Slashdot Mirror
What If Oracle Bought Sun Microsystems?
snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister believes Oracle is next in line to make a play for Sun now that IBM has withdrawn its offer. Dismissing server market arguments in favor of Cisco or Dell as suitors, McAllister suggests that MySQL, ZFS, DTrace, and Java make Sun an even better asset to Oracle than to IBM. MySQL as a complement to Oracle's existing database business would make sense, given Oracle's 2005 purchase of Innobase, and with 'the long history of Oracle databases on Solaris servers, it might actually see owning Solaris as an asset,' McAllister writes. But the 'crown jewel' of the deal would be Java. 'It's almost impossible to overestimate the importance of Java to Oracle. Java has become the backbone of Oracle's middleware strategy,' McAllister contends."
I say Yahoo and sun should merge. Just think about it, 1. Yahoo makes some cool cloud offerings, 2.sun builds the cloud. 3. ?????? 4. Profits
MySQL is the best alternative to Oracle. They could buy mySQL out for a bargain and start putting the screws to all of us that use mySQL to not pay for exorbitant Oracle licenses. Boy... I can't wait.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
I think the two companies have some excellent synergies*. My biggest concern with Oracle purchasing Sun (as opposed to the other way around) is that there would be a culture clash. Sun is a very dynamic environment that fosters great new ideas. But unless those core competencies bubble up through Oracle, the Sun portion of the company would be strangled to death.
Personally, I've always wanted to see Sun purchase Oracle. But I don't think that's happening at this point.
* Warning: Corporate buzzword!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I work at an Oracle shop. Most of my job is writing web apps that obfuscate base Oracle (applications) craziness. On the rare occasion I've had to actually dig into Oracle's Java code I have found my self trying to figure what kind of strange world they are living in. Most of their code seems to not only defy best practices but any semblance of good design.
Maybe its just that the code I've seen has been outsourced stuff that came back in as unclean globs of code but it makes me a little leery to see where Oracle would take Java.
Our bugs are smarter than your test scripts.
Am I the only one that hopes Sun changes it's mind about selling itself and succeeds on its own? I know they have made some big strategic errors that have gotten them where they are now, but it is a solid company (imho) with, from what I've seen, superior products. Grossly undervalued for some time now.
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
A lot of SAP stuff uses Java. You bet SAP will do everything they can to prevent Oracle buying Sun.
It's almost impossible to overestimate the importance of Java to Oracle
Java will help Oracle colonize the entire solar system.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
. . . if we can get all those Anonymous Cowards and folks with ridiculous names like mine to chip in $10 each.
The company's direction and strategy could be guided by a Slashdot thread. A potent brew of "Informative, Interesting, Troll . . ."
Hell, maybe we could even patent that business model . . . crowd governance . . . or mod governance?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
It would be quite ironic ... MySQL has had to deal with Oracle acquiring InnoDB and then Sleepycat (Berkeley DB) ... multiple times they had to rework MySQL's underpinnings because they didn't want Oracle to own key parts of the platform. If Oracle were to be in control of MySQL they'd be able to "un-deprecate" (reprecate?) those engines.
I'd like to see that, actually -- Berkeley DB is an amazingly robust data store. It worked well with MySQL.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
I don't see anything changing. Right now we have a 3-way fight between three heavyweights: Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft. Everyone else is unimportant.
However, IBM and Microsoft have other competencies and sources of revenue. Oracle does not. In result, Oracle has been looking for new ways to enter the low-end market. So owning MySQL could be a boon for them, but it wouldn't significantly change the market.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I am so not comfortable with Oracle being in charge of one of the remaining UNIX vendors... Better to see another UNIX license holder get them than that.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Where "synergy" is another word for "2+2=1". This could produce even more economic value than Microsoft plus Yahoo! would have.
Forks of everything forkable approaching in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
http://rocknerd.co.uk
MSSQL? PostgreSQL?
If they could both bury the hatchet for about 5 minutes, a joint bid by Oracle and IBM would actually make much more sense. IBM would take the Solaris platform and hardware, Oracle would take the ZFS, MySQL, and DTrace. They could then both jointly purchase and spin-off Java into an Open Source project or its own firm with each company taking a stake. Since both rely so heavily on Java and neither would enjoy the other firm owning the platform it makes perfect sense for it to continue as an independent entity.
Putting Access as a competitor to Oracle...that's funny.
In Oracle's class would be guys like MS SQL Server and IBM's DB2. Access is the DB small companies foolishly build apps on and then deal with pain and ridicule until they move off it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, what's next on your fight card? Space Marines vs. Pee-Wee Herman? Guillermo Jones vs. 6-year-old Timmy from down the block?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Really, Microsoft are obviously the best fit to buy them.
Just like in the days of Windows 3.1, Microsoft need an new OS to replace the old mess they currently have. Back then they nicked NT from IBM. Now they can have Solaris.
They're obviously admirers of Java, given how they've effectively created Java++ (C#). So that's an nice fit. They'd also be buying their way into every single educational institution in the world.
Finally they're well placed to use MySQL as the basis for the next version of Access, giving them a nice up sell to SQL Server.
Sun shining through the Windows. You heard it here first, folks.
Sun has some amazing technologies and I would really hate to see it be sold. However, since that seems to be the way Sun wants to go, I can't make up my mind who would be best suited to take it over.
I wasn't too crazy about IBM's bid, because the large overlap would probably deprecate some Sun technology.
Oracle is another matter, mysql could indeed be a nice "lightweight" addition to their database portfolio and the other technologies probably would not get wasted. However, what scares me about Oracle products is the IMMENSE pricetag. If they buy out Sun, how long till they start charging exorbitant fees for their products?
Cisco could be a good option, though I am unsure how well they would fare with these technologies. It would be kind of a new market on many fronts for them, not sure if/how they could handle it.
I doubt Dell will buy them, and that leaves us with... what? ...
Red Hat? In some parallel reality, possibly, in this one, na.
Microsoft, for the sake of Sun's kickass technology, let's hope not.
So here's me hoping Sun doesn't get bought out at all and that they clean up their marketing act a bit.
PostgreSQL is still a *huge* player (in fact, they're pretty-much the only open-source, fully-transactional DB available).
Also, Access isn't MS's DB offering... MS SQLServer is the real player. Access is as much a database as a go-cart is a race car (which is to say, kinda-sorta, but not really).
We will have Suracle!!
and think about it. What if Google buys Sun and get a Soogle :) So Ogle.
Eclipse PDE and Me
Oracle is a true relational database management system. As is DB/2, Postgress, SQL Server, mySQL....
Access is ... words fail me. The last developer here that suggested using Access was summarily shot, hung, drawn and quartered, and his head posted on a spike at the door to the computer room as a warning to others.
i think their support is crap. every time i call for netbackup support it takes them a week to get back to me. place i work for was scammed into buying netbackup from Sun instead of Veritas years ago.
i'm trying to get the latest media for netbackup and it's insane trying to register just to download it.
we looked at the SL500 a few months ago and it was overpriced. everything Sun sells seems overpriced compared to HP, including the servers.
last few years Oracle has bought a lot of application companies. BEA, Peoplesoft and a long list of others
While Sun may not be the strongest FOSS advocate, they've made many adjustments over the past few years to open up several products.
Stop right there. Sun is one of the biggest corporate contributors to open source. Go ahead, count lines of code. I'm betting Sun will be in the top two if not #1.
Here's a brief list of things Sun has open sourced:
Solaris - Their entire OS, including ZFS and Dtrace
SPARC - Their CPU line
Java - Maybe you've heard of it.
OpenOffice - The office suite that ships with every desktop Linux distribution.
VirtualBox - A GPL desktop virtual machine.
NetBeans IDE - A multi-platform IDE.
OpenDS - LDAP Directory Server
High Availability Cluster
Honorable mention:
NFS - The Network File System
vi - developed by Sun founder Bill Joy
MySQL - Now owned and maintained by Sun-paid engineers
So, next time you say Sun hadn't done much for open source, look again. It would be a shame if Sun was bought by Oracle and all of their valuable contributions were abandoned.
How many employees does Sun have? If there is anywhere near enough and if they want to have jobs in a year they better get together and buy it themselves. Java hasn't taken over the world like it was meant to. The position it could have held unfortunately is slowly being eroded away by .NET on the application end and things like Flash/Air on the web side. MySQL is everywhere but proprietary ownership is not working well for it and it will go off on it's own opensource way soon. Actually, if it can somehow manage to be relevant in the long-term it would not be surprising to see Java do the same. Solaris... what's the point today?? Really!! Who needs a proprietary Unix distro and for what? Perhaps for some proud geek to wear as a badge.. see, it's not Linux.. I'm a non-conformist
Whoever buys Sun is going to do it as a shortcut to make their competition go away. Competition that was going to go away albeit much slower anyway. They will be sliced and diced right from the start and any remaining pieces will be left to rot like AOL's purchase of Netscape.
If they want long term employment Sun's employees had better buy it out and then go straight into a creative binge to find a new direction.
I work at an Oracle shop and I must say this would make sense from Oracle's point of view. They would probably kill most of the free stuff (bye bye MySql, Glassfish,...), but would probably keep seling hardware (remember, oracle just got into hardware business!) and possibly solaris. As for Java... I don't know. I work with Jdeveloper - it's good but bloated, and most important, not open sourced (it's free, but not open sourced). I have no idea what happens if ANY other company than SUN owns Java...?
What?!? Oracle has 3 of the top 5 ERP platforms, 2 of the top 3 middleware platforms, and a few of the top BI platforms. In fact at this point Oracle probably makes as much or more of their revenue from application and middleware licensing than they do from database licensing. They also have a 10,000+ employee consulting arm.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
While Sun may not be the strongest FOSS advocate
lolwut? Sun has been one of the biggest FOSS advocates for almost a decade. What rock have you been living under?
I don't know if RedHat has the capital,
They don't. They only have about 1.7 billion in assets and less than 700 million in cash. They'd have to get some pretty hefty financing to buy Sun and I doubt anyone is going to loan them money that would amount to 12-15 times their total revenue last year.
I have long thought that IBM or Oracle would buy Sun to control Java. Yes there are innovations that come out of Sun, but hold long can Sparc compete with Intel/AMD and Solaris compete with Linux. Sun just doesn't have the resources to win both of those battles. Java is their trump card, and they don't know how to monetize it. Unless they figure out how to profit off of Java, I see them dieing a slow death.
Think Deeply.
Commander Keen vs. Pee-Wee Herman :P
Oracle has no other competencies?[1] Are you sure about that -- have you read their annual report anytime in the past couple years? Oracle's service LOB is growing quickly (currently 21% of revenues, and growing), and has good margins. Never mind the middleware portion of their licensing revenues, which is also growing fast.
[1] Dude, please stop using buzzwords, especially when you use them improperly. You sound like all the awful PHBs that use words without knowing what they mean. 'Competencies' does not mean 'Lines of Business', nor does it mean 'Divisions'.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Let me tell you a story. I work in a professional environment in a 10k+ Person Organization. We decided we want to implement Identity Management. We chose the (Open Source) Sun Identity Manager, one of their enterprise products, based on J2EE.
The documentation is horrible, but that's not what it's about. Our development machines run on a JBoss AS with a Mysql Repository. The performance is horrible, and I mean it. It's beyond bad, MySql gobbles up the whole server. It takes 95% CPU time and 2 gb ram for our (rather complex) queries.
On our staging machine (running Oracle as a repository), the same tasks take 10% CPU and we hardly notice it happening.
Needles to say, SUN thought it might be a good idea (for political reason obv) to include Mysql in their documentation as "supported", although no sane person would actually use it.
I kinda forgot what my post has to do with this story. I just read "Oracle + Sun" and it clicked. I'm conditioned to think it's a perfect combination.
They will either close or shut down projects like Openoffice, NetBeans, Java, Open Solaris, Open Sparc. ( and other smaller projects )
It would be a sad day.
Better download what source you can and fork the projects before it all becomes extinct.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What about Sun not being bought by anyone and Jonathan Schwartz keeping his pony tail?
Seriously guys, the profits have fallen but this has been the case even since the previous administration (McNealy). The company still holds very well in its core solution, ie Java. I never though of a 5-billion-dollar company as a poor one. There are bigger fishes in the pond, indeed, Sun will just have to avoid them.
"Sum Ergo Cogito"
...
What crack head thinks this shit up? Anyone who thinks this should not be allowed to touch a database. Ever.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Hahahaha
No, Redhat does not have the capital to buy Sun. They don't even have the capital to take Sun out on a respectable date and they probably never will.
Its kind of sad that you don't realize how much larger Sun is than Redhat. Redhat really isn't that impressive. It may be impressive to the Linux community, but not to the real world. The rest of the world is still waiting for their customers to realize that they have nothing of value to sell. Everything they have of value is built on something someone else gives away, and if you truely believe in OSS then you can't possibly believe Redhat has a chance since anything they produce and sell, someone else can sell as well. Buying service contracts from them is pretty stupid as you can accomplish the same thing on the Internet for no charge with Google and the various support forums out there. If you have a bug you need fixed, there are plenty of other places to buy a short term developer to fix it, and since the information is all public, Redhat only has experience to help it out, which is good, but there are plenty of other people who have experience as well and many times you can find someone with that experience to make you a patch for free. Remember, thats one of the advantages of OSS right?
Just because the OSS hippies don't think Sun has anything of value doesn't make it actually true. Nor does it give Redhat anything of value.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
When your share of the market is the 23% that doesn't buy anything, then your share of the market doesn't matter. Sorry, no one buys FOSS because of market share, they buy it because people are stupid and like buzz words. People who use FREE software generally are the people who don't PAY for software, so its of little value to anyone.
I really wish you people could it into your thick heads, companies don't want something thats free, they want something they can sell.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
That comparison chart is really wrong; I think it was done by someone who either never actually used DTrace, didn't know how DTrace works, or just hasn't used it well enough to be familiar with it.
DTrace instruments by placing an INT 3 (on other platforms, it's an illegal instruction) at the probe point and remembering where that was done. The trap handler then has a code path that knows about this, and shunts it over to DTrace for a probe lookup.
Pretty clearly, whoever wrote that chart has only used fbt (Function Boundary Tracing), and is not familiar with the fact that the trace points can pretty much be put at any instruction location where the instrumentation would not involve reentering the trap handler. This means any instruction, and it's done *without* using break points.
I really don't have time to fix this for them (and I doubt I'd get edit rights if it started making DTrace look relatively better anyway), but someone involved in the project should actually take a real look at the software they are trying to compete with before they so casually (and incorrectly) dismiss it.
-- Terry
Actually, I would assume part of the deal would be that MySQL is left out. Its of no use to them. There are better OSS databases out there to be had at this point, even Sun thinks so.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Dude, I can't wait to see that! Access is going to schooled pretty hard in most events but when they get to the VBA execution contest Oracle is going to crying home to mommy!
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I don't see what MySQL provides to Oracle. How long would it take Oracle to create a defeatured version of their database product that has about the same features as MySQL. It's not as if MySQL has some great database secrets that Oracle doesn't already know about.
They'd probably rather have PostgreSQL which already has front ends for it that can make it behave a lot like Oracle and take direct connections from Oracle clients, since it is an actual transactional database, unlike the afterthought MySQL calls transaction support.
If MySQL was worth its salt, Sun would probably use it rather than PostgreSQL in the xVM suite. Its generally a sign that your not that great when the company that owns you, picks a product that they don't own to use rather than the one they do own.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Why waste your time buying these small offerings, when you can go right to the top. If you buy SCO, you own every single byte of code ever written to run under any unix-like operating system.
If the courts weren't so slow, SCO would be the largest company in the world. But you can get in on the ground floor quite cheaply right now. But wait. If you buy right now, you also get an additional Darrel Mcbride with your order.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
They haven't ever been able to make any money off of Java, even though it is widely used
In one of Jonathan Schwartz blog posts he said they make something like $275 million a year just from licensing Java. The way it's phrased doesn't seem to include any of their other Java software such as the Enterprise Server stack.
Sun's revenue is close to $14 Billion a year. To compare, RedHat is only $164 Million, Novel is $214 mil, Oracle is $5.5 billion, IBM is $127 Billion.
They're selling stuff and bringing in a decent chunk of change. The problem they have is in making a profit. There's a huge potential there.
Dual Opteron < $600
Oracle + Sun would be the natural alternative to SQL Server + Windows. Many shops that I worked for used to be Oracle + Unix gradually shifted to MSFT over the last 10 years due to cost and staffing. Streamline the server support contracts and cost would make sense to compete with Microsoft. MySQL can be to Oracle like Sybase to DB2 at IBM, and there's still Postgres and other open source DBs. A play by Oracle might actually bring IBM back to the bidding war and be good for Sun. Right now Sun does not have enough revenue stream that will make enough money to bail itself out. Sun wasted all its energy fighting MS, and failed to see that their real enemy was Intel + Dell.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oracle buying Sun, might be good for Sun, but it would suck for everyone else. Recently, we've had dealings with Oracle for various things, and their unbelievably arrogant sales team literally talked and priced themselves out of a sale. They said they'd be able to beat SAP (for SFA, financials, etc) and ended up coming in at almost twice the price. And once you get on one of their pre-sales lists the SE's never stop bugging you. Way too aggressive. If they get to distribute the Sun JDK, in a year you'd have to give them your life story in order to download it, with a load of nagging sales calls following your download. So, like the tag says "noooooooo...".
Solaris was only "released" after Linux had repeatedly shown Sun that being proprietary was a bad idea. And even now OpenSolaris != Solaris, plus you won't need both hands to count the number of external contributors.
SPARC, that's nice ... you know many OpenSource developers who have chip fabrication plants?
Java ... yeh, after IBM, Red Hat, SuSE, GNU, etc. spent 10 years reimplementing most of it. And Mono had mostly implemented C# 1.0. So they were basically forced to open it, or become as irrelivant as they are in the OS world.
OpenOffice ... yeh, well done. They had a flash of insight (for once) that they couldn't possibly compete with it without open sourcing it.
Netbeans ... again was proprietary, got shot in the face by eclipse, was reluctantly released (hmm, sounds familiar).
OpenDS - yeh, I know a lot of people using this instead of OpenLDAP or Fedora/RH directory server.
NFS - They made a single code drop at the begining, to make it a std., so they could sell "the good implementation" which was only in Solaris (and never released until decades later).
ZFS - Same deal, they've released it as narrowly as possible to try and make it a std. ... and it looks like BTRFS is going to shoot them in the face, just like something did every other time.
So, sure, by lines of code dumped onto the 'net Sun are an open source company. In pretty much any other way of evaluating it though, they suck.
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
A black hole would open up and swallow the universe, only to barf it all back out in Java and HTML.
Guys, Oracle has become World's second biggest commercial software company with -being- only a software and support company. The number 1 is Microsoft and if you exclude the great doing Input devices/Game consoles business, they are only a software/services company too. I see game console as specialised hardware to run their software anyway.
Oracle buying Sun would be more like 3dfx buying ST Microelectronics and going with their own cards which we have seen what happened later.
Just think about their relations with Microsoft when they push Oracle stuff on Solaris/Sun hardware to customers. MS can even say "Their software works so-so on Windows since they want to sell Sun hardware" to their customers.
Sun should be bought out by SCO. Think of the future it would create!!!
...deal with pain and ridicule until they move off it.
And that's just from the software. You get pencils (chairs?) flung at you from other staff...
The Illuminati would kill me, but I'm not rich enough to take notice of.
The whole point of being a contractor is that "permanent" employees trade a ~25% pay cut for the illusion of job security. As a contractor, you make more money for doing the exact same job... so long as you're willing to keep your skillset competitive, and endure being looked down upon by the legacy-maintenance guys who are too lazy to keep their skillsets competitive.
If a company pays you extra money for 10 years, AND you're not having to look for new gigs, then who exactly is the chump?
I don't disagree with the idea that Sun would not improve Oracle's ability to compete and generate income. I'm still undecided on that point. I don't think it is a lack of synergy though. The idea that "different entities cooperate advantageously for a final outcome" where those entities are Oracle and Sun trying to take a bigger slice of the database server market, however, is reasonable. Oracle is a database software company with great marketing trying to break into a server market. Sun is a server company with lousy marketing that can't seem to make inroads in the corporate database market. If you combine them you could have a company with a strong database and software combination taking over the market for corporate database servers. Whether or not the merge would benefit the companies involved is still a question, but if it does then it will fit the definition of synergy very well.
Plus the media hype would complete my buzzword bingo card, so I'm all for it.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
People who use FREE software generally are the people who don't PAY for software, so its of little value to anyone.
it's not free as in beer, you imbecile.
Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
Contracts that you talk about are really for staff augmentation. But, if you bring in contractors to execute a project, and actually make something, then the result is rather different. Contractors get particularly paranoid about the quality of work - it has to stand up to more scrutiny than an inhouse team would.
The thing is, permanent employees tend to build up a culture inside a bubble. I have a client that's living in the 1980s, and they have ingrained to taking so many shortcuts that they have utterly forgotten what a good program is. Permanent employees can build up a sense of safety and entitlement and will do enough to move the ball a bit but not ever really score.
This is my sig.
*Insert any company name here* has no allegiance but to itself.
Eh, I think Oracle already has a few actual transactional database engines. MySQL, as an SQL-wrapper with modular storage backends that useful for a variety of purposes (including using at least one of Oracle's engines) is probably a more useful addition to Oracle's portfolio.
Oracle: Computer Associates of the 21st century.
(buying troubled software companies and running them into the ground).
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
RedHat is nowhere near big enough, but since you mention it, what about Novell?
I am trolling
You forgot TCL! Why is everyone always forgetting about TCL?
I am trolling
In 3 days I've counted possibile buyers on posts around the world (after IBM): apple oracle cisco ...
Now I'll start a collection with some of my friends and we'll do an OPA over them too...
It's not just the engineering - it's the language design. Jim Gosling did a HELL of a job. He and Jay Miner are perhaps the most innovative thinkers in computing in the past 30 years.
Website Hosting
Cash isn't the only option. Many acquisitions are done with stock swaps. Still, RedHat probably couldn't swing it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Have you heard of DB2 & SQL Server?
They are #2 & #3, I think. Not MySQL.
What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about Oracle having different backends, I said that PostgreSQL already fits well into the Oracle world, MySQL is a joke to anyone except crappy web developers (read as PHP hackers) fresh out of school.
PostgreSQL makes a natural first step to later moving to Oracle because PostgreSQL can already be made to act A LOT like Oracle without the high end features. Making MySQL anywhere near as powerful as PostgreSQL would almost require starting from scratch as all of its 'high end' features are bolted on in an absolutely horrible way because they are an after thought. If you're going to have to rewrite it to make it not suck and fit into your world, you might as well take the other system that already fits into your world instead.
I have a distinct feeling you haven't actually used a real database engine.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Funny, I've never paid for it, you imbecile.
The parts of MySQL that you pay for are utterly asstastic compared to any of the alternatives that are free or cheaper. The 3 morons that buy the MySQL don't make up that 23% number, thats the total penetration of the product after taking into account ALL of the free installations.
If you went by paying installations then you'd end up with a NaN error.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The same reason we have Windows 2000, XP and Vista instead of Windows 5, 5.1 and 6, marketing. Perhaps it wasn't the best marketing plan, but it was a marketing plan. Had java taken over the world, it probably would have been seen as a good one.
On that same note, Windows 7 really should be 6.1
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I'm talking about what would be a useful addition to Oracle's assets.
No, I said something about MySQL being useful to Oracle because it can support different backends.
PostgreSQL, of open source DB servers, does a great job of approximating what Oracle's existing DB products do, but, Oracle doesn't need to acquire anything to replicate what it already has.
MySQL's multi-backend architecture is generally useful and gives it the capacity to be a flexible framework, which would have some synergy with Oracle's existing assets. I don't think PostgreSQL offers as much to Oracle that they don't already have (even though I think that PostgreSQL is a far better DB product for most uses than MySQL.)
Oracle has a whole series of products based on the same code base that do that already, and if they wanted to scale them down to a simpler versions, it would be a whole lot easier to do that from that code base than to acquire or fork PostgreSQL for that purpose.
So? Does Oracle need to acquire anything it doesn't already own to have a database engine as powerful as PostgreSQL.
Again, Oracle doesn't need to acquire something that provides what they already have, they benefit by acquiring technology that's useful features are substantially different from what it already has.
I use Oracle in an enterprise environment daily; I've used PostgreSQL, MySQL, and SQLite on a smaller scale and less frequently, and I've done a tiny amount of toying around with Oracle XE, SQL Server, DB2, and a number of non-relational databases. Of those, I see MySQL as the least useful on its own, but I think that it has some unique value to bring to Oracle that PostgreSQL doesn't have in the same way, and that has the potential for interesting synergy with Oracle's existing strengths. I have a distinct feeling you have trouble understanding what adds value to an existing product line.
Java is open source software. If Oracle likes it that much, it can do a "Red Hat" and simply shadow or fork it with its own dev team. It might do a better job too. Surely that's cheaper than the $7bn or so it would cost to buy Sun with its workforce of 30,000 people. (Oracle's workforce is 86,600 people, so that would add 35% to the headcount!)
Apart from InnoDB, Oracle doesn't really have a history of open source involvement. I just can't see Sun the company being attractive to Oracle (but MySQL, the database sure would be). Just my 2c. I hold put options on JAVA shares and am waiting to cash them in the next month or so.
Zen tips: Pay attention. Don't take it personally. Believe nothing.
Sun's revenue is close to $14 Billion a year. To compare, RedHat is only $164 Million, Novel is $214 mil, Oracle is $5.5 billion, IBM is $127 Billion.
They're selling stuff and bringing in a decent chunk of change. The problem they have is in making a profit. There's a huge potential there.
If there revenue is that great, then they just need to reduce costs to get to profitability. However, those numbers just don't make sense.
If there revenue is that great, then they just need to reduce costs to get to profitability. However, those numbers just don't make sense.
Reducing costs isn't always easy and revenues are likely to decline in this economy. They've been reducing workforce but that doesn't show immediate benefits because of severance packages and they didn't cut enough soon enough.
Don't know what doesn't make sense. Unless you're implying that the SEC is allowing them to commit fraud. While the SEC doesn't have a stellar record because of Madoff, I doubt that's the case here.
Dual Opteron < $600