 |
|
 |
| |
Welcome to virtuallinux.org. You are currently reading the article "A visual timeline of the Microsoft-Novell controversy". All articles on virtuallinux.org pertain to the ongoing assult on the worlds greatest Operating system. Continue on reading about "A visual timeline of the Microsoft-Novell controversy"
A visual timeline of the Microsoft-Novell controversy
Posted on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 09:13:31 EST by linuxwiz |
|
 |
|
 |
| |
A picture is worth a thousand words
Following the recent deal between Microsoft and Novell, prominent
industry figures and numerous members of the open source community have
expressed criticism and concerns. As the controversy has unfolded, the
debate has become increasingly antagonistic and confrontational. From
dubious intellectual property claims to accusations of appeasement,
corporate executives have succeeded in obscuring the facts and reducing
the entire debate into a cheap PR conflict.
Are you having
trouble following the controversy? Don't worry, you are not alone. The
issue itself is complex, but behind the curtain of obfuscation
generated by accusatory press releases, irate corporate blog entries,
and bizarre petitions, one will find a rather simplistic flame war. For
your edification and amusement, we have translated the entire debate
into the colorful patois of the average Internet message board and
produced an informative visual guide that will illuminate the facts and
show you what our favorite confrontational corporate executives are
really saying.
It all started at a press conference in early November, when
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Novell CEO Ronald Hovsepian announced
that their companies planned to work together to improve
interoperability and increase the viability of enterprise
virtualization technology. As part of the deal, the two companies
created a controversial patent indemnification pact: both companies
agreed not to sue each other's customers. Perceived as an admission
that the Linux operating system could potentially include Microsoft's
intellectual property, critics voiced concerns that Microsoft planned
to use the deal to spread misinformation about Linux and open source
software.
Red Hat's corporate secretary Mark Webbink responded
to the deal by predicting that Red Hat would "be the dominant player"
in the Linux market in one year and that "by that time there wont be
any other Linux players." Webbink argued that the deal represented a
contradiction for Novell and that the company had "gone off the road a
bit" by deviating from a commitment to "freedom and collaboration."
As part of the deal, Microsoft bought
$240 million worth of SUSE Linux subscriptions for redistribution, a
major financial windfall for Novell. Microsoft also vowed to invest $34
million over five years to create a sales force to promote combined
Linux/Windows solutions and an additional $12 million a year for other
marketing costs. Standing side-by-side at a corporate press event,
Hovsepian and Ballmer shake hands.
According to Hovsepian, the two "came together" to focus on giving
customers more options and the ability to easily manage and operate a
mixed Linux/Windows environment. According to Ballmer, the deal would
"really help bridge the divide between open source and proprietary
software."
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer offered to extend the indemnification offer
to any Linux distributor willing to fork over a one-time licensing fee.
Linux distributor Red Hat declined, condemning the offer as an
"innovation tax" and arguing that it would "isolate communities and
limit upstream adoption." In response, Microsoft expressed an interest in providing its own indemnification services for Red Hat customers.
Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz criticized
the Microsoft/Novell deal, and characterized as "nonsense" the
assumption that royalties have to be paid to safely use open source
software. According to Schwartz, "Those that say open source software
can't be safe for customers—or that commercially indemnified software
can't foster community—are merely advancing their own agenda. Without
any basis in fact." Asking if the deal was a result of "drugs in the
soda," Sun executive Simon Phipps accused
Novell of "affirming software patents", setting "a precedent that open
source distributors owe Microsoft money, slander[ing] GNU/Linux as
derivative and encumbered, and much more." In response to criticism
from Sun executives, Novell developer Miguel de Icaza points out that Sun "signed a similar agreement" with Microsoft in 2004.
Validating the concerns of the open source community members who spoke
out against the deal, Ballmer argued that Linux "uses [Microsoft's]
intellectual property." Ballmer still hasn't produced any evidence to
substantiate his dubious claim, and open source advocates are quick to
point out that various Microsoft representatives have been making
similar claims without evidence since at least 2004.
In an attempt to distance itself from Ballmer's remarks, Novell issued an open letter
to the open source community asserting that the agreement "is in no way
an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual
property," and that when the company "entered the patent cooperation
agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or
any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents."
Microsoft quickly shot back, and issued its own statement
saying that the companies "agreed to disagree" about potential
infringement and the alleged presence of Microsoft's intellectual
property of Linux.
After the public disagreement between Microsoft and Novell, Red Hat executive Mark Webbink decided to fan the flames
with a blog entry accusing Novell of appeasement, drawing an analogy
between the Microsoft/Novell agreement and the Munich Agreement of 1938
which surrendered a portion of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany without
the authorization of the Czech government. Webbink's blog entry marks
the fulfillment of Mike Godwin's hypothesis that "as an online
discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving
Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
In response to the deal, Mark Shuttleworth took advantage of growing distrust of Novell and tried to convince OpenSUSE developers to join the Ubuntu community. In a message
posted to the OpenSUSE mailing list, Shuttleworth claimed that "the
position taken by Novell leadership in their contract with Microsoft is
hugely disrespectful of the contributions of thousands of GPL
programmers and contributors to SuSE," and described Ubuntu as "one
option" for developers who were "looking for a new place to get
involved that is not subject to the same arbitrary executive
intervention." After significant public backlash from members of the
Ubuntu and OpenSUSE communities, Shuttleworth issued a public apology.
Now that the steady stream of accusations has died down, the
implications of the deal are beginning to become more apparent.
Although Ballmer validated the critics' concerns with unsubstantiated
patent infringement claims, the claims themselves haven't negatively
affected Linux adoption. Microsoft has been making baseless claims
about Linux since 2004, and it seems apparent at this point that few
outside of the Linux community really take those claims seriously. It
is ironic that the Linux community itself raised the profile of
Ballmer's patent infringement assertion and perpetuated its relevance
with such a vehement response. Regardless of the motivations behind
Ballmer's actions, the most detrimental consequence of the entire deal
and subsequent fallout is the fragmentation that has resulted from the
prevailing divisive attitude that it has engendered in members of the
Linux community.
The success of the Linux operating system is
largely predicated on the collaboration of the Linux development
community, and this petty squabbling impedes that collaboration. What
the corporate executives of these companies have declared, with
stentorian vehemence, is that they are all abundantly willing to
abandon collaboration and take advantage of each other whenever it is
convenient.
I don't object to criticism of the deal, because
frankly, it seems obvious that Ballmer vindicated the critics, and in
retrospect, trusting Microsoft was not wise. I'm not passing judgement
on the opportunism of the executives who used criticism of the deal as
a means of promoting their own corporate agenda. It's human nature and
commonplace. The point I'm making here is that, in the end, the mutual
criticism and petty bickering doesn't further the interests of the
Linux community and that the negative consequences of the
Microsoft/Novell deal will continue to escalate as long as it serves as
a catalyst for distrust within the Linux community.
Source
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
 |
|
| |
Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Welcome Anonymous
Login:
Membership:
