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 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.