- Medsphere--total open source chaos?
- Open source = helping customers pay for what they want?
- Novell drops Hula efforts
- Novell CEO on Microsoft Love/Hate
- Canopy Group becomes an upstanding citizen again
- Where the VC dollars go (geographically)
- Mark Radcliffe on developing open source policy
- More patent craziness--McDonalds tries to patent the sandwich
- Bizarro Mac problem and a trip to Stonestown Apple Store (Verdict: Great service)
- Off Topic: Food and Travel
November 30, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Medsphere--total open source chaos?
I hadn't seen anything about Medsphere's bizarro open source issues that are going on but it seems that the company is suing its two founders, the Shreeve brothers, and trying to take back its open source release by accusing those who downloaded it from Sourceforge of racketeering. Wow.
Seems like a lot of confusion about the business of OSS but this whole thing is nuts. Larry can't be pleased.
Links:
Is Medsphere taking it back?
Medsphere betrays community
An Open Letter to Medsphere Employees about the Company's Open Source Strategy
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on November 30, 2006 08:48 PM
November 29, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open source = helping customers pay for what they want?
William Bulkeley has a fascinating column [Subscription required for an inane reason] in today's Wall Street Journal. The gist is that the Internet has enabled consumers to pay for what they want, rather than what various industries try to sell them. In Bulkeley's words:
Photo companies made customers pay for 24 shots in a roll of film to get a handful of good pictures. Music publishers made customers buy full CDs to get a single hit song. Encyclopedia publishers made parents spend thousands of dollars on multiple volumes when all they wanted was to help their kid do one homework paper. The business models required customers to pay for detritus [great word!] to get the good stuff.Could the same phenomenon be hitting enterprise software? I think so. Open source is one more way that customers are choosing to buy what they need, rather than what a vendor needs to sell. Open source is very much a fulfillment of the positive force in Clayton Christensen's "innovator's dilemma":Inevitably, their industry revenues are shrinking now that customers can use digital technology and the Internet to select only what they want.
Marketing 101 says success comes from selling things people want. But advanced marketing calls for companies to leverage the relationship to get the buyer to pony up for other products - or at least for extra product. When customers find a way to avoid buying the excess baggage, they change quickly.
Linux initially thrived in the embedded world in large part because of one aspect of this ability: remove the part of the kernel that you don't need to improve performance, enhance security, and shrink its size. SugarCRM thrives because, not in spite of, its more manageable, intuitive code base and UI. Simplicity is selling, and open source - that so-called complex phenomenon for developers by developers - is the king of simplicity. Good enough and cheap is beating bloated and expensive. (Some day, I assume open source may well become the same, but we're many years from that point, and we have built-in inhibitors like support fungibility to stave off or prevent that day.)
Simplicity of code (the better projects, anyway), and simplicity of business model. That's open source. Want to know one reason customers appreciate my company (Alfresco)? Because our pricing model fits on one line of a sheet of paper (one number, one symbol, and two words). Compare this to Documentum's, which runs on for volumes (and not solely because there are so many $X,000,000 attached to each price :-).
Today, open source companies basically sell support, however we may choose to package it. Is this what customers want? Or do they want to pay for software, too, just not as much as traditional vendors charge? I think it's an open question, and one that I'm looking forward to watching customers, not vendors, decide.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 29, 2006 05:30 PM
November 28, 2006 | Comments: (0)
I remember when Hula launched a few years ago at LinuxWorld and it was all the rage--sadly the project is no longer being funded by Novell. Truth be told, Zimbra and some of the other OSS MS Exchange replacements are far better than Hula ever was. It's just disappointing to see a promising technology from Novell bite the dust.
The quick synopsis is, Novell no longer has anyone working full-time on Hula. As a team we have spent some time looking at where the Hula
project is and the opportunities in the market and in the end we had to conclude that we couldn't justify investing at the same level in Hula going forward. So those of us who have been developing Hula full-time will be moving on to other roles and to other parts of the company.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on November 28, 2006 09:10 PM
November 28, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Novell CEO on Microsoft Love/Hate
There really is nothing more to say about this whole ordeal. Still worth a read to see Ron Hovsepian's thoughts about deal. (Spoiler alert: pretty lame answers across the board.)
Link:
Novell CEO gives behind-the-scenes account of deal with Microsoft
Novell/Microsoft pact violates...the future?
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on November 28, 2006 08:21 PM
November 28, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Canopy Group becomes an upstanding citizen again
Remember Canopy Group? It's the venture firm that spent more money on lawsuits (against CA, IBM, Microsoft, and others) than investments, most famously with SCO Group's lawsuit against IBM.
Well, as Connect Magazine reports, Canopy is shedding its troubled past and is becoming a real venture capitalist again. It has rid itself of the taint of SCO shares, has dumped Ralph Yarro from his role as managing director, and is investing in real companies again. Canopy has brought on Ron Heinz as its managing director, which is a great move. Ron has zero venture capital experience, but is a proven operator, and will be a great addition to Canopy's traditional focus of helping to build entrepreneurs, not just equity positions.
connect: What are the primary differences between the Canopy of 2000-2001 vs. the Canopy of today?Good luck, Ron. Nice to see Canopy again proving itself a credit to Ray Noorda, its founder, and not a shame to his name.R.H.: I think the underpinnings are the same and that’s to foster the growth of information technology companies in Utah. We are trying to be more communicative to the outside world and be more involved in the community. We are very hands-on in our approach to managing the portfolio.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 28, 2006 08:31 AM
November 28, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Where the VC dollars go (geographically)
From Paul Kedrosky:
Does this mean you should move to the Bay Area? Maybe. Plenty of open source companies have successfully grown outside the Valley (actually, the most successful ones - Red Hat, JBoss, MySQL), but it's certainly the case that there's more venture money in the Bay Area than anywhere else.
Of course, the primary VC complaint is having to get on a plane for board meetings, so maybe it's enough to do what Zend, MySQL, etc. have done: move management to the Bay Area. They may well be the only ones who can afford it. :-)
Posted by Matt Asay on November 28, 2006 08:18 AM
November 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Mark Radcliffe on developing open source policy
Mark Radcliffe at DLA Piper knows a great deal about open source licensing. Besides drafting the licenses for SugarCRM, Zimbra and MuleSource he is also General Counsel for OSI. Here's a quick overview as to how companies should approach OSS: Closing Open-Source Gaps by Developing a Policy
It is no longer possible to simply prohibit its use. Rather, companies should avoid these problems by adopting an open-source use policy, which should address the following issues:
-Use of open-source components in products for third parties.
-Use of open source for internal purposes.
-Approved usage models.
-Implementation of policy by industry experts or outsourced teams.
-Permitted/forbidden open-source licenses.
-Rules for contribution by employees to open-source projects.
-Use of commercial products (Black Duck/Palmida) to audit use of open-source code.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on November 27, 2006 10:28 PM
November 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
More patent craziness--McDonalds tries to patent the sandwich
McDonald's puts patent on sandwiches
McDonald's wants to own the rights to how a sandwich is made.The fast-food chain has applied for a patent relating to the 'method and apparatus' used to prepare the snack.
The burger company says owning the 'intellectual property rights' would help its hot deli sandwiches look and taste the same at all of its restaurants.
It also wants to cut down on the time needed to put together a sandwich, thought to have been dreamt up by the Earl of Sandwich in 1762.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on November 27, 2006 08:07 AM
November 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Bizarro Mac problem and a trip to Stonestown Apple Store (Verdict: Great service)
Just before she got on the plane for London, Karen plugged in her new iPod which somehow managed to fry all the USB ports on her G5. Then while we were in London the iPod completely died. It had some kind of power issue it seemed.
Upon our return to the states (and my vicious jetlag) I stayed up trying pretty much everything (the machine is out of warranty.) I went through the typical fixing USB issues--removed everything and tried just the keyboard and mouse. Mouse good, keyboard bad. I eventually took the RAM out, ran the HW test, reset the PMU, zapped the PRAM, reinstalled but no dice. The machine was hosed.
I decided late Thursday nite that I would get up and go to the mall on Black Friday to buy a new computer and return the fried iPod. And my experience was a total pleasure. Seriously.
Now, part of that is because the staff are always friendlier when you are buying vs. going to the genius bar, but everyone there was helpful and made the whole experience very pleasant (despite dropping $2500 at 7am.) In fact, I am not even pissed that the machine is dead because I feel so much better about buying from Apple after that experience.
So, to the Apple PR people I have spoken with regarding past indecencies, please tell the Stonestown people nice job. And thanks for making me a supporter again. Now, I just need a replacement for this MacBook...
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on November 26, 2006 10:18 AM
November 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
I caught some link off of gapingvoid the other day where someone was saying that great bloggers do it for their readers, not for themselves. Not sure if I agree but maybe thats the difference between being a "blogger" and a "writer". I have always been a writer, the blog is just a mechanism to churn out content. Ultimately, it's good practice for when you have real work to do. That said, I have had a lot of real work to do and have been uninspired in my writing. Some of that is based on the fact that I have a lot of other stuff going on and some is based on the fact that I am loopy on cold medicine.
For my cold I am currently taking Rhinofebral, which I bought at some pharmacy in Paris. Truth be told I am not really sure what it does or if it's working, but I can absolutely tell you I am addicted.
Speaking of Paris; it's great. I was fully prepared to be treated like the American dog I am, but instead everyone was shockingly nice, the pastries and coffee were unbelievably delicious and overall the city is far better than a lot of other places I have been to. While I was in London it felt like I was forever in the tube or in a cab whereas Paris felt much more open.
The main thing I realized about international travel is that I seem to always base my review on the food. Which means that London will come out on the bottom pretty much every time--though we did manage to have a few good meals and the food has generally gotten much better.
In NYC I ate at Una Pizza Napoletana which is run by friend Anthony, who makes literally the best pizza in the world, and in Paris we ate at Taillevent. In London we did eat at Fifteen (the Jamie Oliver restaurant) and a place called Cicada (kind of a more expensive(!) Slanted Door) but other than that the city is overrun by sandwiches. Even Ross, a native Londoner was on an anti-sandwich rampage. The other weird thing is that the selection of beverages in convenience stores is terrible. I was jonesing for a Vitamin Water by the 3rd day.
Back to Paris...
Every few blocks is a boulangerie (bread/bakery) where I could feed my big fat self. There was one near our hotel where every morning I would run out and get a variety of croissants and this delicious cold pizza. And they voluntarily spoke english--I think mainly to move the line along, but who cares. It was bliss.
My next big trip is Japan in January. Having been there before I know I will get some good noodles and lots of weird beverages.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on November 26, 2006 09:45 AM
November 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Novell markets patent safety...to a land that doesn't believe in software patents
Pam @ Groklaw is tracking Novell's marketing efforts around SUSE Linux, post the Microsoft pact. Novell's UK office has started blanketing the inboxes of its customers with patent FUD:
The patent cooperation agreement enables Microsoft and Novell to give customers assurance of protection against patent infringement claims. It gives customers confidence that the technologies they use and deploy in their environments are compliant with the two companies’ patents.It's sad to see how quickly Novell has shifted from talking up its contributions to Linux innovation to instead focus on the courtroom. Especially when, as IBM has said, few to no customers actually ask about or care about patents. Vendors care about patents. Customers care about solutions to their business problems. Patents are not a solution to anyone's problem.As part of this agreement, Microsoft will provide a covenant not to assert its patent rights against customers who have purchased SUSE Linux Enterprise Server or other covered products from Novell, and Novell will provide an identical covenant to customers who have a licensed version of Windows or other covered products from Microsoft.
Interestingly, Novell's UK marketing reveals a huge problem (well, there are many, but here's one): the UK doesn't recognize the validity of most software patents. It's therefore not clear just what benefit these UK customers are supposed to get from this "protection."
Of course, the other problem is that this tactic by Novell largely flies in the face of its commitment not to FUD Linux, generally, to help sell SUSE Linux, specifically. It was too much to expect Novell to not make hay with the patent pact, but it's disappointing how soon it has started.
I sat next to a Novell sales guy and his sales engineer at a Utah restaurant last Tuesday, and got to hear him pitch an IT guy (a CIO, I presume) on Novell's products and vision. To their credit, they didn't spend much time FUD'ing Linux. But that's because they hardly talked about Linux, which is one of Novell's biggest hurdles to overcome. They addressed Linux just long enough to say that SUSE Linux was the safe choice (and even boasted that Microsoft will be buying a minimum of 70,000 copies of SUSE Linux, as if that's a reference customer worth referencing, given the context), and spent the rest of the time on ZEN, Identity Management, GroupWise, etc. In short, all the legacy products that continue to bring in dollars at an ever-dwindling rate.
Novell: it's time to burn the boats. You have a potentially bright road ahead of you, but it begins with the flames of the road behind you.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 26, 2006 07:26 AM
November 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
"You have to burn the boats" (BusinessWeek on business model innovation)
Such was the wisdom of Hernan Cortez, and such is the requirement for any company hoping to reinvent itself as business models change under a company's feet, as highlighted in this excellent Steve Hamm piece from BusinessWeek. In other words, if you want to move forward, most will need to cut off any hope of retreating into comfortable, "safe" business models or product strategies that worked in the past.
It's a new world. Get over the old world.
Steve Hamm's article (co-written with William Symonds) walks through Eastman Kodak's struggles to adopt digital photography, despite being the company that invented it in the first place. Why has it been so hard for an innovator like Kodak to adapt to this brave new world? In part, because the spoils of conquest in the new world have not proved as fat as those in the past:
While blazing growth of camera sales has helped blunt the effects of Kodak's fast-fading film revenues, it hasn't replaced the rich profits of the film business. Even the best mass-market cameras yield slim profit margins. So, although Kodak's digital camera business was a roaring sales success, it turned out to be a crushing profit disappointment.In part, the shift has been difficult because business model innovation is much harder than product innovation:
"Business model innovation is harder than product innovation. It's harder to visualize, and the scope is larger and much more complex. It includes everything the company does. Everything has to be changed," says Jay Desai, chief executive of management consultancy Institute of Global Competitiveness.This is so because business model innovation is essentially a human problem. People don't like to change, particularly when the old ways have yielded so much success in the past. Kodak has fired 27,000 workers on the road to change, just as the Christian Science Monitor went through a 60% turnover in its IT staff to yield an open source savvy organization capable of innovating, and not just watching colored, blinking lights to make sure they keep blinking.
How do you manage the "people problem?" First, figure out where people stand:
Perez believes that in any organization, one-third of the staff will readily support a change, one-third can be convinced, and one-third will be unwilling to make the shift. He calls it The Rule of the Thirds.If you're committed to change, you first have to rid yourself of those who will sandbag any efforts to move forward. When Novell first started moving to open source, it was a terribly tough slog, in part because more than one-third (it felt like 98%) were stuck in the NetWare past and could not grok open source. Any successful company will be shackled by its history. That's why it's important to "make painful breaks with the past," as Hamm says it. Or, as Cortez might say, "You have to burn the boats."
This may be accomplished through firing/hiring programs, by incubating new products/business models separate from established businesses, or in a range of other ways noted in the article. But one thing is clear: in business model innovation, the road forward starts by obliterating the road behind. You simply can't move forward by spending all your time fetishing the past. Just ask Lot's wife. :-)
This is why I have hope for companies like Sun. No company has responded more aggressively to the open source challenge. Sun has been open sourcing its software and hardware on the expectation that the shift will bear fruit. Time will tell, but by burning its boats, all it needs to worry about is the future. As it turns out, this is a great prescription for success.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 26, 2006 07:03 AM
November 23, 2006 | Comments: (0)
If Novell's patent portfolio is so significant...
David Kaefer, the director of business development for intellectual property and licensing at Microsoft, is on the record as saying a rather curious thing:
We've been very clear from the outset, and the financial realities of the deal underscore this, that Novell's patents have value. One need only go back to the late 90s with Novell's leadership in the directory space to recognize the benefits of much of the research and development that they conducted at that time.I'm sure this is true; at least, I'm sure it's true (in fact, I know so) that Novell's patent portfolio is significant. Not nearly as extensive as Microsoft's, but significant in its own right.
But let's assume David is telling the truth. If so, then Microsoft, not Novell, has the patent quandary, not open source. Or, at least, not Novell. Novell claims to be using its patent portfolio to protect open source ("We have stated our commitment to use our own software patents to protect open source technologies"), but really its policy is more self-serving. Understandable, but let's call a spade a spade.
Otherwise, if Novell cared about the community more than narrow self-interst, wouldn't it put those important patents under cover of the Open Invention Network so that they truly could protect open source?
Again, if Microsoft's patents are only worth $40M or so, and Novell's are worth $300M, then does anyone have anything to fear about Microsoft's patent rattling? If their value is comparatively worthless, why is anyone bothering to take them seriously (this assumes, of course, that someone is)?
And why, if Novell's patent portfolio is so significant, isn't Novell using those patents to defend open source as it has promised to do, rather than just its quarterly revenue target? Surely the company's potential market would be even bigger if it made the open source pie bigger, and not merely its current slice of it?
I'm with Mark Webbink on this one: it all just doesn't add up.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 23, 2006 06:36 AM
November 23, 2006 | Comments: (0)
OpenOffice gets SharePoint functionality
Steven Vaughan-Nichols at eWeek is reporting that a Dutch firm has built an extension to OpenOffice, named O3Spaces, that:
...provid[es] users a single web-based team environment, with built-in search capabilities and an optional Java-based Desktop Assistant. Its search functionality is said to work across PDF, ODF, and Microsoft Office document formats.Sounds interesting, and timely. Most just don't seem to realize that SharePoint is the future of Microsoft's lock-in.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 23, 2006 06:09 AM
November 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Maybe Microsoft has the patent problem?
All this patent talk has been around the idea that Linux and other OSS might be in violation of Microsoft patent claims. But maybe Microsoft is trying to make the deals to avoid litigation against it's own products.
No company would go forth and present a list of what third-party technologies its patents infringed, Kaefer said, adding though that there is some acknowledgement on the part of Microsoft of the reality that there are a lot of patents in existence, "and we would rather have certainty and transact that certainty for value than to sit on the sidelines and wait for problems to occur. We don't want t subject our customers to that," he said.When asked to identify any Linux or other open source or code that Microsoft believed violated its patents, as well as to say where it was found and in which distribution it was included, Kaefer evaded the issue, saying that no company in the open-source or proprietary field went through every product and looked at every patent claim they might or might not assert. "I just don't think that's productive," he said.
Link eWeek:
Is Microsoft Violating Some Patents Covering Open Source?
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on November 22, 2006 04:43 PM
November 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Mark Webbink on Microsoft and appeasement
Mark Webbink, Red Hat's deputy general counsel and secretary, looks at the Microsoft/Novell agreement through a historic lens...
As a history buff, reading the Novell and Microsoft open letters this morning conjured up the image of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain standing in front of 10 Downing Street in 1938 and declaring: "My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time."...and discovers that all that glitters is not gold:We all know how well that turned out.
Microsoft's principal objective in this exercise was to get someone ostensibly from the free and open source software community to acknowledge the tacit validity of Microsoft's patent portfolio. And despite Hovsepian's protestations to the contrary, Microsoft has now obtained that in the form of Novell. But at what cost to Novell?...Again, I don't think Novell did this with any intent to hurt open source. They have much to gain and everything to lose if open source fails. But I wonder if Ron thought through the consequences of this action - not necessarily for Novell directly, but for the larger industry. Sometimes we don't really want the consequences of what we want.Hovsepian later appeals to the free and open source community to forgive this action based on all of the other actions Novell has taken in fighting software patents, but for the most part his itemized list just doesn't hold together.
- We have stated our commitment to use our own software patents to protect open source technologies. But what they have really said is: "Novell will use its patent portfolio to protect itself against claims made against the Linux kernel or open source programs included in Novell's offerings, as dictated by the actions of others."
- We have spoken out against EU legislation that would liberalize the standards for granting software patents. But read what they have really said: "Novell has sought to use and will continue to use patents as a legitimate means of protecting Novell's software offerings. We believe that the current system in the European Union has served the industry, the individual Member States and Novell well, and generally promotes innovation and competition in the industry. And compare this passive statement to the actions taken by Sun Microsystems and Red Hat in actively working with the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure in fighting off the Computer Implemented Inventions directive.
- We offer indemnification to our Linux customers accused of intellectual property infringement. But read what they have really said: "Indemnification is offered for copyright infringement claims." This statement doesn't address any form of intellectual property other than copyright.
- We have teamed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other industry leaders to reduce the issuance of "bad patents" in the software area. But the lead sponsors for the peer review project underway between the USPTO and the New York Law School are IBM, Red Hat, GE, HP, and Microsoft. There is a significant difference between participation and commitment, just ask a pig about breakfast.
- In 2005, we co-founded Open Invention Network ("OIN"), "an intellectual property company that was formed to promote Linux by using patents to create a collaborative environment." Novell's substantial contributions to OIN were made to benefit not only ourselves, but also other Linux vendors, distributors and developers, and anyone else willing to commit not to assert their patents against Linux. Absolutely true. Novell was an active and dynamic participant in establishing OIN. And the fact that Novell has (or perhaps I should say had) such a strong patent portfolio and worked diligently to establish OIN only emphasizes my original point - the deal they entered can best be understood as appeasement.
Novell wants us to believe their position on open source and patents hasn't changed. I'm having a hard time buying that argument.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 22, 2006 03:31 PM
November 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft's patent rattling annoys customers
It's time we heard from the people that matter most in the great Microsoft/Novell debate:
Customers.
A few CIOs recently talked to ComputerWorld about their concerns with the Microsoft/Novell pact. Barry Strasnick who is an outspoken guy (and who, at CitiStreet, uses a lot of Red Hat Linux and JBoss), said:
Like many IT executives, I took great offense to Ballmer's comments. If Microsoft really thinks there is some code in Linux that violates their patents, they should publish those lines of codes immediately instead of just posturing in the press. [Fear, uncertainty and doubt] may have worked for IBM in the 1970s (some of us are old enough to have been around then), but not today.Nice work, Microsoft. By trying to eke out an additional nickel (as if $20+ billion weren't enough), you're managing to annoy your customers.There were some applications I had been thinking about moving to a Microsoft platform, but this has now totally alienated me from Microsoft.
Why don't you get back to the business of selling software?
Posted by Matt Asay on November 22, 2006 12:29 PM
November 21, 2006 | Comments: (0)
OIN speaks out on the Novell/Microsoft pact
For those who have forgotten, IBM, Novell (yes, the same Novell), Philips, Red Hat, Sony and NEC started the Open Invention Network in 2005 to pool patents to protect Linux and open source software. Since that time, OIN has purchased 100 patents with the purpose of making Faustian pacts like the Microsoft/Novell deal unnecessary.
Today, the OIN responded to the Microsoft/Novell deal as follows:
"We at OIN believe that the openness and collaborative culture of the Linux community is an engine for innovation. It is clear that there is significant value in Linux community members' intellectual property and patents....Was Novell just hedging its bets with OIN? Or with Microsoft? Doesn't the one (OIN) largely obviate the "need" for the latter?"Unfortunately, embedded in Microsoft's recent endorsement of Linux are claims regarding customers' needing protection from patent attack. Those claims are baseless. In fact, there have been no patent suits against Linux. While patent disputes are not unheard of between and among software developers and distributors, they are almost always resolved between these commercial entities -- not by dragging in end-user customers. Isn't the real issue the fact that Microsoft is making such a threat against its own customers?
"OIN continues to support the Linux community's ability to collaborate and innovate. Through the accumulation of patents that may be used to shield the Linux environment, including users of Linux software, OIN has obviated the need for offers of protection from others.
"In less than a year, OIN has accumulated more than 100 strategic, worldwide patents and patent applications that span Web / Internet, e-commerce, mobile and communications technologies. These patents are available to all as part of the patent commons that OIN is creating around, and in support of Linux. We stand ready to leverage our IP portfolio to maintain the open patent environment OIN has helped create."
The Microsoft/Novell deal seems like much ado about nothing. I've yet to hear customers ask about it (including when I was in the Linux Business Office at Novell), and I'm still waiting to see a lawsuit against Linux.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 21, 2006 01:16 PM
November 21, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open source databases at least 50% cheaper (TCO)
Forrester Research has discovered the obvious: open source databases are much cheaper than proprietary databases:
Noel Yuhanna, a senior analyst at Forrester covering database management systems, estimated that average savings on the total cost of ownership are about 50 per cent. The data is based on surveys and customer interviews.Open source databases such as Enterprise DB, Ingres and MySQL do not carry licence fees, and management tools tend to be less expensive than for proprietary databases from Oracle, Microsoft and IBM.
Open source offerings especially outshine their proprietary competitors in low-end applications with databases of less than 200GB in size.
"Eighty per cent of the applications typically use only 30 per cent of the features found in commercial databases," Yuhanna told vnunet.com. "The open source databases deliver those features today."
Posted by Matt Asay on November 21, 2006 10:06 AM
November 21, 2006 | Comments: (0)
(Sorry, Justin, I can't resist.)
Pam at Groklaw is reporting that Novell's response to Microsoft's Get the Facts campaign has mysteriously vanished. It used to be "Unbending the Truth: Things that Microsoft Hopes You Won't Notice." Well, no one will notice these-things-formerly-known-as-Truth now that the page has been changed to a whitewashed "Why SUSE Linux?"
Did ~$300M in payout help to change Novell's mind as to the facts?
Novell even had a page up talking through patents and why customers need not worry about Microsoft's patents. All gone. But Pam visits the Wayback Machine and resurrects Novell's past, and ends with this question:
So, here's the question I have for Novell: what happened to that promise to protect FOSS with its patent portfolio? Novell did say it. We relied upon it, and OIN is totally separate from the above promise. I mention that because some Novell guys have been saying that Novell never made any such promise or that the OIN patents fulfill the promise. Read the promise again. Novell clearly promised to use its patent portfolio, not OIN's, and Novell appears to have just bargained that patent portfolio away, giving Microsoft a clear path to now bring patent infringement claims against everyone else. Novell's character and honor is on the line. And we await your statement with interest.Dickens' words in Great Expectations seem so fitting now:
It is a most miserable thing to feel ashamed of home.Or of one's open source past. You can do better than this, Novell.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 21, 2006 09:05 AM
November 20, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft and Novell tell all (or not)
In an attempt to clarify just what Microsoft and Novell were thinking on that fateful day when they kissed and made up, both companies today issued statements to "the community." I'm never sure just who this "community" is anymore, but I assume they're geared toward all those who felt a bit cheated by the November Patent Surprise.
It's a very large community, indeed.
Anyway, you can find Novell's letter here, and Microsoft's is here. Interestingly, Novell's letter was prominent on its home page - you couldn't miss it. Microsoft's? You could hardly find it. I guess this says something about the relative importance of said "community" to the respective companies.
Novell's message is earnest, if a bit laughable at times:
Our interest in signing this agreement was to secure interoperability and joint sales agreements, but Microsoft asked that we cooperate on patents as well, and so a patent cooperation agreement was included as a part of the deal. In this agreement, Novell and Microsoft each promise not to sue the other's customers for patent infringement. The intended effect of this agreement was to give our joint customers peace of mind that they have the full support of the other company for their IT activities. Novell has a significant patent portfolio, and in reflection of this fact, the agreement we signed shows the overwhelming balance of payments being from Microsoft to Novell.Um, yes, as I've pointed out, Novell gets most of the money in the patent deal, but they must think people are idiots to buy that it's because their patent portfolio is more significant than Microsoft's. About the only way that argument even gains the slightest bit of credibility is if somehow Microsoft purchased perpetual rights to Novell's Office-related patents.
As for agreeing not to sue each other's customers over patent infringement, this is truly noble of them. But I would have thought they'd gain the most from suing each other over patent infringement, not their customers. There isn't much money in suing customers. Not unless you're a patent troll.
As for Microsoft's message, it was FUD-as-usual:
Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents. The agreement between our two companies puts in place a workable solution for customers for these issues, without requiring an agreement between our two companies on infringement.In short, yes, Linux is chock-full of our IP, but we agree not to sue any of Novell's customers, but can't wait to sue everyone else (which would be just about everyone on the planet, including Novell's customers, since most enterprises will have different Linux distributions running internally).
Just what does anyone get from this covenant not to sue? Not much. The same customers who run SUSE Linux also run Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian, etc. Of course, it's these same customers that will drop-kick Microsoft the minute it starts to sue the planet, just as the world shelved SCO when it started suing customers. So, please, Microsoft, the very best thing you could do for Linux and open source is to start asserting your "rights." I can't wait.
I respect that Novell means well by this agreement. It hasn't done well, but it means well. Microsoft? Not so much.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 20, 2006 08:29 PM
November 20, 2006 | Comments: (0)
More confusion in Novell/Microsoft deal?
Via eWeek:Microsoft's Muglia Talks Longhorn, Novell and Java
Novell filed an 8-K recently in which it said that you have agreed not to do a similar deal with another Linux vendor to encourage the adoption of Linux and Windows virtualization solutions through a subscription certificate program. Doesn't that go against all your talk of wanting to get agreements with the other Linux vendors?We do want to be open to everybody, but there is no limitation in the agreement that prevents us from working with the other distribution vendors to get a similar set of intellectual property patent protections for their customers, and we very much would like to make that happen as it's good for customers and the other distribution vendors.
However, the ability we have to offset customer costs associated with that transition is a Novell-focused thing and what that comes down to is that you get some advantage to being first. It was a fairly substantive step for Novell to make this transition and we will help those customers make that transition.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on November 20, 2006 02:33 PM
November 20, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Vista: Positive for Microsoft, postive for the industry? (Jason Maynard/CSFB)
Windows Vista is set to start hitting shelves on November 30, which means it's an apt time to work through the implications for Microsoft and the larger industry. Historically speaking, a new Windows release has been good for both, and it Jason Maynard of CSFB thinks this trend will continue. Interestingly, however, Jason doesn't think the release will be a dramatic market mover, but will have positive, but incremental, effects.
Jason writes:
My question, however, is how much happier a Christmas it would be for everyone if everyone simply bought Macs? I know mine would be much happier if people would pass the plate and buy the Asay Family a new 24" iMac. :-)
- Why Buy? The Vista strategy is to offer multiple versions of the product for different customer segments. Functionality for business users is designed to provide higher levels of data protection, improve application compatibility, and a new imaging format. New consumer features include an enhanced user interface, better search, security, and a number of digital entertainment elements.
- What Does History Tell Us? In its past 4 OS upgrades (95, 98, ME, XP) the one constant has been above seasonal growth in the quarter of introduction. On average, Windows upgrades have driven 205 bps of above seasonal growth when released, but mixed results beyond that. However, none of the 4 OS launches were as segmented or launched in C1Q, providing less clarity this time around. [See below for historical data.]
- Impact on MSFT. We believe the launch of Vista is an evolutionary product offering, not a revolutionary change like Windows 95. Microsoft has largely offered expectations that assume no major change to PC unit growth and fairly modest ASP assumptions.
- Impact on PCs. Vista will require greater than advertised systems configurations, which should benefit ASPs and hardware upgrades. As a result, while overall shipments may not deliver substantial above seasonal growth, mix should improve, thereby driving improvements in both top-line growth and margins. Specifically, we expect PC unit and revenue growth to improve to 10.4% and 2.4% in 2007 vs 9.8% and -2.0% in 2006, respectively.
At the company’s Financial Analyst Day in July 2006, Microsoft stated that one of the goals for Vista is to induce a shift to premium SKUs. Management has guided the premium SKU mix to 52%-54%. These estimates could eventually prove to be conservative given demand for the new UI in the Home Premium version. For 2007, we expect over 90% of consumer PCs to incorporate the Vista OS. However, we expect only 60% of corporate PC sales in 2007 to include Vista. Additionally within our 10% unit growth estimate for 2007, we expect consumer PC unit growth to accelerate to 16% in 2007 (from 13% in 2006), with corporate unit growth slowing to 7% from 8% in 2006. Although the consumer growth is improving, we would note that at only approximately 1/3rd of total units, it has a minimal impact on overall unit growth relative to the corporate segment. We do not expect the launch of Office 2007 to have much of an effect of driving PC growth or a transition to Vista; customers who are currently on the XP release do not need to upgrade to Vista to run Office 2007. In fact, we expect that most users will wait to upgrade to Office 2007 after a hardware refresh and OS refresh to Vista.While the recent trend in the PC market has clearly been to lower-end PCs, we would expect Vista PC to thwart some of the recent industry pricing trends because of its richer configurations. As shown [below], PC pricing declines eased following the release of Windows 98 and XP. While some of this can be attributed to an increasing mix of higher ASP notebook PCs, we believe it is primarily due to the aforementioned richer incremental system requirements. .
- Conclusion. While it is our expectation that Vista will have somewhat positive implications for the market, we believe the overwhelming sentiment today is for little to no impact on the PC industry, thereby setting a low bar for Vista to cross. Vista may not translate into a significant change in the P&L for Microsoft, but if the PC industry can manage to experience accelerating unit growth (albeit small) and a slowdown in ASP erosion, then the ramifications for OEMs and supply chain are much more pronounced given the PC’s broach reach within the tech industry.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 20, 2006 11:12 AM
November 18, 2006 | Comments: (0)
User-generated content or user-generated theft?
It was bound to happen (and will almost certainly continue to happen to Google/YouTube, as well): News Corp. is being sued over copyright infringement stemming from its MySpace property. Universal, the plaintiff, challenges that MySpace
..."encourages, facilitates and participates in the unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, distribution and public performance," according to the suit.Of course it is. In fact, I suspect that much of the "user-generated content" that inflates Web 2.0's worth comes from the stodgy, conservative world of traditional IP. Heck, if you've got to steal from someone, you might as well steal from the Old World - it has all the cash! :-)Universal contends that much of the media posted by users of MySpace is not user-generated at all, but actually music and videos stolen from copyright owners.
As I've argued before (in fact, as far back as 2003), the music and movie industries don't have an IP problem. They have a payment problem, just as software companies do. A real problem would be if no one wanted their wares. They don't have that problem.
Instead, both entertainment and software industries are grappling with new ways to monetize tremendous interest in their products. In short, people don't mind paying, but prefer not to pay according to the old model.
I suggested ASP-type models back in 2003, and it still seems like sound advice for many software vendors. But it's not a panacea. I'm not sure what would be. That's part of the fun in the software industry right now - the models are in flux, opening up massive opportunities (and the chance to topple incumbent vendors).
Posted by Matt Asay on November 18, 2006 10:37 AM
November 18, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Yahoo! exec calls for internal changes
Brad Garlinghouse, a Yahoo! SVP, is up-in-arms about the state of Yahoo!'s business, sending out a "Peanut Butter Manifesto" as reported in today's WSJ and as covered by ZDNet. The four-page memo has been circulated within Yahoo! over the past few weeks and is getting executive interest. Among its other points:
- Yahoo! lacks cohesion and focus.
We want to do everything and be everything to everyone. We've known this for years, talk about it incessantly, but do nothing to fundamentally address it. We are scared to be left out. We are reactive instead of charting an unwavering course. We are separated into silos that far too frequently don't talk to each other. And when we do talk, it isn't to collaborate on a clearly focused strategy, but rather to argue and fight about ownership, strategies and tactics. Our inclination and proclivity to repeatedly hire leaders from outside the company results in disparate visions of what winning looks like, rather than a leadership team rallying around a single cohesive strategy.
I know and have worked for several companies like this, and it's my number one concern wherever I work. Companies must do at least one thing well, and do it incessantly. This is why Google, despite its overall abysmal record on innovation, is a money machine: it does search (and associated advertising) incredibly well. It's why Microsoft continues to be an important company, despite its lame track record online and with most everything that isn't Office or Windows (and, frankly, it's why its FUD machine revs into full gear whenever a threat to these two businesses is perceived on the horizon).This need for focus is even more acute for startups. Startups lack the cash cushion to be able to make lots of bets. They need to make a few, highly correlated bets, and stick with them.
- Yahoo!, as an organization, lacks accountability and single-point-of-failure ownership.
- Yahoo! lacks deciveness.
We are repeatedly stymied by challenging and hairy decisions. We are held hostage by our analysis paralysis.
To fix these problems, Garlinghouse suggests a 15-20% headcount reduction, the sale of non-core businesses, and a reorganized reporting structure that streamlines accountability. Funny enough, these are some of the things that I wanted at Novell before I left (though a 50% headcount reduction might have been nearer the mark to help force a focus on the company's future - Linux - and reduce its dependency on legacy businesses). But they are important for any business. Focus, focus, focus....
Posted by Matt Asay on November 18, 2006 10:25 AM
November 18, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Beating a dead horse: Novell and Microsoft
While it's true that I love a conspiracy theory-especially in software, I find myself a bit dumbstruck by the recent attempts by Oracle, Novell and Microsoft to sink the Red Hat ship.
As Matt said earlier, it's time for Microsoft to sue or shut-up. And Novell's pact with MS is now clearly a deal with the devil to ensure that Novell Linux users will be safe but every other Linux distro user (and vendor) are not safe from the clutches of MS.
The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that Microsoft has thrived because of the competition-or perhaps in spite of it. And considering the anti-trust aspects of Microsoft's business I find it odd that it would be acceptable that MS could claim ownership over anything in Linux, effectively reducing the world to Solaris and Windows. Extrapolating further, since MS and Sun already have a relationship, it makes me wonder if MS would then have its tentacles in virtually every operating system.
So what does Red Hat do? The short answer is to stay the course. Red Hat is a smart company who thus far have fared well in the face of adversity. Even with some disgruntled customers (trust us on this one) the alternatives of Novell and Oracle, or Microsoft are less appealing. Sun is the dark horse in all of this as Solaris is a damn good OS and the company has proven it takes open source seriously--if only we could understand the strategic vision.
Linux itself continues to grow and will keep doing so. Linux growth switched from being reactionary and cost-driven (though lower costs is still very important) and is now largely based on the benefits of the operating system and the support available.
The funny thing about Novell is that I keep hoping for them to do something smart for the business-they have made some smart decisions around technology, Suse and Mono for example. But the company continues to feel like an also-ran, buddying-up to Microsoft may have been a shrewd move but it sure doesn't seem like it.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on November 18, 2006 05:09 AM
November 18, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Where is the free wi-fi in Paris?
After coming in from NYC and London, where free wi-fi is near ubiquitous, I am paying 30 euro for a day of internet access in Paris. Ridiculous.
Anyone know anything about the broadband here? I also noticed far fewer mobile phone stores than in London.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on November 18, 2006 05:07 AM
November 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Novell/Microsoft pact violates...the future?
Roger Parloff of Fortune has been talking with Eben Moglen, and has this:
The potentially historic Microsoft-Novell pact announced last week, whereby Microsoft would grant patent peace to users of Novell's Suse Linux software in exchange for royalty payments paid by Novell to Microsoft, will be dead by mid-March, promises Eben Moglen, the general counsel of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The FSF controls the license that governs the distribution of Linux and many other key forms of free and open-source software.While Eben wasn't offering any new views on whether the pact violates GPLv2, he's working to make sure it will violate v3. That said, any changes made to v3 will have no retroactive impact on Linux, unless the copyright owners opt to change their licenses from v2 to v3. I'm not sure that will be happening en masse....The license, known as the GNU General Public License (GPL), had already been in the process of revision. In an interview with me this morning, Moglen promised that the foundation will now make "further changes" to the GPL that will make crystal clear that the Novell-Microsoft pact, or any similar pact, will violate it.
"It will surely violate GPL version 3," said Moglen, referring to the forthcoming version. Version 3 had been expected to be in place no later than March 15, 2007, though Moglen said he was uncertain whether the new circumstances would affect that schedule. "GPL version 3 will be adjusted so the effect of the current deal is that Microsoft will by giving away access to the very patents Microsoft is trying to assert."
Stay tuned.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 17, 2006 09:41 AM
November 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft claims Linux violates its IP
So sue, Microsoft. Sue.
Said Ballmer, as noted by Matthew Aslett:
We've had an issue, a problem that we've had to confront, which is because of the way the GPL works, and because open-source Linux does not come from a company - Linux comes from the community - the fact that that product uses our patented intellectual property is a problem for our shareholders.Novell, of course, says that Microsoft's IP is not in Linux (and I strongly suspect Novell is right).And we agreed on a, we call it an IP bridge, essentially an arrangement under which they pay us some money for the right to tell the customer that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered. There will be no patent issues. They've appropriately compensated Microsoft for our intellectual property, which is important to us. In a sense you could say anybody who has got Linux in their data center today sort of has an undisclosed balance sheet liability, because it's not just Microsoft patents.
However, if there is any truth to this, Microsoft, do us all a favor and just sue.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 17, 2006 07:39 AM
November 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Second Life will "evolve" to look more like real life
If you haven't been following the brouhaha over at Second Life, walk on over. To save you the stroll, Second Life is a virtual, online world where people build avatars, have meetings, farm, smoke (at least, in the European Second Life :-), etc. Basically, they do online what people do in real life. Must be a bit dull....
Even IBM is getting into the act, with its CEO strutting the virtual world (two of him, actually - a conservative Sam and a wild-and-crazy Sam), team meetings being held there on remote islands, etc.
So, what's the problem (besides the obvious need for people to get a real life, no pun intended)? Well, it seems that a CopyBot has taken over and is stealing all the virtual stuff people have been creating. Nick Carr has been covering the mess, and is taking a not-so-silent glee at it all.
For my part, I can understand the concern Second Lifers have: there is a real, tangible market in these virtual goods. Stealing online goods is causing pain in real-world wallets. But it's a problem that I can't see a Second Life revolt solving. What happens when avatars start stealing each other's stuff? Or playing each other's music (without permission)? Or writing free software and giving it away to lobotomize others' businesses?
Second Life will start to look much more like First Life (or whatever we call the real world). Laws will be passed. Avatars will be thrown in jail. And Sam's Second Life will increasingly look like his First Life.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 17, 2006 07:05 AM
November 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
A closer look at Oracle's indemnification offerings for Linux
I had a few minutes to burn today, so I did what I'm sure you were doing: I read the Oracle Enterprise Linux Services Agreement. It's funny what you find when you start digging around in the legalese that governs the Big Announcement that Oracle made. It makes "Unbreakable Linux" look, well, a little flimsy.
First off, what do you think Oracle is covering with its BIG Linux announcement? Not much:
"Covered programs" is defined as the set of software products (limited to the kernel package) for which you have ordered Enterprise Linux support services, including any related program documentation and patches and bug fixes acquired through Enterprise Linux Support Services. [Emphasis mine.]Hmmm...last time I checked, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a wee bit more than the kernel. In fact, it includes 1,000+ individual packages [PDF], of which the Linux kernel is only one. If Oracle is only providing indemnification for the Linux kernel, it clearly is not providing indemnification for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, whatever Larry's fetish with Red Hat.
In fact, Red Hat Enterprise Linux contains nearly 2 million files of which only about 17,000 are related to the kernel. I was an English major, so my Math ability is not so great, but a little subtraction yields roughly 1,983,000 files in RHEL that Oracle will not be indemnifying.
Lest you start spluttering that at least its indemnification is unlimited, you might want to try reading the license. [You can find it here, assuming I uploaded it correctly.] If you just listen to Oracle's PR (in the form of its Oracle Unbreakable Linux FAQ), this is what you hear:
The indemnification is not in any way limited to the amount of money a customer has paid Oracle.Apparently, Oracle's legal department missed the memo on this one. If you read Section J of the agreement (Limitation of Liability), you'll note that while Oracle offers unlimited indemnification for consequential damages related to an infringement claim (and that only for the one package, the Linux kernel), it caps all other damages at the amount you pay to Oracle:
EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO THE EXCLUSIVE INFRINGEMENT INDEMNIFICATION ABOVE [which only relates to the kernel], NEITHER PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR ANY LOSS OF PROFITS, REVENUE, DATA, OR DATA USE. ORACLE'S MAXIMUM LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR YOUR ORDER, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR TORT, OR OTHERWISE, SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE FEES YOU PAID ORACLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, AND IF SUCH DAMAGES RESULT FROM DEFICIENT SERVICES, SUCH LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FEES YOU PAID ORACLE FOR THE DEFICIENT SERVICES GIVING RISE TO THE LIABILITY. [Emphasis mine.]I don't think there's much to worry about around indemnification of RHEL (whatever Microsoft may think), but it's interesting just how weak Oracle's indemnity really is.
I have no problem with Oracle providing real support and real indemnification. That's just competition. But I have a strong aversion to duplicitous, deceitful posturing to hurt a competitor without engaging it on your own merits. Oracle does a lot of things really well - why not compete with Red Hat on those terms, rather than on Oracle's ability to FUD?
Posted by Matt Asay on November 16, 2006 06:38 PM
November 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Unisys expands its open source offerings
Unisys, which was the first large system integrator to build out an open source practice, has expanded its open source arsenal to include Alfresco, the open source alternative for Enterprise Content Management. From the press release:
The agreement enables Unisys to offer a team of Alfresco-certified consultants who can migrate, implement and deploy content and records management solutions based on open source software. Adding this team and capability rounds out an impressive Unisys worldwide set of ECM resources and solutions built around best-in-class ECM software products and providers.This partnership adds to Unisys' expertise with MySQL and JBoss.The alliance also singularly positions Unisys, with its services-led solutions approach, to deliver highly scalable and available Alfresco implementations based on new open source or hybrid stacks. Unisys will also help clients develop new software applications embedding Alfresco as the content repository.
"Alfresco is now seen as the only open source ECM alternative for the Global 1000 and governments in an estimated $3.9-billion worldwide market that is moving away from high-priced legacy vendors," said John Powell, CEO, Alfresco Software Inc. "Because of its expertise in delivering services-based open source solutions, Unisys is an ideal partner for these major implementations where Alfresco's modern, standards-based, highly scalable architecture is being deployed widely for mission-critical applications."
Posted by Matt Asay on November 16, 2006 06:02 AM
November 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open Source Licensing in London
I arrived in Paris last nite after a week in London with the Mule development team. We also met with a number of users and partners in London to outline the shape of the business and to discuss the next releases of the Mule product.
We spent a fair amount of time discussing the implications of our licensing scheme, something that I thought was very obvious. MuleSource uses a Mozilla plus attribution license which requires people to include reference to our software when embedding it in commercial products. So, if you use Mule in your software product and sell it commercially, then you are required to either make a licensing deal with us or keep the “powered by Mule” logo visible. Just as so many other things in OSS are confusing, it appears that this too has created some consternation-primarily because people want to embed Mule in their products and couldn't quite make sense of how the attribution would work.
My answer was simple. You make a deal with us for a commercial license and then you do whatever you want. People continue to misunderstand how open source and commercial licenses coexist around the same product-which is one of reasons why many software companies choose the GPL.
Thanks to our customers, users, partners (especially Alexis and John) and developers for making the trek out to London. This was the first time that the Mule team had met in real life despite working together for over a year!
While you can run your business totally disparately, it's great to get your team together and really hash things out. We walked away from the meet-up with the realization that it would have taken months to iron out some of the issues both with partners and our development team.
Off topic:
In the Parisian cab to our hotel the driver was playing Kid Loco and driving like a madman. I felt like I was living in a video game.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on November 16, 2006 02:02 AM
November 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft: We don't want to do the patent dance alone!
As Peter Galli reports, Microsoft doesn't want to dance with Novell alone. It wants Red Hat and others to join in.
But Hilf acknowledged that it is an awkward situation having Microsoft's customers who use Novell's SUSE Linux covered by the covenant not to sue, while those Windows users running Red Hat Linux are not.I'm sure they would. In fact, as I've noted before (as has Pam at Grokaw), and as Red Hat was first to point out, Microsoft's patent candy is heavily laced with consequences that open source software should shun.This is all the more significant given that Red Hat is the leading Linux vendor in the United States in terms of market share, meaning that the majority of Microsoft's customers who are also using the open-source operating system are running Red Hat Linux.
"It's a tough, awkward situation, and if those customers ask us for some kind of patent indemnification, we'll look at this. If they ask us to do something, we'll certainly look at all the options, but the preferred course of action would be for us to strike a similar deal with Red Hat," he said.
Microsoft has 3.2 bazillion patents. It makes lots of money selling the rights to these in the form of Office, Windows, etc. It doesn't need to earn a nickel more through veiled threats and innovation surcharges on software it does not own, has no rights to, and would do well to embrace. If I'm wrong, and if there are real patent infringement issues in Linux and other open source projects, then I would like to personally invite Microsoft to champion its rights by suing the entire planet.
Customers. Competitors. Partners.
Please exercise those alleged rights of yours, Microsoft. Not in shifty "partnering" sorts of ways. But in court. We'll see how long it takes for your customers to boot you out. I suspect the judge's verdict will be somewhat immaterial at that point.
Which is the point behind all of this, isn't it?
Posted by Matt Asay on November 15, 2006 09:54 PM
November 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Putting a price on open source only makes it thrive
Putting a price on open source has grown the market
I was intrigued to hear Brady's thoughts on the O'Reilly Media's impressions on the Web 2.0 Conference. One, in particular, caught my attention:
Commercial penetration is chasing users away: It was noted that MySpace's traffic was down from the previous month. We're wondering if this is a sign of users running away from monetization. Will there be a continuous migration of users away from properties as they try to capitalize on their success?I found it interesting because monetization has had the exact opposite effect on open source. The more commercial interests have crowded in, the bigger the customer interest and associated market.
Both the Internet and open source started out as "free" phenomena. As time has passed, open source has gravitated toward direct monetization models, whereas the web has increasingly relied on indirect monetization models (e.g., advertising). The reason seems clear: the nature of the customer. Commercial open source software has generally directed at enterprises that expect to pay for software. Not so the web.
Or is that true? Isn't the web used by people that have long paid for books, magazines, newspapers, music, etc.?
Some would argue that it's the sheer ease of access that demands the $0.00 price on the web. But isn't this also true of open source software? Still, people seem willing to pay for support/service around the free bits that Linus Torvalds writes, but not for an insightful article in The New York Times by Thomas Friedman.
I don't get it. Your thoughts?
(This post was written while listening to The Flaming Lips' "Ego Tripping at the Gates of Hell." Could that be my problem? :-)
Posted by Matt Asay on November 15, 2006 09:41 PM
November 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The evolution of email...begins with its past
The best way to usher in a new world is often to coexist well with the old world.
This is one reason that Centeris is an interesting company, allowing enterprises to move to Linux without giving up the handholding of Microsoft's server management interface.
It's also one reason I like PostPath so much. PostPath promises a revolution in corporate messaging, but it assumes the world as it is (140 million Exchange mailboxes), not the ideal world (Linux messaging everywhere). PostPath offers true drop-in compatibility with Exchange, such that an enterprise can scale out its Exchange infrastructure with...PostPath (at a fraction of the cost (both acquisition and TCO), up to 20X better performance, and significantly easier administration).
What's not to love?
PostPath recently got even better, adding its Remote Office Edition. I stopped by PostPath for a demo today, and was impressed by what I saw. Here's what it's all about (in Duncan's words):
Historically, customers with remote offices have found themselves on the horns of a dilemma with Exchange. Deploy remotely (distributed), and you drive administration and management costs, as well tending to end up with an unreliable service since it is hard to maintain Exchange consistently and effectively in remote offices. Deploy at a NOC (centrally) [Network Operation Center], and you drive up bandwidth costs and reduce the quality of the user experience with high latency.In short, PostPath offers real high availability that is functionally better than what Microsoft Exchange offers, and at a dramatically lower cost. Very cool, Duncan. Now I just want it under a different license. ;-)PostPath Remote Office Edition solves this problem:
- Enables deployment of low-maintenance server at a remote office
- High performance enables low-cost hardware + storage
- Replicates the remote server back to the NOC using standard Linux - DRBD
- IT manages the replicate copy at the NOC - even does backup there
- Can turn on high-availability (HA) at the NOC if desired
- With HA, if remote office hardware fails, failover takes less than one minute
- WAN bandwidth costs minimized by local service for remote users
- Remote users get a high performance, high reliability solution (i.e., they're happy)
- Administration is simple and centralized (i.e., IT is happy)
Posted by Matt Asay on November 15, 2006 09:39 PM
November 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Talking with a fellow open sourceror today, he raised an interesting, disturbing prospect:
What if Oracle's and Microsoft's recent actions are not about competing with the present, but rather about competing with the future?By this I mean that perhaps both are attempts to choke investment into open source. As in The Terminator movies, perhaps it's a way to kill the future before it happens (by going "back in time" to squash a movement that is already well underway.)
When was the last time you found a startup building its product on Oracle? (If you know of some, please let them know that they're wasting one heck of a lot of money.) Those sexy Web 2.0 companies? Most are built on LAMP, not .Net or other Microsoft technologies.
Venture capitalists have been channeling a huge amount of capital into open source startups (well over $1 billion at my last count). Microsoft and Oracle both have a huge stake in making sure venture investment in open source dies. As soon as possible.
If I'm Oracle, spending billions to acquire every application that isn't written by Microsoft, I've got to be concerned that my goal of taking Microsoft head on is being side-tracked by "those pesky, meddling [open source] kids" (to quote Scooby Doo that are undercutting me on price while offering better performance (in an increasing range of applications) and flexibility.
If I'm Microsoft, seeing the world increasingly built on open source, I've got to be concerned that my role as God Platform may be withering on the vine. Co-opting open source is one option, but taxing it under threat of patent infringement is even better, and more consistent with its fiduciary duty to shareholders.
I know great people at both companies and I know they're sincere in wanting to compete with open source on business and technology merits. But billions of dollars are riding on squelching out open source's voice. It's just business. Not good for customers, but then, BigCo proprietary software long ago stopped serving customers well. There simply is no conscionable reason to charge so much for so little value.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 15, 2006 09:36 PM
November 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Upgrading the JBoss development model? (RHEJ)
Matthew Aslett notes that Red Hat is planning to release the next version of JBoss in the same way it does its Linux products: Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Speaking at the UBS Global Communications and Technology Conference, Red Hat's EVP and CFO, Charlie Peters, said the company is working on a plan to create a Fedora-style community development version of JBoss as well as a subscription-only RHEL-style package.This is a smart move and, in my opinion, continues to demonstrate the superiority of Red Hat's model over other open source models in the industry (though, perhaps, the model doesn't fit as well for "non-complicated" applications, as Red Hat's Brian Stevens has suggested)."One of the things that we're trying to address is the development model, to come up with something similar to the RHEL/Fedora model," he told the conference. "At the moment we're still working on that model for JBoss, it's not a model that they had before," he added.
A change in the package model is part of the company's plans to convert the 11 million free JBoss users to subscription customers, Peters added. "We have an installed user base today that are natural customers when they get to the point of needing to have better support," he said.
It's a great way to give developers what they want - cutting edge, free (as in cost and freedom) technology - and to give enterprises what they want - painless way to adopt that great technology.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 15, 2006 10:04 AM
November 14, 2006 | Comments: (0)
I'm refreshing my familiarity with Niccolo this morning (having spent a lot of time in The Prince during my Masters degree), and came across this comment:
...[T]here is nothing more difficult to execute, nor more dubious of success, nor more dangerous to administer than to introduce a new order to things; for he who introduces it has all those who profit from the old order as his enemies; and he has only lukewarm allies in all those who might profit from the new. This lukewarmness partly stems from fear of their adversaries, who have the law on their side, and partly from the skepticism of men, who do not truly believe in new things unless they have personal experience in them.Does this scream Red Hat's (and all open source vendors') predicament? It seems highly appropriate.
And if we swap the words "disease" for "cure" in the quotation below, it seems perfect for what is happening with open source, generally:
...[W]hat physicians say about disease is applicable here: that at the beginning a disease is easy to cure but difficult to diagnose; but as time passes, not having been treated or recognized at the outset, it becomes easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. The same thing occurs in affairs of state; for by recognizing from afar the diseases that are spreading in the state (which is a gift given only to a prudent ruler), they can be cured quickly; but when they are not recognized and are left to grow to the extent that everyone recognizes them, there is no longer any cure.One person's disease (i.e., proprietary vendors and open source) is another person's cure (i.e., enterprises adopting open source).
Posted by Matt Asay on November 14, 2006 08:27 AM
November 14, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Java goes GPL (Long live Machiavelli!)
IBM has been beating Sun up in the press for years about not opening up Java. Now that Sun has - and in the most open way possible - IBM is complaining.
Why?
Because, as Dana correctly notes, Sun just kicked IBM in the shins while simultaneously blessing customers and developers. It's the great strength of the GPL: a way to benefit your customers while kicking your competitors in the teeth. Capitalism at its best, as I've written before.
IBM likes Apache-style licensing because it allows them absolute flexibility to take without giving back. I'm not suggesting that IBM never contributes anything back - Xen, Linux, and other projects are ample testimony against such a position. It's just my perception that IBM prefers Apache in large part because it has more leeway to use open source on its own terms.
Now it gets to use open source Java on Sun's terms or, rather, on the development community's preferred terms: the GPL. This is a bold, welcome move by Sun, and effectively prevents IBM or any other Sun competitor from hijacking Java. It's the community's way or no way. Nice.
Or as Machiavelli once wrote:
Besides what has been said, people are fickle by nature; and it is a simple to convince them of something but difficult to hold them in that conviction; and, therefore, affairs should be managed in such a way that when they no longer believe, they can be made to believe by force.Apache-style licensing relies on best intentions. The GPL relies on force. There's room for both, but Sun made the right decision in GPL'ing Java.
Posted by Matt Asay on November 14, 2006 08:18 AM
November 13, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Over the past few weeks/months, I've been working on hiring on hiring out the next wave of Alfresco's leaders. In the process, I've had to grapple with the choice that all open source companies must face: experience or aptitude? (As for whether to hire a talented jerk or ignorant potential, I've already answered that one.)
It's a question I started asking even before I joined the company.
With most companies, a startup's goal is to please customers and to hire senior people that can help please more customers. This formula breaks down a little, however, with open source, where the senior talent may actually not have a clue as to how to please customers. Or, rather, they go about it in a way that is inimical to the open source growth model. In other words, they hire too high (titles) and too wide (bodies) too fast, which puts a massive burden on open source's organic growth model.
Is the answer to hire neophytes?
Sort of.
First off, as I've