Advanced

Sun versus Linux: The Real Story

Posted by dave on · 19 comments
LXer; By Tom Adelstein
Mail this story
Print this story

Does getting rid of UNIX favor Linux? Or Does it play right into Microsoft's hands?

by Tom Adelstein
November 22, 2004

Tom Adelstein

On December 01, 1999, 32bitsonline.com published an article in which I chronicled the emergence of Windows NT from a small five percent share of the server market to approximately 50 percent. During the period, Novell fell from around an 80 percent share of the PC nodes to around ten percent. With Novell flattened, Microsoft started to go after UNIX until interrupted by Federal Anti-Trust actions over the Netscape Browser.



The article called "Did Microsoft Try to Kill UNIX?" no longer exists and neither do the many links that documented Microsoft's famous ascent in the server space. Evidence of the article's existence still remains at this link. You will notice this remnant:



"Microsoft claims that the United States Justice Department has interfered with innovation in the computer industry. One can't help but wonder what people would call the collective effort of the developers who created Linux."



In December 1999, Microsoft Windows held a 41 percent share of the server OS market globally up from 38 percent in 1998. Surprisingly, Linux had showed a 27 percent share of new server shipments that year while NetWare held 17 and UNIX 14 percent as reported by market researcher IDC.



But go back to 1995 and you'll discover that Novell had a 65.6 percent market share while Microsoft had approximately 6 percent and OS/2 held steady at around 15 percent according to periodicals from the time. During that period, Sun Microsystems held a 40 percent share of the RISC UNIX workstation market. Go back a little further and Novell NetWare and UNIX owned the entire server market give or a take a few percent.



What happened to Novell? In almost missing the Internet, Microsoft scrambled. In fact, Bill Gates saw what Sun Microsystems had done and jumped through hoops to get into the game. Novell missed the Internet entirely until hiring Sun's Internet architect Eric Schmidt in 1997. It was just a little too late and still took Novell time to gear up and once it had, Schmidt went to work at Google. Many people who worked in the industry ten years ago remember how the Internet saved Sun Microsystems and caused her to hold the most prominent place in the server operating system market.



Along Comes GNU/Linux

During the Federal prosecution of Microsoft, which began in October 1997 and ended in November 2001, Linux rose to prominence. Microsoft needed a competitor. But the young upstart Linux didn't even have an officially supported graphical Internet browser at the time. As Microsoft came to realize the serious intent of the Department of Justice and Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, Redmond began to act a little more convinced of the prowess of Linux. A few nudges in the press and a few attacks on Linux and soon others began to look into the seriousness of Linux.



Once, Microsoft escaped the threat of a corporate breakup, Linux had gone from a user base of two to approximately twenty million. In addition, Linux became a favorite of IBM, HP and thousands of value added resellers.



As Microsoft shook off its anti-trust haze and looked around, it began to focus its attention on growing its server business once again. NetWare posed no threat and IBM had agreed to stop marketing OS/2. But, IBM embraced Linux and began taking market share from wherever it could. Microsoft had a formidable adversary in the server space in IBM.



Through Linux, IBM made refugees of the Santa Cruz Project, HP's UNIX and to a certain extent Microsoft's NT. IBM also trained its eyes on long time nemesis Sun Microsystems and actively undercut Sun's hardware and software prices. Then something happened that makes little sense: IBM turned from its attack on Microsoft and focused entirely on Sun Microsystems. IBM sent its entire Linux team to Siberia, dropped its plans for a Linux desktop and became obsessed with Sun. This served Microsoft well. IBM would continue to compete with Microsoft but not to the extent that it wanted to endanger Sun and perhaps turn them into the Data General of the early twenty first century.



Enter SCO



Through SCO, Microsoft succeeded in transferring the angst of the open-source community from itself to other entities primarily the SCO Group and Sun Microsystems.

The SCO phenomenon doesn't make sense when you attempt to connect the dots. Microsoft could not have asked for a better situation in which to display its agility at manipulating perception.



C/NET reported on the Sun transaction in June 2003. Explaining the situation, C/NET wrote:



SCO's Unix licensing plan got a major boost of publicity in May when Microsoft announced its decision to license Unix from SCO, but Sun actually was the first company to sign on. SCO and Sun confirmed the licensing deal on Wednesday.



The pact, signed earlier this year, expanded the rights Sun acquired in 1994 to use Unix in its Solaris operating system...Sun's expanded license permits Sun to use some software from Unix System V Release 4 for software components called drivers, which let computers use hard drives, network cards and other devices. Sun needed the software for its version of Solaris that runs on Intel servers, Sun spokesman Brett Smith said. A source familiar with the deal said the new contract was signed in February, but neither Sun nor SCO would comment.


Microsoft could not have asked for better timing. Seizing the opportunity to seed SCO in its efforts to disrupt Linux, they bundled another enemy into the fray: Sun Microsystems. Then, to shift the attention away from themselves further, Microsoft cleverly paid Sun money for the damages owed in court losses by hosting a "love-in" between the Sun and Microsoft CEO's. Microsoft then announced a licensing deal where Sun would receive intellectual property it could use to connect to Microsoft servers.



Suddenly, Sun became the target of open-source angst. Microsoft used a clever psychological trick to transfer the hatred of technologists from themselves to others. In the eyes of the media and others, Microsoft and Sun became sudden partners against Linux.



And just to show how good a partner they really have become, the same Microsoft has made a major effort to undermine the Linux wins Sun made in China. How? By trying to scare the Chinese with threats of patent infringement.



Sun Plays Checkers, Microsoft Plays Chess



I don't wish to disparage Sun, but their press relations need as much of an overhaul as their product line. Known internally as fascists, they could have served as campaign advisers to any flip-flopping politician one might choose. Here's Sun management opening themselves to the community with a blogsphere and yet no one inside the company can talk to the press, write an article or issue a press release without the guiding hand of the Sun media relations. What's the difference between that and saying I don't own a SUV but my family does? Or, saying I voted for the Bill before I voted against it?



Sun began work on its Linux Desktop in September 2002. It opened sourced its Cobalt software, provides the major support for Gnome, purchased StarOffice and gave the code to the community, supports Mozilla and pays a ridiculous sum for open-source projects at Collab.net. Now, people see them as the enemy. Let's just say that Sun's media relations team has done a wonderful job of confusing the public, making the company seem like an enemy of open-source, stressing proprietary software and embarrassing management. Way to go.



Is Sun against Linux?



In September, O'Reilly and Associates published a book written by Sam Hiser and me called "Exploring the JDS Linux Desktop". In actually, it could have taken the name "Exploring the Linux Desktop" or "Exploring Linux with JDS". We settled on the Sun distribution of the Linux desktop because it provided the best migration and management tools for Microsoft users. Also, Sun provided us with support, which we couldn't get from other distributions of Linux. Let's say Sun cooperated with us.



All parties involved in the book needed convincing that Sun had a long-term and proper commitment to Linux. We did extensive due diligence and came away feeling we made the right choice. Writing and publishing the book required a major commitment on our part and O'Reilly's. The technical book market requires more precision today than ever. You cannot just throw a book out there and expect it to sell. So, we felt comfortable with the Sun Linux team.



Note: The "A" players in the Linux business all had a chance to have their own distribution in the name of the book. Some even had an inside advantage. At decision time, JDS prevailed. As someone who put eight months into the project and helped form a community support web site, Sun's floundering around on the PR front has disappointed me, personally and professionally.



Recently, I saw a glimmer of light with regard to Sun regaining its deserved community standing. In Jonathan's Blog, he explained the company's commitment to Linux:



Our desktop efforts, and linux product strategy, are well ahead of the cynics in the industry - and are helping us make progress on the globe's ambitions for a truly cheap PC. We've tried working with a few of the larger PC OEMs, but they, unlike WalMart, aren't all that interested in lowering prices in the PC industry. They're trying to maintain margins, not make PCs more affordable. Bridge the digital divide? I doubt that's on Dell's list of strategic priorities. Hear this: it is certainly on ours. It's even good for our business.



And before more of the conspiracy theories show up, let me quash (or start) a few of them.



In addition to JDS/linux, yes, we are committed to JDS/Solaris. An open source Solaris, with its security and virtualization infrastructure, is a perfect match for JDS. And as Red Hat's rhetoric continues to alienate customers and the open source community, we're finding a welcome audience for bringing an open source Solaris 10 to new markets. Competition is a good thing for the open source movement. Those who truly believe in open source welcome competition - those hiding behind marketing veneer and vendor lock-in hate it.


Should UNIX Go?



Left with the choice between only Microsoft and Linux, I cannot get comfortable. Microsoft looks like they may have gross revenues of $36 billion. Novell projects around $1 billion and Red Hat around $125 million. With Sun in the mix, you have an $11 Billion player.



I don't see much complaining from the open-source community about IBM selling a mix of operating systems including OS400, which you need to run Linux on their iSeries (AS400) platform. They continue to sell AIX and no one complains.



HP and SGI, other major Linux OEM's, sell UNIX and Microsoft and you don't see any flames against them. Contrary to Jonathan's claims, HP denies they have discontinued their version of UNIX. Given the chance to sell HP-UX or IRIX, neither company will say no.



Another argument that favors keeping UNIX involves the installed base. UNIX has a massive base of users in health care, government, the military, education, manufacturing, telecommunications, and financial services. Linux cannot replace UNIX entirely. As the director of distributed computing at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Joseph Panfil related in this issue of ComputerWorld:



A key issue with the Merc's use of Linux is support. With Sun, Panfil says, the Merc deals with a mature and responsive support organization that will immediately fly out a kernel expert if needed. But he says he thinks the Merc's Linux vendor, Red Hat Inc., needs to improve its support. Currently, he says, Red Hat emphasizes purchasing more products as a way to fix problems. "When there are issues, they need to step up better," Panfil says.



Michael Tiemann, Red Hat's vice president of open-source affairs, says he understands Panfil's concerns; he acknowledges that his company is still learning and says it is making changes.



Tiemann says that Red Hat's goal is to sell products upfront and that the important thing is that when the Merc had problems, they were solved. "Ultimately, Red Hat was able to dig into its technical knowledge and expertise ... and help that customer get to the place that they wanted," he says.


Ultimately, Red Hat may become a larger player in the market. Today, it just doesn't have the bandwidth to compete with extant companies. If you start looking around at the existing players they all have signficant ties to Microsoft with the exception of Sun. And while Microsoft has helped create the perception that Sun is a partner, the guys in the bullpen haven't bought it. In fact, of the major players only Sun is a UNIX company first and foremost. They don't depend on Microsoft for their air supply like IBM, HP, Dell and others.



Final Thoughts



Some people may find it difficult to understand that in baseball, I'm a Yankees fan. Living in Dallas that may not make much sense. I learned some time ago that George Steinbrenner doesn't hit, catch or throw. He even has made many enemies along his career path as the Yankee's skipper. He does find and pay for the talent. I don't have to like him to like his players.



Using the analogy of the Yankees, I tend to look at the team and not the executives. I personally like the Sun Linux team and the people working on OpenSolaris. I like it that they're making Grub the bootloader for Solaris 10 and enabling Linux apps for their main stream customers. Those items work for me. Spelling Linux with a small "l" doesn't. In fact, I would consider it a personal favor if the blogger that does that starting acknowledging the community that disrupted Microsoft's technological dominance. Scare 'em all, I say!

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: LXer Features; Groups: Community, Sun

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (19)

The real story

mariuz ·
is i should ignore sun stories from now like the sco ones
tadelste ·
mariuz:

Not necessarily. Sun does not equal SCO. That was the point.

Two important points to take from the story might be: 1) they didn't support SCO going after Linux -- they did that deal to solidify their Solaris X86 product and 2) the Linux team has some good guys in it.

After that, say what you will.
peragrin ·
Tadelste I have a question for you directly.

What do you think of the news that Novell might sue Sun over open sourcing Solaris. Now it hasn't happened yet, and I thought the Sun/SCO deal was for x86 drivers anyway.

If Novell still holds the Unix Copyrights then Sun can't Open Source Solaris. Sun doesn't own all of Solaris, that is well known. MSFT doesn't own all of Windows either.

Now I am not sure on where I stand on this other than think it's incredibly funny twist if it comes out. On one side Novell should try and be a friend of Open Source, on the other Novell should defend it's Copyrights.

Of course copyrights may be why Novell doesn't want the BSDi case unsealed. There is some secret in that case that some will fear will trash Unix if it's released. Whether it will or not remains to be seen.
tadelste ·
peragrin:

It seems complicated doesn't it.

I don't like it. I know the person who heads Novell legal. It's a throwback to the days when if you wanted to sell NetWare licenses you couldn't resell them. They were worse than BSA.

I don't think Novell can do it, because OpenSolaris is a project. SunOS belongs to Sun. They can port the whole thing to open source and leave everything else out. That's sort of the plan anyway: Create a community project around the things they own. Don't be surprised to see lots of GNU in OpenSolaris.

peragrin ·
The other side of the coin is, Novell would /should sue MSFT over licensing unix for Windows Services.

You are quite right, though i did forget cpyrights can be rewritten from scratch.

The other option is Sun pulls an Apple. The base and parts are open Source, but there are Propertiry layers on top. Sun could very well do that easily.

I also see a CPL (IBM's O.S. license) Style license in Sun's Future. It combines the bulk of what Sun want's
TxtEdMacs ·
tadelste: I would be shocked to see any GNU in Open Solaris unless it was released under GPL, which I strongly doubt will happen (c.f. OpenOffice, for example).
tadelste ·
TxtEdMacs:

People are allowed to change. They GPL'd Looking Glass (lg3d). I think the tendency at this point is to GPL their code.

Also, the concept of a "distribution" helps them with the GPL. They once were concerned about GPL being viral, but that was a long time ago.

I guess we'll see eh.
techieMoe ·
Tendencies and trends do not a GPL release make. I will personally be absolutely shocked if Sun releases Solaris in a GPL or GPL-compatible license. I'd almost be willing to take bets.

Sure, people can change, but I'm highly skeptical of Sun doing anything of the sort.
cjcox ·
My guess is that it will be a BSD-like license. Sun believes that the GPL is anti-business, they'll want to sway people away from GNU/Linux with a license that allows people to do whatever they want.... (this supports the idea that Sun wants to make sure that GNU/Linux DIES inside of corporations, if you tend to believe that).

OR... Sun does have an EXTREME arrogant side... it's possible it will be something with one or two strings attached. Strings that some companies will tolerate but might make incorporation into other FREE works more difficult (this of course allows GNU/Linux to continue in the marketplace).

OR... something else (?)

We'll have to wait and see....

Thanks

kcarr ·
This article talks about alot of the things I have tried to stress in the past.

Sun has a problem with spinning things, definately, but they are not all bad.

I have been the Doc Maintainer for OpenOffice.org for the past 3+ years. I have worked with Sam for alot of that time. I am not a Sun employee, but have worked closely with CollabNet and Sun for that time.

Sun has issues, but so does every single business that tries to make money in this world.
tadelste ·
kcarr:

Thanks for working on the OOo project and for your post.

Microsoft's dream is to have Sun and Linux fighting each other.

Their biggest nightmare: Sun and Linux working together harmoniously.

TxtEdMacs ·
tadelste: "... Their biggest nightmare: Sun and Linux working together harmoniously."

Right now, more like a narcotic dream than reality. On this I fault the Sun side much more than Linux partisans.
tadelste ·
TxtEdMacs:

You're probably right. It's not the Linux partisans. You should fault the Sun side - that's the absolute correct view. It is more like a naroctic dream than reality.

No other explanation exists.

TxtEdMacs ·
tadelste: my comment was not to be taken with either a snide nor condescending tone. The claims that Sun has made on opening Solaris have been mixed with attacks on Red Hat and spin tactics. Only in one interview have I seen a straight forward explanation. Indeed it was enlightening to learn that Sun's payment to SCO was in no way related to funding the latter's attack on Linux. Moreover, it seems that it is Sun that has been cozying up to Microsoft with technology sharing.

Let's also look at some past Sun actions: e.g. their earlier pass at Linux with their purchase of Colbalt. My most benign interpretation was their closing down that venture so quickly was incompetence. I think the more likely explanation was their heart was just not in it.

I am not wedded to a fixed view of Sun, and I really hope that my growing cynicism about the leaders of that company are proven to be entirely false. I do not have the close association that you seem to have with that company and I am certainly not privy to their real plans of execution regarding either the opening of Solaris or their Linux plans. However, I am neither compromised by personal friendship. You may chalk it up to marketing when their Linux desktop is called a Java desktop, but to me it is too self serving.

With all the foregoing complaints, I would only be too glad to state publicly that I was totally wrong. However, I have no intention of doing so until I finally see Sun's plans for both Solaris and its relation to Linux concretely spelled out. I think that Solaris is a quality product, but my interest was damped upon investigating the license for its use.

My apologies for the semi-rant, but you misinterpreted my words.
Read the whole comment
tadelste ·
TxtEdMacs:

No apologies needed. I actually don't have any personal friendships at Sun and certainly nothing invested in them emotionally or in a biased way. I'm pretty frustrated with them too.

I'd like to take your concerns one at a time and tease them out.

First, Cobalt. Cobalt used the Red Hat distribution to built their appliances and hacked the kernel to work with MIPS processors. When Sun bought Cobalt, Sun was losing market share at ISPs because the industry was moving from dial up accounts to hosting. Sun missed out on the move to the low end hosting business. After the purchase, Sun continued to follow the Cobalt roadmap and went with Intel technology.

Red Hat discontinued their Sparc distribution at RH 6.0 and went after Sun's hack called Ultra-Penguin for 64 bit Sparc processors. Red Hat moved on everyone that based a Linux distro on Red Hat. That meant Cobalt had no OS. So, the Cobalt servers became Sun servers, the code went into GPL and the name was discontinued. The appliance business for ISPs faltered. So, Cobalt wasn't a slam against Linux. In fact, many of the people I know at Sun are from Cobalt. They're still there. Peder Ullander, who recently went to Monte Vista, ran the JDS Linux desktop Group and he was a former Cobalt guy.

The leaders of the company have their own agenda. They're in a reorganization and they do and say different things depending on circumstances. The industry is in a state of disruption and they're attempting to balance both worlds - Solaris and Linux. They're a hardware company and they need to sell boxes. So, sometimes they talk to their existing customers and the press uses it to make it seem like they're in a holy war with Linux. That's not the case.

Solaris is another thing all together. The Solaris guys remind me of the FreeBSD people back in 1998-1999. A holy war went on between the Linux and FreeBSD until around the time Mac adopted OS X. For some reason that all died down. The Solaris developers don't know what kind of license they'll have and they're already talking about people forking their code and coming out with variants like what's happened to Linux. The development effort reminds me of Linux. They think the Linux guys hate them and they're getting a little huffy about it and defensive.

The Java Desktop System is a branding issue. The Java workstation is the x86 hardware platform. I used a Java Station a few years ago and a Java Point of Sales system back in 1998. Then they have the Java language. Sun has used the Java logo and trademark on different products and they have nothing to do with applets or Java Server Pages.

The Sun staffers and management don't like Microsoft and they still want to take them down. The OpenSolaris project which I referred to above is filled with people who want to see Microsoft go away. The only contact about which I know is between Bill Joy and Bill Gates. From what I heard, nothing's happening there. The JDS team is getting ready to beta Release 3 and it's heavily samba based. You might see some cool things that they've added to make their desktop play better with Windows infrastructures similar to things Xandros does. But none of it comes from Microsoft - not one thing. Linspire licensed the Windows Media Player Codecs - I guess to play DVD's - but Sun doesn't have anything in their Java or Solaris systems from Microsoft.

I've followed different distributions on my beat as a writer for five years. I know most of the players personally. I'm covering JDS and NLD at the present time. I'm adding Fedora to that for the next six months because I'm writing a book on Essential Linux System Administration. So, you'll see me take a slant on those three distributions. I might also write some pieces about Solaris if asked. It's what I do when I'm not writing my Government web column for Linux Journal or consulting.

I publish at Lxer because it's fun. I could put my articles other places, but I've know Dave for a long time and he makes it a great place to publish. I also have some web sites, but they're specialized and I write for those too.

If I could have it my way, I'd have peace in the Middle East and people working together to extricate Microsoft the way they did WordPerfect, Lotus, OS/2, Apple, Novell, Digital Research, Real Player, Lantastic, Netscape, etc. Not because I feel any love loss for those companies, but because I worry about the future of Linux and I want the M$ threat to go away.

In the long run, it's all pretty meaningless anyway. I mean, who will care about this stuff 250 years from now. The thing is I care about it now and that's what matters.







Read the whole comment
TxtEdMacs ·
tadelste: busy, but I loved the response. I will feed back a few impressions in a day or so.
TxtEdMacs ·
tadelste: I do not know the details, but I remember Cobalt arising from Corel when it was entering the Linux market (until its CEO was pushed aside).

It was one of its principles of Corel that pushed the idea of a small, stand alone and simple Linux server. When the development approached maturity it was spun off. Later I even read a nice review of the hardware in PC Magazine by its old editor (NOT Miller!). I even toyed with the idea of getting one, but the price tag (of a bit below $2K USD) was a bit too hight for me. I had hopes for the system when Sun purchased the company and was later dismayed with its dissolution. I had thought the marketing power of Sun would have increased the visibility of Cobalt and perhaps reduced the pricing with a larger production run. Afterwards, each time Sun began to make noises about reentering the Linux market I always wondered why: when the botched it so badly on the first try. [As an aside, I get the same feeling now when reading about the current plans for the potential 4 way AMD machine - sounds nice, but will they persevere? My gut feel is: No.]

They really used Red Hat? Odd when Corel went with a custom Debian.

Feel free to correct my misunderstandings and obvious bias.
tadelste ·
TxtEdMacs

Cobalt arising from Corel ?

You must be mistaken here. Xandros arose from Corel Linux not Cobalt.

Cobalt has it's root with the inventors of ACT! - Pat Sullivan and Mike Muhney. They sold it to Symantec. Stephen W. DeWitt took over the ACT! product line and then went to Cobalt and then to Sun.

They have no relationship.

TxtEdMacs ·
Here is a quote from an article from 2000:

"NEW YORK--Rebel.com, a Canadian manufacturer of small Linux computers originally designed by Corel, will add servers using Transmeta's Crusoe processor to its product line, the company said today.

Rebel.com, based in Ottawa and formerly known as Hardware Computing Canada, sells a line of Linux servers that are based on Intel's StrongArm chip. Rebel.com will add Transmeta's designs to that NetWinder line, the company said at the PC Expo trade show here. "


I thought this item became the Cobalt line of small linux servers. Here is a link: http://news.com.com/2100-1040-242459.html?legacy=cnet

Let me know where I went wrong on my interpretation.

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post