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!

European Commission Approves Oracle-Sun Merger

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the chomp-chomp-chomp dept.

Oracle 144

rubycodez writes "The anti-trust body of the EU, the European Commission, has approved Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems, believing competition would be preserved. It saw PostgreSQL as a viable independent alternative to MySQL and that market access to Java would not be restricted. Uncertainty about Sun's future has cost over a billion dollars in lost sales in the past year."

cancel ×

144 comments

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

joy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30845974)

first

Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (3, Insightful)

MikeV (7307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30845994)

Oracle is sure to kill or marginalize MySQL. Rest in peace my old friend.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846068)

Oracle bought BerkeleyDB and it is still doing fine.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (2, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846120)

Berkeley DB has zero overlapping market with Oracle DB.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846724)

What, and MySQL is competing with Oracle DB head on? :D How many of the people who are currently using MySQL do you honestly believe would use Oracle DB if MySQL dissapeared?

Besides, even if we were to seriously consider, for the sake of argument, that Oracle would kill MySQL, I would say 'good riddance'. MySQL is a piece of crap, a toy database engine, and the world would be a better place if people would use decent alternatives instead.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847050)

Besides, even if we were to seriously consider, for the sake of argument, that Oracle would kill MySQL, I would say 'good riddance'. MySQL is a piece of crap, a toy database engine, and the world would be a better place if people would use decent alternatives instead.

I have to admit you have a point there.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (4, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846804)

Why should Oracle change anything? MySQL is doing well. It'd be better not to rock the boat and just sell loads of support for it rather than scare away people that likely won't ever go for Oracle and kill MySQL.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847364)

Very true. Just because I like Oracle doesn't mean I can magically make its cost OK'd by Management. So I use MySQL and SQL Server instead.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847828)

Neither does MySQL.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

ishobo (160209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30848462)

The same is true of MySQL.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30848606)

The version of MySQL that Oracle can even potentially shut down, the dual-licensed one you pay for, does.

Sure, people who are happy with the GPL version aren't going to be using Oracle... but that version is out of Oracle's control.

(yes, I know that right now both of these are the same code base)

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

keithjr (1091829) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846088)

That would be fairly stupid of them. You don't survive as a company for so long as Oracle has by making those kind of decisions.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (2, Interesting)

MikeV (7307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846632)

You don't survive long as a company by having competing products in your line-up. MySQL has been a thorn in Oracle's side for a long time. Now they get to exploit the user-base, getting them over to their entry-level db and upgrading some to their enterprise level db all the while gradually shuffling MySQL into the background.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846694)

Oracle an MySQL are very different products with different targets. If Oracle kills MySQL their are plain stupids and I don't think they are, Oracle can make a lot of money with MySQL specially if they integrate it with the rest of their products.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

MikeV (7307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847040)

Oracle has more than one db product: http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/xe/index.html [oracle.com]

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (0, Troll)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847526)

Oracle Express only supports 4 Gigs per database, you can only run one instance at a time, limited to 1 Gig of RAM even if you have more, one processor again even if you're running SMP, and only 32 bit?

Why would I want to use Oracle Express again?

[John]

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847740)

Because 4GB database size, 1 processor and 1GB ram is more than enough for 99.9% of private websites, blogs, myspace wannabees and stuff hosted on Dreamhost et al. Basically the majority of what MySQL is being used for at the moment.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30848826)

Please tell IBM and HP that. They seem to do quite well with having competing products in their lineup. They have X86 servers, Unix servers, mainframe class servers, not to mention competing OSes on those platforms. As well as multiple middleware, applications, and management products.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846154)

Time to get our forks ready tbqh. What's odd is the latest GA install of community server on mysql.com doesn't work on win7 64bit. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't work on 32bit either, though 5.5 and a slightly older 5.1 work fine. Coincidence, or a glimpse of the future?

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846216)

What's odd is the latest GA install of community server on mysql.com doesn't work on win7 64bit.

Nil? Because Oracle wouldn't do something to lose themselves customers and revenue?

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (5, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846164)

Oracle is sure to kill or marginalize MySQL. Rest in peace my old friend.

I don't know about that. If I was running Oracle, I would do three things: gradually modify MySQL to make it easier to transition from MySQL to Oracle, market MySQL heavily as a lightweight, easy databse for companies and organizations that can't justify the cost of Oracle for their database needs, develop and market a for pay support structure for MySQL that easily transitions to Oracle if the database gets big and complicated enough to justify the transition (and train the support staff to not transition anybody until they really got significant benefit from the transition.

That would be a nightmare... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846324)

...I would do three things: gradually modify MySQL to make it easier to transition from MySQL to Oracle, market MySQL heavily as a lightweight, easy databse for companies and organizations that can't justify the cost of Oracle for their database needs...

Have you ever tried to migrate anything from MySQL to Oracle? They are *so* different. It would take *years* to get MySQL to a point where such a transition would even be considered by companies wanting to switch.

Granted, migrating from any database to another is difficult, but I jut can't see it.

Re:That would be a nightmare... (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847060)

Well, not necessarily. MySQL has two parts, the front end and the storage engine. The storage engine is pluggable, and the front end is where all of the weirdness lives. Now that Oracle owns the copyright on MySQL, they are not bound by the GPL when modifying or distributing it, so they can create a MySQL personality for Oracle that will use its native storage (and maybe query optimisation engine in some cases) on the back end. The MySQL client would still think it was talking to a MySQL database, but would really be talking to Oracle via a translation layer.

Re:That would be a nightmare... (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847382)

Mod parent up. This would be a win for everyone.

Re:That would be a nightmare... (2, Insightful)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 4 years ago | (#30848076)

Agreed. it would be the proper way to go. As a matter of fact, this is not the first time this sort of translation is being made available by Oracle.

Re:That would be a nightmare... (1)

cez (539085) | more than 4 years ago | (#30848764)

Also, I'd like to point out that for those who didn't know, ORACLE already has owned and maintained in a black box the main Transactional Storage Engine of MySQL, InnoDB.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

EvilAlphonso (809413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846358)

Why go through the expense of Oracle-ing MySQL when the product you describe is already in the portfolio: http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/xe/index.html [oracle.com]

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847276)

Because of the huge userbase mysql has, compared to oracle express edition where 50% of users have tried it once and dropped it, while the other one is an oracle employee?

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (0, Troll)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847502)

Wait. So Oracle Express only supports 4 Gigs of database, one instance at a time, 1 Gig of RAM, one processor, and only 32 bit?

Why would I want to use Oracle Express again? It looks like it wouldn't work at all for my current projects.

[John]

No, there is Oracle Express free of charge (1)

advid.net (595837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846758)

market MySQL heavily as a lightweight, easy databse for companies and organizations that can't justify the cost of Oracle for their database needs

Oracle has already a free (as in beer) database : Oracle Express.
It was tailored to replace MySQL, a few years before this buy out.

Re:No, there is Oracle Express free of charge (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847186)

market MySQL heavily as a lightweight, easy databse for companies and organizations that can't justify the cost of Oracle for their database needs

Oracle has already a free (as in beer) database : Oracle Express. It was tailored to replace MySQL, a few years before this buy out.

Has it had any success at market penetration?

Re:No, there is Oracle Express free of charge (0, Troll)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847554)

I know I won't be using it based on the Oracle FAQ. It's too limited for my usage.

[John]

Re:No, there is Oracle Express free of charge (1)

advid.net (595837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847600)

Has it had any success at market penetration?

No, I guess it came too late after MySQL well established and wide use.
Also Oracle Express hardware limits make it unsuitable for bigger db, turning clients to pricey Oracle Database.
This leaves some room in the medium sized db for MySQL as a free product, typicaly for grown up sites who started with this db.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846198)

Then Monty Wideanus should have bought back the copyrights to MySQL to preserve its fate. Otherwise it was just a bunch of butthurt on his part after cashing in for a billion dollars.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (5, Insightful)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846342)

The primary hangup with the EU was the MySQL issue. Oracle didn't hold up 1 Billion dollars in sales with Sun by not giving up MySQL so they could kill MySQL. Releasing or breaking off MySQL would likely have removed all the barriers imposed by the EU and they could have moved along with their lives. They have an interest in MySQL, the question is what.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847980)

interest in MySQL, the question is what.

short answer to that question is "who cares what they plan and get started with reading the subject again if you already dont.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846366)

I think that's probably the case too to be honest. Judging by the EU saying PostgreSql is a viable alternative even they accept it's a possibility.

At the time, as it always does, building an abstraction layer on my projects for database access seemed like one of those things you feel you have to do but might not ever end up being useful.

But things like this are one of the many reasons we do those sorts of chores- at least a switch to PostgreSql will be amazingly trivial for me on the projects which I've used MySql on now, and the goodbye wont be quite as hard as it would have been.

This still raises an interesting point though, if Oracle does kill MySql, has the EU factored in the damage this will do to those European companies that haven't had this foresight in terms of lost developer time re-writing everything? In a way you can say it's their own fault of course for not using some database abstraction layer. Having an alternative available is one thing, but switching to that alternative can still be very costly.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (0, Troll)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846468)

well, I knew MS was deep rooted at slashdot, but I didn't know they employed people in the 7000 UID.

What's worse, MySQL being kept alive by oracle, or being owned by MS? Oh right, lets decry MySQL supposedly dying.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846592)

You must be off your meds... What possible link did the GP's post have with MS? You aren't confusing MySQL with MS-SQL are you?

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846776)

I don't think Oracle will be a problem. However you should look at Postgre because it is good and it will stick to a certain guy who thought he could sell his DB to Sun and get it back for free.

Ignoring any pettiness though, do check out Postgre. I think it's quite nice.

Re:Time to get more familiar with PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847418)

What, you aren't already?

Funny thing: MySQL's website [mysql.com] says

The world's most popular open source database

PostgreSQL's website says [postgresql.org]

The world's most advanced open source database

I've always preferred PostgreSQL over MySQL ;-)

Monty (3, Funny)

heffel (83440) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846004)

Monty is going to have a fit.

Re:Monty (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846016)

So? He shouldn't have taken the money then...

Re:Monty (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846092)

He sure is. Then he'll hear this news, and really go cuckoo-bananas.

Re:Monty (1)

rwyoder (759998) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846530)

Monty is going to have a fit.

We can only hope. ;-)

Re:Monty (4, Funny)

richlv (778496) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847100)

maybe eu approved the deal because they got annoyed by monty

Re:Monty (2, Funny)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30848182)

"maybe eu approved the deal because they got annoyed by monty"

More likely that Oracle's check finally cleared.

Re:Monty (1)

citab (1677284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847234)

Sorry ... WTH is Monty?

My honest response was... (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846054)

"Oh no, not again!"

Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans? (5, Insightful)

heffel (83440) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846070)

GlassFish [java.net] competes directly with Oracle AS, and Weblogic (which Oracle acquired through BEA's acquisition a while back).

NetBeans [netbeans.org] competes directly with Oracle's JDeveloper.

I wonder if Oracle will keep these tools around. Personally, I think Oracle would be a fool not to. The NetBeans/GlassFish combo is by far the most productive way to develop server side Java Applications.

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846238)

From a competition point of view those applications also compete with JBoss and Eclipse / IntelliJ IDEA. I certainly hope that they are preserved. But moving them into Oracle will certainly not limit choice between providers. I presume Oracle will keep at least one application server / EE environment and IDE alive.

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (1)

heffel (83440) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846340)

I presume Oracle will keep at least one application server / EE environment and IDE alive.

No doubt Oracle will keep at least one app server/IDE alive, the question is, which one?

Oracle App Server, Weblogic or GlassFish?

JDeveloper or NetBeans?

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847010)

I can't belive they'd get rid of Netbeans. It one of the IDEs at the moment. At least it's open source so it can be forked if that happens.

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (1)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846376)

I am worried for Netbeans since I've found it to be pleasant to do Java development in. My consolation is that I've heard from most people that JDeveloper is much more geared towards Oracle's own offerings than any of the other Java IDEs. The rest tend to be more general purpose. Hopefully this means that Netbeans will continue being supported even though their press release on the matter was a little bit vague.

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846350)

Hopefully they will keep them around. Both Oracle and IBM pushing Java is a bigger threat to Microsoft than Linux at the moment.

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846566)

Threatening Microsoft is not Oracle's business. Selling Oracle software, servers, and services is.

Expect MySQL support for large scale customers to be phased out starting... oh, wait, it's already been occurring. The Oracle sales staff have been eager to migrate MySQL customers, and now they have Sun's client list to work on. And they've been encouraging migration since the sale started. Not without cause, and it often makes sense for large customers.

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846794)

Actually is the other way, Microsoft is eating market to Java with .NET and gaining market share with SQL Server, the gap between Oracle DB and SQL Server is getting shorter after each release (the same with Windows and Solaris). But right now the target for Oracle and Microsoft is Big Blue. IBM has the BIG MONEY within big customers.

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846432)

Yeah, I'd really miss Netbeans, it's definitely my favourite IDE after Visual Studio on any platform and my first choice for Java development also.

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846478)

The biguest competition against Oracle Weblogic (formerly BEA Weblogic) in the J2EE Application Server space is Websphere by IBM, not GlassFish.

The mostly widelly used IDE for Java development is Eclipse (which is open source), NetBeans is not even a second, maybe a far 3rd or worse.

I've been working professionally with Java for 12 years and I can't see how anybody can see GlassFish or NetBeans as at all important in the Java space: the truth is that while Sun's Java language and standard libraries are quite successfull their tools and framework implementations never do take off (even though they keep pushing them year-in-year-out by offering them bundled with the Java SE and Java EE SDKs).

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847098)

I'd say Netbeans is gaining popularity. The issue is Eclipse started off with a big lead and people don't just up and leave their IDEs over night and their company may dictate what they can use.

Netbeans runs better, imo, and it's slowly adding more support for languages like PHP and Python and it does a good job with them.

I fully expect Netbeans to take off with PHP devs and if they keep going as they are then slowly it'll gain users amongst java devs too.

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (5, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30848244)

The big deal with NetBeans is that it's an all-in-one package - you get it and JDK, and you're all set to go for any kind of Java development you can possibly think of - be it a desktop Swing application, a J2EE web app, a midlet, or whatever. In that, it's rather similar to Visual Studio.

With Eclipse, you don't even get a decent visual UI editor out of the box. Of course, you can find Eclipse plugins to do everything NetBeans can do, but that's precisely the point - you have to find them first, occasionally you have to pay for the good ones, too, and quite often you have to decide which one out of N options you want to use (just look at the list of available UI editors...). With NetBeans, the choice has been made for you, so you can just use it in blissful ignorance. This is particularly helpful for beginner programmers, since they can just take NetBeans and not worry about anything else.

In short, Eclipse is like Debian, while NetBeans is like SUSE. These are different niches, and both are good to have.

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (1)

ExE122 (954104) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846588)

GlassFish competes directly with Oracle AS, and Weblogic (which Oracle acquired through BEA's acquisition a while back).

NetBeans competes directly with Oracle's JDeveloper.

I wonder if Oracle will keep these tools around. Personally, I think Oracle would be a fool not to. The NetBeans/GlassFish combo is by far the most productive way to develop server side Java Applications.

I agree, and I don't think Oracle will be pulling the plug on these. Some of these technologies might get integrated, and some will probably just continue on.

Look at how they've handled BEA. They have silently admitted that WebLogic is superior, but are still integrating it with some components of OAS to make an even better product. I think we can probably expect something similar with their IDEs.

As far as Glassfish/MySQL... I really don't think they will get rid of these either. WebLogic/OracleDB are powerful (and expensive) enterprise class closed-source products. However, there will still be a large community of open-source developers that Oracle will probably want to hang on to. This should allow Glassfish/MySQL to live on.

I think if they do for whatever reason try to get rid of these, there will be a huge migration of developers to other FOSS products, ultimately leading to more competition for Oracle.

What I'm really curious about is the O/S and server fronts. "Oracle Solaris" and "Oracle Fire" just don't sound right.

Re:Forget MySQL, What about GlassFish and NetBeans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30848024)

I think someone was anticipating the success of this merger, because the latest version of Netbeans already drops support for building SOA apps, e.g. BPEL. That sucks a lot, because they had a really good tool. There's an Eclipse plug in, but it's slow, incomplete, and development is proceeding at a snail's pace.

Rrrreally (1, Redundant)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846144)

Uncertainty about Sun's future has cost over a billion dollars in lost sales in the past year.

Uh.. Citation needed, uhu.

Re:Rrrreally (5, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846230)

Okay [sys-con.com] .

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison claims the European Commission’s prolonged investigation of Oracle’s proposed acquisition of Sun, which isn’t expected to finish much before the agency’s mid-January deadline, is costing Sun $100 million a month in revenues and a weakened revenue stream will impact how many employees Sun gets to keep if and when the acquisition is approved.

And this isn't the only citation you can find.

Re:Rrrreally (3, Insightful)

lepidosteus (1102443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846378)

So the guy who wants the merger to happen as fast as possible claims (threaten ?) that slowing it down cost sun a lot of money and will lead to people getting fired ? That's not exactly unbiased ...

Pet Peeve (3, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846220)

"Uncertainty about Sun's future has cost over a billion dollars in lost sales in the past year." No, you can't say that. Last year could have been a really bad year for Sun regardless, they might have only sold 100 Million dollars worth without all this fiasco going on. Not meeting what the accountants project is not "losing sales" but "missing your target".

Now that the obligatory is out of the way, is this going to be the last I hear about this? Or is someone (name rhymes with Bonty) going to write an angry blog post thats going to get /. front paged? Bound to happen.

Re:Pet Peeve (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846924)

He's already making noise about trying to slow down the approval process in China and Russia. If he wanted to continue to have any control over his baby, he shouldn't have cashed out. Anyone who has the urge to feel sorry for Monty in any of this should remember just how much money he got for selling MySQL in the first place.

Re:Pet Peeve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847494)

16E6 dollars, if I recall. It would be a lot of money for anyone of us and I certainly won't feel bad for him. Even so, that really is nothing rare in the corporate world. In Belgium the workers in country's largest breweries are on strike because people are being laid off while the CEO is about to get a bonus of 62E6 euros.

$1 Billion out the window, down the tubes, bye-bye (4, Insightful)

haruchai (17472) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846262)

I know that many MySQL folks are antsy about this, but let's face it, this was the best hope for Solaris & related technologies.
Being swallowed by IBM, I believe, would have led to the swift death of many SUN technologies / divisions. I'm firmly of the opinion
that IBM's major interest was in acquiring and converting SUN's existing enterprise userbase.

Of course, they got a good chunk of that practically for free by the EU's foot-dragging.
I imagine SUN / Oracle have no recourse?

Re:$1 Billion out the window, down the tubes, bye- (3, Insightful)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846422)

I kinda agree.. This puts Oracle right up against HP, and IBM. Both of which have huge consulting, sell hardware, services, and their own databases, as well as selling others if its needed.

Re:$1 Billion out the window, down the tubes, bye- (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#30848486)

I'm firmly of the opinion that IBM's major interest was in acquiring and converting SUN's existing enterprise userbase.

IBM wanted control over Java. The rest of the Sun business was dying anyway.

MySQL (4, Insightful)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846264)

I doubt Oracle is going to kill or even hamper MySQL. If anything, they will make an Oracle upgrade path that fits like a glove. While MySQL takes away some of Oracle's business, there are things out that that just doesn't need Oracle and companies that just can't afford Oracle DB. It is in Oracle's best interest to empower MySQL so that people don't switch from MySQL to PostgreSQL or other free alternatives. I mean, if I'm Oracle. I want users under my umbrella even if they aren't using my flagship product. If they ever outgrow MySQL, I would (if I were Oracle) want them to look stay with me and upgrade to Oracle DB rather than look else where.

This is a huge boon for PostgreSQL though as several people will migrate away because of this. I used to use PostgreSQL a lot. The only reason I stopped was once InnoDB really stepped up it did what I needed, and MySQL is just easier to use.

Re:MySQL (5, Insightful)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846398)

There are a lot of things that are perfectly suited to MySQL. The problem is when an organization or application grows and suddenly needs redundancy, and all the other fancy, expensive options that Oracle offers. An upgrade path would be brilliant. There is a market for free database software. If Oracle kills MySQL they've done nothing. Everyone can easily switch to Postgres or the branches from MySQL. I suspect that it's in their benefit to let it continue to exist and control the features, and make it upgrade compatible with OracleDB.

Re:MySQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847976)

Just easier to use?

Yeah, I've heard that many times. What I have not yet heard though is exactly what it is that makes it "easier to use".

Maybe you can tell me?

MySQL future? (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846266)

Will MySQL survive this merger?

My tax Euros at work (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846292)

While it's annoying that something like this had to take ages, I still think it's a good thing that these things are looked into. Far too many deals are done under shady circumstances. At least this one, potentially affecting countless systems around the world in the long run, was scrutinized before given a go-ahead.

Re:My tax Euros at work (3, Funny)

Malc (1751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846490)

I'm taxed in Pounds you insensitive clod. Not that EU taxes probably account for much compared with just the interest on Gordon Brown's debts.

Is there any evidence for the cost of lost sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846308)

"Uncertainty about Sun's future has cost over a billion dollars in lost sales in the past year"

Is this extrapolated from the yaught-wielding one's remark about losing 100million a day?

Let the layoffs begin (1)

davebarnes (158106) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846352)

50+% of [yesterday's] Sun employees will soon be pounding the streets

It seems it will not be the techies. (1)

jotaeleemeese (303437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846580)

HR, back office, etc.

Not the guys that keep the tech alive.

MySQL's future (1)

quarkie68 (1018634) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846374)

I have worked on projects that have thrown out Oracle in small/medium business setups (before the acquisition) in favor of MySQL. And yes, I do believe that MySQL clustering can be a well performing product. Now, the mistake started with the reliance of the InnoDB engine. What I will miss is the skill of the core MySQL developers (?) to work on non standard engines (like the Federated engine). Oracle makes the big money from large installations. Small to Medium sized demanding businesses have still a lot of ground to cover....And no, unfortunately, I have seen Postgres going horribly wrong, so it is not an option for my production environment.

Re:MySQL's future (3, Insightful)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846672)

I have seen Postgres going horribly wrong, so it is not an option for my production environment

Can you clarify? I recently (well, a year ago) switched one of our main web apps from MySQL to Postgres (I needed transactional support on large tables (>100 columns) - which made InnoDB useless), and I've never looked back. How does Postgres go "horribly wrong"?

Re:MySQL's future (1)

fl!ptop (902193) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846964)

How does Postgres go "horribly wrong"?

i second your sentiments. i have never had even a blip with postgresql, so i'm interested in knowing what happened as well.

Re:MySQL's future (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30848264)

Where I work we had two MySQL instances that got corrupted every now and then. It was just how it was. When we got a support call the first thing to do was to check if the database had been corrupted. With PostgreSQL we haven't had one single problem, ever.

All our databases are being moved on to PostgreSQL now. All core and business critical systems already run on PostgreSQL, only the less critical systems are still on MySQL.

Unless you have a very good reason for using MySQL then don't. Personally I don't believe such reasons exist.

100 columns? How so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847658)

What did you need need that many colums for? As someone who is still just a software engineering student and has only a small amount of experience from databases, mostly MySQL (some OSCommerce editing and the like), I have hard time imagining that. Or rather, if I had that many columns in a table I would think "Damn, I must have designed something seriously wrong here..."

So, what kind of databases do need such designs?

(Yes, I do realize this is offtopic-ish)

"lost sales" (2, Informative)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846440)

Pfft. Same argument as the RIAA about piracy. "We certainly would have made $x bazillion, if only..."

Please, if you ever want to aspire to anything higher than tabloid journalism, do at the very least two things:
1 - add the word "estimated" or something to that effect when you're pulling figures out of your (or someone elses) ass
2 - do not use the word "cost" for lost sales or other imaginary did-not-happen income. Cost is when an expense has happened, i.e. money has been spent. Money that never came in is never a "cost".

Re:"lost sales" (1)

homer_s (799572) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847082)

do not use the word "cost" for lost sales or other imaginary did-not-happen income. Cost is when an expense has happened, i.e. money has been spent. Money that never came in is never a "cost".

The "money that never came in" is not the cost - the action/inaction that caused "money to never come in" is the cost.

Re:"lost sales" (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847244)

It will always be an estimate as you never knew who considered Sun but opted to never even contact them.

I'd love to buy from Sun but even I put off buying a couple servers until I see what happens. The sales rep was honest about the situation and his inability to say much so if the hardware side survives, I will still buy from them.

Re:"lost sales" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847370)

Unfortunately, with the way we allow accounting (at least in the US, but I suspect in other nations as well), income that didn't come in IS a cost. That money was already spent, based on the projection that it would be received.

There are many reasons to allow this, but [IMO] none of them outweight the flat idiocy of considering spending what-you-will-have to be legally acceptable accounting.

Yes Virginia, there is such a thing as lost sales (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847452)

If the health department closes down somebody's resturaunt for a few days but doesn't find anything afterwards, don't tell the restraunt owner there's no such thing as lost sales unless you want a little something extra in your next order.

This childish view of business and finance is why /. readers work for the business types and not the other way around.

YuO Fail It?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846444)

Great Idea! (2, Funny)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846938)

I for one am totally in favor of merging Oracle with the Sun. Oh wait...they meant the "other" Sun...damn :(

Calm down ... MySQL is safe as houses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847126)

I work for Oracle and have seen this many times ... Oracle buys companies on a fairly regular basis (including the one I used to work for). So, let me give you my 0.02. Oracle isn't going to kill or marginalize MySQL. Oracle will use MySQL as a lever to sell support contracts and middleware products used for reporting, web application development, data analysis, etc, etc.. Oracle has a dizzying array or software products, and now they have hardware too, and having a low-cost database that customers can use in conjunction with our other products is beautiful. Most of the panicked comments above seem to assume that Oracle and MySQL are direct competitors. Sorry, but they aren't, and the people making those comments probably don't have any experience with Oracle's Database (how and why it's used as opposed to other products). Anyway, calm down ... MySQL is safe as houses.

i believe Oracle won't kill MySQL. (1)

Luke has no name (1423139) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847420)

Oracle has the opportunity to pleasantly surprise the open source community. Let us hope they take the chance to not piss us off, and use MySQL as a low-end DB with an upgrade path to Oracle. besides, they already 'promised' to keep it open source and maintained.

As for Glassfish/opensolaris/Netbeans, I don't know. I certainly don't think they'll kill them, but who knows. They're all open source projects with a decent community.

I find it interesting that Oracle did not .... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847604)

offer to spin off mysql. Perhaps after a few years. It would seem that if their intentions was to acquire Solaris and that market, they would have offered mysql up. However, .....

Screw this (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847690)

I'll abandon both Java and MySQL before it's too late. Within a year, they'll be caught in a proprietary quagmire.

(Even more than Enterprise Java already is, I mean.)

Re:Screw this (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30848298)

Regarding Java, there's just too many interested parties for it to be hijacked by Oracle, even if it now owns the trademark. I'll just name two names that are enough all by themselves: IBM, Google. Given that the code is open sourced already, the worse that can happen is that Java becomes a proprietary (and marginalized) Oracle technology, while what is now OpenJDK is renamed to avoid any mentions of "J", and, maintained by community guided by IBM and Google, supplants Java in most niches. But I think that Oracle understands this perfectly well, so they won't go down that path in the first place.

European Commission (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30848328)

Guys, "The anti-trust body of the EU, the European Commission" is so wrong because is so misleading. Yes, the European Commissions is in charge with anti-trust cases, and many others. The European Commissions is the de-facto EU Government, and is in charge of so many other and more important thing than just anti-trust. Would you have write an article starting like "The anti-trust body of the USA, the US Government..."? A correct introduction would have been "The Directorate General for Competition, the anti-trust body of the EU, ..." or simply "The European Commissions today announced...".

I'm disappointed ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30848530)

but not because I give a shit about MySQL.

Oracle is big enough that it should not be allowed to buy other companies, no matter what.

Sun is big enough that nobody should be allowed to buy all of it, no matter what.

(I feel this way about almost every merger or acquisition that makes the news.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>