539 points by chmaynard about 15 hours ago | 313 comments | View on ycombinator
strenholme 2 minutes ago |
coreyh14444 about 15 hours ago |
cryptonector about 8 hours ago |
- Cancelling -if briefly- Solaris on x86 in 2002. This killed Solaris in the minds of many who didn't want to be locked into Sun for SPARC.
- Failing to make a deal with Google in 2002. Apparently Sun insisted on knowing how many servers Google had, something that Google considered a high-value secret, so Sun failed to make a deal with Google, so Google ended up using Linux and contributing to Linux. This was a tremendous mind-share disaster -- it's hard to overestimate the damage done by this.
- Closing Sun PS (professional services). Bad bad move, possibly the worst of them.
- Not giving up on J2ME earlier -- it's not the sort of thing that could last forever, and Steve Jobs killed it with the iPhone. This was a case of vendor lock-in clouding Sun's decision making.
- Failure to recognize that Sun needed to become a systems company, not a CPU company.
- Failure to respond to Active Directory. This was yet another case of vendor lock-in clouding Sun's decision making: the Sun DS product team was milking their existing customers more than they wanted to go after more business with a sustainable strategy.
- UltraSPARC was more than a decade too late to make up for SPARC falling way behind x86_64. Sun needed to give up on SPARC, but again, vendor lock-in sounds sweet but turns out to be poison.
- Failure to make a deal with Apple for it to use ZFS in OS X.
- 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. But of course, it turns out that Oracle -a company built on building mind-share- had become too blinded by vendor lock-in just like Sun, so...
There were numerous other mistakes along the way. These are the most salient, for me anyway.
What's shocking is how long it took Sun to fail under those circumstances!
Also shocking is how much amazing stuff came out of Solaris engineering and the systems division!
thegagne about 13 hours ago |
Being a hacker-type, I did everything with it.
Email? Forget waiting for some bloated email client, I'm using pine.
Want some html on my personal page? Use vi.
I think they didn't take away my access for years after college, and I would sometimes login and poke around just for fun.
I do blame them, along with the rise of Java and the awful gui toolkit motif for convincing me to drop out of computer science and switch to Computational Math for my bachelors degree. I was so frustrated that our grades were dependent on learning something that I saw as completely worthless in light of the dotcom boom happening at the time. I wanted them to teach us web technologies, or at least some good system code, but all I got was broken x11 and awful performance.
labrador about 13 hours ago |
jedberg about 12 hours ago |
I would contend that Sun was never interested in running a business. They always cared more about building amazing technology and suffered the sales to make money.
You can't deny that Sun hardware was top tier and always ahead of its time (until Oracle bought them).
Edit: I had on rose colored glasses. I was thinking of late 90s SUN. They did in fact start getting crushed in the early 2000s.
Zigurd about 14 hours ago |
What everybody except Steve Jobs got wrong was not taking user interface seriously enough. Not even Xerox. I've used aa Xerox Alto, a Sun workstation, an LMI CADR, and a Symbolics 3600, and none of them were as carefully crafted as a Macintosh with a tiny memory and a floppy disk. Next inherited this ethic.
Jobs valued the person using the machine more than anything else about the machine.
schmichael about 11 hours ago |
Meanwhile I have to imagine Sun, like IBM and everyone else at the time, was noticing what incredible margins you get from software services. No factories or fabs. No supply chain logistics. Sun's proprietary hardware business should have been dying (or at least radically shifting: a product/engineering problem, not a sales one) by all market indications of the time.
So if I was a sales person and got a call from a startup for a colo's worth of machines... I probably don't have much incentive to pick up. The startup will probably fail, as most do, so the opportunity to build a relationship and sell higher margin services is probably nil. Startups hate paying for that stuff anyway.
I have incredible respect for Bryan Cantrill. He obviously knows far more about this situation and business than I do, so he's almost definitely more correct than I am...
However I would ask readers to at least be curious why sales didn't pick up the phone. Were they "bored?" Or was it a rational choice and much deeper problems with Sun's business model were the cause of their demise?
grahamlee about 14 hours ago |
jonathaneunice about 12 hours ago |
But selling to Sun Microsystems as a vendor was a joy. It paid bills like clockwork (net 35 IIRC). Completely showed up all the multi-$B IT competitors. They preached hyper-efficiency, but Sun delivered it in its own dealings. Unfortunately after the dot-com downfall Sun extended days payments outstanding (DPO) just like everyone else.
rbanffy about 9 hours ago |
The same applies to IBM's POWER and Z - how many green field projects are being built for them? Apart from weirdos (such as myself) who is even interested in that? And even then, I will not suggest building anything new on AIX or z/OS, or Linux on either, unless there is a really compelling (such as "we got the hardware for free", or "we really need instruction-cycle latencies to run inference and we can't match that with any other NPU") reason.
Don't get me wrong - I love using uncommon hardware with uncommon OSs (which expose bugs that are affected by endianness, or Linuxisms, or blindly assuming a string is ASCII, or that a file stays put while you use it).
reenorap about 12 hours ago |
I went to the Menlo Park offices to see a demo of their 64-cpu (I think) system at the time but it didn’t take long for Linux on intel killed the entire market.
acomjean about 3 hours ago |
Being a Unix shop on our project didn't stop them from creating a new timecard system that worked only on windows.... The solution, citirx. It was a difficult time for non x86 / windows machines.
At some point we got SunRays as light terminals. Those were pretty good I must say.
Plus they put the Control key in the right place...
f055 about 11 hours ago |
kens about 14 hours ago |
One big problem was that there was no cooperation inside Sun. Groups in Sun kind of viewed HP as a competitor, kind of viewed SGI as a competitor, but the real competitor to be destroyed was that other group in Sun. The leaders of the project I worked on spent most of their time in political battles, trying to acquire or outmaneuver the other teams working on similar projects.
Another problem was that the main parts of Sun had conflicting strategies. The Solaris/SunSoft division wanted to run on SPARC, x86, and Power PC for the largest market. The SPARC division, of course, wanted none of that. The hardware division wanted to make expensive servers, but the other teams saw cheaper hardware as the right direction. The market ended up moving to cheap rack-mounted Linux x86 servers, so nobody at Sun won in the end.
pnw about 2 hours ago |
But it was the "Steve from Dell" revelation at the end that absolutely killed me!
onraglanroad about 12 hours ago |
It seemed to me like they couldn't decide whether they were a hardware company or a software company.
Mind you, I was young at the time so possibly didn't have the best understanding of the situation. Seems like they left the decision too late though.
Dismissing Linux as a hobbiest OS definitely turned out badly.
alpha_trion about 11 hours ago |
ggm about 4 hours ago |
I actually appreciate many things post Solaris were net beneficial. The scripted install stuff presaged a lot of what emerged as puppet/chef/ansible/helm type processes. (this is pre YAML/JSON) -The disk/drive/segment labelling scheme has been completely normalised, the BSD device/partition scheme had limits.
And of course ZFS.
ecshafer about 14 hours ago |
matt_heimer about 12 hours ago |
I got to see a server installed via crane because they couldn't go up in that building's elevator.
vincent-manis about 7 hours ago |
kerblang about 11 hours ago |
RobRivera about 3 hours ago |
Me gusta
donflamenco about 11 hours ago |
Later on, when Schwartz was the CEO, they had a datacenter in a shipping container concept selling to management/IT folks. Delivering that infra via APIs to developers being the key differentiator. I'd love to hear Bryan's take since he was involved in the cloud space after he left.
nielsbot about 13 hours ago |
justin66 about 15 hours ago |
thomasfl about 12 hours ago |
poemxo about 8 hours ago |
adamsb6 about 9 hours ago |
time4tea about 8 hours ago |
They were quite fun.
But can confirm, buying Sun was PITA.
titzer about 14 hours ago |
Sun's heyday was in the boom. The fish were jumping in the boat. So naturally they were building bigger and bigger boats.
There was always the one-off ideas that might have gone here or there, but that core server cow just seemed like an endless source of cash. Thus they neglected the workstation market and ironically, the market for anything bigger than one single server rack. They didn't understand horizontal scaling, and the rise of cheap-but-replaceable consumer hardware like how Google did things was alien to them. They poo-poo'ed Linux, they killed and then unkilled Solaris x86, and a number of other things.
I do miss Sun though. As far as engineering goes, they were a very serious company full of serious engineers. Basically the polar opposite of 10X tech bros and startup culture.
Exoristos about 12 hours ago |
bigbuppo about 13 hours ago |
keeda about 13 hours ago |
cmdrk about 15 hours ago |
chambers about 8 hours ago |
Oracle expressed the opposite. Within a year or two Larry killed OpenSolaris, let the MySQL, Hudson and OpenOffice communities fork away, sued Google over Java, and watched Gosling and most of the engineers who embodied Sun walk out.
The part that rankles the most, and undermines many a retrospective I think, is that Larry the lawnmower turned out to be a better steward of Java & MySQL than Sun was. Coldbloodedness is a survival trait.
hvisli about 3 hours ago |
gadders about 13 hours ago |
tiffanyh about 13 hours ago |
dcminter about 12 hours ago |
So far the best theory I've heard was that it was bait to make them tastier to IBM and Oracle - but even that seems kind of weak; had they really given up at that point? Does anyone have a better theory?
cmiller1 about 14 hours ago |
riazrizvi about 10 hours ago |
undefined about 14 hours ago |
ImJasonH about 14 hours ago |
You can't just say that without sharing those too!
strappymcneeler about 15 hours ago |
alexnewman about 12 hours ago |
whalesalad about 13 hours ago |
shevy-java about 8 hours ago |
I think the big US mega-mega-corporations, while powerful and dominating, also became super-boring. Nobody mentions how epic Google allegedly should be, or is; in 2012 that was much more common. People fatigued from corporate propaganda. And now the AI slop propaganda - that one accelerates disinterest and decay.
I think Sun should probably have pushed more on its key technologies. Simplify java, simplify Solaris while pushing on it hard - who knows what could have happened. It is idle to want to talk about it now though.
DonHopkins about 14 hours ago |
Things were going great at Dell until its wildly popular advertising campaign suddenly came tumbling down over an unfortunate indiscretion on the Lower East Side that surprised absolutely nobody...
https://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/10/deli.dude.arrest/
>'Dell Dude' arrested for marijuana possession
>Monday, February 10, 2003 Posted: 3:55 PM EST (2055 GMT)
>NEW YORK (CNN) -- Benjamin Curtis, better known as the "Dell Dude" from the computer company's television commercials, was arrested Sunday while he allegedly attempted to buy marijuana on Manhattan's Lower East Side.
Steve The Dell Dude Commercial Compilation (DUDE WE'RE GETTING A DELL!)
ChrisArchitect about 14 hours ago |
chalmovsky about 12 hours ago |
traveltalk about 13 hours ago |
flanked-evergl about 14 hours ago |
Even ZFS was way better integrated with the Linux kernel even while Solaris was supposedly maintained.
rajtilakjee about 12 hours ago |
The only way you could get people with Solaris experience was to hire people from colleges where students had access to expensive hard to access servers. This limited the number of people a company could hire to handle their Solaris servers.
I remember being told by the now forgotten snap.com—back when snap.com was a web portal business owned by NBC (these days it’s owned by Snapchat but is a completely different company)—to pound sand because I had Linux but not Solaris experience. There was a certain elitism among Solaris users at the time that Linux was a toy operating system. [1]
I already knew that wasn’t true; I remember, before the height of the dot-com wave, installing Linux on my desktop PC at work because the Sun servers we logged in to to run X applications were overloaded and difficult to access, so I just had a local instance of Slackware (and later on RedHat) so I could run X applications locally and just telnet in to the Sun servers, which was a good deal faster.
A few years after my unpleasant experience being interviewed by the NBC portal incarnation of snap.com, I saw that the company folded and went under—which didn’t surprise me because they weren’t being economical about the servers they were running. The company I was at was running a couple of Dell RedHat Linux servers, which kept us on the Internet cheaply and reliably.
It didn’t surprise me that Linux soon overtook Solaris and ate them for breakfast.
[1] Bryan Cantrill’s infamous “Have you ever kissed a girl” line being an example of this snobbishness Sun users had at the time.