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 431119
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: it does not stop in Solaris...
by lopisaur on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 19:39 UTC in reply to "it does not stop in Solaris..."
lopisaur
Member since:
2006-02-27

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:
2009-02-19

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

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Have you ever been at a company right after it was acquired or after some big reorg has happened? Productivity effectively dies for months or years while the politics of the whole thing is figured out.

Just give it some time. I am sure they are not going to let OpenSolaris die, they just haven't had any time to do real work on it for the past months....

Edited 2010-06-23 06:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

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.
RISC CPU: SPARC vs POWER
IDE: Netbeans vs Eclipse
etc.

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

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

IBM better buyer than Oracle? Are you both mad?


Agreed. Had IBM bought Sun it probably would have meant the end of NetBeans and maybe even the death of Swing & JavaFX. OpenSolaris would have been left to rot--they'd have just taken all of the nice bits and integrated them into AIX. And Spark would have probably been sold to Fujitsu where it would die a slow, painful death.

All speculation of course--for all I know IBM would have merged their technologies with Sun's and starting opening all their stuff up. But I kind of doubt it.

The choice wasn't easy, but I think Sun is better off in Oracle's hands after all.

Edited 2010-06-23 07:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

joshuah Member since:
2007-06-01

Ooo man, what are you smoking...? I don't know if Solaris would be better in IBM or in Oracle hands and I will not comment on that. I will comment however on the technical parts of your post.

IBM has monopoly in the Mainframes? You living under a rock or something? Mainframe IS IBM product!!! Your point is the same as the point that MS has monopoly on the Windows!!!

Don't even think of comparing Solaris vs AIX. My job used to be Unix admin @ telco company. And if SUN was competing AIX, they failed miserably. AIX is by far the most advanced Unix we have today, with a tons of advanced technologies build in, and more that you have to pay in order to use. And don't even mention me the shit that Linux is in the enterprise ( no offense to the linux fans ).

You compare x86 CPUs with Mainframe technology?!?! Are you out of your right mind? There are those things called scalability, reliability and so on. These things are pretty much the corner stone of high-end hardware, and that's what you get when you pay a lot of money. And that IS important for Enterprise.

IBM might have intentions to move to Linux, but I don't see them dropping Power CPUs any time soon, or AIX for that matter.

Power is not developing fast enough?? That ain't your gaming CPU and platform, if you want to play WoW on a good box x86 CPU is the choice for you, those evolve "FAST", you get more cores every few months, you will have a lot to show off to your friends in school.

"All OSes ported to x86, or they die", o man...not gonna even comment on that one.

Are you some kind of zealot or something, have you actually used AIX or even touched a pSeries box? Or are you some kind of marketing and power point wizard that loves to talk crap and throw fancy power point slides, just to show how good he is in power point presentations?

Edited 2010-06-23 13:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5