In an interview with eWEEK, Sun CEO Scott McNealy sounds off on the SCO-Linux dispute, Unix and his company’s future. Also, here is a review of the Sun Fire x86 Server: The high-performance v65x edges similar x86 machines in price, eWeek says.
McNealy Weighs In on Linux, Unix, Sun
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
From Sun McNeally:
“We’ve got a new desktop strategy that is real kick-ass. ”
What, pray, is this desktop strategy? Inquiring minds would like to know.
He is probably talking about the Project Mad Hatter, which is a Red Hat Linux desktop sold as the last resort, when the customer doesn’t want to pay large sums for SPARC workstations with Solaris.
I paid $20 and I got the download version of solaris 9 for x86 (3-4 CDs as far as I recollect).
Admiral
Wonderfully done, Mr. McNealy. You used many words to say absolutely nothing.
No wonder Sun is having so much trouble. As far as Linux users facing potential liability, see the following:
“Eben Moglen, professor of law at Columbia University and general counsel to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), though says there is absolutely no reason for anyone to buy SCO’s license. “Users don’t need a license to use copyrighted programs anymore than they need to pay a copyright fee before reading Gone with the Wind. If you copy, distribute, or modify copyrighted material, then you can be in copyright violation.””
From:
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003072201526NWBZLL
kickass!
For many years Sun’s desktop strategy has been Sunray thin client networks (The Network is the Computer), which have a significantly lower TCO than a “thick client” solution for several reasons, such as software licensing issues, environmental impact (just think of how much heat a few hundred P4 workstations with 84W heat dissipation generate), and power consumption.
Recently Sun has begun work on porting the Sunray server to Linux. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it the Sunray server acts as a sort of proxy, accepting connections from X clients.
This opens the doors for a number of interesting possibilities, namely using Wine in conjunction with the Crossover plugin to allow users to run Microsoft Office on a Sunray network without needing NT-based Citrix servers in order to do it.
N1 allows tasks to be transparently and intelligently divided and assigned to different systems within a cluster of servers which would be running the Sunray server and applications.
> paid $20 and I got the download version of solaris 9 for x86 (3-4 CDs as far as I recollect).
Yeah, I did too. Found out that it doesn’t have drivers to support my hardware. I think it is just some old version they dug out of a shelf on friday afternoon before they left for a long weekend.
See, that’s the problem. Who is going to pay for a Sunray?
Does it have a DVD player? CDRW drive? What kind of processor do you get for that money? Is the hardware comparable to the hardware you would get with a PC that costs the same amount?
If all you want to do is run wine through a remote X display, Linux supports this natively. So I still don’t see the value of the Sun solution. Am I missing something?
> See, that’s the problem. Who is going to pay for a Sunray?
SunRay are for enterprises, not for home users.
> Does it have a DVD player?
You play DVDs at work?
> CDRW drive?
Does your compay needs a CDRW drive at every desktop?
> What kind of processor do you get for that money?
SunRays uses server’s processors
> Is the hardware comparable to the hardware you would get with a PC that costs the same amount?
SunRay uses servers hardware
> If all you want to do is run wine through a remote X
> display, Linux supports this natively. So I still don’t
> see the value of the Sun solution. Am I missing something?
SunRay has multimedia (video input, audio input/output), local USB ports, encrypted trafic, smartcard reader, mobile sessions (using smartcards or not), there’s no client software (nor even client software, just the SunRay firmware), and lot more unique features. SunRay appliances are not X terminals, please, read the specs before posting
Regards: ClawGrip, who works on a SunRay everyday.
“..but the dirty little secret here is that PA is gone also.”
Hm.. Thanks for the info Sun CEO McNeal.
What a crack head.
Stupid GPL Zealots hit the comments again. SUN having so much problems bla bla bla…
What problems do they have???? They obviously have an incredibly scalable solution to offer their clients and I can imagine their customer base growing as people want something stable, meaning not Linux.
Ooooh now I get it… SUN doesn’t get home users who run a half crappy website to buy their 50k+ Servers??? Whoever is so stupid to think that’s what they’re aiming for needs to read a book about marketing or something.
While at it, read about the effects of instable servers in terms of TCO and you’ll probably never mention the word Linux again.
We all know that the whole SCO deal is an ugly mixture of bullshit and stock manipulation. Seeing McNealy perpetuate that is disgusting, but that’s only the beginning.
For one thing, comparing SCO’s extortion of the linux community with the RIAA’s prosecution of Napster. In the Napster case it was the users who were actively violating copyrights, not the provider, even if it was the provider who happened to take the fall. In the case of Linux it can only be the provider (say, Red Hat, or Linus himself) because the users have no specific knowledge of any violations. But even then, SCO’s ownership of any UNIX copyrights is in contention from Novell, and their recent registration of the SysV copyright seems to depend on code that they didn’t own in the first place.
Next, his assertion that the web services layer is the future of all development on the computer. Because, like, people are tired of software that runs on their own CPU without that added latency of a wired or wireless connection. And software that compiles into machine code, instead of running inside some virtual machine sandbox. This guy needs a major dose of reality.
“We are changing the world with our quarterly product releases” is typical managerial hyperbole which maybe I can forgive, unlikely as it seems.
The only interesting point I got out of the article is his assertion that Red Hat should indemnify their users. I don’t believe this is necessary (see Marc Wilson’s comment), but I could understand it if performed as a positive gesture from Red Hat toward their customers. The risks for them are likely minimal, but perhaps the FSF lawyer could give them a little face time first.
I’m even less optimistic of Sun’s chances of surviving for another 10 years after reading this article. Sun has no viable desktop plans and never has had. Solaris will have some intense pressure now with a viable Sparc64 capable gcc and glibc with linux kernel 2.6. IBM is set to push Sun into irrelevance in all 3 catagories: high and middle end servers and desktop systems. Despite all of the intense competition Sun STILL can’t come up with a viable short nor long term strategy.
The CEO himself can’t even come up with anything coherent to say about Sun’s real goals and strategies other than bashing everyone else.
Is one of the few CEO’s I really respect. He seems to generally have ethics. I don’t like how he is handling issues to do with SCO, but on the whole he is a standup guy who makes a lot of sense.
I would definitely believe him before anything Balmer had to say.
See, that’s the problem. Who is going to pay for a Sunray?
Those concerned with what computers actually cost instead of what they cost up front.
Does it have a DVD player? CDRW drive? What kind of processor do you get for that money? Is the hardware comparable to the hardware you would get with a PC that costs the same amount?
Apparently you’re misunderstanding the concept of a “thin client”
If all you want to do is run wine through a remote X display, Linux supports this natively.
Apparently the concept of “thin client” doesn’t register in your head. The point of using thin clients is to reduce the power consumption and environmental impact of “thick clients”. Computers heat up rooms, and cooling rooms costs money. Sunrays (at least the LCD versions) have negligable environmental impact. An LCD Sunray draws 18W for the entire system. A typical computer system + monitor will draw something in the neighborhood of 300W for an LCD system, or 400W for a CRT system.
So, let’s do the math. In California, where electricity costs ~6.9 cents per kilowatt hour, assuming a medium sized corporate environment with 200 systems, a “thick client” solution (with LCDs) will cost:
.3 kilowatts * $0.069/kilowatt hours * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year * 200 machines = $35,040/year
A Sunray setup would cost:
.018 kilowatts * $0.069/kilowatt hours * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year * 200 Sunrays = $1,752/year
That’s a net savings of ~$33,000 per year, and that doesn’t include the cost of air conditioning to remove the heat generated by 200 computers.
While a Sunray network will require servers, the thick client network would as well. In a Sunray network, file servers and application servers are the same thing. All files on the entire system are consolidated, so there’s no more worrying about whose machine a particular file is on… everything is on the same place.
Sunrays allow a user to login via a SmartCard. Furthermore, you can pull your SmartCard out of a Sunray and move to a different Sunray and your session will be seamlessly and transparently moved to the other Sunray. You can leave your session open, which is equivalent to keeping your computer on, except it isn’t tied to a particular system so someone else can use it while you’re away.
System administration becomes significantly easier with a Sunray environment. Suddenly instead of having dozens of SAs to maintain a network of 200 individual systems, you can have a handful maintain the servers, and replace individual Sunrays when they break. Assuming the average corporation with 200 systems has about 20 administrators, whereas maybe 5 are needed in the Sunray environment, and assuming an average salary of $30,000/yr (which is very conservative), the cost savings becomes $450,000/yr.
Furthermore, using X11 for remote display alone is abominable. The Sunray server can translate and compress things pushed through extensions normally only available locally like the shm extension. Using this it is possible to watch a DVD on a Sunray through Xine without any visible slowdown, which is truly a testament to the Sunray protocol.
So I still don’t see the value of the Sun solution. Am I missing something?
Yes, I’d say you aren’t very familiar with the advantages of a thin client environment, but then again neither are many corporations, which is why despite Sun’s best efforts at demonstrating the TCO advantages of a thin client network they haven’t sold very well.
In the case of Linux it can only be the provider (say, Red Hat, or Linus himself) because the users have no specific knowledge of any violations.
Nope.
Neither Linus nor Red Hat (nor any of the other distros, I imagine) have taken the responsibility and indemnified end users that the code they are running is pure, clean, and legal. That means that any liablity that exists from running that code is transferred to the user.
If SCO says that “libInfringing.so” that’s linked in the kernel is, essentially, stolen property, and you are using said stolen property, then YOU are liable for the damages of using that property. It’s quite obvious you are liable, as you are the one using it. At no time did anyone assert to you that this code was clean and pure and legal. No one has taken that responsibility, so lucky you, you get to assume it.
Now, if you went and purchased, say, a car from a used car lot and later that car turns out to be stolen property, then while they can sieze the car, they can’t press any charges about accepting stolen property etc. You bought it, essentially, in good faith from the dealer. If he didn’t know it was stolen, he couldn’t be prosecuted for selling stolen property. “The paperwork look authentic and official, how was I supposed to know?”
But, see, folks like Red Hat specifically DON’T accept this kind of liability. Red Hats lawyers know they can’t. So, it’s all passed on to the customers.
But even then, SCO’s ownership of any UNIX copyrights is in contention from Novell, and their recent registration of the SysV copyright seems to depend on code that they didn’t own in the first place.
SCO has the enforcement rights without actually owning the copyrights. The copyright thing is a detail that they’re just cleaning up. They’ve always had the right to prosecute these kind of issues for Sys V code.
The only interesting point I got out of the article is his assertion that Red Hat should indemnify their users. I don’t believe this is necessary (see Marc Wilson’s comment), but I could understand it if performed as a positive gesture from Red Hat toward their customers. The risks for them are likely minimal, but perhaps the FSF lawyer could give them a little face time first.
Yup, if Red Hat had done this, then SCO would only be able to go directly to them rather than to all of their customers. Of course, Red Hat, won’t do this. “So, Staff Lawyer, should we accept liability for IP concerns on code contributed by God knows who, at God knows when from God knows where?” “Umm…No.”
That’s why SCO is basically saying that if you have a Unixware License, then that license will cover any code that you are using that infringes upon their IP. Note, that a Unixware license wouldn’t protect you from, say, something like the GIF patent should Unisys decide to hunt you down and prosecute you. It only covers SCOs code, not the whole kernel, and not the whole system.
Ex-Sun employee here. ESPP down the drain. And this guy is still living in his own f**king reality-distorted world.
I’m so screwed.
GEeeez
The CEO himself can’t even come up with anything coherent to say about Sun’s real goals and strategies other than bashing everyone else.
Normally during an interview you answer a journalists questions. Now if the question would be for instance “what’s your name?” the answer shouldn’t be like “The weather surely is impressive and here’s our business plan”.
And this Linux will take over the world stuff, that’s been said for the last 7 years or so and still allways behind with the same long step as allways. Everyone else is developing just as fast as Linux….
Will,
You are an idiot and I suspect that you are quite aware it.
1)The Gif patent just expired.
2) Making use of copyrighted material that is not yours is not illegal. Trading and distributing it is.
3) SCO’s claims have not been sanctioned by a court of law. Until then, I can claim I own the moon, but it will only remain a claim.
4) SCO claims that Linux stole code to get to its actual performance. If that were the case, then Unixware would also scale and perform as well but it doesn’t.
5) You are a worthless shill and your arguments are transparently deceptive. In other words, you are not fooling anybody. Go collect your check from Sr. McBride.
And one last thing, physical property and code are not ruled by the same set of laws. Your analogies are only meant to place fear in people’s heart. You deserve the contempt of all the coders who have given their time to create an operating system that is free for everyone to use.
Nobody believes you or the claims made by SCO. I know free-software developers and they are the most ethical people I have come across.
Open-source software is the most transparent process there is. For those that distribute binary only software, those are the ones who hide behind the veiled obscurity of their systems. This is an attack on freedom, for if Linux triumph every human being will be able to create and disseminate his creations to everyone on the planet.
This is the queen wishing to put a tax on the free colonies, and we are about to throw our own Boston-tea party and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it!
>>
2) Making use of copyrighted material that is not yours is not illegal. Trading and distributing it is.
>>
WRONG.
ANY NON AUTHORIZED use of copyrighted material ***IS ILLEGAL*** (‘Fair Use’ is implicitly authorized).
You just made up (out of the blue) that “only trading and distributing is illegal”. Nonsense. Once there is a profit (such as in trading and sometimes in distributing), a merely civil wrong could turn into a crime (legislations differ on this, normally it is a matter of the amount of money profited/defrauded), which obviously has stronger consequences.
>>
In the case of Linux it can only be the provider (say, Red Hat, or Linus himself) because the users have no specific knowledge of any violations.
Nope.
Neither Linus nor Red Hat (nor any of the other distros, I imagine) have taken the responsibility and indemnified end users that the code they are running is pure, clean, and legal. That means that any liablity that exists from running that code is transferred to the user.
>>
Nope nope.
Neither Linus nor Red Hat can avoid that responsability, specially Red Hat. It doesn’t matter wether they “want” to take it or not, they are objetively liable and any contract clause denying this is NULL, without legal force; invalid.
That means that saying “that any liablity that exists from running that code is transferred to the user” is nonsense too, and won’t stand in any Court.
“They are objectively liable”, and it doesn’t matter “whether they want to take responsability or not”.
I hate these misspellings, sorry, Spaniard writing.
ANY NON AUTHORIZED use of copyrighted material ***IS ILLEGAL*** (‘Fair Use’ is implicitly authorized).
You just made up (out of the blue) that “only trading and distributing is illegal”. Nonsense. Once there is a profit (such as in trading and sometimes in distributing), a merely civil wrong could turn into a crime (legislations differ on this, normally it is a matter of the amount of money profited/defrauded), which obviously has stronger consequences.”
Chaval,
Go review your copyright law. I am speaking of users here. Users are not selling commercial copies of Linux. If somebody gives me a copyrighted book to read, I can read it as many times as I want to or give it to whomever I please. If I bought the book, I can even sell it. And if the author of the book has plagiarized sections of it, that is the author’s problems, not mine.
More importantly, all these claims about copyright infringment remain unsubstantiated. I have researched this fairly thoroughly and the only explanation that makes sense right now is that this is nothing but an extortion scheme from a failing company.
You understand neither the spirit of copyright law nor its letter.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Earns-Sun-Microsystem…
Sun is doing just great. Keep it up. Keep trashing Linux while the Penguin eats your lunch.
SUN, adapt or die. The sooner you understand this, the better of you are.
Kid?,
You just described some of the variants of the Copyright “Fair Use” I mentioned before. Because of my profession I know wery well “the spirit and letter of the US copyright law”, you know neither letter nor spirit and make a muddle of it all.
Some of your comparisons are quite infantile, nothwistanding your hysteric response I’ll try to explain one of those comparisons you made.
>>
I am speaking of users here. Users are not selling commercial copies of Linux. If somebody gives me a copyrighted book to read, I can read it as many times as I want to or give it to whomever I please. If I bought the book, I can even sell it. And if the author of the book has plagiarized sections of it, that is the author’s problems, not mine.
>>
If somebody gives you a copyrighted book to read, you can certainly “read it as many times as you want to or give it to whomever you please”, I have not questioned that. If you bought the book, you “can even sell it”, I have not questioned that either. And if the author of the book has plagiarized sections of it, that is “the author’s problems, not yours”, to an extend, yes it’s the author’s and editor’s problem. The latter is what I said to Will, “neither Linus nor Red Hat can avoid that responsability, specially Red Hat. It doesn’t matter whether they “want” to take it or not, they are objectively liable and any contract clause denying this is NULL, without legal force; invalid.”. Having said that, perhaps you know that books and software have a different legal treatment, and that the license of use of “plagiarized” software, so to speak, is naturally invalid (thinking of the GPL license here), how sad for your ‘friendz’.
“All these claims about copyright infringement remain unsubstantiated”, yes, you are keen of stating the obvious.
The rest of your mud is just that.