Oracle Agrees to Acquire Sun Microsystems for $7.4B(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Oracle Agrees to Acquire Sun Microsystems for $7.4B
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/technology/companies/21sun.html
3 comments
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.
I found this one pretty useful because it states that Oracle is expecting to get 3.5 billion dollars in extra profit just in the next two years from this deal. That is 40% of the purchase price. That sounds like a pretty good deal for Oracle.
It's not a duplicate. This is a New York Times article. The other one is Sun's bullshit press release.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.