Beta
×

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!

Oracle To Sell Sun's Hardware Business To HP?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the playing-hard-to-get dept.

Oracle 76

Underholdning writes "With the DOJ approving Oracle's Sun buyout, the question arises what Oracle might want to do with Sun's hardware business. It's no secret that what Oracle wanted was the software part. Now The Inquirer is running a story claiming that Oracle will sell the hardware business of Sun to HP. This will give Oracle a juicy check while HP can increase its services. Larry Ellison denies that it will take place, but a source for CNN claims otherwise."

cancel ×

76 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sparc and Solaris (5, Interesting)

Powys (1274816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29235697)

Since Sun made Sparc cpus, and used Solaris for their OS, will they sell Solaris to HP to match their hardware?

Sell or License? (2, Interesting)

itomato (91092) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236343)

Would they sell it out-right, or license it?

It runs on more than SPARC, and Sun makes x86-64 boxen too..

Who gets OpenSolaris?

Re:Sparc and Solaris (0)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236567)

Since Sun made Sparc cpus, and used Solaris for their OS, will they sell Solaris to HP to match their hardware?

No, apparently they'll have to run Oracloris.

Re:Sparc and Solaris (0)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#29237567)

Oracloris, so you are "ready" for those intimate moments.
Apparently Larry is interested in hardware after all.

Re:Sparc and Solaris (1, Insightful)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 5 years ago | (#29237787)

And then HP can kill the Sparc cpu and Solaris os lines like they did DEC Alpha and OS1... While focusing on Itanium and HPUX... Yuck!

Re:Sparc and Solaris (1)

badkarmadayaccount (1346167) | about 5 years ago | (#29268319)

Where did I put my pills...

Talked to Sun guys yestorday (1)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | more than 5 years ago | (#29235759)

Not official but they where under the impression that sun would as a hole be run as sun a Oracle company idea as a hole. some software goes to Oracle but rest stays one whole company. Thats what was submitted to EU and DOJ so selling off would possibly be a deal breaker. Now this is just what they heard internaly so never know but still to be honest I don't see them selling it.

Re:Talked to Sun guys yestorday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29235793)

They're ALL a bunch of a holes.

Re:Talked to Sun guys yestorday (1)

m_frankie_h (240122) | more than 5 years ago | (#29237597)

Now if we could just get them all to Albert Hall...

Re:Talked to Sun guys yestorday (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29235813)

Keeping Sun whole is unlikely given the way Oracle has dealt with its acquisitions in the past. They've tended to take what they like, integrate it into Oracle's offerings, save some support and development staff for those product lines, and jettison everything else.

Having said that, this whole article is wild-ass speculation. For every source you can find saying Ellison doesn't want to be in the hardware business, you can find another just as credible source saying the hardware business is a key component in Ellison's quest to offer a total end-to-end solution. We'll just have to wait and see how it all shakes out.

Re:Talked to Sun guys yestorday (1)

capnchicken (664317) | more than 5 years ago | (#29235875)

The rules of the Internet always caution you when taking inside info from someone calling himself "Vegeta" or anything else Dragon Ball Z related, but I'll take your lower ID to indicate that both of us might have made poor choices about our online identities in our youth :) .

Re:Talked to Sun guys yestorday (3, Funny)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236289)

I'd be more concerned about his use of the word "hole" for "whole" - twice.

Re:Talked to Sun guys yestorday (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29236187)

Would you like to translate that into English so that most of the readers can understand it?

Re:Talked to Sun guys yestorday (4, Funny)

glwtta (532858) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236367)

sun would as a hole be run as sun a Oracle company idea as a hole

Could you do me a favor? Just take a minute to read that sentence to yourself three or four times. Maybe even read it out loud - people say that helps.

Re:Talked to Sun guys yestorday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29237483)

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Re:Talked to Sun guys yestorday (1)

uassholes (1179143) | more than 5 years ago | (#29237631)

I wanted to say something serious, like how HP, under Carly Fiorina flushed DEC's technology, like the superb Alpha CPU, down the toilet in favor of an alliance with Intel and the Itanic.
But glwtta was too funny, and I don't give a shit anymore. Fuckit.

Run as a hole for some time now.. (1)

itomato (91092) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236393)

Sun has been run as a hole by all kinds of people - even people without ponytails!

A hole for people to put money into, as well as a hole for investors to throw money down - 1:4 split, anyone?

Re:Talked to Sun guys yestorday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29264711)

If you were literate, I might place some credence in your report.

Hey, why not? (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 5 years ago | (#29235763)

Buy it, bury it, PROFIT!

Re:Hey, why not? (4, Insightful)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236807)

No no. You got it wrong. HP's model is "buy it, burry it, write off losses."

Frankly, having seen what HP did to DEC (acquired as part of Compaq; the ill-fated Alphas and Tru64), acquisition of SPARC and Solaris would spell rather quick death to both. In its current shape, HP unlikely to be allowed to do the trick again. (Nor Solaris customers would want to migrate to HP-UX, which is probably most POSIX-incompatible POSIX-certified OS I have seen to date.)

As a UNIX seller, HP is probably most backward company you can find out there. And their upper management who are forgetting at times that they still have UNIX business doesn't help to improve the image.

Re:Hey, why not? (1)

RedK (112790) | more than 5 years ago | (#29239983)

We're actually in the middle of migrating all our Solaris boxes to Itanium HP-UX boxes. Seeing Veritas Cluster Service being replaced by McServiceguard is sad indeed.

Re:Hey, why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29241549)

Oracle won't sell the Solaris side though, otherwise what did they buy ? Spend all that money just to take control of the JCP process ? I think not.

Re:Hey, why not? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#29241687)

I'm not a Sun product specialist, but other bigger part might be the SPARC unit. And selling it makes even less sense: SPARC is open specification, HP can implement one on their own. But I think they are not interested in entering CPU manufacturing business anymore, as competing against cheapo AMD64 platform now is futile. This is where the mass market is. And for niches Itanic is a better fit anyway.

I'm not sure how it is from services POV, but to sell Sun's service unit one has to throw in something what the services unit is proficient making solutions of. E.g. combination of services + AMD64 product lines. But then as many sun insiders commented, AMD64 products were not that big inside of Sun. And Oracle actually might be more interested in keeping AMD64 expertise in house (since Oracle predominantly runs now on cheap Linux/x64 boxen).

That leaves only Solaris as an option to sell of. Considering sorry state of their own HP-UX (and that Solaris would come with SysV license) HP might be bit more interested in buying it (with its services unit). Either to modernize their own UNIX offering or (more likely) kill Solaris and shut off those who keep comparing Solaris to HP-UX (HP-UX looks rather bad in comparison).

Re:Hey, why not? (1)

RedK (112790) | more than 5 years ago | (#29242663)

(since Oracle predominantly runs now on cheap Linux/x64 boxen).

Any Oracle we have on cheap Linux/x64 runs like crap. That's why we mostly put it on SPARC, PA-RISC or Itanium hardware with Solaris/HP-UX. And the plural of box is boxes.

Re:Hey, why not? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#29243007)

Any Oracle we have on cheap Linux/x64 runs like crap.

Have seen enough of "real UNIX" boxes to crap out under load to not to believe such statements anymore. OK, number-wise I have seen more Linux boxes running like a crap, but it's mainly because (1) there are simply more Linux boxes out there and (2) people try to squeeze out of them more juice than they really have.

Specifically in case of Oracle, crapped out OS due to heavy load is highly likely misconfiguration of Oracle itself. But it's true that fine-tuning Oracle isn't best occupation (and Oracle consultants are rather expensive).

My employer runs a farm of Oracle DBs on bunch of Linux/x64 and while they are not the best performers, they are definitely worth more what we pay for them (we have support contract for SLES). Especially when compared to "real UNIX" servers and what we pay for them.

Re:Hey, why not? (1)

RedK (112790) | more than 5 years ago | (#29243671)

On the other hand, I've seen Oracle DBs still respond properly to queries under a load of close to 200 on a 8-way UltraSparc 3 running Solaris (and the load wasn't because of Oracle, but because of other stuff we had on the box, which we used to do consolidation of services). Seriously, night and day. Sure the Linux stuff runs fine most of the time for smaller applications, but our SAP instances on HP-UX run much better and fast than those we have running off of Linux.

Sweet! (2, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#29235781)

Oracle needs to unload the hardware hot potato and HP is a natural buyer for this.

Oracle Should Hold on to the Hardware (1)

Louis Savain (65843) | more than 5 years ago | (#29237841)

Oracle must hold on to the hardware division at all costs. The financial future of the computer industry is in hardware, not software. Software will be extremely cheap because necessity is about to unleash a revolution in software construction methodology that will turn every computer user into a programmer whether they know it or not. The future of profits in this industry is going to be strictly about who has the baddest, fastest and most energy-efficient parallel processors. The software will just sprout like mushrooms.

The painful (and scary to many) transition to parallel computing and the crisis that has ensued does not bode well for the status quo. Who would want to spend millions or billions converting legacy software into multi-threaded code only to find out afterwards that multithreading is not the part of the future of parallel computing. The baby boomer generation (the Turing Machine worshippers) whose bankrupt ideas on computing led to this cisis must be forcibly retired even if it creates an uproar. This will allow new minds and new ideas to flourish so that the industry can leap beyond last century's flawed paradigms and forge a new future.

Oracle has an unprecedented opportunity to make a killing by doing the right move. Sun's hardware engineers are a talented bunch and it would be a dumb idea to let them go. But if the sale goes through, I hope HP realizes the importance of hardware and immediately start dumping loads of cash into another big-chip parallel processing project (and please do not resurrect the Rock project).

Having said that, the solution to the parallel programming crisis that will revolutionize computer programming means building a new type of computer to support a radically different programming model. There is no escaping this. Read How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis [blogspot.com] for more on this topic.

Hunh? (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#29240555)

Software has no manufacturing cost. The margins are like 80%.

Instead they should keep the parts that are made of stuff you have to buy, in an expensive factory, with union labor?

Re:Hunh? (1)

Louis Savain (65843) | more than 5 years ago | (#29247277)

My point is that software is about to become practically free and software companies will not be able to compete. Why? Because the next computer revolution will make it possible for customers to very cheaply construct their own software from freely available parts. Oracle is bound to suffer as customers begin to migrate to free applications. By the way, Intel would be surprised to find out that hardware is not profitable.

Re:Hunh? (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#29247467)

Oracle relies on a vast network of OEM partners and their sales partners to recommend, service and sell their product. These partners are likely to look at a software vendor that tries to compete with them on the hardware as well as a threat. Think of the row that would arise if Microsoft were to try to build and sell their own desktop and laptop PCs. Hardware vendors would consider it a matter of their corporate survival to deprecate Windows and other Microsoft products.

Re:Hunh? (1)

Louis Savain (65843) | about 5 years ago | (#29268359)

It does not matter. Anybody or organization who comes out with the right solution will start a revolution and the others will be caught by surprise and forced to go along. All it will take is a few kick-ass products like say, a smart phone that instantly translates a japanese restaurant menu into a chosen language, at the click of a button; or one that recognizes somebody's face whose name you had forgotten; or a portable translation service, etc.

Any processor that can support such advanced products will blow everything else out of the water. Such is the promise of parallelism and the radical new software paradigm that will make such applications easy to construct even by amateurs.

Not happening (4, Interesting)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 5 years ago | (#29235809)

HP had a hard enough time last time they tried to support multiple processor architectures simultaneously (for a while, they were selling x86, PA-RISC, Alpha, and Itanium.) I don't think they're that interested in adding Yet Another OS and Processor Combination into the mix, or they wouldn't have axed PA-RISC and Alpha, both of which had real futures. They've implied strongly in recent times that they're committed to Itanium, and I think that's where it will stay.

Re:Not happening (2, Interesting)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236683)

I remember when HP got the Compaq tru64 Unix business; they (supposedly) tried to maintain both Unixes for a while, and ended with a big (forced) migration to HP/UX servers.

In the end, I think the business was good for them: more corporate clients. It's reasonable to expect the same with the (bigger) Sun/Solaris case.

Re:Not happening (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29237393)

Axing PA-RISC was the right thing to do, but Alpha was killed off because that's what Intel wanted. Intel promised big with Itanium and everyone but HP was smart enough to abandon ship when it became clear that Itanium was going to suck the big one, but HP are so slow on the uptake these past couple of decades, they went ahead and killed their only real alternative and put all their eggs in one Intel shaped basket.

The idea of a company so apparently brain dead as HP taking control of SPARC doesn't fill me with joy. Those knuckleheads wont be happy until they've managed to kill every possible alternative to Intel. Thank God for IBM (& I never thought I'd be saying that...)

what about solaris? (1)

ilmdba (84076) | more than 5 years ago | (#29240695)

Wouldn't Solaris have to go along with the Sparc hardware business as well?

I mean what good is a new Sparc without Solaris to run on it?

Wow, HP is like an ER for RISC chips. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#29235821)

Their own PA-RISC, Alpha from DEC via Compaq, and now(possibly), SPARC from Sun via Oracle....

Re:Wow, HP is like an ER for RISC chips. (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 5 years ago | (#29235837)

Wrong. They sold Alpha's IP to Intel early in the IA64 days, maybe PA-RISC's as well.

Actually (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236175)

HP will keep this and keep it in maintenance mode. The simple fact is, that OS's normally are unprofitable UNTIL they go into maintenance. The obvious exception is the monster monopoly.

Re:Wow, HP is like an ER for RISC chips. (1)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236395)

I thought MIPS was in that mix as well. Didn't the "NonStop" series run on MIPS?

What does Oracle want from Sun? (5, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#29235911)

If Oracle does not want Sun hardware, what Sun software does Oracle want?

My theory about why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years 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."

It's true that Sun hardware is more reliable than consumer-grade hardware. However, neither are completely reliable. Both require fault-tolerant software. Also, consumer-grade hardware has become very reliable.

Re:What does Oracle want from Sun? (1)

capnchicken (664317) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236519)

If Oracle does not want Sun hardware, what Sun software does Oracle want?

I'm guessing all the Java stuff ... and MySql.

Re:What does Oracle want from Sun? (4, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236947)

I am sure Google made the right decision. I am also sure, however, that an 8-way MP computer with loads of contiguous RAM will excel at some tasks where a cluster will not. A cluster is not always a direct replacement for a Sun M8000. Each has its uses and its rightful place in IT.

Where? (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#29238083)

Where do each excel?

rtfa (1)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 5 years ago | (#29237839)

Synopsis from the article...

HP bought EDS, EDS sells a lot of Sun hardware. By purchasing Sun hardware business, HP can satisfy EDS clients while maintaining a broad profit margin.

Not all companies are as 'with it' as Google and many subscribe to the 90's-ism, 'The Internet runs on Sun'.

There is still a lot of money to be made selling Sun servers and that is a BIG reason that Sun failed to commit to 'commodity' processors

Re:What does Oracle want from Sun? (1)

An dochasac (591582) | about 5 years ago | (#29394463)

...My theory about why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years 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...

You'll note that Google started building their cluster when oil was roughly $10/bbl and only the Sierra club and Greenpeace were concerned about global warming. Oil rose to more than $150/bbl, it's currently headed upwards of $70 and many countries (including the U.S.) are considering carbon taxes. Sun made a wise investment in Niagara chip multithread processors. No one else comes close to their throughput/watt and using a cluster of X86 boxes where your application needs throughput computing is like using cooking a pizza in 3 minutes by using 4 ovens whose combined temperature is 2000F.
Google's experiments with lowering their energy cost by moving their servers is not a good long term solution and their 'throw PCs at it' will only work up to a point. Consider the I^2R loss in the cables between PCs, consider the heat generated by 1000 power supplies (even if each is 95% efficient!) Consider that the bottleneck in many applications is throughput, but you have thousands of CPUs idling hot while they're waiting for I/O.
--- Linux || Windows +X86 is not the solution to every problem, but when all you know is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Questions: (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 5 years ago | (#29394841)

Thank you for your response.

You said, "No one else comes close to their [Sun] throughput/watt..." Could you supply some evidence of that?

You said, "Consider the I^2R loss in the cables between PCs, ..." The resistive loss is trivial, because the current is very small.

You said, "... consider the heat generated by 1000 power supplies..." Google does not use separate power supplies for each computer. Also, the power supply loss is the same, per watt of delivered power. Sun and Google both have highly efficient power supplies.

You said, "... you have thousands of CPUs idling hot while they're waiting for I/O." Can you supply some evidence that Google's idling performance is worse than Sun's? I can see no obvious reason for that. I suppose Google puts computers in standby during periods of low use.

"Source for CNN..." (2, Funny)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 5 years ago | (#29235931)

Breaking news from the Twitter feed?

HP (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#29235943)

HP seems to be swallowing all the failed majors.

This is about buffing up HP's (4, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236025)

IT services arm.

The Inquirer [theinquirer.net] (the IT news website, not the tabloid) has some words about this:

HP, on the other hand, wants Sun's hardware to boost its services business. HP bought outsourcing player EDS. EDS was Sun's best customer. By owning Sun technology, HP will improve its profit margins on many EDS deals.

HP told CNN that the EDS integration process has gone well and the subtext is that the maker of expensive printer ink is fine with writing a big cheque to Ellison.

So, HP bought EDS, and EDS has a historical habit of recommending or BOM'ing Sun hardware. Solution? HP buys and manufactures Sun hardware. That way, EDS is eating HP's own dog food. That's the "x) PROFIT!" stage.

I don't think that it was software that they .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29236115)

were after. I think that wanted to kill Solaris (in the way of Linux), and then make mysql amenable to Oracle in the same fashion that Postgres is to Oracle. I think that owning the API is what it is all about.

Secrets (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236161)

It's no secret that what Oracle wanted was the software part.

Not a secret because it's pure pundit bullshit. I've shot down the sloppy thinking behind this assumption before--more than once. Since nobody seems to hear me, I'll just wait a few weeks for the facial egg to set.

Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29236491)

Links? Powerpoint presentation, perhaps?

This way, we can wring our hands, and go "Ooo..." together.

HP buying the SPARC hardware biz -- seems unlikely (4, Insightful)

twasserman (878174) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236407)

While I think that it makes good sense for Oracle to sell off the hardware business that they acquired from Sun, I find it hard to imagine H-P as a potential buyer. I'd be much more likely to believe the story if the buyer were Fujitsu, who has been involved with Sun and SPARC since the 1980's.

Here's why I think that H-P is unlikely to do this:

  • They are trying to focus more on their services business, having recently spent $14 Billion acquiring EDS
  • The SPARC line and the Solaris operating system would go head-to-head with HP's high-end servers (Itanium-based) and HP-UX operating system. While it would take a strong competitor off the table, it would also create uncertainty with the large SPARC installed base, especially in the financial community.
  • H-P's acquisition of COMPAQ wasn't exactly a roaring success. The only good thing that came of it was that it led to the downfall of Her Worship, La Fiorina, who viewed the acquistion as her crowning achievement, even though it led to firing 30000 people. Today the COMPAQ brand is fading away and mostly is used for inexpensive PCs.
  • Mark Hurd is extremely cost-conscious and very focused on quarter-to-quarter results for Wall Street. A big acquisition like this would be very disruptive and require some significant writeoffs and future earnings impairments.

I would not be at all surprised to learn of talks between Oracle and HP, but I would really be shocked if this deal happened.

Re:HP buying the SPARC hardware biz -- seems unlik (2, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 5 years ago | (#29238023)

desktops???? hp's x86 server line is very successful, and those DL and ML lines are Compaqs

Re:HP buying the SPARC hardware biz -- seems unlik (1)

downix (84795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29238291)

I could see it going to Fujitsu or TI, both of which could leveredge it far better than HP could, with less cross-platform competition.

Counters (1)

itomato (91092) | more than 5 years ago | (#29239343)

* They are trying to focus more on their services business, having recently spent $14 Billion acquiring EDS

See the dog food argument, above

* The SPARC line and the Solaris operating system would go head-to-head with HP's high-end servers (Itanium-based) and HP-UX operating system. While it would take a strong competitor off the table, it would also create uncertainty with the large SPARC installed base, especially in the financial community.

There is no longer a need for 4 distinct architectures in non-specialized high-end computing. HP could be in a comfortable position to weigh the options for cost/profit, per platform, and for a relatively minimal investment, weigh what had been a primary opponent against their own assets. In light of their services business, the systems with the most attractive service projections would be the cards to keep.

H-P's acquisition of COMPAQ...

Compaq isn't a solid comparison, and neither is the reign of Fiorina.

Mark Hurd is extremely cost-conscious and very focused on quarter-to-quarter results for Wall Street. A big acquisition like this would be very disruptive and require some significant writeoffs and future earnings impairments.

See the dog food argument above, and the results deliverable from owning Sun's hardware business compounded with EBS results. This economic phase provides an excellent, stable ebb for acquisition and staging.

Re:HP buying the SPARC hardware biz -- seems unlik (1)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 5 years ago | (#29240711)

H-P's acquisition of COMPAQ wasn't exactly a roaring success. The only good thing that came of it was that it led to the downfall of Her Worship, La Fiorina, who viewed the acquistion as her crowning achievement, even though it led to firing 30000 people. Today the COMPAQ brand is fading away and mostly is used for inexpensive PCs.

The Compaq acquisition was a great success. Pretty much every HP PC product today has more Compaq heritage than HP heritage.

Compaq had better desktops, better laptops, and better servers than HP. Seriously, try to service (or even use) an HP Vectra or NetServer. Now go look at Compaq's products of that era.

HP dumped the Compaq brand (for the most part) and dumped HP's PC hardware.

HP is, by far, #1 in servers - thanks to Compaq's hardware. HP is #1 in desktops and #1 in laptops, again, thanks to Compaq's hardware.

Was the Compaq buyout good for HP and Compaq employees? No. Was it good for the Compaq band? No. But I don't think you can call it a failure.

I'd FUD this too, if I was an (evil) competitor (1)

davecb (6526) | more than 5 years ago | (#29245247)

Sun's competition is pushing real hard to get customers to defer or cancel Sun sales in favor of their products. One way is FUD, suggesting that, for example, Oracle will cancel the Sun hardware lines. I see this as an another FUD effort, suggesting that H-P, who only buys companies up to cancel their hardware, would buy Sun from Oracle.

Another tactic is to start rumors that the U.S. DoJ and the EU will have to investigate.

The longer they can get people to defer Sun purchases, the better chance they have of selling their products in lace of Sun's. So expect lots more rumors to be "placed", with slashdot being a target for this kind of FUD. P.--dave

Re:I'd FUD this too, if I was an (evil) competitor (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 5 years ago | (#29307401)

since when is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about risky undertakings a bad thing? A company that is buying big unix iron isn't going to risk buying from a vendor that isn't going to be there in a year. There is no way of knowing whether the Sun hardware line will exist in a year.

So basically... (1)

mckinleyn (1288586) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236527)

They're saying "Oracle says it won't, but *I* think they will! And so does some other unnamed source!"

oh great.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29236577)

great, now HP can take a perfectly good thing and fuck it up, a la HP style.

Soon we'll see sunrays start shitting themselves within one month of being installed. Perhaps HP can introduce a Sun line of printers that require 500mb+ drivers, with new firmware every few months that break the previous driver and crash your print spooler.

itanium (4, Funny)

turgid (580780) | more than 5 years ago | (#29236645)

What would HP want with that old SPARC junk when itanium is quite clearly the future?

Oracle is advertising Sun hardware (5, Insightful)

azrael29a (1349629) | more than 5 years ago | (#29237167)

Why in hell would they want to sell the Sun hardware business to HP when they have just started to advertise it? See http://www.oracle.com/features/sunoraclefaster.html [oracle.com]

Change is just a press release away.. (1)

itomato (91092) | more than 5 years ago | (#29239235)

Announcer: The robustness and performance you have come to expect from Sun and Oracle is now backed with names with robustness and longevity to match. Run Oracle on SPARC, now from Hewlett Packard.

Sun and Solaris provide a "preferred" environment for Oracle.

"Oracle has based entire our middleware strategy on Java and J2EE integration," Ellison said. "Our approach is all built around Java." He said the move was sparked by requests from customers.

That Oracle would tout the performance of an ally is no surprise, regardless of whether an acquisition was in the works.

Re:Oracle is advertising Sun hardware (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29264701)

Why in hell would they want to sell the Sun hardware business to HP when they have just started to advertise it? See http://www.oracle.com/features/sunoraclefaster.html [oracle.com] [oracle.com]

Especially if, as Cringely supposes, that the whole point of the deal was to use SPARC to get a few more years out of the traditional database market (vs. Google/Hadoop-style methods).

Hold up what if (3, Interesting)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 5 years ago | (#29238435)

Oracle is just licensing the Sun hardware to HP so that HP becomes a Sun OEM and Oracle can outsource the Sun server and Solaris work to HP and save money?

HP is looking for a way to earn more income, if they make a deal with Oracle to make their Sun hardware they can boost their server profits by selling SPARC and Intel servers.

Also didn't Sun at least make Intel based servers as well as SPARC based ones?

Sun had a deal with Next, Inc. to make OpenStep [wikipedia.org] , maybe HP is buying out the Openstep IP that Sun owned along with the Sun server sale/license? Maybe HP can develop the OpenStep API and GUI into something better for SunOS and Solaris as well as OpenSolaris. HP might want to use all OpenStep IP to make a Mac OSX type server OS that is easier to use and configure to help it compete with Apple's XServers.

Re:Hold up what if (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#29239511)

Maybe HP can develop the OpenStep API and GUI into something better for SunOS and Solaris as well as OpenSolaris. HP might want to use all OpenStep IP to make a Mac OSX type server OS that is easier to use and configure to help it compete with Apple's XServers.

I don't like using CDE either, but installing Gnome would seem the easier way to accomplish this.

Re:Hold up what if (1)

setatakahashi (1160789) | more than 5 years ago | (#29248229)

Is this the HP Oracle Exadata Storage Server [oracle.com] Round 2? Let's see Oracle OpenWorld and wait for Q1 2010 for more news..

Remember. (1)

rubi (910818) | more than 5 years ago | (#29238749)

And also we should keep in mind that a time ago Oracle used Solaris to develop its database on. Solaris and Oracle once were "the" platform to run a database on.

HP, where RISC goes to die? (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#29238843)

As someone who has used both Alpha and SPARC chips in high-performance computing environments, I was a bit saddened when the Alpha went away for good. Seeing the SPARC also go the way of the Dodo would be a shame as well.

mucho strange (1)

d_beep (153975) | more than 5 years ago | (#29239023)

This is mucho strange. Why would HP want to support a competing platform when it can just sit back and watch it die. Perhaps to get to Sun customer base, or to get hold of hardware patents etc. If so will SPARC come with Solaris ? HPUX for SPARC ?

As per Wikipedia the latest PA-RISC processor was released in 2005 ?. thatâ(TM)s like 400 years ago.....
hmm interesting rumor.

I doubt it. (1)

Spit (23158) | more than 5 years ago | (#29239267)

Selling the hardware business to HP would invalidate Oracle's Solaris aquisition, because one of the advantages of running Sun software is running it on Sun hardware. I know other OS runs on Sparc, as does Solaris run on other hardware, but Solaris/Sparc is a known good entity.

Not likely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29243745)

Oracle purchased Sun not just to secure the software, but to be a more direct competitor to IBM. They are looking to expand their services business and being able to deliver a complete solution (hardware, software, support/services) from one company is a huge selling point for Oracle's customers. IBM realized this years ago and have adjusted their business based on this model. Ellison now has the opportunity to do the same.

And before people say that Oracle doesn't know how to manage HW, they are getting that talent as part of the acquisition. Sun HW is great just outside the normal price range. Oracle can afford to make minimal profit in HW, because they will more than compensate on the license and services side.

Finally, Sun has more than just Sparc-based servers. They have some of the highest performance x86/x64 servers on the market.

Riiiight (1)

renrutal (872592) | more than 5 years ago | (#29245317)

I find it had to believe they would lay off the hardware department. Oracle would love to have full control over the whole computing stack, from hardware, to OS, to middleware, to the development of the final software public. Suits would love to have an all-in-one package, optimized, from the catalogue, solution. Order, receive it, turn it on, it's working.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?