Slashdot Mirror
Sun Microsystems, SuSE Link Up To Sell Linux
ChilyWily writes "Reuters is reporting that Sun Microsystems Inc. has agreed to resell and support closely held German software firm SuSE's version of the Linux operating system, the leading variant in Europe, the companies said on Friday.
This agreement follows a similar one in May between Sun and Red Hat Inc. While I'm happy to see Sun's finally beginning to warm up to Linux (aka if you can't beat 'em, join 'em strategy) I wonder if this is too late for Sun?"
...that Sun capitalized on their immunity from whatever craziness that SCO comes up with next -- no matter what, Linux from Sun is free and clear from litigation.
It's never too late really when you dominate the high end unix market (with IBM). But really, when it comes to running large oracle databases that are mission critical, sun shines, and that is where their market is. They just want to expand more and keep some of the smaller market to help supplement their main focus. You may argue that the high end server market isn't their focus, but that is the area that they differ from all the other providers, which is an important thing.
-gabe
Perhaps the question should be - is there any reason Sun _shouldn't_ buy SusE?
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
I think the Sun vs Linux case is one in which the costs of going from Solaris to Linux in terms of hardware and training isn't that. Certainly I can see why spending a few thousand less by going for Linux over Sun.
However, as for Linux "destroying" Microsoft, the case isn't as clear as you simplistically state. There is a far greater difference between a Red Hat/SuSE and 2000 server than Solaris.
No, I don't think so. They've been fantastic in the setup of the cluster we bought from them, full of these new Sun V60x machines. They even threw in 13 extra nodes at no extra cost for a total of 43 nodes.
What will kill them is their supply chain however. We've been waiting a few weeks for mounting rails for the V60x machines.... however this isn't Sun's fault, they aparently OEM these machines straight from Intel. It's Intel who is now able to supply the part, it's actually effected another server we bought straight from Intel. It seems with their linux initiative they're simply relying on the services of others.... Intel for the x86 machines, RH and SuSe for the linux support. They're becoming a reseller when it comes to linux rather then a producer/supplier.
Then there's the NAS system which has been held up in QA for the past 3 months.
They have some great products coming out and good linux knowledge and service, however until they streamline their supply chain they might be in trouble. The rep told me they're putting quality as the top priority, however it seems to have created more problems then good. This new 3310 NAS system was suppose to begin shipping in May.... it's now August....
That will be there downfall, not meeting ship dates. They have the knowledge and inovation to survive, they just need to ride their hardware guys' asses a little harder.
Linux brings no value to Sun and actually destroys Sun's profits. Why? For years, Sun has hidden its performance-poor servers behind its Solaris operating system. Sun focused its marketing message on "the whole system" and said that performance is only one part of the system value. Most of that system value outside of simple performance came from Solaris.
Now, with Linux, the Sun salesperson can no longer argue that the operating system has some intrinsic value over the operation system of, say, an IBM machine. The IBM machine and the Sun machine are running the same operating system, Linux. Then, the comparison of the two machines comes down to performance. In other words, the customers will be forced to look at the quality of the basic hardware. In this area, Sun falls woefully short. Look at the results for the ""SPEC benchmark" or the "TPC-C benchmark".
This was most likely the safest move for SUN's linux solution and idea, if they team up with someone else they more or less just sell an already existing product with modifications, thus legal responsibilities change and they got more behind their back with a old and stable Linux distribution.
;) open source world. (Pointer: you have to pay for suse).
And SuSE is most likely 'closed' enough already for SUN to consider it as a safe solution compared to the dangerous
The reuter story highlights the difference between information and knowledge.
The reporter completely misssed pricing issues, platforms that sun would be selling it for, the support that would be entailed with the license, ETC.
What is truly missing is there is no comment on the SUN-REDHAT, SUN-SUSE licensing vis a vis the SCO suit and licensing. We know, to the extent that SCO's statements may be believed that sun pretty much has a license to do whatever they want with unix. The question is if they sell/distribute a linux under the GPL does that spill over ? Is it protected ? If I buy redhat from sun is it covered by SUNS rights, if it is how does that affect the GPL that comes with the distribution ?
IT would have been wonderfull if the article instead of just being a parrot had of addressed the questions.
..be giving legal guarantees because I'm sure they wouldn't want to go against the CEO's words.
...right below the article for Linux being sold by Sun. "Microsoft Windows 2003 Server: Do more with less". That's rich (is it ironic? I can never tell...)
I think Sun is just hedging their bets here. Plus, they can offer 'immunity' since they have the license from SCO. I know, I know, it's all crap (the SCO issue), but they can trumpet the fact that they have a proper license to all the code no matter what. None of us gives a shiat, but some PHB's might find it puts them at ease.
/.: why the hell am I here?
I see this as a good thing. Sun doesn't make their own x86 kit but neither does Dell or H-Paq or anyone else (with regard to supply chain problems).
If the suits in a corporation are familiar with Sun they are going to feel good with Linux coming from Sun on Sun gear. Same Sun name, same Sun support, etc.
Sun's challenge is going to be to convince me why I should buy their x86 servers running Linux rather than a Dell or H-Paq box running the same flavor of Linux.
This is not a zero sum game. There does not have to be a winner and a loser. Solaris/SPARC make sense for certain things and Linux and BSD make sense for other things. Each is a better option than settling for Microsoft churn.
To be honest, I think partnering with SuSe and RH is a good thing. The Sun version of Linux never really took off, so why not partner? Sun makes great hardware, and they are now making great software as well (email, directory, calendar, identity, portal, app server) that run great. I don't think the press gives them enough credit for the effort.
# nohup
I honestly don't understand your reply. I'm not trolling but you said "cheap Intel chip"
Is that how Intel's CPU's are thought of in the computing indusrty?
I just purchased an Intel Pentium 4 3.0Ghz and specifically chose an Intel 875PBZ board for it's stability and reliabilty. With The P4's heat spreader and inergrated heat protection, I consider it a high quality product.
After nearly 3 years of worry free opertaion with a dual Pentium box running almost 24 hours a day without so much as a hiccup on Debian Linux, I thought I made a wise choise with buying Intel.
Can anybody shed some light?
Who says the ENTIRE company is based on ONLY selling big-iron? Just like IBM, Sun sells big-iron, and smaller-iron, and software. Sun also sells this stuff through partners.
So now Sun re-sells two flavors of Linux for its X-86 servers: RedHat and, now, Suse.
Sun is simply giving their customers a new choice.
Running an increasing number of small Intel boxen requires increasing support costs. As needs increase, switching to fewer more powerful big-iron boxen can help to flatten support costs. Seems like Sun is positioning itself to take advantage of that trend.
Given that Java still seems to be growing, so much so, that the IBM folks seem to be obsessed with controlling the standard, I don't see how Sun cannot succeed.
Can anyone of the slashdot crow tell me why big companies DONT GO WITH DEBIAN??
Is it becouse of the free nature of Debian -- they can't buy 'm out if it's time for it?
[the free nature of Debian must also have it's pro's right?]
Anyone?
Cheers,
Cies.
One word: Quality Would you trust your mission critical application to some cheap Intel chip with bog standard non-parity DDRAM and low quality components?.. x86 might be cheap, but if you want hardware you can really rely on that's going to operate without problems for years, you buy a Sun box.
I've had sun boxes on my desk for years, and from what I've seen, this hasn't been true for quite some time. If you opened up a Sun Ultra5 you'd find that it was made almost entirely out of low-end commodity components. The drive was a Seagate IDE drive, the power supply was relatively cheap, the graphics chipset was ATI/rage, and although the RAM was nonstandard it wasn't ECC and it wasn't superior in quality. For a comparable price you could get an x86 box with far more reliable SCSI drives, and with redundant high-quality power supplies, and with ECC RAM. Such a box would be far more reliable (and far faster, incidentally) than the comparably priced Sun workstation.
Of course it's a different issue entirely when you enter the arena of servers, where Sun still has many reliability features not found on any x86 boxes. But in the server arena, Sun is competing against HP and IBM, both of which make sturdier equipment than Sun. Although all 3 unix makers offer vastly superior equipment to what you'd get from, say, Dell.
Sun has also always had a strong Indian connection and it is unsurprising that it should leverage that.
The "Sun is doomed" crowd closely resemble the "Apple is doomed" crowd. They seem to think being a mere $12G player in a huge industry is somehow a guarantee of failure. Depends. Spreading your alliances, being perceived as more rest-of-world friendly than Microsoft, being good at big tin that has to run with low outage, these could be good strategic positioning.
And the short-term opinion of the NYSE on this counts for precisely zilch. (as does the instant opinion of the typical /. reader, me included.) Stock exchanges are not able to make rapid long term evaluation of strategic decisions by enterprises. If they were, they would be economic analysts, not traders.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
You would think Sun would be more inclined to push Solaris (v10 now?) as much as possible with their perpetual unix license. I know they're pushing it still saying how it will keep their customers free from any potential lawsuit from SCO, but you have to wonder why they made this move to back linux. Does their "expansion" to linux mean they are seeing that the unix ship is slowly sinking with SCO? I mean, wouldn't SCO see this as the large vendors jumping ship before it goes down?
I'm guessing Sun either are making no direct contributions to SuSE or believe their AT&T/SCO license will cover them and their customers. IBM still ships AIX but also pushes Linux as an alternative (getting that last bit of blood from that stone?). Perhaps IBM's reply to all of SCO's FUD has made Sun see the light (har).
I have to wonder what their *actual* motive was. I thought they wanted to keep the position of "solaris is fully licensed and free of tainted code" but now they're shipping the very product and potential liability they claimed they were protected against. Something in their unix license??
seriously, the home version of suse is a hell of a good deal, the install is clean and consice, the package managment is click the checkbox and install, and the startup/shutdown screen is nifty too. i'm not saying there can't be somthing better, but for the end user, this is the best. also, using suse in servers, i've only used x86 single proc servers, but i've never had any trouble with it, it worked flawlessly for me. and 8.2 has like a 2.4 somthing kernel, a pretty much recent kernel, beinc as 2.5 is still in devel (i think)
HP-UX is nowhere near as good or refined, or well known as solaris.
and Itanium proc's suck, they aren't even as good as alpha proc's, let alone the newer ultrasparc's. take a look at real world benchmarks for that type of equipment, like database benchmarks. Sun/Solaris OWN high end benchmarks, and still constitute the majority of the enterprize field.
and i wont get into the enterprise level of support that Sun offers, it beats everyone else hands down.
And you know how linux is making leaps and bounds ? take a look at some of the more recent code that has been put into the kernel, and in userland. Sun is a major contributor.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Have a look at that (3rd time I post this link in /.)
Sorry guys, but Sun is a great company. They have supported open standards before anyone had a clue about it and they have already given a lot to the community. Java gains groud where microsoft still tries to enter the market (mobile phones etc), solaris is a mature product (solaris 10 is being used/tested inside sun for almost a year) and their hardware may soon fill the performance gap.
I do not see why it may be too late for them.
There are quite a few niches in which any x86 or Mac machine wouldn't be enough.
Very, Very Big CAD projects need a 64-Bit processor and the extra address space that comes with them. The G5 (or 970) is 64-Bit, but OS X isn't yet 32-bit clean. x86 is out of the question.
A lot of specific applications are also better run on Workstations. I've been told that Molecular Analysis simulations are faster on a MIPS R1k/195 than on a 2 GHz Intel.
Thanks to a lot of open source stuff, lots of applications are availible for these other platforms. Abiword, Mozilla, and others can all be made to work on pretty much all of the Six Big Unicies. Just look at SGI's Freeware collection.
You can even play Doom on most of these machines. ;)