Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
I am NOT buying larry a new boat.
...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.
The Army reading list
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!
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.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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.
They could. But an application as important and popular as MySQL would simply fork. Simply look at X.org vs XFree86.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
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.
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.
Oh? I use it because it's better.