Slashdot Mirror
Why Oracle Can't Easily Kill PostgreSQL
ruphus13 writes "Claiming that 'PostgreSQL is a FOSS alternative to MySQL and hence Oracle should be allowed to pursue MySQL' is a specious argument, according to Monty Widenius. He fears that Oracle, or someone else, can easily squash PostgreSQL by just 'buying out' the top 20 developers. The Postgre community has fired back, calling that claim ridiculous. According to the article, 'PostgreSQL as a project is pretty healthy, and shows how vulnerable projects like MySQL are to the winds of change. PostgreSQL could die tomorrow, if a huge group of its contributors dropped out for one reason or another and the remainder of the community didn't take up the slack. But that's exceedingly unlikely. The existing model for PostgreSQL development ensures that no single entity can control it, it can't be purchased, and if someone decides to fork the project, the odds are that the remaining community would be strong enough to continue without a serious glitch.'"
You got your money and now you want MySQL (or at least the spotlight) back.
By your argument, PostgreSQL is fragile because the top 20 developers could be bought out by Oracle. If you think that's a buyout target that can be easily squashed, just think what a SQL DB with only one copyright owner can be? Oh wait, that was MySQL and we already know what you did....
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
While buying out the top 20 developers (and I find it unlikely they could in the first place) wouldn't necessarily kill PostgreSQL, it would hamper development until the next 20 developers get up to speed with the code. Imagine what would happen if Microsoft were to buy out the top 20 Linux kernel developers - Linux wouldn't be dead, but it certainly would be stagnant for a while. There's also the real possibility of major changes, since the next group of developers would have a different way of doing things and different goals for the project.
Please stop quoting Monty in slashdot stories, you're giving him a bigger platform for his comments than he deserves. He sold MySQL to Sun and then left Sun. That should be the end of the story. Now he's making sounds like a regular cry baby. Someone please tell him to get some balls and grow up.
This is precisely why people were concerned about letting ANY single company own it.
Any company can be bought out.
If a product can't be effectively forked, it's not completely open source.
If a GPL fork of MySQL isn't good enough, then whose fault is that? And what does that mean for other dual-licensed GPL+Proprietary products?
no text necessary!
While he is technically correct that Oracle could just bribe the key developers to abandon pgsql, this would likely backfire.
First, it assumes that the pgsql developers of importance can be bought. Our world is decadent, but not everyone has a price tag
Second, seems Monty has been dealing with mysql code for too long. The pgsql code base (at least the parts I've seen) is significantly more pleasant to work with than MySQL's, and the sheer number of projects building off of it, commercial or OSS (due to BSD licence) are a testament to how accessible it is. Even if all of the current developers were to be bribed and stopped working on postgresql, there would be a significant incentive for other parties to step in and pick up the slack, given that postgresql has a sizable user base, and especially since it is now widely seen as the heir-apparent to mysql as the open-source rdbms of choice for your run-of-the-mill applications.
Add on top of that the bad press from a failed attempt to use such questionable tactics, and I think not even Oracle is greedy or dumb enough to try anything.
Probably yours...
Widenius is only using scare tactics to try to get MySQL back after enjoying the profits from selling it in the first place.
His constant whining will morph into a cautionary tale about using open source programs in a production environment.
Phrases like "You don't get fired for buying from Oracle, Microsoft, or IBM" will return to the IT workplace and all the work open source developers did to enter the workplace will be set back several years.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
If the top 20 developers are bought out for a good chunk of money, that will be a huge incentive for at least another 20000 developers to try to get the same amount... by developing PostgreSQL further. I hope Oracle does it. The development of PSQL will skyrocket overnight. BTW, MySQL is being forked too, but PSQL has a better license. MySQL is junk, always has been...
My 2 cents on this non-story
The slave morality of MySQL freeloaders is mind-boggling here! People who choose to devote their time and talent to developing free software are not your slaves! They have rights too, including the right to do what's in their own personal interest. Free / open source software is a natural consequence of free market competition, not government force!
BSD is the most restrictive license a freedom-loving person should ever want to use. GPL is even more dependent on government force than proprietary software is, but usually doesn't come close to it in terms of quality or convenience.
He's just pushing a straw-man argument, having unwisely made it for MySQL, and after embaressingly being caught twisting RMS's words (see groklaw, http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100108114314405).
I fear he's strictly in this for himself and his friends, a certain well-know monopolist with a "Codeplex" Foundation...
Bother! I wanted this to be over months ago, so I could get more consulting from Sun's (Now Oracle's) customers.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Some people don't do it for the money. You can't buy them. Ever.
I don't know. I mean, I know what you're talking about: I've turned down a well-paying job with equity that would have set me up pretty good because I felt there was something more important than the money.
But here's the thing: at a certain level, once people offer you enough money (the mark starts somewhere around a million bucks) they're not just offering you money anymore, they're offering you freedom to do whatever you'd like to with your time. If the top 20 Postgres devs would rather do nothing else than work on Postgres, then you're right, this wouldn't happen. But if enough of them have other interests, then it's entirely possible someone could buy their non-participation -- with the ability to spend all the time they like on something else.
Tweet, tweet.
I think the problem is less about Monty wailing about Oracle's calumny, and more about Monty's view of how FOSS works. He seems to think it needs heroes, and that the rest of us plebes need someone to follow before we can get anything useful done. I'll agree with him that projects need leadership, but like comments above have said, there's a difference between project leadership and making yourself indispensable. If Monty was indispensable when he left MySQL, then he was the one that killed it, not Sun, and not Oracle.
No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
what a troll - and that was lying about what Stallman said
Can we get him put on some terr'rist list or something?
I'm not sure that's such a problem. Trac use SQLite as the default database, so it must work well enough for them or they wouldn't do it.
From my perspective, it's not about "selling out". Given the offer of that kind of money, I'd have had tar'd the repo up and personally delivered it to Sun within the hour in a set of gilded DVD cases, and I won't begrudge anyone that same choice either. What *is* annoying is the whole "I want to eat my cake and have it too" whining that Monty has been expressing through this whole thing.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
you have to have concurrency issues completely nailed down (ideally with row level locking and ACID).
Even row-level locking ends up being a scalability issue eventually. This is why PostgreSQL uses MVCC for transaction isolation by default instead, which is one of the reasons it can scale upward well for some types of workloads.
It does have developer mindshare, it just doesn't have PHP developer mindshare.
Then again, PHP and MySQL are a match made in heaven - both underfeatured and broadly outdated, but immensely popular because of (often misleading) marketing, and mostly just being in the right place at the right time.
They're also alike in that, if we could get rid of both, and have, say, Linux+Apache+Python+Postgres, that would make the lives of many developers and admins easier, and the world just a little bit better.