Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Sep 2007 21:44 UTC
Oracle and SUN Having recently rediscovered itself as a systems company, Sun Microsystems has been welcomed into Microsoft's vast and growing family of OEM partners. Expanding the companies' three-year-old interoperability pact, Sun has agreed to ship Microsoft's dated but important Windows Server 2003 operating system pre-installed on its x64 machines. The companies will also co-operate on go-to-market activities for the machines. Ars Technica has more.
Order by: Score:
Yikes!
by DoctorPepper on Wed 12th Sep 2007 22:52 UTC
DoctorPepper
Member since:
2005-07-12

Man, this bothers me on so many levels! As much as I'd love to see Sun become a Linux reseller, the thought of them selling servers with a Microsoft OS on them makes my skin crawl. Kind of like when SGI started selling Windows workstations.

Just my own feelings on this.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Yikes!
by kernelpanicked on Thu 13th Sep 2007 01:17 UTC in reply to "Yikes!"
kernelpanicked Member since:
2006-02-01

They're already Linux resellers. You can get just about any server they have with RHEL or SUSE on it.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Yikes!
by DittoBox on Thu 13th Sep 2007 02:58 UTC in reply to "Yikes!"
DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

Doesn't really bother me. They're just broadening their horizons. Sun servers of almost any variety are top-shelf stuff, and Sun just wants to reach every market possible with it.

I don't blame them one bit for doing this. Microsoft doesn't care, even if Sun is a competitor in Server software Microsoft gets a few more server installs on enterprise servers.

This might actually be a long term ploy from Sun to introduce new markets to Sun products, servers first and software second. If they can convince these markets the Sun is a good company maybe Java or Solaris won't look to bad as an alternative to some Microsoft offerings.

Just a thought.

Reply Score: 7

What Does Sun Want to be?
by segedunum on Wed 12th Sep 2007 22:55 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

If Sun wants to be yet another OEM box shifter and face the same squeezes as a result then fine, but in a world of Dells, HPs and Gateways they aren't going to sustain themselves for very long. If they want to be a software company, control their own destiny with regards to their own hardware and actually have something that differentiates them then this is just a silly idea.

Reply Score: 3

May you live in interesting times
by MollyC on Wed 12th Sep 2007 23:00 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Well, well.
The plot thickens and the pace quickens. ;)

I'd guess that for the last few years, there have been Sun-based IT departments wanted to add Windows server boxes, and Sun and got tired of sending that business to HP and Dell. Now such departments can add Windows server boxes while remaining totally Sun-based.

Be sure to check out Ars Technica's chart on "Sun's Corporate Strategy" (it's within the referred Ars Technical article). It's quite amusing. ;)
http://media.arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.media/540/sunstrate...

Edited 2007-09-12 23:16

Reply Score: 8

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Hey MollyC! isn't it funny how our IT world seems to have been turned on it's head this week?

First, we hear about MS wanting to seriously support Xen with they're virtualisation server product, then we hear about QNX going all open on us, next we get loads of info on the MS/Novell interoperability deal actually coming out in the open and, last but not least, Sun (a former arch enemy) decides to play nice with MS and sell they're server software!

I wont even go into details about the Linux v RMS crap, nor how the Dutch consumers advice bureau like to give people useless advice but, is it just me? or are the lines finally blurring?

What's your take on this? :-)

Reply Score: 1

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

LOL! Sorry to disappoint but I'm quite happy in my current relationship.

Buzz, next contestant! ;-)

Reply Score: 2

What's the big deal?
by jwwf on Wed 12th Sep 2007 23:15 UTC
jwwf
Member since:
2006-01-19

The naysayers at Ars say that one should look to SGI and DEC to see what happens to a UNIX vendor who starts selling Microsoft, with no mention of IBM and HP, who do just fine supporting a ridiculous array of mutually incompatible product lines, with the philosophy that if customers want to buy it, they'll sell it. For Sun, what does this amount to but another drop-down box choice for OS on the x64 servers they already sell, and some new support people?

Windows has run on Sun x64 since the beginning. You just had to buy the license yourself. If this sells a couple more boxes, that's great.

Edited 2007-09-12 23:16

Reply Score: 8

RE: What's the big deal?
by SReilly on Thu 13th Sep 2007 00:04 UTC in reply to "What's the big deal?"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Very true. In fact, we have a backup solution, Atempo is the name. The client is multi platform, i.e. Solaris AIX Win32/64 Linux and a few more, but the server is an x64 Sun system(can't remember the server type off the top of my head) with win2k server installed. It was setup before I joined the company and I have to say, the first time a laid eyes on it I nearly lost the plot.

We where having issues with the system and the dude responsible had neglected to write any docs. We ended up having to call Sun who where more than happy to try and help us out. Man, whose I surprised.

Just goes to show you that there are no friends, and it seems no enemies, in business.

Reply Score: 4

v RE: What's the big deal?
by polyex on Thu 13th Sep 2007 04:57 UTC in reply to "What's the big deal?"
Why not Ubuntu on Desktops
by hraq on Thu 13th Sep 2007 00:09 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why they don't try to compete with Dell on Linux Desktop Market instead of supporting Windows Server 2003 Market which already is well supported from HP and Dell.

And in the future they can replace Linux with their own OS like Solaris 11 or even 12 when it becomes mature and ready to compete with ease of use of Ubuntu.

They already have the knowledge to support Unix thus supporting Ubuntu would not take much and the more they get in contact with linux the more they can copy it in their future solaris to make it more ubiquitous and hardware friendly.

Sun Desktops are where they can make money and improve without wasting or requiring the big cash the server technologies demand.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why not Ubuntu on Desktops
by binarycrusader on Thu 13th Sep 2007 03:32 UTC in reply to "Why not Ubuntu on Desktops"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Sun already supports Ubuntu as a premier platform for their Niagra systems.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why not Ubuntu on Desktops
by google_ninja on Thu 13th Sep 2007 03:41 UTC in reply to "Why not Ubuntu on Desktops"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

There is so much wrong with this comment, it is hard to know where to start.

Why they don't try to compete with Dell on Linux Desktop Market instead of supporting Windows Server 2003 Market which already is well supported from HP and Dell.


First off, desktop linux accounts for roughly 1% of the computing market. Dells desktop linux machines are a special interest item at the current time.

And in the future they can replace Linux with their own OS like Solaris 11 or even 12 when it becomes mature and ready to compete with ease of use of Ubuntu.


Solaris is already far more mature then linux. As for ease of use, it all depends on what you are used to.

They already have the knowledge to support Unix thus supporting Ubuntu would not take much and the more they get in contact with linux the more they can copy it in their future solaris to make it more ubiquitous and hardware friendly.


The two kernels are too different for much in the way of code sharing, and if anything, solaris is the more advanced one. All it takes to make it run on more hardware is for people to port the linux drivers, and all it takes for that to happen is a community of willing volunteers, and all it takes for that to arrive is for Sun to open source its operating system. This has been done, and we will see if the rest pans out or not. What will not help is for Sun to abandon the OS they have been building for the last 20 years, in favor of a debian unstable fork.

Sun Desktops are where they can make money and improve without wasting or requiring the big cash the server technologies demand.


Considering that Sun has been one of the major players in server hardware for about 30 years now, this would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Edited 2007-09-13 03:43 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Why not Ubuntu on Desktops
by hraq on Thu 13th Sep 2007 04:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Why not Ubuntu on Desktops"
hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

"What will not help is for Sun to abandon the OS they have been building for the last 20 years, in favor of a debian unstable fork."

Did I mention that Sun need to replace solaris for debian? I even suggested that solaris replace debian!
I know that solaris is more faster and more reliable and more everything server , but it is immature creature when it comes to desktop arena.

"desktop linux accounts for roughly 1% of the computing market."

I have 5 computers running linux alone and it is not registered in the 1% and Linux surpass windows as a desktop in some countries around the globe.

"As for ease of use, it all depends on what you are used to."
Ease of use depends on Automation, and less intervention as much as possible. Exactly like plugging a printer to a Mac OSX system and in a second it would start to print; that is easy; with windows you have to install the drivers and then plug it and then configure it with GUI; with ubuntu you have to go to add printer and it would automatically recognize it and add it for you; with Sun Solaris 5.11.72 that I tested recently there is no support even for enterprise class printers that use postscript drivers. and you have to fiddle with cups and configure it but then GUI apps cannot use the printer that works with CLI via lp.

"Considering that Sun has been one of the major players in server hardware for about 30 years now, this would make absolutely no sense whatsoever."

Then how would you explain Top Chiefs of Sun announcing they would produce a version of solaris more advanced than linux and to hire some linux experts to help then become more desktop friendly?

" and all it takes for that to arrive is for Sun to open source its operating system. "

This is unfortunately not enough as we still need the desktop friendly package managers, disk partitioning tool, printing tools all via GUI not CLI, and I would like to see containers via GUI that would enable me to run virtualized linux and windows hosts. Alot of lacking holds them from becoming my prefered desktop solution; and If they talk about desktops they must accept criticism.

Reply Score: 3

v RE: Why not Ubuntu on Desktops
by bariole on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:34 UTC in reply to "Why not Ubuntu on Desktops"
next?
by Mellin on Thu 13th Sep 2007 00:09 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple installing Windows Vista as a default os on some of the Macs ?

Reply Score: 2

RE: next?
by polyex on Thu 13th Sep 2007 04:58 UTC in reply to "next?"
polyex Member since:
2007-07-11

Macmall which is a big reseller does. At least they did, but I noticed that its been slipping from a prominent advertising point on Mac Malls web site, so I am not sure it was necessary.

Reply Score: 1

v Uhm
by aliquis on Thu 13th Sep 2007 00:43 UTC
Tagline
by invisik on Thu 13th Sep 2007 01:23 UTC
invisik
Member since:
2006-08-03

Just as long as they don't put a "Sun recommends Windows 2003 Server." tagline on their web site.

If you have a Sun shop and need a few Windows boxes, why not get Sun hardware for it and get it all together? Makes sense to me.

On the other hand, they mention that the Microsoft resellers will be stepping in to install middleware apps. Seems that Sun would think that to be a red flag--give the MS folks an inch and they take a mile and the rest of your datacenter. Hope they're careful.

Will be watching this one.

-m

Reply Score: 1

other industres
by trenchsol on Thu 13th Sep 2007 02:19 UTC
trenchsol
Member since:
2006-12-07

Such partnerships are quite common in other industries. IT was special in many ways because of its quick growth. That means more business as usual and less spectacular news in the future. Less business for sites like OSNews, among other things....

Reply Score: 3

A Sun emloyee's take
by MollyC on Thu 13th Sep 2007 03:38 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Here's what Sun employee Isaac Rabinovitch has to say (he seems pretty pleased):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=295955&cid=20581421

"by fm6 (162816) on Wed Sep 12, '07 05:22 PM (#20581421)
(http://picknit.com/ | Last Journal: Sat Jul 29, '06 01:58 PM)
The author of that article knows jack. We (I'm the documentation lead for a couple of Sun x64 boxes) have been selling and supporting Windows servers for some time. We have a fair number of people working on Windows-related software, QA, support, and documentation (including me). We've even contributed some source code to a couple of open-source products in order to make them work better on Windows.

What we haven't been doing is selling servers with Windows pre-installed, or providing install discs with our drivers already on them. We couldn't do these things without an OEM agreement. Now we can. That will mean less work for me and various other Sun people, and (much more important) fewer headaches for our customers.

Next time I see Jonathan Schwartz (no, we don't know each other, but we eat in the same cafeteria) I'll have to resist the urge to prostrate myself. I just hope he's working on similar deals with our other OS partners.

Don't get me wrong, I love Solaris. It's a beautiful OS. We'll always support it. (In fact, the x86/x64 version is a lot better supported than it was 8 years ago.) But our job is to meet our customers needs, not force our favorite technology down their throat.

Get it through your heads, folks: the Sun-Microsoft feud is over. And good riddance. It was bad for both companies."


Edited 2007-09-13 03:39

Reply Score: 6

RE: A Sun emloyee's take
by polyex on Thu 13th Sep 2007 05:02 UTC in reply to "A Sun emloyee's take"
polyex Member since:
2007-07-11

MS-Solutions are not forced down peoples throats in round about ways?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A Sun emloyee's take
by kaiwai on Thu 13th Sep 2007 05:13 UTC in reply to "RE: A Sun emloyee's take"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

MS-Solutions are not forced down peoples throats in round about ways?


Pardon? people choose to go out, they choose to run Windows, they choose to implement internally written applications in proprietary single platform language such as visual basic, shape their whole company arounde Microsoft technologies.

Sorry, they made all those choices. Microsoft merely marketed some products; how is it Microsofts fault that people don't adequately research the pitfalls of investing large sums of money into Microsoft solutions which use proprietary formats and protocols?

These same people could have, from day one, used StarOffice, could have used Java for their internally written applications, could have used Linux or some UNIX for the desktop - but they chose to go with 'teh glossy'; in a nutshell, "you shat in your bed, now put up with the stink."

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: A Sun emloyee's take
by psychicist on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A Sun emloyee's take"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

Pardon? people choose to go out, they choose to run Windows, they choose to implement internally written applications in proprietary single platform language such as visual basic, shape their whole company arounde Microsoft technologies.


The problem is companies and individuals that started out years ago with an all-Microsoft infrastructure because there wasn't an alternative at the time. UNIX hardware and software were too expensive, not very user-friendly and lacked many of the applications people needed or wanted.

These types of applications on the other hand were created for Windows on relatively cheap PC hardware so that is where they naturally went, even with all its instability and insecurity.

These same people could have, from day one, used StarOffice, could have used Java for their internally written applications, could have used Linux or some UNIX for the desktop - but they chose to go with 'teh glossy'; in a nutshell, "you shat in your bed, now put up with the stink."


Fortunately, for the last 10 years UNIX desktops have mostly caught up to and maybe even exceeded the ease of use of the Windows GUI and they can be considered a genuine alternative.

At first I didn't have a bias for any of the current operating systems because my first PC experience was 10 years ago. I had access to HP-UX, Linux and Windows and they were just different ways to get a job done.

In a natural way I gravitated more and more to the Linux operating system, eventually going from the "(l)user-friendly" ones such as SUSE, Mandrake and Red Hat to Slackware, where you are allowed to do anything and you are responsible for the stability of the entire operating system.

That doesn't mean I don't know Windows (well maybe not as well as someone who is a professional Windows system administrator), I just choose not to use it. Or if I really have to, I run it in a virtual machine.

From Slackware I have even broadened my interests to Solaris and the BSDs, which I have found very similar, at least in the basics. So Slackware has in fact taught me to use UNIX, instead of just a distro-specific way of configuring things.

Now back to the question of using StarOffice and Java on industry standard UNIX desktop OS's such as Linux and Solaris. You have a choice now to deploy these and actually run your business or home on this software without having to resort to proprietary options such as Windows and Mac OS X.

Those who see this opportunity will choose to convert their current infrastructure or at least their document formats to be based on open standards. Those who don't are stuck with their current one and maybe they are and will be happy that way. There is a real choice at last and I am happy for that.

I run an all-out open source infrastructure and can communicate with someone running an all-out Microsoft infrastructure without each one having to conform to one another's because of difficulties exchanging information (i.e. unless there is some loser sending you Office 2007 MS OOXML documents :-)).

The damage to Microsoft's domination has already been done (at least in startups), but we'll only notice the consequences of it in a few years time because of the time and effort it takes to realise these changes.

Edited 2007-09-13 10:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: A Sun emloyee's take
by kaiwai on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A Sun emloyee's take"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem is companies and individuals that started out years ago with an all-Microsoft infrastructure because there wasn't an alternative at the time. UNIX hardware and software were too expensive, not very user-friendly and lacked many of the applications people needed or wanted.

These types of applications on the other hand were created for Windows on relatively cheap PC hardware so that is where they naturally went, even with all its instability and insecurity.


StarOffice was available in the 1990s; Wordperfect plus many other names were made available for UNIX. UNIX with thin clients/X terminals could have taken off.

They went with it because they never investigated the long term costs associated with that decision. When I make a choice when purchasing things I look at all the costs; they should have done the same thing.

Sun was selling cheap/low cost SPARC based desktops, for example; had the market pulled finger, saw the future and decided the Sun way was the future; we'd be all run SPARC's, Solaris and Microsoft would be competing on the UNIX desktop.

Businesses need to stop thinking quarter by quarter and think about the long term costs associated with their decisions; stick with Microsoft and save short term or move to an alternative and save big long term. Yes, there will be pain. Any change will cause pain but once completed, its easy to move on from there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: A Sun emloyee's take
by psychicist on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: A Sun emloyee's take"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

StarOffice was available in the 1990s; Wordperfect plus many other names were made available for UNIX. UNIX with thin clients/X terminals could have taken off.


As far as I know it only really took off in Germany, where most of the original developers still reside (mainly Hamburg) and develop, nowadays mostly in the OpenOffice.org project. I know, because I have contributed some patches to it the last few days and have exchanged e-mails with a couple of the developers.

I don't know about other countries. I hadn't previously seen much of it sold here in the Netherlands either but then individuals and businesses here are pretty much in Microsoft's pocket, but not as much as in the US or UK.

(Remember we had a discussion about that before, no need to go there again :-)).

They went with it because they never investigated the long term costs associated with that decision. When I make a choice when purchasing things I look at all the costs; they should have done the same thing.


I wasn't serious about my data and documents until a few years ago and I have to say I am glad for that, since I hadn't created any mission-critical documents or software using tools only available on Windows.

Then I made a conscious decision to only use open document formats from that moment on. That was in the Windows 2000 pre-XP days, when I already saw the writing on the wall. That was also the period when I decided to migrate wholesale to Linux.

I eradicated the last Windows version from my machines in the summer of 2003 and I will never again install it natively on my hardware. Installing in a virtual machine should be fine.

Sun was selling cheap/low cost SPARC based desktops, for example; had the market pulled finger, saw the future and decided the Sun way was the future; we'd be all run SPARC's, Solaris and Microsoft would be competing on the UNIX desktop.


Too bad that didn't happen, it would have made computing a lot more fun and productive to many more people. It is only now that I have been able to afford a used Enterprise 250 server and I am getting an Ultra 10 one of these days.

Sun is partly to blame since they could have created more of a third party hardware industry all concentrated around the SPARC architecture. Also Solaris wouldn't have seen the kind of development it has over the past few years were it not for Linux eating their lunch.

I think now the time is right for a renewed pitch for SPARC (Niagara II/Rock) and Solaris, though Linux and the BSDs should be included as allies, OpenOffice.org and Java on a general purpose and affordable T2-based workstation.

I have made such a request to Jonathan Schwartz on his previous blog entry but I don't know if they have the guts to do it this time. If they don't I have enough options left to me such as Loongson 2F/3 and PPC processors.

Businesses need to stop thinking quarter by quarter and think about the long term costs associated with their decisions; stick with Microsoft and save short term or move to an alternative and save big long term. Yes, there will be pain. Any change will cause pain but once completed, its easy to move on from there.


You can see this kind of thing happening now, but I agree this is 10 years late. Microsoft is making more and more people unhappy with their computing choices and as a result they either complain (to e.g. the Consumentenbond here in the Netherlands), switch to Mac OS X or Linux, or are stuck with Windows XP/Vista and Office 2007 documents that no one with a limited budget can read.

Reply Score: 1

RE: A Sun emloyee's take
by segedunum on Thu 13th Sep 2007 09:17 UTC in reply to "A Sun emloyee's take"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Get it through your heads, folks: the Sun-Microsoft feud is over. And good riddance. It was bad for both companies.

I'm sorry to break the bad news to Sun, but Microsoft certainly doesn't see it that way. Microsoft sees this, as they have with every other competitor they've done this to, as a victory. The smell of blood is in the water.

Reply Score: 3

Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

The reason for this deal is that MICROS~1 and SUN has agreed to increase interoperability. This should make it easier for Solaris and Windows to work together.


So Ive heard.

Reply Score: 1