Slashdot Mirror
IBM Donates Java Database App. to Apache Foundation
the_pooh_experience writes "IBM has announced that it will open up Cloudscape by giving it to the Apache Software Foundation. Cloudscape, a small footprint Java database, is primarily used for small scale websites and point-of-sale systems. Its new, opensource name will be 'Derby.' Cloudscape (originally created by Informix, and purchased by IBM in 2001) has been valued by IBM at $85M."
A win-win scenario for IBM: donate a software application at an inflated price for a big tax break while also looking good to the open-source community. At least that's how I assume it works in the US.
Compared to the alternative of supporting or shelving a dead application, can you blame them? Perhaps at least this will serve as a good model for other companies that still consider dead software as a corporate asset.
In any case it's cool they donated it. Being a database developer myself, I'm extremely wary of the "you don't need a DBA" claim, but regardless of the hype it looks like an interesting product that will fit in well with the Apache lineup.
This Like That - fun with words!
Leave it to NYT to misinform people. The article says that IBM put the code "in the public domain". The license by which the Apache foundation will distribute this is certainly NOT public domain. It later says "Apache will hold the licensing and intellectual property rights to the Cloudscape code."
I wish people would stop mixing these things with public domain. Apache's license, GPL, etc., are forms of copyright, and are NOT public domain.
On the other hand, it's still a (relative) memory hog.
Not true. I'm sure this can be written off as a tax deduction. Something akin to a donation.
--sig fault--
Of anything out there I think Cloudscape is most similar to Berkeley DB for Java (an in-process DB). The comment about it being a stepping-stone to DB2 could be made about any JDBC-compliant DBMS...IBM just happens to favor theirs ;-)
An $85M "asset" isn't worth much if you have to spend $16M a year maintaining and supporting it. Also, remember that IBM has several other database products this would be competing against. The fact that they released it as Open Source is a very good thing for everyone, considering that they could have just abandoned the code and kept it locked away. This way they get good publicity, reduce their maintenance costs, and get a nice tax break.
Another point that IBM really isn't in the business of selling either software or hardware anymore -- they sell SOLUTIONS. Nowadays, most of Big Blue's revenue comes from sending consultants out to tell customers what hardware and software they need to run their business, and then putting all the pieces together for them so the whole thing works. While they'd prefer to sell you IBM hardware and IBM software, they're pretty agnostic in that regard. Having their own pet OSS database allows them to offer an IBM-backed solution for lower-end projects which don't have the money for a DB2 license.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I don't think that's a very good test.
In real life, you either add an index, or you don't query a non-index unique field on a 50+ million table.
I'd think some sort of inner query is a better test for this.
The main thing I've felt that has been holding Star/Open office back is a need of a database as easy as MS Access.
I know it's a different language, but work with me for a second.
Yes, Access sucks as a DB, but it's good for three things. First, it's a quick and dirty way to store data. Secretaries and analysts use it, dump their data in a little file, put it on a floppy, bring it home, work on stuff at home, and bring it back on a floppy the next day. That is the ultimate selling point of file based databases. Even with Open Office's database tools, I have to know something about being a DBA - starting mysqld, db security, etc. Second, our DBAs love it because it's a graphical frontend to ODBC datbases. It gives semi-cluefull non-techs a way to see data. Finally, you can actually drop it onto a webserver and drive databases with it. Biases aside, it did gather them a following in the late 90's when everybody was a "developer" doing websites.
Any sort of MSOffice competitors have taken a while to solve these three needs elegantly. Looking at the IBM site, it looks like Cloudscape, with the embeded and network connectivity features, can be a foundation for something that can fill all three needs.
Notice how IBM is responding to competition by offering something to the community, while Sun's response to competition is to take something away (Novell/SUSE). I know, I know, it's GPL, they can't really take it away, but I think the point is still valid. Sun's response to competition should be to GPL Solaris and/or Java, not try to lock things up. Rather than try to improve themselves, stupid Sun's trying to compete by trying to hurt the competition instead - which will backfire.
I mod down all the "free iPod"-sig losers.