ZDnet's John Carroll posts what I think is the most cogent analysis of the Microsoft-Novell deal I've seen yet. I don't normally read ZDnet blogs for their thoughtful analysis -- most of the time, they strike me as unabashed rabble-rousing merely to justify confrontational headlines -- but if this is an example of John's work, I'll be reading him more in the future.
Case in point: one of John's fellow ZDnet bloggers, , appears to go out of his way to miss John's point. Ed is claiming that Vista is just as liable and that therefore Windows customers just as vulnerable. Well, duh -- John points out that any sufficiently complex software is arguably as risk (but respects the reader's intellect enough to point this out). What Ed seems to miss is the fact that John's analysis of the Microsoft-Novell deal is pointing precisely at the kind of steps that Microsoft can take to help reduce that risk for their customers -- a step that open source projects can't take unless they've got someone like Novell behind them. Pay attention, Ed, and quit arguing the premises.