearchOpenSource.com Q&A. 'In one year, Red Hat will be all that remains of commercial Linux, he said.'" From the article: "Between last week and this one, it is clear that the two largest software vendors in the world perceive Linux to be at least on the same plane as them. They have got to respect what we have done. Having said that, does Red Hat think either of them has taken the right approach, now that Microsoft and Novell have made 'Microvell'? They've gone off the road a bit, we think, but we are feeling good about the attention that has been brought to Linux. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat Says They'll Be In Linux Long After Novell More

Red Hat Says They'll Be In Linux Long After Novell

Comments Filter:

  • Dubious (Score:2, Troll)

    by BeeBeard ( 999187 )
    In one year's time, it's quite possible that Red Hat will have already lost the battle of even just supporting their own product. [oracle.com]

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Are you seriously saying that Oracle can support Red Hat better than Red Hat can? Have you actually tried to support Oracle? They can't even support that properly. Their dependencies on archaic libraries like compat-gcc-296, hilarious dependencies on irrelevant packages like xscreensaver, and installation instructions that rival the US tax code make me cringe at the very thought of hiring Oracle to support Linux itself. Not to mention the company itself doesn't even care about their customers, things suc
      • And as a neutral party who sits here and watches both being used in the commercial space, but has no loyalty to either, I would say that MS is far worse. They have legions of support ppl and yet they have virus, bugs, huge amounts of downtime. The costs of support on windows is many times what Oracle is (again from an outside POV). Of course, you can argue that it is because windows is on so many systems, but I have noticed that when DBAs need help from Oracle, they get it. OTH, trying to get an honest answ
        • Oracle, like Cisco and Sun, and other enterprise class companies, have support teams around the world that will work with you 24 hours a day until the problem is resolved. I don't buy the Redhat supported linux because: 1) I can support all of linux myself just fine, and 2) it is WAY overpriced for what you get when dealing with volume licenses. The volume license model is f*cked. It doesn't cost 73 times more to support 75 servers that are all clones of each other on identicle hardware than it does 1 (the
    • You know, mods, comments that attract the attention of only a few trolls are not trolls per se. Mine was simply the first post in the discussion by a registered user, and by someone who has always had no less than excellent karma. You sure have an odd way of penalizing people who contribute to the overall discussion of an article, and to the quality of discussion on this forum in general. And by "odd" I think I really mean petty, clueless, and incompetent. You know, that kind of odd.

      I've been running va

  • Red Hat Beats it's own chest (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Saturday November 04, 2006 @06:47AM (#16714669) Journal
    *Yawn*

    Alright, if you do read the actual article (a foreign concept for some I know), they do make some valid points about Linux in general. Such as that Microsoft has finally admitted it has to take Linux seriously. But one thing that does concern me.

    I don't think Linux customers have anything to worry about there.

    So people who use Novell and Microsoft products are safe, but what about those that choose other products? Will they get sued?

    One year ago, we provided a counterweight to people with patent portfolios that may threaten open source software by building a contravening portfolio of software patents.

    Nothing says that the patent system is more broken then this.

    Think back to the Microsoft/Sun announcement from a couple years ago, and today, you haven't seen any of the promised technical collaboration from that partnership whatsoever.

    Heh. Now there's an apt comparison.

    That problem is, you can be either for freedom and collaboration, or you can take a different approach

    Aaawh, now come on. You can come out and say it. "You're either for freedom and collaboration, or you're against it."

    I can at least respect Microsoft, because they don't pretend to be an open source company.

    Come on, we all know what you're saying. Leave that bush alone it's looking pretty nackered. "Novell isn't an open source company, even though it pretends to be." There, now was that so hard?
    • Such as that Microsoft has finally admitted it has to take Linux seriously.

      Let's see, what other companies has Microsoft partnered with in order to improve Windows interoperability? 3Com, Sybase....

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by laffer1 ( 701823 )
        Sun...

        Yes, all these companies are not doing that well today. They are not out of business either. I think Redhat makes a good point about Novell pulling out of Linux before they do. Look at the Novell track record. The real issue is why is Novell making the deal with Microsoft? Could it be that many people don't consider them relevant anymore with Netware and Groupwise? Perhaps their plans for Suse have not come to pass. I've worked for two different Universities that use Netware/Groupwise and are s
        • just thinking aloud: Novell has some sort(s) of big plans for Mono. Mono is the most likely target of patent action by MS. They're covering their bases before they roll out a killer app.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by laffer1 ( 701823 )
            Novell has been trying to replace groupwise with a .NET version for some time. They want it to run in mono on linux as well as in windows. Anything to get rid of the terrible memory leaks would be an improvement. I should explain... Groupwise 6.5 has a little issue. Once a user sent an email to everyone at the university I worked for. She did not use a list, but actually addressed everyone individually. On most computers, Groupwise consumed so much ram that it actually overwrote memory for other proce
            • If Groupwise was able to overwrite memory of the Intel graphics driver, then there was more wrong with those computers than just Groupwise.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by laffer1 ( 701823 )
                Yes, they were dell systems with XP SP2. Since intel graphics use shared system memory, it wasn't too hard to cause the problem.

                If you enable software buffer overflow protection, groupwise ALWAYS crashed. No other applications would misbehave that we had in our image.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by kripkenstein ( 913150 )
      So people who use Novell and Microsoft products are safe, but what about those that choose other products? Will they get sued?

      As has been discussed at length in many places in recent days, this doesn't seem likely. To summarize:

      1. There is no real 'new' risk to other Linux distros than there was a week ago. Just FUD. Saying "but Novell admit there are patents" isn't a real argument.

      2. Microsoft cannot easily crush their competition with patents, because (a) of the risk of antitrust measures, (b) the

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by jlowe ( 907739 )
        I think you summarize what is going on well, but you are missing a key component that is leading you astray on your first point.

        There is no "new risk," per se, but there is a less treacherous path for Microsoft should they decide to sue commercial linux vendors or non-profit companies (more than an individual developer). Linux has some protection from Microsoft or other companies with software patent portfolios because Linux has had the backing of Novell and IBM. Both of those companies have very large

      • Re:Red Hat Beats it's own chest (Score:4, Insightful)

        by molnarcs ( 675885 ) <csabamolnar AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday November 04, 2006 @10:36AM (#16715815) Homepage Journal
        So, in the end, nothing has changed, except for the apparent "gentlemans' arrangement" between Microsoft and Novell not to sue each other. This may appeal to some managers and lead them to choose SUSE, but that is all it is, a little good PR.

        That's hilariously naive. A little good PR? Well, you forget about the BIG BAD PR for the entire linux community. I will spell out for you what exactly happened: Novell (the holder of Unix copyrights btw, and a linux distributor) acknowledged that Microsoft might have valid patent claims in linux. If you haven't realized: that's pretty bad.

        And I will explain it in Ballmer's words as well, if you think I'm crazy or a zealot (btw, I use FreeBSD, not linux, but care for the FLOSS movement):

        The distributors of other versions of Linux cannot assure their customers that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement. "If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?' Essentially, If you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd say the answer is yes," Ballmer said. "I suspect that [customers] will take that issue up with their distributor," Ballmer said. Or if customers are considering doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, "they'll think twice about that," he said.
        Novell succeeded in what SCO failed - incriminated linux distributions. SCO was a weak proxy of Microsoft, now Novell is much much stronger - after all, it is the company that has ~20% marketshare in the enterprise linux arena.

        Some people think (I'm not referring specifically to your post) that calling others zealots, because they are angry and disappointed is somehow cool. They think that they sound more intelligent if they think only inside the pragmatical/technical box. Here is another angle for those - until now, linux distributions participated in "pure" competition. What I mean is that they competed on two fronts: technical merits of the distribution, and quality of support and services. This was good, even if sometimes it got nasty (like in Oracle case). Novell tainted this with another factor: the MS patent flag. This is very bad on the long run ... unless Novell is stopped somehow.

        Oh, and fuck Miguel and friends. They only care for pushing their own agenda. Last year Novell leadership was convinced that going GNOME and MONO is a good idea. Then they had to backpedal, not only because existing customers who standardized on KDE, but because there were migration plans in progress that specifically choose KDE on SuSE, and one of them was a 2000 desktop migration plan (in Europe). Then we had Miguel saying for YEARS that there are no patent issues with MONO. And now, he claims that MONO is finally safe, at least if you use Novell's linux offerings. Yes, yes, some people would say that they saw this coming, after all, he has been a Microsoft fan for some time now. And now:

        So today we have secured a peace of mind for Novell customers that might have been worried about possible patent infringements open source deployments. This matters in particular for Mono, because for a long time its been the favorite conversation starter for folks that find dates on Slashdot.
        Well, what about non-Novell customers, Mr. Miguel? There goes all the warning agains incorporating MONO technology into GNOME btw.
        • Well, there's a really simple solution. Ban software patents. We don't have them here in the EU, so I don't care about this pact. On the other hand, it's becoming increasingly difficult to keep it that way, and the argument is always the need to 'harmonise' our patent system with the USA, so you guys in Leftpondia could make our lives a lot easier if you'd spend some time slapping your elected representatives. My MEP is an active member of the FFII [ffii.org]. Will you be voting for active EFF [eff.org] supporters tomorrow
          • That would be exactly the solution. But: how long do you think that the EU remains patent free? The European Parliament can reject the drafts a few times, but eventually, the European Committee can push it through if it wants to. That's one flaw of the EU - EC has too much power compared to EP.

            The problem is, that Novell provided pro-patent legislators some munition. It would be wise for European linux wendors to cooperate on a higher level, and put unprecedented pressure on pro-patent legislations. A joi

        • That's hilariously naive. A little good PR? Well, you forget about the BIG BAD PR for the entire linux community. I will spell out for you what exactly happened: Novell (the holder of Unix copyrights btw, and a linux distributor) acknowledged that Microsoft might have valid patent claims in linux. If you haven't realized: that's pretty bad.

          I agree that it is bad PR, but disagree on the amount. Now, if the actual patents were disclosed, this would be far worse (but disclosing them would put Novell in GPL
          • I think that this is a bigger problem than you think, because it affects so many aspects of the FLOSS movement. Just one aspect I didn't even mention : what will happen to Novell's contributions? Patents need not to be disclosed to be effective. The fact that Novell and Microsoft now claims that there are - undisclosed - patents in some of the software that is covered by the agreement (MONO, ooo.org, SAMBA) is enough to view every possible Novell contribution as dangerous. If nothing else, this might remove
            • I see your point, and in fact developers may be wary of Novell code. But I again think that this is mostly psychological, and not justified. If Novell distribute GPL code, then they are necessarily distributing along with it a license to all relevant patents (and again, if they aren't, then Novell are in violation of the GPL). As for non-GPL code from Novell, well, I am wary of non-GPL code in general. The license in such cases needs to be carefully inspected (and if it doesn't contain a patent clause, then
              • I see your point, and in fact developers may be wary of Novell code. But I again think that this is mostly psychological, and not justified. If Novell distribute GPL code, then they are necessarily distributing along with it a license to all relevant patents (and again, if they aren't, then Novell are in violation of the GPL).

                I see your point too - I just don't differentiate between psychological problems and ... well, what? Even if the problem is merely psychological, and unjustified because of the letter

        • fuck Miguel and friends. They only care for pushing their own agenda

          True. I have known Miguel for some years. I can now sum Miguel up with a single word: Judas. Thanks to Miguel, both Novell and Suse are now the walking dead. I sincerely regret both, but of course I regret the demise of Suse more. However, this will not be a mortal blow to Linux, quite the contrary. There is only one way for Novell to escape the consequences of their actions: repudiate the patent pact. Otherwise, Novell is the new SC

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Stalyn ( 662 )
          So today we have secured a peace of mind for Novell customers that might have been worried about possible patent infringements open source deployments. This matters in particular for Mono, because for a long time its been the favorite conversation starter for folks that find dates on Slashdot.

          He's talking about things like ASP.NET deployments using mod_mono and similar setups using the Microsoft compatibility stack. If you use Ecma 334/335 Mono like what is used within GNOME for things like beagle and f-spo

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pecisk ( 688001 )
          For Christ sake, take a reality dose.

          Software patents HAVE BEEN REAL THREAT for Linux and free software FOR YEARS. Sooner or later, this kind of thing would be HAPPENING. Don't like software patents? Well, then DO SOMETHING AGAINST IT.

          Just don't cry a river and don't be emotionaly naive about all premise - it all about business.

          We can't fight against software patents ignoring them, or just puting claims in a licence that no one can use them against users. THIS won't work anymore.

          Software patents must go. Co

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by killjoe ( 766577 )
        If you want insightful legal analysis you have to go to groklaw. Groklaw had this pegged from day one. Here is an excerpt from the front page.

        "Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said his company is open to talking to other Linux distributors about reaching mutual patent coverage deals similar to the agreement signed Nov. 2 with Novell.

        Such talks would be a good idea, Ballmer suggested, since now only Novell's SUSE Linux customers are the only Linux vendors that have any assurance that Microsoft won't sue for paten
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • No change in what the situation already was for all the others. Absolutely no change there. It says they won't go after Novell. It does not say that it will go after everybody else. To asume that is prety much Bush-thinking. ;-)

        Let me clarify this - there isn't any need to assume that they will actually go after other linux companies. The fact that we are discussing this possibility is bad enough for the reputation of linux in general. I my opinion, that's what Microsoft will do - it won't actually go aft

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • The only FUD I have seen so far is from the community itself. You must be joking, or completely blind. Since when is Ballmer part of the linux community?

            Such talks would be a good idea, Ballmer suggested, since now only Novell's SUSE Linux customers are the only Linux vendors that have any assurance that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement.... Steve Ballmer

            There, now you saw some FUD - actually, do you understand the meaning of that acronym - that doesn't originate from the linux community.

            I

      • You are right, it is easy to say. I don't think Novell would say that they pretend to be an OSS company

        Perhaps. But the Red Hat worker was implying this.
    • http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq.html [novell.com] [novell.com]
      "Under the patent agreement, both companies will make up-front payments in exchange for a release from any potential liability for use of each others patented intellectual property, with a net balancing payment from Microsoft to Novell reflecting the larger applicable volume of Microsoft's product shipments. Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source products."

      WTF Microsoft gets Royalty paym

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by init100 ( 915886 )

        WTF Microsoft gets Royalty payments from Novell for sales and support of Novells linux distro

        In other words, if you buy Novell SuSE Linux, you will pay the Microsoft Tax. It is very probable that Microsoft will try to make people pay the Microsoft Tax even if they are not using their system. Just look at the invite to negotiations with other Linux distributors.

        • That is just wrong.

          Historically unix got "stolen" from the people who wrote it. Linux was almost a rerun but this time using the GPL to stop Linux being hijacked. Now Novell and Microsoft are hijacking Linux.

          Morally its outrageous, It is a protection racket, isn't that what steve balmer is saying buy your linux from these guys or we're going to sue your ass's (maybe).

          sad thing is to a company its a necessary cost, the cost of litigation is far higher.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by init100 ( 915886 )

            Morally its outrageous, It is a protection racket, isn't that what steve balmer is saying buy your linux from these guys or we're going to sue your ass's (maybe).

            I agree completely.

  • Navel staring (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Between last week and this one, it is clear that the two largest software vendors in the world perceive Linux to be at least on the same plane as them. They have got to respect what we have done. Having said that, does Red Hat think either of them has taken the right approach, now that Microsoft and Novell have made 'Microvell'? They've gone off the road a bit, we think, but we are feeling good about the attention that has been brought to Linux.

    Don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but to a hell-hole of a lo

  • This is not about IP. This is about the freedom to meet customer needs and to create competition. That problem is, you can be either for freedom and collaboration, or you can take a different approach. These companies are trying to do both. I can at least respect Microsoft, because they don't pretend to be an open source company.

    Intersting jibe at Novell. Although I agree. I've got nothing against MS' products, but their philosophy and that of "Linux" companies are diamerically opposed. I see no logic in No

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What about a compatability layer that allows Novell's flavors of linux to offer and support Microsoft's various DRM products? Yes boo evil. But it'd also be nice to have the option.

  • Oh, come on... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mikachu ( 972457 ) <burke@jeremiahj.gmail@com> on Saturday November 04, 2006 @06:54AM (#16714693) Homepage
    Do you really have to go and call it 'Microvell'? It's a partnership, not a merger. Don't get them confused.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AdamKG ( 1004604 )
      Do you really have to go and call it 'Microvell'? It's a partnership, not a merger. Don't get them confused.
      I do believe the correct term is "assimilation."

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by porl ( 932021 )
        it appears that novell believed that resistance *was* futile...
      • On paper it is a partnership, but lets be honest.

        When one large firm partners with a smaller firm, its only a matter of time before the larger firm takes over and absorbs the smaller one. And especially since MS has a history of this. (partnering with a firm, and then "deciding" that they can do better if they just purchase the smallr firm).
    • ..for a long time. Fair is fair and all... and we have MacIntel now, too. It's just funny, that's all. I think it's amusing really. The name, not the situation, the situation sucks. Although better now than later, the entire computing world needs to have some things sorted in the courts more, copyrights versus patents (like, why does software get both, but novels and musical scores don't? Ideas represented by a language or languages and symbols, etc, able to be put on dead trees or represented by electronic
  • So, not only are they going to wipe out SUSE, but Xandros, Linspire. etc etc.

    Going to be a busy year for Redhat.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by felosi ( 986666 )
      meh who cares, novell sucks just as bad as microsoft. Red hat owns both their faces and even though they are commercial they are true open source, we got centos to prove that. There is lot of stupid talk about ubuntu gonna put redhat under, microsoft gunning for red hat, etc. Nope red hat will only grow in all markets besides desktop. I know in my opinion you cant beat red hat for servers. And without redhat there would be no centos which is the most popular server distro at the moment. let novell and ms do
      • What about Novell's treatment of SuSE has made it less open source/sucky? CentOS exists to the chagrin of RedHat. RedHat would love to be able to and has tried to make life hard within the boundaries of the law, without being overly dickheaded about it. RedHat discontinued offering their distro for free download, and transitioned to having the Fedora project be the equivalent, so the RH name was made 'pure' commercial.

        Novell at first look even seems to have made it more open. I.e. yast was not an open p
  • "Novell also takes issue with Ballmer's comments that no vendor today stands behind Linux with full intellectual-property indemnification."

    That's the salvo that will be the real start of the war. The question isn't whether Microsoft will follow SCO's lead, but WHEN.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Znork ( 31774 )
      Of course, at that point we can also expect to see the EU Directorates get into a fullscale civil war between the DG Markt, Comp, InfSo and some others, over wether IP law is in any form compatible with anti-trust and a competetive market.
  • I think the bigger news from this article is the fact that RedHat is now offering indemnification for its customers. They slipped this into their FAQ now as well ( http://www.redhat.com/promo/believe/ [redhat.com]). While I think their hand was forced a bit on this one in order to remain competitive with where the market seems to be going, its still welcome news. This has been a significant hurdle for many companies even considering whether to adopt open source. As it becomes more widespread and "the norm" that you
    • I think the bigger news from this article is the fact that RedHat is now offering indemnification for its customers.

      So what, people have one of two choices now? Novell/Microsoft or Red Hat? Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me. But then again the American people are happy with it for their government, so I suppose they'll be happy with it for their operating system.
  • "now only Novell's SUSE Linux customers are the only Linux vendors that have any assurance that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement..." Steve Ballmer

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200611032 01234813 [groklaw.net]

  • Trustworthy? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Decaff ( 42676 )
    Think back to the Microsoft/Sun announcement from a couple years ago, and today, you haven't seen any of the promised technical collaboration from that partnership whatsoever.

    This comment alone makes me sceptical about this article, as it is not only incorrect, but easily shown to be false. Just to give one example, anyone who has been following the development of the latest Java release (6) knows that there has been considerable technical collaboration, one result of which is that Java on Vista will be fu
    • The specialized media has been aghast with the result of such fruitful collaboration.

      People are clamoring, no, begging, for more of it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Decaff ( 42676 )
        The specialized media has been aghast with the result of such fruitful collaboration.

        People are clamoring, no, begging, for more of it.

        The strange thing about supposedly ironic and sarcastic comments is that very occasionally they are, in contrast to the intentions of the author.

        One of the results of the collaboration has been Java 6 integration with Windows. No matter what the common belief, Java desktop development is widespread, but what is really needed is GUI integration and performance that makes it

    • results are better networking between Solaris systems and Windows.

      Does than mean IPec on Windows now works? Heck, I have BSD, 2 Linux and 2 Solaris doing IPSec natively and together but getting Microsoft Windows OS to do it is a nighmare nemisis. But not holding my breath. But it is about the only reason to upgrade to Vista I can think of.

  • ...mean nothing but Slashdot is forgetting history. Despite commanding market positions and unique opportunities, Novell has consistently fucked up every single time without fail. Most of their managers can't scratch their own arses without two mirrors and a searchlight.

    Think Novell won't fuck this up again? Wrong.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      A better piece of history to remember is how Microsoft ripped off Novell back in the OS/2 days. Network manager was supposed to be a joint project. Microsoft has done a good job targeting Novell's netware ever since.
      I just can not think this is a good thing.

    • Think Novell won't fuck this up again? Wrong.

      Your quite right on this. Novell bought XIMIAN, a key component to really making a serious run at Microsoft's desktop but when it came to marketing it they fell right down without so much as gasp. Self destructive.

  • Sony Playstations will have displaced Lenovo Personal Computers as the hot-selling technology item.

    As far as I know, Microsoft Windows doesn't even run on the Sony Playstation.

    Linux does, though.

    • If Sony doesn't succeed in the PS3, they may soon fold as a company. I can see WalMart buying Sony at a firesale price, just for the name. Then WalMart will simply replace the Durabrand logo on their low-end product line with their new Sony logo.
  • >> In one year, Red Hat will be all that remains of commercial Linux

    Sure, but what will remain of Red Hat?

    And who needs "commercial Linux" anyway?

    Hey, I don't dislike Red Hat, in fact it's my favorite distro. But the idea of running a standalone Linux vendor is history. It is a dead parrot. It's nailed to its perch. It has shuffled off this mortal coil, etc. etc. etc.
    • To clarify... Red Hat could continue to operate at modest profits on their current business model... but the stock market (ie, the owners) aren't going to allow it. A private owner might settle for it, but the market has been sold the stock on the basis of a growth story that no longer exists. Management will be pressured to restructure or be acquired.

      It's not hopeless for them, but it's time to just completely forget the 90's business model of making money by selling a branded OS. Shucks, even Microsoft

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by BokLM ( 550487 ) *
      And who needs "commercial Linux" anyway?

      "commercial Linux" contributes a lot of code to Linux and other open source projects. Linux wouldn't be what it is today without RedHat...
      • Funny, I thought it was the kernel developers that make the vanilla code and other software developers that Red Hat modifies for their use?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by BokLM ( 550487 ) *
          Who do you think is "the kernel developers" ?
          It's mostly RedHat, Novell, and many other companies ...
          And there's many other important free software that every distro include which are mainly developed by RedHat employes.
          Have a look at http://www.redhat.com/truthhappens/leadership/osde velopment/ [redhat.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Poppler ( 822173 )
          Funny, I thought it was the kernel developers that make the vanilla code and other software developers that Red Hat modifies for their use?
          Red Hat contributes back to vanilla. I'm grateful for what they've done, and I don't use their distro or any of its derivatives.

          $ grep -r Red\ Hat /usr/src/linux

          Red Hat has been very good to the Linux kernel.
      • Sure, but going forward Oracle, IBM, and others can pay programmers just as easily as Red Hat. Five years ago, that didn't make sense for the bigger companies. Now it does. In any event, the world really doesn't need a commercial, pay-to-use distribution. Free commercial distributions can work just fine, thank you. That was the essence of my comment.

        And while I appreciate Red Hat's contributions, Linux is popular because it's Free, not because of Red Hat. They contributed, but so did many others.
  • good thing there is no more space for others to surface in competition.

    ---surface----
    you can bunt too.
  • would be because M$ is going to ass rape Novell Suse Linux into oblivion with a flaming chainsaw.
    M$ is going to pollute Linux with their poison code then sue everyone else out of existence.

    I've been a loyal Suse user for a few years now, I PURCHASE, use and resell Suse Linux.
    I have advocated and pushed Suse Linux commercially and personally to customers, friends and family.

    But this is the end of the relationship. It is time to part ways with Suse now.
    I don't want to update machines only to later discover t
    • Progeny only sells support/services. If you can do the support, so much the better. Debian, while 'old' is rock solid stable. If you want 'newer' then go with testing. Also, 'old' isn't really old. It's just not the 'latest version'. That is because testing takes time.

      Xandros, Mepis, Ubuntu, Knoppix and etc. have all shown that this is the way to go.

      Loosing RPM Hell is a good benefit too.

      Certification might be a bugaboo for you though.
    • I don't want to update machines only to later discover they've been tainted by M$ code.

      Will be interesting to see what code is used for some of the common tasks in getting a box up and running.

      Will they be using GRUB [wikipedia.org]?

      The first thing I thought of when I heard about the cooperation agreement between Microsoft and Novell, was that perhaps "dual boot" boxes might be offered.
      Windows Vista, and SuSE Linux.
      Really can't imagine that Microsoft would allow that, the users won't be needing all the virus protection s
  • CEO of Acme Inc: Our business model is seriously flawed, and these new competitors of ours are kicking our asses in the marketplace. We have serious concerns about the future performance of our stock, and we are unable to succeed at new product development.

  • Aren't they humble. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Junta ( 36770 ) on Saturday November 04, 2006 @09:55AM (#16715479)
    "Between last week and this one, it is clear that the two largest software vendors in the world perceive Linux to be at least on the same plane as them. They have got to respect what we have done."

    So Linux is good, and it's *all* thanks to RedHat? No one else deserves credit.

    "We still believe that we will be the dominant player in the Linux market, because by that time there won't be any other Linux players."

    Do they have to take it to the point of saying 'there can be only one'? I mean that is the whole problem with MSOFT, a homogeneous market. If he stopped before the because, that would have been sufficient and appropriate, but that last bit fuels the flames of those who proclaim RH wants to be the MS of Linux. Whether or not they can is another matter, but it sounds like for this person, this is a confirmed desired path for RH's future.

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • So Linux is good, and it's *all* thanks to RedHat? No one else deserves credit.

      Well, when you're only considering Redhat and Novell/SuSE, only Redhat deserves any credit. All SuSE ever did was create proprietary applications and package other people's work - this isn't a *bad* thing to be doing, but they certainly don't deserve any credit for it. They've become a little less irrelevant in recent years, but haven't done anything special in that time.

      It's also true that Redhat does a lot of good work on devel

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by talksinmaths ( 199235 )
      So Linux is good, and it's *all* thanks to RedHat? No one else deserves credit.

      Your paraphrasing skills need some work. This isn't what was stated or implied.

      Do they have to take it to the point of saying 'there can be only one'?

      What you're (intentionally?) leaving out is that they're referring to enterprise linux market 'players'. How many players are there now? Two by my count, but I'm not counting offerings such as Unbreakable (or even Ubuntu LTS) unless/until they gain meaningful traction in the mark

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Junta ( 36770 )
        "Your paraphrasing skills need some work. This isn't what was stated or implied."

        I'm not the only one who read it that way. Generally companies making an assertion about the accomplishments of Linux somehow include explicitly words like 'the open-source community' or whatever to avoid the ambiguity. Red Hat has a history of acting like they are the shit, and has done a fair amount of work to get a fair share of credit, but still Red Hat would generally have everyone believe that they and they alone make L
    • "Between last week and this one, it is clear that the two largest software vendors in the world perceive Linux to be at least on the same plane as them. They have got to respect what we have done."

      So Linux is good, and it's *all* thanks to RedHat? No one else deserves credit.
      I think I parse that answer differently than you do, here's my interpretation
      "
      Has Linux won?

      Mark Webbink: Between last week and this one, it is clear that the two largest software vendors in the world perceive Linux to be at least on th
  • what comes to my mind is another blow at Red Hat's business coming on the heels of Oracle's announcement that it would undercut Red Hat's linux support pricing. I've got three words for Red Hat stock holders, sell, sell, sell. Red Hat really needs to enter a joint venture with or sell out to nother bigger company who is or wants to get into the linux business.
    • Red Hat really needs to enter a joint venture with or sell out to nother bigger company who is or wants to get into the linux business.

      Which bigger company would that be, exactly? And what would they get from their purchase that they don't already get from the existance of Linux and Red Hat? How would they assimilate Red Hat's radically different culture and ideology without destroying all the value they've purchased?

      Please be specific. There are a very limited number of bigger tech companies with any in

  • RedHat sounds arrogant... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by porkThreeWays ( 895269 ) on Saturday November 04, 2006 @10:25AM (#16715687)
    Red Hat sounds really arrogant in the article. However, much of it is basically true. I was a long time Novell/SuSe support after the acquisition. I use products from both companies on a daily basis. In the past few months I have pretty much left the suse train and jumped on the red hat one. Why? All this Oracle, Microsoft, Novell news is great for market analysts who never actually will ever use any of their products. But for someone who uses them on a daily basis, red hat's products and support are far superior.

    The stock can take a major hit in the short term by this sort of news, but quality products and good management (both of which red hat has) is what will keep the company alive in the long term. One year is much too short a timeframe for all this to pan out. Three years is more realistic. Oracle linux will turn into Sun's java desktop. The Novell/MS partnership will have yielded little/no technology advances. And Novell as a company may or may not have enough steam to keep on chugging in general (non-linux related activities).
  • *Those* are the distros that M$ should be shitting their pants about, since they actually are competitive to Windows on the *desktop.* If anything, an Ubuntu installation is easier than a comparable Windows and MS Office install. No licensing/key crap to worry about, and (if anything) a larger selection of built-in drivers is available. My last install of Ubuntu (on my dad's computer) took about 30 min tops, start to finish. The only slightly tricky part was installing the wlan card driver - had to use
    • I have now had to replace Ubuntu twice, and both times for the same reason. An automatic update screwed X and I was not able to recover it. Obviously no data was lost, but the tedium of reinstalling a whole load of applications wasn't, in the end, worth it. Getting VMWare and NetBeans and DB2 was taking far longer than the Ubuntu install. Much as I dislike XP, it has been extremely stable.

      I don't have the technical ability to write Norton Ghost for Linux, or a way of undoing updates from the terminal, but t

      • I have now had to replace Ubuntu twice, and both times for the same reason. An automatic update screwed X and I was not able to recover it.

        Rare case. Such things happen with Windows, too. i.e. an automatically installed security update on a client's Win 2k3 Small Business Server box rendered the thing unbootable so their e-mail went down after the box did the mandatory reboot after installation. Fortunately, booting in safe mode, I was able to remove it.

        As far as your update that screwed X, at least

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Burz ( 138833 )
          Ubuntu is no competition for SuSE, unfortunately. I tried Ubuntu for a month and had to setup all my laptop security by hand (firewall, Wifi WPA, VPN, encrypted disk).

          The X update bugs also bit me, leaving me to manually correct xorg.conf multiple times. An average desktop usser would also have gotten stuck here.

          Ubuntu grossly mishandled my disks: The firewire and USB devices that were plugged-in during install had to be plugged back in for each reboot... otherwise the boot process would fail.

          The installer
          • The installer did not provide an option for local (versus UTC) timezone, forcing the system to UTC which was off by 5 hours. I had to edit a file in /etc to correct this. Most PCs default to local time.

            That's a bad thing? UTC is the way to go - just change your hardware clock. Why is UTC hardware clock good? Because the hardware clock never has to change with Daylight Savings Time, switching time zones, etc. Changing the internal time reference of the system backwards could conceivable bork some soft


  • So RedHat is going to be the last redhat vendor? BULLCARP!!!! I personally believe Ubuntu is in the running, and if oracle puts out a distro, they won't just put it out and forget it. IF oracle puts one out, I hope they do a better job of patching then they do with their database products!

    I have influence on what products my company supports, and I've been kinda pushing that someday we should support SUSE. Well, that recommendation ended yesterday. I'm going to recommend we NOT support SUSE from now o
  • Linux is RedHat's core business.

    About the Novell/Microsoft inter cooperation agreement?

    http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_management/2006110301 426NWMSNV [linuxtoday.com]
    http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=200 6-11-03-014-26-NW-MS-NV-0010 [linuxtoday.com]

    Robert M. Stockmann - Subject: sad Outlook for Novell
    ( Nov 3, 2006, 02:46:50 )

    "Novell has never had a foothold in the Desktop business, why would
    Microsoft allow them to gain foothold on the Desktop market? If
    linux is going to g

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by petrus4 ( 213815 )
      In short : Microsoft will like they have done many times: work close with Novell, copycat essential gear from Novell linux into Redmond Campus.

      You've forgotten one minor factor:- the market. You're assuming that IT consumers are going to allow Microsoft to get away with something like this. That is highly unlikely. There are a very large number of people in the world who still see Microsoft as a problem to be solved...If Microsoft attempt to engage in predatory behaviour with Linux, the legal system in
  • What Microsoft most wants is clear. It all started with the funding of the SCO lawsuit. A lawsuit meant to scare customer's away from switching to a FOSS solution. Now that it is becoming clear that the SCO lawsuit is falling flat on its face they need to raise the ante. They want to plant a seed of doubt about Linux and cultivate it for the duration of this agreement.

    Notice how Microsoft is framing the agreement. As an act of Cooperation with Novel which implies FOSS. I'm willing to bet with the EU p
  • Microsoft's patent permission deal with Novell is the death knell for all other commerical Linux use in the United States (and anywhere else software patents hold sway), Red Hat included. All MS has to do is push one or two patent violation cases (easy, given the number of bogus software patents covering basic aspects of programming) throught the courts and destroy one or two non-Novell Linux using businesses, and the rest won't touch Novell's competition for fear of sharing their fate. You heard it here

Slashdot Top Deals

What is algebra, exactly? Is it one of those three-cornered things? -- J.M. Barrie

Close