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.'"

28 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. Widenius please move on... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...
    1. Re:Widenius please move on... by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative

      PostgreSQL is fragile because the top 20 developers could be bought out by Oracle

      His argument is "I was bought, therefore anybody else can be bought".

      If Oracle is willing to buy 20 developers at $1 billion each, then he may be right.

    2. Re:Widenius please move on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...PostgreSQL is fragile because the top 20 developers could be bought out by Oracle...

      Sort of like how Monty's been trying to buy all the top MySQL devs away from Sun...

    3. Re:Widenius please move on... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, it was $1bn for the company, not just $1bn for Monty. $1bn for Postgres would be $50m for the 20 developers. Still quite a lot. Of course, there is a big problem here. Because Postgres would still be BSD licensed, there's nothing stopping these developers from giving $1m of this to pay for someone else to work full time on the project...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. Err... by Enry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Err... by dfetter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If somebody were willing to come up with a billion dollars in cash, they could buy the top 100 people in the PostgreSQL project, and that would cramp it severely for a couple of years.

      That said, Monty took VC money, which is basically legalized loan sharking. Taking VC money results, in the overwhelming majority of cases, in the complete screwing of the borrower. Monty was one of the lucky few who managed to get a fortune out of that situation, which makes his whining utterly unseemly.

      --
      What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    2. Re:Err... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um....there's over 70 committers to PostgreSQL. And even the top 20 work for a wide range of companies. Buying them out would be virtually impossible.

      And the whole concept seems to assume that there's a fixed pool of people. I'm guessing that if any of those companies lost their PostgreSQL guy, they'd be looking to hire another one and if it's anything like most open source software there's plenty unpaid or poorly paid people who'd love to take the position. Or with 10% unemployment, there would be soon enough if people knew they lacked developers. For that matter, I think it'd be hard to bury MySQL if just the entire community gathered on one fork and not a dozen.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Err... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sun spent $1bn on MySQL. Spending the same amount of money on PostgreSQL would involve paying the top 20 developers $50m each not to work on PostgreSQL anymore (or to work on a proprietary fork of it). If I were offered that much not to work on a particular open source project, then I'd consider it quite seriously. For one thing I could pay someone else to work on the project full time while I did other things...

      The argument doesn't really make sense, because Oracle is vulnerable to the same tactic. What would happen if IBM offered even $1m to each of Oracle's top database programmers to quit? Would Oracle be able to survive? They'd have to hire a completely new team, but they'd probably manage it. The same is true of PostgreSQL (and other big hippyware projects). Most of the people who work on it are employed by companies which benefit from the project existing. If they all quit then these companies would hire other people to replace them. You'd see a little drop in productivity, but nothing permanent.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Stop quoting Monty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. It would do fine by vanilla_face · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Postgres has a diverse group of contributors so it will be absolutely nothing like Oracle acquiring MySQL. Sure it would be temporarily damaging to the project if Oracle did go out and buy the leading contributors but I can't imagine that Oracle would get away with such predatory actions. FTR I believe that Oracle genuinely wants to use MySQL as s competitor to SQL Server in the bottom of the market.

  5. Why trust Sun? by argent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  6. And Monty Widenius knows about being bought! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    no text necessary!

  7. Not even Oracle is evil enough to try this by atomic777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not even Oracle is evil enough to try this by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. Hell, even PostgreSQL’s documentation is literally fun to read. It’s clean, it’s complete, it’s concise. Other projects should learn from them.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  8. Re:Let me say this as a developer, contributor, by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if anything 'bad' happens to mysql, heads will roll.

    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...
  9. A billion bucks... by RicardoGCE · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...sure makes some people whiny.

  10. Re:Please name names by greg1104 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I would like to have a list of serious companies using PostgreSQL for serious stuff

    PostgreSQL Featured Users; Quotes has additional detail about the scope of some of those. Most people are probably familiar with names like Skype and Cisco on there, but less well known companies like NTT are huge too--and they even sponsor a good chunk of PostgreSQL development because it's so heavily used there.

    And those are just the public record. Because of its BSD license, PostgreSQL also gets used in plenty of places that don't talk about what they're doing with it. For example, I've worked with financial companies that are cutting loose Oracle for PostgreSQL whenever feasible, and with some US defense companies that use PostGIS for geographic databases. (looks out window) I may have already said too much.

  11. Re:Please name names by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It'll be difficult to say who's using it because they download it, try it, run it.. all quietly without fuss. No-one at PostgreSQL website can say who's using the downloads because there's no licensing or even a 'email to get your registration' type stuff going on.

    I can tell you that 3 large UK emergency service centres (the 911 callcentres) use PostgreSQL for handling the incoming 999 calls. Its been used for some time now and we've not had a major failure (I don't think we've had a single failure of any type come to that).

    Taking calls for the emergency services is as serious as you can get. It's even more serious if you're the one who wants an ambulance!

  12. Re:Firebird by gmack · · Score: 4, Informative

    You forgot SQLite. It's small and good enough for most of what MySQL gets used for: simple web forms, stat counters etc.

  13. Join! by Goglu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe, just to ensure that this can't happen, he should join the PostgreSQL project and become a top contributor...

  14. Stallman also challenges Widenius by toby · · Score: 4, Informative

    Richard Stallman has clarified that he believes the GPL is necessary and sufficient protection for MySQL, in direct contradiction to Widenius' call that the license should be changed and copyrights rest in some entity other than Oracle.

    Stallman: One thing that makes no sense at all is the idea of changing the license of MySQL to something non-copyleft. That would eliminate the possibility of selling exceptions, but allow all sorts of proprietary modified versions. Wherever MySQL should go, it isn't there.

    Eben Moglen and the Software Freedom Law Center defend the GPL even more strongly:

    "The GPL was designed specifically to ensure the permanent freedom of software, and the ability of everyone to improve and share their improvements to the program, no matter who acquires the copyrights to the code," Moglen said of the argument he presented to the Commission. "The whole point of GPL as a copyright license is to deal with every contingency that could result in hobbling or destroying the freedom of code shared under it. The drafters of GPL versions 2 and 3 considered scenarios very similar to the ones that the Commission is concerned about now. The design of the license, and the experience we have had using it, show that it can be counted upon to operate as intended in situations like this one."

    Programs released under the GPL, including Linux, Samba, and the GNU Compiler Collection, have continually proven to be resistant to anti-competitive conduct in the marketplace. "GPL’d programs competing effectively against offerings of the richest and most powerful monopoly in the history of information technology have resisted the efforts of the monopolist to find a chink in its armor," Moglen writes.

    --
    you had me at #!
  15. Some people don't do money for the money by weston · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. SQLite is for local storage by toby · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not a multiuser database.

    A web site is a classic multiuser scenario for an RDBMS; you have to have concurrency issues completely nailed down (ideally with row level locking and ACID).

    It's also MySQL's sweet spot.

    --
    you had me at #!
  17. I had the privilege... by Toze · · Score: 5, Insightful
    of speaking with Monty on freenode's mysql channel, when he responded to my suggestion that he needed a helmet and a big cup of STFU. I asked him about forking and MariaDB, and he had pretty much the same response as in the blog linked above. The way he talked about open source, though, it was like he thought it was impossible for a large open-source project to succeed without a strong leader. He expressed little trust in the community, and no faith that an abandoned project could be picked up again. When I asked him about developers scratching itches, and solutions drawing users and more developers, he didn't seem to think it was a feasible solution. He kept defending his posts about Oracle as being about "for the users," and his motivation being to maintain choices.

    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
  18. Re:Please name names by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Informative

    It'll be difficult to say who's using it because they download it, try it, run it.. all quietly without fuss. No-one at PostgreSQL website can say who's using the downloads because there's no licensing or even a 'email to get your registration' type stuff going on.

    We started with yum -y install postgresql-server and now, hundreds of busy clients later and a few updates later, Postgresql is still going stronger than ever...

    And seriously, Postgres is the overachieving underdog of the database world. It has it all - replication, data integrity, legendarily stunning stability, MVCC, foreign keys, triggers, PLPGSQL, subselects, indexes, query scheduling, parameterized statements, DDBC, metatables, cross-database joins... I could go on, and on, and on. It holds up very nicely when Its security
    model is excellent. Its organizational model is stable. It holds up well under very demanding loads and just basically doesn't crash. (In a decade of using it every single business day, I've NEVER HAD an instance of Postgres corrupt running on a RedHat/CentOS server) It costs nothing, it's available by default on any RedHat install CD, and most other distros.

    If Oracle is scared, they should be scared of PostgreSQL, and if you're looking to database something, you should strongly consider Postgres!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  19. The PostgreSQL project already ran that gauntlet by EbNo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I once worked for a company called Great Bridge, which attempted to make money selling a boxed version of PostgreSQL. We employed/contracted with several key PostgreSQL developers, and I distinctly remember discussions with management and at least one of those developers about this very topic. The developers had agreed amongst themselves and with Great Bridge management to limit the number of key committers who took money from Great Bridge in order to ensure the company didn't exert too much control over the project (I'm sure we would have been happy to have every one of them on the payroll). History proves Monty wrong on this one.

  20. Re:Sour grapes? by siDDis · · Score: 4, Informative

    What? The open source replication alternatives are good enough

    You have:
            * PGCluster
            * Slony-I
            * DBBalancer
            * pgpool
            * PostgreSQL table comparator
            * SkyTools
            * Sequoia
            * Bucardo
            * Mammoth Replicator
            * Cybercluster
            * GridSQL (shared-nothing)

    All are open source and some even offer additional commercial support.

  21. Re:Please name names by slick_rick · · Score: 5, Funny

    I happen to know that right after the Columbia accident, all the telemetry data was loaded into a PG database and that is what was used for analysis. At one point tracking the entire .org domain was done with PG as well. I've always thought of MySQL as a racehorse, no other horses can compete for speed when running around a short track (IE read-mostly website). PG is more of a draft horse, able to plow the fields, or pull the wagon, or do a million other things that MySQL is not appropriate for. Oracle would be an Elephant, too huge and expensive to maintain for most things while SQL Server would be a mule, a hopefully sterile off-breed of a horse (Sybase) and a donkey (Windows).

    --
    apt-get install redhat please god - Me (take it easy, I love Debian)