Cedega 6.0 here!

If you want to talk about your personal paperweight, you've found the right place!

Moderator: Moderators

Postby davemc » Wed Jun 20, 2007 14:20

brunschvicg wrote:If they're that stupid, presumably they'll go for the "cheaper" option anyway: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39286295,00.htm


Novell -- Open mouth, insert VERY large foot!

If you look back on the history of this whole Novell/M$ deal, look at the press releases, claims and counter-claims, Novell has played the fool time and time and time again. The saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME!" What makes this drama all the more comedic is the fact that Novell gets played the fool by none other than monkey boy, quite the fool himself. So what does that mean?.. Fools played by even bigger fools.. It basicly means that right now, the Linux world is being represented in the form of high powered Corporation CIO's who are absolute morons! Maybe somewhat business savvy, but having nothing but the FUD that M$ (and probably some of thier inherantly ignorant customers) apparently leads them to believe in their heads when it comes to Linux, GPL, and any other open source matters.

It sounds to me as if HSBC was using a hodge podge of distro's with no apparent IT manager guiding things, or having an IT manager who simply does not care. I can tell you that at the Corporation where I work, these things are very heavily controlled and everyone uses the same workstation platform. Servers are heavily controlled as well and are under very tight contractual constraints. I can see and understand how FUD like this spreads around and becomes gospel, because ive only run across ONE IT Manager that had even the smallest of an inkling of a clue when it comes to Linux and interoperability. Sad day when a Customer Trainer like myself knows more about Linux than an IT Manager of a behemoth of a corporation like the one I work for. I can tell you that this is actually quite the norm as I have witnessed it.

We do very much live today in the world that mamoth Corporations have dictated for us to live in, and have been very well trained in the manner of thinking in which they approve.

So, is it any wonder that today we have CIO's clamoring for M$ racketeering deals? Absolutely not! CIO's make decisions based upon what thier experts tell them. Thier IT experts (the vast majority anyway) know little or nothing about Linux and just how well it always has worked with Windows. This is mostly the fault of the Linux community, well 99% of it anyway, due to a total lack of unity or any unifying standards. There is no real leadership within the Linux world, despite the fact there are are many highly talented, high profile leaders who could, if given the reigns of power, provide the guiding hand that is required for the 21st Century. Linus Torvalds and Mark Shuttleworth just to name two people whom the entire Linux world would almost wholeheartedly stand behind. There are many hundred Distro's out there, each with thier own guiding principles and leaders, each going in seperate directions, and following no clear cut goal put forth for an overall global roadmap. I think until we as a worldwide community decide to get serious about this, we will always fall victim to these types of shenanigans that M$ does to further splinter our efforts.
davemc
Sharecropper
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 17:08
Location: Virginia, usa

Postby mbuel » Wed Jun 20, 2007 14:32

brunschvicg wrote:
mbuel wrote:I didn't know novell was behind gpl 3... interesting.


http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=345


I'm not sure how I feel about that, the more I research the deal between Novell and Microsoft, the less I'm admiring their position on anything. Like that link you provided below:

Novell has issued a joint press release with Microsoft, in which HSBC, a customer of joint technology from the two companies, claims that Windows has a lower total cost of ownership than Linux.

The press release, issued late on Wednesday, announced that UK-based bank HSBC has agreed to adopt technology from Novell and Microsoft's recently announced partnership.

In the release, Matthew O'Neill, group head of distributed systems for HSBC Global IT operations, states that the bank's existing Linux environment is more expensive to maintain than its Windows environment. "Some will be surprised to learn that our Windows environment has a lower total cost of ownership than our current Linux environment."


WTF?

mbuel wrote:the version 3 draft does not permit a corporation to use version 3 code in "DRM".


But how does the anti-DRM clause impinge on Palm, Inc.'s ability to retain business secrets? (Similar insinuations were made about the GPLv2 imperiling businesses' ability to retain IP rights, IIRC.)


It doesn't, and I don't think it does, but if a company does, they'll do as linus says, and not touch the code. The kernel will never be transferred to GPL v3, because some of the copyright holders are dead. Since, (I could be wrong on this.) GPL2, and GPL3 are incompatible, you'll end up with distros that go the GPL3, route and use the HURD kernel that Stallman has been working on forever, and you'll have GPL2 distros that use the Linux kernel. The question then becomes, would a company like Nvidia, or ATI release their proprietary code for the GPL3 Hurd, which would violate the GPL3, because the Nvidia and ATI drivers use DRM?

mbuel wrote:And there are CIO's that will not touch linux because they are afraid of interoperability problems with the windoze machines. That's where this deal helps.


If they're that stupid, presumably they'll go for the "cheaper" option anyway: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39286295,00.htm


I can't believe Novell is standing behind Microsoft on that statement. JHC!

and it gets worse; check this out, where Novell is backing microsoft on making the web more closed:
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/06/19/mono-moonlight/

so.. I'm not sure where I stand on the whole novell/microsoft thing anymore.
"Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated."
GK Chesterton
mbuel
Simple Hen
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 17:03

Postby brunschvicg » Wed Jun 20, 2007 16:36

mbuel wrote:Since, (I could be wrong on this.) GPL2, and GPL3 are incompatible, you'll end up with distros that go the GPL3, route and use the HURD kernel that Stallman has been working on forever, and you'll have GPL2 distros that use the Linux kernel.

GPLv2 and GPLv3 code can co-exist, though --


e.g. a distribution incorporating non-GPLv3 software


So incorporation of GPLv3 software (and as from June 29 this will include the entire GNU toolchain, together with myriad applications licensed under the "GPL version 2 or later") would no more cause software released under GPLv2 to progress to GPLv3 than it would software released under any other kind of license.
brunschvicg
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 20:24

Postby mbuel » Thu Jun 21, 2007 15:32

I'll have to take time to actually read the GPL3

here's an article that makes it crystal clear what Microsofts intentions are with the Novell deal:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/53140;_ylt=A ... m1Az0DW7oF

"Because there's a difference in the field on a vendor-by-vendor basis, you have to wonder if this is about more than legal issues. You have to wonder if it also has a lot to do with plain old money," Gardner said. "If the largest distributors are not interested, then that leaves more of a question mark about what these agreements are really about. Is it about risk-reduction for the end users or is it about risk-reduction for the vendors?"

Gardner said he has plenty of questions about the deal. For example, he posited, if getting agreements with companies that are in financially precarious positions is Microsoft's way of bridging the gap between Linux and Windows, then how meaningful will these agreements really be?

"If Microsoft's goal is to bring a reduction in risk to those enterprises that have a mixed environment of Windows and Linux, then the deals with some of the larger distributors would seemingly make more sense," Gardner said.

"The motivations here can't be just about the welfare and risk-reduction of end users," he concluded. "There has to be some alternative motive and it's very likely that there's a hope on Microsoft's part that it can stem any loss of market share [to] desktop Linux."


Mandriva and Ubuntu also refuse to pay the patent tax, that microsoft is trying to force down the open source community. The problem Ubuntu is going to have is that Linspire is using their repositories as a source... and is sharing it's Click N run software with Ubuntu... How long before Microsoft uses that as a trump card against one of the most popular distros? I think ubuntu should drop linspire like a bad habit... and debian should distance themselves from Xandros.

Of course, as davemc noted... it seems to be microsofts goal to divide the open source community.

Linus Torvalds and Mark Shuttleworth just to name two people whom the entire Linux world would almost wholeheartedly stand behind. There are many hundred Distro's out there, each with thier own guiding principles and leaders, each going in seperate directions, and following no clear cut goal put forth for an overall global roadmap. I think until we as a worldwide community decide to get serious about this, we will always fall victim to these types of shenanigans that M$ does to further splinter our efforts.


I think google could do it. There's rumours of them partnering with ubuntu, I could see people downloading the free google os. Google has developed a brand name that people trust over microsoft.
"Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated."
GK Chesterton
mbuel
Simple Hen
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 17:03

Postby davemc » Thu Jun 21, 2007 15:46

mbuel wrote:Of course, as davemc noted... it seems to be microsofts goal to divide the open source community.

Linus Torvalds and Mark Shuttleworth just to name two people whom the entire Linux world would almost wholeheartedly stand behind. There are many hundred Distro's out there, each with thier own guiding principles and leaders, each going in seperate directions, and following no clear cut goal put forth for an overall global roadmap. I think until we as a worldwide community decide to get serious about this, we will always fall victim to these types of shenanigans that M$ does to further splinter our efforts.


I think google could do it. There's rumours of them partnering with ubuntu, I could see people downloading the free google os. Google has developed a brand name that people trust over microsoft.



Think of it as a monetary issue. Its far cheaper to divide and conquer an already highly fractured community than it is to go to court over some trumped up patents and hope it pays off in the end. Spreading FUD is free, and the Linux Community has already proven highly susceptible to it in the past.
davemc
Sharecropper
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 17:08
Location: Virginia, usa

Postby brunschvicg » Thu Jun 21, 2007 20:09

I'm wondering about the current status of the deal Canonical made with Linspire in February, which involved plans on Ubuntu's part

to integrate aspects of the open source CNR technology into Ubuntu's software management system starting with Ubuntu's Feisty +1 release expected in October 2007
(http://wiki.freespire.org/index.php/Linspire_Canonical_Partnership_FAQ).


Now at the very least this would entail Ubuntu 7.10 shipping by default with a plugin that enables end users to download codecs encumbered by Microsoft patents. The question is, who would be controlling these Click'N'Run repositories? If Linspire, we can now imagine a situation in which the Ubuntu end user agrees to a Microsoft EULA detailing their patent claims.

On the day of the MS/Linspire patent deal I asked a senior Canonical system administrator who would be responsible for the contents of the servers. His rather feline response was that "nothing has been announced yet".
brunschvicg
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 20:24

Postby mbuel » Thu Jun 21, 2007 23:36

brunschvicg,

It will be interesting to see what Ubuntu and Debian do, seeing as Linspire and Xandros are using their code base....

(or should I say, it will be obvious what Microsoft will try to do?)

davemc,

I think the linux community is already pretty well divided on it's own... if you look at the top ten distros from distro watch:

1 PCLinuxOS 2872< - Based on Mandriva uses mandrake RPM's.
2 Ubuntu 2117< - Based on debian but no longer 100% binary compatible
3 Fedora 1805< - based on redhat, not sure how binary compatible
4 openSUSE 1294< - only suse RPM binaries will work
5 Mint 1095= < - ubuntu fiesty binaries
6 Sabayon 962< - source driven (w/ binaries coming in the future)
7 Debian 906< - Deb repositories, huge amount of 3rd party binaries out there.
8 MEPIS 768> - depending on version will either run last version ubuntu or debian binaries.
9 Zenwalk 608> - slackware based source distro
10 Slackware 578> <source distro


Of these very few are binary compatible. Not only that, but most of these systems are starting to become drastically different. The library files might not be in the same place per system, and it might not install programs in the same place.

I believe that the best way for linux to spread is a universal binary installer. One thing that should happen, is what windows programs used to do...

instead of relying on system wide libraries, include the libraries in the program directory.
"Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated."
GK Chesterton
mbuel
Simple Hen
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 17:03

Postby brunschvicg » Fri Jun 22, 2007 16:58

mbuel wrote:Of these very few are binary compatible. Not only that, but most of these systems are starting to become drastically different.


Ironically one of the last attempts to create an effective, cross-distro standardized code base (United Linux -- incorporating a superset of the Linux Standards Base) foundered when one of the parties involved (SCO) started demanding royalties and selling indemnifications. Another irony is that Ubuntu, currently the most plausible de facto standard for Linux on the desktop, is based on Debian, which is probably further away from the current Linux Standards Base specifications than openSUSE/Novell!

mbuel wrote:I believe that the best way for linux to spread is a universal binary installer.


That already exists in the form of Autopackage. IIRC its installer scripts contain a range of distro-specific instructions for what gets placed where. Unfortunately it also bypasses the distro's native package manager database...

mbuel wrote:One thing that should happen, is what windows programs used to do... instead of relying on system wide libraries, include the libraries in the program directory.


Only at the price of increased system overheads, though.

BTW, the FSF have redrafted GPLv3 to allow current patent indemnification deals to stand...
brunschvicg
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 20:24

Postby davemc » Fri Jun 22, 2007 17:21

brunschvicg wrote:BTW, the FSF have redrafted GPLv3 to allow current patent indemnification deals to stand...


If thats true, then I guess you could say that it truly is the beginning of the end for the Open Source movement. So sad that such a wonderful idea had to get trampled asunder large piles of $$, im sure. At any rate, unless the Linux/Open Source world is ready to take M$ to task for thier Racketeering scheme and force them to reveal thier patents (which would most assuredly get invalidated in court) then all the saber rattling in the world isnt worth the air it takes to utter them.
davemc
Sharecropper
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 17:08
Location: Virginia, usa

Postby brunschvicg » Fri Jun 22, 2007 18:03

The FSF have in mind a kind of jujitsu manoeuvre. The deal itself is allowed to stand, but as and when a GPLv3-encumbered SLES finally gets distributed by Microsoft courtesy of its voucher scheme, the patent license (and therefore indemnification) is extended not only to the actual recipients but also, as per the GPLv3's terms

the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it


to any software derived from the code, and thus to everyone else.

Cut-off Date in Section 11, Paragraph 7

In the Final Draft we have removed the square brackets surrounding the cut-off date at the end of section 11, paragraph 7 (corresponding to section 11, paragraph 5 in Draft 3). That is to say, the Final Draft limits the effect of this provision to deals involving discriminatory patent promises that do not predate the release of Draft 3.

The main reason for this is tactical. We believe we can do more to protect the community by allowing Novell to use software under GPL version 3 than by forbidding it to do so. This is because of paragraph 6 of section 11 (corresponding to paragraph 4 in Draft 3). It will apply, under the Microsoft/Novell deal, because of the coupons that Microsoft has acquired that essentially commit it to participate in the distribution of the Novell SLES GNU/Linux system.

Microsoft is scrambling to dispose of as many Novell SLES coupons as possible prior to the adoption of GPLv3. Unfortunately for Microsoft, those coupons bear no expiration date, and paragraph 6 has no cut-off date. Through its ongoing distribution of coupons, Microsoft will have procured the distribution of GPLv3-covered programs as soon as they are included in Novell SLES distributions, thereby extending patent defenses to all down-stream recipients of that software by operation of paragraph 6.

(http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd4-rationale.pdf)
brunschvicg
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 20:24

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron