"Red Hat today announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire JBoss. By acquiring JBoss, Red Hat expects to accelerate the shift to service-oriented architectures, by enabling the next generation of web-enabled applications running on a low-cost, open source platform."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-30
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2005-09-22
Or simply some employees who weren't rude. At one point we thought about getting paid support from JBoss, but we decided against it after reading enough of Adrian Brock's posts.
At the time, his title was "Director of Support", but most of his community interaction on the forums involved berating somebody. Two years later, it's still a joke within our company.
"Did you ask anybody about the bug on JBoss forums?"
"No, I was scared that Adrian would yell at me".
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-09-22
Member since:
2006-01-10
Member since:
2005-07-15
Member since:2005-11-14
Member since:2005-07-12
"OSS developers loathe java."
Is that why we have the open source java projects like:
gcj
classpath
Jikes
SableVM
Kaffe
Tomcat
Eclipse
Struts
Ant
JUnit
Harmony
Geronimo
JBoss
Spring
Hibernate
Jonas
???
... or that Java is the number one language, in terms of project usage, at SourceForge (the leading repository for open source projects) ?????
What some OSS developers have a concern about Java is licensing for the standard Sun Java JRE/JDK, which is incompatible for including with many Linux distros and/or other open source projects (but that doesn't stop people from downloading Sun Java and installing it on Linux - no licensing issues there). This is why there is so much effort put into either lobying Sun to fully open source it's Java, or to fully develop/implement a complete open source Java stack (in the form of gcj, classpath, and project Harmony).
No, in reality open source developers typically love Java. Now, some developers will argue the technical merits of Java vs C/C++, or open source scripting languages like Perl, Python, PHP, or Ruby. But the fact remains that Java is extremely popular in the OSS world.
Thus, this is another great reason to be very pleased about the RH Jboss acquistion - it will futher the proliferation of Java in the Linux/OSS world, and further the development of a complete open source Java stack - extending gcj/classpath - Red Hat is one of the leading developers of gcj and succesfully impletemented both Eclipse and Tomcat with it.
I think anyone who supports open source Java (or any Java for that matter), and anyone who supports Linux and/or OSS, has to be extremely pleased with acquistion, in technical, business, and licensing terms.
Edited 2006-04-10 20:49
Member since:2005-07-15
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:
2005-07-12
JBoss were being examined for acquisition by Oracle, IBM, and BEA. In each case, the suitor had their own closed source, super expensive, J2EE application server product. Thus, an acquistion from one of these would have effectively killed JBoss.
But since Red Hat bought JBoss, there is synergy with complimentary products (Server OS with large middleware, J2EE, app server), all of which is entirely open source, and proven reliable, scalable, and easy to use in the largest of enterprise environments.
Both JBoss and Red Hat have similar and very successful business models, and help legitimize open source. The combination of the two will only make them stronger, and only help the proliferation of open source in the enterprise.
This news is great for Java, Linux, open source, and especially customers.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-12
"well, not that great stuff. Redhat was already givin J2EE support through Jonas, a very capable J2EE app server . now posibly they will stop supporting it.."
There's no reason why RH can't continue to support both, giving customers a choice.
The revenue from supporting RHEL, Jonas, or JBoss is all good, afterall.
Also, as good or bad as Jonas might be (I have no idea), the fact is it doesn't have near the amount of customers, usage, or mindshare JBoss does.
But in the end, Jonas will probably become the second choice, and a bit of the "red-headed step child" in the RH portfolio, in terms of promotion/sales. Nevertheless, that won't stop people from using it, if they prefer it.
Member since:
2006-03-15
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2005-07-12
"I'll be switching to it, Redhat doesn't know dung about java, rather not be stuck with the beta only crap freedora versions of jboss either after they redhatten it."
Go with CentOS then. CentOS is based 100% on source RPMs from Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which means it is as robust and stable as RHEL (but not supported), and it's 100% free of charge.
Member since:
2006-04-10
This move deepens Redhat's investment on the Java framework and increases the dichotomy already present between the two big Linux distributions: Redhat with Java and Novel will Mono/.NET.
Personally I think that this is great, as there are too many open source versions of different Java technologies, spreading the efforts thin. Also I have a subjective antipathy towards the Mono project, which I consider a Trojan horse for the open source community, and would not be sad to see it flounder. Not Mono per se, as compatibility with .NET apps is needed, but Novell's ambitious goals of writing critical open source applications with it.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-12
"" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/10/fleury_redhat_critic/"
Hilarious.
Being that Marc Fluery is an ex Sun employee, and Scott McNealy was his boss (somewhere along the corporate hierarchy), it's not suprising that Fluery is a trolling crackpot. It's McNealy's CEO 101 class - say outrageous stuff in the press or in blogs to generate publicity, no matter how stupid what you said was.
