Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jun 2007 10:29 UTC, submitted by binarycrusader
Oracle and SUN Simon Phipps of Sun has responded to the recent criticism of Sun's openness, pointing out that even releasing information that they may already have costs a lot of money. "Jonathan asked me to look into this, to ensure we're pursuing an open path across all of Sun, not simply the software group. We take all input seriously, and we can't solve all problems for all parties, but we're committed to doing our best to faithfully engage with all the communities we serve, in the same spirit as the existing Open Source Ombudsman Scheme. With the support of my team and others in the community I'll try to build a new scheme that is fair and transparent."
Permalink for comment 248979
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: What is openness?
by binarycrusader on Tue 19th Jun 2007 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What is openness?"
Member since:

You seem to be merely repeating what I already stated.

The point is, even a few dollars difference can make a big difference. Remember that Sun has a responsibility to their shareholders *before* the community to bring the most return on their investment. Obviously there is some balance to be hand in that, but "freedom" and "altruistic goals" only go so far.

Finally, Sun actually doesn't have the market position to be able to tell Broadcom "sorry can't use your RAID chips - you won't open your drivers."

As much as I would like to believe Sun has the kind of market power, they don't. Maybe Dell, but definitely not Sun.

I also don't believe that any of Sun's engineers would arbitrarily choose hardware are you seem to imply by saying there could be no cost or performance difference. Everything I have read or heard indicates otherwise.

Reply Parent Score: 5