Oracle and MySQL -- Good Move or Bad Bet? 226
sendai-X writes "With the recently announced purchase of Innobase, Oracle has shown it's intention to further support open source. This is key as open source enters the mainstream in business and in light of the success IBM has had with the Eclipse project, and Sun recently looking at purchasing PostgresSQL. What do Slashdot users think about this merger? Is it beneficial to the market and database users by having the largest database vendor openly support MySQL and provide an upgrade path to Oracle? Or is it just another cog in the Oracle machine in their attempt to dominate the enterprise IT market? Will this change the database market landscape? Will it help or hurt IBM and Microsoft?"
Oracle and Innobase (Score:1, Insightful)
Bad for open source, maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I know (Score:4, Insightful)
Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the only people who can answer if the move was good or bad, are the MySQL developers. I'd suggest Slashdot to have an interview with them so they can dissipate our fears.
Bad move for Oracle... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oracle IS database...so it seems silly to get another completely unrelated code-tree to deal with. They should have acquired some sort of application server to sell paired with their DB like IBM does with WebSphere and DB2.
Oracle's Java guys seem to be pro-open source.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most recently, I was trying to get the "update center" functionality working this past weekend and I got emails from several Oracle guys [blogs.com] with fixes for various problems. It's pretty nice to get help right from the core guys...
Really a bet against MySQL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad move for Oracle... (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, as a company that has a Linux version and recognizes that bringing out a complete DBMS for small applications can be overkill, it might be smart to have a smaller product that breaks a shop into PL/SQL and makes it easy to upgrade to Oracle. Plus the added bonuses of being an open source product... I think that might be what they call a strategic purchase.
They should have acquired some sort of application server to sell paired with their DB like IBM does with WebSphere and DB2.
Yeah! And they could call Oracle Application Server... oh... wait...
... Capitalism... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad for open source, maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's very likely that Oracle does just that. Oracle wins on several fronts:
(1) Set back a competitor by a lot, possibly completely knocking it out of some markets.
(2) Cause more OSS FUD: "What will happen to your open source vendor? It could evaporate tomorrow. Stick with Oracle, who will be there for you."
(3) Shift the market back toward the mentality of traditional relational databases, where there is a lot of emphasis on data integrity constraints, and expensive DBAs, and less emphasis on casual users.
MySQL had the potential to cause them a lot of problems. Oracle found a way to stop that. If it was a predatory move against MySQL AB, everything was perfect, including the timing. Many companies were just waiting for the 5.0 release to try it out I'm sure, and the next thing they know Oracle has MySQL AB by the ____. It's too coincidental, and too perfect, there's no way it's a "merger".
No. Bad for dual-licensing in general (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the fact is MySQL depends on non-Free relicensing from Oracle now, so they are now very vulnerable at the moment.
Re:Oracle has MySQL by the balls (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Does Larry Ellison (Oracle CEO) do things for the good of the industry or little guys?
Answer: *Never*
2. Is there any opportunity for the Oracle DB to reuse IP within Innodb
Answer: Almost certainly not
3. Is there a trivial upgrade path from Innodb/Mysql to Oracle
Answer: No
4. Ok, with that out of the way - what possible reason would oracle have to acquire Innodb?
Answer: obviously to cripple an opponent by robbing it of critical infrastructure - through licensing changes
5. How will this benefit OSS Customers?
Answer: not in any way imaginable
It's like this: Oracle is seeing customers moving to mysql for the small stuff. But they make money on the small stuff too - and even if oracle is superior to mysql in 7 ways out of 10, they're loosing cash to mysql. This move completely kills all mysql momentum in the market place:
- Mysql now has to dedicate resources to finding an innodb replacement. Good luck - there are no commodity persistant layers that support transactions like Innodb.
- Oracle can renew the license agreement at a much higher price, thereby winning short-term revenue at MySQL's expense!
- MySQL was talking about a big-enterprise role just down the road (before they got wind of this buy out and started acting meek a couple of weeks ago). Much of what they're missing is really functionality that should go into Innodb - Heikki Tuuri (innodb creator) has often stated that "partitioning for all table types will probably be available in 2006 or 2007". If Innodb built that they could start capturing a big chunk of the oracle revenue. This threat is now dead - with the only other strong competitors DB2 and SQL Server.
- In spite of being GPL, good luck on finding another crew of programmers that specialize in relational database engines to this product up. The few that exist in the open source world seem to all work at postgresql.
So yeah, Larry has MySQL by the balls right now. MySQL AB was probably looking forward to a big GA announcement for v5 next month - but there is no good publicity for MySQL in the foreseeable future now.
Re:Purchase PostgreSQL? (Score:5, Insightful)
MySQL AB is at the epicenter of development of MySQL DB, and requires copyright transfers for any outside changes. Paid developers at one small company largely create and support the entire database. Some users get a sense of security that there is "one person to go to", and a single focused business behind it. In some ways this business model worked well... their marketing was very successful, and the database might be described as more "unified" than, for example, PostgreSQL, where things like FTS and replication are independently developed (which is actually good, but can confuse users who think that "it's not good enough to be included").
However, the PostgreSQL development model has been working very effectively, not dependent on any one company. A short list of contributors includes the likes of Fujitsu, Sun, Affilias (manages all
When Great Bridge hired a bunch of the PostgreSQL developers, then got scared and pulled funding, the developers went back to the community. The community was the core to begin with, and development continued as always. Other companies came in to support it, and development has never been stronger. More importantly, the community has never been stronger.
The reason MySQL DB users are concerned, even though the source is GPL, is because MySQL DB is heavily dependent on MySQL AB. If MySQL is forced out by Oracle, what's left aside from some source code? There are a lot of users who would rally and try to build a community. But building a community to support an RDBMS takes more than just a few good programmers. It takes years to build the kind of community that works like the PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG). It takes programmers, organizers, advocates, managers, advocates, support channels, channels for accepting new developers (for instance, if a company wants to pay for a feature), decision makers, and arbitrators (to prevent too much forking). And it takes a lot of time to figure out who does what, and when they do it, and how to reconcile conflicts or scheduling difficulties, how to work as a team so that work is integrated properly and time is not wasted.
If someone has a proposal for a feature, who do they ask so that it's heard? Will a reliable decision be made about whether/when to progress? Who should step up and program? Who will open the channels of communication between the programmer and any other programmers working in similar code areas? Who will enforce project "standards"? Who will devise the standards? Does it go in this release or wait 'til the next? When is feature freeze? Who determines what quality level constitutes a release? Should the patch be backported? If it breaks any compatibility, who will devise a proper release timeline to avoid hurting existing users too much?
It really takes a long time to build those conventions and organize people into a functional development group. MySQL DB users can only hope that MySQL AB is still around for a while. If MySQL AB goes the way of Great Bridge, MySQL DB may be left in chaos. In the meantime, start forming a community that can operate outside of MySQL AB. The monolithic development/business model seems to be in question right now.
upgrade path to Oracle? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle may be looking to get enterprise clients to switch from MySQL to Oracle. IMO, I wish them the best. However, Oracle would be dumb (as would MS, IBM) to think that they could switch a small to medium site to an expensive DB server costing $1,000's per processor. The (non-)enterprise versions of Oracle and MS SQL Server are not expensive from a medium-large to large company perspective. However, try to get a small to medium sized company to dish out $5,000+ for a DB server and see how fast they look for other options.
MS is coming out with another "watered-down" version of MS SQL Server for their 2005 version. I wonder how many concurrent users can connect or what the limitations are. I am sure MS won't allow any old company to just use a watered-down SQL server free of charge. If that is the case, I would just write a connection manager to always use only the max limit of connections and save our company a crap load of cash.
IMO, there is always going to be a nice market for the OSS DB's such as MySQL and PostgreSQL. The price is hard to beat and the features/speed for both is great. IME, the only reason to really use one of the paid-for databases is for some very expensive financial type applications where you want the support/reputation. Otherwise, MySQL/PostgreSQL does the same for less. Now if I could only find a way to convince the PHB's at the fortune 500 where I work of that fact.
Re:Bad for open source, maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
Provided you don't end up with date overflow errors (you aren't doing scientific apps where you need dates after 10000AD or before 10000BC, are you)? And a dozen or so "what you put in might not be what you get out" errors.
Of course the same is true of MS Access... MySQL is more of a competitor of MSDE than of Oracle in nearly every instance.
I would never trust my data to MySQL even in 5.0 for a number of data-integrity related issues. PostgreSQL or even FirebirdSQL are far better.
Forking InnoDB insufficient for MySQL because (Score:4, Insightful)
MySQL cannot continue reselling licenses to MySQL w/InnoDB without an agreement from Oracle (at least without risking a lawsuit which gets into the sticky issue of whether MySQL as a work is derivative of InnoDB). This is not like SCO suing IBM. It is like IBM suing SCO, except that MySQL might have a bit more of a case than SCO simply because derivation is not so clear cut (IANAL though).
But it gets worse....
MySQL does not own the copyrights to any transaction-safe table type. Not BDB, not InnoDB, not MaxDB.
Re:Purchase PostgreSQL? (Score:3, Insightful)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I could understand if he had added a jab about how mysql could never do that. But he didn't. He's just touting the database management system that he likes.
The mysql vs. postgres thing gets so out of hand. It reminds me of when I compliment my 5 year old and my 4 year old gets upset because I didn't compliment her too. When I wrote my initial post I thought of mentioning the MySql part of the issue and the trouble they may be in due to the Oracle move, but I decided not to just because it is so difficult to discuss in a rational way. Too many people start digging up the same old tired arguments.
I don't care if everybody starts using MySql and it gets voted 'best thing ever'. I'll still be happy as a clam in high tide, running what I prefer. That's the most valuable part of free software in my opinion.
Re:It is not FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really mind it when companies sign marketing agreements of this sort if they keep it solely on the level of "we want to help our customers."
IMO, there is an issue here in that MySQL has taken this partnership well beyond this level (read their interview on Groklaw for more info).
Re:Purchase PostgreSQL? (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the fundamental principles of the relational model is that you separate your logical constructs from the physical implementation. If anything, using other people's storage software was one of the few things they got right! (Of course, the rest of the time they succumbed to the nuts and bolts nerds and talked about how high they could score on arbitrary benchmarks and how integrity was for sissies, &c &c.)
You have a point. But my point isn't that this is technically good or bad. The point is that their decision to offer non-Free licenses for sale has made them vulnerable to these sort of hostile actions by entrenched competitors. I.e. it may make decent technical sense, but it is lousy business-wise. I.e. they are in a worst-of-both-worlds licensing-wise and really are not able to really commit to one model or the other. It would have been smarter had they acquired Innobase....
PostgreSQL and Firebird can get away with their own on-disk storage engines because PostgreSQL has a larger contributing developer base than MySQL and InnoDB combined and Firebird gets its storage engine from Interbase. But in both cases, the project has control over the storage engines. They can't be hurt by hostile takeovers by companies like Oracle.
A better parallel might be how EnterpriseDB is largely a patched PostgreSQL which alters the parser to be closer to Oracle, and leaves the PostgreSQL storage layer intact.