Jump to content

Microsoft is going to support suse linux


DLSS
 Share

Recommended Posts

"Microsoft, Novell seal Windows and SuSE deal. World goes "Whaa...?"

Microsoft and Novell have just signed the mother of all non-aggression pacts, with Microsoft recommending SuSE for mixed platform work, undertaking to support the system and guaranteeing not to sue over patent issues.

For its part, Novell is committing to working with Microsoft on virtualisation, Open Document Format and Open XML interoperability and, according to the joint press release, "...will undertake work to make it easier for customers to manage mixed Windows and SUSE Linux Enterprise environments and to make it easier for customers to federate Microsoft Active Directory with Novell eDirectory"

The companies are also going to "create a joint research facility and pursue new software solutions for virtualization, management and document format compatibility."

From our American coverage - "Money is flowing both ways for the patent agreement, Smith said, including an "up-front balancing payment that runs from Microsoft to Novell, reflecting the large relevant volume of the products that we have shipped and an economic commitment from Novell to Microsoft that involves a running royalty."

News ends. Comment follows.

It's too early to say what this means - it's a huge announcement, and there are too many loose ends to count. How does this sort of one-on-one company deal cope with GPL mandated code sharing? Anything Microsoft creates for SuSE must by law be usable by everyone else, and any attempt to stop that happening will render Novell's licence to the Linux code base inoperable. What does the deal mean for the oh-so-important question of which virtualisation standard will rule the roost? And what exactly does the 'up-front balancing payment' from Microsoft to Novell cover, and the 'running royalty' from Novell to Microsoft? So many questions unanswered, with the devil most definitely in the details currently lying under several inches of gloss.

But. Microsoft is recommending Linux. That's a good thought to take away.

this source was -> http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,100000...0331777b,00.htm

more on this topic :

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2050692,00.asp

http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;...185;fp;2;fpid;1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% Windows binary AND DirectX, the windows sound system... the Linux kernel + ability to use windows drivers forcrap, high performance Linux filesystem (ext4 maybe?)... I would totally buy it, as long as MS didn't do some thing shitty like block the use of OpenOffice or force you to use there explorer shell or make it hard to use KDE or Gnome, or force you to use a MS theme for Gnome/KDE. I have no dought there would be huge flame wars on Linux purist forums, but I don't care. Finally an OS that rocks and doesn't suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% Windows binary AND DirectX, the windows sound system... the Linux kernel + ability to use windows drivers forcrap, high performance Linux filesystem (ext4 maybe?)... I would totally buy it, as long as MS didn't do some thing shitty like block the use of OpenOffice or force you to use there explorer shell or make it hard to use KDE or Gnome, or force you to use a MS theme for Gnome/KDE. I have no dought there would be huge flame wars on Linux purist forums, but I don't care. Finally an OS that rocks and doesn't suck.

So long as Microsoft didn't do any of the things you suggest the linux purest would have nothing to say agents it apart from 'but it Microsoft' or 'it's not FREEEEE'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some one clarify this for me:

SuSE Linux is released under the GNU licence correct? So, wouldn't that mean that Microsoft have to release the source for it (although, not nessiserily the binaries, so you could compile the whole OS your self if you wanted). Yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RuH Roh Shaggy.....

TBH i have my doubts... i mean i remember microsoft had dealing with apple to create a windows compatible ppc machine way back when. That .. didnt go so well.

But shit if D3D10 gets GPL'ed under this..... I am going to be SOOOO hapy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Groklaw had a very insightful quote on this:

It's all about the patent agreement. After the Q&A segment it was clear that the patent agreement was a defacto acknowledgement by Novell that Linux violates MS patents. Ballmer made it clear that the patent agreement protects ONLY users of SuSE Linux.

So, legitimize Microsoft's patent claims, fuck the other Linux distro's in the ass, and them squash what remains of Novell.

Sounds like a workable strategy for Microsoft, wouldn't you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet in a few years, Microsoft will ditch their old, buggy OS and shift to Linux, God, I could just imagine it, "Welcome to Microsoft Linux XP"

This could sway in 2 directions,

1. Microsoft make Linux even better and everyone has a happy life. (Doubtful.)

2. Microsoft completely F**k Linux up and cause a war of the platforms. (Most probable.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That will never happen.

For one, their 'old, buggy OS' just got a complete rewrite. It'll take a while to stabilize, but then they have a 'shiny, new OS'.

And don't forget that Microsoft has enough cash on hand to operate without *ANY* income at all for at least a decade, probably more.

They're not going anywhere, and they're not going to change their tactics either. Because for the most part, they're winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft parthers with Novell.

Microsoft supports Novell.

Microsoft buys Novell.

Embrace and extend.

Microsoft patents SuSE, discards Novell's empty husk.

Microsoft destroys Linux, renames it Windows.

Microsoft sues Redhat, Ubuntu, Debian, et al. for copyright violations of MS Linux products. GPL? Bah.

------------------------------------------

Tell me it couldn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me it couldn't happen.

It couldn't happen. The code is under GPL. Microsoft wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole even if it had to. And they sure as hell can't patent any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does prior art fit in? Surely RedHat owns a few patents here and there. I know that a lot of people think MS will try and kill Linux, but thats not going to happen. If they try it will kill them, as they can fight a few company's but not half the industry at once. Seriously, chill out about this, lets see where it go's before donning our collective tin foil hats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cooper,

That's assuming Microsoft plays by the rules. (coughcoughBULLSHITcough)

All Microsoft would have to do is, say, change the filesystem on Linux to whatever rubbish they're putting on Vista. Or add some proprietary code here and there. Whatever. Even though a huge proportion of code is still "Linux", the product becomes "Microsoft", and the GPL goes right out the windows. Pun intended.

Remember one thing, Linux is opensource but a lot of SuSE is proprietary. If Microsoft gets their hands on that, what's to stop them from marketing SuSE as the next Windows? Not much, patent laws being what they are. Let's not forget pricing, marketing, distribution, "genuine advantage"....SuSE's ultra-spiffy new desktop becomes proprietary to Microsoft, and anyone else using it is sued...

And if it came down to it, who's going to take on Microsoft in a lawsuit? Microsoft has billions in cash lying around for just such emergencies, and they've mastered the art of dragging suits out for years.

It all boils down to this: I know Balmer's type. He does not want competition. He doesn't give a monkey's about quality products. He figures that when you have 80 or 90% of the market, you throw the starving masses whatever bones you like, and they have no choice but to accept or go hungry. He wants to be the only player in the game and protect his market share, by fair means or foul. Courts mean nothing to them. Previous agreements mean nothing to them. Competition means nothing to them. WE mean nothing to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Microsoft would have to do is, say, change the filesystem on Linux to whatever rubbish they're putting on Vista. Or add some proprietary code here and there. Whatever. Even though a huge proportion of code is still "Linux", the product becomes "Microsoft", and the GPL goes right out the windows. Pun intended.

but dosn't the GPL say that if you include any code from a program released under the GPL, you must also release your program under the GPL, or is that the GNU licence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Microsoft would have to do is, say, change the filesystem on Linux to whatever rubbish they're putting on Vista. Or add some proprietary code here and there. Whatever. Even though a huge proportion of code is still "Linux", the product becomes "Microsoft", and the GPL goes right out the windows. Pun intended.

but dosn't the GPL say that if you include any code from a program released under the GPL, you must also release your program under the GPL, or is that the GNU licence?

they are both the same license :P GNU Public License. and yes the GPL does state that. however, technically they can release it in the same package but as seperate software, so technically they can use a lot of GPL software, including the linux kernel and write their own GUI, and not use X. so they could effectively still make their version of linux incompatible. although it'll never happen.

they can't touch the linux kernel, or anything else under the GPL without making all their changes available as well. so they can't kill it. technically they could "acquire" the project, so any future versions they could change the license on, but they can't change already available versions (because people have already agreed to the license and hence already have perfectly valid licenses to use it). no matter what they do, they can't kill linux that way.

Patents are a possible angle of attack, but that'd be corporate suicide, even for microsoft. Large companies (including IBM i believe, among many others), have stated they will use their entire patent portfolio against any company that attacks open source software with patents (different companies do it to different levels, most of those companies have said they are protecting specific open source projects, not every open source project)

(this is why software patents suck, not only are they stupid, when copyright provides adequate protection, it just brings in a cold war MAD situation among the large companies, and screws up the little projects/people/companies.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...