Date:  Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:04:45 -0600
From:  Wayne Schneider <wayne (at mark) schneiderheim.com>
Subject:  [coba-e:06371] Re: Sun replaced Cobalt -- Why?
To:  coba-e (at mark) bluequartz.org
Message-Id:  <44E228DD.8080402 (at mark) schneiderheim.com>
In-Reply-To:  <f76f5d3e0608151214h687bfdd0x309d9ac941b76cf (at mark) mail.gmail.com>
References:  <b1aab89a0608150915n2394d5adq97735e03c8fe53f8 (at mark) mail.gmail.com>	 <44E213D2.9030105 (at mark) schneiderheim.com> <f76f5d3e0608151214h687bfdd0x309d9ac941b76cf (at mark) mail.gmail.com>
X-Mail-Count: 06371

Thank you for the response.  You answered exactly what I asked.  
However, I failed ask what I wanted to know.  What I'm really after is 
what Sun product replaced the RaQ and Qube products and are they an 
improvement?  If so, in what way?

Wayne

Bruce Timberlake wrote:
>> What product replaces the Cobalt/BlueQuartz Sun servers?
>
> BQ != Sun
>
> Sun EOL'd the RaQ and Qube products in 2000-2002. They released all
> the UI code, etc. under a BSD license.
>
> The BlueQuartz project has taken that initial code and modified it to
> run on a more generic Linux (the Linux on the appliance products was a
> fairly customized payload).  The installer disk (available at
> Nuonce.net and other places I think) now bundles the CentOS 4.3 OS
> with the BQ web UI to replicate the Cobalt appliance functionality
> with the security and features of an up-to-date OS.
>
> So nothing will really need to replace BQ. BQ servers are what many
> people who run RaQs are migrating to, as the Cobalt hardware is aging
> and is underpowered compared to what's available today.  BQ is a lot
> like cpanel, webmin, Plesk, etc. -- a "bolt on" admin interface.
>
>