‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

What Sun got wrong

692 points · 437 comments · chmaynard

  1. flanked-evergl · · 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. whobre · · focus · HN ↗
      Eh, depends when. In 2005, sure. Not so much in the 1990s
      1. rwmj · · focus · HN ↗
        I was asked to benchmark some Solaris/SPARC vs Linux/Intel hardware in around 1997, and the price-performance of the Linux gear was easily 3+ times better. There wasn't really any comparison, especially when you consider how you could buy white box PCs from a local shop, grab a Red Hat ISO for nothing, and have an installed Linux server in 24 hours, compared to weeks to get something more expensive and worse for the Sun option. Even if Sun had been more reliable, it wouldn't have mattered because you could buy 3x the PCs and keep two in a cupboard, or more likely just replace everything with more numerous and better performing Linux PCs which was what we did.
        1. pjmlp · · focus · HN ↗
          Assuming that the PC was actually supported.

          I had to survive with 800x600 on a 1024x768 monitor for quite some time.

          1. fragmede · · focus · HN ↗
            The paucity of screen real estate in those days. Now, a 4k ultra wide monitor is less than $2,000 and has so many pixels!
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.