Good news!
Not a technical support thread: a poster shared a link to an IBM customer-success story featuring Informix Dynamic Server, noting it as good publicity for IDS while suspecting IBM would downplay the database element compared with DB2 UDB. The discussion then drifted into a general debate about big vendors (IBM, Sun, SGI) backing Linux and open source — whether their involvement is win-win (contributions to Apache, Eclipse, JFS, XFS) or risks corrupting open source, plus scepticism about customers choosing open-source products like JBoss purely to cut licence costs. No technical problem was posed and no resolution is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Hi all!! http://www-306.ibm.com/software/success/cssdb.nsf/csp/tknc-5u72ge Only for me ? Regards. -- Tsutomu Ogiwara from Tokyo Japan. ICQ#:168106592 _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus sending to informix-list
"Tsutomu Ogiwara" <tsutomu_ogiwara@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bsg90a$k62$1@terabinaries.xmission.com... > > Hi all!! > > http://www-306.ibm.com/software/success/cssdb.nsf/csp/tknc-5u72ge > > Only for me ? Excellent publicity for IDS, although you have to expect that the database element will be largely ignored by IBM in a way that it wouldn't if the underlying database had been DB2 UDB. On the wider issue, and going a little off-topic, how beneficial is it really that the big boys, and especially IBM, are getting selected as "strategic Linux partners"? The very essence of Linux - anti-proprietary, open-source, free entitlement-to-use - is the antithesis of what Big Business stands for. Don't get me wrong: I think that the comparatively recent acceptance of Linux as a viable enterprise OS is largely due to the involvement of the big boys, and my business has itself benefited from being a part of IBM EMEA's Leaders for Linux initiative. But I just wonder where it all will end ....
"Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote in message news:bsh33r$cgqp3$1@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de... > "Tsutomu Ogiwara" <tsutomu_ogiwara@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:bsg90a$k62$1@terabinaries.xmission.com... > Business stands for. Don't get me wrong: I think that the comparatively > recent acceptance of Linux as a viable enterprise OS is largely due to the > involvement of the big boys, and my business has itself benefited from being > a part of IBM EMEA's Leaders for Linux initiative. But I just wonder where > it all will end .... > With Linux being what a standard version of UNIX could have been! SGI contributes XFS, IBM contributes JFS, Sun an improved Gnome Desktop....HP ?? All the best bits of the various UNIX versions will get merged into one! Where this ends will be very interesting! >
Neil Truby wrote: > "Tsutomu Ogiwara" <tsutomu_ogiwara@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:bsg90a$k62$1@terabinaries.xmission.com... >> >> Hi all!! >> >> http://www-306.ibm.com/software/success/cssdb.nsf/csp/tknc-5u72ge >> >> Only for me ? > > Excellent publicity for IDS, although you have to expect that the database > element will be largely ignored by IBM in a way that it wouldn't if the > underlying database had been DB2 UDB. > > On the wider issue, and going a little off-topic, how beneficial is it > really that the big boys, and especially IBM, are getting selected as > "strategic Linux partners"? The very essence of Linux - anti-proprietary, > open-source, free entitlement-to-use - is the antithesis of what Big > Business stands for. Don't get me wrong: I think that the comparatively > recent acceptance of Linux as a viable enterprise OS is largely due to the > involvement of the big boys, and my business has itself benefited from > being > a part of IBM EMEA's Leaders for Linux initiative. But I just wonder > where it all will end .... Funnily enough, I am engaged in a similar debate with a particularly pointy-haired customer, who has gone so far as to suggest that they will not consider any commercial software for infrastructure use any more if there is an open-source equivalent. However, they don't seem to have the mental capacity to understand that just because something is in the same category as an existing commercial product with 20 years' development behind it, that it might not be a fully-function, fully equivalent replacement. So now they compare all the open-source application servers with each other and then choose JBOSS. They haven't even looked at Weblogic or <shudder> WebSphere, so they may be missing out on some vital features and functionality, just because they want to save on licensing costs. I'm also sceptical at this stage how good a business model this maintenance-only approach is. So if you go wall-to-wall open source and one or more of your vendors folds because of financial reasons, you have the code, but then you have to divert half your business into maintaining a piece of software that isn't essential to your business, instead of helping your business to make money. Still, what do I know? -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche
"Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> writes: > On the wider issue, and going a little off-topic, how beneficial is it > really that the big boys, and especially IBM, are getting selected as > "strategic Linux partners"? Beneficial to IBM? When Big Corporations start investing in Linux infrastructure and Linux support, I'd have to say "very". Beneficial to me? When Strategic Linux Partners start contributing back to the pool of Free Software, I'd have to say "very". It can be a win/win situation if both were to happen. Of course, BCs and SLPs can always attempt to steal Linux (like Linksys and SCO are trying to do) and nobody wins. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142 President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152 My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
Apache project is full of IBM contributions, Eclipse is there mostly thanks to IBM (at least initially), heck, IBM even got sued for contributing to OSS world :-) Sun is talking about opensourcing most of its app server and related stuff.... I would say the situation *is* win-win, at least at the moment, pathetic extorters from SCO notwithstanding. Dragi Raos "Ronald Cole" <ronald@forte-intl.com> wrote in message news:m3ekuopphw.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com... > "Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> writes: > > On the wider issue, and going a little off-topic, how beneficial is it > > really that the big boys, and especially IBM, are getting selected as > > "strategic Linux partners"? > > Beneficial to IBM? When Big Corporations start investing in Linux > infrastructure and Linux support, I'd have to say "very". > > Beneficial to me? When Strategic Linux Partners start contributing > back to the pool of Free Software, I'd have to say "very". > > It can be a win/win situation if both were to happen. > > Of course, BCs and SLPs can always attempt to steal Linux (like > Linksys and SCO are trying to do) and nobody wins. > > -- > Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 > Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142 > President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152 > My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
"Dragi Bonzi Raos" <bonzi@email.hinet.hr> wrote in message news:bsqch9$cqtc$1@ID-72093.news.uni-berlin.de... > Apache project is full of IBM contributions, Eclipse is there mostly > thanks to IBM (at least initially), heck, IBM even got sued for > contributing to OSS world :-) Sun is talking about opensourcing most > of its app server and related stuff.... I would say the situation *is* > win-win, at least at the moment, pathetic extorters from SCO > notwithstanding. > > Dragi Raos I actually acknowledged in my original mail that the involvement of IBM and others was perhaps the single biggest factor is the acceleration of its uptake. I'm just saying that history suggests that the big companies do not share the largely altruistic motives behind Open Source, and may ruin it for everyone else in the end ...