Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sun Microsystems Businesses Databases Oracle Programming Software IT

Oracle Top Execs Answer Sun Employee Questions 207

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the duck-and-cover dept.
The Register writes "Sun invited Oracle president Charles Phillips and chief corporate architect Edward Screven to an employee-only town hall this Wednesday, where they took questions on what's coming. They said they'd be 'crazy' to close Java, that Oracle 'needs' MySQL, and all Sun's processors look appealing. They hedged on OpenOffice — Phillips said he couldn't comment on any product line — and on Sun's work in high-performance computing. Screven made it pretty clear the Sun vision of cloud computing does not fit with Oracle's; Oracle sees itself as a provider of infrastructure like virtualization to make clouds, not a provider of hosted services. As for who's staying and who's getting cut at Sun: Phillips said Oracle needs Sun, but warned 'tough decisions' will be coming. Don't forget, this is the company that couriered pink slips to the PeopleSoft staff it cut following that acquisition."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle Top Execs Answer Sun Employee Questions

Comments Filter:
  • Here's praying... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:15PM (#27706869)

    ...that they don't decide to GPL Solaris. Really don't want to see my favorite OS pulled apart and canibalized to fuel the growing Linux hegemony. Let's keep some diversity and competition in the Unix market!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      I like that term... Linux hegemony. :D
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:24PM (#27706939)
      Ha ha! It must infuriate you to know that we're going to gut your OS and leave it for dead! Onwards to Solaris my brethren, we have an operating system to pillage and a user base to rape!
      • by eln (21727) on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:39PM (#27707101) Homepage

        and a user base to rape!

        Dude, have you SEEN the user base? Not even with someone else's dick.

      • by ThePhilips (752041) on Friday April 24, 2009 @06:35PM (#27707671) Homepage Journal

        That would be really bad (and is very unlikely event).

        Solaris 10 is pretty much last commercial Unix which does suck but only moderately. Because only alternatives are HP-UX (dead man crawling) and AIX (IBM Global Services' private toy).

        [ OK, AIX too does suck only moderately, but it's just IBM is active in relatively few markets/regions (what/how they sell/support depends on region). You can buy it, but you will not get much support from them. ]

        Many companies have strategic partnership with Sun solely for its ability to provide stable, well integrated with the hardware Unix.

        P.S. Though, honestly, more and more companies which had enough intelligence in past to have good relationship with Sun, also used that intelligence other way around and evaluated/deployed Linux already long time ago - everywhere where it was feasible.

      • by kybred (795293) on Friday April 24, 2009 @07:56PM (#27708355)

        ... to pillage and a user base to rape!

        Always rape BEFORE you pillage (and burn)!

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      Linux doesn't need Solaris to be GPL'd. All the cool new stuff that Solaris came out with years ago should be in Linux any day now.

      Any day now...

      • What, like ZFS [blogspot.com]?

        Where's all my cool Linux stuff on Solaris, though?

        • I think the work they are doing with ZFS on Fuse is commendable and I don't mean to belittle the efforts of any of the developers in my attempt at a funny dig above...

          but, you wouldn't run a 0.5.0 beta version of a filesystem in production.

        • by fuzzix (700457)

          Where's all my cool Linux stuff on Solaris, though?

          Here [opensolaris.org]?

          OK, so it's not an "all". :-)

          Wish dtrace was under a GPL compatible license... :-)

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by DaleGlass (1068434)

            It doesn't matter what license dtrace is under.

            dtrace exposes Solaris kernel internals. Porting that to Linux even if the license was compatible would be very non-trivial.

            BSD and Solaris at least have a common ancestry, while Linux isn't related to anything else.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              Porting dtrace would be useless, Linux has pretty much catched up in that front - the only piece missing is the merge of utrace in the main kernel. In distros like Fedora, which include utrace, you already can use systemtap to probe both the kernel and userspace without problems (sure, it lacks the "final polish" of dtrace, but all the hard has been done)

              • I think the "hard work" IS the final polish! Unless you're simply copying someone else's interface...

              • Porting dtrace would be useless, Linux has pretty much catched up in that front - the only piece missing is the merge of utrace in the main kernel. In distros like Fedora, which include utrace, you already can use systemtap to probe both the kernel and userspace without problems (sure, it lacks the "final polish" of dtrace, but all the hard has been done)

                Please... an attempt to copy dtrace, and not a very good one at that [sun.com].

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by afabbro (33948)

              BSD and Solaris at least have a common ancestry, while Linux isn't related to anything else.

              No, they don't. SunOS was BSD-based. Solaris is based on Sys V AT&T Unix. Solaris couldn't be further from BSD.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by DaleGlass (1068434)

          Btrfs is supposed to be the Linux FS that will be comparable to ZFS.

          ZFS can be had through FUSE as well.

          And for an alternative to dtrace there's systemtap.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            ZFS on Fuse is not production ready.

            Btrfs came from oracle and I think they're still the largest contributor.

            Now Oracle will hve ZFS on an operating system they have a large financial interest in (most oracle deployments are still on solaris/sparc according to ellison) and now they own it.

            I'ts going to be interesting to see what Oracle does. They could possibly use ZFS to get btrfs further along, but it's beneficial to their bottom line to keep some goodies all to Solaris.

        • by Tanktalus (794810) on Friday April 24, 2009 @07:12PM (#27708015) Journal

          Where's all my cool Linux stuff on Solaris, though?

          I'm sure you could just compile cygwin ... :-P

      • Re:Here's praying... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24, 2009 @06:29PM (#27707615)

        I'm a sysadmin for a government contractor and we support many Linux distributions and some real Unix, but most commonly deploy RHEL boxes. My experience with RHEL has been lackluster: yum is retarded, the package selection is silly (Debian does much better at this), software compatibility between versions is awful, and its init scripts and management tools are ridiculous.

        Solaris offers solutions to a lot of these problems. The solaris systems management agent is well-designed and extremely helpful; there is nothing like this in the "enterprise" linux distributions I've seen. The solaris package management tool is simple and effective. The solaris backwards compatibility guarantee is invaluable, and the kernel contract system gives me a superior way to make sure essential services stay up. And these are smaller features.

        Add to the above a superior IP stack, ZFS, zones (I have customized Xen and deployed it in a production environment and it's great, but doesn't replace zones), dtrace, etc., and you have a truly enterprise OS. No current Linux distro offers this. I'm sad to think that the great project that is Opensolaris might be canned.

    • by Xtifr (1323)

      If they released it under the GPLv3, it still couldn't be cannibalized for Linux (which perversely insisted on staying with v2, which they'll now be stuck with forever), and could immediately become the FSF's OS of choice. Which would be pretty cool, IMO. GNU/Solaris would be a much better system, I think, than anything else out there currently including both GNU/Linux and Solaris. (GNU coreutils, among other things, kick ass on anything else out there.) Heck, I think it would probably edge out the stil

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Have you looked into Nexenta [nexenta.org]. Solaris Kernel with a userland more familiar to Linux users. I've heard people refer to it as the Ubuntu of Solaris.

        OpenSolaris Nevada (the distro from Sun) led by Ian Murdock (the Ian in Debian), is supposed to be more gnu-y too.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          PORT to HURD! C'mon! I have GNUsletters that were MAILED to me in '89, promising the GNU OS! They had STAMPS on them! I could order TAPES of the EMACS sources from them!

          • I'm bookmarking your comment, every time I feel like a horrible procrastinator I'm going to read it.

  • by markdowling (448297) <mark DOT dowling AT gmail DOT com> on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:20PM (#27706911)

    Now that Lotus have integrated OpenOffice into Notes 8 Standard and are also pushing Symphony, they are the ones with the incentive to ensure the OO momentum is maintained (not to mention ODF).

    • Now that Lotus have integrated OpenOffice into Notes 8 Standard and are also pushing Symphony, they are the ones with the incentive to ensure the OO momentum is maintained (not to mention ODF).

      That's a good argument why being sold to IBM would be good for OOo as a product line, but not for why selling OOo to IBM would be good for Oracle.

      Has Microsoft Office (and Access, in particular) helped Microsoft self SQL Server? Could a succesful office suite help IBM move DB2? If so, does it make any sense for Oracle

    • I don't know. I think OpenOffice.org could be important to Oracle.

      Many people are surprised to hear that Oracle is the second largest software company. With OpenOffice.org adding 3 million users a week, it's a good place to put Oracle's logo.

    • Whew. I'm glad to hear that the future of the Linux desktop is safely in the hands of Lotus. :P

  • Uh Cloud? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rackserverdeals (1503561) on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:21PM (#27706913) Homepage Journal

    Screven made it pretty clear the Sun vision of cloud computing does not fit with Oracle's; Oracle sees itself as a provider of infrastructure like virtualization to make clouds, not a provider of hosted services.

    Uhm... That's one of the things Sun is doing with cloud computing that I don't think others are.

    All the cloud stuff is, is virtualization and infrastructure. Jonathan Schwartz himself has said that if you're not comfortable putting your stuff on a public cloud they'll bring the cloud to you.

    They've been doing cool stuff with their virtualization and provisioning systems.

    • Re:Uh Cloud? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Twillerror (536681) on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:36PM (#27707065) Homepage Journal

      Yes, exactly. I wish more people would speak to this side of "cloud" computing.

      What we want is two have redundant "pools" of server and applications. Those pools usually run at 2 or more data centers.

      We pull the plug on one data center and clients of those servers and application automatically switch. We have more apps, need more servers for a cluster, or more space we just add on to the thing in a fairly automated fashion.

      I'd like this at the intranet level. We have lots of various legacy and web based apps that I want to be able to run in 2 datacenters.

      When the system fails our internal network in conjunction with the "cloud" software will switch so one of the clouds takes over the same IPs.

      Putting servers in public clouds is for startup web applications, the scientific community, some niche apps(like using Amazon s3 for clusterable storage) and maybe small businesses. No way in heck we are putting our emails and our documents up on someone else servers. Being a public company I don't even think we could with all the SOX crap.

      • Re:Uh Cloud? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rackserverdeals (1503561) on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:50PM (#27707213) Homepage Journal

        I think that's the direction sun want's to go with their private cloud stuff. It was called N1 but I'm not sure what's it's called now.

        As a large public company, you may not be able to put everything in the cloud like you said, but some stuff you could.

        Imagine your public website gets a predictable amount of traffic but every other press release brings a huge spike in traffic, so you have built out your system to handle the peak times so your hardware mostly sits idle.

        You could have your own cloud provision spares, but since it's not sensitive data, you can provision computing power from public clouds, like amazon ec2 and just pay for what you need.

        OK, maybe not the best scenario but I wanted an excuse to post this link to this Sun HPC software demo [youtube.com] that shows Grid Engine sending jobs to private servers, then going to private spares, then pulling in Amazon EC2 instances to handle the load.

  • by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:21PM (#27706923) Homepage Journal
    In the case of Sun, you have a company that makes (some) useful and reliable products. In the case of peoplesoft, you have a company that makes an obscenely bloated, broken, overpriced software package that has caused havoc and pain across the continent. Peoplesoft was the most similar thing to Microsoft available for takeover for less money than the contents of Fort Knox, and Sun did to them what so many of us would love to do to Microsoft.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Migala77 (1179151)

      In the case of Oracle, you have a company that makes an obscenely bloated, broken, overpriced software package that has caused havoc and pain across the continent.

      Fixed that for ya

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by VGPowerlord (621254)

        In the case of Oracle, you have a company that makes an obscenely bloated, broken, overpriced software package that is causing havoc and pain around the world.

        Fixed that for ya

        Fixed again!

    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:30PM (#27706991) Journal
      Peoplesoft was the most similar thing to Microsoft available for takeover for less money than the contents of Fort Knox, and Sun did to them what so many of us would love to do to Microsoft.

      Just so you know... Sun did nothing to PS. It was Oracle who bought PS and canned the staff (just as they've done for many acquisitions).

      FWIW, it's now several years later, and the "PeopleCode" (seriously, that's what they called it at Peoplesoft) is just as borked as ever... the JDEdwards/PS integration is no closer... I think Oracle's strategy is to move PS clients over to Oracle Apps and drop PS.

      Now if only they can unbork Oracle Apps...

      • by MouseR (3264) on Friday April 24, 2009 @07:33PM (#27708179) Homepage

        Many PeopleSoft employees moved into our Montreal office.

        As someone whose been through an Oracle acquisition, I can say that Oracle actually handles that nicely. It's a bit of a culture clash, coming from a small vertical market company, but they dont savagely trash acquisition content.

        They do get rid of non-essential personnel but they give you a chance to move on to current products, and they not only support acquired products for many years, they also keep staff around to make sure these products aren't just backed by paperwork and a web page.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Agreed.

          I worked with Oracle recently. There were several former JD Edwards staff around, from a previous acquisition. They were kept to support JDE 'legacy' but also given training to cross-skill on other Oracle offerings.

          So the immediate response to the acquisition of Oracle should not be to panic. Oracle may eventually ditch some offerings aren't going to make them money (javafx, Sun's speculative gamble, springs to mind) while others will be fused into Oracle's flagship offerings (e.g. weblogic replacing

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by twidarkling (1537077)

      an obscenely bloated, broken, overpriced software package that has caused havoc and pain across the continent.

      Hey! My company uses Peoplesoft software! I'm... I'm...

      Yeah, you're right. God forbid anything goes off the rails here. The only way to fix it is pretend nothing went wrong, and then fake the next thing to compensate.

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      Oracle wasn't peoplesoft either, until they bought them. Their homegrown ERP systems were even *worse*, if you can imagine worse..

      But i agree with the premise that what made Sun Microsystems what it was, is gone now.

      Long live Sun.

    • It's all relative. Actually one of PeopleSoft's claims to fame in the early days was that it was less bloated than many of its competitors: you could run it on modest hardware, even on a PC, and have it function (function well is another thing). Oracle's own homegrown application software is huge, complex, resource intensive, and lacks any kind of modular architecture. Now after all these acquisitions Oracle has the good (or at least less bad), the bad, and the ugly all together.

  • by reSonans (732669) on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:27PM (#27706969) Homepage

    So, Oracle admits they 'need' MySQL, which may or may not complement their core business, but then ducks a question on the future of OpenOffice, saying they can't comment on any product line. Isn't MySQL a product line, too? Why comment on the future of one and not the other? Sun employees, start twisting in the wind...

    • Good question. But, I think it was more important for them to reaffirm Mysql support. With all the rumor an innuendo that's been flying about. Open Office Development is pretty much confined to Sun from what I remember hearing. Its important to us all, but they don't need to say anything now to prevent developer mindshare from gathering behind a non sun branch of open office, but they do for Mysql. Now within mysql I wouldn't be surprised if they axed the falcon engine, now that mySql and inodb are under t
  • How It Went Down (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sexconker (1179573) on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:30PM (#27706993)

    "OMG I work in . will I get laid off?"

    "No no, no one will be laid off. All of Sun is important to us."

    2 months from now when everyone from Sun will be ancient history.

    --Wanted to link that pic of the Iraq guy at the press conference, obviously lying, with his hands in a "simmer down" gesture, but I can't find it. Maybe it wasn't Iraq. I dunno. Someone find it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Wanted to link that pic of the Iraq guy at the press conference, obviously lying, with his hands in a "simmer down" gesture, but I can't find it. Maybe it wasn't Iraq. I dunno. Someone find it.

      Methinks you are a bit unclear on how this whole Internet thing works.

      • Wanted to link that pic of the Iraq guy at the press conference, obviously lying, with his hands in a "simmer down" gesture, but I can't find it. Maybe it wasn't Iraq. I dunno. Someone find it.

        This is /. Go back to /r/ where you belong.

      • INFORMATION minister.

        I was looking for defense minister, press secretary, press conference, liar, damage control, etc.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fm6 (162816)

      Oh please. Sure they'll lay off a lot of people (I suspect most of sales and marketing is toast) but they're not going to spend $5 billion on a bunch of product lines only to fire all the people who create and maintain them. Some products will probably die, but not most of them.

      • by lgw (121541) on Friday April 24, 2009 @06:44PM (#27707755) Journal

        they're not going to spend $5 billion on a bunch of product lines only to fire all the people who create and maintain them.

        They spent $10 billion on a bunch of product lines, only to fire everybody when the bought PeopleSoft. Based on Oracle's history, there's no reason to think they wouldn't fire every single current Sun employee.

        Your counter-argument seems to be "but, but, that would be stupid of them!". Well, yeah, this is Oracle we're talking about here. Have you ever tried to install Oracle?

        • Re:How It Went Down (Score:5, Informative)

          by Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) on Friday April 24, 2009 @07:27PM (#27708123) Journal

          Disclaimer: Oracle employee

          No, they didn't fire everybody. There were layoffs, but there were also many PeopleSoft employees that became Oracle employees. The current client engagement that I am on has two such people.

          Maybe you meant "they fired a bunch of people", which is inevitable with any merger or takeover. But they didn't fire EVERYONE.

          • by lgw (121541)

            Professional services is its own world in any large company. Near where I live, there were large PeopleSoft buildings that has no survivors. Hmm, Googleing around suggests that "only" half of the employees were ayed off at the time of acquitision. Perhaps this was biased towards development/central office workers, as the impression here in Silly Valley was one of complete devestation.

          • by lawpoop (604919)
            Since you're an Oracle Employee: Do you see Orcale using Java and MySQL as a threat, or check, against Microsoft?
            • I'm only speaking for myself as an individual, and not on behalf of the company, of course. :)

              I don't see it as either a threat or a check, simply because Oracle and Microsoft are in two totally different markets. They both fall under software, but Microsoft's main baby is the Windows OS for both home desktop and server, whereas Oracle is trying to become #1 in providing a total solution in enterprise software.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Peoplesoft was competing with Oracle and oracle killed it to get rid of them, sun in the other hand was not competing with oracle - except for mysql, but why would them waste 7000 millions to get rid of mysql? In fact, sun as a company was dying. So this seems a completely different move. Either they were interested on not letting IBM/HP get bigger, or they are really interested in Sun. I think that both options are possible

          • by fm6 (162816)

            Read something besides the blogosphere now and then. Most PeopleSoft employees are still working at PeopleSoft products. The folks who lost their jobs were mostly support, legal, sales, and other jobs that Oracle already had covered. A lot of stuff has been rebranded, but it's got the same people developing it.

            At the time Oracle bought PS. A lot of experts were saying that they'd just kill it. As often happens, they experts were full of shit.

      • Look at Oracle's history in terms of buying companies and keeping on the staff.

        Also, they were dumb enough to buy Sun in the first place.

        • Re:How It Went Down (Score:4, Informative)

          by fm6 (162816) on Friday April 24, 2009 @08:06PM (#27708409) Homepage Journal

          They laid off a lot of people. They never laid off everybody. In fact, they've actually laid off a lot fewer people than you expect. Several times they've acquired companies that were basically competition, and everybody predicted they'd just fold them up, fire everybody, and move all the customer to Oracle products. But they haven't done it. Didn't do it with PeopleSoft. Didn't do it with RDB.

          Also, they were dumb enough to buy Sun in the first place.

          Right. They're only the second-largest software vendor on the planet. They couldn't possibly walk and chew gum at the same time. I'm sure Larry just told his underlings, "Hey, we have too much cash, and I'm bored. Take $7 billion, buy Sun, then fire everybody."

          BTW, have you every managed anything more complicated than a beer run? I suspect not.

  • by parryFromIndia (687708) on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:31PM (#27707017)
    I find it odd that no one asked any questions about the future of Solaris - although there was a round-about question on x86 which resulted in an somewhat positive answer for SPARC. Oracle seems to be keeping SPARC and thus Solaris alive. (There isn't another OS running SPARC that is in widespread use after all.) This also makes me wonder if Oracle product support for Solaris x86 is going to improve now. This also seems to suggest that Oracle may not be selling Sun's hardware business to HP per the original plan. The idea sounded very interesting - HP would then become the most diversified hardware company selling x86, Itanium and SPARC hardware.
    • by rackserverdeals (1503561) on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:59PM (#27707309) Homepage Journal

      The day the sale was announced Sun/Oracle had a conference call where Larry Ellison said two of the main reasons they were buying Sun were Solaris and Java. Solaris was the best Unix technology out there he said.

      Selling the hardware business to HP was part of a different deal in the bast where Oracle and HP were going to buy different parts of Sun but IBM blocked it according to the article.

      Nothing in the recent sale, other than some bloggers speculation, indicates they will be selling off the hardware units.

  • by Browzer (17971) on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:36PM (#27707067)

    Sounds like what a typical politician or an administrator would say.

    Nonetheless, here are "Oracle's Technical Contributions to Linux" [contributions sounds so much better than develop]

    http://www.oracle.com/technologies/linux/linux-tech-leadership-contributions.html [oracle.com]

    and a link to Oracle's "Free and Open Source Software" http://oss.oracle.com/ [oracle.com]

    looks extensive

    • by Ilgaz (86384)

      Remember the horrifying results at threading performance of OS X compared to Linux on same hardware? It was in first G5 ages.

      Oracle could be the one helped the issue to get fixed but there is no proof of that, it is just a rumour. Today OS X doesn't have that issue.

      The tool everyone used for benchmarking was mysql btw.

  • Summary (Score:5, Funny)

    by Locke2005 (849178) on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:48PM (#27707193)
    Sun Employees: What is our status when Oracle takes over?

    Oracle President: See Figure 1 [wordpress.com]
  • Open Source NeWS! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by argent (18001) <peter.slashdot@2006@taronga@com> on Friday April 24, 2009 @05:50PM (#27707219) Homepage Journal

    Best thing Sun ever did, and they killed it rather than letting it grow.

  • by ColeonyxOnline (966334) on Friday April 24, 2009 @06:10PM (#27707423)

    I talked to my manager today, he said we were going to use Postgres instead of MySQL for out next web project.

    In his opinion, the latest stable release had poor support for stored procedures and now this acquisition puts further development into question. He wants to move everything out of MySQL at some point.

    Since I have never used Postgres before, I couldn't comment on anything, but from my perspective, MySQL had been moving forward with their database. Even if the stored procedures were not on par with the other DB's out there, they would mature in time.

    I was ready to speak up, until I thought about MySQL passing hands for the second time, talks about forks, and finally the developers leaving the company. All those things cannot be good short term, and long term will depend a lot on the parent company.

    So for the time being, I think my manager is correct and I did not protest his decision.

    • by crazybit (918023) on Friday April 24, 2009 @06:46PM (#27707775)
      With PostgreSQL you can write stored procedures in different languages, and they will run as fast as if the function was run from a shell script.

      http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/xplang.html -- There's more info
    • by h4rm0ny (722443)

      You'll find a lot of pro-PostgreSQL posts in my history, it's very good and I think if you go into it prepared to learn you'll like it too. But I'm not an idiot and throwing away a lot of in-house expertise on MySQL requires some real justification. MySQL has indeed come on a lot since the old days. Unless you really need the more sophisticated features that MySQL doesn't provide (or provides badly), it's usually a good basis for things. There are long-term risks with MySQL - it is already starting to fork
    • I guess if stored procedures are a killer feature for you then mysql probably isn't the right db. I'm not a big fan of stored procedures. I've seen too many abuses of them. It sort of reminds me of the whole SCO fud. My boss at the time refused to let us use Linux on our servers, because we might get sued, or Linux might be killed if Sco won. He just out thought himself without realizing the truth that a popular open source product, does not dissipate overnight. Mysql might develop some alternative distribu
      • by Unoti (731964)
        Agreed. It's also a little like people who say you'd have to be retarded to write a large system in Python, because it doesn't use static typing. Stored procedures? Bah. Just say no. Put RESTful web services in front of the DB and just say no to stored procedures. Sure, there's counter arguments and situations where stored procs are really the way to go. I guess.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by CALI-BANG (14756)

      i think it's shortsighted idea from your boss if the reason alone were based on this.

      remember that there are quite few forks on this etc. percona and others.

      if you're familiar with mysql .. why not try exporting the data from sun mysql and try to load it up on percona's mysql or monty's mysql and see how it works.

      if you're already familiar on administering mysql( and quite good at it ) -- that alone sometimes is worth not to switch.

    • We switched to PostgreSQL about a year ago after SUN bought MySQL and it became clear that Sun really didn't know what direction they were going with it.

      All our code used database abstraction, so it was just a matter of porting the existing databases.

  • http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/21/oracle_sun_open_source/

    Read every word of it. It's sad but true. I hope that Google finds a way to buy Java off Oracle.

  • by giuffsalvo (1536695) on Friday April 24, 2009 @08:08PM (#27708431)
    I'm literally hating myself, for having refused a job offer by Sun 1 year and half ago, because of personal (but not very serious) reasons...Now I'll never have the opportunity to work in a company so academic and transparent...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      As someone whose first job out of college was as a programmer at Sun, I can honestly say I will never again work for such an academic, transparent company, and that's sad.

      I'm not hating myself for it. It's more like the feeling you get when you think back on a time in your life that you know will never come again. It makes you wish you had appreciated it more at the time, because when it's over, it's over forever. Perhaps a bit too romantic and sentimental, but that's just how I feel about the whole Oracle-

  • by chiph (523845) on Friday April 24, 2009 @09:14PM (#27708825)

    before Oracle closes it because of low margins.

    Nevermind the obvious synergies and benefits you get from controlling the entire stack -- from CPU to system software to applications. See: APPLE

    Chip H.

  • The big question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nicopa (87617) <nico.lichtmaierNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday April 24, 2009 @10:46PM (#27709359)

    The big question is if Oracle will keep being Oracle. This company has swallowed something bigger than him. Oracle might be more firmly sat on top of a revenue generator product, but Sun is a much larger operation, involving a dektop presence pretention, mobile, high end hardware design, high end software (Solaris), etc. (That's a reason IBM was a less conflicting buyer for Sun). In turn, Oracle sells a databse, and some enterprise programming tools, they have a much narrower scope (even the name implies this focus).

    Perhaps, Oracle should rename themselves to Sun, and just sell a database called Oracle. =)

    • Re:The big question (Score:5, Informative)

      by wbren (682133) on Saturday April 25, 2009 @12:35AM (#27709903) Homepage

      Oracle is much larger than Sun in virtually every way, and is much more than just a database company. Anyone who thinks Oracle is only about databases hasn't done their homework.

      Furthermore, Oracle buying Sun makes much more sense than IBM buying Sun. Oracle wants to offer the full package to their customers--from servers and storage, to middleware and database software. IBM already has most (if not all) of those bases covered, so their would have been a significant amount of overlap. The parts of Sun that survive the acquisition will turn Oracle into a force to be reckoned with, for better or worse.

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...