I don't know exactly what Sun has in mind, but a clue might be that the big cheese of MySql has his house on the market. Funny how plans change when you are renting. No, I don't know the specifics, but the real estate sign IS there!

Don't be too pastry with your accusations.

Proofreading can be a pain (geddit? French ha!) in the arse.

Mine's the one with a baguette in the pocket.

It means they're worried about the money, typical capitalist carry on.

I don't why Business should want to opensource all their stuff, seems a bit daft really.

And if you look at opensource, you see developers on the whole are not that stupid, either.

It is mainly development tools, basic desktop, and server utilities that are open source, when anyone tries to move into the wider field, it just turns out pretty awful.

And the reason is developers tend to make their money there, so why develop up something that will compete with your revenue stream, where you don't get a slice.

Even the frameworks suffer here, people tend to seem them more as security risks than an actual benefit in producing great applications. Well apart from the people who made the framework, who when actually using it can bespoke it up quite fully.

By creating the concept of OpenSolaris, Sun have tried to keep the advantages of opensource, i.e. ability to fix your printer driver yourself, if you have the know how, but not the lack of control that happens on opensource.

A lot of people are waiting for commercial consumer applications for Linux, most don't care if you want to closesource it, if you get the interface right and software stable, and provide a fair update mechaism, people will tend to buy it. You need only look at the popularity of wine to realise this.

It is the baseline that needed to be opensource not the whole kit and kaboodle.

searching google for "linux"

gets you approx 500 million hits.

do the same for solaris

gets you 57 million hits.

"opensource" and "control" don't bite each other. "domination" does

that's why it will probably never be(come) what linux is.

where's my coat...

RG

As a junior sys admin in the 90s I'm never touching anything from Sun that's tagged as free or open again and will be sticking to BSD and Linux. Solaris is a good OS but when Sun starts to expand into the open source world it's only a strip tease that stops at the first button.

Yes, still bitter after all these year.

Sun has been saying that it "gets it" for 10 years, without "getting it" at all.

They say they wanna have more packages? Well what about an actual package management system then. Do they actually believe people *want* SYSV package management? I kinda prefer a system (and a company) that doesn't overwrite my sendmail.cf every time it farts. And their UCE patch management is a joke, it doesn't even install correctly.

They want more community involvement? Well what about allowing more community involvement then.

They want more people at Sun events? What about organizing a few now and again, maybe I'd show up then.

Sun's problems are abundantly clear looking at their stock market graphs. Crash and burn.

saw this recently....interesting..... http://www.sunsucks.com

someone must have a "RIF" with Sun

Though this may b unoriginal, would someone with an Azul connection or context on how their hardware works vet out this scenario:

take openSPARC, openSolaris (or i would do Linux), Glassfish, MySQL, and openStorage, and build a competitor to Sun...

this is something that an analyst at Gartner or IDC could do if they weren't guessing about the size of the supposed SOA market...

i think Jonathan has made some good moves, probably is spot on about OSS (though i stay on the record of being skeptical openSolaris is relevant), and is a notable Web 2.0 CEO, but is anyone else just tired of Sun not executing?

I think with some Reference Architectures you could make your very own Sun Microsystems clone with ab/ a $4-6 billion cheaper annual cost structure (net: $1-2B from R&D, at least $2B from COGS, and probably $2B from SGA)...

i am volunteering my efforts to sizing up the business plan if there is a VC out there willing to take the chance: isn't it just a matter of time?...

What, no Sunshiners squealing on about how Slowaris x86 "is ZFS"? Well, it is at least until NetApp get through with kicking Sun around in a courtroom! In the meantime, Sun has a bigger problem - Linux has an established and very large base of very clever people coding for it, the majority of them for free. This is a massive resource Sun can't match, and there is nothing to stop the Penguinistas taking anything out of Slowaris x86 and rewriting it into Linux if they think it is worthwhile. Should ZFS look remotely worth the trouble (which I don't think it is), there is nothing to stop the Linux crowd writing their own equivalent. If Dtrace is even worth half the amount of screaming heard about it from Sunshiners then the Penguinistas will simply write their own version for Linux. And before the Sunshiners start on how there is no way the Linux crowd could do that, they may want to consider that was what Scott McNeally was telling Slowaris customers years ago before Linux went and ate half Sun's business.

After all, ZFS and DTrace have been around for three years.

I doubt NTAP will win their lawsuit, because STK has more patents on storage than any company outside of IBM, including shapshot copy, originally created for the STK Iceberg enterprise disk storage system (see: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1995_Oct_2/ai_17516785).

NTAP's lawsuit is the moral equivalent of the SCO lawsuit. They are suing because of two things. The public statement that Sun wanted a capability in ZFS which was "like WAFL", and because NTAP has the ability to look at the ZFS code.

NTAP is the single biggest enemy of open source software in the history of open source, period. A bigger enemy than SCO, a bigger enemy than Microsoft. Microsoft only threatened to sue open source over patents, NTAP did.

NTAP should be a pariah in the open source world. Customers of open source should refuse to do business with NTAP.

And to all who complain about the lack of compatibility between GPLv2 and CDDL, where twere you when the Apache License, and the MPL were created? Do you have any clue the CDDL is just the MPL cleaned up and made more open?

Microsoft's Hyper-V Program appears to be a clone of Sun's System. And as soon as the Programmers sort out the Automatic Cash Flow Requirement to New Found Source/Crack Code Compilers will they have built a Virtual Machine that gives Birth to Beta Machines.

And that is the Quantum Leap that they will need to Take to Retain and maintain any Semblance of their Product Control for as soon as a System is SMART Enough to Seed ITs Own Future Re:Search and Virgin Discovery will IT be the Dominant Vital Viral System.

And subsequent to "Pay as You Boldly Go ........ but who is the Piper with Packets of Tunes." ... By amanfromMars Posted Sunday 15th June 2008 14:09 GMT...... HyperRadioProActive Virtualisation dDelivers Proxy Quantum Control of Kernel Source.

Men and Women on AIMission Servering Cinderella RockerFellas ...... Virtualisation Masters and AI Fellows in Magical Mystery Turing ..... Fine Arts DiVision. ... with Venus Leading into Immaculate Temptation and Glorious CAPTCHA.

*Soul Sister/Blood Brother/Resident Alien Friends and Lovers....Electronic Levers ... http://theregister.co.uk/2008/06/04/amd_puma_laptop_platform/comments.

I trust in Global Operating Devices that that is not Ambiguous Incredibility for they are the BasIQ PhaXXXX.

My Dad used Linux, and wears his penguin t-shirt to this day. But let's be honest, it's getting dull, no new infrastructure innovations in years (and "Red Hat" isn't an innovation, it's a distro). While Sun has started creating some extraordinary new ideas and technologies.

So my Dad can keep flying the penguin flag, along with all you folks like Matt. Me, I just want to get my work done faster than last year, not fight some freakazoid license war. OpenSolaris looks pretty slick to me.

You've answered your own question - obviously they aren't good enough for the Penguinistas to bother with. You may think dtrace and ZFS are vital winners, but obviously the market doesn't seeing as Linux has been munching up Sun's market share during the three years you believe ZFS and dtrace have made Slowaris x86 such an unbeatable proposition. If Sun can't convince businesses it previously sold very expensive Solaris/SPARC gear to then what hope do you think it has of switching those who led the commercial wave with Linux on x86? Just about zero!

And NetApp is just a threat to Sun, not to real opensource. Sun trying to drape itself in the opensource flag is like Hitler trying to wear a tallit! Sun has always been bitterly opposed to real opensource, and repeated flip-flops have shown they can hardly bear to be in the same room as the Penguinistas for more than five minutes before they start foaming at the mouth. Just ask Red Hat what it's like to work with Sun - one minute they want to be your best friend, the next they're releasing a marketing campaign specifically targeting you. Sun really believes they can pull the wool over Linux users' eyes and get them to switch to Slowaris, whereas the reality is most Linux users have a long memory of Sun's antagonism and won't be fooled.

Happy daydreaming, Sunshiner!

"Sun really believes they can pull the wool over Linux users' eyes and get them to switch to Slowaris, whereas the reality is most Linux users have a long memory of Sun's antagonism and won't be fooled." .... By Matt Bryant Posted Sunday 15th June 2008 18:20 GMT

Are Sun Microsoft Special Forces.... the Republican Guards of the Windows Empire or do the Head Honchos not Realise the Power of Open Source Networking. The Charge they face is that they have Flunked out on Capitalising on ITs Power whenever a Closed Proprietary System, milks everyone for their Knowledge and charges them for the Pleasure.

Wake up Jonathan/Scott ..... for the Perception is growing that a) either you are sleeping on the job or b) you are sleeping with the enemy.

EVERY TIME I hear the word "serious" in a remotely IT-related context, I think of that 419er with the "I AM SERIOUS NOW" sign.

It's a good thing I've never seen a picture of Murdock, otherwise I'd be imagining him with the laptop/rope/chairs/torches/sign...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

You lose.

"Head Honchos not Realise the Power of Open Source Networking"

--->In this case failure to realise == failure to capitalise ?

And RedHead because Fuion said: Nothing but the best will do.

Your opinions are really not backed up with much fact now are they? Move along...nothing to see here.

You're quoting wikipedia? Oh boy, did you so lose! First rule of posting on a tech forum - NEVER QUOTE WIKIPEDIA, it immediately kills your credibility.

But, if you think comparing Sun to Hitler is extreme, I dare you to go read some of the Linux community posts on Sun, it will expand your four-letter vocabulary in several languages! Sun have really underestimated the amount of ill-will they have generated over the years.

"And RedHead because Fuion said: Nothing but the best will do." ... By Fuion Posted Monday 16th June 2008 15:21 GMT

How very True. IT never lets you Down.

"Your opinions are really not backed up with much fact now are they?...." The massive slump in Sun sales figures coinciding with a rise in Linux over the last eight years is of course just fantasy in the Land of Sunshine. Want to compare Red Hat support license revenue figures for those of Sun with Slowaris x86? No, I didn't think you'd want to. You just go listen to those Sun feature sales presentations and keep trying to persuade yourself you're getting a bargain....

Matt, ZFS and DTrace are deemed worthwhile by every OpenSource OS EXCEPT Linux, as they have all ported it over. Are the Linux developers just that bull headed, or is it really just that hard?

Linux is making an attempt at doing a DTrace-like tool called SystemTrap. Now, I doubt that anyone would say that SystemTrap is really even comparable to DTrace, but there may be some that even prefer it.

As far as ZFS... People have brought over ZFS into Linux user land. WHY oh WHY, would you put ZFS in user land other than because you think it is worthwhile? Even Linus has expressed his desire for ZFS stating that he would even be willing to relicense Linux to GPLv3 if Sun would do the same thing, just so he could get his hands on ZFS.

Matt, get off your big biased bottom and understand the subjects you drone on about. You will do yourself some good and you will save us from you nonsensical rants.

P.S. Check out http://sourceware.org/ml/systemtap/2005-q2/msg00180.html to learn how much the Linux Developers/users really want DTrace.

P.P.S See http://lwn.net/Articles/237905/ to see what Linus himself, the King Penguin, thinks of ZFS.

Bill, there is a big difference between "would like to have" or "admire" and "we have to have this to ensure being market leaders". If you can cast your mind back (I'm being generous here in assuming you can divert your attention long enough from playschool to try) you may recall many Linux gurus bemoaning the death of Tru64, and what a gem the AdvFS (Advanced File System) was for clustering, etc, etc, and how they would work night and day to recreate it in Linux? Except nothing happened, and Linux rolled on and swallowed Sun's bizz just fine without AdvFS, because it didn't need it. Similarly, Linux does not need dtrace or ZFS to keep on winning, which is why I shall simply ignore you and your drivel in the same manner the market place is finding it so easy to ignore Solaris on x86.

Wow, Matt is on a Roll here. Of course these are the kind of spams in the newsposts who would like to rejoice spewing venom at Sun and celebrating victory to Linux, notwithstanding the fact that these people know shit about anything or has zero contribution whatsoever to the cause of Linux itself.

All they want to say is that Linux has grabbed share from Sun, leaving it to the dust and just spewing lies after lies. While the fact is that Linux is not the reason Sun has lagged, the reason is Sun itself. While solaris had been the best known Unix for the 90s college grads, Sun was resting on it's laurels selling big hardware and ignoring the x86 market altogether. Would you say AIX and HP-UX are thriving - not at all. They are only holding up to the enterprise market where their hardware had been traditionally strong, what's their shipment of OS licenses ?

To say that Linux does not need ZFS or dtrace 'like' functionality basically proves how much away from the truth you are, in addition to how little technical knowledge you have. One would wonder why Apple with all their might would even bother to spend any energy porting ZFS & dtrace to Mac. Why would the staunch Sun competitors - IBM/DELL/Fujitsu would even bother to spend any energy certifying solaris x86 on their boxes if Linux was all they needed ?

Why would HP list Solaris x86 as a supported OS for most of their x86 servers ? Why is it that they do not want to give Sun an edge to claim that their irrelevant solaris x86 is supported only on Sun hardware ? Why would Oracle bother to have their databases available on solaris x86 - a completely irrelevant OS ? Linux has to keep improving to remain relevant, it just puts a big doubt on your credibility to say Linux does not need any more feature. You have to remember that Linux started at grass-root developer level, and Linux will need outstanding features that a common developer can relate to. Just having IBM/NetApp/HP/Oracle et al. doing enough to make sure Linux runs well on their expensive gears does little to improve it's appeal to the huge community of selfless individual Linux contributors.

You may be right in saying Sun does not get open source, but your rants discrediting ZFS and dtrace because it comes from the company you love to hate only proves one point - you have nothing to do with Linux or open source, you only have a very personal agenda against one company and that is all. By the way, have you checked the latest status of Sun/Netapp dispute - check it out and educate yourself a little before posting about ZFS again - who knows it might even give you some credibility.

LOL, bet you had to wipe the spittle of your monitor several times during that rant! Lets break this down one comment at a time, so you can pause for breath:

"....these people know shit about anything...." Ah, I detect the old whiff of Sunshiner arrogance here - "only Sun and the Sunshiners know anything, the rest of the World are just muppets, and anyone who doesn't use Solaris is just stoooooopid!" As a technical argument you may find it rather lacking in weight with us in the real world whom actually spend our companies' funds on kit. Don't tell me - if that argument fails, you'll start calling us names and thumbing your nose at us?

"....Linux has grabbed share from Sun, leaving it to the dust and just spewing lies after lies...." Yes, those well-known liars at IDC and Gartner are just soooo nasty to poor old Sun, and if only the stooooooopid buyers that don't know sh*t would wake-up and realise Solaris is the route to IT Nirvana, that only The Great Sun talks THE TRUTH..... (/sarc mode off) <= for the benefit of the Sunshiners lacking in the ability to detect humour.

"....reason Sun has lagged, the reason is Sun itself...." HERESY!!! (/if I need to tag this then you are really in need of help!)

"....Would you say AIX and HP-UX are thriving...." The market figures would seem to show that both are healthier than Solaris. But then HP and IBM can also offer their enterprise server ranges with Linux (and Windows and VMS in HP's case) whereas Sun can only offer rebadged FSC kit with Solaris only, so if the customer decides they need Linux on an enterprise server Sun is already out of contention.

"....Why would HP list Solaris x86 as a supported OS for most of their x86 servers?...." Because HP makes flexible and well-integrated kit that can be used for many different roles, and HP would rather offer their customer's the ability to run even the weirdest OS choice. This flexibility has helped make HP the number one server vendor whilst Sun has gone into decline. You may not have known that HP have also supported servers from the ProLiant range with FreeBSD for longer than Slowaris 10. Compare this to the way Sun is still struggling with the legacy of "Solaris on SPARC and nothing else". Please also note that HP do not pay Sun to support Solaris, so with HP selling eight times more x86 servers than Sun this is again a big chance of more revenue lost by Sun.

"....To say that Linux does not need ZFS or dtrace 'like' functionality basically proves how much away from the truth you are...." To say that Linux does need these is disproved by the market figures - Linux has done very well without whilst Solaris x86 has done very poorly despite having them. Obviously, if either ZFS or dtrace provided some massive advantage then the situation would be reversed, whereas the truth is ZFS and dtrace don't offer enough incentive to overcome the areas where customers value RHEL or SLES more. And the simple fact is these are business users making these choices to give them the best options for their money. You may whine that "these people know shit about anything" but the fact is they are the ones with the money, and they are choosing not to give it to Sun.

Personally, my experience with shifting Solaris SPARC apps onto other platforms is that ZFS is largely irrelevant. Most of the old SPARC apps were using Veritas file systems and clustering software, and with that having been available on RHEL and SLES it was a simpler task to move to Linux than wait for Sun to sort itself out. Admins from other companies tell me a similar story. So whilst ZFS may even make it to RHEL or SLES in one version or another, it is not like the market is waiting for it, they have already moved on. Maybe it's about time you did too.

Matt, you're wrong again. Solaris volume is more than AIX and HPUX combined, and Solaris is the leading Unix by revenue as well. How again are AIX and HPUX healthier than Solaris? You're using total server market numbers and ignoring the Unix numbers to make your point. We're not talking total market, just Unix, right?

Really? I think not! The IDC figures show HP is numero uno in enterprise UNIX revenue. They also show that HP's Integrity range is the only enterprise server range from the big three that is actually ramping up sales, whereas SPARC64 and UltraSPANKED sales are in freefall. Save us from your Sunshine bleating, go argue with IDC if you dispute the figures.

Stop reading HP's Press Releases ya goof. HP just gained the number one position in revenue for High End Unix (which is pretty impressive really). Of course if I were a Matt wannabe I would say it's because they overprice their gear... but people wouldn't pay for it if they didn't think it was worth it... Sun is number one in UNIX revenue, PERIOD. Come on Matt! Use your mind man. The spin is making you dizzy.

It's one thing for HP, Sun, and IBM to use spin to make a point, but for a so called end user to do the same is really quite embarrassing.

As opposed to the Sun marketeering pieces you sprout? I think not. The only area Sun is a market leader in is vapourware, a spot it has held for years.

And as for HP's enterprise kit being overpriced, that would obviously be more likely to reduce sales, whereas Gratner and IDC both show Integrity increasing market share and Sun tanking. HP has very carefully designed both ProLiant and Integrity ranges to use many common components, which has driven the cost of Integrity down compared to the old hp 9000 kit. Sun can't do this trick as it had to buy in its x86 range and didn't design the SPARC64 kit it badges, so it cannot match HP's prices without cutting their own throats.

And then HP have their long-standing relationship with the Linux community, something Sun can only wish for. And on top of that HP has a spread of products covering the whole enterprise, including comprehensive and well-integrated management and storage ranges. Compare this to Sun whom have such a limited offering just about any discussion means involving at least one third party vendor to supply something Sun can't. Is it any surprise Sun is desperate to build a proprietary revenuse stream with Solaris x86?

I know there is little grasp of reality on the Land of Sunshine, but even a sucker like you must be able to understand the simple economies of scale outlined above.

Here goes the HP marketing bullshit at full swing, you can't really hide your ties to HP marketing however hard you try. Can you go back to the topic and answer why HP-UX is thriving ? Do you have IDC/Gartner data that you so confidently base your rant on (without any pointer, that's the trick isn't it ?) to show how rapidly HP-UX shipments are increasing ? It's a good thing that Solaris ships on another vendors SPARC boxes, unfortunately HP can't claim that. HP-UX does not run on the 'vibrant ecosystem' of Itanic vendors' systems. To make matter worse, even >30% of HP's own Integrity customers opt to run Windows instead of HP-UX, and run linux, however negligible that may be on Integrity. Paid solaris licenses still outship HP-UX by a healthy margin. How many HP-UX licenses does HP ship per quarter, I bet the number is less than 20000 - you call that a thriving OS ? Compare that to > 60000 paid licenses for solaris per quarter. Isn't it funny your comments finally boil down to how great HP's entire product portfolio are, no matter whether they have any relevance to the topic in question or not ? No you are not blinded by HP marketing, you are paid to do just that.

At least you bring comedy to the occaision, even if logic and memory are starkly absent. Once again, let's try and beat down the Sunshiner paranoia - just because someone doesn't agree with your Sun marketeering it doensn't mean they work for "the opposition". I'll lay your mind at rest - I don't work for HP and I definately don't work in marketing for any company! But, I assume from your frothing response, you work for Sun (or just reside in some mental institution). I shall remind you that it was you that drifted off topic into slagging off hp-ux. The original topic was on if Solaris x86 stood a chance of catching Linux, which I suppose we have fairly shown to be in the same league as snowballs vacationing in Hell!

But, since you are so happy to take a kicking on another topic you may want to scan back through recent Reg articles on market share reports and you will note how it is plainly stated that Integrity and hp-ux revenues have not just grown year-on-year but that Solaris on SPARC (and that's all SPARC, including FSC's sales) are declining faster than Solaris on T1/T2 and x86 are growing. Even one of your own Sunshiners in an early post admitted HP are number one in enterprise UNIX servers, which we all know is the bit of the market that makes the most revenue, markup, the best services pull through, and usually the best product attach for other items like storage and management (which, of course, Sun have much less capability in). So I'll just laugh at your whimsy of Sun somehow making more money off Solaris than HP does through hp-ux, even before we take into account all those nice add-ons Sun can't match.

Now, I guess your "tactic" is to avoid admitting Sun's Slowaris x86 play against Linux is comic by trying to turn the discourse into a slanging match against HP, but then that's not really smart seeing as HP chose to work with Linux and is now the number one Linux vendor, making more from Linux server sales than Sun is from Slowaris x86, whereas Sun chose the opposite approach and is now suffering. Come on, I'd like to hear you admit it just once - which company do you think is healthier, the largest IT company in the World with the bouyant stock value, or the server has-been with the stock value dwindling away to nothing? (BIG HINT TO SUNSHINE LAND - Sun is NOT the former.....)

Now we are sure I am beating the hammer against an empty brain, but just to confirm my suspicion, again let me ask you. How many HP-UX licenses does HP sell in a quarter ? I did hear all your empty boasting sounds about how great HP's products are (and trust me, they don't ring a bell in my ear any more). With so much Integrity sales, what's the rise in "HP-UX shipments" ? Do you have a figure ? The original topic is always about solaris, not about the greatest of HP products that we are already accustomed to hearing from you over and over again, it's just getting monotonous now. Yes, HP is doing great, everything in HP can't be better. Now would you mind shading some light on how rapidly HP is increasing HP-UX licenses. We all know from you know that Linux is doing great, Windows is doing great AND solaris is gone. I think I already know what to expect to hear from you:

- Integrity is rapidly increasing

(let's just pretend PA-RISC doesn't matter)

- SPARC is rapidly diminishing

- Proliant is awesome

- HP-UX is great

- Solaris is shit AND dead

- Linux is awesome

- HP is the greatest Linux contributor

- Entire HP is awesome

- Everything HP makes will conquer the world

- Nothing can be better than HP

- HP built all their x86 from scratch, Compaq didn't exist

- HP-UX needed nothing from Digital Unix

- I just hope Sun didn't exist at all

- Everything in Sun is shit

Anything else ?

"....what's the rise in "HP-UX shipments" ? Do you have a figure ?..." Not to hand, no, I'd have to go ask our HP account manager. Mind you, I'm not surprised you want to talk license numbers when it takes sixteen Slowaris licenses to do what two hp-ux do! I see you're still avoiding (a) admitting Red Hat and SuSE are caning Slowaris x86, and (b) HP is doing more than a little bit better in the marketplace. Like I said, read the Gartner and IDC reports, they have market share figures. Read the Reg article on them, the Reg says the same thing - Integrity growing, SPARC declining. Obviously, if Sun's server share is slipping then their licensing must also be taking a swim in the toilet. If you wish to dispute market figures then I suggest you go rant and swear at Gartner, IDC and the Reg, but don't be surprised if they don't answer your petulant and ill-tempered squealing.

"....(let's just pretend PA-RISC doesn't matter)...." Well, it doesn't - HP are REPLACING the old CPU range with Itanium, that's been the plan from the start. And Itanium-based Integrity servers aren't just replacing PA-RISC servers, HP is expanding its marketshare at the cost of Sun. Do you actually read any industry news or is your head too far up Scott McNealy's rectum to be able to hear anything over the dull droning?

"....HP is the greatest Linux contributor...." I never said that. But HP has made a point of working with the Linux development teams, the distros and the user community. So have IBM. And so have Fujitsu-Siemens (well, they need an escape route to get away from Slowaris). Sun have done so little it's comic, and their every attempt to get close to the Linux community has ended in rancour.

"....HP built all their x86 from scratch, Compaq didn't exist...." Ever heard of HP NetServers? That was the HP x86 server range before HP bought Compaq, the range that even then had four times Sun's x86 sales now! And before you start on about how HP is riding on Compaq/DEC's back consider this - after Compaq bought DEC they became the third largest IT company in the World, leap-frogging HP in the process who fell back into the fourth slot. At that time, Sun was number two and IBM was number one. Two years later HP had overtaken Compaq and Sun, but even after HP bought Compaq they still lagged IBM by a considerable margin. Within five years, HP had overtaken IBM, and Sun had dropped out of the World's top ten IT companies. Now, which company do you think made the smarter decisions? If you still think it's Sun, please go take your medication, wait a while, then try again!

"....HP-UX needed nothing from Digital Unix..." It didn't. HP had a long-standing partnership with Veritas and already had its own clustering product. After considering what there was in Tru64, HP decided it was better to PAY A LICENCE FEE to get the next generation of Veritas technologies. Now, concentrate hard - could that be because the Veritas option was better? Answers on a postcard, if you can get the crayon out of your nose.

"....Anything else ?...." Well, apart from forgetting about printers, you forgot to mention how IBM and Dell are also doing better than Sun....

You're funny, really!

I say NEC are number 1, no, better, SGI are number 1 ... you want a proof, well I could ask the SGI sales rep, I am sure he will hand me over objective material that will show that SGI rulez the market, but I don't feel like it today.

And true, HP is doing better than Sun, both overall. However, HP is not just selling UNIX servers and workstations ... they are selling winblows pc, lappys etc and they are milking printer owners royally,

HP are selling iTanic :D

3rd paragraph of the following states is clearly, sorry 4 u, SUN rulez in UNIX server market! and by far:

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/139974/unix_server_shipments_fall_as_x86_demand_rises.htm

(and it's pc World saying it, not www.hp.com or www.sun.com ...)

And stop telling people to look through elReg for HP server sales figures, are you mad? Do you really want more people to take the piss out of HP? iTanic, hahahaha!

They increased their shipments by 30% and still are below IBM, which shipped half of what Sun ships .... l00sers. But they are up 30%, wow ... does not sound difficult, if you take into account how low they were ;-)

mine's the one with the red sun printed on the back!

I don't work for sun, hp, ibm, elreg, sgi or nec ...

Lol, and did you read down to the bit where it said SPARC revenue and sales down, Integrity sales up? That would be the Itanium servers trouncing the Sun ones, then? Or the bit about how HP is the number one server vendor by a clear margin, and Sun isn't even close to second? Want to check out the Gartner Magic Quadrants? I thought not. You just keeping blathering away whilst Sun goes down the pan!

Every time you hear some Sunshiner trying to account for why HP is doing so much better all you hear is them whining about printers as though the product is some form of unmentionable beneath Sun's consideration. Well, the truth is HP got ahead in printing through innovation and beating the competition, just like they have in x86 servers and disk storage, areas they now lead, whilst Sun's pathetic attempts have led nowhere. Are HP the only company making printers? No, there are a number of well-established competitors they had to beat to get the top spot. Scott McNealy would sell his mother to have the same market presence in printers or any any enterprise arena as HP has in just about all. Face it, Sun claims to be a leading innovator but the truth is they have been left behind by HP, IBM, Dell and even FSC. Trying to rip off Linux is not going to save them.