Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date:  Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:19:36 -0700
From:  "Bruce Timberlake" <brucetimberlake (at mark) gmail.com>
Subject:  [coba-e:06373] Re: Sun replaced Cobalt -- Why?
To:  coba-e (at mark) bluequartz.org
Message-Id:  <f76f5d3e0608151319w4209616q7260bf28090a8398 (at mark) mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  <44E228DD.8080402 (at mark) schneiderheim.com>
References:  <b1aab89a0608150915n2394d5adq97735e03c8fe53f8 (at mark) mail.gmail.com>	 <44E213D2.9030105 (at mark) schneiderheim.com>	 <f76f5d3e0608151214h687bfdd0x309d9ac941b76cf (at mark) mail.gmail.com>	 <44E228DD.8080402 (at mark) schneiderheim.com>
X-Mail-Count: 06373

> 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?

There are no Sun products that directly replace the RaQ or Qube. They
only sell generic servers and workstations, not appliances. I guess if
you wanted to look at them, the low end Sun Fire servers could be
considered RaQ replacements -- I just put BQ on a Sun Fire x2100 and
it seems to work very nicely.  But I really don't think that a generic
server with a choice of operating systems can be considered an
appliance replacement.

Sun basically gave up on the concept of appliances, and flushed the $2
billion they paid for Cobalt down the toilet... at least they released
all the code under a BSD license so somebody could do something useful
with it.