What an IBM-Sun Merger Might Mean For Java, MySQL, Developers 292
An IBM-Sun merger is a tantalyzing possibility; snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister suggests that an IBM/Sun merger could crown Big Blue king of enterprise software development. 'Acquiring Sun would make IBM the clear leader in Java, as it would become the caretaker of the open source reference implementation of the JRE,' which, along with GlassFish, would become entry-level gateways to IBM's WebSphere stack. Moreover, MySQL would give IBM's database division a significant entry-level hook, and NetBeans/Eclipse would unify IBM's front against Visual Studio. 'All in all, this move would solidify IBM's role as "the developer company,"' McAllister writes. 'In other words, if this merger goes through and you're an enterprise developer and you're not an IBM customer now, get ready — because you soon will be. Better bring your wallet.'"
And blackbearnh writes with a short interview with Brian Aker (who came to Sun as MySQL's director of architecture, and is now the lead for MySQL fork Drizzle) about what life would be like under Big Blue's control.
Keep Sun Independent! (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a poll to vote on maintaining Sun's independence from IBM:
http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/426985/results [misterpoll.com]
IBM = No service (Score:1, Informative)
For those out there that think this is a good thing, try to navigate IBM's website. Or, worse yet, try to get support. You will be queued and wait for 24 hours for the simplest question. Then you would wait 24 hours after you respond to them after they copy and paste documentation back to you.
If you have IBM products, and you are giving them less the $1M/year, expect nothing in return for your money.
There's been a good discussion of this... (Score:4, Informative)
...on the JavaPosse Google group here [google.com]. Some talk about what this might mean for Netbeans, as one of the JavaPosse guys (Tor Norbye) is (was?) on the NB team.
Also, what would this do for the massive JavaCC book [generating...javacc.com] market? Expand it, I hope!
Re:I'm repeating myself too (Score:2, Informative)
If Rational is any indication, IBM is going to figure out what Sun's cash cows are and hold those customers hostage.
I've been an enthusiastic ClearCase user and administrator (please let's not start that flamewar again) all the way back to the Atria days. After dealing with IBM as a vendor since they bought Rational, I've seriously considered recommending against ClearCase to my customers.
It's not just the incompetent and ever-changing bureaucracy, which is indeed infuriating, it's the attitude of their reps. They go way beyond "We've got it, you want it, you get it on our terms." They act more like bill collectors than anything else. At one point, because of a paperwork delay in my purchasing organization, our ClearCase support lapsed. IBM called me EVERY DAY until they got their check, even after I told them to stop and let all their calls go to voice mail.
I don't know what Sun is like to deal with these days, but no matter how bad they are, it can't be worse than IBM.
Re:Can't imagine (sorry) (Score:3, Informative)
XyWrite [wikipedia.org]
Oh and Lotus products seem to be doing well too...
Re:Keep Sun Independent! (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, IBM was instrumental in creating the personal computer.
Uh, NO.
IBM may have developed the original " IBM Personal Computer" (ancestor of the models we're still using today). However, they sure as hell did *not* invent the original concept of a personal computer. That had been around for years (arguably originating with the Apple II) and there were already dozens of personal computers by the time IBM's came out.
Even if we accept that you meant "personal computer" as the later synonym for IBM's PC and compatible rivals, these were nothing revolutionary in themselves, even at the time. The original IBM PC was almost entirely built from off-the-shelf and pre-existing parts (including MS-DOS which was originally based on a bought-in borderline ripoff of CP/M). Reasonably powerful- which it ought to have been at the price- but not revolutionary, and likely a success mainly because it was made by IBM rather than on merit.
I'm sure that IBM- at that time the evil behemoth of the mainframe era- only gave the go ahead to *their* PC because it was *already* clear by then that personal computers in general were the future regardless of what they did- and that if they'd left it any longer they'd have lost out on this and been increasingly marginalised. Given the choice, I'm sure they'd rather have killed the personal computer and sat on their mainframe laurels. The revolutionary thing was IBM even building a PC (and the informal way in which it was designed), but that was only because they were forced into it by an even bigger revolution.
Yes, IBM's PC became the de facto standard, but it wasn't the original personal computer, and the format's success had more to do with the name on the box (originally) and the very genericness of the hardware making it easy to clone (later on) than anything revolutionary about its design.
Re:SPARC (Score:3, Informative)
If IBM drops SPARC, Fujitsu will probably become the only supplier of Solaris systems. Both the SPARC architecture [opensparc.net] and Solaris [opensolaris.org] are available as open source, so IBM cannot easily prevent that.
Being open source, it is possible that other companies emerge using those technologies. Don't count on it: if anyone believed in that, this would already have happened.
I'm also unsure about how much traction Solaris will have without SUN.