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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-07-27
I dont agree with you. I think I have backed up my claims with relevant links.
If I state that Linux is unstable, what do I mean then? Do I mean that Linux is unstable for my desktop usage? Of course not. For desktop usage Linux is fine, Ive never seen Linux crash. I am talking about big installations.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...
If I say Linux does not scale vertically, do I mean it does not scale on my quad core CPU? Of course not. Linux utilizes my 4 cores very well (I believe). I am talking about many hundreds of cpus.
If I say Linux sucks as a file server, do I mean for serving 1-2 client computers then? Of course not.
If you say Windows does not scale, does it not scale on your desktop? Of course it scales on your desktop PC. You talk about large computers.
Even Windows suffices for personal use. In fact, with SP3 Windows XP is quite stable. But I would lie if I said WinXP is good for large computers, because I myself has not crashed WinXP for a long time.
So if I provide links of WinXP crashes a lot on large computers, are those links not relevant then? Am I lying then??
I do not agree with you. I have provided relevant links. For personal desktop use, any OS will do including Windows. But that is not interesting, the large demanding installations are the interesting ones.
Edited 2009-04-20 19:32 UTC
Member since:2005-10-15
Ok maby i am stupid or something.
but can you please explain the relevance
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...
in your last post.
it could be about "I am talking about big installations.
but the article just deals with about a unconfirmd rumor that google is trying solaris.
oh and it did also contain some cloud/hosting computing business that switched.
but we still dont know if the error is with bsd/linux or that they used a crappy support company, and sun is a great company for support.
but i did fail to see anything about linux not being able to run on big installations.
And yes in your last post you did make the statement that it was only big installation machines you are talking about. but not in the others i still think that you should think about what the article say's and what you say.
Member since:2007-03-06
You can find links proving about anything you want to prove.
There it goes: two links praising linux' stability on servers.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/153880/manufacturer_moves_l...
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/LinuxWorld-Savings-S...
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.