Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jun 2007 10:29 UTC, submitted by binarycrusader
Oracle and SUN Simon Phipps of Sun has responded to the recent criticism of Sun's openness, pointing out that even releasing information that they may already have costs a lot of money. "Jonathan asked me to look into this, to ensure we're pursuing an open path across all of Sun, not simply the software group. We take all input seriously, and we can't solve all problems for all parties, but we're committed to doing our best to faithfully engage with all the communities we serve, in the same spirit as the existing Open Source Ombudsman Scheme. With the support of my team and others in the community I'll try to build a new scheme that is fair and transparent."
Permalink for comment 249015
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: What is openness?
by phoehne on Tue 19th Jun 2007 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What is openness?"
Member since:

Actually, you gave a product that performed poorly at 5 times the cost. That's a strawman. What happens when the product is just as good at a 3% premium? What happens when the part is even cheaper but at 95% perofmance? I don't want them to open source for a religious reason - read my original comment. I want them to open it up because it's more appealing to customers. In particular it's more appealing to this customer. I like ZFS and I like MDB/DTrace - great selling points - but not if the long run option is a 75% open kernel. In the short run, that's fine, as they make their transition, but I think it will actually be in their shareholders best interest, in the long run, to do what customers want.

Reply Parent Score: 3