Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:

+----[ Dr. Ross Lazarus ]--------------------------------------------- | I know that zope runs on everything else, but how do we reconcile the | DC/Sybase partnership announced late last year

[ snip... ]

| We're becoming a sybase/zope/linux dependent outfit; to whom should I | email my concerns - or is it time to move to another SQL backend?

They picked the wrong free UNIX platform. Linux has a whole lot of machines installed, but, not too many of them would be deployed in an Enterprise environment, where people would be happy to pay money for licenses.

Whilst I would ordinarily agree with some ofthis, in the case of Sybase, I have to disagree. I work primarily at a company called Hewlett Packard, not exactly a small company. We have service contracts with Sybase on NT and HP-UX (suprise). After over six months of trying to get sybase to work with us on getting the appropriate libraries to us to compile the SybaseDA on HP-UX, and then being told it must be faulty programming on the part of whomever developed the adapter, we gave up. This experience has left a real bad taste in my mouth regarding sybase. The good side of the coin, is that we dumped Sybase for the, and moved to straight ZODB. :) The claim that Linux is not deployed in Enterprise environments is uninformed at best. The most recent announcement came from Google, which claims 4000+ Linux servers. Clearly an enterpise environment. ( http://www.internetwk.com/lead/lead060100.htm ) HP is migrating many, many Enterprise Servers from NT and even HPUX to Linux boxes, in addition to porting Linux to their hardware (PA-RISC), and their tools to Linux. I am personally aware of over 600 machines deployed in that particular enterprise, and the number literally grows weekly. And, of course, there is IBM.

An OS heavily promoted by one specific individual who doesn't really believe in commercial software doesn't seem like the ultimate platform to aim high-priced internet application software at.

While I don't mean any offense, your characterization here is both unwarranted and unfounded. ESR and Linus (not sure exactly whom you refer to) both believe in commercial software just fine. In addition, if you look at the largest promoters of Linux, you will not find any one individual. Rather, you will find an array of companies, of all sizes; from ISP's to ol' Big Blue. IBM, for example, is in the process of porting most everything they have to Linux. And they do it for commercial reasons.

I think you'll find that Sybase the DB will still be released for Linux, just not their Internet Application Suite, which is a different kettle of fish.

IIRC, this is accurate. -- Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy, and have the root password.

Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:

+----[ Bill Anderson ]--------------------------------------------- | Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote: | > | > +----[ Dr. Ross Lazarus ]--------------------------------------------- | > | I know that zope runs on everything else, but how do we reconcile the | > | DC/Sybase partnership announced late last year | > | > [ snip... ] | > | > | We're becoming a sybase/zope/linux dependent outfit; to whom should I | > | email my concerns - or is it time to move to another SQL backend? | > | > They picked the wrong free UNIX platform. Linux has a whole lot of | > machines installed, but, not too many of them would be deployed in an | > Enterprise environment, where people would be happy to pay money for | > licenses. | | The claim that Linux is not deployed in Enterprise environments is uninformed at best. The most recent announcement came | from Google, which claims 4000+ Linux servers. Clearly an enterpise environment. | ( http://www.internetwk.com/lead/lead060100.htm )

err no. Read again... "not deployed in Enterprise environment, where people would be happy to pay money for..." as opposed to deployed where people want stuff for free - or as free as they can get it.

You may want to re-read the article. They _did_ pay for Redhat, even though they didn't _have_ to; though they didn't have to pay for licenses for all 4K+ machines. In fact, even at HP, many of my users prefer to go buy a RedHat boxed set, rather than use one of my CDs or install over the network. I would say people _wanting_ to pay for a product they can get for free trumps those who 'have to' pay for it. :^) BTW, most people in enterprise situations are not _happy_ to pay large licensing fees, it is just that they can afford it, and have in the past accepted it as mandatory.

Face it if you're doing web stuff using Zope (or anything else), you're not looking to go and pay Sybase for something just as good, with a hefty price-tag.

I use Zope not because it is free, but because it is _good_. I use it because I like it, it gets the job done, and does it well. Given that in my case we _have_ Sybase (IOW, it cost me nothing more for Sybase), and I use Zope instead your argument falls short. I have customers and clients who have paid for [Oracle, Informix, Sybase] Licenses, and some of them have dropped it and now use Zope/ZODB.

You still have to pay developers, and 'commercial' stuff usually attracts people at twice the rate of the going Open Source developers.

Not anymore, but I think we are using different terminology.

PHP is firmly entrenched as the ASP of Linux at this stage and it's going to take a very long stick and a very firm place to stand to shift it.

| And, of course, there is IBM.

Who do a lot of open stuff, with FreeBSD as well. But marketing requires a Linux presence these days... mustn't let that share price slip.. :-)

Yes, but that stil ldoesn't change the fact that they are doing _lots_ of Linux stuff. :^) Do yhey offer enterprise level 24x7 technical support for FreeBSD? :)

| > An OS heavily promoted by one specific individual who doesn't really believe | > in commercial software doesn't seem like the ultimate platform to aim | > high-priced internet application software at. | | While I don't mean any offense, your characterization here is both unwarranted and unfounded. ESR and Linus (not sure | exactly whom you refer to) both believe in commercial software just fine.

Actually referring to RMS...

My experience with RMS is that he promotes FSF more than Linux. He actually has an issue with Linux :)

| In addition, if you look at the largest promoters of Linux, you will not find any one individual. Rather, you will find | an array of companies, of all sizes; from ISP's to ol' Big Blue. IBM, for example, is in the process of porting most | everything they have to Linux. And they do it for commercial reasons.

One wonders if Oracle's Linux product has actually recouped them the development costs. Most of the larger Linux promoters are trying to get a leg into the 'smaller' market that was dominated by NT. If they can offer their products on hardware that doesn't cost more than a house, then they have opened a new market. Linux is obviously a means to an end here. They're trying to make a sale, they don't particularly care about Linux.

Which is, of course, irrelevant. If they support it, they support it. I consider it a given that any of the commercial outfits are getting into Linux for financial/commercial reasons. Now, I'll leave the list alone on this subject, I'm sure they'll appreciate it. {:^)= Bill -- Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy, and have the root password.