On Sat, 2002-12-21 at 16:23, Bruce Timberlake wrote: > First off, I have to qualify everything I say as my own opinion, based > on what I saw during my tenure as a Cobalt-then-Sun employee. This > is not official, nor does it necessarily represent anyone else's > opinion who is still working at Sun.
You opinion is all I was looking for. If Sun/Cobalt wanted to take an official stance they would have by now in a very public manor. It's there lack of, in my opinion, that has me seeking other's opinions. > Sun believes in Linux as #1) a good open standards-compliant operating > system that is #2) not from Redmond. Linux is gaining mindshare and > support within Sun, but there is still a lot of Solaris "bigotry" > from the old-school people. They are trying to figure out how to > protect their place in the Grand Scheme with increasing pressure from > IBM and HPAQ, while sticking it to Microsoft as much and as often as > possible. I picked up on the Solaris view at the BOF at Linux world from the international engineers lurking in the back. I figured they were there for those reasons. I also am very aware of the anit-MS momentum at Sun. You can feel it, see it, and hear it every where. I like the article in Linux Mag a few months back with Scott. I think Linux/Open Source was mentioned once or twice. The focus of the article, or Scott's answers all involved MS in one way or another. Very strange interview, at least for the mag? > The current focus is to use Linux at the "edge" of the networks, while > keeping big Sun iron in the datacenter, and also to power desktop > machines. Yes, I picked that up from Linux world, but I would think Cobalt's to fit into that model well? > > I would assume part of Sun's motivation in acquiring Cobalt would > > be to have an immediate interest/involvement in Linux. > > That's what the folks at Cobalt assumed too... and we all know what > happens when we assume... :) Yes to well. > > So was the whole presence at Linux world, and acquisition of Cobalt > > all in the name of advertising? > > Not at all. > > > Did Sun not have any plans for Cobalt? > > I think they did, but just as Cobalt was acquired, the market went > down the toilet, and Sun had to come to grips with a cataclysmic > decline in revenue almost overnight, and being the new kid on the > block, and not something most people within Sun cared about, knew > about, or really had any vested interest to save, resources were > denied and reprioritized almost immediately. And when you take R&D > dollars and manpower away from projects, they wither and die. So they should have been smart and broke Cobalt back off, and taken profits once and a while from a subsidiary. Instead of morphing Cobalt into Sun and the mess since. All hind site, not to mention and outside opinion. However the only reason outside of Java that I even have a relationship with Sun is because of the acquisition of Cobalt. There other products are for completely different market. > > So what next? > > There is a vocal group within Sun/Cobalt trying desperately to get the > powers-that-be to "get" the appliance vision. It exists at the very > top -- Scott _loves_ the Qube -- but the middle "blob" of management > and decision makers has a hard time getting their head around selling > $1000 boxes when their smallest thing before had been in the $10-20K > range. It's shocking to think that the sales of those high end units would continue like before. I seem to get the feeling that allot are migrating toward say clustered x86 machines running Linux. Like ILM switching from SGI to Dell/RedHat. Wasn't that Sun's whole scope on the LX50. > With the economy as it is these days, though, and the market > slowly drying up for "hosting appliances" it's not making fiscal > sense to those in charge to continue supporting the appliances. It's strange for them to see or feel things going that way. I consult with businesses daily on the verge of no longer hosting with their ISP, or a third party company and looking to bring things in house or collocate. I still see great potential for a server appliance, providing it can keep up to date for the most part with software. Especially with Sun, you would think they would want to add say Samba, or NFS features to the Cobalt's. In a manor so John Dow can manage those services as well as the others in his appliance. Cobalt was just scrapping the surface of the most common services for a server appliance, but there are many more. > Focus is shifting to low-end servers, and the Linux-powered desktop. I thought the Cobalts, with respect to them, was the low-end server appliance. I understand the Linux-powered desktop movement. I very much support that, and it's good Sun is trying to embrace that. So focus is shifting toward low-end servers, and away from low-end server appliances. Sun must have a problem with the whole appliance concept? > > I have no problem with the LX50, but it's a vastly different > > direction than a server appliance? > > Yes, it's a "general purpose" server just like IBM, HP, Dell (and Sun) > already sell... Yes, so in the end Cobalt and the Linux appliance I felt was Sun's niche. Otherwise they have none, and while I am impressed with Sun's support. It's expensive. The hardware support from Dell is cheap, and from my experience well worth the expense. They have yet to let me down, and they have saved my hide a few times. -- Sincerely, William L. Thomson Jr. Support Group Obsidian-Studios Inc. 439 Amber Way Petaluma, Ca. 94952 Phone 707.766.9509 Fax 707.766.8989 http://www.obsidian-studios.com _______________________________________________ cobalt-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-developers
