Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On 10/16/2005 5:25 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Chris Travers wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: They do not "own" MaxDB. They license it, just like Innodb. Damn, do they ever have alot of "loose ends" ... what part, exactly, constitutes "MySQL" vs third party add ons? :) If MaxDB, InnoDB, and DBD engines are all licensed, then they have problems. Thank god our biggest headaches have been "can we include readline, since its GPL?" and "we need to re-write ARC *just in case* IBM decides to enforce their patent" :)" You mean "their eventually someday to be patent". Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Chris Travers wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: They do not "own" MaxDB. They license it, just like Innodb. Damn, do they ever have alot of "loose ends" ... what part, exactly, constitutes "MySQL" vs third party add ons? :) If MaxDB, InnoDB, and DBD engines are all licensed, then they have problems. Thank god our biggest headaches have been "can we include readline, since its GPL?" and "we need to re-write ARC *just in case* IBM decides to enforce their patent" :)" Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Marc G. Fournier wrote: They do not "own" MaxDB. They license it, just like Innodb. Damn, do they ever have alot of "loose ends" ... what part, exactly, constitutes "MySQL" vs third party add ons? :) If MaxDB, InnoDB, and DBD engines are all licensed, then they have problems. MyISAM? I think they do own that one Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: This is what Lubet, former Oracle sales mistress, has to say about that: "I'm pretty sure, as an ex-Oracle employee, that the sentence in the release about 'We'll certainly be happy to renew the contract,' that it was written by Larry and that he was laughing out loud as he [dictated it]." Maybe they lost the development of the know how for the only transaction safe table type of the current mysql releases, but they still "own" the former Adabas/MaxDB/SAP-DB code with transaction safe tables. Probably they force the "union" of mysql and SAP-DB code base to keep their transaction competence, but this are just my €0,02... They do not "own" MaxDB. They license it, just like Innodb. Damn, do they ever have alot of "loose ends" ... what part, exactly, constitutes "MySQL" vs third party add ons? :) Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
This is what Lubet, former Oracle sales mistress, has to say about that: "I'm pretty sure, as an ex-Oracle employee, that the sentence in the release about 'We'll certainly be happy to renew the contract,' that it was written by Larry and that he was laughing out loud as he [dictated it]." Maybe they lost the development of the know how for the only transaction safe table type of the current mysql releases, but they still "own" the former Adabas/MaxDB/SAP-DB code with transaction safe tables. Probably they force the "union" of mysql and SAP-DB code base to keep their transaction competence, but this are just my €0,02... They do not "own" MaxDB. They license it, just like Innodb. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Greetings from Berlin, -tb -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On 10/15/2005 6:22 AM, Thomas Beutin wrote: Maybe they lost the development of the know how for the only transaction safe table type of the current mysql releases, but they still "own" the former Adabas/MaxDB/SAP-DB code with transaction safe tables. Probably they force the "union" of mysql and SAP-DB code base to keep their transaction competence, but this are just my €0,02... First, InnoDB is not the only transaction safe table type in MySQL. Although a poor stepchild today, there is still BDB. Second, MySQL AB does not own the MaxDB code. I never fully understood what that contract was about, maybe someone from MySQL AB can explain that, but to my knowledge SAP AG did not transfer the copyright. They could also go back to NuSphere, aka Multera, aka PeerDirect and ask what happened to the Progress storage engine Rocket. Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
CSN wrote: There are some articles on eweek about this: Oracle Finds the Flaw in MySQL's Business Plan http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1869989,00.asp "This is what Oracle says in its release: "InnoDB's contractual relationship with MySQL comes up for renewal next year. Oracle fully expects to negotiate an extension of that relationship." This is what Lubet, former Oracle sales mistress, has to say about that: "I'm pretty sure, as an ex-Oracle employee, that the sentence in the release about 'We'll certainly be happy to renew the contract,' that it was written by Larry and that he was laughing out loud as he [dictated it]." Maybe they lost the development of the know how for the only transaction safe table type of the current mysql releases, but they still "own" the former Adabas/MaxDB/SAP-DB code with transaction safe tables. Probably they force the "union" of mysql and SAP-DB code base to keep their transaction competence, but this are just my €0,02... Greetings from Berlin, -tb -- Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
There are some articles on eweek about this: Oracle Finds the Flaw in MySQL's Business Plan http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1869989,00.asp "This is what Oracle says in its release: "InnoDB's contractual relationship with MySQL comes up for renewal next year. Oracle fully expects to negotiate an extension of that relationship." This is what Lubet, former Oracle sales mistress, has to say about that: "I'm pretty sure, as an ex-Oracle employee, that the sentence in the release about 'We'll certainly be happy to renew the contract,' that it was written by Larry and that he was laughing out loud as he [dictated it]." __ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
John Dean wrote: > Hi > > That is terrific news being a former employee of MySQL - Oracle buys > Innobase. I was never a fan of MySQL, personally but when Marten Mikos and > the rest of the business wonks joined the Company I knew then it was time > to get out. I met the author of Innobase once at the first MySQL employees > meeting. I was asked what for an opinion on Heikki Tuuri. I came straight > to point and told Monty and David (Axmark) that Heikki Tuuri can not be > trusted. It seems I was right. Mr Tuuri has no interest in supporting the > OS commumity. His only interest is in making money. My gut feeling now is > that eventually Oracle will buy off Innobase lock stock and barell Then > Innonbase will get consigned to File 13. I now see MySQL heading for a long > slow death; it couldn't happen to a nicer group of people :) Thank God for > PostreSQL Though some sales folks have unusual perspectives on PostgreSQL (and to sell MySQL it seems almost to be required) most MySQL employees have deep respect for PostgreSQL, almost admiration. At least that has been my experience from the MySQL employees I have met at conferences. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
We have entered a new phase in the possible attacks on PostgreSQL. The purchase of InnoDB clearly shows Oracle is ready to expend money to slow down competitive database technology. Now that MySQL has been attacked, we should expect to be the next target. Let's assume Oracle is willing to spend 1% of their revenue or net income on attacking PostgreSQL. Given this financial statement: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ORCL&annual that would be USD $20-100 million. (The Oracle financial statement will eventually disclose the purchase price of InnoDB, and we can use that as a minimum amount they would be willing to spend.) Now, I think Oracle realizes that the database will eventually become a commodity based on their purchase of Peoplesoft and other application technology. However, every financial period they delay that time is more profit for them, so it is a cost/benefit of how much it is worth to slow down PostgreSQL. Obviously they thought the InnoDB purchase was worth it to slow down or control MySQL. Our goal should be to make the cost of attacks higher than the benefit. Here are the three most likely attacks on our project: o Hiring Oracle could hire a large portion of our paid or volunteer developers, thereby slowing down the project. Individuals would probably be approach as "We like your work on PostgreSQL and would like your expertise in improving Oracle", but of course once hired what they did for Oracle would be unimportant. What would be important is what they _don't_ do for PostgreSQL. o Trademark Marc Fournier owns the PostgreSQL trademark and domain names. He could be attacked, perhaps by hiring him to do a job, causing it to fail, then suing him to obtain the trademark, and therefore the right to own the domain names. The trademark has not been enforced, and it would be hard to enforce at this stage, but I think it would be effective in gaining control of the domain names. o Patents Most technology people agree the software patent system is broken, but it could be a potent weapon against us, though we have shown we can efficiently remove patent issue from our code. There is probably nothing Oracle can do to permanently harm us, but there are a variety of things they can do to temporarily slow us down, and it is likely a attempt will be made in the future. There are also possible threats to PostgreSQL support companies, though they are somewhat independent of the project. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:41:42PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On a side note, have you considered submitting a case study about the > work you're doing? One place where MySQL AB and it's zealots likes to > beat PostgreSQL over the head is with it's list of clients. It'd be nice > to be able to say that the Mayo Clinic is using PostgreSQL. You might also want to go ahead asking this guy for information: http://www.coolheads.com/egov/opensource/topicmap/a101/author.html He is active on several open source health software lists that I am on. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 00:49, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What is Oracle after? Small DB technology? They already have rdb.
> > Firebird, back in the Groton Database Corporation days, was built to be
> > compatible with rdb. Marrying those technologies through modification of
> > existing gateways makes more technological sense than InnoDB.
> >
> > Oracle is trying for market share, as they always do, but it appears ill
> > conceived. MySQL is for people who can't or won't tune and manage a
> > DBMS. Oracle products are just not going to fit. Both on price and
> > complexity. If they kill MySQL, they are just going to increase other
> > true FOSS RDBMS projects' market share. Power to them.
>
> Oracle must know that the comodity database days are coming. By
> attacking MySQL they delay that time by another few quarters, perhaps.
I've been thinking more and more that oracle just want's leverage against
my$ql to force them to live up to thier claims that they "don't compete with
oracle". Ie. there are a few large commercial applications (think erp and
crm) that my$ql has been targeting to be able to support with 5.0 that would
compete directly with oracle (by way of giving those application vendors
leverage to use my$ql instead of oracle). Part of a future licensing
agreement might be that my$ql stay out of those markets.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Terence wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? Why not just use PostgreSQL in the first place? Simplicity. Simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. Which of a dozen or so different storage engines should I use for table X? If I mix and match these table types, how will the database behave? Personally I find simplicity to be in adherence to the SQL standard as closely as possible. Each database has their extensions, but every time I use MySQL it grates my teeth how much non-standard stuff I have to 'relearn', making the experience anything *but* simple. A huge user base. While I would love PostgreSQL to be more widely used, I don't think something so ephemeral is necessarily something they "bring to the table". Rather than shoehorn PostgreSQL into MySQL, having good migration tools seems to be the key here. After all, which of these widely used products were replaced, and which were expanded with outside technology: Lotus 1-2-3 Wordperfect IBM PC etc No one is questioning that pg is a superior product :) As long as PostgreSQL manages to remain an active project with enough contributors to compete on features and/or performance, it doesn't need to attract any more attention than it already does, IMO. Owning a company that relies on PostgreSQL I see some value in more people being experienced with the database when it comes time to hire a DBA, but beyond that, it only needs to be a superior product. Of course when someone /does/ know PostgreSQL, it's usually a sign that they have more than a passing familiarity. I wonder how many MySQL admins are on the same level of proficiency as Windows admins due to ubiquitity. Gregory Wood ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder") writes:
> > On Saturday 08 October 2005 21:07, Chris Browne wrote:
> >> 2. The code base was pretty old, pretty creaky, and has a *really*
> >> heavy learning curve.
> >>
> >> It was pretty famous as being *really* difficult to build; throw
> >> together such things as:
> >> - It uses a custom set of build tools that were created for a
> >> mainframe environment and sorta hacked into Python
> >> - Naming conventions for files, variables, and functions combine
> >> pseudo-German with an affinity for 8 character names that are
> >> anything but mnemonic. (Think: "Germans developing on MVS.")
> >> - I seem to recall there being a Pascal translator to transform
> >> some of the code into C++...
> >
> > WOW - careful now. I'm german - but then, there's a reason why I
> > immigrated to the US :-)
>
> I'm 1/4 German, and a couple brothers married German girls, so I'm not
> trying to be mean, by any stretch.
>
> The bad Procrustean part is the "8 character mainframe" aspect, as it
> takes things that might have been mnemonic, at least to those knowing
> German, and distills things down in size so as to lose even that.
>
> It truly *was* Germans developing on MVS (or TSO or OS/360 or such)...
Just to clarify, directory names are single letters, and file names are
numbers --- I kid you not.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Stupid question here, but how susceptible is Oracle to "monopolistic > practices", similar to what M$ is going through with the DoJ in the US? > This seems to be *very* close to the line, if it isn't over it ... no? > One big issue is that MS has the DOJ watching over it, as the DOJ did to IBM when the PC came out. Oracle doesn't have that oversight, meaning that the database market is more aggressive. --- > On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Dann Corbit wrote: > > > From: > > http://www.filmsite.org/whof4.html > > > > Valiant: Come on. Nobody's gonna drive this lousy freeway when they can > > take the Red Car for a nickel. > > Doom: Oh, they'll drive. They'll have to. You see, I bought the Red Car so > > I could dismantle it. > > > > I don't think Oracle has any interest in InnoDB other than to pull the rug > > out from under the commercial version of MySQL. Ranks right up there with > > MS's gutting of STAK and Sun's claim of language ownership for Java. > > IMO-YMMV. > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of snacktime > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:14 AM > > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase > > > > > > On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://lnk.nu/prnewswire.com/4dv.pl > > -- > > Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Pervasive Software?? http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 > > vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf?? cell: 512-569-9461 > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > > > First thing that comes to my mind is that Oracle is setting the stage to > > buy them out. > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > > > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your >message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What is Oracle after? Small DB technology? They already have rdb. > Firebird, back in the Groton Database Corporation days, was built to be > compatible with rdb. Marrying those technologies through modification of > existing gateways makes more technological sense than InnoDB. > > Oracle is trying for market share, as they always do, but it appears ill > conceived. MySQL is for people who can't or won't tune and manage a DBMS. > Oracle products are just not going to fit. Both on price and complexity. > If they kill MySQL, they are just going to increase other true FOSS RDBMS > projects' market share. Power to them. Oracle must know that the comodity database days are coming. By attacking MySQL they delay that time by another few quarters, perhaps. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Marc G. Fournier wrote: Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? Why not just use PostgreSQL in the first place? Simplicity. A huge user base. No one is questioning that pg is a superior product :) http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/marketshare/ * *with a pinch of salt perhaps ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On a side note, have you considered submitting a case study about the work you're doing? One place where MySQL AB and it's zealots likes to beat PostgreSQL over the head is with it's list of clients. It'd be nice to be able to say that the Mayo Clinic is using PostgreSQL. On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:53:17AM -0500, Dan Armbrust wrote: > Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > > >The other answer may be the license: plugging PG into the MySQL system > >(which is about as technically feasible trying to breed a porpoise > >and an elephant) keeps MySQL GPL, which is another reason many people > >like it. > > > > The fact that PostgreSQL is NOT released under GPL is the reason that > people like me are here - MySQL's license drove us away from them. > Their change of the driver licensing prevents us from shipping new > drivers with our applications. > > GPL is a poison pill when it comes to groups like us that are trying to > develop standards (and shared code bases) that can be used by both > opensource and corporate types alike. > > So keep up the good work! > > Dan > > > -- > > Daniel Armbrust > Biomedical Informatics > Mayo Clinic Rochester > daniel.armbrust(at)mayo.edu > http://informatics.mayo.edu/ > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match > -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On 10/10/2005 1:32 PM, Dann Corbit wrote: From: http://www.filmsite.org/whof4.html Valiant: Come on. Nobody's gonna drive this lousy freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel. Doom: Oh, they'll drive. They'll have to. You see, I bought the Red Car so I could dismantle it. I don't think Oracle has any interest in InnoDB other than to pull the rug out from under the commercial version of MySQL. Ranks right up there with MS's gutting of STAK and Sun's claim of language ownership for Java. IMO-YMMV. And this might not even be meant personally agains MySQL. There is this old tit for tat between Oracle and SAP, you know? Some of that finger wrestling lead to SAP having this other database, they don't really know what to do with (Adabas-D AKA SAP-DB AKA MaxDB). SAP still owns the rights to that code, but MySQL does all the maintenance and support for it. And as I understood it, there were plans to rebuild the MaxDB functionality in a future version of MySQL because the MaxDB code isn't exactly maintenance friendly. Now here is the price question: How many SAP R/3 customers would chose that new MySQL version over Oracle while Oracle has their hand on that drain plug Innobase? Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marc G. Fournier") writes:
> Stupid question here, but how susceptible is Oracle to "monopolistic
> practices", similar to what M$ is going through with the DoJ in the
> US? This seems to be *very* close to the line, if it isn't over it
> ... no?
No. The market for databases is hardly a monopoly, what with (at the
top end) DB2 and Microsoft SQL Server being actively sold alternatives
to Oracle's products.
Someone might argue that there is a problem, but there would be plenty
of counterevidence to counterargue with.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/oses.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #200. "During times of peace, my Legions of
Terror will not be permitted to lie around drinking mead and eating
roast boar. Instead they will be required to obey my dietician and my
aerobics instructor."
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 11:29:24AM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote: > Consider what happened to Stak verse MS. Stak won the court case > but still went out of business. My point exactly ;) Cheers, D > > > -Original Message- > > From: David Fetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:17 AM > > To: Marc G. Fournier > > Cc: Dann Corbit; snacktime; pgsql-general@postgresql.org > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:47:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > Stupid question here, but how susceptible is Oracle to "monopolistic > > > practices", similar to what M$ is going through with the DoJ in the > > > US? This seems to be *very* close to the line, if it isn't over it > > > ... no? > > > > It may well be, but somebody would have sue, and then they would have > > to win against Oracle. I don't think that MySQL AB has the resources > > to fight such a legal action, even assuming they'd win it. > > > > Cheers, > > D > > -- > > David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ > > phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 > > > > Remember to vote! -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Consider what happened to Stak verse MS. Stak won the court case but still went out of business. > -Original Message- > From: David Fetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:17 AM > To: Marc G. Fournier > Cc: Dann Corbit; snacktime; pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:47:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > Stupid question here, but how susceptible is Oracle to "monopolistic > > practices", similar to what M$ is going through with the DoJ in the > > US? This seems to be *very* close to the line, if it isn't over it > > ... no? > > It may well be, but somebody would have sue, and then they would have > to win against Oracle. I don't think that MySQL AB has the resources > to fight such a legal action, even assuming they'd win it. > > Cheers, > D > -- > David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ > phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 > > Remember to vote! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:47:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Stupid question here, but how susceptible is Oracle to "monopolistic > practices", similar to what M$ is going through with the DoJ in the > US? This seems to be *very* close to the line, if it isn't over it > ... no? It may well be, but somebody would have sue, and then they would have to win against Oracle. I don't think that MySQL AB has the resources to fight such a legal action, even assuming they'd win it. Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Marc G. Fournier wrote: Stupid question here, but how susceptible is Oracle to "monopolistic practices", similar to what M$ is going through with the DoJ in the US? This seems to be *very* close to the line, if it isn't over it ... no? They are not... too many competitors... MS suffers because they are 98% of the desktop. Oracle isn't even close to 98% of the database market. On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Dann Corbit wrote: From: http://www.filmsite.org/whof4.html Valiant: Come on. Nobody's gonna drive this lousy freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel. Doom: Oh, they'll drive. They'll have to. You see, I bought the Red Car so I could dismantle it. I don't think Oracle has any interest in InnoDB other than to pull the rug out from under the commercial version of MySQL. Ranks right up there with MS's gutting of STAK and Sun's claim of language ownership for Java. IMO-YMMV. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of snacktime Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:14 AM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://lnk.nu/prnewswire.com/4dv.pl -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster First thing that comes to my mind is that Oracle is setting the stage to buy them out. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
I think it kind of depends on how they treat with MySQL. If they expect MySQL to pay them $10,000 per installation, and MySQL was paying Heiki $100 per installation, then that would be predatory. OTOH, if they charge the same rate, or some small incremental increase over what innobase charges now, then I'd say no harm no foul. Of course, knowing Oracle, they might want MySQL to pay by the CPU / power rating, etc... Licensing could be the same basic cost it is now, but with so much paper work and documentation so as to be a nightmare. I'm just glad PostgreSQL isn't beholden to licensed / patented software to get the job done... On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 12:47, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Stupid question here, but how susceptible is Oracle to "monopolistic > practices", similar to what M$ is going through with the DoJ in the US? > This seems to be *very* close to the line, if it isn't over it ... no? > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Dann Corbit wrote: > > > From: > > http://www.filmsite.org/whof4.html > > > > Valiant: Come on. Nobody's gonna drive this lousy freeway when they can > > take the Red Car for a nickel. > > Doom: Oh, they'll drive. They'll have to. You see, I bought the Red Car so > > I could dismantle it. > > > > I don't think Oracle has any interest in InnoDB other than to pull the rug > > out from under the commercial version of MySQL. Ranks right up there with > > MS's gutting of STAK and Sun's claim of language ownership for Java. > > IMO-YMMV. > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of snacktime > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:14 AM > > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase > > > > > > On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://lnk.nu/prnewswire.com/4dv.pl > > -- > > Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 > > vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > > > First thing that comes to my mind is that Oracle is setting the stage to > > buy them out. > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > > > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your >message can get through to the mailing list cleanly ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Stupid question here, but how susceptible is Oracle to "monopolistic practices", similar to what M$ is going through with the DoJ in the US? This seems to be *very* close to the line, if it isn't over it ... no? On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Dann Corbit wrote: From: http://www.filmsite.org/whof4.html Valiant: Come on. Nobody's gonna drive this lousy freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel. Doom: Oh, they'll drive. They'll have to. You see, I bought the Red Car so I could dismantle it. I don't think Oracle has any interest in InnoDB other than to pull the rug out from under the commercial version of MySQL. Ranks right up there with MS's gutting of STAK and Sun's claim of language ownership for Java. IMO-YMMV. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of snacktime Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:14 AM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://lnk.nu/prnewswire.com/4dv.pl -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster First thing that comes to my mind is that Oracle is setting the stage to buy them out. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
From: http://www.filmsite.org/whof4.html Valiant: Come on. Nobody's gonna drive this lousy freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel. Doom: Oh, they'll drive. They'll have to. You see, I bought the Red Car so I could dismantle it. I don't think Oracle has any interest in InnoDB other than to pull the rug out from under the commercial version of MySQL. Ranks right up there with MS's gutting of STAK and Sun's claim of language ownership for Java. IMO-YMMV. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of snacktime Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:14 AM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://lnk.nu/prnewswire.com/4dv.pl -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster First thing that comes to my mind is that Oracle is setting the stage to buy them out. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On 10/10/05, Greg Sabino Mullane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A good question. I think one answer is the MySQL name. Many open-source > advocates seem enamored of MySQL, but you can never pin them down about > exactly what it is they love so much about it. Maybe we can rebrand > PG as "MiSQL" or something. :) Don't you mean "OurSQL"? - Mitch, with an evil grin ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://lnk.nu/prnewswire.com/4dv.pl--Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster First thing that comes to my mind is that Oracle is setting the stage to buy them out.
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Marc G. Fournier wrote: >Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? Why not just >use PostgreSQL in the first place? really. to my mind, the best thing the PostgreSQL community can do for the MySQL community is provide simple, easy to use migration tools and documentation. cheers, richard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/09/2005 08:16:22 AM: > > > > This is the first time I can think of where software being GPL'd might > > actually hurt the open-source community. The MySQL license has been modified so that it is, IMHO, not compatible with the GPL. The basic tenet of the GPL is that I can freely copy and distribute, I just have to give back my contributions. MySQL cannot be freely copied and distributed if you are going to make money. MySQL built a business model based on this modification, not on GPL. Had they left the GPL alone and used a consulting business model, they would not be in this mess. The business model, the GPLing of the drivers, and the FUD show a commercial operation parading as a FOSS advocate. I find the discussion of FOSS RDBMS developers uniting against Oracle strange. What are you going to hit them with? Your massive marketing budgets? The only weapon available is the quality of the products, and PostgreSQL is already wielding that weapon mightily. What is Oracle after? Small DB technology? They already have rdb. Firebird, back in the Groton Database Corporation days, was built to be compatible with rdb. Marrying those technologies through modification of existing gateways makes more technological sense than InnoDB. Oracle is trying for market share, as they always do, but it appears ill conceived. MySQL is for people who can't or won't tune and manage a DBMS. Oracle products are just not going to fit. Both on price and complexity. If they kill MySQL, they are just going to increase other true FOSS RDBMS projects' market share. Power to them. Cheers, Rick ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:53:17 -0500 Dan Armbrust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The fact that PostgreSQL is NOT released under GPL is the reason that > people like me are here - MySQL's license drove us away from them. > Their change of the driver licensing prevents us from shipping new > drivers with our applications. > > GPL is a poison pill when it comes to groups like us that are trying > to develop standards (and shared code bases) that can be used by both > opensource and corporate types alike. > > So keep up the good work! > > Dan Preach it brother! Michael ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Brent Wood wrote: >Two? I haven't used Firebird, but have heard lots of positive comments >from users. Firebird/Postgres/MySQL together maybe? Or with all the >embedded SQLlite users out there, perhaps all four :-) i can't think of a single good reason why anyone in the PostgreSQL community would put any time or energy into helping save MySQL AB's bacon. one of the downsides of FUD campaigns is that people remember these things. PostgreSQL is BSD licensed, they can take it if they want and try and do something with it. good luck trying and all that. richard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: The other answer may be the license: plugging PG into the MySQL system (which is about as technically feasible trying to breed a porpoise and an elephant) keeps MySQL GPL, which is another reason many people like it. The fact that PostgreSQL is NOT released under GPL is the reason that people like me are here - MySQL's license drove us away from them. Their change of the driver licensing prevents us from shipping new drivers with our applications. GPL is a poison pill when it comes to groups like us that are trying to develop standards (and shared code bases) that can be used by both opensource and corporate types alike. So keep up the good work! Dan -- Daniel Armbrust Biomedical Informatics Mayo Clinic Rochester daniel.armbrust(at)mayo.edu http://informatics.mayo.edu/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? Why > not just use PostgreSQL in the first place? A good question. I think one answer is the MySQL name. Many open-source advocates seem enamored of MySQL, but you can never pin them down about exactly what it is they love so much about it. Maybe we can rebrand PG as "MiSQL" or something. :) The other answer may be the license: plugging PG into the MySQL system (which is about as technically feasible trying to breed a porpoise and an elephant) keeps MySQL GPL, which is another reason many people like it. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200510101028 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFDSnrqvJuQZxSWSsgRAj7lAJ96I0TGpeOTFSkR91J8FLLIjU2ekgCgsM7C DfI6bse1MVYUVrW9uGl69hM= =ose4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, CSN wrote: > > Maybe this is a crazy idea, I don't know how > technically or legally feasible it is, but I really > like the idea of the two open-source communities > uniting to battle Oracle. > Two? I haven't used Firebird, but have heard lots of positive comments from users. Firebird/Postgres/MySQL together maybe? Or with all the embedded SQLlite users out there, perhaps all four :-) (& yes, I know there are still others) Cheers Brent Wood ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On 10/9/05, Rick Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? > > MySQL brings to the table an impressive AI interface that knows what you > really meant to do and thus does away with those pesky error messages. > > After all, who wants to be told that -00-00 is not a date, or that > you tried to insert a value of 7 into a SMALLINT column? > LOL, this is the single greatest reason I stopped using mysql for my own stuff. I like the user management aspect better, in that each user only sees their own databases, but that's a small annoyance (a little "psql -l | grep " largely solves that) Whoever decided that silently truncating values and other similar things was a good idea should be shot. Never ever ever ever ever silently do anything that changes data you stupid bitch of a database. Either accept the data as is or reject it and throw an error and make me do the change myself so at least I can control it. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Marc G. Fournier wrote: Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? MySQL brings to the table an impressive AI interface that knows what you really meant to do and thus does away with those pesky error messages. After all, who wants to be told that -00-00 is not a date, or that you tried to insert a value of 7 into a SMALLINT column? Why not just use PostgreSQL in the first place? On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, CSN wrote: Look what somebody suggested! --- If the worst happens and Oracle tries to squash InnoDB, there may already be such an alternative out there. I wonder what it would take to add (and optimize) Postgres storage engine support to MySQL? I don't know exactly how current versions of MySQL and Postgres maesure up performance-wise, but PgSQL seems to have made steady progress on performance improvements. Maybe this is a crazy idea, I don't know how technically or legally feasible it is, but I really like the idea of the two open-source communities uniting to battle Oracle. http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/005490.html#comment-21233 __ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Yep, those were two of my very first questions too. ;) CSN --- "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the > equation? Why not just > use PostgreSQL in the first place? > > On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, CSN wrote: > > > Look what somebody suggested! > > > > --- > > > > If the worst happens and Oracle tries to squash > > InnoDB, there may already be such an alternative > out > > there. > > > > I wonder what it would take to add (and optimize) > > Postgres storage engine support to MySQL? I don't > know > > exactly how current versions of MySQL and Postgres > > maesure up performance-wise, but PgSQL seems to > have > > made steady progress on performance improvements. > > > > Maybe this is a crazy idea, I don't know how > > technically or legally feasible it is, but I > really > > like the idea of the two open-source communities > > uniting to battle Oracle. > > > > > http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/005490.html#comment-21233 > > > > > > > > __ > > Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home > page! > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > ---(end of > broadcast)--- > > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please > send an appropriate > > subscribe-nomail command to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your > > message can get through to the mailing list > cleanly > > > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking > Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy > ICQ: 7615664 > __ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? Why not just use PostgreSQL in the first place? On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, CSN wrote: Look what somebody suggested! --- If the worst happens and Oracle tries to squash InnoDB, there may already be such an alternative out there. I wonder what it would take to add (and optimize) Postgres storage engine support to MySQL? I don't know exactly how current versions of MySQL and Postgres maesure up performance-wise, but PgSQL seems to have made steady progress on performance improvements. Maybe this is a crazy idea, I don't know how technically or legally feasible it is, but I really like the idea of the two open-source communities uniting to battle Oracle. http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/005490.html#comment-21233 __ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Look what somebody suggested! --- If the worst happens and Oracle tries to squash InnoDB, there may already be such an alternative out there. I wonder what it would take to add (and optimize) Postgres storage engine support to MySQL? I don't know exactly how current versions of MySQL and Postgres maesure up performance-wise, but PgSQL seems to have made steady progress on performance improvements. Maybe this is a crazy idea, I don't know how technically or legally feasible it is, but I really like the idea of the two open-source communities uniting to battle Oracle. http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/005490.html#comment-21233 __ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Chris Browne wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder") writes:
On Saturday 08 October 2005 21:07, Chris Browne wrote:
2. The code base was pretty old, pretty creaky, and has a *really*
heavy learning curve.
It was pretty famous as being *really* difficult to build; throw
together such things as:
- It uses a custom set of build tools that were created for a
mainframe environment and sorta hacked into Python
- Naming conventions for files, variables, and functions combine
pseudo-German with an affinity for 8 character names that are
anything but mnemonic. (Think: "Germans developing on MVS.")
- I seem to recall there being a Pascal translator to transform
some of the code into C++...
WOW - careful now. I'm german - but then, there's a reason why I
immigrated to the US :-)
I'm 1/4 German, and a couple brothers married German girls, so I'm not
trying to be mean, by any stretch.
The bad Procrustean part is the "8 character mainframe" aspect, as it
takes things that might have been mnemonic, at least to those knowing
German, and distills things down in size so as to lose even that.
It truly *was* Germans developing on MVS (or TSO or OS/360 or such)...
Doing substantial revisions to it seems unlikely. Doing terribly
much more than trying to keep it able to compile on a few
platforms of interest seems unlikely.
When they announced at OSCON that MySQL 5.0 would have all of the
features essential to support SAP R/3, that fit the best theories
available as to why they took on "MaxDB", namely to figure out the
minimal set of additions needed to get MySQL to be able to host R/3.
If that be the case, then Oracle just took about the minimal action
necessary to take the wind out of their sails :-).
SAPdb (aka Adabas D) is something I worked with quite a while ago. And you're
right, the naming schemes and restrictions, as well as severe
incompatibilities with the SQL standard where one of my major reasons to drop
that database in favor of Informix (at that time) and PostgreSQL later on.
It was kind of tough to generate explanatory table names with those kind of
limitations. Nonetheless back then (maybe around 1993) Adabas D was a quite
powerful and considerably cheap alternative to anything serious at the market
- and it was easy to sell to customers (back in germany) just because this
was THE database powering SAP R/3.
And SAP R/3 has its own "8 character mainframe limits," often
involving somewhat Germanic things, abbreviated :-).
But you may be right - considering what the codebase of SAPdb must
look like it's probably unlikely MySQL AB can make any considerable
improvements in the time available.
When Slashdot sorts of people propose "Oh, that can just be another
storage engine!", well, I'll believe it if I see someone implement the
refactoring.
In one of the recent discussions, someone proposed the thought of
MySQL AB adopting the PostgreSQL storage engine as Yet Another One Of
Their Engines. Hands up, anyone that thinks that's likely tomorrow
:-).
What would seem interesting to me would be the idea of building a
PostgreSQL front end for "Tutorial D" as an alternative to SQL. I
don't imagine that will be happening tomorrow, either. :-)
But much more interesting to consider, indeed.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder") writes:
> On Saturday 08 October 2005 21:07, Chris Browne wrote:
>> 2. The code base was pretty old, pretty creaky, and has a *really*
>> heavy learning curve.
>>
>> It was pretty famous as being *really* difficult to build; throw
>> together such things as:
>> - It uses a custom set of build tools that were created for a
>> mainframe environment and sorta hacked into Python
>> - Naming conventions for files, variables, and functions combine
>> pseudo-German with an affinity for 8 character names that are
>> anything but mnemonic. (Think: "Germans developing on MVS.")
>> - I seem to recall there being a Pascal translator to transform
>> some of the code into C++...
>
> WOW - careful now. I'm german - but then, there's a reason why I
> immigrated to the US :-)
I'm 1/4 German, and a couple brothers married German girls, so I'm not
trying to be mean, by any stretch.
The bad Procrustean part is the "8 character mainframe" aspect, as it
takes things that might have been mnemonic, at least to those knowing
German, and distills things down in size so as to lose even that.
It truly *was* Germans developing on MVS (or TSO or OS/360 or such)...
>> Doing substantial revisions to it seems unlikely. Doing terribly
>> much more than trying to keep it able to compile on a few
>> platforms of interest seems unlikely.
>>
>> When they announced at OSCON that MySQL 5.0 would have all of the
>> features essential to support SAP R/3, that fit the best theories
>> available as to why they took on "MaxDB", namely to figure out the
>> minimal set of additions needed to get MySQL to be able to host R/3.
>>
>> If that be the case, then Oracle just took about the minimal action
>> necessary to take the wind out of their sails :-).
>
> SAPdb (aka Adabas D) is something I worked with quite a while ago. And you're
> right, the naming schemes and restrictions, as well as severe
> incompatibilities with the SQL standard where one of my major reasons to drop
> that database in favor of Informix (at that time) and PostgreSQL later on.
> It was kind of tough to generate explanatory table names with those kind of
> limitations. Nonetheless back then (maybe around 1993) Adabas D was a quite
> powerful and considerably cheap alternative to anything serious at the market
> - and it was easy to sell to customers (back in germany) just because this
> was THE database powering SAP R/3.
And SAP R/3 has its own "8 character mainframe limits," often
involving somewhat Germanic things, abbreviated :-).
> But you may be right - considering what the codebase of SAPdb must
> look like it's probably unlikely MySQL AB can make any considerable
> improvements in the time available.
When Slashdot sorts of people propose "Oh, that can just be another
storage engine!", well, I'll believe it if I see someone implement the
refactoring.
In one of the recent discussions, someone proposed the thought of
MySQL AB adopting the PostgreSQL storage engine as Yet Another One Of
Their Engines. Hands up, anyone that thinks that's likely tomorrow
:-).
What would seem interesting to me would be the idea of building a
PostgreSQL front end for "Tutorial D" as an alternative to SQL. I
don't imagine that will be happening tomorrow, either. :-)
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/oses.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #200. "During times of peace, my Legions of
Terror will not be permitted to lie around drinking mead and eating
roast boar. Instead they will be required to obey my dietician and my
aerobics instructor."
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 03:16:22PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 05:01:50PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > Though AFAIK there wouldn't be anything illegal about someone with a > > commercial license of MySQL using the GPL'd version of InnoDB... but of > > course if they did that they'd have GPL'd software again, so no reason > > to pay for the commercial license of MySQL. > > > > This is the first time I can think of where software being GPL'd might > > actually hurt the open-source community. > > Well now, that kind of depends on what you define as "hurt". If you > were only ever interested in the GPL version, none of this makes a whit > of difference. > > If all you wanted was that your code was shared and that people who > benefitted shared also, then the GPL serves the purpose. Without the > GPL possibly neither InnoDB or MySQL would have been open-source in the > first place. (Maybe, maybe not. I'm not going to argue this point). > > OTOH, if your goal is to "share the wealth" and let everyone get good > code for whatever purpose they want, then they would have chosen BSD > licence. This is what PostgreSQL does. > > The political goals of the GPL are hardly secret. Some people might > consider this an example of what happens if you rely on proprietary > software models. At least we still have the code *now* (under the GPL). Well, consider that MySQL would probably still be trying to figure out what a subquery was if it didn't have commercial backing from it's parent company. Hurting that parent company is going to impact the code. Of course, this works both ways. It used to be that Linux was definately behind FreeBSD from a technology standpoint. After companies like IBM have poured millions into it that's no longer the case. It's certainly possible that these companies adopted Linux over FreeBSD because it was GPL'd. But at least for the database market, the GPL license seems to be a downside for MySQL. Many commercial users would rather use a non-GPL'd database, and pay companies for support. Those companies can then give back to the community. So whereas MySQL only has support from MySQL AB, PostgreSQL has support from more than a half-dozen companies (some with very big pockets). And since most all the code in PostgreSQL is BSD licensed, I don't think it would be possible for Oracle to 'pull the rug out from under us' as they appear to have just done with MySQL. Of course this is nothing but handwaving at this point. It'll be interesting to see where things are at 6 months from now. Maybe Oracle's going to use InnoDB as the basis for version 11! ;P -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 05:01:50PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > Though AFAIK there wouldn't be anything illegal about someone with a > commercial license of MySQL using the GPL'd version of InnoDB... but of > course if they did that they'd have GPL'd software again, so no reason > to pay for the commercial license of MySQL. > > This is the first time I can think of where software being GPL'd might > actually hurt the open-source community. Well now, that kind of depends on what you define as "hurt". If you were only ever interested in the GPL version, none of this makes a whit of difference. If all you wanted was that your code was shared and that people who benefitted shared also, then the GPL serves the purpose. Without the GPL possibly neither InnoDB or MySQL would have been open-source in the first place. (Maybe, maybe not. I'm not going to argue this point). OTOH, if your goal is to "share the wealth" and let everyone get good code for whatever purpose they want, then they would have chosen BSD licence. This is what PostgreSQL does. The political goals of the GPL are hardly secret. Some people might consider this an example of what happens if you rely on proprietary software models. At least we still have the code *now* (under the GPL). Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them. pgpuQGj8Y8e2F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Saturday 08 October 2005 21:07, Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder") writes:
> > Didn't MySQL AB acquire SAPdb (which was Adabas D before)? AFAIK
> > (and you're welcome to correct me since I might very well be wrong)
> > SAPdb supports transactions and foreign keys. If that's the case
> > MySQL AB might be in a position to offer the bells and whistles
> > without InnoDB support if they work out the deficiencies of SAPdb.
>
> They did that indeed, or at least they acquired a license to SAP-DB.
> (I think SAP AG retains license as well; this is akin to the way USL
> sold SysV licenses to many vendors...)
>
> The problems with Max-DB are twofold:
>
> 1. It isn't at all compatible with the "legacy" MySQL applications.
>
> It is essentially a database system with a similar "flavour" to
> Oracle version 7. That's not much similar to MySQL 3.x or 4.x.
>
> 2. The code base was pretty old, pretty creaky, and has a *really*
> heavy learning curve.
>
> It was pretty famous as being *really* difficult to build; throw
> together such things as:
> - It uses a custom set of build tools that were created for a
> mainframe environment and sorta hacked into Python
> - Naming conventions for files, variables, and functions combine
> pseudo-German with an affinity for 8 character names that are
> anything but mnemonic. (Think: "Germans developing on MVS.")
> - I seem to recall there being a Pascal translator to transform
> some of the code into C++...
WOW - careful now. I'm german - but then, there's a reason why I immigrated to
the US :-)
>
> Doing substantial revisions to it seems unlikely. Doing terribly
> much more than trying to keep it able to compile on a few
> platforms of interest seems unlikely.
>
> When they announced at OSCON that MySQL 5.0 would have all of the
> features essential to support SAP R/3, that fit the best theories
> available as to why they took on "MaxDB", namely to figure out the
> minimal set of additions needed to get MySQL to be able to host R/3.
>
> If that be the case, then Oracle just took about the minimal action
> necessary to take the wind out of their sails :-).
SAPdb (aka Adabas D) is something I worked with quite a while ago. And you're
right, the naming schemes and restrictions, as well as severe
incompatibilities with the SQL standard where one of my major reasons to drop
that database in favor of Informix (at that time) and PostgreSQL later on.
It was kind of tough to generate explanatory table names with those kind of
limitations. Nonetheless back then (maybe around 1993) Adabas D was a quite
powerful and considerably cheap alternative to anything serious at the market
- and it was easy to sell to customers (back in germany) just because this
was THE database powering SAP R/3.
But you may be right - considering what the codebase of SAPdb must look like
it's probably unlikely MySQL AB can make any considerable improvements in the
time available.
UC
--
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone: +1 650 872 2425 San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax:+1 650 872 2417
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When they announced at OSCON that MySQL 5.0 would have all of the > features essential to support SAP R/3, that fit the best theories > available as to why they took on "MaxDB", namely to figure out the > minimal set of additions needed to get MySQL to be able to host R/3. [ Trying to drag this thread back to something Postgres-related ;-) ] Does anyone have a clear idea how far *we* are from being able to support SAP? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder") writes:
> Didn't MySQL AB acquire SAPdb (which was Adabas D before)? AFAIK
> (and you're welcome to correct me since I might very well be wrong)
> SAPdb supports transactions and foreign keys. If that's the case
> MySQL AB might be in a position to offer the bells and whistles
> without InnoDB support if they work out the deficiencies of SAPdb.
They did that indeed, or at least they acquired a license to SAP-DB.
(I think SAP AG retains license as well; this is akin to the way USL
sold SysV licenses to many vendors...)
The problems with Max-DB are twofold:
1. It isn't at all compatible with the "legacy" MySQL applications.
It is essentially a database system with a similar "flavour" to
Oracle version 7. That's not much similar to MySQL 3.x or 4.x.
2. The code base was pretty old, pretty creaky, and has a *really*
heavy learning curve.
It was pretty famous as being *really* difficult to build; throw
together such things as:
- It uses a custom set of build tools that were created for a
mainframe environment and sorta hacked into Python
- Naming conventions for files, variables, and functions combine
pseudo-German with an affinity for 8 character names that are
anything but mnemonic. (Think: "Germans developing on MVS.")
- I seem to recall there being a Pascal translator to transform
some of the code into C++...
Doing substantial revisions to it seems unlikely. Doing terribly
much more than trying to keep it able to compile on a few
platforms of interest seems unlikely.
When they announced at OSCON that MySQL 5.0 would have all of the
features essential to support SAP R/3, that fit the best theories
available as to why they took on "MaxDB", namely to figure out the
minimal set of additions needed to get MySQL to be able to host R/3.
If that be the case, then Oracle just took about the minimal action
necessary to take the wind out of their sails :-).
--
"cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com"
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Oct 8, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote: Didn't MySQL AB acquire SAPdb (which was Adabas D before)? AFAIK (and you're welcome to correct me since I might very well be wrong) SAPdb supports transactions and foreign keys. If that's the case MySQL AB might be in a position to offer the bells and whistles without InnoDB support if they work out the deficiencies of SAPdb. Or maybe SQLite? I was looking for some other options and saw this page. It look like the author mistakenly calls PostgreSQL GPL'd. http://linas.org/linux/db.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Thomas F. O'Connell") writes:
> On Oct 8, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/05, Mitch Pirtle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> This basically means that InnoDB table support must come out of the
>>> commercial MySQL.
>>
>> For that matter, I'm not sure they can release MySQL under a
>> commercial license while incorporating 3rd party GPL works, without
>> the express permission of the copyright holders for those included
>> works.
>>
>> Whatever deal they used to have just got changed, that's for sure.
>
> All of which seems to beg the question: why did not MySQL buy
> Innobase themselves? As far as I've read, the terms of the
> transaction were not disclosed. I guess it's possible that MySQL
> didn't have the financial reach to pull off the deal.
It is interesting that MySQL AB did not put some option into their
original deal with InnoDB that would make it easy for them to do a
buyout of the code in case "something naughty might happen."
If I were making my product dependent on [X], I'd want to be careful
to assure myself that I could continue to have access to [X];
according to what I see in the Oracle statement, it doesn't appear as
though there was anything more specific than a contract ending some
time next year.
Mind you, it is not public what goes away in 2006. It is possible
that MySQL AB has a more-or-less perpetual license to use InnoDB as it
stands today, in which case it would be entirely possible that they
would fork the code base, and maintain the "MySQL version of InnoDB"
themselves. Continuing access to the present version would represent
a reasonable "option" for MySQL AB...
In any case, there are doubtless a few lawyers in Europe that are
pretty busy this weekend :-).
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "acm.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxxian.html
I just removed the instructions in MC:COMMON;LINS > which specify that
it should be installed on AI. We'll certainly miss that machine, and
probably spend the rest of our lives fixing programs that mention it.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I confess I find this weird too. I can't see why someone wouild want > to distribute their own private label version of MySQL, unless they > were making significant changes, and then I can't see why anyone > would want to buy such a version. The suits do this for peace of mind. They are very nervous about entrusting corporate data to open source databases with no support. Why else do you think companies are willing to pay Oracle $300,000 per CPU? At 2 am if something gets corrupted, they can call Oracle and attempt to get it fixed. -- Guy Rouillier ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Oct 8, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: Are there any lessons to be learned from this with regards to PostgreSQL? Like Marc said, doesn't seem to be a worry to the Postgres community . . . Unless this is all really an Oracle ploy to grab the competition to the their real future fear . . . PostgreSQL X : ) Seriously though, whereas MySQL's ease of use was a draw to the burgeoning web designers-turned-PHP codies, a lot of heavy DB users considered and still consider Postgres the open-source alternative to Oracle. When I was new to DB newbie, I followed that crowd (like the OpenACS folks) from Oracle to Postgres. While this deal doesn't change the quality of MySQL at all yet, it could affect the evangelizing efforts of the community. It can't help, I wouldn't think, unless Oracle just smothers them out, which is possible, though not probable, since the two database's customers are so different and there is money to be made by keeping the DB alive. A community would always remain to take up the torch, but the Postgres community builds Postgres, while the MySQL community has a different dynamic entirely. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Saturday 08 October 2005 17:35, Chris Browne wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > >> What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use > >> the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the > >> commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the > >> code in their base. So, in order for MySQL to sell a commercail > >> version of MySQL with innodb support, they have to pay innobase a > >> bit to include it, or rip it out. > > > > I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed, > > commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the > > GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release. > > > > What am I missing? > > If they do not hold a fairly unrestricted license to *resell* InnoDB, > then MySQL AB would be unable to sell "traditional proprietary > commercial licenses" to the combination of MySQL and InnoDB, which is > the way that they actually _make money_. > > Based on the comments in Oracle's press release, it appears that MySQL > AB *does* have some form of contract with InnoDB Oy Inc to resell > InnoDB, but that contract expires some time next year. > > If the contract is not renewed, then MySQL AB would only be permitted > to link MySQL (tm) to InnoDB under the conditions of the GPL, which > would mean that MySQL AB could only distribute a MySQL(tm)/InnoDB(tm) > combination under the conditions of the GPL. > > This would essentially *destroy* their revenue model, which is > predicated on the notion of selling people a "traditional proprietary > license" to MySQL+InnoDB on the basis that they should be fearful of > GPL-licensed software as it always forces you to release your code > "for free." (There's some truth to this, but possibly not as much as > MySQL AB would have you believe.) Didn't MySQL AB acquire SAPdb (which was Adabas D before)? AFAIK (and you're welcome to correct me since I might very well be wrong) SAPdb supports transactions and foreign keys. If that's the case MySQL AB might be in a position to offer the bells and whistles without InnoDB support if they work out the deficiencies of SAPdb. -- UC -- Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 2570 Fleetwood Drive Phone: +1 650 872 2425 San Bruno, CA 94066 Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States Fax:+1 650 872 2417 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 02:11:54PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> What am I missing? > > [ many answers ] > > Ahhh ... I did not realize they were selling a commercial version with > a dual license. I had thought they were selling support contracts. > > I confess I find this weird too. I can't see why someone wouild > want to distribute their own private label version of MySQL, unless > they were making significant changes, and then I can't see why > anyone would want to buy such a version. But I have met many > people, not just corporate types, who think $0 = worthless, and $$ > not as good as $$, even for the exact same piece of gear. That's part of the reason that MySQL AB went around to all of the MySQL database adaptor guys and hired them and changed the license on them to the GPL. There were lots of people that wanted to include a database with their software and LGPLed drivers let them do that even if the database itself was under the GPL. Now with GPLed drivers for MySQL if you distribute your application you either need a commercial license of MySQL or you need to GPL your application. MySQL made a pretty penny convincing application writers that they needed a commercial license of MySQL if their application wasn't distributed under the GPL. It wasn't about support contracts per se, but rather about being able to include an inexpensive database with a commercial application. In some ways that actually shouldn't be a problem since the drivers are the part get gets "linked" with the commercial application, and they are still owned by MySQL AB. However, it's going to look funny if MySQL AB has to offer MySQL itself under the GPL in order to include InnoDB tables and they simply sell the database drivers under a commercial license. Any way you look at it, there are interesting times ahead for MySQL AB. Personally I think that it is just Karma. After years of disinformation they are getting what they deserve. Jason ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Mike Nolan wrote: All of which seems to beg the question: why did not MySQL buy Innobase themselves? As far as I've read, the terms of the transaction were not disclosed. I guess it's possible that MySQL didn't have the financial reach to pull off the deal. Maybe they didn't think it was necessary. In any event, they're far from the first (or last) company to underestmate the aggressive business tactics of Oracle, which isn't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. My guess is that the people at Oracle looked at the number of ISPs who offer their customers MySQL database support and saw a market to tap. Oracle's tried to tap the 'small database server' market before, badly. If the folks at MySQL AB are smart, they may be considering selling out to Oracle too, before they get left out in the cold. Are there any lessons to be learned from this with regards to PostgreSQL? IMHO, not really ... nobody *owes* the PostgreSQL code base, and we aren't reliant on any third parties for key parts of the server, so Oracle would essentially have to go after the commercial vendors themselves, and even going after them wouldn't buy them *that* much, I wouldn't think ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
> All of which seems to beg the question: why did not MySQL buy > Innobase themselves? As far as I've read, the terms of the > transaction were not disclosed. I guess it's possible that MySQL > didn't have the financial reach to pull off the deal. Maybe they didn't think it was necessary. In any event, they're far from the first (or last) company to underestmate the aggressive business tactics of Oracle, which isn't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. My guess is that the people at Oracle looked at the number of ISPs who offer their customers MySQL database support and saw a market to tap. Oracle's tried to tap the 'small database server' market before, badly. If the folks at MySQL AB are smart, they may be considering selling out to Oracle too, before they get left out in the cold. Are there any lessons to be learned from this with regards to PostgreSQL? -- Mike Nolan ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Oct 8, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Mitch Pirtle wrote: On 10/8/05, Mitch Pirtle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This basically means that InnoDB table support must come out of the commercial MySQL. For that matter, I'm not sure they can release MySQL under a commercial license while incorporating 3rd party GPL works, without the express permission of the copyright holders for those included works. Whatever deal they used to have just got changed, that's for sure. -- Mitch All of which seems to beg the question: why did not MySQL buy Innobase themselves? As far as I've read, the terms of the transaction were not disclosed. I guess it's possible that MySQL didn't have the financial reach to pull off the deal. -- Thomas F. O'Connell Co-Founder, Information Architect Sitening, LLC Strategic Open Source: Open Your i™ http://www.sitening.com/ 110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6 Nashville, TN 37203-6320 615-469-5150 615-469-5151 (fax) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > >> What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use >> the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the >> commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the >> code in their base. So, in order for MySQL to sell a commercail >> version of MySQL with innodb support, they have to pay innobase a >> bit to include it, or rip it out. > > I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed, > commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the > GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release. > > What am I missing? If they do not hold a fairly unrestricted license to *resell* InnoDB, then MySQL AB would be unable to sell "traditional proprietary commercial licenses" to the combination of MySQL and InnoDB, which is the way that they actually _make money_. Based on the comments in Oracle's press release, it appears that MySQL AB *does* have some form of contract with InnoDB Oy Inc to resell InnoDB, but that contract expires some time next year. If the contract is not renewed, then MySQL AB would only be permitted to link MySQL (tm) to InnoDB under the conditions of the GPL, which would mean that MySQL AB could only distribute a MySQL(tm)/InnoDB(tm) combination under the conditions of the GPL. This would essentially *destroy* their revenue model, which is predicated on the notion of selling people a "traditional proprietary license" to MySQL+InnoDB on the basis that they should be fearful of GPL-licensed software as it always forces you to release your code "for free." (There's some truth to this, but possibly not as much as MySQL AB would have you believe.) -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];; http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html Black holes are where God divided by zero. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 02:11:54PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > What am I missing? [ many answers ] Ahhh ... I did not realize they were selling a commercial version with a dual license. I had thought they were selling support contracts. I confess I find this weird too. I can't see why someone wouild want to distribute their own private label version of MySQL, unless they were making significant changes, and then I can't see why anyone would want to buy such a version. But I have met many people, not just corporate types, who think $0 = worthless, and $$ not as good as $$, even for the exact same piece of gear. -- ... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._. Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon / [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933 I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > >> What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use >> the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the >> commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the >> code in their base. So, in order for MySQL to sell a commercail >> version of MySQL with innodb support, they have to pay innobase a >> bit to include it, or rip it out. > > I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed, > commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all > the GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release. Yes, that is correct, MySQL can still distribute a GPLed version of MySQL that includes InnoDB no matter what Oracle might do. However, MySQL AB's current business strategy relies heavily on being able to sell MySQL under a commercial license. If Oracle changes the deal that MySQL AB has with InnoBase then it will be impossible for MySQL AB to sell a version of MySQL with support for InnoDB tables under a commercial license. All of MySQL's fancy new features revolve around the far more capable InnoDB tables. Without that table type MySQL reverts right back to the toy it was at version 3.2. MyISAM tables lack ACID transactions, row level locking, hot backup ability, and basically everything else you would want out of a database. Oracle now has MySQL AB over a barrel. I imagine that when it comes time to renegotiate the InnoBase license next year that the balance of power in that relationship will shift dramatically. > What am I missing? What you are missing is that MySQL AB the company and MySQL the database are two different things. MySQL the database will still be distributable under the GPL, but even MySQL AB isn't going to be able to distribute MySQL with the InnoDB table type under anything but the GPL if Oracle yanks MySQL AB's license. Of course, it's entirely possible that Oracle isn't planning to torpedo MySQL and that the InnoBase/MySQL AB relationship will remain unchanged, but this news has got to make MySQL AB's commercial customers nervous. Jason ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On 10/8/05, Mitch Pirtle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This basically means that InnoDB table support must come out of the > commercial MySQL. For that matter, I'm not sure they can release MySQL under a commercial license while incorporating 3rd party GPL works, without the express permission of the copyright holders for those included works. Whatever deal they used to have just got changed, that's for sure. -- Mitch ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On 10/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed, > commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the > GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release. They can only do the GPL stuff in the GPL-licensed MySQL; and they cannot incorporate someone else's GPL works in a proprietary (non-GPL) commercial release. This basically means that InnoDB table support must come out of the commercial MySQL. -- Mitch ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed, > commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the > GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release. > What am I missing? MySQL AB wants to make money by selling non-GPL versions of MySQL. They can certainly dual-license MySQL itself, because they own it outright, but they could not ship InnoDB as part of a non-GPL-license MySQL sale without InnoDB's (and now Oracle's) permission. So they've got a financial problem with this. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 02:11:54PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use > > the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the > > commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the > > code in their base. So, in order for MySQL to sell a commercail > > version of MySQL with innodb support, they have to pay innobase a > > bit to include it, or rip it out. > > I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed, > commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the > GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release. > > What am I missing? MySQL isn't GPL, it's a modified GPL. But the real issue is that they can't use the GPL licensed InnoDB in their commercial product. They have to obtain a commercial license for that. And I suspect Oracle's going to want more than they can afford for that license. Though AFAIK there wouldn't be anything illegal about someone with a commercial license of MySQL using the GPL'd version of InnoDB... but of course if they did that they'd have GPL'd software again, so no reason to pay for the commercial license of MySQL. This is the first time I can think of where software being GPL'd might actually hurt the open-source community. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Oct 8, 2005, at 5:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed, commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release. MySQL owns their code so they can release it with whatever license they want. Since they don't own the Innodb code they can't include it in a commercially licensed product. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
El Sáb 08 Oct 2005 18:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: > On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use > > the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the > > commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the > > code in their base. So, in order for MySQL to sell a commercail > > version of MySQL with innodb support, they have to pay innobase a > > bit to include it, or rip it out. > > I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed, > commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the > GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release. > > What am I missing? They can't enforce a commercial licence over a GPL aplication. -- select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email; - Martín Marqués | Programador, DBA Centro de Telemática| Administrador Universidad Nacional del Litoral - ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use > the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the > commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the > code in their base. So, in order for MySQL to sell a commercail > version of MySQL with innodb support, they have to pay innobase a > bit to include it, or rip it out. I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed, commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release. What am I missing? -- ... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._. Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon / [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933 I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Jan Wieck wrote: On 10/8/2005 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jan Wieck wrote: To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick. What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to enforce a patent based on the fact that they are using code actually developed by the patent holder. That too. What strikes me a little odd is how brief the responses from the MySQL side are. Marten Mickos welcomes them, does some 2 sentence handwaving about licensing and the glorious freedom of open source, and then the rest of the statement is the usual blah blah about MySQL that you find in every other press release. It almost seems as if MySQL wasn't exactly prepared for this deal to come through - or worse, that they are surprised about it. Although I can't believe they wouldn't have known about it in advance. Or, they knew about it and have some sort of contigency plan already in place for when the license does expire ... ? Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Jan Wieck wrote: To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick. Maybe Oracle will buy Sleepycat too, and foreclose that option ;-) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Hi That is terrific news being a former employee of MySQL - Oracle buys Innobase. I was never a fan of MySQL, personally but when Marten Mikos and the rest of the business wonks joined the Company I knew then it was time to get out. I met the author of Innobase once at the first MySQL employees meeting. I was asked what for an opinion on Heikki Tuuri. I came straight to point and told Monty and David (Axmark) that Heikki Tuuri can not be trusted. It seems I was right. Mr Tuuri has no interest in supporting the OS commumity. His only interest is in making money. My gut feeling now is that eventually Oracle will buy off Innobase lock stock and barell Then Innonbase will get consigned to File 13. I now see MySQL heading for a long slow death; it couldn't happen to a nicer group of people :) Thank God for PostreSQL At 18:42 08/10/2005, Jan Wieck wrote: On 10/8/2005 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jan Wieck wrote: To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick. What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to enforce a patent based on the fact that they are using code actually developed by the patent holder. That too. What strikes me a little odd is how brief the responses from the MySQL side are. Marten Mickos welcomes them, does some 2 sentence handwaving about licensing and the glorious freedom of open source, and then the rest of the statement is the usual blah blah about MySQL that you find in every other press release. It almost seems as if MySQL wasn't exactly prepared for this deal to come through - or worse, that they are surprised about it. Although I can't believe they wouldn't have known about it in advance. Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings --- Regards John Dean, co-author of Rekall, the only alternative to MS Access ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On 10/8/2005 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jan Wieck wrote: To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick. What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to enforce a patent based on the fact that they are using code actually developed by the patent holder. That too. What strikes me a little odd is how brief the responses from the MySQL side are. Marten Mickos welcomes them, does some 2 sentence handwaving about licensing and the glorious freedom of open source, and then the rest of the statement is the usual blah blah about MySQL that you find in every other press release. It almost seems as if MySQL wasn't exactly prepared for this deal to come through - or worse, that they are surprised about it. Although I can't believe they wouldn't have known about it in advance. Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Jan Wieck wrote: > On 10/8/2005 4:34 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian schrieb: > >> Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB. > > > > http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400 > > > > InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused. > > > > My guess: a fork in the future. > > This whole GPL forking thing is still the same as it was before. One can > only take the last version, released under GPL, and build a GPL-only > project based on it. > > Oracle bought the copyright of InnoDB with the company. So if anything > goes wrong during their upcoming relicensing talk, MySQL can of course > fork off a GPL version of InnoDB, but that fork cannot be included in > their commercial version of MySQL. What value would that fork have for > them then? Using a pure GPL fork of InnoDB is in conflict with their own > licensing scheme and I don't think MySQL is in the position to say bye > to dual licensing. > > To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need > to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick. What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to enforce a patent based on the fact that they are using code actually developed by the patent holder. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On 10/8/2005 4:34 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote: Bruce Momjian schrieb: Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB. http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400 InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused. My guess: a fork in the future. This whole GPL forking thing is still the same as it was before. One can only take the last version, released under GPL, and build a GPL-only project based on it. Oracle bought the copyright of InnoDB with the company. So if anything goes wrong during their upcoming relicensing talk, MySQL can of course fork off a GPL version of InnoDB, but that fork cannot be included in their commercial version of MySQL. What value would that fork have for them then? Using a pure GPL fork of InnoDB is in conflict with their own licensing scheme and I don't think MySQL is in the position to say bye to dual licensing. To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick. Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Title: RE: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase (This is via Exchange Web client, I apologize in advance for any htmlitudeiness of this message) What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the code in their base. So, in order for MySQL to sell a commercail version of MySQL with innodb support, they have to pay innobase a bit to include it, or rip it out. So, now Oracle can just raise the price high enough that either the commercial version of MySQL has to go up to cover the price, or they are forced to remove it. If MySQL makes the choice to remove it from the commercial version, they will likely take it out of the GPL version as well, since they likely don't want the commercially licensed version to be the red headed step child of the GPL version, since their business plan relies on convincing people they need the commercial license as much as possible. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andreas Kretschmer Sent: Sat 10/8/2005 3:34 AM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase Bruce Momjian schrieb: > Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB. http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400 InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused. My guess: a fork in the future. Regards, Andreas -- Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds) Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889° ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Bruce Momjian schrieb: > Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB. http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400 InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused. My guess: a fork in the future. Regards, Andreas -- Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds) Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889° ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Bruce Momjian writes: > Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB. Given that MyISAM is still their first love, I don't think that outcome is preposterous at all. If Oracle tries to squeeze too hard, that's probably exactly what they'll do. It'll put a bit of a dent in their claims to having transaction support, but I think their bread-and-butter applications are still mostly MyISAM. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Aly S.P Dharshi wrote: > > > Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB. > > This will happen eventually, there is no doubt, Sun seems like its > going to eventually integrate PostgreSQL into Solaris as a pkg most > likely: > > http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;116679278;fp;16;fpid;0 > > Hopefully that should make PostgreSQL shine even more. Maybe we > may also see some @sun.com contributers, okay that maybe wishful thinking. I have seen @sun.com posters already, so it has started. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB. This will happen eventually, there is no doubt, Sun seems like its going to eventually integrate PostgreSQL into Solaris as a pkg most likely: http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;116679278;fp;16;fpid;0 Hopefully that should make PostgreSQL shine even more. Maybe we may also see some @sun.com contributers, okay that maybe wishful thinking. Cheers, Aly. -- Aly S.P Dharshi [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A good speech is like a good dress that's short enough to be interesting and long enough to cover the subject" ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Jim C. Nasby wrote: > http://lnk.nu/prnewswire.com/4dv.pl Amazing. You have to love the totally unrelated license mention Oracle added to the press release: InnoDB is not a standalone database product: it is distributed as a part of the MySQL database. InnoDB's contractual relationship with MySQL comes up for renewal next year. Oracle fully expects to negotiate an extension of that relationship. Read $$$. This is the logical way Oracle would attack a competitor (buy up a key piece of their technology). Oracle looked for MySQL's easiest weakness to exploit, and found it. It isn't even vaguely cloaked, because InnoDB doesn't even have a db product, it is just licensed by MySQL. This certainly puts a dent in the MySQL 5.0 press buzz, which I suppose was part of the timing. Do open source users want licensed technology from a company owned by Oracle? I doubt it. My guess is that the InnoDB license will now be used as FUD against MySQL perpetually. This might also be related to the article by the MySQL CEO saying they are not competing with Oracle: http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=9231B8BD-3788-4DB2-B85F-707E75857B58 This might be a sort of detente saying MySQL will not move into Oracle accounts. Certainly the MySQL CEO must have known this was coming, so his comments now appear in a different light. What is our vulnerability? Oracle offering big-money jobs to PostgreSQL developers. I think that is our only weakness, unless they buy Marc (Marc, are you for sale? :-) ) and own the domains and trademark. Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
