On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:58:32PM -0600, Sunny wrote: > It looks like in all these discussions the point is missed. I'll try > to put the questions which concern me the most: > > 1. I see what Novell gets from this deal. I still do not see the MS > benefit? Since when are they charity?
They are not. I asume that they think they can make money of of this or at least not looose money. Remember that this deal is about servers and SLES. On all other levels the game is still on. > Or since when they are software > retailer, not software manufacturer? Since they think they can make money out of it. Or at least think not to loose money. > Does someone knows another > competitors product, which MS sell as part of their offerings? No. Sometimes there has to be a first. Also they do not sell it. They give it away. Ain't that fun. M$ is buying your licence for a year. Perhaps they rather have 50% of the market instead of 0% > 2. Do Novell realize that with this agreement it helps MS to spread > its FUD (for the patent infringements in the linux code)? What FUD is Microsoft spreading. Again, the only real FUD I see comes from OSS people. They spread the Fear about any deal with Microsoft. The Uncertainty of what this might do to OSS and the Doubt of the real goals. > 3. Do Novell realize, that accepting this FUD, it destroys its own > foundation? Will there be SUSE at all, if the competition in the field > was not as open as possible? Is SUSE possible if there were no so many > components, developed by other vendors? There is no FUD to be accepted from Microsoft, because they are not spreading it. It is the OSS people that are spreading the FUD. > Now, with that agreement, the message to business users is: if you do > not use SUSE, you may be sued by MS. Every big business manager will > play safe - thus killing the competition - and the innovation. No, the message is if you are SUSE we won't sue you. You are thinging OR/OR and that is not the case. I have an agreement with my neighbour that I do not steal his car. Now what you seem to asume that I suddenly start steal everybody elses car. > One may argue and support Novell's move as much as she wants, but > without Novell revealing the _real_ parameters of the deal - the MS > benefit, etc., concerns will exists. Why must Novell reavel the benefits of Microsoft? Would that not be up to Microsoft to tell what their benefits are? Say you and I have a deal about making a software program together. How would you know what the benefits are for me? > They may state as much as they > want that there are no patent problems in SUSE, but then why in first > place they signed such a clauses? To be absolutely and utterly sure. Same as the agreement I have with my neighbour not to steal his car. > And ... "to protect our customers > from being sued for something which does not exists" sounds plain ... > unconvincing. Why? I have seen these kind of things in EULA and contracts lots of times. But whith writing that and dismissing it upfront means that you actualy are not interested in any real answers. houghi -- To have a nice mailinglist experience, follow the guidelines below: > Please do not toppost. Please turn off HTML > Read http://en.opensuse.org/Opensuse_mailing_list_netiquette > Read http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
