Also, let me really clear about our Linux strategy. We don’t have one. We don’t at all. We do not believe that Linux plays a role on the server. Period. If you want to buy it, we will sell it to you, but we believe that Solaris is a better alternative, that is safer, more robust, higher quality and dramatically less expensive in purchase price. Read more on eweek’s interview with Sun’s Schwartz here.
Impressive interview…
It seems like Sun is really trying to get a big piece of the very fat OS pie… Will they succeed? Well, I guess only time can tell. I can’t recall any accurate predictions in the computer market…
Schwartz keeps shouting out from the roof tops about how great Solaris is ( and for the most part he is right). It is awesome for doing what its designed to do.
But its still not going to be able to keep linux down mainly coz linux can only get better over time AND its the cheaper platform no matter what anyone says.
Also just listening to the guy speak about linux ….. man its gotta just tick U off.
If its soooo damn bad ….. dont sell it. Please stay away.
Contrary to popular belief LINUX doesnt need SUN.
Infact SUN NEEDS LINUX.
Anyways SUN really lacks vision. heck even Bill Gates has it ( I think ).
Nobody knows what they are gonna do next coz SUN themselves dont know.
BYe BYe SUN….. Dont let the hit ya on ur way out.
Solaris is a better alternative, that is safer, more robust, higher quality and dramatically less expensive in purchase price
So they pay you to use Solaris now? Fascinating! This whole Free software thing doesn’t interest me anymore! I want to use Solaris because it’s less expensive!
Just when you thought that Sun was out to bring Linux to the desktop and to the server, they shoot themselves in the foot by saying something like this…
I agree with Sun. Linux doesn’t have a place as a server operating system. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, AIX, and Solaris outclass, outperform, and outshine it in every way. I’ve tinkered with Linux here and there, but I honestly don’t get the point of it. It doesn’t make a decent server operating system (at least not compared to the previously mentioned operating systems), and it makes a horrible desktop operating system, so why does it continue to exist, and why does it get so much word-of-mouth when there are better operating systems out there for servers such as Solaris and BSD, and better operating systems out there for desktops, such as Windows and Mac OS X?
Some will say that Linux is better than AIX and/or Solaris because it’s free, but the BSDs are free as well, and much better for use as a server. Some will say that Linux is better because Red Hat and such offer support for it, but you can find companies to support BSD as well, such as FreeBSD Mall. Like I said above, I just don’t get why Linux continues to exist and gets such good word-of-mouth.
One word: scalability.
Linux runs anything from your PDA to your beowulf cluster.
Lots of companies have invested millions of dollars to make Linux run on just about anything. BSD is not an alternative as it lacks even good SMP support. Commercial OSes are not an alternative as you’d have a vendor lock-in situation.
Of the free kernels, Linux is by far the most advanced one. BSDs might have cleaner, more standardized distros, but then again, there are hundreds of Linux distros to choose from. Some offer security, some scalability, some work better on the desktop, etc.
Of the commercial kernels, Linux is the fastest evolving one and has the most attention and more developers than anything else.
Also dont forget that linux has made such a push based on the 2.4 kernel.
With the advent of 2.6 just imagine the possibilities.
Dont get me wrong, 2.4 was kool ……… but 2.6 ooooooo baby…….
Better leave now or I might wet my pants :>)
I agree with Sun. Linux doesn’t have a place as a server operating system. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, AIX, and Solaris outclass, outperform, and outshine it in every way. I’ve tinkered with Linux here and there, but I honestly don’t get the point of it. It doesn’t make a decent server operating system (at least not compared to the previously mentioned operating systems), and it makes a horrible desktop operating system, so why does it continue to exist, and why does it get so much word-of-mouth when there are better operating systems out there for servers such as Solaris and BSD, and better operating systems out there for desktops, such as Windows and Mac OS X?
Like you said yourself, you don’t get it. Linux solves problems for a lot of people every day. It’s proven technology, it’s cheap, it’s fun, it just works. That, and the fact that is was in the right place and the right time.
-fooks
>> Also, let me really clear about our Linux strategy. We don’t have one. We don’t at all.
>>
There you go, a SUN executive finally realises what everybody else already knew for the longest time!! Is this news? Nope, we already knew that SUN doesn’t have much strategy, for Linux or anything else besides. All the recent press they’ve been buying to gain visibility won’t do them much good. Sun has graduated into a late follower, whiner, obsesive litigator, and almost anti-anything outside sun.
As I see it, SUN’s primary way is not even with Linux or any other OS. Their profits mainly came from hardware, and 1386 is about to kick their royal ass on that front.
>> We do not believe that Linux plays
>> a role on the server. Period.
Whether linux is good enough for the desktop is still out with the jury, but anybody making the above statement is obviously out of step with the rest of the world. Linux may not be your choice, and that’s fine, but to have a vision where Linux is dead on servers is to stuck one’s head in the sand.
SUN, here’s a clue: IBM is making money. SUN has lost it for the last 9 straight quarters.
>> I expect to take 10 percent of the market in the first year. Ten percent of a $30 billion a year desktop market is huge.
>>
10 percent of the desktop market in ONE year? And all of that with MadHatter? Linux is not good enough for the server, but it is good enough to garner SUN 10 percent of the desktop market in one year? Mine, this man is living in another planet!
he (schwartz), says that sun will indemnify anyone using java desktop ( which includes suse)…. now how is he going to do that ?
if sco manage to win the case against ibm, then they will also be able to sue every other linux vendor, like, hhhm, i dunno, suse maybe ?
he also say (in a roundabout way) that sun does not support java desktop if you install it on the server. That must be the job for solaris ?
this guy should go back to working in macdonalds.
can I have fries with that ?
After reading all the things Schwartz and McNeally have said lately, I can only conclude that if they ever had a market share compareble to today’s Microsoft share, those people would be MUCH more arrogant and bullyish than the current Redmond congregation.
I do not think their schizophrenic position with respect to Linux is good for anyone. Yes, to most people it looks like they are badmouthing and belittling a product they would like to sell (Linux). However, they do not seem to realize that.
Also, let me really clear about our Linux strategy. We don’t have one. We don’t at all. We do not believe that Linux plays a role on the server. Period. If you want to buy it, we will sell it to you, but we believe that Solaris is a better alternative, that is safer, more robust, higher quality and dramatically less expensive in purchase price.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This really make me want to be a Linux machine from them! Hint: Companies don’t like it when you seem unsure of the very products you are selling! They also don’t like anything that hints of uncertainty in the product line that they’re buying into, and boy does this statement have uncertainty written all over it. He’s going to regret this interview…
Schwartz is trying to be confident in a company that hasn’t done too well lately. I believe GNU/LINUX is a great alternative on the server market. I haven’t seen to many School run GNU/LINUX on their servers and even less running AIX,BSD,etc. The network environment i work in deploys red hat on servers in a mixed network of clients that vary from win98 to win2k to xp and mac os 9 to os x… also our servers run win 2k server.. so far little issues have occured. (i.e. blaster) that were serious downtime. Of course Linux would’ve done better. I don’t know about solaris their HCL is pretty small if you ask me. I think PIMPHAT supports more out of the box then Solaris 9.. for x86
I agree with Sun. Linux doesn’t have a place as a server operating system. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, AIX, and Solaris outclass, outperform, and outshine it in every way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FreeBSD’s 5.x series is not yet officially stable, so if you’ve got an SMP machine, FreeBSD isn’t a good choice. Also, a lot of the “FreeBSD has better performance” stuff is from the kernel 2.2 or early 2.4 era. Linux has made huge strides in the last few years, especially in the areas FreeBSD has traditionally beens strong in. I’d love to see any benchmarks you’ve conducted that indicate that FreeBSD still has an edge! Neither NetBSD or OpenBSD have very good SMP support either. AIX doesn’t run on commodity hardware, and neither does Solaris. They have their place, but lets just say that Linux runs just great on my old 486/33 server, while Solaris x86, well, doesn’t run
I’ve tinkered with Linux here and there, but I honestly don’t get the point of it.
>>>>>>>>>>
Obviously.
It doesn’t make a decent server operating system (at least not compared to the previously mentioned operating systems),
>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess you should tell Google about how mistaken they are! And the US government! And the German government! Do you have any specific criticisms, or are you just spreading FUD?
and it makes a horrible desktop operating system,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
BS. Its the best desktop OS I’ve ever used. Its very fast (much faster than Windows under heavy load), extremely configurable, and very maintainable. There are rough spots in the GUI, but I’d rather use something that needs some polishing at the top than something that is fundementally broken down below.
from the interview,
i think Sun’s vision is something like this
Linux:
for desktops (Java Desktop System)
for network appliances (Sun Cobalt — which OS and all systems behind are hidden from user)
Solaris:
for servers
the unclear is what is for workstations?
may be Java Desktop System (Linux) on Intel/Opteron.
It’s pretty strage seeing someone talk about linux being bad for servers, and good for the desktop for once.
It’s good to see Sun pushing desktop linux like this, especially for thier intentions to get OEM’s(mmm, linux laptops!). I just hope they don’t turn on linux if thier server market gets threatened by it.
Of the commercial kernels, Linux is the fastest evolving one
This is not necessarily what buyers want to hear.
So Suns Mad Hatter linux distro is to be avoided as Sun will merely sell to you what you want and doesn’t give a damn meaning they’ll screw you over at the first given chance.
I think the problem people have with understanding Sun and it’s position on Linux is that Sun’s market is not the ” I’ll go to Fry’s and build my own PC server and install Linux on it” market. It never has been and it never will be. It’s not a profitable market in any shape or form. Sun is a company based on Enterprise hardware and software solutions that work together using Open Industry Standards. Sun will always be big on Solaris, because Sun see’s the future differently than most companies today. They don’t see a M$ desktop/server market. They see a large server backend serving thin clients and embedded devices.
While Linux is good for desktops and basic services (NFS, DNS, DHCP, Printing, etc..) it’s not capable of scaling the way Solaris does. Solaris is excellent for scaling large databases, application servers, etc. and all the basic stuff. The difference is that Solaris runs commercial applications like Oracle, SAP, Siebel, etc on highly scalable and reliable servers. While Linux can run some of these products, it can only do so on x86 gear, which has a lot of limitations. You can run Linux on other platforms, like a mainframe.. but without native commercial apps it doesn’t make much sense for small or large companies.
Sun’s vision is this..
You replace your M$ PC’s with either Linux running Sun’s Java Desktop or your replace it with Sun Ray network computers. On the back end your users are connected to highly scalable and reliable servers. You use the Jave Enterprise Environment, which is the Sun One software stack to run your E-mail, Calendar, IM, LDAP, Portal services, etc. Your applications, databases, etc. run on larger systems like 6800’s with Sun Cluster. For grid based workloads, you use Sun’s Grid engine. For things like web servers or on-demand services, you would use Sun’s blade servers (UltraSparc, x86, or Opteron). You use Sun’s N1 technology to manage and scale your services across the board.
If you guys paid attention to Sun’s product announcements this past week, you’d see the peices of this puzzle coming together. Linux will be Sun’s low-cost desktop environment, while it’s software and UltraSparc hardware line will be the backend. Sun is giving it’s customer’s choice with it’s software.. the Sun One software stack will run on Solaris (UltraSparc, x86, and Opteron) and Linux(x86). Scott said that Solaris is being ported to the Opteron, so Sun is keeping it’s options open. But in the mean time it has to keep to its commitment with UltraSparc. Solaris is not going to go away, they have 30year contracts with the government. But they understand that Linux has its place in the market and is providing solutions for it.
The number one thing that is preventing people from buying Linux and replacing all of their M$ apps and systems is the lack of completely integrated and tested commercial products. People have been burnt and stuck with M$ products for years, and don’t want to repeat that. Sun is providing the kitchen sink at ridiculously low prices and will deliver on the integration and testing that companies expect. Sun is releasing all of this software each quarter integrated and tested for easy deployment/upgrade. That is something you don’t get from M$ or IBM.
Linux does need Sun, to provide commercial quality enterprise software and support. And Sun needs Linux on the low-end to sell it’s complete system. In the end this will help Linux into more companies and help push M$ out the door. This is good for both Sun and the Linux community. It’s going to take more than free software to win over the industry, it’s going to take innovation on both the OSS and the commercial fronts. Sun, whether you like it or not, is going to be around for a long time and they are capable of helping Linux get to the next stage in this industry.
I’d like for everything in life to be free, but that’s just no the way of the world. Everything costs something. Linux is great tool, but it’s just that.. a tool. Windows is just a tool as well, not a great one, but a tool non-the-less. Sun has many tools and solutions that can help Linux play a bigger role. Linux ppl should be a bit more understanding of Sun. All products have their place in the industry, whether they are good or bad. Ultimately, it’s the products with the best technical and business sense that win the majority. The ways of M$ are becoming costly and unpopular, and companies expect something better to fill the void. Sun can help fill that void, and whether it’s on Solaris or Linux, is not the point. The point is that the productivity of the people will improve and the techie people will spend more time on projects than fixing M$ problems.
These guys are insane. They must have taken WAY too much acid back in the day. They have no stradegy at all. What the hell is going on over there?
Your subject line is utterly ludicrous.
>>Of the commercial kernels, Linux is the fastest evolving one
>
>This is not necessarily what buyers want to hear.
No. What buyers want to hear, at least according to MS and Intuit, among others, is “Well, the underlying system is hopelessly broken, so we’re just going to add more bells and whistles and hope you don’t notice”.
Most people want to have a system that’s moving ahead and getting better, not just bigger. Linux and, to an extent, MacOS, are currently making the biggest moves (of course, it looks like the MacOS has most of it’s best innovation behind them for now, but they’re still moving forward nicely). The *BSDs are moving forward, too, but there is little BSD buzz so it is largely unnoticed. MS just gets bulkier and bulkier (what next, MS Office Suite inextricably built in to the OS?). Although dropping the 3.1/95/98/me core was a huge step, it was eons ago in the tech world.
If, as you said, evolution was a disadvantage, we’d all still be using CP/M and the only “online” would be local BBS’s.
Of course, systems had to evolve to that stage, too.
Bah!
>>Of the commercial kernels, Linux is the fastest evolving one
Biologically speaking, Linux is the equivalent of a bacteria and Solaris of a human. While it is true that a bacteria can evolve quicker, and is great for researching because of it’s simplicity, it doesn’t mean that bacteria will be replacing us any time soon in capabilities.
Not sure you have your facts correct.
>>The difference is that Solaris runs commercial applications like Oracle, SAP, Siebel, etc on highly scalable and reliable servers. While Linux can run some of these products, it can only do so on x86 gear which has a lot of limitations. You can run Linux on other platforms, like a mainframe.. but without native commercial apps it doesn’t make much sense for small or large companies. <<
Are you sure about that? You can’t run Oracle on an IBM/Linux mainframe?
>>Sun is providing the kitchen sink at ridiculously low prices<<
I think it’s called “break-in pricing.” Sun is trying to break in to a market that is dominated by another player, so sun is pricing those products “ridiculously low.” But, what happens if the sunw products become the standard? Then you’re right back where you started except with sunw instead of msft. I’ll stick with openoffice.
>>Linux does need Sun, to provide commercial quality enterprise software and support.<<
How do you figure? Seems to me that Linux does just fine without Sun – although openoffice was a nice gift.
>>And Sun needs Linux on the low-end to sell it’s complete system.<<
Yes, sun “needs” linux on the low-end. Because when linux starts to be used on high-end ibm servers – that’s a serious threat to sunw.
>>Sun, whether you like it or not, is going to be around for a long time and they are capable of helping Linux get to the next stage in this industry. <<
Capable maybe, but willing? Linux is a competitor, on the high-end and the low-end. Sun knows that it is to sun’s advantage, to either own linux, or kill linux.
>>Sun has many tools and solutions that can help Linux play a bigger role.<<
And vice-versa. How much OSS stuff does sunw depend on for solaris? Samba, apachee, . .. .
>>Linux ppl should be a bit more understanding of Sun.<<
Yes. A lot of linux people do not yet understand that sunw is out to hijack linux. Sun wants to either own linux, or kill linux. Why do you think McNealy keeps screaming: “BUY FROM SUN OR SCOX WILL SUE YOU!!”
WUHU, unixconsole, you said exactly what i was thinking and just needed to put down in word. you did a fine job there, thanks! A stone felt from my heart as I read your brilliant comment.
I think this is the best offering any software company has done in a lot of time.
Most people agree that Solaris is a top-notch Unix that offers things the BSDs and Linux just don’t, especially if you need easily administered, highly available, top-performance servers.
Now you get a great Linux Desktop as well, and all that for just 100 bucks per year per employee. Go figure. Every other company wouldn’t even talk to you for that money!
This is not about “linux is GPL, so it’s for free”, but about “you get an highly usable all-in-one solution for almost free”.
I’m curious how Red Hat, SuSE (who provide Sun’s Linux), and IBM will react to this (in terms of product offerings and pricing).
While Linux is good for desktops and basic services (NFS, DNS, DHCP, Printing, etc..) it’s not capable of scaling the way Solaris does. Solaris is excellent for scaling large databases, application servers, etc. and all the basic stuff. The difference is that Solaris runs commercial applications like Oracle, SAP, Siebel, etc on highly scalable and reliable servers. While Linux can run some of these products, it can only do so on x86 gear, which has a lot of limitations. You can run Linux on other platforms, like a mainframe.. but without native commercial apps it doesn’t make much sense for small or large companies.
Is there something the Solaris programmers and execs know that the rest of the world doesn’t? What is going to happen when Linux does scale well and has many commercial solutions available for it? Don’t think for a second that its impossible for Linux to become as stable, scalable and commercially viable as Solaris.
Sun would be wise to do everything it can to play nice with the Linux community. Such as building their own Linux distribution designed for desktop and server use/management from scratch based on some of their Solaris technology and architecture, and make both OSs work together interchangably, scaling from PDAs to supercomputers. Solaris could use some help from those easy to use GNU tools in its default install and Linux sure could use all the enterprise quality features Sun would be willing to spare. I foresee a very profitable future for both of them, relatively speaking.
Schwartz’ comment may hit a few points. Of the “free” OS, Linux had the most hype. During that hype period (which I think is somewhat over) it wasn’t technically superior to any BSD system. Why i.e. FreeBSD wasn’t hyped as much is something historians might someday find out. Now that Linux is heading for the mainstream, I still see a lot of struggle ahead.
For example: Try to run an Oracle database, an SAP system on a Linux box connected to a SAN (means using fibre channel). You’re definitely in hell… Oracle, SAP, the box vendor (like HP, Dell etc.), the fibre channel card vendor (Like Emulex), the SAN vendor (like EMC) will all support Linux – but at least two of them will require a different kernel version, I promise. So, at least for one product you’re out of support. Build your own kernel? Forget it. Run persistent binding to overcome the brain-dead, pre-historic way Linux handles SCSI devices? Forget it. No vendor will allow you to do it, if you want to have support. No-one touches the kernel, the modules, sometimes even the stock distribution. Uh-oh, and don’t upgrade yourself, only use SuSE’s YaST or Red Hat Network. Otherwise you’re out of support. So, what is all that “Linux is ready for the data center” good for? Nothing. It still in its infancy regarding that stuff, because big companies rely on hardware and software support.
If you need basic services (file, print, web, NFS, directory), Linux is good for you. If you need brute processing power on cheap, clustered hardware, Linux may be the thing. But it is not ready for the data center, and it won’t be even with 2.6.
That is the funniest thing I’ve heard in a while from someone trying to put forward a serious argument. You blew it before you even typed a single word of your argument. Thanks for the laugh.
It’s that whenever someone from that company opens their mouth, they say something so baselessly stupid, it makes people mad at them.
I’ve worked for one of the largest ISP’s in the Philippines catering to more than 30,000 email, dialup and corporate customers. We’ve used linux since 1997 and have NEVER had a problem with the OS. From experience, we’ve found Linux to be more stable than leasedline connections (and those are supposed to be maintenance-free!)
Well said although I think most Linux supports will not get the point. They do not want to see the point. All they care about is Linux Linux Linux. Linux is good but it has its limitation likewise so does Solaris. Find the right tool for the job and use it. I am finally starting to hear things out of Sun that is making me interested in them again.
If Linux is so crap, why are Sun using it? Why not use Solaris x86 on the desktop?
Is it because Solaris x86 is practically useless for this task?
Theyre calling Linux inferior, but can’t match its capabilities in their own prodcuts, and are forced to use it because its way, way better then anything they are capable of developing by themselves.
It seems brain-dead to take a product you publically decry as being no good and then base a major desktop effort around it.
I mean, is their sales pitch really ‘Sun Linux – its not really very good’?
‘Linux has no place on the server’ is just laughable. Do Sun really intend to insult my, and other readers intelligence by spouting idiotic garbage like this?
I’ve been using Linux servers for years now, and they have always performed well and required very little maintenance.
My needs are relatively modest, and I don’t claim that my little collection of 1U and 2U rackmounts will ever support the kind of applications that require ‘5 9s’ uptime or massive throughput that might be better served by a big Sun machine, but most peoples needs are relatively modest like mine.
If Sun want to make out that everybody needs huge, expensive servers, 24×7 support contracts and the ability to scale to hundreds of CPUs, fine, but thats just a joke.
Realistically, the business requirements of many small to mid-sized companies are a perfect fit for Linux’s capabilities, and nothing that Sun offers can really compete with Linux/x86.
Linux is flexible, scalable at the lower end of the market, extremely cheap, customisable and fast. Whats not to like?
Solaris is, in short, an overengineered and archaic solution to the server-side requirements of most small to mid-sized businesses, and the popularity of Linux in this space is testament to that.
Why anyone without the need for big SPARC boxes would choose (at huge cost) to lock themselves in to Sun’s delusional little world of ‘Java on Solaris is everything you will ever need’ is beyond me.
Well, in the past when I had no money or job I used Linux. Why? because it was free and it ran on PC’s I was able to get for next to nothing. So Linux is a good way for a hobbiest or someone interested in learning “unix” on the cheap. But, now that I do work, I use Solaris. Why? I think it is a better OS for the types of work that medium to big companies need to get done. Sure it might cost a bit more, but you get what you pay for. So I see room for not only Solaris, Linux, Windows but hopefully a lot more OS’s. Because, frankly I think the OS should be irrelevant, it’s the applications that the people paying the bills care about.
Listen I like linux a lot. It makes a hell of a workstation for Unix engineers and programmers. It makes an awesome webserver, ftp server and basic services platform.
However, I agree with unixconsole. I have run Oracle on linux and Oracle on Sun and Solaris is slower and more stable and a good deal of this is due to inexpensive unreliable Intel hardware the linux boxes are running next to the quality of the Sun Enterprise Servers they sit next to in the racks. The problems I have had with linux are usually associated to hardware issues in a real-world server environment.
A Convolo DataGuard NFS cluster running on linux worked perfect in test with a Raidtec Array, Adaptec Adaptors and the custom made boxes dual AMD Athlon on Tyan boards. We changed one factor in the equation the type of Seagate drive and the cards began negotiating down to their lowest speed for the SCSI adaptor and the whole thing began unraveling. Every piece of hardware was the top rated but everything playing well together was a whole different target with linux.
Linux makes a hell of an application and services platform but I still stick with Solaris/Oracle for database servers and Solaris/Veritas for NAS solutions etc…etc..
I just end up having less hell with the solution.
Your mileage may vary and all opinions expressed are more own.
Totally false. Can Linux zealots please try to make a point without having to resort to lies? Sun has been making net profit since longer than that.
You say: whenever someone from that company opens their mouth, they say something so baselessly stupid, it makes people mad at them.
but then you say From experience, we’ve found Linux to be more stable than leasedline connections
This sentence is so braindead, why would we take your judgement on what is “baselessly stupid”?
Sun is indeed smart! Now they run on the mediahype a bit, and when users start adapting into their program they might get hinted of just how powerful Solaris is compared to Linux. They start of Linux and then simply move on to Solaris.
IS this the end of Linux? Might very well be!
I completely and utterly agree with every word you posted, unfortunately, it is unfortunate that the Linux fanboys and zealots just don’t get it. They think that the job of the system admin is to compile the latest kernel for the end user to get an orgasm over.
The fact remains, as you said, people want an end to end solution. They want a server and desktop solution that works nicely together, not just some ad-hoc crap put together by some two bit company.
There is no use wasting your breath unixconsole, unfortunately the noise to sound ratio is unbelievable.
You say: whenever someone from that company opens their mouth, they say something so baselessly stupid, it makes people mad at them.
but then you say From experience, we’ve found Linux to be more stable than leasedline connections
This sentence is so braindead, why would we take your judgement on what is “baselessly stupid”?
More to the point, who is there line provider because if I had a leased line connection which is <u>THAT</u> unreliable, I certainly would be looking for another provider or using another technology.
All you people claiming you run linux on your servers, do you mean on your homelan print/web/samba/ftp server?
If so, get a grip, I am sure you can technically call that a server, but really… That is just a small computer running some services.
When Sun talks about servers, they talk about big iron, real big things that runs circles around personal computers.
Sun is going to introduce a complete package for businesses that need an it infrastructure, this is good, and it is great that they are using linux as part of this.
But OFFCOURSE a company trying to sell its own product will always say that its own product is better than everything else. And solaris IS great on big servers, better than linux.
SUN is competing with Microsoft right now, and they are offering ‘the whole package’ to most companies for a lower price than purchasing ‘all the parts’. This is there Solaris offering on Intel or Sparc boxes.
SUN’s Solaris is compatible with Linux through Java, and in that way it’s a system. Now many corporations are interested in Linux, and therefore SUN provides a distribution of Linux, so …a company has a choice. This is good for everyone. It’s good for SUN because they are not locking businesses into their product, and it is good for Linux because corporations can ease the integration to an open source offering (The indemnification is nonesence, but it is part of the package).
So what I think is, at least SUN is compatible with the Linux world through Java, and that is more than Microsoft currently offers to their customers. I think that SUN has every right to compete with the Microsoft product/commodity. This is not a problem for Linux. The only problems that Linux has is when someone tries to prevent the rights and freedoms of open source development efforts. This is not happening here, so we should respect people who choose SUN, because they have a right to choose and the company is not doing evil things to Linux…other than some verbal insults, which is no big deal.
hahahaha…did any of you Solaris zealots read the headline?!? SUN has no Linux strategy. I can see that statement alone costing them millions. It simply means they were forced to adopt Linux *against their wishes* because they would rather not compete with it.
And can we please stop all this bs about Linux not able to run on highend servers. One of the most popular search engines in the world, google, runs on thousands of Linux servers. Pfft…like I’ve said before, under the price/performance ratios, Linux dances all over Solaris while drinking tea. And guess what business is all about cost/benefit vs /price/performance.
Sun had no choice, they were forced to adopt Linux, and they seem pretty mad about it. And SUN’s PR department needs to be disciplined for that careless statement made by SUN. That’s like telling me your offering me a product, but you have no clue why you are doing so.
All you people claiming you run linux on your servers, do you mean on your homelan print/web/samba/ftp server?
Nope, I mean on Dell Poweredges and old Compaq 3845 servers and some other Compaq 7100 boxes. Yes, we also use a load of these 2u custom jobs with dual Athlon AMD tyan boards and Intel Gigabit cards. What do we use them for?
Webservers, and application servers and monitoring boxes for Nagios and backup servers running netvault and we used it to test a bug tracking package called Test Trackor Pro.
What do we use Solaris for? We use it for our main NIS server (yes, I know we should be using LDAP or at least NIS+ but we have the traffic restricted and wrapped using tcpwrappers), and our NAS servers for backend and prod and our database servers both Informix and Oracle.
People do use linux for production purposes. Ask CNN.com that uses linux for their webservers and switched from Sun Enterprise 420Rs to do it.
Interesting that you mention Linux and CNN where they use Netscape-Enterprise 6.1 NOT Apache. Doesn’t that sound interesting. Interesting that you also didn’t mention the fact that they remained with SUN equipment and mearly moved to Linux, however, for all we know, they could easily replace Linux with Solaris x86 which is around the same price as SuSE Enterprise Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
SUN didn’t adopt Linux, they are however providing their customers a choice to run Java applications on Linux and be compatible with the Solaris product. SUN’s Linux strategy is to offer their customers the ‘choice’ because those customers are interested partially in Linux no matter what, because it is popular…and different.
Schwartz’s trash talk can not be explained logicaly, just read past it. Linux is a fine server platform, however Linux may lack support at a low cost because Linux is not a commodity like Solaris or MS Windows – so it will have problems competing with these vendors in the enterprise.
On the other hand, this is not Linux’s lot anyways, because Linux is a open platform rather than an integrated commodity, and it should not emulate a vendor offering if it is going to utilize it’s strength. Linux should instead focus on quality software and non vendor architecture, but instead architecture that can be reused (which is possible with middleware through specialization), and also architecture that can be refactored (which is not possible with middleware, but can be accomplished through generalization).
Remember that vendors offer short term choices in order to sell their product/commodity, where as Linux is a genral platform and there are always some short term choices available, the developed or developing works of the community, however what counts the most is that it really offers a long term investment and ownership. As open source architecture finds it’s way, it’s true nature, than the individual will be able to cross heavily guarded bridges that vendors protect because they don’t want you to ever have that kind of control.
64-bit processors from intel, amd, and motorola, just came out about one year ago. Many of the enterprise capabilities for Linux, like RCU, JFS, and NUMA, just came out about one year ago.
Sunw advocates *immedately* assume that if solaris is ahead of Linux *today* then solaris will always be ahead of Linux. Truth is, development and acceptance, is moving *much* faster for linux than solaris. Think about where linux will be two years from now.
Small wonder sunw is scared to death of linux. Linux solutions are much cheaper. Also, the super-high-end stuff isn’t needed by most companies.
> 64-bit processors from intel, amd, and motorola, just came
> out about one year ago.
– Intel has experience with 64bit processors for years, just not mainstream 64bit CPUs.
– HP as the actual developer of Itanium has also 64bit experience. It released the PA8000 64bit processor in 1995.
– Itanium was in development for about 10 years now.
– Motorola/IBM had also quite long experience with 64bit (since 1996).
I don’t consider this as a valid argument. Linux supports 64bit architectures for quite a while now.
> Many of the enterprise capabilities
> for Linux, like RCU, JFS, and NUMA, just came out about
> one year ago.
Fair enough. Mostly because of the lack of access to large SMP/MPP machines (or simply because there was no demand and/or developers).
You’re right. Sun forgets that Linux is catching up fast, and that they’ll loose any advantage in the enterprise market with Solaris eventually. It’s just a matter of time.
Don’t forget that Sun’s SPARC architecture has also seen better days and fails to compete with the rest of the market (although they were fine processors).
As an Ex-Sun exployee I find the fact that Mr. Schwartz agree’s that there’s a lack of strategy not surprising. I’d say Sun has a lot of visions (and good ones aswell), but the fact remains that they are not good guessing what the customer expects, nor did they ever had a real strategy except “the network is the computer”.
Sun has it’s market share, but if Sun really expects to gain up to 10% of the desktop market (and this in one year) they’re incredible stupid.
Look at Apple. They have a very nice desktop OS, and a good reputation, but 10%? Not even Apple! So why should Sun succeed which is an server expert (but not desktop expert)?!
64-bit processors from intel, amd, and motorola, just came out about one year ago. Many of the enterprise capabilities for Linux, like RCU, JFS, and NUMA, just came out about one year ago.
Sunw advocates *immedately* assume that if solaris is ahead of Linux *today* then solaris will always be ahead of Linux. Truth is, development and acceptance, is moving *much* faster for linux than solaris. Think about where linux will be two years from now.
Small wonder sunw is scared to death of linux. Linux solutions are much cheaper. Also, the super-high-end stuff isn’t needed by most companies.
And yet our local troll completely forgets the fact that Solaris on x86 is cheaper than Linux.
I mentioned them because I use to work there. The best tool for the best job is my arguement. I use linux and I use Solaris and see benefits in both platforms.
When did this become a free vs. pay arguement. The folks at Cnn.com use Iplanet because for the dynamic content they serve the decision was made that Iplanet was best. I am not arguing whether or not this was the correct decision because I was never at that sort of level anyway. The same folks that ran the Cnn sites also ran the Turner, Cartoon Network and the CNN si or Sports Illustrated sites some of these ran linux and apache on some of their servers BTW.
I support a hetereogenous server environment where a platform is judged by its strengths and not blind zealotry on any sides.
When did this become a free vs. pay arguement. The folks at Cnn.com use Iplanet because for the dynamic content they serve the decision was made that Iplanet was best. I am not arguing whether or not this was the correct decision because I was never at that sort of level anyway. The same folks that ran the Cnn sites also ran the Turner, Cartoon Network and the CNN si or Sports Illustrated sites some of these ran linux and apache on some of their servers BTW.
I never bought it up until walterbyrd started his anti-SUN, pro-linux tirade.
I too like to see a hetrogeneous network, Macs for the graphics, Linux for the desktop, Linux/Solaris on the servers all working like a swiss time piece, however, with that being said by having a large number of different operating systems, the cost of administration and maintainance can increase dramatically unless you can find a small band of people who are knowledgable in more than just operating system.
the cost of administration and maintainance can increase dramatically unless you can find a small band of people who are knowledgable in more than just operating system.
Ain’t that the trick?
This is why I find the MS homogenous environment so retricting. Lock a group of five Solaris admins in a room full of x86 intel boxes and one copy of RH Enterprise Server and they will have you a kickstart box and host of solid little webservers in a heart beat. Put a bunch of linux admins in a room with a copy of Oracle and a Enterprise 4500 Sun box and you are one google away from those guys putting together a database box. I can throw out a Mac OS X example or even a FreeBSD example. Many of the unix guys coming up now even started on MS and a couple can set up an NT server (no not as well as someone that has been doing it their whole career mind you).
Hiring people that are flexible in terms of server experience is not some gawd awfull amazing thing. Most Unix guys can deal with multiple *Nixes. I have worked with Dec Unix, Solaris, and multiple linux distros. Also, I have had some Mac experience and did some NT admining back in the day.
In contrast, most of the even really good MCSEs I know are lost outside of their MS focused world. They curse the hand full of Macs in their world cruelly. They are lost and deride the command line ssh focused world of the *Nix admin. In their defense some of the old-timers came off of the Novell transition and can deal with a Novell server if they have to which I for example could not.
In contrast, most of the even really good MCSEs I know are lost outside of their MS focused world. They curse the hand full of Macs in their world cruelly. They are lost and deride the command line ssh focused world of the *Nix admin. In their defense some of the old-timers came off of the Novell transition and can deal with a Novell server if they have to which I for example could not.
That is the MCSE programme for you, full of people who should never have been allowed within a 100metre radius of a computer, being allowed to sit a certificate. Not only does this cause problems for the employer but devalues the MCSE qualification meaning that even if a good admin comes along with a MCSE and knows UNIX back to front, all the employer would have to do is look, see that he/she has a MCSE and voila, he/she is shunted to the bottom of the list.
The worst part of it is the fact that many of them have no fundamental computer knowledge before they sit the MCSE, they simply think that knowing Windows is enough. IMHO, before one sits a certification, they should be formally educated to a minimum of diploma level.
The folks at Cnn.com use Iplanet because for the dynamic content they serve the decision was made that Iplanet was best.
I don’t suppose the Netscape/AOL/Time Warner connection had anything to do with that decision? 🙂
iPlanet, now SUN ONE, is now fully owned by SUN. It used to be a joint venture between the old Netscape and SUN, however, when AOL bought Netscape, SUN was given the opportunity to purchase the server side, which they did.
Netscape then simply became a browser distributor and now Netscape has been killed off and now Mozilla is going to be the main gecko based distributor, hence the reason why Firebird and Thunderbird are in development as they are the consumer focused distributions.
“And yet our local troll completely forgets the fact that Solaris on x86 is cheaper than Linux.”
Only according to sunw.