Re: [Xen-users] RE: Does it legal to analysize XEN source code and write
Tao Shen wrote:
I see that great values exist in Xen and virtualization. That's why I
am here, on the list. From a practical perspective, I don't see that
XenSource's triple segregation of their product into Express, Server,
Enterprise makes any sense from a revenue maximization perspective.
For serious users who depend on Xen(Amazon EC2) they will be paying
the support contracts but still cheaper than VMware Infrastructure.
Software license isn't even considered cost for them. For
semi-serious business users, currently Xen is on par in cost compared
to VMware. For enthusiasts, you are stuck to Xen + Virt-manger on a
stock Linux distro. Quite frankly, Xen Express doesn't cut it. So in
the end, the only competitive advantage for Xen branded product is
centered on Xen Enterprise for the VPS hosts. XenSource is severely
decapitating their potential revenue stream.
Excuse me? There's not a single line from me in what you quoted, I think
your indenting style may have confused you. I did mention RHEL, but the
Novell/Microsoft deal was a nasty error and a legal nightmare that cost
Noveel Jeremy Allison, leadership in the Samba software world, and
actually seems to have hurt their compatibility with Microsoft as a result.
gosh i just lost another 30 minutes....got to go...30 minute naps will
hurt for the day :) later
Tim Post wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 12:50 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Tao Shen wrote:
7. Some of the examples in the open source industry right now
include: using PostgreSQL based code which is GPL'd, add a
non-GPL'd replication suite to it, and call it enterpriseDB. Using
PostgreSQL based code, tweak some variables, add some non-GPL'd
code (interfaced to the GPL'd one) to do distributed join and call
it "bizgres" and "greenplum". MySQL's Enterprise vs Community
editions....the examples are all other the place. All of them push
the GPL boundary but don't violate it. And what I call the
"wrapper GPL" type products, and "dual licensing". No, it's all
perfect legal. From an ethics perspective...it's arguable.
I think you have to look at things in a relative way. Relative to most
other commercial software companies, XenSource is a saint. I'm running
GNU/XenLinux on my desktop, if I had this developed myself, I would have
spent millions on it. XenSource pushed Xen, hard. XenSource is what
ensured Xen held up to critics. XenSource ensured that Xen got its
market share that it enjoys today.
This puts money in my pocket in a few ways :
1 - I'm paid to build xen stuff for web hosts
2 - I'm paid to design networks that rely heavily on Xen
3 - I'm able to give non profits cutting edge technology for free (I
don't charge them)
4 - I learned A LOT studying Xen, reading xen-devel and the Xen academic
papers. I'm a much better programmer than I was after studying Xen.
5 - Microkernels are now being looked at in a new light, because of Xen
(broadly). This means, hardware makers are finally waking up to the fact
that they _CAN_ reach beyond x86. This means new technology and new
What does Microsoft give you? What does Cisco give you? What does
NetGear give you?
First, Xen was made. Then XenSource made some neat programs to go with
it that cost money. In order to imply something sinister, you would
first have to demonstrate that XenSource knew how successful Xen (as a
whole) would be. I don't think that's possible, because I don't think
that they realized it until it smacked them. Please speak in proper time
As Nico said, look at RHEL. Look at the Novell-Microsoft deal, look at
so many other things in the news as current events, then go enjoy your
multi million dollar free hypervisor and command line tools ;)
If there is a time for paranoia, this is not that time.
Xen-users mailing list