IBM to Oracle - You Can't Buy Open Source 102
mrops writes "CNET has up a short article about IBM's reaction to Oracle's recent acquisitions. From the article: 'Handy was responding to comments made by Oracle CEO Ellison to the Financial Times, where he said that he wanted Oracle to control a 'full stack' of software, including the Linux operating system. If Oracle did try to buy a Linux distributor, such as Red Hat or Novell, Handy said 'we'd stick to our strategy of having two or more independent distributors and have to wait and see what happens.'" It should be pointed out, as noted in yesterday's Slashback, that Ellison has no intentions of purchasing Red Hat.
Return Serve (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Return Serve (Score:1)
Freedom and slavery. (Score:1)
Re:Freedom and slavery. (Score:1)
Uhh, no. Slaves were property, and it was a property contract between the buyer and the seller. The slave doesn't enter into it. Hardly a labor contract, and even states where slavery was legal never pretended it was (when they switched to indentured servitude that was hardly different, that was a different matter). There's oodles of (now worthless) case law from slavery days concerning the contract rights and responsibility of slav
Re:Freedom and slavery. (Score:1)
Just a bit of clarification, bond/indentured servitude mostly came before slavery. One of the impetus for chattel slavery was that they couldn't find anybody stupid enough to sign an indenturment to come work on the rice plantations and pitch works of the americas due to the death rates. Slavery was well established by the time cotton b
Property and contracts. (Score:1)
Oracle buys IBM (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oracle buys IBM (Score:5, Informative)
Oracle Corp. (Nasdaq: ORCL)
International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE: IBM)
So if either company were to buy the other, it would be IBM acquiring Oracle, but I think Oracle's probably too big for them to swallow in any event.
Oracle is certainly the more profitable company though, in terms of profit/revenue, but then again they don't really manufacture anything, while IBM still makes and sells a lot of stuff.
Re:Oracle buys IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
Buying something like Oracle would also not fit in with IBM's strategy of expanding services - their last big acquisition was a consultancy, and I bet their next one will be as well.
OT: Old SNL Skit (Score:1)
Headline makes the wrong assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Headline makes the wrong assumption (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Headline makes the wrong assumption (Score:3, Interesting)
-matthew
Re:Headline makes the wrong assumption (Score:4, Funny)
All your installed bases are belong to us?
Doesn't have the same ring to it; it'll never catch on.
Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rick
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Interesting)
sahuaro
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
SSH was under a freer license than GPL, but did use a GPL library. Today OpenSSH (a derivative of SSH) contains no GPL code. Have a look at the OpenSSH history [openssh.org]
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:1)
Actually, I don't think OS [Open Source] necessarily only means 'published code'. It also often includes the licensing to, among other things, protect the project from being exploited.
Ok, sure, you could buy off the developers with enough cash. Sounds logical given enough money. But the people involved in certain organized, open projects often do have the desire for it to exist outside of corporate control. I'd like to think that a large group of the developers would immediately fork, pick a different nam
Re:Why not? (Score:1)
Bssst... Thank you for playing (Score:2, Informative)
You are only 1/10th correct.
Wrong- Even Microsoft admitted this was wrong.
Now go read up and become an educated Slashbot.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php [opensource.org]
1) Free Distibution
2) Source code
3) Derived works
4) Integrity of The Author's Source Code
5) No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6) No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
7) Distribution of License
8) License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
9) License Must Not Restrict Other Software
10)Lice
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Free Software, contrary to what you seem to believe, is about providing users with certain freedoms:
0. the freedom to run the program for any purpose
1. the freedom to study the program and modify it according to your needs
2. the freedom to distribute copies
3. the freedom to publish modified versions
So who has desire for theses Freedoms? Software? Don't be laughable. It's PEOPLE who desire it!
Any software license that removes theses freedoms from users is disrespecting them. It's a license written with control in mind. Control of the user and what he may or may not be able to do.
I for one, only use Free Software (for quite a long time, now), but in the beggining I thought only the quality of "open source" mattered. Then I learned better...
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
I made no comment on Free Software. I only stated (as we appear to agree on) that the software itself has no desire to be free.
I think Free Software is neat. I think it is going to play a continued roll in the market of software development. I don't think, nor do I want all software to become free software.
The point I was trying to specificly make is that a company absolutely CAN buy Open Source. Not to be confused with Free Software.
-Rick
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Why do you think people don't deserve freedom? Advocate that all software should be Free Software: that way not only you don't force anyone, but you may help achieving the nice end result that all software eventually becomes Free Software.
Remember, saying you don't want all software to be Free Software is like saying you don't want all humans to have freedom (I'm excluding criminals doing time for obvious reasons).
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Absolutely, and significantly more than software deserves freedom.
"Remember, saying you don't want all software to be Free Software is like saying you don't want all humans to have freedom (I'm excluding criminals doing time for obvious reasons)."
Just the opposite. If all software is free (as in beer) then software developers are NOT free. Free (as in speach) software can give some software developers MORE freedom while giving other developers LESS freedom. Th
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
I'm explicitly talking about freedom and not about price or being paid to develop Free Software.
You do seem to want to remove freedoms from users... at least on some software... do you have a special undisclosed interest?
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Freedom for the original coders limits the freedom of derivative coders.
Freedom for the derivative coders limits the freedom of the original coders.
I'm not saying that Free (a
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Not it's not. Not when it's as clearly defined as the Free Software definition [fsf.org].
I'm starting to think you're deliberatly trying to confuse this discussion. All software writers are users, so User means users. The GNU GPL in particular aims to defend the 4 freedoms for all users.
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
I am. I have been this whole time. To quote myself: "I think Free Software is neat. I think it is going to play a continued roll in the market of software development. I don't think, nor do I want all software to become free software."
"You have many desktop environments to choose from (GNOME and KDE being the most popular right now), many MTA servers (email), office suites, MUA (email clients) etc... etc..."
I'm not talking about a single system. I'm talking about a
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Isn't THAT kind of like somebody from PETA saying "Well - ANIMALS are people too, yanno"
Re:Why not? (Score:1)
first of all, the right to modify software is utterly useless to most people, because they don't have the skills. It's like telling a puppy that he has your permison to drive your car. It doesn't magically give him the ability. With most people, the reaction you will get will range from "well, it's a nice thought, but it doesn't really help me, sorry" to "Why can't you get it
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Freedom of press is also utterly useless to most people because they're not journalists. Do you wish to remove Freedom of press?
Well, As you should be able to understand since you write english, I'm not mandating but
Re:Why not? (Score:1)
No, freedom of the press is useful to most people because it provides them with information about the world that does not have to be government-approved, and so helps maintain and insure other freedoms. Freedom of software only helps most people to the extent that the open source development model helps them - it makes better software. therefor, if someone can make a product tha
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
No, software freedom is useful to most people because it provides them with abilities about software that does not have to be software-company-approved, and so helps maintain and insure other software related freedoms.
See?
Re:Why not? (Score:1)
No, software freedom is useful to most people because it provides them with abilities about software that does not have to be software-company-approved, and so helps maintain and insure other software related freedoms.
See?
unfortunately, it doesn't quite translate. with software, you read the liscense
Re:Why not? (Score:1)
Re:Why not? (Score:1)
Re:All your Database are... (Score:2)
It's like beer... (Score:2)
I could have put something more sexual in the subject, but decided not to.
Of course not (Score:3)
That would mean becoming innovative, opening themselves up to new ideas, new ways of thinking. Can't have that! Then they might actually be able to compete with Microsoft.
Hmmmmm... my sarcasm detector is going off...
Re:Of course not (Score:2)
I am not sure what you mean there. Are you implying that Microsoft inovates? Could you give me an example of this. I honestly can't think of one thing Microsoft has inovated. I can give countless examples of times Microsoft has tried to copy a competitors product, but it was far worse and then just bundled it in with the OS for "free" to just kill out their competion.
Now I am by no way a huge fan of Oracle, or IBM, but at least both of them will work with oth
Re:Of course not (Score:2)
No, I don't mean Microsoft innovates. I mean Larry Ellison is trying to compete with Microsoft and is so far having no luck. I've said this
Re:Of course not (Score:2)
Not at all. They push Oracle on Linux in a big way.
They would do well to have a distro that they controlled so that they could tightly integrate the OS dev with their product development. Hell, it'd be nice to find a Linux distro that would run Oracle out of the box without having to do any tunings or tweakings. It would also be nice if there were a Linux distro that had Oracle
Re:Of course not (Score:2)
I don't know about them but I want to run whatever distribution I choose. If you want to install Oracle amd64 on Ubuntu you have to make the installer detect RedHat otherwise it refuses to run. I found this more annoying than all the other problems I had during the install.
Re:Of course not (Score:2)
Just as it's your choice of what OS you want to run it on, it's their choice as
Where is the need? (Score:1)
Re:Where is the need? (Score:2)
Are you a potential, paying client of theirs? Have you told them of your desire to run a different distro? What are your reasons for wan
Re:Of course not (Score:2)
I think MS has fooled a lot of people (including you) into thinking that innovation is the same as creation.
Does MS innovate? Absolutely.
Does MS create? That's the real question.
ObSimRef (Score:2)
Take Ellison with a grain of salt... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon mgt (Score:5, Interesting)
Both Oracle and IBM have got it wrong. If you've ever tried to install:
WHY NOT JUST WRITE A FRICKIN' RPM???? HUH? LIKE, ALONG WITH A PROPER DAEMON SCRIPT SO YOU CAN START AND STOP ORACLE, DB2, WebSphere, Etc Etc Etc in a single command-line, in the STANDARD LINUX WAY???? D'ya THINK????? DUH!
A couple of people have tried to write an open-source RPM/daemon script suite around these packages, but of course -- then a new version of the proprietary DB/web service comes out.
And both Oracle and IBM are rolling in dough, why would anyone do this for them for free?
If a sysadmin got the freedom to run Open Source anything, they'll switch to PhP/MySQL and/or PostGreSQL (depending on whether they need triggers or not) soon enough ANYWAY
Oracle could drastically increase its install base in the Linux community just by demonstrating some rudimentary competence in the area of standard Linux server systems software management.
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:5, Insightful)
I've scripted (without GUI) installation of DB2, Websphere & Orrible no problemo just by reading the fine manual. You could too.
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
You also don't have to install your own copy of java.
If you don't know this much then you've never really touched the Oracle end of this.
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
Also, how do you deal with multiple oracle homes with an RPM?
Hell, I can't get my Apache install to upgrade properly with RPM's without fscking things up, so there's no way I'm going to trust Oracle updates, etc, to an RPM. (yeah, could be operator error, but it's frustrating and very "non-point-and-click" none the less).
Needless to say, you can very easil
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
I also recommend you try using Oracle in a more complex environment (something where you have more than one instance running more than one version), and understand that your whole concept of top-level "opt" directory/versions just doesn't work. There are too many shared services and directory locations for this to work.
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
Yeah, don't get me wrong, Oracle is a pig of a database when it comes to installation, etc. They've even adopted a common installation registry for their software, among other stupid things.
The problem is that unless you're dealing with a rather simple environment, where you're not thinking too far out of the box, an RPM installer is problematic.
By NOT using an RPM installer, Oracle actually gives me (or, more properly, someone running a more complex, non-typical installation) more choice by allowin
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
Except then I remembered that Oracle isn't just databases.
They're also web/application servers, ldap servers, portal servers, email servers, etc.
And they all use the same installer technology.
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
Frustrating (Score:2)
While it's not the end of the world, it certainly is very annoying. A lot of closed source software installable on Linux does this crap. They'll do things like create their own
Re:Frustrating (Score:2)
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:2)
Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon (Score:1)
DB2 is an RPM install [ibm.com] if you cared to look. It can also be started/restarted/stopped and completely administered using command line. Try again next time.
Oracle XE (Score:1)
Cross purposes (Score:2)
If that's the case, they're both basically right -- Oracle certainly can buy companies (f
Re: (Score:2)
The business model they have in mind... (Score:2, Informative)
Apache Geronimo (Score:2, Informative)
Re:You Can't Buy Open Source (Score:2)
From the desk of Larry Ellison (Score:5, Funny)
To: IBM
SUBJ: Your note to us about Open Source
Dear IBM,
Piss off. I have two Mig jets and a really big-ass boat. I can buy anything I want.
Oraclistically Yours,
Larry
Larry is going to take a lot of flack for... (Score:1)
in reference to open source. Context: T: Is open source going to be disruptive to Oracle? LE: No. If an open source product gets good enough, we'll simply take it. Take [the web server software] Apache: once Apache got better than our own web server, we threw it away and took Apache. So the great thing about open source is nobody owns it - a company like Oracle is free to take it for nothing, include it in our products and charge for support, a
let me get this strait... (Score:1)
It's the ultimate scam!
Re:let me get this strait... (Score:2)
If Oracle bought SuSE, couldn't the SuSE team just start another distribution with the same underlaying content, but a different name?
Ofcourse they can, but to Oracle, the name is probably worth something too.
IBM is right (Score:2, Insightful)
This follows the predicate: Any useful software is bound to become free (as in beer) once the cost of its development has been amortized. The free (as in speech) software movement is not much more
What Oracle really wants (Score:1)