Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems Oracle Hardware IT

Oracle Shuts Older Servers Out of Solaris 11 203

Posted by Soulskill
from the hope-you're-done-with-them-'cause-we-sure-are dept.
PCM2 writes "The Register is reporting that Oracle has decided not to allow Solaris 11 to install on older Sparc hardware, including UltraSparc-I, UltraSparc-II, UltraSparc-IIe, UltraSparc-III, UltraSparc-III+, UltraSparc-IIIi, UltraSparc-IV, and UltraSparc-IV+ processors. The Solaris 11 Express development version released in November did not have this restriction, which suggests that the OS would likely run on these models. Unfortunately, the installer won't. All generations of Sparc T series processors and Sparc Enterprise M machines will be able to install and run Solaris 11, however."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle Shuts Older Servers Out of Solaris 11

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @04:21AM (#36608664)

    Because it will force companies to re-evaluate their position with Oracle, why Oracle is even relevant in today's market is still a mystery

    • by zig007 (1097227) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @04:33AM (#36608708)

      Because it will force companies to re-evaluate their position with Oracle, why Oracle is even relevant in today's market is still a mystery

      We ARE talking servers from 2005-2007 here. Servers unlikely and unsuitable for production or any other professional use anyway.
      Also, no end-of-support date for Solaris 10 has even been published yet.

      Oracle is relevant since it still provides some advantages over the competition, no mystery there. However, I know what you mean. :-)

      • by drolli (522659) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @04:40AM (#36608734) Journal

        Servers from 2005 to 2007 are unsuitable for production?

        The usual life cycle for a server may be slightly longer than 4 years. When i worked in the computing center there were single solaris machines which had specific tasks which were about 10 years old, even the solaris terminal/web servers were in use for 6-8 years.

        For a serious (not in terms of the size) database server i would hope that its possible to operate it for longer (but obvious that does not mean you need a new OS, if the old one is still patched).

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by zig007 (1097227)

          3, or at the most, 4 years is what at least I am used to, and AFAIK what most servers are specified to run reliably for.
          Of course, one could run servers for longer than that if one wants to take some chances, however there are usually very small gains in doing that.
          "Specific task" servers are typically virtualized, nowadays, so those barely exist.

          Anyway, as I said, older servers can continue to run Solaris 10 if they want.
          And if I were their operators I would not take the risk of doing major updates on the

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          Strange, most place I dealt with the server was gone when the support ran out, which was typically 3 to 5 years depending on the contract. Sure you could run them longer, it isn't like milk where it is just gonna "go bad" but frankly computers are machines just like any other and servers do get more use than your average desktop so I can see businesses not wanting to trust unsupported hardware.

          Now since i'm sure Oracle doesn't sell support for this hardware anymore I bet most companies have already shitcann

          • by drolli (522659) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @05:46AM (#36609006) Journal

            The University i studied at bought a (As far as remember, its the only system matching the spec which i remember) Ultra Enterprise 4000 in around 1996 or 1997.

            Please direct your view to:

            http://www.oracle.com/us/support/library/lifetime-support-hardware-os-337182.pdf [oracle.com]

            So the regular supported time would have been 14 years and the extended supported time would have been longer.

          • by buchanmilne (258619) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @05:50AM (#36609026) Homepage

            Strange, most place I dealt with the server was gone when the support ran out, which was typically 3 to 5 years depending on the contract.

            So, you didn't have any "big iron" then?

            Now since i'm sure Oracle doesn't sell support for this hardware anymore

            They do.

            I bet most companies have already shitcanned them or sold them off, so I bet this will only affect a minority at best. For those that are still running what is frankly in computing terms ancient hardware it isn't like there aren't free Linux distros that will run on these machines,

            You want to run an unsupported, experimental port of Linux on an E6900, or an E10000, or an E20000?

            and if you are so concerned about money you are running actual business on a server that old frankly I doubt you're gonna pay for an upgrade to the latest and greatest Solaris anyway.

            In this market (midrange servers), it's usually not about the money, but the supposed "stability". And, you wouldn't pay to upgrade, you've been paying premium software support to be able to run whatever version of Solaris is supported.

            So I don't see this as any different than say MSFT saying they wouldn't support running Winserver 2K10 on a P4, since that is the age we are talking about here. I just don't see old servers getting expensive new OSes, that just wouldn't make any sense. Maybe someone can chime in here and say why they'd buy new server licenses to run on 6 year old tech?

            Our company bought new UltraSparc III and IV servers (V215s, V445s) in 2008 (bad decision, I didn't support it). At the same time we bought Sun X4450 Intel-based servers. Guess which ones will still have a supported OS in 7 year's time? The cheaper ones with 4 times the cores.

            • by zig007 (1097227)

              So, you didn't have any "big iron" then?

              Well, *really* big iron servers are usually partially replaced to achieve longer lifetimes, so it is really a somewhat unfair comparison.
              Anyway, If one runs a Sun Enterprise server, a major operating system upgrade late in the life of the server seems quite pointless as well. It sure doesn't add to stability.

            • by hackstraw (262471)

              The reason that Sun failed is because they failed as at being a Dell or HP and sell cheaper x86 linux based stuff like Dell and HP does. Almost nobody needs an E10k, E15k, E25k, and most of the people that think they need one are wrong. Remember that compute capacity goes up and power usage goes down, whereas the maintenance price of an E*k stays the same or goes up over time, and its relative computing power goes down.

              Most everyone today does replication (optionally geographically as well) and hardware r

              • by drolli (522659)

                No, absolutely. Please order a server from Dell (i mean, HP sell *serious* Servers) which should serve as the central file server for 10000s of users.

                I think sun failed because they strayed from the path, namely to focus on a client-server architecture which avoids decentralized maintenance tasks.

                When i worked with suns they had 2 or three major bonus points and none was related to price, all related to software features which reduced the TCO. It was easily possible to maintain a *lot* of machines for CIP p

                • No, absolutely. Please order a server from Dell (i mean, HP sell *serious* Servers) which should serve as the central file server for 10000s of users.

                  At Fermilab, working on an LHC detector team, we had 5-10 Linux boxes doing distributed NFS, boxes that cost a couple hundred bucks a piece. They were serving 1000s of machines concurrently for file server purposes.

                  How many organizations are serving 10,000+ users from a central file server? Not that many. And if you are, you're going to cluster the fuck out of it for redundancy and scalability. Big Iron is dead. It was killed for Linux, with it's ability to run on damn near any x86 box, it's reliability, an

                  • by drolli (522659)

                    The point is simple: CERN has so much experience in building networks that maintaining this that setting up a complicated, specific configuration is not a problem.

                    (Now dont tell me that the install of the distro helped you in setting up the distributed nfs)

                    • CERN had no responsibility in maintaing it whatsoever. It took 1-2 people to admin it, and it was only a small subset of their roles (and I was one of the people).

                      This isn't rocket science.

          • by BitZtream (692029)

            Strange, most place I dealt with the server was gone when the support ran out, which was typically 3 to 5 years depending on the contract.

            Thats because you think Dell sells 'Servers'.

            Theres a difference between anything you buy from Dell and a 64 processor Sun cabinet, and part of that difference is 10s of thousands of dollars price difference. Oh and the Sun server was actually expected to last longer than the warranty on it.

            Sadly, you don't seem to know what a 'big' server looks like. Let me give you one little hint, Microsoft doesn't sell software designed to run on a medium to large server. At best, even a big Windows install is still

          • So I don't see this as any different than say MSFT saying they wouldn't support running Winserver 2K10 on a P4, since ...

            The differerence is: all those machines have a SPARC processor. And SPARC was designed to be binary compatible for its full lifetime ... in other words there is no sane reason not to be able to install solaris on an older machin, except you want to force the owner to buy a new one.

        • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @05:36AM (#36608956) Journal

          (but obvious that does not mean you need a new OS, if the old one is still patched).

          I would rather strongly suspect that this will be the bigger factor in customer ire, or lack thereof. Given that SPARC gear has never been cheap, systems of that vintage still in operation were, presumably, purchased because there was some important task to be done that was done best on Solaris and/or SPARC. If that was a matter of performance, an upgrade to some newer hardware is likely in the cards. If it was a matter of specific application compatibility, they are unlikely to be switching OS versions until the present one loses support.

          If 10 is supported for a nice long time, people likely won't care much. If they find that both their existing hardware and their existing software are being ditched, they will be Less. Happy.

        • Considering that the UltraSPARC I is from 1995 we are talking about a range of machines far older than 4 years.

          However I completely agree with yout :D I don't buy server to decomission it 4 years late, that makes no sense.

        • by dananderson (1880)

          Sure, 2005-2007 servers are suitable for production--just keep using the current Solaris 10 software. The real question is, "Should I deploy a new server, which typically runs for several years, based on obsolete hardware?"

      • We ARE talking servers from 2005-2007 here. Servers unlikely and unsuitable for production or any other professional use anyway.

        In some environments, the only reason SPARC boxes were bought was for their longer support lifetime (e.g. "minimum of 7 years support") than competing x86 models.

        Since virtualising old installs is more difficult on Solaris for SPARC, I predict this will just accelerate migrations to x86, or for environments that need midrange servers, PPC or Itanium.

        • by d3vi1 (710592)
          Virtualizing old installs is quite easy actually, you can migrate to branded zones in Solaris 10. As such, regarding your prediction, I can only recommend that you don't go bet your savings at race track. Itanium is dead and PPC is going only in consoles. There's no incentive to run Linux on PPC, and AIX is moribund, going the way of Ultrix, Tru64, Unixware and HP-UX, unlike Solaris that is still kicking arse.
          • by angel'o'sphere (80593) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @09:49AM (#36611000) Homepage Journal

            PPC is going only in consoles.

            And what is with AS400 and RS/6000 / System p systems from IBM?

          • What the fuck? Oracle's progress on SPARC so far is a complete joke. They're still using the ancient (and horrible) SPARC64 VII processors - the ones quite a bit slower than a Core 2 Quad, with DDR2 memory, and massively overpriced. Not only that, their roadmap says that the M-series machines won't get a processor update until late 2012 or early 2013, and it'll only increase single-core performance by 50% - a number that might, might, put those chips in a similar range to lower-end 2010 Xeons. Meanwhile, PO
      • by Z00L00K (682162)

        If you had stated servers from 1995 to 1997 it would have made sense, but a server made in 1995 is modern enough for some tasks, and older servers are fairly common as test platforms for new application versions.

        • by vlm (69642)

          older servers are fairly common as test platforms for new application versions.

          This is the "shoot yourself in the foot" moment for Oracle. We MUST have test and dev servers running the exact same code and OS as the production servers. We can't afford to replace "everything" just because Oracle would like more money this quarter. Therefore, buh bye Oracle, would love to keep you around, but you MUST go now... Of all the ways I've seen to flush a company away, I guess this isn't the worst way to go.

          • by d3vi1 (710592)
            And lack of hardware accelerated encryption and hardware assisted virtualization (LDOMs) doesn't impact your dev/sandbox/test environment? In ours, moving to a T series with the same otherwise cpu specs (8x 1,4GHz) made a huge difference that we couldn't account for until we noticed the hardware encryption engine.
      • We have here some Sun Fire V440s which top list of the problem-free servers. Those are SPARC IV chips and they work and run fine since the

        Oldest Sun server we had IIRC was ~12yo and it was recycle simply because per chance it was noticed that (1) Sun stopped support for the server few years ago (that was me who noticed that) and (2) several business critical apps still ran on the server. (Can't tell you the model number because nobody from IT could recall it.) At least in the past, one has expected 10 y

      • by buchanmilne (258619) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @05:54AM (#36609050) Homepage

        We ARE talking servers from 2005-2007 here.

        The V490, V890, E6900, E20000, E25000 stopped shipping in April 2009 [blogspot.com]. The V445 is Ultrasparc IIIi, was announced in 2007, I think first shipped in 2008, with Solaris 10. So it won't even make *one* OS upgrade?

        • by zig007 (1097227)

          Ok. I would think that we are talking about a very small minority. I suspect that very few machines were sold that late.
          I would also wager that Oracle/Sun has been in contact with most of their enterprise customers before making this decision.

      • by greg1104 (461138) <gsmith@gregsmith.com> on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @06:05AM (#36609090) Homepage

        Yeah, but if you upgrade your 2005 era server to newer hardware, you have to lube up for what your new Oracle license for the more powerful hardware is going to cost you. And if your server from that era is fast enough for running a small database, why go through all that pain?

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          If your 2005 server is doing its job why would you slow it down with a new OS in the first place? I have known a few places that kept a server until the paint fell of but it ran the OS it came with and I don't see how just because it is SPARC it is gonna magically run a 2011 OS on 2005 hardware without slowing it down.

          As another pointed out in this thread the newer machines have hardware encryption and virtualization so that alone will slow your 2005 era machine down, as the OS is optimized for hardware th

          • If your 2005 server is doing its job why would you slow it down with a new OS in the first place?

            In the real world this is not happening. Newer OSes usually run faster ... especially on older hardware. This slow down thing only happens on windows.

            Sun hardware is loved in big business because certain software like the Oracle Database or SAP R4 etc. can be very good finetuned to run pretty fast on SPARC. SPARC architectures scale nicely, double the cores and you nearly double the power.

            We are talking here abo

      • by jgrahn (181062) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @06:07AM (#36609096)

        We ARE talking servers from 2005-2007 here. Servers unlikely and unsuitable for production or any other professional use anyway.

        We aren't talking just servers, but also workstations. A workstation from 2005 is not old or unsuitable in any way. Universities and workplaces which went Solaris rather than Windows back in the 1990s may have plenty of them.

      • by BitZtream (692029)

        Oracle is relevant since it still provides some advantages over the competition

        At this point, the only actual advantage Oracle has is that some apps are built entirely around Oracle and are non-trivial to port to a new system.

        They have no other actual advantage, unless you call working with software that still thinks working with it should be just like the experience was in the 70s an advantage.

      • by Bigbutt (65939)

        This is probably one of the changes, but Sun had a 15 year lifecycle for hardware vs 5 years for Dell equipment (for example). It was a benefit for purchasing Sun equipment. We're still running T2000's here at work and they run fine. Heck, we didn't upgrade the hardware because Oracle raised the prices on multi-core Sun Ultra chips. But they're still chugging along working fine.

        [John]

    • by Kjella (173770)

      Because it will force companies to re-evaluate their position with Oracle, why Oracle is even relevant in today's market is still a mystery

      Because if you need Oracle, you need Oracle. What I do wonder is why so many that don't need Oracle use it, because it's a beast in every way. Even if I went all big and enterprisey I think the costs of running two database systems is lower than trying to be an all-Oracle shop.

      • "Because if you need Oracle, you need Oracle."

        And when would that be the case now, at 2011? Most sites I see Oracle running use it because they needed Oracle at the past (and once you start with Oracle you just can't stop anymore), or because "Well, nothing compares with Oracle" while they use bad practices to go around Oracle's licensing and would be better serverd even by MySQL. From 2006 to now I've just never saw a site that needs Oracle, and I simply don't know of any exclusive feature of Oracle that

        • ... and would be better serverd even by MySQL.

          There are plenty of scenarios where MySQL is utterly useless and inapprobriated.

          The question whether you can use a low end DB basically comes down to how many concurrent write transactions you have.

          MySQL is cool if you only serv stuff (like wikipedia), but not if you have several 1000 open write transactions all the time.

    • by mswhippingboy (754599) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @06:33AM (#36609204)

      No mystery to large enterprise database users. Oracle absolutely trounces every other DBMS out there for large BW applications in terms of performance and scalability, and naturally it performs best on Solaris.

      Don't bother pointing out the M$ funded benchmarks that claim SQL Server out performs it, I've seen them and I don't buy it (actually, I haven't seen these in a while - could be that M$ has given up on that battle).

      The organizations I work with have large farms of both SQL Server and Oracle DBMS systems. Both have their own teams of DBAs constantly working to optimize these systems, so both are tweaked for max performance. The fact is for the really large DBs Oracle is the only choice as the difference in performance between SQL Server and Oracle is not even close. As an example, I recently worked on a project that migrated a large DB from SQL Server to Oracle (the SQL Server team could not get it to perform well enough to satisfy the requirements). One of the queries (multi-table join on tables with one table containing billions of rows) that ran for 2-3 hours in SQL Server runs in under an hour on Oracle (on roughly equivalent hardware).

      What is a mystery to me is why they run SQL Server at all. Maybe because M$ is cheaper? I don't usually deal with purchasing so I don't know the relative costs, but my experience in a recent engagement I had with a small shop installing SQL Server clued me in on how expensive Sql Server is. It might well be cheaper than Oracle, but it's by no means cheap.

      • by zig007 (1097227)

        What is a mystery to me is why they run SQL Server at all. Maybe because M$ is cheaper?

        1. Yes, it is cheaper, I would say. But not that much anymore. Mostly because Oracle has become cheaper.
        2. Oracle has a steeper learning curve, installation and initial configuration is a bit more difficult.
        3. Less people know Oracle than MSSQL. This is a big thing.
        4. Performance is usually less of an issue, normally, a basically-tuned SQL server will suffice.

        And last, SQL server isn't complete crap anymore. It has actually gotten quite a bit better over the years.
        Strange thing, though, the management tools

      • by Bert64 (520050)

        As i recall, Oracle actually runs somewhat better on Linux than it does on Solaris...

        And while Oracle may be better than the competition for very large applications, it is often used for much smaller applications and while technically it's perfectly capable, financially it's completely unsuitable.

        As for why places run MSSQL, its about marketing and fear of the unknown... The people who set that up probably didn't know anything other than MS, and certainly were not technically skilled enough to choose the be

      • "Oracle absolutely trounces every other DBMS out there for large BW applications in terms of performance and scalability, and naturally it performs best on Solaris."

        Yet, the largest databases I've ever met run on hightly distibuted DBMS, what Oracle just can't do. Oracle is used at "millions of people data" applications, where people have the option of just buying a few big machines and using them, while the "hundreds of millions of people data" applications need some serious support from software.

    • why Oracle is even relevant in today's market is still a mystery

      Because of Oracle EBS? Maybe that, and other stuff. built on Oracle keeps people vendor locked into Oracle?

    • Corporations get a hard-on throwing money at companies like Oracle. It makes people feel like they've made it since they can piss away big chunks of money on hardware and they can always make savings by cutting pay rises and training.
  • ... but they can lose them.

    Currently, Linux x86-64 offerings are cheaper and faster than Oracle SPARC Servers, and Dell and RedHat will welcome their money to make the migration.

    • by 1s44c (552956)

      ... but they can lose them.

      Currently, Linux x86-64 offerings are cheaper and faster than Oracle SPARC Servers, and Dell and RedHat will welcome their money to make the migration.

      Oracle are pushing sun customers onto their upgrade treadmill. The smart ones will see this coming and jump ship right away, the stupid ones will be bled dry.

      What oracle is doing to sun is a tragedy but sun has run its course. Oracle brought sun knowning it was a company with a dim long term future.

      • by c0lo (1497653)

        Oracle are pushing sun customers onto their upgrade treadmill. The smart ones will see this coming and jump ship right away, the stupid ones will be bled dry.

        'Tis called insight [despair.com]

    • by xnpu (963139)

      Lose who? Why are people who don't upgrade for years still considered customers?

      • by BitZtream (692029)

        Yes, they are still customers because

        A) The reason they paid 5 times as much for your hardware up front was to get 3 times the life out of it.
        B) They still pay for support
        C) They still buy new hardware since they want stuff that works well with their existing machines and as a migration path for old services.

        You're an idiot if you think someone stops being a customer the instant they've paid you for a server and aren't buying new ones.

    • Yep. Just like Linux wants people to upgrade from ISA when the 3.0 kernel is released.

      Computer company considers old hardware obsolete. News at 11.

    • by cpghost (719344)
      It could also be that Oracle is having problems maintaining compatibility to old-ish hardware because they've either lost key developers and/or given them the boot during the merger and later. And they'll have a hard time to find SPARC-savvy developers in the future, because they aren't cultivating the necessary ecosystem for them (e.g. there's not a single affordable SPARC T3 workstation out there for developers, only overpriced commercial servers starting at $18K+). Sooner than later, Oracle will run into
  • Planned Obsolescence in hindsight. This may not seem a big deal in the USA, but the rate of growth of internet access in 3B3K nations (3 Billion People Earn $3K Per Year) is 10 times the rate of growth in developed nations. Emerging markets like Cairo and Bombay and Peru, where per capita income is around $3k GDP per capita, keep servers and PCs in use much longer. I hope that Linux is a solution, my dealings with Geeks of Color in emerging markets is that they tend to find creative ways around software
    • Planned Obsolescence in hindsight. This may not seem a big deal in the USA....We need to stop seeing support of legacy tech purely through the eyes of rich nations.

      And we need to stop expecting companies to support unbearably-old platforms with new software, handicapping the new environments, when those older pieces of hardware can continue to run the older software successfully.

    • I hope that Linux is a solution, my dealings with Geeks of Color in emerging markets is that they tend to find creative ways around software bottlenecks.

      Just stick with the 2.6.x kernels and you should fine. Don't expect the world including Linux kernel 3.x to keep supporting your older hardware.

      • by BitZtream (692029)

        Thats fucking funny.

        Its absolutely hilarious as 'it still supports all my old hardware' is one of the Linux Standard Battlecrys.

        You guys can't even keep your own fanboying straight anymore.

        • To be fair. The 2.4.x kernel was supported for a very long time, and I don't see 2.6.x kernel being abandoned anytime soon. I hear rumors that there won't be any backports to 2.6.x kernel, but I put it in the bullshit category since people like me can't leave the 2.6.x series because we have to support the PC104 standard which uses ISA. I plan on continuing to maintain the board support packages for this kernel series, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

          So in reality, the linux supports my old hardware "bat

  • Oracle has been alienating its customer base (particularly small to mid-level organizations) since they acquired Sun. Our university (mid-size 'business,' fairly large university) is jettisoning Oracle as a hardware/software platform, and I know other organizations that have already done so. Previously we were Sun/Oracle across the board, hardware (including SAN), software, and DB. While our hardware refresh cycle wouldn't be hurt by this decision, I can easily see many organizations which would be hampered

    • Oracle has been alienating its customer base (particularly small to mid-level organizations) since they acquired Sun. Our university (mid-size 'business,' fairly large university) is jettisoning Oracle as a hardware/software platform, and I know other organizations that have already done so. Previously we were Sun/Oracle across the board, hardware (including SAN), software, and DB. While our hardware refresh cycle wouldn't be hurt by this decision, I can easily see many organizations which would be hampered to adopt new functionality in perfectly functional hardware. Adieu, Oracle, adieu.

      I was instrumental in getting my old university to start moving off *both* HPUX and Solaris while a student worker in the sysadmin group 5 years ago: I didn't expect Sun to be bought-out, I just expected it to die, but either way - Sun is gone, and Oracle's acquisition and recent activity against other platforms (HPUX comes to mind) shows that Larry's got his eyes on one thing ... money, and taking everything he can from his customers along the way.

      • by gstoddart (321705)

        Oracle's acquisition and recent activity against other platforms (HPUX comes to mind) shows that Larry's got his eyes on one thing ... money

        A couple of years ago an actual Oracle employee told me that Oracle stands for "One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison".

        Given that he was about to tell us how much something cost, I found the joke rather on point. I know lots of people who suddenly found themselves with older Sun equipment which wasn't on a maintenance program which suddenly didn't have access to update

  • by BBCWatcher (900486) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @06:32AM (#36609202)
    Meanwhile, IBM's newest AIX 7 supports systems all the way back to POWER4 [ibm.com] -- systems which were introduced a decade ago [wikipedia.org]. Moreover, IBM just lengthened the standard priced support periods for AIX 6 and AIX 7 [ibm.com]. And IBM introduced support for AIX 5 running in AIX 7 PowerVM [ibm.com].
  • by cpghost (719344) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @07:10AM (#36609444) Homepage
    I'm using FreeBSD/sparc64 on UltraSPARC IIIi-based SunBlades (single and dual processors), and it's running just fine. I've also installed OpenBSD/sparc64 on some of them, and Debian Squeeze for sparc is running fine too (though I never found out how to netboot that one). It's sad the OpenIndiana hasn't produced a SPARC-release yet out of the frozen IllumOS code-base, but I hope they will eventually be there. As for Oracle as the steward of Solaris, let's forget 'em: they're the abomination they turned out to be the first day they took over.
    • That's not really the point. The reason you buy the Solaris/SPARC combo in the enterprise is to get a fully supported platform for running specific applications. Alternate OSes break the center out of that. The OS isn't supported by one vendor on the hardware, the application isn't supported on the OS. It turns an enterprise platform into a toy for geeks. Nothing against toys for geeks - I've done a lot of tinkering on random hardware at the edges of the organizations that have employed me. But there a
      • The point might be that your customers may look at the systems you sold them as "fully supported platforms" just a few years ago and discover that they are suddenly *not* what you told them they were. And they may look at other platforms. Especially customers who over-bought into Oracle.

  • I once quadrupled the pricing of one of our services. Yes we lost more than half of our customers, but were making more money while doing less work. It's not unlike Apple's strategy.

    • by Bert64 (520050)

      Might work in the short term, especially if lots of your customers are locked in and have no choice...
      But it won't help you get any new customers, and the ones you already have will gradually drop off.

  • All this complaining for an OS that isn't even shipping yet. This news tidbit is for a developer's preview drop.

    USI - 1995
    USII - 1997
    USIIe - 1999
    USIII - 2001
    USIV - 2004

    Is anyone really expecting to do an OS upgrade for these post 2011? Really?

  • Last Apple PowerPC machines shipped in 2006
    Snow Leopard shipped in 2009 without PowerPC support.

    So Apple didn't release a new OS for machines that were 3 years old. The Sun machine impacted by this are probably 10 years old on average. Yeah, the fact that old hardware was still supported by Solaris 10 was neat but try putting Solaris 10 on some of that old hardware and using something like JDS or ZFS, it's painfully slow.

    Solaris 11 hasn't even shipped yet. Add in the fast that most enterprises don't upgrade

  • The unsupported processors all have virtually indexed caches. This isn't in the new processors or x86 and due to the architecture of a new virtual memory subsystem due to land in Solaris 11 it would be a bitch to write a workaround. The old procs are all EOL anyway!

What the world *really* needs is a good Automatic Bicycle Sharpener.

Working...