Seeking Truth not Opinion

Sun Needs IBM, Not Vice Versa

Sun needs IBM? Some say it is the other way around:
secure2.thestreet.com/...

Sun Needs IBM, Not Vice Versa

secure2.thestreet.com/...

Sun CEO's Claim That JavaFX Is the Fastest Growing RIA Platform: Completely Untrue

More Sun bashing at Seeking Alpha. This is getting almost comical. Nice to see Rayburn actually respond to questions posted in the comments section. That is a rarity among his colleagues at SA.

Dan - so, are you talking about RIA's or just video apps specifically? Make that clear in your opening, when you jump from complaining about Jonathan Schwartz's comments (which refer to RIA platform distributions) to JavaFX based video apps in production. Your response above is weak, as is your op-ed (please, readers, do not call label these as "articles," that would imply reasoned and balanced journalism)

No Place for Political Mandates in Enterprise Software Market

Ah, just checked some of the posts on your other op-eds. Apparently you are not inclined to respond to readers' requests for you to supply facts and evidence to support your opinions.

No Place for Political Mandates in Enterprise Software Market

Is there a specific deadline on this open source paper that McNeely is supposed to write? Why do you claim it's late? Please source.

Cloud Computing: Win-Win Situation for Cloud Providers

A.) You need to think this one through more.
Sun and Dell will lose in the Cloud era? You know those cloud services run on good-old fashioned hardware, right? And that hardware runs lots of virtualization, application, Java and other software, that Sun and other legacy players also sell, right?

B.) Do your research before a story like this. Your competitors do.
www.infoworld.com/arti...
news.cnet.com/8301-107...

Four Dying Silicon Valley Companies

SUNW? Really? Way to demonstrate credibility and a finger on the pulse of current industry news and trends.

[This was a simple typo that has now been corrected, with our apologies - SA Editors]

Open Source Could Suffer from Exaggerated Expectations

Response to above, "If you believe that the cost of switching software is drastically reduced just because the software is open source, you must be smoking dope."

I never said the cost of switching was drastically reduced. This just goes to Byron's ongoing rant that people read what they want to read, versus what is actually written.

I said that the economic benefits of OSS come over the long term, not the short term. When you can get away mandatory, costly OS/productivity suite "upgrades" every few years (that eventually render your old document formats useless - what's the cost of losing your data?), and when you can pay for the support you need versus costly, mandatory database ELA renegotiations every 3 years, you will save money and have much more flexibility for the long term.

And it sounds like we agree on how OSS should be supported (by a vendor with enterprise/mission critical support), and how the open source model fosters competition to keep support prices fair. Anyone who thinks open source support should be free is, as you say, smoking dope - if you are running mission critical apps, open or not, you pay for support (from a vendor or via salaries for in-house employees). You are right about Oracle - compared to their overall business model the Linux support business is beans. But it certainly benefits end users. I am willing to bet that 10 years from now that will be the more viable business model, as more and more enterprises wake up to this opportunity (and vendors come up with ways to move 30 years worth of locked-in data to open standards/formats).

Never did I say that switching costs are reduced, drastically or otherwise. It does cost money upfront to switch, train, and engage in different support models (and like Byron said, open doesn't mean free) - but that upfront cost should be dwarfed by the money you will save within the first 3 years alone (after you skip the next forced upgrade or ELA renegotiation), and get even better over the long term.

Change always costs money but if you are executing the right strategy and thinking beyond the next purchase order it means more savings, profits and competitiveness for the long run. Think like a senior executive, not an first-year accountant.

Open Source Could Suffer from Exaggerated Expectations

Agree this argument is not a strong one. But it is a red herring for both open source opponents and proponents to use for their own gain. This is a distraction from the real value of open source.

The economic benefits of open source come over the long term rather than the short term, primarily because OSS frees IT shops from vendor/data lock in, and the astronomical ELA costs that come with that lock in. Since you can leave one OSS product for another, there is more choice and competition, always good for the economy and for budgets. And, of course, there's the basic cost benefit that it usually costs less to acquire (download), although training and support is not free. Even then, support and training for OSS will be priced lower than proprietary vendors, since the code is available for anyone to view and support - not a vendor who owns the source code.

Standards-based, vendor-backed open source software has a multitude of benefits over proprietary software that go beyond economics (most notably: security) and are much more important than whether or not open source software can "save the economy."

And let's be honest - if Oracle were to truly get involved in the open source community (much less commit to an open source model) their shareholders would run for the hills and the company would go bankrupt. It conflicts with their core business model. They may contribute code and some time to community projects, but do they truly provide enterprise class open source products, much less support them?