RE: Oracle , what else ?
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 17:58 +0100, Gabriel - IP Guys wrote: The real question is whether they will let MySQL wither and die by not providing updates for it? Well, MySQL is open source, right? And the source is available? I'm sure a team of devs will come to the rescue. As for MySQL, as a company, they don't make even close to the potential money they can. People do not really go to MySQL for support, which is the model RedHat uses. For MySQL, it's different, because the MySQL userbase by their very nature, solve problems for a living. They have the attitude of how can I fix things? How do I make things work the way I want? This has a serious adverse effect on MySQL as a company, because the number one revenue stream for any company whos main 'product' or 'service' is open source based, is the support contract. The code is available under the GPL but the documentation is not. Without adequate documentation a project becomes less accessible and less used. -Janek -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
RE: Oracle , what else ?
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 17:58 +0100, Gabriel - IP Guys wrote: The real question is whether they will let MySQL wither and die by not providing updates for it? Well, MySQL is open source, right? And the source is available? I'm sure a team of devs will come to the rescue. As for MySQL, as a company, they don't make even close to the potential money they can. People do not really go to MySQL for support, which is the model RedHat uses. For MySQL, it's different, because the MySQL userbase by their very nature, solve problems for a living. They have the attitude of how can I fix things? How do I make things work the way I want? This has a serious adverse effect on MySQL as a company, because the number one revenue stream for any company whos main 'product' or 'service' is open source based, is the support contract. The code is available under the GPL but the documentation is not. Without adequate documentation a project becomes less accessible and less used. -Janek At the MySQL Conference Expo 2009 they were talking about making the documentation GPL. Lets hope they press on with that! -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=john.dais...@butterflysystems.co.uk __ This email has been scanned by Netintelligence http://www.netintelligence.com/email -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
RE: Oracle , what else ?
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 17:58 +0100, Gabriel - IP Guys wrote: The real question is whether they will let MySQL wither and die by not providing updates for it? Well, MySQL is open source, right? And the source is available? I'm sure a team of devs will come to the rescue. As for MySQL, as a company, they don't make even close to the potential money they can. People do not really go to MySQL for support, which is the model RedHat uses. For MySQL, it's different, because the MySQL userbase by their very nature, solve problems for a living. They have the attitude of how can I fix things? How do I make things work the way I want? This has a serious adverse effect on MySQL as a company, because the number one revenue stream for any company whos main 'product' or 'service' is open source based, is the support contract. The code is available under the GPL but the documentation is not. Without adequate documentation a project becomes less accessible and less used. -Janek -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
RE: Oracle , what else ?
In case anyone is interested, here is Monty's views on the Oracle buyout. http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/04/to-be-free-or-not-to-be-free.html Mike -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 10:42 -0700, David Sparks wrote: -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Your FUD would be better posted on a Postres list with all the onging discussions on how Mysql doesn't support foreign keys, transactions, etc. There is no FUD here. The question was asked, I supplied my thoughts. Further I never suggested any of the things you are stating. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 18:15 +, Glyn Astill wrote: Begone Postgres troll! Oh the hostility of a scorned mysql user. Joshua has posted no more FUD than you mysql chaps have done yourselvs over the past few days. You were worried about the future and he's posted a few ideas of how you can prepare. That said I do agree he's jumped in at the right time to do a bit of Postgres pushin' and pimpin' :-) You have to take your opportunities when you can :) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 12:15 -0700, David Sparks wrote: Glyn Astill wrote: Begone Postgres troll! Oh the hostility of a scorned mysql user. Joshua has posted no more FUD than you mysql chaps have done yourselvs over the past few days. You were worried about the future and he's posted a few ideas of how you can prepare. No he didn't. He posted doom and gloom: Boy you really just can't handle someone not agreeing with you can you? It will be a supported but second class citizen from Oracle. Yes, and I stand by that. Oracle is not interested in the 1000/yr business. For the most part that is where MySQL revenue is. All you have to do is look at the SEC filings and the pricing sheet. maintain it long enough to allow MySQL to kill itself. Which I do still believe will happen. I would expect that MySQL in two years likely won't exist except on the most tertiary level. How we take one piece of the whole puzzle to make our point in the fruitless effort to discredit those who are clearly more well thought out than you. My whole point was: I would expect that MySQL in two years likely won't exist except on the most tertiary level. Most new projects will be developed in either PostgreSQL, Interbase or one of the forks (MariaDB, Drizzle). Considering my discussion with Monty this weekend, I would exert that the above is even more true. MariaDB is set to be a meritocracy based, true community (something the current MySQL is not). I expect that it will return to a quality form of development of release when ready not when the marketing droids force you to. I have a strong faith (even if I am not technically interested) in the direction Monty is going with MariaDB. I expect to see great things. One more time: begone Postgres troll! Based on your definition of troll, I would say that I am more a MariaDB troll. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
Well, MySQL is open source, right? And the source is available? I'm sure a team of devs will come to the rescue. Really? What would make a group of developers wanting to develop a -database engine- for free? Some party needs to step up and pay those people, else you're beloved product will go no-where. Open source, yes, but free, no way ... When it comes to free usuage, people can go to PostgreSQL or Firebird, hey, some parties might even be better off, cause those two don't need a license for commercial usuage! With regards, Martijn Tonies Upscene Productions http://www.upscene.com Download Database Workbench for Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase SQL Anywhere, MySQL, InterBase, NexusDB and Firebird! Database questions? Check the forum: http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 08:44 +0200, Martijn Tonies wrote: Well, MySQL is open source, right? And the source is available? I'm sure a team of devs will come to the rescue. Really? What would make a group of developers wanting to develop a -database engine- for free? Some party needs to step up and pay those people, else you're beloved product will go no-where. SQL Lite and PostgreSQL were both originally developed for free. Yes much of PostgreSQL is sponsored by people who now get paid to work on the product but that isn't 100% the case and it took a long way to get there. That being said, this is a good point. A team of developers are likely not to pick up MySQL unless they get paid. There are too many as good or better options that are also open source. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
At 01:44 AM 4/24/2009, Martijn Tonies wrote: Well, MySQL is open source, right? And the source is available? I'm sure a team of devs will come to the rescue. Really? What would make a group of developers wanting to develop a -database engine- for free? Some party needs to step up and pay those people, else you're beloved product will go no-where. Correct. There are multi-million dollar companies using MySQL who would lose their investment and skill set if they switched to another database. These are the ones likely willing to fund for continued development of MySQL, like the Firebird community who took up the development of the Interbase fork. There is a huge interest in MySQL and no matter what happens, it will be around for some time to come. If Oracle was smart, they should put a lot of effort into supporting it. Open source, yes, but free, no way ... When it comes to free usuage, people can go to PostgreSQL or Firebird, hey, some parties might even be better off, cause those two don't need a license for commercial usuage! I agree. They are better choices for commercial development because of the MySQL licensing policies. But no such licenses are needed for web development which is where MySQL dominates. I doubt MySQL AB makes a lot of money from licenses anyway. When was the last time you saw MySQL on a desk top? The real money is in support, just ask IBM. If Oracle dropped the licensing restrictions on MySQL altogether and charged only for support, it would put MySQL on many more desk tops and I feel they could profit from it immensely. Oracle would have a high end database and a low end database and they would end up dominating the database marketplace. It's like a manufacturer coming out with a generic no-name product to compete with its higher end product. It is done all the time in the food industry. They'd rather have the customer using their generic product than lose the customer to a competitor. Hopefully Oracle sees it that way. Just one guy's opinion. Mike -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
RE: Oracle , what else ?
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 10:56 -0400, Martin Gainty wrote: IF MySQL returns to opensource..(presumably under Monty's benevolent leadership) then packages that utilise MySQL could be for paying clients only from your perspective what is the future of MySQL? Interesting question. I think MySQL will live on in various incarnations but I do think its glory days are over. It will be a supported but second class citizen from Oracle. I was at Innotech yesterday speaking on the open source panel (http://vimeo.com/4307197) and one of the participants stated that they were nervous about the fact that MySQL had been bought twice in the last two years. I did mention that I didn't think MySQL was going away and that Oracle is a smart company and there is a lot of mind share with MySQL. However, Oracle is not interested in the 1000/yr business. For the most part that is where MySQL revenue is. It is estimated that MySQL AB was only doing 50M a year when they were bought by Sun. 50M a year is petty cash for Oracle. So Oracle has two choices, completely change MySQL to make it more profitable and thus alienate its main user base (small websites) or maintain it long enough to allow MySQL to kill itself. MySQL is already killing itself through the various forks that have permeated through the last 9 months. Another issue I see is the potential for mass migration from MySQL by non web applications. Yes there are a lot of them. Why? Because one way Oracle can make money from MySQL is to continue to charge for linked software against MySQL. If you are building a web app as long as your web language is open source, you are good with the GPL. However if you are building a monolithic app in say C++ you have a serious problem because the nature of the GPL guarantees that your C++ app will have to be open source. As much as a lot of us are pro Open Source the majority (by far) of the world still isn't. MySQL does have a strong following in the appliance state in this way. I would expect that MySQL in two years likely won't exist except on the most tertiary level. Most new projects will be developed in either PostgreSQL, Interbase or one of the forks (MariaDB, Drizzle). Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
Joshua D. Drake wrote: I would expect that MySQL in two years likely won't exist except on the most tertiary level. Most new projects will be developed in either PostgreSQL, Interbase or one of the forks (MariaDB, Drizzle). Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Your FUD would be better posted on a Postres list with all the onging discussions on how Mysql doesn't support foreign keys, transactions, etc. Begone Postgres troll! ds -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
--- On Fri, 24/4/09, David Sparks d...@ca.sophos.com wrote: From: David Sparks d...@ca.sophos.com Subject: Re: Oracle , what else ? To: j...@commandprompt.com j...@commandprompt.com Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com mysql@lists.mysql.com Date: Friday, 24 April, 2009, 6:42 PM Joshua D. Drake wrote: I would expect that MySQL in two years likely won't exist except on the most tertiary level. Most new projects will be developed in either PostgreSQL, Interbase or one of the forks (MariaDB, Drizzle). Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Your FUD would be better posted on a Postres list with all the onging discussions on how Mysql doesn't support foreign keys, transactions, etc. Begone Postgres troll! Oh the hostility of a scorned mysql user. Joshua has posted no more FUD than you mysql chaps have done yourselvs over the past few days. You were worried about the future and he's posted a few ideas of how you can prepare. That said I do agree he's jumped in at the right time to do a bit of Postgres pushin' and pimpin' :-) -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
Glyn Astill wrote: Begone Postgres troll! Oh the hostility of a scorned mysql user. Joshua has posted no more FUD than you mysql chaps have done yourselvs over the past few days. You were worried about the future and he's posted a few ideas of how you can prepare. No he didn't. He posted doom and gloom: It will be a supported but second class citizen from Oracle. Oracle is not interested in the 1000/yr business. For the most part that is where MySQL revenue is. maintain it long enough to allow MySQL to kill itself. I would expect that MySQL in two years likely won't exist except on the most tertiary level. One more time: begone Postgres troll! Switching gears ... All said, I'm cautiously optimistic that Oracle taking over the reins to Mysql will benefit all. Mysql is the long running leader in the open source database space, and with the DB smarts of Oracle behind it I expect to see the gap between Mysql and the other open source DB servers widen, not close up. Mysql is getting better at a pace that is making the other open source DB servers irrelevant. ds -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
--- On Fri, 24/4/09, David Sparks d...@ca.sophos.com wrote: Mysql is getting better at a pace that is making the other open source DB servers irrelevant. lol. Is that a typo? Surely you wanted to say Mysql's bug fix list is gathering pace... -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
--- On Wed, 22/4/09, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: From: Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com Subject: Re: Oracle , what else ? To: Martijn Tonies m.ton...@upscene.com Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com Date: Wednesday, 22 April, 2009, 10:45 PM On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 15:19 +0200, Martijn Tonies wrote: Hey Gilles, After MySQL bought by the java maker, and now Sun bought by Oracle, what are we gonna run as RDBMS ? How about PostgreSQL? I second that. You should all have a play with the 8.4 beta -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
On 21.04.2009 18:40 CE(S)T, mos wrote: At 08:06 AM 4/21/2009, Gilles MISSONNIER wrote: what are we gonna run as RDBMS ? It seems like the little fish are getting eaten by the bigger fish. I understand Microsoft is now going to buy Oracle. :-) (Sorry, just kidding) No, that would be funny. Microsoft buying Oracle - the new world software company name would be Miracle then! :-D Of course, Oracle will have bought IBM for their DB2 system and Java affinity before, and Microsoft will as well have bought Adobe for their PDF and Flash technologies. Then, MySQL is going to be abandoned by Miracle (they still have MSSQL, which may be a re-labelled DB2 with full PL/SQL compatibility then...) and a new small company is taking over the Open Source MySQL development... At least my crystal ball home oracle says so. But maybe I should clean it again to see things more accurately. ;-) -- Yves Goergen LonelyPixel nospam.l...@unclassified.de Visit my web laboratory at http://beta.unclassified.de -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 08:25 +, Glyn Astill wrote: --- On Wed, 22/4/09, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: what are we gonna run as RDBMS ? How about PostgreSQL? I second that. You should all have a play with the 8.4 beta I actually think a lot of primarily MySQL people are missing a lot of great stuff in PostgreSQL. Of course I am biased but when I look at the complaints about PostgreSQL they are largely based on years old information that is out of date. Alternately it is people who really don't know anything about databases but understand how to use MySQL. That is obviously a compelling argument. If I know how to use something and it does what I need, why change? The only counter argument I can provide to you is that there is a good chance you don't know what you are missing. Give it a shot. There are plenty of Pg people that would be happy to help MySQL people make their migration. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
RE: Oracle , what else ?
-Original Message- After MySQL bought by the java maker, and now Sun bought by Oracle, How did I miss this!? It seems like the little fish are getting eaten by the bigger fish. I understand Microsoft is now going to buy Oracle. :-) (Sorry, just kidding) The real question is whether they will let MySQL wither and die by not providing updates for it? Well, MySQL is open source, right? And the source is available? I'm sure a team of devs will come to the rescue. As for MySQL, as a company, they don't make even close to the potential money they can. People do not really go to MySQL for support, which is the model RedHat uses. For MySQL, it's different, because the MySQL userbase by their very nature, solve problems for a living. They have the attitude of how can I fix things? How do I make things work the way I want? This has a serious adverse effect on MySQL as a company, because the number one revenue stream for any company whos main 'product' or 'service' is open source based, is the support contract. Is Oracle is too big to make MySQL updates any kind of priority? The updates are not going to be a priority, granted - but compatibility might be their goal. If they can produce an upgrade path straight to Oracle, for all the current users of MySQL, the price paid for Sun, will be like peanuts, an investment for a better future. But let's not forget, Sun have some pretty kick ass systems on the go. I've seen their thin client setup, for things like presentations, and just being able to work at any terminal in the building/small group of close proximity buildings/across the entire city . *sweet!* It seems that the larger the company and the more products they have, the less interest they have in their lower revenue making products. I hope this is not the case with Oracle, but the updates in the next year will determine where MySQL is headed. Just one guy's opinion. Mike It's a good opinion Mike :) -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
At 07:13 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote: It will great if the MYSQL guys were to buy mysql from Oracle for half the price that Sun paid. Yeah, I'm sure Widenous is writing a check as we speak. rofl He is busy working on Maria, a stripped down branch of MySQL. http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/01/maria-engine-is-released.html They would come out making lots of money and back controlling their own destiny. Anyone can have control of the MySQL code because it is GPL. The only thing stopping them is time and $$$ to organize another company, maybe call it MySQL CD?? Mike :-) On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Arthur Fuller fuller.art...@gmail.comwrote: I hereby bet the farm that this shall not occur. I have $10 to say that this shall not occur. a) Who is going to challenge the deal? b) What possible purpose would it serve to interr MySQL? c) Assuming there is some reason for b) above, why incur the wrath of the MySQL community and their possible bail-outs? Nothing gained and everything lost, in such a move. d) If we know anything, we know that Scott and Larry are not fools. e) In the grand scheme of things, the MySQL piece of this pie is peanuts and perhaps less. This acquisition is about the big picture (hardware platform + existing Sparc base + Java, etc.). MySQL, as much as we love it, is a tiny teensy part of this acquisition, and my guess is that Scott and Larry are much more focussed on the other parts (e.g. end-to-end solutions extending from the hardware to the middleware to the Oracle apps, etc.) and in this ballpark MySQL is an interesting tidbit but not at all the focus of their efforts. Think big, baby. MySQL in this context is a tiny little ripple in the pond, having little or nothing to do with Scott/Larry's plans. Viewed from this perspective, MySQL becomes a viable alternative to such offerings as SQL Express from MS. If for no other reasons than marketing imperatives, I am confident that Scott and Larry will choose not to kill MySQL but rather regard it as both an entry platform and a position from which to upgrade to Oracle. Make no mistake about this. There are very sound reasons to upgrade to Oracle. Cost is of course a serious issue. But Oracle can do things, and has various top-end vehicles, that MySQL cannot approach. Consider, to take just one example, Trusted Oracle, upon which numerous banks bet their bottom dollar. Add to this the numerous Oracle Apps. I am no champion of Oracle in particular, but I do rtheecognize what platforms X and Y can do. If the game is defined as retrieval amongst several GB of data, then MySQL has a chance. If the game is retrieval amongst several PB of data, with security, then I bet on Oracle. Granted, this move requires a team of DBAs etc., but if you are dealing with PetaBytes then I suggest that you think carefully about which vendor is prepared to take you there. Just my $0.02 in this debate. I don't see MySQL and Oracle as competitive products. In fact I see the opposite: Oracle gets to occupy a space in the open-source community while simultanwously offering an upgrade path to multi-petabyte solutions, serious security, and so on. I don't think that Scott and Larry are out to hurt the MySQL community, and I'm prepared to bet that they will invest in the next version of MySQL, You might disagree but I challenge you to answer Why? Sheer rapaciousness? That doesn't make sense. MySQL has garnered numerous big-time players, and in what possible interest would Oracle jeapordize these investments? As several writers on this thread have said, if Oracle muddies the waters then they are prepared to move to PostGres and/or several other alternatives, not least to take the MySQL sources to a new playpen. It is clearly not in the interests of Oracle to let this happen. Far more interesting is to fold the MySQL project into Oracle's overall Linux project. Continue to offer MySQL for free, work on transport vehicles that let MySQL people migrate effortlessly to Oracle, etc. I don't mean to pretend to read Scott and Larry's minds here. But I think that the MySQL part of this acquisition, while interesting, is a small part of the rationale for buying Sun. The serious interest is in acquiring an end-to-end solution, as yet offered by nobody, including IBM and MS. This is the most significant part of this acquisition. Imagine being the salesperson of said stack. We have the hardware and the operating system and the middleware and the front-end. Click and go. IMO this is a truly formidable argument. In practice, it could be delivered as an appliance and/or a blade. And if you don't think this is formidable, then wake up and smell the coffee. This could well leap-frog certain other competitors -- which is not to say they won't catch up eventually, but it is to say that Oracle has raised the bar and it's time for competitors such as MS to jump through several flaming hoops. On
Re: Oracle , what else ?
It will great if the MYSQL guys were to buy mysql from Oracle for half the price that Sun paid. Yeah, I'm sure Widenous is writing a check as we speak. rofl He is busy working on Maria, a stripped down branch of MySQL. http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/01/maria-engine-is-released.html They would come out making lots of money and back controlling their own destiny. Anyone can have control of the MySQL code because it is GPL. The only thing stopping them is time and $$$ to organize another company, maybe call it MySQL CD?? The MySQL name is not free though, it's owned by MySQL AB (or Sun nowadays). So even if a fork happens, it cannot take the mysql name, having to rename tools/filenames in order to work. And after that, it has to stick with the community public. With regards, Martijn Tonies Upscene Productions http://www.upscene.com Download FREE Database Workbench Lite for MySQL! Database questions? Check the forum: http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
i agree with you, Since mysql code is GPL anyone can start developing further wither another name say 'MySQL NEW' I don't understand how any company can own since mysql code is GPL. On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, mos mo...@fastmail.fm wrote: At 07:13 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote: It will great if the MYSQL guys were to buy mysql from Oracle for half the price that Sun paid. Yeah, I'm sure Widenous is writing a check as we speak. rofl He is busy working on Maria, a stripped down branch of MySQL. http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/01/maria-engine-is-released.html They would come out making lots of money and back controlling their own destiny. Anyone can have control of the MySQL code because it is GPL. The only thing stopping them is time and $$$ to organize another company, maybe call it MySQL CD?? Mike :-) On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Arthur Fuller fuller.art...@gmail.com wrote: I hereby bet the farm that this shall not occur. I have $10 to say that this shall not occur. a) Who is going to challenge the deal? b) What possible purpose would it serve to interr MySQL? c) Assuming there is some reason for b) above, why incur the wrath of the MySQL community and their possible bail-outs? Nothing gained and everything lost, in such a move. d) If we know anything, we know that Scott and Larry are not fools. e) In the grand scheme of things, the MySQL piece of this pie is peanuts and perhaps less. This acquisition is about the big picture (hardware platform + existing Sparc base + Java, etc.). MySQL, as much as we love it, is a tiny teensy part of this acquisition, and my guess is that Scott and Larry are much more focussed on the other parts (e.g. end-to-end solutions extending from the hardware to the middleware to the Oracle apps, etc.) and in this ballpark MySQL is an interesting tidbit but not at all the focus of their efforts. Think big, baby. MySQL in this context is a tiny little ripple in the pond, having little or nothing to do with Scott/Larry's plans. Viewed from this perspective, MySQL becomes a viable alternative to such offerings as SQL Express from MS. If for no other reasons than marketing imperatives, I am confident that Scott and Larry will choose not to kill MySQL but rather regard it as both an entry platform and a position from which to upgrade to Oracle. Make no mistake about this. There are very sound reasons to upgrade to Oracle. Cost is of course a serious issue. But Oracle can do things, and has various top-end vehicles, that MySQL cannot approach. Consider, to take just one example, Trusted Oracle, upon which numerous banks bet their bottom dollar. Add to this the numerous Oracle Apps. I am no champion of Oracle in particular, but I do rtheecognize what platforms X and Y can do. If the game is defined as retrieval amongst several GB of data, then MySQL has a chance. If the game is retrieval amongst several PB of data, with security, then I bet on Oracle. Granted, this move requires a team of DBAs etc., but if you are dealing with PetaBytes then I suggest that you think carefully about which vendor is prepared to take you there. Just my $0.02 in this debate. I don't see MySQL and Oracle as competitive products. In fact I see the opposite: Oracle gets to occupy a space in the open-source community while simultanwously offering an upgrade path to multi-petabyte solutions, serious security, and so on. I don't think that Scott and Larry are out to hurt the MySQL community, and I'm prepared to bet that they will invest in the next version of MySQL, You might disagree but I challenge you to answer Why? Sheer rapaciousness? That doesn't make sense. MySQL has garnered numerous big-time players, and in what possible interest would Oracle jeapordize these investments? As several writers on this thread have said, if Oracle muddies the waters then they are prepared to move to PostGres and/or several other alternatives, not least to take the MySQL sources to a new playpen. It is clearly not in the interests of Oracle to let this happen. Far more interesting is to fold the MySQL project into Oracle's overall Linux project. Continue to offer MySQL for free, work on transport vehicles that let MySQL people migrate effortlessly to Oracle, etc. I don't mean to pretend to read Scott and Larry's minds here. But I think that the MySQL part of this acquisition, while interesting, is a small part of the rationale for buying Sun. The serious interest is in acquiring an end-to-end solution, as yet offered by nobody, including IBM and MS. This is the most significant part of this acquisition. Imagine being the salesperson of said stack. We have the hardware and the operating system and the middleware and the front-end. Click and go. IMO this is a truly formidable argument. In practice, it could be delivered
Re: Oracle , what else ?
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 15:19 +0200, Martijn Tonies wrote: Hey Gilles, After MySQL bought by the java maker, and now Sun bought by Oracle, what are we gonna run as RDBMS ? How about PostgreSQL? Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
On 21 Apr 2009, at 14:06, Gilles MISSONNIER wrote: hello people, bad joke is not it ? After MySQL bought by the java maker, and now Sun bought by Oracle, what are we gonna run as RDBMS ? I don't see what the problem is really. Anyway if there ever is a problem in the future (which I doubt) there is always PostgreSQL to fall back on. Simon. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Oracle , what else ?
Hey Gilles, After MySQL bought by the java maker, and now Sun bought by Oracle, what are we gonna run as RDBMS ? Not sure what we are gonna run, but my office is continuing to run MySQL when required, Firebird otherwise :-) With regards, Martijn Tonies Upscene Productions http://www.upscene.com Download Database Workbench for Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase SQL Anywhere, MySQL, InterBase, NexusDB and Firebird! Database questions? Check the forum: http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
At 08:06 AM 4/21/2009, Gilles MISSONNIER wrote: hello people, bad joke is not it ? After MySQL bought by the java maker, and now Sun bought by Oracle, what are we gonna run as RDBMS ? It seems like the little fish are getting eaten by the bigger fish. I understand Microsoft is now going to buy Oracle. :-) (Sorry, just kidding) re:MySQL. This is a smart move by Oracle because now they will have the dominant database on the web. They can't sell Oracle to most web developers so they need to keep MySQL alive. Whether they keep updating it is another question. I am a little worried about MySQL enterprise because they will likely hike the fees for that. They could try and pressure the major MySQL web sites like Wikipedia to switch to Oracle. I don't think this will work since most websites are free and not cash driven so they don't have the money or skill set to switch to Oracle. If they try and kill MySQL enterprise, Oracle will get one very angry community after it and they can't afford that. The real question is whether they will let MySQL wither and die by not providing updates for it? To see what will happen to MySQL take a look at how Oracle handled InnoDb. How many updates have they released since they purchased it? I really don't know so someone will need to check. Is Oracle is too big to make MySQL updates any kind of priority? It seems that the larger the company and the more products they have, the less interest they have in their lower revenue making products. I hope this is not the case with Oracle, but the updates in the next year will determine where MySQL is headed. Just one guy's opinion. Mike -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
Hi, To see what will happen to MySQL take a look at how Oracle handled InnoDb. How many updates have they released since they purchased it? I really don't know so someone will need to check. Is Oracle is too big to make MySQL updates any kind of priority? It seems that the larger the company and the more products they have, the less interest they have in their lower revenue making products. I hope this is not the case with Oracle, but the updates in the next year will determine where MySQL is headed. On a similar note, Oracle bought Sleepycat in February 2006 and hence acquired the embedded BerkeleyDB database in the process. In the 3 years since then I believe there has been two updates released to BerkeleyDB. Previous to the acquisition I was updating BerkeleyDB on my servers roughly once every few months. Personally (and I hope I'm wrong) I don't believe there's room in Oracle's portfolio for two diverse RDBMSs, and I envisage them re-branding MySQL as an Oracle open-source derivative which begins as being the MySQL codebase but is slowly migrated toward Oracle's engineering, to ease the transition for growing companies moving from MySQL/Oracle open-source to the Oracle enterprise versions. Having said that this is pure speculation, and only yesterday I read something in the manual that a particular option was going to be deprecated in MySQL 7 - we haven't even seen 6 in beta yet! Like Mike said, the next year or so will tell. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
MySQL will live on regardless of who owns the brand. First and foremost MySQL is a community and that community will continue to develop MySQL and take it in the direction they want it to go. Sure Oracle could try and force some 'features' or changes through but if the community didn't like them the community would just keep developing 'pre-oracle' MySQL, even if that happens to be under a different name. Personally I would be surprised if the Oracle deal goes unchallenged. I don't think Oracle really 'want' MySQL as it makes very little money and it raises competition concerns. I wouldn't be surprised if Oracle were to look at offloading MySQL to ease competition fears, perhaps to someone like Google who are already heavily involved in the development of MySQL. On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 22:36 +0100, Andy Shellam wrote: Personally (and I hope I'm wrong) I don't believe there's room in Oracle's portfolio for two diverse RDBMSs, and I envisage them re-branding MySQL as an Oracle open-source derivative which begins as being the MySQL codebase but is slowly migrated toward Oracle's engineering, to ease the transition for growing companies moving from MySQL/Oracle open-source to the Oracle enterprise versions. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
I hereby bet the farm that this shall not occur. I have $10 to say that this shall not occur. a) Who is going to challenge the deal? b) What possible purpose would it serve to interr MySQL? c) Assuming there is some reason for b) above, why incur the wrath of the MySQL community and their possible bail-outs? Nothing gained and everything lost, in such a move. d) If we know anything, we know that Scott and Larry are not fools. e) In the grand scheme of things, the MySQL piece of this pie is peanuts and perhaps less. This acquisition is about the big picture (hardware platform + existing Sparc base + Java, etc.). MySQL, as much as we love it, is a tiny teensy part of this acquisition, and my guess is that Scott and Larry are much more focussed on the other parts (e.g. end-to-end solutions extending from the hardware to the middleware to the Oracle apps, etc.) and in this ballpark MySQL is an interesting tidbit but not at all the focus of their efforts. Think big, baby. MySQL in this context is a tiny little ripple in the pond, having little or nothing to do with Scott/Larry's plans. Viewed from this perspective, MySQL becomes a viable alternative to such offerings as SQL Express from MS. If for no other reasons than marketing imperatives, I am confident that Scott and Larry will choose not to kill MySQL but rather regard it as both an entry platform and a position from which to upgrade to Oracle. Make no mistake about this. There are very sound reasons to upgrade to Oracle. Cost is of course a serious issue. But Oracle can do things, and has various top-end vehicles, that MySQL cannot approach. Consider, to take just one example, Trusted Oracle, upon which numerous banks bet their bottom dollar. Add to this the numerous Oracle Apps. I am no champion of Oracle in particular, but I do rtheecognize what platforms X and Y can do. If the game is defined as retrieval amongst several GB of data, then MySQL has a chance. If the game is retrieval amongst several PB of data, with security, then I bet on Oracle. Granted, this move requires a team of DBAs etc., but if you are dealing with PetaBytes then I suggest that you think carefully about which vendor is prepared to take you there. Just my $0.02 in this debate. I don't see MySQL and Oracle as competitive products. In fact I see the opposite: Oracle gets to occupy a space in the open-source community while simultanwously offering an upgrade path to multi-petabyte solutions, serious security, and so on. I don't think that Scott and Larry are out to hurt the MySQL community, and I'm prepared to bet that they will invest in the next version of MySQL, You might disagree but I challenge you to answer Why? Sheer rapaciousness? That doesn't make sense. MySQL has garnered numerous big-time players, and in what possible interest would Oracle jeapordize these investments? As several writers on this thread have said, if Oracle muddies the waters then they are prepared to move to PostGres and/or several other alternatives, not least to take the MySQL sources to a new playpen. It is clearly not in the interests of Oracle to let this happen. Far more interesting is to fold the MySQL project into Oracle's overall Linux project. Continue to offer MySQL for free, work on transport vehicles that let MySQL people migrate effortlessly to Oracle, etc. I don't mean to pretend to read Scott and Larry's minds here. But I think that the MySQL part of this acquisition, while interesting, is a small part of the rationale for buying Sun. The serious interest is in acquiring an end-to-end solution, as yet offered by nobody, including IBM and MS. This is the most significant part of this acquisition. Imagine being the salesperson of said stack. We have the hardware and the operating system and the middleware and the front-end. Click and go. IMO this is a truly formidable argument. In practice, it could be delivered as an appliance and/or a blade. And if you don't think this is formidable, then wake up and smell the coffee. This could well leap-frog certain other competitors -- which is not to say they won't catch up eventually, but it is to say that Oracle has raised the bar and it's time for competitors such as MS to jump through several flaming hoops. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:57 PM, John Daisley john.dais...@mypostoffice.co.uk wrote: MySQL will live on regardless of who owns the brand. First and foremost MySQL is a community and that community will continue to develop MySQL and take it in the direction they want it to go. Sure Oracle could try and force some 'features' or changes through but if the community didn't like them the community would just keep developing 'pre-oracle' MySQL, even if that happens to be under a different name. Personally I would be surprised if the Oracle deal goes unchallenged. I don't think Oracle really 'want' MySQL as it makes very little money and it raises competition concerns. I wouldn't be surprised if Oracle were to look at offloading
Re: Oracle , what else ?
It will great if the MYSQL guys were to buy mysql from Oracle for half the price that Sun paid. They would come out making lots of money and back controlling their own destiny. :-) On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Arthur Fuller fuller.art...@gmail.comwrote: I hereby bet the farm that this shall not occur. I have $10 to say that this shall not occur. a) Who is going to challenge the deal? b) What possible purpose would it serve to interr MySQL? c) Assuming there is some reason for b) above, why incur the wrath of the MySQL community and their possible bail-outs? Nothing gained and everything lost, in such a move. d) If we know anything, we know that Scott and Larry are not fools. e) In the grand scheme of things, the MySQL piece of this pie is peanuts and perhaps less. This acquisition is about the big picture (hardware platform + existing Sparc base + Java, etc.). MySQL, as much as we love it, is a tiny teensy part of this acquisition, and my guess is that Scott and Larry are much more focussed on the other parts (e.g. end-to-end solutions extending from the hardware to the middleware to the Oracle apps, etc.) and in this ballpark MySQL is an interesting tidbit but not at all the focus of their efforts. Think big, baby. MySQL in this context is a tiny little ripple in the pond, having little or nothing to do with Scott/Larry's plans. Viewed from this perspective, MySQL becomes a viable alternative to such offerings as SQL Express from MS. If for no other reasons than marketing imperatives, I am confident that Scott and Larry will choose not to kill MySQL but rather regard it as both an entry platform and a position from which to upgrade to Oracle. Make no mistake about this. There are very sound reasons to upgrade to Oracle. Cost is of course a serious issue. But Oracle can do things, and has various top-end vehicles, that MySQL cannot approach. Consider, to take just one example, Trusted Oracle, upon which numerous banks bet their bottom dollar. Add to this the numerous Oracle Apps. I am no champion of Oracle in particular, but I do rtheecognize what platforms X and Y can do. If the game is defined as retrieval amongst several GB of data, then MySQL has a chance. If the game is retrieval amongst several PB of data, with security, then I bet on Oracle. Granted, this move requires a team of DBAs etc., but if you are dealing with PetaBytes then I suggest that you think carefully about which vendor is prepared to take you there. Just my $0.02 in this debate. I don't see MySQL and Oracle as competitive products. In fact I see the opposite: Oracle gets to occupy a space in the open-source community while simultanwously offering an upgrade path to multi-petabyte solutions, serious security, and so on. I don't think that Scott and Larry are out to hurt the MySQL community, and I'm prepared to bet that they will invest in the next version of MySQL, You might disagree but I challenge you to answer Why? Sheer rapaciousness? That doesn't make sense. MySQL has garnered numerous big-time players, and in what possible interest would Oracle jeapordize these investments? As several writers on this thread have said, if Oracle muddies the waters then they are prepared to move to PostGres and/or several other alternatives, not least to take the MySQL sources to a new playpen. It is clearly not in the interests of Oracle to let this happen. Far more interesting is to fold the MySQL project into Oracle's overall Linux project. Continue to offer MySQL for free, work on transport vehicles that let MySQL people migrate effortlessly to Oracle, etc. I don't mean to pretend to read Scott and Larry's minds here. But I think that the MySQL part of this acquisition, while interesting, is a small part of the rationale for buying Sun. The serious interest is in acquiring an end-to-end solution, as yet offered by nobody, including IBM and MS. This is the most significant part of this acquisition. Imagine being the salesperson of said stack. We have the hardware and the operating system and the middleware and the front-end. Click and go. IMO this is a truly formidable argument. In practice, it could be delivered as an appliance and/or a blade. And if you don't think this is formidable, then wake up and smell the coffee. This could well leap-frog certain other competitors -- which is not to say they won't catch up eventually, but it is to say that Oracle has raised the bar and it's time for competitors such as MS to jump through several flaming hoops. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:57 PM, John Daisley john.dais...@mypostoffice.co.uk wrote: MySQL will live on regardless of who owns the brand. First and foremost MySQL is a community and that community will continue to develop MySQL and take it in the direction they want it to go. Sure Oracle could try and force some 'features' or changes through but if the community didn't like them the community
