[conspire] Re: Sun's strategy to discredit Linux.
einfeldt at earthlink.net
Sat Oct 2 16:39:46 PDT 2004
On Saturday 02 October 2004 15:01, Rick Moen wrote:
> [I hope you don't mind my CCing the mailing list.]
> Quoting Adrien Lamothe (a_lamothe at yahoo.com):
> > Hi Rick,
> > This article contains a summary of an interview with
> > Jonathan Schwartz and Scott McNealy. Its very funny.
> > The URL is:
> > http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2004100101926OPBZRH
> Good summary -- and author Profitt is absolutely correct in his
> recounting and analysis. The last couple of months, I've been
> encountering Sun-employee pundits on commmunity mailing lists
> (e.g., SVLUG's and OSI's) and politely blowing their factual
> claims about Red Hat and Linux out of the water at every turn.
> They always change the subject quickly when I do, which tells me
> that they almost certainly know they're flat-out wrong but are
> working on orders from executive management.
I read that article, and followed several stories back to Jonathan
Schwartz's blog here:
I believe that Proffitt misunderstand's Sun's position, and has
misread the Colony article to which he refers.
Reading Jonathan's blog above, I would have to say that he is merely
engaged in marketing his company's products against two
competitors: Red Hat for software and IBM for hardware. IMHO, Sun
believes that it can offer a better integration of hardware and
software than RH or IBM.
I think that Proffitt has misunderstood Sun's position with regard
to RH and Linux. I don't read JS as equating RH and Linux. He
mentions Novell's SuSE as a viable alternative. JS does not
exclude Debian or Mandrakesoft or any of the other Linux distros.
To the extent that Proffitt suggests that Sun equates RH and Linux
or that Sun does not have a viable Linux strategy, I can't agree
Sun, HP, Red Hat, IBM, etc., will all be making claims about their
respective abilities to deliver open source solutions. The law
refers to many of these claims as mere "commercial puffery."
Rick has greater depth of knowledge on this topic than I do, but I
also have friends who are Sun employees, and I don't see them
"politely blowing their factual claims about Red Hat and Linux out
of the water at every turn" as Rick says above. Rather, as far as
I have seen, Sun and its employees are mostly just touting Sun's
open source competence, and drawing distinctions from its
competitors. Brian Proffitt is a managing editor who is trying to
sell copy, and he has a certain amount of editorial license which
he is exercising. I'm not saying that Brian was wildly distorting
anything, but I sure don't read Colony's article or Schwartz's
public spin the same that Brian does. I think that Brian was
trying to stir up some interest in his topic. It wouldn't be the
first or last time that an editor adds color to his writing.
Sure, Jonathan Schwartz makes some strong statements about IBM and
its historic Microsoft mistake, but I see that primarily as brash
commercial puffery, and not a slam on open source or Linux.
More information about the conspire