
Oracle Agrees to Acquire Sun Microsystems for $7.4B - pierrefar
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/technology/companies/21sun.html
======
adrianwaj
Oracle might be buying it to keep it out of IBM's hands, they - IBM - could've
(not) killed but perhaps damaged two birds (Sun, Oracle) with the one stone in
a Sun buy.

------
dotcoma
this sucks! My_sql in the hands of Oracle!!

~~~
zcrar70
MySQL not My_sql. As is pointed out on the other thread, Oracle already own
InnoDB, which is used by MySQL as its transactional storage engine, so there's
actually a synergy of sorts there.

------
swombat
dupe of: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=570502>

~~~
muhamm
It's not a duplicate. This is a New York Times article. The other one is Sun's
bullshit press release.

~~~
swombat
So post it as a comment on the other thread. No need to disperse the
discussion amongst half a dozen reputable news sources that all cover the same
major event (not to mention pollute the front page with multiple repetitions
of the same story).

~~~
muhamm
There are many issues that get articles from multiple sources. You want us to
start categorizing everything according to content instead of by url? I don't
think HN is set up that way.

~~~
zcrar70
Actually, it's annoying to get 5 URLs pointing to different articles about the
same thing in the RSS feed - if I'm interested in reading the discussion about
an event, I can open up the comments for a single URL and find other
interesting URLs in there.

It also means that comments about an event don't get fragmented into multiple
threads.

The only reason I can see to post in separate threads is to gather karma,
which is a shame as it doesn't benefit the site as a whole.

~~~
muhamm
But multiple authors can have a different take on the same event. I don't want
a 10-page thread with multiple links spread throughout. It's nothing to do
with karma, which I could give a rat's ass about. In this case, I ignored the
first story when I saw sun.com as the URL because I figured it was a bullshit
press release, but read the one that said nytimes.com even though it turned
out to be not much better. Over the next few months additional stories are
likely to revisit the same topic with additional analysis. Lumping them all
into the same thread would mean we would need to re-scan the discussion to
figure out which comments we have read and which ones we haven't. By keeping
the discussions fragmented we avoid that problem.

