Posts by gnufreex 68 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Jun 2010
We usually do expansion and upgrade. First buy new rackfull of new servers to replace that rack (or two racks), then disconnect old rack(s) and pop new CPUs. Then use old rack(s) as dev for new deployment, and when those are moved to prod, rack(s) are moved to production again. But that does not happen every month or even every year.
This is not a product, they changed the name of commnity project from JBoss AS to WildFly. The acctual products is still called JBoss EAP.
Rename of open source project didn't cost any money, and it helps clear confusion and reserve JBoss brand only for product.
And Tomcat is completely different type of application server, Red Hat also offers Tomcat as JBoss EWS
"Also, redhat can't easily do direct-to-customer patch delivery because of GPL's terms."
Wrong. GPL allows that. By GPL, you only need to provide source to customers (while customers might chose to pass along). Red Hat does this. Red hat in fact provide full source to everyone, except now they only provide knowledge about patches (documentation) to customers.
Before this move, all was up for grabs to Oracle and every patch was marked with number and it came with corresponding explanation and documentation that is easy to understand even to non-programers. Oracle just hired bunch of monkeys and they were offering support just based on this documentation, without any real expertise. They didn't write their own documentation, and they "unbreakable kernel" is just stuffed with crap from staging tree (which is called "crap" by Linux devs; low quality code goes there until it is cleaned up enough to be good for mainline).
But now, Red Hat's knowledge base exists only for RH customers (and I see they added some stuff that are very convenient). Oracle will not get it anymore, they will get full sources like everyone else which is off course readable and clean but Oracle will need experts to see what is new and what it does. In effect Oracle will need to hire real devs and understand what they are supporting. They will need to write their own documentation. They will need to maintain their own bug database. And they will need to really *support* customers and not just claim they are cheaper than Red Hat while blindly using Red Hat's instruction manual when someone calls them for support.
And when they do all this and really put some investment behind their OEL, they will either not be so cheap, or they'll kiss goodbye to profits and say hello to loses.
No more free lunch for Larry. Smart move by Red Hat.
Intel-AMD cross-licensing agreement says that if AMD goes under, gets acquired, or goes private, all AMD patents go to Intel and buyer of AMD is left with no x86 license. Can't produce chips.
See this:
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/operations/ip/802.html
Especially under section 6. that says EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM AND TERMINATION FOR CAUSE
"I know dell used to have an Ubuntu option not sure what happened to it."
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Why-is-Dell-UK-making-it-so-difficult-1095568.html
They just say that they have non-Windows computers, and when someone asks for them, they call that person a freak. There is no free market, you don't have a choice. Microsoft is a criminal organization and they should be hunted down just like Sicilian Mafia.
There is no way to redesign Rainbow Falls in a year or two and get features you mention. Out Of Order execution is not something you simply add to In-Order processor such are T series. T series has a barrel thread execution which is pretty dependent on cores being in-order and highly multi-threaded.
Only way to do this is by revamping ROCK. ROCK has meaty cores (16 of them) and two threads per core, so maybe Larry will put some cash to move design to 45nm process and make it suck less than original 250W. That would be interesting to see.
Same kernel can work from laptops to clusters, but it will not be top performance everywhere. That is true for every OS. Microsoft HPC server and Vista 7 don't run same exact kernel, at least compile flags are different.
Different RHEL kernels usually are not that different, just compiled with different optimisations enabled, and to make top performance Red Hat ships different kernels for different uses. Otherwise, customers will download source and compile their own kernels to achieve maximal speed, and if that happens, updates might brake the system since Red Hat used different flags.
But that rarely works.
Outercurve and Codeplex exist solely for one purpose: to be Microsoft proxy. Microsoft can't evade free software anymore, but they don't want to distribute GPL'd code because that would mean they have to forget about suing against those projects whose code they are distributing. That would put kibosh on their FUD strategy. So they make "independent" foundation which is separate legal entity and then direct their customers there when they want free software. It is pretty pathetic, really.
What is even more pathetic is that they call real FLOSS people "traditionalists" and Microsoft is somehow "leading edge". That is one more evidence that Microsoft is trying to pervert and degrade free software, and that they are not really meaning the right thing when they say "open source". They probably mean "free labor" or "free beer".
Therefore it infringes my patents!
Seriously, Microsoft should shut it's dirty mouth. They don't even have guts to sue, so they are sending Paul Allen to do their dirty job. Oracle is at least suing head to head, win or lose. Microsoft don't have guts to do that, so they are just FUDing. They look worse that patent trolls now. They are FUDing Linux with non-existent patents since 2003. Like SCO does with non-existing copyrights. EPIC FAIL.
GPLv2 has patent grant, read the license. GPLv3 has more broad patent grant, but that is irrelevant in case of OpenJDK because Oracle is one who distribute it. If Oracle move OpenJDK to GPLv3, it would make no difference. They can't sue you now, and they can't if it is GPLv3. They can only sue non-GPL implementation like Dalvik.
What you meant probably is the case of Mono. But that is different issue. Mono is not distributed by patent holder (Microsoft). It is by Novell. So Microsoft is third party and they can troll under GPLv2, but couldn't under GPLv3. But that has nothing to do with Java. Java is distributed by patent holder and it is irrelevant which version of GPL it uses.
There is no reason to believe that Oracle is lying about this. Everybody with half of clue can see that Oracle can't contain Java and they can't have it all for themselves. That ship have sailed. Java is free now and there is no going back. Oracle can play nice of others, or they can completely lose control of Java. There is no other choice. Google made this to themselves by not using GPL'd Java, but they can still try to invalidate those patents and use OpenJDK in future.
Different implementations, versions and such. That is diversity that came from openness and freedom.
Actual language is not that much complicated. But then, there are frameworks: Spring, EJB, Seam, Weld (Seam spec), Spago... libraries... richFaces, IceFaces... and then there are other JVM langages like Scala, Clojure, JRuby...
It is very diverse, and that is reason I beleive that Oracle can't control Java no matter how hard they try. And I don't beleive Larry is stupid, so I think he won't even try. Google case is something that Sun also planed, and remember that Sun sued Microsoft for very same thing that Google did: breaking WORA promise of Java. So I don't see it as attack on Java. Dalvik is not Java anyways.
Paul Allen is shareholder of Microsoft, and he is suing Microsoft competitors. Looks like Bill Gates announced new Jihad.
Bill Gates is also a patent troll, he and his buddy Nathan Myhrvold (also ex-Microsoftie) have a company called Intelectual Ventures, which is biggest patent trolling company in the world.
http://www.intellectualventures.com/Home.aspx
They buy patents from failed companies and then use their proxies to sue companies that compete with Microsoft. When. Looks like this time proxy is Paul Allan. Bill Gates set the target, and then trolls attack. Later they spin it like it has nothing to do with Microsoft...
Scum of the earth.
Fortunately, I can tell you are wrong :-)
OpenOffice.org is released under LGPLv3. That license is written as set of additional permissions on top of GPLv3. So GPLv3 applies, and then you add that set exceptions you linked is called LGPL. Here is GPLv3.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
GPLv3 is know to have best patent clause of all free software licenses. Check section 11, it is very broad patent grant, even broader than GPLv2. It apply even on patents that Oracle might acquire in the future, even if they stop developing and distributing OpenOffice.org. All those patents are licensed to all users of OOo code, even to forks or unrelated projects that just borow some of the code. (Those projects have to be LGPLv3 or GPLv3, of course. )
So there is no chance in hell Oracle can do anything against OpenOffice.org
Be happy, OpenOffice.org is best protected of all ex-Sun projects, license wise.
It doesn't, you can sue anyone for anything, even without legal standing. Unfortunately, this suit by Oracle has legal standing since code is not derived from Oracle's GPL'd OpenJDK, hence it doesn't get broad patent grant that GPL gives. So there is nothing defense can do other than try to invalidate alleged patents. Which can be time consuming and very expensive.
If Google used OpenJDK, only thing that have to be proven in court is that Sun distributed OpenJDK under GPL (which is easy, OpenJDK source code is still on site). Therefore, GPL patent grant for all users of that code have been given out and that is perpetual. If Oracle tries to invalidate GPL, they will fail. SFLC will help with that, they are always helping to defend GPL.
Oracle would be totally humiliated in such lawsuit against OpenJDK, because they distributed it under GPL. It would be a lot faster than SCO, because all facts are clear and code is open unlike UNIX that SCO claimed it owns.
This way against clean room-ed Dalvik, it is very uncertain how it will turn out in the end. I hope Google invalidates those patents, that is their only defense.
Btw, Nokia N900 is using OpenJDK. Oracle is not stupid, they know they can't close down OpenJDK, they only go after dalvik which is outside of GPL patent grant.
OpenOffice, MySQL and Java are exactly the techs Oracle can't kill. Other Sun projects are in danger, but those 3 are very stable due to strong communities.
OpenJDK is GPLv2, and it has patent grant for all users of the OpenJDK and derivatives. Problem with Dalvik is that it is not derivative, and it is not under GPL. It is under Apache license. So the patent grant from GPL'd Java doesn't apply on Google's Dalvik. OpenJDK is real Java and it is certified with TCK. It is in no danger at all. It has claspath exception, so you don't need to have anything with Oracle if you want to use it for writing proprietary programs. Red Hat distributes OpenJDK with RHEL and Fedora and has no problems, so no need to worry.
OpenOffice is in no danger, it is under LGPLv3, which offers even stronger patent grant that apply to even future patents that Oracle didn't even acquire yet. So there is no chance in hell that OpenOffice can be killed by lawsuit. If Oracle abandons OpenOffice, lots of people outside of Oracle are familiar with the code, so forking would be easy.
MySQL has most problems of those 3. Because of dual-licensing policy it uses, you need to buy proprietary license from Oracle to be able to write proprietary apps using MySQL. But that is not problem for FOSS. MySQL- Oracle situation is carefully watched by antitrust regulatory and hopefully, it will be striped from Oracle if something bad happens.
I said Oracle is _originally_ developed on on VAX/VMS, and I thought just that: It got developed fist on Digital, then got ported on SunOS, then Solaris, then Linux. Point is, it is not _originally_ (as in version 1... or 2 since that was first version) developed on Solaris like Kebabbert said. Reason I said that is that he likes to go around internet lambasting Linux just because it's competitor to his precious Solaris. His main argument is that Linux kernel has 11 milion lines of code, so it must somehow be bloated because Solaris is smaller. It is silly really, because he sound surprised when people tell him that most of that are drivers and that Linux support more hardware, more filesystems and more CPU architectures than Solaris so it is apples for oranges comparison. And then he typically claims that person is bullshiting him and that mustn't be true. And then asks for "reliable sources"... at that point he gets directed on kernel.org to read sources himself. LOL.
So my point is, kebabbert doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, when he talks about Linux nor when he talks about Solaris, or any other technology. He just trolls against Linux, and that is what he does. And it got really tiresome seeing him spew uneducated FUD.
On the other points, Oracle saying that "Solaris is prefered OS" doesn't mean they are using it. I heard them saying "we run our business on Linux and our development platform is Linux". I don't remember exact year, but I goggled for article and got 2003. I linked it in my previous post. Do you say that article is false? They first ported DB to Linux in 1998, in wake of Red Hat IPO. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/linux/whatsnew/index.html
That let Oracle make cheap "solutions" without hurting their margins. That's why Larry said he likes Linux, that is obvious. They are in Linux pretty long.
As for "ruining Oracle". I meant "running Oracle", it was spell check's fault. I think I am right about that. There is bigger Linux/Oracle installed base than Solaris/Oracle. I may be little exaggerating that there is more than all Solaris all together, but there are more Oracle DB on Linux.
However, if by "Solaris runs more Oracle" you mean _revenue_ of all Oracle software running on Solaris, then you are right. Oracle has more revenue on Solaris land then on Linux land, because Linux installations usually only run Oracle DB and other stuff is form other vendors. Other reason being UtraSPARC T cores, and Oracle license per core. So you might have a point with that, depending what definition for "more Oracle" you use.
And I already keep my mind open as it can be.
Cheers.
Do you go to all over Internet like that posting random crap and wishful thinking about Sun?
"Oracle database is developed on Solaris, and then ported to other OS."
Oracle DB is originally written on VAX/VMS, before Sun was even founded. THAT is a fact. Look up on Wikipedia, I think there is something about that.
"Long before Oracle bought Sun, it was official and outspoken that the reference platform for Oracle database is Solaris. Not Linux."
Oracle runs it's bussines on Linux since 2003
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=13000344
Also notice in the article that developer workstations are converted to Linux too. They do certify on Solaris, but Linux is where the stuff is getting written for about 7 years now.
"In fact, Larry Ellison has said that Oracle database is run on Solaris more than any other OS."
Number of Linux boxes ruining Oracle is bigger than all Solaris boxes (SPARC and X86, with or without Oracle) put together. Larry was just putting up a story for the press, to keep users from running away.
"Wrong, wrong, wrong."
Yes, you are wrong. Aren't you tired of that?
Google never approached and raised issue to see if they can get agreement. No, they just forked the kernel and made aggressive and invasive changes, which can't be possibly merged back without breaking everything. Ubuntu, RHEL, all would have to suffer to merge android back.
Now they are like rewriting and toning down their crapola, so it might get merged back in couple of years. If they don't change their mind and go frenzy again.
"This agreement basically means that Now Is The Time for the various competitors to pull their socks up and start putting some real pressure on Intel."
Oracle killed Sun x86 Montalvo chip.
http://java.sys-con.com/node/1453665
They could jump in, it was low power chip for blade servers. Perfect to power clouds or even to go in netbooks and mobile devices.
"If AMD didn't change anything and just moved to a 16-core design from its dual-six design, that alone would yield a 33.3 per cent boost in performance. But adjusting by that 1.8 factor for the shared components means the core count only gives you about 20 per cent more oomph, clock for clock. So the other 30 per cent is coming from changes in the core and clock-speed increases."
Bulldozer is ground up redesign, it is not based on K10 or K8 cores like previous ones, so it can't be counted clock for clock. Architecture is vastly different and comparing it with Phenom would end up like comparing A64 with Prescott, or UltraSPARC T with Power6.
Bulldozer was started in 2005 and planed for 2009 roll-out, but delayed. It has architectural elements of Sun ROCK (like "quasi cores" for example, but Sun wanted 4x4, AMD goes for 4x2 and then two dies) and also has long pipeline like infamous Intel Prescott. So it should yield high clock speeds, but I am not so sure about branch prediction (Prescott missed many clocks due to inefficient pipeline) and power consumption. But I still think that clock for clock performance per core must go up regardless of 1.8 per 2 cores statement. They worked 5 years on the desing, if they mean to Bulldoze intel, chip must be screamer. If they screw this, they are dead.
Try SpagoBI. True Free Software, developed by OW2 consortium.
http://www.spagoworld.org/xwiki/bin/view/SpagoWorld/
Pentaho, Jaspersoft, BIRT and likes are all rotten at the core. While I hate and detest Microsoft, I must say you are right. When you go with Microsoft, you at least know you are going to be screwed by them (even if they don't tell you :-)), while Rotten-Core folks are basically lying to you. Classic bait and switch. I hope some riped of customers team up with OSI and start class action suit against those companies. Those Rotten-Core bozos are severely down-valuing open source name.
Stupid Bruce Perens, he didn't trademark it.
Dual licensing is when you require copyright assingment on all contributions, and they offer same product under both GPL and proprietary license. It must be same product, bit for bit. This is valuable when you have something like database, so if people link it with proprietary programs, they will want to purchase proprietary license in order to avoid open sourcing stuff. If you use it with other GPL stuff (like LAMP stack), then you don't need proprietary license. MySQL used this model until Marteen Mickos decided to take it open-core route.
Open core looks similar but its not. It also requires all code to be owned, but you have two products. A crippled good-for-nothing GPL version, and hyped up proprietary version which has more features. Open core make money only on proprietary software, selling proprietary version of their product. Open source version is there only for PR, there is no developer community; only the company paid devs work on the project. They reject outside contributions if they compete with their proprietary-only features. Open Core companies operate like any other proprietary company, except they claim to be open source.
It is sad to see open core ruined another open source project. Marteen Micrkos destroyed MySQL and Eucalyptus. Another victim of Open-Core is Compiere who got bought by Consona for pocket change. Open Core model only drives developers away, and leaves project to die.
Ex Microsoft employees have started some open core companies to compete with open source.
You pay them to use their software, and then they want you to delete it or pay them more.
If you pay them more, how is to know that they wont ask you for even more money tomorrow? If another KIN happen and profits go south, everything is possible. They have to squeeze someone to sustain their broken business model.
Best solution: Don't touch their crap.
And Linux somehow isn't copyrighted?
GPL is copyright license. Everything under GPL is copyrighted by developer who released it under GPL, allowing free use are redistribution by doing that. But if you break GPL (close down something), you are infringing copyright . Oracle could change from CDDL to GPL.
That said, I don't think they will do it.
x86 is CISC instruction set which is - in all new models of Intel and AMD processors - bolted on top of RISC core. Hardware is RISC, but decoders convert every instruction and make software see it as an classic x86.
That is one reason why x86 is so crappy and power inefficient, and why Intel's (Xeon, not Itanium) and AMD's R&D costs are higher than IBM's (at least POWER part) and Fujitsu/Sun SPARCs. That in fact let them to hang on this long against ubiquitous x86 which offsets scrappy architecture by leveraging high volume and advanced manufacturing process of Intel fabs.
They want to lock people in. Cloud has big potential for locking in masses of users and businesses in single move and Microsoft wants to exploit that. They have taken steps to remove competition first (Salesforce lawsuit, they didn't have luck yet as it got back to them, strongly) and now want to put hand in people's pockets. But they wont settle only for money. They would go for balls if unfortunate victim decides to even look at non-microsoft option. And if unfortunate victim tries to move away from Microsoft, Microsoft wills squeeze hard.
That's the nature of the beast. When someone points at this to M$ sales rep, then they kind of say: "Well it's our stratey/bottom line/your user expirience..." like there is no other model to make money other than overreaching into peoples businesses or lives. People should respond to this by saying: "I don't give a crap about your bottom line or "user experience", I WAN'T YOUR HAND OUT OF MY PANTS!!"
Paris, because she might not want.
"What about the end user? Ignore them at your own peril (again), Microsoft!"
Well, Official Microsoft Strategy on end users is that end users are MostPeople™.
Official Microsof Strategy on MostPeople™ is that they are Sheeple.
Official Microsoft Strategy on Sheeple is that they do what they should do what most people do.
Most people do what TV says.
TV is playing Microsoft commercials.
That's their advertising strategy and their business model: Dumbing down the masses.
If you are none of the above, then you are either forcibly locked into Microsoft crap, or you should flee from Microsoft while you still can.
tl;dr Microsoft never cared about end users and never will. They threat those as mindless cash cows, any they threat other even worse that that if they can.
It can't be literally closed, but it can be made a liability, except when it is distributed by Oracle.
Having the code under CDDL does not mean that someone can't sue you if you sell SAN or NAS with ZFS. It only means Oracle can't sue you, because they are ones who have given you the code. But NetApp sure looks litigious. If Larry wants other vendors to use ZFS, he will strike against NetApp, forcing them to cut the crap. If Larry does not want anyone else to use ZFS in their offerings, he will be buddy buddy with NetApp, pay them some money to to leave Oracle alone and tell them to sue other storage vendors who think of using ZFS. It could go either way.
This apply to both FreeNAS/FreeBSD and OpenSolaris storage. And any other OS which might port ZFS. Unfortunately, that's how stinkin' patents work.
I really don't see how this have anything to do with open source. PostgresSQL don't have any of OLAP capabilities that Greenplum added to their proprietary version, and I don't see why EMC will opensource it in the future.
"The fact that one of world's largest IT vendors will now be selling software based on PostgreSQL will definitely encourage companies to adopt the database."
IBM got Ilustra decade ago, did that help someone adopt Postgres?
I fail to see how you benefit when someone steal your code and make money, giving nothing back in return. It is fine if you like to give to big companies, but don't paint it like you got something. EMC is going to compete with Postgres, not help it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
