Sun: Linux Users Don't Actually Want Linux (TechWeb)

Posted Jun 11, 2003 13:33 UTC (Wed) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

Interesting.

Point 1: Solaris on Intel processors was out long ago. Years. It never really caught on, certainly not to the degree that Linux did. Does nobody remember this? I suspect that many of us who were trying to convince our research groups to move from Solaris on Suns to Linux on PCs do.

Point 2: Get with the program. This borrows from some FUD which is three or four years out of date (e.g. the fragmentation worries, etc).

-Rob

Posted Jun 11, 2003 13:52 UTC (Wed) by lpbbear (guest, #4827) [Link]

I'm not going to bother reading the article, the quote is bad enough.

"The enthusiasm isn't about Linux, it's about access to Intel and the ability to run Unix on what seems to be a cheaper platform."

What a maroon!

Posted Jun 11, 2003 13:53 UTC (Wed) by phython (subscriber, #3278) [Link]

This article also doesn't mention that GNU/Linux runs on most good hardware as well as x86. I personally run GNU/Linux on my UltraSPARC box because solaris is horrible to use.

Posted Jun 11, 2003 14:03 UTC (Wed) by cr (guest, #3685) [Link]

Sun Microsystems, for all its many contributions to the FLOSS community, has a bad history of waffling on its public Linux stance, and it costs them every time they twist, not only in their perceived trustworthiness within that community, but in the marketplace.

Why did SMI withdraw their Solaris-On-Intel from the market, again? And how many irate former, current and would-be customers did it take to get SMI to reinstate that program? Throughout that period, where some businesses were stuck with their IT plans committed to orphaned Solaris installations, GNU/Apache/Artistic/X/Linux and *BSD were THERE, unretractable, and those who had built their infrastructure and business plans on them could pat themselves on the back for having dodged a bullet fired at them by Sun.

Now, a matter of months since Scott got publicly serious about Linux, Sun is once again flogging SOI by badmouthing Linux, and it's as predictable as it is disappointing. How long will it be before Sun once again decides that SOI isn't worth the ROI compared to Solaris-On-Sparc and pulls the plug? How many converts will they make to FLOSS this time by their demonstration that proprietary solutions can be yanked from the marketplace on a whim but FLOSS is forever?

Guys, there IS a ladder effect here, as IBM has figured out to their profit. Linux is growing in capability, eating away at the proprietary bottom-end, and that trend is nonstop and unidirectional. You can sell Solaris-On-Sparc big-iron if you put the R&D into it to keep its top end moving, well away from the FLOSS erosion-line, and if you offer a smooth upgrade path that makes business sense. Nobody's going to trust you enough to step on that ladder, though, if you continue as you have, being catty and sycophantic by turns, and it hurts all of us in the UNIX world. Grow some marketing maturity, please.

Posted Jun 11, 2003 15:09 UTC (Wed) by joib (guest, #8541) [Link]

Of course they have to comment on the SCO lawsuit too, but that doesn't go so well for them:

"""
Later, SCO sent a letter to about 1,500 big corporations warning that if they use SCO they, too, could be liable.
"""

Better avoid that SCO thing and use Linux! :)

Posted Jun 11, 2003 15:27 UTC (Wed) by Odysseus (guest, #11518) [Link]

As Delenn would say, "Sun, You've lost your way."

That's a Babylon 5 reference, for anyone who doesn't know.

As Henry Spencer might say (paraphrased), "those who forget passion and become corporate drones are not likely to recognize it when it hits them upside the head."

or something like that.

Posted Jun 11, 2003 15:44 UTC (Wed) by libra (guest, #2515) [Link]

It is true that from my point of view "Linux" is not what I want.

First of all I must say that I would greatly prefer a GNU/HURD system to a GNU/Linux one for reasons related to the internal architecture of the kernel (but that is quite another debate).

Then I must say that "Linux" or GNU/Linux to be precise, is not the goal, it is a way to achieve a goal. That goal is to have open IT architecture that users can master, improve and lead the way it is beneficial to them without being bound to some exclusive vendors. And even that goal is not the real goal, for the real goal is
- to be able to share knowledge
- to make things work the way they should, not the way others want to impose us
- to do science and real work instead of running after problems that should never have existed (sometime called bugs, sometime called features)
- and finally the most important for me, to gain more freedom (or at least not to lose some we have)

Of course some may not completly agree with this point of view, and they are free to do so. But it is mine, and I think (hope) that some people share it.

Posted Jun 11, 2003 15:46 UTC (Wed) by dcp (guest, #11806) [Link]

Yes It's well known that Linux users do want Sun Solaris. ;)

Posted Jun 11, 2003 19:32 UTC (Wed) by trimtab (guest, #11812) [Link]

Suns commitment to Intel has always been flaky. As someone who used Sun386i's back in 1988 only to watch them kill the line in favor of SPARC a year later, I know that Sun cannot be trusted to support customers on even pseudo commodity (the 386i was essentially an $8000 PC with a 1152x864 19" screen running Sunview with virtual DOS capabilities) platforms.

The 386i was cheap compared to SPARC or Sun3 (68000) systems. (The SPARCstation 1 was introduced at $9999.) The 386i ran DOS, early Windows and Sun applications. It even could run PC software using the large screen that would costs thousands more if used on Sun's SPARC platforms. That coupled witb the ISA bus that made parallel ports and other peripherals $50 rather $500 for the SPARC boxen gave the Sun386i a cost advantage to *customers*. (These are 1988 prices back when RAM was $450 per Megabyte. Before Windows 3.x. When PC screens were 640x480 VGA.)

Sun bought Interactive (a unix SysV on Intel) in 1992. Used some of that technology to create Solaris on Intel. Drove as many Interactive customers to Solaris on Intel as it could and then pretty much killed it by ignoring it. Then reviving it and then ignoring it again. Sun on Intel continues to cycle through these love/hate cycles and customers get whip sawed when they trust Sun.

Historically, the proprietary software and hardware industries have been about convincing customers to pay a vendor to purchase their own handcuffs. Basically, the bargain is "pay us to solve this problem today in exchange for restricting your options tomorrow, unless you pay us more money." It is a bad bargain and has become an even worse bargain as the implied "competitive advantage" offered by the vendors erodes to "no advantage" at a faster and faster rate.

Customers want Linux! Because it places them in control allowing the customer to play the vendors against each other. Sun is fooling themselves if they don't think that customers want that control.

Posted Jun 11, 2003 23:25 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]

> The enthusiasm isn't about Linux, it's about access to Intel and the
> ability to run Unix on what seems to be a cheaper platform.

As others have pointed out, that was being offered with Solaris on Intel, and there wasn't a heck of a lot of enthusiasm for that.

What is different about GNU/Linux then? It's free software. That freedom is what fuels the enthusiasm and simultaneously enables it to bring results.

Sun are already aware of the enthusiasm that surrounds free software, as shown by their actions with OpenOffice (converted from proprietary software to free software, and hugely popular as a result) and GNOME (loads of development effort contributed to an existing free software project, with massive improvement as a result). Yet they still cling to the idea of non-free infrastructure (Solaris operating system, Java programming environment) as if it were still relevant.

They will realise that free software is always preferable to anyone given the choice. What remains to be seen is whether they realise it in time to save their company.