Oracle Acquires Innobase 165
A short time ago, Oracle announced its acquisition of Innobase, the Finnish company that makes the GPL'd InnoDB table storage engine. Among MySQL users, the separately-written InnoDB is almost as popular as the native MyISAM engine, and is considered to be more advanced for most purposes. Slashdot has, except for search, run entirely on InnoDB for the past year or two so we're as concerned about this as anybody. Brian Aker, former Slashdot coder and current Director of Architecture for MySQL AB, comments: "InnoDB is GPL, so once again the beauty of the open source market is at play: there is no lock in, and we can continue to develop Innodb as we see fit. The code is out there and we plan on continuing to support it. The largest database vendor in the world just confirmed that the market for open source databases exists."
/. concerned? (Score:2)
Why? InnoDB is GPL'ed.
Re:/. concerned? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:/. concerned? (Score:4, Insightful)
But the minds behind it are not. If Oracle snaps up key talent behind innodb, it could mean a big slowdown for that aspect of MySQL.
Oracle isn't stupid. They didn't want the InnoDB buildings. They didn't even really want InnoDB itself - that's in the wild. They probably DID want the brains behind it, or the tech they were about to release.
Re:/. concerned? (Score:1)
Isn't that one of the major points of open source software that if developers leave for whatever reason, that other brilliant minds will take their place? If so, why should slashdot be concerned?
Re:/. concerned? (Score:2)
MySQL is centrally controlled and developed. That means that, unless the development model for MySQL changes, MySQL will need to take over development and maintainence of the InnoDB engine. Right now it would be a big change in the entire MySQL development model if the InnoDB engine were developed and controlled by some other group.
Also, this also sounds like it affects commercial licenses of MySQL, but I'm unclear on those details.
Patents? (Score:2)
Just a thought.
Re:/. concerned? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/30/oracle_cru sh_salesforce/ [theregister.co.uk]
Since you can't really buy and destroy open source software, they may well be trying to throw a monkey wrench into it. InnoDB brought ACID compliance to MySQL, and the new 5.0 release brings, well, SQL to MySQL. Despite what I'm sure Oracle would say, this is a problem for them.
I know there are c
Re:/. concerned? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? InnoDB is GPL'ed.
Just off the top of my head I'd say that they are worried about the possibility that future development and bug fixes will go to a closed source branch, that development might grind to a halt as the original developers are reassigned, that the nature of development might change and move in directions not beneficial to Slashdot as a user, or that something else will result from this change.
It is wise to be concerned when you technology provider undergoes a drastic change. The GPL helps, since the project will likely continue as a active, GPL project in any case, but losing most of the experienced developers could really slow things down. That is not to say that it will. In fact, development might speed up and get better. It is just understandable to be concerned.
Re:/. concerned? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:/. concerned? (Score:5, Interesting)
I do know there are at least several developers at MySQL AB who are intimately familiar with the InnoDB code, but I don't know if there are enough to fork the code and continue its development in the same vein as before. Frankly I will be surprised if this doesn't slow down 5.x development [livejournal.com] at least a little, while MySQL AB shuffles people around to get them up to speed.
Re:/. concerned? (Score:2)
I certainly can't do without transactions, foreign keys, table spaces etc. etc.
So why are concerned ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The code is GPLed so what exactly is your concern ?
Re:So why are concerned ? (Score:2)
That's why I am concerned. There's other table types that break import/export, if I can get an assurance that this isn't one of them , then fine.
B
Here's why (Score:2, Interesting)
I do know there are at least several developers at MySQL AB who are intimately familiar w
Re:So why are concerned ? (Score:2)
Consern? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Consern? (Score:2)
That would look better this way - "I believe the MySQL team will hopefully hold true to their word."
Purchase good for InnoDB (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Purchase good for InnoDB (Score:5, Insightful)
Peoplesoft and J.D. Edwards don't count?
Re:Purchase good for InnoDB (Score:2, Informative)
from http://www.oracle.com/support/premier/lifetime-sup port-policy.html [oracle.com]
"Oracle's Lifetime Support Policy further extends support for PeopleSoft and JD Edwards applications as well. For currently supported PeopleSoft and JD Edwards releases, we are offering Premier support for five years from their general availability date. This is an extension of an additional year over what we had previously announced. We will
Re:Purchase good for InnoDB (Score:2)
Oracle's obvious ratioanly in buying PeopleSoft/JD was to get their large customer bases, and transition them to future versions of Oracle's applications. PeopleSoft and JD customers are effectively in maintenance mode.
Supporting three large, and mostly redundant application suites is not cost-effective from the vendor standpoint. My own company has experienced this "buyout and switch" practice for several of
Re:Purchase good for InnoDB (Score:2)
You can still get licenses for some of these if you really try, but it has been quite clear that Oracle bought them more to take over the market for their own products than to "enhance" the prospects for the products.
This will most certainly turn the continued availability of the "transaction-oriented" InnoDB engine into a delicate dance between MySQL AB and Larry Ellison.
If MySQL AB had "disinterest" in competing with Oracle before, this will most cert
Somebody set us up the Innobase. (Score:5, Funny)
(Ok, yeah, you can shoot me now.)
SCO (Score:2)
Time for PostgreSQL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time for PostgreSQL (Score:1)
Re:Time for PostgreSQL (Score:2)
Re:Time for PostgreSQL (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what would be cool? Keep switching the backends of
Re:Time for PostgreSQL (Score:4, Informative)
Probably the first one that everybody comes across is the difference in the integer primary key. In MySQL, it's auto_increment, in PostgreSQL it's a serial datatype with a backing sequence. If you want to know the primary key value after creating a new row, it's accessed in different ways. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Thankfully, because they're all based on a common standard language (SQL), it's possible. It's just still a lot of very hard work. But it's not impossible.
If it was easy, you'd see many, many more open source projects supporting something other than MySQL (which bugs me as PostgreSQL user :-)
-Dom
Re:Time for PostgreSQL (Score:2)
haha! (Score:2, Funny)
Of Course, InnoDB exists because MySQL's effort (MyISAM) is such a piece of shit.
Re:haha! (Score:4, Informative)
MySQL is also supporting several other databases as backend, all with different advantages and disadvantages.
Re:haha! (Score:2)
You never went to this conference, did you? If you knew anything about the stock market, you'd know NOT to chase the fund that performed best last
Confirmation? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would think that it was the users of InnoDB that confirmed that the market for open source databases exist.
Also, what about IBM and their open-sourcing of Cloudscape? Don't they count?
Re:Confirmation? (Score:2)
Looks like they forgot two letters. I think they meant to say the market for open source databases existed. :) If MS or SCO or whoever bought OSDL or hired some other key linux kernel developers or Ubuntu I don't think they'd say "see, the market for open source kernels and OS's exists!" At least they didn't say that when MS hired drobbins.
Re:Confirmation? (Score:2)
DBMS market going open source? (Score:4, Informative)
Is this yet another sign that the DBMS vendors are going open source? This reaffirms our thinking of where open source is going. Great to see Oracle legitimise the open source database space as they did with Linux.
Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
Re:DBMS market going open source? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is one key difference. Oracle isn't in direct competition with Linux.
There is a chance that Oracle has some plan for InnoDB that will help Oracle's bottom line without actually harming MySQL. But if I had to guess, I would guess that the strategy in some way involves Oracle helping Oracle by harming MySQL. Or rather by slowing MySQL's progress. Because I don't believe that this isn't something that MySQL can't deal with.
While that is a great flattery, I can't help but think that brave words such as "Great to see Oracle legitimise the open source database space as they did with Linux" feels just a little bit like putting up a brave face. Because it would almost certainly have been better for MySQL if Oracle hadn't bought InnoDB.
Re:DBMS market going open source? (Score:1)
Way to look at the positive side! Sheesh... I had to turn on my special boolean processor just to read that last sentence.
Re:DBMS market going open source? (Score:2)
oy vey (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no offense guys- but that's something I wouldn't put on my resume. Slashcode has seen near zero feature additions, is widely known to have some of the worst perl code ever written, is grossly underdocumented...
and current Director of Architecture for MySQL AB, comments: "InnoDB is GPL, so once again the beauty of the open source market is at play: there is no lock in, and we can continue to develop Innodb as we see fit.
You can, sure. But who has been putting the majority of development time into InnoDB? MySQL, or Innobase? If it's Innobase, and Oracle says to Innobase, "walk away from this", you're screwed. "Open Source" doesn't mean "if the primary supporter walks away, the project keeps going."
The largest database vendor in the world just confirmed that the market for open source databases exists."
Um...no, they didn't. They thought buying Innobase made business sense, so they did it. Inferring "OMG Oracle thinks we're cool!" is, well, quite the stretch. For all we know, Oracle could be handing out pinkslips as we speak, or folding Innobase talent into Oracle...who knows.
Re:oy vey (Score:2)
Re:oy vey (Score:5, Insightful)
Come to think of it, if other apps were "as good to be, and no better", there would be a lot of companies saving good money right now.
Re:oy vey (Score:5, Informative)
Huh. Just in the last month alone, we've seen the addition of support for CSS and Atom, and the beginnings of a brand-new replacement for formkeys (called reskeys). And that's just September. So, um
is widely known to have some of the worst perl code ever written
Only among people who don't know perl, or Slash.
is grossly underdocumented...
True enough.
But the last thing being true does not remedy the fatal flaws in the other two assertions, which prove you to be quite ignorant about the subject.
Re:oy vey (Score:2)
Rather trollish to assert that slashcode has seen no feature additions when we all know you're still huffing and puffing from the exhaustion of the migration to CSS and standards compliant HTML. Or, at least, I thought we all knew that. I know I did.
I haven't looked at slashcode in about three years, but I have an idea it'd have to be in pretty good shape for that overhaul to have even been possible. One thing I know for certain is that given slashdot's userbase it absolutely must be using taint mode,
Re:oy vey (Score:2)
I love the new CSS layout, truly I do. But the fact that it took a few years to implement it says more about Slashcode than I think we all want to admit. Had it been built on a solid MVC platform, the project should have taken a couple of days. Having to re-write much of the system to generate different HTML isn't exactly a design I'd brag about. And adding Atom when RSS was already working? That should have been a lunch break pr
Re:oy vey (Score:3, Interesting)
No such fact exists, in fact. It took a few months, not a few years.
Had it been built on a solid MVC platform, the project should have taken a couple of days
That's nonsense. The great majority of the time spent on it was two things: making sure the code produced text (comments, stories, and so on) that was valid HTML 4.01 strict (which includes processing all old data), modifying the code to make CSS well-integ
Re:oy vey (Score:2)
Maybe I should have said "a few years to muster the courage, then a few months to fight the fight." :-)
Since I have you here, do you have time for a couple of hypothetical question?
1) Would it have been possible to upgrade in parts, such as creating a base stylesheet to handle stuff like fonts and colors and incrementally altering the backend to use it?
2) I understand the reasons you've given for not going to XHTML and won't beat that horse, but if you were deci
Re:oy vey (Score:2)
But that is a business decision that has nothing to do with code. We knew it would be a committment of a few months' time of a few employees, including the web designer who is not a full-time member of our team.
Would it have been possible to upgrade in parts, such as creating a base stylesheet to handle stuff like fonts and colors and incrementally altering the backend to use it?
Yes, but it would have bee
Re:no, it really did (does?) suck (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, so like I said, the only people who say Slash has some of the worst perl code ever written don't know perl, or Slash. As you've not looked at the code in about five years, it's quite true that you don't know Slash.
Re:oy vey (Score:1)
I dont agree with you.
If you have enough interest in InnoDB's future (and require new features or bug fixes) then you are free to add thoses features and fix those bugs or sub-contract this work if you dont have the in-house skills. Of course, these enhancements will need to be released under GPL also. It just raises th
We'll see... (Score:2)
Not just anyone can fix Innodb bugs or add features to it. And not just anyone can identify the ones who can from the ones who just say they can.
Plus the people who can may be too expensive for a single user to afford. Sure it may be very important to the users, but if they just can't afford it does that mean they miscalculated and should have used some other _cheaper_in_the_long_run_ DB?
The costs of 1000 users each looking for different subcontractors to fix bugs
Re:We'll see... (Score:2)
Last week, it was only the staff of InnoDB that could commit changes to a product that, in order to license it under traditional proprietary licenses, required that they have exclusive ownership of all code in the code base.
The Oracle buyout merely changes the name of the corporation holding exclusive ownership of the codebase.
Remember: Unless InnoDB AB granted MySQL AB a pretty non-restricted source code license, then
Re:oy vey (Score:2)
It means that if you depend on MySQL + InnoDB, then you are dependent on the continuing "good graces" of two companies, and MySQL AB is dependent on Oracle for ongoing availability of licenses to the "non-GPLed" deployment of InnoDB.
If anything adverse happens to any of the relationships, the Gentle User is pretty screwed.
I could easily see this representing a plan by Oracle to set MySQL AB back.
Note that if Oracle ceased selling InnoDB licenses to MySQL A
Interesting questions come up (Score:4, Interesting)
aha, but here's a solution (Score:3, Interesting)
This would give it a transactional foundation that oracle couldn't buy out from under them!
Re:aha, but here's a solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:aha, but here's a solution (Score:2)
InnoDB and MySQL relationship (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm... I think InnoDB will cost MySQL a little bit more next year.
More mergers than you can shake a stick at... (Score:4, Funny)
Autodesk acquires Alias(maya)
Cingular buys out At&t wireless
NewsCorp purchases IGN
Yahoo purchases Konfabulator
IBM buys Gluecode
Verison acquires MCI
EA buys Digital Illusions
Google Acquires Keyhole Corp
Adobe buys Macromedia
GameStop buys EB
Yahoo buys Flickr
Yahoo buys MusicMatch
Warner Bros buys Monolith Productions
Mergers Left: 1. Sony buys Nintendo
2. Microsoft buys Yahoo
3. Google buys Sun
4. EA buys Hollywood
5. Walmart buys K-mart
6. Google buys Sony
7. Microsoft buys EA (very geographically convenient)
8. Walmart goes Bankrupt.
Google vs Microsoft vs RIAA Judge Judy presiding.
Re:More mergers than you can shake a stick at... (Score:1)
Re:More mergers than you can shake a stick at... (Score:1)
K-mart was already bought out (Score:2)
K-mart was already bought by Sears. Pay attention you ninny
Re:K-mart was already bought out (Score:2)
Sure (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest database vendor just confirmed that you can be too clever for your own good when you design your licensing schemes.
Re:Sure (Score:1)
> they intend to use InnoDB for commercial purposes they'll have to pay up. IOW, Oracle might
> require licensing for every commercial (no-GPL) version of MySQL sold.
And you think Innobase doesn't require licensing for non-GPL versions today? It is a for-profit company - not a charity. They probably make money on licensing revenues from non-GPL versions and from support contracts. The following stat
Yet Again... (Score:1)
Ikea of Databases? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ikea of Databases? (Score:2)
Anyhow, it wouldn't surprise me - oracle's acquisition of innodb doesn't bode well for mysql:
- larry ellison (CEO of Oracle) is a megalomaniac and a nut-case to boot
- even though mysql is a poor competitor of oracle, it still has "mindshare" - and some
people will undoubtably send their cash mysql's
Re:Ikea of Databases? (Score:2)
Premeditate disruption? (Score:1, Insightful)
Not that Oracle would really need it; or would(?)... How much does MySQL threat Oracle's market share in the LONG run, especially with its new version coming around?
Money talks... (Score:1)
Again, Oracle opts for purchasing a pseudo-competitor instead of innovating on their own. I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with that, it just seems they are finally starting to realize they can't do everything for themselves. Although, database technology itself should be under their grasp already. It's Oracle-grown products like JDeveloper IDE and the OC4J application server that really don't (IMHO) meet the standards already set by OSS projects such as Eclipse and Tomcat. It would be nice t
Ah, so that's why (Score:3, Interesting)
If MySQL hooking up with SCO wasn't enough to steer people away, this probably won't either.
Oracle Might Just Improve InnoDB (Score:1)
We all know that Linux adoption is benefitting to some extent from Oracle's push in that space
Re:Oracle Might Just Improve InnoDB (Score:2)
I'm sure they will, but even more certain that you and I will never see it. This is Larry Ellison we're talking about. Nothing personal against the guy (I've never used his products or competed against him), but he's not exactly known for his community spirit or cooperating with the other guys.
Re:Oracle Might Just Improve InnoDB (Score:2)
Oracle Community Edition... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle may be thinking of releasing an OSS version of their database server. What better way to start off than by buying the developer of one of the most popular database formats for OSS.
Their "new" business model would probably be similar to MySQL and they may even sell a new version of InnoDB to MySQL every now and then (an older version of course)...
In their eyes, this would be a good way of Oracle being written into OSS apps...Write a new version of Oracle database that is identical to the commercial version in every way except that you are using InnoDB as the backend...
This happened a while back when Ford bought Jaguar. At the time Dodge was working on the Viper and word was that it would be a "Mustang killer". Ford was scared to death that one of their most popular automobiles would be outsold by the Viper. There was very little known about the vehicle at the time, but what was known was that it was going to be a big engine...bigger than a V-8... Ford knew that the only company with a V-12 was Jaguar and figured that this was the most likely powerplant to be used in the vehicle (or some variation). They decided that if Dodge was going to make a killing with the Viper then they might as well get in on the action by licensing the engine design for every Viper produced...So, Ford bought Jaguar...of course, Dodge went with their own V-10 design...some say this was always then intent, others say the original design called for a V-12...
A warning to the KDE project? (Score:3, Interesting)
Suppose TrollTech were to be bought out tomorrow, and they stopped releasing their work as open source software. While QT is open source software and could thus be forked, would the KDE project be able to muster together the talent to continue developing it? Or would it stagnate, in turn harming the entire KDE project? Has the project looked into the possibility of that happening, and if so, what are their contingency plans?
Re:A warning to the KDE project? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A warning to the KDE project? (Score:5, Informative)
In the event of a buyout, QT will be re-licensed [kde.org] under a BSD license.
This agreement was negotiated very soon [trolltech.com] after Trolltech was formed.
Re:A warning to the KDE project? (Score:2)
Sure, why not? By same logic: what if Microsoft hired Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton, Greg K-H, Con Kolivas and several other top kernel-deverlopers, would the kernel still survive? Yes it would, after a period of turmoil. I fail to see why it would be an
Eat your competition (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eat your competition (Score:2)
However, since the project (to date) is GPLed, there is always the possibility of the project forking. AFAIK, this is the primary reason why MSFT (and SCO Group) hate F/OSS and the GPL -- the MSFT-invented (patented?) business process of "embrace, extend, extinguish" cannot be used to kill off competition.
No F/OSS or GPLed software project can ever be orphaned into non-existance. This gives the organization using F/OSS or GPLed software the power to control its own destiny -- a point alluded to
More subtle then we think (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember SAP is the only competition left for Oracle in the Apps space.
But then again, maybe I'm just paranoid!
Re:More subtle then we think (Score:1)
Fiendishly Clever... (Score:2)
What Oracle can do is say "We love Free Software so much that we are ONLY releasing InnoDB under the GPL." That would destroy MySQL's commercial licensing plans, from which they derive most of their revenue. It means MySQL could no longer have "OEM Licensing" or any of the non-GPL'd schemes that bring in actual money. (Well, unless MySQL decouples itself from InnoDB, which means they'd be shipping an inferior product.)
I'm
Anyone remember when Oracle acquired Rdb engine? (Score:1)
Long ago (1994) Oracle acquired Rdb which came with VMS and people were alarmed thinking the sky was falling because Oracle would convert the customer base to its flagship database engine and let Rdb wither. Well it didn't exactly happen like that. What withered was VMS but Rdb is still maintained and improved by Oracle as a separate database product. http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/rdb/inde x.html/ [oracle.com]
Of course Oracle makes money on Rdb. Oracle's strategy is probably to make money with InnoDB
This doesn't automatically kill MySQL. (Score:2)
Just back up from a slave (Score:2)
Confirmed the market for *what*, exactly? (Score:2)
erm, no. they didn't. they confirmed that the market for open source database companies exists, but that's hardly the same thing. the later being true does pretty much nothing for the good of the users of open-source database technology.
/.), my bet is that Oracle has two goals: make MySQL's commercial licensing harder, and, more importantly, get access to the Innoba
while we're speculating (hey, this is
Re:The bug (Score:2)
it doesn't work that way (Score:2)
First of all, the bought InnoDB, so they can do with it whatever they like; the GPL only applies to other people.
Second, if Oracle shipped binaries that include GPL licensed code, they may be liable for hundreds of millions of dollars of damages and they must remove the code, but putting their code under the GPL is neither necessary nor sufficient to resolve the situation aft
Re:Largest DB Vendor in the world (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Largest DB Vendor in the world (Score:2)
No, the GP was right. He stated that " Well, MS ships more units of SQL Server than..." and that's certainly true. Not terribly informative, of course, because it's like stating that "Ford ships more Explorers than GM, Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota, and Nissan combined." Sybase also ships more units of Adaptive Server Enterprise than all those other database vendors, yet they only have a 2.5% market share.
You've got to watch pesky market-speak. :-)
Re:Largest DB Vendor in the world (Score:2)
Re:Largest DB Vendor in the world (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Largest DB Vendor in the world (Score:2)
Is there anyway to be sure? Nope.
Re:Largest DB Vendor in the world (Score:5, Funny)
Terabyte SQL Server Database
Terabyte DB2 Database
Everybody sing!
One of these things is not like the others!
One of these things just doesn't belong!
One of these things is not like the others!
Re:Largest DB Vendor in the world (Score:1)
According to IDC, it's Oracle...according to Gartner, it's IBM..but SQL Server is a distant 3rd.
http://www.oracle.com/corporate/investor_relation
Re:Putting this into language for non DB people (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're creating a BLOG or web forum, foreign keys and transaction management aren't vital in the way they are for financial applications.
It is so easy (see the MySQL Gotchas [sql-info.de] site) to accidentally lose transactional and foreign key support even if you installed InnoDB libraries that it is pretty dangerous to depend on the notion that any of the "data integrity" functionality is actually in place.
And