Just about everyone has expressed an opinion on the Novell/Microsoft patent agreement – except, that is, for the 800-pound gorilla of Linux: IBM. Today, Scott Handy, IBM’s VP of Worldwide Linux and Open Source, decided that enough was enough and it was time to state IBM’s position. In an interview with Linux-Watch.com, Handy opened by saying that, “IBM has long supported interoperability between Windows and Linux. As supporters of open source and open standards,” he continued, “we applaud any effort to bridge this gap.”
IBM doesn’t mind that Novell is hanging itself?
Shocked. Shocked and stunned. -_-
Novell has made an agreement with a company that wants nothing less than to see Linux fail. Novell had to have known this agreement would be seen in a negative light by the community. Further Novell now finds itself disagreeing with the CEO of Microsoft’s assertion that “every Linux user” owes Microsoft money.
And IBM says that it is OK that a direct competitor is hanging themselves? I must not be able to contain my shock, because I can’t seem to find it.
I do agree with IBM though. This will benefit Linux if by no other reason than giving a good reason for Mono, Samba and maybe even Linux itself to go GPL3 to prevent such attacks in the future.
Edited 2006-11-22 13:48
And IBM says that it is OK that a direct competitor is hanging themselves? I must not be able to contain my shock, because I can’t seem to find it.
Well, from a bussiness point of view, a direct competitor screwing itself is a good thing. It’s easier to dominate the market when you have less competition don’t you think?
On the other hand, if you look at the Novell – Microsoft agreement from the interoperability side, sure it is great. I’d love to see a better Linux/Windows integration and interoperability. The problem here is that MS seems more interested in screwing up Linux than helping it to be more Windows friendly.
Edited 2006-11-22 14:10
I’d love to see a better Linux/Windows integration and interoperability. The problem here is that MS seems more interested in screwing up Linux than helping it to be more Windows friendly.
Indeed. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The three problems to interoperability with Microsoft have always been:
(a) Microsoft;
(b) Microsoft;
(c) Do I need to state (c)?
I’d love to see better Linux/Windows integration and interoperability, too. Too bad Linux as a whole won’t be getting it–only Novell will have it thanks to the closed-source extensions they’ll be building with MS.
I do agree with IBM though. This will benefit Linux if by no other reason than giving a good reason for Mono, Samba and maybe even Linux itself to go GPL3 to prevent such attacks in the future.
What attacks are you referring to?
IanSVT: What attacks are you referring to?
Boy, chrono13 already told you the important bits, but i sure would like to make vacation where you have been hiding the past week. Must be a cool place without internet. Yay!
Direct competitor? IBM doesn’t even have it’s own linux distro. IBM made a $50MM investment in novell, a few years back.
If the majority of open source projects go GPL3, I bet that Novell will foolishly fork the GPL2 versions.
We’ll then effectively have OSS and MS-OSS versions of everything.
I also think Gnome would be wise to drop Mono in favor of Java. The tiny syntactical differences between C# and Java don’t justify the need for Mono, and even though I agree that Mono Core is basically safe, it just serves as a bridge to implementing non-safe MS technologies such as ADO.NET and WinForms, opening Gnome and open source companies to potential legal attacks.
>also think Gnome would be wise to drop Mono in favor
>of Java. The tiny syntactical differences between C#
>and Java don’t justify the need for Mono,
But that’s the point, the differences are not that minor, the entire event model is different between C# and Java. The method for interfacing to legacy code is completely different. There’s no classpath to deal with in mono, etc. There is a reason why some people prefer mono over Java.
In any case I think the world is better with choices, you can still use Java if you want, but let me have the choice to use something else, isn’t that freedom?
> In any case I think the world is better with choices, you can still use Java if you want, but let me have the choice to use something else, isn’t that freedom?
Sure, use Mono, it’s there. It just shouldn’t be a dependency of Gnome, so that it’s used by default by all distros that support Gnome.
However, to be safe, I think that all Mono applications should be placed in the non-free repositories.
However, to be safe, I think that all Mono applications should be placed in the non-free repositories.
But why…? If those applications are Free, then they are Free. And Mono is Free Software too. Patenting issue with Mono is the least of our problems, in my opinion, since the big bulk of it is under an ECMA standard.
Progress bars are under a patent. Should we move to non-free all the applications that use progress bars?
Apps that only use Core Mono are safe, but the Mono Project is also implementing unsafe portions of .NET, such as WinForms and ADO.Net
For that reason, rather than auditing every Mono-based project that comes through, it may just be easier to put Mono stuff in a separate repository, so it’s easier for people to avoid those applications, especially considering that in American patent law, the customers can be sued. We have a right to avoid lawsuit, and Mono is just not safe enough.
according to the article,”Handy agreed and added, “We aren’t sure what Microsoft’s intentions are [in regards to patents].”
I agree though that linux has got a lot of momentum and not perse due to the MS/Novell deal.
IBM doesn’t mind that Novell is hanging itself?
IBM is the world’s largest reseller of both Microsoft and Novell products (although I suppose Microsoft is technically the largest Novell reseller now). They have a successful services model based on integrating linux and MS infrastructures, and if you look at what they’re doing in the middleware space, they’re becoming platform agnostic.
So really, this is a good thing for IBM as it helps strengthen their message and potentially weakens Red Hat’s position, who they’re still pissed at over the JBoss acquisition. Despite probably still being the largest reseller of Red Hat products as well.
I do agree with IBM though. This will benefit Linux if by no other reason than giving a good reason for Mono, Samba and maybe even Linux itself to go GPL3 to prevent such attacks in the future.
Except GPLv3 can’t really do anything to stop similar deals. About the only thing they can do is make sure MS will never actively or inactively distribute GPL3 software.
As, by FSF own words, GPL is only a distributor license, as long as MS is not acting as a distributor of GPL software, they are not subject to the license either.
The only thing that can be done to prevent it is to change laws, and you’re sure as hell not gonna see any change of laws for something as petty as this.
We now see the real face of IBM…
The real face of IBM? Who do you think is fighting SCO?
If MS does declare a legal war against Linux guess who our star player would probably be?
IBM is using Linux against other Unix vendors.
The day they will not have any interest on it anymore, they will use their thousands of patent to sue the linux community.
and who is IBM going to sue ? besides, didn’t IBM donate several of them to the public? Why would they do that?
It’s somewhat sickening to see all this negative stuff. We’d better unite against what we hate…
It’s somewhat sickening to see all this negative stuff. We’d better unite against what we hate…
Cheer up. For all of the noise online, at least some people ask themselves questions from time to time. Maybe the network will help unity.
It probably helped some people unite in their anti-Microsoft feelings. I used to focus on them, but a friend reminded me that business is all the same basically, not bad, not good, just self-interested to the exclusion of everything else. That the blatant examples of greed have shown during the month of Thanksgiving has a delicious irony.
In any case, the personalities and companies often obscure the underlying issues.
I cannot trust any of these entities, so I have to look elsewhere if I am to choose more reliably and ask better questions. Instead of hating, for example, I am trying to identify and describe where I think free software–
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
–is being threatened.
Thus, strictly speaking, I can no longer hate Microsoft, although, unfortunately, I hate much of what they do. Look on the bright side. At the very least, better knowledge of the specific principles at stake in all of this “negative stuff” makes us not take for granted the freedoms we have.
IBM is using Linux against other Unix vendors.
The day they will not have any interest on it anymore, they will use their thousands of patent to sue the linux community.
Be difficult since they’ve already granted royalty-free provisions for much of the technology needed to get linux to it’s current state.
There’s no denying IBM’s support of linux was a move to destabilize the other *nix vendors, even at the expense of AIX. So what. As long as they can build a sustainable services model and provision it as a platform for their software portfolio, they won’t care. IBM’s consulting and services division is massive, they’ll sell whatever works. They’ll sell you HP servers if you want, they’re more interested in the fees and an annuity-based contract revenue model than product sales.
The day they will not have any interest on it anymore, they will use their thousands of patent to sue the linux community.
Are you aware of the patent pool that IBM put together, so that every FLOSS developer can use them without being sued?
Edited 2006-11-22 20:01
The key to understanding IBM’s current stance on this and Linux in gerneral is by knowing a little history about IBM. During the 90’s IBM found it very hard to compete with Sun Microsystems in the Unix server space and their OS2 product is failing miserably. Ultimately, Sun ended up capturing the market and became a major component that drove the dot com boom. IBM unable to beat Sun using their own products turned to Linux as a cheaper method of beating Sun. This strategy had proven very successful. IBM promotes Linux and sells support and services for Linux and starts taking small and medium size customers away from Sun. The goal of course is that once you have taken the customer away from Sun you can then help them grow and lock them into IBM’s products. IBM does not market Linux on equal footing to AIX. The goal is to turn you into an AIX on Power customer at some point. Or perhaps Linux on an IBM z/Series mainframe. Both of which means big $$$ for IBM. At some point IBM realized that this Linux strategy was working too well in fact, and that they could end up making Red Hat into a problem all it’s own if they were not careful. So they started investing their money in a way to ensure that neither Red Hat or Suse could become the dominant company. Well this didnt work quite as well and Red Hat ends up capturing 80+ % of the Linux market share. So IBM needs to find a way to knock Red Hat down. They can do this by supporting Oracle’s entry into the Red Hat support space and this Microsoft Novell deal.
At some point IBM realized that this Linux strategy was working too well in fact, and that they could end up making Red Hat into a problem all it’s own if they were not careful. So they started investing their money in a way to ensure that neither Red Hat or Suse could become the dominant company. Well this didnt work quite as well and Red Hat ends up capturing 80+ % of the Linux market share. So IBM needs to find a way to knock Red Hat down. They can do this by supporting Oracle’s entry into the Red Hat support space and this Microsoft Novell deal.
I was mostly in agreement up until this last portion.
IBM doesn’t give a flying fig about Red Hat becoming dominant, in fact IBM helped Red Hat become dominant. Their concern with Red Hat is over JBoss, with that acquisition Red Hat went from being everybody’s partner to middleware competitor, and middleware is where the linux-supporting companies are frankly expecting to make their money back, whether it’s IBM or Oracle. IBM’s not concerned about Red Hat becoming a dominant linux player, they just don’t want to open up their corporate customer base for Red Hat to start pushing middleware.
Which is where Novell comes into play. Suse is much more neutral, integrates in with the old Netware strategy for which IBM has a substantial legacy base of customers and IBM still has the customer base that respects the enterprise cred Novell once had. Suse is more of a natural fit for IBM than Red Hat is, particularly given Red Hat’s middleware aspirations.
As for Oracle, don’t expect to see IBM supporting Oracle linux anytime soon. Unless of course, the customers ask, at which point even IBM would happily oblige.
IBM has no fear of losing control of the linux market, which is probably why they can so confidently invest heavily in it. IBM has played it smart by refraining from branding their own linux and instead pouring resources into open development. They keep their options open and don’t further blur the line between linux and IBM AIX. If IBM feels the need to one day package their own distro, I’m fairly confident they could dominate the enterprise space with fairly limited effort since they already have the sales force and technical expertise in place. But right now there’s simply no need for that.
IBM doesn’t give a flying fig about Red Hat becoming dominant, in fact IBM helped Red Hat become dominant.
Actually, I wasn’t speculating there. I’ve been told this directly from IBM. And not just any old IBM’er, a very prominent leader within the Linux Impact Team at IBM. IBM considers Red Hat both an ally and an enemy and as Red Hat’s market share has grown they have become more the enemy than the ally.
As for Oracle, don’t expect to see IBM supporting Oracle linux anytime soon. Unless of course, the customers ask, at which point even IBM would happily oblige.
I mentioned Oracle because IBM was quickly on the heels of the Oracle annoucement proclaiming their approval of the move.
IBM has played it smart by refraining from branding their own linux and instead pouring resources into open development. They keep their options open and don’t further blur the line between linux and IBM AIX.
Agreed. And that is exactly what I’ve been told by IBM, they do not want to get into the Linux distribution business because it would send the wrong message to their existing AIX customer base which is far more lucrative than their Linux services and middleware base.
IBM has no fear of losing control of the linux market
They don’t have control of the Linux market. IBM sells x86, pSeries and s390 (mainframe) based hardware but on none of them is Linux their primary product ore revenue generator. They have a ton of software products but again Linux is not the primary platform for those products either.
But right now there’s simply no need for that.
Not now, not ever. IBM will not get into the Linux distro business because that would be very costly to do right and be competitive against Red Hat and Novell and be seen as a blow against AIX. And as a side effect, companies like Sun and Microsoft would likely benefit.
With IBM all roads lead back to IBM. If they get you to bite on any of their products they will use it as an inroad to get you eventually on all of their products. Even if it means selling you on someone elses product in the beginning. IBM is not out to make a quick buck, they’re in for the long investment..
We now see the real face of IBM…
No, the only theing we now see is that you haven’t read article. RTFA then post.
IBM is only praising this arangement for one reason, big ones like MS and Oracle are starting to acknowledge that Linux is becoming major force.
And what is praising about this deal?
Rosenthal continued, “Unfortunately, embedded in Microsoft’s recent endorsement of Linux are claims regarding customers’ needing protection from patent attack. Those claims are baseless. In fact, there have been no patent suits against Linux. While patent disputes are not unheard of between and among software developers and distributors, they are almost always resolved between these commercial entities — not by dragging in end-user customers. Isn’t the real issue the fact that Microsoft is making such a threat against its own customers?”
Handy agreed and added, “We aren’t sure what Microsoft’s intentions are [in regards to patents].” However, “We have never seen any need for patent protection for Linux, and we don’t see any need for it now. If legal claims exist, they should be resolved between vendors and not involve end-user customers.”
In any case, Handy added, Novell has been quite clear that they had never agreed in any way, shape, or form that Microsoft had any proof of Microsoft patent violations in Linux.
p.s. OSAlert, please read the article before you post it. The text is completely missing the point. My first reaction on reading it was: “WTF?”, my reaction after RTFA? “Well done, IBM”
1. They don’t applaud this deal, thay applaud any deal bridging two worlds.
2. They don’t agree with this deal.
3. They see it as good for linux only because this means big companies can’t avoid linux anymore.
4. OIN is the thing needed in IBMs eyes, not deals like this one
“What attacks are you referring to?”
“Novell pays us some money for the right to tell customers that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered”
[Fear] using anything other than SUSE
“…is important to us, because we believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability.”
Does Microsoft hold some basic patents? Yes. Do some of them make even a basic pocket-calculator “infringe”? Possibly. Can it be held up in court? Would they bring it to court? It is [Uncertain].
“We are willing to do a deal with Red Hat and other Linux distributors.” The deal with SUSE Linux “is not exclusive,” Ballmer added.
Will other Linux vendors follow willingly? Will some be coerced or become legally bound to agree?
Some have [Doubts] about Linux’s ability to walk away from this unscathed.
It is called an Appeal to Fear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear
You don’t have to worry about any of this mess if you just use Windows. Or SUSE, who will be forced to fork every GPL3 project to maintain this legal agreement with Microsoft.
Already Novell is excluded from distributing GPL3 code. This will hurt SUSE if nothing else. In that attack, Microsoft has already landed a first blow.
Edited 2006-11-22 14:50
You don’t have to worry about any of this mess if you just use Windows. Or SUSE, who will be forced to fork every GPL3 project to maintain this legal agreement with Microsoft.
I’m not worried about using anything in my environment as long as it does the job.
Already Novell is excluded from distributing GPL3 code. This will hurt SUSE if nothing else. In that attack, Microsoft has already landed a first blow.
You’re making the assumption that GPL3 is going to fly and that everyone is going to run with it. What if Linus doesn’t move the kernel to it? Will the kernel then have to be forked by every distro?
GPLv3 is going to fly. Every piece of software under the GNU banner is GPLv2 or later. Certain bet that the FSF is going to up the license, as the copyright holder, as soon as the next GPL goes gold.
So the complete GNU tool chain will become GPLv3. Guess what is used to build GNU/Linux distro’s? Even if Linux the kernel stays GPLv2 (relicensing is hard to do, but not impossible), most of the stuff around it will go GPLv3.
For all who want a GPLv3 free universe, happy forking and maintaining. Maybe pilfering BSD tools is an option too.
“For all who want a GPLv3 free universe, happy forking and maintaining. Maybe pilfering BSD tools is an option too.”
Yeah, for those who want their code ripped off by companies.
Several distributions currently using “pilfered”/forked BSD tools relicensed them under the GPLv2 so there’s no way that such code can be placed into that of “companies” (I assume you disclude Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva, and the like as “companies”).
Of course, that brings up the whole concept of BSD code being “ripped off” by Linux distros, but you haven’t complained about that before.
Yeah, but you really can’t “rip off” or “Pilfer” something that basically says “Here, take me. You don’t have to give anything back, and you can relicense me!” That’s why a lot of people consider the BSD license the truest form of Free Software. Because you don’t have to give anything back and anyone can take what they like.
Yet you say that it’s a bad thing that Linux distros rip it off? What about Microsoft using the BSD Network stack for Windows XP?
Yet you say that it’s a bad thing that Linux distros rip it off? What about Microsoft using the BSD Network stack for Windows XP?
XP doesn’t use a BSD network stack. The only Windows that used a BSD-derived stack was NT 3.1 which used a stack licensed from a company called Spider Systems. Subsequent stacks have been written by Microsoft and use no BSD code. The only BSD-derived code remaining in Windows (I haven’t checked Vista, but am assuming it’s still there) is in tools like ping.exe or http://ftp.exe that remained from the time of the Spider Systems stack.
Yeah, but you really can’t “rip off” or “Pilfer” something that basically says “Here, take me. You don’t have to give anything back, and you can relicense me!”
Yes, that’s what I said. Please follow the thread.
At least any Linux distros which might be “ripping off” BSD code aren’t burying that code behind a proprietary EULA.
At least any Linux distros which might be “ripping off” BSD code aren’t burying that code behind a proprietary EULA.
No, they’re just preventing anyone else from using it unless they GPL their code, in effect “burying” it behind the GPL.
Edited 2006-11-22 19:23
You don’t have to worry about any of this mess if you just use Windows. Or SUSE, who will be forced to fork every GPL3 project to maintain this legal agreement with Microsoft.
As long as the US patent office acts as it does, you need to worry regardless what source you have for your software.
We have already seen cases where users of Microsoft products have been hurt by patent cases where courts have ruled against Microsoft in favour of the patent holder. So staying with Microsoft doesn’t help.
Any non trivial software of significant size, including windows and other Microsoft products, will most likely potentially violate some filed patents claims. This doesn’t mean that they will hold up in court.
Another thing, who is most likely to get sued by a greedy patent lawyer, a relatively poor Linux company, with lots of backing from e.g. IBM, and a whole Linux community, or a rich company like Microsoft, where he actually can get some money if he wins his case.
Like the IBM guy in the article, I guess that there are very few, if any, Microsoft patents in Linux that would be defendable in court. If there was, we would have seen some court cases by now. So I don’t think Novell would have much problem distributing their IP as GPL3 if they like.
We have also seen, how much good nuicance suits like the SCO vs IBM case has done to SCO. If Microsoft should start suing Linux users (of wich most of them also use Windows) it would be a major PR disaster.
Besides, Novell is not the only company that may or may not hold IP that is violated by Microsoft (In Novells case I’m guessing on NDS stuff), so making a mutual non aggression pact with Novell will probably not stop a large scale patent war if Microsoft should try something nasty.
After watching Novell attempt suicide every time they show any sign of success for over twenty five years I almost have to take their comments as tongue in cheek. They must be rolling in the floor laughing at IBM.
why is everyone still thinking that this deal is bad? There really are interesting points on this deal and it might be worthwhile to just wait and see.
There is just one party who is losing here big time and that’s MS. Ballmer start again to talk idiotic stuff like last week. Again, there is only one company so far who is being an idiot and that’s MS.
Just wait and see. if Novell trips over this deal, linux stil exists. A great distribution is not backed anymore by Novell but hey, the distribution is still there…
It’s just too early to think that there will be major accidents here.
IBM so far has shown that it likes linux a lot.
>>why is everyone still thinking that this deal is bad?<<
Because: WTF is this “hide the ball” bullsh!t?
Novell is saying that all Linux is illegal. All linux infringes on msft patents – but suse is legal because msft won’t sue novell. Why is that novell? Why patents are those? No patents? Then why the deal with msft?
Novell, msft, sunw, and scox have all said that Linux has mysterious IP violations. I say “mysterious” because all of those companies *refuse* to be specific. Novell, SuSe, and Scox have all said that only *their* version of Linux is legal. But, ask any of them why and you get no response. So WTF is the big secret? And, oh yeah, all of those companies have accepted major $$$ from msft just before they decide that there is illegal IP in Linux – funny coincidence isn’t it?
I say put up or shut-up: let’s see the code, give us the exact patent numbers. Anything less is just more FUD from the world’s greatest FUD factory.
JMHO.
I look over this issue and everyday I realize why I have slacked in my open source contributions. The whole Theology of it all it is almost religious cult like. I mean we are a community and a community is in theory composed of a group who will have a difference in opinions. Yet we tear any one down who disagrees with our views. There is a divide between the community and this type of divide only makes CIO’s and business owners regard us as bikering kids.
Why cn’t we respect Novell’s business model if you disagree disagree respectfuilly and choose a vendor that fits your core beliefs but we don’t have to tear someone down to build someone up. Some business owners myself included like the idea of Novell/MS agreements to enable us to push Linux into companies that otherwise will say no. Like it or not what works with MS is a lot of times the standard in SMB’s and uneducated companies regard Linux as a hack or hacked together OS made of alternatives.
This agreement will add some foundation to what we as a community has said about Linux for years. It is truly an business OS.
Some business owners myself included like the idea of Novell/MS agreements to enable us to push Linux into companies that otherwise will say no.
I’m not a business owner myself, but I agree with you 100%. This agreement could clear one hurdle along the way to dumping Microsoft on the workstation. My organization could save over $12,000 a year by moving to SLED 10. That could translate into upgrading hardware, getting new text books, anything other than paying for Microsoft license fees.
I understand that this doesn’t factor into the thinking of the person using gentoo on their PC at home, but in larger institutions, this can be a good thing. And that’s what the deal was created from from the Novell perspective.
Microsoft’s is to be seen I guess.
look over this issue and everyday I realize why I have slacked in my open source contributions. The whole Theology of it all it is almost religious cult like.
I’m sure the wigged aristocrats in London and Paris said similar things about the patriots and revolutionaries in America and around France two or so centuries ago. In reality, many of the P and R’s were socially closer to them than they were to the common people, and partly because of that autocracy failed in France and monarchy in the US. (Is the fact that aristocrats wore wigs significant? Yes – it’s a status symbol. George Washington was a wig-wearer too.)
And your point was, you still failed to comment on the issue at hand. Instead you decide to take issue with my choice of words, this is what I mean. You are entitled to your opinion though, but again did you ever think of something constructive to add to the issue. I mean maybe on topic!
And your point was, you still failed to comment on the issue at hand.
No, my point was that your point was invalid, not that I “failed to comment on the issue at hand”
Yet we tear any one down who disagrees with our views. There is a divide between the community and this type of divide only makes CIO’s and business owners regard us as bikering kids.
Contradiction. “We’re supposed to allow different views. If we allow differing views, CIO’s will look at us as a bunch of bickering kids.”
As I said, contradiction.
Why cn’t we respect Novell’s business model if you disagree disagree respectfuilly and choose a vendor that fits your core beliefs but we don’t have to tear someone down to build someone up. Some business owners myself included like the idea of Novell/MS agreements to enable us to push Linux into companies that otherwise will say no.
So? Why should we allow MS (or anyone) to co-opt Linux in clear violation of the licence agreements? There may be some for whom distributing Windows code uhder the GPL (and here I refer specifically to Windows code which MS wrote and placed under non-FOSS licenses, not workalikes like ReactOS) would be enough to get them to use Windows, but wouldn’t Microsoft have a right to complain if their copyrighted code were copylefted?
Like it or not what works with MS is a lot of times the standard in SMB’s and uneducated companies regard Linux as a hack or hacked together OS made of alternatives.
Ignorance of the law (relating to proper use of GPL software, or any other) is no defence.
This agreement will add some foundation to what we as a community has said about Linux for years. It is truly an business OS.
If MS want to make Linux “truly a business OS” (as if it weren’t already) then they should contribute code and/or complete specs in compliance with the GPL. Instead what they are doing is either an attempt to make Linux proprietary, to “skirt round” Linux or its licence, or both.
You should join notparker
.
But seriously, we’re a community who have been fighting Microsoft’s anti-competitive business tactics for years.
You have to forgive a certain ammount of suspicion when Microsoft suddenly turns round and says ‘have $400,000… and we’re going to help you get a bigger market share’. People are worried about what Microsoft’s real intentions are, and with good reason. I can only hope that the suspicions are unfounded.
The IBM guy commented that Red Hat and SUSE are the industry standards for Linux. This is true, but it’s a reminder that it would be nice to see a more neutral platform as standard, such as Debian. Growth of Debian as a standard would be better for the Linux community than corporate Linuxes being the standard.
I think Fedora and Debian are the two largest Linux communities. Where does that leave openSUSE? They’re stuck between a rock and an Ubuntu, IMO.
<offtopic>
When was that picture taken?
<offtopic/>
If the word “patents” had never been mentioned or the word “payments” then I would at least be alright (in general) with two companies collaborating. I think it would still end up ugly, about the same as practically every other collaboration MS has done but at least it would be those two parties involved.
By introducing the patent agreement and other BS it expanded from a MS/Novell collaboration into something much greater and involves free software as one of those parties which is not acceptable to me.
As I said before, who sues end users for patent violations anyway? A end user is using a product that violates the patent then obviously the company making the product is the one you deal with.
Edited 2006-11-22 16:08
“Microsoft is coming to terms with the fact that Linux is an unstoppable force in the marketplace.” – Scott Handy
The ring of this statement makes it sound like a master spinner plying his craft. But it’s not–the statement is true.
There is no doubt that MS is doing what MS thinks will help it’s own image and sales–that’s what it’s obligated to it’s shareholders to do.
But I think Handy has just nailed the issue.
“Linux server growth continues to moderate, with year-over-year revenue growth of 5.4% to $1.5 billion, one sixth the growth rate reported by IDC in the same quarter of 2005. Servers run by the Linux operating system account for 11.8% of all server revenue.
…
there’s a growing feeling on Wall Street that the lightning growth demonstrated by Linux on servers and corporate desktops is moderating, a trend that will make the market that much more competitive.”
http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/newsanalysis/techhardware/1032373…
This is one reason Oracle has made its move. Same for Novell. Linux isn’t wonderkind anymore. Now its just a cheap replacement for Unix.
Now its just a cheap replacement for Unix.
Since when?
By the way unix is free too.Or you see OpenSolaris,FreeBSD not as unix.
there’s a growing feeling on Wall Street that the lightning growth demonstrated by Linux on servers and corporate desktops is moderating,
Good you mention Wallstreet.Did you know linux is being run there a lot?
Good you mention Wallstreet.Did you know linux is being run there a lot?
Maybe. But the point is that a year ago Linux had 30% growth. Two quarters ago it dropped below 10% and now it is at 5.4%.
Zero growth is just around the corner.
Zero growth products are not a great investment.
A lot of companies will be reevaluating their investment in Linux.
Zero growth is just around the corner.
Almost certainly not. It is negative exponential growth, which is quite normal, and probably approaching a positive lower bound.
The same thing happened with Windows, whose growth now is also much more modest than it used to be.
Almost certainly not. It is negative exponential growth, which is quite normal, and probably approaching a positive lower bound.
Maybe. But an alternative view is that Linux has “cherry picked” all the easy Unix business it can get and really doesn’t have room to grow.
Q2 2006 “Linux servers now represent 12.0% of all server revenue”
Q3 2006 “Servers run by the Linux operating system account for 11.8% of all server revenue.”
A small drop. But still a drop.
It is negative exponential growth, which is quite normal, and probably approaching a positive lower bound.
Out of curiosity: What is negative exponential growth?
If that is true, then it is a result of the Microsoft TCO campaigns. And yet you want us to turn around and applaud the Novell<->Microsoft partnership as something that will help Linux grow in the market? Forgive my suspicions.
“Zero growth”
You made the same claim in the past that no one would use GNU/Linux … Look where its at today.
“But the point is that a year ago Linux had 30% growth. Two quarters ago it dropped below 10% and now it is at 5.4%. ”
30 + 10 + 5.4 = 45.4% market share and to stop the bleeding Solaris became Open Source. Unix company reduced there price. Microsoft is giving away its OS to big accounts and invested Billions in R&D.
“A lot of companies will be reevaluating their investment in Linux.”
Yes , I agree , they will invest in it for the first time or four time as more.
30 + 10 + 5.4 = 45.4% market share
10.8% and dropping. I think Linux has peaked and its downhill from here.
10.8% and dropping. I think Linux has peaked and its downhill from here.
IDC reported year over year growth for server sales 3.5%
With Linux growing at at 5.4% and Windows at 4.6%.
That means that Linux is growing faster than the market, so is Windows but Linux is growing faster than Windows so its share is still growing relative to Windows. So Windows is still a loser compared to Linux in the server market.
IDC reported year over year growth for server sales 3.5%
With Linux growing at at 5.4% and Windows at 4.6%.
That means that Linux is growing faster than the market, so is Windows but Linux is growing faster than Windows so its share is still growing relative to Windows.
Linux growth used to be 100% year over year, then 60%, then 40% then 30%. The previous quarter it was 6.1%. Now its 5.4%.
The tend is towards 0.
Linux Growth: 5.4% of 1.5billion = 81 million
Windows Growth = 4.6% of 4.8 billion = 220.8 million
Even if Windows growth dropped to 0, it would take Linux something like 23 years to catch up if by a miracle it kept its 5.4% growth rate.
There is a feeling on WallStreet that Microsoft is no longuer the OS of the futur and that GNU/Linux will eventually replace it and kill it entirely , just dont know when , as if Gates dumping is stock on the market as soon as he can without making too much wave was not enough of a sign.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=MSFT
The story disagree with your change of subject to servers :
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4468266798.html
Handy then said, that he had talked with Novell’s sales force in Paris on Saturday, and IBM’s sales force, and “While there are still some questions, there’s more enthusiasm because with the [Novell/Microsoft and the Oracle Linux announcement], all this attention by large vendors to Linux shows that Linux is unstoppable.”
To many IT buyers, Handy said, “This is sign of Linux’s unstoppable growth. It’s Linux’s time. The only strategy is how to grow with it.”
“It’s not unlike the introduction of the Internet,” Handy added. “Once people understood that it wasn’t going away, no one fought it any more; instead every one threw their hat in the ring.”
There is a feeling on WallStreet that Microsoft is no longuer the OS of the futur and that GNU/Linux will eventually replace it and kill it entirely , just dont know when ,
Never as todays server sales number show. Linux’s share of the server market is not growing anymore. Therefore it can’t catch up.
as if Gates dumping is stock on the market as soon as he can without making too much wave was not enough of a sign.
Bill Gates regularly sells stock to give to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Todays sales for Microsoft are done by acquisition , they buy companie and make them buy there OS … Its not real growth ( GoDaddy example ).
GNU/Linux sales on the server are increasing , because there is more to server then just web adress. A little fact you tend to forget.
Also including the Desktop slow growth , GNU/Linux is winning and increasing in everything else.
“Bill Gates regularly sells stock to give to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”
Those are accounted and publicly known as pointed out by insider’s watching he does way more selling of is stock then what is Foundation and donations requires.
He is cashing in now because he know is company is in for a big dive really soon. Just like when Balmer say he is diversifying is portfolio.
Plus all the Settlements and Monopoly and antitrust paiements due to there illegal actions worldwide that have not happened yet and that will be eating there profits in the next 10 years.
Lets not forget that XP VS windows 2000 was improvments , Vista will have a tougher time replacing Windows XP.
Lets not forget Apple Hardware + OS X who is really interesting this days.
Its not real growth ( GoDaddy example ).
GoDaddy was interesting. Movement of parked domains from Apache to IIS6 by one of the large hosting companies (not the biggest at all) significantly cut into Apaches lead over IIS clearly proving that Apaches lead is all about parked domains.
GNU/Linux sales on the server are increasing
By a small amount. At 1/6th the rate from a year ago. And their share of server sales has actually dropped a small amount as well.
He is cashing in now because he know is company is in for a big dive really soon.
Bill Gates regularly sells MS stock.
Vista will have a tougher time replacing Windows XP
No it won’t. It will be on every 97% of every new consumer PC by the end of January. And that about 50% more PC’s per year than 2001.
“Apaches lead is all about parked domains.”
It showed that Microsoft IIs is all parked domains.
“By a small amount. … dropped a small amount as well. ”
Weve shown that you dont have accurate numbers and show small site no one visits as statistics.
“Bill Gates regularly sells MS stock.”
That’s my point , if the company was really in growth mode and had real value he would hold on to the stocks , he know them as without value and is cashing in now before it crash completely when the market does a real checkup on its real value.
“It will be on every 97% of every new consumer PC by the end of January. ”
People dont buy computers in January and with XP being good enough , people are going to wait for the bulk of application to be ready for Vista before commiting or changing there hardware.
“And that about 50% more PC’s per year than 2001.”
More computer with XP got bought because they where in the 200$-400$ range for a complete working system and that XP as been out for so long an most bug squashed and known.
I know that people will not be running to go buy Vista computer as it provide nothing they dont already have.
MS pursued GoDaddy to use MS servers to park domains on – in reality MS paid GoDaddy move to MS for parked domains. Fact is a couple of years ago when a special (read paid for by MS) agreement expired between MS and a couple of domain parking services expired There was the last major switch from MS IIS to Apache occurred – ie when no one was paying them to use MS servers they switch to Apache almost over night. Nothing says that MS servers are more expensive to use than a switch like this one!
Now for the Idea that Apache is only used for parked domains – I do web development – I don’t use MS servers for this, no one I have contracted with has ever insisted on an MS server nor do most even care – as long as the site works to specs and is reasonably priced they don’t care. The reasons I use Apache is cost both up front cost of the server space itself and the fact it is easer to remain standards compliant and that there are so many great tools to work with Apache.
I have from time to time traced out the server software for sites I visited. These are 100% active sites – easily 75% to 80% of these sites use Apache on nix almost no sites use Apache on Windows a small number use IIS6. If you were to balance for traffic to the sites you will find that somewhere around 90% of all traffic is to Apache sites. Most IIS sites are small companies or individuals the heavy movers on the web use Apache.
Fact is if you subtract out the sites paid for in some way by MS – well less than 20% of site are hosted on Windows servers!!! As far as I can find no one has ever paid some one else to host a site on Apache – therefore Apache won its market share straight up – while much of MS market share was bought by MS and as soon as they stop paying for it – it goes away.
So not only is OSS winning this battle – it blowing MS out off the field where it really counts.
Now more on topic.
Novell traded Unix patent rights for use of MS patent rights and a lot of money. If you check the background here – Novell needed the money badly. This money will make Novell a stronger competitor not only to other nixes but also MS. In five years when this agreement needs renewing the chances are good that Novell will be in less need for money so MS may well have problems extending it.
IBM is probably right, in the long run this will strengthen Linux rather than hurt it.
Most IIS sites are small companies or individuals the heavy movers on the web use Apache.
Actually, something like 54% of the Fortune 1000 use IIS.
And, since most “websites” are actually parked domains, and IIS has few parked domains compared to Apache, Apaches lead over IIS is because of parked domains.
XP represented few ‘needed’ improvements over 2000, I personally think it was a step backwards, but finally it’s caught up – as I, now, have a HD with XP on it as well. Why? Because thinks are starting to not work.
XP will slowly see things along the lines of hardware that won’t work (nicely) with it, software that won’t run on it, and phasing out of support from MS (i.e., DirectX, service packs, and security updates). This will be possible because (1) people want to use the newest, as one would hope it’s the best (do we not all use emerge/apt-get to keep all those programs current?); (2) It’ll be preinstalled on everything, darnit, and (3) it has a prettier interface.
As someone who ran Win32 libraries under 3.11 to hold out as long as possible, and went without force feedback under Win95-usb until W2K hit the shelves… I can assure you you’ll be atleast compelled to switch to Vista at some point, even if it’s a complete waste of code.
Actually XP was a big improvment over 98 and 2000 , 98 was really unstable and insecure but was a game horse , 2000 was stable but would not have the game requirement fulfilled fully. When XP came out many people where waiting for it due to directX improvments and ease of use and stability , new games people wanted and new software that run better ( Office ). Now XP work well for most people they dont whant to upgrade ( 200$ just for software ) or buy a new computer ( 700$ + expanse ) , just yet when there system work well for them now.
When new hardware and new software stop working for XP and people feel they need it , then and only then will they upgrade. XP was a really tough sell as 2000 was a real workhorse many liked a lot , waht killed it was hardware lack of support , but for the current hardware it still as a lot of nice hardware that as the driver for it.
So yes in January Vista will register some sale , as high as windows 95 , 98 and 2000 , no and not even close.
The 2000/XP game divide is a bit of a misnomer. They both run the same versions of DirectX, all other things are roughly equal.
It came with a slightly spiffed UI (the thing I hate the most), the hiding of many options (‘important’ directories, much of the control panel, etc.), activation, more (& more tightly integrated) applications, and (perhaps the only real draw) slightly more robust hardware support (hyperthreading, etc).
My experience with stability on the two leads me to believe 2000 is more stable, though I suspect I’m an outlier; with overall stability differences being negligable. Office 2k & ACAD’07 run nicely on W2K, so does every game I’d run under XP nowadays.
What 2K does not do is play nicer with multiple processors, support 64-bit environments, etc.; until just recently, these were all minority concerns.
There is still little need to use XP over 2K, but XP is still pretty much the defacto OS. No matter how much people do or do-not need Vista, the majority will use it within a few years.
The leadup and claims are the same, eh.
It has better:
– Game support (DX10)
– Security (UAC)
– Networking (BSD stack [I think?])
– User Interface (Aero)
– Hardware Support (i.e., doubtful you’ll have to F6 it for SATA)
– Stability
– Software (Office 2K7, being co-launched, implying with it’s Vista-consistent interface that earlier versions are not ‘up-to-snuff’)
People will switch, they will switch huge. Even if it was just Aero, they would switch. When people buy new computers, they’ll get Vista; either for lack of choice, or because a half-decade old OS will sound dated. For all the reasons you mentioned XP over 2K, people will switch to Vista.
– Networking (BSD stack [I think?])
Once again, the only version of NT to include a network stack with BSD-derived code was NT 3.1 which included a stack licensed from Spider Systems. This stack was replaced in NT 3.5 with a Microsoft-developed stack. The NT 3.5 stack and all subsequent networking stacks including the ones developed for NT 4.0, 2000, XP, and Vista, were developed internally by Microsoft and use their own code.
Haha, yea; right after I posted that I caught your post in the other thread. Point being, though, the Vista stack is new and is a selling point. Thanks for the correction!
Sorry I disagre , win2k is inferior to windows XP as an OS , the only thing stopping a lot of its deployment is its price.
Most people think windows XP is fine and its also at a moment in time where hardware is sufficient and fast enough that the OS new feature in Vista are more really eye candy then actual new software and new usefull features.
People will eventually upgrade to Vista or something else , but it will not happen in as high number as for windows 95 and 98 wich are still in use in some place and not in january , probably september will see the biggest increase in sale.
When windows XP came out there was no real competition , now windows is its own competition and the real competition is offering some real offers.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the merits of W2K & XP, lol. I can garentee, however, what XP is to W2K, Vista will be to XP – except, to a higher degree (in pretty much all degree’s, good and bad).
Perhaps we shall have to revisit this thread in 6 months time. It’d be hard to beat the Win95 launch, ever, it was huge and represented a giant paradigm shift in mainstream OS UI/concept (from the DOS/3.11 world). XP didn’t do it, and Vista sure won’t. Vista shall be a winner, though. Promise.
Modded parent up for not using the words ‘cultist’, ‘zealot’ and ‘religion’.
Novel has made a deal that provides them with better interoperability, 400 million dollars and a referral service from the most used software company in the world.
Why does everyone (exaggeration) think this is a bad move for Novell?
Disregarding any negative community feedback, I believe this is the the most productive move by Novell since the suse purchase.
I am already tired of this paranoa level, and saying that we know that Microsoft is doing (it is not a deal, it is part of big evil plan), that Novell must die (nevermind that lot of coders of OO.o, Samba and other projects are on their payroll), that we must be pure and abadon binary drivers (not caring about people who wants to use Linux, but also wants things just work – they want to go wireless, to get some 3D action. How dare they? Judas)…
etc.
Please, it is enough. If you actually believe in that, maybe then just get off from internet, turn off computer, and never think about turn it on again. Because world is so full of evil people, evil corporations, who doesnt want to live YOUR way…
Or just maybe try to understand that no matter how will you scream, negotiation and more corporation will be better for everyone.
But one thing is sure – software patents must die.