Talk:Sun Microsystems

Second Paragraph

Sun is THE leading contributor of [sic] open source software (emphasis mine)? this is rubbish, and reads as though it was written by somebody from Sun marketing. It's akin to Bill Gates' claiming that Windows Vista is the most secure operating system ever produced - pure hype, and demonstrably false. I'm not a hardcore Wikipedian, so i won't dare to make the change, but i humbly ask that one of you more experienced editors axe this bit of hyperbole in the correct way - thanks.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgilman (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

A) you're not supposed to be humble -- you're supposed to be bold. And, of course, you're not supposed to be so humble that you don't sign your comments on talk pages. (Btw, please add new comments to the bottom of talk pages, not the top.)

B) There's actually a reference later in the article to back up "leading contributor" -- (I wasn't the one who put it in the article originally, although I did reformat the section it was in at one point.) There was no pointer to that ref in the intro paragraph, but I went ahead and added that now. Does that address your concern?--NapoliRoma 15:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Acquisitions

Cool list -- I'd actually been thinking of a couple of early Sun acquisitions recently, and even wanted to create some separate articles, but haven't had the time to do the necessary research.

A list of several missing ones that I don't have dates for:

• Transept (or "Transcept") ^{DONE (Trancept)} -- graphics accelerator hardware company, back in the '80s. I may have the name wrong.
• Sitka Systems ^{DONE (Centram Systems West)} -- early network interoperability company. Created TOPS, the Transcendental Operating System, which was really internetworking software among UNIX, IBM and Macs.
• Chorus ^DONE
• NetDynamics ^DONE
• iPlanet ^{DONE (i-Planet)}
• Gridware ^DONE
• Aduva ^DONE

I believe Sun also acquired material assets from Encore, Thinking Machines, and of course Netscape. I'm not sure if those count as "acquisitions" for the purpose of this list.

Some Sun press release mining would turn up some others pretty quickly.

I'm not sure I'd put this at the top of the article, though. It's not the first thing I'd want to read if I were looking up a company in an encyclopedia. In fact, this might suggest that the whole History section be moved further down.--NapoliRoma 20:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Application server company NetDynamics acquisition was announced in July 1998 [1]. I will see if I can find the date the deal was completed. --Cheesy Mike 21:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I finally got around to researching and adding several of the above, so I marked those as "DONE", including Cheesy Mike's NetDynamics addition. I also noted the actual company name where appropriate.--NapoliRoma 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wherever possible we should use references other than Sun press releases. e.g. I used news.com and internetnews.com for the Gridware and Cobalt references.--Cheesy Mike 09:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I added in Dakota Scientific Software - it was a small acquisition done by the tools group, and I couldn't even find an online reference to it outside of mention in the founder's LinkedIn profile (so that's what I cited). I worked quite a bit on the acquisition and integration, so at least I remember it... Bmoffitt (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a header that describes that section as acquisitions? As it stands now, it just launches into a bulleted list with no explanation of what those items are or why they are listed there. The reader is left to infer from some of the bullet points that these are acquisitions. Tvjames (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

High Performance Computing

This section mainly is about the last decade. I remember Sun being quite well represented in the Top 500 in the 1990s so I checked, and indeed, it was doing quite well back then. For example, in 1995 it had 24 systems in the list http://www.top500.org/stats/list/6/procfam . --JeR (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that isn't such a good example, because the SPARC processors used probably weren't made by Sun. The vendors list doesn't mention Sun for that period at all. However, in 1998 the vendor list looked better: http://www.top500.org/stats/list/12/vendors --JeR (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

JavaSoft

Who's JavaSoft? --Abdull 08:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This article does need to mention it. According to http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/J/JavaSoft.htm and http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/1996-05/sunflash.960529.11819.xml javasoft is "The business unit of Sun Microsystems that is responsible for Java technology." Mathiastck (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It especially needs to be mentioned since Javasoft redirects here. Mathiastck (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Still true! Mathiastck (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Still true! --Rinaku (t · c) 20:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That is, JavaSoft was "the business unit of Sun..." -- back in 1996, when that press release came out. But yeah, there should be some mention of JavaSoft and SunSoft (another retired Sun business unit name, essentially the predecessor to JavaSoft), at the very least.

I've toyed with adding a section on "The Planets" (Sun's reorganization into separate opcos back in 1991) but haven't gotten very far yet. As far as I can see, SunSoft and JavaSoft are the most noteworthy of the various incarnations, with the possible exception of the Sun-Netscape Alliance, which already has its own article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

SunSoft was composed of several business units, one of them being SunConnect (networking software) as well as others, but I do not remember their names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfpoulet (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cobalt Aquisiton

This information needs a rewrite or help. I will add to this section with cites. I was there but need references to point to. Let me know if you like it. --Akc9000 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Split acquisitions?

Getting quite long now. Should this be split off to a sub-article to allow for more useful expansion? Chris Cunningham 12:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should at least be slitted into a separated category inside the article; as you said, I think it is long enough to deserve one Marion Moseby (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Future Products

Does anyone have info to share about Sun future products? How about collaborating on filling in the chart below. Westwind273 20:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Product	Availability	Architecture	Comments, Config Details
Fire 8000 P		SPARC, Opteron	14U rack-mounted chassis that allows Sun to stack three blade chasses in a single rack; the 8000 series chassis, which was launched in the summer, was a 19U box, which meant it could only fit two in a rack with a little room to spare. More info at http://www.itjungle.com/tug/tug111606-story07.html
Galaxy Xeon Rack (Sun Blade 6000)	Jun-07	Xeon	Sun should pump out the two-socket Xeon-based server in CY07Q2 and will use Intel's current four-core chip in the system. This appears to be Clovertown. The entry-level pricing for the Sun Blade 6000 Chassis is $4,995; the Sun Blade T6300, $5,995; the Sun Blade X6250, $3,695; and the Sun Blade X6220, $3,995.
Wolf (Sun Blade 6220)	Jun-07	Xeon	In June 2007, Sun should release a system code-named Wolf that is a four-socket Xeon-based box. That four-socket system will slot into Sun's existing chassis.
Sun Blade X6250	Jun-07	Xeon	A two-socket blade that offers a quad-core Xeon processor.
Galaxy Xeon Blade (Scorpio)	CY07H2 (Q3?)	UltraSPARC T1 (Niagara) and Xeon	Galaxy is Sun's line of x86 servers. The four-socket blade server will fit into Sun's existing Blade 8000 chassis and should ship in the second half of this year. The system will be based on the four-core "Tigerton" version of Xeon from Intel and will support up to 128GB of memory. http://blogs.sun.com/syw/entry/intel_and_sun_a_dynamic
Constellation	CY07H2	Opteron (Barcelona)	Sun Blade 6000 servers configured with thousands of Sun UltraSPARC TI, AMD Opteron or Intel Xeon processors; capable of holding up to 48 blades per rack. Low latency, high bandwidth interconnect with a high-density, 3456-port InfiniBand switch. U of Texas Austin's TACC is the first system.
Supernova servers	2008	SPARC	Servers that use the Rock processor. Supernova machines based on the Rock Sparc variant are expected to deliver more than 10 times the performance of the APL machine and about 16 times of that of the current UltraSparc-IV+ machines using the 1.8 GHz processors. The Supernova systems will have the networking capabilities of Niagara but will also have improved single-thread and floating-point performance

Headquarters

Why does it say "Menlo Park" in the right box and "Santa Clara" in first paragraph? 67.180.29.122 05:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the actual HQ is Menlo Park, although the Santa Clara campus is pretty big too (and where I am just now), the CEO and I think most of the administration is at Menlo. I'll check up on this if I get a chance. 192.18.43.225 (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

Well I read the cited source and found this particular interesting explanation concerning Sun being a "leading proponent of open source".

"Sun alone, in particular, is credited with 30% of the total code contribution in our sample, which highlights one of the flaws inherent in the technique used for identifying company code contribution, which is based on copyright credits42. In the case of Sun, most of its contribution is accounted for by OpenOffice, for which Sun holds the copyright. The entire codebase of OpenOffice is not, in fact, Sun’s sole creation, but contributors – individuals and other firms, small and big – sign an agreement assigning Sun joint copyright of their contributions, in order to simplify licensing and liability management"

I think the second paragraph as it stands is misleading as it seems to give the impression Sun do more than the article cited in support of the notion suggests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.228.85 (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the source. Better?--NapoliRoma 17:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Acquisitions

This page from Sun's website http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/investor/sun_facts/merger_history.jsp

has the following list, wich does not exactly match what wikipedia has. Can someone figure it out?

Acquisitions History

Date Acquisition

October 2007 Cluster File Systems, Inc.

May 2007 SavaJe Technologies

October 2006 Neogent

March 2006 Aduva

August 2005 StorageTek

August 2005 SeeBeyond Technology Corporation

July 2005 Tarantella, Inc.

June 2005 Procom Technology, Inc.'s NAS IP Assets

January 2005 Sevenspace, Inc.

April 2004 Kealia, Inc.

January 2004 Nauticus

December 2003 Waveset Technologies, Inc.

August 2003 CenterRun, Inc.

July 2003 Pixo, Inc.

November 2002 Pirus Networks

November 2002 Terraspring

July 2002 Afara Websystems, Inc.

February 2002 Clustra Systems, Inc.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietnoll (talk • contribs) 08:23, January 23, 2008

"the following list [...] does not exactly match what wikipedia has. Can someone figure it out?"

Ooh, that's easy: this one's backwards! What do I win?--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pedant of the week maybe? :-) I think the Sun list is not exhaustive and only lists acquisitions that Sun considers to be noteworthy. Many of the acquisitions in the article are cited with sources other than Sun's press releases so it is right that they are listed here. --TimTay (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pedant of the week? I'll take it!

More than anything, I was amused/slightly annoyed that this was dumped in without any comment as to what the contributor's concerns actually were. Looking at this more carefully (because I am a pedant), and ignoring the obvious fact that Sun's list only goes back to 2002, I see that some of the dates differ by a few months, which I assume has to do with one source picking the date of announcement and the other picking the closing date (and which does what is not consistent). There's also at least one on the Sun list that isn't in the article yet (CenterRun).--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having brains in addition to wit. As you may guess, not all people are crazy wikipeddicts. I was just trying to be a bit helpful, reading all this fuss about reliability of wikipedia. So in the ruture instead of being annoyed just leave it for people who will have fun. As for being pedantic, your remark of picking dates must be actually translated into updating the article with explanations of dates (closure vs. announcement), so that this issue will not arise in the future. I am pretty sure some well-meaning occasional editors may start changing the dates back and forth. (But then again it is part of fun here, I guess :- ) Pietnoll (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WARNING: NEW WARNING

There is a new note at the top of the Java programming language page saying that they might mean Sun Microsystems (ticker symbol JAVA) when they go to the Java article. Perhaps it would be helpful to add a link back to Java in THIS article. -deadly7, MESS WITH THE BEST, DIE LIKE THE REST!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.169.74 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, wouldn't be necessary. The putative reason for the note at the top of the Java programming language page is to help someone who typed the stock ticker symbol and wanted to find out which company is associated with it. In the case where someone comes to the Sun page to learn more about Java, there are already a bunch of Java-related links to help them out. Having another as a note at the top of the page would be overkill, and no more appropriate than having one for every other Sun technology or product -- and there's even a template at the foot of the page that covers that.

I'd also say (and will follow up with an edit) that the note at the top of the Java (programming language) page is pointless, since you will not have gotten to that page by typing the bare word "Java." Meanwhile, if you do type in "JAVA", you'll get to the Java dab page, and if you type in "Java" or "java", you'll get to the island page, which has a note pointing you to the dab page. All bases seem to be covered.

(About signatures: the important element isn't your handle or motto, it's a trackback to your account or IP, and timestamp. The easiest way to sign an article is type "~~~~" or click on the "your signature" button above the edit window.)

Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH NEPALESEROMAN. LISTEN, THE LINKS ARE THERE. IF PEOPLE WANT TO VISIT THEM THEY CAN TYPE IT. ALSO I FIND YOUR WORK ON THE SIGNATURES TO BE INTRIGUING. -deadly69, death with each breath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.170.204 (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, its Mario!

Hello guys! Its me, mario! I just want to say that your site is amazing! Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.101.25 (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Joy was not one of the original founders of Sun

I have just made a very controversial change about the founders of Sun. While Bill Joy is always listed as one of the original founders in truth he is not. If you read the reference VINOD KHOSLA AND SUN MICROSYSTEMS, Amar Bhide, Harvard Business School, 12/14/89 you will see that he was not. A copy can be found at: http://web.archive.org/web/20001004122402/http://www.stanford.edu/group/mmdd/SiliconValley/Bhide/KhoslaAndSUNMicrosystems.html While Bill Joy was consulted and courted during the very early days of the company, he did not agree to join for a while. He was not even in the first 10 employees of Sun. I know this from my time at Sun (employee #318) and looking in the password file. Your UNIX user ID was your employee number plus a thousand.

Robert.harker (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Andy B. talks about this here, saying, "I think his official badge number was 6 because there were two people we hired on day one, and he came [onboard approximately] the next week." The article about Khosla you reference above describes him as the third critical guy Khosla wanted on board, after Andy and McNealy.--NapoliRoma (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing stock symbol from first sentence of article

I removed the stock symbol () from the intro. The symbol is in the infobox anyway. My reason is to remove clutter in the first sentence. We shouldn't put such fairly unimportant information before basic things like that Sun is a computer company. User:TimTay reverted my edit with summary nothing wrong with stock ticker in intro - see HP & Dell. I will do the same change in other company articles too if there are no objections. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I object. I don't think it looks cluttered, although I do acknowledge that for every article having stock ticker in the main body of text there will be another that doesn't e.g. Apple and IBM. I suspect that as no standard has been established in the companies wikiproject - I looked and couldn't find anything - so no clear precedent for what to do. --TimTay (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I support removal. The introduction to the article should be as clear as possible. There's a tendency to throw in all sorts of junk (stock symbols, kanji representation) which doesn't directly help the reader out and can be kept in the infobox. Plus, we seem to have grabbed this idea from the business pages of a newspaper; I'm not aware of any other publication - let alone an encyclopedia - which does this as a matter of course. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just checked 30 Nasdaq company articles at random and 26 had stock symbols in the opening paragraph. --TimTay (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Most company articles have the ticker in the lead. That is just what I am trying to change. Mostly it's been there since before we had infoboxes and I cannot find any previous discussion about it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus both here and at WP:WikiProject Companies is that the should stay. I am going to restore them. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding speculative and unsourced material

User:Wfpoulet who also seems to be operating as a sockpuppet using User:78.105.128.194 keeps adding unsourced and speculative commentary about IBM's rumoured takeover of Sun. This editor states that Sun and IBM have different cultures and that this will present a challenge. It is pure speculation to state that this will be a challenge should a takeover occur and as such is not allowed on Wikipedia. As an established editor I don't want to fall foul of 3RR, despite the fact that I am removing what I see as vandalism by a sockpuppet intent on causing mischief at Sun's expense, so I won't revert again in the next 24 hours. Instead I ask that this person read some of the Wikipedia guidance on original research and the need for appropriate citation. I would also ask that other users keep an eye out for any further unsourced edits by this user. --TimTay (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR does not apply to vandalism AFAIK. Rilak (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir,

I was very upset you labelled my contribution as vandalism. Sun is a company I like very much and with which I have been employed since 1990, in various positions, business units, and countries. My partner has a similar experience with IBM. My comment about cultures is based on our experience, verified by our conversations with colleagues and clients in the industry, and confirmed by many articles read over the years (including some recently published following the WSJ article).

I can understand that it is best if articles in wikipedia are backed by verifiable sources, but in that case you (or wikipedia in general) tend to give more credits to journalists and analysts (whose understanding of what is really going on inside a company is most of the time far from being accurate) rather than giving credit to real-life experience and experts in the field.

Hence my deep dissapointment, which increased when you started to edit my contribution.

Today, I went back to the Sun page, and saw that someone removed the rest of the information I typed, claiming he had a source in the press. No reference. No credentials. Nothing. While at the same time more articles are available on the subject, the latest I read mentionning that IBM is currently going through due diligence on Sun.

Even if this is a rumour, a full deletion of my contribution is not justified. It would have been better to correct it and say that is could be an unfounded rumour. I believe this would still have been an important information because 1) the impact it had on Sun's share price, and 2) this is the first time that Sun is considered an acquisition target (your own table of acquisition shows this being a break in Sun's history).

At the moment: - I am disgusted that I was convicted as a vandal while all I wanted was contribute about a company I like. - I now strongly doubt the accuracy of what I read on wikipedia as I expect more than a synthesis from PR clippings and quickly written articles. - I do not understand by what means wikipedia is able to take someone's real-life experience in a certain field into account. This seems to be a flaw, although you may be able to point me to some reference materials that would disprove this. - There seems to be a double standard where some contributors get their contribution removed for lack of references, while others are allowed to delete parts of an article by claiming they have a reliable source, yet avoiding to name or link to that source.

I would appreciate some answers to these points.

Regards

PS: I did not read the definition of "sockpuppet", but if it refers to me that day sometimes making modifications with just my IP address, it's because I forgot to log-in... I think it is obvious from the "history" page. I find that term rather upsetting too, at least the way I was labelled.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfpoulet (talk • contribs) 08:52, March 24, 2009

I'm not the original commenter, but...

On the one hand: yes, the term "vandalism" tends to get overused on WP; it is too often used instead of "an edit I don't agree with." Also, I think the accusation of "sockpuppet" may have been too quickly tossed out there.

On the other hand: WP is not a newspaper. There is no urgent need to quickly add material about what at this moment is still unequivocally a rumor. All the sources on the net fold back to two WSJ articles that only quote unnamed sources.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes: I indented my comment below some more in response of an edit conflict. Also, there was an accidental posting of an incomplete and draft comment. Rilak (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In regards to my reply to TimTay, it was a reply to this section of TimTay's comment:

“ As an established editor I don't want to fall foul of 3RR, despite the fact that I am removing what I see as vandalism by a sockpuppet intent on causing mischief at Sun's expense, so I won't revert again in the next 24 hours. ” — TimTay

The intention of my reply was to convey that my understanding of the 3RR is that it does not apply to vandalism, as TimTay was concerned of violating the said rule. I was not passing any judgment on whether your edits constituted as vandalism or not.

In regards to my removal of the content in question, by "source" I mean a reference (for example an article, etc.) I provided no references for two reasons: Firstly I expect that editors have some level of familiarity with the subject and as a result, would not have been contentious. Secondly, there is no room in the edit summary to include the references had I intended to.

That said, it is inappropriate in my view to criticise my actions when an explanation could have be sought via a comment here or at my talk page. Had such a request been made, it would have been promptly provided. As a request has been made please refer to the links in the following discussion and to these:

* "IBM staring at Sun Micro takeover?"

* "Father of Java warns of ‘culture clash’ if IBM buys Sun."

On a side note, the second link supports your assertion that there are cultural differences. As there now is a reference, the matter would be treated differently if the removed content was to be reintroduced into the article.

Regarding whether the removal of the content in question was justified, it is considered in some cases to be inappropriate to add rumors to articles, even if they are presented as such. When the removal of the content in question was performed, I believe that it was justified given the circumstances: An acquisition of a major company by another of greater size would likely have multiple sources reporting about it instead of one. At that time, there was only one source that I was aware of, and there was only one source that was cited. All other reports that I was aware of were either reprints of the WSJ article or were commenting on that article. Some sources described the WSJ article to the effect of "unsubstantiated rumor".

Regarding your comments about using one's personal experience as a source, Wikipedia does not consider one's personal experience as being a reliable source. Please refer to WP:RS for further information as to why it is so and for what is considered to be a reliable source.

Regards. Rilak (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Rilak. I hope I am not recorded as a vandal though.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.128.194 (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. In regards to your concern about being recorded as a vandal, AFAIK, no one is considered to be a "vandal" until multiple editors have come to a consensus. Regards, Rilak (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No longer refererences to IBM Sun merger?

Google has about 4080 matches to "ibm sun merger". I'm seeing several sources with articles about it, most of which appear to be treating it as real and not made up. The top ten links are.

• IBM in Talks to Buy Sun in Bid to Add to Web Heft - WSJ.com
• EETimes.com - Analysis: What an IBM-Sun merger would mean
• Investor's Business Daily: IBM-Sun Merger Talk Seen As A Broadside ... [editoral; likely non-reliable]
• Again: IBM-Sun merger rumours - c0t0d0s0.org [likely to also be non reliable source]
• Spring founder downplays rumored IBM-Sun merger | InfoWorld | News ...
• Analysis: Why IBM-Sun merger makes sense [possibly non reliable source]
• IBM-Sun Merger Called Anticompetitive -- Java Hardware Software ...
• Spring founder downplays rumored IBM-Sun merger | ITworld
• Sun-IBM merger talk spurs worries about Mass. jobs - The Boston Globe
• IBM-Sun merger rumors roundup: What it means for Java ...

I think this is enough to warent a sourced section, but probably call it "Possible IBM Sun Merger" instead of just "IBM Sun Merger" Jon (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Jennifer Aniston article doesn't seem to have anything about her breaking up with John Meyer. Aren't we at about the same level of encylopedicity at this point in the story? Just sayin'--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Until the event happens I don't think it warrants comment on the article. If an actual takeover bid is launched (and accepted or repelled) then I think it becomes newsworthy, but right now all of the above links are generated as a result of one article in the WSJ. None contain anything significant over and above that original WSJ article. Besides, calling it a merger is making an assumption that may be incorrect - if IBM buy Sun then that's not a merger, it is an acquisition. --TimTay (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Update - The rumors on the Internet claim that an official announcement by IBM and Sun is imminent. Rilak (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Oracle has bought Sun.

However, I checked the major news sites (CNN, MSNBC, FOX) and they only have a two or three paragraph article on it. So I'm not sure if it's inclusion-worthy yet. ThomasOwens (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is official, so it is definitely worthy of inclusion. Sun has a press release out. With the latest developments, it is rather amusing that everyone was certain a few weeks ago that IBM would be the one doing the acquiring. Rilak (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though it's worthy of inclusion, isn't the text that's included now, "This acquisition doesn't represent its end, however. It represents the continuity to a broader market of everything that Sun had already built.", un-duely partial? Atbash (talk) 15:51, 20 Apr 2009 (UTC)

This article better stay and not be deleted or merged with Oracle. --Aizuku (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sun Microsystems Inc. is no more, Sun is now a "wholly-owned subsidiary of Oracle" (the official language we've been told to use). 85.154.5.20 (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Joy's employee number

I was looking through a book, Nerds 2.0.1, and it showed Andy Bechtolsheim's, Vinod Khosla's and Bill Joy's employee badges in figure 25. They are numbers 1, 2 and 6. I assume Scott McNealy is employee number 4. I think John Gilmore was employee number 5. I do know employee number 7 was Marty Ratner, a nice man who made it very lucky with Sun.

The book reference:

Nerds 2.0.1 (Hardcover), Stephen Segaller, Oregon Public Broadcasting, Copyright 1998, TV Books LLC,

Robert.Harker (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lots of invalid references post-acquisition

sun.com is no more, which creates a problem for any references in the article which refer to a sun.com address - a salutary lesson in using the right sources for an article. The only sun.com content which seems to still work is press releases from 2007 onwards, which are now hosted at oracle.com. All earlier press releases have disappeared, but many of these should be able to be sourced elswhere on the Internet e.g. at cnet.com --Simple Bob (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There's also the Wayback Machine -- one quick random check seems to indicate that's the easy fix.--NapoliRoma (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a dick move by Oracle. Sun.com should have stayed >:( --Aizuku (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tenses are all over the shop

In the intro to this article we see Sun was a company. Later we have (under "Hardware") the support service that Sun provides (present tense), under "Software" Sun is the largest corporate contributor to open source movements (note "is", again present tense), under "Operating Systems" Sun is most well known for its Unix systems, which have a reputation for system stability (note "is"), and so on. If Sun Microsystems is no longer a company ("was a company") then should all these present-tense constructions not be recast as past tense? Tonywalton (once Sun Employee Number 25440, so article edits by me would be OR and COI)^Talk 01:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Fait acompli. Past tenses, as time permits. See below. W Nowicki (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal on tense, name, officers, and logo

Here is what I would suggest -- please note that although I work for Oracle, I plead no special knowledge and am offering this solely as an individual:

1. At the time of the acquisition, for esoteric legal reasons, Sun Microsystems was merged with a component of Oracle, and then renamed to "Oracle America," owned by the larger Oracle Corporation. At that point, "Sun Microsystems" ceased to exist, other than perhaps as a temporary shell for the purpose of handling operations in countries that take longer to deal with such merges (I don't know what the particulars of this are; I just offer my opinion that they're not relevant to this article). Thus, "Sun Microsystems," the subject of this article, should be referred to in the past tense.
2. This article is about "Sun Microsystems," not about "Oracle America," which is basically an abstract legal concept unrelated in any remarkable way to the company founded as "Sun Microsystems" in 1982 and defunct in 2010. Thus, this article, and related components such as the infobox, should refer solely to "Sun Microsystems."
3. Dorian Daley and Jeffrey Epstein, AFAIK, existed as officers of Sun or Oracle America only to fulfill the necessity of having officers (and a one-member "board") of record during the merger contortions. It is certainly not in a capacity interesting enough to list them in the infobox. Thus, I would recommend only putting Sun Microsystems officers such as Jonathan Schwartz, Scott McNealy, and the like in the infobox.
4. The "Sun|Oracle" logo currently in the infobox is not a Sun Microsystems logo; it's a product logo for servers currently manufactured by Oracle under the "Sun" (not "Sun Microsystems") brand. Thus, I would recommend putting the last actual Sun Microsystems logo in the infobox, and moving the Sun|Oracle logo to some section of the article referring to the merger and the disposition of products formerly sold by Sun Microsystems.

--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

These all look like sensible proposals. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the two nobodies from the infobox. It's probably better to mention the other guys in the history section with proper context and dates. Currently the history is mainly covering the stock price. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree to these in general. There was the usual pretense that Sun would be a division of Oracle, but until the dust settles there, having a quality article about the history is a good goal. My COI: I worked there in the early days. And as for below, I registered the Sun.com domain back then (one of the first dozen or so, perhaps notable?). W Nowicki (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever any such pretense. The day the acquisition happened, things were moved into different Oracle organizations -- MySQL went into database land, Java went into software land, sales and support went into sales and support land, and so on. The closest thing to a "Sun" chunk is the systems group, which includes servers, storage and Solaris. The "Oracle America" designation, as mentioned above, seems to have only been a necessary transitional legal dance step, and never was intended to correspond to the former Sun.--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

More updates needed

[2] The OpenOffice fallout, perhaps Hudson, maybe the closure of the sun.com domain name, and OpenSolaris. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the sale of the campus to Facebook was in the news, so should be sources for that. My personal question is the demise of Sun Labs? Hard to get reliable sourcing for that. W Nowicki (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The rumor of selling the domain name on June 1 seems disproven since it is after June 1 and [3] continues to be owned by Oracle. Perhaps they confused the domain name with serving the old web pages, which have been phasing out over the months. Either way we need to replace with archives or independent ones. W Nowicki (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

SUN or RAS file type developed by Sun Microsystems, please add.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_rasterfile_graphics_file

(Nathan Soliz (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC))

Huh? There was evidently an article Sun rasterfile graphics file that was deleted today. From the google cache, it seems like it was just a cut-n-paste of a .h file without any source cited. It appears there might have been a real file format with a similar name, but sources of course would need to be cited, and not sure it would be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Not sure where it would go. And defintely would not belong with such a redundant article title. The RAS page does have a red link to .ras if that is the convention. W Nowicki (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick google reveals a few possible sources for the .ras file format: [4] or [5]. Letdorf (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

Today Sun Raster and a .ras redirect exist. The importance/notability is rather low, any reliable reference would help. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

More updates

NOTE: although the acquisition of Sun by Oracle is complete, Sun continues to exist as a wholly owned subsidiary of Oracle Corporation, albeit renamed "Oracle America, Inc."

The above was a comment in the article. It is not totally clear, but it looks to me by reading the actualy documents that Oracle does not have functional subsidiaries, but country-wide ones. That is, one for the USA, one for each other country or region. I could not find evidence that there is a "Sun subsidiary" any more. For example, there does not seem to be a CEO of the subsidiary etc. Since the source says that Oracle America, Inc was actually the resulting entity, we should probably go with that. I will work a little on getting archives of the web pages, but this will take a while. W Nowicki (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed the lede currently says "The following month, Sun Microsystems, Inc. was merged with Oracle USA, Inc. to become Oracle America, Inc."

This is, to my understanding, pretty much only a common legal process as part of an acquisition. Oracle, USA, Inc. is not really the former Sun Microsystems in any discernable way. As such, I think putting this in the lede assigns this legal nicety too much significance.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see I mentioned this a few months back as well...--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Office Suite

The Office Suite section sounds wrong.

Among others, it seems to indicate that StarOffice was derived from OpenOffice, but I believe it was the other way around.

StarOffice was available free with a license that I don't remember, but was somewhat complicated.

I don't know enough to rewrite the section, but it does seem wrong. Gah4 (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hillsboro facility

I've removed this this edit and am parking it here for better integration and sourcing.

Since Hillsboro is up and running today, the article at the very least needs to be changed to reflect that.

There are two errors with the prior statements. First, only internal manufacturing was consolidated into Hillsboro site. Sun continued to use a wide network of contract manufactures who built everything from printed circuit board assemblies to fully tested servers. Second, the Hillsboro factory never "closed". It is still fully operational building Oracle Sparc and Exadata Systems, among a wide variety of other products.

--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be the appropriate place to argue about your insistence that these Sun/Oracle-owned factories are the company's "main manufacturing facilities". This description implies that most Sun products (the brand still exists) are manufactured in these facilities. This has never been true. Sun used to have huge factories in Hayward, which would have qualified. Then the industry changed, and all "hardware manufacturers" stopped most actual manufacturing. Every major Sun hardware product (several of which I worked on) comes from specialized companies like Foxconn. The Hillsboro location does supercomputers, which are too specialized for generic hardware manufacturers to handle. There is no "main manufacturing facility". None. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I feel like you may be exaggerating my level of intensity about this. I am going so far as to say that there were Sun-owned manufacturing facilities in the named cities, so removing any mention of them seems like the wrong way to go.

"Main" was not my word, and seems to be the word you're in the most disagreement with, which is fine. I've offered a revision that excludes the word "main" (and adds Newark, since that was a rather large physical plant investment at the time). Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No info on SunSoft in article which was an Sun Microsystems division selling Interactive Unix despite SunSoft inc redirect to here.

Sun bought Interactive Unix System V/886, an i386 port of Unix from Eastman Kodak in the early 90s, who in turn had bought it from Interactive Computer Systems (ICS) in 1998. ICS, founded in 1977, had created PC/IX, an X86 port of Unix, followed by 386/IX (later renamed Interactive Unix System V/386). When Sun acquired the OS they foreshortened the name to just Interactive Unix and created the SunSoft inc. division to sell it. Sun positioned it as an alternative to SCO's UnixWare whom SCO had recently acquired from Novell (Who in turn had formally co-owned it with AT&T's Unix System Laboratories (ULS) under the Univel brand, before AT&T sold it's Unix assets to Novell including their share of Univel. They later Interactive Unix updated it to run better on Pentium PC's. Since SunSoft inc. redirects here, we should explain that it was a subdivision of Sun Micro and that it sold Interactive Unix. Here are two articles to use a starting point on SunSoft and their Interactive Unix product: https://computeradsfromthepast.substack.com/p/interactive-unix https://techmonitor.ai/technology/sunsoft_launches_latest_release_of_interactive_unix_plans_recompiled_version_for_pentium Notcharliechaplin (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)