FEB
6
2004

Novell/SUSE Saga Part II

As a followup to our previous Novell/SUSE article, we have further good news. Following the completion of the acquisition of SUSE by Novell, SUSE CEO Richard Seibt, who had previously expressed a strong commitment to KDE, has been promoted to president of Novell-EMEA and is now in a position to not only to maintain SUSE's strong KDE support but also to help deploy it more widely around the world. Even more interesting, SUSE R&D Vice President Markus Rex will now be responsible for Novell's Linux desktop activities and not solely Miguel and Nat as previously hinted. com.com is reporting further details.

Comments

Logic... I do not think this word means what you think it means.


By Boggle at Sat, 2004/02/07 - 6:00am

Very simple. Ximian makes no money, Suse makes it == logic. If you can't understand that then there is no point in talking to you.


By David at Sun, 2004/02/08 - 6:00am

so, I take it you've seen the ximian financial reports to backup your assertions?
If not, then it might make sense to stop talking about stuff you had no idea about.


By dumdeedum at Sun, 2004/02/08 - 6:00am

This getting fairly desperate now. As far as I know there are no public financial statements about Ximian because they are a private company. Nice try :). Besides, even if I had seen them I wouldn't believe them because I would wager there would be a huge amount of creative accounting on there.

We have to make logical judgements based on what is actually happening. Anyway, I don't have to see any such thing to know that they are making a huge loss, simple 'provable' logic will suffice. Why provable? Because these are things that have happened. I doubt whether we will ever see financial reports on Ximian as they were private, and especially now that they are being broken up.

They have swallowed tens of millions of venture capital trying to sell 'free' desktop software for which there is no market. There is not even the prospect of any revenue, let alone profit. Even if there was a market, this would take years to recoup. Lindows, Xandros and others are not making money and they sell whole Linux distributions that Ximian does not. Lindows have actually admitted they are not making money - and Ximian? I doubt that Suse Desktop sales are anything to get hot about and Red Hat dropped their desktop distribution which means that the desktop situation is just not financially viable at the moment. Hell, even Novell has posted losses this year, and they own Ximian. Oh yer. Why did Ximian need to get bought?

I do know a low about this because I am in a computing business, I know about revenue models, I know what a viable market looks like, I can add up and I can see what is happening.

Whatever, it is time stop getting desperate, face facts and understand that Ximian DOES NOT MAKE MONEY. Anyway, this will be made very clear in the coming weeks and months, so don't just take it from me.


By David at Sun, 2004/02/08 - 6:00am

So, you are saying that the people of Novell are complete idiots? Afterall according to you the bought a company which doesn't make money and never will make money.


By Jasper at Mon, 2004/02/09 - 6:00am

They brought a brand and company expertise. This will now be folded into SUSE and KDE since it's more cost efficient.


By ac at Mon, 2004/02/09 - 6:00am

Well, you might think that but I couldn't possibly comment :).


By David at Mon, 2004/02/09 - 6:00am

My point was to point out that you have no clue what you are talking about.

You have no facts to prove that Ximian does not make money, you have your conjecture about it.

Your logic has no grounds other than fantasy, and your "proof" that Ximian does not make money (it needed "to get bought") can be applied equally to SuSE...

The more and more I read of your posts, the more I think you are 13 and I don't know many 13 year olds in a computing buisness. So I call Bullshit.


By dumdeedum at Mon, 2004/02/09 - 6:00am

"You have no facts to prove that Ximian does not make money, you have your conjecture about it."

Ximian have not produced any financial records. Like I said. Nice try :).

"Your logic has no grounds other than fantasy, and your "proof" that Ximian does not make money (it needed "to get bought") can be applied equally to SuSE..."

This can be applied to Suse can it? This shows that you have no business sense and don't know what is going on in the IT world.

"The more and more I read of your posts, the more I think you are 13 and I don't know many 13 year olds in a computing buisness. So I call Bullshit."

Call it what you like, but it seems to be bullshit you are irritated by. Maybe you aren't so stupid as you seem?


By David at Mon, 2004/02/09 - 6:00am

"Ximian have not produced any financial records. Like I said. Nice try :)."

For a guy who talks a lot about logic, you dont seem to have the faintest idea what it means. Try taking a course in formal logic before you use the word proof so liberally.

Since you don't have Ximian's financial records, or any idea what products they sell and to whom, you cannot prove they aren't making money. No amount of "logic" will make disappear the fact that you are woefully misinformed about a company you haven't the faintest clue about.

I call bullshit too -- you are just a 15 year old trying to justify an emotional attachment to a desktop with what you think is "logic".

Cheers,
Ryan


By Ryan at Tue, 2004/02/10 - 6:00am

Why do you keep changing your name, or are you all programmed the same way?

"For a guy who talks a lot about logic, you dont seem to have the faintest idea what it means. Try taking a course in formal logic before you use the word proof so liberally."

Not relevant - a cheap remark. That's the trouble with many 'open source' people - no business sense. The proof that I have is business sense and what is actually happening in the industry. The difficulty is that you don't understand that.

"Since you don't have Ximian's financial records,"

Like I said, nice try :). Ximian are a private company, but you can have a very accurate guess from what has actually happened and the products that they 'sell', or don't sell. If Ximian want to quash these rumours they can produce financial results. Hiding behind Ximian's financial records won't help you. Where is the business model? If there is one explain it to me, and if there isn't one they are not making money. Logical enough for you? If you can't do that 'you' don't know what 'I' am talking about, so you cannot possibly know that I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Logical?

"...or any idea what products they sell and to whom, you cannot prove they aren't making money. No amount of "logic" will make disappear the fact that you are woefully misinformed about a company you haven't the faintest clue about."

Oh, I'm hitting home here :)!! You're talking about me not having the faintest clue about Ximian, but you seem to think I don't know what it is that they do - or don't do as the case may be. Have you not read what I've written, or are you like all the other clueless morons who think that they're replying to a 'troll'?

I can see what products Ximian are selling - none. They are trying to 'sell' free software, like Evolution and Ximian Desktop, in a non-existent market place thus far. For some reason they seem to think that they can make money by selling Ximian Connectors for Evolution and server software for Red Carpet and support for 'Ximian Desktop'. That's it. Care to tell me if I'm hitting the mark, because you don't seem to know what Ximian do?

You could quite reasonably ask why Red Carpet server and the connectors are not free. Why try and make money out of them? This is what Bruce Perens and UserLinux seem to want to do. Even if they did make money out of this the business rational is totally feeble because people could quite easily make free software replacements for these. Ximian can't make any money of any significance from Evolution, Ximian Desktop or Red Carpet (there isn't the market there) and certainly not enough to recoup 15+ million dollars and all of the Novell resources Ximian have been joyfully lavishing. Ximian are trying to spend lots of money on developing free software like their desktop, Evolution, Open Office and Mono, and they are trying to do this in-house (Microsoft hangover?). They don't even offer any services, which is suicidal in the market that they are in. If you want to develop software in-house, you need to charge for it in some big way. Free software means leveraging a community effort. Get it? Logic.

The people at Ximian don't seem to understand free or open source software business models at all. You just can't justify that kind of spending with the 'market' that they are in. Novell have made losses this year you know, and Ximian will be the first to feel the effects.

"I call bullshit too -- you are just a 15 year old trying to justify an emotional attachment to a desktop with what you think is "logic"."

Oh the emotional argument, but I haven't mentioned any desktops here. I briefly mentioned why I think there is more business sense at one than the other. Your job is to tell me why I'm wrong.

Nice try, but this sounds like an emotional and desperate statement if ever I saw one. It is logic that you don't understand, or want to accept, and if this is all you can use to take it down it stands up very well.

Come back and reply to exactly what I have written (quote me and reply underneath) and why I am wrong rather than these pathetically feeble "emotional", "don't know what I'm talking about" comments. Why do I not understand what I'm talking about? Why do Ximian have a solid business model? What do Ximian do? How do they make money?

If not I'm more right than I first thought, and that amuses me.

Thank you and goodnight.


By David at Tue, 2004/02/10 - 6:00am

David! How many times have I told you that you're not to use the Internet without supervision? Thats it, I'm cutting your allowance and you're not allowed on the computer for a week.

And its way past your bedtime, I know a little boy who's got a big day in school tomorrow.


By David's Mom at Tue, 2004/02/10 - 6:00am

While funny that was just wrong. LOL


By michaeln at Wed, 2004/02/11 - 6:00am

I must really have hurt some people here. While you prepare for bed I'll be working on a very expensive contract for a local airport. Sleep tight.

Trying to make out I'm still at school. Funny, but that's what you get when you hit home hard I'm afraid.


By David at Thu, 2004/02/12 - 6:00am

Nah, we're not hurting...
We're just ripping the piss out of you.


By David's Mom at Sat, 2004/02/14 - 6:00am

"Why do you keep changing your name, or are you all programmed the same way?"

Ah yes, anyone who doesnt agree with you, if they are not one lonely disaffected loser, must be unintelligent robots.

"If not I'm more right than I first thought, and that amuses me."

I think that pretty much says it all. Very sad really.

"Not relevant - a cheap remark"

Totally relevant. You completely fail to understand any concept of logic beyond "what makes sense to me must be logical". Im not trying to prove Ximian is making money, Im trying to prove that you can't prove they arent. *THATS* logic. Please take some more schooling before trying to teach a mathematician logic.

"The proof that I have is business sense and what is actually happening in the industry."

Thats not proof of anything -- the fact that you think it is any sort of a proof is exactly what Im talking about. I think you havent the faintest idea how business works. I think you sit in your basement and wonder to yourself why no one in the world is a smart as you -- without ever having to prove yourself by running you own multi-million dollar business. You want to debate a business you dont know about, on a forum where its totally off topic -- that pretty much says it all about your business acumen.

"but you can have a very accurate guess from what has actually happened and the products that they 'sell', or don't sell."

If you had actual experience with following a real corporation you know they dont write press releases everytime they make a sale. Many times their customers dont want the details of their contract out. Also telling the world about how you just sold some boring software to some boring company just isnt worth the time to publicise.

"If Ximian want to quash these rumours they can produce financial results."

First of all theres no rumors, theres just you trolling on a KDE forum -- and lets be clear they dont give a rats ass about you. Secondly, private companies dont publicly release their financials, theres nothing to gain and everything to lose. Then again, you know that if you had any business education.

"Where is the business model? If there is one explain it to me, and if there isn't one they are not making money. Logical enough for you?"

Actually that statement is not logical. You admit that if there is a business model then you dont understand it, but if there isnt one, then it is impossible to make money. Your arguments are so flawed on so many levels: The existance of a business model is independant of your understanding of business models, so just because you can't see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Then you assume it is possible for business to exist without a business model, yet you fail to see that the ability to have revenues greater than expenses is possible without a highly accurate business model. I.E. I could claim that my business model is to sell peanut butter to increase sales of higher margin bread, but if my peanut butter is better quality than my bread I still make money off peanut butter sales, provided its not a loss-leader.

"If you can't do that 'you' don't know what 'I' am talking about, so you cannot possibly know that I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Logical?"

Once again this statement is actually not logical at all, and only serves to prove your definition of "logic" is "what ever makes sense to me".

If I cant explain Ximian's business model to you then I dont know what Im talking about?? I dont know where to start with that. If you think that is logic then try this: If you cant prove The Generalized Reimann Hypothesis, then you owe me $100. I await your cheque.

"but you seem to think I don't know what it is that they do [...]"

Now *THAT* statement *IS* logically sound.

"I can see what products Ximian are selling - none."

But this one is logcally inconsistant with you prior admission that you don't know what Ximian's business model is. It is also factually absurd since my company has actually purchased XD2 and Connector. If Ximian has sold even ONE product the above is logically false, by definition.

"For some reason they seem to think that they can make money by selling Ximian Connectors for Evolution"

Since they *are* selling Connector, they seem to know more than you.

"Care to tell me if I'm hitting the mark, because you don't seem to know what Ximian do?"

Wow. Logical inconsistency abounds. How can I tell you if your hitting the mark if I dont know what Ximian does? If I can tell you whether you are hitting the mark then, then I do actually know what Im talking about. Either way what you ask me to do is logically impossible.

"You could quite reasonably ask why Red Carpet server and the connectors are not free."

You are constantly contradicting yourself: the reason there is no free is Conenctor because they are selling it as you have said above. Thats called a tautology in formal logic -- its a statement that is true regardless of interpretation.

"Even if they did make money out of this the business rational is totally feeble because people could quite easily make free software replacements for these."

So which is it? Are they making money or not?

If people could easily make free software replacements for proprietary software then where are my FreeConnector, FreeNVidiaDrivers, or FreeNovellDirectoryServices? It doesnt make sense. This explaining logic to you is getting tiring. Making software costs a lot of time, expertise, or if you are a business, it also costs money. It is NOT easy.

"The people at Ximian don't seem to understand free or open source software business models at all."

You have made no factual argument to back up this claim. Logic doesnt trump facts, it uses facts.

"Oh the emotional argument, but I haven't mentioned any desktops here."

Its a KDE forum. I dont need logic to infer something obvious.

"I briefly mentioned why I think there is more business sense at one than the other."

Actually I dont recall you making any business case at all. Maybe your idea of business case is similar to your idea of logic: "It makes sense to me".

"Your job is to tell me why I'm wrong."

Actually you have a basic responsibility to make sure your own arguments arent so full of holes.

"Nice try, but this sounds like an emotional and desperate statement if ever I saw one."

Then you havent seen very many. Like I said before, you dont sound very mature.

"It is logic that you don't understand, or want to accept, and if this is all you can use to take it down it stands up very well."

Wishing something is true doesnt make it so. Your "logic" is full of holes.

"Come back and reply to exactly what I have written (quote me and reply underneath) and why I am wrong rather than these pathetically feeble "emotional", "don't know what I'm talking about" comments. Why do I not understand what I'm talking about?"

Is the above good enough for you? I only did so since you asked me too -- but make no mistake I wont be dont this again. Its way too draining. The only reason I decided too is on the hope you will take your plentiful creativity to a school and get some formal schooling of logic and rhetoric.

"Thank you and goodnight."

Will you be here all week?

Cheers,
Ryan


By Ryan at Wed, 2004/02/11 - 6:00am

That's a long non-sensical reply from someone who asked if I would be here all week!

"Ah yes, anyone who doesnt agree with you, if they are not one lonely disaffected loser, must be unintelligent robots."

Ah, the lonely disaffected loser routine. My comments must really have hurt some people. Unfortunately this is far from the truth, as I'll explain below.

"Totally relevant. You completely fail to understand any concept of logic beyond "what makes sense to me must be logical". Im not trying to prove Ximian is making money, Im trying to prove that you can't prove they arent. *THATS* logic. Please take some more schooling before trying to teach a mathematician logic."

This ain't mathematics - it's called business sense and business logic. It's a different big bad world out there I'm afraid. It would be lovely if it was that simple, but it isn't I'm afraid, and this does not hide your lack of knowledge on the subject. Please don't lecture me on running an IT business, since that is what I was actually talking about.

"Thats not proof of anything -- the fact that you think it is any sort of a proof is exactly what Im talking about."

Well talk about what is happening in the industry and prove me wrong. Unfortunately you can't do it, which begs the question as to why you keep replying, desperate to try and shift the subject.

"I think you havent the faintest idea how business works. I think you sit in your basement and wonder to yourself why no one in the world is a smart as you -- without ever having to prove yourself by running you own multi-million dollar business. You want to debate a business you dont know about, on a forum where its totally off topic -- that pretty much says it all about your business acumen."

You really, really, really wish that I sat in a basement and wrote all this. Unfortunately I sit as part of a pretty successful small/medium sized IT company struggling to understand what I would do with 15 million dollars, or how we would even begin to return on that investment. And you make derisory remarks on my business acumen? Funny.

"First of all theres no rumors, theres just you trolling on a KDE forum"

Ah, trolling. If you don't understand something call it a troll. KDE forum? What are you doing here then?

"You admit that if there is a business model then you dont understand it,"

This shows that you don't understand or can see what Ximian's business model is. I can, even if it is so very feeble.

"but if there isnt one, then it is impossible to make money."

So if there isn't a business model then you are asserting that you can make money anyway? Nice one, I wish I could do that!

"I could claim that my business model is to sell peanut butter to increase sales of higher margin bread, but if my peanut butter is better quality than my bread I still make money off peanut butter sales, provided its not a loss-leader."

Assuming that Ximian's free products sell Red Carpet and Novell's middleware and server stacks, do they sell enough through Ximian to justify the expense of Ximian? No. The 'products' Ximian works on are loss-leaders that sell nothing else as a result. How do I know all this? Novell is making a loss.

"You are constantly contradicting yourself: the reason there is no free is Conenctor because they are selling it as you have said above."

Er, you could reasonably ask why the connectors and server software are not free as well. What do they offer? Why sell those? Someone will offer these for free and put Ximian in an even more difficult position.

"If I cant explain Ximian's business model to you then I dont know what Im talking about?? I dont know where to start with that."

Er, start by explaining what you think Ximian's business model is?

"I dont know where to start with that. If you think that is logic then try this: If you cant prove The Generalized Reimann Hypothesis, then you owe me $100. I await your cheque."

Er, nice try but we're talking about business models here. It sounds as if you could really use a cheque of any description with this sense.

""but you seem to think I don't know what it is that they do [...]""

I've just disproved that by describing what it is that they do. You haven't offered any such description, which means you don't know what it is that they do. I'm not talking about mathematics I'm afraid.

"But this one is logcally inconsistant with you prior admission that you don't know what Ximian's business model is. It is also factually absurd since my company has actually purchased XD2 and Connector. If Ximian has sold even ONE product the above is logically false, by definition."

Do they sell enough to justify the expense of what they are doing? No. Just because they have you as a customer this isn't going to prop them up I'm afraid.

"But this one is logcally inconsistant with you prior admission that you don't know what Ximian's business model is. It is also factually absurd since my company has actually purchased XD2 and Connector. If Ximian has sold even ONE product the above is logically false, by definition."

This is where your gulf in knowledge really does show up. It doesn't matter if you sell, a hundred, ten or zero products, if they don't justify the expense then you are going out of business. In other words, you don't sell anything. So when your bank manager cuts off your air supply and says "I'm sorry you don't sell anything" you're going to say "I'm sorry that's not factually correct..."! At best he won't speak to you, at worst you'll get hit.

"Since they *are* selling Connector, they seem to know more than you."

They're not selling connector in enough numbers to justify the expense.

"How can I tell you if your hitting the mark if I dont know what Ximian does?"

If you don't know what Ximian does, why reply?

"So which is it? Are they making money or not?"

Nice attempt at an assertive comment. Unfortunately it doesn't match up with what I have written.

"If people could easily make free software replacements for proprietary software then where are my FreeConnector, FreeNVidiaDrivers, or FreeNovellDirectoryServices? It doesnt make sense."

Er, perhaps because these are closed source products and Ximian is trying to sell free software in the same way as proprietary software?

"Making software costs a lot of time, expertise, or if you are a business, it also costs money. It is NOT easy."

Er, yer. And you have to have a sound business model that justifies the expense.

"You have made no factual argument to back up this claim. Logic doesnt trump facts, it uses facts."

Your opinion. I have given enough evidence to back this up to anyone with a knowledge of IT businesses. This is why my comments seem to have caused so much panic.

"Actually I dont recall you making any business case at all."

Well, you wouldn't.

"Actually you have a basic responsibility to make sure your own arguments arent so full of holes."

They aren't. Please don't try and reverse this on me - why am I wrong?

"Then you havent seen very many. Like I said before, you dont sound very mature."

Nice cheap remark on maturity. It sounded like an emotional statement, so I said it, and by telling me that you have bought XD2 etc. it sounds very much like these are emotional staments to justify your investment to yourself. Did your boss read this or something? Pretty sad.

"Wishing something is true doesnt make it so. Your "logic" is full of holes."

In terms of the context of IT businesses, where are the holes? I haven't wished anything. Again, if you reverse this on yourself you are trying to justify your investment in some way. Quite sad.

"Is the above good enough for you? I only did so since you asked me too -- but make no mistake I wont be dont this again."

Er, how about no? You haven't talked about Ximian, talked abut what you thought there business model was, how they make money etc. etc. None of what you wrote was in the correct context. The arguments that you did try to make were swiped aside pretty easily.

"Will you be here all week?"

No, but it was good to poke some fun at some desperate people for five or ten minutes. If you are symptematic of the people that support Ximian then you speak for yourselves.

This thread ends here because I have obviously hurt quite a lot of people with these comments, possibly because people realise they can't be shifted.


By David at Thu, 2004/02/12 - 6:00am

apparently Novell execs don't smoke the same logic crack that you've been smoking.

(see newest thread on this article for a url saying that Novell/SuSE plan on focusing on GNOME and not KDE)


By some chap at Sat, 2004/02/14 - 6:00am

"apparently Novell execs don't smoke the same logic crack that you've been smoking."

Dude, this discussion is over. Apparently I've got a lot of desperate people over to this forum.

"(see newest thread on this article for a url saying that Novell/SuSE plan on focusing on GNOME and not KDE)"

It doesn't say that at. It talks a heck of a lot about servers with a little footnote at the bottom about desktops, and that they would support both and see what happens. It would be a decision for developers and users as to what they chose. Guess what that means?


By David at Sat, 2004/02/14 - 6:00am

I already sent it four days ago to slashdot but to my surprise they didn't pick it up there in any way. I didn't expect this news to show up here as I don't think it's that much related to KDE as a project at all but more to economy. My opinion is that open source projects should not bother with markets issues other than encouraging any kind of contribution which includes commercial players as well.


By Datschge at Fri, 2004/02/06 - 6:00am

You're right, it is better not to get too up about this. Suse is merely only one company involved with KDE, but there has been an awful lot of rubbish talked about it so it is sometimes good to quash that. I don't see too many news articles here about Ximian/Novell/Suse anyway.


By David at Sat, 2004/02/07 - 6:00am

Um, that's not what the article says at all. The press release states that Markus Rex will be the "General Manager of Novell's SUSE LINUX Business Unit". Companies like Novell have quite a few levels of management, particularly across the kind of product lines that Novell now has to manage... Perhaps you guys should be looking into Markus Rex's staff and delegations a bit more closely. :-)


By Boggle at Sat, 2004/02/07 - 6:00am

To quote the press release:
"Novell's SUSE LINUX business unit today announced the appointment of Markus Rex as general manager. Rex, previously SUSE's vice president, Research and Development, will assume his new duties immediately. As general manager of the SUSE LINUX business unit, reporting to Chris Stone, Novell vice chairman - Office of the CEO, Rex will lead the development of SUSE LINUX, from the desktop to server, and will work with other Novell business units to deliver a complete Linux solution stack. Rex will also assume responsibility for Novell's Linux desktop activities."

Interpret it however you want, I would think it is pretty clear.


By Datschge at Sat, 2004/02/07 - 6:00am

There are many articles here, so I don't understand why you say that's not what the article (singular) says at all. Try reading :).

There are official releases that says Markus Rex is assuming responsibility for Novell's desktop programme and it states that many of Ximian's employees will be moving under the leadership of Markus Rex and Suse. You can interpret that in as many ways as you want, but it basically means that Ximian is being disbanded and Novell are getting what they paid for with Suse - Enterprise Linux expertise. Logic == Ximian leaks money like a sieve and doesn't really do anything, Suse makes it, is expanding and has a wealth of expertise.

The first priority for Novell and Suse is the server side, so I don't think that there will be a huge amount of desktop activity, but this is significant.

Why shouldn't we infer these things (with a bit of logic)? Many were happy to predict the demise of KDE and Suse, right out in public as well, and especially those at Ximian who hinted at it at every turn.


By David at Sun, 2004/02/08 - 6:00am

Now that SuSE is head of the desktop division at Novell, when will Evolution be rewritten/ported to KDE?


By some chap at Sun, 2004/02/08 - 6:00am

Never?


By Anonymous at Sun, 2004/02/08 - 6:00am

Maybe they'll go for Kontact instead. No need to port anything.


By OI at Sun, 2004/02/08 - 6:00am

I would imagine that Kontact would come first and some of Ximian's technology would be ported to it, and perhaps vice versa. Difficult to say, but Kontact is nativ to KDE and works pretty well considering how long it has been in existence.


By David at Sun, 2004/02/08 - 6:00am

This article (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39146162,00.htm) says that they are going to focus on Ximian Desktop for enterprises, although they are going to continue supporting both.

Did I read this in a wrong way?


By Santiago at Fri, 2004/02/13 - 6:00am

hah, guess this means David was talking out of his arse.


By some chap at Sat, 2004/02/14 - 6:00am

Dont say that! Hes working on a big contract with an airport for $15 million dollars!! He thinks his "logic" is so magic it can defeat any fact!!! HE IS SO SMART HE CANT BE WRONG!!!!

Can he?


By arse talker at Sat, 2004/02/14 - 6:00am

"Dont say that! He's working on a big contract with an airport for $15 million dollars!!"

I love the reading skills of some people! I am working on a contract for a local airport, and HOLY SHIT! I wish it was 15 million dollars. I think you're getting the 15 million dollars thing mixed up. i said this in relation to Ximian's venture capital outlay, which they have burned all the way through.

"HE IS SO SMART HE CANT BE WRONG!!!!"

I most certainly can be wrong, but I give reasons when I think I am right.


By David at Sat, 2004/02/14 - 6:00am

My, I've seen my name mentioned a lot here. I seem to have got a lot of desperate people over to this forum.

Unfortunately, it doesn't say that they will be focusing on Ximian Desktop. It talks mostly about servers, with a very little footnote at the bottom about supporting the two desktops. If the time comes that one desktop will be picked it will be a decision left to developers primarily. The desktop is not a consideration for Suse/Novell at the moment. I would imagine this would mean a lot of collaborative work.

Either way, in a year when Novell has made losses no one can justify the expenditure of Ximian in the long-term compared with the one or two developers Suse employs to work on KDE. Sorry, but that's the way it works kids.


By David at Sat, 2004/02/14 - 6:00am

I hear SUSE employs 13 persons full time to work on KDE, and has been doing so for a long time. I'm afraid you're spreading wrong facts.


By David Faure at Mon, 2004/02/16 - 6:00am

It's actually 13 (roughly, I'm not sure exactly) SUSE employees that have KDE CVS account. That doesn't mean there are 13 SUSE employees working full time on KDE.


By Luboš Luňák at Mon, 2004/02/16 - 6:00am

No, not the way I understand it. Suse employs one or two people and lets others work on it in their spare time. Anyone from Suse actually care to confirm?


By David at Wed, 2004/02/18 - 6:00am

It seems that currently 3-5 are working full time on KDE related stuff.


By Anonymous at Wed, 2004/02/18 - 6:00am

Pages