Slashdot Mirror
Sun Hints At Open-Source Database Offering
An anonymous reader points out a ZDNet story which begins "Sun Microsystems has raised the possibility that it might offer customers its own database, a move that could trigger displeasure at Oracle but curry favor with open-source advocates," writing "Last week, during a meeting with financial analysts, Chief Executive Scott McNealy showed a slide that placed the words 'Sun DB' next to a list of existing database products. McNealy offered no details besides 'stay tuned.'"
Do we really, _really_ need another OS/Free RDBMS? What is it going to do what others don't?
It's going to be released under CDDL if anything. This in itself denies its use by most of the open source world. *sigh* why does Sun have to keep on trying to destroy Linux and the GPL?
Another Open Source database already? How many do we need? MySQL, Postgres..didn't SAP release their DB engine under an OSS licence too? Given that Sun currently don't even offer their own closed database product, I can't imagine any OSS database offering from them is going to amount to much.
What with they think of next?
No trees were harmed in the posting of this message. However, a great number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Their resources would be better spent on improving an existing open-source db. My personal favorit is Postgresql but hey, it's their money.
TCAP-Abort
Given that a reasonably useful database system would be several hundred thousand lines of code, and, that Oracle & IBM have a 25 year head start not to mention MicroSofts 10 year head start. I don't think it would make sense for SUN to roll thier own database software.
So the question is who are they gonna buy? IBM has already snapped up Informix. CA has "given" Ingres to the Open Source community. SAP has donated SAP/DB to MySql. MicroSoft is unlikely to sell Access or SQLServer. Which leaves -- Sybase?
Could be intersting.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
... as the preferred choice for small-to-mid sized DB projects. I'm sure Sun is aware of this, so this "SunDB" is probably not something you're going to run for a typical website.
This begs the question; exactly what role would high-end Open Source DB software be able to fill today? Oracle is well entrenched with both DBAs and businesses -- Unless there are serious flaws in it that I am unaware of, I don't see the SunDB going very far.
Depends on how good the database is. If they bought one of the real contenders (I guess Sybase is the last one that might be buyable.....), then it could be quite worth it.
Though I agree that the OS DB world has become too balkanized. There is really only need for a few of the OSS databases. I would say that HSQL, Derby, Postgres, and Firebird would pretty much cover the spectrum.
That question is what the entire article is about. I mean, at least skim TFA before talking out of your ass. And no, I'm not new here.
My guess is it's going to be CA's Ingres.
a) It is Open source
b) CA is a non-competitor (no application server)
c) CA has been harmonizing their open source license with Sun's (I wonder why?)
d) CA hopes to make some buck from Ingress and even if they split it even, they're going to make a shitload more than by cooperating with Oracle.
e) Ingres has parallel features like Oracle RAC so it's more suitable for Sun's vision and for enterprise customers than PostgreSQL or other open source databases.
f) Oracle is competing with Sun (Oracle's application servers compete with Sun's J2EE servers/apps); there's no reason for Sun to help Oracle.
I'd really really enjoy see Oracle on their own. I've really had enough of their sales people...
The time for them to pause and think real hard how they're going to compete in the future.
Did they really think their competitors were going to stand idly and watch them take all the money (Oracle + Linux).... Hahahaha....
It seems that Sun has decided that Linux is more of a threat to it than MS. Sun has competition in the server market from three places; other Sys 5 distributors, Windows, and Linux. Sun seems to have made it's peace with MS by entering settlements with them. The other major Sys 5 distributors are either moving to Linux, moving to Windows, or are suing their customers. This leaves Linux with it's GNU license as Sun's major threat. It is only logical that Sun use it's resources against it major threat, which is now Linux and the GPL. I wonder how long Sun will still support Open Office. I wonder how long Sun will still distribute GNU licensed software with Solaris.
1) Another choice. Maybe a headache for developers who want to support them ALL, but possibly another choice for customers or those who want to support ONE database - Not sure why this one would be better, but why would it be worse? A different set of features may JUST fit your niche. :)
2) Competition against proprietary. More open source solutions, less proprietary solutions. Another backstab to MSSQL
3) Open source = box of ideas. Port whatever Sun database has cool in its code base to other free databases, make them better.
4) Easier portability to other databases for proprietary software. If something uses SunDB and nothing else, having SunDB source you can easily write glue to make that thing run i.e. on PostgreSQL
5) "Do we need"... and does SUN need another not-quite-competitive piece of proprietary software? What is better, dump it or release as Open Source?
6) Open Source replaces negative competition with cooperation. There probably will be quite a bit current Open Source database developers can learn from Sun developers - and vice versa. And since it's no longer a trade sectret, the exchange is possible. Help? Why not?
7) The Name. Having such a name as SUN behind this thing, customers who would otherwise never trust the "bunch of hippies" who write Free Software may adopt it. And then more of Open Source.
8) Is it worse than others? Who knows what will the benchmarks show...
9) Another move towards OS - another example, another encouragement for others to open up their proprietary products.
10) Don't look the gift horse in the mouth.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
My guess is that sun will buy a DB vendor and offer the db as OSS under their opensource license and a supported binary version, just as they do with openoffice and will do with solaris. I wonder what DB it will be. The crucial part here is that they want more controll than they would get if the just poured money into any OSS project that IBM and HP then get for free, IBM on the other hand has much more weight than sun and can buy PR points by offering resources "directly" to the OSS community. Looks like an emerging strategy here, one binary supported version one OSS free unsupported version with code moving in both directions.
Move along people, no competition here for Oracle or DB2.
IMHO It's a bit stupid if Sun looks into getting their hands on an existing database in order to open-source it afterwards.
Its a good thing that they ignored your advice or similar when Sun bought StarDivision otherwise OpenOffice would not exist now would it Sun did buy a DBMS sometime ago when they bought Clustra which is currently used as part of their J2EE app server.
Used it a lot myself, and felt that - like many other companies Sun have bought - the pointy haired bosses there just didn't realise what they'd acquired.
Maybe a much-needed clue has finally hit home at Sun, and they're going to give Clustra the lease of life it sorely needs and deserves.
ooooooh! What does this button do? - DeeDee, Dexters Lab.
Sun's been touting selling an "application stack" for at least 6 years now. They've been pushing it with Veritas and Oracle as underpinnings for quite a while, but with Solaris 10's ZFS, they can push out the need for Veritas Filesystem and Volume Manager, and this can be a step to push out Oracle.
With MySQL being dual-licensed, and questionable for Enterprise-level DB use, it's not really an option to sell incorporated into the stack. PostgreSQL would be an option, since they could fork it (and the PostgreSQL team not having heard anything is irrelevant to an extent, since it's BSD-licensed). I think we can sit back and see what happens pretty safely. They're certainly not going to make things incompatible with Oracle for a back-end, but I'm sure they'd like to offer a cheap solution since they're obviously trying to lower-cost solutions in order to stay alive.
What's the status of compatibility with native Java bits with Ingres? Oracle has obviously bitten on the Java-compatibility of everything, but I think that anything Sun would want to do DB-wise would keep Java squarely in the mix.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Now that someone (finally!) mentions Firebird, what if they "properly" buy out Interbase? IB7 has some really nice features added since the fork. I wonder where the fork could be re-merged with lots of the good things that the FB community done. FB is the clear winner IMO for most of small-to-medium complexity projects except for some "idioms", like case-sensitivity rules and generators.
Shouldnt sun be focusing more on improving thier products and really innovating more than investing more money in more technologies. By default I would expect that it may result in only a mediocre product rather than having fewer areas/products but a better quality and more innovative products.
I agree! If sun want to back an open source db, why not invest in Postgres?
is this astroturfing or ignorance?
arguably, sun has contributed more lines of open source code than any other corporation. The GPL is not a threat to Sun. Cheap hardware running a free OS may hurt their bottom line slightly, but GPL'd software surely is OK with them.
considering that Sun is responsible for openoffice, i would guess they plan to support its use for a long time to come. Did you ever even bother to look at the splash screen on OOo when it starts up? (check out that sun logo)
PostgreSQL is an object-relational database management system (ORDBMS) based on POSTGRES, Version 4.2, developed at the University of California at Berkeley Computer Science Department. POSTGRES pioneered many concepts that only became available in some commercial database systems much later.
PostgreSQL is an open-source descendant of this original Berkeley code. It supports SQL92 and SQL99 and offers many modern features:
* complex queries
* foreign keys
* triggers
* views
* transactional integrity
* multiversion concurrency control
Additionally, PostgreSQL can be extended by the user in many ways, for example by adding new
* data types
* functions
* operators
* aggregate functions
* index methods
* procedural languages
And because of the liberal license, PostgreSQL can be used, modified, and distributed by everyone free of charge for any purpose, be it private, commercial, or academic.
Who said "database server"? Sun could be talking about the Adabas desktop database already used in StarOffice.
Or they could be talking about opening up their LDAP server (LDAP servers are specialised flat-file databases, and I doubt McNealy knows the difference).
If they are attacking MySQL head-on, I am happy. Because MySQL is NOT true Open Source when you want to use it for anything other than non-commercial use - you have to pay commercial licences to use it, which many people choose to ignore and infringe the licencing instead - and it is unstable and performs badly under real-world loads (e.g. lots of concurrent access).
...during a meeting with financial analysts...
Might this mean their database will have time-series functionality, a la FAME?... or was McNealy just blathering to anyone who'd listen...
No Norm, those are your safety glasses; I'll wear my own thanks...
To "beg the question" was to ask your opponent to concede the principle under debate in disguise. So, as a gross example, if the topic of the debate was the existence of God, and I asked you to acknowledge that there is, of necessity, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent personal being, I would be asking you to concede the debate at the outset. It's bad form.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Noo, not on /.
Wow, slightly more rational and coherent than most anti-Sun rants on Slashdot. You are still a jackass though. And no, I won't forgive you.
With the announcement made (last year I think) that oracle would charge for each processor in a multi-core processor, combined with Sun's push towards CMP, Sun could be trying to make their servers more attractive towards potential DB owners...
I bet Sun just bought a MySQL license.
Why would we bother dealing with all the rigamarole of Sun's concept of "open" softwhere when there are so many more superior products that actually are open (see also: free as in beer, speech, *)? I don't know about the rest of you, but I, personally, am getting tired of Sun's attempt to ride the "we opened our prioprietary standards" bandwagon. It's gotten old, and I think only the slashdot editors are still fooled.
This play for suspensefull anticipiation is becoming increasingly aggravating and annoyingly predictable.
Only a SUN junkie could possibly sit through any more of this crap.
They are like a circus magician...always trying to tease you about whats coming next, never up front how they do their tricks and predictably unpredictable.
While this makes for good entertainment, its impossible to believe a thing they say and all the furor they keep trying to provoke is getting old really fast. All these antics of theirs are really lame and annoying.
Contrast IBM and SUN.
IBM: Here are 500 patents and their terms.
SUN: Day 1: There will be something, maybe Patents
SUN: Day 2: 1500 Patents!
SUN: Day 3: For Open Source
SUN: Day 4: Only Our Open Source
SUN: Day 5: We are still thinking of terms.
SUN: Day 6: Real Soon Now
Who respects whom?
SUN is the ultimate karma whore.
JUST ONCE I would like to see SUN make an announcement that requires no follow up. None of this "stay tuned business". Enough is Enough. All sun stories now get blacklisted.
So SUN, to you I say: SHUT UP and Deliver. Yes that means you too Mr. Ponytail Schwartz.
Do they think we are retarded and statements of "Shiny Object....Shiny Object" will keep our attention forever?
Are there any normal people at SUN who are not mortified anytime their Fearless Leaders play their stupid games?
If Sun is doing a database, somebody better tell Tim Bray:
So, is McNealy just being coy, or is Bray terminally out of the loop?
Read my blog.
Hasbeen... The SUN is setting. The company is headed for very rough waters soon. IBM should buy openoffice from them, maybe java and let Sun set.
Monkey see, monkey do?
I wonder what class of DB will be released by sun. On the lowest end, something like minisql, sqlite, sleepycat, middle level mysql, higher level postgresql, ingres, sybase, or highest level, oracle.
Theyre not competing with oracle if the database is for webservers, or to keep email aliases for sendmail.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
IBM kicked Sun in head by dropping support for DB2 on Solaris so maybe McNealy wants to find out what it feels like when Oracle kicks them in the stomach as well.
Very few people in the enterprise world trust MySQL or PostgreSQL for anything other then web apps so this isn't going to win Sun any new business.
Oracle is an amazingly vindictive company, they will put the screws to Sun if they feel even slightly threatened. This is bad for Open Source because it just gives IT managers one more reason to replace Unix based systems with WinNT. Convincing your boss to move from Unix based commercial OS to Linux or BSD is a lot easier then trying to get Linux or BSD into a Windows shop. So in the end this will be bad for Open Source.
When punk rock is outlawed, only outlaws will have punk rock.
Sun would not really add much value here.
Other vendors had their databases recently converted from closed model to open source. For example Computer Associates and Ingres, also IBM with Cloudscape (or whatever its name is now).
Sybase has offered their database (which was MS SQL Server way back when) for free too, though not open source.
So, why add one more thing to a saturated field?
As someone else said, why not take PostrgreSQL and pool resources around it?
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Actually I forecasted this on my weblog last week.
Here is why: Oracle is now officially pushing linux on its customer base (they are slowing moving Oracle Hosting Services (OHS) over to a Linux based service. IBM is removing support for Solaris (Domino, Websphere, DB2). And Checkpoint is pushing Linux appliance servers. And so Sun is seeing an assult from all quarters.
In fact most people buy Oracle per CPU (typically $50K per CPU). Those running a machine with AMD Opterons running 64 bit Suse Linux and Oracle can expect to see a 4x improvement in performance per dollar of Oracle licensing fees. PowerPC also outperform Sun machines - and so many Banks are switching to AIX to reduce Oracle licensing fees.
What does that leave for Sun? To move up the value chain and start selling a system with a database integrated right into the OS. Sun will want a database that they can control though - so I bet the relationship with CA Ingris will sour (joint ventures almost never work) and they will switch to supporting Postgresql or another database they can dominate and buy up most of the developers.
OK, you have to forgive me. It is Mardi Gras time in New Orleans, and I am drunk and typing on Slashdot.
You know you're a loser when...
Why does Sun keep releasing things the community does not need (another Open Source operating system, another Open Source database) instead of releasing what the community has been BEGGING for, namely an Open Source Java?
all of them.
MySQL, kinda like Access.
Postgres, quite nice, easyish to bolt extensions onto, could do with proper xpath queries, and better synchronisation not great for some workloads etc...
SAP, does it work as a good general database?
Then there are a few text DB engines that should be replaced with XML, Berkley DB that should just be replaced especially now there's SQLLite.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I'm tired of reading your bullshit as well.
MySQL is already in Solaris 10.
Stick Men
If they can release something that's better than postgresql, then yay. Otherwise, they shouldn't bother. Simple as that.
Sun could "curry favors" with the FOSS community if they followed through on their committment made 10 years ago to turn Java over to a standards process. They would also curry favors if they just kicked out Schwartz, who has been behaving like a jerk towards FOSS.
Yet another database won't make any any difference in their reputation. If anything, it's just a sign that Sun doesn't play well withothers--they could just use PostgreSQL.
if Sun provides a decent competitor to Access on the desktop - one that's better and better supported by them than the new database being introduced with OpenOffice 2.
Sun is in no position to beat Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase, or (in the OSS community) MySQL, FireBird, and PostgreSQL with something new in that space. No community for one thing, no rep for another.
If it's just a "warm fuzzy" for their locked-in customers nervous about open-sourcing Solaris, then it's irrelevant to the rest of us.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
DB doesn't necessarily mean database; it could mean debugger or something else entirely...
It's a new 64bit version of Firebird called "Project Vulcan".
a ge =vul_announcement
http://www.ibphoenix.com/main.nfs?a=ibphoenix&p
Every time I read about Sun I hear how they are doing poorly but have so much cash that they are in no danger of going out of business.
Instead of waiting for the cash to dry up why don't just admit they are done for and give all their billions to some worthwhile cause. At least Bill Gates is paying for millions of third world kids to have free vacinations.
"Get the money, get the fucking money"
"brxref
The database in question is probably a database originally created by a Norwegien company called Clustra. This company was acquired by Sun 2 or 3 years ago. Clustra built a distributed database system that was seen by Sun to be a good fit for Sun's J2EE platform.
If it's true that this database is being offered as an open source product, it could be very interesting because it's a very good database from what I hear.
SAP's is called SAPDB, or more recently MaxDB, and they are connected with MySQL now. There's also Firebird, which was Interbase when it was proprietary. Then there's the embeddable SQLite for the low-low end of SQL databases.
If you ask anyone to name 2 Microsoft competitors, Oracle will always be somewhere on the list (near IBM).
I wouldn't be surprised if Sun weren't hired to hurt both Oracle and Linux.
I think I shall follow McNealy's advice and keep them 'tuned'.
http://blog.grcm.net/
IBM is nothing more than the technological arm of the Salvation Army
Stick Men
It's too bad Sun didn't jump on SAPDB before MySQL got involved. It would have given Sun another arrow in it's quiver, and wouldn't have damaged SAPDB's reputation the way MySQL has.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
This is a really good initiative from SUN, for ORACLE is trying to monopolize the DB Market with its acquistion of PeopleSoft it thought everything would come under its favor. But it turned upside down.
I guess everyone is missing the fact that they already have bought a database:9 /sun_saves_ clustra_from_enemy/
r s/2002- 11/msg00893.php
.. but glad the story finally made it:) .. probably redundant info in here too
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/1
replete with the postgres admirers 2+ years back:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hacke
-----------
sorry - just seeing this thread now (submitted on friday, pending for 2 days and was rejected