Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Novell Gets $348 Million From Microsoft 308 308

An anonymous reader writes, "Novell has published additional details about its agreements with Microsoft concerning Windows and Linux interoperability and patents. It seems the company is receiving an up-front payment of $348 million from Microsoft, for SLES subscription certificates and for patent cross-licensing. Microsoft will make an upfront payment to Novell of $240 million for SLES subscription 'certificates' that Microsoft can use, resell, or distribute over the term of the agreement. Regarding the patent cooperation agreement, Microsoft will make an up-front net payment to Novell of $108 million, and Novell will make ongoing payments totaling at least $40 million over five years to Microsoft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Novell Gets $348 Million From Microsoft

Comments Filter:
  • by Salvance (1014001) * on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @12:25AM (#16763193) Homepage Journal
    As scary as this initially sounds (Microsoft Linux anyone?), the partnership makes sense. Microsoft gains the capability to run Linux better in a virtualized environment (or vice versa), and Novell gets a ton of much needed cash. For years, it's been obvious that at some point Microsoft would have to start recognizing the fast growth of Linux as an enterprise platform, and it appears that this move is Microsoft's first step.

    The only concern I have is that Microsot continues further down the path and begins to create closed source applications or kernel modules specifically to run Microsoft apps. If they can swing this, the potential for degradation of the upward Linux momentum is high. John Dvorak of PC Magazine figures that Microsoft will develop GPL work-arounds [pcmag.com], and eventually begin releasing Linux apps.

    What then? Mac servers for everyone?
  • by NineNine (235196) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @12:32AM (#16763241)
    The only concern I have is that Microsot continues further down the path and begins to create closed source applications or kernel modules specifically to run Microsoft apps.

    Why would you be at all concerned about that? As always, you can run what you'd like. If you don't like "MS Linux", you certainly don't have to use it. Once MS puts some effort into SUSE, I'd most definitely consider switching some of my 100% MS shop to SUSE for some back end stuff. I need interoperability, and simplicity, neither of which are strong points of Linux right now. I'm looking forward to see what is going to happen to SUSE, because there might be a very good, useable Linux to come out of it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @12:53AM (#16763413)
    Well, that's slightly reassuring, at least. Microsoft bailed out Apple but now Apple's doing fine.
  • by pair-a-noyd (594371) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @12:55AM (#16763439)
    I've advised all the Suse users I know and support to do the same thing, right now.
    I will no longer be doing any updates to any of the Suse installations I support via Novell.

    I'm actively seeking a replacement distro.

    The poisoning of the well is under way, get out now while you still can.

  • Goodbye Novell (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly (148874) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @01:12AM (#16763563)
    Finally, MS will kill you off. You think 380 million is something they'll even NOTICE? In return, lets see, they get.. your source code, YAST, AppArmor, mindshare, and info on your business.
  • by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@perens.com> on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @01:20AM (#16763605) Homepage Journal
    Rather than the FAQ, I suggest you look at the form 8K on Edgar, and the covenants that have been published so far. FAQs are Public Relations writing and can shade the truth.

    It's clear that the two companies are paying each other for similar covenants that will extend to their customers. I guess they buy the theory that if you do something indirectly, you aren't as guilty as if you do it directly.

    So, this is like a shakedown artist who does not propose to damage your business at all, and only threatens to beat up your customers in your parking lot - if you don't pay.

    Would a judge be confused by this? I don't see how.

    Bruce

  • Re:Fishy.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by b1ufox (987621) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @01:22AM (#16763613) Homepage Journal
    Yes the Fishy thing which i see is Microsoft's well known staretgy of "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish".

    I hope people at Novell understand this. Since it is evident that FUD tactics cannot be applied by MS for open source products, they have decided to give their "EEE" startegy a try.

    Lets see whats there in store for Novell and for open source community.

    Good or bad a chapter worth learning is pending i guess ...:)

  • by Technician (215283) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @01:24AM (#16763625)
    So, if I use SuSE now, should I switch? Is Novell now evil-by-contact?

    If I put on my worst case hat, MS extends SUSE by using it's lisence for things such as MP3 encoders and patents such as it's WMA and WMV formats and include them in SUSE along with IE and Outlook Express. These additions will not be open source. For those with trouble installing things such as the Lame encoder or other codecs to view online content, this could be a no-brainer install. Expect it to only install alongside Windows. (note the dual OS thing mentioned) After people start using it instead of Ubuntu or Fedora and then they die off, expect Linux features to be included in Windows.

    Remember the Netscape/IE thing. This may be just a new chapter. Ours works better out of the box. The other is for geeks only and is hard to configure and get all the plug -in's to get it to work.

    After the competition is dead, expect the shell of Suse to be discarded while keeping things such as multiple desktops.

    Just my thoughts. The money to Novel rings a lot of alarm bells. Follow the money stupid!
  • by greenbird (859670) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @01:39AM (#16763741)
    I need interoperability, and simplicity, neither of which are strong points of Linux right now.

    Every time I see a statement like this it pisses me off. Linux is very inter operable with every mainstream OS except Windows. And you know what, Windows isn't inter operable with any other OS that exists. Not only that but the Linux community goes to outrageous efforts to make it inter operable with other OS's (reverse engineering) while Microsoft goes to extreme efforts to ensure no OS can inter operate with Windows.

    Also why is it I find Linux far simpler than Windows. You set it up and it works forever. On rare occasions that there are problems you can find a definitive solution unlike Windows where you just reboot and pray because no one including Microsoft knows what's happening with most problems.

  • by rajafarian (49150) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:06AM (#16763889)
    this has anything to do with Microsoft's SCO involvement.

    My own personal conspiracy theory is that Novell found something in the MS-SCO deal that the US Attorney General, even under the Bush Administration, would not have liked at all.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:12AM (#16763915)
    I wouldn't worry about MS writing bad code and introducing security holes that way. MS has some great programmers -- the company's problem with security holes is architectural. It's designed itself in to a corner it can't code its way out of. As long as Microsoft releases the code to its contributions I wouldn't worry about MS developed Linux software any more than Linux software developed by anyone else.

    If Microsoft contributes binary blobs, then yeah, I'd worry about security issues, but that concern applies to anyone's blobs.
  • by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:12AM (#16763921) Homepage Journal
    Not only must we put up with grammar nazis and spelling nazis, but now slashdot has a genre nazi?
  • by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@perens.com> on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:19AM (#16763955) Homepage Journal
    Um, a covenant not to sue is a two party contract.

    Yes, but that's not the only contract in this picture. The most important one is a contract between Novell and Microsoft in which they agree to make these covenants to each other's customers. The full details of that contract are not public knowledge but are certainly discoverable.

    Certainly there is clear documented intent to structure the deal as covenants rather than a license with the sole intent of circumventing the GPL. Now, you can show that to a judge and make a pretty good case that the companies are licensing each other and going through circumlocutions with covenants with the sole intent of welshing out of a license's obligations. Then, you ask the judge to consider the result for what it really is.

    Bruce

  • by abaird (1019210) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:37AM (#16764071)
    It couldn't possibly have anything to do that virtually every common OS besides Windows IS a *nix variant? Linux is far simpler than Windows? Yesterday, I reformatted my hard drive. I decided, after 10 years on a Microsoft operating system I would dual boot XP Pro and a generic install of Ubuntu. Reinstalled XP Pro in about 40 minutes, including time spent downloading and installing drivers. To get Ubuntu to install on my machine, I had to manually edit a config file to get the screen to display correctly, but could only do so *after* the Ubuntu installer crashed (like, duh?). I found this out after digging through Ubuntu forum posts for about an hour (there was nothing in the Wiki related to this). I like the idea of moving to open source software, but the reality is it is not as universal or simple as Windows. XP crashes for me (in the last 4 years of using it) have been rare, and when it is it is usually a memory leak from a particular application, not XP itself. So far, every machine I've installed Linux on I've had serious compatibility issues in every case. I'm not trying to install Linux on my alarm clock here, these are every day, very common PC parts. I've yet to have a smooth Linux installation. It's simply not for mom and pop yet.
  • by dbIII (701233) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:38AM (#16764075)
    figures that Microsoft will develop GPL work-arounds, and eventually begin releasing Linux apps.

    That's just silly - you don't need to use the GPL for your applications - only for other people applications that are already licenced that way. Even Halliburton have been selling commercial software that runs on linux for several years.

    I think PC Magazine have to go out and buy a better keyboard for cats to walk over and generate articles - that Dvorak one doesn't seem to be working very well.

  • by gripen40k (957933) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:39AM (#16764079)
    Maybe he meant interoperability as in it will work with WinXP, which is a very logical argument, and 'every mainstream OS' means it works with.... Linux? :P But really, what is this 'interoperability' you speak of? What exactly does that include, networking? At our university, we have linux and win32 platforms networked and working fine together... So I'm just not sure what you speak of when you say that it's 'inter operable'...

    Anyways, the Parent has a point, a very good one. I don't want to reinstall windows let alone switch to a different OS, as the amount of time I have spent catering to this particular install is quite a bit. However, on my media server, I have thought about switching over to a new OS (I have winXP right now, and it's kinda crappy to leave on 24/7). This new... er... frankenSuSE might be the answer, although I probably won't wait that long for it to come out. BUT, businesses might find it appealing, as the IT people can be like 'w00t, we use linux!' but they can go to their employer saying they have the utmost confidence it still works with their Vista workstations...
  • by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:48AM (#16764131) Journal
    Every time I see a statement like this it pisses me off. Linux is very inter operable with every mainstream OS except Windows.

    I don't think he meant interoperability between operating systems, but rather applications and services. Active Directory integrates seamlessly with Exchange, Group Policy, DNS, all forms of ACLs, and allows easy authentication of Windows users and computers. Exchange connects and works great with Outlook and offers a feature set not yet matched by any open source solution. MS Office applications can simply and quickly communicate and transfer information back and forth. -- The significant thing is that it all just works together.

    Also why is it I find Linux far simpler than Windows. You set it up and it works forever.

    I know this is Slashdot, and the same discussions are re-hashed in every article about Linux, but this kind of broad sweeping statement needs to DIE.

    Linux is not simpler than Windows. You don't simply push a button and suddenly everything works. I just installed Ubuntu on my laptop and had to fight a small war to get accelerated graphics working. I had to change the wireless network stuff so it used ndiswrapper instead of whatever it was the installer wanted to use to prevent it from constantly dropping connections.

    I'm tired of giving examples just to have them shot down by people who think everybody is a hardware expert, has the contents of /etc/ memorized, and oh who cares because nobody needs accelerated graphics on Linux because there's no games to play anyway. If the average user (and my install was very average) needs to manually edit config files, then Linux is still failing at being simple to install and use. To your average user these are not small configuration issues, they are glaring *problems* with the software.

    you just reboot and pray

    Funny, but I find myself doing this very thing with Linux (what's broken? Is it GDM, Gnome, Nautilus? Did one of the services break? Which one? Ah, screw it, just reboot.)
  • exchange of money (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SgtChaireBourne (457691) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:53AM (#16764163) Homepage

    Interesting that it involves the exchange of money. This lays the ground work for MS to keep collecting after they sever the agreement with Novell. The agreement runs out in 5 years, but there is a clause in the contract which allows MS to terminate it earlier.

    Either way, it tries to fool people into accepting software patents. For the short term, many projects can be moved to European servers, just like when encryption export was illegal in the US. However, in the long term, the US needs to adopt a more common sense approach to patents and revoke any involving intangibles like software, mathematical formulas, and literature. Expression of those is already protected by copyright. What we have now is a broken system which allows restricting ideas.

  • by houghi (78078) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:57AM (#16764183)
    It is amaxing that people are actualy anti Microsoft instead of pro-linux. Also nice to see so many people jumping to conclusions.

    Even if you were to change distributions, I would say it is unwise to stop updating. First the deal is about SLED and SLES, so 'normal' SUSE users, or better openSUSE users won't be affected for a LONG time.

    Second, say that I stop updating my servers, I will need two to three months to test a new distribution. What must I do when in the meantime there is a vurlerability? Leave it open?
  • by ruppel (82583) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:08AM (#16764251)
    From that same page Novel states the following,

    "...If any of our code is found to infringe someone else's patents, we will try to find prior technology to invalidate the patents, rework the code to design around the infringement, or as a last resort remove the functionality..."

    This is a nice admission of Novell to the fact that they will never pay anyone licensing fees for a patent. This is of course true for most large corporations, but they hardly ever go on record stating it this clearly.
  • by strider44 (650833) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:39AM (#16764395)
    I don't think he meant interoperability between operating systems, but rather applications and services. Active Directory integrates seamlessly with Exchange, Group Policy, DNS, all forms of ACLs, and allows easy authentication of Windows users and computers. Exchange connects and works great with Outlook and offers a feature set not yet matched by any open source solution. MS Office applications can simply and quickly communicate and transfer information back and forth. -- The significant thing is that it all just works together.

    That's because they're all owned and marketed by Microsoft. I suppose that would be more intraoperability as opposed to interoperability.
  • Re:ibm and redhat (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RLiegh (247921) * on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @03:45AM (#16764437) Homepage Journal
    WHY does anyone assume that IBM is going to save Linux from any sort of patent problem? IBM is like, the god corporation of patents. Honestly, I wish you people would pull your heads out of your nether regions for just one brief moment and realise that it's much more likely that IBM would simply shrug and (if they needed to) switch over to SUSE.

    This is about patents; IBM LOVES patents, much more than they like Linux.

    Anyone who counts on IBM is a fool, and has forgotten that before microsoft was "M$", IBM was the big evil. It's much, much more likely that IBM will return to their old ways than it is that they'll fight a patent war against MS.
  • by molnarcs (675885) <csabamolnarNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @04:16AM (#16764573) Homepage Journal
    John Dvorak of PC Magazine figures that Microsoft will develop GPL work-arounds, and eventually begin releasing Linux apps.



    Actually this whole deal is a GPL workaround. Not exactly a violation (that's difficult to prove), but certainly a workaround. As Kurt Pfeifle puts it:

    Novell's FAQ says, they worked out the details "with the principles and obligations of the GPL in mind". Right...., riiiiiight! Yes, with the "GPL principles in mind" -- but not in order to advance these. Rather in order to work around them. Get this, readers!
    That's why so many emblematic figures of the FLOSS movement are upset - they didn't expect Novell to be party to this.


    That's why so many of the emblematic figures of the FLOSS movement are so upset. Because you don't have to wait for MS to work around the GPL - with some help from Novell, they already did.

  • by kestasjk (933987) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @04:18AM (#16764581) Homepage
    I know this is Slashdot, and the same discussions are re-hashed in every article about Linux, but this kind of broad sweeping statement needs to DIE.

    Linux is not simpler than Windows. You don't simply push a button and suddenly everything works. I just installed Ubuntu on my laptop and had to fight a small war to get accelerated graphics working. I had to change the wireless network stuff so it used ndiswrapper instead of whatever it was the installer wanted to use to prevent it from constantly dropping connections.

    I'm tired of giving examples just to have them shot down by people who think everybody is a hardware expert, has the contents of /etc/ memorized, and oh who cares because nobody needs accelerated graphics on Linux because there's no games to play anyway. If the average user (and my install was very average) needs to manually edit config files, then Linux is still failing at being simple to install and use. To your average user these are not small configuration issues, they are glaring *problems* with the software.

    I google "ubuntu nvidia graphics", and this comes up: Unofficial Ubuntu 6.10 (Edgy Eft) Starter Guide [ubuntuguide.org].
    It comes down to:
    1) Add universal repositories in Synaptic package manager.
    2) Type this in in the terminal:
    sudo apt-get install nvidia-glx nvidia-kernel-common
    sudo nvidia-glx-config enable

    3) Type Ctrl-Alt-Backspace to restart your display, or reboot if you prefer.
    There are guides to the first and second steps too.

    If you know Debian derived distros this is, of course, as second nature as a Windows user using the control panel.

    you just reboot and pray

    Funny, but I find myself doing this very thing with Linux (what's broken? Is it GDM, Gnome, Nautilus? Did one of the services break? Which one? Ah, screw it, just reboot.)

    If GDM or a service crashes it will restart. If nautilus crashes you can restart it by clicking the Home folder button in the dropdown menu. At least when Nautilus crashes the taskbar doesn't go, along with IE, like it does with explorer.exe which leaves you staring at your wallpaper and hoping it'll start back up.

    I don't like Linux fanboys, and I think the recent shifts away from 100% rabid anti-Windows posts are very positive. But I do think Linux is as easy to use for a newcomer as Windows, and it has communities built up around the specific distro you use which offer support for all the common problems.

    It's silly to say Linux is hard to use and Windows is easy when you don't use Linux but are experienced with Windows. As far as someone who is completely inexperienced with computers goes I think would find a modern Linux distro just as easy to use as they would Windows.
    Personally I find Linux and Windows just as easy to use for browsing the web etc, but when it comes to troubleshooting I find Linux much easier. This doesn't mean Windows is necessarily harder to use, I just know Linux better than Windows.

    "Linux is very user friendly, it's just picky about its friends."
  • by Daniel Phillips (238627) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @04:32AM (#16764649)
    Software patents are reality.

    So is vote rigging. That does not mean that everybody has to accept abuse of either the patent system or the electoral system.

    This latest attempt to extend market control using patent based innuendo to partition the Linux market is abuse by a monopolist, pure and simple. You can roll over and play dead if you wish to, but some of us have no intention of doing so.
  • by Snover (469130) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @05:52AM (#16765005) Homepage
    I've had quite the opposite experience with most of my equipment. Unlike Windows, most of what I've needed with Linux has worked out of the box with no need to install 3rd party drivers. I've installed Ubuntu on 4 desktops and 2 laptops and Debian on another 3 desktops and have had only minor issues with a couple of these systems related to networking equipment (the fault of these issues lying squarely with Broadcom for not providing drivers nor documentation for their wireless chipsets). It is really a case of YMMV, where some people (like me) have a perfect or near-perfect result and others (like you) have an extremely difficult time. However, compared to where the Linux scene was just 2 short years ago (where there was no distribution that I could get to install completely out of the box and run reliably on any equipment I tried it on), things have improved astronomically and I only see more improvement ahead.
  • by AdamKG (1004604) <slashdot@@@adamgomaa...com> on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @06:18AM (#16765171) Homepage
    So has anyone sued their potential customers (or a competitors customers) and made good?
    Yes.

    What you don't consider is that Linux adoption is incredibly low- much lower than it should be. This is largely due, directly and indirectly, to the SCO case. Directly, businesses were pushed away from Linux out of fear of a lawsuit by SCO. Indirectly, because greater adoption of Linux would have spurred greater effort on Desktop Linux, thereby increasing adoption again, and so on- the so-called "critical mass" effect.

    If it hadn't been for SCO, Linux would likely rule the world already- but SCO was such a spectacular success for MS that they're doing it again, with likely the same results. Businesses are (rightfully) scared of lawsuits. They were scared of them from SCO, and they'll be terrified of lawsuits from MS.

    SCO was never meant to succeed as a company- their sole purpose from 2003 on was to hold back Linux while they fell into bankruptcy kicking and screaming. They did a spectacular job. MS is ready to take Linux on head-on now, armed with a patent portfolio, increasing amounts of TPM, and the IP social conflict setting a good stage for them to take down the last Unix.

    On a side note- it appears Stallman was right again. Software Idea Patents have turned out to be a huge threat to FOSS, and it's likely to only get worse now that MS is ready to join the lawsuit game.
  • by 10Ghz (453478) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @06:18AM (#16765177)
    "You do realize that the first two issues are completely unrelated to the OS on it, right?"

    Yes they are. Linux does not suffer from that crap. OS X does not suffer from that crap. Every single computer I have been asked to "fix" has been a Windows-machine that has been filled with adware and other assorted crap. And I DO know people who use Linux (some of those Linux-users could be described as "joe Sixpack") and OS X. They don't seem to suffer from these issues. These problems are 100% focused on Windows.

    "(As for the 3rd issue, yeah that's just odd, although I wouldn't be surprised if the root cause of that was also user initiated)"

    What happened was that I unplugged the computer, swapped the RAM, plugged the machine back in, and the PNA-adapter was gone. Just like that. sure, you could say that I screwed something up, but that's unlikely. I have installed RAM maybe 100+ times without any issues, and I didn't go anywhere near the PNA-adapter. And even if the adapter was somehow damaged, it should still be visible in Windows (even though it didn't work anymore). But it's not. It just vanished. It's like it never existed.

    "The reason why it's filled with crap and multiple virus scanners on it, is likely due your novice neighbor's actions and decisions."

    Why does Windows require the user to make those decision, if it's so "simple"? Most user are utterly incapable of making those decisions (as my neighbour demonstrated), yet they are basically required in Windows. Fact is that people who use Linux or OS X, simply do not have to worry about virus-scanners or spyware, whereas Windows-users do.

    "The big question is that if your neighbor was on Linux, trying to do the same thing, what would have happened?"

    Nothing, since I have yet to see a Linux-install that has been infested with viruses and/or spyware.

    "I don't care what platform you are on, someone is going to run into some inexplicable combination of hardware, software, and "user errors" (as well as plain old bugs) that causes bizarre things to happen."

    The difference is that Windows can spontanously combust. It can change drive-letters around (I have seen that happen on our servers, twice), it can mysteriously lose working components (like what happened yesterday). Those things happen even though the user does not do anything. Sure, user could screw up Linux as well, but the damage he can do there is harder to do, and more limited by default. The user can delete his personal data, but it would take real effort for him to screw up the system. And I have never seen Linux just lose components. One minute that network-adapter is there, then it just suddenly vanishes, taking the network with it. I honestly haven't seen that happen in Linux.

    "Without a doubt, the Linux issues are going to be far harder to troubleshoot and debug for your average computer user, simply because the vast majority of them have no idea what a "command line" is, much less knowing what the hell "re-compiling" means."

    Why would they have to compile anything? Yes, they might have more problems with Linux. But that's not due to compiling or CLI, it's due to the fact that most users know Windows, whereas most users don't know Linux. make someone who has only used Windows in the past use Linux without any training and they will have problems, period. Same applies to other OS'es. My wife has problems using OS X, because she is used to Linux/GNOME-combo.

    And, in many ways, CLI can actually be easier to use (even though using the CLI is not really a requirement in Linux). Why? Copy/Paste. Many times I do my tasks in CLI, due to the fact that when someone writes instructions to do something in CLI, you can just C/P the instructions to the terminal and hit Enter. With a GUI, you need to go through the instructions one step at a time as it tells you to "then click on the "Advanced"-tab, make sure these checkboxes are checked...."
  • by etrusco (576870) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @06:48AM (#16765329)
    This is honestly not the experience I have with Ubuntu. Granted, I live in Brazil so I installed it on machines ranging from 6 months to 5 years old, not really the latest stuff, and I never have set up wi-fi, but all installations went very very smoothly. And I've been using (and installing and suggesting) Ubuntu since Hoary (and then Breezy, Dapper, Edgy, and some in between).
    Actually, I don't know why I'm arguing this (maybe because you're already modded +3? :-/ ), but Linux installation and hardware detection has been working for me much better than Windows (my employer is mainly an MS shop) for many years now.
    Maybe you shouldn't usually expect the very latest hardware to work out-of-the-box on Linux? It's sad this is still the state of affairs, but you know the hardware manufacturers are to blame (the most). You know it, RIGHT? ;-)

    PS. A user program shouldn't be able to crash the OS, no matter how badly it's written.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @07:49AM (#16765597)
    In my experience, Windows people are quite the opposite. The don't want to know why it doesn't work. They don't want to know how to fix it, even if it's just a single click, and has to be done three times per day. They want me to do it for them, without trying to explain anything.

    They consider learning and understanding the opposite of userfriendliness.

    Those who wants to understand generally don't like Windows. Noone understands the registry, and without understanding the registry, you will not understand Windows.
  • by sadler121 (735320) <msadler@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:53AM (#16766571) Homepage
    MS is promoting pure fud. MS would NEVER sue a company for patent violation. IBM has a lot more patents on softare than MS and has already promised to let Open Source use those patents. By the amount of patents IBM has, Microsoft is violating one of them. That is why MS will never sue, but threaten to sue, ie FUD.
  • by Trelane (16124) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @11:45AM (#16768633) Journal
    So far, every machine I've installed Linux on I've had serious compatibility issues in every case. I'm not trying to install Linux on my alarm clock here, these are every day, very common PC parts. I've yet to have a smooth Linux installation. It's simply not for mom and pop yet.

    Mom and pop don't install Linux. Mom and pop don't install Windows. Linux is just as ready for them as Windows is (in fact, it's arguably superior in several categories). However, it does require vendor cooperation--just like Windows

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One to hold the giraffe and one to fill the bathtub with brightly colored power tools.

Working...