> From: Robert Milkowski [mailto:rmilkow...@task.gda.pl]
> That is one thing that always bothered me... so it is ok for others, like
> Nexenta, to keep stuff closed and not in open, while if Oracle does it they
> are bad?

Oracle, like Nexenta, and my own company CleverTrove, and Microsoft, and 
Netapp, has every right to close source development, if they believe it's 
beneficial to their business.  For all we know, Oracle might not even have a 
choice about it - it might have been in the terms of settlement with NetApp 
(because open source ZFS definitely hurt NetApp business.)  The real question 
is, in which situations, is it beneficial to your business to be closed source, 
as opposed to open source?  There's the whole redhat/centos dichotomy.  At 
first blush, it would seem redhat gets screwed by centos (or oracle linux) but 
then you realize how many more redhat derived systems are out there, compared 
to suse, etc.  By allowing people to use it for free, it actually gains 
popularity, and then redhat actually has a successful support business model as 
compared to suse, which tanked.

But it's useless to argue about whether oracle's making the right business 
choice, whether open or closed source is better for their business.  Cuz it's 
their choice, regardless who agrees.  Arguing about it here isn't going to do 
any good.

Those of us who gained something and no longer count on having that benefit 
moving forward have a tendency to say "You gave it to me for free before, now 
I'm pissed off because you're not giving it to me for free anymore."  instead 
of "thanks for what you gave before."

The world moves on.  There's plenty of time to figure out which solution is 
best for you, the consumer, in the future product offerings:  commercial closed 
source product offering, open source product offering, or something completely 
different such as btrfs.

zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to