Gingell: History will repeat itself

As one of Sun's engineer/philosopher kings, Gingell has an eccentric streak that sets him apart from the usual corporate types and spin doctors.

Gingell, who gets around by flying a twin-engine Cessna (he doesn't expense the gas or miles), often responds to one-sentence questions with long answers that are packed with his version of computing history, full of analogies that shed light on the inner workings of Sun and the computing industry over the last 20 years. If nothing else, his views are quite interesting.

Here are some of the more poignant "Gingellisms," and my take on them.

Gingellism: Sun's software and the people who work on it are like the movies.

According to Gingell, Hollywood studios keep people like writers on their payroll for the work they're going to do, not the work they've already finished. Sure, the studio owns the rights to the films once the work is done, but Gingell feels the value of those films to the studio diminishes with time: "What [our programmers have] already created has value to us, but it's a lot like movies. The first day a movie ships, it's worth eight bucks a shot. But a couple of weeks from now, it's four bucks a shot and two years from now you'll be watching it free on television."

As such, Gingell says that Sun's true hidden potential, its ability to compete against Linux providers like IBM and Red Hat, and its ability to contribute to the Linux code base, rests with the army of programmers that are employed by Sun.

My take: If Sun thinks that it can make new contributions to open source that the Linux community can't foster on its own, then it needs to demonstrate that capability now. On one hand, Gingell told me that neither Sun nor any other vendor can compete long term with the growing strength of the open-source movement. But in the interview, he also says that Sun's crack team of programmers--the script writers in his analogy--will bring significant contributions to the Linux community, and that Sun will figure out how to profit from them by having those functions deployed earlier than the other Linux distributions.

Gingell views Linux as an offshoot of Unix/Solaris that could benefit from integrating parts of Solaris that Sun has engineered. But until Sun puts its money where its mouth is and shows its commitment to the open source way by delivering those enhancements to Linux, this is just FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) that puts doubt into the minds of those who are considering Linux. It sends the message that Linux might not necessarily be ready for mission-critical apps until it's more Solaris-like.

Gingellism: Processors and operating systems in computers are like the steel in cars. Most car buyers don't care what the metal is made of or where it came from.

A long time ago, the material that a car was made out of was a concern to buyers. Some cars had a better track record of resisting rust than others. Today, except for those cars that are made of super lightweight materials and therefore appeal to a very small set of upscale buyers, the body material is no longer a differentiator.

This could be the first time a Sun official has conceded on record that, like the steel in cars, today's processors and operating systems are so non-differentiating that buyers aren't very concerned with those aspects of a system purchase. According to Gingell, "It's like the steel supply industry to automobiles. Yeah, there's a lot going on there and they have their own magazines and stuff like that, but those of us who buy cars don't pay any attention to it…none of us car buyers care."

My take: I've been beating this drum for a while. It's about time Sun faced this reality.

Gingellism: Going with Java-based applications is like going with gasoline-based cars. If you get tired of the Ford, it's relatively painless to switch to a Chevy. They both run on the same gas.

Gingell exalts one of Java's most compelling attributes: the portability of applications and the way it insulates those applications from specific operating systems and hardware platforms. But, Gingell contends, the ease of switching puts pressure on technology providers like Sun to create loyalty in other ways: "If you bought a Ford the last time, there's no obligation to buy a Ford the next time. You have no vested interest in choosing Ford again unless they did something as an enterprise that earned your loyalty at some level." Gingell thinks that Sun's reputation for doing better than companies like Red Hat and IBM at responding to customers' needs with Linux and Java-based solutions will generate that loyalty.

My take: As long as Java's write-once, run-anywhere promise isn't severely compromised by the competing interests of IBM and Sun, Sun may be able to repeat what it did in the Unix wars. It can win on implementation and support of a platform that isn't significantly different from one vendor to the next. But the minute the Java community fractures, Sun could end up on the losing side of that balkanization, as opposed to the winning side, as it did with Unix.

IBM has already thrown a wrench in the works by open sourcing the Eclipse integrated-development environment. This could be a harbinger of things to come as IBM attempts to steer the Java community in the direction it would like it to go. At the very least, IBM wants to see all of the Java specifications open sourced. But moving Java to a pure open-source license might eliminate the need for the compatibility requirements that are currently enforced by Sun. Sun fears that if such compatibility isn't enforced, portability might be compromised. Then, switching solution providers might not be as simple as going from a Ford to a Chevy.

Until recently, I might have disagreed. But Sun has a point. Until Red Hat went off on its own with Linux, the open-source license didn't look like an impediment to compatibility and portability. But whether you're dealing with Linux, Apache, or Java, it's evident that a central authority can help to assure that powerful members of those communities can't violate the constitutions of compatibility and portability, while assuring buyers that there is at least some oversight of community activities.

Gingellism: The hardware and software markets are a lot like the heavily commoditized markets for transistors and resistors. It's OK to finish second.

Gingell compares the businesses that Sun is in--processors, operating systems, applications, and tools--to other markets where it's very difficult to spot differentiation unless some inferiority sticks out like a sore thumb. In markets like that, he believes that you don't have to finish first to be a winner. He says, "Being in a programming war is not a loser for us. Let's assume that I'm just the number two guy for this commoditized technology. Well, it's like being number two in transistors. Who cares? But that doesn't mean you don't have to be careful. Incompetent resistors become noticeable very quickly. It's not that it's unimportant. It's undifferentiating. There's a subtle but important difference between the two."

My take: I agree that Sun doesn't have to finish first in order to survive. But I'm not so sure that the battle for market share in the Linux and Java domains is going to boil down to a programming war. It seems that Gingell's argument is that eventually IT managers will be compelled to go with Sun because Sun's DNA pervades everything (including Linux), and Sun therefore will be much better positioned to solve customers' problems.

Sure, Sun has talented programmers that can work on everything from chips to operating systems to applications. Regardless of whether those programmers are responding to customers' needs with customized one-off solutions or with new, open-source code that's freely available to everyone, I'm not convinced that customers will see Sun's programming speed, talent, and timely contributions to the open-source community.

So what's Gingell's bottom line? During my interview with him, he repeatedly emphasized Sun's talent as the company's key differentiator. Gingell throws down the gauntlet, challenging IBM, Red Hat, or anybody else to outperform Sun when it comes to making sure platforms--even open-source ones like Linux--are routinely updated and focused on solving customers' problems in a timely manner.

Gingell says Sun will win customers for the same reason that moviegoers want to be the first to see Star Wars.   Early adopters can benefit from innovation before their competitors, and that implies partnering with the pacesetter.

The logic is identical to what we heard from Intel CEO Craig Barrett, who attributed the business failures of entire countries like Japan to the lack of vision and timely investment in innovative technologies and infrastructures. According to Gingell, when it comes to Linux and Java, Sun will be that pacesetter.

What do you think? Can Sun repeat the success it had in the Unix arena by being the best and fastest company to answer business problems using common platforms like Linux and Java? Does Gingell's pitch resonate with you in ways that make you want to partner with Sun versus other solution providers like IBM or Microsoft? Let me know. Talkback below or write to me at david.berlind@cnet.com.