Over the past couple of years the "soup du jour" of the "Open Source Business Model" has been the notion of software as a service. While, I firmly believe that this is the way software should be marketed, I've yet to be convinced that anyone has found the "way". With Ximian, Eazel, and a host of other companies offering the promise of value added services for their software, what in your opinion sets Red Hat apart from the rest?
Ever used Exchange 2000 and Exchange 2000 Conferencing Server?
Trust me Domino and Sametime was a big step up. E2K was so badly rushed to market that when it came out last fall, it was hardly any better than beta. We didn't have to rebuild our Domino server at least once every other week and Sametime certainly scaled up a lot better than E2K Conf. MS designed the E2K to scale, but only by adding machines and tweaking the topology for front-end and back-end servers. We were able to achieve comparable results with half the machines using Domino and Sametime.
I totally agree, especially after seeing them at work. Their answer to everything, and I mean everything, was, "Oh, you need to do X, well that's easy, just write a COM object." And when you asked them how they would do X with a COM object they would say, "Oh, well I'll have to get back to you, I did something like that a couple of months ago, I'll look at the code and get back to you." They never would.
Unfortunately, our client at the time was a non technical bunch (.COMers)and believed that MS was the only way. We were about 45% of a big integration project. Licensing drove the cost of their app up to $750,000 US. They planned on selling it for a cool Mil. To my knowledge (no longer w/ the company) they still haven't sold it to anyone.
Recently there was a string of ads on the radio in Boston, that they were calling a temporary truce that they wouldn't be targeting any new companies. The gist of the message was get your act together, because we're coming after you as soon as the truce is up.
I agree, this is a legitimate business practice, but that doesn't make it wise.
First of all, Microsoft's licensing terms and conditions are unbelievably vague, and not just for the operating system licenses, but for the applications and client access licenses as well.
Try developing a custom application using Exchange 2000, Conferencing Server, and SQL Server 2000 to be accessed by internal users, business partners, and transient consultants. Now imagine the project has a dedicated MS salesperson, and a squad of MS consultants who all have completely differing opinions on what requires a license and what does not. Now take it one step further, and imagine that someone at Microsoft thinks you're missing some licenses and demands a license audit. You spend the next two days trying to piece together what you have, what MS thinks you need, and what you really do need. It happened to my previous company, and after a week of arguing with MS were ultimately vindicated, when the know nothing in licensing was proved wrong.
Now I'm not saying that it isn't within MS's right to do so, but you should seriously consider the impact such a position will have on your customers. That situation so infuriated our CTO, that are next big _similar_ project used Domino and Sametime.
I fail to see how this was moderated as Flamebait. It may be a little flippant, but its hardly incendiary, unless Bill G's been moderating again.
Of course, I could be biased because I happen to agree with the poster. The simple truth is that this tactic is nothing but good for Linux and friends. Take for instance the Alaska Airlines bit. The overall cost of the project was going to exceed their acceptable budget by $250,000. For a small airline, still suffering from a tarnished image that is just way too much money.
I fully expect that we will see this scenario replayed many more times with different companies and I'd bet that most aren't going to be willing to shelf a good idea, when there is a more economical solution.
Why do these people comply with Micro$oft's requests for license audits?
Because licenses are binding contracts and they can be fined for breaking them.
It seems to me that if a company owns the hardware, and knows that they at least got an OEM license for Windows with the machine, they should be able to tell Micro$oft to take their audit request and shove it.
This assumes that they only license stand alone operating systems and don't have any kind of applications or services requiring client access like SQL Server or Exchange.
So does anyone know what happens if a company refuses to audit?
You pray you can't be sued in a state that has passed UCITA. Maryland and Virginia, I think.
Exactly! My wife's best friend's mother is the secretary of one of my State's Reps (whom I can't stand, nor her for that matter:o) told me they set up a web form to submit emails and that the person's address was required to submit an email. In this particular office, a couple of interns would read through every mail and verify that at the very least the street existed in that town before they included it in any briefing, summary, or passed it on to the Congressman.
I doubt however, that very many congressmen bother with that though.
A valid point, but I don't really consider Compaq, HP, or Sun Linux based businesses. IBM on the other hand is definitely moving that way, albeit slowly.
When your revenue has grown 100% and your net losses are 4.4 Million less than a year ago, making no money is a hell of a lot better than losing it. Besides, _if_ they maintain their present rate of growth they'll be in the black by Q2. That is something to be happy about.
Go to your back, then scroll down until you find your ass. Once there place your hands firmly on your ass cheecks and push. You should hear a loud popping sound as your head becomes dislodged. You are now free to experience humor and laugh.
...Ya know I don't think he'll find this funny either, but oh well.
Yes, there are hundreds of miles of dark fiber in the US. However, its not a case of it not being used yet, its there for fault tolerance. A lot of internet backbone companies (Genuity, UUnet, PSInet, etc.) maintain some duplicate runs in the event of a fiber cut. They want to make sure that if a high traffic run breaks, they have another run that can handle the traffic while they hunt down the break and patch it.
Of course its painful and in my opinion it should be. First of all, installing Oracle 8i on _any_ hardware with less tham 128mb is insane. Sure, you can use it as a simplistic test environment, but even in a development environment, especialy with the Java option, you've got to be nuts. The minimum size for the SGA with the Java option is around 58MB. That's more than half your physical memory gone, that leaves around 56M for Windows 2000, and anyone can tell you that Win2K Server is not a very happy camper at that low of memory. Throw, the very nice IDE, but resource hungry JDeveloper, and your machine must beg for mercy every time you start it up.
The problem with your post is that two of the three pacages you talk about are server applications. Use WinNT Workstation, drop Oracle 8i, and install JDeveloper and that box will be fine. A P2-300 w/114MB is more than capable of being a desktop machine.
BTW, I'm running Oracle 8i on a Dual Pentium II 233mhz with 256MB on Red Hat 6.2 and I would still only consider it a development machine. I wouldn't run a production environment on it without 512M.
Actually its originally a Simon & Garfunkel lyric from the Sounds of Silence, but RUSH does kick ass.
BTW, Hardball was a driving force in my first upgrade. Although I was ultimately disappointed when I learned I could bunt guys around the bases at will.:(
I'm totally unsure, but I think they can sue you for violating their trademark because it is so similar as to be misleading. They might even have an easier time if they demonstrate that your intention is to deceive.
However, like I said, I'm not to certain about this.
This is very true, I think that Joe Consumer, doesn't give a damn about brand of CPU. The big deal now is price. AMD has silenced a lot of vocal critics in the media with their quality. It used to be that every AMD review had a paragraph or two about their past quality issues. Even though those problems were isolated and way in the past you used to see those pot shots everywhere. Now AMD has proven themselves in the media and more importantly with their customers both OEM's and consumers alike. Now that the playing field has been leveled the only thing that matters is price.
I laughed, but this isn't funny. It's all too true.
I have to laugh when people (non-technical people) complain about how a computer is obsolete the day you buy it. To which I am always inclined to ask what they are doing with their computer that it can't keep up. The answers are almost always the same, word processing, email, and browsing. They simply think that becauses there is something faster out there that theirs is somehow obsolete.
Hardware companies are building jets, and most software companies are simply building bigger biplanes with gold plated instruments, leather seats, and a teak prop.
I agree with you completely, but I say push on boys and girls.
As the people who have to have the fastest chips start to gobble these up the prices are going to to fall even further on their slower, but capable cousins and that is always good.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially when you consider how old that design is.
Hi Bob,
Over the past couple of years the "soup du jour" of the "Open Source Business Model" has been the notion of software as a service. While, I firmly believe that this is the way software should be marketed, I've yet to be convinced that anyone has found the "way". With Ximian, Eazel, and a host of other companies offering the promise of value added services for their software, what in your opinion sets Red Hat apart from the rest?
Thank you.
Ever used Exchange 2000 and Exchange 2000 Conferencing Server?
Trust me Domino and Sametime was a big step up. E2K was so badly rushed to market that when it came out last fall, it was hardly any better than beta. We didn't have to rebuild our Domino server at least once every other week and Sametime certainly scaled up a lot better than E2K Conf. MS designed the E2K to scale, but only by adding machines and tweaking the topology for front-end and back-end servers. We were able to achieve comparable results with half the machines using Domino and Sametime.
I totally agree, especially after seeing them at work. Their answer to everything, and I mean everything, was, "Oh, you need to do X, well that's easy, just write a COM object." And when you asked them how they would do X with a COM object they would say, "Oh, well I'll have to get back to you, I did something like that a couple of months ago, I'll look at the code and get back to you." They never would.
Unfortunately, our client at the time was a non technical bunch (.COMers)and believed that MS was the only way. We were about 45% of a big integration project. Licensing drove the cost of their app up to $750,000 US. They planned on selling it for a cool Mil. To my knowledge (no longer w/ the company) they still haven't sold it to anyone.
Recently there was a string of ads on the radio in Boston, that they were calling a temporary truce that they wouldn't be targeting any new companies. The gist of the message was get your act together, because we're coming after you as soon as the truce is up.
I agree, this is a legitimate business practice, but that doesn't make it wise.
First of all, Microsoft's licensing terms and conditions are unbelievably vague, and not just for the operating system licenses, but for the applications and client access licenses as well.
Try developing a custom application using Exchange 2000, Conferencing Server, and SQL Server 2000 to be accessed by internal users, business partners, and transient consultants. Now imagine the project has a dedicated MS salesperson, and a squad of MS consultants who all have completely differing opinions on what requires a license and what does not. Now take it one step further, and imagine that someone at Microsoft thinks you're missing some licenses and demands a license audit. You spend the next two days trying to piece together what you have, what MS thinks you need, and what you really do need. It happened to my previous company, and after a week of arguing with MS were ultimately vindicated, when the know nothing in licensing was proved wrong.
Now I'm not saying that it isn't within MS's right to do so, but you should seriously consider the impact such a position will have on your customers. That situation so infuriated our CTO, that are next big _similar_ project used Domino and Sametime.
I fail to see how this was moderated as Flamebait. It may be a little flippant, but its hardly incendiary, unless Bill G's been moderating again.
Of course, I could be biased because I happen to agree with the poster. The simple truth is that this tactic is nothing but good for Linux and friends. Take for instance the Alaska Airlines bit. The overall cost of the project was going to exceed their acceptable budget by $250,000. For a small airline, still suffering from a tarnished image that is just way too much money.
I fully expect that we will see this scenario replayed many more times with different companies and I'd bet that most aren't going to be willing to shelf a good idea, when there is a more economical solution.
Why do these people comply with Micro$oft's requests for license audits?
Because licenses are binding contracts and they can be fined for breaking them.
It seems to me that if a company owns the hardware, and knows that they at least got an OEM license for Windows with the machine, they should be able to tell Micro$oft to take their audit request and shove it.
This assumes that they only license stand alone operating systems and don't have any kind of applications or services requiring client access like SQL Server or Exchange.
So does anyone know what happens if a company refuses to audit?
You pray you can't be sued in a state that has passed UCITA. Maryland and Virginia, I think.
Exactly! My wife's best friend's mother is the secretary of one of my State's Reps (whom I can't stand, nor her for that matter :o) told me they set up a web form to submit emails and that the person's address was required to submit an email. In this particular office, a couple of interns would read through every mail and verify that at the very least the street existed in that town before they included it in any briefing, summary, or passed it on to the Congressman.
I doubt however, that very many congressmen bother with that though.
Its probably a cardboard mock-up.
A valid point, but I don't really consider Compaq, HP, or Sun Linux based businesses. IBM on the other hand is definitely moving that way, albeit slowly.
Not all companies start their fiscal year in January, or July for that matter. Red Hat's fiscal year runs April to March.
When your revenue has grown 100% and your net losses are 4.4 Million less than a year ago, making no money is a hell of a lot better than losing it. Besides, _if_ they maintain their present rate of growth they'll be in the black by Q2. That is something to be happy about.
...some good news about Linux based businesses for a change.
Sure beats the news coming out of Turbo, VA, Eazel, SuSE, and Corel of late. I only they can sustain this growth.
And if that doesn't work he should....
Go to your back, then scroll down until you find your ass. Once there place your hands firmly on your ass cheecks and push. You should hear a loud popping sound as your head becomes dislodged. You are now free to experience humor and laugh.
...Ya know I don't think he'll find this funny either, but oh well.
hmmm...VB? Viral Bacterium?
Ooh. You had better get that looked at.
You had better throw out that mouse, reformat the drive and make sure you degaus your monitor too. You can never be too sure.
Yes, there are hundreds of miles of dark fiber in the US. However, its not a case of it not being used yet, its there for fault tolerance. A lot of internet backbone companies (Genuity, UUnet, PSInet, etc.) maintain some duplicate runs in the event of a fiber cut. They want to make sure that if a high traffic run breaks, they have another run that can handle the traffic while they hunt down the break and patch it.
Because, that would require forethought, planning, and a willingness to spend more money now to save money later.
You have got to be crazy!
Of course its painful and in my opinion it should be. First of all, installing Oracle 8i on _any_ hardware with less tham 128mb is insane. Sure, you can use it as a simplistic test environment, but even in a development environment, especialy with the Java option, you've got to be nuts. The minimum size for the SGA with the Java option is around 58MB. That's more than half your physical memory gone, that leaves around 56M for Windows 2000, and anyone can tell you that Win2K Server is not a very happy camper at that low of memory. Throw, the very nice IDE, but resource hungry JDeveloper, and your machine must beg for mercy every time you start it up.
The problem with your post is that two of the three pacages you talk about are server applications. Use WinNT Workstation, drop Oracle 8i, and install JDeveloper and that box will be fine. A P2-300 w/114MB is more than capable of being a desktop machine.
BTW, I'm running Oracle 8i on a Dual Pentium II 233mhz with 256MB on Red Hat 6.2 and I would still only consider it a development machine. I wouldn't run a production environment on it without 512M.
Actually its originally a Simon & Garfunkel lyric from the Sounds of Silence, but RUSH does kick ass. BTW, Hardball was a driving force in my first upgrade. Although I was ultimately disappointed when I learned I could bunt guys around the bases at will. :(
I'm totally unsure, but I think they can sue you for violating their trademark because it is so similar as to be misleading. They might even have an easier time if they demonstrate that your intention is to deceive. However, like I said, I'm not to certain about this.
This is very true, I think that Joe Consumer, doesn't give a damn about brand of CPU. The big deal now is price. AMD has silenced a lot of vocal critics in the media with their quality. It used to be that every AMD review had a paragraph or two about their past quality issues. Even though those problems were isolated and way in the past you used to see those pot shots everywhere. Now AMD has proven themselves in the media and more importantly with their customers both OEM's and consumers alike. Now that the playing field has been leveled the only thing that matters is price.
I laughed, but this isn't funny. It's all too true.
I have to laugh when people (non-technical people) complain about how a computer is obsolete the day you buy it. To which I am always inclined to ask what they are doing with their computer that it can't keep up. The answers are almost always the same, word processing, email, and browsing. They simply think that becauses there is something faster out there that theirs is somehow obsolete.
Hardware companies are building jets, and most software companies are simply building bigger biplanes with gold plated instruments, leather seats, and a teak prop.
I agree with you completely, but I say push on boys and girls.
As the people who have to have the fastest chips start to gobble these up the prices are going to to fall even further on their slower, but capable cousins and that is always good.