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
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].
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.
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.
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 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)".
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.
On the hardware side, Sun's hardware engineering and field support are far superior to most PC systems, so the only reason they might trail in a head to head competition is price. Again, no personal experience with Sun x86 platforms, but as long as they don't fall far below their quality on the SPARC platform, I would have no problem recommending these systems, particularly if cost isn't the highest rating element.
That said, I think it is pretty ironic that Sun is probably suffering the most right now from the rise of Linux (and Dell is probably the benneficiary of this movement). They have been the most "Open" of the Open Systems vendors (not to be confused with Open Source). On the other hand, they probably will survive all of this and emerge as a leaner, meaner competitor and deliver even better system solutions at even better prices. Personally, I think they are making a mistake by not fully embracing Linux, but they have a lot of people and resources working on Solaris, so it is hard to change. They may be forced to by economics, though.
Since Solaris 8, Sun has shipped Netscape as the default browser, not HotJava
/usr/sfw, which also has many of the GNU tools.
All your fun happy binaries are available at http://www.sunfreeware.com
And Sun now ships a Software Companion CD with most common GNU tools and GUI installer.
Finally, Solaris 9 now includes
For all that, it still takes me about 30 min-1 hour of work to get a Solaris system to the same nice command-line environment as Linux (ksh or bash, color ls, gtar, and vim 6)
Newcomer to the market? Sun buys its 2-way Intel servers from the same manufacturer that many vendors buy their 2-way Intel servers from, and that manufacturer is not new to the market.
Furthermore, most Intel servers use either Intel motherboards or Broadcom motherboards. So if vendor B is buying 2-way Xeon boxes based on Intel motherboards from an Asian assembler that puts a blue plastic shell on the motherboard, and vendor B is doing the same thing, albeit with the Asian assembler using a black plastic shell, and both vendors outsource their hardware support to the same company that specializes in low-end Intel server support, and both vendors provide Red Hat but outsource their software support to Red Hat, what is the difference, or what is the relavance of how long the the vendor has been in the market?
Your statement makes about as much sense as if Sun had switched from Seagate to Hitachi hard drives in its systems, and you said Sun is a newcomer to the Hitachi hard drive market.
2-way x86 servers are commodities. The only significant companies innovating on these are Intel, AMD, and Broadcom. Not the companies that acutually sell them.