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: cfimx who wrote (62652)	1/20/2005 6:53:35 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

room222, re "who must have Really loved the latest $1 decline in the stock." So did you have a short position this time? Ron

To: cfimx who wrote (62652)	1/21/2005 7:41:46 PM
From: QwikSand	Respond to of 64865

they must not have heard the pitch from chief pitchman j schwartz They've heard from him now that he's posted an open letter on his blog: blogs.sun.com There's one pretty silly statement in that letter: We've made Solaris into a truly vendor neutral OS.... ...addressed to the company that manufactures the Power architecture that Solaris used to run on but doesn't any more. But that's a silly nit. What I found disturbing today was the Forbes piece dissing Sun: forbes.com They take a quote from an influential CTO who is pro-Solaris and thinks IBM is making a mistake ignoring Solaris x86, and turn it around 180 degrees into a quote that supports the Forbes piling-on thesis that Sun is in trouble. Here's Forbes' pseudo quote: Tony Scott, chief technology officer of General Motors says, "If a particular IBM application isn't available, we'll have to pick a competitive product" to Sun's. Note where the quote closes: after the word "product" and before the words "to Sun's", which are Forbes' words, not Tony Scott's. Scott didn't say it, and he didn't mean it either. He certainly meant just the opposite: if IBM fails to move a given piece of software to the x86 flavor of Solaris, then GM would be forced to pick "a competitive product" to IBM's. Point being it is IBM who would lose the business, not Sun. How am I sure? Here's an excerpt from an eweek article from a couple of days ago, in which Scott comes off as the chief Solaris backer: eweek.com GM's preferred environment is one where there is competition and choice, which the company looks for when making buying decisions. "What this means long term if IBM sticks by that decision [to not support Solaris x86 --QS] is a loss of opportunity for them. A decision not to port to a popular platform is in a sense taking yourself out of the ballgame," Scott said. This is the reason why Schwartz correctly cites Tony Scott of GM as a Solaris backer pressuring IBM in his blog. Funny, the same guy who supports Sun in one story opposes them in the other...and he's not even running for President. Evil journalism, or just incompetent journalism? Who gives a crap. Buy the dip. <GGG> --QS