Why didn't Microsoft purchase Sun?

[Cogman]

I get why Oracle wanted sun, but why not Microsoft or Google for that matter? Before the purchase Oracle primarily dealt with database software. Microsoft, on the other hand, has a load of interest in database software, Java the language, and a whole host of other techs/patents under sun's belt.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Sun's platforms were built around the idea of open source software. That isn't really Oracle's gig, but they can deal with it in the margins (like their software running on Red Hat).For MS that stuff is like poison.

If MS could have bought Sun technology and just buried Java, LibreOffice, MySQL I think they would have....

 

[Cogman]

It seems like the benefits of owning patents and rights, even it if is "poison" would be worth it for microsoft.

 

[poofyhairguy]

It seems like the benefits of owning patents and rights, even it if is "poison" would be worth it for microsoft.

Sure, if MS knew what they future was going to be they would have bought Sun just to shake down Google over Android.

But hindsight is 20/20.

 

[MiniDoom]

I still don't get why oracle purchased sun. java is a huge pile of crap security nightmare that everyone wants to ditch.

 

[Jodell88]

If MS could have bought Sun technology and just buried Java, LibreOffice, MySQL I think they would have....

MySQL and OpenOffice has been buried by Oracle anyway.

 

[Cogman]

I still don't get why oracle purchased sun. java is a huge pile of crap security nightmare that everyone wants to ditch.

Java in the browser is the security nightmare that everyone hates. Java on the server is pretty secure.

The problem is that Java has access to the entire operating system, Security in Java is based on trying to close all the doors to unauthorized places in the OS.

 

[MarkXIX]

Because back in the day Sun was a server OS competitor and the anti-trust people would have screamed bloody murder at the thought of Microsoft buying out a direct competitor in the server OS space.

 

[smackababy]

Because back in the day Sun was a server OS competitor and the anti-trust people would have screamed bloody murder at the thought of Microsoft buying out a direct competitor in the server OS space.

This. Plus, MS would have to then support open source, platform agnostic technology. Not only is that against pretty much everything MS does, but they'd have to expand their support teams drastically (or keep Suns).

I'm also sure they understood the public outcry if for whatever reason .NET ended up performing faster than Java. I can hear the "OMG MS is intentionally ruining Java!!!!!!" nerd rage now!


I can't actually see why Oracle would buy it either, except to throw it in the face of every developer who ever used an Oracle product, and then proceeded to say "wtf is wrong with this overpriced garbage! F U Oracle!"

 

[Markbnj]

Sun's platforms were built around the idea of open source software. That isn't really Oracle's gig, but they can deal with it in the margins (like their software running on Red Hat).For MS that stuff is like poison.

If MS could have bought Sun technology and just buried Java, LibreOffice, MySQL I think they would have....

MySQL is open source, and has been forked because nobody trusts Oracle with it (and is getting replaced by postgresql just because its better). Is Java open source? They've always pretty much acted like they owned it. I don't think its fair to say Sun's platform was "built around open source." Almost all of their success came in the days of very expensive, more-or-less closed platforms. They did embrace open source when it came along, but I'm not sure it's really in their DNA the way the statement seems to imply.

 

[ForumMaster]

MySQL is open source, and has been forked because nobody trusts Oracle with it (and is getting replaced by postgresql just because its better). Is Java open source? They've always pretty much acted like they owned it. I don't think its fair to say Sun's platform was "built around open source." Almost all of their success came in the days of very expensive, more-or-less closed platforms. They did embrace open source when it came along, but I'm not sure it's really in their DNA the way the statement seems to imply.

While I agree that postgresql is, and always has been better then MySql, despite what everyone thought, Oracle has significantly improved MySql.

and as to why Oracle purchased sun, it's very simple. sun was a hardware company. it helped oracle buy into the hardware industry.

now, Oracle has the full stack. that's it. it wasn't about java. It was about the hardware.

 

[Markbnj]

While I agree that postgresql is, and always has been better then MySql, despite what everyone thought, Oracle has significantly improved MySql.

and as to why Oracle purchased sun, it's very simple. sun was a hardware company. it helped oracle buy into the hardware industry.

now, Oracle has the full stack. that's it. it wasn't about java. It was about the hardware.

Agreed, and that's why I used the word "trusts" in the comment. I don't think they have actually done any harm to MySQL.

I also am not mystified as to why Oracle bought Sun. I simply am not sure it is right to characterize Sun as such an open source champion.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Almost all of their success came in the days of very expensive, more-or-less closed platforms.

Isn't that true of any "major" tech company? I can't think of one that got huge on a completely open platform.

I simply am not sure it is right to characterize Sun as such an open source champion.

Sure they are no Canonical but they put real resources into projects like Open Office, and opened up their OS. Better than a MS or a modern Apple.

 

[ultimatebob]

and as to why Oracle purchased sun, it's very simple. sun was a hardware company. it helped oracle buy into the hardware industry.

now, Oracle has the full stack. that's it. it wasn't about java. It was about the hardware.

If it just wanted hardware, why didn't they buy Dell instead? I'd imagine that Dell already had a bigger server business than Sun by then.

 

[Markbnj]

Isn't that true of any "major" tech company? I can't think of one that got huge on a completely open platform.



Sure they are no Canonical but they put real resources into projects like Open Office, and opened up their OS. Better than a MS or a modern Apple.

Yeah, I can't quibble with those points. Sun was basically an old-school vendor of really expensive gear and software that tried to find a place in the new world.

 

[JEDIYoda]

java is a huge pile of crap security nightmare that everyone wants to ditch.

You say that but who exactly is ditching java??

 

[MiniDoom]

You say that but who exactly is ditching java??

I work for a large gov contractor and we will not buy any appliance or product that requires the client to install jre.

 

[Markbnj]

You say that but who exactly is ditching java??

It's server-side adoption has been going up, as far as I know.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Sun was basically an old-school vendor of really expensive gear and software that tried to find a place in the new world.

Yup, and unlike IBM they failed.

 

[lamedude]

 

[Printer Bandit]

nice logo though

 

[mikeymikec]

nice logo though

Yup. Only as a result of seeing it in that large a version have I spotted that it spells 'Sun'