Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd May 2008 20:44 UTC, submitted by Moochman
Oracle and SUN Engadget got the chance to sit down with Jonathan Schwartz, the pony-tailed CEO of Sun Microsystems. Being the gadget blog that they are, Engadget asked Schwartz about the long-missing JavaFX Mobile platform Sun has promised, Java on the iPhone, and competing with Microsoft as an open source vendor.
Order by: Score:
Shame ...
by PLan on Sat 3rd May 2008 23:15 UTC
PLan
Member since:
2006-01-10

... they couldn't ask him about the $34 million loss and the 2500 jobs to be axed.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Shame ...
by ciplogic on Sun 4th May 2008 01:03 UTC in reply to "Shame ..."
ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

The US market from one side, the Linux and Google from other side makes Sun to lose a lot of it's strength. The Core2 CPU from Intel makes Sparc CPU not so attractive, and AMD based solutions are lower on performance that equivalent Xeon CPUs. So most software goes on outsourcing and opensourcing as Sun and Novel does.
Swartz anyway has a lot of achievements from Sun like promoting Java, make it opensource, promoting Netbeans and make Eclipse project to attach to Netbeans foundation. Mostly, looking over the windows, you can see the sun, in freedom.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Shame ...
by andrewg on Sun 4th May 2008 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Shame ..."
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

AMD still beats Intel in the PPC market segment. But thats going to disapear soon when Intel releases chips with Quickpath.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080430-ps3s-cell-cpu-tops-hi...

Sun has an excellent offering in a number of areas. For webservers, databases and file servers the T1000, and T2000 are ahead of anything else especially in terms of performance per Watt but in general any application where you need a lot of threads. With AMD they have a competitive HPC offering.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Shame ...
by segedunum on Sun 4th May 2008 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shame ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

For webservers, databases and file servers the T1000, and T2000 are ahead of anything else especially in terms of performance per Watt

Such metrics are pretty meaningless overall. All CPU makers now, including AMD and Intel, are talking about putting more cores on a chip and doing more in terms of parallel applications and threading (corner cases for performance improvements really) when people really want to do a task twice the size in half the time and get more through - and the x86-64 processors will still always cream SPARC there. In the seven years since I seriously looked at Linux/x86 and Solaris/SPARC head-to-head, 4370 pystones/sec on an UltraSPARC versus 17,543 pystones/sec on a 1.4GHz Athlon was a pretty big no brainer, and that's why lots of academic institutions in particular jumped off. I don't see that the situation has improved.

Backing yourself into the 'performance per watt' bracket is a very tight and expensive niche:

http://www.imorphous.com/2006/08/17/evaluating-suns-sun-fire-t1000-...
http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2006/08/15/sun-fire-coolthreads-t1000-...
http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2006/08/15/sun-fire-coolthreads-t1000-...

Punchline:

http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2006/08/15/sun-fire-coolthreads-t1000-...

It's not even close. Some of the comments are the funniest thing about it.

Even worse, all of the benchmarks that Sun throws around for these things themselves require some fairly specific configuring of certain software on Solaris, and recompiling in Forte or Sun Compiler Studio (whatever it's called now) as Sun reps have been telling you for years whenever a gcc query has popped up. Quite frankly, a lot of people decided that it all wasn't worth the hassle years ago.

I don't know why Sun continues to sell SPARC in this market segment, and they've been getting burnt for some time now. It gets eaten by any x86-64 machine in terms of performance, which Sun sell anyway, it doesn't rake in any real energy savings versus the competition and it's significantly more expensive.

Edited 2008-05-04 15:17 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Shame ...
by StaubSaugerNZ on Sun 4th May 2008 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shame ..."
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13


Even worse, all of the benchmarks that Sun throws around for these things themselves require some fairly specific configuring of certain software on Solaris, and recompiling in Forte or Sun Compiler Studio (whatever it's called now) as Sun reps have been telling you for years whenever a gcc query has popped up. Quite frankly, a lot of people decided that it all wasn't worth the hassle years ago.


In my experience Sun gear beats x86 on I/O across the backplane, not on raw processing power anymore. Also Sun's C compiler was (still is?) a factor of two faster than gcc on the same hardware (e450 with four Sparc), due to the very highly optimised math libraries Sun had made. For scientific work the Sun gear was extremely performant (although still far too expensive). Sun gear was also great as it failed very rarely compared to generic x86 stuff - which means something if you need reliability and don't have the room to do a Google (deploy large numbers of x86 boxen).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Shame ...
by Arun on Mon 5th May 2008 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shame ..."
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07


Such metrics are pretty meaningless overall. All CPU makers now, including AMD and Intel, are talking about putting more cores on a chip and doing more in terms of parallel applications and threading (corner cases for performance improvements really) when people really want to do a task twice the size in half the time and get more through - and the x86-64 processors will still always cream SPARC there. In the seven years since I seriously looked at Linux/x86 and Solaris/SPARC head-to-head, 4370 pystones/sec on an UltraSPARC versus 17,543 pystones/sec on a 1.4GHz Athlon was a pretty big no brainer, and that's why lots of academic institutions in particular jumped off. I don't see that the situation has improved.


Your ignorance is astounding.

Lets just look at raw performance here, both systems in the following configuration cost almost the same:

HP ProLiant DL580 G5
Intel Xeon X7350 Processor 2933MHz
16 cores, 4 chips, 4 cores/chip
SPECweb2005 = 40046
SPECweb2005_Banking = 71104
SPECweb2005_Ecommerce = 55552
SPECweb2005_Support = 36032

http://www.spec.org/web2005/results/res2007q4/web2005-20071203-0010...

Sun SPARC Enterprise T5220
Sun UltraSPARC T2 1400Mhz
8 cores, 1 chip, 8 cores/chip (8 threads/core)
SPECweb2005 = 41847
SPECweb2005_Banking = 70000
SPECweb2005_Ecommerce = 58000
SPECweb2005_Support = 40000

http://www.spec.org/web2005/results/res2008q2/web2005-20080408-0010...

Oh look! a single 8 core 1.4 GHz SPARC system is better than a 16 core 2.9 GHz Xeon System in raw performance.

In performance per watt the Xeon box will look like a joke. Each of the Xeons in that box take 130 Ws so 4x130 is 520 Watts for the cpus alone. The UltraSPARC on the other hand consumes 95 watts normal max 123 Watts.

Why does an Intel based system need 5x the power and 4x the cpus to produce worse results than a single UltraSPARC chip?

Doesn't look like your ignorant statement " the x86-64 processors will still always cream SPARC there."

BTW Academic institutions are back. http://hpcvl.org/hardware/victoria-falls.html

"1. What is the cluster?
We are installing a new compute cluster that is based on Sun SPARC Enterprise T5140 Servers. At the start, about half of these servers are available, one login node called vflogin0 and the compute nodes named vf0001.... We will add the other nodes as testing and configuration work is completed, for a total of 78.

Each of these nodes includes two 1.2 Ghz UltraSparc T2+ chips. Each of these chips has 8 compute cores, and each core is capable of Chip Multi Threading with 8 hardware threads. This means that each of the nodes is capable of working simultaneously on up to 128 threads. Once fully installed, the cluster, called "Victoria Falls" will be able to process almost 10,000 threads."

Edited 2008-05-05 00:50 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Shame ...
by sbergman27 on Mon 5th May 2008 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Shame ..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

As a casual bystander, I can't help but notice that while you were careful to point out a metric of raw performance and performance per watt, you carefully avoided talking about performance per dollar.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Shame ...
by Arun on Mon 5th May 2008 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Shame ..."
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

As a casual bystander, I can't help but notice that while you were careful to point out a metric of raw performance and performance per watt, you carefully avoided talking about performance per dollar.

Edited the previous comment:

But here are the costs.
The Sun box costs $39K.
The HP box About $32K running RHEL and HP virtualization Citrix Xen.
VMware ESX is $13K more.

Edited 2008-05-05 01:12 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Shame ...
by sbergman27 on Mon 5th May 2008 01:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Shame ..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Contrary to the current hype, all that extra (and expensive) software you gratuitously added to an otherwise economical machine is generally unnecessary. I configured it with just the RHEL 5 and it came to $19,000.

Taking your word on the Sun box:

$39000 - $19000 = $20000

So the HP performs similarly at less than half the price of the Sun. And at full tilt, and 10 cents per kilowatt hour, it works out to a $375 per year difference in electric cost.

So you'd come out ahead with the Sun box after only a little over 53 years of continuous operation.

Edit: FYI, after my initial post, I found a pretty serious error in my figures and have reposted with the correct numbers within the allowed edit period.

Edited 2008-05-05 01:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Shame ...
by segedunum on Mon 5th May 2008 01:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Shame ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I really hope all Sun customers have your kind of faith. Really. I do.

Oh look! a single 8 core 1.4 GHz SPARC system is better than a 16 core 2.9 GHz Xeon System in raw performance.

Repeating and regurgitating Sun's own benchmarks, verbatim, counts for very little.

On raw performance? Four Xeons versus one SPARC, all at twice the clock speed (not that that counts for much as a comparison)? Errr, no. But you keep telling yourself that. One SPARC would never keep up with one Xeon in a month of Sundays, and the sorts of target workloads that Sun seems to be using would have to be so parallel and so concurrent as to be totally unrealistic. Not everything is or can be, and even in the article I linked to the UltraSPARC couldn't even outperform the Opteron on that.

I'm sure Sun can find lots of other completely arbitrary, moving target units of measure such as 'performance per watt' to make SPARC look better. Whether that is really enough, we'll have to see. Something tells me that Sun hasn't learnt from what happened after the dot com boom.

In performance per watt the Xeon box will look like a joke. Each of the Xeons in that box take 130 Ws so 4x130 is 520 Watts for the cpus alone. The UltraSPARC on the other hand consumes 95 watts normal max 123 Watts.

Right on cue. Speaking of arbitrary units of measure...... You can't just tot things up on Sun's power calculator on their web site and expect that to answer a real world question.

Why does an Intel based system need 5x the power and 4x the cpus to produce worse results than a single UltraSPARC chip?

It doesn't. It would help if you actually looked at what the results tell you, and it would also help if you actually knew what the power consumption cost of a Xeon was. You balance that versus the raw performance, and you could halve the CPUs to two and halve the performance of a Xeon to cut power right back (a more realistic test) and its raw performance would still be better.

What people are looking at is whether it is worth spending the money to get any future power savings, versus having the raw performance per cycle. Nobody cares about Sun's theoretical performance per watt. Fact is, compared to an Opteron box, the guy worked out that his UltraSPARC would have to be at least twice as power efficient to feel the effect of cost savings over a period of several years for Coolthreads to be worth it. Sorry, but that scenario doesn't add up.

Doesn't look like your ignorant statement " the x86-64 processors will still always cream SPARC there."

Hate to break it to you, but the raw performance of SPARC has lagged behind x86 for a very, very long time.

BTW Academic institutions are back. http://hpcvl.org/hardware/victoria-falls.html

I'd laugh if that wasn't so sad. Why do you think they left in the first place? I'm sure Sun gave them a nice deal and some new toys to play with ;-).

"Once fully installed, the cluster, called "Victoria Falls" will be able to process almost 10,000 threads.""

The issue here is how much of each thread can be completed per second (is it better to get more threads and work through each second, or is it better to have more of them?) versus the initial cost of the machine versus the time it takes for the power cost savings to outweigh the initial cost. That's what matters.

Coolthreads (and multiple cores in general) is simply a tough sell for people wanting to complete more of the same tasks in less time following Moore's Law, and that accounts for the majority.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Shame ...
by Arun on Mon 5th May 2008 02:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Shame ..."
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

I really hope all Sun customers have your kind of faith. Really. I do.


Stick to the point.


Repeating and regurgitating Sun's own benchmarks, verbatim, counts for very little.


Are you just daft? HP and Sun both submitted their respective results to Spec. It doesn't get any more objective than that.

On raw performance? Four Xeons versus one SPARC, all at twice the clock speed (not that that counts for much as a comparison)? Errr, no.


Your ignorance is even more telling. Cpus consume more energy at higher clock rates and dissipate more heat.

But you keep telling yourself that. One SPARC would never keep up with one Xeon in a month of Sundays, and the sorts of target workloads that Sun seems to be using would have to be so parallel and so concurrent as to be totally unrealistic. Not everything is or can be, and even in the article I linked to the UltraSPARC couldn't even outperform the Opteron on that.


Your article was ridiculously out dated. SpecWeb is an industry standard benchmark. Prove your point with some real data not FUD.

I'm sure Sun can find lots of other completely arbitrary, moving target units of measure such as 'performance per watt' to make SPARC look better. Whether that is really enough, we'll have to see. Something tells me that Sun hasn't learnt from what happened after the dot com boom.


Again, specweb is a real benchmark for web services ( the target market for the Sun box) and and single Sun chip out classes 4 of the latest Xeons.


Right on cue. Speaking of arbitrary units of measure...... You can't just tot things up on Sun's power calculator on their web site and expect that to answer a real world question.


More vile ignorance. Real world datacenters are constantly looking for ways to reduce their cooling and electricity bills. Gee I wonder why virtualization and server consolidation is big in the REAL WORLD.

I forgot that you don't live in the real world.


It doesn't. It would help if you actually looked at what the results tell you, and it would also help if you actually knew what the power consumption cost of a Xeon was. You balance that versus the raw performance, and you could halve the CPUs to two and halve the performance of a Xeon to cut power right back (a more realistic test) and its raw performance would still be better.


It doesn't? Say what? that doesn't make any sense.

The Xeons X7350 are 130W parts. HP's and Intel's websites say so. Can't you read and comprehend?

Even if you reduce the cpus to 2 you get 260Ws for the cpus alone vs 95 watts or at max 123Watts for the SPARC cpu box. The SPARC box is still lower power but can now deliver twice the performance of the HP Xeon Box.

What people are looking at is whether it is worth spending the money to get any future power savings, versus having the raw performance per cycle. Nobody cares about Sun's theoretical performance per watt. Fact is, compared to an Opteron box, the guy worked out that his UltraSPARC would have to be at least twice as power efficient to feel the effect of cost savings over a period of several years for Coolthreads to be worth it. Sorry, but that scenario doesn't add up.


Eh? The Sun box and the HP box cost almost the same and the Sun box uses significantly less power.

Oh you are still stuck like a broken record on that article you posted.

I think HP and its engineers tuning the hell out of their setup and submitting a result that show cases the best performance number on SpecWeb2005 and Sun doing the same counts for a lot more than a blog post from 2 years ago.

HP and Sun have the only two results in the 40K range on SPecWeb2005. So we are comparing the very best submissions from the respective companies.

You can't possibly be implying that HP doesn't know how to tune and get the best performance out of their systems, could you? Especially when they are trying to post the highest number, or so they thought, for their own customers to see and the sales staff to use as material sell those systems.

You certainly can't be that daft , can you?




Hate to break it to you, but the raw performance of SPARC has lagged behind x86 for a very, very long time.


Got proof? The cool threads server's perfomance throws a wrench soundly in that statement.


I'd laugh if that wasn't so sad. Why do you think they left in the first place? I'm sure Sun gave them a nice deal and some new toys to play with ;-).


Please don't show your stupidity any more than you have to.

The issue here is how much of each thread can be completed per second (is it better to get more threads and work through each second, or is it better to have more of them?) versus the initial cost of the machine versus the time it takes for the power cost savings to outweigh the initial cost. That's what matters.


More nonsensical gibberish. Read and comprehend first. Then do some research and come up with some real data to the topic at hand. Some up to date data would be very useful.


Coolthreads (and multiple cores in general) is simply a tough sell for people wanting to complete more of the same tasks in less time following Moore's Law, and that accounts for the majority.


I wonder why the coolthreads systems are doubling in revenue YoY.

Edited 2008-05-05 02:10 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Shame ...
by segedunum on Mon 5th May 2008 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Shame ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Your ignorance is even more telling. Cpus consume more energy at higher clock rates and dissipate more heat.

You're tripping sweetheart. What matters to people is what work gets done in that clock cycle for the amount of power they use and what they paid. It really is that simple.

Oh you are still stuck like a broken record on that article you posted

Yer, because that's a potential Sun customer (you know, money?), and that's what matters to him. As it is, he's looking at performance per watt per dollar and the raw figures just aren't there. Specweb justifies nothing to him.

Read and comprehend first. Then do some research and come up with some real data to the topic at hand. Some up to date data would be very useful.

You're making a huge assumption that Specweb is actually saying something because you have no data yourself, and you've proven yourself totally incapable of explaining it or discussing what's happening.

I wonder why the coolthreads systems are doubling in revenue YoY.

When you've come from nothing doubling is easy. Once again, no exact figures from Sun ;-).

I forgot that you don't live in the real world.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Shame ...
by andrewg on Mon 5th May 2008 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Shame ..."
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Cool threads technology in T1000 and T2000 servers are for applications like web servers, file servers, mail servers any application that is integer intensive with a large number of concurrent requests on a resource. It is an in order design so it uses less power because out of order is not necessary. So you get a CPU which is designed for lots of threads where no one thread needs to be particularly fast or require much floating point. Current main stream CPU designs are focused on being all things to all people hence they don't compete at the tasks the T1000 and T2000 target.

Sun's partner Fujitsu is being relied on to provide high performance single thread and floating point CPU where the application demands it. But the CPU design named "The Rock" is supposed to be revolutionary. It does something called a scout thread which runs ahead optimising the execution order. It basically forgoes the need for normal out of order execution. We'll see if it lives up to the hype in 2009.

But right now Sparc leads for certain types of applications.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Shame ...
by segedunum on Sun 4th May 2008 11:33 UTC in reply to "Shame ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

... they couldn't ask him about the $34 million loss and the 2500 jobs to be axed.

Indeed. That would have been a more pertinent and interesting question, rather than getting bizarre and totally meaningless answers about the iPhone (Sun has a fixation about being Apple for some reason), as well as asking Jonathan how he intends to solve those problems. It's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while the band plays some nice ragtime tunes. However, I suppose the interview displays Sun's current status: "What the hell are we going to do?" Novell has much the same problem.

I find it amusing, and not so amusing for the employees themselves, that Sun simply doesn't know how to do redundancies:

http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/08/silve...

The golden rule of redundancies is to itemise everything that you need and don't need, get the relevant people told as quickly as possible, and above all, make sure you do it once, and once only. This constant round of layoffs that Sun has every year, or every few months, is destroying the ability of the people left to get any work done. Drip feeding layoffs, quite apart from any other problems you have, can destroy a company itself. Would you work under that? Even funnier, Sun is one of those daft companies that fires people that they eventually realise they need to do some work twelve months later. Comments by some 'anonymous' people here:

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/05/01/sun_q3_down/comments/

Sadly, Sun still believes that its multi-billion dollar revenues and spending from the 90s and around the dot-com boom are sustainable - if only they can fire a whole load of people. For a company with their revenues, a $34 million loss or a $67 million profit is woeful. They're barely breaking even as revenues fall. Getting rid of people isn't enough, as it's pretty clear that their expenses are just far too high. Daft purchases such as MySQL and Innotek are partly to blame, but they're not the whole story.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader, and Jonathan, to work this one out, considering that by various metrics a good three quarters of the servers they manage to sell are x86, and of those, probably a good 70% - 80% have Linux specified as their OS. Unless they can get some returns on their spending on SPARC and Solaris then it's all just dead weight.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Shame ...
by Arun on Mon 5th May 2008 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Shame ..."
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07


I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader, and Jonathan, to work this one out, considering that by various metrics a good three quarters of the servers they manage to sell are x86, and of those, probably a good 70% - 80% have Linux specified as their OS. Unless they can get some returns on their spending on SPARC and Solaris then it's all just dead weight.



Do you have any data for that ludicrous statement?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Shame ...
by segedunum on Mon 5th May 2008 02:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shame ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I know you want to nitpick without addressing the crux of the arguments, but I'll bite.

http://tweakers.net/reviews/649/last/database-test-sun-ultrasparc-t...

There should be some reasonable data in there for you to digest. The crux is that Sun's x86 Opteron servers are outselling SPARC by a wide margin. It's a question of volume, and that's why Sun had to move to it. Having their SPARC be outperformed and still be more expensive in the same target market isn't helping.

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,s...

"In a May 2006 report, IDC reported that 66.3% of the AMD-based Galaxy servers in Sun's portfolio ship with Linux pre-installed. By September, that number had increased to 71.5%."

Given that Linux has traditionally been installed on x86 and that's where Sun's SPARC lunch was eaten, that's fairly logical. It's difficult to justify Solaris under those circumstances.

"A Sun representative contacted for this article declined to update those numbers, and said the company does not break out the number of servers shipped for analyst reports."

In all honesty, that doesn't surprise me. If the opposite was true, the Solaris folks would be trumpeting it from the hills. They're not.

That's the long and the short of it, and alas, there isn't much cheer to be had. Sun have some good stuff, and with good leadership they could be doing very well, but due to inertia and poor management decisions that isn't going to happen.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Shame ...
by Arun on Mon 5th May 2008 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shame ..."
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, I know you want to nitpick without addressing the crux of the arguments, but I'll bite.

http://tweakers.net/reviews/649/last/database-test-sun-ultrasparc-t...

There should be some reasonable data in there for you to digest. The crux is that Sun's x86 Opteron servers are outselling SPARC by a wide margin. It's a question of volume, and that's why Sun had to move to it. Having their SPARC be outperformed and still be more expensive in the same target market isn't helping.


You are beyond hope at this point. Your reading and comprehension skills seem to be non existent.

Look at the charts. The chart on the left is Total Server shipments. On the right x86 shipments.

Q406
Total Server: Approx 100,000 units.
X86 servers: 30,000 Units.
Sparc Server (total - x86) = 70,000 units


Doh!



Given that Linux has traditionally been installed on x86 and that's where Sun's SPARC lunch was eaten, that's fairly logical. It's difficult to justify Solaris under those circumstances.


Sun sells more SPARC systems running Solaris than all the x86 systems combined. See above.


In all honesty, that doesn't surprise me. If the opposite was true, the Solaris folks would be trumpeting it from the hills. They're not.


But the opposite is true but your feeble mind can't comprehend it. Sorry try again.

That's the long and the short of it, and alas, there isn't much cheer to be had. Sun have some good stuff, and with good leadership they could be doing very well, but due to inertia and poor management decisions that isn't going to happen.


You are grasping at straws making silly statements with no real data to back them up.

Edited 2008-05-05 02:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Shame ...
by segedunum on Mon 5th May 2008 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Shame ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Look at the charts. The chart on the left is Total Server shipments. On the right x86 shipments.

It doesn't show that at all. What it shows is a yearly growth comparison. Sorry, I really don't know what it is you work on, or what interest you have in this, but you simply cannot read. Did you not read the article, or did you just spin in your chair?

This was actually written about in the article:

"Sun indicated that it had sold slightly more servers, but a much sharper rise of Opteron sales reveals that Sparc sales are still on the way down."


Sun sells more SPARC systems running Solaris than all the x86 systems combined. See above.

You can't read a simple article. See above.

But the opposite is true but your feeble mind can't comprehend it. Sorry try again.

You've been presented with two articles that say otherwise. Failing to read the first article in order to see what you want to see, and then completely ignore the second because you saw what you wanted to see in the first is..........a pretty damn sad thing to do in all honesty.

Goodbye.

Edited 2008-05-05 20:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Shame ...
by Arun on Tue 6th May 2008 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Shame ..."
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07


It doesn't show that at all. What it shows is a yearly growth comparison. Sorry, I really don't know what it is you work on, or what interest you have in this, but you simply cannot read. Did you not read the article, or did you just spin in your chair?


Read the damn charts again. The y axis is units in thousands and x axis is quarters. The chart is pretty simple.


"Sun indicated that it had sold slightly more servers, but a much sharper rise of Opteron sales reveals that Sparc sales are still on the way down.

Sun sells more SPARC systems running Solaris than all the x86 systems combined. See above.
You can't read a simple article. See above.


You are just daft. All that means the growth rate of SPARC servers is less that x86 servers. For example, Say last quarter Sun sold 200 SPARC and 12 x86 boxes and this quarter sun sold 250 SPARC and 24 x86 boxes. The growth rate for SPARC would be 20% but x86 would be 100%.

That does not mean Sun sells more x86 boxes than SPARC. Astounding level of ineptitude.



You've been presented with two articles that say otherwise. Failing to read the first article in order to see what you want to see, and then completely ignore the second because you saw what you wanted to see in the first is..........a pretty damn sad thing to do in all honesty.


Your articles disprove your own claim. Seriously I can't argue with such a difference in intellectual capacity.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Shame ...
by segedunum on Tue 6th May 2008 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Shame ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You absolutely, cannot read sweetheart, as you have ably demonstrated.

Those two graphs showed server unit growth, versus how much their x86 sales are growing. What they did not show was total units sold as you think that they do. From TFA:

"Sun indicated that it had sold slightly more servers, but a much sharper rise of Opteron sales reveals that Sparc sales are still on the way down. At the moment, Niagara generates returns of 100 million dollars per quarter, on a total of 1.3 billion in the area of servers."


That's it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Shame ...
by kaiwai on Sun 4th May 2008 15:19 UTC in reply to "Shame ..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

... they couldn't ask him about the $34 million loss and the 2500 jobs to be axed.


Everytime I see 'job cuts' and 'economic slow down/recession' - I have to ask, do these management types see that their actions are actually creating the self fulfilling prophecy of the recession on the horizon? I don't want to turn this into a thread over business but what they should be doing during an economic down turn is pumping money into product investments, increase their product portfolio, hire more engineers and so forth. When the economy does swing up - and customer start demanding more software and hardware - the said company is in a good position to provide those goods and services demanded in a growing economy.

As for OpenSolaris, Java and so forth; its happening gradually, and personally, I'd sooner see it take time to form than trying to rush things out (like we see in the Linux world) of distributions being pushed out to meet a deadline which are riddled up the wazoo with bugs and issues. There is a fine line between wanting to be on the cutting edge and getting out the latest technology - and just being plan stupid when it comes to incorporating things that are damn risky (SELinux, Fedora and numerous driver issues anyone?).

Reply Score: 2

v Sun sucks
by diegoviola on Sun 4th May 2008 03:02 UTC
RE: Sun sucks
by siride on Sun 4th May 2008 03:08 UTC in reply to "Sun sucks"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

That story serious misrepresents what Sun is actually doing. MySQL was proposing to release ADDITIONAL optional components that would probably be closed source. Sun would potential go back on this plan and make them open source anyways. Someone got a whiff of the issue and blew it out of proportion and basically turned it on its head. Sun is NOT planning to close source MySQL, they are not turning their backs on open source.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: Sun sucks
by slashdev on Sun 4th May 2008 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Sun sucks"
slashdev Member since:
2006-05-14

I'd be inclined to agree. Sun has done alot for open source. OpenOffice, Netbeans, Java (yes, with a little proding.. lol), ZFS, Solaris, Dtrace, the list goes on, i cant imagine them removing an open product from the market.

I can, however, see them making closed source extensions, addons and such....like (the now defunct) Star Office, or (the now defunt) Forte/Sun One studio...and of course (the not so defunct) Solaris.

This is a GOOD thing, Sun can then license technology from commerical companies and bring it to the mysql community.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Sun sucks
by oma2la on Sun 4th May 2008 06:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sun sucks"
oma2la Member since:
2005-07-05

Star Office is defunct?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Sun sucks
by Yamaraj on Sun 4th May 2008 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sun sucks"
Yamaraj Member since:
2007-09-25

He is talking about the Sun One Studio/Forte, not StarOffice or OpenOffice.

Reply Score: 1

Star Office or Sun One Studio
by s_groening on Sun 4th May 2008 12:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sun sucks"
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

like (the now defunct) Star Office, or (the now defunt) Forte/Sun One studio...


He does actually mention Star Office ...Why, however, I don't know as I've never used it!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Sun sucks
by slashdev on Mon 5th May 2008 05:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sun sucks"
slashdev Member since:
2006-05-14

Wow, Sorry, I didnt realize Star Office was still around lol I was sure it died around version 6 lol The point still stands, but its nice to have facts straight too lol

Reply Score: 0

Argh!
by Kebabbert on Sun 4th May 2008 13:27 UTC
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

My favourite company! Why a loss and why sack people? Nooo! I hope it isnt because SUN is the only company who had changed strategy to open source everything and giving away everything? At SUN you dont pay for the software, you pay for support. Is this the wrong way to go, to give away everything? I dont know of any other big old proprietary IT company open sourcing everything? Not IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, etc has done it. Maybe within 10 years it turns out that SUN should have instead closed everything and force customers to pay? Maybe this is the beginning of the end for SUN? Or? Should SUN close everything and charge, now that SUN has a huge customer base? Or? Why can a crappy client OS that is "collapsing under its own weight" sell good, but not SUNs superior technology; ZFS, DTrace, etc?

Look at this magic PHP example with DTrace (it is doable with Java too):

http://blogs.sun.com/bmc/entry/dtrace_and_php_demonstrated

Reply Score: 2

RE: Argh!
by ari-free on Sun 4th May 2008 13:55 UTC in reply to "Argh!"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

the sun will come out tomorrow. You can bet on it.

Reply Score: 2

I don't know what's worse
by tyrione on Mon 5th May 2008 04:46 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

The fact the former Lighthouse Design Inc., NeXT software House CEO buried all the software in the merger with Sun or the fact he thinks that pony tail is cool.

I can use the original solutions for NeXTSTEP/Openstep, but it would be nice to have Cocoa/OS X versions to use. At NeXT we extended the hell out of them and they were used in many in-house processes and made my job much more productive.

Reply Score: 2

Where are the figures?
by Kebabbert on Mon 5th May 2008 10:04 UTC
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

It seems that some people are just stating things about SPARC and x86 as facts, without proving it with the hard numbers? They have no substance in their words, no hard figures, no proof?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Where are the figures?
by kaiwai on Mon 5th May 2008 15:28 UTC in reply to "Where are the figures?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It seems that some people are just stating things about SPARC and x86 as facts, without proving it with the hard numbers? They have no substance in their words, no hard figures, no proof?


Opinions are like assholes; everyone things everyone else's stinks. The reality is that one shouldn't take benchmarks all that seriously; look at the information and make the decision yourself - don't rely on so-called experts or benchmarks because most of their time they're wildly distorted to what reality is.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Where are the figures?
by Arun on Mon 5th May 2008 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Where are the figures?"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

Opinions are like assholes; everyone things everyone else's stinks. The reality is that one shouldn't take benchmarks all that seriously; look at the information and make the decision yourself - don't rely on so-called experts or benchmarks because most of their time they're wildly distorted to what reality is.


That applies more to posts like this one.

Reply Score: 2