Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Sun Microsystems

Sun Launches Instant Messaging Server 172

theIG writes "According to this article at geek.com, and another one at InternetWeek, Sun has shipped the first part of its new enterprise collaboration platform to compete with Exchange and Domino. Dubbed 'Sun ONE Instant Messaging 6.0,' this server will work with other products to be released in May, to allow a single login for all of its services that allow connections from outside a corporate firewall." Instant messaging is becoming increasingly popular in the workplace. Local messaging servers like this were only the next logical step for businesses which don't wish to rely on an outside network for their messaging.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sun Launches Instant Messaging Server

Comments Filter:
  • by redcliffe ( 466773 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:07AM (#5709470) Homepage Journal
    You can run your own Jabber server, and it can also message other Jabber users. Some of the clients support encryption too.
    • by the uNF cola ( 657200 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:11AM (#5709484)
      Jabber doesn't integrate with sun's other enterprise utility servers.


      The platform, which consists of several separate server packages -- Sun ONE Messaging Server, Sun ONE Instant Messaging, Sun ONE Portal, Sun ONE Calendar Server, and Sun ONE Identity Server -- is available now and takes aim at rivals Microsoft and IBM/Lotus in the lucrative collaboration arena, said David Ferris, analyst with Ferris Research.


      It's like wanting jabber to integrate with yahoo mail and yahoo calendar, along with the privacy.

      Not to slam jabber at all, just the right tool for the right job, eh? Just one that requirs sun software :)
      • by redcliffe ( 466773 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:25AM (#5709553) Homepage Journal
        Yes, but what's wrong with using it's protocol. Jabber is a protocol, not a program. Interoperablity is always a good thing.
        • There isnt anything wrong with it that I have ever found. Its easy to extend and scale and making a client is very easy and can be as sexy as you want or need it to be (c, java, .net, perl)

          Not that its proof of anything but Oracle has gone down this path [slashdot.org] as well on the integrated IM services.
        • If you're going to use the protocol argument, then you should stick with the IETF's SIMPLE protocol.
          • Although SIMPLE is making much headway there are other protocols such as SNPP, SMPP, and IMPP that are just as far along in the IETF standardization process. BUT that being said SIMPLE is the agreed to standard that both AOL and MSN have agreed to use. MSN currently can use SIMPLE and AIM has plans to add SIMPLE support because that was part of the deal with the FCC when the merged with TIme Warner. And SIMPLE is based on SIP, which has huge support amongst Network and Telephony vendors such as Cisco and No
      • Yeah well until they all unite behind a single open protocol and integrate together its going to stay as fragmented as the old BBS systems were.

        Jabber for as much as I love it does not seem to be making the headway thats needed to make it a leader in the field. Pehaps if the Linux distis started bundling preconfigured jabber servers that can be easily made to interoperate/connect it could happen but at the moment it just doesn't have the expose and userbase it needs to go big time.
        .


        • If you want a quick jabber server setup you should look at JabberD Quickstart [jabberstudio.org]

          From the page:

          The JabberD Quickstart package provides a graphical, user-friendly way to install, configure, and manage the JabberD instant messaging server. No hand-editing of XML files, no need to create spool directories, no messy configuration changes -- just a simple, step-by-step setup script that does all the work for you. It's the easy way to get started with Jabber. :)
        • If you go to Jabber.org [jabber.org] you'll see there has been a lot of large investments/installations of the Jabber protocol (usually from Jabber Inc. [jabber.com]) recently, from companies like Intel, France Telecom, EarthLink, etc. So I think headway is being made, but there aren't large annoucements being made that Joe AOL user would notice. And maybe that is where the problem is. When a city government I was contracting for was looking for an instant messenger solution I instantly suggested Jabber, since I had worked with both
          • You're right, I haven't heard if they are going to start including a Jabber client for subscribers, and there again is part of the problem. Jabber is being used, but its just not real visible. I know AT&T uses Jabber a lot, not just for person to person IMing, but to monitor various pieces of equipment, servers, routers, etc.
      • by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris.traversNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday April 11, 2003 @08:55AM (#5710060) Homepage Journal

        It's like wanting jabber to integrate with yahoo mail and yahoo calendar, along with the privacy.

        Not to slam jabber at all, just the right tool for the right job, eh? Just one that requirs sun software :)


        Why not? Jabber is *not* an instant messaging protocol. It just happens to be useful for instant messaging ;-)

        Jabber is a protocol for streaming XML. In this paradigm, why NOT use it as a transport for all sorts of other services, such as calendar information, etc.?

        Ok, now for the privacy portion-- authentication and encrtyption are both supported by many Jabber clients and it would not be hard to impliment an X509-based encryption structure along with a directory service (AD, NDS, OpenLDAP, etc).

        The problem is not with Jabber. It is with the fact that there are no open-source enterprise groupware servers to compete with Exchange. I really wish Sun would take the lead with open standards, but they have not because I am sure they want to create lockin.
        • It doesn't integrate with sun's suite. The problem IS jabber. It won't work with software someone MAY want.

          That's like blaming MS for not using Linux's drivers. They don't work together.
          • It doesn't integrate with sun's suite. The problem IS jabber. It won't work with software someone MAY want.

            What Jabber are you referring to? the core protocol or the many proprietary or opensource implimentations?

            It doesn't integrate with sun's suite.

            Sorry, but that is like saying that TCP doesn't integrate with Windows 98. In reality, it would be a bit different-- one would have a program that would *use* TCP and integrate with Windows 98, but TCP by itself does not integrate with anything other
            • It doesn't integrate with sun's suite. The problem IS jabber. It won't work with software someone MAY want.

              What Jabber are you referring to? the core protocol or the many proprietary or opensource implimentations?

              Either. Sun see's it more fit to use a certain protocol as well as software to work with their suite. They may do a better job than Jabber, i can't say.

              Point is, they don't want to use jabber, that's fine. The protocol they develop becomes their thing. WHo cares if you have to use it? If

              • No, it's like using analogies to say what you really mean. Jabber doesn't integrate with the whims of Sun for whatever reason they know of. Does jabber protocl support calendar's and email notifications better than something sun cooked up? Do the jabber clients out there (which I doubt they'd use) support the functions they want? It's a right fit issue, not a "it's crap or not" issue.

                It has occured to me that we really don't know that Sun is *not* using this as a core protocol...

                My point was more of a Ja
              • No, it's like using analogies to say what you really mean. Jabber doesn't integrate with the whims of Sun for whatever reason they know of. Does jabber protocl support calendar's and email notifications better than something sun cooked up? Do the jabber clients out there (which I doubt they'd use) support the functions they want? It's a right fit issue, not a "it's crap or not" issue.

                Jabber doesn't need to explicitly support calenders and email notification any more than the IP standard needs to have a se
                • Some of your questions are even self-answering. If they're not using the clients out there, whether those clients support some namespace they cook up for their own calendering solution is irrelevant, and if they're implementing their own namespace for it then it doesn't matter how well whatever analogous standardized namespace fits their needs. (Of course, if they *could* stick with the standards on that, it makes their work that much easier -- but let's say that they have some good reason to reinvent that

            • I think it would be more like like saying that win98 doesn't support DECNET. A less used (but still important) protocol that isn't necessarily clearly superior to the other options available.

              It was just a design decision, not a religious decision to not use Jabber's protocol IMHO.
        • You opened up an interesting question that I have been pondering for some time. Why is there not an effort to provide an open source enterprise groupware server? I think this should be asked to the larger slashdot community as a new thread.
      • Jabber doesn't integrate with sun's other enterprise utility servers

        Just as well...Sun's enterprise servers are real crappy. Sun ONE = Sun (stock price in two years).

    • by Anonymous Coward
      But Jabber doesn't come with glossy sales brochures and pointed marketing bullshit. Jabber won't 'increase the productivity of your workforce by upto 100000000%', or 'integrate flawlessly with our task management and collaboration framework', or.... you get the idea.
    • The last version of Jabber I downloaded had an absolutely awful interface. It was usuable, although I think that for Joe Sixpack, it wouldn't be a serious option. I am quite computer savvy, (Java, PHP, Python, Perl, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows 2000) but I couldn't get to grips with it. The most popular system in South Africa seems to be MSN Messenger, followed by Yahoo Instant Messenger and ICQ's Messaging System.

      • What Interface? Jabber is a protocol. There are hundreds of interfaces you can have.
        • What Interface? Jabber is a protocol. There are hundreds of interfaces you can have.

          Well, that's kind of a problem in itself. But the interface I was talking about was the "main" Jabber distribution. (Sorry, it's been a while since I last tried it...) I am willing to give it another try, though, and will download later. The inter-protocol support and XML-based structure (if I remember correctly) was intruiging.

          • If you're using Windows, Exodus [jabberstudio.org] is a pretty nice Jabber client. Miranda [sf.net] is also excellent, it's an ICQ client, but with tons of plugins (and you can even turn ICQ off). Get Miranda's latest Jabber plugin [au.edu].

            In Linux I use Gabber [sf.net].
          • The commercial jabber client at jabber.com?

            I will say this though--

            The documentation for jabberd 1.4.x could use some work. The first time I tried it, I could not get it to work, and only recently have I got things to work. I am hoping that this will improve with 2.0.x where all the work seems to be at the moment.
      • by tzanger ( 1575 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:55AM (#5709679) Homepage

        I went through practically every Linux client I could find before finding one that I was happy with. Psi [sf.net] is a Qt-based client that acts and feels very much like the original ICQ client. No ads, sidebars, topbars, navbars, barbars... just a regular clean and simple IM client. There is [jabber.org] an extensive client list for Win32, Linux and MacOSX which lists the features of each. Psi works on all three, which is another reason I chose it. That, and the fact that, at the time, it was the only NON-Gtk client that looked half assed presentable and the ONLY Linux client that didn't take up a lot of screen real estate, and the ONLY Linux client that did NOT pop up the incoming message, stealing focus from whatever I was typing into.

        Psi's Jabber client lib (and ssl comms) have been adopted by KDE for their IM clients too, which is a nice bonus.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      I use Gabber under Solaris for MSN and ICQ. Sometimes they have outages on one of the Jabber services for hours. It's really annoying not being able to access MSN from my Sun box when I need it for work, it's a little inconvenient having to load up MSN Messenger under my SunPCI Windows installation mainly because I have the speaker output plugged into the Sun box (rather than the PCI card)

      That's what's wrong with Jabber - the inconvenience caused by server outages.
    • Jabber (from the commercial Jabber company, not the generic protocol) has a server user interface that makes sendmail configs look fun, no polls, no surveys, no screensharing, no whiteboard and no moderated chat rooms. Sun has all of those, and some are very useful.
  • irc? (Score:4, Informative)

    by terminal96 ( 530726 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:09AM (#5709480) Homepage
    we have a company irc server where i work. works well enough.
  • It doesn't matter... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ajuda ( 124386 )
    It doesn't matter how great the software is... frankly it's too late for a new entry. Because of network effects, messaging software is only as good as the number of people who already use it.
    • It does matter. This is for a company to use internally.

      I hate microsoft outlook, but i have no choice to use it or not. My offices won't let me instlal another mail client and doesn't support imap... so what do I do?

      They also don't use rational rose (morons), but I can't go install that eitehr, for my UML needs.
      • Hate is such a strong word. Honestly if the software does what you need it to do (serve and deliver email) then use it and get on with business. There is no work related email needs at your company that Outlook can't handle or they would issue something else.

        Doesn't do what you want and they won't let you use one you like? Do what I did - whip out your Platinum MasterCard, go to www.dell.com (or your preference) and under Small Business order yourself a machine. Have it delivered to your house. Instal
    • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:17AM (#5709515) Journal
      That hardly matters for corporate users, at whom this product is aimed. The idea is that employees use it mainly for interoffice messaging, not yapping all day to their pals.
      • heh, erm (Score:2, Insightful)

        by lingqi ( 577227 )
        A lot of pals I yap with ARE from the office. And what's preventing the "all day yap" is because hanging out at eachothers cubes would attract volumous attention.

        I cannot imagine this increasing productivity. really cannot. People will be able to interrupt your legitimate work from the convenience of their own cube! and I doubt you can hide yourself (invisible) because that would totally be against the whole point of INSTANT messenging.

        And before people goes about and talk about monitoring your IM logs -
        1
        • Re:heh, erm (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Sven Tuerpe ( 265795 ) <svenNO@SPAMgaos.org> on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:58AM (#5709702) Homepage
          I cannot imagine this increasing productivity. really cannot. People will be able to interrupt your legitimate work from the convenience of their own cube! and I doubt you can hide yourself (invisible) because that would totally be against the whole point of INSTANT messenging.

          Looks like your experience is limited. Ever had coworkers more than a few cubicles away? I did, and instant messaging was quite a helpful tool. It is less intrusive and distracting than the telephone, especially if one has more than a single machine around. Doing software development, I use to have two machines on my desk, one for actual hacking and one for reading documentation, running tests, etc. -- and instant messaging.

          Of particular importance to developers is the ability to easily exchange code snippets. Compare to reading them over the phone, or sending e-mail messages then waiting for a reply. IM gives instant access to coworkers' knowledge while making it easy to talk about technical matter that would be hard to express in voice.

          And of course if you are serious about it you will allow people to make themselves unavailable.

      • "That hardly matters for corporate users, at whom this product is aimed."

        Really I/my department use IM with some of our clients quite extensively. Communication systems are at their best when they can connect to other communcation systems - singuler they are useful but interconnected are powerful. Seeing as the current IM's don't interconnect they're not going to fulfil they're potencial.

        Sun's messaging server is a bit late in the game and I doubt is going to be the one to unite them all. Jabber could bu
    • This is a server that you run in an office, not a competitor to ICQ and Yahoo.
      The data never leaves your private network, unlike Messenger, which routes everything through Redmond or wherever.

      Cheers,
      Jim
    • It doesn't matter how great the software is... frankly it's too late for a new entry. Because of network effects, messaging software is only as good as the number of people who already use it.

      Sounds to me like a very good reason to use it, if you like it.

    • by LinuxXPHybrid ( 648686 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:33AM (#5709594) Journal
      > ... frankly it's too late for a new entry.

      I read many comments like yours on Slashdot, and I can understand why you say that. For typical slashdotters, yes, Sun's announcement feels like too late. If you live in a major city in US or its metropolitan area, perhaps that's how you feel. If you work in the IT industry, more so. But the reality is that we are still at the beginning of the information age. I truly feel that the market is wide open.

      If you look beyond US metropolitan area (and other, what they call, developed countries), there is a huge opportunity. There does not seem to be a wide margin in the IT industry in US, but there is China. There's large part of EU. Potentially, Middle East, now that Iraq war is pretty much over. Just that... it's over 5 times bigger that the whole US. Market is wide open.

      In addition, Sun does have competitive edge over Exchange and Domino. The fact is that MS is stuck in the world of 32 bit. They say IA-64 is coming, but even if it arrives tomorrow, how long do they take to make it really functional AND get support from other ISVs? Domino is a competitive product, but Sun is really kicking IBM's ass in high end because of its quality, openness, and price.

      I am not a marketing analyst and I cannot or dear not predict the future, BUT I do say that "... it's too late" sounds a little premature.
      • There does not seem to be a wide margin in the IT industry in US, but there is China.

        Sun appears to be marketing agressively in Asia. There is a whole version of StarOffice, called StarSuite, geared towards the asian markets. They also donate lots of software to asian countries trying to seed the markets there. I guess one advantage of being a global company is that there are alternatives now that the U.S. is in the dumper for the near future.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:22AM (#5709532)
    Dubbed 'Sun ONE Instant Messaging 6.0,'
    That is _so_ 90's!! They should have called it Sun ONE Instant Messaging XP or MX or something..
    This way they'll never get JoeSixpack to buy a single server!.. Come on!..
  • Cost and offering (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:23AM (#5709543) Homepage
    So this costs $30 per user and no mention of the client software requirements. Will they just be Solaris or Linux/Windows/Solaris? As other people have said why not just role out jabber?

    With Sun: For a 100 person organsiation cost = $3000 + implementation time
    With Jabber: implementation time

    BIt of a no brainer?
    Rus
    • Like the reply to the previous poster; Integration

      SUN developed an entire suite of applications that integrate with each other. So Jabber isn't a contender in this particular case, if one chooses the rest of the suite that is.

      • Can't argue with that. Also companies might want the support that can be offered from a commerical company. A mentalitity I've noticed is that companies don't think support is decent unless you pay for it. I thing that the mailing lists for things normally do fill this need but don't necessarily offer that someone will actually get an answer

        Rus
        • I think it's a bit more than that. Companies want someone they can point the finger at in an emergency and say FIX IT!!!!!!!! It's also a liablility thing. That's why most companies need an outside consultant to say exactly what their IT people have been saying before they'll go ahead with it.

          The SOP is usually to get the vendor in asap to help when a system goes down. Since no vendor, hence no one to point the finger at. For a C-level exec, that's a Bad Thing(tm).

          I think it's also that most large co
    • "As other people have said why not just role out jabber?......BIt of a no brainer?"

      Do you know many CTO's and purchasing people?

      on are more serious note it will probably be sold to those with existing Sun infrastructure and will augment it - they probably already have their market.
    • Re:Cost and offering (Score:4, Informative)

      by Henry Stern ( 30869 ) <henry@stern.ca> on Friday April 11, 2003 @08:03AM (#5709741) Homepage
      $3000 for 100 users is not only on par with the competition, but is small potatoes. A few years ago, I helped with a Domino/Notes/Sametime rollout where the server software before the CALs was well over five figures.

      Jabber is only an IM service. Sun ONE is a whole enterprise collaboration environment. Comparing the two is like comparing KWord and Microsoft Office.
  • by Organic_Info ( 208739 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:26AM (#5709555)
    "for businesses which don't wish to rely on an outside network for their messaging"

    They may not wish to rely on outside systems for internal communication but connections to outside IM systems may be essential. I won't lie I've not read the link yet. But my first though is how it would interact with other messaging systems.

    The current biggies AIM, MSN, ICQ and Yahoo are no good as fragmented seperates - think back to BBS systems. Until they all sit down and decide to play together and use an Open standard it's not going to be as usefull as it could be. Untill then people will use what ever "frigs" they can to get them to interoperate such as Trillian (recommned the pro version by the way) or Jabbers connections.

    Of course being HW focused if Sun push for an Open messaging standard touting their HW to power it all we could see some action but unfortunately they are a bit late in the game to weild that sort of power.

    IM should interoperate and be as widespread as e-mail but it won't while everyone diggs in and backs their own standard.
    .
    • For cross communication I belive that only AOL/ICQ work. The nearest I've really seem to come to cross network is using gaim as client which at least allows me to see other peeps in one window rather than having to run 3 or 4 different messaging programs

      Or we could just all use IRC

      Rus
      • I wondered why IRC did not hold its ground (grow) as the original widely used IM.

        But as there was no central IRC body to 'market' it or be inclined to make it more attractive/inviting it would hve to be bettered/improved by someone else.

        Once it becomes popular and accessible multiple approaches and implementations imerge. We then have large but fragmented userbases. Someone will push an interoperable system and the rest will have to join the fold or perish.

        Not used GAIM but I should giveit a try. Like I
      • Try Kopete (Project Homepage [slashdot.org]), it's a KDE/Qt based IM Client, which does Jabber, ICQ, AIM, MSN, IRC and a couple of less well-known's. It uses a plug-in based architechture, so adding new protocols is as easy as writing a plugin. (!)

        I've been using it for a couple of weeks for ICQ, AIM, Jabber and IRC, and it's quite good, the interface is nice (needs a little polishing, but hey, it's still pre-1.0!). It's definately worth a look - and definately better than GAIM!!
  • Sun and version (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:30AM (#5709577)
    the first part of its new enterprise collaboration platform to compete with Exchange and Domino. Dubbed 'Sun ONE InstantMessaging 6.0

    First the abrupt jump from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 8, and now the first version of a new product is dubbed 6.0! Someone needs to smack the marketroids at Sun upside the head with the news that version numbers aren't just there because they make a pretty sound when you say them, they're meant to convey information to the customer. Sun's engineers seem immune to this, Solaris 8 still reports itself internally as SunOS 5.8, which kinda makes sense. Microsoft are Sybase are also guilty of doing it.

    I can imagine the meeting now:

    Marketer: Version 2 is better than 1 right?
    Engineer: Sure
    Marketer: And version 3 is better than 2?
    Engineer: Umm, usually.
    Marketer: Great! So the higher the number, the better the product!

    Ah, I remember the good old days when Sun competed on technology, not hype. Most people I know are still running 2.6 in production, there's simply not enough new stuff in 8 to justify anything more than calling it 2.8, but while it's easy to get sign-off on a minor version patch, major versions need a lot more regression (on paper at least) and who's got the time for that?
    • Re:Sun and version (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bmetzler ( 12546 ) <<moc.evil> <ta> <relztemb>> on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:47AM (#5709643) Homepage Journal
      Someone needs to smack the marketroids at Sun upside the head with the news that version numbers aren't just there because they make a pretty sound when you say them, they're meant to convey information to the customer.

      Um, hello? That's exactly why this version number is 6.0. It's because it's not just a pretty sound when you say it, it is because it is meant to convey the concept that this IM product is meant to integrate with the SunONE platform, which, coincidentaly, has a version 6 label. Wild, isn't it?

      -Brent
      • Um, hello? That's exactly why this version number is 6.0. It's because it's not just a pretty sound when you say it, it is because it is meant to convey the concept that this IM product is meant to integrate with the SunONE platform, which, coincidentaly, has a version 6 label. Wild, isn't it?

        So what you're saying is, the version number of a product should be the same as the version number of its platform? Well, MS do that (Office 2000, SQL 2000 and so on) but they do write the whole lot, after all. By t
        • It's not version 1.0. There was a previous version which was around under the iPlanet and then Sun ONE brand and is used by various customers. It was version 3 then, to fit in with the fact it was an add-on to Portal Server 3.0. We're now at Portal Server 6.0, hence the numbering match.

          http://wwws.sun.com/software/products/portal_icp /h ome_portal_icp.html
    • by rf0 ( 159958 )
      One reason for Redhat going from 8 -> 9. Purely marketing. Normally people expect high numbers are better however it always become when someone releases version 11 of something. Is that v1.1 or v12? Lots of fun :)
      Rus
      • Wrong (Score:4, Informative)

        by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <atd7@cor[ ]l.edu ['nel' in gap]> on Friday April 11, 2003 @09:17AM (#5710214) Homepage
        As far as RH going straight from 8->9

        If you were at all familiar with RedHat versioning, you'd know that all revisions within a major version are binary compatible with each other, and major versions are not guaranteed to be binary compatible with each other. (Some may work fine, other binaries won't. Mostly this pertains to C++ apps, but in RH9, this pertained to anything that used threading.) RedHat decided that it was best for the distribution to move to a new threading architecture. It happened that this new threading system broke binary compatibility with RedHat 8.

        As a result, consistent with RedHat's versioning policies, it was called RedHat 9.

        I will admit that it does have a fringe marketing benefit, but the main reason for 9 was that it broke binary compatibility with RH8.
    • There's a large number of reasons to move to 8/9, not least the ability to run on the new UIII systems from 8 upwards, have a journalling, high performance file system in 9 and various other goodies. Sun.com has a good list.

      For what it's worth, things went from 2.6 to 7 and up. SunOS is the operating system, Solaris is the 'operating environment', but you're right, in the end it is just numbers. It can't be easyt in the marketing department - for all the people who complain that the new numbering is 'hy
    • First the abrupt jump from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 8,

      Just to pick nits, but the jump was from Solaris 2.6 to 7, not 8. SunOS went from version 4 to 'Solaris 2.4' So Solaris 2.4 is SunOS 4, Solaris 2.5 is SunOS 5, Solaris 2.6 is SunOS 5.6, though. I don't get it either.

      I run 2.6 on my servers at work except for one because some clueless droid at Ford insists that I-DEAS 9.x MUST be served from a Solaris 8 server. (Ermm, yeah, whatever.)

      There *are* differences. Most of those differences, however, invo

      • Just to pick nits, but the jump was from Solaris 2.6 to 7, not 8. SunOS went from version 4 to 'Solaris 2.4' So Solaris 2.4 is SunOS 4, Solaris 2.5 is SunOS 5, Solaris 2.6 is SunOS 5.6, though. I don't get it either.


        Actually, SunOS 4.x is the older, more BSD flavoured, version of their operating system. SunOS 5.x is the version of their operating system that we normally associate with the Solaris environment. So, Solaris 2.4 would be running SunOS 5.4, not SunOS 4. Solaris 2.5.1 ran SunOS 5.5.1, etc.
        • Re:Sun and version (Score:3, Informative)

          by Surak ( 18578 )
          Actually, SunOS 4.x is the older, more BSD flavoured, version of their operating system. SunOS 5.x is the version of their operating system that we normally associate with the Solaris environment. So, Solaris 2.4 would be running SunOS 5.4, not SunOS 4. Solaris 2.5.1 ran SunOS 5.5.1, etc. Note that Sun did eventually rename the older SunOS 4.x operating environment Solaris 1.x just to confuse people even more. :-)

          Thanks for clearing that up. :) You can clearly see why even I, who had more of a clue than t
      • Just to pick nits, but the jump was from Solaris 2.6 to 7, not 8.

        True, I should have spotted that. Solaris 7 was a bit of a funny one - very short lived, while Sun and Veritas argued over what exactly should be bundled and what should be paid for, and Solaris 8 was released as soon as they came to an arrangement. I've never come across Solaris 7 "in the wild" but I think I have CDs for it somewhere.
    • First the abrupt jump from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 8

      I think you must have meant:

      Solaris 2.6 -> Solaris (2.)7 -> Solaris (2.)8...

      and so on. I guess Sun felt there would be no more major revisions and started using the minor rev as the release number.

      --hc

      DUH!

      --hc
  • It would be nice if the server supported the latest AOL AIM standards. I was a daily user of AIM for years, but recently my company blocked access to it, and now we have an internal Jabber service. Fine, but there are a few people that I spoke with almost on a daily basis for years that I rarely talk to anymore (our conversations weren't large enough for phone, and not long or focused enough for email). We've got MSN messenger gateway service, but I'm not signing up for a Passport account to use it.

    I don'

    • This would be a great idea, and I know a few people working on similar projects.

      AOL is not very interested in letting others jump on their protocol at this point. I'd assume that they are saving the functionality for their own coporate suite.

  • by p3d0 ( 42270 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:42AM (#5709626)
    Instant messaging is becoming increasingly popular in the workplace. Local messaging servers like this were only the next logical step for businesses which don't wish to rely on an outside network for their messaging.
    Yeah, it was the next logical step several years ago. IBM has been using the Sametime IM internally for as long as I have worked there.
  • by Quass ( 320289 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:50AM (#5709661) Homepage Journal
    I work at a major corporation, and we use "Lotus Sametime" as our messenging client. At first I was put off by the lack of features (ie. timestamping, etc..) but it has interoperability with AIM, so I find it quite nice to use.

    As long as Sun goes with something like AOL compatibility for outside-the-intranet communication, they should be sitting pretty. Why would this even be necessary? Well the obvious is chatting with friends/family - without having to install a secondary client - but, also I know in my company we deal with outside agencies and businesses, and its much easier being able to IM them, than to send emails, or phone.
  • by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @07:51AM (#5709665) Homepage Journal
    This isn't just for internal use... it works specifically with your firewall to provide secure authentication for Customers, Partners and Remote Employees around the world so you have a single sign on Messaging system for EVERYONE in your business.

    My company could use this.

    Of course to really see all the benefits you will want to use the other components as well which all use Liberty spec and SAML (Security Assertion Markup Language) for completely single sign on to messaging (e-mail), calendaring, instant messaging and web portal / content management.

    Remember that this is just the latest incarnation of iPlanet.

  • feh (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    too little, too late .. and for this platform, useless at any rate. what outfit that you know of (that isn't stuck in the stone age) uses sun as a primary desktop platform? .. few to none. sun should just sell their assets off and run today while the running is better than tomorrow. hell, we're even switching to linux for everything, and we're definitely not a small shop. not that this necessarily precludes sun, but why couple free OS with pricey hardware that is no more stable than the cheaper stuff? ..
  • Picture an employee at his desk. His AIM pop's up:

    TheBoss: How did our trade secrets get out? I'm calling for a full investigation!

    Employee: Maybe it's because we use AOL for our chat and they receive everything we send!

    TheBoss: What? Quick! Get a Sun ONE Server!
  • We were really lacking in the instant messaging server department. No if they would only come out with an MP3 player, they'd take over the world.
  • I've been using IM on a sun network for years.
  • by sporty ( 27564 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @09:12AM (#5710184) Homepage
    Did you people bother read the article? Jabber doesn't integrate with sun's suite. If they foudn the technology usable, the may have used it.

    It's not about SUN making IM softare. It's about their IM/Collaboration/Calendar/Email suite. It's about them releasing software, that integrates well with their software. Being redundant there. It's about cool little popups from their IM program telling you about a meeting or about email, muchlike yahoo client does

    If you wanna keep talking about Jabber Protocol, why not SOAP, or XML-RPC? Cripes... As if that's what the article really is about.
  • Domino? Please (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tmasssey ( 546878 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @09:17AM (#5710215) Homepage Journal
    I cringe every time I hear something like this being compared with Domino. Yes, Domino does e-mail. Yes, Domino does calendaring. But Domino is so much, much more.

    Anyone who has ever used Domino's document management tools or developed an application for Notes knows exactly what I mean. You have the ability to develop highly advanced applications, not just folders full of sticky notes (e.g. Exchange). You don't have filing cabinets full of sticky notes, do you? Why should your database?

    The biggest disadvantage of Domino is the fact that developing for it is kind of its own little world. I'm looking forward to Domino R7's integration with WebSphere. But even until then, Domino gives you a document management development environment second to none.

    The weird thing is that the feature that everyone looks at Domino most closely for, e-mail, is its weakest point. That's what comes from building e-mail around a document-mangement platform, instead of building document management around an e-mail platform.

  • its called WALL!!??
  • FINALLY! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Big Nothing ( 229456 ) <big.nothing@bigger.com> on Friday April 11, 2003 @12:03PM (#5711551)
    Another IM service is just what I've been missing!

"How do I love thee? My accumulator overflows."

Working...