IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2 - Linux

This is a discussion on IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2 - Linux ; 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 **...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 56

Thread: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

  1. IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2


    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 **

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

    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?



    --
    Rick

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

    "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."
    >

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


    Question : why the hell would they open source their DB2 system when it
    earns them millions a year?

    --
    "I am not worthy to wipe your pee-pee "
    -- Liarnut in comp.os.linux.advocacy

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


    "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.






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

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

    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.

    At least when they open source some of their stuff to undermine
    competitors it still competes on its respective merits (open source
    being another plus).

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

    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?


    --
    --Tim Smith

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

    Tim Smith writes:

    > 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?


    Rick will simply deny it. It's what he does.

    --
    "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

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


    "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.



    > At least when they open source some of their stuff to undermine
    > competitors it still competes on its respective merits (open source being
    > another plus).


    IBM only open sources stuff if it benefits IBM. It doesn't do so for some
    "community" or altruistic reason. It's only done as a business tactical
    decision.


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

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

    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.



    --
    Rick

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


    "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?




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

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

    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?


    --
    Rick

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


    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:toydncVQAcYnuvzVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@supernews.co m...
    > 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?


    So you can understand a 7 word sentence. Good.

    A couple of days ago it was posted here that IBM might open source DB2.
    Consider it a news "update" since the original story was grossly wrong.

    "IBM Ponders Making DB2 Free Software!"
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....583daeeb?hl=en

    Or do you think that if a unsubstantiated "rumor" that a company might do
    something is worthy of being posted. But when a factual press release from
    the company is made then those facts should not be posted here.

    Also for the record. This is the *last* time that I will ever explain or
    justify my posting to you. I'm an adult and I will very well post what I
    want and when I want. If you don't like it then I couldn't care less. As a
    matter of fact, if a idiot like you doesn't like or understand what I'm
    posting then it's probably a positive sign. Evidently you are too dense and
    too stupid to understand anything. Your response to most any post is "So
    what?" and I would be a fool to waste any more of my time 'justifying' my
    posts to a dimwit like you.






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

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

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:04:32 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Rick" wrote in message
    > news:toydncVQAcYnuvzVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@supernews.co m...
    >> 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?

    >
    > So you can understand a 7 word sentence. Good.
    >
    > A couple of days ago it was posted here that IBM might open source DB2.


    So you assume I saw the post and or/read the thread.

    > Consider it a news "update" since the original story was grossly wrong.
    >
    > "IBM Ponders Making DB2 Free Software!"
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/

    msg/01db4e3f583daeeb?hl=en
    >
    > Or do you think that if a unsubstantiated "rumor" that a company might
    > do something is worthy of being posted. But when a factual press release
    > from the company is made then those facts should not be posted here.


    The title of the article:
    IBM Ponders Making DB2 Free Software!"
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os


    From the article:

    While the computing giant has no immediate plans to open-source DB2,
    market conditions may make it unavoidable, according to Chris Livesey,
    IBM's UK director of information management software.

    So what's the big deal.


    >
    > Also for the record. This is the *last* time that I will ever explain or
    > justify my posting to you. I'm an adult and I will very well post what I
    > want and when I want. If you don't like it then I couldn't care less. As
    > a matter of fact, if a idiot like you doesn't like or understand what
    > I'm posting then it's probably a positive sign. Evidently you are too
    > dense and too stupid to understand anything. Your response to most any
    > post is "So what?" and I would be a fool to waste any more of my time
    > 'justifying' my posts to a dimwit like you.


    What a whiner you are.
    ... and I couldn't care less whether you explain or not. However, I will
    probably continue to ask if you are trying to make a point, or ask so
    what when you post an article with no commentary.

    Explain or not. Up to you.


    --
    Rick

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


    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:OIWdnQPkzJtuqfzVnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@supernews.co m...
    > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:04:32 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" wrote in message
    >> news:toydncVQAcYnuvzVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@supernews.co m...
    >>> 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?

    >>
    >> So you can understand a 7 word sentence. Good.
    >>
    >> A couple of days ago it was posted here that IBM might open source DB2.

    >
    > So you assume I saw the post and or/read the thread.


    It's remarkable how you *never* see any of the 100's of posts that
    Schestowitz makes where he blabs on about something completely unrelated or
    makes posts with no commentary. But the 2-3 threads that I start each week
    get a response from you with either a "So what?" or "He posted an article
    with no explanation or comment."



    >> Consider it a news "update" since the original story was grossly wrong.
    >>
    >> "IBM Ponders Making DB2 Free Software!"
    >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/

    > msg/01db4e3f583daeeb?hl=en
    >>
    >> Or do you think that if a unsubstantiated "rumor" that a company might
    >> do something is worthy of being posted. But when a factual press release
    >> from the company is made then those facts should not be posted here.

    >
    > The title of the article:
    > IBM Ponders Making DB2 Free Software!"
    >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os

    >
    > From the article:
    >
    > While the computing giant has no immediate plans to open-source DB2,
    > market conditions may make it unavoidable, according to Chris Livesey,
    > IBM's UK director of information management software.
    >
    > So what's the big deal.


    Who said anything about it being a big deal. Some mid level manager in the
    UK misspoke so corporate stepped in and issued a press release saying 'We
    ain't doing that ****.' Since the original misspoken rumor was posted here
    why are you confused as to why I posted the follow-up correction to this
    story?


    >
    >>
    >> Also for the record. This is the *last* time that I will ever explain or
    >> justify my posting to you. I'm an adult and I will very well post what I
    >> want and when I want. If you don't like it then I couldn't care less. As
    >> a matter of fact, if a idiot like you doesn't like or understand what
    >> I'm posting then it's probably a positive sign. Evidently you are too
    >> dense and too stupid to understand anything. Your response to most any
    >> post is "So what?" and I would be a fool to waste any more of my time
    >> 'justifying' my posts to a dimwit like you.

    >
    > What a whiner you are.


    Yet *YOU* are the one who's doing the whining: Snivel... snivel... "He
    posted an article with no explanation or comment." I'm so confused... why is
    this being posted here. What does this have to do with anything. Snivel...
    snivel....snivel.



    > .. and I couldn't care less whether you explain or not. However, I will
    > probably continue to ask if you are trying to make a point, or ask so
    > what when you post an article with no commentary.
    >
    > Explain or not. Up to you.



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

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

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:11:51 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Rick" wrote in message
    > news:OIWdnQPkzJtuqfzVnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@supernews.co m...
    >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:04:32 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" wrote in message
    >>> news:toydncVQAcYnuvzVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@supernews.co m...
    >>>> 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?
    >>>
    >>> So you can understand a 7 word sentence. Good.
    >>>
    >>> A couple of days ago it was posted here that IBM might open source
    >>> DB2.

    >>
    >> So you assume I saw the post and or/read the thread.

    >
    > It's remarkable how you *never* see any of the 100's of posts that
    > Schestowitz makes where he blabs on about something completely unrelated
    > or makes posts with no commentary.


    I didn't say I haven't seen Roy's posts. What makes you think I read
    every one? In reality, I read very few of them.

    >But the 2-3 threads that I start each
    > week get a response from you with either a "So what?" or "He posted an
    > article with no explanation or comment."


    Well, when you post something, maybe you should make some sort of comment
    so people have some sort of idea what point you are trying to make.


    >>> Consider it a news "update" since the original story was grossly
    >>> wrong.
    >>>
    >>> "IBM Ponders Making DB2 Free Software!"
    >>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/

    >> msg/01db4e3f583daeeb?hl=en
    >>>
    >>> Or do you think that if a unsubstantiated "rumor" that a company might
    >>> do something is worthy of being posted. But when a factual press
    >>> release from the company is made then those facts should not be posted
    >>> here.

    >>
    >> The title of the article:
    >> IBM Ponders Making DB2 Free Software!"
    >>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os

    >>
    >> From the article:
    >>
    >> While the computing giant has no immediate plans to open-source DB2,
    >> market conditions may make it unavoidable, according to Chris Livesey,
    >> IBM's UK director of information management software.
    >>
    >> So what's the big deal.

    >
    > Who said anything about it being a big deal. Some mid level manager in
    > the UK misspoke so corporate stepped in and issued a press release
    > saying 'We ain't doing that ****.' Since the original misspoken rumor
    > was posted here why are you confused as to why I posted the follow-up
    > correction to this story?


    You posted the story with no comment. How am supposed to know your reason?


    >>> Also for the record. This is the *last* time that I will ever explain
    >>> or justify my posting to you. I'm an adult and I will very well post
    >>> what I want and when I want. If you don't like it then I couldn't care
    >>> less. As a matter of fact, if a idiot like you doesn't like or
    >>> understand what I'm posting then it's probably a positive sign.
    >>> Evidently you are too dense and too stupid to understand anything.
    >>> Your response to most any post is "So what?" and I would be a fool to
    >>> waste any more of my time 'justifying' my posts to a dimwit like you.

    >>
    >> What a whiner you are.

    >
    > Yet *YOU* are the one who's doing the whining: Snivel... snivel... "He
    > posted an article with no explanation or comment." I'm so confused...
    > why is this being posted here. What does this have to do with anything.
    > Snivel... snivel....snivel.


    Actually I asked you what point you wee trying to make, and asked SO What
    to one of your comment less posts.

    And then you went all whiny with with your "This is the *last* time that
    I will ever explain" routine.

    >> .. and I couldn't care less whether you explain or not. However, I will
    >> probably continue to ask if you are trying to make a point, or ask so
    >> what when you post an article with no commentary.
    >>
    >> Explain or not. Up to you.

    --
    Rick

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

    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?


    Rick is too busy focusing anger and venom to actually read what he is
    replying to.

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

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

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick

    wrote
    on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:23:22 -0500
    :
    > 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?
    >


    One can guess. Apparently Ezekiel is of the opinion
    that closed-source software such as DB2 is superior
    to open-source efforts such as PostgreSQL, MySQL,
    Hypersonic, or Cloudscape.

    A pity regarding DB2, admittedly. DBase-III is
    running around somewhere, though. ;-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:40:54 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > "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."
    >>

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

    >
    > Question : why the hell would they open source their DB2 system when it
    > earns them millions a year?


    The *many eyeballs* method......

    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!


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

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

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:43:52 -0400, 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.
    >
    >
    >
    >> At least when they open source some of their stuff to undermine
    >> competitors it still competes on its respective merits (open source being
    >> another plus).

    >
    > IBM only open sources stuff if it benefits IBM. It doesn't do so for some
    > "community" or altruistic reason. It's only done as a business tactical
    > decision.


    IBM is an extremely nasty company to deal with and IMHO far worse than
    Microsoft who are certainly no angels themselves.

    The thing about IBM is that they are a hell of a lot shrewder than
    Microsoft and cover their tracks very well.

    As long as they are not trying to sell to the consumer, IBM is the defacto
    standard for the dirty tricks department and way ahead of Microsoft.

    The Linux loons will realize sooner or later that they have been sleeping
    with the devil.
    It's only a matter of time.

    My prediction:

    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.

    I don't know how they are going to do it, but one way or the other they
    will and at that point the open sores programmers who have been giving
    their works away will realize what huge suckers they have been as IBM
    laughs all the way tot he bank.

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

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


    "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    news:m0s7j5-c19.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
    >
    > wrote
    > on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:23:22 -0500
    > :
    >> 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?
    >>

    >
    > One can guess. Apparently Ezekiel is of the opinion
    > that closed-source software such as DB2 is superior
    > to open-source efforts such as PostgreSQL, MySQL,
    > Hypersonic, or Cloudscape.


    I'm not familiar with Hypersonic or Cloudscape. But DB2 is definitely
    superior to Postgres and MySQL. It's not even close. It's like debating
    whether a Dodge Neon is comparable to a Mercedes S-class. Sure... the Neon
    is "cheaper" (as in less expensive) and probably gets better mileage. But
    nobody will take you seriously if you attempt to claim that the Neon is
    better than the big Benz.


    > A pity regarding DB2, admittedly. DBase-III is
    > running around somewhere, though. ;-)
    >
    > --
    > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    > New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **



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

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