Linked by David Adams on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 16:10 UTC, submitted by Jeremy Prince
Oracle and SUN Sometimes, Google's search engine does a better job of telling us about IT vendors than the vendors' own public relations and marketing machines, which are often there mostly to deflect questions rather than answer them. So it is with the next commercial and development iterations of Oracle's Solaris Unix operating system.
Thread beginning with comment 431110
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
it does not stop in Solaris...
by HangLoose on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 18:31 UTC
Member since:

I expected Oracle to open source TCK and finally let Apache in (yes I am an optimist), also I am a big fan of NetBeans and I am kinda unsure how they will handle 3 IDEs, plus VirtualBox and glassfish, which is a decent container. But I wish that IBM had snatched Sun instead of Oracle...
I do sound like a broken record, cos I already said this here, but IMO Oracle is a bad influence in many of the technologies that I use to be paid every month. ;)

I think that in the end I will bite the bullet and learn C#

Reply Score: 1

Moochman Member since:

I think that in the end I will bite the bullet and learn C#

You make absolutely no sense. First you start fear-mongering that Oracle may not be as open as you like, so your solution is to switch to Microsoft? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? With .NET you are for all intents and purposes tied to one OS (in fact *the newest version* of that OS if you want the latest IIS), one IDE, one provider of middleware, so you are entirely at the mercy of one company. The Java stack on the other hand provides everything you need and might need in the future, compatible with any major OS and most of it *for free*? What on earth are you smoking?

Edited 2010-06-22 19:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

HangLoose Member since:

I have poor english skills my bad...

but back to the point, i have actually idea of what i am talking about. i was involved on two systems that were oracle top-down. everything running on solaris. and i had also to deal with their practices of "bullying" customers to upgrade their software. so i guess when oracle/ibm push customers around if okay but if ms does it is bad right? i know your type.

as much as i like java and related tools i want something with stability and clear development path. i dont see oracle changing the way sun behaved with jcp.i dont see how oracle will handle those tools. what i see is a clear divide in the "community" and no idea where to go next.

so you can cut all the rubbish "oh you dont have any idea of what you say". in my opion you probably live of a freetard fantasy... i need to pay my bills and if i need to learn .net for that i dont understand what is your problem.

i guess you will be one of those cobol dudes...

ps. sorry for typos but i was typing this on my mobile.

Reply Parent Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:

The productivity gains from ASP.NET make up for the licensing cost of Windows Server and then some.

Tying yourself to Java means tying yourself to a company that really just wants to sell database software and could care less about software development. Who knows how much they will let Java stagnate along with the rest of Sun.

Going from Java to C# is easy if you already know C. You can always go back if you don't like it.

Edited 2010-06-23 18:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Moochman Member since:

--double post--

Edited 2010-06-22 19:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

fithisux Member since:

I think that in the end I will bite the bullet and learn C#

Opensolaris has mono. There is also pnet by gnu. Mono has a binding for firebird. I do not know if monodevelop is available for Opensolaris. However gnu emacs can help you. If you want to be a C# devotee you can continue on Windows. But I do not recommend Visual Studio. Finally if you want to keep Solaris on your partition take a look at the wonderful packages by activestate in order to learn some real programming.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lopisaur Member since:

I don't like Oracle's tactics either, but they do embrace open source software in their own kind of Ellisonian way. At least they're not killing off Solaris, OpenSolaris, MySQL or VirtualBox. If it'd been Microsoft buying Sun, they would have killed all of them instantly.
I do agree that IBM would have been the better buyer.

As for the C# bit... ???

Reply Parent Score: 1

bhtooefr Member since:

No, they're just not saying anything about OpenSolaris, and not releasing any development builds, effectively cutting it off, it seems. They're not killing it, they're just letting it die of neglect. And, I'm not sure there's enough resources to fork it, considering most of the development came from within Sun.

At least the BSDs are taking the good bits from OpenSolaris...

Reply Parent Score: 3

Kebabbert Member since:

IBM better buyer than Oracle? Are you both mad? IBM has always hated Sun.

As an analyst said, IBM would have bought Sun to get all Enterprise Unix customers, and then killed off Sun and slowly raised the prices for each new generation of technology "this new tech is much faster so a higher price is fair". IBM would almost be the only Enterprise Unix vendor. IBM would almost have monopoly. To get monopoly is worth a lot.

Just look at valuation of big Internet companies with 100s of millions of users. FaceBook has nothing valuable except the users. If each user is worth 50 USD, then FB is worth billions of USD. But frankly, FB is nothing without users. To get access to all those users are worth a lot. If you are the only player, then the users must buy from you. You can freely set the price.

Today, IBM have almost monopoly on Mainframes and can charge whatever prices IBM want. IBM Mainframe division is extremely profitable, several billions of USD. The mainframe margin is the highest of all IBM divisions.

Sun tech was always competing with IBM tech. There was always overlap.
Enterprise Unix: Solaris vs AIX.
IDE: Netbeans vs Eclipse

First IBM would have supported Solaris/SPARC/etc "we are dedicated and believe in both Solaris and AIX", but in a couple of years, IBM would say that Solaris will be killed off in 5 years, and would provide an migration path to AIX. Same with SPARC to POWER. etc.

For every Sun tech, there is an IBM counterpart. IBM would be mad to develop and support similar products, that would frankly, be pure stupidity. Why would MS develop and support two totally different desktop OSes, targeting exactly the same customers? Madness. You are mad if you believe Solaris would live, coexisting with AIX. They both target exactly the same Enterprise Unix customers.

Oracle on the other hand, have almost no competing tech. Sun and Oracle complements each other excellent. Oracle will try to sell everything Sun have. IBM only wanted to kill it, to get all customers. IBM has today an outspoken strategy to shift focus from AIX to Linux. AIX development has slowed. IBM hates that Oracle is now competing. But, I tell you, competition is good for us customers. Monopoly is not. To promote monopoly is madness.

x86 CPUs are getting faster and faster. Right now, an modern x86 CPU is 5-10x faster than a IBM Mainframe CPU. Nehalem-EX reaches 70% of the speed of an IBM POWER7. Next year, Nehalem-EX will be 32nm and even faster. Then Sandybridge version will arrive, which will be much faster. POWER is not developing fast enough. It will soon be slower, but costs many many times more. AIX must be ported to x86, or it will die. Who will buy a slow CPU for a much higher price? OTOH, Solaris runs on SPARC and on x86. x86 will rule the future. Cheap and extremely fast. All OSes must be ported to x86, otherwise they will die.

Reply Parent Score: 5