Sun Plans Solaris Subscription Model 152
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.
Subscription model or source code model? (Score:5, Interesting)
also, the MSFT case wasn't *won* it was settled...
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said this, it's not like Sun doesn't use openness when it suits them - Gnome (Sun Java Desktop) being a good example.
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:5, Informative)
Selling x86 Linux servers is actually quite profitable for them these days. Not as much of their market as the Enterprise Class SPARCServer market though.
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of trying to beat more money out of the client who just gets the same thing, maybe they could do something smart like sell decent services which would be a whole new revenue stream for them.
Sun IMHO is very shortsighted, however they have a lot of cash and so they are quite in the position to come out of this, however it's going to get a lot worse first. (As long as they keep ignoring their established clients and heritage they will continue to decline.)
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:2)
I agree [slashdot.org] with [slashdot.org] your other points though.
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes and no. SunFreeware is not run by Sun, but Sun has given them their support, and distributes a CD of their software with Solaris 8 and 9. So the original posters point holds. Sun is not new to freeware.
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:2)
Now frankly, open standards are far more important, because it allows anyone to interoperate with their products.
What's a bigger proiblem with MS? Closed-source or closed-standards? If their file formats were open standards, do you think we'd have so many problems with MS Office interoperability with our non MS systems?
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the current pricing model of RedHat is relaly such that Solaris or Windows costs *less* that a RedHat sub, then it is in trouble.
I know I will get pointed at fedora, but given that fedora kills the network on a any laptop whose network is on a PC-card, isnt supported by all those binary things I use (nvida, vmware), I dont view it as a broadly tested or stable enough solution to work with.
Sun are just going to put pricing pressure on RedHat; the real test is what penetration Novell/SuSE linux has. If a version backed by the suits gets picked up by the PC vendors and sold mainstream, it can put serious pressure on RedHat's position as "the" north american commercial Linux distro.
Sun are probably still doomed, either way
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:1, Interesting)
Just wanted to point out that this is a problem particular to your system not "any laptop". Fedora defintely works with Laptop PC-cards and can run the binary things you mentioned, ie nvidia just fine. I don't know why your saying that you can't si
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:2)
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:2)
http://fedora.artoo.net/faq/samples/yum.conf
I use that yum.conf just uncomment things you want and yum update it.
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:2)
Still, the next time I boot that partition, I'll have to look again. I though I had uncommented that line, but it wouldn't hurt to check again. I searched FreshRPMS and the list available was quite small, and missing some that I use regularly. Red Hat 9 definitely had these packages, so I was rather shocked that the list was so small. OTOH, I've never heard of arto
Response to Fedora / RHEL FUD (Score:2)
Got any evidence? There's a bunch of laptops round here using pccard ethernet adapters fine. You may have found a bug, but its likely limited to a specific hardware combo. RHEL may also suffer from that bug, as well as other distros.
isnt supported by all those binary things I use (nvida, vmware)
These both work fine on Fedora. I've been using them regularly.
Besides, you could always download Whitebox. Same software, same 5 years of
Re:Response to Fedora / RHEL FUD (Score:2)
I will check out Whitebox, thanks.
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of quacking and crying about it - instead of trying to corner Linux and OSS out of the Market, Sun has done quite the opposite. First, they work with OSS to try and make sure that popular OSS projects work on their platform [sunfreeware.com]. At the same time, they started offering their current O.S. as a free (or nominal) download [sun.com].
Second (Sun re-invention, part II) they started selling x86 systems with Solaris x86 _AND_ Linux support. This plays on Sun's old-school strength of being known as a very reliable hardware vendor (less true now, but their reputation is still strong).
Finally, (re-invention part III) they are moving their Solaris OS (the preferred OS for their SPARC hardware) into a subscrption model that more closely resembles what RedHat has to offer. I highly doubt that this has any more reason than to more closely align sun's two product lines (Solaris and Linux).
Part 1 that I mention happened way back in '94-'96.
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not trying to start a distro flame war here. I personally prefer slackware but this is just how I see it.
Installers... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:2)
As for subscriptions it is sometimes good for the companies as well. Because it can save money in the accounting area. It is much easier and cheaper to maintain a small monthly fee then going threw the processing of purchasing the full version at full cost b
Re:Subscription model or source code model? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it can be good for a company that has trouble coming up with great whacks of cash for upgrades, so long as the subscription fee is both
--dave
Re:Incomprehensible (Score:2)
Sun (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sun (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, Sun's hardware reliability is getting worse, they are selling Linux on their systems - and for quite some time they are no longer the 'dot' in dot com*. Their x86 server offering is not yet well suited to compete with Dell and HP for Linux server hardware either.
*Way back when - Sun used to be the hardware behind one of the Top Level Domain - DNS servers. J.ROOTSERVERS.NET, IIRC. Anyway, that was short lived, and they were quickly rep
Re:Sun (Score:2)
Sun and Microsoft (Score:1, Interesting)
Summary of previous poster... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Sun and Microsoft (Score:2)
Re:Sun and Microsoft (Score:1, Insightful)
This is getting tedious. Tell me, when you buy gas, are you "investing" in Shell Oil? When you buy a PC from HP are you "investing" in HP? Not in any normal sense of the word. Sun didn't "invest" in SCO, they licensed driver technology [eweek.com]. That isn't hard to understand. As is common in multimillion dollar deals Sun did get warrants to allow them to buy stock, but a warrant isn't stock, it is a right to invest if they choos
Really bad puns... (Score:2, Funny)
Am I the only one who groaned?
Re:Really bad puns... (Score:2)
The govna~ (governator) and I groped...does that count?
j/k.
For free (Score:1)
Re:For free (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:For free (Score:1, Insightful)
Sun changed the license to the current one in Solaris 8 with the later releases.
The license costs only hit you if you buy used hardware. Sun includes the cost of the license if you buy the hardware from them. I suspect that there aren't a lot of places trying to buy and use E10k systems on a
Re:For free (Score:2)
Where did you read this, because I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Sun sells CPU license upgrades at their on-line store. If everyone bought license for "capability", then why bother selling upgrades for added CPUs?
Solaris 9 is free for Sun-provided hardware. Second hand hardware needs a right-to-use (RTU) license, which is about $100 for a single CPU. Given that Windows 98 and XP still sell for $100, Solaris 9 is a good deal.
Re:For free (Score:1)
For some definitions of "free", you can still download it from Sun's download site [sun.com].
Java Enterprise System != Solaris (Score:1)
Components
* Java System Directory Server 5.2
* Java System Identity Server 6.2
* Java System Directory Proxy Server 5.2
* Java System Application Server Platform Edition 7
* Java System Application Server Standard Edition 7
* Java System Message Queue Platform Edition 3.5
* Java System Message Queue Enterprise Edition 3.5
* Ja
More money for SCO? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)?
Re:More money for SCO? (Score:2, Informative)
No. Sun bought itself free a couple of years ago
Re:More money for SCO? (Score:1)
As far as I know Sun is the only vendor with such a license where they can distribute UNIX without paying royalties to anyone.
To me this brings up a thought. Assume that SCO wins their lawsuit saying that there is UNIX technology
Basic Disagreements (Score:1, Interesting)
The article makes a good point, that Sun has reinvented itself before, and that no one should write Sun off.
Pfft, really now? If Sun has *really* truly reinvented itself, and has started to see the light of things, then why is Java still not Open Sourced?
The subscription plan will make it clear that Solaris costs less than Linux and will dovetail with Sun's argument that its version of Unix performs better as well.
To be (a software vendor), or not to be (be a hardware vendor instead). That is the
Re:Basic Disagreements (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Some meandering history... (Score:1)
Don't forget that Sun also sells Linux based hardware. They just entered the market 4 years after IBM (AIX), HP (HP/UX and Tru64), SGI/Cray (Irix), etc.
For all your talk about Sun's board and value... Java makes no sense from a core competancy point of view. Java is now no more than real
Re:Basic Disagreements (Score:1)
Re:Basic Disagreements (Score:1, Insightful)
And who says Open Sourcing Java is the light? Sun's business decisions may not reflect your ideals as a user/developer. We don't live in a perfect world!
Possible unfavorable comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
But it would be a somewhat flawed comparison (Score:2)
I would be more concerned about a possible unfavorabe comparison with MS. Both MS and Sun sell proprietary operating systems.
True, but Sun also offers an open-source OS, i.e. one from each camp (so to speak). MS offers only proprietary/closed-source* OSs.
* Recent compromises and other goings-on notwithstanding.
Re:Possible unfavorable comparison (Score:1)
*The Microsoft Mouse, notwithstanding - I have one hooked onto every Linux box I run.
**StarOffice was purchased by StarDivision, a German software company. But it's purchase was originally in the interest o
Massive R&D (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Youe've just answered a question of mine. (Score:1)
That's were their R&D will prove to make or break them. Without it, they, I think, will become less an less desired in the market place. They'll need to come up with breakthrough tech in order not to be replaced by GNU/Linux, BSD or MS.
Re:Youe've just answered a question of mine. (Score:1)
The post above is close, but not quite right. Sun was the first vendor to have Ethernet and a TCP/IP stack built-in on every computer they offer. Thus their computers from the very early 90s were fully internet ready. They took an existing standard, and marketed it.
Sun is doing much the same now with the Linux Hardware that they are selling. Everything they have done was initially an attempt to boo
Re:Youe've just answered a question of mine. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 th
Re:Youe've just answered a question of mine. (Score:2)
As for you not needing N1: I think that you might still need it, expecially if you move to a larger number of smaller identical systems. You might not be able to use it, but that's different from needing.
All that said, N1 might still fail, and so might Sun (too bad, because I really love the way Sun organizes it's documentation, both Solaris and Java). I say this because I'm old enough to
Re:Massive R&D (Score:2)
I can see it now... (Score:2, Funny)
Sun is in quicksand (Score:4, Interesting)
I would sell any shares in Sun you still have (I left long ago).
Re:Sun is in quicksand, could jump out with... (Score:1)
Re:Sun is in quicksand, could jump out with... (Score:2)
SPARC costs a bunch more than PPC from IBM and it's slower (1/2 the speed). Not to mention it would require recompiling every app. Won't happen. An Intel based switch would be more likely but I think it's out of the question with the new PPC's that are out (IBM has 2.5 GHz at 90nm available now).
Re:Sun is in quicksand (Score:2, Informative)
This settlement also has more to do with what's left of Sun's shareholders and very little to do with who's at fault. The lawsuit was seen by investors as getting money from a competitor back when it started (almost 8 years ago!). Since then it has cost Sun much more money than what even the
Linux on Sun (Score:1)
As a customer myself, Sun has exactly the amount of support that you pay for. If you want platinum 4-hour on-site support, then pay for it.
Finally - concerning Windows - Yes, that's the one Hold-Out. HP, IBM and SGI have all been supporting Windows f
Re:Sun is in quicksand (Score:5, Insightful)
Better OSes? Solaris is arguably the best Unix OS in existance. If you think that Linux is "better", and it may be for your needs, I urge you to think again. The key to Solaris is its scalability. It scales to hundreds of processors. This is key for throughput computing, and you will see Sun come out with chips that have a dozen or so UltraSparcs on the same core in the near future.
Yes pundants, point me to the links about Linux running on 500 processors. I frankly don't beleive that a single Linux kernel image can run on 500 processors. I mean it still uses test, test-and-set spinlocks!
Re:Sun is in quicksand (Score:2)
I doubt Sun can continue to be the bastion of UltraSparc for much longer. They'll have to convert to somebody else's architecture or die.
Re:Sun is in quicksand (Score:2)
The article isn't clear. I would expect that Sun would offer both regular one-time licensing and subscription-based licensing. This would be fair to customers, who can choose depending on their needs.
Subscription model == customer lock-in (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
Re:Subscription model == customer lock-in (Score:3, Informative)
Numbers please, anyone can shout something like this. Last I heard was that RHAT had about 87500 subscriptions, of which 4000 entered last year. Read it today somewhere, but can't find the link anymore
This does not sound like people moving away from RHAT, but it's your word against mine.
Re:Subscription model == customer lock-in (Score:1)
Numbers please, anyone can shout something like this.
It seems like you're not holding yourself to the standards you impose on others.
No matter. We don't need "numbers" to substantiate the fact that the community is vastly unhappy with Red Hat's move to the enterprise subscription model, which is causin
Re:Subscription model == customer lock-in (Score:2)
Why do you think I typed a
We don't need "numbers" to substantiate the fact that the community is vastly unhappy with Red Hat's move to the enterprise subscription model, which is causing financial and logistical pain.
What community? Is the community buying subscriptions? AFAIK companies are buying subscriptions; the community is free (pun intended) to use fedora. Why should the community be vastly unhappy by that?
Re:Subscription model == customer lock-in (Score:2)
People in general are moving away from it how do you explain thier best 3rd quarter ever, then the 4th quarter eclipsed that? 90% renual rates (87,000 new subscriptions), 39% more income. Maybe you want them to fail but that id most certainly NOT what is happening, they're booming. Thier stock has hit 5 52-week hig
This migh not be a smart move for Sun (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This migh not be a smart move for Sun (Score:1)
Write Them Off (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Write Them Off (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Write Them Off (Score:2)
However, I don't understand your overexcited mumbo-jumbo about investing in Sun or pulling out or whatnot. Do you think every person on this planet invests their money in stocks? And why are you so over-th
Re:Write Them Off (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Sun Had to Choose "Between Shame and War" (Score:2)
Re:Sun Had to Choose "Between Shame and War" (Score:1, Interesting)
He continues:
"Sun's agreement to Microsoft Communications Protocol Program represents a real sellout by Sun. Until now, the only major vendors to sign up to the protocol agreement have been Cisco and guess who, The SCO Group ( only after the "investment" by Microsoft ). Even the U.S. Justice Department expressed concern that Microsoft has not complete
Policing Solaris subscriptions (Score:1)
But along with the benefits come disadvantages. Discounting c
Re:Policing Solaris subscriptions (Score:2)
Sun's fundamental problem (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Sun's fundamental problem (Score:2)
Almost correct. You forgot that Sun is primarily a HARDWARE vendor. Your paragraph should have said:
Sun has a fundamental problem, one it used to share with Compaq. Both firms live by selling a premium product in a commodity market. Hardware for PCs/workstations is no longer rare and valuable enough to pay for.
Forget software, Sun (Score:3, Flamebait)
Screw the software. Solaris is little more than Oracle-OS anymore. Make the hardware easier to buy and to support.
going down the wrong road? (Score:2)
McNealy has become a liability, like Saruman. There is only one Lord of the Ring. Sun is doomed.
Sun -- used to have great technology, now plagued with dated hardware and poor business choices. Decent opsys, though, too bad it's stalled.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I like Sun -- but they are in trouble (Score:2)
Sun's x86 servers are competitive with Dell, HPaq, and IBM. Also, Sun is not a Microsoft reseller and has no OEM puppet strings.
Re:I like Sun -- but they are in trouble (Score:3, Interesting)
Interpreting Sun (Score:3, Informative)
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.
same old same old (Score:2, Insightful)
As somone mentioned there is a CPU license on USED servers but that has always been included with new servers.
.EDU Pricing? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [internalmemos.com] 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
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
The trolls are really hot today!!!
McNealy most likely hates Ballmer's guts. That Java memo was a long time ago. Python and Perl do not have the breadth of the Java API. Python's compiler is also immature (optimization: coming soon!). Sun is embracing Linux not trying to destroy it.
This article today has resulted in so much misinformation being posted that it is sickening.
I have a rant about Sun ... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Subscription Model, Not a Good Deal (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Times have changed... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why would you buy Sun anymore? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Why use MSFT products? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Why use MSFT products? (Score:1)
I tried IE for Solaris a few years ago. I may have complained about Netscape 4.x for Solaris, but IE was ten times worse! It not only crashed like Netscape sometimes did. It would frequently kill my X-server all togeather. And on one occation it even managed to get the whole system to lock up.
Microsoft Bull... (Score:1)
To the original post's point, there are several Apple/Mac compatible products that most people in Music think are far superior to the products that you are speaking of (of course now most of them come in Mac AND Win versions).... Still qualifies as paying your way around Microsoft.
More importantly to the Linux zealot in me, if it can work under Mac OS X, then it's not difficult
Sun in an axis of Evil?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Tinfoil Helmets (Score:2)
Re:Won? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Won? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 comp
Re:Won? (Score:1, Informative)