Oracle hits DoJ roadblock on Sun deal Oracle is still gunning to wrap up its Sun Micro purchase by the end of summer, despite the US Department of Justice refusing to give the deal fast-track approval. It emerged on Friday that the DoJ has extended its investigation of the $7.4bn deal, which would unite enterprise software power house Oracle with Java creator and …
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
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.
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...
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.
The majority of useful backend code I know of is in COBOL. The web server code is Java, but it's functionally a CGI pass-through that calls mainframe services.
Java is mainly use for middleware in much of the world. It's a pretty expensive scripting language for web servers. Use something besides Apache and it's spawn as your context-holding switch, and Jabba mostly goes away.
Maybe they could call it OAK again and use it for cable TV boxes. It's what the language was designed for.
"Question for people: (maybe a rhetorical one): how can a company own a technology that is open source?"
For one thing, open source isn't the same as public domain. But that's actually beside the point.
Ownership of Java isn't about the rights to a source code repository. It's about owning the standardisation process, especially the JCP. It's also about perception amongst enterprise customers (i.e. the ones with money, and who have to plan their technology choices years ahead) and product developers (e.g. those with embedded Java, which is practically every device these days short of the iPhone) of who the pre-eminent entity is.
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.
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.
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...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
