Comments on: Oracle Buys SUN; MySQL is Forked

By: claudio.nanni

claudio.nanni — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The worst case is the slow death, let it go on making believe the ‘distracted’ users that it is still the good old glorious database keeping some developing community working on it thinking they are bringing on the project.
The sudden death would be much better, in this case the real mysql developing community should only think of a new name, Oracle’s ‘MySQL’ is just a brand, now.

By: david

david — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I guess one can pose this conspiracy theorem, Sun could have had some sort of agreement with Oracle to make the move for MySql, of course Sun Microsystem has better chances to acquire MySql than Oracle that feels threatened by the growth of MySql, and after successful acquisition of MySql by Sun, then Oracle can then make their move in order to achieve their objectives.

You know business people now understand tactical and strategic languages of the military and speak those languages and implement their plans with high dexterities.

By: njsharp

njsharp — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I read concern in the above comments about (1) MySQL and (2) OpenOffice.org. I share those concerns, and also wonder, perhaps from ignorance, about the future of (3) Java. I believe Oracle products (not rich enough to have any myself) make big use of Java, so I guess there is a self interest there.

I just hope that the OracleM$ struggle is keen enough to keep all three in good shape, and advancing. I'd really like to read a top Oracle spokesperson's statement:

* Oracle will continue aggressively to develop 1,2,3 and continue to make full community versions available for free download
* Because...? That is, Oracle's business rationale for so doing, given that there is (at least with MySQL) SOME possible conflict of interest.

Here's hoping Linux Mag will take up the challenge to get such a statement out of Oracle.

By: graemeharrison

graemeharrison — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Yes, I worry when ANY freebie division is acquired by a fat-margin for-profit organisation. I’m sure they genuinely believe they will be able to gain ‘synergies’ by having people ‘upgrade’ to the paid-for offering… But over time, such people’s support for the ‘squatters’ (people who use but will never really pay) will diminish, and MySQL will get fewer new features, and OpenOffice will be off on its own, seeking donations etc. In the end, the corporate fit can be like a banker trying to run a charity!

By: slasher01

slasher01 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I’d also like to see an analysis of what’s likely to happen to OpenOffice.org. Is there any reason why Oracle would want to continue supporting the project and if not, what is the likely fate of the project?

By: skyscum

skyscum — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

This is why so many of us who use Open Source products are so deeply in love with ORM frameworks. Yank out MySQL, insert PostGres, and continue without a pause.
We’re already evaluating exactly that at the university I support.

By: dwolsten

dwolsten — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I disagree; we do not need other-than-opensource alternatives to the MS-hegemony. If such alternatives were economically viable, then Sun wouldn't be on the verge of going under.

Face it, most computer users (including IT people, CTOs, etc.) are too brainwashed or stupid to care about anything other than what MS shovels them. And if Linux hadn't come literally out of nowhere (business-speaking), Unix would probably be completely dead by now. The main reason Linux is as popular as it is is because it's free, Free, and open-source. Every other commercial Unix out there has been on life support for a long time, mainly surviving because of legacy installations, which have steadily been moving to either Windows or Linux.

There simply isn't enough money in the OS market to support OSes other than Windows, Mac, and Linux. Not enough people are willing to pay the high price tag of other non-OSS OSes, or willing to deal with having to deal with yet another not-fully-compatible OS.

You can argue all you want about how supposedly great Solaris is for certain applications, but obviously, that wasn't sufficient to keep Sun alive on its own.

CPUs are the same way; there's really no good reason any more to have non-Intel CPUs. They're faster than everything else out there, they're cheap, and they run all the software that exists, whether on Windows or on Linux (or even on Mac). Users don't care about what instruction set their CPU uses; even developers don't care much about that either, since no one programs in assembly any more (unless they're programming an 8-bit microcontroller). Of course, this actually ignores the fact that there's another kind of CPU out there that rivals Intel architecture for number of installed units: ARM. But those aren't used in desktop or server computers. As before, if it were economically viable for there to be non-Intel CPUs in these markets, they would be there. But SPARC is the last holdout, besides IBM's mainframes, and it's going the way of the do-do because it just doesn't provide enough bang-for-the-buck over Intel architecture.

By: greimer

greimer — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It is true that when Sun, the company that 'owns' MySQL (as much as anybody can own such an open-source codebase with a commercial venture attached to it), gets acquired by the largest commercial proprietary database software organization in the world, one has to be at least a little bit concerned for MySQL's future. But it seems to me that to view this entire acquisition as a conspiracy to 'kill off' MySQL is a little overly self-centered on the part of Mr. Richards and the MySQL community.

Sun Microsystems was not in very good financial shape; absent such an acquisition, the company might go under. With it would go alot of whatever diversity is left in commercially active CPU's, as well as what is arguably the best commercial alternative to MS Windows as an Operating System. I believe that these alternatives are healthy things to have, I do not believe that an Intel(-and-compatible)-only world is a good idea, and I also believe that there should be other-than-Opensource alternatives to the MS-hegemony.

As an enthusiast for Linux, OpenSolaris, and open source in general, I do hope that Oracle tries to make good use of MySQL as an entre into lower-end competition with Microsoft SQL as the article outlines. It seems to make sense. But even if Larry Ellison doesn't like that idea, the fate of MySQL is still just as much in the hands of it's enthusiasts as in Oracle's. It's still Open Source, you still have the code.

By: scathew

scathew — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I guess I hadn't followed all the ups and downs of MySQL, but in some sense it can't fail. If it fails Wordpress and a 100 other Open Source applications also fail, so someone it seems to me is likely to step up here.

I mean, are people going to go back to PostgreSQL? mSQL? The blogosphere is literally built on MySQL.

All of us without blogs out there can't afford Oracle engines (nor the horsepower they require) so it's a bit hard to believe one of the forks won't take over.

That's not to say you might not be right about its demise, but it seems a little sensational at the moment.