IBM Weighs In On Novell — Microsoft Deal 116
Azul writes "In an interview, Scott Handy, IBM's VP of Worldwide Linux and Open Source, has stated IBM's position on the recent Novell-Microsoft agreement. According to Handy, Novell has been quite clear that they had never agreed that Microsoft had any proof of Microsoft patent violations in Linux." From the article: "'IBM has long supported interoperability between Windows and Linux. As supporters of open source and open standards, we applaud any effort to bridge this gap.' ... Looking ahead, Handy said that despite the outcry in some circles about Novell's deal with Microsoft, IBM will be making 'No change in our partnership with Novell ... IBM has two strategic Linux partners, Red Hat and Novell. This has served us very well for seven-years. Over 90 percent of the Linux server market now belongs to those two companies and the industry has consolidated around those two leaders,' he added."
IBM is safe (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM can afford to shrug off Microsoft's FUD campaign, because they have enough patents in their own portfolio to defend themselves. It's pretty sad, though, that every company has to build up a stockpile of bogus patents in order to be safe from patent predation by other companies. You also have to wonder how much of a chilling effect this is going to have on efforts like Samba.
As I said before... (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, but define market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Over 90% of the Linux Server MARKET, eh? Well, first, define server? Is that only a nice IBM piece of hardware, or some other big player piece of hardware? What about SuperMicro, and the middle ground players?
As well, define market? What part of the marketplace does Debian have? None, really, not if you define marketplace as something you can track via sales.
I believe these specifications are out of whack. 90%? From where I sit, it's 90% _non_ Redhat or SuSE....
Re:IBM is safe (Score:5, Insightful)
say != do (Score:1, Insightful)
This is the real play MS are making, that IBM will not endanger their software patent portfolio to fight. IBM could make a similar patent deal involving some random windows reseller, that would send a message. This just shows that they are not willing to risk their own software patent revenue. Marshall Phelps must be laughing real hard at the way he's single handedly destroyed the US software industry!
the Novell deal doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft can pay other people to sign contracts until their bank account is empty and it's meaningless. The only thing that means anything at all (and even then, not much) is if someone admits patent infringement and then pays Microsoft a substantial net amount of money to license the patent.
Re:IBM is safe (Score:5, Insightful)
If it really is a "FUD campaign" (and it is), then so can you.
Re:Please, Stop This (Score:5, Insightful)
There are folks in this same deal who aren't as tightly bound, like Jeremy, who is Samba team leader and also a Novell employee. Jeremy disapproved of the deal in public.
Mild and pragmatic, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
This statement betrays a fundamental disconnect: Scott forgot to mention the developers, the real engine of the community.
Re:yes, but define market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I don't mean to put anybody down here - but when an IBM exec weights in about Linux's market distribution I'd give it a tiny bit more weight than when some random person on Slashdot does.
The few large server-based businesses of which I have any behind-the-scenes knowledge are all running Red Hat Enterprise Linux. One used to run CentOS ("free" Red Hat), but switched to RHEL after their customers demanded support for the OS itself.
The real business world - the one IBM is concerned with - is quite a bit different than the Go-Daddy / Dreamhost / Fat Cow world of tiny hundred-hits-a-month websites.
Re:Debian is the second largest GNU/Linux distro (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:yes, but define market? (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's really the point, isn't it? There is no "real" business world. You sell, you buy, you run a company from your home or a billion dollar enterprise, you're in business. IBM and others tend to act elitist, as if you must do $x in sales per month to count in such a world.
Frankly, a single server in some guy's basement, selling porn on Debian stable, is still a server. That is part of the server market. Someone with two boxes in a colo and a supermotherboard system -- servers. IBM didn't specify "only fortune 500" or "500+ server installation sites"... and that is the error in question.
It is not an accurate look at the "server" market.
Re:IBM is safe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:yes, but define market? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IBM is safe (Score:4, Insightful)
If it by some miracle turns out that Microsoft has a valid patent that some Linux code infringes, there are few potential impacts to the average business or developer:
Yep.
It's FUD.