The Story Behind JBoss's Boss

kosamae writes "Businessweek has an interesting article about Marc Fleury. It's more about the business and personal end of his life than about the technology he's helped to create." From the article: "But while Fleury, like Neo, is something of a cult figure, few people in the old or new software world want to think of him as their savior. Brash, outspoken, and frequently insulting, Fleury has clawed his way to the top of the open-source pile over the past six years. Part of the dislike arises because he's a threat. Even though JBoss brings in only $50 million a year in revenues, at most, from providing training, support, and maintenance services to its users, it has siphoned off some hundreds of millions in market value from the likes of BEA Systems and IBM by giving away free software."

Comments

Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[dada21]

The JBoss story is one that is close to my heart -- it epitomizes much of what I believe in when it comes to my hardcore beliefs. I am a true capitalist (anarcho-capitalist) at heart, and I believe that earning money requires constant work in the field you're in. I don't believe in copyrights and patents either, which are a government mandate to pay residual income on products you've already bought. For me, the software industry is a huge mess of patents, copyrights, trademarks and proprietary code. We pay for a mess of code, and we get what we pay for.

The idea that you can make a basic product and give it away free in order to support your ongoing labor is an idea I've grasped all my life. I started my first BBS in 87 (13 years old) and used it to build my IT consulting business. I started a 3D video production house that had the same premise: build the models for free and then work on an hourly basis to help the client utilize the models. Today I converted my print newsletters to various blogs that I post for free, which has increased my hourly rate more than enough to compensate for the time I write them.

I look at all the various cartelized industries: music, movies, software, etc. They base their future incomes on protecting the uniqueness of their software through bad laws (such as copyright and patent) rather than the free market procedure of open competition. Bands can learn from JBoss -- give your digital music away free in order to support your fan base in person. Make your money by continuing to meet your customers' needs in person, and use the previous portfolio of work to show that you're worth hiring.

Fleury may not have come to his business plan from the same political viewpoint, but I thank him openly for creating the firestorm he has. The big companies have spent years or even decades forming the law around them in order to dissuade competition from entering their markets. By taking advantage of "incumbent-protecting" patent and copyright laws, they made the barrier to entry even harder. Now they have to compete, and they have to do so in a unique manner.

When people say you can't fight big corporations, it is only because these corporations have taken the law that is supposed to protect our rights and instead made it into a preferential treatment law. Now that others understand the basis of income -- ongoing consistent work and support of your customers -- the playing field might be truly leveled so that others can come in and bring the costs down even more while increasing the quality of products and services we all use and need. That will be true, at least, if government keeps their hands off of open source and other market creations that open the door to more healthy competition. Just want until we have a bigger anti-competition board created at the federal level.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[tweek]

I agree for the most part. I appreciate the attitude Fluery has. It's the same model as RHAT and any number of open source companies. I can't stand this ideal that "making money" or "getting rich" is wrong somehow. Sure you can blast JBoss for not being entirely his invention but you can't deny the visibility he's brought to it.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[dada21]

I agree for the most part.

What parts do you disagree with? I don't necessarily mean let's open the floodgates of debate, but it helps me to get a grasp of the ideas out there. E-mail is fine, too, if you'd rather :)

I can't stand this ideal that "making money" or "getting rich" is wrong somehow.

Of course it isn't. Money is nothing but your time stored to redeem in the future. When people talk about "greedy people" they're just mad that someone found a way to sell their time to someone else for more time-saved in the future. Money is very basic, it is when we involve regulations and manipulations in the system that things fall apart.

Sure you can blast JBoss for not being entirely his invention but you can't deny the visibility he's brought to it.

I don't think you can blast someone for taking a relatively unknown market and making it wider known. Again, this is the problem we have with the patent-cartelism that exists in many software markets (and other markets). Someone with a good idea can't go out and promote it "for free" even if they wanted to, let alone for money. Competition drives the creation of better products -- it isn't patents that foster invention.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[rtaylor]

I look at all the various cartelized industries: music, movies, software, etc. They base their future incomes on protecting the uniqueness of their software through bad laws (such as copyright and patent)

Just keep in mind JBoss requires copyright law (at very least) to be in place to make a large amount of their revenue. Most of their documentation, training materials, and entry level consulting and support services (read from the internal answer book and give clients those previously prepared answers) are covered by it.

Not to mention the fact that all of the opensource software JBoss distributes requires it as well. Without copyright law you are left with public domain. The GPL requires the copyright law to restrict companies from modifying and selling GPL based products.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[dada21]

Not to mention the fact that all of the opensource software JBoss distributes requires it as well. Without copyright law you are left with public domain. The GPL requires the copyright law to restrict companies from modifying and selling GPL based products.

I understand this, but I don't think copyright necessarily does much to create JBoss's market. It seems to be almost anecdotal as there are enough ways to obfuscate open sourced code so that others don't know you've borrowed it from another project. In the long run, I seriously don't see the GPL being necessary as more and more people find ways to make money on "public domain" information.

Just give it time and open competition, and the GPL will be replaced with public domain products as more people find themselves able to compete by providing an even more competitive product at an even more competitive price.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

I partly agree with your views but the logic that producing a product for free and paying for that production via in-person services like consulting, teaching, and support seems flawed. The only way this scheme works is if you're good enough to create demand in both areas. You clearly are an accomplished producer and servicer, but I think the best producers would not necessarily be the best servicers and vice versa.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[geoffrobinson]

In regards to capitalism, I've been thinking a lot about the role of open source. It helps eliminate inefficiencies. In other words, you can get the same thing for free. And that will benefit a particular company and the overall economy. There will be more money for other things, allowing a company to get into more markets, pay higher salaries, do more R&D.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The problem with the whole "give away your products and charge for support" business model is that the thing you're getting PAID to do isn't what you WANT to do. It's stereotypical but true that many programmers aren't "people persons." They want to PROGRAM, not talk to customers all day.

Beyond that, this business model would seem to put stress in all the wrong places. If you're charging for service, you've actually got a big financial incentive NOT to make your product straightforward and bug-free; the only reason you're even MAKING a product, from a business standpoint, is so that you have something to fix.

It gets even weirder when you try to extend the model to other fields. Musicians, I can almost see, because they can potentially support themselves on income from live performances. (Even this is iffy, though, because it marginalizes some forms of music that don't lend themselves well to live shows, like electronic music.) But is a novelist supposed to give away his books for free (or for the price of distribution)? If so, how is he supposed to make a living? Are we back to the old model of artists finding wealthy patrons and writing sycophantic dedications to them in front of every book?

This isn't to say that free software is never a good idea from a business perspective. There are obviously many cases where developing free and/or open-source software can be in a company's best interest - witness Sun, IBM, etc. But I don't buy the argument that it's a universalizable business model.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[dada21]

They want to PROGRAM, not talk to customers all day.

That's why a programmer in a vacuum is useless. All manufacturing laborers (ie, programmers) need additional people to bring their manufacturer product to market. Would a guy who spot welds auto parts be fine by himself?

If you're charging for service, you've actually got a big financial incentive NOT to make your product straightforward and bug-free; the only reason you're even MAKING a product, from a business standpoint, is so that you have something to fix.

This is only true when you have government-granted monopoly powers of various kinds. People who write bad code don't necessarily last long without government favoritism. Those who write good code will find customers to help them implement new features -- no customer has unique needs that can't be marketed to all their competition. In the long run, it is this growth of customer base through positive past references that builds profit competitively.

But is a novelist supposed to give away his books for free (or for the price of distribution)? If so, how is he supposed to make a living? Are we back to the old model of artists finding wealthy patrons and writing sycophantic dedications to them in front of every book?

I published two books (one self, one through a publisher) that I always gave out freely. The books allowed me to do public speaking engagements for a fee, as well as drove people to my print newsletters that I charged for. Also, I was able to charge for autographed versions of the book if people so desired (some did). In the long run, I made more money on a 5000-run book than most authors make on a 50,000-run book published by the publisher's cartels. In fact, there are many authors of 100,000-sale books who never earn their advance. I publish my blogs for free, and since I started in November my billable rate has only gone up due to the customer base that has appeared around it. Why should I charge for what is basically marketing? One of my blogs has afforded me 3 international trips to talk to people who financed the trips -- again, why should I charge for marketing?

The Mises Institute offers almost all their e-books for free, even though you can buy them at Amazon.com. Go to Amazon and look up any of their books. For example, What has Government done to our money is available at Amazon (ranked #8971 yesterday), but you can download it for free at the publisher. Why do people buy it?

But I don't buy the argument that it's a universalizable business model.

Of course it isn't. Some products that are very hard to reverse engineer and get working in a niche market are likely not going to get copied. If I make a program that helps gay chinese midgets track their daily intake of chitin, will you pirate it? Probably not. But the 50 people out there that want the product will buy it. On the other hand, if you make a product that could have 10 million customers, why should you have a monopoly on it? 10 million customers means there is room for all to play competitively by making the best product they can at the best price possible. You balance support with pricing, your competition will also, and both can profit.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[tweek]

Actually I didn't want to agree totally simply because I've not had time to read up on anarcho-capitalism. I'm a free market guy and capitalist "pig" dyed to the wool but I think some areas I would disagree probably relate to environmental issues.

Example, in Georgia right now, we have a developer (land not software) who is in the state senate. He's introduced legislation regarding land use that basically says a land owner should be able to put whatever he wants into a waterway (of any size) because it's on his land.

The problem with this is that things like water and air are not self contained. Sure you can build a dome and pollute the air in that dome all you want but ground water and watersheds don't just exist on your property. Some of those ideas would go against some pure capitalist's ideas of government intervention. I also believe that in several areas, we should err on the side of caution because some things don't present themselves until 40 years down the road.

Sure Mr. Plant owner, dump all the mercury you want in the river. There's no problem with that.

I'm facing an issue at my house right now with air quality. My new neighbor smokes like a chimey. Now I've got no problem with people smoking even though I think it's stupid and self-destructive but the problem is that he smokes on his side porch which puts his fumes right into my upstairs bedroom window.

Now this is his property he's smoking on but it's coming on to MY property and costing me money (can't keep the windows open during the mild temperature days because the smoke irritates me and my wife so we have to run the AC instead).

I'm all for property rights as long as you can keep it on your property.

So in that sense, I probably deviate from most pure capitalists because I have no problem with the government telling this guy he can't smoke outside. I also wouldn't a have a problem with the government telling me I can't grow X/Y/Z plant on my property if the chemicals I used to keep the critters off the plants was getting into the groundwater.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

When people say you can't fight big corporations, it is only because these corporations have taken the law that is supposed to protect our rights and instead made it into a preferential treatment law.

Essentially open source works because Open Source style companies don't play by the rules that rig the game in favour of the big company encumbant. If you try to beat Oracle by selling a proprietry database, you'll crash and burn, and on the off chance you begin to succeed, Oracle will use its embedded position and vast resources to either crush you underfoot, or just buy you out.

With open source, you're not selling a big hunk of enterprise database. You're selling a nice neat package of, say, MySQL support. No licencing costs, no multicore bull, none of the regular software industry bullshit that managers hate. Just the service. You even give the customer the option to walk away, and the fear of that will keep you competative enough that they'll most likely stick to you like glue.

Meanwhile Oracle walks around looking for custom, and has to drag their whole hulking outfit along with them. How much does Oracle even cost these days? What, ten times the yearly cost of what some professional MySQL based support will cost? Give that choice to 90% of SME owners and see which they choose.

It goes for everything else. Webservers, email servers, DNS servers, Office software and, slowly but surely, desktop OSes. Software is a service, not a product. Customers are going to wake up one day and realise this, and when they do, closed source vendors had better get competative fast or die trying.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[dada21]

You bring up some good points that I'll have to ponder and write about at my anarcho-capitalist blog (see original parent post of mine in this thread). I do believe there are certain abuses that people do that would be considered trespass, but I have not pondered these specific situations enough to make an educated debateable answer.

Thanks for the answer and the insight, it is always back to the drawing board for us anarcho-capitalists :)

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

"I published two books (one self, one through a publisher) that I always gave out freely. The books allowed me to do public speaking engagements for a fee, as well as drove people to my print newsletters that I charged for... I publish my blogs for free, and since I started in November my billable rate has only gone up due to the customer base that has appeared around it. Why should I charge for what is basically marketing?"

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not making money from the books so much as you are from public speaking engagements, print newsletters, and customers for your related business.

There are plenty of writers out there who don't want to do ANY of that. I know one published novelist who's so afraid of public speaking she bit through her lip worrying about an in-class presentation. Print newsletters and other businesses are also not things a novelist would necessarily want to spend time on.

"Intellectual property" can be of at least as much value in our society as is physical property. In a capitalist society, producers often have the capability of restricting production - for example, oil companies sometimes restrict how much oil gets pumped in order to keep gas prices up, which the actually do need to do (to some degree) in order to earn enough money to pay for new research and exploration. "IP" (the scare quotes are for your benefit) is a similar case, IMO - there's a literally infinite supply available of any IP, thanks to digital media, but the supplier (i.e., the creator) restricts the flow of those copies in order to maintain a profit margin. In both cases, the producers' power is ideally held in check by free competition and market forces, but this can require a fair bit of *gasp* government regulation in the form of anti-monopolistic laws.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[dada21]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not making money from the books so much as you are from public speaking engagements, print newsletters, and customers for your related business.

Exactly! In a competitive marketplace, two things generally occur: prices move towards zero, and quality moves upwards. I found the secret to book selling: give it away and then build up your reputation as a desired speaker or consultant.

There are plenty of writers out there who don't want to do ANY of that. I know one published novelist who's so afraid of public speaking she bit through her lip worrying about an in-class presentation. Print newsletters and other businesses are also not things a novelist would necessarily want to spend time on.

If a plumber is afraid of people, would he plumb? It is wrong to think that your friend should be protected by a law because she can't compete. Should be subsidize horse-shoers and gas-lamp-lighters, too, because their markets changed? Writing books, making music, painting drawings -- they're all being replaced by new emerging markets for people to take advantage of. If your friend isn't ready to face the reality of the new information market, she'll lose out even with the law protecting her creations.

"IP" (the scare quotes are for your benefit) is a similar case, IMO - there's a literally infinite supply available of any IP, thanks to digital media, but the supplier (i.e., the creator) restricts the flow of those copies in order to maintain a profit margin.

Which is why I am against intellectual property in the first place -- when something can be easily duplicated by millions of other people, the cost of that "property" falls toward zero. When the cost of a good or service falls toward zero, the people making that good or service better find a new way to sell their labor. Those who hold on to old-style market protections (such as copyright) will find themselves left behind. It would be like the old LP-record manufacturer who decided to only make records when the tape, the CD and the MP3 came out. They'd be lost in the past with almost no customer base (except those few who still want LPs like me, heh). There is no need to protect those who are unwilling to innovate and compete.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

anarcho-capitalism (an-ark-oh kap-i-tahl-izzum): Noun - See "oxymoron".

Capitalism requires the rule of law. Otherwise, you'd just firebomb your competition's headquarters.

Well, OK, we need a police force. But, uh, make it private, because I don't like government.

Private security forces = cartels. But weren't you just complaining about cartels? Or just government-backed cartels? When it comes down to it, what's the difference?

Restraint. Good luck with that one.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[dada21]

I'm not here to convince anyone to become an anarcho-capitalist -- I just want "our" side involved in the usual two-sided debate (two parties arguing on what to control and how much to control it).

I believe your fear of too much wealth going to fewer hands is "fixed" by anarcho-capitalism. The biggest problem with wealth today is that it is stolen in ways that MOST people don't realize. For example, 99.9% of consumer goods inflation has been caused by the Federal Reserve creating new currency -- this devalues everyone's currency. The tax rates are adjusted by the government created CPI which is a false inflation index. Real inflation is much higher and will continue to rise -- this means that every year your 3% raise isn't enough to compensate for the 8% inflation rate likely happening lately.

Another wealth grabber is the Fed's policy of giving the banks the new money first, allowing them to profit from it before the prices go up. The Fed policy of setting interest rates and giving banks easy money with only a 10% reserve means that banks loan money out to people who shouldn't deserve the loan -- causing higher home prices and car prices and other large consumer goods. When they default, the bank takes over the property and then can rent it back to the people who overpaid for the property. The housing bubble was created specifically to transfer wealth from the lower and middle class to the cartel elite (bankers, brokers, etc). The dotcom bubble was no different -- transfering wealth from the same people to the cartel elite (anyone governed by the SEC).

I truly believe that wealth would be better protected on a hard money standard. I don't believe in a government enforced standard (ie a gold standard or a silver standard) but a market created one instead. I personally live on a hard money standard (all my money is either paid to me in gold or silver, or immediately converted to gold or silver for storing my wealth safely). I don't partake in credit or loans or government-enabled programs anymore, because I know it is a wealth transfer mechanism.

In the long run, all political structures are bad. This is why I prefer anarcho-capitalism: in an anarcho-capitalist NATION, individual cities and villages are free to enact whatever legislation and legal systems they want -- to better their community in the way they see fit. It also allows people like me to withdraw from those systems if we don't see benefits of them. We'd also see better trade mechanisms for enhancing our own opportunities, as well as a more balanced power-of-State since we wouldn't all be shoehorned into the same Nation structure that we are now. In today's Jacobin system, we have a huge federal government with no hope of secession if we don't like it. In a truely federalist republic, we'd at least see States being able to withdraw from bad national policymaking.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[hugo_goedel]

The JBoss story is one that is close to my heart -- it epitomizes much of what I believe in when it comes to my hardcore beliefs. I am a true capitalist (anarcho-capitalist [unanimocracy.com]) at heart, and I believe that earning money requires constant work in the field you're in.

Anarcho-capitalists shouldn't believe something which presupposes the existence of money. After all money is state-issued and only a state can grant that these little sheets of printed paper get accepted when you want to exchange them for something of real value.

If anarcho-capitalists are serious about the anarcho-part they would have to demand the abolition of state-issued money and the introduction of competing private currencies which may be accepted but wouldn't have to.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[w.p.richardson]

what about gold as money? or silver? or another precious metal? Weight in gold could be used as money without a state issuer, no?

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[ultranova]

The GPL requires the copyright law to restrict companies from modifying and selling GPL based products.

The GPL doesn't have such restrictions. In fact the GPL specifically allows anyone to distribute GPL'd code, as-is or modified or combined with any other code, as long as the modified or combined work is distributed under the GPL and the source code to the whole product is available at no extra charge.

Really, the whole purpose of GPL is to allow this kind of modification and redistribution.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[tmasssey]

I personally live on a hard money standard (all my money is either paid to me in gold or silver, or immediately converted to gold or silver for storing my wealth safely).

To what degree? I can understand converting every piece of income into gold (probably using something like http://www.e-gold.com/) instead of depositing your money into a bank account. If some gold-based micropayment system supported Visa/MC checkcards, it would actually be very little different than a bank account to me. No problem there. I've never thought or heard of it, but now that you mention it, it seems like an interesting gambit: it can't be worse than putting money into zero-interest checking accounts (FDIC insurance not withstanding)... As an aside, care to share what service you're using?

But what about investments such as stocks, bonds or mutal funds? Do you use such vehicles for storing and growing your wealth? If not, how do you grow your money? Gold is a great hedge against inflation: 300 years ago, an ounce of gold bought a good suit. Today, an ounce of gold buys a good suit. But what about investing for retirement?

For example, in every 5 year period over its history, both the S&P 500 (and other broad-based indexes of the market) have grown a minimum of 10% APR for that 5 year period. At that rate, money doubles every 7 years. You're certainly not going to get that level of growth from gold--or any other commodity. While you can certainly leverage them and make huge profits, you can wipe yourself out just as fast!

As for the incredible benefits of anarcho-capitalism: ever read The History of the Standard Oil Company by Ida Tarbell? How would anarcho-capitalism prevent the consolidation of a segment of the marketplace into a monopoly, preventing other competitors from existing and allowing the monopoly to then set prices at whatever level they choose without impunity?

It seems to me that the petroleum market in the middle 1800's was much like the IT market of the last 25 years: very little capital required to start, a brand new business segment without much in existing competition, etc. However, in both cases, within 25 years (or less) you saw the rise of a single company capable of creating a monopoly in a key segment of the business, with the ability to leverage that monopoly to dominate *every* aspect of the business. How do you see anarcho-capitalism preventing this? Particularly in the oil business: while you can make copies of Windows XP for near $0, you can't exactly make copies of oil barrels the same way...

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[The Mayor]

Since you're giving out your books for free, can I have a copy of each of them?

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[dada21]

As an aside, care to share what service you're using?

I don't use any service -- I buy bullion and coins. I usually buy them at or below the spot price since I spend a lot of time coming the obituaries to find estate sales. I don't trust e-gold nor would I ever exchange my metal for a receipt. Remember, the US dollar was once backed by gold and/or silver -- the physical notes were just IOUs from the bank for the gold you had on deposit. Those pesky bankers loved Clay/Hamilton/Lincoln's idea of a central bank, so they gave up their customers' trust in exchange for power of the currency. When the dollar was tied to gold (1 ounce of gold was worth 20 IOUs or $20), the prices in the markets were very stable. From 1800 to 1912 the dollar barely lost 5% (except during the War between States when Lincoln abandoned the 100% reserve). From 1913 to 2006 the dollar has lost over 96% because of government inflationary printing.

But what about investments such as stocks, bonds or mutal funds? Do you use such vehicles for storing and growing your wealth? If not, how do you grow your money?

I own my own businesses which generally return 25-30% on my investment as a dividend annually. I don't believe in stocks and bonds as I don't see many real profits paid from owning the shares -- most people profit by selling their sucker stock to the next sucker. I've been trending the stock market versus the loss of the value of the dollar, and since 1913 the stock market has only gone up about 500% versus the cost of living: not a very good return. Plus, money that you keep in dollar form (bank, credit card, etc) has a VERY high depreciation rate that I call "Dada's Law of Junk": if you have US$100 in your pocket, you'll likely spend it on junk that is worthless in short time.

My savings in gold and silver are very secure, and they've been relatively stable in the past 5 years. Even if gold and silver took a 30% dive, I am way ahead of where I'd be if I kept more liquid paper currency around.

For example, in every 5 year period over its history, both the S&P 500 (and other broad-based indexes of the market) have grown a minimum of 10% APR for that 5 year period. At that rate, money doubles every 7 years. You're certainly not going to get that level of growth from gold--or any other commodity. While you can certainly leverage them and make huge profits, you can wipe yourself out just as fast!

Actually this fact is more myth created by the stock brokerage market. Many stocks, when samples at random times, don't hold their value well against the declining dollar once you factor in two-way commissions, income taxes and M3 money supply inflation factors. I did a random sampling of 70 periods in the past 60 years and more than 60% of them were losers taking those factors into consideration. About 30% broke even barely, and then 10% made money. Not a good streak.

How would anarcho-capitalism prevent the consolidation of a segment of the marketplace into a monopoly, preventing other competitors from existing and allowing the monopoly to then set prices at whatever level they choose without impunity?

I haven't but I promise I'll pick it up on my next book adventure. I've reviewed Standard Oil now for years and from what I can tell from reading newspaper articles at the time as well as various political pundits of the modern era, Standard Oil was already being beaten by competition by the time government stepped in. Standard Oil did MANY good things for consumers, they reduced the price of shale oil nearly 80% if my memory serves me right. It was the other oil companies that were made because all the money they threw at government for protectionism took too long to take effect. If you e-mail me I'll e-mail you a link to another side of the SO story -- I'm in the car now so I can't look it up.

How do you see anarcho-capitalism preventing this? Particularly in the oil business: while you can make copies of Windows XP for near $0, you can't exa

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[hugo_goedel]

what about gold as money? or silver? or another precious metal? Weight in gold could be used as money without a state issuer, no?

Yes, it could - if you wanted the mine-owning nations/organizations/individuals to have all the purchasing power even without producing any consumer goods or offering any services.

Apart from that individuals can not really determine the purity of precious metals in daily life, unless they come in the form of state-issued coins (Eagle, Kruegerrand, etc.) It is for a reason that the monarchs had a monopoly on the mints for precious metals in the times when they were still used as a currency.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[rent]

GPL specifically allows anyone to distribute GPL'd code, but only if the distributed code is also GPL'd.

You cannot take GPL'd code and put it in a commercial product, that would be infringement on copyright and the license itself.

Copyright law is designed so that there is an incentive for people to produce original work. It is designed to protect artists, designers and programmers, etc, so that they can live and produce creative work without the worry that someone will exploit or abuse their work.

For example, if you create something that everyone wants, then you have the right to be rewarded for you work - especially if the work was something that required a lot of effort.

The incentive may not always be money. For GPL, the incentive is that by creating new GPL software, you will also help the cause of GPL and help other GPL programmers with creating more software. The GPL license ensures that you will be helping other GPL programmers, instead of helping commercial software.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[mOdQuArK!]

I believe your fear of too much wealth going to fewer hands is "fixed" by anarcho-capitalism.

Well, I don't agree with you here - IMO, without a systemic way to redistribute wealth, wealth will almost inevitably be concentrated in fewer hands for the simple common-sense reason that it is easier to gather wealth once you already have a decent amount (given that you don't screw up bigtime and lose all your wealth in one fell swoop). The kind of financial corruption that you described might make this process go faster, but even without such systemic bias, rich people will get richer faster than poor people.

Over a long enough period of time, and over a large population, you _will_ end up with a population of a small number of "merchant princes" and everyone else will be the equivalent of indentured servants, living at the princes' whims.

Of course, my basic assumption is that there is a relatively finite amount of desired resources relative to the overall population (which becomes more and more true as the world's population grows), resulting in a zero-sum game situation. If the world population were small enough so that no one needed to compete for resources, then there wouldn't necessary be any bad-for-society wealth & power concentration (since everyone would be filthy rich).

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[ultranova]

GPL specifically allows anyone to distribute GPL'd code, but only if the distributed code is also GPL'd.

That's what I just said.

You cannot take GPL'd code and put it in a commercial product, that would be infringement on copyright and the license itself.

Yes you can. You simply need to license the commercial product to the buyers under the GPL and give them the full source code to it. For example, any commercial Linux distribution (Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Mandriva, Suse...) will include GPL'd code - the Linux kernel itself.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[aevans]

Or pay more for training and consulting

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[aevans]

but poor people will still get richer. The rich get richer by taking a part of the poor's newly created wealth. So there is no incentive for the rich to stop the poor from getting richer.

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[mOdQuArK!]

Your assumption is that everyone can get richer at the same time. This is possible only if there is a large amount of resources available that each person can have access to.

My assumption is that, in the situation where there is a fairly small amount of available resources per person (like when you have too many people to be sustainably supported by the planet, for instance), the rich can get richer only by taking resources from the poor - resources which the poor can't replenish which taking it from someone else (most likely from other poor person).

Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism?

[petermgreen]

a distro is considered to be a collection of software rather than once peice thats how the linux distros who include commercial (non-gpl) software get away with it. Also sometimes with buying the traditional distros you were really buying the manuals not the software.

selling a purely free (as in freely copiable/resellable) product is an extremely low margin buisness as you will immediately get undercut so i'd hardly call it commercial software in the traditional sense.

Re:What the shit is with these new ads?

[Tweekster]

Well then I am gonna click them as frequently as possible so that slashdot gets charged for being ultra annoying.

Re:What the shit is with these new ads?

[Richard Steiner]

Wow... That Xerox ad is about the most obnoxious thing I've ever seen. It gets in the way of damn near everything!!

"only" $50 million a year???

[adnonsense]

... Even though JBoss brings in only $50 million a year in revenue ...

Sounds like a respectable sum to me. Where are the figures that show this is costing IBM and BEA "some hundreds of millions" in market value? The TFA doesn't say.

Re:"only" $50 million a year???

[jilles]

It's costing them in the sense that they now give away software or charge very little for their entry level products. Of course the entire market is growing exponentially so they probably made healthy revenues despite all this. But arguably, before JBoss their entry level prices were quite a bit steeper.

I hate typos.

[dwalsh]

"But while Fleury ... is something of a cult figure..."

Going certain JBoss Inc. actions (e.g. astroturfing ) this is really only one letter out.

Re:I hate typos.

[slavemowgli]

He's definitely not a cult figure, at least, that's for sure. People like RMS, Linus, John "maddog" Hall and so on are cult figures. Larry Wall is a cult figure, in a way. But Fleury? I'm pretty sure most people won't even know him; if you did a survey among FOSS developers and asked them whether they knew who Fleury is, I'd bet that 99 out of 100 wouldn't (and the last one would be one who happens to work on JBoss).

Of course, I just pulled that data out of my arse, so you shouldn't quote me on the exact figures. But seriously...

Re:I hate typos.

[sl3xd]

He's definitely not a cult figure, at least, that's for sure.

Some of us have only vaguely heard of JBoss. Even after looking it up, and finding (to no suprise) an endless stream of buzzwords, it seems that what JBoss is in a niche market.

If you're a web developer, it's probably got something to offer.

Otherwise, it's only earned a yawn.

Re:I hate typos.

[Anonymous Coward]

it seems that what JBoss is in a niche market.

Only if you consider J2EE ("enterprise java") web application (EJB, Servlets, JMS) containers a niche market. It certainly has/uses its share of buzzwords, but niche it ain't: it's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) platform for "enterprise computing", ie. big-ass companies running their server-side software on.

JBoss is competitor for (and replacement of) BEA WebLogic, IBM WebSphere, or on lower end, Jakarta Tomcat.

Above is not a comment on goodness or lack thereof of JBoss, J2EE or anything, just pointing out that niche is really a sub-optimal term for describing space JBoss is in.

Azureus

[Spy der Mann]

The computing public despises Java.

I'd been running ABC bittorrent client and it sucked, my connection was turned into a snail. Then I switched to Azureus, which is written in java. It doesn't crash, it's stable, fast, and allows me to use my bandwidth however I want.

This alone erased my prejudice against java apps in Windows.

Article Summary

[digitaldc]

Brash, outspoken, and frequently insulting father of 6-year creates open source program 'JBOSS' and makes money by supporting it. Celebrates by going out with coworkers, consumes beer and strippers.
Criticizes others for a cynical profit motive, but appears to have one of his own. Inspired by the Matrix, but ironically, people don't like him. Plans on expanding more open source projects and furthering the cynical profit motive.

Re:frist 4so7!!

[xoundmind]

Can this idiot be banned from /.???

Re:Goddammit

[Decaff]

Nobody wants your products.

Evidence?

The computing public despises Java.

So why has it just risen above C++ on sourceforce?

So what's your reason for even existing?

Portability, ease of development... etc... etc...

Fleury's Response

[retinaburn]

http://jboss.org/jbossBlog/blog/mfleury/2006/04/01 /JBoss_the_Bad_Boys_of_Open_Source.txt

A capitalist version of Richard Stallman

[AtlantaSteve]

Mark makes frequent appearances at the Atlanta Java User's Group, where I attend from time to time. He's definately a contraversial figure, but I don't think it has so much to do with him trying to (gasp!) make money in the software business. I think it's more about personality and how he carries himself, which is a "retro" style harkening back to dot-com days most would prefer to forget.

At the last user group meeting where I remember Mark speaking, he managed to drop at least a half-dozen F-bombs in addition to various fecal-related 4-letter words (this was in a BUSINESS setting). He also spent half the time pointing out how cosmopolitian he is due to years in California and Paris, and hammered home the point that anyone who questions him simply "lacks vision". In short, he comes across as EVERY obnoxious, phony, three-card-shuffle, smoke-and-mirrors aspect of the entire dot-com era... ALL distilled down into one annoying and pretentious walking sterotype.

The problem with Mark is that he makes open-source SOUND like the dot-com era redux... another batch of vaguely-qualified fruity visionaries with their half-baked business plans. The focus on Mark in the money-making open source market creates the same problems as the focus on Richard Stallman's personality over on the Gnu side. It's the messenger getting in the way of the message.

CNet Article from 2003

[MexicanMenace]

Java servers feel the open source heat

Online travel-reservation site GetThere calculated that it saved $1.6 million in licensing fees alone by going with JBoss over commercial Java application servers. That figure will double as the company brings another data center online later this year, said Todd Cinnamon, vice president of engineering at GetThere, which is owned by Sabre.

I worked at GetThere as a Senior Web Developer when they moved from BEA Weblogic to JBoss. Took the core engineering group about two weeks to make the conversion and test the entire codebase. They're still using it to this day.

Now imagine just 50 other companies that have similar needs convert to JBoss over the course of three years. There's your hundreds of millions of dollars.

JBoss and Marc Fleury

[Anonymous Coward]

Fleury may be an egotistical jackass in his press releases, and blog. There is no denying that. This makes people that might otherwise admire him, despise him.

However, the guy has created the _only_ full J2EE certified open source appserver, in approximately 1/100th the minimum disk space requirement that websphere has.

Marc also cares deeply for his users. Before we bought a contract, I called in because of a problem, and talked to Marc himself, who solved it, then we proceeded to discuss about how and when (more importantly when not) to use object messages for over 15 minutes. If that kind of treatment makes him a JO I am sure he's proud to wear the title.

He's the most sincere caring CEO of a software company I've ever talked to. In fact he's the only CEO of a software company I've ever talked to.

His company is sure to succeed or get bought trying. He isn't trying to make friends with anyone but the people that matter, his users, and he's embarassing BEA and IBM. If you stand in his way, expect to get redressed. Marc knows what he is talking about, knows what he's doing, does it as well, if not better than, anyone else, and makes no excuses or apologies. He's a 21st century cowboy.

The best argument the fanboi's of IBM and BEA have is "How can it do anything if it's that small? It's definitely not industrial strength." They all get nervous and defensive when I talk about JBoss... Websphere is a bloated fat pig with some designer lipstick on it.

Nothing to see here, move along...

-AC

Re:JBoss and Marc Fleury

[Decaff]

However, the guy has created the _only_ full J2EE certified open source appserver

No - it is not the only one.

There is also Apache Geronimo.

Re:JBoss and Marc Fleury

[obender]

He's the most sincere caring CEO of a software company I've ever talked to.

Marc, don't try to live up to all our expectations. Stop posting as AC.

Re:JBoss and Marc Fleury

[tweek]

Geronimo wasn't certified until IBM got in the mix. JBoss was there first.

Re:JBoss and Marc Fleury

[Decaff]

Geronimo wasn't certified until IBM got in the mix. JBoss was there first.

That is true, but irrelevant. The original post claimed that JBoss was the '_only_' certfied J2EE app server.

Re:JBoss and Marc Fleury

[BigGerman]

Unfortunately Geronimo is not nearly as mature as Jboss. I trust Jboss to run critical stuff and it is solid (with few minor things - HATE Jboss classloader!!!).

Re:JBoss and Marc Fleury

[aevans]

Alfred Chueng, stop posting as obender

JBoss threatened to sue Apache Geronimo

[roccomaglio]

The subtitle "Marc Fleury has taken JBoss to the top, but he has alienated many along the way" rings true. JBoss threaten a lawsuit against the Apache Geronimo project for "code similarities". This alienated a lot of open source enthusiasts. Here is the slashdot article about the claims of code similarities http://apache.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/10 /2057218.

Re:JBoss threatened to sue Apache Geronimo

[aevans]

Geronimo was spearheaded by a bunch of former JBoss developers who wanted to be able to sell a closed source copy. They used JBoss to bootstrap, and benefitted from their experience working on JBoss codebase. It's a pretty good assumption that if someone who is not in a cleanroom situation makes something that looks alot like what they are trying to clone, that there is copyright infringment. In big business you'd never get away with this. Think of the extreme measures Compaq took to reverse engineer the IBM PC BIOS. If they had merely hired some of the IBM employees who had worked on the BIOS, promising that any similarities were pure coincidence would never have stood up.

personal end of his life

[potpie]

Concerning the personal end of his life:

Brash, outspoken, and frequently insulting, Fleury has clawed his way to the top of the open-source pile over the past six years.

He will be missed.

Re:personal end of his life

[douglips]

Truly an American icon.

New ads causing problems

[Hobart]

>>Re:What the shit is with these new ads?
>>(Score:2)
>>by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Tuesday April 04, @12:26PM (#15058893)
>>
>>If you block them, they don't register as being viewed and you keep seeing them every time you try to view your new messages/user panel. Guess those are off limits for me now!
>
>Re:What the shit is with these new ads?
>(Score:2)
>by Richard Steiner (1585) on Tuesday April 04, @12:29PM (#15058929)
>(http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner | Last Journal: Wednesday March 29, @06:44PM)
>
>Wow... That Xerox ad is about the most obnoxious thing I've ever seen. It gets in the way of damn near everything!!

It's worse than that -- if you're using Opera, the Xerox flash ad code jumps the page forward to an empty page containing just the ad ... so Slashdot is unreadable with Opera if one of these ads is up -- just an empty page with one ad on it.

ObOn-Topic: I wonder how much market value Apache Harmony may take away from other companies that make JVM's ... is it still even possible to use IBM's JVM for free?

...and if nobody noticed, the recent equitable way the people who settled the issues over copyrighted code in Apache Harmony's JCHEVM relating to the Sable VM should serve as a model to folks working out code disputes. :)

Re:New ads causing problems

[Richard Steiner]

It's worse than that -- if you're using Opera, the Xerox flash ad code jumps the page forward to an empty page containing just the ad ... so Slashdot is unreadable with Opera if one of these ads is up -- just an empty page with one ad on it.

That's what I was seeing in Firefox, too. Annoying!!!!!

Thats all fine and dandy in fantasy land

[esachse]

Pure capitalism is fine and dandy in fantasy land, but you forget the nature of human beings. While some people have good intentions, many people are evil at heart.

Look at the industrial revolution. Children working in factories instead of attending school, people working in factories with deplorable and hazardous working conditions, employers paying people below living wages, employers hiring illegal aliens (still happening today).

Sorry that you do not want to pay for music. Tough shit. Who finances bands? Why do you think bands are now charging in excess of $50 to $75 for concerts? They have to because the do not make any money off CD sales. Even in the pre-recorded music days, top performers rarely performed for free. How would you like it if someone showed up at your house brandishing automatic riffles and told you to get lost or get a 30 round clip fired into your body? What if they justified their actions all in the name of the pursuit of profits?

That is pure capitalism. Without the protections of the government you would probably be just like the one of the children of the industrial revolution - working in a sweatshop factory and occasional watching a co-worker falling into the machinery and wondering why you have no opportunities in life.

Re:Thats all fine and dandy in fantasy land

[dada21]

While some people have good intentions, many people are evil at heart.

Many people? I seriously doubt this. Most people are egotistical, which is good because it allows them to maximize their benefit to themselves, which means putting them in a competitive position that in the long run means each of us is doing what we're best at.

Look at the industrial revolution.

I'm sort of sick of this part of the debate. The industrial revolution changed EVERYTHING that humankind was able to do for thousands of years -- literally every generation before it was relatively status quo. The industrial revolution fixed most of its problems on its own, and many laws to "enforce" change came after the fact.

Children working in factories instead of attending school, people working in factories with deplorable and hazardous working conditions, employers paying people below living wages, employers hiring illegal aliens (still happening today).

Children worked in factories because it allowed their households to reap income it never would have had. Public education has done nothing to make the family better, in fact I believe things are worse because of public education. The children who worked in factories did so because they were able to adapt better than the adults who were unable to take advantage of new technologies. Sure, it is sad that some children were abused and were put into safety hazards, but that is how the manufacturing industry got its start. I've been to Asia on numerous occasions and seen "child laborers" who earn more than the previous 10 generations did. This lets their children have an opportunity that they themselves did not. Do I agree with childhood labor? In some cases, yes, in other cases, no, but it is up to the families to decide. Don't quote socialist tracts if you have no firsthand experience with the benefits of working at a younger age -- you don't live in a impoverished society.

Sorry that you do not want to pay for music. Tough shit. Who finances bands? Why do you think bands are now charging in excess of $50 to $75 for concerts? They have to because the do not make any money off CD sales.

Good, that's where they should make their money -- entertainment. $50 is cheap if you factor in the true inflation of consumer goods (nearly 100% in 5 years in many cases). I own a small music production company (soon to be at http://www.nocopyrightstudios.com/ ) where we give bands money to make music in exchange for a portion of their music to be released in the accredited public domain. Most bands happily release their music this way in exchange for thousands of dollars of free production, and they turn that free music into marketing tools to bring people to their shows. The dozens of big bands that try to survive the old way will be replaced with thousands of smaller bands who will be happy with $1000 per show rather than $100,000.

How would you like it if someone showed up at your house brandishing automatic riffles and told you to get lost or get a 30 round clip fired into your body? What if they justified their actions all in the name of the pursuit of profits?

Aggression against physical property including one's body is the only place I accept the counter-use of force against another person. The music you put on CD and sell is not the product you're selling, you're selling the physical CD. If someone else can use their labor to copy that CD and sell it cheaper than you, then don't make the CD in the first place. In 5 years most musicians will not only understand this perspective, they will agree with it. The idea of profit is not a greedy one -- profit just means that you're swapping your time today for a store of time to be redeemed tomorrow at greater value to you. If you earn US$5 for 1 hour work, you can use that store of time (US$5 worth of time) to possibly save you tens or hundreds of hours in the future (say, buying a US$5 hamburger that would

Re:Thats all fine and dandy in fantasy land

[ErikZ]

Just out of curiousity, what did you think children did before the industrial revolution?

Re:Thats all fine and dandy in fantasy land

[DuckDodgers]

Many people [are evil]? I seriously doubt this. Most people are egotistical, which is good because it allows them to maximize their benefit to themselves, which means putting them in a competitive position that in the long run means each of us is doing what we're best at.

But egotistical concerns also lead people to cheat. Some people just plain aren't "best at" a damn thing. They either have a live a pretty poor life, or turn to crime. Not everyone has the potential to be an entrepreneur or skilled professional. More importantly, until robot labor takes over there will always be a high demand for unskilled (and low pay) labor, like picking fruit, janitor work, and waitress (and waitor)'ing. In a capitalist market, the vast majority of the populace will always be stuck doing low paying menial work.

Children worked in factories because it allowed their households to reap income it never would have had.

Just because child labor in factories made their lives better than it was before the Industrial Revolution, it does not mean that it made their lives good. If you take a starving man, give him meals with cocaine in them, and then exploit his addiction for the rest of his life you are no hero.

Nothing is wrong with profit -- it is the incentive that all humans use to judge their time preference.

There's nothing inherently wrong with profit. But like Ayn Rand, you're missing that many people are quite willing to break the rules of fair dealings in order to get ahead. Con artists, thieves, extortionists, liars, and defrauders can and do get away with their crimes in a capitalist market free and clear. Many other people are punished but not nearly in proportion to the extent of their crimes. How many families did Ken Lay help to bankrupt?

No, it wouldn't. The world learned so much from those who sold themselves short in the industrial revolution. Now that we have the information revolution, information is shared about rough working conditions and millions of workers are able to find better jobs in easier work environments. It isn't OSHA or any other regulation that creates a safe workplace, it is open competition of employers looking for good employees that makes the difference -- pure capitalism.

But it isn't open competition. Countries use currency manipulation to make exports cheap. Immigration laws prevent workers from legally traveling to where they can find work. A company in one country uses child labor in dangerous conditions while employers in another country are legally mandated to use adults and safety laws.

You're asserting that workers can find better, safer work without government intervention, but you don't have proof. Many of the major airline carriers in the US are driving down rank and file employee costs and then giving upper management bonuses for negotiating the concessions. Union organization in the Pennsylvania coal regions didn't start winning reasonable rights for workers until the government (finally) stopped turning a blind eye to mine bosses' violent union busting. Jobs are constantly being relocated from where workers make a good living to where workers are desperate to accept any pay rather than dying. This lowers the standard of living of the first group and exploits the plight of the second.

I'd like to believe that freedom from government intervention would ultimately turn a pure capitalist market place into a beneficial environment for almost everyone. But all I can see is rampant abuse, deceit, and for the lower class eventually serfdom and indentured servitude.

Re:frist 4so7!!

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

You're the idiot if you clicked on anything with a"goat" in the URL on Slashdot.

Fleury is an arrogant asshole.

[LongShip]

He takes impolite to a new high. His arrogance is exceeded only by his inflated ego. In my life I've never met a person who is so obviously into only one priority--himself. The man has no heart, no soul. I fail to see what value he has for our movement.

Interesting.

[willisbueller]

Browsing at -1 below the parent post actually restored some of my faith in the slashdot community ... I just wish that every post that simply disagreed with the notion that 'opensource is true capitalism' didn't get modded into obilivion. Discourse is healthy.

From the article regarding his wife's demands

[tyrione]

So he moved into his in-laws' house in Atlanta and focused on contributing to an open-source project that he and others had started in 1999, JBoss. All he wanted to do, he told his wife, was write code for free all day long. "She told me I was stupid," he says, and gave him a year to make $70,000 or else get a job. Then companies downloading JBoss software started asking him for training and support -- and offering to pay. A year later, Fleury had made more than $100,000.

"Well dear. How about you get off your ass and go get that $70,000/yr job and I'll be at home watching the kid while I program? Mmmkay?"

Re:From the article regarding his wife's demands

[CottonEyedJoe]

"Well dear. How about you get off your ass and go get that $70,000/yr job and I'll be at home watching the kid while I program? Mmmkay?"

One day, when you have kids and you've "watched the kid while you program" you'll understand how rediculously silly your comment was.

Pressured to code

[hpcanswers]

I was at LinuxWorld, Sydney, last week. I met a rep from JBoss who immediately started asking me to code for his product. I kept explaining to him that I don't know the first thing about application servers. Didn't matter; he still kept pressuring me to write for him. Essentially, he wanted me to code for free while JBoss makes money. Yeah, I'll get right on that.

I keep hearing this about Marc Fleury...

[PCM2]

...I keep hearing that Fleury is unlikeable. That people hate him for his outspoken, brash style, etc. That he's money grubbing, that he's bad for open source -- whatever.

Funny thing is, the one or two times I've spoken to him in person I've walked away going, "Now there's a guy with his head on straight."

To each his own, I guess.

Re:I keep hearing this about Marc Fleury...

[digitaldc]

Funny thing is, the one or two times I've spoken to him in person I've walked away going, "Now there's a guy with his head on straight."

Honestly, I don't know the guy. I was just writing an article summary.
I think that he might have treated you a bit better than the rest of the 'money-grubbing' world, realizing that you are not a threat to his interests.

Re:I keep hearing this about Marc Fleury...

[PCM2]

I think that he might have treated you a bit better than the rest of the 'money-grubbing' world, realizing that you are not a threat to his interests.

Well ... full disclosure, I'm press. So that's not exactly true.

Re:I keep hearing this about Marc Fleury...

[ArsenneLupin]

Well ... full disclosure, I'm press. So that's not exactly true.

Well, press becomes less of a threat if you treat them nicely, obviously.

Re:I keep hearing this about Marc Fleury...

[PCM2]

Well, press becomes less of a threat if you treat them nicely, obviously.

Of course. But the standard technique for dealing with press types for whom you have contempt is to try the "baffle them with bullshit" routine -- this guy has no clue what I'm talking about so I'll just make up some big speech and then walk away while his head's still spinning. I didn't get that from Fleury. Does he make with the hard-hittin' business talk? Sure. But I really do think that's what a lot of customers are looking for, particularly when it comes to assuaging their fears about the viability of open source companies.

Re:I keep hearing this about Marc Fleury...

[aevans]

There is a pretty strong marketing campaign (to the tune of several hundred millions of dollars potential revenue) to dissuade people from using JBoss, so take criticism "buzz" with a grain of salt. Note that I don't have anything to do with JBoss, or any of its direct competitors, and have never met Marc Fluery, or any of his detractors. Most of his most outspoken critics have received large checks from IBM, BEA, etc.

Re:I keep hearing this about Marc Fleury...

[aevans]

The press might become a bigger threat if your competitor buys lots of advertising from them and takes them out to buy them beers, strippers, etc.

Maybe that's the Neo metaphor...

[woodsrunner]

By day he tends the net for Super Mario, by night he codes for open source profits.

But I hear Patty Roy is working in Redmond now that he has retired from the Av's. so Fleury isn't alone in making the jump from tending the net to coding for it...

Re:STILL fantasy land

[dada21]

Cool. You have a few websites. GoDaddy.com must be proud.

They should be, the get enough of my money as well as most of my customers who need a company that actually answers the phone. They're not geeky enough for most slashdotters, but 2 out of 3 problems I've had with hosting were my own damn fault for trying to do it myself.

Without the governmental reforms, there would be no information revolution. You should have paid attention in high shool instead of running BBS's.

That's typical socialist claptrap and it's been disproven time and again. The governmental reforms came AFTER industries had already been making steps to entice the next generation of workers who were familiar with industrial machines. Paying attention to high school means becoming fodder for the politicians, as far as I can tell. It also means working a junk 40 hour a week job for a terrible income, hoping that your 401K will be enough, but it won't, so you pass on your retirement costs to the next generation to pay. No thanks.

How about this model - no CD's for the public, only the radio industries get CD's. Public domain my ass. Bands perform music for cash, booze, and babes - and I am not sure if you know anything about two out of the three.

I have very little cash but I own all my homes clear, as well as my cars, and I travel without "charging it." My wife is hot, and as for booze, and on the rare occasion when I do partake, it is always quality product. Considering that I own a production company and we're building a studio, I think I know more about what rock stars want than you -- and I think you're way off.

I could go on and debate your bullshit point by point, but I do not have time for a clown like you. Have fun in fantasy land, just don't complain when your buzz wears off and reality hits you in the face.

I'm living reality right now -- earning a living without government force to back me up, and creating a strong name for myself by backing up my work with open knowledge of my successes and losses so others can take my ideas and compete with me -- making me a better resource for those willing to pay my rates. In the long run, the best thing for me is MORE competition, not less. From the attitude you have, I can see that you won't be one of those competitors, but it was a nice debate nonetheless.

no mod points...

[WiseWeasel]

No one has mod points anymore 'cuz they're all on digg...

Shill?

[pilkul]

This post looks really fishy to me. The praise of JBoss and trashing of its competitors is just too extravagant. And I've never seen an Anonymous Coward sign their post with "-AC" before, and it indicates that the writer is self-conscious of his anonymity instead of just not bothering to create an account (and if the claims made are true, why bother posting anonymously?). Considering the allegations of astroturfing around JBoss, I'm almost certain the parent is a shill.

Re:"about the business and personal end of his lif

[mOOzilla]

No, you are not the only sick bastard here :)

BEA loses mindshare not just because JBoss is free

[fishbowl]

It would not have mattered in my shop that JBoss was free. We migrated away from Weblogic *after* paying for it, and *after* having it in production for years.

Despite what BEA's marketing and training droids will tell you, there are many situations where JBoss works better. Much, much better.

I think the space where app servers like this really live, is a pretty small town to begin with. Lots of people in the industry are quite confused by the whole idea of J2EE, see it as a solution looking for a problem, don't really see the point, etc. If you don't know why you need a J2EE app server, you probably don't. If you *do* know, you ought to be able to see past the hype and into the reality.

Now, don't get me wrong. There are some situations where BEA Weblogic scales better, in some ways, out of the box. Admins tend to prefer WLS as a blackbox (it requires very little maintenance), whereas developers tend to prefer JBoss as a whitebox.

I have seen situations where a company stuck with BEA because they'd already spent the money on it. I don't actually disagree with that reasoning, but I wonder if they spent that money (LOTS of it) while their own developers were screaming "NO!"

Re:What's the value proposition

[Decaff]

of JBoss these days? Weren't the obosoleted by the Spring Framework for the most part?

This is an interesting point, for several reasons.

Firstly, Spring does obsolete some of J2EE, but only some. It also integrates and works very well with other parts of it. Some people think of Spring as a replacement for J2EE. In fact, it simply makes a lot of it far easier to use.

Secondly, the huge success of Spring shows that you don't need the appalling attitude of JBoss. Spring developers seem to have a completely different and far less arrogant attitude - which is that whatever you want to do, whatever approach you want to take, they will try and make development easier for you.

Spring shows that nice guys can definitely succeed. And, to be honest, the attitude of some JBoss guys actually puts some of us off using their product.

Please don't mod me down

[4D6963]

Please don't mod me down for this, but has anyone noticed how Marc Fleury sounds alot like McDonald's McFlurry? if this story had been posted a few days ago I would have thought it was a bad joke