Slashdot Mirror
Oracle Acquires Innobase
A short time ago, Oracle announced its acquisition of Innobase, the Finnish company that makes the GPL'd InnoDB table storage engine. Among MySQL users, the separately-written InnoDB is almost as popular as the native MyISAM engine, and is considered to be more advanced for most purposes. Slashdot has, except for search, run entirely on InnoDB for the past year or two so we're as concerned about this as anybody. Brian Aker, former Slashdot coder and current Director of Architecture for MySQL AB, comments: "InnoDB is GPL, so once again the beauty of the open source market is at play: there is no lock in, and we can continue to develop Innodb as we see fit. The code is out there and we plan on continuing to support it. The largest database vendor in the world just confirmed that the market for open source databases exists."
The code is GPLed so what exactly is your concern ?
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Slashcode development is a tad bit different than database development.
I guess the consern would be that InnoDB isn't going to get as much support as it should be. But as the original story puts it, the MySQL team intends to continue support with InnoDB. As a heavy MySQL user I can see where the worry would come from but I'm not worried because I believe the MySQL team will hold true to their word.
I think this is excellent, and will only lead to an expansion of InnoDB functionality. The speed over MyIsam coupled with the direct disk access is great, and was a huge factor in choosing MySQL over some others in recent software development. I have not ever heard of Oracle purchasing technology to squash it, either.
Click here or here.
Why? InnoDB is GPL'ed.
But the minds behind it are not. If Oracle snaps up key talent behind innodb, it could mean a big slowdown for that aspect of MySQL.
Oracle isn't stupid. They didn't want the InnoDB buildings. They didn't even really want InnoDB itself - that's in the wild. They probably DID want the brains behind it, or the tech they were about to release.
All your Innobase are belong to us. Or them. One of the two.
(Ok, yeah, you can shoot me now.)
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Time for /. to convert to PostgreSQL!
Why? InnoDB is GPL'ed.
Just off the top of my head I'd say that they are worried about the possibility that future development and bug fixes will go to a closed source branch, that development might grind to a halt as the original developers are reassigned, that the nature of development might change and move in directions not beneficial to Slashdot as a user, or that something else will result from this change.
It is wise to be concerned when you technology provider undergoes a drastic change. The GPL helps, since the project will likely continue as a active, GPL project in any case, but losing most of the experienced developers could really slow things down. That is not to say that it will. In fact, development might speed up and get better. It is just understandable to be concerned.
Of Course, InnoDB exists because MySQL's effort (MyISAM) is such a piece of shit.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I would think that it was the users of InnoDB that confirmed that the market for open source databases exist.
Also, what about IBM and their open-sourcing of Cloudscape? Don't they count?
If you post it, they will read.
Is this yet another sign that the DBMS vendors are going open source? This reaffirms our thinking of where open source is going. Great to see Oracle legitimise the open source database space as they did with Linux.
Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
Uh, no offense guys- but that's something I wouldn't put on my resume. Slashcode has seen near zero feature additions, is widely known to have some of the worst perl code ever written, is grossly underdocumented...
and current Director of Architecture for MySQL AB, comments: "InnoDB is GPL, so once again the beauty of the open source market is at play: there is no lock in, and we can continue to develop Innodb as we see fit.
You can, sure. But who has been putting the majority of development time into InnoDB? MySQL, or Innobase? If it's Innobase, and Oracle says to Innobase, "walk away from this", you're screwed. "Open Source" doesn't mean "if the primary supporter walks away, the project keeps going."
The largest database vendor in the world just confirmed that the market for open source databases exists."
Um...no, they didn't. They thought buying Innobase made business sense, so they did it. Inferring "OMG Oracle thinks we're cool!" is, well, quite the stretch. For all we know, Oracle could be handing out pinkslips as we speak, or folding Innobase talent into Oracle...who knows.
Please help metamoderate.
The MySQL business model works following way. They enforce the GPL and if you want to get out of the GPL you have to pay, just like qt, but MySQL has a problem there. Qt has its own codebase, MySQL does not, they rely on Berkley DB and on InnoDB, obviously there must be some relicensing contract between them so that people can relicense the InnoDB code non GPL, so what if Oracle refuses this relicensing in the future. MySQL might have a problem bigger than it seems on their hand. BDB is not the best repo (ask the SVN guys) and InnoDB is now in the hands of Oracle. Not that I would be sad to see MySQL going the way of the dodo, but this issue is bigger than it seems.
I do know there are at least several developers at MySQL AB who are intimately familiar with the InnoDB code, but I don't know if there are enough to fork the code and continue its development in the same vein as before. Frankly I will be surprised if this doesn't slow down 5.x development at least a little, while MySQL AB shuffles people around to get them up to speed.
Well they wanted to be the IKEA of db development, the users now have to fix InnoDB themselves ... sounds IKEAish :-)
"InnoDB's contractual relationship with MySQL comes up for renewal next year. Oracle fully expects to negotiate an extension of that relationship."
Hmmm... I think InnoDB will cost MySQL a little bit more next year.
Oracle pulls this off..
Autodesk acquires Alias(maya)
Cingular buys out At&t wireless
NewsCorp purchases IGN
Yahoo purchases Konfabulator
IBM buys Gluecode
Verison acquires MCI
EA buys Digital Illusions
Google Acquires Keyhole Corp
Adobe buys Macromedia
GameStop buys EB
Yahoo buys Flickr
Yahoo buys MusicMatch
Warner Bros buys Monolith Productions
Mergers Left: 1. Sony buys Nintendo
2. Microsoft buys Yahoo
3. Google buys Sun
4. EA buys Hollywood
5. Walmart buys K-mart
6. Google buys Sony
7. Microsoft buys EA (very geographically convenient)
8. Walmart goes Bankrupt.
Google vs Microsoft vs RIAA Judge Judy presiding.
The biggest database vendor just confirmed that you can be too clever for your own good when you design your licensing schemes.
"Because continuing InnoDB development is critical to upcoming versions of MySQL, and development of a database engine requires more than simply GPL'd code. In the past, Heikki Tuuri's company Innobase has been eager to develop InnoDB specifically for MySQL's needs, because MySQL was in a sense the only "platform" it ran on. But that's not likely to be true in the near future, or at the very least, not necessarily true.
I do know there are at least several developers at MySQL AB who are intimately familiar with the InnoDB code, but I don't know if there are enough to fork the code and continue its development in the same vein as before. Frankly I will be surprised if this doesn't slow down 5.x development at least a little, while MySQL AB shuffles people around to get them up to speed." -- Jamie
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
Could this be one of the reasons behind recent comments regarding MySQL wanting to be the Ikea of databases and not wanting to compete with Oracle?
Now we see the reason for all the endless pro-MySQL articles on Slashdot. They've been using it since the site's inception, despite superior alternatives like PostgreSQL.
If MySQL hooking up with SCO wasn't enough to steer people away, this probably won't either.
"Sufferin' succotash."
No, you will likely be moderated down because you are extremely wrong. For those too lazy to click, IBM is #1 with 34% marketshare, Oracle is second at about 33% and Microsoft is a distant third at 20%.
Ummm.....cites? According to this, IBM is the market leader with 36%, Oracle follows closely with 32.6%, while MS isn't even close with 18.7%. Or is this "ships more units" as in "ships it with every copy of Windows Server", whether it gets used or not?
Just junk food for thought...
Terabyte SQL Server Database
Terabyte DB2 Database
Everybody sing!
One of these things is not like the others!
One of these things just doesn't belong!
One of these things is not like the others!
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
This could be a way of Oracle gaining "street cred" with the OSS crowd. Oracle sees that OSS is gaining in popularity...PostgreSQL and MySQL end up being the backends for most OSS apps that require a database...which leaves Oracle out of the picture...
Oracle may be thinking of releasing an OSS version of their database server. What better way to start off than by buying the developer of one of the most popular database formats for OSS.
Their "new" business model would probably be similar to MySQL and they may even sell a new version of InnoDB to MySQL every now and then (an older version of course)...
In their eyes, this would be a good way of Oracle being written into OSS apps...Write a new version of Oracle database that is identical to the commercial version in every way except that you are using InnoDB as the backend...
This happened a while back when Ford bought Jaguar. At the time Dodge was working on the Viper and word was that it would be a "Mustang killer". Ford was scared to death that one of their most popular automobiles would be outsold by the Viper. There was very little known about the vehicle at the time, but what was known was that it was going to be a big engine...bigger than a V-8... Ford knew that the only company with a V-12 was Jaguar and figured that this was the most likely powerplant to be used in the vehicle (or some variation). They decided that if Dodge was going to make a killing with the Viper then they might as well get in on the action by licensing the engine design for every Viper produced...So, Ford bought Jaguar...of course, Dodge went with their own V-10 design...some say this was always then intent, others say the original design called for a V-12...
Perhaps the KDE project should take this as a warning, too. They're also heavily dependent on a third-party piece of software: TrollTech's QT.
Suppose TrollTech were to be bought out tomorrow, and they stopped releasing their work as open source software. While QT is open source software and could thus be forked, would the KDE project be able to muster together the talent to continue developing it? Or would it stagnate, in turn harming the entire KDE project? Has the project looked into the possibility of that happening, and if so, what are their contingency plans?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
While they cant remove existing work, they can kill any future development. AND they can absorb the developers into the corporation and cut off any short term outside projects with a 'non compete' agreement.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Could this be more subtle then we all realise? Maybe the big O is just turning the screws on SAP. Think about it. SAP is "in bed" with MySQL AB via the transfer of MaxDB. Now if SAP were thinking of pushing MySQL as the db of choice to seperate themselves from Oracle, what better way to scupper them - buy the transaction engine technology (of choice) in MySQL.
Remember SAP is the only competition left for Oracle in the Apps space.
But then again, maybe I'm just paranoid!
Mysql could replace its transactional foundation (innodb) with postgresql.
This would give it a transactional foundation that oracle couldn't buy out from under them!
This is probably accurate. Oracle was most recently in the news, remember, saying that they wanted to "crush" Salesforce.com's competing CRM products.
u sh_salesforce/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/30/oracle_cr
Since you can't really buy and destroy open source software, they may well be trying to throw a monkey wrench into it. InnoDB brought ACID compliance to MySQL, and the new 5.0 release brings, well, SQL to MySQL. Despite what I'm sure Oracle would say, this is a problem for them.
I know there are copious reasons people can bring up about why MySQL still can't hold a candle to Oracle. Those people are, in my experience, the ones who fail to appreciate that when money is, in fact, an object, "good enough" frequently trumps "unreservedly best." (While I'd agree with the ones who'd suggest PostgreSQL instead, MySQL has a great deal more mindshare, and if MySQL 5's new features hold up in practice, the gap between the two is much smaller now. Also, like it or not, having the database vendor provide commercial-level support, as MySQL AB does, trumps PostgreSQL's approach of "here's a list of independent consultants to call" for most companies.) I'm aware of more than one company that evaluated Oracle and chose MySQL anyway, because they decided the performance and stability gain for their particular application didn't justify the cost.
So would Oracle make this purchase solely to try to slow MySQL's progress? Absolutely.
Of course, that was slashcode 1.x ...
Right, so like I said, the only people who say Slash has some of the worst perl code ever written don't know perl, or Slash. As you've not looked at the code in about five years, it's quite true that you don't know Slash.
If you're creating a BLOG or web forum, foreign keys and transaction management aren't vital in the way they are for financial applications.
It is so easy (see the MySQL Gotchas site) to accidentally lose transactional and foreign key support even if you installed InnoDB libraries that it is pretty dangerous to depend on the notion that any of the "data integrity" functionality is actually in place.
And the classic sorts of MySQL(tm) applications were written for version 3.23, so it is common to be unable to use InnoDB on the longstanding web apps.
At OSCON, the MySQL AB guys seemed pretty uncomfortable with the notion that the new versions had to support all this data integrity stuff. This buyout can let them head back to what they are comfortable supporting.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.