Slashdot Mirror


Most Sun Employees Own Macs

An anonymous user writes, "Most Sun Microsystems employees use Apple when they're not at work. This leaves Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice-president of Sun's software group, hinting at a Sun/Apple partnership." This comes on the heels of Pat Gelsinger, senior VP and chief technology officer of Intel, claiming Apple makes the wrong decisions about CPUs. So it figures Sun, who Intel likely thinks wouldn't know a good processor if it came up and -- um, processed something, would like Macs.

14 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. More Interesting ... by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Is their take on SCO:

    Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice-president of Sun's software group, also said that a broad software-license deal struck with AT&T in the late 1990s allowed the company to inject whatever code it wanted into the Linux kernel. Schwartz pledged to indemnify its customers against any lawsuits by the SCO Group or another supplier.

    I'm hoping that the author of the piece confused Linux and UNIX, and not Jonathan Schwartz, as I don't see how a deal struck with AT&T could be relevant to Linux, which isn't AT&T's IP.

    I'm also wondering what form the "indemnifying" would take. Maybe just a guarantee that if Mad Hatter licenses are invalidated by the SCO lawsuit, Sun will provide an alternative UNIX operating system?

    1. Re:More Interesting ... by pmz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm hoping that the author of the piece confused Linux and UNIX...

      I think the confusion may have been "late 1990s" versus early 1990s. From what I've read, Sun did outlay a buttload of money for an above-average UNIX license, where they can stand behind their claim to imdemnify Sun customers. However, my take on the whole thing was that Solaris customers and not necessarily Linux customers would be protected. But the mention of injecting code into the Linux kernel has confused me, again, on the whole matter.

      Additionally, it seems that MadHatter is more of a software stack instead of a whole platform, where MadHatter can be run on top of Solaris as well as Linux. This may mean that MadHatter customers shouldn't care what OS they get--what they are actually buying is the MadHatter environment. This could be another hedge against SCO.

    2. Re:More Interesting ... by kalidasa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but I don't get what your objection is.

      The IP on Linux the kernel isn't owned by SCO, it's owned by Linus Torvalds and the contributing developers to the Linux kernel as licensed under the GPL. SCO's license doesn't cover what Sun can do with the GPL. So unless they are saying that SCO's license to Sun permits Sun to add SCO code to Linux and release that code under the GPL, Sun would have to release the product with SCO code in it under a different license, which Linux won't allow. Now if it is true that SCO's license to Sun makes it ok for them to add SCO code to Linux and rerelease under the GPL, then that code is GPLed the moment Sun releases it and anyone - including IBM - can use it. So either SCO gave away the store to Sun, or Sun - or the author of the piece - is confused about what is and isn't Linux and what the GPL stands for.

  2. Gelsinger's Slip is showing by KJSwartz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here are two exerpts from the article. I guess MSFT'ites must suffer with CPU upgrades to get the bennies from their ongoing hardware improvements. Another prime example of an "Apple Peeler".

    Q. Did Steve Jobs make the right chip decision, choosing IBM for his upcoming G5 processor, or will Apple be missing out on some pretty hot Intel technology.

    A. I think Steve Jobs has made the wrong CPU choice for 20 years, he just added a few more years to the life of his bad decisions. Steve's not an illogical guy, he's passionate and opinionated about the directions he wants is a poor path for the company as well as a poor path for the users.

    Q. Let's talk a little bit about Transmetta. They are a small competing company, that designed a small and battery efficient CPU that is getting into more small computing devices, especially in the far East. Their premise is to throw away hardware legacy from the CPU, running it if needed in software mode.

    A. You can't ignore backward compatibility. People still run applications in corporate environments that were developed 15-20 years ago, in fact many of those applications, the people who wrote those applications are now dead and their children have no idea what they did. You're just not going to change those compatibility requirements, and that's just a flawed, it sounds good, it feels compelling, but it's wrong. Secondly, when they've looked at the implementation the benefits that it brings, yes initially there were some benefits, their chips had lower power at a certain performance level than Intel did. That was because we were asleep at the wheel.

    1. Re:Gelsinger's Slip is showing by RatPh!nk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This goes without saying but......"You can't ignore backward compatibility."

      This coming from the VP of a company that makes a 64 bit processor that has zero 32-bit backward compatibility?


      -pH1nk

      --
      Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
  3. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Technically, MIPS. The 64-bit R4000 core was first demonstrated in 1991.

  4. 80286 vs. 68000 and Intel by Llywelyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's see... the senior VP and CTO of /Intel/ announced that they made the wrong processor choice for the Mac 20 years ago... ...and in other news, Microsoft has announced that no-one in their right mind uses Linux and that Windows is far superior at everything.

    Seriously, I would love to see his /technical/ reasons for his statement. Comparing the two, head to head:

    68000:
    32-bit instruction set (minimum 16-bit instructions).
    32-bit registers.
    16-bit ALU.
    8 MHz in 1984.
    8 general purpose registers, 8 address registers.

    80286:
    16-bit ALU.
    4 16-bit general purpose registers, could be used as 8 8-bit registers.
    6-8 MHz in 1984.

    I'm not seeing the appeal.

    When the 601 came out it also had more than an edge on the Pentium and I sincerely doubt that the Pentium could have emmulated (with its speed, instruction set, and number of registers) the 68k instruction set anywhere close to the speed of the first PowerPCs...

    Where exactly is the /Intel Representative/ getting this idea?

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  5. Re:Well, when you have an eye for quality... by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the only reason UltraSPARC III isn't blasting away everyone else, I believe, is due to manufacturing constraints.

    UltraSPARC III would have been a great chip if it were released when Sun originally planned, instead of two years later.

    Makers of superior CPU technology are probably hitting themselves in the stomach because Intel, with huge money for fabs, was able to get enough performance per dollar to dominate the industry, merely to fritter it all away on the Itanic.

    Ah, if only the designers of Alpha, UltraSPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC and Power had had that kind of development budget and Fab facility!

    If DEC had had Intel's money, or if Alpha had been absorbed early into Intel and they invested in it as if it were Invented Here, we'd have much a much better leading edge chip than we do now.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  6. Re:Quel Suprise! by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple make personal computers and Sun make mostly server machines. It's not really that suprising

    Sun makes mostly server machines because Linux PCs have taken away their workstation market. Between Linux's cost and Apple's ease of use Sun has little chance of retaking this market.

  7. Re:This is no suprise. by pmz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With regard to running SPARCs at home, that's just silliness.

    Eh? Solaris 9 + StarOffice + Netscape 7 makes a very viable home computer for people who don't mind tinkering a bit. It's really no worse than Linux, other than GNUCash won't link on Solaris 9 for some very obscure reason (stupid libtool).

    Add a used SunPCi card (AMD K6 PC on a PCI card), and you can also run Windows or, with a little work, Linux x86 simultaneously with Solaris.

    Add a PlayStation for gaming.

    It works for me :)

  8. Re:This is no suprise. by elmegil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For those that wants it, more power to ya. But the criticism was about the claim that the average Sun admin/employee wouldn't want to come home and do "even more work" on a Sun box at home. Most of us who don't run Solaris at home (well I do, but only for work at home purposes) are not avoiding it because it's "too much work" but because it's not optimal. If you *want* to tinker all the time, hey that's great, but I wouldn't expect the majority of Sun employees to want to do that tinkering. In fact, reality is, the majority of Sun employees aren't techies--Sun employs a bunch of sales people, managers, administrative workers of all sorts, none of whom are expected to be techies, most of whom aren't in reality techies, so why would they do techie things at home?

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  9. Sun should have stuck with OPENStep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A Sun-Apple partnership could've been so cool if:

    1. Apple had chosen SPARC back when they switch from 68K

    2. NeXT had chosen SunOS as it's base instead of BSD/Mach

    3. Sun had continued their partnership with NeXT and supported OPENStep on Solaris.

    Solaris and OS X could have been ONE! That would've been way cool! Server to desktop ... everything covered.

    Sigh ...

    -j

  10. Re:Statement pulled out of someone's ass? by adam872 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We have had at least a couple of Sun representatives come and present to us with PowerBook's, so I wouldn't doubt that plenty of Sun employees have Apple systems. Makes sense when you think about it: they're not running Windows and have Unix underneath. I would think they'd integrate pretty nicely with the Sun internal systems and allow them to do cool things like run Keynote, and Photoshop (for the marketing group) etc etc

    If only OpenOffice/Staroffice would run in Aqua mode under OSX, everything would be just perfect :)

  11. Re:Schwartzland by wchin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    fm6 wrote:

    But very few programmers, even at Apple, are fans of the NextStep API.

    That's simply not true. At this year's WWDC, Cocoa was everywhere and developers, both inside and 3rd party were definitely digging in. Most code examples were given in both Cocoa and Carbon (where relevant). Now, Carbon isn't going away, and there are many other choices, but Cocoa has definitely caught on. iPhoto, iMovie, iCal, AddressBook, iSync (and large portions of the Bluetooth stack), iChat, Safari, Quicktime Broadcaster, Keynote, Mail, System Preferences, and so on were done originally in Cocoa or have been ported to Cocoa recently.

    There have been many instances of anecdotal evidence that traditional Carbon Mac developers are looking at Cocoa, especially now that Mac OS 9 compatibility is not as important as it used to be last year and even less so for new projects that won't be delivered this year.