Subject: Re: Should Sun do open source? (was: What should Sun do?)
From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:57:40 -0800

On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 08:39:02PM -0700, Lajos wrote:
> >Hrm.  So who at Sun is reading this list?
> >    http://news.com.com/Sun+floats+open-source+database+idea/2100-7344_3-5562799.html
> >    Sun floats open-source database idea

More like "sinks."

> This may be seen as naivete, but it seems to me that this thread is
> based on unproven hypotheses. Shouldn't we be talking about whether
> Sun should be doing open source as opposed to "what Sun should do"?

Um, I don't think they're going to be doing *anything* for long,
whether it's open source, closed source, hardware, or anything else.
I think they missed their last chance years ago and are slowly
starving off what they'd accumulated when they were successful.

> Here's the facts, folks: it is only marketing strategies. Sun is no
> more committed to open source than they are to baseball drug reform.

LOL!

> They just want to keep up. Is that sufficient for this audience to
> consider them a "genuine" FS business?
> 
> I see this open source database suggestion as a random idea drawn
> out of a hat in a desperate bid to make Sun relevant. Honestly, we
> don't need another open source database server. Between PostgreSQL,
> Max DB, Firebird and MySQL, we are seeing serious and viable threats
> to Oracle.  We don't need Sun to get in the act so late in the game.

It's irrelevant what they try at this point.  The Sun has already set
on them.

Cheers,
D
-- 
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100   mobile: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!