Living my best Sun Microsystems ecosystem life in 2025
osnews.com50 points by birdculture 2 hours ago
50 points by birdculture 2 hours ago
I love my ultra 45, it’s certainly the best looking of the early 2000s unix workstations!
I lucked out and got a system with 16GB And 2x procs, added in the XVR-2500 and PcPro to play with. It’s also ex-Lockheed Martin which is fun/mildly alarming!
Since this thread is likely to draw knowledgable sparc people, there’s a totally unrelated question I have - I have a sun blade 150, and was looking around on the motherboard. There are few jumpers that say things like “x86 debug” or x86 rom something - and the socket is technically 378… and from what I can research, the chipset worked with x86… Was there a point at which the sun blade motherboard was setup to work with either sparc or x86?! ( not so crazy given ev6 alpha chipset works on x86/the zx1 chipset worked on itanium and hp-parisc? )
> No “AI” writing aids, no “AI” summaries, no ChatGPT, no Gemini search nonsense, nothing. I take pride in doing research and writing properly, without the “aid” of digital parrots with brain damage, and if there’s any errors, they’re mine and mine alone. Take pride in your work and reject “AI”.
This guy better not be using spell check with a tantrum like that tagged to his opening line.
I sold an old Ultra45 from my lab on eBay rather than letting the university people scrap it.
It went for the equivalent of $2000 (which I later donated to a charity) and attracted quite a bidding war. Apparently at least one major airport (I won't say where or in which bit of the world) used one to control its landing light system and were, through a weird network of contractors, looking to buy more hardware for redundancy...
I have also put an IndyO2 SGI machine on eBay that similarly found a repurposed fate. We are now finally at the point where the machines I held on to as a teenager much to my mum's chagrin are now becoming highly valuable again!
I would love to hear counterpoints -- The Sun Ray thin client experience seems interesting, but the modern version of that seems to be the web/app/cloud ecosystem we have now (where the load and storage of your interaction are resident on some other system, potentially freeing up your local device from resource needs). Specifically, a self-hosted collaborative model with Nextcloud + Collabora or similar. I do wonder what workloads or designs would be fit for a more "time-sharing" approach.
I do wonder if a lot of the stuff that Google has worked on Google Docs, Chromebook were inspired by Sun. Eric Schmidt was a VP at Sun and Novell before joining Google.
> Solaris, meanwhile, which had long been available on x86, saw its “own” ISA SPARC live on in the server space until roughly 2017 or so, and was even briefly available as open source until Oracle did its thing.
Maybe worth noting that SPARC was (is?) licensable:
OpenSPARC is under GPL2.
(200x) "Never bet against x86" -> (202x) "Never bet against ARM"
> (200x) "Never bet against x86" -> (202x) "Never bet against ARM"
Citation needed. There is only 1 workstation maker with ARM: Apple.
You can get ARM-based PCs and laptops. Thing is so far they all suck except for Apple right now.
I sure as hell hope that if Qualcomm even comes close to parity with other platforms they change their name because I'm going to have a hard time associated Snapdragon and their other products with anything that is quality. So far these are for desktop CPUs what
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant
is for cars. On the other hand, Intel is doing everything it can to keep the x86 platform from advancing which will let even the laggards catch up.
nvidia dgx spark?
also, system76 has one: https://system76.com/desktops/thelio-astra-a1.1-n1/configure
also, dell: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/desktop-computers/dell-pro-m...
HP is coming soon, will be called `ZGX Nano AI Station` apparently
Also lenovo: https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/workstations/thinkstation-p-s...
There are Qualcomm laptops now I believe (at least that's what I heard when I was last working for them). NXP also made some boxes (I own a bunch of them). The server market is also growing with Ampere and Cavium (now Novell) which I have both.
Note that the rise of Linux was caused by the rise of low cost, high performance x86 CPUs. There was a period of time when it was obvious you could get much more bang for the buck from x86, but there wasn't a viable OS to use (for servers). Yes NT existed, and we shipped binaries for NT but it was always an awkward fit to run server software on NT. So Linux, which at the time was kind of crappy (unreliable, didn't have threading) was improved by various vendors' efforts to the point where they could re-target their server products into PC-class hardware. Sun was sunk by the people who were downstream in the value chain leading back to Sun's revenue working hard to design Sun out of the loop, by means of PC-class hardware and the Linux OS.
UNIX was available for x86 systems for several years before Linux was released.
"Several years"?
Try "a decade and a half".
AT&T itself ported UNIX™ to the Intel 8086 in 1978:
https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/dennis-m-ritchie/other...
The 8086 was the first ever microprocessor to run Unix – before 68000 or anything.
The first release of MS, later SCO, Xenix was 1981.
https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-xenix
It was later ported to the 8086 in 1983 and 80286 by 1985.
https://landley.net/history/mirror/unix/scohistory.html
So Unix was running some 4 years before IBM launched the PC and Xenix was on the market by 2 years after launch.
That was a full 8 years before Linus got Linux 0.01 out in 1991.
UNIX is a 1970s OS; x86 PC Unix was a commercial 1980s product; Linux is a 1990s thing.
I worked in EDA while the transition happened. We and our customers had been big buyers of Sun and/or HP workstations. The switch happened several years after Linux was released. When x86 performance started to look competitive, there was a lot of interest in switching to NT, and very little interest in paying for SCO Linux etc. It wasn't until RedHat came out with an enterprisey amount of support that companies started to switch en masse.
And what about *BSD?
I installed 386BSD 0.1 pretty soon after it was released in mid 1992.
This replaced Interactive Systems 386/ix that I had been using on the same PC since 1987.
Came along later.
386BSD was 1992:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.unix.bsd/c/TZ-gIRRHiXA/m/eA...
BSD/386, later BSD/OS, was 1993:
https://www.krsaborio.net/bsd/research/1993/0411.htm
A pic of a contemporary advert:
"If 386BSD had been available before I created Linux, then Linux might not have been born" - Linus
My impression is that there was also a bit of a culture clash. BSD was the white coat academic world and not very welcoming to outsiders. Linux was the dirty hacker style.
And then there was the lawsuit that held back BSD at a crucial time in history.