The peculiar paths which Novell has followed cease to amaze. It seems as though everything is possible. As a lead developer from the Wine project said immediately after the deal had been made, it is expected (yet arguably so) that Novell will inherit SCO’s role. Whether it will also inherit SCO UNIX is something that remains to be seen. Have a look at this:

Novell is going to take back ownership of System V UNIX. It supposedly transferred this to SCO, but a Federal Judge found that the contracts had more holes than paper. Novell has leave to contest the agreements, and if SCO goes belly-up while the matter is in debate, Novell’s there to snatch up a very valuable property.

This speculation comes from Tom Yager. He is an Apple advocate/journalist whom I have always perceived as Linux-hostile. He once authored an article titled “Linux will get buried“. By all means, he makes the statement above with real confidence. It seems like a victim that grabs a criminal’s weapon. I certainly hope that Novell is not turning into its own enemy in the same way that an abused child, much to his/her misfortune, soon resembles his/her parents as he/she matures.

Here is some list which contains a bunch of funny things which we only find in films. A snippet is appended below.

7. When you turn out the light to go to bed, everything in you room will still be visible, just slightly bluish

8. People deal with stressful, life threatening situations by making quick witted quips

9. No-one, but no-one uses Microsoft Windows – everyone uses unique operating systems. All of these computer systems, however mundane, are full of animated graphics and enormous download bars in the middle of the screen

10. When paying for a taxi, you don’t need to look at your wallet as you take out a note. Just grab one out at random and hand it over. It will always be the exact fare

Related: History Relived Through Films

These are, needless to say, not real ads.

As I repeatedly argue, this Web site, by the large, supports Opensuse developers. It only addresses Novell management in its criticism, albeit obedience leads to conflicts. De Icaza, for example, has irritated a few people with his pro-Microsoft technology perspective, which has been noted for quite some time. This predates the deal with Microsoft, too.

A brief mention of the latest milestone would probably be appropriate nonetheless.

A Quiet Launch For OpenSUSE 10.2

Novell’s OpenSUSE project has released the latest version of its namesake Linux distribution, OpenSUSE 10.2. But you wouldn’t know it if you were waiting for an official announcement from Novell.

It is a non-event to many and a crossroad for many, too. Now is the best time to become Novell-independent.

Opacity in organisations hinders journalism that relies on transparency. The significance of this is best demonstared using a timely example. If you have been following the news recently, you probably heard about Microsoft taking a stand against Open Source software. Shortly after its partnership with Novell it is claiming patent infringement. The parallel to Open Source journalism is subtle, but nonetheless it’s there, provided one bothers to look closely enough.

One aspect of similarity, as well as a nice analogy, would be in a case of plagiarism — which either does or does not happen. There is no in-between. As long as plagiarism doesn’t occur, an Open Source Journalism organisation can cover the same topics as a traditional newspaper (just as there are always a million versions of every story). Nevertheless, there are subtitles in this technical case that involves Microsoft, its allies and its rivals — and there is just one truthful way to approach all of this. If anything it shows that Open Source projects have a community of people who believe strongly in their right to share collective knowledge without being attacked by so-called ‘soft patents’, which are independent from rendition or implementation.

Let us look at another interesting angle for a change. One issue that is commonly overlooked by reporters is the validity of Microsoft’s allegations, as well as intent. The traditional media can be easily (mis)led by the agenda of a company (Microsoft in this case), and particularly its press conferences and faceoff with the shareholders. There is sheer bias in these, whilst the truth (which is properly isolated from fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics) resides in the minds of people who are experts in the field and are equipped with contextual knowledge, including corporate history.

Red Hat, which is the main sufferer in this case due to the scale of its success with Open Source software, has been fighting articles which, much to Microsoft’s satisfaction, make it seem like Microsoft wants interoperation (a benevolent move) while Red Hat declines. The reality is that Microsoft’s proposal is extremely hostile and yet it’s hidden behind a straight face (or a smiling crocodile that will later shed a tear). The reality is that the media is being fooled while only the ‘little people’ know the truth which is concealed, deeply buried below this announcement. Red Hat can only publish rebuttals on its Web site, or get blogs to advertise the truth. It’s grip on press releases is mere compared to that of the software giant. Titans can overwhelm the press with their own ‘truths’. Microsoft seeks to pass on a death knell, which has already plagued Novell, due to its recent partnership with Microsoft.

I was told that one of Jay Rosen’s punchlines is: “NewAssignment.Net will write about stories the regular news media didn’t do, can’t do, wouldn’t do or already screwed up.” I hereby contend that the coverage of this particular story serves as an excellent case study. It demonstrates that behind all the public talk there is a mental games which is sadly overlooked by mainstream media. Thus, it simply fails to reach those who will not investigate for themselves, read between the lines, or rely on technocrats who clarify what truly goes on, as described by Matthew (list of FUD-type announcements from Microsoft), among many others across the blogsphere.

News outlets are controlled or at least motivated by companies, so there’s a conundrum of ownership where finance serves as a principal factor. That worrisome residue of publication channels must be combatted. Some of the most ‘successful’ articles, as judged by readship, are inflammatory or extreme in view. They provoke. Does it necessarily make them beneficial to the reader? Are they informative or downright deceiving? People’s well-informed opinions and choices can get past announcements which hide the truth in order to save face. Sometime, one would argue, the bigger picture is entirely missed because only ‘little people’ have the knowledge — but it’s hard to get the message out. But pooling the knowledge together is an answer — RedHat can’t pull this off because they pool knowledge together around software. A paradigm that aligns with that of NewAssignment.Net will hopefully be able to elevate the vote and voice of the masses. The goal is to pool knowledge around just that — times when media spun stories are off the mark.

In summary, Open Source journalism is an area that could help — in this case fight off the misconceptions about Open Source software. It can extract the message and knowledge from people that have no commercial interests or hidden agendas. This particular discussion tends to be both litigious and technical, so it requires the joining of the minds from both fields. It empowers the eventual, polished product.

It is not only Bruce Perens who debunks Novell apologism. Linux Journal has a piece that rebuts some poor argument from Miguel de Icaza.

Who created OpenOffice? Who bought it? Who opened it? Anyone ever hear of Star Division gmbh or Sun? Since when did Novell become the earliest contributor to OpenOffice.org? The earliest and largest external corporate contributor, maybe. I’d like to see some hard facts to back up an assertion like that (not that facts matter, as Miguel admitted), but his hyperbolic boasting of Novell’s contribution is obviously overblown. And is a contribution that doesn’t make it into the main code base really a contribution? After all, in the same blog entry, Miguel himself makes much of the fact that Novell’s OpenOffice.org really isn’t THE OpenOffice.org. It’s Novell’s unique version, patched and modified.

He moves on to criticising Novell’s insertion of Excel VBA and suggests the the community rejects all OpenOffice contributions from Novell. This is very consistent with Nicholas’ previous views on this deal.

As proof of this, allow me to quote this:

Here’s part of what Allchin said about how to deal with the competitive threat from Novell then:

“We need to slaughter Novell before they get stronger….If you’re going to kill someone, there isn’t much reason to get all worked up about it and angry. You just pull the trigger. Any discussions beforehand are a waste of time. We need to smile at Novell while we pull the trigger.”

To quote further from the same article:

Conlin used a variety of computer-generated illustrations, including one that showed 15 icons, each representing what she said was an illegal action taken by Microsoft in pursuit of its bid to become and remain a monopoly. The icons had titles like “exclusionary contract,” “technical sabotage,” “buying out the competition,” “espionage,” and “deception and misinformation.”

So, can we truly expect Microsoft to change its ways and actually assist Novell after the deal was made? Let the readers and observers decide.