Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sun Unveils More Linux Strategies

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the trying-to-sort-it-all-out dept.

A number of people have submitted the press release from Sun Microsystems about their latest announcements in conjunction with Linux. Highlights from this one include the promised release of "New single- and multiprocessor systems, to be announced mid-year, will use the x86 architecture and be capable of running thousands of Linux applications natively." As well, they are expanding the Cobalt line of servers, but even more interestingly they are going to "freely offer" parts of Solaris - but no license specified that I saw. They are also releasing "ABICheck", which should check compatibility between Linux/Solaris. C|Net is carrying coverage now as well. And it looks like Lineo and SuSe are going to get competition in the embedded and telecom support area - I wonder if that's tied to the OSDL announcement. It's good to see that they are getting on the right track - now let's hope they stay the course.

26 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Solaris X86 Whiners.... by AntipodesTroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can now go and retract all the Sun naysaying.

    I use Solaris for SPARC, its great, but Solaris X86 was half-baked from the start. The writing was on the wall for a LONG time, but when Sun finally canned it, I for one had to endure both the cries of "abandonware!" as well as generic sun bashing from the local Linux people I have to deal with.

    It should be obvious now, Sun is doing the right thing by ceeding the X86 market to Linux, and infact helping the transition, for those that were in the Solaris X86 crowd. Win-win situation, as far as I can see.

    --
    Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random numbers is, of course, in a state of sin.-John von Neumann
    1. Re:Solaris X86 Whiners.... by panthro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The idea here isn't to boot Solaris out... it's to introduce compatibility with Linux because when Sun equipment is too expensive, we go to PeeCee and Linux, and Sun still wants to be an option when that's already happened.

      Solaris for Sparc will not be replaced by Linux any time soon (hopefully never) because it's whole purpose is to provide a stable and extensible environment compatible with Sun hardware. Linux has good points, but out-of-box, it's a far cry from a robust server environment. Solaris has things like JumpStart that make administering it MUCH more efficient than Linux. The only advantages of Linux in this arena are being cheap/free to implement, and running on cheap hardware*.

      *Notice that the biggest complaint with Solaris/x86 was compatibility problems with low-end hardware...

      --
      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
  2. cobalt by simpl3x · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i can not believe that sun has let cobalt stagnate to the extent that they have. i very much like the management capabilities of the machines, but i would really like more resources for experimenting. the party line is that if you mess with the system it is unsupported. quite sad that they are pretty much where they were two years ago--k-6 in the raq 4's!

    1. Re:cobalt by christophersaul · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's nothing sad about it. The whole point is that the Cobalt boxes are appliances. What processor is your router running? Probably not the latest of its kind, but it does the job it's intended to do. This is the philosophy behind the whole range. It's designed to do a job, it does it. If it runs out of power, they're low cost, so buy another and stick it in your rack.

  3. Highlights for the impatient.... by PoiBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Having read the press release, here's what I get out of it:

    1. The x86 architecture with Linux will only be used in their Cobalt and other small file/print server solutions.

    2. They are not releasing any new workstations based on x86 processors.

    3. They plan on working with others to support Linux on the Sparc architecture.

    4. They offer products which allow Linux programs to run under Solaris.

    Now for the interesting questions:

    1. Is their work in Linux part of a long-range strategy to phase out Solaris? After all, they make money selling hardware. If a free UNIX is available, why waste money developing Solaris.

    2. Are they taking a play out of IBM's Linux-everywhere strategy? How soon before we see E10k's and E15k's shipping with virtual machine software able to support 1000's of Linux images?

    Just my take on the article.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    1. Re:Highlights for the impatient.... by pmz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is their work in Linux part of a long-range strategy to phase out Solaris?

      Unless it is done right, Linux on really big servers won't be quite as good as Solaris. Sun has invested a lot of effort in making Solaris extremely efficient on many processors. Sun can afford to drop Solaris only if Linux is equally good or better on large computers, which isn't the case, right now.

      Instead, Sun sees Linux as an opportunity to position themselves better against small-time servers, such as those that run Windows NT/2000.

      --
      Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
  4. why linux by Ubi_NL · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This post is not ment to troll but...

    I keep wondering why big companies like HP and Sun choose linux, instead of freeBSD. Although I'm not an expert on any of them, as far as I understand the BSD structure resembles SunOS and HP/UX more than Linux. Both BSD and linux are open source, and the BSD license even seems to be preferable to companies if, in the end, they decide to go closed source anyway.
    Can someone explain this to me?

    --

    If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
    1. Re:why linux by ChaseTec · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I understand the BSD structure resembles SunOS and HP/UX more than Linux
      Not really, SunOS used to be BSD based but changed that alot when they combined their stuff with AT&T's and ended up with System5Release4. Depending on the Linux distro sometimes Linux will end up closer to a SVR4 Unix.

      > I keep wondering why big companies like HP and Sun choose linux, instead of freeBSD
      Guess what OSX is based on :)

      --
      My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
    2. Re:why linux by hoggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because Linux has mindshare and is a big buzzword at the moment. Make no mistake, the big guys are behind Linux because it's a good marketing move. I applaud the efforts of IBM, HP, and Sun in this regard - but one should be very careful before getting into bed with them.

      Linux is a convenient tool for IBM to rescue their big iron from obscurity, for HP to save themselves from obscurity, and for Sun to sound like they're not falling behind IBM and HP.

      There's an argument that picking a GPLed OS means that competitors can't commercialise their work, but I'm not convinced about this one. If you look closely, few lines of code have come out of these houses. They're much more interested in making sure that their hardware can run Linux, or Linux apps, than in supporting the general Open Source / Free Software movement. It's a careful play to ensure that if the OS ends up being commoditized, people don't pick Intel's hardware.

    3. Re:why linux by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I keep wondering why big companies like HP and Sun choose linux, instead of freeBSD.

      I can't speak about Sun or HP, but some time ago SGI started working on tons of stuff for Linux, including but not limited to their XFS filesystem. More info: http://oss.sgi.com.

      It's pretty clear, when you think about it, why they chose to release their valuable technologies for Linux rather than BSD: the GPL. GPL is, contrary to what Microsoft might say, a pretty business-friendly license. If a business spends billions of dollars over decades developing, say, XFS, then releases it under a BSD-style license, then anybody can incorporate that technology into their commercial products for free.

      On the other hand, releasing XFS for Linux under the GPL means SGI gets to say they have XFS on IRIX and also on Linux, but it does not mean that Sun can put XFS in Solaris or whatever.

      You can't make any money, directly, off of producing GPL'd code, but you can at least prevent your competitors from benefiting from your work.

    4. Re:why linux by SurfsUp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I keep wondering why big companies like HP and Sun choose linux, instead of freeBSD. Although I'm not an expert on any of them, as far as I understand the BSD structure resembles SunOS and HP/UX more than Linux. Both BSD and linux are open source, and the BSD license even seems to be preferable to companies if, in the end, they decide to go closed source anyway.
      Can someone explain this to me?

      Because developers tend to prefer the GPL, which garauntees that we won't be buying back the fruits of our own labor one day from someone who's taken the whole thing, added some decoration, and used it to are part of some kind of toll booth on the information superhighway.

      --
      Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
    5. Re:why linux by donutello · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a big difference between the licensing mechanism of what they include and the licensing mechanism of what they distribute.

      GPl in => GPL out.
      BSD in => Closed Source out, GPL out, BSD out.
      Closed Source in => Closed Source out, GPL out, BSD out (provide they buy the rights to the software, not just license it)

      SGI could include BSD code and are then free to release their own work as closed source, BSD or even GPL - as they wish.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    6. Re:why linux by buckeyeguy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The 'original' SunOS, SunOS 4.x.x, essentially was/is BSD. SunOS 5.x.x, which they later called Solaris, is largely SVR4, but to make their existing user base happy, they kept a ton of BSD-compatibility items, thus the OS seems BSD-ish if all you run is BSD-style commands.

      Older versions of HP/UX weren't based on BSD; they could have been considered their own variant of Unix, as different as they were (possibly due to catering to their HP3000/mpe customer base). With HP/UX 10.x, they started going the POSIX-compatible route.

      As for why they choose Linux now? Bandwagon jumping, plain and simple. Yes, we can make a ton of arguments in favor of Linux, but in the end, it's the higher-ups and the sales people that make those 'direction' calls. That's one reason why HP wants Compaq; their own Netserver line couldn't penetrate the market, yet Compaq's offerings would be great to fill that gap in HP's NT (and Linux) offerings.

      --
      I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
  5. "The right track"? by kma · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It might be the right track for your rah-rah Linux agenda, but it's probably the wrong track for Sun. What does Sun think it can do Intel servers running Linux that IBM, HP, et al. can't? With neither hardware nor software to differentiate these boxes, what will sell them? Ed Zander's good looks?

    I'll go out on a limb here, and predict that this is the beginning of an SGI-esque downward spiral into total irrelevance. Any bets on when Sun rolls out a new logo?

  6. Linux = low to midrange, Solaris == everything els by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a marketing strategy.
    Solaris is known as "slowaris" because it is optimized for SMP systems. Single CPU boxes are cheap. Sun was getting rejected by potential customers because to get the full benefit of Solaris you have to buy a massive box. If they vend Linux then they can target both the cheapskates/small companies and the huge enterprise vendors.

    Linux runs well on Sparc chips, BTW.

  7. You forgot SunFire, Scott. by thedarb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Scott Scott Scott... You are so close to hitting the mark. You forgot the most valuable part of Linux... it's VM ability.

    Now if you were to port Linux to your SunFire platform, you could have a direct competitor with IBM's Mainframe Linux. How is that?

    Imagine taking an E15k system... Setting it up as a single domain running Linux. Now, under that, use the Usermode Linux to create VM servers. No longer would this platform limit a system to particular boards... All these VM's could run in that large single domain, sharing it's CPU's, disks and IO. This would compete directly with IBM's implimentation of Linux on the mainframes.

    Now let's take it a step further... IBM's mainframe is great for Linux VM's needing I/O intensive tasks. It's CPU isn't meant for many large number crunching VM's. The SunFire are. So while IBM gets big offering services on Linux VM such as Samba & NFS file services, Oracle & DB2, Enterprise email... You could be selling for the CPU intensive side. Graphics apps, XML and PDF parsers, engineering, etc.

    Sun, you cannot afford to not do this. Sun's big server market will depend on it. It's only a matter of time before IBM fill's the niche for the CPU intensive VM's... And while I do like IBM and their commitment to Linux, I'd hate to see Sun drop off the radar. Competition is what brings about inovation, it's almost cliche.

    *TheDarb
    GUI-Lords.org

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:You forgot SunFire, Scott. by Biolo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Linux fan that I am, it's nowhere near ready for the Starcat (E15K). That beast will take 72 processors (106 if you _really_ want them). Solaris has been doing large numbers of processors for a while (E10K, the 24 processor SunFire range, etc). It's pretty good at using them effectively. The linux kernel isn't there yet, in fact I think 8 processors is pretty much its limit right now......
      ..
      The main factor limiting getting past this limit is that few people have access to this sort of hardware to do the development work. Think of how Linux got on the mainframe, a few bored IBM engineers had an old mainframe and got hacking. It got into the wild mostly because that implementation runs on top of the normal mainframe OS, and can co-exist with other mainframe apps. It got into production mainframes for precisely that reason. If it had required the mainframe to be dedicated to Linux we'd still be waiting.

      Can the same happen with the E15K's? I don't think it will. Why? Because you'd have to run the Linux kernel on top of Solaris! This simply doesn't make sense when you'd be far better off running the apps natively under Solaris. The only way I see Linux getting onto that sort of hardware is if Sun (or IBM ) give access to one of these multi-processor machines to some developers. That's the short-term view. The linux kernel will continue to scale better and better, and I have no doubt it will get there, but for Sun to have mentioned it in that press release it would have to be there now, and it obviously isn't.

      Besides which, you try convincing a conservative IT manager to spend US$1M+ on an E15K to run Linux on it, when you don't have successful case-studies to show him.

      These views are not endorsed by my employer, and are given solely on the basis of public-domain knowledge, so don't try reading too much into them.

      --
      Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
  8. jakarta by j3110 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does this mean they are going to be nicer to the Jakarta folks???

    http://jakarta.apache.org/site/news.html under "30 January 2002 - That flaming fireball in the sky..."

    Sun's always been friendly to OSS as long as it gives them good press to be so. I'm not certain they are so good at heart. Maybe they were just scarred by microsoft changing the meaning of Java that they don't trust an ad-hoc group of unpaid developers to not do the same.

    --
    Karma Clown
  9. Re:Linux on big iron... by speedy1161 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Adding new harware to their new enterprise server systems is mindless and requires no reboot at all. If a processor board fails, just yank the dead one out and put a new one in and once the RAM and CPU check out as OK, its part of the system. And since all of the USIII based systems share the *exact same boards* (processor, I/O, power) one canreplace a blown processor board in a 15K with one from a 6800, all without a reboot. It's pretty neat to watch, although it scares the shit out of the NT guys.

  10. New x86 IO systems? by 1010011010 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe Sun will make a new x86 system that has improved I/O -- like, using UPA rather than (or in addition to) PCI.

    Since Sun will not be worrying about Windows support, they can extend the architecture a bit. Still use x86 processors, but enhance the surrounding systems to make it less PC-like and more big-server-like.

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  11. Just like Cray! by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow, if I had known how lucrative extremely high-end, proprietary hardware was, I would have invested in Cray and SGI. I'd be a rich man, right?

  12. Re:why linux and POSIX by hoggy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    [Bollocks! I had written a long thoughtful reply to this and it got eaten by the submission system. 2nd attempt...]

    bandwagon and mindshare... CIOs have heard of Linux, not all of them have heard of *BSD. That's sad, because the BSDs are far more mature at a system level and I think they probably scale better. Then again, Sun and HP have Solaris and HP-UX for selling scalability.

    An interesting question this point raises is: do IBM/HP/Sun consider Linux good enough to support small applications, but not good enough to be any real competition?

    For instance: IBM sell special cheap zSeries processor nodes for running Linux VMs, but you can't buy a whole machine full of them. You still have to buy a "proper" node. They want you to run Linux beside zOS not instead of it. Clearly they're more worried about people running bind or Apache on non-IBM hardware than with people using Linux to do serious OLTP or something.

    Is all this big guy support of Linux the equivalent of "damning with faint praise"?

  13. Re:mmm, UML by Bodrius · · Score: 3, Funny

    mmmm, crack...

    Sorry, but I had to do it.

    --
    Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
  14. Linux as a replacement for Solaris by dcavanaugh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sun's main purpose in life seems to be as the launching platform for Oracle. Some of Sun's competitors have better performance, some have better prices, some claim to have both, but nobody has the level of Oracle support that Sun/Solaris gets. Without Oracle, there would be no Sun. Considering Larry's announcement about migrating all of Oracle's corporate systems to Linux, the handwriting is on the wall for Solaris. From Oracle's perspective, Linux is a great way to enhance their position vs. M$ SQL server on the low end, and go after IBM DB2 on the high end, all at the same time.

    If anyone believes what Larry says, it looks like Oracle will elevate Linux to the top tier of supported OS, probably at the expense of Solaris. This really sucks for me because I committed to the SPARC/Solaris platform about 8 months ago. Oracle support of Linux wasn't quite there yet and I didn't have time on my side. I always thought a transition to Linux was inevitable, but I thought it would take another year or two.

    From Sun's point of view, they are probably looking for a smooth way to transition SPARC Solaris to SPARC Linux, so as to drop Solaris entirely as a cost-cutting measure. Sun needs either a huge boost in SPARC CPU performance or lower pricing, preferrably both. Otherwise they will get killed by high-end X86 systems.

    I think the ultimate fate of Sun/Solaris will be the same as Digital/VMS: It's another attack from the commodity boxes, armed with a standard operating system, this time without the M$ nonsense.

  15. Re:Sun-dried Linux by HeUnique · · Score: 3, Informative

    And now, in short time - you'll have iPlanet - Linux port.. read their press releases...

    (yes, once again - they're saying it's "customer demands")..

    --
    Hetz (Heunique)
  16. Re:Also Java 1.4 out by JewFish · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mod this one down. Informative usually means its true. Java 1.4 RC1 has been released at http://java.sun.com/j2se/