This is FUD being spread by HP at their conference this week. Let's get some facts instead of endless rumors.
Oracle's top brass has tried to convince Sun Microsystems' staff that they love hardware. And Sun has described its impending acquisition as "redefining the industry" by collapsing servers, storage, and networking around its open source softwae. But we've already seen proof that Oracle's conversion to hardware isn't born of long …
This is FUD being spread by HP at their conference this week. Let's get some facts instead of endless rumors.
MySQL has a poor reputation from what I've read and is not going to complement Oracle's business as DBs are a main line of it anyway, Solaris is now substantially open (AFAICS), and java is pretty well open-ish and what remains would be easily cloned quite cheaply.
So I'm missing something rather large; can anyone fill in the picture for me.
With record low growth ( negative ) and decreasing margins in the server biz .. who would stake their reputation ( in a really dicey job market ) and buy a Sun? I
Along with Oracles (Ellison's) stated direction to pursue non-proprietary ( cheap ) server clusters ( 10g etal ) where is there place for Sun in Oracle ?
Mines the dusty one with the unemployment cheque in the pocket.
Possibly there are still a few people left who are not just greedy leeches trying to suck the least drop of money off a company. Some simply enjoy to create and build something. Some people even invest in their hobby activities without expecting a return of cash simply because it's fun.
my 2p bet on that.
Java middleware has been widely adopted and Oracle laying hand on the specification authority is now in a position to bend Java EE the BEA/Weblogic way rather than the other way around. And that may be a good thing as the EE thing is rather a crappy middleware.
All the Bean container specs will be dictated by Oracle and I guess that is where the monies are. If you want your application server to be J2EE certified, Oracle will be in charge to give (for a fee) you the right to stick the J2EE Certified logo.
So you can kiss the Glassfish good bye as the open source community will only be able to make it "certifiable", which is fine as Oracle will be kind enough to come up with a OpenCertified label that is a dumbed down version of the TRUE OracleCertified that big names will be willing to have and pay for. So IBM will be Oracle buddy on that.
I think the same apply to mySQL you'll get the Opensource fork and the Oracle supported one, guess where the monies will fork.
Solaris will die, because oracle already has a favourite OS (RedHat or CentOS - Xen) and that will be 2 ports of Oracle products that won't be necessary to maintain. Once Sparc Is dead there is no point in having Solaris on x86-x64.
Why Oracle is trying to sell the HW division is weird but then that would not surprise me if they were trying to sell a dead horse.
anyone who thinks he bought sun for any other purpose than to kill it, is woefully innocent.
His only motivation is to eliminate these threats to his cash cow of selling Cadilac db systems to governments and fortune 500 deep pockets.
"MySQL ... is not going to complement Oracle's business".
It gives them the entry level and lower end of the DB market, meaning they end up covering the entire range of database customers: entry level up to enterprise.
"Solaris is now substantially open (AFAICS) ..."
OpenSolaris and Solaris target different parts of the operating system market, kinda similar to MySQL and Oracle in the database market. One is freely available, open to community development, the other is a commercial, high end product with the accompanying levels of service and support you would expect (yes, i do know one can purchase support contracts for both MySQL and OpenSolaris).
Sun employs the largest and most experienced collection of Solaris engineers in the world. What Oracle gets in this deal is that enterprise class version of the operating system, along with full control of the people who already develop and support it.
"Oracles ... stated direction to pursue non-proprietary ... server clusters ... where is there place for Sun in Oracle ?"
Sun brings their X64, blade servers, and lower cost 'open' storage products, which still happen to be one of the profitable areas of hardware in Sun. Sun are already selling clusters and supercomputers built upon these products.
Paris, because she's open and saucy, but also high end and proprietary...
"This is FUD being spread by HP at their conference this week. Let's get some facts instead of endless rumors."
Well, in that case I'm sure we'll see a prompt and robust denial of any such hawking from Oracle immediately, as they wouldn't want their potential future customers thinking the wrong thing. Just like how Sun and Oracle both immediately jumped up to deny that rumour (started by Ashlee Vance, not hp) that Rock had ben cancelled..... Oh, hold on a sec - they didn't!
Anyway, whilst it is fun to keep winding up the Sunshiners, the truth is the rumours don't state exactly which bits of the Sun hardware biz are being hawked around, so it could just be Rock and/or Niagara being pushed to Fujitsu. I can't see anyone else being interested in buying those turkeys!
When I first heard about this takeover, I couldnt see the sense of it. But the more I think about it, the more sense I think it makes.
2 reasons, as we know customers are going for more and more consolidation of their vendors. To some customers it will be really attractive that they will only have to deal with one vendor. No risk of the applications vendor blaming the db vendor blaming the OS, blaming the hardware vendor. That is why I think Exadata hasnt taken off as much as it could. As you are still talking about 2 vendors
Secondly, a personal theory i have, and that is that the next major take over is going to be of SAP and there are probably only two companies that can afford SAP and thats MS or IBM.
Personally i would place my bets on IBM
For IBM I think SAP would be a good fit, for Oracle it would be really bad news. I believe this is one step towards securing it wont be such a threat if it were to happen. Not sure if that was one of the reason they bought the hardware but to me it makes sense
Anyway, just my humble opinions
While the maintenance business could be lucrative to any potential business there are too many partners that provide Sun maintenance. You cannot sell the SPARC business without Solaris. No one trusts Larry's pricing on Solaris which will squeeze out any profit from a hw vendor.
Oracle cannot sell appliances because they are too expensive and closed.
I am waiting for the HUGE Sun price increases as Oracle raised their DB products 19% last year and WebLogic prices 47%.
Just when I thought things might go to socket based pricing Oracle bought WebLogic and put an end to that.
You do realize that Oracle has something akin to a fixation/stalker love-fest for Solaris, don't you? All of you haters say what you will but, linux is not and never will be as capable or clean as Solaris. There is something to be said for development of software and hardware together. That said, if the rumor of Rock being cancelled it sounds like the death of Sun's high-end server business and it will be nothing more than an x86 commodity & ultrasparc T appliance vendor.
I've *ACTUALLY* used/managed Sun's hardware back from the USII to USIII days and I must say Sun's over product offerings were better overall than anyone else's at the time. Now, where did I put that Sun E6500?
> It gives them the entry level and lower end of the DB market, meaning they end up covering the entire range of database customers: entry level up to enterprise.
Granted, but that's not quite what I was getting at. Oracle can take their high-end source and rip out enough to make it low end, at the MySQL & postgres level, and release it free. Technically costs them little - much less surely than the billion (?) that sun paid for MySQL - is technically easier to maintain 2 very similar sources rather than 2 very different sources, takes on postgres *as well*, and is branded oracle which both gives users of this 'oracle lite' an easy upgrade path from low end to high, and a single vendor all the way (see AC 11:43: "To some customers it will be really attractive that they will only have to deal with one vendor").
MS did similarly with sql server for presumably exactly these reasons - and for that matter, if oracle did the same it would take on MS's desktop offerings too. Many birds, one very cheap stone.
It makes sense, it's a coherent strategy that costs sweet FA compared to what they're doing... I dunno.
Re: OpenSolaris and Solaris, thanks, I didn't know this.
@WinHatter: I assumed the mention of java in the article meant the language not the heavyweight middleware, so I take your point, I think, but not sure if charging a big certification fee is going to work in the present and coming economy. Cheers anyhow.
Why does the Register keep posting the same unsubstantiated rumor multiple times? I am starting to believe that there really is some kind of quota system going on here.
You can tell the PH-UXors are getting nervous that they're going to lose the only credibility they have in the database world.
What with their failing server sales, services losing money (apart from the income from EDS - their only saving grace) so you can really understand why they're worried that their decline continues and (hopefully) increases in pace.
Mind you, it is really funny watching them going on the defensive whenever Sun + Oracle are mentioned.
John Dooley: "anyone who thinks he bought sun for any other purpose than to kill it, is woefully innocent."
The whole of Sun is a competitor to the whole of Oracle? You're in Matt Bryant territory!
"His only motivation is to eliminate these threats to his cash cow of selling Cadilac db systems to governments and fortune 500 deep pockets."
Is Oracle buying MySQL really going to stop Google using it or Monty and pals supporting the GPL version? Is the GPL version really so nasty for the suits that the "deep pockets" won't use it, especially since they're not generally in the business of selling proprietary software?
If Larry put down over $5B purely to attempt to, but not manage to, kill MySQL, it must go down as one of the most spectacular misinvestments in modern IT history.
i heard that sun outsources all of its manufacturing. sounds like shoddy journalism to me !
Sun has manufacturing plants
They do outsource a lot of things, but they do have mfg plants. Even the M-class systems which are fujitsu technology are made at Sun mfg sites.
While Sun designs and sells a lot of hardware, it actually has no manufacturing facilities. Instead, Sun has a large number of partner/vendors who do the actual manufacturing. Sun does have a few final assembly and test facilities, but these are only for the largest of systems and for the custom assembly of Sun solutions for particular customers.
RE: @Matt Bryant
Basically, your whole post translates to "wah,wah, boohoo, sob, sob, sniffle". Seeing as you obviously forgot, hp are still making a profit, they have been all these years Sun has been making record losses and losing market share in all sectors.
RE: Re: He bought his competitor to kill it
".....The whole of Sun is a competitor to the whole of Oracle? You're in Matt Bryant territory!...." I have never stated that I thought Sun and Oracle were competitors, in fact quite the opposite. As Linux and Windows cleaned up the webserving base, Sun became more and more dependent on refreshing their installed datacenter base, which was predominantly running Oracle db instances. In that respect, Sun has tried hard to keep Oracle loving it, but failed. MySQL in no way made Sun an Oracle "enemy", the threat to Oracle was minimal and far less than the threat posed by other vendors such as hp and IBM partnering with RedHat or M$.
So which is true? Your version of sales up or the company filings and reports of sales falling?
EDS is the only thing that keeps the useless HP services out the toilet. Having had the joy of HP services, I'm purging all their kit now from our inventory.
Clearly you have absolutely no idea about the server market - not something I'm surprised about given you work for HP.
"Really?...." Yes, really. You see, you zeroed in on the last quarter of the downturn, when everyone saw a drop in sales, but hp still managed to pull off a profit. Sure, it was from the acquired EDS bizz, but hp still made a profit. Sun, despite many acquisitions, hasn't made a profit for years. And in the years preceding the downturn, whilst Sun was losing money hand over fist, hp was consistently turning in profits (and that was without EDS). So, yes, really.
"....Clearly you have absolutely no idea about the server market...." Ah, the Sunshiner response to anyone that doesn't toe their line. Well, it looks like there are more people not toeing that line than are nowadays, seeing as how Sun sales have casued it to crash from a $200bn company to the tier one equivalent of chump change. So, if I don't know anything and you're so smart, how come the companies we bought kit from on my advice (hp and IBM) aren't due to be bent over a barrel and molested by Oracle as Sun is, the company you tell us is always right?
"....not something I'm surprised about given you work for HP." And again, the Sunshiner Blindfold(TM) stops you seeing that customers just don't want your junk anymore. The market figures say it all - the majority of us customers stopped believing in Sun years ago. I've already told you a dozen times - I don't work for hp or an hp reseller. I'd suggest you write it on the back of your hand but I'm not sure crayon will write on skin.
Regarding Bozo's comment:
>They do outsource a lot of things, but they do have mfg plants. Even the M-class systems which >are fujitsu technology are made at Sun mfg sites.
It is true that *mid range* (M4000, M5000) machines are manufactured at Sun facilities, but all the Data Center class machines (M8000, M9000) are manufactured at Fujitsu facilities with final config for Sun customers at Sun's shops.
It would not surprise me if eventually HP decide to buy the sparc business from oracle to replace Itanium. Investment in Itanium has been lacking for years (4 core still delayed, frequencies are still not above 1.6Ghz). Solaris would be licenced from oracle, HP-UX will be killed. If HP can't get hold of Sparc they will have to port HP-UX to x86-64 and try and compete.
But this will only delay the inevitable. Propriety hardware (e.g. i/p/z series, Sun Sparc, HP/intel Itanium) do not have a bright future. It will be x86-64 with either Windows/Linux/Solaris.
Big corporates generally only buy oracle/DB2/SQLserver for mission critical applications.
And they want to run it on an enterprise class operating system. Certainly in the UK most do not yet consider Linux to be enterprise class.
@@Matt Bryant (AC 20th June 19:03) - it's worse for HP than that - now of the "Big Three" (IBM, HP, Sun/Oracle) they're the _only_ one who have to rely on someone else for the DB software that seems to be the justification for the big iron these days. Got to say though, that you know a company is well and truly boned when EDS can make them look good.
@Sparc an Itanium replacement: "Propriety hardware (e.g. i/p/z series, Sun Sparc, HP/intel Itanium) do not have a bright future. It will be x86-64 with either Windows/Linux/Solaris.". Ooh, that so wrong on so many levels. First - x86 doesn't scale that well, whereas the SPARC and Power kit does - heck 32- or 64-way is no big deal now, and 128-way and above on on track. Second - correction - IBM System Z is a mainframe, and System i and System p have used the same Power hardware for a while. I also _totally_ disagree that UK does not consider Linux "enterprise class" - sure there's a lot of Windows crap out there, but I'm seeing more big servers that are "penguin coops".
What I _will_ definitely agree with is that HP buying Solaris/SPARC for a firesale price would make a heck of a lot of sense. As you say - Intel's farcical performance over Itanium has done HP no favours at all. HP already support Solaris/x86 so it's surely not a big leap to do so on SPARC, and heck that dodo EDS that they bought last year has a shedload of Solaris/SPARC skillz - so maybe, in true Mark Turd fashion, there'd be a way to get more biz and sack two loads of people. More mindboggling would be a merging of HP/sUX and Solaris - with the best technologies of both - would be a way to try and catch up IBM on bragging rights now that Turd and co seem to have got rid of most of their engineering staff.
(Disclaimer time - although I work for HP, the opinions above are my own ... if that wasn't obvious!)
Or an even more Machiavellian thought - Oracle sells the Sun h/w biz to HP (cheap) in return for a partnership in the DB area. So HP helps Oracle sell their s/w against IBM's DB2; Oracle get's rid of the h/w biz it didn't want; HP get's preferential rates on Oracle for HP/UX; and HP not only gets it's "own" processor short-term, but also can then use that as leverage against Intel to get them to 'pull their finger out' over the next gen of Itanium; plus having a captive audience of all those folks currently running SPARC (and despite what Matt B may say - there is a _lot_ of these!) is not to be despised in the current climate of making every buck count.
So you're not the Matt Bryant who works for a large HP partner in Reading then ?
Fujitsu Manufactures all the M Series SPARC Enterprise Servers (M3000, M4000, M5000, M8000 & M9000), SUN only assembles these products in it's factories for final delivery everywhere in the world except for Asia/Pacific where it utilizes Fujitsu Factories.
Sun manufactures the M8/9K's and Flextronics manufactures the M3-5K's. This is true for the US. I'm not sure about the rest of the world for the M8-9K's.
RE: Sparc an Itanium replacement?
I'm working on the idea this is an attempt at humour - surely no-one could actually believe something so laughable? After all, if hp wanted to continue making RISC chips they could just go back to their PA-RISC designs. They were already dual-core and socket-compatible with their current Itanium range, could go quad-core with a die shrink, and already outperformed all the current Sun chips with ease, and all without the cost of lumbering themselves with the Sun albatross. But there's a reason hp stopped developing the PA-RISC range - they foresaw the shrinking returns in performance that RISC was going to see as it passed maturity. So hp designed the EPIC format which became Itanium to get round the obvious limitations of RISC. Why would hp go back to a design with limited options when Itanium has plenty more design legroom? And then, why would they want to go buy a RISC design (UltraSPANKed) which their own RISC design outperformed; another SPARC design (Niagara) that already loses in the webserving niche hp already own with Xeon/Opteron ProLiant; or a vapourware SPARC design (Rock) that has just been cancelled because it just doesn't work? Why would they want to lumber themselves with the cost of chip design when the partnerships with Intel and AMD have made hp the number one server vendor? Yeah, about as logical as a Sun management plan....
RE: Interesting times ahead...
".....of the "Big Three" (IBM, HP, Sun/Oracle) they're the _only_ one who have to rely on someone else for the DB software that seems to be the justification for the big iron these days....." Sorry to burst your bubble but we buy hp-ux gear for a lot more than just the database. Like, for example, a large SAP instance (currently too large to scale on Linux). And you also fail to realise that being independent gives hp an advantage - they can sell Oracle, M$ SQL and DB2 without having to push one over the other just because they also make it. And seeing as hp have that independence, customers trust hp to give independent advice rather than ramming an unsuitable product down our throats which comes tied to an army of unwanted consultants (I'm looking at you there, IBM GS). So all the database vendors need to be nice to hp, not the other way round (especially M$ who don't make their own hardware).
As for Slowaris support from hp, that was only agreed to give hp an advantage in attacking all those orphan Sun accounts (a lot of them via EDS) so hp can beat IBM to the punch by putting cheaper ProLiant up against IBM's offerings (bound to be AIX and Power). Why would hp want to port anything from Slowaris into hp-ux when hp-ux already has better performance and features? ZFS? Don't make me laugh! ZFS can't even be shared so it's useless for clustering, which means it can't meet the 5 nines availability rule needed to make it into the hp-ux arena.
RE: @Matt Bryant
No. As I've pointed out before, it's a common name. I've already been accused of being this gent (http://www.connectpa.co.uk/people/peopleprofile.php?id=48) in another Reg thread. But don't let that put you off sending hate mail and threats and doing some stalking of either of those Mr Bryants if it means you and the other Sunshiners spend some time away from here. If that's what it takes to help you guys get over your heartache for the recently deceased Sun then knock yourselves out! I look forward to reading an article on the Reg where one of the mystified Mr Bryants is at a loss to explain the number of Sunshiners throwing tantrums in his office carpark. Tell you what, to give you something to do after your pink slip comes through from Larry, why don't you go find every Matt Bryant you can and accuse them all in turn. To get you started, have a look here http://www.facebook.com/people-index/Matt%20Bryant - should keep you busy for a bit!
Yes, they don't have much use do they? Neither do database with no hardware to run on.
Every large user of Sun equipment I've seen defaults to Oracle as their database.
My assumption was the main reason for Oracle to buy Sun is to preserve that premium part of their market. There's no money in Java or MySqueal.
If Oracle are selling Sun's hardware assets, then the acquisition looks like sheer idiocy to me.
I think you are starting to drink your own kool aid.
If HP saw the shrinking returns in RISC and HP help developed the Itanium to get round the obvious limitations of RISC, then why has the PowerPC (RISC) been performing better than the Itanium. If this was the case, Itanium should of passed the PowerPC architecture awhile back, but it didn't.
Now, someday I could be proven wrong, but I have been hearing for a long, long time about how EPIC is better than RISC but I haven't seen these results in my shop (we have Itanium PowerPC, SPARC, and of course Xeon's). If Itanium is so superior why hasn't it crushed the competition. Heck, I could argue Xeon's give Itanium a run for their money.
Also, even though not a big fan on the Niagara, it does have its place. Even though I rather run a Linux box on a HP Proliant, I couldn't disagree with my fellow co-worker running these chips for our webservers are infrastructure boxes.
I do wish though that the Rock would have made it. Would of been interesting to see how it matched up with the PowerPC, Xeon Nehalem and the Itanium. Competition is a good thing since I'm a customer of IBM, HP, and Oracle-Sun.
Its all to do with the lifecycle of the product, current Power is a very mature product in terms of its lifecycle, whereas Itanium is still relatively new and has a long way to go in terms of its lifecycle. Power is ahead now and performing well (although Itanium compares favourably in Specfp and some other benchmarks) in the main number crunching space. However I think as the Itanium product matures (if it does that is!) it will eventually overtake Power, simply because there's only so far you can take the RISC architecture (I confess I don't know how much further it can go).
However its not all about the speeds and feeds, but how you can apply them to affect business processes. Despite alot of the clamouring on these boards HP-UX isn't a bad OS, its actually very flexible, stable and secure.
The reality is a lot of statements are made based on slides that we've had from the vendors that selectively show benchmarks where they win (because thats what marketings there to do!), consequently we all think that one or the other is better. Most of these benchmarks are rarely run on real world configurations that we'll see deployed. The true test is to have your application run on each one of these.
Whenever I've seen this happen (mainly on Oracle based apps) Power needs less cores than Itanium (roughly 30% less) and Itanium needs less cores than SPARC (roughly 50% less). SUN's tactic here has been to discount the ar$e out of the tin to make the overall cost of ownership comparable when taking into account licenses for applications - which to be honest is their best option. HP do likewise competing with IBM. This is my personal experience i'm not saying its gospel
"......then why has the PowerPC (RISC) been performing better than the Itanium....." Debateable point as I have seen hp-ux on Itanium outperform AIX on Power in our shootouts. And if Power is such a great design, how come the massive advantage in clock speed hasn't translated into a matching advantage in performance? That's because the chip just makes up part of the server and the server just part of the solution.
"....If Itanium is so superior why hasn't it crushed the competition...." But what you neglect to mention is your point cuts both ways - if Power is so superior, why hasn't it driven all competitors from the market? The simple answer is that we, like most customers, buy solutions, not chips. In fact, we have a policy of ensuring any solution can be run on at least two platforms from different vendors, just in case we want to change horses half way through a solution's lifecycle. In the old days it was pretty open and the solution could go on SPARC, Alpha, PA-RISC or Power. Nowadays the choice is Power or Itanium for anything we can't run on x64 Linux or Windows, as the other options have become unviable. Both IBM and hp can offer the whole hardware stack - x64 front end, UNIX back end and database, and proper SAN storage - plus services. IBM and hp could afford to discount the servers and make money through other areas of the solution, which Sun just couldn't do to the same extent.
".....Competition is a good thing....." Agreed. But competition by virtue rather than by FUD, and what has really killed my opinion of Sun is that they have spent the last eight-odd years slating all and sundry because they have had precious little good stuff of their own to talk about. I for one will not miss the passing of the Sunshiners as they fade into obscurity.
Spoken like a true HP "Enterprise presales consultant" there Matt, marketing bollox with little credible evidence offered to substantiate your claims.
I'd love to see public benchmarks showing a current Itanium beating current Power6+ on a similarly specced system on anything more than a fraction of the benchmarks possible. ("in our shootouts" probably = between two dissimilar systems) You & I know both know Power6+ systems are going to floor your beloved Itanium nearly every time, Itanium is half the core speed of an OOE Power CPU. You've started swallowing your own toxic rhetoric if you believe otherwise, the market share reason is simply people find AIX harder to learn and work with. Linux is super easy to run in a vm machine or old PC and developers progress easily along those routes.
Look how HPUX's share is also dropping and factor in the abortinate HPUX licence costs that come alongside the overpriced Itanium system you run it on. Not exactly a free download.
You spit more marketing crap in the second paragraph as well. Most customers buy platforms to run specific software services for an overall buisness Solution, they don't don't buy entire Solutions that often (perhaps in your dreams that HP are a software power house to rival Oracle/IBM) & you've nicely dodged the fact it's only you holding the thought pattern over CPU choices. You really think the whole world is considering Itanium & POwer or X86?
As for Storage waffle please agree that EVA are mid-range sh!te the same as LSI and Netapp arrays. HP/IBM/Sun/Netapp all offer mid-range stuff for a purpose, price (& feckin expensive when looking at Netapp) so please be honest here and state that HP rebranded HDS is the same as Sun rebranded HDS. A USP array is a USP array whatever the colour of the plastic suround (if thats what your referring to as "proper" SAN storage).
I hope for your own reputation your not about to say how great EVA 8K's are?
LinkedIn offers a profile that really could match you (or your alter ego) perfectly so are you sure you not working in Reading?
I must have upset Mrs B seeing as my haven't posted my last response. Anyhoooo, on with the fun!
"Spoken like a true HP "Enterprise presales consultant" there Matt...." Do you think I should ask hp for a job then? I'm not sure they could afford me. Or are you merely implying that hp's customers and hp are so in-tune, compared to Sun and their few remaining customers? If it's more of that "Matt works for hp" male bovine manure then all I'm going to do is yawn.
"....marketing bollox with little credible evidence offered to substantiate your claims...." Hmmmm, Sun being sold for chump change and Oracle trying to sell off what's left of the Sun server bizz would seem to indicate that I'm a lot closer to the truth than the Sunshine you have been peddling.
Then you eschew off into a Power6+ vs Itanium schpiel - why? Are you Sunshiners jumping ship already? I'm especially amused by the bit "....people find AIX harder to learn.... - are you a Sunshiner pretending to be an IBMer? Most people have a preference, usually around what UNIX they first start with, just like mine is hp-ux, and I don't know any AIX admin that would say anything like that.
"....Look how HPUX's share is also dropping...." All UNIX is dropping as x64 moves up the food-chain, what you neglest to mention is that hp-ux is falling slower than the average, which means it is not being hit as badly as Slowaris, for example. I'm guessing you also missed the Reg article that said hp Integrity was the only enterprise platform that beat the drop rate this last quarter.
"....it's been liek that for years and factor in the abortinate HPUX licence costs that come alongside the overpriced Itanium system you run it on. Not exactly a free download...." Just to fill in a gaping hole in your knowledge, the base hp-ux bundle comes included with the Itanium server at no extra cost, and you can order it as either media disks or a free ISO download (what hp call and e-licence). And as for "overpriced", the quote we get for Integrity are usually cheaper than pSeries or M-series, and that's before we factor in the lifecycle savings from better management tools, etc. I'm sure we get an excellent discount, but if it really was "overpriced" we wouldn't buy it.
"....perhaps in your dreams that HP are a software power house to rival Oracle/IBM...." When did I say this? Whilst hp do produce a large range of software, I wouldn't place them in the same enterprise bracket as IBM or Oracle. But then hp work best by partnering in the enterprise software space, which is why they are also Oracle's and IBM Software's largest partner. Bet you didn't know more IBM software licences get sold for hp servers than IBM's own.
"....As for Storage waffle please agree that EVA are mid-range sh!te...." Sorry, I quite like EVA, and for the same reason I like NetApp - because they work well, are easy to install and manage, and we get them at a good price. Now I know you're a Sunshiner in disguise as otherwise you'd know that IBM badge the NetApp NAS devices.
"...please be honest here and state that HP rebranded HDS is the same as Sun rebranded HDS...." More Sunshine - Sun merely take the product direct from HDS and change the cover, whereas hp are involved with the development, and write their own firmware and software for the XP. Even HDS will admit the XP is a different product.
"....I hope for your own reputation your not about to say how great EVA 8K's are?...." I think my rep will survive me saying I like the old EVA8000, the 8100 and the new 8400. Seems like an awful lot of other customers do too, given the sales figures. Now, can anyone even name the Sun equivalent?
"....LinkedIn offers a profile that really could match you...." Sorry to urinate on your bonfire, but until your post I was completely unaware of LinkedIn. Try again! I'm actually quite interested as to what you think would be on a LinkedIn profile in order for you to think it was me, does it have the legend "I hate Sun and anyone that buys their sh*t - MUAHAHAHAHAA" on it? I can't see a LinkedIn profile with that on it. Try again!
"I hate Sun and anyone that buys their sh*t - MUAHAHAHAHAA"
This MB quote is priceless and shows where his motives really lie. He hates Sun, for some reason, other than technical. He has an irrational dislike for Sun and all of his comments should be taken as biased and ignored.
My other favorite piece of new MB commentary is that he is now trying to imply that he has a Mrs. Bryant. I already know that MB is single and will most likely stay single, so this bit is really pretty funny, but sad too. Perhaps he is talking about the girl he has locked in his basement...
Let he go Matt. Let her go...
"....This MB quote is priceless and shows where his motives really lie....." Lol, it was supposed to show the Sunshiner paranoia, as in what you guys must think I'd put on a profile. The strident victimisation of your post just goes to show I wasn't far off.
And why the sudden concern about my marrital status and accusations of kidnapping? Are you really that desperate to avoid discussing the cancellation of Rock and the decline of Sun you'll post any childishness instead? Let me assure you there's only wine, some old squash rackets and a few spiders in my basement. I can only assume you have been reading too many civil servant posts about Girls Aloud on certain sites. I guess that's because reading the tech sites isn't much fun for you anymore now that they're all full of stories of the Sunset.
I suggest you let it go, it's obviously all just too much for you.