Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Novell Software Linux

Post-Novell Interview With Jeremy Allison 65

Posted by kdawson from the worth-paying-attention-to dept.
schestowitz notes an interview with Jeremy Allison, of Samba fame, after he had left Novell in protest over the company's deal with Microsoft. From the interview: "My guess is that the negotiations for the useful parts of the agreement (the virtualization part and the federated directory interoperability part) had, as Ron [Hovsepian] says, been going on for months and just before Novell wanted to seal the deal Microsoft turned up with 'there's just this one more thing we want you to sign...' and in desperation to get the other parts of the deal done they rushed it through."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Post-Novell Interview With Jeremy Allison More

Post-Novell Interview With Jeremy Allison

Comments Filter:
  • 'there's just this one more thing we want you to sign...' and in desperation to get the other parts of the deal done they rushed it through." What was so great about the rest of the deal? It seems to me that someone at Novell had something to gain personally.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 )
      You missed the "My guess" part before that statement. In other words he does not know what the circumstances of the deal were. Fortunately though this lack of information and facts fits the Slashdot speculation model perfectly.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by 10scjed ( 695280 )
        I believe the Oracle announcement [boycottnovell.com] put the rush on the deal.

      • Re:Why the Rush? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by troll -1 ( 956834 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @03:15PM (#17417714)
        Perhaps the speculation comes from observing history: See embrace and exten d [wikipedia.org] and read the findgs of fact [gpo.gov] in the Microsoft antitrust case

        It's not unreasonable to assume Microsoft's motive is to entangle its patents and proprietary code with Linux, then at some point down the road, have learned a thing or two from SCO, drag the GPL through the courts with and army of lawyers and gain legal grounds to start suing its competition.

      • Re:Why the Rush? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Jeremy Allison - Sam ( 8157 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @03:29PM (#17417792) Homepage
        It is a guess, but it's a very good guess. From an interview with Ron Hovsepian

        http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9005462&pageNumber =2 [computerworld.com]

        "Their desire to do some things around IP [intellectual property] came up as
        one of the things they wanted to talk about."

        In addition Microsoft previously approached Red Hat with
        a request for exactly the same deal (Red Hat refused).

        I don't have 100% documented proof of my statement, which is
        why I started the sentance with "My guess is", but I still
        stand by it as my understanding of what happened.

        Jeremy.
        • Sorry but if anything that quote and interview only serve to invalidate your opinion that it was a last minute deal breaking request jammed into a rushed deal. It's clear from the article that Novell were well aware of the IP issue, discussed it and were also aware an identical deal had been put to and rejected by Redhat leaving Novell with clear vista for negotiation.

          • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Be easy on him, won't you? He has to be careful on his words since he's previously signed an employment contract with Novell and is thus is a bit less free to talk about Novell for the time period when he was employed at Novell. If he speaks too blatantly without concrete proof, he risks being sued, and such a suit wouldn't advance his cause. Such an outburst would also hurt his reputation among future employers who might fear that he might start a vendetta against them if they slip up.

            Right now, he's left

          • Re:Why the Rush? (Score:5, Informative)

            by Jeremy Allison - Sam ( 8157 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @04:43PM (#17418222) Homepage
            Note that Ron in the interview doesn't say *when* the Microsoft
            request that :

            "Their desire to do some things around
            IP [intellectual property] came up"

            happened. I believe that this request came at the end of
            the negotiations, not at the start. I can't prove that,
            but but the timing of things makes sense from what happened.

            Jeremy.

  • Not exclusionary. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday December 31, 2006 @02:08PM (#17417292)
    I don't think Ron Hovsepian is clueless or malevolent. I've met him and think he is a really nice guy.

    Being "clueless" does not exclude being "a really nice guy".

    Personally, I believe that he knew exactly what he was doing and decided to sell out to Microsoft for a LOT of money anyway.

    It was carefully prepared by Microsoft legal to try and bypass the GPLv2, and I think to their shame Novell helped them do this.

    Yep. He sold out to Microsoft for a LOT of money.

    Novell gave it to them without Microsoft having to do anything risky like suing Linux users (all of which would also be Microsoft customers). It didn't cost them much - only $400 million. At least when Sun sold out in the EU case they got $2 billion :-) .

    And that is why Hovsepian is clueless.

    He could have gotten a LOT MORE MONEY for selling out. He could have gotten over a BILLION dollars. Instead, he settled for a couple hundred million and the death of Novell.
  • Is MS going to start suing SAMBA for using SMB? Maybe that's why MS got Novell to sign the agreement--it would be the only distribution that can interoperate legally with MS technology like SMB and MS Word/Office formats.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I haven't done too much digging on this but when this whole thing came about it made me think. SMB was originally developed by IBM. From Wikipedia:

      SMB was originally invented by Barry Feigenbaum at IBM to turn DOS "Interrupt 33" local file access into a networked file system, but the most common version is modified heavily by Microsoft. Microsoft merged the SMB protocol with the LAN Manager product they had been developing with 3Com, and continued to add features to the protocol in Windows for Workgroups an

    • Re:Sue samba? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Shaman ( 1148 ) <shaman @ k o s .net> on Sunday December 31, 2006 @03:03PM (#17417618) Homepage
      Best of luck to them. Samba implemented SMB before Windows supported it. IBM created SMB, Microsoft took it and added it to Windows with some extensions. At the very worst, they could gripe that the Samba team had reverse-engineered their extensions.

      But... Samba is created by an Australian team. DMCA won't reach them. So doing anything about the extensions is impossible. And, Microsoft was forced to document their protocol to the EU commission, which means that there is even documentation for interoperability out there in the public eye.

      So in short... no way for Microsoft to stop Samba. Even with their teams of huddled, sweaty lawyers, they're over their head on this one.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anomolous Cowturd ( 190524 )
        But... Samba is created by an Australian team. DMCA won't reach them.

        That might have been true before the recent "free trade" agreement.
        • Australians have no laws about applying retroactive laws to people? In the US, if I do something that isn't legal today, no law can be made tomorrow to retroactively affect me. Is it different there?

  • I have one word for him (Score:5, Funny)

    by Omeger ( 939765 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @02:21PM (#17417388) Journal
    COWARD. Him leaving will do nothing to Microsoft/Novell. He should've stayed and tried to destroy them from the inside, guerrila style.
    • No need.

      There's already a guerrilla force destroying Novell from the inside: its called the Novell Board. And the chosed method to destroy Novell? Management by objectives.

      No I'm not kidding.

  • Good Quote (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dozer ( 30790 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @02:44PM (#17417510)
    From TFA, on how the deal can be GPLv2-legal and still wrong:

    If you're screwing over some of your major suppliers by following what your lawyers see as the letter of a license, not the good faith intent of the license, then you can't expect those suppliers to say "well done, you really tricked us on that one.....".
  • He doesnt know the full story but he quit his job in protest? If I were going to quit my job to make some kind of a statement I would want to be able to give an interview about it that started with something other than "My guess is that..."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by plopez ( 54068 )
      'guess' is probably the word he shouldn't have used. He should have said 'based on what I {know|was told}..'

      We all operate under imperfect information. Even you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bfields ( 66644 )
      He doesnt know the full story but he quit his job in protest?

      Uh, he quit his job because they agreed to the deal. That part isn't a guess. The part that's speculation is exactly how and why they fell for the deal.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grcumb ( 781340 )

      He doesnt know the full story but he quit his job in protest? If I were going to quit my job to make some kind of a statement I would want to be able to give an interview about it that started with something other than "My guess is that..."

      Yeah, because if I saw management making what I thought was a terrible strategic decision, and nobody was willing to provide an adequate explanation, nor even a proper recounting of events, I'd feel no motivation whatsoever to leave.

  • SMB2 in Vista (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @03:29PM (#17417794) Journal
    I read that Windows Vista uses SMB2. Is this a change to make the protocol better or is it just a change to make life difficult for Samba? Maybe Microsoft was required to explain the details of SMB1 in the antitrust proceedings. No problem they figured we'll just make a new protocol and it will take ten years for the courts to make us to release that. Brahhaaa.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by davecb ( 6526 ) *

      Because MS have to provide backwards compatability for their older releases, the Samba team have the usual 10 years to learn the protocol varient.

      This is the same thing that kept IBM from defeating the plug-compatable vendors.

      --dave

    • Re:SMB2 in Vista (Score:4, Interesting)

      by KidSock ( 150684 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @05:34PM (#17418492)
      I read that Windows Vista uses SMB2. Is this a change to make the protocol better or is it just a change to make life difficult for Samba? Maybe Microsoft was required to explain the details of SMB1 in the antitrust proceedings. No problem they figured we'll just make a new protocol and it will take ten years for the courts to make us to release that. Brahhaaa.

      First, Vista will of course also do SMB1. It tries to do SMB2 and falls back to SMB1. SMB2 is much cleaner and simpler than SMB1. I think the Samba guys probably welcome the change. Of course now Samba has to support both but they've already decipered most if not all of SMB2 and the SMB2 operations map to existing actions within their code so I don't think it's a big deal for them to support it. This is definitely not a subversive tactic by Microsoft. Contrary to popular opinion Microsoft is not subversive. They're too smart for that. They're passively negligent. They just don't take the time to make things integrate well with other non-MS software. The EU effort is not about SMB really. The focus is more about complex stuff like directory replication and the semantics of Windows domain management. SMB is very well understood. In fact, I would bet the Samba guys understand SMB better than MS.
  • I guess I was wrong about Novell. I first saw the deal as a benefit to Linux because I thought it would help provide better compatibility (maybe MS Office for Linux) and give Linux another notch up on the status ladder. After reading this article though, I'm willing to admit I was wrong. Mr. Allison put things into perspective quite eloquently.
  • This is going to sound trollish, and I don't condone the MS-Novell deal myself, but personally I think Allison is being arrogant and highly juvenile over this. I've also said elsewhere that I feel he is seriously overestimating his own importance if he thinks his resignation is actually going to matter, or dissuade Novell from continuing in the agreement.

    I'm also deeply sick of reading about Bruce Perens displaying the attitude that the entire rest of the planet has to conform with his expectations. Who e

    • I feel he is seriously overestimating his own importance if he thinks his resignation is actually going to matter, or dissuade Novell from continuing in the agreement.

      From TFA:

      I don't want to give my efforts to a company that is willing to try and trick their way out of their license obligations on my software.

      That doesn't sound much like "I think my resignation is very important and will single handedly force Novell to discontinue their agreement". At least not the way I read it. It doesn't sou

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by petrus4 ( 213815 )
        I'm surprised I've had this much of a response to the parent, particularly given that one of said replies is from Mr Allison. I can only possibly assume that it's because, even if I'm not being fundamentally any less confrontational than in the past, at least while doing it I am now hopefully attempting to keep a vaguely civil tongue in my head, (figuratively speaking of course) rather than simply resorting to shrill, profane, possibly seemingly schizoid trolling, as I had done on this site previously.

        At l

        • I'm surprised I've had this much of a response to the parent, particularly given that one of said replies is from Mr Allison.

          Well, he hadn't replied when I started my response. Obviously Jeremy can speak for himself far better than I can speak up for him :)

          I don't like the idea of a scenario developing where anybody who uses open source needs to feel that they are held ideologically over a barrel by its' developers.

          I'll just note in passing that the GPL specifically discaims any restrictions on the u

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by petrus4 ( 213815 )
            The trouble is, it's hard to see how we can form a true consensus if we exclude radical and hysterical contributions to the discussion.

            I think what you're trying to say here is that "radical" and "hysterical" are words with subjective definitions, which I'll concede...at least to a point. ;-)

            My only point was that although I might have no problem whatsoever with "radical" and "hysterical" perspectives being part of the discussion myself, it might damage "our" (like you, used in a broad sense) case with peop

            • I think what you're trying to say here is that "radical" and "hysterical" are words with subjective definitions, which I'll concede...at least to a point. ;-)

              There's also the point that even if someone is hysterical, if they've contributed to a project, they should get a say in matters concerning that project's future.

              My only point was that although I might have no problem whatsoever with "radical" and "hysterical" perspectives being part of the discussion myself, it might damage "our" (like you, us

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by petrus4 ( 213815 )
                on the other hand, I can't see the problem going away any time soon. Maybe we need to learn to work around it. Which presents some interesting problems in and of itself. We can't just set up an organisation to speak for the community: We already have the FSF, the OSI, the EFF, there are spokesmen for distros and for major projects all of whom get to put their oar in

                Probably the single most interesting (and potentially effective) approach I've seen was reading about how some senators at one point were given
    • Well obviously I disagree :-). I did what I thought was right, I didn't want to support a company using a legal "hack" to try and get around their license obligations. The great thing about the GPL is that we're all in it together - that means you too if you want to work with it. The only people who continually complain about the GPL are usually those that want to use the software without obeying the licensing terms associated with it.

      Proprietary software companies call those people "pirates" (*) and there
      • Hi Jeremy!

        It does seem sick to name a minor white-collar crime after an illegal industry that's based on recruiting the ignorant and poverty-stricken to a life of murder and rapine.

        I wonder if Disney Inc. has ever considered sending some profit from their "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise to help overcome the economic conditions that make REAL piracy a going concern. I doubt it has ever even occurred to them.

        Yo, ho, ho, and a bucket of scum....

        Totally OT, I chatted with you once or twice about using Peg
  • What a bunch of FUD. I admit there is potential for some evil doings against the GPL and Suse by Microsoft. However, nothing has happened yet--or has it? So stop predicting the worst and always remember, "If you're going to San Francisco be sure to wear flowers in your hair."

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close