Nickname: anon

Review: Who are these naive fools yakking about Communism and socialism (who clearly know nothing about either, from their luxury condos)? Who do they write for in these fora?Clearly, they do not work in the global community of dedicated software writers who, yes, invest their nights and weekends writing answers, that yes, they share with online friends around the world who helped them get their own projects done. This is collegial, not some ism. The same greedy corporate flag waving complainers also complained when we developed pioneer Voice Over Internet Protocol(VOIP) years ago called Voice On the Net (VON). Now the same conceited complainers complain about Open Source. Of course now they want to use VoIP and have cheap calls. Go to an antique shop and see if you can find a crank phone. Then start paying us the old prices from the mid-20th Century for your calls (as a penalty for your arrogance)and we will give you all the calls you want! Then leave us well alone, please.

Date reviewed: Mar 8, 2006 8:00 AM

Nickname: Mark

Review: To Joe: "open source is modifiable, proprietary is not" is an oversimplification. Yes, with OSS, you can download the source code, sometimes for free, sometimes for a fee, and modify it to your liking for your use. If you submit your changes for inclusion in a new version of a product, they won't necessarily be included, depending on how the project is governed. If the change is a specialization of the product that limits its scope, introduces bugs into the system, or security vulnerabilities, the managers of the project have every right to throw the modification out. In fact, effective OSS projects are managed in a rather dictatorial fashion. Typically only a few people decide what changes make it into a new release. There are many proprietary products that are also modifiable, typically through API hooks that the software company makes available, or a scripting capability. The difference is the underlying code is considered a trade secret.

Date reviewed: Mar 8, 2006 5:52 AM

Nickname: gman

Review: There is never been Communism by definition of its idealistic creators. Russia, China, Cuba, etc. all have a class system and everyone is not equal. There are always more privileged people in a large social system. Probably always will. Communism is an old bugaboo word used to sneeringly silence people about the creative "group mind" behavior of open source. And even open source has a small group guiding the open source project so that it can take some shape. It is not a completely equal system.

Date reviewed: Mar 7, 2006 11:43 PM

Nickname: passerby

Review: @Bragador: Russia was not a socialist country. It was totalitarian country. Doesn't have any connection with socialism and Communism. If Russian "kolhoz" made by Stalin was socialism then I'm Jesus.

Date reviewed: Mar 7, 2006 11:43 PM

Nickname: Bragador

Review: @capitalman: You are talking like Communism is bad. Communism is actually quite good, since it brings everyone to share and work together. Open free software is a great example of that. Don't forget that Russia was a socialist country, not a communist country, despite their claims.

Date reviewed: Mar 7, 2006 5:29 PM

Nickname: SW_Guy

Review: Innobase and Sleepycat Software may have technology that complements Oracle's own products, but their technology also acts as two of the primary table types for MySQL, a company which presents possibly an even greater threat to Oracle.

Date reviewed: Mar 6, 2006 5:40 PM

Nickname: Anonymouse

Review: Capitalman - "The open source `movement' just sounds to me as communism." And there you show that you don't understand open source.

Date reviewed: Mar 6, 2006 4:07 PM

Nickname: joe

Review: Once again we have the dumb open source = communism comparison. Open source: can be modified by anyone one. Proprietary: controlled by one company that has the final say.

Date reviewed: Mar 6, 2006 10:24 AM

Nickname: frank

Review: I think this is a brilliant strategy for Oracle. This shift allows Oracle to fill gaps in its product portfolio, which it needs to do to compete with SAP. The fact that these are open source companies also makes the acquisitions less likely to draw government scrutiny, at least in the U.S. (where politicians seem to think OS is a form of communism). The SEC typically looks at market concentration to decide whether to investigate a merger. How do you quantify market share for open source companies like Innobase?

Date reviewed: Mar 5, 2006 11:24 PM

Nickname: madan

Review: One thing worries me sick, the last arguement from Bruce Perens where he says, "If Larry thinks he can have his way in the open source community, he's going to find he can't get any developers to work [with him]," is a very poor argument. If Larry can get jBoss to sell, what will stop him from throwing $150,000 to $200,000 for JBoss geeks who say may be working for $100,000, or less and gettin these folks on board? I am worried that big money will kill the OS movement over time. Sad but true. Thoughts?

Date reviewed: Mar 5, 2006 5:49 AM