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

3D? by clone53421 · 2009-10-20 04:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, those 2D parties are shallow and make for thin plots.

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.

Re:3D? by Bat+Country · 2009-10-20 04:57 · Score: 2, Funny

The best thing about 3d parties are all the 3d women. All that proprietary "boob-jubbling technology."

--
The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
Re:3D? by Rei · 2009-10-20 05:02 · Score: 1

Plus, they want a neutral party, and 2D entities are generally rather basic.

--
Mr. Wizard... why is this place called the Cave of Hopelessness?

Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d Party by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-20 04:33 · Score: 2, Funny

SCO?

Re: Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d Party by master5o1 · 2009-10-20 09:27 · Score: 1

Who owns the copyrights to MySQL?

--
signature is pants

Your input has been noted by e2d2 · 2009-10-20 04:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Your input has been noted by Magic5Ball · 2009-10-20 05:31 · Score: 1

But why not just move to one of the MySQL forks and compete on technical merit instead of trying to hang on to its monopoly position in the LAMP stack through political/legal shenanigans?

--
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
Re:Your input has been noted by icebike · 2009-10-20 05:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

Exactly.
He took the money.
It had always been quasi open-source, and free to use, and he sold it to Sun. Now when it is acquired by a company who's only purpose for buying Sun was to kill this product and eat its heart he gets religion?

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Your input has been noted by VGPowerlord · 2009-10-20 07:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:Your input has been noted by BitZtream · 2009-10-20 07:30 · Score: 1

If you think the only reason Oracle bought Sun was to kill a perceived competition from MySQL then you are seriously out of touch with reality.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Your input has been noted by jellomizer · 2009-10-20 08:33 · Score: 1

When you sell your pride and joy. The best thing to do is take your money and no longer think about it. Otherwise you will be frustrated because the new owner doesn't care about it as much as you did.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Your input has been noted by davecb · 2009-10-20 09:26 · Score: 1

Indeed, Oracle put time and money into working on innodb performance, as Larry claims that anything which popularizes sql is a good thing for him (;-))
--dave

--
davecb@spamcop.net
Re:Your input has been noted by rtb61 · 2009-10-20 17:16 · Score: 1

That is pretty thin thinking. Oracle want the full software line up, from the operating system right through to the office quite, from personal users right through industry and into education and they want services and support. This is all about Oracle versus M$ and the hardware is secondary. Oracle big push will be in the educational market, a complete offering backend server systems to front end smart books. For business much the same idea, with the addition of either smart or dumb terminals in addition to the smart books.
The best place now for MySql is where it will most effectively be incorporated into OpenOffice for the individual users and small business. For the bigger end, it really is all about services and support upon a national or even global scale.
As for java http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/ is making an end run around it, not that java wont continue to have a very important place in programming but ruby and of course http://rubyonrails.org/ are really going to take a big bite out of java for the bulk of typical relatively simple web programming but if you are talking about .net being squeezed into complete .nothingness you probably are totally correct.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Your input has been noted by Eskarel · 2009-10-20 17:26 · Score: 1

Especially since they're only competitors in the broadest of senses. MySQL isn't in anyway appropriate for seriously large data sets, and Oracle isn't in anyway appropriate for small ones. There's probably a very small market niche where they overlap, but within that niche, you'd probably be better of with MS SQL anyway, which seems to be the middle level product for that market.
Re:Your input has been noted by Fred_A · 2009-10-21 03:34 · Score: 1

Right. Because what you really need to run your web site's forum is to first buy an Oracle database license. Just in case.

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.

Maybe I'm missing something.. by amicusNYCL · 2009-10-20 04:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by indraneil · 2009-10-20 04:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

There is already a fork that is being worked upon by Monty (who was the founder of MySQL) I suspect the real contention is over the brand MySQL (which has significant mind-share) which was transferred to SUN and will now go to Oracle.
A lot of medium sized companies use MySQL today and have support contracts with who-so-ever owns the brand itself. They I guess are the ones who are worried - choosing another database is often not an option.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by Nadaka · 2009-10-20 04:44 · Score: 4, Informative

The letter by RMS addresses that question. That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL, and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by TheRaven64 · 2009-10-20 04:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's GPL'd and requires copyright assignment. That means that whoever owns it can release it under whatever license they like, including using it in proprietary products, while everyone else can only use it if they abide by the terms of the GPL. Although, why anyone still cares about MySQL when there are better, more permissively licensed, alternatives available is beyond me.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by geekmansworld · 2009-10-20 04:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

The problem is that MySQL the company is a significant contributor to MySQL the project. Personally, I see a lot of value in MySQL, but lately the open-source community's love seems to be shifting to PostgreSQL. So I'm guessing that there's some question as to whether the MySQL project could go it alone without the resources the company provides.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by asdf7890 · 2009-10-20 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.. by Nethemas+the+Great · 2009-10-20 04:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

In theory that might be a good idea. However, in practice, forks only have two realistic outcomes. Either they're just plain ignored--as is the case with present MySQL forks, or they divide and segregate the user base. The consequences of the later could potentially prove the undoing of the project. Relying upon products with an unstable and uncertain future make management types nervous...

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by Icegryphon · 2009-10-20 04:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Because if people don't like the fork then someone else will fork it.
So on, and so on, until MySQL is forked so many times people will call it a slut?
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by Jim+Hall · 2009-10-20 04:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Here's what RMS said in the letter:

MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL. Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses. More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL. In making decisions in these matters, Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest - the continued development of a powerful, feature rich free alternative to its core product.
As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform.
The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform, potentially alienating and dispersing MySQL's core community of developers. It could take several years before another database platform could rival the progress and opportunities now available to MySQL, because it will take time before any of them attract and cultivate a large enough team of developers and achieve a similar customer base.

So basically, RMS is concerned that Oracle really would fork MySQL, and end the dual-licensing for any future versions they release. This effectively would make the Oracle fork of MySQL into proprietary or "closed source" software.
And Oracle would likely keep the "MySQL" name, because Oracle really wants that brand recognition in the low-end database market, competing with MS-SQL. So I'd guess a forked F/OSS version of MySQL would need to call themselves something else, losing the name.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by Abreu · 2009-10-20 05:01 · Score: 2, Funny

What do you mean?
GNU IceCat is as popular as... IceWeasel ...
nevermind

--
No sig for the moment.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by merrickm · 2009-10-20 05:03 · Score: 1

Those who are only using the code under the GPL can only distribute it to others under the GPL. Those who own the code can also sell commercial licenses. Also, the name MySQL itself has built up a great deal of brand recognition and loyalty.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by bsDaemon · 2009-10-20 05:03 · Score: 1

Don't people say that already?
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by reashlin · 2009-10-20 05:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

is MySQL really an alternative to Oracle?

I mean sure it 'technically' is. But someone likely to use MySQL isnt looking for such an enterprise product such as Oracle and people looking to spend their money on Oracle can't/wont settle for MySQL. I thought this was basically what the EU said anyway.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by amicusNYCL · 2009-10-20 05:06 · Score: 1

That makes sense, I hadn't considered that sales of the commercial license were used to advance development of the software in general. The arguments that RMS gives make sense.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by mckinnsb · 2009-10-20 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:Maybe I'm missing something.. by the_womble · 2009-10-20 05:16 · Score: 1

Depends what for. Oracle is sometimes used for jobs that MySQL could do, that does not mean that MySQL can do everything Oracle can do.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by srw · 2009-10-20 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, that's why Mambo has such a huge mindshare in the CMS world?
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by larry+bagina · 2009-10-20 05:30 · Score: 1

There are two other possibilities... the fork takes over and the original becomes irrelevant (x.org vs xfree86) or the original adopts the fork (egcs vs gcc). Oracle can't adopt back any outside fork (as they would no longer have full copyright over it).

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by jonbryce · 2009-10-20 05:33 · Score: 1

MySQL's business plan is to sell proprietary licences to people who don't want a free version for whatever reason, and to use this money to fund development of the software. You wouldn't be able to do this with a forked version of the software so you would have to rely a lot more on donations and volunteers to fund development work. Also, the people who don't want to use a free database program would go somewhere else for a proprietary solution, so this would dilute the network effect of other people developing their programs round a MySQL platform.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by MBGMorden · 2009-10-20 05:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

Indeed not, but with most open source products there is usually a trend upwards. PostgreSQL is already a better bet towards gaining capabilities rivaling Oracle eventually, but with enough development MySQL could have eventually made it that far too. You can bet now however, that the Oracle controlled MySQL code base will NEVER gain feature parity with the main Oracle DBMS. It'll be basically stuck now as the less featured, less capable freebie that Oracle gives away to customers hoping to get working relationships built up in order to sell them the more expensive product.
Doesn't bother me much - at work they make me use Microsoft SQL Server and at home I stick to PostgreSQL, but still, it's sad to see a project like this end up in such a dead-end position.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by larry+bagina · 2009-10-20 05:37 · Score: 1

MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software
Yes... and they did that when they were owned MySQL AB and they did that when they were owned by Sun. Did RMS speak out against it then? Does he speak out in favor of SQLite, PostgreSQL and FireBird now? (All of which are free as in freedom, not free as in herpes).

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by jadavis · 2009-10-20 05:40 · Score: 1

just fork
If you "just" fork, then you "just" have source code.
Bug fixes, support, organization, new releases, infrastructure, or anything else will cost extra. Communities that do this aren't ethereal entities that magically accomplish work; they are people, and it takes a long time to put a real team together. It takes even longer if you start with a budget of $0. Respected leaders like Monty can do it more quickly, but even then, it's a serious challenge.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by samkass · 2009-10-20 06:06 · Score: 1

So RMS's basic assertion is that GPL itself wouldn't work as a viable way to develop a package like MySQL, and couldn't compete against someone with a proprietary license? Or am I missing something?
The whole point of the MySQL sale was that Sun paid money to acquire the copyright and trademark assets. If some external group wants to raise a billion dollars and buy the product back they can do what they'd like (including giving it away). Otherwise, they took the money and that's what happens.

--
E pluribus unum
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by turbidostato · 2009-10-20 06:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

"So basically, RMS is concerned that Oracle really would fork MySQL, and end the dual-licensing for any future versions they release."
Where have you read that in RMS's letter?
As I read it, RMS is concerned not because Oracle will close future MySQL development but because they will be the only ones that can profit from dual licensing MySQL and they won't do that because it would make it competing against their cash cow. Oracle would be much better served if they allow MySQL to slowly stagnate -and the point is that they can do it since noone else will be able to cash out the dual license path, than if they close the shop allowing for a faster substitution from another open alternative.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by CastrTroy · 2009-10-20 06:21 · Score: 1

Very true. Sometimes organizations only want to support one database, so whatever database they end up picking (Oracle, MS SQL Server) get's used for absolutely everything, regardless of the fact that a free database (such as MySQL or PostgreSQL) would do the job just fine. It comes down to, pay the license for each need, or pay database admins to manage multiple RDBMSs.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by twofishy · 2009-10-20 06:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Agree with this. I think though it is interesting to me that he has shown his hand so openly - I wonder if he suspects he's about to loose. Basically Monty made a ton of money selling MySQL to Sun (way more than it was worth) and has considerable vested interest in Oracle being forced to sell MySQL because, I guess, he wants to buy it back again. He has overseen a slew of measures that are designed to keep MySQL alive outside of Oracle including the MariaDB fork and formation the Open Database Alliance to unify all development. However MariaDB isn't getting much traction (and is not all that likely to do so) so getting the MySQL name back would be good - and potentially he could sell it to someone else again an another few years which would be a neat trick. By contrast the former MySQL CEO Marten Mickos - and the ex-head of Sun's database group - not only dismissed concerns over Oracle's ownership of MySQL but also called on the EU to approve Oracle's purchase of Sun. Eliison is on record as saying re MySQL "we are going to increase our rate of investment to that product." It seems to me that owning MySQL is a bit of a win/win for Oracle. It generates decent revenues for Sun and can do the same for Oracle. If they don't own it then they loose customers to open source. if they do then they simply have a low cost alternative to the full Oracle platform.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by BitZtream · 2009-10-20 07:10 · Score: 1

No, not in any of its, or its developers wettest dreams. The mere thought that it is shows that the two are completely out of touch with reality.
Part of the argument is that Oracle is 'used for things MySQL can do', which is true both ways, and a flawed argument. Excel is used for things MySQL can do, doesn't make them competing products.
PostgreSQL is something that can be considered a Oracle alternative, not a replacement. MySQL is a completely different class of database useful for different purposes (if you're clueful anyway)

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by BitZtream · 2009-10-20 07:32 · Score: 1

What low priced alternative would be in conflict. MySQL is NOT an alternative to Oracle, they are in completely different classes.
If you don't know this already I suspect you know very little about database servers in general.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by CodeBuster · 2009-10-20 07:32 · Score: 1

That is true right now yes, but there remains the issue of a possible conflict of interest with regard to future development. For example, suppose that someone submits some source code to MySQL that enables a "high-end" or "premium" feature that was previously only available in the more expensive "enterprise" Oracle products. Might not there be a disincentive for Oracle to merge those competing features into the "official" MySQL trunk? Despite what Oracle says or promises, their ownership of MySQL represents an implicit threat against future development of MySQL into areas which may compete with their profitable enterprise products.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by BitZtream · 2009-10-20 07:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

And this is different than MySQL has been for years?
The commercial version of MySQL has always had more features than the GPL version.
It is CURRENTLY stuck as the less featured, less capable freebie that Sun gives away. It sells the more feature rich version.
The situation you describe as a concern is the situation that already exists. Funny part is, when MySQL went this route originally everyone bitched and moaned, RMS included. Now he's promoting it as a requirement for MySQLs survive.
And people continue to follow him ... so sad.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by garyebickford · 2009-10-20 07:39 · Score: 1

An example from outside computer-land: back in the day, supposedly, the folks at Pontiac developed a high performance version of the Fiero, which was originally a low-cost inspired by the Fiat 1/9. I believe the hipro version had a V-8.
The problem with it was that the price point for the hot Fiero was about 1/2 the price of a Corvette, and the Fiero outran the Corvette. Chevy complained that this would sully the 'flagship' of the GM lineup, and the hipro Fiero was killed. And, eventually, so was Pontiac. Looking back, I think the Fiero was the last gasp of a brand that repeatedly tried to establish its own niche with a succession of hotter-performing models, but was never allowed to really reach out and grasp the brass ring.
The lesson here for GM would be one that every high tech company reminds itself every day - your first job is to build your own competition. If you don't, someone else will. Imagine if GM had allowed a real competitor to the Corvette - the American sports car market would have been radically different than it is today - nonexistent as far as American companies goes.
But the lesson here for for open source advocates is as stated above - Oracle has no reason to do anything but slowly strangle MySQL, or perhaps allow it to continue as the stepchild, with various incentives to migrate upward.
Howver, if PostgreSQL were to come out with a MySQL compatibility front end (much as MySQL came out with an MSQL compatibility front end, back in the day, and immediately took off to become what it is today), then Oracle would have to keep the possibliity of a loss of the open source feeder community to PostgreSQL, and would have to continue supporting MySQL as competition for PostgreSQL.
That raises interesting strategic questions for PostgreSQL.

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by rgviza · 2009-10-20 08:16 · Score: 1

I'm all for OurSQL.

--
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-20 08:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

the "fork" is mysql with myisam and maria storage engines - what will you do with non transactional database server? the maria is not even crash safe and it might venture into transactional world in 2099.
with regards to contracts - any company that purchase sun will inherit all sun's contracts and will have to honour them - so any current contract holder have no reason to fear.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by davecb · 2009-10-20 09:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

There isn't a real arguement at all: it's recently come out that a/the objector to MySQL going to Oracle was Microsoft. I strongly suspect it's a put-up job, astroturfing the EC to hurt a competitor.
--dave (who want the deal to complete so he can get more capacity planning gigs) c-b

--
davecb@spamcop.net
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by Sxooter · 2009-10-20 15:01 · Score: 1

Howver, if PostgreSQL were to come out with a MySQL compatibility front end
I can tell you here and now that will never happen. Given MySQL's insane disregard for standards, the needed gutting of pgsql to allow it to behave in the same manner as MySQL is not going to happen, ever.
Silently ignore column level FK references?
Silently truncate ints that are too big to fit?
Silently allow int inserts into an enum to insert the int key directly without error?
There are way too many "oh dear god!" levels of gotchas in mysql to ever try implementing them in pgsql as a compatibility layer.
Now, there's a company out there that provides an Oracle compatibility level that works pretty well. That's something you can sell reasonably well.

--

--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by Sxooter · 2009-10-20 15:06 · Score: 1

Note that there are plenty of solid reliable replication engines available RIGHT NOW. No, none are in the main branch because none are good enough yet, and there's more than one way to skin the replication cat.
Bucardo
Slony
Londiste
Mammoth Replicator
and a half dozen or so more I can't remember right now. Each one, in its own right, is better than MySQL's built in replication. If someone submitted that pile of dog turds to the pg project it would never have been accepted.

--

--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by Miamicanes · 2009-10-20 15:38 · Score: 1

> So I'd guess a forked F/OSS version of MySQL would need to call themselves something else, losing the name.
Personally, I'm rather fond of "rSQL". It's short, it's catchy, and neatly emphasizes the difference between the open source version ("our" SQL) and the new Oracle-centric proprietary branch ("*my* **My** ***MY*** Sql").
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by lonecrow · 2009-10-20 17:19 · Score: 1

I can admit to shortcoming in a lot of M$ products. But MS SQL? Isn't it the one product from MS that not only does not suck but is actually pretty damn good?
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by smchris · 2009-10-20 23:56 · Score: 1

Has it gotten better?
Been a few years, but I understood SQL Server's performance degradation curve with load was poor compared to other DBS's commercial and open source. When I was taking the version 8 classes at our local Oracle center, somebody said, "What about DB2?" and the instructor said, "That's a good system but we're here to talk Oracle." Somebody said, "SQL Server?" and everybody laughed.
Have always preferred PostgreSQL over MySQL myself but Oracle took a swipe back at it as well by releasing XE for department and small business use.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by MBGMorden · 2009-10-21 01:22 · Score: 1

It's not that bad. The included tools (Management Studio) are certainly top notch and the database, overall, has been very easy to work with. Never lost any data using it (I can't say the same for MySQL). Having used it on 3 different database servers for about 4 years now I've managed to get an application to lock it up a few times, but restarting the service always brought it back.
Overall though, looking at it as a backend, PostgreSQL does just as good IMHO, and it's free. SQL Server is free in a limited version that's workable for developers, but anyone wanting to use it to host a real multi-user app is going to have to get a license, which gets expensive fast. Last database server I bought the SQL licensing cost twice what the rest of the system (including OS and hardware) cost. I'd use Postgres more at work if I could, but lately they've literally gotten on an anti-open source rant and want nothing to do with it.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by DragonWriter · 2009-10-21 05:34 · Score: 1

That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL, and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.
Oracle has for some time continued to develop and license a wide variety of database products at different price points and feature sets, some of which are free (some gratis and at least one libre.) There is an inherent tradeoff with the less expensive (and free) versions in that they only make sense if Oracle thinks they will help other offerings (whether software or services) more than they will hurt sales of higher priced versions, to be sure, but that's no less true of, say, Oracle XE when compared to Oracle's high-end server products than it would be of MySQL.
Anyway, while database & middleware is where Oracle still makes most of its software revenue, most of its growth in software revenue is in applications, not databases & middleware. More in house platforms means more flexibility in building applications while avoiding paying some other vendor a profit premium.
So, I'm not convinced there is a real "conflict of interest" here. Certainly, Oracle's interests in developing MySQL will be different than an independent MySQL AB that didn't do anything buy MySQL and MySQL support would be, much as, frankly, Sun's interests were different, but having a different mix of interests isn't the same as having some kind of intolerable "conflict of interest".
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by DragonWriter · 2009-10-21 09:12 · Score: 1

Oracle can't adopt back any outside fork (as they would no longer have full copyright over it).
That might be a reason they would prefer not to adopt back an outside fork, since they couldn't keep up the dual-licensing model, but if commercial license sales weren't as important as support contracts (or, I suppose, custom applications) that Oracle sold around MySQL, they could have a business model which they could choose to adopt which would allow them to adopt-back a fork. A for-profit company can build business around open-source software that they don't own outright (as, in fact, EnterpriseDB does around PostgreSQL.) Though, of course, the flexibility in how you can manage that is more limited for a GPL product than one with a BSD-style license.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by DragonWriter · 2009-10-21 11:13 · Score: 1

As I read it, RMS is concerned not because Oracle will close future MySQL development but because they will be the only ones that can profit from dual licensing MySQL and they won't do that because it would make it competing against their cash cow.
Right, because Oracle doesn't currently do what it can to make money off its various lower-end (both compatible and incompatible with the flagship server) database products, since they would provide less-expensive alternatives that some people might choose instead of the flagship, top-end DB server offering. Well, except in the real world, that is.

Oracle would be much better served if they allow MySQL to slowly stagnate
Right, because if MySQL slowly stagnates, the people who are interested in an open-source or lower-end database system will instead purchase Oracle's flagship product, rather than moving to less expensive and open source third-party offerings like PostgreSQL.

and the point is that they can do it since noone else will be able to cash out the dual license path, than if they close the shop allowing for a faster substitution from another open alternative.
Sure, no one else can cash out the "dual license" path (which does produce a very weak form of vendor lock-in [much less than with any purely-proprietary product] which is a weakness, from a customers point of view, in choosing a dual-licensed product where the Free version uses a GPL-style license rather than a BSD-style one), but that hardly means that no one else can subsidize open source development of a MySQL fork from related operations (such as support.)
Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. by turbidostato · 2009-10-25 03:21 · Score: 1

"Right, because Oracle doesn't currently do what it can to make money off its various lower-end (both compatible and incompatible with the flagship server) database products"
Like? Certainly not BDB which is certainly not in the same niche than Oracle, MySQL, etc. And then there has been in fact noise about Oracle allowing BDB to stagnate.
"Right, because if MySQL slowly stagnates, the people who are interested in an open-source or lower-end database system will instead purchase Oracle's flagship product"
Or they would look for their "free as in beer" Oracle's flagship product versions, yes. Specially if they allow MySQL to slowly stagnate on functionalities but still allow for development of tools for easy migration from MySQL to Oracle.
"rather than moving to less expensive and open source third-party offerings like PostgreSQL."
Point being that "free as in beer" versions of Oracle are not any more expensive than PostgreSQL on adquisition costs and could be cheaper on migration costs as long as Oracle allows for a smooth migration path to arise.
"that hardly means that no one else can subsidize open source development of a MySQL fork from related operations (such as support.)"
Certainly you are right but still it seems you completly missed my point. Please note I never said that I agree with RMS's point of view here; I only stated that RMS's point of view as deduced from his text is *not* what the grandparent said to be and to the point there's nothing on your text reasoning that I'm wrong on that, just that you happen to disagree from RMS's point of view. Well, I disagree here with him too, so what?

Bring on the hate by geekmansworld · 2009-10-20 04:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

Okay, here goes... Maybe they should sell it to Apple?

Yes, hate me, throw things at me. But Apple DOES love MySQL, it's an essential part of OS X Server. Unlike Oracle, IBM and Microsoft, Apple doesn't own an existing database product. Also keep in mind that MySQL the commercial product is not necessarily synonymous to MySQL the open-source project.

Unfortunately, MySQL uses the GPL, whereas Apple has always preferred to open-source under the Apache license.

Re:Bring on the hate by Dynedain · 2009-10-20 04:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Unlike Oracle, IBM and Microsoft, Apple doesn't own an existing database product.
Ummm.... Filemaker?
Granted it's a horrible POS that makes Access look clean and well-developed, but as someone who has to suffer with using it on a daily basis, it IS a database product.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Re:Bring on the hate by 0racle · 2009-10-20 04:56 · Score: 1

it's an essential part of OS X Server
It is?

--
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Re:Bring on the hate by CannonballHead · 2009-10-20 05:09 · Score: 1

Yes, I would love to only be legally allowed to run MySQL on Apple-approved hardware...
Re:Bring on the hate by geekmansworld · 2009-10-20 05:12 · Score: 1

Ummm.... Filemaker?
Eh... I don't know if you can equate front-end-oriented database apps like Filemaker and Access to SQL-server products. Besides, if Apple owned MySQL, would they really neglect it in favour of Filemaker Server?

It is?
I suppose it depends on who you ask. In my web-development circles, you need a database backend. Because MySQL comes pre-installed on OS X Server, it's sort of the default choice. So perhaps "essential" should have been "important".
Re:Bring on the hate by Homr+Zodyssey · 2009-10-20 05:36 · Score: 1

They'd just change the name to "iSQL"...
Re:Bring on the hate by jonbryce · 2009-10-20 05:38 · Score: 1

You can run CUPS on your Ubuntu box without any problems. Why should MySQL be any different?
Re:Bring on the hate by apokruphos · 2009-10-20 05:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Unlike Oracle, IBM and Microsoft, Apple doesn't own an existing useful database product.
Fixed for pedantry. As another person who has to deal with it on a daily basis, the thought of willfully using Filemaker in a development project is sure sign of technical incompetence.

--
"I defy the second law of thermodynamics."
"The hell you do. Get back in the box."
Re:Bring on the hate by stanleypane · 2009-10-20 06:27 · Score: 1

If you're the type of person that does "development projects" than yeah, Filemaker is a severely misguided choice of database software. You aren't the intended market for that product.

It's meant to make ad-hoc databases on-the-fly (minutes or hours, not days). The right tool for the right project and all that. It's strength is in letting someone with little technical know how juggle data in ways that a spreadsheet can't.

Bash Filemaker all you want, but it does what it's intended to. It's almost like the equivalent to a one-off scripting language with a GUI and database backend. I find it invaluable in throwing together quick databases with customer data for various print routines. I've yet to find a tool that can do it as well, even with the horrible printer support Filemaker has.
Re:Bring on the hate by BitZtream · 2009-10-20 07:13 · Score: 1

... Right ... because Apple hardware isn't standard hardware ... it uses completely different Intel Core 2 duo and i7 processors that no one else uses, and different chipsets ... and different video components ...
wait a minute ... no, its the exact same hardware ...
I'm sorry, what the hell are you talking about?

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Bring on the hate by BitZtream · 2009-10-20 07:14 · Score: 1

And what other OSS has Apple done this with exactly?
Go ahead and track it down, I'll wait.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Bring on the hate by apokruphos · 2009-10-20 07:16 · Score: 1

Fantastic. And it is great at that. It is when a company lacks much in the way of technical personnel decides that since it works so great for these smaller things it should be used for that Big Project as well, rather than going for the bigger initial investment of a proper database system. Or a user creates a little project for himself that Boss sees and decides everyone should be using because it worked so great for person X.

Any time it moves beyond the small projects it becomes hell to deal with from a technical standpoint. Which, unfortunately, I have extensive personal experience with.

--
"I defy the second law of thermodynamics."
"The hell you do. Get back in the box."
Re:Bring on the hate by mcgrew · 2009-10-20 07:22 · Score: 1

Access is barely a database, and I say that as someone who has to suffer with using it on a daily basis. I wish someone would port NOMAD to the PC.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Bring on the hate by stanleypane · 2009-10-20 08:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Bring on the hate by Dynedain · 2009-10-21 08:21 · Score: 1

I agree... my point was that Filemaker makes Access look good by comparison.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....

Neutral 3rd Party? Let's See Here ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-20 04:42 · Score: 2, Funny

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

So that leaves us with?

mysql> use companies; Database changed mysql> select * from parties where bias = null; Empty set (0.00 sec)

Hmmm ....

sound like a good idea... by ynohoo · 2009-10-20 04:44 · Score: 1

hang on, Stallman thinks it is a good idea? The kiss of death!

--
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?

Transactions by fartrader · 2009-10-20 04:45 · Score: 4, Funny

So its true, MySQL still doesn't support Transaction rollbacks.

Re:Transactions by julesh · 2009-10-20 08:49 · Score: 1

So its true, MySQL still doesn't support Transaction rollbacks.
Yeah, it does. The sale isn't committed yet.
Re:Transactions by neoform · 2009-10-21 05:21 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm missing the joke.. but.. InnoDB supports them. I use them all the time.

--
MABASPLOOM!

Who cares what Widenius & Stallman think? by ReallyEvilCanine · 2009-10-20 04:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

If it was that important to Widenius then why did he sell his company instead of holding onto it? And Stallman giving business advice to anyone is like a vegetarian giving tips on how to slow-barbecue whale liver.

Is mySQL open source? If not, it doesn't matter that Larry owns it. If it is, it can fork. End of discussion.

Re:Who cares what Widenius & Stallman think? by turbidostato · 2009-10-20 06:13 · Score: 1

"If it was that important to Widenius then why did he sell his company instead of holding onto it?"
Widenius didn't sell it to a big database owner but to a company that were it not that it's in fact bought by Oracle would be exactly the kind of "neutral third party" he is asking for now.
Not to say that Widenius wouldn't sell to Oracle back in the day (I don't know) but that his past actions are well aligned with his current sayings.
Re:Who cares what Widenius & Stallman think? by BitZtream · 2009-10-20 07:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

What actions are those? Make small fortune selling it to someone then bitching about what they did with it?
In cause you didn't notice while you were writing it just now, that ideal neutral third party did EXACTLY what he's complaining about.
There is no neutral third party in business, the idea is silly in and of itself. Software is a tool and owning the code is an asset, both of which will be used to make the most money possible, ESPECIALLY in a public traded company where making the share holders money IS the priority, by law.
If he really didn't expect something like this to happen eventually, he's simply retarded and should be hospitalized.
We know thats not the case, so we must assume he's just a whiney little bitch.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

There is more to it than that by capt.Hij · 2009-10-20 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is more to the project than just the source. First, some of the people are still working for Sun/Oracle. Their expertise is kind of important, and it is not so easy to just pick up the source and start making changes.

The other issue is the documentation. That is not so free. The mysql documentation is considerable and is a tremendous resource. Back in the day, it was the deciding reason that I went with mysql. If I went on purely technical requirements alone I would have likely chosen a different platform.

ONE BILLION DOLLARS, MUHAHAHAH by ShaggyZet · 2009-10-20 04:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Sounds like a good plan. Now if they can only find a neutral 3rd party dumb enough to pay anything close to $1 billion for it. How about Computer Associates, isn't that where bad software goes to die?

Re:ONE BILLION DOLLARS, MUHAHAHAH by RedDrake · 2009-10-20 05:21 · Score: 1

If only 'bad' software went to CA to die. On occasion they kill perfectly good software.

why is this an issue for antitrust? by illuminaut · 2009-10-20 04:54 · Score: 1

MySQL and Oracle have never directly competed, and never will. If Oracle were to shell MySQL, there are plenty of groups willing to jump in and maintain a fork. I don't know why a lot of people seem to be worried about Oracle's commitment to open source anyway. They have a good track record and there's no business reason to stop supporting it.

--
- illuminaut, arbiter elegantiarum.

Re:why is this an issue for antitrust? by BitZtream · 2009-10-20 07:52 · Score: 1

You sir have not drank enough of Stallman's special coolaid. Here, have a glass, and don't worry about feeling sleepy, the space ship behind the comet will beam you up soon.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Big business kills open source... by Kate6 · 2009-10-20 04:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

This makes me think of nVidia's purchase of 3dfx. 3dfx (makers of the famous Voodoo series of video cards) were very friendly to the open source community... They played a very pivotal role in the realm of 3D rendering on Linux when it was still in its infancy, contributing significantly to OpenGL. Then nVidia bought them and discontinued its entire product line... And something like 6 months later it was announced that nVidia won the contract to make the graphics chips on the original Microsoft X-Box. Coincidence?

MySQL, by virtue of being an open source product available in a "community" version for free, has become a central part of the business model of countless small businesses. And it's just fallen into the ownership of its biggest closed-source, for-pay competitor. This could potentially have ramifications for the global economy as a whole. Very scary.

Re:Big business kills open source... by LWATCDR · 2009-10-20 05:10 · Score: 1

But 3dfx cards where slow and crappy. They died and nVidia picked up what was left after nVidia and ATI killed them. nVidia has for many years produced the best 3d drivers available for Linux even though they where closed source they where free as beer. Not perfect but nVidia was supporting Linux before it was cool.
MySQL? It has had a duel license for forever. Options like Postgres and Firebird have been around for years. So far Oracle has done nothing evil with MySQL so we should get all bent because it could happen> Oracle has been pushing Linux for years for database servers which has been a big help to Linux in the enterprise.
What it comes too is that some people say that Oracle owning MySQL raises anti-trust issues. I just don't see that. Oracle has competition from DB2 and MSSQL in the closed source category and MySQL has competition from PsotgresSQL and Firebird in the FOSS category. If nothing else this is wake up call for more FOSS projects to look at databases other than MySQL.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Big business kills open source... by mr_da3m0n · 2009-10-20 08:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

But 3dfx cards where slow and crappy. They died and nVidia picked up what was left after nVidia and ATI killed them. nVidia has for many years produced the best 3d drivers available for Linux even though they where closed source they where free as beer. Not perfect but nVidia was supporting Linux before it was cool.
Your flawed view of history offends me.
Re:Big business kills open source... by LWATCDR · 2009-10-20 08:58 · Score: 1

Flawed how? 3DFX cards at the the end just couldn't compete with nVidia and ATI. Slow and crappy is probably unfair. To expensive for the performance maybe?

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Big business kills open source... by adolf · 2009-10-20 08:58 · Score: 1

I'm old enough to remember 3D on Linux before Linux was cool, and 3dfx was the only game in town with anything resembling useful software support, courtesy of GLIDE and Mesa 3D. It took years for other vendors to have similarly functional hardware under Linux.

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:Big business kills open source... by Eskarel · 2009-10-20 17:40 · Score: 1

3dfx died because they got cocky. They presumed that 16 bit and 10% faster could beat 32 bit and they were wrong. They presumed that glide(I think that's what it was called) could beat OpenGL and Direct3d, they were wrong.
There was a Voodoo 5, but no one bought it, and by the time NVIDIA bought them there was no product line to bother discontinuing and they got the company for a song, grabbed what they could use and threw the rest away like the worthless pile of crap it was.
I don't know what role 3dfx had in Linux because I never owned one(chose 32 bit and slightly slower like everyone else) and wasn't using Linux that far back, but NVIDIA have been pretty supportive, and 3dfx was dead before the Xbox was even in development.
Re:Big business kills open source... by LWATCDR · 2009-10-21 02:02 · Score: 1

I do a as well except I couldn't afford a 3dfx or Matrox card back then. But I still feel that saying that "big companies" hurt FOSS is stupid. IBM and Intel contributed a lot to FOSS. Even Red Hat isn't exactly a small company these days.
Sun was a big company and they gave us OpenOffice. I just hope that OpenOffice survives the merger. MySQL while important is easier to replace than OpenOffice IMHO.
The point it that this mindless all big companies are evil idea needs to stop. Google, Yahoo, IBM, Sun, and Intel have all contributed to FOSS and have all benefited from it as it should be.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Big business kills open source... by adolf · 2009-10-21 10:46 · Score: 1

Sun was a big company, that seems to have just about failed despite their contributions to to the open-source versions of OpenOffice and MySQL. I'm not sure that it's the best example in the world. :)
They give away all of their flagship products, from the aforementioned MySQL (which cost them $1 billion), to OpenOffice ($73.5 million), to Java ($lots), Solaris ($lotsmore). It's not at all clear to me, from the current state of that company, that any of these moves helped them to succeed.

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:Big business kills open source... by LWATCDR · 2009-10-22 04:36 · Score: 1

Sun buying MySQL was a mistake I feel but it may have been the reason that they got bought.
OpenOffice I think was a good move for them Java I never understood how Sun was going to make money off of Java. Tools and selling Solaris servers maybe?
Solaris I feel was too little too late. Solaris was badly hurt by Linux. It is a great OS but it is hard to complete with free when you lack a the software lock in that Microsoft has.
Sun may not have benefited as much as the other but they may have gone belly up and not been bought if they hadn't had those FOSS projects.
IBM, Intel, and RedHat seem to be doing well.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Big business kills open source... by adolf · 2009-10-22 18:11 · Score: 1

I think I see your logic, but I don't agree with it.
I think Sun would've gone belly-up no matter what. The Star Office purchase was probably a good deal (at a paltry $73 million during boom-time economics), but it's not at all clear to me how they might ever recoup that investment outside of earning some good will from the community. Open Office runs no worse on my PC than it does on Sun hardware, nor does Java, nor MySQL. I might even suggest that they've done too good of a job supporting all of the platforms that they do. However, giving Solaris away seems no-brainer in light of the onslaught of Linux, as continuing to license it as they used to would be just like whipping a dead horse.
IBM and Intel support OSS, to the extent that is reasonable for them to ensure a good experience for users of their hardware, which is obviously good for them. Redhat, essentially, sells support for what is one of the only Linux distributions with (what is perceived to be) corporate acceptance, and their pricing structure somewhat satisfies the old "you get what you pay for" buying mentality. These companies all have a clear path toward monetizing their OSS efforts; Sun did not.
I'm all for the whole "information wants to be free" mentality. But when making information free kills the creator, it really hasn't accomplished much that is positive when it's all said and done.

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:Big business kills open source... by LWATCDR · 2009-10-23 01:48 · Score: 1

I do agree with you. OpenOffice makes sense in that it helps break the Microsoft Office lock in. It allows people to just use Solaris and not have both a Solaris workstation and a Windows desktop on their desk. Plus Sun was hoping to charge for support for OpenOffice/StarOffice.
I think you and I agree a lot more than we differ. My point was that FOSS benefits a lot more from big companies contributing than most people know.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

wow by nomadic · 2009-10-20 05:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product? Why?

Re:wow by viralMeme · 2009-10-20 05:11 · Score: 4, Informative

"Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product? Why?"

To slowly dilute its market share and ultimately mop up MySQLs customer base ..
Re:wow by nomadic · 2009-10-20 05:33 · Score: 1

To slowly dilute its market share and ultimately mop up MySQLs customer base ..

They don't have a customer base sufficiently large to be worth $1 bn.
Re:wow by nomadic · 2009-10-20 05:39 · Score: 1

I know you're talking about Sun's acquisition of MySQL, but the acquisition of Sun by Oracle never made sense. Sun possessed virtually nothing I could see that Oracle might want. Oracle had completely moved their hardware platform to Linux from Solaris because of an earlier spat with Sun. I have a sneaking suspicion that Oracle was covering their ass from some possible GPL infringement with MySQL. Nothing else makes sense.

I just can't buy it; any GPL problem wouldn't cost $1 bn to fix. I think it was irrational exuberance to the point of imbecility over what MySQL could do for them.
Re:wow by TheLink · 2009-10-20 05:42 · Score: 1

Seems to me that Oracle will try to convert as much of MySQL's marketshare to $$$ as possible. Kill/slow development of certain MySQL features, create some easy upgrade paths to Oracle = profit.

Makes a lot more sense than ebay's billion dollar purchase of skype, which somehow left out the important bits :). I'm still not sure how ebay recently managed to convince others to buy skype from them...
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:wow by Hognoxious · 2009-10-21 06:20 · Score: 1

Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product? Why?
To stop anybody else getting it. That's what them there PHBs call strategy, that is.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

There's plenty of competition. by RightSaidFred99 · 2009-10-20 05:02 · Score: 1

They won't have a leg to stand on if they try to force this. There is an enormous amount of competition at all levels in all segments of the Database market.

MySQL has been accepted because Oracle owns it by shoppa · 2009-10-20 05:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

On several occasions I've been able to convince customers that MySQL was good enough but only because Oracle owned it:

Here's an app, I'm using MySQL
You can't use MySQL, we're an Oracle shop
Oracle owns MySQL
Well, then, that's OK then

Re:MySQL has been accepted because Oracle owns it by MechaStreisand · 2009-10-20 06:18 · Score: 1

That's funny, because the sale hasn't gone through yet, so Oracle does not actually own MySQL.

--
Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
Re:MySQL has been accepted because Oracle owns it by DragonWriter · 2009-10-21 09:00 · Score: 1

That's funny, because the sale hasn't gone through yet, so Oracle does not actually own MySQL.
People selling things lie to (actual and prospective) customers. Film at 11.
(Though I suppose the "...and casually drop it into a conversation on Slashdot" part is, to be fair, a bit novel.)

they're hardly competitors by illuminaut · 2009-10-20 05:05 · Score: 1

biggest closed-source, for-pay competitor? They're for vastly different purposes, and if anything they can complement each other, but don't compete. MySQL won't die, even if Oracle decides it's not worth maintaining, it would just change names and continue as a separate fork. More likely, Oracle will continue to put development effort into it to make it play nicely with their own line of products.

--
- illuminaut, arbiter elegantiarum.

Is Monte only looking out for himself by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-20 05:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

disclaimer: I work for Sun and know nothing about mysql...

Here's what I don't get, Monte and company sell mysql to Sun for 1 billion dollars.
I assume Monte got a decent portion of that.. I also assume that Monte had to
sign a no compete agreement for that sum of money.

I'm sure Sun would be more that happy to sell back mysql if
the original owners would like to give the $1 billion back.. I'm
guessing they wouldn't.

I would bet Monte wouldn't even give his portion back. Could
this be Monte trying to keep the money he got and try to get
out of a non compete agreement? (if he did indeed sign one).

Yes, I'm bitter... ;-) As the EU holds this up longer, more people
@ Sun will lose jobs over political crap. If Oracle was based out
of the EU this wouldn't have happened. I'm willing to wager if SAP
wasn't based out of the EU, this wouldn't be delayed either...

Re:Is Monte only looking out for himself by Improv · 2009-10-20 06:30 · Score: 1

MySQL should've been buried, not bought. It was a purchase that didn't make sense for an inferiour OSS product. We have PostgreSQL for solid opensource database needs, and we can buy Oracle or DB2/ licenses if we need something better.
I've liked Sun for quite some time, and this purchase is among the most mysterious I've seen for a generally sensible, careful company. There are plenty of better things Sun could've done with that money, from acquisitions to projects. Seeing this, I hate to see Sun suffer, given that a lot of really cool stuff has come out of Sun over the years and Solaris is still a great commercial Unix. At the same time, I would love to see MySQL sputter enough that people begin to migrate to a better database. The only reason MySQL is popular is habit - it's not easier to set up, it's not easier to administer, it's not easier to develop for, it performs worse, and it is less standards compliant than PostgreSQL (and again, there are nicer databases yet for people who are willing to pay). On an even playing field, MySQL would be buried. Maybe market confusion will help create that.

--
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

Re:Like Yogi Berra says by clone53421 · 2009-10-20 05:09 · Score: 4, Funny

I like better, "So, this MySQL programmer walks into a bar, goes up to two tables and asks 'Excuse me, may I join you?'"

Saw it in someone's sig here.

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.

Speaking of tables by ClosedSource · 2009-10-20 05:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Everybody leaves the Ark and Moses addresses the animals "Go forth and multiply".

So all the animals go into the forest, but Moses notices two snakes that haven't moved.

"Why don't you go and multiply?", He asks.

One of the snakes answers "We can't, we're Adders!".

So Moses and his sons chop down one of the trees and form it into a rough-hewn table.

He addresses the snakes and says "Here is your log table, now go forth and multiply".

Re:Speaking of tables by clone53421 · 2009-10-20 05:25 · Score: 1

Heh. 'Course, adders can multiply, it just takes longer. Since multiplying is fun, longer is better, right?
Not that I'd know, or anything. :(

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Re:Speaking of tables by LordKronos · 2009-10-20 06:22 · Score: 5, Funny

Moses had an Ark, too?
Re:Speaking of tables by clone53421 · 2009-10-20 06:29 · Score: 1

Yes, except the only animals inside it would have been worms, not snakes, except the manna in the ark didn't spoil like it did normally so there weren't any worms in it anyway.

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Re:Speaking of tables by powerlord · 2009-10-20 06:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Moses had an Ark, too?
He was keeping up with the Noahs. ... Or maybe he was just hanging out in his Crib.

--
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Re:Speaking of tables by ClosedSource · 2009-10-20 09:54 · Score: 1

One little detail ...

Held up? by vvaduva · 2009-10-20 05:23 · Score: 1

How can a transaction between two U.S. companies be held up by some European commission? What am I missing?

Re:Held up? by kthejoker · 2009-10-20 05:37 · Score: 2, Informative

The transaction itself doesn't have to be held up, but if the EU rules it violates anti-trust, they won't be allowed to do business in the EU. Kind of a mood-killer, if you will.
Re:Held up? by vvaduva · 2009-10-20 05:51 · Score: 1

Thanks, it makes sense.

Oh, that would be so darned *spiffy!* by gestalt_n_pepper · 2009-10-20 05:32 · Score: 1

Of course, we live in a capitalist system, so the most likely answer you'll get to that suggestion is "f*** off" but more politely worded.

Note to open source guys. Larry Ellison thanks you for the free labor.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.

Is Oracle more evil than Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-20 05:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Wait. I'm confused. Oracle is now evil and Microsoft isn't evil? When did this happen? As a Microsoft hater do I need to hate Oracle now too?

I'm confused. Is this some sort of plot by Bill Gates to divide and conquer? What next!?

At least Steve Jobs is still okay. ...or is he?

Re:Is Oracle more evil than Microsoft? by garyebickford · 2009-10-20 07:51 · Score: 1

Larry Ellison is at least as arrogant and rapacious as anyone at Microsoft. On the other hand, he's supporting the BMW/Oracle America's cup boat, which is cool, and has stepped up to the place to force some even bigger a*(^^**^* (see 'Alinghi') via a multi-year court ase. They've finally won in court, and the race is on.
Here's the website: BMW Oracle This trimaran is 90 feet by 90 feet with top speeds approaching 50 MPH. It is a very scary boat to ride, by all accounts - or to drive. Imagine a 90 foot car cornering on two wheels at 150 MPH - that's essentially how BMW Oracle sails.
I don't use Oracle, but I'm glad to see some of that money going to a good cause!! :D

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:Is Oracle more evil than Microsoft? by davecb · 2009-10-20 09:30 · Score: 1

The objection to Oracle owning MySQL came in part from Microsoft, a competitor, and other as-yet-unknown parties. Wanna bet it's just a way of throwing a wooden show in Sun's gears, for all the flack MS used to get from them?
--dave

--
davecb@spamcop.net
Re:Is Oracle more evil than Microsoft? by selven · 2009-10-20 12:49 · Score: 1

Only Google is left! All hail the holy spirit of Google up in the cloud(s)!

Re:How about Google? by argent · 2009-10-20 05:36 · Score: 1

Good point. I'd mod you up funny if I had mod points, and if I hadn't already posted in the thread.

Sah-LOOT! by ChipMonk · 2009-10-20 05:40 · Score: 1

A tip of my hat to you, for pulling out a pertinent (to the parent) cartoon from 10 years and 2 days ago.

Re:Sah-LOOT! by VGPowerlord · 2009-10-20 06:57 · Score: 1

The sad part is, Penny Arcade wasn't funny then and still isn't now!

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:Sah-LOOT! by julesh · 2009-10-20 08:42 · Score: 1

The sad part is, Penny Arcade wasn't funny then and still isn't now!
I dunno. I thought "inverse nippomatics" was at least amusing...
Re:Sah-LOOT! by Skylinux · 2009-10-20 10:25 · Score: 1

You might be too young.
I still remember the day my friends and I tried either Toombraider 2 or 3 and checked if her boobs where still triangles, when viewed from the side. So this comic hits home and brought a smile on my face.
Thanks
Well looking at your linked Homepage you are probably not too young but you never checked Lara out from the side :)

--
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.

10 months worth of MySQL by Glasswire · 2009-10-20 05:43 · Score: 1

Sun paid about 1 billion for MsSQL and Oracle says EU hold up is costing them 100s of millions of dollars a month by delaying decision which appears to largely hinge on Oracle's plans for MySQL. So Oracle must value it very highly since with a few more months of delay, Oracle reluctance to let it go will cost it more than it's worth.
So why does Oracle care that much about MySQL? One can speculate...

Re:10 months worth of MySQL by Eskarel · 2009-10-20 17:49 · Score: 1

They probably don't care that much about MySQL, that isn't why they bought Sun(or why IBM tried to buy Sun earlier). To be honest, I don't think they ever thought that the whole MySQL thing would cause them the dramas it has, especially not during the whole global recession when everyone was approving everything.
Now of course, they probably think that going ahead as is will take them less time than backing out and trying to sell off the MySQL component of Sun, getting that sale approved, and then trying to run the acquisition through again. Sun doesn't really have all that much longer to live, and if Oracle were interested in trying to grab up Sun assets at the bankruptcy fire sale, they'd have just waited for Sun to collapse on its own. If the EC ordered them to sell off MySQL as soon as possible as part of the deal, they'd probably still go through with it. They just don't care that much about MySQL.

Re:postgres people suck by LaminatorX · 2009-10-20 05:51 · Score: 1

No one is advocating deployment of Postgres95. Current PostgreSQL OTOH deserves the praise it gets.

The problem for Oracle... by TemporalBeing · 2009-10-20 05:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

...is that if they keep it, it'll create Antitrust issues for them. So the suggestion is to sell it.

Except, that's isn't exactly a good idea right now either. After all, they sold it to Sun for $1 Billion USD. What would it say if it Oracle/Sun sold it for less - even $900 Million USD? That MySQL wasn't worth $1 Billion USD; which would not be good PR for the F/OSS community, likely run afoul of Antitrust issues (for the PR reasons - especially if Oracle/Sun went - "see it mustn't have been all that good since we couldn't get what we paid for it"), but at least Oracle/Sun would get a tax write off on the difference.

So then, why not kill two birds with one stone - spin MySQL off as its own company. Make it a non-profit (MySQL Foundation) or something; keep a seat or two of the board, and let the community fill the rest. Oracle could get very good PR for doing so too.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)

Re:The problem for Oracle... by Eskarel · 2009-10-20 17:51 · Score: 1

They might very well do that, but in order to do it, they have to actually buy it first. Sun can't afford to give away anything at the moment because they're financially screwed and their stock holders would burn them alive.

The database is dying technology anyways! by ericspinder · 2009-10-20 05:54 · Score: 1

Flame bait, probably, but I was wondering what people thought of Terracotta, and technology like it.

--
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.

Re:The database is dying technology anyways! by BitZtream · 2009-10-20 07:29 · Score: 1

Yea, so is BSD, netcraft confi ...
oh hell, why do I even bother anymore

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Re:postgres people suck by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-10-20 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

MaxDB? by t482 · 2009-10-20 06:00 · Score: 1

My pet theory is that SAP is helping block the merger due to Mysql MAXDB. Which I believe used to be Adibas from SAP. If Oracle get it hands on that they could hurt SAP revenues and grab SAP customers. I don't believe the EU will back down. I wonder it that could kill the merger?

Re:MaxDB? by Dan667 · 2009-10-20 07:10 · Score: 1

we can only hope. I don't dislike Oracle databases, but them also owning Mysql would be the kiss of death for Mysql no matter what they say otherwise.

We don't know you that well by Dareth · 2009-10-20 06:30 · Score: 1

I can just imagine the people replying, "We don't know you well enough for an inner join, but feel free to take either the seat to the left or the right."

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling

Re:We don't know you that well by clone53421 · 2009-10-20 06:40 · Score: 1

So if he inner joined anyway, they'd be cross?

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Re:We don't know you that well by Altus · 2009-10-20 17:29 · Score: 1

Proof that MySQL ruins threesomes.

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

Oh I Dunno ... by daveime · 2009-10-20 06:44 · Score: 1

Perhaps they could sell it back to Monty ... I'm sure he'd know what to do with it.

Re:Oh I Dunno ... by selven · 2009-10-20 12:50 · Score: 1

Keep working on his existing fork of it?

The REAL news is RMS' admissions by FallLine · 2009-10-20 06:57 · Score: 1

In the letter he co-authored:

1) They all but admit that the dual-licensing is critical to the survival of not just MySQL in its current form, but also any fork derived from it.
2) They completely fail to mention any sort of alternative business model for MySQL or any of its derivatives, i.e., no mention of the mythical "support" business model especially or anything else.
3) They neglect the potential that code can be forked and successfully managed by un-paid volunteers.
4) They ignore that possibility that its users will donate money or large companies will make substantial contributions to cover development.
5) They also acknowledge the fragility of the open source ecosystem due to conflicting licenses

@@@@@@

Although I believe their analysis is largely correct as far as MySQL's survival is concerned, it demonstrates very little faith in GPL-licensed projects to grow and be maintained in absence of proprietary rights and directly contradicts the overall message of RMS and company. If they merely posited that Oracle could delay the development of MySQL for, say, a year it would not necessarily be contradictory, but to propose this is an earth shaking event and do so in the manner which they did is simply inconsistent with RMS and his follower's message.

Re:The REAL news is RMS' admissions by BitZtream · 2009-10-20 07:22 · Score: 1

Earth shaking to who? Most people knew this all along. Most os /. may be blinded to it, but no one else is surprised.
The idea that the whole 'support' based sales is the way to go is silly, IF it were the way to go, the massive global companies that do JUST THIS SORT OF THING as their only business model would have done it long long ago.
Thats what these guys DO, and they don't bother. It is possible they are just slightly more clueful.
Okay, I've got my firesuit on, you may flame now.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

MySQL competes with Oracles ability to compete by msimm · 2009-10-20 07:10 · Score: 1

MySQL competes with Oracles ability to compete in the space MySQL currently occupies (see Oracle Database 10g Express Edition). The company I worked for happily paid for expensive Oracle licensing for years before becoming comfortable enough with MySQL to begin to transition away from the enterprise licensing (and growth limiting cost). We didn't really need all the features, so we didn't effectively gain much of anything by using their database, but at the time our company started they seemed the best choice from what was available. I'd expect many companies have probably found themselves in similar circumstances and in that way MySQL (PostgreSQL, etc) are effectively cutting Oracles higher cost offerings out of a not so insignificant portion of the available business.

The real question might be could the new Oracle business culture accept the smaller margins offered by supporting a open source database in favor of the more lucrative model they've been accustomed to. And they might be able to do it, or see that they need to whether they like it or not. But this is Oracle we're talking about, common sense need not apply.

RAC licensing has probably helped boost the popularity of MySQL as much as anything. We paid it for years just to have access to more or less basic SQL features.

--
Quack, quack.

Re:postgres people suck by BitZtream · 2009-10-20 07:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

So ... basically, you're 10 years out of touch with reality, that is what you are saying, yes?

Linux is statistically irrelevant compared to Windows on the planet, yet I'm sure you'll rave about how awesome it is and how its better than everything else.

Fanboys suck, and you sir, are a fanboy. Not even a fanboy with accurate information.

While the 'entire fucking world' was adopting MySQL, PostgreSQL surpassed MySQLs sad little feature set and became a DB server with real enterprise level features.

PostgreSQL IS an Oracle competitor. MySQL isn't.

To Oracle, MySQL is a bit like Access is to MS SQL server, they may both be database engines, but they aren't anywhere close to teh same class of product and they certainly don't serve the same purpose to anyone with half a clue.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Nah, they should keep it. by outZider · 2009-10-20 08:47 · Score: 1

They could benefit from the experience at Oracle, and maybe add a few engineers to the team that understand "data integrity" and "don't corrupt data when the server dies", oh, and, "stop corrupting the database when the disk runs out of space".

--
- oZ
// i am here.

Just fork it by techsoldaten · 2009-10-20 09:50 · Score: 1

Just fork it. I am never going to use Oracle MySQL for anything, I would sooner switch to PostGres for everything I do.

M

Re:A suggested alternative by petrus4 · 2009-10-20 10:37 · Score: 1

Wow...someone really doesn't want anybody to know about non-GPL licensed FOSS, do they? ;)

Re:postgres people suck by Sxooter · 2009-10-20 14:53 · Score: 1

Wow, not just misinformed, but proud of it too!

I started using pg about 10 years ago on version 6.5.2, released 1999-09-15. Here's a list of fixes that 6.5.2 provided:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/release-6-5-2.html (I count 23). note the previous version, 6.5.1 was released 1999-07-15. So that's 23 changes in two months. 10 years ago.

7.0.0 was released on 200-05-08, or about 8 months later, and here's the list of changes / updates to that:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/release-7-0.html (I count 4 major architectural changes and about 275 or so minor changes)

Yeah, no development on pgsql 10 years ago. You might try fact checking your shit next time.

--

--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.

Re:A suggested alternative by Sxooter · 2009-10-20 15:08 · Score: 1

Yep, but ask on slashdot and you'll find out you and I and other pgsql users are the "fanbois". urg.

--

--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.

Re:postgres people suck by mbrod · 2009-10-21 04:39 · Score: 1

Too arrogant!

The postgres developers, the poster above you (Just Some Guy) and yourself, as you proved quite aptly:

From the postgres site:

"A PostgreSQL database developer is someone who is actually working on the project, not someone using it to develop an application or a website. We don't hire programmers, we reach across the Internet, drawing the best database developers in the world to PostgreSQL"

People prefer MySQL over postgres because the community is friendlier. A friendly open community will be around longer, have more users and hence get more attention and address more real world problems for people.

I'll take a product that I can get support with over one I will get insulted asking a question about.

Re:postgres people suck by DragonWriter · 2009-10-21 06:02 · Score: 1

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.

The query rewrite system, robust set of built-in types, extensibility, and support for recursive CTEs are also worth consideration.

Re:Big business kills everything... by Hognoxious · 2009-10-21 06:14 · Score: 1

Unless you basically live like the Amish[1] then aren't you being just a little bit hypocritical?

[1] Not saying there's anything wrong with it, by the way, if it's what floats your raft[2].
[2] Boats, with their pointy ends and all, are the work of the devil.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:postgres people suck by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-10-21 07:19 · Score: 1

I had to mess around with MySQL the other day to maintain a Drupal database, and tried something like DELETE FROM foo WHERE foo.id IN (SELECT DISTINCT id FROM bar) and it complained that you can't delete from a subselect. That didn't exactly make me regret my old switch to PostgreSQL.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Loved to death by EmperorOfCanada · 2009-10-25 17:19 · Score: 1

Oracle will throw money and love at MySQL until it is dead. If I were Oracle (and wanted MySQL dead) I would fund as many forks of MySQL as possible. Ideally I would fund the forks run by the biggest bozos with huge egos and who love to spend money marketing (My MySQL is better than yours). I would also allow each of the forks to call themselves the official MySQL fork so as to confuse everyone. On top of that I would create a byzantine approval process for these forks so that any I don't like would have to change its name from MySQL. Then I could prove to the various anti-trust investigators how much I (Oracle) loved MySQL and that we did nothing but support a vibrant and competitive community. And if any of the forks begins to take off I would pull the rug out from underthem and give money to whomever was causing them the most problems. This might cost Oracle a few 10's of millions but I can't imaging the number in lost sales the MySQL has cost Oracle over the years. Billions? If I can think of this in 5 minutes what can the Oracle marketing people come up with? If I were an anti-trust government organization I would force Oracle to hand MySQL back to the original creators for a buck and let them carry on as they were.

Slashdot Mirror

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

160 of 207 comments (clear)