Talk:Novell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 18 September 2005
This page has be "merkeyfied". mikemartin is Jeff Merkey, and as such, all of the information in the new edits is suspect.
I don't know, I think I should just revert them, because a) they are vanity edits, b) Jeff's reality is known to be very different from others. Unless the veracity of the new information can be proved, then they have to go.
Vryl 06:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
I am not Jeff. Please stop make false statements and engaging in WP:NPA and posting WP:PN. Thanks Mikemartin 07:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- It seems moderately notable, if it was really reported in the WSJ, etc. Why don't you put a smaller section in the Novell article and more details in the Jeff Merkey article? Looking at that page, however, I guess that there is a lot more history behind this than I am aware of... but from a total outsider's POV, it seems at least moderately encyclopedic. Afelton 16:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Linux for business"
Some of the section headings seem rather meaningless. Perhaps we should just make a timeline section. Theshibboleth 06:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Big Red?"
I've never heard of Novell being referred to as "Big Red". Googling "Big Red" does not yeild a result set that includes Novell anywhere near the top. If a citation is not forthcoming, reference to this nickname should be moved or removed. Certainly it does not belong at the top of the page. 166.214.134.207 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed. If it needs to come back it needs to come back with a citation. 69.201.138.21 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] unix sale
removed : sold unix to yaddiyaddi ya... sold rights to use unix , or sold unix all together... all heavely disputed, seems prudent to just leave out this particular sale...
anything other then a link to Groklaw is just debatable
- This is more part of the SCO v. Novell court case. -Mardus 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Salt Lake Influence
Being founded in the Utah Valley is Novell in any way influenced by the LDS leadership?
No it is not. Novell could care less what the LDS church thinks of them. I know this because I live in the area and I know several people that work in the Novell building.
[edit] Pronunciation of 'Novell'
How do you pronounce 'Novell' in this context. Is it like 'novel' (a book - short 'o') or is it an 'o' as in 'no' (long 'o')? Thanks, Matthew
- It's a long 'o' --Tim Bird 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] update?
I may have lost the plot, but hasn't this company been bought out by Adobe? If so where's that update??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.31.185.148 (talk • contribs) .
- lol. where you heard this rumor?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.119.242.94 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Patent Agreement with MS - is it a case of Embrace, extend and extinguish?
Thread copied from Giftlite's talk page:
Hi, just to let you know I've returned the paragraph on the Novell Microsoft agreement back to the way I originally wrote it. I don't believe this is a case of "embrace, extend and extinguish" and I can't remember anyone expressing that viewpoint in the three citations I gave for community reaction. Also, the addition to the sentence made it ungrammatical. Please get back to me if you think this MS strategy does apply in this instance with a citation from somewhere supporting this view. Thank you. Oska 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oska, MS philosophy is not a matter of beliefs. I have added another link to the article. Giftlite 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Giftlite in response: 1) I believe you mean ‘business strategy’ not ‘philosophy’ in yr reply above - philosophy must rely on beliefs as it's fundamental axioms. 2) You seem to think I am denying that MS uses the Embrace, extend and extinguish strategy - not at all the case, however I don't think it is being used in this instance and neither do many other people. The GPL is forcing MS to use a more subtle strategy this time. 3) You are messing up my sentence both syntactically and semantically - the sentence is describing reactions in the FOSS community - Daniel Lyons (the author of yr citation) is definitely not part of that community and is mostly considered a joke inside that community as he always misunderstands and misinterprets the nature of Free and Open Source Software developments. That's the semantic problem. The syntactic problem is that that my two subordiante clauses hang off "expressions of" and yr insertion has not worked either time in this sentence structure. I appreciate yr including a citation but it wasn't relevant to my sentence. If you want to persist in adding yr "embrace, extend, extinguish" viewpoint please do it in a separate sentence or paragraph. 4) I will continue to argue the case that this latest move is a more nuanced and different strategy. 5) I have removed yr insertion again. Oska 05:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
copied over by Oska 05:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reuters: Patent Agreement with Microsoft
This On February 2007, the Free Software Foundation announced that it is reviewing Novell's right to sell Linux versions, and even may ban Novell from selling Linux, because of this agreement [13]
is maybe mistake: [1] and [2]. Can somebody tell me, that is true Reuters mistake? Thanks! --Brouzdej 09:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a mistake! [3]
I have corrected this as far as I understand it --87.127.117.246 11:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
