Been using UNIX since the late 80s; Linux since the mid-90s; virtualization since the early 2000s and spent the past few years working in the cloud space.
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Education
B.S. Psychology from Pennsylvania State University
It's kinda like saying "Oracle MySQL": yeah, some corporation came in and bought an established, popular OSS project, but it's not like the current ownership was significantly part of establishing that project. Similarly, it's not yet clear whether the current ownership is going to be a good custodian of the project, or whether people are going to be caused to either fork or wholy abandon the project when the new ownership changes licensing terms.
IIS at least was wholly originated by Microsoft.
Microsoft now owns GitHub: do you say "Microsoft GitHub" ...or do you just say "GitHub"?
Been using UNIX since the late 80s; Linux since the mid-90s; virtualization since the early 2000s and spent the past few years working in the cloud space.
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Education
B.S. Psychology from Pennsylvania State University
I'd tend to disagree with calling it "IBM OpenSHift": while I realize IBM bought Red Hat, the purchaseable product is stillRed Hat branded. Given that IBM supposedly doesn't want to antagonize either the Red Hat employee-base or, more importantly, the subsidiary's buying-community, they're supposedly not planning to do any re-branding.
That said, OpenShift is still heavily opensource. So, if I were talking about the purchaseable version, then I'd probably say "Red Hat OpenShift" (vice just "OpenShift" when referring to the free product).
Been using UNIX since the late 80s; Linux since the mid-90s; virtualization since the early 2000s and spent the past few years working in the cloud space.
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Education
B.S. Psychology from Pennsylvania State University
Where I'd probably invoke vendor names in the context of (semi-) open solution is when more than one vendor has an offering based on that solution. For example, Java:
Oracle Java (or, really, just "Java") refers to the reference, and now wholly commercial, Java implementation
IBM Java is/was a Java implementation specific to IBM and its products (e.g., WebSphere generally worked best with IBM's Java
Microsoft Java Edition was the implementation that Micosoft maintained back in the early 2000s. It had its adherents because, in some cases, it was a better implementation than the one Sun maintained (performed on MS OSes much better than Sun's reference implementation did). Last I'd heard, they moved their efforts under the OpenJava project, though.
OpenJava/OpenJDK seems to be what many Linux distributions are making available in their default software repositories (at least, the ones that are concerned about tainting)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
It's kinda like saying "Oracle MySQL": yeah, some corporation came in and bought an established, popular OSS project, but it's not like the current ownership was significantly part of establishing that project. Similarly, it's not yet clear whether the current ownership is going to be a good custodian of the project, or whether people are going to be caused to either fork or wholy abandon the project when the new ownership changes licensing terms.
IIS at least was wholly originated by Microsoft.
Microsoft now owns GitHub: do you say "Microsoft GitHub" ...or do you just say "GitHub"?
good point i'd never say oracle mysql that grates but i do say ibm openshift
I'd tend to disagree with calling it "IBM OpenSHift": while I realize IBM bought Red Hat, the purchaseable product is still Red Hat branded. Given that IBM supposedly doesn't want to antagonize either the Red Hat employee-base or, more importantly, the subsidiary's buying-community, they're supposedly not planning to do any re-branding.
That said, OpenShift is still heavily opensource. So, if I were talking about the purchaseable version, then I'd probably say "Red Hat OpenShift" (vice just "OpenShift" when referring to the free product).
Where I'd probably invoke vendor names in the context of (semi-) open solution is when more than one vendor has an offering based on that solution. For example, Java: