Thread

1. flanked-evergl · 1790001593 · focus · HN ↗

   Solaris was worse than Linux, and SPARC was worse than Intel. A lot worse.

   Even ZFS was way better integrated with the Linux kernel even while Solaris was supposedly maintained.

   1. pjmlp · 1790002101 · focus · HN ↗

      Not in 2000, at my employer back then, our Linux server was only good as MP3 storage exposed via Samba/NFS.

      All development and production deployments was being done across Solaris, Aix and HP-UX in regards to UNIX flavours.

      1. icedchai · 1790002495 · focus · HN ↗

         I had a similar experience. I forget the exact timing, but it was probably around 2002 - 2003 that Linux felt "good enough." I was at a startup that finally considered putting its "enterprise" stack on Linux.

         1. pjmlp · 1790006054 · focus · HN ↗

            Later in 2003, when I joined CERN, there were still Sun workstations being used, and I was an earlier user of Scientific Linux in 2004.

            Afterwards Nokia Networks were still deploying into HP-UX, and the first big Linux project started around late 2005, to Red-Hat.

            1. icedchai · 1790029151 · focus · HN ↗

               I worked at smaller companies that were more risk tolerant. At an earlier startup (late 90's), all the developers ran RedHat on Dells, but the actual production environment was Solaris. I remember going out to a customer site and deploying some massive Sun Enterprise setup. It probably cost a half million USD for the whole configuration. Multiple servers (Enterprise 450 and 250 I think, two of each), multiple storage boxes (StorEdge), Veritas filesystem software, some other Veritas HA system, several Cisco switches, some firewall brand that I forget. All this was connected to a fractional T1 (512kbit.) It never went live due to some contractual issue. All that money wasted.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.