However, your first paragraph touches on a very important point: Microsoft does not have a good track record in dealing with its business "partners." IBM is only the largest of all the examples of Microsoft "partners" who have felt the knife slide into their backs.

IBM is a different story. IBM was in a stronger position when the partnership with Microsoft started. A better example would be Microsoft's investment in Apple Computer about ten years ago. Xiaofeng Zhao http://www.xzing.org

On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:24, Robert Smits wrote:

I am surprised, perhaps even amazed that Novell would take this risk with such an untrustworthy "partner" as Microsoft. The industry is replete with examples, like IBM that did this to their cost.

Not only that, but unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft used every dirty trick in the book (and added a few new ones) to drive Novell's Netware out of the corporate space, seriously damaging Novell's business. This despite the fact that by numerous accounts (I never used it) that it was superior to Microsoft's offering. My immediate response was "Have they had a bang on the head? Amnesia?" -- Steve Boddy

Geoffrey wrote:

Robert Smits wrote:

...

On Thursday 02 November 2006 14:18, Fred A. Miller wrote:

...

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/11/02/microsoft_nov

ell_may_partner_on_linux/

I am surprised, perhaps even amazed that Novell would take this risk with such an untrustworthy "partner" as Microsoft. The industry is replete with examples, like IBM that did this to their cost.

Nevertheless, perhaps some good can come from this, especially if Microsoft stops trying to break Open Office.

Nothing good will ever come of a relationship with Microsoft. Name one in the past. Novell stock is sucking wind. Microsoft will do nothing but exploit this opportunity.

It does not bode well.

Goodbye, SUSE! As far as I am concerned, this is only a cover-up for the ultimate takeover of Novell. (Didn't I already suggest this many months ago?) Novell is in financial trouble, and has been for some time, isn't it? Cheers. -- "Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better." George W. Bush 24 September 2001

On 11/2/06, Basil Chupin wrote:

Goodbye, SUSE!

As far as I am concerned, this is only a cover-up for the ultimate takeover of Novell. (Didn't I already suggest this many months ago?) Novell is in financial trouble, and has been for some time, isn't it?

I could not disagree more. It may be that MS is trying to kill off competition by favoring Novell for now. It will be interesting 2 or 3 years from now, to see whether Novell was able to use it as a spring board. I don't know how many of you had a chance to listen to the press conference as I did: this deal occured as a result of Ron Hovsepian approaching a long-time friend who now works at Microsoft (I think the COO .. can't remember the name). This occured in April. He basically said: "I know we are competitors now, but look at this from a customer perspective. When you were a customer, if there were 2 applications that were not playing well together, you would talk to both vendors and say ... make it work. That's what we are hearing, from our customers. We need to find a way to make this happen". By May, the top level folks were talking. The agreement has both technological and legal/business components. The technology parts include primarily: 1)virtualization. SUSE will work on Windows, and be supported by Novell. Windows will work on SUSE and will be supported by Novell (this includes applications, not just bare os -- at least that is how I took it). 2)directory and web application management will be integrated ... I assume this is the tomcat/mono/java/asp.net stuff, including possibly apache and IIS management tools, being able to access and monitor and manage "the other guys" stuff. 3)document formats .. the 2 companies will collaborate closely on office suite and doc format integtation issues, such that complete solutions built around one offering will not "lock out" the other guys tools. The legal/business aspects of the agreement include: marketing and engineering dollars from both sides. Hovsepian said he was "impressed" by the dollars and dev resources that MS was willing to commit to this. Also, MS has agreed to push 70,000 SUSE server licences per year. (the hp spokesman volunteered that HP will be happy to assist with the hardware ....). Also, each company will pay to the other, for the use and sale of respective technology. Probably the biggest aspect of this is the IP/patent aggreements. Both sides have agreed to hold each other harmless, and to in effect indemnify the end users at the same time. They were clear to indicate that MS is NOT licensing tech to SUSE, because that legally cannot occur given the constraints of the GPL that applies to most SUSE code. All parties stressed that it was this aspect that was the hardest to come to aggreement on, and that it required the most creativity and commitment. It also has the biggest payoff long term, because it enabled the tech collaboration that customers have demanded, while keeping to the letter of GPL and ensuring that independant developers will not have to worry about their work being misused or exposing them to liability in any way. It sounded like this deal will be exclusive ... Ballmer said several times "we will encourage customers to use the one linux verison that offers them true interoperability options, as well as legal protections". This is very very good news for Novell, I think. Not so great for RedHat, and is most likely a competitive spur for VMware ... But both sides were adamant that they remain competitors. Ballemer said "when I go into Goldman Sachs I'm going to say 'get rid of that linux stuff' and when Novell goes into Goldman they are going to say 'here is how to get rid of that windows stuff'. But, at the end of the day, when Goldman still has both platforms, our two companies will gaurantee that our stuff will work together, to allow Goldman to work on Goldman business, rather than having to spend time working on integration issues" (obviously these quotes are very loose paraphrases ....) Peter

Darryl Gregorash wrote:

While the road ahead is not without danger for Novell

Ahem... http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/roadahead.aspx

On Thursday 02 November 2006 18:00, Peter Van Lone wrote:

1)virtualization. SUSE will work on Windows, and be supported by Novell. Windows will work on SUSE and will be supported by Novell (this includes applications, not just bare os -- at least that is how I took it).

Have you read the Vista license lately Peter? -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On 2006-11-03 00:13, Peter Van Lone wrote:

On 11/2/06, John Andersen wrote:

...

On Thursday 02 November 2006 18:00, Peter Van Lone wrote:

...

1)virtualization. SUSE will work on Windows, and be supported by Novell. Windows will work on SUSE and will be supported by Novell (this includes applications, not just bare os -- at least that is how I took it).

Have you read the Vista license lately Peter?

well, not lately John. But, I'm not sure that this agreement even covers vista in a VM.<snip>

I get a little tired of hearing people react to things, always, as though events are part of a grand battle between good and evil....

Some of the guys must have been watching Star Wars reruns. It is probably true that this deal is designed for large corporations who must have better Linux/Windows cooperation. Even so, what happens for the better at that level cannot but have an ultimate positive effect for small businesses and home users, notwithstanding any absurdly restrictive Vista licencing provisions. It's still an uncertain future for Novell, but as you say, it is hardly a matter of "ultimate good" vs. "ultimate evil."

On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 01:40 -0800, John Andersen wrote:

On Thursday 02 November 2006 21:13, Peter Van Lone wrote:

...

These businesses want all systems to play nicely together, with a minimum of fuss. This kind of agreement between Novell and Microsoft is exactly what they want. It may in the end prove hightly beneficial to linux in general. It may not.

I think that's the key here, and the only real plus for Novel is their network management suite, which largely pre-dates the SuSE purchase.

It is the only thing out there capable of managing 4 to 4000 PCs spread all over the world. Microsoft needed it. Novel had it.

So why is Novel sending money to Microsoft? THATS what I want to know.

Both of them should be sending money to VmWare for the virtualization aspect, because both of the other products suck.

Anyone know where this leaves openSUSE? So what if Enterprise SUSE gets assimilated by MS, isnt this just a test of the whole open source idea? No one can take it away? E-Mail disclaimer: http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm

On Friday 03 November 2006 03:44, Nick Zentena wrote:

On Friday 03 November 2006 04:40, John Andersen wrote:

...

So why is Novel sending money to Microsoft? THATS what I want to know.

Read it again. They're sending money to each other. That makes the contract valid.

Nick

Contracts do not require bidirectional flow of money. In the press confrence, no mention was made of Microsoft paying Novel a dime. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

Nick Zentena wrote:

On Friday 03 November 2006 04:40, John Andersen wrote:

...

So why is Novel sending money to Microsoft? THATS what I want to know.

Read it again. They're sending money to each other. That makes the contract valid.

Since when do contracts require a transfer of money to be valid? There are many other reasons for a contract.

On Friday 03 November 2006 00:10, John Andersen wrote: Really.........., come on you guys.......... licenses are subject to interpretation, and can be changed as the corporation sees fit. Would you really think that microsoft and novell would go into this without having an army of lawyers standing by?

On Thursday 02 November 2006 18:00, Peter Van Lone wrote:

...

1)virtualization. SUSE will work on Windows, and be supported by Novell. Windows will work on SUSE and will be supported by Novell (this includes applications, not just bare os -- at least that is how I took it).

Have you read the Vista license lately Peter?

-- Powered by: SuSE Linux 10.1 ~ Kernel 2.6.16.21-0.25-smp #1 ~ Kmail 1.9 ~ Registered Linux user: 412217 http://reillyblog.com 12:13am up 17:21, 2 users, load average: 0.65, 1.50, 1.44

On Thursday 02 November 2006 20:24, Geoffrey wrote:

Robert Smits wrote:

...

On Thursday 02 November 2006 14:18, Fred A. Miller wrote:

...

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/11/02/microsoft_ nov ell_may_partner_on_linux/

I am surprised, perhaps even amazed that Novell would take this risk with such an untrustworthy "partner" as Microsoft. The industry is replete with examples, like IBM that did this to their cost.

Nevertheless, perhaps some good can come from this, especially if Microsoft stops trying to break Open Office.

Nothing good will ever come of a relationship with Microsoft. Name one in the past. Novell stock is sucking wind. Microsoft will do nothing but exploit this opportunity.

It does not bode well.

Anyone thinking that this relationship 'might actually be good', is in for a stupendous let-down. M$ hasn't 'helped' one single company they've partnered with, not a friggin' one! Novell is screwing its workers over, because it sounds (and smells) like the high-up mucky mucks are in it for the money only, *not* to make Novell's and SuSE's Apps/OS any better. Reading about M$ 'partnering' with anyone is the same as walking down a hospital corridor one moment, only to open a door suddenly and fall into a septic tank! -- Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented worker', is like calling a home intruder an 'unwanted houseguest'.

I'd personally like to see how this pans out. I'm in the managed hosting business, have many platforms using both M$ and Enterprise Linux machines. Having both software vendors co-operating with each other can only be a benefit to myself and the customers. Matthew

O be honest in my 23 years of experience within the computer industry I have NEVER seen a cooporation between 2 vendors go well for any long period of time at all, so I really don't belive that over time this will benefit any level of users at all, do it will be interesting to see how M$ will defend their previous fud now. Regards Per On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 07:54 -0600, Peter Van Lone wrote:

On 11/3/06, Matthew Stringer wrote:

...

Having both software vendors co-operating with each other can only be a benefit to myself and the customers.

exactly

-- Kind regards Per Qvindesland Web: www.qvtech.cc Shop: http://store.qvtech.cc E-mail: per@qvtech.cc Tel: 039 682695453 Fax: 0866730128 Cell: 084 8721444

Peter Van Lone wrote:

On 11/3/06, Matthew Stringer wrote:

...

Having both software vendors co-operating with each other can only be a benefit to myself and the customers.

exactly

You people are absolutely clueless. Look at Microsoft's history with 'partnering' with other companies. Only Microsoft wins in the end. -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

On Friday 03 November 2006 11:44, Brad Bourn wrote:

 What they don't realize is that *WE* are in charge, that *FREEDOM* is in charge, that *CHANGE* is in charge.  All the things that make OSS what it is.

Really? You are in charge? Me too? Yet neither of us managed to force OpenSuse to revert back to (or at least preserve) the SuSEWatcher way of getting updates in light of the horribly broken 10.1 sen/zypp thingie? All our screams fell on deaf ears! We weren't in charge. Hubert Mantel walked out the door on Novel. The principal kernal hacker for SuSE and an original founder of the company wasn't in charge. So how is it You are in charge? The way I see it, You are in charge of You. And that's about all. The most you can do is vote with your feet and move to Ubuntu or Slack. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On Friday 03 November 2006 18:37, jfweber@gilweber.com wrote:

...

The way I see it, You are in charge of You. And that's about all.

unless you are married then, all bets are off..  ;) LOL

-- Kind regards, M Harris <><

On Friday 03 November 2006 1:25 pm, Geoffrey wrote:

Peter Van Lone wrote:

...

On 11/3/06, Matthew Stringer wrote:

...

Having both software vendors co-operating with each other can only be a benefit to myself and the customers.

exactly

You people are absolutely clueless. Look at Microsoft's history with 'partnering' with other companies. Only Microsoft wins in the end.

Ya know, I've been trying to stay out of this one, but this brings up the opportunity to speak to my glimmer of hope. I believe the above statement by Geoffrey *is* what M$ is thinking, that they'll win. However, I think personally they missed out on what they have been in denial about for a while now and it is going to bite them in the *ss. They perceive that Novell / SuSe (the companies involved, et al) are in charge and if they take them out, they'll win. What they don't realize is that *WE* are in charge, that *FREEDOM* is in charge, that *CHANGE* is in charge. All the things that make OSS what it is. Let's use puppies as an analogy. Let's say that when M$ sees a cute puppy, it eats it. They started out going to the pet shop, acting like a genuine customer, purchase a puppy and love it long enough to get it out the door without raising any eyebrows only to take it home and eat it at the first opportunity. After several trips back to the pet store for a replacement puppy, the store got suspicious, and investigated. When they realized the horrific things that M$ was doing, their first reaction was to want to refuse service and not sell any more puppies to M$. The problem with that solution was that by the time the investigation was over, they realized that 99% of their entire business was from the sale of puppies to M$, and therefore can't cut off their nose to spite their faces, so they continue begrudgingly to sell to M$, and M$ becomes so brazen about that fact, they just start to cook the puppy right there in the store. After a while, M$ starts to notice this street vender selling puppies to the people that used to be customers of the Pet store before M$ took over all the sales. Seeing this, M$ decides to start buying puppies from the street vendor too, just assuming that they will be able to overpower them like the pet store. After all, what do they have to worry about? They already learned how to get what they want from the humans working at the store and on the street, And humans are on the top of the food chain, right? However, when they get this street vendors puppy home to eat it, turns out it isn't a puppy at all, but a wolf, and the pack that it came from is able to smell the scent of their own. Now the pack sees M$ cooking and eating that puppy and tear them to pieces. Sure, humans are highest on the food chain, but cruelty and viciousness of mother nature can NEVER be under-estimated. Everything that goes up, MUST come down, and we're just the pack of wolves in sheep's clothing to do it! Know what I mean? B-)

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Geoffrey,

On Friday 03 November 2006 12:25, Geoffrey wrote:

...

...

You people are absolutely clueless. Look at Microsoft's history with 'partnering' with other companies. Only Microsoft wins in the end.

But is Microsoft still in ascendancy? If not, the old patterns may no longer hold.

Why would that change the way the do business? I don't think it's an issue of domination, so much an issue of how they operate (unethically) and their deep pockets. Let's face it, they have the best attorneys money can buy. -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

On Friday 03 November 2006 20:25, Geoffrey wrote:

Peter Van Lone wrote:

...

On 11/3/06, Matthew Stringer wrote:

...

Having both software vendors co-operating with each other can only be a benefit to myself and the customers.

exactly

You people are absolutely clueless. Look at Microsoft's history with 'partnering' with other companies. Only Microsoft wins in the end.

Nice attitude! Although I can understand your fears look at the bigger picture, I have several large clustered systems that consist of M$ and Linux boxes,if I ring up RH and say, my Windows web servers won't talk to my Linux storage, they say, well if you bin your Windows web servers and run RH/Apache you'll be OK. Which ignores why some of my customers specifically want a Windows web server. If I complain to M$ that my Linux LDAP server isn't talking to my Windows machines then they'll tell me to bin Linux and run Windows/Active Directory. This way I can have my cluster running SLES and 2K3 and have each vendor that I'm paying for recognise the need to use 2 OS'es and work through any problems, I can maintain support and SLA's to customers. OpenSUSE is regarded as SLES's beta program it'll always be bleeding edge and bound to have bugs in it therefore I cannot as easily offer solutions based on it. I know that I could switch to Ubuntu, Debian or Gentoo and I'll be fine but I'd still struggle with selling it, I'll know that the software will work but without the Enterprise backing it makes it harder to sell solutions running that software (in addition I can buy M$ licenses cheaper than I can get RH licenses these days!) also jumping ship everytime your particular distro has a change of direction is pointless you'll end up with a dozen different Linuxes in your data centre and be sat wondering how you'll manage them all! I'm not a fan of M$, never have been but when my DC is full mainly of M$ powered machines I know Linux isn't doing as well as it should. If punters who only know M$ come to me for managed hosting for a service that can run off Linux, then I can pitch SUSE to them which hopefully they'd have heard of thanks to this partnership and I can offer them a better solution that'll save them money. It's admins that hate M$ as they have to make it work, punters renting services don't care how it works which is why Linux needs to raise its' profile to get into the game, this partnership although risky might prove to be what's required. It amazes me that some of the people on here switched to Linux in the first place they're so scared of change they start ranting before they see what the changes actually entail. Matthew

On Friday 03 November 2006 15:18, Matthew Stringer wrote: <snip>

It amazes me that some of the people on here switched to Linux in the first place they're so scared of change they start ranting before they see what the changes actually entail.

Many of us "switched" from M$ to Linux *because* M$'s "changes" weren't worth the time or money to own. In other words, we saw that M$ wasn't worth a crap and wanted something *better*. -- Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented worker', is like calling a home intruder an 'unwanted houseguest'.

Matthew Stringer wrote:

On Friday 03 November 2006 20:25, Geoffrey wrote:

...

Peter Van Lone wrote:

...

On 11/3/06, Matthew Stringer wrote:

...

Having both software vendors co-operating with each other can only be a benefit to myself and the customers. exactly You people are absolutely clueless. Look at Microsoft's history with 'partnering' with other companies. Only Microsoft wins in the end.

Nice attitude!

Look at their history. It's not an attitude. It's an assessment of Microsoft's history. Show me one company that partnered with Microsoft and didn't lose in the end.

Although I can understand your fears look at the bigger picture, I have several large clustered systems that consist of M$ and Linux boxes,if I ring up RH and say, my Windows web servers won't talk to my Linux storage, they say, well if you bin your Windows web servers and run RH/Apache you'll be OK. Which ignores why some of my customers specifically want a Windows web server. If I complain to M$ that my Linux LDAP server isn't talking to my Windows machines then they'll tell me to bin Linux and run Windows/Active Directory.

This way I can have my cluster running SLES and 2K3 and have each vendor that I'm paying for recognise the need to use 2 OS'es and work through any problems, I can maintain support and SLA's to customers.

You're basing this all on Microsoft 'playing nice,' which they never have done. They are not a software company. They are a marketing company.

OpenSUSE is regarded as SLES's beta program it'll always be bleeding edge and bound to have bugs in it therefore I cannot as easily offer solutions based on it.

Look I do the Microsoft support stuff as well. Personal experience, Beta Linux beats production Windows every day of the week. I make my living fixing windows problems and building Linux solutions.

I know that I could switch to Ubuntu, Debian or Gentoo and I'll be fine but I'd still struggle with selling it, I'll know that the software will work but without the Enterprise backing it makes it harder to sell solutions running that software (in addition I can buy M$ licenses cheaper than I can get RH licenses these days!)

I find that hard to believe. Sure, you can get the OS cheaper, but then you've got to add the support software. Say a desktop, well then you're going to have to have Office. You've just doubled the cost of the software. Same goes for a server. What is it, Exchange? Web services? You know you're going to have to pay for the extra software.

I'm not a fan of M$, never have been but when my DC is full mainly of M$ powered machines I know Linux isn't doing as well as it should.

Anything you can do with Windows I can do with better (with Linux). (Come on, you know the tune sing along)

If punters who only know M$ come to me for managed hosting for a service that can run off Linux, then I can pitch SUSE to them which hopefully they'd have heard of thanks to this partnership and I can offer them a better solution that'll save them money.

Who needs the partnership to pitch them SuSE? I don't think it will make any difference. To those who might consider SuSE or those who won't.

It's admins that hate M$ as they have to make it work, punters renting services don't care how it works which is why Linux needs to raise its' profile to get into the game, this partnership although risky might prove to be what's required.

I highly doubt it. Look, in the perfect world, yeah, it might make sense. You can not ignore how Microsoft operates. Embrace, extend, make it proprietary.

It amazes me that some of the people on here switched to Linux in the first place they're so scared of change they start ranting before they see what the changes actually entail.

Watch and see. You trust Microsoft? -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin