Slashdot Mirror
IBM & Sun Agreement Puts Pressure on HP
eldavojohn writes "IBM has turned to long time rival Sun in an effort to bring Solaris to its mainframes. Sun may be taking this chance to drop out of the server market while at the same time capture Solaris subscriptions via IBM sales. Either way, this certainly pressures HP in the server department."
Your best buys, *zapzapzap* are always at Fry's, guaranteed!
I don't know, Sun is investing quite a bit in their new niagra processors, so why would they get out of the server business?
It's not really mainframes. Yes, the IBM / Sun agreement will eventually put Solaris on the IBM mainframe, but more importantly was this bit at the beginning of the article:
The collaboration announced Thursday will enable Sun's Solaris operating system to run on IBM servers. That means customers that run Sun servers will be able to switch to Big Blue's hardware without having to rewrite any programs. / At first this will be possible on IBM's "x" series of servers, which also run Microsoft Corp.'s Windows or the open-source Linux system. But eventually IBM hopes to bring Solaris to the mainframe, the big multitasking machines that have been one of the company's core profit centers for decades.So you'll be able to run Solaris on IBM x-series hardware. This is a big deal. While you're unlikely to see big customers migrating their workload off the big systems (E25k, etc) to x-series, certainly you'll have customers moving smaller Solaris workloads to x-series. When you can run Solaris on IBM z-series (the mainframe) then customers can look again to move the big systems to IBM/Solaris.
Wow, it's just so weird to write "IBM/Solaris". :-)
HP is getting to (or already has arrived) the point where their server support is laughably awful. Pair that with this recent announcement from IBM, and it could be interpreted as death knell for the Proliant line.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
``As many are already aware, we embarked upon a journey a couple years ago to formally separate the Solaris operating system from Sun's hardware business - as well as bring Solaris to the free and open source software world via a community effort named OpenSolaris. None of these changes were easy, but I'd like to believe both were successful. What's my proof?`` Read the rest in Sun CEO's blog.
Nowhere in the article does it say Sun is thinking of dropping out of the server market. Rather, it mentions that Sun is tied with Dell for the #3 spot. You'd have to be an idiot to think Sun was even considering walking away now.
Breakfast served all day!
It's just not "supported".
But it works just about as well as RHEL 5 does - which is pretty damn well.
Works for me.
I don't buy the idea that Sun is looking to bail out of the hardware business. What they are looking to do is keep Solaris relevant. Sun doesn't want you to think Solaris requires Sun hardware. Sun realized that the only option for people wanting to go with x86/x86_64 chips and run a Unix-like OS on supported hardware meant running Linux or buying Sun gear.
Sun is looking to eat some of Linux's lunch. The question is, why is IBM interested?
Mod parent up, this is not about mainframes. Mainframes run the z-CPU (and z/OS).
A couple of additional points here. First, IBM paints a pretty picture about being all cozy with Linux. The truth is that they use it as a bait-n-switch tactic to get people to move to AIX or z/OS (all proprietary IBM Operating Systems). This means added revenue for IBM. That is, as soon as customers start putting a heavy load on the system, IBM will start pushing AIX or z/OS as a preferred solution.
It's all about getting the customer locked in. That's where the big bucks are. IBM has been doing this for years, and they are absolutely superb at this game, if not the best. Also keep in mind that IBM has reported huge revenue increases in the mainframe biz recently; IIRC, it's their most profitable sector once again.
So, watch out Sun. IBM will indeed push any Solaris customers over to their own solutions as soon as they can. It's not all peace, love and roses in this game.
Secondly, HP deserves all the crap here that comes on them. They have been losing the datacenter for years, have no viable plan for it, and have pulled out of every serious strategy available to them.
HP used to be a big partner of Platform Solutions, Inc. For those of you who follow this stuff, you might remember PSI as the only competitor left to IBM in the mainframe business after Amdahl, et. al., went out of business or got out of the mainframe biz.
IBM (in the same fashion that they used on Amdahl in the early days) sued PSI last November with a bogus Patent lawsuit (which is interesting, as PSI is rumored to be using Linux as part of their IBM-compatible mainframe solution).
HP, which used to view PSI as "the saviour of HP in the datacenter" went running away from PSI as fast, and as far as they could. In short, HP abandoned their last real option for the datacenter.
Unless HP gets its boat in order, they'll continue to be just a Printer and PC shop. They are of minimal threat to IBM, and are fast becoming a non-player in the serious hardware biz. Which is a pity, as before Carly, they were a top-notch outfit.
But personally, I have no confidence in their current CEO, as he doesn't seem to have the interest, fortitude or aptitude for this kind of game.
If Sun had bought Apple any of the many times it's been rumored the past decade or more, then IBM mainframes might be running OSX right now.
OTOH, if IBM had bought Apple any of the many times it's been rumored the past decade or more, then Sun might be going out of business right now, without this IBM contract keeping them in business.
--
make install -not war
Yes, if you want Solaris, Sun would be the company to talk to. The fact that they WANT Solaris to run on their machines (not yet mainframes) is the news here, since they've been fierce competitors for decades.
That doesn't sound too likely, with open sourcing the core of Solaris a while back, as well as some important components. Admittedly, RedHat is doing fine with that strategy, but it really doesn't sound like something Sun would risk.
Why do I get the feeling both companies expect to be able to screw each other over, somehow in the future, with this agreement?
Why? Even if IBM gets a few more points of the server market (taking it from Sun) HP's market share shouldn't be affected.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Solaris has never been in any danger of becoming irrelevant. If you think that, it's only because you've been playing with toy computers.
Why doesn't IBM just buy Sun? They'd get control of Java and Solaris, they could kill the Sun/Microsoft dealings, and they'd get Sun's server customers. Granted, at 16B, Sun is probably still somewhat overvalued, but I think such a deal would be good for IBM overall.
In the 90s, there was a PowerPC port of Solaris 2.x. IBM has wanted to get out of the AIX business for decades. Sun had the chance to walk in and take over the UNIX market in pretty much one fell swoop, and walked away from it for percieved strategy benefits at the time.
IBM still wants to walk away from AIX... hence the Linux support. But I think they realize that there are businesses who are queasy about high end enterprise Linux who will jump all over Solaris, and it's essentially just having to agree to a marketing project now so it's free for everyone...
Sun doesn't want out of the server market. The server market keeps Sun's employees happy and well paid.
This is very interesting news. It was only a matter of time until everyone realizes that Solaris is the killer OS. And if you read the article, they aren't getting out of the server market. They are looking at the opportunity to capture more OS installations. Lets face it, Solaris is an impressive OS. I can't wait for the Rock processor to come out. It is going to rock! No pun intended. :)
Sun was a hardware innovator. What happened? I would like to see come back with some new innovative
hardware. Gee... I learned Unix on a Sparc 2 pizza box. I got to play with Sun E4000 machines,
and later Sunfire servers. I'd like to see Sun Get back into the game.
All that is certain from this article is that IBM is going to certify its xSeries (x86) boxes to run Solaris x86. Big deal. They already do...this is just saying that it'll be supported. Now, if IBM announced that Solaris will run on Power6 and they're dropping AIX, then you'd have some news. Jonathan Schwartz rather fatuously states "To me, this is a tectonic shift in the marketplace" - give me a break.
Advice: on VPS providers
That should be GNU/IBM/Solaris, thank you. :)
hawk, whistling innocently
Let's talk enemies:
Sun has x686 Solaris ports, and IBM's still heavily invested in Inel and AMD hardware, as well as their own Power and Cell CPUs. and SUSE (Microsoft's new best friend) has ports on IBM iron, ranging from tiny stuff up to S390) which I'm sure Sun is jealous of.
IBM, now that SCOx has essentially been wiped from the screen, wants more business, and they don't make that much from Windows stuff. They sell IRON and SERVICES. They stopped operating systems at OS/2 and decided to let others do it. Fine.
IBM has service revenues and gets into a lot of NOCs. They like Linux, 'cause it's all value (read $$) add. They understand iron, they understand services.
The multi-core UltraSparcs are an engineering marvel.... and they're selling like old mortgage debt on Wall Street right now. That silly Linux stuff is pumping it out. Call it a toy if you want, but a bullet is a bullet and if you don't need howitzers, bullets are fine. Add in VMWare, Xen, or whatever, and you have a loaded gun with several rounds in it. That's where servers are going right now: virtual.... and Solaris containers aren't so wonderful.
Microsoft is getting bitten at the ankles by just about everyone. Let's count the ways: uh oh, SCOx will soon run out of money and will stop biting the ankles of IBM and Novell. Pity. Adobe wants to bring an office suite to market. Google hires Sun's StarOffice to be in their bundle. Several companies, weakly but in a virgin kind of way, start selling desktop Linux of various flavors. Microsoft co-opts Ubuntu and makes a slave of Xandros. How silly.
Add to the cake Steve Jobs stealing thunder wherever he can seed clouds. Salt it up with rotten DRM in Vista, and an underwhelming adoption when your server sales are cannibalized by your own inability to ship Windows 2008/Longhorn server.
As Vonnegut might say, Microsoft is feeling the breeze that occurs when the excrement hits the airconditioning. Schwartz is still upwind of that.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
HP/Intel bet huge resources on Itanium, and as we all know did not take over the world. Although the Itanium found some niche markets in high performance computing, I don't think that it made any inroads in the server space. How does this effect the relative positions of HP, Sun and IBM?
HP doesn't make CPU hardware any more, and Sun and IBM both have major investments in CPU lines, yet we have Sun porting to IBM hardware. Does this mean that CPUs are better as pure commodities? Or is this more a case of good and bad business decisions on the part of the three players? I don't follow the server end of the market very much and this is very confusing.
IBM just wants a unix for its systems without having to pay to maintain AIX. That's why they sell systems with linux, and that's why the are going to sell systems with solaris. Its better for them to offer both, so they can get linux business from the idiots who are dumb enough to think IBM cares about open source, and get solaris business from the idiots who think solaris has magical enterprise fairy dust that makes it better.
We just had an app that got developed on an E280R running Sol 10 x86 switched to an X4100 running Sol 10 and the developers were complaining the X4100 was noticeably slower. So, I don't think Sun's worried about Solaris x86 eating their hardware sales. x86 just gives them some reach outside of the expensive Sparc systems. But when you want performance on Solaris you get the the Sparc systems. I think HP supports Solaris, too, on their systems. It's pure PR.
...welcome our new IBM/Sun overlo-- wait a second! They've always been our overlords!
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Gotta love the Solaris fanatics. Next I suppose you'll be telling me that Linux isn't "real Unix".
Solaris is a fine OS, and it's got some features that nobody else has. But in some areas it's about 10-15 years behind Linux and BSD. Don't take my word for it - take a look at what Sun itself is saying. Here's a few excerpts:
Solaris installation is ugly, slow, and difficult.
...
We use outdated networking technology (RARP and Bootparams) by default, rather than contemporary network protocols, and thus are often unable to automatically determine configuration attributes that are easily discovered by our competition.
...
We don't include the right set of initial configuration tasks, such as an initial user account, that are commonly provided by competitors. This results in an installed system which boots, and can be logged into as root, but it's then up to the user to hunt around and find a tool (or, more likely, edit the configuration files directly due to our paucity of tools and poor integration of those that exist into the desktop) to create a usable account.
...
One of the significant deficiencies in Solaris compared to our Linux competitors is our ability to easily install additional software after the initial installation.
Well, the good news is that Sun is actually working hard to fix these problems.
Disclaimer: I work for IBM.
IBM is becoming primarily a services company, doing systems development, "solutions architecture", and outsourced operations. A LOT of people at IBM are familiar with Sun technology and have used it at one point or another. Heck, most of the Global Services staff that maintain AIX servers also maintain Solaris servers. How hard do you think it would be for IBM to expand their business saying "Sure, we support Solaris. We can build that payroll system that you need for your company on your existing Sun infrastructure. BTW, can we interest you in a new pSeries for these workloads?".
Indeed, this is opening up a new area of the market where they can now claim expertise and recognition. And when the installed customer base is satisfied with what they have, it'll be 10 times easier to migrate their hardware to IBM stuff, and software to IBM proprietary OSes, if there's more profit to be made there.
They have too many new technologies in active development for them to drop out of the server market. Their new Sparc processors, and motherboard chipsets truly have major advantages over current Intel offerings. The new T2 processors in a 4 or 8 CPU system can and will stomp over anything out of Wintell (64 threads per CPU, time 8 CPU's makes 512 ACTIVE processes at a time in a single box! Now imagine a beowulf or grid cluster of those! Hell, simply imagine a single rack!). No, Sun isn't leaving the server market, they are simply expanding their OS market, nothing more. Which is a good thing. The more hardware that can run Solaris, the more it will be seen by new people who may not be familiar with it. The new capabilities for self healing processes, zones (think like VMWare, but each is running a contained Solaris, without a ton of overhead from having the separate kernel instances, as well as being able to portion exact percentages of resources to each zone. This allows multiple "budgets" too pool together and buy a big(er) server then they would otherwise and have assurances that each group would get at a minimum X% of CPU time (or memory, or bandwidth, etc., etc.) on the system, where X corresponds to the percentage of the cost that the department/group/unit paid to purchase the server, and if no one else is using the system, well, you get to use all its resourses...).
No Sun is far from leaving the server market. Very, VERY far.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
The installation problems are completely immaterial compared to update stability. For example all device drivers keep working after kernel update because they are both tested and binary compatible. This alone makes Solaris far superior compared to Linux (especially in servers). ZFS is a nice addition, and so is DTrace, NFS, etc.
Adding additional software is now about as easy as in Linux, but keeping system up-to-date is not (AFAIK). Hopefully Solaris will improve on both accounts.
Solaris has a couple of nice features, but the Linux driver issue isn't a problem on servers.
The drivers on Linux that are a problem are mostly on consumer hardware - accelerated video in particular - where manufacturers refuse to release specifications. On server hardware high quality Open Source drivers are available for just about everything so upgrades go very smoothly. Everything "just works". Plus, on Intel hardware, Linux has better driver support than Solaris.
That makes sense since nowadays no serious server hardware vendor can refuse to support Linux. It comes with being a "mainstream" operating system - the same advantage Windows has on consumer hardware. Linus dictated that the driver ABI is not stable, and he has enough clout in the server market that the hardware vendors just have to suck it up and release source.
ZFS and DTrace are areas where Solaris is legitimately ahead.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
We are a rather large Linux shop, I don't work directly on the systems thank god. We are used to running stable Red Hat systems of 3 and 4 variety. Used to run FreeBSD. These boxes have uptimes in years and only need to be brought down for memory and raid failures.
We recently bought a whole new large cluster to replace/expand their old system. We went with Sun/Solaris as the OS is included in the hardware costs so it saved some hundreds of thousands in licenses.
Solaris has kernel patches almost every month. There are unbelievably stupid memory configuration bugs with Sun's hardware and crashes from swapping. Sun tends to require that the machines are up to date in patches to get support. Sun also considers ZFS beta and doesn't recommend it. ZFS was one of the reasons for using Solaris. So we are looking at machines with uptime in days when they aren't crashing. The boxes also have rather crappy performance for the hardware that is in them. Solaris is about as enterprise as windows these days. It can't touch Linux or BSD in performance, hardware support, or reliability.
And have my CC stolen because they run Windows? No thanx. I will stick with Fry's.
When I read about this yesterday, as well as expecting a port to Power6, which isn't unlikely, I was wondering if Sun would be offering Solaris as a zOS virtual machine. zSolaris - now, that *is* weird.
I install the OS only once, and installing Solaris is really not that hard.
... zero days (it fails to inform about updates far too often).
Drivers in Linux break every now and then - and if your driver is not in the kernel tree you have to compile it yourself. Even if it is, you are the tester. Sun does run tests on Solaris drivers.
NFS is not really part of Linux, unless you refer to some 20 year old version.
Getting updates for Sun packages has never been a problem for me. Yes, an automated system which fetches the updates would be very nice, and so would be faster updater (it is horribly slow). But at least Fedora Core 6 has had working autoupdater for, let's see
Non-Sun packages from Blastwave are as easy as in Linux, although sometimes slightly outdated.
They are mostly a service company that also sells hardware these days. And they are doing fine. It is not surprising if Sun wants to do the same.
Enterprise customers want a single vendor.
Why?
Admin: "There's a bug in the operating system, it's corrupting data under these circumstances"
Sun: "Naw, not at all. The problem is in the IBM firmware. The operating system is doing the right thing".
IBM: "WTF? no it ain't, the problem is in the operating system."
Queue many hours of haranguing both companies.
As opposed to:
Admin: "There's a bug in the OS, it's corrupting data under these circumstances"
Sun (Or IBM): "Actually the dump you sent us indicate the problem is with downrev firmware in your XXX adapter. Here's a patch which fixes it."
See the difference?
There are very good reasons for buying your systems from a single vendor, the big one is that they know how it works all the way down to the metal and they can get someone on site in 4 hours who can fix it, all the way down to the metal.
Deleted
The correct phrase is "GNU is Not Unix" and more importantly, GLNJL, "GNU/Linux is Not Just Linux" and GUBK, "GNU can be Used on Better Kernels." But I digress...
There are obviously areas of Solaris that are few years behind Linux but 10-15 years behind? No a chance. I started on Slackware 96, I spent several years supporting SuSE and I still use Ubuntu. Ubuntu is ahead of most Linux distributions on packaging and drivers and is also slightly ahead of OpenSolaris in this area. The sheer number of hobbyists and businesses using GNU/Linux means it is a year or two ahead on consumer driven software. The problem with both Solaris and Linux fanatics is they believe that because their O.S. works well for them on their hardware, it should be used everywhere by everyone. That being said, Linux is used in many places (enterprise servers, mainframes) where Solaris would be a much better solution. For the moment, Solaris isn't the ideal OS for Nokia's N series phones.
Sun made its biggest mistake(s) near the peak of its stock price, when Sun dropped Solaris X86 for a few months. Whoever made that decision should have been fired a dozen times over but that's water under the bridge now and Sun is back as a viable solution for IBM's customers. The only real question is why don't HP and DELL support Solaris for customer problems where Linux or Windows are square pegs in round holes?
'I suppose you'll be telling me that Linux isn't "real Unix".'
You are correct on that statement, and legally, it is not and never has been. (just in case you were confused).
"Gotta love the Solaris fanatics."
Though I appreciate your distain for Solaris supporters, I really don't think that there is an OS out there that can cliam 'no problems.' Solaris, like BSD, Linux, HPUX, AIX, all have their issues at some point. You also have to understand that linux has not been where it is now. So you have many a server floor out there with plenty of stable and secure Solaris systems that have been running for years and changing them out for the sake of "this system installes software 10 minutes faster" is not very feasable. Normally, there are numerous checks prior to any patch/package going on a production server (or so I'd hope), running in a lab environment, verifying operational capabilities, etc. It has little to do with ease of installation, but with knowing the system. Some consider this stovepiping though.
And technically, Solaris Zones/Containers came from BSD chroot jails and they function very similar.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Same reason why they are interested in Linux, Java etc.
The more choices the customer gets the more IBM consultants/services/support the customer is likely to want/need.
Hardware makes very little in terms of profit margin, which is one reason you see large support contracts sold with high end server hardware. Services make margins that are typically ten times that of hardware sales. That is why you see more and more companies that were traditionally seen as hardware outfits getting into the services market.
The drivers is in the kernel tree. You should not buy any hardware that is not supported or preferable tested and certified for your enterprise distribution.
https://hardware.redhat.com/hwcert/index.cgi
You don't have a line of credit anyways.
If the OS/hardware vendor has already fixed your problem, then you're right that you discover that sooner when your OS vendor is your hardware vendor.
If you actually unearth a new bug, the OS and hardware suppliers still point fingers back and forth because even though they're the same company they are different departments or even divisions. Gets real fun when you buy your application, OS and HW from the same vendor and they do the 3-way finger pointing game. Most people are lazy and do not want to do debugging work or entertain the possibility that the problem stems from a flaw in *their* work-product even if you've bought a service level agreement so high that you are literally paying the salary+overhead costs of support engineers dedicated to just your contract.
I've seen it with Sun and I've seen it with IBM.
Solaris is Open Source. That means anyone can use Solaris on their servers, desktops or whatever. Our Suns "sales guy" explained that it to me. They say "if they grow the pie, everyone's slice gets bigger" Sun is in the same possition as Apple. Either one can if they play it right double their sales by only gaining a few percent more market share. This is a very good place to be. Do you think Microsoft could double their sales? No they are "flat" now and have only one way left to go if they move off "flat". For Sun the "grow the pie" sceme is their best option. They have a gear product with Solaris and people with the right technical background can see this sothey need to sell to those people. IBM can help them do that. IBM needs something other ten Linux. Solaris is much more robust then Linux and ikley an easier sell to many customers. SO IBM gains so customers that would have resisted Linux and Sun gets to grow the Solaris pie. Again Solaris is Open Source. A lot like (but not same lic. as) Linux or BSD
What, are you on crack?
1. Yes, I know that "Linux isn't Unix". My point was that nobody gives a fuck.
2. I never said that you should replace a working Solaris system just because Linux is faster to install. That would be silly. Disdain for Solaris supporters? Hell, I'm a Solaris supporter myself. What I was talking about is the Solaris fanatics: people who absolutely refuse to acknowledge any shortcoming in Solaris, no matter how glaringly obvious. Every user community has people like that, but for some reason Solaris seems to attract the most rabid ones - I don't know why. Fortunately, Sun is lately showing signs that it's not listening to the fanatics, and is working hard to bring Solaris up to date in those areas where it's lagging.
3. Re BSD jails: my understanding is that Zones provide many additional features, like the ability to set limits on the RAM usage, CPU usage and bandwidth for each zone. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
"3. Re BSD jails: my understanding is that Zones provide many additional features, like the ability to set limits on the RAM usage, CPU usage and bandwidth for each zone. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong."
When a Zone has resources assigned to it, it will then be considered a Container. The Zone itself is based off of a BSD chroot jail though.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
2.Solaris fanatics: people who absolutely refuse to acknowledge any shortcoming in Solaris, no matter how glaringly obvious. Every user community has people like that, but for some reason Solaris seems to attract the most rabid ones - I don't know why.
/. is their gathering spot. Have you ever noticed how biased /. stories are when it comes to Linux? The fact you haven't notice this is because you are a Linux supporter so you don't notice. I just think it's funny that a Linux person is talking about fanatics.
Pot, Kettle, black.
You're kidding, right? The Linux user community is a known hangout for rabid fan boys and
Every single Linux fanboy always forgets testing.
I saw articles earlier today where it was mentioned that Solaris x86 would be coming to IBM hardware by year end. I tried Solaris x86 twice. Once, in 1999, where it looked like little more than an experiment, then again in 2003 or so, where it looked maybe Alpha quality. I hope this has improved. This really looks like an agreement between hardware has beens.
Where do you want to be, What are you doing to get there.
The key difference here is that IBM is pushing people into their closed, locked down solutions, away from Open Source, instead of promoting (and developing) higher-end Open Source solutions.
Your examples are all flawed, as they all start with closed solutions rather than open source ones. A better example would be for Microsoft to come out with M$Linux, and then start pushing customers to Windows once they've got Linux users hooked. Personally, I expect to see this start happening within about 5 years, once they realize that such a strategy is their only viable long term answer to Linux, but I digress.
But still, in this light, IBM isn't any better than Microsoft other than being one step ahead in the game.
Sure, even RedHat will push one from Fedora/CentOS to the RedHat Enterprise solutions. The difference is that they (and SuSE, etc.) keep promoting solutions which are open, and not closed. You still have a choice between vendors.
IBM is pulling every stunt in the book to keep this a locked up market. Their strategy is to rope people in, push them into closed solutions as soon as they can, and keep other vendors out using software patents. Even those which are using Open Source as an alternative.
Simply put, this is tightly controlled vendor lock-in, and is the antithesis of what GPL-based Open Source is all about. This does not bode well for the Open Source community in the long term, especially IBM's use of bogus software patents to keep the competition out.
1. ppc64 will be extremely popular. G5? PS3? XBOX360? IBM Mainframes? BlueGene?
2. sparc64 was popular but it will entry to decadence because of its underperformance. Slowaris?
3. ia-64 is still itanic to sink, and is too complex that nobody wants it.
4. amd64 is very dirty that doesn't perform very well because why to user 1 extra byte of prefix for R8-R15 registers?.
The SPARCs run poorly for years, years, ...
5 237&threshold=-1&mode=nested#942700
http://barrapunto.com/article.pl?sid=07/08/08/104
1st. SGI Altix (ia-64): 6.64 ptos/GHz-cores.
2nd. HP Integrity (ia-64): 7.48 ptos/GHz-cores.
3rd. Sun Fire (sparc64): 3.99 ptos/GHz-cores. qué malo!
4th. Fujitsu SPARC (sparc64): 3.61 ptos/GHz-cores. malísimo!
5th. IBM System (ppc64): 5.45 ptos/GHz-cores.
6th. Proliant (amd64): 4.00 ptos/GHz-cores.
To complete the circle jerk, chroot was invented by Bill Joy, 4 weeks after founding Sun.
The distributions and hardware vendors themselves.
It isn't 1995 anymore. There's no way a single vendor like Sun can put more resources into testing than the Linux distributions + all the major hardware vendors (IBM, HP, Dell, etc.).
Rather you should ask yourself, who tests each release of Solaris against all the different hardware out there?
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
pkgadd(1M) has been around for AGES.
You can script pretty much whatever you want at installation time. Do you need a user account? A short script will do that for you in all machines. No, the user should not be able to chose his account at installation time, in serious companies the user is given an account so you as administrator can script that perfectly fine.
Anybody that mentions a GUI at installation time to create users shows that has worked only in small enterprises. The GUI is the graveyard of the efficiency where efficiency is required.
I have not checked recently what is the state of jump start (the installation protocols for Solaris), but last time I checked you could use http to install Solaris remotely. WHich other "modern" protocol am I missing?
Now, the user will never ever have root account in a machine administered by a competent Solaris SA. Period. IF the user needs something they don't go and open a GUI, they go and ask the Solaris SA and he fixes the machine for them (if pertinent) because Solaris SA do know what they are doing, unlike Linux types, some of whom have never dropped to the command line to type an rpm or youm command when the GUI goes ga-ga.
And in regards to the ability to install additional software after initial installation, whoever is writing has no idea what he is talking about or is making a point in a completely different context. With Jumpstart you can script whatever you want after Solaris proper has been installed. I don't understand the inability of some people that pretend to be professional but that can't script their way out of the most basic problems.
An "expert" in Solaris decrying the lack of GUI and forgetting about the flexibility of scripting is to be seriously doubted frankly, that means that such a person is contrained by the limitiations of the GUIs he craves for, which is not what you need in big deployments.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If you have hundreds of Sun machines failing, the question is: who did the testing before buying the stuff?
Any company investing so much money in new systems (and here, systems should mean the hardware, software, personnel and processes that are going to be followed to work with information) must make sure that the systems are fit for purpose. If so many systems are failing with a given configuration this should have been caught in a pilot deployment. If your SA did not do this or did it but the test were not thorough enough, then yes, he may be at fault for not making sure what you were buying was actually fit for purpose from the start.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.