Slashdot Log In
Sun Banks On Open Source For Its Survival
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Nov 15, 2008 05:09 AM
from the cutting-costs dept.
from the cutting-costs dept.
CWmike writes "In moving to cut its current workforce by between 15% and 18% today, Sun is trying to stay ahead of a falling knife. And today's announcement made it clear that Sun officials are banking on the company's open-source strategy to help it pull through. A cut of up to 6,000 employees at Sun will hurt, but CEO Jonathan Schwartz contends users will be more inclined to try open-source products such as MySQL, OpenSolaris and Sun's GlassFish application server during a time of economic stress."
Reader Barence also pointed out that Sun will begin to auction "branding space" in OpenOffice.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
No f**ing way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Schwartz needs to stop believing in the Mel Brooks idea of "the Schwartz be with you". This is not a Mel Brooks movie.
Sun needs market share. And they will never get it if this is the way they want to roll.
Re:No f**ing way. (Score:5, Insightful)
On or alongside? Obviously nobody would go for any free service that inserts ads INTO their business documents, but I think most people aren't especially bothered by the idea of having automated advertisements sitting next to what they're doing. It's never once bothered me in Gmail, and I honestly don't even know if they're present in GDocs. Neither is Sun's product of course, but Google seems to be doing quite well by, at it's core, providing free products to people.
Something tells me that I'd find it significantly more distracting in OpenOffice, but that's probably more due to its interface being more than cluttered enough already. I'm sure part of it is that we're used to seeing ads in a browser window but nowhere else; I think the bigger issue is that giant stupid flashing banners that some people try using to monetize their freeware is hugely distracting to the point where it makes the product harder to use. OO is a respectable piece of competition for MSOffice for 99% of users, but after having been spoiled by the interface in Apple's $80 iWork08 suite, OO is never something I'd pay for given its paid competition. If they could revamp it with a clean interface and wanted to put a narrow strip of text ads at the top for unpaid users, I suppose that's an option.
It's a bad position to be in - right now, OpenOffice is just burning money, it's not easily monetized through advertising (probably ineffective, lower acceptance, too small of an audience), and it probably wouldn't stand a chance of competing as paid software. Even if it was $10 at Best Buy and still free for download (identical versions, you're paying for the CD and distribution basically), people are so tuned into "Microsoft(R) Office[TM]" as their office suite that it would just get ignored in stores.
MySQL at least seems to have a business model behind it, and one that's at least not losing money even if it's not immensely profitable (I have no idea what the numbers look like, but it can't be bringing in a ton or else they wouldn't be having these issues).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think most people aren't especially bothered by the idea of having automated advertisements sitting next to what they're doing.
Except when you have a mobile dial-up, and you get 3 Gb a month. Then, anything that tries to download anything I didn't tell it to gets deleted, fast. Like MSN Messenger.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
.
Strip away the add revenues from Google search and how much is left? When consumer sales hit bottom what happens to Google?
More OpenOffice please (Score:5, Insightful)
Red Hat? Novell? CANONICAL?? You've got to saturate this project with developers. Without it, desktop Linux is dead in the water. And yes, desktop Linux is real, today, despite what detractors say. Take that away and Linux slowly sinks in other areas too.
And I agree with whoever suggested that they need to get the product out in front of more Joe Sixpak types. Press a bunch of CD's and hand them out like candy. It worked for AOL back in the day. We've got to get to a point where everyone's got "one of those OpenOffice CD's" lying around, so when they need to get a document together in the middle of the night and they don't have the time, inclination, or source media to get an MS Office install together, the little light bulb comes on over their head, they toss in the OpenOffice CD, and we have one more user.
And of course the preload market needs to be saturated with OpenOffice. Every new PC needs to have a copy of OpenOffice preloaded. As the price of computers continues to come down, this could be the key to keeping that price point down. I'm sure Microsoft is really going to turn the screws on this one, but if a few PC manufacturers are bold enough to do it, this could be the pivotal moment for that.
For 90% of the users out there, OpenOffice is MS Office's equal. It's time to really push push push to get it out in front of them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
This is a worthwhile project -- without it, the Linux desktop basically ceases to exist (sorry KOffice fans, it's a great project, but it isn't even close to OpenOffice in terms of being usable as a true MS Office replacement).
I'm not sure throwing more man hours at OpenOffice is really the solution. In my opinion, Microsoft Office is at its core poorly designed, and poorly executed. OOo strives to be an MS Office replacement, but even if it manages to do everything MS Office does better and faster, it will still be mediocre.
This is a little off topic, but what I think we really need is an open standard for office program integration so that one group can make a spreadsheet, another can make a wordprocessor, and you can be guar
Re:No f**ing way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly not a smart move with Novell doing their repackage with Go-oo, and IBM basing Lotus off an earlier version. I can just see the users flocking in droves to either of those two suites now. This is Novell's chance to basically steal OpenOffice.org right out of Sun's hands. I'm not sure if Novell would handle it well, but they can hardly do worse than Sun, from what I've heard about their management of OO.o.
Parent
Re:No f**ing way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun's management of both OpenOffice [oooforum.org] and Java [java.net] is lousy. They don't listen to their users -- the Java bug-tracking and voting system is bogus, and OpenOffice is "primitive".
Read the threads linked to above to get an idea of Sun's utter cluelessness.
Parent
Re:No f**ing way. (Score:5, Interesting)
Somewhere along the line the engineers making cool things were replaced by "Process Black-Belts" who spend all their time talking about "six sigma" and making engineers fill out reams of paperwork to make the smallest change to an existing product, never-mind innovating on something new and cool that the market might want.
Well now Google is the one in the industry making cool things and Sun is competing against IBM with its products. IBM doesn't waste time with Six-Sigma process people. They focus on the customer and build what the customer wants. When you're competing against IBM the problem is that your customers realize that IBM is most likely still going to be here in 20 years and your company most likely is not.
Sun could reverse this process by starting to make cool things again and trusting that if they build it the market will come. I don't really see that happening, though. They'll probably fire all their engineers and keep all their process people, which is exactly the reverse of what they should be doing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ZFS, dtrace, zones, Solaris Cluster, xen, java, and MySQL aren't "cool things?"
Sun is one of the biggest open source companies around even if their OS isn't the most popular. I know if it wasn't for SXCE and OpenSolaris I wouldn't be using Sun products at all, it's great to have the free versions to learn on and you can just add a support contract later if you want it.
Re:No f**ing way. (Score:5, Insightful)
I could be wrong of course! But what you are suggesting is sooooo off-the-scale-dumb that really can't see that being what they meant!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> I _think_ they meant assisting companies that was to brand the office product, so if say
> Dell wanted to pre-load an office suite, they could install a Dell branded Star-Office or OOo.
They would certainly do that, but as I just noted in a post above, there will be no OEM preloading of OO.o because Microsoft would destroy anyone who attacked it in such a direct way. Simply forcing them to buy Windows at the retail OEM rates would be more than enough to do it and 100% legal. So that's off the table.
Re:No f**ing way. (Score:5, Informative)
there is no way -- I mean NO WAY -- that I will accept advertising on my business documents.
That is not even close to what Schwartz is planning. In his blog he compares how Sun gets paid for the optional bundling of the Google Search Bar with the Java installer. He then goes on to say that he plans on selling that kind of 'space' to other companies. He makes the point that Sun distributed 60 million java runtimes last MONTH - that is a lot of eyeballs to advertise to and that's what he as apparently monetized even further with microsoft in addition to or instead of google.
As for similar bundling with OpenOffice, he's talking about including links (not just URLs) to services, similar to the Google searchbar - e.g. fax services, place kinkos for bulk printing, sign printing, cloud-based document storage, and database hosting, etc. It is the same thing we are used to with free software, the software is one a time cost so make it free once its paid for, but the individual, optional but useful services around the software have ongoing costs so use them as a source of income.
You won't have to use any of the "cobranded" services, but if you want to, Sun will make it really, really easy for you to do so, and in return they get a cut of whatever you spend in the services.
Parent
daft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they see it as much as giving stuff away as potentially getting developers for free.
They need further development, they can't afford it right now, open source code offers a solution.
They earn their money on supported versions, hardware and also support of running the systems I assume.
Open Source != Free (Score:3, Insightful)
Giving stuff away happens when things are "Free" as in beer.
Making things available happens when things are "Free" as in Freedom.
Java has been free like beer for ages. Coincidentally, SUNW/JAVA stock values were higher than they are today.
Free stuff attracts people. Microsoft wins developer mindshare with free or ridiculously low-cost software development tools. College students learn what they can afford to learn.
Free stuff up front with paid support to be delivered in the future is the way things seem
Long term prospects are not good for Sun (Score:4, Insightful)
Sun has to find a way to create a sustainable revenue stream, and it doesn't have much to work with.
Re:Long term prospects are not good for Sun (Score:5, Interesting)
They're a systems integration company. They don't need to sell "invented here" to be profitable.
Sun will sell you whatever you want. Invented by Sun, or not.
They sell solutions, not widgets.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Long term prospects are not good for Sun (Score:5, Informative)
Their FY2008 services revenue was $5.26B, storage revenue was $2.35B, and their computer systems revenue was $6.26B.
While the services revenue is up 3% from FY 2007, storage revenue is only up 1.6%, and computer systems revenue is down about 3%.
Given that 38% of their revenue is derived from services, and that services is their fastest growing growth sector, what makes you believe that services doesn't provide a revenue stream in practice?
Parent
Re:Long term prospects are not good for Sun (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember Sun adverts during the dot-com boom days that mocked IBM for having a huge range of stuff, where as Sun sold only one simple stack of stuff- theirs.
Parent
They dropped $1 billion on MySQL (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a software guy, so maybe I'm missing something. But paying $1 billion for MySQL (less than 1 year ago!) didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Wasn't a lot of the code GPL?
As of yesterday the stock market values the equity at $3 billion. And actually values the company at only $1.6 billion (they have $2.6 billion in cash but also have $1.3 billion in debt).
Maybe a company that throws money around so freely deserves to go out of business. Even in 2008, a billion US dollars is still a *lot* of money.
Re:They dropped $1 billion on MySQL (Score:5, Interesting)
MySQL's business model was to sell commercial licenses to people who were too legal risk adverse to use it without one.
Sun, thankfully, has a completely different business model.
They sell solutions. If they don't have to pay for licenses for MySQL they can offer solutions that include MySQL for cheaper than if they have to. Does that add up to a billion dollars? No idea.
Parent
Re:They dropped $1 billion on MySQL (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They also sell "MySQL boxes" - that their engineering group has tuned specifically to squeeze every ounce of performance out of the hardware and give it to the database. Schwartz talks about doubling the performance of MySQL on certain equivalent hardware platforms. Presumably anybody could do that, or they could pay for the MySQL engineering team to do it and get it right. Schwartz is banking on it being more cost effective for customers to rely on the MySQL engineering team to do the optimizations than
Re:They dropped $1 billion on MySQL (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the point was that Sun could easily sell solutions with MySQL without buying the company. So in essence they spent $1 billion on the name.
I believe that part of the purpose of a buyout such as that is to also get hold of the developers.
I am not saying that the whole deal was worth 1 billion, but you have to take the "getting the core developers to be on our boat" into account as well.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thx for the comments on MySQL as part of Sun. The MySQL business is growing faster now than before (measured in revenues) and we are the fastest growing major DBMS business in the world. So, although someone could claim I am biased, I think it is fair to say that the acquisition made sense from a pure revenue growth perspective.
Additionally, Sun is selling hardware to MySQL users and customers - servers that provide a performance boost over what people use today.
Thirdly there are synergies between MySQL and
branding? (Score:3, Interesting)
Message to Jonathan Schwartz (Score:5, Interesting)
From my perspective (I've used and bought Suns for decades), Sun is heading full tilt down a path towards the cliff edge. What they're doing is 100% wrong.
Their interest in open source is fine, but it's not a good strategy for business profits unless they want to become another RedHat providing Linux services and support --- a role in which they would be coming up from behind very slowly. It's a role for which they're not cut out, because their reputation in the open source world is marginal at best because they've always been half-hearted about it.
Sun needs to stop thinking of open source as a business strategy, because for them it's merely what's referred to as a hygiene factor in social sciences --- it's not a benefit when it's exercised, but it's a severe demerit when it's not exercised. In other words, yes, be fully open with software, but not because it's a source of profits, but because you'll be shunned without it.
For profits, capitalize on what you have: awesome hardware and competent Professional Services. Invest more in your CPU division with its great Niagara processors, so that when Intel is offering 16-core CPUs and talking about 64, you can be offering 256-core and talking about 4096. Take on nVidia and AMD on the SIMD front, so that while they're toying with noddy graphics cards for GPGPU, you can offer 64k SIMD stream processors far more tightly coupled to your host cores.
We've recently entered the Age of Multicore, and you (Sun) have a good reputation in that area, and you know how to build good hardware (nobody has ever marked you down for that). Why not capitalize on your existing skills, resources and reputation in this area, instead of chasing rainbows?
You've never used a Sunfire x4100 x86_64 server (Score:4, Interesting)
What a piece of crap these things are. There are two big problems:
1. Build quality. They have a small power switch and LED board mounted near the left front that is activated by a pen. Invariably, people press it too hard and destroy the switch, which results in a nonbooting server. But the boards are service parts (they probably are worth 10 or 15 bucks tops) and cannot be purchased in bulk. I mean, i'd be ok with this if we could buy 20 or 50 of them and keep them on hand. They're not so hard to replace. But WTF. I mean, people with little physical strength can render the server inoperable.
The front panels fall off regularly, the optical drive bezels might as well be scotch taped on. Video hardware is chancy and may not work in some cases. I have over 50 of these things so I know whereof I speak, bought in several waves. I mean, if this was Dell i'd understand, their stuff is cheap. But this server is not cheap!
Anyway Sun warranty service is also pretty slow to respond to us, though they do eventually fix the problems, at the cost of devices being out of action for significant stretches of time.
2. Poor integration and poor choices for third party parts. For instance, PXE booting on all four included NICs must execute during bootup. No disabling this is possible. Dell used to do this shit too, but at least Dell was cheap. The x4100 is expensive for an x86 server of its meager specifications.
In addition, the RAID controller is an utter piece of garbage. Most RAID controllers - think Dell PERCs, or HP/Compaq Smart controllers, will treat the disk array as a set of disks that can be transported between servers as a unit, and will be read by the controller as the same unit regardless of the system it is put in. Not so the Sun DPT controller. It apparently stores the RAID config in flash on the card or something, so when you move the disks between systems it basically refuses to recognize the array as a unit. You pretty much have to perform a recovery on the first disk of a RAID 1 set and then reintegrate the second drive, which is a scary prospect when you have data you care about and time is of the essence.
Why DPT of all vendors, anyway? And why did DPT screw the pooch so bad with this one? They have perfectly workable RAID controllers that do not have this flaw. Oh and the controller is dog slow too.
Anyway, they got the contract for a particular large government agency's servers for a particularly large program, so that's why I have the things and they keep getting airdropped on me. I'd like to shitcan them all but I have to make the ones that aren't broken at any given time work until they finally get EOL'd. Hopefully soon.
But yeah, i'll never even look at Sun gear again.
Parent
Re:You've never used a Sunfire x4100 x86_64 server (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it that stupid people always put the blame on the vendor. There must be a pattern in there...
We have over 50 xfires (4100s, 4200s, 4600s) in production, so I feel an obligation to comment on this drivel.
Sorry, either you're just making up shit here or you're the wrong guy for the job.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you even need a raid controller? ZFS takes care of that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Sun is that they're WAY behind the curve compared to even IBM in supporting Open Source (remember, IBM spent a huge amount of money porting Linux to run on their "big iron" platforms back in better economic times).
Because IBM has a great reputation as a computer services company nowadays, they can easily offer powerful enterprise-wide computing platforms at reasonable prices--and IBM has much more name recognition than Sun.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Message to Jonathan Schwartz (Score:4, Interesting)
I quite disagree: open source needs something to run on, and the price-performance of the Niagara is impressive. In the machine room, I'd rather have Sun, IBM or H-P gear than anything built on mas-market PC parts: I hate fixing critical components (;-))
Open source software, on the other hand, is improved by being in a mass market: the price is already as low as you can get, so the effort goes into improving the quality. It's very welcome in my machine room.
--dave
Parent
"Branding space?" Really? (Score:2)
Scratching my head (Score:4, Interesting)
1. My kids go to school in the Bay Area. Both have an impressive wardrobe of Sun-logo'd t-shirts (the designs are much better that your average "slap-a-logo-on-a-white-T"). While I'm not complaining, why is Sun clothing my children while laying off 5,000 staff?
2. I've been in the computer business for ~25 years. I've done work with Sun in the past (~15 years ago). I can tell you what business Microsoft is in. I can tell you what business HP is in. Ditto Oracle. Heck I even think I could tell you what business IBM is in these days. I have *no* idea what business Sun is in. Oh I know they own some Open Source apps and once upon a time they made computers around the SPARC processor - but what do they do now? How do they intend to make money and return a profit for their shareholders?
Re:Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
OpenSolaris Advantages (Score:5, Informative)
OpenSolaris has all the advantages of Solaris 10 and more. So you're looking at things such as ZFS, DTrace, Containers, etc..., that are already in Solaris, as well as entirely new things not yet in Solaris, such as a much improved and more user friendly installation system.
OpenSolaris is basically to Solaris what Fedora is to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's the cutting edge of Solaris development, with numerous Solaris devs contributing to it; it's an incubation ground. As the features mature and the bugs are ironed out, key features are then moved into Solaris, which is expected to be deployed on servers, mission critical systems, mainframes, and so on. Only recently did Solaris gain the ability to boot off a ZFS root fs for instance, but OpenSolaris has had that capability for quite some time.
If you're interested in Solaris, OpenSolaris is the way to go, as you're less likely to be worried about some minor bugs and more interested in seeing everything it has to offer, including the cutting edge. I'd recommend you review the Solaris and OpenSolaris wikipedia pages for a good overview, which can link to more in-depth information on some of the specific features I mentioned above.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually for some things you want SXCE(Solaris Express), it's closer to Solaris 10 and includes more packages.
I had to install SXCE for AVS (which rocks) and xvm support (Xen) is included as well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Opensolaris is substantially more stable than Linux
Bullshit. The last two times I tried opensolaris, the installation was catastrophically destroyed the first time that I upgraded it. System wouldn't even fucking boot.
It might be stable if you never touch it, but so is linux, so the difference can't be that great. Besides, an admin is expected to, at the very least, perform security upgrades on a regular basis. Their packaging system is *beyond* broken and smf is a horrible piece of trash that makes you long for the simplicity of rc.d scripts.
Re: (Score:2)
CDDL over GPL is one advantage, to some. Another is binary drivers.
Lets face it, neither is ever going to be in Linux.
Re:Strategy (Score:4, Informative)
Solaris on SPARC hardware is the gold standard of reliability and quality. So if need the best reliability and you've got money to burn (i.e. banks), that's what Sun should be able to persuade you to buy. If you own the best OS in the world, and you can't make money, you've got big problems.
Parent
Re:Strategy (Score:4, Informative)
But they do make money from Java. In FY2008, Sun made $220M from Java, $208M from MySQL, and $216M from Solaris and Virtualization.
In addition to that, they made a little over $4B from hardware and software support.
There software business is up 27% from FY2008 Q1 to FY2009 Q1. Compare that to their systems business that is down 17% over the same time frame.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe Solaris on SPARC isn't as fantastic as you think. Back in the day when SPARC hardware actually mattered, the Linux SPARC port was rather successful. People actually chose to run Linux even though Solaris came free with the hardware and had perfect driver compatibility.
I don't see a future for Sun, no matter which part of their business they focus on, except possibly MySQL. Sun can't live off of MySQL unless they turn themselves into MySQL AB, and then what was the point?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
All of these things have advantages over other things.
Your mistake is in thinking that Sun won't sell you a solution that isn't based on their technology. They will. They'll sell you whatever will do the job and they can get a decent price on the license so they can make some profit.
Re:Jonothan Schwartz is safe, at least! (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for Sun, and I suspect that you do, too. I'm an "individual contributor" and I have nothing to do with management. Nor do I own any Sun stock.
Since I can't give you the Flamebait mod you deserve - since you should and do know better - I'll point out a couple of things for the benefit of those playing along at home.
The cuts are not likely to come from "vital groups that provide support and engineering for major customer contracts". That would be suicidal; Schwartz, Green, and others at the upper levels have said as much. They are more likely to come from areas that are consistently failing to meet targets or provide cashflow. Software, support, and allied services currently stand the best chance of generating near-term revenue.
And I'm sorry you're so upset that you won't be getting a pay rise this year. Guess what? I won't, either! But you don't see me bitching about it. WTF do you expect? "We're having a major downturn, here's your hefty salary increase"?
If you want to keep your job, you'd better quit whingeing about how you're not getting rich as quickly as you might like and that you're not going to be able to expense quite so many lattÃs as you've been, quit worrying about what Jonathan Schwartz' ponytail is having for breakfast, and start doing something to generate value for the company and customers, because if you can't show that you are, you're going to walk.
Here's a tip: If you're not doing something relating to software or support, get your arse over there and start doing something with a demonstrable benefit to the firm's bottom line ASAP.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF do you expect? "We're having a major downturn, here's your hefty salary increase"?
$11 million sounds like quite a large bonus - that's gotta be a smack in the face for all Sun employees if the company is saying they can't afford to give them an inflationary pay increase. I bet there are people working harder at Sun than the CEO, the myth that managers work harder/deserve more money than others needs to die. You can't blame an employee for being angry at that.
Incidentally share holders couldn't care less (on the whole) about "value". They care about short-term monetary profit, nothing els