Archive for the 'Vendors' Category
Thursday, September 4th, 2008
Using Java with Google Chrome
I need to use Scottrade’s streaming quotes application which runs in Java and is launched from a browser window. In order to use it with Chrome, I needed to find a way to get Chrome working with Java support. This was actually easier than I anticipated. There are just two steps:
1) Install the latest (Release Candidate) JRE from Sun
2) Restart Chrome
Now Scottrade works just fine. For a Windows system, I can now switch to Chrome. The one last MAJOR problem is that Google still has not even published a build for Linux (at least not that I could find). I need a Linux version to switch. Now in reality, “switch” just means which browser will I use more often. I will always have Firefox on hand especially with all the great plugins for web development, etc that come in handy. I will use Chrome on Windows just for a lightweight, fast browser.
Thursday, September 4th, 2008
Red Hat Acquires Qumranet For $107M
Red Hat announced today that it will acquire Qumranet, the company behind KVM. Now Qumranet does not make its money on KVM, instead it uses KVM as part of its desktop virtualization solutions. Qumranet is also behind the very efficient SPICE protocol. I think this is a great move on both sides and I’m excited to hear a former IBM colleague’s bold move into a startup has paid off. I knew it would only be a matter of time before Qumranet was acquired, but it’s great to see it finally went through. Great ideas and technology leadership deserve to be rewarded.
I think you can expect to see an increase in KVM usage in RHEL going forward ;-)
I saw the press release here:
Monday, September 1st, 2008
Google “Chrome” browser is here. Google still treats Linux as second class?
I’m honestly surprised that we continuously see Google support Linux second. Google just announced “Chrome” on Labor Day stating a release for Windows and an “in the future” support for Linux and Mac. By all accounts, Windows is obviously the largest base, but why not wait just a little and do a simultaneous release? Heck, Google uses a ton of Linux on the desktop internally. Then I also have to remember, Linux already has a dominant penetration for non-Microsoft web browsers and already supports open standards… so maybe it’s just not needed - or is it? I think it’s too early to tell at the moment but Google is making its case with a compelling story.
You can see the “story” behind Chrome’s purpose on Google’s website at the URL below. Google put its argument for Chrome and its approach in comic format which I found quite entertaining. For engineers out there, this is a great medium (in my opinion) for communicating the benefit/value of an architecture decision. The technology and impact on the users are clearly defined.
http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/
I’m actually quite excited to see Chrome in action. First, there’s been a lot of work going on with Javascript engines and I’m sure Google did some performance work that should help Google Maps, Gmail, etc. Second, there appears to be a very strong integration of Google Gears into Chrome which should lend to great offline performance and features. Finally, it also looks like Google is going to revolutionize the “behind the scenes” processing your browser does. Instead of implementing a single threaded web processing model as we’re all used to, Google is going to split each tab into its own process. This gives you a multitasking performance boost if you’re a big time power user with multiple tabs executing at the same time. More important though should be the isolation - if Google Maps crashes, it shouldn’t take out the entire browser.
Google Inc. is releasing its own Web browser in a long-anticipated move aimed at countering the dominance of Microsoft Corp.’s Internet Explorer and ensuring easy access to its market-leading search engine.
The Mountain View-based company took the unusual step of announcing its latest product on the Labor Day holiday after it prematurely sent out a comic book drawn up to herald the new browser’s arrival.
The free browser, called “Chrome,” is supposed to be available for downloading Tuesday in more than 100 countries for computers running on Microsoft’s Windows operating system. Google said it’s still working on versions compatible with Apple Inc.’s Mac computer and the Linux operating system.
Now, yet another question is why do we need another web browser for Windows, Mac and Linux? How about one that supports open standards for the iPhone? Unfortunately Apple is unlikely to budge on its Apps policies which will, I can guarantee, limit its enterprise adoption for the iPhone. I’m honestly shocked that Apple has been touting its “enterprise” potential in some circles and been so standoffish towards enterprise applications vendors who those “enterprise” clients would need. Wake up Apple. You need Symantec, Cisco, AT&T and other network/AV/etc providers. Not everyone uses Microsoft Exchange so you’ll need Lotus Notes, IMAP support, etc. Oh well, I can only hope Apple will one day “get it”.
Thursday, August 28th, 2008
Psystar, speculation, press and absolutely no legal precendent to stand on
It amazes me how much coverage Psystar gets in the press and how much people want to speculate about its future. Yes, I’d love to run OS X on any hardware I choose, but that doesn’t matter one bit here. What matters here is intellectual property, copyrights, patents, trademarks and licensing. It’s hard to think of an area of IP law Psystar is not violating doing what it does with Mac OS X. Sure, I’d love to see them win so I can run OS X on my PC tomorrow, but I fear for what impact such a nonsensical precedent would create. In fact, I would not want to see Psystar win because of the irreversibly bad precedent it could create.
Counterclaim for antitrust?? First, this case will be nothing comparable to the Microsoft tying case. Just remove that fantasy from your mental casework right now. Second, where does this go to next? Should auto makers stop tying the onboard OS and drivers for your car to function from the hardware? Should your TV come with a separate fee and license for the OS and drivers? Finally, does Psystar realize this flies in the face of the entire industry practice (e.g. try buying an HP laptop - what OS options are tied to it?). How is HP any different than Apple?
This is pure nonsense and I can’t believe Psystar is still around let alone with enough funding to hire lawyers. It was a stupid idea from the start and I hope this case (and the rampant media speculation) will catch up with reality fast.
Monday, August 18th, 2008
Savio Rodrigues: “Are vendors afraid of open source?”
Savio posted a blog entry a little while ago that I missed until now (yes, I’m way behind on my RSS feeds). Anyway, after reading my blog post here on Microsoft’s annual report statements regarding risk from open source, Savio went and looked up what other software vendors state in their annual reports regarding potential business risk from open source software. The results are indeed interesting. Check out Savio’s analysis here:
http://saviorodrigues.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/are-vendors-afraid-of-open-source/
Monday, August 18th, 2008
BusinessWeek “Open Source: An Open Question for Red Hat and Others”
Wow, some great quotes are included in this BusinessWeek article on Red Hat and open source software. It’s great to see Jim taking control at the helm. Certainly I agree with much of his views, however, I also see Red Hat in a business that needs to continue contributing to community efforts. While I know he’s guiding that as well, it does not really come out in these comments.
I definitely agree with Aaron about the bleak future for those open source companies who “don’t get it”. I talk about the blunders I see all the time, but I suspect over the next couple years we’ll finally see them go under. I was less inclined to buy into Aaron’s comments inferring that having a free version hurts the market opportunity for selling. That “free version” running on a server the customer deamed not necessary to support is exactly why Red Hat is in the position it is today.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2008/tc20080815_938079.htm
Meantime, life has been rough for many of the companies that have bet their business more specifically on open source.
“Open source is not a get-rich-quick scheme,” says Marten Mickos, the former CEO of MySQL and now a senior vice-president at Sun. “You have to have patience.” He adds that the company was 13 years old when it sold.
Many investors won’t wait that long. Venture capitalists invested $196 million in U.S. open-source software companies last year, after pouring in $265 million in 2006, according to market researcher Dow Jones VentureSource.
…
Whitehurst, [..] is shifting engineers and marketers away from nice-to-have projects toward areas where Red Hat gets paid. He’s pulling resources out of consumer desktop Linux, and he shuttered an online store that sold other companies’ open-source programs. “I took a look at that and said, ‘We’re not eBay,’” he says. “Red Hat is open source, but that doesn’t mean we do everything in open source.”
…
“A pure service business is not particularly defensible,” says Whitehurst. “Some open-source companies have not truly figured that out.” If the open-source movement, now in its second decade, is to realize its promise for vendors and investors, more of its purveyors will need to get the message soon.
Thursday, August 7th, 2008
Virtualized Linux on Power Boom
Internally within IBM we get to see a number of great adoption statistics for technologies and IBM products. One that has been increasing over time is the usage of Linux virtualized on Power Systems (e.g. POWER6 processor based servers). These systems were always considered “UNIX servers” and that was true in the old days. Today, with virtualization, how do you count a system that has 30% of its capacity dedicated to Linux partitions and 70% to AIX? How about 90% Linux, 10% AIX? The same trend for adoption of Linux on scalable systems is true for Mainframes as well. These systems offer customers a significant amount of flexibility to match workloads and applications to the best hardware without disrupting the OS, tools, etc.
Every now and then IBMers know we’ve clearly done something the competition is unlikely to ever catch up to even if we let them know it’s working. The numbers below speak for themselves. It takes commitment to drive change. To use a poker reference, if you know the odds are in your favor, go all in pre-flop or someone without the odds will potentially take you out on the river card. If Sun had a real Linux strategy, this could be Linux on UltraSPARC Tx. If HP had a real processor strategy, this could be Linux on Superdome.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2223362/virtualisation-booming-ibm
The company is reporting a threefold increase in the number of virtualised Power Systems servers sold. Sixty four per cent of Big Blue’s customers opted for a virtualised Linux setup on the new servers, compared to just 21 per cent a year ago.
“Even I was stunned by the uptake,” admitted Scott Handy, IBM’s vice president of Power Systems.
Monday, August 4th, 2008
Proof Microsoft still does not “get open source”
You need look no further than the most recent Microsoft annual report to understand that Microsoft still does not “get open source”.
Let’s start with page 12, “Item 1A: Risk Factors”, first risk section:
Challenges to our business model may reduce our revenues and operating margins. Our business model has been based upon customers paying a fee to license software that we develop and distribute. Under this license-based software model, software developers bear the costs of converting original ideas into software products through investments in research and development, offsetting these costs with the revenue received from the distribution of their products. Certain “open source” software business models challenge our license-based software model. Open source commonly refers to software whose source code is subject to a license allowing it to be modified, combined with other software and redistributed, subject to restrictions set forth in the license. A number of commercial firms compete with us using an open source business model by modifying and then distributing open source software to end users at nominal cost and earning revenue on complementary services and products. These firms do not bear the full costs of research and development for the software. Some of these firms may build upon Microsoft ideas that we provide to them free or at low royalties in connection with our interoperability initiatives. To the extent open source software gains increasing market acceptance, our sales, revenue and operating margins may decline.
No where in this section covering “open source” software does Microsoft hint at or acknowledge the possibility that Microsoft could leverage this model to strengthen its developer community, offer attractive licensing into emerging markets, leverage community based development to lead in web server standards, etc.
This is more interesting, because the entire section lacks anything that Microsoft may do to counter, compete with, or embrace the risk it identified: open source software.
Now take a look at the other paragraphs in this section 1A Risk Factors of the annual report. ALL of the other items called out as significant risks have something at the end of their paragaphs - what Microsoft will do about them. For instance:
Advertising Subscription Business Models: “We are devoting significant resources toward developing our own competing software plus services strategies. It is uncertain whether these strategies will be successful.”
Platform based ecosystems (vertically integrated model): “We also offer vertically-integrated hardware and software products;…”
Piracy: “Throughout the world, we actively educate consumers about the benefits of licensing genuine products and obtaining indemnification benefits for intellectual property risks, and we educate lawmakers about the advantages of a business climate where intellectual property rights are protected.”
And it goes on and on… but where is this wonderfully open painting of Microsoft collaborating with the open source community? Will Microsoft ever embrace it enough to have a chance of extending it?
To be continued…
Thursday, July 31st, 2008
LinkedIn runs on the LAMP stack - and it’s suddenly news?
I couldn’t help but find myself perplexed when I got an email on my iPhone yesterday from a well known figure in the Linux world. He (and subsequently I) were baffled that Sun must be combing through existing LAMP users for new references - LinkedIn uses LAMP. Well call me shocked… don’t 90% of the web companies out there run LAMP? (excluding those Microsoft has bought) I’m guessing the “new news” is that Sun signed up LinkedIn for a MySQL support contract for the first time, but are we going through a second LAMP hype cycle?
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080728/20080728005247.html?.v=1
Thursday, July 24th, 2008
iPhone SDK is Mac OS X only
I just went to download the iPhone SDK early this morning and realized they only have a Mac OS X version. No Linux or Windows version - how nice. I guess I should have expected that. Not having a Mac, I’m obviously not going to be test writing any apps.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent uptick in Mac sales.
Wednesday, July 16th, 2008
WordPress 2.6 is here and rumors of an iPhone interface coming?
I still need to update to v2.6, but it’s officially here. There are a host of cool new features including Gears-based acceleration.
I also noticed this link indicating an upcoming iPhone application for easier use of WordPress.
Good news on all WordPress fronts.
Wednesday, July 16th, 2008
7 +1 = 8 iPhone Disappointments
I noticed this Forbes article and have to add my 1 big disappointment. Unlike a Blackberry and many other internet-capable devices, you cannot use the iPhone as a modem or in a tethered mode to access the internet from a laptop. I am baffled that this is not a huge selling point. I can only imagine that AT&T doesn’t want the bandwidth, but I find it unacceptable.
Personally I don’t find multimedia messaging to be an issue. I also don’t care about voice dialing. But if I were to add a 9th disappointment to the list it would be iTunes. As I’ve documented in prior posts, I cannot stand iTunes. Add in that I have to pay for a song twice to add any ringtone to my phone, and I hate iTunes twice as much as before.
Monday, July 14th, 2008
IBMers: Get a substantial discount off your AT&T Wireless Plan (including iPhone plans)
IBMers can get a significant discount off their AT&T wireless plans. I just got an iPhone and switched to AT&T wireless from Verizon. It’s worth the effort to sign up.
http://wireless.att.com/discounts
Monday, July 14th, 2008
iPhone 3G Tips and Tricks
I found this website particularly helpful figuring out some of the hidden tricks to the new iPhone.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/tips/
Friday, July 11th, 2008
Sunset? A failed open source strategy?
Has mismanagement finally done Sun in? Unfortunately I have to wonder if Jonathan has done irreparable damage. I think a lack of a real strategy to embrace Linux has led to this problem… Schwartz tried to turn Sun into an “open source company” but what does that really mean? How many companies have taken a similar approach and generated shareholder value? The best “open source companies” know better, they know how to manage and really use open source effectively to support their strategy - they don’t make it the strategy.
I just shake my head when Jonathan compares Sun to Google - it’s not true, not even within a mile. Google has a proprietary product in its search business - it’s built on open source, yes. But open source supports their strategy - to sell ads. If Sun “opened” Solaris correctly and at the right time, perhaps it could have done well. But you have to look for a strategy that works today, not a few years ago.
A strategy starts with what will customers buy from you. Refusing to accept that customers want fast, efficient servers running business solutions on Linux and Windows (note, not “open source”) could be cited as a cause of the downfall, or sunset if you allow me a pun.
I feel for the employees at Sun that will lose out first, before management. There are a lot of great people with great talent there and I can only hope the upper management is replaced and Sun as a company gets set straight by a professional with actual business execution ability. I would like to continue seeing Sun in the tech industry, perhaps not as the vendor we know it today. Maybe I’m just nostalgic, but too many great technologies have come from Sun employees in an innovative environment to just go the way of DEC or SGI.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/10/sun_under_gun/
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2008/07/09/sun-micro-could-ceo-schwartz-be-on-his-way-out/
Thoughts? Am I all alone on this?
Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008
The Register Open Season Podcast
This was another interesting podcast. I’m obviously a fan of Mr. Vance (has anyone ever called him “Mr.”?) - maybe I’m the first. I also need to meet Matt Asay at some point… have much to discuss.
Tuesday, June 24th, 2008
Shameless Analyst Report Plug: “IBM & Linux – 9 Years Later”
A colleague sent me a link to this analyst paper today that takes a look at whether IBM has made good on the Linux promises it made back in 1999. I’m obviously biased, but I’m interested in hearing if anyone has thoughts on this topic.
Here’s the report: ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/GCG_IBM_and_Linux-9_years_later.pdf
The opening teaser:
In 1999, IBM issued a series of announcements fully committing the company to supporting Linux. IBM vowed to Linux-enable all of their hardware platforms, including their non-x86 based mainframe, mini, and RISC-based systems. They also promised to release Linux versions of their software products and develop
Linux-centric service practices. Moreover, they pledged significant resources to the Linux community with the goal of advancing Linux and open source technology.So, nine years later, did IBM deliver on these promises? Was their commitment to Linux genuine or just lip service? This report examines IBM’s current Linux products, services, and community support in light of the promises they made in 1999…
While I think it’s obvious IBM has been a huge investor in the Linux community, one thing that I noticed reading the report is just how much IBM is actually different from other community members. There are some noticeable differences in the investments and approach to supporting the Linux platform and community. I often forget to just take in all the Linux technologies IBM has been heavily involved in from Xen, KVM and libvirt to filesystems, to systemtap, kprobes and then there’s RAS, scalability and performance enhancements.
Another interesting thought to reflect on is just how important it has been that there are multiple investors in this field. If this report captures just what IBM did, think of the industry combined. IBM couldn’t have done anything this big with Linux if it weren’t for co-creating with a community of enthusiasts, researchers, governments, Intel, AMD, Google, Nokia, Motorola, Oracle and thousands more. What would the report look like if you compiled all the investments and work the entire community leveraged across the industry. Linux is “bigger than huge” when you stop to think about it. This is also why I’ve said for a couple years now when you extend the investment model 3 to 5 years into the future, Sun and its anti-Linux, Solaris push against the tide of the industry loses in the end. I think we’re starting to witness that now. Sure, OpenSolaris is a great idea… it’s just 9 years late and it’s too late to matter now.
I’m interested in outside perspectives too - where do you think IBM stands? Has the community development and investment model worked? Where will this lead in the future and what will be the next evolution of the model? Red Hat seems to think the model will evolve to include increased customer co-creation - I tend to agree. Why? Because the incentive model to invest aligns very well - and when you have alignment, it almost naturally will happen.
Friday, June 20th, 2008
Red Hat bridges patents to the GPL - without coupons
Red Hat made a very interesting move in resolving patent litigation and opened a new intellectual property bridge between GPL software and patent rights. Red Hat fought for the community on this one settling with provisions to also protect up/downstream developers and distributors. This really was a crafty move and the SFLC appears to have blessed it as well. Groklaw quotes Eben saying:
“Red Hat’s settlement of outstanding patent litigation on terms that provide additional protection to other members of the community upstream and downstream from Red Hat is a positive contribution to the resources for community patent defense. We would hope to see more settlements of this kind–in which parties secure more than their own particular legal advantage in relation to the third-party patent risk of the whole FOSS community–when commercial redistributors of FOSS choose to settle patent litigation. SFLC welcomes Red Hat’s efforts on the community’s behalf.”
I need to spend more time thinking about all the implications of this, but one thing is clear… Steve Ballmer was not required to build this “bridge” ;-)
Tuesday, June 17th, 2008
Download Firefox 3 Today
http://www.mozilla.com/products/download.html?product=firefox-3.0&os=win〈=en-US
Let’s break a record…
UPDATE: The site is back up if you were experiencing download issues earlier.
Wednesday, June 11th, 2008
Microsoft “Gets the Facts” on Windows Server 2003 (forgets the facts on Linux)
Interesting omission from Microsoft’s energy efficiency comparison ;-)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/11/microsoft_windows_server_2008/
Subscribe to RSS/Atom Feed
