Sun blasts IBM, debunks acquisition rumour, sells Redhat, & more


News: Sun blasts IBM, debunks acquisition rumour, sells Redhat, & more

  1. This week Sun execs blasted IBM for "using Linux Torvalds" and exploiting the OSS community, expressed reservations about open-source Java, debunked any rumours about being acquired by IBM, and announced they will sell and support Red Hat Linux on x86.

    Related articles:

    Read Sun Exec Blasts IBM for Linux ....
    Q&A: Sun's Jonathan Schwartz on Java's future (talks about open source).
    Sun slips, CEO slams takeover talk.
    Sun will also sell and support all x86 versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux..
  2. <quote>
    "... strategy, saying, "IBM has been using Linus [Torvalds] like a tool and exploiting the open-source community." Those fightin' words come from Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice president for Sun's software group."

    Since the article is not talking much abt. technical stuff but business, i am asking the same questions.
    How IBM is exploiting? IBM sees (like many other), Linux is growing in a big way, so they want to do business. So is Sun. So is Oracle.
    Whats is wrong in supporting Linux? (I support linux, not b'cos its free. It works good for me. I can run it in my laptap).

    Spreading IP radiation? This happens all the time in business. It makes things clear. SCO (and probably MS) sees, IBM's support for Linux (may) make things worst for them. This gives credits to IBM.

    I dont see what Sun thinks wrong in this.
  3. Sun is making much noise. Probably they're just unhappy because they didn't jump on the Linux train before IBM did.
  4. Dazed and confused[ Go to top ]

    Even tho I have read this topic in another site I am not sure why this topic is in serverside. Since it has been posted here I think SUN is debunked on IBM being the first to see the light in Linux. If linux wasnt here I have little doubt that M$ would more or less rule the earth . It is linux that is putting damper in Windows expansion in the enterprise world and now linux is moving in the desktop. IBM was the first company to see linux as the OS of future that can stop windows where as on the other side Sun was very late to accept linux. I think linux has saved Java from .Net invasion what do you think.
  5. What a twist. Sun and Microsoft stand united in their hate of Linux (and IBM) in taking over their core business. Anyone heard any rumours lately about a upcoming Microsoft Sun buyout?

    If I may quote Jonathan Schwartz:

    In a very interesting way, now that we've settled the Java issue with respect to distribution, you know that's no longer an issue for Microsoft to manage explicitly. Who knows? Maybe we've got some partnering opportunities with Microsoft. We do have a common competitor in the form of IBM. ... If they would abide by the contract, we would love to work with them.

    I know a lot of smart people at Microsoft, and I know a lot of folks who are big fans of Java at Microsoft who are upset at what Microsoft did. And so hopefully, at some point, their management team will listen to some of those smart folks and we'll figure out a way to go work together on this. ... Volume speaks. When there are 100 million enabled handsets in the world and zero million SmartPhones in the world, volume has spoken.

    At the end of the day, they're failing on game machines. They're failing on set-top boxes. They're failing on handsets. They're failing on PDAs. They're succeeding in the one and only market in which they have ever succeeded -- the desktop.

    Is it only me or does this really sound like a love letter to Micro Willy.
  6. Ante up[ Go to top ]

    This rhetoric from SUN is tiresome. They are suffering from an inflection point in computer evolotion just like DEC, SGI, Amdahl, Wang, and, yes, even IBM.
     It took someone to role up their sleeves and refocus on buisness principals to
    pull IBM out of a nosedive. Sun needs this kind of leadership; not mindless blather and useless jokes about Microsoft. This kind of leadership brought us Java and good multi-CPU hardware that blew away the competion in the early '90's. But, now ,Sun's products are way off the price performance
    curve; that's why Linux-on-Intel is eating SUN's lunch from the bottom up.
     Sun has the advantge of a massive installed base and a an excellent OS.
    An OS they could still open source; this is one of IBM's strategy's with Linux- build a familiarity and branding with Linux on the low-end(Linux does not run as well on 8+ cpu macines) and drive home the TCO message with Linux on mainframes,an IBM mainframe and all the services that go with it.
     Sun has to deliver on the low end to hold the line. People would buy a SPARC
    PC with Star Office and some other open source goodies pre-installed for $1400 or less that runs Solaris with Gnome. This PC needs to run SDRAM that you could buy anywhere and numerous motherboard makers. Linux can break the Windows stranglehold when some key conditions are met. Sun could get their first.
    SUN needs hardware sales volume to hold down the cost of their systems.If theylose the low-to-middle tier; they're gone, just a matter of time.
      Time to Ante Up, SUN !
     Time to Ante Up,SUN !
  7. 1. IBM, DELL, HP stole its server market ( rather SUN never changed based on market conditions, in clear words sun is a LAZY company full of red tapizm)

    2. Linux stole solaris market and sun never realized the potential ( again LAZY behavior )

    ITs difficult to dsay but truth is Mcnealy sucks
  8. Linux and other Open Source goodies are good as along as they are directed against Windows.

    But the fact of the matter is they are like double-edged sword!

    SUN has to realize who their real competitor is. Well, at this point of time, it looks like Linux!

    Late realization!

  9. I'm not sure what to think of Johnathan. He is steward to Java and that has a direct impace on my life.

    I saw him give a keynote address at InfoWorld's Web Services conference last year. This was early on in his job as Java guy at Sun. He seemed to be a little wet behind the ears, but he did fine in the keynote. I asked a question during the Q&A "Are you taking .NET seriously?" I expected him to tell the audience about Sun's advances in interoperability, support for XML-based Web Services, and their developer outreach to the J2EE community. Instead, he got defensive and said more or less "of course we are serious about .NET" and not much more.

    Zoom forward to JavaOne... Johnathan was the host of the opening morning general session. Johnathan impressed me as a good host and thoughtful leader. His pitch made me see Java as a mature platform with a lot of opportunity to offer developers. I went with the press folks to the private Q&A after the general session and found the old Johnathan. His answers were curt and had that we-are-Sun-so-everything-we-do-is-good flare.

    It seems to me that Johnathan will do much better for the Java platform if he saves the hard-talking business manager rehtoric for the office. For example, in the Computerworld IT article linked above he doesn't seem to credit IBM as a Sun partner in Java's success enough. IBM was there to help Sun fight against Microsoft very early on in Java's life. And just because IBM is stumbling now I don't see that as the right time for Sun to make jabs at IBM. The .NET platform looks very, very good for small and medium sized enterprise developers. These developers are the same ones that will get Java to 10 million developers. And it doesn't look likely that Sun will be able to get to those developers by itself as efficiently as if it were to partner with IBM.

    For me it boils down to this... with maturity the Java platform and its spokespeople need to be more like statespeople and less like soldiers.

    -Frank Cohen
    TestMaker 4.0 now records test scripts automatically
  10. Recent quotes from Sun executives:

    "Linux Users don't really want Linux"

    "IBM has been using Linus [Torvalds] like a tool and exploiting the open-source community."

    "Call me opportunistic, but this is a huge opening for Sun, so we are moving quickly and aggressively to capitalize on it"

    All of these remarks have one thing in common: they reek of desperation. The simultaneous attempt to begin marketing your own Red Hat servers, and to scare IBM AIX users into switching to Solaris, demonstrates a complete lack of direction. It is a game plan that, while showing little promise of actually working, has a tremendous downside (alienating the very community that may hold the key to your future).

    IP Radiation? This takes FUD to a level previously only attainable by Microsoft itself!

    Exploitation? If you call the donation of hundreds of millions of dollars: in cash, donations of IP, and of resources like research labs, then, by all means, keep that exploitation coming please.
    Based on these quotes, I will indeed call you opportunistic. I will also call you a fool; for it is the height of foolishness to gain a short term advantage against a competitor at the expense of sacrificing your credibility with a large community that is steadily gaining momentum (as well as influence) in many of the same enterprises where you will soon be hawking your wares. If this is the best strategic vision you can come up with, then I feel truly sorry for your shareholders.
  11. The simultaneous attempt to begin marketing your own Red Hat servers, and to >scare IBM AIX users into switching to Solaris, demonstrates a complete lack of >direction.

    Linux currently does not scale above 8 processors. It is not capable of replacing high end AIX servers. Solaris can.
  12. A Brief Clarification[ Go to top ]

    That is true, and there are many other technical reasons why one might choose Solaris over Linux. I was not intending to suggest that Linux and Solaris are equivalent; if I gave that impression it was unintentional.

    My intention was to point out the hypocrisy of becoming a Linux vendor while at the same time trying to use the SCO affair, which is targeted at the whole Linux community, not just IBM, in order to sell Solaris. I also think that this demonstrates a lack of direction at Sun, where, on the one hand, you have McNealy declaring that Linux users don't want Linux, what they really want is Solaris on the x86, while at the same time his sales department is selling Linux on x86 servers. Sun has, over the past few years, oscillated between a strategy of pushing Solaris on the x86 platform, and of pushing Linux. In fact they have had Solaris for the x86 for many years, but they never really put much effort into marketing it, and a couple of years ago they discontinued it. Recently they have reintroduced it. But, after so much waffling, it is hard to tell for how long it will be around, especially when at the same time they are oscillating between warm and cold on their approach to Linux.

    I have no problem with Solaris, either on Sparc or on the x86. I think Solaris is a great OS, and would be happy to see it succeed on the x86. The problem is that in choosing Solaris on the x86 you need to trust that Sun will be serious about it this time around, and will stick with it. Their track record on promoting and supporting Solaris on the x86 has not been very good.

    So, to sum it all up: I like Solaris, I like Java, and I like a lot of other technologies that Sun has developed. What I don't like is the short sighted, opportunistic approach they have taken to marketing their technologies. I think it will not only hurt the rest of the industry, but I think ultimately it will backfire on Sun, and will hurt them as well. It is a shame to see a company like Sun resort to such tactics.
  13. RE: A Brief Clarification[ Go to top ]

    My intention was to point out the hypocrisy of becoming a Linux vendor while >at the same time trying to use the SCO affair, which is targeted at the whole >Linux community, not just IBM, in order to sell Solaris.

    I guess we just have different points of view. To you, it seems like hypocrisy. To me it's just normal to take advantage of a business opportunity. No one's out to do charity here.

    > McNealy declaring that Linux users don't want Linux

    Can you point me to this article on the web ? I haven't come across it.

    I guess what he meant was that customers want low cost computing. That's still possible with Solaris on x86 (you don't necessarily need Linux). It will be more scalable in computing than Linux x86. For customers who prefer to use open-source software, Sun will deliver Linux on x86.

    I think that you're right that Sun does need to convince the market about their seriousness about Solaris x86.
  14. RE:[ Go to top ]

    I can't seem to find the article that I got that from either. To the best of my memory he said: Linux Users don't actually want Linux, what they want is a low cost Unix on the x86 platform. And, although I fully agree that Solaris is a good low cost OS on the x86, I disagree that Linux users are only interested in Linux because they havent had another option, such as Solaris on the x86, as his statements imply. Solaris has been available on the x86 for a long time and has not slowed down the adoption of Linux so far.

    I think that you are correct that we just don't see this the same way. I think it is bad business to take advantage of a situation that so many potential customer are in such strong disagreement about. Those people will remember how you tried to take advantage of what they consider the unethical actions of another company, and I think that the ill will that this will foster is not worth any short term gains.

    I hope, as do you, that Sun is able to convice people that they are commited to x86, and hopefully to a 64 bit Solaris on the Opteron as well. It just dosen't appear to me that they are off to a good start

  15. Lost 92% of value?[ Go to top ]

    Sun lost 92% of its market value.. they are bound for acquisition or merger. Only thing holding it up is their cash
  16. Lost 92% of value?[ Go to top ]

    If they only lost 92% of their irrationally hyped dot-com era value, then they're doing pretty well. Many high tech companies lost 100% of their value (i.e. they're dead and gone), and most high tech companies in the dot-com sector that I've looked at lost over 99% of their value. Several companies that I watch closely have a market cap that barely exceeds their cash, meaning the company value (according to the market, and without the cash) is zero. Some companies don't even have a market cap that matches their cash, which means you could theoretically buy the company, fire everyone, and have money left over.

    Unlike many other companies, Sun actually has products, and people actually buy them. Lots of things "inhale vigorously" about Sun, but they're still doing better than 90% of the industry.


    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  17. And the concerns I have about SUN is their future. Very few companies over 10 years old can go down in a day just like that. so SUN is no different. The real concern is the future. its losing money every quarter for almost 2 years now and the fact is they havent figured out a good strategy to get out of the mess. And its pretty clear to everyone including Scott Mcnealy and u can see their desperate attempts in recent times.
       Most of the better managed companies have recovered - hp, dell, oracle, csco, ( ibm & MSFT - never wnet down that much ) also the retail / b 2 c sector like amazon, ebay etc have come back up great. So whats up with SUN ??
       Isnt it ironic that most of the investing companies say a HOLD or DONT BUY for sun with medium to high risk.
       Server market is slipping away from SUN - for sure they arent in top 3. Linux is killing solaris. I doubt Sun One or N1 or whatever shi* they call it is going to be a hit. Oracle CEO tried it, but no luck. Its a waste.
       So with all due respect and Holy peace to Mr. Peace - Cameron Purdy, please enlighten me as to what under the sun is SUN doing to get out of the mess.