Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sun Microsystems IBM IT

Sun Chief Calls Out IBM, Demands Compatibility 419

Posted by Hemos
from the don't-cry-for-me-argentina dept.
downbad writes "Sun's President, Jonathan Schwartz, yesterday published an Open Letter to the CEO of IBM, Sam Palmisano, in which he alluded to "behavior reminiscent of an IBM history many CIOs would like to forget" - a reference to Sun's frustration that IBM isn't supporting Solaris 10 with WebSphere, DB2, Tivoli, Rational and MQSeries products. In his "Dear Sam" letter - circulated via his blog - Schwartz refers first to the "long history of partnering" between Sun and IBM, and claims Sun customers have made repeated calls to IBM about having the choice to run IBM products on Solaris 10." *cough* Kettle, meet Pot.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sun Chief Calls Out IBM, Demands Compatibility

Comments Filter:
  • by the_skywise (189793) on Monday January 24, 2005 @11:55AM (#11456761)
    So... if you make Solaris compatible with Linux won't this solve the problem somewhat?
    • Should run on Solaris but i'm not sure if this is just on Solaris 10 x86 or whether it applies to sparc too.

      However even if you can run IBMs linux binaries on Solaris that doesn't mean they are "supported" it only means that they work.
    • And how exactly would that help on SPARC, the primary architecture for Solaris? (where I seriously doubt IBM has Linux versions of anything)
    • > So... if you make Solaris compatible with Linux won't this solve the problem somewhat?

      If you RTFA you'll see it already IS binary compatible. The problem is that IBM does not want to LIST it as compatible in their software support matrices so people don't sell it on Solaris and customers don't buy it on Solaris.

      As virtually no effort is needed for AMD64/x86-Solaris certification of IBM's AMD64/x86/Linux apps, it is obvious that IBM does not want customers to consider Solaris on AMD64 (or x86).

      IBM po
      • by tjwhaynes (114792)

        As virtually no effort is needed for AMD64/x86-Solaris certification of IBM's AMD64/x86/Linux apps, it is obvious that IBM does not want customers to consider Solaris on AMD64 (or x86).

        Virtually no effort?! Even Java products require significant testing effort when shipping them for a "new" platform and simply assuming that everything that works on Linux x86_64 will work seemlessly on Solaris x86_64 is a recipe for unhappy customers. As I work day-to-day on the DB2 UDB internals and I am just down the cor

  • circulated via his blog

    gotta love that
    • by British (51765) <british1500@gmail.com> on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:03PM (#11456884) Homepage Journal
      Then: teenage girls arguing with each other via blogs
      Now: CEOS of multi-million dollar corporations arguing with each other via blogs /Emma Bunton
      • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:21PM (#11457124)
        Then: teenage girls arguing with each other via blogs
        Now: CEOS of multi-million dollar corporations arguing with each other via blogs /Emma Bunton
        Tomorrow - CIEIO's with LiveJournal accounts.

        "iBM iz such loosers. i not let them on my Freinds list. ha ha! i tell them to port DB2 and i might think about it. Loosers. Sam will not tell me my poetry sux N E more now. i write what i feel. i want to ask the Q T girl out but i am shy. Maybe i will send her some of my poetry. iBM better port WebSphere 2 or i still keep them off my Freinds list. ha ha! Take that you loosers!"
      • by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworldNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:08PM (#11457810) Homepage
        Then: teenage girls arguing with each other via blogs
        Now: CEOS of multi-million dollar corporations arguing with each other via blogs


        omg u would not believe what I heard at the conference last night!!!! the pres of oracle (she was wearing like this skirt that was like so cute omg!!) said that she's like totally adopting a 10b51 plan and selling like so much stock!!! and i was all like you gotta be careful cuz mr. donaldson over at the sec is like totally a dork and will be all up in her face about whether she had like inside information!! god he's such a tool lol!!
  • by 21chrisp (757902) on Monday January 24, 2005 @11:56AM (#11456772)
    It is quite hypocritical of Sun to be saying this when so little of their software runs on anything but Solaris.
  • kettle, pot? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CrankyFool (680025) on Monday January 24, 2005 @11:57AM (#11456781)
    Was that necessary?

    Sun doesn't make all that many software products that aren't OS-type products. Off the top of my head, I can think of one big product they've made -- Java -- and they seemed to try to make it available on all platforms, though based on their rules (which hey, is true for any GPL-based software also. It's all about letting the people who created the software determine how it's released).

    It is, however, a little offensive to publicly decry a company not releasing their product on your platform, especially when that platform hasn't yet actually shipped its first non-beta version. Seems a little petulant.
    • Re:kettle, pot? (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by jarich (733129)
      How many of IBM's platforms does Java run on? None.

      IBM has their own port for AIX, mainframes, etc. Why isn't Sun supporting them?

      As to Java on all platforms, ask the FreeBSD people how they feel.

      • How many of IBM's platforms does Java run on? None.

        IBM has their own port for AIX, mainframes, etc.


        So... you first say that Java does not run on IBM's platforms, then list the platforms on which Java has been ported to... using Sun's source code. See the contradiction?
    • From Sun's web site: http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/download.html
      This release of the J2EE 1.4 SDK and the Sun Java System Application Server is available for the following platforms: * Solaris 9 (SPARC and x86) * Sun Java Desktop System * Windows 2000 Advanced Server * Windows XP * Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, 3.0
      So, where is AIX, HPUX, QNX, *BSD, IRIX, SCO (*sic), Xenix, Mac*, and countless others. I think the poster was right on the mark.
      • IBM licenced Java and took it upon themselves to have a JRE for their software, Apple did the same thing. *BSD has various patches to build a native java binary if you agree to the SCSL, or can use Java under Linux emulation. SGI and HP seem to have done the same thing as they also release Java binaries for their OS's. QNX seems to have partnered with IBM for them to provide a Java environment.

        What exactly was your problem again?
    • Re:kettle, pot? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by afabbro (33948)
      Was that necessary?

      Yes. Johnathon's "open letter" is one of the silliest, snarkiest, stupidest things I've seen in some time.

      Oh, Johnathon, you're so clever with your "open letter" on your blog. Gimme a break. Your company is not doing well and hasn't been since the easy pickings of the dot-com years when everyone did well. You've been one of the sick men of the IT world for years. You finally managed to eke out a tiny profit, but your revenue continues to slide. Analysts are not impressed and whi

  • by Free Bird (160885) on Monday January 24, 2005 @11:57AM (#11456787)
    Dear Sam,


    IBM and Sun have a long history of partnering. We've worked on Java together, more recently you joined us in the Liberty Alliance, helping to drive standards around network identity. We, and our customers, appreciate constructive partnership.

    As you're no doubt aware, Sun is set to ship the newest release of our Solaris operating system, Solaris 10. It's the most secure OS the world has ever seen

    This is where I stopped reading.
    • so are you saying that you don't believe every word written on some corporate honcho's blog? For shame!
      • No... He stopped reading, because he went right out to buy a Sun machine with the most secure OS the world has ever seen (although, I'm quite certain there are more than a few AS/400 enthusiasts who would be quick to disagree, their opinions don't count anyway).

    • Actually, they are saying that Solaris 10 and what will be Trusted Solaris 10 will share the same code base. They will be the same operating system except the trusted version gets additional features for the military/government who need them. Basically, if you run Solaris 10, you are pretty much getting the same system run by Top Secret spooky types.

  • by Allen Zadr (767458) <.Allen.Zadr. .at. .gmail.com.> on Monday January 24, 2005 @11:58AM (#11456795) Journal
    Until Solaris 9 (and now, 10), Sun themselves didn't take Solaris on x86 seriously. Now that Sun want's to try to take Solaris on x86 seriously, they expect IBM to suddenly jump in on it?

    If I want Solaris professionally, I'll buy a SPARC to run it on. If I want to play around with Solaris, I'll download it for x86.

    Allen Zadr is the Director of IT for a small software company

    • Mod parent up. Sun is ~heavily~ leaning on Solaris on x86 with Solaris 10, which is a 180 degree turn from less than a year ago. At one point, Sun wouldn't even publically commit to releasing future versions of Solaris on Intel.

      Why is Sun taking this position? My view is that its a desperate act to attempt to thwart Linux in the low end market from gradually eating up their higher Solaris offerings.

      IBM has embraced Linux. IBM will happily offer you a flavour of unix -- AIX or Linux -- on all of their
      • Why is Sun taking this position? My view is that its a desperate act to attempt to thwart Linux in the low end market from gradually eating up their higher Solaris offerings.

        Or replacing them. Time was when you might need something as big as a Sun E10K to run your Oracle databases. Now even Oracle doesn't run its own databases on Sun. Computing power has grown tremendously...the average company's transactional volume has not grown as fast. Lots of companies are happy with a smaller clusters of boxes

    • by Falsch Freiheit (7780) <freiheit.gmail@com> on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:47PM (#11457522) Homepage
      I'm pretty sure that Sun's trying to get everybody to take Solaris x86 seriously so that they'll buy an Opteron server (Sun v40z or Sun v20z) from Sun, not so that anybody will really use Solaris x86 on, say, a Dell.

      Solaris x86 will always support anything you can buy from Sun in one of their Opteron boxes, and probably have lousy hardware support for running on anything else. (drivers for common non-Sun NICs and storage controllers will be missing, etc...)

      And I think they're going the Opteron route because Opterons have gotten to the point where they're a better CPU than UltraSPARC, but with a similar NUMA architecture, enabling for excellent throughput. When our Sun sales team (sales rep, an engineer, etc.) came out for the biyearly onsite slideshow, they were really bragging on about how the HyperTransport bus was all part of some technology-sharing plan with AMD, implying that it's basically the same thing as the bus arrangement in some of their current UltraSPARC offerings. (In other words, Solaris x86 on an Opteron might be cheaper and faster than Solaris on an UltraSPARC...)

      I think we're even gonna buy some Opteron servers from Sun this fiscal year. To run Linux on, though. A couple v40z servers should make a great database cluster.
      • I'll buy their v40z and v20z line... and run linux on it.

        Sun just needs to realize that their OS is not what people want to deal with. We love their hardware and their Java (well some do :} ) and no matter what they say we are not going to love their OS as it is.

        Why someone would subject themselves to the administration nightmare that is Solaris I have no idea and Debian seems to work just great on those swanky Opterons.

        Come on Sun... you are already bragging about executable compatibility with Linux...
  • by strider44 (650833) on Monday January 24, 2005 @11:58AM (#11456807)
    It's the most secure OS the world has ever seen

    Huh? Since when? I think someone's tooting his own horn. But anyway, this blog is mostly just an indignant "pretty please help us", offering silly remarks whilst asking what's pretty simply a favour. I don't see why this should even make slashdot.
    • by bano (410)
      He's refering to TrustedSolaris being merged into the main Solaris distribution. So go ahead and readup on Trusted Solaris. then try commenting.
    • Were the next two words "from Sun"? I'm pretty sure IBM holds the most secure OS in the world (MVS/TSO or something like that.) I'm also willing to bet that DG/UX-B2 and VMS were both inherently more secure than anything that'll ever come out of Sun.
  • by brlewis (214632) on Monday January 24, 2005 @11:59AM (#11456815) Homepage
    If people would use PostgreSQL instead of DB2 and Jetty/JBoss (or other free alternatives) instead of Websphere they could run their apps on just about any OS. Or if they used a free OS, particularly one supported by IBM, they could run their proprietary IBM software. Or run free software on a free OS and be ready for anything.
    • The last time I used JBoss I wanted to pulverize the server with a 20 pound sledgehammer. Granted, I think it may have been more the fault of the application we were running in JBoss. Upon starting, the app would bind several random ports, and when a client connected, the app would give the client the local IP address and those random ports. The problem with this is I had the server behind a NAT and couldn't manually tell it the public IP to broadcast. So the only way to use the app was to run it on a publi
    • I am completely talking out of my ass here, but I'm just going to hazard a guess and say that scalability, support, and robustness have something to do with those choices. Not to say PostgreSQL and others aren't great, but they are NOT enterprise-grade.
  • by wowbagger (69688) on Monday January 24, 2005 @11:59AM (#11456821) Homepage Journal
    Let's see - will Sun be making the API for their new file system's extra-special features available so that other *nix OSs can support it with their own native file systems?

    No?

    Well, will Sun make their new file system available for other *nix OSs?

    No?

    Well, will Sun have ANY compatibility between Solaris with their new, all-signing-all-dancing file system and any other OS?

    No?

    Then to Sun I say - "SHUT THE FBOMB UP ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S COMPATIBILITY UNTIL YOU ARE COMPATABLE YOURSELF!"
    • by SunFan (845761) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:01PM (#11457709)

      ZFS is a core feature of the Solaris 10 kernel. This isn't ./configure;make;make install stuff, people. Please, just stop posting such ignorance.

      And since when has UFS been common across UNIX, BSD, and Linux...never! So why are you complaining, now?!?
  • by stupidfoo (836212) on Monday January 24, 2005 @11:59AM (#11456822)
    Help us make money and give your customers an alternative to your products.

    Thanks,

    Sun
    • forgot the ps (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      the fact that we funded 50% of sco's attack on you, please disregard that. We decided to buy a $25 million dollar license for the first time last year. The fact that we never bought a license prior to their confidential inquiries and confidential plans to sue you that they showed us as a basis for us to take the license...disregard that also.

      We had nothing to do with the lawsuit (other than funding them just enough to last several years in court), it was a license for their code. Really.

      Thanks again,
  • Isn't that a bit... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:00PM (#11456834)
    .. like griping that M$ does not produce a versions of it's Games, Office suite, Visio toos etc. for Linux? With IBM backing Linux why should they support Solaris? Corporate Wolf bites Corporate Coyote...
  • Slightly Off Topic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blackmonday (607916) on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:00PM (#11456841) Homepage
    At this point, it makes more sense for IBM to port their applications to OS X. Now that they supply the CPU for Apple's server hardware, there's a strong case to be made for this.

    If WSAD were ever ported to OS X, my boss would be placing a nice order for xServes and powermacs on the Apple website.

    • by greed (112493)

      In 1993, IBM provided the compilers for Apple's new hardware. For a while, Apple Workgroup Servers were merely RS/6000s running AIX with an Apple logo on the front panel.

      Rumor has it, at one point IBM was going to port their XL C++ (C Set ++ by then) compiler to Mac OS. (That was, of course, way before OS X, so it would be a massive user interface and library effort--the actual code gen for PowerPC 604 was already complete, for the RS/6000s.)

      So, yeah, IBM and Apple have been surprisingly close for a

  • by Speare (84249) on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:01PM (#11456854) Homepage Journal
    IBM is trying to be a "service" company. That means that, if you pay them enough, they'll support CheeseWiz(tm) on Solaris 10. Not too likely that Sun will pay IBM enough to get industry-wide support, but many little companies might strike up a contract if they saw it as worthwhile.

    Of course, IBM still has strong roots as a "hardware" company. What's IBM's incentive to rewrite their software (little profit) on Sun's hardware (no profit)? Not a whole lot of incentive there.

    • Tivoli is expensive software. Some installations cost the company more than US$10M. Many of those multi-million-dollar contracts would not have happened at all without Solaris support. Selling out to IBM was good for Tivoli's officers but lousy for its customers.
  • Remind me... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by filesiteguy (695431) <kai@perfectreign.com> on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:02PM (#11456867) Homepage
    ...how many Sun OS products I can run on my z-series mainframe...?
  • by ausoleil (322752) on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:02PM (#11456879) Homepage
    Dear Mr. Schwartz,
    Apparently you have not read your own literature. I refer you to the web page at

    http://www.sun.com/2004-0803/feature/

    In which you state:

    "3.Aug.04--Customers who want the stability and security of the Solaris Operating System and the flexibility to also use Linux applications won't have to wait much longer. The forthcoming Solaris 10 Operating System (OS) will include a remarkable new feature that allows customers to run Linux applications unchanged on the Solaris OS. By enabling this functionality, code-named Project Janus, administrators can create an environment for running a range of Linux applications at near-native speeds. Sun is offering Project Janus as an optional kernel service of the Solaris OS, enabling administrators to run Linux applications in a new and unique way on x86 platforms. In keeping with Sun's long-standing support of industry standards, Project Janus is designed for compliance with the Linux Standard Base specification.

    Ergo, if your version of *Nix was as compatible as you claim, there is no issue at all.

    Thanks for taking the time to write, and while I have your attention, how are efforts to open Java for improvements by the open source community coming?

    Signed,
    IBM

  • by big-giant-head (148077) on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:05PM (#11456912)
    I mean Sun Created Java and they don't have a credible Java app server (I know iPlanet with it's whopping 2% market share) the big boys are Wepshere, BEA, Oracle and Jboss......

    If Sun wants all this then they need open up java, and try to make Solaris more compaible with 3rd party products (JBoss anyone). It's more than hypocritical, it shows there is some desperation on Suns part. The Ultra-Sparc line is Ultra Slow and Ultra priced. If IBM were to start turning out PowerPC based Risc Boxes running Linux, would Sun even be relevant? I know about all of Solaris's great OS features, but how long will it take Linux to catch up? Especially with the other big boys pushing linux.

    Now add to that these new Cell CPU's IBM & Sony are making. A Linux Server with a big cluster of Cell processors, Sun Who??
    • If IBM were to start turning out PowerPC based Risc Boxes running Linux,

      Where have you been?! [ibm.com] IBM has been touting LINUX along with AIX5L (thats what the "L" stands for!) for over two years.

      P.S.- we played around with Sun's app server... it blows. Chunks.
      • I should've made my point better. iplanet has blown chunks since it's inception in 1999. 5 - 6 years and Sun can't make an appserver better than JBoss??

        I knew about AIX -L , but i had never heard an confirmation officially that L stood for linux. If so that's very cool.
        • The L in AIX 5L means Linux Affinity. It just means that libraries, compilers etc are available so you can ./configure&&make&&make install your linux source.
        • The AIX 5 cds come with a "Tools for Linux."

          I was at the USER BLUE Share conference [share.org] a year and a half ago (in Washington, DC) with lots of IBM reps who could only say "LINUX LINUX LINUX LINUX!" (actually, thats not true. They said "SUSE" as well...)

          Also- THEY don't sell you the LINUX, they get you in touch with SUSE who sells you the linux (blah blah blah liability). But the net effect is you running LINUX on a 615. Not bad.

  • Is there going to be some sort of dance rumble for street cred?
  • Sunset (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:11PM (#11456994) Homepage Journal
    Schwartz has to throw his weight around while he can, as he drives his company into the Sunset. Maybe if letterware like this produces enough derision in the industry, he'll get the axe faster than you can say "Gilbert Amelio". And Sun might have a chance to churn Solaris tech into the kind of superstable Linux that IBM produces by hybridization with AIX.
    • Re:Sunset (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Decaff (42676)
      Schwartz has to throw his weight around while he can, as he drives his company into the Sunset...And Sun might have a chance to churn Solaris tech into the kind of superstable Linux that IBM produces by hybridization with AIX.

      So, a personal attack on someone followed by nonsense about Solaris being unstable compared with Linux is modded 'insightful'? Must be some strange new definition of the word I have never encountered.
  • I think they are getting hurt again from the time Sun tried to sell x86 Solaris machines and then abandoned ship without so much as a good bye we're sorry.

    This has seriously pissed off Intel which has since been making trying to beat Sun into hamburger. Maybe some companies have a long memory. Strange as that may seem.

    sri
    • by javaxman (705658) on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:31PM (#11457319) Journal
      I think they are getting hurt again from the time Sun tried to sell x86 Solaris machines and then abandoned ship without so much as a good bye we're sorry.

      This has seriously pissed off Intel which has since been making trying to beat Sun into hamburger. Maybe some companies have a long memory. Strange as that may seem.

      More than the companies having memories, I'll have to chime in that it's the people who haven't forgotten Sun's failure to support x86. I mean, I'd have given Solaris x86 a moment or two of consideration in 1997, when Linux was less mature and OS X was nowhere to be seen... but now ? Why bother ? What's the advantage, and can Sun be trusted not to drop support again if it thinks it's not making money, especially when it really needs to make money ?

      Solaris x86 needs a real, good, strong selling point. What is it?

      As far as Intel wanting to beat Sun, no, I think they haven't worried about Sun for years, they hardly compete in the same market, really, they have bigger fish to fry, and that fish is called AMD...

      It's IBM that's gunning for Sun's market, and _that_ is a really good reason for Sun to be scared.

  • Translation: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Garg (35772) on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:16PM (#11457069) Homepage
    "My OS is becoming irrelevant! Lots more stuff runs on Linux! Save me, IBM!!!"

    Seriously, IBM will port their software if they can make more money selling the Solaris versions than it cost to port and support. That's it.

    IBM may show largesse toward open source, but that's because they view it as strategic. Solaris isn't strategic for them, no matter how much Schwartz may wish it so.

    Garg
    • Re:Translation: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mojo Trolljo (565308)
      You are exactly right. Just to add..

      Sun makes it sound like a simple recompile is all that is needed. Of course this is NOT the case if your software is sufficiently advanced like DB2. Secondly, a port requires a new set of tools which means a new set of unknown problems just waiting to be discovered (from the OS, to the compiler, to libc which if it were really worth much in terms of performance would have been hand-coded in assembly anyway and prone to bugs when going from sparc to x86!)

      That's just po

  • by Tablizer (95088)
    IBM should simply say, "We don't feel it in our best interest to begin supporting a dying product.", and leave it at that.
  • by WillerZ (814133)
    ...IBM has never issued letters of support for a non-IBM platform which does not yet exist. Why should that be different for Solaris 10?
  • Wow. So Sun is releasing a port of OpenBSD :)
  • A bad joke (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Baldrson (78598) *
    So let's see, first we have in 1998 82% of the public opposing expansion of H-1b vias [slashdot.org] while we have Sun making huge campaign contributions and getting a big expansion of the H-1b visa program anyway.

    Then we have Sun CEO Scott McNealy complaining before congress in 2000 that, "We already half way through the fiscal year, capped out on the number of really bright Israelis and Indians.". He gets more and more H-1b visas allocated.

    Then we have Sun's stock going from above $60/share to below $3/share [yahoo.com].

    And

  • by FJ (18034) on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:43PM (#11457460)
    I've dealt with IBM Software in the past. They typically lag behind in their "official" supported platforms because they need to go through a lot of tests to validate their software works as designed. When I've run into issues like this they simply say "it may work, but we haven't tested it enough yet".

    That is why they pick a flavor (or two) of Linux as supported instead of saying "we support Linux". Other distros will probably work, but they only have so much time to validate & test. For a long time WebSphere (at least on z/Series hardware) was only supported on a 2.2 kernel. It ran fine on 2.4, but it wasn't officially supported.

    That being said, if you do have a problem and you have a support contract IBM will work with you to solve the issue, but they don't like to make gurantees about unsupported hardware / software interacting with their stuff.
  • Schwartz refers first to the "long history of partnering" between Sun and IBM, and claims Sun customers have made repeated calls to IBM about having the choice to run IBM products on Solaris 10.

    There are several possible logic interpretations of that foggy statement:

    possibility #1: Some Sun customers found Solaris lacking features and wanted to run those same superior IBM solutions as do their competitors.

    possibility #2: Some IBM customers wishing to defect to Solaris on cheapo hardware, but are not suf
  • by codepunk (167897) on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:52PM (#11457599)
    IBM to SUN: We want you to Open Source Java
    Sun to IBM: Get Bent we are keeping it to ourselves

    Few months goes by ...

    SUN to IBM: Please oh Please make your stuff run
    on slowarus.
    IBM to SUN: Get Bent we are keeping it to ourselves.

    See how simple things are!
  • PS. And please put a frikking Windows key on your ThinkPads.
  • Solaris is now an obscure niche platform. IBM doesn't support VAX VMS either, but no one complains. If it made financial sense for IBM to support Solaris they would. This rant is only a futher sign of the waning of Sun in the marketplace.

  • ...desperately want to run as little Sun software as possible! Help us, IBM!

    Seriously, does anyone take Sun seriously anymore? Bad prices, complete sellout, ancient repackaged ugly technology, and second-rate hardware? Sign me up!

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Working...