Top
Best
New

Posted by chmaynard 8 hours ago

What Sun got wrong(bcantrill.dtrace.org)
446 points | 245 commentspage 2
grahamlee 8 hours ago|
The Sun model of beefy server, ultra-thin client worked incredibly well and presaged the widespread adoption of virtualisation that eventually led to cloud computing and containerised software. Unfortunately that model made it very easy to undercut their prices using commodity hardware; I managed a Solaris/Sun Ray network c.2004 and it was cheaper to switch to Linux/Intel and buy spare hardware to keep in a cupboard “just in case” than to keep the Sun network going through its support contract.
titzer 8 hours ago||
I worked at Sun labs and used a Sun Ray daily for a whole summer. It worked...OK. Definitely not "Incredibly well". We had a network of a few hundred Sun Rays and two E10Ks backing it. More than a million for the servers and $1000k a piece for the Sun Rays was not cheap. Basically any $1000 laptop was more powerful, without the need for a crazy powerful Sun server. The experience of taking out my ID card, walking down the hall to another cubicle and popping it in and getting my session was magical. But I did that less than once a week, so I don't think it was overall worth it. The Sun Rays also had a pretty crappy LCD, about 1-2 years behind the SoTA.

It was a cool idea. It will keep coming back again and again. But at Sun's price points around the early 2000s, it was a loser, and I actually agree with the market in this instance. Sun Ray was a flop.

arethuza 8 hours ago|||
"It will keep coming back again and again."

It lived on in the world of Windows Terminal Services and things like Citrix - maybe still does in some places.

twoodfin 6 hours ago|||
Citrix is still everywhere you need a client that can do things a web browser can’t—like run ancient VB4 software or talk to device hardware—deployed at scale.

Citrix was bought out by PE for $16.5B a few years ago, under the (sadly correct) assumption they hadn’t been charging their customers enough money for this essential tech.

steve1977 7 hours ago|||
It lives on in the world of LLMs in a way.
foobarian 3 hours ago||||
Stadia? GeForce Now? Xbox Cloud Gaming? :-)
abhiyerra 7 hours ago||||
Chromebooks…
dbojan 6 hours ago|||
$1000k ?
alpineman 8 hours ago|||
Is this how the whole LLM thing will go down once providers raise prices?
bluGill 8 hours ago|||
Maybe - ask me in 20 years...

Nobody knows how the future will be. There are lots of options. There are self hostable open models today - they are not as good, but some report they are good enough. Right now I don't have the hardware to try them (I could - if I'm willing to accept a small number of tokens per minute - useful means more tokens per second as I can get in an hour). However I expect in a few years I'll be able buy consumer hardware with good enough GPUs (or perhaps an AI chip???). Will anyone other than a few hobbyists buy them? time will tell.

TheOtherHobbes 5 hours ago||||
And space launches. The Big Names will lose a ton of money and disappear as the tech commoditises.

The moat is Being Able To Do Things No One Else Can and as both hardware and software commoditise that moat disappears.

Open LLMs are already only a few months behind the frontier models and as soon as someone works out that accessible and cheap domain-specific custom training has the potential to be a gamechanger the Big Names will die.

Math puzzles only get you so far.

LLMs are in their Big Compute phase, and it's only a matter of time before that ends - because the intelligence of the frontier models isn't increasing fast enough and providing big enough benefits to make the models more valuable than cheaper, smaller competition.

dizhn 7 hours ago|||
I think prices will go down not up eventually and everybody will have access to it in abundance. That might make most current AI companies go down of course.
dijit 8 hours ago|||
it is often cheaper to buy a spare of something and throw it in a cupboard rather than have a support contract.

I have a bunch of Aruba switches and this is what we do, because it's a lot cheaper.

bluGill 8 hours ago||
If you are only buying a single spare that is the case. Support contracts make sense when you would want several dozen spares.
dijit 7 hours ago||
if a support contract is 70% of the cost of something, then for every 2 of something a spare is cheaper.

For Aruba I think it was 1:1; a support contract was the same price as the device itself over 2 years or something.

Support contracts never cover a "site" they always cover individual devices, so your cost scales with the amount you have... so I'm not sure I follow what you're saying..

Unless you mean to imply that you're replacing units more than once every 2 years, in which case of course you're right... but then I might consider going with another vendor entirely because that is a pretty terrible reliability record.

kjs3 5 hours ago|||
Support contracts never cover a "site" they always cover individual devices

Wrong. I've signed many support contracts that were negotiated basically to "one flat fee for everything we sell that you use, including future purchases[1]" for some period of time. Some people think that they 'optimize' contracts by pushing for "I just want a service contract only on the SKUs I have". That's not always a real optimization.

[1] Often, this includes a tacit "including things you are using that you didn't tell us about".

dijit 5 hours ago||
Interesting, I've literally never seen that (though obviously not doubting your experience) and I have (at one point) been in charge of 1% of web traffic..

I'm wondering if this is something uniquely american, because we don't seem to have much negotiating power in the UK/SE.

bluGill 5 hours ago||
I'm guessing it is the size of your company or datacenter. You have to be throwing around millions of dollars to get the opened ended contracts.
bluGill 7 hours ago|||
There are lots of different support contracts. Some of them really do cover the entire site. You seem to not realize the scale of a large data center. If every device lasts 5 years you are replacing 10 per day is not unheard of.
pjmlp 8 hours ago|||
Remember, "The Network is the Computer".

Which is why it is kind of ironic having folks discussing microservices as something groundbreaking.

jeffbee 6 hours ago|||
Counterpoint: it actually sucked. Entire universities lost a day's work when their editors were all fatally stuck in an rpc.lockd bug.
convolvatron 3 hours ago||
the lab I was at got on this train right around the beginning of the sparc architecture. yellow pages. nfs based swap, nfs based boot. 10Mbit thinnet. we suffered for a few months and then moved to xterms for the cheap seats (which was a much better place to cut services) and went back to buying self-sufficient workstations.

the best was having everyone with a disk cross-mount each other. any failure snowballed into a global failure.

miohtama 8 hours ago||
Java applets!
reenorap 5 hours ago||
I worked on enterprise software around the turn of the century. There was no database/os combo more bullet proof than Oracle on Solaris. Solaris was a great OS but the speed and ferocity that Linux killed Sun was something I will never forget.

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.

f055 4 hours ago||
I was once SUN Microsystems Campus Ambassador at Oxford University and our first lecture was about dtrace! The guy from SUN was blown away by attendance so the higher ups wanted to do more & more events in bigger rooms. But as corporate weeks passed, I started telling them to postpone because everyone was entering the exam sessions. Corporate of course did not listen. Long story short, SUN sent 3 experts but we couldn’t get the crowds and the main lecture room was embarrassingly empty.
onraglanroad 5 hours ago||
As an outsider at the time, when Linux was taking off, there seemed to be a lot of people asking why they wouldn't Open Source Solaris.

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.

goalieca 5 hours ago|
I remember the attitude was that solaris was for serious professionals and had the highest calibre of code. For the most part it seemed true and these were solid workhorses. But, i did end up finding concurrency bugs when they introduced their multi-core integer computing behemoth.
alpha_trion 4 hours ago||
There is a simple rule they forgot to follow: never make it difficult for customers to give you money. They had excellent hardware and software but that wasn’t enough to save them.
kerblang 4 hours ago||
HN lift of James Gosling's story about the radioactive UltraSparc II

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10638929

time4tea 1 hour ago||
First work computer was Sparc IPX, a brief dalliance with HP D and K series, then had various Ultra, and servers were all sorts including E10k then various SunFire, and the Fujitsu Prime Power.

They were quite fun.

But can confirm, buying Sun was PITA.

poemxo 2 hours ago||
Having missed this era of computing growing up, I have a completely different view of Sun. I see Sun as this legendary old power that invented cool things like ZFS, zones, and lament that they sold themselves to Oracle. It shocks me to read about them making IBM-style mistakes.
anyfoo 36 minutes ago|
I mean, they were both.
kens 7 hours ago||
I worked at Sun from 1995 to 2004. My take is that Sun had major structural problems all along, but as long as money streamed in from the tech bubble, these issues could be ignored. When the tech bubble ended, it was too late to fix the problems.

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.

jeffbee 6 hours ago|
Right before they fell face-first into the grave, they did finally ship the v20z, which was a completely reasonable way to run Solaris x86. Its management board ran Linux on PowerPC, for irony purposes.
donflamenco 4 hours ago|
Forget the hardware, I feel Sun could of continued their life as the business AWS became.

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.

More comments...