IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2 - Linux

This is a discussion on IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2 - Linux ; Hadron wrote: > Rick writes: > >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:19:16 +0200, Hadron wrote: >> >>>> And just what lies did the Linux advocats tell regarding IBM possibly >>>> Open Sourcing DB2? >>> >>> Do your own homework ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 56 of 56

Thread: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

  1. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    Hadron wrote:

    > Rick writes:
    >
    >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:19:16 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>

    < snip >

    >>>> And just what lies did the Linux advocats tell regarding IBM possibly
    >>>> Open Sourcing DB2?
    >>>
    >>> Do your own homework Rick. Google is your friend. If you can figure out
    >>> how to use it.

    >>
    >> Translation: Hadron made an accusation he can't substantiate. Again.

    >
    > Erm no. As I said, as have others, go and Google it up. The fact you are
    > too stupid or too lazy to remember a thread from a few days ago is
    > neither here nor there to me.
    >


    Come on, show him how "stupid" he is by supplying the google search. You
    know you want to...

    Hadron Quark, this is getting pathetic. Most of the times you claim some
    bull**** you then start to tell the people to google. Because you know
    exactly that there is *nothing* to support your lies
    --
    This problem was sponsored by Microsoft


  2. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    4863320d$0$6542$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net on 6/25/08 11:07 PM:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Rick writes:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:19:16 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>>

    > < snip >
    >
    >>>>> And just what lies did the Linux advocats tell regarding IBM possibly
    >>>>> Open Sourcing DB2?
    >>>>
    >>>> Do your own homework Rick. Google is your friend. If you can figure out
    >>>> how to use it.
    >>>
    >>> Translation: Hadron made an accusation he can't substantiate. Again.

    >>
    >> Erm no. As I said, as have others, go and Google it up. The fact you are
    >> too stupid or too lazy to remember a thread from a few days ago is
    >> neither here nor there to me.
    >>

    >
    > Come on, show him how "stupid" he is by supplying the google search. You
    > know you want to...
    >
    > Hadron Quark, this is getting pathetic. Most of the times you claim some
    > bull**** you then start to tell the people to google. Because you know
    > exactly that there is *nothing* to support your lies


    Sounds like your lies about my students not being able to use folders and
    files... you never did find any support for that, did you?

    LOL!


    --
    The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.


  3. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:43:21 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Rick writes:
    >
    >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:19:16 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Rick writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:30:06 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Rick writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:01:16 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Rick writes:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:55:32 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Rick" wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:toydnctQAcaau_zVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@supernews.co m...
    >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:42:04 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> In article ,
    >>>>>>>>>>> Rick wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:57:28 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9970262-16.html
    >>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > IBM won't open source DB2.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > It was therefore no surprise to see IBM quickly follow up
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > ZDNet's article with a blunt statement: "IBM has no plans
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > to open source DB2."

    >>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you trying to make some kind of point?
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> He not only is trying, he succeeded. Maybe you should read
    >>>>>>>>>>> the earlier discussion of DB2 on this group from a few days
    >>>>>>>>>>> ago?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> He posted an article with no explanation or comment.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Exactly what part of "IBM says no to open sourcing DB2" do you
    >>>>>>>>> find so confusing that it requires explanation?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> OK.. so IBM said they weren't open sourcing DB2. So what?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Is Rick now apologising for fellow "advocates" telling lies about
    >>>>>>> IBM's intentions? Wonders never cease!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And just lies did the Linux advocats tell regarding IBM possibly
    >>>>>> Open Sourcing DB2?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes. Just lies, Yoda.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> And just what lies did the Linux advocats tell regarding IBM possibly
    >>>> Open
    >>>> Sourcing DB2?
    >>>
    >>> Do your own homework Rick. Google is your friend. If you can figure
    >>> out how to use it.

    >>
    >> Translation: Hadron made an accusation he can't substantiate. Again.

    >
    > Erm no. As I said, as have others, go and Google it up. The fact you are
    > too stupid or too lazy to remember a thread from a few days ago is
    > neither here nor there to me.


    Translation: Hadron made an accusation he can't substantiate. Again.

    --
    Rick

  4. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    Peter Köhlmann writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Rick writes:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:19:16 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>>

    > < snip >
    >
    >>>>> And just what lies did the Linux advocats tell regarding IBM possibly
    >>>>> Open Sourcing DB2?
    >>>>
    >>>> Do your own homework Rick. Google is your friend. If you can figure out
    >>>> how to use it.
    >>>
    >>> Translation: Hadron made an accusation he can't substantiate. Again.

    >>
    >> Erm no. As I said, as have others, go and Google it up. The fact you are
    >> too stupid or too lazy to remember a thread from a few days ago is
    >> neither here nor there to me.
    >>

    >
    > Come on, show him how "stupid" he is by supplying the google search. You
    > know you want to...
    >
    > Hadron Quark, this is getting pathetic. Most of the times you claim some
    > bull**** you then start to tell the people to google. Because you know
    > exactly that there is *nothing* to support your lies


    Have I just walked into a loony bin? It has ALREADY been explained WHY
    this was posted. Not by me. By others. But to help you tards out : a few
    days ago the gang were crowing about how IBM had seen the error of their
    ways and were going to open source DB2. I had my doubts. Then
    confirmation came through that they were NOT going to. It really is not
    that difficult.

    --
    "For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
    I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
    interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
    company..." Linus Torvalds

  5. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:50:11 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:


    >
    > Regardless, IBM isn't in the habit of open sourcing technology in which
    > it has a lead or at least a strong position, such as it does with DB2.
    > IBM strategically invests in open source to undermine the margins of its
    > competitors, not its own.
    >
    >



    So, if you have ten different competitor's following the above strategy,
    wouldn't everything eventually get open sourced? Of course, if there's
    not competition then it's a different story.



    -Thufir


  6. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:55:34 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:


    > IBM is ultimately going to totally and completely commercialize Linux
    > and you are going to see "Son of Microsoft / Windows" born. And it is
    > going to be 100 times worse than anything Microsoft has ever done.



    The epitome of magical thinking. What does it even mean to
    "commercialize" Linux? You mean proprietary, which would mean changing
    the license.

    -Thufir


  7. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:51:26 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > Commercial = no longer free. Call it proprietary if you wish.



    Your belief that this will occur is the epitome of magical thinking;
    there's no mechanism for undoing the licensing, it's just a wish of yours.



    -Thufir


  8. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:03:42 -0500, Rick wrote:

    > The OS will
    > still probably be Free and free, and IBM will have some commercial apps.



    In his universe, Linux will no longer be under the GPL (magically).



    -Thufir


  9. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:54:26 GMT, thufir wrote:

    > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:51:26 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> Commercial = no longer free. Call it proprietary if you wish.

    >
    >
    > Your belief that this will occur is the epitome of magical thinking;
    > there's no mechanism for undoing the licensing, it's just a wish of yours.
    >
    >
    >
    > -Thufir


    Who said anything about undoing the licensing?
    I didn't.
    Read my replies to Rick.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  10. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:55:35 GMT, thufir wrote:

    > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:03:42 -0500, Rick wrote:
    >
    >> The OS will
    >> still probably be Free and free, and IBM will have some commercial apps.

    >
    >
    > In his universe, Linux will no longer be under the GPL (magically).
    >
    >
    >
    > -Thufir


    I didn't say that at all.
    Please learn to read.

    I even said distributions like Slackware and Debian will probably always be
    around.

    You are missing the point, and badly.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  11. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:10:36 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:54:26 GMT, thufir wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:51:26 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>
    >>> Commercial = no longer free. Call it proprietary if you wish.

    >>
    >>
    >> Your belief that this will occur is the epitome of magical thinking;
    >> there's no mechanism for undoing the licensing, it's just a wish of
    >> yours.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> -Thufir

    >
    > Who said anything about undoing the licensing? I didn't.
    > Read my replies to Rick.


    You do know that you can sell OSS software, don't you?

    --
    Rick

  12. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:39:34 -0500, Rick wrote:

    > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:10:36 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:54:26 GMT, thufir wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:51:26 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Commercial = no longer free. Call it proprietary if you wish.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Your belief that this will occur is the epitome of magical thinking;
    >>> there's no mechanism for undoing the licensing, it's just a wish of
    >>> yours.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> -Thufir

    >>
    >> Who said anything about undoing the licensing? I didn't.
    >> Read my replies to Rick.

    >
    > You do know that you can sell OSS software, don't you?


    You can OFFER OSS software for sale.
    Whether anyone buys it is another story.

    See Linux for details.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  13. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2 (and why a real DB like DB2 is superior)


    "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    news:7pp8j5-sie.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.
    >
    > wrote
    > on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:18:40 -0400
    > <1gqluhoi37rlz.3zfq5mfnj3q6.dlg@40tude.net>:
    >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:28:09 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:54:48 -0400
    >>> :
    >>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:41:59 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> When you see some lame-o news story from Schestowitz on how some car
    >>>>> maker
    >>>>> is now using MySQL keep this in mind. This company will use MySQL
    >>>>> somewhere
    >>>>> in their organization for a niche purpose. But somewhere in this
    >>>>> company
    >>>>> there is some central place where *everything* gets consolidated and
    >>>>> all of
    >>>>> the data is collected. It's this central heart of their IT system
    >>>>> that runs
    >>>>> something like DB2.
    >>>>
    >>>> DB2 = Elephant Gun.
    >>>> MySQL = Pea Shooter.
    >>>>
    >>>> Use the proper tool for the application.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> And MS SQL Server? Is it a thrown rock or a howitzer?

    >>
    >> It depends.
    >> If you are cataloging a CD collection is it better to use DB2 or MYSQL?
    >>
    >> Please stop bringing minutia into the debate.
    >> It's getting tiresome replying to your obvious time wasting tactics.
    >>
    >> IOW deal on a higher level.
    >> Assume a few things for a change.
    >>

    >
    > The assumption is that MS SQL is a howitzer, then;
    > certainly it is designed to be, though one might
    > quibble as to whether it blows the opposition out
    > of the water -- or just blows up. ;-)
    >
    > Of course, there's an interesting set of issues regarding
    > standardization -- but never mind that, MS SQL is the standard
    > anyway, it's just that the ISO/ANSI committees don't know
    > it yet. ;-)
    >
    > In any event, I believe MySql is underpowered, but reliable
    > enough (certainly $EMPLOYER uses it in some areas).
    > PostgreSQL is very reliable though I don't know how it
    > compares to Oracle, DB2, or MS SQL Server, and I'm probably
    > the only one who uses it at all.


    Either MySQL or PostGresSql work fine in homogeneous environment where
    everything the database would ever need to access is already in the
    database. But in the real world a companies enterprise is not as simple as
    "We have a database and everything lives in our one database." In the
    enterprise data comes from a variety of sources, from around the world and
    from dozens/hundreds of applications comprising of archived and real-time
    data.

    The ability for a database to read and store data in it's own internal
    tables is nice but unless it can easily integrate with the "rest of the
    world" it is going to be too limiting for many enterprise applications.


    > Part of the issue is the sheer resources of hardware
    > one might need to access hundreds of terabytes of data.
    > A desktop PC might have no problem with that access if
    > one has a proper hardware interface to a RAID rack, but
    > there's heftier equipment available.


    Desktop PC's running Windows access multi-terabytes of data each and every
    day. Nearly every database of this size uses a N-tier architecture. I don't
    see how running RAID would have any affect on this however. To the database
    engine, the 100's of terabytes of information would simply appear as
    database partitions and storage volumes. If any of these volumes were RAID
    arrays then it would be transparent.


    > --
    > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    > Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  14. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:52:20 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:39:34 -0500, Rick wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:10:36 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:54:26 GMT, thufir wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:51:26 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Commercial = no longer free. Call it proprietary if you wish.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Your belief that this will occur is the epitome of magical thinking;
    >>>> there's no mechanism for undoing the licensing, it's just a wish of
    >>>> yours.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> -Thufir
    >>>
    >>> Who said anything about undoing the licensing? I didn't. Read my
    >>> replies to Rick.

    >>
    >> You do know that you can sell OSS software, don't you?

    >
    > You can OFFER OSS software for sale.
    > Whether anyone buys it is another story.
    >
    > See Linux for details.


    you can sell OSS software.
    You can sell CSS software that runs on OSS systems.


    --
    Rick

  15. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:52:20 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:


    >>> Who said anything about undoing the licensing?


    Exactly.

    >>> I didn't. Read my replies to Rick.

    >>
    >> You do know that you can sell OSS software, don't you?

    >
    > You can OFFER OSS software for sale.
    > Whether anyone buys it is another story.
    >
    > See Linux for details.



    It's the nature of the license which prevents what you imagine.



    -Thufir

  16. Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

    Ezekiel wrote:
    > "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    > message news:XaqdnYkLqdMrjvzVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
    >> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>> "Hadron" wrote in message
    >>> news:g3r11n$q73$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>> "Ezekiel" writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9970262-16.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> IBM won't open source DB2.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It was therefore no surprise to see IBM quickly follow up ZDNet's
    >>>>> article
    >>>>> with a blunt statement: "IBM has no plans to open source DB2."
    >>>>>

    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Question : why the hell would they open source their DB2 system when it
    >>>> earns them millions a year?
    >>>>
    >>> This and other articles have an interesting answer for this. Basically as
    >>> long as IBM can make a profit from something they will continue to sell
    >>> it. But if and when it becomes more lucrative for them to use something
    >>> to "kill" or "injure" their competition by open sourcing something they
    >>> will.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Regardless, IBM isn't in the habit of open sourcing technology in which
    >>> it has a lead or at least a strong position, such as it does with DB2.
    >>> IBM strategically invests in open source to undermine the margins of its
    >>> competitors, not its own.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Not as underhanded or downright wrong as using patents to undermine
    >> margins of competitors.

    >
    > You mean like this?
    >
    > Why IBM's patent suit against Amazon could be bad news for the entire Web
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3848
    >
    >
    > IBM, Amazon Settle Patent Fight
    > Amazon pays IBM
    > http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...1/article.html
    >
    >
    > Of course you can show me where Microsoft ever used patents to sue a
    > competitor. As if Amazon and IBM are even "competitors" in any reasonable
    > way.



    Right. Straight after you show me where in my post I accuse microsoft.
    Or mention them. At all.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3