Print 41 comment(s) - last by Spar.. on Nov 13 at 3:29 PM

Microsoft to offer sales support and collaborate on technology

According to the Wall Street Journal, Microsoft has entered into a partnership with Novell Inc. to offer sales support and technology sharing for Novell's Suse Linux product.

While the deal has yet to be finalized, it represents a surprising new alliance between two warring sides in the operating system world. CEO Steve Ballmer made the announcement at a San Francisco news conference that Linux plays an "important role" in many companies, including Microsoft itself. "We see huge potential upside in these markets."

Novell's Suse Linux is currently the second largest commercial Linux distribution, with first place going to Red Hat. As a result of the announcement, shares in Novell jumped 16% to $6.79.

Financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed, but one of the high points is the expected construction of a joint research facility where the two companies can design and test their software together. Improvements in compatibility between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice are also expected.

Speculation about the long-term outcome of this union has begun already. Frank Artale, vice-president of XenSource, noted that Microsoft's embracing of Suse Linux as opposed to another particular variant could cause a "halo effect" in that the association between the two could make users choose it over another distribution. The open-source community also may have reservations about using a distribution that is "sleeping with the enemy."

As another part of the deal, Microsoft agreed not to file patent infringement charges against Suse users, and Novell has agreed not to sue users of Windows.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By FastEddie on 11/2/2006 10:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
If you can't beat 'em, then buy 'em. jk.
Seriously though, I can't really see anything bad resulting from this union.

RE: Union
By codeThug on 11/3/2006 12:29:31 AM , Rating: 1
Try looking a little harder. Or better yet, talk to Sun Microsystems about the success they had with M$ and java.

M$ would love nothing better than to get their greedy claws into Linux and splinter it.

RE: Union
By Spivonious on 11/3/2006 10:28:15 AM , Rating: 2
Can you honestly say that Windows development is easier in Java than in C#?

RE: Union
By codeThug on 11/3/2006 3:44:04 PM , Rating: 3
The point is Microsoft signed on to support the java STANDARD and then immediately, purposefully, and systematically began to deviate from the standard to corrupt the spirit of platform independence.

Expect them to do the same with Linux if given half a chance.

Don't you recall some of the statements by Ballmer vowing to kill the competition?

Do you think he has changed any?

RE: Union
By TomZ on 11/3/2006 5:12:24 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft did not have a PLAN to destroy Java. In fact, quite the opposite - they planned their entire next generation software development tools and technologies all around Java. But the problem they found was that when new requirements came to light, and opportunities to improve the development experience identified, Sun did not allow Microsoft to make changes to "their" proprietary platform.

So Microsoft made changes anyway, and the rest as they say is history. The situation really has to be viewed as a battle between two technology titans wanting to control the platform. From a legal standpoint, Microsoft was found to be wrong, but from the perspective of wanting to improve the platform, Microsoft were right. And now that Java is going to become open-source, this will legally allow the exact sort of changes that Microsoft got in trouble for with the older, proprietary contracts that Sun had in place for Java.

So now, as a result of Sun's actions, Microsoft has pulled all support for Java and instead developed .NET which is taking a big bite out of Java in many ways. Obviously, .NET is going to continue to completely dominate Windows desktop, server, and mobile development. Java could have owned 100% that market share if Sun had been more flexible eariler on. Only now is Sun realizing their mistake and making Java open source in order to try to regain some share.

So, I applaud Sun's short-sightedness which led or even forced Microsoft to innovate to create .NET, C#, VB.NET, the newer Visual Studio versions, as well as all the newer managed applications and managed APIs available. Realistically, Microsoft never would have been able to do this much innovation if they stuck to Sun's Java platform.

RE: Union
By Rayz on 11/4/2006 3:00:57 AM , Rating: 2
That's not really what happened.

To begin with, you stated that Sun did not allow Microsoft to make changes to the Java platform. This is incorrect. You are allowed to extend the Java platform in any way that you wish, but you must leave the core frameworks intact. IBM has added loads of extra bits to their Java implementation, and every vendor has added megabytes of proprietary stuff to the J2EE platform too, This is not a problem,

What MS did, is remove bits from the core frameworks, and change the structure of the packages. This would mean that even if folk didn't use the Windows-only extensions that they were perfectly free to add, the app would only run on Windows.

And this is a popular misconception with folk who don't know the Java framework, or licensing rules; extensions are allowed, and folk are free to use them; but you cannot delete parts of the core.

Very simple to understand; a clear attempt to wrest control from Sun, which failed.

In the end, MS would have come up with .NET anyway, or tried to buy Sun to extinguish Java that way; so not pursuing the case would not have made any difference, and Sun made a boatload of money out of it, so a good deal for them.

RE: Union
By TomZ on 11/4/2006 8:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
The issue was not that they removed functionality, but that they added functionality to the core packages. The concern that arose from that was that if programmers started programming against Microsoft's extensions, then the code they wrote would not be compatible with other implmentations.

You brought up the payout - it's also interesting to note that the Microsoft lawsuit is really the only significant money Sun *ever* made on Java. Most analysts believe that Sun only makes a few million a year on licensing Java, which doesn't even come close to covering their investment.

RE: Union
By tbtkorg on 11/4/2006 12:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you like Microsoft Windows, if you enjoy using it and don't really see the point of Linux, then you must find it hard to understand why Microsoft excites such persistent, passionate opposition. What you need to understand is that the opposition is over an extensive, long-established, deeply entrenched pattern of Microsoft behavior, not over any one specific thing Microsoft has done.

I hope that readers who like and admire Microsoft will nevertheless read this post and consider what it has to say. Even if they don't agree, they may at least gain illumination as to why the other side believes as it does.

In analyzing the matter, one must be careful not to conflate two separate issues. The one issue is what constitutes a smart business tactic on Microsoft's part. The other issue is what is good for computer users. If I object that a thing Microsoft has done is bad for computer users, one cannot reply that it was a smart business tactic. That is separate question.

Now, with respect to Java, we know from the "Halloween memos" [] and from other sources that giving Java users additional useful functionality was incidental to Microsoft's motive for tinkering with the Java standard in the first place. Microsoft's underlying motive was to poison the standard by fragmenting it, by ensuring that Java applications developed by Microsoft users would never run quite right on the Sun platform, indicating to Sun users that they needed to "upgrade" to Microsoft. Now, of course, in the abstract, there is nothing wrong as such with a company's attempts to convince its competitor's customers to upgrade and switch vendors -- if this is done honestly. This however is not an abstract case; and the specific case of Microsoft demands closer scrutiny. The whole point of Microsoft's activity was to monopolize, to render fundamentally untenable the position of any competitor who might presume to try to implement Java; to gain power to crush Java developers who failed to pay Microsoft protection money in one form or another. Microsoft's business strategy is not centered around providing a superior product; it is centered around ensuring that no competitor can provide a viable alternative. Such a strategy may benefit Microsoft's shareholders, but it is hard to argue that it is good for you and me.

(Someone will object here that consumers need some dominant industry player like Microsoft to dictate standards. That may or may not be so, but don't you see? The aim of Microsoft's Java assault was to destroy a standard. Microsoft does not care about standards as such one way or the other; any long-time user of Microsoft Word can tell you this. Microsoft cares only about assimilating you and me into its vast system of dependent tributaries.)

Microsoft's poison was not limited to Java. Microsoft tried to poison Web standards in much the same way, only thankfully failed because, in a rare Microsoft blunder, Microsoft joined the Web game a few months too late. This is just one of many other examples of Microsoft's strategy.

Microsoft calls its strategy to poison and monopolize, "embrace and extend."

Bill Gates appears to have made the fundamental strategic judgment years ago that the computer software industry must trend toward a natural economic monopoly, that except in niche markets there would in the end remain only one gigantic software survivor. He wanted to be that survivor, and he was prepared to do almost anything in a business sense to achieve his goal. Except perhaps regarding the unexpected emergence of open source, history has tended to prove Mr. Gates' business foresight right. It is the rest of us who now pay the price for Mr. Gates' vision.

You don't have to dislike Microsoft to appreciate what it's doing here. You may even say, "That's what I would do, too, were I Bill Gates." But the fact that Microsoft is the most skilled, most brutal American monopolist since J.D. Rockefeller does not mean that the rest of us have to like it. Microsoft's extensions to Java had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with helping Java users, and everything to do with helping Microsoft manipulate Java users into helping them destroy Sun. Smart business tactic? Maybe. But I will never condone it, nor will I assist it. Neither should you. Let Microsoft carry its own tainted water up the hill.

The point of this post is not really to convince anyone to abhor Microsoft. I have no power to dissuade people who have already decided (mistakenly, I think) that Microsoft is a force for good in computerdom. I know this. However, the next time Microsoft adds incidental additional functionality to its implementation of a non-Microsoft standard, before you commit the error of praising Microsoft for its commitment to its users, consider what you have learned here of Microsoft's "embrace and extend" strategy, and decide for yourself if you aren't being manipulated by Microsoft more than you are being helped.

RE: Union
By Samus on 11/4/2006 6:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
microsoft was the best thing that ever happened to java, sun ruined it.

"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki