Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the consolidation-is-fun dept.
jortega writes "Symantec is looking into buying Veritas for $13bn." The linked article is mostly about biz stuff. Seems like a kind of strange deal to me.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The BBC and others are reporting [bbc.co.uk] that it's a done deal. In a merger deal valued at $13.5bn (£7bn) the all-share deal will see Symantec swap 1.1242 shares of common stock for each Veritas share.
This is part of John Thompson's bid to make Symantec "six by six"--that's $6B revenue (or profit? I think revenue...) by end of 2006. It's a great promise to investors, but not if it requires reckless M&A's.
When I heard about this (when I worked there), I thought, "As long as it doesn't cause 'zero by seven.'"
Interesting that your diatribe should be about companies, given that your link takes me to a website about atrocities committed by the chinese government (which is true but totally irrelevant).
Why is the percentage of H1Bs a key question? I don't get it. Is this just another xenophobic rant or is there a relevant point to this question?
If a company honestly does its business, thus providing valuable services to willing companies, is that not enough? Why is it important for corporations to support your fav
It's really more interesting and useful to talk about it once Slashdotters as a whole have had a little bit of time to absorb the information. Slashdot was never intended to be "fast" news; you'll notice that since its news is always garnished from other places it is inherently slower than the places that do actual reporting.
doesn't like this much, Symantec is down 8% and Veritas is down slightly as well, and so far has failed to approach the takeover price of around $30 bucks a share. Probably due to increased competition in the secuiruty market.
doesn't like this much, Symantec is down 8% and Veritas is down slightly as well, and so far has failed to approach the takeover price of around $30 bucks a share. Probably due to increased competition in the secuiruty market.
Symantec doesn't have $30/share for Veritas. It's actually a stock for stock trade, with 1 share of Veritas getting 1.1242 shares of Symantec. At $25.15 for Symantec, that only makes Veritas worth $28.27/share.
I'd say that market thinks this is at least a good thing for Veritas if not Symantec also.
While you may disagree with my opinion, S&P downgraded the stock, and
other analysts do not like it as well - American Technology Research analyst Donovan Gow said the market's negative reaction reflects the stock market's puzzlement over why Symantec, a leader in the rapidly growing market for security software, is buying Veritas, whose sales have been rising at a much slower clip. here [sfgate.com]
Symantec is down 25% from monday. I'm not saying I'm right, but do a google and there are several sources that agree.
Analysts downgraded both companies. Legg Mason analyst Todd Weller wrote in a note to clients that Symantecs' 20 percent sales growth rates will be dragged down by Veritas's slower sales, which are forecast to rise 10 percent. ``From a near-term perspective,
Because everything *except* the data backup are traditional "security" roles. Backup is needed, and recognized by security folks as good, but backup isn't traditionally considered a "security" product. So, to the market (and to many outsiders), this looks like Symantec trying to buy their way into a market they have no expertise in.
Given my experience with Symantec's other areas that they bought their way into (firewalls, for example), I think this means it's time to stop considering Veritas...if it's an
Because everything *except* the data backup are traditional "security" roles. Backup is needed, and recognized by security folks as good, but backup isn't traditionally considered a "security" product.
Backup is necessary for data integrity, and data integrity is necessary for security. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.
So, to the market (and to many outsiders) this looks like Symantec trying to buy their way into a market they have no expertise in.
The world of Information Security has been turned on its ear in the past two years. Little - if any - corporate security measures are focused on methodology such as Threat Analysis or Risk Assessment. The brave new world is mandated compliance - with Sarbanes-Oxley taking the lead at publicly-traded corporations.
Symantec probably has their eye on the data-retention provisions of SOX and GLBA. This is their sales message - because CEO's get jail-time for SOX violations.
Symantec's very big on acquisition; if they don't already make some product in their market space, they buy someone who does. They've been in the desktop backup space for a while after buying PowerQuest (Norton Ghost), and now they're extending it to the server space with Veritas.
Powerquest was Partition Magic. Norton has had Norton Ghost for ages; it's an drive imaging and backup tool.
I guess I've always looked to Norton for their utilities sweet and AV. They only got a firewall after buying ATGaurd; it
gclef wrote: Because everything *except* the data backup are traditional "security" roles. Backup is needed, and recognized by security folks as good, but backup isn't traditionally considered a "security" product.
If you view it from more of a risk management viewpoint and call it all "business continuity", then backup fits quite well. In that case most security plays a preventative role, and backup plays a recovery role. My guess is that many of the buyers are viewing it from this viewpoint. If your pro
Symantec isn't actually buying the company, they're giving them a bunch of copies of Norton Antivirus and will slowly drive them into bankruptcy via the subscription fees. At which point they'll take over the company based on the money owed.
Another company they can screw up. Wasn't screwing *their* employees enough for them? That's right - this company is flush with so much cash, but they have no problem getting rid of their permanent employees, then rehiring them as contractors.
The only thing I want to know is whether Symantec execs will remove their dicks from the asses of their employees now, and will transfer that love to Veritas employees.
If you had any sort of knowledge of Symantec operations, you'd be aware that Symantec outsourced 270 (38%) of their perms in Oregon in 2002. Then in June it cut 206 (30%) of them. [registerguard.com] That's based off a total of about 700 workers. You're telling me that 30-40 percent suddenly weren't productive?
Stop being a pedantic shithead for a minute, and consider the statistical probability of 38% of a permanent workforce suddenly becoming unproductive.
Simply, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Yo
We resell Veritas on every major server we build, and when I mentioned the aquisition this morning the comment from everyone was effectivly "I guess we will need to find new backup software to sell with our servers." It wasn't even a thought, we just don't want to deal with symantec.
My corporation just spent 2 years divesting itself from all Symantec products. We literally finished this last quarter; we've actually removed Symanetc from all of our acquisition systems and our software vendors know to remove it from their customised catalogues.
With the announcement of this deal, the show of hands was unanimous for 'people not returning after christmas' who work on the Veritas account.;)
What do you bet the backup software will be modified to start popping up messages to try to get people to buy their other products?
I gave up on Norton a couple of years ago. Nearly everyone I know that still uses Norton is very unhappy with all the popups that have nothing to do with the task at hand - dealing with computer viruses and related malware.
We now have Computer Associates eTrust Antivirus on every Windoze computer at the office. It works every bit as well as Norton did at its' best and with n
I know- don't bother telling me: You won't be buying my product anyway - but anything that hurts their marketshare helps ours:)
Do you really work for CA? Is CA as aware of how people feel about them? If the answer to these questions is yes, why doesn't CA do something about it? Why must CA destroy products and anger customers?
All I can say is that I believe in the product - but its success has been undercut by ever changing upper management/product direction and again by a lack of commitment to good customer support by upper management.
All I can say, is as a former employee of Veritas, who literally worked in every level of support from the lowest to highest levels;) - it sounds like you're describing Veritas precisely. I think these two companies have a whole lot in common.
In fact, I was expecting CA to purchase Veritas, o
Microsoft has purchased an anti-spyware company [thestreet.com], so in fact Microsoft might simultaneously be entering the security market to compete with Symantec. This news is fresh, and might be depressing the market's enthusiasm about Symantec/Veritas.
This is actually the second antivirus company Microsoft has bought. In 2003 they bought GeCAD [enterpriseitplanet.com], makers of RAV-AntiVirus [ravantivirus.com]. So it seems that Microsoft is indeed serious about getting into the anti-virus business.
I know I would diversify if I were them. With predictions of new vulnerabilities being exploited within hours [zdnet.co.uk] it seems like anti-virus software would be a risky business to be in right now. If a major organization got rooted via an exploit that their software didn't protect them from quickly enough they might try to sue Symantec for failing to provide adequate protection. I don't think such a case would be have much merit or be successful, but it would still cost money to defend against it. It might be a very savvy move to have another field to expand into if the market on AV got tight.
Once, long ago, Peter Norton made some damn good tools for DOS. Then came their antivirus product, and it was pretty good, too.
Then came Symantec, and so far I'm not impressed with anything they've done. Have they done anything? Other than buy other companys' products and rebrand them?
All the cool stuff, like Ghost, Tools and AV, came from Norton. The Raptor/Velociraptor firewalls were purchased.
Veritas makes some good stuff. Unfortunately, I believe Symantec will fix that over time.
This may be off topic, but I'll bring it up anyway: I find g4u [feyrer.de] (ghost for unix) a pretty good tool for what you're looking to do. It's a small bootable disk image (so it can be put on floppy or cd) that will boot into NetBSD and it can clone disks or upload/download bit-for-bit images to/from an FTP site of your choosing.
It doesn't do everything (not by any means). All it does is give you bit-for-bit clones and images of a complete hard drive or partition, including empty space. But it does what it does
Veritas is actually a massive conglomeration of many many smaller dotcom-era acquisitions. Big fish, swallowing smaller fish, getting swallowed by another big fish.
When I worked there, I lived through several M&A cycles, but sooner or later, they always look at site redundancies as a way to settle old scores, (former competitors, internal power struggles).
I'd be very nervous if I worked at any of the smaller sites, or especially HQ in MV, or for any "overlap" departments (Support, HR, etc.).
That's what you get for buying the consumer version. I've got NetBackup DataCenter, and it freakin' rocks.
I paid an a$$load of cash upfront, plus yearly support contracts (I try not to remember the actual numbers *shudder*). But it's worth it when you need backups to "just work" and keep on doing so.
As much as Veritas sucks, every other backup solution out there sucks too.
Many other backup solutions are no longer on the market because they were acquired and snuffed by Seagate/Veritas over the years. Some of them were. . . better.
Access database for your config file? WTF?!
Probably the original design was "scalable" in intent, and looked towards SQL or Oracle, but WTF, were you going to pay for either of those just to track your backup tapes?
It's a problem that's best solved with a relational dat
"Symantec Corp. and VERITAS Software Corp. today announced a definitive agreement to merge in an all-stock transaction. Based on Symantec's stock price of $27.38 at market close on December 15, 2004, the transaction is valued at approximately $13.5 billion."
Well, that was sort of an off-shoot. They sold off (rebranded) their consumer product and continued to sell and support their Backup Exec program. I wouldn't say he missed one. I mourn the loss of decent tech support, myself. Symantec has never had very good tech support. I've called Veritas about Backup Exec for Netware and they've helped me troubleshoot getting the tape drive to recognize right in Netware, rather than shunt me off to Novell. Above and beyond the call of duty. You'll be missed, Veritas.
In general, the NetWare team's going to be more competent, just because it's comprised mainly of crusty-old grouchy Netware gurus.
The Windows team is more likely to be composed of the latest batch of paper MCSE's fresh out of community college. Crusty-old MSCE's ask for too much money.
from the art: ...It would be somewhat surprising to see Veritas agree to an acquisition , given that the company's CEO Gary Bloom has long said he thinks Veritas can grow at a steady pace on its own. Veritas has acquired numerous companies over the past two years, trying to build out its server software portfolio....
Gary Bloom used to work for Oracle...he was the VP that oversaw Oracle's swallowing of e-travel so he knows exactly what he is up against. [disclosure...I was one of a small handful of SW engineers who escaped with some dot.com lucre when Oracle later disgorged e-travel.] I would look at Symantec buying Veritas as a defensive move...EMC has moved into new markets aggressively
and managing the security of all that data they already store/fetch would be logical. It would also seriously crimp a growth path that Symantec could take into the same market space from its position as a security provider. Now, who can tell me if I should sell my VRTS?
They buy these companies and then "poof" goes decent support. Except that shitty knowledgebase. The only company that has managed to fuck things up worse is Business Objects. They bought Crystal reports (the most sold company around) and their support is just aweful. They have forums that people post to but no employees seem to monitor. The instructions in the Crystal reports for installing things like the report server are written as if they wrote a functional version and then stripped any pertinent t
Off topic, but the only thing that sucks worse than Business Objects' support, is their software.
Have you actually *used* anything they have besides Crystal Reports? I'll just say there is a damn good reason they bought their competition, and it's not to "pull a Microsoft"
Not to me. If you ever get into the infosec theory stuff, you'll study the CIA acronym; the "A" in it stands for availability, and that's what backups provide.
A backup company is a smart addition to a security company.
I can see that for Backup Exec and/or Netbackup, but I'm not sure what Symantec knows about volume managment (VxVM), filesystems (VxFS), and cluster (VCS). I'm afraid that they'll end up like a PC company (Compaq) buying an enterprise technology company (Digital). They'll think they know what they're doing, really not, and hose the entire mess.
As an aside, I wonder how HP is feeling now? They dumped the filesystem (AdvFS) and clustering (TruCluster) that they bought by acquiring Compaq (who bought it by
this could move symantec into the Disaster Recovery world with anti virus and security solutions the next logical step is to have a segment that can secure data. With the Veritas backup suite of products it could realy provide them with the full suite of software packages.
All in all it could be a great merger. However having seen how both of the companies work it maybe a very difficult transition for the two companies to amalgamate properly. That could lead to problems.
If anyone in the support industry has been watching Veritas lately, you'd know that while they offer some nice feature-rich products, said products generally don't always install out of the box and *work* properly. This has been a problem with niche OSes (i.e. Netware) for a few years and the problem is starting to creep into the Windows products (i.e. Backup Exec 9.x) as well. In fact, it reminds me of Computer Associates...
Symantec Products, regardless of what you think of them, generally work out of the box without much hassle. They are not perfect, but they're pretty feature-complete and work quite well. We use Symantec AntiVirus Corp. Edition a LOT in the field because it works and has a decent management interface--McAfee doesn't work as well, CA's eTrust doesn't have good management tools... etc. It's the _least bad_ of the products on offer (Trend Micro is pretty good too, but I still like the centralized Symantec AV Console--it's quite clean)
There aren't a lot of great feature-complete backup offerings out there (the archival storage industry has always lagged behind IMO - look at how expensive good-quality tape drives still are) thus Veritas *almost* has a monopoly on the market, especially for SMBs. As they've gotten bigger over the past few years (once they spun off from Seagate Software) the quality of their product has (I think) dropped dramatically.
I still like Symantec overall- they do a decent job considering the size of the company. They've still got some neat products. Their antivirus division is industry-leading. I can't say that about every huge software company out there... most generally start crumbling under their own weight.
So I'm optimistic...
(is it just my imagination, or can Backup Exec trace its lineage to Norton Backup?
(is it just my imagination, or can Backup Exec trace its lineage to Norton Backup?
In-FUCKING-deed, yes!
Kevin Azzouz, former CEO of Arcada, once remarked that he had done some coding for Norton Backup, back in the day. So yes, it's true, there probably IS some relationship there.
Just fyi, I use both Vertias BackupExec and Powerquest V2i Protector (It allows one to backup a machine using a method simlar to ghost). However, now that both of these are owned by symantec, I suppose I will have to investigate using Rsync with Cygwin over SSH for the windoze machines.
Not a big Symantec fan here. I have to support a program that somebody wrote with Symantec C, just before they gave up on that very buggy compiler.
Then our org bought Norton, er, Symantec Anti-Virus, which has a bunch of rough edges, and now on this Pc I'm typing on the uninstall feature has broken, so I can't even cleanly uninstall the mess and switch to AVG.
I expect the Veritas stuff to go to crap within a release or two, if old trends continue...
My opinion's hardly a comprehensive one, but as a Macintosh user who has seen tonce-great products for the platform such as Symantec C++ and Norton Utilities come and go, the title of an old Hollies song comes to mind. They truly are "King Midas In Reverse."
Veritas meanwhile, should prepare to change its name to Falsitas.
You're all talking about Backup and Recovery, but Data Protection is only about a quarter of what Veritas does. The other three main areas of their product and services line are High Availability (failover clusters, local and global), Data Management (Volume manager, Veritas File System, SANpoint) and Application metrics (Command Center).
I work for a Veritas reseller and am a Veritas certified specialist in backup and HA for Solaris. I'm very worried that with this merger, focus will be taken off their Sol
"Sprint is merging with Nextel, not Verizon. This makes less sense and they are looking to essentialy keep two seperate networks running."
I don't know the details of the deal, but it still seems to make sense to me. Each company gets all of the other's existing, contracted customers, kills off one competitor, and gains a whole lot of infrastructure. Eventually they'll either shift to one network, or find a way to make having two useful.
Then you switch to Trend Micro, which is what my company did when their network got taken down by a virus even with Norton "protection" running. Symantec has done nothing to Norton products other than run them into the ground. How much longer will this company be able to keep running on fumes? In this case, the fumes are the reputation of the once-great Norton product line. These tools (Internet Seecurity and Anti-Virus) are perfect examples of what happens when technical design decisions are made by MBA an
Or perhaps more accurately, Symantec is hedging their bets. With Microsoft likely to bundle anti-virus with their OS, it's wise to have something else to lean on should their bread and butter suddenly get a big bite taken out of it.
Actually, Verizon was rumored to be looking into buying Sprint, even as Sprint was in the middle of buying NexTel. That news kinda gets lost in all the Sprint/NexTel noise though.
Nextel is going to be migrating their iDEN network to be based on cdma2000 (and therefore on the migration path for EV-DV, etc.) This is actually a good thing for Nextel, their walkie-talkies are popular, but as a cellphone network, they suck. Certainly, part of this will be making Sprint and Nextel's Push-to-talk offering compatible. Merging with Sprint will give both companies the opportunity for more growth (IMO) then apart.
Microsoft is finally integrating antivirus into Windows.
Where did you get the news that Microsoft is integrating an antivirus scanner into Windows? I recall them adding it to Exchange, but not into Windows. Now, XP SP 2 does monitor various antivirus software through the Windows Security thing, but that's not the same as Microsoft offering an antivirus scanner with Windows.
Buying Veritas gives them an improved Backup and Recovery offering than what they currently have.
They currently use Ghost for scheduled backup purposes (incremental, full, image). Hard to beat its ability to image a live system by "pushing" from the workstation to a shared network drive without any server-side software. This gives true full system restore capabilities since it's really a digital image, not just files, folders, and registry configurations.
I regularly used Symantec Ghost at work which is indeed backup software. Its not a new area for Symantec .
Ghost is already awsome, and widely used in the industry. Hopefully this will bring in some new technologies to make it better yet. =)
Note: Norton Ghost is the home version.
Agreed, and the Sprint/Verizon deal made them on the 3rd largest! It's just impossible for 4-5 companies to compete anymore, they have to have more capital than most 3rd world countries to even be on the radar.
As an aside, nice Refused quote, "Fanning the flames of discontent" and "Shape of punk to come" are two of my all time favs, amazing stuff.
What's a antivirus company want with a backup company?
Veritas isn't a "backup" company. They provide enterprise storage solutions. I bet Veritas File System (VxFS) and Veritas Volume Manager (VxVM) provide them with much more revenue then BackupExec and NetBackup.
I wonder what sort of effect (if any) this will have on HP's recent decision to scrap the integration of Tru64 clustering and volume management into HP-UX, and license Veritas products to bundle instead.
This must spell the end of unix enterprise software. When I think Symantec, I think PC software protection. Veritas is far more unix oriented. I cannot imagine Symantec providing unix data protection, I don't care who they buy out.
Ghost is not quite the same as backing up data. There was two people in the drive imaging game, until Symantec bought PowerQuest last year. They basicilly bought it and did absolutely nothing with it other then modify [powerquest.com] some web pages to point to a Symantec website. Click on the Drive Image 7 link and see.
I mean you need a friggen PHD to run that software. Only one person in our NOC can really (I mean really) make it sing. A few others can muddle by with it. I think that it is overly complicated *I am not the backup guy*, as are pretty much all backup solutions. -nB
*I am not the backup guy* Oh, phrases, how I love thee.
One time, when I was the backup guy and I wasn't afraid to disclose my knowledge of backupexec, I became the *backup guy*. This damned me into restoring peoples resumes and digital pictures for the rest of my employment.
When he learns his lesson, he'll again become ignorant. For now, he probably just does it because it's an IT job and the pay is OK.
Come on, I'm of average intelligence and I could figure it out. Well, not all of it, but at least enough to back up everything we have on a scheduled basis and restore things on-demand.
Even though I can get it to do everything I want it to? Just because I don't use all the features, it does not automatically follow that I'm just "muddling by."
your first post implied (to me) that you were using it's bare functionality. If that's all you need then fine (but I think you spent too much money in that case). The little bit I did work with it I realized it was capable of tons of stuff. I did not have the time to devote to learning how to use it, and it was not my job to do so. To me, muddling by is getting something functional, but not using it's full potential to maximum benifit. -nB
The "synergies" aren't meant to benefit the consumer. They are to benefit the investors and the corporate executives. Consumers benefit from competition in the marketplace, mergers of this scale are reductive of competition.
The point is to reduce costs, increase profits, and give all that extra money to the hard working execs and the hard working wall street types who make the deal happen, and let enough dribble down to the investors so that they don't make a stink. Screw everyone else.
I mean, almost nothing good ever comes out of them for the consumer. Service takes a hit, products get dropped, prices go up. Where are the so called synergies?
In this case that may not be true. It all depends on which way the control goes. Veritas support just plain sucks. Symantec for all their faults has good support. Personally I'd abandon both for CommVault and Trend, but if Symantec takes control, the service and support at Veritas will most likely improve.
I've actually run into this too. They screw around with the TCP/IP layer in order to provide their services. Basically, you have to reinstall TCP/IP on the Windows box. There is a knowledgebase article in M$ support area that explains how to do this. I believe its under the Windows 2000 area, but will also work for XP.
A done deal (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A done deal (Score:2)
This is part of John Thompson's bid to make Symantec "six by six"--that's $6B revenue (or profit? I think revenue...) by end of 2006. It's a great promise to investors, but not if it requires reckless M&A's.
When I heard about this (when I worked there), I thought, "As long as it doesn't cause 'zero by seven.'"
Re:Symantec (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is the percentage of H1Bs a key question? I don't get it. Is this just another xenophobic rant or is there a relevant point to this question?
If a company honestly does its business, thus providing valuable services to willing companies, is that not enough? Why is it important for corporations to support your fav
Re:A done deal (Score:2)
Re:A done deal (Score:2)
The Market (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Market (Score:2)
doesn't like this much, Symantec is down 8% and Veritas is down slightly as well, and so far has failed to approach the takeover price of around $30 bucks a share. Probably due to increased competition in the secuiruty market.
Symantec doesn't have $30/share for Veritas. It's actually a stock for stock trade, with 1 share of Veritas getting 1.1242 shares of Symantec. At $25.15 for Symantec, that only makes Veritas worth $28.27/share.
Re:The Market (Score:2)
Re:The Market (Score:4, Informative)
While you may disagree with my opinion, S&P downgraded the stock, and
other analysts do not like it as well - American Technology Research analyst Donovan Gow said the market's negative reaction reflects the stock market's puzzlement over why Symantec, a leader in the rapidly growing market for security software, is buying Veritas, whose sales have been rising at a much slower clip. here [sfgate.com]
Symantec is down 25% from monday. I'm not saying I'm right, but do a google and there are several sources that agree.
What do I have enemies here or something (Score:2)
All one has to do is a simple google to see that there are several anylysts who question this move.
HERE [bloomberg.com]
Analysts downgraded both companies. Legg Mason analyst Todd Weller wrote in a note to clients that Symantecs' 20 percent sales growth rates will be dragged down by Veritas's slower sales, which are forecast to rise 10 percent. ``From a near-term perspective,
How is it strange? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How is it strange? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given my experience with Symantec's other areas that they bought their way into (firewalls, for example), I think this means it's time to stop considering Veritas...if it's an
Re:How is it strange? (Score:2, Interesting)
Backup is necessary for data integrity, and data integrity is necessary for security. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.
So, to the market (and to many outsiders) this looks like Symantec trying to buy their way into a market they have no expertise in.
Symantec's very big on acquisition; if they don't
TWO WORDS (Score:4, Insightful)
The world of Information Security has been turned on its ear in the past two years. Little - if any - corporate security measures are focused on methodology such as Threat Analysis or Risk Assessment. The brave new world is mandated compliance - with Sarbanes-Oxley taking the lead at publicly-traded corporations.
Symantec probably has their eye on the data-retention provisions of SOX and GLBA. This is their sales message - because CEO's get jail-time for SOX violations.
Re:How is it strange? (Score:2)
Powerquest was Partition Magic. Norton has had Norton Ghost for ages; it's an drive imaging and backup tool.
I guess I've always looked to Norton for their utilities sweet and AV. They only got a firewall after buying ATGaurd; it
Re:How is it strange? (Score:2)
gclef wrote: Because everything *except* the data backup are traditional "security" roles. Backup is needed, and recognized by security folks as good, but backup isn't traditionally considered a "security" product.
If you view it from more of a risk management viewpoint and call it all "business continuity", then backup fits quite well. In that case most security plays a preventative role, and backup plays a recovery role. My guess is that many of the buyers are viewing it from this viewpoint. If your pro
Symantec isn't just security (Score:2)
OMG (Score:5, Funny)
JBuilder did Symantec (Score:2)
Forward Thinking (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Forward Thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn you! (Score:2)
I heard (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I heard (Score:2)
And based on one of your previous posts
it looks like you're giving all your secrets away. I will be patiently awaiting your future business savvy advice on Slashdot!
Just fabulous (Score:2)
The only thing I want to know is whether Symantec execs will remove their dicks from the asses of their employees now, and will transfer that love to Veritas employees.
Re:Just fabulous (Score:4, Funny)
1 foot in the door
1 foot out the door
1 foot in your ass
Not sure who they're using now, but employees I've kept in touch with indicate that it's gotten more efficient: they wear cleats now.
Re:Just fabulous (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop being a pedantic shithead for a minute, and consider the statistical probability of 38% of a permanent workforce suddenly becoming unproductive.
Simply, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Yo
Office Reaction (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree...
Re:Office Reaction (Score:2)
Re:Office Reaction (Score:4, Interesting)
With the announcement of this deal, the show of hands was unanimous for 'people not returning after christmas' who work on the Veritas account.
Re:Office Reaction (Score:2)
I gave up on Norton a couple of years ago. Nearly everyone I know that still uses Norton is very unhappy with all the popups that have nothing to do with the task at hand - dealing with computer viruses and related malware.
We now have Computer Associates eTrust Antivirus on every Windoze computer at the office. It works every bit as well as Norton did at its' best and with n
Are you for real? (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you really work for CA? Is CA as aware of how people feel about them? If the answer to these questions is yes, why doesn't CA do something about it? Why must CA destroy products and anger customers?
Re:Are you for real? (Score:2)
All I can say, is as a former employee of Veritas, who literally worked in every level of support from the lowest to highest levels
In fact, I was expecting CA to purchase Veritas, o
In related news (Score:4, Informative)
Re:In related news (Score:2)
Maybe Symantec's just diversifying (Score:3, Insightful)
Jack of All Trades... (Score:4, Insightful)
Once, long ago, Peter Norton made some damn good tools for DOS. Then came their antivirus product, and it was pretty good, too.
Then came Symantec, and so far I'm not impressed with anything they've done. Have they done anything? Other than buy other companys' products and rebrand them?
All the cool stuff, like Ghost, Tools and AV, came from Norton. The Raptor/Velociraptor firewalls were purchased.
Veritas makes some good stuff. Unfortunately, I believe Symantec will fix that over time.
Mediocre seems to be their watchword.
-Charles
Re:Jack of All Trades... (Score:3, Informative)
The Norton Utilities were mighty fun during the DOS days.
Re:Jack of All Trades... (Score:2)
It doesn't do everything (not by any means). All it does is give you bit-for-bit clones and images of a complete hard drive or partition, including empty space. But it does what it does
Re:Could dd be any use? (Score:2)
will try to read 120GB before writing that to disk...
try:
to get the number of blocks the hd contains, and then
double bs and half count a few times to make the transfer more efficient (as long as it is a multiple of 512 bytes)
Re:Jack of All Trades... (Score:2)
I don't remember now - was the norton thing before or after symantec was into being an ide company competing with borland with symantec cafe?
Re:Jack of All Trades... (Score:2)
When I worked there, I lived through several M&A cycles, but sooner or later, they always look at site redundancies as a way to settle old scores, (former competitors, internal power struggles).
I'd be very nervous if I worked at any of the smaller sites, or especially HQ in MV, or for any "overlap" departments (Support, HR, etc.).
The long
Re:Jack of All Trades... (Score:2)
I paid an a$$load of cash upfront, plus yearly support contracts (I try not to remember the actual numbers *shudder*). But it's worth it when you need backups to "just work" and keep on doing so.
Re:Jack of All Trades... (Score:2)
Many other backup solutions are no longer on the market because they were acquired and snuffed by Seagate/Veritas over the years. Some of them were. . . better.
Access database for your config file? WTF?!
Probably the original design was "scalable" in intent, and looked towards SQL or Oracle, but WTF, were you going to pay for either of those just to track your backup tapes?
It's a problem that's best solved with a relational dat
Not looking to buy, they are "buying" them. (Score:2)
"Symantec Corp. and VERITAS Software Corp. today announced a definitive agreement to merge in an all-stock transaction. Based on Symantec's stock price of $27.38 at market close on December 15, 2004, the transaction is valued at approximately $13.5 billion."
one more owner for backup exec... (Score:3, Informative)
then it was purchased by acada (? - acadia)
then it was purchased by seagate
then it was purchased by veritas
and amazingly enough, backup exec has continued to get better over time.
eric
Re:one more owner for backup exec... (Score:2)
I happen to know that these poor saps spend a LOT of time re-branding that software.
They should just give up, and define BRAND as a constant in the header, so it can be a one-liner.
Re:one more owner for backup exec... (Score:2)
I mourn the loss of decent tech support, myself. Symantec has never had very good tech support. I've called Veritas about Backup Exec for Netware and they've helped me troubleshoot getting the tape drive to recognize right in Netware, rather than shunt me off to Novell. Above and beyond the call of duty. You'll be missed, Veritas.
Re:one more owner for backup exec... (Score:2)
The Windows team is more likely to be composed of the latest batch of paper MCSE's fresh out of community college. Crusty-old MSCE's ask for too much money.
nothing is what it seems or is reported to be... (Score:4, Interesting)
I would look at Symantec buying Veritas as a defensive move...EMC has moved into new markets aggressively and managing the security of all that data they already store/fetch would be logical. It would also seriously crimp a growth path that Symantec could take into the same market space from its position as a security provider.
Now, who can tell me if I should sell my VRTS?
Re:nothing is what it seems or is reported to be.. (Score:2)
Makes you wonder... (Score:3, Funny)
- Symantec Virus DevStudio 7
- Symantec Spam Server 5
- Symantec Gator
- Symantec Hard Drive Eraser 4
- Symantec Registry Hoser XP
- Symantec Network Trojan 5.5
- Symantec EZ Spyware 4
- Symantec RAID Drive Ejector 3
That would pretty much cover their business development needs for the OTHER product line that we're already aware of.
IronChefMorimoto
Unless (Score:2)
Veritas goes to Semantic and I dump Veritas with a vengance.
Ultrabac does the same stuff with a lot smaller install, and for less money.
Symantec is a pain (Score:2)
Business Objects (Score:2)
Have you actually *used* anything they have besides Crystal Reports? I'll just say there is a damn good reason they bought their competition, and it's not to "pull a Microsoft"
Backups are part of security... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to me. If you ever get into the infosec theory stuff, you'll study the CIA acronym; the "A" in it stands for availability, and that's what backups provide.
A backup company is a smart addition to a security company.
Re:Backups are part of security... (Score:2, Insightful)
As an aside, I wonder how HP is feeling now? They dumped the filesystem (AdvFS) and clustering (TruCluster) that they bought by acquiring Compaq (who bought it by
Symantec's Size. (Score:2)
MS is #1 Oracle is #2. Are they #3 at this point?
Re:Symantec's Size. (Score:2)
Re:Symantec's Size. (Score:2)
This would be good (Score:2)
All in all it could be a great merger. However having seen how both of the companies work it maybe a very difficult transition for the two companies to amalgamate properly. That could lead to problems.
actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
If anyone in the support industry has been watching Veritas lately, you'd know that while they offer some nice feature-rich products, said products generally don't always install out of the box and *work* properly. This has been a problem with niche OSes (i.e. Netware) for a few years and the problem is starting to creep into the Windows products (i.e. Backup Exec 9.x) as well. In fact, it reminds me of Computer Associates...
Symantec Products, regardless of what you think of them, generally work out of the box without much hassle. They are not perfect, but they're pretty feature-complete and work quite well. We use Symantec AntiVirus Corp. Edition a LOT in the field because it works and has a decent management interface--McAfee doesn't work as well, CA's eTrust doesn't have good management tools... etc. It's the _least bad_ of the products on offer (Trend Micro is pretty good too, but I still like the centralized Symantec AV Console--it's quite clean)
There aren't a lot of great feature-complete backup offerings out there (the archival storage industry has always lagged behind IMO - look at how expensive good-quality tape drives still are) thus Veritas *almost* has a monopoly on the market, especially for SMBs. As they've gotten bigger over the past few years (once they spun off from Seagate Software) the quality of their product has (I think) dropped dramatically.
I still like Symantec overall- they do a decent job considering the size of the company. They've still got some neat products. Their antivirus division is industry-leading. I can't say that about every huge software company out there... most generally start crumbling under their own weight.
So I'm optimistic...
(is it just my imagination, or can Backup Exec trace its lineage to Norton Backup?
is it:
Norton Backup -> Norton Backup Exec -> Seagate Software Backup Exec -> Veritas Backup Exec -> Symantec Backup Exec?
I could be dreaming)
Re:actually... (Score:2)
In-FUCKING-deed, yes!
Kevin Azzouz, former CEO of Arcada, once remarked that he had done some coding for Norton Backup, back in the day. So yes, it's true, there probably IS some relationship there.
Powerquest was also purchased by Symantec recently (Score:2)
Ah yes, let's l;ook at the record (Score:2)
Symantec. Ugh. (Score:2)
Veritas meanwhile, should prepare to change its name to Falsitas.
Extremely Worried (Score:2)
I work for a Veritas reseller and am a Veritas certified specialist in backup and HA for Solaris. I'm very worried that with this merger, focus will be taken off their Sol
Did you hear that sound? (Score:2)
Symantec: The Microsoft Of Utilities
Language buys out Truth (Score:2)
Fox News has wisely already made the adjustment.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T/Cingular made sense. Their networks are very similar.
Sprint is merging with Nextel, not Verizon. This makes less sense and they are looking to essentialy keep two seperate networks running.
what's a antivirus company want with a backup company?
What's the first thing you wonder when your network gets infected? When was the last time I backed up my data?
It's a perfect fit.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
I don't know the details of the deal, but it still seems to make sense to me. Each company gets all of the other's existing, contracted customers, kills off one competitor, and gains a whole lot of infrastructure. Eventually they'll either shift to one network, or find a way to make having two useful.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
What's the first thing you wonder when your network gets infected? When was the last time I backed up my data?
Or, "Why the %#!?& are we paying so much for anti-virus software that doesn't stop my network from getting infected!?!"
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Actually, Verizon was rumored to be looking into buying Sprint, even as Sprint was in the middle of buying NexTel. That news kinda gets lost in all the Sprint/NexTel noise though.
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=111230 [rednova.com]
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Nextel is going to be migrating their iDEN network to be based on cdma2000 (and therefore on the migration path for EV-DV, etc.) This is actually a good thing for Nextel, their walkie-talkies are popular, but as a cellphone network, they suck. Certainly, part of this will be making Sprint and Nextel's Push-to-talk offering compatible. Merging with Sprint will give both companies the opportunity for more growth (IMO) then apart.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft is finally integrating antivirus into Windows. This leaves Symantec without a bunch of their revenue. They need to branch out.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Let's hope that they do as good a job with this as they did integrating the browser. That will make me feel so much more sec... ah, wait.
Never mind...
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Where did you get the news that Microsoft is integrating an antivirus scanner into Windows? I recall them adding it to Exchange, but not into Windows. Now, XP SP 2 does monitor various antivirus software through the Windows Security thing, but that's not the same as Microsoft offering an antivirus scanner with Windows.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
They currently use Ghost for scheduled backup purposes (incremental, full, image). Hard to beat its ability to image a live system by "pushing" from the workstation to a shared network drive without any server-side software. This gives true full system restore capabilities since it's really a digital image, not just files, folders, and registry configurations.
= 9J =
Symantec does more than anti-virus... (Score:2)
Have a look at their enterprise product listing [symantec.com] to see what else is available.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Both are in the biz of protecting data (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
As an aside, nice Refused quote, "Fanning the flames of discontent" and "Shape of punk to come" are two of my all time favs, amazing stuff.
CB
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Veritas isn't a "backup" company. They provide enterprise storage solutions. I bet Veritas File System (VxFS) and Veritas Volume Manager (VxVM) provide them with much more revenue then BackupExec and NetBackup.
I wonder what sort of effect (if any) this will have on HP's recent decision to scrap the integration of Tru64 clustering and volume management into HP-UX, and license Veritas products to bundle instead.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Great. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Money (Score:2)
Re:I guess.. (Score:2)
I mean you need a friggen PHD to run that software. Only one person in our NOC can really (I mean really) make it sing. A few others can muddle by with it. I think that it is overly complicated *I am not the backup guy*, as are pretty much all backup solutions.
-nB
Re:I guess.. (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, phrases, how I love thee.
One time, when I was the backup guy and I wasn't afraid to disclose my knowledge of backupexec, I became the *backup guy*. This damned me into restoring peoples resumes and digital pictures for the rest of my employment.
When he learns his lesson, he'll again become ignorant. For now, he probably just does it because it's an IT job and the pay is OK.
Re:I guess.. (Score:2)
Re:I guess.. (Score:2)
-nB
Re:I guess.. (Score:2)
Re:I guess.. (Score:2)
-nB
Re:I'm Sick of Mergers... (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is to reduce costs, increase profits, and give all that extra money to the hard working execs and the hard working wall street types who make the deal happen, and let enough dribble down to the investors so that they don't make a stink. Screw everyone else.
Re:I'm Sick of Mergers... (Score:2)
In this case that may not be true. It all depends on which way the control goes. Veritas support just plain sucks. Symantec for all their faults has good support. Personally I'd abandon both for CommVault and Trend, but if Symantec takes control, the service and support at Veritas will most likely improve.
Re:Symantec sucks. (Score:2)