3 ms·
Oracle paid $5.6 billion for Sun. If someone else wanted to pay that much they could have submitted an offer too. The board cares about maximizing shareholder v
by mrpippy 9y ago
Oracle paid $5.6 billion for Sun. If someone else wanted to pay that much they could have submitted an offer too. The board cares about maximizing shareholder value, not about the future of any ongoing technologies.
Sun had been in discussions with IBM for months about an acquisition, but I believe the offer was lower and there were antitrust concerns (they did compete directly in a lot of markets) [1]. I suspect they would have been a much better steward of the open-source efforts though
[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/technology/business-computing/06blue.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/technology/business-comput...
- oxryly1 9y agoYeah, mine was little of a leading question certainly. Oracle seems like bad guys, but it's really the board of Sun that had priorities other than the health of Solaris and the long term employment of the engineers. Oracle was a known snake [1]. Also, sale of the entire business of Sun was probably only one of many options on the table. [1]: http://www.gballard.net/lifes_lessons/girl_rattlesnake/ http://www.gballard.net/lifes_lessons/girl_rattlesnake/
- astine 9y agoI was a Solaris admin at the time of the acquisition and some of the Sun folks I was in contact with were glad that it was at least not IBM that had bought them out because IBM had always been their primary 'enemy.'