Microsoft + Novell at One: What's Changed for Interoperability?

It was one year ago this week that Microsoft and Novell proclaimed their historic and still controversial agreement to not hold each other responsible for using any technology the other may have created or have rights to. Whether either side actually had the legal right to claim what technology it would agree not to claim, is still a matter of debate.

Like the famous transfusion between Gene Wilder's version of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, Microsoft appears to have gotten a part of Novell's "wonderful brain." But what did Novell get in return?

"Customers told us they wanted Linux and Windows to work better together so they could focus on their businesses," reads a prepared statement from Novell Executive Vice President Jeff Jaffe this morning. "By taking a leading position in delivering interoperability with Microsoft, Novell is becoming the preferred Linux choice for the integrated enterprise, a fact borne out by the significant sales increase we've seen over the past year."

Novell's SuSE Enterprise Linux has generally been acknowledged as the #2 business distribution, behind Red Hat by a significant margin. While sales are indeed growing, the question that keeps arising and has never been sufficiently answered is, where does SuSE stand with relation to the rest of the world?

When a major study does get published on the subject by a generally respected analyst firm, it almost immediately comes under attack. Last March, a Yankee Group study reported the rising popularity of SuSE Linux, and credited the Microsoft/Novell deal as a major factor.

But that report was immediately repudiated since its principal author, analyst Laura DiDio, has had not only the quality of her work but also her personal integrity called into question. This after responding to claims about possible sloppy work in a 2005 report as having been propagated by what DiDio called "Linux loonies who hang out on forums and are disrespectful and threatening because you disagree with them."

Regardless of one's opinions of her work, those negative comments have managed over the years to deflect attention away from her principal claims, one of them being that Windows Server is gaining market share among enterprises. And like a presidential campaign, any information that deflects attention away from an unpleasant topic in favor of the opposition - accurate or not - is often used by opponents for that purpose.

Last month, eWeek's Peter Galli called attention to an IDC report also claiming Windows Server was gaining market share against Linux in the enterprise. Some raised legitimate skepticism, wondering how IDC or anyone could come to that conclusion without first deciding what "market share" truly is.

As Linux consultant and O'Reilly author Caitlyn Martin noted, "I find the claim that Windows now owns 70% of the server market hard to believe. Granted, I don't work in Windows-only shops but I wonder how many of those really exist. Most large organizations have a mix of Windows, UNIX, and Linux."

In other words, a server is not a desktop. It can't be claimed whole or in indivisible quanta; it's typically either mostly one or the other operating system.

No one has made that claim more clear than one of Microsoft's own people: Sam Ramji, director of its open source laboratory. In an August presentation at an open source conference, Ramji explained, "We know the datacenters of today are mixtures of Windows, Linux, and Unix, x86, x64 and RISC architectures, and a range of storage and networking gear. Virtualization is required to enable server consolidation and dynamic IT; it must be cross-platform. Once applications from multiple platforms are running on a single server, they need to be managed - ideally from a single console. Finally, they must still meet the demands of security and auditability, so regardless of OS they must be accessible by the right users at the right levels of privilege. Hence, cross-platform virtualization demands cross-platform management and identity."

The Microsoft/Novell collaboration, Ramji explained, centers on technology transfers to enable virtualization of one OS within another platform, authentication for heterogenous systems (including single sign-on), and a way to manage a heterogenous network or server from a single OS. "As part of this broader interoperability collaboration," he stated, "Microsoft and Novell technical experts are architecting and testing cross-platform virtualization for Linux and Windows and developing the tools and infrastructure necessary to manage and secure these heterogeneous environments."

But while Microsoft is the one now touting the solution that two years ago Linux proponents claimed Microsoft was holding back on in order to protect its proprietary interests, those reports that at least try to tackle the market share issue head-on are being met with attacks on the messenger, including this recent claim about the eWeek report, stopping just short of saying the reporter made the whole study up.

"It dawned on me that the whole thing might be bogus," stated Linux.com, "that maybe Linux servers are not losing market share after all." To back that up, the article cited climbing revenue numbers for SuSE and Red Hat Linux, showing a slight narrowing of the gap for SuSE. But these are revenue numbers, not sales and not installations - the type of inaccuracy which had earlier been attributed to DiDio.

It would help if anyone were able to project a simple financial or business figure without the parties impacted by that figure feigning victimization.

This morning, Novell and Microsoft trumpeted the ongoing success of their agreement by saying they've "exceeded their original business targets" - which is interesting given that those targets were never completely, publicly divulged. Thirty new business customers have purchased Novell SuSE certificates from Microsoft, they announced, while they expand their agreement to work together to determine new computer usage models for the disabled.

While that's all very nice, it's Sam Ramji's presentation that makes it clear that Microsoft may, at long last, be finally getting it. Microsoft got a part of Novell's wonderful brain.