Oracle hits DoJ roadblock on Sun deal

@ac

seriously java on the decline?

if you look at any large server back end, the majority of the time is java

i'll concede that occasionally its some c like code compiled and optimized to run really fast, but java just gives you too many advantages over your normal dev process

admitidly its dead on the front end, mind you it was never really a goer to start with

Worthy of a DOJ look?

"if you look at any large server back end, the majority of the time is java"

I meant in the context of a DOJ delay.

Java transferring from one company to another really a big deal?

JAVA, SQL, they have lots of important IP

I'm still hoping that the shareholders will vote to refuse the deal and tell the current executives to get packing, they are looking to cash out and should be sued for looking after their own interests in the short term, rather than the very LONG term growth the majority of investors like myself expected out of this organization. They are making profits and have cash in the bank, there was no need for this quick firesale to Oracle.

That said, I doubt that JAVA, SQL or any other hurdle will end up holding this deal up in the end.

@AC 09:51

OpenJDK means Java is already open source. So can't be owned(?) Well current version at least. The other risk is a split between open source version and the proprietary.

Question for people: (maybe a rhetorical one): how can a company own a technology that is open source?

Canonical's development of Ubuntu Linux seems to be a possible example of how an open source Java might be managed by Oracle.

Also, Oracle and Sun's goals align well: Oracle wanted to develop the Network Computer (NC) (thin client with apps downloaded) which Java lended itself well to given the independence from NC hardware.

Meanwhile Sun said the Network Is The Computer - where Oracles thin client NCs would utilise computing power and applications from within the network.

Perhaps also Oracle want to take on Microsoft, using Java to compete with .NET and C#

There are even open source versions of .NET / C# in GNU mono. So a company owning an open source technology can work.

Keeping Java license-free may be advantageous: more support from development community. Oracle gets new development "for free" because of open source developments.

Meanwhile the technology is invested in and maintains credibility with corporations (and therefore a good skill) by integrating with enterprise-class Oracle offerings.

Therefore Oracle buying Sun and therefore Java is just a more obvious form of sponsoring a technology, with an exclusive sponsor Oracle though risk is they may take it in wrong direction.

Many open source technologies are corporate sponsored: think Google's Summer of Code, Tigris and Subversion, Canonical and Linux, Google and Linux based Android...

Gut & Dump

I agree with the above who suggested that Oracle is just gutting Sun for the juicy bits and leaving the rest for the carrion munching bottom feeders. It really hurts me to see them do Sun like that, they might as well bitchslap the queen and call her a whore, or piss on the statue of liberty. I am sorry, but I just don't have the proper verbal skills to express how I feel about this move.

Fact or rumour ?

"Earlier this month it emerged that Oracle is actively shopping the hardware business around."

No it didn't, it was RUMOURED that Oracle is shopping Sun's hardware business around.

Or is this website now basing facts on HP FUD rumours ?

@Drew Cullen

"The fact is: this is what our sources are saying."

So, in other words, the fact is you are still presenting rumours as fact.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm still with AC1 and 2 on this one, however.

@Joshua Goodall

Yes, I agree about owning the process.

And to further what you say, with embedded Java, consider that Java is part of the Blu-ray standard - BD-J. Again, this helps realise Oracle's Network Computer strategy, as some Blu-ray players are also network attached.

Oracle have a presence in the server end with their database systems so Java presents a way for them to get into the client side and compete and have a powerful influence in the (albeit low margin, but high volume) consumer market. So that they can have a complete end-to-end control with vertically integrated offering from server through to client. This is a form of diversification for them, not having eggs in one (the server end) basket. Sounds like good business sense to me.

Also, another example of corporate ownership of open source is CUPS - Common Unix Printing System - an open source set of printer drivers for Unix like systems. This is owned by Apple. Hasn't done CUPS any harm.

RE: @Drew Cullen

Whilst an annonymous source is definately not the strongest argument, the lack of an immediate denial from both Sun and Oracle is a massive bolster to the idea. After all, if Oracle had real plans for the Sun hardware bizz they'd be falling all over themselves to reassure customers to avoid them looking for other options, if only to keep their own stockprice up. Since's Larry's initial and deliberately vague speach about going forward with the SUn hardware bizz we have heard nothing. Given that Oracle originally did not intend buying the hardware bizz (they wanted the software and asked hp to co-bid for the hardware), is it so hard to believe they still don't want it? OK, re-phrase that - is it so hard to believe if you're not a blinkered Sunshiner? And, it is very common for these annonymous sources to turn out to be deliberate leaks, as it makes it easier for a company to announce a change of plans if they have tested the water first.

@ Matt Bryant

Oh come on Matt - you know EXACTLY why Oracle and Sun can't comment on this pre-acquisition.

re: RE: @Drew Cullen #

HP and Intel haven't immediately denied the most recent rumoured demise of Itanium either. Based upon Bryant's logic, that means the rumours are most likely true. Of course the only way to not believe that Itanium is on the way out at Intel is to be a low level HP partner...