News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why HP Fell. Parent comment

Re:Why HP Fell by pvg on Monday August 20, 2018 @10:46AM (#17800323)
it was easy to compile them on Sun

The Sun machines were much more common and a lot of software was tested/built on SunOS.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why HP Fell by rrauenza on Monday August 20, 2018 @11:50AM (#17800915)
In the 90's and early 2000's Sun machines were pretty much the default for developing new software during the dot com boom. I was told this was due partly because Sun sold a lot of hardware on credit (and then this crashed when the dot com boom crashed.)

I worked at HP during this time helping software vendors port to HP-UX. I also spent some time on the side compiling open source projects for fun on HP-UX and then pushing the required patches back to the project's owner.

Anyone remember Pointcast?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PointCast_(dotcom)

I was assigned to them briefly.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why HP Fell by pvg on Monday August 20, 2018 @12:56PM (#17801560)
the default for developing new software during the dot com boom. I was told this was due partly because Sun sold a lot of hardware on credit (and then this crashed when the dot com boom crashed.

I think this might be something HP people were telling each other at the time while getting smacked around by Sun. The Sun machines were still ridiculously expensive and while common, I don't think they were the default. SGI Indies were also quite popular and the Pentium Pro quickly started eating the overpriced Unix workstation market. By 2000, I doubt there were that many SV startup developers sitting in front of a Sun box. There were piles of them in server rooms, of course.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why HP Fell by tptacek on Monday August 20, 2018 @04:45PM (#17803793)
In the 90's and 2000s, Sun machines might have been a kind of default for deploying new software, but they certainly weren't the default for developing it. By 1998, you'd be getting a much better machine from Intel than you could get even in the same ballpark cost as from Sun. If you did work on a Sun workstation, you probably did it grudgingly (except that they had a really good C++ compiler for the time).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why HP Fell by rrauenza on Monday August 20, 2018 @06:42PM (#17804731)
The companies I worked with primarily developed on the systems customers used. You really want to see the issues on your tier1 platform as you develop. Linux was not tier1 at that time.

This meant that code written on Sun that performed well performed poorly on HP-UX occasionally -- not because HP-UX was a worse platform, but because corner cases in architecture could bite you. On your tier1 development platform you tend to weed those issues out early.

[ Parent | on HN ]