Oracle To Increase Investment In SPARC and Solaris
An anonymous reader writes "The Slashdot community has recently questioned what Oracle will do with Sun hardware if and when Oracle's acquisition of Sun closes. And it seems that speculation about the future of SPARC hardware has been common among Slashdot commenters for years. That said, it seems newsworthy that Oracle is going out of their way with some aggressive marketing directed at IBM to state clearly their plans to put more money than Sun does now into SPARC and Solaris." MySQL is not mentioned in this ad, perhaps because (as Matt Asay speculates) the EU is looking closely into that aspect of the proposed acquisition.
I still expect the sale of the ex-sun hardware business to HP to go through, now Oracle have puffed up the price a bit.
The ad says that Oracle will aim for tight integration with its database. That might be less welcome news for those people who do not use it for Oracle databases.
I just heard on the grapevine that Sun is planning in dropping the Netra line of servers (NEBS compliant chassis for telecommunications deployments). Anyone know anything?
Would promising to maintain or increase the investment into MySQL actually smooth things over with the EU?... If I were an Oracle exec, I would strongly encourage support for MySQL as a way to keep people away from PostgreSQL. Articles like this show that PostgreSQL has a lot more potential to win over Oracle customers than MySQL does.
but Linux does all those things - part of my job is replacing Sun servers with Oracle RAC clusters on Linux. Faster, cheaper, just as reliable.
You mean they fired all of Sun's employees?
With so little overlap with OS and hardware as Oracle did next to nothing with an OS and no hardware at all, I doubt they got rid of many, if any, of those in Sun that are accustomed to managing and selling high end hardware and software. On top of that, Oracle knows how to sell very expensive bits.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Sun and Oracle already work pretty closely with eachother, and I think, without Sun's inept executives (ie. Jonathan Schwartz) bogging them down, Oracle will be able to go far with Sun's excellent employees, who ARE used to that kind of responisbility.
Plus, by making the Oracle licensing scheme slightly more favourable towards sparc than power or intel, they can mess with IBM/other competitors pretty well. Before anyone complains about the immorality of such moves, I would like to point out that this is Oracle we're talking about, and they already do this when they're mad at Sun/HP/IBM...
probably nuggets of insight are better than incite.
256 cores 512 threads is the last limit I saw published by Sun. Please let me know of any bigger claimed value.
in the real world, the biggest machine that can be bought does put a limit on scalability for any business application. I don't see Sun machines leading in real world benchmarks of common business apps either.
As a Linux-on-desktop user, I am dependent on it. It is a critical ap for me.
OpenOffice could finally break the hegemony of MS Office, if it's not screwed up. I know a few people who are now using it on Windows, by choice, not necessity. But if it's screwed up, it's over.
I hope Ellison sees this as his chance to really stick it to Microsoft. I hope he retains and rewards the existing development team, and starts cleaning and optimizing the existing code base, and if needed dedicates additional manpower and resources. I hope Oracle's capable of doing this without screwing it up.
Not really true, and it's why most people haven't bought into Niagara despite any benchmarks Sun might come up with. The problem is that Niagara doesn't have the single threaded performance to start with. Rock was what was necessary, but that seems to be stillborne. For Niagara to work for you you have to have a lot of extremely lightweight threads that don't depend on each other and can run completely in parallel. You won't find many workloads like that these days, even with databases, because everyone has ever larger single jobs for specific tasks that they want to run faster and faster as well as potentially large stored procedures to mangle through. No one wants to find out that their hardware platform is OK for a specific workload and then as soon as you throw it something different it nosedives.