Open source a no-brainer for SaaS providers

Open source will start to dominate software infrastructure for providers of SaaS (Software as a Service) within three years, according to Gartner analyst Yefim Natis. Lower cost and better flexibility, compared to closed source, or proprietary software, are key factors for the growing popularity of open source in this segment of the market.

read more

Dear Sun, Please Shut Up

One of my favorite movies of all time is Office Space. In particular I think John McGinley is brilliant as one of the two Bob consultants. One of my favorite lines of his is when he's interviewing Michael Bolton (David Herman) and says "I am. I'm a Michael Bolton fan!"

I'm that way about Sun - I'm a Sun fan. I think they have done so much great stuff over the last few years in terms of open source. They are a totally remade company, and it's really awesome.

But I have to say, it's getting pretty damned annoying and depressing that some of their top dudes (and yes, they are all dudes) frequently let the downright dumbest things leave their lips. I blogged about an earlier instance of this that occurred during their analyst call right after they announced plans to acquire MySQL. At least Schwartz and Green did better on the do-over call that followed the official closing of the MySQL deal, which took place just 6 weeks later (well done!).

Now, it seems, their VP of Java Marketing has caught the disease, splurting out in geeky exuberation that he just can't wait to port JVM to Apple's iPhone and iPod touch. Problem is, as I read in el reg, there's this little thing called the Apple End User License Agreement that explicitly forbids it.

As the article makes painfully clear, it would be one thing if Klien had said something innocuous like "we would love to take advantage of the newly-released SDK to port JVM to these innovative devices," or something like that. But, oh nooo. Instead, he dove head first into the pile of manure, saying that he and his team (any of them still have a job, I wonder?) had spent the past 24 hours "furiously looking through" the Apple documentation. This caused el reg to wonder out loud if any of them can read (LMAO).

Walks like a trend, talks like a trend, must be a trend. Sun, if not for your own sake, then for the sake of those of us who are rooting and sticking up for you, please put some stricter corporate marketing/communications policies in place.

Microsoft's Hilf on Interoperability - source Uberpulse

good perspective from Hilf, who sounds like he has a cold, on the changes happening inside Microsoft and what they mean for the industry.

The Microsoft Patent and Open Source Thingy

I think Red Hat's EVP and General Counsel does a good job defining the skeptical response to Microsoft's announcement. While I agree with their desire to see actions, I am confused by the problem Red Hat and others have with Microsoft's limiting the patent license exclusion to non-commercial developers or non-commercial distribution. To me, that seems to pass the common sense test.

If I think about an example, let's say someone who works as a programmer at a for-profit open source company, say Groundwork Open Source, makes a contribution to the expressly non-commercial Open Source project Nagios that includes code that talks to Microsoft's stuff. As long as that piece of code is distributed in a non-commercial way, no problem. But if Groundwork decides to include that bit of functionality in their commercial solution (which may or may not be Open Source), then Groundwork needs to get a license (which Microsoft promises to provide in a non-discriminatory way and at a fair rate - and btw, I agree wholeheartedly with the skeptics here - proof will be in the pudding). I struggle to see what's unfair about this or how it differs substantially from the stance taken by commercial open source companies that have different license terms for different versions / uses of their product - companies like MySQL, and Alfresco. Alfresco's licensing page puts it this way:

Alfresco Software Ltd. provides its software (enterprise content management system, web content management system) under a number of flexible licenses, designed to meet the particular requirements of different types of users:

For Open Source Projects

• If you are developing and distributing open source software under the GNU General Public License (“GPL”), then you are free to use Alfresco under the GPL License. More Info

• If you are developing and distributing open source software under an OSI-Approved License, but not the GPL, and want to link Alfresco’s GPL software with yours, Alfresco provides the GPL License with a FLOSS Exception. More Info

For Commercial OEMs, ISVs and VARs

For OEMs, ISVs, and VARs who distribute Alfresco with their proprietary products, and do not wish to license and distribute their source code under the GPL, Alfresco provides a flexible OEM Commercial License. For more details please see our OEM Program Information.

For Enterprises, Government Organizations, Small-to-Medium-sized Businesses

Alfresco licenses Alfresco Enterprise under a Commercial License to paid subscribers, similar to how MySQL, Red Hat, and other leading open source companies license their technology. Those wishing to use Alfresco for free under the GPL should download Alfresco Community. Our Alfresco Enterprise software solution is the industry’s leading enterprise content management system. It comes with full enterprise-class production-level support; documentation; certification of a range of third-party databases, middleware, operating systems, and applications; timely resolution of bugs or other errors in the code; and updates and upgrades.

I just don't see how Microsoft's position is substantively different from Alfresco's

Bravo Microsoft

So I've spent a bit of time pouring over Microsoft's Interoperability announcement and I have to say I am impressed. It really looks like they're starting to get it, and I agree with them that it will be good for the industry, and it will also be good for Microsoft.

Here are a few excerpts that will be of particular interest to Open Source folks:

• Microsoft is providing a covenant not to sue open source developers for development or non-commercial distribution of implementations of these protocols. These developers will be able to use the documentation for free to develop products. Companies that engage in commercial distribution of these protocol implementations will be able to obtain a patent license from Microsoft, as will enterprises that obtain these implementations from a distributor that does not have such a patent license.
  
• Expanding industry outreach and dialogue. An ongoing dialogue with customers, developers and open source communities will be created through an online Interoperability Forum. In addition, a Document Interoperability Initiative will be launched to address data exchange between widely deployed formats.

Of All the Hurdles to a Merger

Microsoft would face the task of integrating the culture of Yahoo into its own. Merging corporate cultures is generally a major undertaking in any acquisition. What would set this integration apart, though, is where the culture clash is likely to occur — in the two companies’ basic philosophies on technology.

read more | digg story

Open Source: Changing the Software Supply Chain for Good

The ability for enterprises and the IT service providers (aka VARs) that serve them to customize open source software is why it is the better way to deliver software.

SugarCRM Distribution Case Study (originally published in LinuxWorld Magazine, February, 2006)

SugarCRM, the open source customer relationship management company, offers a good example of how to motivate and empower channels in an open source model. SugarCRM has several versions of their product, the freely available Sugar Open Source base product, and commercial Sugar Professional and Sugar Enterprise versions. They've signed up 70 partners worldwide in 15 months, a community that now contributes some 30 to 40% of the company's revenue. Because these partners have access to the source code, they do things like local language translation - half of the languages the product is offered in were developed and are maintained by partners. Partners also contribute enhancements to the SugarCRM open source community, called SugarForge.org, enhancements that include LDAP integration/authentication, plug-ins to other contact repositories, and skins. Interestingly, just as SugarCRM offers different product tiers (free and two commercial flavors, all open source), so too do many of SugarCRM's partners. Many post product extensions to SugarCRM on SugarForge.org, which can be downloaded and distributed free, and they also offer commercial versions of these extensions for heavier-duty usage. In this way, the hybrid free/commercial open source model exemplified by SugarCRM spawns an entire ecosystem of hybrid resellers/developers.

By directly participating in the improvement of open source products, partners benefit by offering products that are tailored to their customers' needs. This helps their sales by giving them the flexibility to custom-fit the product to meet their client's needs, and it also adds an important revenue stream, since partners can charge for truly custom integration and development. One such SugarCRM partner, AnySoft (www.anysoft.com.br/sugarsuite), has developed about 20 new modules for Sugar Suite, one of which earned them the spot as current SugarCRM Project of the Month. According to AnySoft CEO Marcelo Leite, "I always try to have the user's perspective of the product, and use our business experience to understand how the software can make a company work better." Leite adds, "One of the modules I created, the Organizational Chart, lets users have a visual representation of who's who in the customer account, easily rearrange the tree, and keep the focus on the right target." Sweet.

What's more, the emerging popularity by companies like SugarCRM to offer both freely distributed versions and commercial versions of their products allows traditional VARs to ease their way into open source. They can begin by simply reselling the commercial version and offering traditional integration and support services. Once they become more comfortable with the product, with how their customers use it and how their customers would like to see it improved, they can bring a developer or two on board to build a custom module for that customer. The choice is theirs to make this enhancement freely available to the vendor and other VARs or to charge for it.

read more | digg story

Average IT spending growth down, pressure to reduce costs up

Source: CIO Insight

CIO insight survey shows IT budgets growing more slowly, but money still available for high priority initiatives like Virtualization and Open Source.

read more | digg story

Will the Recession Help or Hurt Open Source?

Well, it looks like we're going to find out the answer to this question over the coming months. The latest piece of data on the service sector seems to have convinced everyone that we are in a recession, and it could be a doosey.

One of the things I've heard some open sourcers say is how they often get stopped by purchasing. Line management loves their product, it does all that the expensive proprietary systems do (or all that the company needs them to do) and it usually costs a fraction. So on down the line it goes, until the proposal lands on the desk of purchasing - and when they see that the proposed BI/system management/database/enter open source solution category here costs 1/5 or less than the product it replaces, they pull out their big fat REJECT stamp and slam it down several times. Their reaction is natural, if annoying. How on earth, they wonder, could it be that something that costs so much less could be as good? And, more importantly, how can I justify all the approvals I've made over the past couple years for this obscenely expensive solution if there's an alternative out there that costs so much less?

I know there's been some discussion and debate by open source pundits about whether low cost should even be mentioned as one of open source's benefits (my opinion - absofrickenlutely!). Now, more than ever, is the time to tout this. Tout? No, Shout!!!

With top lines shrinking and business demands on IT to deliver agility and application uptime unabated, now is the perfect time for Open Source to breakthrough.

Of Open Agents and Wheel Reinvention: The BMC Performance Ma

Cote lays out a strong case for an open systems management agent based on BMC's agent he worked on

read more | digg story

Open Source SysAdmin Tools: Mind the Gap

In talking with some other people in the open source systems administration / data center automation space recently, I made a surprisingly astute observation while describing where NetDirector fits into the mix. For the set up and administration of a single local server or node, you've got tried-and-true tools like YaST and Webmin, and the newer ebox. These are great for helping SysAdmins who may be newer to Linux/UNIX and for old hands that just don't want to muck around with .conf files. But they don't scale very well to multi-node and distributed environments, where things like revision control, many-as-one (AKA globbing) and RBAC become gotta haves.

If you want these features Today, you need to step up to something like Puppet or cfengine. These tools give you all the power, scalability and control you could ever want. What they aren't, though, is easy to use. So, there's this massive gap between the easy-to-use tools on one hand and the scalable tools on the other. And this is where NetDirector plays.

With NetDirector, less-experienced Admins get a GUI for fill-in-the-blanks administration of many of the most popular open source server apps running on one or a group of servers. In the near future, we will enable more experienced admins to create and run their own scripts through NetDirector against a set of distributed nodes. And NetDirector provides tight role-based access control (RBAC) so that, for example, the script functionality can only be accessed by certain Admins, and more junior Admins can only interface with services via the GUI modules.

Why does this matter? It matters, I think, because if you are a mid sized company, you don't want to have different tools for different admins. You want one tool that all admins can use.

And this brings me to the last wicked cool thing about NetDirector. The next dot release, scheduled for mid feb, will include a Windows agent. With Windows support, in addition to filling the gap between single-server tools and massive CM tools, NetDirector will also bridge the fizzure between Linux and Windows tools.

In the interest of full disclosure, what you can do with NetDirector on Windows will be limited initially, since we don't have any plugins for Windows-based applications (yet). But, if for some reason you are running Apache on Windows, you will be able to use NetDirector to manage it. But the key thing is that this sets the foundation for NetDirector really being able to serve as the single, central administration tool for mid-sized enterprises, since just about all of these guys have some Windows. And, it's free and open source (yes, I can use the term open source confidently, since we are also moving to GPLv2 in the Feb. release).

And where we plan to go with NetDirector is very exciting. So, we'll have the script plugin available soon for running scripts against Linux/UNIX servers. And later, we'll implement the ability to run batch scripts through NetDirector on your Windows machines. And how about Windows service plugins, like a SQL Server GUI, an Exchange GUI, etc.

Sun Buys MySQL, Reaffirming Commitment to Open Source

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Sun is serious about Open Source, and it's a damned good thing!!

But I have to say that it's a shame this IR audiocast with Schwartz, Green and Mickos about the deal so royally flunked the Straight-talk test. Where in the hell is Sun's corporate marketing?

I tuned in late, just in time to hear the third from the last questions, which was something like: What does this mean to Sun's relationships with PosgresQL and Oracle?

Schwartz - we believe in PostgresQL so much that we spent a billion dollars on MySQL - HUH?

To clarify, Green added that open source is all about customer choice, and we're not choosing...WHAT?

I plan to listen to the rest once the replay is available and will add to this post as appropriate.

Whitehurst as New Red Hat CEO - A Great Choice

Today, my version of the lyrics from the Beatles song "A Day in the Life " would go a little like this:

"Woke up, got out of bed, jaw hit the floor." Given that the announcement of Szulik stepping down came as a surprise even to many company execs, I guess there's no reason why I should have seen it coming. But, still, WOW! Total shocker.

Reading the reaction from Red Hat watchers has been fascinating, too. Here's a quick rundown.

• Phil Manchester of El Reg's developer bureau provides a real nice write-up that puts this move in a broader market context. He notes that Whitehurst's appointment can be seen as a big step for open source towards the mainstream, reflecting the shifting "suits to sandals" ratio in open source. I couldn't agree more.
  

• CNET's Matt Asay: Asay's first reaction was to throw a conniption, saying, among other weird things, that he'd lost all faith in Red Hat. Then I guess he poured himself a strong one and, an hour and a half later wrote that "he probably overreacted." And in his latest entry on the subject, Asay admits that, because Open Source is an "operations business" (are there any that aren't??), "perhaps - perhaps" Whitehurst is a good choice.
  

• ZDNet's Dan Farber with Larry Dignan and David Berlind: These guys note, quite rightly I'd say, that Lou Gerstner, the guy that turned IBM around, was a complete newbie to technology, having previously run RJR, been an exec at Amex, and before that been a partner at McKinsey. One problem with this comparison, though, is that, by most accounts, including the one provided by Red Hat Investor Relations, Red Hat don't need no turning 'round, thank you very much. But, still, IBM's great success as a services business with Gerstner at the helm proves at least that a computer industry outsider can successfully run a computer company. (Note: It is curious that one of the things Whitehurst is praised for is his big role turning around Delta - maybe some people at Red Hat think they *DO* need a turnaround guy...)
  

To summarize, El Reg gives us a lot of very useful context, Asay kinda loses it then sort of pulls himself together, and ZDNet tells all us open source fanboys to just simmer down - after all, such a move is not unprecedented.

But the title of this entry includes the words "Great Choice," which goes beyond where ZDnet leaves things. Why? Because I think a former old-guard airline COO who had to watch his lunch be eaten by low cost, low price carriers, has precisely the right background to run the leading open source company. He knows what is going to happen to Oracle, Microsoft, SAP, BMC, BEA, etc., etc., because it is exactly what happened to Delta.

So, if you agree with the above, then it answers why Whitehurst, among available airline industry execs, makes sense. But what is it about the airline industry that makes it a particularly good hunting ground for the next Red Hat CEO? The economics of the airline industry are very similar to software and are especially similar to the SaaS model that is coming to dominate the industry. Both are marked by low and declining unitary costs and by high fixed costs. And network effects are prevalent in both. Lastly, Red Hat's customers - not its community of users, contributors and partners, but its paying customers - buy services, not software. Said differently, Red Hat is in the service business. Guess what the biggest service industry in America is? Hospitality, of which Travel represents $703 Billion.

No, Whitehurst is a very good choice for next Red Hat CEO. Hats off.

Me Talking at BarCampRDU '06

Matt Frye is an excellent videographer. You can tell because I actually sound cogent and clear in this clip he recored at last year's BarCamp RDU...

http://www.lulu.tv/?p=12894


Thanks Matt.  I'll pay you later...  ;)

HP Opens Wide for Wares

Yesterday HP picked up Opsware for $1.6 Billion and Neoware for $214 million. Here's my thinking on what the Opsware deal means for other IT automation providers (my company Emu Software included) and for the market in general. I'll write another entry about the Neoware one.

So, HP paid 15 times sales for Opsware, which is at least double the typical premium. Were they just feeling generous? I doubt it. Rather, it was probably a competitive situation. Who else might have also wanted opsware? I'd guess the list might include EMC, IBM, CA, EDS, who knows, maybe Google.

But that's not where the story ends IMHO. Oh no. Consider the impact of this deal on a company like EDS. I read a story today about how EDS competes with behemoths like IBM global services and HP for big IT outsourcing deals, and the EDS sales pitch goes like this. You don't have to get locked-in to one vendor (or fear getting locked-in) and you don't have to pick and choose best of breed from multiple vendors and do the integration yourself (and deal with no "single throat to choke") . Go with us and our EDS Agility Alliance, and get the best of both worlds - EDS serves as point for the service and the other vendors (little companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Sun and Dell) bring their technology expertise. So, what does this have to do with HP buying Opsware, you ask? Well, EDS was probably Opsware's first customer, and may well be its largest. In 2002 Mr. Andreessen sold the ASP part of Loudcloud to EDS for a reported $63.5 million, and EDS turned around and entered into a 3 year deal (since extended) with the part of Loudcloud that Marc kept, which he renamed Opsware. Basically, some smart Sys Admins at Loudcloud needed a way to more efficiently manage their data centers, and so they built Opsware, and Marc decided he'd rather be in the software business than in the application hosting business.

Alright, so, you're EDS, or you're a member of their Agility Alliance, and your sworn enemy is HP. Do you keep relying on HP Opsware for your data center automation? That would seem to me to be a fairly precarious situation. Now, something as central as Data Center Automation is not going to be replaced quickly, but if I'm EDS, I'm actively considering my options right now.

But the fun doesn't stop there. Nortel and Cisco, who I'll remind you compete with HP's Procurve products, both resell Opsware to their enterprise customers. Cisco, for their part, is announing their own Data Center optimization solution, what they're calling Data Center 3.0, this week. According to Chambers, "Because the network is uniquely positioned to be the platform for the data center, we are investing in innovations to help our customers transform their data centers for improved efficiency and increased business productivity."

I wonder if Opsware can contiue to grow its revenue at the same pace as part of HP with all these powerful companies that prevously were freinds are now, at least in part, competitors