Slashdot Mirror
Where Is Sun Going With Linux?
jg21 writes "LinuxWorld has an interview with Sun's head software honcho John Loiacono which provides an opportunity to gauge Sun's intentions with regard to Linux in particular, open source in general, and where Solaris fits in. In spite of the assertion "Sun was founded on the principle of open source. We have contributed more lines of open source code than any other entity on the planet except for Cal Berkeley," Sun seems to view Linux somewhat grudgingly, judging from Loiacono's tone: "Linux is something that we'll have to interoperate with because it may exist far beyond whatever Solaris turns out to be." An important read, if only because a Windows-free Loiacono notes that he's been using the Linux-based Java Desktop System for a year. "It is not perfect by any means," he concedes though. Refreshing honesty from Sun's top software exec."
More and more Sun seems to becoming the thing they hate, despite the fact that they also seem to be trying harder and harder not to.
I really hope someone can prove me wrong about this.
With all the support sun has put into Solaris I can understand why they would look upon Linux with some aprehension.
... the enemy. They did to OPENSTEP the same that is in store for Linux. Obsolescence!
hell. Seriously.
I know that a lot of folks when thinking of the Open Source wars think that it's about Linux replacing Windows but where I work we are replacing Solaris with Linux.
It's mucho easy to do.
Sun seems to view Linux somewhat grudgingly,
Somehow I'm reminded of the imperious Ken Olsen of DEC dismissing UNIX in the late 1970's despite the popularity of his company's computers being used in all kinds of UNIX niches. A very different alternate reality might have developed if (a) Ken Olsen had jumped onto UNIX and (b) successfully put it onto desktop PCs early on.
I owe a debt to Sun; my Linux experience isn't where it would be if Sun hadn't contributed so much to UNIX standards.
They could do it again, or sit back while Novell does it instead of them.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
LWM's senior contributing analyst, Bill Claybrook, spoke with John Loiacono, executive vice president of Sun Microsystem's Software Group about his new job, and what he has in store for Sun's Linux strategy.
Q: You replaced Jonathan Schwartz several months ago as Sun's software leader.
Jonathan was very visible. Is this the way you are going to do it?
A: In my previous job as VP of Sun's operating platforms group, I was more visible than over the past few months simply because we were making some changes internally regarding implementation strategy. Not the strategy itself, but how we were going to get things done, and how we were going to deploy some of the things that we had been talking about.
Jonathan is a great visionary and paints a good picture, and he hired me to make sure that things happen. Now we are making some course corrections, not changes. Course corrections are how we are going to get things done, and when I've solidified what that is I'll be back to communicate it. I'm doing a bit of navel staring right now because I'm actually focused on the operation itself: the partners, the sales force that we are revamping, and the infrastructure that we are putting in place to roll out the things we've been working on. You'll see a change when I get out on the road; I'll be more visible.
Q: Sun is going through the process of adapting itself to disruptive technology such as Linux. In terms of Linux, how is Sun going about this?
A: There are two different questions that you have asked, maybe three. What is Sun's viewpoint on open source? What is Sun's viewpoint on Linux? What is Sun's viewpoint on Red Hat? Sun was founded on the principle of open source. We have contributed more lines of open source code than any other entity on the planet except for Cal Berkeley. By the way, Bill Joy was one of the founders of Sun and was instrumental in the BSD work that took place at Cal Berkeley. NetBeans, Sun Grid Engine, OpenOffice, and Solaris are all technologies that use the open source process, and we will continue to do so. We'll remain a heavy contributor on the open source front, and it will remain a key component of how we develop software.
People don't realize today that a huge portion of Solaris is open source. For example, today we use GNOME as our desktop environment. We use Mozilla. We have integrated Apache. We have SAMBA. All of these pieces of software are a part of Solaris today. Some people think that open source is new to Sun and that we don't get it. We are a pioneer.
Q: What's your viewpoint on Linux?
A: We firmly believe that Linux (server and desktop) is an x86/AMD phenomenon. We believe that this will continue. Understanding that it does run on other architectures, that 99% of the volume generated in the Linux space is on x86. We think that Linux will continue to be a big player, including on the desktop where people are concerned about cost and want an alternative to Windows. Linux is something that we'll have to interoperate with because it may exist far beyond whatever Solaris turns out to be. We are in favor of Linux. We think that the Linux movement is great and that the open source process is great. We are leveraging open source in our software stack where it makes sense. However, we also believe that there are certain vendors in the Linux camp that are running away with Linux.
When it all started there was a level playing field. The level playing field has tilted and the numbers manifest it. We are a Red Hat licensee. We will continue to offer Red Hat on our price list. But Red Hat has the vast majority of the market share. In fact, if you listen to the quotes that came out recently from ISVs, they're saying that it's just Red Hat. This is certainly true in the U.S. and in markets such as financial services. In markets outside the U.S., Novell/SUSE is a player primarily in Europe. But beyond Red Hat and Novell/SUSE, it's challenging to find another Linux distributor who is a serious player. There is Debian, Mandrake, Red Flag, and Yello
"Sun was founded on the principle of open source."
This seems patently false. I could be wrong about this, but his claims that Solaris contains huge amounts of open source seems like a purposefully misleading comment.
He lists a bunch of programs, but none of them were developed by Sun. Can anyone correct me on this, or is he just Mr. Marketing?
Cuchullain
"If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is not shared." -St. Augustine
He sounds like he has his head screwed on right from what I read of TFA. He concedes the in certain markets Solaris won't reach the status that Linux has. True. And he also states how that Linux disto branches are more disparate than has been the case in the past. Red Hat does seem to hold a tremendous market share. Whether this is a good or a bad thing is up to the reader.
As for the posters who are claiming that Sun is just another Microsoft and whatnot, just because a company is large and competitive doesn't mean that it's always patently evil. To me I believe that Sun is trying to adapt to a changing environment to keep their collective heads above water. Much akin to Novell's migration toward SUSE and all of the Linux inclusions in their new services.
If most **experts** view Linux as the most serious threat to Microsoft these former big players are trying to grab a life preserver. Hopefully they can help elevate and improve what they are latching onto, however. If not then things will get more fragmented and more financially endangered in the end.
Well, it's != GPL, anyway. And everyone seems to think of Open Source as the GPL. So. :P
:P
Vast chunks of early commercial unices integrated large amounts of BSD Unix, which used the BSD License. This license, summed up, is essentially "do whatever the hell you want with this code just so long as we're credited for writing it."
So yeah, Sun - SunOS/Solaris- is built on "Open Source". Open Source they don't have to give back.
All of Sun's executives saw the headline, "Where Is Sun Going With Linux?" and dropped everything to quickly find out themselves.
Then they realize this is just an interview with another Sun executive, and they go, "Ahhh. Crap. I thought I was going to actually learn something!"
Honestly, when someone figures out where Sun is going with Linux, Open Source, Java, Microsoft, etc. please tell Sun!
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.
The WHOLE solar system.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
As for where Sun is going - I get the distinct feeling that they don't know. They say that interoperability with Linux is important, but since Linux cannot be tightly defined, how do you define interoperable? At the IETF protocol spec level? At the POSIX level? These have nothing to do with Linux, and most OS' do all that already.
If we're talking IBCS-style binary compatibility between Linux and Solaris, that could be interesting. Linux developers have largely dropped that path, though, preferring to build a structure for native apps (and pressuring companies to provide them) than translating between system calls and system quirks.
I don't see why Sun would chase that path, unless they see Linux evolving from being "just" a kernel and/or OS and into a Unix-like standard in its own right. POSIX and Unix98 certifications are much rarer than 'compliance', because the certification requirements are so obnoxious. A truly open/free specification that ANY company can "certify" would be vastly superior.
The idea that a "Linux Stanard" could appear, against which Solaris could be compliant or certified, would strengthen Sun's hand. It would also fit with the anti-Linux hostility from Sun's head honcho, as Linux as a kernel doesn't need to exist for a Linux specification to be around. Indeed, a surviving Linux kernel would mean a moving target, which would be harder to meet.
The idea Linux would out-last Solaris is interesting, as this implies Sun are developing a replacement in the same way Solaris replaced SunOS. It also implies Sun expect to ditch Solaris relatively soon, as what is understood by "Linux" today is NOT what will be understood by "Linux" by version 3 and certainly not by version 4.
I don't feel any beter for knowing more of Sun's plans - it feels too much like a hostile take-over bid designed to enable Sun to ship an OS that can "steal" Linux' market share rather than fight fair over it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Sun specifically will not under any circumstance include GPL'd code in the Solaris kernel. Sun was recently somewhat screwed by Intel. Sun had been waiting for Intel to release wireless drivers (mainly for Solaris x86 laptop/wireless users). When Intel finally did release the code, they did it under GPL. Thus, completely screwing Sun's ability to include the drivers in their distribution. Technically, they could add the drivers, but they strictly adhere to the idea that NO GPL code will become part of the Solaris kernel.
I'm not suggesting Sun hasn't contributed anything to the tech-community, but to say they were "founded on open source" reminds me of Animal Farm.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Sun kernel guru, but I know some. Some of the "facts" above may be a little munged in translation.
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
Today, Solaris is far less expensive than Red Hat or SUSE. The list price on a two-way Red Hat is about $799 per year. My first year price for Solaris with service and support and the right-to-use license is about the same as Red Hat.
Of course, you CAN find expensive versions of Linux - how much do you want to spend? I'm sure we can find a way to accomodate you. Big corporations tend to go for the expensive options when it comes to OSes and software.
But what the man doesn't want to mention, is that you can get suse professional for $59 and set up a desktop, server, or whatever. updates for 2 years via suse/yast, or install apt, and get upgrades & legacy support that way. Many small businesses are quite happy with that arrangement.
Suse Linux runs just fine on my laptop, or on my 4-way opteron server, or on the mainframe, if I want it, and the Suse tradition of reliability and solid engineering continues under Novell's leadership.
That is not true! Their business model was mainly based on selling hardware. The operating system (in those days common) was seen as naturally belonging to the hardware, not as a product that could be marketed on itself. That is also the reason that so many of Suns contributions to UNIX were freely given away.
For the record I was once a Sun fanboy and I maintain several hundred sparc boxes for a largish ISP.
I think they are mixing up FOSS and Linux. I would guess that 95% of Sun's customers don't care about a kernel. Solaris as good as it is would be much more appealing if I didn't have to install a few dozen OSS packages in order to get the system usable. Give me Apache, Tomcat and all the good GNU stuff that comes with any standard Linux distro.
I believe it was Bruce Perens (maybe ESR?) in Revolution OS that said before Linux was around, he would spend days GNUifying Sun machines. It's the same damn thing 20 years later!
Oh and ditch sparc already. Give me a quad Opteron on a board that uses OpenBoot.
- they have given the community Java, Open Office, NFS, & RPC. While Java is not strictly open source it is widely used.
- Sun's John Bosak created XML.
- they still make most of their money from hardware and services
- just about all the machines they sell can run linux (and bsd)
Since they lost that patent suit to Kodak, w.r.t Java, does that mean any chance of Java being GPL'ed are null and void because it's now officially patent encumbered?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
When I read this title, I imagined Bill Gates, six-shooters in hand, sneer on his face:
... or...
"Where you think yer goin' with that Linux, Sun?"
"Drop the Linux, Sun, and nobody gets hurt, see?"
from my own experience at work:
:"You guys are sure you dont wanna go back to Solaris??!!"
We have several clusters from work from different vendors, Sun for starters, IBM, SGI, Dell.
The worst and the one with more downtime nodes and most incosistent is the Sun nodes. They were the first we bought, and their problems made us automatically switch to other vendors.
Their first reply was
So personally i was not impressed, and i assume they are only going with linux because if they didnt, they are gonna miss the train.
The lunatic is in my head
That's like saying that in order for IBM to sell mainframes to large and medium-sized corporate customers, they have to gain the mindshare of home users. There are two different markets here, and the one of interest is business-to-business. While I might agree that getting mindshare of the home user might be important in some cases, I don't think an enterprise information system is one of them.
No. Because selling mainframes alone is not what sun is trying to do. I still think the parent post is wrong since he thinks in order to sell to bussiness's you need to sell to home users. Its the other way around. Once you start effectivly selling your desktops to bussiness's people will want the same thing at home. This is EXACTLY how MS came into power, and why it has stayed there. Schools and shops run MS so people run it at home.
.com boom is over. Most companies buy cheap ass machines that they get sweet deals on because they also buy the back end machines from the same company (ie IBM, Compaq etc etc).
Sun has not had a cost effective end user desktop. Ever. I know because I used to work for them. They have had plenty of high end machines. No company is going to buy a 2k computer for a secretary to play solitare on, the
Their weakness was never competing against MS, it was competing against Intel.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Are you suggesting Windows is perfect?
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
"My intent is that we need to bring Linux and Solaris together more rather than bash or trash one or the other."
Very true. Especially now.
I am a big fan of Solaris and RedHat. In fact I like RedHat (vs. SuSE, Slackware, Gentoo, Debian) because it is build with the same ideas I came to appreciate in Solaris distribution. Until RedHat Linux renamed into RHEL it was marriage in heaven. I was getting solid, feature-full, tested, distribution for $0. Now with Fedora's fast development cycle wide deployment is very questionable. By the time I am done planning and testing FC1 deployment it gets moved into Fedora-Legacy state i.e. unsupported. I don't feel comfortable with that at all and deployment of RHEL promises to be costly...
In the mean time Sun went far with Solaris 10 incorporating all the nice features down the road providing supported, stable and tested environment. I think it has its place at least in my strategy.
Friendly competition is good for the industry, for both RedHat and Sun. There is always room for two and in the end we, UNIX followers will benefit.
Although, it's probably a GPL violation for them to do this, unless the kernel and system libraries are GPL'd, because the system library clause of the GPL explicitly doesn't apply to bundled software.
I'm just sayin'.
A tad overpriced, but you could take one of these Netra 1280s I'm managing, tie it to a chain on the back of your truck, and drag it down the freeway for 10 miles without it being the worse for wear.
I'm sick of fooling around with cheap-ass Dell and ex-Compaq DL-series hardware. Of course developers are getting better at writing 100% cluster-capable applications and thus life with cheap hardware is getting better, but it always seems some boxes are mission-critical regardless.
We have a new toy, a rack-full of HP blades. They are running Linux. Seems like the best of both worlds - a high-end box, and Linux with drivers engineered specifically for the HW by the vendor. Sun is a little behind in this respect, but I don't see them gaining.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Then they came out with the alpha chip. A screamingly fast 64 bit machine in a tower case that destroyed any PC in terms of performance. They could not sell it.
How a company can create one fantastic product after another and still get it's ass kicked like a 90 pound weakling is beyond me.
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
- E.W. Dijkstra
There's a standard industry joke that if DEC were in charge of marketing for Kentucky Fried Chicken, the advertisements would be for "warm dead bird". Their technical staff was brilliant, and even their general management staff had some bright bulbs in their, but the marketing was utterly inept.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I once worked at a company where there were several whole floors filled with cubicles with QA people in them, all with Sun Ultrasparc Desktops.
Some of them were proud, even zealous about it. Not many. And they were in the process of replacing them all with cheap Clone PCs.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
For the sake of their employees.
It takes time to fit into the Linux community, work out the legal bits, work our internal processes. If I'm not mistaken SGI had a terrible time with all of this but are now in the process.
But its not about making Linux better. Linux is going to walk all over Solaris. It has the momo and brick walls wont be stopping this freight train.
If Sun employees want to be marketable in a Linux world, working on a Linux like OS wont cut it. They need to get into the process. Stake out some respect and a niche of expertise in the community. Otherwise someone else will be there and Sun engineers will be filing bugs with the rest of the end users out there.
It would be sad to see a bunch of kernel developers become evolutionary dead ends and then have the company go belly up.
Taking a bullet for inflated dot com egos is not what Sun engineers should be put up to. Sun should enable their engineers and join the rest of the world. Sun isnt big enough to keep a disneyland in the backyard to live in.