I'm probably going to get blasted from the radical Linux fundamentalist movement for this one.
But I honestly believe that -- from a customer perspective -- Microsoft and Novell have forged a very productive construct that bodes well for corporate IT users.
Here's why:
- The simple fact is that most IT groups want to use both. They see part of their environment running on Windows, and another part of their environment running on Linux. It ain't about religion, it's about getting the job done.
- The deal largely removes the threat of legal noise (or at least marketing FUD) about IP rights and indemnification for use of a Linux distro. Most IT users just wish the damn noise would go away, and now it looks like it is -- at least for SuSE.
This also opens the door to some tantalizing possibilities -- now remember, this is just wild speculation on my part, none of it is based on facts or evidence:
- Microsoft would probably like their infrastructure management tools to be used more pervasively, right? With a "friendly" Linux distro in tow, the door is potentially open to better management and infrastructure integration between the two domains. Yes, Microsoft and/or Novell will likely charge for this, but it'll be a new option for corporate users that they don't have today. Choice is good.
- Microsoft also has a very healthy application business -- think SQLserver, Exchange, Office/SharePoint, etc. -- and, at some point, there'll be enough Linux instances out there that Microsoft will want to reach those customers. Remember back to when Microsoft announced Office support for the Mac? Once again, choice is good.
Is Microsoft serious about this?
Yes, there's been a lot written about the money that's changed hands, as an example here and here.
And, like most companies, you don't spend that kind of money unless you're planning to make much more, right? My assumption has to be that Microsoft sees this as a multi-billion incremental opportunity, and has a plan to monetize this space.
Why The Linux Community Hates This
I'm sorry, I'm at a point in my life where I don't self-identify with an operating system anymore. So I'm not coming from a particularly sympathetic perspective.
Linux is now big enough that it's less about principles, and more about just getting the job done. And if you've self-identified with the open source philosophy and all that in entails, you feel very threatened right now.
There's also been a shift in the balance of power. Up until a few weeks ago, very little power was in the hands of the distro vendors. First Oracle moved in with Oracle Unbreakable Linux. Very opportunistic, but ultimately simplistic.
Microsoft trumped Oracle big-time by putting a lot of work into a construct that has the potential to fundamentally change how corporate IT perceived Linux in their environment, and make a lot of money in the process. I like that -- a lot. I think customers will feel the same way, once they understand it -- and if Microsoft and Novell don't botch it.
For many years, Linux advocates have been preaching the superiority of Linux, and trying to convince corporate IT to do more with it. I tell people to be careful of what you ask for, because you just might get it. They've won the debate, but not in a way that they had ever envisioned.
Smart move, Microsoft and Novell. You have my respect. It's good for customers, good for the industry, and good for Microsoft/Novell.
You make a valid point Chuck. Who knows it might just be the case.
p.s. We blogged about you at SharepointBUZZ.com
Posted by: Kanwal | November 09, 2006 at 08:48 PM
I've gotten dozens of comments on this post, here's a sample of the counterargument (from Rascalson)
-------------------------------------------------------
I understand how someone in your position needs to be Very pragmatic about technology and how it relates to getting your companies business goals accomplished, however.
Do you understand just how many separate pieces go into making a GNU/Linux based OS? Each of those pieces comes with its own license, in most cases that is the GPL.
Eben Moglen has already stated that this agreement will "NOT" be compatible with GPL v3. When, not if, several key(not necessarily the kernel) pieces of GPL'ed code go to version 3 Novell will lose the right to distribute those pieces.
Can you imagine the forked Nightmare that Suse would need to become for Novell to avoid Copyright infringement lawsuits? Also, exactly how much support do you think there is going to be in the community for Suse? Enough to keep them up to par with other Linux distributions? I doubt it.
Novell is shipping a whole bunch of other peoples code, and they just recently punched a bunch of those people right in the face, real hard.
------------------------
All fair points, Rascalson, but I guess I'm just too pragmatic here.
First, I believe that there is ample opportunity to add value to a Linux environment (by Microsoft, or any other vendor) without violating GPL. Oracle runs their database, EMC offers MPIO drivers, Nvidia gives you a nice graphics driver, SAP runs their apps, etc. -- all running politely in the environment without touching or modifying Linux code.
Without going in to too much detail, you and I could probably think of dozens of ways Microsoft and Novell could work to enhance the management and application environment of Suse without forking it.
I also would offer that any vendor is free to offer support for a Linux environment without necessarily causing a fork, if that is their intent (e.g. Oracle, maybe).
But, if one had to weigh the ultimate value of a better integrated (and supported) combination of Microsoft and Linux technologies against the pain of another flavor of Linux in the world, I would argue that -- in this case -- the end may justify the means, if it got down to that.
As far as distro companies making their money of other people's code, well -- I can't really offer much on that one. It seems to be a legit business model, and one that is supported by many willing participants.
Thanks for writing.
Posted by: Rascalson | November 15, 2006 at 09:08 AM