Subject: FW: Larry Ellison on FSBs
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 07:36:44 -0700
Sun, 23 Apr 2006 07:36:44 -0700
Forwarding this with permission..

 

  _____  

From: Jim Thompson [mailto:jim@netgate.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:36 AM
To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Cc: Thomas Lord
Subject: Re: Larry Ellison on FSBs

 

 

On Apr 22, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:





LE> [....] I don't think Oracle and IBM want to create a second

LE> Microsoft in Red Hat. But you can't - because Red Hat doesn't own 

LE> anything, they own nothing. They couldn't [become the next 

LE> Microsoft], they own nothing.

 

The word "nothing" is Larry Ellison hyperbole, although what Red Hat *does*

own isn't enough to create a second Microsoft. I don't think LE or Oracle

own enough to become a second Microsoft either, with other database software

in the world nowadays.

 

So what's his point?

 

Red Hat now owns JBoss as well as a very popular Linux distribution. :-)

Ellison could have owned it too if he'd been more alert to what's worth

owning.

 

I can't post to fsb because Russ Nelson has decided he doesn't like me, so
all mail to his mail server (where fsb is hosted) from me is blocked.

 

So I'm responding to you privately.

 

LE may well not understand that the age of "ownership" is dimming, and may
believe that his developers can add to Geronimo by studying the JBoss code
and adding similar features where needed for Oracle's customer base.
Remember that Oracle is a very large software vendor, while Red Hat is not.
RHAT grossed $233M last year, while ORCL grossed $13.4B. ORCL has 7.76B of
cash on hand, RHAT's entire market cap is less than this, at $5.5B.

 

Oracle could *pay* large customers to not use JBoss (or to move off of it),
killing the revenue stream that RHAT anticipates. If you don't think that
this kind of crap doesn't happen, then you've not witnessed the kind of war
that LE is more than comfortable waging.

 

Jim

p.s. you have my permission to forward this back to fsb if you think it
appropriate.

 

 

 

 



Forwarding this with permission….

 


From: Jim Thompson [mailto:jim@netgate.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:36 AM
To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Cc: Thomas Lord
Subject: Re: Larry Ellison on FSBs

 

 

On Apr 22, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:



LE> [....] I don't think Oracle and IBM want to create a second

LE> Microsoft in Red Hat. But you can't - because Red Hat doesn't own

LE> anything, they own nothing. They couldn't [become the next

LE> Microsoft], they own nothing.

 

The word "nothing" is Larry Ellison hyperbole, although what Red Hat *does*

own isn't enough to create a second Microsoft. I don't think LE or Oracle

own enough to become a second Microsoft either, with other database software

in the world nowadays.

 

So what's his point?

 

Red Hat now owns JBoss as well as a very popular Linux distribution. :-)

Ellison could have owned it too if he'd been more alert to what's worth

owning.

 

I can't post to fsb because Russ Nelson has decided he doesn't like me, so all mail to his mail server (where fsb is hosted) from me is blocked.

 

So I'm responding to you privately.

 

LE may well not understand that the age of "ownership" is dimming, and may believe that his developers can add to Geronimo by studying the JBoss code and adding similar features where needed for Oracle's customer base. Remember that Oracle is a very large software vendor, while Red Hat is not. RHAT grossed $233M last year, while ORCL grossed $13.4B. ORCL has 7.76B of cash on hand, RHAT's entire market cap is less than this, at $5.5B.

 

Oracle could *pay* large customers to not use JBoss (or to move off of it), killing the revenue stream that RHAT anticipates. If you don't think that this kind of crap doesn't happen, then you've not witnessed the kind of war that LE is more than comfortable waging.

 

Jim

p.s. you have my permission to forward this back to fsb if you think it appropriate.