That Craig Conway, CEO of Peoplesoft (ERP), was once an Oracle VP.
That Tom Siebel, CEO of Siebel Systems (CRM), was once an Oracle VP.
Oracle has chased multi-million dollar businesses right out of its management structure - and then spent millions trying to duplicate this competing software to (re)capture market share.
I would be really interested to hear Larry's take on Oracle's mistakes. I'd also like to hear how he plans to compete with a free product from SAP-MySQL that begins to implement the equivalent features of his database.
Why didn't mp3.com collaborate with bittorrent, gnutella, etc. to build a collaborative network? Their most popular music could have been mirrored on many hundreds of nodes, and their bandwidth costs could have been slashed.
They could have written an "mp3com.exe" which acted as a distributed client rump webserver. Their website could then dynamically alter the URLs of popular songs, allowing IE surfers to download from the distributed clients, sparing mp3.com's bandwidth.
Users could be motivated to install the "mp3com.exe" application because it would enable access to additional client archives held behind firewalls. The client would never delete downloaded mp3s, but continue to share them.
Just because you have a lot of data to share, doesn't necessarily mean that you need a lot of bandwidth.
...Red Hat Linux on all my own systems at home and at work, a major corporate effort has emerged at my company to migrate our Oracle Apps installations from HP Superdome to Linux (Oracle is agressively "suggesting" this option).
Procurement has purchased AS2.1. I have purchased a supported SUSE distribution. I am encouraging SUSE over Red Hat for the following reasons:
Support of LVM
Support of filesystems with a dynamic number of inodes (Reiser/XFS)
An unarguably better KDE implementation
AS3 is not (currently) an option
Red Hat support is going through a major sea change; it is impossible to forsee Red Hat's support status for any and all distributions in two years time (you've broken promises before [like the 2.4 kernel for RH7])
Novell/SUSE is a much larger company than yourself, and seems to be a better bet
What reasons would you offer for me NOT to make these recommendations?
p.s. Sorry for sounding like somebody from Gartner.
OS X 10.1 users are still waiting for a patched SSH.
While Apple includes server software in OS X, Apple is not excited about you actually making use of this software (they would rather that you buy OS X Server), so it will constantly be a thorn in your side.
I've thought about OS X server applications, but...
I don't care for their support policies
Apple likes to use support to cut OS functionality (itunes)
/etc/passwd is a rump, and the c library pulls from an Apple licensing daemon, which makes me uncomfortable
The FS also makes me uncomfortable (non-UNIX-native OS9 FS, journaling is a 20% performance hit)
The "repair filesystem permissions" maintenance gives me the willies.
Apple doesn't seem to be jumping up and down about any sort of standards compliance (POSIX, UNIX98, etc.)
There is a lawsuit between Apple and X/Open (OSF) about Apple's claims that OS X is "UNIX." X/Open says that it most certainly is not. Apple should license and certify.
Prebinding/optimizing Objective C applications has become a voodoo rite.
It seems like a good deal at first, but look before you leap.
Just ask any of the users of failed server/desktop environments - what makes a platform sink or swim? It's the applications, stupid.
Apple is now building an environment of third-party UNIX desktop applications. While there may be architectural/performance problems with Objective C (everything is late-bound), why has the Linux/BSD crowd mostly ignored the question of a little poaching of this developer base?
Why not get GNUSTEP into shape, then approach Adobe and get a Photoshop port for Linux/x86?
Of course, expect Apple to begin to introduce components into Mac OS X that would be (even more) difficult to replicate in open source code.
Apple is supporting itself on gcc and BSD. I see no reason that GNU and BSD shouldn't take market share in exchange.
DITZEL In terms of technology that might save us, in the last few years we've heard a lot about something called silicon on insulator, a variation of standard CMOS. Is that going to replace standard CMOS technology in the future?
DOBBERPUHL Well, the proponents would say that it will, and the opponents will say that it won't, and only time will tell. The issue I think it struggles with is that it has an advantage over standard silicon in terms of performance and power of about 25 to 30 percent--which is about what you gain from one generation of silicon technology. It is a more complex technology, and it is more expensive. Because it's not in widespread usage, it's not at the same level of development as standard silicon at any point in time. That lag can wipe out its advantage. So it has been a struggle for it to go mainstream. Certainly there are those who predict that it will. But it's not there yet.
I believe that the Opteron and Athlon 64 are both SOI designs (and Opteron has been in production for 6+ months).
Isn't the G5 also SOI? Isn't that a specialty of IBM Microelectronics?
Why would they imply that this (obviously) mature technology isn't?
RedHat was in this market until recently (they even maintained an embedded OS separate from Linux).
Linux is only difficult to use on a vastly diverse platform such as the x86 pc market. Standardize the platform, and Linux support and usability become magnitudes easier (no reason for kernel modules, for example).
Szulik's dad may be too dumb to use Linux on a pc, but he could probably manage to figure out how to use a Motorola Linux cellphone.
I can see why RedHat is focused on the pc, but they are more than a little presumptuous to assert that everyone else is, too.
Novell has already invested heavily into UNIX by buying UNIX Systems Laboratories (USL) from AT&T. It didn't work out. Why are things different now?
Novell previously had strong ties to SCO/Caldera/SCaldera. SUSE also has/had strong ties via the UnitedLinux project. The contractual ties between the combined entity will be even stronger.
Ray Noorda and The Canopy Group must be seen as the primary instigator of SCO's assertions over the Linux kernel, with Microsoft a close second. While Ray Noorda lost control over Novell, what level of influence does he still retain over the company?
Somehow, I do not think that we are seeing the big picture.
Organizations will always be extending the functionality of software into their areas of interest. When the last piece of proprietary software falls into the ocean of GPL/BSD open source, all money will be made in customization and maintenance.
...if I may say so, as I install the Oracle E-Business Suite on SUSE.
I now only choose RedHat when it is technically superior (which is quite rare). I no longer have any dedication to them for their adherence to the GPL.
Apple includes server components in the standard version of Mac OS X. There is no warning not to use them because of lack of support. Until now, anyway.
Open "about this mac" off the apple menu, then click the "more info" button. The apple system profiler will open, and after a short delay you will get a report that includes the cache size.
...as it usually takes 6-8 months for macsales to drop the price to this point.
And for those who don't think that a beige g3 could be classed as a server... well, mine has a 350mhz g4 upgrade, and it's faster than my HP K380s (6-way 240mhz).
David Goldsmith, director of research for @stake, a security company that found four of the vulnerabilities, confirmed that Apple said it wasn't going to patch the flaws in earlier versions of the software.
"In my initial conversations with them, they said they weren't going to fix 10.2, but I wouldn't be surprised if they change that," he said.
Such a statement, aparently confirmed by Apple, will keep Mac OS X out of any server applications. Just imagine Sun saying something similar.
Since Oracle server is out for OS X, I had been thinking about Macs for certain server applications.
At home, I have both an iMac and a beige G3. My beige G3 is not supported under 10.3; according to Apple I cannot upgrade (until xpostfacto gets through with them). Apple just tried to put a gun to my machine's head and pull the trigger.
Because they are dropping hardware in 10.3, they need to support 10.2 indefinately.
Does Noorda still hold any controlling interest in Novell?
Does Novell hold any controlling interest in Canopy or SCO?
Is Noorda pulling any of the strings? Can Novell's acquisition of Ximian, or their attempted takeover of Suse, be part of some "master plan" that, taken with SCO's activities, advances Noorda's interests?
I'm happy to see Apple still giving the development tools away for free.
Apple had better keep giving the development tools away for free, or Richard Stallman will drive to Cupertino and personally have a cow on Steve Jobs' desk.
With the newly idle systems designers, Sun should:
Produce at least a 32-way POWER system that can be partitioned. G4s can be obtained from Motorola if IBM is at all hesitant.
Revive Solaris for the POWER architecture (I remember it as an option on a 43P).
License Mac OS X Server, and make changes to the kernel to allow it to fully scale.
In addition, Sun should do the same with Opteron (and perhaps Itanium), supporting Solaris across the entire line, and hosting platform-specific operating systems where appropriate (including Windows data center edition and enterprise Linux, plus even HP-UX). Sun should become the commodity manufacturer of enterprise hardware, maintaining the reliability that we see in Sparc wherever possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Oracle has chased multi-million dollar businesses right out of its management structure - and then spent millions trying to duplicate this competing software to (re)capture market share.
I would be really interested to hear Larry's take on Oracle's mistakes. I'd also like to hear how he plans to compete with a free product from SAP-MySQL that begins to implement the equivalent features of his database.
Why didn't mp3.com collaborate with bittorrent, gnutella, etc. to build a collaborative network? Their most popular music could have been mirrored on many hundreds of nodes, and their bandwidth costs could have been slashed.
They could have written an "mp3com.exe" which acted as a distributed client rump webserver. Their website could then dynamically alter the URLs of popular songs, allowing IE surfers to download from the distributed clients, sparing mp3.com's bandwidth.
Users could be motivated to install the "mp3com.exe" application because it would enable access to additional client archives held behind firewalls. The client would never delete downloaded mp3s, but continue to share them.
Just because you have a lot of data to share, doesn't necessarily mean that you need a lot of bandwidth.
We are still on the HP PA-RISC hardware. A linux migration at all is very preliminary at this point, just testing.
A couple of days after the PO goes through for the test systems, Novell buys the competition. Very simple.
Wheels grind slowly here, too.
...Red Hat Linux on all my own systems at home and at work, a major corporate effort has emerged at my company to migrate our Oracle Apps installations from HP Superdome to Linux (Oracle is agressively "suggesting" this option).
Procurement has purchased AS2.1. I have purchased a supported SUSE distribution. I am encouraging SUSE over Red Hat for the following reasons:
What reasons would you offer for me NOT to make these recommendations?
p.s. Sorry for sounding like somebody from Gartner.
OS X 10.1 users are still waiting for a patched SSH.
While Apple includes server software in OS X, Apple is not excited about you actually making use of this software (they would rather that you buy OS X Server), so it will constantly be a thorn in your side.
I've thought about OS X server applications, but...
It seems like a good deal at first, but look before you leap.
Just ask any of the users of failed server/desktop environments - what makes a platform sink or swim? It's the applications, stupid.
Apple is now building an environment of third-party UNIX desktop applications. While there may be architectural/performance problems with Objective C (everything is late-bound), why has the Linux/BSD crowd mostly ignored the question of a little poaching of this developer base?
Why not get GNUSTEP into shape, then approach Adobe and get a Photoshop port for Linux/x86?
Of course, expect Apple to begin to introduce components into Mac OS X that would be (even more) difficult to replicate in open source code.
Apple is supporting itself on gcc and BSD. I see no reason that GNU and BSD shouldn't take market share in exchange.
I believe that the Opteron and Athlon 64 are both SOI designs (and Opteron has been in production for 6+ months).
Isn't the G5 also SOI? Isn't that a specialty of IBM Microelectronics?
Why would they imply that this (obviously) mature technology isn't?
RedHat was in this market until recently (they even maintained an embedded OS separate from Linux).
Linux is only difficult to use on a vastly diverse platform such as the x86 pc market. Standardize the platform, and Linux support and usability become magnitudes easier (no reason for kernel modules, for example).
Szulik's dad may be too dumb to use Linux on a pc, but he could probably manage to figure out how to use a Motorola Linux cellphone.
I can see why RedHat is focused on the pc, but they are more than a little presumptuous to assert that everyone else is, too.
Perhaps a review of previous Novell acquisitions is in order...
None of these is currently a market leader. Perhaps RedHat ought not to shut the doors just yet.
Somehow, I do not think that we are seeing the big picture.
...is not open-source. Neither is the installer. Neither is a LOT of stuff. That's most everybody's problem.
OpenBSD, Mac OS X, and SUSE now.
The operative word is Pink Tie Enterprise Linux 3.0.
Creating the AS2.1 install tree
Organizations will always be extending the functionality of software into their areas of interest. When the last piece of proprietary software falls into the ocean of GPL/BSD open source, all money will be made in customization and maintenance.
...if I may say so, as I install the Oracle E-Business Suite on SUSE.
I now only choose RedHat when it is technically superior (which is quite rare). I no longer have any dedication to them for their adherence to the GPL.
Apple includes server components in the standard version of Mac OS X. There is no warning not to use them because of lack of support. Until now, anyway.
Open "about this mac" off the apple menu, then click the "more info" button. The apple system profiler will open, and after a short delay you will get a report that includes the cache size.
...as it usually takes 6-8 months for macsales to drop the price to this point.
And for those who don't think that a beige g3 could be classed as a server... well, mine has a 350mhz g4 upgrade, and it's faster than my HP K380s (6-way 240mhz).
Such a statement, aparently confirmed by Apple, will keep Mac OS X out of any server applications. Just imagine Sun saying something similar.
Since Oracle server is out for OS X, I had been thinking about Macs for certain server applications.
At home, I have both an iMac and a beige G3. My beige G3 is not supported under 10.3; according to Apple I cannot upgrade (until xpostfacto gets through with them). Apple just tried to put a gun to my machine's head and pull the trigger.
Because they are dropping hardware in 10.3, they need to support 10.2 indefinately.
I am not amused.
Does Noorda still hold any controlling interest in Novell?
Does Novell hold any controlling interest in Canopy or SCO?
Is Noorda pulling any of the strings? Can Novell's acquisition of Ximian, or their attempted takeover of Suse, be part of some "master plan" that, taken with SCO's activities, advances Noorda's interests?
Apple had better keep giving the development tools away for free, or Richard Stallman will drive to Cupertino and personally have a cow on Steve Jobs' desk.
The janitors will be cleaning it up for weeks.
With the newly idle systems designers, Sun should:
In addition, Sun should do the same with Opteron (and perhaps Itanium), supporting Solaris across the entire line, and hosting platform-specific operating systems where appropriate (including Windows data center edition and enterprise Linux, plus even HP-UX). Sun should become the commodity manufacturer of enterprise hardware, maintaining the reliability that we see in Sparc wherever possible.
This is Carly's worst nightmare.
I think that Fujitsu also owns Amdahl. If it go to Amdahl.com, I see Fujitsu's web page.
...then wouldn't it be a good idea to insist that TI be a secondary fab?
While many eyes sometimes fail to see a few holes, the track record is better.