Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

So now Oracle will own BerkeleyDB and MySQL? Expect eye-watering price hikes now that there is effectively no competition in the DB arena. Chris (choking on his triple-shot) On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 12:55 +0100, Calum Benson wrote: > On 16 Apr 2009, at 16:45, Oehnei wrote: > > > http://www.bloom

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

On 16 Apr 2009, at 16:45, Oehnei wrote: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a_Cd1zoHX4cs SIGH, DOUBLE SIGH. Can someone please tell whoever is behind this BS to S. T. F. U.? I think this officially puts an end to it:

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

"...I would, ah, create a, um, a level of activity beforehand to drive the futures...it doesn't take much money...I would encourage anyone...to do it, because it's legal, and it, ah, it's a very quick way to make money, and very satisfying. By the way, no-one else in the world would ever admit t

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE53F14820090416 More. I guess if IBM isn't interested and the rumors are true the sellouts will continue looking for some other paper shredder to stuff Sun into. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org __

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

il: unixcons...@yahoo.com *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* - Original Message From: Oehnei To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:45:01 AM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so... http://ww

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Oehnei wrote: > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a_Cd1zoHX4cs > > SIGH, DOUBLE SIGH. > > Can someone please tell whoever is behind this BS to S. T. F. U.? > > Do they want people to give up Sun software and hardware? Noone is going to > touch

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a_Cd1zoHX4cs SIGH, DOUBLE SIGH. Can someone please tell whoever is behind this BS to S. T. F. U.? Do they want people to give up Sun software and hardware? Noone is going to touch any product by Sun if they keep drumming this up, Solaris an

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

> > Yeah, unfortunately it seems that with Sun's large > operating expenses, headcount, and poor sales that > continuing to operate will be rather tricky. To make > matters worse, in this economy most businesses are > dependent on credit for doing things like pay-roll as > the income can vary each

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

> > Yeah, unfortunately it seems that with Sun's large > operating expenses, headcount, and poor sales that > continuing to operate will be rather tricky. To make > matters worse, in this economy most businesses are > dependent on credit for doing things like pay-roll as > the income can vary each

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Nope, I don't think that Sun is going to go bankrupt at all. But we have had losses, pretty major ones on a GAAP basis. Much less on a non-GAAP basis. Mostly we have been cash-flow positive in actual cash. There is a lot of money in the bank, so the outlook looks good, if the losses are not to

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Mous ; opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:29:18 AM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so... On 15 Apr 2009, at 17:02, Brian Utterback wrote: > Not so. Whatever SEAM would lose for a low bid, it is still less than they > would lose if Sun went ba

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

On 15 Apr 2009, at 17:02, Brian Utterback wrote: Not so. Whatever SEAM would lose for a low bid, it is still less than they would lose if Sun went bankrupt. You cannot make a statement that it was never going to happen without knowing what the stockholders perceptions of the future are.

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Not so. Whatever SEAM would lose for a low bid, it is still less than they would lose if Sun went bankrupt. You cannot make a statement that it was never going to happen without knowing what the stockholders perceptions of the future are. Anon Y Mous wrote: This is a pretty good dollars and c

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

This is a pretty good dollars and cents reason for why IBM buying Sun was never going to happen: http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.543040/browse_thread/thread/c34e6cbcef0078e8?hl=en# -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensola

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

The problem is that the media has tremendous power, to inform and misinform the people, and some of those people make purchasing decisions. (They helped me believe Iraq has chemical weapons a while ago) Sun needs to come out and make a statement soon to clear things up for the rest of us... --

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

> ooreron said: > > "One led by Schwartz who believes Sun should sell and > the other led by McNealy who doesn't." > > I agree with Mr. McNealy based on the concrete > understanding that this would be in the best > interests of the national security of the United > States. This is why I suggested

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

cuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 3:11:22 AM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so... ooreron said: "One led by Schwartz who believes Sun should sell and the other led by McNealy who doesn't." I agree with Mr. McNealy based on the concrete unders

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

ooreron said: "One led by Schwartz who believes Sun should sell and the other led by McNealy who doesn't." I agree with Mr. McNealy based on the concrete understanding that this would be in the best interests of the national security of the United States. This is why I suggested Sun seek out f

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

1) The guy who penned that article for the Reg doesn't know squat. To all intents and purposes, it's pure guess work. 2) The same goes for practically every other "news" site. 3) There has been no independent verification of any of this stuff by any company or any news outlet at all ever, per

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Given Sun's ability to look good to investors and Wall St. (other words, making $$) I doubt there will be lots of similar attempt in the future. Now Sun is (almost) a walking dead in the middle of desert with vulture hovering overhead. And the latest report from The Reg. does not make one feel

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

BTW the contact link I mentioned earlier: http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/executives/mcnealy/ -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

On 4/6/09, I wrote: > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/technology/business-computing/06blue.html > > > > I LOVE YA ALL:))) > Thanks God. Ok, maybe some cannot understand why I was so euphoric about hearing the news, that (at least) IBM will not buy Sun. Above statement was

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Yes, but this latest rumour of a board split is worrying. Matter of fact, that this whole episode has been based on rumours (and picked up by every press outlet as the reality) is incredibly worrying, but that's a different rant. Even a rumour is enough to make JIS appear incredibly duplicitous

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > > > ----- Original Message > From: Zoltan Farkas > To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 2:46:25 PM > Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so.

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Consultant Web: http://unixconsole.blogspot.com E-Mail: unixcons...@yahoo.com *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* - Original Message From: Zoltan Farkas To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 2:46:25 PM Subject: Re: [

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

So the latest rumor is that the rumored deal will not happen :-). The only clear thing, based on Intel CEOs statement, is that Sun looks for a potential buyer... This is not over yet... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discus

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/technology/business-computing/06blue.html [...] Whew! Glad _that's_ over (I hope)! Now, if more of us that appreciate open-source would cough up for a copy of StarOffice, or a support contract (even the low-end one), or something, maybe we could get rid of the

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

rg Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 2:01:10 AM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so... Martin Bochnig wrote: > He is known to love expensive sports cars, yet his X11 group could not > even get a functioning coffee machine in 2007 (the staff had to buy > one from their own

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Mmmm, Bill Joy loved really expensive cars. > > Bill did buy a Ferrari from his first income from selling BSDtapes OK, admittedly I have the same weakness (at a lower level). But in your example Bill Joy did so after he successfully and

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

I believe the NYT requires registration, that may be the problem you had. I should have perhaps waited and cited a wire service report, but that one was the most authoritative at the time of my post. Tim -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

martinb said: "Tim, didn't you state yourself, that you "know" him from having talked to him a single time?" No that was perhaps someone else. I wouldn't claim to know him from that sort of meeting either. I do know about some of the things that were occurring with Sun & NeXT and Lighthouse at

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Martin Bochnig wrote: > His leads by poor example. > He is known to love expensive sports cars, yet his X11 group could not > even get a functioning coffee machine in 2007 (the staff had to buy > one from their own money). Mmmm, Bill Joy loved really expensive cars. Bill did buy a Ferrari from

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Martin Bochnig wrote: > IF he would just be 50% as good, as you claim, > IF he would indeed care about the Sun, > IF he would care about Sun's employee's families' lifes, wouldn't he > have refused to accept at least a part of his annual bonuses ??? Indeed, caring about a company means caring ab

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Tim Scanlon wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/technology/business-computing/06blue.html This does not show content Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Martin Bochnig wrote: > He is known to love expensive sports cars, yet his X11 group could not > even get a functioning coffee machine in 2007 (the staff had to buy > one from their own money). I think you're misremembering - Sun has always provided coffee machines for the engineering buildings -

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Pls. ignore the typos. It is very late (early) here ... > %martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Leave a message on his blog :) If it's one thing I do wish he would do, it's use the massive traffic at blogs.sun.com at times like these to plug the lesser known bits of Sun's software portfolio, eg VDI 3, SJS Communications Suite etc. Just get someone to ghost write it, even. 16,000 hits a d

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Tim Scanlon wrote: > > Also, upon reflection i wish I'd not have cast blame & personal animosity > towards Johnathan Schwartz in the other thread, that was regrettable given > that I do know better. If these forums supported better editing, I'd redact > more of

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

> Also, upon reflection i wish I'd not have cast blame > & personal animosity towards Johnathan Schwartz in > the other thread, that was regrettable given that I > do know better. If these forums supported better > editing, I'd redact more of it. > > Tim As much as I am allergic to this deal, I t

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

Well, the more I think about it, the more obvious it is to me that the old rules for this sort of deal don't apply so much anymore. Sun converted to open source, and that's made the company a lot harder to blow apart like say DEC was in the 90's... I've done enough research in the past few weeks

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

ltant Web: http://unixconsole.blogspot.com E-Mail: unixcons...@yahoo.com *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* - Original Message From: Tim Scanlon To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 7:50:28 PM Subject: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is de

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/technology/business-computing/06blue.html Darn it, just made an appointment with a shrink. :-( -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Tim Scanlon wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/technology/business-computing/06blue.html I LOVE YA ALL:))) Thanks God. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] The IBM deal is dead, so...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/technology/business-computing/06blue.html I'm glad about that, I think Sun can do a lot better. Also, IBM's behavior with stimulus funds on one hand, and buying Sun on the other had an overt appearance of fiscal impropriety. There are better matches to be had,