"....Oracle is getting Sun on the cheap...." So, excluding the cash, Oracle just paid $3.8bn for a business that makes $201m loss in a quarter. Doesn't sound like much of a bargain to me!

Run for the hills. SPARC is dead

"That means, if you do the math, that Sparc server shipments plummeted by 34 percent to around 32,000 units. Yikes."

"In the quarter, Sun's sales plunged by 20 per cent to $2.61bn, with product sales down 24.2 per cent to $1.52bn"

"Power Systems sales were up 2 percent"

Looks to me like Oracle will end of life SPARC and keep selling Linux on x86 (and Solaris too).

Look for 15,000 RIFs once the great Oracle works the books. Sun was behind a ROCK and a hard place (Fujitsu). Oracle could care less about SPARC they just want a profit ROI and that means HUGE price increases as they test the metal of customers ability to migrate.

I've had a blast writing comments here over the years, being a Sun fanboi, and finally a harbinger. It's such a shame it has to end like this. But I guess it's appropriate that 2 Unix heavyweights - Sun and SGI - should exit stage right at about the same time.

I'm fascinated to see what Oracle does with Sparc. The new Intel 5500 Xeons look like they give Niagara a run for its money, and Fujitsu's chips aren't going to keep the pace against IBM Power 6 and 7.

By the way, the hardware deferred revenue numbers are bull. They've been growing for the past year or more and never materialize. It's deferred as in "manana" (which I can tell you from over here in Mexico usually means never).

I'm still holding a bunch of Sun "put" options which became worthless when Oracle announced its takeover. So I guess in the end Sun enjoyed the last laugh when I got a little too greedy, but maybe Larry will see these FY09Q3 numbers and reconsider his deal? $9.50 a share is generous given a 20% decline and 30,000-plus hungry mouths to feed. Maybe his experience with Unbreakable Linux taught him that forking open source doesn't deliver the green stuff?

Talking of Linux, the really big question on my mind is "what cooker does Jon Schwartz use (it's the same as Greg P's), and did Linus ever accept that dinner invitation?" Food for thought.

Hasta la proxima vida, Sol. Dulces suenos.

PS Expect Rackable to post similarly dire results in a week and watch the "SGI joy" evaporate.

> Oracle could care less about SPARC

Could they really? I'd like to see that.

> as they test the metal of customers

metal?

English may be tough stuff but the Kings English is turning to shite.

Torn between flames and Billy the Devil -- either way I know it's bad form to comment on another poster's spelling and grammar mistakes. I probably have one or two of my own in this reply.

Anonymous Coward says, "The managers (from top to bottom) of... UltraSPARC-T3 have demonstrated their general incompetence"

The UltraSPARC T series has either been on-time or early, since it was released at SUN.

What is the problem with T3? It is expected 2nd half 2009... jumping the gun a little? Are you suggesting that the T3 will not be released until 2010?

Timothy Prickett Morgan writes, "And before IBM, which jilted Sun and thereby leaving Oracle there to snap it up"

This is incorrect.

Sun's board of directors unanimously declined IBM's offer.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/163244/report_sun_still_open_to_an_ibm_bid.html

"Sun's board of directors declined an offer IBM made on April 4"

PCWorld seems to remember that Sun jilted IBM.

Sun jilted IBM, thus the reason for IBM's sour grapes, as you wrote about here.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/29/ibm_sun_set_deal/

I am surprised you forgot!

In your post you stated: "Larry E was smart in not taking on Sun's liabilities." This statement is incorrect. Read the Definitive Agreement. Oracle is acquiring ALL of the assets AND liabilities of Sun and its various subsidiaries. This is NOT structured as an asset sale where only select product, IP, personnel and liabilities are purchased. It is structured as a 100% acquisition. Oracle is buying the whole enchilada.

So post close (and in the absence of subsequent transactions between Oracle and other parties, i.e. divestitures and asset sales by Oracle) Oracle will own all of Sun's customer obligations, channel partner obligations, vendor obligations, real estate obligations, supplier oblgations, legally binding (on a per country basis) employee obligations, etc., etc. Sun's contracts (both inbound and outbound) establish what rights of termination, revision, non-renewal, etc. Sun/Oracle might have based on change of control or "just because".

On the financial front,, Sun's stockholders and debt holders will be cashed out during the closing process so Sun's debauched shareholders will receive their pittance and debt holders such as KKR will be paid off.

If publicized reports are correct, IBM had two or three major concerns:

1) IBM was unwilling to give certain guarantees regarding the effort they would expend obtaining regulatory approvals on a worldwide basis. Sun's BoD (has there been a more useless BoD at a major technology corporation?) was justifiably concerned that numerous regulatory hurdles would be encountered that might nix the deal..

2) IBM was dissatisfied with the underlying revenue/profitability picture at Sun. Products and offerings that IBM was most interested in proved disappointing in this resplect. Hence the initial $10-$11 per share rumor turned into an $9.50 per share rumor.

3) the degree to which change of control provisions penetrated far down in the ranks of "Sun's management" (an oxymoron). Reports have circulated that such change of control provisions went as far down as director level. It wasn't JUST the unjustifiable golden parachute that would pay triple their annual compensation and 100% vest the holdingsof Schwartz and McNealy and various EVPs. No it was YEARS of severance due to managers well down in the ranks. If you do read the Definitive Agreement, you will find that Oracle appears to have negated such employee change-of-control provisions. It will be interesting to see how that pans out.