Oracle Buys Ksplice
oracle.com
oracle.com
However, I wouldn't use it, except in exceptional circumstances (e.g., there is a patch we have to apply now but we can't do scheduled down time). I want to reboot after an update--even an update that does not technically require it--because I want to know my system is in a state that can boot.
It is very annoying to do some update, not reboot, and then a couple of months later a power failure takes down your systems and when power is restored you get some kind of boot error and you are wondering what in the last several months you did that broke it.
A few minutes planned downtime now in much better than hours of unplanned downtime at some indeterminate future time.
Within a week I prepared and migrated the system to something more reasonable.
I've administered a few gentoo machines a few years ago and can attest that it's a major PIA. Or let me elaborate a bit, system failures that happened on gentoo didn't seem to happen on other systems, system failures that also happened on other system took significantly more time to resolve and required much deeper knowledge of system internals than debian, centos or whatnot.
When I finally moved everything to debian and my time spent on system administration tasks went down dramatically.
It seems to me that Dobb's predecessor failed to understand what he was doing and therefore failed as an admin. If Gentoo required a level of understanding which he did not have, then he should not have been using Gentoo. That is exactly the reason I switched; I realized that I needed to spend time with other distributions learning more basic elements of Linux systems before I would be capable of adeptly administering a Gentoo system. In the hands of those more experienced, however, distributions such as Gentoo (or Slackware) are powerful tools.
This reminds me of something that OpenSolaris did that I really liked. When you updated packages, it would take a ZFS snapshot. It only took up space for the changed bits, and happened almost instantly. If things stopped working after the reboot, then you could select a GRUB menu option to boot into the old snapshot again and everything would work.
1. You upgrade postgres, and the new on-disk format isn't compatible with the old one.
2. You upgrade mysql, and the new on-disk format IS compatible with the old one, but the new version has a bug that you keep hitting. You want to downgrade without losing all the transactions that you've accrued since the upgrade.
But for other kernel level things, eg drivers, it's great.
The first is "Method of finding a safe time to modify code of a running computer program": http://bit.ly/ksplice-1
The second is "Method of determining which computer program functions are changed by an arbitrary source code modification": http://bit.ly/ksplice-2
These are just applications for now, so there is no telling exactly what the claims will look like when they finally leave the patent office. Nevertheless, you can assume that Oracle will keep these alive so that they can address every possible way in which these can be applied to patching running programs.
What do you mean? Sure, Oracle is an aggressive company, but they are clearly doing business, and not a non-practicing patent troll. Even in suing Google over Java in Android, they not only use Java but are the center of its development. Sun itself sued [Microsoft] over Java.
This acquisition makes sense to them, since linux is a key part of their vertical offering. If no one else can offer it (because patented), it makes even more sense.
I agree that their IP department would analyze the patent for value in other areas - but how could that be the "real prize", when its final form and very existence is unknown?
That said, hot swapping code has been around for a while e.g. a PhD supervisor of mine had another student working in it around 2005, and these are dated 2009. They might very well have a new technique, applied in a specific area, but would be necessarily limited by prior art.
---
QUESTION: how much value would this patent application be worth as part of this acquisition?
Clearly, it depends on the base value of the company; the contribution of the technology (e.g. acquisitions also acquire customers and talent); the competitive advantage of blocking it (e.g. do customers care about this - is it an important factor in purchasing decisions?); how well this patent blocks it; and how likely it is to be granted in a useful form.
It is not just patents - they are actively trying to monetize their IP, including changing license terms (see the evolution of the license for the JDK/JRE download, particularly the "Definitions" and "Commercial Features" sections), modifying support structures (see the modification of MySQL or OpenSolaris support prices and terms) to drive more revenue from what they bought from Sun.
I understand why they are doing this - Larry Ellison being a billionaire and all - and I am not calling them a troll (unlike, say, Intellectual Ventures).
Nevertheless, I would not shake Larry Ellison's hand without checking my pockets afterward to see if I had just incurred a licensing fee.
As to your question: There is a substantial difference in value between a patent family that is closed and a patent family that is open. An open family can have continuations that contain claims specifically modified to read on work-arounds, whereas a closed family can only be interpreted to read on work-arounds through broader claim interpretation or the doctrine of equivalents.
We may differ in the following, but I think it's reasonable to enforce your IP if you created it and use it. As an uISV, it's important to me that customers pay for it (although I'd find it unpleasant to pursue infringing customers). Changing the license terms for future versions seems reasonable. And changing support terms even more so since it's a contractual agreement. Everybody complains about Oracle licensing terms (of their own products, eg RDB), but everybody pays. I think they must be getting value for money.
Personally, I was (and am) unhappy with what Oracle is doing to Java - but I think it's reasonable. It was inevitable that they'd alter licensing terms in accordance with profitability. Oracle is a software company, unlike Sun which was a hardware company. And perhaps, pragmatically, that's for the best: Sun never made money from Java's success; now they are gone. Oracle's stewardship might be more realistic and sustainable. And a corporate steward seems important for mainstream adoption (though python, ruby etc seem to be doing OK without it).
Thanks for answer on continuations. I'd heard of them used for submarine patents, to defer issuance, but I'm shocked that the US allows new subject matter to be added and get the benefit of the original priority date! That should be a separate invention IMHO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#C...
From the text of the email I got however, it seems like they do not intend to make the service available outside of Oracle's own Linux variant:
> The Ksplice Uptrack service is planned to be included
> as a standard part of Oracle Linux Premier Support,
> and we will no longer be selling the service
> separately to new customers moving forward.
> As an existing Ksplice customer,
> you may continue to renew your subscriptions
> and add additional systems to your account as before
> Oracle is expected to be the only enterprise
> Linux vendor that can offer zero downtime updatehttp://knoppix.mirrors.tds.net/pub/linux/frugalware/frugalwa...
And now, Oracle has immediately dropped support for RHEL. For shame, Oracle.
I have to say that I am considering terminating my service with them.