museumpeace writes "CNET is reporting that Sun Microsystems turned on its Grid computing utility, hosting large ERP applications for its employees to test out the server infrastructure and user acceptance of the Computing-as-metered-utility model. General availability is scheduled for October. The rates? "Sun is offering processing and storage in a pay-as-you-go arrangement of $1 per CPU per hour, delivered via an Internet connection". Sun is still retooling its Thin Client interfaces and support SW. Experts quoted in the article wonder if Sun can make any money this way." Slashdot also covered the original announcement back in February.Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='sun';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. Sun Grid Utility Goes Live for Employees Log in/Create an Account | Top | 227 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 227 comments 0: 222 comments 1: 165 comments 2: 108 comments 3: 32 comments 4: 21 comments 5: 13 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Competition. (Score:5, Funny) by Seumas (6865) * on Wednesday August 24, @05:33PM (#13392724) I wonder how they plan to compete with the distributed/remote computing power provided by all of the unpatched and unprotected Windows based systems in the world that are freely available to anyone with a couple scripts and an internet connection?granted, there's more windows boxes than solaris.. by discogravy (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @02:06AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. $1/CPU/hour? (Score:1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24, @05:33PM (#13392725) Isn't that many times what it's worth? 365*24=over $7K for a year's worth of computing. Hmmmmm...Re:$1/CPU/hour? by Seumas (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @05:36PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by Enrico Pulatzo (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @06:11PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by Neil Blender (Score:3) Wednesday August 24, @05:37PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by Donny Smith (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @08:41AMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by Neil Blender (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @12:47PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by Donny Smith (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @02:12PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by Tango42 (Score:3) Wednesday August 24, @05:39PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by Madd Scientist (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @06:12PMRather like virtual servers by commanderfoxtrot (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @06:23PM Re:$1/CPU/hour? (Score:4, Insightful) by Saanvik (155780) on Wednesday August 24, @08:32PM (#13393889) (http://www.fugacious.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday February 26, @01:39PM) Actually I think this might be very appealing to research groups at universities.As part of your grant proposal you include a flat cost for computer time rather than costing out hardware purchases. Not only that, but you can also start your project as soon as the money is approved, you don't have to go through all the hoops to buy, ship, house, and administer the hardware. [ ParentRe:$1/CPU/hour? by Madd Scientist (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @02:24AMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by Madd Scientist (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @02:29AMThere may be peak periods.. by N Monkey (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @04:59AM3 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:$1/CPU/hour? (Score:5, Insightful) by pclminion (145572) on Wednesday August 24, @05:52PM (#13392856) Isn't that many times what it's worth? 365*24=over $7K for a year's worth of computing. Hmmmmm... But say you wanted to run the job ten times faster. You'd split it across ten CPUs. Each CPU would perform 1/10th the work, but in parallel, so the job gets done in 1/10th the time. But the total number of CPU-hours you've used remains the same. So you pay the same price but get the job done ten times faster.If you wanted to do that yourself, you'd have to buy 10 CPUs and once the job was done you'd have a bunch of CPUs you didn't need. [ ParentRe:$1/CPU/hour? by hypnagogue (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @06:26PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by pclminion (Score:3) Wednesday August 24, @06:36PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by hypnagogue (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @07:06PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by pclminion (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @04:05PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by bradleycarpenter (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @08:48PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:$1/CPU/hour? (Score:4, Interesting) by dsginter (104154) on Wednesday August 24, @06:03PM (#13392916) Let's say that you have some number crunching that will take about 7000 CPU hours. Are you going to be happier waiting a year for your desktop to solve the problem or would you pay $7000 to get the answer in one hour?Sun is betting that there are many people/businesses that fall into the latter category. [ ParentRe:$1/CPU/hour? by dexomn (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @02:25AMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by jetmarc (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @12:52PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by TheRaven64 (Score:3) Wednesday August 24, @06:06PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by pixel-fodder (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @07:07PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:$1/CPU/hour? (Score:5, Insightful) by LurkerXXX (667952) on Wednesday August 24, @06:21PM (#13393022) We've gone over this before. The price isn't bad. You don't buy time on this system when you have one CPU's worth of stuff to compute and don't need it for a years time.You buy time on it when you need a LOT of CPUs worth of stuff done NOW.Imagine you have some projection software package that you need to run once a quarter for your company. You need the data within a week of the beginning of the quarter. You require 10,000 CPU hours to get the numbers all crunched. It's the only "big-computing" job you have.On one computer the task would take you a little over a years time (8544 hours in a year). That won't quite be up to the task, remember you need the job done in a week. That's 10,000 CPU hours to fit into 168 hours of real time. You'd neeed 60 processors chugging away for those 168 hours to get it done.How much is a 60 CPU cluster going to cost you to build? It's not insanely expensive, but it's not cheap. It looks a lot better to you to build that cluster than to spend $40,000 a year though! Right?Wait. Clusters take up space. A 70 CPU cluster (better add in a few for redundency since this job has to be done in time) is not going to fit in the broom closet. That floor space is going to cost you.Hmm, those 60 CPUs throw off a lot of heat when they run. Better add some more cooling to the building. Another decent expense.Damn, look at that electric bill from the extra 70 CPUs and cooling for them. This nickel and dime stuff is starting to add up.And now for the killer. You've got a new 70-CPU cluster. Your going to need someone to manage it. Cluster work is a bit different from what's what your used to, and your IT staff is already busy with their current workloads. It's time to hire a guy to manage the cluster. BZZZZZZZZZT. That hire alone makes the $40,000 a year for grid CPU time a deal.Work the numbers yourself. It's not really a bad deal if you only occassionally need massive computing. [ Parent Re:$1/CPU/hour? (Score:5, Interesting) by TheSHAD0W (258774) on Wednesday August 24, @07:02PM (#13393333) (http://www.shambala.net) You forgot the convenience factor. You'd have to wait a week, twiddling your thumbs, while that cluster ground away at the data. If there's a problem with the data, you may not find out until the end of the week, at which time your bosses will be pissed because you'll be telling them the projections will be delayed.With Sun's service, you'll probably get the result within a few hours, not a week. If there's a problem the tests can be re-run with plenty of time before the presentation.Of course, your bosses may be even more displeased about the extra $10,000 cost of the run than they would've been about another week's delay. Hope you talk fast! [ ParentRe:$1/CPU/hour? by Asgard (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @07:25PMSave money: procrastinate by dazedNconfuzed (Score:3) Wednesday August 24, @08:44PMRe:Save money: procrastinate by Mac Degger (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @02:59AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:$1/CPU/hour? by drsquare (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @09:35PMRe:$1/CPU/hour? by LurkerXXX (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @09:59PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:$1/CPU/hour? by Jimy (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @12:37AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Everything Old is New Again (Score:5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24, @05:33PM (#13392727) This is just the reincarnation of the mainframe era. Everyone (Sun, MicroSoft, et al), want to put us back in the days where the storage/cpu and most importantly the applications themselves are in their "capable" hands.I'm not even going to enertain the idea of having MY data stored on another (microsoft/sun/etc)server, and paying for the rights to access/modify it.There is a reason it's called the PC,and not a dumb terminal.Re:Everything Old is New Again by Kjuib (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @05:54PMRe:Everything Old is New Again by guaigean (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @06:12PMRe:Everything Old is New Again by DAldredge (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @11:00PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Everything Old is New Again (Score:5, Informative) by oldmanmtn (33675) on Wednesday August 24, @06:36PM (#13393153) There is a reason it's called the PC,and not a dumb terminal.There are no dumb terminals - only dumb users.This isn't targeted at PC users. This is for (for example) the hedge fund that needs 50 machines for 8 hours, once a week, to run a complex model. This gives them the power they need for a fraction of the price of the raw hardware, and they don't have to pay anybody to maintain it.I've had projects where I really wanted 1000 CPUs for a week, just so I could do scalability testing. There's no way we could afford $1,000,000 to buy 1000 machines just for that one test, but we could probably have swung $50,000 to get them for five 10 hour days or ten 5 hour days. [ ParentRe:Everything Old is New Again by Alwin Henseler (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @06:53PMRe:Everything Old is New Again by JPriest (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @07:08PMRe:Everything Old is New Again by pdo400 (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @09:31PMRe:Everything Old is New Again by JPriest (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @09:14AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Everything Old is New Again by That's Unpossible! (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @07:43PMRe:Everything Old is New Again by fracex (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @08:48PMRe:Everything Old is New Again by serialdogma (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @02:40AMRe:Everything Old is New Again by Mac Degger (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @02:44AMThe *PC* may not be dumb.... by Hasai (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @09:03AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. OpenOffice (Score:2, Funny) by gkozlyk (247448) on Wednesday August 24, @05:34PM (#13392734) (http://busybiz.blogspot.com/) Maybe it can be used to improve OpenOffice load times.1 reply beneath your current threshold. Seti and Folding @ Home^h^h^h^h Datacenter (Score:2, Funny) by paulius_g (808556) on Wednesday August 24, @05:35PM (#13392735) (http://www.hlds101.com/) Yah! Now I can get my stats back up. /me cracks knuclesOuch that hurt... Sun's spirit will always be amongst us.1 reply beneath your current threshold. Gambling? (Score:1) by weilawei (897823) on Wednesday August 24, @05:35PM (#13392741) Now, I can finally run gigantic neural networks trained by genetic algorithms to predict the outcome of sports betting. :) I actually gave up the project (I was coding it in C using the HDF5 library for data storage, etc.) because I have no hardware capable of running it reasonably.This brings some nice computing resources well within reach of individual hackers. I don't need a 10,000 CPU block for an hour slice, just a hundred CPUs for an hour.Re:Gambling? by cloudmaster (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @10:49AMRe:Gambling? by weilawei (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @03:18PM Decision still to be made on name (Score:2) by Timesprout (579035) on Wednesday August 24, @05:36PM (#13392745) But CloudNet, AirNet and UpperAtmosphereNet are currently leading contenders. Analysts feel however it may be something in a similar vein which is finally chosen.Re:Decision still to be made on name by Seumas (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @05:44PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Just to get it done away with... (Score:2, Funny) by Eberlin (570874) on Wednesday August 24, @05:38PM (#13392770) With a Microsoft partnership, we now understand how we plan to have the oomph to run Windows Vista when it comes out.$1 per CPU per hour...the true money-making scheme here is that if you run Linux, they'll charge you the $699 for each processor on behalf of SCO.So for $50 bucks an hour, you can run a SWING application almost without a performance drop.With the licensing model, you can run apps with it, but you can't alter any data that passes through without our permission. Want to see the results of your calculations? You'll have to sign an NDA.Sun Microsystems? Hey weren't they that big dot-com company that wanted programmable toasters? What are they doing these days? sun's shining (Score:2) by dankelley (573611) on Wednesday August 24, @05:38PM (#13392771) Hey, look. Sun has a new idea. Hm, if they get 9 more, maybe their stock price will reach the price I paid for a nanosecond, so I can dump it :-)Seriously, I like the sound of this. One can argue about costs, etc., but at least they have something other than inertia that might encourage a scientific user to choose Sun.Re:sun's shining by Berner (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @08:33AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Not for big problems, then (Score:2, Insightful) by Space cowboy (13680) * on Wednesday August 24, @05:39PM (#13392779) (Last Journal: Thursday July 07, @08:37PM) Considering that a "CPU" can be had for $400 (2.8GHz Celeron D [gateway.com] without even trying, just a search on google).So 24 hours a day, $400 -> 16 days work. Let's add in 25% for "stuff" (electricity costs, etc., being generous...) and you're still saying that a problem that takes 20 days or more, you're better off buying a throw-away PC and running Linux on it.So, it must be aimed at the smaller problems. Like what ?Simon Re:Not for big problems, then (Score:5, Insightful) by Keeper (56691) on Wednesday August 24, @05:46PM (#13392821) Actually, I would imagine this would be more useful for solving larger problems that are run infrequently, where you want do do a distributd task once a month that takes 1000 machine hours and get back a result in 1 hour. [ Parent for example (Score:5, Insightful) by taniwha (70410) on Wednesday August 24, @06:10PM (#13392949) (http://www.taniwha.com/nospam.jpg | Last Journal: Thursday July 24, @06:22PM) think of chip design - you want about a gazillion machines for QA simulation in the 2 months prior to tapeout and they're going to be idle for the rest if the yearMind you the cost of chip design software is the limiting factor here, not the cost of hardware to run it on [ Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Not for big problems, then (Score:4, Insightful) by Paul Jakma (2677) <paul-slashdot@rs250.org> on Wednesday August 24, @05:50PM (#13392845) (http://hibernia.jakma.org/~paul | Last Journal: Tuesday March 11, @10:31PM) For the same $400 you could get 100 CPUs for four hours. If your problem divides up reasonably well, then instead of spending your $400 CPU and waiting 16 days, you could instead get your answer in hours.Maybe you could do it cheaper by buying your own CPUs, but you could be waiting two weeks for your Dells to arrive. How much is it worth to you to get an answer within hours or days versus a few weeks or months of waiting?--paulj [ ParentRe:Not for big problems, then by tfiedler (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @01:59PMRe:Not for big problems, then by Wesley Felter (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @05:53PMRe:Not for big problems, then by Space cowboy (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @07:24PM Re:Not for big problems, then (Score:5, Insightful) by Paul Jakma (2677) <paul-slashdot@rs250.org> on Wednesday August 24, @07:53PM (#13393658) (http://hibernia.jakma.org/~paul | Last Journal: Tuesday March 11, @10:31PM) I don't believe any of them cost $100 for every 20 days runtime! As for 250%, Oh boy! I have a bridge to sell you!You're not paying for and hence you do not have:- data centre floor space with:    - heavy duty UPS    - generator backup    - climate control    - security    - redundant networking    - multiply redundant storage    - tape backup silos / HSM- The 24x7 staff to:    - monitor security    - test the generator weekly    - monitor the backup processes    - monitor and maintain the network    - monitor and maintain the hardwareetc. etc. If you think your costs as "Joe Bloggs the guy who runs a few Linux PCs at home" are comparable to a corporate affair then you're simply kidding yourself, particularly when you're not billing yourself for your own time ;), and your SLA with yourself is pretty flexible and forgiving ;).A lot of corporates have thought what you thought "Ah sure, it can't be expensive to run a few servers in our own 'data centre'", and they typically either under-estimate the costs, or they end-up with very shoddy server facilities. Then they'll have reliability problems due to:- servers overheating cause they're stuffed into a cupboard (seen this)- lack of staff expertise (all too common)- utilities failures (they couldn't afford the large UPS + diesel generators + cut-over switches + electricians expenses)- the gradual increasing burden of maintaing installed plant, which if not planned professionally slowly but surely turns into a huge sprawl of unmarked cables, till it gets to point even simple rewiring tasks are a massive (and error-prone) undertaking.Eventually, to a lot of these types of small corporations, locating in a managed data-centre and letting someone else take care of the details becomes very very attractive. (particularly for coporates whose primary business is *not* computing).You are almost certainly underestimating the costs.--paulj [ ParentRe:Not for big problems, then by Space cowboy (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @08:04PMRe:Not for big problems, then by Paul Jakma (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @09:22PMRe:Not for big problems, then by Space cowboy (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @02:01AMRe:Not for big problems, then by Paul Jakma (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @06:58AMRe:Not for big problems, then by Paul Jakma (Score:2) Tuesday August 30, @02:02PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Not for big problems, then by Zemplar (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @07:24AM Re:Not for big problems, then (Score:5, Insightful) by Glonoinha (587375) on Wednesday August 24, @06:10PM (#13392948) (Last Journal: Saturday October 01, @11:40AM) If you have a problem that takes 400 CPU hours to run, your answer is either inanely worthless, or mind-bendingly valuable (I needed to throw one of those in there for the SETI group, but I won't say which.)Well that or you need to optimize your code, or get a faster machine.That said, it probably isn't worthwhile to the guy with a $400 problem - more likely they are looking to appeal to the kinds of guys that want to crack 128-bit encrypted data streams in real-time, or run two neural networks against each other in a zillion games of chess in order to teach (evolve) their neural network, or crunch two terabytes of data picked up by an Indy race team over three days at the track. Brute forcing 1024-bit encryption is totally possible, but the data isn't generally valuable a thousand years after you start decrypting it. Throw enough horsepower to decrypt 1024-bit RSA in real-time and you will find yourself rich (or dead.)Knowing the winning numbers to the lottery thirty minutes after they are announced is pretty worthless.Knowing the winning numbers to the lottery thirty minutes before they are picked is worth a hundred million dollars.Amazing difference having the answers an hour earlier makes - I'm not saying that these computers will give you that much of an advantage, but I'm still saying ... I currently work on problems where an hour difference in processing time can make a single data-crunching run cost about an additional $100,000. [ ParentRe:Not for big problems, then by afidel (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @12:16AMRe:Not for big problems, then by redwyrm (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @01:55PMRe:Not for big problems, then by nonlnear (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @11:33AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Not for big problems, then by museumpeace (Score:3) Wednesday August 24, @08:28PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Why am I not impressed? (Score:1) by RomanySaad (781722) on Wednesday August 24, @05:39PM (#13392784) OK... that comes out to $1600/yr per computer for a business... how much is the storage?What about security?And also why not "follow the power analogy entirely" and charge based on computer power/hr?It's too expensive... rather than pay $1000-$2000 every 2 years, will businesses pay $3200... why?Re:Why am I not impressed? by jasongetsdown (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @06:01PM Who is going to use it? (Score:2) by GGardner (97375) on Wednesday August 24, @05:40PM (#13392785) Seems like the main categories of potential users fall into two camps:The high-energy physics folks, who generally get government and university subsidies for their high-performance computing needs, and so certainly get computation much cheaper than $1/cpu-hour.Commercial folks, maybe in the financial services sector who are (rightfully) paranoid about security, and just aren't going to send their sensitive data from Wall Street to California, so matter how much SSL-this and triple-DES that happens on the way there.Re:Who is going to use it? by Neil Blender (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @05:55PMRe:Who is going to use it? by K8Fan (Score:3) Wednesday August 24, @06:12PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Corporate Espionage issues? (Score:2) by HowIsMyDriving? (142335) <ben@parkhurst.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 24, @05:40PM (#13392789) What if you lease time from Sun, and the computers that your data are being crunched on your compiditors computer? What about someone wanting to see what you are doing, and what is going on? This is not breaking encryption or finding aliens, this could be used by insurance, health, or governmental agencies for crunching large numbers, or searching databases. What have they done to address this?Re:Corporate Espionage issues? by DAldredge (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @05:58PMRe:Corporate Espionage issues? by gedhrel (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @06:09PMRe:Corporate Espionage issues? by Wesley Felter (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @06:11PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. $1/CPU/hour is damn expensive... (Score:2) by nweaver (113078) on Wednesday August 24, @05:44PM (#13392810) (http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/) A good compute cluster can be had for $2500 a dual-CPU node. Assuming another $500/node/year for operating costs/upkeep, thats still$1250 for a CPU-year. Compared with $8000/cpu/year for Sun's solution. So you better need BURSTS of CPU but not sustained CPU. And you better not be able to smooth out the burst demands with a batch-job system.Re:$1/CPU/hour is damn expensive... by TheRaven64 (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @06:13PM Re:$1/CPU/hour is damn expensive... (Score:4, Insightful) by Glonoinha (587375) on Wednesday August 24, @06:14PM (#13392980) (Last Journal: Saturday October 01, @11:40AM) You forgot the most expensive (and often overlooked) part of infrastructure : the infrastructure staff.Add a few $65,000 / year staffers in there to install / support those $2,500 machines and you are looking at $13,500 per year (every year) per machine. I know, that's what my company bills my department for each server I have on the network. [ ParentRe:$1/CPU/hour is damn expensive... by Glonoinha (Score:2) Thursday August 25, @08:01AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. Wrong scale (Score:2, Interesting) by jd (1658) on Wednesday August 24, @05:47PM (#13392824) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 30, @01:33AM) CPU charging has been done within Universities for mainframes and super-computers for a long time. Usually, though, it'll be in terms of clock cycles used and priority. The former can be metered exactly, as the OS will have that information whenever it swaps the process in or out. The latter can be fixed at the start.(For real-time processes, you can even fix the clock cycles in advance.)The advantages of doing things on this scale are that most heavy tasks will take in the order of seconds - at worst, minutes - and it is unreasonable to charge people for absolute time when an unknown fraction is spent in process swapping, paging and I/O blocking.A flat per-cpu rate won't work well, as people will simply write programs to hog the CPUs as much as possible, thus taking the least absolute time, thus resulting in the least cost. It will also reduce the timeslaces available to competitors, driving UP their costs.In other words, it is a recipe for creating a gang-land in electronic form, where the roughest and most brutal coders will "win".There is also no incentive for Sun to improve such an OS, either, as they profit from latency. An increase in latency increases the fees, so reducing efficiency is a source of income.It is, however, entirely in line with their Networked Computer idea, which I can only guess they are trying to resurrect. (If you can rent CPU space, you don't need to buy a local CPU.)Wrong model by Wesley Felter (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @06:03PMRe:Wrong scale by TheRaven64 (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @06:16PMRIGHT scale by csirac (Score:2) Wednesday August 24, @07:16PM Flip Flop (Score:2, Insightful) by SilentReallySilentUs (908879) on Wednesday August 24, @05:49PM (#13392838) (http://www.collaze.com/) Sun's main problem is they are not able to stick to one strategy for rescuing themselves from the mess. Last year Java Desktop System was all over the press. 100$ per developer..I don't hear of it anymore - now it is 1$ per cpu. They are going to have a hard time getting the trust of enterprises to use a CPU in their servers. Good luck Sun, more importantly Good luck JavaRe:Flip Flop by farble1670 (Score:1) Wednesday August 24, @08:33PMRe:Flip Flop by SilentReallySilentUs (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @03:11PMRe:Flip Flop by farble1670 (Score:1) Thursday August 25, @09:41PMRe:Flip Flop by SilentReallySilentUs (Score:1) Friday August 26, @01:35PMRe:Flip Flop by farble1670 (Score:1) Friday August 26, @02:07PM Missing the point?? (Score:1) by SatanMat (757225) <SCPowell@excite.com> on Wednesday August 24, @05:54PM (#13392865) (Last Journal: Sunday July 11, @01:27AM)