Slashdot Mirror
The Faded Sun
jlowery writes "Robert X. Cringely seems to
think so. Forget the hardware side: what does this mean to the future of Java? Will there be enough incentive to continue to develop the language for whoever acquires Sun? Or will Java developers have to swallow hard and submit to the whims of the dark overlord? Maybe I'll switch to Mac development, after all."
I know Sun is losing money, but this article sounds subjective and trollish all the same. Anyone care to confirm the facts mentioned?
Sun's just been overtaken by events. If anything, they ought to be an attractive buyout target for somebody (IBM, Apple). Solaris is still a good OS, Java's still a good technology.
I will say this, I think they're in better shape than SGI -- but that's not saying much.
I remember awhile back when those $1000 Sun workstations were released. One of the most cogent responses I saw was something to the extent of, four years ago, I'd have one on order already, now I just don't care.
You can have an amazing *nix workstation on PC hardware. If you want polish and flash, buy a Mac (he says as he types this on the iBook he just bought....)
With so much of Oracle's software related to Java and their excellent JDeveloper Java development suite, it would be wise for Oracle to acquire Sun if they can.
Imagine, Linux/Java/Oracle Vs Windows/.NET/SQL Server and either combination could run on similar hardware....
Did you miss out this post and all the replies?
The real problem is in the cost of Sun's hardware as well as relative performance of UltraSPARC processors compared to the 32-bit x86 processors and certain 64-bit processors. Sun executives are still living in an imaginary world thinking that Sun's future is in selling large mega-bucks systems to the data centers completely ignoring the low-profit high-volume low-end side of the market.
Sun Execs. live in this dilusion because their customers allow them to.
I know that a year from now, when I need a 64-bit platform for my rapidly growing DB server, AMD and Intel will be there. And Linux will be there. And so will all the jagged edges you get with very young hardware and software.
Then I will turn to Sun, who have been building the same 64-bit platform for over a decade. No jagged edges here. It's solid. It's reliable. Sun engineers have been there and seen it all.
Do you actually own a Sun? You should probably open it up and compare it to your uber-clocked Althon-space-heater sometime. Their hardware is very high quality. Their support is as well.
So, to my boss, the question becomes: Do I go with the guys who've been doing it since before I was born or do I go with this new stuff? I think the answer is clear.
IMO, Sun needn't worry too much about AMD and Intel. If you look at who Sun is *really* in competition with, it's IBM. The Power4 and AIX or Linux combination is increadably powerful and worthy of attention.
Utter horseshit. Everyone lost sales last year: IBM, HP/DECompaq, SGI, Fujitsu-Siemens, Bull, NEC... everyone. Sun lost fewer sales than the other major players, so they picked up marketshare. They hemmorhaged money because of spotty buisiness practices from the dot-com era comming up to catch them, but as Cringley says, they've got another five years to get that sorted out.
Sun's transformation from a king of the workstation vendor into a server powerhouse that only IBM has any real hope of competing with is nothing short of phenomenal. If it looks like Linux is going to kill the proprietary Unix market, then Sun will go Linux... they've made similar moves in the past. Sun switched their entire installed base from the BSD-derived SunOS to the SVR4 flavored Solaris, no small feat at the time. A switch to Linux will be a snap, and yes, Sun will still charge you as much for your Sun-branded Linux as they do for Solaris, and get it from satisfied CIOs, along with fat service contracts.
Sun is never the first to market. Sun is never the ideal solution. Sun never offers the highest performance. Sun is never the cheapest option. Sun doesn't offer the best service in the industry. But they come "close enough" on so many fronts, they're an unbeatable market force. Add in Java, which rules enterprise computing like no technology since COBOL, and Sun ain't going nowhere.
Apple bled billions in the '90s, but they rebounded. McNealy's at least as smart as Jobs, and his marketing instincts are almost as honed. Sun has replaced IBM, and even Windows, in the hearts and minds of every serious CIO and VAR. Give it a year for either the economy to have rebounded, or for Sun to have staunched the bleeding on its own with austerity measures and something innovative. This is the company who managed to launch a line of workstations at the height of the NT onslaught in the Workstation market, and managed to make a mint with them. (The Ultra5 and Ultra10.) They aren't out of tricks yet.
Tho it would be nice if they put the screws to Fujitsu-Siemens to get access to their SPARC design... call it "SuperhyperultraSPARC" or "BadAssSPARC" or "TotallyAwesomeSPARC" or somesuch, and use it to hold the Itanium/POWER dogs at bay while they ready the UltraV.
SoupIsGood Food
A couple of people have made the point that Sony and Sun have virtually nothing in common. I beg to differ. They have alot in common, i.e. a strong desire to get rich. But, for a non-flipant answer, heres a serious one.
Japan does not have the same anti-trustor trade laws we have in the US, therefore massive organizations of businesses, called kiretsu(sic?) exist. For an American equivalent, think Microsoft owning/merging with GM, McDonalds, and Disney. Essentially, the companies inside the organization are spread out over a very diverse area. This is to insure that when one industry, say automobiles, has a slump, others industries undergoing a boom, like consumer electronics or a theme park, can help support the ailing businesses with capital. Basically, all of these companies work together for a singular goal: the almighty dollar (or yen).
Sony, being a member, and a leading member no doubt, of their organization, would have some very good reasons to buy Sun, above and beyond the diversification reason listed above.
Firstly, the server side of the business. Tech geeks know and respect Sun's servers, even if they aren't always their first choice. Also, Sony has immense brand name recognition. This can be useful when management is trying to decide what hardware to buy, and since the atypical pointy-haired bosses may know jack about linux, NT, UNIX, they will recognize Sony.
Secondly is the consumer electronics side of the business, specifically handheld devices, like PDAs, MP3 players, etc. Remember when Java first got noticed in the mainstream, there was tons of talk about how soon we'd be driving cars with a Java OS inside, dialing phones run by Java, flushing toilets run by Java, etc., etc., etc. Sony may be looking at the possibility of aquiring a company with at least some experience, and a lot of potential, in writing and implementing embedded software for Cell phones, PDAs and whatnot. Microsoft does it, Linux sure as hell does it, Apple does it, so why not Sun? Sony might be thinking.
Finally, Sun is cheaper than hell right now. Like the article says, $3.00 bucks a share is an incredibly attractive buyout price for a company Sony's size, and at that cheap a price, a risk could be taken with the company, and a posible failure, while bad, would barely be a blip on the corporate accounting tables.
So, no matter what your stance, you have to admit that, when the facts are reviewed, the idea is, at the very least, interesting.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
I used a sparcstation 5 up until a year ago at work, and while it was dog slow, it still worked all the time, because it was built at a time and for a market that expected that computers *worked*.
At the Swansea University Computer Society we still use a handful of Sparcstation 2s as dumb X terminals. We're gradually phasing them out, and replacing them with duron based machines, but I've noticed that these 10 year old (older?) machines usually have more uptime than the new x86 workstations. To us it doesn't matter greatly (if we have to reboot a machine every fwe months then so what) but if I were looking for an enterprise solution I wouldn't trust an x86 solution as far as I could throw it. You really do get what you pay for. People should remember this when comparing Sun and Apple hardware toa $300 walmart PC. As my flying instructor once remarked 'If you're trying to decide whether to do an emergency landing or eject, then remember one thing. Your parachute was supplied by the lowest bidder.'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"But to say that a merger with Sony would be better than Apple is just plain dumb. What have the two in common? Absolutely nothing. Sony has no interest in the server market - if they had they'd be there already."
.., the technology that Sun pioneers has absolutely NOTHING to do with ANY Sony market."
Having something in common isn't the only reason for a company to aquire another company. Maybe Sony would like to get into the server market, but doesn't have the know-how. It seems like you think that for big-corp Sony to challenge IBM and Microsoft they just have to do it, but IMHO it's not that simple and that's why it would be smart of them to aquire SUN. SUN's got the infrastructure, competence and management in place and would only require tuning to get rapidly fitted into Sony Corp. Et voilá; Sony makes servers and - more - money.
"
That's EXCACTLY why Sony would wan't SUN. SUN's got something they haven't got and would therefor be a nice addition to the Sony family. You've got to remember that big corporations like Sony stop growing if they don't get into new markets, and for them growth is what it's all about.
Look a monkey!
Looking at the current Java-based code developed since 1995, it can be taken for granted that Java will stay. There are huge investments in running Java applications at banks, insurances, e-business companies (IBM). Just like Cobol, Java will probably loose market share while the C#/.NET environment will rise. That's only fair - now there is a modern alternative besides Java.
And I don't understand why people are always complaining only about runtime performance. Java development speed is fast. Java code is robust. Java libraries are so good they are 1:1 ported to C# (JUnit, log4j). Java IDE's are incredible productive. Java can be used over all tiers (JSP, Servlets, Beans, Enterprise Beans).
Even with performance 50% lower than "native" C/C++ code, it probably performs better economically than any other technology.
So, still, Java is the best for mid-sized to large projects (besides C#/.NET).
Sun do have serious trouble in the troubled economy. They definitely need money to survive. And they need more to safeguard Java (licences) because what they get from Java is less than what they invest.
Java has future and will stay. Big companies like IBM, Oracle invested a lot in Java because they did see that Java has future and will stay for long time.
I don't thing Apple or Sony will merge with Sun, because IBM and Oracle will not stay calm as they want Java, a conclusion arrived by looking at what they invested in Java softwares.
Five years is not far off and at the same time it is not as short that Sun cannot do anything. Sun do have a chance if it wants to change. Sun should look for the growing markets ( Desktops, Notebooks, Low end Servers ). Does Sun have money to start on a new market? Hope so.
The conclusion, if the same situation continues, Java will stay, Java will change hands, Sun will merge or will be bought. And also, Sun still has time to revive.
- Jay
architectslobby.org
An exclusive community for Enterprise Architects
Sun is already trying to move into a different market: Desktop computing. They still have this powerful card called "OpenOffice", they are big GNOME fans. They have an excelent guide for porting software from Solaris to Linux.
Looks like they're trying to make it really easy to push for a move from SPARC/Solaris/CDE to ix86/Linux/GNOME.
``submit to the whims of the dark overlord? Maybe I'll switch to Mac development, after all."''
Why is everybody so upset about Java dying? OK, on paper it was quite a good language, but in practice everything that could go wrong did go wrong: horrible performance, incompatibilities between versions (think AWT), bloat, you name it. Obviously Java doesn't live up to the compile once, run everywhere paradigm, its main selling point. If you need different code on different platforms anyway, you can as well go for native binaries, which will perform better and possibly look better, too. However, it's hard to go that way with Java, because of lack of native compilers. That means that Java is pretty much doomed (although it seems to be getting a second chance on handhelds these days - makes me wonder if they weren't slow and low on memory enough yet without running a JVM).
However, this doesn't mean we have to surrender and capitulate to the Great Satan. Ever hear of Pyton? It is very similar to Java in that it is an object-oriented language with garbage collection, and can be compiled into platform-independent bytecode, which can then be interpreted on any platform. However, there are some important differences. One is that the Python interpreter is open source and has been ported to a wide range of platforms, providing identical functionality (save for some platform-specific extensions) on each of them. Most of the functionality is provided by high-level, native binary modules, making both coding and execution fast. With few modifications, Python programs can be compiled to native binaries, should the need arise.
I am not a Python expert, so there may be inaccuracies in the above, but I do know Pyton is Here and Now. I see no need to give up the fight if we have such a good weapon left. Python needs work, but so does the competiton. So instead of whining, get going!
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Quotes from the Cringely column:
"Scott McNealy will have to stumble on a new business just as he stumbled on servers and Java. This means getting new and energetic technical leadership for the company, which desperately needs another Bill Joy."
"McNealy has to
I've been studying issues of this nature for more than 30 years. What has happened to Sun has happened to Microsoft and Intel and other companies. The leaders become tired. The human brain cannot do essentially the same thing for many years without a serious rest. The human brain cannot operate in a healthy fashion if it is always being told what to do; the brain needs plenty of time to connect everything with everything else.
Cringely is not a deep thinker. He once set a goal for himself to design and build a new kind of aircraft in a month. He wasn't successful, or course.
Basically Cringely says that Scott McNealy should put a huge amount of new brainpower into Sun. On the surface this is a good idea. But it is an idea that is always true, like saying that if starving people have more money, they will eat. It is always true that a company can use more brainpower.
Effectively, all Cringely is saying is "If the problem goes away, the problem won't be there." Or, "If Sun has more brainpower, Sun won't have problems with lack of brainpower."
The real problem is that Scott McNealy and other executives don't understand the limits of the human brain. They believe they can do more with their brains than is actually possible.
The brain is subject to the limits described by Gestalt psychology. If a person stares at something long enough, it disappears from consciousness. Basically, Scott McNealy cannot hold the issues of growing a computer company in his consciousness for many years without periodic serious rest.
Gestalt is a German word for the phenomenon of how events or ideas connect in the human brain. Since wisdom is connectedness in the brain, the phenomenon is extremely important.
The phenomenon of perception is described in the book, Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality ,
by Frederick S. (Fritz) Perls, Ralph Hefferline and, Paul Goodman. This is the only book of which I am aware that describes the ideas of Gestalt psychology clearly.
There is apparently some sense inside Intel that Andy Grove got cancer because he overworked himself; at least Intel employees readily accept this idea. Intel has serious problems now with marketing. The lack of good marketing is limiting the company's understanding of how to find the necessary new technical directions. There is no one at Intel now with the brainpower to see the problems or resolve them.
Microsoft has the same problem. Microsoft executives are slowly destroying the company by being adversarial toward their customers. But Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are tired. They have been doing the same thing day and night since they were young adults. They simply don't have the brainpower to recognize the problems and fix them, particularly since fixing the problems in this case would require that they resolve inner conflict that they've had since childhood. (I wrote an article that discusses some of Microsoft's adversarial behavior: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.)
The problems at Sun are very common. Fairchild Semiconductor and Novell, for example, destroyed themselves in the same way. The executives reached a point where no amount of pressuring themselves could result in more useful brain activity.
I read Bob Cringely's columns each week on both PBS and InfoWorld because I like his fanciful take on the things he writes about. But when he comes up with these pie-in-the-sky scenarios, he's almost never right. Just as he suggested Apple would/should port OS X to X86 and Microsoft should replace the Windows kernel with the Linux kernel. Just plain nuts. It also looks as though he compared notes with Charles Cooper at CNet/ZDNet
I think Sun only has to lose their emotional attachment to the Sparc processor. They have too much else going for them.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Well Oracle may opt to disagree with you. All you have to do is go to their home page [no link, if you can not find it you need help]. They are pushing running Oracle on Linux in a big way. When it comes to corporate databases there is Oracle and a bunch of companies that no one cares about.
Or if you would like another example, how about the Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS). This is a Air Traffic Control (ATC) system used by the FAA to handle flow control, redirecting traffic around severe weather and other fun things along those lines. Currently the system is running mostly on HP-UX servers. But people have realized that they are paying far to much for what they get, so they have started replacing these HP Servers with cheap Intel boxes running Red Hat. No one seems to care about the fast response time for on-site maintenance, because HP NEVER meets their contracted maintenance time to begin with. [The FAA pays for 4 hour response time on the HP machines and I can not recall a single instance in the last two years that HP has made the time slot at any site in the nation, occasionally taking MULTIPLE DAYS]. With the cheaper boxes you can simple keep extra spares lying around and swap out as needed, still saving large amounts of money.
Sure SUN can take the lion's share of the really big boxes, but there is not enough demand to justify a company anywhere near SUN's current size. And even that will not go uncontested, IBM wants their share of that market so does HP. But if that is all that is left for SUN, they will starve to death.
Although I wish them the best, I do agree that they need to do something and do it quickly.
You are absolutely correct, but you miss the really big reason why Sun will not merge with Sony. The company that needs to merge with Sony is Apple. When you get right down to it, both are essentially consumer electronics companies right now with some distractions tacked on. (For Sony, it's the entertainment division; for Apple, it's the endless fight for survival.) If you merge Sony and Apple, though, you get something very interesting:
I think the big weakness after the merger is that Sony really doesn't have a printer line, but that's okay; they'll be able to pick up the dried up remains of HP for almost nothing in, say, 2 years.
Babar
Sure, oracle isn't dumb. They are pushing Oracle on Linux because they realize that Linux is a segment they cannot afford to ignore at this point.
You are certainly correct that Sun needs to change, I wasn't even trying to argue that. Linux is undeniably poised to overtake much of the UNIX market share in the next 5 years.
My point about big applications on cheap hardware may have been too vague.
Any application that can be easily spread across lots of machines without the use of expensive options or 3rd party software (oracle parallel server, veritas cluster, etc) is a good candidate for linux on cheap hardware.
The weblayer at my company is a perfect example. I can buy 10+ of my 2-way Intel machines for the price of one big Sun box. So we buy more than we need, and toss em into the spare parts bin when they fail. sit those puppies behind a load director and you're set.
The database layer is another story entirely. They require a large amount of horsepower, and the whole operation dies if they go down. This means it *must* sit on big, reliable hardware with a support contract
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.