James Mansion <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
You mentioned above that OpenSourcing Solaris was not enough to rescue Sun. You are correct: without OpenSourcing Solaris, Sun would have been in trouble earlier. So you can answer your question "I'm not sure how the open sourcing was successful for Sun shareholders." with a _yes_, as it helped to raise the Sun stock price..... I further believe that a closer collaboration with the cummunity (as intended by Sun in September 2004) would have given the additional momentum for Sun to push it into the win zone for a longer time. This is however a lost chance and we cannot roll back time... Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (uni) [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
