Slashdot Mirror


Sun's Last Stand

non writes "Wired has an article by Gary Revlin in the July edition about the current state of affairs at Sun. He attributes half of Sun's problems to failure to recognize the emergence of Linux, and the other half to their failure to make up with Microsoft, and finishes up with a server price comparison. An interesting read."

37 of 553 comments (clear)

  1. For payback by BoomerSooner · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple should offer them 25% of their current stock price in a buy-out offer.

    Burn baby burn. Wait what does this mean for the UltraSPARC I just bought! Doh.

    1. Re:For payback by Brad+Cossette · · Score: 4, Insightful
      See, I'd figure IBM as a more likely candidate to buy out SUN. Big Blue has already made a significant investment into UNIX/AIX and Linux and especially Java, so from the software side there's incentive that way. Plus, servers and high-end workstations are still a mainstay of IBM's business.

      While I've seen some adds for Apple servers, I don't know if that's a market Apple can or will thrive in - SUN just doesn't seem to add much to Apple unless they're looking at expanding their business directions.

      --
      -- "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars" [Oscar Wilde]
    2. Re:For payback by RoLi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think Sun is worth much more, a lot more.

      But only if they play their cards right.

      Sun has 1 thing no other big computer-maker has: Complete independence from Microsoft.

      If Sun were smart they would slap together cheap parts (may be but don't have to be x86), put KDE (not GNOME) and Linux on it and offer it at a good price.

      IBM, HP, Dell etc. can't react that easily because they have to fear retaliation from Microsoft, so Sun could be the only serious Linux workstation maker for quite a few years. Despite all financial problems, Sun has a very good trademark so I have no doubt that Sun could sell a lot of those machines.

      Also this wouldn't hurt their server business because those machines would be desktops.

    3. Re:For payback by TheAncientHacker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Exactly what does IBM get by buying out Sun?

      A licensed version of Unix after Monday...

  2. Linux's uptimes approaching Solaris' by jamie · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Possibly of interest, news from three days ago:

    Linux uptimes comparable with Solaris on busy sites

    Comparisons of mean time between reboots on Linux and Solaris are very topical, as the top are often thrown head to head in cost benefit analysis of server platforms. It is interesting to review the uptimes of some of the internet's busier servers hosted at Sun, Google and Akamai. Perhaps the most remarkable thing is how few reboots there are on the networks, given the amount of traffic they see, though in absolute numbers the average number of days between reboots is higher at Sun than either of the two Linux based companies.

  3. Same thing was said about Apple by ajiva · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People are always predicting doom for Sun and Apple, and yet both companies manage to hold on. Sun's doing much better than a year ago and is selling LOTS of hardware. They aren't dead yet...

  4. RTFA by DShard · · Score: 4, Informative

    That summary is only half correct. The article attributes the preoccupation with microsoft as one of their problems... not with making up with them (which they still haven't)

  5. Sun Doesn't appeal to me by haydenth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think you can partially blame sun's (demise?) on their inability to attract younger developers. As a (younger) sysadmin, I didn't touch a sun box until I got into my first job. Even then I am concentrating on migrating everything over to Linux because it is what I know. I think the same applies in a lot of cases, especially with the younger-folk. How many teenagers do you see trying out Solaris? How many do you see trying out Linux? I would imagine that Linux would far exceed Sun.

    When my boss asks me to recommend a server, I would most definetely recommend a Linux server over a Solaris box simply because I have far more experience with Linux than with Unix.

    --
    - tom -
    1. Re:Sun Doesn't appeal to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have a lot of experience in MS-DOS. I don't know what this Linux thing is, even though I have to use it at work. When my boss asks me to recommend a server, I would most definately recommend a MS-DOS server over the Linux box simply because I have far more experience with MS-DOS than Linux.

    2. Re:Sun Doesn't appeal to me by bmj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      well, obviously it's easier for someone to cut their teeth on linux, since anyone can download a distro and install it. not so easy with sun/solaris.

      but, you're still not going to convince a large, lumbering manufacturing company running decidely unsexy applications to switch to linux. i've worked with a number of clients that couldn't switch from solaris even if they wanted to, because their apps just don't exist for linux (think erp/mrp systems).

      plus, if you need lots of processing power, you can certainly set up a cluster of cheap lintel boxes, but why spend the time/money on that when you could just throw an enterprise server in there, and just have it work?

      --
      Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re:Sun Doesn't appeal to me by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure it's more difficult (if you don't want to pay $20), but certainly possible even for the poorest college students.

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    4. Re:Sun Doesn't appeal to me by presearch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...because it is what I know.

      You might be doing yourself a disservice, and maybe selling yourself short.
      File structures may be different, configuring stuff in /etc might be moved around,
      but the diff between Solaris (or IRIX, or OS X, or AIX) and Linux isn't any wider
      than variants in Linux distributions. Just running an unfamiliar shell on a Linux
      box could make it seem like a foreign machine if that's not what you're used to.

      What's easiest for you also might be blinding you to choosing the best box for
      the task at hand. I think Solaris tends to have more "torque" under load than
      Linux, OS X is better at interoperability with other systems, and IRIX...well, no comment.

      There's also the factor of uptime and service contract support. If you spend the bucks,
      when a Sun box breaks, they'll get things back in order quickly. Sure you could run
      down to Best Buy and get parts for your Linux box, but some places feel uncomfortable
      with that, as they should.

      Not that I like Sun all that much. They could use some of the modern polish that
      Apple has put into OS X. Sun maintenance and installation feels very dated to me.
      But they do run and run and run and most anything Linux can do, in the server world,
      can be done (often better) with Solaris.

  6. Scalability and cost by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sun's current "low-end" tactic of trying to replace Linux with Sun on x86 is going to win a lot of converts. There are a lot of applications out there and companies that are used to Solaris and that installed base isn't going to just go away peacefully.

    The biggest argument for converting servers to smaller x86 boxes has been scalability and cost. Linux is a popular way to do that, but many companies have been using various BSD variants as well because they are more comfortable with server vs. desktop oriented software. Sun will do very well in those areas with their new emphasis.

    For a company that wants to keep their big hardware on Solaris for some stuff, it makes a lot of sense to standardize on Solaris for their cheap x86 servers as well.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    1. Re:Scalability and cost by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sun's current "low-end" tactic of trying to replace Linux with Sun on x86 is going to win a lot of converts.

      I disagree.

      Solaris/x86 is too much of a niche OS, doesn't get the attention from commercial and FOSS providers that Linux or even the BSDs do.

      Migrating to Solaris/x86 is taking a needles baby step across a relatively small stream for long time Solaris users that are conservative and nervous about Linux.

      I've used Suns workstations since the mid 1980s and they've been great in their time. But in the last several years, the only market remaining for Suns was in big 64-way servers full of disks, inas much as their market at the lower end has been eaten up by cheaper x86 hardware that is not only performing "good enough" for the low end, but better in a lot of cases.

      And so while we still run Sun servers for high capacity network-based storage (and Hitachi does their SANs), our new single-purpose servers are increasingly Lintel based. It's only a matter of time before iSCSI and Gigabit Ethernet eat into the network storage market, too.

      Sun's contributed a lot to UNIX over the years (RPC, NFS, NIS, OpenOffice) and I'd like to see them stick around because I think they have a lot of talented people that could contribute a lot more. But they need to move on into different markets because the old markets are disappearing into commoditized Lintel boxes.

      My view is that Sun should focus on providing software and services for enterprise wide LAN management and integration since this is one area where Linux needs some help. Desktop Linux deployments are increasing and they need to be managed efficiently and integrated effectively into heterogeneous corporate environments. Sun could do this if they decided they wanted to.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  7. Java by pubjames · · Score: 5, Insightful


    What I've never understood about Sun is why they didn't make it easier to install Java on a client machine. If you tried to do it (on either Windows or Linux) you would find that the process was increadably badly designed. Most members of the normal public wouldn't stand a chance installing it.

    Did they do this on purpose, or are they just incompetent? I've just noticed that they've made it much easier, but for years it was very difficult, at least for normal people.

    1. Re:Java by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Each application that wants to use Java recommends you install their bundled version of Java

      This is Sun's fault. The folks at jpackage have been trying for quite some time to create freely distributable RPMs of JREs and SDKs. THe technical issues are surmountable, but Sun won't let you distribute a JRE unless it's bundled with a application, for the specific purpose of being used with that app and no other.

      This is a legal issue entirely of Sun's making.

    2. Re:Java by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sun does not, nor will it ever, understand users. The entire company is geared toward sysadmins who are expected to be able to jump through install hoops and tweak systems to get top performance.

      That's correct, and a Ferrari is aimed at drivers who know how to properly handle a sports car. The multitude of schmucks buying them to impress other people, while signifigant, represents a much smaller segment of the market -- most of the young rich idiots who buy Ferraris without ever learning to drive on a race track end up getting themselves killed.

      Sun is proud of their "9's" - 99.999...% uptime. The truth is that 99.99% of businesses don't need that percentage. Sun is proud of their scaling, but I've got news - 99.99% of businesses don't need that much power.

      Right, but the ones that do (They're known as the 'Fortune 500') are willing to pay premium prices to get what they want, just like Ferrari drivers. Sure, it's a niche market, but it's a lucrative one.

      It's also clear that we'll hit 10Ghz machines with multiple gigs of RAM in just a few years, and they'll cost around $1K; if you want terabytes of disk it may cost around $2K. How is Sun going to compete with that?

      Right, and how do I make two hundred clones of your monster Wintel machine in an hour and a half, without needing an assistant? Oh, wait, I can't. Will I be able to swap out CPUs without a second of downtime? Can I reassign hardware resources between different virtual domains on this monster workstation from a terminal on a different continent without needing to physically touch the machine, all without downtime? Is your monster PC going to be able to handle transferring over 40G/sec on its motherboard backplane to multiple drives?

      I don't think you really understand how this technology is used.

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
  8. We knew this all along. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 4, Funny

    It does come as any surprise. The Sun will surely fail once it exhausts all of its fuel. Yes, it will take billions perhaps trillions of years, but no energy source is infinite no matter what the marketing hype says. All that remains is for Netcraft to confirm it.

  9. Priceless... by thrillbert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sun Fire V480
    Four 900-MHz UltraSparc III Cu processors,16 Gbytes RAM, Solaris 8: $46,995

    IBM eServer pSeries 630 Model 6C4
    2 x 2-way 1.2-GHz Power4+ processor, 8 Gbytes RAM, SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8: $35,944

    Dell PowerEdge 6650
    Four 1.5-GHz Intel Xeon processors, 16 Gbytes RAM, Red Hat Linux 8 Professional: $24,421


    Seeing the expression on people who claimed Linux was not ready for the enterprise: Priceless.
    Some things money can buy. Piece of mind and a wad in your wallet can only be achieved by cheap hardware and an even cheaper operating system.

    This message brought to you by Open Source. Live free!

    ---
    You should never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and liberty.
    -- Henrik Ibsen

    1. Re:Priceless... by why-is-it · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sun Fire V480
      Four 900-MHz UltraSparc III Cu processors,16
      Gbytes RAM, Solaris 8: $46,995

      IBM eServer pSeries 630 Model 6C4
      2 x 2-way 1.2-GHz Power4+ processor, 8 Gbytes RAM,
      SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8: $35,944

      Dell PowerEdge 6650
      Four 1.5-GHz Intel Xeon processors, 16 Gbytes RAM,
      Red Hat Linux 8 Professional: $24,421


      Please do not deceive yourself into thinking that the Dell system has equivalent processing power to the Sun/IBM offering...

      The issue of support is not addressed in this price comparison. My group managed approximately UNIX servers (70% Solaris, 30% AIX) and it is really difficult to get management to take Linux seriously in this environment. Hardware cost is not really an issue, because hardware is a one-time-cost which can be depreciated over a few years. BTW - for the class of server we purchase, Sun hardware is significantly cheaper than equivalent IBM hardware.

      The real concern management has with Linux is support. If there is a hardware or software problem, we can call Sun/IBM 24x7 and they will work on the problem and if necessary call in people with specific expertise to resolve the issue. Those maintenance contracts cost a lot of money, but that is part of the cost of doing business when you have SLAs to maintain. I cannot get that kind of support for Linux. Checking Google for a fix is simply not an alternative.

      The other issue that the article does not consider is that some of the applications we use do not run on Linux, and that really limits the possibilities for Linux in future deployments.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  10. Prices are hiding data by maitas · · Score: 5, Informative

    In fact, the V480 has a 3 year warranty, if you add AIX license, 3 year warranty, 8+ GB RAM, the p630 id far more expensive than the V480... it's always easy to cheat... No one runs Linux under Power4, since you loose functionality (dynamic LPARs) compared to AIX.
    The Dell machine is far less powerfull (SPECrate comparison) and doesn't include 3 year warranty.
    Those prices are plain wrong!
    I always wander why Slashdot ops. hate Sun so much and loves IBM... will never get it.
    In fact, Sun's is the single company that has donated more lines code in the world (OpenOffice, JXTA, GridEngine, NetBeans, etc.).

  11. Could there be a lesson for Open Source here? by kahei · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Focusing on beating Microsoft in any way possible might actually *not* be as effective as innovating and creating products people want to use.

    Sun's anti-MS strategy was quite interesting (e.g. it was quite a bit more innovative than just reimplementing the GUI part of windows on top of a big teetering stack of different projects :D ). I think they fell down by being focused on their enemy, so that all their ideas were "We'll sue X! We'll undermine Y! We'll challenge Z!" If they'd been focused on their market and had ideas like "We'll offer service A! We'll invent a cheaper B!" they would still be relevant.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  12. Sun's biggest problem is... by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Insightful


    They are probably the worlds most innovative software company....

    And they don't know it. Or if they do they don't know how to capitalise on it. Cracking products, cracking ideas that are at the very edge, but very little go-to-market.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  13. Sun is dead in the water by alen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's servers are too expensive for most tasks. They might be better, but the value for your $$$ is on x86. On the OS side Windows and Linux are kicking Sun's ass. On the hardware side Intel and Dell have created an efficient business model that is increasingly moving up higher and higher in the enterprise.

    Sun needs to figure out a business model that will work in the new economic reality. They will either need to be a software company or a hardware one. But like a lot of companies they will probably die off because they couldn't adapt. They were successful once because they filled a market need, but when the market changed they couldn't adapt fast enough.

  14. Why can't I get Java working on my RH8 box? by Dr_Marvin_Monroe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...here's the crux of Sun's problem!...I've never been able to really get Java working with Mozilla on my box. I don't want to rebuild half of my system to do it either!...Why can't I just simply get an RPM that WORKS!....

    Since I built my first Linux box (3 years ago), Java has been a TOTAL hassle in every release. I read little snippets about "licensing" type problems here, lib compatability problems there, etc, all while they are still whining about MS.

    The article is right. They seem preoccupied with MS and this wrongheaded idea that somehow they will right the wrongs in court or through the media...get your products working, make them easy to install and put them EVERYWHERE and the problem will solve itself.

    Yeah, MS thwarted them illegally, keep whining about that and you will be bankrupt like all the others that MS wronged. Now just get over it, pick yourself up and make it as easy for EVERYONE to install JRE and JDK on ANY platform...be damned with the "licensing" bullsh*t. Like any war, you must win "on the ground" in order to be effective. Give MS a little taste of thir own medicine, give your new Java development studio away for cheap. Who cares if you were wronged if nobody can even install your stuff?

    Just my two cents.....

    p.s. I'm still without any Java on my Mozilla 1.0.1 install.....

    1. Re:Why can't I get Java working on my RH8 box? by babyrat · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ..here's the crux of Sun's problem!.

      Quick! Does anyone have Scott McNealy's number? I need to call him to let him know that all his companies problems will be solved if he simply gets Java working with Mozilla on this guys linux machine.

      He was worried about IBM and Sun and Intel and Microsoft - clearly he should send someone over to install the JRE on Redhat 8.

      100 million java enabled cell phones...installation on a browser/OS combo that no-one* uses...hmmm...where to spend your time?


      *okay - high percentage of users reading this (myself included), but low percentage of Sun's target market (embedded devices and enterprise applications)

  15. What reality do these people live in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We have got Suns and Linux machines in the datacenter.

    Where is really matters (big database engines, 4+ CPUs, a lot of external storage) Linux/Intel is just not capable of the task. Sun plainly does not have much competition there. At least not from Linux. HP-UX, AIX -- may be (though not here).

    What are these whacky analysts talking about? What Linux? 8-CPU, 64bit, fibre storage attached and Linux? Have you ever tried it? I have, I know what a pain it is. It DOES NOT FLY. Period.

    What REALLY hurts Sun is Windows on the low end. Not the hardware, not the price, but all these litty-bitty apps, that do not work anywhere but on Windows. Espetially Web apps. All these moronic developers with only Windows experience and mantra "does not work -- reboot it!", "open MS-DOS command prompt window and type c:".

    There is Sun's biggest problem. They are lacking in the software, not the hardware.

  16. Where Sun Excells by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 4, Informative

    The main thing sun has going for themselves over anyone supplying linux and white box hardware, is stability, scallability, support and availability.

    With a Sun package (hardware and software) you have the ability to upgrade both system software components, and hardware (including memory and cpu's) without downing the machine, and in many cases without even rebooting the machine. Whatever it is serving, is always available, even after upgrades (granted, we are talking their high end machines, but for... say financial institutions, downtime is a no no, even a few min can cost ungodly amounts of money). Kernel updates, and software updates can also be made (not in all cases) without even rebooting the system.

    There are no linux, or even bsd boxes that can do that to my knowledge, and certainly no windows systems.

    The reason Apple and Sun hardware/software combinations are superiour in stability, is due to the fact that they are made to support each other, unlike in a windows enviroment, where you have a mix and match of hardware, and software drivers that bring in many inknowns sometimes.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  17. Reminds me of DEC by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sun reminds me of DEC. DEC had great hardware, impeccable service and Ultrix rocked. However, they couldn't market. Look where it got them.

    I see the same thing with Sun. They are too busy trying to be Microsoft, stabbing their partners in the back, and I've seen service that is not of the usual high caliber.

    I predict they will be gone in 5 years (bought by someone else, or just plain out of business).

  18. Apple Needs a Little Sun To Grow by adzoox · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've always thought that an Apple / Sun merger would be a good idea. McNealy and Jobs are friends. Apple could use the Sun "know how to build a quality server" and integrate that into the XServe.

    Apple would also gain Java as an Apple supported program and language. It would help better, faster Java come to Linux and OSX. Java could be more tightly integrated into Quicktime and thus into mobile phones where Apple is implementing it's latest builds of Quicktime.

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  19. This is what happens by Fjord · · Score: 4, Funny

    when you're the dot in "dot com". Dot coms crash, you crash.

    --
    -no broken link
  20. the problem isn't attracting them -- by bob+dobalina · · Score: 5, Interesting

    -- it's keeping them. I went to work for Sun my first job out of school. Our lab had largely Sun workstations and I really cut my unix teeth with Solaris, so the opportunity to go work for them was huge for me. When I went to work there, only 3 people in my group were over 30.

    I went to interview at their brand new (at the time) Burlington, MA facility and I was simply amazed at the place; the facilities, the people and the atmosphere was so key in my going to work there (as was the salary they offered). I still think it's a great place to work, especially for people in my age group (I'm 25) who grew up getting used to flex time. That I could take a long lunch, play a few rounds of foosball and go to the gym at 4 in the afternoon made me a happy camper.

    The problems began when I started sensing I ought to be moving up (or at least, around) in the company. I started in a position I liked but didn't want to stay in for more than a year or so, and as I started to make pushes to move around I was met with stiff resistance. Management claimed it was because of the economy, but I knew people who moved around and they weren't exactly examples of people who were going to save the company.

    The key to this issue was that while Sun was publicly making overtures towards attracting the younger developers, the first and second level managers were only advertising positions for senior engineers and were being very inflexible in "stretching" the job prereq's for younger engineers. I often think the only reason I got a job in the first place was because I came in during one of the last "conscription"-type expansions the company did before the IT sector did its nosedive.

    To this day they still have that problem; I often consider going back to Sun because the corporate culture is fast moving, fun and flexible, and I doubt I'll find that in any other company of that size. But the jobs and the people they're hiring now are all mid- or senior-level engineers.

    So actually, now that I think about it, maybe it's more apt to say their problem isn't attracting young engineers -- the culture is almost geared towards them (why else would you put foosball tables and a Starbucks in your engineering centers?). The problem is that once they've attracted the young people, they have to get their managers to hire them.

    --

    B

    "I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown

  21. sun problems by geoff+lane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    SUN has two problems they must sort out.

    1. Java - there are too many releases and java applications seem to be too tightly tied to specific point releases. This causes huge support problems.

    2. SUN supplied h/w to many of the dot.com companies. When they went bust a LOT of 2nd hand hardware appeared on the market. It's difficult to compete with your own h/w at 2nd hand prices.

    (Does anybody else find that typing in the form for SlashDot submissions causes Mozilla/Redhat8 to bounce the form around the window for no apparent reason?)

  22. "Dated installation" ?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you living in a cave? One of *the* great things about sun hardware and solaris is jumpstart, the ability to go to the 'ok>' prompt on a sun box (find that on your home PC for me, wouldja boy?), type "boot net - install" and wack, 30 minutes later you've got a box installed that looks exactly like the 200 other boxes ... you just installed.

    PuLEASE, if all you want is glitz, don't talk about Linux, solaris, or the *BSDs; what you're really looking for is Fischer-Price.

  23. Same old stuff. by pmz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sun is still selling compelling products, but they have always lagged in marketing skills, it seems. Isn't this the reputation they have always had?

    For example, the V210/240 is comparable to a dual-CPU 2GHZ Xeon server--but it also comes with FOUR gigabit Ethernet interfaces and U320 SCSI. It would be a clustering monster (think Oracle RAC). Also, only the newer Opteron servers can compare feature-for-feature (me thinks Sun would do well selling Opterons).

    The Sun ONE marketing is a bit confusing, at first, but is basically amounts to all the non-operating system software Sun sells. They are also looking to pull an interesting stunt by delivering all software to a customer and unlocking what the customer buys. This is very similar to how high-end CAD/CAM software sells, and it generally works well.

    I think Sun is doing a lot of good stuff. I just hope they weather the economy and keep putting the pressure on Microsoft, IBM, and HP. Sun, whether you like them or not, is an important part of keeping the IT industry in check.

  24. McNealy shooting his own foot... by sad_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At the end of the article McNealy says the following about linux:

    "Yet when talk turns to Linux, it's as if McNealy can't help himself: He knows he should be courting the world's Linux devotees, but instead he pokes fun at them. He points out that Red Hat, the leading purveyor of Linux systems, announced revenue of $24 million for its last quarter of 2002. I don't know where this multibillion-dollar Linux business is."

    however, earlier in the article, when discussing SUNs past we get to read this:

    "Back in the mid-1980s, when Sun was still a startup, it had neither reputation nor intellectual property, and it faced a murderer's row of competitors. One quarter it even needed to borrow $50 million to make payroll."

    yeah well, i suppose a lot of people were laughing at sun at that time too figuring out where 'the money' was. I can't believe how ignorent SUN is towards Linux.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  25. Sun vs Intel by nbahi15 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would automatically question any comparison between Sun and any Intel based platform. However even Sun recognizes the future looks to be Linux on Intel.

    We recently performed an internal cost/benefit analysis of Sun vs. Linux on Intel. Our study showed that while Intel platforms are very competetive, they fall behind on supportability. Intel machines require VGA port, BIOS, and keyboard/mouse ports. To provide remote OOB management you end up spending a fortune in cards and/or console managers, that Sun has built-in to their low end equipmnt. By low end I'm talking about a 1U $995 machine.

    In fact we recently had a conference call with Sun about their Linux boxes... I told them that if they wanted us to buy Sun Intel Linux machines they would need to dispense with the VGA port and provide the same Light Out Management console port that their Sparc machines have. Which effectively means they need to build an OpenFirmware/OpenBoot machine with a RJ45 console port. Sun's rep stated that they are working on incorporating those technologies into the Intel platform.

    So I think if Sun can deliver such a machine, in the sub $1000 category they will end up as the trendsetter for Intel based Linux boxes.