PDA

View Full Version : Redhat in talk with Micro$oft



technomaniac
July 5th, 2007, 03:36 PM
Well it seems now RedHat wants to cut a deal with MS. I thinks its pretty bad. First Novell and now RedHat. These are one of the biggest Linux vendors. And this is not a good sign. Microsoft wont do Linux any good. I really think they have a sinister plan. MS cant be trusted. Will Ubuntu join MS too? That would be bad. I will be forced to use Debian or Mandriva. I really like Ubuntu. Hope it does not collaborate with MS. Mike , are you listening?

23meg
July 5th, 2007, 03:38 PM
Link?

John.Michael.Kane
July 5th, 2007, 03:40 PM
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5620044582.html
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2154521,00.asp

timcredible
July 5th, 2007, 03:41 PM
does redhat still make linux distros? it's been years since i've known anyone to use redhat, so i don't think it makes a bit of difference. everyone uses ubuntu or pclos now.

dca
July 5th, 2007, 03:41 PM
They've been in talks for a while. The problem is RH wants nothing to do w/ the IP clause in the contract. MS won't sign an agreement w/o one...

I dunno', people need to stop thinking about what is best for Linux on a desktop level. These agreements are being reached because MULTI-BILLION dollar companies are asking for it. RH, Novell, IBM, MS, et al do not want to lose them...

az
July 5th, 2007, 03:42 PM
Well it seems now RedHat wants to cut a deal with MS. I thinks its pretty bad. First Novell and now RedHat. These are one of the biggest Linux vendors. And this is not a good sign. Microsoft wont do Linux any good. I really think they have a sinister plan. MS cant be trusted. Will Ubuntu join MS too? That would be bad. I will be forced to use Debian or Mandriva. I really like Ubuntu. Hope it does not collaborate with MS.

That deal is about interoperability. Not patents. Get a grip.


Interoperability = good.

Ubuntu would surely work together with Microsoft to improve interoperability. That does nothing at all to compromise software freedom.

Please get your facts straight.

technomaniac
July 5th, 2007, 03:54 PM
But there is a thin line between collaborating with them and selling your souls to them.... Interoperabilty is good but NOT AT THE COST OF FREEDOM. I love Ubuntu and dont want it to touch MS even with a barge pole

Wiebelhaus
July 5th, 2007, 03:57 PM
I read that specifically canonical said that any deal with MS is firm NO , came in from a rss feed or something , can't recall from where but i'm sure if you search you could find it.

ThinkBuntu
July 5th, 2007, 04:08 PM
Red Hat is one of the most important Linux organizations for both promotion and development. As such, much like Debian, it operates independently of many forces that other distros are forced to honor, and has its own ecosystem of developers, businesses, users, and professionals.

Microsoft will have to offer a very favorable and/or clearly benign deal for Red Hat to sign on, much as they'd have to if they were to get a deal with Sun.

deepclutch
July 5th, 2007, 04:08 PM
How can u believe devil?No interoperatability,just they be asking $$$ in backdoor with Linux companies.

tehkain
July 5th, 2007, 04:09 PM
I read that specifically canonical said that any deal with MS is firm NO , came in from a rss feed or something , can't recall from where but i'm sure if you search you could find it.

Uh no. Mark said he would love to work with Redmond, but he would never do the patent agreement or anything in that vain.

There is a difference between working with MS and taking their money to do a certain thing. There would be no money changing hands for a 'true interoperability'' deal. It would be a good thing for us. Do not think you can become like Apple, novel, and the rest by not taking money in exchange for your soul. If they take money and call it interoperability then it is not what it seems.


Also that article is terrible.

plb
July 5th, 2007, 04:28 PM
does redhat still make linux distros? it's been years since i've known anyone to use redhat, so i don't think it makes a bit of difference. everyone uses ubuntu or pclos now.

um I'd say rh is most popular in server market

igknighted
July 5th, 2007, 04:37 PM
um I'd say rh is most popular in server market

Not just the server market, the enterprise desktop market as well. Also they are the primary contributors to Fedora, which is still a very popular desktop linux distro.

deepclutch
July 5th, 2007, 04:49 PM
RH is a pioneer .so does debian.with debian,they are strict followers of FOSS .

brim4brim
July 5th, 2007, 05:03 PM
Well Ms isn't great at the whole working with other companies thing.

Note how Apple lost their code legally to Ms over a stupid agreement to share source code with Ms and then you had IBM with OS/2 and all of a sudden NT appeared.

OS companies that collaborate with Ms get screwed. Ms could probably just take code from open source projects I guess but they have some sinister reason to get involved I'm sure.

Ms lawyers aren't on high wages for nothing you know.

smoker
July 5th, 2007, 05:14 PM
sounds like speculative fud.

Hendrixski
July 5th, 2007, 05:27 PM
:-(

Everything about this thread irks me. I haven't used windows in over a year but I haven't spelled it with a $. that's juvenile. Belongs in kindergarten. GROW UP.

Red Hat is still a great company, OLPC runs a modified Red Hat. So what if they want to partner up with Microsoft? If they take their distro in a direction nobody in the open source world wants, then nobody will use their distro, nobdy will develop for it and they fade into nothingness. I doubt that is their intention. They'll take it in new directions that more people will like. That will draw more people to use linux. They have families to feed ya know.

DalekClock
July 5th, 2007, 05:53 PM
Yay! I'll finally be able to get Pidgin as a DEB!

Hooray for Linux puritans who turn their backs at anything M$-related!

forrestcupp
July 5th, 2007, 05:54 PM
Well Ms isn't great at the whole working with other companies thing.

Note how Apple lost their code legally to Ms over a stupid agreement to share source code with Ms and then you had IBM with OS/2 and all of a sudden NT appeared.

OS companies that collaborate with Ms get screwed. Ms could probably just take code from open source projects I guess but they have some sinister reason to get involved I'm sure.

Ms lawyers aren't on high wages for nothing you know.

Well, they wouldn't get very far if those open source projects have a GPL license. And there's not much that one distro company could do about that anyway.

Like az said, interoperability isn't bad. That is one of the major selling factors of OpenOffice.org which is Free software.

Besides, Microsoft isn't stupid. MS Office costs more than Windows. They would love to expand their Office user base.


:-(

Everything about this thread irks me. I haven't used windows in over a year but I haven't spelled it with a $. that's juvenile. Belongs in kindergarten. GROW UP.

Amen

ThinkBuntu
July 5th, 2007, 06:08 PM
:-(

Everything about this thread irks me. I haven't used windows in over a year but I haven't spelled it with a $. that's juvenile. Belongs in kindergarten. GROW UP.

Red Hat is still a great company, OLPC runs a modified Red Hat. So what if they want to partner up with Microsoft? If they take their distro in a direction nobody in the open source world wants, then nobody will use their distro, nobdy will develop for it and they fade into nothingness. I doubt that is their intention. They'll take it in new directions that more people will like. That will draw more people to use linux. They have families to feed ya know.

If Red Hat and a couple other minor distros go the Microsoft way, there will be no specifically enterprise-grade Linux server that exists outside the Microsoft world. This is very bad for the freedom to choose a distribution if you're a business without the know-how of Slackware or Debian pros.

zach12
July 5th, 2007, 06:10 PM
no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

igknighted
July 5th, 2007, 06:36 PM
If Red Hat and a couple other minor distros go the Microsoft way, there will be no specifically enterprise-grade Linux server that exists outside the Microsoft world. This is very bad for the freedom to choose a distribution if you're a business without the know-how of Slackware or Debian pros.

Not sure I agree with this. Novell is in no way "in ms's pocket". Say MS says novell, you need to do ________ that would subvert the OSS community. Until Novell gives me any reason to believe otherwise, I think they would say F*** OFF. So what then, does MS sue? MS could never win a patent war against Novell, Sun, RH and the vast array of other companies that would support them. Thats what the OSS community has... a community. Who would jump in and protect MS? I cannot think of anyone.

So the deals are win-win for linux, and at worst set up a mutually assured destruction situation. While not ideal, I think it provides its own stability to the situation and I think that no matter how you slice it, Novell (and linux as a whole) won with that deal.

forrestcupp
July 5th, 2007, 07:15 PM
Not sure I agree with this. Novell is in no way "in ms's pocket". Say MS says novell, you need to do ________ that would subvert the OSS community. Until Novell gives me any reason to believe otherwise, I think they would say F*** OFF. So what then, does MS sue? MS could never win a patent war against Novell, Sun, RH and the vast array of other companies that would support them. Thats what the OSS community has... a community. Who would jump in and protect MS? I cannot think of anyone.

So the deals are win-win for linux, and at worst set up a mutually assured destruction situation. While not ideal, I think it provides its own stability to the situation and I think that no matter how you slice it, Novell (and linux as a whole) won with that deal.

Especially since MS only owns about 27 of the 283 patents, and most of the rest are owned by people who support Linux.

jrusso2
July 5th, 2007, 07:16 PM
I don't mind any Linux company making a deal to support better interoperability. I just don't like the patent deals and those should no longer be possible with GPL v3

vexorian
July 5th, 2007, 07:19 PM
Well Ms isn't great at the whole working with other companies thing.

Note how Apple lost their code legally to Ms over a stupid agreement to share source code with Ms and then you had IBM with OS/2 and all of a sudden NT appeared.

OS companies that collaborate with Ms get screwed. Ms could probably just take code from open source projects I guess but they have some sinister reason to get involved I'm sure.

Ms lawyers aren't on high wages for nothing you know.
*hugs his GPL LICENSE*

.
I won't have any problem with RedHat if they don't make an IP, patent (or FUD-drone contract) deal. And I doubt RH would ever do such stupid thing.

ThinkBuntu
July 5th, 2007, 07:20 PM
I don't mind any Linux company making a deal to support better interoperability. I just don't like the patent deals and those should no longer be possible with GPL v3
If anyone adopts it. We know that Torvalds and his Kernel are sticking with GPLv2.

justin whitaker
July 5th, 2007, 07:30 PM
If anyone adopts it. We know that Torvalds and his Kernel are sticking with GPLv2.

Did he say that for sure yet?

Dragonbite
July 5th, 2007, 07:37 PM
From what I've observed from Red Hat, I don't think they would do anything without reason, not only for the Company but for the Community too (although, have to admit, Company comes first but money and community are tightly #2).

Their business leaders are also into the technology so they're pretty sharp.

deepclutch
July 5th, 2007, 07:41 PM
I hope Linux kernel be GPL3ed,i know that it got different ppls work.but let Linus once convinced,then we are having winners.else,there will be a split btwn gpl2 vs gpl3 and purists(FOSS,RMS) may suffer.and M$ will be a winner. :x

Polygon
July 5th, 2007, 07:56 PM
If anyone adopts it. We know that Torvalds and his Kernel are sticking with GPLv2.

he is "thinking" about adopting gplv3 because sun is releasing solaris under gplv3 (or is thinking about it at least)

there was some linux kernel mailing list post about it.

deepclutch
July 5th, 2007, 08:19 PM
^So Hybrid kernel(Linux+solaris) if that is a possibility we are the One :D

Dragonbite
July 5th, 2007, 08:58 PM
he is "thinking" about adopting gplv3 because sun is releasing solaris under gplv3 (or is thinking about it at least)

there was some linux kernel mailing list post about it. Maybe with enough wine (guess who's coming to dinner? (http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/date/20070613) a la' Jonathan Schwartz (last paragraph) ) Linus will be convinced?!

az
July 5th, 2007, 09:51 PM
If anyone adopts it. We know that Torvalds and his Kernel are sticking with GPLv2.

It doesn't matter. The kernel doesn'T have to be GPLv3 licenced. A lot of other parts of the OS are now using v3 and that means that some GPLv3 code will be hitting downstream soon. When that happens, it will ship with the distro and the patent holders will have to abide by the terms.

Yes, the kerne is a big part, but there are many other big parts that can't be re-written to circumvent GPLv3's terms.


^So Hybrid kernel(Linux+solaris) if that is a possibility we are the One :D


No. But you can run an Ubuntu system on a solaris kernel. It's called Nexenta. The OS is kernel-agnostic. You can run Ubuntu on a BSD kernel if you wanted. Linux has a great community and that translates into a lot of hardware support. But it's not the only player in town.

Do you care what kernel you run? So long as it works, I wouldn't care if I was running GNU/Linux, GNU/BSD or GNU/Solaris.

vexorian
July 5th, 2007, 09:54 PM
It doesn't matter. The kernel doesn'T have to be GPLv3 licenced. A lot of other parts of the OS are now using v3 and that means that some GPLv3 code will be hitting downstream soon. When that happens, it will ship with the distro and the patent holders will have to abide by the terms.

Yes, the kerne is a big part, but there are many other big parts that can't be re-written to circumvent GPLv3's terms.




No. But you can run an Ubuntu system on a solaris kernel. It's called Nexenta. The OS is kernel-agnostic. You can run Ubuntu on a BSD kernel if you wanted. Linux has a great community and that translates into a lot of hardware support. But it's not the only player in town.

Do you care what kernel you run? So long as it works, I wouldn't care if I was running GNU/Linux, GNU/BSD or GNU/Solaris.
Yeah and that's exactly why Linus would have to move to GPL3 if sun adopted it for solaris.

deepclutch
July 5th, 2007, 10:03 PM
FOSS means options,let them come(solaris) ;) I heard very good remarks as with solaris and tried nexenta(or is it some belonix?) some time back in a livecd.

deepclutch
July 5th, 2007, 10:04 PM
Do you care what kernel you run? So long as it works, I wouldn't care if I was running GNU/Linux, GNU/BSD or GNU/Solaris.
I dont care as long as windows kernel(does it have a real one) is not there! :p

vexorian
July 5th, 2007, 10:06 PM
I plan installing ReactOS once it is stable

Turboaaa2001
July 5th, 2007, 10:28 PM
Few simple unbiased points:

1. Microsoft has been looking at Linux more than it used to, and we can only speculate why.

2. When MS starts making deals with another company, they have always shown that they "Want It All". DOS anyone???

3. Red Hat (Fedora) would only exchange $ and IP if it's in trouble. As long as Red Hat is strong in the IT world then there is no need to worry.


My opinion:

MS are the ones in trouble. They have poorly made OSs and little else, even the average Joe is getting upset over their products by turning to Apple or holding onto XP like a pitbull to a steak.

Because of this MS is starting to pull the old tricks. Buy companies and use their IP to get rid of competition, DOS anyone??? So this is why MS is pulling out their wallets and lawers, buying Lindows (why buy an OS that sucks eggs?) and other "better" OSs.

On a side note, do you think it's possible that because Mac OS is based on Linux that MS might be trying to get the underlying IPs to "own" them? I really don't know it just popped in my head just now.

This is nothing but MS scrambling to save face.

@trophy
July 5th, 2007, 10:37 PM
On a side note, do you think it's possible that because Mac OS is based on Linux that MS might be trying to get the underlying IPs to "own" them? I really don't know it just popped in my head just now.


No. OS X is based on NeXT, which was based on OpenBSD, not Linux. Besides, if it were based on Linux and that's what Microsoft wanted to do, they'd be pulling out the patents for "drop-down list" and crap like that rather than trying to buy Linux.

init1
July 6th, 2007, 02:03 AM
does redhat still make linux distros? it's been years since i've known anyone to use redhat, so i don't think it makes a bit of difference. everyone uses ubuntu or pclos now.
They make Fedora. 7 came out recently.

kamaboko
July 6th, 2007, 02:18 AM
Especially since MS only owns about 27 of the 283 patents, and most of the rest are owned by people who support Linux.

Depends on the value of the patents not on the quantity. The value still needs to be determined.

kamaboko
July 6th, 2007, 02:20 AM
Few simple unbiased points:

My opinion:

MS are the ones in trouble.



Wishful thinking.

technomaniac
July 6th, 2007, 05:13 AM
Microsoft may have a bad OS , but they have loads of cash and a good battery of lawyers. And thats what frightens me. See I dont understand much about patent laws but what if MS puts in their own code into the Linux kernel and claims it to be their own. Similar to SCO. And MS is way bigger than SCO. The interoperability deal has no goodwill. MS does not want Linux to succeed. This deal is a compulsion of sorts for MS. Only time will. While interoperability is good for both sides but it remains to be seen what cost Linux companies will pay for this.

Polygon
July 6th, 2007, 07:51 AM
Microsoft may have a bad OS , but they have loads of cash and a good battery of lawyers. And thats what frightens me. See I dont understand much about patent laws but what if MS puts in their own code into the Linux kernel and claims it to be their own. Similar to SCO. And MS is way bigger than SCO. The interoperability deal has no goodwill. MS does not want Linux to succeed. This deal is a compulsion of sorts for MS. Only time will. While interoperability is good for both sides but it remains to be seen what cost Linux companies will pay for this.

the kernel developers are not stupid, they are not going to accept code that is licensed in any weird way to prevent legal trouble.

technomaniac
July 6th, 2007, 09:48 AM
Of course they are not. But MS is not an angel either.

vexorian
July 6th, 2007, 05:41 PM
Microsoft may have a bad OS , but they have loads of cash and a good battery of lawyers. And thats what frightens me. See I dont understand much about patent laws but what if MS puts in their own code into the Linux kernel and claims it to be their own. Similar to SCO. And MS is way bigger than SCO. The interoperability deal has no goodwill. MS does not want Linux to succeed. This deal is a compulsion of sorts for MS. Only time will. While interoperability is good for both sides but it remains to be seen what cost Linux companies will pay for this.
*hugs his GPL license, again*

Seriously, MS is frightened cause the only legal way to do such settlement would be that the code is GPL compatible, which means no crazy patents which means they can't do that. No matter how witty they are.

This is the reason their plan is simply to FUD the hell out of us instead of actually doing anything. Let them buy lackeys (err make patent deals) and spread FUD whenever they got the chance.

IMO if you see the MS CEO (or whatever) in a bussiness magazine interview mentioning how the open source world is exploiting their patents, what you see is MS spreading FUD and FUD and FUD.

What MS is doing is scaring users away, with all the dollars MS got they can't simply stop Linux, it is impossible because it is open source, even if MS enjailed linus torvalds and everyone else, there are still a bunch of users that got the Linux source so they could do customizations and they will simply continue making the kernel and release more distros. This is the reason MS is not attacking the OS developers but the users, and that's the reason MS is buying distros that way users will have to pay MS whenever they use Linux.

Welcome to the world in which a monopoly is strong enough to force the competition to pay them royalties for each sell.

Turboaaa2001
July 6th, 2007, 11:20 PM
*hugs his GPL license, again*
...Welcome to the world in which a monopoly is strong enough to force the competition to pay them royalties for each sell.

Good observation, if you don't mind I want to add to it.

The US has the worst capitalist system in the world, and sadly MS is based here. The whole system is based on loop holes and technicalities. That is why we, in general, are afraid. Besides England, the US is the largest Linux using body in the world, and if there is ANY way that MS can get Open Source into it's pockets then it will slow progress considerably.

The following is more of a "What If" statement:

Right now there is little that is illigal online, the biggest is child pornagraphy. People here in the US want to make web content that supports "terror" just as illigal as said porn, but we know that that is against what "we" (and I meen the government) is trying to support. Freedom

The point? I can see MS somehow down the road getting the IPs it needs to make Linux illigal in some way in the US. Will poeple get around it? Of course, we broke the liscensing on Vista before it came out. But less people will be interested in trying Linux on an impulse.

I don't think we have anything to fear right now, we just need to make sure we know the difference between whats fact and speculation, and not exagerate the problem.

Frak
July 6th, 2007, 11:32 PM
Will Ubuntu join MS too? That would be bad. I will be forced to use Debian or Mandriva. I really like Ubuntu. Hope it does not collaborate with MS.

Luckily, Ubuntu is not in the business of making $$$. Plus, Mark Shuttleworth should always think things through. He may have declared himself the SABDFL, but we're the democracy that decides Ubuntu's fate.
I would bet Ubuntu would fork if they made the "deal". Canonical knows better.

kamaboko
July 6th, 2007, 11:44 PM
So what do you think they'll call it? How about SoftHat? MicroRed?\\:D/

gnomeuser
July 7th, 2007, 12:10 AM
um I'd say rh is most popular in server market

Actually Fedora and derived products (RHEL, OLPC OS and so on) accounts for the majority of of Linux machines today. This is largely thanks to Red Flag Linux which is the most used distro in the world (currently 37% of all new PCs in China ships with Linux, the majority of these are Red Flag) - Red Flag is a recompiled RHEL, RHEL is derived from Fedora.

As a Fedora guy that makes me a tiny bit scared, whenever I commit something to CVS I risk breaking literally millions of desktops.

Aside that Red Hat funds a lot of desktop development, including the OLPC which should start shipping in about 2 months, starting with a few million laptops.. all of them desktop machines I think it's safe to say that despite Ubuntus amazing success, Red Hats presence on the Linux desktop is far from fading, in fact it's soaring, including in new areas. I think we should be happy that all this translates into Linux on more desktops and better technologies for all of us to play with.

As for this proposed deal, Red Hat probably wanted to underline that the Novell-MS style deals despite their talk of interoperability was all about patents, to do that they proposed a deal where interoperability was all that was talked about and specifically excluded patent cross licensing. Microsoft turned the deal down earlier today btw. It was a win-win situation for Red Hat, they get the deal and interoperability gets better, they get turned down and they get to parade around that Microsoft are not really interested in interoperability.