Slashdot Log In
Hubert Mantel Returns to Novell
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:21 PM
from the changing-of-the-guard dept.
from the changing-of-the-guard dept.
Krondor writes "Hubert Mantel, SUSE Co-Founder, has confirmed in an interview with Data Manager Online that he has returned to employment with Novell. When asked why he left Novell to begin with, Hubert responded that he was 'burned out' and 'following unpleasant experiences with our investors needed some time off.' Slashdot had reported previously Hubert's departure from Novell approximately one year ago shortly following Novell's acquisition of SUSE and subsequent layoffs.
Hubert also provides his opinions on the Novell-Microsoft Agreement, which he characterizes as 'a good thing.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Suse Linux Founder Exits Novell 245 comments
csplinter writes write to tell us that SuSE Linux founder Hubert Mantel has resigned from Novell stating "Too late for me. I just decided to leave Suse/Novell. This is no longer the company I founded 13 years ago." Novell confirmed his resignation but had little else to say on the topic. From the article: "Mantel's departure also comes less than a week after Novell announced a major restructuring that would result in 600 layoffs. It's unclear if Mantel's resignation is related to the restructuring."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
out of context (Score:3, Funny)
I believe the full quote was "Microsoft just paid me a few duffel bags full of money, so it really can't be anything but a good thing".
Re:out of context (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:out of bounds (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
He'll have something to keep him occupied (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A bit OT, but doesn't "Hubert Mantel" sound like the name of a baron in a medieval history?
Mantel doesn't address issues on MS/Novell (Score:5, Insightful)
I had been hoping to hear Mantel's views on the MS/Novell deal, seeing what further insight he could provide. Disappointingly, he only points to the good side of the deal, and doesn't explain why this outweighs the bad side. We already know the good part: that MS has acknowledged the importance of Linux. No one is arguing with that. But the point is, MS is poisoning the waters, as pointed out by Allison's statement, and that is definitely a bad thing.
It's like some small Pacific island country who has just acquired nuclear weapons, and now the USA is going to come invade them with two navy fleets. The island country's president says: "I see this as a good thing: the USA is now taking us seriously." Yeah, right.
Maybe Mantel hasn't had time to formulate his thoughts and reactions to the negative aspects of the deal yet. But you can't make something good just by pointing out the positive aspects and ignoring the negative. You might try it on those populace of those states whose IQ's are in the lower half, but it's not going to work here on Slashdot.
Re:Mantel doesn't address issues on MS/Novell (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know, his answer is fairly comprehensive to me. FTFA:
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"What's important is that Linux is free and will remain to be free. The source code is open to everybody, this is what counts for me."
'Open' source code that is under Microsoft patents, and therefore isn't free-to-use - or, more to the point, is free-to-be-sued-for-using - isn't really 'free', I would say. And how is Linux "still free", if Novell needs to pay Microsoft to keep it that way?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Explanation, please (Score:5, Interesting)
My understanding is that this is an indemnity deal. Microsoft says it won't sue Novell over patents. While this may be interpreted as a statement of intent to sue non-Novell distros, that still doesn't explain attitude towards Novell. Shouldn't they be considered equivalent to shopkeepers who knuckle under and pay protection fees to the mob? At most they should be treated as cowards, and not as traitors who have sold out the future of Linux.
And what's the big deal with the GPL? I've turned it upside down and inside out, and I can find no restriction against entering into indemnity deals. Not even in spirit. Microsoft may not sue Novell if it incorporates patented code into GPL sources, but the GPL licensors certainly will! So again, what's the problem?
I'm coming to the conclusion that this is merely MDS. Microsoft Derangement Syndrome. It's the mere mention of the name "Microsoft" that has everyone foaming at the mouth. I greatly suspect that if the exact same deal had been made with IBM (who owns more patents than Microsoft ever will) no one would even be batting an eye. It's for these reason I've not asked this question before, out of dread that I would be flamed to oblivion. So please take a step back, count to ten, and calmy explain why Novell is so evil for entering into this agreement.
Re:Explanation, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It is called being the part of a Club and following the leaders over the cliff if asked.
Linux is freaking technology, not a me too, or I'm a geek club. Sadly it is the people that use MS, Apple, Linux, and BSD in whatever ways work best that are now the rebels, and the hardcore Linux only or BSD only or Apple only or OSS only users are the cult members and part of the new estabish
Re:Explanation, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It violates the spirit of GPL2, but Novell and MS did an end-run around a technical violation by having Microsoft agree not to sue Novell's customers. By not specifically naming Novell the company, MS has avoided putting them in a position where this supplementary agreement would be considered an additional condition to the GPL, which is strictly verboten.
It was a cynical, disingenuous move, and that's why S
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Incorrect. This is the part everyone around here keeps getting wrong, either willfully or because the fact that Microsoft is involved gets them so crosseyed-mad that they can't read. The agreement is that Microsoft won't sue Novell's customers should Novell be found to be violating any of Microsoft's patents, nor will Novell sue Microsoft's customers if Microsoft is found to be violating Novell's patent
Re: (Score:2)
No the agreement doesn't say that at all. It says MS will not sue Novell CUSTOMERS. It can still sue novell anytime it wants. The agreement is only good for five years. After the five years are up MS can (and probably will) sue novell customers.
MS claims that it has patents on unspecified technologies that in linux (that's probably true because they have patents of lots of silly stuff). Before this deal if
Re: (Score:2)
And with the cooperative development between the companies, you now have to wonder if any contributions by Novell will be seize
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Glimpse of light in the dark here (Score:3, Interesting)
Divide and Conquer (Score:2)
Let's face it, the Novell-MS deal is probably about divide and conquer as much as anything else. Cut the deal, divide the FOSS world into "Free Software" and "Open Source" then try and bring them down one at a time, ideally using one against the other.
Perhaps MS has found a way to bring "Open Source" into the fold, making it impossible for "Free Software" to work with "Open Source" without compromising principles?
Howie Mandel? (Score:3, Funny)