Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Apr 2009 11:53 UTC, submitted by tsedlmeyer
Oracle and SUN We've been debating the merits of a possible IBM-Sun deal for a while now, and even Sun itself seemed to be in the dark as to if it would be a good idea to be bought by IBM. These debates are now all moot: in a surprise move (at least, I didn't see any speculation about it) Oracle has bought Sun Microsystems, at USD 9.50 a share, which equates to a total of 7.4 billion USD. The news got out through a press release.
Order by: Score:
Oh well
by FealDorf on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:07 UTC
FealDorf
Member since:
2008-01-07

I find this better than the IBM deal; Solaris and Sun have a good relationship anyway. On the other hand I'm wondering what will happen to MySQL. Forked away or killed?(unlikely)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Oh well
by Liquidator on Mon 20th Apr 2009 15:34 UTC in reply to "Oh well"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

Yes, I'm concerned about MySQL (vs Oracle) and Solaris (vs. Enterprise Linux) ;)

Fortunately, the GPL allows us to fork it as a last resort.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Oh well
by sean on Mon 20th Apr 2009 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh well"
sean Member since:
2005-06-29

Fortunately, the GPL allows us to fork it as a last resort.

Just to nitpick, any open source license would allow you to fork it.

Reply Score: 2

btrfs
by evert on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:17 UTC
evert
Member since:
2005-07-06

The new BTRFS was launched by Oracle. And now Oracle has access to both BTRFS and ZFS.

Maybe Oracle will GPL the ZFS code? Merge some ZFS code with BTRFS? Everything might happen. Probably, it is good for the future of Linux filesystems.

Reply Score: 3

RE: btrfs
by segedunum on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:44 UTC in reply to "btrfs"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The new BTRFS was launched by Oracle. And now Oracle has access to both BTRFS and ZFS.

You're way ahead of Oracle there. Quite frankly, they've never been a company clever enough to realise what is going on within it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: btrfs
by robbyn on Tue 21st Apr 2009 11:47 UTC in reply to "btrfs"
robbyn Member since:
2007-05-14

Hmmm... Oracle doesn't open-source much...

Reply Score: 1

good for solaris
by puenktchen on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:19 UTC
puenktchen
Member since:
2007-07-27

at least oracle won't kill solaris anytime soon, as ibm might well have. sounds like a good solution to me.

Reply Score: 4

RE: good for solaris
by segedunum on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:54 UTC in reply to "good for solaris "
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

at least oracle won't kill solaris anytime soon, as ibm might well have.

It's really only delaying the inevitable. The same people are going to be in charge that have presided over the very situation that has led to them needing to get bought out, and Oracle just aren't clever enough to work out what's required to arrest the slide. I still don't see a future for SPARC whatever happens and I see Oracle maintaining the hardware parts of the business even less than IBM would have. It's not what they do.

I think we're going to end up with an even more horrendous Frankenstein's monster and goodness only know what it means for the already horrific management and leadership of MySQL.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: good for solaris
by Adurbe on Mon 20th Apr 2009 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE: good for solaris "
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

remember oracle made their 'own' linux. Maybe they will dump this and go theopen solaris route instead.

Certainly for their customer base it could prove a 'better fit'

I think solaris as a standalone product will slowly be left with open solaris taking the lead

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: good for solaris
by segedunum on Mon 20th Apr 2009 13:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: good for solaris "
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

remember oracle made their 'own' linux.

Yes, and look at how that's turned out. Oracle Linux has got very little credibility at all amongst people who know that it's better to get support from the upstream vendor. Those who don't know that learn it pretty quickly.

Maybe they will dump this and go theopen solaris route instead.

I fail to see how things would turn out any different or how they would arrest the slide in Solaris's usage over the past decade.

Certainly for their customer base it could prove a 'better fit'

I don't see how.

I think solaris as a standalone product will slowly be left with open solaris taking the lead

Unless Oracle can turn OpenSolaris into something that really is open rather than with 'open' in the name then the outcome is going to be exactly the same. They need a lot of contributors from outside of Sun and Oracle to reduce their maintenance costs and to increase the user base of it to drive reveue. That's a tough thing to try and deal with when competing systems have already done that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: good for solaris
by Kebabbert on Mon 20th Apr 2009 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: good for solaris "
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"They need a lot of contributors from outside of Sun and Oracle to reduce their maintenance costs and to increase the user base of it to drive reveue."

I dont agree with that. Linux kernel is one of the buggiest piece of code there is out there. As Linux kernel Developer Andrew Morton says:

http://lwn.net/Articles/285088/
"I used to think [code quality] was in decline, and I think that I might think that it still is. I see so many regressions which we never fix.
...
it would help if people's patches were less buggy."



You see? I do NOT want Solaris kernel to be a piece of shit unable to scale as Linux. Way better if SUNs excellent R&D people do that. Many agree that SUNs tech is the best in the world. I want to keep it that way. Not let some amateurs contribute code to the superior Solaris kernel.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: good for solaris
by dizzey on Mon 20th Apr 2009 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: good for solaris "
dizzey Member since:
2005-10-15

Hmms if your saying that linux has buggy code it could be nice to add some evidence to that.

The article that you linked to mostly deals with the exprimental tree that are used to try out new stuff.

Big surprise that there are many bugs i new code in the experimental tree's. and it would not hurt to have the whole quote

"I used to think it was in decline, and I think that I might think that it still is. I see so many regressions which we never fix. Obviously we fix bugs as well as add them, but it is very hard to determine what the overall result of this is. "

"Secondly: it would help if people's patches were less buggy."

And the last comment was only dealing with the exprimental tree.

If it's only your opinon then you should say so but if you state it like a fact without backing it up well then it's only trolling.

Edited 2009-04-20 15:38 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: good for solaris
by acobar on Mon 20th Apr 2009 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: good for solaris "
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

You do know that when we talk about linux kernel bugs, we are talking actually for bugs on drivers mostly, right? And guess what, one of the reasons linux is in so widespread use is really because it damn works on most of the platforms out there. You also should know that all this talk about it not scaling is just rubbish, as seem on the many benchmarks that abound in the Internet.

That said, I think it seems a good solutions for Sun and, most important, for all us. I like OpenSolaris, Netbeans and Java and were very worried about getting all that eggs on only one basket (IBM). Hope they keep improving all them and all the good technologies Sun brought to market all these years.

It also make sense in the hardware side, as Oracle know can offer good products to be used with their databases and software. They got a lot of expertise on this front in just one swing. Consolidation just make sense on big market (storage and servers).

I´m a bit worried about MySQL and waiting for a Oracle general words about their intentions.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: good for solaris
by segedunum on Mon 20th Apr 2009 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: good for solaris "
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I dont agree with that. Linux kernel is one of the buggiest piece of code there is out there.

I'm not talking about making Solaris buggy or how buggy Linux is, which you provide no evidence and no figures for whatsoever, but it's a simple fact of life. It is too expensive to produce your own OS, maintain it and add new features these days. Only Microsoft can really make that pay.

You see? I do NOT want Solaris kernel to be a piece of shit unable to scale as Linux.

I'm not entirely sure what evidence you base that statement on because we've been through this before and there is ample evidence that has been provided on umpteen occasions that Linux 'scales' beyond anything that even Solaris has done. Repeating that will not make it true.

As for code quality, bugs and regressions, Andrew Morton does not tell us anything we didn't already know about any piece of software - including Solaris. I can't really fathom why you think that that statement can only apply to Linux.

The only reason why we get to hear these things is because Linux's code is there for all to have a go at. You haven't been able to see Solaris's bugs, the decrepit device drivers that haven't been touched for years or the glacial pace at which it has been developed for some time.

The main area for bugs within Linux is with device drivers, obviously, and it would be really nice if Solaris had some. You only need to look at how many device drivers Linux has that Sun would love to have for Solaris.

Not let some amateurs contribute code to the superior Solaris kernel.

ROTFL. Well, I'm afraid the 'amateurs' have been handing the asses of the professionals back to them for the last ten years. That's why Sun has just been sold. Maybe the great big penny will drop one of these days on that.

Edited 2009-04-20 16:11 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: good for solaris
by akrosdbay on Mon 20th Apr 2009 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: good for solaris "
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09



The only reason why we get to hear these things is because Linux's code is there for all to have a go at. You haven't been able to see Solaris's bugs, the decrepit device drivers that haven't been touched for years or the glacial pace at which it has been developed for some time.


Eh! Opensolaris.org. There is a source browser. Go read the source for your self.

Glacial pace? How far has sytemtap or kprobes come along? What about BTRFS? any of that crap out of alpha yet? How many users are using it in the data center?

Where is all the rapid development from the linux community?

The main area for bugs within Linux is with device drivers, obviously, and it would be really nice if Solaris had some. You only need to look at how many device drivers Linux has that Sun would love to have for Solaris.


You would love to believe that but then you would have to abandon your belief in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy too.


ROTFL. Well, I'm afraid the 'amateurs' have been handing the asses of the professionals back to them for the last ten years. That's why Sun has just been sold. Maybe the great big penny will drop one of these days on that.


It was Intel doing that not linux alone. Without intel linux wouldn't have done squat. IBM, HP, Apple still have their own OSes. Think about it linux s ionly sucessful on cheap intel hardware or embedded space... Desktops and Datacenters are still nicely mixed. With IBM peddling its mainframes and windows actually on the rise...

Oracle makes money on support contracts. Oracle can drop a box with a free OS and make a killing on the contracts and license for the rest of the stack. No one will be able to compete on price given that Sun's hardware is already competitive with Dell and IBM. Never underestimate the power of subsidy. Works really well for cellphones...

Without the incentive to save a few bucks running linux most customers would just pay Oracle for the whole package...

Edited 2009-04-20 17:08 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: good for solaris
by segedunum on Mon 20th Apr 2009 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: good for solaris "
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Eh! Opensolaris.org. There is a source browser. Go read the source for your self.

A source browser? Yer, and? After all these years where can I view the commits that Sun employees and contributors are making every week that will go into the next version of Sun's Solaris and where others can make a bootstrapped alternative? How can people get patches into Solaris? I'll tell you where. Nowhere.

It was Intel doing that not linux alone. Without intel linux wouldn't have done squat.

What? Seriously. What? Intel is somehow single-handedly responsible for Linux's success? Sunshine, run down the list of commits to Linux and you will see a minority of @intel.com addresses in there as opposed to @sun.com addresses with Solaris, if I could find Solaris's repository that is. Sorry, but Linux gained momentum and went right through 2.22 and 2.24 before Intel touched it with a ten foot pole.

Mind you, you have touched on one thing. Intel are actually able to commit lots of device drivers to Linux ;-).

most customers would just pay Oracle for the whole package...

Oracle have been trying that 'whole package' thing for a long time, right from the laughable Network Computer over ten years ago to Oracle Linux today. There's not really anything to suggest they'll be any more successful.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: good for solaris
by Kebabbert on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: good for solaris "
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

SEGEDUNUM
You know, Solaris code is out there for me to see if I want to. On the mail list there are discussions about Solaris bugs. The bugs are not hidden to the public. Why do you imply that?

And for Linux having lots bugs in the drivers, but not in the kernel. Why do YOU ask me to back my statements up? Tell me, when did you back any statement up? You never did. Ive asked you numerous times.

You just state stupid things, such as a supercomputer and an server are used identically. Ive tried to explain to you that a supercomputer is differently constructed than a server, but you dont listen. Instead you keep reiterate it. Can you back that up, that Supercomputers are used just as an ordinary server? (Ive showed you wikipedia that says that supercomputers behave very differently from an ordinary server, but you ignored my links). So please, back any of your stupid links up. You can not blame me for not backing anything up, while never backing anything up yourself. Ive always provide links in my posts, you know that.




http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Active_Merge_Windows
"The [linux source code] tree breaks every day, and it's becomming an extremely non-fun environment to work in.

We need to slow down the merging, we need to review things more, we need people to test their f--king changes!"

And hackers below agree on this, whereas Linus Torvalds says in the discussion there will always be bugs in Linux. There is no testing. (In Solaris there are lots of testing).

Have you heard about the Linux shit list? The quality detoriated so much, drastic steps had to be taken. There is a shit-list for Linux kernel developers contributing bad code. Rafael Wysocki maintains the shit list.

The Linux code is really buggy and not tested. It is over 10 million lines of code. ONE KERNEL. You know, entire Windows NT was 10 million lines. You have seen my links, proving Linux scales bad, sucks as a file server, has bad uptime, buggy code, etc. Ive provided links for every claim. And still you ignore them, while you have never even once provided one link, despite me asking you many many many many many many times.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: good for solaris
by akrosdbay on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: good for solaris "
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09

SEGEDUNUM
You know, Solaris code is out there for me to see if I want to. On the mail list there are discussions about Solaris bugs. The bugs are not hidden to the public. Why do you imply that?


Linux zealot with blinders on... what do you expect? A well reasoned balanced argument..

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: good for solaris
by dizzey on Mon 20th Apr 2009 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: good for solaris "
dizzey Member since:
2005-10-15

You are right that he should provide links to backup his examples.

and that you have provided links to each one of your statements in the past.

the only problem is that i have yet to find one link of those you posted that actually are backing up your statements.

you make the statement Linux is bad for file servers.
And the article that you link to is "linux is bad for file servers if you wish to have a single volume larger than 100tb"

which are to completely different statements.
since you know not that many file servers run single volume file systems of 100tb+.

yes linux is not the best solution for everything, but guess what neither is solaris aix or anything else there is no golden ticket for achieving everything.

please read though the articles that you use to backup your statments since i have yet to find a article that you have linked to that have made the same statment that you have.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: good for solaris
by segedunum on Tue 21st Apr 2009 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: good for solaris "
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You know, Solaris code is out there for me to see if I want to. On the mail list there are discussions about Solaris bugs. The bugs are not hidden to the public. Why do you imply that?

That's not what I said, but then, you can't read. I get that. I want to know where the central repository is for OpenSolaris that will form Sun's next release and how people external to Sun can commit to it and how people can bootstrap an alternative. After all these years there is no such thing.

You just state stupid things, such as a supercomputer and an server are used identically

No I didn't.

You made that statement yourself about 'supercomputers' because you were show up to be be a stupid twit. Apparently, Linux couldn't scale beyond 32 or 64 CPU systems, you were shown to be totally and utterly wrong and then you made a 'supercomputer' distinction because you realised how wrong you were. Somehow, all of the Linux systems running 32, 64, 512 or 1024 CPUs were all supercomputers and didn't count. Bollocks. The issue was scalability and you were wrong on all counts. Did I say the word 'wrong' enough?

You have some serious issues mate. Mind you, I've seen many people have the love-in that you do with Sun and it's impossible for them to accept.

Ive tried to explain to you that a supercomputer is differently constructed than a server, but you dont listen.

Meanwhile Linux still scales beyond Solaris.

http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Active_Merge_Windows
"The [linux source code] tree breaks every day, and it's becomming an extremely non-fun environment to work in.

Newsflash: Open source, bleeding edge development breaks every day! Come back and tell me when Solaris does development in the open like that.

And hackers below agree on this, whereas Linus Torvalds says in the discussion there will always be bugs in Linux.

There will be bugs in everything. I can tell you this much, there are bugs in Solaris and there is stuff that hasn't been maintained for years. Tell us something we don't know.

There is no testing. (In Solaris there are lots of testing).

There is testing. It's called iterative improvement and it's why Linux has far wider hardware support than Solaris and it has equivalent device drivers that actually work, as opposed to learning that your IDE drivers are shit because ZFS detected some corruption.

Have you heard about the Linux shit list? The quality detoriated so much, drastic steps had to be taken.

Yep, that's iterative development. It would be nice if we knew that Sun had something internal like that for Solaris because a lot of stuff hasn't been touched since the nineties.

You have seen my links, proving Linux scales bad, sucks as a file server, has bad uptime, buggy code, etc. Ive provided links for every claim.

You mean the ones where you have been shown to be wrong and where you have mental issues where you are shown to be wrong?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: good for solaris
by Milo_Hoffman on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: good for solaris "
Milo_Hoffman Member since:
2005-07-06

Got news for you....Andrew and Linus idea of what is poor code is still about 100000x better code than is written by most closed source developers who don't have the threat of many other eyes seeing their code.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: good for solaris
by Milo_Hoffman on Mon 20th Apr 2009 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: good for solaris "
Milo_Hoffman Member since:
2005-07-06


I dont agree with that. Linux kernel is one of the buggiest piece of code there is out there. As Linux kernel Developer Andrew Morton says:



Bah....What Linus and Andrew call 'poor quality code' is about 1000x better code than usually produced behind closed doors. Amazing what a decent motivator the idea that many different people will look at your code does for your quality, compared to being maybe the only guy who will see the code for maybe even decades.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: good for solaris
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: good for solaris "
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Unless Oracle can turn OpenSolaris into something that really is open rather than with 'open' in the name then the outcome is going to be exactly the same.


How is OpenSolaris not open? Or do you mean that Linux can't leech off it, and therefore it isn't open?

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: good for solaris
by segedunum on Mon 20th Apr 2009 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: good for solaris "
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

How is OpenSolaris not open?

Firstly, Solaris hasn't all been completely open sourced yet. While I can understand the complexity of that it has been God knows how many years. Bootstrapping a system (a competitive one at least ;-)) has been damn near impossible, and at least it was the last I looked. I'm not inclined to look again.

Secondly, can you point me to a commit digest somewhere of everything that has been committed to Sun's OpenSolaris repository in the last week that will end up in the next version of Sun's Solaris and that everyone else can pull from? I'm sorry, what was that? You can't and there is no such repository? Oh bugger.

The whole thing smelt like a cynical and desperate ploy so Sun's consultants could go out and say "Look, we're just like Linux!"

Or do you mean that Linux can't leech off it, and therefore it isn't open?

ROTFL. It's the other way on actually. Sun would love to get their hands on Linux's device drivers which is why they vaguely left the door open for that possibility but ensured that the *only* remotely interesting thing in ZFS would stay away. As Linus said on the matter two years ago:

"They'd *much* rather take our drivers and _not_ give anythign back, or give back the stuff that doesn't matter (like core Solaris: who are you kidding - Linux code is _better_)."

I suppose that's what you get for not kissing enough girls ;-).

Edited 2009-04-20 21:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: good for solaris
by tylerdurden on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: good for solaris "
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

"Unless Oracle can turn OpenSolaris into something that really is open rather than with 'open' in the name then the outcome is going to be exactly the same"

Wait, what? What is not "open" about OpenSolaris? How can you make such a claim and provide zero backing?

GPL is not the only thing that defines wether or not a piece of software is "open." OpenSolaris is pretty damn open, you get the source code an you get to do modifications to it, for crying out loud... what more do you need?

Reply Score: 2

Next: ZFS GPL'd?
by jebb on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:20 UTC
jebb
Member since:
2006-07-06

Considering Oracle's interest in future-proofing linux from a filesystems point of view (see btrfs), will they now port ZFS officially?

Or will they try pushing their customers towards Solaris? Is this part of a strategy to compete with Red Hat?


...Sit back, I'll grab the pop-corn.

Edit: 3 minutes to type a post is too long, now my post is redundant, and I look like a complete idiot. Oh well...

Edited 2009-04-20 12:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Oracle OpenOffice.org
by KugelKurt on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:20 UTC
KugelKurt
Member since:
2005-07-06

OOOo -- great abbreviation for an office suite. ;-)

Reply Score: 16

RE: Oracle OpenOffice.org
by pepa on Mon 20th Apr 2009 15:56 UTC in reply to "Oracle OpenOffice.org"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

I hope they keep developing it, and keep that Open...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Oracle OpenOffice.org
by flanque on Mon 20th Apr 2009 21:40 UTC in reply to "Oracle OpenOffice.org"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Sounds like an orgasm.

Reply Score: 2

Open Source Apocalypse
by hackus on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:20 UTC
hackus
Member since:
2006-06-28

Gad.

Talk about a freakin Greek tragedy.

As we all know, Oracle is just so open with their products and really GETS open source.

-Hack

PS: Excuse me while I go throw up.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Open Source Apocalypse
by tylerdurden on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:21 UTC in reply to "Open Source Apocalypse"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Huh? BDB hello?

Reply Score: 1

Read about this the other day....
by adama on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:35 UTC
adama
Member since:
2009-04-20

http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/what-if-oracle-bought-su...

So at least one person thought it was a possibility ;)

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/what-if-oracle-bought-su...

So at least one person thought it was a possibility ;)


Mate - this is hardly a shock announcement; the rumours have been going on for years and years about Oracle purchasing Sun. I'll put money on it the only thing holding them back was waiting for the price to be right. In the past they were way over valued and of little strategic benefit to Oracle to plonk down the money required.

As for where Linux sits into this; I'll put money on it that Oracle will scale back their contributions to Linux. The only reason why they contributed to heavily to Linux was so that they're not dependent on a single vendor. Now they have an operating system of their own, its completely open source - why contribute more than necessary?

By the time Solaris hits 11, it will be 100% opensource, most of the hardware revenue will come from x86 sales, Oracle will take a ruthlessly pragmatic approach to hardware sales but at the same time investing into Solaris as to provide the customer with the complete widget (Hardware, Operating System, Database etc.).

What will be interesting is how this will stack up against IBM considering that now Oracle will probably have revenue of around $36billion - it'll be interesting to see where SPARC will fit into the equation. Will we see a strong focus on Rock SPARC processor with Oracle being heavily pushed? lots of interesting things are going to be happening in the future and I have a feeling that Oracle want to leverage some of the ideas Sun has but needs the resources from Oracle to accomplish. The old story of having to have the funds to turn a drawing board idea into a real product that rolls off the production line.

Reply Score: 6

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Btw, this is a little off topic (that stupid 20 minute rule so I couldn't add it to my original post). There are now OpenSolaris laptops; Toshiba laptops preloaded with Opensolaris:

http://www.shopopensolaris.com/suntoshiba/home.htm

It was only by accident I actually found it. From what I understand they are fully supported given that they are also the backbone for a lot of the Sun employee's.

Reply Score: 5

rexstuff Member since:
2007-04-06

As for where Linux sits into this; I'll put money on it that Oracle will scale back their contributions to Linux. The only reason why they contributed to heavily to Linux was so that they're not dependent on a single vendor. Now they have an operating system of their own, its completely open source - why contribute more than necessary?


Ehh.... I'm not so sure about that. It still makes sense for Oracle to guarantee that its existing products work well in all environments, not just its own. Linux has much higher market penetration than Solaris; Oracle would want to maximize its potential customer base and not turn its back on an existing, and very profitable business model. Stuff like BTRFS may seem like unrelated cutting-edge advances, but it makes sense if it makes Oracle's products more competitive.

Perhaps you're right though, and Oracle will focus more of its efforts on developing its own OS, and instead of helping to push the envelope in Linux, will only marginally encourage projects that are directly relevant to its business model.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Ehh.... I'm not so sure about that. It still makes sense for Oracle to guarantee that its existing products work well in all environments, not just its own. Linux has much higher market penetration than Solaris;


Please inform me at what point in my post did I state that Oracle would cease providing products for Linux or supporting their own distribution of Linux? I'd love to know where you came to that conclusion given that I clearly stated 'scale back contributions' and not 'cease contributions' or 'cease supporting products for Linux customers'.

Oracle would want to maximize its potential customer base and not turn its back on an existing, and very profitable business model. Stuff like BTRFS may seem like unrelated cutting-edge advances, but it makes sense if it makes Oracle's products more competitive.


Why continue a model which ships a good portion of the profit stream off to Red Hat or Novell when one can bring in the revenue derived from operating system sales under one roof. Oracle is all about making as much money off the software stack - the more of the stack you control the more money you can make off the customer.

Perhaps you're right though, and Oracle will focus more of its efforts on developing its own OS, and instead of helping to push the envelope in Linux, will only marginally encourage projects that are directly relevant to its business model.


You're right - why push the envelop on Linux when they have an operating system of their own, have the human capital which knows the system inside and out, and a model when coupled with their middleware can provide a complete stack to the end user which are optimised for Oracle software.

What Solaris needs is more hardware support - that is about the only thing I can think of that is letting it down. If they get the hardware support under control (maybe taking my advice to hire 1,000 programmers who sleep, eat and breath writing drivers - and get them writing drivers non-stop to catch up to Microsoft) then they'll over take Linux - until they do that Solaris will not be on the radar for people. Developers want to run Solaris but if their hardware isn't fully supported they are going to develop software on that platform. Customers don't want to be locked into a single vendor who says, "we're only going to support the hardware we sell" because ultimately that is the policy that has undermined Sun's software efforts in the past. You need to decouple your hardware and software sales so that your software sales aren't just used to prop up hardware sales.

Edited 2009-04-20 23:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

bunnwd Member since:
2009-04-21

With the purchase from Oracle of Sun, I wonder what will become of Java and will it continue to be an open platform supported by Oracle/Sun? Sun has so much you have to beg the question What Oracle will prop up and support, what will be converted to internal use only and what stays marketable and what will go away? I beleive this will have far reaching impacts than anyone recognizes and companies that rely on Java like Novell and others could be impacted. Sun uses much of the Unix code that Novell once owned. Now what? and will this be a re-birth of Sun so to speak to the benefit of Orachle or will Oracle strip mine the company and toss it away.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

With the purchase from Oracle of Sun, I wonder what will become of Java and will it continue to be an open platform supported by Oracle/Sun? Sun has so much you have to beg the question What Oracle will prop up and support, what will be converted to internal use only and what stays marketable and what will go away? I beleive this will have far reaching impacts than anyone recognizes and companies that rely on Java like Novell and others could be impacted. Sun uses much of the Unix code that Novell once owned. Now what? and will this be a re-birth of Sun so to speak to the benefit of Orachle or will Oracle strip mine the company and toss it away.


Just a couple of points:

1) Sun's implementation of Java is fully open sourced with the stuff that were not able to be opensourced are being replaced with opensource replacements.

2) Sun doesn't control Java - that is the biggest lie made by people on osnews.com - JCP control Java and NOT Sun. The only thing that this purchase will give Oracle is an extra seat at the table which hopefully should mean that things will move quicker through the pipe line.

I wish people would stop lying - there is no need to falsify things; either stick to the truth or don't post at all.

Reply Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

As for where Linux sits into this; I'll put money on it that Oracle will scale back their contributions to Linux.

It's difficult to know with Oracle. They're a strange company sometimes, and they have been known to be ruthless with anything they feel is not pulling its weight. However, if they do decide to put their faith in Solaris then they'll have exactly the same headaches as Sun has had with it - maintaining it, increasing the userbase, pushing in new features, increasing hardware support etc. That's not a small thing to do for anyone considering Solaris's decline in the last ten years.

One thing's for sure, it's completely new territory for Oracle. We'll have to see how they handle it.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It's difficult to know with Oracle. They're a strange company sometimes, and they have been known to be ruthless with anything they feel is not pulling its weight. However, if they do decide to put their faith in Solaris then they'll have exactly the same headaches as Sun has had with it - maintaining it, increasing the userbase, pushing in new features, increasing hardware support etc. That's not a small thing to do for anyone considering Solaris's decline in the last ten years.

One thing's for sure, it's completely new territory for Oracle. We'll have to see how they handle it.


All of the problems of Sun comes down to two major points: A lack of resources and a lack of leadership. Both Sun lacks in truck loads. If you fix up the hardware support by going out, pinning hardware vendors against walls and bribing who needs to be bribed to get things moving along - you'll find that people will be able to try it out, test it, install it and use it not only for the server but as a development platform.

I'd use OpenSolaris if they improved the hardware support and created a community maintained repository which allowed one to easily download and install patent riddle CODEC's just like any other distribution; the ability to be able to choose my hardware based on what I want rather than the narrow selection that Sun has chosen to support (which is based on what they sell - thus forces you to buy their hardware).

The server and the developer workstation are closely linked together and for far too long Sun has dismissed making Solaris a pleasant experience in favour of this approach of UNIX as usual. What is required is to make Solaris easy to use and easy to setup - the ability for a hardcore UNIX guru to come in and install it or for the IT person who knows the fundamentals can configure without needing to become a UNIX guru - thus lowering the cost not only up front but also the on going cost of a paid up IT admin.

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

It has been suggested in other places, mostly because Oracle uses Java for a lot of there stuff. For Oracle to have more control over Java might be in their interest.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:49 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

"The acquisition of Sun transforms the IT industry" said Oracle CEO Larry Ellison.

ibm just snapped its fingers.

"Oracle will be the only company that can engineer an integrated system - applications to disk - where all the pieces fit and work together so customers do not have to do it themselves.

oh snap.

Edited 2009-04-20 12:50 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

PR: "The Sun Solaris operating system is the leading platform for the Oracle database, Oracle's largest business, and has been for a long time."

I never heard oracle say that before. I guess that gives away some of their intentions.

Sun Chairman Scott McNealy: "This combination is a natural evolution of our relationship and will be an industry-defining event."

I love it. he doesn't like ibm

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by FealDorf on Mon 20th Apr 2009 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
FealDorf Member since:
2008-01-07

Sun and Oracle had already said something like that in 2007; there was a bit of ruckus because of that when Sun acquired MySQL...

I don't think they're gonna put out Solaris anytime soon, like what you said. If they have a bit of better vision (which I like to expect from Schwartz), maybe they'll come up with something better than the "java desktop" gimmick.

If they put out Solaris it's to propagate Unbreakable, and that's pathetic.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

also I totally missed this until now, but there is zero mention of opensolaris. The word solaris is used, but opensolaris is nowhere. This is probably on purpose.

"opensolaris" means two or three different things according the the clusterf--k that is "opensolaris" governance. it means the open solaris code. it also means the community surrounding it. it also means a consumer-oriented operating system built by sun using the open solaris code.

the opensolaris code, community, and distribution are all managed and governed and built and contributed to by SUN employees. there are only a handful of non-sun employees who work under sun employees to contribute.

the summary is that none of this has to have anything to do with the solaris operating system oracle wants to run databases on. will oracle continue to develop sun's ubuntu clone? I doubt it.

all the things named opensolaris are probably going the way of the dodo in favor of enterprise development. solaris doesn't even run java very well, so that is the sort of thing oracle will focus on, not improving the gnome user experience.

not to mention sun workstations. dodo!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Kebabbert on Mon 20th Apr 2009 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"solaris doesn't even run java very well,"

Ive read several SUN blogs that Java is fastest on Solaris when benchmarked. That sounds reasonable, dont you think?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Mon 20th Apr 2009 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

the solaris jre is not the fastest jre. next time don't let the lion tell you where to put your head

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Mon 20th Apr 2009 18:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

also, a translation of the schwartz email:

Oracle's interest in Sun is very clear - they aspire to help customers simplify the development, deployment and operation of high value business systems, from applications all the way to datacenters. By acquiring Sun, Oracle will be well positioned to help customers solve the most complex technology problems related to running a business.

That needs no translation.

A combined Oracle/Sun will be capable of cultivating one of the world's most vibrant and far reaching developer communities, (he means Java) accelerating the convergence of storage, networking and computing, (he means solaris and sun servers) and delivering one of the world's most powerful and complete portfolios of business and technical software (he means oracle software).

That jives perfectly with the releases from oracle. Everything else oracle got with the sun purchase is bonus or chaff.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by mabhatter on Tue 21st Apr 2009 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

also, a translation of the schwartz email:

Oracle's interest in Sun is very clear - they aspire to help customers simplify the development, deployment and operation of high value business systems, from applications all the way to datacenters. By acquiring Sun, Oracle will be well positioned to help customers solve the most complex technology problems related to running a business.

That needs no translation.

A combined Oracle/Sun will be capable of cultivating one of the world's most vibrant and far reaching developer communities, (he means Java) accelerating the convergence of storage, networking and computing, (he means solaris and sun servers) and delivering one of the world's most powerful and complete portfolios of business and technical software (he means oracle software).

That jives perfectly with the releases from oracle. Everything else oracle got with the sun purchase is bonus or chaff.


The target they should be going after is something like IBM's iSeries. Something that's a one-stop shopping. I think with the advent of blade servers it's a good strategy. A tightly integrated OS + DB running on a custom blade, just plug into somebody's chassis and point it to some LUNs let it be an IP "black box" of Oracle goodness. Using only Oracle parts inside the software would be really easy to optimize and build into clusters. Unfortunately both Oracle and Sun are companies that let the engineering branch have too much pull and build overly complex things that require and extra college degree to make them work well. They have a serious "forest for the trees problem" going on to miss something like this.

Reply Score: 2

ByeBye MySQL?
by Skeletor on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:57 UTC
Skeletor
Member since:
2009-04-15

If thats the case, its sad!

Reply Score: 3

RE: ByeBye MySQL?
by sbenitezb on Mon 20th Apr 2009 13:23 UTC in reply to "ByeBye MySQL?"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

If thats the case, its sad!


Just about time. With Postgres completely free who wants to be tied to MySql uncertain future?
Talk about BSD vs GPL once more.

Reply Score: 1

What about mysql?
by matthekc on Mon 20th Apr 2009 12:58 UTC
matthekc
Member since:
2006-10-28

Nothing here seem too terrible a database company dipping its toes into Linux now has an open source unix of their own. Also a programming language, hardware business, an office suite, and another database... A database available for free that competes with Oracles databases oh wait this could be ugly.

@skeletor MySQL is gpl it won't go bye bye, but there is definitely a conflict here.

Also way to eke in there a minute before me.

Edited 2009-04-20 13:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: What about mysql?
by sbenitezb on Mon 20th Apr 2009 13:28 UTC in reply to "What about mysql?"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

A database available for free that competes with Oracles databases oh wait this could be ugly.


MySQL can't compete with Oracle. With Oracle Express maybe. MySQL is a piece of crap conceived as an interim solution that got all the press and became famous for using the GPL and being able to make money out of it. The fact that it's most used with PHP should tell you much about it's qualities. Does it implement stored procedures and triggers finally?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What about mysql?
by trikloretylen on Mon 20th Apr 2009 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE: What about mysql?"
trikloretylen Member since:
2005-07-06

Does it implement stored procedures and triggers finally?

Yes, MySQL supports stored procedures and triggers since version 5.0 released sometime in 2004.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: What about mysql?
by Liquidator on Mon 20th Apr 2009 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE: What about mysql?"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

MySQL can't compete with Oracle.


Yes it can. MySQL has a commercial distribution for companies that require the best of the best. Many companies use MySQL. Obviously, there will always be large companies that will stick to Oracle, but as MySQL matures, it competes more and more with Oracle, when comparing feature to feature.

MySQL is a piece of crap [...]


You're crazy.

The fact that it's most used with PHP should tell you much about it's qualities.


Yes, the two most popular database and scription applications that power some of the largest web sites: Yahoo, Digg, Facebook, MySpace, etc...

Does it implement stored procedures and triggers finally?


Of course, it's a full-fledged relational database system.

Reply Score: 8

RE: What about mysql?
by boblowski on Mon 20th Apr 2009 15:45 UTC in reply to "What about mysql?"
boblowski Member since:
2007-07-23

MySQL is gpl it won't go bye bye, but there is definitely a conflict here.


For Sun MySQL as a product had a business value. Even though they did not make much/any money from it, it had a tactical place in Sun's offerings and as such could count on Sun's investment and support. For Oracle MySQL is nothing more than a competitor turned into bait for a real sell. (Even 11g 'Express Edition' is hardly a light weight entry level database. It's more like a neutered version of the real thing. Still as top heavy, just less powerfull.)

Seriously, I feel an 'OpenMySQL' fork on its way...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What about mysql?
by DeadFishMan on Mon 20th Apr 2009 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE: What about mysql?"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

Seriously, I feel an 'OpenMySQL' fork on its way...


You mean something like MariaDB, which has been started by the lead developer of MySQL and a co-founder of MySQL AB due mostly to his disagreement with the disastrous way that Sun has been driving the latest release of MySQL and that led the said developer to terminate his relationship with Sun Microsystems? ;)

http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/MariaDB

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: What about mysql?
by boblowski on Mon 20th Apr 2009 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about mysql?"
boblowski Member since:
2007-07-23


Thanks, interesting read! Must spend more time keeping up with those things :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What about mysql?
by AxiomShell on Mon 20th Apr 2009 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about mysql?"
AxiomShell Member since:
2006-01-16

Or even Drizzle (https://launchpad.net/drizzle).

Reply Score: 1

Very bad news !
by boulabiar on Mon 20th Apr 2009 13:18 UTC
boulabiar
Member since:
2009-04-18

This is the worst news I ever heard about.

Why we don't see Google buying SUN and releasing everything as GPL ?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Very bad news !
by sbenitezb on Mon 20th Apr 2009 13:31 UTC in reply to "Very bad news !"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Google is an internet services company. Not a hardware company, not a software company. All software it produces is totally geared to be used in the "cloud". It may not have any interest in hardware or server OS or desktop suite. Maybe in MySQL.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Very bad news !
by boulabiar on Mon 20th Apr 2009 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Very bad news !"
boulabiar Member since:
2009-04-18

But Google maybe interested in
MySQL,
ZFS,
Java (to improvePython ?)
OpenSolaris (to improve his Linux ?)
Netbeans (To remake it to GWT Developer)

There was many technology in SUN to wonder it

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Very bad news !
by sbenitezb on Mon 20th Apr 2009 14:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very bad news !"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Google doesn't need to buy anything. They already have access to opensource technology and as per the license they don't have to distribute anything as long as the binaries stay in their machines. So how do you know they aren't already using ZFS or opensolaris code in Linux? The fact is ZFS can't be integrated in Linux because then you have to distribute linux source. But you can integrate it inhouse without the world ever knowing. They could be using ZFS right now.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Very bad news !
by dvzt on Mon 20th Apr 2009 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Very bad news !"
dvzt Member since:
2008-10-23

Google doesn't need to buy anything. They already have access to opensource technology and as per the license they don't have to distribute anything as long as the binaries stay in their machines. So how do you know they aren't already using ZFS or opensolaris code in Linux? The fact is ZFS can't be integrated in Linux because then you have to distribute linux source. But you can integrate it inhouse without the world ever knowing. They could be using ZFS right now.


http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...

Reply Score: 1

worried
by emilio on Mon 20th Apr 2009 13:22 UTC
emilio
Member since:
2009-04-20

i wonder what will happen with netbeans. oracle has it's jdeveloper which is swing based and pure java technology. they are moving towards eclipse with their latest moves (eclipse enterprise pack for oracle) and it will be very interesting to see how this will end up. i have very negative opinion on oracle developer tools .. in my company we work with oracle forms, designer, reports and jdeveloper. they are all immature, beta quality software. i haven't seen so much instability anywhere: used Visual Studio, Visual Basic 6, Real Basic, Borland, Eclipse, Netbeans. Jdeveloper is the king of instability ! Oracle has probably the best database in the market, but developer tools are pure crap.
i hope opensolaris will profit on this, and java community.
i wish they just give up with jdeveloper, and merge everything with netbeans or eclipse.

Reply Score: 2

RE: worried
by CmdKewin on Mon 20th Apr 2009 15:03 UTC in reply to "worried"
CmdKewin Member since:
2006-06-30

I really wished it would, but that's NOT going to happen, according to their own words (asked this same question directly to lead developer...)
The Eclipse Enterprise pack is an interim solution for customers who still use the BEA Workshop suite. Jdev will be the official Oracle development platform for all future releases (and that includes R 13, Oracle Fusion).
Besides, it's still faaaar away in the future. Not even Oracle herself has a date. Latest Oracle Apps server was released 2 years ago, and BEA Weblogic DOESN'T work out-of-thebox (with ADF libs, that is...)
That's why we went with a Webshpere - Custom Eclipse install for all our Java development: far cheaper and available... right now.
And I've yet to see any "big" J2EE oracle app... It's still PL/SQL and Forms for pretty much everyone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: worried
by emilio on Mon 20th Apr 2009 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE: worried"
emilio Member since:
2009-04-20

same thing here. everybody talks about jdev and how great it is, but all i can se are those ugly Forms and tons of pl/sql (which i prefer not to use).

i somehow cant imagine websphere being cheaper than oracle solutions.

Reply Score: 1

Really sad
by santana on Mon 20th Apr 2009 13:39 UTC
santana
Member since:
2006-10-22

that Sun went down, they were my fav tech company.
Some really good products. Now Oracle will transform them into overpriced crap.

Reply Score: 2

Good for Mac
by milles21 on Mon 20th Apr 2009 14:05 UTC
milles21
Member since:
2006-11-08

Maybe now that Oracle is committed in some way to Linux I can get Oracle 11g on OSX server again. I mean OSX server will have ZFS which Oracle will take advantage of, The will clearly add some Unix focus. I know I am dreaming but man that would be great!

Reply Score: 2

"with great power..."
by poundsmack on Mon 20th Apr 2009 15:06 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

this could be a very very good thing, or a nutral thing. I can't see it being bad for sun and it's technologies. I can even see Oracle keeping MySQL as an alternative. I mean if your customers are from both camps, why not rake in the profit from both.

As for Solaris, I can see IBM's linux disapearing in the face of Solaris. Solaris is an entprise grade OS and its going ot be a lot easier to market that to their customers.

I am looking forward to a technology press anouncement from Oracle on it's "plan" (currently at plan version 0.1b, but it's getting there ;)

Reply Score: 2

MySQL future.
by jziegler on Mon 20th Apr 2009 15:24 UTC
jziegler
Member since:
2005-07-14

I hope they'll fix MySQL. One way or the other.

Reply Score: 2

MySQL isn't going away.
by Kishe on Mon 20th Apr 2009 15:52 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

Oracles DB is enterprise solution while MySQL is for private&small businesses..they in no way competite with each other so i don't see MySQL being threatened by Oracles acquisition of Sun.

Reply Score: 2

Java?
by boblowski on Mon 20th Apr 2009 16:04 UTC
boblowski
Member since:
2007-07-23

Why is it that nobody mentions Java? IMHO that is the biggest reason for Oracle buying Sun. The rest is just icing on the cake. Oracle has a mature database platform, reasonable mature middleware, kind of mature developer tools, solid management tools, and now with Java control of the glue that holds everything together. Java is more important for Oracle than .Net is for Microsoft. Java is what brings together their collection of more or less independent technologies. And, just like with Microsoft's .Net technology, Oracle having control over Java means it has a structural advantage over any other competitor in the enterprise arena.

With Sun's assets on board, Oracle doesnt need to interoperate with anybody or anything anymore. (Which was never one of their big selling points anyway.) They now own everything for a wall-to-wall enterprise solution, for any price they fancy asking.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by iliks
by iliks on Mon 20th Apr 2009 16:10 UTC
iliks
Member since:
2008-07-08

Enlighten me a bit, does MySQL already support:
1. ACID transactions
2. 'full' SQL syntax support. all types of joins, subqueries etc etc
3. efficient work with indexes
4. efficient support of big db's (terabytes)

Last time I was interested in MySQL was somewhere in 2004. Then it was in disastrous state, not supporting subqueries (!!!) and transactions.

I wonder, what has changed since then?

If 1-4 are still not thoroughly supported, it cannot compete with Oracle AT ALL.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by iliks
by Accident on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by iliks"
Accident Member since:
2005-07-29

Hope this answer your question and more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_mana...

I prefer Postgres and if I need the big guns its easy to migrate to Oracle.

Hey Oracle!..... If you don't like what you bought. Don't destroy it.... set it FREE!!!! (GPL it)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by iliks
by mabhatter on Tue 21st Apr 2009 00:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by iliks"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

Enlighten me a bit, does MySQL already support:
1. ACID transactions
2. 'full' SQL syntax support. all types of joins, subqueries etc etc
3. efficient work with indexes
4. efficient support of big db's (terabytes)

Last time I was interested in MySQL was somewhere in 2004. Then it was in disastrous state, not supporting subqueries (!!!) and transactions.

I wonder, what has changed since then?

If 1-4 are still not thoroughly supported, it cannot compete with Oracle AT ALL.



Thing is that a majority of MS SQL or DB2 or Oracle purchase really only use MySQL level database functions. Unless you're a professional DBA (which most people rolling their own apps aren't) most people just don't need much past MySQL... hell, they're using MS Access!!!

I think the world revolves around the small pieces. That's what made Microsoft their big pile of cash. The majority of businesses are small businesses, and they just won't ever use apps past a certain complexity. I think with too many key pieces of the Open Source stack in the hands of big companies they will continue to not be developed to the customers that would actually want them and fall in to obsolescence.

Oracle is about as BIG as big businesses come in the IT space, and I just can't see them managing the small projects very well. Not to mention the power they'll have over IBM via Java. Oracle's leaders in the past have been more than willing to use dirty tactics to get a leg up over other companies and are more than willing to subject their customers to any collateral damage it takes to get there.

Reply Score: 2

Good for Java
by JeffS on Mon 20th Apr 2009 16:38 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

While Sun was pretty much a good steward of the Java language, their business stuggles could be a real albatross around the neck of Java, in terms of having the resources to make Java reach it's full potential, and in terms of people's perception of Java as an viable on-going concern.

But with Oracle controlling it now, all that goes away. Oracle have deep resources, and are spectalarly successful business, even in this horrible economy.

The question now is,l with Oracle being primarily concerned with enterprise middle ware, what happens with client Java. I'm sure JavaFX is dead, but what happens with Swing, or other client side stuff? Does Oracle see the value in also having compelling client side offerings (to help spur on server side middleware growth)? What happens to NetBeans?

We'll see.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good for Java
by werpu on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:09 UTC in reply to "Good for Java"
werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

Swing is far from dead, the entire Oracle DB client side toolchain relies on it. In fact I would have been worried more about Swing if IBM had bought Sun!
JavaFX I am not sure but I assume also it will be dead, it is not Oracles business and it was too late to the table anyway and too slow, it might find its nieche in set top boxes however, Blue Ray for instance might be a new home for it...

JSF probably will have a bright future, the 2.0 spec is very good and JSF has been Oracles baby anway while Sun always treated it more like a stepchild dedicating only a few resources towards it because they had to.
My biggest concern (I am not the least concerned regarding MySQL, I always hated it) is NetBeans which is in direct collission with JDeveloper...
Netbeans has become a tremendously good ide over the last releases and has started to show its full potential with 6.5...
As for OpenOffice and Solaris, it probably will be business as usual probably Solaris will get more resources now...



While Sun was pretty much a good steward of the Java language, their business stuggles could be a real albatross around the neck of Java, in terms of having the resources to make Java reach it's full potential, and in terms of people's perception of Java as an viable on-going concern.

But with Oracle controlling it now, all that goes away. Oracle have deep resources, and are spectalarly successful business, even in this horrible economy.

The question now is,l with Oracle being primarily concerned with enterprise middle ware, what happens with client Java. I'm sure JavaFX is dead, but what happens with Swing, or other client side stuff? Does Oracle see the value in also having compelling client side offerings (to help spur on server side middleware growth)? What happens to NetBeans?

We'll see.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good for Java
by bryanv on Mon 20th Apr 2009 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Good for Java"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

I've tried netbeans multiple times over the last five or six years. Every time, it strikes me as one f-ing pile of crap slow-ass program.

The last time I ran it was 6.5 on my Pentium D system on my desk at work (with gobs of RAM). It was so painful to use that I went back to JEdit, and drew my own UML diagrams with dia. Doing that was faster than futzing with NetBeans.

Reply Score: 2

Oracle buys the sun
by garyd on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:03 UTC
garyd
Member since:
2008-10-22

"The acquisition of the sun transforms the IT industry, combining best-in-class enterprise software and mission-critical computing systems," said Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. "Oracle will be the only company that can engineer an integrated system and power it indefinitely by harnessing the seemingly infinite power of our nearest star. Our customers benefit as their power bills and systems integration costs go down while system performance, reliability and security go up. We can't imagine a better perimeter security appliance than one with a surface temperature of 5,778 degrees Kelvin. We are also on the verge of announcing a deal whereby our entire staff will be entitled to a free lifetime supply of sunscreen lotion."

Reply Score: 2

Comment by akrosdbay
by akrosdbay on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:16 UTC
akrosdbay
Member since:
2008-06-09

"On April 20, 2009, Oracle announced it has entered into an agreement to acquire Sun Microsystems (Sun). The proposed transaction is subject to Sun stockholder approval, certain regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions. Until the deal closes, each company will continue to operate independently, and it is business as usual.

The acquisition combines best-in-class enterprise software and mission-critical computing systems. Oracle plans to engineer and deliver an integrated system—applications to disk—where all the pieces fit and work together so customers do not have to do it themselves. Customers benefit as their system integration costs go down while system performance, reliability and security go up."

If that is true then linux at Oracle is meaningless. Oracle develops linux because it needed something to compete with IBM. If Oracle is building integrated solutions now it already has enterprise class solution in Solaris.

Oracle will still continue Linux development but I doubt they would kill Solaris. The SPARC throughput chips do well for DB loads.. and the x86 stuff is the same industry standard kit that IBM, Dell and HP sell. Interesting times ahead.

Reply Score: 1

solaris > rhel
by csuhdba on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:33 UTC
csuhdba
Member since:
2009-04-20

For the last few years Linux has been the leading OS release for Oracle 11g and 10g updates in terms of what is made available by Oracle relative to timing(Linux releases first, others including Solaris later...

Current versions of Oracle have less problems, from an OS standpoint on Red Hat Linux than Solaris. I have Oracle 10g and 11g instances on both Solaris and RHEL. I would not be suprised to see a Solaris EOL statement by the end of the year with conversion assistance to Oracle Unbreakable Linux/RHEL..

Reply Score: 3

RE: solaris > rhel
by Kebabbert on Mon 20th Apr 2009 18:25 UTC in reply to "solaris > rhel"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Larry Ellison says in this press release that Solaris is more deployed on Solaris + SPARC than any other OS. He had also declared (years ago) that Solaris is the main prefered target OS for Oracle DB.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: solaris > rhel
by csuhdba on Tue 21st Apr 2009 03:30 UTC in reply to "RE: solaris > rhel"
csuhdba Member since:
2009-04-20

At Oracle the development and base platform where the first release occurs is Linux since 2005. Solaris is a secondary product line like Windows or AIX. That is the reality for the last several years.. Oracle 11G was first available for Linux months ahead of Windows followed later by Solaris. Even with the Sun acquisition I don't see the trend of movement from Solaris to Linux in the customer base changing overnight. I would suspect the direction of Oracle on Solaris to be made clearer at OracleWorld in SF this Fall..

Reply Score: 1

ZFS lawsuit
by TechGeek on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:44 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Does anyone know if Sun ever settled the lawsuit that they had with NetApp over the ZFS file system? I believe there was some controversy over who actually owned the rights to that piece of technology.

Reply Score: 2

Wow!
by Hussein on Mon 20th Apr 2009 18:39 UTC
Hussein
Member since:
2008-11-22

This could probably mean that Oracle will go after Microsoft?
I really hope Oracle integrates its products with Sun's, and deliver a seamless experience that will enable them to challenge Microsoft in the enterprise market.
One thing the IT in my workplace love about going all Microsoft, is that all things work together.

What will happen to Sun's (wasteful) open source effort?
I liked how a lot of Sun's product were FOSS. Will Oracle keep them as is, spin them off?

Reply Score: 0

My take.
by jefro on Mon 20th Apr 2009 19:23 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

Oracle needed servers. They found it cheaper to by Sun and let them sell a bunch of servers to Oracle at rock bottom prices. They then turn around and take a huge loss against Sun when they slowly trash it to pieces. They then sell off what is left.

Reply Score: 1

Employees
by Sun employee on Mon 20th Apr 2009 23:02 UTC
Sun employee
Member since:
2009-04-20

I am an employee of Sun and now our local office dont even know if we will still have a job once the transaction is finalised. We are just finishing up RIFFS and still may lose more thanks to this acquisition.
Im in admin and do not want to lose my job as its the admins that ensure offices run day to day.

Spare a thought for all staff who are unsure where they stand

Reply Score: 2

Sun
by OSGuy on Tue 21st Apr 2009 11:24 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

It's really sad when big and significant corporations such as Sun Microsystems go this path. I guess all good things come to an end. Imagine all the innovations Sun brought us: Java, SPARC, Sun OS/Solaris to name a few...

Edited 2009-04-21 11:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2