rw2
We should really thank IBM from beginning, supporting first Linux, and then porting many of its mainframe OS, as well as Application to Linux, and open source. IBM with its install base has put solid stamp of approval to open source!
They are the best reference to use, for anybody that has apprehensions about open source!
Rgds,
Moshref
When you refer to OSS, there are 2-3 different dimensions: the use of
Linux/Apache/etc as the base for your IT infrastructure, using OSS
methodology for development of applications, and using OSS at the user
level (openoffice, moodle, globus, etc). The popularity varies widely
across these dimensions.
- Sasi
--
M Sasikumar, KBCS/ETU/OSS Divisions, CDAC Mumbai (formerly NCST) -
Navi Mumbai campus
We should really thank IBM from beginning, supporting first Linux, and then porting many of its mainframe OS, as well as Application to Linux, and open source. IBM with its install base has put solid stamp of approval to open source!
I think the current biggest negitivity against Open Source (I am a Sr. Linux
Administrator and just about everything I run is open source) in the business
is that it's a security hole. Why? They say because the source is open,
someone can find an exploit, exploit it and not report the exploit. This
typically isn't the case as many eyes see the code, and exploits are fixed
all the time.
It "could" happen, but hey it happens just as often (if not more) with closed
source.
Ben
Let’s stop with the Open Source chest-thumping – it’s not what this group is about, surely?
Ignoring the bogus claims about large enterprise adoption of Xen, I’m confused about the claim of Xen’s “phenomenal trajectory of improvements compared to VMware?”
Have you recently compared the feature set of Xen to VMware? Let me help you:
I’m all for distributed and open development, and we do that with our academic and community source programs, but can we please back on course to Cloud?
Thanks!
Steve Chambers | Senior Architect | VMware Technical & Enterprise Marketing | scha...@vmware.com | M: +44 7870 160976
From: cloud-c...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:cloud-c...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Jan Klincewicz
Sent: 15 August 2008 13:05
To:
cloud-c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Power of
Opensource!!!
Look at Xen and Cirix. Xen was originally conceived as a hypervisor stack for a world-wide grid. It is turning out to be a pretty viable commercial product (XenSever, Virtual Iron etc.) wrapped around an Open Source core. The fact that large commercial enterprises have adopted it has only made the Open 'source comminity stronger (withness the phenomenal trajectory of improvements compared to an all-commercial proprietary approach vs. VMware.
Did you really mean to say that VMware has thousands of software
developers writing code? Are you talking about 2,000 or 4,000? The
URL that you reference make no mention of the size of the development
team.
As a long time open source advocate I'm kind of bias. That said, we're
seeing a tonne of interest in our upcoming support for VMware's ESXi
in our open source Enomalism platform (AGPL). Most corporate users
have no interest in moving away from their VMware deployments. They
are looking at ways to reduce their costs. I think the general
consensus is if it ain't broke why fix it. That said, the pricing for
the higher end, feature bloated, centralized VMware offerings are not
exactly price conscience or particularly cloud oriented.
Let's for a minute assume someone is going to use VMware to build out
there public cloud (similar to EC2) using VMware Infrastructure
Foundation for 2 processors + Gold (12x5) 1 Year Support at $1,540.
Typically we're seeing an 8 core machine as the basis for our
deployments, so $6,160 per machine per year.
Hours in 1 year = 8 765 / $6,160 = .70/h an hour for vmware VI as a baseline.
At 70 cents per hour, it would be impossible to compete with Amazon's
baseline of 10 cents. We're also seeing the entry point for most
clouds in the area of 1000 servers. We're talking about a multi
million dollar investment in software. Most cloud deployments we're
seeing today are Xen based, not because of quality or ease of use, but
cost.
reuven
A few have pointed out that I forgot to include the division of the
amount of virtual servers which does reduce the cost.
70cents is per physical server, so 10 vm's per machine would be be 7
cents per vm, which is better.
ruv
To bring this slightly more on-topic: I think that, in reality, cloud computing may have a side effect of making people care very little about whether their cloud vendor is using open-source or not.
One of the major ideas behind cloud computing is that the user no longer has to worry about what the infrastructure is running, right? If I write my app in Python and upload it to AppEngine, does it matter to me whether Google is using an open source operating system or their own, private version of Linux? Does the *infrastructure* under EC2 matter to a user as much as the uptime and the experience?
I’m certainly not sounding a death knell for OSS, nor for commercial. I guess I’m agreeing (a bit) with Steve – this just seems orthogonal to the discussion of cloud computing.
Dan
To bring this slightly more on-topic: I think that, in reality, cloud computing may have a side effect of making people care very little about whether their cloud vendor is using open-source or not.
One of the major ideas behind cloud computing is that the user no longer has to worry about what the infrastructure is running, right? If I write my app in Python and upload it to AppEngine, does it matter to me whether Google is using an open source operating system or their own, private version of Linux? Does the *infrastructure* under EC2 matter to a user as much as the uptime and the experience?
I'm certainly not sounding a death knell for OSS, nor for commercial. I guess I'm agreeing (a bit) with Steve – this just seems orthogonal to the discussion of cloud computing.
Dan
Enablers and users have different contingencies to deal with.
Enablers want recurring revenues.
Users want services that bring more value than they cost.
It's why I believe users should not care about software or how those
valuable services are delivered.
In that frame of mind, Cloud Computing could be the future of computing.
But, as always, it won't be the solution to every problem, even though
countless enablers will try to market it to all.
While you wrote a long eloquent message, I have no idea what your
point was. Are you complaining that companies will 'vanish' technical
jobs and they should not do so out of love for their fellow citizens?
You don't like outsourcing, even to 'american' companies? Think fifty
or a hundred years from now, will we still need millions of
programmers throughout the world? Of course not. Everything will be in
the cloud except for some small percentage of really paranoid
organizations like the Templar Knights or the Freemasons.
I especially liked the idea of old men sitting at home using their
macs because Windows is too complex, I have never heard of that
scenario. What is your source for this observation?
Steve, I agree with you on this. Open source is a license and is just
part of the overall picture.
ruv
You have to isolate your API layer, make it data driven. Then switching Cloud providers should be significantly less painful.
Huh? Am I missing something? You can't equate open source with free,
but all open source software is free if you're willing to abide by the
license.
That said, cloud computing has the potential to do an end run around
most open source licenses, which only require publication of source or
changes when software is distributed. A cloud provider distributes no
software and is therefore immune to both GPL and MPL derivative
licenses. Google, for example, pays only a pittance for their lavish
use of open source software in their infrastructure. This is perfectly
legal, but not exactly what most open source developers had in mind.
What effect will this have on the open source community in the long
run? Hard to say.
In any event. I think it is clear that the hyperviisor stack will soon
be pereived as having near ZERO value, and the Management tools and
utilities that add REAL High Availability (not some lame best effort
restart) will be where the money is (what will be left to scrap over).
In the end, it is also the Support Infrastructure (which if cloud
computing really takes of may be handled by the cloud providers) which
will be needed.
In any event, I do not see continuing double-digit profit growth for
Proprietary hypervisor vendors now that a monopoly has been broken. I
don't think Wall Street sees that either.
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Cheers,
Jan
Regards
Alex
Huh? Am I missing something? You can't equate open source with free,
Steve Chambers wrote:
> Just don't equate open source with free or best value for money :-)
> Steve Chambers | Senior Architect | scha...@vmware.com | +44 (0) 7870 160976
>
>
but all open source software is free if you're willing to abide by the
license.
this is why In MySQL we talk always about TCO (total cost of ownership):
is not only the saving in term of licenses or subscriptions (depends on
the business model) but you have to take care about the hardware, the
headcounts involved, hw is easy to find experts on the market, and so on...
Thomas Lockney ha scritto:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Jim Starkey <jsta...@nimbusdb.com
> <mailto:jsta...@nimbusdb.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Steve Chambers wrote:
> > Just don't equate open source with free or best value for money :-)
> > Steve Chambers | Senior Architect | scha...@vmware.com
> <mailto:scha...@vmware.com> | +44 (0) 7870 160976
That does not mean that using Open Source is INHERENTLY better or
worse than proprietary versions. The market decides whether for
logical or emotional reasons which products succeed.
It is difficult to fathom that Oracle pays no attention to MYSQL or
that Microsoft can ignore the growth of Linux.
Commercial prodcts may have more features where Open Soirce versions
may boast better performance. To disparage either is ludicrous.
--
You can expect open source database systems to tolerate clouds, but not
exploit them. Later, when other folks have lead the way, they will
slowly catch up.
> It is difficult to fathom that Oracle pays no attention to MYSQL or
> that Microsoft can ignore the growth of Linux.
>
Oracle pay a vast amount of attention to MySQL, enough attention to buy
MySQL's only transactional storage engine out from underneath them.
I've never given a talk at a MySQL user conference without an Oracle
vice president in the first or second row (nice fellow, actually).
And don't believe for a nanosecond that Ray Ozzie doesn't spend a good
deal of his waking time worrying about Linux and open source. Their old
strategy was FUD. Now it seems to border on peaceful co-existence.
>
For consumers of software, it is foolish to focus on the intricacies of
software.
If you do, you end up in a rat race and a forever expanding IT budget,
where you find yourself advised to "Keep up with the Joneses". Hence,
you go along and stay hot and bothered with such details as RPC, CORBA,
SOM, COM, DCOM, JavaBeans, COM+, Jini, Web services, etc.
Each and every time, Gartner, IDC, Forester tell you (for a fee!) that
your enterprise must integrate these technologies or be at risk of a
severe lack of competitiveness.
I believe this is why Cloud Computing and SaaS are so appealing to
consumers of software. These approaches prioritize high level
requirements and SLAs vs. technical intricacies.
From a pricing standpoint, when Microsoft adopted their various
subscription models, the message was clear: Software in itself has no
interest ; it's the business value that software can deliver that matters.
Finally, I see vmware as a provider of tools that could boost the
development of Cloud Computing and SaaS. I don't think any business
person should focus how you do the things you do, but you are well
placed to be part of the solution they seek.
But the fact remains that the burden of dealing with change and
complexity is merely shifted to the "Cloud Provider" which is not
really that far removed from Outsourcing.
Let's face it, IT is a complex business, with a lot of moving parts.
If consolidation takes place and a smaller number of large IT shops
(cloud providers) evolve this will naturally result in a smaller
number of vendors offering a reduced number of technologies.
SaaS will undoubtedly be a boon to many organixations who should not
be in the IT business, but I fear from a larger perspective that
innovation will suffer without the competition which has existed in
the past century.
--
Also, there's nothing to say a cloud provider has to be massive.
TrustSaaS (and the other monitoring as a service providers) are not
(currently) run across thousands of servers but still play a critical
role in the cloud computing ecosystem.
Sam
Compliance is expensive and providers like postini have already taken
care of this for you by attaining SAS 70 type II, webtrust and other
audits-this alone is a significant value add.
> I've had many customers who were attempting to subscribe to ITIL best
> practices, and their Change Control policies alone prohibited taking
> advantage of a lot of benefits that today's "dynamic" data centers can
> provide.
...and they surely (will) have competitors who won't be hamstrung.
> It would seem to me that the economic benefits of cloud computing
> would tend to come from economies of scale, where the compute resources are
> purchased in volume. If end-users need to manage multiple cloud providers,
> they are not gaining as much as they would from a one-stop shop.
Do you know which power station wiggled the electrons you just used to
send these 1's and 0's? No, and you don't need to. Something like 80%
of mine were nuclear but I'm certainly not about to build a nuclear
plant to benefit from the technology, and nor do I need to.
Sam on iPhone
It has it's place and it's an efficient way of explaining to users
what all the fuss is about.
> I may not care who GENERATED the electricity, but I am going to care about
> how I get single phase, vs. three phase, and how many KVA I get get to "n"
> number of racks, etc.
Indeed even with a well defined commodity (the electron) there are
many variables. We can manage this complexity by standardizing on
platform neutral technologies like java rather than processor native
binaries and by breaking problems up to increase granularity, but
we're making progress in this direction with initiatives like OVF.
I have written a blog post summarizing the relationship between
different OSS licenses and the Affero GPL, which is of particular
importance to Cloud comuting and SaaS vendors. A lot of cloud
computing infrastructure uses Linux, the LAMP stack, Xen in addition
to many many tools for manging the network and writing and deploying
software.
http://thoughts.vinayakhegde.com/2008/08/18/cloud-computing-and-open-source/
-- Vinayak
Vinayak, I think you have a very optimistic view on the the efficacy of the the AGPL. IHMO, it solves nothing. I wrote about it here and here. The gist of the issue is that it's just too easy to get around the provisions of this license. From my original post:
This ambiguity leads directly to the trivial ways in which the license can be avoided: Take the AGPL’d code, rip out the ‘remote user interaction’ interface components and replace them a ‘local, machine interacting’ interface (i.e. a different API) and I’m done. If you don’t think this is possible, then we disagree on what a user interaction is and a machine interaction is. Which is exactly my point. A slightly more liberal reading of this license would conclude that a simple (local) proxy isolated the ‘remote user’ from the Work, which undermines the license in it’s entirely.
‘ASP loophole’ is too complex a problem to be addressed by the addition of a single paragraph in a document that had different licensing objectives. Or for that matter, by any license that covers only a portion of a complex, distributed service offering.
Given the widespread interest in anything 'cloud' and the meager adoption of the AGPL, I think people are (not) voting with their feet.
We've licensed our Enomalism software using AGPL. I would disagree
with your assessment of the AGPL. Any license can be "interpreted" in
a manor that suits your particular vantage point. The law in general
can be interpreted, that's why we have a legal system to help set
these kind of precedents. We've chosen the AGPL for Enomalism because
it generally dictates how we intend on our software to distributed and
utilized. Simply, "any users who interact with the licensed software
over a network needs to receive the source for any revisions made to
our source code". We also assume a good portion of the people who use
our Enomalism Elastic Computing platform will completely disregard the
licenses terms. We hope that a certain percentage will abide by the
license, even if its a small percentage.
Here are some pros and cons we outlined when looking at the AGPL.
* Based on GPLv3, but has an additional term to allow users who
interact with the licensed software over a network to receive the
source for that program
"…if you modify the Program, your modified version must
prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a
computer network an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of
your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a
network server at no charge…"
* Pros
o Provides more "protection" to commercial open source
software companies by applying the viral property to SaaS (hosted) use
o OSI approved
o Builds on the wide use and acceptance of the GPL (V2.0)
o AGPL is suitable for International use (GPL V2.0 was U.S. specific)
o Patents are explicitly addressed
* Cons:
o This is a very new license, not yet broadly understood or accepted
o Software under this license may not be combined with
software under several other OSI-approved licenses
o Copyleft clauses may inhibit adoption by (Open Source)
customers due to compliance risk
+ The SaaS vendors and Hosting Providers will tend to
avoid software under this license, if they think they might ever need
to modify it.
AGPL Background
* Note about "protection": the AGPL only requires a hosted
application or system provider to provide access to their source if
they have modified the software.
* Note that the AGPL is less "combinable" than the GPLv3. Here's
what GNU has to say about this:
o "Please note that the GNU AGPL is not compatible with
GPLv2. It is also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict
sense: you cannot take code released under the GNU AGPL and use it
under the terms of GPLv3, or vice versa. However, you are allowed to
combine separate modules or source files released under both of those
licenses in a single project, which will provide many programmers with
all the permission they need to make the programs they want. See
section 13 of both licenses for details."
* The best chart I've seen on license compatibility with the GPL
is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licenses
GNU provides a good summary specific to GPLv3 at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
And the more specific details may be found at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Reuven
www.enomalism.com
I think some of your objections have been answered in the comments of
your own blog post. AGPL is not perfect, but that does not mean it is
not enforceable. My focus on the intent of AGPL and not on dissecting
the AGPL itself. There are grey areas but do you want to bet your
business on the grey areas. People said the same thing about GPLv2
(that is not enforceable in a court of law). They were wrong. GPLv2
has been upheld in courts and damages had to be paid / changes ahd to
be done to get around it. There is a site tracks GPL violations.
(http://gpl-violations.org/).
> Given the widespread interest in anything 'cloud' and the meager adoption
> of the AGPL, I think people are (not) voting with their feet.
There is widespread interest in the cloud. But step back a second and
compare the deployment of desktop software to that of cloud computing
- the share of cloud computing is really miniscule. Cloud computing is
in it's infancy now. The Mozilla Public License or the Apache License
have less than 2% of the software licensed under them. But lot of
world-class software is licensed under them. Maybe AGPL will fail - no
one will adopt it. But it's too early to pass a verdict.
This is getting way too off-topic for this list.
-- Vinayak
Veering off topic into open source land again, but the actual number of decided cases involving open source licenses is extremely small. Sure, there have been violations, but most have been settled without the courts weighing in so to say that 'they were wrong' about the enforceability of the GPL in 'a court of law' is simply not supported by the facts. Mark Radcliffe at DLP Piper blogs about this all the time. On the recent Artistic License case he commented: