Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
After Sun goes out
By on
October 02, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
- by <SLASH HREF="//linux.com/relocate.pl?id=9fdfec8d469be19bc900cd7c51407209" ID="67145b32fb2a5e62fca3e57cea261d9e" TITLE="http://www.catb.org/~esr/" TYPE="LINK">Eric S. Raymond</SLASH> -
Sun Microsystems crossed the line from "troubled" to "doomed" yesterday. This is sad news for the open-source community, and we need to think about how we're going to deal with it. The most pressing questions are, "What becomes of Java?" and, "What becomes of OpenOffice.org?" These are questions that matter.
Sun Microsystems crossed the line from "troubled" to "doomed" yesterday. This is sad news for the open-source community, and we need to think about how we're going to deal with it. The most pressing questions are, "What becomes of Java?" and, "What becomes of OpenOffice.org?" These are questions that matter.
Sun's troubles have been mounting for a while. Founder Bill Joy's departure was an ominous recent symbol, but the substance of their problem is that their hugh-margin server business is being eroded from the low end by PCs running Linux at a rate that doesn't leave it much of a future.
Nobody should cheer the prospect of Sun's demise. Sun screwed up some major decisions very badly, from wrecking Unix standardization efforts in the 1980s to throttling the dream of Java ubiquity by keeping the language proprietary. But nobody should forget that Sun was founded by Unix hackers for Unix hackers. For most of its lifespan Sun remained the archetype of an engineering-driven company. Sun was, mostly, among the good guys; to hackers and geeks, disputing with Sun was almost a family quarrel.
But inside Sun, I hear that talent is bailing out of the company because they just don't believe the Solaris-will-prevail story management is peddling. Most of Sun's techies are running Linux on their PCs at home. They can see the handwriting on the wall.
In retrospect, the recent pronunciamento that Sun has no Linux strategy was their final admission of failure. Sun can't run at the lean profit margins that are all a commoditized Linux server market will support, their cost structure is all wrong for it. They got trapped in a classic innovator's dilemma and didn't cannibalize their own business while they had the investor confidence and maneuvering room to do so. Cuddling up to SCO didn't help, either.
And now it's too late[1]. Moody's has just about dropped Sun into the junk-bond basement. The stock closed at $3.31, 15% off for the day and falling in heavy trading. The recent product announcements have been duds, and the upcoming quarterlies are going to be a disaster. Wall street analysts are calling for drastic job cuts and speaking the code phrases that mean "run for the hills!" The smell of death is in the air.
Any of Sun's people and tangible assets that don't scatter to the four winds will probably wind up in the hands of IBM, HP, and Dell -- three companies that have shown they do know how to play the commodity-computing game. The SCO lawsuit probably won't be affected. Sun was the lesser-known of of SCO's sugar daddies along with Microsoft, but Redmond can pick up Sun's share of funding the lawsuit out of petty cash -- and it undoubtedly will.
The real question is twofold: can OpenOffice.org survive without Sun, and where will Java land? Probably not at Microsoft; with C# in the picture, it is unlikely that Microsoft even wants to own Java any more. I have to guess that IBM is the most likely to shoulder both technologies, simply because nobody else is really positioned to do it. But that, of course, raises other worries -- is it really good for us if IBM has a lead position in everything?
[1] reuters.com
Comments
on After Sun goes outNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Sun has 5 billion in the bank and low debt. How exactly are they "doomed"? And have you ever heard of reverse splits (here's a guess, Palm did it).
However, it's time Sun spun off Java.
<A HREF="http://www.petitiononline.com/spinjava/petition.html" TITLE="petitiononline.com">http://www.petitiononline.com/spinjava/petition.h<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ml</a petitiononline.com>
- A. San Juan
HP is doomed, not Sun
I applaud the excellent reasoning you have included along with that statement....
Let me see - Sun has poor sales in a limited market range, hp and IBM have broad spreads of products in many markets retruning good overall sales.... Nah, you must be right, it was stupid of me to think otherwise.
Mind you, this is a bit harsh - even Carly doesn't go this nasty on poor old Sun!
Let me see - Sun has poor sales in a limited market range, hp and IBM have broad spreads of products in many markets retruning good overall sales.... Nah, you must be right, it was stupid of me to think otherwise.
Mind you, this is a bit harsh - even Carly doesn't go this nasty on poor old Sun!
I think that HP's future as a computer company is pretty gloomy. Their products are still Compaq-esk 'open' but proprietary. Their sales force makes bold claims about not going to lose a sale to Dell for price (bullshit). Their first round of tablet PCs are a botch. And their Itanium pricing continues to be on the high side of price not to mention heat especially compared to AMD.
An analysis of the balance sheet says printing & imaging are paying the way and computers are at best breaking even.
Sun, on the other hand, went from us$3.8B in the bank in April to us$5.7B in the bank three weeks ago. It is covering it's operating costs.
Sun is not healthy, to be sure, their multi-threaded SPARC idea has yet to be proven (things like memory bus capacity really are worthy of being pondered -- but we're promised that they've got a rabbit to pull out of their hat). Their Linux non-strategy is a mess and any interaction between SCO and SUN is plainly offensive. N1 and thin clients still have yet to prove their worth or their ability to be integrated into the real world.
I think the answer is wait and see. They are cash-flow positive and as long as that is true they're still in the game. The same can not be said about HP's computer business.
-- Multics
Most Sun employees have Macs at home, not Linux
How do you know this?
eg, <A HREF="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1210897,00.asp" TITLE="eweek.com">here</a eweek.com>
Not to split hairs but a Mac is hardware not an OS. For the record, Linux runs nicely on a Mac. In the article you linked to in your other message Swartz stated that most Sun employees own an Apple machine. I don't know if he really knows that to be true or made it up to help his wanting to partner with Apple. In either case, he never said they were running OSX on that Apple hardware.
I certainly don't know for sure what most Sun techs have at home but I would be surprised if Linux isn't one of the OSs that run in most Sun techs homes. Heck, Sun is even coming out with the Linux based Java desktop system so someone there must be using it.
I certainly don't know for sure what most Sun techs have at home but I would be surprised if Linux isn't one of the OSs that run in most Sun techs homes. Heck, Sun is even coming out with the Linux based Java desktop system so someone there must be using it.
Only weirdos run Linux on Apple hardware
>Only weirdos run Linux on Apple hardware
ah ha ha ha...
OK, whatever.
-Scooter
Who ENJOYS developing on his $500, $500 MHz ibook running YDL Linux (and also OSX... it is a multipurpose development machine)
Mac hardware can be expensive, but if you shop ebay you can get their VERY NICE laptops on deal sometimes. Linux runs a LOT better on Apple laptops than many of the PC laptops, like it or not...
ah ha ha ha...
OK, whatever.
-Scooter
Who ENJOYS developing on his $500, $500 MHz ibook running YDL Linux (and also OSX... it is a multipurpose development machine)
Mac hardware can be expensive, but if you shop ebay you can get their VERY NICE laptops on deal sometimes. Linux runs a LOT better on Apple laptops than many of the PC laptops, like it or not...
He was kidding.
I'm a guy who is gradually making the transition to Linux. I keep some dual-boot Windows machines at home mainly so the kids and I can use Windows games. A lot of people seem to do that. And I have seen reams of discussion on slashdot etc. about how Linux will have really really really made it on the desktop when games developers start porting to it.
I was vaguely aware that a person can run Linux on a Mac, and I never really thought much about it before. But -- don't most computer games have Mac versions? If I want to play something popular like Half Life or my kids' play their educational games, will those games run on a Mac?
If this is so, then why are the various sites like slashdot so quiet about this? It seems to me that this would be such a natural transition path for the desktop. The home desktop user could say, "Hmmm, I need a new computer. I'd better dual boot so I can still play games. But I'm sure tired of Windows crap. Hey, what if I bought a Mac, and dual booted it with Linux? Then I could play all the games I want to, explore all of the Mac's other goodies, but still keep using the Linux I'm starting to know and love...".
Etc. etc. You get my point. If a dual booted Mac with Linux on it, playing all the games you would want on the Mac side is *possible*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then why aren't people streaming to this alternative in droves? If this is so, then jeez, we need to start shouting about this alternative everywhere and every time we can.
I was vaguely aware that a person can run Linux on a Mac, and I never really thought much about it before. But -- don't most computer games have Mac versions? If I want to play something popular like Half Life or my kids' play their educational games, will those games run on a Mac?
If this is so, then why are the various sites like slashdot so quiet about this? It seems to me that this would be such a natural transition path for the desktop. The home desktop user could say, "Hmmm, I need a new computer. I'd better dual boot so I can still play games. But I'm sure tired of Windows crap. Hey, what if I bought a Mac, and dual booted it with Linux? Then I could play all the games I want to, explore all of the Mac's other goodies, but still keep using the Linux I'm starting to know and love...".
Etc. etc. You get my point. If a dual booted Mac with Linux on it, playing all the games you would want on the Mac side is *possible*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then why aren't people streaming to this alternative in droves? If this is so, then jeez, we need to start shouting about this alternative everywhere and every time we can.
The only reason I see for people not streaming to the Mac is it is somewhat proprietary and more expensive than the x86 counterpart.
That is similar to the problem Sun is having and the reason for this article. Sun hardware/software is much more expensive than a cluster of Linux x86 boxen. Sun does have advantages in certain areas though, redundancy, reliability, more CPUs per single system, etc.
There are situations where it is better to use Sun hardware. Many would argue that the Mac is generally a better machine than a similarly powered x86 machine. You'll pay more for it but typically it is more reliable, etc.
I don't know, just rambling out loud.... At any rate, check out <A HREF="http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/" TITLE="yellowdoglinux.com">YDL</a yellowdoglinux.com> if you are interested in running Linux on a Mac. I don't own a Mac personally so I don't know the game situation, in fact I haven't been into games for years so it's no an issue for me. I believe there is a smaller subset of games for OSX than there is for Win. I have run Linux at home exclusively for the last couple of years and my entire family (wife and kids) have been getting along perfectly. My kids go outside and play games, just like I had to do in the olden days.
That is similar to the problem Sun is having and the reason for this article. Sun hardware/software is much more expensive than a cluster of Linux x86 boxen. Sun does have advantages in certain areas though, redundancy, reliability, more CPUs per single system, etc.
There are situations where it is better to use Sun hardware. Many would argue that the Mac is generally a better machine than a similarly powered x86 machine. You'll pay more for it but typically it is more reliable, etc.
I don't know, just rambling out loud.... At any rate, check out <A HREF="http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/" TITLE="yellowdoglinux.com">YDL</a yellowdoglinux.com> if you are interested in running Linux on a Mac. I don't own a Mac personally so I don't know the game situation, in fact I haven't been into games for years so it's no an issue for me. I believe there is a smaller subset of games for OSX than there is for Win. I have run Linux at home exclusively for the last couple of years and my entire family (wife and kids) have been getting along perfectly. My kids go outside and play games, just like I had to do in the olden days.
Most PC games haven't been ported to Mac. For example, Counter-Strike doesn't appear to be available for macs (i'm not sure if Half Life is available).
I was able to get rid of windows when i got sick of the games and got a ps2. Now I single boot linux and my ps2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D
I was able to get rid of windows when i got sick of the games and got a ps2. Now I single boot linux and my ps2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D
Counter-Strike isn't available for Macs because it runs on Half-Life and Half-Life isn't available for Macs.
From the Counter-Strike website FAQ page (http://www.counter-strike.net/faq.html):
Why isn't there a Mac version of Counter-Strike?
A Mac version of Counter-Strike hinges on Valve Software porting Half-Life to the Mac. Their planned Mac port fell through. Thus, there will not be a Mac CS version (atleast not in the near future). In other words, the possitility of a Mac port isn't up to us.
From the Counter-Strike website FAQ page (http://www.counter-strike.net/faq.html):
Why isn't there a Mac version of Counter-Strike?
A Mac version of Counter-Strike hinges on Valve Software porting Half-Life to the Mac. Their planned Mac port fell through. Thus, there will not be a Mac CS version (atleast not in the near future). In other words, the possitility of a Mac port isn't up to us.
Mac is not an OS its hardware? hahahaha<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... The Macintosh opreating system (MacOS X) runs on apple-based hardware powered by powerPC processors from IBM.
Yes, MacOS is an OS, a Mac is hardware, just as I said.
Your an idiot
How so? Are you telling me that "a Mac" is not a computer? "A Mac" is certainly not software. MacOS X is software sure but that isn't the same thing as saying "a Mac". I don't understand your beef.
I am a wierdo and i run linux on my mac! Yay! lol. actually I probably am. Currently, you three flavors of linux actually worth trying are Mandrake 9.1 PPC, Yellow Dog Linux (RH 9.0) , and Gentoo. There also is a unoffical slack port but the first three are offical. All i can say is its great, and it gave my 400 mhz imac new life (i can now play<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.avis<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D with xine)
Don't forget Debian...
wierdos are cool! haha
yes sir, I am a weirdo! I love being weird! The weird shall inherit the earth!
You are being pedantic. When most people say, "I use a Mac" they mean "I'm running MacOS on Mac hardware." Same is true of people who say "I use a PC"--they almost always mean "I'm running Windows on PC hardware". Running Linux on either platform is the exceptional case, not the usual. When someone asks me whether I use a PC or Mac my response includes the fact that I'm running Linux.
Why would they have Macs? And how would you know they all run Macs?
Sun and its users always seemed to have an attitude that really annoyed me. I learned Unix on SunOS 4.? and I liked Sun. But the users always had an attitude that Linux was a toy and couldn't compete.... Of course, in those days (93-94), Linux wasn't where it had to be. But it didn't take a rocket scientist to see the writing on the wall. I guess the jokes on them.
welcome to every Unix vendor out there. it's not just Sun that thought that Linux was a toy....it was Digital, HP, and IBM, too.
don't jump for joy about Sun. Solaris still does things that Linux can't, and that developers should and can learn from.
don't jump for joy about Sun. Solaris still does things that Linux can't, and that developers should and can learn from.
I wonder why a company that lives and breathes UNIX would think they know more about it then joe schmoe who switched to compile their 0-day expl0its.
I'm not saying that Sun doesn't know Unix.... But it was very presumptuous for them to think that no one else knew it... Sure Sun products can still do things that Linux can't. But the applications where that remains an issue are extremely few and far between these days.
The world no longer needs over-priced sparcs. Sun has no means to make money with Java, and no ability to free it the way it needed to be freed so it becomes truelly common and well supported on other platforms. When one typically has to depend on un-optimized and/or otherwise obsolete or buggy binaries to get Java to run on ones Linux distribution of choice, to wait for someone to release native binaries on FreeBSD (which finally happened), etc, it is not a truelly usable or "common" platform. Sun can't make Java available in ways that the community can fix it and do these things on it's own, so Java is a dead-end on free platforms, the it could have gained most.
IBM doesn't need to make money from selling the right to make Java. IBM already has a huge business investment in Java being successful and functional everywhere. IBM could wait for Sun to die and buy it cheap, free Java, and make it into a real and universal standard, and actually make more money as a result! IBM is on a Sun deathwatch, waiting for the best price.
IBM doesn't need to make money from selling the right to make Java. IBM already has a huge business investment in Java being successful and functional everywhere. IBM could wait for Sun to die and buy it cheap, free Java, and make it into a real and universal standard, and actually make more money as a result! IBM is on a Sun deathwatch, waiting for the best price.
Actually, IBM produce a very well engineered Java SDK that from most test results, prove to be better performing than the Sun JDK - at least on Linux. Their J2EE application server and surrounding infrastructure are also more popular than the Sun offerings. It is unfortunate that Sun could not do a better job here as they are keepers of the specs.
Have you tried 1.4.2 for speed?
Yes. But I am talking about J2EE-type loads. The new GC improves things a bit for multi-CPU Linux but essentially still the slowest JVM for J2EE. The GC tuning seems more complex for the Sun JDK and they don't have the wealth of tech notes that IBM produces.
That's why BEA have Rockit and IBM produce their own SDK for WebSphere. A lot of folks have found that JBoss runs slower with the Sun JDK than with the BEA or IBM implementations.
Don't get me wrong. Sun is good with the innovation part but doesn't seem to take it that extra distance to get high-performance and tuning out of the product - or at least easily explain how to achieve high performance.
That's why BEA have Rockit and IBM produce their own SDK for WebSphere. A lot of folks have found that JBoss runs slower with the Sun JDK than with the BEA or IBM implementations.
Don't get me wrong. Sun is good with the innovation part but doesn't seem to take it that extra distance to get high-performance and tuning out of the product - or at least easily explain how to achieve high performance.
What makes you think IBM would "free" Java? They only take that position when it's to hurt Sun. They have several clean-room JVMs they could have made open source any time in the last few years, but so far they've not even mentioned it.
"Several clean-room JVMs"? Name one! Or rather, name one that contains anything that isn't already done almost as well by Free Software.
Sure, the VMs themselves are probably clean-roomish, but the Free Software community has several good free VMs already: Kaffe, gcj/gij, orp, IKVM/mono, etc.
What the Free Software community is missing are the libraries, especially the huge ones like Swing that are almost impossible to cleanroom (just ask the Classpath developers). IBM sure as hell don't have a cleanroom Swing implementation!
You seem to be suggesting that just because IBM hasn't "freed" the existing cleanroom VMs it may have (which would be useless anyway because they depend on Sun's libraries, and duplicate functionality that already exists Free), they wouldn't free the whole of Java (which would be *extremely* useful) if they had the opportunity. Of course I can't prove that they would - but your argument is a sheer non-sequitur. There's plenty of logical reasons not to release the VMs they may have now that wouldn't apply if they had full rights to the whole platform.
Sure, the VMs themselves are probably clean-roomish, but the Free Software community has several good free VMs already: Kaffe, gcj/gij, orp, IKVM/mono, etc.
What the Free Software community is missing are the libraries, especially the huge ones like Swing that are almost impossible to cleanroom (just ask the Classpath developers). IBM sure as hell don't have a cleanroom Swing implementation!
You seem to be suggesting that just because IBM hasn't "freed" the existing cleanroom VMs it may have (which would be useless anyway because they depend on Sun's libraries, and duplicate functionality that already exists Free), they wouldn't free the whole of Java (which would be *extremely* useful) if they had the opportunity. Of course I can't prove that they would - but your argument is a sheer non-sequitur. There's plenty of logical reasons not to release the VMs they may have now that wouldn't apply if they had full rights to the whole platform.
King of Troll
Sun should have embraced Linux as IBM did.
Both companies sold expensive UNIX systems with proprietary software.
IBM chose not only to offer Linux on their systems, but to fully support it, and to move to make their proprietary UNIX (AIX 5L) more compatable with Linux.
Sun chose to give in to customer demand and offer Linux on some of their hardware, but only the x86 based hardware (even though other Linux distributors supported Sun hardware), and without any real support.
Sun still has a chance to hang on -- if they grab onto the Linux lifeboat instead of trying to poke holes into it.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what they decide to do...
Both companies sold expensive UNIX systems with proprietary software.
IBM chose not only to offer Linux on their systems, but to fully support it, and to move to make their proprietary UNIX (AIX 5L) more compatable with Linux.
Sun chose to give in to customer demand and offer Linux on some of their hardware, but only the x86 based hardware (even though other Linux distributors supported Sun hardware), and without any real support.
Sun still has a chance to hang on -- if they grab onto the Linux lifeboat instead of trying to poke holes into it.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what they decide to do...
didn't it go more like this:
1. MS introduces NT
2. IBM proclaims UNIX dead and starts selling NT.
3. IBM's unix customers move to Sun.
4. Linux becomes usable
5. IBM proclaims NT dead and starts selling Linux.
7.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
1. MS introduces NT
2. IBM proclaims UNIX dead and starts selling NT.
3. IBM's unix customers move to Sun.
4. Linux becomes usable
5. IBM proclaims NT dead and starts selling Linux.
7.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
Well, IBM seems to be ahead of the game all the time. MS did erode the proprietary UNIX market. But when Linux came, IBM was the only big corp to see that Linux will blow MS away. For its size IBM looks like a very smart corp!
People don't need a linux-kernel based operating system. They want an operating system as powerful as linux and compatable with linux. geeez Linux should be the standard of all operating systems
As ESR said, the Linux world has virtually no margin - how is that a lifeboat?
Sun needs to be tanned & buff geeks not dorks.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 03, 2003 11:52 PM
Only one way out for SUN Microsystems before the last dying breath...
*Open up all the instruction sets for their SPARC CPU's.
* Drop some refubished Sun servers on the main guys at the Aurora project and partner with Red Hat.
* Finally strike up the deal the AMD and ASUS to use the 64-FX51's and build some x4 and x8 CPU boards and lose the properitary priced crap... ($250+ for a Sun dvd-rom? crack smokers! I bought a new pioneer CD-RW/DVD that supported 512kb reads for around $100) Other wise the money for the guts in a Sun box isn't worth the silcon it is fab'd on!!!
* Relaunch the lxrun program to allow all SUN applications/hardware to be compatible to run on Linux and vice versa... Should keep them floating until they can get away from strict Solaris and inovate the linux market with some of the good tools they already have (Solstice suite...)
* And have the damned exec board to QUIT THINKING like suits!!!!!
*Open up all the instruction sets for their SPARC CPU's.
* Drop some refubished Sun servers on the main guys at the Aurora project and partner with Red Hat.
* Finally strike up the deal the AMD and ASUS to use the 64-FX51's and build some x4 and x8 CPU boards and lose the properitary priced crap... ($250+ for a Sun dvd-rom? crack smokers! I bought a new pioneer CD-RW/DVD that supported 512kb reads for around $100) Other wise the money for the guts in a Sun box isn't worth the silcon it is fab'd on!!!
* Relaunch the lxrun program to allow all SUN applications/hardware to be compatible to run on Linux and vice versa... Should keep them floating until they can get away from strict Solaris and inovate the linux market with some of the good tools they already have (Solstice suite...)
* And have the damned exec board to QUIT THINKING like suits!!!!!
Re:Sun needs to be tanned & buff geeks not dor
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 05, 2003 06:48 AMWhat is proprietary about the SPARC? I thought the instruction set was actually a standard? (IEEE or ISO; I forget which). Or does that only apply to the 32-bit SPARC?
As said by another poster, there's a good contrarian bet here. I give it a 1 in 3 chance that Sun stock could go up by a factor of 5. Not something to bet your retirement on, but what's old Terminator-Advisor doing?
I wouldn't worry about OpenOffice Free Software has its own survival mechanism, development might slow down a bit until all the other GNU/Linux companies start funding it but it won't die.
we have loads of other projects surviving without direct support from some company and loads of projects surviving without support at all.
as for Java this might be the greatest thing to happen to it, Java will have to be Free now or die (both a good prspect IMO).
we have loads of other projects surviving without direct support from some company and loads of projects surviving without support at all.
as for Java this might be the greatest thing to happen to it, Java will have to be Free now or die (both a good prspect IMO).
Sun remains a force in high-end computing. They probably will for some time, these things have great inertia...try getting a million doallr CER through management at most companies and you will see what I am saying.
They are, however, feeling the heat coming from Linux AND (let's be honest) the Microsoft boys. Both are coming after them, and Sun has yet to reply with anything dazzling to get themselves to increase their technical gap to what it once was.
This is a normal evolution in computing, and it has happened before -- see IBM in the mid 1990's. But IBM has retooled and it is quite possible Sun will do the same.
They are, however, feeling the heat coming from Linux AND (let's be honest) the Microsoft boys. Both are coming after them, and Sun has yet to reply with anything dazzling to get themselves to increase their technical gap to what it once was.
This is a normal evolution in computing, and it has happened before -- see IBM in the mid 1990's. But IBM has retooled and it is quite possible Sun will do the same.
You should. If Java dies you have exactly one way to go...Microsoft.
I actually think they've finally gotten the Linux message. However, they can't just stampede over to Linux without first having a reliable cash flow to replace what they make on Solaris. To do so would make the slow descent they are experiencing into a nosedive. This is the reason they are saying "we have no Linux strategy" while at the same time releasing a Linux desktop, making sure every Java release runs on Linux, and maintaining OpenOffice, a very important Linux app.
Sun is our last best hope for a Linux desktop. HP is now a MS lackey. IBM is perfectly happy to push Linux on the server and Windows on the desktop. RedHat just wants the servers. Only Sun hates MS enough to try to take them on on the desktop, and they know the only way they can afford it is by leveraging Linux and other open source apps. If they can figure out how to make a consistent revenue stream from Linux on the desktop, I predict we'll soon be seeing Schwartz in a Tux costume.
Sun is our last best hope for a Linux desktop. HP is now a MS lackey. IBM is perfectly happy to push Linux on the server and Windows on the desktop. RedHat just wants the servers. Only Sun hates MS enough to try to take them on on the desktop, and they know the only way they can afford it is by leveraging Linux and other open source apps. If they can figure out how to make a consistent revenue stream from Linux on the desktop, I predict we'll soon be seeing Schwartz in a Tux costume.
I think IBM is still a little gun shy about going after the desktop after OS/2. IBM does not take failure well. I would not be suprised if IBM started to look at LTSP pretty soon. Frankly we may see a return to the Mainframe/Minicomputer days sooner than you think. A big honking server and a bunch of thin clients is easier to manage than a buch of PCs. Linx is begining to make that seem like a good Idea again. Look at Largo Florida.
...or at least, not all of them. Sun is acting a bit MPD at the moment. If they do finally admit that Linux can do 99% of what Solaris can do plus some things Solaris can't, and switch to making their money on hardware and on the application layer, they'll survive... although they should be planning about now to lose their hardware market as well.
SGI do the high-end stuff much better, and honourable Taiwanese mobo maker won't take too long to figure out how to make his PC hardware truly reliable at half the cost once that becomes important to him.
OpenOffice.org is also important to Solaris, which is a big reason that Sun ran with it (the biggest, of course, was to burst Microsoft's Office bubble, which is happening big-time). The big thing with OOo is that it's hit critical mass with a big thud, it's too important to too many people now to expect it to languish if Sun bites the dust.
Actually, if they want to bite the bullet, Sun should adopt PostgreSQL, add anything they think is missing, then go hunting for Oracle.
If they could supply and maintain hardware, database and application in one package, they should be able to keep some decent market share, give Oracle a hard time where it isn't firmly entrenched, and pound the daylights out of MS SQL Server. Oracle seem to be cooling on Sun, so AFAICT they've got nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing something like this.
Scott gets to hammer Gates some more, Sun get to keep some database customers, PostgreSQL gets new features and probably extra regression testing, everyone involved wins.
SGI do the high-end stuff much better, and honourable Taiwanese mobo maker won't take too long to figure out how to make his PC hardware truly reliable at half the cost once that becomes important to him.
OpenOffice.org is also important to Solaris, which is a big reason that Sun ran with it (the biggest, of course, was to burst Microsoft's Office bubble, which is happening big-time). The big thing with OOo is that it's hit critical mass with a big thud, it's too important to too many people now to expect it to languish if Sun bites the dust.
Actually, if they want to bite the bullet, Sun should adopt PostgreSQL, add anything they think is missing, then go hunting for Oracle.
If they could supply and maintain hardware, database and application in one package, they should be able to keep some decent market share, give Oracle a hard time where it isn't firmly entrenched, and pound the daylights out of MS SQL Server. Oracle seem to be cooling on Sun, so AFAICT they've got nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing something like this.
Scott gets to hammer Gates some more, Sun get to keep some database customers, PostgreSQL gets new features and probably extra regression testing, everyone involved wins.
Linux can do 99% of what Solaris can do plus some things Solaris can't
Solaris can do 128 CPUs. Linux can do 4.
Solaris does real clustering. Linux has Beowulf - tying boxes together with bits of string, much like MS Windows clusters
Solaris has scalable disk management; Linux can go from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sda to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sdz - more than 26 and you have to start slicing things up.
Solaris has working, flexible volume management. Linux has LVM.
I could go on about MPxIO, IPMP, etc...
Solaris can do 128 CPUs. Linux can do 4.
Solaris does real clustering. Linux has Beowulf - tying boxes together with bits of string, much like MS Windows clusters
Solaris has scalable disk management; Linux can go from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sda to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sdz - more than 26 and you have to start slicing things up.
Solaris has working, flexible volume management. Linux has LVM.
I could go on about MPxIO, IPMP, etc...
SGI do the high-end stuff much better - do they do a 106-CPU box?
Look into Sun ONE some time - application stack for $100.
>>Linux can do 99% of what Solaris can do plus >some
>Solaris can do 128 CPUs. Linux can do 4.
Actually, Linux has been able to do more than
16 cpus for quite some time now. This notion that
is has only been able to do is just Lemming FUD.
SGI is actively developing 64+ cpu NUMA machines.
You remember SGI, don't you? These are the
people that Sun bought it's NUMA tech from.
>Solaris does real clustering. Linux has Beowulf >- tying boxes together with bits of string, much >like MS Windows clusters
>
>Solaris has scalable disk management; Linux can
>go from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sda to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sdz - more than 26 and >you have to start slicing things up.
No, Linux does the same thing that Solaris
does: ALLOWS YOU TO INSTALL VERITAS SOFTWARE.
Also, Linux does application level clustering
quite well (better in the case of Oracle).
Where is the Sun Cluster FS? Oracle provided
one for Linux.
>Solaris has working, flexible volume management. >Linux has LVM.
See my comment about Veritas.
>I could go on about MPxIO, IPMP, etc...
>
>
>SGI do the high-end stuff much better -
>do they do a 106-CPU box?
They do a 64 CPU Linux box.
This is the problem with Sun people. They
think that their sh*t doesn't stink. They don't
acknowledge how badly Sun's original NUMA arch
scaled, Sun's humble beginnings, or the general
pisspoor performance of sparc hardware (vs other
RISC vendors)
>Look into Sun ONE some time -
>application stack for $100.
I'd rather look at x86/Alpha vs. SparcIII
performance statistics. A Sun box needs 2x to
3x the cpus just to keep up with a decent
architecture.
Why shell out for a datacenter grade box
(to get 12 or more sparc cpus) just to counteract
the sluggishness of the sparc processor? If there
were any justice in the market, DEC would have
put Sun out of business a long time ago.
>Solaris can do 128 CPUs. Linux can do 4.
Actually, Linux has been able to do more than
16 cpus for quite some time now. This notion that
is has only been able to do is just Lemming FUD.
SGI is actively developing 64+ cpu NUMA machines.
You remember SGI, don't you? These are the
people that Sun bought it's NUMA tech from.
>Solaris does real clustering. Linux has Beowulf >- tying boxes together with bits of string, much >like MS Windows clusters
>
>Solaris has scalable disk management; Linux can
>go from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sda to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sdz - more than 26 and >you have to start slicing things up.
No, Linux does the same thing that Solaris
does: ALLOWS YOU TO INSTALL VERITAS SOFTWARE.
Also, Linux does application level clustering
quite well (better in the case of Oracle).
Where is the Sun Cluster FS? Oracle provided
one for Linux.
>Solaris has working, flexible volume management. >Linux has LVM.
See my comment about Veritas.
>I could go on about MPxIO, IPMP, etc...
>
>
>SGI do the high-end stuff much better -
>do they do a 106-CPU box?
They do a 64 CPU Linux box.
This is the problem with Sun people. They
think that their sh*t doesn't stink. They don't
acknowledge how badly Sun's original NUMA arch
scaled, Sun's humble beginnings, or the general
pisspoor performance of sparc hardware (vs other
RISC vendors)
>Look into Sun ONE some time -
>application stack for $100.
I'd rather look at x86/Alpha vs. SparcIII
performance statistics. A Sun box needs 2x to
3x the cpus just to keep up with a decent
architecture.
Why shell out for a datacenter grade box
(to get 12 or more sparc cpus) just to counteract
the sluggishness of the sparc processor? If there
were any justice in the market, DEC would have
put Sun out of business a long time ago.
The problem is, that for most stuff --even high end stuff-- linux does it well enough. Back in the day, big iron meant something. Guess what? A 32 way Sparc II 116 MHz system is blown away by a 4 way Intel 2GHz cpu. You can jam gigabytes of memory into commodity systems. And you can have a terabyte of disk storage with only a dozen commodity IDE drives (which are way faster than SCSI was 5 years ago.) And with Gigabit (or even 100 MegBit) Ethernet, the network can keep clustered CPUs busy.
Solaris *can* do what Linux can't, but with modern hardware, Linux doesn't *have* to.
Solaris *can* do what Linux can't, but with modern hardware, Linux doesn't *have* to.
SuSE is doing an excellenct job going after the desktop market. I think we will soon see a good deal of SuSE desktops in the future, Version 9.0 from what I understand will be a very good OS.
In itself, the share price fall could be described as a correction returning to May 2003 levels. Current price is still 50% more than the low of October 2002. There's still an opportunity to get strategy right.
See <A HREF="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SUNW&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=" TITLE="yahoo.com">SUNW share price.</a yahoo.com>
See <A HREF="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SUNW&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=" TITLE="yahoo.com">SUNW share price.</a yahoo.com>
I concur. And other posters have pointed the correct way forward. Bail on Solaris, standardize on SPARC/Linux. The hardware still has value just not the kind of value they seem to imagine. I'd rather see margins shrinking. It would demonstrate that they see the market share issue more clearly.
Is this a case of Bad management , poor marketing, bad decision making.. ? Maybe these things were there all along but now with Linux around they can no longer get away with it. In my opinion you could see this comming, Linux will kill off the Unix systems first before moving on to Microsoft.. I can't help but thinking that one hand is cutting the other off. Raymond's essays and theorys from the Cathedral and the Bazaar come to mind. If linux is to form the backbone of computing in the next ten years the traditional factory models will need to shift into service models to survive. RedHat has allready shown that software is a service industry and in the future those who don't make the suit will be closing there doors with the big exception being the game industry. But at the same swing does a service based industry mean the lack of inovation? Sun needs to find something it does well and stick to it, I am not a Solaris user but I am a Star Office user, there is no question they can do things right I just thing they have to get some prioritys straight.. Are we saying that Linux killed Sun, I'm not sure that's true, I think Linux needs Sun to move forward for our next stop , Microsoft...
Sure this is another iteration but Sun is selling best software on shitty hardware.
It would be really sad event for all Unices around: Sun has made from Unix what we know about it today. Be no Sun - would be no Unix. All standards - you will Sun teams behind them. NIS, NFS, NeWS, Java - that's just what I know.
They really was great company - but it looks like they are not able to swallow the pill of coming computing industry. They have tryed to be anti-M$ and learned a lot from M$ - and this is the major mistake they have made.
The thing is: man cannot make money on software anymore - since no-one can compete with M$. So Sun has found itself in position where is has a treasury which costs nothing - since no-one wants to buy it anymore...
It would be really sad event for all Unices around: Sun has made from Unix what we know about it today. Be no Sun - would be no Unix. All standards - you will Sun teams behind them. NIS, NFS, NeWS, Java - that's just what I know.
They really was great company - but it looks like they are not able to swallow the pill of coming computing industry. They have tryed to be anti-M$ and learned a lot from M$ - and this is the major mistake they have made.
The thing is: man cannot make money on software anymore - since no-one can compete with M$. So Sun has found itself in position where is has a treasury which costs nothing - since no-one wants to buy it anymore...
Like everthing else, it depends on what you're doing. The really insane thing is that, of all the Java JVM's out there, from what I've seen, the absolute dog slowest one is Sun's JVM running on SPARC! The Intel based JVMs - both Windows and Linux - run circles around the SPARCs. I've spent a lot of time in shops that run all three, and running on a SPARC is painful!
The worst problem is, even for their supposed superiority, they are BLOODY EXPENSIVE, unless you can buy them used... or pick them up as scrap when the boxes get replaced by cheaper, faster, x86 based servers. (How do you think I managed to get three Sun servers running on my home network?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
The worst problem is, even for their supposed superiority, they are BLOODY EXPENSIVE, unless you can buy them used... or pick them up as scrap when the boxes get replaced by cheaper, faster, x86 based servers. (How do you think I managed to get three Sun servers running on my home network?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
Sun is usually priced LOWER than comparable crappy "solutions". <A HREF="http://www.sun.com/emrkt/sunfirev480/" TITLE="sun.com">Here</a sun.com> is an example.
heh... Remember that the comparisons given are for running a server with WINDOWS. A good chunk of that price tag is the freaking MS tax you have to pay in order to connect any real number of clients.
Now, try comparing that with the same hardware running Linux.
(Having said that, your point is well taken that you really have to look at the full solution. The hardware is only part of the equation. Even the Linux box starts looking expensive when you add in all the licenses for RedHat enterprise level support.)
Now, try comparing that with the same hardware running Linux.
(Having said that, your point is well taken that you really have to look at the full solution. The hardware is only part of the equation. Even the Linux box starts looking expensive when you add in all the licenses for RedHat enterprise level support.)
We have bought CG (carrier grade) SMP (dual) server system.
We have bought Sun just because of its name in telecoms industry.
It costs 15 times more than my workstation - and works aprox 2 times slower. Fact. (*)
Comparable (by price) worstations from Sun (like Ultra 5/10) work roughly 5 times slower than my Athlon based workstation. Fact.
(*) Actually this kind of low performance was the whole point of buying SMP Sun system in the first place - to help performance.
We have bought Sun just because of its name in telecoms industry.
It costs 15 times more than my workstation - and works aprox 2 times slower. Fact. (*)
Comparable (by price) worstations from Sun (like Ultra 5/10) work roughly 5 times slower than my Athlon based workstation. Fact.
(*) Actually this kind of low performance was the whole point of buying SMP Sun system in the first place - to help performance.
Try either please before you comment. As a guide to comparison you might consider the SPEC or TPC figures for each, only Sun has stopped emabarassing itself by competing in either measure.
If SPARCiv gets out in a reasonable time then Sun might have a chance at retaining some of the dwindling (but VERY lucrative) UNIX market, but Sun doesn't have a history of meeting roadmap deadlines.
My suggestion - Sun should switch to Solaris on AMD64 now (I'm betting it will outperform the current SPARCs anyway) and work damn hard with AMD to scale the architecture. Drop the price of Solaris to compete with commercial Linux packages and make damn sure it works well with Linux. That should at least hold of Itanium for a bit, maybe until Sun make their mind up about where they want to be in ten years time.
If SPARCiv gets out in a reasonable time then Sun might have a chance at retaining some of the dwindling (but VERY lucrative) UNIX market, but Sun doesn't have a history of meeting roadmap deadlines.
My suggestion - Sun should switch to Solaris on AMD64 now (I'm betting it will outperform the current SPARCs anyway) and work damn hard with AMD to scale the architecture. Drop the price of Solaris to compete with commercial Linux packages and make damn sure it works well with Linux. That should at least hold of Itanium for a bit, maybe until Sun make their mind up about where they want to be in ten years time.
Isn't Sun leading in most TPC-H benchmarks with their recent server line? AFAIK Solaris IS cheaper then commercial packages.
I have used enough Sun/Sparc boxes (over 100 in our data center) to know. I have had more CPU boards, backplanes, and controllers fail on Sparcs taking down my production environments than I care to count. My IBM's first followed by HP, and Dell have significantly better track records.
Sounds like a crappy datacenter, or bad hardware
practices. I have never had any of the above fail
on a Sun. Disks dieing is the only real failures
we have had in our datacenters.
practices. I have never had any of the above fail
on a Sun. Disks dieing is the only real failures
we have had in our datacenters.
105 turtles strung together is still 105 turtles strung together. If you're LUCKY, the whole thing will scale well enough to perform as well as a smaller competitive RISC (or even intel) solution.
Have you ever used a Sun Blade 100 / 150? Their IO system is downright horrible. DMA is not enabled on the disk controller. And if you sneeze anywhere near the system, the mainboard will fail.
Sun used to make really good hardware, but the Blade 100/150 is just a $400 eMachines PC with a SPARC bolted on the mainboard (right down to the crappy Mach64 on the board).
Sun used to make really good hardware, but the Blade 100/150 is just a $400 eMachines PC with a SPARC bolted on the mainboard (right down to the crappy Mach64 on the board).
You know, you should really edit/proof messages such as yours before posting them. It's really hard to take someone seriously when they can't even post an error free message!
Maybe you should take one of my composition classes!
Signed,
English Teacher
Maybe you should take one of my composition classes!
Signed,
English Teacher
Hey Dickhead, English obviously isn't his first language. Let's see how well you communicate in his language before barfing your opinions on the rest of us. I feel sorry for any students in your class, you may well need to sign up for a class or two in compassion. Wanker...
Sorry for my English - it is fourth language I have learned. And third most intensively used language by me. Sorry for inconvience.
P.S. Languages in order of styding: Belarussian, Russian, French, English, German. Cannot speak only French - wasn't using it for a long time.
P.P.S. On-Topic: my reply to my price comment is here http://newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=33507&thresh<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> ld=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&tid=&pid=73721#739<nobr>7<wbr></nobr> 3
P.S. Languages in order of styding: Belarussian, Russian, French, English, German. Cannot speak only French - wasn't using it for a long time.
P.P.S. On-Topic: my reply to my price comment is here http://newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=33507&thresh<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> ld=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&tid=&pid=73721#739<nobr>7<wbr></nobr> 3
Well, it's probably not the only distro that runs on Sparc, but I've been running it for a while, and am very happy with the progress they've made. The <A HREF="http://auroralinux.org/index-aurora.html" TITLE="auroralinux.org">Aurora</a auroralinux.org> project has been around for a while, and is based on Red Hat (they are up to 7.3 at this point). Though they don't have a good automatic update service like Red Carpet, they do a pretty good job keeping up with the security bulletins from Red Hat so you can download the patched RPMs.
Debian runs on anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) I run it on sparc64, hppa..
> Debian runs on anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
True, but last time I checked, all the packages were something like 6 months to a year old! Debian is VERY conservative in releasing new packages. Nice thing is that they are stable, but don't expect to get all the new features that other people have already gotten used to on other distributions.
Aurora is a little behind the times, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are more than a half year ahead of the Debian packages.
(Of course, I'd love to have you prove me wrong...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
True, but last time I checked, all the packages were something like 6 months to a year old! Debian is VERY conservative in releasing new packages. Nice thing is that they are stable, but don't expect to get all the new features that other people have already gotten used to on other distributions.
Aurora is a little behind the times, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are more than a half year ahead of the Debian packages.
(Of course, I'd love to have you prove me wrong...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
Troubled, yes. An eventual buyout from a competitor (IBM) is a real possibility. But with due respect to the noted business analyst Eric Raymond, the fat lady hasn't sung yet. IBM was in a similar bind in 1992 before Gerstner was hired. Novell was also written off and may be making a comeback. Sun will dump McNealy, replace lots of top management, lay off thousands of workers, dump a few product lines and cancel some projects, and then we'll see what comes next. A lot of it is up to whoever comes after McNealy.
I thought the idea of OpenOffice.org is that it no longer depends on Sun for development.
I thought the idea of OpenOffice.org is that it no longer depends on Sun for development.
No way
Re:Dumping McNealy is like dumping Steve Jobs
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 02, 2003 11:51 PM
And apple would never, ever, *ever* dump Jobs, would they?
Oh hang on a tick, they did. Admittedly in the long run it didn't do them much good, and now he's back and running NeXT under a different name.
As for Sun, well, I use Sun gear and it's good but expensive. Solaris is a sturdy operating system, but unless you've been a Solaris BOFH since the planets were formed it does a lot to confuse you.
But to answer comments that Sun would've got on better if they'd embraced Linux, I think not. The Sun Way is to provide complete solutions. Hardware, software, support, updates, and so on all in one (admittedly expensive) package. Linux BOFHs tend to prefer to be given the hardware at a knockdown price, the software for free, and then not to worry about support because everything's available from TFM or TLDP or elsewhere. This is not compatible with The Sun Way.
And as for open-sourcing Java being their saviour, again I think not. Java licensing was about the only thing that made them any money in the 1990s.
Oh hang on a tick, they did. Admittedly in the long run it didn't do them much good, and now he's back and running NeXT under a different name.
As for Sun, well, I use Sun gear and it's good but expensive. Solaris is a sturdy operating system, but unless you've been a Solaris BOFH since the planets were formed it does a lot to confuse you.
But to answer comments that Sun would've got on better if they'd embraced Linux, I think not. The Sun Way is to provide complete solutions. Hardware, software, support, updates, and so on all in one (admittedly expensive) package. Linux BOFHs tend to prefer to be given the hardware at a knockdown price, the software for free, and then not to worry about support because everything's available from TFM or TLDP or elsewhere. This is not compatible with The Sun Way.
And as for open-sourcing Java being their saviour, again I think not. Java licensing was about the only thing that made them any money in the 1990s.
Re:Dumping McNealy is like dumping Steve Jobs
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 03, 2003 06:42 AM
They sold lots of hardware in the 90's. Java licensing was piddling incomparison.
"IBM was in a similar bind in 1992..." Really? Did IBM's stock prices drop as baddly as Sun's?
I'm sick and tiredof everybody writing them off as a has been. THey are STILL profitbale although the 1 billion tax charge made them decline in profit this and next quarter. THey're making alot of new sales.
Companies that are not profitabl seem to have higher stock prices. They are innovative and wonderful and I think the media should just lay off.
Sun has had troubles in the past and surpassed them.they will do it agian
WE NEED CONFIDENCE THATS ALL
Companies that are not profitabl seem to have higher stock prices. They are innovative and wonderful and I think the media should just lay off.
Sun has had troubles in the past and surpassed them.they will do it agian
WE NEED CONFIDENCE THATS ALL
They apparently didn't contribute to the Bush campaign...
Puzzling Questions Arise from Bush's Campaign of Fear
With the chicken hawk-driven war on Iraq in high gear, Bush and Cheney have learned that the best way to silence the Democratic Party, distract from their miserable domestic outrages and provide the corporate and rich classes with favors is to envelop our nation in fear.
With the chicken hawk-driven war on Iraq in high gear, Bush and Cheney have learned that the best way to silence the Democratic Party, distract from their miserable domestic outrages and provide the corporate and rich classes with favors is to envelop our nation in fear.
Perhaps Sun is "doomed", perhaps not. All things end, but I'd like to remind you that people were saying the same thing about IBM about 10 years ago when they started losing a ton of money. Guess what, IBM is still here and stronger than ever. The doomsayers were very very wrong.
There are very few corporate deaths of this magnatude. Sun will unlikely ever really "die" as an individual corporate entity. If they show signs of steady earnings weakness they will likely get bought. Their product line and customer base is too big and well entrenched to just go away. Being bought isn't usually the same thing as a company "going away". What usually happens is the staff is reorganized, priorities and goals are reshuffled, and the product list is trimmed a little, then re-released. I'm sure there are greedy eyes turning Sun's way already by companies with the financial power to stage a takeover. I'm sure IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, are all keeping an eye on Sun and speculating about "mutually advantageous contracts" if not a complete buyout.
There are very few corporate deaths of this magnatude. Sun will unlikely ever really "die" as an individual corporate entity. If they show signs of steady earnings weakness they will likely get bought. Their product line and customer base is too big and well entrenched to just go away. Being bought isn't usually the same thing as a company "going away". What usually happens is the staff is reorganized, priorities and goals are reshuffled, and the product list is trimmed a little, then re-released. I'm sure there are greedy eyes turning Sun's way already by companies with the financial power to stage a takeover. I'm sure IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, are all keeping an eye on Sun and speculating about "mutually advantageous contracts" if not a complete buyout.
With the current competitve legislation in the US it is unlikely IBM or HP would be allowed to buy Sun, and why should M$ or Oracle bother, they are software and not hardware companies?
Fujitsu-Siemens might have been a better bet if they hadn't pledged to use Itanium (they had the best SPARC design in SPARC64 too) or Hitachi?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....maybe, but would the US goverment let a foreign company buy Sun? Unlikely. Sun will have a problem finding someone who has the cash, limited overlaps in products AND a need to partner, the goverment OK and the will to buy it whole. Someone like EMC maybe.....
Fujitsu-Siemens might have been a better bet if they hadn't pledged to use Itanium (they had the best SPARC design in SPARC64 too) or Hitachi?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....maybe, but would the US goverment let a foreign company buy Sun? Unlikely. Sun will have a problem finding someone who has the cash, limited overlaps in products AND a need to partner, the goverment OK and the will to buy it whole. Someone like EMC maybe.....
In a few more months I'll be able to buy it with the jar of quarters from my kitchen counter.
I agree. Sun's large, zealous customer base won't let the company die, especially considering how good their technology is! I mean, just look at how those Alpha/VMS workstation users kept Digital alive!
Wait...
Wait...
While I will have hope for Sun, your example of IBM is easily countered by the example of Tektronix. It's true that Tek still exists and hasn't died, but it's just a shell of what it used to be. From what I've been told, in the '90s they missed the boat on the UNIX market by choosing a bad CPU (from what I've been told, it was even worse than Intel) and seem to have missed the boat on the consumer and mid-range printer market. They're basically kept alive these days by the high-end printer market.
The difference is, that Sun's stock is so low, it is too easy for hostile influences to take over. If I were running Sun, I'd be buying back stock on a MASSIVE scale. I don't think they've floated any investment since they split at the height of the dotcom, so the stock price doesn't matter, but hostile takeover, or investment corporation boardmembers could force something really stupid.
I'm a shareholder and I must say that when scott mcnealy decided to straighten the company out and place the tax charge to to this and next quater is great.
It's better that they take care of this than if they wait and add it to another quater. They are still profitbale although the 1 billion charge will pull them into red ink. Look at AMD, Transmeta, and other companies who are not making profits.
It takes time and patience. Plus, who could afford to buy out sun? Oracle? You'd have to have like 30 billion dollars in cash to buy them out. It's more likely that they will buy someone else out to try to make them more competetive.
The negative media just needs to get over it. I've seen this for years and Sun is still here. Sun just has a bad reputation. Whatever you do is don't sell your stock- youd loose alot of money. I think it might be wise to actually invest. If sun gets bought out then you make instant profit. If they don't youll have to wait until they get rid of the red ink.
ESR, why must you say crap that people have been saying for years and years about sun? guess what they are still here. They have superior products and I'm going to be using them.
If you think sun is going to die- think different.
If you think sun is going to get bought out, well tell me who has 30 billion dollars that would interested in buying sun
It's better that they take care of this than if they wait and add it to another quater. They are still profitbale although the 1 billion charge will pull them into red ink. Look at AMD, Transmeta, and other companies who are not making profits.
It takes time and patience. Plus, who could afford to buy out sun? Oracle? You'd have to have like 30 billion dollars in cash to buy them out. It's more likely that they will buy someone else out to try to make them more competetive.
The negative media just needs to get over it. I've seen this for years and Sun is still here. Sun just has a bad reputation. Whatever you do is don't sell your stock- youd loose alot of money. I think it might be wise to actually invest. If sun gets bought out then you make instant profit. If they don't youll have to wait until they get rid of the red ink.
ESR, why must you say crap that people have been saying for years and years about sun? guess what they are still here. They have superior products and I'm going to be using them.
If you think sun is going to die- think different.
If you think sun is going to get bought out, well tell me who has 30 billion dollars that would interested in buying sun
$30bn and interested in perhaps buying Sun. Um, Microsoft (probably would be blocked), Oracle (yes I know they are software, but it makes sense from a technical and engineering standpoint to buy Solaris outright), Fujitsu, NEC, Seimens, SAP, IBM (probably would be blocked), Hitachi. There are any number of domestic and foreign corporations that have the liquidity, or credit power, as well as the technical merits of adding Sun hardware and software to their products and solutions lineup. At Sun's currrent share prices (~$3.50/share) a hostile takeover by a physically smaller corporation with alot of onhand
eh. they'll get no tears from me.
Posted by: Martijn Vellinger on October 02, 2003 09:02 PMthey've systematically messed up every project they did, bad marketing, conflicting interests in the OS market, keeping java proprietary, ridiculously expensive servers that could have been replaced by clustered linux solutions, the list goes on and on.
goodbye sun, no hard feelings.
#