Sun Microsystems on Monday said it has reorganized and re-branded its disparate software lines and put them all under the Sun ONE umbrella. By re-branding its software, Sun hopes to better explain, and hence sell, its software to large corporate customers. As a result, the iPlanet Web Server, software for running large Web servers, will be rechristened the Sun ONE Web server, while the Chilisoft ASP will go by the name Sun ONE Active Server Pages. Our Take: As you can see, Sun is going full speed with Sun ONE, which is pretty much a similar range of products and strategy as Microsoft’s .NET. A lot of people in our forums have dismissed the whole idea of .NET (most without knowing what .NET and ONE really are), but the bottomline is that it makes sense on how the future of computing is going to look like. If it won’t be Microsoft and its .NET, it will be Sun and ONE. Bottomline is that you can’t get away from this “new way of doing things.” Exactly as we said in the last paragraph of our .NET editorial two months ago. Update: Java and .NET battle for the web’s future.
Sun Software: Now it’s ONE for All
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
WSXL should fit in there somewhere between .NET and Sun ONE, shouldn’t it?
Basically it’s just new names for old things. How do you mean users won’t be able to escape? Sun’s ONE strategy sounds nice, and Microsoft’s ideas always sound bad if you’re anti-MS, which basically means everyone.
“Momentum Growing for .NET Development
The official launch of Visual Studio .NET and the .NET Framework is the final step in delivering these products into the hands of customers who have eagerly awaited Microsoft’s new integrated development environment. The launch culminates with events in 150 cities worldwide, with more than 125,000 developers celebrating the final release of the products that enjoyed one of the broadest beta adoptions of a prerelease product ever. More than 3.5 million copies of Visual Studio .NET and the .NET Framework were distributed during beta testing. Since their availability in January to MSDN® developer program subscribers, more than 350,000 customers have received the final version of these products.
Other demonstrations of increasing .NET momentum include the following:
– 250,000 developers have received training through more than 200 courses on .NET.
– 190 add-on tools are launching simultaneously with Visual Studio .NET.
– More than 200 books on .NET for developers are now available.
– 764 MSDN user groups represent a 30 percent increase in the past six months.
– The MSDN Academic Alliance includes 1,500 computer science department members at 815 institutions, reaching 1,500 faculty and more than 200,000 students.
Industry recognition of Visual Studio .NET has resulted in the following awards:
– InfoWorld 2001 Technology of the Year.
– PC Magazine Technical Excellence Award.
– Intelligent Enterprise Readers Choice Award.
– VARBusiness Editors Choice, Top 10 New Products of the Year.
In addition, a new .NET international user group association was announced earlier in the week with the creation of the International .NET Association (INETA) of User Groups. As a charter sponsor of INETA, Microsoft will provide training support for the INETA Speakers Bureau in providing content to its members.”
http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/press/2002/Feb02/02-13Revolution…
What do you mean by “You can’t get away from this?”.
There is always one way to get away from such things, and it’s most of the time a very easy way. Just don’t support it.
What you are saying it basically the same as “The meat industry has now come up with a new groundbraking way to reproduce animals in a cost-effective way. All vegetarians will now have to start eating meat, there is simply no way to escape this.”
What I’m trying to say is that just because a company is introducing some new technology that will make it easier for me to do this and that doesn’t mean that I should automagically embrace it with all my heart, because there may be a bigger downside to it.
Weather it’s .NET or ONE, it’s mainly going to benefit one part, and it’s not the consumers. Sure, they wrap it in a nice package and promise you this and that, but in the end, all that I see is an excuse for these companies to make more money, or in this case, loose less money.
To be honest, I don’t really see how .NET or ONE is going to make any drastic changes my life, other than the fact that I will have even more bills to pay each month.
What do I use my computer for? Well. it’s mostly making music, creating graphics, and coding. What good is .NET or ONE for me, and why can’t I escape it?
>What good is .NET or ONE for me, and why can’t I escape it?
You? nothing. Your/My employer? A lot of new names
* opens up vim and starts writing asm code for Alpha
* runs gas and enjoys his time
if .NET and MS takes my computer by force, I’ll join the monks.
One of the two is a convicted anticompetitive company, a computing industry virus that keeps spreading, the other is not.
Sun’s chief strategy officer, Jonathan Schwartz, had a great intervention on the Non-Settling States Remedies Proceedings. His testimony was very ilustrative to me of the big difference between these two emerging platforms, Microsoft .NET and Sun ONE. These are some selected excerpts:
>>
[April 9, 2002. Steven Holley for the defendant Microsoft Corporation, questioning Jonathan Schwartz].
Q. The Liberty Alliance was created — the name was created as an insult to the Microsoft Corporation, was it not, because it is meant to mean liberty from Microsoft to Gemini?
A. With all due respect, I think that’s a little paranoid.
Q. Well, who thought up the name?
A. I’m not certain.
Q. Are you aware that Microsoft has objected to the name on the basis that I just stated?
A. Yes, I am. I believe my cofounders in the alliance, all of whom could easily change the name with a snap of their fingers disagreed. Thus we kept the name.
Q. You are aware that one of the reasons that Microsoft has thus far declined to join the Liberty Alliance is because Sun uses the organization to bash the Microsoft Corporation?
A. No. I think we use the — our membership, as each company can use its membership, to drive standards and to promote
interoperability. And to the extent that Microsoft does not join, that suggests to me — and I have not been shy in articulating — that Microsoft may not be interested in interoperability.
Q. When you say that Microsoft isn’t interested in interoperability, how do you square that testimony, sir, with the announcement by Microsoft on September 10th of 2001 that it would federate Passport with any other authentication service,
including the Liberty Alliance which doesn’t yet exist; right?
A. Right. So, as you point out, that’s a forward-looking statement. I hope it turns out to be true. But I would also
suggest that the statement that was just made is limited to authentication. And in order to fully interoperate with an identity system you need to interoperate with all three standards for identify, standards for authentication, and standards for authorization.
…
Q. Okay. And did you also say, sir, “And, by the way, that promotes their identity system, their authentication system
which is driven specifically through proprietary standards into Active Directory and, moreover, authorization only for Windows .NET services. So if you’re a business and you end up running Passport, you better move all of your business systems on to .NET. And, by the way, you are going to have to move your customer lists directly into Microsoft’s storage.”
Did you say that, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And by that, you meant that Microsoft was going to insist that customers literally hand their — that the corporations
literally hand their customer lists over to be stored in Microsoft servers?
A. Well, they would be doing that by deploying Windows XP. To the extent that Windows XP requires Passport, so, yes, I1 believe that process has begun.
…
Q. Now, Sun did not create the Liberty Alliance as a charitable act, did it?
A. No, we did not.
Q. In fact, Sun created the Liberty Alliance in order to advance its own commercial self interests?
A. We believe the propagation of interoperable standards creates market opportunity for everyone.
Q. Well, actually, don’t you really see it as a mechanism for generating revenue to benefit Sun’s shareholders?
A. If you look at the evolution of the Internet, Sun did not invent HTTP. Sun did not invent the Netscape Web browser. Yet Sun, as a result of the growth of the Internet on freely open and publicly available standards, Sun shareholders did very well.
…
Q. And Sun is the first out of the box, is it not, with an implementation designed to leverage Sun’s hardware, Sun’s
operating systems, and Sun’s server applications to deal with secure network identity?
A. If Sun were not the first to use Sun’s product to deliver a Sun solution, I would be surprised.
Q. And Sun has signed up a bunch of system integrators to work with Sun on leveraging the SunONE architecture to provide
secure identity services to customers; correct?
A. Sun has put together a solution which runs on our hardware.
It also runs on Hewlett-Packard hardware and Intel hardware designed to enable large companies to build out digital
identity systems.
It also includes a directory from Sun which, if the customer doesn’t like, they can remove and replace with Novell’s eDirectory.
It also includes a policy engine from Sun, which if customers don’t like, they can remove and replace with Netegrity’s policy engine.
So, yes, we have tried to integrate our solution together, but we have not in any view bound that solution together so that a customer cannot configure it.
>>
come on Euginia. all .NET and ONE are is a diffrent way of doing things, not THE way of doing things. yeah, it is great that I can compile my C code to the C# byte code, but so what. I get a less optimised, slower product that can not have all the features of the language supported. those points right there limit its usfullness.
cool, I can make a server side script in my Language dejour.
Big deal.
cool , I can make a program that will call out to a content provider and get stuff to display on the local machine and it can run on an machine that supports the runtime.
so, I can do the same thing in ANSI C, minus the one binary thing. but big deal, one binary means less performence, and believe me, other systems that the runtime will work on will haev performence about the same a Java. MS will get great prformence becasue they will make loading the runtime part of the OS boot process.
all these techs will do is make a small group of problems, that already have a solution, have a slightly more convenient one, depending on what you want to do.
Novell continues to develop it’s One Net fraework :o)
No, really. One Net has been around since BEFORE .NET, about 2 years before.
I have worked for major corporations and small businesses. NONE of them would trust their online corporate data to anyone other than their own IT departments.
NO business want’s to give M$ gatekeeper status on their transactions so ultimately M$ can steal their customers. That is why Hailstorm failed. .NET will fail (or be implemented in a much reduced fashion) for precisely the same reason. People want to control their own data. And with M$’s record on security, who WOULD trust them with data of any kind?
NOBODY I know would allow M$ or SUN to hold their data ransom…or be stupid enough to enter into an agreement like that.
.NET and ONE are press tempests in teapots stirred up to generate fake enthusiasm for a solution in need of a problem.
Instead of hopping on the bandwagon and singing the M$ corporate song and getting all teary eyed, why don’t people take a critical look at what is said and being proposed and rip it to logical shreds as it deserves? .NET is a suckers game.
Microsoft is just a smarter and more successful virus than Oracle or Sun or Apple are, that’s all. There are no ethics in American business (e.g., Enron).
Don’t kid yourself, superior technology and better options for consumers is not the point for any of these companies (if they care about survival). Increasing the value of the stock for shareholders is always priority number one and will always take precedence over the former motivation for all of them.
You can argue over which technologies you like the best and ‘deserve’ to be successful all you want but business just doesn’t work that way. It should, but it doesn’t (e.g., Novell’s existing Net One product is supposed to be an excellent third option from either ONE or .NET and possibly superior to both, but nobody ever talks about it and discusses its merits, ever, even here on OSNews).
yse there certainly are ethics in american business. they are government enforced ethics. just becasue some comppanies break the code of ethiics does not mean that there are none, infact, it shows that we have them since if htere were none, Enron would not have happened, rather, it woul dhave just gone under with no criminal litigation or congressional investigation.
Microsft is not as smart as you make them out to be. The reasons that MS is in the position that it’s at is because:
A) Bill Gates MOTHER had contacts at IBM and that’s the reason he even got an oppotunity to talk to IBM about DOS.
B) IBM (at the time and still is) is run by *FUCKING MORONS*. If they had any brains they would not have agreed to the licensing scheme for dos OR they would have bought MS outright OR marketed OS/2 OR etc etc etc
So it’s not that MS is that smart, their success is due to luck (80%) and being smarter than IBM (which isn’t saying much).
Soooo… primaraly for the two reasons above, MS has a strangle hold on the market an most of us have to live with that.
BTW – Anyone who believes that what ever MS does is for the benefit of the consumer or technological advance and not for the sole purpose of power/money, needs to have a thorough examination.
Ethics are something that is voluntary and governed by morality, not something that can be coercively enforced by a legal system. In business, under the current system, absolutely anything you can possibly get away with is fair game and the system does not reward ethical behavior. The lawsuit against Microsoft is obviously being driven by corporate interests, not the federal government at all, because the DOJ wants to settle with Microsoft and get it over with, whereas the senators with key corporations in their states who have lobbied against Microsoft are still fighting on.
Enron just happened to paint themselves into a corner and got caught, that’s all. Interesting how that Enron CFO executive who knew where all of the ‘bodies were buried’ committed ‘suicide’ so conveniently, isn’t it. Tell all those Enron employees who lost their life savings and investments in the company while the executive staff are all getting golden parachutes how “ethical” the system is. Go ahead, I dare you.
As for Microsoft and luck, well, if a geeky kid and his mother’s connections can ultimately grow into a monster megacorporation capable of defeating IBM (and Sun and Apple and Oracle and Novell) despite all of their best efforts, based 80% on just luck, then the industry must be pretty damned lame indeed if luck was such a huge factor in their downfall. That’s all I can say about that.
Some details of Novell’s One Net web services strategy (competes with ONE and .NET):
http://partnerweb.novell.com/channel/opportunity.html
Also, FYI:
Novell NetWare 6 and eDirectory Named Network Magazine 2002 Products of the Year:
Top networking publication Network Magazine selects NetWare as best server operating system and eDirectory as best directory service.
http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2002/04/pr02034.html
No, I don’t own any Novell stock. I just think their web services technology deserves a little exposure.
wow you hate ms. The truth is they are smart. It doesn’t matter if luck played a part, you have to be smart to stay on top (apple was on top once, they were smart now they’re a very distant second). Ibm has to be somewhat smart since they’ve been around forver (3 times longer then ms, who is an old dog in this market). btw if f’ing morons can make ibm profitable for 60+ years I want them to help me run a company.
>>Ibm has to be somewhat smart since they’ve been around forver (3 times longer then ms, who is an old dog in this market). btw if f’ing morons can make ibm profitable for 60+ years I want them to help me run a company.<<
IBM has been around longer than that… more like a 100 years, and they’ll still be around 100 years later. They might not be the smartest around, but they sure are the biggest and actually have more competitiveness amongst themselves than with anybody else, that is pretty much have of their problem!
IBM spawned the technology that the two richest men in the world built their businesses (read: wealth) on, namely Gates (DOS, OS/2) and Ellison (DB software) who both saw the market needs and made the most of the situation.
Big blue really would be immense if it had done a Microsoft and Oracle on us.
As for M$ and ethics, don’t make me larf. They have stifled innovation since their inception. As long as they are on top they don’t mind. Bit like American business in general. IBM was much like that some years back, but realised that kicking companies down wasn’t always a healthy habit – much like M$ is finding out right now. If they had allowed a competitive market place, their OS would have been much better (it would have to be!), and more liked rather than tolerated, and they wouldn’t be on the end of an endless stream of lawsuits that will cost them dear. I wouldn’t be buying M$ stock any time soon.
For the 500th time, .NET is a Java like programming framework. Since Hailstorm/.NET MyServices has been pulled out of the market, I don’t see any problem anymore. If you don’t like to write your apps with the .NET framework, fine, use Java then, or some other languages like C or Delphi. But stop bitching about it.
I’m pretty sure Paul Allen is worth more then Ellison. And windows isn’t bad, if it was as horrible as some people say then no amount of marketing would make it #1 (marketing can take a so-so product over the top, but no amount of marketing can make a pos #1, the edsel is proof, so is new coke, crystal pepsi, etc).
While not yet unified it does fit the definition as a competitor to the ONE and .NET offerings
“IBM was much like that some years back, but realised that kicking companies down wasn’t always a healthy habit…”
IBM’s “realization” had absolutely nothing to do with ethics. They just got dragged down so much by anti-trust actions against them that their competitors were able to recover and then surpass them. IIRC, IBM was never actually convicted of any wrong-doing at all – the anti-trust actions were simply terminated inconclusively after IBM had de-facto lost it’s monopoly due to all of the harrasment.
I promise you, IBM will become a monopoly again if their competitors ever allow it to happen by failing in the marketplace. All big publicly-owned corporations (not just Microsoft) ruthlessly set no limits for themselves about gaining market-share and increasing growth and no internal force will ever keep them in check, under the present system. It is pure hypocrisy to say that Microsoft is the only company that is like this.
Well so I did. Here…
IBM WebSphere (another web services platform):
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/info1/websphere/index.jsp?tab=platfor…