Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Zander to light a fire under Motorola (ZDNet)
ZDNet talks with Ed Zander, formerly of Sun, about his move to Motorola.
"When we bought Cobalt, we basically told the executive team and the board that we had to get behind Linux big, but I left soon after, and people just didn't agree with me.
Sun should have owned Linux and should have owned the community. It is Unix and all Unix developers should have been Sun developers with Linux."
(Log in to post comments)
You can't own something... Posted Dec 17, 2003 21:13 UTC (Wed) by JohnBell (guest, #12625) [Link] ... that's not for sale.
You can't own something... Posted Dec 17, 2003 21:23 UTC (Wed) by blindoracle (guest, #15918) [Link] LOL!You clearly don't get it. In this case, "owned", means they would of been viewed as one of the top-dogs for all things "Linux". In other words, chances are that if you thought of Linux, you would of immediately associated it with Sun, just as you currently do with RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, and Debian.
You can't own something... Posted Dec 17, 2003 21:29 UTC (Wed) by JohnBell (guest, #12625) [Link] No, I understand his meaning quite clearly.
You can't own something... Posted Dec 17, 2003 22:11 UTC (Wed) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] Then in the context of you understanding what he meant, your original post does not make sense.
You can't own something... Posted Dec 17, 2003 23:04 UTC (Wed) by JohnBell (guest, #12625) [Link] *Sigh*.Guys like this have only one concept of "own" in their minds. As in have complete control over something (either overtly or covertly) and milking it for all it's worth until it's dry as a stone. Reference Sun's treatment of Java for their attitude (especially in the beginning) regarding the definition of "own" and "open". My point was that no one will own Linux in that fashion, ever. Sure, they may think they can, and try their best to, but in the end they will fail. The community is fickle, and not likely to stay in one spot, as evidenced by the hue and cry over recent moves made by Red Hat. If you're a Big Corporate Exec type, and you think you can "own" Linux in any way shape or fashion, then you have another think coming.
You can't own something... Posted Dec 18, 2003 1:41 UTC (Thu) by xorbe (guest, #3165) [Link] Look, it says "get behind Linux Big" and "owned".It means he thought they should've went where
You can't own something... Posted Dec 18, 2003 4:39 UTC (Thu) by JohnBell (guest, #12625) [Link] That's funny, I thought NoSuSE owned it now. Or was it IBM? Really, I've lost track.You people are amusing. Really.
You can't own something... Posted Dec 18, 2003 17:27 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "OWNED" = "TOP DOGS"Imagine that Microsoft strategy hits bull's eye, and that beyonde 2007 70-90 % every Personal Computer and more than 50 % of Servers on the planet would be guarded with NGCSB/Paladium and therefore unable to run other software than M$ & Friends... Well about 10-30 % of Desktops and about 40% of Servers would be enought to make 4, 5 or more of Sun corporations, i guess... And the vision is clear... with M$ strategy, who would get hit is the small, that cant negociate with Microsoft, and the "White Box" industry, responsable for more than 50% of all PC world wide(could find a old link for a study, sorry), that would be completely obliterated!!... Those that make their own hardware, Like SUN, IBM, HP, and DELL, would have a prosper future, not only because they can negociate with M$, but also because they would have a huge market oportunity left by the dead "white Box" industry,..., and since those that make their own hardware, its pretty obvious, dont have the issues about Chipset Arquitecture and other hardware support dificulties,... THEY WILL LITERALY "OWN" LINUX .
You can't own something... Posted Dec 18, 2003 4:07 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I've been told I should "own" my job. What does that mean?He may be thinking of this in the same sense as that. I believe some people view "ownership" as "standing up for" or "being loyal to" or "having a commitment to." In that sense, he would be saying that Sun would be viewed as more committed to the furthering of the Linux cause than any other company. When you consider the fact that they were willing to shepherd the X-Windows development effort in the way that they did, instead of the way they handled the NEWS project, then you might get a look at the other sense of ownership. However, there is a fine line between this form of ownership and the other form we are so familiar with from you-know-who. The people at Sun have been walking that line for a long time, and even though I've been a bit upset with some of the spoutings that have some from their top executives now and then, I do admire them for it. Consider TCL/TK as a good example. Or X, as I said before.
You can't own something... Posted Dec 18, 2003 8:24 UTC (Thu) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link] Tcl Tk as an example of what, exactly?
You can't own something... Posted Dec 19, 2003 15:40 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] From The History of TCL by John Ousterhout, "The Sun Years:""When I moved to Sun many people were worried that Tcl would become a proprietary language, and there were several "spirited discussions" on the comp.lang.tcl newsgroup. Fortunately, as part of my offer Sun had agreed that the core Tcl and Tk libraries would continue to be distributed freely in source form, and Sun honored this agreement faithfully. As new releases appeared with more and more improvements, it became clear that Sun's support for Tcl was a wonderful thing that allowed the language to evolve much more rapidly than it could have otherwise. The concerns were gradually replaced with enthusiasm for all the new features. "During these years Tcl usage continued to explode. By the end of 1997 there were hundreds of thousands of Tcl developers; the rate of Tcl downloads from the Sun FTP site increased from 2000 per week at the end of 1995 to more than 10000 per week by early 1998. It was clear to me that there were huge business opportunities around Tcl. It was also clear that the Tcl community had many needs that weren't being met by the open-source Tcl development. For example, there were almost no development tools for Tcl, and professional services such as training and support were only sporadically available. Many important extensions, such as ActiveX and CORBA support, still needed to be written" As you can see the Sun people didn't do everything, and in the end, they put most of their energy behind Java. Still, I see nothing here but a serious commitment to a good, open product in the period when Sun "Co-owned" TCL/TK with John. Again, in the other sense of "ownership."
Zander to light a fire under Motorola (ZDNet) Posted Dec 18, 2003 19:58 UTC (Thu) by mongre26 (guest, #4224) [Link] Well to my mind own == p0wned and no one, not even mighty IBM "owns" Linux and all the money in the world could not own Linux, it is simply too big, too many people and the license is too strong to be owned. Even Linux does not own Linux.Even had sun saw the light and embraced Linux they still would not have any more of a role than IBM does, and probably a lot less given their constant snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory. At best they would be another corporate titan that can advance the cause, but no more than the developers that put that next feature into the kernel, or pushed out the next version of KDE/Gnome or just wrote a few lines of Perl that make other peoples job that much easier. Linux simply dwarfs all of these companies the most they can hope for is to hang on for the ride.
|
|||||||||||