| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Screw SunScrew SunPosted Aug 1, 2003 13:27 UTC (Fri) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620)In reply to: Screw Sun by fx Parent article: Sun Sees Road To Prosperity Paved With Its Own Products (TechWeb) >>I think SUN has great character. Let's look at some facts<< How about these facts? Sun claims to support OSS while secretly stabing the oss community in the back - and McSquealy gloating about it. >>their profits are now virtually nil indeed. But, their financial fundamentals are sound<< Profits? What profits? Looks to me like sunw lost 75 cents a share in the last four quarters. Fundamentals are sound? Here are the facts, read 'em and weap. --------------------------- Earnings (ttm) -$0.75 http://biz.yahoo.com/p/s/sunw.html
(Log in to post comments)
Screw Sun Posted Aug 2, 2003 7:53 UTC (Sat) by fx (guest, #12077) [Link] You start by indicating you would present facts, but all you do is shout. Unless you bring some real evidence to the table your "stabing in the back" statement has no value.You don't seem to understand the basics about financials:
Screw Sun Posted Aug 2, 2003 13:23 UTC (Sat) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] The facts of the matter are well established. I certainly provided facts about Sun's financial fundamentals. McNealy certainly did make huge fud donations to scox, and - unlike msft - Sun tried to keep those donations secret for as long as possible. And in return for those FUD donations, SUN got a butt-load of SCO option for $1.83 each - scox's share price now $13.25. Note: getting a boat-load of options in not normal for a legitimate purchase. Also in return for fud donation, sunw linux has been blessed by scox (as if scox has the right to pronounce one version of linux and another version of linux illegal). And listen to McSquealy gloat about it:<< "Don't touch open source software unless you have a team of intellectual property lawyers prepared to scour every single piece [of the open source code]. We offer indemnification, but many suppliers do not. A lot of companies are going to get very disappointed as we move forward. It will become a very challenging intellectual property issue," he told Sun's Technology Forum in St Andrews, Scotland, this week. >> hp://www.infoconomy.com/pages/news-and-gossip/group83187.adp
Screw Sun Posted Aug 2, 2003 18:23 UTC (Sat) by fx (guest, #12077) [Link] So, in your view SUN engineered a secret plot to undermine Linux, they did all that using a Linux company (SCO) and McNealy convinced his friend Gates to get involved as well.In the mean time SUN kept allocating resources to key OSS projects, put some great Linux servers (V60X and V65X) on the market and decided to become a Red Hat and Suse reseller. LOL
Screw Sun Posted Aug 2, 2003 18:52 UTC (Sat) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] Apparently you are still in denial. Face it, sunw is in bed with scox, it's a fact. I never said mcnealy convinced gates of anything.Sunw likes to use oss as a stick to beat msft, sunw doesn't like it when ibm uses oss as a stick to beat sunw. That is why sunw is so on-again-off-again about oss. sunw claims to be a great oss supporter, but the fact is that sunw is working hand-in-hand with scox. sunw may not have engineered the plot, but sunw was quick to jump in on it. sunw didn't talk to gates, but sunw doesn't mind their business partner -scox- bringing gates aboard. Sunw wants the support of the open source community, but sunw doesn't like competing against enterprise level linux. Why do you think so many options for scox were transfered to sunw? How do you explain mcnealy's statements about only sunw products being "guarenteed legal" ? I time to stop being a sunw religious zealot, and time to start looking at the facts: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/cnet/stories/1024633.htm
Screw Sun Posted Aug 2, 2003 19:58 UTC (Sat) by fx (guest, #12077) [Link] So SUN has got SCO options. That's pretty smart thinking from McNealy. Apparently SCO owns a significant amount of UNIX copyrights. SCO can use these rights as a lever to make everybody's life miserable: SUN, IBM, HP, SGI and others all depend on SCO for these licenses. By becoming a (potential) SCO shareholder SCO's relative power over SUN decreases and SUN's power over the others increases. You could describe that as SUN and SCO being in bed. So what? Anything wrong with that? IMHO SUN was probably first to realise SCO was starting to capitalize on it's UNIX copyrights and was the first company to make the right move.As UNIX is SUN's core business they want to keep as many options open as possible, so when SCO introduced a new UNIX licensing scheme earlier this year, SUN simply paid. Anything wrong with that? When SCO went after IBM, McNealy obviously had a laugh. He moved quickly to take advantage of the situation by announcing SUN had all the appropriate licenses. That's not very nice, but hey, you don't survive two decades in IT just by being a nice guy. Try to look at it this way. Right now there are two kinds of companies considering Linux: those who don't care about the SCO mess, and those who do care and might refrain from using Linux because of legal issues (no matter how ridiculous SCO's claims are). For those who don't care, nothing changes. Those who do have some concerns can now buy Linux systems from SUN and they don't need to worry about anything. So, looking at it this way, SUN is actually doing the Linux community another favour. I'm not denying McNealy doesn't like Linux. Apparently the man has a decapitated penguin in his office. On the other hand market forces can't be ignored forever and SUN is slowly moving towards Linux.
|
|
||||||||||||