What Sun got wrong (bcantrill.dtrace.org)

At this point I have the feeling dell just charges you what they think they can get out of you. You push back and the price drops, I don't want to negotiate.

IBM is not much better than what I hear, but somehow they keep surviving. Probably because of their mainframe business.

I had a colleague where almost his whole job consisted of beating them in sheer sliminess, and at this he was good. I don't think we ever paid 30% of the prices they'd start at, but the process of achieving this was disgusting, and there was still the sense everyone was being screwed.

So when we could move to Dell we did.

SUNW would probably still be around if the whole x86 commodity pizza box revolution hadn't happened OR if they had pivoted away from SPARC earlier and went heavily into x86. Example: buying from IBM doesn't sound too different from buying from Sun, but they're still around because mainframes will be around until the Earth implodes (probably).

(I think that their channel/partner programs along with their professional services org are big reasons why Dell is still a key player in the datacenter space. You can buy Dell direct, and the sales process is still "good" as far as enterprise sales goes, but bigger players usually get their Dell kit through distributors/vendors with Dell professional services handling architecture, build-out, enablement, etc. I'm not sure how much energy SUNW invested in this, as they were before my time, but this combo is a major revenue driver for them.)

Even now I think enterprise companies should be more open about what's possible and what the price and delivery date would be without having to talk/chat/email anybody. Even for something like a Juniper $100k+ device it would be kind of cool to configure it.

In a time frame like 1999 to 2002, much more broadly than that, just the increasing gap in cost vs what you would get between buying any hardware+OS package from a legacy Unix-like vendor (Sun, DEC, SGI) and doing your own thing on a FreeBSD, OpenBSD or Linux on x86 hardware.

Dell was obviously a top choice, but by 2000 or so, Linux or FreeBSD had become good enough that you could do exactly the same thing for a fraction of the cost and run it on x86 hardware you had purchased from either Dell or one of the top 5 or 6 Dell-competitors.

As compared to, as you say, sitting through sales meetings, price quotes, revisions, a long slow and arduous process to arrive at a figure where you come to a conclusion "yeah you can spend $60,000 on these Sun servers or we can buy $20,000 of x86 servers and get creative with our own software stack to do the same thing in house".

At a certain point 1U and 2U server hardware got fast enough on boring standard x86 single or dual socket motherboards from Taiwan, in the era of like the 1.2 GHz Pentium 3 with 512KB cache, that the performance was pretty damn good and the machine cost a fraction of what the equivalent Sun or SGI rackmount machine would cost. This is in the era before a multi core x86 CPU existed. And you could be sure that its BIOS and motherboard were already OK for use with a current Linux kernel, we're talking about motherboards from Supermicro, Tyan, intel whitebox reference server boards, etc.

> More than once though, the Sun people did suggest I just buy the servers off the web site.

Dell was just the only one to callback.

I don't doubt your experience but that was at the height of Sun's business, not it's nadir as this article is about.

[0] - https://fullhoffman.com/2006/03/20/the-sun-doesnt-shine-on-m...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcon

UltraSPARC came out in 1995, and Athlon 64 in 2003. I'm confused on how it could be late?

> - The MySQL purchase. WTF, this was horrible and stupid. The only interesting effect of this was to make Sun a target of acquisition for Oracle. [..]

I disagree with this assessment strongly. I believe Oracle wanted Java and only Java. All other Sun properties were collateral damage of the acquisition. It might be weird that Oracle now owns MySQL, but Oracle never cared about it. (Of course, both your and my assessment are mere opinions.)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40950311

I avoided studying CS for this reason: I saw my girlfriend's Java textbooks and thought if I had to appreciate this, I wasn't cut out to be a programmer, and stuck to network engineering. Years later, after 'Gang of Four' style OOP started dying, I have some code in a new things people use here everyday.

I imagine this to be the awful GUI that you speak of.

I say look and feel is superficial, however, when you have to learn a variant of UNIX with slightly different command line switches to the UNIX you know, with an interface worse than even Windows (3.11), for it to run dog slow, a lot of copium is needed. A poor interface gets in the way of what you are trying to do, a cool interface just lets you get on with it.

However, 30 years ago, developing a standard SunOS app with devGuide was the most enjoyable and productive programming I've ever experienced. Simply layout your GUI, link actions to methods, generate code, fill in the abstracted methods, compile and run. I didn't have to learn X or any other bloated low level graphics library.

AFAIK, nothing has been easier, especially XCode.

From Brian Cantrill's original HN comment in 2011(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2287033): "I never hesitated to tell anyone that was listening that our x86 boxes were starting to smoke the hell out of UltraSPARC". SPARC stopped being ahead of its time way before being bought by Oracle.

In terms of performance, even Linux 0.x on a 33Mhz 486-class processor could outperform a uniprocessor Sun/SPARC box at a fraction of the price.

I also question the sanity of anyone who thinks Sun's choice of 13W3 for a video connector was a good one. :-)

Also sometime in 2000 I had interviewed at Compaq - the old Alpha group who I think later worked on Itanium at Intel. They were constantly frustrated because they couldn't even get a build from Synopsys of the design tools they needed to run on Alpha and were forced to use Sun hardware they described as "gasping and wheezing" to design their crazy fast cpu.

Sun lost on a bunch of fronts, but I think the amazing thing is they let happen to them what they did to the other big UNIX vendors before - they were eaten from the bottom by faster cheaper hardware.

At least in the later stages of life Sun sales folks were literally selling the company into bankruptcy. They'd find out what competitors were offering, undercut it to the degree they'd make a loss, just to get the contract and their sweet commission.

To not realise you've got this going on really speaks to how little they were interested in the actual running of the business.

That's the whole gist.

I feel like they need to run a public cloud just to let people tinker with lightweight stuff and scale up to owning the thing.

That said, I’m also a moron about certain things, and this might be a moronic take.

There was a time when ZFS would have been a good answer for this. Of course, now it's available on FreeBSD and Linux.

At one point also there was zones, but again, containerization is pretty standard elsewhere now.

I guess also if you go further back, like the Linux 2.6 era, which is close to when Solaris was open sourced ... the 2.6 release involved a concerted effort to improve SMP support. So maybe you'd be interested more in commercial Unix in the 2.4 era, for better SMP. But again, Linux surpassed this ~20 years ago.

Zones were lightweight, more akin to the Linux vserver project or lxc. You could make a zone on its own zfs filesystem, clone the zone (which creates a zfs clone), launch the clone, run a throw-away task, tear the zone down which also discards the zfs snapshot+clone. It was quick and cheap but also half a decade before Docker was released or popularized.

zfs integrated into other parts of the system just as well. eg: iSCSI volumes backed by a zpool and export properties configured in zfs. All of these technologies were built with the idea of being "self-healing." Meanwhile, Linux has a disparate iSCSI daemon, lvm+ext4/reiserfs, initd, and probably 20 different tools to learn if you want to grab metrics across the stack like dtrace on Solaris was capable of.

The out of band management was amazing too. Yes, some x86 hardware had ilom but like everything else in the space, it's bolted on and not truly integrated.

Sun made really nice stuff that outpaced Linux in a lot of ways. The ecosystem came from a time of competing BSDs and looked for paying customers for the engineering marvel they had created. They were used to customers figuring out how to use Unix, and the Linux crowd at the time still fit that rubric. The OS was not optimized for low-latency terminal interaction and thus "felt slow" (aka: Slowaris) but a well tuned DB on Sparc really cooked.

Finally, I went to a few Sun events and had Sun reps come and look at what we were doing. They were definitely happy to help with any kind of outreach/onboarding we needed. The issue was none of "onboarding" but was a lot of "Linux is a movement." In early times, Linux was an anti-corporate movement and some of that energy carried through to the 2010s. It's sadly ironic because Sun itself has roots in open standards and an anti-establishment mentality.

Even back then, the CTO of our startup said Sun had missed the boat on dominating x86 Unix. They could have had a larger role in x86 Unix world if they had wanted to. It was definitely a misstep for Sun.

Having said that, throughout the 1990s Sun was amazing. They were even good right up to the Oracle purchase, although by that time RHEL on HP (or Dell) servers was eating their lunch.

So this isn't about the people at all (they will express the same frustration!) but about leadership that wasn't interested in running a business. I do want to stop short of overly personalizing it, but the simple truth is: Scott visited customers where they lived -- and Jonathan more or less didn't.

[0] https://fullhoffman.com/2006/03/20/the-sun-doesnt-shine-on-m...

This is what Dell got right - for their sales team, this was an easy process - the product line was simple and easy to customise. Their sales reps wouldn't spend much time creating the proposals and could spend the remaining time building relationships with a lot more customers, some of which wouldn't fail.

> curious why sales didn't pick up the phone. Were they "bored?"

Unless you create incentives for bringing new customers, they'll leave the new names for last.

Edit: Writing PostScript and having no discernible security probably didn't make NeWS a great fit for the world of the Internet - but it was a lot of fun.

But Linux took over the world and it had a crappy UI. I was there, back when Xorg didn't even exist, running X and messing with modelines on Linux. All the window manager sucked big times.

Sun, just like SGI, got attacked by cheap beige PCs running either Windows or Linux.

I don't think their UI had much to do with their downfall and, arguably, SGI's UIs were better than the competition and they still disappeared too.

Also weren't most machines sold by Sun servers anyway? Their famous "We the dot in .com" tagline.

I have a bunch of Aruba switches and this is what we do, because it's a lot cheaper.

It was a cool idea. It will keep coming back again and again. But at Sun's price points around the early 2000s, it was a loser, and I actually agree with the market in this instance. Sun Ray was a flop.

Which is why it is kind of ironic having folks discussing microservices as something groundbreaking.