LXer: Novell Outlines Details of Agreement with Microsoft

LXer · 11-08-2006, 06:33 PM

Published at LXer:

Novell published additional details on the agreements announced with Microsoft on Nov. 2, outlining the substantial commitment made by both companies to address customers' growing requirement for Windows and Linux interoperability.

Read More...

rickh · 11-08-2006, 06:51 PM

So ... This perspective, somewhat reassuring to Linux users, was released in an SEC filing. I assume MS will make a comparable filing. That will be interesting, as well.

I will not be comforted until I see just what sort of proprietary modules and DRM are to be included in SLED. If it's as bad as I believe it will be, and this MS partnership shows signs of moving Suse into a strong position in the corporate desktop, there will be a serious division in the "free" vs. "non-free" Linux world. I only hope the "free" side will not be shortchanged as far as quality is concerned.

While the kernel will remain under GPL2, I think application developers ought to be taking a serious look at GPL3 ... if their corporate employers will allow it.

kstan · 11-08-2006, 08:07 PM

maybe we can see microsoft office inside sled natively, isn't it a good news?

Cogar · 11-08-2006, 09:07 PM

From the article:

Quote:

"The financial commitments Microsoft is making as part of this agreement are significant," said Ron Hovsepian, president and CEO of Novell. "This will help drive Linux more rapidly into the enterprise and government arenas, broadly expanding opportunities for Linux and open source. This is good for Novell, but it's also good for the community because it will make Linux and open source much more prevalent and drive demand for Linux-based solutions."

To the best of my knowledge, this is unprecedented--Microsoft helping a competitive product increase market penetration at Microsoft's expense (both monetary and market share). For some reason, I cannot believe that we know the whole story or Microsoft's real agenda. (I guess we all suspect their real agenda, but do not have a detailed view.

)