4 ms·

Linux and good-enough commodity x86 are not better, nor will they ever be better, because one cannot build quality by polishing turds. Sun Microsystems failed

Linux and good-enough commodity x86 are not better, nor will they ever be better, because one cannot build quality by polishing turds. Sun Microsystems failed because their hardware pricing wasn't competitive with the x86-based PC bucket turds, which were "good enough": most people working in IT can't explain why Sun hardware was superior even though it vastly was, so it was like throwing pearls before the swine. We have lots of ignorant idiots in IT, because they were drawn to good salaries like moths to a flame.

mrunkel 4y ago
Perhaps instead of calling your peers idiots, you might take the time to explain what made Sun so much better?
- Maursault 4y ago
  I don't know for sure, but I believe what made Sun's stuff so great (i.e. doesn't really ever stop working) was very tight software and hardware integration.
- Annatar 4y ago
  With a few very notable exceptions, most of these people are not my peers, and it is highly unlikely that they will ever manage to become my peers. People here who are my peers are not idiots, so my original statement did not and does not apply to them. The question in general is, what is one doing on a web site which is supposed to be creme de la creme of Silicon Valley and having to ask why Sun Microsystems was so much better? My peer would be driven by relentless pursuit of perfection, being the best they can be at whatever they attempt: that would include researching what came before, and why it was so important when so many people say that it was important. A large portion of people working at Sun Microsystems consisted of highly and formally educated scientists and engineers, inventors in an environment which not only encouraged but inspired innovation. They had people who were capable of designing advanced hardware and people who were capable of designing advanced software, combining both into vertically integrated systems. For example: did you know that Sun UltraSPARC hardware has a crossbar switch at the core of its architecture? PC bucket turd servers still don't have that, relying instead of North and South "bridges", which are not much more than memory controllers, and certainly nowhere near a crossbar switch in design or capability. And that is just one of many, many examples of what made Sun Microsystems so great.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
prepend 4y ago
I disagree. With web and distributed computing I could anything I wanted by putting together “turds.” I think Sun failed because they thought that expensive, complicated hardware and software was required for business. And it was for like old business. But new, Internet businesses meant lots of small distributed tasks that didn’t require anything that Sun made and could be done on el cheapo hardware and software. It’s like those old people who complained that mp3 wasn’t as good audio as whatever. They’re right but it doesn’t matter. Obviously, Sun hardware was better but it was like 100x the cost for 3x improvement. So everyone did the math and skipped Sun. And people sound funny complaining about turds.
- Annatar 4y ago
  I could anything I wanted by putting together “turds.” You could, but it wouldn't be very good. Perhaps you noticed, but many others share your opinion and have in fact done that exact thing, and the results are not very good, which to me personally is completely logical and understandable. The above is not obvious to you? It’s like those old people who complained that mp3 wasn’t as good audio as whatever. They’re right but it doesn’t matter. Thank you for providing a good example of what I wrote earlier: throwing pearls before swine who are not capable of understanding it to be able to appreciate or pick it over "good enough". IT is a shitty industry, and your example illustrates, in part, quite well why that is so. If I live to see my retirement, it will be one of the happiest days of my life because I won't be putting up with that kind of shit any more.
sangnoir 4y ago
I put better in quotes because Linux-on-x86 wasn't the technologically better choice in the early 00s; but it was the much cheaper, yet viable option and had better ROI for many SMEs. Sun lingered in organizations with bigger budgets and had the expertise to appreciate it, but Linux had the momentum; most of the new server-side was Linux-first. It wasn't just Sun that suffered, but all of big iron.
- smm11 4y ago
  NeXT was very expensive, and better, but not enough to bypass the price. Sun was the same. Expensive, better, but better enough? Apple is much the same. VR might take them, and Google down.

mrunkel 4y ago

Perhaps instead of calling your peers idiots, you might take the time to explain what made Sun so much better?

Maursault 4y ago
I don't know for sure, but I believe what made Sun's stuff so great (i.e. doesn't really ever stop working) was very tight software and hardware integration.
Annatar 4y ago
With a few very notable exceptions, most of these people are not my peers, and it is highly unlikely that they will ever manage to become my peers. People here who are my peers are not idiots, so my original statement did not and does not apply to them. The question in general is, what is one doing on a web site which is supposed to be creme de la creme of Silicon Valley and having to ask why Sun Microsystems was so much better? My peer would be driven by relentless pursuit of perfection, being the best they can be at whatever they attempt: that would include researching what came before, and why it was so important when so many people say that it was important. A large portion of people working at Sun Microsystems consisted of highly and formally educated scientists and engineers, inventors in an environment which not only encouraged but inspired innovation. They had people who were capable of designing advanced hardware and people who were capable of designing advanced software, combining both into vertically integrated systems. For example: did you know that Sun UltraSPARC hardware has a crossbar switch at the core of its architecture? PC bucket turd servers still don't have that, relying instead of North and South "bridges", which are not much more than memory controllers, and certainly nowhere near a crossbar switch in design or capability. And that is just one of many, many examples of what made Sun Microsystems so great.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

prepend 4y ago

I disagree. With web and distributed computing I could anything I wanted by putting together “turds.” I think Sun failed because they thought that expensive, complicated hardware and software was required for business. And it was for like old business. But new, Internet businesses meant lots of small distributed tasks that didn’t require anything that Sun made and could be done on el cheapo hardware and software. It’s like those old people who complained that mp3 wasn’t as good audio as whatever. They’re right but it doesn’t matter. Obviously, Sun hardware was better but it was like 100x the cost for 3x improvement. So everyone did the math and skipped Sun. And people sound funny complaining about turds.

Annatar 4y ago
I could anything I wanted by putting together “turds.” You could, but it wouldn't be very good. Perhaps you noticed, but many others share your opinion and have in fact done that exact thing, and the results are not very good, which to me personally is completely logical and understandable. The above is not obvious to you? It’s like those old people who complained that mp3 wasn’t as good audio as whatever. They’re right but it doesn’t matter. Thank you for providing a good example of what I wrote earlier: throwing pearls before swine who are not capable of understanding it to be able to appreciate or pick it over "good enough". IT is a shitty industry, and your example illustrates, in part, quite well why that is so. If I live to see my retirement, it will be one of the happiest days of my life because I won't be putting up with that kind of shit any more.

sangnoir 4y ago

I put better in quotes because Linux-on-x86 wasn't the technologically better choice in the early 00s; but it was the much cheaper, yet viable option and had better ROI for many SMEs. Sun lingered in organizations with bigger budgets and had the expertise to appreciate it, but Linux had the momentum; most of the new server-side was Linux-first. It wasn't just Sun that suffered, but all of big iron.

smm11 4y ago
NeXT was very expensive, and better, but not enough to bypass the price. Sun was the same. Expensive, better, but better enough? Apple is much the same. VR might take them, and Google down.