Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Oracle Buys BEA

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the consolidate-much dept.

The Almighty Buck 115

In an event not as surprising as this morning's buyout announcement, but still noteworthy, Oracle has purchased BEA Systems. The middleware maker was snapped up for the sum of $8.5 billion, the second offer Oracle put forward. "BEA had long been considered a prime takeover target in an industry that has been consolidating for several years, but BEA executives had repeatedly dismissed Oracle's overtures, saying the company could perform better independently. Mr. Icahn began buying up BEA shares last summer, and today owns 13 percent of the company. The deal makes Oracle the undisputed leader in the market for middleware, business software that gets its name from its role as a layer of programming code that resides between a company's database system and the payroll, human resources and inventory systems that use the same data."

cancel ×

115 comments

Oracle is a bigger evil than Microsoft. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22069686)

Oracle is a bigger evil than Microsoft.

Re:Oracle is a bigger evil than Microsoft. (4, Funny)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070784)

The person who modded this troll has clearly never used Oracle. Believe me, if there's a source of evil it's Oracle.

Re:Oracle is a bigger evil than Microsoft. (2, Funny)

marafa (745042) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071544)

ora-0600: that does not compute!

BEA Employee Comment (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22069704)

It will be interesting to see what they ultimately get for their $8.5B. I work in a BEA group where quite a few folks are ex-Oracle, and they have universally unkind things to say about their former employer. The mood is decidedly un-optimistic in our CA office.

Any tips on how to request to be on the list of layoffs (to get the severance)?

-OracleHater

Re:BEA Employee Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22069844)

Streak around the office naked. that might help. :)

Re:BEA Employee Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22069868)

I said "severance", not "arrested." Besides, I'm a pasty geek like everyone else in Silicon Valley. No one should have to be subjected to that.

-OH

Re:BEA Employee Comment (5, Funny)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069902)

Step 1: Don't post as AC

Re:BEA Employee Comment (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069908)

I think it's pretty safe to say at this point that if you work for a company that has anything to do with middleware, database software, or pretty much any other enterprise software, you'll eventually end up working for Oracle or being laid off by Oracle.

Re:BEA Employee Comment (1)

blantonl (784786) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070302)

Hogwash!

I don't ever see Oracle acquiring IBM. Steve Mills would laugh in Larry Ellison's face and cast him aside like a little used rag-doll.

Re:BEA Employee Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22071004)

I don't see EMC being acquired by Oracle anytime soon

There was a time (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22072124)

There was a time I'd have said exactly that about DEC and Dell.

Re:BEA Employee Comment (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | more than 6 years ago | (#22073436)

I don't ever see Oracle acquiring IBM.

I know!

IBM could claim ill-defined, vacuous and ultimately non-existent property rights, and try to extort money from Oracle's customers. ThThen they could sue Oracle and drag it on for years, pulling down IBM's share price, and hope to become enough of a bloody nuisance that Oracle buys them out.

After all, IBM knows all about this kind of profit-making venture.

...or... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22070448)

.... or IBM, or Software AG, or SAP

Although Oracle has a knack of taking perfectly good products and tying them to Oracle in ways that aren't fathomable.

For example, Oracle's LDAP service requires you to use an Oracle DB to store the data attributes, despite the fact that this is demonstrable a bad thing. Everything Oracle does is not just to make money, but to make it selling you more DB licenses, even if it doesn't make technical sense to do so.

Re:BEA Employee Comment (1)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070662)

I think it's pretty safe to say at this point that if you work for a company that has anything to do with middleware, database software, or pretty much any other enterprise software, you'll eventually end up working for Oracle or being laid off by Oracle.

I work for IBM on DB2 LUW. Should I be worried? :-)

Oracle and IBM continue to acquire companies in the middleware space to fit into their strategies. Buying BEA is a large commitment on the part of Oracle and it'll be interesting to watch any fallout or rejoicing in the coming months.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:BEA Employee Comment (4, Interesting)

ndykman (659315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071284)

Or Microsoft. Or IBM. And doesn't RedHat count with the whole JBoss thing?

Re:BEA Employee Comment (1)

Cederic (9623) | more than 6 years ago | (#22073190)


Or SAP, or Network Associates, or Tibco, or one of the other big boys.

BEA had a great presence in the middleware market for people that weren't buying full 'industry solutions'. It didn't really play in the market for people that were, and that's rather a large market.

To be fair to Oracle, they kind of do play in that market. Then again, they are indeed buying up everything in sight right now..

Re:BEA Employee Comment (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069974)

Transfer to QA. Testing is just overhead, right? We waste too much money on it as it is.

Seriously, if there are rumors of layoffs, talk to your manager about it or HR.

Re:BEA Employee Comment (1)

Sir_Real (179104) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070112)

What do they get? They get to eliminate middle ware competition. The Orion (Oracle's Middleware "server") product SUUUUUUUUUU-UUUUUUUUUUUUU-UUUUUUUUCKS. I mean it's freakin awful. I don't know much about the BEA product, but I know that years ago their sales force and customer service was what turned us off of them and to Oracle. Oddly enough, we're just now getting done migrating off of WebLogic to Orion (OC4J/AS). I'd like to think that this will get us the best of both worlds (the support of oracle and the stability of a decent app server product), but I doubt they'll even bother switching WebLogic in. Especially with wedge layers (like Spring) that pretty much make new development for any j2ee container, vendor independant.

Re:BEA Employee Comment (1)

fragbait (209346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070190)

Generally speaking, IT sure is close minded for a group of people who promote open things. Granted, companies mergers always hurt someone. In my 9 years as an IT professional across three fortune 500 companies, I've met way to many close minded, technology biggotted people. Most often they promote open source. I call them yeahbut's. They agree (yeah) and they caveat (but) everything. Call them what you will (BOFH). The days of geek being chic are gone. Business don't care if you get to program something neat. They don't care about creativity. They don't care about innovation.

My advice is to find a business you like working with, not a technology. Once you like the business, you won't care about which language or technology the software is written.

-fragbait

Re:BEA Employee Comment (4, Informative)

Darkforge (28199) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070444)

Any tips on how to request to be on the list of layoffs (to get the severance)?
Ask your manager nicely. I'm serious!

I was at Plumtree when BEA acquired us (now it's the "Business Interaction Division" making the ALUI products) and a number of people said to their managers "BEA isn't the place for me" and walked away pretty happy.

The joke was always that BEA stands for "Built Entirely on Acquisitions" ... they seemed to know how to handle themselves when acquiring. Here's hoping they'll handle themselves gracefully as they're being acquired.

Re:BEA Employee Comment (1)

Falshrmjgr (264237) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071884)

That was when we stopped calling you Plumheads and started calling you BIDiots =P

But seriously, sucks to be us. I h8 Larry. =(

Next Headlines (4, Funny)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070588)

Any bets on the next few headlines today?

I'm going for

Sun buys Oracle
Google buys Sun
Google buys Microsoft

Re:Next Headlines (1)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 6 years ago | (#22072346)

According to this [slashdot.org] your first two predictions maybe true by next year (Oracle + Sun for MySQL/SleepyCat or Google + Sun for J2ME).

Re:BEA Employee Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22070684)

I'm interested to see how the Weblogic and OC4J lines are merged. I just don't see OC4J coming out of this alive. Why would you have multiple lines of app servers? Especially when OC4J doesn't really have much market share or momentum, or adequate support for that matter.

I wonder if all this will really do is increase the JBoss and Glassfish share of the market.

Re:BEA Employee Comment (1)

Marcos Eliziario (969923) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070956)

... I just don't see OC4J coming out of this alive......
May God hear you.
But as wicked a company as oracle is, I wouldn't get surprised if they discontinued Weblogic Server and kept on commiting mass OC4J.

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22069780)

JBoss and Postgres never looked so good!

Someone Call Larry Ellison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22069792)

If BEA is worth 8.5 billion dollars, the dump I took last night has to be worth at least $20 billion.

Re:Someone Call Larry Ellison (1)

neuromancer23 (1122449) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069890)

That valuation is ridiculous. Based on your measurements, a dump you took last night is only worth $20 Billion? That would mean Oracle is worth less than nothing...

Srsly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22069854)

WTF is middleware?

Re:Srsly (4, Funny)

cioxx (456323) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069880)

It's that thing that sits between topware and bottomware.

It's a very important ware. You might say it's essential for enterprises.

Re:Srsly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22070184)

Oh man, was I off.

I thought it was the thing that sat between leftware and rightware.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Srsly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22070518)

So basically we are talking things like belly button rings.

Re:Srsly (1)

risk one (1013529) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071096)

It's perpendicular to tupperware.

Re:Srsly (1)

oliderid (710055) | more than 6 years ago | (#22075274)

non technical people need acronym like middleware to explain things that sounds like magic to them.
Don't laugh, take it seriously otherwise you will end up in a tupperware.

Web 2.0 C'est chic!

Re:Srsly (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069962)

The code that would, say, communicate your -1 Offtopic mod to a external data archive system.

Re:Srsly (4, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069982)

A marketing term for any piece of software that a user does not directly see, or alternatively any piece of software a journalist doesn't understand.

In BEA's case there talking about Tuxedo ( distributed messaging/ queuing system), weblogic ( J2EE app Server) and aqualogic ( a compilation of buzzwords compliant programs that I don't understand).

Re:Srsly (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#22073598)

In BEA's case there talking about Tuxedo ( distributed messaging/ queuing system), weblogic ( J2EE app Server) and aqualogic ( a compilation of buzzwords compliant programs that I don't understand).

Tuxedo has C++, Corba, Java and other APIs for performing transaction processing of an enterprise application. It is expensive and not worth it in my opinion. WebLogic is okay (expensive again) but I prefer it over JBoss as far as having a nice GUI console. AquaLogic is their enterprise service bus (ESB) which provides a web services infrastructure.

Re:Srsly (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#22073994)

is their enterprise service bus (ESB) which provides a web services infrastructure

I think I completely understand each individual word in that sentence, but I have no idea what it means as a collective sentence. How does an ESB providing a web service infrastructure differ from say the AMP part of the LAMP stack? A web server? A Java Server? A bunch of libraries built to enforce business rules? A framework like Hibernate or Spring? I don't do enterprise wide things, so I don't understand many of the enterprise needs per say, so I apologize if I said something really stupid.

Re:Srsly (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#22075670)

is their enterprise service bus (ESB) which provides a web services infrastructure

I think I completely understand each individual word in that sentence, but I have no idea what it means as a collective sentence. How does an ESB providing a web service infrastructure differ from say the AMP part of the LAMP stack? A web server? A Java Server? A bunch of libraries built to enforce business rules? A framework like Hibernate or Spring? I don't do enterprise wide things, so I don't understand many of the enterprise needs per say, so I apologize if I said something really stupid.

Well I'm actually not a developer but a systems engineer and I've read up on some service-oriented architecture (SOA) and web services information for my job. One thing I didn't say in my original post (but it crossed my mind and I decided not to) is that "web services" in the context of SOA is not the same as services provided over the web like a website run by the LAMP stack. Web services from a SOA point of view is meant to create a decoupling of business logic from transport and presentation, making the software infrastructure model more of the way the business works instead of the technology itself. That's my understanding of it (by the way, I'm only a mid-level guy, not senior level so any seniors please chime in if I say something wrong).

What does this mean then as far as an implementation is concerned? It means you create services built on using XML for your messages and something like SOAP for your message containers and then HTTP for your transport. The HTTP is still used on the front-end for users to access your site (if you run an e-commerce site or a web portal) however HTTP also is what runs between the various backend servers for transporting messages from server to server. A service could be something like "sign up user" or "submit shopping cart" and the business information that makes up that transaction is put into a XML message and the message can travel to any and all servers that need to process the information.

Creating a SOA also makes your business more open to others who can interact with your business on a machine to machine basis by publishing your services in a registry. The registry specifies how a user uses your service such as specifying inputs and what to expect as output. BEA also has a registry application but I don't recall it's product name and I'm too lazy to look it up. The language the registry is made with is called UDDI (I don't recall what the abbreviation expands to offhand). Each service is described using web services description language (WSDL). Instead of having a farm of specialized servers the servers become more generalized and provide business services instead of specific functions.

SOA is an architecture so it isn't anything concrete. That's where design and implementation come into play. Web services are built from the ground up based on how your business runs and again, nothing concrete. There are frameworks and IDEs for speeding that up but I don't know what all they help with. BEA sells an IDE for that too but I don't recall the product name. The BEA ESB is built using Java and acts basically as an application server but it's not quite the same I believe. This is where I get out of my realm of limited knowledge so I better stop here and just let others chime in or direct you to various websites such as BEA and others like IBM (who makes their own ESB). There are many standards for web services as well. One set comes from OASIS. Look up OASIS in the context of web services and the WS* standards (WS = web services).

I'd recommend if you are at least familiar with application servers to download BEA's AquaLogic and WebLogic applications for free (I don't recall if they are time limited) to try them out. One warning, BEA's products are known to be resource hogs so make sure you have at least a couple gigs of spare RAM if you are going to install those 2 applications. They each use multiple Java VMs at the same time. You'll also need a database backend (like Oracle). Both WebLogic (application server) and their AquaLogic come with examples you can install and run to help you learn how they operate.

Re:Srsly (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#22076186)

Thanks for the explanation. Somethings you just have to take apart, or build yourself to really understand. I've heard all of this before when talking about the possibilities of SOAP and web services in general.

Re:Srsly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22070152)

It's a intarweb 2.0 lingo buzzword you sell hot air to clueless middle aged business men with...

Re:Srsly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22070640)

Middleware has nothing to do with "Web 2.0".

Re:Srsly (1)

kpainter (901021) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070220)

An example: Toilet paper is middleware.

Re:Srsly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22070238)

Wikipedia has a correct defnition for you [wikipedia.org] .

Stupid kids who can't be bothered to LOOK SOMETHING UP. Get off my lawn.

Re:Srsly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22075668)

That page gives several answers, none of them clear. The talk page fairly characterizes the whole idea as obfuscated, confusing, and vague.

What problem is being solved? How is "A talks to M, M talks to B" better than "A talks to B"? Who would deploy anything that lacks an API so other programs can use it?

Re:Srsly (1)

JoeRandomHacker (983775) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070650)

WTF is middleware?
An adapter layer which converts a lower-level API to a higher-level one which is supposedly easier to use and more appropriate to particular kinds of applications. An object/relational mapper can be considered database middleware; an RPC, distributed object, or message queuing system can be considered networking middleware. You could do the same sort of thing for domain-specific functions.

Re:Srsly (5, Interesting)

sdpuppy (898535) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071320)

Arrgh.

OK, sounds about right.

But for those to whom the reply sounds like a foreign language (on the order of one like Guugu Yimithirr), perhaps an example is in order.

From my understanding:

You're at an ATM machine. The front end is what you work with - the user interface that you are telling that you want to transfer $xx to another account.

The back end are the data bases that receive all that information

The middle ware is what makes sure the transaction goes through without error even though computers are crashing left and right and network connections are being chewed upon by evil squirrels.

Early days it was easy to see who had BEAS middleware on the web.

Fill your cart with junk, and hit the browser back button, not the screen back button.

If you lost everything in the cart, most likely it was IBM middleware.

If everything still worked no matter how much abuse you gave, BEAS software was working behind the scenes.

Re:Srsly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22076880)

Fill your cart with junk, and hit the browser back button, not the screen back button.

If you lost everything in the cart, most likely it was IBM middleware.

If everything still worked no matter how much abuse you gave, BEAS software was working behind the scenes.
That doesn't sound like the middleware at all. If you hit "buy" and it times out, or your order never arrives, or your order arrives three times... That's the middleware.

Almost every financial transaction you can think of would run through IBM middleware at some stage. So let's presume it's a little better than you are making out.

Undisputed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22069884)

Ok, I hereby dispute it.

Anyway, why do companies get bought for billions and then only a few hundred thousand dollars is spent by the new owner on developing new features etc.

Imagine if the 8.5 billion was spent only on developing the product .. making it super intuitive and easy to develop applications for it.

Examples too numerous to list .. but look at some of the companies Cisco has bought, Yahoo, Microsoft etc.

Anyone else notice that?

Re:Undisputed? (4, Interesting)

Surt (22457) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070034)

Buying a company is usually about buying their loyal customers, not about buying their product. Then you declare that the official upgrade path for their software is onto your own product's software track in the next version. Very few of the customers will revolt, thanks to limited marketplace options.

Re:Undisputed? (4, Insightful)

EricTheGreen (223110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070526)

Normally very true. Muddled somewhat in this case by the overall bland reputation of the Oracle products that overlap BEA's (is anyone even using Oracle's app server for something other than supporting Oracle apps these days?)

My guess is BEA's customers are in for more of a re-branding than a product EOL: many of the BEA stack component technologies would be folded into the Oracle product mix and renamed. I'm not convinced the BEA brand was a big draw for new business these days anyway, so it would be a manageable pain from Oracle's perspective. The biggest headache in this case may be getting BEA's current customer base to not cut bait and migrate once they see Oracle's product pricing, post-branding.

One big EOL risk (IMHO) is the AquaLogic stuff, given Oracle's big push into SOA the past couple of years--Ellison, et al, may not want to eat that R/D.

Not good times right now for the majority of BEA's staff though, in any event...

Re:Undisputed? (1)

javaxman (705658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071662)

I do know exactly one company using OAS for in-house apps... but only one, and not for any good reason.

With any luck, this will eventually mean OAS will go away to be replaced by WebLogic. That would make sense, though... we'll see what Oracle actually does.

I'm still trying to make sense of using anything other than Tomcat, but some corps just like to spend money, I guess.

Re:Undisputed? (1)

EricTheGreen (223110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22072216)

I'm still trying to make sense of using anything other than Tomcat, but some corps just like to spend money, I guess.


Tomcat is my container of choice for servlets and JSPs...but it won't help you much as an EJB container unfortunately. That was, once upon a time, a big selling point for the BEA stack. And, probably not coincidentally, as EJB's began to acquire a bit of a bad smell in the J2EE community BEA became a bit less attractive an option given the alternatives available for the J2EE stack (JBoss anyone?)

Re:Undisputed? (1)

javaxman (705658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22072544)

ok, right... JBoss if you really need J2EE stuff. My experience? What most folks are doing can be done with Servlets alone, they just like buzzwords. There are definitely things you want a J2EE app server for, though...

JBoss is the answer, there. I stand corrected. I don't know why anyone would use anything besides JBoss or Tomcat. Thanks for the correction, I'm ashamed I let that slip.

Re:Undisputed? (2, Interesting)

Jearil (154455) | more than 6 years ago | (#22075854)

(is anyone even using Oracle's app server for something other than supporting Oracle apps these days?)


Oh unfortunately yes. I work for a New York State agency and we use almost exclusively Oracle Application Server. I say almost because my unit is the only one using something else, and that something else happens to be BEA. This is actually quite distressing, because I've seen what my collegues have to deal with with OAS and they always tell me how lucky I am to be using Weblogic for my J2EE server, along with IntelliJ IDEA for my IDE (They all have to use Oracle JDeveloper). We're also the only unit using MySQL at all, everyone else uses Oracle DB. Normally I'd say that at least for DB Oracle would be in fact the better choice, however our Database unit makes that not the case.

In fact, the entire application development department is being siderun by the database department, hence the mandate that everything that can be Oracle, must be Oracle (even if it's shitty). This buyout is just one more thing that they'll try to use to pull our area over into their control... I think they must resent that we're not moving as slow as the rest of the organization.

Coupled with the buyout of MySQL this morning, my job just became a lot shakier. I hope to god that Oracle drops the horrid turd that is OAS and adopt Weblogic as their standard, but if it went the other way around because some executive at Oracle is high (which I find fairly likely every time I'm in contact with Oracle staff), it will make life around the office really annoying, and far less productive.

Work tomorrow when I tell the bosses will be interesting at any rate.

Re:Undisputed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22070600)

Look at Vantive I mean Peoplesoft I mean Oracle. Vantive no more.

Re:Undisputed? (2, Informative)

FreeBSDbigot (162899) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071252)

> declare that the official upgrade path for their software is onto your own product's software track

That probably is the norm, but Oracle is not doing this to PeopleSoft & JD Edwards customers. At least, they're not pushing hard and fast. They've announced (and in fact have been delivering) multi-year support, including non-Oracle-Applications (i.e., "Fusion") upgrades.

Standards (1)

IYagami (136831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071872)

That is why we have standards.

If I develop an application following the MVC model:
- Model: data accessed through standard SQL
- View: web based.
- Controller: J2EE standard
I can change:
- Model: the OS of my clients
- View: I only need a J2EE application server (jboss / websphere / whatever)
- Database: I only need an standard database (Oracle / SQLServer / Postgresql)

I'll use whatever product is the best to solve my problems. For example, if suddenly Oracle wants to charge lots of money for a database instance, I'll try to move to another database (this is the "commoditization" of the market: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity [wikipedia.org] )

Re:Standards (2, Insightful)

durdur (252098) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071972)

It would be nice if this were true, but for non-trival use cases there isn't any such thing as a "standard" database - they are not really compatible or feature equivalent - although you can hide the differences quite a bit. Ditto for application server. Stray into advanced areas and you will find differences in the vendors' tech stacks. So there is some inevitable cost to changing stacks. Some developers do target multiple different stacks and keep their software compatible with all of them but that costs, too.

Re:Undisputed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22071988)

I would generally agree, except that most BEA customers are already Oracle database or apps customers. Oracle has been unable to displace BEA in most of these accounts with their Fusion middleware, so in this case I think they are really buying the software. Yes, they will probably merge Fusion with BEA over time, but its still about the software.

i was just reading (4, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069928)

About how Oracle is floundering, and quite close to melting down from its attempts at integrating all the middleware platforms it has picked up in the last four purchases it made. Obviously, when you're having serious trouble getting all your different software platforms integrated, the best solution is to buy another one. Good move Oracle.

Re:i was just reading (1)

leandrod (17766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070292)

how Oracle is floundering, and quite close to melting down from its attempts at integrating all the middleware platforms it has picked up
Where did you read this?

Re:i was just reading (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070614)

Well I can't vouch for what was said, but in my thankfully limited experience, OAS is a big steaming mess. I just pray they don't do *anything* to WebLogic, my experiences with it have been far, far better.

Re:i was just reading (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070682)

OAS is a big steaming mess.

After developing a failed project based on the Oracle stack last year, I would have to agree. I hope I never have to use OAS, and JDeveloper ever again. Oracle DB wasn't too bad, and JSF was buggy but somewhat alright to work with. But not nearly as nice as Spring/Hibernate. IBM seems to definitely be more advanced in their middleware tools, and I would choose them hands down.

Re:i was just reading (1)

Unordained (262962) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071274)

Oh? Around our office, we're pretty convinced WebLogic (Portal) is a steaming pile ... we'd switch everything to Tomcat if management would let us. But they already paid for WebLogic, you see.

Re:i was just reading (1)

Cederic (9623) | more than 6 years ago | (#22073238)

Weblogic Server has always been pretty well behaved (well, since 4.5). Portal never really convinced me it added enough benefits to be worth the extra complexity (and BEA licence costs).

Re:i was just reading (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071560)

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/12/technology/oracle_analysis/ [cnn.com]
http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/14/oracle-consolidation-openworld-tech-cx_wt_1115techoracle.html [forbes.com]

There was some better source, unfortunately I can't find it at the moment.
Basically, it sounded like Oracles efforts to find commonality in all of their platforms were turning into a mess. Not working there myself I can't confirm or deny.

Re:i was just reading (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070618)

Maybe it's like the story about bringing in cats to kill mice, but then they needed dogs to chase away all the cats, and wolves to chase the dogs, and elephants to chase away the wolves and finally mice again to scare away the elephants. Maybe they think this new software will seek out and devour the other four. Or not.

Corporate buyouts R back (1)

heroine (1220) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069954)

Looks like the interest rate slashing and high inflation is starting to pay off.

I hope (1)

Joseph1337 (1146047) | more than 6 years ago | (#22069998)

That MySql, Firebird and other OSS data bases will breakthrough in the business sector

---
My blog, check it out and comment - http://www.joseph1337.websitemanaged.com/ [websitemanaged.com]

"wtfismiddleware" tag (2, Insightful)

Murmer (96505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070020)

"Middleware" is IT-speak for "we've got this closed-source thing over there, and it doesn't talk at all to this closed-source thing over here, and we have no idea what their data formats or wire formats are but we've spent scads of money on both of them and now we need them to talk to each other, so can you please figure out how to make that work?

It's the user tax on closed formats and closed source, basically.

Compatibility tax (2, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070508)

It's the user tax on closed formats and closed source, basically.
Agreed though I would add lack of compatibility (or inability to plan compatibility) to the items being taxed. For a lot of companies "off the shelf" just doesn't quite get the job done and heaven forbid two pieces of software actually communicate. [/sarcasm] While I certainly wouldn't argue forward compatibility [wikipedia.org] is easy (quite the opposite in fact) I see middleware as the cost of building or buying systems with insufficient flexibility up front. Companies get trapped by limitations in off the shelf software or sometimes by poorly designed custom software. Not always avoidable but middleware is frequently the cost. Unfortunately the IT world is so unpredictable it's really hard to plan even 5 years out sometimes.

Re:"wtfismiddleware" tag (1)

phobos13013 (813040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071050)

So what you're saying is if open source gains market share, these types of acquisitions will become obsolete...?

Well, I know where I wouldn't invest

Re:"wtfismiddleware" tag (2, Insightful)

neurovish (315867) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071600)

"Middleware" is IT-speak for "we've got this closed-source thing over there, and it doesn't talk at all to this closed-source thing over here, and we have no idea what their data formats or wire formats are but we've spent scads of money on both of them and now we need them to talk to each other, so can you please figure out how to make that work?

It's the user tax on closed formats and closed source, basically.
So how does an in house Java application running on JBoss and using a MySQL database fit into your analysis of Middleware?

Re:"wtfismiddleware" tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22072586)

Sorry, but that's an idiotic comment. Middleware includes things like message queueing and tracking (MQ, Seebeyond, egate, etc.), federation with external companies, talking between platforms that have no common means of talking (e.g., Mainframe, iSeries, Teradata, Windows, etc.), and many other things. I would guess you've never worked in an enterprise environment where you have lots of various off-the-shelf best-of-breed apps that need to cooperate.

Re:"wtfismiddleware" tag (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22073074)

This has to be a first. An AC I agree with.

Re:"wtfismiddleware" tag (4, Informative)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22074406)

"Middleware" is IT-speak for "we've got this closed-source thing over there, and it doesn't talk at all to this closed-source thing over here, and we have no idea what their data formats or wire formats are but we've spent scads of money on both of them and now we need them to talk to each other, so can you please figure out how to make that work?

Bullshit.

While middleware is appropriate in the context you put forward, it is also appropriate in the "We have a mainframe app we built ourselves 15 years ago and we need to integrate it with a new web app we've developed and have those to apps work together with all our external partners and regulatory bodies" type scenario. Whether the source code of either system is open or closed is irrelevant if the interfaces are well defined. Middleware makes sense if you look at it from the point of view of a business performing a staged upgrade, whereby they can leave legacy systems which aint broke running, implement new functionality on new systems (which wont require them to hire a bunch of 70+ year old COBOL codgers to maintain it for the next 15 years) and then migrate the old functionality to newer tech. It all happens seemlessly with a good middleware solution, at least in theory.

Middleware is not a closed source tax, it is the mortar that helps keep solid infrastructure solid, whether you use open or closed source software.

Re:"wtfismiddleware" tag MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22074608)

middleware sucks my ass

BEA Systems? Who? (1)

metamechanical (545566) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070068)

Am I the only person who read BAE Systems?

Re:BEA Systems? Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22070380)

Nope. My brother sent me an email this morning stating he saw the headline that Oracle was buying BEA Systems. (I work for BAE Systems). My response was:

I saw that too. Hopefully they'll drop the "BEA" name in the acquisition and that will end the confusion between BAE Systems and BEA Systems.

Re:BEA Systems? Who? (1)

mmxsaro (187943) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070424)

From Wikipedia: BEA Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: BEAS) is one of the major companies developing enterprise infrastructure software. BEA makes middleware, products that help software run on top of databases. Founded in 1995, BEA has specialized in the enterprise infrastructure software market throughout its 12 year history, and currently has 78 offices in 37 countries. BEA is headquartered in San Jose, California.

MS MQ anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22070090)

Oracle has a pretty robust portfolio. As with all large mergers in the past (HP/Compaq etc) the kinks will be ironed out and Oracle will eventually be king of the enterprise app space where there is a LOT of money to be made. Whether the big "E"nterprises get their money's worth is another question. Because the ones I have seen love to through around the big name apps they have but tend to have a less than stellar implementation and support structure around them.

Oracle buys BAE, oh wait ... (1)

slashdotmsiriv (922939) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070114)

Was I the only one thinking that?

Re:Oracle buys BAE, oh wait ... (1)

leamanc (961376) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070290)

Was I the only one thinking that?
No, metamechanical was thinking the same thing.

Re:Oracle buys BAE, oh wait ... (1)

Marcos Eliziario (969923) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071114)

Consider how many times this kind of thing must have floated on larry elison dreams:
Having some jet fighter factories and finally wipe that loser bill gates out of sight, so the world would finally recognize him, Larry Elison, as the One and truly One.

What Mr. Icahn really said (3, Interesting)

ServerIrv (840609) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070256)

"This transaction is an excellent example of the great results that can be achieved for all constituencies when the shareholder activist is able to work cooperatively with management," Mr. Icahn said in a statement. (from TFA)

Translation...this hostile takeover is an excellent example of how I can buy up lots of stock, sue said company into being bought out, the stock price artificially goes up so I make tons of money, lots of employees get screwed, and I don't care about the pawns in my money game," Mr Icahn laughed as he went to the bank with his ill gotten, but "legal" gains.

BEA to being investigated by the SEC (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22070396)

As an Oracle shareholder, I was excited about this acquisition until I found this article reporting that they're (bEA)likely to being investigated by the the SEC [tinyurl.com]

Re:BEA to being investigated by the SEC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22070848)

I love that NoScript blocks that lame minicity shit.

No you can't have people in your city. Not yours.

Re:BEA to being investigated by the SEC (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070914)

Preview of TinyURL.com/2zbtbs
This TinyURL redirects to:

        http://slashdotcity.myminicity.fr/ [myminicity.fr]


Nice try, cocksucker.

Hmm (2, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070590)

No Bea Arthur jokes. The world has truly moved on. *sigh* I'm old. :-(

Re:Hmm (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071458)

If it makes you feel better: I would like pictures of Bea Arthur and a football helmet filled with cottage cheese.

Re:Hmm (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#22075040)

The world has truly moved on. *sigh* I'm old. :-(

Thats what Bea Arther said!

Re:Hmm (1)

ashitaka (27544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22075278)

You're not that old.

When I see "BEA" I remember watching Trident jets landing at Manchester airport.

BEA (British European Airways) + BOAC (British Overseas Airways Corp) = British Airways (ca. 1974)

Who is next? (1)

PaxTharsis (927532) | more than 6 years ago | (#22070868)

So who is up next in this game of Techno-Monopoly that we are playing today? Apple to buy Red Hat? Microsoft purchases Mozilla? And who is the race car?

Re:Who is next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22073840)

HP to buy ca.

Icahn takes credit (1)

rdean400 (322321) | more than 6 years ago | (#22071998)

Saying something to the effect of "This transaction is an example of the great results for everyone that can be attained when the shareholder activist works closely with management."

I think the other stakeholders (employees, customers) will take a wait-and-see approach.

So they bought a good middleware company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22075294)

Does this mean they will have finally have a few on-staff web programmers that have a clue how to write usable web applications? Seriously, their timecard and expense reporting webapps SUCK.

Odd though -- Oracle already HAS a J2EE application server they were marketing and including with their database. What does this mean for Weblogic? Even better yet, what does this do to vendors that OEM Weblogic, such as a little company called Vignette...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...