By Dr. Philip Baczewski, Director of  Academic Computing and User Services

Peace Breaks Out in Redmond

A small portion of the world was bemused on November 2, 2006, when Microsoft Corp. and Novell Inc. announced an agreement  which would allow Microsoft to resell the SUSE distribution of Linux that Novell supports and distributes. Previously, Linux and other open source software programs were mostly ignored or derided by Microsoft, so its apparent sudden embrace of Novell's open source offerings is a bit surprising. Novell had previously depicted Microsoft as an uncontrollable monopoly. Now we have executives from Microsoft and Novell on the same stage shaking hands without Jimmy Carter ever being involved.

One has to wonder what motivated this latest peace agreement in the software world. As it turns out, the agreement is mostly about not suing --  either one another, or each other's customers (the rest of the world is on its own). This follows several years of legal wrangling  by SCO against most of the Linux world, primarily targeting IBM and Novell with, if not outright, at least tacit support by Microsoft. So, it's understandable if a number of us are left scratching our heads after this announcement.

It's hard to find anyone outside of Redmond or Waltham who is excited or even pleased by this deal. Open source advocate Bruce Perens sees the deal as yet another impediment to the innovation that has been fostered by the open source development community. Others see the possible establishment of a two-tier Linux market , with the Microsoft "approved" users at one level and the rest of the Linux world open to whatever lawsuits seem appropriate to Microsoft. The group that develops Samba, software which allows Linux computers to connect to Microsoft servers, has stated that the deal is "divisive" and that Novell is "exchanging the long term interests of the entire Free Software community for a short term advantage for Novell." It appears that peace on one front doesn't mean peace on all fronts.

So why would Novell take this action; why would Microsoft make this deal?

For Novell, there's the matter of the reported $348 million that they are getting up front in this deal. Novell doesn't exactly have a sales person on every block so it's not a stretch to believe that its revenues are declining.

For Microsoft, that answer is more complex. Microsoft has established a pattern of suddenly embracing a concept after years of denial. This pattern is seen in its shattering of the 640K barrier after many years, its sudden discovery of the Internet after Netscape became a software phenomenon, and more recently, it awakening to the importance of security. Suddenly, Linux can't be ignored any longer. It seems that Microsoft may finally be conscious that open source software is real competition, with moves like apparently inviting the Firefox team into the Vista testing lab.

Microsoft now has to accept the GPL if it wants to do development within the Linux world, which is a significant change. But, this runs counter to its tendency to patent whatever they can get away with. And there's also the fact that Microsoft is founded on the idea that software should not be free. Bill Gates made this very clear back in the days of the Carter administration, when he stated, "Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?"

One thing to keep in mind is that Novell doesn't own Linux and can't sell Linux to Microsoft.  They can only make agreements in regard to their own distribution package of the Linux operating system. If Linux (AKA the Linux Kernel and the many GNU and other open source contributions) remains community supported software, then it is inconsequential that corporations like Microsoft, Novell, Oracle, or even Redhat try to make money from it.  They just become (even if only temporarily) part of, or interlopers in, the community. 

I don't see Microsoft adopting SUSE for its kernel OS as Novell has for the "new Netware" (OES.)  But it's interesting to think of the possibilities. It's possible that Steve Ballmer has finally embraced software communism. If this is the case, then I'd suggest that the Microsoft/SUSE Linux be called "Redflag Linux." After all, it already comes in a red box. But that name is already taken, so we'll just have to be content with the red flags that have already been raised.

Return to top