Slashdot Mirror


IBM Withdraws $7B Offer For Sun Microsystems, Says NYT

suraj.sun points to a story in the New York Times indicating that the much-rumored merger (or purchase) that would have united Sun with IBM may have dissolved before it began. Excerpting: "I.B.M., after months of negotiations, withdrew its $7 billion bid for Sun Microsystems on Sunday, one day after Sun's board balked at a slightly reduced offer, according to a person close to the talks. The deal's collapse raises questions about Sun's next step, since the I.B.M. offer was far above the value of the Silicon Valley company's shares when news of the I.B.M. offer first surfaced last month. .. Since last year, Sun executives had been meeting with potential buyers. I.B.M. stepped up, seeing an opportunity to add to its large software business, acquire valuable researchers and consolidate the market for larger, so-called server computers that corporations use in their data centers. ... Now, Sun is free to pursue other suitors, including I.B.M. rivals like Hewlett-Packard and Cisco Systems. Cisco recently entered the market for server computers."

29 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Cisco Sun by olddotter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hate to think about it, but a Cisco Sun merger might make sense. At least at first glance.

    1. Re:Cisco Sun by putaro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cisco's trying to become a server company. Sun has a lot of credibility in that market, some interesting hardware and, yes Virginia, Solaris is more stable than Linux.

    2. Re:Cisco Sun by ltmon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Same reason they've started building it's own servers - they want to expand into new markets.

      Sun would sure give them a leg-up, as the two product portfolios have very little crossover, but it remains to be seen if Cisco would be any better at selling Sun technology than Sun has been of late.

      As a Sun partner/reseller I'd probably prefer Cisco however, because it's less likely that the cool stuff that Sun makes, which I know and sell, would be just be swallowed up never to be seen again as would likely happen in an IBM deal.

    3. Re:Cisco Sun by segfaultcoredump · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cisco + Sun would make more sense. Mostly because there is very little overlap in their actual products but their two lines constantly need to work together. (Our sun servers are connected to Cisco ethernet switches, our SunRays vpn into Cisco vpn concentrators, our Sun Storage is connected to Cisco MDS switches, etc). It would also give Cisco the biggest, baddest InfiniBand switch on the market (and at 110Tbps, its switching capacity totally trashes anything cisco has ever produced).

      The biggest problem with the Sun+IBM deal was that there was so much overlap, customers would be left to wonder which product lines would get discontinued. (glassfish vs websphere, solaris vs aix, sparc vs power, sun's servers vs ibm's, storage, tape, etc, etc, etc. )

    4. Re:Cisco Sun by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Funny

      Solaris is more stable than Linux.

      stable. n. resistant to change of position or condition.

      Indeed.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Cisco Sun by segedunum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes Virginia, Solaris is more stable than Linux.

      The same old sad refrain, right to the last breath. I have had countless Sun consultants for the best part of ten years telling me that Linux is unstable versus the 'rock solid' Solaris and that no one could ever run anything serious on a x86 system versus SPARC. When I challenge them for specifics they clam up tightly as if saying it should somehow be enough or they retreat by pointing to some exceptionally vague Sun 'studies', again, as if pointing to them is somehow sufficient. Your comment is the same amongst thousands and it's not helping.

      Alas, saying it doesn't make it true, and given Sun's current sad state it can't be all that important to people if it's actually true.

    6. Re:Cisco Sun by dkf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Solaris is more stable than Linux.

      stable. n. resistant to change of position or condition.

      Indeed.

      Sometimes, stable is good. I prefer having my house built on stable ground, and I prefer standard libraries to have stable ABIs so I don't have to recompile everything every time a system upgrade blows through. OTOH, "stable" is sometimes a codeword for "sclerotic". I suppose ones view on stability depends on whether one has a direct interest in the stable thing or not.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    7. Re:Cisco Sun by ltmon · · Score: 5, Informative

      I use (and like) both Solaris and Linux.

      I think the "stable" moniker mainly comes from Solaris + Sun hardware, not Solaris as a standalone entity. Tight coupling to SPARC hardware (and Sun-made x86 to a lesser extent) means that Solaris has the ability to take portions of RAM offline if errors are detected, deactivate individual CPU cores or sockets if errors are detected and similar fault monitoring and recovery across the hardware. It's pretty cool stuff really, have a look at it if you get the chance.

      Solaris SMF also kicks the ageing init.d method for 6 as far as software fault monitoring and recovery goes IMO.

      Of course plenty of consultants have oversold this, deriding other good OSs at the same time, often without any knowledge to back it up.

    8. Re:Cisco Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Solaris is more stable than Linux.

      stable. n. resistant to change of position or condition.

      Indeed.

      Used and admin both. I've never seen a live-locked Solaris system; seen many times on Linux.

    9. Re:Cisco Sun by GuyverDH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hmmmm - and have you noticed that the changelog incorporates almost all of these technologies?

      I think the poster merely stated the most recent innovations to show ones that the majority of the slashdot posters would be familiar with.

      Check out this link, for a list of Sun contributions...
      http://mediacast.sun.com/users/pgdh/media/sum_of_parts_v2.8a.pdf

      I'll highlight just a few, probably found in your beloved *BSD* as well..

      NFS, NIS, XDR, Posix, SVR4, mmap, Streams, ld.so, diskless boot, autofs, rpc, news, abi, xdr, vfs.... /proc, truss, nsswitch, ptools, dynamic kernel, smp, domains, libthread, nis+, vold, jumpstart

      hls, mpss, pools, fss, zones, brandz, s8ma, mdb, dtrace, fma, pgrep, smf, mpo, least privelege, zfs

      and for additional software contributions...

      JAVA, OpenOffice for starters...

      Now.. this list is not all inclusive... but I think it shows a more than fair share of technologies, a lot of which are considered to be *common* tools, that would either not be here, or would not be what they are today, without Sun's contributions...

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    10. Re:Cisco Sun by GuyverDH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've used probably more x86 based UNIX / UNIX like operating systems than many people out here.
      Let's face it, there's not a lot of folks who remember turning key switches to load CTIX over CTOS on a Burroughs XE-550. Yes, I know there are some who will remember this, and things even older...

      What I'm getting at, is that of all the operating systems I've used, based off of a plethora of chips, motorola, x86, powerpc, pa-risc, alpha, sparc, of them all, Solaris has been the most stable and reliable.

      I've seen Linux systems, using kickstart, loaded onto identically configured hardware, end up with different packages loaded, due to some driver quirk that made it not load during one bootup, and work fine on another. I've seen boxes that ran fine, while their identically configured system crapped out repeatedly.

      I've taken those same systems, and using a jumpstart server, loaded them with Solaris x86, and ended with identically configured, installed (down to the last package, configuration, etc) systems. All ran stable, fast and reliably.

      Try taking your own run at comparing an application written for the A.M.P. stack, and first run it as a LAMP stack, then run it as a SAMP stack. You'll find that the SAMP stack outperforms the LAMP stack, sometimes by almost 100% on the same hardware.

      Take a look at the security certifications, the revamped TCP/IP stack able to process millions (possibly billions) of messages per second (depending on the hardware it's configured to run on).

      Take a look at the proprietary hardware, including CMT technologies, or the new ROCK processor due out this fall.

      For a company that has been so solid in the operating system arena, to also be leading the pack in some of the hardware innovations is simply amazing.

      Anyway, as I said, I've used most of the available UNIX/UNIX like operating systems, and find Solaris to be the best of breed for most, if not all, applications. That's my personal 24 years of experience talking, not just empty marketing words...

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
  2. Just how much is enough? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sun seems to want to hold on for a better bid than IBM's $7 billion, but there's seems to be a hard time justifying much higher of a markup beyond the $6.3 billion it has in market cap. Who wants to bid more?

    1. Re:Just how much is enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      All blu-ray devices include a licensed java virtual machine for running the interactive crap
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Java_software_support

  3. Time to modify this hilarious graphic? by LaughingCoder · · Score: 4, Funny

    I saw this a few years ago and it made me true to my moniker: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19080808-Ars-technica-on-Sun-strategy-over-the-years. Looks like we have an edit to make to this spot-on, funny-but-sad pie chart.

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
  4. Re:Stupidity. by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh huh. If you're an executive in a company and the suitor making the offer won't agree to a golden parachute then it doesn't matter to you how much they are offering per share.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  5. Re:Apple Should Buy Sun by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But I don't think Apple really wants Sun. Sun seems to be everything Apple isn't. Sun has a lot of corporate customers, not something that Apple really caters to. Java would be a nice acquisition by Apple, but I just can't see them wanting Java for iPhone applications, something that would seem natural if they acquired Sun.

    I just think that Sun seems to be everything that Apple has opposed, and acquiring it doesn't seem to make sense. On the other hand, (assuming various regulatory bodies would approve it), MS merging with Sun, or Cisco buying Sun seems to work better.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  6. Now RedHat can buy them ... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... after all, why not? They know how to make a profit.

    1. Re:Now RedHat can buy them ... by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To the contrary, I know a local company that deployed an IBM iSeries (previously AS/400) mainframe in their main office, serving two other locations connected via a metropolitan-area T1 line. The machine itself was pretty expensive, yet covered by a 5 or 10 year (can't remember) warranty. The machine would actually call a support technician out to the site whenever it detected an issue with itself, and this has kept their uptime at an astonishing rate, aided by a decent UPS and the hot-swappable hardware.

      They've been doing this for many years, and even though their first IT technician whom set this up passed away long since, they've kept the same infrastructure for all these years and it hasn't failed them. They also do this to remain backward-compatible with the older mainframe tapes, which has proven successful. Even at the busiest times, the mainframe is only at 10% utilization, even though it is a pretty low-end model.

      This has amazed me about IBM support, and since then I've always weighed IBM as a candidate in new networks, although many of them are too small size or budget-wise to deploy a mainframe. But this is the support I've come to associate IBM with, can't speak for their phone support although everyone seems to outsource to India for phone support these days (a problem I have frequently with Cisco). But this support with Sun's hardware running Linux for cheap was one thing I was longing for with this merger.

    2. Re:Now RedHat can buy them ... by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and IBM would have probably contributed more to StarOffice/OpenOffice using some Lotus material.

      Good god no. Keep IBM well away from that, thanks.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
  7. Re:Crap by linhares · · Score: 5, Insightful
    My fears is that MS may buy SUN. At these prices, it's pocket change for them. And they probably do not love the fact that OpenOffice, VirtaulBox, Java, OpenSolaris, Netbeans, and a host of other things are open source and widely adopted. Despite all people that simply _detest_ java or openoffice, they probably hurt deeply microsoft.

    Wouldn't it be much much easier to Embrace Enhance Exchange if OpenOffice were in the hands of microsoft? That's what worries me.

  8. Hahah... by cffrost · · Score: 5, Funny

    Classic April Fools, IBM!

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  9. Re:Apple Should Buy Sun by Raffaello · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Java is poison to Apple. Apple's whole business model is one of OS differentiation. Java promises OS homogenization. Apple has done everything it can to damn Java with faint praise, ensuring its second class status on Mac OS, and complete absence from the iPhone OS.

  10. Re:Crap by SEE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What does Sun have that wouldn't fork if Microsoft bought them?

  11. Re:Stupidity. by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you're an executive in a company and the suitor making the offer won't agree to a golden parachute then it doesn't matter to you how much they are offering per share.

    According to the article, IBM wasn't refusing to offer them a golden parachute. What it says is that various people at Sun already had contracts with Sun guaranteeing them golden parachutes in the event of a buyout. When IBM worked up all the figures, they realized that the golden parachutes were going to cost more than they'd thought, so they reduced their offer.

  12. Re:Crap by setagllib · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sun didn't have to close the source to kill MySQL. Just forcing upon it a poor structure and community for continued development was enough to send away the lead developers. Nobody can say yet if any of the few forks will succeed.

    If Sun can ruin MySQL, I'm sure Microsoft can ruin everything Sun has done as well. Imagine when Java is just an optional compatibility layer on top of .NET, never again to run on Linux or Solaris except via the (then deprecated) OpenJDK.

    --
    Sam ty sig.
  13. The Best I.T. News I've Heard In A Long Time by Smackintosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If true.

    And I say that for three very important reasons:

    a) IBM was sure to 'consolidate' a great number of things. And I'm sure any remnants of Sun left after this process would have been IBM-ized. And I do say that with a great deal of negative connotation. IBM has a habit of having some great tech, but in many cases doing very dumb things to it to make it annoying to work with. (Exhibit #1 = AIX boxen)

    b) Our choices for 'iron' and 'OS' variety in the IT space would have been reduced as I'm sure overalpping server lines would disappear, as well as perhaps an OS (AIX vs. Solaris). Some variety in the I.T. space is most definitely to our advantage as I.T. folks. Of course, pricing competition between rivals is always a good thing, too.

    c) Lastly, the most important thing, is that we'd have lost one of the most innovative enterprise I.T. companies ever. Say what you will about their ability to turn it into large $$$, but Sun has come up with some of the most innovative ideas the server-related I.T industry has seen since their inception....and they continue to do so. I think many people lose sight of this as they like to whine about Sun simply because they're a big corporation.

  14. Re:Apple Should Buy Sun by speedtux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Java promises OS homogenization.

    I think Apple can breathe easy: it's promised that for more than a decade and always failed to deliver.

  15. Name Merge by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 4, Funny

    Should IBM wind up buying SUN after all, I think the name of the company should be Blue Sun.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  16. Noooooo! Anyone but HP! by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, Sun is free to pursue other suitors, including I.B.M. rivals like Hewlett-Packard and Cisco Systems

    Not HP! Anyone but HP!

    Remember when Compaq acquired DEC? They quickly went out to all of DEC's unix customers and told them "Good news! We're migrating you to Windows!" A few made the switch, but most of them replied "Fuck you. If you're killing off your own unix business then we're moving to Sun." And most of them did.

    Compaq and HP are now merged, and the once-great DEC unix business has all but been dissolved. Is that the fate which awaits Sun if they are acquired by HP? HP is firmly under the control of Microsoft. The day after the merger, they would receive their marching orders from Redmond: quietly suffocate Java and OpenOffice.

    Java is currently the lingua franca of business logic, and whether you like it or not, it's a key enabler for Linux's success in the enterprise. Without Java, the data center would slowly be taken over by .NET running on Windows. And although Linux has finally started to gain some traction on the desktop, that too would come to a halt without OpenOffice.

    Cisco is a slightly better bet, but I'm not sure they'd really know what to do with Sun. Cisco is fabulous at merging networking companies, but when they buy other types of companies (such as WebEx or the people who built Openchange) they really don't seem to know what to do with them. IBM would have been a good merger. Now I'm worried.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!