Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MySQL Cofounder Says Oracle Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d Party

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the richard-stallman-agrees dept.

Databases 207

alphadogg writes "Oracle should resolve antitrust concerns over its acquisition of Sun Microsystems by selling open-source database MySQL to a suitable third party, its cofounder and creator Michael 'Monty' Widenius said in a blog post on Monday. Oracle's $7.4 billion acquisition of Sun is currently being held up by an investigation by the European Commission. The Commission's main concern seems to be MySQL, which was acquired by Sun in January 2008 for $1 billion. A takeover by the world's leading proprietary database company of the world's leading open source database company compels the regulator to closely examine the effects on the European market, according to remarks made by Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes last month. The key objective by Widenius is to find a home outside Oracle for MySQL, where the database can be developed and compete with existing products, including Oracle's, according to Florian Mueller, a former MySQL shareholder who is currently working with Monty Program AB on this matter." Richard Stallman agrees.

cancel ×

207 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

3D? (5, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29809945)

Yeah, those 2D parties are shallow and make for thin plots.

Re:3D? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29809997)

What do you call a nigger in a three-piece suit? The defendant.

Re:3D? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29810329)

Sweet I tuned into chan4

Re:3D? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29810745)

Mighty Wide Anus == goatse guy?

Re:3D? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29810991)

=O=

Re:3D? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29810211)

Yeah, those 2D parties are shallow and make for thin plots.

That joke had a lot of depth to it.

Re:3D? (2, Funny)

Bat Country (829565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810461)

The best thing about 3d parties are all the 3d women. All that proprietary "boob-jubbling technology [penny-arcade.com] ."

Sah-LOOT! (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811205)

A tip of my hat to you, for pulling out a pertinent (to the parent) cartoon from 10 years and 2 days ago.

Re:3D? (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810523)

Plus, they want a neutral party, and 2D entities are generally rather basic.

Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d Party (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29809967)

SCO?

Your input has been noted (5, Insightful)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#29809973)

I'll take "Things you should have thought about before selling to Sun" for 1000 Alex

Re:Your input has been noted (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810995)

But why not just move to one of the MySQL forks and compete on technical merit instead of trying to hang on to its monopoly position in the LAMP stack through political/legal shenanigans?

Re:Your input has been noted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29811143)

Because even when it's given away for free that it still can't compete with Oracle's DB even with its huge sticker price.

Re:Your input has been noted (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811187)

Exactly.

He took the money.

It had always been quasi open-source, and free to use, and he sold it to Sun. Now when it is acquired by a company who's only purpose for buying Sun was to kill this product and eat its heart he gets religion?

Maybe I'm missing something.. (5, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29809977)

MySQL is open source. Why is there a big argument about who controls it? If whoever is controlling it goes in a direction that people don't like, don't you just fork it? If people really are worried about the future of MySQL, shouldn't there already be a fork?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (4, Interesting)

indraneil (1011639) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810203)

There is already a fork [askmonty.org] that is being worked upon by Monty (who was the founder of MySQL) I suspect the real contention is over the brand MySQL (which has significant mind-share) which was transferred to SUN and will now go to Oracle.
A lot of medium sized companies use MySQL today and have support contracts with who-so-ever owns the brand itself. They I guess are the ones who are worried - choosing another database is often not an option.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (3, Insightful)

mckinnsb (984522) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810719)

I would also suspect that there is a great deal of concern over the fact that many web hosting providers offer MySQL as the included database for a cheap, base-level, non-configurable package. Turnover of mindshare in that market seems to be extremely slow -I've noticed the cheaper packages tend to be sold to the technophobic. Many hosting providers will be inclined to stick with MySQL and MySQL support contracts with Oracle. This is part of what Oracle purchased, to be honest, but the EU has the right to examine if this is fair play.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (2, Insightful)

srw (38421) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810815)

So, that's why Mambo has such a huge mindshare in the CMS world?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (4, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810207)

The letter by RMS addresses that question. That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL, and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (3, Interesting)

reashlin (1370169) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810579)

is MySQL really an alternative to Oracle?

I mean sure it 'technically' is. But someone likely to use MySQL isnt looking for such an enterprise product such as Oracle and people looking to spend their money on Oracle can't/wont settle for MySQL. I thought this was basically what the EU said anyway.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810751)

Depends what for. Oracle is sometimes used for jobs that MySQL could do, that does not mean that MySQL can do everything Oracle can do.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (3, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811113)

Indeed not, but with most open source products there is usually a trend upwards. PostgreSQL is already a better bet towards gaining capabilities rivaling Oracle eventually, but with enough development MySQL could have eventually made it that far too. You can bet now however, that the Oracle controlled MySQL code base will NEVER gain feature parity with the main Oracle DBMS. It'll be basically stuck now as the less featured, less capable freebie that Oracle gives away to customers hoping to get working relationships built up in order to sell them the more expensive product.

Doesn't bother me much - at work they make me use Microsoft SQL Server and at home I stick to PostgreSQL, but still, it's sad to see a project like this end up in such a dead-end position.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811923)

Very true. Sometimes organizations only want to support one database, so whatever database they end up picking (Oracle, MS SQL Server) get's used for absolutely everything, regardless of the fact that a free database (such as MySQL or PostgreSQL) would do the job just fine. It comes down to, pay the license for each need, or pay database admins to manage multiple RDBMSs.

and Berkley DB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29811329)

The letter by RMS addresses that question. That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL, and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.

You mean like Oracle's ownership of Berkley DB?

Or is Monty still bitter about Oracle purchasing InnoDB?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810225)

It's GPL'd and requires copyright assignment. That means that whoever owns it can release it under whatever license they like, including using it in proprietary products, while everyone else can only use it if they abide by the terms of the GPL. Although, why anyone still cares about MySQL when there are better, more permissively licensed, alternatives available is beyond me.

Like Yogi Berra says (0)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810243)

If you come to a MySQL fork in the road, take it proprietary.

Re:Like Yogi Berra says (4, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810657)

I like better, "So, this MySQL programmer walks into a bar, goes up to two tables and asks 'Excuse me, may I join you?'"

Saw it in someone's sig here.

Speaking of tables (5, Funny)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810821)

Everybody leaves the Ark and Moses addresses the animals "Go forth and multiply".

So all the animals go into the forest, but Moses notices two snakes that haven't moved.

"Why don't you go and multiply?", He asks.

One of the snakes answers "We can't, we're Adders!".

So Moses and his sons chop down one of the trees and form it into a rough-hewn table.

He addresses the snakes and says "Here is your log table, now go forth and multiply".

Re:Speaking of tables (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810887)

Heh. 'Course, adders can multiply, it just takes longer. Since multiplying is fun, longer is better, right?

Not that I'd know, or anything. :(

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (2, Interesting)

geekmansworld (950281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810267)

The problem is that MySQL the company is a significant contributor to MySQL the project. Personally, I see a lot of value in MySQL, but lately the open-source community's love seems to be shifting to PostgreSQL. So I'm guessing that there's some question as to whether the MySQL project could go it alone without the resources the company provides.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (4, Insightful)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810283)

Or move over to another F/OSS database. Postgres has outdone mysql for "enterprise" features for many years (anyone else remember mysql people telling you that transactions were something that should be handled outside the database?) with the exception of replication support, and sqlite reportedly outperforms it in its traditional market (few writes but many selects over simple but potentially large structures). There are other options out there. A fork would face the same problem these other options have: mysql, the "official" version where-ever that lives these days, has a large amount of market inertia.

(I'm not trying to grind an anti-mysql axe here, though I do prefer the other options myself depending on circumstances, just pointing out that a fork would only be any good to the market if enough people use it and getting that elusive "enough people" market share might not be easy)

postgres people suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29811241)

I honestly do not understand why some people persist in pimping postgres. I remember 10 years ago, postgres was a ghost project -- no updates/maintenance. the entire fucking world adopted mysql except for the postgres-obsessed.

I'm convinced that if postgres were dominant and mysql were a rounding error, that these same people would be pimping mysql.

Sort of like people who stop listening to a band when it becomes famous.

Re:postgres people suck (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811373)

No one is advocating deployment of Postgres95. Current PostgreSQL OTOH deserves the praise it gets.

Re:postgres people suck (3, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811501)

I honestly do not understand why some people persist in pimping postgres.

Well, a lot of us are happy with the idea of a database that, you know, works. That doesn't silently discard data. That doesn't make you choose between performance and ACID. That doesn't pull crap like insisting that the wire protocol is licensed under the GPL. That sort of stuff.

I remember 10 years ago, postgres was a ghost project -- no updates/maintenance. the entire fucking world adopted mysql except for the postgres-obsessed.

Good point. Guess I'll roll back my desktop to E16 on Slink to comply with your state-of-a-decade-ago fetish.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (2, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810305)

In theory that might be a good idea. However, in practice, forks only have two realistic outcomes. Either they're just plain ignored--as is the case with present MySQL forks, or they divide and segregate the user base. The consequences of the later could potentially prove the undoing of the project. Relying upon products with an unstable and uncertain future make management types nervous...

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (2, Funny)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810515)

What do you mean?

GNU IceCat is as popular as... IceWeasel ...

nevermind

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810983)

There are two other possibilities... the fork takes over and the original becomes irrelevant (x.org vs xfree86) or the original adopts the fork (egcs vs gcc). Oracle can't adopt back any outside fork (as they would no longer have full copyright over it).

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (2, Funny)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810315)

Because if people don't like the fork then someone else will fork it.
So on, and so on, until MySQL is forked so many times people will call it a slut?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810557)

Don't people say that already?

There is more to it than that (2, Insightful)

capt.Hij (318203) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810317)

There is more to the project than just the source. First, some of the people are still working for Sun/Oracle. Their expertise is kind of important, and it is not so easy to just pick up the source and start making changes.

The other issue is the documentation. That is not so free. The mysql documentation is considerable and is a tremendous resource. Back in the day, it was the deciding reason that I went with mysql. If I went on purely technical requirements alone I would have likely chosen a different platform.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (2, Informative)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810481)

Here's what RMS said in the letter:

MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL. Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses. More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL. In making decisions in these matters, Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest - the continued development of a powerful, feature rich free alternative to its core product.

As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform.

The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform, potentially alienating and dispersing MySQL's core community of developers. It could take several years before another database platform could rival the progress and opportunities now available to MySQL, because it will take time before any of them attract and cultivate a large enough team of developers and achieve a similar customer base.

So basically, RMS is concerned that Oracle really would fork MySQL, and end the dual-licensing for any future versions they release. This effectively would make the Oracle fork of MySQL into proprietary or "closed source" software.

And Oracle would likely keep the "MySQL" name, because Oracle really wants that brand recognition in the low-end database market, competing with MS-SQL. So I'd guess a forked F/OSS version of MySQL would need to call themselves something else, losing the name.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810601)

That makes sense, I hadn't considered that sales of the commercial license were used to advance development of the software in general. The arguments that RMS gives make sense.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811133)

MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software

Yes... and they did that when they were owned MySQL AB and they did that when they were owned by Sun. Did RMS speak out against it then? Does he speak out in favor of SQLite, PostgreSQL and FireBird now? (All of which are free as in freedom, not free as in herpes).

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811603)

So RMS's basic assertion is that GPL itself wouldn't work as a viable way to develop a package like MySQL, and couldn't compete against someone with a proprietary license? Or am I missing something?

The whole point of the MySQL sale was that Sun paid money to acquire the copyright and trademark assets. If some external group wants to raise a billion dollars and buy the product back they can do what they'd like (including giving it away). Otherwise, they took the money and that's what happens.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (2, Interesting)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811617)

"So basically, RMS is concerned that Oracle really would fork MySQL, and end the dual-licensing for any future versions they release."

Where have you read that in RMS's letter?

As I read it, RMS is concerned not because Oracle will close future MySQL development but because they will be the only ones that can profit from dual licensing MySQL and they won't do that because it would make it competing against their cash cow. Oracle would be much better served if they allow MySQL to slowly stagnate -and the point is that they can do it since noone else will be able to cash out the dual license path, than if they close the shop allowing for a faster substitution from another open alternative.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (1)

merrickm (1192625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810547)

Those who are only using the code under the GPL can only distribute it to others under the GPL. Those who own the code can also sell commercial licenses. Also, the name MySQL itself has built up a great deal of brand recognition and loyalty.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811033)

MySQL's business plan is to sell proprietary licences to people who don't want a free version for whatever reason, and to use this money to fund development of the software. You wouldn't be able to do this with a forked version of the software so you would have to rely a lot more on donations and volunteers to fund development work. Also, the people who don't want to use a free database program would go somewhere else for a proprietary solution, so this would dilute the network effect of other people developing their programs round a MySQL platform.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something.. (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811203)

just fork

If you "just" fork, then you "just" have source code.

Bug fixes, support, organization, new releases, infrastructure, or anything else will cost extra. Communities that do this aren't ethereal entities that magically accomplish work; they are people, and it takes a long time to put a real team together. It takes even longer if you start with a budget of $0. Respected leaders like Monty can do it more quickly, but even then, it's a serious challenge.

How about Google? (0)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810055)

They have one-of-everything-else already.

Re:How about Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29810713)

They have one-of-everything-else already.

Including their own anti-trust investigation. They don't need another just yet.

Re:How about Google? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811089)

Good point. I'd mod you up funny if I had mod points, and if I hadn't already posted in the thread.

Re:How about Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29811173)

They would be the perfect maintainer...How many installs of MySQL already apply the Google patches currently for stability and scalability

Bring on the hate (4, Interesting)

geekmansworld (950281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810159)

Okay, here goes... Maybe they should sell it to Apple?

Yes, hate me, throw things at me. But Apple DOES love MySQL, it's an essential part of OS X Server. Unlike Oracle, IBM and Microsoft, Apple doesn't own an existing database product. Also keep in mind that MySQL the commercial product is not necessarily synonymous to MySQL the open-source project.

Unfortunately, MySQL uses the GPL, whereas Apple has always preferred to open-source under the Apache license.

Re:Bring on the hate (2, Informative)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810365)

Unlike Oracle, IBM and Microsoft, Apple doesn't own an existing database product.

Ummm.... Filemaker?

Granted it's a horrible POS that makes Access look clean and well-developed, but as someone who has to suffer with using it on a daily basis, it IS a database product.

Re:Bring on the hate (2, Informative)

apokruphos (911590) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811341)

Unlike Oracle, IBM and Microsoft, Apple doesn't own an existing useful database product.

Fixed for pedantry. As another person who has to deal with it on a daily basis, the thought of willfully using Filemaker in a development project is sure sign of technical incompetence.

Re:Bring on the hate (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810447)

it's an essential part of OS X Server

It is?

Re:Bring on the hate (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810659)

Yes, I would love to only be legally allowed to run MySQL on Apple-approved hardware...

Re:Bring on the hate (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29810797)

Of course. Don't forget that FreeBSD users have locked themselves into using Apple hardware forever by incorporating Grand Central Dispatch.

Re:Bring on the hate (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811163)

You can run CUPS on your Ubuntu box without any problems. Why should MySQL be any different?

Re:Bring on the hate (1)

geekmansworld (950281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810701)

Ummm.... Filemaker?

Eh... I don't know if you can equate front-end-oriented database apps like Filemaker and Access to SQL-server products. Besides, if Apple owned MySQL, would they really neglect it in favour of Filemaker Server?

It is?

I suppose it depends on who you ask. In my web-development circles, you need a database backend. Because MySQL comes pre-installed on OS X Server, it's sort of the default choice. So perhaps "essential" should have been "important".

Re:Bring on the hate (1)

Homr Zodyssey (905161) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811099)

They'd just change the name to "iSQL"...

Re:Bring on the hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29811939)

I think Sybase wouldn't like that.

Neutral 3rd Party? Let's See Here ... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29810175)

MySQL Cofounder Says Oracle Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d Party

So that leaves us with?

mysql> use companies;
Database changed
mysql> select * from parties where bias = null;
Empty set (0.00 sec)

Hmmm ....

sound like a good idea... (1)

ynohoo (234463) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810199)

hang on, Stallman thinks it is a good idea? The kiss of death!

Re:sound like a good idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29811307)

Yeah, that piece of shit GCC hasn't gone anywhere.

Transactions (4, Funny)

fartrader (323244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810229)

So its true, MySQL still doesn't support Transaction rollbacks.

Who cares what Widenius & Stallman think? (1, Insightful)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810245)

If it was that important to Widenius then why did he sell his company instead of holding onto it? And Stallman giving business advice to anyone is like a vegetarian giving tips on how to slow-barbecue whale liver.

Is mySQL open source? If not, it doesn't matter that Larry owns it. If it is, it can fork. End of discussion.

Re:Who cares what Widenius & Stallman think? (0, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811189)

When wide-anus and stall-(as in bathroom)-man get together, watch out!

Re:Who cares what Widenius & Stallman think? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811775)

"If it was that important to Widenius then why did he sell his company instead of holding onto it?"

Widenius didn't sell it to a big database owner but to a company that were it not that it's in fact bought by Oracle would be exactly the kind of "neutral third party" he is asking for now.

Not to say that Widenius wouldn't sell to Oracle back in the day (I don't know) but that his past actions are well aligned with his current sayings.

...rd (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29810347)

3rd party

ONE BILLION DOLLARS, MUHAHAHAH (2, Funny)

ShaggyZet (74769) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810367)

Sounds like a good plan. Now if they can only find a neutral 3rd party dumb enough to pay anything close to $1 billion for it. How about Computer Associates, isn't that where bad software goes to die?

Re:ONE BILLION DOLLARS, MUHAHAHAH (1)

RedDrake (73616) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810831)

If only 'bad' software went to CA to die. On occasion they kill perfectly good software.

why is this an issue for antitrust? (1)

illuminaut (399) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810393)

MySQL and Oracle have never directly competed, and never will. If Oracle were to shell MySQL, there are plenty of groups willing to jump in and maintain a fork. I don't know why a lot of people seem to be worried about Oracle's commitment to open source anyway. They have a good track record and there's no business reason to stop supporting it.

Big business kills open source... (5, Interesting)

Kate6 (895650) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810433)

This makes me think of nVidia's purchase of 3dfx. 3dfx (makers of the famous Voodoo series of video cards) were very friendly to the open source community... They played a very pivotal role in the realm of 3D rendering on Linux when it was still in its infancy, contributing significantly to OpenGL. Then nVidia bought them and discontinued its entire product line... And something like 6 months later it was announced that nVidia won the contract to make the graphics chips on the original Microsoft X-Box. Coincidence?

MySQL, by virtue of being an open source product available in a "community" version for free, has become a central part of the business model of countless small businesses. And it's just fallen into the ownership of its biggest closed-source, for-pay competitor. This could potentially have ramifications for the global economy as a whole. Very scary.

they're hardly competitors (1)

illuminaut (399) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810583)

biggest closed-source, for-pay competitor? They're for vastly different purposes, and if anything they can complement each other, but don't compete. MySQL won't die, even if Oracle decides it's not worth maintaining, it would just change names and continue as a separate fork. More likely, Oracle will continue to put development effort into it to make it play nicely with their own line of products.

Re:Big business kills open source... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810675)

But 3dfx cards where slow and crappy. They died and nVidia picked up what was left after nVidia and ATI killed them. nVidia has for many years produced the best 3d drivers available for Linux even though they where closed source they where free as beer. Not perfect but nVidia was supporting Linux before it was cool.

MySQL? It has had a duel license for forever. Options like Postgres and Firebird have been around for years. So far Oracle has done nothing evil with MySQL so we should get all bent because it could happen> Oracle has been pushing Linux for years for database servers which has been a big help to Linux in the enterprise.

What it comes too is that some people say that Oracle owning MySQL raises anti-trust issues. I just don't see that. Oracle has competition from DB2 and MSSQL in the closed source category and MySQL has competition from PsotgresSQL and Firebird in the FOSS category. If nothing else this is wake up call for more FOSS projects to look at databases other than MySQL.

Re:Big business kills everything... (0, Troll)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811351)

Fixed.

(Sarcastic responses from rabid, clueless, brainwashed, American white male capitalist fanatics incoming)

Re:Big business kills everything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29811485)

(Sarcastic responses from rabid, clueless, brainwashed, American white male capitalist fanatics incoming)

That's [wikipedia.org] racist.

Oh, and sexist too [wikipedia.org] .

Rabid, clueless, capitalist fanaticism knows no boundaries.

wow (2, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810527)

Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product? Why?

Re:wow (4, Informative)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810685)

"Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product? Why?"

To slowly dilute its market share and ultimately mop up MySQLs customer base ..

Re:wow (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811043)

To slowly dilute its market share and ultimately mop up MySQLs customer base ..

They don't have a customer base sufficiently large to be worth $1 bn.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29810977)

I know you're talking about Sun's acquisition of MySQL, but the acquisition of Sun by Oracle never made sense. Sun possessed virtually nothing I could see that Oracle might want. Oracle had completely moved their hardware platform to Linux from Solaris because of an earlier spat with Sun. I have a sneaking suspicion that Oracle was covering their ass from some possible GPL infringement with MySQL. Nothing else makes sense.

Re:wow (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811193)

I know you're talking about Sun's acquisition of MySQL, but the acquisition of Sun by Oracle never made sense. Sun possessed virtually nothing I could see that Oracle might want. Oracle had completely moved their hardware platform to Linux from Solaris because of an earlier spat with Sun. I have a sneaking suspicion that Oracle was covering their ass from some possible GPL infringement with MySQL. Nothing else makes sense.

I just can't buy it; any GPL problem wouldn't cost $1 bn to fix. I think it was irrational exuberance to the point of imbecility over what MySQL could do for them.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29811331)

Oracle had completely moved their hardware platform to Linux from Solaris because of an earlier spat with Sun.

That's funny how they both completely moved their hardware platform to Linux and yet they still sold tons of their product running it on Solaris. Methinks you know shit about what you are talking about.

Re:wow (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811243)

Seems to me that Oracle will try to convert as much of MySQL's marketshare to $$$ as possible. Kill/slow development of certain MySQL features, create some easy upgrade paths to Oracle = profit.

Makes a lot more sense than ebay's billion dollar purchase of skype, which somehow left out the important bits :). I'm still not sure how ebay recently managed to convince others to buy skype from them...

There's plenty of competition. (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810531)

They won't have a leg to stand on if they try to force this. There is an enormous amount of competition at all levels in all segments of the Database market.

MySQL has been accepted because Oracle owns it (4, Interesting)

shoppa (464619) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810573)

On several occasions I've been able to convince customers that MySQL was good enough but only because Oracle owned it:

Here's an app, I'm using MySQL
You can't use MySQL, we're an Oracle shop
Oracle owns MySQL
Well, then, that's OK then

Re:MySQL has been accepted because Oracle owns it (1)

MechaStreisand (585905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811867)

That's funny, because the sale hasn't gone through yet, so Oracle does not actually own MySQL.

Is Monte only looking out for himself (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29810645)

disclaimer: I work for Sun and know nothing about mysql...

Here's what I don't get, Monte and company sell mysql to Sun for 1 billion dollars.
I assume Monte got a decent portion of that.. I also assume that Monte had to
sign a no compete agreement for that sum of money.

I'm sure Sun would be more that happy to sell back mysql if
the original owners would like to give the $1 billion back.. I'm
guessing they wouldn't.

I would bet Monte wouldn't even give his portion back. Could
this be Monte trying to keep the money he got and try to get
out of a non compete agreement? (if he did indeed sign one).

Yes, I'm bitter... ;-) As the EU holds this up longer, more people
@ Sun will lose jobs over political crap. If Oracle was based out
of the EU this wouldn't have happened. I'm willing to wager if SAP
wasn't based out of the EU, this wouldn't be delayed either...

Held up? (1)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 4 years ago | (#29810865)

How can a transaction between two U.S. companies be held up by some European commission? What am I missing?

Re:Held up? (2, Informative)

kthejoker (931838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811125)

The transaction itself doesn't have to be held up, but if the EU rules it violates anti-trust, they won't be allowed to do business in the EU. Kind of a mood-killer, if you will.

Re:Held up? (1)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811367)

Thanks, it makes sense.

Oh, that would be so darned *spiffy!* (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811009)

Of course, we live in a capitalist system, so the most likely answer you'll get to that suggestion is "f*** off" but more politely worded.

Note to open source guys. Larry Ellison thanks you for the free labor.

Is Oracle more evil than Microsoft? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29811079)

Wait. I'm confused. Oracle is now evil and Microsoft isn't evil? When did this happen? As a Microsoft hater do I need to hate Oracle now too?

I'm confused. Is this some sort of plot by Bill Gates to divide and conquer? What next!?

At least Steve Jobs is still okay. ...or is he?

10 months worth of MySQL (1)

Glasswire (302197) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811261)

Sun paid about 1 billion for MsSQL and Oracle says EU hold up is costing them 100s of millions of dollars a month by delaying decision which appears to largely hinge on Oracle's plans for MySQL. So Oracle must value it very highly since with a few more months of delay, Oracle reluctance to let it go will cost it more than it's worth.
So why does Oracle care that much about MySQL? One can speculate...

A suggested alternative (-1, Redundant)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811289)

I invite people to investigate PostgreSQL.

I was going to outline a list of its' features, but said list is very large, so I'll paste the address instead, so you can go and check it out for yourselves:- http://www.postgresql.org/about/featurematrix [postgresql.org]

The problem for Oracle... (2, Interesting)

TemporalBeing (803363) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811379)

...is that if they keep it, it'll create Antitrust issues for them. So the suggestion is to sell it.

Except, that's isn't exactly a good idea right now either. After all, they sold it to Sun for $1 Billion USD. What would it say if it Oracle/Sun sold it for less - even $900 Million USD? That MySQL wasn't worth $1 Billion USD; which would not be good PR for the F/OSS community, likely run afoul of Antitrust issues (for the PR reasons - especially if Oracle/Sun went - "see it mustn't have been all that good since we couldn't get what we paid for it"), but at least Oracle/Sun would get a tax write off on the difference.

So then, why not kill two birds with one stone - spin MySQL off as its own company. Make it a non-profit (MySQL Foundation) or something; keep a seat or two of the board, and let the community fill the rest. Oracle could get very good PR for doing so too.

The database is dying technology anyways! (1)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811421)

Flame bait, probably, but I was wondering what people thought of Terracotta, and technology like it [terracotta.org] .

MaxDB? (1)

t482 (193197) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811511)

My pet theory is that SAP is helping block the merger due to Mysql MAXDB. Which I believe used to be Adibas from SAP.

If Oracle get it hands on that they could hurt SAP revenues and grab SAP customers. I don't believe the EU will back down. I wonder it that could kill the merger?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?