SUNW -> JAVA
Andre van Eyssen
yet, Sun have changed their stocker symbol from SUNW to
JAVA.
Awaiting the first package renames?
--
|
/\ ._ _|.__ | http://www2.purplecow.org
/--\| |(_||(/_ | email: andre at purplecow dot org
Frank Cusack
> For everyone who hasn't seen http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan
> yet, Sun have changed their stocker symbol from SUNW to
> JAVA.
>
> Awaiting the first package renames?
How long until Solaris becomes JavaOS?
Casper H.S. Dik
>For everyone who hasn't seen http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan
>yet, Sun have changed their stocker symbol from SUNW to
>JAVA.
>Awaiting the first package renames?
Maybe we'll just update the documentation and after "package names should
begin with your stocksymbol" we add "or former stocksymbol".
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
Richard B. Gilbert
As soon as they can rewrite the O/S in Java!! <evil grin>
Chris Cox
In all fairness, the Java name is a brand... Sun has already
used it on everything (oddly enough, quite a bit on things
that have NOTHING to do with the Java language).
Colin B.
> yet, Sun have changed their stocker symbol from SUNW to
> JAVA.
Un-fucking-believable.
Now we know why Sun hasn't released an OS update in 10 months. Suddenly,
the lack of consistency in Solaris 10 service names (as per another thread)
makes perfect sense. The complete lack of workaround/fix/patch information
in sunsolve bug reports over the past two years falls nicely into place
today. Sun has quit being a technology company, and turned into a marketing
company.
This is the stupidest thing that smarmy pony-tailed bag of shit has ever
come out with, and that's saying a lot. I was hoping that Sun would be able
to nurture Solaris 10 until Linux got reliable enough to actually use in the
enterprise, but apparently not. If Sun isn't going to take their technology
seriously, then they might as well just close their doors now, or start
suing coffee companies over retroactive copyright infringement.
Casper, Alan, James, and the rest of the GOOD folks at Sun, you have my
sympathy. It can't be easy to be an engineer or a tech at Sun these days.
Colin
Casper H.S. Dik
>Casper, Alan, James, and the rest of the GOOD folks at Sun, you have my
>sympathy. It can't be easy to be an engineer or a tech at Sun these days.
Thanks, I think.
(We figured that they had a summer intern in marketing and something went
wrong with the paperwork)
James Carlson
> "Colin B." <cbi...@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> writes:
>
> >Casper, Alan, James, and the rest of the GOOD folks at Sun, you have my
> >sympathy. It can't be easy to be an engineer or a tech at Sun these days.
>
>
> Thanks, I think.
>
> (We figured that they had a summer intern in marketing and something went
> wrong with the paperwork)
Somehow, you always seem to know exactly when I'm taking a sip of soda
and come out with something like that. ;-}
My take is that (after the discussion's calmed down a bit) it doesn't
really affect me much, so sympathy's not needed. At most, I'll end up
rewiring a couple of stock-checking bookmarks, and rewriting Schedule
D on my next 1040 when I (almost certainly) get it wrong. Other than
that, I'm driving on.
I've got other stuff to sweat.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d...@sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
Canuck57
"Frank Cusack" <fcu...@fcusack.com> wrote in message
news:m2zm0hv...@sucksless.local...
Compiled in C I hope.
Canuck57
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:46CEDDC0...@comcast.net...
Good. Buy the time they have it working reliably without performance issues
under a scalable load, I will be long retired.
Canuck57
"Colin B." <cbi...@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote in message
news:46ce...@news.nucleus.com...
> ... I was hoping that Sun would be able
> to nurture Solaris 10 until Linux got reliable enough to actually use in
> the
> enterprise, but apparently not. If Sun isn't going to take their
> technology
> seriously, then they might as well just close their doors now, or start
> suing coffee companies over retroactive copyright infringement.
Don't get me wrong, I love Solaris. Use it a lot too. And will continue to
as well. Has some very nice features.
But someone should have told me 5 years ago now Linux was "unstable". Me, I
have been using Linux for 12 years and started using it in the data center
with some very good successes I might add. Will be sure to continue to use
it too.
I do agree with Sun technology sliding. Suing coffee companies might be
just where Sun is headed. They should focus more on their key strengths.
And for Java, I question how much they will make there in the long run.
Canuck57
"Casper H.S. Dik" <Caspe...@Sun.COM> wrote in message
news:46cf2fe1$0$229$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> "Colin B." <cbi...@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> writes:
>
>>Casper, Alan, James, and the rest of the GOOD folks at Sun, you have my
>>sympathy. It can't be easy to be an engineer or a tech at Sun these days.
>
>
> Thanks, I think.
>
> (We figured that they had a summer intern in marketing and something went
> wrong with the paperwork)
>
> Casper
Casper,
I hope they fix the paperwork problem quick. I would really hate to see
Solaris go like HP-UX, but then again now that OpenSolaris is out there....
not likely.
Thomas Dehn
"Casper H.S. Dik" <Caspe...@Sun.COM> wrote:
> Andre van Eyssen <nnt...@nospam.purplecow.org> writes:
>
> >For everyone who hasn't seen http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan
> >yet, Sun have changed their stocker symbol from SUNW to
> >JAVA.
>
> >Awaiting the first package renames?
>
>
> Maybe we'll just update the documentation and after "package names should
> begin with your stocksymbol" we add "or former stocksymbol".
It could be worse. Some marketing droid could have decided
to change the stock symbol to "OPEN OFFICE"; then
you would end up with package names containing blanks.
(Yes, I know that the NASDAQ does not allow such stock symbols).
Tho "no, my scripts don't work with that" mas
Casper H.S. Dik
>It could be worse. Some marketing droid could have decided
>to change the stock symbol to "OPEN OFFICE"; then
>you would end up with package names containing blanks.
>(Yes, I know that the NASDAQ does not allow such stock symbols).
Oh, but I'm sure Microsoft is bidding for Sun's OpenWindows trademark.
Richard L. Hamilton
I don't agree that their technology is sliding at all; they just don't
have an update model that gets it into the official distro as often as one
might like (and I expect that will eventually change). _Lots_ of goodies
coming sooner or later. The ones that are out in the open are largely
incremental improvements and taking better advantage of zfs, zones,
dtrace, and so on; also maybe bundling some more stuff that used to be
separate (like LVM got bundled sometime back, for example). But they
often like to work without distraction until something is good enough to
demo before they start talking, so I'm sure there's not only all the stuff
coming in the future (that may already be in SXCE/SXDE releases), but
there's bound to be some pretty impressive stuff pending that's not yet widely
known.
--
eMail: mailto:rlh...@smart.net
Home page: http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/yesterdays_geek
AIM, Yahoo, etc: ask
Richard L. Hamilton
While I would agree that Sun's marketing gives the appearance of being
one-trick morons (changing names being their one trick, and not a new
one either), I don't think that has more than minimal effect on development
or maintenance. I think (as you might guess if you follow the happenings
on opensolaris.org) it's more a matter of getting a particular set of
goodies backported (since all development originates on the
development version, not the supported version) and tested, than anything
to do with marketing obstructions.
The only real harm the name shuffling does IMO is to cause some confusion
as to what the current name of a product is vs its previous names (hard
to have a recognizable identity if the name keeps changing; real solution
would be to _get_the_word_out_ on the features and benefits of something,
and just keep hammering at it), and to look stupid. I'm sure the folks
who actually design and write code mostly just laugh it off and go back
to work.
Colin B.
> While I would agree that Sun's marketing gives the appearance of being
> one-trick morons (changing names being their one trick, and not a new
> one either), I don't think that has more than minimal effect on development
> or maintenance. I think (as you might guess if you follow the happenings
> on opensolaris.org) it's more a matter of getting a particular set of
> goodies backported (since all development originates on the
> development version, not the supported version) and tested, than anything
> to do with marketing obstructions.
>
> The only real harm the name shuffling does IMO is to cause some confusion
> as to what the current name of a product is vs its previous names (hard
> to have a recognizable identity if the name keeps changing; real solution
> would be to _get_the_word_out_ on the features and benefits of something,
> and just keep hammering at it), and to look stupid. I'm sure the folks
> who actually design and write code mostly just laugh it off and go back
> to work.
I would disagree with this. It probably cost them $100k (plus or minus an
order of magnitude) to accomplish this--not only the stock symbol, but all
of the in-house documentation and so forth. Eventually, the packages will
most likely be changed as well. Unless a company has infinite resources,
this is a waste that affects the whole company.
On the other hand, the stock has gone up nearly a buck in the last two weeks,
so what do I know? I just wish the idiots in charge of the company still
had even a slight emotional stake in the technology.
Colin
Casper H.S. Dik
>I would disagree with this. It probably cost them $100k (plus or minus an
>order of magnitude) to accomplish this--not only the stock symbol, but all
>of the in-house documentation and so forth. Eventually, the packages will
>most likely be changed as well. Unless a company has infinite resources,
>this is a waste that affects the whole company.
I think the in-house work is limited to changing the internal websites
to use a new stock symbol for the ticker.
JS says "no package renaming"; it would not be technical feasible.
The one precedent I can think of, the compilers, also never renamed
the packages or pathnames even though we changed the compiler's
names often enough.
Casper