Template talk:Sun Microsystems

ZFS

I propose including ZFS in the software list. --Gaborgulya 20:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Prioritizing / weeding

I haven't looked at how this goes for similar companies, but is it appropriate to have every Sun-related article in this template? Does JavaStation, for example, need to be here— especially when (as the above section mentions) ZFS isn't?

I'd also like to consider what order things appear in. I just moved SunOS out of the lead position, since Solaris is currently a more notable topic. I'm surprised Java isn't higher on the list.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Technology section?

With two people suggesting adding zfs, I did so, however I forgot to login. A thought would be to add a technology section, which would include zfs, nfs, etc. Any thoughts? Reiger (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sun Microsystems

Reply to on Sun Microsystem template edit history

This is a template for Sun Microsystems, not Java or Java related 3rd party solutions) (undo) 

Not sure are you (as in Raysonho) involve with the Java Template, but I am going to put the third party utilities in Java template. A lot of these developement are actually supported or promoted by Sun Microsystems through Press Publisher or series such as In A Nutshell by Safar O'Reilly. Much of these are related to the developement of Java.

For OpenOffice if a developer developed a good plug-in or implementation that Sun Microysstem really like a lot they might buy that technologies and integrate it into StarOffice, that is one of these ways how Open Source products earn their money. So if you disagree, discuss before you remove next time.

Initially I was thinking of changing the link of Java to Java Template

--Ramu50 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not approaching this from the wrong angle. If an article is Java-related, it will already use the Java template. If it is related to both Java and Sun, it will use both the Java template and the Sun template. If it is related to Sun but not to Java (for instance, an article on early SunOS), then there is no relevance in non-Sun Java at all. There is no reason to link to such things in this template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Sun Fire is a blade server, and therefore it is a server product not a workstation. As the article clearly state the following

“ Sun's first-generation blade server platform, the Sun Fire B1600 chassis and associated blade servers, was branded under the Sun Fire server brand. Later Sun blade systems were sold under the Sun Blade brand . ”

Also Sun Netra is a NEBS which is a type of small profile SMB server(Small-Medium Buisness), they just handle less work and isn't consider as a workstation.

Also you've no reason why Crossbow is being removed. For iPlanet, I created that extra group, because a lot of servers were introduced by Sun Microsystems partnership with Netscape Communications and I believe iPlanet is an initiative that Sun Microsystems always wanted to do for a long time so solve the barriers of Enterprise Solutions Management, such as Virtualizing Servers, --Ramu50 (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand some of the recent edits to this template; Sun Fire, Netra and SPARC Enterprise are brands that are or have been used for server computer products and hence belong in the Hardware group (and there are many more Sun Fire models than just blade servers), "SPARCserver" has been deleted, NEBS is an industry standard and not specific to Sun, "Enterprise" and "Servers" seem like pretty vague group names, and the "and" has disappeared from "Workstations and Servers". Letdorf (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC).

I totally agree! And I put my complains in Ramu50's talk page. He keeps on removing my edits and put in the wrong information. -- Raysonho (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And I guess enough is enough, putting SPARC Enterprise, Sun Netra servers in the software group is purely wrong. I will change it back, and if this happens again, I think I will need to complain to the administrators. -- Raysonho (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually for Sun Netra classified it under other, because NEBS can be used for workstation or Enterprise. For Sun Fire (14 out of 16 products of Sun Fire are considered Enterprise Servers not workstation at all).

The article and both Sun Microsystems webpage clearly doesn't support your synthesis of being a workstation at all. (for Sun Fire)

From Sun Microsystems

“ Ideal for - Large, small or medium-sized companies needing grid computing, web infrastructure, security and network services, application development, virtualization and consolidation, Security, DNS, caching, firewall and more. For the telcos we offer NEBS-certified servers (rackmount and ATCA blades) that offer outstanding reliability, energy efficiency and performance. ”

DNS, Web Infrastructure, Security (e.g. Kerberos, CloudAV), Network Services (SOA Semantic Web Infrastructure database), Virtualization are totally not workstations at all. Also take note that Sun Fire can support up to 1.152TB it probably should be classified as Infrastrucutre, even Microsoft Virtual Earth only have around 300TB.

SPARCEnterprise is as follows

• 6 CoolThread (Workstations)
• 6 Rack-mount
• 2 mid-range
• 2 High-end servers
• 10 Enterprise

Considering that Rack-mount and mid-range can be fitted as utilities of High-end Servers and Enterprise Servers and not under CoolThreaded Workstations due to form factor (therefore servers account for 20/26, so I guess it might best classified it as a Enterprise

Also Sun Modular Datacenter should be change to Storage section

And since when did you ever contribute an edit on my talk page before, Raysonho Sun Microsystem was even discuss, stop making up synthesis.

--Ramu50 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course I did warn you before.

And we are talking about workstation and server products. In fact, Sun started off as a workstation company, and its customers used sun machines as servers. One thing I want to be clear, SPARC Enterprise is for sure one of Sun's server products, so we should put it in the "workstation and server" section instead of being creative and add "Enterprise" in the *software* (??????) section!!

Is there a parallel universe out there? Sun Modular Datacenter (codename project blackbox) is not a storage solution. By storage, we are talking about data storage. -- Raysonho (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Which entries exactly are you referring to. For storage I think it includes backup, general NAS, SAS, DAS, SANs, data center, data warehousins...so forth. Also Raysonho I did take the your note into consideration, that is why I removed the suffix of solutions. Thus change Enterprise to General Servers as none of us nor the reviews are correct to judge what are the intension of server. Products by nature are meant to be multipurpose. Even reviews are bias by nature to be standing on one side or the other. The only one that I can say is a solution is all iPlanet product. Joint-venture goal is to provide a better solutions in many fields of computing such as electrical engineering for investments in photoelectric processors, high density / high speed RAM...etc. Whether or not Sun Microsystem started as a workstation company has nothing got to do with their product so that is out of the question. I don't think we should place SPARC Enterprise with Workstation and Server section, because they are joint-venture. Even without being biased, workstation in the context of modern age technology age does connotate the NOS, adminastration. I don't think Sun made SPARC Enterprise superceed Sun Fire (as stated in the article) for nothing, it does hint that they probably want to aim at a bigger market into of SMB segement which is what most workstation are use for. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

All Netra, Sun Fire and SPARC Enterprise branded products to date can be broadly classified as server hardware of one kind or another, and so belong in "Hardware/Workstations and Servers" - I don't see how SPARC Enterprise being a joint Sun/Fujitsu brand changes this. What other kinds of products the NEBS standard might apply to is not really relevant here. IMHO the obvious way to broadly categorize the products of a company like Sun is "hardware", "software", and "other" for things that don't fit neatly into the first two. Earlier Sun hardware branding didn't clearly distinguish between workstations and servers, that's why I lumped them all together in one group. At the moment this navbox seems to be a bit heavy on middleware products. Letdorf (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

I am not stresssing on the importance of it is a NEBS or not. Sun Microsystems have generally make workstation product to be flexible with the capability to handle small-to-medium workloads along with the capability to be programmable through distributed computing, grid computing...etc. Though virtualization can make heavy duty possible to a certain degree, however, majority of the parallel computing are under research and those products act more of a template, and that is why they try to include all processors as much as possible and open source their UltraSPARC T2 so they can possible accelerate their enviroments. There never existed a gray line between the workstations and servers. Servers only have 2 type: Storage (SANs, NAS, DAS, SAS, SQL, Data center, data warehouse) and Purpose-orientated. Purpose orientated is (browsing (web server), servicing (SOA, Amazon, Google, Yahoo...the other search engine), hosting (gaming, multimedia broadcasting / streaming, news feed {atom, RSS}, gaming).

Sun Microsystem find a server Sun Fire, Sun Netra, SPARC Enterprise, Sun Blade Modular Ceneter Sun Microsystem Desktop & Workstations Sun Ultra.

The best workstations I've seen is the ability to virtualize 4 Operating System at the same time. That being said that is why Sun Microsystem invested so much money in Instruction Level Programming for Workstations and AMD OSRC (Operating System Research Center) for workstations also as kernel engineering is also a major topics that many operating system struggle with which can fluctate ther performance of an workstation dramatically. Do you even understand the difference between workstations and servers at all. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see what most of that has to do with trying to taxonomize Sun's product lines logically and concisely, which I think is what we're trying to achieve here. Yes, I do understand the difference between workstations and servers, thank you - I used to work as a systems administrator on dozens of Sun machines, among others, and in terms of hardware there might not actually be any difference at all between a "workstation" and a "server". I get the impression you aren't really familiar with Sun's products on a practical level and are basing your contributions on some kind of comp. sci. course materials. Letdorf (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

I agree with Letdorf. We just need something clean and simple. No "Infrastructure", no "Enterprise", no "Servers" in the Software section. -- Raysonho (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That is totally not true what you just said Letdorf. You don't even understand your material at all. There is a hardware difference between Workstation and Servers. The research product I refer to are

• Sun Constellation System
• Visualization System
• Grid Engine (Distributed Computing)
• Sun Grid (Grid Computing Based)

Servers use UltraSPARC processors for a reason, because they are written down to the ILP level. Initially Sun Microsystem was reseraching VLIW and SPARC in the beginning, but VLIW MAJC's thread scheduling feature wasn't successful that is why Sun introduced CoolThreading in SPARC instead. At that time since mainstream wasn't at around 1.2GHz there wasn't really a competition between IBM Power Architecture and SPARC until early 1990s. The climax of the competition is currently, because IBM RoadRunner and Sun Constellation System are the only 2 server in the world able to reach petascale.

For Workstation processor Sun made the workstation compatible with Intel and AMD, because not everybody may want to believe in SPARC, and VLIW, therefore they offered of Intel Xeon (IA-64, by the way IA-64 is written in CISC-RIC instruction set). Intel website even categorize Xeon as Workstation processors (Pentium and Core microarchitecture) versus Itanium (VLIW instruction) as Server processors. However, Intel lost the Xeon market, because the people didn't believe in their FBD Memory and Snoop Filter Cache when previously roadmap stated they might use Robson Solid State Cache. Also their Quad Core design doesn't even stand a chance in the market. Thus AMD dominated with NUMA DCM, XDR Memory and Hyper-V. That is why for the future Nehalem Intel unethically copied AMD NUMA architecture. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see what relevance these personal essays on computer architecture that you write on this talk page have to this template. If you were familiar with the history of Sun's products, you would know that, until the Sun Blade and Sun Fire lines came out, Sun did not differentiate between workstations and low-end servers in their hardware designs, and only started branding them differently with the introduction of the SPARCserver brand. I respectfully suggest you try reading WP:NAVBOX, WP:CONS, WP:NOR and WP:SOAP before making any more contributions to navbox templates. Letdorf (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

Sorry about the off-topic. But I think we should categorize Hardware into the following

• Processors
• Workstations / Servers (Sun Blade, Sun Enterprise, Sun Ultra, SPARCstations (4d))
• Utility Computing (Sun Fire)
• HA Cluster: Sun Netra, Sun Luster

This site seems to suggest Giraffee developement on Sun Lustre

Put the following under existing Servers

• SPARCstations (SFF) (seriously SFF workstations more like SOHO than workstations and is more personal purpose.
• JavaStation (well it is intended to be Java orientated), the best it can do is ?JBoss.
• Sun Ray (thin client as a workstations really sound weird = =\\\)

I think we need really utility computing, mainly because there is a developement on Cloud Computing. Like Amazon EC2

• IPS (Imaginging Package System) technologies

Its just unforunate that the other vendors got their place like GigaSpaces, Rightscale, Thoughtworks and Zmanda.

Any products that is blade server or hybrid of workstations and servers I think can be put under Utility Computing, as long they support some form of SAN connection like SAS, DAS, NAS, AoE...etc. Or else just put them under workstation / servers.

For SPARCstations I suggest 2 link because, a few month agos I was trying to figure out how to add minicluster server (a SFF / ITX servers) I came across various SFF form factor known as Pizzabox, Lunchbox...etc apparently that is how Sun got that name and we shouldn't ignore it, because AMD also invented the DTX SFF so we are not sure is going to adopt that. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Repurposing

Over the last month, this template has gotten considerably more complicated as it tries to map out every Sun-related article on Wikipedia. This isn't helping. I believe that it should be split into multiple templates, with the main Sun template (this one) covering only the most notable topics across the company's work. Navboxen are not meant to replace the category namespace by endlessly adding hierarchies.

A good start would be splitting the hardware subgroups to {{Sun hardware}}. If there are no objections, I'll do that later. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've got a point there. The software groups could also probably do without listing pretty much every component of the Java Enterprise System too. But what articles will appear in the main navbox? Letdorf (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

A 10,000ft overview, enough to serve as a reasonable starting place to related articles without including things which would naturally be linked from the summary articles it contains anyway. Java. Solaris. SPARC. The founders. We can hash out the exact details later. These things tend to sort themselves out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea... I always thought the Sun Microsystems template was a bit too large. Rilak (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you guys. But I think simply throwing away all the unimportant stuff, and merging the template back to

1) hardware,

2) software,

3) storage,

4) HPC would work

5) Staff+others

would work...

Note that the 5 sections correspond to the article's sections.

Also note that an earlier version of this template is already much cleaner than Google's template. I like that template better except that we need to move hardware to the first section to make sure that it is in the same order as the article. -- Raysonho (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think its best that we (or I) migrate some of the components to the already existing template of Template:Solaris and Template:Java (Sun). However, I don't think we should change it to the original, then it doesn't support as a navigation. Keep the ones that most people don't understand.

Infrastructure (iPlanet), Virtualization, Storage can be migrate into a new template which focus on servers, (and included with workstation if wish). Because most people already know about Infrastrucutre (Semantic Web, ISP [DNS, NetBIOS, Novell, NOS, adminastration...etc.], Virtualization (cloud computing and object-interface based database) and Storage (datacenter, SQL, distributed, relational DBMS...etc.) Template_talk:Databases#Recent _edits.

Note I am NOT referring to ORM.

• OS Components (migrate to Template:Solaris)

but I will keep NFS, NIS (+), Jar, Crossbow and Juxtapose. (Jar is commonly use by Java application)

Things to keep in both template (for interest and developement convient)

• Virtualization (technical interest)
• HPC (types of computing developement)
• Sun ONE (History)

--Ramu50 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion here appears to be contrary to that of the majority: this has happened on a whole lot of navbox templates, looking at your recent contributions. The usability of the template is inversely proportional to the number of links in it. It is meant to navigate people to where they want to go, not simply to iterate over the entire subject. "Keep[ing] the ones that most people don't understand" is counterproductive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50, we want something nice and simple. Crossbow is solaris specific, while NIS/NIS+ were invented by Sun and used by all Unix platforms; so we should just put Crossbow in the Solaris template but keep NIS/NIS+ here. And again, we are not going back to the taxonomized version of the Sun template. It is a big mess for the user to read, and in fact, many software products are hard to define which sub-sections they belong to. -- Raysonho (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Choose your minor as something that interest you, but will help you. e.g. In developement look for effiency related studies concepts of green, energy efficient...etc are (power engineering, material engineering, thermodynamics (recycle)) and so forth. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure this isn't the right place for it. Letdorf (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

Change to Proposal

My scope and style of editing Wikipedia's Template

• Template that deals with General Topic such as Sun Microsystem shouldn't serve the idea of user-convient or user-friendly. Yes, people do come here to find what they want to find, because they know Wikipedia has something to offer. Wikipedia is more of a place for learnnig, whenver you click onto to any article, straight away the the the introduction already explains if you are on the right track. (e.g. Template:Java (Sun) {{Java (Sun)}}, Template:Java Virtual Machine {{Java Virtual Machine}}, Template:Solaris) {{Solaris}})
• Wikipedia's template is not a search engine or a portal service that give you solution. It is more of smart dictionary. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50, you revert of the old template to the new template creates more problems than it solves. I don't how your version of it helps. For example, you put the hardware entries into subsections, but you didn't put "StorageTek 5800" in hardware and you removed the "Sun Fire X4500" even though these are hardware products. I strongly support a revert to the previous template and a consensus as to how to proceed further. It is clear that the template needs to be split into hardware and software sections at the very least. Rilak (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Ramu, you've been told over and over not to edit war over your interpretation of the scope of navbox templates and you continue to do so. Please cease reverting to your preferred version until such point as it has support or administrative action may be required. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50, I have warned you on your talk page, on this talk page. I am not sure what else I can do to ask you listen to us. May be administrative action is the only way?? -- Raysonho (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can already report you Chris Cunningham and Raysonho for using threat. First none of you guys even agree on how the template should be split. By the way Chris are you bias, your suggestion of splitting to Template: Hardware is ok? While other people can't suggest any other method of splitting, what a load of crap and then when other people don't agree with you, ylou report them. By the way Raysonho, I don't even know why are you trying to get at, before you suggest about Workstation and Servers how they should be organized, now you are reverting what you just said, who is the one that is incorrect here. Both of you being a hypocrite. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you guy know that each of Linux Distributions is usually purpose-orientated, such as for Music editing, Network Security...etc. Linux Distro

For Solaris Template I added the Virtualization and Networking, because I think Sun Microsystem has a strong aim at Solaris Virtualization that is why they developed the Umbrella project / network protocol suite of Crossbow which is a similar aim to TCP/IP except it is virtualized.

However, the since the the Virtualization Network Protocol is directly related to Data Ceneter networking and other interconnect there needs to be a clear set of technologies and utilities to prevent leakage thus resulting

• LDOMs
• ZFS
• QFS

Crossbow Suite

• NIC (VNIC)
• Management (bandwidth)

recent edit contribute by me

--Ramu50 (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, there really doesn't have to be all of this in the template. It is not a map of the entire domain. It is simply a navigation tool to help people around various areas of the project. People are expected to go to the main articles in the area, read them, and follow the links therein to get to related items. Navboxen are not indexes! As for "threats", neither of us made threats - we followed the standard procedure for dealing with conflict, starting with extensive discussion and leading up to warnings that inappropriate beahviour would lead to administrative action. You have continued to be combatative and such action was appropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Update

We now have a {{Sun hardware}}, modelled after Ramu's subgroups in the previous revision of this template.

We should now work on reducing the number of links in this template until it provides just an overview rather than trying to map out WP's entire coverage of Sun. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the storage hardware to the hardware template. I think MAJC should also be moved there. If I recall correctly, it was used in a Sun parallel graphics system that shipped, which qualifies as hardware. The Sun research group should only contain projects that were experimental, not products that originated from it. Rilak (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a software template would not be a bad idea. Most of the template is now taken up by software products and solutions. The template should focus on Sun Microsystems, not Sun Microsystem's hardware or software. Rilak (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created a rough draft of a much reduced Sun Microsystems navbox here. Letdorf (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

Why not remove the whole hardware section? There can be a link to the hardware template. Articles that can be classified under both the hardware and company templates should have both, with the templates hidden by default. That's what the Apple articles do, I believe. Rilak (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean a link in the Sun Microsystem navbox to the Sun hardware navbox? I'm not sure how that would work...? The Apple Inc. navbox has links to Category pages. In any case, I've tweaked my draft cut-down template a bit more - if feedback is positive I will replace current navbox at some point. Letdorf (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

I meant to say there can be a link in the article and articles that can be categorized in Sun and Sun hardware should have links to the navboxes. I've also moved Ramu50's naxboxes to its own section so I don't need to load pages of code. Hope no one minds. Rilak (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, you mean link to a navbox, rather than transclude it? Is that good practice? Letdorf (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

Excellent. I think it can be reduced even further, but that's a good start. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've replaced the current template with my condensed version as a starting point for further work. Main difference is that I've tried to restrict software articles to only the most significant ones, while adding a few that I think have some historical significance (after all, this isn't a "Current Sun products" navbox). Not convinced about removing hardware entirely from this navbox, as that would reduce it to basically software products only plus a few odds and ends. Unless we actually wanted a "Sun software" navbox? Letdorf (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC).

Before I say anything further

• Sorry for everything whatever it is I've done. But I hope most of contributors will like it, no matter what comment contribs I've made today. My ideas maybe flawed, but at my work my inspire you towards my developement. --Ramu50 (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal Template

Status: Still working on version 2.

--Ramu50 (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if this a a request for comments, here's some:

• I dont see why Java Workstation and SPARC Enterprise are grouped together
• "Low Profile" isn't really a useful category in this context
• What does EC2 have to to with Sun?
• Why is Netra "other"?
• Why no Solaris link?
• JXTA is called "JXTA", not "Juxtapose"
• Too many Java-related links, especially JES components - there is a separate navbox for Java
• Lack of historical software topics (NeWS, OpenWindows etc.)
• ZFS has more general applications than just "Storage"

Letdorf (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

---

(section snipped and userfied to user:Ramu50/Solaris and user:Ramu50/Java - Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC) )

---

Why are these (Solaris and Java) navboxes here? Letdorf (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

With the new Sun hardware navbox and a streamlined Sun Microsystems navbox, why do we even need to consider these navboxes? Rilak (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

They should be in Ramu50's userspace. I'll remove them in future if that doesn't happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Snipped and userfied. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dashes?

I was just browsing through when I noticed that dashes are used instead of dots to separate links (most noticeable on the right side of the hardware section). Since this introduces inconsistency into the navbox (the majority of the template uses dots), should they be replaced or do they have some purpose I am not aware of? Rilak (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this was intended to denote a relationship between the subjects in question. This isn't necessary in a navbox, so feel free to replace them with bullets. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Rilak (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I used dashes instead of bullets to indicate subdivisions of groups, a convention I've seen on other navboxes. However I was a bit dubious about the aesthetics of it. Letdorf (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

Looking at the archived revision, I am not seeing any categorization. Am I missing something? Rilak (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

SunWorld Magazine?

Any thoughts on a SunWorld Magazine article? IIRC, it was later Unix Insider. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)