Am Donnerstag, den 06.03.2008, 08:03 -0800 schrieb Christophe:
> Open Office = ZERO community but 100% Sun Salary with around 8.000.000
> line of code.
> Compared to Office 2007, it's just a jurasic software.
Irrelevant to the question of dumping.
And it's not "jurassic" - it's roughly two years behind word, that's all
(and I've always been amazed how quickly people forget how useful the
previous version was and how little difference the improvements really
are).
> Open Office = dumping
Maybe. If Sun is making money from supporting OO. Frankly, I don't see
much ROI for them for it, but given that Sun isn't a charitable
institution, I just don't see it and it's really some dumping at work.
(Java is different: it's there to help generate network appliance
sales.)
> MySQL = SUN, it's recent, but to assume the cost of improvement it's
> better, but free it's finish
> MySQL = dumping
Nonsense.
MySQL's business model was to generate consultant revenue by giving away
the database. MySQL wasn't competing with Oracle, it was competing with
consultants that had specialized in Oracle. (Of course, it has eroded
Oracle's business model. I'm not sure how well they survive, but if they
don't adopt MySQL's business model they'll probably go out of business.)
> Apache = IHS = IBM HTTP SERVER = dumping
That's even ridiculous. Googling for Apache and "IBM HTTP Server" gave
me a full five hits, which means the connection between these two
software systems is so tenuous that they aren't even mentioned on the
same page.
Looking at the Wikipedia page, I find that Apache originated from NCSA
Httpd, which in turn was built at a research facility (NCSA). Today, the
Apache Foundation lists Google and Yahoo as its primary sponsors, and
HP. IBM isn't even on the list - oh, right, at the bottom, there's a
mention of servers (after Sun).
> GCC = GNU GPL license = good luck for resume, I prefer Intel Compiler
> or another in the same license.
Not sure what the argument is here.
> The best example is Eclipse = it's impossible to a unknown developer
> to insert himself in the project.
That's true for almost any project.
> Why :Eclipse = terminator of Borland
> JBuilder and VisualAge of course with less quality.
Sure. Every large FOSS project killed some commercial projects.
> ... Eclipse vs WebSphere : no it's a joke, no ... it's dumping.
OTOH a good FOSS development environment *would* be an improvement over
the current situation.
Eclipse seems to bee too fragile in the presents of unstable plugins.
Regards,
Jo
On 6 mar, 20:40, Joachim Durchholz <····@durchholz.org> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 06.03.2008, 08:03 -0800 schrieb Christophe:
>
> > Open Office = ZERO community but 100% Sun Salary with around 8.000.000
> > line of code.
> > Compared to Office 2007, it's just a jurasic software.
>
> Irrelevant to the question of dumping.
> And it's not "jurassic" - it's roughly two years behind word, that's all
> (and I've always been amazed how quickly people forget how useful the
> previous version was and how little difference the improvements really
> are).
>
> > Open Office = dumping
>
> Maybe. If Sun is making money from supporting OO. Frankly, I don't see
> much ROI for them for it, but given that Sun isn't a charitable
> institution, I just don't see it and it's really some dumping at work.
>
> (Java is different: it's there to help generate network appliance
> sales.)
>
> > MySQL = SUN, it's recent, but to assume the cost of improvement it's
> > better, but free it's finish
> > MySQL = dumping
>
> Nonsense.
> MySQL's business model was to generate consultant revenue by giving away
> the database. MySQL wasn't competing with Oracle, it was competing with
> consultants that had specialized in Oracle. (Of course, it has eroded
> Oracle's business model. I'm not sure how well they survive, but if they
> don't adopt MySQL's business model they'll probably go out of business.)
>
> > Apache = IHS = IBM HTTP SERVER = dumping
>
> That's even ridiculous. Googling for Apache and "IBM HTTP Server" gave
> me a full five hits, which means the connection between these two
> software systems is so tenuous that they aren't even mentioned on the
> same page.
> Looking at the Wikipedia page, I find that Apache originated from NCSA
> Httpd, which in turn was built at a research facility (NCSA). Today, the
> Apache Foundation lists Google and Yahoo as its primary sponsors, and
> HP. IBM isn't even on the list - oh, right, at the bottom, there's a
> mention of servers (after Sun).
>
> > GCC = GNU GPL license = good luck for resume, I prefer Intel Compiler
> > or another in the same license.
>
> Not sure what the argument is here.
>
> > The best example is Eclipse = it's impossible to a unknown developer
> > to insert himself in the project.
>
> That's true for almost any project.
>
> > Why :Eclipse = terminator of Borland
> > JBuilder and VisualAge of course with less quality.
>
> Sure. Every large FOSS project killed some commercial projects.
>
> > ... Eclipse vs WebSphere : no it's a joke, no ... it's dumping.
>
> OTOH a good FOSS development environment *would* be an improvement over
> the current situation.
> Eclipse seems to bee too fragile in the presents of unstable plugins.
>
> Regards,
> Jo
Hi all,
In the Website : http://www-306.ibm.com/software/webservers/httpservers/doc/v1312/ihsfaq1.html
" What is IHS?
The IBM HTTP Server, powered by Apache, is a powerful, robust, secure
and free Web server, based on a partnership between IBM and the Apache
Web server. IHS takes the latest stable Apache code tree and adds
modules to improve performance, security, and usability. "
I have a doubt about the "partnership", I think Apache+IHS = Eclipse
+Websphere, open source to kill the smaller editors same as Borland
for example, offshore to create components aorund the free software.
Of course, without any community, just pure dumping. But no chance for
IBM, Visual Studio keeps better.
And Linux is not the revenge of OS2.
When are named IBM or SUN, it's a shame to practice dumping.
Best Regards
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:40:07 +0100, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>> Open Office = dumping
In most jurisdictions that I have looked at selling goods below cost is
illegal only if it is done with the intent and with the prospect of
creating a monopoly. (There are some exceptions in European countries that
actually ban "sales" in shops except at certain times of the year.)
There are many good and valid reasons to sell goods below cost, for
example
1. They are out of date and need to be removed to make room for other
stock ef last season's fashions.
2. As a loss leader to encourage sales of add-on products eg printers and
ink.
3. To introduce a product into the market.
4. To create economies of scale across the company's whole product line. A
given product may run at a loss but it can enable other products to be
profitable eg some banks run products that are marginal but which create
the economies of scale that allow other profitable products to be sold.
In the case of open office, one might suspect that Sun supports it as a
way of weakening its deadliest competitor. By giving away OO, this
potentially detracts from the revenues for MSFT Office, forcing MSFT to
make MO a better product and diverting executives' time away from
important tasks like throwing chairs around the room.
This is at little cost to Sun. Overall the community probably benefits
from the savings on software licence costs. One could hardly argue that
MSFT is thereby deprived of the funds needed to improve their products.
Given that Sun is not a monopolist in the Office software space, and is
most unlikely ever to be one, it would be hard to sustain any legal moves
against Sun.
No-one releasing open-source software is likely to be convicted of
monopolizing behaviour. The reason is that if someone tried this approach,
then people would be able to use the source code to make their own
versions of the software.
And there is nothing in the law that prevents people from making gifts of
their time and money. If someone is using time they should be using to
serve their employer for something else, then that's the problem, not what
they do with that time specifically.
Tim