As EU ponders Oracle-Sun deal, MySQL creator sounds call to arms

Discussions

News: As EU ponders Oracle-Sun deal, MySQL creator sounds call to arms

  1. Two days after the first EC hearing on Oracle’s $7.4 billion acquisition of Sun Microsystems, MySQL creator Michael “Monty” Widenius wrote an impassioned blog post asking supporters for help. He requested that members of the MySQL community write the the European Commission (EC) in an effort to “save MySQL from Oracle’s clutches.” Ownership of MySQL is a major issue in the acquisition and the focus of the EC hearings, which began last week. Sun bought MySQL last year and if the acquisition goes through as planned, Oracle would be its new steward. Oracle had released a FAQ sheet in October saying it would spend more money on MySQL than Sun ever did. But while the company said it would take good care of MySQL, Widenius did not find this comforting:
    Oracle claims that it would take good care of MySQL but let's face the facts: Unlike ten years ago, when MySQL was mostly just used for the web, it has become very functional, scalable and credible. Now it's used in many of the world's largest companies and they use it for an increasing number of purposes. This not only scares but actually hurts Oracle every day. Oracle [has] to lower prices all the time to compete with MySQL when companies start new projects. Some companies even migrate existing projects from Oracle to MySQL to save money. Of course Oracle has a lot more features, but MySQL can already do a lot of things for which Oracle is often used and helps people save a lot of money. Over time MySQL can do to Oracle what the originally belittled Linux did to commercial Unix (roughly speaking).
    He said a promise to pump money into MySQL does not mean it would remain competitive in the marketplace under Oracle’s ownership. Oracle has too much to gain from a weak MySQL, Widenius said. Rather than the promises Oracle has made, he focused on the promises it hasn’t. He said the company has not promised to keep MySQL open source, to not release closed-source tools or add-ons, to keep development moving in a timely manner, or to not discriminate patches that make MySQL compete better with Oracle’s other products. But the thing that Widenius said really set him off was Oracle appealing to its customers to support them through the EC review. His response is to appeal to the open source community for help. “I would never have resorted to this,” Widenius wrote, “if Oracle would not have broken the established rules in anticompetitive merger cases and try to influence the EC by actively mobilizing the customers.” In his blog post, Widenius provided three versions of a canned letter that people could use to voice their opinion on the merger and the fate of MySQL in Oracle’s hands. In the text, he even provided a option for people who want to support Oracle. This morning, Oracle released a statement in an attempt to reassure the EC that it would be a responsible steward for MySQL. The statement voiced the company’s commitment to continuing to keep MySQL under the GPL, to keeping support non-mandatory, to create a customer advisory board, to keep Storage Engine APIs available, and several other points. Widenius has updated his blog post and is, reportedly, not reassured.

    Threaded Messages (37)

  2. fud[ Go to top ]

    That Monty guy is spreadin pure ol' FUD. Don't trust him a word. All he cares about is his own pocket (not that there is something wrong with caring only about own pocket).
  3. Re: fud[ Go to top ]

    Chief, I agree that the "call to action" seems awfully self-serving... Cheers, Reza
  4. Let's say for the sake of argument that MySQL dies a quick death with the Oracle acquisition of Sun. There would still be plenty of competition on the database space. Postgresql will still be around along with all the other open source NoSQL databases. It's not the EU's job to pick which products will survive and which ones won't. The EU should ensure that there's competition in the market place and saying that the competition in the market place would be affected by MySQL dying is give MySQL way too much credit. Honestly I think Monty is more concerned about the viability of his business supporting his MySQL fork than anything else.
  5. Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    I don't know why people find this situation so hard to understand. Let me try to break it down. 1) Oracle does not have a track record of selling any of its products at commodity prices. 2) An open and competitive database market benefits the consumer. 3) MySQL is currently the standard database system chosen for new projects. Reason being that it's good enough and cost effective for most projects. 4) Oracle is a company that is used to high profit returns, therefore, an open source database system like MySQL will not be to its benefit. 5) Given enough time and maybe money, MySQL will gain features that rival those offered by the Oracle RDBMS, and still retain its economical cost. 6) MySQL is cost friendly to start-ups, freelance developers, small businesses, medium size businesses, and large businesses. 7) MySQL, if kept away from companies like Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft, will cause those companies to further reduce the prices charged for their database products. 8) More good open source database systems like MySQL, and PostgreSQL are essential to the continued explosive growth of innovative web applications like Facebook, Linkedin, Youtube, and others. 9) MySQL and PostgreSQL not Oracle, MS SQL Server, and DB2 will eventually power 99.9% of web applications and be the defacto choice for new applications. 10)Also, keep more good application servers like Glassfish, and JBoss open and away from companies like Oracle.
  6. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    I don't know why people find this situation so hard to understand.
    He sold it and now he is biatching about it (yes I know Sun didnt have competing product). Prolonging this deal causes Sun to lose 100M per month. Imagine how many people are going to lose (or have lost) their jobs because of the delay. Java is way more important than MySQL, so as lesser of two evils I prefer to see this deal go through. Even if Oracle goes berserk on MySQL, it can be killed since it is GPL. Typical example of hypocrisy on Monty's part.
  7. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    Sun gave you (developer community) almost everything for free: specs, programming language, app server, database, development tools and many many more, but where were you (developer community) for Sun when they needed your help (when they were attacked for JCP being this and that, when they needed some community support/momentum to drive the subscription sales on excellent software they produce and many more instances)?? When Sun needed community support, where were you?
  8. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    Sun gave you (developer community) almost everything for free: specs, programming language, app server, database, development tools and many many more, but where were you (developer community) for Sun when they needed your help (when they were attacked for JCP being this and that, when they needed some community support/momentum to drive the subscription sales on excellent software they produce and many more instances)??

    When Sun needed community support, where were you?
    Not to seem as if I'm representing the entire Java community here, but Sun got into trouble on account of its weak management and foresight. I think the developer commnity played its part pretty well in supporting Sun as Java became the most popular programming language in the world to date. Sun just didn't have the vision to follow through on the application server, tooling, and middleware front as it offered mediocre options at the time, opting instead to focus on its hardware business. Websphere and Eclipse didn't become the most popular choice for developers at the time because they loved IBM. Those were just better products. It's unfortunate though that this late surge from Sun came at an inopportune time, as OpenSolaris, Glassfish, MySQL, Netbeans, and the rest of the software options from Sun have really taken off in terms of popularity and quality.
  9. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    I don't know why people find this situation so hard to understand.


    He sold it and now he is biatching about it (yes I know Sun didnt have competing product). Prolonging this deal causes Sun to lose 100M per month. Imagine how many people are going to lose (or have lost) their jobs because of the delay. Java is way more important than MySQL, so as lesser of two evils I prefer to see this deal go through. Even if Oracle goes berserk on MySQL, it can be killed since it is GPL.

    Typical example of hypocrisy on Monty's part.
    If Oracle is so concerned about Sun losing 100M per month, then why doesn't it just let go of MySQL since it already has a database product. Maybe Oracle is the problem here and not the EC. I take your point on the perceived personal resentment of Mr. Widenius, but looking at the bigger picture, there is merit to what he is saying and his actual concerns. I used to work for a Telecoms company that at the time had most of their systems running off Oracle, and they were bleeding heavily under the Oracle licenses. They recently saw the light, and like most Telecoms companies facing reduced profits from the traditional phone business because of increased competition and the Internet, decided to move as many systems as they could over to MySQL. I just can't see where there would be value gained or an opportunity for increased cost efficiencies in the database market by handing over a product like MySQL over to the current commercial database market leader. If I am missing something here, please enlighten me.
  10. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    I take your point on the perceived personal resentment of Mr. Widenius.
    I dont even know the guy, first time I heard of him was when this whole deal story started. So no, I dont have any kind of resentment for anyone.
    If I am missing something here, please enlighten me.
    Yes you are. If the deal does not go through, Sun is done for. Over and out. If you had little more compasion, you would realize how many people will lose their jobs. And this coming from guy living outside of America, having nothing to do with it or Sun or Oracle or MySql whatsoever.
    If Oracle is so concerned about Sun losing 100M per month, then why doesn't it just let go of MySQL
    Why would they? To shut up some greedy loud speakers? MySql can not die. It is GPL.
  11. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    I agreed. Widenius' gripes are hypocritical and just plain silly at this point. He sold MySQL. If he wanted any say so in what was done with it, then he needed to either (1) not sell it or (2) put such clauses in the contract. He sold it and apparently didn't put such clauses in else we'd not be having this discussion. He made a boatload of money off the deal and is now crying foul. He got what he agreed to and was paid handsomely for -- and should thus simply go away quietly at this point. He has nothing to gripe about and can only blame himself if he does not like the way things are developing. MySQL is GPL. If you don't like what Sun/Oracle do with it, then fork it. If enough people don't like what Sun/Oracle do with it, then they'll form a vibrant community or company to support such a fork.
  12. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    I agreed. Widenius' gripes are hypocritical and just plain silly at this point.

    He sold MySQL. If he wanted any say so in what was done with it, then he needed to either (1) not sell it or (2) put such clauses in the contract. He sold it and apparently didn't put such clauses in else we'd not be having this discussion.

    He made a boatload of money off the deal and is now crying foul. He got what he agreed to and was paid handsomely for -- and should thus simply go away quietly at this point. He has nothing to gripe about and can only blame himself if he does not like the way things are developing.

    I am long pass the whole motive issue of Mr. Widenius' gripes or alleged hypocrisy. The fact is if you put the personal issues about Mr. Widenius aside, what he is saying or concerned about makes sense. Selling MySQL to Sun was not a bad deal for MySQL AB even if he personally made lots of money from it. Sun was in a different position from Oracle then. Sun did not have an enterprise database product in its software stack, and many people saw Sun as being a good steward for MySQL.
    MySQL is GPL. If you don't like what Sun/Oracle do with it, then fork it. If enough people don't like what Sun/Oracle do with it, then they'll form a vibrant community or company to support such a fork.

    I think that suggestion should be best directed to Oracle and Mr. Thrall. That is, to further add to your point, I recommend that Oracle agree to sell off MySQL, save $100M/month in losses, and at the same time save hundreds of jobs at Sun. Oracle can then fork MySQL and create its own commodity/web database product. It has more than enough resources to do so than say a "greedy loud speaker" or the average software developer or consultant. Sounds straight forward does it not?
    You see sir, unless you own a business or a software consultancy firm that requires the employment of good enough cost effective software to operate your business, you will have a hard time appreciating these matters.
    Imagine you are a software consultant, and a customer approaches you asking for a quote to develop a medium size custom web application for them. How would you feel telling the customer that it would take ten weeks to develop, for which the software itself will cost US$20K, and the database would cost US$40K per processor?
  13. Imagine you are a software consultant, and a customer approaches you asking for a quote to develop a medium size custom web application for them. How would you feel telling the customer that it would take ten weeks to develop, for which the software itself will cost US$20K, and the database would cost US$40K per processor?
    Perhaps one can use a different open source database like Postgres? I personally agree with Jess... he signed the deal, got a lot of money. But - most importantly - he is not the owner of MySQL anymore and holds no better rights on it than any other open source developer.
  14. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    I take your point on the perceived personal resentment of Mr. Widenius.


    I dont even know the guy, first time I heard of him was when this whole deal story started. So no, I dont have any kind of resentment for anyone.



    Then if you don't know the gentleman, you shouldn't make such subjective and negative assumptions about Mr. Widenius' motives.

    If I am missing something here, please enlighten me.


    Yes you are. If the deal does not go through, Sun is done for. Over and out. If you had little more compasion, you would realize how many people will lose their jobs. And this coming from guy living outside of America, having nothing to do with it or Sun or Oracle or MySql whatsoever.


    Here you go again casting aspersions against someone you do not know. You are stating a moot point about the continued holdup of the deal. My compassion has nothing to do with this deal going through, or whether I reside outside of the U.S. The buying party involved, i.e. Oracle has more power than me to make a positive change in this situation in getting the deal over and done with, and saving hundreds of jobs at Sun. If Oracle really cared about the continued $100M a month loss and the potential loss of hundreds of jobs at Sun, let MySQL go. Oracle has already has a database product. It can't get any simpler than that.

    If Oracle is so concerned about Sun losing 100M per month, then why doesn't it just let go of MySQL

    Why would they? To shut up some greedy loud speakers?

    MySql can not die. It is GPL.


    No sir. The correct answer was already stated. That is, let MySQL go not to "shut up a greedy loud speaker," but instead to save $100M a month and hundreds of jobs at Sun. Furthermore, who is more greedy here? A "greedy loud speaker" who has nothing to do with this deal, or the buyer Oracle, who already has a database product, and can prevent hundreds of people from losing their jobs if it simply agrees to sell off MySQL?

    Think about it carefully before you respond please.
  15. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    Quote "Ultimately, you can sum up the entire argument against the Oracle/Sun acqusition due to the MySQL situation as: * We don't like Oracle owning the MySQL IP * Therefore, don't let Oracle own the MySQL IP" from http://kirkwylie.blogspot.com/2009/10/monty-stallman-mysql-oracle-and-sun.html
  16. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    Furthermore, who is more greedy here? A "greedy loud speaker" who has nothing to do with this deal
    Gees. Logic much?
    If Oracle really cared about the continued $100M a month loss and the potential loss of hundreds of jobs at Sun, let MySQL go
    Why would they do that? Because Monty says so? You are making Oracle bad guy here even though they havent done anything wrong (yet).
  17. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    Chief, I do agree that holding the acquisition up for a relatively frivolous reason just doesn't add up (and I have nothing to do with Sun or Oracle either). Instead of demanding Oracle should do this and that the "call to action" should have simply been to fork MySQL if it is really that important. Cheers, Reza
  18. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    Sooner than later, there is going to be community version of mysql (with experimental features and lot of bugs) and enterprise mysql (stable version)...
  19. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    Sooner than later,
    there is going to be community version of mysql (with experimental features and lot of bugs) and enterprise mysql (stable version)...
    And would you like to take a guess at what the cost of the enterprise mysql (stable version) might cost?
  20. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    Sooner than later,
    there is going to be community version of mysql (with experimental features and lot of bugs) and enterprise mysql (stable version)...


    And would you like to take a guess at what the cost of the enterprise mysql (stable version) might cost?
    I'm going to guess that it will cost $0 because it's licensed under the GPL but Oracle will try to charge support fees for it just like MySQL AB did back in the good ol' days.
  21. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    I don't know why people find this situation so hard to understand.

    Let me try to break it down.

    1) Oracle does not have a track record of selling any of its products at commodity prices.

    When did this become a crime? The price that Oracles sells things for is not a reason for the EU to hold up an acquisition. MySQL is still available under the GPL so it will always be free as in beer.
    2) An open and competitive database market benefits the consumer.

    Even if MySQL dies, we still have an open and competitive database market. The database market doesn't revolve around MySQL. It never has. It never will. We still have Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, Postgresql, and loads of other free databases.
    3) MySQL is currently the standard database system chosen for new projects. Reason being that it's good enough and cost effective for most projects.

    It's the standard? Really? It's certainly a popular database but to say it's the standard is laughable. Please produce some evidence that backs up this assertion.
    4) Oracle is a company that is used to high profit returns, therefore, an open source database system like MySQL will not be to its benefit.

    That would explain why Oracle torpedoed InnoDB with the Innobase OY acquisition. Oh wait. Oracle continues to develop InnoDB for MySQL's benefit. http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/generate-article.php?id=2006_21 Perhaps you're referring to the likes of BerkeleyDB. Oh wait. Oracle continues to improve BerkelyDB and licenses it under an open-source license. I get the distinct impression that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
    5) Given enough time and maybe money, MySQL will gain features that rival those offered by the Oracle RDBMS, and still retain its economical cost.

    We've been hearing that for YEARS. I've been using MySQL for more than 10 years and it still lags behind the big boys. It even lags behind Postgresql for crying out loud. I honestly believe that the Sun will burn out before MySQL catches up to Oracle.
    6) MySQL is cost friendly to start-ups, freelance developers, small businesses, medium size businesses, and large businesses.

    Oracle is cost friendly to start-ups, freelance developers, and small businesses too. It's obvious you have never heard of Oracle XE. You should check it out. I think if you would talk to most medium to large IT shops, they would tell you they are happy with Oracle. Yes it's expensive but they get value out of it because it provides functionality that other RDMBSs don't provide.
    7) MySQL, if kept away from companies like Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft, will cause those companies to further reduce the prices charged for their database products.

    MySQL is the only thing that can do this? Are you really that myopic? They compete with each other. They compete with Postgresql. They compete with the other open source databases. Oracle and IBM are already keeping their prices down with their free offerings. There's also this NoSQL movement that's making big waves.
    8) More good open source database systems like MySQL, and PostgreSQL are essential to the continued explosive growth of innovative web applications like Facebook, Linkedin, Youtube, and others.

    Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube don't use MySQL or Postgresql and instead use NoSQL type data bases. This is another good example of why MySQL is incredibly overrated and no reason to hold up the Oracle acquisition of Sun.
    9) MySQL and PostgreSQL not Oracle, MS SQL Server, and DB2 will eventually power 99.9% of web applications and be the defacto choice for new applications.

    This is incredibly doubtful. I would say that NoSQL databases will be powering the web far more than relational databases in the future. You're lending WAY too much credit to MySQL. Many large shops don't use MySQL and don't want MySQL. It's clustering solution is a joke. We've been waiting for multi-master replication for years. I have more hope for enterpirse features in MySQL from Oracle than I do from the likes of Monty.
    10)Also, keep more good application servers like Glassfish, and JBoss open and away from companies like Oracle.
    Why is the EU's job to pick which products stay and which ones go? It's not. The EU should ensure that there's competition in a certain market. There is plenty of competition in the database space and the JEE server space. If MySQL or Glassfish were to die, we would still have plenty of choices. If Oracle doesn't buy Sun, then Glassfish will die because Sun will die. If Oracle doesn't buy Sun, then MySQL will die because Sun will die. I don't know why people find this situation so hard to understand.
  22. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    @Mike Heath Let me start off by saying that responding to you will be too easy.
    I don't know why people find this situation so hard to understand.

    Let me try to break it down.

    1) Oracle does not have a track record of selling any of its products at commodity prices.



    When did this become a crime? The price that Oracles sells things for is not a reason for the EU to hold up an acquisition.

    MySQL is still available under the GPL so it will always be free as in beer.

    The EC doesn't seem concerned about the price that Oracle sells it products for. It is concerned like most rational people who have a life beyond an IDE that the most mature variant of MySQL maybe stifled by a large and aggressive corporate entity. This is the job of these commissions. They try to foster a competitive environment among corporations to the benefit of consumers. So unless you are an Oracle employee, you may find it difficult to understand the concept of protecting the consumer.
    2) An open and competitive database market benefits the consumer.



    Even if MySQL dies, we still have an open and competitive database market. The database market doesn't revolve around MySQL. It never has. It never will. We still have Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, Postgresql, and loads of other free databases.


    We do have loads of other free databases, but the most mature, most deployed and heavily supported of the free ones seem to be MySQL. The EC seems to have recognized that, and Oracle too. More companies are moving away from the Oracle DB to good enough cost effective database systems for which MySQL seems to be the leader of this lot. This is more so for new projects rather than legacy systems. What's so difficult to understand here?
    3) MySQL is currently the standard database system chosen for new projects. Reason being that it's good enough and cost effective for most projects.



    It's the standard? Really? It's certainly a popular database but to say it's the standard is laughable. Please produce some evidence that backs up this assertion.


    Here is an example: http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/marketshare/
    I challenge you to disprove this claim.
    4) Oracle is a company that is used to high profit returns, therefore, an open source database system like MySQL will not be to its benefit.



    That would explain why Oracle torpedoed InnoDB with the Innobase OY acquisition. Oh wait. Oracle continues to develop InnoDB for MySQL's benefit. http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/generate-article.php?id=2006_21

    Perhaps you're referring to the likes of BerkeleyDB. Oh wait. Oracle continues to improve BerkelyDB and licenses it under an open-source license.

    I get the distinct impression that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

    Are you sure Oracle is doing these things to the benefit of MySQL? Remember that Oracle tried to buy MySQL AB and that was rejected. What followed was: http://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2006_feb/sleepycat.html http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/005490.html It's called leverage over your competitors if you can't acquire them. I can't believe you're so naive to believe that one commercial company will spend money to benefit its competitors. Do you know what you're actually talking about? lol.
    5) Given enough time and maybe money, MySQL will gain features that rival those offered by the Oracle RDBMS, and still retain its economical cost.



    We've been hearing that for YEARS. I've been using MySQL for more than 10 years and it still lags behind the big boys. It even lags behind Postgresql for crying out loud. I honestly believe that the Sun will burn out before MySQL catches up to Oracle.
    Not because you've been using MySQL for more than 10 years means that you've been paying attention to its improvements or that you're an authority figure that can accurately represent its features or capabilites. I would rather get my information about MySQL's capabilites from sources like these: http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7312, http://www.mysql.com/products/enterprise/server.html. The operative phrase being consistently used by MySQL adopters is "Good enough."
    6) MySQL is cost friendly to start-ups, freelance developers, small businesses, medium size businesses, and large businesses.




    Oracle is cost friendly to start-ups, freelance developers, and small businesses too. It's obvious you have never heard of Oracle XE. You should check it out.

    I think if you would talk to most medium to large IT shops, they would tell you they are happy with Oracle. Yes it's expensive but they get value out of it because it provides functionality that other RDMBSs don't provide.

    Oracle XE vs MySQL? What are you drinking dude? Is Oracle XE installed by default or offered as database offerings from Web Hosting, Server Hosting, and Cloud vendors? From my experience in the IT business, even though the IT shops for a business maybe ok with the Oracle DB functionality, it doesn't mean the business is satisfied with its cost. Are you a working IT professional being paid a salary or are you the owner or manager of a business?
    7) MySQL, if kept away from companies like Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft, will cause those companies to further reduce the prices charged for their database products.




    MySQL is the only thing that can do this? Are you really that myopic? They compete with each other. They compete with Postgresql. They compete with the other open source databases. Oracle and IBM are already keeping their prices down with their free offerings. There's also this NoSQL movement that's making big waves.

    Oracle is smart to realize that MySQL if left unchecked, can do to them what Linux did to the expensive Unix market. NoSQL? WTF? Where are you in this debate? You seem to be all over the place. I thought we were talking about RDBM's.
    8) More good open source database systems like MySQL, and PostgreSQL are essential to the continued explosive growth of innovative web applications like Facebook, Linkedin, Youtube, and others.




    Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube don't use MySQL or Postgresql and instead use NoSQL type data bases. This is another good example of why MySQL is incredibly overrated and no reason to hold up the Oracle acquisition of Sun.

    This where your credibility finally takes a nose dive. I thought you were at least smart enough to realize that we can verify your claims by using something called Google: http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=7899307130 http://blogs.sun.com/startups/entry/how_does_facebook_manage_1800 http://mysqldatabaseadministration.blogspot.com/2007/04/youtube-and-mysql.html http://www.prweb.com/releases/linkedin/mysql/prweb1151494.htm
    9) MySQL and PostgreSQL not Oracle, MS SQL Server, and DB2 will eventually power 99.9% of web applications and be the defacto choice for new applications.




    This is incredibly doubtful. I would say that NoSQL databases will be powering the web far more than relational databases in the future. You're lending WAY too much credit to MySQL.

    Many large shops don't use MySQL and don't want MySQL. It's clustering solution is a joke. We've been waiting for multi-master replication for years. I have more hope for enterpirse features in MySQL from Oracle than I do from the likes of Monty.
    Hello? Please provide me with some evidence here (i.e. "Many large shops don't use MySQL and don't want MySQL"). There is another side of the MySQL vs (Oracle, MSSQL Server, DB2) performance story, it's called price performance (MySQL is more than ok for most new apps). Oracle, MSSQL Server, DB2 have their roots locked into legacy apps. Insurance companies, Banks, etc., can't just go in and rip out their established databases to use alternative databases no matter how powerful, or expensive, or cheap they are. If you can't see that, then well, I guess you can't. But at least think about it carefully before you respond to this forum please.
    10)Also, keep more good application servers like Glassfish, and JBoss open and away from companies like Oracle.


    Why is the EU's job to pick which products stay and which ones go? It's not. The EU should ensure that there's competition in a certain market. There is plenty of competition in the database space and the JEE server space. If MySQL or Glassfish were to die, we would still have plenty of choices.

    If Oracle doesn't buy Sun, then Glassfish will die because Sun will die. If Oracle doesn't buy Sun, then MySQL will die because Sun will die. I don't know why people find this situation so hard to understand.
    What's better than plenty of competition? More competition. Stay on point here. Nobody is saying that Oracle should not buy Sun. What we are saying here is that for a company that has a 44% market share in the commercial database market, something seems glaringly wrong with giving it ownership of the market leading open source database. As for Glassfish, spinning it off into the open source community for it to be funded by interested companies is a credible alternative to just letting Oracle turn it into a bug filled play thing for college students so that it can continue to charge US $40K per processor for Weblogic. Wake up dude. We are not Oracle haters. We just like the idea of seeing that there are viable affordable options for businesses that consume IT products and services. The business world is not just made up of fortune 100 and 500 companies.
  23. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    We do have loads of other free databases, but the most mature, most deployed and heavily supported of the free ones seem to be MySQL.
    I don't want to get into my db is better than yours debate. It is most likely true that MySQL is deployed in more places than some other OS DBs. Heavily supported, that depends on what you mean. But most mature? Not even close. PostgreSQL beats MySQL in most regards, stability, performance, and age maturity. Now, performance is questionable, since most would say that MySQL is faster, as that's what they've been taught. It actually is, when using MyISAM tables, which are non-transactional and though you loose the first three letters in ACID for multi-query transactions. With that said, why use a relational DB at all? There are numerous alternatives that are better suited for that sort of storage. Now, when you start talking about MVCC with InnoDB, than Postgres implementation is way more mature. Postgres has by far more features and SQL extensions than MySQL. I also wonder how they measure popularity (install base). I work for a relatively small company, who has been using Postgres since 2000, and we've never been asked by any survey, etc... what we use. So it's possible they did sampling or have some other means of quantifying these numbers. It also might be true that MySQL is install in more cases than all the other DBs combined, as the same sampling issue relates to any non-commercial DB. Either way, just wanted to point out that "popular" is a very subjective topic and in now way does it ever mean better. Ilya
  24. Re: Keep MySQL Away From Oracle![ Go to top ]

    @Ilya
    We do have loads of other free databases, but the most mature, most deployed and heavily supported of the free ones seem to be MySQL.


    I don't want to get into my db is better than yours debate. It is most likely true that MySQL is deployed in more places than some other OS DBs. Heavily supported, that depends on what you mean. But most mature? Not even close. PostgreSQL beats MySQL in most regards, stability, performance, and age maturity. Now, performance is questionable, since most would say that MySQL is faster, as that's what they've been taught. It actually is, when using MyISAM tables, which are non-transactional and though you loose the first three letters in ACID for multi-query transactions. With that said, why use a relational DB at all? There are numerous alternatives that are better suited for that sort of storage. Now, when you start talking about MVCC with InnoDB, than Postgres implementation is way more mature. Postgres has by far more features and SQL extensions than MySQL.

    I also wonder how they measure popularity (install base). I work for a relatively small company, who has been using Postgres since 2000, and we've never been asked by any survey, etc... what we use. So it's possible they did sampling or have some other means of quantifying these numbers. It also might be true that MySQL is install in more cases than all the other DBs combined, as the same sampling issue relates to any non-commercial DB. Either way, just wanted to point out that "popular" is a very subjective topic and in now way does it ever mean better.

    Ilya
    My good sir, I would think it more prudent to argue a point by taking into consideration all the things I've said about MySQL and, Postgres on this thread rather than just picking out one line. If you had at least used the search feature in your browser to lookup my statements about MySQL and Postgres you'd have come across the following comment snippets as there was no attempt being made on my part to belittle Postgres: 1) ...MySQL is cost friendly to start-ups, freelance developers, small businesses, medium size businesses, and large businesses... 2) ...MySQL, if kept away from companies like Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft, will cause those companies to further reduce the prices charged for their database products... 3) ...More good open source database systems like MySQL, and PostgreSQL are essential to the continued explosive growth of innovative web applications like Facebook, Linkedin, Youtube, and others... 4)...MySQL and PostgreSQL not Oracle, MS SQL Server, and DB2 will eventually power 99.9% of web applications and be the defacto choice for new applications... Essentially I was not focusing on MySQL's functionality/performance vs Postgres, but was rather trying to make a larger point about the adequate price and functionality performance of popular and mature open source database systems like MySQL and Postgres, etc. Please note that the essence of this discussion was about the situation with MySQL and Oracle's acquisition of Sun. We all know that both MySQL and Postgres can do ACID, but for most developers who have to make a choice on which technology to use on a project from a sea of options, I usually make my decisions based on broader requirements - e.g. the technology's popularity, support base, ongoing improvements, price, and "Good enough" functionality and performance. Then again, you may have developers who are merely interested in the fact that one technology can shave 0.01 milliseconds off of the execution of a task when compared to others. That may be a genuine requirement if the situation calls for it, but I don't think that's in the majority of cases as C++ would have been more popular than Java or Ruby for most applications. Peace.
  25. Not because you've been using MySQL for more than 10 years means that you've been paying attention to its improvements or that you're an authority figure that can accurately represent its features or capabilites. I would rather get my information about MySQL's capabilites from sources like these: http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7312, http://www.mysql.com/products/enterprise/server.html.
    So tell me, when is MySQL (or PostrgreSQL for that matter) ever be able to execute a SINGLE SQL query on multiple cores? This is one feature that Oracle has have had for years. Neither MySQL nor PostgreSQL even have that on their medium term roadmap (say 3 to 4 years). Worse yet, it's barely on their long term roadmap. Meanwhile, CPUs are getting more and more cores by the day. Next year entry level servers will feature 12 real cores, or 24 SMT cores. It's getting harder and harder to simply get those cores to do their stuff just by servicing sheer numbers of individual requests. In our production setup (PostgreSQL), we often see queries taking a long time, while no less than 15 of our cores on a 16 core machine are idle or moderately loaded. Which means... we have the hardware... we have the CPU power... but neither PostgreSQL nor MySQL lets us fully use that power. Now I've been eying Oracle, DB2 and SQLServer for some time, but especially have been put off by Oracle because of the downright ridiculous pricing. Last time I checked it was something like $ 48,000 per CPU. That's not expensive, that's simply insane. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean I appreciate the fact that Oracle DOES have parallel execution for SINGLE queries and none of the 'little' databases have.
  26. agreement[ Go to top ]

    Agreement has been made.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/oracle_sun_day_8JM3CjHrKVL20vtVAMmn4K
  27. Re: agreement[ Go to top ]

    Agreement has been made.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/oracle_sun_day_8JM3CjHrKVL20vtVAMmn4K
    I guess this will now be a good time for me to start seriously checking out Postgres.:-)
  28. Re: agreement[ Go to top ]

    I guess this will now be a good time for me to start seriously checking out Postgres.:-)
    That's what you should have been doing in the first place =).
  29. http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/01/04/1548235/Monty-Wants-To-Save-MySQL
  30. I don't know Monty, never heard of him before this... I'm living in an Oracle shop, although I use MySQL on the side... so I have no real vested interest either way, have no personal feelings on the guy... I'm going entirely on my perception of things... ...it seems obvious to me that there's a problem here. Oracle's DB offering competes with MySQL... letting Oracle own both seems like an obvious conflict of interest to me, promises aside. Now, I have no real problem with the merger otherwise, but the MySQL issue seems like a real sticking point to me. Maybe it needs to be spun off into a separate business entity, maybe that's the way to go. Maybe there needs to be some truly rigid, enforceable agreements about what Oracle will do with MySQL. I just don't see, from Oracle's perspective, why they would ever do more than give lip service to the idea of keeping MySQL going while silently killing it in the background. I mean, if Microsoft bought Apple, there'd be no illusions about what they'd do with OSX, regardless of what they said. Oh, they might keep it on life-support just to avoid legal issues, but let's face is, OSX would be as good as dead from day one of that merger. I'm not sure this is any different. And yes, I know, MySQL is open-source, you can fork it, yada-yada... but, that's not the same as a solid corporate entity (of which you could argue Sun was not I suppose!) continuing to develop it. A business with a real business motive is different than an open-source community (which is better is a matter for debate I suppose). Oracle, it seems to me, doesn't have a business motive for keeping MySQL going (other than keeping up appearances)... in point of fact, it seems like they have a real motive to do the exact opposite. I don't know what the right answer is, and I don't know if Monty has some ulterior motives himself, but there seems to me to be a clear problem here. The merger all but has to be allowed to go through now or Sun collapses, but something's got to be done about the MySQL issue too.
  31. Monty a joke[ Go to top ]

    Monty sold MySQL, and made a boat load of money. Now he wants help from the community?? Sorry Monty - STFU Also, I couldn't care less what happens to MySQL. There are plenty of other open source and proprietary databases out there. If, worse case scenario, Oracle kills off MySQL, then who cares? Use one of the many other choices (including, if you want cheap, Oracle XE!). Clearly, by looking at his actions and statements, Monty's main motive is his own pocket book. He doesn't care about database competition, or saving his (formal) "baby". We wants to save his own business model (support revenue on a MySQL fork). And guess what - Oracle DB does not compete directly with MySQL (or vice versa). Oracle DB is mostly for big iron, with extensive Enterprise features/extensions. MySQL has more of a presence in small/medium. In fact, It is in Oracle's best interest to support/develop/extend MySQL, because it will give them more leverage against MS SQL Server (which is also more in small/medium). So, for the future of MySQL, I simply see it as much better off under Oracle ownership, as opposed to Sun, or MySQL independent (which never really turned much of a profit, by the way). Oracle has deeper pockets, and ol' Larry loves to stick it to Microsoft any time he can. MySQL can be that stick. So, Monty can STFU, and go crawl under his rock.
  32. This really isn't such a big deal. MySQL the company is up for grabs, but MySQL the database is still open source. They can't kill off the product, per the open source licensing model. They can kill the company and the support, but if the community steps up to the plate, no big deal. Anyone can start selling support for an opensource platform. Just let Oracle buy Sun. Make them open the MySQL stuff so all of it currently developed is under an open source license.
  33. I know I'm not going to be popular for this, but: My company currently uses both Oracle and MySQL. The cost of support for MySQL basically equals the support costs for Oracle. Unless we use CE. This business that "Oracle is for PROFIT! (bad, profit. BAAD)" and "MySQL is Of The People" is a load. MySQL, under Sun, is a money making business. Pure and simple. It is only cheaper to use the "open" version of it. No business in their right mind puts mission critical systems on freeware with no support. My company has several 99.999 required systems. None of them are on MySQL. There's a reason for that. I am NOT bashing MySQL. As a tool in my toolbox, I love it. But I don't use it to hang a Michelangelo with.
  34. This business that "Oracle is for PROFIT! (bad, profit. BAAD)" and "MySQL is Of The People" is a load.
    Couldn't have said better myself. This is the whole reason this thread started: Monty started preaching about greater good and how he cares about the community and the well being of the rest of the world. Nobody has anything against him, he has my best wishes to make as much money as he can, but do not insult other people's intelligence with false morale.
  35. If so, why he sold MySQL??[ Go to top ]

    MySQL. like any open source products, satisfied the need of some people...In commercial data processing, one needs some accountability... that is still missing in the Open Source area... The very fact that MySQL changed hands 2 times in a year underlines this. Stability and durability of the product is just as important as the performance and ease of use... Free or not, accountability of the vendor is vital Open Source products appears cheap only when you are experimenting (free) with them.. When you start really using some of them, the wastage of time spent has to be counted... You are no longer a University Student when you have an application to go in production in 11 months time and your company is dependent on it... There is a lot of guys out there providing consultancy on MySQL implementations... Oracle does not get any penny from these... Oracle won't throw away MySQL... But Oracle may integrate the two... Oracle may give an Oracle Express free for small customers with some trimmed funcationality...This way Oracle can make revenue from these free offerings also... Again, Sun and MySQL both should take the blame for screwing up ....Oracle is playing by the same rules as others... they are cut-throat... but who is not?
  36. What exactly will Oracle own?[ Go to top ]

    Should the acquisition go through, what will Oracle own? Certainly not the MySQL source code, because that is open source? Will they own a support organization (but everybody could build its own, new one)?
  37. Embarrasment[ Go to top ]

    Monty is truly embarrassing here... his attempt to create an anti-ORCL-bigotry movement is really really embarrassing... http://sacha.labourey.com/2009/10/25/sun-vs-and-orcl-the-failure-of-the-dual-licensing-model/
  38. EU or EU Based Corporation Buy Sun[ Go to top ]

    If the EU is serious about keeping MySQL and other Sun's product open source why don't the EU or EU based corporation offer a more attractive bid for Sun Microsystem and buy Sun and keep all of Sun products open source? I don't think the EU is serious about keeping MySQL open source.