Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MySQL Hits $50 Million Revenue, Plans IPO

Posted by samzenpus on from the they-grow-up-so-fast dept.

An anonymous coward writes "MySQL, purveyor of the open-source database of the same name, is on the road to becoming a publicly traded company, bolstered by $50 million in revenue in 2006. "It's still in the pipeline," Chief Executive Marten Mickos said of the plan to hold an initial public offering of his company's stock. He declined to discuss when the company planned to go public, but said, "We're making good progress, doing all the things we need to get done.""

124 comments

  1. Capitalists = Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Does that mean we have to hate them since they're making money off an open source project, or is that good, so we only hate capitalists who make real products vice software and services.

    1. Re:Capitalists = Evil by neoform · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're the happy medium. They give away their product for free, but if you want the extras (support) you gotta pay. I'm happy with that, as I'm sure most people are.

      Programmers gotta pay the rent you know..

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    2. Re:Capitalists = Evil by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hell, even if they sell the software I'm happy if they give me the source. Open source != free.

    3. Re:Capitalists = Evil by Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Concur wholeheartedly. We're not in a utopia; OSS has to pay the bandwidth bills somehow. If all there was was OSS, then we couldn't get by on the good graces of companies since people wouldn't be paying for code, thus coders wouldn't be able to pay to host the servers or the bandwidth for that code.

      Plus, if they're making money through support, that means there are people, and more importantly companies, willing to put their faith in OSS. That's major, really.

    4. Re:Capitalists = Evil by dotgain · · Score: 2, Funny

      To clear up any confusion created by the parent comment:
      Free != Free

    5. Re:Capitalists = Evil by shaitand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      'If all there was was OSS,'

      No. If nobody was being paid to code or profiting from open source software that would be true. Selling closed source software is not the only way to profit from software. IBM hosts OSS, codes OSS, and makes a boatload of cash on OSS. The same is true of many companies. Most programmers work on in-house applications, the idea that companies like Microsoft are where programmers get their bread is a myth.

      More open source software means more companies have a greater potential to make money since they have the source code to make applications run in a way that is tailored to them. That opportunity existing means that more companies would take advantage of it and that my friend means more jobs for programmers.

    6. Re:Capitalists = Evil by drsmithy · · Score: 0

      Hell, even if they sell the software I'm happy if they give me the source. Open source != free.

      Indeed. The relationship is more like: Open source -> free.

    7. Re:Capitalists = Evil by Joohn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Making money is fine, but they are taking advantage of the fact that people think it's more "free" than it really is. A typical example would be someone starting a new company, deciding to use MySQL "beacuse it's free, everybody knows that!". When they've finished implementing their software and feel ready to start sell they realize that they need to purchase a licence to distribute MySQL along with their own software, and face the choice of rewriting their software, throwing tons of work out the window, or simpy pay for the licence. The way I see it, this is by far the most important difference between MySQL and PostgreSQL.

    8. Re:Capitalists = Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever you see an "Open Source" project getting millions of dollars, you should be very suspicious.

      There are some folks with billions of dollars who really don't mind giving away a few hundred in order to flag our other products. For example, in the case of MySQL, Oracle takes the Enterprise division and MySQL the hobbist division. Postgress, which is the product that could threaten Oracle dies from starvation.

      Why doesn't gcc take such funding? Isn't it a useful project? What about kde, qemu, mplayer, valgrind and konqueror?

      Also, if a project gets so much money (we are not talking about "pay the rent here", you can pay the rent with $50K), you can bet your ass that it has a draconian board of directors that are very sensitive about the interests of their funder. For example, Google-Mozilla-Doubleclick-Ads. Just think about it man.

    9. Re:Capitalists = Evil by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      No you have it wrong.

      The problem is when a company becomes publically traded they begine to ignore everything the founders and management set up to create that success. They start to become ran by the accountants and only serve the shareholders.

      Piss off our entire customer base but increase profits this quarter by 34%? Let's do it! Lay off the entire engineering force to make the books look good for the last quarter of the year? Let's do it!

      publically traded companies spiral into a crappy company fast. it's all about the shareholders and nothing about making a good product and sticking to what the company believes in.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:Capitalists = Evil by Skater · · Score: 1

      So this mythical company wouldn't read the software license before investing thousands of dollars? And I'm supposed to feel bad for them? Frankly if they can't even read the license, I'm not sure I'd want their software - they're obviously not thinking through everything, and I'd wonder if their software is the same way.

      By the same token, they could just as easily use PostgreSQL then realize that they might have to distribute source code of their product, which they hadn't originally intended to do.

    11. Re:Capitalists = Evil by Joohn · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about small one-man companies where the programmer starts writing the software before the company is actually founded, not interested in reading licenses and maybe not even with a clear goal to start a company. I was in this position myself, I had heard all good about MySQL and that it's was a safe bet if you wanted something free to use. I found out about the licenses at an early stage though, and I never started the company (big surprise). I've also talked to several people with intentions of starting businesses, using MySQL. And everytime I ask if they've heard about the licences, they say "What, I thought it was completely free?".

      I'm not saying it is wise to start a company without doing research about licenses, but this is how people work, they trust the rumours. And MySQL is taking advantage of this, getting good reputation and extra license fees.

    12. Re:Capitalists = Evil by Luscious868 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      More open source software means more companies have a greater potential to make money since they have the source code to make applications run in a way that is tailored to them. That opportunity existing means that more companies would take advantage of it and that my friend means more jobs for programmers.

      Exactly! I'm living a real world example. The company I work for re-sells an accounting package tailored to the construction industry. We sell, train and do support for the product and we also work as an integrator developing client specific add-ons software that works with the product. The product itself was fairly good when it was introduced in the late 90's and there was a real boom during the run up to 2000 when companies dumped their legacy systems to move to Y2K compliant, Windows based software. As a result the vendor who created it kept being bought out by other larger and larger companies and resources kept being redirected from development until all that was left of the development staff was a couple of programmers kept on for maintenance purposes and it became clear the focus was riding the maintenance base for as long as possible on not on continued product development.

      Basically no serious new development was happening or had happened for several years and the resellers were finding it harder and harder to make new sales. My company had a bit of sway since we were and still are consistently the best reseller in the country. We shifted from a sales and training operation to a support and consulting operation. Because the database back end was MS SQL Server we were and still are able to develop our own applications that could integrate with the base accounting package and we could work with third party companies to integrate their software with the base accounting package and as a result we were still able to sell the accounting software by showcasing all of the additional functionality brought about by the additional packages we had created and/or integrated. We were able to offer features above and beyond what most other software packages offered, even if the base accounting package was a bit cumbersome and out dated.

      Almost two years ago a private equity firm bought out what had become the publicly traded company that owned the software in question and after deciding that there was more revenue to be made from the accounting package they put some competent managers in place. During our first meeting with them we showed them all of the software that we had developed in house and demonstrated all of the third party packages that we had integrated and told them that they were crazy not to open source the product to resellers so that we could extend the functionality of the package. We told them that as part of the license they could insist that we make any changes available to them so that they could include anything that was good in their original source code base to improve the program and increase sales revenue.

      They were legitimately concerned about having to provide support for code they didn't write if a reseller who made changes went out of business but we explained to them that we would only make changes at a clients request and that we would be very upfront with the client and let them know that any changes we made wouldn't be supported by the original vendor, only by the us, and that we would work hand in hand with the development staff to make sure that any changes we made were understood by the development staff and that we'd work with them to integrate the changes into their code base to make it a part of the original package. After going over everything with their legal department the vendor in question finally agreed to try a pilot program with us and it's been a huge success! Within a year they opened to source code to all resellers with a development staff who had been resellers for three or more years.

      Even though the software that we sell isn't the best package out their in terms of user interface, it's come a long

    13. Re:Capitalists = Evil by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      not interested in reading licenses and maybe not even with a clear goal to start a company. I was in this position myself

            Funny, I use MySQL in my company (population 1) in some software I wrote to keep track of customers, and I HAVE read the license(s).

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:Capitalists = Evil by Skater · · Score: 1

      First, why wouldn't you write the software so that it can use any database, instead of forcing MySQL? That always bugs me about ...well, a lot of apps. It's a little more work up front but would insulate you from plenty of problems (like this one) quite effectively.

      MySQL has never hidden their license fees, either. Sorry they can't provide you with totally free software, but they have to eat, too.

    15. Re:Capitalists = Evil by symbolic · · Score: 1

      That "most people" may not include stockholders. I think it will be quite interesting to see how investors and any board members take to the fact that not *everything* associated with the company's business plan is slated to produce revenue.

    16. Re:Capitalists = Evil by PinkPanther · · Score: 1

      publically traded companies spiral into a crappy company fast. it's all about the shareholders and nothing about making a good product and sticking to what the company believes in.

      The situation you describe is about short sightedness, such as your gut reaction to the concept of a company going public.

      Badly run companies behave as you describe above. But the majority of companies that are listed on Wall/Bay Streets (eh?) for more than a few years are typically well run organizations. The fact that you are constantly bombarded by CNN with "failures" does not mean that the majority of public companies are failing. The economies in the north-western hemisphere are, believe it or not, strong and still growing.

      Being one, I can say that shareholders of companies are not looking for the "quick buck". We want sustained long-term growth. The vast majority of investors do. Moving money around is expensive; jumping ships is risky. Intelligent investors want to find a strong pony and ride is it strong all the way around the track, not just get to the turn first.

      Yes, there are examples of failed companies due to short sightedness. Yes you see a mob of screaming traders on the floor each day on CNN. But the vast majority of investment dollars is slow moving and methodically invested. Don't let the odd story that headlines for months on end blind you to the fact that there has only been ONE Enron; yes, there are a couple of other examples you likely can rhyme off, but the headlines don't showcase the bulk of the bell curves in the business world (or, for that matter, in any news category...)

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    17. Re:Capitalists = Evil by jadavis · · Score: 1

      they could just as easily use PostgreSQL then realize that they might have to distribute source code of their product

      I don't know what you meant by that. PostgreSQL is licensed under the BSD license.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    18. Re:Capitalists = Evil by Skater · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I thought it was GPL. In that case, substitute any GPL-based database system here.

      Or better yet, substitute Oracle's "personal edition" that was (still is?) free and then assume that if that edition is free for personal use, it must also be free to distribute for any purpose! It'd be exactly the same situation as the GP's claim.

      (Off topic: I just noticed a cool Google feature - type "Postgresql license" in, and I got: "PostgreSQL -- License: BSD". "Linux" -> "Linux -- License: GNU General Public License". "Hurd" didn't work (hehe).)

    19. Re:Capitalists = Evil by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      So, IOW, people who dont read licenses and conditions before starting a huge project will get screwed... When did that start /sarc.

      --
    20. Re:Capitalists = Evil by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      The problem is when a company becomes publically traded they begine to ignore everything the founders and management set up to create that success. They start to become ran by the accountants and only serve the shareholders.

      Such companies go under or are supplanted in the OSS community by other projects. If, for example, MySQL went this way they would be replaced in the 'lamp' by postgres 'lapp'. Its the nature of opensource and someone profiting from it is *good* for the OSS community. For all the complaining about RedHat they have given back to the OSS community time and time again (no they are not perfect). I suspect were MySQL to take that leap we would see the same.

      --
    21. Re:Capitalists = Evil by martenmickos · · Score: 1


      MySQL *is* completely Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). All you have to do is licence your own application under a FOSS licence, and there will never be an obligation for you to pay anybody a fee for using MySQL.
       
      The motto of MySQL and of the GPL licence is "share, and share alike" meaning that we eagerly share it openly and free of charge with those who themselves share their source code with others.
       
      The only ones who would suffer from this principle are the ones who are building a closed-source product to distribute for a fee, and to those we are happy to sell MySQL under a commercial licence. We think this is a great principle of fairness.
       
      This is also a key reason to why we can keep hiring top database developers all over the world, pay them good salaries, and continue to publish all the code they produce under a FOSS licence. We think that full-time open source developers deserve to get paid for their work. Don't you?
       
      I hope this makes sense to you, and if not, let me know. All the best in building your business!

      Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB

  2. So much for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    We all know what happens when something goes public. Straight down the the tubes. I guess it's time to find a replacement...

    1. Re:So much for them. by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      That's a load of shit. Turning into a publicly traded corporation can help infuse the company with they money needed to improve their product, and can bring accountability to management for making terrible decisions.

      There's no evidence to say that turning public is bad for a company.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    2. Re:So much for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I call B-S. Shifting to a public company means they have to meet the quarter by quarter growth demanded by Wall Street. I've watched small companies with similar revenues get destroyed by this. It also means if they float too much stock, they're fair game for acquisition. Call this a liquidity event to repay early investors, nothing more.

    3. Re:So much for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Nigger.

    4. Re:So much for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      wow. that really... yeah.

    5. Re:So much for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      ever worked for a publicly traded company? i do. everything is about the shareholders and paying them dividens, and proping up the share price so upper managment can retire early.

      if anyone is forced to bend over and take it, it's the workers, and the workers are who make your products. If managment work it well, the extra cash can build the business and employ smarter peopel and produce happier workers, which means a better product. if they don't, it goes down hill VERY fast.

    6. Re:So much for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a company goes public, they effectively sell it to a bunch of gamblers who have no interest in it at all exceot to maximise their profit. The shareholders will decide that there is more money to be made by squeezing the MySQL users in some way. If there is a legal way, and the company doesn't do it, the shareholders can sue.

      So I agree, it will be the end of MySQL as an interesting product.

    7. Re:So much for them. by dosboot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Going public does mean that a company's boss is no longer a person, it is a board of directors. An original founder running the show can give a company it's soul and he can force the company to put the customer's best interests ahead of profits. A board of directors is almost invariably more cold and calculating. They'll just as easily fire the founder if it will avoid some public embarrassment over a minor setback or scandal.

    8. Re:So much for them. by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      Turning into a publicly traded corporation can help infuse the company with they money needed to improve their product
      Is in 1999 again?
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    9. Re:So much for them. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Going public does mean that a company's boss is no longer a person, it is a board of directors.

            I don't see your point: This is true of any CORPORATION, both public and private, except those one-person one shareholder corporations that primarily exist for liability limitation/income tax reduction.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:So much for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much time on your hands now Imus?

  3. Check into this stock. This is not a pump-and-dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The NYSE symbol is MyDIK. You can pump and dump this stock all you want. It has more uptime than MySQL.

  4. interesting timing for an IPO by ushering05401 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder if Google is planning to leverage MySQL in a proxy warfare type scenario vs. M$.

    The contention between the two giants has been heating up, and MySQL is steadily gaining ground on SQL Server for marketshare.

    Couple that with Google's recent contributions to the MySQL project and statements by one of thier engineer's (Callahan?) that they would continue to enhance the DB & pump the code back into the community... focusing on stability, recovery, and fine tuning code.

    Looks like Google could be contending with M$ on at least three fronts soon counting search, office, & now DB's through MySQL.

    I want to see them rumble. The timing of this IPO is very interesting.

    Regards.

    1. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by martenmickos · · Score: 5, Informative


      Thanks everyone for the comments! Let me first note that there was no specific news item in the article referred to at the top. We have had plans for IPO for several years. We don't see an IPO as an end-goal, but as a natural step in the evolution and growth of MySQL.
       
      As many of you will know, when a company brings in venture capital (VC) as we did 6 years ago, you essentially set a plan to either be acquired or go public (IPO) after some time. We think that MySQL is a great business and one that can and should be independent and do an IPO at some point.
       
      We share a passion for open source business - i.e. a passion to demonstrate what great businesses you can build on open source. And we want to provide the best database developers with great rewards: the good feeling of producing a product that changes the world, and the financial reward that comes with business success.
       
      We have numerous users and customers ask us about buying MySQL stock. Today we are privately held and there are no shares for sale, but once we go public anyone can buy shares in our company. And being a public company we will have more strength to grow, to hire more great developers, and to serve new customers.
       
      Does this make sense to you? It does to us.
       
      Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB

    2. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck to you. Seriously.

      And thanks for a great piece of software. Looking forward for even better :)

      Anonymous User

    3. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by pembo13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How will you deal with the the business aspects that come into play when a company goes public that we geeks fear; things like being bought out by "more evil" companies?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    4. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by ushering05401 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems like a good amount of concern about gong public revolves around shifting control.

      Are there any business practices that you guys avoid that might be more difficult to avoid after going public?

      Egregious VaporWare (or at least totally premature) announcements occur to me as a stockholder appeasing move that a lot of public companies make. Any opinion on this?

      Regards and good luck.

    5. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by shaitand · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a public company you will have to answer to the typical pump and dump investor that typically buys publicly traded stock. These people favor moves that yield increased stock price over long term strategies that result in both a stronger company and a stronger product. How do you intend to avoid this change?

      As a publicly traded company, how would you avoid a hostile takeover by a company like Oracle who has the means to buy a controlling share of the stock?

      'As many of you will know, when a company brings in venture capital (VC) as we did 6 years ago, you essentially set a plan to either be acquired or go public (IPO) after some time.'

      Being acquired and going public are both things that bring a nice return for investors. There is nothing wrong with that in itself. But is that quick return coming at the expense of the entity that is MySQL or worse, the application itself?

    6. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by martenmickos · · Score: 5, Informative


      Here is my quick view of risks with going public, and how we are dealing with them:

      Risk of being bought out. - The best protection against this is fast growth. If a company doesn't grow, then it is at risk of being bought no matter whether it is private or public, large or small. (So if you want to contribute to us - then refer us to as many paying customers as you can!)

      Risk of company culture becoming too corporate-like. - We try to avoid this by being very focused on cultivating our unique values. We add more structure and more procedures all the time, but we also try to stay free from bureaucracy and we always encourage our employees to make bold decisions.

      Risk of openness being at risk as a public company. - We make sure that all our investors (current and future) understand that the freedom of our software is vital to the success of MySQL. We also try to be open about everything else: bugs, plans, events, etc. But here we also know there will be something of a difference when going public: we will have to abide strictly by SEC rules and not disclose financial or other vital business information in any other way than publicly to everyone at given points in time.

      Feel free to list more risks and I will be happy to address them.

      Marten

    7. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're seriously deluded if you believe MySQL comes even close to competing against Microsoft's latest version of SQL Server.

    8. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      How do you view the risk of Oracle buying you out? It seems that they bought InnoDB to fight the growth of MySQL since it takes MySQL one step closer to enterprise level DB. With the IPO, they could just buy you guys outright and put an end to a large part of the open source DB threat. I guess in that case we can always fork...

      Best of luck! You guys are amazing.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    9. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by martenmickos · · Score: 5, Informative


      For part of your questions, see my response to another question on this thread:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=232285&thresho ld=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=18880831#188809 27

      And here comes more risk analysis:

      Risk of "pump and dump" investors driving MySQL strategy in the wrong direction. - Naturally a company will have to follow the instructions from its shareholders, but we believe that we have and will have strong and long-term investors who understand the value of strategic resilience. These investors will encourage us to invest in what gives the best value over time.

      Risk of quick return to investors negatively affecting the MySQL entity or application. - I actually believe the opposite - that a successful IPO for MySQL will give us a boost in innovation and development. I believe that as a public company MySQL would attract even more innovative partners and brilliant employees.

      Marten

      P.S. I can of course be wrong in my risk assessments here and in other responses on this thread. That's why I post them for all of you to read - in the hope that you will provide your feedback and suggestions.

    10. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Why would anybody want to IPO?

      In practice it does two things:

      1. Temporarily boost financial resources.
      2. Lose all control over your own company.

      The financial boost is nice, but rarely necessary and I assume most people care about the company they built and wish to have it's values and culture remain intact.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    11. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by martenmickos · · Score: 5, Interesting


      I must say I disagree with your analysis of IPO. But let's first back up. It was in 2001 that the founders of MySQL decided to get venture capital on board and to go for business growth and an IPO or an acquisition in the future. I don't know if you were around back then, but that would have been the right time to ask why the founders wanted an IPO.

      Then to your analysis. I believe that an IPO has the opportunity to boost your financial resources for a very long time. I also believe that you don't have to lose control over your company. Control is lost (in my mind) if and when a company stops to grow - no matter whether the company is public or private. Even if you own all of a private company - if it does not grow then you don't have too many options as to how to run it. So although you may not have lost control to another shareholder, you have essentially lost control to the circumstances.

      And then there are other benefits of IPO. It gives you a currency for making acqusitions. It gives you exposure and typically add to your credibility among conservative customers. And it can be highly inspirational for the employees.

      Make sense?

      Marten

    12. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by shaitand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thank you for responding. The fact that you are engaging in an open communication with the community like this is probably a greater comfort than the actual answers you give. That said, I have always been good at poking holes in debates.

      'Risk of being bought out. - The best protection against this is fast growth. If a company doesn't grow, then it is at risk of being bought no matter whether it is private or public, large or small. (So if you want to contribute to us - then refer us to as many paying customers as you can!)'

      That certainly makes sense. Is there any assurance that such growth will occur? Is there more to this move than a spin of the roulette wheel coupled with a great deal of optimism about the outcome?

      Oracle already knows they want to purchase MySQL. Is there any way to protect the company if they move to make that purchase right away without giving the company a chance to grow?

      'Risk of company culture becoming too corporate-like. - We try to avoid this by being very focused on cultivating our unique values. We add more structure and more procedures all the time, but we also try to stay free from bureaucracy and we always encourage our employees to make bold decisions.'

      I can't really poke a hole in that. But would like to remind you; Google had a 'do no evil' policy as well. That policy and greed battled within the company and in the end, greed won.

      'Risk of openness being at risk as a public company. - We make sure that all our investors (current and future) understand that the freedom of our software is vital to the success of MySQL. We also try to be open about everything else: bugs, plans, events, etc. But here we also know there will be something of a difference when going public: we will have to abide strictly by SEC rules and not disclose financial or other vital business information in any other way than publicly to everyone at given points in time.'

      Do you mean to suggest that bug reports and other things that concern the community will only be released in SEC filings? Surely not, companies release information that concerns their business through the press and other outlets all the time.

      'Risk of "pump and dump" investors driving MySQL strategy in the wrong direction. - Naturally a company will have to follow the instructions from its shareholders, but we believe that we have and will have strong and long-term investors who understand the value of strategic resilience. These investors will encourage us to invest in what gives the best value over time.'

      Isn't this nothing but pure optimism? Anyone can purchase the stock. Are MySQL public stockholders likely to share the same characteristics as the stockholders of most companies?

      'Risk of quick return to investors negatively affecting the MySQL entity or application. - I actually believe the opposite - that a successful IPO for MySQL will give us a boost in innovation and development. I believe that as a public company MySQL would attract even more innovative partners and brilliant employees.'

      Don't many of those investors play key roles in MySQL today? Isn't there a good chance that many of those individuals will use this as an opportunity to cash in? Also, increased financial resources does not equate to superior results. Microsoft is probably the most typical example of this.

      'P.S. I can of course be wrong in my risk assessments here and in other responses on this thread. That's why I post them for all of you to read - in the hope that you will provide your feedback and suggestions.'

      Good luck Mark. I'm sure having you at the helm of the company gives everyone comfort, I know it gives me comfort. I wish you and MySQL the best and hope going public works out for you.

    13. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The contention between the two giants has been heating up, and MySQL is steadily gaining ground on SQL Server for marketshare."

      What a load of crap. Why not mention all of the other database players in this space? Oh that's right I forgot you were a Microsoft hater. You might wanna put a bandaide on those Open Sores before they get infected.

    14. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by yintercept · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the comments about timing ... ah, it seems that companies want to go public when the market is going up... Rarely does a company want to go public right after a crash. Financial events often coincide because people make decisions based on financial stimulus.

      I like the idea of an open sourced company being publicly owned. I have to admit, my fears are that the bureaucratic mindset that dominates the insurance companies and mutual funds that own this world will force another great company into mediocrity of the financial borg.

      Risk of being bought out. - The best protection against this is fast growth.

      I've seen a lot of fast growing companies get gobbled up. Often companies want to merge because they think their existing structure can't keep up with the pace of the growth. I guess it is also common for companies to seek a merger when the market expectation of their growth outpaces reality (I won't go into that).

      I am just sad that going public seems to be prelude of a tragedy of another great company being sucked into the merger game.

      This world really needs ways for companies to be publicly owned yet remain independent. The two ideas are

    15. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry. It really hurts me to see a good guy from a good company doing a PR job that basically makes him look naive.

      We've seen it over and over and over and over again. The pattern never changes.

      In a few years MySQL will be YourSQL, it will be a money circus beset with litigation, patent assertions, tiered products that make
      second class users out of the poorest and greedy, grubbing shareholders who have no interest in, or knowledge of, quality software
      running the show.

      And the real tragedy is that I bet the majority of those in the project are against this.

      Goodbye MySQL, it was fun while it lasted.

    16. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Google is planning to leverage MySQL in a proxy warfare type scenario vs. M$.
      No way. Google are smart. Very smart. Some of their people have degrees I can't even spell. If that were their strategy, they'd have gone with Postgresql.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    17. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      acquisitions? *scratches chin* who might you plan on acquiring?

    18. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by chthon · · Score: 1

      Isn't the problem with growth, that eventually you will reach a ceiling, unless you are able to drive out competitors, in which case you become a monopoly ?

    19. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by ronanbear · · Score: 4, Funny

      1. Get taken over by Oracle
      2. Profit
      3. Fork MySQL
      4. ???
      5. Profit (again)

      Sounds good to me

      --
      the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
    20. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Control is lost (in my mind) if and when a company stops to grow - no matter whether the company is public or private.
      Then you're either using a different definition of 'control' to everyone else, or you're waffling.

      Even if you own all of a private company - if it does not grow then you don't have too many options as to how to run it.
      If you own 51% of the company, you have the same amount of control whether its [revenues|market share|any other measure] doubled, stayed the same or fell by 25%.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    21. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Ngarrang · · Score: 1

      Risk of "pump and dump" investors driving MySQL strategy in the wrong direction. - Naturally a company will have to follow the instructions from its shareholders, but we believe that we have and will have strong and long-term investors who understand the value of strategic resilience. These investors will encourage us to invest in what gives the best value over time.

      Shareholders not employed the company rarely have anything but dollar signs in their eyes and only care about their own short-term gains. I have watched a lot of tech companies go public since 1990 and many of them are gone now. Bought out, sold out, sued out of business, or mis-managed by chief's who's only concern is their own wallets. And when that happened each time, only the chief's escaped with any money, leaving the employees with nothing but a resume entry.

      Without using management-speak, please explain to me how MySQL hopes to escape my sense of stock market nihilism? When the stock holders began to demand short-term gain that will strangle long-term development, what will be ther answer?

      For the record, I see the stock market as an evil place, that has destroyed far more companies and lives than it has helped. I have seen little evidence in the last 16 years to dissuade me from this view.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    22. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      If you own 51% of the company, you have the same amount of control

      It's 50% plus 1 share, not 51%. In a publicly traded company with potentially billions of shares, it makes a HUGE difference.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    23. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by martenmickos · · Score: 2


      Thank you for assuming that we will reach that level!
       
      Seriously, sure that can be an issue, but getting there takes 20-30 years in the software industry. In the meantime the world will evolve and there will be some new entrepreneur with a revolutionary way to manage data, and that will be the growth story, and whoever is the huge leader at the time will have to deal with this.
       
      Marten

    24. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      It's 50% plus 1 share, not 51%.
      Unless the company has less than a hundred shares, won't 51% be more than 50% plus one?
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    25. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by alienmole · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that on the buyout risk issue, MySQL would be a pretty strategic acquisition for a number of companies that could afford to buy it without really blinking, so do you really think that fast growth will protect you from that? Besides, fast growth brings its own set of problems.

      I wish you luck with this, but I have to say my experience with RedHat soured me on this sort of thing. They basically did everything they legally could to make their source effectively inaccessible to users that hadn't paid quite a substantial amount for a license, offering up Fedora as a sop to the open source/free software community, Whether deliberately or not, Fedora sucked in various ways. I don't know if it still does, because I and my clients switched to Debian.

      So I have to say that there's part of me that thinks I may as well start preparing to switch to PostgreSQL now. I'll be rooting for you to prove that part of me wrong!

    26. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by asc99c · · Score: 1

      Control is lost (in my mind) if and when a company stops to grow Companies don't need to grow. If it's a profitable company at it's current size, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is more usually after a burst of growth, a company suddenly finds it has outgrown it's market. It's easy to quickly sell large volumes of shiny new shrink wrapped software. Following that you need to hire a bigger support team and hope the money you made selling the boxes covers support costs, or that you can keep selling more copies. If you've just grown quickly, that's a calculation which is easy to get wrong.
    27. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yes that's my whole point. To have control you need 50% plus 1 share. So a company with 1 BN shares means you need 500,000,001 shares in order to control it. The person I responded to said 51% for control which is not true. And 500,000,001 (50% plus 1 share)is a lot less than 510,000,000 (51% of shares).

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    28. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Yes that's my whole point. To have control you need 50% plus 1 share.
      Very nice, quite correct - and totally irrelevant because that wasn't my point. My point was 51% would give you the same amount of control irrespective of the size of the company or the trend of the size. You even quoted that statement - did you read it? 51% is an arbitrary number greater than half. The same would be true if I'd written 73%, 67% or 99%.

      In other words, the statement by martenmickos that "Control is lost (in my mind) if and when a company stops to grow" is totally wrong.

      Nowhere did I make the statement "you need 51% or more to have overall control".
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    29. Re:interesting timing for an IPO by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Even if you own all of a private company - if it does not grow then you don't have too many options as to how to run it.
       
      Eh? How so?
       
      I own my own small business and it's been about the same size and doing about the same thing for the past fifteen years, and will continue to be about the same for the next fifty years (or at least I hope it does.)
       
      I do what I want to do, when I want to do it. And I get to make a living doing what I like to do.
       
      How does that translate to a lack of control?
       
      I think you have been listening to too many get-rich-fast people. Try something like The Wealthy Barber instead, as a change of perspective.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  5. Oh no... by C_Kode · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mickos said. "And by going public you get the currency to do acquisitions."

    I don't like that. I like MySQL for what it is. Not what is can do with cash or depending on stockholders approval...

    1. Re:Oh no... by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe if they were a public company with some cash they would have been be the ones to buy InnoDB, instead of Oracle.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:Oh no... by Omnifarious · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This makes me all jittery too. I have very little trust of public companies. I think the laws surrounding them are in need of even more serious reform than they've gotten so far (SOX and HIPPA being examples of laws that bring back some accountability).

      But, the other person to reply made a really good point about InnoDB. This may not be all bad. And realistically, if it turns bad MySQL can be forked.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    3. Re:Oh no... by Valar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hate to break it to you, but MySQL is already run by stockholders... just because it isn't _publically_ traded doesn't mean their aren't owners who control have an equity stake. Those owners had the same interest in enhancing the company's revenues as purchasers of stock would. And since realistically the public stock holders don't control day to day operations (i.e. engineering), I doubt you'll see a drop in product quality just because all of the sudden you can buy stock in the company.

      --

      ====
      Crudely Drawn Games
    4. Re:Oh no... by Omnifarious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's something about the diffusion of responsbility involved in a company being public that tends to cause such companies to become inordinately rapacious and evil. All the decision makers can point to the fact that they're 'morally' obligated to do whatever it takes for the company to make as much as it can for stockholders. And the stockholders have a really hard time getting together to tell the company that some actions are just too far.

      But when the number of stockholders is smaller and known, their sense of personal responsibility and morality can be appealed to, and they're more likely to pay attention to it regardless.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    5. Re:Oh no... by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a world of difference. In a private company, the stock isn't publicly tradeable. This single fact is enough to strongly deter pump-and-dump and other forms of short-term thinking.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  6. worrying by f1055man · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This worries me. I don't think the street's interests match up with open source communities or the private companies that make a living off of them. The street likes bold moves for short term gains. OSS demands slow(usually) organic growth and consensus building. A MySQL controlled by arms-length investors might throw an error, how will Mickos catch?

    This http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000842.h tml comes to mind.

    If they offer a second class of shares(dividends but no voice) then maybe it will work, but I'm not sure there's a point in it.

    1. Re:worrying by femto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the beauty of free software. If MySQL goes bad the codebase will be forked and another project will rise to take its place. It will be interesting to see what the MySQL prospectus will have to say to investors about this risk.

      Good luck to MySQL. I hope they make a go of it, get rich, and don't shoot themselves in the foot by causing a code fork.

    2. Re:worrying by venicebeach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Red Hat stock seems to be doing ok...

    3. Re:worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, since I bought Red Hat stock nearly a year ago, I've incurred a 17% loss in their stock. I know it isn't a terribly long time to be making claims that they aren't doing good, but it give a little bit of perspective.

    4. Re:worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RHT is in general a poor performer, with about a 9% 5Y return (average for the tech sector is about 13%). You could of course do worse, but it's a good reason to diversify.

    5. Re:worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what's to prevent somebody from preying on the companies success and just forking the code so the company will no longer have the superior product.

      Everything has to be free in the OS community and nobody is allowed to make a profit; if they do start making a profit it seems that the community will ditch the project or blackmail it.

    6. Re:worrying by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      Redhat is a high beta stock (read relly good for shorter term investors). That is not to say its a very bad stock..

      --
    7. Re:worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The expertise of the people in the company. Any copycat will have a hard time keeping up and maintaining a forked code base. It's the same reason MS was able to abuse its position as the keeper of the Word document format and keep a strangle hold on the word processor market: everyone else was playing catchup.

      Your second paragraph is just ignorant bullshit.

  7. Where is the profit going? by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 0, Troll

    Anything going back to the FSF?

    1. Re:Where is the profit going? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of MySQL did the FSF write? What about MySQL's open source principle and it's open source licensing? Why favor just one of the writers of the open source licenses it uses?

    2. Re:Where is the profit going? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      why would it? Mysql was written by mysql, with no input by fsf. It would be nice if they helped, but I don't think they have much of an obligation to. It would be more fitting if they maid payments to the other organizations in the LAMP stack ie whatever company that pays linux, Apache, and the PHP nfp if there is one.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:Where is the profit going? by petrus4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. I never hear anything but condemnation and the most vitriolic forms of abuse around here for anyone who would *dare* to even dream of the idea of trying to make money from software development, (including an earlier post on this very article) and yet one of the first questions I see here is whether with MySQL's IPO, the FSF are getting a cut of the cheese.

      Let me get this straight. It is by no means, in any way, EVER acceptable in your minds if anyone makes money from developing software, but just in case anybody does, they must immediately hand it over to Stallman?!?

      The rank hypocrisy exhibited by you people at times literally leaves me gasping. It is beyond description.

    4. Re:Where is the profit going? by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 1
      I just don't get it. I don't see the problem with my comment.

      Where else do you expect the FSF to get money from to protect the GPL?

    5. Re:Where is the profit going? by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      Where else do you expect the FSF to get money from to protect the GPL?

      I know they can't get money from anywhere else. My point was that most people that I've seen on Slashdot find the idea of people making money from software at all to be completely intolerable. I've also seen transcripts from a speech he gave where Stallman said he felt that people wanting to make money from software development should find something else to do.

      If it's true that there's nowhere else for the FSF to get money from, please explain to me...why do they have such a chronic problem with people making money from software development?

  8. Pump and Dump Scheme by asphaltjesus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not a dig at the folks at Mysql.

    It is a warning to everyone who thinks that mysql will be immediately better for going public.

    In my finance class I learned that the best way to grow a company is on revenues. Second best is private equity. Near the bottom of the list is public equity.

    It's probably the case that Mysql's early investors are looking for their pay day. That's fine, but I'm more concerned about the long term effect of being a public company on the quality of mysql product.

    The clever slashdotter with a little cash to gamble with should buy some mysql hold it for a year and dump it. They should come out ahead and be getting out while the picture looks rosy.

    Food for thought.

    --
    Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
    1. Re:Pump and Dump Scheme by Valar · · Score: 1

      Revenues are fine, but they are sort of dictated to you-- you make as much profit as you can. Private equity is great, if you can find it. For young businesses, you just go to your cousin or friend or somebody and ask them if they want to own half the company you are starting. At MySQLs level, they would have to seek out either VC Firms (which are arguably worse than public trading, since they try to micromanage your operations) or industry firms interested in acquiring a piece (which is bad, because any such company will probably try to suck MySQL dry and then move on).

      --

      ====
      Crudely Drawn Games
    2. Re:Pump and Dump Scheme by mpcooke3 · · Score: 1

      The clever slashdotter with a little cash to gamble with should buy some mysql hold it for a year and dump it.

      Yeah hold onto it until Larry Ellison buys it which, let's face it won't be long!

    3. Re:Pump and Dump Scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is mysql we're talking about; there's no quality to affect in the first place..

  9. So... When will Oracle or Microsoft buy them out? by WarlockD · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I mean seriously, remember how much Oracle is being a dick when they bought PeopleSoft? And now MySQL with "only" $50 million in revenue is going IPO?

    I mean hell, remember this? A private firm can turn down an offer, but a full public company has to go to its shareholders.

    Its not about the software, its just that MySQL is a nice company that worked hard to get where it is. I just don't want to see it get destroyed because they just needed a bit more capital.

  10. Mickos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Sounds like a Jew name to me. Fuck the hook-nosed bastard and the bagel he rode in on. If I wanted lox and gefilte in my software I'd subscribe to the Bilderbergs' RSS feed. Thieving kikes...

    1. Re:Mickos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nice try! Mr. Mickos is Finnish.

  11. True open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nice if MySQL dumped the dual license and was more open source pure like Red Hat.

    It's funny. With these nice open source investments, I still end up leaning toward Debian and PostgreSQL

    1. Re:True open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would that be "nice"? How could you possibly benefit from them *ceasing* to offer and *additional* option to users? The fact that a commercial licensee can release a closed-source MySQL variant or include one in their product does not reduce your rights to the code that MySQL is itself offering at the time. It only reduces your rights to code that some other company is offering. Essentially it just means that closed-source forks are a possibility. I have a hard time believing you are in a position to be harmed by that.

      On a legal note, the only difference between Red Hat and MySQL is that Red Hat doesn't publicly advertise commercial licenses to its own code (and also, most of Red Hat's products are not its own code at all). But just because commercial license aren't on the menu doesn't mean that a) Red Hat can't offer them any time it wants, or b) Red Hat doesn't and hasn't sold such licenses behind the scenes. The only way that Red Hat could give up its right to sell commercial licenses is to give up its right to license the code at all, for example by donating the code to another entity like the FSF. But then the FSF would have that right, legally, and would be restricted only by its own bylaws (it's choice, essentially). No company can give up its right to license code to which it has copyright. It can only voluntarily bind its own hands. Red Hat hasn't done that, it just doesn't seem to use it. Mostly because Red Hat's actual software is nowhere near as valuable or as stand-alone as MySQL's.

  12. You forgot a typo in that sentence by fprog · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Quote: "We're making good progress, doing all the things we need to get done."

    It's NOT called progress, it's called "Postgres".

    Anyway that sentence doesn't make sense and should be read as:

    "We're making goods with Postgres, doing all the things we need to get done."

    1. Re:You forgot a typo in that sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fine line between flamebait and funny, but personally I found this to be on the funnier side of the line, by a hair.

    2. Re:You forgot a typo in that sentence by fprog · · Score: 0

      Well, at least one person found it funny! X-D Did you post it as anonymous to not get -1 Flamebait too?

  13. 36% growth in Mac sales? The Mac is SO over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    You will have to forgive me. My definition of PC user has expanded in the past couple of years from big-haired douchebags from Wintel who trolled Tekserve at night trying to get through Crystal Quest or Inside Macintosh. (Ahh, the '80s.) I now use "PC user" as a general term to describe the wannabes who exhibit an attitude of "Yeah, we cool. We're Mac users," when they are clearly from some other part of the universe.

    However, to prevent further confusion from the teeming masses, I will use the term poseur. Or in this case, switcheurs. These are the dunderheads who proclaim their trendiness because they use a Mac even though they were probably maximizing their windows until last week.

    They try to act counterculture by making comments about good taste and how everything is beige, and think of themselves as nonconformists, which is laughable since all they are doing is conforming to another lifestyle.

    What is really pathetic is when these expatriates proclaim their love for their adopted platform. When I hear it I cringe and automatically think of that Daphna Kalfon song "I Love My Mac." Not that there is anything wrong with Daphna.

    That phrase, coming from a switcheur, reeks of such vomit-inducing pretension. You think you are cooler than the rest of the world because you've been to the Apple store? Because of your zero-button mouse? Because of the fact that you have to manually sort the Desktop upon failing (inevitably) to understand the Mac's right-handed icon arrangement? Where I come from, this is called "trying too hard."

    The Mac platform today is ground zero for the switcheur epidemic, which means more tourists and more expatriates moving in. It has become way too mainstream and too damn self-congratulatory to live here. And with more corporate giants moving in, the Mac is so ovah.

  14. Sorta by SlashDev · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of the RedHat days before it went public, except that this isn't happening during the .com boom. More money, means more bureaucracy and bad decision making (example again: RedHat). From an investor's point of view, I will buy MySQL stock.

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
  15. Re:So... When will Oracle or Microsoft buy them ou by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    A private firm can turn down an offer, but a full public company has to go to its shareholders.


    An IPO doesn't need to mean the existing core loses control: Google demonstrated that quite well I think.

  16. Good support as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty decent testimonials for the support as well.

    1. Re:Good support as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warning! Parent is a goatse link.

    2. Re:Good support as well by somersault · · Score: 1

      No, it's not..

      --
      which is totally what she said
  17. Re:So... When will Oracle or Microsoft buy them ou by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

    "A private firm can turn down an offer, but a full public company has to go to its shareholders."

    A private firm must go to its shareholders as well.

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  18. Re:So... When will Oracle or Microsoft buy them ou by wan-fu · · Score: 1

    "only" is right. $50 million in revenue is not a lot in the software industry.

  19. I Predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Within 6 months of an IPO that either Microsoft or more likely Oracle will buy them up lock stock and angry customer base.
    Why,
    Oracle needs to remove another competitor to their quest for database domination. The had bought several top end application suppliers (Peoplesoft etc) over the past few years. Now it is time for them to turn their attention for the low end. Besides, they would not want Microsoft to get hold of them.

    Microsoft needs to remove another competitor for their low end SQL Server sales. There might be some small bits of technolofy that need to put into SQL Server but I really doubt that.

    Before anyone asks, what about IBM?
    Well, IBM already has a FREE version of DB2 called DB2 Express C. Check it out. You will be pleasantly surprised at what it offers and also the licensing that allows you to redistribute it. Ok, it is closed source but as an entry point to its costly big brother it is a real steal for many small companies.
    (No, I don't work for IBM)
    They also have an open source database (Derby/Cloudscape) so why would they want to snaffle up another DB supplier?

    1. Re:I Predict that by PHPfanboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, and that's why literate techies with some money (like most of us reading here) will want to buy as much stock as possible to have a better representation of our views on the company's strategy.

      If you care, like really care, about Open Source companies perhaps it would be a good idea to set up an open source investment "club" or fund to take a more serious stake in these companies. A Slashdot fund anyone?

      You have other ethical funds these days (green, Islamic etc...) which invest according to additional criteria (I'm not suggesting an open source charity, the users get enough of that already) - why shouldn't we pool our resources and influence to help steer publicly traded open source companies?

      This will allow you to get in before they go to open market IPO and take a good chunk of equity. Of course, you could start up an open source VC too for earlier stage (= more risky) investments and take a bigger chunk of equity (and the associated board-level activity)

      Put your collective money where your collective mouth is.

      (I don't work for MySQL)

      --
      29 mpg. YMMV.
  20. Of Geese and Golden eggs... by jkrise · · Score: 3, Insightful

    MySQL is today what it is and where it is, because of the quality and utility of the code it's putting out in the database world. People who invest in MySQL, the product do so because of it's suitability and superiority; not because of the financial reputation or stability of the company itself.

    By going in for an IPO, Mr.Marten Mickos may be right in that the company will be flush with funds, but then, people will be able to invest in MySQL, the company -- without caring for MySQL, the product or service or technology. Even companies like RedHat making over a billion dollars a year face enormous challenges everyday, in staying loyal to their philosophies and the customers; and avoiding takeovers by unprincipled thugs of all hues in the share markets.

    If Mr. Mickos thinks the company is going to get more business because it will now be a public firm, I think that optimism is misplaced and will be short-lived. That new business is going to come from MySQL's reputation of being a public company, not based on the technological superiority or suitability about the product. Should MySQL indeed care for such customers, given that the current mindshare and marketshate has come from the Open Source loving community?

    No one can prevent a firm from having an IPO, but I would be very surprised if MySQL can resist a takeover for even 12 months from the IPO. What that would do to employee morale which Mr. Mickos talks about, remains to be seen.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Of Geese and Golden eggs... by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      Should MySQL indeed care for such customers, given that the current mindshare and marketshate has come from the Open Source loving community?

      Let me guess...You'd probably be offended if in response to this, somebody accused you of Communist inclinations, wouldn't you? ;)

    2. Re:Of Geese and Golden eggs... by Bodrius · · Score: 2, Funny
      Let me see if I understand...

      That new business is going to come from MySQL's reputation of being a public company, not based on the technological superiority or suitability about the product. Should MySQL indeed care for such customers, given that the current mindshare and marketshate has come from the Open Source loving community?


      You're suggesting that a for-profit business refuses to serve new paying customers... because they're 'n00bs'?

      What is this, the Soup Nazi school of open source business?

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    3. Re:Of Geese and Golden eggs... by MoreDruid · · Score: 1

      Yes, but since the MySQL codebase is Open Source, there is no-one holding the community back for taking that code and extending it. Yes a fork like this can be painful and senseless, but even if MySQL is bought out, it's the company that's bought out, not the code. I think this is a very important distinction and one that has been evaluated by Mr. Mickos and his team. There is no-one stopping a developer from leaving the company once it goes against his ethics and starting a fork with the existing codebase.

      --
      The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
  21. That's Funny+Redhat had only 24 million in revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's Funny + Redhat had only 24 million in revenue but then since RH is already public, they can't just pull a number out of the air like these guys have.

  22. Finally! Hmm...more money for lawyers??? by Goyat · · Score: 1

    YAY..I mean yay....hmmm...whatever. MS SQl server allows people to connect to their database for free! MySQL not so much. As a large and repeated commercial user of the database (boo hiss) I can honestly say that my experience with them has been bad enough to not recommend them to commercial clients...hence we build our own MySQL from the "good branch", and let them use that. I just make sure that when they IPO and the big boys take notice they realise the legal mine field that the GPL brings to the table. As i would hate to see this bastion of open source engineering become a company relying on litigious revenue.

  23. Not suprising. SCO has some extra cash around by bl8n8r · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    from all those cash infusions* from microsoft, Baystar, and Royal Bank of Canada.
    I expect the 60 million got invested into the pump-n-dump also, so there should be
    plenty to stick in MySQL's G-string.

    [*]
    http://uk.builder.com/0,39026540,39338281,00.htm
    http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/19/105522 3
    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5057033.html

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  24. Re:Not suprising. SCO has some extra cash around by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    It's times like these when I wish I had mod points, to sink this kind of rubbish into oblivion where it belongs.

    Be gone, troll.

  25. Looks good to me by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 1

    MySQL is the poster child for open-source RDBMS (sorry Firebird, sorry Postgres), and if nothing else, buying MySQL stock will eventually get you some Google shares when they inevitably absorb.

    -BA

    1. Re:Looks good to me by lucifron · · Score: 1

      MySQL is the poster child for open-source RDBMS (sorry Firebird, sorry Postgres) Yup, MySQL is the IE of databases; good enough for the ignorant masses, and about as standards-compliant.
      Should you ever want to port your app, or just learn to use a different RDBMS, you'll have a lot of extra grief to overcome.
    2. Re:Looks good to me by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 1

      which is why I don't use it. We use Oracle here, and I've written for Sybase and DB2 in the past. I can't bring myself to use MySQL, it's still half-baked in all the parts I need.

      -BA

  26. give me reasons to mysql over postgres by cytg.net · · Score: 1

    give me reasons to do mysql over postgres! i've fiddled with both and found postgres to 1. have more features 2. better error reporting 3. better usability but thats just me.. what's your experience? what incentive would be the driving force behind choosing mysql over postgres ?

  27. Too Bad MySQL Isn't In Venezuela by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then Hugo Chavez could nationalize it and we'd have FREE SOFTWARE for LIFE!

    Signed,

    Another /. Marxist-wannabe posuer

  28. What about this?? by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    I have a question and a comment, first how much of the code base is made up of other GPL projects?

    If the answer is none then all you have to do is think about it for a second and you will realize that at any time the shareholders could take over and make it closed source, what's stopping them. Maybe this is the reason why they are going public, the lack of other GPL code means they can close it at anytime and start charging for it and maybe this is the reason other open source projects have never gone public because of the code base being made up of other GPL projects.

    Things that make you go hmmmmm.....

  29. Re:Check into this stock. This is not a pump-and-d by gzerphey · · Score: 1

    I still cant tell if this is funny or flamebait????

    --
    I don't have a microwave. I do, however, have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
  30. What Happened? by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    How did our economy shift so that being "bought out" or becoming a publicly traded corporation became the end-goal for entrepreneurs? At one time people, like say Henry Ford, fought tooth and nail to keep their companies from becoming publicly traded corporations or being "bought out".

  31. Oracle pressure? by kbahey · · Score: 1

    As many of you know, Oracle bought the two transactional engines that MySQL use, namely, InnoDB (by InnoBase) and BDB (by Sleepycat).

    Although the effect on the GPL version of MySQL is negligible, the possible effect on MySQL AB as a company cannot be ignored. Remember that MySQL AB licenses its database to enterprise customers under a non-GPL license, and now Oracle holds the proverbial sword.

    First, MySQL bought solidDB, then started developing the Falcon transactional engine in house, which shows promise, but is not mature yet.

    So, is this IPO (or the hastening thereof) a response to the above move by Oracle?

    --
    2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
  32. Re:So... When will Oracle or Microsoft buy them ou by cthulhu11 · · Score: 0

    Dumb question: how are they making revenue on freeware?