Talk:Oracle iPlanet Web Server

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Java Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Record for SPECweb2005 Performance

Toph3r recently removed text noting that Sun Java System Web Server holds the current record for SPECweb2005 performance. I believe this was useful NPOV information that is relevant in an article on Sun Java System Web Server. Indeed, when Zeus Web Server held the record, Toph3r thought it was worth mentioning on the Zeus Web Server page. I will revert Toph3r's change and leave a comment at User_talk:Toph3r encouraging him to explain his rationale here. — Elving 02:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elving, first things first - I didn't add the SPECweb results in the ZWS article :) They were there long before I discovered that article. The reason I do not feel that the SPECweb score is valid, with regards to Sun JSWS, is if you look at the *hardware* used in this test - it by _far_ outranks any similar hardware used against a ZWS benchmark. Indeed, the most cores used in a specweb test for ZWS was 2 (iirc). Yet, Sun are using *8* cores - that's hardly a fair test, and i very much feel its inaccurate to state that Sun JSWS holds the highest score as a result. It's like me running the 100m, but with x8 the legs of Carl Lewis ;) -- simply not a fair and reasonable comparison. Cheers. --Toph3r 09:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the problem is that the hardware is not explicitly mentioned? Would something like "Sun Java System Web Server on the Sun T2000 server holds the current record for SPECweb2005 performance" resolve your objection? (Also, note that while the T2000 does have 2x the cores of its closest Xeon-based competition, the Xeons are clocked 3.1x faster. If one looks at simply cores × GHz, one would expect ZWS on Xeon to have the advantage.) — Elving 09:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elving. Yep, I think that would be a fair and reasonable addition to the article. You make some good points re the cores. I'll investigate these later today. Thanks for your fair approach. --Toph3r 09:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supported platforms, name

I added some info on the supported platforms. Previously it said 'all major platforms'. Version 7.09 is currently supported on Oracle Enterprise Linux, RHEL, SUSE, Solaris 9/10 (ultrasparc and x64), HP-UX, AIX and Windows Server 2k advanced, WinXP, W2k3. Noticeable by their absence are other (arguably major) platforms such as Z/OS, Mac OSX, other flavours of Linux and flavours of BSD.

Also, a lot of the work renaming/rebranding products has still not permeated all of the Sun/Oracle literature and web sites, so you still see the product as "Sun Java System Web Server". 60.240.207.146 (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting merging in Netscape Enterprise Server

Here's how that article looked when I found it: thus.

If I've understood correctly (and I admit I'm relying on the content, as I found it, of the two articles), we're talking about one product that went through a number of different names. Thus, it would make sense to me to have one article, not two. Otherwise, why, for instance, have an article for the current (Oracle) product and the historic Netscape one but not for the Sun one?

I invite illumination. There are many things I don't know about how this all works.

--Mathieu ottawa (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and

Done. Using the same, very reasonable, argument it seems reasonable to also merge in the other historical names. Klbrain (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]