Novell on Nov. 30 announced its latest NetWare upgrade operating system, the Linux-powered Novell Open Enterprise Server 2. OES, which will be based on Novell’s SLES 10, is designed to be a drop-in replacement for Novell NetWare servers, and a direct competitor to Microsoft’s Server 2003.
Novell, they’re at it again. Hating linux so much, clearly a microsoft tool. They hate linux so much they’re staking their future on it.(and other OSS as well, of course)
*sarcasm* *sarcasm* *sarcasm*
I don’t think they hate Linux but rather don’t understand the FOSS community’s ethics. The community at large expects the rest of the community to share, but what Novell did was really anti-community.
One statement made by Novell’s CEO demonstrating this is he admits the deal, in business eyes, gives Novell an advantage over the competition. Competion meaning Red Hat, who just happens to be one of the suppliers of Novell’s software, and who just happens to be a community member as well. Novell screwing Red Hat means Novell is screwing themselves down the road.
To me, it just didn’t seem like Novell had any idea what they were doing because of the flippant attitude towards and the underestimation of the community’s reaction as well as doing business with MS so willingly given MS’s reputation and Novell’s history with MS.
But I am sure Novell doesn’t hate Linux. They just don’t understand the community they rely on and became a part of.
I don’t think they hate Linux but rather don’t understand the FOSS community’s ethics.
They don’t hate Microsoft as fully as the cult requires?
They don’t think proprietary is EVIL?
They don’t lie about the GPL being “more free” than the BSD license?
Edited 2006-12-01 03:29
Hmmm. So far in this thread, we have a semi-provocative post, a request for information, a response to that, a very reasonable response to the original semi-provocative post… and then we have a thoroughly inflammatory post from NotParker, prompted by some unknown cue.
There’s a little foam there at the corner of your mouth, NotParker. 😉
Edited 2006-12-01 04:44
Hmmm. So far in this thread, we have a semi-provocative post, a request for information, a response to that, a very reasonable response to the original semi-provocative post…
And the boring play by play from the usual pro-Linux guy who pretends to want civil discussions but never, ever admonishes the “I Hate Microsoft” crowd who dominates OSSnews. Yawn.
PS By the way. Implying that FOSS users have ethics, while “proprietary” software users don’t is vile, hateful bigotry. But you wouldn’t see that would you? Being one.
Edited 2006-12-01 05:37
Yes, NotParker has proven to be a particularly provocative brand of troll. The vast majority of what he says is BS intended to provoke emotional responses. I imagine he’ll stick around until his trust rating goes negative, then he’ll abandon that person and make up a new one so he can come back and waste his days making overblown and easily countered attacks on Linux.
I was going to reply to him but when I read your post I understood. Thanks for saving me the time.
Yes, NotParker has proven to be a particularly provocative brand of troll. The vast majority of what he says is BS intended to provoke emotional responses.
But don’t you agree that implying or stating directly that users of FOSS are more ethical than users of “proprietary” software is hateful?
Or do you disagree? I’m really curious?
“But don’t you agree that implying or stating directly that users of FOSS are more ethical than users of “proprietary” software is hateful?”
No, I disagree. If, in your personal code of ethics, proprietary code is unethical, then you might consider its users to be therefore unethical by using it. If your personal code of ethics disagrees with this notion, then of course you’ll also disagree with the statement. However, there is nothing “hateful” about this, anymore than the fact that a vegetarian believes that us meat-eaters are unethical, or that a born-again Christian will believe that someone will go to Hell if they commit sins and not repent.
I *do* believe that trolling message boards by making inflammatory remarks designed to create off-topic arguments *is* unethical, but that’s because it disagrees with my personal code of ethics. Obviously, that’s not the case for you.
No, I disagree. If, in your personal code of ethics, proprietary code is unethical, then you might consider its users to be therefore unethical by using it. If your personal code of ethics disagrees with this notion, then of course you’ll also disagree with the statement. However, there is nothing “hateful” about this,
Of course there is. Slandering people by calling them unethical for using Microsoft software is hateful.
The same kind of excuses are used by bigots all the time.
I don’t like being called unethical because I use “proprietary” software.
Why don’t you and all the other bigotted members of the cult stop all this hate directed at Microsoft and Novell and mono and SUSE and *BSD. If you do I’ll stop pointing out how cult-like you are because it won’t be true any more.
Try sticking to extolling the virtues of whatever you believe in and quit acting like it is a religious war for peoples souls.
Once again, you do not try to address my counter-arguments and simply reinstate your points.
The funny thing is that *I* don’t even think that proprietary software is unethical, because it doesn’t go against my own personal ethics (I work on console games, which use proprietary software parts), but the point just went miles over your head. This indicates that you are either a) hopelessly dense (i.e. fanatical), b) a paid MS shill, or c) a common troll.
Calling someone unethical for using proprietary software is not slander, by the way. If you think it is, why not put your money where your mouth is and sue the alleged slanderer?
And out of curiosity, where did I say, or even imply, that FOSS users are more ethical than proprietary software users? All I said was Novell didn’t understand FOSS ethics.
And out of curiosity, where did I say, or even imply, that FOSS users are more ethical than proprietary software users? All I said was Novell didn’t understand FOSS ethics.
Which are? Seriously.
What are FOSS ethics?
The term ethics implies goodness and badness. Right or wrong. It implies that there is a group of people who believe certain actions are moral and others are not. Implying that the members are part of a … cult. Or religious order. Or have different morals than others who are not part of the group.
Ethics: 1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
Edited 2006-12-01 18:44
…the ethics of a culture
…the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a <snip> particular group
… ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
… and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
Sounds about right to me!
So, following your logic and using your very words, anyone who believes certain actions are moral and others are not is a cultist???
I’m sorry, NotParker, but you make it waaay too easy to shoot your arguments down. You’re basically arguing that ethics are bad (which is in itself an ethical position, though one that is quite untenable from a rational point of view).
If you’re going to try to have a rational debate, at least try not undermine your own position.
You’re basically arguing that ethics are bad
It depends.
If your ethics are “Do No Harm” then I have no problem with it. If your ethics are “Do No Harm except to scumbag companies who sign agreements with Microsoft” then I have an objection.
Do you understand the difference?
So … tell me about FOSS ethics.
PS And, to be clear, if your ethic is “Do No Harm” and you do do harm, then I will point it out as hypocritical.
Edited 2006-12-01 20:08
It depends.
That’s not what you said in your previous post. You clearly stated that people who believe that some things are morally wrong and some others morally right are cultists. I’m not inventing this. At least admit that you didn’t clearly formulate what you were trying to say.
Now, regarding the MS/Novell deal, I myself have nothing against it *per se*, however given MS’s past history of aggression and harassment of Linux and FOSS, I think it’s only wise to be wary. Ballmer’s statments following the deal are a good example of why people mistrust Microsoft.
My ethics are more along the lines of “live and let live.” Since MS has, in the past, often showed that they do not abide by those principles when Linux/FOSS is concerned, then one can only conclude that it is *their* position which is unethical.
Do you really believe that MS follows a “Do No Harm” philosophy? Does “Linux is a cancer” ring a bell?
So … tell me about FOSS ethics.
I believe they can be easily summed up as “source code should be free and open.” There you go.
That’s not what you said in your previous post. You clearly stated that people who believe that some things are morally wrong and some others morally right are cultists. I’m not inventing this.
I can understand why you didn’t quote me, because
this is actually what I said:
“It implies that there is a group of people who believe certain actions are moral and others are not. Implying that the members are part of a … cult. Or religious order. Or have different morals than others who are not part of the group.”
There are three choices there. Seperated by “Or”.
Now, regarding the MS/Novell deal, I myself have nothing against it *per se*, however given MS’s past history of aggression and harassment of Linux and FOSS, I think it’s only wise to be wary. Ballmer’s statments following the deal are a good example of why people mistrust Microsoft.
I suspect that many people in the FOSS movement would prefer to put Microsoft out of business by doing to them what Netscape did to Mosaic. They seem to be doing it in a kind of proxy war where IBM and Google and a few others subsidize FOSS programmers in order to undercut Microsoft and , eventually, to increase their profits. Many FOSS supporters talk abotu this as a kind of holy war, but they don’t seem to realize they are jsut being used by IBM and others.
I think that is unethical.
believe they can be easily summed up as “source code should be free and open.” There you go.
Would that mean you think source code that isn’t “free” is unethical?
“It implies that there is a group of people who believe certain actions are moral and others are not. Implying that the members are part of a … cult. Or religious order. Or have different morals than others who are not part of the group.”
There are three choices there. Seperated by “Or”.
The third one isn’t really a choice, but rather a characteristic of the first two. The first two are pretty much the same thing, insofar as you are using them to misrepresent FOSS supporters are people who act out of faith and emotion, not passion. So in fact it was not three choices you presented, but simply three ways of saying the same thing.
You miss the point, though. The fact is that your narrow definition of ethics is based on a logical fallacy. Indeed, you seem to believe that ethics will automatically create a “group” mentality, and furthermore that this group will be exclusive. That, however, is not true. However, to acknowledge this would undermine your efforts to paint all FOSS supporters as part of the same group – something which is not only ludicrous, but easy to disprove (one simply has to look at the differences of opinion between RMS and ESR, for example).
Ethics are personal. They do not require belonging to a group in any other way than statistically. My ethics are my own. I have constructed them over the years through experience, discussion, open-mindedness and a lot of thinking. No one imposed them on me, and they are not an exact copy of any group’s. This is the *same* for all other FOSS supporters out there.
I suspect that many people in the FOSS movement would prefer to put Microsoft out of business by doing to them what Netscape did to Mosaic.
…or what MS did to Netscape. Or BeOS. Or any of the other competitors they bought/bullied out of the market.
They seem to be doing it in a kind of proxy war where IBM and Google and a few others subsidize FOSS programmers in order to undercut Microsoft and , eventually, to increase their profits.
That’s a bit paranoid, now, isn’t it? FOSS was there before IBM got interested in it, and before Google was even born.
Many FOSS supporters talk about this as a kind of holy war,
No they don’t. The only ones who bring religious symbolism into this are people like you and tomcat.
Remember, the reason that most FOSS supporters dislike/distrust MS is because of MS’ hostility towards FOSS in general and Linux in particular. There’s nothing religious about this – on the contrary, it is mostly a libertarian position, i.e. live and let live – problem is that MS has never been capalbe of letting live when FOSS/Linux is concerned.
but they don’t seem to realize they are jsut being used by IBM and others.
Again, they are not being used. Most were into FOSS before, and they were already ware of MS because of the monopolist’s long history of disinformation and predatory behavior with regards to FOSS.
I think that is unethical.
No, it isn’t, because it is not based on reality, but rather a complete fabrication, as I have noted. FUD.
Would that mean you think source code that isn’t “free” is unethical?
I don’t, but I respect those who believe it is. I do think that FOSS is preferable to commercial equivalents when the quality is comparable, and I support the continuous improvement to FOSS products.
It’s not a binary, black and white thing. You could say that I believe that FOSS is *more* ethical than proprietary software, but that proprietary software is acceptable even though it’s less preferable. However, I know that the troll’s mind, like the fanatic’s, is incapable of nuance, so you’ll very likely reject this by coming up with some inane, fallacious analogy like “almost pregnant, bla bla bla.”
It’s clear you’re not interested in rational debate, trolls rarely are. But at least I’ve pinned you down in this thread and prevented you from polluting other threads, which I can now say was in fact my original intention.
Have a good week-end, buddy. Don’t spend too much time on the Internet. As for me, slapping you and tomcat around this thread is starting to get boring. I think I’ve made my case, and you’ve helped me quite a lot by shooting yourself in the foot (not to mention your constant use of strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks). Do us all a favor and go back under your bridge now.
“Would that mean you think source code that isn’t “free” is unethical?”
I don’t, but I respect those who believe it is.
Thats what I thought. A tolerance for bigotry is always an indication of bigotry.
I don’t like people who think I’m unethical for using proprietary software.
And I don’t like people who think its ok to think I’m unethical for using proprietary software.
Thanks for proving me right.
Edited 2006-12-02 18:08
A tolerance for bigotry is always an indication of bigotry.
Let’s hope that you never get your hands on any power. Would you jail all Open Source users for implicitly being cult members and ‘closed source haters’?
Tolerance is part of free-speech. Live with it.
Let’s hope that you never get your hands on any power. Would you jail all Open Source users for implicitly being cult members and ‘closed source haters’?
Hate is dangerous. It morphs into action. Its one of the reason Germany has anti-free speech laws forbidding the glorification of Naziism.
Canada and many other countries have laws making it illegal to deny the occurrance of the Holocaust.
[/i]Tolerance is part of free-speech. Live with it.[/i]
I would be happy if “Tolerance” was a 2 way street. I just don’t see much tolerance coming from the cult.
Calling me unethical because I use proprietary software is not tolerant.
Hate is dangerous
Who said hate? I don’t hate you, I dislike your agressive, anti free software propaganda, but I don’t hate.
Its one of the reason Germany has anti-free speech laws forbidding the glorification of Naziism.
Canada and many other countries have laws making it illegal to deny the occurrance of the Holocaust
And that is relevant… Why exactly?
Calling me unethical because I use proprietary software is not tolerant.
Not me. Sorry, I just don’t like what you say, and the way you say it. It’s nothing to do with what software you use.
BTW. I guess this comment really does deserve to be modded down
First off, looks like #2 was the answer and I notice it doesn’t make a distinction of right or wrong, just in respect to.
Second, YOU are putting words in my mouth. I would thank you to stop. It seems you have become so paranoid you are chasing ghosts you are creating.
Third, just to point out, have you ever stopped and noticed you’re really over-reacting and just a little over the top? Seriously, you’re complaining about another group of people but it seems you’re the very vocal antagonist. Just something to think about.
First off, looks like #2 was the answer and I notice it doesn’t make a distinction of right or wrong, just in respect to.
Second, YOU are putting words in my mouth. I would thank you to stop. It seems you have become so paranoid you are chasing ghosts you are creating.
Third, just to point out, have you ever stopped and noticed you’re really over-reacting and just a little over the top? Seriously, you’re complaining about another group of people but it seems you’re the very vocal antagonist. Just something to think about.
Ok. You don’t want to elaborate on the FOSS ethics. Got it. I’ll make up my own mind what I think they are from participants in various discussions.
You’re not interested in a discussion you want an arguement and you’re trying to drag me into one.
It’s clear, you’re the antagonist here.
I’m done.
You’re not interested in a discussion you want an arguement and you’re trying to drag me into one.
It’s clear, you’re the antagonist here.
I’m done.
All I asked what FOSS ethics you were talking about? Its curious that you don’t want to talk about them. Maybe my guesses as to what they are is accurate?
All I asked what FOSS ethics you were talking about? Its curious that you don’t want to talk about them.
He told you why he’s no longer responding to you. You’re not interested in a discussion.
He’s right. When presented with counter-arguments, you just ignore them and just repeat your original statement.
Maybe my guesses as to what they are is accurate?
In other word, the fact that he no longer wants to talk to you means that you’re right? I guess that also means the fact that you didn’t respond to this post is an admission of defeat on your part?
Please, continue to respond to my posts. I’ll be here all week-end, and that way you won’t pollute other threads…
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16604&comment_id=187186
Yes, NotParker has proven to be a particularly provocative brand of troll. The vast majority of what he says is BS intended to provoke emotional responses.
And don’t you think certain thoughts are required to be a full fledged FOSS community member. Examples would be:
You have to hate Microsoft.
You have to think proprietary software is EVIL?
You have to think and say the GPL is “more free” than the BSD license?
NotParker, do you have anything better to do? Really, I’m not a FOSS wacko, so you don’t say anything that hits a nerve with me. But, don’t you ever wonder to yourself, “why am I wasting all this time posting all this bait?”.
By the looks of it – No.
– Gilboa
And don’t you think certain thoughts are required to be a full fledged FOSS community member.
No, I don’t, which makes most of your attacks poorly-constructed (and off-topic) strawman arguments.
You have to hate Microsoft.
You don’t. The fact that most Linux users dislike Microsoft is that in the past (and still today, at least if we are to believe Ballmer), MS has had an agenda to discredit, weaken, ridicule or even sue the free Operating System. If MS had contributed to Linux and/or published software to Linux from the start instead of trying to destroy it (as it had done for so many other competitors), then the Linux people wouldn’t be so wary of the software giant. MS has no one else to blame than itself for being so unpopular.
But the truth is that “wariness” and “dislike” are not the same as hate. Hate is an irrational, passionate emotion. See, it’s like this: I dislike and distrust Microsoft for rational reaons, while you hate Linux for irrational ones. Simple, isn’t it?
Also, you’ll find that many users who are wary of MS in the OS and Office markets have nothing against MS in other markets (I personally own an Xbox, and I used to have a Microsoft mouse). It’s certainly not as black and white as you want to portray it.
You have to think proprietary software is EVIL?
Unethical is not evil. I personally am not opposed to proprietary software per se, but I do think that FOSS is preferable. However, bringing these opinions down to an infantile “good vs. evil” dichotomy is just asking to be flamed.
You have to think and say the GPL is “more free” than the BSD license?
Well, there’s a good argument to be made about this, but the fact of the matter is that *both* licenses are free, they are just free in different ways. The GPL is better to protect the freedom of the code for users, while the BSD gives more potential freedom to developers, mainly the possibility to make derivatives un-free. In other words, the BSD license makes it possible for developers to restrict the freedom of users, which in itself is a freedom.
It is a well-known fact for anyone who studies law or political science that some freedoms must be curtailed in order to protect other freedoms. For example, my freedom to walk over to you and punch you on the nose is severely restricted, so that you may enjoy freedom from fear of having a broken nose. That is a reasonable limitation on freedom.
Similarly, GPL proponents believe that the limits on a developer’s freedom to alter the code and release the derivative under a non-free license is justified in order to ensure the freedom of users to use, distribute and modify that derivative. You may agree with it or not, but that’s part of the GPL advocate’s code of ethics, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this.
(This post is GPLed…feel free to distribute, reuse or modify it in any way. 😉
Yes, NotParker has proven to be a particularly provocative brand of troll. The vast majority of what he says is BS intended to provoke emotional responses.
But don’t you think many of my posts are well referenced and designed to annoy by being factual and contrary to what many in the “FOSS community” mistakenly believe?
So how much of what you say is actually ‘well referenced and designed to annoy by being factual’? Here’s a sample:
“the Firefox trainwreck destorys us all..”
“OSS fanatics are like Russians during the cold war”
“makes us feel like westerners visiting Eastern Europe during the cold war”
“I think you should pull your head out of your *ss. ”
“the insane to indulge in their anti-Microsoft conspiracy theories”
“Lying is a bad way to start an article.”
“GPLv3 wants to recreate dll hell.”
“stole its IP”
“Linux has zero chance of catching Windows.”
“Linux is way more bloated.” [than Vista] hahaha -ed.
“Are all OSS fanatics this cheap? ”
“Java is a con game”
“Security by design? Linux? OSS? I laugh!”
“Of course OSS stole IP. Thats what they do! ”
“What a load of bull you are spewing.”
“Nah nah nah nah … nah nah nah na”
“25,000 bounty to the family of suicide bombers for killing lots of jews.”
“OSS lie … Debian’s been cracked.”
“making stuff up to cover up incompetence”
“OSS fanatics” “OSS crybabies” “Linux fanatcis” “cultists” “cults” “cult” “cult” “unethical” “hypocracy” “cultists” “Communist” “cultists are all hypocrites” “excommunicated” “cultists” “cult” “cultists” “cultist” “cultists” “slavery” “mentally ill” “Slavery” “cultist” “cultist” “cultists” “cult” “cult” “nutbar cult” “cult” “cult” “cult” “cultist” “cult” “cult members”
“You cultists are a laugh!”
“Stop behaving like a cult”
“tiny little heads of OSS fanatics explode.”
“Firefox is old and tired and full of security holes.”
“they stole the Mosaic code”
“Picking a distro is a crap shoot.”
“Firefox is a sieve.”
“another bullsh*t myth”
“open source is thievery. ”
“How long have you lived on Fantasy Island?”
“OSS is just a loony cult.”
“excommunicated” “excommunicated” “excommunicated for dealing with the Devil”
“You really know nothing”
“ignorant anti-Microsft FUD”
stestagg,
Do you disagree that many OSS supporters have in fact tried to have Novell and mono andMiguel excommunicated for dealing with the DEVIL (Microsoft). Is that not cult-like behavior?
Has not another cult leader (Mark Shuttleworth) attempted to poach openSUSE devlopers because Novell and SUSE are excommunicated.
I could go back and dig up hundreds of posts recommending such excommunication.
Do you disagree that thats what has happened?
Using words like “Devil”, “Cult” and “excommunication” has no place in a rational debate over computing. One can disagree with the Microsoft/Novell deal on rational grounds.
These kind of ad hominem attacks only undermine what little is left of your own credibility. After all, how would you feel if someone described you as a “religious fanatic” from the “Church of Microsoft” conducting an “inquisition” into “FOSS heretics”? Because, honestly, that’s what you’re starting to sound like.
Drop the strawman arguments and the ad hominem attacks, and maybe your posts won’t all end up hidden from the world…
Using words like “Devil”, “Cult” and “excommunication” has no place in a rational debate over computing. One can disagree with the Microsoft/Novell deal on rational grounds.
Sure. But threats to wipe SUSE off of people computers and the personal attacks on Miguel Icaza surely look like excommunication to me.
I think the analogy fits really well, and that why it bothers some of the hard core cultists so much.
If the analogy didn’t fit, it wouldn’t be so annoying.
Agreed, the slavish devotion to OSS dogma has led many people to criticize the Microsoft-Novell deal even though they didn’t know the facts. This kind of kneejerk reaction is tantamount to religious fervor, so I think that your description of their behavior as “cultish” is dead-on. That bothers a lot of people because they don’t like associating themselves with cults. Cults are invariably self-deluding and self-destructive.
I don’t criticize people for choosing whatever software or methodology that they choose. What I criticize are self-deluding beliefs (ie. “Novell has damaged the community” … “Vista sucks” … “Microsoft is evil” … “Open source is better, has fewer bugs, cures cancer, blah, blah, blah” … etc) that are primarily driven by cultish devotion. Cultists apparently can’t see this distinction, and they simply attack anything which questions their dogma. Which is a good reason why people tend to look at them as fanatics — and why they constantly emit those “Why isn’t Linux winning on the desktop?” polemics. It’s all about converting the “great unwashed masses” for them. See? The analogy fits perfectly.
No, the analogy doesn’t fit perfectly, because there are many among the community who have reacted strongly against the deal for *rational* reasons. Ballmer’s thin-veiled threats a couple of days after the deal didn’t help either.
Seriously, guys, you should stop trying to demonize those whom you disagree with. That’s called an ad hominem attack, and it’s not an acceptable debate technique. Not to mention that your own obsessive focus on this, couple with constant exaggeration and ridicule (please give me *one* example of a FOSS advocate claiming that Open Source cures cancer) makes you two look much more like fanatics than those you are decrying.
Claiming that Open Source is better or has fewer bugs is not necessarily self-deluding. One could say that it’s *debatable*, i.e. than the merits of such statements can be debated using *rational* arguments, not insults and strawman arguments.
Until you two actually crawl out of the gutter and start making *rational* arguments instead of attacking and demonizing those who disagree with you, you’ll continue to be treated as trolls and actually do *more* damage than good to the positions you defend.
Don’t you want to convince people that you’re right? Because right now, that’s not what you’re doing at all. People sitting on the fence about this issue are much more likely to be driven away by your immature attacks and strawman arguments than they are agreeing with you. Think about it.
No, the analogy doesn’t fit perfectly, because there are many among the community who have reacted strongly against the deal for *rational* reasons.
None of the reasons that I’ve heard is even remotely rational: “Microsoft is evil. Microsoft made a pact with Novell. Ergo, Novell is evil”; “It’s a violation of the GPL”; “The deal legitimizes Microsoft’s claims of patent violations in Linux”; “The deal protects Novell and hangs us all out to dry”; “Microsoft is trying to co-opt Linux by promoting the emergence of a single competitor”; etc. None of these claims is supported by objective reality because there simply is no evidence.
Ballmer’s thin-veiled threats a couple of days after the deal didn’t help either.
It didn’t hurt, either. The cultists have tried to marginalize Ballmer by calling him “Monkey Boy”. Seriously, what do they care about what he has to say?
Seriously, guys, you should stop trying to demonize those whom you disagree with. That’s called an ad hominem attack, and it’s not an acceptable debate technique. Not to mention that your own obsessive focus on this, couple with constant exaggeration and ridicule
It’s not an ad hominem to point out a reasonably-supportable set of facts which happen to be objectionable to you. I’m not substituting an attack on you as a replacement for rational debate. No, in fact, what I’m doing is pointing out that rational debate is not possible with many people who repeatedly attack, mod down and suppress opposing viewpoints, and slavishly adhere to OSS dogma.
(please give me *one* example of a FOSS advocate claiming that Open Source cures cancer) makes you two look much more like fanatics than those you are decrying.
It was parody. Lighten up, Francis.
Claiming that Open Source is better or has fewer bugs is not necessarily self-deluding. One could say that it’s *debatable*, i.e. than the merits of such statements can be debated using *rational* arguments, not insults and strawman arguments.
Uh, yeah, it is self-deluding, because it’s not supportable by any objective set of facts. In fact, repeated studies have shown no significant difference between engineering development methodologies. Human beings produce code. Human beings are flawed. There’s only so much that a methodology will do to help you. Open vs closed source doesn’t really alter the number of defect ratio per line of code entered.
Until you two actually crawl out of the gutter and start making *rational* arguments instead of attacking and demonizing those who disagree with you, you’ll continue to be treated as trolls and actually do *more* damage than good to the positions you defend.
Fine. Whatever. I’m not here to convince you of anything. I’m here to discuss substantial issues and, if you don’t like what I have to say, then bollocks to you.
Don’t you want to convince people that you’re right? Because right now, that’s not what you’re doing at all. People sitting on the fence about this issue are much more likely to be driven away by your immature attacks and strawman arguments than they are agreeing with you. Think about it.
People sitting on the fence understand very well that many people posting on this discussion board are zealots like yourself. It won’t surprise them when I merely point this out to them.
None of the reasons that I’ve heard is even remotely rational: “Microsoft is evil. […] etc. None of these claims is supported by objective reality because there simply is no evidence.
There’s also no evidence to the contrary, is your own position then not subjective too?
In any case, I don’t profess that some people are wrong, however throwing insults at them isn’t any better. If you have evidence that Microsoft is not predatory, please present it to us…
It didn’t hurt, either. The cultists have tried to marginalize Ballmer by calling him “Monkey Boy”. Seriously, what do they care about what he has to say?
He is the CEO of the worlds largest company (by market cap). When he makes thinly-veiled threats of charging money to every Linux users out there, I think it’s reasonable to care what he has to say. (A good thing that people cared, too, because he was forced to partially retract – or at lease nuance – his positions.)
It’s not an ad hominem to point out a reasonably-supportable set of facts which happen to be objectionable to you.
It *is* an ad hominem attack when you accuse people you disagree with to be fanatics, zealots and/or cultists. In fact, that is *exactly* what an ad hominem attack is. At least have the honesty to recognize it.
in fact, what I’m doing is pointing out that rational debate is not possible with many people who repeatedly attack, mod down and suppress opposing viewpoints
So, what you’re saying is that it is not possible to have a rational debate with you? Good to know.
It was parody. Lighten up, Francis.
It was not parody, it was exaggeration inserted into an enumeration of other points in order to insinuate that those who disagree with you make irrational claims. Do you see me using any such dishonest rhetorical tricks?
And my name isn’t Francis, Tom.
In fact, repeated studies have shown no significant difference between engineering development methodologies.
I’m sure you can point us towards several example of such studies by non-biased sources?
Open vs closed source doesn’t really alter the number of defect ratio per line of code entered.
That’s debatable. Certainly the methodology alone isn’t sufficient, however one could argue that FOSS encourages code review more since the code is open to all and there is no deadline to put out a finished product.
The key word here is “debatable”, i.e. putting forward arguments in a civil manner, listening to counter-arguments and oppose counter-arguments of your own. That does *not* include misrepresenting the other person’s arguments and insulting them, something which you and NotParker never cease to indulge in.
Fine. Whatever. I’m not here to convince you of anything. I’m here to discuss substantial issues and, if you don’t like what I have to say, then bollocks to you.
In other words, you admit that you cannot indulge in rational debate, and will continue to insult people you disagree with. Interesting.
People sitting on the fence understand very well that many people posting on this discussion board are zealots like yourself. It won’t surprise them when I merely point this out to them.
Once again, insults instead of arguments. Allow me to theorize that they are much more likely to be put off by your aggressive, uncivil manners and lack of rational arguments than by my calm, poised tone and carefully-constructed counter-arguments…
There’s also no evidence to the contrary, is your own position then not subjective too? In any case, I don’t profess that some people are wrong, however throwing insults at them isn’t any better. If you have evidence that Microsoft is not predatory, please present it to us…
Try to remember that absence of evidence isn’t proof of anything.
It was not parody, it was exaggeration inserted into an enumeration of other points in order to insinuate that those who disagree with you make irrational claims. Do you see me using any such dishonest rhetorical tricks?
Some people like to think that they have a sense of humor. But they don’t. Clearly, you fall into that category. It was parody. Deal with it. Francis.
I’m sure you can point us towards several example of such studies by non-biased sources?
Sure, read these sources as a starting point… (But I will predict in advance that your side will immediately go into hit-and-run-attack mode in trying to hang the “Microsoft shill” canard around the necks of each of these authors).
http://www.ehealthinformation.com/booklets/roi/Open_Source.htm
“The main conclusion is that open source reviews are, at best, not much better than the peer reviews that one would expect to see in a commercial setting.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/12/open_and_closed_security/
“Open and closed approaches to security are basically equivalent, with opening a system up to inspection helping attackers and defenders alike.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISJ/is_2_44/ai_n15399770/pg…
“Which is more secure: closed or open-source software? Unfortunately the answer is not that clear. In general, both FOSS and proprietary systems are roughly equivalent in terms of security and reliability. Neither is inherently more secure or reliable than the other. Analytical arguments made in favor of either approach are not conclusive.”
http://www.stevemcconnell.com/ieeesoftware/eic06.htm
“The emphasis on code-level peer review gives the typical open-source project a leg up on the average closed-source project, which uses little or no review. But considering how ineffective the average project is, comparing open-source projects to the “average” closed-source project sets a pointless standard of comparison. Leading-edge organizations use a combination of practices that produce better quality, shorter schedules, and lower development costs than average, and software development effectiveness at that level makes a more useful comparison.
One of the bedrock realities of software development is that requirements and design defects cost far more to correct at coding or system testing time than they cost to correct upstream. The software industry has collected reams of data on this phenomenon: generally you can expect to spend from 10 to 100 times as much to correct an upstream defect downstream as you would spend to fix the same defect upstream.
Considering open source’s focus on downstream defect correction with significantly redundant peer reviews, for now the approach looks more like a shell game than a better mousetrap. It is appealing at first glance because so many people contribute effort that is free or unaccounted for. The results of this effort are much more visible than the effort itself. But when you add up the total effort contributed—both seen and unseen—open source’s use of labor looks awfully inefficient.”
In other words, you admit that you cannot indulge in rational debate, and will continue to insult people you disagree with. Interesting.
Those are your words, not mine, and I would appreciate if you wouldn’t try to cram them down my throat. Let’s just put it this way: I have no hidden hopes or desires of converting bigots to my way of thinking. I’m merely expressing my point of view.
Once again, insults instead of arguments. Allow me to theorize that they are much more likely to be put off by your aggressive, uncivil manners and lack of rational arguments than by my calm, poised tone and carefully-constructed counter-arguments…
Hardly. I think that many people might conclude that BOTH of us are zealots, to one degree or another. You may not like that term, but it fits you: You believe passionately in your point of view, you’re intractable in your opinions (a reading of your posts bears this out), and you seem to care intently about converting others to your way of thinking; in fact, you revealed this most intently when you wrote, “Don’t you want to convince people that you’re right?” in your previous post.
Try to remember that absence of evidence isn’t proof of anything.
Is the absence of evidence that, say, the MS/Novell deal is bad, isn’t proof that it’s not bad? You basically contradicted your previous claim right here and now.
Are taking a page out of NotParker’s book, destroying your own positions? Thanks, but really, I don’t need the help.
Some people like to think that they have a sense of humor. But they don’t. Clearly, you fall into that category. It was parody. Deal with it. Francis.
I do have a sense of humor, it’s just that you weren’t funny. Deal with that, Betty.
Sure, read these sources as a starting point… (But I will predict in advance that your side will immediately go into hit-and-run-attack mode in trying to hang the “Microsoft shill” canard around the necks of each of these authors).
Listen, Betty: I don’t have a “side.” I produce proprietary software for a living. So get that right out of your head right now.
As for the studies, some make interesting points, however none of them are conclusive one way or the other (and two don’t even deal with bugs at all, but with security issues – stay on topic, Betty).
I myself have no opinion on this. I merely stated that the case could be argued for open-source, one could just as easily argue the other side. However, calling people “cultists” and claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a “zealot” is not making a rational argument.
Those are your words, not mine, and I would appreciate if you wouldn’t try to cram them down my throat. Let’s just put it this way: I have no hidden hopes or desires of converting bigots to my way of thinking. I’m merely expressing my point of view.
Who’s talking about bigots? We’re talking about people who are undecided – and believe me, you make such a poor case representing your “side” that you’re most probably driving those undecided away from your point of view.
Hardly. I think that many people might conclude that BOTH of us are zealots, to one degree or another. You may not like that term, but it fits you:
I don’t think it does, and I also object to the use of the term in that context. To me, zealots do not base their arguments on reason, but on faith.
You believe passionately in your point of view,
Meh, not really. I’m passionate about a lot of things, but free vs. commercial software isn’t one of them. I do like it when people discuss things rationally, without resorting to insults or trying to misrepresent what the other side is saying.
you’re intractable in your opinions (a reading of your posts bears this out),
A common mistake: I am not intractable (and in fact I have admitted to being wrong before), it’s simply that I choose my arguments wisely. I don’t like starting a debate when I’m not certain of my position. In this case, it’s quite easy: strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks should not be part of rational debate.
and you seem to care intently about converting others to your way of thinking;
I try to defend what I believe to be true. There’s nothing zealotous about that. “Convincing” people is not the same as “converting” – again, you use religious imagery in an effort to discredit those you disagree with. Are you even capable of formulating an argument without resorting to such weasel words? I’m starting to doubt it.
in fact, you revealed this most intently when you wrote, “Don’t you want to convince people that you’re right?” in your previous post.
Yes, note the word: “convince.”
Well, don’t you want to convince people that you’re right? Or do you simply want to provoke people into reacting emotionally by making inflammatory declarations? Because you know what *that* means…
If the analogy didn’t fit, it wouldn’t be so annoying.
Therefore, if you don’t like being called a troll, that’s because it’s true?
I hope you realize that the statement you made is not logically sound… 🙂
stestagg,
Was not the post with “they stole the Mosaic code” in it well referenced?
Did I not post articles about the NCSA/University of Urbana charging Netscape with stealing the Mosaic IP?
I could go dig them out, but I suspect you have it right in front of you and are just being dishonest?
This isn’t the most damaging artcle, but …
http://www.netvalley.com/intvalweb.html
“Since Mosaic Communications now has possession of the core team of Mosaic developers from NCSA, the company sees no reason to pay any licensing fees for NCSA Mosaic. Andreessen and his team intend to rewrite the code, alter the name, and produce a browser that looks similar and works better.”
I think the NCSA had legitimate reasons for thinking Netscape stole their IP.
There is no evidence, or claim (apart from you and a few others) that Netscape stole mosaic code. The suit was to do with trademark issues. Netscape coded their own browser, at a time when there were other graphical browsers on the market. The dispute, as far as I can tell was about the use of the mosaic name, which was settled anyway so not much news.
Anyway, if you want, tell people to ignore that line of the list, it’s hardly significant.
I think it is significant. Its part of deliberate strategy of deception by the cultists to pretend nothing I say is substantiated. Yet I go out of my way to reference items and then still get modded down.
It is also important because the FOSS followers like to create myths (that are essentially dishonest) that make Microsoft look like a bully.
One of the myths is that Netscape was the underdog going up against the the EVIL Microsoft.
In fact the opposite is true. Netscape set out to malevolently destroy Mosaic, Spyglass and anyone else who had licensed the Mosaic IP from Spyglass and the University.
Lets continue:
“However, the NCSA did not want to become a help desk for commercial applications, so in August 1994, the University of Illinois assigned future commercial rights for licensing NCSA Mosaic to Spyglass, Inc., a local company created by NCSA alumni to commercialize NCSA technology. The goal was for university researchers to continue developing longer-term technology and standards to be incorporated into browsers, while Spyglass would help license the technology to companies addressing immediate customer needs such as support, speed, and security. Spyglass began widely licensing Mosaic to computer companies including IBM, DEC, AT&T, NEC, and Firefox Inc., who was working to integrate Mosaic standards into Novell networking software for the personal computer.[8]
Watching Mosaic from the Bay Area, Silicon Graphics CEO Jim Clark, a veteran of the UNIX standards wars, understood how much money could be won if a company could take control of the standards of this new Internet tool. So Clark left his company and set out to destroy Mosaic and replace its government-backed standards.”
“And then Clark and Andreesen compounded their fracturing of the NCSA standard by giving their version away over the Internet. The University of Illinois had demanded that Clark’s company pay for a license before selling their version. Clark later said that he refused because the university was demanding an ongoing per-copy royalty: “I didn’t tell them, but we had intended to allow people to download it, and they were going to charge me. The amount varied, but nothing is innocuous when you’re talking tens of millions of people.”[10] The point of the licenses by Illinois had been, along with collecting a little revenue, to control the standards and make sure that the only free version available was the official NCSA standard. Netscape would essentially “dump” its version onto the Internet, thereby undercutting the rest of the commercial browser companies, which couldn’t duplicate Netscape’s actions because they were fairly paying per copy license fees. So Netscape, being the sole enhanced commercial browser flooding the Internet, was able to destroy NCSA-led standards and take over standards creation itself.”
http://www.netaction.org/opensrc/future/breakdown.html
Edited 2006-12-01 20:48
Well that’s one not very balanced opinion on what happened.
Well that’s one not very balanced opinion on what happened.
Well it does have references. No wonder you think it is unbalanced.
It references one biased view on the issue. I’ve read a number of articles that are much more dispassionate and which present the facts rather than trying to spin the facts into a particular view.
Oh and if you’re going to whinge about references:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/andreesen.html
http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/dictionary/detail.asp?guid=…
http://www.htennant.com/hta1/askus/netscape.cfm
http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS01/hc/www/www2.html
Yes but who cares about facts anymore? I, for one, enjoy reading your posts. But alot of vocal people around here seem to think that things either have to be black or white and that since Microsoft is the big evil one, then nothing remotely positive can come from, or be said about, them…
Maybe they just need to grow up…
But don’t you think many of my posts are well referenced and designed to annoy by being factual and contrary to what many in the “FOSS community” mistakenly believe?
No, I don’t. When someone offers a counter-argument, you either a) ignore them, or b) simply restate your original argument.
Oh, and ethical beliefs cannot be “mistaken”. If someone believes that proprietary software is unethical, you can certainly disagree, but you cannot claim that they are factually wrong.
You need to learn more about ethics, and work on your manners. Even if you were right (which, in my opinion, you’re not), you’ll never win anyone over to your viewpoint by insulting them.
Not to mention that being more civil would mean your posts wouldn’t be buried, which right now makes this a huge waste of time on your part since people will simply not read them.
It’s not too late to leave the dark side, young troll… 🙂
The community they rely on is called their customer base. Sorry to break the news to you but Novell is a business and they’re in there to make money.
They don’t back Linux out of charitable spirit but because they have decided that Linux would be part of their strategy. It is therefore important for them that Linux becomes better.
Whatever choices they make, they’ll do it because:
– it gives them an advantage over the competition.
– it’s a good PR/marketing move.
– it gives them a tax break.
– or whatever other reason they think will help bring them more cash in the long term.
Considering that Red Hat is in the business of server OS, then Red Hat is obviously a competitor. It is only natural that Novell tries to have an edge over them.
You just stated the exact reason commercial linux distros fail. All they think about is the business aspect and not being a community player as well. They aren’t mutually exclusive. Rock on REDHAT!
Novell what? That washed up directory service server OS makeshift company….. Are they still around?
I can’t think of anybody else with a similar offering that Novell has though.
I don’t know Novell’s sales figures so I can’t really judge whether they are failing or not and what part of their business is Suse compared to OES.
As far as I see it though, the real meat with Novell is the Suse based OES, not the barebone Suse. In a way, Novell has done something similar to what Apple did. They have replaced an aging OS by a unix “clone” system with a yummy layer of goodness on top.
Their market being the enterprise servers, they didn’t bother to create a GUI like Apple did. Instead they ported their existing technology to their new “core” OS, providing a smooth transition for Netware clients.
Where I work, we are currently in the middle of upgrading our environment from an outdated Netware to the current OES. Except for Microsoft with AD, SMS and MOM, there’s to my knowledge nobody else with an offering as complete as Novell. With eDirectory, Zenworks, iPrint and other products/components, they have something really, really powerful.
Novell uses Linux because Linux is more advanced than what Novell had prior. It’s that simple. Novell needs Linux, not the other way around.
Now, for your statement about the community they rely on is their customer base, that’s the exact reason why Novell is being abandoned by large segments of the OSS/FOSS community. Let them keep thinking that, especially when SUSE and Novell are the piriah of OSS and as a consequence having to support forks of all the projects that have abandoned them.
The whole problem with your post is IMO you don’t understand OSS/FOSS like Novell doesn’t. Novell isn’t in a vacuum, nor are they an island. Novell is a BIT player, a big one, but still a bit player in a larger community.
Novell acted in a way that bettered themselves at the expense of the community. And not only did the put the preasure on Red Hat, they also put the pressure on ALL developers, users, and supporters of Linux, OSS, and FOSS, including themselves in 5-6 years. Pressure a certain monopoly wants to use to either kill, tax, or embrace & extend many OSS projects with.
Novell shot itself in the foot because it acted just like you said they should as a business who doesn’t care about it’s suppliers. I’ve read comments and posts from others who are not Novell customers but Novell uses their software and they are not happy. Not one bit. And it’s going to bite Novell in the ass if they don’t hurry up and make amends with the community they’ve offended.
You seems to ignore three things.
A. If you look back, you’ll find that most of MS’ ‘close’ partner’s were either bought my MS or killed by it. Just look at the recent McAfee/Symantec vs. Microsoft Adware-removal-tool and the Vista-kernel-API controversies and you’ll understand what I mean. (BTW, I work for a close MS partner. Only God will help us if MS decides to re-evaluate our partnership…)
B. Novel writes a very small part of the software it distribute – much less then RedHat (which has many hands in kernel, gcc, gnome, etc). Team up with Microsoft to kill RedHat and you’ll end-up screwing yourself.
C. If MS start suing world+dog over IP infringement (Using the Novel deal as a proof) it’s will either kill the OSS movement (If MS wins) or alienate the OSS community (If MS loses). In both cases Novel’s flag-ship product will be damaged, if not killed.
Ignoring for a second the Novel + Microsoft vs. OSS/GPL controversy, Novel chose a short term gain (or money) that may kill them in the long term. There’s a name for doing just that: Being a short-sighted idiot. (Excuse my language) *
– Gilboa
* Though Novel execs might be pulling a SCO – read: teaming up with MS to kick the stock price up and bail out before all hell breaks loose. In this case Novel execs are not idiots – just greedy bustards.
Edited 2006-12-01 15:54
B. Novel writes a very small part of the software it distribute – much less then RedHat (which has many hands in kernel, gcc, gnome, etc). Team up with Microsoft to kill RedHat and you’ll end-up screwing yourself.
Are you talking about open source code? If so, how to you quantify that? If you’re talking about software in general, take a look at Novell’s product line compared to Red Hat’s, and tell me how Red Hat would actually come close to any of it aside from RHEL/SLES basic offerings.
“Are you talking about open source code? If so, how to you quantify that? If you’re talking about software in general, take a look at Novell’s product line compared to Red Hat’s, and tell me how Red Hat would actually come close to any of it aside from RHEL/SLES basic offerings.”
This answer should be marked “off-topic-to-the-point-of-trolling”.
Not because it’s wrong (or right.) but because it’s completely irrelevant.
From a page long answer you took -one- line and based your answer around it. (Ignoring everything else)
So my question to you is: Does it matter?
Lets say I was dead wrong and SUSE contributes 5 times the code RH does. Can you deny the fact the RH programmers contribute huge amounts of code to the OSS community? Can you deny the fact that by helping MS kill RH, Novel may essentially deliver a deadly blow to the GNU/Linux community (or even the OSS ones), and in turn, help MS kill their own flag ship project?
Did you even try to deny any of my points above?
As you didn’t try to argue the point(s), I’ll assume that you either agree with the above, or has no solid argument to counter my claims – either of which makes your post nothing more then an inflammatory off topic comment designed to divert the discussion into a RH vs. Novel flame war. In short, Troll.
– Gilboa
P.S. Shame on the people who mod’ed your post up. People keep on claiming that they hate (off-topic) flame wars and zealots, and yet they encourage them every chance they have.
Edited 2006-12-01 22:22
As you didn’t try to argue the point(s), I’ll assume that you either agree with the above, or has no solid argument to counter my claims – either of which makes your post nothing more then an inflammatory off topic comment designed to divert the discussion into a RH vs. Novel flame war. In short, Troll.
What the hell are you going on about? You made a comment to support some arguement that was something you couldn’t quantify by any stretch. My point was you don’t seem to know half of what Novell does open source or not. That’s it. It’s a nitpick at worse, but a troll it is not. And it’s not a dig at RedHat. I don’t honestly know all of what RedHat has it’s hands in. I don’t hate RedHat. I don’t care.
The only trolling in this thread is from the open source/closed source/novell sucks comments. This thread was about OES2, not the MS/Novell deal. I’m one of the only people in here who stuck to the topic! Give me a break.
Edited 2006-12-02 18:54
Business’s make deals all the time. The issue is, it is with MS… If Novell had made an agreement exactly like this with Redhat it wouldnt be an issue.
Business’s make deals all the time. The issue is, it is with MS… If Novell had made an agreement exactly like this with Redhat it wouldnt be an issue.
Unfortunately, what you just said is that the F/OSS is a bunch of rabid anti-Microsoft zealots.
If Novell (or any other Linux vendor) made a deal like this with any other company besides Microsoft, I would like to think the community would be just as violently opposed.
But I suspect they wouldn’t be.
There would be outrage, yes, but not as much. The difference is MS’s business model depends on being the only player which means where Microsoft wants to play, Linux and everyone else can’t.
Given Novell’s history with them, you’d think they would know better. MS didn’t make this deal because it was good for customers, they made it because they’re playing a chess match against Linux and the GPL. It’s not clear yet why, but it’s certain there is a reason.
My guess is they want to create an environment where MS can collect patent royalties from OSS users, kill off projects they don’t want competition in, and ‘pay to play’ or _get out_ of the market to businesses/comptetitors/independant developers they don’t like.
Red Hat would never make a deal like that anyways. They started off as OSS/FOSS and know better. Novell is a traditional corp and this is just another business deal. The problem is hypothetical situations are just that. Here, in the reality, where we’re talking about MS, it’s a totally different story.
Business’s make deals all the time. The issue is, it is with MS… If Novell had made an agreement exactly like this with Redhat it wouldnt be an issue.
Incorrect.
If Novell and RedHat developed a patent deal over GPL software and decided not to share that covenent with the larger community, they would be subject to the same terms imposed by the GPLv3.
Both companies would be forced not to ship GPLv3 software until they modified their patent deals.
Edited 2006-12-01 17:26
Remember, hate to the dark side leads.
What’s the difference between Suse Enterprise Server and Open Enterprise Server? I thought that you could also use the Suse Enterprise Server as a Netware server through EDS, am I wrong?
Novell could do wonders by simply making it easier to understand their product offerings. Its product pages are often full of marketing speak and are not as clear as they could be.
Show me a pyramid of enterprise services, storage, identity, email messaging, etc and tell me what your recommended product is for each of these categories.
Just my two cents…
Suse Enterprise Server is all Linux like Red Hat Enterprise server. You can add netware services on top of it (On almost any version of Linux for that matter)
Open Enterprise Server is Linux with all the Novell Netware software on top out the box, like edirectory, novell identity server etc. And to a Netware network it look like just another Netware server.
I think the name is stupid myself. But the concept is cool.
For a start it isn’t a Linux distribution, or a Netware OS for that matter. You have a choice (get that) of Netware or Linux kernels. How meaningless is that? You pay for Novell to make these choices, since it’s meaningless for you to make them. All you want is a functioning OS.
Additionally, just what is the point of having OES and SLES? There’s simply no reason for the distinction. Red Hat gives you RHEL, and you know where you stand, not to mention the administrative and support overhead for Novell.
Various relevant parts of Netware should have been open sourced so they could be combined effectively in one true Novell Linux distribution, and that should have been built on top of with all the pretty management tools people could want. This would have meant less confusion for existing Netware customers and would have brought many of the advantages of Netware to the Linux world and Linux customers – competitive advantage. As it stands, Netware usage is declining in whatever form, OES or pure Netware, you care to mention, and sales of SLES are non-existant in the Linux world in the face of Red Hat. In a nutshell, that’s Novell’s problem.
It’s not that Novell is ditching, or should be ditching, Netware as the base OS for Linux that is the problem and why customers are complaining. It’s because Novell just haven’t thought about the issues involved in doing this and how to wrap customers in cotton wool to make it utterly painless. Sadly, although they are making progress in moving completely to Linux they’re alienating existing Netware customers at the same time (customers ask, not unreasonably “Why move to a different OS that does exactly the same thing?!”), and have nothing to stop the general trend of people moving to Windows Server. Replacing Netware is simply not enough. It’s usage was declining before any move to Linux, and simply telling people “Hey, it’s Linux!” isn’t going to help.
The value added stuff they need to smooth this transition and to be meaningful is non-existant. The graphical and unified management tools they need to take on Windows and gain advantage over Red Hat are not there or are woefully inadequate, and sadly, they’re using all the wrong tools for trying to achieve this. They’re going to spend more time, effort and money developing and troubleshooting their own development tools than they are producing anything meaningful that will make them money.
It could all have been so different, but the inevitable Novell politics and management dithering duly took effect. Oh well.
Edited 2006-12-01 11:53
Actually, this release they are fully getting rid of the netware kernel.
They kept the netware kernel in the first version so people who were comfortable with netware could just drop OES in using netware (Which was updated from 6.1) and then test their apps etc on Linux before they took OES fully to Linux.
Now that their customer base has tested and must have given good feed back they are totally moving to Linux. They will still support Netware but will not be putting out any new versions of Netware or OES with the Netware kernel.
Also the reason that they have not opened up things like edirectory is because right now it’s the only thing they are actually making money on. Most of Novell’s money is coming from current Netware users, not new Linux users (Yet)
Also because in the Enterprise space no one has directory services and identity services like Novell. Even Active Directory is weak compared to edirectory. And no Linux vendor can come close to it.
Novell knows that Red Hat is #1 but it also knows that in most enterprises the directory services are being run on Windows. And that is their target with OES. You get Linux and you get directory services for less then what you will pay for Windows and for sure what you will pay for Red Hat with weak directory services and no identity services.
Novell REALLY needs to get some marketing lessons from MS and IBM since they are in Bed with both of them. 🙁
And IConsole and Imanager are pretty cool management tools for their netware services.
The thing that sucks is that edirectory is HARD as crap to install on Linux / Unix.
Anyway, my company uses Suse Enterprise 9 for our mail servers and I love it. Never have any problems. Got 2500 users on 4 small servers and almost never have down time. But I don’t need all that netware stuff that comes with OES.
Actually, this release they are fully getting rid of the netware kernel.
It’s not out until well into next year though.
Also the reason that they have not opened up things like edirectory is because right now it’s the only thing they are actually making money on.
The problem is, its usage is still declining. That was and is the problem. Of course they’re still making money out of Netware, but Novell has to get people using it and its successors again if they are going to survive.
Most of Novell’s money is coming from current Netware users
Unfortunately, they’re not keeping those Netware users happy and they’re not addressing the reasons why Netware usage was declining even before Novell got into Linux.
…not new Linux users (Yet)
That will be some time never. There’s no real compelling reason for using SLES now, apart from the fact that it’s a RHEL wannabe now, and looks like it. It’s such a limited market, commercial enterprise Linux, and there just isn’t enough there to sustain Novell as a going concern with Red Hat so far in front.
Even Active Directory is weak compared to edirectory.
The problem here is that you need Active Directory to manage Windows desktops and servers, so eDirectory will always be jockeying for room with Active Directory and AD will always be there. That’s something Novell needs to try and get around after it’s sorted out its pressing problems.
Novell knows that Red Hat is #1 but it also knows that in most enterprises the directory services are being run on Windows.
The sole reason for that is because of Active Directory, and the lock-in of Windows desktops, regardless of how much better eDirectory might be.
Now, the question is are Microsoft going to open Active Directory and its protocols to allow implementations on other platforms and to allow other directory services software to manage Windows desktops as a result of the Novell deal? The answer is a big fat no.
And IConsole and Imanager are pretty cool management tools for their netware services.
They’re OK, but they’re not great. The problem I have with Novell’s tools is they have a tendency to change them every five minutes. It seems now that they’re on an all-new quest to create some new, unified, uber management platform on Mono or .Net – which won’t provide anything better than the Java or other tools are doing.
The thing that sucks is that edirectory is HARD as crap to install on Linux / Unix.
Yer. It’s much easier to install on Windows, as is all of Novell’s software, like Groupwise. Not a ringing endorsement, is it?
They’re OK, but they’re not great. The problem I have with Novell’s tools is they have a tendency to change them every five minutes. It seems now that they’re on an all-new quest to create some new, unified, uber management platform on Mono or .Net – which won’t provide anything better than the Java or other tools are doing.
I talked to a Novell engineer a month ago or so, and I heard there is a project in the works to unify their tool set. It’s going to be a two pronged solution. First, it’s a new tool and Novell will actually force the other divisions to use it for new products. Second, it’s apparently going to be able to translate existing snap-ins/plug-ins from C1/iManager/NWAdmin. But, it’s not official, so we’ll see. I agree, all those tools are a real pain in the ass. I have two seperate installs for console1, one for GroupWise, one for ZenWorks. I have iManager for iPrint. And finally I have NWAdmin for my BorderManager proxy.
Yer. It’s much easier to install on Windows, as is all of Novell’s software, like Groupwise. Not a ringing endorsement, is it?
GroupWise on Linux is easy. eDirectory….well. A part of OES2 is supposed to be install tools, whether that’s during install, and/or post, we’ll see. I’m still looking forward to it, overall.
I am about as FSF-rabid and cancerous as anyone and if novell wasn’t using linux then they could make ANY deal they wanted to. They could all line up, bent over with their pants down for each and every MS employee and I would not care but don’t try and stick MY linux in between those bent over and those moving in from behind!
I’m more excited for OES2 than I am for Vista. A few comments though.
OES Linux or NetWare running in a Xen para-virtualized environment give you the hardware support of Linux. NetWare’s hardware support is continually being scaled back by vendors. For instance, I can’t get a Dell rack server that supports NetWare on the hardware level anymore. I can with SuSE, and in turn, OES for Linux or NetWare 6.5 SP7 running within Xen. That’s a huge plus for me.
OES on Linux gives you some things beyond SLES. First of all, as was mentioned above, it gives you almost all the NetWare 6.5 based services(iManager, eDirectory, NSS, iPrint, Zen starter pack I believe, Identity Manager starter pack, etc…) out of the box. Also, it allows you to create NSS volumes. NSS is a journaled file system which uses a file permissions system tied directory into eDirectory, which goes beyond the scope of POSIX based file permissions.
eDirectory is not the only money maker for Novell. Zenworks and Identity Manager are popular products, and even GroupWise has a heavy following.
Novell’s biggest problem continues to be anything unrelated to support and development. They need to market the hell out of this because the concept is pretty good. It’s certainly the best product for my needs in this environment(file/print). And despite file and print not getting looked at today as an issue, everyone still uses it and managing it on a large level is difficult, but Novell does a good job of making it easier.
I don’t plan on implementing OES2 into production as soon as its released, but I’ll be testing it for sure. I look forward to it.
Is there an IPX stack? Server root prompt a ‘:’?
The NetWare Kernel on Xen should still have IPX support because unless I’m mistaken, bare metal NetWare 6.5 SP6 supports it. OES Linux probably does not support it. The NetWare kernel will still be NetWare, just living in a different house. According to Jason Williams, OES product manager, they have gotten NetWare on Xen within 5% of the performance of bare metal NetWare 6.5 SP6.
Does it come with a copy of snipes?
Back on topic, someone asked the difference between SLES and OES. Here’s a podcast with the product manager for OES on that subject:
http://www.novell.com/feeds/openaudio/?p=113
Yikes, that should read “Why should I buy Novell”. Sorry, first post.
I do not care about politics, but Novell has not appeared too smart lately. Perhaps they have not been given a fair shake by the press? Anyway, I am curious about their technologies but do not trust their marketing.
For my business, I want to standardize on Solaris or a GNU/Linux distro for both servers and workstations. Cost is not the tightest constraint. Why should I buy Novell? How are its offerings the best for business and software development? What are its killer technologies? Which have the brightest future?
Please, Novell advocates, I would love to join you, but what is the business case in terms of their stuff? TIA–your kindness is most appreciated!
Edited 2006-12-01 19:01
For my business, I want to standardize on Solaris or a GNU/Linux distro for both servers and workstations. Cost is not the tightest constraint. Why should I buy Novell? How are its offerings the best for business and software development? What are its killer technologies? Which have the brightest future?
As anything else, it really depends on your specific situation. Let’s take a business, 200 employees/workstations, 5 servers. Novell would be able to provide you with the desktop, or you could use another desktop if you so required it. I would lean toward SLED just because it has the Novell Client available on it, which allows for login script generation from a central point. So I could write in the scrip to map a server file system volume to /mnt/share1. You could also mount it using CIFS/SMB. Novell OES offers one of the best directory services out there. It’s a multi master directory which can be designed with WAN links so if your servers are seperated, you can still use the directory and replication benefits.
OES has NSS, which is a journaled file system and tied into the directory for ease of administration from one(or many, in Novell’s less than tightly knit console offerings) central location.
You have the option for workstation management through Zenworks, and asset control, and imaging, application deployment…..
GroupWise is one of the few enterprise level groupware environments out there. It has had problems from time to time, such as GroupWise 7.0 being released too early. However, it is a very capable groupware system with multiple client support, webaccess support, and you can spread it out over multiple servers to distribute load.
This sounds like a sales pitch, but it’s not. The reality is, Novell’s software, like every other bit of software out there(open source or otherwise) has it’s ups and downs. However, many of Novell’s software services are well thought out and time tested. They are the only software vendor that has a full framework of identity based administration for mixed linux and windows environments. I know alluded that you don’t want windows, but the flexability is there in the odd event you need it.
If you’re really interested, call Novell and ask them who your channel partner might be and call them. They might be able to get into a real nuts and bolts discussion on this for you.