Slashdot Mirror
Economist article on Sun's Linux Strategy
DavidNWelton writes "The Economist has a well-written article about Sun's Jonathan Schwartz and his Linux strategy. It also mentions Microsoft, and the SCO lawsuit."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I know this doesn't end Sun's use of linux in the market place, but why in god's name would they push solaris on the x86. Maybe it is just me, but when i can have crontab maintain servers why should i feel the need to switch to solaris?
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
Im all for the free Linux usage... i just hope that this lawsuit against IBM dos'nt screw that up. As for microsoft... TO HELL WITH THEM!!
Indirect reference... is this like writing a Matrix: Reload spoiler and putting "SCO sucks" somewhere in the middle?
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Solaris is in no danger whatsoever from the SCO lawsuit. Solaris is based on System V R4 and is licensed as such. Much has changed in Solaris since those days, but those changes belong to Sun.
Huh? Did I miss something?
Since when did meandering blather, gibberish, and recycled blurbs make for good writing?
The only "news" in the article is the author's fantasy of a hypothetical Sun buy-out by Oracle or Cisco [neither of whom is doing all that great themselves].
Let's hope the switch from Solaris to Linux doesn't give the Sun any problems in the transition phase.
I'll call this Linux project a success if solar flare activity doesn't increase, and uptime isn't affected.
The Linux-bashing trolls are allready saying that the Sun will be having uptime problems within the end of the week. I think they are just jelaous.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
*grumble* No...
It also mentions Microsoft, and the SCO lawsuit.
Need I say more?
I fail to see how this will save Sun, when was the last to you read an article say how Solaris was better than it's competitors? When was the last time you read an article about Solaris for that matter!
Also why would anyone buy an Intel-based server from Sun, a relative newcomer to the market, when you could choose someone who specializes in them, and isn't trying to flog a competing product at the same time?
Andrew
the reason SCO can target IBM is b/c IBM was its partner in a "next generation unix" project called AIX 5L or, earlier, Project Monterrey. So IBM, unlike Sun, has engineers who work on Linux AND engineers who had access to SCO ip.
A friend of mine recently bought a server from Dell. The main thing he was looking at was the hardware side of things as he wanted to install the OS from the ground up. Dell offered the best hardware and support for the price and also they do price matching so he got quite a few things cheaper than expected.
Surely Sun can't exactly sell the hardware for any cheaper than it can already be bought for, so what's the advantage of choosing them over a company like Dell?
Unless of course they bring the power of Solaris to x86 and do it nicely? It's just the same thing from someone else.
I'm still not convinced.
With what Sun is trading at right now, some not-so-friendy FUD and baseless lawsuits could damage Sun quite rapidly.
Maybe that's why Microsoft licensed the SCO code. Naaah....
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Sun can have its engineers design the server and have them built in the same factories as Dull. They can sell it for the same price (or $50 less).
Oh you now want an operating system to run an application on that foot warmer? Dull will be happy to RESELL a Microsoft or Red Hat Enterprise OS for a few $K. Sun has Solaris x86 with 0 COGS to them.
Linux is not a puppy. I ran Redhat 6.2 for my firewall until just like a month ago. Linux doesn't have to be upgraded and tendered to. Maybe for exploits but Solaris has those too.
Atto
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
How does Microsoft licensing SCO technologies give SCO's lawsuit any credence. Everyone knows MS will do anything it can to hurt Linux. Is there really someone out there going "Hmm, Microsoft licensed SCO's technology, ergo, SCO has a valid case." I just have a hard time believing that.
It's easy to claim your software is cheaper to operate when almost every school and goverment on earth that has a machine is running windows on it. People then buy what their kids suggest; windows machines, and everyone learns it. Along comes linux and in order to use it you've got to retrain your workforce to use it, and retrain anyone coming in to use it. Once Linux gets into schools, desktops, college tech classes etc and is widespread, then we will see demand for people who know it grow and this situation change quite a bit.
The only reason microsoft is screwed if that happens is that they are doing nothing to innovate or make their software better. On the contrary, they are selling windows at a huge profit to loose millions on other things like the x-box. The reason they don't compete with linux, as an example, on the ability to patch security issues, is becuase it would literally cost them too much to be loosing money on other things. They can, contrary to popular belief, innovate; they have the money to pay for the innovation, but they don't. Case in point, Windows hasn't seen a better version since NT4. Win2k was the more user friendly version of nt4 and WinXP is basically a reskinned Win2k with a few new features added. I doubt in 2005 when longhorn is release it'll be much different than windows xp.
Right now microsoft is being caught at an odd point; they are trying to take over the console market and failing miserably, they are trying to push into developers, they have passport which probably isn't making a bunch of moolah at the moment, the crashing stock market took a bite out of them, and all sorts of BS. They can either pull out of some of their investments, put together a solid OS and market it, or they can continue to peddle BS and I think if they continue to peddle Windows without innovating it, they'll be left behind.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Whatever Sun's fate, Mr Schwartz is probably right that the software industry will not be taken over by free programs, as some geeks would like. The main attraction of open source, as he says, is the fact that it is "great for innovation", not its questionable claim to be free.
Does the author of this article actually understand anything about software or economics? It seems to me that any consumer in the world should want "free programs" as opposed to those you have to pay for. Even if we assumed that all that silly FUD about Linux having a higher TCO than Windows or Solaris, were true; wouldn't consumers still desire that Linux (and the rest of open soruce) progresses to a point of of lower TCO? And shouldn't that be a lot more viable for open source than a software product which locks you into a big company that just wants more of your money, not less? Anyways, open source is winning and will win more because it can innovate faster and for less. It is not just "great for innovation", it costs less, and costs (TCO) keep going down.
Dell offered the best hardware and support for the price and also they do price matching so he got quite a few things cheaper than expected.
Maybe the best price/performance hardware support, but their Linux software support leaves a lot to be desired (even at the Gold contract level). We bought several Dell PE2650 servers running Linux and I'm finding that the Dell support techs just don't have enough real world experience with Linux to make Dell into a big Unix player (yet). I'm told Dell is working on correcting that as I type this, but until they do Dell won't be as much of an option for those of us who run Unix shops and know what quality support comes from Sun. Anyone can read a manual--including me--when I call Dell (or Sun or HP), I want to talk to someone who knows more than that.
Surely Sun can't exactly sell the hardware for any cheaper than it can already be bought for, so what's the advantage of choosing them over a company like Dell?
Why not? Think Dell does anything Sun can't do in designing an x86 system? I don't. Sun engineers design the server, then Sun contracts with some of the same manufacturers other x86 vendors use to have them built. It's not as difficult as it may seem. One of the great assests of building x86 systems is the off the shelf nature of the components. That reduces the learning curve considerably when compared to designing everything yourself for a system that isn't as widely used, i.e. sparc.
I welcome Sun's effort to ship better Linux servers. When you consider how much Sun knows about Unix, it's great to have that expertise spilling into the Linux world.
"Questionable claim to be free"? Let's leave aside "free/Free" for a moment, as the author seems to indicate the former. (Let's also leave aside the grammatical correctness of the sentence, which looks more like it belongs in a /. article than in The Economist. :-)
Instead, let's ask what this "questionable claim" actually is. Hmm, does open source software have a purchase price? Not really: by definition, it costs $0. How about technical support, is that free? Why, for most open source it is: extensive online help, rapid bugfixes, etc. I know, are any and all costs related to its use zero? Why no, they are not---you still have to pay to field the software and maintain it.If you told the author of this article you were giving him a free car, with a free warranty for parts and a substantial discount on labor, apparently his response would be "Oh yeah? What about gas?". Sheesh.
Although, the article was pretty well-written otherwise :-).
The worst pain about Solaris I found was that it comes with nearly no preinstalled software. Oh, yes, it has the GUI, it has the web browser and several demo movies, a huge documentation database and a lot of other stuff I completely don't need. It lacks the basic stuff though. Say, I want to install some software. I try to open the website with HotJava, manage to get to the downloads, but on my poor connection I can't grab it - the download breaks and doesn't resume. Nothing wget wouldn't handle... So I quickly grab wget .rpm and the source, just in case. Luckily, small enough so I could download it. Ok... rpm -i wget*. Ooops, no rpm, that's rather obvious. I quickly look for rpm and after a good while find rpm.tgz lying next to rpm.rpm. I download after several retries and get to notice there's no gzip!
Okay, I download gzip.tar. I untar it (luckily tar works) and see it's a source. But there's no compiler in the system. I grab a binary of GCC and notice bastard is available either as .rpm or as .gz. At this point I start getting mad:
-Can't install gzip - requires gcc or rpm.
-Can't install rpm - requires gzip or rpm.
-Can't install gcc - requires gzip or rpm.
I grab Linux install and get a full system, with perl, php, webserver, all client and server software I'd ever desire and everything I'd ever want. Upgrading and maintaining it will be less of a hell than installing Solaris from scratch, with poor internet connection and no binaries from older Solaris installs. I just feel envious about some guys that have one CD full of free Solaris binaries, starting with uncompressed, ready to use statically linked gzip and gcc, instead of 6 CDs of demos, 2 of docs and 4 of patches.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The Economist article said:
The main attraction of open source, as he says, is the fact that it is "great for innovation", not its questionable claim to be free."
Anyone else annoyed with the writers confusion on free software/gratis software throughout the article. Well guess it's viewpoint of the Economist. No wonder they interpret free as "free (as in beer)".
There is a price to complexity, even with free software:
http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2003-02/su nf lash.20030226.4.html
SUN'S PROJECT ORION REDEFINES THE ECONOMICS AND DELIVERY OF ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE
Radically Aligned Software Development, Delivery Strategy and Business Model Help Drive Complexity Down, Cost Out
SANTA CLARA, Calif., -- February 26, 2003 -- Sun Microsystems, Inc., today previewed its response to customers' need for greater simplicity, predictability and affordability of enterprise computing environments with a new product and business strategy, code named Project Orion. Based on two decades of releasing world-class enterprise software, Project Orion will dramatically simplify the acquisition, deployment and operation for all of Sun's award-winning enterprise infrastructure software. With Project Orion, Sun converges the company's software offerings into a predictable, scheduled quarterly release of an integrated software system distributed on Solaris, Solaris for x86 and Linux.
Project Orion leverages Sun's proven competency in developing and releasing large-scale systems software, best demonstrated by its multi-platform Solaris operating system. The effort will align the integration, testing and release of all of the company's software products and pricing models, thereby helping customers to easily deploy either a fully pre-integrated software system, or selected components of the system with dramatically less expense and complexity. This alignment process frees IT organizations from having to staff similar release or distribution teams within their enterprises; driving software system lifecycle cost out of IT operations, yielding expense savings, availability, uptime and predictability. Project Orion also allows customers to select best-of-breed components from Sun's partners if they so choose.
"Project Orion changes the way Sun does business so our customers can profit more from the way they do business," said Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice president of Software, Sun Microsystems. "We've heard consistently that CIOs are tired of handling the integration role for the operating environment. They want us to engineer the complexity out, drive standards and interoperability, and get the costs down. We're leading the industry in delivering the most affordable, complete and interoperable operating environment, on multiple platforms, and at prices that bring carrier-grade scale and industry-open standards to all customers, large and small."
"The integrated approach of Project Orion is a step in the right direction by Sun to reduce the complexity of our computing environment," said Kim Ross, CIO, Nielsen Media Research.
Project Orion comprises three industry leading breakthroughs:
A Systematic Approach--the methodology to design, develop, and deliver software using "software-train" releases to define a set of stringent criteria that all software components must satisfy before the integrated system will ship. This capability has been developed over 20 years of releasing Solaris.
A Software System--the open and integrated software portfolio of all of Sun's enterprise infrastructure software where everything seamlessly works together, and consistently exercises a set of common components, architectures, and technologies. This redefines the meaning of operating systems and middleware to create the first real Web services delivery platform.
Business Strategy--a simplified acquisition, more affordable and predictable business model that applies to the enterprise infrastructure software from Sun. Customers can still purchase individual software components, or the entire software system with one single uniform pricing model. The result is a completely integrated operating environment that is immediately available to use and grow at the customer's convenience.
The spectrum of software included in Project Orion will span Solaris and Linux at the core with a common Java runtime environment that integrates
Sun is no longer a workstation or server company; they are the Java company. They are getting a lot of their business from Java these days--selling packages, selling Sun University courses, JavaOne, etc.
Undoubtedly, the server business continues to pay some of the bills, but this business model is in doubt; IBM can out-compete them at the high end and LinTel is eating their lunch at the low end and, increasingly, in the mid-range. They really need to reinvent themselves as an enterprise solution provider rather than a hardware provider that (for some reason) invented Java.
I think Sun should merge or form a strategic alliance with WebLogic and position themselves as a total server, middleware and web services provider with their state of the art technology. They have a huge advantage in that everyone but Microsoft supports and promotes Java, including Sun's fiercest competitors. They have tremendous domain expertise; a lot of the people who developed Java, J2EE and so forth are still working at Sun.
Alternatively, perhaps IBM should buy JavaSoft and let the rest of Sun die a quick and merciful death. IBM's stake in Java is so huge now that it's hard to imagine they are not considering this option.
Just some thoughts on a Sunday morning....
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Since suprisingly recently. The fact that the SCO/Linux case features on the Economist radar can only be good news. Not so long ago this article wouldn't even have feature in their "in other news" section.
And they're happy to tow the geek line that SCO's case has little real merit calling it a "ham-fisted attempt by SCO to get itself bought".
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
FYI:
Sun likely to use AMD's Opteron chip
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
April 8, 2003, 3:47 PM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1010-996060.html
Sun Microsystems will likely adopt the Opteron processor from Advanced Micro Devices as it extends into new branches of the server market.
Menlo Park, Calif.-based Sun has been testing the forthcoming Opteron chip for servers in its labs, and has found interest for the chip among customers, said John Loiacono, vice president of Sun's operating platforms group. Although he couldn't commit to any definite product plans, Loiacono said that the chip, which comes out April 22, would probably end up in a Sun product.
"Can we commit to using Opteron today? No," Loiacono said. "Can we use it? Are we likely to use it? Yes."
The probable endorsement from Sun is one of the strongest yet for the upcoming chip. Although RackSaver and a host of second-tier manufacturers have come out with product plans, no large manufacturer has done so yet. AMD declined to comment.
Sun's guarded optimism for the chip is a good sign for AMD, said Dean McCarron, principal analyst for Mercury Research. Opteron is designed for servers running up to eight processors, and that market is still largely controlled by the small circle of multinational computer makers. These manufacturers, moreover, tend to be fairly conservative when it comes to new technology.
"If you can get a Sun or IBM interested, that is crucial," he said. Virtually all of the major manufacturers are testing Opteron, according to Jack Steeg, senior vice president of sales and marketing at Newisys, which is licensing designs for Opteron servers.
According to Sun executives speaking at the company's quarterly product update, Sun-branded servers containing so-called x86 chips from AMD or Intel will also occupy a more prominent place in the company's overall product line, which is currently dominated by servers running Sun's own UltraSparc chip.
"You will hear a lot about Solaris x86. There are over 1,000 applications on Solaris x86," said Sun CEO Scott McNealy, referring to the version of Sun's operating system that's tweaked to run on servers containing Intel and AMD chips.
Sun, in fact, will update its LX50 server, which is designed for x86 chips, in the very near future, company executives have said. Although Opteron comes out in two weeks, Loiacono cautioned against drawing too strong a connection between the Opteron release and the pending update to the LX50. The chip requires a completely new motherboard. Sun is also working on other AMD chips.
Change of heart
The fairly buoyant endorsement of technology from the PC world represents something of a change at Sun. The company has engaged in a heated battle for years with Intel, deriding the performance of servers based on Pentium chips and mocking, whenever possible, the sales of the Itanium processor.
A year ago, Sun deferred "productization" of a version of Solaris for Intel servers. Intel, for its part, has repeatedly noted how servers containing RISC-based chips, like Sun's UltraSparc, have become a smaller part of the overall server market.
The shift appears to derive from equal doses of opportunity and desperation.
On the opportunity side, Sun is positioning itself as a complete technology provider that will earn profits from sales of hardware, software and services.
Intel- or AMD-based servers from Sun will be outfitted with Solaris and a variety of server applications, McNealy said. Even if these typically less-expensive servers don't carry the same margins as Sun's UltraSparc boxes, they will serve as vehicles to sell Sun software.
The company is kicking off a Chinese menu-style licensing program called Orion to beef up software sales.
"They (Sun) are making a bigger commitment to supporting other platforms, and what is the best way to do that? By having Linux or x86 in-house," said Kevin Krewell, senior editor at the Micropr
IT's not about "Free shit".
Will proprietary software with real value still have commercial value? HEll yes, always.
Will proprietary software that does the same thing as free software have value? No, why should it?
Why should we be paying anyone money for something people are willing to do for free. Simple as that.
Look at.. Vmware. Good product. Solid. Makes money. Then we have FreeMware. Not so good. Not even close, really. VMWare definately has *value*, and lots of it.
Now, if VMWare sits on their product and does nothing but fix bugs, that situation won't last. Eventually, freemware, or someone else, might catch up, or surpass it. But all VMWare has to do is keep innovating and developing, and they can keep selling their great product.
The same goes for everything.... we all don't like windows because, hell, the only reasons we really use it are because we are forced to by software compatability... we don't see it as anyhing that adds real value.. only artificial value.
Free software will continue to set a baseline standard for software, which you have to beat significantly in order to actually sell software. That's where things are going. ANd that's a GOOD way for things to be. Nobody is saying focused, commercial programming efforts can't pay off bigtime.. they absolutely can.. butnot if you are going to make snakeoil.
Actually, Sun has publicly stated that they will outsource the design as well as the manufacture.
x86 hardware (same price as the competition) + Solaris x86 (free to Sun)+ Sun Service + Sun ONE software stack (free to Sun) + ISV ports (Developers! Developers! Developers!) = not priceless but I'll buy 'em.
So the author doesn't understand what "free" means in this context. The perpetual confusion of free as in beer and free as in liberty. Most open source software may not be gratis but it is not at all questionable that it is "software libre".
Seems that Sun, like others, thinks that Linux is not free due to upgrade and maintaince costs. This might be true, except you can use your existing employes. Since they have those neat brains they can learn. Linux is documented.
Combine brains, documentation, and larning, wow.
PS: This all depends on a company making an investment in their employes. It's a big "IF"
-- James Dornan
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Yes, obviously GETTING STUFF DONE is important, and real.
I never said someone was dumb for using windows when the software they need only works on windows.
My point is that we have many options for an oprating system.. and in and of itself, Windows does not add any value over what we can get for free. The only reason it has value is because of applications that only work in windows.
Mr Schwartz may seem to want to have it both ways. But he is trying to capitalise on an important trend. Some software users have started to realise that even Linux is not as free as it appears: for instance, it has to be maintained and upgraded. "Linux is like a puppy--in the beginning it's great, but you also have to take care of it," says Mr Schwartz. He hopes that firms will opt for Solaris, because it requires less care.
That's pretty laughable to anyone who has ever maintained Linux boxes.. well, most *nixes for that matter. I wonder whether Mr. Schwartz has used any Linux distros since oh.. Slackware 3?
Hmm... "apt-get dist-upgrade" Wow! The sweat is really flying from my forehead now! (:
Sun needs to realize that it simply does not make sense to compete with Free Software when their own proprietary stuff offers little or no benefit. It's a waste of their resources to keep maintaining Solaris. In short, Sun is a company that must innovate or die.
Head over to ESR's No Secrets" home page, if you ever had access to UNIX source code that was not under NDA or NDA not enforced.
Quote:
I want to know if you have ever had read access to proprietary Unix source code (not just binaries and documentation) under circumstances where either no non-disclosure agreement was required or whatever non-disclosure agreement you had was not enforced.
Help fight continental drift.
To a certain degree. I've running Solaris for about 8 years and linux for about 6. At my company now we run a full linux frontend with a solaris backend. Not a lot of servers, but about 500 linux boxes.
I don't like to talk about it, but it's a huge pain the ass. We're constantly replacing hardware. I'm constantly training people on how linux does things. When it works it's fine, but much of the documentation available is not the greatest. Many writeups are old, features left out. We have to do a lot to the OS for security reasons as well. Financial Institutions get nervous when you mention linux. The problem with a OS you can heavily modify, is you end up doing it. All the time.
My point is there is a lot of care and feeding. Now personally I enjoy it, but that is me. With the amount of time I spend keeping my linux boxes happy and up to date, I have to really question if it makes business sense. My management said "Ya linux, it's free!" I said "Ya linux it's cool and fun". But now I'm the one spending all the extra hours trying to track down bugs and hack things to get them working. Spinning my own kernels, creating new rpms. Sure it's great flexability, but I end up putting in a lot of hours. So many more than on my solaris boxes.
So yes linux is great, but when you figure out my hourly rate, much of your savings gets eaten up.
Sun makes all their money selling over priced hardware. They are now realizing that it is their fate to become just one more pc manufacturer selling machines running Linux/Solaris/Windows. Eventually SPARC machines will be a thing of the past.
Vote for Pedro
Linux on x86 or Itanium is an excellent value proposition for the customer but is a horrible value proposition for Sun Microsystems. It neither designs nor builds the x86 servers. A sweatshop in Taiwan designs and builds them. The sweatshop then badges the server as "Sun" or "Dell" and ships it to Sun Microsystems or Dell, respectively. Little profits can be had. After all, Linux itself is free.
The only way to succeed in this model of business is to bring your company's cost structure down. Dell has been highly successful in running a bare-bones operation. Dell has the lowest-cost structure in the computer systems industry. Tiny amount of R & D.
By contrast, Sun has a high-cost structure. Sun will reap no profits from selling Linux atop x86 or Itanium. Sun cannot price its x86 servers below those of Dell; doing so would be financial suicide.
This is the primary motivation for selling Solaris on x86. Solaris generates some profits. Even better, Solaris will lock the customer into Sun's service and support for even more profits. Solaris will also favor Sun's software products just like Windows favors Microsoft's software product.
In the long run, Sun is deadmeat. The fact that its UltraSPARC is horribly slow, in comparison to the Itanium or Pentium 4 is just another nail in the coffin of Sun. What will happen to Sun's customers for Sun's high end servers when those customers verify that Oracle applications run faster on Linux atop x86 than the same applications on Solaris atop UltraSPARC-powered servers?
Exactly. Also, what happens to people employed writing code at software companies?
that translates to blah blah blah cheaper blah blah blah one butt to kick blah blah blah approved (although I like your version better).
And that, boys and girls, is why Solaris is going to run on x86 hardware. Mr. Saul will be signing autographs as you leave the auditorium, the lecture is now over. You've learned it all. Thank you and have a nice day.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
.... what about BSD? :-P
what is so hard to understand about something that is free to copy, distribute, install and costs NOTHING to the user.
... where are those hidden costs accounted for in this (boring old) critique of OSS?
Most Linux boots off the CD to a running system. IF something gets hosed an installation process that is EASIER than windows can quickly restore your system. I make some custom images and with my $HOME mounted from a dir that is synched against a back up on a USB drive, I can have a linux box up and running with all my customized settings in less than 10 minutes. For free. Free as in I don't have to pay 1000$ for the privilege.
Sorry, it is cheaper because it is FREE. Just because your MSCE doesn't know how to set up a Linux network doesn't mean it has "hidden costs". Your MSCE doesn't know how to set up a Windows network either, or make cappucino
Free = Free and $0.00
Reads like smelly think tank stink to me, Especially the closing lines...`The main attraction of open source, as he says, is the fact that it is "great for innovation", not its questionable claim to be free.' Even though it's woven into a Quote... The "article" is taylor made for Suits who try to think geek. Mentioning the cost of ownership slogan... Smelly Think Tank Stink.
It seems that because nothing in this article was news to you, somehow you conclude it's bad writing.
The Economist isn't Slashdot and they aren't catering to pedantic geeks who've been closely following the recent events in Silicon Valley. Rather their articles are targeted at a very diverse audience who need to be brought up to speed before the article explains the significance of Sun's new strategy.
While it may not be news to you, this article is a pretty good example on how to write an interesting article for an audience who lacks nessecary background information to fully appreciate the implications from the details.
What everyone who runs SunOne under Linux has to be asking themselves is "How much sand in the Linux Sun Hourglass is left?". Nearly a year ago Sun had an epiphany which resulted in them porting Iplanet and other software over to Linux.
Now companies who are using Webservers running SunOne/Iplanet under Linux are probably running on borrowed time. The last service pack for SunOne for Linux was released Oct 2k2(I could be full of crap, I'm running off memory on this one)...and there's at least one serious problem with SunOne that they're not talking about which is causing people problems because exploits exist.
Now without their own version of Linux driving complimentary development on supported products under the Linux Kernel what's to keep them producing and support software for an OS which is hurting the core of their business,their hardware bottom-line? A desire for warm-fuzzies and thank you notes? Ha! Not a damn thing.
What's the "Linux Strategy" for a company facing bad margins because customers who would normally use their hardware and software are dancing with Dell (and for good reason, Dell isn't bending customers over and breaking off stuff in their nethers) and Tux? Invent better lock-in or discard support for a rival free operating system which is bleeding them dry?
I read the article and it read like a combination "political/stockmarket" filler piece designed to confuse the hell out of the casual reader and introduce the "renegade former developer" like he's something special for being a 37yr old suit-hippy while inviting other suit-hippy-insiders to send offers to the magazine/writer for future work on obfuscating other "black and white" issues for fun and profit. Isn't it so chic to have your professional photo accompanied by the kind of filler that would give a White-house press secretary the kind of erection that would result in them passing out from the overstimulation of the vegas nerve the next time they took a piss? It works at so many levels we shouldn't be surprised by the delays in EMT calls due to the sudden escalation in calls for young executives passing out in the latrine around the time weekly business magazines featuring such pap come sliding across the desks.
If someone at Sun could anonymously write something with a grounding in reality it sure would help. Personally, I think it could be summed up with a single line,
"If we can't embrace and extend Linux for our own benefit, maybe the guys who buy us can."
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
Thinking of Oracle buying SUN. If it did, would Oracle it rename it Apollo?
Éibhear