Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> __/ [ Paul Hovnanian P.E. ] on Tuesday 13 February 2007 04:28 \__
>
> > "Mr. I.M. Puss" wrote:
> >>
> >> Doug Mentohl wrote:
> >> > 'Novell actually saw the business opportunity, because there's so many
> >> > customers who say,
> >> >
> >> > 'Hey look, we don't want problems. We don't want any intellectual
> >> > property problem or anything else. There's just a variety of workloads
> >> > where we, today, feel like we want to run Linux. Please help us
> >> > Microsoft and please work with the distributors to solve this problem,
> >> > don't come try to license this individually.'
> >> >
> >> > So customer push drove us to where we got'
> >> >
> >> >
> http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/108806.asp?source=rss
> >
> > There are two possibilities:
> >
> >> It would be nice if they would actually CITE who was telling them all of
> >> this.
> >>
> >> If companies would come out of the woodwork to say:
> >> <hypothetical>
> >> Hey, look - this is where we are with Linux and we don't like the
> >> uncertainty of IP issues coming back to haunt us
> >
> > That's an acknowlegement that they might be in a shaky position, license
> > wise. So they aren't going to come out and admit anything. Microsoft
> > hasn't pointed out exactly what IP they might be baiting traps with, so
> > users have no idea where they stand.
> >
> >> - so we, as a corporate
> >> entity, went directly to MS and said, "We don't want to get sued, so
> >> here's what we're proposing as a solution - can you come up with
> >> something better?"
> >> </hypothetical>
> >>
> >> So far, anything they say is complete bullshit.
> >
> > The other possibility is that the users are telling Microsoft, "Look.
> > We'd like to operate a heterogeneous environment, with Samba and
> > alternatives to Exchange servers. But we're ready to throw out Outlook
> > and all this proprietary crap and take the plunge".
> >
> > Do you think Microsoft is going to advertise when a user like Boeing,
> > for example, has told them, "Look. We've had about enough of your crap.
> > Clean up your act or we're out of here."
> >
> >> --
> >> Brought to you by the letters 'O,' 'S,' and by the number '2.'
> >>
> >> My C=64 owns you, BOY!
>
> It's all about creating a scare. Fear drives people and lies can create a
> scare.
>
> See the following:
>
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/02/microsoft_bully.html#comments
>
> "This Q&A raises an important point, in Jeremy's suspicion and nervousness
> about the reality. I saw a joint MS and Novell presentation today in San
> Francisco. I think the MS guys (and the Novell guys via association now)
> have the old EST (Erhard Seminar Training; aka cult) mindset and plan,
> around this IP thing. One element of the EST mindset says "If you say it
> enough times, it will become true". MS and Novell keep saying "all our
> customers were asking us for it", and "customers overwhelmingly approve of
> it"; but "it" is muddled between customers wanting more "interoperability"
> (which I would assume would be 99%+), and customers wanting "IP protection",
> which is the "manufactured" topic. When I say manufactured, I mean I know MS
> has lots of patents, and so it has lots of IP. It is the way they are trying
> to "condition the market" (MS term) that this is all natural, and okay with
> the universe, that scares me about the future of all software developers
> (open source or proprietary). I don't think every software developer wants
> to walk around with a MS "hand on their head" (paying a patent tax, and
> likely not being allowed to develop in certain areas, like the "cash cow"
> ones going forward). But be warned, that is the true intention, of MS, and
> Novell is a pawn in the game. I expect MS to go overboard trying to help
> Novell, since they need to try and prove to the world that they are "not as
> bad as everyone says/knows". But beware, beware, beware."
The FUD move would have been to threaten Linux customers directly over
the use of Microsoft IP. The Seattle PI article suggests that Ballmer is
interested in licensing arrangements with the major distro vendors. This
would make the issue less visible to the end customer.
This could go several ways: Microsoft prices these licenses high to make
Windows Server look competitive. The fallout from this is that other
distros will pop up that avoid the Microsoft IP. POP/IMAP/NFS/LDAP, etc.
take the place of licensed protocols and the additional fees are seen as
a tax for keeping Microsoft desktops alive. Big customers (like Boeing)
do the math and figure out how to roll their own IT solutions. Smaller
customers are served by open solution providers who can capitalize on
the licensing cost savings.
The other option is that the licenses are priced so as not to kill the
goose that lays the golden eggs, so to speak. The fees are low enough to
not cause customers to wince, but high enough to demonstrate to stock
holders that Ballmer is still defending the cash cow.
This whole thing is being played out to an audience of distro vendors
and developers. End users aren't getting a 'pay up or else' message. As
others have pointed out, 'customers have asked for....' but nobody seems
to have identified such a customer.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything.
- Bart Simpson
|
|
