Screw Sun [LWN.net]

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 30, 2003 20:08 UTC (Wed) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207)
In reply to: Screw Sun by walterbyrd
Parent article: Sun Sees Road To Prosperity Paved With Its Own Products (TechWeb)

I wouldn't be so harsh on Sun. Even if you don't agree with their pricing proposal (which isn't all that different to United Linux or Lindows, after all), this might just be the impetus that desktop GNU/Linux needs.

With 60 PC vendors, including Dell, lining up to bundle Mad Hatter on their hardware, by fair means or foul this will result in more installations of GNU/Linux ending up corporate desktops, and that's a Good Thing.

> Sun has a CEO who really is as mad as a hatter

Scott McNealy certainly has got his priorities wrong in the past, focusing too much on proprietary Unix, and the licensing deal with SCO earlier this year has many of us holding our noses, but this is the real world where big public companies need to make real money to survive. Mad Hatter GNU/Linux may not be distributed and sold in a way that is to Richard Stallman's liking, but it's still GNU/Linux, and it's a step in the right direction for Sun.

(Log in to post comments)

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 30, 2003 20:51 UTC (Wed) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

> it's a step in the right direction for Sun

Frankly, I don't trust Sun or IBM anymore than SCO. So far IBM and Sun have played nicely with OSS but I have a long memory and have been hurt before. The proof will be in the pudding and I'll wait till I see the details.

Hopefully they'll continue to remember why UNIX failed to become the dominant platform it could have become. Unless they want to hand the remainder of the business computing market over to MS they will continue to play nice. But with statements like:

The secret to gaining the upper hand in the market for large IT systems--which include hardware, software, and operating system--is to leverage one's intellectual property rather than become beholden to the cookie-cutter chips and operating systems produced by Intel, Microsoft, and even Red Hat, said Jonathan Schwartz

It sounds to me that they still haven't learned anything yet. I will not buy custom OSes that are platform specific anymore. I will only buy cookie-cutters. I don't care if I can't make the latest or greatest custom cookies, I can't afford to.

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 30, 2003 21:52 UTC (Wed) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link]

You make some good points. Like you say, we'll have to wait and see.

It seems to me that Schwartz's statement really boils down to the fact that Sun prefers to roll its own desktop/workstation distribution of GNU/Linux, rather than depend on any other vendor's distribution (Red Hat), and they're certainly not going to depend on Microsoft for providing an OS.

But if PC makers are indeed going to be bundling Mad Hatter on their hardware, then surely it's going to be a "cookie-cutter" desktop OS to some extent (inasmuch as Red Hat Linux is one, for example), in order to work with standard PC hardware.

I can't believe that it's going to be in Sun's interest to "embrace and extend" (i.e. copy, then make incompatible) GNU/Linux. Rather, their version will be as standards compliant as any other distribution (it'll be LSB, for sure). Sure they'll have proprietary extensions, but what commercial distribution doesn't?

What I also read from Schwartz's statement, is that it looks like Sun is going to push Mad Hatter on their Sparc (non-Intel) workstations too. Good; even more GNU/Linux on desktops.

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 31, 2003 1:51 UTC (Thu) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link]

>>I don't trust Sun or IBM anymore than SCO.<<

Sun I understand, but IBM has performed admirably in all this.

>>So far IBM and Sun have played nicely with OSS<<

Are you kidding? Not Sun! Peguin-suit McNealy secretly climbing into bed with the company that is trying to kill linux? Hell, at least msft was honest about it. IBM, on the other hand, have become my hero. Why on earth would you lump IBM with SCO/SUNW/MSFT?

>>but I have a long memory and have been hurt before. The proof will be in the pudding and I'll wait till I see the details. <<

Good. Remember this when Sun tries to either steal Linux, and turn it into their proprietary product.

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 31, 2003 2:19 UTC (Thu) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

I've been around long enough to remember IBM long before they found OSS religion. You don't even have to go that far back either. Remember the Microchannel bus. I'd keep a sharp eye on them as well.

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 31, 2003 14:08 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

You better believe it! As much as I want IBM to get out of this thing, I would hate to see it happen along with damage to the OSS movement.

It is *very important* to remember that IBM has a long, deep grudge against Microsoft because of the way the OS/2 situation came out (IBM was expecting to get OS2/Microchannel running everywhere, and instead, their major code contributor (Microsoft) managed to weasel its way to Windows NT/XP, etc. Of course, they did it by bolting the beginnings (the non-exclusive parts of OS/2) on top of DOS, and later switching the underpinnings to a VMS-like system, with the help of former DEC employees.)

I thought it might be obvious by now, but this whole thing over Linux is a part of that struggle between IBM and Microsoft. I would be willing to bet that if IBM had never gotten involved with Linux, some kind of reconcilliation would have happened between the proprietary and free unices by now.

I think IBM is hoping that Linux will be it's "silver bullet" against Microsoft.

Truth to tell, the more I think about it, the more I think IBM should have bought SCO outright, straigntened the copyright/patent tangles, and moved on.

But then, I'm not a shrewd businessman (even though I'm a U.S. citizen ;) and I'm only blowing smoke. Still, there's my 2 cents.

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 31, 2003 14:25 UTC (Thu) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

> Truth to tell, the more I think about it, the more I think IBM should have bought SCO outright, straigntened the copyright/patent tangles, and moved on.

Consider that they may not want to.

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 31, 2003 15:45 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

Question:

Have there been any discussions (worth reading) about the pro's and con's of an IBM buyout of SCO? If so, could someone please post some links?

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 31, 2003 16:00 UTC (Thu) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

I was referring to the pros and cons of IBM letting this legal question surrounding Linux to fester for the next couple of years.

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 31, 2003 19:13 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]

I was referring to the pros and cons of IBM letting this legal question surrounding Linux to fester for the next couple of years.

That would be an irrational course of action for IBM, since a large (and growing) part of their business is based on the continued success of Linux.

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 31, 2003 14:40 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]

Are you kidding? Not Sun! Peguin-suit McNealy secretly climbing into bed with the company that is trying to kill linux?

Beware of Sun CEOs wearing penguin suits.

http://www.visi.com/~m16/penguin.gif [warning: ~440KB on a slow shared server]

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 31, 2003 1:44 UTC (Thu) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link]

>>Even if you don't agree with their pricing proposal (which isn't all that different to United Linux or Lindows, after all<<

What's so good about Lindows? What is the point of united linux? With SCO gone, I think there are two companies in united linux, and only SuSe matters.

>>With 60 PC vendors, including Dell, lining up to bundle Mad Hatter on their hardware, by fair means or foul this will result in more installations of GNU/Linux ending up corporate desktops, and that's a Good Thing<<

Is it? Who knows what sneaky McNealy is up to? McNasty just announced today that he pleased to have the only legal version of linux.

>>Scott McNealy certainly has got his priorities wrong in the past, focusing too much on proprietary Unix, and the licensing deal with SCO<<

But that was long ago, and we all trust him now, right? Don't be niave.

Screw Sun

Posted Jul 31, 2003 3:06 UTC (Thu) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link]

McNasty just announced today that he pleased to have the only legal version of linux.

He did?! :-o

I concede that's an outragous statement, and is completely out of order. It does seem typical of his blundering and lack of vision: By saying that he's effectively backing a loser, beceause IBM's lawyers are going to wipe the floor with SCO, and then IBM will probably buy the System V copyrights when SCO go bankrupt.

But that was long ago, and we all trust him now, right? Don't be naive.

I stand corrected.