A good idea? If you want to get rid of Sun
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| AnonymousCoward Jul 02, 2005 7:49 AM EDT |
Sun have two potential commercial advantages, or at least points of differentiation: Sparc and Solaris. They're giving away Solaris because Linux is blowing the market out of the water, and unlike Microsoft it's feasible for them to do that and say so up front. They're selling x86 boxes alongside Sparc, the silent subtext here being "any processor will do, Sparc-itechture is not that significant". If they want MS to port MS-Windows to Sparc, they're going to want a better business case than "we can't even sell our own software, so we want to sell yours - into highly competitive markets - because our own markets are shrinking". If they want to sell MS-Windows on x86... well, why on earth would you buy from them and not SGI, hp, or any of thirty or so other major manufacturers? They'd just be spending their distributor channel "capital", an approach not gifted with a long future. Sun's only real chance is to jump on the same money-from-hardware-and-services bandwagon as IBM, essentially ignore Microsoft and try to sell people on the idea that "we do Unix better than anybody, we've had more practice". I think they ought to look more seriously at what they can do with AMD's hyperchannel, too. If AMD were willing to do some SSE-like extra opcodes for efficiently handling the more common code sequences or stepping away from the uninspiring x86 security models, and Sun ran with that, they may be able to use the "better x86 than Intel" approach to win across some old Sparc customers. |
| PaulFerris Jul 02, 2005 10:05 AM EDT |
AC: I highly doubt they're ever going to get a port of LongHorn or any other Windows to Sparc architecture. For one, Microsoft can't even handle non-Intel hardware very well. It remains to be seen if their gaming side of the fence will fare on non-Intel hardware, even. They just don't seem to have what it takes to be multi-architecture much farther away than Intel or Intel-like bases. For another, the last company to suggest this was Intergraph corporation, which was going to port NT to sparc -- I actually met one of the people who was attempting to do it. It was a fiasco and I suspect one of many nails in IG's coffin (long story there). As for Sun being a Microsoft OEM like HP, I suspect that there would be open revolt inside the Sun castle, but stranger bedfellows have made it in the past, so who knows? |
| cjcox Jul 02, 2005 10:19 AM EDT |
Sun views their 9 year relationship with Microsoft as a power packed two fisted punch against Linux. Sun desires Windows and Solaris in the datacenter. Sun is viewing Microsoft as a strategic partner, part of an overall solution. Sun fully plans to be the hardware leader in the datacenter with the only platform certified to run Windows and Solaris (granted, SPARC will be limited to just Solaris). The Sun hardware designs on their AMD Opteron family is excellent. And for right now, Sun is also certifying their hardware to work with the enterprise editions of Red Hat and Novell Linux. Sun has some new hardware coming out that is actually pretty impressive. It is designed to solidify this marriage of Windows and Solaris in the datacenter. You won't see Sun and Microsoft going at each other's throats for at least another 9 years. Their goal today is simple: removal of Linux from the corporate datacenter (both have no problem with it at home... just as long as their is no "suit and tie" support for it). |
| MadDogTMC Jul 03, 2005 7:26 AM EDT |
I have never used sun hardware or its software. I have only read about it in the new or by what others have written concerning Sun products in forums. I have always had a nervous and uncomfortable feeling with sun since Java came along and all the hoopla that has been generated by it. Then there's the constant change in direction in position and thinking that sun does all the time. I don't understand how any one can have faith in them. I can't say I would recommend or support sun in anything they do because I just don't have the trust for them. The same goes for Microsoft and possible Intel now. Its pretty clear to me that its all about making money and keeping the little people down and out. I don't believe they are gonna unseat Linux in the datacenter, ever! The only way it will happen is if laws are made and enforced to keep OSS out of the industry for good. I just don't see it happening and if it does it just shows how corrupted humanity can be. When sun is stabbed in the back by MS. They will cry for help and no one will listen. I know I won't feel bad for them. They suck and they are two faced with multiple personalities to go with it. Thinking about this more and more. MS and sun are like two kids fighting and bullying everyone. While IBM, an adult, is just watching and taking care of business. I would wager IBM will be the last one standing when all of this is said and done. Oh by the way, I did not read the article so I guess I am just ranting and giving my point of view on how I feel. TMC |
| sbergman27 Jul 03, 2005 10:00 AM EDT |
MadDogTMC, That is one of the strangest things about Sun. They Hmmm. They Hahhh. They change directions in mid-stream. And then change back again. And then make an announcement and go in a totally different direction. But then, after a while, they change their minds. Though, to be honest, it takes a while to figure out that they changed their minds because all their engineers are busy blogging their own, totally incompatible views of the situation. And yet... businesses do indeed trust them for their enterprise needs. They must be doing something very right. I've just never been quite sure what. I'm not convinced that Scott is naive enough to get stabbed in the back by MS. He may very well receive a mortal wound to the chest, however. 2 billion dollar settlement and 9 year relationship aside, I can't believe that McNealy can really set his history aside. Back when everyone else, HP, SGI, IBM, had decided that Windows was the future, Sun, helmed by Scott McNealy, refused to give in. He/They believed in Unix/Posix. This was before Linux was ready, and when BSD was good for servers, period. For all the provocative comments Scott makes about RedHat, OSS, et. al., and they can be very aggravating, I do respect him for carrying the Unix/Posix torch through those years. Sure, he had his own ulterior motives for doing it. Or perhaps not so ulterior, since he is often very (in yer face) honest about why he is doing things. In a post earlier this weekend, I said that I was not a "Sun Worshipper", and jokingly made a reference to being late for my appointment at the "Solar Temple". Odd thing is, the more I think about it, and though I have never run Sun hardware or Solaris, perhaps I *am* a bit of a Sun Worshipper? Or maybe I'm just giving them credit for setting the stage for Linux being where it is today? Maybe in my heart of hearts I care more about the Unix philosophy than the F/LOSS philosophy? Or maybe the idea of Sun selling MS Windows(tm) has struck an unexpected emotional chord in me that I was not expecting. If it happens, it holds a certain "End Of An Era" status, after all. Appologies for rambling so. But it's a slow news day and I figured I might get away with it. :-) -Steve Bergman |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!