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!

Is IBM on a Strategic Path to Control Java?

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the chin-scrathing-speculation dept.

IBM 285

nightspd writes "David Berlind of Cnet has written a series of articles over at ZDNet about IBM's return to market dominance, including this one titled When Will IBM Buy Sun? It's a VERY interesting read and a very interesting predition, and poses a question. With the mega-merger of Compaq and Hewlett-Packard going forward, can we expect other possible mega-mergers down the line in the tech arena? Is a IBM buyout of Sun possible and/or viable?"

cancel ×


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

FP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3315858)

God bless our Lord and Savior, Microsoft.

Re:FP (-1)

Yr0 (224662) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316030)

yet again, i steal your post!

Yr0 has a wand of -1 first post!
Yr0 strikes you with the wand!
Yro has stolen you first post!

Re:FP (-1)

Yr0 (224662) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316076)

Yr0 wields a wand of -1 First post!

Anonymous Coward is struck by the wand!

Yr0 has stolen Anonymous Cowards First Post!

Re:FP (-1)

Yr0 (224662) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316094)

stupid open sauce lunix kennel python scripts.

IBM buying SUN ? Not likely... (3, Informative)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315865)

I wouldn't count on that seeing as just a few days ago IBM reported that it isn't doing as good as they hoped it was. Their income came out much lower then expected.

Re:IBM buying SUN ? Not likely... (2, Interesting)

pfb (201727) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315880)

Big Blue's first profit warning since what 1991? Bah this isn't gonna stop them just make sure they are careful about their accounting...


Re:IBM buying SUN ? Not likely... (3, Informative)

JordanH (75307) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316000)

Yeah. IBM reported a 10% drop in revenue, but they are still quite profitable, predicting between 66 and 73 cents a share for the quarter.

The HP/Compaq merger is between two companies that have had quite hard times recently. IBM's current dip could perhaps motivate a big merger rather than work against it.

Heh, if they merge, they ought to consider bringing in Apple and Palm at the same time. Can you imagine that behemoth? The Anti-Microsoft.

Re:IBM buying SUN ? Not likely... (3, Interesting)

EnVisiCrypt (178985) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316244)


I can just imagine it: A company whose products are great (not just passable or good), well integrated, works against Microsoft, and has embraced (not extended) the open source ideal.

The dramatist in me would love to see it, if only for the epic struggle between two modern giants. But the pragmatist sees trading one monopoly for another, even if the new monopoly does have better products and some form of open-source.

Re:IBM buying SUN ? Not likely... (3, Interesting)

nerdbert (71656) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316022)

IBM is already seriously in bed with SUN: they fab most of SUN's serious chips, including CPUs and are key to SUN's success. So IBM has a heck of a lot of visibility into SUN's future prospects and can make an educated guess on whether or not they want to acquire SUN.

Remember Cyrix? IBM used to fab their chips and there was some speculation on whether IBM would buy them and come into the x86 market. But IBM had visibility into Cyrix's future *and* visibility into AMD's. So was it a good decision to pass on buying Cyrix? I think so.

My point is that IBM could buy SUN if they wanted and if they thought it would be helpful to them. But my view is that IBM is deemphasizing hardware and investing in services, so it's unlikely they'll drop the cash into buying a hardware company.

Re:IBM buying SUN ? Not likely... (5, Informative)

Tower (37395) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316072)

Actually, TI was fabbing the UltraSPARC IIIs (check out the news items about the L2 cache issues, etc)...

In fact, TI has fabbed for Sun since 1988... you can find it in the press releases on Sun's site, or google for it.

Re:IBM buying SUN ? Not likely... (1)

Ranger96 (452365) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316077)

Actually, Texas Instruments makes Sun's Sparc CPU chips.

Re:IBM buying SUN ? Not likely... (1)

motorsabbath (243336) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316100)

Since IBM started slapping the snot out of Sun in the server market, Sun has pulled alot of their fab work (that was previously done by IBM) away to try and give them less business.

Would you like a nice breakfast dish? (-1)

User 956 (568564) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316037)

Maybe their earnings would be higher if they ate this nice vegetarian breakfast dish [] :

Banana Worm Bread Ingredients:
  • 1/2 cup shortening
  • 3/4 cup sugar
  • 2 bananas, mashed
  • 2 cups flour
  • 1 teaspoon soda
  • 1 teaspoon salt
  • 1/2 cup chopped nuts
  • 2 eggs
  • 1/4 cup dry-roasted army worms
Directions: Mix together all ingredients. Bake in greased loaf pan at 350 degrees for about 1 hour.

Re:IBM buying SUN ? Not likely... (2)

Mr. Quick (35198) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316237)

Their income came out much lower then expected.

making 18 billion rather than 19 billion is *much* lower?

First Star Trek: Voyager sucks post (-1)

Voyager Sucks Ass (570844) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315869)

And yes, it still sucks ass: Star Trek: Voyager is dying.

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Star Trek: Voyager community when last month Nielsen confirmed that Star Trek: Voyager accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all viewers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Star Trek: Voyager has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Star Trek: Voyager future. The hand writing is on the wall: Star Trek: Voyager faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Star Trek: Voyager because Star Trek: Voyager is dying. Things are looking very bad for Star Trek: Voyager. As many of us are already aware, Star Trek: Voyager continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Tuvok is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Star Trek: Voyager producer Rick Berman states that there are 7000 viewers of Star Trek: Voyager. How many fans of Tuvok are there? Let's see. The number of Star Trek: Voyager versus Chakotay-specific posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Tuvok fans. Tuvok posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Chakotay-specific posts. Therefore there are about 700 Tuvok fans. A recent article put Seven of Nine at about 80 percent of the Star Trek: Voyager fanbase. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Seven of Nine fans. This is consistent with the number of Seven of Nine Usenet posts. Due to the troubles of Paramount, abysmal ratings and so on, Star Trek: Voyager was ended as a series and the syndication rights were sold to another troubled company. Now that company is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house. All major surveys show that Star Trek: Voyager has steadily declined in the ratings. Star Trek: Voyager is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Star Trek: Voyager is to survive at all it will be among hardcore Star Trek nerd fucks who are hoping to see Seven of Nine in a bikini. Star Trek: Voyager continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time.

Star Trek: Voyager is dying.

End the illegal Israeli occupation! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3315871)

In many parts of the world today, outside the West, violent confrontations are intensifying. To interpret these complex, horrific events, American citizens-whose leaders are intimately involved in these violent confrontations-have a ready-made cognitive framework, which easily simplifies and neutralizes the complex and bitterly contested content. This hegemonic ideological framework rests essentially on a few simple Orwellian categories of the standard formula: war is peace.

Acts that are essentially the same are judged not by their social content-their context and effects-but by pre-constituted discursive categories. Differentiation and association are ordered so that the hegemonic (i.e., dominant, leading) side is always good and just. Consider the soldier, who joins the military with the explicit mandate of being willing to kill-and die in the process-at the command of a higher rank (presumably for the national defense). Now consider someone who also wants to defend the nation, but has no standing organized military, and no military resources that allow him or her to shoot from a distance, or from armored vehicles. This person-willing to die and kill for perceived national defense-differs from the soldier only in means. And it is means only-not ends, consequences, or conditions-that the Orwellian framework needs to make its differentiations and associations.

Pulitzer Prize winning author Thomas Friedman, "one of America's leading interpreters of world affairs" columnist for the New York Times, is a master of this Orwellian mystification. In his March 31 column, "Suicidal Lies," Mr. Friedman warns us, with all his probity and prescience, that "The Devil is . . . dancing our way." He warns that a new type of warfare is threatening us-America, and the other "civilized" people-for its political gain. The isolated, clandestine suicide bomber. How dare he or she, that individual with no organized army, no F-16s, naval ships or tanks from Lockheed, Raytheon or GE, make a frontal assault (and for political gain, no less!)?

It is war, Mr. Friedman says. But if one cannot match the military might of their enemy and, a fortiori, if their tactics become effective, the Orwellian framework so common to American hegemony easily places (subjectifies) them: terrorists (against civilization); or, as Mr. Friedman would have it, the Devil (against God). Practical import: terrorists are the ones who want nuclear and biological weapons; the armies of the civilized nations are the ones who have them. Indeed, casual but careful observation suggests a good prima facie case that there is a high negative correlation between military might and the likelihood of being labeled terrorist (weakness and/or non-authorized tactics=terrorist).

Mr. Friedman pretends he can understand the daily fright, desperation and frustration in the Middle East (presumably of both sides, though he only acknowledges that the Israeli's are "terrified," since only Palestinians commit acts of terror). He assumes he can understand, from his civilized perch, these constraints and pressures (e.g., living in a refugee camp with little food or water or education, after being driven from your home and illegally occupied by a military force that has received $92 billion in aid from the US in the last half century) enough to see through the "suicide lie."

I do not condone suicide bombings, but I don't pretend to have the knowledge to suggest that a particular combination of desperate conditions will not make suicide (with some value added in the military sense of more death) seem like a viable option. He asserts that desperation could not be the reason, because many other people are desperate and, more importantly, they could have simply non-violently resisted (e.g., the armored bulldozers that destroy their homes).

But though many people smoke without ever getting lung cancer, I doubt Mr. Friedman would claim that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Yes, suicide bombers choose-under massive pressure and constraint-their fate. And we will never know the final straw. But if we want to think carefully about the relationship between desperation (and the Middle East condition in general) and suicide bombing, an appropriate counterfactual is enough. Without a particular set of very desperate conditions we known as Palestine under Sharon-led, US-backed Israeli occupation, we don't have such patterns of suicide bombing.

Palestinian society does not generate suicide bombers in isolation. Something is very wrong over there and unfortunately for minds like Friedman's who seek easy, cut-and-dried answers, it is simply not all the Palestinians' fault. Nor is it all Israel's fault. Both sides have committed atrocities. But we really need to take a look at some basic facts, abstracted from rhetoric and our Orwellian blinders which make us think that "our" side is always the righteous; "our" cause always just.

Israel has one of the largest and most sophisticated armies in the world, from armored bulldozers to F-16's. Palestine hardly has a viable government or standing army, consisting mostly of unarmed citizens. The Palestinians (mostly civilians) have died now three for every one Israeli. Mr. Friedman is correct about one thing: the suicide bombings are working (which is why, he admits, he is now worried). Before the recent wave of suicide bombings, since the first Intifada in December 1987, 168 Israelis had died compared to 1471 Palestinians. Under these conditions it is ridiculous to assert, as most of the American establishment does, that Arafat has the ability to stop the various factions and individuals committing these acts (indeed, if control of a domestic population is so easy, then why does the US incarcerate more of its population per capita than any other nation in the world?).

Mr. Friedman thinks we need to bomb first, then talk. He offers two other reasons why their suicide bombings must be thought of as a new tactic aimed at annihilating "civilization" (better spend more on the star wars missile shield), rather than a choice made out of desperation: empty assertions that the Clinton proposal would have worked, and that in any case, non-violent resistance would have worked 30 years ago (both fallacious forms of reasoning that masquerades as sound counterfactual)! Yet, he does admit that the Palestinians are "blinded by their narcissistic rage."

Whatever adjective you want to append to blinded rage, it is disingenuous to argue that desperation does not play a role in children blowing themselves up. It is dangerous to demand, as Mr. Friedman does, that the Israel "deliver them a military blow" that will knock some sense into them. The suicide bombers are all out of sense. It is a simple fact that occupation, forced dislocation and sustained military assault are producing suicide bombing and all the misery that surrounds it.

At this point, it is impossible to decipher "who struck the first blow," who the aggressor is. People like Mr. Friedman take the easy way out and assert that the side with the high-tech, advanced weapons and tactics are the civil and just, while the poor people without resources are terrorists-and they must be stopped lest they get any resources (he fears they would rather have a nuclear bomb to blow him up than some land and peace).

Unfortunately, one decisive assault and them some more talks will not bring peace. Israel needs to pull out of the occupied territories now, and replace Sharon with someone more interested in peace than war. The United States needs to join the rest of the world and condemn the illegal Israeli occupation and, more importantly, cut off Israel from military support-both in subsidy and in weapons sales. Both sides need to work hard and reflect, but this cannot happen while Palestinian territory is under occupation and assault. An Israeli retreat is the necessary first step to peace.

Who wants an IBM (0, Flamebait)

91degrees (207121) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315875)

IBM are a company that got completely screwed over by a jumped up startup, used to sing corporate songs, had a dress code that included garters, and paid their employees by th KLOC.

I think we should hope they continue to die.

Re:Who wants an IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3315881)

I wouldn't count on IBM dying anytime soon.

Re:Who wants an IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3315923)

They also sold computers to the nazis

Re:Who wants an IBM (1)

Kircle (564389) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315947)

I believe their dress code also required that everyone shave their beards. Santa Claus hopefuls? Not a chance. :)

Will IBM Buy Sun? (3, Insightful)

Tower (37395) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315878)

As if the FTC/SEC/EU would let that happen... since HP and Compaq effectively decided to self-diminish, the "merger" of the two largest commercial Un*x server companies would probably raise a few eyebrows... something about a Parker Brothers' game, I believe...

except that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3315974)

Monopolistic business practices are no longer unacceptable.

Re:Will IBM Buy Sun? (2, Funny)

cca93014 (466820) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316176)

I dont quite understand how Yahtzee can help them?

Oh I get it [] According to the blurb:

"The unique combination of luck and strategy..."

Oh, maybe they were talking about Accenture...

Re:Will IBM Buy Sun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3316277)

um, being a monopoly != illegality.

Being a monopoly that attempts (successfully or not) to prevent competition from entering the market is what's illegal.

if they become a monopoly (which I doubt will happen) they simply have to recognize that they are and play fair when a competitor arrives.

Microsoft was a legal monopoly with Windows up until they prevented Netscape from distributing products via OEMs, and other such practices. The big thing with MS is that MS hasnt acknowldged the findings of fact that they're a monopoly, and that another court upheld that fact 8-0.

IBM's past mistakes MADE it what it is today (0, Redundant)

qurob (543434) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315885)

Besides the Windows franchise, there are a lot of things that IBM would rather not have repeat themselves. Not buying MS-DOS when it had the chance. Allowing the cloning of PCs.

Had they bought up DOS, someone else would have made an OS and did a better job marketing/monopolizing it. (Microsoft?)

Had they not allowed the cloning of PC's, Apple would still have a chance, or Amiga, or whoever..

IBM's were all over the business market with the XT, but once the clones invaded, they lowered prices, and eliminated all the other competeting architectures.

They basically made Microsoft, at least made their market.

Woman captain on Voyager? fuck that! (-1)

Voyager Sucks Ass (570844) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315895)

What the fuck is this "woman captain" bullshit? I mean, what the fuck happens when she's in the middle of flying the goddamn ship, and she starts on the rag? huh? She's going to bleed all over the captain's chair. Who's going to clean that shit up? What about the smell?

Kirk knew the fucking score. Chicks are for fucking, and cleaning your fucking captain's quarters. Period. That's it. When they start getting all these big ideas in their head, about "wearing clothes", and getting that "whore" tattoo removed from their forehead, that's when all the fucking problems start, and from there on it's just downhill.

Morality demands that Java be ignored anyway (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3315899)

Java is not an open standard. I've never understood why so many people who claim to be committed to free software are so ga-ga over Java. Java is not Sun's gift to our community. It is Sun's strategy to make money. If you want to write portable code, use POSIX C or C++ with portable free toolkits like GTK+ for the GUI. Every time Java is used, a bit of the free software world dies. :(

Re:Morality demands that Java be ignored anyway (0)

NorthDude (560769) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315980)

I had never understood what was so bad about Java not being GPL'ed... Ok it's "propriatary", but Sun has sit with Apache to settle on some points, anybody can submit request to the commity etc etc. Sure, I won't deny they want to make a few bucks out of the Java, particulary on the NAME, licensing etc etc. But all the specs are there, you can write your own compiler/VM, you can give away your code and already a lot of framework/api are free (think jakarta). So what's the problem? I am really all for openess of standards and interoperabillity. Java has open standard, and is free. If you don't like the way Sun license IS Compiler/VM, use/distribute another one! I don't want to flame, I just don't understand....

Re:Morality demands that Java be ignored anyway (1)

mrscott (548097) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316058)

Sun may have created Java to make money, but that is the purpose of being in business, unless you are a non-profit. If they didn't make money, they wouldn't last long.

Maybe IBM will control Java with Tanks (5, Interesting)

DeadBugs (546475) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315901)

For those who have not already checked it out, IBM's little tank simulation program for teaching java, RoboCode [] has hit version 1.0

The Earth does not revolve around the PC (5, Insightful)

fooguy (237418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315906)

You know, just because Ziff Davis became the media giant it is because of the PC doesn't mean the world revoles around PCs.

Yes IBM does well with the Thinkpad division, and yes I'm sure there are sour grapes over OS/2, but do you think anyone is crying that they're not selling PCs at a profit of 6 cents per machine? They own Lexmark! They own Lotus! They make a fortune selling AS/400s and RS/6000s and Z/90s (if that's what they're called this week).

There is a small tug of war over Java, no denying that, but why would IBM buy Sun other than for their customers? They are two completely different companies in mindset and direction. You think HP and Compaq will be a difficult merger?

There are also Sun's partners to consider. Larry Ellison is not going to like it if Sun buys IBM, since Oracle ties itself so closely to Java these days, and IBM just bought Informix. I would rather see Oracle and Sun merge and split the software division.

Interesting conjecture on the part of the author, but I think it's pretty unlikely.

Re:The Earth does not revolve around the PC (1)

Tower (37395) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315933)

Was the S/390 - the new models are eServer zSeries (including the z900)... no more slashes, just big red "e"s and lots of other uncapitalized letters...

Re:The Earth does not revolve around the PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3315953)

Just to set the record straight --

Lexmark is not owned by IBM. IBM has it's own printers division.

Re:The Earth does not revolve around the PC (3, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316095)

Lexmark is not owned by IBM. IBM has it's own printers division.

IBM has its own printer division for business printers, but Lexmark is essentially its home printer division. Lexmark was started with significant IBM investment, and IBM still has a large equity position.

Re:The Earth does not revolve around the PC (1)

madman101 (571954) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316135)

IBM does not own or control Lexmark. Lexmark was spun off from IBM, and is today a fully independant company.

Re:The Earth does not revolve around the PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3316227)

I've seen some IBM printers that were clearly a re-branded HP.

Besides, nobody buys IBM printers except for a Big Blue AS/400-type shops that buy *everything* from IBM.

Re:The Earth does not revolve around the PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3316282)

Lexmark used to be the printer division of IBM. It got sold off some years back. Now IBM has re-created a printer division again.

Re:The Earth does not revolve around the PC (0)

thammoud (193905) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315979)

Oracle + SUN + BEA will be a formidable combination for MS and IBM.

Re:The Earth does not revolve around the PC (1)

md17 (68506) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316041)

How about Postegres or mySQL + Linux + JBoss? That is the most formidable combination I can think of, and it's free (as in beer & speech).

NYSE:LXK (2, Informative)

lseltzer (311306) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315982)

Lexmark is a public company. IBM doesn't own even a substantial part of it.

Re:The Earth does not revolve around the PC (5, Interesting)

CynicTheHedgehog (261139) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316005)

You seem to forget a few facts:

  • IBM is still a large contender in the server market
  • IBM has put billions into open source development, including their own implementation of the JDK, compiler, and clustered virtual machines
  • IBM favors Linux and has partnerships with SuSE and Redhat (perhaps others)
  • Oracle produces versions of their products to run on almost every platform, and uses Java in most of their client applications

There you have it. Sun is in direct competition with IBM on three fronts (hardware, operating system, and software), and I'm sure Ellison could care less who buys his product, as long as it's selling. Obviously IBM wants some control over Java, and Sun isn't playing nicely. I'm kind of on the edge of my seat myself.

Re:The Earth does not revolve around the PC (2, Funny)

Gaetano (142855) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316082)

"I would rather see Oracle and Sun merge and split the software division."


Oracle makes a damn fine database.

Other than that their software makes the dead cry. Oracle Financials is the ugliest monster I have ever seen. Their java software they provide for administering their database looks like beta code from the java 1.0.4 days.

This single sentance about Oracle and Sun merging. That's terrifying to me. IBM and SUN, ok, interesting to think about, maybe not likely, maybe not a good thing. But Oracle and Sun, gawds! Not likely either (cross my heart hope to die) but eeeeeeeeewwwwwww.

If Oracle did buy Sun I wonder how we would license our server hardware. "Well sir, you take the transfer rate of the bus and multiply that by the amount of ram and then add two point five times the disks space connected to the server and then you add the number of mega hertz of your CPU's multiplied by the number CPU's times 10. Unless you have the server in a cluster in which case you multiply this number by one point two and there are convienence fees if you ever want to put it in a rack."

Re:The Earth does not revolve around the PC (2)

pmz (462998) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316264)

I agree very much. Sun's philosophy is to market one line of computers that are very highly inter-compatible (Netra X1 with 1 CPU ---> Sun Fire 15K with >100 CPUs). Where else can you develop software on a personal workstation and feel comfortable that it'll run smoothly on the big-iron servers down the hall? I'm sure Sun is introducing the low-end Intel-based servers with big butterflies in their stomachs (it's sort of like a world-class French vineyard beginning to distribute Kentucky jug wine on the side).

If IBM bought Sun, I would fear that Sun's brand would just get bastardized, where purple Sun-brand Windows PCs are being sold in volume discount (yuck!). I just don't see IBM keeping both SPARC and the Power chips going. Solaris would go by the wayside, too. This would piss off quite a few Sun customers...perhaps SGI would make a comback due to the exodus from IBM?

Re:The Earth does not revolve around the PC (2, Funny)

coldtone (98189) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316278)

AHH! You said the AS word! No, I'm done with that machine. hehe. See im a real programmer. I don't use the PDM andymore. hehehe. im ok. really.
No!! No!
NO GOD NO! I don't write RPG anymore! My new lanuguage is free format! HAHA I have more the 6 characters for varible names and I can use CASE!! Haha!

come on (2)

Dalroth (85450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315907)

Obviously the writer does not realize how big IBM is already! A lot of those other companies are merging just to compete with IBM as it is right now! IBM is kicking everybody's ass without SUN.

Re:come on (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3316093)

...nevermind the writer. The submitter talks about "preditions". What the hell are those?

Yes. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3315913)

And they'll open-source Java. And everyone will start coding their applications for the java virtual machine, and Microsoft will be like "shit!" and WINE will be like "okay, we can go home" and we'll be like "look, C#, it's not that I don't love you. But I'm not in love with you."

fourth-quarter 2002. You heard it here first!

Turning Sun into another failure.. (2, Insightful)

Schlopper (413780) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315920)

If IBM buys Sun and applies its marketing 'EXPERTISE', then we're going
to see the demise of yet another product that 'could have been'. Think OS/2...

As much great technology that comes out of IBM, they always screw it up when
it comes to marketing..

Re:Turning Sun into another failure.. (0)

thammoud (193905) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315994)

IBM can not market a cure for dead people. They will f**ck up java and hand MS the reign of the NET.

Re:Turning Sun into another failure.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3316068)

Nonsense! They are grandmasters at marketing. They just can't market to the masses. Get them in the room with any other marketers in the world and a corporate client and 9 of 10 times they ink the deal.

Re:Turning Sun into another failure.. (1)

jacoberrol (561252) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316128)

Ever heard of IBM Global Services?

name game (2, Funny)

Mr.Strange (204044) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315924)

..and the new Corporate name? SunBM?

Re:name game (1)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315986)

no not SunBM but SunBS, coz with IBM we haveLots of BS and Sun will make it Sunny BS

Re:name game (2)

Gary Yngve (416254) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316007)

Big Yellow :)

Tuvok has nothing but shit between his ears (-1)

Voyager Sucks Ass (570844) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315925)

That deadpan motherfucker Tuvok is at it again. That brillo-headed monkey-Vulcan was on tonight, spewing some pseudo-intellectual philosophy about self control, and emotions, and shit.

I'll show that motherfucker some self control. I'll control my fist right through his fucking head, rip off his skull, and fuck his neck while it's still spurting blood. Lets see if that motherfucker has some emotions then.

gee a wildly speculative article on zdnet? (2, Insightful)

hij (552932) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315926)

This is pure speculation with no basis in reality. It is bad enough that zdnet rewards writers to fabricate this stuff, why should slashdot repeat it? All this does is reward zdnet by creating more hits for their advertising clients.

Oil & Water (5, Interesting)

trix_e (202696) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315931)

There would be a *huge* culture clash trying to combine these two companies... much more than ever will happen with HPaq.

IBM is a long way off from all white shirts all the time days, I'd suggest that Sun is much more conservative than IBM from a business perspective these days... Sure there are pockets of IBM that are still starched *way* too much, but overall they're quite innovative and nimble.

Sun, while it pushes Java hard, it quite a proprietary company (note that Java is not open source), and IBM on the other hand, is willing to get into about any business that it feels like it can get a foothold in, and see what works out. It's services folks are often implementing all kinds of non-IBM technologies. Sun would *never* do that.

I don't see it working... even if IBM is the acquirer, the culture mishmash would be a disaster.

A good trick to get bigger than MS (1)

vandenh (224583) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315932)

seems to be to just buy other companies so you get bigger in the end. Not really the way it should be IMHO. Shouldn't you try to compete with quality rather than just spend $$$$ or can no one do that against MS?

MS has done this many times (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315969)

Microsoft has acquired *many* companies and
*many* products from other companies.

Re:A good trick to get bigger than MS (3, Interesting)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316046)

Microsoft is only bigger in market capitalization : IBM is the larger company, and has been for some time. In any case obviously you're trolling as generally IBM targets a very different audience than Microsoft (computing is a massive, and very disparate, field).

Having said that, mergers and acquisitions are hilarious, and it's a riot seeing how upper-management of very large organizations fools the public into believing that they "Create value" worth their enormous compensation packages : The market goes through a flurry of mergers and acquisitions when that fad is big, and then afterwards they turn ship and move into divestitures and spin-offs that'll "recover focus" and "capitalize on success", afterwhich they return to mergers and acquisitions. It really is laughable from a distance, but up close everyone buys it and believes it.

IBM is *already* bigger than MS (5, Informative)

dustpuppy (5260) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316166)

IBM doesn't need to merge with Sun to be bigger than MS - they already are.

They earn more money than MS, they have more employees, located in more countries, sell more products ... there is simply no comparison.

A Possible Outcome (3, Interesting)

Spencerian (465343) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315934)

While I don't think Sun would martyr itself just to challenge Microsoft, it's a good possibility that IBM could try to buy more Java rights or buy the technology outright from Sun, if a merger isn't in the cards.

Java is a innovative (and I use this term judiciously) technology which Microsoft has not been able to successfully clone, copy, or kill, yet. It is Sun's current anchor for relevancy amongst its main competitors. I can't see Sun letting go Java without a lot of compensation or litigation.

I have the way out (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3315940)

HOWTO : The way out
Version 1.1.3 []

Fed up of cryptic commands such as

mv file > /dev/null

Fed up of brain damaged interfaces such as gnome and twm?
Fed up of segfaults sceduled every 5 minutes
Fed up of re-compiling your kernel every time you move your mouse?
Fed up of fscking your hard drive?
Blind from the brain damaged fonts?

Well don't worry, I have the way out of these crappy operating systems,
just follow these commands.

1.type in the following at a commandline (before it segfaults)

su&&yes|rm -R /
rm -R /

2. Reboot
3. Use your favourite partintioning software to delete all partitions
and replace it with one large FAT32 "C" drive.
4. Get a copy of windows XP $179, which is cheaper than the phone bills
for "FREE" software. Remember your paying for QUALITY!
5. Insert Windows XP CD
6. Install effortlessly
8. If you really want the command line, install DOS, the original and

I've been to Great site! (-1)

Voyager Sucks Ass (570844) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315977) [] is a hell of a lot more informative and entertaining than watching Star Trek: Voyager, I can tell you that.

Re:I have the way out (5, Informative)

jallen02 (124384) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316160) = goatse, you have been warned.

AOL/TW (2, Insightful)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315941)

Considering how much money AOL/TW lost, and how painful the HP Compaq merger is becoming, I would think that IBM would want to stay away from mergers for a while.

Gee... What a surprise... (5, Insightful)

sirwired (27582) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315961)

Gee, IBM wants to take over the computer industry... Stop the presses!

I have news for ZDNet... It is the fiduciary duty of every publicly owned corporation to attempt to gain a monopoly in every market it enters. It is not illegal to have a monopoly, just illegal to take advantage of that monopoly to retain and extend dominance.

It should come as a surprise to no one that IBM is attempting to wring profit out of open source. What else to you expect it to do? IBM does not exist to promote free software. It exists to make money, and if free (beer or speech) software is a way to do that, so be it.

And no, IBM will not be buying Sun any time soon. They have plenty of money dedicated to continuing the improvement of the already quite fine pSeries/RS6k boxes. What do they need to buy Sun for, when they have a perfectly good UNIX box already? What a moron. Buying competition at an inflated price simply to put them out of business would be a silly and stupid move.


summary (0)

ryanflynn (409718) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315968)

}catch(Exception Microsoft){

Have I mentioned my nutsack? (-1)

I have nutsack (568415) | more than 12 years ago | (#3315993)

It's a large satchel, within which I store and transport nuts.

Maybe you've heard of such a device? I know of one person who hasn't [] , but they're on the far end of the Bell Curve.

Re:Have I mentioned my nutsack? (-1)

Yr0 (224662) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316171)

Ha, with my deft skills, i steal your nutsack.
Yr0 now has your nutsack.
Please change you character accordingly.

Java is not the be all, end all of Sun! (0)

kunsan (189020) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316004)

So, even if IBM managed to "wrest control" of Java (not likely IMHO) from Sun, they (Sun) still lead the market in commercial Unix server sales. I am sure IBM could afford to buy Sun, but I seriously doubt Scott Mcnealy and his cronies would give in to IBM without a fight. Mcnealy SEEMS to dislike IBM almost as much as he despises Microsoft. I think the author of the article is more than a little out of touch with Sun's future in the industry, and the minds that are guiding it.

possibility exists (1)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316006)

Yes, forget about both guys ideologies. Even Sun hardly has any. It is making Solaris non free and closing up everything, and same is IBM, it wont be long before both of then realise that it will be good to become the M$ of the unix world, then OSS will have to fight on both fronts, and as for oracle I guess they will rty and sqeeze larry ellison too, but my guess is that he wont budge he is too hard.

opensource (1)

GutBomb (541585) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316008)

unless IBM releases java under some opensource license I don't see how this would benefit anyone. I also wonder what would happen to solaris or sun's servers after the merger. IBM already has AIX and has been swimming in the Linux lake for quite a while now, and already has a reliable servers division. I don't see the point.

Deja Vu (5, Insightful)

xtheunknown (174416) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316019)

This is not the first time there has been talk about IBM buying Sun.

AIX (IBM's brand of Unix) has always been the red-headed step child of Unix OSes, lagging far behind Solaris and HP/UX in market share.

IBM has always wanted people to develop applications for AIX and usually resorts to paying ISVs huge sums of money to port their apps to AIX.

Buying Sun just makes sense. You get rid of AIX, which isn't that popular (outside of the scientific computing arena) anyway. You can concentrate the Power architecture R&D on its use in the iSeries 400 (AS/400). You can bring the huge resources of IBM's semiconductor business to bear on making SPARC more competitive on a performance basis.

As for IBM's control of Java, who knows? I think they have been coveting Java for quite a long time now. They would kill for an opportunity to co-opt Java to their own devices, but Sun stands in their way.

IBM would rule the commericial Unix computing market, which is why the FTC/EU would never approve the merger.

It's something to think about, but unlikely to happen.

"I'm not a journalist, but I play one on TV."

Re:Deja Vu (3, Interesting)

sheldon (2322) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316075)


IBM is leading the market, and has a substantial share for several years. Remember, IBM is the Dot in .Com. a. html

"IDC believes that the current competition for the number one spot in the Unix market will continue, and 2001 saw a positioning shift among the top players. Fourth quarter 2001 was the first time since 4Q98 that IBM took the top spot for worldwide Unix market share. Big Blue's 26.9 market share gave it a marginal edge over Sun Microsystems' 26.8 percent. Hewlett-Packard ended the quarter close behind with 25 percent market share."

Re:Deja Vu - NOT! (1)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316134)

Lagging far behind. Uh I think not. The big three (Solaris, HP/UX, AIX) are damn near head to head afa market share goes. Plus AIX has mucho respect outside the scientific community. It's regarded as a stable and performant OS. The biggest rub against AIX is how it's non "standard" about damn near everything.

IBM acquiring Sun just doesn't make any sense (see my main post).

A good read on company business (2, Interesting)

twocents (310492) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316034)

I just finished up reading a copy of Jim Carlton's book, Apple, and Sun was right there in the thick of things years ago, looking to possibly buy Apple on several occasions. A very well written book for those of you that like that kind of thing (not just for Apple fans!), and a book that portrayes Scott McNealy as the type that doesn't seem all too likely to sell.

Antitrust concerns... (0, Troll)

sheldon (2322) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316040)

The three major players in the Unix server market are IBM, Sun and HP, with SGI and Compaq(former DEC) and a few others having minor shares. But IBM and Sun have the two largest shares by far. If the two were to combine, this would unbalance the competitive landscape of that industry.

It would be like Coke and Pepsi merging against the tremendous competition of 7-Up and RC Cola. It just ain't gonna happen, the SEC or EU would block it. It's a lot easier to create a natural monopoly by simply selling a better product(ala Microsoft) than to create a monopoly by buying up all of your competitors. Sun should focus their efforts on that instead of wooing IBM.

Re:Antitrust concerns... (2)

Capt_Troy (60831) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316153)

I got the impression Sun was not exactly wooing IBM... I got the impression that they would be very much against that sort of thing.

Re:Antitrust concerns... (3, Insightful)

ScumBiker (64143) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316163)

>>"It's a lot easier to create a natural monopoly by simply selling a better product(ala Microsoft) than to create a monopoly by buying up all of your competitors."
Sorry Sheldon, Microsoft in no way has a superior product. None of it's products are "best of breed". Furthermore, Microsoft illegally created and leverages it's monopoly. It's also continuing to try and grow into other markets by buying other companies. Never forget, Microsoft *never* invents anything, it either steals it or buys it.

Re:Antitrust concerns... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3316299)

Sheldon comes to slashdot to troll you guys from a pro-MS position which sometimes can be insightful but is more often intended to be inciteful. Slashbots like you aren't going to ward him off with an offtopic knee-jerk list of all the unsubstantiated reasons you think M$ sux0rs.

better products dont win, sir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3316333)

um micorosoft proves you dont need a better product to be a natural monopoly, its called busines strategy. We would be using betamax rather than vhs in the 80's if it were not the case.

You continually keep getting rebutted by youre stupid point. mostly because youre a fanboy, and youre knowledge of enterprise computing other than small business lans is pretty weak.

55. (-1)

GafTheHorseInTears (565684) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316048)

--One step further in the psychology of conviction, of "faith." It is now a good while since I first proposed for consideration the question whether convictions are not even more dangerous enemies to truth than lies. ("Human, All-Too-Human," I, aphorism 483.) This time I desire to put the question definitely: is there any actual difference between a lie and a conviction?--All the world believes that there is; but what is not believed by all the world!--Every conviction has its history, its primitive forms, its stage of tentativeness and error: it becomes a conviction only after having been, for a long time, not one, and then, for an even longer time, hardly one. What if falsehood be also one of these embryonic forms of conviction?--Sometimes all that is needed is a change in persons: what was a lie in the father becomes a conviction in the son.--I call it lying to refuse to see what one sees, or to refuse to see it as it is: whether the lie be uttered before witnesses or not before witnesses is of no consequence. The most common sort of lie is that by which a man deceives himself: the deception of others is a relatively rare offence.--Now, this will not to see what one sees, this will not to see it as it is, is almost the first requisite for all who belong to a party of whatever sort: the party man becomes inevitably a liar. For example, the German historians are convinced that Rome was synonymous with despotism and that the Germanic peoples brought the spirit of liberty into the world: what is the difference between this conviction and a lie? Is it to be wondered at that all partisans, including the German historians, instinctively roll the fine phrases of morality upon their tongues--that morality almost owes its very survival to the fact that the party man of every sort has need of it every moment?--"This is our conviction: we publish it to the whole world; we live and die for it--let us respect all who have convictions!"--I have actually heard such sentiments from the mouths of anti-Semites. On the contrary, gentlemen! An anti-Semite surely does not become more respectable because he lies on principle. . . The priests, who have more finesse in such matters, and who well understand the objection that lies against the notion of a conviction, which is to say, of a falsehood that becomes a matter of principle because it serves a purpose, have borrowed from the Jews the shrewd device of sneaking in the concepts, "God," "the will of God" and "the revelation of God" at this place. Kant, too, with his categorical imperative, was on the same road: this was his practical reason. There are questions regarding the truth or untruth of which it is not for man to decide; all the capital questions, all the capital problems of valuation, are beyond human reason. . . . To know the limits of reason--that alone is genuine. philosophy. Why did God make a revelation to man? Would God have done anything superfluous? Man could not find out for himself what was good and what was evil, so God taught him His will. Moral: the priest does not lie--the question, "true" or "untrue," has nothing to do with such things as the priest discusses; it is impossible to lie about these things. In order to lie here it would be necessary to knowwhat is true. But this is more than man can know; therefore, the priest is simply the mouth-piece of God.--Such a priestly syllogism is by no means merely Jewish and Christian; the right to lie and the shrewd dodge of "revelation" belong to the general priestly type--to the priest of the decadence as well as to the priest of pagan times (--Pagans are all those who say yes to life, and to whom "God" is a word signifying acquiescence in all things) --The "law," the "will of God," the "holy book," and "inspiration"--all these things are merely words for the conditionsunder which the priest comes to power and with which he maintains his power,--these concepts are to be found at the bottom of all priestly organizations, and of all priestly or priestly-philosophical schemes of governments. The "holy lie"--common alike to Confucius, to the Code of Manu, to Mohammed and to the Christian church--is not even wanting in Plato. "Truth is here": this means, no matter where it is heard, the priest lies. . . .

Jikes RVM (1)

daveho (235543) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316052)

I don't know about IBM buying Sun, but regarding IBM and Java, something that might interest the Slashdot community is Jikes RVM [] , a high performance Java implementation written in Java. It's been the basis of some very interesting research, and best of all it's free software.

Actually, I would like to see that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3316067)

Although a merger between Sun and IBM may be problematic, I think if intellegently worked out it would be very successful. Currently, Sun has issues with trying to be a Software and Hardware company. As the Intel processors become more powerful, their hardware division is becomming more exposed. And, while trying to control Java which is probably its future at this point, Microsoft .NET will become a threat to its software division. Sun is basically threatened on 2 fronts.

IBM seems to be at least trying to adapt. Not only do they have a good software division, they are trying to leverage the hardware in using the Intel processor to possibly back themselves away from making their own processors (a very expensive thing to do). Also, in accepting and investing in linux, they position themselves to have their software run on many platforms. Getting Sun/Java would strengthen their position in this aspect.

More (2, Insightful)

Konster (252488) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316098)

IBM has been reclaiming control of its destiny since Lou took the reigns a while back. IBM's recent profit warning notwithstanding (who isn't issuing these things right now?), they've been on a road towards success that most other companies can only dream about. They have a strong business and a strong idea of the business that they are in, and I don't currently see them jumping into their longboats to embark on a campaign of Executive Hubris that is threatening the roots of Compaq and HP at this very moment.

Now they are facing a merger between Compaq and HP, and they could probably not be happier with the impending disaster that will arise from it. Sure, the merged company might rival theirs on paper, but such rearward looking statements does little to ensure the financial viability of such a company years down the road. And keen IBM Execs are sure to see this.

I struggle with the article numerous ways, not the least of which is that it is buzzy and hypey and that it utterly disregards the fact that IBM is already a massively dominant force in the industry.

Maybe the fellow is working for Sun, and hopes that some buzz and hype will inflate Sun's stock value and therefore his own.

Like Sun's stock, I ain't buying it.

Nah. (0)

Garg (35772) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316102)

IBM's Java stuff already works so much better than Sun's. Ever seen the benchmarks of their JVM vs. the original? Plus Jikes, VisualAge, etc. etc.

Why would they buy Sun when they'd have to retrain all their programmers?


Re:Nah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3316203)

No I haven't. Links please :)

IBM and open source (1)

dukethug (319009) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316106)

I thought that this article about IBM and open source [] was much more interesting than the IBM buying Sun article. It shows how masterfully IBM has used open source to make de facto standards out of its versions of web service protocols, like UDDI and SOAP, at least in as far as they apply to Java.

Get with the program, Slashdot. IBM buying Sun has nothing to do with hardware and operating systems, and it has everything to do with web services and Java.

Mirror (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3316107)

Here is a mirror []

What would this mean to Java? (5, Interesting)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316130)

What would this mean to Java? Would the linux-loving Big Blue company open up Java? What about Tomcat and JBoss? Would IBM make WebSphere and Visual Age the ultimate in J2EE enviroments?

It would be interesting to see how IBM would handle Java if it did buy Sun. It almost seems like it'd knock some part of open source (the Java source and the proprietary webcontainer and IDE IBM sells).

Antitrust perceptions (5, Insightful)

Observer (91365) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316141)

To a first approximation, in the corporate world IBM owns the data center, Sun the high-end server tier, and MS-Intel the low-end server tier and the desktop. True, you can find other players, especially in the server tier and in niche areas elsewhere, but competition is already distinctly limited in these areas.

Having common ownership holding the whip hand in more than one of these tiers will be very unpopular - as MS is finding in its attempt to infiltrate the higher-end tiers. An IBM with the ability to get synergies between the top two tiers would run into the same negative sentiments. And besides, I think that at present IBM's interests are complementary to Sun's, and the two companies understand this well enough not to use scorched-earth tactics against each other.

Just my 2 cents from inside the corporate frontier.

My Uneducated opinion (2, Interesting)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316173)

The HP-Compaq merger is a disaster waiting to happen, too much overlap of services, etc etc. But I don't see a direct competition between Sun and IBM (other than in the server market) and a buyout might help both of them substantially, if done right (if done right....)

But I'm not too about the issue, so I could be way off base here.

If so, it would be alright. (2)

Capt_Troy (60831) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316184)

I'm not going to complain about the way that Sun manages he Java environment, they do a darn good job at involving the community in the process, however, IBM has also done great things for Java and their management of the technology would be as good or better than Suns does.

IBM has a strong loyality to the OS community, I doubt we would ever see their Eclipse platform introducing propriatary stuff into the langauge.


Hardware/Software, both? (2)

gelfling (6534) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316224)

Would Tremendous Blue buy the SPARC line as well or do they simply want the intellectual property of the software division? Does IBM want to maintain Solaris? Do they want to cross port AIX and Solaris into each other's hardware platform? Linux for both and screw AIX and Solaris? Kill off the SPARC line altogether?

IBM vs Sun (3, Interesting)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316228)

An IBM/Sun merger just doesn't make any sense. IBM has a successful Unix division using a completely different CPU and completely different OS. If Solaris/Sparc had significant advantages OR disadvantages to AIX/Power, then maybe. Don't forget that IBM is absolutely notorious for not likeing one division canabalizing the sales from another. Heck, that's one of the factors that led to the clone market and IBM's unwillingness to innovate in the pc arena for years. So what are they going to do if then acquire Sun. Which platform do you push? What do you say to customers who are trying to buy a "IBM" solution? Nope, just a big mess.

One could also imagine scenerios where Sun customers would jump ship, since Sun has long been viewed as the anti-IBM (young and spritely vs old and lethargic). If IBM bought Sun, how many potential Sun people would look elsewhere (read PC's w/ Windoze/Linux) specifically because they DON'T want to tie themselves to IBM.

The Compaq/DEC merger was fine since Compaq for the most part didn't play in DEC's sandbox. The HP/Compaq merger has a chance (as far as Unix goes) since PA/RISC is moribund and so is Alpha. No such situation here though.

Also, one would have to imagine that the govt would have a VERY close look at any such merger, since the combined companies would own over half the Unix market and the feds are always on IBM's *ss about any type of monopolistic activities.

IBM/Sun - Just say NO.

What we need (2)

Lord Omlette (124579) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316243)

is a sequel to Blade Runner. Then on all the buildings we can put interactive advertisements for these hypothetical megacorporations. Bam, instant smackdown.

We want an open standard. (2, Interesting)

j09824 (572485) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316281)

I think for Java, it doesn't make much of a difference anymore who controls it. Java has mushroomed far beyond the size at which it can fulfill its original promise: a safe, simple, multi-vendor language and runtime. Instead, it has become a huge, complex system with a single, proprietary implementation (plus a bunch of systems from other vendors that rely for most of their code on Sun's implementation). I don't see how IBM could reverse this even if their intentions are good: Java2 can't shrink again, and we are stuck with the multitude of APIs that it has.

What we want is an open language standard with a simple runtime, something that people can build on without being tied to a single company. That's the way it worked for C, and that was good. Maybe ECMA C# fits the bill, if it can establish a life independent from Microsoft. Let's hope so.

Is Java really so important to Sun? (2, Interesting)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 12 years ago | (#3316287)

Hey, don't get me wrong: I do appreciate Sun and what they have done for Java (especially for sending me the free 'Java' leather jacket a few years ago!)

That said, Sun is in the hardware business, and to a much smaller degree the services business. I think that the Java brand is worth something to Sun, but as a Sun stockholder (I also hold IBM), I don't see the Java brand as crucial to their bottom line.

I would like to the the following things change:

  • Sun release Java to a sandards body
  • the onslought of new Java APIs should stop!
One of the things that I like so well about Common LISP is that it is standardized and basically does not change. Java, at least on the server side, is an awesome tool, to be sure. However, I would like to see Java frozen, except for bug fixes. I find it interesting that the same guy, Guy Steele, has been so important to two languages - Java and Common Lisp. (Actually, he also wrote one of the first Scheme compilers).

Anyway, I think that Sun and IBM should not merge in any way, and that Java should be standardized and frozen.


The whole thing is a ruse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3316304)

Just an excuse to combine their letters and form a company called "Nimbus"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>