|
|
| Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated |
 |
|
Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 03:53 PM EDT
|
Ah, no rest for me, as the FUD keeps on coming. Now there is a meme, echoed by none other than Rob Enderle, that much of the code in Linux belongs to Sun, and hence will soon be owned by Oracle, who will allegedly use that "power" to take over Linux:Finally, it is believed that a substantial amount of code in Linux actually may belong to Sun and, with this acquisition, could belong to Oracle. While I don't expect a SCO moment, I would expect Oracle to use it as a bargaining chip to drive Linux in a direction it felt benefitted the firm. "It is believed"?? By whom? Not by me, and I surely know quite a lot about the subject. I think I'd have heard. "Belong" in what sense? This claim will elicit strong guffaws from the guys who actually write Linux, but for any who might be tempted to believe such imaginings, let me explain some things, six reasons why this scenario is far-fetched and most likely impossible even if it were true.
First, does he means patents or copyrights or what? If patents, Sun's Jonathan Schwartz already made a public promise to use its patent portfolio to defend and protect both Red Hat and Ubuntu Linux against *any* patent threats. The Linux community relied upon that promise, and it would, I think, be an uphill battle to sue Linux over any of them now. The GPL provides patent protection. Yes, GPLv2 also. If you doubt that, here's a paper you might find helpful, Potential Defenses of Implied Patent License Under the GPL[PDF]. That's written by two attorneys, Laura A. Majerus and Adam Pugh, and the paper talks about defenses under GPLv2, the license that Linux is provided under. Under GPLv3, the license is explicit, not just implied, but there is protection under both of the licenses. So Oracle is boxed in by the GPL, as is Sun or anyone who contributes to the kernel under the GPL or distributes Linux. Also consider that the patent world has been turning upside down, first by the KSR decision on obviousness and then even more so after In Re Bilski, and no one even knows any more if software patents are even supposed to have patent protection and if so to what degree. We'll see. Second, is he talking about copyrights? I suggest you hunt for copyrights in Linux, the kernel, and look for Sun copyrights. Next look for Oracle. What license do you see? The GPL. Why is that significant? Oracle has been distributing Linux for some time, under the GPL. Here's just one mention of Linux on that page: Oracle's Linux commitment began in 1998 with the first commercial database on Linux. Today, Oracle Database is #1 on Linux with more than 82% market share. Oracle Applications and Oracle Fusion Middleware continue to build significant momentum on Linux as well. That date is important, because the GPL limits what they can ever do to anyone whose code Oracle distributed under the GPL, I'd opine, in a copyright context from that date, at least, forward.Oracle is a contributor to Linux, as you can see by the list on that page. [Update: Here's their Free and Open Source Software from Oracle page.] That means it contributes knowingly under the GPL. One example from the list, a description of GOLD: Gold is a new GNU linker, and is released under the GPL as a part of binutils. Gold is much faster than the existing GNU linker, and eventually it will become an incremental linker. Gold supports the ELF file format only. Oracle has been contributing features and bugfixes in order to assure that Gold correctly builds the Linux kernel and the Oracle Database. Oracle has been involved in Linux for a long time, and they have excellent lawyers, as we saw in the SCO case, so they know their responsibilities and opportunities under the GPL. You can't sue Linux and also distribute it. Even if Oracle wanted to do what Enderle suggests, and there's no evidence it does, it can't, unless it wishes to fall down a rabbit hole into SCO's alternate universe. Third, Oracle already learned an important lesson about Linux and trying to "take it over" from its earlier attempt to shove Red Hat under the bus, as I saw it, with its "Unbreakable Linux", otherwise known by me as the "Oh no, He Din't! Linux". Red Hat immediately responded by calling its Linux Unfakable Linux, and amen to that. Fourth, if most of the code in Linux belongs to Sun, why did it feel a need to hop on to SCO's ugly little donkey and try to ride a while? It didn't need SCO, from Rob's account. Fifth, Even he suggests that companies that choose litigation are committing suicide, so even if it were true that the code belongs to Sun, how would you use it to muscle anyone, without litigation? Sixth, Oracle is a member of the Linux Foundation. And it also is a member of OIN, which provides certain benefits in exchange for pledges not to sue Linux. Here's the License Agreement. It'd be hard to be bad, although not impossible, after joining those organizations, and even if you wanted to be bad, the legal hurdles you'd have to jump over would be many and set very high. Anyway, Jim Zemlin of the Linux Foundation vouches for Oracle, who is a member, as is Sun, by the way. Here's the problem any vendor has with GNU/Linux: you can't control it the way you can proprietary software, because you didn't write it all even if you contributed, and if you annoy the folks who actually did write it -- or their users, like me, for instance -- you won't do well because your name will be mud in the marketplace. You know the marketplace. The folks you need to buy what you are selling. And the GPL limits how bad you can be, even if that is your goal. The GPL is like preventive medicine, and you don't have to be a member of the FSF to see the legal genius behind it. It does exactly what it intends, to make sure no one can muscle anyone or ever become "first among equals" and control Linux's destiny. IBM understands that. Red Hat understands that. And they are making money. Maybe it's time for the SCO types to stop dreaming of monetizing Linux in the old-fashioned proprietary way, where the goal is destruction of your competition, and instead work with the development model that encourages competition by excellence. It's a more productive model. Of course, one has to actually innovate for it to work, not just rip off other people's work. In short, this is just FUD, or maybe hopeful dreaming on Enderle's part, and as written, I'd say it's going absolutely nowhere.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
Oracle is not going to threaten Linux. It has a big product, its Oracle
database. There are only 3 operating systems for it to run on: Windows, Linux,
and UNIX (AIX or Solaris). Windows is owned by Microsoft, a competitor. AIX is
controlled by IBM, a competitor. Solaris will probably die at the hands of
Linux, but it may take a long time.
The last thing Oracle would do is sue one
of the last operating systems not controlled by a competitor out of existence.
It would be corporate suicide. They might as well just port to Windows SQL
Server now, hand the keys of the company to Microsoft, and give up now. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
If any.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
Please, quote the article's title.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
As usual.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
| Oracle "Unbreakable" Linux
This is basically a repackaging
of CentOS which means it's a Red Hat Enterprise work-alike. Oracle's goal (at
least what they publicly stated) was to provide "one throat to choke" for their
Oracle database on Linux customers. It would seem that they would be subject to
the GPL for any supposed bits that somehow came from SUN. We all know there
aren't any but Endele could have at least researched this much. What a
loser.
Cheers,
Dave
---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever
I go. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 04:39 PM EDT |
I din't see any comment submission form or button, and even turning on
javascript didn't make one appear. Is there some trick?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: argee on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
Why are we getting pushed into assuming that Oracle is bad
for Linux ... or even a threat?
I don't see them that way. MySQL can fork off anytime if
the waters at Oracle get cold.
My only concern is OpenOffice. But, hey!, there is no love
lost between Oracle/Ellison and Microsoft/Gates. So I think
this will have a happy ending.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
I just have to ask it. Enderle is a troll. Why bother repeating anything he
says, here on Groklaw? You're giving that guy way too much respect by even
bothering to recognize his existence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 04:57 PM EDT |
I think the real FUD here is to make it sound like Oracle taking a more
significant role in contributing to Linux is a bad thing. This deal would
certainly provide Oracle more opportunities to contribute to Linux development.
They may be more inclined to provide Solaris and Sun enhancements to the Linux
kernel. I foresee improvements that make Linux a better database kernel along
with filesystem benefits.
I don't know where Enderle is coming from on this. If I were looking for a
shill, I would have to be very desperate to pay for such incredible coverage.
Maybe Rob deserves credit for finding such a fool with so much money. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
If you look at his conclusions about what he thinks the "belongs to" implies,
you will see that he is not very familiar with what Oracle is already
doing with Linux.
I would expect Oracle to use it as a
bargaining chip to drive Linux in a direction it felt benefitted the firm.
Oracle is the company writing the "next generation" Btrfs file
system for Linux (Ext4 is an interim measure until Btrfs is ready). Oracle is
"driving" Linux in that direction because they want that file system so they can
use it with their database. Other Linux users are willing to accept it because
they think it will be a good file system. Btrfs has to prove that it's worthy of
inclusion, but so far it looks good.
"Ownership" of other code in Linux
doesn't give Oracle a bargaining chip for including more code. It does give them
credibility which would make other people more willing to listen to them.
However, for what Oracle wants to do (next generation file systems), they're
already getting everything they could want by the simple expedient of
contributing good work. Many people expect Btrfs to become the standard
file system for Linux.
I suspect that Enderle felt he needed to make a
comment on Oracle/Sun in order to appear relevant. However, it appears that he
is not very familiar with what Oracle is already doing with Linux. I don't think
that he intended to spread any "FUD". I think that he was merely spewing out a
bunch of rubbish to fill in the word count for a column on a topical
subject.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
So let's try something here.
There is a simple way of looking at something like this that might give a better
insight into the motivation behind the statement. We can express it in a couple
of ways:
"Who benefits?"
or
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Consider what we know so far.
Sun Oracle has purchased Sun Microsystems, in the process acquiring Java,
Solaris and MySQL. What's the real prize for them? The answer is Solaris,
because for big companies, the combination of Solaris+Oracle is probably the
single most popular database platform they have. As a bonus, Oracle gets JAVA
(one of the most popular programming languages) and of course one of the two
strongest Open Source competitors to Oracle's own Database...
So let's see if we can come up with a list of companies that we would consider
to be competitors of Oracle, Solaris, Java, MySQL etc...
1. IBM.
2. Microsoft.
3. Wha???
Who did that Enderle chap schill for again?
This just reads like nonsense to me. It's a bit of harmless and almost funny PR
that's been released as a rumour by a company that has an awful lot to lose if
Oracle builds an absolutely cracking turn-key Application Hosting platform with
their acquisitions.
Think about it.
Think about the Software technology now in Oracle's portfolio:
One of the world's most popular Unix distributions: Solaris
One of the world's most popular databases: Oracle
One of the world's most popular programming languages: Java
One of the world's best office suites: OpenOffice
Couple this with Sun's hardware capabilities and you begin to realise that
Oracle could, *very easily* build a complete "company in a box"
solution that could easily rival and out-perform Microsoft's BackOffice.
Think about the lock-in that MS leverage by combining the Windows API and Office
toolset with the back-end of MS SQL Server, Exchange and the like.
This new Oracle software portfolio, with the financial muscle Oracle can bring
to the table, could very easily blow a massive hole in Microsoft's core revenue
streams.
No wonder they're rattled...
Laura... paging Laura... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Who Benefits? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 06:37 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
To be effective, even FUD needs credibility!
If Guiness ever has a record for "Most Prolific Mouth Without A Brain
Attached", Rob is going to be in the top 5 easily, right up there with Darl
& Dan Quayle.
I don't think even his 'sponsors' pay any attention to him anymore, the only
reason he stays in business is because he generates page hits with the
"OMG, he said WHAT???" factor.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
I don't see why everyone is getting worked up about the Oracle Sun deal. And I
haven't in my long experience with Linux (dating back to 1991) seen Oracle do
anything that I considered particularly harmful to the open source community
either. Let's see:
1. Linux is one of three strategic platforms for Oracle products (meaning that
all new releases of Oracle products are written on Linux first).
2. Linux is the most widely used OS in all of Oracle's data centers (I know..I
work in one that has over 10,000 Linux systems).
3. Contrary to some people's opinion, Oracle Unbreakable Linux wasn't about
doing damage to RedHat, it was about providing more support to their customers
by giving them a single point of contact for their systems running Oracle
products on Linux.
4. Oracle has already proven with their distribution of Berkeley DB under their
dual licensing scheme that they know how to play nice with the FOSS community.
5. Oracle doesn't just use Linux, they contribute to it as well.
As for their plans for MySQL, perhaps people should look for the FAQ that Oracle
published regarding the Sun acquisition. It addresses that topic and it came
out right after the press release.
Does Oracle always make the right decision when it comes to open source? No.
Personally, I think the way they handled the Oracle Linux situation left much to
be desired, but on the other hand, I don't think that it was Oracle trying to
throw RedHat under a bus either. It is not in Oracle's best interest to damage
RedHat because then they would have to do all of the development of Oracle Linux
in house. And one of the primary uses for Oracle Linux had nothing to do with
external customers, but had to do with their internal customers and their hosted
customers, where it is the default OS used (although customers can still request
RedHat if they choose).
Until someone can show me hard evidence that Oracle is harmful to the open
source community, I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Unlike some
companies that are openly hostile to FOSS, I think that Oracle has not done
anything that has earned them the distrust that I see here other than being one
of the largest software companies in the world.
Larry Ellison may not be a saint, but he is a very smart business man and I
don't think it would be in his best interest to alienate the FOSS community on
which he relies so heavily.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
| 7. OpenSolaris [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 06:50 PM EDT |
I believe Mr.Enderle has provided a paper that Microsoft will launch in the
channel. It's information their reps can pull out in the elevator down to the
lobby after the sales meeting. Not as a sales point. Just as a tit-bit of
anti-Linux information that may or may not linger in the minds of the marks. You
never know...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Usefulness - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 10:41 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 07:56 PM EDT |
Umm, one post by a known M$ shill hardly a meme makes. Although responding to
it in such a public way is a good first step.
I think his 'arguments' fall on their own sword just fine without giving them
such a public airing.
If anything, it's Solaris that has more to "fear" - already many
customers are using Oracle's database on x86/linux and with cost way down and
performance way up, there'll be no turning back on that front. And it'll be
much cheaper in the long term to add any missing features to linux than it will
be to maintain solaris. Not that I really think it has anything to fear just
yet either.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 10:41 PM EDT |
Enderle is a danger because people who know little or nothing about IT (the
media) take him seriously. When CNN has him on the air it lends credibility to
his ignorance and spreads misinformation as if it were gospel truth.
When I saw Sun had been purchased by Oracle I thought "Oh Oh, there goes
MySQL and Virtual Box". MySQL has a GPL version and can be forked, I'm not
too sure about Virtual Box.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 11:58 PM EDT |
"Finally, it is believed that a substantial amount of code in Linux
actually may belong to Sun"
Did the person who told him that list the actual code?
And why, since both OS's are open source, wasn't this noticed long ago?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 06:40 AM EDT |
| I have only one comment to make....
It is believed
...
---
I'm not afraid of receiving e-mail from strangers:
delta alpha victor echo at foxtrot echo november dash november echo tango dot
delta echo
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: emacsuser on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
"it is believed that a substantial amount of code in Linux actually may belong to
Sun"
Which is it Rob, I thought SCO actually owned Linux. Oh, wait,
you were deceived, not only by SCO but by the Linux loyalists
:)
"Like Dan Lyons, I was deceived. But unlike him, it wasn’t just
SCO; there were the Linux loyalists who pushed me onto SCO’s side as
well"
See here for a curious reference to this blog
and death threats. For some priceless quotes by Maureen O'Gara no less, See
here:
'He also remembers IBM trying to co-opt Windows with
OS-2 and AIX'
"IBM made some very bad choices with regard to
Linux and SCO .. what we are looking at with SCO and IBM is only part of the
result"
"This is one of the reasons I believe SCO has a
case"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: HockeyPuck on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 08:00 AM EDT |
PJ points to this statement to mean Oracle is distributing Linux. This is not
proof:
"Oracle's Linux commitment began in 1998 with the first commercial database
on Linux. Today, Oracle Database is #1 on Linux with more than 82% market share.
Oracle Applications and Oracle Fusion Middleware continue to build significant
momentum on Linux as well."
This is why I say it is not proof. They simply wrote an application to
"run" on Linux. No where does it say that they distributed code or
distributed Linux? They may have, but the statement does not say that. It says
Oracle created applications that runs on Linux. Period.
We run such an application. We have a server running Red Hat Linux and Oracle.
There is other middleware in the way of the application itself, interfaces
excreta. That was all written and loaded by another company. Red Hat supplied
Linux and Oracle supplied the database that runs on Linux. So Oracle did not
distribute any GPL (assuming they don't use any, which again, the statement does
not say one way or another).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you could write applications that are not
GPL, but runs on GPL as long as you are not messing with the GPL code.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oracle's own Linux projects hosted here. - Authored by: emacsuser on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 08:35 AM EDT
- Not sure about one point. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 08:55 AM EDT
- Reply - Authored by: HockeyPuck on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 03:15 PM EDT
- Reply - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, April 25 2009 @ 08:31 AM EDT
- Not sure about one point. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 10:06 AM EDT
- Not sure about one point. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 10:36 AM EDT
- I am sure about that point - Authored by: FreeChief on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 02:42 PM EDT
- Not sure about one point. - Authored by: PJ on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 03:42 PM EDT
- Not sure about one point. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 07:29 PM EDT
- Not sure about one point. - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, April 25 2009 @ 08:27 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: jsusanka on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 08:41 AM EDT |
here is what the dork enderle should be writing about.
Is how innovative oracle can get with openoffice on the desktop and oracle on
the backend.
This could create opportunities for open office and have live data from your
oracle backend on your word processor, spreasheet, and presentation.
but no we have to hear about how big bad oracle is going to take over linux
because of course all the code in linux is from solaris.
why is this guy still around?
oh I know - he probably is friends with bill gates or had lunch with him one
time or something.
---
# Adware
http://jsusanka.bezoogle.com/pp/adware/
# Anti-Spyware
http://jsusanka.bezoogle.com/pp/anti-spyware/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
So according to Rob, how did this work?
Sun slipped IBM some code under the table to slip into Linux? No, that doesn't
work...
IBM stole Sun's code, and dumped it into linux in violation of SCO's copyrights?
Something missing there...
Oh wait... now I get it... Sun bought an SCOsource license, which gave them
rights to SCO's precioussss (which of course includes AIX & Dynix), and
since IBM dumped AIX code into Linux, after Kimball ruled SCO didn't own the
copyrights, that took SCO out of the picture and Sun became the successor in
interest (all retroactive, of course, under SCO ladder theory). So Sun did
indeed own Linux (and Aix and Dynix), but by acquiring Sun, Oracle is now
tainted, so SCO should own Oracle as well.
Good thing Boies is all paid up, this could take a while to sort out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 02:41 PM EDT |
Is it possible that one day we will be hearing from our officials in Washington
that Microsoft is to big to fail just like GM. I think I can almost hear it now.
(1) The company employs too many people directly and indirectly in the IT
industry via partnership agreements etc. (2) There are to many people and
businesses that rely (or should I say, locked in for being stupid) on Microsoft
products to run their business and in their personal life. (3) For years they
built their Windows OS bigger and fatter, guzzling up all the CPU power and
memory you throw at while other smaller companies build a leaner more secure and
efficient OS that people want. I see many other similarities. Does this all
sound familiar?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 03:11 PM EDT |
I think Mr. Enderly is confusing MySQL with Linux.
True MySQL runs on Linux and is open source, but it also runs on Windows.
There is a propriatary version of MySQL and Oracle does now own that, but the
open source version is still open source and that doesn't go away.
I did read some posts where people were concerned that MySQL might be taken in
directions that benefitted Oracle, rather than the community at large, but I
think it is a bit pre-mature to speculate on that.
My suspicion is Mr. Enderly just lumps all open source together and assumes it
is Linux without understanding what he is doing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Confused? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 25 2009 @ 01:49 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 05:40 PM EDT |
"it is believed that a substantial amount of code in Linux actually may
belong to Sun and, with this acquisition, could belong to Oracle."
Of
course it's silly to say "it is believed ...". All anyone has to do is look at
the copyright notices. Some of the code does belong to Sun; whether you'd call
it "substantial" depends what you mean by that elastic word
"substantial".
Enderle does not question that it's released under the
GPL; and of course, releasing something under the GPL is irrevocable. But
there's nothing to prevent the copyright owner of a piece of code from releasing
it additionally under another license. That's called dual licensing and
it's pretty common. Oracle could do that.
I doubt that it would make much
sense, either for pieces of the kernel, or for the GNU material that Sun has
contributed. For the bits I've looked at, it would be difficult to separate out
Sun's contribution from other contributions, which as far as I can see pretty
much rules out dual licensing. But I certainly haven't looked at all (or even
most; probably more like 5%) of Sun's contributions. So what Enderle is saying
is not, this time, entirely absurd. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- But is this FUD? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 25 2009 @ 09:35 AM EDT
- But is this FUD? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 25 2009 @ 01:13 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 24 2009 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
Sorry I meant to post this here and not towards the other poster.
Humm, I think there was once a group of very confident people that were just as
certain as you seem to be about a ship they called the Titanic, but Microsoft's
ship is Vista/Office.
I think the other post was for hypothetical purposes. So hypothetically lets
assume that people started to abandon Microsoft products year after year in
increasing numbers. Which is exactly what has happened historically to many
large companies that did not radically adapt to a sudden market shift fast
enough. Maybe this is something that people should start to think about. Nobody
ever thought AIG or Citigroup would collapse. Then when it happens people start
to realize how deeply woven they have allowed those companies to become.
In a such a hypothetical situation even with today's grip in IT in the US and
the world, if Microsoft was collapsing like AIG, I think I can easily see
Washington coming to Microsoft's rescue and I think the rhetoric would be the
same.
I could be wrong, but are you really that confident you would bet your entire
company's data infrastructure on it if you were the CEO or CIO? Is that not
almost equivalent to betting your life on it? Well if you want your ticket on
the Microsoft Vista/Office ship go right ahead, "It's only a three hour
tour little buddy" LOL
I'm not that confident at predicting the future.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 25 2009 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
In fact this is the beginning of the end of the Windows Server. Oracle will push
Microsoft off the server and database market.
Oracle is too big to become a suicidal assasin as SCO.
However, the case shows how important it is the development projects build
backup structures. OpenOffice.org urgently needs an independent entity for its
governance and to back up core developers.
The greatest danger for Microsoft right now is not Linux but the use of Linux by
hardware companies as for instance Asus for procurement strategy. Asus is
currently paid by Microsoft to ship eeePCs with Windows XP. The same procurement
awareness is found among large customers. So the margins will go down and with
the economic downturn Microsoft has to bow in to customer demands.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: billyskank on Saturday, April 25 2009 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
I suspect Oracle understands Linux and the GPL a lot better than Rob does.
---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardmath on Saturday, April 25 2009 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
Where others see validation of open source in Sun's acquisition by
Oracle, Enderle spots the potential for another "SCO moment".
---
The
time has come, The Darlus said, to squawk of many things.
Of Unixware and System V, and bankruptcy stock delistings.
(to be continued...)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 26 2009 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Why is this particularly ugly Enderle troll still being fed?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 26 2009 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
"Finally, it is believed that ..."
Wikipedia has a
special "weasel word" flag for articles containing such statements.
See
examples here:
Weasel
word
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maroberts on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 02:04 AM EDT |
Whilst it seems Oracle is a good match for Sun,
I do ask whether there are any anti-trust implications in Oracle owning Sun. In
taking it over, it has garnered most of the database market, an Open Source
office package that finally seems to be making some headway against Microsoft
Office, taken over Java, perhaps the main alternative to C# etc etc.
At some point in the future, would Oracle be vulnerable to the same sort of
bundling allegations with respect to Open Office and/or any of its other
aquisitions that Microsoft were to IE? Even if not in the US, is Oracle perhaps
vulnerable to EU investigation?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
``While I don't expect a SCO moment, I would expect Oracle to
use it as a bargaining chip to drive Linux in a direction it felt benefitted the
firm.''
Oracle doesn't need to "drive Linux in a direction
it felt benefitted the firm" and harm the rest of the Linux using community.
Oracle has the right to do this if they want to. In fact, doesn't Oracle already
do something very much like this? Ever hear of Oracle's "Unbreakable Linux"?
Oracle is already providing support for Red Hat's flavor. Is there anything that
would stop them from doing a "CentOS" and forming their own distribution that
contained Oracle-written patches and tweaks that made Oracle run better than,
say, MySQL. No. I say more power to 'em if they can pull it off.
Jeez, Rob.
Do at least a little bit of research before submitting your writing to
your editors. You're just embarassing yourself. Really.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
