Great article on ars technica

A visual timeline of the Microsoft-Novell controversy

This is a really good article that I just read at ars technica. The whole Novell/Microsoft thing has been a bit of a soap opera, and a twisted tale. This article brings some much needed levity and clarity to the situation, as well as pretty succinctly explaining the sequence of events.

Of particular interest to me was the last couple of paragraphs from the article, quoted below:

The success of the Linux operating system is largely predicated on the collaboration of the Linux development community, and this petty squabbling impedes that collaboration. What the corporate executives of these companies have declared, with stentorian vehemence, is that they are all abundantly willing to abandon collaboration and take advantage of each other whenever it is convenient.

I don't object to criticism of the deal, because frankly, it seems obvious that Ballmer vindicated the critics, and in retrospect, trusting Microsoft was not wise. I'm not passing judgement on the opportunism of the executives who used criticism of the deal as a means of promoting their own corporate agenda. It's human nature and commonplace. The point I'm making here is that, in the end, the mutual criticism and petty bickering doesn't further the interests of the Linux community and that the negative consequences of the Microsoft/Novell deal will continue to escalate as long as it serves as a catalyst for distrust within the Linux community.

It pains me to see the Linux community ripping each other apart of this event, and quite frankly makes me very sad.  We are not a bunch of petulant children, and the last thing we need is for the world to (continue to) view us that way.  Over the last 16 years, Linux has matured to become a true competitor and threat to the largest and most dominant software companies.  Linux is a testament to the open source development model.

We cannot afford to slow the progress of Linux and open source development with petty and reactionary arguements.  What upset me further is the opportunistic way in which the "leaders" at other companies in the Linux market tried to use the timult to gain mindshare.  Linux has too often been compared to Unix because no one company makes Linux.  To coin a phrase, those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Blogged with Flock

Software patents suck

Ok, that title sucks, but I couldn't think of anything witty. ;-) Anyway, I just got done reading an article over at Ars Technica:

Cox's DRM patent less than meets the eye

1/17/2007 9:01:09 AM, by Timothy B. Lee

On Monday, Slashdot reported that legendary Linux kernel developer Alan Cox filed a patent application in June 2005 related to digital rights management technology. Cox's patent describes software that would automatically suspend operations if the user was found to be out of compliance with the software's licensing terms but that would save the user's data before suspending to prevent data loss.

The topic of the article was interesting, but what I really liked was the last paragraph:

The fact that even Red Hat, a company publicly opposed to software patents and unlikely to assert them against anyone, feels the need to apply for dozens of patents suggests that there are serious problems with the American patent system. The resources Red Hat spends hiring lawyers to obtain patents it will most likely never use could be more productively spent hiring programmers and customer support personnel to do useful work.

Too right. It is ludicrous that companies have to spend so much money for events that may never transpire when they could be spending money improving their products! This is roughly akin to insurance, except this is much more expensive and much less assuring. It is good to see that many of the biggest players in this industry support patent reform, even some that we wouldn't expect. I hope that people in the European Union continue to fight the good fight.

This seems like a good site. Check it out: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/