Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IBM Withdraws $7B Offer For Sun Microsystems, Says NYT

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the what-color-is-your-trial-balloon? dept.

Businesses 291

suraj.sun points to a story in the New York Times indicating that the much-rumored merger (or purchase) that would have united Sun with IBM may have dissolved before it began. Excerpting: "I.B.M., after months of negotiations, withdrew its $7 billion bid for Sun Microsystems on Sunday, one day after Sun's board balked at a slightly reduced offer, according to a person close to the talks. The deal's collapse raises questions about Sun's next step, since the I.B.M. offer was far above the value of the Silicon Valley company's shares when news of the I.B.M. offer first surfaced last month. .. Since last year, Sun executives had been meeting with potential buyers. I.B.M. stepped up, seeing an opportunity to add to its large software business, acquire valuable researchers and consolidate the market for larger, so-called server computers that corporations use in their data centers. ... Now, Sun is free to pursue other suitors, including I.B.M. rivals like Hewlett-Packard and Cisco Systems. Cisco recently entered the market for server computers."

cancel ×

291 comments

Purhase? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469657)

Is that internet slang for "much-rumured merger?"

Who edits the editors?

Re:Purhase? (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470013)

The meta-editor, of course.

Re:Purhase? (1)

KDAWSON sucks (1165799) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470151)

*queue crickets chirping*

Re:Purhase? (1)

Courageous (228506) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470245)

Hmmm? I believe there is not really such a thing as a "merger". There is always a buyer. A "merger" is declared to be nice.

C//

Crap (3, Insightful)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469661)

I was looking forward to the merger, actually.

Now RedHat can buy them ... (5, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469825)

... after all, why not? They know how to make a profit.

Re:Now RedHat can buy them ... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469869)

Do you think it would be like when Flickr bought Yahoo!?

Re:Now RedHat can buy them ... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470137)

Cisco takes the hardware (servers, solaris, etc)

RedHat takes Java

Everybody's happu

Re:Now RedHat can buy them ... (3, Informative)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469935)

And it would aid the economy in the sense of the two pooling their money, and centralizing their spending. It would also aid us in the IT field, as the post-merger IBM would sell Sparc AND POWER hardware, with the option of Solaris or Linux on either one (theoretically), all bundled with IBM's famous support. IBM owning the rights to Java would work wonders for the Java community, especially in the Linux aspect, and IBM would have probably contributed more to StarOffice/OpenOffice using some Lotus material. I was really looking forward to the two becoming one, needless to say, especially for more formidable Microsoft competition (from both a business stance and IT stance).

But ah well, IBM withdrew, so It'll just go back to Sun barely remaining a company, and IBM being competition on a fairly peer-to-peer level with them and Microsoft when it comes time to design new network infrastructures. If Red Hat bought Sun, I don't know if it would be as much of a benefit as if IBM and Sun merged, but for Sun anything is better than their current status - I just wish they would have seen that more clearly when IBM offered them a healthy current-economy-sum for their company.

Re:Now RedHat can buy them ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27470153)

It would also aid us in the IT field, as the post-merger IBM would sell Sparc AND POWER hardware, with the option of Solaris or Linux on either one (theoretically), all bundled with IBM's famous support.

The support they just outsourced to India? I'm sure that won't hurt the quality.

Re:Now RedHat can buy them ... (4, Interesting)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470335)

To the contrary, I know a local company that deployed an IBM iSeries (previously AS/400) mainframe in their main office, serving two other locations connected via a metropolitan-area T1 line. The machine itself was pretty expensive, yet covered by a 5 or 10 year (can't remember) warranty. The machine would actually call a support technician out to the site whenever it detected an issue with itself, and this has kept their uptime at an astonishing rate, aided by a decent UPS and the hot-swappable hardware.

They've been doing this for many years, and even though their first IT technician whom set this up passed away long since, they've kept the same infrastructure for all these years and it hasn't failed them. They also do this to remain backward-compatible with the older mainframe tapes, which has proven successful. Even at the busiest times, the mainframe is only at 10% utilization, even though it is a pretty low-end model.

This has amazed me about IBM support, and since then I've always weighed IBM as a candidate in new networks, although many of them are too small size or budget-wise to deploy a mainframe. But this is the support I've come to associate IBM with, can't speak for their phone support although everyone seems to outsource to India for phone support these days (a problem I have frequently with Cisco). But this support with Sun's hardware running Linux for cheap was one thing I was longing for with this merger.

Re:Now RedHat can buy them ... (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470431)

And it would aid the economy in the sense of the two pooling their money, and centralizing their spending. It would also aid us in the IT field, as the post-merger IBM would sell Sparc AND POWER hardware, with the option of Solaris or Linux on either one (theoretically), all bundled with IBM's famous support. IBM owning the rights to Java would work wonders for the Java community, especially in the Linux aspect, and IBM would have probably contributed more to StarOffice/OpenOffice using some Lotus material. I was really looking forward to the two becoming one, needless to say, especially for more formidable Microsoft competition (from both a business stance and IT stance).

I read this paragraph fairly carefully, and I still couldn't make up my mind if you meant it or you were just being sarcastic to the max.

Re:Crap (5, Insightful)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469901)

My fears is that MS may buy SUN. At these prices, it's pocket change for them. And they probably do not love the fact that OpenOffice, VirtaulBox, Java, OpenSolaris, Netbeans, and a host of other things are open source and widely adopted. Despite all people that simply _detest_ java or openoffice, they probably hurt deeply microsoft.

Wouldn't it be much much easier to Embrace Enhance Exchange if OpenOffice were in the hands of microsoft? That's what worries me.

Re:Crap (2, Insightful)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470073)

The best part about open source: even if MS hates OO they can't kill it. Buying Sun would make no difference. It's like pee from a pool, man, and there ain't no way for MS to empty the pool and refill.

Re:Crap (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470263)

even if MS hates OO they can't kill it.

Shame, really. Because if ever there was an open-source project that deserved to die, OOo is it.

Re:Crap (2, Informative)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470115)

So what is MS going to do, close the source code? All those products are opensource, they can't. Any other company (IBM, RHAT, NOVELL) would resume the investment in Java & OO.org, and could offer jobs to the original programms.

Re:Crap (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470231)

They can't kill it, but they can lead it in a cumbersome fashion, with enormously slow progress and giant trolls fighting within the community. People might have to fork the code in this crazy scenario in order to really secure OO.org. But from a MS perspective, to play the hand of the nice boy while creating havoc with the code just might make enough sense to put out those billions. Then SUN would have to pull a Yahoo: "we won't go because it's Microsoft", and the stockmarket will not take that lightly.

Re:Crap (5, Insightful)

SEE (7681) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470223)

What does Sun have that wouldn't fork if Microsoft bought them?

Re:Crap (2, Interesting)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470241)

There's no way Microsoft could buy a big competitor in this political climate. In case you hadn't noticed, there's a Democrat in the White House. Sun is the corporation behind the only viable competitors to .NET and MS Office, in addition to being a competitor in the server OS space and a provider of a consumer-oriented virtualization product. The only way Microsoft could benefit from buying Sun is the reduced competition, and that fact is too obvious to slip past the regulators.

Re:Crap (2, Informative)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470447)

Uhh... IBM & Sun are also competitors, don't let the fact that one of them isn't Microsoft fool you into thinking they aren't. In some ways, this merger would be MORE restrictive than if Sun merged with Microsoft (which would never happen BTW, MS has no interest). Think about it: MS isn't really a hardware company in any of the same places that Sun is (no the XBox doesn't count), while IBM with Power is directly competing with SPARC. An IBM merger would likely lead to SUN's software assets being distributed around IBM, while SPARC would be left to die.

You are not alone (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469913)

IBM's selfish executives were looking forward to laying off all those Sun employees. Without buying Sun, IBM will have to find another way to kill thousands of US jobs.

Re:Crap (1)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470069)

I didn't like the idea of IBM purchasing Sun, there is too much overlap between the two companies. Like the summary says, IBM wanted to acquire their software and research and "consolidate" the market. That's business-speak for picking off the talent and products they need and discarding everything else. It's not a criticism of IBM, I wouldn't want any of Sun's direct competitor's buying them. Someone like HP or Cisco will be adding Sun's products and research, keeping the industry more competitive than it would be with a bigger IBM.

Cisco Sun (4, Interesting)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469675)

I hate to think about it, but a Cisco Sun merger might make sense. At least at first glance.

Re:Cisco Sun (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469731)

Cisco is already using Linux in some Linkaya models, and has it's on NetOS running on it's high-end stuff. Why does it need Solaris or Java?

Re:Cisco Sun (4, Interesting)

putaro (235078) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469801)

Cisco's trying to become a server company. Sun has a lot of credibility in that market, some interesting hardware and, yes Virginia, Solaris is more stable than Linux.

Re:Cisco Sun (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469903)

Solaris is available under a rather liberal license. If Cisco thinks they can get away with buying a few hundred million dollars of expertise, no way are they going to spend billions.

Re:Cisco Sun (4, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469969)

Solaris is more stable than Linux.

stable. n. resistant to change of position or condition.

Indeed.

Re:Cisco Sun (4, Insightful)

dkf (304284) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470055)

Solaris is more stable than Linux.

stable. n. resistant to change of position or condition.

Indeed.

Sometimes, stable is good. I prefer having my house built on stable ground, and I prefer standard libraries to have stable ABIs so I don't have to recompile everything every time a system upgrade blows through. OTOH, "stable" is sometimes a codeword for "sclerotic". I suppose ones view on stability depends on whether one has a direct interest in the stable thing or not.

Re:Cisco Sun (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27470099)

Solaris is more stable than Linux.

stable. n. resistant to change of position or condition.

Indeed.

Used and admin both. I've never seen a live-locked Solaris system; seen many times on Linux.

Re:Cisco Sun (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470537)

Just try to use ZFS then. Or NVidia drivers.

I've seen a lot of lockups on Solaris. Also, performance of Solaris sucks in many areas compared to Linux.

Re:Cisco Sun (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27470439)

stable. n. resistant to change of position or condition.

Hardly - with some of the most innovative and performance raising changes in the last 10 years being developed and released (in opensource format) by Sun, I'll call your bluff and raise you...

So not only are they more stable, but also more innovative...

Thanks for the note, too bad it wasn't accurate.

Dtrace
ZFS
Container/Zone technology
CMT - UltraSparc T1, T2, T2+ and the new Rock CPU to name just a few...

Re:Cisco Sun (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470489)

That's 4 you've named.. for the last 25 years..

OpenBSD has a longer changelog (and that's saying something).

Re:Cisco Sun (4, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470003)

yes Virginia, Solaris is more stable than Linux.

The same old sad refrain, right to the last breath. I have had countless Sun consultants for the best part of ten years telling me that Linux is unstable versus the 'rock solid' Solaris and that no one could ever run anything serious on a x86 system versus SPARC. When I challenge them for specifics they clam up tightly as if saying it should somehow be enough or they retreat by pointing to some exceptionally vague Sun 'studies', again, as if pointing to them is somehow sufficient. Your comment is the same amongst thousands and it's not helping.

Alas, saying it doesn't make it true, and given Sun's current sad state it can't be all that important to people if it's actually true.

Re:Cisco Sun (5, Informative)

ltmon (729486) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470097)

I use (and like) both Solaris and Linux.

I think the "stable" moniker mainly comes from Solaris + Sun hardware, not Solaris as a standalone entity. Tight coupling to SPARC hardware (and Sun-made x86 to a lesser extent) means that Solaris has the ability to take portions of RAM offline if errors are detected, deactivate individual CPU cores or sockets if errors are detected and similar fault monitoring and recovery across the hardware. It's pretty cool stuff really, have a look at it if you get the chance.

Solaris SMF also kicks the ageing init.d method for 6 as far as software fault monitoring and recovery goes IMO.

Of course plenty of consultants have oversold this, deriding other good OSs at the same time, often without any knowledge to back it up.

Re:Cisco Sun (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470373)

if someone has the money to spend, similar features are supported by the Linux kernel on expensive hardware for several architectures.

Re:Cisco Sun (3, Interesting)

russlar (1122455) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470187)

I have had countless Sun consultants for the best part of ten years telling me that Linux is unstable versus the 'rock solid' Solaris and that no one could ever run anything serious on a x86 system versus SPARC.

Solaris on SPARC has device drivers in user-space. This lets you add SCSI devices to the server without rebooting.

Need to add a new SCSI tape library to a Linux server? Sorry, need to reboot the server!

Need to add a SCSI tape library on Solaris? No problem!
1. Plug it in
2. # add_drv st
3. # add_drv ds
4. # devfsadm -Cv
5. 99.999% uptime!
6. Profit!

Re:Cisco Sun (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470269)

big (data center/enterprise grade) Linux installations use fibre SAN, and adding a tape drive and rescanning can be done on-line, even with copper scsi if presented to fibre SAN via storage router.

Re:Cisco Sun (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470283)

Need to add a new SCSI tape library to a Linux server? Sorry, need to reboot the server!

A simple google search such as this one [google.com] would show you that a reboot is not necessary to get Linux to recognize a tape drive that is added to a SCSI bus. Please take your FUD elsewhere.

Re:Cisco Sun (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470417)

that doesn't work with all scsi device drivers though, with some you'll even see new (hot-plug) disk but not tape drives, while for example in HP land some cciss drivers do it and some don't for tape drive. But yes, if someone wants the feature and plans their hardware purchases and device drivers, can do many hot-plug tricks with all manner of devices.

Re:Cisco Sun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27470559)

I have had countless Sun consultants for the best part of ten years telling me that Linux is unstable versus the 'rock solid' Solaris and that no one could ever run anything serious on a x86 system versus SPARC.

Solaris on SPARC has device drivers in user-space. This lets you add SCSI devices to the server without rebooting.

Need to add a new SCSI tape library to a Linux server? Sorry, need to reboot the server!

Whilst it is probably best to reboot, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT REQUIRED under Linux for the example given.

1. Plug it in
2. # echo "scsi add-single-device 0 0 6 0"> /proc/scsi/scsi
3. 99.99999% uptime!
4. Profit!

Seems to be a couple of steps shorter on Linux. Go figure ...

Sorry about AC, but I've already moderated above.

Re:Cisco Sun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27470207)

When I challenge them for specifics they clam up

Live locking.

I've never seen a Solaris system become inaccessible because it has a too-high load. I've seen resource starvation (fork bombs using all fds, PIDs, etc.), but not load.

Seen many, many live-locked Linux systems. (Most recent one a few months ago.)

Re:Cisco Sun (1)

putaro (235078) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470491)

Kernel internals don't get mucked with all the damn time. I don't do as much kernel work as I used to (and I've done it on 4.3 BSD, Unicos, IRIX, SunOS, Solaris, Linux, Mac OS X) but I hit it often enough with Linux. I was trying to get some slightly older Linux drivers to work but some genius had decided to rename all of the logging macros so that drivers that weren't being actively maintained had been broken.

Re:Cisco Sun (5, Interesting)

ltmon (729486) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469803)

Same reason they've started building it's own servers - they want to expand into new markets.

Sun would sure give them a leg-up, as the two product portfolios have very little crossover, but it remains to be seen if Cisco would be any better at selling Sun technology than Sun has been of late.

As a Sun partner/reseller I'd probably prefer Cisco however, because it's less likely that the cool stuff that Sun makes, which I know and sell, would be just be swallowed up never to be seen again as would likely happen in an IBM deal.

Re:Cisco Sun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27470409)

Because Solaris has a lot of really sexy features that Linux lacks

Re:Cisco Sun (4, Insightful)

segfaultcoredump (226031) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469851)

Cisco + Sun would make more sense. Mostly because there is very little overlap in their actual products but their two lines constantly need to work together. (Our sun servers are connected to Cisco ethernet switches, our SunRays vpn into Cisco vpn concentrators, our Sun Storage is connected to Cisco MDS switches, etc). It would also give Cisco the biggest, baddest InfiniBand switch on the market (and at 110Tbps, its switching capacity totally trashes anything cisco has ever produced).

The biggest problem with the Sun+IBM deal was that there was so much overlap, customers would be left to wonder which product lines would get discontinued. (glassfish vs websphere, solaris vs aix, sparc vs power, sun's servers vs ibm's, storage, tape, etc, etc, etc. )

Just how much is enough? (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469681)

Sun seems to want to hold on for a better bid than IBM's $7 billion, but there's seems to be a hard time justifying much higher of a markup beyond the $6.3 billion it has in market cap. Who wants to bid more?

Re:Just how much is enough? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469831)

Well, someone who views Java or Solaris is the future. Sun also has a rather large stake in Blu-Ray, something that some companies might want to try to get as it won the format war.

Re:Just how much is enough? (0, Flamebait)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469883)

Java and Blu-Ray may have a future value, but Solaris is a has-been that's been open-sourced.

Re:Just how much is enough? (1)

Bandman (86149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469983)

What is Sun's stake in bluray?

Re:Just how much is enough? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27470087)

All blu-ray devices include a licensed java virtual machine for running the interactive crap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Java_software_support [wikipedia.org]

Re:Just how much is enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27470131)

the reason bluray players are so expensive is because they license embedded Java and (obviously) need beefier specs to support it.

Meanwhile, current DVD players and HDDVD players didn't need to use Java.

Way to stick it to the customers.

Re:Just how much is enough? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469993)

It won the format battle. How's the war against the DVD Empire going?

Anyway, I have a hard time seeing a company value the language or the operating system (who isn't Microsoft or Apple) to the tune of 7 (or 6.3) billion. I think that IBM would have been the best bet because Sun is very diversified, in addition to the language and the OS, it also builds and sells servers using processors that it owns a major stake in. Sun is a soup to nuts type company. It designs and builds the chips, the hardware, the OS, the drivers, the servers, the software stacks, and supports them. IBM would have been a very good fit because IBM has its own architecture, builds its own servers, and does its own software.

There aren't very many companies that would make a good fit with a SUN acquisition. Sony isn't interested in mainframes, OS's, or just about everything except blu-ray. Dell, Apple, Toshiba, and company are currently banking on Intel and AMD chips(who don't appear to ever dream of doing anything but chips).

There was a post above about how Red Hat should purchase SUN, but that isn't a bad idea at all. In most companies that I've seen (and I've seen a few), Linux means some variety of RHEL. If they could swap out the Solaris for Red Hat, they would actually be able to SELL something beyond tech contracts. They would be able to leverage their existing mindshare as a server provider and they could cut out the other OEM middlemen. Reliability and driver support would also (appear to) increase if Red Hat focused on the limited subset of hardware that Sun makes (look at what it did for Apple, its not hard to build a bug free OS when you only have to make it work on 6 different pieces of hardware).

Re:Just how much is enough? (2, Insightful)

SEE (7681) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470145)

Red Hat buying Sun would be the exact same mistake as Caldera buying SCO.

Re:Just how much is enough? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470375)

Sort of, but completely not in that SCO offered operating systems but not hardware, servers or just about anything that Sun offers. Caldera and SCO were OS vendors, Sun is more of a hardware company that also happens to sell an OS that it puts on its boxes.

Re:Just how much is enough? (1)

Veetox (931340) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469911)

Sun may have some current research that will produce valuable results down the road. Especially since they consider their stock grossly undervalued. I wouldn't be surprised to see IBM come back with another offer - they've tasted the bitter fruit of a lost opportunity before...

Re:Just how much is enough? (3, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469971)

If they do... they might as well publish it and start using it in sales presentations. A 10% premium above current value was IBM's offer. How much more do they want?

Re:Just how much is enough? (2, Insightful)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470159)

"Sun may have some current research that will produce valuable results down the road."

My feelings exactly. I feel that SUN, like PALM had with the PRE, may have something on their hands. I have no info besides the history of a company that has been so innovative and also embracing of FOSS (which shows they understand the new landscape). All that brainpower inside the company is not dead, so I think they just might have something up their sleeves.

Is Solaris relevant? (-1, Troll)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469705)

Let's just remember, they call the company Sun, and their OS Solaris, but the stock ticker symbol is JAVA. What's the brand they're selling most?

Re:Is Solaris relevant? (0, Troll)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469855)

And I would immediately switch to MS .NET after 10 years with Java!
I mean, if there is a company as secretive about their plans as Apple, it's probably some kind of governmental intelligence agency.
At least, with MS we know that we are not going to get what they say, but we know that... Apple is a total enigma.

Re:Is Solaris relevant? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27470103)

wtf are you going on about?

My complaint against IBM (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469709)

Please forgive me, but I told you so. I predicted long ago that IBM would spawn delusions of Comstockism's resplendence. Now that it has, I'd like to express my thoughts on the matter. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: If it sincerely believes that it knows 100% of everything 100% of the time then it must be smoking something illegal.

IBM is a prime example of the ignorance, naïveté, and plain old stupidity that it so adamantly criticizes, but that's really beside the point. This is no time to be quarrelsome and no time to be smarmy. Am I saying that I am particularly disgusted by IBM's blind intransigence and utter ingratitude? Yes. That there will be public outrage if IBM tries to provide lackluster grafters with an irresistible temptation to make it impossible to disturb its pusillanimous, censorious gravy train? Maybe. That it should just face the facts? Definitely.

Although IBM would like us to believe that it can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct, it has given us neither good reason nor credible evidence to believe that. Its orations, on the other hand, give us good reason to believe that it maintains that either laws are meant to be broken or that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. IBM denies any other possibility. With an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content and incomprehensible as to meaning, IBM frequently stammers an endless hodgepodge of phrases purportedly as witty as in reality they are prurient. Only inconsiderate gasbags can feel at home in this maze of reasoning and cull an "inner experience" from this dung heap of conniving, unambitious revisionism. IBM wants us to feel sorry for the imprudent paranoiacs who eat our nation to its bones. I feel we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that IBM would have us believe that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that IBM is a model organization? The fact of the matter is that it doesn't adequately realize the irritations that it inflicts. And I can say that with a clear conscience because it and its trucklers are sanctimonious bloodsuckers. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis.

Some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that IBM is secretly scheming to incite racial hatred. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that it likes to brag about how the members of its retinue are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, IBM would have us believe that this is the best of all possible worlds and that it is the best of all possible organizations. Not surprisingly, its evidence for that thoroughly crazy claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, it has a checkered track record for accuracy. I avouch it would be more accurate for IBM to say that I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner.

IBM is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to its homilies. The "facts" IBM has often stated contain some serious distortions. Some are blatant; others are subtle. One of the most mephitic is IBM's discussion of belligerent so-called experts. Even without making an ethical argument against onanism, I can show that IBM's like a fire hydrant spewing illogical vitriol over anyone unfortunate enough to pass by. Interestingly, IBM doesn't seem to care about that.

If there's a rule, and IBM keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? I mean, it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of IBM's invectives in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must work beyond the predatory plasticity of IBM's bromides. Yes, you heard me right; if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less unsympathetic than IBM. IBM should think for itself. I'll go further: IBM's idiotic claim that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel is just that, an idiotic claim.

IBM uses highfalutin terms like "pericardiomediastinitis" and "ultraphotomicrograph" to conceal its plans to prime the pump of nihilism. In this scheme of its, a mass of grandiloquent words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. We become unable to see that now that I've been exposed to IBM's communications I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps if I thought that IBM's personal attacks had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that IBM's ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained in large part by the following. IBM has spent untold hours trying to rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that its stupidity concerning separatism is laughable? Let me give you a hint: If its thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, IBM wouldn't consider it such a good idea to deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols.

If IBM's propositions were intended as a joke, IBM forgot to include the punchline. While the concept of broad-based peace and social justice coalitions remains desirable, IBM is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens its creature comforts, IBM throws principle to the wind. I don't mean to imply that a plan of rational reaction to IBM's traducements is certainly in order, but it's true nonetheless.

A brief study of sociology will show one inescapable fact: There is a simple answer to the question of what to do about IBM's ethics. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. IBM's hangers-on all look like IBM, think like IBM, act like IBM, and go to great lengths to conceal its true aims and mislead the public, just like IBM does. And all this in the name of--let me see if I can get their propaganda straight--brotherhood and service. Ha! In a previous letter, I announced my intention to lead us all toward a better, brighter future. Naturally, this announcement caused IBM to mutter abuses befitting its character. Incidents like that truly demonstrate how we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but it is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when it's confronted with inconvenient facts. Faster than you can say "labyrinthibranchiate", however, IBM is likely to switch to some sort of "cause riots in the streets" approach to draw our attention away from such facts.

So maybe IBM is the most neurotic, refractory, and disorderly waste of institutional material in our society. Big deal. What's more important is that if society were a beer bottle--something, I believe, that IBM holds in high regard--it would indeed be the nauseating bit at the bottom that only the homeless like to drink. It's not easy for me to say this, but IBM's tracts are fastidious in theory and querulous in practice. There, I said it. Now I can continue with my previous point, which is that IBM maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around it. There's a word for that: libel. Stand with me, be honest with me, and help me take up the mantle and stand up and fight for our heritage, traditions, and values, and together we'll express our concerns about IBM's beastly lamentations. We'll lift our nation from the quicksand of injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. I'm counting on you. Thanks for reading this.

Re:My complaint against IBM (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469735)

Did somebody write that all by themselves or did they use an automatic speech generator?

Netbeans (1)

derrida (918536) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469719)

Does this mean that Netbeans is still alive?

Apple Should Buy Sun (3, Interesting)

Helmholtz (2715) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469759)

If Apple bought Sun, then they would be a very interesting Server-Desktop combo.

Re:Apple Should Buy Sun (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469809)

But I don't think Apple really wants Sun. Sun seems to be everything Apple isn't. Sun has a lot of corporate customers, not something that Apple really caters to. Java would be a nice acquisition by Apple, but I just can't see them wanting Java for iPhone applications, something that would seem natural if they acquired Sun.

I just think that Sun seems to be everything that Apple has opposed, and acquiring it doesn't seem to make sense. On the other hand, (assuming various regulatory bodies would approve it), MS merging with Sun, or Cisco buying Sun seems to work better.

Re:Apple Should Buy Sun (5, Insightful)

Raffaello (230287) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470177)

Java is poison to Apple. Apple's whole business model is one of OS differentiation. Java promises OS homogenization. Apple has done everything it can to damn Java with faint praise, ensuring its second class status on Mac OS, and complete absence from the iPhone OS.

Re:Apple Should Buy Sun (3, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470347)

On the other hand, (assuming various regulatory bodies would approve it), MS merging with Sun, or Cisco buying Sun seems to work better.

Other than it being an excellent opportunity to kill off a Unix vendor, why would MS merge with Sun? Never mind the consequences an MS take-over of Sun would presumably have for Java. Sun being swallowed up by Hewlett-Packard doesn't sound all that good either. Cisco buying Sun has a better ring to it, at least at first glance. I'll take continued diversity on the OS market over consolidation any day.

Re:Apple Should Buy Sun (1)

bobstreo (1320787) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469845)

I see what you did there: Sun's Next Step.
Steve Jobs?

Re:Apple Should Buy Sun (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469847)

Apple's not really much better than IBM, for a lot of the same reasons (expensive, restrictive, closed). They're also similar in that a big part of their business is selling based on their name, not their products, although Apple is _much_ better in that regard than IBM. Apple however, doesn't buy competing, superior products and drive them in into the ground.

I'm still hoping for a Cisco buyout.

Re:Apple Should Buy Sun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469907)

Years ago Sun was trying to buy Apple. :-)

Re:Apple Should Buy Sun (3, Informative)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470527)

Sometime back in the 1980s, Apple made an insultingly low take-over bid for Sun. When Apple was in bad financial straights in the 1990s, Sun returned the favor and put an insulting low offer out for Apple.

I don't think either Sun or Apple was serious about it, however Apple really wanted IBM to buy them out.

Re:Apple Should Buy Sun (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469929)

Damn, replied to the wrong comment....Once more


And I would immediately switch to MS .NET after 10 years with Java!
I mean, if there is a company as secretive about their plans as Apple, it's probably some kind of governmental intelligence agency.
At least, with MS we know that we are not going to get what they say, but we know that... Apple is a total enigma.

Re:Apple Should Buy Sun (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469995)

Someone posted this the other day and at first it made a little sense. Afterall, Apple doesn't really have an enterprise market presences and Sun doesn't have much in the desktop arena. Not much of the two companies would overlap in terms of canabalizing products. IBM already has a RISC server line as well as a java app server as well as a damn good database system, even if it has a price tag.

But Apple is getting away from being a computer company and getting more into being a consumer electronics and media company. They've developed the first online content delivery system that works for consumers and producers.

Re:Apple Should Buy Sun (0, Troll)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470005)

Apple's already pinned itself to their own fork of FreeBSD. Why would they need Solaris?

Re:Apple Should Buy Sun (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470473)

Solaris isn't the important part of Sun. Java and the server business are. But if it bothers you, you can take solace in the fact that Apple's desktop environment used to run on Solaris, before Java was developed (incidentally, Java was heavily based off Objective-C and OpenStep). OS X and Solaris could be merged pretty easily, as far as OS mergers go.

Apple isn't a serious competitor in the enterprise server market, and that limits how well they can do in the corporate desktop and workstation markets. Those three markets are the only high-margin parts of the computer market at large that Apple isn't doing well in. While Sun isn't exactly doing well (or else they wouldn't be ripe for acquisition) they do have a lot more credibility than Apple in the business space. Java has a lot to do with that, too. Imagine what it would do for Apple if they were the de facto provider for systems designed to run Java server apps. Apple would be able to compete much more effectively against .Net, which is currently the biggest factor other than inertia that is ensuring Microsoft's continued dominance.

Then Apple'd be making big irony AND big iron! (1)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470009)

There were rumors of a similar acquisition but the other way around -- Sun was looking at buying Apple [nytimes.com] -- a decade ago. This was 'round the time McNealy had said something like "Apple's best hope is to become the world's best Java thin client manufacturer."

How do you like them Apples [slashdot.org] , Scott? :)

An Apple-Sun merger really doesn't make a lot of sense. They do really different things. Schwartz's time in the NeXTStep development world, though, makes me think it's not completely impossible...

Re:Then Apple'd be making big irony AND big iron! (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470533)

Combining the Apple's Cocoa and Sun's Java would be pretty awkward, considering that Java is so closely modeled after Objective-C. That's what really killed the Java interfaces to Cocoa: if you to learn the Cocoa class hierarchy, it wasn't much more work to pick up Obj-C if you already know Java. With Java running on the JVM and Cocoa moving to LLVM, the two languages would just get in each other's way, but each has such an established market that reconciling the differences would be nearly impossible.

Re:Apple Should Buy Sun (1)

Courageous (228506) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470275)

If Apple bought Sun, then they would be a very interesting Server-Desktop combo.

That's curious. I've often heard Steve Jobs called an ass, but never a dummy.

C//

Stupidity. (2, Interesting)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469775)

Sun has now made my list of the stupidest companies on the planet. This is the same stupidity that happened when Yahoo rejected Googles buyout offer. Message to CEO's: When you have someone offering you much more then your companies worth...you take it run and never look back. Especially with the bad economy.

Re:Stupidity. (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469805)

Uh huh. If you're an executive in a company and the suitor making the offer won't agree to a golden parachute then it doesn't matter to you how much they are offering per share.

Re:Stupidity. (2, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469861)

They think their company is worth a lot more than what the stock market says their shares are worth and a lot more than IBM is willing to pay, and they may very well be right.

Sun owns and is developing a lot of things that have a whole lot of worth and a whole lot of future potential.

If they don't think it's enough, and they won't succeed on their own and generate all that value for their investors, then yes, it makes sense to sell.

If the proceeds from the sale really offset the anticipated worth and provide investors a hefty profit in the here and now, similar to to successful business, then, yes, it's worth it to sell.

Otherwise, if there's any doubt, they have a decision to make, and only time will tell -- but they may have made a good one.

Re:Stupidity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469965)

So, you approve of the HP acquisitions of Digital and Compaq, correct?

Re:Stupidity. (1)

Luke has no name (1423139) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470057)

... When you have someone offering you much more then your companies worth...

There's the catch: Sun thinks one of two things, or both:

1) They are worth more than they are valued at
2) The company is better off without being sold

Just because money-grubbing financiers think the company is worth $8.50 a share doesn't mean Sun thinks it is.

Re:Stupidity. (1)

this great guy (922511) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470113)

So just because the stock market crashed, every CEO should accept to sell their company for a fraction of their market cap before the crash ? Riiight.

Re:Stupidity. (1)

Raffaello (230287) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470287)

Every CEO whose company is circling the drain should. Such companies are rather unlikely to regain their pre-crash market cap.

Re:Stupidity. (1)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470519)

Then it's a good thing Sun keeps coming up with new ideas, so that they aren't circling the drain.

The old McNealy strategy of 1980's UNIX vendors failed and that's why Sun's in the state that it is, but taking on NetApp and EMC with the storage strategy ( storage 7000 boxes ) is brilliant

Re:Stupidity. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27470401)

/shrug.

i'm of the opinion that sun is undervalued and should hold out for more then 7.5 billion.

Microsoft (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469881)

A Microsoft acquisition would be interesting.

Re:Microsoft (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469957)

What would Microsoft get out of it? They are pretty happy letting other companies do all the low margin work involved in making and selling hardware and then collecting a bounty on each of those dollars. And Java doesn't really buy them anything; on Windows platforms, .NET is at least as good a platform, and they aren't really at the point where they need to abandon the 'use our stuff on our stuff' strategy.

fa-q faggots (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469915)

linux is done. no one gives a fuck about it. it's a faggots affair.

Hahah... (5, Funny)

cffrost (885375) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469939)

Classic April Fools, IBM!

Re:Hahah... (2, Funny)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 5 years ago | (#27469985)

Late, as always...

Here comes the Sun! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27469999)

...It's all right.

of course (1, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470011)

in my country (the US), we have a saying -- "why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?". This usually is a reference to pussy, but it also works with Open Source. A lot of Sun's goodies are available under an open source license (CDDL or GPL). Virtual Box, Open Solaris, MySQL, Open Office, Java, hell even SPARC chip designs. IBM can hire brown skin developers to work on Sun's code for less than the cost of purchasing Sun. Hell, they've been working on an OpenOffice fork for a couple years now.

Poor IBM... (0)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470045)

Did someone at Sun pulled off a Steve Jobs by tossing the IBM contract into the trash can?

Re:Poor IBM... (1, Redundant)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470111)

I can't believe how horribly informed (or trollish) people are.
The companies that had a similar case were Microsoft and Yahoo.

Yahoo CEO = Jerry Yang (the guy the parent thinks he is referencing)
Microsoft CEO = Steve Ballmer (The guy who throws chairs and says "I'm going to fucking kill Google!")

You may return to 4chan now.

Re:Poor IBM... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470301)

I can't believe how some people can lack a sense of humor. I was not referring to or thinking about either Yahoo! or Microsoft. If you know anything about Steve Jobs, then you would know that he did toss a 100-page contract into the garbage can in front IBM's representatives and demanded a five-page contract instead. That, my friend, requires balls. From what I'm reading about Sun, they might've (or should've) done the same thing.

M.S.G.S. (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27470341)

N.Y.T.: Most. Stodgy. Grammatical. Style.

Linux vs Solaris pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27470501)

They are all good, Solaris and OpenSolaris are very interesting, especially with ZFS and zones. It's pointless to pit them against each other.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...