Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

68 comments

Sounds good to me (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033800)

Few companies have the capacity to advance open source, and at the same time work for the shareholders. Seems pretty obvious to me that Oracle isn't one of those companies. Maybe they should have looked at Redhat for pointers?

Re:Sounds good to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36033864)

Oracle has the capacity. What they don't need are the competitors. Someday they'll join Novell in the bone-yard.

Re:Sounds good to me (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36034230)

Novell Lost its way decades ago. Back in the days Novell Netware was key in the small-mid size business server. Cheaper then Unix more powerful then Windows/Dos, ran on standard hardware. Then they let Microsoft NT Take over, because Novell made to many features that they thought was important and didn't care what the customer wanted. After NT took over Linux came in and scavenged the rest. Sure Novell took a pro-Linux stradigy but it was too late. Suse was always second fiddle (in mindset) to Redhat. I think the only reason Novell lasted as long as it did was because SCO rallied the community behind Novell to help stop them. But after that was done Novell failed to see how fickle Open Source Zealots are and once they remeber that Novell was a company and did a pattent agreement with Microsoft and that Novell wasn't IBM that means they can be hated again.

Re:Sounds good to me (1)

drunkahol (143049) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033866)

When they looked at Red Hat, they saw a distro that they wanted, so copied it, before ruining it and pretending it was theirs. OK, so they weren't actually pretending it was theirs, they were more pretending that it was any good!

Re:Sounds good to me (3, Interesting)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033894)

Few companies have the capacity to advance open source, and at the same time work for the shareholders. Seems pretty obvious to me that Oracle isn't one of those companies. Maybe they should have looked at Redhat for pointers?

I dont think Oracle was looking to run Sun as an open source business at all. I think they were going to try and monetise their OSS offerings, possibly even close source them from the next version if possible.

What I think Oracle didn't count on was the amount of community support Sun relied on, possibly that was why Sun struggled. Whilst I think that OSS community help is a great thing, you still need a plan to make money as a business and this is quite possible to do without being evil like MS or Oracle or Apple.

Maybe Sun should have taken a few pointers from Red Hat.

Re:Sounds good to me (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36034592)

> evil like MS or Oracle or Apple

Updating my scorecard...

Re:Sounds good to me (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36034886)

While you're updating, remember to move Apple ahead of MS and put Oracle at the top. If you've ever had to deal with Oracle licensing, you'd understand they're more even than Apple and MS combined.

Re:Sounds good to me (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36034874)

What I think Oracle didn't count on was the amount of community support Sun relied on

Except for the fact that Sun's OSS projects were primarily developed in house by its own employees?

Re:Sounds good to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043602)

"Maybe Sun should have taken a few pointers from Red Hat."

I'm sure Yellow Lemur could have helped too.

Re:Sounds good to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36033944)

Few companies have the capacity to advance open source, and at the same time work for the shareholders

If by "few" you mean Google, IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Intel, HP, Nokia, Broadcom, Fujitsu, AMD, Yahoo, Twitter, and Facebook, then you're absolutely right!

Re:Sounds good to me (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043076)

Might want to take Nokia off that list now that they have abandoned Meego (luckily Intel picked it up).

Re:Sounds good to me (2)

McLoud (92118) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033952)

And while at it, look around for other opensource projects on their hand that they can't handle it themselves and work out the issue BEFORE another fork happens wasting everyone else's time

Re:Sounds good to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36038780)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that they WANT to advance open source! They don't.

Re:Sounds good to me (1)

Meski (774546) | more than 3 years ago | (#36044542)

Instead of SCO

Very Uncharacteristic (3, Interesting)

bsharitt (580506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033812)

Why are they trying to make amends? This is Oracle, hasn't splitting communities and driving projects into the ground been working out great for everything they got from Sun?

Re:Very Uncharacteristic (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033880)

Why are they trying to make amends? This is Oracle, hasn't splitting communities and driving projects into the ground been working out great for everything they got from Sun?

Looks like the purchase of Sun is going quite as planned. Goes to show just how much community support Sun relied on. If they were planning to monetise open source, they did it in the most pants on head retarded way possible.

Re:Very Uncharacteristic (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36034260)

Normally when one company buys a troubled company it is usually because they can see a plan to make it profitable again. The buying company can see a lot of the waste that is going on that people on the inside couldn't see (often because they were the benefactors of the waste). After they buy them they work to clear out the waste and get the company back to profitable again.

Innovation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36033814)

Looking at Oracle handling of Sun assets, it makes me wonder, will we see any innovation from Oracle, or are they going to sit tight on their position and only harvest support licenses?

No flame war here, just wondering with their skills and talent could they bring the IT forward instead of delegating to others?

Re:Innovation (3, Interesting)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033920)

Looking at Oracle handling of Sun assets, it makes me wonder, will we see any innovation from Oracle, or are they going to sit tight on their position and only harvest support licenses?

No flame war here, just wondering with their skills and talent could they bring the IT forward instead of delegating to others?

Skills? Talent? Um, have you seen Oracle's offerings? PL/SQL is at least a decade behind even minor competitors' database offerings, and their tie-in development environments make VB6 look good.. The only thing Oracle is talented at is lock-in and convincing governments and corporations that they need Oracle.

Re:Innovation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36033986)

Will agree on PL/SQL. I work in an Oracle shop and write in it, and it has got to be one of the most feature barren languages I've ever used.

Re:Innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36035140)

Feature barren? PL/SQL has BEGIN and END code blocks *and* semicolons. It has four different ways of specifying an integer. It has BLOBs and LONGs. And it has pretty much all of SQL kinda sorta jammed in there, with all the klugey non-workingness of a separate language with its own runtime environment and type system.

Re:Innovation (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36034212)

Until alternatives win those contracts and perform Oracle is still going to be able to say they run the largest and most important databases in the world. Banks, governments, really almost everything of the utmost national and international importance runs Oracle in some fashion on the back-end. Sure, Amazon uses their own proprietary data store for their internet facing site, but all the back-office stuff is Oracle, etc. etc. I like PostgreSQL as much as the next guy and I use it whenever I'm allowed, but it hasn't proven itself the way Oracle has.

Re:Innovation (1)

swilver (617741) | more than 3 years ago | (#36034530)

You mean Oracle has proven that is a bloated piece of 1970's code that needs handholding at every turn? Even behind fat abstraction layers Oracle manages to leak through and annoy everyone with its ridiculous restrictions and stupid optimizer decisions. Oracle is like x86's; but atleast those were actually improved over the years and eventually became a fairly nice and modern architecture.

It's abundantly clear they donot care, as long as they can sell expensive support contracts and bill you by the CPU.

Oracle wins contracts on marketing alone, period.

Re:Innovation (3, Informative)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36034732)

It's abundantly clear they donot care, as long as they can sell expensive support contracts and bill you by the CPU.

I'd go one step further and say that they intentionally avoid updating their software. The more difficult their software is to use, the more consultants they can charge for. First they get you by the balls, then they squeeze.

Re:Innovation (2)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36035052)

I never argued that Oracle is technically better than any of the alternatives. I said the alternatives have not won the contracts that have allowed them to prove themselves. It's as simple as that.

Re:Innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36037936)

I beg to differ. Languages aside until another database can scale as well as Oracle and still be reliable while being fast Oracle will win the big contracts. Just because another database is "coded" better doesn't mean its better.

Re:Innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36039090)

The only thing Oracle is talented at is lock-in and convincing governments and corporations that they need Oracle.

Some companies are realizing that they don't need Oracle and are switching to competing products. And I don't mean small companies, companies in the Fortune 50 (not a type) are switching.

I liked Oracle up to version 10 and the introduction of the cost based optimizer. The grief that thing has caused and still causing increased the TCO above what it should be, making other products attractive.

I doubt it's altruism (3, Insightful)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033900)

Most likely they just couldn't monetize it, so they don't want to be responsible for it either.

Re:I doubt it's altruism (1)

spikenerd (642677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36035824)

It's simple. If they have had a true change of heart, they will stop trying to sue competitors for using Java, and we should welcome them as a new ally. If they are just trying to distract us from making noise about that, then they will continue making token concessions in insignificant areas without ever backing down where it counts. There is no need to be cynical about this token concession--all will be revealed soon enough.

Too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36033912)

We've already moved on to Jenkins. Next we will abandon Java.

Re:Too late (1)

ArAgost (853804) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033948)

“we”?

Re:Too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36034146)

Yes, all of us except you.

ralph; 'hudson' area is where we lived very well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36033942)

as we recall, ralph is a genuine native elder, & spiritual leader of the temporarily totally submerged southern hillarians. he claims that the universe 'owns' real estate etc..., & it should be only appropriately cared for, by us. it's all in the somewhat disheartening yet hope filled teepeeleaks etchings, which are a part of the genuine native elders' spiritual & political leadership initiative. yahoo. honestly.

Resiliency of Open Source (5, Interesting)

CynicTheHedgehog (261139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36034202)

Seems like they underestimated the open source communities willingness and ability to fork and move on. I noticed a week or so ago that our Hudson server now said "Jenkins" all over it and it's still cranking away. My Natty installation has LibreOffice all over it now, and honestly I can't say I've noticed any difference. In the face of this, it is impossible to "monetize" the product itself--all closing the source accomplishes is the exclusion of community contributions. Maybe they're finally getting it.

Then again, Hudson/Jenkins are kind of niche products ... how many people would actually pay for a continuous build service whose core functionality comes from the underlying build system (Maven and Sonar)?

What will be interesting is to see if the open source projects go back to the former branding once the projects are given back. If not, then that would kind of send a symbolic message that the original project died at the hands of Oracle and that its too late for amends.

Re:Resiliency of Open Source (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36034514)

If not, then that would kind of send a symbolic message that the original project died at the hands of Oracle and that its too late for amends.

Seems to have happened that way at least once with LibreOffice.

Re:Resiliency of Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36034818)

We already switched to Jenkins from Hudson, but we could switch back just as easily. I guess you never worked for a big company. They buy shit like this all the time (CI, SDLC/ALM systems, version control, SCA, job schedulers, database servers, enterprise monitoring, etc. A large company has established vendors unless there's some type of open-source culture in place.

Re:Resiliency of Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36034848)

As for paying for a build system, I am almost ready to actually put money down for Quickbuild. The ease of use is a big factor. Much easier to create and maintain builds with complex setups. That way when I am away, I can avoid the support calls because it is so simple to use and understand the configuration.. Otherwise I might have gone with Jenkins/Hudson. Because the voodoo of maintaining and updating Cruise Control was too much for people before I took over.

Re:Resiliency of Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36041018)

how many people would actually pay for a continuous build service whose core functionality comes from the underlying build system (Maven and Sonar)?

We did. After a couple of years of being frustrated by a few Hudson quirks, we finally broke down and bought Bamboo. It was much more reliable and had features that we felt were worth the small price we paid. It doesn't take too much developer time savings before it becomes worth it to spend $800. And for small teams, it's even more of a no-brainer at $10.

The point? (3, Interesting)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 3 years ago | (#36034366)

What was the point of buying Sun again? Aside from the hardware, the whole company was built around open source software. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Java, Solaris, MySQL or OpenOffice or a smaller project. If Oracle can't figure out how to handle open source, they wasted their money.

They've already scared developers away from Java. It's only going to get worse.

Re:The point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36034778)

The point is the hardware. Oracle can sell a an integrated hardware/software solution, and doesn't need to involve HP or IBM for its big steel.

Re:The point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36035064)

Oracle's big money comes from big companies. They didn't waste their money if they can tell a company "you can go to four vendors, and a fifth for integration services, or we can do it all for you." Nine times out of ten, a businessman will go to the single vendor, given the option.

Re:The point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36037790)

Ding Ding Ding. Oracle bought Sun strictly for the hardware business for their all in one solution. Now they don't need to rely on competitors hardware. The software side is a bonus. With a company this size it takes months of red tape to reach a decision so this handover to OS isn't suprising that it took this long.

Re:The point? (1)

MareLooke (1003332) | more than 3 years ago | (#36035252)

They got Java, if they figure out they can squeeze money out of something else that will just be an added bonus.

Re:The point? (1)

Teckla (630646) | more than 3 years ago | (#36035660)

They got Java, if they figure out they can squeeze money out of something else that will just be an added bonus.

How can Oracle monetize Java, enough to make the mammoth purchase price of Sun worth it?

Serious question.

Re:The point? (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 3 years ago | (#36035916)

As far as I can tell, Oracle bought Sun to get hold of Java. The reason seems to be not to make money from Java, but to make sure they have control of a critical piece of software. Oracle has a massive investment in Java, and could you imagine how screwed they would have been if someone like Microsoft had bought Sun?

Re:The point? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36048476)

How can Oracle monetize Java, enough to make the mammoth purchase price of Sun worth it?

J2SE and J2EE are pretty much free, but J2ME's still got lots of money in it. Only J2SE/J2EE's pretty much free (though you can bet J2EE's going to have tons of Oracle support), but J2ME's widely deployed and heavily licensed.

You see, all those dumbphones and featurephones with JVMs in them have J2ME licenses in them that contribute a not-insignicant amount of patent licensing fees back to Sun/Oracle, hence Oracle's lawsuit against Android.

Re:The point? (1)

Adayse (1983650) | more than 3 years ago | (#36041884)

The point was to have the most pretentious name unchallenged. How can buying that be a waste a money?

Historical Quote (2)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36034610)

"Oracle works best in a 35mm slide presentation."
Unknown

Re:Historical Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36035020)

Heard it like:

-"What platform does Oracle run best on?"
-"A 35mm slide projector."

(may have been upgraded to Powerpoint nowadays)

With Jenkins, does this matter? (1)

lukpac (66596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36034982)

I haven't been following the Hudson/Jenkins saga *that* closely, but it was my understanding that most of the developers that had been working on Hudson had moved over to Jenkins and that Hudson itself had basically been left behind in the dust. Even if Hudson gets moved to the EF, will anybody care?

Re:With Jenkins, does this matter? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36038638)

I care, Jenkins isn't as good a name as Hudson. It'll be good to get the old name back.

ITworld LIVE (1)

devjoe (88696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36035066)

Is it just me, or is the ITworld LIVE feature of their web site one of the most annoying features ever? Many web sites have a section that provides links to other recent articles, but this one lists new users joining the site, and responses in forums, and other seemingly unrelated activity that has occurred in the last day. And instead of just putting a list on the page, or putting it in a box you can scroll to see it all, they put it in some sort of box that scrolls all the time. This makes it look like it is updating to show new activity, but it isn't; it just repeatedly scrolls through the same items, one at a time, and then jumps back to the top when it reaches the end. The same items are always there, and the times do not update; the person who joined from 1 minute 19 seconds before I loaded the page remains the first item, with that same time shown.

Re:ITworld LIVE (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36044710)

Can it be blocked?

What is Hudson (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#36035328)

Taking a *FAST* look at the linked articles and Google it wasn't clear what the Hudson project is making. What is the Hudson project making?

Re:What is Hudson (1)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 3 years ago | (#36035640)

A continuous integration build management system. Compile code on commit, run tests, send emails to people when things fail, handle dependencies between build artifacts and all that. The kind of thing that people used to have to build on top of make 15 years ago, and used to require entire teams of people to maintain and operate.

Re:What is Hudson (0)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#36035762)

So, it does what ANT does ( plus a few more thing ) for the Java world?

Thanks hibiki_r

Re:What is Hudson (2)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36036290)

( plus a few more thing )

While you probably "could" build a Hudson type system using Ant, Hudson is not ANT ++. It can use ANT to build and run tests, but can also use any number of other tools. Continuous build management systems are an invaluable addition to a developers workflow. If you're developing Java then Hudson/Jenkins is well worth looking into.

Re:What is Hudson (1)

sitkill (893183) | more than 3 years ago | (#36037164)

this x 10

Most notably, if you have different environments with different build, different servers, different svn locations, etc, etc etc. If you have a continuous build system and haven't looked at Hudson, I'd highly recommend it.

Re:What is Hudson (1)

robi2106 (464558) | more than 3 years ago | (#36040980)

CI systems also provide a handy central location to track all SW dev activity for all projects. You can tie all different dev platforms (Linux, Mac, Win, etc) to Jenkins and see build stats for everything in real time. Build node fail overs are automatically handled if you have a cloud of connected build servers so hardware problems are removed from causing any interruption to your SW deployment. Even if the underlying tasks are accomplished on the individual machines by Ant, MSBuild, windows .bat, there is still a central location to track & assign everything. I used to build for a dozen different SW projects manually.... logging on to the build nodes, checking out from SVN, pulling in dependencies, and then manually calling all the VisualStudio build targets. Jenkins greatly simplifies and automates those manual tasks, even if under the hood the same tasks are performed.

Re:What is Hudson (1)

Dalmarf (1455985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36037424)

That's a bit of an over-simplification! If you do use Ant, Hudson/Jenkins will make use of your Ant build (you'll continue to have an Ant build).
But it's much more than that - It keeps track of the builds done for projects, tracks the resulting jars and wars are used in other projects. You can easily see things like "Who ran the build?", "When?", "What code was changed in such-and-such project?" long after builds were done.
We've been using Hudson (we'll probably soon switch to the Jenkins fork) for our JEE projects for a few years now. It's indispensable. We don't use much more than the essentials in most projects and there's no question that it saves us effort and simplifies managing builds and all the data that go with a build.
We generally have a project set up to retrieve a build from CVS or Subversion. For those of us that want to make passing JUnit tests a requirement for the build it will not only can do that but it can keep track of the success rates.
You should try it out, particularly if your current builds are done using Ant. It's easy to set up, works nicely with CVS or Subversion, and it has a lot of features that take advantage of your existing Ant build setup.

Re:What is Hudson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36041030)

Swing and a miss. It uses ant (typically) but does much more. But you sound like the type who would rather create and maintain a number of scripts to do what Hudson does so... yes - it's basically ant.

It's a bit like ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36035544)

... a vampire offering you iron supplements.

Oracle has donoted some project to Open Source (1)

fatp (1171151) | more than 3 years ago | (#36036236)

Actually, Oracle has donated some project to Open Source community... Yes those are not successful projects, but this is not the first time Oracle do things like this. Examples include EclipseLink, Toplink Essentials (these are essentially the same thing), Apache Trinidad...

The lead developers left (1)

pinkstuff (758732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36037876)

The oldest and most crucial team members left and started the Jenkins fork of Hudson. I read this as Oracle panicking they have no one capable of maintaining Hudson, so have given up on it as an Oracle product.

Conversation with Larry (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36038852)

Larry: "Can we make money from it RIGHT NOW?"
advisor: "No sir. Maybe in a few..."
Larry: "Get it the FUCK OUT OF MY COMPANY!"

This appears to be how Oracle has dealt with every developmental project from Sun, not just open source.

Long Live Jenkins (1)

benjto (1175995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36039860)

The Jenkins fork essentially made this a non-event. Here at work we have been using Hudson on Ubuntu. After an apt-get upgrade, Hudson is now Jenkins on our system. The only pain point was the change from /var/lib/hudson to /var/lib/jenkins.

Oracle needs to learn that in the Java world, communities and personalities matter more than corporate branding. Most don't know Hudson as the CI project from Sun, they know it as the easy to use CI project created by Kohsuke Kawaguchi [java.net] while working at Sun. Java itself was created by this guy named James Gosling. Guess what? Both left Sun/Oracle after Oracle took the reins. The battle over Hudson was about brand. Oracle was loosing the battle because they were loosing the people. That is where much of the brand equity lies.

Too Late (1)

robi2106 (464558) | more than 3 years ago | (#36040758)

Oracle is, as usual, too late. I operate a large Hudson cluster for a top 5 tech company (dozens of build nodes, quartets of backup servers, big SAN storage for all the artifacts) and we immediately jumped on Jenkins and have no plans of looking back at Hudson no matter who runs it. We are sticking with where ever Kawaguchi takes this project, as are most of Hudson's users. Given that some of our engineer's revisions and new features have been or are being rolled into Jenkins, we are not going to be wooed back by anything Oracle does (or doesn't do). I have a suspicion that a vast majority of Hudson's user base feels the same.

eclipse should backoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36050964)

well, an open source project belongs to the community and community has moved the porject to jenkins so hudson is a dead piece of code.

if eclipse has any respect and human feeling to open source community and right ownership justice then when oracle proposed them to offer hudson they shoud have refused and rather have asked first to jenkins community to join eclipse.

here i see first culprit was oracle and now second culprit is eclipse who is joining now to oracle to kill jenkins by biasing hudson.

backoff eclipse

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...