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.

The respectable Matthew Aslett, who is a Linux and Open Source advocate, certainly thinks so.

Dear Novell, please stop messing about with your Linux revenue figures. Thanks.

[...]

How can $13m be 32% more than $15m? What is the difference between “Linux platform products” and “Linux products and services”? I don’t know, but it is high time Novell stopped moving the goal posts and reported consistent figures for its Linux business.

[...]

1Q06
$56m “Open Platform Solutions”
(including $43m Open Enterprise Server and $13m “Linux Platform Products and other open source products”

2Q06
$57m “Open Platform Solutions”
(including $38m Open Enterprise Server and $10m “Linux Platform Products”

3Q06
$12m “Linux Platform Products”

4Q06
$13m “Linux Platform Products”

This looks pretty grim. In fact, it is also as grim as Microsoft’s attempt to hide reality using a $36 billion buyback, which gradually inflates the value of the stock.

PEN Source development is fast. Patching and development using this paradigm is particularly fast owing to modularity. Any change to the code is rather predictable within the isolated black (glass rather) boxes, so patches can be issued without laborious patching. Then comes the introduction of innovation and incorporation of code that leads to beautiful complex systems (video) very rapidly.

See video! Really, please do. I’m waiting. After I had wiped the coffee off my screen and keyboard from the excitement (well, figuratively-speaking), I came to realise that another trait of Open Source development is that it’s very responsive to user demands and needs. It’s nice to be able to submit a feature request of a bug or a patch to a project and then receive it from the development team the next cycle, for free. It’s nicer to know that millions more benefit from the same changes/inclusion, which gives the 15 pixels of fame many crave for.

First we had the analysts, but now we have some concrete figures and facts.

Novell earnings come up short

“Overall these are disappointing results,” said Jefferies & Co. analyst Katherine Egbert, citing the lower-than-expected quarterly sales figure and Novell’s 2007 sales outlook.

Novell used to have the Linux community by its side. I used to be a huge Novell and SUSE advocate myself. With its declining lagacy products, there is not much that can save Novell now. It is hard to imagine that the sentiments throughout the community will encourage acquisition of Novell’s Linux products. More intersting, Novell is killing the very same company that it is presently becoming.

SCO shares closed Monday at $1.11, down 11 cents and 9 percent from last Friday’s trading. The company’s stock has been in freefall since Kimball’s ruling, dropping from $2.40 per share. SCO stock had traded above $4.50 before Wells’ earlier decision in June.

Maybe SCO will find sympathy in today’s news. Novell seems to inherit its place and share the same problem. SCO has malicious intent, while Novell is just being naive.

I suspect it is too late to tell Novell to wake up and retract. It has already fallen too deep into this unhealthy relationship which emptied its soul.