Partager via

Joint or Separate - The Content Matters

  • Article

UPDATED Nov. 10

I have changed the content on the MS website - follow the links in this posting. Also, check out the comments to this post as there is a good conversation going on.

************ 

In a recent post up on the KDEdevelopers.org site a concern was raised about the fact that there are "joint statements" from Novell/Microsoft up on the Novell site wherease on the MS site we refer to the same doc as coming from Novell exclusively. The items in question are: Open Letter on Novell site, Open Letter on Microsoft site. The blogger, Pipitas, is lead to wonder if the discrepency of these web site titles represents a deeper problem in the Novell/Microsoft relationship. What is more, he wonders if it was cowardice on Microsoft's part to not say the letter came from us.

First, both the open letter from the execs and the letter to the community were jointly developed by Novell and Microsoft.

Second, I am the one who made the call to put the text up on our website the way it is. The title and preamble were not authored to be disengenous, in fact it was meant to be more respectful of the fact that Novell has significantly closer ties to the FLOSS development community than we do. From any perspective, the leadership shown by both Nat and Miguel to move such large engineering projects forward is impressive. Furthmore, there is text in the letter that is more from Novell's perspective than Microsoft's and it seemed odd to me to say that the text was from us even though we worked closely on the content with the Novell team.

Third, what would you like us to do to rectify this from the community perspective? I'm open to all suggestions. I don't consider this a big deal, but at the same time we are all about customer service. :-) Seriously though, if it is an issue of wanting to see the Microsoft site be updated with more explicit text, I am happy to comply. To some, this may be making a mountain out of a mole hill, but Nat asked me to take a look at the post and see what we could do to respond.   

Let's keep things in persepctive and focus on what has been accomplished. This deal represents a big step forward in how companies, individuals, and any type of organization can work through many of the big issues that have come about as FLOSS has continued to change the face of the marketplace. Red Hat says that this deal is "unthinkable" - yet I look at it and wonder what is so unthinkable about giving customers decreased risk, increased choice, and that significant resources are being applied to one of the most critical interoperability issues facing them today? Is the idea that there is money involved with Linux surprising to anyone? When Red Hat charges for a support contract, is that "taxing innovation?" Novell and Microsoft have taken a run at a really hard set of problems and have arrived at a starting point - not the destination.

We have a long road ahead of us in this collaborative partnership with Novell. I'm looking forward to learning more from them and seeing what benefits we are going to bring to customers over the long-term.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    November 08, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 08, 2006
    Jason, I am having a really hard time believing anything that you write.  Apparently you work for Microsoft.  Do you really expect anyone to believe that somehow MS is just going to innocently help its primary competitor along.  A competitor of which Ballmer said "Linux is a cancer".  I see two possibilites: 1- Microsoft is actually becoming truly scared of Linux and is looking to profit from it.  2- The large and highly paid team of MS Lawyers have finally figured out a way to destroy Linux, and this move with Novell is just the first step in realizing the Lawyers plan.  I am sorry but looking at the MS track record, I have to assume the latter and that you are just playing a part in the MS "marketing" cover up of what MS is really up to.

  • Anonymous
    November 08, 2006
    Wow - two interesting comments to this posting. First, just to be clear for the sake of "Separate Peace," I do work for Microsoft, and am closely invovled with this deal and the people at both MS and Novell working on it. Second, I think it is very important to remember that product compeititon remains a primary driver for the industry. Red Hat and Novell are competitors, as are many OSS-based products either with other OSS product or traditional commercial products. I don't see how our approach to this deal has in any way been hiding the ball as we have continually said that we will continue to promote Windows and Novell SUSE Linux. Notice, they are not promoting Red Hat Linux product or Mandrake Linux products. Third, our customers have been extremely clear with us about the need for improved Linux/Windows interoperability. Virtualization is the critical touch-point for this, and management follows from that. The open documents piece of this stems from the fact that Novell and Microsoft have been working together in TC-45 at Ecma for about a year and they have a strong stake in OpenOffice. Fourth, lots of lawyers, no evil plan (I know, seems weird doesn't it). In fact, I think it is really important to recognize that there was no litigation, and that was never part of the discussion. IBM is pursuing a software patent case now with Amazon that will have HUGE implications if they win - that is the most significant litigation on the software front under way right now (IMHO). We are looking to find reasonable methods for addressing commercialization of technologies while delivering solutions that have genuine merit. I know that many in the community consider everything we do suspect - I can't help that. I can say that over the past 6 years we have been making steady progress on approching these issues in a holistic, and constructive manner. Thanks for the comments - Jason

  • Anonymous
    November 10, 2006
    Your response to my comment kind of misses the point. The comments that are harmful aren't ones which promote Novell or SUSE. And nobody in the open source community is opposed to competition - in fact I'd go so far as to say that fair competition is one of the strongest values that most of the open source community shares. But in the open source community the "fair" part is REALLY REALLY important. Most people would not complain if Microsoft representatives were saying "We endorse and recommend SUSE Linux". Most people would not complain if Microsoft representatives were saying "We believe that SUSE Linux is the best option for customers looking for Linux solutions" - although they might roll their eyes a bit due to the fact that such a statement was clearly made based on royalty payments rather than technical merit. But statements like "We believe that customers looking for Linux solutions should look to SUSE Linux, rather than deal with the uncertainty and issues around other distributions" are very different. I'd really HOPE that the difference is obvious. The first couple of statements are made in the context of an open competitive market - it's implicit that the choice is entirely up to the customer, but you're providing some extra information (specifically, which product Microsoft recommends) to allow them to make that choice. The last statement is anticompetitive - suggesting (without any basis in fact) that the customer doesn't actually have a free choice after all, because the legality of Novell's competitors is open to question, so really the only choice they have is SUSE or... SUSE. I know that it's pretty well ingrained in Microsoft's corporate culture, especially at the top levels, that the best way to "promote" something is to FUD the competition. "Linux is a cancer" remember? That's not going to fly in the open source community - it always hurts the FUDder more than the FUDdee. Ballmer's well-publicized comments are really harming the ability of those of us who want to LIKE this deal having any ability to defend Novell's actions in this case. In my own humble opinion, nothing would help the perception of this deal more than an apology for those comments and a statement that as far as Microsoft knows, there's no legal uncertainty about any other vendor either. Microsoft can promote and endorse and support SUSE to its heart's content, but the open source community is not the same as the market Microsoft's been dealing with in the past, and old ways of doing that promotion WILL hurt you. And Novell. Unless the naysayers are right and that really is the goal after all...

  • Anonymous
    November 10, 2006
    Ooh a couple more small points. First, you may think there's an inconsistency in my characterization of what "naysayers" think - in my first comment I implied that naysayers think the idea is to tilt the playing field in favor of Novell, in my second I implied they think it's to hurt Novell. That's not in fact inconsistent: first off there are a variety of naysayers with different points, but secondly I think the most common position I've heard is that Microsoft's intention is really to hurt Linux as a whole by dividing and conquering. So hurting Novell's competitors in one way (FUD) and hurting Novell a different way (by associating them with the people doing the FUD) would be consistent with that. The second point is I just noticed that your own comment showed a little of the same attitude: "this isn't bad because, look, your buddy IBM's doing something far worse!". It's important to realize that at least some of us in the open source community recognize that any person or organization is going to do some things you like and some you don't. IBM, Microsoft, Sun, Novell, ... - all do some things we don't like and some we do. Just because IBM does some things I like doesn't make them immune to criticism, and just because Microsoft does some things I really don't like doesn't prevent me from expressing my approval of the things I do. (There are some people, even some that I otherwise respect, like Groklaw's PJ, who have a blind spot to the idea that MS might ever do anything good. Not all of us are like that. And besides, catering to that prejudice isn't helpful ;) ) So it comes down to the same point - win me, and the community, over, by talking UP the GOOD bits, not talking down the competition. Even when justified (and IBM's patent lawsuit is definitely very evil), it doesn't make you look good.

  • Anonymous
    November 10, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 10, 2006
    There is a veiled threat in the crux of your agreement with Novell: Novell is paying MS money for undisclosed reasons relating to their distribution of Free Software, and MS is promising not to sue Novell's customers. This CLEARLY implies that MS is claiming ownership of some Free Software code or or patented software. To claim this is not the case is disingenuous. More good reading: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061107194320461

  • Anonymous
    November 10, 2006
    Thanks all for the comments - let me start with the issue of IBM and their suit. You are reading into my comments that I am holding it up as a "see, they are evil and we are good" kind of arguemnt. That is not the case - and if I was not clear in my writing I apologize. IBM has been the best friend that the commercial OSS community has...period. When they stated that they were going to invest $1B in Linux - that one statement put Linux on the credibility map for enterprise customers. They then backed it up with significant, sustained development investment and community interaction. I should make my point more clear about why I brought up the Amazon suit. It is a very big deal that the issue of IP was addressed between us and Linux distributor without litigation being an issue. The IBM case puts a very fine point on how important software patents are to all parties invovled in a given situation. NTP is now making noise about Palm. Microsoft has only recently gone through its first ever proactive patent litigation cycle with Belkin. We have also indemnified customers, partners, and competitors alike in various litigation scenarios because it was the right thing to do for our products. Any product that is being brought to market commercially has to deal with IP clearance, that is the system in which we live. It may not be a popular idea, but nonetheless it is true. We pay out 10x what we take in for IP to bring our products to market while respecting others' IP. The fact that commercial Linux providers have not done this in the past does not mean that it is not an issue to be addressed. The thing that is so positive about the deal with Novell and Microsoft is that solutions were found that do nothing to slow or inhibit, rather it creates a framework for collaboration and mutual gain.  

  • Anonymous
    November 10, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 11, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 11, 2006
    Jason, I didn't say that "talking about IP is racketeering tactics."  Here is an excerpt from the Eweek article:

The distributors of other versions of Linux cannot assure their customers that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement. "If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?' Essentially, If you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd say the answer is yes," Ballmer said. "I suspect that [customers] will take that issue up with their distributor," Ballmer said. Or if customers are considering doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, "they'll think twice about that," he said.

Now that's not much different than me walking into a local store and saying, "I just made a deal with the store across the street to make sure they are protected.  It sure would be a shame if something bad happened over here, but I'm open to offering you the same protection...for a price, of course." That, my good friend, is running a racket.   Mob tactics.  Surely you can see why a statement like that would make people angry.  Hey, MS is clearly moving forward, with the recently improved open standards stuff, but for every little step forward, remarks like that send them three steps back.

  • Anonymous
    November 11, 2006
    The comment has been removed
  • Anonymous
    November 11, 2006
    The comment has been removed
  • Anonymous
    November 13, 2006
    Software patents.  In the Gold Rush days there was this crime unique to the goldfields - claim jumping.  Someone would set up a claim, and someone would take advantage of their work and take it over. It seems to be a perfectly valid description of the way too many companies work these days, with patent trolls taking the place of the claim jumpers. See my comments in my blog, on a patent applied for by Microsoft that manages to claim-jump in both language textbooks and creating and managing spreadsheet workbooks. Ingenious, but I do think the innovation shown by such a process could be better used elsewhere.