Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Mar 2009 11:48 UTC, submitted by PLan
In the News In a move that would certainly shake up the computer industry quite a bit, IBM is reportedly in talks with Sun Microsystems about the possibility of IBM acquiring Sun. Sun is going through hard times at the moment, and has been actively looking for someone to be acquired by.
Thread beginning with comment 353638
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Will OpenSolaris survive?
by segedunum on Wed 18th Mar 2009 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Will OpenSolaris survive?"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think they will kill it either. If they wanted to kill something they would kill AIX and replace it with Solaris.

That's wishful thinking really. AIX is only around for historical reasons at IBM, and all of the new stuff is simply being put into Linux. There is really no sense at all in keeping Solaris going. It's very expensive to keep your own whole OS going these days without cost sharing, even for IBM and Sun.

IBM will do what Sun should have done years ago if this actually materialises - start progressively ditching Solaris, and AIX fully, and share the costs by using Linux. It's also what Novell should have done with Netware, but haven't, and they will go the same way.

What would they win by buying something to kill it? Solaris is one of the best products out there.

Wishful thinking. IBM is not interested in acquiring technology that, quite frankly, isn't that brilliant and that people have been gradually moving from for the past ten years. They're only interested in acquiring a customer base for a knock-down price.

I don't think IBM executives are idiots, they probably know full well the value of Solaris.

There is no value to Solaris and hasn't been for some time, other than cannibalising some code that might prove useful elsewhere. ZFS is the only thing that springs to mind really.

In my opinion, that would be a Good Thing for IBM, a Good Thing for Sun and a Good Thing for the world.

The reason why this is being talked about is because Sun have been stupid for the past ten years, won't change their ways and without a takeover they will go bankrupt in the not-too-distant future because their cost-base is too high and they can't fire any more people. I wouldn't paint this as a good thing for Sun at all. It's abject failure.

Reply Parent Score: 2

dvzt Member since:
2008-10-23

IBM will do what Sun should have done years ago if this actually materialises - start progressively ditching Solaris, and AIX fully, and share the costs by using Linux.


They didn't do it, and won't be able to for some time - Linux just can't scale on larger (say 64 cores and more) server.

Reply Parent Score: 1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

They didn't do it, and won't be able to for some time - Linux just can't scale on larger (say 64 cores and more) server.

Pardon? Linux has been doing it for years. Where have you been living? 64 cores(?!) (processors) is small-fry and there is that inevitable word that people expect to just say or write without quantifying it - scale. You've got to laugh.

Edited 2009-03-20 01:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

kryogenix Member since:
2008-01-06

IBM will do what Sun should have done years ago if this actually materialises - start progressively ditching Solaris, and AIX fully, and share the costs by using Linux. It's also what Novell should have done with Netware, but haven't, and they will go the same way.


Hate to break it to you but Linux is still not as scalable as Solaris or AIX.

It's also not quite as rock-solid in a fileserver/domain controller role as Netware was. It was very hard to kill Netware 3.12 or Netware 4.

All of these operating systems also have something Linux doesn't. A stable API/ABI that doesn't change every kernel revision. Of course most Linux fanbois call that a feature.

I love open source OS's and software, don't get me wrong, but my love is for the one true original open source UNIX. BSD.

GNU/Linux is NOT a magic bullet to the world's problems and is chock full of plenty of flaws just like any other platform.

Wishful thinking. IBM is not interested in acquiring technology that, quite frankly, isn't that brilliant and that people have been gradually moving from for the past ten years. They're only interested in acquiring a customer base for a knock-down price.


Sun has plenty of brilliant technologies, some of them are even in Solaris. DTrace, zones, ZFS, etc.

Just because a bunch of people can clone the functionality and offer it for free does NOT make the free product better. Just because you can poach that product's users with your free buggy implementation doesn't make your product better. Show me some REAL functionality that has appeared out of a vacuum in Linux? If you say GNOME I'll slap you.

Where's the killer features GNU/Linux has that no other free UNIX or commercial UNIX has?

It's unfortunate that SPARC hasn't caught on seeing as how it's an open platform where you wouldn't have to license the damn instruction set to make your own version.

Just because Sun can't dump $4,000,000,000,000 into polishing a slow horrible turd of a CPU architecture until it hits the 5GHz mark doesn't mean that anything non-x86 is crap.

Just because Linux is free doesn't necessarily make it "better" than real SysV or BSD.

While Linux has a cool development model that ensures fairly rapid innovation, it falls over in many situations because of it. Nothing ever has time to fully mature before it's replaced with a new and fairly buggy re-implementation. Nothing is truly polished. It feels like a giant beta release all the time. BSD isn't quite as bad.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

That why supercomputer and real research computer run Solarix and AIX ... wait they don't , they almost all run GNU/Linux ...

fileserver/domain is dominated by GNU/linux solution ...

BSD is the base for SUN ... Probably why it's incompatible with it too ...

Unix is owned by GNU/Linux in case you havent followed SCO trial ...

What I don't get is why is GNU/Linux relevent here since it's so bad in your own words and views , might it be your wrong and your views false ...

Reply Parent Score: -1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Hate to break it to you but Linux is still not as scalable as Solaris or AIX.

Hate to break it to you, but I'm afraid wheeling out the word 'scale' with nothing to back it up proves very, very little I'm afraid. Linux runs and scales from small ARM NAS systems to things with over 500 processors in them. I also hate to break it to you that Sun has been trying to jump up and down saying this for over ten years - and they're the ones trying to get bought out ;-).

AIX is around for historical reasons, little more, and no amount of unquantifiable questions over Linux's scalability will change that. There's little new code flowing into AIX, that's for sure. It's all going one way.

When all else fails, play the scalability card. After all, it's worked really well for Sun! :-)

It's also not quite as rock-solid in a fileserver/domain controller role as Netware was. It was very hard to kill Netware 3.12 or Netware 4.

What? Seriously, what planet did you drop in from? Linux and the software around it is used in umpteen file and print installations and Novell and Netware is getting its lunch eaten and has been for years. That's why Novell have tried, unsuccessfully, to move their business to being Linux based. They simply haven't got it.

All of these operating systems also have something Linux doesn't. A stable API/ABI that doesn't change every kernel revision. Of course most Linux fanbois call that a feature.

No one cares. It's Linux that has been eating Solaris's (the one with the stable ABI) lunch and that's why we have ended up with this article with Sun looking for a buy out. Goodness me. We're still too proud to the last to admit the truth.

I love open source OS's and software, don't get me wrong, but my love is for the one true original open source UNIX. BSD.

I'm happy for you and the five people who will end up running it. BSD just hasn't attracted the investment needed in terms of lines of code and its relative popularity where it has had it (within OS X et al) has not contributed anything back to the well-being of any of the BSDs. Not code, not investment not anything.

GNU/Linux is NOT a magic bullet to the world's problems and is chock full of plenty of flaws just like any other platform.

So what? An awful lot more people use it than BSD and it's been eating Solaris's lunch for ten years, so what does that tell you?

Sun has plenty of brilliant technologies, some of them are even in Solaris. DTrace, zones, ZFS, etc.

Yep. They're so brilliant that they've pushed Sun into getting bought out.

Just because you can poach that product's users with your free buggy implementation doesn't make your product better.

I'm just wondering how such a sore and bitter post from someone who can't accept the reality of the current situation got modded up.

Show me some REAL functionality that has appeared out of a vacuum in Linux? If you say GNOME I'll slap you.

Why not? It's now the default desktop in Solaris :-).

Where's the killer features GNU/Linux has that no other free UNIX or commercial UNIX has?

Easy software installation for one, availability and support for a wide range of open source software packages, availability on commodity hardware like x86 and wide range of others that Sun and other Unix vendors absolutely steadfastly refused to do. They nailed their own coffins.

Developers, application support and availability won out. They're the only killer features that matter otherwise Sun wouldn't want to be signing on the dotted line.

It's unfortunate that SPARC hasn't caught on seeing as how it's an open platform...

It hasn't caught on because it's slow. Plain and simple. Has been for over ten years when compared with a commodity system based on x86. The raw horsepower just isn't there. That's why Sun and SGI's workstation and chip design business died overnight, especially when Linux could run on x86 where others couldn't and simply refused to.

Just because Sun can't dump $4,000,000,000,000 into polishing a slow horrible turd of a CPU architecture.....

Then Sun's chip business isn't viable. It's that simple.

This is just denial I'm afraid, and it comes off as a bit sad. Sun are the ones looking to sign themselves away here. No gloss can be put on that.

Reply Parent Score: -1