April 20, 2009

First thoughts on Oracle acquiring Sun

More later.  I have a radio interview in a few minutes on a very different subject.


20 Responses to “First thoughts on Oracle acquiring Sun”

  1. Merger Monday: Oracle Buys Sun Microsystems | Structured Data on April 20th, 2009 11:22 am

    […] Monash has some first thoughts but I’ll limit my comments at this time to “very interesting”. What do you think? […]

  2. Peter Thomas on April 20th, 2009 11:36 am


    We seem to be crossing paths today! Here are my initial thoughts on Oracle / Sun.



  3. Keanu on April 20th, 2009 11:45 am

    What do you think this means for Greenplum?
    I believe their primary platform is the Sun Fire X4500/X4540 on Solaris x64. My guess is Greenplum will also probably lose access to the Sun sales channel as well.

  4. John C. Riley on April 20th, 2009 2:40 pm

    Sun’s OpenStorage plus ZFS will be a threat to NetApp.

  5. Curt Monash on April 20th, 2009 2:51 pm

    At least counting by customer, less than half of Greenplum’s sales — and falling — are on Sun boxes, they tell me. I also heard of a quality issue Greenplum had that the customer ascribed to the Sun hardware and not the Greenplum software itself. So Greenplum doesn’t get wiped out by this.

    But I’m sure on the margin there are sales calls that would have featured Greenplum that now will feature some version of Exadata instead.

  6. Max Lybbert on April 20th, 2009 3:36 pm

    If I ran a company that relied on the current MySQL culture (like Tokutek, Greenplaum, etc.), I would immediately begin looking for another database to port my product to.

    Oracle has some experience with Open Source ( http://oss.oracle.com/ ), but outside of InnoDB and Berkely DB, I would characterize it as “toe in the water” activity. InnoDB isn’t known as a model open source player (development takes place behind closed doors, with sporadic code dumps), and I have a feeling that Java and MySQL development will become more InnoDB-like than the other way around.

  7. Curt Monash on April 20th, 2009 3:44 pm


    Well, a MySQL fork could do the job. But a new entity would probably have to emerge to coordinate.

  8. Peter on April 20th, 2009 5:15 pm

    Any thoughts on OpenOffice/Star Office. Not really that relevant on the bigger scheme. But the spreadsheet capabilities might be interesting to Oracle.

  9. This week is a REALLY good time to actively strengthen the MySQL forkers | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services on April 20th, 2009 5:41 pm

    […] my first three posts on the Oracle/Sun merger suggested, I think Oracle will do a better job with MySQL […]

  10. Peter Thomas on April 20th, 2009 6:13 pm


    Thanks for noticing the typo in my original piece.


  11. Max Lybbert on April 20th, 2009 9:09 pm

    From a technical standpoint, going with a fork would be much easier. But I’m uneasy about the chances for the forks you listed in your fourth follow-up post to the acquisition.

  12. Mergers and value « Peter Thomas - Award-winning Business Intelligence and Cultural Transformation Expert on April 21st, 2009 6:58 am

    […] Curt Monash […]

  13. Peter Thomas on April 21st, 2009 11:56 am


    I have now put together a slightly more considered piece, drawing on the thoughts of people in the blogosphere and on various on-line forums. This can be found at:



  14. Quick links to Curt Monash’s analyses of the Sun/Oracle deal with a MySQL-focus | Pythian Group Blog on April 22nd, 2009 12:18 pm

    […] First thoughts on Oracle Acquiring Sun […]

  15. 對甲骨文買昇陽的一些雜記與想法 於囧 on April 24th, 2009 12:40 pm

    […] >>對這則新聞的第一時間想法 […]

  16. Jordan on May 2nd, 2009 2:55 pm

    I agree Java isn’t the big deal here

    It’s all about the solid state anatomy

  17. Robert Young on May 13th, 2009 10:48 pm

    >> although my recent dealings with EnterpriseDB underscore the importance of being VERY careful about counting your fingers after you shake hands with that company.

    OK, but are you going to divulge the nasty bits? Or are they in a post I can’t find? 🙂

  18. Curt Monash on May 13th, 2009 11:48 pm

    My take on the new EnterpriseDB management team is that even when they recognize and acknowledge that they haven’t lived up to a commitment, they can’t be trusted to fix the problem.

    Frankly, EnterpriseDB is small enough and I have enough PR influence that I probably could have intimidated them into doing the right thing if I’d squeezed hard enough. But the amount of squeezing evidently required was more than I felt comfortable with.

    EnterpriseDB’s prior management team had the usual mismatch between marketing claims and reality, but I take that in stride. They were on the whole good guys. But I suspect the new ones don’t value individuals — e.g., individual customers — enough to be good business partners for enterprises.

    I know that’s vague, but it’s all I intend to provide.

  19. Apparent turmoil at EnterpriseDB | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services on June 17th, 2009 12:14 am

    […] focus had to be changed anyway. And Fred Holahan was the proximate cause for me writing: my recent dealings with EnterpriseDB underscore the importance of being VERY careful about […]

  20. Some interesting links | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services on July 23rd, 2010 5:04 am

    […] had my issues with Fred Holahan, who was VP of Marketing when I posted that EnterpriseDB was not to be trusted. (That said, Fred is long gone from EnterpriseDB and my opinion hasn’t changed.) But […]

Leave a Reply

Feed: DBMS (database management system), DW (data warehousing), BI (business intelligence), and analytics technology Subscribe to the Monash Research feed via RSS or email:


Search our blogs and white papers

Monash Research blogs

User consulting

Building a short list? Refining your strategic plan? We can help.

Vendor advisory

We tell vendors what's happening -- and, more important, what they should do about it.

Monash Research highlights

Learn about white papers, webcasts, and blog highlights, by RSS or email.