[QCLUG] novell and microsoft agreements good or bad

[Noah J Norris]

yeah i read this artical too ...

on other news redhat thinks there gona be the only big distro in a couple 
years ... wonder why 

whats microsoft real plan for doing this  ??? leak ip/code to sue ??? go after 
samba and mono projects ( guess suse works with mono alot ) ( mono = 
opensource .net implamtation ) i hate rabbit holes ....... does novall own 
the unix ip from sco suit ...... could this bring another sco type suit even 
fud another microsft funded law suit not directly connected ..... 

yes i think any type of wedge would fail cause of linuxs growth but could this 
be also a way to port microsoft office to linux making sure nothings open 
source . i dont think theres a wedge to make the kernel closed source and all 
the gpl apps correct if so it would only be for microsofts interface maybe 
they will make a layer to run windows software fully on linux yet charge a 
full fee for it . maybe we could see window gui on top of linux kernel  . i 
think alot of these will not happen maybe office they would make money ( 
perhapes they would charge for the copy of office plus the windows layer so 
like 300-600 ... lol ) . 

why is novall doing this , i mean how many times do they have to get it in the 
rear .... novall netwear anyone. we will have to wait and see what happens 
out of this . 

maybe theres no evil intent at all , but i can not even think this with 
microsofts track record . 

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 21:30, Jim Kristan wrote:
> Here is John Dvorak's take on this, he has good in site, or good
> sources in the past.
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2052320,00.asp
>
> On 11/7/06, Leif Theden <leif.theden@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ha.  well i personally wont miss suse.
> >
> > On 11/7/06, McKnight, Lee <LMcKnight@bandag.com> wrote:
> > > I agree with Noah - this can't be anything good for open source/Linux.
> > > Especially the way that documents can be shared by both environments
> > > (M$Office/OO), but what's that?  The documents won't be 100% sharable?
> > > That must mean M$Office documents can share OO documents 100%, but OO
> > > can only share 90% of M$Office document features?  Gee, do you suppose
> > > that's because if they were 100% sharable there would be no reason to
> > > purchase M$Office?  Naw, that can't be it, there must be a better
> > > argument than that.  Hmm, I wonder what that could be...
> > >
> > > Have you ever seen a company that partnered with M$oft that wasn't out
> > > of business in a few years?
> > >
> > > Mac....
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: qclug-bounces@qclug.org [mailto:qclug-bounces@qclug.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Noah J Norris
> > > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 7:23 AM
> > > To: qclug@qclug.org
> > > Subject: [QCLUG] novell and microsoft agreements good or bad
> > >
> > >       I've been reading more and more about microsoft and novell
> > > working together .
> > > Whats everyones take on this . from what i have read its not good and
> > > can bring another sco type case against linux.
> > >
> > > link
> > > http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/1851
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > life is linux
> > > linux is life
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > QCLUG mailing list
> > > QCLUG@qclug.org
> > > http://qclug.org/mailman/listinfo/qclug
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > QCLUG mailing list
> > > QCLUG@qclug.org
> > > http://qclug.org/mailman/listinfo/qclug
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > QCLUG mailing list
> > QCLUG@qclug.org
> > http://qclug.org/mailman/listinfo/qclug
>
> _______________________________________________
> QCLUG mailing list
> QCLUG@qclug.org
> http://qclug.org/mailman/listinfo/qclug

-- 
life is linux
linux is life