Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MySQL's Response to Oracle's Moves

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the the-changing-world dept.

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."

46 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Bruce Perens' thoughts on the subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Posted as AC to avoid karma whoring...

    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.

    1. Re:Bruce Perens' thoughts on the subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What if Oracle really do "get it"?

      That they understand the point of Open Source and their objective is to improve the standing of these applications by improving support / consulting / training etc (which is where they also plan to make money).

    2. Re:Bruce Perens' thoughts on the subject by Karzz1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "The purchases send a message that MySQL won't achieve high-end database features without being beholden to Oracle."

      "Even an outright purchase of MySQL by Oracle would not prevent anyone from using MySQL's server in a commercial application, without charge."

      "You can't really buy an Open Source project. "

      It seems to me that what Oracle is doing is not to try and take over or squash MySQL but rather to buy some more time. InnoDB is already OSS and I had thought Sleepycat was as well. MySQL has already been released under the GPL; no changing that retroactively. Even if Oracle had bought MySQL, the whole thing appears to be an attempt by Oracle to buy time while the new development team learns the innards of MySQL and/or codes a new transaction engine.

      MySQL, with or without MySQL AB, will continue to exist and continue to be developed. Don't get me wrong, I am glad they declined the offer, but I don't think Oracle was looking to buy MySQL per se. They were just looking to buy time to keep the heat off.

      Just my 2cents.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    3. Re:Bruce Perens' thoughts on the subject by ameoba · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to keep in mind that MySQL isn't making money off techies that Get It, they're making money off of Suits. Suits don't want to make long-term commitments to software with a shaky or uncertain future. The fact that these purchases are raising doubts as to MySQL's future is already enough to make Suits (who are already skeptical of OSS) nervous & less likely to send their business to MySQL.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    4. Re:Bruce Perens' thoughts on the subject by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course I submitted this piece to Slashdot days ago, only to see it rejected. But the editors don't seem to want to look at original work :-) Only when someone else chews over it does it become worthy for Slashdot. Com'on guys.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    5. Re:Bruce Perens' thoughts on the subject by Karzz1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The fact that these purchases are raising doubts as to MySQL's future..."

      I don't believe that to be the case. In fact, if anything, I have to agree with Bruce Perens who states "(MySQL)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.".

      It seems to me that if the "premier" database vendor (Oracle) in the market is looking to buy up a "lesser" database, it implies that the target database is (perceived to be) a threat in some way to the larger vendor; implying that the "lesser" is in fact not lesser. This suggests that MySQL *is* a solid database ready for the enterprise. Not to mention, the GPL version of MySQL is not going anywhere, regardless of what happens to MySQL AB. Its development cycle may be slowed for a bit if MySQL were bought out, but MySQL is too important of an application to too many companies with the budget/talent to let die. Someone will be developing MySQL for the foreseeable future.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    6. Re:Bruce Perens' thoughts on the subject by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
      There's a reason he's loath to do this - it will require revenue to be spent on hiring people who know how to pull this off.

      Yes, but as you can see from the article, he did this anyway. My remaining question is: is this the first hire? I would expect MySQL to have had people working on a new backend for half a year now.

      Great, so the backend would be even further removed from the rest of their database.

      Actually, there would be no technical changes, only a licensing change. The MySQL server is already separate from the application and need not be separate from the backend.

      Rather than being ingenious, this split between MySQL and its storage engines causes [lots of problems]

      I accept that. Someone pointed out that MySQL already has their own transactional backend, NDB, which is used only in cluster mode. I guess it's too specialized to replace InnoDB.

      Thanks

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    7. Re:Bruce Perens' thoughts on the subject by greginnj · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmm, maybe they wanted an author with better street-cred on the subject?




      Joke, joke... thanks for sharing. I'm never going to whine about having a submission rejected again ... even to myself. Thanks for all the good work, keep up the fight, etc., etc.

      --
      Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
    8. Re:Bruce Perens' thoughts on the subject by jacem · · Score: 3, Funny

      You have a typo.
      Can the same be said of Oracle? If Oracle falls apart tomorrow due to some massive accounting fraud being publicized, where does that leave all the current Oracle users?

      You ment to say:

      Can the same be said of Oracle? If Oracle falls apart tomorrow due to ANOTHER massive accounting fraud being publicized, where does that leave all the current Oracle users?



      JACEM

      --
      DOC Disinformation Obfuscation and Confusion
      The carrot to FUD's stick
    9. Re:Bruce Perens' thoughts on the subject by jacem · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately, powerful databases are large and complex beasts, and take years to get right. As much as I can understand why folks would flee from Larry, I think he'd be quite pleased if the mysql team were to go off and spend another five years recreating it.

      Being an old fart I remember when MySQL first came out one of its selling features was that it was very small and lightweight. The developer lost some of the powerfull features that the big boys had but that was okay because MySQL was a little DB that you could run on a web server to keep track of Aunt Mildred's recipies and the like.

      MySQL has of course since become a huge database with many of the abilities that it original small incarnation didn't need or want.

      And now for something completely different

      I can't even find what the the license cost for MySQL I have vague recollections of something about $250.00 for a commercial license free for non profit. On the web site there is a $595.00 survice contract, but no mention of a commercial use license.

      On Oracle's web site I can get oracle 10 standard edition one for $4995.00 Processor Perpetual and enterprize for $40000.00 Processor perpetual. So I can only assume its double for your dual processor system.

      So I can only assume that those of us that need a database and not even a feature rich database will simply move on to something else or pony up the $5000 to $40000 to have a DB to keep track of the CD collection.



      JACEM

      --
      DOC Disinformation Obfuscation and Confusion
      The carrot to FUD's stick
    10. Re:Bruce Perens' thoughts on the subject by docbombay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because Oracle is looking to purchase MySQL doesn't mean that the product is "enterprise-ready": it just means that Oracle is aware of the market share that could be gleaned by moving MySQL users into its empire. Don't confuse market savvy with technical proficiency; I could cite a list of acquisitions by large companies of companies with inferior product lines, just to capture an additional market segment -- and some of these purchases were made by Oracle itself.

    11. Re:Bruce Perens' thoughts on the subject by mdfst13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The fact that these purchases are raising doubts as to MySQL's future is already enough to make Suits (who are already skeptical of OSS) nervous & less likely to send their business to MySQL."

      It's easy to spin it the other way. MySQL's future is now guaranteed. They can go with the cheap version now and the Oracle supported version later.

  2. NewSQL by ExE122 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I really like this move of bringing Jim Starkey aboard. I've heard his name before, and I think he will really point MySQL's new engine in the right direction.

    From the interview, I see that he is a big fan of Java. I've only worked with a slightly older version of MySQL but I feel that Java support is where MySQL is lagging behind Oracle. While MySQL works with a JDBC connection, an Oracle database seems to return faster results and more functional result sets. And I don't know too much about how well MySQL stores java code, but I know the newer versions of Oracle have really added some neat functionality with that.

    I'm definitely looking forward to seeing where MySQL is headed and I'm glad they're standing up to Oracle's monopolizing.

    --
    Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
    1. Re:NewSQL by ceeam · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

    2. Re:NewSQL by beru777 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:NewSQL by natophonic · · Score: 4, Insightful
      While MySQL works with a JDBC connection, an Oracle database seems to return faster results and more functional result sets. And I don't know too much about how well MySQL stores java code, but I know the newer versions of Oracle have really added some neat functionality with that.
      Actually the reason MySQL sucks is because it doesn't integrate well with AJAX.
      [/snark]

      Aside from the low, low price, what gave MySQL the intial jump on Oracle and other 'mature' RDBMS is that it was much faster for simple things. This because it didn't include the kitchen sink of 10 years of "bright ideas" to synergize the enterprise with scalable robustness. You can include in this set of bright ideas, things like transactions (which many complex database applications really can't do without), and things like running a JVM within the database. No one has ever been able to coherently explain to me why it would be a good idea to do the latter (save as some workaround to a convoluted/broken legacy database they don't have the option of fixing).

      Sometimes all you need is "SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE ..." Hopefully MySQL doesn't lose sight of that. From the looks of it, they'd do better to work on securing a backend storage engine that Ellison can't buy out from under them, than to keep adding feature bulletpoints to glossy four-color datasheets.
    4. Re:NewSQL by BigZee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Running java inside a database is the same reason you'd run any processing within the database - speed. I've seen many examples of developers, happily producing application code that runs a simple database query and then manipulates that data within the client. They are then surprised when performance is dreadful. When they try to tune their database query they find that there is nothing wrong with it. What is a problem though is that they are transfering data, piecemeal back and forth. What they could have done instead was to write a stored procedure in pl/sql (oracles native processing language) or java. The improvements in processing data within the database can be massive. This is the reason for doing processing within the database. Allowing java as a processing engine was Oracle giving developers a bit of flexability in their langauge choice.

  3. Let's hope the best by Rock-n-Rolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm looking forward to see MySQL come up with a real good open source transactional engine. MySQL has done a very good job in my point of view for the community, and besides that employes a fair amout of people. Getting a good engine as response to Oracles maneuver would be great.
    My company uses the commercial version of MySQL in projects here and then, and I'd like to see it on more critical projects as well.

    --
    In Korea, all your base are Only For Old People
    1. Re:Let's hope the best by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 2, Interesting

      PostgreSQL requires more work than that. By default it uses ident authentication which, ihmo, isn't good. For example, if you install phpPgAdmin you can log in as any user simply by typing in the username and anything you want for the username. Not cool. Enabling proper auth such as md5 isn't very easy for a n00b.

      http://developer.apple.com/internet/opensource/pos tgres.html

      --
      "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
  4. There is only one reason for these purchases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know a bunch of people who work at Oracle and they all agree: Oracle is 100% focused internally on SAP. Other theories may be interesting intellectual exercises, but Oracle is trying to kill MySQL because SAP wanted to use MySQL as an option for their systems to prevent customers from buying an Oracle database.

    Oracle and SAP are in the middle of a nuclear exchange here, and Oracle in particular doesn't care one bit how much money it costs them or what collateral damage in the open source space is inflicted. Their PR people may say otherwise, but its not a big secret there.

  5. As a MySQL shop... by localman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:As a MySQL shop... by shirai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can do the equivalent of a hot backup without any special software by replicating your database to another server. When you need the backup, you stop the replication and make a backup of the copy. After you reconnect the replication, the replication server will catch up again.

      This is documented in the excellent book "High Performance MySQL" by O'Reilly. One of the authors is a database guru at Yahoo.

      We were using MS SQL and, while I was interested in open source databases, did not have the confidence to use an open source database until reading this book. I know many will point me to PostgreSQL too, but the tools and the references for MySQL were better.

      --
      Sunny

      Be my Friend

    2. Re:As a MySQL shop... by arivanov · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly.

      This has been the part which pisses me off most about InnoDB. You cannot back it up online and the MySQL backup facilities introduced with 4.x are completely b0rken for it. At least in the GPL version. As a result I have had to write backup facilities of my own for the InnoDB databases we use (RT for once requires InnoDB)

      Whatever MySQL will use and write it expect that it will not deliberately remove the backup facility to sell it as a special non-GPL addon. While MySQL has been known to withold some features from the GPL versions it has never shipped deliberate crippleware (and database without backup facilities is crippleware).

      So as far as InnoDB is concerned - good buy and good riddance.

      BerkleyDB is a different matter. It is heavily used as an embedded database. MySQL is only a minor use for it. In fact it has replaced Oracle as the dabatase of choice for telecommunications projects like high-end switches, network equipment, etc. Most of these used to have an Oracle backend 7 years ago. Not any more. Nowdays it is BDB turf. While there are replacements for it very few of them are as fully featured as BDB 3.x and higher.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    3. Re:As a MySQL shop... by IdleTime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are running a production system and haven't even tried to restore the backups you take in order to verify that you can get your company's data back when disaster happens? geezzz...

      Talk about doing your job with your resignation filled out and signed. It's just the date that is missing!

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  6. GPL prevents this by slackaddict · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Like Bruce Perens said, "you can't really buy an Open Source project." The developers can take their code, fork it, and keep working on it under another project name, if they want.

    Oracle's latest "purchases" of these Open Source projects will not threaten MySQL at all. You can't apply for-profit, closed source takeover pressure to OSS code. The GPL prevents exactly this by keeping the source freely available and open.

    --
    ConsultingFair.com
    1. Re:GPL prevents this by xtracto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure but, how many of the *real* applications (OpenOffice, mySQL, Eclipse, etc) would fail misserably if the corporations that are throwing money at them to develop them will fail when they stopped?

      Do not confuse yourself, all the OpenSource applications that are worth something are product of some kind of closed source (for profit) application whose corporation saw more value in it as PR stunt than as software product.

      Yeah, burn my freaking karma, I do not care, I slashdot does not accept thoughts outside the Anti-MS Pro-Linus lamewebos.

      got plenty of karma here.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:GPL prevents this by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Ha ha ha ha. MySQL is an open source RELEASE - it is not an open source COMMUNITY. Effectively everybody that can hack MySQL work for MySQL AB, and the development process is run inside MySQL AB - it isn't set up to run as a community process. So, the transition would take a lot of time - and losing maybe two years of forward progress on this would most likely kill MySQL, market-wise.

      Eivind.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    3. Re:GPL prevents this by Dan+Ost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that there are lots of open source apps that support your claim, but the apps I use more than any others, vim, gcc, make, etc, are counterexamples. Linux itself, while it certainly has corporate support, would continue if all current corporate suport disappeared.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    4. Re:GPL prevents this by slackaddict · · Score: 2, Informative

      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
  7. MySQL gets the next great thing after Firebird? by Jamesday · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Jim Starkey said that he'd been working on a new engine for the last six years but couldn't integrate it fully with Firebird because of architectual problems. MySQL has an architecture designed to accept pluggable storage engines, so MySQL might end up with what he thinks is the next great performance improvement after Firebird.

  8. MySQL spatial data support by Lord+Satri · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:MySQL spatial data support by ivoras · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would have been even better if MySQL got it earlier (like PostgreSQL did from the start). It's a shame that MySQL started getting cool (and necessary!) features only now when the market pressure on its company increased. Prior to this, it was practically stagnating.

      --
      -- Sig down
  9. Wrong: It's the Other Way Around by segedunum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The pressure is ALL on Oracle. The reason why they're doing all this is because they're scared. The vast majority of companies out there running Oracle really are beginning to realise that they DO NOT need to spend anywhere near the amount they do on Oracle. They've heard of Postgres and especially MySQL, and MySQL are sufficiently cheap enough where companies get the right support they need without Postgres being any sort of threat - just a good old fashioned competitor.

    Oracle have overinflated revenues and profits based on crap software, and they've been doing it for years. Their management and configuration tools are utter crap as well considering what people are paying. I don't know what they do in that company all day. Good riddance as far as I'm concerned.

    The guy who wrote this article (possible an Oracle fan) is simply putting some positive spin on some pretty panic moves from Oracle. It isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to MySQL, or Postgres for that matter.

    1. Re:Wrong: It's the Other Way Around by cruachan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oracle have overinflated revenues and profits based on crap software, and they've been doing it for years.

      Oh dear, looks like we have a MySQL weenie here. Oracle my well be pumping their revenue stream for every dollar they can get, and like IBM their salesmen used to be notorious for turning up for meetings without a price list (it's depends Sir :-). But crap software? Hardly. Oracle plummeled MySQL into the dust in quality before MySQL even existed. Oracle has had transactions and atomicity since version 6 in the early 1990s, a full and elegent procedural SQL language since around that time, SQL that supports concepts such as subselects and everything else needed so a dba could support a mission-critical company database and sleep easy at night.

      Oh, and did I mention the support? When I was a dba I knew I could ring support up, at any time of the day or night, and I would get an answer to a question and a fix/work-around for any problem. Truly impressive.

      MySQL has it's place and it's useful for many things - although generally as a database it's still pretty crap. Postgres is much much better and is now a serious alternative to Oracle, SQL Server and DB2. But to dismiss Oracle as crap frankly just says in large flashing letters that you've never used a real database for a serious application.

    2. Re:Wrong: It's the Other Way Around by doleman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oracle and MySQL are the two DBs with which I've worked extensively as a development administrator. From a very high-level/general standpoint, my basic comment is this: When I've used Oracle, my life has been complicated; when MySQL, I don't even have to think about the data.

      The power of Oracle for certain applications cannot be denied, but as has been pointed-out, more people are realizing every day they have no need for that kind of horsepower. As a former colleague of mine was fond of pointing-out, it's like taking a 747 out of the hanger to make a trip to the corner stop-n-shop.

      MySQL once filled what could've been called a "niche" market. But now, as more people understand what sort of back-end functionality they really need, that "niche" is looking more and more like a pervasive, critical marketplace. Oracle sees that and they are reacting. They are not positioned all that well to go toe-to-toe in the marketplace that is familiar territory to MySQL. My feeling is that what's going-on now is just "shots across the bow" leading-up to the big battle. How it all settles-out is anybody's guess.

    3. Re:Wrong: It's the Other Way Around by jbolden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't believe you are seriously arguing the tuning tools on MySQL are anywhere near the ones on Oracle. Oracle has whole tuning libraries, tuning subsystems, autotuning components, performance analyzers.... Just for starters look up "statspack", "Performance report" in your oracle docs and tell me where MySQL has anything like this.

      Oh and sending some guy for 2 days is not how you tune a database. You have a full time on staff DBA that works with your development team, understands the data and understands how the system is being used. Oracle 10 does an excellent job of self tuning (again an advantage over MySQL). To beat the automated routines takes time.

    4. Re:Wrong: It's the Other Way Around by w0lver · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks for the condensing tone, did you really read what I said? When did I say that "the tuning tools on MySQL are anywhere near the ones on Oracle", I didn't. What I said is that Oracle is difficult to tune and takes specialized staff. "Full time on staff DBA that works with your development team, understands the data and understands how the system is being used" is great and goes so far, when you need to get greater performance, a expensive and rare person is required. BTW, what does a Oracle "Full time on staff DBA" cost? My point is that MySQL is much simpler and doesn't require the staff and expense of an Oracle. Sometimes a lightweight and simple system is going to get you the bang for the buck you need versus a heavy complicated system. My whole post was to point out that there are tradeoffs and just bashing MySQL without looking a context is bigoted.

    5. Re:Wrong: It's the Other Way Around by jbolden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure lets take a look at them. Name any area of database management. Show me how MySQL or Postgres's tools are in fact better (better in this context means: more feature rich, more powerful, leading to higher utilization rates for hardware).

      And I don't care what people need. The point being debated is whether Oracle is "crap" not whether most database users can get away with very low end products. Heck the most commonly utilized database is a list in Word so this point isn't even worth discussing.

  10. Re:But there are other problems by symbolic · · Score: 2, Interesting


    According to the article, Oracle is also looking at Zend, the makers of PHP...PHP has been used very widely in the implentation of MySQL-based solutions. Granted, PhP isn't the only available option, but all these aquisitions could make for some headaches for a large number of users.

    Bear in mind, that Oracle is also planning the release of a low-end product, Oracle Express, presumably to compete with the likes of MySQL and Postgres. I don't think I would ever use or recommend it, because at its core is the beginning of a short road to Oracle's usually-expensive licensing.

  11. Huh? by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Oracle is trying to kill MySQL because SAP wanted to use MySQL as an option for their systems to prevent customers from buying an Oracle database.
    This is a typical kneejerk reaction, and I keep hearing it, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Oracle isn't stupid. Oracle knows that:

    • Oracle can't "kill" MySQL so long as it's open source.
    • It would be a waste of time, money, and energy to kill MySQL when PostgreSQL, Ingres, and Firebird all still exist.
    • There will always be customers who want to use open source because it costs nothing and it's pointless for a company that wants people to pay for software to pursue those customers.

    Besides, why would Oracle want to kill MySQL so it can be the de facto back end for SAP? Not only would it not work (as mentioned above) but Oracle isn't really interested in being the back end for SAP. In the long run, Oracle wants to be SAP.

    Read my other comments on this topic here and here.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Huh? by PhilipPeake · · Score: 2, Informative
      You don't seem to get it.

      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.

    2. Re:Huh? by kcbrown · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

      Uh, no. PostgreSQL isn't owned by any company. Because of that, Oracle can't do the same thing to it that it did to MySQL. That makes it an excellent possible backend for SAP, if SAP needed such a thing.

      Furthermore, it's under the BSD license, so SAP wouldn't even need to redistribute the source in order to make use of it.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  12. Oracle helping Open Source? I don't think so by hypersql · · Score: 2, Informative
    I don't think Oracle wants to play in the Open Source field as the article suggests. They will probably try to kill/hurt the competitors and get as much customers from them as possible. Maybe Oracle will offer a free version of the software (InnoDB / BerkelyDB / PHP / JBoss), but I don't think they will do it like Sun with OpenOffice. Or IBM with Eclipse / Linux. Oracle doesn't need to do it, because they have the market share already (unlike Sun and IBM). Oracle just wants to keep the market share, and keep MySQL small.

    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/).

  13. Terrible article summary by Raenex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The title leaves you looking for MySql's response to the recent Oracle purchases. Can you find it in the first link? Nope, not a single, concrete action from MySql is mentioned, just lots of speculation/analysis. How about the second link? Nope, just more analysis. How about the *third* link, entitled "more thoughts"? Yes, finally! That should have been the first link given in the article, and really the only link he needed to give, since the first two articles are mentioned in the third.

  14. Oracle isn't anti-OSS by rsavela · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think that Oracle is really anti-Open Source. They have released a ton of stuff, most importantly to me: o Big memory pages for the Linux Kernel (helps with TLB misses for shared memory) o OCFS 2, a very good clustered filesystem. o Firewire code o Async I/O linux support Oracle was probably the first major database to run on Linux (version 7 worked, version 8.0 was supported). That was almost 10 years ago. Sun used to be the bread-and butter platform for Oracle. Linux has basically replaced it. Oracle already owns the database market. Most SAP sites already use Oracle as the database. The reality is, no matter how good their database is, they won't make any more money from it. Feature-wise, Oracle is more than 10 years ahead of MySQL. These are features I use all the time, every day. Oracle Fin Apps is the only place their business can grow. While it isn't a great product, neither is SAP R/3. These are big bits of software. Fin Apps 11iR10.2 is about 50GB of install media. (That is a lot of code). With Oracle's acquisition of Peoplesoft and JD Edwards, SAP is really the only competetion.

    1. Re:Oracle isn't anti-OSS by TallMatthew · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Sun used to be the bread-and butter platform for Oracle. Linux has basically replaced it

      This is why Oracle chose to be "pro" open source in the first place. They knew if they could get their product running on Linux, they would have an easier time selling software licenses. Those $50k-$100k Sun enterprise purchase reqs were killing them. Once the economy started to bubble, their $50k-$100k licensing fees were getting lost in the shuffle. Ta Da! Linux servers are far less expensive, making the bundle far more attractive from a cost perspective. Not to mention why should they hand all that business to Sun when it's their product that's driving the hardware purchase in the first place?

      And it worked. Oracle thrives. Sun suffers.

      Oracle, like every other company with their toes in the open source bath water, is doing it to make money. There's an end game with these purchases. Being that Oracle and mysql are competitors, it's probably to squash. Witness the Peoplesoft "acquisition".