[Charlug] posscon

Dennis Clark boomfish at gmail.com
Mon Apr 20 14:31:39 EDT 2009 

(I've trimmed the Ccs because I'm sure the RedHat folks get enough email as
it is without me adding to it).

I agree that the OS is becoming less important, but my reasons differ from
yours. Many key applications these days are online applications, the Web
browser is the one desktop technology that most of those applications rely
on. With the standard Web browser technology (HTML and Javascript) being so
limited, we're in the midst of a new browser war ... except now there are 5
big players: Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, Google, and Opera. (Some of you may
question my addition of Opera, but it's a big player in most of the embedded
device market). With most of these browsers able to run on multple
platforms, browser support becomes a much bigger and more important issue
than desktop OS support for online applications.

As an Adobe ColdFusion developer I hear a lot about Adobe's Flash Player and
AIR client. Although they are not open-source, they have been ported to all
the modern desktop OSs and browsers and provide a much richer front-end
experience than what is possible with standard browser technology. The
technologies for server back-end connectivity for Flash Player and AIR are
open source(*) so you can connect such clients to just about anything. This
means that you can build server applications for Flash/AIR using open-source
and provide rich front-end interfaces for them without having to worry about
the desktop OS or even the browser type and version (beyond the Flash Player
requirement, that is).

As for 1-800 support, I see the role of "open-source support" as changing
from general help lines to a fast line to technical expertise. In fact I
have a conference call scheduled this week with Progressive Software (aka
FUSE), a company that provides technical support for enterprise Apache
technologies such as ActiveMQ. ActiveMQ is free and I have been able to
install it myself, but we may tap the FUSE team for architecture and design
advice.

You may mock the concept of paid support, but from an IT management
viewpoint it's very risky to rely completely on an unpaid open-source
community for supporting your mission-critical applications that result in
lost business and revenue for every minute of downtime. With paid
open-source support you not paying for the rights to use a software product
or even for the ability to call someone who can read a help desk script.
Rather, you are paying for a guarantee that you will get the prompt
attention of someone who knows much more about the technology than you do
during those times you really need it.

(*) There are a couple of data management features in Adobe LiveCycle that
are not available in its open-source versions, but there are already
projects underway to build replacement open-source components that implement
those missing features.

-- Dennis

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Bob Evans <bobevans19 at gmail.com> wrote:

> No argument from me. I just don't think it is at the OS level anymore. OS
> is becoming a non issue. Just as Microsoft is falling out of the picture,
> like IBM before them, I don't see Red Hat as more than a footnote. The mo=
del
> of "corporate run software company" is less and less viable.
>
> There are fewer & fewer reasons to call 1-800-redhat (or whatever). And
> having that phone number is their only real reason to be, in the corporate
> venue. If I know as much (or more) about not only Linux, but Red Hat Linux
> specifically, why do I need them?
>
> As we move forward, now with a generation of younger people who grew up
> with a somewhat mature open source world, the concept of relying on a
> "vendor" of software that I can retrieve online just as easily as they can
> becomes somewhat absurd...
>
> Stay tuned. Things could change. They often do.
>
> -be
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Tim Jowers <timjowers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry I could not make the event. I think whoever organized the event
>> gets it. http://www.posscon.org/ I'll try to find the presentations
>> archives.
>>
>> Many Linux/Open Source people do not get it. Businesses who use Open
>> Source have a competitive edge. Tech businesses who use open source
>> win because they "build on the work of others". My point is not "will
>> open source win", but "open source has won". E.g. RedHat may be seen
>> as boring now because they already have won. The G1 phone runs Linux.
>> Linux is the OS of choice going forward. The battle for the
>> programming language of choice rages. Maybe it will be Java, Ruby, or
>> Mono. Which is open source?
>>
>> TimJowers
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Leam Hall <leam at reuel.net> wrote:
>> > Yeah, but Nalley crashed the party so he doesn't really count. :)
>> >
>> > If you're talking about business in Linux, Red Hat is it. No one else
>> really
>> > competes well in the datacenter market. I'm pretty solid in my
>> conviction
>> > that the OS will be a major player for 3-5 years, however, I do agree
>> that
>> > past that point something else will have the option of causing big
>> change.
>> > My current guess is the growth of application blades  or 1U boxes where
>> the
>> > OS is re-built to support a finite set of functions. Cisco moving in to
>> the
>> > server space is a good possibility.
>> >
>> > In that space I think Linux will win because of brain-share. *BSD has
>> great
>> > value but the business support isn't behind it as much. Whether or not
>> RH is
>> > the vendor of choice in 2015 remains to be seen. I think it's possible
>> but
>> > there's too many smart people working on the problem for one place to
>> > guarantee being the de facto winner. I'd give it 40% for RH, 40% for a
>> > technology that exists today but is still in infancy, and maybe 20% for
>> > something not yet developed past the skunkworks stage.
>> >
>> > On the zLinux issue, the problem is companies have these huge boxes th=
ey
>> > can't really write off but don't have the skills to fully utilize. I've
>> done
>> > some work with zLinux that required me understand a little about the
>> > mainframe. I was blown away! There are some really cool things about t=
he
>> >  mainframes that make them totally interesting.
>> >
>> > The issue with zLinux is that you're using a VM and lose so many parts
>> of
>> > the frame that are useful. The mindsets are highly divergent and unless
>> > there's a real and over-whelming business case I feel zLinux is a
>>  solution
>> > looking for a problem.
>> >
>> > That's my thinking, anyway, and what I base my career choices on.  :)
>> >
>> > Leam
>> >
>> >
>> > Bob Evans wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Well, certainly the Fedora/Red Hat advocates(3)  outnumbered any other
>> >> Linux
>> >> advocates(0) in the speaker category. The closest in speaker count
>> numbers
>> >> were employees of Blue Cross in Columbia, touting their zSeries
>> >> implementation of Linux.
>> >>
>> >> (zSeries =3D IBM mainframe)
>> >>
>> >> Some of you might remember IBM's demo of that little trick several
>> years
>> >> ago
>> >> at a LUG meeting at CompUSA on South Blvd. We tried it at BOFA, too...
>> >>
>> >> So the nineties have officially arrived at Blue Cross. Good to know...
>> >>
>> >> Regarding your other comment, about Red Hat in 3-5...
>> >>
>> >> The likelihood of there being a discrete OS, other than in firmware, =
in
>> >> 3-5
>> >> years seems highly unlikely.
>> >>
>> >> But we'll see.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Leam Hall <leam at reuel.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Not sure how you see it a Red Hat event. Greg DK pretty much did what
>> he
>> >>> did at BarCamp Charlotte, and the one Keynote by the RH CIO wasn't
>> enough
>> >>> to
>> >>> get you going.
>> >>>
>> >>> It was a Collegiate event for people who are new to or maybe even on
>> the
>> >>> fence about Open Source. Red Hat was just a bit player.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think RH will be a major enterprise player for at least 3-5 years
>> and
>> >>> eliminate most of the commercial Unices.
>> >>>
>> >>> More later, breakfast calls...
>> >>>
>> >>> Leam
>> >>>
>> >>> Bob Evans wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I actually talked myself out of going, opting for family time. I was
>> IN
>> >>>> THE
>> >>>> PARKING LOT when I realized that this was not something I really ca=
re
>> >>>> about
>> >>>> any more.....
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Looking over the sponsors,it was essentially a Red Hat event.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm not anti-Red Hat. I just don't see them being the future of
>> >>>> software,
>> >>>> open or otherwise. They've certainly had a degree of success courte=
sy
>> of
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> open source world, so I guess they feel obligated to hold these
>> >>>> things...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It WAS a nice drive, though. And a beautiful day...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -be
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Leam Hall <leam at reuel.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  Well...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> After being slightly numbed by all the "thank yous" up front I
>> started
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> nod during the first keynote. The business track I attended in the
>> AM
>> >>>>> was
>> >>>>> aimed at "why is Open Source okay". True material but not what I h=
ad
>> >>>>> been
>> >>>>> hoping for.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Spent a little time handing out swag for Fedora, answering questio=
ns
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> doing a little bit of encouraging. Joined in a conversation helping
>> a
>> >>>>> newbie
>> >>>>> over lunch, and that was about it. Hopefully the developers track
>> was
>> >>>>> more
>> >>>>> useful to the attendees. After musing, munching, and going over the
>> >>>>> remaining schedule I put time with family over time listening to
>> stuff
>> >>>>> I
>> >>>>> already knew.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'd love to hear from businesses that are significantly open source
>> and
>> >>>>> how
>> >>>>> they integrate everything together. After so many years in the
>> >>>>> enterprise
>> >>>>> level game and seeing so many millions of dollars wasted on tools
>> that
>> >>>>> don't
>> >>>>> interoperate I'd like to see someone speak about real business use
>> of
>> >>>>> open
>> >>>>> source and real cost savings. One speaker seemed happy that the use
>> of
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> dozen or so open source tools saved $100,000. Great! I've doubled
>> that
>> >>>>> with
>> >>>>> a few lines of Bourne shell in just the right spot.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hopefully the June conference is better.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Leam
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Bob Evans wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>  So... did anyone go to this thing?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> CharLUG mailing list
>> >>>>> CharLUG at charlug.org
>> >>>>> http://charlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/charlug
>> >>>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> CharLUG mailing list
>> >> CharLUG at charlug.org
>> >> http://charlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/charlug
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CharLUG mailing list
>> > CharLUG at charlug.org
>> > http://charlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/charlug
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> CharLUG mailing list
>> CharLUG at charlug.org
>> http://charlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/charlug
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CharLUG mailing list
> CharLUG at charlug.org
> http://charlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/charlug
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://charlug.org/pipermail/charlug/attachments/20090420/040d1798/att=
achment.htm

More information about the CharLUG mailing list