New Atlas £15. Updated SatNav maps £50-£100
and then you don't know when your satnav will die. I'd happily update my satnav annually for a more reasonable price (ie the same as a paper atlas) but at present the prices are stupid.
24 posts • joined 28 Aug 2007
If 47% of the employees could use these efficient methods of transport, then 53% couldn't. On their own that would make 53% of 9,000 or 4,700 odd parking spaces, plus whatever the 47% use. Doesn't add up to 3,600.
OTOH I visited that campus several times when I worked at Sun. As you leave, you have 3 or 4 main routes to use: a great way to disperse traffic.
OTOOH, I visited that campus several times when I worked at Sun. I can't understand how you could squeeze two and a half times as many people on to it.
All very odd.
When you submit a petition, you don't get any reference so you can track it. I submitted an e-petition several days ago. I received an email to validate the e-petition, which I did. However, there's no sign of it on the web site, either among the accepted or rejected petitions, although it's taken me about an hour to establish that (I think).
Why not have a reference number per petition, or the ability to search by submitter's name or an email to the submitter when a petition has been accepted? Bizarre
The big question is why Sun missed out on the obvious combination. Apple has fanatically loyal users in the client space: Sun has the same in the server space. Both companies had seen a move in architectures to Intel: in Apple's case, a wholehearted conversion, in Sun's case a start. Both companies' solutions are based on Unix: Apple has arguably the best client Unix, Sun the best server Unix and these could have been merged over a period of years. Sun could have provided a great channel for Apple to sell its clients, from iMac to iPhone, into its installed base. Apple would have given Sun financial stability.
Compared with this, the Oracle "merger" (=takeover) makes little sense for either organisation.
Schwartz took over Sun in 2004. Corporate profits since then have been dire, as they were beorehand. He has to be paid and employed even based on P&L, not on whatever cute technology he has acquired - his job is to make money for the shareholders. I no longer work for Sun, but I wasn't laid off and don't have an agenda here. I just suggest you look at the financial facts.
On Lou Gerstner, fact is he did turn IBM around. Before he arrived, the plan was to break IBM into distinct companies. The planning was pretty advanced in some areas - e.g. the storage division was going to be AdStar (ADvanced STorage And Retrieval). Gerstner turned that around, as well as several other bad ideas. His predecessor, John Akers, was a good guy but like McNealy at Sun he wasn't able to move with the times.
I worked for Sun for several years. McNealy, who is a very nice guy btw, lost the plot after 2000. The problem with Schwartz is that he "completed McNealy's sentences" (using the terminology at the press conference where Scott announced that Jonathan was taking over.)
There are some very talented people at Sun. Schwartz simply isn't one of them. There's no sign whatsoever of Sun turning around under his leadership and IBM wouldn't consider him for a second.
Look at almost any vendor's US price vs UK price and the US one will be significantly lower. It is actually more expensive doing business here; higher salaries, much higher rentals, higher govt imposed costs. This is a UK problem (and a European one to some extent) not an Apple, Dell, <name your favourite brand> one.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019