Slashdot Mirror
Sun Plans Solaris Subscription Model
heliocentric writes "As reported in this CNet article. In an effort to make its version of Unix compare more favorably to Red Hat's Linux, Sun Microsystems plans in coming weeks to begin selling its Solaris operating system through a subscription model." On the down side, there was coverage of the announced layoffs, as well as the MSFT case being won. The article makes a good point, that Sun has reinvented itself before, and that no one should write Sun off.
What the article's author doesn't get is that maybe Redhat is not so much succesfull because they have a subscription model, but more because their is direct interaction with their userbase (fedora) and the source is Open. A subsciption fee based model tends to be *really* good for the vendor (guaranteed, known cashflow that you can put on the books as revenue) and not so good for the end-user (expensive, bad for your cashflow). I'm sure that this time, the users have wisened up, and are using Linux.
also, the MSFT case wasn't *won* it was settled...
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
I'm not writing them off...I'm investing in them. But I'd wish people would stop using the 'Sun Rises' play on words.
I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
"Their problems are very real and very severe, but I would say they are far from terminal."
Am I the only one who groaned?
Hasn't Sun Microsystems licensed Unix code from SCO? Wouldn't a Solaris subscription funnel even more money to SCO (even though that would only be an unintentional side effect)?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
"In an effort to make its version of Unix compare more favorably to Red Hat's Linux, Sun Microsystems plans in coming weeks to begin selling its Solaris operating system through a subscription model."
I would be more concerned about a possible unfavorabe comparison with MS. Both MS and Sun sell proprietary operating systems. They would need to tread carefully to not scare off the folks that have started considering *nix alternatives to keep Microsoft's tentacles out their bank accounts.
Sun also needs to make it clear to people that they are really paying for support (with a small bit for licensing) and not the MS-style license renewal. Otherwise a comparison with RHAT is not valid.
Saw an academic's analysis of Sun lately along the lines of "Sun is spending massively on R&D. Why is Sun doing this instead of copying the successful strategies of HP and IBM? Sun should pull the money out of R&D and immediately better its bottom line while lowering the costs of its products."
... but Sun's record is a bit better than theirs in this.
And I think, didn't Sun get to be where it once was by catching the front of the wave of network computing (become Internet)? Isn't their core skillset being able to ride such a wave well? Isn't their future in getting out ahead of the next one so they can apply that skill again?
R&D is always risky, but as a long-term investor, shouldn't you be buying R&D? As corporations put less and less into it (as most are) what's left becomes potentially even more valuable when and if it pays off. Of course, you don't want to go into the equivalent of the old Xerox or AT&T which never properly capitalized on their best inventions
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Boycotting MSFT is not easy/practical
I've been doing it for years. It actually is quite easy if you are willing to pay for good software or find a good free replacement for the MSFT (or Windows only) software you think you need. For example, there are lots of office suites out there and more individual spreadsheets and word processors that are office compatible.
In any case, if you are running a Sun OS, what is the likelihood that you have any MS products on it? Didn't IE for Solaris get discontinued years ago?
I don't think the software world is as black and white as you make out. Sun are the driving force behind OpenOffice, which I'm very grateful for.
I certainly don't intend to start boycotting them any time soon.
Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
Solaris 8 used to be free. Solaris 9 has some funky license (unless they've changed it again) where it's free for single processors and then you pay per processor slot capable on multiple processor capable systems. I.e. a dual CPU capable system with one processor still pays dual CPU prices, a 64 CPU capable Starfire pays the 64 CPU price even if you have 12 CPUs, etc. Here I was advocating going back to Sun because of Red Hat's incredibly high Linux pricing for servers.. I guess we might as well stay with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the cheaper Intel hardware. Sun has you coming and going with their overpriced hardware and now charging high prices for the OS.
In an effort to make its version of Linux compare more favorably to Sun Microsystem's flavor of Unix, Red Hat plans in coming weeks to again begin selling its Linux operating system through a flat fee model.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
They will slowly lose more and more to the PPC based systems and better OSes (Linux/MacOS X). The Apple offerings won't make a large dent, the expected IBM systems will.
I would sell any shares in Sun you still have (I left long ago).
And customers don't like it. Do you think they're stupid? Generally subscription models mean the customer pays more, for not necessarily more service or features.
People are in general moving away from RedHat, not toward it. RHEL means lock-in, with less features. It may be OSS, but if you change the code - is Red Hat going to support your changes? No.
So this is the model Sun wants to emulate? Sun is already perceived as too expensive in general for a Unix. The people that have stuck with Sun tend to be those running specialized platforms they couldn't migrate out of too easily. Sun's best bet is the Chinese desktop deal, not trying to compete with Linux here in the States..
As a Java developer on some Apache projects, I'm not yet rushing out to boycott Java. I'll just deny Sun any of my money. Oh, wait a minute, I wasn't giving them any anyway.
How about I let Sun continue to lose money providing and supporting Java? That would be even worse than boycotting it, wouldnt it?
Also, beware of IBM bearing gifts. They are supporting OSS right now because they see the strategic value. But if their opinions change, watch them change their mind. It's like Oracle: they support linux as a way to keep OS costs down, but are against OSS database solutions. If (when) an OSS database gets to the point that it threatens Oracle or DB2, I could imagine both companies changing their stories about the value of OSS.
Why do I think that this idea has something in common with killall(1) implementation on Solaris, considering its possible destructive effects? Funny jokes aside, I really think this migh not be a smart move for Sun. I think they should think about it before they finally roll it out.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
"I've never looked at Microsoft or Sun in detail, and run all of my assumptions from Slashdot"
"On Slashdot I only read the articles about Linux and hate SCO with a religious fanaticism, all of my views on software companies are therefore based on the SCO case"
"I have been working in Software only a few years and have no understanding of the history of either Sun, Microsoft or IBM and am not aware of what Sun actually does"
I'm sorry to be so rude, but to base an opinion on either Sun and MSFT around the SCO case is like saying that Sony and Philips are the same company because of the Intertrust case.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Sure, because the world will be so much better with fewer operating systems to choose from? IBM still offer commercial, propriety Unix alongside Linux. Sun offer exactly the same with Solaris and the Sun Java Desktop.
Choice isn't a bad thing. We should be glad Sun are around and the choice is still there. For big companies (think banks or car manufacturers) who have reputations and $billions on the line, there will always be a market for big iron with a custom *nix to run on top of it. IBM offer it, as do Sun.
Sun seem to have ahd a really hard time over their settlement with / victory over Microsoft. Folk need to remember that Sun is a public company. That means the Board cannot turn down a settlement on the basis of not liking Microsoft. The directors are legally required to deliver the best value for their shareholders. That means is Microsoft offer to settle on better terms than Sun were demanding they have no choice but to accept that settlement. Not to do so would see them lose their jobs and possibly end up in court.
Because of the installer, RedHat was MANY folks' first Linux distribution. And I too love Slackware, but I can't use it universally because of it's lack of Oracle support.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Sun has a fundamental problem, one it shares with Microsoft. Both firms live by selling a premium product in a commodity market. Operating systems are no longer rare and valuable enough to pay for. Linux has demonstrated the feasability of a single, free, standard OS for all hardware, and despite ferocious resistance from many quarters, makes inexorable progress towards becoming the eventual standard.
Sun will die if they do not reinvent themselves away from selling proprietary OS products. Moves like the Sun Java Desktop are a sign of hope: Sun must adopt Linux and FOSS and become a services company selling value-added solutions. Then it can survive.
But changing a company like this is incredibly hard and there are few cases where it works. Most likely, Sun is doomed.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Also, beware of IBM bearing gifts. They are supporting OSS right now because they see the strategic value. But if their opinions change, watch them change their mind.
Of course, and IBM are in the lucky position of having the "right thing" as a strategy. Microsoft and Sun are not in that position.
It's like Oracle: they support linux as a way to keep OS costs down, but are against OSS database solutions. If (when) an OSS database gets to the point that it threatens Oracle or DB2, I could imagine both companies changing their stories about the value of OSS.
Asking companies to support OSS even if it conflicts with their proprietary interests is not realistic. It all boils down to having the right proprietary interests. E.g. selling stuff higher up on the software stack, which is what Oracle is doing.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Do like IBM does. Every X330-class machine we buy comes with 3 years onsite service. There are no extra support contracts to sign, no extra expenses to track, everything we want in a hardware purchase comes with the machine, one line item on the invoice for everything.
Screw the software. Solaris is little more than Oracle-OS anymore. Make the hardware easier to buy and to support.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Sun made its money selling expensive hardware that was rock-solid and fast -- and if you wanted to run Solaris, you bought a Sun box with a SPARC processor. Now Solaris is out for the x86 and hardware reliability and speed can be had at a fraction of the cost in x86-based servers from Dell, Compaq, IBM, and others. There is no longer a compelling argument to buy Sun boxes for most applications. Sure, there are some exotic, massively multi-CPU servers from Sun, but that's not bread and butter sales and there are nott enough of them sold to support a company the size of Sun (hence the layoffs).
We've seen this before with IBM. To the Slashdot youngsters who may not remember: It was IBM who created the x86 PC back in the early 80's. They were trouncing "hobbyist" venders like MITS (Altair), Imsai, and Cromemco. They owned the PC market as far as business was concerned. Then the smaller companies like Compaq hit the scenes aiming at the business market with equivalent, or better, performance at lower prices. When is the last time that you saw a new IBM brand PC for sale?
Next to take a hit: Cisco. Companies are seeing the cost advantage to going with simpler, less-expensive routers and firewalls wherever possible. Why pay for "Cisco-certified" personnel when they can buy an SMC router, some switches, and have their office up and running at a fraction of the cost? Again, there are niche areas where Cisco is still king, but that won't support a Cisco-sized company.
A few weeks ago a group from Sun on tour visited our office. They were showing their new road maps and answering questions. I asked some general questions, giving them an opportunity for some sale talk.
:)
They seemed to be intrerested in selling two things:
1. development software (i.e. compilers and development environents)
2. servers (i.e. bigger machines that they earn more money
I asked them about workstations, and they hardly bothered to answer. My guess is that a Sun Blade 1500 doesn't give much profit at all.
They pushed hard for their C/C++ complier and their Java IDE, and all its new features, and how easy it is to use for those that are skilled in Visual Basic.
...Well they might have said more, but that's what I remebered
My conclusion was that they wantet to sell licences for software and servers most of all.
The article didnt have enough details. DOes th subscribtion cover maintenance cost or only right to use. If the maint cost is included we have been on subscription forever, they just called it maintenace? Does the OS stop if you dont pay next years subscription fee? If not I dont see any differance in the old vs the new.
As somone mentioned there is a CPU license on USED servers but that has always been included with new servers.
I skimmed the article but saw nothing about .edu pricing. I would think it would be interesting to see what they are going to do with schools.
My department has been wary of Sun's long term stability and is thinking of getting into different *NIX boxen. I'm pushing Apple, others like moving to Linux. The latter we can do by recycling our older PCs as they come out of the labs.
If Sun starts subscription pricing in the acaemic markets, they may lose some of their installed base in the university setting.
I never believed the official party line with regard to Sun. I saw great ideas devoured by Java -- as even most Java-lovers realize, it is absolutely unsuitable for desktop applications, yet it was marketed for them, and it was used for them. Remember JXTA? That was Sun's peer-to-peer initiative. I saw JXTA come and go and hundreds of peer-to-peer developers with it. Peer-to-peer and Java -- truly a winning combination.
Nor did I believe that this was merely a coincidence or gross incompetence. When the internal Sun memo the Java problem was released, where Sun engineers complained that Java was too slow even for internal use on Sun's operating system, it was clear to everyone what had always been clear to me: Java was never intended to be a fast, powerful programming language. It was intended to be a way to sell big hardware, and to tie people to a single company: Sun. They sucked up a lot of mindshare. Neither proprietary nor truly free, Java existed in that same state of justifiable coercion (by means of copyright) as, say, MacOS X. But both Apple and Sun have as their goal the same thing as Microsoft -- to become the only vendor that matters, to create a monopoly. Microsoft is just better at it.
If you want a powerful, truly free, cross-platform interpreted language, try Python or Perl. Just because your PHB hasn't heard about them because there are no glossy brochures doesn't mean they can't kick Java's ass any day, even (or especially) in "mission-critical" application. Both are modern, object-oriented languages, idiosyncratic to be sure, but scalable no less. This very website is probably a larger application than most of the stuff that runs in your company. When did you last lose a comment on Slashdot? And Slashdot's code is ugly and hackish.
Now it turns out that Steve Ballmer and Scott McNealy are on the same football team. Their common enemy: Linux. Well, you know what? Linux can kick Sun's ass, and Linux can kick Microsoft's ass as well. And that's not because "Micro$oft sux0rZ!" It's because Linux has behind it not just governments and corporations, but the power of thousands of unimaginably creative volunteers. It's because Linux is free and will always remain so. Technology is not just about gadgets. It's also about freedom, and in the long run, freedom will prevail. Say about RMS what you want, but sometimes being a little overzealous can be a good thing.
Are corporations like Sun and Microsoft evil? Of course not. They are amoral (that also goes for IBM, by the way). They will do anything if it's good for their bottom line. If corporate murder was legal, every corporation would immediately start murdering people, other than by exposing them to toxic chemicals and unsafe workplace conditions. That's because if the current CEO doesn't like murdering people, they will simply be replaced by someone who does - shareholder value.
Linux is a little bit of everything. It incorporates elements of socialism (sharing your work, writing software in your free time), capitalism (being paid to program), of dictatorships (Linus coordinating the development process), of democracies (various associations with elected representatives), of meritocracy (those who develop, lead), of plutocracy (those who have money can get stuff done). This is in many ways a model for society. There is no single way to run a complex world. You need to combine the elements in a smart fashion.
Who cares about Sun? Who cares about Microsof
I would totally agree with your post, except that it's all wrong, without a shred of truth to it and even offtopic.
In a truer sense, Sun needs to open source Java and J2EE
That's your opinion. It can be argued efficiently against it: Sun has released and well documented all of the API. It has nothing to gain from opensourcing Java, except making happy a few Slashdot readers.
They've sold their high end server business,
Of course, this is totally your imagination and it has no bearing to reality.
unlike HP they don't have a PC market.
They definitely do, and apparently, a strong one, with JDS deals in China and with Wal-Mart.
It wasn't so long ago DEC was #2 in the computer industry, now they're just a memory. Sun unfortunately will most likely be the same.
Sun, compared to DEC:
- has a better financial position
- is selling a much larger volume of UNIX servers
- is more flexible in terms of hardware(just released excellent 1,2 and 4-Opteron servers and 1 and 2 opteron Blade servers)
- delivers a desktop OS upon which they have complete control (Gnome + StarOffice + Gaim...)
- has a detailed CPU roadmap for the years to come
Interestingly, your post has no connection with the topic at hand (Sun introducing software subscription model). You just though it would be a good opportunity to bash Sun, and you went for it. After all, this is Slashdot!
So I will try to bring this thread closer to the main subject: seeing the other two biggest software manufacturers that do use a subscription model - RedHat and Microsoft - making a sweat profit, I don't think Sun's decision is a mistake.
Sigged!
Here's an example of an actual sequence of conversations I've had:
"We really care about our relationship with your school and will go out of our way to solidify our reputation with you."
Yeah, but what's this about you changing the support structure for our yearly support contract?
"Oh, well, we found that most schools weren't using the contract to the fullest, ending up with blank software entitlements instead of using them all, and so we changed it. We now no longer cover things like backup software and directory services as part of your contract. Oh, and it costs more now too."
Sun lost out to Redhat because Sun (and their authorized reseller) could never get their act together, and their treatment of us bordered on abuse. When you'd pay $15K for a Sun and end up with yearly fees approaching $1K for the warranty period (since we'd have to cover OS upgrades) and then $3K for continuing maintenance, yet you could get a more powerful Dell server with better maintenance coverage and Redhat, in the long run, it was cheaper.
In other words, the TCO bug didn't just hit Microsoft - it hit Sun pretty hard, too.
I talk about stuff.
A subscription, OTOH, implies a recurring payment for goods delivered on a predictable recurring basis. Such as Playboy, for example. My subscription obliges Playboy to deliver on-time or lose my business. This seems to work for magazines, but would be a horrible idea for Tom Clancy novels: either the quality would go way down, or I would get zero product for my money.
And this seems to be the deal software subscriptioners are getting: low quality or zero product (missed delivery dates).
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Used to be Sun was the biggest baddest Unix platform, chosen by those who needed real power and scalability. Customers paid a premium in hardware and software as well support contracts.
Now that Linux is making huge progress on it's Enterprise abilities there are several event horizons rapidly approaching.
1. x86 hardware is getting cheaper all the time. Sun hardware is still very much overpriced.
2. IBM's PowerPC Power4/Power5 & Power 970 chips are about to go mainstream. You will be able to buy multi-processor Power4/5 racks running Linux and supported by IBM. All IBM needs to do is start selling these monster CPU's to third party OEM's and the price will drop. Virginia Tech's PowerMacG5 super cluster is evidence of the coming storm. It's scored very high and has the highest ROI achieved in it's class. Switching it over to 1U XServeG5's will reduce it's physical footprint thereby reducing cooling and location space. Apple won't be the only PowerPC dealer. Linux runs very well on Power chips. IBM will assist in further kernel optimizations.
3. What's going on with Intel? AMD and IBM appear to be mopping the floor with them lately. Looks like they need to go back to the drawing board and start over with a new core outside of Itanium.
The more I think about it, the more I realize Sun is doomed. They may never be at the top again unless they get very competitive very fast. I work for a huge corporation that has quite a bit of Sun hardware and I can tell you most of the hardware is out of date and near obsolete. We are still running Solaris 2.6 in production, that was released in 1997! Why didn't we upgrade? Because we can run Linux a heck of a lot cheaper then Solaris and we can upgrade the hardware without killing our budgets.
Wow, a troll modded to 4?!?
They didn't "throw in the towel" with Microsoft.
They have the Java Community Process for Java.
They didn't sell their high-end server business. Most likely, it will be a partnership with Fujitsu.
Sun is not an "also ran". They are still pushing out lots of new non-trivial things, like JDS, Java 1.5, Solaris 10, 144-core servers, etc.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
Your (attempt at) analogy with the early adoption of Ethernet and TCP/IP on each machine is interesting, but I would like to expand it:
if you look at Sun's offering, including their x86 servers, they offer LOM on all models. They are also going to offer N1 as a standard management system that will become incredibly handy with blade servers. We are seriously thrilled at the prospect of using N1 to install our distributed software on large clusters of Sun blades (NOT the Blade workstations!!!).
I predict that this kind of management options will have to become ubiquitous eventually, as the number of clustered nodes grows and the need for managing software on such configurations becomes more pressing.
Sigged!
Until you can yank power, CPU, memory, fans, etc. LIVE without causing so much as a hiccup to running software SUN hardware will have a place in high availability envirnoments not well suited to clusters.
Linux is "hardened" via cheap boxes in a cluster, this doesn't work the best for mammoth DB's that lose millions a minute if they are down.