I agree that Microsoft cares only and only about money. Nobody should ever trust any entity that is solely preoccupied with money (and threfore power). Trust is, in their view, just another weapon to use as they see fit. If Nowell has any brain/guts/balls/chutzpa they will keep the WordPerfect case going and at the end the Novell exec will say, "thanks for writing the book."

If you read nothing but the comments to all the open source and Linux blogs, you'd swear there was a civil war in the entire community. But in the end, software coders and IT professionals are pragmatists and they will use what tools that work best. The people raging and blinding on the mailing lists and comments pages are a small fraction of those who will read the arguments and then proceed with the heavy lifting of making it all work. Anyone notice that RMS and Linus Torvalds have not weighed in on this publicly (though Moglen and Perens have had their say)? RMS will probably comment how this instance is another example of why the GPL needs to be updated to prevent such dancing around Rule 7 as Novell and Microsoft just accomplished, and Torvalds will wonder what all the fuss is about, and implore everyone to shut up and get back to coding.
Novell isn't that stupid; has excellent lawyers and engineers and know what they are getting into. Circumstances dictated they take the deal and the cash to calm down investors who have been very unhappy as of late. Unless Microsoft changes its character (fire Steve and Bill, already!) Novell will take advantage of situation while keeping a wary eye on the beast of Redmond.

As a consultant/programmer; I'd have to agree. In the end, we use whatever tool from wherever we can pry it loose... to meet the deadlines that market and technology force us. If I run a full blown MS server for development, then I have to pay a license fee (read MS Partner) in order to do so. If I use a GPL ancestry server or tool (Linux, RH, others)... then I'm signing up to make it work. It's always a time/money tradeoff... and the guys overseas are winning. Mostly. I hope good comes of it, but it's unclear who will get stomped in the process. (remember stacker?).

IMHO. ok, back to work...

When is Nerd TV's second season coming? How about an update?

This is all about Microsoft Office.

Several years ago Microsoft perportedly buried the hatchet with Apple, paid them some money, and made some agreements. In the end Microsoft made a lot of money on the arrangement. It gave them another market for Microsoft Office.

Microsoft Office is the key for Microsoft's monopoly, not Windows.

By potentially giving the market an alternative operating system, Linux, Microsoft is not giving up their position of strength. Instead, they will create an version of Office and get Novell to do a lot of the work to get it ready. In the end Microsoft will make $100's USD per seat while Novell makes $50 USD for Linux.

I think this is more about Mono. There has been the overhanging threat of lawsuit by Microsoft to the Mono team for implementing their APIs. Imagine Microsoft licensing all of their C# based components to the Mono team so that they "convince" Novell to "port" all those programming components to Linux. Now, what components will the open source community use when they build their cross-platform Mono apps? Why, the ones from the Mono team of course. Come on monkeys, dance with our components!

(FYI: mono is monkey in spanish)

What's the benefit to Microsoft? They are essentially paying open source developers to do all the work to put a Microsoft controlled API on the Linux platform. This allows Microsoft applications to work on both Windows and Linux without recompile. As the controller of the API, Microsoft can feel free to innovate on its own platform, but with a free army of open source developers busily porting that new functionality to Linux, Microsoft gets the EU off its back: "See, our APIs are already open - look, here's office running on Linux..."

It's all about what's in it for Microsoft: free porting, monkeys reliant on "its" components (reuse rather than recode for speed), claim to open APIs to the EU, and best of all, Office server components running on Linux that they can sell to the enterprise.

I have to agree. I won't be deploying Novel or SuSE Linux anytime soon - history is the great teacher here.

Microsoft is making "strategic" partnerships all over the open source landscape. They've recently partnered with SugarCRM too. SugarCRM claims it's because so many of their potential clients are on th e Windows platform, maybe so. I'm guessing more than ever now that the Windows installer for their product works near flawlessly - at the expense of their Linux using customers who now have to jump through hoops to get the product to install properly. Nice going SugarCRM. Nice going Novel.

Not to worry though. Ubuntu now has a nice server product with 5 years of support available. Ubuntu Server 6.06LTS

I don't think Microsoft considers Windows to be a distant second to Office; if they did, we'd alreayd have a FULL Office for Mac, not to mention Office for Linux. They know they make a ton of money off Office for Mac, but always carefully keep it free of Microsoft Access and other features. Likewise, they could have done Office for Linux years ago with their buying power. Would it be that much harder to run Office on Linux than on a modified version of BSD?

Microsoft will continue to dominate by any means necessary until they are forced to comply with existing law... and that will only happen if the White House changes hands in 2008, and then only "maybe." Hopefully, Linux developers and Apple will keep playing their cards right and not get ensnared by Microsoft traps; and hopefully SOMEONE will make a fully Office compatible suite without leaving out key features. I'm still waiting.

This agreement is about finding a crack in the GPL to drive a wedge into the FOSS community. They think they've found that crack by getting a major Linux supporter to act like slime and use weasel-words to circumvent the letter and spirit of the GPL. That supporter is now firmly on the "Evil" list, and they will be shunned by the community. Not only have they stabbed us in the back by violating the GPL, their weasel-words don't stand up to scrutiny and won't stand up in court if any of the thousands of Linux copyright holders decide to bar Novell from distributing their software.

This, NOVELL/Microsoft deal, reminds me of IBM/Microsoft deal regarding OS2 developemnt where IBM did all the work.

"I'm not happy, til you're not happy..."

"Microsoft agrees not to sue Suse Linux customers for violating its patents..."

This sounds vaguely familiar -- oh yes, it sounds like SCO: "Pay us so we don't sue you for UNIX code being in Linux".

Sigh. When all else fails, start a protection racket...

A detailed look at this over at GrokLaw:

,">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061109111321376,
regarding the Software Freedom Law Center's CTO Bradley Kuhn statement on the deal.

This is sufficient reason to boycott Suse entirely in favor of other distributions. Show them that this attempt to cut all the other Linuxs out there off at the knees will not be allowed to succeed, and dealing with the Evil Empire makes you as dirty as they already are.

Oh, sorry. I thought this was Slashdot.

Um, didn't Novell sell WordPerfect to Corel back in the late 1990's? I don't know my way around lawsuits, but it sure seems odd that Novell is still suing Microsoft over a product it no longer owns. What am I missing here?

Dogma does not necessarily change just because the dogmatic one's circumstances change. That President Bush's behavior appears to have changed (it hasn't; he has always been willing to deal with Dem leaders, but it's hard to deal collegially with a pack of raving moonbats who are constantly sounding the harpy call of "Bush lied!!!") in no way alters what he claimed beforehand: the terrorists HAVE won, and America HAS lost, now that the party of cut-and-run is in control of both chambers of Congress. That does not mean that America has lost EVERYTHING, but clearly the will to fulfill the mission in Iraq appears to have been successfully sapped by the constant drumbeat of all-bad-news-all-the-time the Old Media have been shoving down our throats for over 3 years now.

Remeber the internal slogan during DOS development: "DOS (3?) isn't done, until Lotus (123) won't run"!
- they never have been people to be trusted.

It's absolutely true that the best way to suck the life out of a product is to let Microsoft get involved.

Which one of these guys, Gates or Ballmer, used to date your wife? Geez, we all know Microsoft is worse than Bin Laden, but do we have to read about it every time they do something? Is the glass ever half full? I predict this diatribe will be on the front page of digg in record time as every Apple fan boy clicks away gleefully.

When I first read about this deal I also assumed it would be bad for Linux and Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS). I've now changed my tune. While I think it may not be good for Novell, for the same reason that any software maker making deals with Microsoft ends up biting them in the end, I don't see this as bad for the rest of the FLOSS economy.

In my mind it comes down to software patents. Customers are worried that these hidden landmines will bite them and they could be sued, so companies are making deals to remove the appearance of this threat.

People have to ask: if there are hidden legal landmines, how did they pass the "useful, novel, unobvious" tests required of patents? Don't the authors have to know about a patent in order to infringe it? While in theory this is the case, the reality is that software patent quality is so low that the vast majority of software patents could be invalidated by adequate court scrutiny.

This needs to be our focus as a community: to eradicate software patents. If the pro-software-patent lobby can't figure out how to achieve better than 90% good quality patents in a given subject matter, then they shouldn't be able to have patents in that subject matter at all. Let them come to the same realization the rest of us have which is that patents on tangibles and patents on intangibles (information/mental processes) are entirely different.

Remember back then when Microsoft invested in Corel, and coincidentally the Corel Linux project died soon after? ;-)

I think it's about two things really,

1. Protecting Windows on Desktops (even if your servers run Linux);
2. Getting people to use .NET in server applications

Bob,

This arrangement reminds me of Microsoft's investment in SCO back in 1988 or 89. As a result, MS got a seat on SCO's BOD, and is commonly thought to have used SCO to coopt the Open Software Foundation's efforts to establish an open set of standards.

Do you see any similarities to that game play?

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

@SJGMoney: Your sarcasm is exceeded only by your naivety. 1) You do not "have to read about" anything here. 2) If you want an optimistic spin, feel free to visit microsoft.com. 3) Your anxiety concerning Apple is completely unwarranted.

By the way, I ain't even married. Feel free to use that in your next flame.

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

@SJGMoney: Your sarcasm is exceeded only by your naivety. 1) You do not "have to read about" anything here. 2) If you want an optimistic spin, feel free to visit microsoft.com. 3) Your anxiety concerning Apple is completely unwarranted.

By the way, I ain't even married. Feel free to use that in your next flame.

Bob,
I have long enjoyed your commentary on the technology industry but would like to correct one factual error. You state, "Suse Linux is most popular in Europe" in reference to other Linux distributions. In actuality, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the most popular commercial Linux distribution in every geography around the globe and in Europe in particular, RHEL European-sales more than double total global sales of SuSE each and every quarter.

Best regards,
Dion Cornett
Vice President Investor Relations
Red Hat, Inc.

another example of this nefarious micro$lop double dealing is the agreement sun thinks they have with them. actually, judging from the pr photos of mcnealy and balmer, sun probably knows ...

Bill, can you explain how you conceive of that happening? Novell doesn't own Linux - what did Microsoft think they were buying?

If am not mistaken, this is the second "final" release of Novell's Mono. The first version that was deemed production quality was version 1.1. This new version (1.2) introduces support for .NET 2.0, as well as a considerably better coverage of Windows specific features such as Windows Forms.

Novell made it very clear at the press conference with Microsoft that this agreement did NOT settle the WordPerfect case.

I mostly feel sorry for Novell. They have built some pretty good technology over the years, but just don't seem to have the 'go for the throat' mentality it takes to compete against the main players in the IT marketplace. And while I don't believe any Linux distro is best, Suse is really good these days and Novell deserves at least some of the credit.

I take this deal to be a desperate attempt to convince their investors that they have figured out a winning strategy. But what successful company has ever made a deal with their direct competitors (especially microsoft!!) to co-operate on anything? As far as the rest of the Linux universe, this is yet another 'sky is falling' scenario that will be used as an example of why you shouldn't hyperventilate over the next 'sky is falling' episode.



But I would like to comment on the comparison to SCO. I don't believe that Novell is even remotely as dishonest/stupid/slimy as the SCO morons. I think a much closer match is Sun. Novell wants the respect of the FOSS community, but grew up in a different neighborhood, and doesn't (won't ever?) understand that rhymes aren't rap, and selling a Linux distro doesn't make you a member of the community. They have made some contributions, but an example of their disconnect is glx, which they treated like closed source until they were good and ready to open it.

I disagree with the "all Microsoft cares about is money" point. Microsoft cares about *control*, more than anything. They will sacrifice sales (and have in the past) in order to maintain control over their user base. This is why they don't follow standards or use open protocols: to do so would be to give up control over their software stack and let Linux and Mac systems replace all those expensive Win2k/Win2k3 licenses.

I don't usually mean to be this much of a jerk, but perhaps your nice RSS feed now means I see your writings before you've thought much about them. Your IPv6 post was just disasterously wrong on both facts and analysis, and this one now smells the same way. Perhaps it's just lingering, and I'm overreaching; who knows.

There are a couple of factually incorrect statements in your current article, but I'm too sleepy to cite them, and I'm not getting paid for the effort either. Oh well; I'm off the net for a few weeks.

Normally I wouldn't pull silly crap like "somewhere there are some incorrect statements", but I've come to expect better from you.

Charles Tassell: that is because control is the way to ensure maximum money *long-term*

I worked at Microsoft in the netscape days and the one feeling i really picked up from the culture was, win at any cost. The problem seems to be what the leadership define as winning changes with the wind.

There is no doubt they want to spread FUD and i imagine that is the primary goal. If they can add new pain points for any OSS reseller then all the better (including novel). Lets just hope Novel knows what it has done and is going to do.

I see another threat: IP pollution. When the Windows source code got leaked on the Net I spent days convincing people I knew to avoid it like the plague - the moment you're exposed to proprietary code there is a huge risk that any further bit of code you write can be proclaimed to contain 'borrowed' elements, for which you'll be exposed to a lengthy legal battle (read: you'll be required to prove you're innocent!). This is not a problem for a large corporation, it WILL be a problem for the vast array of independent contributors to Linux.

So, give it a year or so and this game will start. Don't say you didn't see this coming - it's a very, very old trick..

Russell McOrmond asks about patents. As a developer I have had to deal with software patent issues before.

Useful, non-obvious, etc. are vague. I have seen patents granted that I think would have been obvious solutions to anyone "skilled in the art" that had to solve the same problem. For an old example, take Hayes "guard time" patent on escape sequences (to distinguish an escape sequence from data in the stream, they required it be preceeded and followed by no data for x ms). The patent reviewer's position appears to be if he can't see your mechanism used in a cursory search of patents and industry literature (like CS textbooks), it must be novel and unobvious.

No, you do not have to know about a patent to violate it. Larger companies patent everything they can sneak past an examiner for two reasons: Better safe than sorry, and investors like patents because they provide a potential barrier to entry for competitors. If you are big enough, they can be a cudgel to brain the small fry.

As an example of "patent everything", consider Microsoft's patenting "icon for a portion of a display screen", or "program icon auto-hide". To my eye as a developer, these are mechanisms that I believe I would have "invented" if the need presented itself. So would a dozen other programmers I know; and it wouldn't occur to them to spend thousands of dollars and weeks writing a patent to protect the idea.

Now if that situation does indeed present itself in their work for a client, and they re-invent the "icon for a portion of a display screen" mechanism, they are violating IP law. Microsoft is granted an exclusive license on this technology, whether they know it or not, and MS is under no obligation to share it or play nice or be reasonable about it.

It is not just very difficult, it is impossible to argue after the fact that something is obvious because you invented it independently (de novo).

Your main hope is to provide evidence of prior art; that somebody else did essentially the same thing publicly before the patent was filed and did not patent it; thus it was public domain.

A slim hope is you might also be able to read the patent carefully and find a way around the claims.

But ignorance is no excuse, and de novo re-invention does not prove obviousness; and once the patent is granted the obviousness question is essentially settled (unless you can show prior art).

Russell McOrmond asks about patents. As a developer I have had to deal with software patent issues before.

Useful, non-obvious, etc. are vague. I have seen patents granted that I think would have been obvious solutions to anyone "skilled in the art" that had to solve the same problem. For an old example, take Hayes "guard time" patent on escape sequences (to distinguish an escape sequence from data in the stream, they required it be preceeded and followed by no data for x ms). The patent reviewer's position appears to be if he can't see your mechanism used in a cursory search of patents and industry literature (like CS textbooks), it must be novel and unobvious.

No, you do not have to know about a patent to violate it. Larger companies patent everything they can sneak past an examiner for two reasons: Better safe than sorry, and investors like patents because they provide a potential barrier to entry for competitors. If you are big enough, they can be a cudgel to brain the small fry.

As an example of "patent everything", consider Microsoft's patenting "icon for a portion of a display screen", or "program icon auto-hide". To my eye as a developer, these are mechanisms that I believe I would have "invented" if the need presented itself. So would a dozen other programmers I know; and it wouldn't occur to them to spend thousands of dollars and weeks writing a patent to protect the idea.

Now if that situation does indeed present itself in their work for a client, and they re-invent the "icon for a portion of a display screen" mechanism, they are violating IP law. Microsoft is granted an exclusive license on this technology, whether they know it or not, and MS is under no obligation to share it or play nice or be reasonable about it.

It is not just very difficult, it is impossible to argue after the fact that something is obvious because you invented it independently (de novo).

Your main hope is to provide evidence of prior art; that somebody else did essentially the same thing publicly before the patent was filed and did not patent it; thus it was public domain.

A slim hope is you might also be able to read the patent carefully and find a way around the claims.

But ignorance is no excuse, and de novo re-invention does not prove obviousness; and once the patent is granted the obviousness question is essentially settled (unless you can show prior art).

I have to thank everyone here for the quality of your posts. This is such an exciting discussion for me mainly because ideas are flowing freely and reasonably between adults. This is exactly how I hoped it would be.

There is really very little here that I think needs commenting from me, so I'll make this short.

1) Microsoft's two cash cows are Windows and Office, ti is true, but until Linux emerges as a really credible desktop alternative, this deal is not about Office.

2) Microsoft has long been used to being the Big Kahuna and one way Open Source stymies this is because it is hard to bully something that is free. Undermining Linux and Open Source hasn't worked, so now Microsoft is trying to infiltrate and, by doing so, make sure that Microsoft code remains a significant part of future computing platforms. This is smart. It is sneaky, but smart. I would do it too, if I were them.

3) Neither Ballmer nor Gates dated my ex-wife, though I'll admit that there were a couple instances when I dated women who had formerly dated Bill. Creepy, eh? Don't tell my wife.

4) Stallman's silence in this is interesting and I agree witht he poster that when he does speak it will probably be to point to needed updating of the GPL.

5) Novell sold WordPerfect to Corel but retained the right to sue Microsoft. Even weirder things have happened, though, like the Caldera suit against Microsoft, which you'd think would have resulted in Caldera receiving that $90+ million settlement, or maybe Novell (since Caldera was pursuing Digital REsearch rights and DRI had been bought by Novell) but no -- the Caldera settlement money went straight back to Ray Noorda through his investment company.

6) Please read my words carefully. I didn't say that SuSE was more popular in Europe than Red Hat. I said that SuSE was most popular in Europe, where it has a lot more users than it does in the U.S. Sheesh!

Microsoft cares about a profit.Nothing wrong with that. They do have Stockholders and a Board that they are obligated to show a profit to. That is Corporation 101. Novell cares about the same thing, it is an obligation.
But the thousands of hackers that made that Distro stable, and the Creators of that System, Tvoraldis,RMS,all the crew at MIT,Berkley and every person that has made a contribution just because we like to see something that works are the ones that got spooned.
Should we start hideing our code? no. Because then we become like them. I would rather be a free open source hack than a paid Corporate lacky and sell my work that I made for others to use freely.
Would I like a million dollars, sure, would I accept it from them, absolutley not.

"Would I like a million dollars, sure, would I accept it from them, absolutley not."

Im thinking you havent seen a check that big in front of you. I think you would talk yourself into it... And if you're married and you didnt take it your spouse would leave ;)

The cynic in me can't help thinking some (or a lot) of these thousands of patents Microsoft had been filing in recent years are for methods, concepts and technology straight from open source--after all open source is by definition open to anyone who wants it, and anyone can download and examine everything in open source they want to--and it is all too easy to slip invalid patents through the overworked USPTO these days. My suspicion is if they are doing this they plan to use them in a patent war to attempt to destroy open source once they have lulled everyone else into a sense of false security that they won't. I hope I'm wrong, and I'm not saying that M$ is doing this, but I wouldn't put it past them to try such a tactic.

The other thing missing from the article and comments is that Microsoft is using this deal to spread FUD about the legal status of "Linux" as obtained from anyone but Novell. The day after the deal:

"I suspect that [customers] will take that issue up with their distributor," Ballmer said. Or if customers are considering doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, "they'll think twice about that," he said.

This sort of disingenuous crap makes me really mad, because somewhere, somebody is going to take it seriously.

All I can think of is: "Ah, curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!" I think the line will come out in about 5 years.

I wish I could start a business with the exit strategy of "Sell really good but impracical idea to Microsoft." Then I'd pay myself a grand salary to try to implement it. Success is optional.

IMarv

This is all tosh:
M$ are being forced by the EU to cooperate with others over their various network & file system protocols & formats, thats $5million a month or is it a day for non-compliance.
Novell has vast experience in .NET via Mono http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_General
SMB/CIFS stuff does not appear on M$ IP license site
Only NTFS & ADS remain
The moment you hear Novell have a binary-only NTFS driver and/or ADS client you know its all on the level.
If its more than 3 years from now it smells

wvhilbily: Patenting open-source would be a strategy doomed to failure; because open source is de facto in the public domain and would count as prior art. It is too easy to fight against.



No such war to destroy open-source would make it off the launch pad; all you'd have to do is show a judge is that it existed before the MS patent was filed. A raft of such negative decisions would prejudice the court and the USPTO against actions by MS.


It might even open them to a class action lawsuit by the open source community. I'm not a lawyer, but it smacks of restraint of trade, suppression of free speech, monopolization, and a dozen other bad moves.



From a PR standpoint, it also smacks of desperation, and MS can't afford to look desperate. It telegraphs the message that Linux is a viable alternative that threatens them.



It is my opinion that MS certainly overuses the law and the courts to intimidate their competitors, but they aren't completely stupid. They aren't going to go to war with empty shells.



They patent every innocuous invention they can to provide VALID ammunition in these fights. You are correct in that they are abusing the PTO, but they are taking advantage of the PTO's inability to distinguish what would be apparent to a person skilled in the art of computer programming, and what would not, by using their billions to patent thousands of things that the vast majority of actual programmers would agree are silly to grant patents on. Even those of us (like me) that believe in IP and protection for new ideas.

Bob says, "This is smart. It is sneaky, but smart." It's really not sneaky at all. Microsoft has been talking about building bridges to open source for a while and has actually been building those bridges. FOSS purists may not like it, but the big businesses that Microsoft does business with want it, and Microsoft is a company responding to market needs and, frankly, industry and customer pressure. The knee-jerk reaction of criticizing Microsoft no matter what action the company takes doesn't reflect well on the critics. In substance, Microsoft's covenants not to sue are a good thing. These are part of the Novell deal as well as the cornerstone of Microsoft's other recent patent pledges (called the Open Specification Promise).

Hi Bob, you said "The grandest manifestation of this strategy would be to decouple Windows from its kernel and somehow pop the API and other bits right over onto Linux, .. of course they would do it."

This may well be possible, but I think this would seriously undermine their "windows & IE are inseparable" stance in the judge KK trial.

Simon

Ah but the inseperability is for the _old_ version of Windows under consideration in the Judge KK trial. You see, this brand new Windows (Vista? post-Vista?) has this useful new separability built-in. MS grins

Religion has no place in the business of systems integration.

I built a substantial IT consulting firm by solving business problems with technologies from different vendors, integrated across multiple platforms. The only software licensing question we ever confronted was whether a programming control could be re-distributed to multiple client computers. The licensing rules were clear and we followed them.

But now, the Free Software movement seeks to impose its goals and ideals on programmers and reserves the right to bless business decisions made in the software industry.

I’ve watched warily as Free Software disciples proselytized state and national governments to embrace “Open Source“ as state-sponsored religion in government procurement policies. Contrast that approach with the 1980’s, when those of us working with personal computers and local area networks had to prove the value of our solutions versus minicomputers and mainframe incumbents. We won the minicomputer wars, without mounting a public policy campaign or seeking procurement preferences from state governments.

Now, the Free Software faithful are sitting in judgment of Novell for their recent agreement with Microsoft. They want Novell to recant and repent, saying the agreement runs afoul of the “goals and ideals of the Free Software community.” But if any aspect of freedom needs to be preserved, it’s Novell’s freedom to make deals that improve its products and business prospects.

The Free Software movement should take a cue from recent U.S. Congressional elections, where most voters rejected religious tilts in their government. Businesses and consumers don’t want religion to “reform” their software industry, either.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my greatest concern is not who makes the most or least money on this deal between Microsoft and Novell. Microsoft isn't going anywhere, and I'd rather they be moving towards open source than not.

My business needs the mixed environment of Windows and Linux to succeed and the latest announcement offers me the best potential of this. The world demanded that Microsoft open itself up to these business relationships. Now I'm supposed to be mad that Microsoft for making the deal and Novell for accepting it?

I'd rather expend my energy looking for the best way to make this partnership work to the benefit of my organization. If that happens and Microsoft makes lots of money, then that's great. If Novel makes lots of dough, too, then that's even better. Here's hoping even more open source players join in and make the reality of dual environments succeed.

Steve,

We Free Softwarers do believe in the rights to use and modify software. Citizen rights cannot and should not be subject to barter in economy. Whereas you won the microcomputer war by sheer proof of practical, economic benefit, we'll win our own war by appealing to people, not money.

If Novell did something that may harm our community, our friends and supporters, and our ecosystem, then we're entitled to berate them for their actions. They're of course free to proceed, but we are also free to complain.

All in all, I think you've missed the point of Free Software entirely. And if you're into consulting, then you should seriously get on track and start doing your research, because (most probably) you'll be dealing in consulting almost exclusively with Free Software in ten years tops.

The world demanded that Microsoft open itself up to these business relationships. Now I'm supposed to be mad that Microsoft for making the deal and Novell for accepting it?

There are people who dont want to understand and some people who cant. Im trying to figure it someone can truly live in blinders on at all time and not know what is happening around them?

It reminds me being in Athens in late 99 early 2000 when 400,000 greeks protested Clinton's visit (that was the democrats version of Iraq dont forget) because he had supported wanted terrorists.
AMericans who were with us were shocked at the scene. When someone told them that the summer of 1999 was filled with huge demonstrations in Rome, Munich, Spain, etc against the american led war and this was a continuation of the previous year, they realized that living in your own bubble, worrying about making a buck means that HUGE things can pass you by without you realizing.
Then again, with Microsoft record over the past 2 decades rivaling the US military interventions (and covert operations like the 4 separate eastern block 'revolutions'), its makes you wonder where these people live.

Having heard the same whistling by the graveyard from people in the past 20 years, you get used to it. People DONT want to know. Its almost like a 3 year old clapping his ears and going "I caaaaaaant hear yoooooooooou!"

Of course, down the line we will hear:
"Yes officer, he did beat me on 12 previous occasions but he promised me he changed. He stopped drinking, he hadnt hit me in 3 months and he promised he was doing this for the custo...I mean children.It was like a honeymoon." Or something to that effect.

LHS
Barcelona

The world demanded that Microsoft open itself up to these business relationships. Now I'm supposed to be mad that Microsoft for making the deal and Novell for accepting it?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =>>
There are people who dont want to understand and some people who cant. Im trying to figure it someone can truly live in blinders on at all time and not know what is happening around them?

It reminds me being in Athens in late 99 early 2000 when 400,000 greeks protested Clinton's visit (that was the democrats version of Iraq dont forget) because he had supported wanted terrorists.
AMericans who were with us were shocked at the scene. When someone told them that the summer of 1999 was filled with huge demonstrations in Rome, Munich, Spain, etc against the american led war and this was a continuation of the previous year, they realized that living in your own bubble, worrying about making a buck means that HUGE things can pass you by without you realizing.
Then again, with Microsoft record over the past 2 decades rivaling the US military interventions (and covert operations like the 4 separate eastern block 'revolutions'), its makes you wonder where these people live.

Having heard the same whistling by the graveyard from people in the past 20 years, you get used to it. People DONT want to know. Its almost like a 3 year old clapping his ears and going "I caaaaaaant hear yoooooooooou!"

Of course, down the line we will hear:
"Yes officer, he did beat me on 12 previous occasions but he promised me he changed. He stopped drinking, he hadnt hit me in 3 months and he promised he was doing this for the custo...I mean children.It was like a honeymoon." Or something to that effect.

LHS
Barcelona

The world demanded that Microsoft open itself up to these business relationships. Now I'm supposed to be mad that Microsoft for making the deal and Novell for accepting it?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =>>

There are people who dont want to understand and some people who cant. Im trying to figure it someone can truly live in blinders on at all time and not know what is happening around them?


It reminds me being in Athens in late 99 early 2000 when 400,000 greeks protested Clinton's visit (that was the democrats version of Iraq dont forget) because he had supported wanted terrorists.
AMericans who were with us were shocked at the scene. When someone told them that the summer of 1999 was filled with huge demonstrations in Rome, Munich, Spain, etc against the american led war and this was a continuation of the previous year, they realized that living in your own bubble, worrying about making a buck means that HUGE things can pass you by without you realizing.
Then again, with Microsoft record over the past 2 decades rivaling the US military interventions (and covert operations like the 4 separate eastern block 'revolutions'), its makes you wonder where these people live.


Having heard the same whistling by the graveyard from IT people in the past 20 years, you get used to it. People DONT want to know. Its almost like a 3 year old clapping his ears and going "I caaaaaaant hear yoooooooooou!"

Of course, down the line we will hear:
"Yes officer, he did beat me on 12 previous occasions but he promised me he changed. He stopped drinking, he hadnt hit me in 3 months and he promised he was doing this for the custo...I mean children.It was like a honeymoon."
Or something to that effect.




LHS

Barcelona

A good summary of other comments on the deal here:
http://blogs.pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/tux-love/2006/11/ditch_suse.html

I've always felt this deal was more about virtualization for Vista than anything else.

MS knows that virtualization is coming (via Xen, VMWare, etc.), and they know that IBM has a very profitable business in server virtualization services.

I think MS just want to be the first to market with a virtulaization layer for Vista, and the Novell deal gives them a path where they can assure themselves that none of the MS kernel changes necessary end up as Free Software.

Hmm how about some FUD. Depends really upon the fine print of that agreement. Try this one.

Other commercial open source companies start being wary about Novell contributions, as they aren't 100% sure there isn't some MS Intellectual Property in there somewhere, so projects are reluctant to accept code, or without serious time spent vetting the code. Other developers feel reluctant to contribute to novell projects after feeling a little jaded by the whole experience, we might experience some forking in existing projects. So we get a fragmentation as code by Novell isn't getting accepted so readily and novell finds less community contribution opensource development slows somewhat.

Novell implents more of MS IP in their product range, this is great for inter operability and the like and novell's market share grows while other Open source distributors slow.

After the 5 year agreement expires MicroSoft's legal department contacts novell, all these products are using our IP you pay us X number of dollars, remove the code or we take legal action, Novell share price slumps - novell's products no longer work with portions of code removed, customers are at risk of legal challenge.

Now I'm being a bit severe here, and I'd expect that Novell surely would not be foolish enough to incorporate large amounts of MS IP. But still there is the capacity there to fragment some opensource projects, a bit of FUD about the IP issues over the long term and adversely effect community involvement with Novell from other payed Developers. Without seeing the fine print and having a legal team look at it who really knows what this all means.

Quote from article "It is probably good for Windows developers who can now hope to deploy .NET apps freely on Linux using Novell's Mono code, which just shipped its final release version (no coincidence there)."

Except this morning Sun GPL'd the JAVA .. looks as though .Net and Mono are dead in the water .. talk about industry reactions to the MS/Novell deal

I think the real intent behind this is that Microsoft has finally come to the
conclusion that its aging, buggy, bloated, and generally broken software stack
is in dire need of a replacement, and the GNU/Linux Platform is the ideal choice.

Should they build it them selves, no, do as they always do,
let some half-witted sap do all the real work, (the FOSS Community via Novell),
acquire there assets and destroy there competition.

To successfully make the transition to a FOSS base they need to do it
carefully, especially with the release of Vista just around the corner,
why would there investors, and customers upgrade to another round of the lock-in,
if MS is going to Embrace the competition, no they will wait a couple more
years to officially make the jump.

In the mean time, they need to begin to take controll of one of the top 2
competing vendors, Red Hat, or Novell, RH wont do it, but Microsoft's Long time
lap dog, Novell always takes the bait, after all they have had several
"strategic partnerships" with Novell over the years, and everytime they screwed
Novell, Hard, and the fools at Novell just took the punches and came back for
more. Now there back again, and we already know whats going to happen,
apparently Ron Hovespan neglected to dig into his company's history of past
dealings with MS, and the o' so wonderfull results gained.

Now lets consider what MS Needs in a FOSS based Future OS,
Foremost is Complete 'backwards compatablity' with there existing software,
and Solid Interoperability with there 'File Formats' and 'Filesystem's'
This is why there Indemnification is targeted at Samba (SMB/NMB/CIFS),
Active Directory + Novell's eDirectory, and .Net/Mono.

The .Net/Mono point is Very important, as the problems OpenSuSE 10.1 have had,
with there package/patch managment tool relate directly to the next step,
inshuring that they have controll over the core set of the apps that define
the difference between distro's of GNU/Linux:
the "System Administration, and Configuration Infastructure".

Novell has been pushing very hard (and mostly behind the scenes, outside of the
OpenSuSE development team) to recreate the System Administration Toolchain
(SuSEConfig, YaST, and SaX) using Mono/.Net.

Mono, relies heavily on MS's IP, Proprietary .Net Specifications,
and Documentation as Mono is intended to be an (barely) OSS implamentation of
.Net, the capabillity to Port Mono apps too .Net is very easy, and by providing
More Internal details about the Proprietary API of .Net, they use one of
the often overlooked points of Contamination in software design and development
Proprietary Documentation of Specifications, Methods, and Procedures used in
the Source Code, then you get asked a question like this:
"Did you learn how to implement that feature by accident, or did you pull it
out of the documentation that was handed to you?"

And wasn't this one of SCOs main claims, that parts, or whole chunks of the
Linux Kernels code contained Proprietary Legacy System5 code, or what about
the thousands of other seperate applications, libraries, and documentation
that constitute a standard GNU/Linux Distribution.

So MS can say "we wont come after you, for using our IP", the real point is
that they Want, and Need Mono developers to Use there Proprietary information.

Once Novell has Recreated its Administrative Toolchain w/ Mono,
and Microsoft has Contaminated the Novell/SuSE enviroment,
getting Novell to do the grunt work of porting, and developing the tools
needed to transition MS's customers to there future OS,
and destroyed the effectivness of the other Distro to Controll the Corporate
FOSS landscape.

Then they can take over Novell, rebrand SLES,SLED,OES as
Microsoft Linux, cut off what ever might be left to OpenSuSE,
and then the Legal war will begin, as MS will Own the Number 1 Linux Distro
for Corporate, Embeded, and Consumer Enviroments, and have an vested interrest
in gaining absolute controll over all of those seperate pieces I mentioned
above, how many of those Individual, unpaid developers could withstand
a lawsuit from mighty Microsoft, when they make a claim that so and so coder
is doing something bad to a piece of Microsofts Linux OS ?, very few.

They will have a little talk with them, something like this:
"we can settle out of court, just sign this NDA, and transfer the Lisence of
your code from that evil GPL, to our Shared Source Lisence, or, we will sue you
for 10 Million dollars." then one by one everyone of them will cave in,
and of the few who dont, there apps can be Replaced entirely.

Microsoft has Embraced Linux with Novell,
Novell has agreed to Extend the OS for Microsoft,
Microsoft will Exterminate the competition.

Microsoft Wins, Everybody else Loses, Game Over.

Stuck on Office

What do you use most on your computer? The browser, email, and your office products. It is "Office" that creates the documents used in business. It is the ability to share those documents with your coworkers that makes the standardization on Office important. The biggest challenge for a company switching away from Windows is not the OS, it is the applications that run on Windows and the documents created by them.

Now if some companies, or some countries, or a continent (think EU) decide to punish Microsoft and Windows and use Linux more, having a Linux version of Office will be important to them and will keep Microsoft in the hunt.

The reason there isn't a full version of Office for the Mac is simple. They want you to run Windows and that is your incentive to join the dark side of the force.

I agree with Mr. Cringely that infiltrating Microsoft code into Linux is probably the most important and most immediate reason for this partnership. Go back a few years and read Bob's suggestions for an antitrust settlement solution for Microsoft. One of them was to separate the compliers and tools from Microsoft. This is their true point of leverage and control over the PC market.

In defense of my Office angle, many of Microsoft's strategic moves usually have more than one goal. I think there is more in play than introducing code into the Linux world. There are a number of potential new products and lines of business that use Linux technology more than Microsoft's. This move may help Microsoft position themselves for other products and markets.

Linux world: Don't forget the SCO v IBM suit! Maybe infiltrate isn't the right term, it should be infest. In a few years after Microsoft has infested Linux with its code and technology, will the open source world be subjected to a legal challenge from Microsoft? Will Microsoft use a potential copywrite or patent infringement claim as a bargaining chip to gain something else? In a SCO v IBM suit you have a week party challenging Linux and Open Source, and a strong party defending it. Change the players and we could anticipate a very strong party attacking Linux and Open Source. To settle such a challenge, Microsoft can ask for much -- like unimpeded access to the European market.

Microsoft is a long term planner. Like many Microsoft plans, we won't know the real intent for years. One thing is for sure this partnership is either something very simple or something grand. Microsoft grand plans are usually nothing less than to "take over the world."

Finally I have never dated anyone who had dated Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, or Bob Cringely. I do have a friend who claims to have dated Bill, but we're just friends.

"They even argued that paying Microsoft for Windows was less expensive than getting Linux for free."

While the OS may be free, they generally come with support contracts that are anything but. When it comes down to it, there may be some savings, but the argument itself is invalid. As well, the whole Windows platform is a bit more uniform, better tested, and a bit more stable (especially when it comes to a desktop OS).

There is only one reason for Microsoft to sign this agreement with Novell - Money. Novell is almost irrelevant (this coming from a CNA from back in the day). The key here is the rapid growth of virtualization technology. Now, you could run VM Ware ESX Server (which is a modified version of Linux) and run your Exchange server, etc. on top of that; but for each instance you will have to pay a license fee for Windows. Whereas if your base platform is Windows 2003, why you can run up to four virtualized Windows servers with no additional license fee. And what's that you say? You'd also like to run a virtualized Linux server or two? Well, the license is essentially free and there are no additional license fees for Virtual Server, so have at it! Microsoft keeps their license fee stream, while improvising, adapting and overcoming their opposition by allowing you to run your 'free' OS and 'free' applications on our 'free' virtualized server technology.
The agreement with Novell gets them much closer in to the Linux community, without the fallout that an outright purchase of Novell would incur.

Quoting Bob: "Mono code just shipped its final release version (no coincidence there)".

This week, Java started its transition into Open Source: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/. Maybe that's no coincidence, either.

Miguel de Icaza -- Novell and Mono -- has his own vision of this: Open Sourcing of Java.

And here you can find the translation into Spanish of this week's column: Divide y vencerás. Sorry for the delay.

The situation with Novell and Microsoft reminds me a lot of the Microsoft deal with Stacker. Microsoft tried to overwhelm this small company after striking a partnership with them and tried to slink away with the Stac software free & clear. As history will show, the small company fought back and even with limited resources and a relatively small war-chest, eventually won the battle.

Stacker won the battle, but lost the war.

When the dust settled file and disk compression was a standard part of the (DOS) operating system and Stacker had no market for their product. Eventually the money ran out and they disappeared from the landscape.

There were other companies that disappeared after doing business with Microsoft, PC Tools comes to mind. Some companies forget products have a limited lifespan. If your product runs out of life and you have no other products, you are out of business. Just because you sign a big deal with Microsoft (or any other company), you need to invest and expand your business portfolio. A number of good companies vanished from the market because they had no product outside of what they sold Microsoft. Microsoft was not always the villan in its deals. There was a lot of bad management too, and some bad luck...

Since most people on this board are familiar with the SCO - IBM Unix litigation, let's review the two things that have happened in the three years since that suit was filed:

1) IBM has tied SCO up in endless rounds of legal discovery, while pointing out that IBM has no shortage of patents that SCO and others are likely infringing upon...

and

2) SCO has become a pariah in the open source world, as have its employees. No one trusts SCO, employees have fled, and its stock has fallen from a high of $22 in late 2003 to about $2.50 today.

Two weeks ago, Larry Ellison and Oracle made the huge strategic blunder of deciding they didn't want to own and develop their own version of Linux, but with their "support Red Hat" strategy, they ended up in exactly that position: patch RHEL and unofficially re-distribute it to your customers? Congrats, you just voided Red Hat's support agreement and you're the new support vendor for your NEW Linux distribution.

Then, it was Steve Ballmer's turn to spin the magic bonehead wheel. He infects Novell by getting them to sign technology sharing agreements. The upshot? Novell is now toxic in the open source community, and its employees become pariahs, in that should they inadvertently glimpse native Microsoft source code, they might inadvertently comingle it in the future with open source software covered by the GPL. The endgame? Novell becomes isolated, and its version of Linux (SuSE) becomes a dead-end distribution that won't recieve the either the support or blessing of the open source community.

Linux and other FOSS products aren't successful because they are better products, but because they are part of a better process: one that doesn't favor one customer or partner over another. Everyone in the orbit "gets" as well as they "give." With Novell and its employees now infected by exposure to Microsoft, that independence is even more appealing to existing and prospective customers.

Oh, and for those of you trying to ascertain Microsoft's motives: you don't have to wait five years. Instead, merely check out the transcript of the Microsoft-Novell press conference discussing the agreement between the two companies. For those of you who believe that Microsoft, which generates $10B (that's billion) in annual revenue from their Windows Server operating system, is actually eager to sell, support or otherwise promote a competing product or service, I've excerpted two quotes from Steve Ballmer. The first is some general commentary about how the MSFT-NOVL relationship reached its current stage:

"IT is an industry where there are many, many ways of developing and licensing software. And certainly we're proud of the cooperation that we're initiating here with Novell. AS we cooperate, though, both companies are also going to continue to do what we do best, in some senses, which is to compete in the market. If anybody is confused by the end of the press conference, I'll say it now, you've got a new application that you want to instance, I'm going to tell you the right answer is Windows, Windows, Windows. And Ron is going to tell you something different, as you'll ask him, I won't even go there. And that's fine. But we both recognize the need for this interoperability. And so while we'll compete, we're also going to cooperate in the right way."

Later on, he has this to say about Microsoft's new relationship with Novell:

"We're still competitors. I mean, we'll sit here, and we'll be friendly, and we'll be friendly whenever we're together. But I mean it in absolutely a good way. When it comes down to calling Goldman Sachs, the first thing I'm going to tell them is, let's get those Linux machines out of there and get some Windows in here. And then the second thing I'm going to say is, if you want to use Linux, let's make sure that you get a version of Linux that respects our intellectual property, and I will even help you with that because of the commitment we made. But that's my second [choice]"

------

Well, there you have it: "Get those Linux machines out of there and get some Windows in here." I think that pretty much captures the essence of the new working relationship between Microsoft and Novell.

Feel free to read the entire transcript yourself. I'm sure every Novell employee has read it...just before they started updating their resumes.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/...

This demonstrates that more business and government agencies are looking to open and proprietary solutions and companies must work to offer interoperability solutions that allow customers to deploy open source and proprietary software more efficiently and addresses the IP open source issues that customers were most concerned about.

Barry, thanks for a great contribution. It was great. In reading it, it brought back a memory of a discussion I had a few years ago regarding Linux. At the time Linux and Open Source was really beginning to get some traction in the market. However there were legitimate business (not technical) concerns about using Linux and Open Source. The solution, I thought would be to incorporate Linux and some of the Open Source projects. I proposed a plan whereby the code would be put under an official and legal corporate structure. It would be set up as a not-for-profit business with a minimum staff to operate it. Nominal fees would be charged for copies of the official code, testing & QA, bug fixes, documentation, etc. The organization would also provide the development community some leadership and stategy on things that should be done next. As much as possible I thought the arrangement should not disrupt the existing Linux and Open Source community. It should only complement and improve it. All the independent distributions, etc. would remain intact. The primary purpose of the corporate structure would be to provide leadership to the development community and legal protection to its intellectual work. At the time friends told me my idea was too radical and out of touch with the spirit of the Open Source community. However over the past few years, seeing the problems and challenges that have emerged I am now more convinced than ever Linux needs to take a different path.

A friend once told me one of Microsoft's business tactics is to "destroy a competitor." Novell is at a vulnerable period in its history. Its core networking products are at the end of its life cycle. The networking business has shifted to other firms. Novell is in search of new businesses and new products to take it into the future. It will be years before we know the full result of their deal with Microsoft, however having read Barry's comments -- I have to be scared for Novell. If Microsoft manages to taint Novell's Linux efforts, then they may be able to damage Novell's future and essentially "destroy Novell." Novell is a huge legal risk to Microsoft. This deal reminds me of the ancient saying: "beware of Greeks bearing gifts." Microsoft's deal could be another Trojan Horse. Today Novell feels good. The attackers appear to have headed home and left a gift behind. Novell feels safe. Are they?

I want Novell to be successful and return to their greatness. Today I am very scared for them. I hope I am wrong.

The bottom line when it comes to open source is that it will need to evolve in order to become more common in the business and consumer markets.

This deal allows a mixture of open and proprietary solutions that just might help Novell continue as a viable business in the 21st Century. Microsoft is in the position it has today because it successfully evolved and developed solutions that are used by millions throughout the world.

If open source is going to continue to expand and become a viable solutions, more deals like this one will have to be made between companies. Instead of spelling doom and gloom for Novell, it just might be the dawn of a new day if they utilize this opportunity.

Every time I hear comments like "Open Source needs to evolve in order to become common in the business market", I realize that someone needs an education in why Open Source exists - again.

The history and roots of Open Source didn't start in the corporate world. It's early evolution was totally outside the realm of the corporate world. In essence the corporate world was, and still is, irrelevant to Open Source and the reason it exists.

The movement grew, and more importantly the code base got better and better, until it reached the point were the corporate world recognized it as a viable code platform to run business applications.

Let try a very simplistic definition in the hopes that it will serve as a starting point to understanding:

"Open Source is a mutual admiration society of software developers. The currency of this society is useful, robust, solid software. Software that*anyone* can USE. They protect their currency with the GPL."

Start with that thought. Think through the ramifications.

At a fundamental level, the members of the Open Source community are not interested in "money" or business deals. Their "currency" is the code itself. Just as in the more prosaic world, the economics of trade come into play, and the economics of this society operates on the trade of it's currency. But here's the twist, in the economics of the community, running off multiple copies of their currency doesn't devalue it. You increase the value of their currency by adding to it. The only way to devalue it is to remove it from the community, which is why the GPL exists.. Another difference is that this currency is directly usable, instead of just an abstract notion.

It's a completely different world of economics. The economics are 100% "Intellectual Capital" (for want of a better description). This isn't an exclusive membership, anybody is welcome to join in. Even a business. But any business that wishes to take advantage of the currency of the community had better learn about the internal economics of it first.

Businesses can and do form around this software that can be used by anyone. Properly done, such businesses serve as currency brokers between the community and the corporate world. In reality, most corporates don't deal with the community directly, but with one of these businesses operating as brokers.

It may be hard to understand, or even believe, but the Open Source community doesn't need the corporate world. It isn't even interested in the corporate world per se, outside of the fact that it has gained additional users of it's code.
Certainly the community appreciates the resources and status the corporate world can bring to the community. Who wouldn't? They will even make adjustments to accommodate some requirements of the corporate world. But they will not give up the fundamental economics of their community. If it comes down to a clash between the corporate world and the community, the corporate world can leave the community. It was open to join, it's easy to leave.

But here's the rub. There's all this juicy, useful, GOOD code that the community has. There will always be businesses that see an opportunity to stand as a bridge.

It may be a hard pill to swallow, especially for people steeped in the corporate world, but the reality is that it is the corporates that need to evolve to participate in the Open Source community. Go back and reread my simplistic summary to understand why.

I know it isn't easy to make the mental leap. I spent years steeped in the corporate world myself. When I finally made the mental leap, it shook me to my core.

I'm no expert on open source, but I'm not sure I buy this altruistic analysis of the movement.



The open sourcers I know (I do know some!)are rather heavily ideological in their bent, and often work because it is something they can do and make clear and obvious progress to undermine the corporate world.


I don't buy the idea they exist independent of the corporate world; as a big example I'm not so sure the visual desktop effort would be made at all if MS wasn't there to provoke it. The hackers, after all, are comfortable with the Linux command line interface; and if they just wanted something easier, I doubt a de novo visual interface would happen to look like Windows.



I do believe there is a component of altruism and people working on projects because the projects are useful or can help society or are just fun and interesting (Linux and tsunami warning, gaming systems). I agree that they don't have to adapt to corporate America. But I don't agree that they exist independent of corporate America.



How many, upon hearing of Red Hat, had no reaction? I think the reaction was either, "I wish I'd thought of that," or "How dare those bastards commercialize my work and make billions?"



I don't think the reaction was neutral. The open sourcers push an ideology. And the currency isn't their software; their sense of worth comes more from the USE of their software and the validation of having people choose their software because it is the best code out there.


It is not even a new thing; it is the same thinking behind academic publication. It is difficult to get published, and more difficult to do something other people care about. Your reward is making a contribution to science, and the more it is cited and taken as a basis by others, the more prestige and honor it carries.


Open Source projects are not that much different.

Although there may be altruistic individuals in the Open Source community, There is nothing really altruistic about the community itself. They just have a different value system.
If your interpretation implies the community is altruistic, you still don't get it. You are still trying to map your value system onto their's, which doesn't work.

The community is not homogeneous, there is just as wide a variety of personalities as in any other group.
Your description implies that your contacts within the Open Source community are the "evangelists" of the community. These individuals are in the minority, just as evangelists are a minority of any society or community.

You may not buy the idea that the community can exist independent from the corporate world, but it is a clear fact. The community existed and thrived long before there was any corporate involvement, and it will continue to exist even if all corporate involvement ceases. The growth rate of it's "currency" may slow down, but it will still grow.

Your comment "their sense of worth comes more from the USE of their software" shows how far off base you really are. Everybody "uses" the technology, even the most prolific developers. They are *ALL* users. The USER is not the center focus of the community, although they are a valued part of it. The community is primarily a group of developers, the goal is to create better and better code. Constructive feedback from users is important to that goal (very), but not central to it. Users that don't supply feedback are irrelevant.

The motives of the "current brokers" and the community are not the same. Even the motives of the evangelists and the community are not the same. It sounds like your impressions are formed from these 2 sources only.
I may have errored in thinking I could convey the concepts of the community to someone that has not had at least has some participation in it. In my case, I was actively involved for over a year before I really realized what I was dealing with, and it still managed to shake me up.

It's not purely an idealogical thing, although ideology does play a part. It's not altruistic, yet it is cooperative. Recognition from one's peers plays a part, but recognize exactly who are the peers here (not some vague "corporate" entity).
Psychologically, it's closest to the concept of "satisfaction of a job well done".

Your analogy with the pure academic is probably about as close as you have got. Although I think you also apply too much weight to the "prestige and honor" motivation than really exists in the pure academic. I'd suggest you start there, throw away everything, and rethink from the start again.

Don't confuse the values and currency of the community with the motives of a developer within the community. You wouldn't make that mistake in the corporate or political world, so don't make it here.

Consider the motivations of a rock climber. Why does he do it? The motivation of a developer in the Open Source community tends to be a lot closer to a rock climber than a rock star.