Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sun Chief Calls Out IBM, Demands Compatibility

Posted by Hemos on from the don't-cry-for-me-argentina dept.

downbad writes "Sun's President, Jonathan Schwartz, yesterday published an Open Letter to the CEO of IBM, Sam Palmisano, in which he alluded to "behavior reminiscent of an IBM history many CIOs would like to forget" - a reference to Sun's frustration that IBM isn't supporting Solaris 10 with WebSphere, DB2, Tivoli, Rational and MQSeries products. In his "Dear Sam" letter - circulated via his blog - Schwartz refers first to the "long history of partnering" between Sun and IBM, and claims Sun customers have made repeated calls to IBM about having the choice to run IBM products on Solaris 10." *cough* Kettle, meet Pot.

64 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. Stating the obvious... by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So... if you make Solaris compatible with Linux won't this solve the problem somewhat?

    1. Re:Stating the obvious... by spookymonster · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would like to see one operating system become integrated with another.

      What, like IBM's OS/2 did with Windows 3.1? Or how IBM's z/OS (a mainframe OS) integrated AIX into its Unix System Services environment? In both cases, we're talking about system-level interaction, not merely emulation.

      --
      - Despite popular opinion, I am not perfect.
    2. Re:Stating the obvious... by kiatoa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps like how AIX 5.1 is more compatible with linux? Supposedly there has been an effort to make it easier to compile stuff on AIX. Someone more knowledgeable can comment on the details if they care. What I'd like to see, being as lazy as I am, would be that the Solaris command line tools be transitioned to be Linux compatible. WhyTF doesn't df have the same switches and output format on Sun as it does on Linux/AIX? I hate using the Sun machines cuz I can't reuse my everyday Linux/AIX knowledge on them. As an aside I couldn't get ruby to compile on either the Sun nor the AIX machines I use. I'm sure it is due to admin issues on the machines but for what its worth my stuff runs faster on Linux so why bother with the other two. So there. Grumble.

      --
      90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
    3. Re:Stating the obvious... by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 2
      Well, the problem is that on Sun, you are using SysV style arguments, not BSD style. To solve this, you ususally have to include "/usr/ucb" and such in order to solve this (it's not perfect). The other option is to install the GNU versions of all of those utilities.

      I agree with you, I find some of the incompatibilities scary, like "reboot" and "halt", either had, or still have very different behavior on Solaris then they do on Linux. On solaris, they are immediate panic type commands, on Linux it's an orderly shutdown. A friend of mine, always uses the init 0 or init 6 to get that behavior on both.

      However, there are probably just as many Solaris heads out there going, "I hate Linux why can't I just re-use my everyday Solaris knowledge". AIX is so different to administer, I'm shocked you include it as "Linux-like". (Note, I've never used AIX, but from what I've been told, everything runs thru some admin tool that edits binary files for configuration instead of the standard human readable text files used under Linux).

      Kirby

    4. Re:Stating the obvious... by SunFan · · Score: 3, Insightful


      There really are a lot of people excited about OpenSolaris, but, like Linux and other OSS, most people won't take advantage of access to the source code. They just want the free OS that's better than Windows.

      The OpenSolaris community doesn't have to be as big or bigger than Linux' to be considered a success. The BSDs thrive quite well on a smaller base of developers, for example. Also, don't forget that the BSDs, Linux, and OpenSolaris still will share the much larger body of OSS applications, like GNOME, OpenOffice.org, Gimp, etc.

      People should be less concerned with the competition between Linux and OpenSolaris than they are about the general competition with Microsoft. Sun is not the enemy, here, not by a long shot.

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    5. Re:Stating the obvious... by Donny+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

      > So... if you make Solaris compatible with Linux won't this solve the problem somewhat?

      If you RTFA you'll see it already IS binary compatible. The problem is that IBM does not want to LIST it as compatible in their software support matrices so people don't sell it on Solaris and customers don't buy it on Solaris.

      As virtually no effort is needed for AMD64/x86-Solaris certification of IBM's AMD64/x86/Linux apps, it is obvious that IBM does not want customers to consider Solaris on AMD64 (or x86).

      IBM positions PowerPC as competitor to AMD64 , Sparc and Itanium, and Solaris on AMD64, as much as I don't like it, is going to make IBM's days pretty miserable. Therefore, making Sun incompatible is a short-sighted delay strategy and only confirms what Schwartz has been saying all this time - IBM actually uses Linux to lock up customers. If they cared they'd certified Solaris.
      Well, one day they'll have to certify it and start competing on level field.

    6. Re:Stating the obvious... by jdray · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you're talking about SMIT, which, from what little I've used it, is a handy tool. I have no idea what its data files are like on the back end. I always assumed they were standard config files.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    7. Re:Stating the obvious... by mrhartwig · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've never used AIX, but from what I've been told, everything runs thru some admin tool that edits binary files for configuration instead of the standard human readable text files used under Linux.

      You've been given the wrong information. The admin tool in question is SMIT (Systems Management Interface Tool? I don't remember for sure, but that's probably close) which presents a menu heirarchy & (eventually) just calls the appropriate CLI command to do the work. The vast majority of the config files are text, just like any "normal" Unix. Anything that isn't text probably wasn't in "normal" Unix anyway (although I'm sure someone will have a conter-example to prove me wrong -- go ahead).

      AIX does have the Object Data Manager (ODM) where a lot of config info is also stored. Many of the commands update both the text & ODM data; a lot of what the ODM contains is device & driver information, which is part of what allows so much in AIX to be updated dynamically.

      Back in the day (*early* versions of AIX) some things came from the ODM instead of the text files; this caused Bad Things to happen when someone familiar with another Unix changed /etc & not the ODM. AFAIK, those effects have been gone for years; I stopped encountering them sometime in the mid- to late- 90s.

      AIX does have a number of commands that update config information, but their use is not always required. There are also some annoying differences, like /etc/filesystems instead of /etc/fstab (and it's in a different format) but other versions of Unix also have differences. Thank you, BSD vs SysV....

      One of the nice things about SMIT is that you can see the actual command line incantation do do whatever it was you asked SMIT to do via the menus & filling out fields. This allows one to actually learn the command line, and save time later.

      Please note that I haven't been working with AIX for a couple of years now (all Linux) so some of my info may be old. If IBM has changed AIX 5.3 back to some of the old behavior I don't know -- I stopped with 5.2. But the history should be right.

      AIX is so different to administer, I'm shocked you include it as "Linux-like". (Note, I've never used AIX....

      This isn't meant to be a flame, but I've gotta ask: if you've never used AIX, how would you know? The "Linux compatibility" that IBM's been putting into AIX since late 4.3 & early 5.x versions has been inclusion of GNU toolsets (so you can -- for example -- use the "Linux" version of make if you wish, or the AIX version) and addition of library routines that make it easier to compile common OS SW on AIX.

      I always find it amusing that some of the things IBM originally put into AIX to "industrialize" it were things that folks complained Aren't The Unix Way, but they've ended up in other Unices as the years go on. LVM, enhanced security, dynamic kernel, a systems management interface, etc. Yet, 15+ years later, I still hear complaints about how different & not-nomral-Unix AIX is. Whatever.

    8. Re:Stating the obvious... by pchan- · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find some of the incompatibilities scary, like "reboot" and "halt", either had, or still have very different behavior on Solaris then they do on Linux.

      Seriously, on Solaris, do NOT try to use the 'killall' command like you would in Linux. Especially if you're root. In fact, don't ever use it at all. I don't even know why it's there. I learned this the hard way, hopefully someone else will learn from my mistake.

      Though I find the expectation that the Solaris tools be like Linux a little strange, given that SunOS/Solaris has existed before Linux.

    9. Re:Stating the obvious... by pchan- · · Score: 2, Funny

      well, the funny think about the solaris killall command is it doesn't take any arguments. it just kills all processes that you own. in the best case scenario you just killed your login shell (and, y'know, oracle, and anything else you're running at the moment). but if you're root, well, you're going to have to go press the power button on the machine after the init process is killed.

  2. Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux by 21chrisp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is quite hypocritical of Sun to be saying this when so little of their software runs on anything but Solaris.

    1. Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux by grahamsz · · Score: 3, Informative

      DTrace is a Solaris Kernel tool. It debugs problems in the Solaris Kernel, and strangely enough the Solaris Kernel only works on Solaris - what would be the point of putting it into linux?

      According to the ZFS Q&A on http://www.sun.com/emrkt/campaign_docs/icee_0703/t ranscript-SEE-091504.pdf they are already investigating porting zfs to linux.

      Other sun stuff like Java, Star/Openoffice, Netbeans/SunOne Studio, iPlanet etc... are available for a multitude of other OS's.

    2. Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Interesting that you should mention DTrace, because according to The Register it's getting open sourced under Sun's CDDL license. OSI approved the CDDL license a couple of weeks ago and it's basically a revamped version of the Mozilla Public License. If DTrace (or a reasonable facsimilie) can be made to work with Linux or other FOSS opererating systems then it's just a matter of time...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      so we could have debian gnu/solaris

    4. Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux by SunFan · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Trolls like you are very frustrating. You conveniently ignore all the software like OpenOffice.org that Sun _gave_ to you, while still finding things to complain about.

      Here's some food for thought: DTrace and ZFS are INTEGRATED INTO THE SOLARIS KERNEL. You have as much chance of getting Dtrace into the Linux kernel as you have of getting Linux' threading subsystem into Solaris, for example. This stuff is not a matter of ./configure;make;make install. It just isn't that simple.

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    5. Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux by Shag · · Score: 2, Informative
      You conveniently ignore all the software like OpenOffice.org that Sun gave to you
      Wow... how's the ol' short-term memory doing these days?

      StarOffice's original creators, StarDivision (whom Sun bought in 1999) had been giving us StarOffice prior to Sun's purchase. And it had been on Linux since at least 1996.

      I must say, though, that I applaud Sun for maintaining the status quo by continuing to offer a free version of the program. It takes an innovative industry-leading company to keep things the way they are.

      (Not to say that Sun hasn't given us great things... I'm eternally indebted to Bill Joy for vi for example. But StarOffice/OpenOffice may not be the best example.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    6. Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's more than just hypocrisy, it's a brass-balls dirty attack.

      SUN CEO Scott McNealy on the Microsoft-Sun deal:
      unprecedented work is being done to make all of Microsoft and Sun's software compatible. "Unfortunately, (our stuff) won't interoperate with IBM very well," he joked.

      Yep, Sun CEO delcares a conspiracy with Microsoft to lock out IBM and then Sun turns around and accuses IBM of playing dirty on compatibility.

      I tried submitting that link to Slashdot at the time. Oh well. I suggest reading the whole thing. I love how it practically says Microsoft wants Sun around as a pet competitor due to monopoly issues.

      You'd think the people at Sun would have the brains to notice that being Microsoft's pet lapdog is an historically more dangerous and fatal position than being targeted for extermination as a Microsoft competitor.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  3. kettle, pot? by CrankyFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Was that necessary?

    Sun doesn't make all that many software products that aren't OS-type products. Off the top of my head, I can think of one big product they've made -- Java -- and they seemed to try to make it available on all platforms, though based on their rules (which hey, is true for any GPL-based software also. It's all about letting the people who created the software determine how it's released).

    It is, however, a little offensive to publicly decry a company not releasing their product on your platform, especially when that platform hasn't yet actually shipped its first non-beta version. Seems a little petulant.

    1. Re:kettle, pot? by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 2, Interesting
      From Sun's web site: http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/download.html
      This release of the J2EE 1.4 SDK and the Sun Java System Application Server is available for the following platforms: * Solaris 9 (SPARC and x86) * Sun Java Desktop System * Windows 2000 Advanced Server * Windows XP * Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, 3.0
      So, where is AIX, HPUX, QNX, *BSD, IRIX, SCO (*sic), Xenix, Mac*, and countless others. I think the poster was right on the mark.
      --
      ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    2. Re:kettle, pot? by afabbro · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Was that necessary?

      Yes. Johnathon's "open letter" is one of the silliest, snarkiest, stupidest things I've seen in some time.

      Oh, Johnathon, you're so clever with your "open letter" on your blog. Gimme a break. Your company is not doing well and hasn't been since the easy pickings of the dot-com years when everyone did well. You've been one of the sick men of the IT world for years. You finally managed to eke out a tiny profit, but your revenue continues to slide. Analysts are not impressed and while you were busy getting in your competitors' faces and thumping your chest, your stock dropped some more...I mean, I'm reading his blog and looking at SUNW's chart and thinking "are we reading the same Q4 release?" Maybe if you spent some time running it instead of talking shit to your competitors you'd have some ground to stand on.

      Why hasn't IBM ported its products to Solaris 10? Perhaps because it isn't released yet. Perhaps because there's no demand. We run IBM tools (Tivoli, MQ, etc.) on Sun boxes and there is every reason to believe that they'll port their tools once they perceive a market. Hey, Johnathon, does N1 support anything other than Sun's blades yet? You lock-in dogs!

      Johnathon Schwartz is acting like an overpaid NBA player whose game isn't all that good. If Wilt Chamberlain talks trash, it's one thing, but if it's some second-rate bencher who has no game, it just looks sad. Tell you what, Johnathon - how about not dissing IBM or HP until Sun's back on top?

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    3. Re:kettle, pot? by vsync64 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Then the "Community Effort" couldn't get the job done on Linux, so Sun released Java For Linux.
      I call BS. Sun's Java for Linux is just the Blackdown port rebranded. And it took an outcry to get them to even give proper credit.
      --
      TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
  4. Typical lies... by Free+Bird · · Score: 5, Funny
    Dear Sam,

    IBM and Sun have a long history of partnering. We've worked on Java together, more recently you joined us in the Liberty Alliance, helping to drive standards around network identity. We, and our customers, appreciate constructive partnership.

    As you're no doubt aware, Sun is set to ship the newest release of our Solaris operating system, Solaris 10. It's the most secure OS the world has ever seen

    This is where I stopped reading.
    1. Re:Typical lies... by Allen+Zadr · · Score: 2, Funny

      No... He stopped reading, because he went right out to buy a Sun machine with the most secure OS the world has ever seen (although, I'm quite certain there are more than a few AS/400 enthusiasts who would be quick to disagree, their opinions don't count anyway).

      --
      Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
    2. Re:Typical lies... by vegetasaiyajin · · Score: 2, Informative

      NT based versions of Windows have had ACLs since the beginning.
      ACLs have nothing to do with Mandatory Access Contro (MAC).
      ACLs let you implement DAC (Discretionary Access Control) and are necessary for a C2 security level.
      MAC is necessary for B1 or better security levels, which is higher that C1 or C2 and is required for many military applications.
      With SELinux, Linux gets MAC.
      TrustedSolaris has MAC.
      OpenBSD has MAC (IIRC not by default, I think you have to recompile the kernel).
      The article you point to says Solaris (or OpenSolaris 10) will have some security features (not necessarily all) of Trusted Solaris. It doesn mention MAC, which was specifically my question.
      Will Trusted Solaris 10, complete with MAC, be open source too?

      --

      My heart is pure, but make no mistake, it's pure evil
  5. If Sun didn't take it seriously... by Allen+Zadr · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Until Solaris 9 (and now, 10), Sun themselves didn't take Solaris on x86 seriously. Now that Sun want's to try to take Solaris on x86 seriously, they expect IBM to suddenly jump in on it?

    If I want Solaris professionally, I'll buy a SPARC to run it on. If I want to play around with Solaris, I'll download it for x86.

    Allen Zadr is the Director of IT for a small software company

    --
    Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
    1. Re:If Sun didn't take it seriously... by Falsch+Freiheit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that Sun's trying to get everybody to take Solaris x86 seriously so that they'll buy an Opteron server (Sun v40z or Sun v20z) from Sun, not so that anybody will really use Solaris x86 on, say, a Dell.

      Solaris x86 will always support anything you can buy from Sun in one of their Opteron boxes, and probably have lousy hardware support for running on anything else. (drivers for common non-Sun NICs and storage controllers will be missing, etc...)

      And I think they're going the Opteron route because Opterons have gotten to the point where they're a better CPU than UltraSPARC, but with a similar NUMA architecture, enabling for excellent throughput. When our Sun sales team (sales rep, an engineer, etc.) came out for the biyearly onsite slideshow, they were really bragging on about how the HyperTransport bus was all part of some technology-sharing plan with AMD, implying that it's basically the same thing as the bus arrangement in some of their current UltraSPARC offerings. (In other words, Solaris x86 on an Opteron might be cheaper and faster than Solaris on an UltraSPARC...)

      I think we're even gonna buy some Opteron servers from Sun this fiscal year. To run Linux on, though. A couple v40z servers should make a great database cluster.

  6. The most secure OS? by strider44 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's the most secure OS the world has ever seen

    Huh? Since when? I think someone's tooting his own horn. But anyway, this blog is mostly just an indignant "pretty please help us", offering silly remarks whilst asking what's pretty simply a favour. I don't see why this should even make slashdot.

    1. Re:The most secure OS? by bano · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's refering to TrustedSolaris being merged into the main Solaris distribution. So go ahead and readup on Trusted Solaris. then try commenting.

  7. dangers of proprietary software by brlewis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If people would use PostgreSQL instead of DB2 and Jetty/JBoss (or other free alternatives) instead of Websphere they could run their apps on just about any OS. Or if they used a free OS, particularly one supported by IBM, they could run their proprietary IBM software. Or run free software on a free OS and be ready for anything.

    1. Re:dangers of proprietary software by kpharmer · · Score: 4, Informative

      > If people would use PostgresSQL, most companies' OLTP systems would be thrown, performance-wise, back
      > into the stone ages. No matter how you cut it, DB2 (and some of the other commercial RDBMSs) are simply
      > light years ahead of open source software.

      Yeah, there are still many reasons to choose a commercial dbms. Like:

      1. db2 just set the world record for transaction speed - at about 50,000 transactions a second. Last I heard mysql was trumpeting 800 transactions a second with innodb. Not sure about postgresql.

      2. with partitioning, parallelism, and clustering, you can get subsecond response time from db2 *adhoc* queries against tables containing over a terrabyte of data. Postgresql, Mysql, and Firebird aren't even in the ballpark here. Note: mysql "speed" will end up requiring you to index every single column, which will kill your insert speed, double the size of the data, and their optimizer won't use the indexes anyway whenever you want to access more than 5% of the data.

      3. Mature, proven high-availability solutions.

      4. Mature, proven replication solutions.

      5. Cost. Really - cost is a reason (sometimes) to use commercial software. Here's how this works: lets say you've got a critical business problem in which 1 minute of downtime = a loss of $10,000 dollars in revenue. Add to this a development team of 20 people ($1,000,000/year). Add hardware costs ($500,000). Now, that commercial database license may run you $50,000 (vs $500+ mysql, free for postgresql). But $50k is nothing compared to the costs at risk:
      - online changes to db2 vs recycling mysql & postgresql
      - robust ha on db2 vs replication for mysql
      - standard sql functionality & productivity on db2 vs mysql
      - less hardware for db2 than msyql/postgresql to get same performance
      - etc, etc, etc
      So, on a big project where the database is critical - you will actually *save* money going with a commercial database. Well, on large & critical applications anyway.

      6. Consistency: since most organizations will require a commercial database for their most demanding applications - and they can benefit from a complexity reduction by using the same database on all applications. This way they've got just one set of skills to get all dbas on, they can get by with a smaller dba team (read: less labor = less cost), when a new version, patches, etc - they can get up to speed with it much faster, etc.

      Not to say that the open source solutions aren't great: they are, and can pick up much of the database work these days. But there's still a huge case to be made for commercial products - and will be for a while, since the functionality missing in mysql & postgresql needed to compete at the top-end will be very difficult to implement.

  8. Dear Sun: Follow your own damn advice! by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's see - will Sun be making the API for their new file system's extra-special features available so that other *nix OSs can support it with their own native file systems?

    No?

    Well, will Sun make their new file system available for other *nix OSs?

    No?

    Well, will Sun have ANY compatibility between Solaris with their new, all-signing-all-dancing file system and any other OS?

    No?

    Then to Sun I say - "SHUT THE FBOMB UP ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S COMPATIBILITY UNTIL YOU ARE COMPATABLE YOURSELF!"

    --
    www.eFax.com are spammers
    1. Re:Dear Sun: Follow your own damn advice! by SunFan · · Score: 3, Informative


      ZFS is a core feature of the Solaris 10 kernel. This isn't ./configure;make;make install stuff, people. Please, just stop posting such ignorance.

      And since when has UFS been common across UNIX, BSD, and Linux...never! So why are you complaining, now?!?

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  9. Dear competitor, by stupidfoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Help us make money and give your customers an alternative to your products.

    Thanks,

    Sun

  10. Isn't that a bit... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    .. like griping that M$ does not produce a versions of it's Games, Office suite, Visio toos etc. for Linux? With IBM backing Linux why should they support Solaris? Corporate Wolf bites Corporate Coyote...

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  11. Slightly Off Topic by blackmonday · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At this point, it makes more sense for IBM to port their applications to OS X. Now that they supply the CPU for Apple's server hardware, there's a strong case to be made for this.

    If WSAD were ever ported to OS X, my boss would be placing a nice order for xServes and powermacs on the Apple website.

    1. Re:Slightly Off Topic by greed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In 1993, IBM provided the compilers for Apple's new hardware. For a while, Apple Workgroup Servers were merely RS/6000s running AIX with an Apple logo on the front panel.

      Rumor has it, at one point IBM was going to port their XL C++ (C Set ++ by then) compiler to Mac OS. (That was, of course, way before OS X, so it would be a massive user interface and library effort--the actual code gen for PowerPC 604 was already complete, for the RS/6000s.)

      So, yeah, IBM and Apple have been surprisingly close for a while now. With BSD and X11, I don't know why they don't do a quick build of a lot of their apps--instantly add a new target market. Sure, Cocoa is nicer, but X11 is there and it works and you'll be done.

      Of course, I do know from experience that IBM is very reluctant to do a "90%" solution--one that works for 90% of the target customers. They'll kill themselves trying to get that last 10% of function, and spend so much time at it that the 90% has gone to some other vendor, the market has changed, and now no-one cares.

  12. IBM is a "service" company, right? by Speare · · Score: 3, Interesting
    IBM is trying to be a "service" company. That means that, if you pay them enough, they'll support CheeseWiz(tm) on Solaris 10. Not too likely that Sun will pay IBM enough to get industry-wide support, but many little companies might strike up a contract if they saw it as worthwhile.

    Of course, IBM still has strong roots as a "hardware" company. What's IBM's incentive to rewrite their software (little profit) on Sun's hardware (no profit)? Not a whole lot of incentive there.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:IBM is a "service" company, right? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tivoli is expensive software. Some installations cost the company more than US$10M. Many of those multi-million-dollar contracts would not have happened at all without Solaris support. Selling out to IBM was good for Tivoli's officers but lousy for its customers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Remind me... by filesiteguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...how many Sun OS products I can run on my z-series mainframe...?

    --
    The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
  14. Dear Sun (From IBM) by ausoleil · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Dear Mr. Schwartz,
    Apparently you have not read your own literature. I refer you to the web page at

    http://www.sun.com/2004-0803/feature/

    In which you state:

    "3.Aug.04--Customers who want the stability and security of the Solaris Operating System and the flexibility to also use Linux applications won't have to wait much longer. The forthcoming Solaris 10 Operating System (OS) will include a remarkable new feature that allows customers to run Linux applications unchanged on the Solaris OS. By enabling this functionality, code-named Project Janus, administrators can create an environment for running a range of Linux applications at near-native speeds. Sun is offering Project Janus as an optional kernel service of the Solaris OS, enabling administrators to run Linux applications in a new and unique way on x86 platforms. In keeping with Sun's long-standing support of industry standards, Project Janus is designed for compliance with the Linux Standard Base specification.

    Ergo, if your version of *Nix was as compatible as you claim, there is no issue at all.

    Thanks for taking the time to write, and while I have your attention, how are efforts to open Java for improvements by the open source community coming?

    Signed,
    IBM

  15. Re:Blog, anyone? by British · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then: teenage girls arguing with each other via blogs
    Now: CEOS of multi-million dollar corporations arguing with each other via blogs /Emma Bunton

  16. Sure Sign of Desperation? by big-giant-head · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean Sun Created Java and they don't have a credible Java app server (I know iPlanet with it's whopping 2% market share) the big boys are Wepshere, BEA, Oracle and Jboss......

    If Sun wants all this then they need open up java, and try to make Solaris more compaible with 3rd party products (JBoss anyone). It's more than hypocritical, it shows there is some desperation on Suns part. The Ultra-Sparc line is Ultra Slow and Ultra priced. If IBM were to start turning out PowerPC based Risc Boxes running Linux, would Sun even be relevant? I know about all of Solaris's great OS features, but how long will it take Linux to catch up? Especially with the other big boys pushing linux.

    Now add to that these new Cell CPU's IBM & Sony are making. A Linux Server with a big cluster of Cell processors, Sun Who??

    --

    So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
  17. Sunset by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Schwartz has to throw his weight around while he can, as he drives his company into the Sunset. Maybe if letterware like this produces enough derision in the industry, he'll get the axe faster than you can say "Gilbert Amelio". And Sun might have a chance to churn Solaris tech into the kind of superstable Linux that IBM produces by hybridization with AIX.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Sunset by Decaff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Schwartz has to throw his weight around while he can, as he drives his company into the Sunset...And Sun might have a chance to churn Solaris tech into the kind of superstable Linux that IBM produces by hybridization with AIX.

      So, a personal attack on someone followed by nonsense about Solaris being unstable compared with Linux is modded 'insightful'? Must be some strange new definition of the word I have never encountered.

  18. Re:IBM.... by KiltedKnight · · Score: 3, Informative
    That's because, once upon a time, when it came to business computing, IBM was top dog. In the 1970's, when you needed a system, you went to IBM... not because they were the best, but because they provided a service contract. If your machine died, one phone call had at least one, if not several, IBM folks at your site, digging through your hardware, trying to diagnose the problem. Or it had several IBM folk sitting back at their offices, searching the OS or other application code for the problem, based on the diagnostic information you sent them. A friend of mine worked for IBM during the 1960's and 1970's, then was a consultant on IBM systems after that for many years. He's told me this several times: What got IBM top marks was their service reputation. In the corporate environment, stability and uptime/system availability are two of the biggest issues.

    You are correct, however, that they made several bad business decisions... like considering the PC a "passing fad."

    --
    OCO is Loco
  19. Translation: by Garg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "My OS is becoming irrelevant! Lots more stuff runs on Linux! Save me, IBM!!!"

    Seriously, IBM will port their software if they can make more money selling the Solaris versions than it cost to port and support. That's it.

    IBM may show largesse toward open source, but that's because they view it as strategic. Solaris isn't strategic for them, no matter how much Schwartz may wish it so.

    Garg

    --
    Garg
    Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
    1. Re:Translation: by Mojo+Trolljo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You are exactly right. Just to add..

      Sun makes it sound like a simple recompile is all that is needed. Of course this is NOT the case if your software is sufficiently advanced like DB2. Secondly, a port requires a new set of tools which means a new set of unknown problems just waiting to be discovered (from the OS, to the compiler, to libc which if it were really worth much in terms of performance would have been hand-coded in assembly anyway and prone to bugs when going from sparc to x86!)

      That's just porting... nevermind testing, packaging, documenting, supporting, maintaining. This costs $$ in terms of hardware and employees.

      If Sun were serious about their "anti-competitive" allegations towards IBM, pony up the hardware and $$$ IBM needs to do the ports so that IBM can at least re-coup its development costs. What's it going to cost $5M, $10M? If Sun were serious, and lack of IBM software were truly an inhibitor to their sales, they should consider this an investment.

      --
      This post was made by I, Mojo Trolljo, for you to read that was written by I who is Mojo Trolljo!
  20. Next step - LiveJournal by khasim · · Score: 5, Funny
    Then: teenage girls arguing with each other via blogs
    Now: CEOS of multi-million dollar corporations arguing with each other via blogs /Emma Bunton
    Tomorrow - CIEIO's with LiveJournal accounts.

    "iBM iz such loosers. i not let them on my Freinds list. ha ha! i tell them to port DB2 and i might think about it. Loosers. Sam will not tell me my poetry sux N E more now. i write what i feel. i want to ask the Q T girl out but i am shy. Maybe i will send her some of my poetry. iBM better port WebSphere 2 or i still keep them off my Freinds list. ha ha! Take that you loosers!"
  21. Easy come-back by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    IBM should simply say, "We don't feel it in our best interest to begin supporting a dying product.", and leave it at that.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  22. Re:Abandoned of x86 Sun systems to blame.. by javaxman · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think they are getting hurt again from the time Sun tried to sell x86 Solaris machines and then abandoned ship without so much as a good bye we're sorry.

    This has seriously pissed off Intel which has since been making trying to beat Sun into hamburger. Maybe some companies have a long memory. Strange as that may seem.

    More than the companies having memories, I'll have to chime in that it's the people who haven't forgotten Sun's failure to support x86. I mean, I'd have given Solaris x86 a moment or two of consideration in 1997, when Linux was less mature and OS X was nowhere to be seen... but now ? Why bother ? What's the advantage, and can Sun be trusted not to drop support again if it thinks it's not making money, especially when it really needs to make money ?

    Solaris x86 needs a real, good, strong selling point. What is it?

    As far as Intel wanting to beat Sun, no, I think they haven't worried about Sun for years, they hardly compete in the same market, really, they have bigger fish to fry, and that fish is called AMD...

    It's IBM that's gunning for Sun's market, and _that_ is a really good reason for Sun to be scared.

  23. forgot the ps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the fact that we funded 50% of sco's attack on you, please disregard that. We decided to buy a $25 million dollar license for the first time last year. The fact that we never bought a license prior to their confidential inquiries and confidential plans to sue you that they showed us as a basis for us to take the license...disregard that also.

    We had nothing to do with the lawsuit (other than funding them just enough to last several years in court), it was a license for their code. Really.

    Thanks again,

    Sun.

  24. Re:no recoding by tu_holmes · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you re-read the post, the SPARC has binary compatibility.

    You have to recompile the source for x86. Once it's compiled, as long as you're running "x86", then you should never need to recompile your code.

    The binary compatibility is the sparc advantage. I can take a piece of software written for Solaris 2.6 and run it today on Solaris 9 or 10 (I do this actually). That sparc compatiblity is why some people really do still buy Sun SPARC servers.

    As far as other items people have mentioned.

    Yes, Sparc is slower that x86 in a lot of things, but it still scales upward to 128 CPUs which is a "little" more than x86 does.

    SPARC is very good, but it's not for everything, and it's expensive.

    If you need LOTS of horsepower on one box, and you need lots of multiple threads, then SPARC beats the pants off of most other architectures (maybe not Power5), but definitely x86 in that arena.

    x86 scales "out" with multiple servers in an HPC. While SPARC scales "up" with multiple CPUs in a server... That's the biggest difference.

  25. As far as I recall... by WillerZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...IBM has never issued letters of support for a non-IBM platform which does not yet exist. Why should that be different for Solaris 10?

    --
    I guess today is a passable day to die.
  26. Not Supported Doesn' Mean Won't Run by FJ · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've dealt with IBM Software in the past. They typically lag behind in their "official" supported platforms because they need to go through a lot of tests to validate their software works as designed. When I've run into issues like this they simply say "it may work, but we haven't tested it enough yet".

    That is why they pick a flavor (or two) of Linux as supported instead of saying "we support Linux". Other distros will probably work, but they only have so much time to validate & test. For a long time WebSphere (at least on z/Series hardware) was only supported on a 2.2 kernel. It ran fine on 2.4, but it wasn't officially supported.

    That being said, if you do have a problem and you have a support contract IBM will work with you to solve the issue, but they don't like to make gurantees about unsupported hardware / software interacting with their stuff.

  27. Re: Linux binaries - only x86 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I stand corrected:
    http://www.sun.com/software/linux/compatibility/lx run/

  28. The real deal by codepunk · · Score: 4, Funny

    IBM to SUN: We want you to Open Source Java
    Sun to IBM: Get Bent we are keeping it to ourselves

    Few months goes by ...

    SUN to IBM: Please oh Please make your stuff run
    on slowarus.
    IBM to SUN: Get Bent we are keeping it to ourselves.

    See how simple things are!

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:The real deal by k98sven · · Score: 2, Informative

      Java is not open source any more than Microsoft's "shared source" is open source.

      Neither java's new license or their old license qualify as Open Source under the OSI definition.

      The license Sun is now using for Solaris does qualify under the OSI definition, and this has also been verified by the OSI.

      Despite previous ramblings from Mr Schwartz claiming that Java is open source, it's pretty obvious from their different licenses that Sun knows what 'open source' really means.

      So why don't you?

  29. Re:Blog, anyone? by nomadic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Then: teenage girls arguing with each other via blogs
    Now: CEOS of multi-million dollar corporations arguing with each other via blogs

    omg u would not believe what I heard at the conference last night!!!! the pres of oracle (she was wearing like this skirt that was like so cute omg!!) said that she's like totally adopting a 10b51 plan and selling like so much stock!!! and i was all like you gotta be careful cuz mr. donaldson over at the sec is like totally a dork and will be all up in her face about whether she had like inside information!! god he's such a tool lol!!

  30. What Top Secret Spooky Types Run by Shag · · Score: 2, Informative
    Basically, if you run Solaris 10, you are pretty much getting the same system run by Top Secret spooky types.
    But... but... I thought the Top Secret spooky types were running their own Linux distro? And... haven't their "additional features" largely been made available to all of us?

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  31. Congratulations by sdcharle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure you read a lot further than Sam did.

  32. Virtually no effort?! by tjwhaynes · · Score: 2, Informative

    As virtually no effort is needed for AMD64/x86-Solaris certification of IBM's AMD64/x86/Linux apps, it is obvious that IBM does not want customers to consider Solaris on AMD64 (or x86).

    Virtually no effort?! Even Java products require significant testing effort when shipping them for a "new" platform and simply assuming that everything that works on Linux x86_64 will work seemlessly on Solaris x86_64 is a recipe for unhappy customers. As I work day-to-day on the DB2 UDB internals and I am just down the corridor from the DB2 linux support team, I can say with some authority that it would take a lot more than just adding a tick to the Solaris supported column on the marketing sheets to see DB2 on x86_64/Solaris.

    I do not know of any plans to release DB2 on Solaris/x86_64 but I also am not aware of any plans NOT to release DB2 on Solaris/x86_64. Ultimately, it will come down the normal equation of testing and support effort required to get the release out and running against the customer demand. IBM is in the IT market to make money. If customers want DB2 on Solaris/x86_64 in sufficient numbers to make it financially viable, you can bet that there will be a release. There is no business proposition in sitting on your hands to spite Sun if there is financial reward to be had. This isn't a charity, nor is a playground spat.

    Cheers,

    Toby Haynes

    --
    Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
  33. Re:RDBMS's: Proprietary vs. Commercial by kpharmer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > Take a look at the hardware and the cost per transaction per second. I am not saying this could
    > not be done on PostgreSQL (it could) but it would expensive as well.

    Good point - a database performing 50,000 transactions a second isn't running on your grandmother's pc. But it wouldn't be correct to assume that all databases scale equally. This is where the greater tuning opportunities of db2 or oracle come into play:
    - instead of just a single 8k page size, db2 has 4k,8k,16k, and 32k page sizes.
    - db2 has much more flexible statistics gathering than either mysql or postgresql
    - db2 has a far more robust & intelligent optimizer than any open source database
    - db2/oracle/etc have query parallelism
    - db2 in particular is very good at performing most database operations asynchronously: data writes are sent to a buffer pool by one agent, to a log buffer by another, from the log buffer to the log file by another, from the log buffer to actual storage by another, etc, etc.
    - both mysql & postgresql have very primitive memory tuning capabilities: mysql can't share io buffers between innodb & mysql. Postgresql just doesn't have many options to manage sort memory, separation of memory buffers by tablespace, etc, etc.

    But keep in mind - many of these weaknesses are also strengths: since the missing configurability is translated to simpler management for smaller & less-demanding databases.

    > However, unless you have all the information in memory or unless the the data is spread across a
    > large number of disk arrays, I don;t see how you can even get the information to process it in less
    > than a second.

    Ok, here's an exeample architecture using db2. Would work identically on informix, and probably Terradata. Oracle has similar capabilities, though a little different since they're shared-disk rather than shared-nothing for db2/informix/terradata.

    Step 1: spread data across 10 2-way 64-bit AMD blades. Each blade has 8 gbytes of memory and a fibre connection to storage. You can expand this up to *hundreds* of blades (nodes) - and get almost linear performance improvement the entire time. You've now got a 20 CPU system for about 10% the price you'd pay for a Sun E10000 or HP Superdome. Since the data is spread across all nodes by hashkey - every query will get 20 CPUs processing it together - each on 1/10 (100 gbytes) of the original data.

    Step 2: partition the data on each node by range or value via MDC. Say, by 'day' & 'department' - so that you've got (for example) 1000 days & 1000 departments. Now, each query will only tablescan the data within the blocks it needs: whether it needs to scan 5% or 75% it gets a linear performance improvement corresponding to the reduction of data.

    Step 3: implement parallelism on each node. Now, this sample config only has 2 CPUs - so the opportunities aren't as great as they are on an 8-way. But a two-way will still usually cut your query time in half.

    So, now a few examples:
    1. query for 10 days of data for 1 department:
    a. clustering cuts 100 gbytes on each node down to about 1 mbyte to scan on each node.
    b. query parallelism cuts down scan on each node to about 500 kbytes

    2. query for 100 days of data for 100 departments:
    a. clustering cuts 100 gbytes on each node down to about 1 gbyte to scan on each node.
    b. query parallelism cuts down scan on each node to about 500 mbytes

    3. query for 365 days of data for all departments:
    a. clustering cuts 100 gbytes on each node down to about 40 gbytes to scan on each node.
    b. query parallelism cuts down scan on each node to about 20 gbytes

    All three queries - whether very selective or not, all use the same facility for a linear performance improvement (unlike indexes). The last query is unlikely to complete in 1 second - but I'll bet it'll be fast nevertheless - especially since it'll probably end up with over 2

  34. Re:What's the ideal FOSS database choice for by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    something like Craig's list, if you had to pick between MySQL and Postgres only, not based on claims by the distributors, but based on the capabilities you elaborate in your post and what you know personally. Starting from scratch.

    I am assuming you mean www.craigslist.org.

    Ok. Seems like you have a few issues:

    1) Such a directory will have a lot of reads and only a few writes. The writes seem to mostly be inserts, with few updates.

    2) I don't see anywhere on the web site where financial data is likely to be an issue.

    The major benefits of MySQL include:

    1) Easy to find developers who know it.
    2) Would run adequately, given enough hardware.

    The major benefits of PostgreSQL would include:
    1) Better data analysis capabilities.
    2) Very robust database manager with extensive capabilities and a strong emphasis on data integrity.
    3) The ability to confidently integrate ecommerce and financial data into the same database architecture without worrying about rounding errors.

    MySQL will work well enough. PostgreSQL will give you more. Under high load, PostgreSQL may outperform MySQL due to the fact that it has better caching. So if you get really busy PostgreSQL will scale better (traffic-wise).

    PostgreSQL will also scale well data-wise. Each row can hold up to 2GB data, and each table can hold 64TB without partitioning. Affilias, who runs the .org and .info domains using PostgreSQL has sponsored the development of an advanced replication system for PostgreSQL called Slony-I.

    Affilias is currently bidding to take over the .net domain.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  35. that's BS by idlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AFAIK, those effects have been gone for years; I stopped encountering them sometime in the mid- to late- 90s.

    In the late 90's, your AIX system was still hosed if you ran out of disk space during a SMIT operation: not only was the system critically dependent on ODM, SMIT and the ODM library were also so poorly written that they couldn't cope with this common system state. So, no, whatever dependencies there were on ODM weren't fixed at that time.

    some of the things IBM originally put into AIX to "industrialize" it were things that folks complained Aren't The Unix Way, but they've ended up in other Unices as the years go on. LVM, enhanced security, dynamic kernel, a systems management interface, etc. Yet, 15+ years later, I still hear complaints about how different & not-nomral-Unix AIX is. Whatever.

    That, too, is just BS. LVM is rarely used even on Linux--convenient as it may seem to users, it is just one of the technically most stupid ways of managing disk space imaginable. And IBM can hardly take credit for GUI-based management (which they got woefully wrong with SMIT, both technically and in terms of user interface) or dynamically loadable kernel modules.

    AIX has always been incompatible in ways that range from merely annoying to seriously bad. Many of their decisions were indeed driven by the desires of their mainframe customers, but that still doesn't make those features good ideas.

    And although I thankfully don't have to deal with AIX anymore, I doubt it's much different today. Trying to portray the p.o.s. that AIX was/is as some kind of progenitor of modern UNIX or Linux systems is ridiculous.