Slashdot Mirror
Oracle To Sell Sun's Hardware Business To HP?
Underholdning writes "With the DOJ approving Oracle's Sun buyout, the question arises what Oracle might want to do with Sun's hardware business. It's no secret that what Oracle wanted was the software part. Now The Inquirer is running a story claiming that Oracle will sell the hardware business of Sun to HP. This will give Oracle a juicy check while HP can increase its services. Larry Ellison denies that it will take place, but a source for CNN claims otherwise."
Since Sun made Sparc cpus, and used Solaris for their OS, will they sell Solaris to HP to match their hardware?
Not official but they where under the impression that sun would as a hole be run as sun a Oracle company idea as a hole. some software goes to Oracle but rest stays one whole company. Thats what was submitted to EU and DOJ so selling off would possibly be a deal breaker. Now this is just what they heard internaly so never know but still to be honest I don't see them selling it.
Buy it, bury it, PROFIT!
Oracle needs to unload the hardware hot potato and HP is a natural buyer for this.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
HP had a hard enough time last time they tried to support multiple processor architectures simultaneously (for a while, they were selling x86, PA-RISC, Alpha, and Itanium.) I don't think they're that interested in adding Yet Another OS and Processor Combination into the mix, or they wouldn't have axed PA-RISC and Alpha, both of which had real futures. They've implied strongly in recent times that they're committed to Itanium, and I think that's where it will stay.
Their own PA-RISC, Alpha from DEC via Compaq, and now(possibly), SPARC from Sun via Oracle....
If Oracle does not want Sun hardware, what Sun software does Oracle want?
My theory about why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant. The excellent 2008 book Planet Google describes Google's experiences on page 54: "For about $278,000 in 2003, [Google] could assemble a rack with 176 microprocessors, 176 gigabytes of memory, and 7 terabytes of disk space. This compared favorably to a $758,000 server sold by the manufacturer of a well-known brand, which had only eight multiprocessors, one-third the memory, and about the same amount of disk space."
It's true that Sun hardware is more reliable than consumer-grade hardware. However, neither are completely reliable. Both require fault-tolerant software. Also, consumer-grade hardware has become very reliable.
Breaking news from the Twitter feed?
HP seems to be swallowing all the failed majors.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
IT services arm.
The Inquirer (the IT news website, not the tabloid) has some words about this:
So, HP bought EDS, and EDS has a historical habit of recommending or BOM'ing Sun hardware. Solution? HP buys and manufactures Sun hardware. That way, EDS is eating HP's own dog food. That's the "x) PROFIT!" stage.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
were after. I think that wanted to kill Solaris (in the way of Linux), and then make mysql amenable to Oracle in the same fashion that Postgres is to Oracle. I think that owning the API is what it is all about.
It's no secret that what Oracle wanted was the software part.
Not a secret because it's pure pundit bullshit. I've shot down the sloppy thinking behind this assumption before--more than once. Since nobody seems to hear me, I'll just wait a few weeks for the facial egg to set.
HP will keep this and keep it in maintenance mode. The simple fact is, that OS's normally are unprofitable UNTIL they go into maintenance. The obvious exception is the monster monopoly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Would they sell it out-right, or license it?
It runs on more than SPARC, and Sun makes x86-64 boxen too..
Who gets OpenSolaris?
Sun has been run as a hole by all kinds of people - even people without ponytails!
A hole for people to put money into, as well as a hole for investors to throw money down - 1:4 split, anyone?
Here's why I think that H-P is unlikely to do this:
I would not be at all surprised to learn of talks between Oracle and HP, but I would really be shocked if this deal happened.
Links? Powerpoint presentation, perhaps?
This way, we can wring our hands, and go "Ooo..." together.
They're saying "Oracle says it won't, but *I* think they will! And so does some other unnamed source!"
great, now HP can take a perfectly good thing and fuck it up, a la HP style.
Soon we'll see sunrays start shitting themselves within one month of being installed. Perhaps HP can introduce a Sun line of printers that require 500mb+ drivers, with new firmware every few months that break the previous driver and crash your print spooler.
What would HP want with that old SPARC junk when itanium is quite clearly the future?
Stick Men
Why in hell would they want to sell the Sun hardware business to HP when they have just started to advertise it? See http://www.oracle.com/features/sunoraclefaster.html
Synopsis from the article...
HP bought EDS, EDS sells a lot of Sun hardware. By purchasing Sun hardware business, HP can satisfy EDS clients while maintaining a broad profit margin.
Not all companies are as 'with it' as Google and many subscribe to the 90's-ism, 'The Internet runs on Sun'.
There is still a lot of money to be made selling Sun servers and that is a BIG reason that Sun failed to commit to 'commodity' processors
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Oracle must hold on to the hardware division at all costs. The financial future of the computer industry is in hardware, not software. Software will be extremely cheap because necessity is about to unleash a revolution in software construction methodology that will turn every computer user into a programmer whether they know it or not. The future of profits in this industry is going to be strictly about who has the baddest, fastest and most energy-efficient parallel processors. The software will just sprout like mushrooms.
The painful (and scary to many) transition to parallel computing and the crisis that has ensued does not bode well for the status quo. Who would want to spend millions or billions converting legacy software into multi-threaded code only to find out afterwards that multithreading is not the part of the future of parallel computing. The baby boomer generation (the Turing Machine worshippers) whose bankrupt ideas on computing led to this cisis must be forcibly retired even if it creates an uproar. This will allow new minds and new ideas to flourish so that the industry can leap beyond last century's flawed paradigms and forge a new future.
Oracle has an unprecedented opportunity to make a killing by doing the right move. Sun's hardware engineers are a talented bunch and it would be a dumb idea to let them go. But if the sale goes through, I hope HP realizes the importance of hardware and immediately start dumping loads of cash into another big-chip parallel processing project (and please do not resurrect the Rock project).
Having said that, the solution to the parallel programming crisis that will revolutionize computer programming means building a new type of computer to support a radically different programming model. There is no escaping this. Read How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis for more on this topic.
desktops???? hp's x86 server line is very successful, and those DL and ML lines are Compaqs
Where do each excel?
I could see it going to Fujitsu or TI, both of which could leveredge it far better than HP could, with less cross-platform competition.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Oracle is just licensing the Sun hardware to HP so that HP becomes a Sun OEM and Oracle can outsource the Sun server and Solaris work to HP and save money?
HP is looking for a way to earn more income, if they make a deal with Oracle to make their Sun hardware they can boost their server profits by selling SPARC and Intel servers.
Also didn't Sun at least make Intel based servers as well as SPARC based ones?
Sun had a deal with Next, Inc. to make OpenStep, maybe HP is buying out the Openstep IP that Sun owned along with the Sun server sale/license? Maybe HP can develop the OpenStep API and GUI into something better for SunOS and Solaris as well as OpenSolaris. HP might want to use all OpenStep IP to make a Mac OSX type server OS that is easier to use and configure to help it compete with Apple's XServers.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
And also we should keep in mind that a time ago Oracle used Solaris to develop its database on. Solaris and Oracle once were "the" platform to run a database on.
As someone who has used both Alpha and SPARC chips in high-performance computing environments, I was a bit saddened when the Alpha went away for good. Seeing the SPARC also go the way of the Dodo would be a shame as well.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This is mucho strange. Why would HP want to support a competing platform when it can just sit back and watch it die. Perhaps to get to Sun customer base, or to get hold of hardware patents etc. If so will SPARC come with Solaris ? HPUX for SPARC ?
As per Wikipedia the latest PA-RISC processor was released in 2005 ?. thatâ(TM)s like 400 years ago.....
hmm interesting rumor.
Announcer: The robustness and performance you have come to expect from Sun and Oracle is now backed with names with robustness and longevity to match. Run Oracle on SPARC, now from Hewlett Packard.
Sun and Solaris provide a "preferred" environment for Oracle.
"Oracle has based entire our middleware strategy on Java and J2EE integration," Ellison said. "Our approach is all built around Java." He said the move was sparked by requests from customers.
That Oracle would tout the performance of an ally is no surprise, regardless of whether an acquisition was in the works.
Selling the hardware business to HP would invalidate Oracle's Solaris aquisition, because one of the advantages of running Sun software is running it on Sun hardware. I know other OS runs on Sparc, as does Solaris run on other hardware, but Solaris/Sparc is a known good entity.
POKE 36879,8
* They are trying to focus more on their services business, having recently spent $14 Billion acquiring EDS
See the dog food argument, above
* The SPARC line and the Solaris operating system would go head-to-head with HP's high-end servers (Itanium-based) and HP-UX operating system. While it would take a strong competitor off the table, it would also create uncertainty with the large SPARC installed base, especially in the financial community.
There is no longer a need for 4 distinct architectures in non-specialized high-end computing. HP could be in a comfortable position to weigh the options for cost/profit, per platform, and for a relatively minimal investment, weigh what had been a primary opponent against their own assets. In light of their services business, the systems with the most attractive service projections would be the cards to keep.
H-P's acquisition of COMPAQ...
Compaq isn't a solid comparison, and neither is the reign of Fiorina.
Mark Hurd is extremely cost-conscious and very focused on quarter-to-quarter results for Wall Street. A big acquisition like this would be very disruptive and require some significant writeoffs and future earnings impairments.
See the dog food argument above, and the results deliverable from owning Sun's hardware business compounded with EBS results. This economic phase provides an excellent, stable ebb for acquisition and staging.
Software has no manufacturing cost. The margins are like 80%.
Instead they should keep the parts that are made of stuff you have to buy, in an expensive factory, with union labor?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Wouldn't Solaris have to go along with the Sparc hardware business as well?
I mean what good is a new Sparc without Solaris to run on it?
The Compaq acquisition was a great success. Pretty much every HP PC product today has more Compaq heritage than HP heritage.
Compaq had better desktops, better laptops, and better servers than HP. Seriously, try to service (or even use) an HP Vectra or NetServer. Now go look at Compaq's products of that era.
HP dumped the Compaq brand (for the most part) and dumped HP's PC hardware.
HP is, by far, #1 in servers - thanks to Compaq's hardware. HP is #1 in desktops and #1 in laptops, again, thanks to Compaq's hardware.
Was the Compaq buyout good for HP and Compaq employees? No. Was it good for the Compaq band? No. But I don't think you can call it a failure.
This must be part of the 'literacy revolution' posted elsewhere on /.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/08/28/1147215/Were-In-the-Midst-of-a-Literacy-Revolution?from=rss
Oracle purchased Sun not just to secure the software, but to be a more direct competitor to IBM. They are looking to expand their services business and being able to deliver a complete solution (hardware, software, support/services) from one company is a huge selling point for Oracle's customers. IBM realized this years ago and have adjusted their business based on this model. Ellison now has the opportunity to do the same.
And before people say that Oracle doesn't know how to manage HW, they are getting that talent as part of the acquisition. Sun HW is great just outside the normal price range. Oracle can afford to make minimal profit in HW, because they will more than compensate on the license and services side.
Finally, Sun has more than just Sparc-based servers. They have some of the highest performance x86/x64 servers on the market.
Sun's competition is pushing real hard to get customers to defer or cancel Sun sales in favor of their products. One way is FUD, suggesting that, for example, Oracle will cancel the Sun hardware lines. I see this as an another FUD effort, suggesting that H-P, who only buys companies up to cancel their hardware, would buy Sun from Oracle.
Another tactic is to start rumors that the U.S. DoJ and the EU will have to investigate.
The longer they can get people to defer Sun purchases, the better chance they have of selling their products in lace of Sun's. So expect lots more rumors to be "placed", with slashdot being a target for this kind of FUD. P.--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
I find it had to believe they would lay off the hardware department. Oracle would love to have full control over the whole computing stack, from hardware, to OS, to middleware, to the development of the final software public. Suits would love to have an all-in-one package, optimized, from the catalogue, solution. Order, receive it, turn it on, it's working.
since when is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about risky undertakings a bad thing? A company that is buying big unix iron isn't going to risk buying from a vendor that isn't going to be there in a year. There is no way of knowing whether the Sun hardware line will exist in a year.
Thank you for your response.
..." The resistive loss is trivial, because the current is very small.
You said, "No one else comes close to their [Sun] throughput/watt..." Could you supply some evidence of that?
You said, "Consider the I^2R loss in the cables between PCs,
You said, "... consider the heat generated by 1000 power supplies..." Google does not use separate power supplies for each computer. Also, the power supply loss is the same, per watt of delivered power. Sun and Google both have highly efficient power supplies.
You said, "... you have thousands of CPUs idling hot while they're waiting for I/O." Can you supply some evidence that Google's idling performance is worse than Sun's? I can see no obvious reason for that. I suppose Google puts computers in standby during periods of low use.