On Nov. 15, eWEEK Senior Editor Peter Galli posted a blog on Microsoft Watch about Red Hats rejection of Microsofts patent protection overtures. Following are just two of the responses:
The company I work for is a Microsoft and Red Hat shop. Honestly, we dont care about the Microsoft-Linux-Unix holy wars going on. This is about business. Our company is growing quickly, and, for us to get to the next level, we need to reduce risk and be as efficient as possible. Interoperability is not an option, its a must.
Everything Im reading implies that Red Hat is having problems digesting the "religious" issues and not looking at the business aspect. If Red Hat is going to stick with this approach, then I have to wonder if it makes sense to stick with Red Hat.
If Red Hat claims this deal isnt required, then why is it letting its biggest competitor, Novell, have an advantage? Get on the phone with Microsoft, sign and get it over with.
In light of Oracle squeezing Red Hat on its own turf, Red Hat cant afford to be left out of these business relationships. Were taking a wait-and-see attitude because most of us cant believe Red Hat would be dumb enough to sit on the sidelines. Otherwise, we will be taking another look at SUSE.
Microsoft is not in business to be public-spirited (any more than Red Hat is). Microsoft is in business to make money, which it has historically done by cornering markets so it doesnt have to use low commodity pricing models. Thats worked well for the company to date, and there has been no major shift in personnel lately that I know of—no "new broom." Why exactly should everyone expect that Microsoft has suddenly turned into a charity? And why does it take a "religious" attitude to ask this hardheaded question?