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 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?"
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 is probably doomed.
Umm... but... I thought Doom was going to be MS exclusive
*logs off and runs away*
getSexySig();
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.
MS is really doing less and less right. They are increasingly getting more greedy with their licenses. There security is to be laughed at. And every three years they release a rehash of the same old product.
Eventually, (and soon), Linux will have the usability that 51% of the population will find acceptable, and it will landslide from there. There will be no reason to pay for Windows XY or Office YX. Software companies will start producing the little annoying things that exWindows users like for Linux, and everyone will be happy.
Just wait until MS starts writing software for Linux. That will be a funny day.
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.
... SUN is the one who's not doomed.
;-)
Right. Note first that Solaris is highly POSIX-compliant, as is linux. This means that most software ports from one to the other with few if any problems, as long as you haven't used the private extensions of either. This isn't a conjecture; I and many others have tested this with our software. Portability between linux and Solaris is easy, almost as easy as between linux and *BSD.
And note also that Sun is actively supporting several linux distros. There was some confused news recently about Sun supposedly dropping their linux. What they actually did was drop the attempt to "rebrand" RedHat linux as Sun linux. This was mostly because customers got confused. And some of them wanted RedHat explicitly. But Sun seems to be going strongly into the linux support business, letting someone else supply the POSIX-compliant platform that runs on their hardware and has all of their software goodies available as options.
There is a strong contrast with Microsoft here: Microsoft has been moving strongly to a "total experience" platform which doesn't allow any software that isn't on their approved list. So if you're a software developer, you are facing a market in which you can only sell to Microsoft, on their terms. If you try selling retail, you'll find that your software constantly breaks, until you sign the rights over to Microsoft.
Sun, on the other hand, has a strong history of supporting independent software developers by sharing information about the innards of their systems while not requiring onerous licensing of any sort. As either a software developer or an IT manager, it's obvious which would be the wiser purchase. Why would anyone with half a brain go with a secretive, monopolistic computer system when there's another available that is open and cooperative?
And for a final note, we might observe that Sun has in the past objected to being called "SUN", since that refers to the Stanford University Network that they grew out of. They are officially "Sun", which isn't an acronym for anything. In todays environment of rabid copyright and trademark enforcement, it's important to get such things right.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.