Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenSolaris is dead

blogs.everycity.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–115 of 115 posts

Re: OpenSolaris is dead

#111

Post by rafaelferreira »

cookiecaper wrote: post #52
pclark wrote: post #38

Everyone seems to have missed - or be ignoring - the fundamentals of Oracle. They aren't in this game to change the world (ala Sun), or improve the lives of developers, they're in this to make bucket loads of cash if products they acquire will not make them money - they will ruthlessly cut it. They aren't hackers. They aren't designers. They aren't entrepreneurs. They're business men. Similarly if you dare compete wi…

The thing is, as someone stated below, Oracle is all about short-term wins. If Oracle wins this patent suit against Google and gets lots and lots of damages from it, that's nice, but it'll scare everyone away from Java. That's not good for Oracle or anyone else. If they'd just cool their jets and let things like this slide while focusing on creating great Java-based products and improving the Java ecosystem, they'd h…

I don't think the other players on the Java "ecosystem" will be much affected by the lawsuit. Pretty much every other Java implementation passed the JCP TCK, and so is indemnified against patent lawsuits. There might be some impact in developers mindshare, but I doubt it will be significant (most devs in the enterprise world - the only market Oracle cares about - won't even know about the lawsuit).

Re: OpenSolaris is dead

#112

Post by houseabsolute »

sprout wrote: post #109
houseabsolute wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they don't want to spend/waste money maintaining certain features of a product that are less profitable? Or …?

Because they prefer spending money on sales, marketing, and lawsuits than maintaining / improving their products, even their most profitable ones.

Surely if that is true, which I seriously doubt, this is partially on the buyer for not choosing products based on which is the best, and therefore not giving Oracle any incentive to spend on improving their products.

Re: OpenSolaris is dead

#113

Post by jimbokun »

cookiecaper wrote: post #53
jimbokun wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Growing the Java and Unix industries would allow them to sell boxes." I am highly skeptical of this. I believe this was the stated strategy of many of Sun's decisions, and it did not work out well for them.

It's a long-term strategy and Sun ran out of juice. The strategy doesn't work by itself; you do the kinds of things Sun was doing to keep the ecosystem active and healthy, and then you release and aggressively promote a commercial Java IDE and make a ton of cash, and build other products on top of the ecosystem that you sustain. In my opinion Sun's downfall was a serious overestimation of SPARC's performance. They ne…

"and then you release and aggressively promote a commercial Java IDE and make a ton of cash"

Who pays for IDEs any more?

Re: OpenSolaris is dead

#114

Post by cookiecaper »

jimbokun wrote: post #113
cookiecaper wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a long-term strategy and Sun ran out of juice. The strategy doesn't work by itself; you do the kinds of things Sun was doing to keep the ecosystem active and healthy, and then you release and aggressively promote a commercial Java IDE and make a ton of cash, and build other products on top of the ecosystem that you sustain. In my opinion Sun's downfall was a serious overestimation of SPARC's performance. They ne…

"and then you release and aggressively promote a commercial Java IDE and make a ton of cash" Who pays for IDEs any more?

Uh, lots of people. Visual Studio? That costs rather a lot of money.

Re: OpenSolaris is dead

#115

Post by wipt »

NonIdentifiable wrote: post #61
wipt wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux IS SysV-based, though

Eh, what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_V No, Linux is not SysV based.

I didn't mean that it was based off of the original UNIX code base, I know my UNIX history better than that. As nailer said, this can be taken two ways and I meant it in the latter. Linux has elements of SysV - it has run levels and the like, unlike BSD's.
Post reply on HN