×

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!

62% of Sun's Stockholders Vote For Oracle Deal

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the well-'larry-ellison'-just-has-a-nice-ring-to-it dept.

Sun Microsystems 152

Moon Workstation writes "In an special meeting held at Santa Clara, CA, 62% of Sun's stockholders voted for the acquisition by Oracle. As a result of this Sun's stock will be taken from the stock market as of Friday. The acquisition is still waiting for approval by the US Department of Justice and anti-trust offices in other countries. The planned acquisition is source for rumors and speculation about the future of different Sun products, like OpenSolaris, CPUs and others." (MySQL among them.)

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

152 comments

First! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28722781)

First!

Melts in your butt not in your hands? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28722861)

Slashdot, I desparately need your help! I've been trying to make a string of anal beads from a bag of peanut M&Ms but they are melting in my ass before I can pull them out. Any tips to prevent this are much appreciated my friends?

Re:Melts in your butt not in your hands? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28722913)

Freeze them first, that will buy you at least 5 or 10 minutes of anal ecstasy. If you need more time, switch to Jujubes.

Why use M&Ms if you don't want them to melt? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28722991)

I mean, I am sure you could achieve the same effect with anything about that size. Use plastic. (Though honestly, M&Ms seem awfully small for that purpose!) Or something non-chocolate candy if you want to eat them afterwards.

Re:Melts in your butt not in your hands? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723087)

Personally I'd retain the M&M approach, but follow it up with another string of beads (perhaps gob-stoppers) and benefit from the chocolate lubrication provided by the M&M's.

Re:Melts in your butt not in your hands? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723383)

They melt in your ass, not in your hands.

Re:Melts in your butt not in your hands? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723845)

I'd say use peanut M&Ms but that depends on other matters (i.e. if you've eaten peanuts the day previous.)

Re:Melts in your butt not in your hands? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723933)

From GGP:

I've been trying to make a string of anal beads from a bag of peanut M&Ms

Fucking Finally (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28722789)

Sun was acting like a damned parrot for years

MySQL... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28722791)

ByeSQL!

2nd pist! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28722793)

anal sex won't do anything but make your dick stink

MySQL won't die (5, Interesting)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 4 years ago | (#28722797)

Oracle won't kill MySQL. MySQL's accessibility hurts Microsoft's database division too much. Oracle and MySQL are two different markets, anyway.

Re:MySQL won't die (4, Interesting)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723363)

They won't kill it by pulling the plug. But we've all seen these things happen.

They will give it funding, throw some more people at it, and it will become an entry-level system which will be awesome for 1-2 years.

Then someone will decide to rename it to something like Oracle LiteSQL. It will get a new logo. It all goes downhill from there as people forget what MySQL was, and it just gets integrated right into the main Oracle product line. The free service will be useless for all but the most basic of tasks. Support options will be more expensive. It will become unnecessarily complex. Lawyers will force takedowns of servers still using MySQL. There will be a security issue that takes 2 months to fix.

Bookmark this and come back in 2012. You'll see.

Re:MySQL won't die (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28724589)

Bookmark this and come back in 2012. You'll see.

According to the Mayans at that point it won't matter!

Re:MySQL won't die (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 4 years ago | (#28725331)

Lawyers will force takedowns of servers still using MySQL

Id like to see that happen, given the fact that MySQL is not an open product.

Re:MySQL won't die (3, Interesting)

rattaroaz (1491445) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723701)

Oracle and MySQL are two different markets, anyway.

It always bothers me when people make this comment, because it assumes things always will be that way. Oracle and mysql are different markets, but does it always have to be? Well, now that oracle owns mysql, yes. But if it wasn't so, mysql could have evolved into an oracle competitor with time. And that is so with a lot of products and markets. They are in two different markets now, and oracle might not kill it off, but we know that oracle is unlikely to develop it to rival their proprietary product, whereas before, any outcome of mysql's future would have been possilbe.

Re:MySQL won't die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28724253)

> mysql could have evolved into an oracle competitor with time

Given MySQL's rate of evolution, it might have gotten competitive with 9i in about 50 years.

But SAP has some distant connection to MySQL, so Oracle will make sure MySQL dies for that reason alone.

Re:MySQL won't die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28725541)

Maybe, and nice guess, but now we'll never know.

Re:MySQL won't die (4, Interesting)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724095)

MySQL doesn't hurt Microsoft's database ambitions at all. MySQL has basically become the dominant database for web applications simply because it's licensing is cheap and it's cheerful and fast (at one time anyway). However, there is no way at all that MySQL will be allowed to acquire features that will let it compete with Oracle. That is now the sole domain of PostgreSQL.

Re:MySQL won't die (3, Insightful)

jc42 (318812) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724277)

However, there is no way at all that MySQL will be allowed to acquire features that will let it compete with Oracle.

It's likely that a lot of MySQL users will consider this a feature. There's a niche for a simple, basic DB that's fairly fast and has a small footprint. If you don't actually need those advanced features that PostgreSQL and Oracle provide, there's no reason to pay for them (with money or memory or slower speed).

It's sorta like how the makers of word-processor software would love to eliminate the use of plain text, so we all have to pay them to use formatting features even when we don't need them. So far, they haven't succeeded at this, and it's fairly obvious (even to managment) why. There's no reason the same reasoning shouldn't be applied to databases.

In fact, I've worked on a few projects in which the management eventually gave up on the fancy database version, because our "preliminary test" setup that used the unix filesystem did everything that was needed, was an order of magnitude faster, required no memory other than the usual libc and kernel filesystem drivers. Why pay good money for a system that doesn't do anything extra, needs more resources, and costs more?

Of course, as the DB and WP folks know, there's a good market for their products. Some customers do need their extra capabilities. And I suppose it's no surprise that they would also push their products for situations where they aren't needed. More income is better than less, after all, even if it means conning customers into buying things that they don't need.

Re:MySQL won't die (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724361)

@jc42: "There's a niche for a simple, basic DB that's fairly fast and has a small footprint."

While I agree, there's a precedent for large corporations stepping on products they've purchased rather than developed in-house, sooner or later. I imagine the sales meetings over time going something like this: "Oh, yeah, we have MySQL, but if you really want a fast, ready-for-prime-time data warehousing solution..."

That said, I can't imagine Oracle would risk the wrath of the OSS community by nulling MySQL. If they really aren't interested in continuing its active development it'll most likely become "Oracle Lite", and quietly, gently, be put down. To sleep, if you will. Over a long period of time.

Yes, Virgina, MySQL could die. Yes indeed.

Homie-G Thug Culture (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28722801)

Yay, a nigger whose highest aspiration in life is to become a wannabe thug with a shitty attitude and a chip on his shoulder. And if you think there might be something wrong with that, like maybe one shouldn't aim so low, then obviously you must be a racist. Wonderful.

Bye SUN... I will miss you. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28722809)

It is truly the end of a era. At one time, SUN was the epitome of enterprise class hardware. Now it will be reduced to Larry's little toy.

To quote netcraft: SUN is dying.

SUN is dead.

Thanks, Larry.

Re:Bye SUN... I will miss you. (1)

rattaroaz (1491445) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723625)

It is truly the end of a era. At one time, SUN was the epitome of enterprise class hardware. Now it will be reduced to Larry's little toy.

To quote netcraft: SUN is dying.

SUN is dead.

Thanks, Larry.

Well I, for one, welcome our new Oracle overlords!

Sun Microsystems: What are your theories? (4, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 4 years ago | (#28722843)

Why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years? Why are they finding it necessary to sell themselves to Oracle [sun.com]? My theory is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant. The excellent 2008 book Planet Google [amazon.com] describes Google's experiences on page 54: "For about $278,000 in 2003, [Google] could assemble a rack with 176 microprocessors, 176 gigabytes of memory, and 7 terabytes of disk space. This compared favorably to a $758,000 server sold by the manufacturer of a well-known brand, which had only eight multiprocessors, one-third the memory, and about the same amount of disk space."

Why would Oracle buy Sun? Possibly because there are difficulties in making Oracle database products work with the new fault-tolerant technology. For example, fault-tolerant technology may require performing all database modifications on 4 computers at the same time, and Oracle may not want to sell 4 licenses for one application at the same price as the 1 license used with the more expensive high-reliability equipment.

What are your ideas about the sale of Sun, and Oracle's interest? There are many people with far more knowledge about this than I have.

Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories? (5, Interesting)

randomnote1 (1273964) | more than 4 years ago | (#28722985)

As a former partner with Sun, I strongly believe that Sun's insistence on using an Oracle out of the box solution to for its company wide sales to service system is what caused its demise. This software never worked and increased case handling times in the call center. That decreased customer satisfaction to such a point that customers started going elsewhere. I also believe Sun should have never gotten into the x86 server/workstation market. Instead they should have focused their energies behind their flagship SPARC lines and actually produced a processor of their own rather than buying Fujitu's technology. Overall I think Sun offers superior products, but their customer support system is rather terrible.

Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories? (2, Interesting)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723785)

> Overall I think Sun offers superior products, but their customer support system is rather terrible.

I also believe that Sun offered superior products, but too overpriced for the market of the end of the 90s.

> Instead they should have focused their energies behind their flagship SPARC lines and actually produced a processor of their own

Yes... but for sure, the sale price would be at 20k/cpu for a performance similar to a Xeon; that's not competitive.

Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories? (4, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724269)

As a former partner with Sun, I strongly believe that Sun's insistence on using an Oracle out of the box solution to for its company wide sales to service system is what caused its demise. This software never worked and increased case handling times in the call center.

That's pretty interesting. They certainly wouldn't be the first company to have it's left hand not know what it's right hand was doing as a result of bullshit CRM and sales software. Ironic that it's Oracle.

I also believe Sun should have never gotten into the x86 server/workstation market.

They already tried that along with every other big Unix hardware vendor trying to protect their own hardware that went bust. The message was clear even in the 90s which is why no one wanted to port their Unix to x86 and why no one has trusted Solaris on x86. Either SGI, Digital and Sun kept up and kept surpassing raw x86 performance to justify their high costs or they were in real trouble when the inevitable x86 based 'Unix' came along. They all went into denial when Linux came along and made that happen.

Instead they should have focused their energies behind their flagship SPARC lines and actually produced a processor of their own rather than buying Fujitu's technology.

But how do you put in the research and development to make sure that SPARC keeps up with x86 performance and justifies its added cost? Sun farmed it out to Fujitsu because they could no longer put the development effort in and even Fujitsu cannot manage the costs of keeping up.

Sun focused far too much on hardware and Solaris without creating any firm advantages in either, apart from a magical pixie and arrogant belief that people would come back to Sun 'enterprise' hardware and software, and the leadership allowed deeply entrenched politics at the company to get in the way. I doubt whether Oracle will allow that to happen. They're a company that looks at returns and precious little else.

Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28724915)

But how do you put in the research and development to make sure that SPARC keeps up with x86 performance and justifies its added cost? Sun farmed it out to Fujitsu because they could no longer put the development effort in and even Fujitsu cannot manage the costs of keeping up.

The SPARC64 line was farmed out, but the Niagara processors (UltraSPARC-Tx) were in-house and performed very well for the niche that they were aiming at (especially given their power envelope).

Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723125)

I was there in the past few years. Basically, why SUN went south can be summarized as follows:

- hardware company in a rapidly shrinking margin-wise server market
- commodization of software
- change of strategy every two months (open source/not open source)
- disregard of customers (preparing solutions no one asked for, announcing projects while still on a drawing board - see JavaFX, treating low volume customers as "trash" etc.)
- easy going development pace, slow responses to customers bleeding money caused by bugs in SW/HW, a lot of monetary interest in senior managment to outsource parts of the work and profit on it personally
- brain drain (I was amazed by the "talent" intake in the past few months), OTOH many great persons have just left the company
- old boys network in the company (beware Google)

Anyway, the feeling at SUN was that Oracle was a better fit than IBM, though the expectation is to have massive layoffs in October.

Larry is a good friend of Scott, perhaps it's just personal prestige to conquer independent empire with some benefits such as SW/HW stack, all-in-one solutions, Java platform control and patent portfolio, or just another step in the ambitions of Larry to conquer the world. I am not playing golf with either of them...

In the end, I must emphasize SUN was a really nice company, the ethical standards were higher than anywhere else and the feeling of freedom was awesome. It's especially tragic to see the product of enthusiasm and virtues of so many people in the past to fall into the hands of Oracle...

Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723255)

- commodization of software

Yep, it's all in the toilet for sure.

Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories? (2, Funny)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723973)

actually there are robust data center grade x86 servers, I make my living migrating Sun customers to them, and they're usually not running Solaris either.

Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories? (2, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723983)

Why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years

Um, just as a guess, because they didn't invest in hardware research and gave away all their software? "Services are where it's at" say companies who can no longer compete technologically. Weren't the Sun E-series supers acquired from Cray Research?

Note to all in this business: if you decide against investing in R&D, don't be surprised if you're left with nothing but "services" in your portfolio and diminishing margins. Someone I respect called this "the race to the bottom". Use your brains and compete!

Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories? (2, Insightful)

sloth jr (88200) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724107)

Every big proprietary Unix provider faced the same set of issues - comparatively low volume of sales, the resultant premium prices, and much longer evolutionary times for performance increases. Sun's demise was ultimately inevitable, even though they had some interesting technology towards the end (dtrace, zfs, Unified Storage System 7000).

Sun materially offered nothing that couldn't be achieved cheaper elsewhere, and in this race-to-the-bottom commodity market, made it impossible to compete. Sun kept trying to do what they always did - engineer decent but conservative systems offered at a premium price. Remember, Sun thrived first in a time where the standard Intel offerings couldn't begin to compete with the multi-user scalability of Sun. They either couldn't recognize or couldn't adapt themselves to an evolved future wherein PCs dominated the sweetspot of the price-performance curve.

Oracle bought Sun because buying Innodb didn't kill MySQL. There's nothing else that Oracle can likely do with the other assets of Sun other than sell them for parts. I refuse to believe that Oracle has either the ability or the impetus to continue any of Sun's hardware or non-DB software.

Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories? (3, Insightful)

davecb (6526) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724593)

Many many small processors without a fast interconnect will give good database performance if and only if all the operations are wonderfully parallelizable, and don't require coordination.

This is somewhat hard to arrange(;)) A bank, for example, always debits one account when it credits another, so in the general case ties up two machines for every operation. If there is another transaction outstanding against either of these accounts, you've tied up three. Think about how well this scales in a busy bank branch and you can guess that the dominating cost is the coordination. This is true for most thing you *use* transactions for, pretty much by definition.

That works best on a machine with a really fast locking regieme, which in turn you need a backplane like a Cray. That's what you get when you by a Sun or IBM machine: hardware to make database transactions go fast.

--dave

Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories? (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#28725189)

I always thought the point of Oracle buying Sun was so they could offer a full stack. After all before only IBM could offer the full stack from top to bottom from a single vendor. Now Oracle has their DB+Solaris+Sun hardware all under their control, which they can then optimize for DB throughput and if the customer has any problems there is only one vendor to call. Never underestimate how valuable not having to deal with multiple vendors saying "its not our fault" is to a corporation.

The software I would figure would be most likely to hit the chopping block (besides OO.o which seems to be a mess with lots of forking going on) is unbreakable Linux. After all they don't control Linux, but with Solaris they can now have the OS designed to integrate perfectly with their DB and they can control the direction of development. It always seemed to me that Oracle was a better fit for Sun than IBM, which would have had more overlap. But while you are correct that there are many like Google that prefer to "throw more boxes at it" there seems to still be a market for IBM "big iron" so I'm sure Oracle will still have plenty of customers.

Andy Grove was wrong (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#28722845)

Only the assholes survive. At least it looks to me that way.

Re:Andy Grove was wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723035)

Scott McNealy is the number two asshole on the planet (losing out only to the goatse guy). Didn't help Sun much now, did it?

Re:Andy Grove was wrong (1, Flamebait)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724017)

Sun were the arrogant assholes. They rode out their name in the dot-com heyday not really innovating.

wait a minute (1)

trelamenos (915558) | more than 4 years ago | (#28722863)

wait a minute... wasn't Sun allready bought by Oracle..?? what about Sun's stockholders??

Re:wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28722903)

The board agreed to the offer, not the stock holders aka. owners till that meeting happened.

Re:wait a minute What about Oracle's share (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 4 years ago | (#28722935)

holders?

They are probably hoping to the holy oracle that they don't get ... SUNburned....

Re:wait a minute What about Oracle's share (2, Funny)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723439)

packageadd SUNWburned ?

Re:wait a minute What about Oracle's share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28724245)

+1 funny

Re:wait a minute (4, Informative)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723423)

The buying was de facto, but not official yet. To buy a public company, what you are really doing is buying out the shareholders, but the Board of Directors does most of the work in deciding if it is a good idea for the company. The board also usually also has representatives from major shareholders on it, so usually their determination also has some built in voting power, if not all of it.

So, if the Board says they are bought, they pretty much *are* bought.

However, sometimes there is a significant shareholder rebellion, and hostile takeovers are possible, where the buyer has obtained enough shares to impose their will on the board either through direct vote or through shareholder suits. You can usually see that coming a mile away, though, because its unlikely that individual shareholders of tiny numbers of share will care about anything more than making the straight money on their stock that they will be getting. That means a corporate raider or some similar organization would have to appear who buys into the company for it to be a real threat.

And of course, the government needs to approve for anti-trust reasons.

In this case, the shareholders' meeting is required, but is likely just a formality. The government inquiry is actually a bigger threat by far. The Board's determination in this case is sort of like Election night in the US. You aren't elected until the Electoral College has met, but it would be fair to say that you're pretty much President-elect as soon as the popular vote totals are tallied and the margin is wide enough.

Pedantry (5, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28722973)

It is likely that shareholders owning 62% of Sun stock voted for the Oracle deal. This is slightly different than 62% of shareholders (for instance, if 1 person owned 50% of the company, another owned 12%, and 15,000 people owned the rest, 0.013% of the shareholders would have 62% of the vote).

Re:Pedantry (1)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723359)

You are right, and I was just about to post this. There is a large difference between 62% of the shares and 62% of the shareholders. The article gets it right, the summary gets it wrong.

Re:Pedantry (0, Flamebait)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723999)

It's funny how we confuse democracy with capitalism sometimes. But "1 person, 1 vote" is a whole different ballgame than "$1, 1 vote." I am not saying Sun should be a democracy. But seriously, sit back for a minute and imagine how horrible a capitalist government would be.

Re:Pedantry (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724119)

It is likely that shareholders owning 62% of Sun stock voted for the Oracle deal. This is slightly different than 62% of shareholders (for instance, if 1 person owned 50% of the company, another owned 12%, and 15,000 people owned the rest, 0.013% of the shareholders would have 62% of the vote).

Slightly different? The difference is huge. The number of shareholders means squat. The number of voting shares means everything.

Usually, it's the institutional shareholders that decide these deals, not the individual ones, unless you are Buffet or Soros.

Re:Pedantry (1)

curunir (98273) | more than 4 years ago | (#28725511)

Right, and that doesn't even account for all the shares that are owned by funds where the fund managers act as a proxy for the actual shareholders. I own quite a bit of stock in my 401k and yet I've never voted for anything. So it's very likely that some of the actual voters weren't even shareholders.

However unlikely, it's technically possible for 62% of the stock to vote for the deal without a single shareholder doing so.

PostgreSQL anyone? (2, Interesting)

pEBDr (1363199) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723013)

"...I think that the need for an independent true Open Source entity for MySQL is even bigger than ever before." Umm, PostgreSQL, anyone? Try working with it after having used MySQL or Oracle. It's just years ahead.

Re:PostgreSQL anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723231)

Postgresql is very nice, but I'm still waiting for solid replication. Right now there are a few third-party solutions with varying degrees of usability, but nothing like MySQL's replication.

Re:PostgreSQL anyone? (3, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724365)

Wonderful how everybody needs replication and no one seems to need anything else that PostgreSQL has to offer (most of which could be summarized by "maturity"). Anyway, PostgreSQL 8.4 comes with master-slave replication in core.

Re:PostgreSQL anyone? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724047)

in some ways postgresql is great, but parallel clusters and replication are lagging Oracle by years.

GO MONTY! (4, Insightful)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723023)

Monty is the man who will keep MySQL alive regardless of Oracle. Oracle can funble and bumble it all they want. In fact, you can expect MySQL development to slow to a crawl over the next 3 years as Oracles tries to figure out what to do and to integrate it. In the meantime, Monty AB is going to become the new defacto standard for MySQL replacing Oracles version in the open source community. Distros will start picking up Monty AB and as a result, more installs of Monty AB will be used than that Oracles MySQL in 5 years do to licensing issues or lack of development.

*OR*.... (3, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723213)

*OR* everyone will just wake up to the fact that PostgreSQL is superior in pretty much every way now (including performance and ease of maintenance) and dump MySQL altogether.

Re:*OR*.... (5, Funny)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723353)

"and dump MySQL altogether."

How can this been modded up as "insightful"??? Everybody knows it's not "dump mysql" but "mysqldump"!!!

(/me ducks away)

Re:*OR*.... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723467)

*OR* everyone will just wake up to the fact that PostgreSQL is superior in pretty much every way now (including performance and ease of maintenance) and dump MySQL altogether.

Non-sense, a fork of MySQL will take over.

Re:*OR*.... (1)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 4 years ago | (#28725361)

But who should fork MySQL? >80% of the development is made my the MySql inc company(now sun, soon oracle) so there is not many developers left to do a fork.

Re:*OR*.... (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723583)

hmmm... uh... yeah. About as likely as everyone realizing that TRS-80 is better than Linux.

Re:*OR*.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723699)

it's fitting that someone as ignorant as you would compare a piece of hardware to a piece of software

Re:*OR*.... (0, Offtopic)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723815)

Oh no... I've been insulted by an anonymous moron. What shall I ever do? Yawn.

Yes... thats right a TRS-80 is merely hardware with no software OS behind it. You ARE a genius! Proving yet again why anonymous morons stay anonymous.

Re:*OR*.... (0, Offtopic)

nsayer (86181) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723913)

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Re:*OR*.... (0, Redundant)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723971)

WRSG. GHIM. ASS. :)

Re:*OR*.... (0, Flamebait)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724177)

LOL. Oh no a personal vendetta from the anonymous bastards actual account. What? You going to mod all my comments down now? You ARE a sad individual. Go ahead. I got karma coming out my butt just for trolls like yourself who have nothing better to do that sit in their mothers basements and masturbate all day.

Re:GO MONTY! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28724077)

So now instead of MySQL/PHP stack we'll have the Monty/Python stack?

Release ZFS as GPL (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723047)

You all know you want it.

Re:Release ZFS as GPL (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723369)

...and expect it to still get rejected from inclusion in the Linux kernel due to ZFS implementing its own volumes and RAID instead of using existing Linux infrastructure. See Reiser4 for a precedent.

Re:Release ZFS as GPL (3, Interesting)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723573)

It wouldn't get rejected because of the internal volumen-raid implementation. Btrfs has that aswell, and has already been merged. ZFS would be rejected the first time due to other reasons, ZFS is not just a filesystem, it is a complete IO stack. Linux could merge the filesystem, but not the rest of IO stack, because Linux developers would not tollerate two separate IO stacks. ZFS would need to be ported first to the Linux layers.

Re:Release ZFS as GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723375)

Yes, yes we do.

In fact everybody wants it, even and especially those of you who think you don't or don't know that you do.

Re:Release ZFS as GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28724381)

You all know you want it.

No one else has.

Re:Release ZFS as GPL (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 4 years ago | (#28725075)

Well, we'll see. Oracle has Btrfs for Linux. It's possible they may keep pushing that for databases running on Linux BUT keep ZFS as a value added solution to get people hooked on Solaris.

fuc4. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723085)

And coders about bylaws may disturb otHer Towel under the for a moment 4nd Than a fraction Are She had taken

Sun bought by Oracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723141)

Sun bought by Oracle? That isn't too bright. Did someone predict this? Didn't Monty Burns already block this?

Thanks...I'll be here all week...try the veal

Meh (1, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723323)

It has been obvious that Sun was a zombie since the dot com bubble burst. That their corpse was going to be bought by someone was equally obvious. So of the available suitors was Oracle the best the Sun shareholders could hope for? Probably. Which explains they vote.

Oracle and Sun are perfect for each other (4, Insightful)

linebackn (131821) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723333)

Personally I think Oracle and Sun are perfect for each other business wise. Two companies that have some good products, often don't even realize the potential of what they have, have no real vision other than getting big contracts signed, and couldn't market their way out of a wet paper bag.

Now that there is even a hint that something might change, I halfway expect managers to be running around like chickens with their heads cut off spewing crap like "Solaris is going to be desupported!" or "Sparc servers are 'going away' soon". (I went through this with Oracle Forms when Oracle dropped the Win32 client ARRAGGG!)

It would just be nice if they could make their intentions 100% clear on what specifically they plan to do with Sun's products.

Re:Oracle and Sun are perfect for each other (1)

sloth jr (88200) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724199)

Personally I think Oracle and Sun are perfect for each other business wise. Two companies that have some good products, often don't even realize the potential of what they have, have no real vision other than getting big contracts signed, and couldn't market their way out of a wet paper bag.

Nicely stated, and I happen to agree with your assessment. Given that you've already experience the "Ellison touch", I think you know exactly what's going to happen with Sun's hardware. Fuzzier for software.

62 percent of voting shares. not 62 percent (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723357)

62 percent of the voting shares. this does not mean 62 percent of shareholders.

That's quite surprising (3, Insightful)

kithrup (778358) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723373)

I really would have expected more than 62% to vote for the acquisition. Having 38% abstain or vote against it... I will be surprised if some of the nay-sayers didn't file a lawsuit to prevent it from happening.

Sun's stockholders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723799)

Damn! They have bought the Sun already!

Re:Sun's stockholders? (1)

BearRanger (945122) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724609)

Cue "The Simpsons":

Merely a prelude. Everyone knows that since the dawn of time man has yearned to destroy the Sun... /Monty Burns (Clearly the Monty AB a previous poster was talking about...)

No 62% of stockholders did not vote for this. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28723873)

Stockholders, representing 62% of the voting shares, approved this this merger.

Lets use voter for democracy please. If it isn't yet a good way of using the term, it should be.

But, good English dictates that it was not 62% of the voters. There could for example be two 2 people holding 57% of the shares, and 1,234,984 people holding another 5% of the shares. Lets be accurate about what kind of decision was made by whom and how.

BTW there could have been and may be another couple of billion dollars of shares, that have no vote.

Grammar failure (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724187)

"an special deal"? Is it not a requirement for anyone moderately fluent in English to even GLANCE at a post before it's green lighted? WTF?

Re:Grammar failure (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724439)

What's the point of language? To make your ideas understood by the audience or to write and speak 100% correct grammar? Typos like these just parse "correctly" in my head anyways. I notice it when people mention it, but it really doesn't matter as long as the message is loud a clear.

Re:Grammar failure (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#28725243)

Sites that claim some sort of journalistic content and have "editors" are supposed to be held to a slightly higher standard than "is understandable." Your language centres may have been corrupted enough that they pass over errors without noticing, but for many, including me, an error like that makes something unpleasant to read. Constructions like "speak 100% correct grammar" require at least one extra reading.

How many editors does Slashdot have? How many stories do they post a day? It's not like they're overwhelmed or anything.

Re:Grammar failure (1)

rpmonkey (840379) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724647)

What's you're point? Their not going to catch every error. This is a tech bored, abuse of the language is expected.

;)

"taken from the stock market" (2, Informative)

jsled (11433) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724459)

JAVA will be removed from the *NASDAQ-100 composite index*, but will continue to trade as normal until the company is actually acquired. This point was even mentioned in the press release, so extra points for getting it so (so!) basically wrong.

(Man, /. just continues to accumulate fail. I wonder when it'll implode.)

38% of Sun shareholders are fools? (0, Flamebait)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#28724817)

Oracle offered way more than Sun's worth. Take the money and run.

-jcr

Re:38% of Sun shareholders are fools? (3, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#28725475)

To Oracle, Sun is worth the value of Sun plus the value of IBM not having Sun. That is more than it is worth to anybody else.

It's not MySQL Stupid! (1)

greetings programs (964239) | more than 4 years ago | (#28725507)

I don't think MySQL is in danger, it is relatively easy to fork and has an extensive installed base. What I think will suffer more is OpenOffice and OpenSolaris. Sun is the primary sponsor of the OpenOffice project. I really don't think Oracle has any incentive to invest on it even if its just to piss MS a little. I think that in order to survive, OpenOffice(.org) will need to adopt an strategy similar to that of the Mozilla foundation and get some big sponsors like i.e. IBM. OpenSolaris would be missed by only a few, and some important technologies like dtrace and zfs can't be integrated easily on the linux kernel because of the CDDL. I think Open Solaris has failed to take off as Sun has intended and will be indeed killed because of that. I don't think a fork would be feasible or succesful because of the lack of interest from the general community. I hope that at least they release the code in a GPL friendly license so it can be assimilated onto Linux
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...