Slashdot Log In
Oracle Bid to Acquire MySQL
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Feb 16, 2006 09:48 AM
from the watch-those-tractor-beams dept.
from the watch-those-tractor-beams dept.
i_frame writes "CNet is reporting on a recent Oracle bid for open-source database MySQL. They were unsuccessful." From the article: "'It all comes back to the question of cannibalizing an existing business,' O'Grady said. 'If you determine that to some extent it's inevitable, wouldn't you prefer that you do it, instead of your competitors?' O'Grady said Oracle could benefit from MySQL in the way that IBM has from its acquisition of Gluecode, a company that commercializes the open-source Geronimo Java application server software and competed with IBM's own proprietary WebSphere product."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
MicroracleSoft (Score:5, Interesting)
O'Grady said Oracle could benefit from MySQL in the way that IBM has from its acquisition of Gluecode
This analyst is obviously a genius. Who knew that buying out all your competition would benefit your company?MySQL was created for low volume applications which don't need all the excessive functionality and optimization. What isn't mentioned is that this would probably ruin many small businesses who depend on open-source software because they can't afford large expensive distributions such as Oracle. The article mentions that Oracle has already bought out Sleepycat and InnoDB and now is planning move to take over JBoss. Do we really need to wait until all the competition is dead and gone before we realize they are monopolizing the market?
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like the open source MySQL is going to go away if they buy MySQL AB.
Parent
They could kill it. (Score:3, Interesting)
They could let it just die. As in, stop supporting it, stop adding code, stop fixing bugs, etc.... just leave it as it is until it becomes irrelevent because obsolescence.
Re:They could kill it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine this scenario:
* oracle tells recently bought mysql "don't improve mysql"
* mysql ab employees are pissed off because they like their db
* novell/redhat thinks mysql is important for their linux sales
* they hire said grumpy mysql employees to work on the GPL version
== mysql development continues and oracle just wasted a lot of money.
Parent
Re:They could kill it. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, what the ex-MySQL/DBD/InnoBase/Oracle people cannot do is sell non-GPL licenses of the MySQL/InnoDB/DBD and make that a business model.
They can still do private modifications for customers on the GPL base code, but those customers cannot relicense those under a proprietary license.
That is the different of having MySQL own the code (which is today's scenario) vs. Oracle owning it and the developers leaving.
In both cases there is an impact, but less so on the open source comm
Re:They could kill it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They could kill it. (Score:3, Insightful)
But can they fork the InnoDB stuff? I got the impression seemed to be more restrictive license-wise, as well as having more enterprise grade features.
If they can, there may be hope for MySQL. Otherwise, it's another victim of the Great Database Consolidation (i.e. Takeover), of Oracle.
I firmly believe they're not "softening their image" or "supporting open source", but quashing all non-comme
Re:They could kill it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but it gives Oracle and excellent barganing position. They can effectively kill the upgrades to MySQL that would turn it into a real database. (Look Gepeto, I'm a real boy!) Then when customers come through looking to use MySQL, Oracle will try to upsell them to Oracle or one of their other properties. Even if the customer decides on MySQL, that's still revenue for Oracle.
If Oracle wanted to be really nasty, they could start legally enforcing MySQL's interpretation of the GPL. i.e. If your software uses MySQL but isn't GPLed, Oracle could sue you for failing to keep up the licensing terms. Even if you are just using it for internal, non-distributable software (such as a web app), many companies would rather pay up a small licensing fee rather than tango with Oracle in court.
Parent
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:2)
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:3, Informative)
This is totaly FUD.
The GPL does not enforce "external" programs to fall under the GPL. It is perfectly legal for non GPL code to "USE" GPL code as longs as it does not link directly to the code or add any exsisting extensions to it.
If your software embeddeds a MySQL database then you hav
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:2)
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:4, Informative)
Public Defenders are for criminal cases. AFAIK, the court will not appoint one for a civil disagreement. There is also the massive expense for a company to find and prepare evidence for their defense. Since the GPL is hinged on very technical matters, Oracle could easy keep the case in the court for a LONG time and bleed a company dry trying to defend themselves. Worse yet, a judge may actually agree with Oracle due to difficulty in understanding the technical issues at hand. Which means that the case would be held up even more by appeals.
Parent
MySQL AB makes its money on FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, you can use MySQL legally in a commercial app without buying a license. You aren't linking to it. However, MySQL says that you *do* need a license. Enough people are going to be scared enough to buy a license. Open source people just see "GPL -- okay, must not be evil" and go ahead and use it.
This is why I use Postgres and avoid the whole ugly thing.
Parent
Re:MySQL AB makes its money on FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh? I use it because it's better.
Parent
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:5, Insightful)
2. MySQL has further enforced this by GPLing all of the drivers, which you MUST link against in order to access MySQL.
3. Did I mention that Oracle could take them to court regardless of whether or not they're actually in violation? Did I also mention that most companies would pay up rather than go to court? Why yes, I do believe I mentioned that.
MySQL OSS License Page [mysql.com]
The older version of that page [mff.cuni.cz] was more to the point:
So in short, Oracle would have broad powers under which to enforce the GPL, and they could easily extend them (whether correct or not) to bring a court case against companies whether or not the case has any validity. Understand now?
Parent
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:3, Informative)
from http://www.unixodbc.org/ [unixodbc.org] --
"Also; ALL unixODBC development is and will be distributed under GPL or LGPL. The LGPL on libs will ensure that commercial solutions will be able to utilize unixODBC."
Emphasis mine.
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Oracle could merely do with that project what MySQL did to the LGPLed JDBC driver: Buy them out and relicense before the project is fully compatible. RMS would then hail them as true heros for relicensing under the GPL rather than the LGPL.
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:2, Informative)
Christof Wittig has written a very interesting paper on the MySQL business model and he did post some interesting comments recently:
http://www.people4objects.org/ [people4objects.org]
I think it's a very good sign that MySQL feels strong enough to stay independant. It suggests that open source is stronger than Oracle.
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:2)
Then what is the benefit in Oracle buying them?
I worry that Oracle seems to be buying up most of the FOSS databases, and could eventually impair their long-term viability so they have less competition.
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because no other [postgresql.org] similiar [sourceforge.net] solutions [ca.com] exists. Right?
Parent
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:3, Informative)
The time it will take to migrate won't kill us, but it will cost us customers. Since w
Re:MicroracleSoft (Score:3, Insightful)
SELECT t1.id, t1.name, t2.id, t2.name, t3.id, t3.name
FROM t1 LEFT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.fk_t1_id
LEFT JOIN t3 ON t2.id = t3.fk_t2_id
WHERE t1.name = $my_user;
In MySQL that's slow. It's faster to:
SELECT t1.id, t1.name FROM t1 WHERE t1.name = $my_user;
SELECT t2.id, t2.name FROM t2 WHERE t2.fk_t1_id = $t1_id;
SELECT t3.id, t3.name FROM t3 WHERE t3.fk_t2_id = $t2_id;
In Oracle that's slow.
Obviously, this
Please No... (Score:4, Funny)
PostgreSQL seems to be immune... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune... (Score:2)
Right, that comes up occasionally: the "what if someone hires Tom Lane" (*) question. It's a legitimate concern. But it'd be hard to hire all the PG core developers since they don't all work for one company.
Also, what's the chance of a core guy taking a job that requires him to stop working on PG? On a much smaller scale, I wouldn't take a job that required me to stop working on PMD [sf.net]; there are lots of other jobs out there. Don't want
Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, as How PostgreSQL Rose to Fame [oreillynet.com] documents, PostgreSQL lay dormant for about two years and was picked up by a mostly-new set of developers. And it seems to be doing pretty well; no doubt MySQL could survive in a similar fashion.
Of course, my druthers would be for PostgreSQL to take over for MySQL, but that's just because I consider it a better database. It's conceivable that someday MySQL will be better. Although, quite frankly, I doubt it.
Parent
Re:Patents? (Score:3, Insightful)
How exactly are you going to defeat Postgres 8.01, downloaded umpteen-hundred-thousand times ( 8, at least, by me ). You can't. You may stop future development on it, but at what cost? You can't get monetary remuneration from the authors of any significant value, so why bother? If somepgsqlvendor.com starts making a billion a year, well, that's an entirely different situation altogether, but then it'll be Oracle v somepgsqlvendor.com and not Oracle v pgsql.
This space is available for purchase (Score:4, Interesting)
In one of my former jobs, they were looking for a database system for HR, accounting, inventory and production related stuff. We were looking at JDEdwards and Oracle, both came to our company to present. JDEdwards blew us away, like they actually wanted us as a client. Oracle came in and half assed it, like they couldn't care if they got us or not.
We ended up holding back because there were talks of Oracle and Peoplesoft to buy out JDEdwards. Eventually, the Peoplesoft deal went through and we ended up purchasing JDEdwards as they claimed we would get full support. Shortly after I left the cocmpany, Oracle gobbled up Peoplesoft.
I don't hear to many good things about Oracle as a company and I don't think too highly of them when they just buy out the competition. They are becoming more like Microsoft, sort of.
I think this means good things for MySQL, it is going to get them more press and more help because of it. They have had a great and free package for years now. With Oracle wanting to buy them out, it just means that Oracle is finally scared of them, they are doing something right!
Re:This space is available for purchase (Score:3, Insightful)
Not For Sale (Score:5, Insightful)
He did, however, say why he turned down Oracle's offer: the desire to keep his company's independence. "We will be part of a larger company, but it will be called MySQL," Mickos said.
Oracle didn't immediately comment on the acquisition offer.
Oracle has become bloated and greedy (not unlike another large software company I could mention) and as their product continues to be mired in expensive add-ons and upgrades that not many IT departments have use for, they are seeing MySQL as the herald of their doom. MySQL is a lean, mean RDBMS that is slowly becoming the darling of programmers (how many PHP/MySQL books are there?) and Oracle is dominating the large-scale market but can't seem to make in-roads in the smaller markets. On the one hand, they covet MySQL's success; on the other, they see MySQL as a competitor to be squashed.
Larry Ellison better watch his back - the open source community may decide to start truly gunning for him.
Re:Not For Sale (Score:2)
MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be (Score:5, Insightful)
MySQL isn't a competetor for Oracle in the space where Oracle is usually deployed. IBM DB2, MSSQL Server - those are the competetors for Oracle. And probably PostgreSQL is too. It provides a lot of functionality that you'd want in those kinds of applications, and its free. It has the problem, however, of overcoming entrenched attitudes towards 1) anything that's free, and 2) anything that's unfamiliar. Me? I'd use PostgreSQL for those apps, but that's me. Often, there's vendor platoform requirements that'd make that impossible, or management level edicts that prescribe platoforms.
If anything, the purchase of MySQL was intended to soften the image of Oracle and make it appear to be more of a player in the low end. They have (rightly) a reputation for being expensive, and this was probably a ploy at changing that. It's not fear of MySQL's technical prowess.
Parent
Re:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/case-studies/ [mysql.com]
PokerRoom.com Powers High Transaction Online Poker System with MySQL and HP .... 12,000 players occupy the poker tables. Since each bet, each played hand and other data are recorded, the database often handles 2,000 transactions per second.
Los Alamos National Labs Relies on MySQL to Scale with 7 Terabytes of Data.
Lycos Europe Reduces TCO by 90% by Migrating to MySQL.
Lycos Europe migrated all company portal services to MySQL, displacing one of the leading proprietary databases in the market. Replacing their existing database solution with MySQL resulted in more than a 90% savings. Lycos Europe today has approximately 1 terabyte of data handled by 100 MySQL servers. At peak traffic up to 25,000 concurrent users are online and 1 Gb of data per second is delivered to users.
Cox Communications Powers Massive Data Warehouse with MySQL To maintain optimum performance and customer-service levels, Cox has developed a huge data warehousing application. At the heart of this business-critical system is a 2-billion row MySQL database.
etc.....
Parent
Re:Not For Sale (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Principled or just stubborn? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that Oracle has already acquired the makers of two of MySQL's transactional engines, putting them in a real tough spot, I'm sure Mr. Ellison assumed this final offer to MySQL to be just a formality.
This kind of integrity is so rare these days. Whatever happens, we should all try our best to support MySQL in what may be a losing battle against an evil foe.
DB becomes a commodity. (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, MySQL has a closed-source business model trying to sell non-GPL'd versions of their source code - and oracle, now owning the original source Innodb and BerkleyDB can prevent them from doing that. MySQL can still use the GPL'd versions in their GPL'd products, but their closed source products go away, or at least they could. And Oracle isn't a company known for playing softball.
Business factors in OSS Database Companies (Score:3, Interesting)
a shopping spree... (Score:2)
Hi. A business class would do you good. (Score:2)
In this case I believe it's used incorrectly, as it's supposed to be specifically when you OWN both products. Otherwise it's just plain ol' competition.
A little silly to go into hysterics about the business world based on their choice of "cannibal" don't you think? There's lots of other stuff you can get all histrioni
Bingo (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Bingo (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Foxpro (Score:2)
The only way an OSS project can die is if there's no one interested in developing it further. And even then, the code
Re:Foxpro (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, they bought the product and continue to this day to pay a team of programmers to develop it. Microsoft Visual FoxPro 9 Service Pack 1 was released just two months ago.
Uh, wait, I was supposed to say that they did something nasty, wasn't I? Sorry, but when a company has released four major versions of a product in 8 years, and is committed to supporting the current release through to 2015, it's really rather hard to say that they've evilly crushed the competition like a bug beneath their iron boots.
Parent
Re:Foxpro (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How does this affect me? (Score:3, Funny)