Slashdot Mirror
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO
An anonymous reader writes "In an interview with eWeek Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's executive vice president for software, states: "We do not believe that Linux plays a role on the server. Period. If you want to buy it, we will sell it to you, but we believe that Solaris is a better alternative, that is safer, more robust, higher quality and dramatically less expensive in purchase price.". Also: "IBM is being so hypocritical. If the issue is a non-issue, why don't they indemnify their customers?""
'We believe you should buy our product instead'
This is news?
Banaaaana!
sun is getting killed by lintel. what else they gonna say. of course, it makes him look desperate and stupid.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Can someone please explain to me how the purchase price of Solaris is less than that of Linux?
Cost of ownership maybe cheaper, sure. And warranties/support options as well. But what is cheaper up-front than free?
"we believe that Solaris is a better alternative, that is safer, more robust, higher quality and dramatically less expensive in purchase price."
In other news, Ford recommends Ford cars, Dell have a high cosideration of Dell products and McD suggests we all eat a hamburger.
What's wrong with people today?
Obviously smoking the same stuff as SCO.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
What a foolish statement. It's as if people were to start really wanting Pepsis so bad that Coke had to start selling them. Then Coke goes and says "We'll sell you Pepsi cause you want it and we love taking your money, but Coke is a better cola" This is also assuming Pepsi came out with a way to make the cola at home for free and let you alter the formula, then sell it as your own cola.
Scott McNealy used to always say gravity was on his side. I used to wonder how he figured that since you had IBM, and all the other big iron makers dropping in from above and back then it was microsoft and intel setting up a rockhard floor for him to be squished on.
Sun is now in quite the pickle. Sparcstations arent a contender for the desktop. Their server sales are being trashed by Linux on Intel, and Linux on mainframe.
Their latest play MadHatter looks nice but so does lindows,suse, and redhat. The latter 3 have one great thing going for them, they are one time licenses not perpetual service contracts like mad hatter.
Its no wonder that they paid SCO a licenses fee and are now dissing Linux. Its also no wonder that Bill Joy left the company.
Once again they show their true colors. They see linux as something stupid that the people want but they know better. They are out of their league. They keep harping on IBM not indemnifying their customers from the SCO debacle. Why should IBM a primarily hardware & services company indemnify their customers for using Linux? They don't do it with MS, they don't do it with zOS, AIX, or OS/400.
MS got sued and LOST with the plugin thing, hell MS got sent up in front of the justice department. Should a hardware vendor such as IBM or Dell have to protect their customers from that? No, they don't.
Sun is the dinosaur in this market. They make second rate hardware that is over priced and underperformed. Why else would they never want to run a TPC benchmark and keep ballyhooing 'real world' tests when they come in and try to convince you to buy their hardware? They stopped making benchmarks the day they stopped winning them and got behind. Ultrasparc 4 was to save the world yet we still haven't seen it. Now little Intel machines that cost less than the yearly maintenance of the 'inexpensive' Sun boxes can run circles around them on Linux.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Ten percent in the first year? What is he kidding? I think reporters should really ask for some sort of substantiation for claims like this. 10 percent would be a seismic shift in the computing industry. This is not a realistic prediction.
eWEEK: So, does the uncertainty around Linux benefit Sun and Solaris?
Schwartz: We have an interesting migration opportunity now because we can go back with Unix that is familiar, we can deliver the Java Enterprise System pricing at $100 per employee, which allows them to run Solaris at infinite scale.
His playbook is obviously to avoid mentioning "linux" and just substitute "Java Desktop System" at every opportunity. He is disguising the fact that they have in fact adopted a third-party linux distribution for desktops. This is the kind of corporate bs that gets slashdotters on Sun's case.
I think Sun is making a major mistake by not distancing themselves as much as possible from SCO. They're now drinking the SCO Kool-aid (see the "indemnification" comments), and generally taking advantage of the situation. Perhaps it looks good from where they're sitting, but I think it will backfire. Ignoring Linux, while not wise, is understandable. Repeating SCO's FUD, and possibly funding them, is a Very Bad Thing.
Litigious bastards
Possibly he was speaking of Suns niche market which caters to organizations that still need a big iron machine to do their work for them (or at least they think they do). This is where Sun shines. In regards to his statement about Linux not belonging on the server, well what do you expect him to say? Sun sells competing software for a server os. Just because they sell a desktop version of Linux doesnt mean they are going to throw away and disregard their crown jewel for it
I have licenses to all those issues that SCO is suing IBM for. If I didn't have them, I certainly wouldn't indemnify them.
So do I buddy. It's right here.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
are already financing the anti-Linux, anti-GPL campaign.
If Sun thought that linux is irrelevant on
the server they would have ignored us, and
Schwartz would not arrive to repeat the same
insanities like McBride.
This it is SCO fud again. This time via Sun,
and for the same reasons. The difference is
that SCO knows how their enemies are, Sun does not!
We're speaking of Intel, yes? If we're talking SPARC, I don't know how much Linux factors in. (Of course, if you're buy SPARC, you pretty much have Solaris in the box.)
That said, our organization is giving the Ultra IIIi line a miss. We're going straight from Ultra II to POWER4 in an IBM pseries box. (AIX 5L, though.)
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
They make second rate hardware that is over priced and underperformed
Anyone that has used Sun hardware would not say this. Tell us about your experience with Sun.
Why else would they never want to run a TPC benchmark and keep ballyhooing 'real world' tests when they come in and try to convince you to buy their hardware.
Because even the other vendors and TPC themselves admit it's outdated. Do you make your server purchasing decisions based on a single benchmark?
Ultrasparc 4 was to save the world yet we still haven't seen it.
Because it's not supposed to be released until 2004.
Doesn't this all seem far too familiar to a lot of you out there? Here we see another veteran UNIX company that has fallen on hard times, pretending to embrace Linux but speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Right now Sun is getting press through their Linux efforts, which they desperately need. At the same time, it's clear they don't really like Linux, and would rather not be promoting it. Linux beat them, and now they are begrudgingly pushing it, a little. If their financial situation gets dire, Linux will be the first enemy they'll look to even the score with. After all, it's all our fault what happened to them.
How does a billion dollar company keep makign thse big goofs..
First implying that they will indemify a cusotmer against frivouls lawsuits on copyright infringment..remeber users are never sued in a copyright matter becasue there is no legal basis to do so..
Two, saying linxu on servers is a non issue when in fact Unix software OS dying such as Solaris is a reality..take a look at Sun's last quarter statement on rpofit and loss to see why..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I really wish Sun would stop going on about indemnity. Scwartz says:
We will also indemnify you for Solaris, and if IBM says you don't need it, then why do they have so many lawyers suing people over patent and copy violations.
But he must know that users do not need indemnifying against such violations.
Then:
If you use Linux on the server, even if we sold the distribution to you, you are on your own.
He continues on and on about it. Sun are obsessed with this at the moment because they think they can worry PHBs. However the danger for them is that people purchasing Linux servers (an increasing market) will avoid Sun because they are really only interested in selling Solaris.
- Brian.
I know why he says that Solaris is dramatically less expensive than Linux. It's because he works for Sun and therefore doesn't pay Sun's massive rates for service contracts. :-)
Seriously, Sun's post-sales services are pretty good, but nobody ever said they were cheap. Or not too expensive. Or not even just very expensive. The only word that comes to mind for decent cover is exhorbitant.
A top-end Sun service contract costs many many times the total cost of a Linux server system, including all its hardware, software, and permanent supply of Jolt cola, so clearly the man is engaged in baseless PR.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Am I misunderstanding something about his math?
expect to take 10 percent of the market in the first year. Ten percent of a $30 billion a year desktop market is huge. So, is it going to be more than 10 percent? I hope so, but in the next year I'd like to get a million users. There's a hundred million computers sold every year, I want to be in front of a million of those and two-million the next year.
How is 1 or 2 million out of 100 million "10 percent of the market?" Anyhow, 1% of the desktop market in one year is an aggressive goal. 10% is ludicrous. Enterprises are not going to switch desktop operating systems that quickly.
Sun is saying that they WON'T indemnify against Linux use on the server. But given that Sun has a valid UNIX licence, and they can distribute as many UNIX kernels as they wish, how could SCO argue that a Linux user who got their kernel from Sun is not a valid licencee? And how would Sun be able to stand up in court and say that they sold Linux to someone without a valid licence, yet they're not responsible?
That is because Sun really doesn't know what it wants to do anymore. Their bread-and-butter has, and will continue to be selling systems: High-end servers complete with Solaris software, and enterprise support for those servers. But the days of high-end servers are coming to a close. Their market share is being taken over by commodity Intel boxes, running Linux and Windows. There will always be a market for high-end servers. You cannot run a stock exchange on Intel Pentiums. But will there be enough of a market to sustain a company like Sun? I do not believe so.
The last hope for Sun is their software business, not Solaris, but Java. But time over time, they have shown they cannot execute on any sort of plan for themselves in this sector. They haven't turned a profit on software in ages, and IBM and BEA make better Java app servers than Sun does.
They remind me very much of Sega. They cannot compete in hardware anymore, at least not to any degree that will support their whole company. The sooner they realize this, and shift their focus into a pure software company the better chances they have of surviving.
Mensa, huh? Your IQ may be high, but your short term memory is shot to hell. You posted this exact same thing yesterday.
Anyone else care to explain what this actually means?
"IBM is being so hypocritical. If the issue is a non-issue, why don't they indemnify their customers? And if you don't need to indemnity, why do you have the world's largest patent litigation team inside IBM suing the bejesus out of the entire industry, holding them up for ransom on IP that you claim is yours that they have purloined. Well, go look in the mirror guys. This will tear that company asunder."
It would seem to be yet another example of a bunch of words that don't really mean anything but that appear to support your argument if the reader isn't paying much attention.
Is IBM suing the bejesus out of the entire industry?
Apparently IBM is holding the entire industry to ransom with IP that I claim is mine that IBM has, apparently, purloined.
I often answer questions like this when I am still asleep (or tripping). I can string together a grammatically correct sentence, but it means nothing, in fact it looks like something Lewis Carol wrote...
(I am still unsure who is supposed to look in the mirror or what they will find when they do so.)
My initial reaction to this is 'Fuck*rs!' Here is a multi-billion $ Corportation doing untold PR damage to the community's fight against SCO. Did you notice the bit where he implied that Sun would take on IBM themselves, or by proxy, if SCO loses?
Sun are on my list from this moment on. A new axis of evil has emerged (MS/SCO/Sun) and we will fight them on the beaches...
Bastards!
Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
Schwartz has just given the game away. Sun is the fortune 500 company that bought the token Linux usage license off SCO. I'm pretty sure SCO and/or Sun denied it at the time, but we know how trustworthy they are now.
Let me get this straight. This guy is saying that Linux has a place on the desktop but not the server? I thought it was supposed to be the opposite. (I know. I know. Linux desktops are tastier than they used to be.)
This guy is seriously reaching. He's also wrong about his customers. At one time, if truly necessary, I would have considered Solaris for high IO applications. Not now. He all but came right out and said that SCO is a business partner. I also would have considered purchasing StarOffice at work. Not now.
Sun you're known by the company you keep. Publically distance yourself from them before you really hurt yourselves.
Er, ok. I would have thought the fact they're responsible for a sizable chunk of open source would prove the opposite. But, obviously, "Loving Linux" is the real test of whether you're against open source or not. I assume you'd go into meltdown if they said they hate Linux, think it's the worst operating system ever written, and BTW, they think FreeBSD is cool.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
My own take on this as a customer is that I DON'T want my service provider to provide me with indemnification. I've a brain and that's how I run my company. No, indemnification from my services provider isn't what I want. What I want is for them to sue any company that threatens me with unfounded claims.
Fortunately, IBM is doing just that. We will do business with IBM. HP isn't.
Sun is being so hypocritical.
Why does Sun's license agreement explicitly state that Sun can not be held liable for loses caused by Sun software?
It sounds like Sun doesn't have faith in their own product line. Should I use Sun products for mission-critical applications? Well, I know that Sun won't stand behind me if I do!
Well, I suppose that if there will never be any more security threats then you'll never need an update, but I suspect that most organizations have thrown up their hands and accepted the fact that every so often, you gotta pay the man.
This doesn't change whether it's Linux, Windows, or Solaris - only the METHOD changes and only you can decide whether you can live with the terms.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I would even take your comment a bit further. I am a user of both Solaris and Linux. I feel that linux is a far superior platform for a workstation. Hardware support is much more diversified, XFree86 has all of the features users want that the Sun X Server lacks, desktop performance is better, etc. Where Linux loses out is when you get 4 or more processors in a system. It just dose not scale well. It runs great on 1 and 2 cpu(x86, not sure about ppc, sparc, etc) systems and can outperform Solaris. But once you get into 4 way, it starts to get unstable and the performance gains are not nearly as great as they are with Solaris.
I think that Linux can and will excell in those areas eventually, perhaps even with the 2.6 series kernel. I have not yet tested with 2.6.
Of course these incoherent thoughts are just my opinion based off my informal testing.
I've seen Sun's play real world against Linux.
Linux is cheap, robust, powerful.
But when your talking about mission critical, high performance, no-limit systems... your talking about solaris.
Solaris on one of Sun's boxes is really something. Combined with Netscape Enterprise, and Tomcat.. they are robust. These things really can take a ton of traffic, and not sweat it.
Not to mention their stability, and security.
For 90% of websites out there... Linux is the better alternative. They don't need the performance, power, stability of Solaris on Sun hardware. Will 5 minutes of downtime on Flashyourrack.com really kill you? Of course not.
But when it's a mission critical website, that needs to run... it's Solaris.
Solaris on Sun hardware hurts the wallet, but it's powerful. They can really take a beating and continue on.
You are being so naive.
Try to find a software supplier who will accept liability for losses caused by the use of their systems.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I have spent several years administrating both linux and solaris (as to be distinguished from the various rantings I've already seen on this thread from people who obviously have not). Now to some extent I disagree with him very much - linux does have a place on servers. Its a matter of which ones though, really. :P
In my experience, if you have something that needs to be bulletproof - if you have something that, on the ultra-rare occassion there is a major problem that is beyond an admin's scope to fix, you can toss cores to a group and demand a quick response (if something dies with a linux box, there's really no one you can get lvl3+ support from) - then you put it on a solaris box. Solaris has a wide range of very useful functions and features that have yet to be mimiced in linux yet. It also has FAR better stability.
On the other hand...if you want to be able to run obscure things, if you want a very versatile and powerful development platform, if you want a cheap but powerful system to do something an enterprise sun box doesn't make sense for, then linux is definately your way to go. If you want to do computational clustering, still linux (though sun's grid engine can still be used, if you want...).
I've been a linux nut since 95. I have loved seeing it go from a hobby OS to something serious. Score a huge one for the underdog! On a high-end server though, it still has a long way to go to compare to solaris. For an easy dividing-line, I find anything from Sun that isn't a v880 or better to be pointless. Solaris for x86 sucks terribly, and once you're below the v880 line you should just be using an intel or amd (depending, again, on function) system, and running linux as its OS.
At least, that's my opinion...as someone with actual experiencerunning both.
yeah, I guess some people want to conviently forget about OpenOffice when it comes time to bash Sun. Not to mention the contributions to Gnome.
So, I have to ask, because I don't really know.
What's the most number of CPUs that you can run in one box under Solaris? Some question for Linux. Can someone answer that for me?
One of the things that bugged me about Linux when I was paying closer attention to the kernel was that Linus seemed to be completely against finely-grained semaphores in the kernel and basically opted for huge chunks semaphored code instead. In order to be able to take advantage of a high number of CPUs in a system, the Linux kernel is going to have to go to that route, or you'll end up with a lot of CPUs spinning cycles while they wait for other CPUs to finish up whatever they're doing. (That's assuming of course that Linux allows multiple processes in kernel context at the same time, vs. the traditional Unix model).
Unless Linux can solve this sort of problem, Solaris will have an advantage because they can throw more hardware into one box, and have the kernel take advantage of it.
Sun stated they were no longer going to develop the sparc processors, and in fact were switching over to the AMD opteron (or amd64) line. This was part of an internal emailing they sent to solaris customers.
This actually makes a lot of sense, and saves them bundles of money in the process.
of course, there's the other bit of future history not many people know, Suns lofty plans for solaris10. Solaris10 is supposed to use the Linux kernel completely, just how hypocritical they are about all this is obvious with this press release.
I personally like Sun boxes, with solaris, they really cook, especially the higher end enterprise server boxes, where linux doesn't quite work yet (neither does BSD), Suns future plans via solaris10 is to standardize these 3 different flavors of unix, and to heck with anyone that doesn't like it.
solaris10 was supposed to be a solaris, linux, bsd blend, but use the linux kernel. Maybe this is why they're all over the map with what they're press releases say. I guess only time will tell.
This is very bad PR. Anytime a senior exec starts negatively dissing successful competing products it becomes painfully obvious that the company is hurting. The saddest thing of all is that Sun's hardware is of very good quality and if they made the strategic decision to support Linux on their servers they could have provided good competition to IBM. As it is they will continue to lose customers as more and more companies switch to Linux, which isn't very well supported on Sun hardware. What Sun hasn't noticed is that almost no one is really worried about SCO anymore.
Let's face it: The reason Windows is even in the Server market is because of the long standing availability of Windows on the desktop.
For many years, Windows is what most people have used on the desktop. Young programmers have it at home, and start tinkering around, developing for the platform that's sitting in front of them. Naturally, when you need an application on a server, you go with the platform that you're used to.
This is where Linux will pull ahead of the likes of Sun. A lot of the new young developers are using Linux. It's highly available and free for download and modification, with no strings attached. You have access to a large variety of development tools. You get the chance to work on development teams, to make a difference in the community. You build your skill-set on this very attractive development platform that is Linux.
So when the time comes for these new developers to help decide what platform to use in their companies, what will it be? Linux.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
From the article:
The only operating systems that have credibility on Intel are
Microsoft Windows, Solaris and Linux. Which one of them does IBM
do? They don't own their own operating system that runs on the
volume platform. So they will continue supporting other people's
platforms. So will HP. While they have done a superb job of telling
the world that Linux is the future, but sadly it may be true for
them because they don't own an OS
It's sad that the former great Unix hardware companies (Sun, SGI,
Next, Apollo) had to live through times where their product was
commodotized to a point where they either had to compete with as a
softare company or die. SGI and NeXT didn't make it, and sun is now
having to sell their soul to make it as a software company.
I think IBM (and to a lesser extent, HP) see the big picture here -
the commoditization of software and re-emergence of premium hardware.
And if you think about it, isn't that how it should be? You can't
develop hardware in your basement, and if you could, you certainly
couldn't afford to mass produce it. It's a good thing: great
hardware running great open source software.
P.S. I'm astonished to see the number of Sun apologists on Slashdot.
They are on a slippery slope right now, the way they are conducting
themselves. I think Bill Joy saw it and got the hell out. I can sympathize - my first Unix experience was on a Sun, but I'm not about to let nostalgia rule over common sense.
They should emphasis with the Hardware.
Sun is all about hardware actually. Ranting about Linux this way is silly and unprofessional.
Solaris may rock on Sun hardware and may be more consitent than Linux. But the case is that in a market that is - believe it or not - dominated by an OS called Windows it's pointless to haggle over details.
It's x86 that sucks and if Sun would manage to get Sparc architecture more widely used, accepeted and payable they'd actually stand a chance. Sparc is to x86 what Linux is to Dos5/Win3.1. Honestly, think about *anything* that *really* is a pain on PC Linux and you'll find it to be an x86 problem.
The way Sun plays now, it's going more and more comoditiy hardware as usuall. We'll 'compensate' for Linux' 'unreliability' by clustering with boxen off the shelf of Wallmart and loadbalancing with software that you can get for free of the 'net in 5 minutes flat. And AMD and Intel will just keep churning the Ghz crank - and even make good money while doing so too.
And in the end we're gonna all rember those times when there once was an architecture that you could hotswap CPUs with but had a management so full of it they died even before all the rest.
It's a shame, 'cause I really would like to give Sparc a try one time. And believe me, if it's mainly Gnome/Solaris/JBoss or KDE/Linux/Zope or any other way - I really don't give a damn, as long as it is 'nix and I can get the stuff I use compiled. Coming to think of it, Sun actually could open source Solaris... But I guess the moon will crash into the pacific before that happens.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Sun & Schwartz - playing the role of the Emperor, egotistical and proud. (He was intially scheduled to play nilatS, Stalin in reverse, because Sun seemed allied with the forces of freedom in the beginning but now is working with Hitler. Besides, Stalin was never considered part of the Axis Powers.) Believing the Sun rises and sets on him and his empire, he makes alliances with Mussolini and knows full well that sooner or later he'll have to deal with Hitler. Like Hitler, he believes that "There can be only one."
MS & Gates - playing Hitler and out to own the entire world, including those territories of Mussolini and the Emporer, no matter what laws are broken or who gets burned. His Panzer Cash units, having done their work in America, are burning trails of greed and deception throughout Europe, Asia and Down Under, but legions of resistance fighters around the world, under the symbol of the Penquin, are beginning to reverse the fortunes his Panzers have brought him. Will he be able to subvert all governments and politicians, using his DMCA and Patent Rockets, into making freedom illegal? His intial success with the DOJ, snatching Victory out of the Jaws of Defeat, seem to indicate so, but losses in China and some cities around the world indicate another outcome.
Will Hitler succeed in emerging as the Lone World Dictator, errecting Iron Curtains around the Internet and PC hardware, with all access points guarded by DRM chips?
It's a true Cliff-Hanger! Only time will tell.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
This thread is actually from yesterday, and my ;). Basically that Sun's execs may be clueless, however they are contributing to FOSS despite their perhaps dubious intentions, and in the end, their contributions are making the world a better place for FOSS.
highly unmodded comments about it still apply
"If the issue is a non-issue, why don't they indemnify their customers?"
Backwards. If the issue is a non-issue, why would IBM indemnify their customers? It's like asking IBM to indemnify a customer against tripping and falling because they fail to tie their shoe. It has nothing to do with IBM or the software/services the customer is being sold, so why would IBM indemnify their customers against it? IBM is not an insurance company.
It's all just FUD by Sun, but it always amazes me how these guys around the industry can spew this nonsense that's not only wrong, but completely irrelevant and, well, nonsensical. There's just no logic behind it at all; you look at it and go "huh?" Really makes you wonder what it takes to succeed in business. Seems to be more luck than anything; it's obviously not brains. And luck only lasts so long.
Sun is scared of the Linux progress on as well the server as the desktop systems.
.. you guessed right Linux.
.. you guessed it Linux.
.. if we want to keep them .. YES.
Where I work we are looking into using Linux on the Desktops with vmware installed to run different OS:es. Windows and Linux mostly. This is to Lower costs.
The users running Unix cad-stations are also looking into replacing HP-UX/Solaris and AIX with
On the servers were looking into replacing our database machines that runs on AIX/Solaris and HP-UX with
Now, why? Because it is a customer demand/wish. I work with outsourcing and the customers are getting more and more cost-aware. What are they doing to lower the cost? They look at alternatives for example Linux. They ask us if we can set this up, what should we answer? Well
I really HAD another userid
According to "IBM steals server sales from Sun", IBM has been handily defeating Sun in its bread-and-butter market. As Sun's share of the UNIX server market shrinks, Sun itself shrinks. The worst is yet to come.
It's only a matter of time -- and not a very long time at all -- until free open source solutions will replace or strongly compete with proprietary solutions in all but the most peculiar of applications, and even there they had best worry.
Does Sun really believe that they can, in so far as they may now, maintain any technical superiority at all? They can not, not with big money funding the development and deployment of free open source solutions.
In a few short years, either Sun will change its tune, or Sun will join SCO in the gutter.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
I just completed a stint at a large western telecommunications company that was a Solaris/Oracle shop. With Oracle's new commitment to Linux, they are now re-evaluating their need for expensive Sun boxen. If this account goes the way many of my other accounts have gone, Sun is looking at losing yet another large customer.
This is an Ugly day for SUN. A sad day. Enjoy your ride on the FUD train because it will not last.
No one is going move from one closed, proprietary solution to another one. So if this is your strategy to get some MS customers, you are fried.
You have/had an opportunity to be part of something great. This is your response? Bad leadership kills companies quickly. You are barely holding your own because you still choose to follow the old proprietary model for UNIX failures. Why? Scared?
The world came together to build a free unix clone because it didnt trust either MS or the proprietary unix vendors. And having tasted freedom, it will never allow one company to dictate terms to them again.
You have embarrassed your company and its stock-holders. I only hope you find your way before your company folds.
You cannot compete with your attitude. You dont support as many devices, software platforms, or computer platforms as either Windows or Linux or Mac.
Come with us if you want to live.
Solaris is a better alternative, that is safer, more robust, higher quality and dramatically less expensive in purchase price.
Does that mean Sun will pay you to use Solaris?
First, stop drinking IBM's kool-aid. Are your memories that short? IBM was a corporate monster before you had Microsoft to complain about. Forget their friendly facade at present, they're not your friend, even though it may seem so. Like Sun, they do some good things for the community, but I wouldn't say it's been nearly to the extent that Sun has. Stop and think about it. Sun in part, or in whole, gave the world OpenOffice, XML, Java, massive contributions to GNOME, and a vigorous voice against hijacking/breaking open standards as Microsoft was oft to do. Sun's never been cheap, but they've been the friendliest UNIX vendor out there, and fighting the good fight. So they've fallen off the horse competitively. So what if they're endorsing Solaris over Linux -- it only makes sense. They do have a better product for the kinds of tasks that business environments require. If you don't think so, you have to stop smoking crack. You can brag about your webpage which runs on RedHat and hosts your blog, but Solaris is inherently predictable and trustable in critical situations. That costs money, but less money than it takes when shit goes wrong. If you run Linux, you have to test everything like mad -- because of the nature of open-source and the way things change and break. With Sun's stuff, they do a massive amount of regression testing. Much of the testing burden you'd have to do yourself is gone. Before you think you know so much, examine the realities of business and what Sun has done for everybody, and the industry as a whole. Everyone conveniently forgets all of this in the midst of their Sun-bashing.
They make second rate hardware that is over priced and underperformed
Anyone that has used Sun hardware would not say this. Tell us about your experience with Sun.
I must respectfully disagree.
For uniprocessor boxes, the price/performance of a Sparc is not competitive at all.
There was a time, when the Alpha was slowly rotting, that Sparcs were heavily used in the physics community. But Lately, I see more people buying new Apples than Sparcs. (PS: I don't see very many Apples used for work (I see plenty for desktops though))
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot