Microsoft Threatens Oracle Over Benchmarks 206
n8willis writes "ZDnet is reporting that Microsoft is now threatening to sue Larry Ellison if he doesn't stop saying that Microsoft SQL Server only performs well on benchmarks, not real apps. The meaty part of this story is MS's claim that Ellison's comments violate the SQL Server license agreement, which requires permission before publishing any benchmarks. A dubious term to begin with, if you ask me, but in this case, Ellison is demonstrating the software head-to-head in his speeches, not publishing anything." Frankly, I don't care about it being Microsoft or not - any company deciding that any like this is proprietary is ridiculous. I mean, if I wanted to publish database results, does this mean I can't write a report about it?
Re:This is typical of the Slashdot mentality (Score:4)
What mentality exactly are you talking about? The idea that after I've read a book and people ask me how I liked it, I shouldn't be able to share that opinion? Or the idea that car magazine journalists test driving a new car shouldn't be allowed to publish its top speed or any possible shortcomings? Unless you've been living under a rock sheltered by warmth and humidity, you would know that it's far from only the Slashdot community that is dissatisfied with the state of EULAs today, and that Microsoft in particular takes all kinds of liberties with them. By saying that if you don't agree with the EULA you shouldn't use the software you are trivializing the matter beyond any reasonable discussion.
it figures! (Score:2)
Consumer Reports (Score:1)
Re:EULA term & "unconscionable" contracts (Score:1)
The last thing you want is your competitor publishing benchmarks on your software.
The reason for this is obvious. It's just too easy to cook database benchmarks to favor whatever you want to favor.
So only the TCP (a neutral third party) is allowed to publish them.
I'll bet that this is completely enforceable. ESPCIALLY when the person you are trying to enforce it on is a competitor who has the same clause in their EULA.
tj
Why punish MS? (Score:1)
It's not like they are sending Cease and Desist letters to a neutral 3rd party...
tj
Re:That's what they want you to believe. (Score:1)
INAL, but no, not all contracts are explicit and signed. I order a meal in a restaurant and it's mutually understood that I'll be responsible for the bill before I leave. My guess is that the software industry will assert that the same general knowledge applies, that professionals at least (and SQL Server isn't a consumer product) have been familiar with agreements like this for years.
There are parts of the whole thing which are a bit smelly, it's true, but some of those are simply defensive. Read the tiny print on a box of film, for instance -- Kodak is not responsible for the value of your pictures of Elvis smoking crack with Jimi Hendrix and two aliens, and if their film fails they will refund or replace the film and only the film, just as Oracle will replace your media but not your company if their database fails you. If you want to run your life support system on OS/2, I'm guessing that IBM will in no way accept responsibility for your demise, and I don't imagine that Dell or Compaq will either. Record companies don't warrant that the album will be good, only that it will play.
On the other side of the street, is Linux warranted for any particular purpose? Is Linus going to lose his shirt the first time somebody gets hurt? (I speak hypothetically here -- I'm sure somebody's already been hurt as a result of some sort of failure -- it's almost inevitable in an imperfect world.)
AFAIK you can sell the media if you'd like -- just obliterate the contents first.
Re:The reasoning behind the practice (Score:2)
And what is to prevent the vendor from being the unscrupulous one?
Re:This is typical of the Slashdot mentality (Score:1)
If MS really is the great satan, AND they
have a durable monopoly, why don't they?
tj
Re:Stones and Glass Houses (Score:1)
hmm...what might those be?
Re:Mmmm. Irony... (Score:1)
You've missed the point (Score:1)
LEarn Something About Databases First (Score:1)
These results are incomparable, since you can't always use a cluster, especially transparently for the application.
There are 2 primary types of database applications: OLTP and Data Warehousing.
OLTP can be used on cluster only if the application is explicitely written for it.
Re:That's nothing (Score:1)
> Upon entering the premises, representatives of our company may help themselves...
>
I disagree.
Re:Mmmm. Irony... (Score:2)
Larry Ellison exercises Jerk Options (Score:2)
Larry Ellison Exercises Jerk Options [bbspot.com]
---
Pretty ugly is right (Score:4)
You can see the benchmarks here: TPC tests [tpc.org]
The margin by which Oracle is beaten must be pretty humiliating when they are competing for the same account. Oracle and Sun have attempted all sorts of dirty tricks to disqualify the results, and TPC even removed them at one point, but MS has always fixed the technicality and pumped out even higher results at even lower prices.
Hence Oracle's recent market promise that if they can't triple your speed they will give you a million dollars. Some of us inside have joked about setting up a really badass SQL service and getting that million as a stunt
At any rate, I am not surprised that the two companies eventually are coming to slights and legal maneuvering. Oracle knows quite well that they are one of the companies Microsoft has marked as "Make irrelevant in five years" and they really don't want to go the way of Lotus, Corel, etc.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Mmmm. Irony... (Score:5)
EULA (Score:3)
86.v.(2): The user of this software Shall, upon acceptance of this license (i.e., through usage of this software), be heretofore bound to release the parentship and legal guardianhood of their first born child;
86.v.(3): In the event that the user of this software has no progeny, through adoption or sanguine procreation, the user shall complete their responsibility outlined in this agreement upon such time as they are able to procure the aforementioned child;
[...]
I would love them to try and sue. (Score:4)
Re:This is typical of the Slashdot mentality (Score:5)
One of the conditions for a healthy free market is that the consumers can freely choose between competing products. How is that possible if corporations are able to prevent the publication of less flattering reviews of their products or test the products themselves (which could be made impossible by the UCITA backed shrink-wraps)?
Re:This is typical of the Slashdot mentality (Score:3)
It is your job to reassemble the car, but I can recommend some extremely expensive mechanics who just happen to work for me.
</metaphor>
Yes, the licence is odious. But the product is also inferior. I'm not voting for Nader, but this falls under the "keep it legal to embarass big companies" umbrella.
--
Re:Folks, this is standard for the industry... (Score:2)
This got me thinking. What if I never bought the software or even use it, but entered the house of someone who does use the software. You know, people have friends and like to show stuff off. What if I think that game Apogee made sucked, or if I saw my friend getting half the performance off Oracle than mysql? Could I start shooting off my mouth, or would I be gagged just by entering his private residence?
I do ask a lot of questions when seeing a demo of something I have never seen before. So would just being in the presense of a friend's computer bind me to top security? Do these software licenses require ISO procedures for security guards and access to the perimeters? Could they do any of this legally?
I think its real neat software companies have this sense of power. Too bad I don't share their views. My experience has shown not too many other people respect their values either. Enter the world of "piracy" as they call it. No, not following the letter of a license is not raping and pillaging their employees. Its this kind of arrogance that has turned me away completely from commercial software, supporting their business model, and has me backing freely licensed software.
Re:EULA term & "unconscionable" contracts (Score:2)
Which is meaningless in court when someone makes a "public policy" arguement. I'm not saying Ellison isn't a wanker and hypocrite, I'm saying that *I* don't think that a EULA clause that gags basic performance reporting can be enforced.
The last thing you want is your competitor publishing benchmarks on your software.
Only an idiot would TRUST a competitor's benchmarks (or Ellison's dog-and-pony show). The REASON such a EULA clause is likely against public policy is that it gags any independent parties that don't toe a manufacturer's line (and lets them optimize for a chosen set of benchmarks, rather than the benchmarks of everybody).
The reason for this is obvious. It's just too easy to cook database benchmarks to favor whatever you want to favor.
You're right, it's obvious. That's why no one will trust an Oracle bench of MS or an MS bench of Oracle, or a GM review of Ford or a Ford review of GM, or Pepsi survey on Coke. It's obvious. What the EULA clause does is allow a company to (try to) control the press they get and limit it to tame third parties. If the auto industry could EULA out Consumer Reports, they would. They can't and MS and Oracle shouldn't be able to gag everybody either, IMHO.
I'll bet that this is completely enforceable. ESPCIALLY when the person you are trying to enforce it on is a competitor who has the same clause in their EULA.
Again, in a "public policy" argument, that won't hold water, 'cause
- everybody gets treated the same in those arguments,
- it's taken as a given that a competitor who can benefit from winning such an argument is going to carry it forward in a lawsuit
"Public policy" doesn't change depending on the party to the lawsuit, and if a clause is against "public policy" it doesn't matter who's paying for (or benefiting from) the legal work that produces such a decision, in fact, it's a positive that somebody with a vested interest is making the fight, rather having the government decide what's worth fighting for or waiting for some small-fry to risk everything "on principle".Under UCITA, he's right (Score:2)
Aren't you glad you're not voting? See what happens when you decide to not hold your legislators' feet to the fire? [note - I'm not talking about the State Rep from Redmond, Laura Ruderman, she actually is part of why UCITA didn't pass in Washington State, plus she's cute]
Re:Larry Ellison is a freak (Score:2)
I've never known Ellison to push benchmark results. When did you hear him doing this? Certainly the topic of this story is a situation where he specifically does a demo INSTEAD of citing benchmarks....
"This fucked up company is also purposefully crippling their database as a server platform with WinNT/2k clients"
Um... as I understand it, they drew the line at using MS' API. They refused to do what everyone else does: code to undocumented calls so that MS can break their software every service-pack. I have a hard time calling this "crippling".
Oracle's $1 million offer is a joke. (Score:2)
In addition, if Oracle were to fail and your website didn't run 3 times as fast, they would pay you the million dollars but you wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it. That's right, the only stories you will ever hear are about sites which get the improvement. The contract specifically requires that any site which wins the million dollars can't talk about it.
Re:The reasoning behind the practice (Score:3)
If benchmarks are IP (Score:2)
--
Re:Larry Ellison is a freak (Score:2)
Perhaps you could explain how the pricing is weird? I found it's very logical and cheap! Unlimited users if you pay per Mhz! Two year licences are dirt cheap weather you pay per user or per Mhz. If you went with an MS license you would have to pay per user AND per CPU for internet connections AND a per user for the NT license. Combine this with the fact that MS stops supporting older products thereby forcing you to upgrade every two years anyway oracle comes out much cheaper.
Oh yea DB/2 is cheaper still.
Postgres, interbase, SAPdb are all robust, proven, feature rich, and are FREE! All of these databases will meet the needs of the 90% of businesses in the world and they don't cost jack squat. According to SAP 800 companies are running R/3 on SAPDB. That's a mission critical, enterprise level, 24X7 app we are talking about here.
In two years all databases will be free including oracle and mssql mark my words.
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
Re:UTICA (Score:2)
Judges have some ability to strike sections from license agreements that are unfair, illegal or not in the public interest. You can't just put arbitrary things in a contract or license and expect the courts to enforce them.
The problem is that companies will knowingly put unenforceable terms in licenses and contracts for their intimidation value.
This is good (Score:2)
"As demonstrated by this latest action, Microsoft clearly demonstrates that they hafve something to hide. If you go with Microsoft products and at some point in the future would like to point out shortcomings or your dissatisfaction with some product, don't be surprised to learn that you cannot share this information with anyone outside your organization."
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
Slashdot censors benchmarks too (Score:2)
Standard Industry Practice (Score:4)
Ellison hardly a saint (Score:2)
Re:This is typical of the Slashdot mentality (Score:2)
//rdj
Larry Ellison is a freak (Score:3)
When they don't he whines about how it's real-world experience which show them as being better. How does this sound when ebay has been having severe database problems for the last month?
This fucked up company is also purposefully crippling their database as a server platform with WinNT/2k clients because of their hatred of Microsoft.
Then in light of the weird new pricing strategy, what are customers supposed to do? It's a lot easier to switch out a backend database than it is clients, especially if new database software costs a tenth as much.
Oh yeah, isn't it about time for the yearly "We will bury Seibel" announcement?
Larry Ellison needs a boot to the head.
All high end expensive databases are this way (Score:2)
Just imagine if Id Software did this... (Score:2)
Fortunately, Id isn't as protective of their "intellectual property" as Microsoft is. They did provide the source to qagame so that modmakers could exploit the entire code. Meanwhile, even attempting to start a Windows programming project requires you to plunk down hundreds, and even thousands of dollars to Microsoft just to fund their cause.
As An SQL Developer ... (Score:2)
Any database has an incredibly complex program in the heart of it - SQL parser/optimizer that decides how each statement is executed. Select an inefficient plan, and you're toast. The plan depends not only on the statement, but also on the server parameters, current load, database setup and DBA policies (such as analyzing tables' and indexes' contents). I've had situations when statements running minutes on test server were taking hours when released to production (fixed by adding "hints", that force the optimizer to execute it the way I want it to). Database SQL Optimizer might be more complex and sophisticated than an underlying operating system.
Since my experience includes not only Oracle but some other SQL databases, I can say that different databases optimize some statements differently. There are many ways to do the same things in SQL. Good example will be Oracle with EXISTS construct more efficient than the IN one (you can usually code the same statement using either).
Thus, comparing different databases on the same SQL code MIGHT become a comparison of apples and oranges. If you take a code, optimized for Oracle (even if it is completely standards-based) and run it on Informix or DB2, you might get results that are inadequate thus "proving" that Oracle is better.
TPC is supposed to be a database-independent performance test, but in reality it's obsolete and allows database vendors to optimize their databases heavily to run just this test.
Another thing, all of the top results are not comparable either (even farther than apples and oranges, it becomes a comparison of an elephant (Oracle on Starfire) versus bunch of ants (SQL Server on cluster)). These configurations are for different tasks and can't be compared directly.
Folks, this is standard for the industry... (Score:3)
For example, Netscape prohibits publishing benchmarks in the license agreement [netscape.com] for its Client software. The games developer Apogee [3drealms.com] (a.k.a. 3DRealms) even added a clause to its license agreement earlier this year that prevented negative reviews [planetcrap.com] of its product! So Microsoft is really not acting unusually harsh in this regard.
Re:Ok, now, this has all just gotten a bit too sil (Score:3)
Well, see, the problem is that the Oracle EULA contains the same provisions that Microsoft is accusing Oracle of violating. Now, Microsoft could retaliate and do the same thing that Oracle is doing, but that would be illegal according to Oracle's EULA. Instead of taking the approach that most Slashdotters would take to resolve something like this (which would be to go ahead and respond in kind, thinking that "it's okay to break the law, Oracle did it first!"), Microsoft's going through the courts. People here might think that two wrongs make a right, but that's pretty shaky law.
Cheers,
UCITA would make this more common (Score:2)
UCITA == adios, First Amendment.
--
That's nothing (Score:5)
-You can't use this software in any manner designed for figuring out how fast it is.
-You can't benchmark this software. You can't publish benchmarks of this software. You can't sell it to someone who will publish benchmarks. You don't own the software, but if it's stolen, and someone makes benchmarks with your copy, you're liable.
-By agreeing to this license, you agree that
-We may inspect your premises with a software agent team at any time, 24/7/365. If you are not there to assist us with entering your premises, we may let ourselves in.
-We may recall your license electronically at any time, for any reason.
... i could go on but my fingers hurt.
Software that sells for 100k a copy doesn't mess around with wimpy licenses like the one at issue.
The real problem is the UCITA.
Re:Standard Industry Practice except DB2 (Score:3)
Not allow benchmarks to be published without permission seems to be the standard for the database companies. I know Microsoft, Oracle, Sybase, and Informix all do this.
Not true for DB2 from IBM. Okay - so I work on DB2 for IBM Canada but I would be seriously worried if we prohibited people from running, testing and comparing our software against the competition. Oracle's license makes a nonsense of the already restrictive license agreements that most commercial software comes with. But ask yourself this - why would a software company not want you to run benchmarks on their software?
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re:Useful? (Score:2)
Are TPC benchmarks useful? Really when you think about it it's more a benchmark of how well the clustering and hardware performed during the test. The top spot which Microsoft holds on a Compaq machine is a 192 processor Xeon cluster with a huge number of dual processor clients etc.
These benchmarks are useful - they give the performance teams at IBM something to aim at and keep us on our toes in development :-)
On a more serious note, they give you a good idea of how these databases scale when you are talking about SMP/MPP systems. Oracle suffers in large clusters of machines because they have a shared disk array system, so there is always an overhead keeping all the parts of the cluster in sync. Both DB2 UDB and SQL Server have a shared nothing architecture, which means you have to carry copies of certain data structures around the network, but you only take it where it's needed. This wins when you get to 8 or more nodes in a cluster and gets better as you add more. Having said that, it's interesting to compare that SQL Server TPCC benchmark done on a 192 processor cluster scoring aroudn 520000 transactions against the 128 processor DB2 UDB benchmark (same CPU type) scoring 440000. Take your pick as to which is the faster database (hint DB2 UDB scales nearly linearly as you add cluster nodes).
Not that I like a bit of shameless self promotion ;-)
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Challenge legality of licensing agreements ?? (Score:2)
Myriam Miedzian, who has published a book on boys and violence, recently wrote a column in the Baltimore Sun in which she reported that as a kid George W. Bush used to kill frogs by putting firecrackers into them, tossing them in the air, and watching them blow up.
Re:MS should sue (Score:2)
Re:Ok, now, this has all just gotten a bit too sil (Score:2)
BTW, MS-SQL was originally a port of Sybase; but MS forked the code around version 4.x and the quality has been going steadily downhill ever since. Sybase managed to screw up pretty badly with version 10, but their 11.x and 12.0 versions are highly impressive.
Re:This is typical of the Slashdot mentality (Score:2)
In the USofA, this issue has been fought out three times: in the 1930's, 1950's, and 1980's, each time involving Consumer Reports magazine and their right to publish reviews of products sold on the open market. IRRC Consumer Reports essentially tied in the 1930 case and won the 1950 and 1980 cases. The basic issue being: do consumers give up all 1st Amendment rights when they participate in a business transaction? And the answer, at least as of 1988 or so, being NO. But we all know that these things can change, and I guess that since we are on Internet time we couldn't wait until 2010 to go through this process again.
[Note: I am not a big fan of CR in general, so don't flame me for their sins, but in this case I think they are absolutely right].
sPh
Why isn't this a free speech issue? (Score:2)
This isn't the only place this is happening. I'm hearing about legal cases where people aren't allowed to say anything to others about their own case. I don't know about you, but this is FAR more worrisome to me than web censorship on public machines. Somehow, contract and other branches of the law are overriding people's right to free speech.
I'm not sure where to draw the line. There's times when voluntarily agreeing not to speeak up about something is probably good. NDAs, for example. But perhaps the time is coming when we're going to need something besides the first ammendment to protect free speech. Congress might not be able to make any law prohibiting free speech, but corporations can sure draw up contracts and suits that are doing the job.
EULA (Score:2)
UCITA, or maybe you're thinking GATTACA. (Score:2)
The term is UCITA.
Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act.
Learn it, know it, conquer it.
Re:Larry Ellison is a freak (Score:2)
You are lucky Larry Ellison, few novices experience so much Tae Kwan Leep so soon.
:)
Re:So what?! (Score:2)
That's right because, as we all know, when you sit down at the bargaining table with Oracle or Microsoft, you negotiate as equals. No imbalance of power here; no sir, no way.
This is news to me. I see a lot of stuff in the copyright statutes about distributing copies and derivative works, but no mention of conditions on use. In fact, when other industries, say the publishing industry, for instance, have tried to put conditions on the sale of things like books (e.g. minimum retail price, prohibiting resale), they have gotten slapped down.
Even the software industry doesn't have the chutzpah to claim that these license terms can be justified under copyright law. Instead, they try to rationalize them as "voluntary" contracts. However, the law does, as others have pointed out, recognize the concept of "unconscionable" (and therefore unenforcable) contract terms. Do these terms qualify legally as unconscionable? It's hard to say; nobody knows for sure until you fight it out in court. I think it's rather telling, however, that for all their sabre rattling, software companies always seem to keep these matters out of court. I think it's equally telling that they feel they need to get special law passed to legitimate their license agreements.
Well, except for the minor detail that the GPL places restrictions only on copying the software, while the commercial guys put restrictions on using it and (even more offensively) talking about using it. With as many times as this difference has been pointed out on slashdot, I'm amazed that anyone who has been reading for any length of time can remain ignorant of it.
-rpl
Stones and Glass Houses (Score:2)
Its not as if either party is on the right side of this issue. Sometime ago I was evaluating different database systems for a project. Postgres had a nice page benchmarking it against various other sytems. They had comparisons with Mysql, Primebase, Openbase and several others. What they did not have was comparisons against Oracle or Microsoft's server. They stated right on the page that the licensing agreement of both companies forbids publishing of benchmarks. What we have here is two repressive giant corporations trying strangle each other to death. In course of their battles they're stepping on a whole lot of little people. Meanwhile, I'm still wondering if this provision would infact stand up in court. In no other industry are their licensing agreements that forbid the independent testing of one product against another and publishing the results. If there were, Car and Driver and other such magazines would've been out of business a long time ago. Not to mention Consumer Reports. The question I would have for a judge is "What makes software different?" Actually, that's something I would have to ask on many different issues. What makes software different than other tools and devices we purchase in the real world?
A pity... (Score:2)
That means they could defend a suit by claiming they weren't in violation, rather than having to claim the clause is unenforcable.
Of course that's to be expected - since they had such a clause before Microsoft.
Which brings up a question: Microsoft apparently put the clause in in reaction to Oracle's using it. Perhaps they'll sue in order to break such clauses themselves.
Granted their current product's performance has sloth in places that allows Oracle to come up with a benchmark that makes them look bad relative to Oracle. But benchmark hacking is a well-known art. So even if Microsoft IS generally slower they can no doubt come up with benchmarks that make them look better - or buy experts to modify their products until they ARE faster. And they can afford a lot more advertising. So it may still be in their interest to kill such clauses.
So what?! (Score:2)
No, you can't write a report about it. As others have noted, Oracle has this condition in its licence too.
The bottom line is that if you don't agree with the licence terms, then you don't have to use the software. As the creator of the intellectual property it is your privilege to apply whatever conditions on its use that you see fit. This applies equally to free and commercial software
In this respect, Microsoft is being no more evil than rms.
Re:Mmmm. Irony... (Score:2)
-- Gandalf the Gray
--
Useful? (Score:2)
How usefull is this data in the real world where I don't have $10million to waste? Great when the newest processor comes out I'll run the TPC test and I'll have the top spot till someone on a totally different platform with totally different hardware does the same thing. Great very useful for me.
75% of all statistics are made up on the spot!
Trevor.
Microsoft as usual (Score:2)
Besides why are you always doing things upside down? Where is the written license for Win98 on IBM comps? Russian Law demands it. So what should I do with those CD's that came with these computers? Why you violate the law by stating on your User's Guide:
"No part of this document can be reproduced or transferred in no form and no means, no matter electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, record on magnetic carrier, if there is not written permission from Microsoft"
This is a part of User's Guide for Win98. I'm citing. Do you read? CITING! And on Russian Law I have the DAMN right to do it!
Do you know what this stuff reminds of? Scientologists. Microsoft seems to be turning into another high-tech church.
This isn't about EULAs. Its about the DMCA. (Score:2)
Re:Pretty ugly is right (Score:2)
It isn't very real-world meaningful at all, and it's far from the most important factor. Everyone likes to brag about their performance benchmarking, as if speed is really the hardest factor to get, or the most important one. No-- with any database, the most important factor is reliability. It needs to be stable, and it needs to work on every single transaction. This benchmark doesn't do a thing to test that, because it's almost impossible for any benchmark to test real-world stability (and really, for that matter, performance)-- you just tweak your software until it kicks ass on the benchmark, and release it. Who cares how it actually works?
Quick real-world example from the company I work at: MS SQL server was failing on a significant portion of database operations. We spent a long time tracking down the bug, and worked with MS for quite some time on it. They finally said, "oh, that! Right, that's a known issue. To fix it, you have to upgrade to the next version of MS SQL Server". Of course, there's a huge known issue list for the next version as well-- and you fix those by upgrading to the next version. By contrast, Oracle threw a ton of people our way after we decided to switch, actually fixed the bugs that were found, and it's quite stable now. Yes, it costs more. I don't even know if it's faster or slower, because we don't care. It's a million times better than MS SQL Server, because it actually works.
Despite how it may have come off, this was not intended to be a rip on MS, but rather on benchmarketing. It's possible some day that Oracle will be unstable, and have lousy support; and that MS will be stable with good support. But the benchmark won't indicate any of that.
Built to meet Specs: Must score high on the Bench (Score:4)
--
MS should sue (Score:5)
Eric Gearman
--
Oracle has the same rules (Score:5)
--
Re:This is typical of the Slashdot mentality (Score:2)
//rdj
Ok, now, this has all just gotten a bit too silly (Score:4)
Re:Didn't Romero do something... (Score:2)
As for geeks with good lighting, if someone buys me stage lights I'll happily light design my office :) Some of those LED ones with the 16 million colors would be nice. Verilites or Intelibeams would also work quite well.....
(*)The sound crew I was on in college used to have an old rack-mount disco ball controller with a lot of knobs with labels on them of different instruments. When someone would ask us to turn up a given instrument, we'd adjust the knob and people would go away. Of course, it wasn't hooked up to anything :)
Anyway, we now return you to your regular Microsoft flamage.
New Linux EULA (Score:2)
Information and Choice Essential to Capitalism (Score:2)
It's pretty clear that Microsoft (and others, as well) attempts to limit both information and choice.
How the heck can ANYONE from the commercial software side call the utterly ruthless Darwinian meritocracy of Linux/Open Source, "Communism"?
Re:From personal experience ... (Score:2)
How to settle this: (Score:2)
Pit them against each other on Celebrity Deathmatch. The card would read: Larry "Shogun" Ellison vs. Bill "BSOD" Gates
If it's been done before, I'd like to see the vidcaps.
Re:MS vs. Oracle. (Score:2)
mySQL is free, and you get what you pay for.
Then change you speech to: (Score:2)
UTICA (Score:2)
We already know that a company can write a license that is *signed* by both parties that limits free speech in exchange for products/services (in the forms of NDAs). When UTICA passes, it then allows those click-thrus to be just an enforcable too, so by clicking through an install you could forfeit your rights on that piece of software forever.
I'm hoping Orcale stays on the ball and defends this all the way in court; a software license cannot trump 1st Amendment rights.
Re:Pretty ugly is right (Score:2)
In a speech at OpenWorld, Ellison offered $10 million to anyone who could get any application to run on Microsoft's TPC-C clustered-database configuration that the Transaction Processing Council awarded its top TPC-C price/performance ranking.
To me that suggests that this benchmark is even less real-world meaningful than the Photoshop filters Apple keeps trotting out to demonstrate that a G4 is twice as fast as a Pentium of the same speed. Anyone knowledgeable want to comment?
EULA term & "unconscionable" contracts (Score:3)
If you ask me too. There's a general principle in contract law (and a license agreement is a form of contract), that terms of a contract that are "unconscionable" will not be enforced by a court of law. This principle is broad and poorly defined, but is totally up to the courts in their discretion to decide, which means you have to have the resources to fight it out in court. I imagine Ellison just might be able to...
Most "unconscionable" contract terms are economically unfair, often because of severe inequity between the 2 contracting parties. However another common reason for finding a contract term to be "unconscionable" is that it is "against public policy". Many states have laws that prohibit contracts that force their residents to litigate in other states or using other state's laws, calling such terms "against public policy". A more detailed discussion (written for New York State lawyers) is here [nysba.org].
I think a contract term that prohibits someone from disclosing "trade secrets" is certainly enforceable. For a product that has very limited distribution, a "gag" clause that attempts to prohibit the transfer of technical information to a potential competitor is probably enforcerceable in most forms. However, in this case, any and every serious competitor has a copy of the product or can easily obtain one, and the "benchmark gag" is designed to allow Microsoft to control information available to potential customers on a critical purchase point - how well the product works. If MS changed the clause to require that the benchmark conditions be fully and fairly disclosed, that would probably be enforceable.
The reasoning behind the practice (Score:5)
In light of the Mindcraft debacle, most slashdotters should be able to at least understand the motivation involved, if not the practice itself.
Imagine using two computers for a database benchmark, but using a *slightly* different model hard drive in one (from the very same drive vendor, even) but with a 10% slower seek time. You better bet that benchmark will be skewed, and it would be HIGHLY unlikely anyone would catch it.
Everyone knows Ellison shoots his mouth off -- a lot. On the other hand, personally, I have more respect for the guy with cojones than whiny Bill threatening to sue.
God, threatening to sue. Pathetic. That's a sure indicator, Bill's panicking.
Anyway, I work for Oracle but don't speak for them, etc.
Re:Folks, this is standard for the industry... (Score:3)
Basically they try to get away with whatever they can until someone tries to catch them on it.
In the case of a Real-Estate lease, or a negotiation for Buisness services this is standard practice, or a contract with your Wedding Photographer.
In the case of Consumer software, where we don't get to see the contract until we've given them our money, where we don't usually have a lawyer handy to review each and every Contract we get, and most importantly, where we have no ability to negotiate the contract at all (basically 'take it or leave it') this is unfair and is likely to become even more scary if the UCITA gets passed.
EULA dosn't mean Law, (Score:4)
fair use (Score:2)
Ellison is wrong here ... (Score:2)
Re:So what?! (Score:2)
Are you even listening? I'm happy for copyright holders to add whatever conditions they like on distributing copies of their software because that's what copyright is all about. I object to copyright holders placing restrictions on use, resale, or any other of the things not traditionally covered by copyright because the law doesn't give them that right.
Nothing in copyright law gives them this right. If a book publisher tried to say you couldn't publish a review of their book, they would get laughed out of court. Why are Microsoft and Oracle above the law?
They say nothing of the sort. Look at the GPL again. Read it this time. They say that if you want to distribute copies of software covered by the GPL, then you must distribute source code. If you do not wish to distribute copies of the software, then you can do whatever you want. In particular, if you just want to use the software, you can do so on whatever terms you want.
As far as stopping people copying your code, you have every right to do that, and nothing in the GPL changes that. The GPL does say that if you create a derivative of a GPL program, *and* you decide to distribute copies of it, then the derivative work must be covered by the GPL. Note, however, that under copyright law you have no right at all to distribute a derivative work. The GPL extends to you a right not otherwise given to you under the law, but it does so at a price; you have to give away the changes you've made. Note also that Microsoft claims that you do not have the right to create a derivative work at all, *even* if you do not distribute it, which again seems to me to fall outside the purview of copyright law.
That's really the crux of the difference here. One group (GPL, BSD, et al.) gives you rights that the law says they don't have to give you. The other group (Microsoft, Oracle, et al.) tries to claim for itself rights not granted to it by the law. That is the all-important distinction, and ignoring it is just plain disingenuous.
-rpl
Microsofts right (Score:2)
It'd be akin to Microsoft bringing out two sealed white boxes and saying "One run windows.One runs Linux. Notice how windows is 1000% faster at typcial tasks when compared to linx?" without mentioning or letting it be known that the windows install is running on a 1 GHz Pentium III with 128 megs of ram, a gigabit ethernet card and a RAID 0 array of 4 internal disks, whereas the linux box is a Pentium 60, with 16 megs of ram, 10 megabit ethernet, and a 600 megabyte IDE drive.
Both of those computers would look identical from the outside.
For a lot of benchmarks, more independant organizations should be created and funded by all the companies who wish to have their products benchmarked, with permission given to publish their findings however they see fit. Any other benchmark, really, is suspect. As is any system installed for the express purpose of showing how slow a given piece of software is.
Firestone needs a precedent like this! (Score:2)
Non profit organizations like Consumer Reports (among others) better fight this one.
Larry Elison Should Not test this in Court (Score:2)
Then again, IANAL and maybe Larry Elison doesn't care.
How Funny! (Score:2)
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
If ever there was a reason to not use either product, this is it. I've not included Oracle in several projects because of this behavior. I figure the $150k Larry didn't get doesn't matter to him but does help the competition. I guess now I need to avoid MS SQL too.
Companies that hide behind 'you don't know enough to benchmark our product' need to slither back into the slime whence they came.
Re:This is typical of the Slashdot mentality (Score:2)
If MS (or anyone) doesn't let anything negative be said about their product, you're not getting the full picture.
Next time you read a review of a car, imagine if they were only allowed to say things that the car manufacturer approved. Every car would come across as a Rolls Royce or BMW. You wouldn't be able to decide till you bought one, and even then you wouldn't be able to tell your friends how it preforms.
Re:Folks, this is standard for the industry... (Score:2)
People just seem to take their word for it.
Until UCITA passes in my state, I will continue to act under the assumption that I pay money for a box with a disc in it, and that I have a common law right to use it for its intended purpose so long as I don't break any applicable laws, such as copyright. Since I have to copy it to my hard drive, and then into memory in order to use it for the purpose for which its sold, I conclude I have the right to do so.
Beyond that, if they want to impose additional terms, they should have negotiated a contract with me before they let me buy it.
Re:That's nothing (Score:3)
Upon entering the premises, representatives of our company may help themselves to a Mountain Dew from your fridge. Even if there is only one left, we may still take it. If we take the last one and there is a full case sitting next to the fridge, our representatives are not responsible for putting it into the fridge to get cold.
That's pretty much the only way they could be bigger bastards.
-B
Re:What's next next? Our first born? (Score:2)
On the other hand, if a rock is bumped off the truck due to poor roads or shocks or whatever, and dings your windshield as you tailgated the truck, you don't have a strong case - there's traffic safety issues, and the fact that the truck has posted cautionary signs reduces their liability. Now if the load was improperly secured (maybe the truck could have been covered?) as determined by applicable law, then you have a case, but otherwise, you're SOLed.
At least in this case, the 'contract' is more solid than those offered by software companies. Even in cases where the company knew that the software would crash and cause damage and did not take sufficient steps to fix that problem, (analogous to the truck dumping the rocks on you), they have been able to avoid all liability. "We are not responsible to any damage that our program may cause".
Irony: What MS does to folks who DON'T do this (Score:2)
Lotus finds that Microsoft is touting a ridiculous benchmark study that shows Exchange a gazillion times faster than Domino in serving POP mail. Of course, methodology is bunk -- never mind the fact that no one would ever use these products in these configurations for these purposes. But headline says, simply, "Exchange a gazillion times faster than Domino." Lotus plays the cease-and-desist game, gets the claims modified and clarified but desired pain is inflicted.
Lotus marketing looks into the issue and discovers that its EULA does not prohibit this behavior. Everyone else's EULA does. Lotus changes EULA.
Chalk one up for the bad guys. We'd all like to live in a world without locks and alarms, but it ain't practical.
Re:Larry Ellison is a freak (Score:2)
See: http://www.sqlmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleI
(Granted, it's gonna be a bit biased coming from SQLMag.com, but hey... whatcha donna go?)
Re:This is typical of the Slashdot mentality (Score:2)
Can anyone tell me (being a simple minded European), if might-be US president Bush Jr. really wants a free market and not too much government interference with the economy, does that also mean he will fight these laws?
Obviously these laws do have a large impact, no?
This has been in effect for years... (Score:2)
Infoworld did an artical on this few years ago, and then they invited everyone to bring in their DB and choice of hardware. IBM brought in an AS/400 box, MS with NT, and so forth. Dang, only if I could find the artical...
What's next next? Our first born? (Score:5)
Re:Ok, now, this has all just gotten a bit too sil (Score:2)
---
Re:This is typical of the Slashdot mentality (Score:2)
"You cannot write about your Operating system crashing without prior expressed permission from Microsoft"
And then they'd say if you don't like it -- don't use it. Linux aside, Windows has the majority of the desktop market share, and such logic will leave little choice to most of the people using PCs at home.