Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
IBM Data Storage Java Programming Software Apache

IBM Donates Java Database App. to Apache Foundation 261

the_pooh_experience writes "IBM has announced that it will open up Cloudscape by giving it to the Apache Software Foundation. Cloudscape, a small footprint Java database, is primarily used for small scale websites and point-of-sale systems. Its new, opensource name will be 'Derby.' Cloudscape (originally created by Informix, and purchased by IBM in 2001) has been valued by IBM at $85M."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Donates Java Database App. to Apache Foundation

Comments Filter:
  • Anybody used it? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by btrapp ( 446268 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:53AM (#9868169)
    Can anyone comment on how it performs?
    • Re:Anybody used it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mauryisland ( 130029 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:50AM (#9868471) Homepage
      I've been using Cloudscape 4.0 in a web environment for a couple of years now, with no database failures of any sort. Cloudscape has a good selection of utilities (bulk loader, CLI and GUI, etc.) It's picky about ANSI SQL, and it supports most of the SQL that I'm interested in, like nested queries, stored procedures, etc. I'm using it as an imbedded database (just presenting data, not writing anything while in production), so I can't speak to the speed in an OLTP environment, but for my purposes, I'm absolutely delighted with it.
    • Re:Anybody used it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @12:15PM (#9869375)
      We are a successful enterprise software ASP and used Cloudscape during our first 1.5 years before switching to a more robust database. Cloudscape powered our applications for 40+ customers globally. While it performed well given its small footprint, a huge problem for us was the fact that it does not release unused space -- the only way to do this is to run COMPRESS. With growing transaction volume we began running into random database balooning problems where the size of Cloudscape grew from 100MB up to 30 or 40GB depending on how long it was running. The fix required a COMPRESS command which takes anywhere from 1 to 48 hours depending on the size of the database and the amount of physical memory available.

      Switching to Oracle and SQL Server eliminated this problem entirely. In addition, performance has been increased literally ten-fold just from the switch (no changes were made to our code or schema when this performance increase was measured).

      While I would recommend Cloudscape for smaller, non-critical applications, it is not ready for real-world enterprise apps. I look forward to the improvements the open source community might bring -- from a cost perspective I'd certainly like to see us switch back someday.

  • CloudScape (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheToon ( 210229 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:53AM (#9868173) Journal
    Good! This is quite a nifty little SQL engine with a lot of features. Will be exciting to follow the progress of Derby, could provide competition for mysql and postgresql.
    • Re:CloudScape (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Cloudscape (originally created by Informix, and purchased by IBM in 2001) has been valued by IBM at $85M.

      Actually, Cloudscape was originally created by a
      company called Cloudscape & the company was
      bought over by Informix. Then Informix was bought
      over by IBM.

  • by samuel4242 ( 630369 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:55AM (#9868182)
    Geez is the NYT dumb. Putting something in the "public domain" means you relinguish control. It's owned equally by everyone. Choosing an "open source" license means you keep control. If you're careful about how you do it, you can even change the license terms a bit later. MySQL is constantly tweaking their terms because they're the sole copyright owner. Sure, it's available under the GPL, but they can tweak the terms for preferred customers. And they do! That's still their perogative because the code is NOT in the public domain.
  • Value (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:55AM (#9868184)
    "...has been valued by IBM at $85M."

    Now, it's free, so it's worthless.
    • Re:Value (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NETHED ( 258016 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:14AM (#9868277) Homepage
      Not true. I'm sure this can be written off as a tax deduction. Something akin to a donation.
    • Re:Value (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tassach ( 137772 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:58AM (#9868509)
      It may well be worth $85M, but how much would it cost IBM to maintain it? Besides, it would only be worth that much if they could find a buyer, and it's pretty unlikely that they'd find someone to buy it at that price.

      An $85M "asset" isn't worth much if you have to spend $16M a year maintaining and supporting it. Also, remember that IBM has several other database products this would be competing against. The fact that they released it as Open Source is a very good thing for everyone, considering that they could have just abandoned the code and kept it locked away. This way they get good publicity, reduce their maintenance costs, and get a nice tax break.

      Another point that IBM really isn't in the business of selling either software or hardware anymore -- they sell SOLUTIONS. Nowadays, most of Big Blue's revenue comes from sending consultants out to tell customers what hardware and software they need to run their business, and then putting all the pieces together for them so the whole thing works. While they'd prefer to sell you IBM hardware and IBM software, they're pretty agnostic in that regard. Having their own pet OSS database allows them to offer an IBM-backed solution for lower-end projects which don't have the money for a DB2 license.

      • One employee is roughly $250K per year including all benefits and everything else. So you're saying this product takes 64 people to maintain? :-)
  • MySql Competition? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ckwop ( 707653 ) * <> on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:56AM (#9868187) Homepage

    Is this designed to compete directly with MySql or is it like an open source version of Microsofts MSDE. Suitable for a small web app but not for hosting something like slashdot or Amazon? It's cool to see IBM once again support the OSS community.


    • by jaaron ( 551839 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:14AM (#9868278) Homepage
      While I haven't used Cloudscape in a very long time, I imagine this is more competition to other Java open source databases like HSQL [], Axion, or McKoi.

      Most of these databases are used by "embedding" them into an application (something not uncommon in Java programming), not as a standalone database server like Oracle or Postgres. Of course, like I said, it's been a long time since I looked at Cloudscape so it could have changed to be more of a standlone server.

      I'm also surprised I haven't heard more about this in Apache, but I imagine it will first go through the Apache Incubator [] to sort out any legal issues and then end up somewhere in the Apache Database [] project. If anyone has more info, I'm interested to know.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:17AM (#9868291)
      I think that Slashdot runs MySQL. So saying that MySQL cannot run big webapps is a bit of an underestimation :-)

      Anyway, personally, I see it more as a competitor to hsqldb, which is also an embedded java DBMS. Or sqlite, although the latter is written in C++. It has the potential to become popular as a DBMS embedded in applications, but I don't think it is usable as a real stand-alone DBMS, such as MySQL.
      • You could have also said Google. But I concur...MySQL is definitely ready for heavy loads.

        • by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:31AM (#9868369)
          MySQL is definitely ready for heavy loads

          You're right. After all, it performs so well for Slashdot...
        • by kpharmer ( 452893 ) * on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @02:27PM (#9870426)
          > MySQL is definitely ready for heavy loads

          heavy transactional read loads for non-critical apps perhaps.

          - Not heavy DSS/OLAP read loads though (where indexes don't work well and you want partitioning to bypass 95% of your rows). See Oracle, Informix & DB2 to see how this is done and the results it achieves.

          - Haven't seen a proper benchmark but antecdotal evidence points to problems that MySQL has scaling to meet much write traffic. Postgresql, Firebird, etc on the inexpensive/free side appear to be better choices for this kinds of applications.

          - Aren't online backups unavailable except through separately-licensed (and expensive) products?

          - Then you've got the entire managability issue - on larger projects in which you desperately want the kind of functionality that MySQL AB has claimed that 95% of database applications don't need and which they've failed to support well: like database-enforced data quality constraints (referential, uniqueness, and check constraint declaratives). Add to that the lack of flexibility that comes from various missing features like views & stored procedures. Add to that the problems porting their non-standard SQL. Lastly, add to all of the above their massive list of exception-handling problems - in which errors silently fail.

          Nah, MySQL is a nice little database. But unless 'heavy loads' means non-critical, read-only, index-oriented loads - I think that there are about a dozen better options available.

          Oh yeah, and no - cloudscape isn't a competitor for mysql in general. They each bring different strengths to the table.
      • (Holy crap, I'm aggreeing with an AC)

        That's about what I was thinking, it looks like it's more oriented towards embedded databases, rather than client-server ones. Maybe the OP has heard of Microsoft's Jet database engine used with VB or FoxPro? A very nice combo for storing a small data set in a regular fashion. SQLite is very handy also, in the open-source world. Actually, isn't SQLite in the public domain? Good stuff.

        I think it may be possible to use MySQL for a heavier embedded database... henc

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Rather than MSDE, wouldn't it be more of a hit against Microsoft's SQL Server 2005 Express that they released to beta a month or so ago..... ;)
  • Tax Reduction? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lust ( 14189 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:56AM (#9868188) Homepage
    A win-win scenario for IBM: donate a software application at an inflated price for a big tax break while also looking good to the open-source community. At least that's how I assume it works in the US.

    Compared to the alternative of supporting or shelving a dead application, can you blame them? Perhaps at least this will serve as a good model for other companies that still consider dead software as a corporate asset.
    • Re:Tax Reduction? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Grullie ( 790814 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:01AM (#9868221)
      Cloudscape is hardly dead - it shows up prominently in Websphere Application Developer as the default embedded DB for EJB data. It feels a lot like MS Access - simple, quick, and dirty.
    • Re:Tax Reduction? (Score:3, Informative)

      by jusdisgi ( 617863 )
      That's precisely the way I read it...they don't see a need for this in their 'for money' software portfolio. Kept proprietary, there isn't really any way it would be profitable; this isn't something they can sell as a product...they might be able to embed it in hardware sales, but they can still do that. So, they just farm it out to the "free geek labor" and forget about it. It still has all the utility for them it did before, now they don't have to pay development costs, and furthermore they can write it o
      • Re:Tax Reduction? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by michaelggreer ( 612022 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @10:08AM (#9868556)
        I guess I don't see any problem with the fact that they benefit from this decision, nor am I surprised. The most powerful argument for open source is not a political one, but a business one: cheaper, more secure, fewer bugs. Since IBM has moved its business into service, open-sourcing their tools makes good sense. And, they only get "free geek labor" if the tool is actually useful to people, in which case its a win-win.
    • donate a software application at an inflated price for a big tax break

      If that were possible, what stops companies and people saying something is gazilions worth to them and then give it away.
      It also gives the final missing point and prove that free software can make you money.

      1) Write any code
      2) Put extreme high price on code
      3) Give code away
      4) Profit!!

      Or am I missing something?
    • Both IBM and the analyst mentioned in the article say this is about competition; undermine MS SQL Server while boosting Websphere. If some small-scale apps are developed in Cloudscape/Java instead of .NET then when/if those apps grow up the natural evolution would be to migrate to DB/2 & Websphere. And maybe it isn't even about making more profit on Websphere but just slowing the penetration of MS into the back office.
    • Re:Tax Reduction? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @11:12AM (#9868926)
      It's hardly a dead technology. Cloudscape is to be used as the local data store in the next generation of IBMs messaging products (e.g. Workplace which is built on eclipse RCP - see

      Lotus say that the Notes client will 'converge' with the Workplace client in the version 8 release timeframe so that'll put an eclipse runtime and cloudscape DB on most every corporate Notes desktop in the next 2-3 years.

      What you're seeing is IBM seeding the developer marketplace with technology (Eclipse, Cloudscape) in order to reap dividends in the form of an established base of technologists familiar with the underpinnings of their commercial products.

      You getting the picture?

    • Let's not forget that IBM generates a lot of revenue from consulting services. I doubt the Cloudscape revenue was even close to IBM consulting services revenue.
  • Foot in the door? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by frostman ( 302143 ) * on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:58AM (#9868199) Homepage Journal
    I had a look at the IBM product page and found this:

    Supports complex SQL, transactions and JDBC so that your applications can be migrated to DB2 UDB when they need to grow.
    ...which makes me wonder whether this is part of a strategy to get the foundation and community to do the work maintaining something that may not have been profitable but was something their service division could get people using as a baby step towards DB2.

    In any case it's cool they donated it. Being a database developer myself, I'm extremely wary of the "you don't need a DBA" claim, but regardless of the hype it looks like an interesting product that will fit in well with the Apache lineup.
    • Re:Foot in the door? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rjstanford ( 69735 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:04AM (#9868233) Homepage Journal
      In any case it's cool they donated it. Being a database developer myself, I'm extremely wary of the "you don't need a DBA" claim, but regardless of the hype it looks like an interesting product that will fit in well with the Apache lineup.

      I've never used Cloudscape, but coming from its Informix roots I trust this - to a certain extent, of course. If you never used Informix, it absolutely rocked in terms of stability and ease of maintenance. We had one Informix DBA for every 100 or so installed machines (with many installed instances per machine) for product support at my last company. It never got the press that Oracle did: they made the classic (beta, Xerox, TI, ...) mistake of assuming that just because they were technically superior that people would just flock to them. That, and you don't get the Informix consultants recommending the product like you do with Oracle - mainly because you don't need 'em around. 95% of the standard "Oracle add-on" products and services were either built in or not needed.

      So since this was their most "simple" database, I have some pretty good feelings about it. One thing that would be interesting is that this will open up the code to their SQL optimizer. That's one area where Informix always truly rocked compared to pretty much everyone else outside of a lab situation. I don't know how much of it got into Cloudscape, of course.
      • Not really Informix (Score:4, Informative)

        by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @06:49PM (#9873132) Homepage
        I've never used Cloudscape, but coming from its Informix roots I trust this - to a certain extent, of course.
        Fair enough, because after all its Informix roots only go so far. Informix didn't invent this product, it bought it. [] Strange that nobody has mentioned this before now.

        Cloudscape has a relatively small market share among SQL databases, but it is popular in certain niches. It came bundled with Sun's reference implementation of J2EE at one time, too; I don't know if that's still the case.

  • NYT (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 13Echo ( 209846 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:59AM (#9868201) Homepage Journal
    Leave it to NYT to misinform people. The article says that IBM put the code "in the public domain". The license by which the Apache foundation will distribute this is certainly NOT public domain. It later says "Apache will hold the licensing and intellectual property rights to the Cloudscape code."

    I wish people would stop mixing these things with public domain. Apache's license, GPL, etc., are forms of copyright, and are NOT public domain.
    • Re:NYT (Score:5, Insightful)

      by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @11:22AM (#9869010)
      Leave it to NYT to misinform people. The article says that IBM put the code "in the public domain".

      While many at Slashdot have caught this mistake, relatively few at the New York Times are likely to.

      Instead of/in addition to posting about the error here, why not send off a note to the Times to let them know about the important flaw in their coverage of this story?

      If there is one observation that can be made about the surging popularity of blogs in the past few years, it's that Media is able to function better when it gets feedback from its readers.
      • Re:NYT (Score:3, Funny)

        by 13Echo ( 209846 )
        Heh. I already did. It then dawned on me after I sent it that I must actually be one of those "opensource zealots" that everyone talks about.

        I guess that I never thought I'd take software licensing so seriously. ;)

        Don't worry. The response was informative and well-mannered (for coming from an opensource zealot). ;)
  • by TheToon ( 210229 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:04AM (#9868234) Journal

    The Cloudscape homepage: Cloudscape []
    And more details with links to PDF documents: Features and Benefits []

    I would guess that mysql would be faster for simple stuff, but Cloudscape could give it a run for it's money with support for more complex SQL.

    Wouldn't know how it compares agains postgresql...

    • I was rather impressed with Cloudscapes features:
      - store serializable java objects in table fields
      - java stored procedures, functions, triggers
      - hash joins in addition to nested loops
      - subqueries and views
      - transactions, four isolation levels
      - row and table level locking (default = row)
      - deadlock detection
      - custom aggregators
      - blob and clob data types
      - cost based query plan optimizer
      - multicolumn B-tree indexes
      - query and lock built-in performance monitoring

      To me, this feature set seems superior to MySQL.
  • Here is the registration required link []. Don't even think you can pull that "parnter=rssuserland" crap around here, buddy.
  • Mckoi (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Guillermito ( 187510 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:12AM (#9868267) Homepage

    There are other DBs written in Java , for example Mckoi SQL [].

    Mckoi SQL is quite usable, supports a great deal of the SQL 92 standard, and the performance is not bad (of course, talking about the range of database sizes for which it makes sense using an embedded sql engine

    Does anyone have experience with Couldscape. How does it compare with Mckoi?

    • Does anyone have experience with Couldscape. How does it compare with Mckoi?

      Well, first of all, Cloudscape has a prettier-sounding name than Mckoi, which will appeal to pointy-haired bosses everywhere...
  • How will it compare to other free databases such as Microsoft SQL Express []
    • Re:Comparisons? (Score:3, Informative)

      by bheerssen ( 534014 )
      First off, Cloudscape runs on nearly every system in current use. MS SQL Express requires Windows (2000 or XP). It also requires a fairly beefy sytem for a light database. Check out the system requirements []. Note that specialized MS platforms, such as MS Windows 2000 Datacenter Server (of all things) are not supported.

      Finally, that MS crap is still beta software whereas Cloudscape is well tested, enterprise ready code.
  • Performance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DuncanE ( 35734 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:13AM (#9868272) Homepage
    Not really sure how it compares to mySql or postgres, but I loaded a 50+ million row table with a non index timestamp field to Cloudscape and MSSQL. Both took about 3 seconds to return a query returning a unique row (ie a row updated on a specific date and time) on this field on a 2ghz intel machine with 1GB RAM.

    Firebird SQL was about the same. Next Im going to try HSQL.

    I would be interested in anybody elses experiments?
    • Re:Performance (Score:3, Insightful)

      by johnnliu ( 454880 )

      I don't think that's a very good test.

      In real life, you either add an index, or you don't query a non-index unique field on a 50+ million table.

      I'd think some sort of inner query is a better test for this.

  • Maybe it's just me, but I believe cloudscape is primarily used inside Websphere to ease development of ejbs by making the database local. I can't see it being incredibly useful outside of that... only as development, not as anything deployed. i could be wrong....
    • Maybe it's just me, but I believe cloudscape is primarily used inside Websphere to ease development of ejbs by making the database local. I can't see it being incredibly useful outside of that... only as development, not as anything deployed. i could be wrong....

      Embedded databases are very useful for applications that are intended for a small number of users or a small database (just look at Microsoft's Jet Engine as an example, that is used all over the place). There are many instances where you want t
    • It has a lot of uses. It's nice and small, and can be distributed as an integral part of a Java application without requiring a separate installer.

      One use could be a local backup DB for a remote client application. When your net connection goes down, just perform all the changes locally and then synch up with the remote DB when your connection comes back up.
  • by stavrosfil ( 801247 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:23AM (#9868326)

    Maybe slashdot can used it to stop the 503 errors :)
    • by LnxAddct ( 679316 ) <> on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @10:24AM (#9868639)
      Just remove your slashdot cookies and all is well again... go figure.

      P.S. Anyone know what the hell is going on over at Slashdot HQ?
      • 503 Theories (Score:3, Informative)

        by sbszine ( 633428 )
        Anyone know what the hell is going on over at Slashdot HQ?

        See this thread [] for wild speculation. Short version: there was a change to Slashcode that included making all of Slashdot available as a single RSS feed (rather than one feed per section as used to be the case), and on the hour RSS aggregators hit this single feed and somehow cause a 503 for logged in users.

        Wild speculation, remember. Any actual solid info appreciated.
  • by CitizenDan ( 698227 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:25AM (#9868334)
    Of anything out there I think Cloudscape is most similar to Berkeley DB for Java (an in-process DB). The comment about it being a stepping-stone to DB2 could be made about any JDBC-compliant DBMS...IBM just happens to favor theirs ;-)
  • by ceeam ( 39911 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:30AM (#9868358)
    Good thing it's Derby and not Firebird.

    Anyway - why bother renaming and what is "Open Source Name"?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:54AM (#9868489)
      Renaming is good for differentiating the products. One has a comercial license and the other is free. The first probably provides some kind of support or other benefits not included in the free-licensed one. By renaming it the previous owners avoid problems. For example someone could claim that he was misslead to believe that he was using the "old-licensed" product and can claim damages or support or something similar. Whith totaly different names there is no serious way this can be claimed.
    • Anyway - why bother renaming and what is "Open Source Name"?
      Your Open Source Name is Pinto.
      Why Pinto?
      Why not!?!!
  • Correction (Score:5, Informative)

    by cdegroot ( 14366 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:32AM (#9868373) Homepage
    Cloudscape was originally crated by Cloudscape, Inc. (I contracted for them at one time), which was later acquired by Informix.

    At the time, it was a fairly complete and well-performing database with some nifty multi-database synchronization features, so even though I'm not involved in Java programming anymore this can turn out to be a quite interesting addition to Joe. A. Opensourcecoder's toolkit.
  • by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:43AM (#9868434) Homepage
    They should donate their JVM to the Mozilla Foundation. Having a high quality, open source JVM would further undermine Sun's position in the Java market AND it would create a buffer against Microsoft's .NET. However, I don't think it would do much good against those that want to build on Mono.

    • No no no, bad idea, no twinkie.

      IBM signed a contract with Sun and is sharing code with Sun (For example, the licence states that Sun gets to use VM enhancements from other vendors..hence them getting the VM sharing that Apple made)
      My bet is that Sun would drag them into court by their balls and win.
      Since IBM did pledge support to open source Java and if they owned their own VM, what would be stopping them?

  • by Phill Hugo ( 22705 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:54AM (#9868491) Homepage
    If someone could develop and release an Open Source / Free Software Java Object Database that can house live java objects and provide searching and modification on these objects. Zope built atop Python provides just this for Python users and is used to good sucess on many web sites (Zope provides through the web editing of Python/Zope objects and has a very nice search interface for finding that object you require). Everything in Zope is a Python object and is stored in a fast, low resource object datbase - this includes all your web site and the methods to run on them. Its great, free and fast and is available from
    • Ok giving that I havent used OODBs in years. There used to be a OODB standard, the ODMG standard for java. Believe me the standard was disastrous. Missing standardization left and right, no conrol over the object scope, now handling of mass data on a sane level, the OQL was not really good for real world purposes etc... There were implementations of this standard, but you ended up always with code only geared to one OODB. Most java programs nowadays use OODB-RDB mappers, I assume Zope does the same. There
    • How about something like prevayler []. I haven't actually used it yet, just have it on my radar as something to check out later.
  • by kabz ( 770151 )
    Let's hope Microsoft haven't patented naming database software after clouds !!

    (MS Access' project name was originally Cirrus)
  • Apache Corporation? (Score:5, Informative)

    by gtrubetskoy ( 734033 ) * on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @10:15AM (#9868587)

    Funny how the word Apache in the article is linked to the stock ticker for APA. (Or may be not so funny) For the record - The Apache Software Foundation is a registered non-for-profit 501 c3 corporation incorporated in Delaware, and as such it does not have stock but rather can hand out membership to make one a stakeholder.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    This product does not compete against MySQL. It competes with HSQL, Pointbase, JDataStore, and any other pure Java database solution. It can be used with Java Webstart, to distribute a configuration free local database with your Java applications. I think this can also be used with Java Enabled Phones, and PDA's.
  • Anyone get the feeling that IBM's new busines model is to donate any unused code to an open source software foundation and claim a corresponding amount ($85M in this case) on tax?
    • Maybe I should try it. I've got a bunch of half-finished programs sitting on my hard drive that I haven't even looked at in years; I can probably convince the IRS that several half-finished programs add up to one fully functional $85 million "enterprise-grade software solution". Hell, why be greedy - we'll say $8.5 million.

      Seriously though, does anyone know how IBM arrived at that figure? My gut feeling is that some middle manager just pulled it out of his ass, but I'd like to hear how exactly it was just
  • Don't touch it with a 10 foot pole - it is most likely tainted!

    Any moment now, I'm sure we'll hear how SCO (through an ownership rationalization chain that will make Rube Goldberg pack his bags and head to the nether regions of shame) actually owns this (without having actually coded a bloody thing) and that IBM has no rights to give away anything it developed.

    Save yourself the grief, expense, and the ensuing barrage of Slashdot rants about SCO! Just say 'NO'.
  • This is just silly. Why not just call it "Cloudscape" for sh* sake. And if you're not going to call it Cloudscape, call it something similar to "Cloudscape" (Apache Tomcat vs. IBM Bobcat) -- not "Derby" which oh yeah makes me think of a Cloudscape-like database...
    • I think they want to hold onto the trademarked name "Cloudscape".

      Look for another product under that name in about 4-5 years.

      Chip H.
  • What was the difference between OpenOffice and StarOffice again?
  • I ported a CloudScape DDL to Oracle once upon a time. Since CloudScape is so standards compliant it was very easy.

    Those who administer J2EE applications resist new databases. Having an embedded one like this is a selling point since it leads to lower maintenance costs. Maybe.
  • From the Register: IBM is donating half a million lines of code from its Cloudscape database to the open source community...Cloudscape is a small-footprint Java database, designed to be embedded in handheld computers or point-of-sale terminals.

    And just how does .5M lines of Java code translate to "small"?

    Or is this a new usage of the word "small" of which I was not previously familiar?

  • Access Killer? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Snap E Tom ( 128447 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @02:05PM (#9870213)
    The main thing I've felt that has been holding Star/Open office back is a need of a database as easy as MS Access.

    I know it's a different language, but work with me for a second.

    Yes, Access sucks as a DB, but it's good for three things. First, it's a quick and dirty way to store data. Secretaries and analysts use it, dump their data in a little file, put it on a floppy, bring it home, work on stuff at home, and bring it back on a floppy the next day. That is the ultimate selling point of file based databases. Even with Open Office's database tools, I have to know something about being a DBA - starting mysqld, db security, etc. Second, our DBAs love it because it's a graphical frontend to ODBC datbases. It gives semi-cluefull non-techs a way to see data. Finally, you can actually drop it onto a webserver and drive databases with it. Biases aside, it did gather them a following in the late 90's when everybody was a "developer" doing websites.

    Any sort of MSOffice competitors have taken a while to solve these three needs elegantly. Looking at the IBM site, it looks like Cloudscape, with the embeded and network connectivity features, can be a foundation for something that can fill all three needs.
  • IBM vs. Sun (Score:3, Insightful)

    by _randy_64 ( 457225 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @03:10PM (#9870815) Homepage
    Notice how IBM is responding to competition by offering something to the community, while Sun's response to competition is to take something away (Novell/SUSE). I know, I know, it's GPL, they can't really take it away, but I think the point is still valid. Sun's response to competition should be to GPL Solaris and/or Java, not try to lock things up. Rather than try to improve themselves, stupid Sun's trying to compete by trying to hurt the competition instead - which will backfire.

The trouble with the rat-race is that even if you win, you're still a rat. -- Lily Tomlin