Note: You are experiencing only the raw content of this site, without the intended layout and design. Either your browser has ignored the Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) files for this site, or you are using an outdated browser which does not support Web Standards. Learn more.

EDS' Next Big Thing Blog: Read and Respond to What the EDS Fellows Say About Technology

Read and respond to what the EDS Fellows have to say about the future of technology on EDS' Next Big Thing Blog on eds.com.

First of many? Multi-core licensing from Oracle

by Charlie Bess

A while back I expressed concern about the lack of multi-core licenses models that would work. It looks like Oracle has started the ball rolling with their announcement.

With chips sets like Sun's Niagara and others on the horizon, the software market will need to catch up or be overwhelmed by open source adoption.

Depending on how you look at it, Niagara can appear to be 32 processors. That would have quite a financial impact, the way most vendors license their software and the open source model begins to look even more compelling.

Published Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:33 PM

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

Posted by Dennis Howlett Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:15 AM

Lots of questions arise. I see Nick Carr believes there are fundamental difficulties with this for Oracle.

Many of my readers don't believe MSFT can be toppled. Some believe I'm one short of a six pack for even thinking it.

So now we have top end money men who will be coming eyeball to eyeball with the skunkwork OSS operators who, no doubt, will be sitting at the same table with rather smug looks on their faces.

It won't happen overnight. Maybe not for a couple of years at least, but when it does, just how big might be the hole in MSFT potential earnings? HOw quickly might that hole develop?

Does that explain Bill Gates saying the company is going down the advertising route when Live! was launched?

Could this conceivably mean that we will be faced with two entirely different experiences? One in our online working world. The other our online private world?

What might that mean for our satisfaction at work and away from our working environment? Are we not conditioned to expect an idential online experience?

It seems to me that what is at stake here is the future of the consumer's computing experience as part of their daily lives. I don't see how they will tolerate significant differernces between the two.

Posted by Charlie Bess Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:52 PM

I tend to agree with you that people expect their interfaces to be as similar as possible. The computer/environment should know who they are and what are their preferences.
There is just so much attention span people want to spend on this kind of thing. Most people are not working with the tool for the experience, but in order to meet a goal and derive value. The ideal experience is the one where a minimum amount of their attention is taken up by working with the tool, instead of the ideas.
On the other hand there could be market segmentation taking place. Not everyone uses a computer at work and expects the same interface. I believe '06 will be a year where some of these issues become more visible and we possibly reach a tipping point in this area.