decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

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.


Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated | 178 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated
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 | # ]

Corrections Here.
Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 04:12 PM EDT
If any.


[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks discussions.
Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 04:13 PM EDT
Please, quote the article's title.


[ Reply to This | # ]

OT, the Off Topic thread
Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, April 23 2009 @ 04:14 PM EDT
As usual.


[ Reply to This | # ]

There's also the matter of Oracle's "own" Linux distro
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.


Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How do you leave a comment there?
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 | # ]

Bah Humbug
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.


[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ: Why bother repeating Enderle?
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 | # ]

The real FUD
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 | # ]

Look at what Oracle is already "driving"
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 | # ]

Who Benefits?
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?"


"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

No wonder they're rattled...

Laura... paging Laura...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Puh-leeeese! Consider the source.
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 | # ]

    Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated
    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 | # ]

    Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated
    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 | # ]

    Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated
    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 | # ]

    Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated
    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 | # ]

    I have only one comment to make....
    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 | # ]

    Linux actually may belong to Sun
    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 | # ]

    Not sure about one point.
    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

    "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 | # ]

    Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated
    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

    # Anti-Spyware

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO sued the wrong thieves?
    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

    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 | # ]

    Is Microsoft too big to fail?
    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 | # ]

    Enderly Confused - Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated
    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
    But is this FUD?
    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 | # ]

    Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated
    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

    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 | # ]

    Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated
    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. 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 | # ]

    Really? Oracle are going to say, all that GPL code is ours now so hand it over?
    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 | # ]

    Fascinated by the dark side, Enderle is
    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 | # ]

    Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated
    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 | # ]

    Some new FUD about Linux and Oracle is floated
    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 | # ]

    Linux and Oracle
    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 | # ]

    Re: Driving Linux...
    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 | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )