• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 67

My comments

• Matt, from a pure data visualization standpoint I don't thin your chart validates your argument that "The recession has been very good for open-source Alfresco."
  
  The Alfresco revenue line seems to be a straight line with no correlation with the DJIA. For "economy down, sales up" to be correlated your revenue should have turned upward (a la a hockey stick curve) at/near the point where the DJIA crashed. I don't see this in your chart. All I see is a pretty good and consistent revenue growth curve. In reply to: "Open-source VC investments: Time for payback"

  April 13, 2009

  0 replies

• Completely agree with you Matt! In reply to: "Why your PR stinks"

  March 17, 2009

  0 replies

• >but I agree with Tiemann: the era of top-to-bottom proprietary lock-in is over.
  
  It seems Tiemann does not qualify his views with "top-to-bottom"...I would agree more with your "top-to-bottom" view than Tiemann's view that proprietary software is dead...gasp! did we just agree ;-) In reply to: "Tiemann: 'Honeymoon is over' for software lock-in"

  February 19, 2009

  0 replies

• >The open-source debate is over. We won.
  
  Just who is "we" ;-) In reply to: "Still care what constitutes an 'open-source vendor'?"

  February 9, 2009

  0 replies

• Hey Matt, have fun with the powder! Oh, whichever vendor you ran into that can't "compete with open source" is missing the boat...they not only need to figure out how to do so, and how to better leverage open source in their business model! Give them my number ;-) In reply to: "Light posting and heavy snow"

  January 27, 2009

  0 replies

• Hi Matt,
  
  >Savio is quick to stress that IBM, at least in the case of the Apache HTTP Server, was not merely a parasite, but also contributed significant resources to sustaining and improving the Apache code. IBM, in this way, has been a model open-source citizen.
  
  I am also quick to stress that this is a mode we use with *many* open source components that are used within IBM products. :-)
  
  For example, OpenJPA, Apache Tuscany, Eclipse, are but the few that come to mind. When we chose to use a component within an IBM product we want to ensure that we can provide bug fixes and enhancements to the open source component in question. What better way to do so than ensure that we have IBMer who contribute to these projects as part of their IBM role. In reply to: "Whither open source in the land of leeches?"

  December 10, 2008

  0 replies

• Note, I'm an IBMer on the WebSphere team.
  
  Matt, I suggest you look at TCO (total cost of ownership). We did just that for WebSphere vs. an open source competitor that will remain unnamed. The TCO study, conducted by a 3rd party, has been invaluable in customer situations that start with "we're trying to save money".
  
  When you look at TCO, you begin to see that performance matters, admin/management costs matter, security matters, training matters, etc. For example, WebSphere performance and admin/mgmt was so much better than the open source competitor that to drive the same workload, customers would have to spend a whole lot more on the competitor solution than WebSphere. This "whole lot more" came down to the # of additional servers and # of additional hrs spent on administration/mgmt. Customers are initially surprised when the see the study, but it hits home very quickly. License/support cost is a small piece of the total cost of a system.
  
  Note, I'm an IBMer on the WebSphere team. In reply to: "$10 million you needn't pay to IBM"

  October 31, 2008

  0 replies

• Matt, "remote" denotes, "control" and/or "from a distance" to me...so being able to control my home (and virtually anything inside it) from somewhere else is what I'm thinking. In reply to: "OpenRemote: What's in a name?"

  October 31, 2008

  0 replies

• Matt, according to the license agreement, Microsoft lawyers would not agree that Microsoft is "distributing" open source: ;-)
  
  ?THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE. This software enables you to obtain software applications from other sources. Those applications are offered and distributed by third parties under their own license terms. Microsoft is not distributing those applications to you, but instead, as a convenience, enables you to use this software to obtain those applications directly from the application providers. By using the software, you acknowledge and agree that you are obtaining the applications directly from the third party providers and under separate license terms, and that it is your responsibility to locate, understand and comply with those license terms." In reply to: "Microsoft starts distributing open-source Drupal"

  October 16, 2008

  0 replies

• Hi Matt, you make a valid point. But I'm talking about enterprise apps that companies rely on. In such cases, the enterprise would have access to the source (via escrow or via an OSI-approved license) should the vendor behind the software decide to retire and sell coconuts in Goa (the best beaches in India...and where I'm from ;-) In reply to: "One problem with the cloud: Obsolescence of applications"

  September 12, 2008

  0 replies