Taking an intentionally cautious tone, Microsoft and Sun Microsystems executives said Wednesday that the first eight months of their 10-year partnership have yielded small, but significant progress.
Sun and Microsoft: So far, so good
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
just after 8 months? thats only 6% of their contract timeline.
In today’s multi-vendor IT environment, vendors should stop wasting time bashing one another. Spend those time making products working together.
I have the hunch that MSFT and SUNW’s main reason to work together is to combat IBM. Well, that, and each company finally realized neither firm (or, more importantly, their respective technologies) is/are going to vanish.
For now: Join forces in order to combat the Linux camp (IBM, Red Hat, Novell).
In the long run: The Borg will Embrace, Extend, Exterminate the Sun.
“In today’s multi-vendor IT environment, vendors should stop wasting time bashing one another. Spend those time making products working together.”
This is exactly what the larger vendors are currently doing. The big guys are quickly becoming a single consolidated structure.
They have individually concluded its prime time to stop being assholes long enough to insure their mutual survival.
IBM and MS would be more than proud to have an absolute repeat of the past 20+ years. There is absolutely nothing illegal in their approach.
The Donner Party walked along the gravel trail until the terrain became more inclined and diverged. The mountainside was gorgeous, as was the valley below and to the right. They couldn’t wait to reach the cabin deep in the heart of the wilderness, where they planned to spend the winter…
🙂
–EyeAm
http://s87767106.onlinehome.us
Will OpenOffice.org/StarOffice eventually gain 100% compatibility with OfficeXP/2003 (ie: open a Word doc. in OO.o & vise versa) — I still find many documents that maintain approx. 98% of the original formatting.
Will Office2005 be 100% compatible with OOo/SO? I can understand why it is awkward for OOo/SO developers to get 100% accuracy with MSO since the MSO .doc format has changed many times and is kept under tight wraps, but surely since the OOo/SO’s xml format is an open spec, the next version of MSO should be 100% OOo compatible?
Not likely, considering that not even Microsoft has been able to accieve 100% compatibility between different versions of MS Office (especially if you compare Windows and Mac versions).
well said. I agree totally.
>IBM and MS would be more than proud to have an absolute
>repeat of the past 20+ years. There is absolutely nothing
>illegal in their approach.
I’m not sure what you meant by this. Microsoft is a multi-time convicted criminal of a company. IBM has been hammered as well… and actually cleaned up.
I hope this isn’t a revisionist post… wish it was clearer.
Are you kidding me? IBM hasn’t cleaned up a bit, they’ve just come across better way to fool the market. For instance, their support behind Linux is only partial, the don’t deliver Laptops with Linux and they surely recommend AIX quite often.
not only that, but IBMs business is keeping Linux tricky, how do you think they would sell support time and consultancy otherwise. It’s just a question about them or MS getting the money.
Well said; Which one takes more consultancy and “services” to setup? it sure as heck isn’t Microsoft or Solaris. Why would IBM want to push products that make life simpler when they can push the same old bullcrap of “integrating legacy with new technology”, in other words, “leave it up to us, and we’ll make it so bloody complex that only we can maintain it for some ungodly fee that runs into the millions, possibly billions”.
That, and the fact, when was the last time you saw IBM make a conserted effort to get a distro to work 100% perfectly out of the box with their thinkcentre range? how about IBM’s Lotus Notes and Smartsuite? when are we going to see those ported over? how about the rational branded development software?
Linux on PowerPC? oh, nice, now, when are we going to said a POWER workstation priced at the same level as SUN’s Blade 150? sorry, a WORKSTATION NOT a blade server. A proper POWER workstation loaded with Linux for US$1300.
1 to 10
That’s a 10 post!
great stuff…
Precisely! I still get confused every time I keep hearing IBM signs another one of these multimillion dollar contracts. Their branding which keeps getting embraced by the Linux community is just hoax.
Microsoft and Sun try to deliver service free products… thank you for that. Luckily some open source acts have realised this is the way to go… Apache and Mozilla are 2 that come to mind.
Saying that IBM is one of the good guys is like declaring how ignorant you are…
“IBM hasn’t cleaned up a bit, they’ve just come across better way to fool the market. For instance, their support behind Linux is only partial, the don’t deliver Laptops with Linux and they surely recommend AIX quite often.
”
as if other unix vendors solely recommend Linux…
Everybody in the business does the same thing. atleast they dont blantantly lie about redhat being proprietary…
“Are you kidding me? IBM hasn’t cleaned up a bit, they’ve just come across better way to fool the market. For instance, their support behind Linux is only partial, the don’t deliver Laptops with Linux and they surely recommend AIX quite often.
not only that, but IBMs business is keeping Linux tricky, how do you think they would sell support time and consultancy otherwise. It’s just a question about them or MS getting the money.”
I tried so hard to read your post as you intended but i kept thinking about ‘Sun’ every time you wrote IBM and ‘Solaris’ when you wrote AIX
“Everybody in the business does the same thing. atleast they dont blantantly lie about redhat being proprietary…”
OK. You can get the source code to their OS. Does that make
it not proprietary? Can you seemlessly switch Redhat for
Debian? Suse?. The argument is that you install and deploy
on a distribution not on ‘linux’. If you choose to deploy
on Redhat then you face virtually the same limitations as
what you would on Solaris, HPUX, windows, AIX. In the
majority of cases, having the source to the OS doesn’t
negate the problems commonly attributed to running on a
so called proprietary operating system. For instance, it
doesn’t obviate the need for support contracts, application
certification, hardware certification etc. The only reason
linux gathered momentum in businesses was it was
(relatively) incredibly cheap and ran on cheap hardware.
Those advantages do not exist anymore. I am not disparaging
linux, I just believe this to be the reality today. Please
correct me if I have missed some competitive advantage it
has.
As for IBM, they don’t care what you run as long as you
appreciate that it’s really hard and complicated and you
really need their help to maintain it. IGS accounts for
more than %50 of their total revenue.
Whoa, all Microsofties are hating on IBM.
I think you forget, IBM handles some REALLY complex/huge systems. They run eBay for gods sake. Do you really think Microsoft could even manage that? (eBay didn’t, seeing as how they turned MS down)
Not only that, but IBM has a lot of their people WORKING on Linux.
They also open source some badly needed things, like a decent client GUI framework for Java, the BEST IDE available today Eclipse, etc.
IBM may not be open source friendly forever, but right now they are easily on par with Sun (who has always been really cool towards Open Source).
“OK. You can get the source code to their OS. Does that make
it not proprietary? Can you seemlessly switch Redhat for
Debian? Suse?. ”
switching easily between distributions is a good goal(LSB, LCC etc work on it) but thats not the definition of open source.
http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php
there are differences in distributions. by your definition every Linux distribution is proprietary including debian because they have their own differences.
why only speak about redhat then?>. because Jonathan wants to LIE about redhat being proprietary and not LSB compliant.
” The only reason
linux gathered momentum in businesses was it was
(relatively) incredibly cheap and ran on cheap hardware.
Those advantages do not exist anymore.”
that wasnt the only advantage and the advantage still exists. You dont need to choose Redhat just because you choose Linux. there are several free distributions out there
UbuntuLinux offers full support in a cheaper way
There are several redhat EL clones like centos.org.
there is a great community oriented distros like Debian, Mandrake and Gentoo.
“You dont need to choose Redhat just because you choose Linux. there are several free distributions out there”
If only that were true. If you are installing PeopleSoft (for example) your choices for Linux are RedHat AS 2.1 and nothing else. The next upgrade will require RedHat ES 3 (I believe that’s correct) so when you upgrade PeopleSoft, you have to upgrade RedHat. On the other side of the coin, if you want to upgrade RedHat, you have to upgrade PeopleSoft along with it.
What I’m saying is that until companies certify their software for Linux (not RedHat or Suse or Debian or whatever), the linux distributions might as well be proprietary.
So my point is that in many cases you DO have to choose RedHat if you choose Linux. This begs the question: Why not choose Solaris? With binary compatibility between versions you don’t have to upgrade your OS when you upgrade your application.
The SCO’s supporters are teaming together. Hopefully they will drain each others resources and just vanish. Solaris and Windows are legacy operating systems and dont hold a candle to Linux. I refuse to support Windows or Solaris when I develop software. I refuse to do business with anyone who uses Microsoft Windows Server or Microsoft Desktop operating systems because I know they cant secure my data and I dont want anyone knowing my personal info. Longhorn and Solaris 10 are the new Legacy operating Systems. Linux will crush Sun and Microsoft and Linux will pummel SCO.
Huh?
You can take the tin-foil hat off now. It’s safe to come out.
Refusing to do business with anyone who uses MS Windows is your loss, considering most businesses use Windows somewhere.
“If only that were true. If you are installing PeopleSoft (for example) your choices for Linux are RedHat AS 2.1 and nothing else. The next upgrade will require RedHat ES 3 (I believe that’s correct) so when you upgrade PeopleSoft, you have to upgrade RedHat. On the other side of the coin, if you want to upgrade RedHat, you have to upgrade PeopleSoft along with it.
What I’m saying is that until companies certify their software for Linux (not RedHat or Suse or Debian or whatever), the linux distributions might as well be proprietary. ”
thats a problem with Peoplesoft and nothing to do with redhat being proprietary (which is a lie)
“So my point is that in many cases you DO have to choose RedHat if you choose Linux. This begs the question: Why not choose Solaris? With binary compatibility between versions you don’t have to upgrade your OS when you upgrade your application.”
that can also beg the question WHY solaris.?
Precisely! I still get confused every time I keep hearing IBM signs another one of these multimillion dollar contracts. Their branding which keeps getting embraced by the Linux community is just hoax.
These multimillion dollar contracts consist of dirt cheap hardware, sold at a loss, but the money is made selling overly complex “solutions” to the problem the customer was having in the first place.
Just look how receptive IBM is when you say to them, “oh, sorry, I’m just interested in purchasing the hardware, we have decide to use EDS for our service provider”.
Microsoft and Sun try to deliver service free products… thank you for that. Luckily some open source acts have realised this is the way to go… Apache and Mozilla are 2 that come to mind.
Also, like or not, both companies are making a concerted effort to reduce the cost of running their software. SUN has made some major acquisitions in regards to Solaris management; Microsoft has made their Services for UNIX software free so now it is possible to move from UNIX to Windows without having to worry about shelling more money out for software to help port your projects over.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Microsoft and SUN, but atleast the two realise that they’re SOFTWARE and HARDWARE companies, and they have a vested interest in reducing the cost of ownership of their products. IBM, on the other hand, have a vested interest in ensuring that the solution they give you is so complex that you end up having to spend millions of services that could have been saved had they chosen to purchase the slightly more expensive up front product from SUN or Microsoft in favour of long term savings, which are accrewed over 3 years.
Saying that IBM is one of the good guys is like declaring how ignorant you are..
My old man, before returning to the army, worked for Burroughs before it merged with Sperry (and became UNISYS), talk to him and he’ll be quite honest about saying that IBM hasn’t changed one little bit since he was in the IT industry.
“Just look how receptive IBM is when you say to them, “oh, sorry, I’m just interested in purchasing the hardware, we have decide to use EDS for our service provider”.
LMAO…. That would instantly give you a true vision of IBM at it’s finest…
I’m not sure where these people who believe IBM gives a damn about Linux or open source come from…. IBM has never gave a damn about anyone other than IBM, and it’s never going to change.
“thats a problem with Peoplesoft and nothing to do with redhat being proprietary (which is a lie)”
OK, I Accept your point about Redhat and linux being open
source as a good thing generally. My personal opinion is that
value add for an enterprise is superficial at best. Sun IS
open sourcing Solaris.
Now, the problem is not necessarily with Peoplesoft, it is
a generic problem irrespective of what OS you decide to run.
The ISV’s will port to where the money is and for all intents
and purposes on linux this is Redhat. Don’t you see what power
this gives them? For businesses which want to run established applications they essentially have a captive
market.
No business says “Hey, we want to run linux. Lets get that
set up and go and see what applications are available.”
“that can also beg the question WHY solaris.?”
More enterprise features
Cheaper
Arguably better scalability, reliability and security.
guaranted binary compatability
Tighter system integration (Sun are one of few vendors
which can provide a top to bottom solution)