Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Sun Microsystems Businesses Databases Java Programming Software IT

What If Oracle Bought Sun Microsystems? 237

snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister believes Oracle is next in line to make a play for Sun now that IBM has withdrawn its offer. Dismissing server market arguments in favor of Cisco or Dell as suitors, McAllister suggests that MySQL, ZFS, DTrace, and Java make Sun an even better asset to Oracle than to IBM. MySQL as a complement to Oracle's existing database business would make sense, given Oracle's 2005 purchase of Innobase, and with 'the long history of Oracle databases on Solaris servers, it might actually see owning Solaris as an asset,' McAllister writes. But the 'crown jewel' of the deal would be Java. 'It's almost impossible to overestimate the importance of Java to Oracle. Java has become the backbone of Oracle's middleware strategy,' McAllister contends."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What If Oracle Bought Sun Microsystems?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09, 2009 @02:43PM (#27522299)
    I say Yahoo and sun should merge. Just think about it, 1. Yahoo makes some cool cloud offerings, 2.sun builds the cloud. 3. ?????? 4. Profits
    • Re:Yahoo! + Sun (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ethanol-fueled ( 1125189 ) * on Thursday April 09, 2009 @03:01PM (#27522565) Homepage Journal
      No, I hope you're joking. Sun's bundling Yahoo Toolbar [] with java is bad enough. If Oracle were to buy Sun, it would be in their best interests to stop that immediately unless they don't want to be taken seriously. Choice rant from the link:

      I find it insulting when applications bundle unrelated crapware like browser toolbars, particularly when the installation selects the extra junk by default... upgrades need to be elegant and streamlined. Bundling in a browser toolbar cheapens the whole experience because it starts looking just like so many other crapware applications that plague the PC industry.

    • What happens when the Sun burns through the clouds?
  • Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)

    by religious freak ( 1005821 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @02:44PM (#27522305)
    MySQL is the best alternative to Oracle. They could buy mySQL out for a bargain and start putting the screws to all of us that use mySQL to not pay for exorbitant Oracle licenses. Boy... I can't wait.
    • MySQL is forking, I don't think it's going to be an issue if it did happen. Oracle does own BerkleyDB and it's still opensource.
    • Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)

      by epiphani ( 254981 ) <[epiphani] [at] []> on Thursday April 09, 2009 @02:48PM (#27522387)

      No it isn't. That's Postgres.

      And with the current state of mysql, I wouldn't look at buying Sun for that reason at all. The other assets make far more sense.

      Plus, Sun and Oracle have both been major open source supporters, Oracle probably one of the single largest kernel contributor. That would be a good pairing.

      • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rackserverdeals ( 1503561 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @03:27PM (#27522951) Homepage Journal

        I agree. PostgreSQL is much closer to Oracle than MySQL is. Anyone that thinks MySQL is the best replacement for Oracle likely doesn't know much about Oracle.

        It seems that sun has done a bit with PostgreSQL as well. Too bad they bought MySQL. They should have instead invested in making PostgreSQL better, at least developing better replication and clustering. That way, PostgreSQL would have been an even stronger alternative to Oracle.

        Oracle used to have Solaris/SPARC as their main development platform, then they switched to Linux. That seems to have been a big blow to Sun. While Oracle still releases Oracle for Solaris/Sparc along with Linux, but the Solaris/x86 versions are always slow. I don't 11g has been released for Solaris/x86 yet.

        If I was Jonathan Schwartz, I would have rather put the $1bln they spent on MySQL on PostgreSQL. I don't think it would have even really taken that much either. I'm still just baffled over spending $1bln on a company that I think made $50mln in it's best year!?!?!

        Anyway... Oracle developers might not have been too happy about moving away from Solaris because they'd lose DTrace [].

        I thought I heard something about there being some bad blood between Ellison and Sun but I don't know what that was about.

        I still think Cisco should be more interested.

        • by Cyberax ( 705495 )

          SystemTap or LTTng might very well appear in the Linux mainline this year. And now they also support use of DTrace tracepoints.

          • SystemTap or LTTng might very well appear in the Linux mainline this year. And now they also support use of DTrace tracepoints.

            Is that supposed to be a joke? I didn't get much sleep last night so maybe I'm missing the sarcasm.

            The blog post I linked too told of the transition in 2002. It's now 2009. That's 7 years and the best you can do is say some half-assed knock-offs might be coming to Linux this year?

            • by Cyberax ( 705495 )

              SystemTap and LTTng are actually more powerful than DTrace (no wonder, they benefited from the experience of DTrace). They're just not yet mainline-ready.


              • by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @05:14PM (#27524509)

                That comparison chart is really wrong; I think it was done by someone who either never actually used DTrace, didn't know how DTrace works, or just hasn't used it well enough to be familiar with it.

                DTrace instruments by placing an INT 3 (on other platforms, it's an illegal instruction) at the probe point and remembering where that was done. The trap handler then has a code path that knows about this, and shunts it over to DTrace for a probe lookup.

                Pretty clearly, whoever wrote that chart has only used fbt (Function Boundary Tracing), and is not familiar with the fact that the trace points can pretty much be put at any instruction location where the instrumentation would not involve reentering the trap handler. This means any instruction, and it's done *without* using break points.

                I really don't have time to fix this for them (and I doubt I'd get edit rights if it started making DTrace look relatively better anyway), but someone involved in the project should actually take a real look at the software they are trying to compete with before they so casually (and incorrectly) dismiss it.

                -- Terry

                • by Cyberax ( 705495 )

                  I'll ask authors to correct this. BTW, SystemTap also works this way.

                  But there _are_ valid points in this table. For example, SystemTap probe language is much richer and LTTng is faster than DTrace (and SystemTap, though it's likely to change).

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Oracle has no interest in Sun. Oracle just launched the Database Machine/Exadata with HP. Does anyone think that they are going to stab HP in the back and buy Sun? Definitely not.

          Oracle is not a hardware company. It doesn't want to be a hardware company. Sun has way too much hardware for Oracle to even consider them.

        • by Fastball ( 91927 )

          They should have instead invested in making PostgreSQL better, at least developing better replication and clustering.

          And settling on a sensible case sensitivity methodology [] that empowers developers rather than hamstrings them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Maclir ( 33773 )

      "MySQL is the best alternative to Oracle" - that's a pretty bold statement. You don't want to add some context? What about large, high transaction databases - DB/2 would probably be the best alternative to Oracle. What about Postgress? What about SQL Server?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Vexar ( 664860 )
      Feel free to use Oracle XE, which is a free for use version of the Oracle Database. I like how your comment was "MySQL is the best alternative to Oracle" instead of "DB2 is the best alternative to Oracle." Oracle won't buy Sun for a very, very specific reason: Oracle doesn't make hardware, and it isn't their business. Sun still makes boxes. Just because Oracle could buy Sun doesn't mean they want to or it is useful to them. It has to tell a meaningful story, not "we beat up the competition, bought them
  • My Thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <{akaimbatman} {at} {}> on Thursday April 09, 2009 @02:44PM (#27522307) Homepage Journal

    I think the two companies have some excellent synergies*. My biggest concern with Oracle purchasing Sun (as opposed to the other way around) is that there would be a culture clash. Sun is a very dynamic environment that fosters great new ideas. But unless those core competencies bubble up through Oracle, the Sun portion of the company would be strangled to death.

    Personally, I've always wanted to see Sun purchase Oracle. But I don't think that's happening at this point.

    * Warning: Corporate buzzword!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Red Flayer ( 890720 )

      But unless those core competencies bubble up through Oracle,


      the Sun portion of the company would be strangled to death.

      On what basis do you believe that?

      Personally, I've always wanted to see Sun purchase Oracle. But I don't think that's happening at this point.

      Considering that Sun is a drop in the bucket (around 5 billion market cap) compared to Oracle (~100 billion), I think you're right. Oracle's been much bigger than Sun for a very long time. Never mind the fact that Oracle's business model is ve

    • There are some departments where Oracle has allowed some freedoms to experiement, those that resulted in the rise of Oracle Text, XMLDB, and Jdev Core, OLS and indirectly with sleepycat and toplink--of course they are not flagship sellers in their product line, but ahead of their time back in the early 2000's.

      Put Sun in those related groups and you'll see something on order of IBM Alphaworks and some cool results.

      Oracle+Sun will make a good F/OSS ally. Oracle's main goal is DB licenses as they truly bel

      • In the last 4 yrs. Oracle has gone back to core competencies...

        WTF? In the last 4 years, Oracle has bought PeopleSoft, Siebel and a plethora of other companies to take over the CRM world. That's not core competence, that's expansion (and in true Oracle form, extremely poorly executed). Ellison probably still thinks he's in a dick-matching context with Gates, yet Gates has moved on.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      * Warning: Corporate buzzword!

      GAAH!! Put the warning (or at least the asterisk) before the word! It's well documented that overexposure to corporate buzzwords causes headaches, confusion, and eventually IQ loss.

      • by rthille ( 8526 )

        If you think exposure is bad, try having to _use_ them for your job. That drops IQ points at a huge rate!

    • by Jim Hall ( 2985 )

      I think it would be very interesting for Oracle to buy Sun. Here's why:

      I'd love to see Oracle create a "black box" database system - you get an install DVD (sold for either SPARC or Intel) and boot your system hardware with it. At install, you indicate what products you want to install, maybe give some license codes, and the DVD automatically installs a database system for you. Want to set up a database that participates in a RAC cluster? There'd be an install option for that. Want to connect to some JBOD o

    • by Nimey ( 114278 )

      I think the two companies have some excellent synergies*.

      * Warning: Corporate buzzword!

      Indeed. I'm afraid suicide may be the only way to save your honor.

    • by Vexar ( 664860 )
      You don't know so much about Oracle internally. Probably a fair statement about their boring "Apps" part, but their Fusion Middleware guys and gals are, same as with IBM, staffed with competitive hires out of Sun.

      That said, there is a culture clash. Sun is about everything being done for the sake of doing it, not because it is something the market wants, and certainly Sun is not out to make money with most of their product line free. So, I'd say from an executive level, yes, Oracle (and IBM) don't mix

  • by goltzc ( 1284524 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @02:45PM (#27522341)
    I work at an Oracle shop. Most of my job is writing web apps that obfuscate base Oracle (applications) craziness. On the rare occasion I've had to actually dig into Oracle's Java code I have found my self trying to figure what kind of strange world they are living in. Most of their code seems to not only defy best practices but any semblance of good design.

    Maybe its just that the code I've seen has been outsourced stuff that came back in as unclean globs of code but it makes me a little leery to see where Oracle would take Java.
    • by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @03:28PM (#27522963)
      Show me a developer who doesn't think everybody else's code is crap.
      • I think it's a matter of degree. No developer would complain as long as the code is internally consistent, well-planned, and reasonably bug free.

        The thing is, in the real world this almost never happens due to time constraints and too-many-cooks-syndrome.

        Worse yet, there are developers with fancy degrees and good jobs who have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Most of us have met one or two such people, and a few of us have had to work with them.

        So I don't think it's fair to say that developers alway

        • by HiThere ( 15173 )

          And the people like that don't all have fancy degrees.

          I knew a C coder that was in love with macros with obscure names (like lTsh). I could never figure out WHAT his code was doing. It didn't have an exceptional number of errors...but it was well obfuscated. When he left another person was designated for several years to translate his stuff. (And he was only there a couple of years.) But if you asked him about any particular macro, he could justify why he had created it. (They did shorten the code con

        • I'd much rather work on an extremely buggy system that's well-documented and at least shows signs of cognitive thought being applied to the code, than to have to add stuff to totally bug-free code that looks like a bomb went off in someone's text editor.

          I usually get the best of both worlds - tons of bugs, and no fricking clue as to how the code was *intended* to work, as opposed to how it *does* work.
      • by ClosedSource ( 238333 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @05:15PM (#27524519)

        I agree. Developers today (at least the vocal ones) seem to be a lot more interested in putting down the work of others than improving their own. That's why there are sites like The Daily WTF.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by D-Cypell ( 446534 )

        Me! Actually most developers I think.

        The reason we think that (almost) everybody else's code is crap is because much of it is. The mistake that we make is to assume it is crap because the original coder was an idiot, when in most cases it is crap because of unrealistic time pressures placed on the developer, or some basic mistake in the foundation that acts like a ball of crap that radiates outwards.

        I have seen quite a few pieces of open source code that I would regard as awesome in terms of code quality (n

  • Am I the only one? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by More_Cowbell ( 957742 ) * on Thursday April 09, 2009 @02:48PM (#27522371) Journal
    Am I the only one that hopes Sun changes it's mind about selling itself and succeeds on its own? I know they have made some big strategic errors that have gotten them where they are now, but it is a solid company (imho) with, from what I've seen, superior products. Grossly undervalued for some time now.
    • Sun certainly have some good products. I often think that they need to focus a bit more. They have their fingers in many pies but can't be good at all of them.

      At the moment I have no confidence in Sun. They were considering selling to IBM which potentially could have resulted in many of Sun's key products being discontinued. If Sun is willing to 'sell the farm' why should I buy their products? If Sun doesn't believe in their own future how can I believe in it?

      • by davecb ( 6526 ) *

        Sun's a hardware company, and the pie they are in is singular, there: dealing with the memory bottleneck by coming up with new processor designs that don't spend all their time sitting in queue waiting for an I- or D-cache load. Most of the research is there, because it's a problem all the chip vendors are faced with. if they don't do it, they will die.

        On the product side, you're mostly seeing the necessary support a hardware company needs (Solaris), the languages (Java, TCL, etc) and the combinations of

      • Hence Jonathan Schwartz' attempts to use open source as Sun's "Hail Mary" pass.
      • Sun certainly have some good products. I often think that they need to focus a bit more. They have their fingers in many pies but can't be good at all of them.

        Split the hardware from the software. Open Solaris runs on x86, java is almost a killer app, etc...

        They would have a much easier time selling the software side, in my estimation.

    • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @03:16PM (#27522761) Journal
      Yes, I agree completely. However, the only way it will happen is if they become a more customer oriented company. Right now they make amazing things that no one really wants, and try to convince people to buy it. They need to figure out what people actually do want, and build it for them. If they can figure out how to do that and still make amazing things, they will succeed.
    • by goltzc ( 1284524 )
      They have tons of talent in that company and some really superb products. They just need to figure out how to market themselves properly and make some money.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by downix ( 84795 )
      I'm with you here.  Sun is very lean, and can survive the downturn with the cash reserve they have as/is.  If I was Sun, I'd redouble efforts into bringing more in-house, and consolidating positions of strength.  I'd also work on diminishing, or eliminating the departmental infighting that continues to plague them.
    • by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @03:22PM (#27522867) Journal

      NO, absolutely not the only one - that's my hope as well. But the truth is, Sun is a company that gave a lot to the world in which it exists, and monetized very little of it. It's the greatest open source contributor (Solaris, Java, OpenOffice, the SPARC architecture itself, NetBeans, ZFS... and I'm sure missing some, as Sun gave away HUGE amounts of stuff).

      Such companies don't usually succeed in a commercial sense. I'm tempted to say that Sun should cease to be a for-profit publicly traded company, and become either a state-sponsored institution, or private foundation, for the development of high-tech.

      • by goltzc ( 1284524 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @03:37PM (#27523091)
        I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
      • It's the greatest open source contributor (Solaris, Java, OpenOffice, the SPARC architecture itself, NetBeans, ZFS... and I'm sure missing some, as Sun gave away HUGE amounts of stuff).

        That is one of the things I really love about them. However, I have heard it postulated by many people that they waited too long to go that route. Waiting so long to open source Solaris prevented them from competing with Linux effectively in the server OS market. And, while you certainly can, not many buy a SUN box to run Red Hat (or whatever).

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by CHK6 ( 583097 )
      Everyone likes a come back story, but for that to happen a new change in leadership needs to happen. The blood is already in the water so either the controlling board members want out and will wait until being bought, or those member's decide to gather themselves by the bootstraps and pull the company up. If that's the case, then they can't let the company limp on with the current leadership.

      If you were a customer willing to lay down a 5 million dollar deal on a two year contract would you feel better wi
      • The basic issue is that the analysts are right. Sun customers have been secretly worried about Sun's ability to go it alone for quite some time... their stock price, you know, dropped a lot. We noticed. Now Sun has put itself on the market, declaring that its own management team /knows/ that it can't go it alone. This undermines our confidence as Sun customers. The putting up of Sun for sale is almost a no-return event. IBM backing out of the deal is a disaster for them.


    • I hope they do too. I think they need to come up with an extra $500 million by this summer otherwise they might be in some trouble. That's going to be hard to do in this current economic climate.

      I wonder if they asked for a bailout. I think even IBM did.

  • by mooingyak ( 720677 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @02:55PM (#27522481)

    It's almost impossible to overestimate the importance of Java to Oracle

    Java will help Oracle colonize the entire solar system.

  • by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @03:07PM (#27522639)

    . . . if we can get all those Anonymous Cowards and folks with ridiculous names like mine to chip in $10 each.

    The company's direction and strategy could be guided by a Slashdot thread. A potent brew of "Informative, Interesting, Troll . . ."

    Hell, maybe we could even patent that business model . . . crowd governance . . . or mod governance?

    • by eln ( 21727 )

      Unless we're shooting for the Guinness Book record for fastest bankruptcy in history, I would caution against letting Slashdotters decide anything more significant than which goatse mirror site to try and get people to click to.

    • To get $6 billion at $10 each, we will need 600 million Slashdot members...

      Maybe it's time to open

  • by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @03:08PM (#27522651) Homepage Journal
    It would be quite ironic ... MySQL has had to deal with Oracle acquiring InnoDB and then Sleepycat (Berkeley DB) ... multiple times they had to rework MySQL's underpinnings because they didn't want Oracle to own key parts of the platform. If Oracle were to be in control of MySQL they'd be able to "un-deprecate" (reprecate?) those engines.

    I'd like to see that, actually -- Berkeley DB is an amazingly robust data store. It worked well with MySQL.
  • I am so not comfortable with Oracle [] being in charge of one of the remaining UNIX vendors... Better to see another UNIX license holder get them than that.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      I agree completely.. IBM would've been great.

      Code can fork. Licenses can generate lawsuits and intimidation forever.

  • Where "synergy" is another word for "2+2=1". This could produce even more economic value than Microsoft plus Yahoo! would have.

    Forks of everything forkable approaching in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

  • A Strategic Solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hangtime ( 19526 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @03:17PM (#27522771) Homepage

    If they could both bury the hatchet for about 5 minutes, a joint bid by Oracle and IBM would actually make much more sense. IBM would take the Solaris platform and hardware, Oracle would take the ZFS, MySQL, and DTrace. They could then both jointly purchase and spin-off Java into an Open Source project or its own firm with each company taking a stake. Since both rely so heavily on Java and neither would enjoy the other firm owning the platform it makes perfect sense for it to continue as an independent entity.

    • Your post is the best idea in this entire thread. I agree. Although I have been using Ruby and Lisp more the last few years, much of my business is based on Java -- basically the whole world wants a stable and well maintained Java platform and a spin off company for Java might make sense, especially if many large stakeholders owned equity.

      • a spin off company for Java might make sense, especially if many large stakeholders owned equity.

        This would be the slowest way to murder Java. But a slow murder is still murder... Java would be pulled in every direction and asplode.

  • by CHK6 ( 583097 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @03:23PM (#27522877)
    The only way that deal would happen is if Oracle saw Java as a 8 billion dollar investment to own. Other than that the extras Oracle doesn't need by a long shot. The investment and money to keep all the other aspects viable would be worthless in the long run.

    Maintaining and investing into current and future hardware and software from Sun to fit Oracle's business model after the deal makes no sense. That's basically down grading Solaris and their hardware to database only boxes. When Oracle sells across the landscape on all OSes. Why the over head of an internal OS and hardware too?

    MySQL isn't an issue, if only a slight distraction. If Oracle took Sun, MySQL would slowly just get plowed under and absorbed. That's like mentioning that Oracle gets the fake ficus trees in the lobby in the deal too.

    If Java is all so important to Oracle so much so, that it requires Oracle to purchase Sun, then Oracle is in deep trouble, because then coded themselves into making a purchase with a language that threatens the very stability of the company.
    • MySQL would slowly just get plowed under and absorbed.

      Actually, I would assume part of the deal would be that MySQL is left out. Its of no use to them. There are better OSS databases out there to be had at this point, even Sun thinks so.

  • by CHK6 ( 583097 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @03:40PM (#27523123)
    I don't know if RedHat has the capital, but if they could swing a deal like that by buying out Sun, they are far better in a position to reap from everything offered. From the OS to the language, that would boost RedHat's abilities in the market place.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by GNUbuntu ( 1528599 )

      I don't know if RedHat has the capital,

      They don't. They only have about 1.7 billion in assets and less than 700 million in cash. They'd have to get some pretty hefty financing to buy Sun and I doubt anyone is going to loan them money that would amount to 12-15 times their total revenue last year.

    • Hahahaha

      No, Redhat does not have the capital to buy Sun. They don't even have the capital to take Sun out on a respectable date and they probably never will.

      Its kind of sad that you don't realize how much larger Sun is than Redhat. Redhat really isn't that impressive. It may be impressive to the Linux community, but not to the real world. The rest of the world is still waiting for their customers to realize that they have nothing of value to sell. Everything they have of value is built on something som

  • by alen ( 225700 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @04:02PM (#27523509)

    i think their support is crap. every time i call for netbackup support it takes them a week to get back to me. place i work for was scammed into buying netbackup from Sun instead of Veritas years ago.

    i'm trying to get the latest media for netbackup and it's insane trying to register just to download it.

    we looked at the SL500 a few months ago and it was overpriced. everything Sun sells seems overpriced compared to HP, including the servers.

  • by olddotter ( 638430 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @04:22PM (#27523801) Homepage
    I have long thought that IBM or Oracle would buy Sun to control Java. Yes there are innovations that come out of Sun, but hold long can Sparc compete with Intel/AMD and Solaris compete with Linux. Sun just doesn't have the resources to win both of those battles. Java is their trump card, and they don't know how to monetize it. Unless they figure out how to profit off of Java, I see them dieing a slow death.
  • Sun + Oracle = Yay (Score:3, Interesting)

    by adpe ( 805723 ) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @04:32PM (#27523939)
    Let me tell you a story. I work in a professional environment in a 10k+ Person Organization. We decided we want to implement Identity Management. We chose the (Open Source) Sun Identity Manager, one of their enterprise products, based on J2EE.

    The documentation is horrible, but that's not what it's about. Our development machines run on a JBoss AS with a Mysql Repository. The performance is horrible, and I mean it. It's beyond bad, MySql gobbles up the whole server. It takes 95% CPU time and 2 gb ram for our (rather complex) queries.

    On our staging machine (running Oracle as a repository), the same tasks take 10% CPU and we hardly notice it happening.

    Needles to say, SUN thought it might be a good idea (for political reason obv) to include Mysql in their documentation as "supported", although no sane person would actually use it.

    I kinda forgot what my post has to do with this story. I just read "Oracle + Sun" and it clicked. I'm conditioned to think it's a perfect combination.
  • They will either close or shut down projects like Openoffice, NetBeans, Java, Open Solaris, Open Sparc. ( and other smaller projects )

    It would be a sad day.

    Better download what source you can and fork the projects before it all becomes extinct.

  • ...

    What crack head thinks this shit up? Anyone who thinks this should not be allowed to touch a database. Ever.

  • I don't see what MySQL provides to Oracle. How long would it take Oracle to create a defeatured version of their database product that has about the same features as MySQL. It's not as if MySQL has some great database secrets that Oracle doesn't already know about.

  • Why waste your time buying these small offerings, when you can go right to the top. If you buy SCO, you own every single byte of code ever written to run under any unix-like operating system.

    If the courts weren't so slow, SCO would be the largest company in the world. But you can get in on the ground floor quite cheaply right now. But wait. If you buy right now, you also get an additional Darrel Mcbride with your order.

I've got a bad feeling about this.