Simon Phipps wrote:
Ths thing I find interesting in the article, and indeed in many of your statements, is that you show absolutely no sign of self-doubt about whether open sourcing everything you could actually destroyed shareholder value and drove Sun down the toilet.
That's because it did not. See the penultimate paragraph of
http://webmink.com/2010/03/08/sundown/
I don't understand. I'm looking at 'we've achieved some amazing things
... despite the success of Sun's open source business, it still wasn't
enough to rescue Sun'.
That looks self-congratulatory to me, not doubting. I'm not sure how the
open sourcing was successful for Sun shareholders. Definitely
successful for Red Hat shareholders though. Where's the bit that says
'maybe embracing open source was a huge mistake and we screwed up'? Its
one thing to embrace open source by consuming it, but embracing it by
taking a huge IP investment and chucking over the wall? (Well, mostly ...)
The whole strategy seems to have been predicated on 'the enemy of my
enemy is my friend', presumably based on a massive chip-on-shoulder
brought about by NT eating your market in CAD and financial workstations.
Hopefully Larry's management team will see that there IS some market for
a not-Windows alternative for PC-clone workstations and that the
consistency, stability of interfaces and compatibility that defined
Solaris are a differentiator that can make it more attractive to OEMs
than Linux variants. But I'm not hopeful.
James
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
