Slashdot Mirror


Is Sun Turning against Linux and Red Hat?

An Elephant writes "Groklaw is reporting, based on a ZDNet UK story, that Sun's strategy for survival in the near future is based on trying to equate Linux with Red Hat, and then attack Red Hat as too small to support enterprises. This seems strange -- Sun is selling a Linux distro itself (the Java Desktop System). As I write this, there's no mention of this on Sun's website -- neither confirmation nor denial. What's going on?"

9 of 542 comments (clear)

  1. Re:turning linux? by JanneM · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...they are the MS of the linux world.

    Could you elaborate on that?

    They support community standards, have a better-safe-than-sorry policy on patent-encumbered stuff, fully support a Free, rapid-release cycle distro with no GPL incompatible components at all (unlike some other large distros have done). They have not bought out or killed off other distributions or done anything else that would be unconcionable. So how, exactly, do they become "the MS of the linux world"?

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  2. What is with this duality. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You guys are going nuts on trying to figure out if Sun is Pro-Linux or against it. The truth the both and neither. If sun can make money off of Linux then they will support Linux in areas. If other Linux companies are cutting into their market share then they will play the Solaris Card and down the disadvantages of Linux. Suns stance on Linux was always this. Linux is good, but Solaris is better. So if people complain that Sun hardware w. Solaris is to big then hey lets use Linux and see if you want Solaris later. But if they want Solaris then they will go lets see if we can get rid of all those nasty Linux systems. Solaris Does have advantages over Linux and some really good scailing features. But for most companies and people linux does the trick. So Sun is Linux if you want but we rather you go with Solaris.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. Let MS and Sun believe that Linux == Red Hat by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No problem. Let MS and Sun go right on believing that Linux == Red Hat. Let them even try to kill Red Hat if they can. We'll just keep doing what we've always done: building better software in and for the open source community. To use "their" terminology -- our Value Proposition continues to improve, year after year, relentlessly marching on, happily coexisting with (but not depending on) the corporations who operate within our space.

    Seriously, if MS and Sun think they can beat Linux by beating Red Hat, let them believe that. It'll keep them off our backs while we build the next generation of superior software.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  4. Some interesting weblog posts by wahgnube · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A sun engineer's post on the issue of Sun "simply moving" to Linux.

    And a good rebuttal from a linux kernel hacker.

  5. read Jonathan Schwartz's blog by Marc+Slemko · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Jonathan Schwartz's blog

    Scan through it for a while and you get a bit of an idea of the direction he thinks in, publicly at least.

    For example:

    IBM is in a real pickle. Red Hat's dominance leaves IBM almost entirely dependent upon SuSe/Novell. Whoever owns Novell controls the OS on which IBM's future depends. Now that's an interesting thought, isn't it? But if IBM preemptively acquires Novell/SuSe, the world changes: linux enters the product portfolio of a patent litigator not known for being a social-movement company. But where else will IBM go? With it's current market cap, Red Hat seems unacquirable - but absent action, IBM's core customers will be eroded by Red Hat's leverage. And Sun's ability to leverage our open Solaris platform (on industry standard AMD, Intel or SPARC), or Java Enterprise System, even on IBM's hardware, gives us a significant - and sustainable - competitive advantage. With the demise of AIX, IBM is once again vulnerable. Me, I'd keep a close eye on the Novell/SuSe conversation. If IBM acquires them, the community outrage and customer disaffection is going to be epic... but where else does IBM go?

    Or:

    And proving our commitment to building Solaris as the cross platform standard, we're now compensating Sun's hardware salesforce for selling Solaris on non-Sun hardware. So if a sales rep sells Solaris on Dell or IBM, or even HP (Xeon or Nocona), we pay them as if they sold the hardware. This is a huge culture change, obviously. It also focuses everyone on keeping customers happy - and driving hardware choice. (And Fedora upgrades.) I'm not sure we could make the point more clearly that we're committed to making Solaris the volume leader on all systems - and building the most price performant systems a customer can find. How confident are we Solaris customers will choose our new SPARC and Opteron systems? We're comp'ing our reps the same, no matter which systems the customer buys. We're putting money where our mouths are. Want proof? Got a farm of legacy Xeon systems, supplied by someone other than Sun? Talk to your rep to license Solaris - and let me know how it goes.

    Sun definitely seems to think they have a strong competitor to Linux with Solaris 10, especially with adding support for running Linux applications. Their pricing for Solaris x86 is ballpark with suse or red hat enterprise.

    Sun realizes that Linux is making certain layers of the stack a commodity, and is fighting strongly both on the front of bringing Solaris into the market while providing some added value (what a change from when they were killing Solaris x86 just a short while ago...) and moving up the stack (java desktop, application servers, etc.) while at the same time trying to expand their offerings of commodity servers that can run any platform... and using that as an entry point to get Solaris in the door.

    I mean, "duh" Sun competes with Red Hat, and makes a big deal about being able to be a vendor that has a full hardware and software stack of their own. I don't, however, see any signs that Sun is betting the farm on Solaris.

  6. Re:Anybody tried out Solaris 10 on x86? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Tried it out 9/21 on a Dell 2xP3500 512M, and an AMD xp2400 512M, after listening to their web event on friday. Next I want to install it on a 2x2.8 Xeon, 2G.

    -Installation time: 1hr-2hr
    -Drivers: what drivers!
    -Gnome 2: Crashed first time on, but stable after.
    -Couldn't mount floppy to install 3rd party net driver - need to read docs.
    -Docs... what docs... Docs iso does not exist, docs available on line.
    -couldn't start scm? (manager tool) because it couldn't find the server - net problem I believe - see above.

    I'm not saying most of the problems are Sun's fault, and with Gnome's crash exception, I should be able to fix most problems after browsing the docs, but not having a manageable system (for whatever reason) after a clean install is not good for business.

    I really want to give Sun a chance on x86, but history is not in their favor, especially after they almost pulled the rug from under x86 users.

    On paper http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/10/ds/solaris 10x86.html solaris looks great, if it was 1990s, but I don't think Sun realizes how advanced (at least in terms of eye candy, user-friendliness, and gui tools, but not necessarily system stability) some of the linux distros are.

  7. Get a clue! by stox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Contrary to popular belief, Sun has done more for FOSS than any other company out there. Integrated over time, Sun's overall contribution has been unmatched. Let's look at a few key points:

    1) Sun workstations were the primary development environment for FOSS from about 1987 till the early 1990's.

    2) How many copies of Linux and related software were dowdloaded from a "sunsite"?

    3) TCL came from where?

    4) Java came from where?

    5) NFS, as we know it, came from where?

    6) RPC's, as we know them, came from where?

    I'm sure I could find many more, if I went digging.

    Sun has been a less then perfect partner in FOSS, but they have been there longer than anyone else, and have made many significant contributions.

    I truly hope, and expect, this trend to continue. No commercial partner of FOSS will be perfect, but Sun's record, to date, is really quite good.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  8. Re:Sun is trying to evolve ... leave 'em alone. by Usagi_yo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    How many commercial linux systems out there scale to above 64 processors (not counting the duct tape and popsicle stick clustering)? Where do they go for their support? When did they start? What RAS features does linux have? When did Linux support domains? Dynamic reconfiguration? High availability? Hot swapability? How many linux systems out there are doing a million transactions a day? 5 million a day? 10 million a day?

    You may be a genius at what you do and be able to put together a customized system and earn a life time income supporting the few that you could do and maintain ... but Sun has been doing it for years and that's where the Industry expertise came from and in that game, linux is playing catchup.

    The fact that IBM is giving that stuff away to linux is IBM's business (and for now SCO, but we think SCO is full of shit)

    Redhat is becoming like Sun, like it or not, they have to. How many IT manager techno-jocks you think have the balls to go to their fortune 1000 executives with the idea of cobbling together some servers from Dell, some high priced consultatns from XYZ, some integrators from ABC, and supporters from QRS, and then pay yearly IP insurance/legal retainers just in case?

    Linux is great, and I'm all for it -- but it's business model is tending towards SUN while SUN's is tending towards Linux -- and the'll both meet in the middle somewhere and be able to share the market.

    Redhat, to survive will have to be able to provide one stop shopping for support and integration, and they do, for tiny to small range platforms. IBM is looking to capture it for the large end -- and will, and when they do, you'll end up with a variation of linux that really can only be satisfactorily serviced and installed by IBM on these high end platforms and its model will be just like Sun's and the little linux consultatancies will have just as much chance at that business as they do with Suns -- meaning Zero.

  9. Re:No surprise here... by JonAnderson · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It has been some time since Sun's technology has been equated as 'best of breed', probably going back to the Sparc III series. Most of their install base at this point is in a renewal cycle, or due to 3rd party support dependencies.
    In terms of core performance you are probably right (although power5 has great fp performance when given exclusive access to 36MB level 3 cache it's int performance isn't exactly stellar. Guess whats more important for servers.). However if you look at actual systems performance then things are a lot closer. Sun is innovating, the problem is execution and time to market.
    HP is betting the shop on commodity based 64 bit computing in Itanium, Itanium II, etc.
    They sure are and with not much success.
    IBM has Power5, Power6, etc. A very solid roadmap after years of unix neglect in the 90s. Although Power4 was a bit weak, Power5 looks great and Power6 will definitely be on schedule. What is Sun's latest roadmap schedule? I can't remember, they keep changing the roadmap...
    Well, I don't think cancelling two cores equates to not having a roadmap. Sun have a pretty good roadmap actually. USIV speed dump, USIV+ next year, Niagara next year, Rock and Niagara2 in 2007/2008. With APL (Fujitsu) filling in the product line in the mid term. I think Sun should be applauded for their willingness to do something different with the throughput computing ideology.
    IBM is "AIX, or Linux, or whatever you want to run on our hardware...we won't stop you."
    A long as IGS is getting a fat wad we don't care more like. Your argument is backward. IBM have the most proprietary and locked in offerings on the market. How long do you think they will be developing AIX? Have you seen how much ISV support there is for 5.3L (required to use all the bells and whistles of P5)
    Solaris is a good OS, but I wouldn't pick my hardware based on it. And the best thing is that whatever Solaris can do, the Open Source community can mimick (better) 2-4 years down the line. There is no compelling reason to be bleeding edge all the time, especially in corporate environments...
    You should pick your hardware based upon which apps you want to run. This has far more dependance on the OS than the hardware. So, to correct your bleeding edge statement, it's more important in the corporate environment to run supported apps on a supported stable os than it is to have the latest 'bleeding edge' hardware. IBM's stuff is always a forklift upgrade, you can still mix and match Sun uniboards (i.e. different proc speeds etc.) in serengeti chassis until Rock based systems are available.