06.25.08
Posted in GNU/Linux, SCO, UNIX, IBM, FOSS at 3:44 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Sun and SCO: truth revealed years later
A couple of days ago, Simon Phipps from Sun Microsystems said that the company ”screwed up“ when it comes to open source. Dana Blankenhorn opines that Sun is still screwing up. Here is the core of his argument.
But he isolates the “screw-up” to 2001-2002, when Sun was still a proprietary company. This is like a candidate for re-election blaming the problems he faces on a predecessor from the other party.
The fact is Sun is still screwing up. Offering open source licenses for key products is not all there is to an open source strategy. Transparency, community, and some ceding of authority are also required.
Sun not only screwed up in 2001-2002. Sun is still no friend of Linux. Moreover, based on this latest bomb from Groklaw, it was willing to let SCO continue its attacks on Linux, just like Microsoft, which even helped fund the suit. If true, shame on Sun.
We learn two primary things from Jones’ testimony: first, what a cynical role Sun played in the SCO saga, and second, that all the time SCO was calling on the world, the courts, the Congress — nay heaven itself, if I may say so — to sympathize with it over the ruination of its Most Holy Intellectual Property by it being improperly open sourced into Linux, not that it turned out to be true, it had already secretly given Sun the right to open source it in OpenSolaris. Remember all that falderol about SCO being contractually unable to show us the code, much as it so desired to do so, because of being bound to confidentiality requirements? What a farce. SCO had already secretly given Sun the right to open source Solaris, with all the UNIX System V you can eat right in there.
The simple fact is, I gather from Jones’ testimony, Sun could have prevented the harm SCO sought to cause by simply telling us what rights it had negotiated and received from SCO prior to SCO launching its assault on Linux. Yet it remained silent. When I consider all folks were put through, all the unnecessary litigation, and all the fear and the threats and the harmful smears, including of me at the hands of SCO and all the dark little helper dwarves in SCO’s workshop, I feel an intense indignation like a tsunami toward Sun for remaining silent.
Speaking of Sun, which may be too easy a target, what’s up with IBM? Glyn Moody wonders…
So, for the sake of your shareholders and of the stakeholders in the open source ecosystem, I say: come on, IBM, pull your socks up and get stuck in again. Please go back to leading in this field, as you did a decade ago, rather than lagging as you seem to be today.
IBM is focused on Linux as a powerful tool and enabler, but it’s quite indifferent when it comes to Free software. It’s truly a step backwards. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend 
View as PDF
06.24.08
Posted in Microsoft, SCO, Novell, Patents, Courtroom, FOSS at 4:25 am by Roy Schestowitz
Revenge against the patent trolls and harassers
The last time we wrote about Trend Micro (see previous post for contextual references and background) it was shown that the company was clueless when it comes to Free software. At the very least, this characterisation neatly applies to the company’s leader, who is also a software patent holder. Watch what’s contained in this new interview at The Register.
Trend Micro’s CEO threw down the gauntlet to her competitors last week, proclaiming that hackers are ahead of the game and that the anti-virus industry “sucks”.
[…]
Changes in the malware landscape have led to the creation of multiple variants of different malware strains and targeted attacks. Traditional top down command structures for antivirus distribution are struggling to cope. Trend Micro had little choice but to invest in the new technology. However Chen, who has five patents to her name, admitted that investors nervously questioned her risky decision.
According to this, unless it’s misinterpreted, the combination of a new technical strategy and milking of competitors using junk patents was Trend Micro’s new business plan. In other words, Trend Micro, realising that its product was no longer effective (’snake oil’), decided to adopt an SCO-like licensing strategy. It also raves about some cross-licensing with IBM, as its it’s a form of legitimacy.
To make matters worse for Trend Micro, prior art is cropping in, so patents could soon be invalidated and a blunder ensue. Think of this as the equivalent of Novell stepping in to claim UNIX ownership.
Goran Fransson, a Swedish developer and entrepreneur, has given a deposition in the Barracuda-Trend Micro case that appears to seriously undermine Trend Micro’s patent on gateway virus scanning.
As Linux.com reported in January, Trend Micro is suing Barracuda Networks before the American International Trade Commission (ITC). Trend Micro’s claim is that, by distributing Clam Antivirus (ClamAV), the free software security application, Barracuda is violating Trend Micro’s patent 5623600, which was filed on 26 September, 1995, and has since been used against such companies as Symantec and McAfee. The case is being heard by the ITC apparently because of Trend Micro’s claim that, because ClamAV is developed by programmers around the world, it is imported software in the United States.
Trend Micro is not the only company to have suffered a setback for an Intellectual Monopoly business approach. Some days ago we wrote about a particular Acacia debacle (Acacia accommodates some Microsoft folks and litigiously attacks GNU/Linux [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]) and now comes this:
Cognex Invalidates Acacia Patent ‘524; Next? Suing for Business Defamation
[…]
Do you remember back in 2005 a company called Cognex took on Lemelson Partnership and won, invalidating 14 of Lemelson’s patents? Well, it turns out that after that, they took on Acacia Research, and they just beat them too. Acacia is now minus one of its patents. Here’s the order [PDF]. Cognex is now aggressively going after Acacia for defamation, attorneys fees, and damages, including, or so they hope, according to a motion to amend their complaint, special and punitive damages.
Whereas SCO is burning any ounce of cash that’s left in its coffers, this Acacia patent troll might have to pay. If defamation suits were to succeed, then the business model behind the likes of Nathan Myhrvold would be at risk. The suits become a two-edged sword. █
“Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free.”
–Richard Stallman
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
06.19.08
Posted in Red Hat, Microsoft, SCO, Novell, Mono, Virtualization at 5:07 am by Roy Schestowitz
Searching for truth about Mono
We continue to explore the legal implications of building the GNU desktop using Mono. As readers may be aware, this Web site, among several others, has been a critic of Novell’s Mono for quite some time.
We are now aware, based on the assessment of the SFLC, that Novell’s Moonlight is a legal risk (or uncertainty at best). Fedora forbade it. The key worry though is that strategic direction gets changed to favour the Microsoft API in several places, which is akin to adopting or supporting Microsoft codecs. It gives a sworn enemy of libre software powers that can essentially eliminate the freedom of the desktop — for good.
It’s important to act upon this early, or else it might become irreversible, at least for important portions of the code pool.
The other day, Charles wrote a nice piece detailing the differences between Red Hat’s approach and Novell’s approach to handling of intellectual monopolies.
I have frequently expressed myself about the patent and business agreement between Novell and Microsoft.
[…]
Novell did precisely not sign a patent agreement with Microsoft debunking any claims or myths related to FOSS infringing Microsoft’s “intellectual property”. It implicitly did just the contrary: Microsoft and Novell were teaming up to “protect” Novell customers against patent claims made by…Microsoft.
The agreement was only covering Novell customers (not even OpenSuse users) and was at the same time contradicting the GPL (v2). Red Hat’s settlement does not seem to conflict with any version of the GPL as it places no burden or extra deeds on users and developers of GPLv3 software (More on that later).
There was no prior art, no litigation, and perhaps as important as the rest, the Novell-Microsoft agreement involved money. Lots of it . On the other hand, Red Hat received to my knowledge no payment for the settlement and as a future outcome, no strong incentive to do business with the plaintiffs and have its existing customers sign some dubious “software patent insurance”.
[…]
Contrary to what can be read here and there, the GPL v3 does not deny the existence of software patents. That would be stupid, as the GPL has been designed to live in a legal environment where such patent claims would be made against Free Software. What it does however is denying software patents the possibility to infringe on the users and developers’ freedom and ability to run, use, modify and redistribute software. If the software cannot be redistributed without some form of immunity in regard of software patents, then a poison pill option exists. Red Hat’s settlement does not apply here. What Red Hat did was “clean” patent busting: they demonstrated prior art first, and then essentially killed the patents by extending the immunity to those patents to anyone using the problematic software apps. That’s how historical it gets.
I am, just like many others, left not wholly satisfied by this. I am very happy of course, of the outcome of this lawsuit, but I know that the real issue at stake is software patents and that what will really put all these issues to rest, ultimately, shall be the end of software patents.
Charles speaks about a “poison pill”. The name of it may be Mono. Why is this questionable piece inside branches other than Novell’s (e.g. Ubuntu, Fedora)? Let’s explore how it slipped into Fedora.
I've fully reviewed the archive now, and this is pretty much all
the information I could find:
1. The decision to allow Mono to enter the tree seems to have been made
arbitrarily by Red Hat, with no community consultation, and in spite
of protests (including some by high profile Red Hat personnel -
mostly expressed as a rejection of Mono before the announcement).
2. There has only ever been one public announcement on the subject, and
that was made (with some dismay, it seems) by Tom Callaway:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-January/msg00588.html
3. There has only ever been one, extremely reserved, explanation given
for this decision, in a blog post by Greg DeKoenigsberg:
“Business considerations that prevented certain Mono components from
being included in Fedora previously have now been resolved.”
http://gregdek.livejournal.com/3597.html
The specific nature of this resolution is not given.
4. There is precious little concrete information about precisely who
made these arbitrary decisions that also affected the Fedora
community distro, but as best as I can deduce, the key players seem
to be Greg DeKoenigsberg (as above) and Christopher Blizzard,
although it may be that these were simply the only people discussing
it publicly:
http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/?p=188
5. The nearest thing to an actual justification for this acceptance of
Mono, is that the OIN offers a kind of Mexican Stand-Off protection
to those who implement it:
http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html
My final conclusion is that Fedora includes encumbered, non-Free
software, that is covered by patents owned by Microsoft, and assured by
a patent covenant that is not worth the (metaphorical) paper it’s
written on, since Moonlight, which is also covered by this same type of
covenant by the same company, has recently been exposed by Groklaw as
undistributable (I’m advised that PJ is currently investigating Mono as
well). The announcement and justification for this inclusion is
extremely sparse, and there has been almost no community consultation on
the subject, either before or after the fact.
This hopefully sums up Red Hat’s (or Fedora in practice) decision to adopt Mono. More people should be aware of this. It invalidates Jeff Waugh’s “if Red Hat does it, then it’s OK” claim. No clear reasons seem to be given. Mark Shuttleworth’s defense of it seems to be the argument that a separate and greater threat exists, but that’s like blowing your toe because your entire foot might be in danger.
A few quick points ought to be added:
- Red Hat has been hiring top lawyers recently, not necessarily in preparation for anything, but Red Hat’s people have been negotiating in the back rooms with Microsoft for almost a year. Codecs, for instance, were negotiated, but Red Hat didn’t lose that fight. There were other such talks about intellectual monopolies that go approximately 2 years back.
- Technical exclusion using Novell’s deal (e.g. hypervisors) is not sufficient for Microsoft to maintain dominance. It needs software patents and ‘licensing’ too (Mono, Moonlight, etc). If Microsoft’s profit decline at the end of this quarter (again), then it’s likely to just get even more vicious.
- If the Debian Project was concerned enough about trademarks to create IceWeasel and Fedora is at least raising similar issues about the freedom values of Firefox (or deficiencies), how would they feel about Novell copyrights in Mono projects, let alone software patents?
It is our humble assessment that — in the long term at least — Novell and Microsoft will be the next SCO in the sense that they can use software patents rather than copyrights (a ’stronger’ form of intellectual monopoly).
Novell claimed that it would not ever resort to this, but the company in its existing form crumbles while .NET developers are hired. Yesterday we saw the departure of a Novell vice president. An anonymous reader wrote to tell us: “Why is he leaving or was he asked to leave in light of the partner blunders of late who’s next watch and see if Ebzery gets the chop.”
Novell is a large company. There’s still a lot that we don’t know about its direction. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
06.17.08
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, SCO, Novell, Mono, Patents, GPL, xandros, Linspire at 12:01 am by Roy Schestowitz
Occasionally it seems useful to show that we are not along when it comes to criticising Novell. There is this tendency — wishful thinking for some — to say that this Web site is biased against Novell as a matter of principle and blind goals, as opposed to a well-calculated rationale. But this is totally untrue. While Novell does contribute to many projects and is rightly credited for it, the company operates upon selfish interests at the end. Novell is far from a Free software company [1, 2, 3 5]. It’s a lot more like Microsoft.
Have a look at this new press release.
Novell(R) announced today it is the first Linux* vendor to appear on the U.S. Department of Defense Unified Capabilities Approved Products List (APL), as SUSE(R) Linux Enterprise Server 10 Service Pack 2 (SP2) has received the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Special Interoperability Certification from the department’s Defense Information System Agency. With this certification, Novell customers, including government agencies, can rely on SUSE Linux Enterprise Server to support present and future networking standards, offering peace of mind for long-term use.
The APL list is expected to become a Department of Defense and U.S. federal government equipment purchase requirement.
Referring to this portion of the text, Groklaw opines: “This little nugget clariifies for me the sudden Microsoft interest in interoperability and the whole Microsoft-Novell deal.” Earning of a place inside the US government, which traditionally moves some of its operations to Red Hat, is what Microsoft might wish to influence here. It wishes to tax for the use of GNU/Linux and potentially run it under (or alongside) Windows. It’s all about control.
“In many ways, Novell became Microsoft’s ‘GPL factory’, which produces whatever ‘poison’ (legal obligations) or ‘features’ (Windows/Office/.NET hooks) Microsoft wants its competition to contain and bring upstream.”The criticism above is a tad subtle. Novell played an important role in squashing the action brought against Linux by SCO, so it would be hard for Groklaw to be overly critical of Novell, especially amid those final stages of the trial.
Nevertheless, it seems clear that Novell’s role in damaging Free software (using software patents) is precisely what the company might do. Mono, Moonlight, OOXML and some other hostile technologies appear to be among the key outputs of Novell.
The export of such unnecessary software seems to only promote Microsoft’s agenda. In many ways, Novell became Microsoft’s ‘GPL factory’, which produces whatever ‘poison’ (legal obligations) or ‘features’ (Windows/Office/.NET hooks) Microsoft wants its competition to contain and bring upstream.
Even Matt Hartley, who obviously likes Linspire and Xandros, it finally taking this small shot at Novell: [emphasis is ours]
What About Red Hat, Novell and Canonical? On the distribution development side of things, all three of these companies (excluding Novell’s selling out to Redmond), are on the right path with their own visions for desktop Linux.
BoycottNovell is not the only critic of Novell. It just happens to be a site whose name reflects on these convictions and biases. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
06.14.08
Posted in Finance, SCO, Novell, Virtualization at 6:01 am by Roy Schestowitz
As more people leave to go on vacation this time of the year, there’s also less news. Here are just a few picks which were left out from previous Saturday posts because they are not directly related to GNU/Linux.
SCO
The SCO-Novell case is due to be decided on pretty soon, but there is some more new action over there.
Novell has filed its Response to Debtors’ Second Motion to Extend Exclusivity [PDF], and you could sum up its message to the court like this: Enough already, but if you do grant another extension, please let it be the last.
Virtualisation
Novell’s acquisition of PlateSpin got is a little closer to the virtualisation arena. It will have some presence in this new conference.
Stephen is a seasoned IT veteran, now in a senior Business Development role with Novell. Prior to Novell, Stephen was founder and CEO of PlateSpin and led the long-term business strategy for the company. PlateSpin was recently acquired by Novell.
Novell does not get omitted from this list, either.
Is Virtual Storage required for datacenter agility?
[…]
It would appear to me that the last thing an IT decision-maker would want is to have processing automated and orchestrated by products such as those offered by, Cassatt, Scalent Systems, Racemi, VMLogix, Novell, Virtual Iron, or VMware, while storage (application and data files) was tied to specific systems
Miscellaneous
A fairly severe vulnerability in Novell’s GroupWise was found last week. It triggered quite a few alarms.
It’s always useful to keep track of Novell clients or companies that Novell employs. AppLabs falls into the latter category.
Global IT services firm AppLabs specializes in testing and quality management.
[…]
Q: Who are your customers?
A: We generally have two types of client typically in the top Global 2000: established service providers who we already have a relationship in place and bring AppLabs on board to do testing as a third party. That makes up 60% of our business. The second group, making up 40% of our business, are companies that have never really done much work on outsourcing and testing is the first thing they are thing about outsourcing. Customers in the US include Novell and Sun, while in the UK we have Nationwide, Royal Bank of Scotland, and the Turquoise equities exchange, which is due to go live in October.
Here is an optimistic take on Novell’s recent financial results, which also tells the story of SiteScape’s and PlateSpin’s integration into the company,
Novell also delivered on its second strategic ambition (to grow product revenues at or better than market growth rates) for Linux, systems and resource management, and identity and access management. Workgroup product revenues did shrink, as usual, but only by 1%, and invoicing increased for the first time, positioning Novell to deliver its the third strategic ambition, to achieve workgroup product revenues of at least $285 million to $300 million (of which $209 million have already been delivered).
The SiteScape and PlateSpin acquisitions did not impact its revenues much, though. While we expect Novell to eventually leverage the latter, we have doubts about the former. We agree that SiteScape enables GroupWise to catch up with the competition, but Novell needs to do better to turn GroupWise’s improved position into actual market traction. The company believes that GroupWise will be able to piggyback on Novell’s growing success in the Linux area. We do not share this belief.
Not a busy week, but nonetheless, the week to come will be a busy one for SUSE. Novell will try to generate OpenSUSE hype amid the big release. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.31.08
Posted in Microsoft, SCO, Novell, Mono, Patents, Courtroom at 4:19 am by Roy Schestowitz
Fat Man and Little Boy
A decent article has just been published by Heise and you can view it right here. To quote just a fragment:
SCO vs. Linux – mixed reactions to Novell Unix copyright verdict
[…]
From hackers to financial analysts, the question of what happens next is occupying the minds of many in the IT industry – not all of them as well-informed as Pamela Jones, the good fairy behind Groklaw, a website which follows such cases. She has told Infoworld that Microsoft will be the next SCO Group; the company has been loudly rattling its patent sabres, claiming earlier this year that Linux violated mote than 235 Microsoft patents. Whether Microsoft goes beyond mere sabre rattling and whether SCO manages anything more than a last gasp is also a question of how you evaluate the course of court proceedings so far.
It ought to be re-emphasised that Novell has the potential to carry on SCO’s job. The company denied that it will ever do so, but call us cynical… the same representative who said this, namely Bruce Lowry, quit the company not so long ago. He didn’t seem too pleased because he actually cared about and advocated the use of ODF. He was the company’s PR director. No more, no less.
If you think that’s bad, consider the fact that Joseph LaSala left the company as well. Those who have followed the SCO case would know this person’s admirable role in it. One has to wonder who will (or already has) replace these two chaps. We have witnessed more than a single ‘plant job’ in the past and we watch Novell very closely for that reason, Saturday’s tedious postings being evidence of this.
“Novell is hiring .NET programmers, as we showed more than a year ago. It actually strategises on it.”Who might Microsoft put inside Novell, if anyone at all? Novell’s sympathy towards Microsoft could definitely attract candidates who share similar feelings. Novell is hiring .NET programmers, as we showed more than a year ago. It actually strategises on it.
Could Novell’s healthy sentiments for Microsoft have negative impacts? Senior managers would humbly tell you that this is just a normal business strategy. I happen to have had a long conversation about this at the gym last week (with a person who has managed several companies). Ignoring the possibility seems a tad risky.
At the moment, the worst one can do is give Microsoft ammunition, such as Microsoft’s .NET framework (or equivalent) deep inside GNU/Linux, with pragmatic and technical dependencies on it. Only Novell would benefit from this in the long term. It literally owns Mono. Remember the copyrights for example.
There is also a more philosophical aspect to all of this. The moment a suggestion of assimilation is taken into consideration and then embraced, there is danger. If GNU/Linux adopts the same rotten habits which it tries to combat, that’s the moment this fight for change become self-defeating. Why fight fire with fire? Or struggle with vapourware? Or deception? Or shill ’studies’? Why fight with .NET? Or as Matt Hartley sarcastically put it at the time:
Linux to Microsoft: Let’s Fight with Silverlight
Never try to make GNU/Linux a better Windows than Microsoft Windows. You are bound to lose on technical merits and — more importantly — you could get sued. █
“When Windows NT was announced several years ago, Bill Gates, Microsoft chairman, called it a better Unix than Unix.”
–Source
Related readings:
According to the Declaration, Richard Emerson was not the only Microsoft employee Goldfarb was dealing with in connection with the BayStar investment in SCO. He mentions by name two others, from two other departments.
There you have it. At least a third of SCO’s entire market capitalization, and their entire current cash reserves, is payoffs funnelled from Microsoft. Their 10Qs reveal that every other line of cash inflow is statistical noise by comparison. The brave new SCO source business model is now clear: sue your customers, shill for Microsoft, kite your stock, and pray you stay out of jail.
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.24.08
Posted in Microsoft, SCO, Novell, Security, Asia, Courtroom, HP, Virtualization, Mail, Identity Management at 3:17 am by Roy Schestowitz
We are still waiting for a decision on Novell-SCO to be made — a decision which the public knows nothing about. For background on the latest, see [1, 2].
In the mean time, here are a few of the latest developments at Novell, to the exclusion of GNU/Linux news which earlier posts covered [1, 2].
Windows/Novell
Novell gets sort of snubbed in Indian banks. Novell ought to get used to it if it relies on Microsoft for marketing.
Deepak Maheshwari, Director, Corporate Affairs, Microsoft India, shares his thoughts with Neeraj Gandhi, on the recently introduced Microsoft Platform Security and Audit Handbook 2008.
[…]
What about Linux keeping in mind Microsoft’s tie-up with Novell?
Presently we are focusing on these three Microsoft platforms only.
Microsoft is likely to continue phasing Novell out while Novell’s strategy is to rely on Microsoft. Not smart.
The school system currently uses Novell, which is an aging operating system. Novell also isn’t compatible with the Microsoft operating system that county government uses.
That’s interoperability? Well, we digress.
Groupwise
The Gwava-Groupwise affair is not on the rocks, but mind the following:
Rather than creating direct integration with specific packages, Gwava puts all of its data into an SQL Server format that can be integrated by a supplier or enterprise as part of a custom solution. Unlike its other products, however, which interact directly with Novell GroupWise, Gwava’s Retain for BES does not require GroupWise. ”
On the other hand, GroupWise gets a lift from Messaging Architects.
M+Extranet 3.5 is an efficient and cost-effective solution for collaborating with non-GroupWise users, and instantly publishing GroupWise content on a company intranet site, client extranet site, or student portal. Content can be published as an HTML page, RSS feed, blog or podcast without the need for expensive web authoring tools or content duplication.
Mentioned last week was the following news, which Beta News gets to at the end. It seems like Beta News has found new affinity for Novell, especially because of Jacqueline Emigh. Bear in mind that Beta News is very Microsoft-oriented. It’s worth keeping track of which publications give positive/negative publicly to whom. It explains favouritism and prejudice.
Despite its well known interoperability deal with Microsoft, Novell still sees Redmond as the big competitor to catch in the groupware, collaboration, and messaging arenas, where the SuSE Linux distributor has just released the new, multiplatform Novell Open Workgroup Suite (NOWS) with Novell Teaming.
Virtualisation
Not from a source that we like citing, but mind Novell’s presence in SYS-CON’s Virtualization Conference & Expo.
Novell’s Stephen Pollack to Present at SYS-CON’s Virtualization Conference & Expo, June 23-24, in New York City
We wrote about virtualisation at Novell some hours ago. Novell is with Microsoft and its affiliates. Even SYS-CON, especially with the presence of Maureen O’Gara, is not friend of FOSS. She’s describing ODF as “Microsoft-hostile” at the moment, revealing her bias immediately. Her recent attacks on Stallman are not to be forgotten and they make SYS-CON seem like a tabloid, not just an annoying publication that floods Google New using spamming techniques.
Identity and Security Management
Forbes passed on the news about Hewlett-Packard’s collaboration with Novell on identity and security management.
Hewlett-Packard Co. and Novell Inc. said Friday they will jointly offer migration services as part of an deal to migrate Hewlett-Packard identity center customers to Novell identity and security management products.
The press release is here.
As part of an agreement between the companies, HP and Novell will jointly offer migration services, HP will resell Novell identity and security management solutions and Novell will license HP Identity Center technology.
More from the British press appeared almost a week later.
HP has exited the world of identity management and handed over its Identity Center customers to Novell as part of an exclusive alliance.
Remember what we wrote earlier on about the H-P relationship with Microsoft (and with Novell). Like Novell, H-P is another Microsoft pawn that promotes OOXML. It’s part of the cycle of nepotism and ‘protection’.
Joe Wagner (of Novell) published an article that covers security.
Joe Wagner, senior vice president and general manager of Systems and Resource Management at Novell, explains the security implications of all those popular portable storage devices.
Looking at his mailbox, a reader of ours found this in the Global Novell Newsletter of May 2008:
“Security Threats Straight Ahead!
“Jim Ebzery, Sr. […] discusses the realities of online security dangers and […] addresses compliance issues, insider threats, identity theft, and privacy violations. Read the entire article online now”
He then added: “I thought security was about making Operating Systems that were secure from clicking on an URL or opening an email attachment.”
Partnership with Genovate in India
Here is another new partnership for Novell. It’s the first of its kind in this nation.
Genovate, a leading high-end technology company, has today announced that they have become Novell’s first platinum partner in India.
Genovate provides Business applications, software solutions and consulting as well as the best-of-breed value-added educational programs and quality training services in the Asia-Pacific region.
8 new centres are being created by Genovate, which met with Novell.
Genovate has also entered into a tie-up with infrastructure software and services company Novell to provide training in India. Genovate, with the partnership, would target both individuals and universities, he added.
Novell’s Past People
Ray Noorda, a fierce enemy of Microsoft and one who could not trust Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer, is mentioned in this article about a donation/fund.
The largest limited partner in Canopy Ventures II is the family of legendary entrepreneur Ray Noorda, who founded Novell Inc. and was chief executive officer of the software company for 12 years until 1995.
More details here.
The early-stage venture fund, which is backed by the Noorda family of Novell fame, is investing in life sciences for the first time, and also expanding its investment along the Wasatch Front.
“There are plenty of good opportunities in medical devices and pharmaceuticals, and there’s so much good technology and so many talented scientists affiliated with the University of Utah and BYU. Utah County was our backyard from the Novell days, but we’re now looking forward to branching out to northern Utah,” said Brandon Tidwell, another general partner with Canopy.
Since its establishment in 1995, Canopy has invested around $100 million in 13 technology companies in Utah, 10 of which are in Utah County. Canopy was founded by the late Ray Noorda, Novell’s founder and former CEO.
Here is the story of one who departed from Novell’s technologies on the face of it.
While I was working at Air New Zealand I assisted setting up a Novell network. I started thinking it was the way I wanted to go in terms of my career, so I bought my first computer and went from there. My first foray into IT was working in field sales in LA for a distributor of electronics called Hallmark Electronics. I started working with Kingston back then as they were one of the brands we had.
That’s all for this week, as far as good or innocent news are concerned. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.10.08
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, SCO, Novell, FUD, UNIX, Courtroom at 1:35 am by Roy Schestowitz
SCO is definitely beyond this Web site’s scope, but recently there has been a great deal of Novell in that saga. There are things there which have future implications on Novell, SUE Linux [sic], and other GNU/Linux distributions. We covered some of the latest in last week’s cumulative report, so let’s look at more recent articles and consider portions of them.
From the local press comes nothing but the promise that a decision will come soon. No word since then.
The trial between The SCO Group and Novell over disputed fees involving a computer operating system ended today with the judge promising a decision soon.
Also from the local press:
Novell-SCO trial now is in hands of judge
Arguments this week focused on how much value to attribute to the licensed technology. Novell claimed that technology it controlled — several versions of Unix System V — was a valuable part of the SCO licensing initiative.
InternetNews has an interesting take.
SCO Novell Trial - The Verdict is…
[…]
Frankly I’m still amazed that SCO has hung in this long.Though it is easy to paint SCO as the villain in this drama, it’s also possible to see this as a Tragedy (Greek or Shakespearean) in many ways. McBride (the tragic hero?)really does believe in his view and he is sticking with it to the (bitter?) end.
From another source comes a more detailed (but not so accurate) analysis.
There are times when the jokes just seem to tell themselves. Yesterday, during testimony for Novell’s lawsuit against SCO to determine how much Novell was owed for its ownership of the Unix copyrights, none other than Darl McBride took the stand and said two things that will no doubt become fodder for .SIG files from here to eternity.
[…]
Fortunately, the right people were not that naive. And now we’re at a point where scaring people away from open source on wholly spurious grounds is so passe that even Microsoft is leaving it behind.
That last bit is far from true. Microsoft just knows how it hide it better. It often uses other parties to do its dirty deeds against Free software and other competitive threats. We gave many examples of this before, e.g. here.
The local press from Utah goes further and claims that what’s at stake now is SCO’s fate, short of a Sugar Daddy.
McBride also said Kimball’s decision could affect the new reorganization plan SCO is preparing to file in Delaware, where the company filed for bankruptcy last year.
Groklaw caught up with the bankruptcy filings just a couple of days ago.
SCO’s accountants, Tanner, have applied to the bankruptcy court for compensation for the seventh month. Amazing, isn’t it, this story without an end? This monthly bill is for April, and Tanner would like only $8,574 plus $71 in expenses. That’s the lowest monthly bill ever. December 5-November 5 was $28,499; November 6 - December 5 was $19,001; December 6 - January 4 was $65,955; January 5-February 1 was $98,095; February 2 - March 3 was $32,868; and March 4 - March 31 was $28,441.
Going back to the trial, Lamlaw does its bit of analysis also.
Is a license to Microsoft more valuable than what MS paid SCO? Perhaps so. Certainly Novell might think so.
If the money paid to Novell comes up short, Novell has a few options. And, my bet is that some very interesting discussions take place in that back room between Novell and SUN and between Novell and Microsoft. Fly on that wall kind of thing.
Darl McBride gets cyberslapped here.
SCO CEO, Darl McBride, still believes that SCO owns UNIX in some form. Novell never transferred the copyrights to SCO in the sale of UnixWare but yet the dream lives on. This week the trial began that determines how much money may be owed to Novell from SCO (Up to $20 million). A strange turn of events indeed.
Here is another cyberslap from The Inquirer’s avid Groklaw follower.
McBride’s statement contradicted the just prior testimony of SCO SVP Chris Sontag, as well as the company’s internal memos from 2002, which concluded that SCO’s own software examinations had not found any UNIX code in Linux.
Perhaps McBride was confused about which lawsuit he was in court testifying about.
This week’s comic strip from the Bizarre Cathedral is of Darl McBride, whose mis-comprehension (probably deliberate) has him ridiculed.
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has this good piece published in Linux.com where he is now a regular contributor.
Reality, as good writers know, is sometimes stranger than fiction. SCO’s recent performance in the U.S. District Court in Utah is a perfect example. With years to prepare, SCO executives made some remarkable statements in their attempt to show that SCO, not Novell, owns Unix’s copyright.
As a more introductory article, consider this one from ZDNet Australia.
Troubled software maker SCO’s chief executive has claimed the Linux operating system includes Unix source code, during a court case in which Novell is suing SCO for royalties on Unix.
There will probably be a torrent of news when the verdict is out. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
« Previous entries ·
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.