Slashdot Mirror

What you must do, however, is ensure that the arrangements you make with a company hosting your data provide a means for you to recover the data in the event of them winding operations down, and ensuring that any "upgrades" that may interfere with your operations are notified to you well in advance. If they're worth their salt, they'd have a decent SLA to cover such things.

If they're not happy providing such a thing, avoid them like the plague, but the likes of Storage Networks seem to be doing rather well off the back of large ISP's/Co-Lo's where they claim to offer a very flexible, low-cost storage solution.

It's a trade off, pure and simple. If you can afford to have your own EMC or sun storage array(s) (and scale them when you need to), then do it. If you want the services of an SSP, without the hefty outlay to buy storage, fine, but be careful, and keep your eye on them, and the fine print.

BTW, QNX is not a linux clone. Unix clone, kinda-sorta-maybe, but not linux.

BTW, QNX is not a linux clone. Unix clone, kinda-sorta-maybe, but not linux.

Sun Open Net Environment

I just got back from JavaOne and Sun has got some pretty cool stuff coming down the pipe. On top of that, a lot of the things talked about were Open Source projects and how great Sun thinks the Open Source community is.

A recent Sun fanboy,
psxndc

Cross-platform, IDE that runs on Linux (and anywhere else Java runs), go with Java and Borland JBuilder. I've been using JBuilder 4 for some time, and 5 is out but I've not had a chance to try it. It's a free download. Also you could try Forte from Sun. It's pretty cool but you need a lot of horsepower to get the most benefit out of it.

Finally, learn to program without an IDE. Seriously. A text editor, a copy of the Ant Build Tool and you're good to go.

Cross-platform, IDE that runs on Linux (and anywhere else Java runs), go with Java and Borland JBuilder. I've been using JBuilder 4 for some time, and 5 is out but I've not had a chance to try it. It's a free download. Also you could try Forte from Sun. It's pretty cool but you need a lot of horsepower to get the most benefit out of it.

Finally, learn to program without an IDE. Seriously. A text editor, a copy of the Ant Build Tool and you're good to go.

They are usually a bit spoiled by the ease of GUI development and writing to an event model. A good Java IDE will help with that. A year ago, we used Visual J++ which let us interoperate with our COM objects. I basically told them, "Look, its the same code as you have been writing, just add a semicolon at the end of each line." Which was true for COM calls anyway. The other syntax differences were sugar-coating and we had a number of reference cards. This gets them started.

Recently, we've moved over to a combo WinNT and Linux development platform. To keep everything consistant, we chose Forte 2 which is Open Source. I think it is an excellent IDE with most of the features you need. Check it out at Sun's Forte for Java site.

You say you are looking for something cross platform. One obvious choice is Java. Many vendors have IDEs that will run under Linux. NetBeans is an open source project under the Sun Public License, which is the basis for Sun's Forte product (very much like how Mozilla is a basis for Netscape). Forte Community Edition is free to download and try out. Borland offers JBuilder, with a Foundation Edition available for download. I'm sure there are many others with run under Linux, but this will get you started.

You say you are looking for something cross platform. One obvious choice is Java. Many vendors have IDEs that will run under Linux. NetBeans is an open source project under the Sun Public License, which is the basis for Sun's Forte product (very much like how Mozilla is a basis for Netscape). Forte Community Edition is free to download and try out. Borland offers JBuilder, with a Foundation Edition available for download. I'm sure there are many others with run under Linux, but this will get you started.

Take a look at Forte For Java or Netbeans.
Netbeans is the basis for Forte, so it's basically the same. Both are really good Java IDE with Form design support (including GridBagLayout, the most advanced Java GUI concept).
They support a big bunch of functionalities: JSP, CVS, automatic doc generation, and many more.
If you're used to VB, Java is really easy to grok, many of the concepts are similar and the documentation is really good.
Hope it helps....
Quentin

• Bill Joy
• Martin Fowler
• Grady Booch

Check out Sun Micro's Open Gateways program. It is primarily a grant program, but they also post suggested lesson plans, and training materials for teachers. It could be a start anyway. Keep in mind, you may need to start very basic, like mouse and kb skills, for some of the kids.

Check out Sun Micro's Open Gateways program. It is primarily a grant program, but they also post suggested lesson plans, and training materials for teachers. It could be a start anyway. Keep in mind, you may need to start very basic, like mouse and kb skills, for some of the kids.

I am a web developer so, if you are interested, here are some good web development resources. First, try the World Wide Web consortium for a lot of good web and XML reference/background stuff. For using java on the web, check out Sun's Java Server Pages , with lots of tutorials. Sun is now using the FREE Apache Tomcat JSP Server . There is also a free jsp server in Allaire's JRUN Server 3.1. Interestingly, the JRUN Eval. Edition server has no expiration date, on purpose. Have fun!

Um, no.

If I want to get Sun's C++ compiler, I go to their try and buy page, and download it.

It stops working after about a month. That's more than enough time to decide whether you like it, and if you do, to go through the purchase order and whatnot.

24 hours for licensing information? It took me twelve minutes. Most of that was waiting for Timothy to get off the damn phone and let me call up.

(Note, I happen to be a regular contributor to GCC. So please don't think I'm slamming GCC. I just don't like the smell of fresh bullshit wafting from my monitor.)

This is a known problem, bug ID# 4064315...Sun has a patch for it.

Sun has the press release for thier Sony deal.

Ahh those were the day, eh? Well, if you're willing to skip the PC platform, you can do pretty well with the SPARC platform and the Solaris operating system.

Sun resells an expansion box from a company called Magma. This device is compatible with both Intel and SPARC based machines.

If it's a PCI to PCI bridge, latency shouldn't be too big of a deal. I'd put low-throughput things like the DigiBoard (or whatever serial device you're using) on the expansion bus, and leave the high-output stuff to the on-board PCI...

Solaris is free. You do have to pay for the media, but you can install it on multiple machines and the source is also available.

Imagine you write an application in Java... the Sun JVM is freely downloadable, so you can expect the user to go get it himself. But for the convenience of the user, some companies bundle the JVM with the product. Not a really big licensing issue.

• Runtime FAQ
• Java 2 Runtime Environment License

Imagine you write an application in Java... the Sun JVM is freely downloadable, so you can expect the user to go get it himself. But for the convenience of the user, some companies bundle the JVM with the product. Not a really big licensing issue.

• Runtime FAQ
• Java 2 Runtime Environment License

I've had Solaris 8/KDE on my Ultra 10 workstation since I set it up 6 months ago! KDE and Gnome ship with Solaris 8 in the install media kit, on the same cd with GCC, gtar, gnu/emacs, Ethereal, and an entire cd of GNU tools. Don't y'all use SunFreeware or Sun BigAdmin for your Solaris/GNU packages?

You mean like this or this or this or this?

All of these are designed so that people can release source code to compile elswhere without revealing "intellectual property", but there are other ways. NVidia ran their "open-source" drivers through the C preprocessor before releasing them, making them nearly useless for development.

Of course, simplistically renaming variables won't change the binary code output much. You need to at least rearrange variables and code, and maybe determine independent statements and reorder them, etc. Perhaps pad arrays with extra space on the end, and so forth.

I want what Mr. Fountain is smoking. Seriously, if he can't see that Motif development will be dead in the not so near future well then that is his problem. Also, I guess he thinks all the rumors that Sun and HP are moving towards gnome in order to phase out CDE are just rumors. Oh no wait they aren't rumors

...Java's biggest drawback as a language (speed).

If you're interested in writing fast Java GUIs you should check out Java Platform Performance. Free chapters are available online.

Many people (many slashdotters included) seem to discount the possbility of using Java for real cross-platform desktop apps... I wouldn't be so quick to do so, however. Look at apps like LimeWire, Sun's Forte Java IDE, and the number of sourceforge projects done in Java (though admittedly many of these aren't desktop apps). Hardware is cheap right now, eliminating Java's biggest drawback as a language (speed). Many people are now learning programming with Java (like I did), and it has many appeals as a language, cross-platform ability being only one of them. Java's a desktop contender, and will only grow as such.

Now if only Sun would actually open Java's source...

... wasn't made by the engineering team, but by their marketing department. They managed to convince the world that the following foolishness was actually the truth:

CPU clock speed == CPU speed

And, judging simply by the title of the article, they are now attempting to convince the journalists of the world that:

CPU clock speed == Workstation Power

Hmm... I wonder if there's a better CPU for workstations and servers out there.... Moreover, I wonder if anyone whose chip design knowledge goes beyond the buzzwords has given any awards for the best Workstation/Server CPU architecture. Are we ever going to get back to reality in terms of computer processing power? Or, have the marketing people succeeded in snuffing out another truth?

--Mid

My apologies. I was unaware that OpenOffice would not make on Win9x. However, the point remains that there are free alternatives to Microsoft Office, and StarOffice will run on Win9x/ME systems.
-==-
We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

In terms of the FCC liking P2P, the fact that one of the Four Pillars (and, frankly, the Good Witch) is willing to back the idea ought to stand as excellent character evidence, in my opinion.

Yeah, if RedHat and VALinux went under we'd be left with obscure little companies with nowhere near the same resources.

In reference to your price comparisons among the three 1U servers you mention; the Sun Netra X1 is a single CPU system with IDE drives while the Dell PowerApp.web 120 (aka PowerEdge 1550) and the VALinux 1220 are both capable of being dual CPU systems and have SCSI drives. At least on the Dell front, the PowerApp.web 110 (aka PowerEdge 350) is a closer match in terms of hardware to the Sun Netra X1. I don't know what the performance differences would be given my lack of experience with Sun's hardware and recent versions of Solaris, but the other comment(s) here have some thoughts on that issue.

Jonathan

Web Services are built on SOAP, which is built with XML. Web Services are a concept made possible by XML and SOAP, not a development environment and platform built on a Common Language Runtime, or CLR. Web Services are so platform agnostic, they make Java look proprietary. You can build Web Services on Sun. You can build Web Services with Tcl. You can use Java to write SOAP and Web Service-enabled apps on any platform, even (trumpets) Linux.

I shouldn't have to explain why .Net is platform-specific, but I will. .Net, although it can be, will never be ported to other OSs without being reverse engineered. It is primarily a Windows technology, and will neither be free like beer nor speech. This isn't a problem to me since they pay me to write software for a living, and I like to eat. It might be a problem for some of you, and definately means that .Net isn't Web Services. My post wasn't a troll at all, just an effort to afford anti-MS posts the same nitpicking that FreeBSD vs. Debian vs. Whatever posts already enjoy.

Microsoft is really showing their whiney side in this one. This isn't flamebait. I've just heard so much crap from microsoft that Windows NT is "Better" than linux/FreeBSD/whatever that it's really annoying me.

They just have to keep insisting that Windows NT is better, don't they? They should consider giving up, because in other "reports" that Windows NT is "better" they've just gotten ignored and/or flamed by some other guy. Heck, even Sun got medieval on their hiney with a letter some PR guy sent reporters asking a couple of questions that were "supposed" to be hard to answer.

What's wrong with these people? I'm pretty annoyed with these letters, and I'm sure you are, too.
-----------------

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you ever could patent a standard. Either you patent it and collect royalties, or you try to make it a standard and simply become one of the top developers for it. IIRC, Sun tried to do the same thing with Java and had it thrown out. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So in summary, *BSD is dying, and SYSV rocks!

People run linux/sparc generally because they want to squeeze some more life out of an old machine. People run Solaris/sparc (or Solaris/x86 for that matter) because they want to run a very stable OS that has huge application support, a very responsive developer base and excellent hardware support.

For those who diss Solaris/x86, think about the time it takes you to get your pc to run linux or another free unix variant, and compare it to the effort that Sun puts in to making Solaris/x86 work on specific hardware listed in the HCL (http://access1.sun.com and follow the links). If you build a system from bits listed in the HCL then you will get a working Solaris/x86 system. (Start with a listed motherboard and save yourself some pain....)

SVR4!!!

I read many comments on the issue of pricing. Well, I think the new Blade workstations, with UltraSparc at 500 MHz, 128 MB RAM,100/10 Mbit ethernet, 4 USB, FireWire, PGX64 Framebuffer, CD and floppy at the price of less than one grand, is cheap.

The fact that something is more widely adopted frequently has little to do with its performance. Intel's Pentium is, of course, the most prevalent PC microprocessor around, but Sun's UltraSPARC (SPARC for Scalable Processor Architecture - it is scalable up to over 1000! Compare this to perhaps 32 for the Pentium) is (except perhaps for clock speed) a significantly more advanced, ingenious and open (the entire SPARC specification is open and licensable) microprocessor. (See here and here). Yes, the Pentium has more clock cycles each second, but the UltraSPARC frequenly does more computation per clock cycle. I actually had to do a comparative study for my graduate work on the Pentium, UltraSPARC, and Alpha microprocessors, so I have a bit of knowledge pertaining to all three.

The point I am trying to make here is that even though the SPARC is not as common, it is a very viable, valuable, and powerful processor, and I feel it would be extremely unfortunate if we overlooked it and dropped support for Linux on it. The fact that it is openly specified (many thanks to Sun Microsystems) is also a humongous benefit to the community.

With respect to who should support the development of Linux on the SPARC however, in my humble opinion, Sun is the best one for the job. They have shown their dedication to Free Software (They support Star/Open Office, they released the source code to their highly advanced Solaris operating system, and, as stated already, they released the specifications to the UltraSPARC), they know their microprocessor better than anyone else, they have the most to gain from Linux on the UltraSPARC (hey, it sells more hardware for them!), and, similarly, they have the most to lose from Linux not being on the UltraSPARC. We, however, must also be willing to understand Sun's hesitance to support Linux on the SPARC when, in Solaris, they *already* have an advanced operating system perfectly tuned to the SPARC. (A similar argument applies for IBM and their AIX OS.) Furthermore, though not under the GPL, Solaris is open.

In summary, I guess my real point is that it is very beneficial to the community at large for Linux to be supported on the SPARC. With the advanced and perfectly-tuned Solaris being open, its technology can also be more easily implemented in Linux. What could be better for the community than to have advanced and openly-specified software AND hardware?

What a dream come true that would be!!!

The fact that something is more widely adopted frequently has little to do with its performance. Intel's Pentium is, of course, the most prevalent PC microprocessor around, but Sun's UltraSPARC (SPARC for Scalable Processor Architecture - it is scalable up to over 1000! Compare this to perhaps 32 for the Pentium) is (except perhaps for clock speed) a significantly more advanced, ingenious and open (the entire SPARC specification is open and licensable) microprocessor. (See here and here). Yes, the Pentium has more clock cycles each second, but the UltraSPARC frequenly does more computation per clock cycle. I actually had to do a comparative study for my graduate work on the Pentium, UltraSPARC, and Alpha microprocessors, so I have a bit of knowledge pertaining to all three.

The point I am trying to make here is that even though the SPARC is not as common, it is a very viable, valuable, and powerful processor, and I feel it would be extremely unfortunate if we overlooked it and dropped support for Linux on it. The fact that it is openly specified (many thanks to Sun Microsystems) is also a humongous benefit to the community.

With respect to who should support the development of Linux on the SPARC however, in my humble opinion, Sun is the best one for the job. They have shown their dedication to Free Software (They support Star/Open Office, they released the source code to their highly advanced Solaris operating system, and, as stated already, they released the specifications to the UltraSPARC), they know their microprocessor better than anyone else, they have the most to gain from Linux on the UltraSPARC (hey, it sells more hardware for them!), and, similarly, they have the most to lose from Linux not being on the UltraSPARC. We, however, must also be willing to understand Sun's hesitance to support Linux on the SPARC when, in Solaris, they *already* have an advanced operating system perfectly tuned to the SPARC. (A similar argument applies for IBM and their AIX OS.) Furthermore, though not under the GPL, Solaris is open.

In summary, I guess my real point is that it is very beneficial to the community at large for Linux to be supported on the SPARC. With the advanced and perfectly-tuned Solaris being open, its technology can also be more easily implemented in Linux. What could be better for the community than to have advanced and openly-specified software AND hardware?

What a dream come true that would be!!!

The fact that something is more widely adopted frequently has little to do with its performance. Intel's Pentium is, of course, the most prevalent PC microprocessor around, but Sun's UltraSPARC (SPARC for Scalable Processor Architecture - it is scalable up to over 1000! Compare this to perhaps 32 for the Pentium) is (except perhaps for clock speed) a significantly more advanced, ingenious and open (the entire SPARC specification is open and licensable) microprocessor. (See here and here). Yes, the Pentium has more clock cycles each second, but the UltraSPARC frequenly does more computation per clock cycle. I actually had to do a comparative study for my graduate work on the Pentium, UltraSPARC, and Alpha microprocessors, so I have a bit of knowledge pertaining to all three.

The point I am trying to make here is that even though the SPARC is not as common, it is a very viable, valuable, and powerful processor, and I feel it would be extremely unfortunate if we overlooked it and dropped support for Linux on it. The fact that it is openly specified (many thanks to Sun Microsystems) is also a humongous benefit to the community.

With respect to who should support the development of Linux on the SPARC however, in my humble opinion, Sun is the best one for the job. They have shown their dedication to Free Software (They support Star/Open Office, they released the source code to their highly advanced Solaris operating system, and, as stated already, they released the specifications to the UltraSPARC), they know their microprocessor better than anyone else, they have the most to gain from Linux on the UltraSPARC (hey, it sells more hardware for them!), and, similarly, they have the most to lose from Linux not being on the UltraSPARC. We, however, must also be willing to understand Sun's hesitance to support Linux on the SPARC when, in Solaris, they *already* have an advanced operating system perfectly tuned to the SPARC. (A similar argument applies for IBM and their AIX OS.) Furthermore, though not under the GPL, Solaris is open.

In summary, I guess my real point is that it is very beneficial to the community at large for Linux to be supported on the SPARC. With the advanced and perfectly-tuned Solaris being open, its technology can also be more easily implemented in Linux. What could be better for the community than to have advanced and openly-specified software AND hardware?

What a dream come true that would be!!!

The fact that something is more widely adopted frequently has little to do with its performance. Intel's Pentium is, of course, the most prevalent PC microprocessor around, but Sun's UltraSPARC (SPARC for Scalable Processor Architecture - it is scalable up to over 1000! Compare this to perhaps 32 for the Pentium) is (except perhaps for clock speed) a significantly more advanced, ingenious and open (the entire SPARC specification is open and licensable) microprocessor. (See here and here). Yes, the Pentium has more clock cycles each second, but the UltraSPARC frequenly does more computation per clock cycle. I actually had to do a comparative study for my graduate work on the Pentium, UltraSPARC, and Alpha microprocessors, so I have a bit of knowledge pertaining to all three.

The point I am trying to make here is that even though the SPARC is not as common, it is a very viable, valuable, and powerful processor, and I feel it would be extremely unfortunate if we overlooked it and dropped support for Linux on it. The fact that it is openly specified (many thanks to Sun Microsystems) is also a humongous benefit to the community.

With respect to who should support the development of Linux on the SPARC however, in my humble opinion, Sun is the best one for the job. They have shown their dedication to Free Software (They support Star/Open Office, they released the source code to their highly advanced Solaris operating system, and, as stated already, they released the specifications to the UltraSPARC), they know their microprocessor better than anyone else, they have the most to gain from Linux on the UltraSPARC (hey, it sells more hardware for them!), and, similarly, they have the most to lose from Linux not being on the UltraSPARC. We, however, must also be willing to understand Sun's hesitance to support Linux on the SPARC when, in Solaris, they *already* have an advanced operating system perfectly tuned to the SPARC. (A similar argument applies for IBM and their AIX OS.) Furthermore, though not under the GPL, Solaris is open.

In summary, I guess my real point is that it is very beneficial to the community at large for Linux to be supported on the SPARC. With the advanced and perfectly-tuned Solaris being open, its technology can also be more easily implemented in Linux. What could be better for the community than to have advanced and openly-specified software AND hardware? What a dream come true that would be!!!

The fact that something is more widely adopted frequently has little to do with its performance. Intel's Pentium is, of course, the most prevalent PC microprocessor around, but Sun's UltraSPARC (SPARC for Scalable Processor Architecture - it is scalable up to over 1000! Compare this to perhaps 32 for the Pentium) is (except perhaps for clock speed) a significantly more advanced, ingenious and open (the entire SPARC specification is open and licensable) microprocessor. (See here and here). Yes, the Pentium has more clock cycles each second, but the UltraSPARC frequenly does more computation per clock cycle. I actually had to do a comparative study for my graduate work on the Pentium, UltraSPARC, and Alpha microprocessors, so I have a bit of knowledge pertaining to all three.

The point I am trying to make here is that even though the SPARC is not as common, it is a very viable, valuable, and powerful processor, and I feel it would be extremely unfortunate if we overlooked it and dropped support for Linux on it. The fact that it is openly specified (many thanks to Sun Microsystems) is also a humongous benefit to the community.

With respect to who should support the development of Linux on the SPARC however, in my humble opinion, Sun is the best one for the job. They have shown their dedication to Free Software (They support Star/Open Office, they released the source code to their highly advanced Solaris operating system, and, as stated already, they released the specifications to the UltraSPARC), they know their microprocessor better than anyone else, they have the most to gain from Linux on the UltraSPARC (hey, it sells more hardware for them!), and, similarly, they have the most to lose from Linux not being on the UltraSPARC. We, however, must also be willing to understand Sun's hesitance to support Linux on the SPARC when, in Solaris, they *already* have an advanced operating system perfectly tuned to the SPARC. (A similar argument applies for IBM and their AIX OS.) Furthermore, though not under the GPL, Solaris is open.

In summary, I guess my real point is that it is very beneficial to the community at large for Linux to be supported on the SPARC. With the advanced and perfectly-tuned Solaris being open, its technology can also be more easily implemented in Linux. What could be better for the community than to have advanced and openly-specified software AND hardware? What a dream come true that would be!!!

The fact that something is more widely adopted frequently has little to do with its performance. Intel's Pentium is, of course, the most prevalent PC microprocessor around, but Sun's UltraSPARC (SPARC for Scalable Processor Architecture - it is scalable up to over 1000! Compare this to perhaps 32 for the Pentium) is (except perhaps for clock speed) a significantly more advanced, ingenious and open (the entire SPARC specification is open and licensable) microprocessor. (See here and here). Yes, the Pentium has more clock cycles each second, but the UltraSPARC frequenly does more computation per clock cycle. I actually had to do a comparative study for my graduate work on the Pentium, UltraSPARC, and Alpha microprocessors, so I have a bit of knowledge pertaining to all three.

The point I am trying to make here is that even though the SPARC is not as common, it is a very viable, valuable, and powerful processor, and I feel it would be extremely unfortunate if we overlooked it and dropped support for Linux on it. The fact that it is openly specified (many thanks to Sun Microsystems) is also a humongous benefit to the community.

With respect to who should support the development of Linux on the SPARC however, in my humble opinion, Sun is the best one for the job. They have shown their dedication to Free Software (They support Star/Open Office, they released the source code to their highly advanced Solaris operating system, and, as stated already, they released the specifications to the UltraSPARC), they know their microprocessor better than anyone else, they have the most to gain from Linux on the UltraSPARC (hey, it sells more hardware for them!), and, similarly, they have the most to lose from Linux not being on the UltraSPARC. We, however, must also be willing to understand Sun's hesitance to support Linux on the SPARC when, in Solaris, they *already* have an advanced operating system perfectly tuned to the SPARC. (A similar argument applies for IBM and their AIX OS.) Furthermore, though not under the GPL, Solaris is open.

In summary, I guess my real point is that it is very beneficial to the community at large for Linux to be supported on the SPARC. With the advanced and perfectly-tuned Solaris being open, its technology can also be more easily implemented in Linux. What could be better for the community than to have advanced and openly-specified software AND hardware? What a dream come true that would be!!!

Note: Sun Microsystems does not provide support for the Linux operating system, either directly through Sun's Enteprise Services division, or by any indirect means. Linux users who wish to receive commercial support for their Linux systems should contact the vendor of the operating system distribution, or investigate third-party organizations that may help them.

Note: Sun Microsystems does not provide support for the Linux operating system, either directly through Sun's Enteprise Services division, or by any indirect means. Linux users who wish to receive commercial support for their Linux systems should contact the vendor of the operating system distribution, or investigate third-party organizations that may help them.

Might it have anything to do with suns prohibitive costs on hardware, when you weigh it out like that it's an e450 or a new car. Sure it's got I/O coming out of it's ears but I'd rather not have to refinance my house to get a "workgroup" server. I'm glad someone's supporting it though just in case I win the lotto or something.

I can't justify $999 for a Sun Blade 100 to run Solaris 8 and SunScreen Lite firewall for my home systems. Have you run Solaris 8 on any Sun machine before the Ultras??

I get 100-150 touchy feely bastards poking around my firewall trying to exploit lpd, rpc, ftp and all of the Wintel backdoors each week. I'd gladly pay $80 for Redhat 7.1 SPARC rather than trying to make "Ultra" Solaris 8 work on my LX. I don't expect Sun to continue to tune Solaris for the old machines, but if I can't run a linux or a BSD variant, I guess I'll have to move to Wintel hardware for my firewall...

What options are there for Solaris firewalls that can be run on the "affordable" non-Ultra SPARCs?? I do prefer Solaris for a desktop, but haven't been able to get a decent firewall solution for Solaris....

I can't justify $999 for a Sun Blade 100 to run Solaris 8 and SunScreen Lite firewall for my home systems. Have you run Solaris 8 on any Sun machine before the Ultras??

I get 100-150 touchy feely bastards poking around my firewall trying to exploit lpd, rpc, ftp and all of the Wintel backdoors each week. I'd gladly pay $80 for Redhat 7.1 SPARC rather than trying to make "Ultra" Solaris 8 work on my LX. I don't expect Sun to continue to tune Solaris for the old machines, but if I can't run a linux or a BSD variant, I guess I'll have to move to Wintel hardware for my firewall...

What options are there for Solaris firewalls that can be run on the "affordable" non-Ultra SPARCs?? I do prefer Solaris for a desktop, but haven't been able to get a decent firewall solution for Solaris....

Most online banking requires https support for java. This is not included in the standard java distributions for free browsers.
You need JSSE classes which you can download from here, information about getting them to with konqueror is here although personally I found you just need to pub the classes in your javahome/lib/ext/ directory and all works fine.

Exolab's Castor JDO is not the same as Sun JDOm which seems to be a really usefull initiative... anyway Castor scheme its quite good, but i dont like the idea of doing absolutely everything on runtime (like deciding which tables to use), and probably the idea of that your base classes are the ones that know how to persist themselves is much more appealing that castor's database object...

Besides, Sun's JDO will be usefull to persist to any local storage system, from indexed files to complex OORDBM. Of course, rigth not its not more than a review draft ;).

BTW, what about object relational databases, where do they fall short? do they?. Systems like Oracle and PostgreSQL are o/r, but some of the people here consider them OO, are they as good as pure OO or not??

Santiago
-