Novell to Standardize on GNOME

November 5, 2005 1 Comment

With the acquisition of Ximian some time ago, you kind of had to see this coming. Novell will move future versions of SLES and NLD to Gnome. KDE will continue to be supported in OpenSuse. This will likely cause a lot of fallout from KDE users and traditional Suse users as Suse was one of the most popular KDE-centric distros (and in fact had a ton to do with KDE development in the past). This distinction now goes with Mandriva. It's interesting that KDE tends to be extremely popular in Europe. The reality however is that SLES and NLD users could probably care less for the most part. While we in the OSS world tend to love choice and tinkering with our desktop, enterprise users (and especially admins) tend to like uniformity and simplicity. While we tend to be vehement about some of our choices (KDE vs. Gnome, vi vs. emacs, etc), enterprise users usually don't even know what they are running (or know that there even is a choice). With RHEL standardizing on Gnome a while back, Novell acquiring a Gnome company and also having to cut costs – well, like I said…you probably saw this coming. The sad part is, the further these large companies get into the enterprise markets, the more of this we'll see. For this mainstream Linux adoption that everyone has been talking about to happen, consistency is a must. You think most OSX users know if they are running a Cocoa app or a Carbon one? This is going to be a tough pill to swallow. Luckily most projects will probably live on in a niche capacity for those of us that like choice, but some will probably unfortunately fold when the lack of corporate funding starts to kick in. For those of you who wanted corporate adoption, I hope you knew this was the price that was eventually going to have to be paid. When you shift from doing it for the love to doing it for the money, sometimes the rules change. It's not all bad though. In the end stability and ease of use should vastly improve, “porting to Linux” will begin to get easier as there are less platform choices and mainstream adoption will become a reality. Will the price have been worth it? We'll see.
, , , , ,
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Google Paying for Firefox Installs

November 5, 2005 1 Comment

What is that thing you ask? Google is indeed paying for Firefox downloads with the Google toolbar bundled in. It seems like a win/win/win to me. You get about a buck, the downloadee gets a good browser and Google not only gets to get a leg up on a competitor, but also gets a good amount of cash (via more searches done using the toolbar). I'm guessing this may be a response to rumors that MSN will be much more integrated into Vista. One thing to be aware of on this is that you should read the fine print. You get up to a dollar, depending on the location of the user and only if they have never had Firefox installed before. Seems a bit sleep. If that wasn't bad enough, I found this hidden in the FAQ: A Firefox referral is counted when a Windows user, who has not previously installed Firefox, downloads and runs the program for the first time. Not sure why they are only paying for Windows users! At any rate, this should help get some additional Firefox users, and that's a good thing.

, ,

–jeremy

Filed under Main Page, Open Source

No Respect for Windows Open Source

November 2, 2005 Leave a comment

I've been meaning to blog about this one for a while now, but I've been putting a good deal of time into the upcoming LQ code update so haven't been blogging much at all. In a recent post, Shaun Walker laments that Windows Open Source apps/programmers get no respect. Let me start out by saying that I am not all that familiar with DotNetNuke, which is the main app in question here. It looks like a nice app and is certainly 100% Open Sourced as it's using a BSD license. It looks like they have created a nice community there, which is always something to applaud. A few zealots aside though, I don't think the problem people have is with Open Source code that runs on Windows. The fact is, Windows has a huge market share and anyone that is dedicating their time to writing an Open Source App should be applauded. Now, writing an Open Source App that only supports Windows seems silly to me, but it's certainly someone's prerogative. What you lose there is choice. Also, one thing you'll notice about Open Source software is that it's often extremely portable. MySQL, Firefox, OpenOffice.org, PHP, etc all run on Windows – but they also run on Linux, OSX, Solaris and a variety of other platforms. Choice is good. The thing I'd guess that DotNetNuke is taking a beating about is that it requires .NET which brings you right back to the vendor lockin that Open Source tries to get you away from. Mono will hopefully change this, but that's not a reality yet. Right now, if you are a PHP developer and Zend and the php.net developers go crazy and do something you don't like you are free to pick up the last Open Source licensed version and go on your merry way. If Microsoft does the same thing with .NET, you as a DotNetNuke developer will be robbed of all your hard work and your entire community of users will be left searching for alternatives. The PHP developer also has a choice of OS and web server, instead of being locked into Windows and IIS. All that being said, in the true spirit of Open Source (as I've said many times now, but will reiterate) choice is good. If you choose to use an encumbered language that locks you and your users into a single company, that is your choice. For what you want to do, it may not even be a bad choice. What matters is if it's a choice you and your users are happy with. Your choice will of course have repercussions and may impact how others choose, but I hope that doesn't translate to a lack of respect. In the end, I'd say ignore the zealots and do what you like to do – write quality Open Source code. If I were one of your users though, MONO support couldn't come fast enough though.
, ,
–jeremy

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

MS To Launch Internet Versions of Office And Windows

November 2, 2005 1 Comment

Has it finally happened? Has Microsoft realized (at an exec level, many non-CEx's there have realized for a while) that the world is changing in a direction that will eventually severely hurt their two cash cows, Windows and Office? It would seem so. Unfortunately, I currently get a Firefox support is coming soon. Please be patient :-) message, but the fact that they even admit that someone may come to the site not using IE is a small step in the right direction. One has to wonder how much the rumors of a “Google Office” along with their recent hiring of OOo developers had to do with this. One also has to wonder how crippled Microsoft will make these online versions, as they are surely not ready to put the two cows out to pasture yet. One very encouraging thing I noticed was that Bill Gates says that data will be able to easily flow in and out of these live offerings. Fantastic. Microsoft really lost most consumer trust long ago, and this would be a good way to start getting it back. It needs to be more than lip service though and whether that will happen remains to be seen. Right now it looks like the bottom tiers of the offerings will be free and ad supported, with paid higher tiers coming soon. It also looks like you can run this online via Microsoft servers or run it on your servers. I'd guess some of the details are still being worked out and they wanted to get this thing out as soon as possible. Scoble says that, while Windows Live just looks like a portal now, there's more to come. Tim seems optimistic about the offering while Russell thinks that Live isn't about Web 2.0 at all, it's all about Monopoly 4.0. These really are interesting times and it looks like we may finally have some competition in spaces we haven't had any on a long time. That's a good thing on all counts, IMHO.
, , , ,
–jeremy

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Oracle to Offer Free Database

November 1, 2005 Leave a comment

Yup, you read that right, Oracle is going to offer a free database product. This is a gratis version and not a libre version, of course, but for Oracle even that is a huge step. Now, they have offered a free devel version for a long time…but this is a production version (although the limitations of 4GB disk and 1GB RAM are really low). This is surely a response to IBM and Microsoft doing something similar with DB2 and MSSQL Express. The database market is really starting to commoditize. The recent feature upgrades of MySQL with the release of 5.x coupled with Sun and some other large companies starting to really rally around PostgreSQL means that the commoditization is likely going to move one layer up in the DB market very soon. Oracle clearly doesn't like that. While I initially thought this free release might be based on InnoDB due to the recent acquisition, it's not. They're hoping to win mind share and also introduce Oracle to people who wouldn't normally be exposed to it, hoping one day those people will turn into decision makers. One thing that I found interesting was that, contrary to recent MySQL AB comments that the two vendors don't compete with each other, an Oracle spokesman specifically mentioned MySQL as a competitor that they'd like to target. I also found it interesting that the main reason given for the recent Innobase acquisition was “Oracle intends to extend a contract with MySQL where the InnoDB storage engine is packaged with MySQL”. No… that's not predatory. I'd watch out Monty.
, , , ,
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

OpenDocument Debate Heats Up

November 1, 2005 Leave a comment

As you may have anticipated, this debate has turned political. The amount of FUD getting thrown around is amazing. What's also amazing is that people who clearly don't understand what is being decided are the ones making the decision. I guess that's not so surprising when you think of how Government is run sometimes. There seems to be some confusion that the move is to OpenOffice.org, when the move it to OpenDocument and anyone that is willing to support it, including Microsoft. How a senator could say “it appeared that no cost analysis had been done before ITD committed to OpenDocument, and that the agency had moved forward unilaterally without input from other agencies.” is beyond me. Was a cost analysis done when the choice was made to move to Microsoft Office? Was one made on the basis of remaining with Office? If so, did it take into account vendor lockin, constant upgrades, the potential of getting locked out of your own data and restricting access to Government documents to the subset of citizens that run Windows or Mac OSX in addition to being able to afford a multi-hundred dollar office suite? It also escapes me why “training” is always lumped into the migration side and not the upgrade side. Let's face it, moving from Office 97 to OpenOffice.org 2.0 is not that much more of a stretch then moving to Office 2003. Both are completely different than Office 97. If someone can figure out Office 2003 based on their Office 97 experience, they won't have much trouble with OOo 2.0. The reality here is that Microsoft doesn't want to fully support OpenDocument because it would require them to compete on a level playing field. While some people inside the company are willing to do that, clearly most aren't. Some at the company even want educated consumers, while clearly others just want a check to cash.
, , ,
–jeremy

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

On Educated Consumers

November 1, 2005 Leave a comment

Scoble points out 12 reasons that people may not go with Microsoft products. There, of course, are more – but on many accounts he hits the nail right on the head. So why is a Microsoft employee listing these things out? He wants educated consumers. That's something everyone should want. In the end, it really is best for everyone. Unfortunately, many reps (be it at Microsoft or at VAR's) do not feel this way. They want to make a sale regardless of what is best for the client. Let's face it – Microsoft is not always the best solution, but either is Linux. The right tool for the right job. Anything else and it's everyone but the sales guy who gets his commission that suffers. If everyone at Microsoft thought like Scoble, they'd clearly not have the reputation that they have. Unfortunately for everyone, that's not the case. The Scoble post was sparked by this post by Socialtext CEO Ross Mayfield, whose post was sparked by this post by Steve Gillmor. You should read all three posts.
, ,
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

MySQL 5.0 Now Available for Production Use

October 24, 2005 Leave a comment

I've been talking a lot about MySQL recently, so I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that MySQL 5.0 is now the official GA release. Congrats the the whole MySQL AB team. You probably have a tough road ahead, but this is certainly something to be proud of and a moment to sit back and enjoy.
One thing I've never quite understood is the huge rivalry between some of the PostgreSQL and MySQL fans. I say some, because it's clearly a small but vocal minority on both sides. The PostgreSQL fans point out the MySQL is not a real database and data integrity is zero while the MySQL folks says…well – I'm sure you've heard the arguments. The fact is, they are both quality Open Source solutions that we should be proud of. We should be on the same team here. The fact is, PostgreSQL started at one end (hard to use, slower but ACID and more SQL compliant) and MySQL started at the other (easy to use, faster but not ACID). They've both made huge strides in each others direction and they are both now much closer to the middle (although still skewed slightly in their original directions). Because of their roots they tend to have much different supporters, but in reality I see many PostgreSQL people making comparisons when they've clearly not used MySQL since 3.23 and I see many MySQL people making comparisons when they've clearly not used PostgreSQL since about 6.5. Stop the bickering and use the right tool for the right job. I think you'll find that between PostgreSQL and MySQL you'll find that you have a solution for almost any occasion. In more cases then you might think these days, I think you may find that either DB will fit the bill. FWIW, LQ uses MySQL and it's not even 5.x. We've put off even looking at InnoDB until things settle down. Even if we had transactions, guess what – we wouldn't use them. Why? We don't need them. Does that mean we'd never switch? No! The right tool for the right job.
,
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Microsoft, OSI Discuss Shared Source Licenses

October 24, 2005 Leave a comment

It seems that Microsoft is talking to the OSI about licensing. Now, I know that license proliferation is a very real problem, but I think Microsoft having a bona-fide OSI approved Open Source license that they are willing to consistantly use is probably a good thing. It would be ideal if they felt comfortable with one of the current ones, of course, but that may not be the case. Considering one of the main mantras of Open Source is that choice is good, I never understood the “GPL is the one true way” mentality. The Red Hat rep rails Microsoft for not using th GPL, but then goes on to say that out of 800 RHEL 4 source packages, only 400 are under the GPL. The OSI is still working on the proliferation issue, but surely “no new license under any circumstance” isn't a stance I can see them taking (for good reason). IMHO, if choice is good then the ability to choice from a variety of bona-fide Open Source licenses is good too. The obvious downside is that code licensed under one license can't be used in code licensed under another. That is a huge downside and one of the main reasons that proliferation is a problem at all. Like most things that are worth while though, this is a balancing act and is going to take some work to get right. Danese Cooper and Tim O'Reilly weigh in on the issue.
, , , ,
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

A Little More MySQL Info (but I'm not linking)

October 23, 2005 Leave a comment

I found a little more information about the recent MySQL/Innobase topic. Why am I not going to post the link? The article is on a SYS-CON site, but that has nothing to do with it. You may remember that most of the Open Source related SYS-CON staff resigned a while back (LQ Radio interview), but I have a policy on this blog of linking to any story that I find useful or of interest, regardless of the source. So what is the reason? It reliably crashes both Firefox and Mozilla for me, and I don't want to put you through that. I'm not sure if it's one of the 14 ads or the video applet that insists on auto starting…but after the fourth try I gave up and went to good ol' lynx. The interesting tidbit in the article is the following quote from MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos:
“On the day of the announcement, I received a phone call from Oracle president Charles Phillips assuring me of their intent to renew the contract. They certainly have the resources to add value to InnoDB. But even if the contract would not be renewed for some reason, the existing contract gives MySQL broad rights to future releases of InnoDB. The contract also allows us to perpetually service our existing InnoDB customers. Additionally, users can feel secure in the fact that InnoDB is an open source product that is freely available to use and modify under the GPL License.”.
It seems the current contract terms might be a little more liberal then one would have thought. Since it was probably just Heikki negotiating for Innobase, the terms seem to be quite favorable for MySQL AB. Odds on that happening again with Oracle at the helm? Slim I'd guess. The article also has a brief comment on the recent SCO deal. You haven't heard SCOX for a while, have you. It's nice, isn't it ;) I'll keep it that way and not go into any more detail.
, , , ,
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

← Older posts

Newer posts →