Open Source and the "Xen" of Xen 118
willdavid writes "In a follow-up to his original look at what happened to Xen, Jeff Gould talks to XenSource CTO Simon Crosby. Usually we hear about how open source provides freedoms for end users. However, this article talks about the difficulty a small software developer has with an open source license, in particular, the need to prevent Red Hat, IBM or Novell from running away with all the business revenue."
Sell Out? (Score:1)
Re:Sell Out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As opposed to closed commercial software... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Contrast that with using most open source l
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I was thinking. Specifically, they are trying to enter a market in which there is already a powerful, established player, with a successful product - VMWare. And other competitors are also in the wings (Microsoft, in particular, but not directly for virtualizing Linux-on-Linux, perhaps). By going open-source, they gain some benefits in competing with VMWare (which is not open-source), namely,
Re:As opposed to closed commercial software... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep - because locking away source code has stopped the likes of Microsoft so many times in the past.
Yah; I've long wondered why people would say such things. It seems fairly obvious that with secret, proprietary code, it would be fairly easy to rip off lots of open-source code without anyone ever knowing. You'd want to make a few tweaks, of course, so that obscure corner behavior (and bugs) would b
Difficulties? (Score:1, Troll)
Hybrid strategies (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad hybrid strategy may be downfall of XenSource (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes indeed, and sadly that is a lesson that the XenSource people don't seem to have learned.
They have virtually abandoned the Xen hypervisor code to focus on their closed enterprise offerings, as a result of which it's rapidly becoming obsoleted by KVM and OpenVZ and others. And once Xen no longer has the unique property of being the only fully working virtualization technology, XenSour
Re: (Score:2)
You just need to make sure that the open source stuff actually has some value and is not a way to leech some free R&D. I.e. it should be be managed by you and hopefully mostly developed on your dime. If it is useful for your customers to be able to tweak the source, or if the software is useful by itself, then developers will work on it.
Software that is "useful by itself" is about the _worst_ thing for commercialising OSS, because it will subsequently be "leeched" by everyone else.
Assuming by "OSS"
Can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't that exact statement also true for the small players? In the mostly-proprietary days it was, "the big players can afford to leverage lots of applications because they can pay for the developers..." and now both sides have the benefit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Both sides "can" benefit, but the old saying "nobody ever got fired for picking <insert big player here>" still applies. Sure, there are exceptions, especially when y
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a failing of the economic system. It shouldn't be so very hard for brilliant people to make our lives better, and it sh
Yet somehow MySQL survives (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mozilla is primarliy funded by Google
Redhat, Novell etc provide support, training for Xen as a part of their product.
Free software, sold (Score:5, Insightful)
Their reasoning is that if they released all of their stuff under GPL then Red Hat would just scoop it up and serve it in place of the very inferior management tools bundled into RHEL5.
This paradox has always baffled me. The open source community creates it, and then another company sells it, with the hope of making revenue from specialized knowledge. It's one of the two biggest flaws of the current FOSS model, in my view. The other is that FOSS software tends to clone/emulate existing commercial products.
Both of these face the same problem, which is that in a media-driven capitalist economy, ideas need to become products that are sold in order to be recognized as "part of" the economy and society as a whole. While GPLv3 is a good start toward working around this, another thought is that FOSS should operate on commercial principles from the beginning, and serve as a think tank and consultant shop that hires out its programmers to implement their own code for customers, eliminating the need for boring and unrelated "day jobs."
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
What makes you think this a flaw and not a deliberate design decision ?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Isn't Red Hat getting people to use OSS who otherwise wouldn't? That seems to be an incremental effect which is not taking any opportunity away from the developer. I'm sure if the original developer wanted to be in the software support business he could easily do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see this as a real FOSS problem. Most commercial products are just clones or extensions of other existing products.
You has more to do with the evolution of software then FOSS vs Closed Source.
Take a look at Excel. If you knew Lotus 123 then Excel was easy to learn because it seemed to be a lot like good old Lotus. Oh and Lotus really was easy to learn if you knew Visicalc because it worked a lot like Visicalc.
Lotus
making money with FOSS (Score:2)
As to the problems with making money off of FOSS. Well yes it isn't always easy and frankly I don't believe in FOSS as a universal solution for all software problems. It is great in some areas but I think is far from the universal solution that RMS and the faithful believe.
This brings up an area where I prefer BSD type licenses over the GPL. I love photography and would like to program a compleat photo/graphics suite including editing, a db for inventory and photos, and a billing module along others.
Re: (Score:2)
Say you develop a photo-editing (or whatever) piece of software and release it under the GPL. Then you add a few new features and decide to start charging money for a closed-source version with more functionality. No problem! That is just fine.
Now consider that Joe fixes a security hole in the GPL version of your software, and the same hole exists in your closed version. You can use his patch to fix the GPL version, but you cannot use it to fix the
FOSS licenses (Score:2)
Say you develop a photo-editing (or whatever) piece of software and release it under the GPL. Then you add a few new features and decide to start charging money for a closed-source version with more functionality. No problem! That is just fine.
Ok, thanks I didn't know that. What if I were to take another GPL software like Inkscape [inkscape.org] and add a billing module, could I close source the module?
You see the difference? If it's your code, the GPL doesn't keep you from doing anything you want. The only thing it
Re: (Score:2)
That's a complicated quetion and there's no general-purpose answer. The problem is the legal interpretation of "derivative work". If the module is "derived" (in a legal sense as applied to software) from the Inkscape source, then no. If your module really is independent, then yes.
Take nVidia's closed-source Linux drivers, for example. They're basically a plug-in for the kernel. Some people thi
Re: (Score:2)
That's a complicated quetion and there's no general-purpose answer. The problem is the legal interpretation of "derivative work". If the module is "derived" (in a legal sense as applied to software) from the Inkscape source, then no. If your module really is independent, then yes.
What I'd probably do is add some calls in Inkscape, or whatever else, that calls the billing module. I know those calls, being added to Inkscape, would have to be open. But I'm not sure about the billing module, which wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
What I would suggest if you really wanted to make money from this is to find a bunch of FOSS packages that do most of what you would want them to do. Add some bits of code to improve them and donate that back to the community. Then create a pretty package, installer, and a good mannual along with any closed source custom programs
Re: (Score:2)
If the billing module is a stand alone program then it is all good. If you added code to Inksscape which I would find an odd way of doing things then you would be bound by the GPL.
In order to call, launch,or simply use the billing module from within Inkscape I'd add some calls into Inkscape. Say add a "billing" selection to the tools menu which when selected will start the billing module. I know if I were to distribute Inkscape with my calls added I'd have to include those calls in the source but as th
Re: (Score:2)
Well....
1. Not if you follow the FSFs suggestion that every contributers transfers the ownership of the code to the original copyright holder. You would then own the code and could do with the the patch as you will. See CUPS as an example.
2. Not if the patch is obvious. If it is a simp
Re: (Score:2)
That's an example of "asking for special permission." Also, the FSF doesn't suggest that contributers transfer ownership to the original copyright holder; they ask that everyone transfer ownership *to the FSF*.
If it is a simple security hole then while you couldn't take the patch
That's what I said.
You can, but that's legally d
Re: (Score:2)
I've always said that FOSS is great for commodity areas. Thinks like standard infrastructure (the OS, simple routing, standard Office applications, web browsers, IM, e-mail, to a lesser extent database, HTTP, FTP, SSH, e-mail, DNS, etc and other servers). Just about anything that is standard out of the box functionality people expect from a computer is great to have as an Open Source software. In a lot of ways, even Microsoft software is free as in beer for most folks. Other then Office Software, most
Re: (Score:2)
If you wanted to open a bakers shop, where would you do it ? In a street that had no bakers at all, or a few doors down from a successful baker ? There is usually a valid reason for the street with no bakers being that way, plus if the other guy can make it pay where he is, then you should be able to as well. Competition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct but also rare.
I hate to do use the dreaded car analogy but here it is.
Time to change your oil
You can pay someone to change it at the Jiffy Lube.
or
You can get the manual, get the tools, and learn how to do it yourself.
I am all for Open
Xen didn't copy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I realize you're not saying that Xen copied, but that Open Source in general copies. Xen is a great counterexample.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. IBM's pHype, Denali, arguably, L4, Exokernel, and even Nemesis were doing it long before Xen came around.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I admit, I really don't know much about pHype, but I'm pretty sure that Xen is quite different from Denali. Denali's purpose is to run a myriad of small services, each in its own little sandbox. Xen runs full-scale OSes with conventional services. There are many other differences, it's a good idea check the paper. Perhaps
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, since it's exactly how it operates in the closed-source world too. Our company is making good money on implementing various huge software packages built by other companies. Of course then they have to pay for the software too, but that you can make money off havin
Re: (Score:1)
Hell, even then it's difficult, look at GIMP that *still* can't support more than 8bits/channel even though it's obviously wanted and useful.
8-bits/channel was an early design assumption of the GIMP that all subsequent code hasn't questioned. It isn't a matter of changing a few pointers and routines here and there. "8-bits" is all over the primary codebase and the most popular scripts and plugins as well. GIMP will have to be refactored from the ground up to remove that limitation. The GEGL librarie
FOOS graphics editors (Score:2)
I just made a quick check and found a download site with 1000 image editors. How many open source applications do you need? There's GIMP and Krita and... honestly, I can't think of a third one.
I've got a few more bookmarked. As for why there are so many, some are meant to do specific things, run in specific environments, or to edit specific formats. Some, like POV-Ray, are vector graphics editors. Some are bitmap editors. Some are 2D and others 3D. So
I'm going to have to disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
redhat stealing xen mindshare (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Um, dumbass, read the article. Xen is trademarked and there are strict terms to using the trademark, which Redhat doesn't want to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:redhat stealing xen mindshare (Score:4, Interesting)
If they had a GUI called RedHat Xen, then they'd need another one for dealing with KVM.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who does not follow the Xen ABI and guarantee to stay compatible cannot use the Xen trademark. Redhat will not agree to that, and thus cannot use the trademark. Xen is happy with this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:redhat stealing xen mindshare (Score:4, Interesting)
Red Hat do this because Xen trademarked the term and restrict its usage.
The comment about libvirt is funny though. I would invite anyone to come and look at libvirt [libvirt.org] and particularly the mailing list archives [redhat.com] and to decide for themselves if libvirt is really "proprietary software published openly" (whatever that even means).
Rich.
Re: (Score:3)
For that matter, RH has also "vigorously" defended their trademarks. Just ask the CentOS people.
It won't be Xen for long (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so, since KVM requires a VT-capable processor. Not every system has such a processor yet.
Re: (Score:2)
So if Red Hat fucked up Xen (not saying they did though, it's just an example), would you want credit for the fuckup? That's what could happen if derivatives are allowed to use the original name.
A name or a brand is often used as a stamp of approval. To say that your OS is a Unix system requires that you get a stamp of approval from The Open Group. To say that your virtualization software is Xen you need a stamp of approval from XenSource. And for the same reason, CentOS cannot be called Red Hat Enterpris
Lack of Creativity (Score:3, Informative)
It's still not easy though. Getting customers to open their wallets when there are much bigger companies like RedHat and Microsoft is tough anyway. That's why sales people are so valuable.
I want to believe frustrations got the better of the person in question at that moment.
Plenty of licenses (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Lots of developers enjoy the creation of software and appreciate reuse and freedom of software (i.e. improving computer experience)-- why not turn a hobby into work?
But, this view has proven difficult to combine with the current market as it renders development labour nearly priceless.
I can imagine the frustration of others earning the revenue of your labour; the GPL is also about fairness (remember emacs/lucent).
Sum up. (Score:2)
Their reasoning, which makes sense to me, is that they are afraid their hard work will be lost if Redhat or other commercial vendors can just include it in their distro and make sales based on it. Makes sense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
ABI is interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
Wonder how this is done? This sounds like it would hinder the efficiency Xen. Besides who know's what architectures will be around in 10 years. I'm guessing it's not going to be a hypervisor anymore like VMWare, but more like VirtualPC which emulations the targeted architecture (perhaps both).
Without this I seriously doubt I'll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or something.
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand, a Xen VM is basically a root filesystem and a kernel. Its not like VMWare where you have a proprietary disk image format and a proprietary VM config format etc.
So from that perspective it should be trivial to pull a Xen VM out of the freezer in 10 years time and have it 'just work'.
But this isn't the whole picture.
There are two ways that the VM could work today:
It could use HVM (hardware virtualisation) in which case
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be describing a "calling convention", not an "ABI". Normally, specific hardware and languages had specific ways it expects to pass parameters. Most of the really odd looking things near the return types of a Win32 method are specifying the calling convention for passing arguments and return values to and from the caller. An ABI is something that a library, or specific piece of software has. Subversion has a binary compatible ABI and API guarantees that are tied to the version numbers. I be
Open Graphics Project has this concern (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
OGP is an admirable effort, but it will be years before they get anywhere close to developing seriously competitive hardware. And that is if they m
Interesting tidbit... (Score:2, Interesting)
Either way Linux wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Common misconception, that. ESX runs on the vmkernel, a proprietary kernel that has no purpose in life other than running VMs. The RHEL 4 image is essentially a "privileged guest" that provides a user interface to the vmkernel, and a platform for tools and user-written utilities.
Have fun,
Keith (engineer at VMware)
Xen and Trusted Computing (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I think this is fine and can really increase the security and utility of virtualization. But particularly with the recent release of GPLv3 and controversy over trusted computing it is interesting to see Xen moving in this direction. I imagine that it means that Xen will stick to GPLv2.
No, no, you've got it all wrong (Score:1)
What?
Rob
My take on Xen, VMWare, etc (Score:5, Informative)
I've been playing around with VMWare since it initially came out, including a production install of v4.5 at work to virtualize NT4 machines so that our LAN goons won't complain, and I've always found it extraordinarily easy to use. From a "get it running" perspective, the damn thing's idiot-proof. Fire it up, boot off some install media (even if it's Knoppix, and you're going to image the system from elsewhere), and you're golden.
Xen? Eh, not so easy if you're not starting with a clean install of a Xen-aware OS. Lots of hours screwing with configurations, swapping kernels, messing with pygrub, and scratching my head as to why it wasn't doing anything, or was crashing with some cryptic error. Some of this is a result of the paravirtualization approach, as it requires some guest changes, but nobody's really published a good, generalized guide to native->domU migration. (Yes, I know about the CentOS one, and while it was some help, it was also wrong at some points, as it's never been updated for a CentOS 4.5 domU.)
My take is this - the (non-Xen) tools bundled with RHEL5 (well, CentOS 5, really) are, um, overly simplistic at best and completely unhelpful at worst. Graphical tools be damned - by the end it was me, the text editor, and xm on the command line.
I did get it up and running, and when given its own disks, the performance is impressive. It (unscientifically) *feels* faster than a Linux VM on Linux-hosted VMWare (desktop version). Now my web/mail server and house/firewall server have been combined. Tonight, I'll collapse in one more server. I'm quite confident I can do it in a reasonable amount of time, now that I've figured out most of the gotchas. Plus, sounds like a good thing to document and post so that others might not have to fight through quite as much as I did.
In an enterprise environment, the management tools make or break you. When I'm managing a handful of machines, doing it myself is annoying but acceptable. When I'm virtualizing a datacenter and need tools to convert machines, manage their resources, manage their operations, etc., then management toys become the make-or-break part of the deal. We all assume your virtualizer works - now let's see what makes our lives easier managing this strange new world.
Re: (Score:2)
Boot in and update the rpm's and you're good to go.
Re: (Score:2)
When I'm virtualizing a datacenter and need tools to convert machines, manage their resources, manage their operations, etc., then management toys become the make-or-break part of the deal.
Depends on what you mean by a management tool. A pretty GUI is not a management tool. Ability to automatically script/update/check a thousand servers in parallel is a management tool.
It's the first box that's a problem. Every box after that is a copy. And copying is easy if you've planned it right, GUI or no.
---
Re: (Score:2)
However, the assumption of both responses is that all virtualization is of new, mirror-copy machines. While there are definitely cases that's true, it's not in my world. I have a large amount of legacy machines where the software is fine, but the hardware is reaching end of life (and I don't mean end of support - I mean an abnormal rise in the number of failures indicating that the hardware itself is nearing an end). I need to
"Level" playing field? (Score:2)
...the need to prevent Red Hat, IBM or Novell from running away with all the business revenue.
I think the idea of marketing and working with OSS is that level playing field and participation with the community.
Competition under those rules implies that there's some out there for everyone. For too long we've all been operating under this ridiculous notion that success is measured by "growth." What if people were measured that way too? We'd all be failures somewhere between 16 and 22 years old!
RedHat isn't out there trying to "dominate" the market. Novell isn't out there "crushing" the competiti
Re: (Score:2)
No, but Debian users do when they have to deal with such a distro.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Whether a person likes Red Hat or not (I gave up on them when Red Hat 8 came out; couldn't stomach Bluecurve, switched to Debian, and never looked back), RH has GPLed everything they've written. GPLed it, out there where anyone else who wants to can take it and try to turn a buck off it.
The first Linux distro I ever used was called the "Turbo Linux Edition of Red Hat 4.2." That's what it said right on the CD. In the installer, the references were
Virtualisation (Score:1)
XEN not suitable for end-users (Score:3, Interesting)
At the moment, not many users have good hardware for virtualisation but that will change in 2008 and I give XEN not so much chances to get major market slice.
Re: (Score:1)
Alternative to xen (Score:1)
I'm running linux below linux without hardware paravirtualisation support. or what about virtualbox - would be a much better vmware alternative.
on the other side xen
It's bad for users (Score:2)
Yeah, we certainly wouldn't want users to have a better experience.
Free software is about the users; proprietary software is about the programmers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Leading Write Up (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see what the problem is with Xen wanting to maintain a solid binary container format and requiring that those wishing to use their trademark respect it.
How is this different from Sun wishing to prevent MS from poisoning Java?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)