Star Report: IBM Eyeing Sun Buyout at USD 9.55 a Share
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 17:57 UTC
In the News After weeks of negotiations, IBM reportedly is eyeing a $9.55-per-share buyout for Sun Microsystems, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Such a price would value the deal at roughly $7 billion and offer Sun investors nearly double the price of the stock before reports surfaced earlier this month that the parties are in buyout talks. A report in The New York Times, meanwhile, notes the parties are discussing a purchase price of $9.50 a share. In either case, Sun's investors haven't seen the hardware maker's stock trade at those levels since August. Last spring, Sun was trading at a 52-week high of $16.37 a share.
E-mail Print r 0   41 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/gea
Thread beginning with comment 356839
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

I mean, what would happen to the btrfs efforts if IBM open sourced ZFS on Tuesday?

Not a lot. If someone decided to port (and they probably would) then ZFS might get accepted into the kernel, and have its own directory. But there is no way in hell that the "rampant layering violation" that is ZFS is ever going to be a first class FS in Linux. It just brings too many fundamentally bad ideas with it. Best to take the time to do it right and put the right pieces into the right layers.

Sun did ZFS the way they did and now Sun is dead.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

Burana Member since:
2009-01-26

have its own directory. But there is no way in hell that the "rampant layering violation" that is ZFS is ever going to be a first class FS in Linux. It just brings too many fundamentally bad ideas with it. Best to take the time to do it right and put the right pieces into the right layers.


Just because we had to use volume managers many years, does not mean we need them in the future.

Or are you layering your main memory as well?

Oh, and it's funny that btrfs does also do "rampant layering violations"...

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Just because we had to use volume managers many years, does not mean we need them in the future.

Or are you layering your main memory as well?

Oh, and it's funny that btrfs does also do "rampant layering violations"...

You are not making any sense. Layering relates to code. I'm not even sure what you mean by "layering memory".

Your btrfs point is a reasonable one. Yes, btrfs subsumes some of the DM layer. It's one of those things that makes me cringe slightly. But it's a limited layering violation relative to what ZFS does. And I guess I'm content to take a chance and see what happens.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2