[Zope] Re: (OT) Re: sybase - hmmm

[Bill Anderson]

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.