The End Of An Era: A Look Back At The Most Popular Solaris Milestones & News

[bug77]

Perhaps "root" was the wrong word, though it was implied that I was referring to what they were actively focusing on when they were still around; as you have noted, hardware was not their main source of revenue by the time they went "belly-up".

And their hardware was useless without that software. Much of the software worked on platforms outside of their own. Sure, literally speaking, the company was founded because of hardware, but that's a completely irrelevant detail. You're getting really fixated on details that don't matter to this discussion.

So, to get you back on track:
You stated that most of the products that Oracle got from Sun was a sink-hole.
As we have both established, Sun's hardware was not their primary product at the time of their sale to Oracle.
Therefore, Sun's main source of revenue and interest to Oracle was their software, which was primarily open-source and targeted toward enterprises.
That would imply the "sink-hole[s]" include the software, which again, was the most important factor to Oracle's purchase.
However, if this open-source software became the primary reason for Oracle's downfall, then that means other companies that focus on open-source enterprise software (like RH or Canonical) would also fail.
My point was simple: it's not that black and white.

Good job dragging this out and making this a bigger deal than it really was...

Ok, I think I understand you a bit better now. But I still don't agree.
Oracle only bought Sun because they needed to sink MySQL, not because anything Sun did was profitable at the time. And here's proof, an article written a full year before Oracle officially announced their intention to acquire Sun: http://datadoghouse.typepad.com/data...d-sun-buy.html
And please stop making open source a reason for success or failure. Open source is not a business model, thus companies don't rise or fall because of open source. They do that because of management.

[ldo17]

Open source is not a business model, thus companies don't rise or fall because of open source.

It’s certainly a radical idea for attracting customers: put them in charge, instead of letting the vendor have control over them.

Call it a “business model” or not, it’s certainly a competitive weapon: once your rivals start doing it, you have to do it too. Those who are a bit late to the party end up like Microsoft or Sun/Oracle.

[bug77]

It’s certainly a radical idea for attracting customers: put them in charge, instead of letting the vendor have control over them.

Call it a “business model” or not, it’s certainly a competitive weapon: once your rivals start doing it, you have to do it too. Those who are a bit late to the party end up like Microsoft or Sun/Oracle.

Attracting customers? Lol. Over 90% of those using technology will drop a supplier on the spot if it told them they would have to be in charge of the products they're using. Just look at the pitch on cloud products: "you don't have to install on premises, you just subscribe and we take care of everything for you".
What open source is, is a means to lower one's cost (by sharing solutions and making them interoperable). That's all what open source means from a business point of view. Sure, for some of us, enthusiasts, it's Alpha and Omega. But that's just (some of) us.

[SystemCrasher]

RIP Solaris, you doomed to be a textbook showcase of what eventually happens to proprietary techs supplied by single vendor and their adopters.