Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JC Jaros who wrote (20917)	10/9/1999 2:10:00 AM
From: QwikSand	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

JC: I printed and saved that O'Reilly article, and sent out many pointers to it. For me it stated old things in a new way. Thanks for posting it. O'Reilly does in fact have a stake in Java. He has at least one book, Java In A Nutshell, that's perennially on the tech-book bestseller lists and probably makes him a ton of money, and he has a new series of Java programming books that have come out within the last year or so. He does mention Java once in the piece. I could think of a whole rash of reasons why he didn't mention Sun specifically. The best one is that the companies he mentioned most, Dell and M$FT, discovered proprietary business models built on the opening of a new "commoditized" standard. Sun, although it has benefitted enormously from everything he's talking about, hasn't really done that, even though they have contributed major open (or semi-open) weapons to the war against proprietary software. But it's that bending of the open to the proprietary that he's mainly warning against, and Sun isn't guilty of that, though some accuse them of trying to be. It looks like Sun is trying to heed his warnings to me, perhaps somewhat clumsily. I assume others have comments as well. But thanks again for posting that article. Regards, --QwikSand

To: JC Jaros who wrote (20917)	10/10/1999 5:28:00 AM
From: Reginald Middleton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

I "get it," JC. But I am quite realistic. Companies and pundits have been writing off MSFT for years, ever since Windows 1.0, which looked like it would be a dismal failure. MSFT management has absolutely wrecked the competition. Most of the damage came as the result of MGMT. severely underestimating the power of strategic initiative. MSFT has a weak underbelly. I am aiming for it. But I would be a fool (and I am not the only one) to attempt to deny the fact that MSFT is not one of the most, if not the most, powefully situated companies to take advantage of the new paradigm. MSFT is a desktop and consumer products company. In four years, they have become one of the top enterprise companies, garnrting 20%+ market share in DB's, server OSs, desktop OSs, and back office apps. This is not MSFT's fight to lose, it is the true enterprise coporations fight to lose (Informix, Oracle, Sun, etc.). MSFT must guard the desktop. I have much more to lose by MSFT winning than you do, yet somehow I am much more reticent about dismissing MSFT's successes that you are. That should clue you in to something.