Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

How Sun's need to control the code cost them the company

By | March 2, 2010, 4:43am PST

Summary: Sun was the poster child of a company trying to retain complete control over everything they released into Open Source, and Sun vs. the Linux world was a wonderful example of the weakness of proprietary licensing versus the GPL and decentralized development model.

[The opinions expressed here are mine alone, and not those of Google, Inc. my current employer.]

If you click on www.sun.com, you get redirected to www.oracle.com. Sun is no more. The network is no longer the computer. The “Dot” in .COM is now a database. I’m really sorry to see Sun go. I have a long and varied history with Sun. What went wrong ?

I joined Sun in 1989, fresh from a System Administration job at Manchester University. I was so excited. Finally, I was going to get the chance to see the inside of “real” UNIX ! No more Minix hacking for me, I was finally going to get the chance to see and work on the source code for a real UNIX operating system. I wasn’t disappointed. It was incredibly sophisticated, with a virtual memory system, a working network file system (NFS) and a state of the art graphical user interface (SunView). It was one of the most advanced systems available at the time.

The difference between Sun systems and everything else out there in the late 1980’s (mostly Novell Netware or Microsoft LAN Manager networks) is that Sun networks “just worked”,  all the time. I remember visiting remote Sun offices in the UK, and just being able to log in wherever I was and have all my files and work environment automatically available via the Network File System (NFS) auto mounter and directory services available via Sun’s Network Information Service (NIS/Yellow Pages). One morning I was outraged when Sun network operations informed me my home directory and work environment wouldn’t be available until that afternoon due to a network outage. I was so spoiled, I didn’t even realize such things were extremely rare outside the cozy world inside Sun.

I took a job on the Sun “hotline”, the most technical job available to engineers working for Sun in the UK. We were a hard drinking, hard partying bunch, who prided ourselves on the number of technical customer calls we could fix per day. I’m still friends with a few of the engineers I met there, they were a technical group with extraordinary skills. The UK hotline prepared me for the job that brought me to the US, working for Sun Corporate Technical Escalations (CTE) Group, whose job it was to prepare the front line code fixes sent to Sun customers reporting bugs in the software.

So why did Sun die ? Partly it was their custom designed hardware that couldn’t keep up with the immense commodity power of Intel and the x86 clones. Even in the early 1990’s there were warning signs when Sun canceled the replacement for their early foray into x86 hardware, the Sun386i. Rumor had it that the Sun 486i was canceled when early benchmarks showed it out performing the Sun-designed SPARC chips of the time, which upset the “all the wood behind one arrowhead” slogan that was Sun’s credo around their own SPARC processor design.

But in the long run it was the software that ended up being unable to compete.

Linux systems from Red Hat and others ate Sun up from the inside out, by colonizing their customer base. Sun vs. the Linux world is a wonderful example of the weakness of proprietary licensing and trying to maintain control over software versus the GNU General Public License (GPL) and decentralized development model that Linux uses.

Sun was originally born from a combination of BSD-licensed and proprietary code. The BSD UNIX system was built on top of AT&T’s original proprietary UNIX code. The first version of the SunOS operating system was licensed from this version of UNIX, and one of Sun’s founding software engineers, Bill Joy, was one of the original creators of BSD UNIX. BSD-licensed code is available to be used freely by anyone without restrictions, and Sun took full advantage of this. Sun didn’t give back any changes to the BSD parts of the code, but kept most of their changes proprietary. Occasionally they would release something to the “community” they came from. The Open Network Computing/Remote Procedure Call (ONC/RPC) code that was the underlying technology for NFS was one such thing. But most of the kernel changes and enhancements they made were kept hidden.

That’s not to say they never gave anything back to the Open Source/Free Software community. On the contrary, Sun CEO Scott McNealy claimed repeatedly that “We’re the largest contributor to open-source on the planet”. The problem was never the size of the contribution (which was indeed large by the end of Sun’s life). The problem was that the contributions were always on their own terms. Sun was the poster child of a company trying to retain complete control over everything they released into Open Source.

Most of their released code was essentially just dumped over the proprietary wall. The idea that others may have had contributions they wanted to make to the code that had been opened was never even considered. Originally there were no Free Software projects run from within Sun; the attitude was always “how generous we are to show you our amazing code.” After Linux became popular, they tried to adopt a community-friendly attitude.

The Solaris operating system, the Java language and virtual machine, the OpenOffice office suite — all of the really large software projects that Sun released — had strings attached that stopped any real external community from forming around the code. Usually it was the demand that any code contributions be contributed directly to Sun for their own use in proprietary products that was the major failing of all the Sun “community” projects. Poor licensing choices, demands for ownership of all contributors work, ignoring contributors outside of Sun, all of these can be blamed for Sun’s inability to maintain active coding communities around their Open Source code, but in the end it comes down to the desire to maintain control and ownership of the code at all costs. People are smart enough to understand when they’re being taken advantage of, especially programmers.

This desire for control cost them dearly. When my own Free Software project, Samba, was first released, SunOS and Sun Solaris were the major platforms people wanted to run our code on. Once Linux got networking code added to the kernel, people started to move Samba servers over from Solaris to Linux. The control of your own destiny and the freedom that people got from Linux was the main advantage, even though the Linux kernel didn’t work as well as Solaris did at the time. Other Free Software projects tell similar stories about the Solaris to Linux migration.

Real Free Software projects like Linux completely give up centralized control and ownership, in favor of a decentralized model that means contributors keep ownership and see direct benefits to participation, with no one party being able to take advantage over others.

Linux the operating system project completely confused Sun, even the Sun engineers, who you would have thought at least understood what Linux was trying to do. The best example of this is the wonderful email exchange between Linux kernel hacker David Miller, who at the time was one of the Linux Sparc maintainers, and Bryan Cantrill, a Solaris engineer. It’s worth quoting:

David Miller wrote (at the end of a long email explaining how Sparc Linux used cache optimizations to beat Solaris on performance):

“One final note. When you have to deal with SunSOFT to report a bug, how “important” do you have (ie. Fortune 500?) to be and how big of a customer do you have to be (multi million dollar purchases?) to get direct access to Sun’s Engineers at Sun Quentin?  With Linux, all you have to do is send me or one of the other SparcLinux hackers an email and we will attend to your bug in due time.  We have too much pride in our system to ignore you and not fix the bug.”

To which Bryan Cantrill replied with this amazing retort:

“Have you ever kissed a girl?”

Talk about missing the point and underestimating the competition. You can read the entire exchange.

Of course that’s not the only reason for Sun’s failure. By the end of Sun’s life in the early 2000’s the management was bad. No, that’s not true. The management was very bad. But it was caught in an untenable situation trying to compete with Free Software.

What could Sun have done ? Was there any path that could have left them successful in a world of widespread Linux and Free Software ? It’s not clear. Sun is the classic case of Clayton Christensen’s book “The Innovator’s Dilemma”. The disruptive force of Linux left them unable to compete, with their high priced product that didn’t have enough advantages over the community developed project to get people to pay for it. Oracle did them a kindness, and has picked up some very talented engineers. The interesting thing to observe now will be if Oracle (who is already a Linux vendor) takes the valuable parts of Solaris and adds them to Linux, or tries to resurrect Sun’s failed Solaris business model and throws more money onto the fire.

I’m betting Larry Ellison is too smart to do that, and at last Sun has some good management. R.I.P. Sun Microsystems, I’ll miss you.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
95
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: How Sun's need to control the code cost them the company
dfwekrwe44-24353611083890172929229494159280 4th Nov
vesqad,good post!
integration with Chrome-OS to make it completely
seemless?
Or was the documentation strictly for SMB (circa EC vs MS Antitrust)?

Good story. Thanks.
Dietrich T. Schmitz
0 Votes
+ -
Yes we're getting SMB2 docs.
JeremyAllison 2nd Mar 2010
I was working with Microsoft engineers at Connectathon (www.connectathon.org) last week doing SMB2 interop testing. Lots of bugs left to fix though happy.

Jeremy.
0 Votes
+ -
It was less about Linux and FOSS but rather the monopolistic practices of M$ that sucked up the oxygen needed to compete.
0 Votes
+ -
Companies like Sun and Novell....
bjbrock@... 2nd Mar 2010
gave MS all the oxygen. MS did not take it. Novell's NOS was the best ever written. But their company practices, their lack of marketing, making it so hard for the average reseller to distribute their product and a myriad of other blunders basically pushed the market to MS. Sun was the same way. The only reason MS has a monopoly is because the competition had no idea how to market what they had no idea or the wrong idea on how to be competitive. MS's competition destroyed itself.
0 Votes
+ -
that's so not true
Linux Geek 2nd Mar 2010
It is not only my opinion, but the DOJ's antitrust action and several successfull lawsuits that followed, support my conclusion not yours.
0 Votes
+ -
I disagree.
JeremyAllison 2nd Mar 2010
Microsoft certainly didn't help, but they weren't the sole cause of Sun's demise. Most of the problems were self-inflicted wounds (IMHO).

Jeremy.
0 Votes
+ -
Listen to him Linux Geek
BFD 2nd Mar 2010
He knows way more than you ever will and he knows how to spell too.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
and certainly make no reason to take you seriously.
0 Votes
+ -
Customers were free to choose....
bjbrock@... 2nd Mar 2010
and they chose MS. MS did not force them. The DOJ only determined MS to be a monopoly but not how they got there. They got there because of other companies dropping the ball just like I stated before. MS beat them in the market because of better stratagies and including marketing. MS held no gun to anyone's head. Novell and Sun are both responsible for their downfalls. They could not play in the market and they shot themselves in the foot.

MS may have been adjudicated a monopoly. And that is all the DOJ determined. but Sun and Novell gave them that monopoly because of their own lack of market skills. I still believe Netware to be the best NOS ever written but Novell choked in handling the product. Thus giving MS the market and the monopoly.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't think you understand monopolies
rarsa Updated - 2nd Mar 2010
You say "MS held no gun to anyone's head."

Well, not a physical one. It just prevented hardware vendors from distributing competing technologies under threat of higher prices for them, which would have actually killed or badly hurt such vendors.

They could do that because of their monopoly.
0 Votes
+ -
But not until...
Dr. John 2nd Mar 2010
...they had the market sewn up, which didn't happen until the competition had fumbled the ball dozens of times, giving the game to MS.
OSX was able to gain share on the desktop against
Windows, so why hasn't Linux?

Excuses Excuses Excuses. That's all Linux
advocates give you.

At the end of the day your software has serious
problems if you can't give it away.
0 Votes
+ -
lol
stewymelb 4th Mar 2010
... priceless.

In reality, a couple of the biggest advantages with linux are also the biggest disadvantages.

1. Too much choice. MS has a standard, good or bad, which people get. How many distro's, and versions of distro's incompatible in some way with each other do people need? Apple gets this.

2. Free is percieved as having no value. Additionally, business realies on value, and supporting companies need value to exist. What people use in Business and education usually translates into what they are confortable with at home.(In Melbourne, where I live, finding a competant linux tech is both expensive and frustrating, and inevitably wants to reinstall everything 'their way'). Apple really gets this.

3. No user, should ever, ever have to touch a command line. Ever. It may be more powerful, it may allow for inifinte possibilities, however infinite isn't ncessary. If they do, it's not suitable for mass consumption ... period. Apple also gets this.

I run MS, Ubunto and Apple software (well, osX86) and i like them all for different reasons. OS of choice - Win7. Why, cause it just works, and requires minimal thought, and runs everything i need.

For these reasons, Linux will stay in obscurity (on the desktop). However, if all the competiting linux guys actually got together, Microsoft would have a fight on it's hands. Critical mass is required ... without it, it's just a play-thing.

(not meaning to offend anyone, just the way I see it)
0 Votes
+ -
No, you dont understand
otaddy 2nd Mar 2010
Nobody prevented Apple, Sun or anybody else from making a competing product. If that were true, we wouldnt have OSX, Solaris, and Linux.

And if MS's terms were so bad, why did the hardware vendors accept them?
0 Votes
+ -
MS Troll
nimrod666 2nd Mar 2010
You can slide back under your rock now. You have sullied Linux once again. MS thanks you.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
moron!
Linux Geek 2nd Mar 2010
if you can't figure out what so many courts affirmed you are a MORON.
and most people like you are OSX/windoze worshipers.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
The oxygen...
mykmlr@... 2nd Mar 2010
was the 1 billion dollars per month going out of the market into Bill's pocket. That kind of money gave them a FUD power factor adequate to bury any technology, any competitor, unless Bill said leave them alone.
This FUD alone accounts decently for the worldwide switch to useless Micro$ networks instead of better systems.
You can't market your way past the customer perception that you are done the minute Micro$ says you are done.
0 Votes
+ -
MS marketed their products.
bjbrock@... 2nd Mar 2010
They never delivered FUD against any competitor. They simply marketed theirs. While the competition had no market strategy. MS's competition buried themselves. When you have a superior product such as Netware but can't develop and keep market share it is not the competitions fault. It's your own. Novell and Sun have no one to blame but themselves for their failures.
0 Votes
+ -
The secret to Microsoft's success
Ole Man 2nd Mar 2010
was user ignorance and apathy of the EULA. That was the marketing method introduced to the world by none other than Microsoft. Selling an ethereal product repeatedly while maintaining complete control of use and distribution of said product, rendering virtual control of the market.

Other important nuances may be found by reading the book about Microsoft's foundation, "Barbarians Led By Bill Gates".

http://www.amazon.com/Barbarians-Bill-Gates-Jennifer-Edstrom/dp/0805057544

Barbarians Led by Bill Gates
Amazon.com Review
How has Microsoft been able to crush its competition every step of the way? The company's own version of history ascribes it to something like "really great technical innovation." Barbarians Led by Bill Gates presents a harsher and messier history, sharply questioning Microsoft's ethics and corporate wisdom while underscoring its fierce will to compete.
0 Votes
+ -
users arent that ignorant
otaddy 2nd Mar 2010
Complete BS. If users were so abused by MS, then how come Windows is still so popular?

Certainly they would have switched to linux by now if they felt so controlled by MS.
0 Votes
+ -
On that note...
914four 4th Mar 2010
...if smoking is so bad for you, why are people still buying cigarettes?
Most of them don't even know what an EULA is, let alone read it.

Ignorance means deficient of knowledge in a certain area. Just because someone is computer ignorant doesn't mean they are dumb or stupid. They simply don't know much about computers.

What you read on ZDNet is not the average user.
0 Votes
+ -
"MS marketed their products." !!?
914four 3rd Mar 2010
Wow, you are new to this aren't you?
Read: www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf and then get back to us.
0 Votes
+ -
completely agree
stewymelb 4th Mar 2010
MS delivered what the market perceived it wanted, in a way they understood. The others didn't.

Better technology / more innovation / better support doesn't necessarily win - the perception of these factors does. Sun, Novell and IBM (to a lesser extent) all lost due to these factors.

I've been a SUN partner, a MS Partner and a Novell Partner over the last 18 years, and all acted similiarly in most situations. The differentiator was simply people's perception. This is a powerful tool that fortunately (or unfortnately) Microsoft seems to have manipulated better than the others.

Apple and google (again to a lesser extent) is doing it right now - seemingly apple can do no wrong, and google to a lot of people is the polar opposite of Microsoft, regardless of what they do. (in fact, they are doing things now that MS was procecuted for in the 90's).

People love to hate MS, but in reality, they employed perception changing tactics that brought them to where they are today, regardless of whether appropriate or not.

It'll be interesting to see what people think of google and apple in 10yrs time ... perhaps they'll be smarter than MS / Sun / Oracle / Apple / Novell, but more likely they'll make the same mistakes.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree
SMparky 2nd Mar 2010
I agree completely with you bjbrock. I was a master CNE from Novell and they wouldn't even give me beta software. NT 3 came out with free beta's and Novell wanted to charge me $65.00 for theirs. Their NOS had easy to use features that MS (and others) still don't have. For example easy multiple undeletes, easy ways to see open files (and who has them open), and every type of file permission you could even imagine. 20 years ago.
0 Votes
+ -
It was too easy to setup cheap servers with commodity hardware and still keep a unix like environment.

The didn't know how monetize JAVA either which hurt.

The reason it seems quite clear that it wasn't MS is that when you look at sales data it appears that Linux wasn't gaining server OS % share from MS (which also gained share) but that it gained share from UNIX (HP-UX, Solaris) which lost share.

BTW if you admit that MS hurt SUN then you are admitting that MS competed against UNIX and won. If it competed against UNIX and wins what will it do to Linux?

You can't have it both ways. MS is either winning or losing.
0 Votes
+ -
Just a thought...
914four 3rd Mar 2010
You can't have it both ways. MS is either winning or losing.

Microsoft took away a lot of Novell and UNIX marketshare by offering an open, lower cost alternative. I was an NT 3.1 beta tester and remember telling UNIX experts that NT would dethrone UNIX, and being laughed at. The thing is, UNIX was proprietary and closed and NT was open and wanted to work with everyone.
Today, roles are reversed. In a decent sized business (more than 1000 employees), a Microsoft Windows environment has the highest cost to exit of any of the top 5 OS, including zOS. Microsoft is now the one that is proprietary and closed and is being assailed by Linux and OpenSolaris in the same way it stole marketshare from Solaris, AIX, Tru64(DEC UNIX) and HP-UX.
The game isn't over, Microsoft is simply ahead at this juncture.


"Of course the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you - if you don't play, you can't win. " -Robert Heinlein (1907-1988)
Why doesn't it apply to IBM, HP and DELL or Red Hat, Oracle, Google all of which are doing quite well and in the same arena as SUN.
0 Votes
+ -
I call ********...
TtfnJohn 3rd Mar 2010
In terms of the old bar room "poker" game.

First let me make it abundantly clear that I'm a Linux user and advocate from early on.

Let me make another point perfectly clear that I've worked with networks and networking since the 1980s when LANs were a mystery to nearly everyone.

MS, who after Win95 and especially XP did change the game with the desktop monopoly were then what they are now which is crappy at networking.

Sun and Novell basically handed networking to MS through horrific management, stupidity in terms of pricing and marketing to the large companies who were their bread and butter, not to mention steak.

I watched as Sun effectively tossed away the possibilty of them becoming the evil empire by sticking their GUI interface with over priced SPARC systems instead of commodity x86 system.

In doing so, and with Sun's secrecy around their code, they not only helped hand Microsoft the desktop market which is the core of their monopoly at times they encouraged it because the product where Novell was king wasn't the high end park Sun loved to play in.

Novell in the meantime increased per seat costs, lowered support levels to practically zero unless you wanted to take a seat in the super expense upper end which is not where medium and large corporations of the time were willing to play. Just to help things along a bit Novell mapped their network drives with the old CP/M drive designated by letter thing that MS-DOS had "inherited" largely to make DOS users and early Windows adopters happy.

At the same time the quality of Novell's NOS began to fall roughly like a barrel tossed over Niagara falls.

(You need to remember that Apple damned near went down the same road after they kicked out Steve Jobs and replaced him with a former Pepsi executive, of all things, until they had to go crawling back to Jobs to save them. If they hadn't we'd have been having this discussion about Apple along with no iMac, iPhone or other overly expensive though kinda sexy gadgets and systems.)

My dislike of MS aside, one of the things that MS was remarkably good at in those days was stepping in when competition failed to appear or when established players didn't do what MS anticipated they would. Such an event occured with Win 3.1

Remember all this occured while Lotus and Borland were in a legal fight to the death over "look and feel" in spreadsheets and WordPerfect decided to stay largely character based until it was far far too late. With major potential competitors in spreadsheet, database, coding and word processing busy with other things we got a horrid mishmash known as MS Offce (the first release). It was awful but it was graphical and fit into Win 3.1 and the next edition fit perfectly into Win95 while everyone else played catch up. It was still awful by today's standards but it fit in and worked reasonably well.

(Win95, remember, ignored this fad called the Internet as well until MS woke up and went whoops! It also largely ignored networking.)

MS then got into networking, badly, horribly and went nowhere but when Sun and Novel didn't respond MS kept whacking at it and gave us the hodgepodge we know today.

In there came the little OS that could called Linux. Sun ignored it between taking pot shots at it, Novel raised pricing, lessened support and spent precious little on improvement of the NOS while MS continued to improve until their vision of networking became "good enough" which just about describes it today. Noting to give any awards to but good enough.

It also wasn't until the technology press got a whiff of Linux and there began to be a lot of dreamy, unrealistic talk about it that MS paid any attention to that either, by the way.

But MS had learned from it's battles with IBM which was IBM's former attitude of take no prisoners, tolerate only enough competition to keep the anti-trust people looking elsewhere and just keep releasing decent, sometimes good, sometimes excellent product and, most of all, control the PC hardware. (Something IBM had done until it's horrid mistake with microchannel.)

It's not so much that MS sucked up the oxygen as much as it is their competition, in networking Sun and Novel practically fed it to them in the time they could have ruled the roost and IBM basically walked away from the PC handing the hardware farm to MS.

WinNT and Win2K may have set the stage for the effective monopoly MS enjoys today but it was handed to them so that when XP appeared all MS had to do was go "hey look at this" the world saw XP and proclaimed it good and the monopoly was born. Except for Linux hackers, of course. wink

Remember that in the early character based days of the PC IBM was the horrible monopolistic baddie and MS was the good guy. MS traded on that perception as long as they could and they did it well, too.

Yes, MS effectively has a monopoly on the desktop and will have for the foreseeable future. (Or until the LSB becomes a viable reality and GNOME and KDE stop their silly wars and some marriage of the best of both becomes the standard desktop.) MS doesn't enjoy a monopoly in heavy route networking (internet and that kind of thing) or anything approaching one which is the real area where Linux and BSD are kicking MS's butt. Light route networking, say LANs in offices is where MS holds sway though not, I should add, a monopoly.

Yeah, so M$ is the Evil Empire. So what? Crying and whining about it doesn't change anything and pointless repeated rants changes less.

And if part of your cause is to promote Linux rather than just troll, you're doing your cause (and mine) vastly more harm than good.

If you want to challenge MS do it in the trenches where Jeremy lives and not in pointless, idiotic trolling posts. You're using too much precious oxygen.

ttfn

John
Great story... the combination of this issues was frosted with
arrogance! Take it from me, a 15 year reseller....
0 Votes
+ -
that Sun was a publiclly traded company, with investors, benefits, loans to repay, et cetera, everyday responsibilities that any large business has.

How do you take something and craft it, test it, change it, all while maintaning your day to day resposabilities, then give it away for everyone (including your would be competitors) to have for free?

Sun's problems where not that they did not give away their products, it is that they could not give away their products.

You said it yourself; their hardware was lacking, so they had to make it up with better software. What incentive is their for me, a customer, to pay Sun's price for everything if I could get the same benefit from a free version (or lower support cost) on less expensive, and faster, x86 hardware.

Look at you: it is easy for you to work on your Samba project, in the hopes of giving it away for free, when your salary is covered from your company's advertising revenues, not any revenue your software is generating.

Did SUN have that same luxury?

I do believe that you have over simplified the problem. It is so far beyond just "controlling the code".
0 Votes
+ -
Missing the bigger picture...
storm14k 2nd Mar 2010
I think your statement about working on Samba and being covered by ad revenues misses the bigger picture and is why many people don't understand FOSS.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe Google actually uses Samba on their internal networks? Maybe without Samba is the best solution for them and without it they would not be able to use Linux servers. Without the use of Linux or BSD they'd be paying MS or someone else for a server OS. Maybe they would not have been able to grow to the point they have with that expense. Now thanks to FOSS they are able to make that ad revenue.

You have to stop thinking about making direct profit. Its nothing more than any other in house application built by any company. The difference here is that since the code is shared they get additional real world testing and possibly help in developing it. Trying to sell Samba if they could would probably have gotten them no where since in the beginning they wouldn't be big enough to compete and would never have become large enough to compete without the help of the FOSS projects.

And Sun did give away code so I don't understand you saying that they couldn't. They just tried to control it too tightly.
0 Votes
+ -
.
0 Votes
+ -
They could not as in
GuidingLight 2nd Mar 2010
having investors to answer to.

It is one thing to start a company like Red Hat, with investors knowing exactlly what they are "getting into".

On the other side you have SUN, with investors now being told "we are going to give the code away under GPLv3, abandon the proprietary model that worked up until this point".

Scott McNealy would have been gone long ago had he suggested that.
0 Votes
+ -
Right on the money.
ye 2nd Mar 2010
How much free software would there be if the developers developing it weren't being subsidized in some way?
0 Votes
+ -
Subsidized == paid.
JeremyAllison 2nd Mar 2010
Ye wrote:

"How much free software would there be if the developers developing it weren't being subsidized in some way? "

You mean subsidized as in getting a paycheck for writing Free Software ? That's how I make a living, and so do most other contributors.

This isn't an all volunteer effort anymore you know, even if it's still just as much fun as when it was happy.

Jeremy.
IBM contributes to Free software and makes money from services for that same free software.
0 Votes
+ -
For commodity items where it can't differentiate, IBM will sell the line of business (e.g. Lenova PC) or if it's software give it away . Full feature free Community Editions of Websphere and DB2. Heavy contributions to Eclipse, Linux, and Derby.

Pay for versions of Websphere, DB2, and AIX are justified with increased availability, scalability and manageability features. Things large enterprises willingly pay for.

The main differntiator from Sun, though is Global Services. Outsourced or onsite services that make sure all your IBM hardware and software are installed and running as designed.

I've been in a number of shops where the IBM consultants are embeded as part of the technical team.

N
0 Votes
+ -
Me too and that was my point
rarsa Updated - 2nd Mar 2010
My response was to GuidingLight not Jeremy
0 Votes
+ -
The article has to fit on ZDnet .
JeremyAllison 2nd Mar 2010
So I couldn't have written a book about it happy. Actually I do think there's room for a really good book about the failure of Sun. I'd certainly buy and read it.

I have to disagree with your assessment of the economics of Free Software however. Red Hat and Novell (and Canonical) fund a lot of Free Software development because they need and use it in their products. As do IBM and Google. None of these are charities.

Sun was a classic case of the Innovators Dilemma, as I mention in the article. The couldn't cannibalize their own products, as they were making the money to fund the company. Others could and did, however.

Jeremy.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree. An interesting read it would be
GuidingLight Updated - 2nd Mar 2010
as this is a company that has both a begining, and an end, with what contributed to that end able to fill the pages in between.

Do you have any spare time? happy
0 Votes
+ -
Agreed
Cardhu 2nd Mar 2010
Write the book, Jeremy.
0 Votes
+ -
MSFT does. Oracle does. Apple does. So many others do and are profitable like heck so quit this "control" spin doesn't really fly.
they seem to be following the sun model of taking from (and advantage of) the linux community but not sharing back any of their thousands of changes, and they so far seem to be quite happy with themselves for it
0 Votes
+ -
Shhhhhhhh that's FOSS heresy
connor33 2nd Mar 2010
You don't want to ruin the rose-colored glasses
of FOSS advocates like Allison.

You might not want him to realize that his
paycheck comes from a proprietary company.

Yes Google is a proprietary company. Their core
product is their search engine which they keep
locked up. Their open source projects are just
funded with slush funds. As you pointed out
they don't even share their internal build of
Linux.
0 Votes
+ -
Google will be next...
ericesque 2nd Mar 2010
because FOSS isn't compatible with capitalism.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh yes it is
sysop-dr 2nd Mar 2010
You seem to have missed the point. The software at Google is not the product, ads are. The software allows people to see the ads, and by giving back to the community they also benefit from the community.
By making FOSS better they let more people use FOSS but in no way does making the software avaiable affect the number of people who see the ads.
Microsoft, the software is the product so giving the software away is directly against selling the software.
Intel can give away software because then more people buy the hardware. Same with HP. IBM sells solutions and that includes software but if the software is free or not doesn't matter as they sell a solution that uses the software but is based mostly on their being the ones who keep it going. Same with Oracle they sell the solution, which happens to use their software. But it runs on Linux and they support Linux.
Why do IBM and Oracle an others support Linux? Not because they don't like Microsoft or because Linux is cheaper, but because they get more from Linux then Windows. They not only get an OS but they get the ability to have input to the OS without having to have their own OS. They don't have control but they have input and it also gives them options.
Linux allows software companies to not have to be tied to one OS and not be tied to a potential competetors OS.
But at the same time those same companies hope that Microsoft never dies as well, because that would leave everyone dependant on Linux and it doesn't matter which basket, if all of your eggs are in one basket they all break if that basket breaks.
But ultimately it's the CEO and board that makes decisions that impact the future of a company. All they wanted was to sit back and get their severance for driving a company into the ground.

How do you control the destiny of your company when you don't charge for the products you sell. Compare Sun's prices to others in the industry and they were giving it away.
The controlling thing will get you out of business. Digital Equipment Corporation absolutely controlled the "minicomputer" market that was related to the Sun workstations. They purposely designed every piece of gear so that you couldn't use anything on it you didn't buy from them -- at insane prices. I mean disks, printer ribbons, everything. While IBM leaped over them from mainframe to PC dominance based largetly on NOT doing everything. It could be said, with items like PC-DOS vs. MS-DOS they made a boo boo, but they did survive to morph into a larger company that dominates services.

Kind of liked those guys -- they loved an early microcontroller development system my company did (first one to use Windows to develop embedded stuff) and almost threw some money at me.

But knew they were in trouble when I did a little, cheap Intel box that sat in telephone cell sites and consolidated digital and rs-232 data. The guys in my company couldn't figure out how that $1500 unit could run circles around their $500,000 Sun beast. I could.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: How Sun's need to control the code cost them the company
dfwekrwe44-24353611083890172929229494159280 4th Nov
vesqad,good post!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix