Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageRecent Features
| |||||||||||||
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek)
If you're still curious about Sun's approach to Linux, read this eWeek
interview with Jonathan Schwartz, the company's software VP.
"Also, let me really clear about our Linux strategy. We don't have
one. We don't at all. We do not believe that Linux plays a role on the
server. Period. If you want to buy it, we will sell it to you, but we
believe that Solaris is a better alternative, that is safer, more robust,
higher quality and dramatically less expensive in purchase price."
(Log in to post comments)
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 19, 2003 22:39 UTC (Fri) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 19, 2003 22:47 UTC (Fri) by parimi (subscriber, #5773) [Link] Also, let me really clear about our Linux strategy. We don't have one. We don't at all. We do not believe that Linux plays a role on the server. Period.I feel sorry for Schwartz. From the very beginning Sun has been shaky about its stance on Linux. So many companies are migrating from Solaris to Linux and he still believes Linux is not fit for the Server? Is he smoking crack ?
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 0:56 UTC (Sat) by Zakaelri (guest, #15087) [Link] I heard he steals Darl's when Darl isn't looking ;)
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 22, 2003 18:16 UTC (Mon) by fx (guest, #12077) [Link] So what does Linux have that Solaris hasn't? Solaris for example supports hot-swap memory and CPU. Solaris also has a multi-threading model that's way more mature than Linux's.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 19, 2003 22:50 UTC (Fri) by namaseit (guest, #13940) [Link] No surprise there...
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 19, 2003 22:54 UTC (Fri) by russell (subscriber, #10458) [Link] I think the name "Java Enterprise System" says it all. It's a linux distribution with MINIMAL if any java applications in it. They take other peoples work ( legally ), deceive people about what it contains by the name they choose, and then slap their benefactors in the face.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 22, 2003 18:22 UTC (Mon) by fx (guest, #12077) [Link] If those who wrote the code would not have wanted SUN to take it and slap them in the face afterwards they should not have choosen the GPL. Anyone can take any piece of GPL code, wrap his own brand name around it and sell. Hell, that's what RedHat and all the other distro's do.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 19, 2003 23:12 UTC (Fri) by captrb (subscriber, #2291) [Link] You know what? Solaris IS more stable. I'm glad my database is running on Solaris/Sparc, it makes me feel safe. On the other hand, I just waited 3 1/2 hours for the latest Solaris patches to get installed on my rinky dink Solaris/Sparc webserver. This makes me angry. I wish it was running Debian, because it would have been a ten minute process instead of a 4 1/2 hour one. Does Linux belong on the server? I guess it does if you want to manage your servers quickly, easily, and cheaply. Does it belong on your database server? Maybe it will soon, I haven't commited to that... yet. Sun needs to clean up the rough edges around Solaris. Stop writing all the fancy and useless new management tools in Java and make something useful, like apt.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 19, 2003 23:49 UTC (Fri) by tungub (guest, #4560) [Link] Oracle doesn't seem to share your opinion:http://www.oracle.com/linux/
Oracle's opinion Posted Sep 20, 2003 2:02 UTC (Sat) by dang (guest, #310) [Link] Oracle meeds to pick up the pace if they want folks hosting oracle on linux. Right now you have a choice between running a crap old linux kernel or running a recent kernel but losing official oracle support. If your company is mature and if the DB needs to do heavy lifting, then it will remain tricky to go linux as long as Oracle is so freaking slow to certify.
Oracle's opinion Posted Sep 20, 2003 5:16 UTC (Sat) by huaz (guest, #10168) [Link] But why do you need a fancy kernel for a database server?For database you need stability. The kernel should be as simple as possible. If Linux wants to get really deployed in five nine's environment, the above is crucial. Don't blame vendors for not "picking up quickly".
Oracle's opinion Posted Sep 20, 2003 17:12 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] Well, you wont need it now, but as soon as 2.6 is ready, it WILL be important (or, at least faster) because of the much better threading provided by NLPT, which database servers seem to like...But I guess you wouldn't want to use a .0-.10 for important data...
Oracle's opinion Posted Sep 20, 2003 18:09 UTC (Sat) by dang (guest, #310) [Link] Who said anything about fancy?? Take a hard look at what Oracle lists as certified for Oracle 8i. Would you run *anything* on that? C'mon.
Linux vs Solaris stability Posted Sep 20, 2003 0:11 UTC (Sat) by raph (guest, #326) [Link] This sounds like the kind of thing that can and should be measured quantitatively. It wouldn't be cheap to do, but should be relatively straightforward. Just put both OS's on identical hardware, put an insane application load on it (near out-of-memory conditions, saturated network, etc.), and see how many crashes you get.In the meantime, readers may find this survey from the sunmanagers mailing list interesting.
Linux vs Solaris stability Posted Sep 20, 2003 1:31 UTC (Sat) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] Wow. And that on a list likely to be inhabited by Sun Worshipers. Very fair and balanced look at the world as it existed two years ago. And most of the problems identified have been addressed.
Linux vs Solaris stability Posted Sep 22, 2003 8:19 UTC (Mon) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] put an insane application load on it (near out-of-memory conditions, saturated network, etc.At work I test x86 hardware with Linux. I have seen some load related bugs. We prefer the e100 driver to the epro100 for this reason. I've seen one or two SCSI driver problems that were related to load. But really load related bugs are rare. When you do find a software bug, you just fix it... For example last week, we hired a consultant to fix a kernel bug in handling large RAID arrays. Basically, I don't think it is possible to compare the two operating systems that way. If you could trigger bugs that easily the bugs would be noticed and fixed already.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 0:40 UTC (Sat) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] You know what? Solaris IS more stable.Well, maybe. Solaris does scale better, but the user space tools are old and crappy. To be fair, I haven't used Solaris for several years, but last time I did they shipped ancient versions of Unix tools like lex and yacc. I had to install a bunch of GNU software to get anything useful done. In fact, I don't know anyone who uses Solaris without installing a bunch of GNU software. They probably even ship it now, or they should.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 2:13 UTC (Sat) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] In fact, I don't know anyone who uses Solaris without installing a bunch of GNU software. They probably even ship it now, or they should.Yup, at least they shipped it with Solaris 8, which is the last one I glanced at.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 7:08 UTC (Sat) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] How do they get around the "unless that component itself accompanies the executable" exception-to-the-system-libs-exception in the GPL? Or do they just ignore that?
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 16:57 UTC (Sat) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] You mean this:For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. I don't see that the exception or the exception to the exception even come into play here. Look at the definition of "complete source code". The Solaris 8 free software CD has all the source code and build/install scripts, since it has the source tarballs that everyone distributes. I'm not clear on the "interface definition files", but I think that's also covered the same way, or else by the Solaris header files. And in case that's wrong, they distribute the free software somewhat separately. The Solaris 8 CDs are in a little plastic "Solaris 8" binder, and the free software CDs ("Software Companion" and "Star Office 5.1") are in a separate "Bonus Software" binder. Whether it qualifies as "accompanies" for those two things to be distributed in the same box is not for me to judge. I don't know what they did in Solaris 9.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 21, 2003 3:16 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Sun machines (at least the higher-end ones) are bulletproof, no question. But Solaris is a pig, on the same hardware Linux is _much_ faster (and runs on machines on which current Solaris doesn't work at all). Plus security patches are slow in comming, and much Sun software assumes everything else is _also_ Sun (I remember finding it much easier to just install sendmail, bind, and others from source than trying to get their stuff interoperating decently with our Ultrix (and later Linux) machines through the mid '90s).Linux on cheap clone PCs is awful, true. But that is because the machine is awful. Put it on a decent machine, and it works fine. Plus what I remember from Solaris on PCs (long time ago) was that it requiered very special (expensive) hardware.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 21, 2003 5:59 UTC (Sun) by tmancill (guest, #14705) [Link] Well, that's the beauty of Debian. It wouldn't take more than a couple weeks to get Debian running on top of a Solaris kernel. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it's been done. The package management for Solaris is miserably simplistic and about a decade out of date. Sun would do itself a favor if it quit bleating about its server room superiority and realize that there is a great deal to be learned and shared with the rest of the world instead of always striking out on its own.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 19, 2003 23:53 UTC (Fri) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] Lol ROTFLMAO, whew............. that Schwartz is one funny guy and I quote in part; "and dramatically less expensive in purchase price."
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 0:53 UTC (Sat) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] "and dramatically less expensive in purchase price."The entire article is full of unsubstantiated statements like that, eg. some of the stuff about IBM. It appears that Scott McNealy's megalomania is contagious. After reading the article I came away with the impression "this guy can't be trusted." I have no idea why someone would represnt their company in such a way.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 0:55 UTC (Sat) by Zakaelri (guest, #15087) [Link] I believe he was referring to either RH or the SCO `licensing fee' when hesaid that... but I agree. It is quite absurd. "why do you have the world's largest patent litigation team inside IBM suing the bejesus out of the entire industry, holding them up for ransom on IP that you claim is yours that they have purloined." Unless there is something I missed in recent news, I think IBM is only *coutersuing* the `bejesus out of the' SCO Group... "Which one of them does IBM do? They don't own their own operating system that runs on the volume platform. So they will continue supporting other people's platforms." And why should IBM devote the resources to the creation of their own OS when there are others out there which are already written? Especially when one of the OS's doesn't cost IBM a cent? (Well, depending on how the SCO thing pans out, they may end up paying alot... but I hope that IBM just rams SCO a new hole.)
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 1:52 UTC (Sat) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] "And why should IBM devote the resources to thecreation of their own OS when there are others out there which are already written? Especially when one of the OS's doesn't cost IBM a cent?" I remember when there was no IBM PC, and they ran out to the West Coast to find themselves a cheap OS, and then when there was a PC, the computer magazines devoted to existing machines withered away while PC Magazine and PC World required you to bring your own forklift to the magazine stand. I think if IBM got mad enough at SCO, they *would* create their own OS. Then, there would be the wailing and the gnashing of teeth everywhere else. I always figured they did it the way they did for fear of problems with anti-trust lawsuits. But in the current climate......who knows?
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 6:12 UTC (Sat) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link] I think if IBM got mad enough at SCO, they *would* create their own OS.IBM has created their own OS. Many times. They probably have the distinction of creating more commercial-grade operating systems than anyone else on the planet.
IBM create there own OS Posted Sep 21, 2003 23:07 UTC (Sun) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] They have as has been pointed out several times ok some of them not too brightie OS/2 but none the less they have actualy been an done it .. Unlike a certain life form from redmond mention no names (m4) know what i mean noda as good as a wink to a blind horse ... Pete.
Sun and their crazy posturing Posted Sep 20, 2003 0:24 UTC (Sat) by echodots (guest, #15103) [Link] I really wish they would get some kind of plan together, how can you sale all that linux enterprise software without some type model to follow? How in the same hell do they think they're going to gain a major share if they don't feel linux is anything with while? Come on Sun, stop your bloody posturing and get it together.echodots...TINK!
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 1:15 UTC (Sat) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] Err .. if this man wanted to kill his product before it was even born, he did a truly superbjob. This desktop I will never consider, given the strong support the product enjoys with the manufacturer's senior management. Solaris on the server ... even if it were more stable, thats at the price of being But is it more stable?? ... their famed NFS has a bug that allows a cleverly crafted request to Sun is going down in flames with that attitude towards its customers. If a senior guy does Sad to see all their great OpenOffice goodwill effort go to waste like that though .. someone bye bye sun V.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 1:41 UTC (Sat) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] "Manly quotes from manly men to manly men.Grrrof...rrrrf....MMMMMMMhn Ooopf Linux blmmmm-blmmmmgrrrr! Solaris----Ha!!! THAT should set the record STRAIGHT, you WEENIES!!!!
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 1:44 UTC (Sat) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] ...In other words....."Well.....they's two kind o' computer people out here.... They's SUN.......... ...and the REST o' y'all!!
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 2:03 UTC (Sat) by kdart (guest, #486) [Link] Well, at least they finally made their stance on Linux clear. 8-) However, I don't agree with most of what Mr. Schwartz said in the article.
It's only a matter of time ... Posted Sep 20, 2003 2:58 UTC (Sat) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] It's only a matter of time before Solaris is just an interesting historical relic, and GNU/Linux is the only serious game in town.Jonathan Schwartz obviously doen't see the writing on the wall (neither does McNealy). I can see two possible eventual outcomes: 1. About 5-years from now, Sun no longer exists, or it will be in very serious financial difficulty and will be on the verge of going out of business. If they stick stubbornly to their current attitude, pushing Solaris on the server, they're just flogging a dead horse. 2. About 5-years from now, Sun will have transformed itself into a true Open Source friendly-company, and will be thriving on the back of GNU/Linux on the client AND the server. Look, Sun DOES, at this point, still have the potential to go down this path. It's still not too late for them. They should take a look at IBM; they're not so different from IBM in may ways. At the end of the day, I believe that even McNealy will (reluctantly) see the light, and follow path 2. He's a free-market libertarian, and he says he's not "the emotional type", so he'll choose the path that makes sense for the survivial and profitability for his company.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 3:04 UTC (Sat) by NerdlyMcGeek (guest, #8453) [Link] I think its very clear what Suns position is. And they deserve the same contempt we hold for SCO. It is painfully obvious they have no clue as to surviving in the post proprietary economy. As such they will hemorage red ink and continue to attack us until they change or die...
IT Walks Out on Sun, chooses Linux Posted Sep 20, 2003 3:36 UTC (Sat) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] I just had the "joy" of taking over and implementing Apache, MySQL, PHP4 and an existing PHP3 web application on a Sun box over at one of the big-named hosting providers (as a favor for a business friend). What a sad experience. (It says something about the aged, forsaken toolset in Solaris that Sun requires GNU tar to install Java on Solaris...) I can't believe how difficult it was to do this less-than-one-hour-task on any brand of Linux I've ever dealt with (or FreeBSD/Darwin for that matter) versus the weekend of tribulation with Solaris 8. I've never had to dissect Makefiles like I had to on Solaris 8 just to get basic web infrastructure running. Maybe it's scalable, but it ain't pretty. Besides, I'm struck at how many companies once they've MATURED their infrastructure on Sun migrate to Linux for long-term operation...The industry is voting with its feet and ignoring such pompous self-serving dribble that those like Schwartz (and SCO ... very interesting) spew to the press. (Yeah, I'm not a Solaris admin, but come on...this is standard stuff I'm installing. Then there was the surprise about vi's lack of large file handling when I edited a very large MySQL data dump to add a simple "create database" statement at the beginning. I had no idea that vi would crap out on a large file...until I experienced it and read the man pages relevant. Yeah, so I restored the truncated file and did it a different way -- I wanted to preserve the create db in the beginning of the file for later restoration and had never hit this problem with Vim on Linux or Windows. And where to Sun admins gather to share their experiences? On some UUCP-delivered list? Searching for info was frustrating versus finding how-tos and tips on obscure Linux issues...)
Where do Sun Guys get their info? Posted Sep 20, 2003 13:50 UTC (Sat) by JohnBell (guest, #12625) [Link] Right here...http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/ While we're on the subject, where do AIX Guys get their information? http://www.rootvg.net Hope this helps y'all out...
Where do Sun Guys get their info? Posted Sep 20, 2003 14:32 UTC (Sat) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] Until recently, sunfreesoftware.com but all I get now is that f*cking annoying VeriSign crap that overwrites my URL and helps me not at all.
Wrong URL Posted Sep 20, 2003 17:43 UTC (Sat) by JohnBell (guest, #12625) [Link] http://www.sunfreeware.comTry that one.
Interesting reversal. Posted Sep 20, 2003 12:03 UTC (Sat) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] For years, we've been hearing "Linux may be great on servers, but it'll never make it on the desktop". Now Sun, after some hemming and hawing, comes out with "We promote Linux on the desktop, but it'll never make it on the server". This seems like an odd position to take. I guess it's no surprise from a company that took years to figure out the difference between networks and computers.(Hint: the network is the cable-y thingy. The computer is the box that hums. No, they are not the same.)
Interesting reversal. Posted Sep 20, 2003 13:33 UTC (Sat) by flammon (guest, #807) [Link] Yes, they have it all backwards. They're also the ones who say that the computer is the network.
YALRK Posted Sep 20, 2003 14:37 UTC (Sat) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] Yet Another Linux RoadKill in the making, just like Caldera of about 3 years ago. Old creaky products, pretty configuration tools overlaid thereon, impressive marketing - but alas, nobody's really fooled.It's a pity Sun overprice their hardware, because it's pretty good compared to, for example, Dell. Actually, I wish DEC would erupt from the grave and take over Compaq from within, but she's a not gunna happen.
YALRK Posted Sep 21, 2003 16:21 UTC (Sun) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link] > It's a pity Sun overprice their hardware, because it's pretty good compared to, for example, Dell. Actually, I wish DEC would erupt from the grave and take over Compaq from within, but she's a not gunna happen.In May I thought Sun had seen the light, at the point they convince us to buy a cluster of SunFire V65 (bi-Xeon procs) at a price perfectly similar to what Dell and others could offer. Although Solaris in included in the deal for free, we use Linux for plenty of good reasons. Finally, I thought, Sun understands that they can make survive and even make profit by selling good Intel hardware using the becoming standard OS across computing plarforms, Linux. Alas, the interview of Schwartz shows that the head of Sun is still in the dark.
Sun's opinion regarding Linux is much less important than Oracle's Posted Sep 20, 2003 15:59 UTC (Sat) by ironhacker (guest, #11389) [Link] People buy Sun boxes mostly to run Oracle. Nobody chooses the OS first and then says, "Gee, let's think about which database to use on this snazzy new Solaris box we just selected."As soon as Oracle's Linux support achieves parity with their Solaris support, it will be tough to convince any new customers to pick Solaris. Some people say we are at that point already. At the moment, I think the concept of equality of support is mostly hype and press releases, but the day of reckoning is coming. Linux could easily take over the low-end server space, and it might take the middle as well. The high-end Sun boxes are a different story. Notice how Microsoft had no problem taking over the low end server space, they made a push for the middle, and (after all these years) they have never seriously threatened the high end. Maybe Solaris will be relegated to high-end only. If so, I wonder how Sun expects to survive.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 17:10 UTC (Sat) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link] What is Sun to do? Accept the obvious (that OpenSource is a good thing) or fight for survival of their mature core business?Price out a 8-way x86 server from DELL and do the same with SUN. The differences in money is not that great, and Sun will get you a 64-bit hardware. The differences in operating system cost dwarfes in comparison to the hardware. Sure you could run Linux on the Sparc but after spending ~$80,000 why would you give up the factory support from Sun? Shortly we'll see Linux on x86_64 AMD Opteron in up to 8-way machines which could be very stiff competition for Sun and cut into the mid to high end server business. 2GHz vs. 1.3Ghz, better memory interface, 32-bit star performance etc may make life for Sun quite challenging. Profit volume from the very high end segment may not be enough to keep the wheels rolling. This does not look like a growth market for Sun. Sun should not busy themselves with burning bridges like SCOX if they want a future in a brave new world. They should instead calculate themselves into a new market place in a realistic way. Spending billions on an indefensible position does not serve their stockholders right.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 18:09 UTC (Sat) by toon (guest, #511) [Link] Well, let's make one thing clear: We have a Sun Fire 15K rightnow, but we do not have a Sun strategy. I believe Free Software (of which GNU/Linux will be part) is a better We will implement this alternative in 2005. Toon Moene (g77 maintainer).
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 18:24 UTC (Sat) by kunitz (subscriber, #3965) [Link] What Schwartz says, is simply caused by the fact, that the bigSPARC servers keep the company alive. I'm quite sure, that it will be quite difficult to detect Linux or Java stuff in the incoming revenue stream. So it is quite natural for a Sun person, to say that Linux is not for the server. Every customer Sun would convince, that Linux will be enough for their servers, would certaimly mean less revenue for Sun. That's all about it. But I wonder, why pony-tailed bosses are even more hated than pointy-haired ones.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 21, 2003 0:54 UTC (Sun) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link] Open mouth, insert foot. Good grief, Sun has been confused over the course of the past 4 months. Expect to see a retraction soon.
Sunw appologists need to look forward Posted Sep 21, 2003 17:10 UTC (Sun) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] 64-bit processors from intel, amd, and motorola, just came out about one year ago. Many of the enterprise capabilities for Linux, like RCU, JFS, and NUMA, just came out about one year ago.Sunw advocates *immedately* assume that if solaris is ahead of Linux *today* then solaris will always be ahead of Linux. Truth is, development and acceptance, is moving *much* faster for linux than solaris. Think about where linux will be two years from now. Small wonder sunw is scared to death of linux. Linux solutions are much cheaper. Also, the super-high-end stuff isn't needed by most companies.
Sunw appologists need to look forward Posted Sep 22, 2003 18:10 UTC (Mon) by fx (guest, #12077) [Link] During the late nineties Linus Torvalds claimed Linux would have a serious piece of the desktop market within a few years. That just didn't happen.I've worked for a lot of companies who actually do need that "super-high-end" stuff. I'm afraid the Linux community is in denial there.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 22, 2003 3:30 UTC (Mon) by penguinista (guest, #308) [Link] Hmmm, lets see. Sun, SCO, and Linux in the same sentence. Any bets on which one will still be around 5 years from now? Its too bad that those that remain at Sun are in denial.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 22, 2003 18:12 UTC (Mon) by fx (guest, #12077) [Link] So anyone who doesn't beleive Linux is the only OS worthy of any respect is "in denial"? How childish.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 22, 2003 16:30 UTC (Mon) by bobthebuilder (guest, #15313) [Link] He does have a good point - if HP and IBM no longer have an OS to rely upon, and Sun has Solaris, and RedHat continues to make Linux proprietary... then who wins in the end? Microsoft? I run a small shop, but there's only one brand of linux left here - it's RedHat. And RedHat ain't free (in fact, it's pretty expensive), and it's a pain to work with. No, I can't run Debian, because there aren't any apps. And I just looked at what the RedHat execs are making, and I'm wondering... http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1087423/000095016803002121/ddef14a.htm Mr. Szulik has made $80M off of the open source community. Talk about a sly dog...
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 22, 2003 17:24 UTC (Mon) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I will be interested to see how much he helps out when the going gets tough. Just think of what any one of us could do with even 1/10th of that money. For me, it would be enough to quit my job and write OSS the rest of my life.So...is he greedy? We'll know soon enough, I guess...
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 23, 2003 6:20 UTC (Tue) by bobthebuilder (guest, #15313) [Link] We already know. That whole team is getting filthy rich off OSS - what's not to love. Sell the products that the OSS community is building, pay them nothing, take all the credit and the revenue. I should've thought of that.We tried switching off RedHat to Debian. All our ISV's told us to pound sand. We are stuck, folks, RedHat's the only distro for which major ISV's are qualifying their apps... and my management just mandated it as the only OS allowed in our datacenter.
oh, linux doesn't scale huh... Posted Sep 22, 2003 18:29 UTC (Mon) by quickening (guest, #14807) [Link] SGI's numa-enabled linux on a 64-way Altix 3000:http://www.specbench.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q1/cpu2000-20030113-01931.html One could make a rough estimate of 30% beyond solaris. It also scales better than AIX and HPUX
|
|||||||||||||