- Recent VC Commentary on Open Source
- Selling your soul is clearly worth the money (Novell)
- Novell and the GPL V3 Poison Pawn
- New Apple Tablet?
- Zend PHP Conference
- Open Season Podcast: Episode 3--Yahoo gets Zimbra'd and more!
- The Tale of Two Cities: Red Hat & JBoss
- Competing for Talent
- SOA meets open b-to-b integration
- Too Much Choice with AJAX
September 29, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Recent VC Commentary on Open Source
It seems like a bit of the fluttering around VCs funding OSS companies had died down. But just because there is less funding going on doesn't mean that OSS isn't still growing or that VCs aren't interested.
Two of the MuleSource investors recently spent time with the press to discuss their thoughts on driving growth in open source.
Links:
Podcast: How is an open source company like a "consumer" Internet company?
Gary Little, Morgenthaler Venture Partners
Open Source VC Funding Is Not Drying Up
Ann Winblad from Hummer Winblad Venture Partners
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 29, 2007 04:00 PM
September 29, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Selling your soul is clearly worth the money (Novell)
I am hesitant to even mention Novell at this point but I saw this article "Novell credits Microsoft for soaring Linux sales" wherein Novell gushes about how well they are doing thanks to their satanic pact with Microsoft.
Novell says its Linux business has grown by 243 percent over the last three quarters, and it largely credits its deal with Microsoft.
Of course it credits Microsoft as there is nothing else going on at Novell that would cause anyone to buy their products. What are the odds of this growth continuing after the initial ramp from the certificates hits the wall? Unless Microsoft buys Novell I would bet pretty low.
I am not even interested enough to finish this post. The whole thing is just so lame.
We've already covered this plenty of times for those of you who think I am picking on Novell.
Previous:
The other 20% on Novell or, When interop isn't
Picking apart Novell's Linux numbers (Larry Dignan/ZDNet)
Novell - Microsoft Agreements Revealed
Reading between the lines with Bill Hilf: Microsoft must really be hurting
Ignorance (of open source), thy name is Microsoft
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 29, 2007 03:52 PM
September 28, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Novell and the GPL V3 Poison Pawn
This morning I read through an interesting translation of a 10 question written interview between members of the Brazilian Linux Community and Novell. Of course there are some revealing tidbits about Mono and ODF (two areas of strange attraction between Novell and Microsoft), but I found the following quote of particular interest:
Which are Novell adoption plans regarding GPLv3? (Knux) Would Novell adopt the GPLv3 licensing in any of its software? What are the reasons? (semente)
Novell welcomes the completion of GPLv3. We fully expect to include GPLv3 technologies in our future SUSE Linux Enterprise distributions. Our main focus in on getting the best technology into the hands of customers. We expect open source projects to be licensed under a combination of licenses, as they are today. GPLv3 will be one of those licenses. So as open source technologies get licensed under GPLv3, and introduced into SUSE Linux Enterprise, we will be meeting the requirements of that license.
Maybe I'm reading between the lines a bit, but this sounds as though Novell would rather "incorporate" GPL3 code provided by 3rd party developers within what may remain a GPL V2 SUSE kernel. No Poison Pawn there. Regardless, some would have us think thatNovell is doing well, walking this tightrope between the open source community and Microsoftdom. We'll have to wait to see how it plays out for SUSE and the GPL over the long haul, of course. Maybe Microsoft is the poison pawn for Novell rather than GPL V3.
Posted by Brad Shimmin on September 28, 2007 11:45 AM
September 28, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Interesting rumors surfaced this week at AppleInsider about a new Apple Tablet or PDA some are dubbing a return of the Newton. For those who missed it, the Newton was Apple's much maligned too-early entry into the handheld market and quickly eclipsed by the simpler and lighter Palm Pilot.
The newest device is allegedly larger than an iPhone, has a 720x480 display and runs an embedded version of the Mac OS/X Leopard operating system.
Who knows if this rumor will pan out, but there's been some ongoing murmurs in this area for over a year now. And while the iPod Touch is pretty cool, I would love if they came out with something just a bit larger. Ok, and please, please, please add a flipdown clamshell keyboard. Pretty please. Otherwise, I'm not sure why this device would go beyond the Nokia N800.
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 28, 2007 06:33 AM
September 27, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Ok, I'm a little travelled out with recent trips to around the US visiting customers, the Gartner conference and a trip to Europe for our developer meeting in Germany. So I'm glad that the upcoming Zend PHP conference (Oct 8-11) is in the bay area. I've been to this conference the last few years and it's a good one. Not as large as the MySQL conference, but if you're into PHP, it's got all the technical meat you could want, and then some.
I expect the Zend execs (Harold Goldberg, Andi Guttmans and Mark DeVisser) will kick things off with some updates on what's happening in the PHP Community in general as well as what's coming in new products from Zend. The Zend Framework has come a long way in the last year and is growing in popularity by leaps and bounds, and there will be plenty of sessions on that.
Also there will be good keynotes by Cory Doctorow and Joel Spolsky. Cory's a fascinating guy. He's an award-winning sf author and former director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). I've seen Cory speak before and I think he's got a great view on software, privacy and the need for dissent. It sounds weird, but it's actually very interesting and relevant.
Joel's going to be talking about what it takes to build great software. (I just wish he'd update CityDesk, a great web publishing tool that has gone stale in recent years. I think the last update was in 1976 or something. Heck, maybe the Zend crowd can convince him to rewrite it in PHP and open source it.)
Tutorials start on Monday covering Security, Certification, Best practices and Extending PHP. The full program starts on Tuesday with the keynote and sessions following on the Zend framework, using MemCacheD, high performance scaling techniques for PHP and MySQL, Web Services and more. There are lots of good hard core sessions as well as a few case studies and some sessions by gurus like Jay Pipes and Brian Aker from MySQL, Bill Karwin from Zend, Eli White from Digg.com and others.
I am sure some of these sessions will fill up early, so I recommend registering in advance. Heck, you'll save some money over the on-site registration also.
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 27, 2007 07:14 AM
September 27, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Open Season Podcast: Episode 3--Yahoo gets Zimbra'd and more!
The latest episode in our Open Season Meatcast is now online at The Register. This time we talk about Google, Yahoo, Salesforce and all your other favorite internet overlords.
The next episode (#4) brings Mark Shuttleworth to the party. More on that when it's ready to fly.
Links:
Episode 3
Episode 2
Episode 1
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 27, 2007 06:25 AM
September 25, 2007 | Comments: (0)
The Tale of Two Cities: Red Hat & JBoss
Red Hat reported great numbers today. The stock was down in after hours trading, and I suspect it will be down tomorrow. The stock movement will likely be based on comments about the JBoss division by Red Hat's CEO. Forbes reports:
"Sales came in slightly higher than expected, with Red Hat reporting revenues of $127.3 compared to revenues of $99.7 million during the year-ago period. Analysts had expected sales of $125.7 million....
Over the past year, Red Hat's shares have fallen more than 25% as the company has toiled to transform from a Linux vendor into a peddler of a broader array of software.
One big reason: Sales of the so-called application server software Red Hat acquired with its purchase of JBoss last year have disappointed. "The rate of JBoss bookings and revenue growth has not met my expectations," said Szulik in a conference call with investors. "We know we can do much better." "
Red Hat Linux is definitely firing on all cylinders. JBoss, in the words of Red Hat's CEO "could do much better".
Further comments via CNet:
"However, not all believe the JBoss deal is going swimmingly. Credit Suisse analyst Jason Maynard downgraded Red Hat from "outperform" to "neutral" Monday. "We believe our thesis of improved field execution and meaningful JBoss acceleration won't materialize and deliver the anticipated upside to our forecast," he said. "Our checks indicate that the organization continues to be in a state of flux as the company struggles through its transition to a multi-product company.""
Here's something I found funny via Reuters:
" Chowdhry of Global Equities Research said the prospects for JBoss were dim because its software was designed to work with the Java programming language. He said Java was losing market share as businesses embrace Ruby, a programming language that is easier to use and works with an open-source rival to JBoss known as Ruby on Rails."
LOL. RoR is going to kill JBoss...Seriously?!?! If RoR is such a threat, why are other Java app server vendors "doing okay"? Is there something more here? (Hint: yes - I'll get into it tomorrow).
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 25, 2007 10:19 PM
September 25, 2007 | Comments: (0)
If you're a private open source company, how do you compete against the likes of Google or VMWare for talent? At MySQL, we've found that one of the most attractive elements of the company is the fact that we are globally distributed. We have over 300 employees in nearly 30 countries. (That's in total, not 300 in each!) And over 70% of employees work from home. Among developers, the rate is over 90%.
So that means that they don't have to commute, they don't have to hang out in boring HR meetings, they can just focus on what they like, which is coding. We may not have all the perks offered by big companies, but at the end of the day, developers know they are working on something important and they can do it from their home rather than relocating to Silicon Valley.
But man cannot live by email, Skype, and IRC alone. So every now and then we get groups together for meetings. It might be a small meeting of one team gathered in Austin or Amsterdam for a few days design and planning work, or a full gathering of the tribe. For example, this past week we had all of our developers in Heidelberg and in January we'll pull the entire company together in Orlando.
I suspect that this geographic advantage is true not only for MySQL, but for many open source companies. It lets you hire the best and the brightest wherever they happen to be.
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 25, 2007 04:44 AM
September 25, 2007 | Comments: (0)
SOA meets open b-to-b integration
With all of the hubbub last week surrounding SCO's pending demise and IBM's open desktop play, you may not have noticed that the heavens have shifted just a tad.
No, it had nothing to do with this weekend's autumnal equinox. That seems to happen every year about this time. What I'm talking about is the subtle shift within the realm of SOA, in which vendors (both open and closed source) seem to have suddenly discovered that SOA is as much about b-to-b integration as it is about modernizing and integrating systems that live inside the firewall. Call it a paradigm shift, a tipping point, a shakabuku or whatever you like. The SOA solar system has changed.
Earlier this year, Microsoft had the surprising foresight to begin a beta program in which the company would offer its BizTalk Server as a hosted integration server under the brand name BizTalk Services -- yep, integration as a service (IaaS), not to be confused with the existing notion of infrastructure as a service.
Now, within the span of two short weeks, both BEA and MuleSource have also jumped headlong into this effort. BEA, which will focus on enabling and empowering SaaS (software as a service) providers through integration services, partnered with EnterConnect (a SaaS portal provider) to support that company's SOAAPPS.com platform, which will offer SaaS and basic SOA installation capabilities.
MuleSource also partnered with a SaaS enabler for ISVs, OpSource, in a similar capacity. But MuleSource also (and more importantly) launched its own hosted IaaS offering, MuleOnDemand. Though still in beta, this service is the first of its kind: offering up a true ESB (enterprise service bus) for pure integration services "in the cloud." The emergence of a hosted ESB solution (especially one based on open source) is akin to Jupiter shifting its orbit just enough to send thousands of icy bodies within the Ort Cloud (yes, pun intended) spiraling inward toward the sun. The solar system as we know it will no longer be the same.
One thing to note here is that although we're talking primarily about IaaS as a means to employ SOA within a b-to-b environment, we shouldn't forget that this approach is just as relevant for internal EAI efforts, especially for SMBs that do not have the means to install, configure, and maintain the infrastructure necessary to host an ESB. Smaller companies typically also lack the resources to employ a herd of consultants to build integration services on top of an on-premise ESB.
This isn't to say that IaaS is better than SaaS. I don't think that IaaS (my definition of it, that is) competes with SaaS in any way. In my mind, it is itself an implementation of SaaS that can also serve as an element within a typical SaaS solution -- think Salesforce.com adding SOA-savvy message transformation and mediation capabilities to help customers connect on-premise ERP systems with its online CRM solution.
Whether b-to-b or EAI -- and whether these hosted ESBs show up as a pure-play like MuleOnDemand or within an SaaS solution like Salesforce.com or a SOAAPPS.com -- one thing is for sure: SOA will eventually find its way into intercompany communications much as it did into corporate environs, thanks to the ubiquity of J2EE. And open source will very likely lead the way here for similar reasons, but primarily because it is ISV-friendly, more so than closed source solutions. For example, it's obviously more prohibitive financially for SaaS and IaaS providers to offer ESB-based SOA services using a closed source solution (as with the BEA and Microsoft), which would require a licensing partnership with the ESB vendor.
For this reason, I think it's likely that we'll see more SaaS/IaaS solutions and partnerships from open source vendors such as MuleSource, IONA, Red Hat, Sun (eventually), and WSO2. These vendors can offer top-notch software and support service subscriptions that are tuned to the SaaS subscription model. It's a match made in the heavens, as it were.
Posted by Brad Shimmin on September 25, 2007 03:00 AM
September 24, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Last week I spoke with Todd Hay, VP of Marketing at ActiveGrid.
"Too often, we fight ourselves in the AJAX community. For customers, there is too much confusion between AJAX libraries such as Dojo, JQuery, Prototype or the tens and hundreds more. Customers get overwhelmed and look towards Adobe or Microsoft. Other times, customers want to use an open source library and there is no support option available."
Considering that we're still early in the product lifecycle for Web 2.0 runtimes/libraries/technologies, the average customer doesn't want to make a bet on a product (or company) that may be gone in a few years. In these cases, choosing Adobe or Microsoft feels safer. I can understand when a customer selects Adobe AIR or Microsoft Silverlight because of some capability or feature not sufficiently available in an OSS AJAX framework/library/product. But selecting AIR or Silverlight to reduce the confusion between OSS AJAX frameworks/libraries/products signals a problem for AJAX communities and vendors. There appears to be a need for some overarching standards for AJAX-based frameworks. These standards would enable customers to choose between various implementations with confidence. The OpenAjax Alliance is working towards "Standardizing Ajax Development" (as their logo says - note that ActiveGrid, Adobe & Microsoft are all members of the Alliance). But there is definitely more that could be done, and done faster.
To this point, Todd explains:
"We recently acquired TurboAJAX Group, a company that had 2 of the top contributors to the Dojo project. We are committed to the Dojo community and will be offering subscription support offerings for Dojo and for TurboAJAX products, which are built on Dojo. Next, we're going to release TurboStudio under the GPL to minimize barriers to adoption. We're also going to work with other members of the AJAX community on ensuring a greater degree of collaboration."
Releasing TurboStudio under the GPL (coming soon) is great news . However, I think that the more important goal is getting some degree of collaboration and standardization across the AJAX world. Choice is good, but without standards, choice leads to confusion, which in turn leads to many customers making the 'safe choice'.
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 24, 2007 03:10 PM
September 24, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Others may have pointed this out, but I was wondering why it is that Apple is often thought of so well in open source circles. I see tons of Mac laptops at open source conferences but any mention of using Windows and you can get flamed pretty quickly... Yet Apple is actually more closed than most companies. They use some open source in Safari and OS/X but as far as I can tell, they don't give that much back. (Yes, they have an open source section in their developer connection.) And iTunes and iPhone are about as closed environments as you can get. But I don't see anyone really complaining about that.
Have I missed the controversy? Or are they contributing more to open source than I've seen. Or is Apple so cool that it's beyond reproach? Let me know your thoughts.
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 24, 2007 07:36 AM
September 20, 2007 | Comments: (0)
It's GPL lawsuit bingo night at the SFLC
The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) triumphantly announced today that it has just filed what is apparently the first U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit based on a violation of GPL V2. The perpetrator, Monsoon. The plantiff, BusyBox. Apparently Monsoon forgot to re-distributors the BusyBox code to make sure each downstream user had access to the BusyBox source.
As is increasingly the way in the good old USA, the plaintiffs, after failing to hear back from Monsoon's forum autobot -- yes, they apparently made their initial concerns known to an artificial life form on September 5th -- immediately set the wheels of litigation in motion. Now, don't get me wrong. The GPL is a binding contact, utilizing very clearly defined and understood rules of copyright and derivation. Monsoon was wrong. And BusyBox was right to sue.
But honestly, didn't we learn anything at all from the SCO debacle? Litigation should be a last course of action, not a frenzied first option. You don't want to scream bingo unless you're sure you've got all of your boxes checked.
Posted by Brad Shimmin on September 20, 2007 08:23 PM
September 20, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Off-topic: $ CDN at par with USD
They said it couldn't be done. (They who? I don't know, the Rosenberg's and Russo's of the world! ;-)
For many years my American friends joked about Canadian money being worth slightly more or less than Monopoly money. Well, today the joke is on you. The mighty Loonie is at par with the Greenback. Mass hysteria is taking place...well over 4 people have been spotted outside in Winnipeg.
Either we're doing something right or we just look good compared to you ;-)
*Note: The last statement could be applied to some vendors in the OSS/Traditional software arena.
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 20, 2007 08:00 PM
September 20, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Gartner: Ignoring Open Source Not An Option
Mark Driver, one of the organizers of Gartner's Open Source Summit capped his introductory presentation by telling IT managers that ignoring open source is no longer an option. He called open source "the biggest change in corporate IT since distributed computing." As Driver said, "Open source is not a niche, not a fad." And on the competitive front "competing against open source is tilting at windmills."
These were strong words, but backed up by good research and observations:
- By 2011, Gartner predicts that at least 80% of all commercial software solutions will include substantive open source.
- Open source is being used equally for mission critical and non-mission critical applications. Gartner's survey shows 49.7% of open source usage is being done for "mission critical" applications, as compared to 59% for proprietary software and 58.5% for internal development.
The overall theme of the conference has evolved this year from explaining what open source is, to how and where companies should adopt open source without getting burned. We're now in the "third wave" of adoption, which has moved from the emotional stage, to a second stage of realism and now a third stage about leverage.
Driver suggested four elements in assessing open source and its notable that these are not radically different from assessing closed source software:
-Fitness of purpose - Does the software do what it needs to do?
-Maturity - Is the software mature enough to provide an acceptable risk/reward ratio for your organization
-Your technology adoption profile - Are you an early adopter, mainstream or late adopter?
-Deployment scenario - How will it be deployed? Is it a mission critical application?
He also noted that while the early adoption has been done by "technology aggressive" firms, it is heading for more mainstream adoption by 2012 and that the patterns of adoption will be different as a result. Early adopters typically care most about flexibility and independence, and less about cost and risk. However, in his view, we're now at the mid-point and for mainstream adopters, the priorities are reversed: cost and risk are typically more important than flexibility and independence.
Driver encouraged attendees to develop an open source policy saying that open source adoption "has to be managed" alongside existing software. He also noted that open source has achieved dramatic success in the infrastructure layer: operating systems (Linux), application servers (JBoss, Tomcat), DBMS (MySQL), and security (Snort). The next wave of adoption will be at the application level: CRM, content management, supply chain management, elearning, etc. Driver noted that while open source doesn't guarantee it, in most cases there is better quality and lower Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).
The Gartner Open Source Summit was held in conjunction with two other Gartner conferences on Portals and Web Innovation in Las Vegas. While there were several hundred people in total, the open source group felt smaller than previous years. The program is excellent, but I'm not sure it makes sense to combine open source in with these other groups. (Also, I had trouble getting connected on their wireless network, but that's just me.)
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 20, 2007 12:41 PM
September 20, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Off-topic: How to pack for travel
Stephen O'Grady and I have been talking for at least a year about the best travel gear (including laptop bags). Today I found OneBag.com which gives you all sorts of guidance and suggestions of gear you need. I also just signed up for the Clear Service to try and fly through security...look for me in the SFO lockup when the whole thing goes wrong.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 20, 2007 10:16 AM
September 20, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Via Stephen Shankland at CNet - Very cool news about an effort to run Linux more efficiently on servers, laptops & mobile devices. The effort was kicked off by Intel, but is open to all.
According to Stephen's report:
"On a current laptop, running Fedora 7 from Red Hat uses about 21 watts. "If you apply six little changes we propose, that same laptop takes 15.5 watts," Hohndel said. "You have just added a more than an hour to your battery run time.""
"Taking Intel's advice and fixes can trim about 10 watts of power consumption off a modern dual-processor server, said Dirk Hohndel, chief technologist of Intel open-source technology center. That's not a gargantuan amount--until you consider that if done correctly it's free power savings, that each watt of server energy saved cuts another 1.3 watts from air conditioning (according to Intel figures), and of course that 10 watts per server is a lot when multiplied by the thousands of servers that populate larger data centers."
There is a lot of pressure to consolidate commodity hardware onto, bigger more efficient systems. The competition between commodity systems & larger systems may well result in Linux becoming "the most energy efficient" operating system on servers. It appears that Intel is focusing on this goal from a commodity server standpoint. How long until the larger systems vendors decide to do the same with Linux? (Note: they may be doing so already - so please comment and update us all!)
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 20, 2007 10:09 AM
September 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)
What's more important, the license or the company behind it?
Yesterday I met with Paul Fremantle, Co-Founder and VP of Technology for WSO2 to discuss their current product set. Paul has been around this industry for some time, putting in a nine year stint at IBM, where he lead the WebSphere WebServices Gateway team development team. He's also donated EJB code to the Apache SOAP project long ago. So, as you might imagine, our conversation turned to the ongoing open source debate over licensing schemes.
Right now, there seems to be a great deal of fuss over whether or not open source can "play" in the enterprise owing to issues like GPL 2 vs GPL 3, designer licenses and the spectre of indemnification. So it was refreshing to hear Paul discuss his stance on the importance of the license behind the code. Here's what I could jot down as we talked (any errors are mine, of course).
It's about trust. WSO2 expects their customers to trust them to be the best company to rely on in this space. We'll see how the whole open source licensing issue pans out, but my view is that the licensing is not the important part of the business decision to work with a company. When I was with IBM it wasn't the license that drove customers. It wasn't the IP. J2EE really showed us that. It doesn't matter what IP you have, if you have a J2EE server, because there are many functionally identically servers out there. What matters is this: is it a good company to partner with. Can I rely upon that company as an infrastructure provider.
BTW, WSO2 uses the easy going Apache license, which is obviously in line with Paul's stance.
Posted by Brad Shimmin on September 19, 2007 05:21 PM
September 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Anyone surprised that SCO may have to fold? They should just do it quietly in hopes of ever having jobs again.
"The revenue from this business has been declining over the last several years, primarily as a result of increased competition from alternative operating systems, particularly Linux, and from the negative publicity of the SCO litigation.
Link: SCO Group admits it may fold
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 19, 2007 02:12 PM
September 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Off-topic: Ten Most Polluted Places in the World
National Geographic is running a pictorial. Just be glad that you don't live in any of these places.
Sumgayit, Azerbaijan; Linfen, China; Sukinda, India; Vapin, India; La Oroya, Peru; Dzerzhinsk, Russia; Noril'sk, Russia; Chernobyl, Ukraine; Kabwe, Russia;
It's always good to get a brutal dose of reality as we sit bitching and moaning about why Microsoft is evil.
If you're looking for a pick-me-up, this ain't it.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 19, 2007 12:27 PM
September 18, 2007 | Comments: (0)
SaaS vs. Open Source: Open Source will win
One of the things that struck me as I roamed the floor of the Dreamforce event (besides the fact that I find events like this to be incredibly depressing) is that there is a clear difference between companies that form a "community" and those that are part of an "ecosystem."
Since we launched MuleOnDemand this week I have been spending a great deal of time thinking through the advantages/disadvantages of SaaS and OSS. Despite the fact that I do believe in SaaS, I am finding that the current crop of SaaS companies are middling at best, with only a few standouts whereas there are many great open source companies--at witnessed by the acquisitions in the space (see Matt's post on The Gold Rush.)
Those SaaS companies that standout are the ones that have mutually beneficial non-competitive relationships with Salesforce.com whereas the non-standouts are just hangers-on. They also tend to not blend into a bigger strategy. For example Eloqua makes sense as does Omniture as it rounds out your needs. Similarly, most SaaS apps don't play well with others, largely ignoring the IT worlds move to SOA.
In open source we talk about "the community" and how it creates a larger development society. This is doesn't seem to be the case with SaaS. With Salesforce (or SaaS in general) the efforts that pop up around the product have little to do with a bigger picture and more to do with lateral routes to making money from said product (ie. Offering a function that Salesforce doesn't have). There is certainly nothing wrong with that but it sets a very different tone for how the companies interact with each other as well as with their potential customers.
With the ecosystem approach there are two possibilities: you make enough money to support the business or you get acquired by the mothership. The issue for the companies at Dreamforce is that Salesforce doesn't acquire many companies, and if you look at the way these SaaS applications are built they might use the same underlying technologies but don't share a common architecture (schemas, multi-tenancy for example) that can be merged into a bigger app like Salesforce.
Contrast this with the community approach where a company can sustain the business, or be acquired by a much broader range of companies. Witness how Citrix acquired XenSource and Yahoo acquired Zimbra, proving that open source and the community approach have far more options for success.
One other key aspect of community is that open source has both "developers" and "users" where SaaS tends to only have "users" which we should probably term "consumers" since there haven't been many well known contributions from SaaS companies back to OSS projects.
Ask any-and I mean any of the new school SaaS companies what they built their sites on and 99% will tell you it's all open source--primarily LAMP (BTW if you built on Windows just stop now. The costs will sink you as you scale.) Ask them if they pay for support and the response is less than 20% by my informal research.
I do think that SaaS is a great delivery model and I am glad these guys are consuming open source to build their businesses. The SaaS guys that provide actual value like Omniture, OpSource and a few others have a retainable space in the ecosystem. But, it's hard to see how majority of the companies on display at Dreamforce will build sustainable revenue outside of the Salesforce.com
This post was not meant as flame-bait. I personally have been trying to figure this all out. Any thoughts are welcome.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 18, 2007 02:38 PM
September 18, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Zend, a major contributor to PHP, has helped launched the Eclipse PHP Development Tools 1.0 (PDT)project this week. Since PDT is built on the Eclipse framework, hundreds of Eclipse plug-ins can be used immediately by PHP developers. This project has been in development for two years and includes contributions from Zend, IBM and others. Paul Krill has more details in his news story.
While many think of Eclipse as a Java IDE (and maybe one of the best) it's actually a framework for any type of tool or IDE and has been adopted for hundreds of different projects with contributions from companies including the likes of IBM, SAP, Wind River, Actuate, Intel, BEA, BlackDuck, CapeClear, MySQL, SAS and Tibco. There's also a wide range of projects from Enterprise Reporting with BIRT to embedded mobile development. There's even a Rich Client Platform that's part of Eclipse.
So if you still think Eclipse is just Java, go over to www.eclipse.org and take a look at all that's available.
For those in the bay area, the upcoming Zend Conference Oct 8-11 will have coverage of the Eclipse PDT project as well as the Zend Framework. More on that in a later post.
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 18, 2007 07:29 AM
September 18, 2007 | Comments: (0)
InfoWorld reports:
"IBM is to offer the world a free word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation program in yet another bid to upset the dominance of Microsoft's Office suite....
IBM says it will contribute 35 programmers to the Symphony-cum-OpenOffice development effort...."
The Lotus Symphony FAQ states:
"Lotus Symphony is based on the Open Document Format (ODF) standard-which means you're not locked into proprietary file formats, software licensing agreements and upgrades"
Lotus Symphony products are standalone versions of products that are being bundled in Lotus Notes 8, and are built from OpenOffice technology.
The download process requires that users enter an IBM developerWorks or PartnerWorld ID. I know this sucks, and we deal with this issue when users want to download WAS Community Edition. However, we're required to adhere to export laws, exclude downloads to embargoed countries (i.e. North Korea), and IBM's legal team is a little more cautious when distributing OSS-based products for some reason ;-).
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 18, 2007 07:24 AM
September 18, 2007 | Comments: (0)
BEA's Future Should Include Apache Geronimo
I just read that Carl Icahn owns a 8.5% stake, worth $426.5M, in BEA. He wants to see BEA sold in order to maximize shareholder value. While I can understand this point of view, I'd like to offer another option. Transforming OSS from a threat to an opportunity could be one step towards a BEA recovery. The recovery would surely help maximize shareholder value.
How would BEA get there from here? First, evolve beyond the "Blended Strategy" to OSS, which essentially entails supporting 3rd party OSS products such as Tomcat, when used with BEA products. Next, get behind Apache Geronimo and deliver a BEA distribution of the JEE5 certified open source app server. To be fair, BEA groks the value of OSS, and has supported various OSS projects. However, BEA's OSS efforts have not provided them with a way to combat JBoss in BEA accounts. Getting behind Apache Geronimo would address this strategic gap.
Before I go on, let me fully disclose that I am an IBMer, working in the WebSphere Application Server product management team. Our products compete directly against WebLogic Server (WLS). That said, the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions.
Over the past 3 years, BEA has faced stiff competition from leading enterprise vendors such as IBM. But BEA has also been the target of JBoss. Unlike competing with enterprise software vendors, competing vs. OSS with new product features, improved performance, additional marketing, sales strategies, isn't always the right answer. For example, you can't beat JBoss by adding a new higher performance feature to WLS.
Essentially, in certain projects, BEA customers have said: "I'm looking for a Toyota Yaris (small, cheap, not luxurious)" and BEA has countered: "We can sell you a Toyota Camry (bigger, more expensive, more luxurious - i.e. WLS), but we will also provide regularly scheduled maintenance if you want to drive a Vespa Scooter (fun, cool, for short non-highway distances - i.e. Tomcat) along with the Camry". JBoss has won in BEA accounts because they offered a "Toyota Yaris". I am not disparaging any products, I am merely pointing out that different projects require different infrastructure, similar to Zack's positioning of MySQL vs. Oracle.
To address the JBoss threat, BEA could take a page out of the IBM playbook. We compete with JBoss with WAS Community Edition, built from the open source Apache Geronimo project. Additionally, since we don't believe in a one size fits all approach, we offer customers choice at the project level, and are able to protect their investments using the breadth of our WebSphere Application Server family of offerings. This has been a successful strategy for winning in the face of OSS competition.
Offering BEA's own Geronimo distribution would enable BEA to "offer a Toyota Yaris" when the developer or customer seeks a "Toyota Yaris". Additionally, BEA's distribution of Geronimo could be used to seed their developer base with a *BEA product* when the developer seeks to use OSS.
BEA executives will surely be worried that the BEA Geronimo distribution will cannibalize WLS revenue. BEA shouldn't let risk cloud opportunity. Many customers initially choose JBoss for projects that don't have funding or don't need the capabilities delivered by higher-value enterprise application servers. By providing an offering that meets the price, simplicity and performance needs that customers evaluating JBoss are signaling, BEA could drive additional revenue and attract/keep developers.
Why do I want to help a competitor? A stronger BEA helps to keep WebSphere on our toes. A stronger Apache Geronimo product and BEA winning more against JBoss will also force JBoss to raise their game. In the end, customers benefit, and that's why we're all here, right?
So BEA, move beyond the Blended Strategy. Get behind Apache Geronimo. You can thank me later ;-)
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 18, 2007 06:06 AM
September 18, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Open sourcing closed source software
Stop the presses. Hold everything. Though only rumored to exist within the mind of author Hugh Lofting, a creature that can simultaneously go both forwards and backwards has been discovered. That's right, the rarest animal of all, the highly sought after and extraordinarily fabled Pushmi-Pullyu truly exists -- albeit without all of the fur.
QNX Systems, a company famed for creating real-time operating systems (RTOSes) for more than 30 years, last week announced that it would cross-pollinate open source and commercial software domains by opening access to the source code for its QNX Neutrino RTOS under a hybrid software licensing agreement. That may sound a lot like Microsoft's pseudo-hybrid Shared Source Initiative. However, just like Lofting's fantastical Pushmi-Pullyu, which he immortalized in "The Story of Doctor Doolittle," QNX's game plan is to work the problem from both ends. QNX of course wants to allow partners and customers to view source code, but to also wants to build working open source community on top of that, in which the QNX development process itself is made visible to these partners and customers.
Much like Microsoft, QNX wants to tear down the API wall that slows 3rd party ISV innovation. But with QNX's approach to open source, these 3rd parties aren't just in read-only mode with the QNX Neutrino RTOS. As with true open source programs, QNX Neutrino developers will be coding in the open -- a terrifying proposition when you consider how most closed source code is documented: poorly or not for public consumption. All of their source code changes will be made in real time and distributed to QNX community members, who can post bug fixes, submit their own code or just ask questions.
One thing to bear in mind here is that the QNX approach isn't true open source, as its license does not allow external parties to redistribute the QNX code underneath their own value add. They can do that, of course, but they'll need to negotiate an appropriate (financially speaking) contract with QNX to do that. Conversely, a customer can synchronize source code privately on the QNX community site or submit those modifications back to QNX, which will then own that intellectual property and can distribute those modifications along with the rest of the QNX Neutrino kernel.
Still, for 3rd party ISVs, who depend upon QNX, this approach should serve as a productivity boon, since they'll no longer have to weed their way through a thicket of API calls. Cisco developers, in creating a kernel driver, can now look directly at the stack source to find and debug problems. And for QNX, this will let the company focus its efforts on the core of their product. They're hoping to cut down on coding lower priority elements that normally hold up production, offloading much of that work through cooperative development with OEM partners.
As Lofting said:
Men get most of their animals by sneaking up behind them while they are not looking. But you could not do this with the pushmi-pullyu--because, no matter which way you came towards him, he was always facing you. And besides, only one half of him slept at a time. The other head was always awake--and watching. This was why they were never caught and never seen in Zoos.
QNX's true, bi-directional visibility will allow the company to stay awake at both ends, as it were, pulling from OEM partners and pushing to a broader community. It will certainly accelerate development efforts within the company's ISV community, though I doubt it will capture the imagination of hackers and enthusiasts in the same vein as Linux, Apache and Mozilla. But that's ok. Hopefully we'll run into more interesting examples of closed source vendors plying open source ideas in the future. QNX is further proof that the open source "ideal" of transparency is a relevant and powerful framework that can be successfully mapped onto a complete bestiary of business models.
Posted by Brad Shimmin on September 18, 2007 03:00 AM
September 18, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Yahoo Strikes Back with Open Source
It's interesting to see that under CEO founder Jerry Chang, Yahoo is using open source to gain an advantage over rival Google. While it's too early to say whether Yahoo's use of open source will have impact, it does appear to be part of their strategic thrust to be more competitive. Consider the following:
-Yahoo is using the open source Hadoop framework as a way to compete with Google's BigTable system which is closed source and only available within Google.
-Yahoo just acquired Zimbra, the open source email system built by former OpenWave and BEA hotshots. Zimbra is open source and built on MySQL. (It's also the coolest email / collaboration system I have seen in ages, with a great web interface, exchange compatibility and more.) They've powered huge installations with millions of mailboxes and scaled seemlessly.
I think both of these are interesting developments. Is open source scalability part of a pattern here for web 2.0? Tim O'Reilly thinks open source developers should be paying more attention to Web 2.0. Looks like Yahoo certainly is.
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 18, 2007 01:05 AM
September 17, 2007 | Comments: (0)
All Things D says that Yahoo is buying Zimbra.
Congrats to the Zimbra team for keeping the OSS acquisition numbers in the stratosphere! $350 million is a nice chunk of change.
Note to big companies: you better buy the OSS startups now before they are all gone.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 17, 2007 01:24 PM
September 17, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Ok, this strikes me as weird. After so many years of bashing Microsoft and saying how other companies were foolish to sell Windows, Sun is now planning on reselling Windows. And Linux. And Solaris. Which they open source. And also sell as closed source.
I'm not saying this is a bad strategy. Interoperability between Sun and Microsoft is a good objective, but it needs to be real, not just press releases and announcements. But this news certainly indicates that things have changed at Sun. Hopefully for better. Sun's strategy in software has always felt a little confused. They invent great technologies like Java and app servers, but end up with single digit market share. Then they open source it. If they had been more open earlier on I think Sun would be the one with momentum, not Linux, JBOSS, Eclipse and the LAMP stack.
Also, I'm not sure the history or culture at either Sun or Microsoft is one of, ah, collaboration and respect. I just don't see Bob Muglia and Jonathan Schwartz as two guys who are going to go work it out together. Maybe things are better than they used to be. The new servers Sun is turning out are pretty darn good. But if they ever do a remake of the Odd Couple they could do worse than a casting call in Redmond and Santa Clara. Strange bedfellows, indeed.
What do you guys think? Is this a good move for Sun? Are you running OpenSolaris? Net Beans? Or whatever their app server is called these days?
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 17, 2007 04:22 AM
September 16, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Is Apple missing the 'Mac Opportunity'?
Today's NY Times (login maybe required) has an article discussing Apple's over-focus on the iPod as Mac computers appear to languish with few new features and limited new models. This is something that we have written about before here on Open Sources: Did we really need another iPod?; The Mac rolls on...; Yet another Macbook Pro dies by my hand
The NY Times article is interesting because it focuses on Apple's shortcomings in moving Macs into the channel (rather than my obsession with new laptops) and makes a very good point that Apple is potentially blowing it's opportunity since Vista pretty much sucks.
The most interesting nugget:
APPLE was organized in a way that was bound to lead to neglect of the Mac and the retail channel. The 10 members of the company’s executive team include a senior vice president who is responsible for the iPod and nothing else. Another is in charge of only the stores Apple owns. No one’s sole responsibility is the Mac. The Mac’s sales are under the purview of the chief operating officer, Timothy D. Cook, who has other things on his plate, like running the entire company.
This is very surprising to me when conventional wisdom (in fact business school teachings) tell us that Apple created the consumer devices like the iPod and opened the retail stores to sell more Macs.
I am flummoxed.
Anyone have thoughts on this?
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 16, 2007 06:18 PM
September 14, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Looks like predictions have come true for SCO as they have now filed for bankruptcy. While I'm sure many will be cheering SCO's demise, this may hurt SCO customers even worse. They're going to need to make plans to migrate to a more mainstream LAMP stack if this should come to pass.
Technically they have filed a "Chapter 11" bankruptcy protection, which means these are moves to help thwart off a final bankruptcy. They can reorganize during this time and anyone who is owed money by SCO will likely get only a fraction of what they are due. In some cases, companies can re-emerge stronger after Chapter 11, but few do. While SCO says its "business as usual" filing Chapter 11 typically shakes everyones confidence, whether it's employees, customers or suppliers.
Are any readers running SCO? What are your plans?
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 14, 2007 03:09 PM
September 14, 2007 | Comments: (0)
SCO Group files for bankruptcy protection (ding dong, the witch is nearly dead)
Cnet Reports that SCO filed for Chapter Eleven
"The Board of Directors of the SCO Group have unanimously determined that Chapter 11 reorganization is in the best long-term interest of SCO and its subsidiaries, as well as its customers, shareholders and employees," the company said in a statement. Added Chief Executive Darl McBride, "We want to assure our customers and partners that they can continue to rely on SCO products, support and services for their business critical operations."
It couldn't have happened to a less likable company
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 14, 2007 02:10 PM
September 14, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Software patents not GPL3 to kill open source?
Apparently while I was attending the BEAWorld and VMworld conferences in San Francisco this week, the pretty blue globe we call home kept on spinning, particularly where GPL v3 is concerned. On Wednesday an interview with Mr. Richard Stallman -- President of the Free Software Foundation -- was published in PC World Australia, from which I'd just like to reproduce a few choice quotes:
Regarding the battle between Microsoft and Open (or as Richard puts it, "Free") Source community:
Stallman: Nobody knows who will win this fight, because the outcome depends on you and the readers. Will you fight for freedom? Will you reject Windows and MacOS and other non-free software, and switch to GNU/Linux? Or will you be too lazy to resist?
On GPL v3's goal of protecting the rights of all users of all versions of a program to use that program for free:
Stallman: Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him.
For any sentential logicians out there, this last sentence might make more sense as "If you value your freedom, don't follow him."
Such rhetoric aside, what struck me the most about this interview is Stallman's views concerning intellectual property and software patents. Basically, he believes that Microsoft and other "big businesses" are threatening not so much for how they treat the open source community but because they seek to control software in a way that circumvents trivial things like software licenses -- that is, software patents.
You don't have to look very far to see that US Patent law allows virtually any process, description or vague idea to be stamped as a legally enforceable piece of property. Microsoft does own the smily face, you know. :) With companies like IBM winning more than 3,000 patents per year (leading the industry for more than 13 consecutive years), you might imagine an "idea crisis" on the horizon, where our world begins running low on totally unique, patentable ideas -- that is of course unless anything can be patented. Apparently, the folks at the Patent Office can't feel that way, as they're now asking for "peers" to evaluate patents. Sheesh. To be fair IBM and others have pledged a number of patents to the Open Source effort. They are aware of the issue, but these donations really amount to a drop in the bucket comparatively.
Anyway, I think Stallman's ideas, though at times inflammatory, are definitely worth a few minutes, perhaps while you put those finishing touches on your "Mouse Pad for Lefties" patent submission.
Posted by Brad Shimmin on September 14, 2007 09:01 AM
September 14, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Open Season Meat Cast: Episode Two: Crushing proprietary vendors
"Open source prima donnas to crush IBM, BEA and MS in 2008" say Dave, Matt and Ashlee in our latest podcast on The Register.
As proof that we listen to our, er, listeners, we've broken this show up into two sections. The first consists of our witty banter. The second consists of our attempts to provide useful information for anyone looking to do business in the open source software market. Those of you that want to skip the banter should head to minute 35 or so in the broadcast.
Open Season - Episode Two
Open Season - Episode One
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 14, 2007 08:45 AM
September 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)
The Motley Fool has a pretty interesting article on IT analyst firms such as Gartner & Forrester.
I've worked with these firms for nearly a decade and do believe that they provide a valuable service to their customers and the IT market in general.
Some metrics for Gartner:
"Each year, Gartner's 650 researchers attend 18,000 vendor briefings, along with answering 240,000 client inquiries."
Obviously, not every client inquiry is of equal weight, but these numbers work out to 1.5 client inquiries per researcher per weekday.
Let’s set aside the client inquiry figure, which, even if each inquiry was from a different customer we're only covering a very small subset of IT buyers. Even if a company is not a Gartner, Forrester, IDC, RedMonk, 451 Group or Entiva (etc.) customer, the company will be influenced by what these analysts say in the public media.
Analysts help customers make purchase decisions. Analysts also educate the market on new technologies. Even in open source land, the IT manager and CIO of a developer using your OSS product is much more likely to take something serious if they hear it from Gartner, Forrester or IDC first. Working with the large analysts will help your OSS business if you want *paying* customers in the enterprise. Boutique analysts like RedMonk, 451 Group or Entiva are going to be crucial in developing/refining your OSS business strategy. However, because of their size, these boutique analysts don't have the reach of a Gartner or Forrester in terms of customer purchase decisions. You'll need to work with both classes of analysts, because each bring a lot of (differentiated) value to the table.
BTW, the article also makes the case against using analysts:
"The current model of analyst-intermediated, opinion-based technology buying and selling produces poor financial returns. Across the world, corporate managers spend more than $1 trillion a year on technology. To help managers invest, and technology marketers persuade, $2 billion a year is spent on technology analysts. Yet 70% of projects fail to deliver a financial return, according to the Standish Group and other commentators."
(Funny enough, Standish Group is also an analyst firm). Should analysts bear the weight of these 70% of projects that fail? Would fewer projects fail if analysts were not involved in the equation? What is the ratio of project failures for similar companies that use analysts vs. companies that don't?
Questions, questions, question...I better call an analyst ;-)
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 13, 2007 01:00 PM
September 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Gartner Open Source Conference
I mentioned the Gartner conference among a few of the upcoming open source events this fall. I've been to the past versions of this conference in Phoenix and in Orlando and it's a very good event for managers and newcomers to Open Source. It's not a hardcore technical conference like OSCON or the MySQL conference, but it's very good for its audience.
Gartner has come a long way in recent years in helping IT organizations ramp up their use of open source with a carefully considered "best practices" approach backed by good research and thorough analysis. The Gartner guys that I've met have a good understanding of where open source fits and how to start using it without getting burned. They're also objective in their findings. It's not just about using open source because it's the hot thing. They understand that in IT if things fail heads can roll. So they may be a bit more conservative than others, but it is with good reason. And finally, you can't buy your way into a Gartner recommendation. So to me it's pretty compelling when Gartner says open source databases are the fastest growing segment. Last year in his presentation on open source databases, Donald Feinberg reported that by 2008, 70% of organizations would be deploying an open source database and that 56% of companies surveyed planned on switching to Linux as their database platform. Pretty interesting trends.
At this fall's event in Las Vegas there will be presentations by Mark Driver, Donald Feinberg, Nikos Drakos, Ray Valdes from Gartner as well as presentations by Michael Tiemann from Red Hat, Tony Wasserman from CMU West and others. Tracks include "Optimizing Open Source Investments," "Managing the Open Source Roadmap," "Practices of Mature Users" and "Open Source & Elvis". (Ok, I am making that one up, since it's Las Vegas.) There are sessions on Security, Linux, Open Source Stacks, Databases, GPL, Web 2.0,
My only regret is I will need to leave early Friday morning to catch a flight to Germany for a MySQL developer meeting we're having in Heidelberg.
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 13, 2007 04:23 AM
September 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
From the InfoWorld story about Sun OEMing Windows Server with the Sun Fire server line for customers that want to use Windows.
"The Sun Fire servers already support Windows Server, along with Red Hat Linux, Novell's Suse Enterprise Linux, VMware's ESX virtualization system, and Sun's own Solaris operating system, according to Lisa Sieker, vice president of marketing at Sun Systems.Asked if Sun's latest alliance shows its intent to compete more directly with Linux and VMware, Sieker said, "We are responding to strong customer demand for this.... It's a complex marketplace out there.""
So very true, it is a complex marketplace out there. Simplifying the marketplace to "...oss is the right answer in all occasions" really minimizes the prevalence of heterogeneous environments and needs that customers have.
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 12, 2007 09:02 PM
September 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
BEA embraces and disses open source at the same time
Let's see if anyone can make sense of these quotes from BEA (as reported by Paul Krill.) It never ceases to amaze how big companies manage to talk out both sides of their mouth and other orifices all at the same time.
BEA likes open source
BEA Systems' planned next-generation application platform, called Project Genesis, will feature an open source component and accommodate scripting languages such as Ruby and Perl, BEA officials said at the BEAWorld San Francisco conference on Tuesday.
BEA hates open source
"I think open source for open source's sake has been useless," Chuang said."Some companies have taken multimillion lines of operating system code and open-sourced it," he said, critically. Although sometime-BEA rival Sun Microsystems did this with its Solaris OS, Chuang said his comment was not specifically targeted at Sun. Others have done this as well, he said.
And what the hell does this mean from this article?
"We see a new generation of flexible, dynamic, and real-time composite applications surpassing traditional packaged applications. This new generation of applications is made possible by combining user-based access to managed business applications and data services with the flexibility of business process management and new social computing tools that put business users in charge of their applications."
Is it me or is BEA getting even weirder?
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 12, 2007 02:12 PM
September 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
My full "What Microsoft Doesn't Know About SOA" rant on ITBusinessEdge
Apologies to Lorraine for accidentally publishing the questions from my interview before she did--I didn't realize that I had rambled so much that she put it into 2 pieces!
Check out her blog today about Biz Talk Server which makes a good point--whether or not Microsoft has an SOA strategy only half matters right now--they will be an important player regardless.
Lorraine had to split the interview referenced above into two parts. You can read the complete Q&A at:
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=33378 and
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=33486
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 12, 2007 10:42 AM
September 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
MySQL beefs up up online DB monitoring
Remember when IBM's claim to fame was a special server port through which the company could "jack in" to troubled systems and work its magic from a thousand miles away? Well, that idea hasn't gone away. If anything, open source, with its subscription-based business models, has given this idea new life. There's no magic plug, of course, just the magic of the Internet.
MySQL, for one, just updated its own hosted, commercial subscription service, MySQL Enterprise. Announced at its Japanese MySQL Users Conference, the jet-setting folks at MySQL rolled out a free 30 day trial (great idea) and added the ability to monitor/managed replicated instances.
MySQLA isn't alone in this to be sure. Others specializing in enterprise solutions (IBM, Microsoft, Oracle and Red Hat spring to mind) have built online services that available through annual subscriptions that are deeply intertwined with on-premise software. Other firms do provide basic capabilities, like simple patch and package management. But open source vendors like MySQL and Red Hat are really starting to go way deep at runtime, offering monitoring solutions like root cause analysis, advanced dashboarding, best practices and even rules engines -- activities that would normally require hefty on-site software or an even more hefty consulting engagement.
The MySQL solution falls mostly into the latter category, which is where I wish most closed and open source vendors would focus their energies. Of course, as an industry analyst, I wish for all sorts of things. But I'm curious to hear from you, dear readers, whether or not you're availing yourselves of services like this? If not, what are the roadblocks to letting companies like MySQL peer into your systems?
Posted by Brad Shimmin on September 12, 2007 08:21 AM
September 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Why is Indemnity a Customer Concern?
Shaun Connolly at JBoss has a post about "What's in a Subscription". Shaun states:
"Put simply, a Subscription is comprised of: 1. Software bits 2. Patches and updates to the bits 3. Support in the use of the bits 4. Legal assurance"
The fact that OSS vendors have to use legal assurance/indemnity as a method for driving subscription purchases is due to the general FUD around OSS licensing, patents and copyrights. Things like copyrights & patents are vendor issues and should not be made customer issues.
Do any of us care that the Blackberry of iPod we use may have patent infringing technology inside? Or that these devices may include some copyrighted material (a la the software) inside? No, we expect that the vendors who sell us these products have taken care of that for us. Staying on the right side of the IP law line is another cost of doing business for RIM & Apple in this example. As a customer I may pay for this cost in the total cost of the product, but IP assurance is not used as a customer benefit, just as "we didn't pollute more than government guidelines allowed when building this product" is not used as a customer benefit. Again, isn't IP assurance a vendor cost and issue? Why have we [updated](the overall software industry)[updated] made this a concern for customers?
What am I missing?
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 12, 2007 05:35 AM
September 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Whenever we have seminars or events on performance tuning of MySQL we always get a good crowd. We've got two performance tuning seminars in the afternoons next week in DC and Boston on Tuesday and Wednesday. There are also morning sessions targeted to managers who want to reduce risk and costs. These are free events and are targeted primarily to OEM / ISV users who embed or bundle MySQL. Still, they are a good way to get some tunings tips and meet others. We'll also figure out a way to get this content online for folks outside of these cities.
The presenter is Rob Schneider a longtime SQL guru who has written books on MySQL, SQL Server and Informix. Rob's also an expert on SOA and plays a pretty mean guitar. (Note: I don't think he'll bring his guitar with him, but you never know.) And we'll have some local MySQL folks at each event also.
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 12, 2007 03:43 AM
September 11, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Using OO.o to Beat MSFT in Other Markets
I just read the JS post about the continuing rise of OpenOffice.org.
Why do vendors like Sun, IBM (officially now), Google, etc. support OO.o? Well, providing customer choice and openness are two of the key reasons quoted. These are definitely great reasons that we all want to see OO.o succeed.
Most vendors backing OO.o compete with Microsoft in markets other than Office Productivity software. So, what about the competitive benefits for vendors supporting OO.o? Let's face it, $1 diverted from MS Office could become $0.70 diverted from the budgets of Microsoft's other business units.
Here's a look at Microsoft's 2006 FY financials by reporting division:
- MS Office is inside of "Information Worker"
- MS Windows Client operating systems are inside of "Client"
- MS Windows Server operating systems are inside of "Server & Tools"
- MS SQL Server is inside of "Server & Tools"
- MS Ad revenue is inside of "MSN"
When you look at the operating margins of Microsoft's business units, it's quite easy to see why attacking MS Windows profits with Linux and MS Office profits with OO.o is the strategy of choice for vendors that compete with MS in other markets.
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 11, 2007 06:14 PM
September 11, 2007 | Comments: (0)
I've never seen as much feedback on my blog as the earlier post on the iPod Touch from earlier today. So I thought I'd add some fuel to the fire...
Part of Apple's announcements last week include a $200 price cut on the iPhone. While most people thought this was a great move, some were bitching that this move screwed early adopters. Sure 2 months is a pretty fast time to do a price cut, but if its the right thing, it's the right thing. Still Apple did good to announce that they are offering early adopters a $100 store credit good towards new purchases. As Steve Jobs wrote in an open letter:
...Third, even though we are making the right decision to lower the price of iPhone, and even though the technology road is bumpy, we need to do a better job taking care of our early iPhone customers as we aggressively go after new ones with a lower price. Our early customers trusted us, and we must live up to that trust with our actions in moments like these.Therefore, we have decided to offer every iPhone customer who purchased an iPhone from either Apple or AT&T, and who is not receiving a rebate or any other consideration, a $100 store credit towards the purchase of any product at an Apple Retail Store or the Apple Online Store.
Hey, they didn't have to do anything and I think getting $100 coupon is pretty good deal. I've never had Sony, Dell or Palm send me a coupon when they cut prices. What do you think?
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 11, 2007 01:26 PM
September 11, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft misses the SOA boat (again)
Microsoft just announced the release of BizTalk Server 2006 R2 (note to Microsoft, it's nearly 2008) which apparently is the cornerstone of their SOA strategy (please insert Nelson Muntz Ha-ha! related to MS and SOA.)
The availability of BizTalk Server 2006 R2 underscores Microsoft's long-term commitment to deliver extensive SOA and BPM capabilities as part of the overall Microsoft application platformFunny thing is I just did a Q&A all about how Microsoft has completely missed the point--and this proves that they continue to. They are just taking advantage of their captive market to convince them that SOA is all about Microsoft platforms and not about architectural advantage.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 11, 2007 08:47 AM
September 11, 2007 | Comments: (0)
While this is admittedly a bit off topic from Linux ultra-portables, Apple's recently released iPod Touch is an interesting device. Its by no means a general purpose portable, but it does appear to be a pretty good "special purpose" device. For those who missed it, the iPod Touch is basically an iPhone without a phone but with built-in Wi-Fi connectivity, Safari browser, iTunes, etc. Safari is a decent browser and should enable people to access web-based email, calendar and other applications.
The iPod Touch is slightly larger than an iPod but at 2.4" x 4.3" and only .31" (8 mm) wide and weighs 4.2 oz, it's still quite small. Definitely pocketable and smaller even than the Nokia N800. Its got a 480 x 320 pixel 3.5" display which makes web browsing possible if not ideal. While it's not an open device, it is still pretty cool and good for quick browsing when you don't have a laptop with you.
The iPod Touch will be available later this month starting at $299. To me this is a much better companion device than the Palm Foleo ever could have been.
Posted by Zack Urlocker on September 11, 2007 05:09 AM
September 11, 2007 | Co