Slashdot Mirror
MySQL's Response to Oracle's Moves
mAriuZ writes "I've recently written two articles on this topic for Database Journal, the earlier, written after the InnoDB purchase, entitled Oracle's purchase of InnoDB, their release of Oracle Express, and the effect on MySQL, and the most recent, just after the Sleepycat purchase, entitled Pressure on MySQL increases as Oracle purchases Sleepycat, with more to come. Since I only do a monthly column for Database Journal, and things change quite quickly, I thought I'd post a few more thoughts on the topic."
Does Oracle Understand What It's Buying?
Bruce Perens
Oracle's eaten the only two companies that make transactional database back-ends for MySQL: InnoDB last year, and now Sleepycat Software. The purchases send a message that MySQL won't achieve high-end database features without being beholden to Oracle. But the message is hollow.
When the InnoDB purchase was announced, I asked MySQL CEO Mårten Mickos: you're going to write your own transactional back-end now, aren't you? Mickos is loath to announce that, but it's a no-brainer. The database back-ends in question handle file storage and low-level query operations, don't understand SQL, and are plug-ins - ready to be unplugged and replaced by some new transactional design by MySQL.
What will Oracle have gained once MySQL announces a new transactional back-end? Sleepycat: an excellent, simple, SQL-less embedded database that's been a successful cottage industry for a decade, and InnoDB, which I suppose might produce a back-end for Oracle's own database. And not a bit of discomfort for MySQL.
But MySQL has an alternative to rolling their own back-end: they can continue to use the InnoDB and Sleepycat products under their Open Source licenses, which are valid forever and for anyone, instead of the commercial licenses that MySQL currently has for these products. Because MySQL is a server, physically separate from its client applications, the GPL and its restrictions won't be a consideration for MySQL's customers.
MySQL could slap Oracle in the face by going with the GPL strategy: they wouldn't have to negotiate with Oracle, they could use InnoDB and Sleepycat in perpetuity, and they wouldn't have to pay Oracle a cent. I'd be tempted to take such poetic vengeance. But Oracle, which has tried to buy MySQL before, could trump the GPL strategy by increasing what it offers for MySQL enough to make that purchase go through. CEO Mickos won't dabble at vengeance and will keep looking at offers that - if nothing else - increase the evidence for valuation of his company. But MySQL probably won't merge - they see too large a market, and intend to have it for themselves.
Even an outright purchase of MySQL by Oracle would not prevent anyone from using MySQL's server in a commercial application, without charge. That's possible today if you use an unofficial (and non-GPL) client library to communicate with MySQL. Other companies in the Open Source community would happily provide training and support for MySQL, while an independent Open Source project would evolve to maintain the program.
You can't really buy an Open Source project. The GPL was designed to make it possible for any Open Source participant to circumvent any other party who gets in the way. Other Open Source licenses are similar. Larry Ellison can buy business and influence over an Open Source project, but if he tries to have absolute control, Open Source developers will code elsewhere, replace whatever Larry holds close, and create new businesses.
JBoss, the Open Source J2EE company said to be a $400 Million Oracle acquisition, hardly owns its market today. Commercial Java projects, even those using Open Source code, may develop on JBoss but predominantly deploy on proprietary software from IBM or BEA. Years ago a large contingent of JBoss developers split off into what is now Apache Geronimo project, an eminently viable competitor to JBoss.
If Oracle is true to their history of eating their own ecosystem, they might now use JBoss to go after BEA. BEA moved this week to beef up their own presence in the Open Source community by releasing some previously proprietary work as Open Source. Why? they'll be using Open Source to go after Oracle. Open Source developers smile as proprietary software companies fight each other by collaborating more.
These moves have concerned me. We use InnoDB and have purchased hotbackup licenses for all our machines. Last year when we switched to IBM Power servers running Linux, we were able to talk to Heikki and Pekka directly and have them compile special versions for us (until then they never had a Power/Linux version). I doubt that such service would be common for long under Oracle.
I guess MySQL can just keep on with the latest GPL version and fork it if needed to keep things going. But one of the key Enterprise features of InnoDB is the hotbackup, which allows you to create a clean snapshot of the entire database without taking it down. This is pretty much a required piece of software and it is not GPL. As I mentioned we already own a perpetual non-server bound license, so hopefully Oracle will honor that. But that's the piece MySQL should worry about, and attempt to recreate. We would not have been able to stick with MySQL without that software.
Cheers.
In regards to MySQL being more and more competitive in the geospatial area, there was an announcement last week about OGR and GDAL compatilibity for MySQL. With geospatial getting everywhere (you know; RFID, Google Earth, GPS, ...), this is great news for MySQL.
Animoog.org
See: http://www.firebirdnews.org/?p=129
Just to add my 2 info-cents... Jim Starkey is basically the father of Interbase/FirebirdSQL DB (over 20 years ago). Borland did not do very well in marketing it but Interbase was truly revolutionary in many ways - superb transactions handling, no locks, any locks, until they are absolutely needed etc... And InnoDB copied many ideas from there, for example (if you try and benchmarks some scenarios between FB and MySQL/InnoDB the results are very, very similar). And BTW, the word "blob" is invented by Jim Starkey too.
Now I wonder what impact Jim Starkey joining MySQL will have on FB development?
The thing is, they also have bought the product Jim Starkey has been working on for most of his time during the last 6 years. Netfrastructure is a revolutionary development platform for the web, integrating a database engine, a Java virtual machine, a full text search engine, and an HTML templating engine all into a single product.
It doesn't matter if Oracle rescends the license for all future versions because the current versions will be protected and can be forked. MySQL will continue to go forward in a new form and a new name, but it will be the same project. You won't be able to kill it.
ConsultingFair.com
Oracle tried to buy MySQL, and because they can't (probably MySQL just wants too much money), they try to hurt them as much as they can. Oracle must be really scared of MySQL. When they buy Zend, they will probably try to charge for it, and LAMP will become LAM.
Oracle bought Innobase just to hurt MySQL. I think Oracle will try to make as much money from InnoDB as they can (converting customers to Oracle) and then try to kill InnoDB. Probably MySQL tired to buy Innobase, but Oracle just offered more money.
Then they bought Sleepycat to hurt MySQL, and to use the technology and get more customers (the main customers of BerkleyDB are not from MySQL). So Sleepycat will probably survive, but the Oracle will poison it so MySQL can't use it. MaxDB now assumes a much more important role, and MySQL should be working on integrating it as quickly as possible I don't agree. MaxDB is a different database engine, including parser and so on. Probably it's a huge, ugly, complicated mountain of source code. Integrating such a thing is hard, really hard. If it's done in a hurry it means hacking and patching. This will lead to bugs, stability problems, slow performance. And if that happens, people will loose faith in MySQL. It could in fact mean the end of MySQL if they do that and if fails.
Better would be actually: grab a few database kernel developers (Jim Starkey for example), and write a new kernel. Probably even better (if MySQL has enough money): build 3 teams, one doing MaxDB refactoring, and two writing a new kernel. Then after some time integrate the best one, and throw away the rest. I heard Oracle did such 'competitive development' in the past.
Oracle Express: this is not a response to MySQL, it's a response to SQL Server Express Edition.
About other databases: I think PostgreSQL has the best position as an open source db, but don't really feel that Firebird is anywhere close. Firebird lacks a lot of features, and development is slow. Well let's see.
Thomas Mueller, author of Hypersonic SQL, PointBase Micro, and (lately) the H2 Database Eninge (http://www.h2database.com/).
SAP customers mostly won't use free, unsupported software. They are betting their existence on the SAP products and all their ancilliary supporting infrastructure (such as the database) working. They want guarantees.
They could get those guarantees from "MySQL the company", but not from "MySQL as dowloaded from the net".
Oracle now basically control the backend that SAP relies upon, and Oracle can manipulate various aspects of both DBs to make their own SAP cometitive products look attractive. SAP can no longer point to MySQL as a backup solution in the case of problems with Oracle.
The references to PostGreSQL and Ingress are really red herrings - as far as I know SAP has never suggested that they might be suitable backends for SAP, and its unlikely that they will do any work in that direction as Oracle could pull the rug out from under them again in the same way.
This is a BIG blow for SAP -- unless SAP want to either get into the DB business themselves, or make their own DB backend for SAP, which would probably not be attractive to their customers.