Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on March 20, 2005 07:26 AM
If all Sun fans have to fall back on is OpenOffice, it's not much. How about addressing the points in the post instead, including the call on the license for Solaris and how that decision is coloring their subsequent decisions on licensing?
OpenOffice is a great OPEN SOURCE project. Not a "closed open source" project, but an open source project.
What I find disturbing is how Sun fans will run to Sun's defense (or in similar examples with Microsoft fans and Microsoft) by pulling a single example out of a much more problematic history to justify their support for a failed or failing company that is lashing out at other business models or development models to elevate themselves in their own eyes and the eyes of their fan base.
OpenOffice, or what was formerly known as Star, is the Hail Mary pass by Sun. Using their extensive marketing research and feedback (and a lot of other information sources including their own sales force feedback) they were able to see the writing on the wall years ago. They saw that Microsoft was seriously eating into their bottom end. Just as Microsoft is seeing Firefox eating away at IE marketshare now and is being forced to release IE early, prior to releasing long-in-the-tooth instead of releaseing their browser with and tied to their latest operating system. They have also already announced or leaked that the new browser will copy competitors' tabbed browsing among other features. Of course, it won't be fully CSS compliant as Microsoft depends on web sites writing to IE so that other browsers break when rendering pages written to IE, like MSNBC (try using an alternate browser like Konqueror and zoom the text, watch the blue left side break color across the text).
Sun bought Star and released StarOffice as one of their first releases. I may still have StarOffice 5.2 sitting on a computer somewhere. As compared to Office 95 or Office 97, it was horrible. But you could still print out a letter or report with it, so it suited some users who didn't have the funds necessary to waste on Office. Or who don't have a windows computer to spare to a Microsoft office suite.
At that point, what were Sun's options? Sun was already losing market share to non-Unix systems. And facing resistance even in their own customer base to continuing to spend lavish amounts on Sun solutions. So they realized they wouldn't be adding developers, they'd be losing developers as they cut their workforce to keep expenses within reason as compared to their declining revenues. Either that or risk the wrath of wall street. And as we have seen, Wall Street hasn't been quiet, more than one analyst who tracks the company has made noise about Sun reducing its workforce. So what are the options? Less developers to work on their current project, how do they get a new office suite out the door?
Sun didn't make OpenOffice open source out of the goodness of their hearts. They didn't make OpenOffice open source as a gift to the open source community. Microsoft placed a gun to Sun's temple and told them through their continued onslaught of Sun's market share, that either Sun's signature was going to be on the open source license, or Sun's brains were going to be on the license. Sun made the right choice and decided to release OpenOffice as open source. But it was at the proverbial gun to the temple. To the benefit obviously of everyone else, not Microsoft.
And what has been their strategy since then? Pollute the office suite with Sun's Java. When open source alternatives are available.
Without the GPL, where would the market be? IBM would still be working on and pushing AIX a proprietary Unix and still selling Microsoft solutions and watching Microsoft eat away at their market share. We'd still have Sun touting their Solaris. And watching Microsoft eat away at Sun's market share. We'd still have HP's Unix and watching Microsoft eat away at HP's market share. Dell would have an even larger market share than it does now, thanks to their push of Microsoft on x86. BSD would still have some decent market share on servers, probably far larger than it has now (but nowhere near the inroads Linux has been making due to the license difference, BSD had some time for their shot prior to the juggernaut that is Linux/GPL). And Microsoft would continue to use major parts of BSD within their own operating systems.
Should we thank Sun for OpenOffice and excuse all their other behavior of attempting to undermine Linux and FOSS for their own benefit? Sure. As much as we should thank IBM for their own Linux efforts while ignoring their push for software patents. While ignoring their assistance in locking up the BIOS under the guise of "trusted computing" for the benefit of the entertainment cartel.
And while we're at it, let's continue to ignore the contributions of OpenOffice developers outside of Sun.
And for the Sun fans, let's continue to tout their cash on hand while totally ignoring their liabilities/debt.
Just in the last few days, we continue to get Sun fud on Linux. This time, they are using an "alliance" to spread their fud on Linux. This is what is being exposed to the public. Imagine what they are telling their customers in private.
As long as Sun continues to fight GNU/Linux, as long as they continue to fight the GPL, Sun is doomed. Can they pull a rabbit out of a hat? If they were to committ to GNU/Linux, maybe. But as Scott has made clear, Sun is not a Linux company. As Scott has made clear, Sun is not a GPL company. Sun is a Solaris company. Sun is a "closed open source" company. While the rest of the world is moving to GNU/Linux and the GPL, they are wrong, Sun is right in Sun's mind.
So an executive has two choices. The first choice is bet the company on Sun as their technology provider. The second choice is to bet the company on what the rest of the world is moving to, GNU/Linux and the GPL.
It boils down to a very simple equation. Either you bet the company on Sun and its continued declining market share and hope that they will turn the company around and dominate the industry, or you choose to place your company eggs in the FOSS basket where the rest of the world is moving to, where there is no lock in, where there is no dependence on a single company for your company's data and future.
Oracle carefully considered their options and made their bet. If your company uses Oracle as its database provider, are you going to bet against your database provider?
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Credit where credit is due. Or not.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 20, 2005 07:26 AMOpenOffice is a great OPEN SOURCE project. Not a "closed open source" project, but an open source project.
What I find disturbing is how Sun fans will run to Sun's defense (or in similar examples with Microsoft fans and Microsoft) by pulling a single example out of a much more problematic history to justify their support for a failed or failing company that is lashing out at other business models or development models to elevate themselves in their own eyes and the eyes of their fan base.
OpenOffice, or what was formerly known as Star, is the Hail Mary pass by Sun. Using their extensive marketing research and feedback (and a lot of other information sources including their own sales force feedback) they were able to see the writing on the wall years ago. They saw that Microsoft was seriously eating into their bottom end. Just as Microsoft is seeing Firefox eating away at IE marketshare now and is being forced to release IE early, prior to releasing long-in-the-tooth instead of releaseing their browser with and tied to their latest operating system. They have also already announced or leaked that the new browser will copy competitors' tabbed browsing among other features. Of course, it won't be fully CSS compliant as Microsoft depends on web sites writing to IE so that other browsers break when rendering pages written to IE, like MSNBC (try using an alternate browser like Konqueror and zoom the text, watch the blue left side break color across the text).
Sun bought Star and released StarOffice as one of their first releases. I may still have StarOffice 5.2 sitting on a computer somewhere. As compared to Office 95 or Office 97, it was horrible. But you could still print out a letter or report with it, so it suited some users who didn't have the funds necessary to waste on Office. Or who don't have a windows computer to spare to a Microsoft office suite.
At that point, what were Sun's options? Sun was already losing market share to non-Unix systems. And facing resistance even in their own customer base to continuing to spend lavish amounts on Sun solutions. So they realized they wouldn't be adding developers, they'd be losing developers as they cut their workforce to keep expenses within reason as compared to their declining revenues. Either that or risk the wrath of wall street. And as we have seen, Wall Street hasn't been quiet, more than one analyst who tracks the company has made noise about Sun reducing its workforce. So what are the options? Less developers to work on their current project, how do they get a new office suite out the door?
Sun didn't make OpenOffice open source out of the goodness of their hearts. They didn't make OpenOffice open source as a gift to the open source community. Microsoft placed a gun to Sun's temple and told them through their continued onslaught of Sun's market share, that either Sun's signature was going to be on the open source license, or Sun's brains were going to be on the license. Sun made the right choice and decided to release OpenOffice as open source. But it was at the proverbial gun to the temple. To the benefit obviously of everyone else, not Microsoft.
And what has been their strategy since then? Pollute the office suite with Sun's Java. When open source alternatives are available.
Without the GPL, where would the market be? IBM would still be working on and pushing AIX a proprietary Unix and still selling Microsoft solutions and watching Microsoft eat away at their market share. We'd still have Sun touting their Solaris. And watching Microsoft eat away at Sun's market share. We'd still have HP's Unix and watching Microsoft eat away at HP's market share. Dell would have an even larger market share than it does now, thanks to their push of Microsoft on x86. BSD would still have some decent market share on servers, probably far larger than it has now (but nowhere near the inroads Linux has been making due to the license difference, BSD had some time for their shot prior to the juggernaut that is Linux/GPL). And Microsoft would continue to use major parts of BSD within their own operating systems.
Should we thank Sun for OpenOffice and excuse all their other behavior of attempting to undermine Linux and FOSS for their own benefit? Sure. As much as we should thank IBM for their own Linux efforts while ignoring their push for software patents. While ignoring their assistance in locking up the BIOS under the guise of "trusted computing" for the benefit of the entertainment cartel.
And while we're at it, let's continue to ignore the contributions of OpenOffice developers outside of Sun.
And for the Sun fans, let's continue to tout their cash on hand while totally ignoring their liabilities/debt.
Just in the last few days, we continue to get Sun fud on Linux. This time, they are using an "alliance" to spread their fud on Linux. This is what is being exposed to the public. Imagine what they are telling their customers in private.
As long as Sun continues to fight GNU/Linux, as long as they continue to fight the GPL, Sun is doomed. Can they pull a rabbit out of a hat? If they were to committ to GNU/Linux, maybe. But as Scott has made clear, Sun is not a Linux company. As Scott has made clear, Sun is not a GPL company. Sun is a Solaris company. Sun is a "closed open source" company. While the rest of the world is moving to GNU/Linux and the GPL, they are wrong, Sun is right in Sun's mind.
So an executive has two choices. The first choice is bet the company on Sun as their technology provider. The second choice is to bet the company on what the rest of the world is moving to, GNU/Linux and the GPL.
It boils down to a very simple equation. Either you bet the company on Sun and its continued declining market share and hope that they will turn the company around and dominate the industry, or you choose to place your company eggs in the FOSS basket where the rest of the world is moving to, where there is no lock in, where there is no dependence on a single company for your company's data and future.
Oracle carefully considered their options and made their bet. If your company uses Oracle as its database provider, are you going to bet against your database provider?
OpenOffice or not, Sun is doomed.
#