I was surprised that Sun could go from idea to acquisition on MySQL in just five weeks. What turns out to be more surprising, however, is that Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's CEO, had been talking with Marten Mickos of MySQL for over five years on precisely that topic, as Jonathan reveals on his blog. The real question, then, is why did it take so long?
Jonathan doesn't say, but the answer is clear: Marten wanted to build an IPO-able, independent MySQL. He eventually sold because it made sense (and, I suspect, because the prospect of living in the glare of Wall Street's impatient eye was not looking as appealing as it once had, but that's just Matt Asay personal conjecture).
Jonathan's post is a fascinating read. Here's just one of the sections I found revealing, coming on the heels of his suggestion that there are no "cost synergies" in the deal (Sun isn't going to save money by marrying salesforces, for example):
Where are the revenue synergies?
... Read more
Linuxworld has a thought-provoking interview with Linus Torvalds that is a must-read. Linus is always interesting, but this one is particularly valuable because he addresses the role of commercial interests in making Linux better. He also talks about his personal motivations - financial and otherwise - and suggests:
The thing is, being a good programmer actually pays pretty well; being acknowledged as being world-class pays even better....So I think I would have missed the opportunity of my lifetime if I had not made Linux widely available [rather than made it proprietary and built a company around it].
So, if you marry the wide adoption of open source with the talents of a Linus Torvalds and the commercial interests of a Red Hat or MySQL you get...a fantastic community, and one that is good for developers, customers, and vendors.
Linus gives particular praise to commercial interests that have made Linux better:
... Read more
One of the first people I thought of when thinking up this In the Trenches series was Chris Harrick of SugarCRM. I've known Chris for a year or two, and have always been impressed. He's the sort of employee that any company would want, whether proprietary or open source. Fortunately for the open source world, he left Siebel to join SugarCRM.
When you talk with Chris, you don't get the sense that he spends much time mucking around in the ideological side of open source. He cares about customers and figuring out how to make them happy. And, as you'll see below, he thinks a lot about this and other issues that affect an open source business.
Name, company, title, and what you actually do
Chris Harrick, director of Product Marketing, SugarCRM. My team is responsible for communicating the benefits of SugarCRM products to open source users, prospects, customers, analysts, partners, and the media. Responsibilities include creating product messaging, competitive positioning, supporting sales, developing demos and webcasts, briefing analysts and the media, and authoring lots of collateral (White Papers, Datasheets, Press Releases, Web Site, Customer Case Studies).
... Read more
I spent some time talking with Martin Plaehn, CEO of Bungee Labs. He said something that I found deeply poignant given my current role with Alfresco:
There are no old gladiators. There are only old gladiator coaches.
His point was that you often get promoted to management because you were the best in your given role, but you don't remain the best at that role for long. There are always better people coming up through the ranks, and your job as a manager is to enable and channel their superior expertise.
Thinking about my own team today, I realize that this is absolutely true. Martin Musierowicz, for example, who joined Alfresco from JBoss and runs our OEM/Alliances business, is infinitely better in that realm than I could hope to be. The same is true of the rest of my team. I could not do their jobs better than they can.
And, frankly, the same is probably true in your company, too. Which is why I'd like to highlight the perspectives of the front-line managers and individual contributors at various open source companies who are the future (and present) of open source, and make their businesses tick.
In particular, I'd like these people to submit short articles that address the following:
- Name, company, title, and what you actually do (as titles rarely tell the full story)
- Do you work remotely or in an office with co-workers?
- If you've had a similar role in a proprietary software company, how does your current role compare? Similarities? Differences?
- How familiar were you with open source before you joined your current company?
- Why did you join an open source vendor?
- How long did it take you to adjust to an open source operational mode?
- What do you think open source companies could learn from proprietary vendors?
I was reading The Economist on my flight home from London today, and came across this paragraph in an article that resonated with me, because it reminds me of the various non-profit "lobbies" within the open source software movement.
Too many Brussels think-tanks accept large chunks of their funding from EU institutions and national governments. Others depend on big corporate sponsors, so that the lines between research and lobbying becomes queasily blurred....Nobody seems able to change the default formula for Brussels policy seminars: good coffee and croissants, dull speeches and a brief exchange of conventional wisdom. The painful comparison is with Washington, DC, where the best think-tanks refuse public money, compete to set the agenda with provocative ideas, and enjoy extraordinary access to administration and Congress alike. (June 9, 2007. 45)Open source software has the OSI, the Free Software Foundation, the Software Freedom Law Center, he Linux Foundation, various conferences (OSCON, OSBC, LinuxWorld, etc.), and various other overtly open source or friendly-to-open source organizations. How effective they are in promoting open source is, to my mind, directly proportionate to their independence.
I thought it was a net negative to see the Free Standards Group merge with OSDL. FSG was a "bottoms-up" organization, despite its corporate funding. OSDL was never more than an attempt to rein in Red Hat. I think very highly of Jim Zemlin, and think he bleeds more FSG (his original home) than OSDL, and believe he can do much good. But he has his work cut out for him to ensure the community's voice is heard in the Linux Foundation.
... Read more
- prev
- 1
- next
