Comments on: What if Hot Dog vendors sold you Power Tools? http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/ Musings on reporting, OLAP, ETL, open source Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:11:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Tina http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-276410 Tina Sun, 25 Sep 2011 07:05:57 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-276410 Is that really all there is to it because that'd be flbaebrgsating. Is that really all there is to it because that’d be flbaebrgsating.

]]> By: Bubby http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-276359 Bubby Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:46:55 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-276359 I just hope whvoeer writes these keeps writing more! I just hope whvoeer writes these keeps writing more!

]]> By: Open Core | Content Here http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-275214 Open Core | Content Here Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:29:57 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-275214 [...] The market needed something to distinguish the two types of companies: open source and open core. Nicholas Goodman makes the observation that it doesn’t make sense for a company that only sell.... Now each type of company gets its own descriptive [...] [...] The market needed something to distinguish the two types of companies: open source and open core. Nicholas Goodman makes the observation that it doesn’t make sense for a company that only sell…. Now each type of company gets its own descriptive [...]

]]> By: open3 » E’ arrivato ClearView …: http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274393 open3 » E’ arrivato ClearView …: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:02:06 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274393 [...] per citare alcuni tra i post più rilevanti capitati a tiro: vedi il blog di Pedro Alves, quello di Nick Goodman, e il parere sul proprio blog di Julian [...] [...] per citare alcuni tra i post più rilevanti capitati a tiro: vedi il blog di Pedro Alves, quello di Nick Goodman, e il parere sul proprio blog di Julian [...]

]]> By: Julian F http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274305 Julian F Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:35:58 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274305 The moniker "Commercial Open Source" is always going to blow up in your face at some point. Also a good read... http://intelligent-enterprise.informationweek.com/blog/archives/2009/10/open_source_dec.html The moniker “Commercial Open Source” is always going to blow up in your face at some point.

Also a good read…

http://intelligent-enterprise.informationweek.com/blog/archives/2009/10/open_source_dec.html

]]> By: Nicholas Goodman http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274301 Nicholas Goodman Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:08:13 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274301 -Julian I think the outsourcing of code after a failed proprietary strategy is more of an exception than the rule. JasperSoft (formerly known as Panscopic) had a similar beginning, but found the Open Source light pretty fast. Infobright is a clear example of that - they started trying to sell their software for a year and then moved to an open source framework later. Ingres, no question there. Otherwise, most products tend to be commercial distros of an existing, vibrant, project. -Julian

I think the outsourcing of code after a failed proprietary strategy is more of an exception than the rule. JasperSoft (formerly known as Panscopic) had a similar beginning, but found the Open Source light pretty fast. Infobright is a clear example of that – they started trying to sell their software for a year and then moved to an open source framework later. Ingres, no question there.

Otherwise, most products tend to be commercial distros of an existing, vibrant, project.

]]> By: Julian F http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274300 Julian F Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:00:27 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274300 Interesting, though my eyes are spinning like 8-balls trying to keep up with the discussion. One thing that's always baffled me a bit about open-source though (which I use and promote btw) is what is the general motivation for open-sourcing products. Aren't may of them just commercial products that didn't "make it" commercially and the guardians of the software then try and preserve the longetivity of the code by making it available, in which case you could argue that it's not entirely altruistic, rather a last roll of the dice? In terms of the semantics of open-core/open source an interesting (if slightly challenging discussion). I think I need to go and re-read the Pentaho licensing agreement. Am I right in assuming that elements of the Pentaho suite are not open source? Interesting, though my eyes are spinning like 8-balls trying to keep up with the discussion.

One thing that’s always baffled me a bit about open-source though (which I use and promote btw) is what is the general motivation for open-sourcing products. Aren’t may of them just commercial products that didn’t “make it” commercially and the guardians of the software then try and preserve the longetivity of the code by making it available, in which case you could argue that it’s not entirely altruistic, rather a last roll of the dice?

In terms of the semantics of open-core/open source an interesting (if slightly challenging discussion). I think I need to go and re-read the Pentaho licensing agreement. Am I right in assuming that elements of the Pentaho suite are not open source?

]]> By: Nicholas Goodman http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274294 Nicholas Goodman Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:24:12 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274294 Once again, we're in agreement. An hour or so of my life today that I will never get back... Once again, we’re in agreement.

An hour or so of my life today that I will never get back…

]]> By: James Dixon http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274293 James Dixon Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:09:15 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274293 I have agreed on multiple threads that our messaging could be clearer, and I just don't think its very interesting as a topic. In general people looking for a BI product don't care about open source, and people looking for open source software don't care that much about the corporate web site and press releases. I have agreed on multiple threads that our messaging could be clearer, and I just don’t think its very interesting as a topic.

In general people looking for a BI product don’t care about open source, and people looking for open source software don’t care that much about the corporate web site and press releases.

]]> By: Nicholas Goodman http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274292 Nicholas Goodman Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:53:19 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2009/10/13/what-if-hot-dog-vendors-sold-you-power-tools/#comment-274292 Ok, I believe that. However, it seems like Pentaho is just shouting over the actual topic (specific terms that are confusing) to simply defend it's street cred as an open source company. I say: it's confusing to call a proprietary product (EE) an open source product. Pentaho says: "I think we have earned the right to say that we are an open source business intelligence company" I agree! I say: it's confusing for an open source vendor to not really sell open source products. Pentaho says: "..we use the term ‘commercial open source’. We didn’t invent the term, and it is the only term commonly used to describe our business model." I agree! My ultimate point is that our crossing comments are not incompatible - it's just not been acknowledged that the Open Core model lends to cognitive dissonance. With Open Core you can have a "Commercial Open Source" company that sells a "Proprietary Product" on top of an "Open Source Project" but does not sell an "Open Source Product" and therefore does not actually sell open source and qualify as an "Open Source Vendor." Its confusing, not inaccurate or wrong. So, let me say that I agree with everything you and Doug have written. It's just not the topic (specific inaccurate phrases) we're discussing which is why I thought it defensive. That could certainly be my mistake for construing topic missing response comments as defensive - perhaps the topic of discussion and source of confusion is still unclear. I hereby offer an in person meetup, with a bottle of whiskey to clarify. :) Nothing helps to add clarity to semantic discussions like booze. Ok, I believe that.

However, it seems like Pentaho is just shouting over the actual topic (specific terms that are confusing) to simply defend it’s street cred as an open source company.

I say: it’s confusing to call a proprietary product (EE) an open source product.
Pentaho says: “I think we have earned the right to say that we are an open source business intelligence company”
I agree!

I say: it’s confusing for an open source vendor to not really sell open source products.
Pentaho says: “..we use the term ‘commercial open source’. We didn’t invent the term, and it is the only term commonly used to describe our business model.”
I agree!

My ultimate point is that our crossing comments are not incompatible – it’s just not been acknowledged that the Open Core model lends to cognitive dissonance. With Open Core you can have a “Commercial Open Source” company that sells a “Proprietary Product” on top of an “Open Source Project” but does not sell an “Open Source Product” and therefore does not actually sell open source and qualify as an “Open Source Vendor.” Its confusing, not inaccurate or wrong.

So, let me say that I agree with everything you and Doug have written. It’s just not the topic (specific inaccurate phrases) we’re discussing which is why I thought it defensive. That could certainly be my mistake for construing topic missing response comments as defensive – perhaps the topic of discussion and source of confusion is still unclear.

I hereby offer an in person meetup, with a bottle of whiskey to clarify. :) Nothing helps to add clarity to semantic discussions like booze.

]]>