Sun Chief Calls Out IBM, Demands Compatibility 419
downbad writes "Sun's President, Jonathan Schwartz, yesterday published an Open Letter to the CEO of IBM, Sam Palmisano, in which he alluded to "behavior reminiscent of an IBM history many CIOs would like to forget" - a reference to Sun's frustration that IBM isn't supporting Solaris 10 with WebSphere, DB2, Tivoli, Rational and MQSeries products. In his "Dear Sam" letter - circulated via his blog - Schwartz refers first to the "long history of partnering" between Sun and IBM, and claims Sun customers have made repeated calls to IBM about having the choice to run IBM products on Solaris 10." *cough* Kettle, meet Pot.
Stating the obvious... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
kettle, pot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun doesn't make all that many software products that aren't OS-type products. Off the top of my head, I can think of one big product they've made -- Java -- and they seemed to try to make it available on all platforms, though based on their rules (which hey, is true for any GPL-based software also. It's all about letting the people who created the software determine how it's released).
It is, however, a little offensive to publicly decry a company not releasing their product on your platform, especially when that platform hasn't yet actually shipped its first non-beta version. Seems a little petulant.
If Sun didn't take it seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want Solaris professionally, I'll buy a SPARC to run it on. If I want to play around with Solaris, I'll download it for x86.
Allen Zadr is the Director of IT for a small software company
The most secure OS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? Since when? I think someone's tooting his own horn. But anyway, this blog is mostly just an indignant "pretty please help us", offering silly remarks whilst asking what's pretty simply a favour. I don't see why this should even make slashdot.
dangers of proprietary software (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear Sun: Follow your own damn advice! (Score:4, Insightful)
No?
Well, will Sun make their new file system available for other *nix OSs?
No?
Well, will Sun have ANY compatibility between Solaris with their new, all-signing-all-dancing file system and any other OS?
No?
Then to Sun I say - "SHUT THE FBOMB UP ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S COMPATIBILITY UNTIL YOU ARE COMPATABLE YOURSELF!"
Remind me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear Sun (From IBM) (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you have not read your own literature. I refer you to the web page at
http://www.sun.com/2004-0803/feature/
In which you state:
"3.Aug.04--Customers who want the stability and security of the Solaris Operating System and the flexibility to also use Linux applications won't have to wait much longer. The forthcoming Solaris 10 Operating System (OS) will include a remarkable new feature that allows customers to run Linux applications unchanged on the Solaris OS. By enabling this functionality, code-named Project Janus, administrators can create an environment for running a range of Linux applications at near-native speeds. Sun is offering Project Janus as an optional kernel service of the Solaris OS, enabling administrators to run Linux applications in a new and unique way on x86 platforms. In keeping with Sun's long-standing support of industry standards, Project Janus is designed for compliance with the Linux Standard Base specification.
Ergo, if your version of *Nix was as compatible as you claim, there is no issue at all.
Thanks for taking the time to write, and while I have your attention, how are efforts to open Java for improvements by the open source community coming?
Signed,
IBM
Sure Sign of Desperation? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Sun wants all this then they need open up java, and try to make Solaris more compaible with 3rd party products (JBoss anyone). It's more than hypocritical, it shows there is some desperation on Suns part. The Ultra-Sparc line is Ultra Slow and Ultra priced. If IBM were to start turning out PowerPC based Risc Boxes running Linux, would Sun even be relevant? I know about all of Solaris's great OS features, but how long will it take Linux to catch up? Especially with the other big boys pushing linux.
Now add to that these new Cell CPU's IBM & Sony are making. A Linux Server with a big cluster of Cell processors, Sun Who??
Sunset (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:dangers of proprietary software (Score:1, Insightful)
This statement sounds rather altruistic, but it hardly reflects reality.
If people would use PostgresSQL, most companies' OLTP systems would be thrown, performance-wise, back into the stone ages. No matter how you cut it, DB2 (and some of the other commercial RDBMSs) are simply light years ahead of open source software.
It's not that people don't want to switch -- they don't even have the choice, because there are literally no free offerings that provide the same level of performance and stability as commercial software, in the DB segment, for many corporations *huge* DBs and *complex* queries.
Re:Abandoned of x86 Sun systems to blame.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This has seriously pissed off Intel which has since been making trying to beat Sun into hamburger. Maybe some companies have a long memory. Strange as that may seem.
More than the companies having memories, I'll have to chime in that it's the people who haven't forgotten Sun's failure to support x86. I mean, I'd have given Solaris x86 a moment or two of consideration in 1997, when Linux was less mature and OS X was nowhere to be seen... but now ? Why bother ? What's the advantage, and can Sun be trusted not to drop support again if it thinks it's not making money, especially when it really needs to make money ?
Solaris x86 needs a real, good, strong selling point. What is it?
As far as Intel wanting to beat Sun, no, I think they haven't worried about Sun for years, they hardly compete in the same market, really, they have bigger fish to fry, and that fish is called AMD...
It's IBM that's gunning for Sun's market, and _that_ is a really good reason for Sun to be scared.
forgot the ps (Score:2, Insightful)
We had nothing to do with the lawsuit (other than funding them just enough to last several years in court), it was a license for their code. Really.
Thanks again,
Sun.
A bad joke (Score:2, Insightful)
Then we have Sun CEO Scott McNealy complaining before congress in 2000 that, "We already half way through the fiscal year, capped out on the number of really bright Israelis and Indians.". He gets more and more H-1b visas allocated.
Then we have Sun's stock going from above $60/share to below $3/share [yahoo.com].
And now Sun is complaining about something else and we're supposed to consider this "news that matters"?
Re:Stating the obvious... (Score:4, Insightful)
There really are a lot of people excited about OpenSolaris, but, like Linux and other OSS, most people won't take advantage of access to the source code. They just want the free OS that's better than Windows.
The OpenSolaris community doesn't have to be as big or bigger than Linux' to be considered a success. The BSDs thrive quite well on a smaller base of developers, for example. Also, don't forget that the BSDs, Linux, and OpenSolaris still will share the much larger body of OSS applications, like GNOME, OpenOffice.org, Gimp, etc.
People should be less concerned with the competition between Linux and OpenSolaris than they are about the general competition with Microsoft. Sun is not the enemy, here, not by a long shot.
Re:If Sun didn't take it seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
Solaris x86 will always support anything you can buy from Sun in one of their Opteron boxes, and probably have lousy hardware support for running on anything else. (drivers for common non-Sun NICs and storage controllers will be missing, etc...)
And I think they're going the Opteron route because Opterons have gotten to the point where they're a better CPU than UltraSPARC, but with a similar NUMA architecture, enabling for excellent throughput. When our Sun sales team (sales rep, an engineer, etc.) came out for the biyearly onsite slideshow, they were really bragging on about how the HyperTransport bus was all part of some technology-sharing plan with AMD, implying that it's basically the same thing as the bus arrangement in some of their current UltraSPARC offerings. (In other words, Solaris x86 on an Opteron might be cheaper and faster than Solaris on an UltraSPARC...)
I think we're even gonna buy some Opteron servers from Sun this fiscal year. To run Linux on, though. A couple v40z servers should make a great database cluster.
Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Trolls like you are very frustrating. You conveniently ignore all the software like OpenOffice.org that Sun _gave_ to you, while still finding things to complain about.
Here's some food for thought: DTrace and ZFS are INTEGRATED INTO THE SOLARIS KERNEL. You have as much chance of getting Dtrace into the Linux kernel as you have of getting Linux' threading subsystem into Solaris, for example. This stuff is not a matter of
Re:IBM is a "service" company, right? (Score:1, Insightful)
Not exactly. IBM is making a lot of money selling DB2 and WebSphere.
Moreover, that's not about "rewrite" but rather porting to Solaris OS. I'm sure IBM folks know how to port without a rewrite.
On the other hand, I'm even more sure that IBM folks considered these ports and decided (so far) not to go there.
Re:Dear Sun (From IBM) (Score:1, Insightful)
Even if this is not true, they would need to recompile and then fully test the products on the new architecture before they would agree to support it formally.
It might be that Sun's vaunted Linux compatability isn't a steaming pile and in fact the Linux/intel versions of all these products will work out of the box, but I doubt it.
Standards generally have holes, and those holes are filled with different filler on different architectures. Even on Debian there are programs which are more than just a recompile away from working on architectures other than those they work on now.
Re:Translation: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sun makes it sound like a simple recompile is all that is needed. Of course this is NOT the case if your software is sufficiently advanced like DB2. Secondly, a port requires a new set of tools which means a new set of unknown problems just waiting to be discovered (from the OS, to the compiler, to libc which if it were really worth much in terms of performance would have been hand-coded in assembly anyway and prone to bugs when going from sparc to x86!)
That's just porting... nevermind testing, packaging, documenting, supporting, maintaining. This costs $$ in terms of hardware and employees.
If Sun were serious about their "anti-competitive" allegations towards IBM, pony up the hardware and $$$ IBM needs to do the ports so that IBM can at least re-coup its development costs. What's it going to cost $5M, $10M? If Sun were serious, and lack of IBM software were truly an inhibitor to their sales, they should consider this an investment.
Re:Sunset (Score:3, Insightful)
So, a personal attack on someone followed by nonsense about Solaris being unstable compared with Linux is modded 'insightful'? Must be some strange new definition of the word I have never encountered.
Congratulations (Score:2, Insightful)
that's BS (Score:2, Insightful)
In the late 90's, your AIX system was still hosed if you ran out of disk space during a SMIT operation: not only was the system critically dependent on ODM, SMIT and the ODM library were also so poorly written that they couldn't cope with this common system state. So, no, whatever dependencies there were on ODM weren't fixed at that time.
some of the things IBM originally put into AIX to "industrialize" it were things that folks complained Aren't The Unix Way, but they've ended up in other Unices as the years go on. LVM, enhanced security, dynamic kernel, a systems management interface, etc. Yet, 15+ years later, I still hear complaints about how different & not-nomral-Unix AIX is. Whatever.
That, too, is just BS. LVM is rarely used even on Linux--convenient as it may seem to users, it is just one of the technically most stupid ways of managing disk space imaginable. And IBM can hardly take credit for GUI-based management (which they got woefully wrong with SMIT, both technically and in terms of user interface) or dynamically loadable kernel modules.
AIX has always been incompatible in ways that range from merely annoying to seriously bad. Many of their decisions were indeed driven by the desires of their mainframe customers, but that still doesn't make those features good ideas.
And although I thankfully don't have to deal with AIX anymore, I doubt it's much different today. Trying to portray the p.o.s. that AIX was/is as some kind of progenitor of modern UNIX or Linux systems is ridiculous.