Sun's OpenSolaris chief leads cloud-strategy hunt

Murdock, you need to read up on Sun history.

"Murdock said he was attending to "better understand the emerging cloud computing industry and the role that Sun can play in it"."

Let's see ... Sun has tried to sell "Graphical Terminals", "Diskless Workstations", "X terminals", "Thin Clients" and "The network is the computer" ... I'm sure I missed a couple in there, but the idea is pretty much the same across the board. It didn't sell, at least not in any numbers in the real world ... The basic bottom line is that centralized computing doesn't have legs now that CPU, RAM and disk are as inexpensive as they are. It is a dinosaur[1], and should be allowed to rest in piece.

MSWindows[tm](c)(r) still sells, for example, despite the obvious shortcomings ... How bad must "cloud computing" be, as a concept? And why is marketing still trying to push it?

Can we please stop wasting time on the "cloud computing" meme?

[1] Except in cases of massively distributed I/O, such as Wal-Mart, Chevron, Ford, GE, BofA, international weather forecasting, and outfits like the NSA (all of whom measure CPU power in acres instead of THz ...).

Poor show

Tsk. I expect a better title/subtitle when "Sun" and "Cloud" are your starting points.

Naturally, Nature always Win Wins.

jake,

Control the Cloud and you have Power over Everything ...... which is an Addictive Attraction/Sweet and Sticky Pleasure ..... for a Few Good Men [who handle only Truths] ...... and True.

Fortunately though, IT is Super Selective in who IT Attracts wearing Trousers. For the Fairer Commando with a Cover that Skirts the basics though, are Admissions to AIMissions Accomplished and Assisted Always in All Ways Automatically.

And this is the Balance always in Favour of the Fairer Command Structure.

re: Murdock, you need to read up on Sun history.

OK, it may be hip to pile on Sun lately, but this comment cannot go unanswered:

"...and "The network is the computer" ... I'm sure I missed a couple in there, but the idea is pretty much the same across the board. It didn't sell, at least not in any numbers in the real world"

So you're telling me that Internet computing did not sell "at least not in any numbers in the real world"?

What world are you living in? Sun was the dot in dot com and got the revenues to show for it. at least at that time. Of course they were also the dot in dot bomb as well... However, to say that Sun never made any money in any meaningful way from the network is laughable. Now, the other ideas, I have to agree were ill formed, though the Sun Ray is pretty cool and if marketed properly might actually sell well.

Ian Hates Open Source

That's why he laid off the Sun Open Source Group.

@Bill &@amfM

"So you're telling me that Internet computing did not sell "at least not in any numbers in the real world"?"

Don't be daft. As amfM adroitly pointed out, above, "cloud computing" is a many-to-one system, where a few control the many. The Internet is a many-to-many system where (in theory) we all control our own systems, and have access to bits that others allow us to access.

"What world are you living in? Sun was the dot in dot com"

Um ... no, I think you are mistaken. Seems to me I had been using what we now call "The Internet" for over a decade before I was an occasional advisor for McNealy, Khosla, Pratt and Bechtolsheim at Stanford.

As for the rest of yours, I agree that Sun made money. They built some good kit, and some bad kit. Their OS was useful in the early days (thank you, Bill Joy!). I still have a dual-pedestal 3/470 running a pre-Solaris SunOS under Bryant street in Palo Alto (family email, ftp and web server ... I'll update the hardware & software if I ever need to). I like Sun. But I'm not blind to their bad business decisions.

amfM ... You're getting more coherent ... and do I detect a touch of Spring Fever? Is there awfM? Would explain why you've been quiet recently ... Is her name ELIZA?

@AC, Re: Shut up.

"read what the man himself has to say:"

I did. Oh, my god. He was always a stuck-up son-of-a-bitch, but seemed to have a brain in his head. I was flabbergasted when I found out he was daft enough to drink the Web2.0 coolaid, and have stopped paying attention to him as a result. But I took a look at his blog anyway.

Let me get this straight ... He thinks that blogs are something other than a narcissistic variation of Usenet, and having one makes him (more) important. He actually checks his own listing on Wikipedia, and cites it as somehow confirming his word(s) and/or opinion(s) (somewhere, Kibo is giggling). He has a Facebook page. WHY? Doesn't he have his own web site? What's the point of Facebook, too? As for his "Linkedin" thingie ... I mean, honestly, is he so unsure of himself that he feels a need to have his doings listed by a third party?

He should seek help, the poor bastard. I feel sorry for him.