Slashdot Mirror
The Economist on The Rise of Linux
nickco3 writes "The Economist is telling the business world that Linux is a worthy adversay to Windows and Unix. It is free, runs on almost any hardware, and generally more secure than Windows As result it is dividing the industry into winners that offer Linux (e.g. IBM and HP), and losers that don't, (e.g. Microsoft). Sun is probably doomed."
Sun is probably doomed
According to this article SUN is the one who's not doomed.
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
economist.. i dont think MS is really a loser. Nor do i believe that anything else will be the dominant desktop OS. As much as we like to bash MS, they do do somethings right. Enough so that they will keep their customers. Heck sometimes they even make technological improvemsnts in their OS that others are just discovering. Look at all the research that went into Async IO in the open source world only to realise MS had done something better for nearly 10 years.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Sun is a hardware company; as much as they like to trumpet their 'value add' components and services, their bread winning business is SPARC. Java, a great language, generates little revenue and is a tool that drives need to purchase their hardware. Remember iPlanet? Approaching 0 on the latest web surveys as Apache dominates that space.
IBM and HP are making smart moves adopting Linux business models. As Linux matures and benefits from a gazillion different implementations, AIX and HPUX will begin to look less and less desirable.
Getting back to Sun, Solaris is not a revenue piece for them either. There was alot of complaining in the Slashdot crowd and Sun's commitment to Solaris on Intel has waned, but really, would you like to be running Solaris instead of Linux or Debian? Thought not...
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
I think this sums up the consensus of the article -- Linux is coming, but not to the desktop.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Sun will be around for quite a some time, because they offer specific product for one market on which they have quite a monopoly.
Linux will probably take some share from Microsoft but It won't be so huge that it will be used more than Windows. Microsoft is too smart to let Linux take hold of them. They will do everything to stop Linux from taking their share, whether it be through Advertizement, Deals with companies, or Palladium.
However Unix might fade away, BSD and Linux provide great alternatives for Unix... But they won't be completely gone.
In the "low-end" of the market (systems costing under $100,000) Sun increased their revenue market share last year (2002 over 2001). Ie they grew faster than the industry average. Almost no Intel, Windows or Linux based systems are sold for more than $100,000.
So if Sun was being hurt by Linux (or x86 based systems in general) why did their market share increase?
It wasn't anything to do with the LX50 (dual P3 Solaris x86 / Linux) systems they launched late last year - they only shipped a bit over $1m worth by the end of the year.
Sun's just being forced to go back to its roots, which were running a commodity Open Source OS (SunOS started as BSD) on commodity hardware (m68k at first, then SPARC except for a couple years when they also sold 80386 hardware, as they started Solaris). That should be a healthy thing, long term, though they have to get rid of a lot of closed-system attitudes. Like the ones that have crippled so much Free Java work.
If Sun had kept true to their roots, they'd have been running Linux on x86 from day one ...
instead, they wanted to keep
one founder (Andy Bechtolstein),
who wanted to design a RISC chip (became SPARC).
So Sun sold out SunOS in favor of
Solaris/SVr4, so they
could switch to non-commodity hardware. Well I've
got news for you: Andy's long gone, and SPARC
was never that hot. And the customer lock-in
is going away ... customers always wanted the
open systems approach, even when Scott McNealy
refused to play that game.
Sun is probably doomed.
Umm... but... I thought Doom was going to be MS exclusive
*logs off and runs away*
getSexySig();
Well, after years of dual-booting with Windows, Linux is the now the only thing going on my desktop, and I've gotta tell ya, I'm doing just fine (better than ever, IMHO). Maybe I'm dreaming? Or maybe the Microsoft fuddites don't know what they're talking about.
Thankfully, Linux has prevented Microsoft from dominating the low end server market like they wanted. From the low end, Microsoft was then going to push into the high end. Can you imagine how much Microsoft would be making off this area if Linux had not stopped them?
On the desktop, we just bought 5 rather powerful developer PCs for $600 each. Of that price, $150 was for Windows 2000 (not XP thank you). 25% of the price is a rather large part of the cost. The decision between Linux and 2000 was pretty close on these boxes and getting closer all the time. Pretty soon, developer workstations could well be all Linux with OpenOffice and the like. I think the competitive threat to Microsoft will soon restrict their desktop and office pricing.
I don't know much about Solaris, so I'd like to ask you guys out there. What makes Linux less capable? What does Solaris do that Linux can't do (at least well enough)? Just wondering.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
and F12K
servers. It is pretty close to having the capabilities to run on the Sun midframe stuff, for example I'm sure it would run fine on a 3800,
maybe even the 4800, but you start to reach its current limit with a fully stuffed 6800 system.
Now, step back for a minute and think why Suns UltraSparc and Solaris solution is so strong. Simple, at the risk of repeating the marketing guys the lure is that you can give your development and deployment guys a bunch of cheap Sunblade 150s or some cheap UltraSparc blades and whatever they come up with can be moved straight onto anything up to and including an F15K without recompiling. Put yourself in the place of a big corporation. Your putting together a new system, you have no idea just how big a load it will eventually have to take (say in 5 years). Today, sure you could run it on high end Linux box, but what happens if 6 months in the system needs a bigger box? If you chose Sun in the first place you simply buy the bigger box and move over. No porting, no redevelopment, and you know there is always a bigger, faster system you could move to. It buys you severe scalability that Linux isn't placed today to provide.
Now, about not supporting Linux, what about the LX50, the Sun Open Desktop that is coming soon, the Lintel blades (Coming Soon(TM)) the fact that the entire Sun One stack (web, directory, identity, etc, etc, etc) is either available now for Linux or coming soon, not to mention Star/OpenOffice.
So what is the perceived issue? I think people don't see Sun offering Linux on the UltraSparc range and thing they don't get it. Sun does get it, but look at their selling point for the last 10 years, total scalability. Linux doesn't provide this yet so they can't buy into it. What they are doing is making Solaris as compatible with Linux as possible, whilst at the same time helping Linux by providing software (openoffice, SunOne and much more) and I believe some kernel code too.
Believe me, when Linux is ready for the F15K class systems Sun will be ready for Linux to be there.
Disclaimer - I work for Sun, but nothing I have said here is not already public information.
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
Sun really needs to rethink their strategies.
Solaris for Intel? None of the sparc binaries run on it, it's not any faster than linux. Linux 1, Solaris 0.
Solaris for web applications... absoultely not. Tried and true OS for sure. Though web sphere, atg, web logic and most other large scale app servers have linux ports. java's relability will never exceed the uptime of an OS i.e. the JVM or app server will crash before the OS does. That then precludes having a bullet proof OS. Web applications need redunancy, both from a geographic perspective and application. Doing so requires a duplicate hardware investment. Not such a good deal with sun. Linux 2, Solaris 0.
Maintainance... will be cheaper with linux rather than solaris. The reason being that Linux and it's friendly varients are all freely avaialable. To learn and use linux is not a big deal, solaris on the other hand need solaris hardware to run. As a result of easier access to hardware and software (linux) labor costs go down because the skill sets require to administer and maintain linux and linux apps are more freely available. The same is not true of solaris. Linux 3, Solaris 0.
Solaris, and it's hardware IS good for massive multi-proc applications. Data Warehouse with Multi-tera bytes of data? Linux and Intel are not suited to such tasks. Large transactional databases that require nearly 100% uptime and reliability, i.e. the database is nearly as reliable as the Operating system. Solaris is the OS for that application. Linux 3 Solaris 1
Sun is no longer suited to playing in the high(er) growth markets of dedicated servers, web applications, IT support devices (dns, dhcp, network management) and such. Their role is increasingly being boxed into ultra highend applications where a large number of processors, ultra high reliability and what sun has stood for still means something. Where the applications are almost as reliable as the OS, and that the OS and hardware is required to be up nearly 100% of the time and never unexpectedly. The difficulty they face is that that the role just described is not in particularly high demand. As IT budgets continue to shrink - decision makers are going to continue to look to linux to solve their problems.
Linux is cheap - costs less to maintiain - and the hardware can be repurposed. Sun just can't argue with that. Sun needs a change of direction.
Too long have people labored under the delusion that one company MUST dominate the "computer market"... only because one company (Microsoft) seemingly *has* dominated. Just because one does today, doesn't mean that is the natural order of the market place. If anything it is unsustainable, as Microsoft is beginning to find out.
Sun makes some excellent high end gear, and in that market niche they are by far the largest player. They aren't even competeing with M$ in that space... and there is plenty of money to be made there. Sure CEO Jeff won't get to cross-check Bill in the teeth as often as he'd really like, but hey... that is NOT what Sun is in business to do.
Shake the current "one must dominate" worldview out of your heads /.'ers. It won't work. Microsoft's whole strategy, both internally and externally, is "For us to win, they have to lose." You WILL lose if you play that game with Microsoft because they play it better than anybody... but if you play a different game... Steve Jobs' game... where "we need to make something of quality that some percentage of the market wants and not worry about Microsoft" then you will do fine. There are billions of dollars to be had and significant percentages of market to be owned. Sure, you won't have dominance, but you don't really *need* it.
Traditionally, the Economist has been one of the earliest media outlets to get technology. The first printed press reference to the Internet outside the tech press is from the Economist, ditto for Linux, but this time around they are way off the mark.
The reason Linux is so popular is not that is free. BeOS is also free. Linux is successful due to convergence of many different factors:
(1) Free
(2) Open source
(3) Unix compatible
(4) X-windows (X11) compatible
(5) designed for x86 (yes it runs on many other chips, still Linux is an x86 project from the get go)
(6) Multiple vendor supported
(7) Plenty of third party support
Moreover each of these things feed of each other. That is why Linux is so popular.
They said, in a fine example of shades of gray, that rather than make M$ a loser, Linux will make them less of a winner.
The fact that a slashdot poster can make such a bold (and stupid) statement is not surprising at all.
Infuriate left and right
How is Sun the main loser if Linux hasn't replaced many system in the the "highest echelon"? Are telecom billing systems and airline reservation systems running on Windows? I doubt it. E-mail, web servers, file and print sharing. Applications for which Solaris is overkill. Hmm, that sounds like Windows territory to me.
Ownership cost is mentioned, and again Micosoft gets the spin due to lack of full description.
Mundie's collapse predictions are left completely unchallenged. Why does Ellison need a grain of salt, but Mundie does not?
Button-pushers like "cancer" and "nightmare" in the closing paragraph definitely set a tone for the reader's afterthoughts.
Trying to discredit Ellison's prediction by assuming the demise of Oracle on the basis of Mundie's questionable prediction is just wrong on many levels. There is more than one business model - I'll leave it at that.
Overall, this is less obvious than something that comes out of Microsoft-funded "independent analyses", but more it's more insidious too. Did Microsoft influence this author? Are Economist executives invested in Microsoft? Why the divide-and-conquer routine against Sun? Why start with such an optimistic view of Linux only to end on such a sour note?
scripsit 0x0d0a:
That's interesting. I think you may understand the term ``bells and whistles'' differently than I, and apparently the author, do. Would it make more sense if he had written, in lieu of ``bells and whistles,'' ``cute and briefly entertaining but eventually tedious and ultimately useless misfeatures''?
Clippy is ``bells and whistles.''
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Sorry Mr. Mundie, but Apache is NOT a clone of comercial software as you tried to claim. Apache is a fork (clone) of the Origional NCSA web server, which was NOT commercial. (open source, but I'm not sure exactly what license was used so it might not meet the exact legal definition of Open Source). IIS, and the other comercial servers are clones of an open source webserver.
Of course this is all an accidemic exercise, but don't try to claim some high ground where Apachee has it.
Why in hell would you want to do that? If it's defective, it should be replaced.
Anyways, for me "Bells and whistles" is the same as the parent poster thinks: eyecandy, integrated webbrowsers, cutesy helpers, etc...
I give up. What is Apache a clone of? I wish they had included an actual quote on this. Maybe the journalist was "interpreting".
Most of the article is on target though. The easy way to evaluate the strengths of the companies mentioned is to look at how diversified they are (or aren't).
IBM is no longer primarily a hardware company. They have a strong consulting division, they do fundamental research and grab pattents on REAL things (rather than new parsing algorithms like some companies I can think of), they have a very strong software development component, they farm out hardware manufacturing that is no longer profitable (disk drives) while hanging on to things that they do best and can make money on (chip fabrication).
Sun is primarily a hardware company. Their operating systems are (almost) exclusively sold to customers who use their hardware. Java and Star Office are far from being cash cows. Their weakness is that as Intel, AMD, etc, chips get cheaper there is less incentive to use Sun's higher priced hardware components. Supporting Linux helps them a bit, but it is the price of their hardware that puts them at a disadvantage.
Microsoft is a software company. They are trying real hard to become something else too, but like Sun they are having a heck of a time making anything else work. They don't really do fundamental research, but instead try and grab patents on programming concepts so that they can bully other companies in court when it suits them. They don't really make any hardware, but instead stamp their logo on a few things to make it seem that they do. They do select good subcontractors for mice and keyboards, I'll grant them that. Everything they do except Windows and Office lose money. Prospects for either of those (because they are already so successful) can only go down. They currently have a scatter shot approach to the "next big thing" which consists of trying everything at once and seeing if any of it takes off. Few companies have the money to do this. But they will bleed themselves dry rather quickly if they are not carefull. Something tells me they are not going to be carefull.
Apple is trying to diversify too. Since they are starting small the only way they have to go is up. It would be nice to see them further popularize the power-pc server. My personal experience with OS X is that they are rushing versions of it out the door too fast. I've decided to wait for XI (or whatever they call it) and switched to running Linux on my iBook. Those gel buttons are cute though.
Okay, here I quote the most deliberate piece of misinformation and propaganda:
In short, competition from quality products stifles innovation -- according to Microsoft. Commercial firms have no incentive to actually come up with products having more features, more stability, better documentation and ease of use than open source products because no one is willing to pay for such benefits?
Well, as they must be fond of saying over at Microsoft, "If you believe that, I've got an operating system to sell you."
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Now to the question. You say "...that's because Linux isn't ready for the high end (yet). By high end I'm talking about F15 and F12K servers." Which gives me a jolt of curiosity. What are some parts of the mechanics in Linux that prevent its move to high end systems? Are there any fundamental issues that will prevent Linux from 'growing up' and eventually running on those systems? Must some parts of the Linux mechanics be scrapped/overhauled? Or is it more a matter of time and will to add/extend pieces that will make the move possible?
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
The most obvious reasons why Microsoft dominates are because it locks down consumers, it's UI (although simple, and in my opinion, primitive) is appealing to the average Joe, and because it uses a very simple point-and-click interface.
The average user only needs his/her PC to write documents, play a few games, check e-mail and surf the internet. He/she does not care about the OS wars, and doesn't want anything at all to do with the command line. He/she wants an interface that's familiar to him/her. If the interface is too powerful or configurable, (or too different from the standard Windows UI) he/she gets worried. He/she does not want to write config files, and does not want to reinstall the OS that came with his PC. He/she also wants to use what he/she uses in his workplace. He/she does not want to lose any formatting, or have to install new products, or run an emulator. These are some of the reasons why Microsoft dominates.
Lastly, Microsoft has a huge edge, i.e. money. It uses this money to aggressively advertise and get the message out to the common man. Most users have not HEARD of UNIX/Linux. If Linux wishes to dominate the market, it needs some serious advertising. Also, more hardware manufacturers must incorporate Linux into their PCs, and distro companies must obviously convince the main manufacturers. (This is already happening, and I am glad).
Although Linux certainly satisfies my needs, I don't think it's SIMPLE and EASY enough for the average Joe.
Read my journal here.
I don't think MS will go out of business in the near times, but as any other empire, one day it will vanish in the air.
However, the first step before MS starts loosing marketshae is loosing mindshare and it's articles
like this that make people start thinking that MS isn't a safe bet.
Right now MS is the market leader and most people just follow the leader: many people making purchase decisions just buy MS products because it's the market leader and it has an invencible reputation, even if their products are inferior to the competition.
As a mather of fact, many people just buy MS products and don't even look for alternative solutions.
However, this kind of articles are the first wave of change. Change the way as people perceive MS and IT market. It changes the invencible perception about MS as more and more people start beleiving that the day when MS will desapear is geting each time more closer...
Microsoft and Sun will both be big losers in my opinion, for reasons of simple economics. Commoditization of software has been going on for a long time. This is why you see Microsoft constantly screaming from the rooftops about their new features, which 90% of people dont care about. Its the only thing that makes them different from your Linux's and OpenOffice's.
There will come a point when it really just wont functionally matter which os or productivity suite you use. At that point in time, the cheapest alternative always wins. So unless Microsoft plans on paying us to use their software - time and open source software will inevitably have their way with them.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
OK, but if the machine has defective RAM and knows it, wouldn't it be nice to be told so by the machine, rather than having to trouble-shoot? As much as I love to try and solve mysteries, sometimes it's nice for the computer to give me a smack on the back of the head and let me know what the problem is.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.