| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now?So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now?Posted Aug 22, 2010 8:09 UTC (Sun) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)In reply to: So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now? by pdickey Parent article: Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica)
If you want to run Windows (a proprietary OS) in an open-source virtual machine like KVM or VirtualBox, you need to procure a licensed version of Windows. This generally means buying one. If you want to run z/OS (another proprietary OS) in an open-source virtual machine like Hercules, you need to procure a licensed version of z/OS. This means talking to IBM to see whether they'll let you buy one without an IBM mainframe attached. There's no difference in my book.
(Log in to post comments)
So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now? Posted Aug 22, 2010 11:06 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] That's exactly right, and the key difference is that Microsoft doesn't leverage its market positions in PC operating systems to tie particular hardware products (or virtualizers) to Windows. But IBM abuses its monopoly that way, and that's why the European Commission's investigation was and is needed. My position is, simply put, that neither of those companies should be allowed to abuse a monopoly. They should have to give customers choice, and offer their operating systems separately from the hardware on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. I'm very optimistic we'll get there.
So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now? Posted Aug 22, 2010 11:20 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
ctually, they do. you are not allowed to run windows 7 on non-microsoft hyervisors (at least for some versions)
So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now? Posted Aug 22, 2010 11:30 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] That's new to me. I understand that Windows can be virtualized with Xen (Windows 7 is listed on this page), VMware etc. Wikipedia says "VMware Inc makes VMware Tools available for Microsoft Windows, Linux, Sun Solaris, FreeBSD, and Novell NetWare guest systems."
So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now? Posted Aug 22, 2010 12:53 UTC (Sun) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
I believe the "Home" (cheapest) editions of windows have a license which prohibits the use of them in any virtualized environment. They want you to buy the next tier up if you're doing something complex like running in a VM instead of bare hardware.
So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now? Posted Aug 22, 2010 12:57 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] I believe the "Home" (cheapest) editions of windows have a license which prohibits the use of them in any virtualized environment. They want you to buy the next tier up if you're doing something complex like running in a VM instead of bare hardware. Thanks. There are always new things one can learn here on LWN :-) From a competition point of view, I wouldn't be concerned about that. It seems reasonable to me based on how you describe it. Since z/OS is by definition the opposite of a "Home" operating system, this kind of distinction is a non-issue for the mainframe matter then. But it's good to know.
So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now? Posted Aug 22, 2010 11:09 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
this sounds very similar to Apple not allowing OS/X to be run on anything except for apple hardware (see the pystar case where they won)
the case of OS/X is even worse in my opinion because it is sold in a retail box set.
In the IBM case, the software isn't sold separately from the hardware (possibly it should be, but in this case, forcing IBM to sell the software to run on turbohurcules is similar to forcing them to support another hardware platform, it's one that attempts emulate the IBM hardware/hypervisor, but since it's an emulation it's not always going to work the same way)
trying to sell the software to run on turbohercules with a caviot that 'it may not always work and IBM won't try to troubleshoot or fix it' would not be soemthing that would go over well.
I could see IBM signing an agreement with turbohercules for them to sub-license the software and provide all the support for it, at that point it would be very clear that if anything didn't work the customer should not contact IBM.
By the way, there's nothing wrong with being a monopoly in a field (like IBM and mainframes), what would be wrong is if IBM abused it's monopoly position. I don't see that happening yet in this case.
So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now? Posted Aug 22, 2010 11:18 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] the case of OS/X is even worse in my opinion because it is sold in a retail box set. This is a matter of market share, and that also marks a fundamental difference between the antitrust aspect of Psystar (it also has a copyright aspect, but that's irrelevant here because TurboHercules doesn't argue on the basis of "fair use") and TurboHercules. forcing IBM to sell the software to run on turbohurcules is similar to forcing them to support another hardware platform I wouldn't necessarily call it "support". I'd say "tolerate". I could see IBM signing an agreement with turbohercules for them to sub-license the software and provide all the support for it, at that point it would be very clear that if anything didn't work the customer should not contact IBM. I can't speak for TurboHercules and whether this is a proposal they should accept, but I would like to mention that TH had proposed to IBM to sit down and discuss, and IBM said the door is closed. That's how it led (eight months after TH's original question) to an antitrust complaint. Let's hope that there's going to be an agreement soon in that context. By the way, there's nothing wrong with being a monopoly in a field (like IBM and mainframes), what would be wrong is if IBM abused it's monopoly position. Right on. I usually always attach the word "abuse" to it to make it clear. I don't see that happening yet in this case. I actually do. I look at the European Commission's two Microsoft antitrust cases. The first one, besides the Samba/network protocl aspect, was about the tying of the Media Player to Windows, and the second one about browser choice. So there are precedents in the EU. Look at this way: a decision by Microsoft to stop selling Windows separately and instead requiring anyone who wants to purchase a new version of Windows to buy hardware exclusively from Microsoft would easily result in widespread consensus that it can't be accepted. It's just that more people are familiar with Windows than with the mainframe.
So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now? Posted Aug 22, 2010 11:30 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
why in the world would IBM be willing to enter discussions with a company behaving the way turbohercules is behaving? Among other things, they could find any part of their negotiations on the newspaper front page taken out of context.
I think that if turbohercules had proposed something like that before going public, they may have had a chance, but after going public the way they have, for IBM to suggest this would smack of backing down to extortion. IBM tends to be very agressive to responding to attacks.
selling the OS to run on turbohercules without supporting it would not work well for anyone (and would generate bad PR when things didn't work). it's not just selling a license and 'tolorating' turbohercules.
no, this isn't anything like if microsoft decided to stop selling windows separatly and only sell it with microsoft hardware, not only because microsoft doesn't sell hardware (and never has), but also because IBM has never sold the software separately, so it's not that IBM is restricting something that was previously open, it's that they are doing the same thing that everyone in the mainframe market has always done, bundle the OS with the hardware.
So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now? Posted Aug 22, 2010 11:52 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] The whole detailed discussion on this page here has already addressed all of this before in one way or another, and with your comment you just showed that you know hardly anything about the mainframe situation and about the basics of competition rules, but let me explain anyway: why in the world would IBM be willing to enter discussions with a company behaving the way turbohercules is behaving? 1. TurboHercules sent a polite letter to IBM in July 2009, asking for it. Four months later, IBM turned down. TurboHercules sent another polite letter to IBM then (in November 2009). The public was only informed in late March of an antitrust complaint and in early April of IBM's patent threats: more than eight months after the original, polite contact in which a face-to-face meeting was suggested. 2. Apart from the above, a monopolist is required to treat potential customers in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory way. That means if you don't like the color of someone's skin or the shape of someone's nose, as a monopolist you still have obligations to meet unless you want to commit an abuse of your monopoly. Among other things, they could find any part of their negotiations on the newspaper front page taken out of context. See my explanations above. Nothing was discussed in the press until eight months after the original contact was made. No one forced IBM to make two versions of a patent threat, which then of course concerned people in the community, including (among many others) Eric Raymond and me. I think that if turbohercules had proposed something like that before going public, they may have had a chance They did propose negotiations eight months before going public. All four of the letters exchanged between the two companies from July 2009 to March 2010 are discussed in this blog posting, which includes links to the actual letters for everyone to see. selling the OS to run on turbohercules without supporting it would not work well for anyone (and would generate bad PR when things didn't work). it's not just selling a license and 'tolorating' turbohercules. The first step is to allow it. The second is how to address the support question in a way that would be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory under the law. I didn't say there shouldn't be any support. To me, the support question is a logical consequence of the "tolerating" question, but I admit I didn't make it perfectly clear in my previous comment. his isn't anything like if microsoft decided to stop selling windows separatly and only sell it with microsoft hardware, not only because microsoft doesn't sell hardware (and never has) The question I raised is what would happen, under competition law, if they decided to leverage their market position in software in a way that distorts competition in hardware. If tying is illegal under competition law, then it's illegal regardless of whether previously practiced or newly started. but also because IBM has never sold the software separately, No. Under the US DoJ's Consent Decree of 1956, IBM did provide all components including its operating systems separately for several decades. There were various "plug compatible mainframe" (PCM) manufacturers in the market such as Amdahl and Hitachi. But again, if tying is abuse of a monopoly, it's illegal regardless of history. If you park on the wrong side of your street for 10 years and then in the 11th year the police tells you that it's illegal, you can't argue that you've been doing it for 10 years so it must be legal... that they are doing the same thing that everyone in the mainframe market has always done, bundle the OS with the hardware. See above: the plug compatible mainframe story. The PCMs ran IBM operating systems. The fact that IBM was required to make its operating system available separately is, by the way, considered to have played a key role in IBM's original arrangement with Microsoft that allowed the sale of MS-DOS to other hardware companies. They might have assumed at IBM that sooner or later they'd be required to do so anyway. Now that I've patiently explained everything, it would be very kind of you if you could reconsider your position based on what you know now.
|
|
||||||||||||