So what exactly are Sun’s plans? While precise details remain close to Sun’s chest, it is clear that the company is planning to assemble a suite of both open source and proprietary software products with which to go head to head with Microsoft. Some of these, such as the MySQL open source database, Sendmail messaging software, Samba file and print software, Apache web server, Mozilla browser, and Gnome desktop, have already been discussed by Sun executives. Our Take: At LinuxWorld, I saw their default configuration of Gnome 2 on Solaris. It looked pretty bad, while their X server did not even support AA. I don’t think they are going anywhere to “assault” Microsoft. They might “assault” some other Unix or even Linux vendors, but their game will stop there.
Sun Plans Assault on Microsoft Dominance
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
They want to assault the workstation side of MS Windows and the server side. Not the desktop side. They’re gonna do it…
er ..haven’t they been *trying* to assault MS (in every way they can) for 10 years?
What’s their stock price at, again? $5/share?
Microsoft’s seems to hover around $55/share…hmmm…who will be there, for the long haul….hmmm….
Sun down.
Share prices aren`t comparable as they aren`t relative to a baseline.
//Share prices aren`t comparable as they aren`t relative to a baseline.//
Riiiiiight. I’m so glad *you* don’t handle my stock portfolio.
Seesh.
Unless they something much better than whining at MS and everybody else, Sun is headed for extinction in the long run. Funny how a fine company like can’t seem to do anything right thesedays.
The desktop needs more than office productivity apps to flourish; it needs a whole suite of apps from web browsers to games. How many commercials games have been released for Solaris? Ever? Zero, none. Even Linux still gets commercial games.
What Sun is attempting to do is bold but they have NO experience in the desktop. They should bought Be or something, someone who has experience in desktops
Good luck Sun, but don’t give up the day job!
I’m sorry but I *like* CDE and hate Gnome. If I want a Windowish gui, well….I can use 98.
Sun is not going to assault anybody. They had a chance with Java, but they blew it. Funny that Scott McNeily once said in an interview shown on PBS that “MS Windows will be obsolete and it’s probably is. Java is run everywhere from the web to the PDA. You just don’t see it. Java will replace Windows.” Hahaha…
I wonder if they could create a window manager in Java? You figure, it might take a few moments longer to load up, and take up more memory than Gnome, but Java apps are pretty fast once they get going.
The metal desktop… That would be a bold statement.
“””The desktop needs more than office productivity apps to flourish; it needs a whole suite of apps from web browsers to games. How many commercials games have been released for Solaris? Ever? Zero, none. Even Linux still gets commercial games.”””
Did anyone actually read the article? It was talking about putting together a cross platform suite (for at least Solaris/Linux/Windows) of software that they would sell to compete with other major desktop applications (along the lines of Office/MS-SQL) in addition to selling Linux workstations and Linux/Solaris low-end servers. It has nothing to do with trying to wedge UltraSparcs or Solaris (x86 or otherwise) into the desktop market.
Oh great, Sun. Place your hopes on a database system that doesn’t even support half the features of an enterprise DBMS. Way to go…
At least they could have chosen Interbase/Firebird or PostgreSQL. If Sun just put 1/10 of the resources they wasted on Linux into PostgreSQL development, it would blow SQL Server 2000 out of the water. (actually it already does, in many ways)
Oh great, Sun. Place your hopes on a database system that doesn’t even support half the features of an enterprise DBMS. Way to go…
At least they could have chosen Interbase/Firebird or PostgreSQL. If Sun just put 1/10 of the resources they wasted on Linux into PostgreSQL development, it would blow SQL Server 2000 out of the water. (actually it already does, in many ways)
Oracle’s home platform is Solaris. No way do they want to use something like Postgres which is trying to be similar to Oracle and is much too competitive. MySQL is probably perfect for Oracle: On the one hand, it’s easy so people who use flatfiles can make the transition to MySQL easily; on the other hand it doesn’t do all that much, so its easy to outgrow. Postgres could end up chewing up too much of Oracle’s market. At this point with Linux as good as it is; Oracle is Sun’s office. No way do they want to damage that relationship.
I wonder if they could create a window manager in Java? You figure, it might take a few moments longer to load up, and take up more memory than Gnome, but Java apps are pretty fast once they get going.
The metal desktop… That would be a bold statement.
Check out http://www.xwt.org – we might be attempting to create a linux window manager at some point from it. It has been mentioned on the mailing list.
When is Sun going to have an actual business plan, instead of the usual “Destroy Microsoft” crock of sh*t? Makes me sorry I certified on Sun products at all. The older I get the more tired I get of this nonsense.
And, quite frankly for ease of use and administration of a Server, MS beats Sun hands down. Sun has a loooooooooooooooong road ahead of it to even come close.
What does share price have to do with it. It is hardly an index. Berkshire Hathaway sells for what $50,000 per share. Wow MS must be terrible.
First we have Sun —
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SUNW&d=c&k=c1&a=v&p=s&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=…
Over the past two years, shares prices have gone from $60/share to $3.50/share. Not a good performance. “Kill Microsoft” is a great intention, but it needs a superb plan and flawless execution to make it happen.
Next we have Microsoft —
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=msft&d=c&k=c1&t=2y&a=v&p=s&l=on&z=m&q=…
Over the past two years, it has gone from $70/share to $50/share. Not bad in a troubled economy.
Microsoft will be around. They have a monopoly. Sun has no long term sustainable competitive advantage.
Sun’s share price was down more than Microsoft’s share prices because it is mainly a server company. During the dot com dot gone era, their stock prices are inflated with this craze. Now that has gone, their prices are also down. So comparing these two companies’ share prices are not very realistic. They have their own businesses.
Microsoft does buisness everywhere, but not as much as Sun in the server market. Also Sun sells hardware, which is a very hard business, because you need to have buildings to store things. In software, you don’t need much. Just copy the disc.
Also Microsoft gets most of it revenue from Office. Office makes people more productive.
dopey_joe, living up to his nick, wrote:
{*
//Share prices aren`t comparable as they aren`t relative to a baseline.//
Riiiiiight. I’m so glad *you* don’t handle my stock portfolio.
Seesh.
*}
(1) The Dow is around 8000. Its components don’t, on average, trade around 8000. Stocks are sometimes split so that the per share cost is accessible to most traders. Conversely, they might do a 1-for-2 reverse split if the stock has fallen radically. Few individual investors can buy and sell Berkshire Hathaway at $50K a share. An index like the Dow is back calculated to take the splits into account.
(2) How the market values a company is based on the stock price and the number of outstanding shares. Berkshire Hathaway has fewer shares at higher price than Microsoft, but has a lesser value altogether.
Rob Campbell
You’re full of shit. What will you do now? I suggest killing yourself.
////Share prices aren`t comparable as they aren`t relative to a baseline.
//
//Riiiiiight. I’m so glad *you* don’t handle my stock portfolio.
//
//Seesh.
Dude, you’re a dumb-ass. What he’s saying is you can’t assess the worth of the company by the share-price alone as the number of shares offered by each company are often different. M$ could split their stock so its 27.50 per share, but they would then have twice the number of shares as before. I do agree that M$ will outlast Sun, but that’s because a) Sun doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘consumer’ and b) Microsoft has over 40 billion in cash reserves, which is more than the sum total of many industries.
If Sun understand or doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘consumer’. They have never been in what we call the ‘consumer market’.
//(1) The Dow is around 8000. Its components don’t, on average, trade around 8000. Stocks are sometimes split so that the per share cost is accessible to most traders. Conversely, they might do a 1-for-2 reverse split if the stock has fallen radically. Few individual investors can buy and sell Berkshire Hathaway at $50K a share….
(2) … Berkshire Hathaway has fewer shares at higher price than Microsoft, but has a lesser value altogether.
Rob Campbell//
//Dude, you’re a dumb-ass. What he’s saying is you can’t assess the worth of the company by the share-price alone as the number of shares offered by each company are often different. M$ could split their stock so its 27.50 per share, but they would then have twice the number of shares as before. I do agree that M$ will outlast Sun, but that’s because a) Sun doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘consumer’ and b) Microsoft has over 40 billion in cash reserves, which is more than the sum total of many industries.//
Ok, you guys made my day. Thanks for explaining the finer points of investing.I have a few more questions for you professors…
1. Who brought up the Berkshire-Hathaway-Warren-Buffet-insane-share-price? Not me. I *never* compared Sun or MS to Berk/Hath, which is a pointless example — brought up by you idiots.
2. Share prices for two companies in the computing sector aren’t comparable? Have you ever tried selling that sh*t to an investor? Anyone who thinks that the share price is a poor reflection of a company’s performance is an absolute ass-wad.
Have a nice day, dicking around with e-trade. Lamers.
dopey_joe…just shut up…remember when Amazon.com was worth over $100 bucks during the dot-com bubble, even though it was actually LOSING money?
is that a fair indicator of it’s performance, versus for example, Armstrong World Industries, which earned money overall but had to deal with asbestos law-suits (a one-time expense) whose stock price tanked at about the same time?
I know they’re not in the same sector…but Microsoft shares did not grow as fast as the dot-bombers did even though MS was a much better performing company than them.
So just lay off it man, you’ve been beat, your bluff has been called
-bytes256
//remember when Amazon.com was worth over $100 bucks during the dot-com bubble, even though it was actually LOSING money?//
<sigh>
Tell me, since when are we *STILL* in the “dot-bomb bubble?”
The bubble has burst. Amazon has tanked. Sun has tanked. MS has not.
No sh*t, that share prices don’t reflect everything….but NOW, IN A NEAR-RECESSION ECONOMY, share prices SPEAK VOLUMES. Sun’s SUCKS. MS’s basically rocks.
Your point, again?
Call your own bluff, Kenny Rogers.
Investors do compare different companies based on the ratio of their relative stock price trends all the time, among other factors – yes, even when the market is highly distorted. They just attempt to compensate for any perceived distortions, which always exist to some degree anyway.
If this were not the case and comparitive ratio estimates between different companies’ stock price trends were totally worthless, then it probably wouldn’t even be worthwhile knowing what the value of any particular stock is at all in the first place, for any reason (other than to know how much you own).
Of course, I meant …comparitive ratio measurements…, not “estimates”.
The Stock Market is one of the WORST ways to judge the health of a company…it always swings towards what is popular and what is PERCEIVED to be healthy
Sun is still a very healthy company, and arguably in a better LONG-TERM position than Microsoft. Sun still has a strangle-hold on key portions of the Server market that Linux and Microsoft can’t even fathom touching yet.
Microsoft’s core markets are actually becoming quicksand, as the technology industry starts to recess. Overpriced software like Office and Windows 2000 Server are finally seeing some very good inexpensive (or even free) competition.
But anyhow…even stock prices were a good indicator for what’s healthy today…what the fuck does that have to do with LONG TERM VIABILITY…Sun ain’t going anywhere for awhile…they can slug it out with MS in the trenches for a long-ass time. They’ve still got decades-worth of support contracts to work with if nothing else.
-bytes256
Amazon has tanked? I think not. Sun has tanked? maybe not profitable but then again neither is Ford. Will they tank?Probably not.
Wototomee makes a good point, but they cannot differentiate between companies purely on Stock Price, it has to be in relation to something. They look at the trend in stock price A company has.
This is really missing the whole point though, stock price is ridiculous to look at when trying to decide if a companies strategy will work. If that were the case we may as well just look at the current stock prices, all the low end companies can liquidate their assets immediately and save any further embarresment.
Sun is trying to Outflank MS with a disruptive technology (Linux) by creating a solution for temporary and road workers, and at the same time some price sensitive customers. Sun is a massive company and as such has the respect of the business community with many established customers who are looking for a way to replace many MS desktops because of licensing etc in an economy that is very sensitive to cost. Even more so outside the US.
That is why they MAY succeed. Forget about Stock prices.
By the way Dopey Joe you are way to aggressive, get off the steroids, cut down on the caffeine, whatever it takes. Please! Also your education seems to have been wasted on you based on your poor language.
Last point I promise.
I brought up Berkshire Hathaway. Sorry to confound you or stretch your mind.
It is just an extreme example of why the stock price when standing all by itself is a pointless number. I am sorry to have to point out the obvious, but you are probably one the reason McDonalds places, “Caution. Hot!!!”) on the their Coffee Urns.
Microsoft could loose money for decades and still be a large wealthy company. IBM was in the same position in the 70’s and even though they been bleeding money ever since they are still a large and wealthy company.
Sun is in a precarious position. They do not have the reserves that Microsoft does. Sun does have far superior technology but anyone following the industry for long knows that superior technology counts for very little. In almost every case inferior products win out in the end because they are better marketed.
Sun’s just going to make MSFT angry and receive the beatdown. Their software skills suck. They probably have smarter guys than MSFT, but on average they lose. Most ex-MSFT look back fondly. Most ex-Sun shrug their shoulders.
Saying that Sun is going to piss off Microsoft and receive a beating is rather short sighted. Sun is a comparatively small company when contrasted to Microsoft or IBM and getting fair share of recognition in the market place is a non-trivial task. Sun picked a nonconventional but rather effective strategy to achieve recognition — pick on the biggest bully on the play ground and you’ll have all the attention you need. Sun has been pulling it for years and it always worked. Sun is a trully innovative company always bringing disruptive technologies to the table, Microsoft is just a follower with a diminishing potential…
It is more like
$120 to $50 a share
btw. The US stockmarket is still way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way over priced.
yeah but microsoft is a kludge os that still run on kludge x86.
stick to lans , lan boy
Hardware – increasingly commoditized. SUNW dependent on own chips, adding cost but not delivering any performance benefits
Servers – moving towards clusters of inexpensive systems. Sun has no effective clustering technology, forcing customers to upgrade to big iron when additional performance is needed
Software – Java losing steam, world looking for choice
Innovation – depends on standards, but rarely creates new technology
Overall, SUNW is in a tough place. They don’t have any competitive edge other than that they are well run. Moore’s Law is against them. Metcalfe’s law is against them.
They are doomed. SELL.
In regards to the previous post. I’m not sure how this person calling himself Wall Street has balls to make such loud and misleading statements and disperse FUD, but apparently he lacks any understanding of the current state of enterprise computing. May be reading too much propaganda in PC press impared your educated view on enterprise level technologies, which I doubt you ever had. If you don’t have an educated first hand oppinion, don’t post FUD that sounds more like snippets from PC Magazine.
Mong: Share prices aren`t comparable as they aren`t relative to a baseline.
Let’s put it this way: Microsoft made a profit, Sun didn’t.
Wall Street: Over the past two years, it has gone from $70/share to $50/share. Not bad in a troubled economy.
This wasn’t exactly caused by the trouble economy, but rather the DOJ.
Anonymous wrote:
Sun is a trully innovative company always bringing disruptive technologies to the table, Microsoft is just a follower with a diminishing potential…
That’s precisely the problem.
http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~moeller/symbolics-info/S…
There is a reason that Sun stock (NYSE: SUNW) is on the skids at $3.60 a share on Wall Street, darling.
It is that SUN is in a death spiral and management has nothing cogent to say about it.
Sure, Sun has a lot of big iron in the enterprise. But they are losing market share every day due to their high prices and questionable return on investment. They have no coherent strategy with regards to Solaris/SPARC vs. Solaris/x86 vs. Linux.
This is not from PC Magazine, but from all the analysts that track SUNW.
SUNW stock has lost 94% of its value in the two years. Not a sign of a company that is coping with reality.
Time for a sunset is what it is.
Stupid idea, if you ask me. What’s the use, unless they are drooling over desktop machines or Pocket PCs or unprofitable web servers….. They are better off declaring war on things like Linux (which is responsible for much of its lost of customers), and companies like IBM and HP, certainly not Microsoft.
Just plain…. well…. stupid. Besides, now that they declared war on Microsoft, are they gonna hire more than 2 people on reverse engineering MS Office’s formats?