So, yes, I think this is a step in the right direction. In this case, the right direction is whatever direction Sun feels is right for them. Until then, stick to working on things that are your own responsibility. There's nothing wrong with criticism, but comments like "Suns License Sucks Ass" are just inciteful, and they really don't do much to further your standpoint.
Perhaps some of the Slashdot denizens use strong language. They are trying to get people's attention.
Let me explain something to you about people around here. Many of them have an agenda. You seem to think it's OK for Sun to have an agenda, but not "greedy Slashdotters". That agenda is to make as much source Open as possible. When somebody on Slashdot says something like "Is this a step in the right direction?", they are speaking in the context of the Open Source agenda.
When a company, such as Sun, tries to forward their agenda by introducing a source license that they claim is an improvement on Open Source licenses (as defined around here), it's examined pretty carefully. It's been examined and found to be a crock. From what I can tell, the SCSL gives about zero rights to anyone but Sun. Many feel that it's purpose is to confuse people and weaken the Open Source agenda that Slashdotters like to see moved forward.
Eric Raymond has it right, Sun just wants the "Community" to fix bugs for them. As you say, they're going to hold on to their IP rights. If they feel that way, perhaps they should just keep their code to themselves and protect their copyrights like Microsoft does. To try and "join" the Open Source Community with their Trojan Horse SCSL is devious.
Well, we just want to make it clear that the SCSL has nothing in common with the goals of the Open Source Community at large and is really about distracting the Open Source Movement to make the world safe for the likes of Sun and Microsoft.
With Microsoft's considerable quality problems, it's not hard at all to believe that SP6 - the last in a long line of rushed out Service Packs, many of which were known for breaking various software - would not have been tested carefully against Lotus software.
What planet did you grow up on? How is this different from what they did to DR-DOS, or their documented intent to make using Netscape "a harrowing experience"?
Well, I guess you buy into the theory that Bill Gates wants Microsoft to be broken up then.
Boy that seems pretty brazen. I guess, after the faked videotape demonstration episode, I could believe just about anything of MS.
The problem I have with this is that this incident could come up during settlement talks between the DOJ and MS. The DOJ might ask for a potentially embarrassing dump of all email and source code changes surrounding SP6. Seems that if you had IBM/Lotus engineers pouring through the code and email discussions, you could pretty much prove that SP6 was designed to break Lotus, if MS did intentionally break Lotus software.
Proving something like that would make it very hard to settle, give basis for additional anti-trust charges at a later date and make appeals of any forthcoming decision against MS much more difficult.
The only way I could explain such an act would be to believe that MS managers want the company to be broken up.
I guess that's not so far fetched, but if MS wanted to be broken up now, they could just suggest it during settlement negotiations. You could argue that they want to be broken up AND look like victims to their army of supporters. It's possible, I suppose.
So are we to believe that the reputable software company Microsoft...
Which reputable software company is that? The one that is under intense scrutiny for it's anti-competitive business practices or the one that is constantly being criticized for producing shoddy, buggy software?
OK, for a far-out theory, let's try this: our nation's most prestigious crime laboratory intentionally falsifies results in order to satisfy some lawyers. Sound crazy? It happened last year...
Therefore, all wild conspiracy theories are credible. OK, send in the aliens, I'm ready for my abduction now.
I hope they will have discovered paper spaceships because thats all that will be left to build them with.
Seeing as most metals and many plastics are recyclable, I find this an amazing speculation.
Surely it's more in line with the Henny Penny tone of the rest of your Comment to suggest that all the trees, and thus all the paper, will soon be gone.
It's really hard to believe that this is intentional on the part of Microsoft.
It was probably a mistake.
If it was intentional, then it sure lends credence to the speculation that there are those in MS who really want MS to be broken up. The theory goes that Bill Gates is tired of running Microsoft and would rather be a media/on-line/banking mogul. He really can't go into those markets as aggressively as he would like while there is continual anti-trust review of every move. Remember that the Intuit deal was quashed by the Feds, and that was Microsoft's gambit to enter on-line banking.
I find that theory a bit far out. How do you really run a conspiracy like that? I mean, it only takes one MS engineer who was familiar with some testing or development effort that would break Lotus to go to the press. Remember, the Halloween documents were leaked from inside MS.
In your experience in various courtrooms, did Judge Jackson exercise unusual restraint in not sanctioning or making a finding of contempt for the apparently faked videotaped demonstration?
There are a number of clear misrepresentations made in the video, including a Microsoft executive saying "We have not made any other changes to this computer or Windows 98, except to run Dr. Felten's program." Microsoft later admitted that this was not true.
As Judge Jackson did not mention this apparent falsification of evidence in the Finding of Fact, is it unlikely that this incident will be used to prejudge Microsoft in appeals?
While Microsoft's use of incompatible file formats is part of their strategy, the unstable software part is not. That is simply a byproduct of the COM/OLE object strategy. Unfortunately, the Linux desktop folks are headed that way, but at least in Linux if the desktop dies the rest of the machine does not go along with it.
It may not have been a conscious strategy on the part of Microsoft management, but bloatware and getting releases out to schedule rather than due to engineering criteria leads to instability. Perhaps the Linux desktop people are doing the bloatware part, but I don't see anyone pushing out new kernels on the public before they are stable.
The more stable and easy-to-use your product is, the less money you make!
The corollary to this is that if you make unstable software that is in constant need of an incompatible upgrade, then you can make tons of money. That's the Microsoft business model.
I think this business model is less about building software than it is about finding specific customer needs to address.
If this build-it-for-support-contracts model is to work, then the actual product is just a big marketing tool for your contract support. End users won't be buying your support much, but I could certainly see the Linux distro companies paying to make sure that the hot products worked seemlessly in their latest releases.
The other business opportunity for this business model would be in customization. Say, for example, that the Government decides to fund a big Gnome for the visually handicapped development. Or, say, some PDA vendor wants a Gnome compatible API for PDA applications, then these could be big opportunities.
I say could as this business model has not yet born itself out, certainly not in broadly horizontal apps like desktops managers and OS's.
I know of one consultant who has more consulting than he can handle in integrating and supporting his Open Source (GPL) package. I'm sure there are others. This is not really surprising as in vertical applications there's always been a lot of money in integration, consulting and support.
I'm hoping that Open Source will move the focus of software developers away from big software systems with the, largely unnecessary, every other year upgrade and into vertical application consulting, integration and support. I think that this would be a good thing for the economy.
I'm not sure that much value is generated in a software upgrade that has more marketing check boxes filled in. I'm much more comfortable about people getting paid to make an application work for a given customer. This is where the rubber hits the road. Customers won't pay someone for a package that isn't generating revenue for them, but somehow, they are convinced that they must move to the latest Windows release out of fear of being left behind.
I think owning Netscape is a big feather in the cap to AOL and Steve Case. Before AOL bought Netscape, AOL didn't have nearly the cachet as a serious player. As you say, Netscape is a great brand.
Sun really needed the Netscape Servers to be able to sell a complete Internet solution based on commercial products. I think Sun is still convinced that most customers want turnkey systems based on commercial products. This is perhaps getting less true all the time, but it still represents the largest market segment. AOL could sure make good use of Sun systems too. So, the three way deal was a match made in heaven.
Note that Netscape is the loser here. Nobody knows or cares what Netscape wants. It's irrelevant. Microsoft "removed their air supply" and AOL/Sun picks at the pieces.
If a commercial concern pays someone to work on Linux is this "incompatible with the voluntary cooperation that is the spirit of the Open Source movement"?
Absolutely not. Entering into an agreement to do something Linux-related (or anything for that matter) at the request of a commercial entity, and getting payed to do so, is an entirely voluntary action. No one is being coerced here.
"Voluntary" action is defined as retaining the option to say "no".
Hmmm... I have to agree with this. OK, delete that paragraph from my original post and then re-read it.
I wish you would have posted your cogent comment while logged in. It deserves more than a 0 score.
The poster said that Oracle was going to drop all versions of UNIX except Solaris and Linux next year, and then maybe Solaris after that.
There's no way that's true.
I agree that it's unlikely that this would happen "in a year". I do think that Ellison might use Linux to pressure the UNIX vendors to pay more for supporting their systems. Especially the more marginal ones.
Longer term than a year, I don't think it's unlikely at all that Oracle would drop UNIX platforms in favor of Linux.
I think Ellison would love to be more in control of his own destiny and Linux makes that more possible. With Linux, Oracle can create the servers they want, rather than just aligning their goals with the goals of hardware/OS manufacturers. Again, I point to that Oracle Server with no OS idea that Oracle was pushing last year as evidence.
Those that want to make noise about Linux=Communism would do so anyway. It would be just as easy to turn this around and say that Western ideas of freedom and individualism are invading Chinese with the help of Linux. Getting a good OS in the hands of millions of Chinese will only make for a more secure world order, IMHO.
I wish I had moderator points right now. This is the best Comment I've read on this subject.
Well, I'll lend my +1 bonus to see if it helps attract it any attention...
ESR does not speak for me on this. He can keep his libertarian politics and naive statements about communism to himself.
I agree.
This is the darkside of having noted spokespeople for "the movement" like ESR. On the one hand, it gives the lazy media a direction to push a microphone, but the problem is that these people tend to start to believe that they actually represent someone other than themselves.
If a commercial concern pays someone to work on Linux is this "incompatible with the voluntary cooperation that is the spirit of the Open Source movement"?
I think RMS has it right. It's all about freedom. Freedom to do with the code what you want and be certain that any derivitives are available so that nobody can close off a branch of development based on your work. This freedom extends even to the rulers of China.
I saw a Comment on Slashdot awhile back that I thought was interesting. The poster said that Oracle was going to drop all versions of UNIX except Solaris and Linux next year, and then maybe Solaris after that.
I think Ellison has always chaffed at being pulled in different directions by the OS vendors. Witness the "Raw Iron" (is that what it was called?) initiative last year. Whatever happened to the idea of Oracle servers with "no OS"? I couldn't find any news that was newer than a year old when I looked a few months back.
The Unix vendors currently pay a lot to make sure that the latest Oracle is available on their platform in a timely fashion. As the Linux market grows, Oracle will be able to extract more and more from the Unix vendors to ensure support.
If this scenario plays out, then IBM decide to drop it and push DB2 and we might see some of the Unix vendors ban together in support of mSQL/mySQL/Postgres (and/or Sybase/Informix?) in a defensive move.
1. Cygnus is used by other companies, too (Wind River Systems for one). If RedHat bought Cygnus, what would WRS do?
RedHat doesn't really have an offering in the same space as WRS. I don't see why they wouldn't continue to support WRS. For that matter, RedHat would probably be happy to support all the commercial gcc users whether they compete with their Linux distribution or not. At this point, I think RedHat would love to start showing a profit.
2. Why would anyone at RedHat have a problem with merging with Cygnus? I simply cannot see anyone getting their back up over this. Anyone have a good reason somebody would resign over this? Until I see one, that makes that part of the rumor suspect.
It may be that RedHat is pushing out some of the senior people in favor of senior people from Cygnus, who have demonstrated how to make money on this Open Source stuff. Or, it could be that the proposed new combined company will continue to sell the Cygnus for-fee licensed products and some of the senior people at RedHat find this intolerable.
Red Hat has shown that they are not confident about their own business strategy...
Change happens.
It seems Cygnus wasn't confident about their business strategy a few years back when they went from a Free Software support operation to selling packaged software that was complementary to Free Software (IDEs and the like).
I wonder if this means the new combined company will release everything GPL'd or if RedHat will start producing and selling for-fee packages? Or will Cygnus be run at arms length with no changes to either organizations? If this is the case, it's hard to see why RedHat's making this buy.
One HUGE potential synergy I see between Cygnus and a distro maker would be for Cygnus to polish up Cygwin (their Unix porting layer for NT based on Free Software) and have a distro package that has the Cygwin tools thrown in (probably on a separate CD). If you could add-in a Free Software X-Windows for NT then this could be viewed as a Linux compatibility package for NT, allowing interoperability and porting support between the two environments.
Let's face it, most organizations are not going to throw out all their Windows and go to Linux in the short term, but rather add in some Linux where it makes sense. Environments like Cygwin (if made mature) could be a boon to these customers allowing them to produce programs in Linux that could be easily ported to their Windows machines.
Will the BSD's simply miss out on this nice new filesystem?
I'm sorry I don't get it. Most if not all FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD systems use lots of GPL'd code, like gcc, for example. I guess it would be possible to have a *BSD system with a commercial compiler, like the old days of BSD releases (SunOS, Ultrix, etc.), but I've never heard of a FreeBSD system developed with anything but gcc.
If this File System is a good thing and can be integrated with *BSD, what prevents someone from including it as an option with their *BSD release?
At my last job, I steadfastly refused to use IE, on a Win platform, for ethical reasons. This really isn't the same as being "So anti-MS that I'd rather use an abacus!" It's just a recognition that the process that brought us IE was an unethical business practice in which I would be participating by using it.
I have to admit, that even at that last job I would keep IE around for compatibility testing. I had Web apps that behaved differently on IE and Netscape and when someone reported some odd behavior on IE I would try and reproduce it.
My current employer requires that I use IE for various application compatibility reasons. I suppose I could have threatened to quit over it or something, but I didn't feel that strongly about it. I still use Netscape or Mozilla where I can.
I find it hard to believe that this is only now hitting the news that employers are switching to IE in droves. I've seen this happening since IE4 came out. I've not seen a workplace that won't allow you to use IE if you choose, but I have seen ones that forbid Netscape.
I hope the case is settled. I don't think it's to anyone's benefit to slap Microsoft down hard. I do think that it would be good as part of a settlement to have their practices continually reviewed for the next 5-10 years.
The existence of the MS monopoly has encouraged a lot of good things to happen lately. Sun with Java, IBM with their eBusiness initiatives, Oracle and Linux have risen to the challenge. Of course, who knows how these companies and technologies would have fared in an environment where MS didn't have to be concerned with their business practices?
The increased scrutiny that MS is getting seems to be encouraging even more good things. MS seems committed to doing a lot of their future work using XML, which would be good. It's a good thing when anyone commits to an open standard. I'm satisfied that if MS implements a lot of technology based in XML, that others will be able to easily develop compatible products. XML file formats for Office documents would be a boon to those who wish to import and interoperate, for example. An object protocol based on XML (such as SOAP) would allow competitors to interoperate well.
I'm fairly comfortable with the marketplace today. I think you can, now, compete with MS broadly without too much fear of reprisal. As I said, I do feel that MS needs close scrutiny.
What makes this all so difficult is that Microsoft signed a consent decree having to do with bundling and OEM contracts back in 1995 and then proceeded to continue with business as usual. The law, and respect for the law, are incredibly important and no company should be allowed to continue to ignore their responsibilities without consequence.
I agree with Scott McNealy, no breakup of MS is necessary. I think the ideas that Sun is publishing here are good.
Of course, if MS gets a slap on the wrist (again) and they just continue with their unfair practices, then it's time they get serious consequences. I guess I'm surprised a little that the Judge didn't hold the MS lawyers in contempt for the rigged video demonstration. If MS ignored court orders in the future, there could and perhaps should be criminal penalties to MS executives.
I have reason to believe that MS "gets it" now. MS is making conciliatory sounding statements that would lead you to believe that they are ready for a settlement. Ballmer castigated his people in highly publicized meetings earlier this year for becoming out of touch and not focused on value. We'll have to see if there are real changes in MS corporate behavior now. They need to focus on value and away from how to leverage their money and power into even greater market dominance.
On the flipside, I've also never understood why people like Richard Stallman always bitch and moan about proprietary software. If they don't want to use it, no one is forcing them... This is something of a strawman. Of course, RMS does follow his own advice in this regard and uses NO "proprietary" software and he doesn't bitch and moan about the situation. (Don't anyone point out that GPL'd software is actually proprietary. I know that GPL'd software is technically proprietary, the Comment I'm responding to doesn't appear to recognize this point.) I think the ability to charge thousands of dollars for something I created is an inalienable right. If the product isn't worth that much, then it will fail -- The free market is great that way; it let's people vote with their feet (and their wallet). That's an interesting view. It's not the view shared by the framers of the US Constitution. As Stallman points out, the framers of the Constitution instituted Intellectual Property to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". The present situation, where you can hold a copyright on software for 50 years (or more), is an absurd contortion of this Right. I don't see that copyrights held so long encourage anything beneficial. If the GPL'd software succeeds to a huge extent, it might be recognized that, in the area of software, the best way to "promote progress" is to not grant Software copyrights or Patents, or to curtail these rights to a great extent. According to the Constitution, all IP law should be aligned with promoting progress, not enriching authors. As Stallman points out, enriching authors is just recognized as a way to promote progress. Your "inalieanble right" to Intellectual Property has never been recognized. Copyrights being time limited is a recognition of the very alieanability of this right. Furthermore, there are many Fair Use Doctrines that modify this "inalienable right" of yours. An utterance you might make is a creation, but everyone has the free right to quote and copy that utterance in any way. It's only when the language is committed to some medium like paper or audio/video tape do we allow these creations to be copyrighted.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps some of the Slashdot denizens use strong language. They are trying to get people's attention.
Let me explain something to you about people around here. Many of them have an agenda. You seem to think it's OK for Sun to have an agenda, but not "greedy Slashdotters". That agenda is to make as much source Open as possible. When somebody on Slashdot says something like "Is this a step in the right direction?", they are speaking in the context of the Open Source agenda.
When a company, such as Sun, tries to forward their agenda by introducing a source license that they claim is an improvement on Open Source licenses (as defined around here), it's examined pretty carefully. It's been examined and found to be a crock. From what I can tell, the SCSL gives about zero rights to anyone but Sun. Many feel that it's purpose is to confuse people and weaken the Open Source agenda that Slashdotters like to see moved forward.
Eric Raymond has it right, Sun just wants the "Community" to fix bugs for them. As you say, they're going to hold on to their IP rights. If they feel that way, perhaps they should just keep their code to themselves and protect their copyrights like Microsoft does. To try and "join" the Open Source Community with their Trojan Horse SCSL is devious.
Well, we just want to make it clear that the SCSL has nothing in common with the goals of the Open Source Community at large and is really about distracting the Open Source Movement to make the world safe for the likes of Sun and Microsoft.
Did you remember to include the promise of a fat campaign contribution?
You can bet that Microsoft didn't forget!
Katz is just more prescient than his subject, Walt Disney.
He went to Orlando in search of a Tomorrow of the past and by golly if he didn't find it.
The simplest theory is that it was a mistake.
With Microsoft's considerable quality problems, it's not hard at all to believe that SP6 - the last in a long line of rushed out Service Packs, many of which were known for breaking various software - would not have been tested carefully against Lotus software.
Well, I guess you buy into the theory that Bill Gates wants Microsoft to be broken up then.
Boy that seems pretty brazen. I guess, after the faked videotape demonstration episode, I could believe just about anything of MS.
The problem I have with this is that this incident could come up during settlement talks between the DOJ and MS. The DOJ might ask for a potentially embarrassing dump of all email and source code changes surrounding SP6. Seems that if you had IBM/Lotus engineers pouring through the code and email discussions, you could pretty much prove that SP6 was designed to break Lotus, if MS did intentionally break Lotus software.
Proving something like that would make it very hard to settle, give basis for additional anti-trust charges at a later date and make appeals of any forthcoming decision against MS much more difficult.
The only way I could explain such an act would be to believe that MS managers want the company to be broken up.
I guess that's not so far fetched, but if MS wanted to be broken up now, they could just suggest it during settlement negotiations. You could argue that they want to be broken up AND look like victims to their army of supporters. It's possible, I suppose.
Which reputable software company is that? The one that is under intense scrutiny for it's anti-competitive business practices or the one that is constantly being criticized for producing shoddy, buggy software?
Therefore, all wild conspiracy theories are credible. OK, send in the aliens, I'm ready for my abduction now.
God you people are priceless!
Will you Anonymous Cowards make up your minds? Which is it? Are we priceless or pathetic?
Seeing as most metals and many plastics are recyclable, I find this an amazing speculation.
Surely it's more in line with the Henny Penny tone of the rest of your Comment to suggest that all the trees, and thus all the paper, will soon be gone.
It was probably a mistake.
If it was intentional, then it sure lends credence to the speculation that there are those in MS who really want MS to be broken up. The theory goes that Bill Gates is tired of running Microsoft and would rather be a media/on-line/banking mogul. He really can't go into those markets as aggressively as he would like while there is continual anti-trust review of every move. Remember that the Intuit deal was quashed by the Feds, and that was Microsoft's gambit to enter on-line banking.
I find that theory a bit far out. How do you really run a conspiracy like that? I mean, it only takes one MS engineer who was familiar with some testing or development effort that would break Lotus to go to the press. Remember, the Halloween documents were leaked from inside MS.
There are a number of clear misrepresentations made in the video, including a Microsoft executive saying "We have not made any other changes to this computer or Windows 98, except to run Dr. Felten's program." Microsoft later admitted that this was not true.
As Judge Jackson did not mention this apparent falsification of evidence in the Finding of Fact, is it unlikely that this incident will be used to prejudge Microsoft in appeals?
It may not have been a conscious strategy on the part of Microsoft management, but bloatware and getting releases out to schedule rather than due to engineering criteria leads to instability. Perhaps the Linux desktop people are doing the bloatware part, but I don't see anyone pushing out new kernels on the public before they are stable.
The corollary to this is that if you make unstable software that is in constant need of an incompatible upgrade, then you can make tons of money. That's the Microsoft business model.
I think this business model is less about building software than it is about finding specific customer needs to address.
If this build-it-for-support-contracts model is to work, then the actual product is just a big marketing tool for your contract support. End users won't be buying your support much, but I could certainly see the Linux distro companies paying to make sure that the hot products worked seemlessly in their latest releases.
The other business opportunity for this business model would be in customization. Say, for example, that the Government decides to fund a big Gnome for the visually handicapped development. Or, say, some PDA vendor wants a Gnome compatible API for PDA applications, then these could be big opportunities.
I say could as this business model has not yet born itself out, certainly not in broadly horizontal apps like desktops managers and OS's.
I know of one consultant who has more consulting than he can handle in integrating and supporting his Open Source (GPL) package. I'm sure there are others. This is not really surprising as in vertical applications there's always been a lot of money in integration, consulting and support.
I'm hoping that Open Source will move the focus of software developers away from big software systems with the, largely unnecessary, every other year upgrade and into vertical application consulting, integration and support. I think that this would be a good thing for the economy.
I'm not sure that much value is generated in a software upgrade that has more marketing check boxes filled in. I'm much more comfortable about people getting paid to make an application work for a given customer. This is where the rubber hits the road. Customers won't pay someone for a package that isn't generating revenue for them, but somehow, they are convinced that they must move to the latest Windows release out of fear of being left behind.
Sun really needed the Netscape Servers to be able to sell a complete Internet solution based on commercial products. I think Sun is still convinced that most customers want turnkey systems based on commercial products. This is perhaps getting less true all the time, but it still represents the largest market segment. AOL could sure make good use of Sun systems too. So, the three way deal was a match made in heaven.
Note that Netscape is the loser here. Nobody knows or cares what Netscape wants. It's irrelevant. Microsoft "removed their air supply" and AOL/Sun picks at the pieces.
Absolutely not. Entering into an agreement to do something Linux-related (or anything for that matter) at the request of a commercial entity, and getting payed to do so, is an entirely voluntary action. No one is being coerced here.
"Voluntary" action is defined as retaining the option to say "no".
Hmmm... I have to agree with this. OK, delete that paragraph from my original post and then re-read it.
I wish you would have posted your cogent comment while logged in. It deserves more than a 0 score.
I'll republish it with my Karmicly boosted 2.
There's no way that's true.
I agree that it's unlikely that this would happen "in a year". I do think that Ellison might use Linux to pressure the UNIX vendors to pay more for supporting their systems. Especially the more marginal ones.
Longer term than a year, I don't think it's unlikely at all that Oracle would drop UNIX platforms in favor of Linux.
I think Ellison would love to be more in control of his own destiny and Linux makes that more possible. With Linux, Oracle can create the servers they want, rather than just aligning their goals with the goals of hardware/OS manufacturers. Again, I point to that Oracle Server with no OS idea that Oracle was pushing last year as evidence.
I wish I had moderator points right now. This is the best Comment I've read on this subject.
Well, I'll lend my +1 bonus to see if it helps attract it any attention...
I agree.
This is the darkside of having noted spokespeople for "the movement" like ESR. On the one hand, it gives the lazy media a direction to push a microphone, but the problem is that these people tend to start to believe that they actually represent someone other than themselves.
If a commercial concern pays someone to work on Linux is this "incompatible with the voluntary cooperation that is the spirit of the Open Source movement"?
I think RMS has it right. It's all about freedom. Freedom to do with the code what you want and be certain that any derivitives are available so that nobody can close off a branch of development based on your work. This freedom extends even to the rulers of China.
I think Ellison has always chaffed at being pulled in different directions by the OS vendors. Witness the "Raw Iron" (is that what it was called?) initiative last year. Whatever happened to the idea of Oracle servers with "no OS"? I couldn't find any news that was newer than a year old when I looked a few months back.
The Unix vendors currently pay a lot to make sure that the latest Oracle is available on their platform in a timely fashion. As the Linux market grows, Oracle will be able to extract more and more from the Unix vendors to ensure support.
If this scenario plays out, then IBM decide to drop it and push DB2 and we might see some of the Unix vendors ban together in support of mSQL/mySQL/Postgres (and/or Sybase/Informix?) in a defensive move.
It would be interesting.
RedHat doesn't really have an offering in the same space as WRS. I don't see why they wouldn't continue to support WRS. For that matter, RedHat would probably be happy to support all the commercial gcc users whether they compete with their Linux distribution or not. At this point, I think RedHat would love to start showing a profit.
It may be that RedHat is pushing out some of the senior people in favor of senior people from Cygnus, who have demonstrated how to make money on this Open Source stuff. Or, it could be that the proposed new combined company will continue to sell the Cygnus for-fee licensed products and some of the senior people at RedHat find this intolerable.
Change happens.
It seems Cygnus wasn't confident about their business strategy a few years back when they went from a Free Software support operation to selling packaged software that was complementary to Free Software (IDEs and the like).
I wonder if this means the new combined company will release everything GPL'd or if RedHat will start producing and selling for-fee packages? Or will Cygnus be run at arms length with no changes to either organizations? If this is the case, it's hard to see why RedHat's making this buy.
One HUGE potential synergy I see between Cygnus and a distro maker would be for Cygnus to polish up Cygwin (their Unix porting layer for NT based on Free Software) and have a distro package that has the Cygwin tools thrown in (probably on a separate CD). If you could add-in a Free Software X-Windows for NT then this could be viewed as a Linux compatibility package for NT, allowing interoperability and porting support between the two environments.
Let's face it, most organizations are not going to throw out all their Windows and go to Linux in the short term, but rather add in some Linux where it makes sense. Environments like Cygwin (if made mature) could be a boon to these customers allowing them to produce programs in Linux that could be easily ported to their Windows machines.
I'm sorry I don't get it. Most if not all FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD systems use lots of GPL'd code, like gcc, for example. I guess it would be possible to have a *BSD system with a commercial compiler, like the old days of BSD releases (SunOS, Ultrix, etc.), but I've never heard of a FreeBSD system developed with anything but gcc.
If this File System is a good thing and can be integrated with *BSD, what prevents someone from including it as an option with their *BSD release?
I have to admit, that even at that last job I would keep IE around for compatibility testing. I had Web apps that behaved differently on IE and Netscape and when someone reported some odd behavior on IE I would try and reproduce it.
My current employer requires that I use IE for various application compatibility reasons. I suppose I could have threatened to quit over it or something, but I didn't feel that strongly about it. I still use Netscape or Mozilla where I can.
I find it hard to believe that this is only now hitting the news that employers are switching to IE in droves. I've seen this happening since IE4 came out. I've not seen a workplace that won't allow you to use IE if you choose, but I have seen ones that forbid Netscape.
The existence of the MS monopoly has encouraged a lot of good things to happen lately. Sun with Java, IBM with their eBusiness initiatives, Oracle and Linux have risen to the challenge. Of course, who knows how these companies and technologies would have fared in an environment where MS didn't have to be concerned with their business practices?
The increased scrutiny that MS is getting seems to be encouraging even more good things. MS seems committed to doing a lot of their future work using XML, which would be good. It's a good thing when anyone commits to an open standard. I'm satisfied that if MS implements a lot of technology based in XML, that others will be able to easily develop compatible products. XML file formats for Office documents would be a boon to those who wish to import and interoperate, for example. An object protocol based on XML (such as SOAP) would allow competitors to interoperate well.
I'm fairly comfortable with the marketplace today. I think you can, now, compete with MS broadly without too much fear of reprisal. As I said, I do feel that MS needs close scrutiny.
What makes this all so difficult is that Microsoft signed a consent decree having to do with bundling and OEM contracts back in 1995 and then proceeded to continue with business as usual. The law, and respect for the law, are incredibly important and no company should be allowed to continue to ignore their responsibilities without consequence.
I agree with Scott McNealy, no breakup of MS is necessary. I think the ideas that Sun is publishing here are good.
Of course, if MS gets a slap on the wrist (again) and they just continue with their unfair practices, then it's time they get serious consequences. I guess I'm surprised a little that the Judge didn't hold the MS lawyers in contempt for the rigged video demonstration. If MS ignored court orders in the future, there could and perhaps should be criminal penalties to MS executives.
I have reason to believe that MS "gets it" now. MS is making conciliatory sounding statements that would lead you to believe that they are ready for a settlement. Ballmer castigated his people in highly publicized meetings earlier this year for becoming out of touch and not focused on value. We'll have to see if there are real changes in MS corporate behavior now. They need to focus on value and away from how to leverage their money and power into even greater market dominance.
On the flipside, I've also never understood why people like Richard Stallman always bitch and moan about proprietary software. If they don't want to use it, no one is forcing them... This is something of a strawman. Of course, RMS does follow his own advice in this regard and uses NO "proprietary" software and he doesn't bitch and moan about the situation. (Don't anyone point out that GPL'd software is actually proprietary. I know that GPL'd software is technically proprietary, the Comment I'm responding to doesn't appear to recognize this point.) I think the ability to charge thousands of dollars for something I created is an inalienable right. If the product isn't worth that much, then it will fail -- The free market is great that way; it let's people vote with their feet (and their wallet). That's an interesting view. It's not the view shared by the framers of the US Constitution. As Stallman points out, the framers of the Constitution instituted Intellectual Property to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". The present situation, where you can hold a copyright on software for 50 years (or more), is an absurd contortion of this Right. I don't see that copyrights held so long encourage anything beneficial. If the GPL'd software succeeds to a huge extent, it might be recognized that, in the area of software, the best way to "promote progress" is to not grant Software copyrights or Patents, or to curtail these rights to a great extent. According to the Constitution, all IP law should be aligned with promoting progress, not enriching authors. As Stallman points out, enriching authors is just recognized as a way to promote progress. Your "inalieanble right" to Intellectual Property has never been recognized. Copyrights being time limited is a recognition of the very alieanability of this right. Furthermore, there are many Fair Use Doctrines that modify this "inalienable right" of yours. An utterance you might make is a creation, but everyone has the free right to quote and copy that utterance in any way. It's only when the language is committed to some medium like paper or audio/video tape do we allow these creations to be copyrighted.