AMD to Acquire ATI

July 24, 2006 Leave a comment

Some rumors do turn out to be true. AMD has announced that it will acquire ATI for nearly $5.4 billion in cash and stock. In trading, ATYT is up almost 20%, while AMD is down almost 5%. The repercussions of this should be fairly large. I keep reading that this will be good for consumers, but I'm not necessarily convinced that's the case. We used to have Intel and AMD competing aggressively in one market and then ATI and nVidia competing aggressively in another. This move could polarize things, which could actually decrease choice and competition, which is rarely good for consumers. Many questions are being raised – how will this impact Apple (who uses ATI for GPU and Intel for CPU), how will this impact nVidia (who sold quite well in the AMD market and will have to compete with Intel itself in the low end Intel GPU market) and will AMD try to move to an on core GPU processor. All of these are interesting questions, but not the ones I am concerned with. What I want to know, and what I haven't seen getting much coverage, is how will this move impact how GPU providers look at Open Source. ATI and nVidia have traditionally been extremely tight lipped about specs and have had either little or no Open Source support for their latest cutting edge chipsets. Will AMD take a different look at the market and provide Open Source Linux drivers for ATI-based products? Only time can tell but if they did, it would be interesting to see how it changes the GPU landscape in general and how nVidia, specifically, responds. Maybe this will be good for consumers after all.
–jeremy
, , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Microsoft and XenSource

July 23, 2006 Leave a comment

Microsoft recently issued a press release entitled “Microsoft and XenSource to Develop Interoperability for Windows Server “Longhorn” Virtualization”. From the press release:
Microsoft Corp. and XenSource Inc. today announced they will cooperate on the development of technology to provide interoperability between Xen™-enabled Linux and the new Microsoft Windows hypervisor technology-based Windows Server virtualization. With the resulting technology, the next version of Windows Server, code-named “Longhorn,” will provide customers with a flexible and powerful virtualization solution across their hardware infrastructure and operating system environments for cost-saving consolidation of Windows, Linux and Xen-enabled Linux distributions.
Notice that the compatibility is one sided. That is, they will support running Windows as the hypervisor to run virtualized Linux hosts. They, however, make no claim that Windows will run inside a Xen or Linux based hypervisor. This in effect means that they are hoping if you want to run both Linux and Windows in a Xen environment, all of your hypervisors will have to be Windows machines. Also note the target release date for this – “plans to release the solution to manufacturing (RTM) within 180 days of the RTM of Windows Server “Longhorn,” which is targeted for the end of 2007”. That puts the release well into 2008, which is a long ways off. I'd guess quite a bit is going to happen in the virtualization world in the next 18 months, so who knows what this will end up looking like in the end. This smacks of the tried and true traditional of Microsoft making a press release about something they don't yet have a product to address that's in a rapidly growing segment. What they hope to do is make enough people hold off on competing solutions while they bring their product to market. It often times works quite well for them. This time though, they aren't just competing with the likes of VMware (which is now a gratis product on the low end). They are also facing the realization that as Intel and AMD chips that support hardware virtualization are common place, it could rapidly change the rules of the OS game. The implications of workable virtualization are fascinating, and something I'll be blogging my opinion on very soon.
–jeremy
, , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Microsoft outlines principles of competition

July 20, 2006 Leave a comment

In what may become a continuing trend, Microsoft pledged today to follow a dozen principles of competition as it builds and sells its Windows desktop operating system software, the ubiquitous product that has been the subject of nearly a decade of antitrust battles. From the article:
“As creators of an operating system used so widely around the world, we recognize that we have a special responsibility both to advance innovation and preserve competition,” Smith said. “We've learned that people care not only about what we do, but about how we do it. That's why we're adopting these principles, and why we're making them so public in this manner.”
That sure is a change of tone for Microsoft. The one point that I am extremely happy to see is and business terms that protect manufacturers who go the non-Microsoft route from retaliation. It may have taken multiple antitrust suits across multiple continents, but Microsoft may actually be starting to get it. I'm as skeptical as the next person and it's going to take a lot of follow through before I'm a believer, but at this point I think Microsoft is feeling real pressure from its large clients, and that is more important to them than any lawsuit ever will be. The entire “Twelve Tenets to Promote Competition” can be viewed here. Hopefully we'll see viable competition flourishing soon.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Symantec sees an Achilles' heel in Vista

July 19, 2006 Leave a comment

This CNET article covers the recently released “Windows Vista Network Attack Surface Analysis: A Broad Overview” paper from Symantec. The paper covers the flaws uncovered by Symantec in the freshly rewritten Vista networking stack. To me, that's not too interesting. Vista is still in beta, and bugs are common in completely rewritten components. The fact is, sometimes old sections of code no longer make sense in the current framework and need to be replaced. It happens in Linux regularly and it is painful, but it's the right thing to do (sometimes). What is interesting to me is that Microsoft has clearly lost what has traditionally been a close business partner and ally. With the release of Windows Live OneCare, Microsoft has directly encroached on the cash cows of Symantec and McAfee. It's suddenly in these companies best interest to make Microsoft look bad, almost incompetent. It's a tenuous line though, as unlike some companies they can't just jump ship to another OS. Why? For the most part, the ills they cure just don't exists on Mac or Linux. Add the small desktop penetration to the mix and these companies are now forced to sleep with the enemy. One has to wonder how things will turn out long term though. I'd guess the fat days are coming to an end for Windows virus providers, despite the proliferation of malware, viruses and their ilk. Once Microsoft shoe horns themselves into an industry like this, prices are sure to plummet. I for one am interested to see how the companies in question react.
–jeremy
,
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

An Interview with Neelie Kroes

July 16, 2006 Leave a comment

A quick follow up to a story I have been covering. An interview with Neelie Kroes, competition commissioner for the European Union, has just been posted on cNet. From the interview:
Do you believe Microsoft answered your questions truthfully?
Kroes: Microsoft has claimed that its obligations in the decision are not clear, or that the obligations have changed. I cannot accept this characterization–Microsoft's obligations are clearly outlined in the 2004 decision and have remained constant since then.
Indeed, the monitoring trustee appointed in October 2005, from a shortlist put forward by Microsoft, believes that the decision clearly outlines what Microsoft is required to do. I must say that I find it difficult to imagine that a company like Microsoft does not understand the principles of how to document protocols in order to achieve interoperability.
She also verifies that the fine in currently levied up to June 20th and is pending after that based on information Microsoft has already submitted. I don't have much to add to the interview, as I've said most of what I have to say in the previous two posts. As is often the case with interviews, I think the most interesting question went unanswered (although it's not a questions she could have answered, for obvious reasons). If you've been following the case, the interview is worth a read.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Microsoft hit with 280m euro fine

July 12, 2006 Leave a comment

The EU has indeed followed through, as promised, and fined Microsoft almost $357m USD. From the article:

EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said she had “no alternative but to levy penalty payments” against Microsoft, adding that “no company is above the law”.
“I regret that, more than two years after the decision… Microsoft has still not put an end to its illegal conduct,” Ms Kroes said.
It was also noted that a daily fine of 3m euros could be put into force after July 31st if Microsoft doesn't comply. Microsoft does plan to appeal, according to general counsel Brad Smith. While it's true that compared to the huge sums of cash Microsoft has, this is not a mammoth loss, but the reality is that this will have real implications on the profitability of the European market for the year. Aside from that, the repercussion to public opinion and the documentation gained by the settlement should not be understated. I'm sure the Samba guys are champing at the bit to get real documentation on how things actually work. In the end, even those of us outside the EU will benefit from this.
–jeremy
, ,

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

eWEEK Labs Bakeoff: Open Source Versus .Net Stacks

July 12, 2006 Leave a comment

You guessed it, yet another “interesting” benchmark has been released. This time it's an eWEEK Labs Bakeoff. The benchmark seems to ascertain that .NET and Windows in general ended up outperforming LAMP. The test?
We used portals we consider popular—Microsoft SharePoint Portal Server 2003 (built on ASP), XOOPS (PHP), Plone (Python), and Liferay and JBoss Portal (JSP).
The problems with the report start already. They are comparing products that are in no way similar.
SharePoint is a “Office collaboration and information sharing portal”
XOOPS is a “extensible, OO (Object Oriented), easy to use dynamic web content management system”
Plone is a Zope based “content management system with strong multilingual support”
As you can see, SharePoint is not a product you'd ever use as a portal replacement for these other products. Aside from that huge differences, there are myriad other problems. While XOOPS may be the “most popular on SourceForge” I'd not say it's an enterprise ready product that out of the box focuses on performance. Additionally, SharePoint uses MSSQL, XOOPS MySQL and Plone ZODB. To be fair, despite the title of the article they do start referring to it as a stack test, which is seeming about what it's turning into…except you can't test a stack and then base the results on completely different products meant to do completely different things. It gets worse though. “But the point was to test the stacks, not their ideal performance points, which is also why we didn't tune or optimize any of the systems but ran them as close to default as possible.” In no circumstance would any company just deploy any sized portal without doing any optimization. For the case of plone, not only did they not perform any optimizations, but they installed it directly contradictory to how the manual says to install it. XOOPS is also going to get heavily penalized here, since out of the box MySQL comes with a horrific setup from a performance perspective (if you're wondering why, it's because MySQL is installed by the majority of Linux installs with the realization that the end result is not going to be a high end MySQL server. Because of this, the default setup is a resource friendly one, not a performance friendly one). The end result is they somehow managed to get 2 (yes, 2) transactions per section out of the LAMP install. That number should have raised an immediate red flag IMHO. The end result to me, is that the study is near useless.
On the topic though, the study could have been an interesting one and still could be. A tuned setup comparing a Windows portal and a Linux portal would be interesting. Not just from a performance perspective either. Let's get one of each setup tuned to the max and configured properly. Then, test it repeatedly over a long period of time so that the stability can be entered into the equation. Lightning fast but completely unstable is of no use in the real world after all. Also, let's apply official patches over this long period and see the impact they have on both performance and stability. Now that would be a useful article. It would also be extremely time consuming and costly, which I assume is why no one ever does it. The reality though is that until someone puts that amount of effort into a study like this, they aren't going to be useful to anyone…and they'll be misleading to almost everyone.
–jeremy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Filed under Main Page

Will Oracle Offer Red Hat Support

July 9, 2006 Leave a comment

Some recent comments made by Larry Ellison have sparked speculation that Oracle may soon offer Red Hat support. From the article:
A claim that Ellison made repeatedly throughout the briefing was that the software giant is targeting Red Hat support: specifically providing support services for Red Hat Linux users.
The reason for this move, which Oracle executives later declined to provide any real detail on, is that Red Hat isn’t doing a good enough job of providing that support itself, Ellison said.
“Red Hat is too small and does not do a very good job of supporting them [customers],” he said.
“What Red Hat does is every time to fix a bug you have to upgrade the operating system. They don’t support old versions but just bug fixes… That is not proper enterprise support and I think our customers are demanding that and I think you will see that coming from us.”
It should be noted that in RHEL, when a bug fix is made it is back-ported to the existing version of the package, as opposed to Fedora which updates to the latest version that includes the bug fix. My guess is that this may be in retaliation to the Red Hat Jboss acquisition. Historically, Red Hat and Oracle have been very closer partners (in fact, early Oracle support is one of the things that really broke Red Hat into the enterprise), but the relationship has been on shaky ground now that Red Hat is a direct competitor in the middleware space.
To be sure, there are a couple options here. Oracle could just acquire a Linux company. Red Hat seems unlikely to me, which would leave Novell as the primary target. They could also simply put together their own distribution. While it would probably get decent penetration in the Oracle market, I can't see it gaining too much traction in the general market. They could also simply provide support for Red Hat installs. For the long term, that really seems unlikely to me though. Larry is too much of a control freak for them to just support a product they have no real control over. What I could see happening is a bit of a mix of the two, where Oracle offers a possibly Red Hat-based clone along the lines of CentOS that they fully support for all Oracle installations. This would allow them to push Red Hat out of the Oracle market, while not having to worry about the general Linux market. Other companies have done this in the past, Checkpoint comes to mind, and Oracle certainly has the resources to make it happen.
So the question becomes, would that be bad for Red Hat. I'd say, arguably no. Red Hat knows they can't possibly support every Linux install out there. What's more – they don't want to. The next generation will not include a Microsoft-like monopoly and Red Hat knows that. They plan to profit significantly just by being the dominant player, without having to be the only player. That means anything that's good for Linux, in the end is potentially good for Red Hat. More companies adopting Linux because Oracle supports their version for all DB installs, means more people get exposed to the advantages of Linux. In the end, that means more potential sales for Red Hat. The Linux and Open Source model is once again being validated.
–jeremy
, , , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

LinuxQuestions.org Adds Linux and Open Source Job Marketplace

July 9, 2006 Leave a comment

In a move that's a bit new to LQ, we've just released the LQ Jobs Marketplace. Basically, it allows employers to post Linux, Open Source and programming related opportunities to LQ for a small one time fee. Over the years we've gotten an increasing amount of requests from companies to tap into the huge talent pool that exists at LQ. With over 250,000 registered members around the globe and countless new visitors every day, LQ could obviously be a huge potential resource for people looking to fill related job positions. Additionally, it's in the best interest of LQ to have as many people as possible gainfully employed in the OSS field. So it's a win-win. What's more, perspective employers can use a persons LQ history to get a general feel for knowledge. A posting history that spans a year or two will likely provide more information that any resume or interview. Happy job hunting!
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

eBay Bans Sellers from Using Google Checkout

July 7, 2006 1 Comment

It appears that eBay has now prohibited sellers from accepting Google Checkout. From the Accepted Payments Policy:
Payment Services permitted on eBay: Allpay.net, Bidpay, Canadian Tire Money, cash2india, CertaPay, Checkfree.com, hyperwallet,com, Moneybookers.com, Ozpay.biz, Payko.com, Paymate.com.au, Propay.com, XOOM
Payment Services not permitted on eBay: AlertPay.com, anypay.com, AuctionChex.com, AuctionPix.com, BillPay.ie, ecount.com, cardserviceinternational.com, CCAvenue, ecount, e-gold, eHotPay.com, ePassporte.com, EuroGiro, FastCash.com, Google Checkout, gcash, GearPay, Goldmoney.com, graphcard.com, greenzap.com, ikobo.com, Liberty Dollars, Moneygram.com, neteller.com, Netpay.com, Nochex.com, paychest.com, payingfast.com, paypay, Postepay, Qchex.com, rupay.com, scripophily.com, sendmoneyorder.com, stamps, Stormpay, wmtransfer.com, xcoin.com
It also adds: As described in our safe buying guide, eBay strongly encourages sellers to offer payments through PayPal – PayPal is not only convenient to use, but it also offers buyers and sellers industry leading protection against fraud, chargebacks and theft of financial data. Merchants with their own merchant credit card processing account, and those who use a third-party credit card processor, may also offer their buyers the option of paying directly with a credit card online (including through third party checkout) or by phone.
Never mind that eBay owns PayPal, or that PayPal has a long storied history of not doing what's in the best interest of the customer (disclaimer: LQ had a major PayPal issue that was well documented at the time. Due to the popularity of LQ, I was able to remedy the situation in the end, but I can say first hand that their customer server was appalling and the experience disconcerting). Now, that's not to say that Google Checkout won't have its problems. We'll have to wait and see on that. But with many years of paying AdSense customers under it's belt it seems odd that Google as a company doesn't stack up favorably against Payko.com (whom is directly tied to PayPal, BTW) or Canadian Tire Money. Now, I can see why eBay as a company may feel threatened by the prospect of Google being able to eventually tie together GTalk, Google Checkout, Froogle, AdSense and Base. It could be a serious threat to eBay's business. But you have to think that this would constitute using a monopoly in one area to unduly influence another area. I'd be surprised if either something doesn't give or a lawsuit isn't filed in the very near future on this one. eBay obviously wants to take advantage of the network effect as much as the can, but this may have crossed the line.
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Google, Main Page

← Older posts

Newer posts →