How IBM (and Open Source) Won eBay

DemonBrew wrote to us with a new article in Business2 how IBM beat MSFT, Sun, BEA Systems to win the contract for the new eBay. Cool part is that it's based on Websphere, which has major open source components.

Comments

I'll tell ya how...

[swordboy]

They waited until the very last second and then squeezed their bid in.

Bastards!

Re:I'll tell ya how...

[Bouncings]

Microsoft didn't use the "Buy It Now" button?

Have you heard of?

[md17]

JCP - Java Community Process
To take right from their website:

The JCP is the way the Java platform evolves. It's an open organization of international Java developers and licensees whose charter is to develop and revise Java technology specifications, reference implementations, and technology compatibility kits. Both Java technology and the JCP were originally created by Sun Microsystems, however, the JCP has evolved from the informal process that Sun used beginning in 1995, to a formalized process overseen by representatives from many organizations across the Java community.

Come on people, do your research before you blab this stuff.

Open Standard and Java

[pridkett]

There has been a fair number of posts about whether or not Java is really an "Open-Standard". The first thing to remember is where this article originates, Business 2.0.

Taking that into account, Java is an open standard. Are there other compilers for Java? Yes. Are there multiple interpreters for Java? Yes. Is the standard published on how it works? Yes (Addison-Wesely publishes several books on it). So, for the average intended reader of business 2.0, Java is an open standard.

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but something doesn't have to be controlled by an international standards organization to be open.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go prepare for flames as I've posted something that people are going to have problems with.

Re:Open Standard and Java

[kinkie]

CIFS per se is an open standard. What makes it difficult to interoperate with Microsoft's implementation of it is that CIFS is used by Microsoft to tunnel RPC calls which do very important tasks (even basic stuff like looking up an user SID to perform an ACL match).
Without those calls filesharing should still be possible, but with VERY limited functionality.
The problem is that (in true Microsoft fashion) there's HUNDREDS of calls, and each of those can have LOTS of variants with widely different results. See any network-related MSDN-documented
information function call. Often you'll find a parameter which is an "info level" or somesuch. Change that parameter, and you change the type of the returned values and obviously the returned data. See this call for an example.
Microsoft's interface design method appears (from the outside) to be something like this:they think in advance, and then they define those interfaces which they MIGHT need five years in the future, and place stubs until then. This has the side-effect that their interfaces have everything AND the kitchen sink, thus the hundreds of calls.

Tomorrow's News Headlines:

[dbretton]

IBM Cited In Massive Online Scam
Reuters, Inc.

Ebay (www.ebay.com, NSDQ: EBAY), the world's largest online auction site, is reporting that it has been hoodwinked in an internet scam, involving International Business Machines (IBM), Inc.
"They promised us all of these great services, and even showed us pictures and everything", claims Dave Hubnard, Ebay's CTO.
"It looked so, perfect. They responded to all of our emails quickly and professionally. I really don't know what happened. They even sniped in at the last minute with an ultra-low bid."
Shocked and bewildered, Ebay employees are uncertain when, or if, they will ever see the new services promised to them by IBM.
Attempted telephone calls to IBM headquarters were returned with a "disconnected service" answer.
Just hours before the deal was closed, IBM had the address of its corporate headquarters changed to a PO Box address in the sourthern section of Jacksonville, FL.

Re:Websphere, Open Source, WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

The EJB and clustering support in Websphere is not open source either.

Closed source parts:

Servlet Engine

EJB

JNDI

JDBC pooling

Clustering

Open source parts:

Web server (Apache) assuming they're using Apache.

XML (xerces, xalan)

Kind of funny that anyone is clueless enough to think that WebSphere is open source.

Now we can only imagine

[alen]

that if MS would have won the bid we would have had something in windows to let us bid and list auctions on ebay automatically. Ebay make a nice tool called mister lister to bulk upload your auctions. It could have become part of the next version of windows. Now MS will have to build it's own auction site from scratch and integrate it into windows.

Bidding on the contract

[brer_rabbit]

Ebay Computer Contract
Item # 4886798269

Category: Computers: Contracts

Currently: $12,378,462
Quantity: 1
First bid: US $10
# of bids: 3

Seller (Rating): Ebay (999999999)

High bid: IBM (10)

Description

You are bidding on a contract for providing software and hardware to power the next generation of e-bidding monstrosi-sites...

Re:Websphere, Open Source, WTF?

[rmjiv]

umm Websphere is based on Apache Webserver

umm, -5(Wrong)

IBM does have a product called IBM HTTP Server, which is a rebrand of Apache Webserver with some configuration tools and (iirc) a different SSL engine. However, WebSphere is a totally different product with different functionality (application server vs. web-server). They are bundled together, but are different.

WebSphere does use Xerces and Xalan which are Apache projects for XML processing. So do most of the Java application servers, though.

FYI, IBM is a major supporter of the Xerces and Xalan sub-projects, and is a major supporter of the Jakarta Apache project, providing developers and code. So maybe they have a better claim on being "more" open source than other Java Application servers. This I leave up to others to decide.

rmjiv

You must be new to slashdot

[A nonymous Coward]

to have read the article before posting, and naive enough to admit it.

You'll learn.

Re:Well, now I'm conflicted . . .

[Selanit]

Blockquoth the responder:

I don't understand your logic. How can you be "good" for embracing open source??

Its quite simple, companies are embracing open standards and open source software because it makes the most business sense. They want to reduce their costs while increasing their utility... certain open source projects tend to do just that.

Ebays choice of technology does not make them good or evil, they are simply doing what they think is best for their company.. period. The concept of 'good' and 'evil' corporations is almost a laughable one.

Ah, now we're getting into philosophy. Here's a hypothetical for you: One day, you look up and see your worst enemy, whom you hate. He is backing over a cliff . . . in your brand-new Porsche. Do you shout a warning to him or not?

If you fail to warn him, most people would agree that you acted evilly. But even if you do warn him, it's still not clearly "good." Did you warn him because that is the right thing to do? Or did you warn him because you didn't want to lose your Porsche? Or maybe you warned him to preserve yourself from legal liability? Is it the action that counts, or the motivation, or a combination thereof? To my mind, action is more important than motivation.

Corporations -- not just Ebay, but all corporations -- perform actions that effect individuals, both those who are employed by the corporation, the investors, the customers, business partners, and sometimes the general public. I contend that corporations can be judged by their actions, every bit as much as any other human organization can be judged by theirs. I speak not merely of legal liability, but moral accountability as well.

Microsoft is a prime example. (Honestly, I am not trying to troll here, nor am I trying to make flamebait. Just bear with me.) Microsoft is extremely good at making good business decisions -- actions whose effect are to increase its market share, its bottom line, and its dominance in the industry. Some of those actions have had negative impact on others, both individuals and companies. The decisions that Microsoft has made regarding their course of action made the "most business sense." Does that absolve them of moral responsibility for the negative consequences of their actions?

As for open source, I would argue that it is morally superior to proprietary source. Open source code promotes the spread of knowledge; because anyone can view the source code, anyone can study real-world examples in order to learn about programming, or even for curiousity's sake. Proprietary technologies seek to restrict the spread of knowledge: figuring out how a closed program works is a thousand times more difficult, and may also be illegal. Which is better -- widespread knowledge, or widespread ignorance?

If open source software is morally superior to proprietary software, then logically embracing an open solution is an action which redounds to the credit of any company which does so. Their motivation for picking the software, be it because of "good business sense," because of approval of open source on general principles, or even because the CEO had indigestion and chose based on which representative had an antacid, is irrelevant. Consequences are derived from action, not motivation for that action.

You are right to point out that the concepts of "good" and "evil" are too narrow to be particularly useful in this context. Nothing human can be fully "good" or "evil." As a child, Saint Augustine stole a crop of pears, destroyed them, and felt guilty about it for most of his adult life. Hitler loved his dogs, trite but true.

Humans are complex, and may be good in some ways but not in others. Corporations are human institutions, and in exactly the same way they have both negative and positive aspects. Deciding what actions you approve or disapprove of in a corporation can help you establish how you, as an individual, will interact with any given corporation, but is basically a subjective decision.

Whew! That was a mouthful. But I think it needed to be said. If I get modded down for it, so be it.