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 Stop Developing Sun Virtualization Technologies

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the end-of-the-line dept.

Oracle 145

hypnosec writes "Oracle will soon be announcing its decision to stop development of Sun virtualization technologies including Sun Ray Software and Hardware, Oracle Virtual Desktop Client, and Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) product lines. In an update to its support policies [Oracle support login required] for virtualization software and hardware, the database company has revealed that this decision is a result of its efforts to 'tightly align Oracle's future desktop virtualization portfolio investments with Oracle Corporation's overall core business strategy.'"

cancel ×

145 comments

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

Wait... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44289901)

Oracle had a business strategy beyond "turn everything we touch into shit"?

Re:Wait... (5, Funny)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44290047)

Something about synergistically embiggening Larry's masculinity compensation plumage for great justice.

Re:Wait... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44292829)

Wonder if Symantec or CA could sue them for infringing on their business method patents?

Re:Wait... (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44293325)

"Oracle had a business strategy beyond "turn everything we touch into shit"?"

What? NO! This is part of their "turn everything to shit" campaign. Wait... I see. You mean OP is implying there is something beyond our known reality. Let's call it... the Twilight Zone.

That's a shame (3, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44289917)

The Sun Rays are pretty handing technology. I was surprised at how well they work.

Fuck you Oracle (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44289919)

You will not expand your market, you will shrivel, only your bribes to executives will keep you afloat. You destroyed a company that contributed more to the furtherance of computing and society as a whole than you will ever be able to achieve with your selfish business strategies and practices.

Re:Fuck you Oracle (2)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about a year ago | (#44290031)

1 Person Liked this. Be the first of your friends!

(ps Karma Bonus forfeited ;-) )

Re:Fuck you Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44290073)

Too bad the market didn't agree with that sentiment and Sun was not able to stay afloat.

Re:Fuck you Oracle (3, Interesting)

rainer_d (115765) | about a year ago | (#44290395)

I have to agree. While everyone kind of liked SUN and cherished their accomplishments - few ever bought anything of them.
It might have worked, if everybody actually using Solaris had also bought SUN x86 servers instead of installing it on generic hardware and bought more software from their stack. Additionally, for too long their business strategy seemed to be "Let's invent some mind-blowingly cool stuff and then have sales try to sell it to our customers".
And this not for one product, but basically for almost all of the products they came up with in the last years.

Oracle has no choice but to milk their current customers literally till the sun goes down.

Re:Fuck you Oracle (5, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#44291253)

For reference, what your post tells others is that you started this Internet thing late and missed the era where Sun was one of the big boys in the server and workstation arenas.

Just because you were only around for their decline doesn't mean thats the way it always ways :)

Re:Fuck you Oracle (0)

rainer_d (115765) | about a year ago | (#44291457)

I didn't really "miss" it, though I never laid my hand on the larger kit from back then.
I also don't deny that they had great products. Just that the market didn't think they were great enough, at some point.

Re:Fuck you Oracle (3, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a year ago | (#44292287)

Actually the problem was that they WERE great. SUN's products were pretty bulletproof and once you had one configured for what it needed to do it did it. That combined with the bubble of 2000 where SUN was overextended on several fronts is what tore the company apart.

Re:Fuck you Oracle (2)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44291897)

He's got a six digit number. I'm assuming he was around when Sun was one of the small boys making Unix workstations before any of them were big boys.

Re:Fuck you Oracle (4, Funny)

msk (6205) | about a year ago | (#44292255)

Here's a nickel. Go buy yourself a real computer.

(The first Sun equipment I used was a Sun 3 workstation.)

Re: Fuck you Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44293403)

Sun were huge before Slashdot existed. How can you not know this?

Re:Fuck you Oracle (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#44293735)

Sun was in decline before slashdot existed. UID is irrelevant. Thanks for show that you too came to the party late.

Re:Fuck you Oracle (4, Funny)

Psion (2244) | about a year ago | (#44294113)

Six digits, you say? Wow.

Re:Fuck you Oracle (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44291333)

I have to agree. While everyone kind of liked SUN and cherished their accomplishments - few ever bought anything of them.

It might have worked, if everybody actually using Solaris had also bought SUN x86 servers instead of installing it on generic hardware and bought more software from their stack. Additionally, for too long their business strategy seemed to be "Let's invent some mind-blowingly cool stuff and then have sales try to sell it to our customers".

And this not for one product, but basically for almost all of the products they came up with in the last years.

Oracle has no choice but to milk their current customers literally till the sun goes down.

No kidding. Sun's x86 hardware kicked ass. Unlike Dell and even HP, Sun actually engineered their x86 servers. They didn't just slap cheap-ass commodity components around the CPU.

A recent customer went through a lot of trouble replace "old" Sun x86 hardware that had been around four or five years with new HP hardware - to "save money", because HP's servers were cheaper than Oracle's servers (that Sun designed...).

Note I said "cheaper", not "less expensive". Yeah, the HP's were cheaper than the Sun servers. And slower. The four or five-year-old Sun x86 boxes were a shitload FASTER than the brand-spanking-new HP servers. Talk about a bunch of howling developers. I was laughing my ass off.

And even with the Oracle markup, after my customer had to go out and buy licences for software to manage HP servers - OOOOOPS! (iLO software, etc), the HP boxes turned out to be more expensive than the equivalent Oracle (nee Sun) servers. At least Oracle doesn't charge extra for things like that.

HP's servers also came with cheap off-brand FC HBAs that wouldn't play nice on the customer's SAN. Good God, crappy FC hardware that can't interoperate with other vendor's equipment was solved by QLogic et al a fucking decade ago.

Re:Fuck you Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44293207)

HP makes crap desktops and servers[1]. I'm not even sure what they make that's good anymore.

Dell's stuff is generally middle of the road - maybe a bit crappy but usually not as crap. IBM makes decent x86 servers (or at least used to). Dell service engineers seem more experienced in fixing stuff than the IBM ones - a lot more practice I guess ;).

[1] For some stupid reason many of the older ones either take ages to boot up, or take ages to shutdown. The new ones? Was in a somewhat high profile government project and a bunch arrived DOA. Don't they test them first?

Re:Fuck you Oracle (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44291877)

How many people using Solaris during the days when Sun existed installed it on generic x86 or x86 all? By the time Solaris ran on x86 Sun often had reasonably priced rack servers say Dell + 30% for the same quality. I don't think I've ever used Solaris or SunOS on non Sun equipment and I've used a lot of Solaris and SunOS.

Re:Fuck you Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44293941)

My old Sun sparc kit still works - Sun's hardware problem was that people bought their stuff and it stayed working without needing much in the way of support/replacement and you could get SunOS & Solaris updates fairly easily online.

Re:Fuck you Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44291839)

My first reaction is actually an egoless move by Larry Ellison, because now he appears to be writing off the Solaris component of the Sun acquisition. A more anxious CEO would've wanted to prove that Solaris could still pay off.

Companies drop products and product lines all the time. What customers should insist on is continued service on the products they've already purchased.

Soon they kill Solaris (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44289923)

This coming on the heals of XenServer going open source.
As soon as they realize the futile effort of supporting Sun hardware (Niagara, Sparc) and Solaris which are not selling well, they will also cease supporting them as well.
Frankly, I think IBM would have been a better company to have owned Sun and its assets.

Re:Soon they kill Solaris (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year ago | (#44290515)

You mean the same IBM that has sold/is selling off most of its assets?

Re:Soon they kill Solaris (1)

gravious (19912) | about a year ago | (#44292249)

No, not that IBM; the other IBM that still has a metric (not imperial) shitload[1] of assets.

[1] http://www.ibm.com/products [ibm.com]

Re:Soon they kill Solaris (3, Informative)

Score Whore (32328) | about a year ago | (#44290567)

This has nothing to do with that kind of virtualization. A much better headline would be:

Oracle to Stop Developing Thin Clients

Re:Soon they kill Solaris (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44292049)

rofl - not selling well??? where do you live? under a rock?

The T4 and T5 series boxes sell out faster than they can make them... they just moved production and qc back into the states to increase production and quality...

Solaris 11, while ticking off people due to cancellation of Sun's long term declaration "if it ran on SunOS 2.6, it'll run on anything newer", is better than any previous version of Solaris, which pushes it way past any of the other *NIX / *NUX variants.

Stability, performance, especially with regards to database operations, web services, network throughput - sorry, but you won't find an OS that can do all of these as well as Solaris does them, even if you cherry-picked different OSes for each type of service.

Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (5, Informative)

dcavens (178673) | about a year ago | (#44289929)

As I had to RTFA to figure this out, thought I'd pass on that VirtualBox is still going to be actively developed.

Re:Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#44289995)

For now.

Re:Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (4, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#44290091)

For now.

Virtualbox is GPLed free software. Oracle owns the domain and trademark, so they could force everyone to change the name, and they could use FUD to scare people off. But they cannot kill it. It would be like their efforts to kill MySQL and OpenOffice. Those projects were set back some, and renamed, but they live on.

Re:Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44290303)

A lot of the open source vbox stuff doesn't work well for me - USB and sharing under linux.

Hence I am using the oracle version, which is unfortunate.

Re:Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year ago | (#44290645)

For now.

Virtualbox is GPLed free software. Oracle owns the domain and trademark, so they could force everyone to change the name, and they could use FUD to scare people off. But they cannot kill it. It would be like their efforts to kill MySQL and OpenOffice. Those projects were set back some, and renamed, but they live on.

I sure as hell hope so I have over a dozen VirtualBox VMs that I use for development and I am in no mood to migrate.

Re:Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about a year ago | (#44293347)

A dozen, seriously? I know folks who have migrated hundreds of VirtualBox VMs to KVM. It's not that difficult.

I use VirtualBox on my MacBook to run Debian on a handful of VMs, but anything persistent, for both dev and production, is on hosts running KVM.

Re:Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (1)

Anarchduke (1551707) | about a year ago | (#44294073)

laziness has no minimum requirement.

Re:Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44292075)

There is a GPLed version of it, and there is the Oracle Supported version.

Don't forget about OVM built into the later T series and M series architecture, and OVM for x86 based on xen I believe.

Both solutions give hardware paravirtualization, network virtualization, etc... They are pushing in that arena in huge ways - including live migration of physical servers (with all virtualized containers / zones running under them).

No, they're not going to be leaving the virtualization market, just not going to be doing virtualized desktops anymore it seems.

Re:Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44290025)

The submitter undoubtedly knew that VirtualBox would be continued, but he also knew that the story wouldn't be accepted if it mentioned that fact, because it's all we're going to talk about in this thread.

Re:Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (5, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44290059)

As I had to RTFA to figure this out, thought I'd pass on that VirtualBox is still going to be actively developed.

Virtualbox development, however, is now going to "tightly align ... with Oracle Corporation's overall core business strategy."

Something tells me we may have a fork, and possibly a shift in Qemu development energy in the future.

Re:Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44292843)

I feel a disturbance in the Qemu development energy, as if ...

Re:Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44292963)

Qemu development energy is insignificant next to the power of the dark side.

VirtualBox should be forked NOW (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44290333)

I very much doubt that anyone on the planet still lives in that happy place where Oracle continues open source development of VirtualBox indefinitely with no strings attached.

After the Java debacle against Google's Dalvik, it's abundantly clear that Oracle harbors no love for open source at all, and just sees it as a way of getting a lot of people dependent on its code ready for the harvesting.

Because of this, I recommend forking VirtualBox sooner rather than later. The fork doesn't have to be anything more than an exact mirror for as long as Ellison doesn't release his legal dogs. But he will, that much is certain.

Re:Clairification- VirtualBox is being continued (1)

kwerle (39371) | about a year ago | (#44291557)

Thanks for summarizing the summary - that's the only bit I care about.

Successor is...? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44289939)

Where do I click to download a copy of "overall core business strategy"? I don't speak PR.

VirtualBox: Don't panic! (4, Informative)

DigitAl56K (805623) | about a year ago | (#44289941)

If, like me, the summary freaked you out, you'll be happy to hear that VirtualBox is not getting the axe.

Re:VirtualBox: Don't panic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44290001)

As if it matters, the source is out there so if it was axed people would pick up where Oracle left off. Probably do a better job, too, seeing as how Ellison and the gang haven't managed to go through a single quarter without fucking something up since he was hired.

Oracle is only relevant because a host of businesses made the mistake of investing in their technology. Unless every IT department on the face of the earth is entirely staffed by Alzheimer's patients, I'm guessing that strategy is only going to work for them so long. Exactly as long as it takes an open source alternative to replace them.

Re:VirtualBox: Don't panic! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44290063)

since [Ellison] was hired

He kind of founded the company.

Re:VirtualBox: Don't panic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44290447)

Nope. Read up more, he was fired repeatedly.

Re:VirtualBox: Don't panic! (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about a year ago | (#44290621)

Nope. Read up more, he was fired repeatedly.

OK, what should we read that indicates that Larry Ellison was fired repeatedly from Oracle?

Re:VirtualBox: Don't panic! (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year ago | (#44290691)

"Larry Ellison fired from Oracle" provides exactly zero links that says what you claim.

Re:VirtualBox: Don't panic! (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#44292021)

Ya, and also while we may not like them, they aren't exactly falling on hard times either.

Re:VirtualBox: Don't panic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44292555)

Well, he (the previous AC you were replying to) was saying that Alzheimers is rampant in the IT industry.... must have just meant himself, though!

Re:VirtualBox: Don't panic! (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year ago | (#44290077)

It would matter. The big thing that makes vbox useful is the extpacks: without them, Virtualbox has very limited desktop virtualization; with them, it's an awesome deployment staging and home/smb office option due to its ability to run on anything and everything (hardware) and a fair number of useful features (pxe boot, rdp server, utility through phpvirtualbox, etc.)

Re:VirtualBox: Don't panic! (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44290101)

As if it matters, the source is out there so if it was axed people would pick up where Oracle left off. Probably do a better job, too, seeing as how Ellison and the gang haven't managed to go through a single quarter without fucking something up since he was hired.

Oracle is only relevant because a host of businesses made the mistake of investing in their technology. Unless every IT department on the face of the earth is entirely staffed by Alzheimer's patients, I'm guessing that strategy is only going to work for them so long. Exactly as long as it takes an open source alternative to replace them.

Oracle VirtualBox to be replaced by LibreBox?

I would definitely miss Oracle's proprietary extensions, but forking VirtualBox could be a good thing for VB/Qemu integration. Among other things, I'd expect to see more support for the Virtualbox FUSE plugins, and tighter integration of the virtualization framework with the Qemu core. End result might even be a single front end that can spin up a virtualized OR an emulated environment -- something to give MESS a run for its money as well as Parallels and VMWare.

Re:VirtualBox: Don't panic! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44290475)

As if it matters, the source is out there so if it was axed people would pick up where Oracle left off. Probably do a better job, too

If it's such a beloved project, and so trivial to do a better job... why hasn't it already been done? Seriously, this sort of "well fuck you, we'll just do it all ourselves" belies the huge number of failed open source projects that never manage to do a better job because they're too busy engaging in pissing contests over their logo and whether or not to endorse ViM or Emacs as the one true editor.

Re:VirtualBox: Don't panic! (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year ago | (#44290571)

it won't be forked until the moment oracle give the community a giant F*** you, untill them people will be content with it. look at libre office peopple stuck with it until it was unbarable and the forked it. oracle seems to like virtualbox and continues to develop it (unlike openoffice.org) and maintains a open-source licensed compatible version..

Re:VirtualBox: Don't panic! (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year ago | (#44290707)

Probably do a better job, too, seeing as how Ellison and the gang haven't managed to go through a single quarter without fucking something up since he was hired.

Ellison co-founded Oracle and has been its CEO for its entire history. "since he was hired". LOL.

*crickets* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44289943)

Meanwhile, back on the farm...

Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44289959)

Forget LDoms, forget zones, forget VirtualBox. Oracle just wants to destroy everything that was good about the Sun.

Re:Crap (5, Funny)

sageres (561626) | about a year ago | (#44289963)

Has anyone ever thought that the Oracle might be evil?

Re:Crap (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44290009)

Has anyone ever only thought that Oracle might be evil?

Re:Crap (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year ago | (#44290623)

I imagine Oracle's Mission statement is the exact opposite of Googles.

Re:Crap (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44291411)

I imagine Oracle's Mission statement is the exact opposite of Googles.

I imagine it's identical: rule the world by making a shitload of money.

Re:Crap (2)

BestNicksRTaken (582194) | about a year ago | (#44293719)

Maybe Larry is a vampire, as he seems to want to block out the Sun....

Re:Crap (4, Funny)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#44290229)

Oracle just wants to destroy everything that was good about the Sun.

Oh, so they are staying in the storage business then.

StorageTek (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44290767)

Oracle just wants to destroy everything that was good about the Sun.

Oh, so they are staying in the storage business then.

Personally I've found StorageTek libraries to be pretty damn good. (Though ST was purchased by Sun, and not developed internally.)

Oracle support login required (4, Insightful)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about a year ago | (#44290057)

Yet another reason to avoid helping Larry buy another yacht.

Re:Oracle support login required (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44290327)

https://blogs.oracle.com/virtualization/entry/important_information_about_oracle_desktop is pretty much the same thing, except for a few details about the ongoing support contracts.

Re:Oracle support login required (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year ago | (#44290633)

Don't you mean island?

Re:Oracle support login required (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#44290663)

One of my favorite jokes, old as it is, goes: What's the difference between Larry Ellison and God? God doesn't believe he's Larry Ellison.

What does Oracle even do anymore? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year ago | (#44290099)

What does Oracle even do anymore? All they've been doing lately is killing off products/projects. Same with HP.

Re:What does Oracle even do anymore? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44290155)

Killing Sun Products/Projects, fucking customers over and sueing Google.

Re:What does Oracle even do anymore? (5, Informative)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#44290247)

I doubt they would be killing them off if they were profitable. I do a lot of work in the virtualization and VDI space (not all of it by choice, mind you) and I have never run into anyone even asking about Oracle in those regards. AFAIK the only thing that could be considered really successful is Virtual Box and it's sticking around, thank [omnipotent bearded deity #4].

Re:What does Oracle even do anymore? (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#44291527)

I doubt they would be killing them off if they were profitable. I do a lot of work in the virtualization and VDI space (not all of it by choice, mind you) and I have never run into anyone even asking about Oracle in those regards. AFAIK the only thing that could be considered really successful is Virtual Box and it's sticking around, thank [omnipotent bearded deity #4].

The problem here is that profitable is NOT always the same as important, useful, or any number of other virtues essential to technological progress.

Sun provided a lot of important products - Java being one of their most prominent examples. But profitable, it wasn't.

A lot of things that make you profitable actually make you less useful. Stuff like arbitrary tricks to ensure vendor lock-in, expensive products that winnow out potential contributors because they cannot afford the buy-in, developing a protective and antagonistic attitude that mean that only those with a compelling need or external pressure will even want to attempt to become part of the process.

Look at the various platform developer packages over the years for an example. The free-to-cheap stuff tends to coincide with successful platforms. Only rarely do expensive development systems result in a large and thriving development community.

Re:What does Oracle even do anymore? (1)

An dochasac (591582) | about a year ago | (#44290905)

What does Oracle even do anymore? All they've been doing lately is killing off products/projects. Same with HP.

Yes, and IBM [slashdot.org] and Apple [slashdot.org] and Google [slashdot.org] ... US tax, SEC and patent law as well as Fed/Obama helicopter drops assures that Goliath companies grow by absorbing smaller companies, not by innovation. And the overhead of a Goliath company assures that anything that doesn't add half a billion or more to the balance sheet will be killed. The good news is that this leaves huge holes in the market which can be filled by smaller companies. Sun Ray has been around for more than a decade and if you've seen it in action, you might wonder whether like so many other computer technologies, it was ahead of its time. For a decade it has been ready to save millions of dollars in energy and IT support costs and it would be a perfect fit healthcare, education, government and many corporate uses. Lets hope that bad corporate decisions and bad government policy are not enough to bury a good idea [slashdot.org] forever.

Re:What does Oracle even do anymore? (3, Insightful)

Rob_Bryerton (606093) | about a year ago | (#44290937)

Oracle has a huge, HUGE product portfolio. ERP, middle-ware, you name it.

My opinion is that they bought Sun to gain ownership and control of Java, period. Full stop. Tons of their software relies heavily on it.

I also think they will eventually discard or sell off every last bit of the former Sun properties/technologies (other than Java) not only because very little of it is relevant or profitable anymore, but also to discard the employees who develop and support these items.

Oracle: Where Technology Goes to Die.

Re:What does Oracle even do anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44293217)

You do know that Oracle already owned a full java implementation, correct? JRocket - part of Weblogic that they bought years before.
Tuned and Optimized for the various hardware platforms, faster than Sun's Java at that time by significant margins.

Re:What does Oracle even do anymore? (2)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44291939)

They sell a well know database used for relational and data warehousing
They own a 1/2 dozen other important databases: MySQL, Berkley, Times Ten...
The Java ecosystem
JD Edwards ERP
Peoplesoft (#1 HR)
Oracle Financials
Oracle CRM
Oracle Fusion Middleware
Oracle Business Analytics
etc...

They are huge and they do a ton.

Diverse company... (2)

CCarrot (1562079) | about a year ago | (#44290159)

"Oracle To Stop Developing Sun Virtualization Technologies"

Huh. I didn't even know they were in the tanning bed business...better grab one while they're 'hot'! :p

Fork you Oracle! (4, Funny)

DrJimbo (594231) | about a year ago | (#44290167)

FTFW

Another take on this... (1)

erp_consultant (2614861) | about a year ago | (#44290435)

The anti Oracle bias is quite clear on this thread but just consider...Sun was a horribly run company. Jonathan Schwartz had this bizarre notion that if they gave everything away for free they could somehow make money off it. We all saw how that turned out. Sure, Sparc stations were pretty cool...back in the 90's. But then they got leapfrogged by commodity servers and never caught up. Sun failed to innovate so it got swallowed up by the bigger fish.

Look - I'm the first to admit that Ellison is a first class prick. But Oracle is in business to make money. They keep what works and get rid of what doesn't.

Re:Another take on this... (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about a year ago | (#44290639)

Sure, Sparc stations were pretty cool...back in the 90's. But then they got leapfrogged by commodity servers and never caught up.

Did you mean "commodity desktops" there? Sun's still selling SPARC servers, but the SPARCstation line's dead at the hands of PC's running {Windows,Linux,whatever}.

Re:Another take on this... (1)

fred_jb (1201453) | about a year ago | (#44290641)

Yes, and Scott McNealy was not much better than Ellison. Attempts to monopolise the use of Unix just alienated the rest of the industry, meaning that Sun had few friends when the going got tough. I predicted their demise many years ago, and said at the time that they should have merged with someone like Dell while they had the chance - but of course that would only have happened over Scott McNealy's dead body.

Re:Another take on this... (2)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44291979)

When did Sun attempt to monopolize Unix? During most of the Sun years: SGI, SCO, Dec, Compaq, AIX (IBM)... were all players. And then of course the Linux and the BSDs came along and were major players.

Re:Another take on this... (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#44290671)

I disagree with you. Larry Ellison is a third class prick.

Re:Another take on this... (1)

erp_consultant (2614861) | about a year ago | (#44291951)

Hahaha...touche my friend, touche :-)

Re:Another take on this... (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44290673)

My theory is that thousands of dot bombs were buying Sun stuff in the boom and the success at that point didn't even depend on management turning up, so they got lazy and could not adapt to conditions after the crash. After that they couldn't even sell excellent stuff to people that really wanted it, not unless the customers had a hidden black-ops budget and orders to kill any approaching accountants on sight (the same problem IBM has with power stuff now). Increasing scarcity meant that a lot of commercial software no longer had the newer versions ported to Sparc and there wasn't really a way to justify buying Sun x86 gear. So Sun ended up trying to push a lot of good stuff at three times the price of stuff that was half as good, which meant people would just go out and buy two of the things that were half as good instead.

Re:Another take on this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44291489)

My theory is that thousands of dot bombs were buying Sun stuff in the boom and the success at that point didn't even depend on management turning up, so they got lazy and could not adapt to conditions after the crash. After that they couldn't even sell excellent stuff to people that really wanted it, not unless the customers had a hidden black-ops budget and orders to kill any approaching accountants on sight (the same problem IBM has with power stuff now). Increasing scarcity meant that a lot of commercial software no longer had the newer versions ported to Sparc and there wasn't really a way to justify buying Sun x86 gear. So Sun ended up trying to push a lot of good stuff at three times the price of stuff that was half as good, which meant people would just go out and buy two of the things that were half as good instead.

Sun's x86 gear outperformed just about everyone else's. There's a lot more to putting a server together than slapping cheap hardware around the CPU with the best benchmarks.

Sun was so scared of killing the SPARC market, though, that they ignored x86 and Linux until it was too late and we all got to watch the Ponytail Flail.

Re:Another take on this... (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year ago | (#44291649)

A sun 3/60 was a most excellent workstation in the late 80s.

I did my first grep on a 3/60.

Re:Another take on this... (4, Insightful)

oxdas (2447598) | about a year ago | (#44290677)

I don't think most people would hate Oracle if all they did was "keep what works and get rid of what doesn't." After all, Google dumps far more unprofitable products each year and they have a much better reputation on these boards. Oracle has earned its reputation by repeatedly attacking the very foundations of the tech industry in the (short-sighted) pursuit of higher profit margins from more vendor lock-in. This is the root of the anti-Oracle bias, not scrapping a few products.

Re:Another take on this... (1)

erp_consultant (2614861) | about a year ago | (#44291997)

Yeah that's a fair point and I'm not disputing it. I just think that in this case Sun would have gone down either way, given their bad management. Would IBM be a better partner? Sure...but IBM isn't exactly a model corporate citizen either. Just ask any of the thousands of US based employees that have been laid off in the face of record profits.

I know that I'm in the minority here - and I don't have a horse in the race either way - I'm just trying to stir up some spirited debate on it.

Cheers.

Oracle to World... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44291107)

"The network is not the computer".

Coporate speak (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#44291331)

When they say

tightly align Oracle's future desktop virtualization portfolio investments with Oracle Corporation's overall core business strategy

It means

The thing makes money, but not enough for our greedy shareholders, therefore let us drop it.

Re:Coporate speak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44292557)

When they say

tightly align Oracle's future desktop virtualization portfolio investments with Oracle Corporation's overall core business strategy

It means

The thing makes money, but not enough for our greedy shareholders, therefore let us drop it.

It means next week ORACLE is going to buy VM Ware

Re:Coporate speak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44293227)

VMWare is owned by EMC Corporation, one of Oracle's major competitors in virtualization (They already have OVM on SPARC in the form of LDOMs and on x86 via Xen based hypervisor) and Virtualbox - on the storage side they have their ZFS based filers and storage SAN/NAS equipment and storage tek based lineup.

They won't be buying VMWare.

How to ruin a good company. (2)

Peter Wargo (2985003) | about a year ago | (#44291345)

Sad, truly sad. I used to work for Sun, there were wonderful, bright, and talented people working there. Not to mention some really great products, like the SunRay, as well as lots of good stuff in the pipeline. Oracle could've revitalized Sun. Instead, they completely screwed up. Besides ruining a perfectly good product line, they gutted one of the best support organizations in the industry and alienated long- time customers. I'm proud that I had a chance to work for Sun, and saddened to see it end up this way.

Whew... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44292997)

At first, I thought this meant Virtalbox.

Bullshit bingo (2)

L. J. Beauregard (111334) | about a year ago | (#44293041)

"tightly align Oracle's future desktop virtualization portfolio investments with Oracle Corporation's overall core business strategy"

WTF does that mean?

Re:Bullshit bingo (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44293931)

It means they're going to take the resources they put into virtualisation, and whatever technology they developed for it, and put it into whatever else the company is doing. They've managed to state the bleeding obvious in thousand-dollar words, as usual.

Redhat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44293249)

This is obviously Redhat's fault for not making a suitable product for Larry to leach for free. Turns out it costs money when you have to roll your own.

Oracle makes it official (2)

hypnosec (2231454) | about a year ago | (#44293617)

For those who don't have an Oracle support login here is the official announcement through a blog post [oracle.com] .

Interesting strategy ... (1)

YoungManKlaus (2773165) | about a year ago | (#44293943)

buy a company, then one by one shut down or at least severely reduce development on everything they did (OpenOffice, Java, MySQL, VirtualBox, etc etc etc)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?