8 ms·

At school (1991-1994), we had HP and Sun workstations. The HP were nicknamed the toasters because they were hot. The Sun were beautiful beasts. After power fail

At school (1991-1994), we had HP and Sun workstations. The HP were nicknamed the toasters because they were hot. The Sun were beautiful beasts. After power failure, we regularly had problems with Sun, never with HP. When we were downloading games from the net, it was easy to compile them on Sun, but was always a nighmare on HP (non standard includes, libraries, ...). I think HP is excellent about hardware, but terrible for software. I often see the similar problem for car makers: good cars but with a terrible computer.

pjmlp 8y ago
When I was doing C in the early 2000's, our ANSI C code would cope with Aix, Linux, NT/2000 and Solaris. But on HP-UX 11 we still had a version of aCC that was a mix between ANSI and K&R, so it was the variant with more pre-processor logic.
- Annatar 8y ago
  That was solved in the newer versions of aCC. I had no issues compiling most contemporary code all the way ‘till 2014 when I finally retired my private HP-UX server infrastructure. For particularly badly written software, there was GCC on HP-UX.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    GCC wasn't an option on our case back then, as we were required to use the system compilers due to our customer base.
    - Annatar 8y ago
      I don't understand what that would have to do with anything, as long as you made a PSF SD-UX "gcc-runtime" fileset with libgcc_s.so.1 in it. That's what I did, worked just fine.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Our customers required being able to build our product with the system compilers managed by their IT. GCC was only accepted by customers with Linux installs. Asking GCC to be available in any sort was not an option for other customers. In fact was a deciding factor why we got some contracts back then, as we always cope with whatever they had.
ccccccccccccc 8y ago
Having worked there long ago, this is 100% the case. They're a hardware company at heart and never made a good effort to modernize.
- collyw 8y ago
  I always though of them as a hardware company having seen their name on laptops, but they did have their own brand of Unix and I am currently working on a CDN originally written by them.
agumonkey 8y ago
similarly Sony was the semi god of electronics but fell so hard on software
- axaxs 8y ago
  They've been getting better lately, at least where I've used Sony as I realize their portfolio is huge. The PS4 software is quite nice and very stable - leaps ahead of what xbox has done. Sony is also a huge contributor to Android and has one of the nicest phone OS's on the market.
  - agumonkey 8y ago
    true, the ps3/ps4 had good UX/kernel I stopped following their smartphone efforts though
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      Sony Xperia X is one of the few smartphones which runs Jolla's Sailfish officially (Sailfish X). The successor of Maemo/MeeGo and a decent, Linux-based alternative to Android.
pvg 8y ago
it was easy to compile them on Sun The Sun machines were much more common and a lot of software was tested/built on SunOS.
- rrauenza 8y ago
  In the 90's and early 2000's Sun machines were pretty much the default for developing new software during the dot com boom. I was told this was due partly because Sun sold a lot of hardware on credit (and then this crashed when the dot com boom crashed.) I worked at HP during this time helping software vendors port to HP-UX. I also spent some time on the side compiling open source projects for fun on HP-UX and then pushing the required patches back to the project's owner. Anyone remember Pointcast?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PointCast_(dotcom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PointCast_(dotcom) I was assigned to them briefly.
  - pvg 8y ago
    the default for developing new software during the dot com boom. I was told this was due partly because Sun sold a lot of hardware on credit (and then this crashed when the dot com boom crashed. I think this might be something HP people were telling each other at the time while getting smacked around by Sun. The Sun machines were still ridiculously expensive and while common, I don't think they were the default. SGI Indies were also quite popular and the Pentium Pro quickly started eating the overpriced Unix workstation market. By 2000, I doubt there were that many SV startup developers sitting in front of a Sun box. There were piles of them in server rooms, of course.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    In the 90's and 2000s, Sun machines might have been a kind of default for deploying new software, but they certainly weren't the default for developing it. By 1998, you'd be getting a much better machine from Intel than you could get even in the same ballpark cost as from Sun. If you did work on a Sun workstation, you probably did it grudgingly (except that they had a really good C++ compiler for the time).
    - 8y ago
acdha 8y ago
In the mid-90s I worked for a software vendor which supported most of the “open systems” Unix flavors along with Windows, DOS, VMS, etc. There were individual C files which were thousands of lines long, almost all #ifdefs working around buggy C compilers. GCC was often preferred even at a performance cost because it wasn't worth figuring out some quirk of the HP, Data General, SCO, etc. C toolchain, especially because the pricing models of that era often meant that it cost tens of thousands of dollars just to setup the same environment that a single customer had.
forgot-my-pw 8y ago
Hmm... toasters that are hotter than the Sun.
ataturk 8y ago
HP Unix workstations were awful. The HPUX was awful. I had to port and cross compile a product on them and it was one of those kinds of experiences I hope I never go through again. At the time, I was young and considered it "paying my dues" and now I see just how backwards and shitty my thinking was and how ridiculous the whole UNIX landscape was back then. The only thing HPUX had going for it was that SNMP monitoring product that everyone used. Otherwise...junk.

pjmlp 8y ago

When I was doing C in the early 2000's, our ANSI C code would cope with Aix, Linux, NT/2000 and Solaris. But on HP-UX 11 we still had a version of aCC that was a mix between ANSI and K&R, so it was the variant with more pre-processor logic.

Annatar 8y ago
That was solved in the newer versions of aCC. I had no issues compiling most contemporary code all the way ‘till 2014 when I finally retired my private HP-UX server infrastructure. For particularly badly written software, there was GCC on HP-UX.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  GCC wasn't an option on our case back then, as we were required to use the system compilers due to our customer base.
  - Annatar 8y ago
    I don't understand what that would have to do with anything, as long as you made a PSF SD-UX "gcc-runtime" fileset with libgcc_s.so.1 in it. That's what I did, worked just fine.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Our customers required being able to build our product with the system compilers managed by their IT. GCC was only accepted by customers with Linux installs. Asking GCC to be available in any sort was not an option for other customers. In fact was a deciding factor why we got some contracts back then, as we always cope with whatever they had.

ccccccccccccc 8y ago

Having worked there long ago, this is 100% the case. They're a hardware company at heart and never made a good effort to modernize.

collyw 8y ago
I always though of them as a hardware company having seen their name on laptops, but they did have their own brand of Unix and I am currently working on a CDN originally written by them.

agumonkey 8y ago

similarly Sony was the semi god of electronics but fell so hard on software

axaxs 8y ago
They've been getting better lately, at least where I've used Sony as I realize their portfolio is huge. The PS4 software is quite nice and very stable - leaps ahead of what xbox has done. Sony is also a huge contributor to Android and has one of the nicest phone OS's on the market.
- agumonkey 8y ago
  true, the ps3/ps4 had good UX/kernel I stopped following their smartphone efforts though
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    Sony Xperia X is one of the few smartphones which runs Jolla's Sailfish officially (Sailfish X). The successor of Maemo/MeeGo and a decent, Linux-based alternative to Android.

pvg 8y ago

it was easy to compile them on Sun The Sun machines were much more common and a lot of software was tested/built on SunOS.

rrauenza 8y ago
In the 90's and early 2000's Sun machines were pretty much the default for developing new software during the dot com boom. I was told this was due partly because Sun sold a lot of hardware on credit (and then this crashed when the dot com boom crashed.) I worked at HP during this time helping software vendors port to HP-UX. I also spent some time on the side compiling open source projects for fun on HP-UX and then pushing the required patches back to the project's owner. Anyone remember Pointcast?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PointCast_(dotcom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PointCast_(dotcom) I was assigned to them briefly.
- pvg 8y ago
  the default for developing new software during the dot com boom. I was told this was due partly because Sun sold a lot of hardware on credit (and then this crashed when the dot com boom crashed. I think this might be something HP people were telling each other at the time while getting smacked around by Sun. The Sun machines were still ridiculously expensive and while common, I don't think they were the default. SGI Indies were also quite popular and the Pentium Pro quickly started eating the overpriced Unix workstation market. By 2000, I doubt there were that many SV startup developers sitting in front of a Sun box. There were piles of them in server rooms, of course.
- tptacek 8y ago
  In the 90's and 2000s, Sun machines might have been a kind of default for deploying new software, but they certainly weren't the default for developing it. By 1998, you'd be getting a much better machine from Intel than you could get even in the same ballpark cost as from Sun. If you did work on a Sun workstation, you probably did it grudgingly (except that they had a really good C++ compiler for the time).
  - 8y ago

acdha 8y ago

In the mid-90s I worked for a software vendor which supported most of the “open systems” Unix flavors along with Windows, DOS, VMS, etc. There were individual C files which were thousands of lines long, almost all #ifdefs working around buggy C compilers. GCC was often preferred even at a performance cost because it wasn't worth figuring out some quirk of the HP, Data General, SCO, etc. C toolchain, especially because the pricing models of that era often meant that it cost tens of thousands of dollars just to setup the same environment that a single customer had.

forgot-my-pw 8y ago

Hmm... toasters that are hotter than the Sun.

ataturk 8y ago

HP Unix workstations were awful. The HPUX was awful. I had to port and cross compile a product on them and it was one of those kinds of experiences I hope I never go through again. At the time, I was young and considered it "paying my dues" and now I see just how backwards and shitty my thinking was and how ridiculous the whole UNIX landscape was back then. The only thing HPUX had going for it was that SNMP monitoring product that everyone used. Otherwise...junk.