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

Open XML Translator project announced

July 6, 2006 Leave a comment

Brian Jones recently announced that Microsoft will be releasing an ODF converter for office. The Open XML Translator project is hosted at SourceForge and is available under the BSD license. From the post:
While we still aren't seeing a strong demand for ODF support from our corporate or consumer customers, it's now a bit different with governments. We've had some governments request that we help build solutions so that can use ODF for certain situations, so that's why we are creating the Open XML Translator project. I think it's going to be really beneficial to a number of folks and for a number of reasons.
There has been a push in Microsoft for better interoperability and this is another great step in that direction. We already have the PDF and XPS support for Office 2007 users that unfortunately had to be separated out of the product and instead offered as a free download. There will be a menu item in the Office applications that will point people to the downloads for XPS, PDF, and now ODF. So you'll have the ability to save to and open ODF files directly within Office (just like any other format).
This should be seen as a fairly large step for Microsoft, who had strongly opposed ODF in the recent past. We may have finally reached a time when Microsoft is no longer able to force its customers into a direction they don't want to go. What's more, they may even be realizingly that interoperability is the way they'll be able to have a bright future. It will be a slow change to be sure, but if this is the seed finally planted it will be looked back on as a water shed moment.
On a different topic, while this should be seen as good news for the consumer it could actually end up being bad news for OOo. Had Microsoft stood their ground and not supported ODF, OOo would have certainly seen rapid mass adoption in some segments. With Microsoft promising to support ODF, that's a lot less likely to happen. But that begets the question – is this just a promise? Has Microsoft really started a turn-around, or is this just an opportunity for them to claim to support ODF, make the implementation so bad and so much of a pain that ODF looks like garbage (as people are unlikely to realize it's the implementation and not ODF itself that is at fault) and then make a large push for a new and improved OXML with the next Office release. I have to say that they seem genuine on this one, but they do of course have quite a track record with these things. Our only option at this point is to wait and see, while proceeding with caution.
The other potential problem is that companies and government agencies have a purchasing edict that all documents must be saved in ODF format, but no real operational procedure that mandates actually using ODF as the final format. ODF is of no use if people simply continue saving documents in the OXML native Microsoft format. Could ODF become another POSIX type situation where support for it is something that companies list as a feature that their product has checked off, while in the real world it's not actually used. The fact that “save” will get you OXML, while ODF will require that you “export” could lead in this direction. Let's hope that doesn't happen (and as this case is a little different than the POSIX one, I'm optimistic that it won't happen the same way).
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

LQ ISO Hits 2,000,000 Downloads

July 3, 2006 Leave a comment

Launched about 20 months ago now, LQ ISO has now facilitated over 2,000,000 Linux ISO downloads. The site currently has 342 distributions versions available for download from 602 mirrors. The site also boosts improved statistics on the homepage, RSS feeds and email notifications for newly released versions and even suggests the fastest local mirror based on where you are browsing from geographically. If you're looking to download a Linux distribution, be sure to check out LQ ISO (and also be sure to suggest it to those looking for a place to quickly and easily download Linux).
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Google Launches Checkout… and other Google Musings

June 29, 2006 Leave a comment

After months of speculation, Google Checkout has finally been officially launched. The release is, as you'd expect, being covered pretty much everywhere, including the New York Times and TechCrunch. One thing that I'd say is being consistently misreported (at least by the mass media type outlets), in my opinion, is that this is a direct PayPal competitor or “PayPal killer”. While it's true that Checkout is a way to accept payments, it doesn't have the person-to-person functionality that PayPal has, nor many of the other features. It's simply a slightly different beast and is more akin to Microsoft wallet. That being said, this does target many merchants that currently do use PayPal and there is clearly a good amount of overlap. I've had my personal problems with PayPal in the past, and if nothing else this should serve to make PayPal clean up it's act. It will be interesting to see if either PayPal or Google eventually move their respective services to be considered as a banking service, which would open them up to quite a bit of regulation, but also quell the fears many people have with this kind of service. That stands especially true for PayPal, which allows you to store money and carry a balance. The one thing that worries me about the system is that, as Google adds new services to their lineup, they continue to do so under a unified Gmail username. That means that if your email username and password get compromised, you could be in a world of trouble. Considering that most people are way too lax with their email credentials and even use unencrypted protocols over shared wifi, this could be a recipe for disaster.
On to the actual service, Checkout is “a checkout process that you integrate with your website, enabling your customers to buy from you quickly and securely, using a single username and password. And once they do, you can use Checkout to charge their credit cards, process their orders, and receive payment in your bank account”. Unlike PayPal, you can't use the service to pay for goods without an account (recall that PayPal was like this for a long time also). Like most Google offerings, the API to this looks pretty nice. What's more, if you participate in Google AdWords, which generates the lions share of current Google revenue, you stand to potentially use Checkout for free. For every $1 you spend on AdWords, you can process $10 for free with Checkout. It should be noted that an AdWords account is not a requirement of using Checkout. This marks a turning point for Google I think. While Checkout is clearly very tied to AdWords and will certainly increase the amount of users that advertise with the Google network, this represents the first real alternative income stream that Google has added in a long time. This could be good and bad. Of course you don't want 100% of your revenue coming from one place, but that setup does allow you to focus your energy with laser-like precision. The more revenue streams you have, the less focused you become. I think Google struck a pretty good balance here, considering the two stream are so intertwined.
This focus issues brings up another interesting point with Google though. Google has traditionally been a very nimble company that has a corporate culture all its own. As they continue to grow and continue to add “seasoned veterans” from the likes of Microsoft and other big players, one has to wonder if they can keep their culture intact. These seasoned veterans come with a lot of history and a way of doing things that is steeped into who they are. It's hard for people to change and there is a very real chance that as the number of these type of employees grow, Google will becomes less nimble and more stodgy. There's certainly no sign of it yet and Google somehow has a way of avoiding pitfalls that it seems certain to fall into, but it has to be something that's on the minds of both the Sergei/Larry/Eric triumvirate and the lower level Google employees. It's a topic I'll certainly keep my eye on moving forward.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Google, Main Page

(Another) Microsoft Exec Jumps to Google

June 29, 2006 1 Comment

That's the title of this Business 2.0 article. From the article:
Another prominent Google-fighter leaves Redmond. This one concludes: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Vic Gundotra, a general manager for platform evangelism at Microsoft and a 15-year employee, has agreed to join Google after first spending a year working on charitable endeavors, Business 2.0 has learned.
While not as high on the org chart as some other recent departures, Vic was integral in the recent Microsoft push to attract developers. He's also the one who hired Scoble, whose last day at Microsoft is today. Vic won't be able to start at Google for one year due to a non-compete clause and his role at Google isn't even defined yet. Mini-Microsoft is also reporting on the departure, but also adds that a wide spread reduction in force may be coming to Microsoft. Alone with the news yesterday that Microsoft is moving a bunch of existing execs around and the writing on the wall is clear – some major changes are going to be taking place at Microsoft in the short term. Whether those changes revive the company or are the beginning of a slow decline into a maintenance mode company remains to be seen.
–jeremy
, ,

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft

← Older posts

Newer posts →