Oracle and OpenSource

[michael newport]

Oracle opens arms to Mozilla
By Stephen Shankland and Alorie Gilbert, CNET News.com

Oracle wants its applications to integrate better with Mozilla's
open-source desktop software

Oracle is working on a project to let Mozilla's open-source desktop
software work better with Oracle's business applications, in the
latest move by the database giant to promote open-source software.

Oracle and Mozilla confirmed the joint project on Friday, just before
the next week's start of the LinuxWorld conference in New York, which
is a hotbed for Linux and other open-source software announcements.
Oracle, a Microsoft rival, pledged at the most recent LinuxWorld in
August to move all its developers to Linux computers.

The collaboration is intended to ensure Mozilla software, which runs
on desktop computers, can tap into Oracle software that runs on
central servers, said Oracle spokeswoman Jill Schroeder. For example,
Mozilla has an email module that can tap into the email server that's
part of the Oracle Collaboration Suite.

"We're still in the development stages right now," Schroeder said.
Oracle expects to announce the collaboration formally "in the next
year," she said.

Oracle has been an open-source software proponent for several years
and heavily promotes the Linux OS as a platform for its server-based
software, including its applications and database systems. Its work
with Mozilla is among Oracle's initial efforts to extend Linux support
to client-side programs as well.

Mozilla, which was recently spun off from AOL, develops applications
for Web browsing, email and online chat.

[Paul]

mi************@yahoo.com says...

Oracle has been an open-source software proponent for several years

This is completely untrue. To the best of my knowledge, Oracle has
*_no_* intention of releasing the source to its database.
It is merely making (legitimate) use of Open Source software as a means
of screwing Micro$oft.

and heavily promotes the Linux OS as a platform for its server-based
software, including its applications and database systems.

In order to screw Micro$oft!

Oracle Corp. has no interest in Open Source per se, as an ideal or as a
business strategy for itself, but is using it as a tool to undermine
competitors.
Paul...
--
plinehan y_a_h_o_o and d_o_t com
C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro
Please do not top-post.

"XML avoids the fundamental question of what we should do,
by focusing entirely on how we should do it."

quote from http://www.metatorial.com

[Hans Forbrich]

Paul wrote:

mi************@yahoo.com says...

Oracle has been an open-source software proponent for several years
This is completely untrue. To the best of my knowledge, Oracle has
*_no_* intention of releasing the source to its database.

Not the database. I can't blame them either as it is their bread and
butter ... "never give away the cash cow"

But AFAIK, Oracle does provide fixes back to the Open Source community,
esp. Apache and Linux kernel enhancements (eg: recent file system
enhancements around asyncIO). And it has made available some Open
Source code, esp. OCFS.

It is merely making (legitimate) use of Open Source software as a means
of screwing Micro$oft.

and heavily promotes the Linux OS as a platform for its server-based
software, including its applications and database systems.

In order to screw Micro$oft!

Oracle Corp. has no interest in Open Source per se, as an ideal or as a
business strategy for itself, but is using it as a tool to undermine
competitors.

Nothing wrong with that.

Isn't a fundemental tenant of good business to use [leverage <g>] any
and all tools and methods to provide a competitive edge?

/Hans

[Paul]

hf******@yahoo.net says...

This is completely untrue. To the best of my knowledge, Oracle has
*_no_* intention of releasing the source to its database.

Not the database. I can't blame them either as it is their bread and
butter ... "never give away the cash cow"

Oh, I don't blame Oracle Corp. for not giving away its multi billion
dollar revenues - that would be the height of stupidity.
What I am saying is that it is ridiculous to call Oracle a "proponent"
of Open Source software - they are a user of Linux.

But AFAIK, Oracle does provide fixes back to the Open Source community,
esp. Apache and Linux kernel enhancements (eg: recent file system
enhancements around asyncIO). And it has made available some Open
Source code, esp. OCFS.

And, by any small (teeny, tiny) chance, would these "fixes" also
help/enable Oracle products to work/work better on Linux.

I'm not knocking what they're doing, just don't call Oracle Corp. an
Open Source proponent.

Oracle Corp. has no interest in Open Source per se, as an ideal or as a
business strategy for itself, but is using it as a tool to undermine
competitors.

Nothing wrong with that.
See above.

Isn't a fundemental tenant of good business to use [leverage <g>] any
and all tools and methods to provide a competitive edge?

Indeed, and I'm not knocking it (BTW, it's "tenet" - a tenant is
something else entirely 8-)).
All I'm saying is that an Open Source user is *_not_* necessarily an
Open Source proponent.

A proponent is an "advocate" - if Oracle were truly that, they would
have at least made Oracle available for the Free BSD's - no? Well, I
suppose that one could argue that they are "advocates" in a limited
sense - i.e. "Stay off Micro$oft platforms" - however, this IMHO,
doesn't make them advocates in the true sense of the term.

Paul...

/Hans

--
plinehan y_a_h_o_o and d_o_t com
C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro
Please do not top-post.

"XML avoids the fundamental question of what we should do,
by focusing entirely on how we should do it."

quote from http://www.metatorial.com

[Hans Forbrich]

Paul wrote:

But AFAIK, Oracle does provide fixes back to the Open Source community,
esp. Apache and Linux kernel enhancements (eg: recent file system
enhancements around asyncIO). And it has made available some Open
Source code, esp. OCFS.
And, by any small (teeny, tiny) chance, would these "fixes" also
help/enable Oracle products to work/work better on Linux.

Look at the public list of projects at http://oss.oracle.com/ and decide
for yourself. Seems to me some of the stuff they contribute, like the
"kernel module for detecting kernel pauses" and "testing harness for the
Linux Kernel" might be useful outside of the Oracle community.

But working on projects that do not provide any benefit to Oracle would
not make any business sense. (That's generally cause for having
management replaced.)

Strangely, I don't know anyone who advocates Linux or Open Source
without perceiving some benefit - be it personal satisfaction,
knowledge, 15 minutes in the limelight, financial benefit (even just
eliminating cost), etc.

Isn't a fundemental tenant of good business to use [leverage <g>] any
and all tools and methods to provide a competitive edge? Indeed, and I'm not knocking it (BTW, it's "tenet" - a tenant is
something else entirely 8-)).

Thanks. I needed that.

All I'm saying is that an Open Source user is *_not_* necessarily an
Open Source proponent.

A proponent is an "advocate" - if Oracle were truly that, they would
have at least made Oracle available for the Free BSD's - no? Well, I
suppose that one could argue that they are "advocates" in a limited
sense - i.e. "Stay off Micro$oft platforms" - however, this IMHO,
doesn't make them advocates in the true sense of the term.

I guess hosting tutorials, such as the new "AWK: The Linux
Administrators' Wisdom Kit"
(http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/dulaney_awk.html) doesn't count.
(Other than the page boilerplate, not a mention of Oracle in the
article.) Or other Technical Articles (see
http://otn.oracle.com/tech/linux/index.html).

Or hosting OS projects, at
http://otn.oracle.com/tech/opensource/projects.html .... Oh wait, those
are 'open source but related to Oracle', so they don't count.

All that said, I can agree with some of your argument. All open source
operating system discussions I've seen/read specifically state Linux,
not general Open Source. Oracle has been "operating system agnostic"
very publicly for a very long time, supporting and dropping operating
systems based on commercial viability - I really don't expect them to
support Hurd anytime soon either.

Based on your definition, can I interpret this to mean that Red Hat and
SuSE are not proponents/advocates either? AFAICT, they are only doing
this to make money - and I really don't see them supporting the Free
BSDs either ...

[michael newport]

the overriding issue is to save money in IT depts.

a) by using OpenSource and/or
b) shipping jobs to India etc..

both points contested by Sybrand and Jim.

But as users of Oracle they (and other people) should be aware of
Oracle's position on OpenSource. Which is why I quoted directly from
Oracle itself,
and gave the slashdot to Oracle India in the other thread.

Oracle do not need to make their product OpenSource (yet) as they have
the largest chunk of the DB market.

My contention is that at some point in the near future companies like
MySql will take significant market share from other DB's. Especially
companies who do not need large complex (expensive) DB's to get the
job done.

Likewise Linux is taking market share from other OS manufacturers.

Regards
Michael Newport

PS I started a similar thread on comp.databases.ingres and proposed
that CA-Ingres should go OpenSource because it has a tiny fraction of
the DB market and needed to do something radical to survive, although
CA themselves did not like the idea.