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.
>
> 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
>> opportunities.
>>
>> 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
>> and context.
>>
>> 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.
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.