Open Source: There can be only one?



I suppose I can pile on here, here, and here. I can understand one vendor taking pot shots at another. It happens all the time. Being in a glass house, I'm not throwing stones. OK, perhaps just one. Besides, we've upgraded.

The most surprising comment came from Mr. Handy:

 "There's room for a proprietary one and an open one. Once one is open, you don't need any more.

To use IDEs as an analogy, NetBeans was around long before Eclipse. IBM didn't feel NetBeans should be the only IDE. They launched a competitive IDE. It gained adoption due to NetBeans shortcomings. To compete, NetBeans improved dramatically, to the point where many think NetBeans is simply a better IDE.

Given the IDE competition, how did the developer (customer) \*not\* win?

Since an open source "monopoly" does not apply to IDEs, why should it apply to open source operating systems? Why is more than one open source operating system, especially standards-based operating systems, not a good thing for customers?

Perhaps "There can be only one" should be left to entertainment. I think a developer community of 13,000+ and those running the 5,000,000+  hosts benefiting from that community would tend to agree.


Comments:

Awww... you beat me to the Highlander punch, one of my all time favorite movies. However, maybe IBM can answer this one. If one open is enough, why are there multiple Linux distributions? If one is enough, why does IBM support running Windows, Linux (both Suse and Redhat, again why two), and Solaris on their BladeFrame? If one is enough, what does that mean for the BSDs, which pre-date Linux, which means Linux should never have happened.

Posted by Stephen Potter on August 18, 2006 at 01:42 AM PDT #

To continue the logic, since we already have Kaffe and Harmony, is IBM also saying we shouldn't open source our JVM?

Yeah, Highlander (the first movie) is also one of my all-time favorites.

Posted by John Clingan on August 18, 2006 at 01:50 AM PDT #

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

Mahatma Gandhi

IBM is now officially in Stage 2.

As for the lame comments about the CDDL, and the lack of interoperability with the GPL, where are these clowns criticisms of the MPL, the Apache license, the BSD license, the Eclipse license (and MPL derivative), etc., etc.

Other than Eclipse, I see very little visible work on open source from IBM. Sure, they donated some code to the Linux kernel. As have many other vendors. IBM offered JFS to Linux (after SGI contributed XFS). Like Linux needed yet another filesystem.

I do agree with one comment. There is only a need for one. Therefore, I suggest IBM fund the Polaris project, adopt Solaris on pSeries, and EOL AIX.

Posted by Mark on August 20, 2006 at 12:25 AM PDT #

Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.
About

John Clingan-Oracle

Search

Archives
« July 2015
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
   
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
 
       
Today