I think Jeff assumes Sun and MySQL's goal in "business reality" is to become a "powerful closed source incumbent." But that may not be the thing to do. To continue Jeff's save the planet/animal theme, would my goal at the end of the Cretaceous period be to become a "powerful incumbent" dinosaur? What if I knew the asteroid was on the way? Would I instead choose to become a "marginal" mammal? Sure.
Jeff then says there is no "free lunch." But open source is a free lunch. I, and every individual database user, can save money if open source companies like MySQL are successful. I can also say the same thing about a lot of other types of open source companies, present and future. And when enough people and companies start to think like I do -- the asteroid arrives.
This open source mindset is a way for everybody except "powerful closed source incumbents" to save a lot of money. We keep it -- they don't get it. So I and a rapidly increasing number of other people support open source. We support companies that support open source. We oppose companies that oppose open source. That's the "business reality," Jeff.
I could also say that open source is a better way to support innovation. But that is another topic.
I think the article points out the fundamental differences between Microsoft and Google. Style-wise: Microsoft competes -- Google innovates. Tool-wise: Microsoft uses the OS and the Office Suite -- Google uses the browser and the Google-plex (its version of the "cloud").
Microsoft hopes that its monopoly products (Windows and Office) and its competitiveness can be used to successfully control innovation. Google hopes that the velocity of its innovation into the Google-plex will be such as to leave Microsoft in its dust.
So I believe Google when it says its not competing with Microsoft. It would have to slow down, change direction, and fight to do so. That would be a big mistake. It is not a fighting company and its products don't make for good weapons. There is only one thing Google can do to live -- run. Run to a place where Microsoft can't compete.
Here at the Yucca Mountain Project, we are evaluating an Open Source application called eNote . To use it, you need a web server that can run Perl.
Although editing is straightforward, the application is not so much for collaborative editing as it is for collaborative documentation of work and data. Here is the first paragraph from the eNote web site:
An electronic R&D Notebook is the electronic equivalent of a paper research notebook. Instead of recording information on paper, the sketches, text, equations, images, graphs, signatures, and other data are recorded on electronic notebook "pages", which can be read and navigated just like in a paper notebook. Instead of writing with a pen and taping in images and graphs, reading and adding to an electronic notebook is done through a computer and can involve input from keyboard, sketchpads, mouse, image files, microphone, and directly from scientific instruments. Electronic notebook software varies in how much it "looks and feels" like a paper notebook, but all the basic functions of a paper notebook are present. In addition, electronic notebooks allow easier input of scientific data and the ability for collaborators in different geographic locations to share the record of ideas, data and events of the joint experiments and research programs.
Slashdot Mirror
Currently, three stories up from here is this: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/10/02/2212202/researchers-show-how-easy-it-is-to-manipulate-online-opinions
Note how negative comments have no effect while positive ones seem to have an undue effect.
I think Jeff assumes Sun and MySQL's goal in "business reality" is to become a "powerful closed source incumbent." But that may not be the thing to do. To continue Jeff's save the planet/animal theme, would my goal at the end of the Cretaceous period be to become a "powerful incumbent" dinosaur? What if I knew the asteroid was on the way? Would I instead choose to become a "marginal" mammal? Sure.
Jeff then says there is no "free lunch." But open source is a free lunch. I, and every individual database user, can save money if open source companies like MySQL are successful. I can also say the same thing about a lot of other types of open source companies, present and future. And when enough people and companies start to think like I do -- the asteroid arrives.
This open source mindset is a way for everybody except "powerful closed source incumbents" to save a lot of money. We keep it -- they don't get it. So I and a rapidly increasing number of other people support open source. We support companies that support open source. We oppose companies that oppose open source. That's the "business reality," Jeff.
I could also say that open source is a better way to support innovation. But that is another topic.
I think the article points out the fundamental differences between Microsoft and Google. Style-wise: Microsoft competes -- Google innovates. Tool-wise: Microsoft uses the OS and the Office Suite -- Google uses the browser and the Google-plex (its version of the "cloud"). Microsoft hopes that its monopoly products (Windows and Office) and its competitiveness can be used to successfully control innovation. Google hopes that the velocity of its innovation into the Google-plex will be such as to leave Microsoft in its dust. So I believe Google when it says its not competing with Microsoft. It would have to slow down, change direction, and fight to do so. That would be a big mistake. It is not a fighting company and its products don't make for good weapons. There is only one thing Google can do to live -- run. Run to a place where Microsoft can't compete.
Here at the Yucca Mountain Project, we are evaluating an Open Source application called eNote . To use it, you need a web server that can run Perl.
Although editing is straightforward, the application is not so much for collaborative editing as it is for collaborative documentation of work and data. Here is the first paragraph from the eNote web site:
An electronic R&D Notebook is the electronic equivalent of a paper research notebook. Instead of recording information on paper, the sketches, text, equations, images, graphs, signatures, and other data are recorded on electronic notebook "pages", which can be read and navigated just like in a paper notebook. Instead of writing with a pen and taping in images and graphs, reading and adding to an electronic notebook is done through a computer and can involve input from keyboard, sketchpads, mouse, image files, microphone, and directly from scientific instruments. Electronic notebook software varies in how much it "looks and feels" like a paper notebook, but all the basic functions of a paper notebook are present. In addition, electronic notebooks allow easier input of scientific data and the ability for collaborators in different geographic locations to share the record of ideas, data and events of the joint experiments and research programs.