MySQL Cofounder Says Oracle Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d Party

alphadogg writes "Oracle should resolve antitrust concerns over its acquisition of Sun Microsystems by selling open-source database MySQL to a suitable third party, its cofounder and creator Michael 'Monty' Widenius said in a blog post on Monday. Oracle's $7.4 billion acquisition of Sun is currently being held up by an investigation by the European Commission. The Commission's main concern seems to be MySQL, which was acquired by Sun in January 2008 for $1 billion. A takeover by the world's leading proprietary database company of the world's leading open source database company compels the regulator to closely examine the effects on the European market, according to remarks made by Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes last month. The key objective by Widenius is to find a home outside Oracle for MySQL, where the database can be developed and compete with existing products, including Oracle's, according to Florian Mueller, a former MySQL shareholder who is currently working with Monty Program AB on this matter." Richard Stallman agrees.

Comments

Your input has been noted

[e2d2]

I'll take "Things you should have thought about before selling to Sun" for 1000 Alex

Re:Your input has been noted

[VGPowerlord]

One of their purposes, not the only purpose. Oracle also wanted to get their grubby mitts on Java.

Actually... with SPARC; Solaris; Java; Oracle 11g; and Oracle Weblogic Suite 11g, Oracle can now control their entire App Server from top to bottom.

Maybe I'm missing something..

[amicusNYCL]

MySQL is open source. Why is there a big argument about who controls it? If whoever is controlling it goes in a direction that people don't like, don't you just fork it? If people really are worried about the future of MySQL, shouldn't there already be a fork?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[asdf7890]

Or move over to another F/OSS database. Postgres has outdone mysql for "enterprise" features for many years (anyone else remember mysql people telling you that transactions were something that should be handled outside the database?) with the exception of replication support, and sqlite reportedly outperforms it in its traditional market (few writes but many selects over simple but potentially large structures). There are other options out there. A fork would face the same problem these other options have: mysql, the "official" version where-ever that lives these days, has a large amount of market inertia.

(I'm not trying to grind an anti-mysql axe here, though I do prefer the other options myself depending on circumstances, just pointing out that a fork would only be any good to the market if enough people use it and getting that elusive "enough people" market share might not be easy)

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[mckinnsb]

I would also suspect that there is a great deal of concern over the fact that many web hosting providers offer MySQL as the included database for a cheap, base-level, non-configurable package. Turnover of mindshare in that market seems to be extremely slow -I've noticed the cheaper packages tend to be sold to the technophobic. Many hosting providers will be inclined to stick with MySQL and MySQL support contracts with Oracle. This is part of what Oracle purchased, to be honest, but the EU has the right to examine if this is fair play.

Re:postgres people suck

[Just Some Guy]

I honestly do not understand why some people persist in pimping postgres.

Well, a lot of us are happy with the idea of a database that, you know, works. That doesn't silently discard data. That doesn't make you choose between performance and ACID. That doesn't pull crap like insisting that the wire protocol is licensed under the GPL. That sort of stuff.

I remember 10 years ago, postgres was a ghost project -- no updates/maintenance. the entire fucking world adopted mysql except for the postgres-obsessed.

Good point. Guess I'll roll back my desktop to E16 on Slink to comply with your state-of-a-decade-ago fetish.

Re:Bring on the hate

[stanleypane]

You're sort of arguing my point for me and trying to disagree at the same time.

I think the *person* that lets that kind of stuff happen is to blame -- not the tool. It sounds like an awful lot of people here are bashing Filemaker because it isn't being used for it's intended purpose. I'm merely making the point that it's the idiot trying to use a hammer to bust up pavement when a jackhammer is more suited to the job.

If you're letting your superiors get away with driving the choice behind inferior tools for a given job, well... can you really blame the tool? Maybe the person in charge of development isn't making their case properly or management is way out of line. But I don't think the tool is to blame in those scenarios.