| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jdmulloy
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 139
Location: Massachusetts, USA
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Maybe Oracle is just jealous of Google because an Oracle is supposed to be a source of knowledge, which is probably how they got the name, and Google is where everyone turns to for answers now.
_________________
Joe Mulloy | http://twitter.com/jdmulloy | Ron Paul in 2012! | 5-1-07 | Unban Playfool | Fire your "Too big to fail" bank http://moveyourmoney.info |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Since Google hired a lot of Sun's Java guys, Oracle might even have a good chance in court, because Google would basically have to prove that those guys unlearned the patented concepts in Java before working for them. |
At the same time, it could be they knew it well enough to know how to NOT do that.
Wasn't Sun's main case against MS' Java that it was "embraced and extended"? Seems like a very similar issue here (in addition to the potential patent issues).
| jdmulloy wrote: | | why was there a giant Oracle dome in Iron Man 2? [...] unless they seriously thing CIOs are going to pick Oracle because they saw their name on a glass dome in a movie. |
Never underestimate marketing. Personally I'm regularly shocked at the reminder that marketing actually works, but apparently it does. Larry has bought a ton of stuff over the last decade or so. Given the cost of product placement in a movie with a lot of eyeballs, it is probably a lot cheaper than actually buying the naming rights to a stadium.
The more CIOs see "Oracle," the more likely they are to think of it as familiar when they see it on a list of solutions to buy. The main thing that should hurt Oracle is the licensing costs. I know I'd spend money on migrating away from it wherever possible.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokehabit
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3302
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | MySQL, OpenOffice and OpenSolaris |
GPL, LGPL and not really FOSS.
OpenSolaris was never taken that seriously as FOSS. I personally don't mind Solaris, but OS never really mattered, other than a testbed for eventual Solaris features.
As far as I know, MySQL is still as open as it ever was, and only the for profit side of the company was sold to Sun. IIRC, one of the MySQL founders came out admitting regret at selling, so this looks like a good time to fork. There is a large footprint for it, so a company offering support and continued development seems more than possible.
And Novell had been (don't know if they still do) repackaging OO with some additions. |
but there will be a major schism no matter what happens. Nothing will be the same now Oracle is efficiently ignoring the major FOSS products it's inherited |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oracle can't close off MySQL anyway, they've already made a binding agreement with EU and US regulators as condition of their acquisition of Sun Microsystems.
_________________
| juniper wrote: | | you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AidanJT wrote: | | Oracle can't close off MySQL anyway, they've already made a binding agreement with EU and US regulators as condition of their acquisition of Sun Microsystems. |
That's good information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdmulloy
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 139
Location: Massachusetts, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
They also have their hands in the future of Linux filesystems. They own ZFS and BTRFS was started by an oracle guy. Hopefully BTRFS is detached enough from Oracle at this point that it could survive them trying to kill it too.
_________________
Joe Mulloy | http://twitter.com/jdmulloy | Ron Paul in 2012! | 5-1-07 | Unban Playfool | Fire your "Too big to fail" bank http://moveyourmoney.info |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually, we might be getting a little carried away with all this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdmulloy
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 139
Location: Massachusetts, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | Actually, we might be getting a little carried away with all this. |
OTW get carried way? No, that's impossible, that never happens.
_________________
Joe Mulloy | http://twitter.com/jdmulloy | Ron Paul in 2012! | 5-1-07 | Unban Playfool | Fire your "Too big to fail" bank http://moveyourmoney.info |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokehabit
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3302
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AidanJT wrote: | | Oracle can't close off MySQL anyway, they've already made a binding agreement with EU and US regulators as condition of their acquisition of Sun Microsystems. |
really? *phew* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jdmulloy wrote: | | wswartzendruber wrote: | | Actually, we might be getting a little carried away with all this. |
OTW get carried way? No, that's impossible, that never happens. |
Yeah I'm definitely out of line. Sorry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marens
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | Actually, we might be getting a little carried away with all this. |
what? openoffice, virtualbox, netbeans, glassfish, mysql and java aren't dying? i already uninstalled all of them and started learning php!
_________________
If English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for you!
Last edited by marens on Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | Actually, we might be getting a little carried away with all this. |
See what you started?
It's all your fault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | wswartzendruber wrote: | | Actually, we might be getting a little carried away with all this. |
See what you started?
It's all your fault. |
I didn't start his.
* Blames OP *
EDIT: Wait a minute, YOU'RE the OP! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | wswartzendruber wrote: | | Actually, we might be getting a little carried away with all this. |
See what you started?
It's all your fault. |
I didn't start his.
* Blames OP *
EDIT: Wait a minute, YOU'RE the OP! |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | | but there will be a major schism no matter what happens. Nothing will be the same now Oracle is efficiently ignoring the major FOSS products it's inherited |
That isn't necessarily bad. IMO, it demonstrates the need for something as well organized as the Mozilla Foundation. OpenOffice is "huge" for FOSS, so this demonstrates that it is best for major FOSS products to not be bought and sold.
The foundation could then provide avenues for corporations to support. Novell for example would have no problems continuing with GOOO. The best things from GOOO could be brought into the core product (where allowed by license). And the same for IBM's Symphony (OK, this isn't really viable since it is based on v 1.1, but you still get the idea).
This would also facilitate cross platform development. If HP wanted an Itanic version, they could pay for development, or do it in house.
EDIT:
This is also an advantage of FOSS when done this way. It can't be bought and exterminated, so it would be more reliable than LittleApp Co bought by Ellison/Ballmer/Schmidt and discontinued.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 78
Location: Bangalore, India
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What about postgresql?
A friend told me "part of postgresql is Oracle". Does this make sense to you?
(Never worked on postgresql. Looking to use it now, considering this development.)
_________________
What looks like a cat, flies like a bat, brays like a donkey, and plays like a monkey? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| notageek wrote: | What about postgresql?
A friend told me "part of postgresql is Oracle". Does this make sense to you?
(Never worked on postgresql. Looking to use it now, considering this development.) |
I think Postgresql has more to do with Ingres (on which it was based) and Informix (which was based on it) than Oracle. Oracle used to sell support for Postgresql and I imagine they invested in it as an open-source project during that time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PostgreSQL is the closest thing FOSS has to Oracle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shining Arcanine
Veteran
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Posts: 1110
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | shaumux wrote: | | wswartzendruber wrote: | | sts wrote: | | Haha, and Stallman was all butthurt over Mono patent risks. |
That was a valid concern because they chose to implement ADO.NET, Windows Forms, and ASP.NET. |
Couldn't google have just left out those parts and used the rest of mono? |
Mono's too heavy. If I were Google, I would've implemented ECMA-335 from scratch, with a C# (ECMA-334) compiler.
EDIT: I don't think Google expected to get sued for this.
EDIT: I think anything in System.Drawing might be off-limits.
EDIT: It seems that Miguel de Icaza has split Mono into two branches: One which is legal, and one which you can be sued into oblivion for (if you're not using SuSE). |
Why not just suggest that they use C++? It seems like the safe choice. If Google must avoid C++, Google could use Go. It is their language after all, so no one could possibly sue them for using it.
As for this lawsuit, is this really any different from what Sun Microsystems did to Microsoft in the 1990s? This lawsuit seems to confirm that Java is a proprietary programming language and should be treated as such. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Using C++ keeps Google on ARM, does it not? Using a bytecode implementation seems to be safer. HOWEVER, Google may be able to use LLVM to bytecode-compile C++, and then use LLVM to run it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shining Arcanine
Veteran
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Posts: 1110
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | Using C++ keeps Google on ARM, does it not? Using a bytecode implementation seems to be safer. HOWEVER, Google may be able to use LLVM to bytecode-compile C++, and then use LLVM to run it. |
My expectation is that they could just recompile software to run on another architecture should they want to switch. If they must have bytecode, there is no technical reason why they cannot have it with C++. Google could compile C++ to Dalvik bytecode and then leverage their existing infrastructure to run it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shining Arcanine wrote: | | wswartzendruber wrote: | | Using C++ keeps Google on ARM, does it not? Using a bytecode implementation seems to be safer. HOWEVER, Google may be able to use LLVM to bytecode-compile C++, and then use LLVM to run it. |
My expectation is that they could just recompile software to run on another architecture should they want to switch. If they must have bytecode, there is no technical reason why they cannot have it with C++. Google could compile C++ to Dalvik bytecode and then leverage their existing infrastructure to run it. |
C# would be really, Really, REALLY nice to have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shining Arcanine
Veteran
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Posts: 1110
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | Shining Arcanine wrote: | | wswartzendruber wrote: | | Using C++ keeps Google on ARM, does it not? Using a bytecode implementation seems to be safer. HOWEVER, Google may be able to use LLVM to bytecode-compile C++, and then use LLVM to run it. |
My expectation is that they could just recompile software to run on another architecture should they want to switch. If they must have bytecode, there is no technical reason why they cannot have it with C++. Google could compile C++ to Dalvik bytecode and then leverage their existing infrastructure to run it. |
C# would be really, Really, REALLY nice to have. |
That would be going from one proprietary language to another proprietary language. What is so special about C# that you would want to use it over a free language with academic origins like C++? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shining Arcanine wrote: | | wswartzendruber wrote: | | Shining Arcanine wrote: | | wswartzendruber wrote: | | Using C++ keeps Google on ARM, does it not? Using a bytecode implementation seems to be safer. HOWEVER, Google may be able to use LLVM to bytecode-compile C++, and then use LLVM to run it. |
My expectation is that they could just recompile software to run on another architecture should they want to switch. If they must have bytecode, there is no technical reason why they cannot have it with C++. Google could compile C++ to Dalvik bytecode and then leverage their existing infrastructure to run it. |
C# would be really, Really, REALLY nice to have. |
That would be going from one proprietary language to another proprietary language. What is so special about C# that you would want to use it over a free language with academic origins like C++? |
I would've thought that with all my screaming and yelling, that people would understand that C# (up to 2.0) is more open for implementation than the Java language. I want C# because I like properties. I like garbage collection, but I also like doing these things on my own if I so choose.
Proprietary Language
Last edited by wswartzendruber on Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:01 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
C# is not beyond his capacity to comprehend.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Off the Wall
