 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 22:20:19 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Sun isn't a big rich company anymore, though :)
>>> Yeah - I heard an unsubstantiated rumour that Oracle bought them...
>>
>> It's not an unsubstantiated rumour - it's a fact:
>>
>> http://www.oracle.com/sun/index.html
>>
>> http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2009-04/sunflash.20090420.1.xml
>
> ...OK, so now it's substantiated rumour.
It's not a rumour. It's a fact, Sun is being bought by Oracle.
> It still doesn't make any sense to me though. Sun is multiple times
> larger than Oracle - so how was Oracle able to buy them?
Because Sun isn't as big as it used to be, and Oracle is bigger.
That said, smaller companies do buy bigger companies from time to time.
I worked for a large food & drug retailer here in the US that got bought
by a smaller (by about 50% if size is measured by "number of stores")
company. They were able to afford it.
And the management was looking to sell.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:26:15 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It still doesn't make any sense to me though. Sun is multiple times
>> larger than Oracle - so how was Oracle able to buy them?
>
> Because Sun isn't as big as it used to be, and Oracle is bigger.
Also, look at the market caps for the two companies:
Oracle, based on stock price today, is $91.79 Billion.
Sun, based on stock price today, is $6.72 Billion.
IOW, Oracle's market cap is just over 13.5 times Sun's = another measure
that Oracle is much bigger than Sun.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> It still doesn't make any sense to me though. Sun is multiple times
>>> larger than Oracle - so how was Oracle able to buy them?
>> Because Sun isn't as big as it used to be, and Oracle is bigger.
>
> Also, look at the market caps for the two companies:
>
> Oracle, based on stock price today, is $91.79 Billion.
>
> Sun, based on stock price today, is $6.72 Billion.
>
> IOW, Oracle's market cap is just over 13.5 times Sun's = another measure
> that Oracle is much bigger than Sun.
Is this before or after the buyout was announced? ;-)
Besides, I was under the impression that a stock price is simply an
arbitrary figure plucked out of thin air and having no particular
relation to reality...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 22:36:18 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> It still doesn't make any sense to me though. Sun is multiple times
>>>> larger than Oracle - so how was Oracle able to buy them?
>>> Because Sun isn't as big as it used to be, and Oracle is bigger.
>>
>> Also, look at the market caps for the two companies:
>>
>> Oracle, based on stock price today, is $91.79 Billion.
>>
>> Sun, based on stock price today, is $6.72 Billion.
>>
>> IOW, Oracle's market cap is just over 13.5 times Sun's = another
>> measure that Oracle is much bigger than Sun.
>
> Is this before or after the buyout was announced? ;-)
The purchase price was around the $6.72 billion, so before. Mergers and
acquisitions often mess with the stock price, but generally not very much
- depending on whether the shareholders see it as a good thing or a bad
thing.
> Besides, I was under the impression that a stock price is simply an
> arbitrary figure plucked out of thin air and having no particular
> relation to reality...
It's not "picked out of thin air", but based on what the market values
the company at and the outstanding number of shares at any given time.
It's not particularly arbitrary.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> "How do I do that?" Right, he was in Windows, and there's no diff in
>>> Windows. We pondered for a moment what would be the easiest solution.
>
>> Download diff for Windows? :-)
>
> That's precisely the problem I was talking about. *Nothing* comes with
> Windows by default, and for everything you would have to search and download
> some third-party, non-standard utility which might or might not do what you
> want.
>
> (Additionally, Windows' command prompt just isn't as easy to use as
> unix's. It's just a PitA to try to do anything in it.)
>
Yeah. Just one example: 4DOS.
Features, if you can even find a copy that isn't pay to use any more, or
one at all (I haven't looked recently):
1. ANSI support built in to the command.com replacement.
2. Color coding of files by type.
3. File sorting and other options.
4. List command, so view > 32k files, a page at a time, with the ability
to do searches in the text *and* go forward of back in the file (built in).
5. Other stuff I don't remember.
MS' solutions?
1. Sorry, not even supported, as far as I know, as a "functional" part
of the command line even in XP, Vista, or likely 7. You can hunt down
some third party file from PC World, or someone, which was written in
the 1990s, and use that to get ANSI support. Otherwise, its only
available via ansi.sys, if you boot into DOS mode.
2. Woops... This won't work without #1, so you are SOL.
3. Umm.. Kind of, if you string a lot of files together. I think they is
a sort function in the DOS utilities, though I don't think it comes
"with" Windows, and I doubt you can find DOS any more. But, it would
work something like, "dir {flags for the stuff that is supported} | sort
| more", easy... As long as you don't want "any" bloody real control
over what is going on in those steps, and you don't mind looking up sets
of commands flags you never use, for 2-3 utilities. You, well... can't
do some of it at all in the GUI, not really, at least not as cleanly, or
clearly, as you can in the prompt.
4. Lets keep using QBASIC running in "EDIT" mode (this is literally
their solution), until we have Notepad, then give Notepad the same 32k
limit, and keep it that way, and as the "default" txt file reader, until
XP, and worse, only allow it to "recognize" .txt as a valid extension,
so you can't open any other text files. Oh, and.. lets **never** bother
to implement a way to read non-DOS files, which don't use the CR+LF
method of terminating lines.
5. You name it, they either ignored it, or made up their own, which
doesn't work like anyone else's. Such as, who in their right mind would
want VBscript or Jscript as the command line script system, even if...
again, they didn't bother even "supplying" something more interesting
than .bat files until XP came out? lol
Not made for developers? Its not made for anyone with any clue at all,
and that includes people that where doing things under DOS, near the end
of its life, which are "vastly" superior to everything they provide
"today" in the same command prompt.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 3. Umm.. Kind of, if you string a lot of files together.
What do you mean "file sorting"? Sorting the contents of a file, or sorting
directory listings? Both come with Windows.
> work something like, "dir {flags for the stuff that is supported} | sort
> | more", easy...
Um, why doesn't that work? And why wouldn't you just pass the flags to dir
to make it do the sorting?
> and you don't mind looking up sets
> of commands flags you never use, for 2-3 utilities.
So, you're complaining that *DOS* is lame because you have to know what the
command flags are to make the commands to things? Have you looked at the
size of the bash man page lately? ;-)
> 4. Lets keep using QBASIC running in "EDIT" mode (this is literally
> their solution),
Uh, until maybe 15 years ago, yes.
> until we have Notepad, then give Notepad the same 32k limit,
Until you had the 386....
> and keep it that way, and as the "default" txt file reader, until XP,
Possibly. SO you're still bitching about an OS that's two generations out of
date?
> and worse, only allow it to "recognize" .txt as a valid extension,
Always amused to see people complaining about things they don't know
anything about. As far as I know, that's *never* been the case. I used
notepad to edit .exe files back in Win3 days.
> 5. You name it, they either ignored it, or made up their own, which
> doesn't work like anyone else's.
Cause, like, you don't even know what you're talking about, but you'd best
bash it, right?
> Such as, who in their right mind would
> want VBscript or Jscript as the command line script system,
Probably anyone that worked with VB before? Like Windows developers?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 2. Woops... This won't work without #1, so you are SOL.
Wrong, you can print colors in a Windows console. You just can't do it with
ANSI codes. A 'dir' that prints color is still possible.
> 3. Umm.. Kind of, if you string a lot of files together. I think they is
> a sort function in the DOS utilities, though I don't think it comes
> "with" Windows, and I doubt you can find DOS any more. But, it would
> work something like, "dir {flags for the stuff that is supported} | sort
> | more", easy... As long as you don't want "any" bloody real control
> over what is going on in those steps, and you don't mind looking up sets
> of commands flags you never use, for 2-3 utilities. You, well... can't
> do some of it at all in the GUI, not really, at least not as cleanly, or
> clearly, as you can in the prompt.
'dir' has switches to sort by different criteria. There is also a 'sort'
command that works as a filter you can pipe stuff into.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Wrong, you can print colors in a Windows console.
Indeed, I've posted (Haskell) source code to do it.
> You just can't do it with ANSI codes.
...despite certain sources claiming that you can. (Apparently it used to
be possible, but isn't any more.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 2. Woops... This won't work without #1, so you are SOL.
>
> Wrong, you can print colors in a Windows console. You just can't do it with
> ANSI codes. A 'dir' that prints color is still possible.
>
Uh, not talking about printing color. Anything can do that, if its
designed to do so using "direct" hardware (or simulated, as it where)
accesses, but, in the majority of cases, the existing tools, never mind
what you can do directly in something like .bat, you "need" ANSI. And,
that isn't even mentioning the vast number of still usable things,
including some utilities, that used it, instead of the direct method, to
get color. Mind, I think later versions of 4DOS did do it direct, but
that, at the time, just created even more confusion for people wondering
why *it* worked, but nothing else they where using did. lol
>> 3. Umm.. Kind of, if you string a lot of files together. I think they is
>> a sort function in the DOS utilities, though I don't think it comes
>> "with" Windows, and I doubt you can find DOS any more. But, it would
>> work something like, "dir {flags for the stuff that is supported} | sort
>> | more", easy... As long as you don't want "any" bloody real control
>> over what is going on in those steps, and you don't mind looking up sets
>> of commands flags you never use, for 2-3 utilities. You, well... can't
>> do some of it at all in the GUI, not really, at least not as cleanly, or
>> clearly, as you can in the prompt.
>
> 'dir' has switches to sort by different criteria. There is also a 'sort'
> command that works as a filter you can pipe stuff into.
>
Hmm. Yeah. Come to think of it, they did eventually add "something", it
was just less than helpful. lol Still, you can't pipe the result into a
"list" command, if its a massive directory, so you still have to use
'more', which won't let you page through the results. Well, unless you
pipe it to a *giant* file, then read that in the new notepad. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. Yeah. Come to think of it, they did eventually add "something", it
> was just less than helpful. lol Still, you can't pipe the result into a
> "list" command, if its a massive directory, so you still have to use
> 'more', which won't let you page through the results. Well, unless you
> pipe it to a *giant* file, then read that in the new notepad. lol
Wait... You want to sort a "massive" directory, page through it back and
forth, but you don't want it going onto the disk? You realize it doesn't
work that way, right? By the definition of the problem, you have to
completely generate the directory output before the sort can show you what
the first result is. It's a classic offline computing problem. There's no
such thing as an online sort.
BTW, what is this "list" command of which you speak?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
