“Sun’s Desktop strategy – “Project Madhatter” – is taking shape and it dominated questions from the floor at an analyst session in San Francisco today. In charge of Madhatter is Curtis Sasaki – Sun’s VP of Desktop Software – who was at Apple at the launch of the original Macintosh in 1984, led the IIGS project and then followed Steve Jobs to NeXT where he spent several years. More from Curtis in a moment. Read the story at TheRegister.
Original Mac Veteran Leads Sun Desktop Charge
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I thought this meant that Sun would start pushing it’s own (watered down?) sparc hardware on to the desktop… Too good to be true I thought, and I was right.
Anyone else disappointed in a similiar fashion?
Bah.
yea….that’s what we need is sparc hardware for the masses.
i can see people lining up for miles for that stuff.
you know…these guys (sun)are on the brink…they ARE looking for a way to make some money, not shoot themselves in the foot.
you should just help them out, to get that plunge into oblivion over with….sit in on one of their board meetings and tell them that you want sparc hardware on the desktop.
i’m sorry for flaming the crap out of you…but how on earth can it make any business sense at all to put sparc hardware on the desktop? who would want it? who needs it? and how could they make any money doing it?
Unix will always have a hard time on the desktop.
Even MacOS X is having a hard time.
Sun servers (big and small) work great, they should keep making great processors and servers. Just make sure that they say ahead of Intel and Microsoft, otherwise the Sun will set and it won’t be pretty….
Gobe has not been OpenSourced has it?
ciao
yc
Sun and Apple should Merge !!!
Sun has all Apple needs on the Server and vice-versa.
MacOS X needs to be ported to ultra sparc for sun’s Need. With Apple’s Fat binaries format licence , there’s no compatiblity on both platform problems.
Apple/Sun would be a winner.
Sun should be puhsing solaris on cheap sparc/ultrasparc hardware instead of pushing linux x86.
—
http://islande.hirlimann.net
Sun is all about expensive, very high power machines, that are supposed to be used in servers, not in computers on people’s desktops.
There is no way Sun could ever compete with hardware (for the desktop) from Intel and AMD, in price/performance.
Well, OpenStep was ported on Sun … so they just need to add some classes/UI widgets (NSDrawers for example) in order to compile MacOS X (Cocoa) programs.
You should look on http://www.gnustep.org and http://www.collaboration-world.com/gnumail/ (an example of a program compiling both on gnustep and mosx)
Apple and Sun look like a good match but…
Solaris is SVR4 based and OS X is BSD.
With 64 bit PPCs coming Apple could compete with SUN.
If Sasaky improves RedHat’s desktop, Sun doesn’t need Apple.
Linux stands ready to compete with both Apple and SUN.
It’ll be interesting to see how it all works out.
ciao
yc
Sun and Apple merging ?
That’s a strange ideia. But it could be good for both.
sun and apple…
so you want another useless merger between one smaller and more innovating company and one large company which is behind?
Anyway, would just be easier if they made dev tools for sun servers for os x. No need to keep selling low margin (if any) sun workstations for their server software devs.
It isn’t possible for both companies to merge, they don’t have enough green bills to do that. Plus, Apple DON’T make good servers, Sun has nothing to benefit from Apple’s servers. As for desktops, what Sun wanted and always wanted besides profitablity is dominance. Apple is simply not the way.
And depending on your $PATH it still can look like a BSD.
—
http://islande.hirlimann.net
Intel server are now in 16 and 32 proc version. Itanium is a 64 bit proc and can be compared in perfomance to IBM Power proc. (Faster than SPARC)
It will just be a matter of time to find a Windows server 64 proc Itanium 2 Gb and Sun will have no other choice to reduce dramatically their prices.
About desktop, if something will succeed it will be Linux and it’s free, how to compete ? Ask MS… I’m not sure they have the answer.
Very nice photos!
ciao
yc
Chill on the flames, I never said it was a brilliant business model!
I just misread it and also think sun hardware happens to be rather cool (though unfortunately, way overpriced in terms of what you actually get). I am well aware of the fact that if Sun did actually attempt to push it’s hardware into the desktop scene, it would probably be the end of Sun.
However, I still think some sorta desktop sparc would be a lot of fun to have.
“Apple DON’T make good servers”
Not only do they make good servers, they make EXCELLENT servers. Our company just bought 200 of them
“Sun has nothing to benefit from Apple’s servers.
You obviously haven’t seen the XServe.
As for desktops, what Sun wanted and always wanted besides profitablity is dominance. Apple is simply not the way
Apple has the best desktop platform on the planet IMHO
However, I still think some sorta desktop sparc would be a lot of fun to have.
That’s was my opinion too, plus with a ported Mac OSX with the look of the classiccal OS 9, it would rock on a spark (Mac OSX is a sort of BSD kernel – porting isn’t so hard).
There’s other Sun hardware that Apple could benefit from from the exchange of stocks on the fictional merger.
Not only do they make good servers, they make EXCELLENT servers. Our company just bought 200 of them
Could you kindly say the name of your company ?
200 Mac servers ? Now ? (Motorola G4) ? They must be crazy ?
and that probably says it all for this venture.
If SUN could work a deal with the Mathematica people and have Mathematica loaded on their desktops, I would buy a SUN desktop system today.
This offering by SUN is competing at the commodity level and not the value-added level which means no profits; lots of grunt work and not pushing the envelope. SUN shouldn’t be here – they should try to innovate their way out of their hole.
SUN should do some in-house work to put nice GUIs around R and a LaTeX distribution and get a deal with Mathematica and sell a real hot technical workstation…that would be something _different_ at least.
Actually, it was SunOS that was BSD-based. Solaris, as yc said, is indeed based on SysV.
Wouldn’t the new company if Sun and Apple merged be called Snapple??
-iie1195
Not only do they make good servers, they make EXCELLENT servers. Our company just bought 200 of them
Whoever authorized that purchase should be fired. You could get around twice as much server power going with Dells, and they would take up a lot less space.
And that’s not mentioning how superior both Windows 2000 and Linux servers are to OS X Server.
>>Not only do they make good servers, they make EXCELLENT
>>servers. Our company just bought 200 of them
Apple is not exactly famous for servers.
When Apple comes out with an 8 way or higher box that can really take a pounding, when time sensitive, compute intensive, mission critical financial applications with huge databases or other scientific apps run on that 8 way or higher box with tens of thousands of users pounding it for months without crashing it or bringing it to it’s knees then you can start talking about good servers. Solaris does it 24×7! That’s why Sun is famous for servers.
Also bigger companies buy Compaq Compaq Proliant/Microsoft Win2k servers by the thousands.
ciao
yc
The execs over at Sun must either be:
a) Smoking crack
b) Desperate as hell
How on earth do they think they can compete in this market is beyond me. They were all high and mighty a few years back with their overpriced systems and Java.
Now they are jumping on the Linux bandwagon and trying to jump into new markets now that .NET and OpenSource are getting all the attention. These big companies do some weird stuff when backed into a corner. As far as Apple, as long as they have their proprietary hardware/software platform, it will never be adpoted large scale server or desktop IMHO.
“Actually, it was SunOS that was BSD-based. Solaris, as yc said, is indeed based on SysV.”
yc is wrong.
Solaris is descended from 4.1BSD, not SystemV.
The first Solaris was another name for SunOS 4.1.1
I’m really stuck as to what Sun and Apple would accomplish by merging. They both operate in different markets, their products are based on different technologies and they have entirely different cultures. While some of their products are complementery, they could accomplish just as much (and probably more) with joint marketing agreements, technology cross licensing and partnering on specific projects.
A merged Sun/Apple would have to contend with a corporate culture clash, a lack of a focused marketing message (would Sun/Apple be consumer or commercially oriented?), and a lack of technical direction (PowerPC or Sparc? OS X or Solaris?. Not to mention, they would be a much larger company, and large, diverse companies tend to be able to respond to market demands slower than small ones. What is to be gained by a merger? They’re probably better off continuing to persue their seperate markets, and just partnering in areas where it makes sense.
I’m really stuck as to what Sun and Apple would accomplish by merging. They both operate in different markets, their products are based on different technologies and they have entirely different cultures.
They are both losing market share and are stuck with profits;
in my opinion, I never imagined such a deal but it could pay off better than HP/Compaq, sinergies are higher (as in Automobiles),
even powerfull, imagine a new server OS based on MacOSX/*BSD* tcp/ip and Sun’s hardware technology legacy (SCSI, LAN/networking and CPU/FSB/chipsets) ?.
of technical direction (PowerPC or Sparc? OS X or Solaris?
Sparc and OS X !
Still it’s the same fantasy as:
Mac OS X running on AMD Athlon XPs, it will never happen, unfortunately.
> That’s was my opinion too, plus with a ported Mac OSX with the look of the classiccal OS 9, it would rock
<putting on flame-proof suit>
But not as much as the look of CDE
Solaris is based on SVR4!
As of 2.0 and up it’s all SVR4.
SunOS as njm correctly points out was BSD based!
Anonymous is dead wrong on two counts:
1. SunOS 4.1.1 was NOT Solaris 1.0, SunOS 4.1.2 was.
2. Solaris is based on SVR4.
Here is the history! (Scroll down to see history table)
http://www.sun.com/books/catalog/mauro/index_Preface.html
ciao
yc
Very good points!
It appears that Sun & Apple would be more trouble than it’s worth.
Linux on low end servers and desktops is definitely the better path for SUN. Sun has very little to lose and a lot to gain by going that route.
1. Apple really brings nothing that Sun really needs. Sun already a better Unix and better servers. Apple is not strong on the corporate desktop and SUN already has star office and Linux on Intel & Sparc. (Aqua, Quicktime, BSD, QD3D, AppleTalk etc. are are all absolutely useless to SUN. Firewire is nice but…)
2. Sun will gets to sell hardware with Linux and get on corporate desktops with StarOffice & Java. (Independent of MS Office)
3. Sun will still make big bucks selling million$ servers with Solaris or even Linux if necessary (IBM is doing it).
4. Sun already has BSD in SUNOS so it does not need Apples BSD.
Apple is fairly strong with it’s niche market and fanatics.
It can survive on it’s own. Although it will need new markets to grow. Windows, Linux will become more competitive in education and desktop publishing. As the GUIs on Linux improve OS X may become less and less relevant. More so than Windows NT because OS X is based on Unix. Linux is free and is already more popular in the corporate world.
Time will tell.
ciao
yc
bitgeek: Not only do they make good servers, they make EXCELLENT servers. Our company just bought 200 of them
I’m not going to deny your statement, because it is extremely relative. Personally, I don’t think they are great servers when compared to a Sun. Some people think Apple’s servers are crap, others think it is God’s manna. But what I know is that Sun absolutely DON’T need Apple’s technology in servers. In fact, the only nice thing Apple has there is a nice UI plus some good streaming software, something a lot of sysadmin don’t really need.
I think it is much more economical for Sun to build a better UI than to buy Apple to get it.
bitgeek: You obviously haven’t seen the XServe.
It is a rackmount server with a titanium case and a nice Apple logo, along with cute little LED lights in front. Big deal. Yes I have seen it. But I haven’t used it. But from the benchmarks I have seen, the only use I can find from a Apple server is for some really big business who is too stingy to get a real sysadmin.
bitgeek: Apple has the best desktop platform on the planet IMHO
They may have the best looking OS, but as for the platform, I think not. The only nice technical thing I like about Mac OS X is Quartz, something not enough for me to actually switch to it. IMHO, too, compared to NeXTstep and Mac OS 9, Mac OS X’s UI is terribly designed. It placed beauty over functionality.
(BTW, the best desktop platform I have ever seen, IMHO, is Amiga. The only thing they haven’t got figured out is to avoid corrupted greedy businessmen).
creating a usable desktop environment using sun linux (redhat) as the os for thin clients. sun has been trying to get the thin client thing going forever, and maybe this time it will work in the markets they are targeting.
sun and apple would be a disaster. there is no clear reason as to why they should merge, and no way to connect their markets, but they should work more closely. i use osx and also have cobalt servers. it would be really nice to have some more administration tools for osx and sun servers. rather than jumping on the linux platform, sun should concentrate on making really good administration and development tools that work from the most basic to the most advanced server.
Well it’s funny that people are thinking about what it would be like if Sun and Apple merged… because it almost happened a couple of years back.
Remember when Apple was hurting for $$$ before Steve Jobs went back to work for Apple? Well at that time, Sun was offering to buy Apple. Sun wanted the UI to make a better desktop for it’s low end workstations and to replace CDE. However, the deal did not work out because Apple wanted $6 million more than what Sun (Scott) was willing to pay. As a result things are the way they are today:)
Now a lot a of people are not certain as to Sun’s direction and some how think that the Sparc platform and Solaris are not working out. Well the majority of people who think that have not really used Sun products in the past few years. Solaris 9 has a lot of really cool features.. and for all of those people who complain about Solaris not having all of the fancy GNU utils.. look on the freeware CD.. gcc.. GNOME.. KDE.. even windowmaker are all there. The thing that most people don’t understand is that porting software to and from Solaris is really easy. Solaris is a commercial product, and some people may not see the need to pay for a high quality Unix.. but when you consider that it scales extremely well, supports more commercial products than Linux, and it runs on rock solid equipment.. the price to pay is really small. Getting Solaris is extremely easy compaired to getting a copy of AIX, HP-UX, DG/UX, etc. Just goto the website and download it or pay the $75 for the media kit. Getting a Sun workstation is not that difficult.. a SunBlade 150 costs just as much as a highend PC ( ~ $1000 – $5000 ) depending on your configuration. I don’t see why people are complaining.. you can’t get a new SGI(IRIX not NT) workstation for that little. And to say the least about getting a new DEC/COMPAQ/HP Alpha, IBM AIX, or HP-UX workstation for that little. And for those that can’t afford a new Sun workstation… go on Ebay.. TONS of Sun hardware there!
For those who think that the Apple Xserver idea is cool.. you should look at Sun’s N1 technology. In two years, Sun will transform the way SysAdmin work is done on Solaris and they will be ahead of the competition. Sun has a lot going for it.. UltraSparc III, Solaris 9, StarOffice, Java, N1, OS Domaining (look at the Sun Fire 6800), and tons of other products around the corner. People should spend more time learning about new Sun products than being stuck in the Solaris 2.5 era. Sun has a lot to offer for consumers and the Open Source community.
Sun’s only real problem is marketing.. it’s tough to get the message out when most people don’t understand the technology.
Solaris on Sparc is Sun’s bread and butter, but they seem to be forgetting that.
One piece of good news in the article:
Schwartz even suggested that Solaris might become LSB-compliant.
This, I think, is a good direction for Sun. Effectively say, “look, we like linux, and you do to, but we think that we can do it better under the hood with Solaris on Sparc.” Maximize the amount of linux-familiarity you can bring over with you when using Solaris.
Heh,.. gotta love the (regarding linux) “demonic half-breed” comment from the article.