Názory k článku
Pavel Kanzelsberger: Pixel dělám úplně sám

Kdyz se zastavi vyvoj open-source programu, tak ma kazdy moznost v tom programu pokracovat. A protoze kontinuita vyvoje je dulezita zejmena pro firmy, tak predpokladam, ze pri skutecne potrebe je z ceho dalsi vyvoj i financovat.

to je krasna demagogie hodna linuxoveho fanatika :-)
Problem je , ze photoshop je takovy etalon kvality a efektivita prace s GIMPem opravdu neni to prave orechove . To je proste fakt.

taby v browseroch by som skor povazoval za tym SMDI (alebo MSDI?) :-))

ad ikony ... hmm, s tym som nikdy nemal problemy, ikony nepouzivam

ad mysoidne ovladanie ... no, ovladanie tabletom je to iste ako ovladanie mysou (mam na mysli princip, tablet je v podstate len dalsia mys).

njn, gimpu by sa zisiel "usability team".

Mozila Foundation neni typicky opensource projekt
J-Boss neni typicky opensource projekt.
Openoffice neni typicky opensource projekt.

Faktem je, ze GUI vsech typickych opensource produktu je hodne spatne.

Kritika neefektivniho GUI se asi nebude tykat programu, ktere GUI nemaji :-)

Typicky? To snad ani nemuzete myslet vazne. Kde ziteje? Co to pouzivate?

Kouknete se na seznam balicku, ktere mate nainstalovane a zjistete si, kolik z nich primarne vyviji nejaka sponzorovana organizace prip. komercni firmy.

Kdyby to byly semestralni prace, tak by mozna byla i vetsina spolehlivejsi nez je tomu dnes ;-)

Pokud Mozillu povazujete za typicky opensource projekt, tak to mate budto spatnou pamet nebo o puvodu tohoto projektu nevite vubec nic. To same plati o OOo. Pokud by nebylo Sunu a Novelu, tak dneska pisete maximalne v TeXu (ne ze bych obecne proti TeXu neco mel).

Kouknete se na seznam balicku, ktere mate nainstalovane a zjistete si, kolik z nich primarne vyviji nejaka sponzorovana organizace prip. komercni firmy. Budete rad, kdyz takovych balicku napocitate 30%. A to lze tezko prohlasit za typicke.

Tak to je typicky "malomestacky" alibismus. ... naprogramujte si to .... Tohle ma byt argumentace pro tu drtivou vetsinu uzivatelu?

Ja len k tomu JBossu. Bohuzial JBoss az teraz (od verzie 4 uvolnil aku taku dokumentaciu). Predtym ryzovali $ za dokumentaciu, skolenia a podporu - a na tom tvrdo ryzuju aj teraz, staci sa pozriet na ich stranku. Predtym sa dost tazko (neoficialne na webe), hladali rozne tutorialy, ako dat do clusteru zopar JBoss serverov. Dokumentacia oproti komercnym serverom vyrazne zaostava.

Takisto na Slovensku mate Oracle, IBM pobocky a preto velke firmy (banky, telekomunikacni operatori) s kritickymi projektami nikdy nebudu na JBosse bezat, pretoze ak sa daco poserie, potrebuju to riesit ihned. Bezia bud na IBM, BEA alebo Oracle.

Bohuzial je to tak. Bez podpory a dokumentacie to nenasadia.

http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=38992
Rumour: Oracle to buy JBoss?
Posted by: Joseph Ottinger on February 13, 2006 @ 02:18 PM

Recently, many news sites and bloggers have suggested that Oracle may acquire JBoss. However, neither JBoss nor Oracle has issued a comment either confirming or denying the reports, with JBoss specifically saying that they had an official policy of not commenting on "speculation and rumour." Oracle could not be reached for comment. Most comments have been second- or third-hand, by parties who would be external to such an acquisition.

This doesn't mean that such an acquisition is not in motion, but that any reports of such an acquisition aren't valid yet. Industry insiders, as well as BEA (in an article on CNET entitled "BEA found JBoss acquisition too expensive," quoting Chief Marketing Officer Marge Breya) indicated that a purchase of JBoss has been discussed, although the insiders could not (or would not) indicate how valid such discussions were. However, such insiders said that the primary difficulties were with the price point, indicating that there's at least something behind the rumours.

If someone - Oracle, specifically - is trying to acquire JBoss, it's likely with the aim to acquire the successful JBoss support business, since JBoss itself is an open source product, much as IBM acquired Geromino expertise with the purchase of GlueCode in 2005. Other rumoured targets for Oracle included Zend Software and SleepyCat Software, makers of the Berkeley database engine.

Some sources have said that Oracle will be making an announcement within two days. While it's hard to tell at this point whether a sale is actually being considered or is in progress, given that none of the companies have official statements on the matter, these sources have indicated that there is a "done deal" while not specifying any terms or specific targets.

http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6038569.html
Fleury "not touching" Oracle question
February 13, 2006 7:21 AM PST

The buzz in the software industry is that Oracle is in talks to buy JBoss and possibly other open-source companies, Zend Technologies and Sleepycat Software.

JBoss CEO and founder Marc Fleury, who spoke at an MIT-sponsored open-source conference on Saturday, wouldn't answer the large question hanging over the room.

"Some of you will joke that (Oracle CEO) Larry Ellison is on my phone. I will not touch this," he said part-way through his speech on JBoss and open-source business models.

Similarly, JBoss' lead venture investor, David Skok from Matrix Partners, on Saturday wouldn't comment on whether talks were underway. However, Skok did say that going public is still a possibility for JBoss, in part because the business is still growing rapidly.

In previous interviews, Fleury has indicated that the selling the company has come up with partners. Indeed, BEA Systems' said that JBoss and BEA explored the possibility but declined because of the price JBoss was asking. One industry executive said that JBoss' license, the Lesser General Public License, posed an obstacle for BEA as well.

Although nothing has come so far of the reported talks, the potential deals raise the obvious question: will it work?

For Oracle, the deal dovetails with two important thrusts at the company. First, Oracle is embracing open-source software and is trying to allow its customers to mix and match open-source and Oracle proprietary software. Secondly, subscription-based pricing, often used by open-source companies such as JBoss, fits well with Oracle's direction general direction of generating revenue from ongoing maintenance fees.

But can Oracle buy an open-source "community" without estranging the developers working on these projects?

Mike Milinkovich, the executive director of the Eclipse Foundation, says it can be done. That may not be surprising coming from the head of Eclipse, a successful open-source project founded by IBM and staffed almost entirely with software company employees.

Starting a community from scratch is difficulty, experts say. The trick to moving into an existing one is respecting the community and not dramatically changing direction, Milinkovich said Saturday.

"If a company buys a community to monetize it, they'll fall and really quickly," he said. "There has long been corporate support for open source at varying degrees. Now that corporate involvement is more visible."

RedMonk analyst Stephen O'Grady said there are some perils to a large firm moving into open-source.

"You can't buy a community and dictate the terms," he said. "But you can buy influencers (such as lead developers) in an open-source community. That's a viable strategy."

IBM's purchase of Gluecode gave the company some of the lead engineers in the Apache Geronimo project. And JBoss itself has consolidated a number of open-source projects by employing important developers behind a few open-source projects, notably Apache Tomcat and Hibernate.
Posted by Martin LaMonica