Several stories in the trade press and even the general press have gotten this wrong by omitting one little detail. For example, here's what eWeek wrote:
IBM's decision to expand its Java license and to support its middleware on the Solaris operating system is a coup for Sun Microsystems Inc., Sun said at JavaOne here Monday.
Similarly, The New York Times, under the headline "I.B.M. Agrees to Modify Its Software for Sun Line", wrote:
Sun Microsystems got a much-needed boost on Monday when I.B.M., a rival and sometime partner, said it would convert its software products to work with Sun's Solaris operating system on a new line of Sun computers.
The Times came closer to actually getting it right than eWeek did, by at least mentioning the "new line of Sun computers" (although that's not really all that accurate, is it, since Solaris x86 doesn't require that the box be Sun's hardware, does it?). Neither story, however, mentioned that IBM has supported Solaris for many years on Sun's SPARC-based computers. That omission changes the entire tone. The eWeek article should have said "IBM's decision to expand its Java license and to support its middleware on the Solaris operating system on x86 is a coup for Sun Microsystems Inc.
Credit where it is due: another eWeek article did get it mostly right. The author still fails to mention IBM's long history of supporting Solaris on SPARC, but at least he was very clear about the fact that he was talking only about Solaris on Intel. C|Net got it completely right in this story.