To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Actually, I do have a very modest 500 shares of Sun and am purchasing hardware for my business through their startup essentials program. I really like the turn Sun has made to open source. I am already paying a premium for some equipment through Sun, and the startup essentials discount brings it more in line with the rest of the market. (Their SATA drives are not cheap - almost $1 per Gig.)
One requirement I had for the platform we settled on (Solaris) is open source. I looked at FreeBSD and I already had a fair grounding in Linux. If Solaris were not open source, it would not be on the table. Part of the reason is we expect to host some of our contracting customer sites in house. ZFS and Zones are a large part of what drew us to Solaris, but it would have been a non-starter under closed source.




Member since:
2005-07-06
Actually, you gave a product that performed poorly at 5 times the cost. That's a strawman.
I disagree. It doesn't really matter if the difference is $3 or $500. Depending on the person the difference may be irrelevant as long as a less expensive option exists.
In addition, you seem to gloss over the fact that 3% on a single system may not big a big deal, but if someone was purchaing thousands of systems that 3% can add up very quickly.
I'm certain that if you asked the average IT department who is purchaing 1,000 machines if they wanted them with a video card with an open source driver but it would cost them 3% more for their total invoice than it would if they opted for a driver with no source code they would choose the cheaper option.
That's my point about "perceived freedom"; it's all a matter of perception.
In the short run, that's fine, as they make their transition, but I think it will actually be in their shareholders best interest, in the long run, to do what customers want.
That's the for the shareholders and Sun to decide, not for people who think that small increases in price are acceptable for "perceived freedom." Remember that most of Sun's customers could care less if the source code is available for a particular driver for their hardware or not, they just want a completely supported, working solution.
While Sun's customers did want the source code for Solaris for other reasons, in this particular case, I do not believe the same necessarily applies.
Its also rather impolite, in my view, to force your particular view of "necessary freedoms" on a company who you do not represent as a shareholder or Customer (probably).
Personally, I could care less if the source code for a driver is available or not. Wherever possible, it is certainly nice to have that insurance, but it is not worth money to me.
In an ideal world, a Customer would be able to simply say "I would like to ensure my systems are fully open and am willing to pay a 3% premium."
Its the same situation Dell is having right now with some of their systems.
Nevermind that in some industries, the full specifications of hardware will never be available due to government or other regulations.
Edited 2007-06-19 21:02