King Larry launches Oracle-Sun combo at Big Blue, Cisco It was not a very auspicious beginning to the merger of two tech giants. Oracle just couldn't seem to get its phone lines and Webcast in order to do the actual announcement of its $5.6bn acquisition of server maker Sun Microsystems. Oracle Needs Sun Servers Or, perhaps this explains it all. I guess Oracle needed some Sun …
Been waiting 10 years to use that. Big problem for Oracle; before they could point at the OS or hardware when their products inhaled too many fumes from the fissure, now nowhere else to point the finger. I suppose they figured they had no real choice; without Sun, Oracle's market implodes. Any bets on what happens to MySQL?
As a former IBM customer and affiliate I was ultimately suspicious of IBM purchase proposal for Sun, as I was confident they would screw-up any benefits of the deal as they have done with many other investments in the past, and give advantage to others.
The Oracle-Sun deal looks more promising in that Oracle, as a software company has no intention of surrendering any software advantage to arch rival Microsoft, to which IBM has basically succeeded.
Plus, Oracle has finally gotten the message that Java, and much of the Free/Open Source Software in the Sun portfolio can actually allow them to strongly challenge the 'status quo' of corporate computing outside of database technology.
W. Anderson
wanderson@kimalcorp.org
Solaris already has what Oracle tried to add to Linux (BTRFS, SystemTAP).
Oracle will probably start promoting Unbreakable Solaris instead of Linux.
Oracle will continue to contribute to Linux to make sure their applications run well, but I am not sure about their commitment to generic projects like btrfs and systemtap .... since these projects benefit their competition too...
about big blue: "they're much more attuned to the requirements of open source users"? GIVE ME A F*****G BREAK, their only attuned to make PROFITS!!!! As it should be!
Oracle will have a better product than IBM on every layer:
OS: Solaris > Linux +AIX
Platform: JAVA + JRockit > ?
App Server: Weblogic > Websphere
Database: Mysql +InnoDB +Oracle > DB2
..................................
This is a big shift in the tech world...
I would have to disagree.
MySQL doesn't scale and without a good engine underneath, its pretty much worthless. Of course Oracle owns InnoDB but were IBM to have purchased Sun, mySQL could have run on top of Informix's Standard Engine and ran fine. Then IBM's IM would have had to deal with performance issues...
As it sits, Oracle may have to divest itself from mySQL because of their dominance in the RDBMS field.
Sorry to say but the Reg got it pretty much right. Its all about Java and the JCP. Even if Oracle kept Sun as a wholly owned subsidiary and restructured their management, Sun would make money. Not letting IBM become the sole dominant force in the JCP is a big deal in the long run...
Right.
1st Computer from Hewlett-Packard: the 2116A. 1969.
see http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/histnfacts/museum/earlyinstruments/0001/0001history.html
Oracle Coproration: Ellison co-founded Oracle Corporation in 1977 under the name Software Development Laboratories (SDL). Renamed to "Oracle Systems" in 1982.
13 years after hp released its first computer.
Sun Microsystems: founded in 1982; 13 years after hp released the 2116A.
I did have this ol' scratchpad somewhere..
going down.
this means effectively that there is now only one (big) company building the whole truck: IBM
no-one else left doing the whole thing from chip to database / appserver.
and then it had to be oracle, the we-never-build-a-system-and-we-never-will-oracle that buys the lot. probably to shake out mysql & java and leave the average sun customer an unwilling choice: oracle's unbraggable linux or fujitsu.
too bad. But Sun had it coming for a few years, that's true too......
AC
So first, they have to make it unbreakable, at least on the x86 machines. We had in on SPARC servers and it was running very good, but I can't say the same things about x86. Either their code quality got lower, or they pushed the x86 release too fast. It's not very stable, we had crashes, boot archives corrupt, even problems with ZFS when some hard drives failed, missing drivers and I'm not taking about Open Solaris here. Our linux machines (RHEL) are much more stable, easy to update, tons of applications, nothing to complain about it. I would choose without hesitating RHEL on x86. ZFS is nice but we don't use it since most of our databases run on ASM.
Cheers
Oracle will destroy mySQL and Netbeans which was a key competitor in the market place
Also all support for Sun products will eventually be put through to Oracle's really crap support centres (in Eastern Europe, South America and India) just like it did with JD Edwards.
Why can't this company concentrate on providing a better service for its customers rather than just getting fatter
Focus Larry, Focus
We had StorageTek before SUN acquired them and SUN support was never as good as the StorageTek support. The StorageTek CE's are still the same (will less now since Sun can some) but getting to the CE's was sometimes a chore.
So I hope Oracle will at least be a little bit better than Sun on the StorageTek gear.
Man, I'm going to have to buy more screen wipes for your posts! And a waterproof keyboard (hmmm, milspec laptop me-thinks)! Took me ages to clean the coffee off the desk.
"Solaris already has what Oracle tried to add to Linux (BTRFS, SystemTAP)....." Yes, but the difference is with Linux it is wanted, with Slowaris it has just seen a continually diminishing market-share. Didn't you know that Windows and Linux like RedHat are eating up the Slowaris estate from the bottom, and hp-ux and AIX are squeezing it out in the enterprise? At best Slowaris will be restricted to Oracle appliance boxes, probably all x86, and will just be a loss-leader for Oracle licence sales.
".....Oracle will probably start promoting Unbreakable Solaris instead of Linux....." LOL!!! "Unbrakable Solaris" - what a misnomer! Ignoring the general lack of resilience compared to hp-ux or Linux (or even Windows!), more like Unprofitable Slowaris! It doesn't make Sun any money now, especially the blackhole that is Slowaris x86, and is unlikely to ever make any money now that the word is out that SPARC is dead.
".....Oracle will continue to contribute to Linux to make sure their applications run well, but I am not sure about their commitment to generic projects like btrfs and systemtap .... since these projects benefit their competition too..." <Yawn> New FUD attack? Yeah, like all those shops that chose Linux over Slowaris are suddenly going to reverse just because you try to imply that Oracle is going to make their own software slower on other people's OSs! Get real - they could cut the performance on Linux by 50% and it would still be 200% cheaper than SPARC/Slowaris and probably still as fast. Despite your blind obsession, Oracle is smart enough to know that if they don't keep the Linux and Windows market happy then competitors like Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, hp and Dell will happilly take their customers away.
".....about big blue: "they're much more attuned to the requirements of open source users"? GIVE ME A F*****G BREAK, their only attuned to make PROFITS!!!! As it should be!...." Once again, let's just remind you that IBM have put far much more code and real work into Linux than Sun ever did during their long and schizo-paranoid relationship with the community. Why do you think the latest kernel goes with BTRFS over "free" (and stolen) ZFS? Because the community doesn't trust Sun an inch, and didn't want to anchor themselves with what many view as much venom as Microsoft. And IBM made a profit on Linux, like hp did, by working WITH the community, unlike Sun which tried to belittle, FUD, deceive, compromise and overwhelm Linux. I really hope Larry is smart enough to keep all the Sun bods as far away from anything opensource in Oracle as he can, as anything else will just implement the same failed policies that made Sun a laughing stock in the community. Better still, just fire ALL the Sun management and just keep some of the Sun developers and engineers. The rest are just compromised deadwood.
"....Oracle will have a better product than IBM on every layer:
OS: Solaris > Linux +AIX" <<<< both AIX and Linux add up to more and growing marketshare than Slowaris, with profits rather than the usual Sun loss figures.
"Platform: JAVA + JRockit > ?" <<<<< but Sun made hardly any money from Java, and IBM does and will continue to, so completely irrellevant. For Java to work, Oracle has to keep it open and compatible with as many OSs and platforms as possible, so IBM, hp, Dell, Nokia - even Microsoft - will continue to make more money for less outlay out of Java than Oracle ever will.
"App Server: Weblogic > Websphere" <<<< I see much more Websphere in real enterprise environments since the Oracle acquisition. Another product Oracle has successfully stifled.
"Database: Mysql +InnoDB +Oracle > DB" <<<<< Much as I detest DB2, I would have to admit it is still very popular and profitable for IBM, and IBM makes additional money off xSeries sales for MS SQL servers. In fact, MS SQL is still the fastest growing DB in the market, has more marketshare than all the Oracle DBs put together, and a new Oracle-Sun combo will still not make any money out of it at all. HP, IBM and Dell will. I am surprised you forgot to mention that? Not really - reality and facts seem to play little part in your arguments.
/looks like plenty of pointing and laughing opportunities still to come!
Nathan Meyer asks, "Any bets on what happens to MySQL?"
It becomes Oracle's version of Microsoft Access... the same way Microsoft has Microsoft SQL, to compete with Oracle RDBMS.
MySQL is just a whole lot more capable than Microsoft Access - which would place a severe hurting on Microsoft.
"Also all support for Sun products will eventually be put through to Oracle's really crap support centres (in Eastern Europe, South America and India) just like it did with JD Edwards.
Why can't this company concentrate on providing a better service for its customers rather than just getting fatter"
Because they don't have to: their customers happily give them loads of cash for their products and service. Just like MS really: You don't have to be the best, or even to be good, you just have to gain market dominance. And we all know the 2 aren't linked at all. Good engineering or good value never win it seems, good marketing and sales process do. Sad really.
Matt Bryant writes, "Yes, but the difference is with Linux it is wanted, with Slowaris it has just seen a continually diminishing market-share."
You spelled Solaris incorrectly.
Is that why HP (a competitor) is now reselling it? Because HP likes diminishing market share?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=13436
Those HP guys must be a bunch of idiots... must be...
InfoWorld delivered Solaris 10 the "2008 Technology of the Year award"
http://www.infoworld.com/node/61523
InfoWorld seems that they believe Solaris is wanted.
During 2008, "By shipments, Sun Microsystems was the dominant Unix server maker in Q4, with 52.6 per cent of the pie, compared to 28.6 per cent for IBM and 15 per cent for Hewlett-Packard."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/03/gartner_q4_2008_numbers/
Seems to be a lot of people wanting Solaris.
Safra Catz, Oracle's other co-president, said that Oracle would be using a mix of cash and debt to acquire Sun, and that the company believed that the Sun unit could deliver $1.5bn in non-GAAP operating income per year,
Run for the Hills.....RIF day is is coming...and maintenance costs will be doubled.
That's a strange statement, as Larry and the two Little-Larry's all said that Solaris and Java were THE reasons for the buy... You must be really good at reading between the lines.
With Solaris, Oracle gets the secret sauce to over a third of their customers environments. In the past, customers had to look at moving to other platforms to save money. Now, they can just buy the whole enchilada from Oracle at deep discounts... HP and to a lesser extent IBM have a lot to worry about here. HP has zero middle ware, so I see them trying to purchase something in the near future to try to keep up with IBM and Oracle. The problem is that HP is horrible at software development (ie HP-UX)... Back to oscilloscopes and printers for HP, I guess.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
