Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Death of Sun?
bandwidth_pig
02-15-2003, 01:21 PM
There is a interesting article on Slashdot today about the looming gloom for Sun Microsystems. They lost two billion last year and are projected to lose an additional two billion this year. There is also mention that Apple is effectively becoming a Unix company. There is the usual "Linux is killing Sun" spin as well.
So...what do my fellow justlinuxers think? Is this what will be known as the death of proprietary Unix?
El_Cu_Guy
02-15-2003, 05:08 PM
Let me get this straight. You believe that:
1. A loss of revenue means that sun is dying? 2 billions isn't considered a HUGE amount of money these days. Sure it means rough times for even large corporations but not death.
2. Sun going belly-up would kill proprietary Unix. Give me a break. IBM and HP have done fairly well with AIX and HP-UX.
Tough ecnomic times are one factor that many articles don't take [fully] into account. Many businesses have had to hold off on buying even the things they need.
Sure the article could spell some tough times for Sun but not death. I think you're reading too much into this.
I do read much of Robert X. Cringely's stuff. Sometimes it's informative, other times it's a little misinformed, and sometimes it's complete stupidity.
One such article is where he wrote how Windows XP still uses an underlying DOS. While I could see how he might think this but he was wrong and so the rest of that article fell apart.
hlrguy
02-15-2003, 05:33 PM
I work in the telecom bussines, and as mentioned the biggest reason is the economic slowdown. Telco's have reigned in their spending to a husge degree. With that said, proprietary UNIX and Sun in particular has a long future ahead of it. As good as Linux is, telcos are not going to buy anything that isn't on a NEBS complaint architechture, of which Sun has on of the best. The products I work on are all Sun and demand uptimes of 99.999%. We have one system that has NEVER been rebooted, has never been stopped or even had any maintenance (upgrade live 3 times) in 3 years at over 70% continual capacity spread over 8 parrallel 800 Mhz CPUs.
I love Linux, but it isn't ready for mission critical REAL TIME. i.e, your phone MUST work ALL the TIME, unconditionally, with at least dual hot standby redundancy. You could pull the processor HOT that was in the middle of processing your call and your call would still complete. Sun is pricy, but $4M in hardware is essentially nothing for a platform that serves 8 Million people @~$100/month. :)
Originally posted by hlrguy
I work in the telecom bussines, and as mentioned the biggest reason is the economic slowdown. Telco's have reigned in their spending to a husge degree. With that said, proprietary UNIX and Sun in particular has a long future ahead of it. As good as Linux is, telcos are not going to buy anything that isn't on a NEBS complaint architechture, of which Sun has on of the best. The products I work on are all Sun and demand uptimes of 99.999%. We have one system that has NEVER been rebooted, has never been stopped or even had any maintenance (upgrade live 3 times) in 3 years at over 70% continual capacity spread over 8 parrallel 800 Mhz CPUs.
I love Linux, but it isn't ready for mission critical REAL TIME. i.e, your phone MUST work ALL the TIME, unconditionally, with at least dual hot standby redundancy. You could pull the processor HOT that was in the middle of processing your call and your call would still complete. Sun is pricy, but $4M in hardware is essentially nothing for a platform that serves 8 Million people @~$100/month. :)
I agree with most of what you said:D but don't you think companies will eventuality need to replace there big iron? & when they do who knows there may be a Linux distro that will meet the needs of the telco & other industries. I remember reading an article I think on cnet/zdnet that said wall street is replacing UNIX with Linux. I also think at some point in the very near future there will be a Linux distro/kernel that has all of the scalability & functionality that big iron boxes/kernerls from sun HP or IBM do at this point in time. With the processing power of CPU's of today & tomorrow along with clusters. I think big irons days may be numbered. This is not to say that Suns are though even they are getting into the Linux game along with HP & IBM. the beauty of both Linux & Unix is that they can coexist so will together:D & hardware keeps getting better & less expensive with each passing year. So no SUN is not going to disappear anytime soon
Thats just my .02
bandwidth_pig
02-15-2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by hlrguy
I work in the telecom bussines, and as mentioned the biggest reason is the economic slowdown. Telco's have reigned in their spending to a husge degree. With that said, proprietary UNIX and Sun in particular has a long future ahead of it. As good as Linux is, telcos are not going to buy anything that isn't on a NEBS complaint architechture, of which Sun has on of the best. The products I work on are all Sun and demand uptimes of 99.999%. We have one system that has NEVER been rebooted, has never been stopped or even had any maintenance (upgrade live 3 times) in 3 years at over 70% continual capacity spread over 8 parrallel 800 Mhz CPUs.
I love Linux, but it isn't ready for mission critical REAL TIME. i.e, your phone MUST work ALL the TIME, unconditionally, with at least dual hot standby redundancy. You could pull the processor HOT that was in the middle of processing your call and your call would still complete. Sun is pricy, but $4M in hardware is essentially nothing for a platform that serves 8 Million people @~$100/month. :)
I work in the telecom biz too! Small world. You never know...it may even be the same company :D
And with that said, I know all about NEBS. I can tell you that at the company I work at, we use Linux today for our webservers, which is loaded on Sun boxes (Cobalts). And in the past I have watched HP-UX and Solaris reign. So I was suprised to see Linux at all. But I hope your right. But I wouldn't be suprised to see some big changes. The economic coniditions make Linux all the more appealing.
bandwidth_pig
02-15-2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
Let me get this straight. You believe that:
1. A loss of revenue means that sun is dying? 2 billions isn't considered a HUGE amount of money these days. Sure it means rough times for even large corporations but not death.
2. Sun going belly-up would kill proprietary Unix. Give me a break. IBM and HP have done fairly well with AIX and HP-UX.
Tough ecnomic times are one factor that many articles don't take [fully] into account. Many businesses have had to hold off on buying even the things they need.
Sure the article could spell some tough times for Sun but not death. I think you're reading too much into this.
I do read much of Robert X. Cringely's stuff. Sometimes it's informative, other times it's a little misinformed, and sometimes it's complete stupidity.
One such article is where he wrote how Windows XP still uses an underlying DOS. While I could see how he might think this but he was wrong and so the rest of that article fell apart.
I'm not sure what I believe. I haven't formed a solid opinion yet which is why I posted the thread. I was curious as to what others thought. But with that said:
On number two this is interesting. IBM is a huge Linux player and has got a increasing amount of their focus. HP also has released their own flavor of Linux. If both companies feel so strongly about their proprietary offerings, why explore Linux?
Not saying I am sitting on either side of the fence. But I think these companies do see something in Linux and one would think that Linux is not real good for their proprietary offering. But then if you look at it again, both companies are hardware companies at heart. I really don't think they care what OS you run as long as you use their hardware to do it.
hlrguy
02-15-2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by bosox79
hlrguy,
I agree with most of what you said:D but don't you think companies will eventuality need to replace there big iron?
You are correct, however, they are by nature very conservative. They want tried/proven and true before cutting edge. That said, I think it will, in the new few years start to take over some tasks. Things like nameservers, short message delivery, etc. It will start in the edges where non cricital (i.e. the phone rings, if you dont' see the name for this call, not a huge deal). I can honestly say that the biggest selling point we have is that we run on Solaris. Telco's don't like proprietary (i.e. locked into a single vendor) at all.
As good as clusters and raid arrays are, there is little out there in the way of hot standby. Sun creates the hardware that offers double/triple/n hot redundancy, and sun has a huge repuation for quaility hardware.
bandwidth_pig - we are moving to the sunfire line
http://www.sun.com/servers/midrange/
We have 2 6800s in our lab and they are absolutely amazing.
One thought on HP-UX. The last I worked with it, which was 7 years ago, it wasn't capable of continual uptime. It had to be rebooted periodically and that makes it a non starter for the apps like Sun can support. maybe this changed since then, but don't run into too much HP-UX at all in telecom.
hlrguy
El_Cu_Guy
02-15-2003, 09:45 PM
I remember reading an article I think on cnet/zdnet that said wall street is replacing UNIX with Linux. I also think at some point in the very near future there will be a Linux distro/kernel that has all of the scalability & functionality that big iron boxes/kernerls from sun HP or IBM do at this point in time. With the processing power of CPU's of today & tomorrow along with clusters. I think big irons days may be numbered.
See next response
IBM is a huge Linux player and has got a increasing amount of their focus.
Publicly, yes. If you read any article regarding open source and IBM you will always see IBM pushing GNU/Linux. Right now especially. IBM is planning on significantly revamping and improving AIX. The budget for this project is more than twice that of the total spent on GNU/Linux (IBM Linux Labs) to date.
HP also has released their own flavor of Linux.
Funny I couldn't find anything about this at their website. All I found was software and services for GNU/Linux.
But then if you look at it again, both companies are hardware companies at heart. I really don't think they care what OS you run as long as you use their hardware to do it.
Oh give me a break. They depend on everything that surrounds Unix. That means hardware and software. Saying they don't care is just stupid. They have invested a lot of time and money. IBM, Sun Microsystems and HP/Compaq are NOT just hardware compaies. Read your history and you'll get the idea. These companies don't see GNU/Linux replacing Unix anytime soon. They see it as being a significant addition.
bosox79
02-16-2003, 02:12 AM
You are correct, however, they are by nature very conservative. They want tried/proven and true before cutting edge. That said, I think it will, in the new few years start to take over some tasks. Things like nameservers, short message delivery, etc. It will start in the edges where non cricital (i.e. the phone rings, if you dont' see the name for this call, not a huge deal). I can honestly say that the biggest selling point we have is that we run on Solaris. Telco's don't like proprietary (i.e. locked into a single vendor) at all.
As good as clusters and raid arrays are, there is little out there in the way of hot standby. Sun creates the hardware that offers double/triple/n hot redundancy, and sun has a huge repuation for quaility hardware.
hlrguy,
I agree with your above statement, but just one question didn't windows start in the edges running on name & other non critical systems? I guess my point is every OS has to start somewhere. & I figure Linux has a leg up on other OS
;) because it is based on UNIX
xulfralos
02-16-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by bosox79
I figure Linux has a leg up on other OS
;) because it is based on UNIX Linux is NOT based on UNIX, but based on MINIX, which is a UNIX CLONE.
Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.
GNU == Gnu's Not UNIX
Just thought I'd clear that up right now.
joesbox
02-16-2003, 09:44 AM
here is the article that i found about the government getting into linux
Originally posted by hlrguy
You are correct, however, they are by nature very conservative. They want tried/proven and true before cutting edge. That said, I think it will, in the new few years start to take over some tasks. Things like nameservers, short message delivery, etc. It will start in the edges where non cricital (i.e. the phone rings, if you dont' see the name for this call, not a huge deal). I can honestly say that the biggest selling point we have is that we run on Solaris. Telco's don't like proprietary (i.e. locked into a single vendor) at all.
As good as clusters and raid arrays are, there is little out there in the way of hot standby. Sun creates the hardware that offers double/triple/n hot redundancy, and sun has a huge repuation for quaility hardware.
bandwidth_pig - we are moving to the sunfire line
http://www.sun.com/servers/midrange/
We have 2 6800s in our lab and they are absolutely amazing.
One thought on HP-UX. The last I worked with it, which was 7 years ago, it wasn't capable of continual uptime. It had to be rebooted periodically and that makes it a non starter for the apps like Sun can support. maybe this changed since then, but don't run into too much HP-UX at all in telecom.
hlrguy
Not trying to be a jerk or anything. So I want to make that clear but your dead wrong. HP-UX is VERY common in telecom not only in the server environment, but on the actual Telco equipment itself. There are TONS of Nortel OC-48s that run HP-UX as the OS on the OPC. TONS. It's one of the most common types of equipment you'll find. Every CO has one.
bandwidth_pig
02-16-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
See next response
Publicly, yes. If you read any article regarding open source and IBM you will always see IBM pushing GNU/Linux. Right now especially. IBM is planning on significantly revamping and improving AIX. The budget for this project is more than twice that of the total spent on GNU/Linux (IBM Linux Labs) to date.
Funny I couldn't find anything about this at their website. All I found was software and services for GNU/Linux.
Oh give me a break. They depend on everything that surrounds Unix. That means hardware and software. Saying they don't care is just stupid. They have invested a lot of time and money. IBM, Sun Microsystems and HP/Compaq are NOT just hardware compaies. Read your history and you'll get the idea. These companies don't see GNU/Linux replacing Unix anytime soon. They see it as being a significant addition.
HP has the OS on their site. I would post a link, but frankly I came up on it on accident looking for some info on HP-UX. As for the rest of your post, your entitled to your view. Can't say I agree, but never the less.
hlrguy
02-16-2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by bosox79
hlrguy,
I agree with your above statement, but just one question didn't windows start in the edges running on name & other non critical systems? I guess my point is every OS has to start somewhere. & I figure Linux has a leg up on other OS
;) because it is based on UNIX
Honestly, the ONLY place I ever see Windows in on people desktops and at the sales end (like best buy for addign wireless accounts). I have never seen a windows server running in a telephone network (wireless or landline).
bandwidth_pig - My experience is with DMS-100/200/300 w.r.t Nortel and this is their own proprietary hardware and OS. I still don't see a lot of HP-UX but I am not in the transmission side which is what you mention. I wasn't slamming it at all, just that the last I knew it required periodic reboots. I could be wrong about that since it was 6-7 years ago.
El_Cu_Guy
02-16-2003, 07:00 PM
Linux is NOT based on UNIX, but based on MINIX, which is a UNIX CLONE.
Linux is NOT based on Minix. Originally Linus Torvalds set out to create an entire OS similar to Minix. Unix based implies it uses official UNIX system source code. UNIX is a system, as is GNU. Minix based also implies it uses source code from Minix. Linus sought to create an [entire] OS similar to Minix.
Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.
Linux = kernel
GNU = system
kernel + system = operating system
JOES_BOX--
The DoD for example is very interested in GNU/Linux as well as other OSS. Hell, The DoD has open source projects of it's own. The only thing new is Microsoft thinking this push for more OSS is something completely new.
bandwidth_pig
02-16-2003, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by hlrguy
Honestly, the ONLY place I ever see Windows in on people desktops and at the sales end (like best buy for addign wireless accounts). I have never seen a windows server running in a telephone network (wireless or landline).
bandwidth_pig - My experience is with DMS-100/200/300 w.r.t Nortel and this is their own proprietary hardware and OS. I still don't see a lot of HP-UX but I am not in the transmission side which is what you mention. I wasn't slamming it at all, just that the last I knew it required periodic reboots. I could be wrong about that since it was 6-7 years ago.
I didn't think you were slamming buddy. Telecom is so big you just never know. Ahhh the old DMS. Good switch. It will be interesting to see what VOIP does won't it? With the recession we are seeing in our sector, I am seeing all kinds of things happen that I thought never would.
joesbox
02-16-2003, 11:11 PM
the reason that i seem excited about the DoD getting linux involved with daily operations is because i work with the server stuff in a way. and they are only allowed to used WIN2K Server right now. i am waiting for the day that i can get my meathooks on a linux and show these people what a real server is like.
xulfralos
02-18-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
Linux is NOT based on Minix. Originally Linus Torvalds set out to create an entire OS similar to Minix. Unix based implies it uses official UNIX system source code. UNIX is a system, as is GNU. Minix based also implies it uses source code from Minix. Linus sought to create an [entire] OS similar to Minix.Torvalds had the source code for Minix and used it as the basis for Linux. So even though technically it doesn't contain Minix code, he did use Minix as a template for creating Linux; therefore, it's based on Minix in my book. Just because an operating system doesn't contain another's source code doesn't mean it can't be based on it.
Brief Linux History Lesson:
"A solution seemed to appear in form of MINIX. It was written from scratch by Andrew S. Tanenbaum, a Dutch professor who wanted to teach his students the inner workings of a real operating system. It was designed to run on the Intel 8086 microprocessors that had flooded the world market.
As an operating system, MINIX was not a superb one. But it had the advantage that the source code was available. Anyone who happened to get the book 'Operating System' by Tanenbaum could get hold of the 12,000 lines of code, written in C and assembly language. For the first time, an aspiring programmer or hacker could read the source codes of the operating system, which to that time the software vendors had guarded vigorously. A superb author, Tanenbaum captivated the brightest minds of computer science with the elaborate and immaculately lively discussion of the art of creating a working operating system. Students of Computer Science all over the world poured over the book, reading through the codes to understand the very system that runs their computer.
And one of them was Linus Torvalds."
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
Hello everybody out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
among other things).
I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.
This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and
I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions
are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)
Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)
PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.
Here's another of his famous posts:
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Free minix-like kernel sources for 386-AT
Keywords: 386, preliminary version
Message-ID: <1991Oct5.054106.4647@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 5 Oct 91 05:41:06 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 55
Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and wrote
their own device drivers? Are you without a nice project and just dying
to cut your teeth on a OS you can try to modify for your needs? Are you
finding it frustrating when everything works on minix? No more all-
nighters to get a nifty program working? Then this post might be just
for you :-)
As I mentioned a month(?) ago, I'm working on a free version of a
minix-lookalike for AT-386 computers. It has finally reached the stage
where it's even usable (though may not be depending on what you want),
and I am willing to put out the sources for wider distribution. It is
just version 0.02 (+1 (very small) patch already), but I've successfully
run bash/gcc/gnu-make/gnu-sed/compress etc under it.
Sources for this pet project of mine can be found at nic.funet.fi
(128.214.6.100) in the directory /pub/OS/Linux. The directory also
contains some README-file and a couple of binaries to work under linux
(bash, update and gcc, what more can you ask for :-). Full kernel
source is provided, as no minix code has been used. Library sources are
only partially free, so that cannot be distributed currently. The
system is able to compile "as-is" and has been known to work. Heh.
Sources to the binaries (bash and gcc) can be found at the same place in
/pub/gnu.
ALERT! WARNING! NOTE! These sources still need minix-386 to be compiled
(and gcc-1.40, possibly 1.37.1, haven't tested), and you need minix to
set it up if you want to run it, so it is not yet a standalone system
for those of you without minix. I'm working on it. You also need to be
something of a hacker to set it up (?), so for those hoping for an
alternative to minix-386, please ignore me. It is currently meant for
hackers interested in operating systems and 386's with access to minix.
The system needs an AT-compatible harddisk (IDE is fine) and EGA/VGA. If
you are still interested, please ftp the README/RELNOTES, and/or mail me
for additional info.
I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be
out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got
minix. This is a program for hackers by a hacker. I've enjouyed doing
it, and somebody might enjoy looking at it and even modifying it for
their own needs. It is still small enough to understand, use and
modify, and I'm looking forward to any comments you might have.
I'm also interested in hearing from anybody who has written any of the
utilities/library functions for minix. If your efforts are freely
distributable (under copyright or even public domain), I'd like to hear
from you, so I can add them to the system. I'm using Earl Chews estdio
right now (thanks for a nice and working system Earl), and similar works
will be very wellcome. Your (C)'s will of course be left intact. Drop me
a line if you are willing to let me use your code.
Linus
So, from reading the above, once can deduce that if there were no Minix, there would be no Linux. Therefore, Linux is based on Minix. Torvalds took Minix source code from Tanenbaum's 'Operating System' book, created his own source code from it and called it Linux. He even stated that at first you had to have Minix in order to get it to run.
Yes, I know GNU/Linux is an operating system. That's why I said Linux (without GNU) is a kernel and not an operating system.
bsm2001
02-18-2003, 11:07 PM
HP linux (http://www.testdrive.compaq.com/os/linux/) Here is the HP linux Site
Looks like they only certify distros for use on a hp or compaq product didn't see an official hp linux product.
sol-dude
03-30-2003, 02:08 AM
I thought HP discontinued their distro a long time ago. They do sell linux though with some of their servers.
Regarding Sun, I have been working for Sun Micro for the last 7 years. Sun is going through a rough time and has fired over 10,000 people (actually they call it a "rif" (reduction in force) the last two years.
By the way, two billion dollars is a lot of money, even for Sun. They have been cutting expenses significantly the last two years and closed several offices (in particular, the education division).
Scott McNealy was giving a pep-talk 6 months ago in my office and trust me, he did not take the loss in revenue lightly.
Still, Sun's software kicks ***. I don't mean solaris x86 (simply ****), but I am talking about Sun Cluster 3.1 (to be released next month) and other high end solutions like that.
Regarding cutting edge, I really don't know if I would put linux in the same arena as Sun. Sun has developed some of the most commonly used protocos out there (ex: nfs), naming services (ex: nis and nis+) whereas in my opinion, at this point, linux is still catching up. I love linux but every time I get a distro, I find lots of bugs still. But trust me, I have seen an amazing improvement in Linux in the last 5 years.
pythagras
03-30-2003, 09:41 PM
So, from reading the above, once can deduce that if there were no Minix, there would be no Linux. Therefore, Linux is based on Minix. Torvalds took Minix source code from Tanenbaum's 'Operating System' book, created his own source code from it and called it Linux. He even stated that at first you had to have Minix in order to get it to run.
Yes, I know GNU/Linux is an operating system. That's why I said Linux (without GNU) is a kernel and not an operating system.
Maybe you simply needed Minix to compile Linux?
bandwidth_pig
04-02-2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by sol-dude
I thought HP discontinued their distro a long time ago. They do sell linux though with some of their servers.
Regarding Sun, I have been working for Sun Micro for the last 7 years. Sun is going through a rough time and has fired over 10,000 people (actually they call it a "rif" (reduction in force) the last two years.
By the way, two billion dollars is a lot of money, even for Sun. They have been cutting expenses significantly the last two years and closed several offices (in particular, the education division).
Scott McNealy was giving a pep-talk 6 months ago in my office and trust me, he did not take the loss in revenue lightly.
Still, Sun's software kicks ***. I don't mean solaris x86 (simply ****), but I am talking about Sun Cluster 3.1 (to be released next month) and other high end solutions like that.
Regarding cutting edge, I really don't know if I would put linux in the same arena as Sun. Sun has developed some of the most commonly used protocos out there (ex: nfs), naming services (ex: nis and nis+) whereas in my opinion, at this point, linux is still catching up. I love linux but every time I get a distro, I find lots of bugs still. But trust me, I have seen an amazing improvement in Linux in the last 5 years.
Very interesting post. I recall back in the good days when Sun was featured in several evening news pieces as being an amazing place to work. I hope that has not changed. In regards to the future of Sun, do you think the company will change it's strategy and move to more affordable solutions so that they may capture what little capital budgets there are out there from enterprise customers? Do you think that the demand isn't there as it was previously or that perhaps people are holding out and finding ways to spend less, but attempt to accomplish as much?
I have watched many companies in the past 5 years place the majority of their eggs in the high end basket, only to have that basket break and wind up going bankrupt...never seen or heard from again. I think this happening to Sun would be a VERY bad thing for the technology industry as a whole. I hope your company will not make the same mistake.
Phil Hyde
04-04-2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by hlrguy
...I can honestly say that the biggest selling point we have is that we run on Solaris. Telco's don't like proprietary (i.e. locked into a single vendor) at all.
hlrguy - since your shop is obviously big on Solaris, how does that not make you locked into a single (and proprietary) vendor?
Phil
sol-dude
04-23-2003, 03:19 PM
Going back to the question about working for Sun, it is still a good place. I paid $10.00 (ten dollars only) for my child's birth. That should give you an idea how good the health benefits are.
Second, one of the problems that I saw in the education department was that a few years ago, people would come to classes without any knowledge, business plans but lots of money (read dot.comses) They would blow money left and right but have nothing useful to provide or sell. That's why they went out of business; they could not secure any more fundings.
Sun is still a great company, it will not go under or anything like that. They software is awesome and some of the big servers kick butt. In my office we have an e15k, an e10k, 4500s, 3500s, 450s, etc.
bandwidth_pig
04-24-2003, 12:14 AM
You have my envy. Regardless of what Sun does or does not do, one can't help feel a deep respect for the company.
justlinux.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.