The acquisition of Sparc and Solaris further estranges Oracle from Microsoft... Most of Oracle's revenues come from windows-based products and the Solaris portfolio isn't likely to change that. Likewise, they now become a competitor in Java vs. Dot-net. It isn't smart to step up from mere competitor to antagonist without gaining a massive new strength, and that didn't happen here.
Then there's Java. Drains quite a bit of cash without making enough money and Oracle as a comp
My leaky memory says that 40% of Oracle's income (profit?) comes from Oracle on SPARC, and another 20% from
Oracle on other Unix.
If IBM had bought Sun and phased out SPARC like they did Sequent, then they'd probably own 50% of Oracle's market.
It's far better for Oracle to buy their own hardware supplier than depend on others: the Sequent was highly optimized for Oracle performance, and then disappeared in a little puff of greasy smoke when IBM bought it and
shut it down in favor of Power.
That's got to
My leaky memory says that 40% of Oracle's income (profit?) comes from Oracle on SPARC, and another 20% from Oracle on other Unix.
I did the migration of the last Oracle Sparc to Oracle Linux system at my previous employer a couple years ago. Before this migration, it had moved to Fujitsu from Sun several years previous. (Oracle on Linux just wasn't there yet, a high-performance 8-CPU Intel machine monopolizing a whole SAN for performance reasons was full of race conditions because driver developers never had seen a machine or storage that powerful).
Sun just couldn't compete. For Sparc stuff, we would have needed a $5 million machine t
Thank you for posting some real facts about Sun hardware, performance, maintenance, and support. The Sun zealotry around here needs a balanced perspective.
When we went to Intel hardware, we would have needed a $250k Sun machine and $250k SAN storage to perform comparably to a $50k Intel machine including internal storage.
Thank you for posting some real facts about Sun hardware, performance, maintenance, and support. The Sun zealotry around here needs a balanced perspective.
Yah, fair and balanced, or it supports what you want to believe?
When we went to Intel hardware, we would have needed a $250k Sun machine and $250k SAN storage to perform comparably to a $50k Intel machine including internal storage.
Thank you for posting some real facts about Sun hardware, performance, maintenance, and support. The Sun zealotry around here needs a balanced perspective.
Yah, fair and balanced, or it supports what you want to believe?
Are you telling me that you suspect I may have fabricated those performance comparisons?
I was actually generous. I included FusionIO cards in the cost I quoted, but not in the performance comparison. Adding those cards results in a solution that is so much faster, I did actually worry people would think it is a fabrication.
Bad deal for both companies (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bad deal for both companies.
The acquisition of Sparc and Solaris further estranges Oracle from Microsoft... Most of Oracle's revenues come from windows-based products and the Solaris portfolio isn't likely to change that. Likewise, they now become a competitor in Java vs. Dot-net. It isn't smart to step up from mere competitor to antagonist without gaining a massive new strength, and that didn't happen here.
Then there's Java. Drains quite a bit of cash without making enough money and Oracle as a comp
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
My leaky memory says that 40% of Oracle's income (profit?) comes from Oracle on SPARC, and another 20% from Oracle on other Unix.
If IBM had bought Sun and phased out SPARC like they did Sequent, then they'd probably own 50% of Oracle's market.
It's far better for Oracle to buy their own hardware supplier than depend on others: the Sequent was highly optimized for Oracle performance, and then disappeared in a little puff of greasy smoke when IBM bought it and shut it down in favor of Power. That's got to
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
My leaky memory says that 40% of Oracle's income (profit?) comes from Oracle on SPARC, and another 20% from
Oracle on other Unix.
I did the migration of the last Oracle Sparc to Oracle Linux system at my previous employer a couple years ago. Before this migration, it had moved to Fujitsu from Sun several years previous. (Oracle on Linux just wasn't there yet, a high-performance 8-CPU Intel machine monopolizing a whole SAN for performance reasons was full of race conditions because driver developers never had seen a machine or storage that powerful).
Sun just couldn't compete. For Sparc stuff, we would have needed a $5 million machine t
Re:Bad deal for both companies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When we went to Intel hardware, we would have needed a $250k Sun machine and $250k SAN storage to perform comparably to a $50k Intel machine including internal storage.
Thank you for posting some real facts about Sun hardware, performance, maintenance, and support. The Sun zealotry around here needs a balanced perspective.
Yah, fair and balanced, or it supports what you want to believe?
Re: (Score:2)
When we went to Intel hardware, we would have needed a $250k Sun machine and $250k SAN storage to perform comparably to a $50k Intel machine including internal storage.
Thank you for posting some real facts about Sun hardware, performance, maintenance, and support. The Sun zealotry around here needs a balanced perspective.
Yah, fair and balanced, or it supports what you want to believe?
Are you telling me that you suspect I may have fabricated those performance comparisons?
I was actually generous. I included FusionIO cards in the cost I quoted, but not in the performance comparison. Adding those cards results in a solution that is so much faster, I did actually worry people would think it is a fabrication.