Oracle Bid to Acquire MySQL

i_frame writes "CNet is reporting on a recent Oracle bid for open-source database MySQL. They were unsuccessful." From the article: "'It all comes back to the question of cannibalizing an existing business,' O'Grady said. 'If you determine that to some extent it's inevitable, wouldn't you prefer that you do it, instead of your competitors?' O'Grady said Oracle could benefit from MySQL in the way that IBM has from its acquisition of Gluecode, a company that commercializes the open-source Geronimo Java application server software and competed with IBM's own proprietary WebSphere product."

Comments

MicroracleSoft

[ExE122]

O'Grady said Oracle could benefit from MySQL in the way that IBM has from its acquisition of Gluecode

This analyst is obviously a genius. Who knew that buying out all your competition would benefit your company?

MySQL was created for low volume applications which don't need all the excessive functionality and optimization. What isn't mentioned is that this would probably ruin many small businesses who depend on open-source software because they can't afford large expensive distributions such as Oracle. The article mentions that Oracle has already bought out Sleepycat and InnoDB and now is planning move to take over JBoss. Do we really need to wait until all the competition is dead and gone before we realize they are monopolizing the market?

Re:MicroracleSoft

[GigsVT]

You know it's GPL right?

It's not like the open source MySQL is going to go away if they buy MySQL AB.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[dr_d_19]

What isn't mentioned is that this would probably ruin many small businesses who depend on open-source software because they can't afford large expensive distributions such as Oracle

Yeah, because no other similiar solutions exists. Right?

Re:MicroracleSoft

[Anonymous Coward]

And how's going to provide the active development and support?

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

It's not like the open source MySQL is going to go away if they buy MySQL AB.

No, but it gives Oracle and excellent barganing position. They can effectively kill the upgrades to MySQL that would turn it into a real database. (Look Gepeto, I'm a real boy!) Then when customers come through looking to use MySQL, Oracle will try to upsell them to Oracle or one of their other properties. Even if the customer decides on MySQL, that's still revenue for Oracle.

If Oracle wanted to be really nasty, they could start legally enforcing MySQL's interpretation of the GPL. i.e. If your software uses MySQL but isn't GPLed, Oracle could sue you for failing to keep up the licensing terms. Even if you are just using it for internal, non-distributable software (such as a web app), many companies would rather pay up a small licensing fee rather than tango with Oracle in court.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Source MySQL would only be available under the GPL right? Now how could commercial users use MySQL in such a situation, if they can't put their own code under the GPL?

Christof Wittig has written a very interesting paper on the MySQL business model and he did post some interesting comments recently:

http://www.people4objects.org/

I think it's a very good sign that MySQL feels strong enough to stay independant. It suggests that open source is stronger than Oracle.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[$RANDOMLUSER]

This is exactly what the JD Edwards on MS SQL Server customers are bitching about. Oracle has them over a barrel.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[gstoddart]

You know it's GPL right?

It's not like the open source MySQL is going to go away if they buy MySQL AB.

Then what is the benefit in Oracle buying them?

I worry that Oracle seems to be buying up most of the FOSS databases, and could eventually impair their long-term viability so they have less competition.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[gnuLNX]

"If Oracle wanted to be really nasty, they could start legally enforcing MySQL's interpretation of the GPL. i.e. If your software uses MySQL but isn't GPLed, Oracle could sue you for failing to keep up the licensing terms."

This is totaly FUD.

The GPL does not enforce "external" programs to fall under the GPL. It is perfectly legal for non GPL code to "USE" GPL code as longs as it does not link directly to the code or add any exsisting extensions to it.

If your software embeddeds a MySQL database then you have to purchase a commercial license. However, it is perfectly legal for anyone to use a mysql database without releasing any code under the GPL.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

Allow me to repeat myself (as you seem a little hard of hearing):

"Even if you are just using it for internal, non-distributable software (such as a web app), many companies would rather pay up a small licensing fee rather than tango with Oracle in court."

Re:MicroracleSoft

[CastrTroy]

Just because your software uses something that's GPL, doens't mean that you have to release all your source code. If you have an app which accesses an opensource database, or is hosted on an opensource web server, then you are not required to release your code. If you decide to release/create a database app or a webserver, and use the code from MySQL or Apache, then you are bound by the GPL. Simply using an open source project, even writing code that accesses an open source project, does not bind you to releasing your code under the GPL. If that were the case, all software coded on linux would have to be Open source.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[ErikZ]

Yeah, it's open source. But how many people are working on it that aren't employeed by MySQL?

I would think that buying it out at this point and firing those guys would essentally halt the development.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[gnuLNX]

Why? You could take a public defender and beat Oracle every single time. There is absoulty nonthing they could ever do to a small business. I sure as hell wouldn't authorize a payment to Oracle from my business.

I do understand what you are saying, but I doubt very many people would pony up. Maybe a few would until it was tried in Court and Oracle lost. Ulitmately it would be a lot of legal expensses for Oracle and very little revenue.

For what it's worth it does indeed worry me that Oracle is trying to buy all the small time DB vendors. Actually is scares the shit out of me.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[Tim C]

They can effectively kill the upgrades to MySQL that would turn it into a real database.

How can they stop someone from forking MySQL and adding in those upgrades themselves?

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

1. MySQL's interpretation is that by accessing MySQL over the network, you're "linking" against it.

2. MySQL has further enforced this by GPLing all of the drivers, which you MUST link against in order to access MySQL.

3. Did I mention that Oracle could take them to court regardless of whether or not they're actually in violation? Did I also mention that most companies would pay up rather than go to court? Why yes, I do believe I mentioned that.

MySQL OSS License Page

In their simplest form, the following are general licensing guidelines:

        * If your software is licensed under either the GPL-compatible Free Software License as defined by the Free Software Foundation or approved by OSI, then use our GPL licensed version.
        * If you distribute a proprietary application in any way, and you are not licensing and distributing your source code under GPL, you need to purchase a commercial license of MySQL
        * If you are unsure, we recommend that you buy our cost effective commercial licenses. That is the safest solution. Licensing questions can submitted online for our advice, and we encourage you to refer to the Free Software Foundation or a lawyer as appropriate.

The older version of that page was more to the point:

3. Commercial use for everyone else

If your application is not licensed under GPL or compatible OSI license approved by MySQL AB and you intend to distribute MySQL software (be that internally or externally), you must first obtain a commercial license to the MySQL software in question.

More specifically:

a) If you include the MySQL server in your non Open Source application, you need a commercial licence for the MySQL server

b) If you include one of the MySQL drivers in your non Open Source application (so that your application can run with MySQL), you need a commercial licence for the driver(s) in question. The MySQL drivers currently include an ODBC driver, a JDBC driver and the C language library.

c) If you use MySQL Software within your organisation and you don't want to risk it falling under the GPL license, you are welcome to purchase a commercial license.

d) Many users opt for the commercial licence simply because under it MySQL AB takes responsibility for its products. Under the GPL licence, there are no warranties or representations from the developer (i.e. from MySQL AB).

So in short, Oracle would have broad powers under which to enforce the GPL, and they could easily extend them (whether correct or not) to bring a court case against companies whether or not the case has any validity. Understand now?

Re:MicroracleSoft

[should_be_linear]

MySQL was created for low volume applications which don't need all the excessive functionality and optimization.

Not Exactly. MySQL is primarly targeted to "embedded" DB world: Database that is only storage service to application. Application contains all logic and has central place. It is different aproach then "real DB" like say, DB2, where DB (not app) has central place, most of the logic, and various apps connects and operates on it including powerusers with scripts etc. It is just different logic, not that one is "clever" and other "stupid". Contrary to what many people thinks, MySQL supports large amounts of data well. I have application working with Geo spatial applications and there is one table with _ALL_ street of europe, with many attributes (>60 millions of records, 30GB) and I don't have problems displaying one single city from it (using spatial index), fulltext search ... Inno DB, however, is made to compete with "real" DBs, like PostgreSQL or DB2. But this is area that I and most of MySQL users are not interested in, contrary to what average ANSI SQL /. Jeehadists believe.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

As long as there's a semi-official version of MySQL that's kept up to date (just without the Real Database(TM) features), any fork would have a difficult time surviving. Plus they couldn't call it "MySQL" or Oracle would come down on them like wrath from heaven.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[HaydnH]

There will always bee PostgreSQL (Thank you Sun!!)

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AdamWeeden]

Just because your software uses something that's GPL, doens't mean that you have to release all your source code.

Absolutely true. Unfortunately with MySQL it gets a little tricky. If you write your own library to connect to MySQL via a standard socket you are fine. If you use a standard MySQL library (which is also GPL) you MUST release the source. Most people are doing the latter without realizing it's a GPL violation.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[CastrTroy]

That is a little tricky, but i'm sure it wouldn't take long to for someone to write a library so that nobody ever has to use MYSQL's library. That could probably be released under the BSD License so that we wouldn't even have to worry about all this stuff. I think that MYSQL has been a little underhanded in this way. Hard to believe that they have gotten so popular in the open source community with such restrictions in place. If they really start enforcing it, maybe everyone will switch to postgresql.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

Why? You could take a public defender and beat Oracle every single time.

Public Defenders are for criminal cases. AFAIK, the court will not appoint one for a civil disagreement. There is also the massive expense for a company to find and prepare evidence for their defense. Since the GPL is hinged on very technical matters, Oracle could easy keep the case in the court for a LONG time and bleed a company dry trying to defend themselves. Worse yet, a judge may actually agree with Oracle due to difficulty in understanding the technical issues at hand. Which means that the case would be held up even more by appeals.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

That is a little tricky, but i'm sure it wouldn't take long to for someone to write a library so that nobody ever has to use MYSQL's library.

Oracle could merely do with that project what MySQL did to the LGPLed JDBC driver: Buy them out and relicense before the project is fully compatible. RMS would then hail them as true heros for relicensing under the GPL rather than the LGPL.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[sootman]

>>You know it's GPL right?
>>It's not like the open source MySQL is going to go away if they buy MySQL AB.

> No, but it gives Oracle and excellent barganing position. They
> can effectively kill the upgrades to MySQL that would turn it
> into a real database.

Um, no, they can't. IT'S GPL. Or am I missing something? Unless I've been misled for the last 8 years, GPL products cannot die, period. At worst, they fork (with the lead devs gone, which is of course bad) but AFAIK, this DOES NOT, and CAN NOT, mean the end of MySQL.

If Oracle were to kill MySQL AB and MySQL AB quit making upgrades, the rest of the world could still carry on. And even if they did somehow kill MySQL, 1) this would not affect current installations, and 2) there are many other OSS databases to choose from; among them Postgres (my favorite), Firebird, and Apache Derby.

Besides, Oracle isn't SCO--they aren't dying yet, and don't need to sue their customers. :-) (And in that vein, whether or not your interpretation of MySQL's licensing terms is correct is an issue I'll leave to other posters, but it doesn't sound right to me.)

Re:MicroracleSoft

[Eivind Eklund]

This ignores a reality of the situation: As far as I've understood, MySQL AB has hired almost everybody from the community that hacks on MySQL-the-db. There are no serious outside hackers.

That means that MySQL-the-db would probably be set back a couple of years (at least), as you'd need a complete change of development practices, and new developers would have to learn the codebase and build that culture.

It might still work out - heck, mysql might finally become a quality product - yet it would take a ton of time.

Eivind.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[gbjbaanb]

Once Oracle own them, they can offer a free database to their low-end customers (who simply cannot afford Oracle licences), and then sell them other stuff they don't really need (like consultancy and support), and also suggest they migrate to an 'enterprise' database like Oracle when they start to outgrow MySQL.

They cannot reduce the Oracle licence as it would devalue the DB from a marketing point of view. MySQL is a kind of embrace-and-extend when they use it to get their hooks into you, and not let you go.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[Vellmont]

Oracle could merely do with that project what MySQL did to the LGPLed JDBC driver: Buy them out and relicense before the project is fully compatible.


Wow, I think I've got a new business model. Create LGPL or BSD licenced drivers for MySQL, wait for Oracle/MySQL to buy you, repeat.

Oracle can't buy everyone. Creating a driver for a well known protocol isn't exactly rocket science, so there's a LOT of groups that could do it. Furthermore if Oracle started trying this, it would only enourage MORE development of more open drivers. Someone handing you big fat checks isn't exactly discouragement for developing drivers ;). Right now not many people are interested in doing it because MySQL isn't pressing the issue and trying to enforce their GPL interpretation on anyone. If they did that, there'd suddenly be several groups that'd be interested in doing just that, and at least one of them would succeed before Oracle managed to buy them.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[WhiplashII]

Only if you believe the buzz.

</joke>

Re:MicroracleSoft

[undercanopy]

Hard to believe that they have gotten so popular in the open source community with such restrictions in place.

I'm actually kind of surprised that debian still includes mysql with such a restrictive license. Or is it allowed because; you can use mysql for free (beer) so long as you keep your app free (speech)?

Re:MicroracleSoft

[budgenator]

Nobody cares what MySQL's interpretation of the GPL is, it's the Court's interpretation of the GPL that counts. Do You think Oracle's lawyer want to tango with RMS and the FSF as an expert witness on the GPL's intentions?

Re:MicroracleSoft

[QuietLagoon]

MySQL was created for low volume applications which don't need all the excessive functionality and optimization.

Like these or these?

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

Here's the NAPA county (CA) page on public defenders. From the link:

I want to sue the Police Department. Will the Public Defender represent me?

The Public Defender handles only criminal cases. The state law does not allow us to represent persons who want to file a civil lawsuit.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[amliebsch]

First of all, public defenders are only for criminal cases, not civil ones. Second of all, it's not like you can just win by default even if the law is on your side - you still need to present a defense. Third of all, DISCOVERY. If the suit has even a chance of success, they can and will require you to turn over all kinds of documents, records, files, information. It's a huge waste of time and an enormous burden, especially on a small business. And it's an unavoidable one - if you refuse to comply, you will go to jail.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[C. E. Sum]

> Um, no, they can't. IT'S GPL. Or am I missing something? Unless I've been misled for the last 8 years, GPL products cannot die, period. At worst, they fork (with the lead devs gone, which is of course bad) but AFAIK, this DOES NOT, and CAN NOT, mean the end of MySQL.

One interesting wrinkle in this is that you cannot force a vendor to disclose GPL'd code that they own the complete copyright to, that is:

1) small company develops openDB under GPL
2) all contributions from outside incorporated into openDB assign the (c) to small company (I assume mysql does this, as they offer a non-open v. already?)
3) bigCorp buys small company.

At this point, you cannot force bigCorp to release anything, even old versions of the GPL'd code. Old copies of the software floating around can probably be redistributed (though the FSF's contention that the GPL is a license--not a contract--implies that it can be unilaterally revoked by bigCorp AFAICT).

The key here is 2) (all (c) being assigned to smallcorp). If you are the copyright holder, essentially you can do anything you want, including relicensing all future versions under whatever license you want.

IANAL, but I'm married to one who is publishing a jumbo article on GPL enforcement.. ..but I could be misunderstanding the issues here so let me know.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

Do You think Oracle's lawyer want to tango with RMS and the FSF as an expert witness on the GPL's intentions?

The real question is: Will RMS and the FSF argue against or for Oracle's policies? Remember, RMS wants all software to be free, and MySQL claims that their interpretations of the GPL come from the FSF's FAQ. Considering that you have to link against GPLed drivers to access MySQL, you may find no support from those avenues.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[drinkypoo]

MySQL's interpretation is that by accessing MySQL over the network, you're "linking" against it.

That's nice, but it's pretty irrelevant, because proving that in court will be effectively impossible. Especially given the technical definition of linking.

MySQL has further enforced this by GPLing all of the drivers, which you MUST link against in order to access MySQL.

Well, I don't think that's strictly true. You could write your own client library. Or, alternatively, you could write a database abstraction daemon that linked the MySQL libraries and possibly others, open source that, and then keep your application entirely closed-source if you want.

Did I mention that Oracle could take them to court regardless of whether or not they're actually in violation? Did I also mention that most companies would pay up rather than go to court? Why yes, I do believe I mentioned that.

This, of course, is the real problem. However, if someone with some cojones actually did end up going to court with them, and Oracle got smacked down, then those who they threatened into "compliance" would have a decent case against them for extortion.

If you use MySQL Software within your organisation and you don't want to risk it falling under the GPL license, you are welcome to purchase a commercial license.

Poppycock. It doesn't work that way. As the GPL says, if you are in violation of the GPL and don't want to GPL, your sole remedy is to stop distributing the software. Then they purchase the commercial license, and then they can distribute it again - without their software ever being forced to go GPL.

Also, they claim that their ODBC driver applies here as well, and their JDBC driver. However, these drivers are not linked into the program. They're dynamically loaded, and you can choose to use a different driver. One of the tests of the GPL is that if your program requires a GPL package to function, then it must also be GPL. But, if it's just an option, you are not required to do so. If they are adding clauses to the GPL, then it's not the GPL any more. If they aren't, then their claim that using the ODBC driver forces you to go GPL is a bunch of bullshit.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[dgatwood]

And as long as you are linking against GPLed drivers (including the MySQL C library), MySQL AB has every legal right to force the issue.

Funny, I brought this issue up two days ago and everybody seemed to think I was nuts.... Now, suddenly, that worst case scenario of Oracle buying MySQL AB suddenly looks more plausible, and suddenly the attitudes change a bit. How deliciously ironic.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[drinkypoo]

Sure, they could call it "YourSQL" which would be accurate, just in the same way that the restrictive licensing policies of MySQL make the name "MySQL" equally appropriate.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[gnuLNX]

Interesting...I should have known that. Just out of curiosity how can they force a company to pay legal expenses if they don't have the money to pay them. Basically what I am saying is that your legal expensses are only what you are willing to pay. If you don't have the money to hire very expensive lawyers then what are they going to do to you? A small business (like mine) could easily provide the court with all documentation, source code, tax info, etc in 1 weeks time. A

Re:MicroracleSoft

[gnuLNX]

The discovery for a small business might be 1 weeks worth of time. Not exactly going to break the bank. I agree that the public defender comment was a stupid. However attorneys are willing to work for free as long as they are compensated on the counter lawsuit.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[Philosinfinity]

It seems like you are combining some things in here. IANAL, but I have taken some law classes. If you refuse to comply with discovery motions in a civil case, you will not go to jail, but you will lose the case in summary judgement. The only exception I could imagine is if a judge were to find you in contempt of court, and even then you would only find yourself in jail for a day or so.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[J.R. Random]

Yes, it's GPL and dual licensed, not LGPL and single licensed. That means that the many software companies that are developing closed sourced applications using the commercial license for My SQL could be forced to either pay obnoxious Oracle-determined fees or else open up their source (or rewrite it to use a different DB).

Re:MicroracleSoft

[pooly7]

MySQL's interpretation is that by accessing MySQL over the network, you're "linking" against it.

Sorry, but how do you talk to the MySQL server ? With a telnet session on port 3306 ? No, you use the mysql client library... which is GPL-ed.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Captain Obvious for repeating what he said.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[Anonymous Coward]

MySQL is talking about distributing MySQl software with your software. If MySQL is downloaded and installed seperately, then it is not 'part' of your software. So if I don't supply, or embed the MySQL driver in my code, there is no worry.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[PhotoGuy]

Yes, it's GPL and dual licensed, not LGPL and single licensed. That means that the many software companies that are developing closed sourced applications using the commercial license for My SQL could be forced to either pay obnoxious Oracle-determined fees or else open up their source (or rewrite it to use a different DB).

This is one of the big dangers of GPL, IMHO. If this were done under the BSD-like license, forking for another commercial/non-commercial hybrid (or a strictly commercial product, or a strictly non-commercial, or a half dozen of each) would be possible. It strikes me as more "free."

Re:MicroracleSoft

[GigsVT]

It's only a danger of GPL when it's a tool that will be linked tightly into other apps.

For standalone applications which will never be linked so tightly with another application to be considered a derivative work under copyright law, the GPL is fine.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[GigsVT]

I have to add, I personally use PostgreSQL, which is pretty much on par or better than MySQL in nearly all areas, and is BSD-style licensed.

I don't want to see MySQL go away, I like having choices, and I do support in general the use of the GPL.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[GigsVT]

Extortion involves a threat of violence. So no go on that one.

If they aren't, then their claim that using the ODBC driver forces you to go GPL is a bunch of bullshit.

Pretty much.

One thing to keep in mind though is that I don't think the commonly held belief that "linking = derivative work" has ever been tested fully in court. Geeks widely believe that calling a program through a shell process doesn't create a derivative work, or communicating to it through a socket, but linking does.

How much legal basis this has, I'm not sure of. Keep in mind this question transcends licenses, it's a question of copyright law and derivative works.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[Trogre]

Yeah but who's gonna maintain it, kid? You?

Re:MicroracleSoft

[GigsVT]

The Postgres community does just fine without a company behind them.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[MemoryDragon]

Those small businesses have to move on, there are better alternatives. MySQL had the hype, but the others the better and freer prodduct. It is not like people can move on to Firebird or PostgreSQL! Good luck with buying out PostgreSQL, that is close to impossible. It only worked for MySQL because a) The entire thing is GPLed with a buyout option b) MySQL is basically a query engine on a number of third party repos which had the same licensing issues you can find in a) (and not even a good one) c) The entire thing is in and out dominated by a single company wich is living on a) and b) None of these issues are relevsant in PostgreSQL and the license is free enough, that even if all the core devs are hired by Oracle or IBM the product stil can be forked away by anyone without any restrictions whatsoever (that is the reason why Apache BSD and other BSDish licenses are more welcome in libraries and servers than the GPL) Firebird could become a target (but the codebase is lean enough that anyone could fork it again) but with Postgres, forget it, besides the license to many already are involved which are not buyable by a single entity. Sorry guys, but given the fact that MySQL always was inferior to its alternatives and did cost more than the better opensource alternatives. That the license since version 4 was a tangeling two edged sword over the top of many small devs (who never read the license in happy GPL land) and the shouting for we are enterprise ready while having only arrived at a stage where most of the others were in the mid nineties. If you are burned by this now (MySQL IMHO is a victim in the ongoing battle between SAP and Oracle), you and no one else is to blame for this now. I until now cannot understand why someone should shell out money for MySQL while other alternatives which are better come for free in non binding licenses. (sorry but there are only GPL exceptions in the MySQL license for certain OSS programs and languages) My guess is it must be the hype.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[MemoryDragon]

No, but the business model of MySQL AB goes down the drain, and given the fact that MySQL is more or less just a query engine on top of a handful of third party repos, I wish them good luck if oracle decides to close their future developments. What does MySQL have now? They have a query engine, one of the worst there is. Two GPL repos which still can be relicensed for their business model, but if oracle says no one day, bad luck. What can they do, a) Either try to merge the SAP codebase in (good luck with that) b) Merge the Postgresql Repo in, but why use MySQL at all c) Merge the firebird Repo in, but why use MySQL at all both Postgresql and Firebird are superior to MySQL especially on the query engine and repo side of things.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[lewiscr]

While OSS alternatives do exist, migration is non-trivial. Particularly when you've been drinking the MySQL koolaid. My day job is a MySQL shop. Our code was written to run fast using MySQL, not an ACID database. Transactions were not available, and were not designed for. Rewritting all the code that does multi-table joins in code instead of in SQL (because that the only way to make MySQL fast) will take a lot of time.

The time it will take to migrate won't kill us, but it will cost us customers. Since we just started making a profit, it's a very big concern.

In my defense, nobody in the basement knew any better. MySQL is still a lot better than the flat binary files we were using. If I could rewrite, MySQL wouldn't be a consideration. But that's not a viable business option as long as MySQL is available.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[jadavis]

If your software embeddeds a MySQL database

Or if it embeds the client library, which most software that uses MySQL needs to do directly or indirectly.

You can talk about using an abstraction layer like JDBC, but if you're doing that just to circumvent the "derivitive work" definition I'm not sure that would stand up in court.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[Trogre]

Yes, that's because they have an organized development community established since day 1. MySQL doesn't have that save for the actual company. Take away the company (ie fork the code) and you'll need to forge such a community. I'm not saying it can't happen but it's not going to happen overnight and will at the very least result in a long period of no new releases.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[CrazedWalrus]

ODBC?

from http://www.unixodbc.org/ --
"Also; ALL unixODBC development is and will be distributed under GPL or LGPL. The LGPL on libs will ensure that commercial solutions will be able to utilize unixODBC."

Emphasis mine.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[jadavis]

They have many companies behind them. And that development organization has been maturing over a long period of time to get where it is today.

You can't dump the source to MySQL, InnoDB, and BDB out into the wild and expect the quality development you get from the PostgreSQL community overnight. It takes years. Companies slowly sign on as they see progress, and have conflicting goals for the project. You need coordinated documentation people, release people, general organizers, community advocates, active mailing lists, active IRC, dispute resolvers, testers, and coders. It's a sophisticated social organization, and it takes a long time for everyone to find their place.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[ckaminski]

I don't understand, if you already have code that does joins for you, how is rewriting it necessary? Simply removing all the "quoting" from tables and object names is all that's usually necessary when migrating from mysql. The hard work is already done for you...

Now rewriting code INTO SQL is a different story, I suppose.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[Anonymous Coward]

-- Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Admas

It's "Adams"...

Re:MicroracleSoft

[lewiscr]

In Oracle, you'd:
SELECT t1.id, t1.name, t2.id, t2.name, t3.id, t3.name
    FROM t1 LEFT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.fk_t1_id
                    LEFT JOIN t3 ON t2.id = t3.fk_t2_id
  WHERE t1.name = $my_user;

In MySQL that's slow. It's faster to:
SELECT t1.id, t1.name FROM t1 WHERE t1.name = $my_user;
SELECT t2.id, t2.name FROM t2 WHERE t2.fk_t1_id = $t1_id;
SELECT t3.id, t3.name FROM t3 WHERE t3.fk_t2_id = $t2_id;

In Oracle that's slow.

Obviously, this is a simple example. But that's exactly how we load trees of objects. The associated INSERT/UPDATE statements to save the objects back to the database are even slower. At the time, the benchmarks said the speed optimization was worth while. I didn't know the maintence headache it would cause.

Refactoring the fast MySQL version into a fast Oracle version takes a good understanding of what the original code is trying to accomplish. Understanding is harder to acheive spread out like that.

These days, there are good Object-Relational Mapping tools. They were a bit harder to come by when we started the project (ie, too much money). It would be much simplier to refactor all the code to use a good ORM tool than to port to Oracle. That is a project I'm working on, since it can be done one class at a time instead of requiring an entire port.

I'll leave the rant about MySQL's stance on transaction (prior to InnoDB) for a different thread. Suffice it to say, we drank that koolaid too. Transactions are nearly impossible to refactor into code that was never designed for them.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[DerWulf]

you make extortion look easy! But lets not kid ourselves, *everybody* is gonna tell the oracel rep "bullshit! go f*** youself" and thats that. The GPL is quite easy to understand, so much so that if a suit really where brought, you could send the kid at the coffeemaker to see the judge tell Oracle to get the hell out of his court room.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[aztracker1]

MySQL AB already did that with the .Net driver.. :(

Please No...

[RiscIt]

I am NOT buying larry a new boat.

my initial thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle's databases must suck if they have to buy out every other database company!

-Sj53

ahh again

[DarkClown]

So they've got innodb now, and are going after mysql, is the plan here to own it and then discard further development of it?

Foxpro

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember what Microsoft did to Foxpro?
If Oracle ever succeeds at aquiring MySQL, I think the same thing will happen here.

Re:Foxpro

[maxwell demon]

Was Foxpro GPLed? That's one of the virtues of Open Source: Even if a company decides to stop development, it's not necessarily dead. Everyone with the needed knowledge can step in, take the code and continue development. So if, say, Novel considered MySQL important enough for their Linux business, they could have stepped in, hired a few database guys, and continued development on their own.
The only way an OSS project can die is if there's no one interested in developing it further. And even then, the code is still there for others to use.

Re:Foxpro

[Haeleth]

Remember what Microsoft did to Foxpro?

Yeah, they bought the product and continue to this day to pay a team of programmers to develop it. Microsoft Visual FoxPro 9 Service Pack 1 was released just two months ago.

Uh, wait, I was supposed to say that they did something nasty, wasn't I? Sorry, but when a company has released four major versions of a product in 8 years, and is committed to supporting the current release through to 2015, it's really rather hard to say that they've evilly crushed the competition like a bug beneath their iron boots.

Re:Foxpro

[mspohr]

Microsoft hasn't killed FoxPro but they have prevented it from becoming a competitor to Access. Prior to the purchase, FoxPro was on track to eat Access market share. It was faster, more stable, and had more functionality. They haven't killed FoxPro but have kept it in its place (running legacy specialized applications).

PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[tcopeland]

...from these things since no one entity owns it. I'm running a Jabber server with PostgreSQL as the data store and it's been quite solid... good times.

Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[Tweekster]

do you think so? I bet you could easily hire aware the developers of that project... If the key developers are gone, well development is halted... yes others can pick up where they left behind, and in 6months some development will start again by people that dont have the intimate knowledge of the system or the same set of skills. you could cripple most projects with that method

Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[AKAImBatman]

Except that PostgreSQL is pretty darn stable at this point. There's not much that's absolutely necessary to the future of the database. (Unlike MySQL which is in the process of getting their act together to make it a Real Database(TM).) The development that they're doing now is simply making PostgreSQL more and more of a competitor to Oracle for large, enterprise databases. If Oracle hired away the developers, they'd gain maybe six months to a year before someone needs to scratch an itch and pulls the project back on track.

Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[tcopeland]

> I bet you could easily hire aware the developers of that project.

Right, that comes up occasionally: the "what if someone hires Tom Lane" (*) question. It's a legitimate concern. But it'd be hard to hire all the PG core developers since they don't all work for one company.

Also, what's the chance of a core guy taking a job that requires him to stop working on PG? On a much smaller scale, I wouldn't take a job that required me to stop working on PMD; there are lots of other jobs out there. Don't want to damage my book sales, either!

(*) Tom Lane is a PostgreSQL uber-guru

Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because its not a big enough threat yet....

Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[Bob Uhl]

If the key developers are gone, well development is halted... yes others can pick up where they left behind, and in 6months some development will start again by people that dont have the intimate knowledge of the system or the same set of skills. you could cripple most projects with that method

Of course, as How PostgreSQL Rose to Fame documents, PostgreSQL lay dormant for about two years and was picked up by a mostly-new set of developers. And it seems to be doing pretty well; no doubt MySQL could survive in a similar fashion.

Of course, my druthers would be for PostgreSQL to take over for MySQL, but that's just because I consider it a better database. It's conceivable that someday MySQL will be better. Although, quite frankly, I doubt it.

Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[Tweekster]

Since you have seperate motivations (the book sales) it may be more difficult to hire you a way... but if my goal was to cripple your project..How about I hire you to do the same type of work (which means you cant work on your project, trade secrets and all) for i dunno, how about 4x what you are paid now per year, plus better bonuses. If it were a legit offer, im sure anyone would be tempted and may very well go with it

Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[jadavis]

To a certain extent that's true, but it's harder.

One problem for Oracle would be that anyone in the world who wants a job at Oracle could just hack at PostgreSQL for a couple months.

Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[bill_mcgonigle]

Of course, my druthers would be for PostgreSQL to take over for MySQL, but that's just because I consider it a better database. It's conceivable that someday MySQL will be better. Although, quite frankly, I doubt it.

There's alot of code that depends on MySQL-specific SQL syntax so it'll be around for a while yet.

Has anybody done a MySQL personality for PostgreSQL? AFAIK, PostgreSQL is a superset of MySQL so it should be possible.

This space is available for purchase

[MrPeavs]

My heart skipped a beat, I am glad they didn't.

In one of my former jobs, they were looking for a database system for HR, accounting, inventory and production related stuff. We were looking at JDEdwards and Oracle, both came to our company to present. JDEdwards blew us away, like they actually wanted us as a client. Oracle came in and half assed it, like they couldn't care if they got us or not.

We ended up holding back because there were talks of Oracle and Peoplesoft to buy out JDEdwards. Eventually, the Peoplesoft deal went through and we ended up purchasing JDEdwards as they claimed we would get full support. Shortly after I left the cocmpany, Oracle gobbled up Peoplesoft.

I don't hear to many good things about Oracle as a company and I don't think too highly of them when they just buy out the competition. They are becoming more like Microsoft, sort of.

I think this means good things for MySQL, it is going to get them more press and more help because of it. They have had a great and free package for years now. With Oracle wanting to buy them out, it just means that Oracle is finally scared of them, they are doing something right!

Re:This space is available for purchase

[symbolic]

If I were a knowledgeable player in the development of MySQL, I'd be laying down plans to start a foundation that will step in and pick up the open source development (forking if necessary) the minute any sale occurs.

Re:This space is available for purchase

[MrPeavs]

Yeah, though I am sure someone would've stepped up and done that if the sale had gone through.

As someone pointed out already, since it is under GLP. There is nothing Oracle could do about a fork. The software is open source, so a group could pick it up and continue developing for it. Much like StarOffice and OpenOffice. We use StarOffice here at work for some users. With my limited knowledge of both StarOffice and OpenOffice, I think I like OpenOffice better actually. I would assume that MySQL would head the same way, so Oracle couldn't exactly buy out the competition. Though, with them being a big company with money to throw around, I am sure they would try some legal stuff to lessen that kind of stuff.

Oh well, we don't have to worry about it, for now at least.

Re:This space is available for purchase

[symbolic]

Good point.

Oracle

[certel]

Should some type of purchase take place, would Oracle keep the software opensource and add some additional functionality and possibly increase the performance of MySQL?

Re:Oracle

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you on drugs? Do you actually think that Oracle has any interest in MySQL other than exterminating it?

Not For Sale

[Billosaur]

MySQL Chief Executive Marten Mickos confirmed the acquisition attempt in an interview at the Open Source Business Conference here but wouldn't provide details such as when the approach was made or how much money Oracle offered.

He did, however, say why he turned down Oracle's offer: the desire to keep his company's independence. "We will be part of a larger company, but it will be called MySQL," Mickos said.

Oracle didn't immediately comment on the acquisition offer.

Oracle has become bloated and greedy (not unlike another large software company I could mention) and as their product continues to be mired in expensive add-ons and upgrades that not many IT departments have use for, they are seeing MySQL as the herald of their doom. MySQL is a lean, mean RDBMS that is slowly becoming the darling of programmers (how many PHP/MySQL books are there?) and Oracle is dominating the large-scale market but can't seem to make in-roads in the smaller markets. On the one hand, they covet MySQL's success; on the other, they see MySQL as a competitor to be squashed.

Larry Ellison better watch his back - the open source community may decide to start truly gunning for him.

Re:Not For Sale

[jbolden]

There are about 10 major opensource server database projects. Most of them have a product roadmap which boils down to "implement features a,b,c,d,e from Oracle". How isn't the open source community gunning for him?

Re:Not For Sale

[cmdr_beeftaco]

I am starting a paypal collection box to make a competing bid. If enough of you contribute than I will attempt to out-bid Larry. If each slashdot userid contributes $100 USD we can make a very loud statement that free software should be free, unless someone tries to buy it and then it's really freaking expensive but we will buy it anyways and pretend it's free. Of course if not enough money is collected, at least we tried and I can buy that ipod I always wanted.

Re:Not For Sale

[Eivind Eklund]

No, it's slowly becoming the favourite hate object of more and more programmers. It's being *used* by many PHP and Perl monkeys, sure - unfortunately including me - but it still suck, and more and more of us know it. I hate that it's a two week job to migrate off it - otherwise, I'd be off it a long time ago.

Eivind.

Re:Not For Sale

[Bob Uhl]

Oracle has become bloated and greedy (not unlike another large software company I could mention) and as their product continues to be mired in expensive add-ons and upgrades that not many IT departments have use for, they are seeing MySQL as the herald of their doom. MySQL is a lean, mean RDBMS that is slowly becoming the darling of programmers (how many PHP/MySQL books are there?) and Oracle is dominating the large-scale market but can't seem to make in-roads in the smaller markets. On the one hand, they covet MySQL's success; on the other, they see MySQL as a competitor to be squashed.

And then there's PostgreSQL: meaner, more stable and an actual proper RDBMS. MySQL is slowly getting better, no doubt (and I like that it has so many more built-in types), but PostgreSQL is far ahead of it, and just as easy to use. I find it truly stunning that so few projects are using it.

Hi. A business class would do you good.

[BitterAndDrunk]

Cannibalizing, in market-ese, is when you have 2 products that compete for the same space. An example is 2 low cost printers. . . they are both eating each other's sales. I.e. cannibalizing.

In this case I believe it's used incorrectly, as it's supposed to be specifically when you OWN both products. Otherwise it's just plain ol' competition.

A little silly to go into hysterics about the business world based on their choice of "cannibal" don't you think? There's lots of other stuff you can get all histrionic about, without resorting to really silly arguments that water down the real dangers of ungoverned corporatism.

Bingo

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

The cost to buy out these little "free" alternatives is statistical noise in the balance sheet Larry Ellison/Oracle. So they buy the company, patent any IP they think might be useful, and then put development on ice while "their top people" study it (Raiders of the Lost Ark style).

Re:Bingo

[CastrTroy]

There probably wouldn't be anything to patent. Since MySQL is open source, all the IP has been in the public eye for many years. This pretty much rules out the idea that any of it is patentable.

Re:Bingo

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would raise the point posted elsewhere already that this might simply be for GPL leverage.

Re:How does this affect me?

[Anonymous Coward]

It lowered your already pitiful IQ.

Principled or just stubborn?

[atomic777]

[MySQL Chief Executive Marten Mickos] did, however, say why he turned down Oracle's offer: the desire to keep his company's independence. "We will be part of a larger company, but it will be called MySQL,"

Given that Oracle has already acquired the makers of two of MySQL's transactional engines, putting them in a real tough spot, I'm sure Mr. Ellison assumed this final offer to MySQL to be just a formality.

This kind of integrity is so rare these days. Whatever happens, we should all try our best to support MySQL in what may be a losing battle against an evil foe.

Re:Principled or just stubborn?

[drinkypoo]

Right, support greedy MySQL in their battle against evil, greedy Oracle!

MySQL AB thinks that using their ODBC or JDBC driver means that you have to purchase a license or go GPL. They are smoking the purple crack. JDBC and ODBC drivers aren't required for the functioning of your application - you can switch to another one. So there is no requirement to go GPL. But they would like to fool people into thinking that there is, essentially threatening them into purchasing a commercial license. In my opinion, this is fraudulent behavior akin to extortion. Granted, IANAL, but this is a pretty common debate...

Re:Principled or just stubborn?

[psbrogna]

> Given that Oracle has already acquired the makers of two of MySQL's transactional > engines, putting them in a real tough spot, I'm sure Mr. Ellison assumed this final > offer to MySQL to be just a formality. I'd hazard a guess though that the two acquired engines lag *far* behind the number of installations that are solely based on myISAM which, as I understand it, is still mySQL AB's. Hopefully at some point they'll be able to provide the functionality that drove sites to use innoDB independently, whether that be in integratde into myISAM or through an as yet unnamed engine.

Re:Principled or just stubborn?

[platypus]

Whatever happens, we should all try our best to support MySQL in what may be a losing battle against an evil foe.

When they put their money where there mouth is, like trolltech did a long time ago, I'll start supporting them.

The Purpose of Open Source

[neonprimetime]

Oracle ... it's MY SQL ... and you can't have it!

Re:The Purpose of Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself.

Re:The Purpose of Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

That was so cheesy that I'm at a loss for words.

They could kill it.

[IAAP]

It's not like the open source MySQL is going to go away if they buy MySQL AB.

They could let it just die. As in, stop supporting it, stop adding code, stop fixing bugs, etc.... just leave it as it is until it becomes irrelevent because obsolescence.

Re:They could kill it.

[inter alias]

I believe the non-compete clauses in work contracts that are common in the US are illegal in sweden (mysql AB is swedish).

Imagine this scenario:

* oracle tells recently bought mysql "don't improve mysql"
* mysql ab employees are pissed off because they like their db
* novell/redhat thinks mysql is important for their linux sales
* they hire said grumpy mysql employees to work on the GPL version

== mysql development continues and oracle just wasted a lot of money.

Re:They could kill it.

[Karzz1]

They could. But an application as important and popular as MySQL would simply fork. Simply look at X.org vs XFree86.

Re:They could kill it.

[budgenator]

if your running MySQL and need transactions, that's provided by the berkely DB, supported by Sleepycat, or InnoDB supported by Innobase, both were bought by Oracle. If Oracle is seeking to kill MySQL, then it's dead man walking right now. However if Oracle's intentions is to aquire MySQL, make a few modifications and have it compatable enough with oracle that they can use it for the entry level database that can be a step towards a full oracle installation, it doesn't matter because they can still contribute code to MySQL. How many MSSQL instalations happen because somebody outgrows access?

Re:They could kill it.

[Senzei]

They could. But an application as important and popular as MySQL would simply fork. Simply look at X.org vs XFree86.

...and how long did we wait for x.org to get moving while xfree86 did piss all for the linux world? Why would this be any different?

If oracle bought and canceled mysql you would see a number of people try to improve it with five hundred million cludgey add-ons. Eventually in about two or three years frustration over that mess would hit critical mass and someone would organize something to fix it, after most people had run out of steam for starting their own projects on it.

Re:They could kill it.

[955301]

You left off the last step:

Oracle sues Novell/redhat for taking it's people. They *are* US companies.

Re:They could kill it.

[PhotoGuy]

They could. But an application as important and popular as MySQL would simply fork. Simply look at X.org vs XFree86.

But can they fork the InnoDB stuff? I got the impression seemed to be more restrictive license-wise, as well as having more enterprise grade features.

If they can, there may be hope for MySQL. Otherwise, it's another victim of the Great Database Consolidation (i.e. Takeover), of Oracle.

I firmly believe they're not "softening their image" or "supporting open source", but quashing all non-commercial competition for a few million bucks here and there.

Re:They could kill it.

[kbahey]

That is the best outcome.

However, what the ex-MySQL/DBD/InnoBase/Oracle people cannot do is sell non-GPL licenses of the MySQL/InnoDB/DBD and make that a business model.

They can still do private modifications for customers on the GPL base code, but those customers cannot relicense those under a proprietary license.

That is the different of having MySQL own the code (which is today's scenario) vs. Oracle owning it and the developers leaving.

In both cases there is an impact, but less so on the open source community than on private licensees.

Re:They could kill it.

[jadavis]

But can they fork the InnoDB stuff?

Yup, sure can. It's GPL too.

However, the question remains: who? MySQL's development is currently centralized at MySQL AB. That makes it harder for other developers to pick it up and run with it. There are probably not many people who know the MySQL internals except for the MySQL AB employees.

It, of course, takes time to learn, and that time is what Oracle is buying.

Other projects like PostgreSQL already have a distributed community of developers and has more history taking outside contributions. So it's a little less vulnerable.

Re:They could kill it.

[kubrick]

If oracle bought and canceled mysql you would see a number of people try to improve it with five hundred million cludgey add-ons.

Sounds like the last several years of MySQL development to me.

Re:They could kill it.

[inter alias]

The point would be that having mysql availible on Linux would boost RHEL/Novell sales, I don't think it would matter to redhat if they couldn't dual license it. After all, they can't with Linux.

Re:They could kill it.

[kbahey]

Not Red Hat.

I meant all the current companies who are licensees of MySQL, who rely on a commerical license from MySQL AND redistribute MySQL in their solutions.

Those will be screwed big time, since Oracle owns the non-GPL license of MySQL, and they can kill it.

Going back to the scenario of MySQL/Inno/DBD developers leaving Oracle and being hired by some other company, I think this is the best outcome from all this. Some companies may suffer, but the community and the product as a whole would continue to thrive.

Alternative scenario: MySQL dies, and SQLite replaces it at the low end, and PostgreSQL at the high end. The middle (where you need a server, but not high end features) would still have a void in it.

Re:They could kill it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the non-compete clauses in work contracts that are common in the US are illegal in sweden

That could be true, but I'm not certain of it; they are legal in Norway, though not common.

Re:They could kill it.

[Scherf]

I fail to see why Oracle would actually cancel MySQL if they bought MySQL AB. I mean, they wouldn't be competing with them anymore, but they would own them.

Why would anyone close a profitable buisness department?

Re:They could kill it.

[Senzei]

Why would anyone close a profitable buisness department?

Mysql is not oracle. The brand is already established. If oracle bought them it probably would be to close the company out and use whatever they can to build an oracle database that appealed to the same market.

Re:swap your loyalty cards...

[Forbman]

is the plan here to own it and then discard further development of it?

Hopefully, because it would do the world some good in the long run.

Gluecode

[foniksonik]

A friend of a friend's uncle's brother once told me that Gluecode was originally a venture called Exist, funded by the 'Pirate of Prague' a notorious IP bandit who caught the founders, unaware of his infamy, and ended up pillaging the company of all it's value until they finally had to give up and reorganize as Gluecode.... ironically turning about and performing the same stunt themselves via IBM in order to recoup their losses... poor employees and smaller funding partners, they never had a chance. /// end anecdote

waaaan

[VAXGeek]

Bill Gates: Your Internet ad was brought to my attention, but I can't figure out what, if anything, Compuglobalhypermeganet does, so rather than risk competing with you, I've decided simply to buy you out.

Homer: I reluctantly accept your proposal!

Bill Gates: Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!

[Gates' lackeys trash the room.]

Homer: Hey, what the hell's going on!

Bill Gates: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks! [insane laughter]

Re:waaaan

[Anonymous Coward]

"Quiet Marge, you'll queer the deal."

DB becomes a commodity.

[autopr0n]

The RDBM provides a standard function in a standard way. It only makes sense that it would become commoditized, and in the software world commoditized = free. Sure oracle offers some pretty impressive features, but at some point the cost of implementing those features yourself or the cost of not using those features is exceeded by the cost of buying oracle.

Remember, MySQL has a closed-source business model trying to sell non-GPL'd versions of their source code - and oracle, now owning the original source Innodb and BerkleyDB can prevent them from doing that. MySQL can still use the GPL'd versions in their GPL'd products, but their closed source products go away, or at least they could. And Oracle isn't a company known for playing softball.

Business factors in OSS Database Companies

[andrewzx1]

Here's a research piece I recently authored which details the business aspects of OSS database companies like MySQL, SleepyCat, DB4Objects, InterBase, Genezzo, and several others: http://www.tampatech.com/services/business_factors _in_oss_database_companies.htm - Andrew

Re:Business factors in OSS Database Companies

[typical]

That's facinating. Thanks. I had no idea that Berkely DB was under such a restrictive license...I kind of assumed that it was LGPL.

Re:Business factors in OSS Database Companies

[andrewzx1]

Thanks for the info, this has been corrected.

Why bother with your competitor when....

[psycln]

... you can just buy them!

IBM did it

Google recently did it.

Aparently every major corp does it

a shopping spree...

[nblender]

First Sleepycat and now MySQL?

Re:a shopping spree...

[bigredradio]

Was that Sleepy Cat or Smelly Cat?

Who modded this offtopic?

[Spy der Mann]

FYI, Larry Ellison is the Oracle CEO. I'd mod parent insightful instead.

MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[Reality Master 201]

MySQL is fine for doing websites, or bulletin boards, or dinky little apps. The markets for Oracle and MySQL, though, basically don't overlap at all. Apart from companies which already have a significant infrastructure built to support and maintain Oracle databases, nobody's gonna use Oracle for most of the applications that MySQL is typically used for. More complex business applications require more functionality than MySQL provides. Oracle provides an assload of features, even in the lowest end version of their product, that most people writing the average web app just won't need.

MySQL isn't a competetor for Oracle in the space where Oracle is usually deployed. IBM DB2, MSSQL Server - those are the competetors for Oracle. And probably PostgreSQL is too. It provides a lot of functionality that you'd want in those kinds of applications, and its free. It has the problem, however, of overcoming entrenched attitudes towards 1) anything that's free, and 2) anything that's unfamiliar. Me? I'd use PostgreSQL for those apps, but that's me. Often, there's vendor platoform requirements that'd make that impossible, or management level edicts that prescribe platoforms.

If anything, the purchase of MySQL was intended to soften the image of Oracle and make it appear to be more of a player in the low end. They have (rightly) a reputation for being expensive, and this was probably a ploy at changing that. It's not fear of MySQL's technical prowess.

Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[GotenXiao]

You seen the trillion-record table query benchmarks for MySQL? Very impressive stuff coming from the underdog.

Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys might disagree with your assessment of it being for "dinky" apps.

Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[Reality Master 201]

I haven't; kindly post a URL for these benchmarks so I can see.

Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[ms139us]

These guys might disagree with your assessment of it being for "dinky" apps.

At the risk of turning this into a Postgresql discussion, Yahoo! has some serious data integrity issues. Often, checking your e-mail does not cause the "new e-mail" indicator to go out for up to a minute.

This is just an annoyance for Yahoo!, but would be the death-knell of any banking or inventory management application. Imagine a bank where transactions were delayed and posted in a random order. With a constant transaction flow, there would never be a moment in time when you could actually see what the status of the bank accounts are -- scary stuff.

Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[Anonymous Coward]

my dinky little app right now is returning billion row search count() queries in .051 seconds, maybe your the only one thats running these dinky blogs?

Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[QuietLagoon]

MySQL is fine for doing websites, or bulletin boards, or dinky little apps. The markets for Oracle and MySQL, though, basically don't overlap at all.

http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/case-studies/

PokerRoom.com Powers High Transaction Online Poker System with MySQL and HP .... 12,000 players occupy the poker tables. Since each bet, each played hand and other data are recorded, the database often handles 2,000 transactions per second.

Los Alamos National Labs Relies on MySQL to Scale with 7 Terabytes of Data.

Lycos Europe Reduces TCO by 90% by Migrating to MySQL.

Lycos Europe migrated all company portal services to MySQL, displacing one of the leading proprietary databases in the market. Replacing their existing database solution with MySQL resulted in more than a 90% savings. Lycos Europe today has approximately 1 terabyte of data handled by 100 MySQL servers. At peak traffic up to 25,000 concurrent users are online and 1 Gb of data per second is delivered to users.

Cox Communications Powers Massive Data Warehouse with MySQL To maintain optimum performance and customer-service levels, Cox has developed a huge data warehousing application. At the heart of this business-critical system is a 2-billion row MySQL database.

etc.....

Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[PhotoGuy]

These are all great examples, and consistent with the general consensus of MySQL as a fairly highly scalable commercial quality database. Anybody who takes pot shots at is as a "dinky" database, is either misinformed, or (*cough* *cough*) has reason to spread F.U.D. about MySQL.

(I'm no conspiracy theorist, but some of these posts about MySQL, Sleepycat, etc., are almost comical in how obvious they pander to Oracle.)

Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[jadavis]

I can't help but think the disk i/o would really be the only factor. Perhaps you can provide a link so I can guess if there are any other factors involved.

Anything can read some records from a disk. Even if you index it, it's not like the indexing schemes are that much different between databases. If MySQL was much slower than the disk I would think it was doing something wrong.

Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[jadavis]

The markets for Oracle and MySQL, though, basically don't overlap at all.

So, you must think that Oracle saw huge profits on the horizon for all of MySQL AB, Innobase, and Sleepycat, and wanted to buy them as a strategic investment?

Or maybe Oracle needed their technology, because it didn't have enough database technology already?

Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[Bronster]

That's not data integrity, that's agressive caching. There's a big difference, and interactive web applications often make that tradeoff for seriously improved performance in the general case.

It certainly doesn't say anything about the integrity of Postgres itself - it's the design of the application sitting above it and the tradeoffs chosen by the designer.

Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[strikethree]

"It has the problem, however, of overcoming entrenched attitudes towards 1) anything that's free, and 2) anything that's unfamiliar.[...] Often, there's vendor platoform requirements that'd make that impossible, or management level edicts that prescribe platoforms."

Was this a freudian slip or a fnord? Since you did it twice, I doubt it was a misspelling. :)

strike

Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[Anonymous Coward]

Banking?

Banking?

Banks aren't doing cutting edge IT. Your current account is probably with a company that's still patting itself on the back over the choice to switch to laser printers three years ago. They aren't using Oracle, because the guy who runs the company is loud and aggressive and he called the last-but-one VP of IT a rude name in 1992.

When I withdraw cash, it takes almost A WHOLE MINUTE to do a couple of database transactions and count the cash. If banks ran the web, a Google search would take three weeks, searches that examined more than one web site would be a premium service, and one time in twenty the response would be "This Google Search is out of service."

anti-competitive

[in4mation]

Companies that buy their competitors out always make me feel like they are admitting defeat in the face of their competitor and so just take the easy way out. I'm not talking about mergers here, that's a different story where both companies can benefit from one another, synergies and so on. Its not like Oracle is unable to build something that can compete with MySQL or SleepCat. Its more like they want to buy the name for its brand recognition (MySQL in this case) and expand their market share the easy way ... make investors happier ... increase stock price ... profit.

Re:anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

it's called capitalism. love it or move to europe or cuba.

Re:anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

And what's the real problem with that?

In the end of the day, companies exist to generate profit for their stock holders, right?

Re:anti-competitive

[in4mation]

so capitalism is limiting my choices ... hey thats just like communism. U and I are not so different after all ;)

Thanks for the suggestion but I think I'll stay in Canada for now.

Re:anti-competitive

[in4mation]

I'm not questioning their right to make a profit. But I'm not so brainwashed with capitalism that I am blinded by it. Neither am I a communist (as the previous post suggests). What I am against, in this particular situation, is that they are effectively limiting my choices (that is if they are planning to drop support for it). So ya... fuck them if they want to make a profit that way.

Re:anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise, people who sold must be admitting defeat. If you knew you will eventually be crushed by your larger competitor, why wouldn't you take the money and run?

SleepyCat and InnoDB probably got much more money than they will have ever made if they did not sell to Oracle.

Re:anti-competitive

[in4mation]

True.

Zimbra.org

[jlebrech]

Now watch google buy out zimbra. The opensource project is a good replacement of ms crm and outlook.

ORCL and MySQL not in the same space, exactly

[charlton_b]

Oracle's bid for MySQL was not an attempt to gain greater coverage in markets where Oracle already plays, but rather another attempt to break into the "pocket database" (small end/developers database) niche, where the company has yet to find success. Cannibalism thus can never apply - Oracle is simply not selling its prior attempts at a pocket database, and its successful products neither target nor are purchased by the same people who would seek out MySQL.

Apache is not GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

The Apache License is more of a BSD style license. There is no requirement to release modified source code.

dl src code quickly!

[Anonymous Coward]

its only a matter of time before they auto increment their bid

MySQL AB makes its money on FUD

[typical]

Ah, but, see, MySQL AB makes its revenue by spreading exactly that FUD.

Yes, you can use MySQL legally in a commercial app without buying a license. You aren't linking to it. However, MySQL says that you *do* need a license. Enough people are going to be scared enough to buy a license. Open source people just see "GPL -- okay, must not be evil" and go ahead and use it.

This is why I use Postgres and avoid the whole ugly thing.

Re:MySQL AB makes its money on FUD

[temojen]

This is why I use Postgres and avoid the whole ugly thing.

Oh? I use it because it's better.

Re:MySQL AB makes its money on FUD

[pooly7]

Actually, if you link your app against the mysql client librairy which is GPL, you are entitled to disclose the source... Hence the commercial license for people using MySQL with proprietary software.

Re:MySQL AB makes its money on FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

postgres is no good for major operations because it lacks native replication; half-assed hacks to add it after the fact are not really trustworthy.

Re:MySQL AB makes its money on FUD

[GigsVT]

You are correct. But it also means that the only hurdle for making MySQL completely free to use in any type of application is a BSD-style client library.

Not an insurmountable task. Not easy either, but not impossible.

Re:MySQL AB makes its money on FUD

[aztracker1]

Yeah, but mysql's replication is pretty crappy as well... there, afaik isn't a good open-source database with easy management and replication... I still think postgres is great... Next step up would probably be ms-sql if replication is needed, with lower costs.. then db2, then oracle (only if you can justify a dba on staff).

Stop Oracle Now

[aquatone282]

. . . before they screw up another perfectly good product.

Cant beat so BUY THEM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats we [anonymous] push MySQL to the limits
rather than buy Oracle!

300 servers !
2000 Clients !

Not quite an RDBMS

[bigtrike]

It's not an RDBMS without Oracle owned innodb. MySQL fills a very different need than Oracle. It's great if you need a fast database for very simple data and your data is not extremely important. Also, you don't want to use it if you're selling your application to anyone as you will the need to incur license fees.

I'd bet that Oracle was planning to make it easy to migrate from MySQL to Oracle when your application grows, much like Microsoft has an MS Access upgrade tool which many use. This would allow a lot of the people with growing applications to switch over, instead of switching to something cheaper during a rewrite.

Face the Inevitable - Make Oracle Open Source

[bratwiz]

"'It all comes back to the question of cannibalizing an existing business,' O'Grady said. 'If you determine that to some extent it's inevitable, wouldn't you prefer that you do it, instead of your competitors?'

Yah dood... good idea. Why not just realize the inevitable and go ahead and make ORACLE open source!

PostGreSQL taking over for MySQL

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle focusing its crosshairs upon MySQL right now is enough for anyone who was intending to develop their OSS apps around a MySQL database to now probably want to shun MySQL and consider something else.... PostGreSQL instead.

It Could be that they're actually going OSS

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry claims Oracle sees the writing on the wall and wants to get into the OSS business. Has anyone considered this might be true? Since everyone seems to agree that they can't stop MySQL from forking, could it be that they plan to get into that part of the market? MySQL is not competition for Oracle's bread and butter, which is Global 2000 companies. Why else would Oracle be interested in buying Zend?

Re:How does this affect me?

[inotocracy]

Oh, you don't work for Microsoft. No sir.

Re:Please No... Then, say FORK YOU...

[davidsyes]

obligatory in Mother Russia...

We would say "fork your mother", really, in this case... the mother of all GPL... uh, hold that...

IN US:
I'm gonnato forkin' fork with you by forkin' gettin' another forkin' version of my forkin MySQL. She will be the MOTHER of all forker's. Watch me FORK you over...

Yeh, FORK you, you...

(Ok, enough FORKin' around and forkin' get back to forkin' work.)

It's not dead yet!

[AmazingRuss]

Microsoft has brought Foxpro light years from what it started as...and it would probably have replaced Access, if not for the fact that everybody saw MS buy Foxpro way back when and decided that Foxpro was dead.

After more than 10 years of massively extending and improving the product, it looks like MS is finally throwing in the towel against this self fulfilling prophecy.

IMHO, this premature burial syndrome is as much a threat to MySql as Oracle deliberately killing it.

Patents?

[emil]

If Oracle takes out MySQL and the other free databases expand to fill the void, what is to stop Oracle from using their patent portfolio as a lethal weapon?

MySQL is currently the big fish, and it's getting skinned. The rest of the free db ecosystem is waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Re:Patents?

[ckaminski]

If they could, they already would.

How exactly are you going to defeat Postgres 8.01, downloaded umpteen-hundred-thousand times ( 8, at least, by me ). You can't. You may stop future development on it, but at what cost? You can't get monetary remuneration from the authors of any significant value, so why bother? If somepgsqlvendor.com starts making a billion a year, well, that's an entirely different situation altogether, but then it'll be Oracle v somepgsqlvendor.com and not Oracle v pgsql.

I know a project that dumped Oracle for MySQL

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing was over-engineered. As originally spec'ed it was way too expensive. Swap out Solaris, Oracle, and Websphere for Linux, MySQL and JBoss. Cool. It just got lots cheaper kids. Oh, and the thing just never crashed.

Re:I know a project that dumped Oracle for MySQL

[jadavis]

Solaris is free, and you can run MySQL/PostgreSQL on top with no problem. I just wanted to clarify that you could have left the Solaris->Linux swap out of your equation, because that doesn't have anything to do with cost.

Picturing Oracle as a villan is a fallacy.

[emil]

Oracle is a successful company. In the products tied to their core competence, they have made their customers very, very happy.

Oracle's database is light years beyond the competetion. It has some major problems (security) which are being addressed. For example, IBM DB2 didn't get triggers until v5 (in the late 90s I believe), and the new Oracle db features such as flashback, dataguard, etc. just have no equal.

If you are a customer in the areas of Oracle's core competence (and you have the money), you will be pleased with the product, even if the sales force is somewhat aggressive.

In the ERP arena, it is a different story, but hopefully this will shake down in the next few years into something polished.

I don't mean to sound like a marketing brochure, but a successful company must start with a good product. Oracle has done so.

Re:Cannibalizing?

[pete6677]

Wah wah wah. When you move out of your parents' basement maybe you'll gain some understanding of the business world. Either that or prepare to spend the rest of your life complaining about how things are so unfair, which most people grow out of after elementary school.

Re:Cannibalizing?

[eno2001]

So you're saying it's OK for me to fuck you over in my climb to that top Pete??? Hey thanks for the carte blanche!!! I think I'm gonna LOVE this capitalism thing after all!!! ;P

Using the drivers via ODBC isn't linking

[CrazedWalrus]

If you use an ODBC layer (unixODBC / Windows ODBC subsystem), then you are linking your application against *that*, not the mysql driver.

I don't see how drawing a simple abstraction layer diagram wouldn't disprove the assertion that simply using the drivers involves linking against GPL code.

Amusingly, unixODBC may link against myodbc, but it's opensource anyway. Maybe if you're using myodbc in Windows, Microsoft is in violation of GPL because they didn't release the code for the ODBC subsystem? :-)

ROFL

[Anonymous Coward]

Reduced TCO? How could it possibly have been more expensive? Commercial high-end UNIX with support (HP Tru64) and the most expensive of the 'big 3' databases (Oracle) with total support and all (over 100 000 euro just in support per month - Larry needs a bigger boat). It's the absolute most expensive DB money can buy, with unreal support costs. Win2003/SQL Server would have been WAY cheaper than that too, I'd say the same about DB2 on Linux, or PostgreSQL, or ...

Casinos don't typically have complex DB needs, just something that's fast enough (and it's quite easy to scale such an application, like using a DB server per game or whatever). Lycos can spread the load across servers too (and use caching and such). Warehousing is easy to do this way (using a bunch of small, inexpensive temporary DB servers and such; you copy pre-filtered data to a temp DB server and work off that)

These studies really don't mean anything, other than saying Oracle costs a million arms & legs or so. Scaling tons data isn't so hard either (many GBs), it's keeping performance with complex queries and things like that which is hard.

I'd be tempted to say that Lycos et al are good at making use of several smaller, less powerful/featured DBs - not anything in MySQL's favor.

These studies are almost more laughable as those "Get the Facts" campaigns! It doesn't mean MySQL is suitable for big corporate apps, nor that it is always cheaper/suitable or anything. Sounds like you're drinking that MySQL koolaid by the 45 gallon drum. Believing that propaganda is naive at best.