Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sun Chief Calls Out IBM, Demands Compatibility

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the don't-cry-for-me-argentina dept.

Sun Microsystems 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.

cancel ×

419 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

One difference... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456754)

I know people who know Sam Paisano personally. He's apparently a good guy: smart, insightful, friendly, and pleasant...

Re:One difference... (0, Offtopic)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456771)

So...he's not a black pot, then?

...well that makes everything better, then, doesn't it?

Re:One difference... (1)

Allen Zadr (767458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456836)

No, he's a crack pot...

duh.

How (0, Offtopic)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456939)

can the very first post be redundant?

Re:How (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457053)

Well, an FP could be only a rehash of something in the writeup, but this one is "redundant" because of moderation stupidity. Or maybe a mousing or typographical error?

Or may's be...all three? The mod meant to write it as redudant because he's stupid, but he accidentally selected "offtopic" with his mouse but then also accidentally pressed the cursor and it went to "redundant," all without him noticing, and he pressed enter.

just say please :) (1)

urbieta (212354) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456948)

just say please :)

or else junst mention IBM's application alternatives like apache, mysql and so forth...

maybe even java? heh

Stating the obvious... (3, Insightful)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456761)

So... if you make Solaris compatible with Linux won't this solve the problem somewhat?

Re:Stating the obvious... (1)

Hosting Geek (851934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456816)

Why would you want to do this there is already linux.

Re:Stating the obvious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456991)

Exactly so solaris is hence deprecated..
Maybe sun should just curl up and keel over..

Re:Stating the obvious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457138)

Why use wine when theres already windows

Re:Stating the obvious... (1)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456861)

If you're referring to the machines they are already compatible with Linux and Unix.

As for Solaris being compatible with Linux.
I would like to see one operating system become integrated with another.

Re:Stating the obvious... (2, Informative)

spookymonster (238226) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457064)

I would like to see one operating system become integrated with another.

What, like IBM's OS/2 did with Windows 3.1? Or how IBM's z/OS (a mainframe OS) integrated AIX into its Unix System Services environment? In both cases, we're talking about system-level interaction, not merely emulation.

Re:Stating the obvious... (2, Interesting)

kiatoa (66945) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457324)

Perhaps like how AIX 5.1 is more compatible with linux? Supposedly there has been an effort to make it easier to compile stuff on AIX. Someone more knowledgeable can comment on the details if they care. What I'd like to see, being as lazy as I am, would be that the Solaris command line tools be transitioned to be Linux compatible. WhyTF doesn't df have the same switches and output format on Sun as it does on Linux/AIX? I hate using the Sun machines cuz I can't reuse my everyday Linux/AIX knowledge on them. As an aside I couldn't get ruby to compile on either the Sun nor the AIX machines I use. I'm sure it is due to admin issues on the machines but for what its worth my stuff runs faster on Linux so why bother with the other two. So there. Grumble.

Re:Stating the obvious... (1)

sroddy (216493) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456889)

Solaris already will run Linux binaries.

Linux binaries (1)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456905)

Should run on Solaris but i'm not sure if this is just on Solaris 10 x86 or whether it applies to sparc too.

However even if you can run IBMs linux binaries on Solaris that doesn't mean they are "supported" it only means that they work.

Re:Linux binaries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456945)

Linux/SPARC binaries will run on Solaris SPARC.
Linux/x86 binaries will run on Solaris x86.

Any questions?

Re:Linux binaries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457012)

I believe that this only applies to Linux x86.
Linux/SPARC will not run on Solaris/SPARC!!!!!

Re:Stating the obvious... (1)

cg0def (845906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457126)

If Sun DID make Solaris 10 compatible with linux and say posix standarts there would be no problems. However, that is Sun and then that is IBM and they are compeating for the same bussines. Guess how much responce Open Solaris is going to get? I guess Linus was right when he said that it'll most likelly be a flop.

Re:Stating the obvious... (1)

Octorian (14086) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457290)

And how exactly would that help on SPARC, the primary architecture for Solaris? (where I seriously doubt IBM has Linux versions of anything)

Blog, anyone? (1, Funny)

Dagny Taggert (785517) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456763)

circulated via his blog

gotta love that

Re:Blog, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456875)

Sorry - I just don't get it. :(

Re:Blog, anyone? (4, Funny)

British (51765) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456884)

Then: teenage girls arguing with each other via blogs
Now: CEOS of multi-million dollar corporations arguing with each other via blogs /Emma Bunton

Re:Blog, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457086)

We know what this means. The total depreciation of our means. We've all been reduced to little girls. /me Plays with hirself.

Next step - LiveJournal (5, Funny)

khasim (1285) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457124)

Then: teenage girls arguing with each other via blogs
Now: CEOS of multi-million dollar corporations arguing with each other via blogs /Emma Bunton
Tomorrow - CIEIO's with LiveJournal accounts.

"iBM iz such loosers. i not let them on my Freinds list. ha ha! i tell them to port DB2 and i might think about it. Loosers. Sam will not tell me my poetry sux N E more now. i write what i feel. i want to ask the Q T girl out but i am shy. Maybe i will send her some of my poetry. iBM better port WebSphere 2 or i still keep them off my Freinds list. ha ha! Take that you loosers!"

Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux (4, Insightful)

21chrisp (757902) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456772)

It is quite hypocritical of Sun to be saying this when so little of their software runs on anything but Solaris.

Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux (1)

Dagny Taggert (785517) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456809)

*cough* Kettle, meet Pot

Amen. If IBM "marginalizes" Solaris, you have to wonder what will become of it.

Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456851)

Yeh, like Java only works on sparcs...

Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux (3, Informative)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457002)

DTrace is a Solaris Kernel tool. It debugs problems in the Solaris Kernel, and strangely enough the Solaris Kernel only works on Solaris - what would be the point of putting it into linux?

According to the ZFS Q&A on http://www.sun.com/emrkt/campaign_docs/icee_0703/t ranscript-SEE-091504.pdf [sun.com] they are already investigating porting zfs to linux.

Other sun stuff like Java, Star/Openoffice, Netbeans/SunOne Studio, iPlanet etc... are available for a multitude of other OS's.

Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux (2, Interesting)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457065)

so we could have debian gnu/solaris

Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux (4, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457003)

Interesting that you should mention DTrace, because according to The Register [theregister.co.uk] it's getting open sourced under Sun's CDDL license. OSI approved the CDDL license a couple of weeks ago and it's basically a revamped version of the Mozilla Public License. If DTrace (or a reasonable facsimilie) can be made to work with Linux or other FOSS opererating systems then it's just a matter of time...

Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux (1)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457044)

That's true of their OS, but not of their other software. We're running a Sun web server on a AIX machine. We also have Sun's JRE installed on AIX and working. I happen to agree with Sun a little bit, but personally, them's the breaks. So what if Websphere does not run on Sun. You seriously going to run it on Sun when you can run it on a IBM pSeries and then only have to call one company when something does not work instead of having to fight with Sun and IBM on whose thing does not work right?? I mean I am in that boat now, but at least I can usually find the problem between Sun, IBM and our other software vendor. IBM likely would not support a Sun version as well as the AIX/pSeries version.

Re:Well then let's see DTrace, ZFS, etc. on Linux (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457242)

DTrace & ZFS are features, not products. They are a part of the Solaris operating system. OTOH, the "Sun Java Enterprise System" runs on SOlaris or Linux.

I think their position is silly, but your examples don't make any sense.

why is this font-page (0, Troll)

Thundersnatch (671481) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456776)

A battle between two for-profit companies over market share adn interoperability. Why is this a headline on Slashdot? I mean, we're all commie pinko Open Source advocates that work soley for charitable organizations.

More Corporate Trolls (0, Troll)

Neuroelectronic (643221) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456805)

Virals Suck [neuroelectronic.net]

Re:why is this front-page (1)

Thundersnatch (671481) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456965)

Okay, I deserverd that nearly instantaneous Troll mod. It's Monday morning, and I apologize for being a bit cranky.

kettle, pot? (4, Insightful)

CrankyFool (680025) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456781)

Was that necessary?

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.

Re:kettle, pot? (1, Flamebait)

jarich (733129) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456891)

How many of IBM's platforms does Java run on? None.

IBM has their own port for AIX, mainframes, etc. Why isn't Sun supporting them?

As to Java on all platforms, ask the FreeBSD people how they feel.

Re:kettle, pot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456924)

Was that necessary?
Yes, it was. Count yourself lucky that you are not in a position to fully appreciate it.

Re:kettle, pot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457022)

Actually people have to provide their own Java port to their OSs, with the exception of Windows (where of course Sun weren't happy with Microsoft's attempt). IBM has to produce their own version of Java for AIX, z/OS, etc. In fact they also produce a Windows version (which performs better than the Sun version I might add), but they aren't allowed to distribute it (except bundled with an IBM product) because Sun wants to make sure they remain associated with Java.

Re:kettle, pot? (2, Interesting)

willCode4Beer.com (783783) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457094)

From Sun's web site: http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/download.html
This release of the J2EE 1.4 SDK and the Sun Java System Application Server is available for the following platforms: * Solaris 9 (SPARC and x86) * Sun Java Desktop System * Windows 2000 Advanced Server * Windows XP * Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, 3.0
So, where is AIX, HPUX, QNX, *BSD, IRIX, SCO (*sic), Xenix, Mac*, and countless others. I think the poster was right on the mark.

Re:kettle, pot? (2, Interesting)

afabbro (33948) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457209)

Was that necessary?

Yes. Johnathon's "open letter" is one of the silliest, snarkiest, stupidest things I've seen in some time.

Oh, Johnathon, you're so clever with your "open letter" on your blog. Gimme a break. Your company is not doing well and hasn't been since the easy pickings of the dot-com years when everyone did well. You've been one of the sick men of the IT world for years. You finally managed to eke out a tiny profit, but your revenue continues to slide. Analysts are not impressed and while you were busy getting in your competitors' faces [sun.com] and thumping your chest, your stock dropped some more...I mean, I'm reading his blog and looking at SUNW's chart and thinking "are we reading the same Q4 release?" Maybe if you spent some time running it instead of talking shit to your competitors you'd have some ground to stand on.

Why hasn't IBM ported its products to Solaris 10? Perhaps because it isn't released yet. Perhaps because there's no demand. We run IBM tools (Tivoli, MQ, etc.) on Sun boxes and there is every reason to believe that they'll port their tools once they perceive a market. Hey, Johnathon, does N1 support anything other than Sun's blades yet? You lock-in dogs!

Johnathon Schwartz is acting like an overpaid NBA player whose game isn't all that good. If Wilt Chamberlain talks trash, it's one thing, but if it's some second-rate bencher who has no game, it just looks sad. Tell you what, Johnathon - how about not dissing IBM or HP [sun.com] until Sun's back on top?

Yes, it was necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457288)

Yes, that was quite necessary. Contrary to your statement, Sun makes lots of software products that aren't OS-type products. In fact, Sun has lots of huge buildings filled with people trying to make and sell these products.

The problem is, they almost all suck, and so no one has heard of these products.

For starters, there's Sun's glorious development tools (C compiler and make, etc). These are marginally useful, but they are hobbled by Sun's incredibly stupid Flexlm license manager. For EVERY single cc call in a Makefile, you have to go out and check the license. Performance goes into the tank.

This is one reason why gcc is popular within Sun. And I note that even the final Solaris build process has figured out a way to avoid this hinderance, which isn't used by Suns' customers.

Also, one has Teamware, which is where BitKeeper came from (both developed by the same guy). Teamware would be a contender in the marketplace, if it wasn't hobbled by the stupid Flexlm licensing as well. IMO, it is far superiour to Perforce and that other one (starts with a C IIRC - can't remember it offhand).

And if any fanatics dispute that, all I have to say is look at it in practice. HP, last I heard, had 2 dozen people supporting their OS builds, just because of their stupid build environment. Sun has designed their builds right, and needs about 1/10th the resources.

IBM.... (0, Troll)

astebbin (836820) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456785)

...has made a number of bad business decisions in the last couple decades, most notably selling their souls to Windows/DOS, something they've paid for (literally) in the long run.

Re:IBM.... (3, Informative)

KiltedKnight (171132) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457067)

That's because, once upon a time, when it came to business computing, IBM was top dog. In the 1970's, when you needed a system, you went to IBM... not because they were the best, but because they provided a service contract. If your machine died, one phone call had at least one, if not several, IBM folks at your site, digging through your hardware, trying to diagnose the problem. Or it had several IBM folk sitting back at their offices, searching the OS or other application code for the problem, based on the diagnostic information you sent them. A friend of mine worked for IBM during the 1960's and 1970's, then was a consultant on IBM systems after that for many years. He's told me this several times: What got IBM top marks was their service reputation. In the corporate environment, stability and uptime/system availability are two of the biggest issues.

You are correct, however, that they made several bad business decisions... like considering the PC a "passing fad."

Typical lies... (5, Funny)

Free Bird (160885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456787)

Dear Sam,


IBM and Sun have a long history of partnering. We've worked on Java together, more recently you joined us in the Liberty Alliance, helping to drive standards around network identity. We, and our customers, appreciate constructive partnership.

As you're no doubt aware, Sun is set to ship the newest release of our Solaris operating system, Solaris 10. It's the most secure OS the world has ever seen

This is where I stopped reading.

Re:Typical lies... (1)

Dagny Taggert (785517) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456844)

so are you saying that you don't believe every word written on some corporate honcho's blog? For shame!

Re:Typical lies... (2, Funny)

Allen Zadr (767458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456917)

No... He stopped reading, because he went right out to buy a Sun machine with the most secure OS the world has ever seen (although, I'm quite certain there are more than a few AS/400 enthusiasts who would be quick to disagree, their opinions don't count anyway).

Re:Typical lies... (1)

Metzli (184903) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457172)

I'd bet that the VMS/OpenVMS boys would also disagree....

If Sun didn't take it seriously... (4, Insightful)

Allen Zadr (767458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456795)

Until Solaris 9 (and now, 10), Sun themselves didn't take Solaris on x86 seriously. Now that Sun want's to try to take Solaris on x86 seriously, they expect IBM to suddenly jump in on it?

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

Re:If Sun didn't take it seriously... (1)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457121)

Mod parent up. Sun is ~heavily~ leaning on Solaris on x86 with Solaris 10, which is a 180 degree turn from less than a year ago. At one point, Sun wouldn't even publically commit to releasing future versions of Solaris on Intel.

Why is Sun taking this position? My view is that its a desperate act to attempt to thwart Linux in the low end market from gradually eating up their higher Solaris offerings.

IBM has embraced Linux. IBM will happily offer you a flavour of unix -- AIX or Linux -- on all of their RISC-architected platforms. Sun however, offers 'open source Solaris' without defining what open source means, and supposedly supports Linux but I've ~never~ heard a Sun rep volunteer a Linux offering, even when asked.

Sun's position to demand that IBM support their OS -- which hasn't even been released yet! -- is egomanical.

Dear Sam (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456797)

by the time you read this letter, I'll be gone

Support SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456803)

Maybe their delaying as the shake-out over the SCO fiasco takes place. Heck it maybe shown that SUN actively supported the attack (if it hasn't been already).

Microsoft Replys with... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456806)

Kettle, meet Pot. Except in NEBRASKA!!

Re:Microsoft Replys with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456967)

I thought they only did that ...in Japan?

The most secure OS? (3, Insightful)

strider44 (650833) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456807)

It's the most secure OS the world has ever seen

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.

Tooting one's own horn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456983)

I was once able to toot my own horn. Ah, how I yearn for my more able years as a flexible young lad...

Re:The most secure OS? (3, Informative)

bano (410) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457021)

He's refering to TrustedSolaris being merged into the main Solaris distribution. So go ahead and readup on Trusted Solaris. then try commenting.

Sun trying to divide and conquor open source? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456811)

Seems the main agenda of Sun since the Microsoft deal is to try to fragement the community with deliberately incompatable licenses - and really poor Java support on important open source platforms (Java for BSD, Java3D for linux, etc). And now they're blaming IBM for what? For not supporting their proprietary (uh, half-open) Solaris!

No, Jonathan, IBM won't switch from Linux to Solaris just because you got the OSI to look at your license. Perhaps make it GPL compatable and try the FSF and see if it'll pass there - then I at least might listen.

I hope IBM's response is "make Solaris GPL compatable and we'll support it too, once we merge it with Linux"

dangers of proprietary software (3, Insightful)

brlewis (214632) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456815)

If people would use PostgreSQL instead of DB2 and Jetty/JBoss (or other free alternatives) instead of Websphere they could run their apps on just about any OS. Or if they used a free OS, particularly one supported by IBM, they could run their proprietary IBM software. Or run free software on a free OS and be ready for anything.

Re:dangers of proprietary software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456966)

Postgre is probably the best of the lot.

But, you'd be amazed how people will try to go and _buy_ something that costs alot out of spite... since that pale-skinned gawkey nerd down the hall said "Use open source".... and what do those know-it-all nerds actually know anyway ?

Sometimes I think I'd get further along plugging Oracle... safe in the knowledge that 50% of the people who listened to me would the the _complete_ opposite of what I say.

The trick is to accurately gauge who needs the reverse psychology and who doesn't.

Re:dangers of proprietary software (1)

pyros (61399) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457128)

The last time I used JBoss I wanted to pulverize the server with a 20 pound sledgehammer. Granted, I think it may have been more the fault of the application we were running in JBoss. Upon starting, the app would bind several random ports, and when a client connected, the app would give the client the local IP address and those random ports. The problem with this is I had the server behind a NAT and couldn't manually tell it the public IP to broadcast. So the only way to use the app was to run it on a publically routable IP address.

Re:dangers of proprietary software (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457131)

If people would use PostgreSQL instead of DB2 a

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:dangers of proprietary software (1)

diamondsw (685967) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457263)

I am completely talking out of my ass here, but I'm just going to hazard a guess and say that scalability, support, and robustness have something to do with those choices. Not to say PostgreSQL and others aren't great, but they are NOT enterprise-grade.

Dear Sun: Follow your own damn advice! (4, Insightful)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456821)

Let's see - will Sun be making the API for their new file system's extra-special features available so that other *nix OSs can support it with their own native file systems?

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!"

Re:Dear Sun: Follow your own damn advice! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457019)

"SHUT THE FBOMB UP"

You can say 'Fuck' on Slashdot..

Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck..

Re:Dear Sun: Follow your own damn advice! (0, Flamebait)

bano (410) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457102)

Last I heard the new FS api was a feature of Solaris itself, not a publicly purchasable seperate product like websphere, db2, tivoli etc... Now if you mentioned Java, thats another story.

So out of context your comment makes perfect sense, but when you put it in context of what Sun is asking, you sir, look like a bafoon.

Dear competitor, (5, Funny)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456822)

Help us make money and give your customers an alternative to your products.

Thanks,

Sun

Isn't that a bit... (2, Interesting)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456834)

.. like griping that M$ does not produce a versions of it's Games, Office suite, Visio toos etc. for Linux? With IBM backing Linux why should they support Solaris? Corporate Wolf bites Corporate Coyote...

Most secure OS... (1)

cmad_x (723313) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456839)

It's the most secure OS the world has ever seen

I wonder what the OpenBSD folks have to say about this...

Also, I haven't had the need to run any IBM software on my BSD (or anywhere till now), so maybe he's just making things up about about the "repeated" calls and so on. Or is he?

Slightly Off Topic (5, Interesting)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456841)

At this point, it makes more sense for IBM to port their applications to OS X. Now that they supply the CPU for Apple's server hardware, there's a strong case to be made for this.

If WSAD were ever ported to OS X, my boss would be placing a nice order for xServes and powermacs on the Apple website.

Re:Slightly Off Topic (3, Interesting)

greed (112493) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456970)

In 1993, IBM provided the compilers for Apple's new hardware. For a while, Apple Workgroup Servers were merely RS/6000s running AIX with an Apple logo on the front panel.

Rumor has it, at one point IBM was going to port their XL C++ (C Set ++ by then) compiler to Mac OS. (That was, of course, way before OS X, so it would be a massive user interface and library effort--the actual code gen for PowerPC 604 was already complete, for the RS/6000s.)

So, yeah, IBM and Apple have been surprisingly close for a while now. With BSD and X11, I don't know why they don't do a quick build of a lot of their apps--instantly add a new target market. Sure, Cocoa is nicer, but X11 is there and it works and you'll be done.

Of course, I do know from experience that IBM is very reluctant to do a "90%" solution--one that works for 90% of the target customers. They'll kill themselves trying to get that last 10% of function, and spend so much time at it that the 90% has gone to some other vendor, the market has changed, and now no-one cares.

Re:Slightly Off Topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457230)

I don't think IBM would do that. You can already get a 'faster' xServe for the price of some of IBM's PowerPC servers, if you ported the applications as well, then there would be no point in buying an IBM PowerPC server ever again.

I'd like to see it happen, but I doubt it's going to. Some people are even suggesting this is why IBM has been dragging their feet with ramping up the G5's performance, as it would probably bite them in the ass.

Re:Slightly Off Topic (1)

willCode4Beer.com (783783) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457314)

Not to troll but....
This site:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_ stats.a sp
*suggests* that Linux has a higher share of desktops than Apple.
You can take stats however you want.
Of course, they may also look at the stereotype that suggests Linux users are more likely to be developers than Mac users. So, even if the stats don't hold up, it does look like the way to target more developers.
OTH, since WSAD is basically Eclipse, and Eclipse is avail for the Mac I can't think of a good reason not to do the extra leg work and add a Mac version.
Of course, to inadvertantly support Sun's position. Eclipse is already supported for Solaris........

Sun's President and CEO, Jonathan Schwartz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456849)

I'm pretty sure Schwartz is the COO not CEO, unless McNeely's finally been overthrown.

Re:Sun's President and CEO, Jonathan Schwartz (1)

wikinerd (809585) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456869)

here [sun.com] you can see who is who in Sun.

IBM is a "service" company, right? (3, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456854)

IBM is trying to be a "service" company. That means that, if you pay them enough, they'll support CheeseWiz(tm) on Solaris 10. Not too likely that Sun will pay IBM enough to get industry-wide support, but many little companies might strike up a contract if they saw it as worthwhile.

Of course, IBM still has strong roots as a "hardware" company. What's IBM's incentive to rewrite their software (little profit) on Sun's hardware (no profit)? Not a whole lot of incentive there.

Remind me... (3, Insightful)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456867)

...how many Sun OS products I can run on my z-series mainframe...?

Dear Sun (From IBM) (5, Insightful)

ausoleil (322752) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456879)

Dear Mr. Schwartz,
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

Re:Dear Sun (From IBM) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456976)

This is only true for Solaris 10 x86. Not on the SPARC!!

Re:Dear Sun (From IBM) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457099)

Why does it depend on the architecture. Debian/Sparc and Debian/X86 support the same standards.

I assume SunOS/Sparc and SunOS/X86 also are compatable with each other.

Would the transitive nature of "works the same as" apply?

Apples != Oranges (1)

HP-UX'er (211124) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457089)

Jonathan is complaining about IBM not _supporting_ those products in Solaris 10, not whether the run on Solaris 10 or not, I'm pretty sure they do. If I were IBM, I would not publicly support a competitor's beta product either.

not yesterday!!! (1)

netdur (816698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456887)

Posted ... January 24, "yesterday published an Open Letter" and at OSnews http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=9478/ [osnews.com]
Posted ... on 2005-01-22

Jeah sure John (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456894)

Just as soon as you Open Source Java.....

*bump*.

This guy Schwartz has a mouth big enough to put an entire army of PR handlers into fat city .... forever.

Go tree-huggers.

The only thing open about Sun... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456902)

Interesting how Schwartz titles his missive as an "open letter". Hah. Schwartz' letter is the only thing "open" about Sun. How about opening Java?

(I work for IBM, though my opinion does not reflect my employer)

Re:The only thing open about Sun... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11456973)

. . .How about opening Java?

"(I work for IBM, though my opinion does not reflect my employer)"

Your opinion reflects your employer perfectly well.

Sure Sign of Desperation? (2, Insightful)

big-giant-head (148077) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456912)

I mean Sun Created Java and they don't have a credible Java app server (I know iPlanet with it's whopping 2% market share) the big boys are Wepshere, BEA, Oracle and Jboss......

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??

Linux on a POWER chip; check. (1)

mekkab (133181) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457041)

If IBM were to start turning out PowerPC based Risc Boxes running Linux,

Where have you been?! [ibm.com] IBM has been touting LINUX along with AIX5L (thats what the "L" stands for!) for over two years.

P.S.- we played around with Sun's app server... it blows. Chunks.

Re:Linux on a POWER chip; check. (1)

big-giant-head (148077) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457264)

I should've made my point better. iplanet has blown chunks since it's inception in 1999. 5 - 6 years and Sun can't make an appserver better than JBoss??

I knew about AIX -L , but i had never heard an confirmation officially that L stood for linux. If so that's very cool.

"Calls Out"? (1)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456932)


Is there going to be some sort of dance rumble for street cred?

no recoding (1)

micromuncher (171881) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456957)

Ok... it its binary compat as the letter states, why is a simple recompile required?

Sunset (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11456994)

Schwartz has to throw his weight around while he can, as he drives his company into the Sunset. Maybe if letterware like this produces enough derision in the industry, he'll get the axe faster than you can say "Gilbert Amelio". And Sun might have a chance to churn Solaris tech into the kind of superstable Linux that IBM produces by hybridization with AIX.

Abandoned of x86 Sun systems to blame.. (1)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457007)

I think they are getting hurt again from the time Sun tried to sell x86 Solaris machines and then abandoned ship without so much as a good bye we're sorry.

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.

sri

Re:Abandoned of x86 Sun systems to blame.. (4, Insightful)

javaxman (705658) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457319)

I think they are getting hurt again from the time Sun tried to sell x86 Solaris machines and then abandoned ship without so much as a good bye we're sorry.

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.

Hello ! My Name is Inigo Solaris ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457009)

You stole my customers ! Prepare to die !

Can you really take him seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457030)

Sure, call me a troll, but Schwartz hasn't exactly been known as a straight shooter, or industry visionary. They (Sun PR) have tried desperately to make him out to look like a visionary (the blog is the most blatant attempt). But, from what I hear from friends inside Sun, the guy is pretty much thought of as a tool.

Don't know why he's attacking IBM. IBM is his friend. No, really.

java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457063)

Dear Jonathan,

What about Java for ppc?

Translation: (3, Interesting)

Garg (35772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457069)

"My OS is becoming irrelevant! Lots more stuff runs on Linux! Save me, IBM!!!"

Seriously, IBM will port their software if they can make more money selling the Solaris versions than it cost to port and support. That's it.

IBM may show largesse toward open source, but that's because they view it as strategic. Solaris isn't strategic for them, no matter how much Schwartz may wish it so.

Garg

I have a hard time actually believing this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457118)

We've made sure your engineers know that moving from Solaris 8 or 9 to Solaris 10 takes
no work, given that we offer true binary compatibility. If you're on SPARC, and you'd like to take advantage of a world of x86 systems, it's a simple recompile. There's no recoding at all. Same applies to scaling up from Intel or Opteron to SPARC. No recoding.

Maybe, but I doubt it. They gave the same sort of song and dance about 2.8 upgrades as well and it didn't really work that way. They promise even more with Java and also fail to deliver 100% complete portability.

Easy come-back (2, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 9 years ago | (#11457125)

IBM should simply say, "We don't feel it in our best interest to begin supporting a dying product.", and leave it at that.

I had issues.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11457192)

I had issues with Apple not supporting other vendors formats and media formats as well with iTunes/iPod. In fact, specifically targeting other companies that were compatible and actively and openly shutting them off with unrelated firmware upgrades. I read all the replies on /. about how Apple choosing to force people into their products was good for the consumer and anyone who wanted compatibility was stupid. I'm confused on the change of thought here.

As expected, this will be marked as troll because it is anti-Apple. Instead of moderating, how about a discussion about this instead of trying to hide it from the others?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>