Oracle Embraces Mozilla

Whats wrong with IE? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:30 · Score: 3, Funny

What is wrong with IE? Most used, most reliable, fastest, and most innovotive browser around.

Don't bother with these other strange browsers, we don't need them, and don't waste YOUR time.

IF it wasnt for MS, we wouldn't be using the web today, because PCs would still be very difficult to use and there would be no software.

Thank you bill Gates, we ALL owe you a beer.

Re:Whats wrong with IE? by p51d007 · 2004-01-17 03:01 · Score: 1

Trying to stir up some feedback? LOL

To each his own, but the only thing I use IE for
is to check for windows updates
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:07 · Score: 0

i wouldn't mind seeing Bill Gates drawn in 6 billion bottles of beer.

have you sent your beer today?
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by The+Snowman · 2004-01-17 03:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

To each his own, but the only thing I use IE for is to check for windows updates

When I try using Windows Update with Mozilla, it asks me if I want to download IE. Of course, they argue that IE is integrated into the OS, so this makes no sense.

--
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:39 · Score: 0

>>drawn in 6 billion bottles of beer

I take it your some kind of conceptual artist then?

Drawing someone in huge volumes of beer - wow!
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 04:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Thank you bill Gates, we ALL owe you a beer.

MORE small print in the EULA?
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by SmilingBoy · 2004-01-17 04:12 · Score: 2, Funny

When I go to windowsupdate.com it tells me:
Thank you for your interest in Windows Update
Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.
You must be running a Microsoft Windows operating system in order to use Windows Update.
Don't know what would happen if I would apply a Windows "update" on my Linux box...
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 04:49 · Score: 0

Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.
So how long has windows update been able to install linux?
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by Lussarn · 2004-01-17 05:14 · Score: 1

Trying to stir up some feedback? LOL

Eller som det heter pa svenska.. Efter 8 gladingar..

konsten att rora runt i kitteln.
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 05:45 · Score: 0

We've all bought him the beer ALREADY.
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by betelgeuse68 · 2004-01-17 06:14 · Score: 1

Well to each his own however I beg to differ with your statements. Microsoft did not innovate, neither the World Wide Web nor the web browser came out of Microsoft.

And no they are not innovating in that space either. To my knowledge Microsoft does not fully support cascading style sheets as they should (long standing bugs) nor do they empower users with such options as blocking popups, images from specific servers, etc., etc.

Ignorance is bliss... for some (such as yourself).

-M
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 08:56 · Score: 0

you don't recognize sarcasm, do you?
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 10:31 · Score: 0

yes, it's right down there under the 'indemnity clause'

.. EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY,
BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF
MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF
MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

AND BTW YOU ALL OWE BILL A BEER.

- From the win2003 licence.
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by mikis · 2004-01-17 12:55 · Score: 1

And no they are not innovating in that space either. To my knowledge Microsoft does not fully support cascading style sheets as they should (long standing bugs) nor do they empower users with such options as blocking popups, images from specific servers, etc., etc.

No, but it had MUCH BETTER CSS and other standards support back in the day while Netscape 4.x stil reigned.

As for the popup blocking, I'm glad it will be included in SP2 (although I don't need it anymore -- Google Toolbar rules!), but I also understand their motives for not implementing it earlier: if they did, there would be thousands of people screaming how evil M$ destroys competitors by integrating competitive products.

Preventing images from specific servers? Someone would sue them for preventing them from their God-given-right to advertise od send spam.
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 14:02 · Score: 0

IF it wasnt for MS, we wouldn't be using the web today, because PCs would still be very difficult to use and there would be no software.
Hey everybody, I think "Mike Cox" from "ZDNN Talkback" is taking time out from having dinner with his MS rep to pay Slashdot a visit! ;-)
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by MntlChaos · 2004-01-17 15:34 · Score: 1

No, but it had MUCH BETTER CSS and other standards support back in the day while Netscape 4.x stil reigned.

that's the point. they CAN do better, but once they get a monopoly, they do the bare minimum needed to keep Joe, Average paying for M$ products.
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by rixstep · 2004-01-18 04:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, it is integrated into the OS, but 'integrated' is not really the right word. They started moving APIs around for the DOJ trial - just migrated the stuff for no other reason than to support their BS arguments that IE was 'integrated'. And IE has had a 'Preload' key in the Registry which means your boot will take longer, but then IE will appear to be faster than Moz.

And you trust WU to not sabotaqe your computer?
Re:Whats wrong with IE? by CyberdogOSX · 2004-01-20 03:57 · Score: 1

we owe Apple a beer.
remember who thought of it first kids.
Bill would've had nothing to copy if not for Apple. you'd all be using QDOS_2003.
and i doubt that would make you want to buy anyone a beer.
please, no reminders about the Alto or PARC. they had the idea for the gui, and we should all buy them a beer as well. but they weren't the ones to see the potential and realize the vision.
that was Woz, and the fine team at Apple. Then Bill stole it.
if you wanto buy Bill somthing, buy him a clue instead.

Don't they get it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

It should have had worked since beginning (unless there's some catastrophic bug in mozilla). A web page that requires some specific browser is hopelessly broken by my definition.

Re:Don't they get it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:21 · Score: 0

No, there is are catastrophic bugs in HTML. Not really bugs, but missing features.
Re:Don't they get it? by LDoggg_ · 2004-01-17 03:39 · Score: 5, Informative

A web page that requires some specific browser is hopelessly broken by my definition.

Oracle's web pages do not require a specific browser, their applications do.
The article was not very clear on this.

Oracle does have some web applications (server-side code generating dynamic html pages), like their self-serivce stuff and the e-commerce iStores product.
However, what most of us that use Oracle applications consider to be the "applictions" are the business applictions.
These are things like accounting AR/AP, orders, inventory, HR, GL, etc. This stuff already uses client side Java/swing, presumably to make it a cross-platform product.
The problem is that up until now these applications use a custom Java virtual machine called Jinitiator to launch, and it only works on IE.

If they intend to have this stuff run on Linux, then they need to either port Jinitiator, of fix the apps so they can use a standard JVM.
The article was rather vague on which route they are taking.

--

"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
Re:Don't they get it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

Alot of enterprise apps are horribly broken in this method. These apps are not HTML or even HTML / JS, they require specific java plugins that only work with IE. JInitiator being the big one.

So, to put the proper events in order..

1) IBM announces they have set a goal to be 100% Linux internally.

2) IBM managers look at what it's going to tkae and say oh shit, this wont work and begin dialog with the problem vendor, Oracle.

3) Oracle announces "were gonna fix it" and let Linux customers use our software.
Re:Don't they get it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

Oracle Applications use a custom Java framework they call J-Initiator. This is Windows only at the time.

I find it funny that Oracle is now supporting Linux instead of just saying they support it, in fact now Red Hat Advanced server on Dell hardware is their platform of choice. Less than a year ago they were not even maintaining most of their Linux products.
Re:Don't they get it? by PierceLabs · 2004-01-17 04:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually I think they get it more than you do I'm afraid. We're entering a period where the industry is about to jump start is previously dot-bomb aborted attempt to create platforms for rich client applications that work in internet browsers. For all the good that HTML is, developers and corporations alike want to do more.... a WHOLE lot more. Even Macromedia is realizing that it was in the ballpark with their Generator product and is coming out with Flex.

This migration to rich internet UIs would have happened a long time ago, but when the bubble burst - all of the companies doing anything innovative in that space died and took all their ideas with them and scattered the talent to the four winds. As the tech industry recovers, expect them to start where they left off - just with a business plan that wasn't written by underpants gnomes.
Re:Don't they get it? by bungo · 2004-01-17 04:09 · Score: 4, Informative

In fact, it does currently work, and there are alot of people currently using it under Linux.

The problem is that for windows, they have created a n installation package which automatically installs a java applet and signs it with a downloaded certificate. They don't have package so far for Linux, so the only people using Linux are the more technical users who can manually install the correct Sun jdk bits and certificate manually.

Pointy haried bosses, even if they allow Linux, don't like custom, unsupported installs.

--
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
Re:Don't they get it? by BrerBear · 2004-01-17 04:44 · Score: 4, Informative

I work on Oracle's HTML technologies (don't want to say more).

Much of the problem involves bugs and different behaviors in Javascript and CSS implementations across browsers. Sometimes the standards are interpreted differently, or areas of a standard aren't supported. None of the problems are insurmountable, but the sad reality is that anyone doing advanced DHTML and CSS is forced to use different code paths in at least a few places. Web application authors will know what I mean.

The applications have generally worked well already because the developers inside Oracle often prefer to use Mozilla as their day-to-day browser.

The important point of the announcement (at least as far as the HTML apps are concerned) is support; committing to testing those various browsers across such a large set of projects is no trivial cost, even for a large company.

And it's not like Mozilla doesn't come out with a new version every three months or so, with it's own new regressions.

This is just another step in helping to give Mozilla corporate acceptance, and that will be good for everyone.
Re:Don't they get it? by skraps · 2004-01-17 04:53 · Score: 1

For all the good that HTML is, developers and corporations alike want to do more.... a WHOLE lot more.

Exactly. Have a look at XAML, the new markup language for Longhorn.

It is intended to be used for both client-based and web-based programs. The integration with .NET will likely render it completely un-interoperable with Linux and the like, but there is a certain elegance in its design worth taking note of.

--
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
Re:Don't they get it? by jweinshe · 2004-01-17 05:06 · Score: 1

*sigh*

Am I the only person that reads Metalink anymore? Apparently either does Oracle. Jesus.

We run Oracle Apps (11.5.9) with Jinitiator (1.1.8.16) with Mozilla (1.6) on both the windows 2000 and RH Linux desktops at work.

What exactly is the story here?
Re:Don't they get it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 05:07 · Score: 5, Informative

Your statements are not completely true. What the announcement means is "official certification" of Mozilla across all of Oracle's web-based products. But many of these products work well with Mozilla because a lot of developers do test with Mozilla and because Mozilla's standards compliance makes it easy to build apps for it.
JInitiator (even the pre-Mozilla versions) work like a charm on Mozilla - I use it day in and day out. Ofcourse the old installers don't recognize Mozilla (they only recognize IE and Netscape 4.x) but on Windows you can copy the plugin DLLs to your Mozilla plugins directory. Obviously we don't want to suggest these "hacks" to customers and so this would be an example where we improve the installer to do the right thing and place the seal of Oracle support. This is true even on Linux and Solaris because at it's core JInitiator is Java-based.
The newer self-service applications built in the past three years all work on Mozilla. They are built with UIX which elminates all the raw HTML coding from our Apps developers. The core technology team ensures compliance across all browsers including Mozilla. Just FYI this also helps us support a host of PDAs and smartphones. The same is true for ADF which is simply the next generation of UIX and related tools.
Disclaimer: I work at Oracle in the applications technologies division but these statements are mine and do not reflect Oracle's position. Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
Re:Don't they get it? by LDoggg_ · 2004-01-17 05:17 · Score: 1

where did you get Jinitiator for linux? This an 11.5.9 thing? My office is still on 11.5.8.

--

"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
Re:Don't they get it? by LDoggg_ · 2004-01-17 05:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is true even on Linux and Solaris because at it's core JInitiator is Java-based.

Care to give the linux version of the hack?
Dropping the windows jinitiator dll into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins isn't gonna do it, and the applications launcher page is using a the object tag instead of the applet one.

--

"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
Re:Don't they get it? by orlord · 2004-01-17 05:50 · Score: 1

I will buy into the "Oracle is now supporting Linux instead of just saying they support it" when they make available a Oracle client distribution CD for Linux (available now for Windows) and work out a certified client platform that does not require the expensive enterprise version of Redhat/SuSE.
Re:Don't they get it? by kuhneng · 2004-01-17 08:22 · Score: 1

Oddly enough, my mac (OS X) runs all of those forms/swing apps I've tried without a complaint even though it's obviously not running JInitiator and isn't certified to work. Same goes for their JDeveloper IDE. Given the apparent lack of JVM incompatability, I'd imagine they'll just do away with JInitiator.
Re:Don't they get it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 10:58 · Score: 0

There are some of us who think that CSS and JavaScript were busted from the beginning. They should have never been adoped into browser technology. HTML should be used to build web pages, and the display should be left to the browser. Yeah, that flies in the face of web developers and other marketoids.
I like to compare CSS and JS to ricing out a webpage, with things like Wings and Body kits. Then a browser breaks is similar to scraping the bottom of your car on a speed bump or taking out your airdam by going a a driveway.
Re:Don't they get it? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2004-01-17 15:02 · Score: 1

> There are some of us who think that CSS and JavaScript were busted from the beginning.

Really? Who? Care to name some names?

> I like to compare CSS and JS to ricing out a webpage, with things like Wings and Body kits.

Right. I like to compare it having a few more options in personal transportation than sticking wheels and a motor into a packing crate and calling it a car.

It sound like you'd be happier just chunking out ASCII. Why don't you just do that? Meanwhile, if you can't even come up with anything as original as or thought-provoking as "In Soviet Russia, CSS styles YOU!!" then kindly STFU and let the rest of us get on with building usable browser-based apps?

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Don't they get it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 17:05 · Score: 0

then kindly STFU and let the rest of us get on with building usable browser-based apps?

you must be one of those assholes who sets their site up to only run at a given resloution and has their shit break whenever the browser is resized.

Been there done that. I used to work on a site with 60,000+ users, the shit worked, without any of the broken CSS JavaScript. And it was fully compliant with Netscape and IE.
Re:Don't they get it? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2004-01-18 17:56 · Score: 1

On the contrary, my sites use CSS and JS extensively but don't break if people's browsers don't support them. One of the reasons that I use CSS on my sites so that it doesn't matter what the user's screen res is. Or even if they *have* a screen. Which, if you actually knew anything about CSS, then you would know that (a) this is one of the things that CSS is for and (b) designers and developers with a clue know what "graceful degradation" means and how to implement it.

You OTOH must be one of those ignorami who think that "CSS = pixels" and that F0N7 74G5 4R3 0H 50 l337, eh?

You argument's not helped by the fact that you apparently think that "CSS JavaScript" is one word.

Kindly grow a pair, log in, and let me know who you are so I may add you to my Boneheads List or STFU and quit wasting packets because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Thank you.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Obvious? by ultrabot · 2004-01-17 02:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Shouldn't supporting Mozilla be obvious? Web applications should adhere to standards, if they don't, well, they are crappy web applications in the first place. I don't consider this "generous", rather than just fixing their broken applications to work like they should have worked in the first place.

--
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak

Re:Obvious? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Supporting Mozilla" does not necesarily have anything to do with Web applications. Mozilla is more than just a web browser. It's a cross-platform GUI toolkit, and applications can be written using it. I seem to recall that Nokia was once considering using Mozilla as the UI for their Linux-based operating system on a set-top box or kiosk type device.

I'd be surprised if any web applications that Oracle have don't already work in Mozilla. Running in normal web browsers is, after all, the whole point of having web applications, otherwise people could write Java Applications (not applets) or normal non-portable executables instead.
Re:Obvious? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:24 · Score: 0

Mozilla is just a showpeice for XUL and co.
Re:Obvious? by spectrokid · 2004-01-17 03:33 · Score: 1

wooohahahahah! When did you last try netbanking? At work, our mega-$$$$$$ web-apps for purchase and expense-reporting, made by the oh so european and independent SAP, go completly bonkers if you switch from MS-java to SUN-in-IE. Let alone you would get mozilla to run it.

--
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Re:Obvious? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:55 · Score: 0

"I'd be surprised if any web applications that Oracle have don't already work in Mozilla. Running in normal web browsers is, after all, the whole point of having web applications, otherwise people could write Java Applications (not applets) or normal non-portable executables instead. "

Oracle Applications are written in Java and they use a custome framework. The framework "J-Initiator" is written for IE.
Re:Obvious? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

the difference between an application using 100% of the capability of the existing web standards, and 100% of the capability thats available in IE6, in particular, is enormous.

Yes - the one using web standards will look better and be more powerful.

I suggest you read up on higher-level DOM and CSS standards. IE only supports about 5% of what the standards specify, which is why you think the standards suck. But there is nothing - nothing - that you can do with IE6's proprietary extensions, that you can not do using 100% standard XHTML/CSS.
Re:Obvious? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 04:25 · Score: 0

Pray tell us Mr. Web Guru, what standards does Mozilla not support? CSS1 & 2? XHTML?

Oh wait, those are all examples of standard IE doesn't support. My bad.
Re:Obvious? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 04:38 · Score: 0

I understand and agree with most of what you're saying right up untill you mention putting any priority on ensuring Safari works. If you're not bothering with Mozilla/firebird, why bother with a browser that has even less users than that allready small amount?
Re:Obvious? by BrerBear · 2004-01-17 04:52 · Score: 1

If you believe that the browsers themselves adhere to the standards, then you are very naive.

Not to mention that Mozilla (and other browsers) regularly introduce bugs and regressions in subsequent versions. IE's Javascript alone has changed a lot over the last few versions.

"Support" doesn't mean writing to a theoretical markup language, crossing your fingers, and handing your product over to customers. It means guarantees and testing, which have real costs if you've worked on anything besides a small scale hobby.
Re:Obvious? by ultrabot · 2004-01-17 05:52 · Score: 1

If you believe that the browsers themselves adhere to the standards, then you are very naive.

Perhaps not all the standards. But if you write the app w/ standards in mind, and also see that it runs on *some* browser, it is fair to expect the other browser to catch up.

--
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Re:Obvious? by BrerBear · 2004-01-17 06:49 · Score: 1

But if you write the app w/ standards in mind, and also see that it runs on *some* browser, it is fair to expect the other browser to catch up.

Fair maybe, but a terrible business decision. IE hasn't done much catching up for the last few years. I wouldn't say it's a very good business decision to not support IE until it "catches up" with Mozilla's standards support.

Or maybe you should rethink your earlier statement about only "crappy" and "broken" applications needing to be explicitly certified on a particular browser. To criticize people and organizations who are going out of their way to invest in supporting platforms with miniscule market share doesn't really help your cause of standards promotion.
Re:Obvious? by afidel · 2004-01-17 11:29 · Score: 1

That's funny all my online banking sites support Mozilla just fine. Fleet Boston, National City Bank and Key Corp's websites all work just fine. True I had to talk to one of my friends at National City to get Mozilla added to their testing procedure but it now works fine.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Obvious? by cduffy · 2004-01-17 15:01 · Score: 1

Or maybe you should rethink your earlier statement about only "crappy" and "broken" applications needing to be explicitly certified on a particular browser. To criticize people and organizations who are going out of their way to invest in supporting platforms with miniscule market share doesn't really help your cause of standards promotion.

When the application is core enough to ones' customers that they'd gladly install the appropriate platform to be able to use it -- and when the platform is licensed in such a way that it could freely be installed as just another component or dependency by the application -- I'm not sure this argument is particularly appropriate or sensible.
Re:Obvious? by tgd · 2004-01-18 14:42 · Score: 1

This reply isn't interesting, its ignorant, as I stated in my first post.

Here's a very common must-have requirement, not on meaningless $50k consumer websites, but on multi-million dollar enterprise applications, the kind of applications built using the Oracle technology the original article was talking about: cut and paste any artibtrarily formatted content from Word, maintain it in that formatting, and display it inline in the web pages.

What the legions of high school and college kids on /. don't understand, and what my original point was trying to make is that things like this get handed to you as an *absolute* requirement in the real world. You do it, or you don't sell the product. You can't do that in Mozilla.

Customers want modal dialog boxes. Try making anything modal in Mozilla.

Try taking any advanced user interface and with ZERO increase in cost, make it work on IE (since 99.9% of users use it in a commercial setting) and make it work in Mozilla. Without dropping a single feature the users are expecting. Again, ZERO incremental cost to the project.

It won't happen. You either run overbudget, or get creamed in the marketplace by a competitor who built a better product for less money.

THAT is how the real world works. A few poseurs on here flinging mod points in an attempt to pretend thats not the reality can't change that.

I'm sure some over-righteous jackass will mod this post down, too. Because thats what /. does. Some of us do this for a living on industry-leading products that sell for seven figure prices, and others just pretend the understand how the industry works.
Re:Obvious? by Brendan+Eich · 2004-01-24 18:15 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what is meant by "Customers want modal dialog boxes. Try making anything modal in Mozilla." How about a bugzilla reference?
Clearly, Mozilla can do modal dialogs (e.g., for JavaScript DOM level 0 window.alert, .confirm, and .prompt methods), and has been able to for a long time. Have a read at http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/search?string=CHROM E_MODAL and please file any bugs you find with existing modal dialog support. /be
Re:Obvious? by tgd · 2004-01-25 00:39 · Score: 1

Thats different. In IE you can define an undecorated pop-up window as a modal dialog, beyond the standard three ones.

Handy when you are querying for information, for example, and you don't want the user to "lose" the window.

Not a standard, but its something users want.

Off the top of my head, I think its window.openDialog() or something like that.

Step in the right direction. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

THat's nice to here.

Oracle is not only making sure that you can run MS-free software in the database and servers room, you can also run MS-free software in the DESKTOP!

It is propriatory software, given, but it's not a perfect world and definately a step in the right directions.

Linux is accepted componate of most server rooms out their nowadays. It's nice to see companies like oracle and novell to begin to extend their support out into the desktop and end-user world.

Re:Step in the right direction. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:33 · Score: 0

>>THat's nice to here.

"Nice to *here*" from where?

Re:databases-and-web-browsers-living-in-my-anus de by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:39 · Score: 1, Funny

(goatse ascii with oracle in the anus)

Having tried to use iAS Enterprise Manager I'd mod this insightful. It has to be the most bloated and crappiest web interface ever. If you know a worse example, please don't tell about it, just let us quietly pretend as if it didn't exist.

Beware of the Oracle by thirty2bit · 2004-01-17 02:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

I trust Oracle about as much as I trust Microsoft. Let's hope they don't set their sights on acquisition, because their algorithm goes "embrace-acquire-mediocrify-priceincrease"

Re:Beware of the Oracle by Colonel+Cholling · 2004-01-17 02:49 · Score: 1

I trust Oracle about as much as I trust Microsoft.

I trust them even less. Larry Ellison is so desperate to take over Bill Gates' position as Richest Software Mogul he's willing to go to great lengths to out-sleaze him. Plus he was pretty quick to jump on the National ID Card bandwagon a few years back.

--

I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Re:Beware of the Oracle by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:52 · Score: 0

They can't charge for something that is free, and it wouldn't really work for them anyway, because if they decided to close-source Mozilla, someone would fork a past release and keep on developing.
Re:Beware of the Oracle by lukew · 2004-01-17 03:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

I trust them even less. Larry Ellison is so desperate to take over Bill Gates' position as Richest Software Mogul he's willing to go to great lengths to out-sleaze him. Plus he was pretty quick to jump on the National ID Card bandwagon a few years back.

What company pushing enterprise database systems wouldn't? That's a moot comment.
Why trust them less? They're huge and get press. That doesn't mean that the sleaze bags who run that company are any worse then the sleaze bags who run a company that get no press.
Re:Beware of the Oracle by thirty2bit · 2004-01-17 03:59 · Score: 1

They can't charge for something that is free
Look at SCO, fighting a swiss-cheese battle against IBM/Linux. SCO didn't have much to lose (face / market position-wise) starting a public battle.

Oracle, OTOH, has the funds to do what they please, to do more. Mozilla isn't a 'force' like Linux. It wouldn't tarnish Oracle much to try and consume it-- then protect it as an asset. After all, it's not a competing product for them, not like Linux vs. SCO's unmemorable *nix. After an acquisition, even forks may not be safe.

Just being the DA here for a moment, after seeing my company be consumed and dumbed down. Bitter? No. Wary.
Re:Beware of the Oracle by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 04:01 · Score: 0

I trust Oracle about as much as I trust Microsoft. Let's hope they don't set their sights on acquisition, because their algorithm goes "embrace-acquire-mediocrify-priceincrease"

Nonono, that's Agent Smith. The Oracle is the sweet lady who makes cookies.
Re:Beware of the Oracle by Realistic_Dragon · 2004-01-17 04:08 · Score: 1

I don;t know about you but I really wouldn't care if they increased the price of Mozilla by as much as 400%!

--
Beep beep.
Re:Beware of the Oracle by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 05:23 · Score: 0

Mozilla is Open Source so Oracle can't damage it! That's the beautiful thing about OSS. Just like Bill Gates could purchase Red Hat, but people can just take all of the OSS and migrate it to Blue Tie, Fedora, etc.

It's nice to see Oracle fight for Mozilla. Without proper corporate support, everyone will just cover their ass and use IE at work.
Re:Beware of the Oracle by vandan · 2004-01-18 14:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why trust them less? They're huge and get press. That doesn't mean that the sleaze bags who run that company are any worse then the sleaze bags who run a company that get no press.

Actually I disagree with that.
A company that has 'made it big' is far more likely to be completely untrustworthy than one which is quietly pottering away in their corner of the globe. At the big end of town, you either play dirty, or get replaced by someone else who does.

I would put my support behind Oracle simply to weeken Microsoft's position, and rely on the GPL to protect us from their acquisitional tendancies.

FIrebird by PatrickThomson · 2004-01-17 02:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

Will this have any impact on Firebird, which is the sweetest browser I ever did use?

--
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.

Re:FIrebird by TheLinuxSRC · 2004-01-17 03:26 · Score: 1

I don't know who modded this off-topic, but it is a valid and pertinent question. Mozilla has stated that MozillaFirebird and MozillaThunderbird are to replace the current Mozilla package. Thus, I would infer that any changes to Mozilla's status quo would also affect MozillaFirebird.
Re:FIrebird by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 05:16 · Score: 0

Yes, it will support Firebird as well. Most of the HTML applications that we're building are targeted to Gecko and not a specific Mozilla version. I'm not sure if Marketing will state that though, considering that most people that we sell to would not recognize Gecko or Firebird.
Re:FIrebird by falsification · 2004-01-17 05:45 · Score: 2, Informative

MozillaFirebird runs almost anything that Mozilla runs. If Oracle has something that works with one, it will work with the other, and if it doesn't, Oracle can make it work on both very easily.
As someone else pointed out, the Mozilla Application Suite will continue to exist, even as MozillaFirebird emerges as the premier product of the Mozilla Organization.

The enemy of my enemy... by Trigun · 2004-01-17 02:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

From the Article:

It is widely believed that another primary motivation behind Oracle's embrace of Linux is to push archrival Microsoft Corp. out of its position of power. In pursuit of that goal, Oracle will enable its customers to opt for Mozilla over Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, just as they have enabled customers to opt out of Microsoft operating systems in favor of Linux.

So they're backing free software, something laughed at by most corporate bodies up until this time, to beat Bill. Capitalists using communists to fight fascists. Neat!

Re:The enemy of my enemy... by Colonel+Cholling · 2004-01-17 02:51 · Score: 2, Funny

So they're backing free software, something laughed at by most corporate bodies up until this time, to beat Bill. Capitalists using communists to fight fascists. Neat!

Free software is communist? Who do you think you are, Laura DiDio?

--

I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Re:The enemy of my enemy... by Trigun · 2004-01-17 02:56 · Score: 1

Hey, I may be a communist, but I'm not easily fooled.
Re:The enemy of my enemy... by Ozric · 2004-01-17 03:07 · Score: 1

>just as they have enabled customers to opt out of Microsoft operating systems in favor of Linux.

I opted out of Microsoft for Oracle a long time ago. In favor of Solaris and a real server platform.
Re:The enemy of my enemy... by Saint+Stephen · 2004-01-17 03:09 · Score: 1

I just hope when they say "we will enable Mozilla to run Oracle applications" they don't mean they are going to bloat it up with some non-standards compliant or stupid Java integration.

Be careful: they may throw money at it to Hijack it. I guess they can always fork.
Re:The enemy of my enemy... by The+Snowman · 2004-01-17 03:17 · Score: 1

Free software is communist?

In the good way, yes. Not in the Soviet (bad) way.

In communism, everyone shares the money -- with free software, everybody shares software. People are expected to contribute back to the community if they take something out of it in both cases. Communism is a good thing in specific circumstances -- but not as a socioeconomic system of a country. Capitalism has its place too. It is great for building a large, productive economy.

I think it is great that businesses, capitalist entities, are embracing free software. And not just because of the cost, but because of the advantages it has because of its community of supporters. By leveraging the best aspects of both systems, I think we geeks might be able to do our part to help the faltering economy.

--
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Re:The enemy of my enemy... by TheLinuxSRC · 2004-01-17 03:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

> Free software is communist?
In the good way, yes. Not in the Soviet (bad) way.

You may also point out that in that context you are describing the scientific method which is also communist. However, you may also note that not everything is accepted back (into the community). Only the most innovative/noteworthy solutions actually make it into code. In that respect, I agree 100% with "communism".
Re:The enemy of my enemy... by Xtifr · 2004-01-17 07:03 · Score: 1

I opted out of Microsoft for Oracle a long time ago. In favor of Solaris and a real server platform.

Well, Oracle doesn't seem to agree with your assessment, as they have switched to Linux from Solaris for internal operations, and recently switched to Linux (again from Solaris) as their primary build platform.

Still, what would Oracle know about running their own software? Surely it makes more sense to take advice from some random poster on slashdot. You've convinced me, I'm switching to Solaris tomorrow.
Re:The enemy of my enemy... by buddha42 · 2004-01-17 07:35 · Score: 1

Capitalists using communists to fight fascists. Neat!

Last time we tried this, we wound up with a 50-year cold war.
On the plus side, it spurred a crapload of technology development.
Re:The enemy of my enemy... by RebelWithoutAClue · 2004-01-17 09:39 · Score: 1

Thats just like WWII !
WWIII -> Linux + Oracle + IBM vs. Microsoft

--
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
Re:The enemy of my enemy... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 11:49 · Score: 0

Sure Troll ...

Larry just wants to put a pointy stick in Bill's eye.

Btw, I work the backend systems to one of the highest rated telcom websites on the internet. Do I have Oracle on Linux? Sure I do, in some places. I use what works... And my point was, we already had a choice. Oh an last time I checked .. Linux works just fine on Sparc systems. Not that I would run it on an F15.
Re:The enemy of my enemy... by Red+Alastor · 2004-01-17 19:21 · Score: 1

It should also be noted that communism is about divising ressources and Free Software about multiplying because when you give software, there is more, not less.

--
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"

Oracle by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oracle is the MS of the database world. Clueless managers insist on using it because they're the biggest DB company, and us geeks are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

Case in point, my company's got to use Oracle 9i/9iAS for a project, and we must have spent weeks just getting the thing to install properly. We upgraded our developers machines to XP last week, and it won't even install on clean machines.

Don't get me started on their idea of supporting open standards. JAZN (their implementation of JAAS) anyone?

Re:Oracle by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:52 · Score: 0

> We upgraded our developers machines to XP last > week, and it won't even install on clean machines. The last XP machine I installed at a friends house and went online with was clean for 3 minutes until it got shutdown by W32/Blaster... so are you sure they are 'clean'? ;)
Re:Oracle by srinivas_rc · 2004-01-17 03:54 · Score: 1

May be that was M$ Windows problem and not oracle. I never had problem with oracle on any OS that they say have a support.

--
I could change the world, but GOD won't give me the source code :(
Re:Oracle by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 04:18 · Score: 0

and we must have spent weeks just getting the thing to install properly.

Wow, sounds like the management isn't the only one that's clueless where you work.

Weeks to install an application? Get some new employees, take advantage of your support contracts or both.
Re:Oracle by WindBourne · 2004-01-17 05:23 · Score: 1
While you may not be wild about the company, there are a number of items in their favor:
1. They are not a monopoly in any thing. There are plenty of alternatives.
2. They actually do have a very good database. It almost certainly has the best performance for general purpose.
3. Their high prices enable others to come in and compete (MS always lowers their in markets to the point of free that they do not monopolize).
--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Oracle by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 05:28 · Score: 0

"Wow, sounds like the management isn't the only one that's clueless where you work."

It's not our management - the customer wants it. As it for being us, the coders fault, it's not. There are about 5 steps in the wizard, and the answers are simple and well understood. Still it fails. Then it doesn't uninstall properly, and you have to hack the registry (Oracle even had a document on their ever changing website telling you which keys to delete because of this).

We never had any problems with MySQL and JBoss.
Re:Oracle by AstroDrabb · 2004-01-17 06:30 · Score: 1

I agree. I think there DB is great, though I am not fond of their J2EE server. It is EXTREMLY bloated. The managers at the fortune 500 I am a developer at are forcing us to use 9iAS (though at least they let me install it on Linux servers). It is a resource hog. Our applications scream under Tomcat 5.x, it handled all of our needs, is free and Open Source and has far better resource utilization. Sadly, in the end we lost out to politics and are running Oracle 9iAS as our production J2EE servers, though we still use tomcat 5.x for dev. Again, I really like Oracle's DB (though that too sucks up resources), I just think their J2EE server is way overkill compared to tomcat or JBoss.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison

Maybe it is not about browsing.. by GerardM · 2004-01-17 02:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

When you want to do some clever stuff, you do not want to restrict yourself to HTML so you do not necessaraly want to use *any* browser. With the Mozilla technology they have a platform that has implementations on many platforms.

So I think they get it and it is less browser technology than presentation technology that they find in Mozilla

Re:Maybe it is not about browsing.. by srinivas_rc · 2004-01-17 03:52 · Score: 1

so that means oracle will use some Mozilla specific extensions so it works in mozilla and IE but not on other browsers ?

--
I could change the world, but GOD won't give me the source code :(
Re:Maybe it is not about browsing.. by Jason+Earl · 2004-01-17 05:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

Precisely. Oracle is going to write their applications so that they take advantage of the rich client opportunities that XUL provides. They are going to use Mozilla as a platform in much the same way that the Komodo IDE is based on Mozilla. XUL allows developers to do much more than they could with just HTML.
This is a great opportunity to show what Mozilla is truly capable of. In may ways Mozilla offers today what Microsoft is only planning to release with Longhorn. Not to mention the fact that Mozilla is Free Software and platform independent. It's made to order for developing and releasing rich client applications on a wide variety of platforms.
Re:Maybe it is not about browsing.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 05:55 · Score: 0

You sound like an advertisement.

Having said that, mozilla's xul does indeed rock. It's incredibly easy to develop for, and if you're developing any kind of webserver delivered application it pays to take a serious look at mozilla as a client platform.
Re:Maybe it is not about browsing.. by Jason+Earl · 2004-01-17 07:05 · Score: 1

You sound like an advertisement.

Mozilla is cool, and most of the stuff planned for the next version of IE is nothing more than a blatant ripoff of Mozilla's XUL. However, when the next version of IE is released you can bet that developers will start leveraging it's abilities to create rich client applications. These applications will have all sorts of advantages over plain HTML applications, but they will only work with IE. The only way to combat this is for Mozilla to beat IE to the punch. If people start using XUL as a way to build applications then the browser wars could very well heat up again, and if Mozilla becomes a development platform then the chances of Linux making an impact on the desktop go up dramatically.
Mozilla is Free Software, and based on open standards. If it gains traction, then it is good for consumers (and developers) everywhere. Up until now people have generally considered "standards-based" to mean "less featurefull." They believe that they can either create a standards-based web site, or a cool one. With Mozilla they can build applications that are amazing, and still based on cross-platform open standards.
To me, that's exciting. But it takes people adopting Mozilla and leveraging its cool features. Cool features that don't get used aren't good for anyone.
Re:Maybe it is not about browsing.. by tswann01 · 2004-01-18 17:22 · Score: 1

Similarly, PeopleSoft enterprise applications "support" both IE and Netscape, but "recommend" IE. Even though PeopleSoft 8+ has no client-side Java (unlike Ora Apps), it still renders better in IE.

Good! by saden1 · 2004-01-17 02:43 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This is good and a step in the right direction. I mean come on IE has what, 90% of the market.

Is it just me or is it Everyone vs Microsoft now? I guess everyone got smarter.

--

-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.

Re:How about Khtml? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Oh good fucking lord. Would you stop with the shit already? I use KDE, and I use Mozilla. Not only is Mozilla cross platform, but it runs on Gnome and KDE, which means that it will work on SUN Java Desktop. That right there is a big reason to use Mozilla.

KHTML applications are great, if you can silence the fanboyisms. In short, you're not coding it, so shut the fuck up!

Jinitiator? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:45 · Score: 0

Will this mean that Jinitiator will work on ALL platforms where mozilla runs at? Because it currently only at windows and does not work out-of-the box in moz/firebird on windows os.

Re: sweetest browser by radoni · 2004-01-17 02:47 · Score: 0

FYI it's MozillaFirebird, not Firebird. Perhaps you are confused?

--
SIGERR: laziness exceeds quota

Re: sweetest browser by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:49 · Score: 0

Yes Firebird is a database, but still I think we all know what he/she is talking about.

Sadly... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:50 · Score: 5, Informative

I work there and would bet it will be a long time before this works as planned. Way too many internal sights require IE to work at all. We are still at a point where you can NOT have a purely Linux desktop and still get your daily work completed.

I would not say Oracle Apps works on standards like the poster above was explaining either - it requires a Java plugin (very similar to - and based on Sun's Java Plugin) called JInitiator. JInitiator has to be loaded and used by the browser so it it not like any browser can be a client... unless Jinit is ported to the platform and plugin architecture.

It will be a happy day when we can actually USE Linux on the desktop at work though.

Re:Sadly... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:16 · Score: 0

Make that happy day today!
Re:Sadly... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 04:53 · Score: 1, Interesting

I also work at Oracle but I am not sure if you have noticed in the last 6 months more and more sites have started working in Mozilla. I use Mozilla by default and if that does not work then open up just that page in IE. With a little tweaking you can run Oracle Apps in Mozilla. So I do not think that it will be that long before the target of 100% compatability with Mozilla is achieved.
As far as the question about having a Linux desktop is concerned, I am not sure if you know but Global IT @Oracle has been considering it and evaluvating it for about a year now, right after we migrated all the Application development servers to Linux from Solaris. So I would assume that in about a year or so, one would have the option of installing Linux if they wanted to.
As I see the only thing that is stopping Oracle from moving to Linux only desktop is partly inertia and partly dependence on software like Visio, MS Project etc.
Re:Sadly... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 07:50 · Score: 0

"We are still at a point where you can NOT have a purely Linux desktop and still get your daily work completed."

As a general statement, that's a load of crap. Speak for yourself. Some of 'we' get our daily work completed just fine on a purely Linux desktop. If your workplace is still mired in proprietary stuff then you have my sympathies, but don't assume it's the same for everyone across the board.
Re:Sadly... by cuban321 · 2004-01-17 08:08 · Score: 1

Visio kills me as well. Crossover says they run it, but it doesn't run well and unfortunetly there is no suitable replacement for it that can also read Visio files. Oh well... Daniel
Re:Sadly... by cerberusss · 2004-01-17 20:13 · Score: 1

I'm working there too (and not posting AC) and I use Linux on a day-to-day basis. What problems do you have?? MS Office, IE-only websites? Check the other AC replies which links to CrossoverOffice. Development tools? If so, which?

--
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?

Is this the start of Dot-Mozilla applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 02:52 · Score: 0

--
b4b5e831

Oracle's M$ strategy isn't just Ellison's vendetta by xtermin8 · 2004-01-17 02:55 · Score: 1

Oracle wants to emphasize that its strategy against M$ is tactical and no just an Ellison ego trip Jan. 12, 2004 Oracle Corporation's Board of Directors announced that it is separating the responsibilities of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.The board elected Jeff Henley Chairman of the Oracle Board. In addition, Safra Catz and Charles Phillips have each been promoted to President reporting to Oracle Chief Executive Officer, Larry Ellison

please educate me by 2.246.1010.78 · 2004-01-17 02:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Time for you karma whores: could you tell me (and the unwashed masses lingering around here) what 'oracle applications' we'd want to run from our Moz? What do I miss if I have never ever thought on doing so?

Re:please educate me by LDoggg_ · 2004-01-17 02:59 · Score: 5, Informative

Oralce's apps are an entire suite of Business applications.

Order Entry, Accounts Receivable/Payable, Inventory, HR.
While not perfect, for the most part its good stuff.

These apps are currently launched as applets through a custom JVM plugin called Jinitiator launched through IE.

--

"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
Re:please educate me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 06:36 · Score: 0

We were going to go with Oracle for HR, though they did not support tipped employees and had to use People Soft instead and it has been a nightmare. Oh how I wish we were using Oracle for HR. We do have Oracle Financials though. Since we had to go with People Soft HR, we then had to use People Soft Portal. What a mess of a portal. It spews out the most non-standards compliant HTML I have ever seen in a commercial product. I really wish we could have written our own or use Oracle's Portal.

Excellent news! by LDoggg_ · 2004-01-17 02:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

The fact that Jinitiator (Oracle's JVM) has only worked for windows has been the last reason my company hasn't been able to switch to linux.
All of our Novell stuff now has Linux ports, and OpenOffice suits most of us just fine. Hopefully this is the last piece of the puzzle.
It would also be really cool if the apps could run through LTSP.

The article doesn't specifically name a Linux Jinitiator, but I would be more than happy if they got the apps to run using a more recent Sun JVM for Mozilla.

--

"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle

Re:Excellent news! by miffo.swe · 2004-01-17 04:46 · Score: 1

Ltsp kicks butt =)

Im drunk when i type this but still, its teh grits!

We use it at our school and as an admin i just have to tend to the old windows lab, the ltsp lab just dont require any work besides upgrading which is a matter of "yum update".

Our windows lab on the other hand, well thats just broken.

Now im off to bowling and some more beer, have fun yall, SCO is going down!

--
HTTP/1.1 400

Re:Slightly OT: Thunderbird spam filter by Mod+Me+God · 2004-01-17 03:00 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I've had more stuff getting through too, but the emails that have been through in the past few days have more text in them, a. nd I'$$m NoTT t;a()l king r a d dom. pun.ctu.at.ion. mar;ks; but proper coherent text. The body of the email is still the remote loading picture, but under it are either random combinations of phrases that make sence individually but not stuck together or old news headlines and blurbs. Interesting to see how/if Thunderbird adapts.

--
-- FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?

More news about Mozilla... by ksheka · 2004-01-17 03:00 · Score: 0, Offtopic

No mention about the continued support of the continued existance of the Mozilla Application Suite

--
alias uptime="echo '5:33pm up 22342352324 days, 6:28, 2124315623 users, load average: 2432.40, 12312.31, 123123.19'"

Oracle has a way to go by Sabalon · 2004-01-17 03:01 · Score: 4, Informative

I guess I don't like the fact that they just work on one distribution and getting it to work elsewhere is a bit of a pain sometimes.

Though last time I ran the newest oracle application server on linux (based on Apache), it seemed they went out of their way to make it a daunting task. There are about 30 other things that start up with the app server and apache.

I guess I think of it as simple - client attaches to apache, apache module connects to oracle, but they are going gung-ho on having all the java stuff, and god knows what else built in. Way to much complexity and it caused nothing but trouble...actually had to back down a release.

It's saturday morning and I'm just ranting, but it seems to me that outside of the database server, which they do well, they do a terrible job of everything else.

Oracle Enterprise Manager is a good example. Used to ba an app that would connect to the database, let you manage it, etc... Now it's this huge Java thing, requires it's own database just to manage other databases, etc... and doesn't seem to work half the time.

I guess I've just had terrible luck with anything java based on Linux (or windows for that matter) - well, anything that goes beyond a simple app.

Re:Oracle has a way to go by kpharmer · 2004-01-17 04:21 · Score: 1

The Oracle apps really stink, a few data points:

1. at one system integrator that I worked at we used their apps to manage our finances and also resold their database. Anyhow their financial app (which we all had to use to record our time) became our #1 example of how *not* to design a UI.

2. they used java to make it platform independent, but then require IE - which requires windows. Is this brain-dead or what? They might as well have developed the apps in ASP!

3. in almost any business activity where there's real competition - they stink. They were pushing a CRM package that was a laughable pile of poo. But that didn't stop their hard-charging salesdrones from hammering people with it.

Only after using their clunky applications (where they try to rewrite all the rules on UI design) can you really appreciate the mess that is the oracle database. Sure, the oracle database is more mature, more stable, and better in class than oracle financials. But - it is still hopelessly complex, error-prone, and bloated.

I don't get it by Get+Behind+the+Mule · 2004-01-17 03:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

A database is a database, which should have nothing to do with user interaction. A web browser is at the presentation level, which is all about user interaction and should have nothing to do with the database.

If Oracle has been writing software that entangles database code with the presentation level, then they are mixing layers and producing appallingly unmaintainable code, and should stop doing that no later than immediately. On the other hand, if they are writing code that produces HTTP/HTML content in the presentation layer, then it doesn't matter which web browser is used to view it.

So why would anyone write software that is specifically "for Mozilla", especially a database vendor? They should just adhere to the HTTP/HTML standards in the presentation layer, so that anyone using a standards-compliant browser can view their content.

Of course, we are talking about Oracle, who has produced PL/SQL packages for generating HTML right out of the database, insist on using their own, outdated JRE's, and perhaps have generated M$-dependent web content. So maybe Oracle is just trying to tell us that they will start doing a couple of things a little bit less stupidly.

--
Always keep a sapphire in your mind

Re:I don't get it by HrothgarReborn · 2004-01-17 03:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

I agree. The article was exceptionally poor on describing what they intended to do. I can only assume that they are talking about modifying Mozilla to interpret more than strait HTML. I suppose this would make it useful for internal applications for companies that extensively use Oracle but all it will really do is mask the poor programing skills of coders who cannot write a good enough application to work within the limits of HTML. The end result will be applications that are not internet ready and have all the wierd bugs that comes with client side code execution. Don't even get me started on the fact that your probably going to have to let end users connect directly to your database. But of course Oracle is unhackable :)
Re:I don't get it by sporty · 2004-01-17 03:47 · Score: 1

Or maybe they are building a bridge, so you don't need a web server to connect to, but an internal driver that connects to oracle databases via soap or something. How about letting them produce something before we jump on the unknown, eh?

--
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Re:I don't get it by hackrobat · 2004-01-17 07:20 · Score: 1

So why would anyone write software that is specifically "for Mozilla", especially a database vendor?
Dude, Oracle does a lot more than database. There's an application server, a development suite, a Java IDE, a collaboration suite (email, etc.), and lots of other business applications collective called Apps.
And no one said they're writing apps specifically for Mozilla. They're saying they'll officially support Mozilla (with their apps). What that means is that when you go complaining to Oracle saying that their app is not working with Mozilla, they'll fix it.

Mozilla isn't Linux-exclusive by Xpilot · 2004-01-17 03:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

It works on many other operating systems too, including the proprietary Windows. But it is still a success for Linux and open source in general, because any technology that does not allow Microsoft to lock in its customers is a win for freedom, and a loss for Microsoft. Microsoft values one thing more than money, that is the guarantee of making more money (marketshare strangehold). So as Linux and other open source operating systems gains widespread acceptance not just in the server space but with clients too, Microsoft loses out. Microsoft isn't left out or locked out, it is just forced to play on an level playing field.

So victory for open source is not the complete desctruction of the towers of Barad-dur in Redmond, but the creation of a fair and competitive server and desktop market and the neutralization of Microsoft's monopoly power. Once we have that, we have already won. Marketshare numbers will be meaningless, since you are not forced to adopt the platform with the highest market share to get the software solutions that you need.

--
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds

Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything by xtermin8 · 2004-01-17 03:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

There's actually a shred of wisdom in the poster's wit. If it weren't for a single company dominating PC software, there would be a lot less motivation to find an open source alternatives. Without Microsoft, the choice was (and probably still would be) between several crappy closed source software venders. It is because of MS's predatory and evil ways the Linux has become the alternative of choice. And maybe Bill will drown in all that free beer!

So much for... by JordanH · 2004-01-17 03:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

all the gloom and doom about what would happen to the "orphaned" Mozilla browser now that AOL was dropping it.

*VERY* smart move. by Qbertino · 2004-01-17 03:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is an extremely smart move on Oracles behalf, imho.
One would think that moving to service orientation would be the way to go, with OSS critical mass just around the corner.
But this proves that Oracle is thinking further, where OSes are only a commodity and clients networking capabilites count.
By extending Mozilla with their stuff they're adding a feature to Oracle that others don't have (yet), despite the fact that Oracle DB probably has had these features for years. Clients for free, server service capable software for good ol' cash. This move will do two things for Oracle: It will establish their image as early adapters and full supporters of OSS *and* it will let them maintain their standard business model a little longer: selling bizarely priced DBs and other software stuff.
Very smart indeed.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

Doesn't Matter by Quantum-Sci · 2004-01-17 03:15 · Score: 1

So, one abusive monopoly... doesn't get along with another abusive monopoly? Glad to hear it; but I don't trust Oracle anyway.

I use exclusively Konq for browsing, file management, FTP, configuration (components), and more. Konq does it all, and presents itself as anything you want, better than anything else. The only time I use IE is to update the obligatory Win2k inside VMware, because you are forced by them to use it. Saw the newest IE at the library yesterday, and I see little change from 3 years ago. Ossified.

Sometimes I use Moz, but it takes quite alot to make it pretty; they could increase their following with a better OOTB experience. Glad they're still doing releases, and surprised, after their commercial enterprise was hideously eviscerated by M$ (who dumped their product for free, illegal in most civilized countries), and never compensated for it.

--
Campaign finance reform is national security.

I knew that Mozilla overbloated, but... by tereshchenko · 2004-01-17 03:17 · Score: 5, Funny

I knew that Mozilla overbloated (kitchen sink anyone?), but including Oracle DB is a bit overkill I think...

--
Slashdot - free anti-Microsoft propaganda 24/7

Re:How about Khtml? by gexen · 2004-01-17 03:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think there's something wrong with your arguement. Just because KDE "won the desktop war" doesn't mean people should use its default browser. That's EXACTLY like saying Microsoft is winning the os war thus you should use Internet Explorer.

Mozilla is a fine, cross-platform browser which fits Oracle's needs. Right now, cross-platform applications are going to be necessary to introduce to Windows users so that when they are ready to switch, their anxieties can be alleaved by pointing out the same applications are available over here.

I can't remember: is Oracle on the evil list? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:22 · Score: 1, Funny

OK, yeah...
SCO? Evil
Microsoft? Evil
Linux? Not Evil
BSD? Not Evil, but reported dead.
Diebold? Evil
Natalie Portman? Not Evil
RMS? Evil and Not Evil at the same time!

Where does Oracle fit into the Evil vs. Not Evil scale?

TDz.

Re:I can't remember: is Oracle on the evil list? by the+eric+conspiracy · 2004-01-17 05:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Where does Oracle fit into the Evil vs. Not Evil scale?

It's White Evil as opposed to the Black Evil of SCO and Microsoft.
Re:I can't remember: is Oracle on the evil list? by MarcQuadra · 2004-01-17 05:51 · Score: 1

Well, they're evil, but if we suck up to them they'll be the best thing to happen to Linux/OSS in a LONG time. IBM is like that too, they're looking at exploiting Linux, which isn't so bad because the GPL makes it impossible for them to take it away from us.

--
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Re:I can't remember: is Oracle on the evil list? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 10:33 · Score: 0

IBM is looking at exploiting what *IBM* can help turn Linux into. They have made it clear that they don't consider Linux in it's current state to be a worthy replacement for AIX. They have also made it clear that they don't think it could become a super-set of AIX without further contributions from IBM. And going through the IBM website, it is clear that IBM plans to continue to contribute a large amount of non-trival enhancements to Linux such that it will become and explointable replacement to AIX.

Oracle has no plans for Linux to replace any of it's products. The biggest offering I have seen from Oracle has been a trival modification to the firewire stack. I also have yet to hear of anyone use this modification in a real world enviroment.
Alot of the whole "Oracle makes Linux unbreakable" is based on mixing clusting methods that the Linux community already had done with the clusting protocols built into Oracle SQL*Net.

With the merging of SAP's contribution of MAXDB into MySQL, the MySQL v5.x series will compette head on with all the important features of Oracle and it will become clear just what an overpriced bloated piece of crap Oracle has been selling. Oracle knows the threat that MySQL poses and is definately ready to *attack*.

Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything by Colonel+Cholling · 2004-01-17 03:22 · Score: 3, Funny

And maybe Bill will drown in all that free beer!

<rms>No, no, you're missing the point. It's about free speech, not free beer. Why can't you stupid GNU/Linux people ever understand that? Half the time you don't even put the GNU before Linux. Just you wait, in only ten years HURD will be an almost-usable kernel and you'll see. YOU'LL SEE!!</rms>

--

I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.

Re:How about Khtml? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:24 · Score: 0

Dude, KDE can't touch the number of desktops running Windows. Since when would adding a capability to the KDE browser provide any measureable extension to their user base? They're in this to make money.

Separated at birth by S.I.O. · 2004-01-17 03:27 · Score: 2, Funny

> Oracle embraces Mozilla
Mozilla was a natural choice for Oracle, as both of them are ruthless, flesh-eating predators, who just trample over the weak and possess a tiny brain.

Very little to do with the database, apps 11i... by chris_martin · 2004-01-17 03:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Oracle has a complete end-to-end ERP/CRM application called Applicaitons 11i which uses a combination of java applets (delivered through Forms Server 6i) JSP's (delivered through apache) etc. The problem is that some of their HTML code makes windows IE only calls (even though they officially support the Mac running IE) using the object tag instead of applet tags, etc. Also, they have a ton of other web apps (Discoverer, their iAS application server and portal server, etc.) all with IE only stuff in them.

--
-- Chris Martin, System Administrator

Oracle == Machiavellian by Trigun · 2004-01-17 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

We'll have to wait and see what happens. Right now, I would wager to say that they are evil, but useful. Unfortunately, I think that's how they see Linux as well.

huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:34 · Score: 0

huh? enabling mozilla to use oracle?
so oracle can't serve HTML or what? /me is so happy! a browser that can read/talk
"oracle" natively! give me one!
downloading this thing in office and then
scanning/hacking the "how-much-do-you-earn" main
server to find out what the boss makes a month
should be fun!!!

Re:How about Khtml? by MouseR · 2004-01-17 03:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Oracle does support KHTML.

The marketroids folks might not know it, but the fact is that it just plains work. At least with Apple's Safari, wich is KHTML.

(Safari, BTW, is a dedicated-to target on Mac OS X, at least for the OCS product line).

Jinitiator is going away... by chris_martin · 2004-01-17 03:35 · Score: 1

In favor of Java 1.4.x and the Java Plugin. They already support that on the Mac instead of Jinit. There is still a lot of HTML code that doesn't like Moz though.

--
-- Chris Martin, System Administrator

That's not as exciting as I thought. by edbarrett · 2004-01-17 03:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

I was hoping to read the story and say "Well, cool, they're pulling another OEOne or something.

But no. It looks like they're just adhering to web standards for their vertical app. Which I appreciate, don't get me wrong, but they might as well have been saying they were embracing Opera.

Oracle to support Linux clients... like ThinkNIC?! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:40 · Score: 0

So, the off-shoot company ThinkNIC which produced light weight Linux client computer will finally be able to do something with Oracle? For a long time I thought mine was only good for showing how an Oracle off-shoot company can violate the GPL. It is amazing that now that ThinkNIC is dead the company that spawn them has announced taking the Linux desktop seriously. I guess Ellison was just thinking too far ahead of his time/company commitments.

Jinitiator not required; Mozilla ALREADY works! by dcavanaugh · 2004-01-17 03:42 · Score: 2, Informative

On Linux, all you need is the jdk1.4.1 from blackdown.org, jre properly integrated with Mozilla according to the directions. If you can run any java applet via Mozilla, then all you have to do is use a URL in the form of

http://machine.domain.com:portnumber/dev60cgi/f6 0cgi?jinit_mimetype=application/x-java-vm

I learned bits and pieces of this solution via numerous sources. This works great for me using Mozilla 1.5 on RH9. I posted this on Metalink and a few other places. IMHO it runs faster than Windoze/IE. This approach may not be supported, but I suspect the reason is that Oracle is trying to avoid supporting all those people who can't figure out how to set up Mozilla and jdk.1.4.1 from tarballs.

Longhorn and Mozilla: Birds of a Feather by civilizedINTENSITY · 2004-01-17 03:45 · Score: 0

Its not just HTML. Its way more XHTML. Its really more like saying: "We choose GTK or we choose QT for our cross platform development". Longhorn and Mozilla: Birds of a Feather

"Mozilla has a complete, separate, and enhanced implementation of Microsoft's COM, called XPCOM. XPCOM has its own QueryInterface() method, which acts just like the equivalent method in traditional COM. The 3000 object-interface combinations are due to over a thousand XPCOM components, most of which are bundled with the platform in compiled form.

To support these components, the basic infrastructure of the platform consists of several pieces:

* A fancy application-level GUI display system called Gecko. This is a layout and rendering engine.
* A very high-level networking library, called Necko
* Comprehensive XML support for various standards like XHTML, MathML, SVG, RDF, SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI. Additional support for several unique XML dialects, particularly XUL and XBL, which are used to define GUIs.

Mozilla binds these pieces together in several ways:

* By use of XPCOM and JavaScript at the object/code level
* Using data models expressed as XML RDF and by systems that exploit these models at the XML level
* By programmers using XUL and XBL as a starting and integration point for applications.."

Re:Konqueror by Alien+Conspiracy · 2004-01-17 03:45 · Score: 1

I've used konqueror exclusively for a couple of years now, it's great.

Recently tried IE6 on a friend's PC and my god did it suck.

drown in beer by BinLadenMyHero · 2004-01-17 03:46 · Score: 1

I offer myself as a volunteer to test your method.
When do we begin?

Re:Slightly OT: Thunderbird spam filter by goodie3shoes · 2004-01-17 03:47 · Score: 1

If it's the same as the Mozilla client, it doesn't catch messages with Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64. I get 10 - 15 of these a day, and made a filter for it.

--
BSA: "Would you like a free Software Audit"? me: "No, thanks. My software is all Free".

Re:How about Khtml? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 03:52 · Score: 0

Does KDE run on Windows? Mozilla does.

This is huge for corporate developers! by digerata · 2004-01-17 03:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have been campaigning mozilla for some time as a replacement to IE for our company of ~1200 Mac and PC users. The one stumbling block is that Oracle's application support under anything but IE sucks.

This is the best saturday EVER!!!! Woohooo!

--

1;

Netscape/Mozilla plug-in compatibility by EricWright · 2004-01-17 04:06 · Score: 4, Informative

Due to netscape and mozilla being (for the most part) plug-in compatible, I've been using Oracle Apps via Mozilla (and Phoenix/Firebird) for at least 3-4 years now.

All you have to do is download oajinit.exe (yes, this is windows) and install it. Then, you need to find the dll that's installed (the name contains the version number of Jinitiator, but I'm not at work so I can't say for sure what it is) and drop the .dll into the Mozilla plugins folder. Restart Mozilla and get to work... this may require a pre-existing netscape installation, not too sure. Everywhere I've worked pre-installed netscape for their users. If you have to go that route, it's not too hard to uninstall netscape once you have Jinitiator and Mozilla/Firebird playing nice with each other.

Now, I'd love to see more linux support as a client machine. The only reason I have to use windows at work is the lack of a supported solution to running oracle apps client from linux. The developer apps are pretty crappy compared to the windows ports, but they do work.

Not only do I play an Oracle apps developer on TV, I am one in real life, too!

I would rather hear by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 04:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Good, though I would rather hear they're modifying Oracle to work properly under Mozilla than that they're modifying Mozilla to work properly with Oracle.

Re:I would rather hear by falsification · 2004-01-17 05:36 · Score: 1

Well, Oracle may contribute code to Mozilla. That would be huge.
Oracle's help in such areas as XForms or anywhere else would provide a big boost.

Embracing?? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 04:31 · Score: 0

Oracle "embracing" Mozilla? I'd think those consummate V's would be uncomfortable.

Today should be a happy day for you... by dcavanaugh · 2004-01-17 04:33 · Score: 1

"It will be a happy day when we can actually USE Linux on the desktop at work though."

You CAN use Oracle Apps with Linux. See my other post at this location.

I could be wrong about this, but Jinitiator looks like nothing more than a launching platform for the appropriate JRE. As we all know, there are many versions of Java out there, not to mention the less-than-perfect world of browser integration. Then we have the potential problem of M$ Java hijacking whatever other Java might be installed. Jinitiator gets around all that by installing it's own JRE and making sure that the jinit mimetype launches Jinitiator, which then launches the proper JRE. Nothing stops you from installing your own jre and forcing Oracle to use it (with a little creativity on the URL that launches Oracle apps). See my other post for details.

use the Oracle Power Browser by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 04:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Oracle had their own browser back in the mid 90's when the IE and Netscape battle was heating up. What ever happened to the Oracle Power Browser?

Oracle is pretty good in its target niche by hey! · 2004-01-17 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Oracle is the MS of the database world. Clueless managers insist on using it because they're the biggest DB company, and us geeks are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

Although I don't like the company and it's hideous culture, I actually rather like the Oracle RDBMS It's powerful, feature-ful, and possible to tune to a fare-thee-well. It is very easy to screw up if you don't know what you're doing, so start easily. Installing on Windows is a snap; Unix installers have always been crap; I guess they figure Unix folks don't need as much handholding. I don't know why you had problems with XP, I've never had a problem.

You really can't compare MS and Oracle from an engineering standpoint. MS is about making getting into the product easy and regretting it later. Oracle is rougher on the novice but solves a lot of tough problems (at a price) that come up in large, bet the company kind of projects. Oracle is not a "hey kids lets put on a show" kind of product, which is not to denigrate systems like MySQL which are better suited for projects in that kind of niche and remarkably flexible given that kind of easy startup. If you need a database to handle the hit counter in your personal web page, Oracle's not for you. In Oracle's niche a few weeks of startup time hardly matter at all, given downstream failover capabilities, scalability, availability, and tunability. Generally speaking Oracle's forte is the kinds of projects where you hire a lead DBA with a decade or more of serious DBA experience, and happily pay the kind of salary that commands. Unfortunately, Oracle doesn't give a shit about newbies, which may not be wise in the long run given MS's focus on making things feel nice and cozy for them. Everyone starts out as a newbie, and MS knows the long term value of newbie mindshare.

One way that Oracle is like MS is that they want to completely own the database market the way MS wants to completely own the OS market. This is hardly surprising, since they want to make lots money. However, monoculture in database management systems would be even worse than in operating system. There is a huge universe of database applications out there, and a variety of products fit well into various spaces. There are even places for products a database professional would consider toys: FileMaker and yes, MS Access.

Grossly simplifying the picture, you can picture a scale with personal databases in the MS Access space on the left, massive enterprise-wide and megadatabses on the right, and workgroup, special purpose databases with varying degrees of transaction and record volume falling various points in the middle. Filemaker and Access are single points on the far left. MySQL, Postgres, FireBird, and similar databases extend from the far left to left of center. Oracle is useful from the middle of the scale to the far right.

It's a gross simplification, of course, because there isn't a single dimension along which you can measure a database project's scale, but several: record volume, update volme, query volume, query complexity, availability requirements, schema complexity etc. But dial up each of these dimensions to the max, and Oracle's probably a no-brainer. Keep the dials all near the minimum, and Oracle's a waste. Twist them into various patterns, and you really have to know your database products to decide whether Oracle is the best choice.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything by sisukapalli1 · 2004-01-17 04:47 · Score: 1

If it weren't for a single company dominating PC software, there would be a lot less motivation to find an open source alternatives. Without Microsoft, the choice was (and probably still would be) between several crappy closed source software venders.

The whole FSF, and BSD/MIT licenses were up well before M$FT was even a big player. It was a time when there were a lot of unix players. GNU has its origins "GNU's not Unix" S

Re:I don't get it - obligitory story quote by illusion_2K · 2004-01-17 05:09 · Score: 1

... for those who don't actually read it.

"Most of our support has been in the area of servers," Dargo said. "We'll be looking to add enabling Linux as a client for Oracle applications via the Mozilla browser, so Oracle customers can use Mozilla to access Oracle applications. We're looking at not just supporting Linux as a server but looking at supporting Linux as a client."

There is more involved in having a DBMS than just the database, you know. You gotta have the client tools to actually work with it.

Re:How about Khtml? by AstroDrabb · 2004-01-17 05:13 · Score: 3, Informative

Included into every KDE installation, which has 70% of Linux desktop market share according to Recent surveys.

The last survey I read had KDE at around 43%of the votes or so.

Included in Mac OSX Panther Edition

Does it runs under MS Windows, Solaris? Moz does and that gives it a far greater edge then just running under Mac O X. Moz also runs under Mac OS X.

Faster and less complex than Gecko

That is highly subjective. Do you have any links to speed tests to prove it?

Mozilla stomps KHTML/Konq for usage share. Mozilla and Mozilla based browsers have about a 68% share compared to KHTML.

Also, wait about a year and see how KDE usage drops considerably in numbers compared to Gnome, or how Gnome usage surges past KDE. Why? Because Novell purchased Ximian's XD2 which is Gnome based and Novell WILL leverage that investment. Evolution is critical for an Enterprise roll-out, since many Enterpriese use MS Exchange. KDE has nothing that can connect and use and MS Exchange server, while Novell/Ximian Evolution with Novell/Ximian Connector works great. And no, Enterprises are not going to be doing a large scale replacement of MS Exchange for KGroupware. With Novell buying SuSE, you may see some using Novell/SuSE MS Exchange replacement, again with is integragted and supported by Evolution.

Also, Sun's Linux desktop uses GNome and Solairs 9 now uses Gnome as well. Sun also just did that 1,000,000 Linux desktop deal with China, that will be a LOT of new Gnome desktops out there.

One other point, KHTML is no where near as standards compliant and ready for the web as Mozilla is. I have been to tons of sites that just don't work with KHTML/Konq that work fine with Moz. I am a developer for a fortune 500, we have a lot of Oracle and People Soft Enterprise apps that are now web enabled. Most of them work perfect with Moz 1.5/1.6 and puke with KHTML, though as this topics suggest, there are still some that require IE only : (

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison

Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything by RoLi · 2004-01-17 05:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you look at the real world:

The GNU project was founded when MS was still a small and pretty insignificant player. Also in the beginning GNU didn't even try to be a competition to MS
Linux was created because of the shortcomings of Minix, MS had nothing to do with it
Apache was created before IIS. D'oh!

Microsoft has nothing to do with motivating open source.

Re:I don't get it - obligitory story quote by Alien+Conspiracy · 2004-01-17 05:31 · Score: 1

All you need is a command-line.

Typing in SQL manually is generally *mutch* more flexible some *steenkin* GUI.

Real Geeks don't use GUIs! Don't need it, want it, erm, afford it...

What Next by ajs318 · 2004-01-17 05:35 · Score: 1

Oracle supporting Linux and Mozilla could be a Good Thing for Open Source generally. How many applications outgrew MS Access and moved straight to Oracle on Windows? Of those, how many would work fine and dandy with PostgreSQL? Come to think of it, how many of them would work on MySQL?

All it really takes to migrate from one database server to another is to compensate for the idiosyncrasies of each SQL dialect {for instance MySQL and MS SQL use double speech marks, Postgres prefers single; MySQL doesn't have MONEY or BOOLEAN types} which is a one-off job and, if you have the source code for the middle bit, entirely feasible.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything by EastCoastSurfer · 2004-01-17 05:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Microsoft has nothing to do with motivating open source.

That's a pretty naive statement. Sure GNU and free software was around, but how many people and companies now support OSS because of their disdain toward MS? The new licensing scheme released by MS is pushing even more people into the OSS camp and thus motivating them.

I believe it is a yin and yang type of thing. Without the single big closed source company driving people away, OSS may never have gotten the critical mass of users that it has today.

Re:I knew that Mozilla overbloated, but... by jsebrech · 2004-01-17 06:01 · Score: 1

I knew that Mozilla overbloated (kitchen sink anyone?)

Kitchen sink indeed.

Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 06:07 · Score: 0

Most corporate Linux support is aimed at traditional UNIX markets -- small/medium servers, engineering workstations.

Don't confuse the ravings of slashdotters with the business plans of RedHat, IBM, and Oracle. These guys are focusing on the core business and going out of their way to avoid taking on MS head-to-head.

The only real counter-example is Sun and StarOffice.

Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything by ShadowRage · 2004-01-17 06:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

actually, it was the unix wars that sprung forth the opensource movement, and if it werent microsoft, it would be IBM or Apple.

and people would still like free stuff.

Re:How about Khtml? by balzak · 2004-01-17 07:18 · Score: 1

Let me see what I can do about PeopleSoft supporting KHTML. We have supported Linux/Unix clients for quite some time (now we also fully support it as a server ) and I don't know why we wouldn't add this to the list. It might get shot down but I'll run it up the flag pole for you. Excellent suggestion. Be Well --

This isn't very good by Enrico+Pulatzo · 2004-01-17 07:25 · Score: 1

they should be embracing web standards, not supporting Mozilla. Hopefully they won't mess up the mozilla support by making it moz-specific. Mozilla is great, no doubt about it, and this is a terrific win for them, but web standards are what we should be more excited about.

Re:Very little to do with the database, apps 11i.. by __past__ · 2004-01-17 07:30 · Score: 1

... windows IE only calls ... using the object tag instead of applet tags,

Just a minor nitpick: The applet element has been deprecated by the W3C in favor of "object" since HTML 4.0, which was released in 1997. Using "object" instead of "applet" is hardly "windows-only", or in any way something bad.

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.

In other news... by hackrobat · 2004-01-17 07:43 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Ellison weds Craft ;-)

Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything by xtermin8 · 2004-01-17 07:47 · Score: 1

Oh the REAL world. How could I have forgot? I didn't say theat the open source movement was started, I said /motivated./ GNU, linux and Apache were insignificant, until after Microsoft. Minix still is. Linux would prbably have the same user base that Minix has now if it weren't for M$. Apache was run by a Christian group who prioritized religious evangicalism over Open source.

Re: sweetest browser by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 07:49 · Score: 0

No no it's GNU/Mozilla/Firebird

/foams at mouth/

</stallman>

I run Oracle Applications on Linux Today by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 07:50 · Score: 0

What's the big deal? I run Oracle Applications 11.0.3 on Linux today using JDK 1.1.8 without MS IE.

On second thought. It is nice for Oracle to say that they support Mozilla. It gives those who know next to nothing about Oracle Application's technology stack a warm and fuzzy feeling about using open source and standards based options like Mozilla and Linux.

Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything by xtermin8 · 2004-01-17 07:51 · Score: 1

I said motivated to FIND, not 'has its origins in.' As in Users adopting Open Source. Sheesh. The lot of unix players is exactly what I'm referring to as software venders

Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything by ax_42 · 2004-01-17 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

If it weren't for a single company dominating PC software, there would be a lot less motivation to find an open source alternatives.

This is like saying we should be glad about 9/11 as it led to better airline security. Sheesh.

Re: Star Wars analogy by xtermin8 · 2004-01-17 08:02 · Score: 1

The "unix wars" Sprung Forth the opensource movement, but it is actions of The Evil Empire which has made the public look for alternative. Now the Rebellion is gaining favor with the masses and not just Admins and Jedi Developers. If IBM had gained monopoly control of the PC OS market, we might be looking for alternative Internet Terminals rather than alternative OSes. People may like free stuff but business and the corporate sector are more suspicious.

For users to FIND alternatives by xtermin8 · 2004-01-17 08:05 · Score: 1

..there would be a lot less motivation FOR USERS TO FIND open source ALTERNATIVES. What do I have to do to get people to read posts before responding?

Back that up please. by IANAAC · 2004-01-17 08:36 · Score: 1

Provide some links. Instead of *sighing* and griping about being the only one who reads metalink, help people out. Lots of people would be interested.

Re:How about Khtml? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 08:52 · Score: 0

Are you a retard? stop posting nonsense!
The reason why kde is great because it provides very easy ways to integrate apps. Gnome only provides 'hacks' for integrating.

Also mozilla cannot do split window browsing and display files the way konqueror does.

Almost all 'integrations' in gnome that I saw did not work or crashed (on many systems).

media integration in file browser ;(
web integration in file browser ;(
file browsing slow VERY ;(

When you install kde things simply work mostly as intended, sometimes I get a crash but i always get cvs, not stable releases.

If anything KDE market share should rise; I'm not sure why coroprations go supporting GNOME.

He was referring to "Windows Update" Only works IE by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 09:19 · Score: 0

Your comment was very clear that you missed that :)

Re:How about Khtml? by AstroDrabb · 2004-01-17 10:12 · Score: 1

Actaully I am talking to everyone where I work to switch our PIA to Linux. We would get so much better performance at a much better cost. However, instead of asking them to support KHTML, ask them to get their Portal to be more standards compliant and NOT to hard code absolute positions. Some of the portal pages look ugly under Mozilla because Mozilla is so standars compliant and does exactly what the HTML tells it to do. Some of the elements get all ugly under Portal like the News pagelet and the Layout and components pages.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison

xforms / jabber / roaming profles by hpavc · 2004-01-17 10:35 · Score: 2, Informative

they can start by making a cros platform xforms extension for mozilla, roaming profiles, intergrate their implimentation of jabber into mozilla as a extension.

instantly mozilla would be ready for business in a serious way versus ie.

oracle would have a full featured desktop client.

--
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad

IE is irrelevant.. by GerardM · 2004-01-17 11:50 · Score: 1

Longhorn is planned for over 2 years. In yesteryear they said that 1 sunyear is 4 internet years. So next generation IE is next generation. I'll be old.

However if XUL is to be the client platform, it will NOT work on IE. To Oracle that will not be relevant as it is not about HTML but about database communication and presentation platform independent..

Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything by mikis · 2004-01-17 12:46 · Score: 1

Yes, and if it was their way, we'd be all using TeX + bc as office suite, and Amaya as web browser ;)

OpenOffice is next by Pegasus · 2004-01-17 13:57 · Score: 1

I heard that they're thinking of extending OpenOffice in similiar ways too. I'm sure there are people who cant wait for that, but i'm not sure yet if this is a good thing or bad ...

Re:I don't get it - obligitory story quote by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 14:55 · Score: 0

Becky Is Back in the Ballet was originally released by The Victor Talking Machine Company in 1922. It is Fanny Brice's hilarious comment on dancing schools, pupils and their mothers.

Ahh, but how long. by djve · 2004-01-17 15:03 · Score: 1

Another piecemeal pronouncement.

I would love it if it were true and that simple.

Does anyone really think that removing all the hooks in the current Oracle applications that involve IE will happen in a year?

Yes, it will happen. But like many other PR statements from many other companies - don't expect it to be there in the timeframe they say.

djve

--
"There is magic in the web." - Othello Act 3 Scene 4.

Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything by tonyr60 · 2004-01-17 16:21 · Score: 1

Actually it was the IBM mainframe environment plus the early stages of UNIX.....

In the earlier IBM mainframe days the source code for most of the OS was published, so that device drivers etc. could be written. And this were commonly shated. Not sure if that still happens.

And the early work on UNIX was always distributed as source, with the expectation that others could contribute.

Actually prior to Bill Gates etc, publication of the source of the OS was relatively normal, as was the sharing of development work between users.

Oracle Embraces Mozilla ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-17 20:01 · Score: 0

Well it's good to see she's doing something now that the human / machine war is over.

Q How do they compare? by 4of12 · 2004-01-19 03:05 · Score: 1

create platforms for rich client applications that work in internet browsers.

So I know just enough to ask a question: How do these rich client application development tools compare with one another?

XUL
ActiveX
PEAR
SVG/{Java,ECMA}Script
Java/Swing

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."

Re: Star Wars analogy by ShadowRage · 2004-01-23 13:11 · Score: 1

well, there was still apple, which was an alternative to ibm as well as microsoft was back in the early 90's and IBM was having problems.
linux still would have existed because torvalds wanted something like unix on his pc.

207 comments