sendai-X writes "With the recently announced purchase of Innobase, Oracle has shown it's intention to further support open source. This is key as open source enters the mainstream in business and in light of the success IBM has had with the Eclipse project, and Sun recently looking at purchasing PostgresSQL. What do Slashdot users think about this merger? Is it beneficial to the market and database users by having the largest database vendor openly support MySQL and provide an upgrade path to Oracle? Or is it just another cog in the Oracle machine in their attempt to dominate the enterprise IT market? Will this change the database market landscape? Will it help or hurt IBM and Microsoft?" Oracle and MySQL -- Good Move or Bad Bet? Log in/Create an Account | Top | 134 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 134 comments 0: 130 comments 1: 109 comments 2: 91 comments 3: 24 comments 4: 11 comments 5: 6 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Purchase PostgreSQL? (Score:5, Informative) by stoolpigeon (454276) * on Tuesday October 18, @07:04PM (#13822183) (http://thepeckfamily.us/ | Last Journal: Monday October 10, @05:00PM) ...Sun recently looking at purchasing PostgreSQL   That would be a neat trick wouldn't it?  They could buy a company that sells Postgres support or makes a version of Postgres that they sell, but they aren't going to be 'buying postgres'. This is may seem like nit picking but it is somewhat important. PostgreSQL is free software in every sense of the term and Sun is not going to buy it. They are not going to purchase control of it.  I guess they could try and hire all the main developers or something. Though I think that'd be tough too. And I'm glad of that as Postgres is my favorite rdbms. I like that it is free and as far as I can tell is going to stay that way for as long as it exists. [ Reply to This Re:Purchase PostgreSQL? (Score:5, Informative) by tcopeland (32225) * <tom@infoCOBOLether.com minus language> on Tuesday October 18, @07:09PM (#13822234) (http://tomcopeland.home.mindspring.com/) > they could try and hire all the main developers or somethingRight on, yup, that's about the only way they could do that - by hiring Tom Lane or some of the other gurus. But they can't "buy PostgreSQL". There have been some interesting discussions on this on the pgsql-advocacy [postgresql.org] list recently as well.> And I'm glad of that as Postgres is my favorite rdbms.Same here! 3.5 million records [blogs.com] and cranking along; PostgreSQL is meeting RubyForge's needs very nicely. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by toofast (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:25PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by aled (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @08:43PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by toofast (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:10PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by StormReaver (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:17PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by toofast (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:25PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by toofast (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:19PM So? (Score:5, Insightful) by stoolpigeon (454276) * on Tuesday October 18, @08:52PM (#13823025) (http://thepeckfamily.us/ | Last Journal: Monday October 10, @05:00PM) What does someone preferring PostgreSQL have to do with MySQL?  I guess I could understand if he had added a jab about how mysql could never do that. But he didn't. He's just touting the database management system that he likes.  The mysql vs. postgres thing gets so out of hand. It reminds me of when I compliment my 5 year old and my 4 year old gets upset because I didn't compliment her too. When I wrote my initial post I thought of mentioning the MySql part of the issue and the trouble they may be in due to the Oracle move, but I decided not to just because it is so difficult to discuss in a rational way. Too many people start digging up the same old tired arguments.  I don't care if everybody starts using MySql and it gets voted 'best thing ever'. I'll still be happy as a clam in high tide, running what I prefer. That's the most valuable part of free software in my opinion. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:So? by toofast (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:13PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Well, they could purchase PostgreSQL, Inc.... by einhverfr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:49PM Re:Purchase PostgreSQL? (Score:5, Insightful) by jadavis (473492) on Tuesday October 18, @08:03PM (#13822689) The Innobase purchase/ MySQL debacle is really an indictment of their business and development model.MySQL AB is at the epicenter of development of MySQL DB, and requires copyright transfers for any outside changes. Paid developers at one small company largely create and support the entire database. Some users get a sense of security that there is "one person to go to", and a single focused business behind it. In some ways this business model worked well... their marketing was very successful, and the database might be described as more "unified" than, for example, PostgreSQL, where things like FTS and replication are independently developed (which is actually good, but can confuse users who think that "it's not good enough to be included").However, the PostgreSQL development model has been working very effectively, not dependent on any one company. A short list of contributors includes the likes of Fujitsu, Sun, Affilias (manages all .org and .info), Software Research Associates (SRA), Red Hat, Aglio DB, EnterpriseDB (won LinuxWorld "Best Database Solution" last year, beating Oracle), Command Prompt (I probably left a lot out).When Great Bridge hired a bunch of the PostgreSQL developers, then got scared and pulled funding, the developers went back to the community. The community was the core to begin with, and development continued as always. Other companies came in to support it, and development has never been stronger. More importantly, the community has never been stronger.The reason MySQL DB users are concerned, even though the source is GPL, is because MySQL DB is heavily dependent on MySQL AB. If MySQL is forced out by Oracle, what's left aside from some source code? There are a lot of users who would rally and try to build a community. But building a community to support an RDBMS takes more than just a few good programmers. It takes years to build the kind of community that works like the PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG). It takes programmers, organizers, advocates, managers, advocates, support channels, channels for accepting new developers (for instance, if a company wants to pay for a feature), decision makers, and arbitrators (to prevent too much forking). And it takes a lot of time to figure out who does what, and when they do it, and how to reconcile conflicts or scheduling difficulties, how to work as a team so that work is integrated properly and time is not wasted.If someone has a proposal for a feature, who do they ask so that it's heard? Will a reliable decision be made about whether/when to progress? Who should step up and program? Who will open the channels of communication between the programmer and any other programmers working in similar code areas? Who will enforce project "standards"? Who will devise the standards? Does it go in this release or wait 'til the next? When is feature freeze? Who determines what quality level constitutes a release? Should the patch be backported? If it breaks any compatibility, who will devise a proper release timeline to avoid hurting existing users too much?It really takes a long time to build those conventions and organize people into a functional development group. MySQL DB users can only hope that MySQL AB is still around for a while. If MySQL AB goes the way of Great Bridge, MySQL DB may be left in chaos. In the meantime, start forming a community that can operate outside of MySQL AB. The monolithic development/business model seems to be in question right now. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Purchase PostgreSQL? (Score:4, Interesting) by einhverfr (238914) <[moc.liamtoh] [ta] [rfrevhnie]> on Tuesday October 18, @08:18PM (#13822788) (http://www.metatrontech.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 23, @01:15AM) MySQL AB is at the epicenter of development of MySQL DB, and requires copyright transfers for any outside changes. Paid developers at one small company largely create and support the entire database. Some users get a sense of security that there is "one person to go to", and a single focused business behind it. In some ways this business model worked well... their marketing was very successful, and the database might be described as more "unified" than, for example, PostgreSQL, where things like FTS and replication are independently developed (which is actually good, but can confuse users who think that "it's not good enough to be included").Among the technologies that MySQL licenses from third parties under commercial redistribution licenses:Berkeley DB (Sleepycat Software)InnoDB (Oracle, formerly Innobase)MaxDB (SAP AG)See the problem? MySQL itself is largely a langauge parser and a simple and technically inadequate storage engine (for anything where data integrity matters). In other words they don't own any of the foundations of their technologies. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by jadavis (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:25PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by jaseuk (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @09:05PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by jadavis (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:09PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by jaseuk (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @09:15PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Purchase PostgreSQL? by einhverfr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @11:24PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by Dan Ost (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:09AMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by sco08y (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:42PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by einhverfr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @11:16PMWhat if.... by killjoe (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:24PMRe:What if.... by PinkPanther (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:52AMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by Cyno (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:24PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by jaseuk (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @08:58PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by David_W (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:47PMRe:Purchase PostgreSQL? by allanw (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @11:30PMYou are referring to MySQL, I take it. by einhverfr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:06PMRe:You are referring to MySQL, I take it. by jaseuk (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @08:50PMRe:You are referring to MySQL, I take it. by einhverfr (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @11:05PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. It's beautiful QWZX (Score:4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18, @07:08PM (#13822228) I love Larry Ellison. How can anyone doubt his true and pure intentions for Open Source? Has there ever been a more generous and loving man? Clearly this is a man who saw the potential to give back to humanity by reward the creators of innoDB, while simultaneously being able to give the resources to it that it richly deserves.Clearly his ultimate goal is to put Oracle technology into MySQL so that he can give it away for free. Now, you may say I'm a dreamer... but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join Larry and me. And world shall live as one. [ Reply to ThisRe:It's beautiful QWZX by einhverfr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:21PMRe:It's beautiful QWZX by einhverfr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:24PM Bad for open source, maybe (Score:2, Flamebait) by Scareduck (177470) on Tuesday October 18, @07:08PM (#13822229) (http://www.scareduck.com | Last Journal: Monday October 20, @09:22PM) This puts a key part of MySQL under Oracle control; they could elect to kill InnoDB at some future point. I just don't see how this is a win for FOSS. To me, this isn't a likely danger, though. Oracle has recognized that the food chain has moved away from the database, and up to applications that rest atop it. This was what powered their aggressive drive to acquire PeopleSoft. (On the other hand, if they really believed their core product was declining in value, why would they make it so damn difficult to buy in the first place?) From that point of view, owning MySQL simply means they're not dependent on their own inflexible, expensive platform. Call it a very expensive hedging of bets. [ Reply to This Re:Bad for open source, maybe (Score:4, Insightful) by jadavis (473492) on Tuesday October 18, @07:29PM (#13822413) they could elect to kill InnoDB at some future point. I just don't see how this is a win for FOSS. To me, this isn't a likely danger, though.I think it's very likely that Oracle does just that. Oracle wins on several fronts:(1) Set back a competitor by a lot, possibly completely knocking it out of some markets.(2) Cause more OSS FUD: "What will happen to your open source vendor? It could evaporate tomorrow. Stick with Oracle, who will be there for you."(3) Shift the market back toward the mentality of traditional relational databases, where there is a lot of emphasis on data integrity constraints, and expensive DBAs, and less emphasis on casual users.MySQL had the potential to cause them a lot of problems. Oracle found a way to stop that. If it was a predatory move against MySQL AB, everything was perfect, including the timing. Many companies were just waiting for the 5.0 release to try it out I'm sure, and the next thing they know Oracle has MySQL AB by the ____. It's too coincidental, and too perfect, there's no way it's a "merger". [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Bad for open source, maybe by HiThere (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @07:39PMRe:Bad for open source, maybe by jadavis (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:13PMRe:Bad for open source, maybe by einhverfr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:12PMRe:Bad for open source, maybe by jadavis (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:21PMRe:Bad for open source, maybe by einhverfr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:29PMRe:Bad for open source, maybe by jadavis (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:57PMRe:Bad for open source, maybe by einhverfr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @11:20PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.No. Bad for dual-licensing in general by einhverfr (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @07:46PMRe:No. Bad for dual-licensing in general by aled (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:11PMRe:No. Bad for dual-licensing in general by einhverfr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:34PMRe:Bad for open source, maybe by Audacious (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:47PMRe:Bad for open source, maybe by jadavis (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:45PMRe:Bad for open source, maybe by Audacious (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:06PMLarry is losing his way... by NineNine (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:00PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. As far as I know (Score:4, Insightful) by jbellis (142590) <jonathan@ca3.141 ... der.com minus pi> on Tuesday October 18, @07:09PM (#13822233) (http://www.carnageblender.com/) Nobody outside of Oracle has any idea what their plans are for Inno. Pretty hard to call it a good/bad bet, given this. [ Reply to This Re:As far as I know (Score:4, Funny) by mackertm (515083) on Tuesday October 18, @07:37PM (#13822487) Please stop being reasonable. This is Slashdot, we'd rather see some wild speculation.Thank you. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:As far as I know by kpharmer (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:02PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Scary (Score:5, Insightful) by Spy der Mann (805235) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (todhsals.nnamredyps)> on Tuesday October 18, @07:09PM (#13822239) (Last Journal: Wednesday October 12, @02:42PM) Everytime something gets out of our control we get scared. InnoBase is no exception.I think that the only people who can answer if the move was good or bad, are the MySQL developers. I'd suggest Slashdot to have an interview with them so they can dissipate our fears. [ Reply to ThisLittle fish don't know squat. by Ungrounded Lightning (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:37PMRe:Little fish don't know squat. by outsider007 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:35AMRe:Scary by teslatug (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:16PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Bad move for Oracle... (Score:2, Insightful) by FatSean (18753) on Tuesday October 18, @07:09PM (#13822241) (Last Journal: Monday February 03, @10:33AM) They would be better off dumb-grading their heavy-duty wares for the low-end user, rather than manage two code bases...two support structures, two...two....two....Oracle IS database...so it seems silly to get another completely unrelated code-tree to deal with. They should have acquired some sort of application server to sell paired with their DB like IBM does with WebSphere and DB2. [ Reply to ThisRe:Bad move for Oracle... by Pootie Tang (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:15PMRe:Bad move for Oracle... by Vancorps (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:17PMRe:Bad move for Oracle... by benjamin264 (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @07:23PMRe:Bad move for Oracle... by einhverfr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:34PM Possible Conspiracy Theory (Score:3, Interesting) by robbyjo (315601) on Tuesday October 18, @07:14PM (#13822278) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday October 24, @05:10AM) Well... Is it possible that Oracle "bought" Innobase is to "kill" MySQL (the company)? Look at this: MySQL allied with SCO, which is to me like a poisoning tactic. If there were legal battles, Oracle would likely win. When this is the case, SCO/MySQL alliance roll out. If they lost, Oracle will develop InnoDB using GPL license only, forcing SCO/MySQL to roll out in either case. When MySQL the company is over, Oracle abandon InnoDB with one less (albeit lesser) competitor.Though you might argue that someone in the future will pick up MySQL code, I'd say that it's less likely. It's far easier to switch to other alternatives such as PostgreSQL. [ Reply to ThisMore Likely Conspiracy Theory by einhverfr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:01PMRe:Possible Conspiracy Theory by jalefkowit (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:56PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Oracle's Java guys seem to be pro-open source.. (Score:3, Insightful) by tcopeland (32225) * <tom@infoCOBOLether.com minus language> on Tuesday October 18, @07:14PM (#13822281) (http://tomcopeland.home.mindspring.com/) ...they've certainly helped me with the PMD JDeveloper extension a couple of times.Most recently, I was trying to get the "update center" functionality working this past weekend and I got emails from several Oracle guys [blogs.com] with fixes for various problems. It's pretty nice to get help right from the core guys... [ Reply to This Really a bet against MySQL (Score:2, Insightful) by CDPatten (907182) on Tuesday October 18, @07:14PM (#13822283) Definitely a cog. Oracle is too much database for most companies anyways, that aside. Oracle really is betting against MySQL not getting good enough to compete at their level. If there is one thing you can learn from OSS history is that it will eventually catch up to commercial and put out a good product. It just takes time. Unless Oracle has a big trick up its sleeve, its relational database hasn't gotten much more impressive over the years. Maybe they are going to introduce a new architecture? In anycase I think its a bad bet for Oracle. [ Reply to ThisRe:Really a bet against MySQL by C_Kode (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:33PM Oracle has MySQL by the balls (Score:2) by ShatteredDream (636520) on Tuesday October 18, @07:16PM (#13822294) (http://www.blindmindseye.com/) Let's say that they change the license for Innobase, what can MySQL do now except fork the codebase and work hard at trying to play catch up? I can't think of anything at this point and the very reason that MySQL is in this position is precisely because they relied on another company to do a lot of their R&D for them.Granted, I did a benchmark with the application my group is developing using MySQL and PostgreSQL and MySQL was much faster. MySQL has certainly done a good job for what they intended MySQL to be used for, but let's be realistic about something: Oracle has MySQL by the balls now unless MySQL really beefs up their internal R&D to compensate for the loss of Innobase.And yes, when your biggest competitor buys out the company whose IP your product uses, you are at their mercy in many ways. While Oracle can't outright crush them, they can certainly make life a living hell for MySQL until MySQL gets serious and does a lot more of its own R&D. Personally I just wish that my professors would require us to use a real, powerful open source database server like PostgreSQL, not MySQL. [ Reply to This Re:Oracle has MySQL by the balls (Score:5, Insightful) by kpharmer (452893) on Tuesday October 18, @07:51PM (#13822596) This surely isn't a very complicated thing for people to work out - just follow the Very Simple Oracle/Innodb FAQ:1. Does Larry Ellison (Oracle CEO) do things for the good of the industry or little guys?        Answer: *Never*2. Is there any opportunity for the Oracle DB to reuse IP within Innodb        Answer: Almost certainly not3. Is there a trivial upgrade path from Innodb/Mysql to Oracle        Answer: No4. Ok, with that out of the way - what possible reason would oracle have to acquire Innodb?        Answer: obviously to cripple an opponent by robbing it of critical infrastructure - through licensing changes5. How will this benefit OSS Customers?        Answer: not in any way imaginableIt's like this: Oracle is seeing customers moving to mysql for the small stuff. But they make money on the small stuff too - and even if oracle is superior to mysql in 7 ways out of 10, they're loosing cash to mysql. This move completely kills all mysql momentum in the market place:    - Mysql now has to dedicate resources to finding an innodb replacement. Good luck - there are no commodity persistant layers that support transactions like Innodb.    - Oracle can renew the license agreement at a much higher price, thereby winning short-term revenue at MySQL's expense!    - MySQL was talking about a big-enterprise role just down the road (before they got wind of this buy out and started acting meek a couple of weeks ago). Much of what they're missing is really functionality that should go into Innodb - Heikki Tuuri (innodb creator) has often stated that "partitioning for all table types will probably be available in 2006 or 2007". If Innodb built that they could start capturing a big chunk of the oracle revenue. This threat is now dead - with the only other strong competitors DB2 and SQL Server.    - In spite of being GPL, good luck on finding another crew of programmers that specialize in relational database engines to this product up. The few that exist in the open source world seem to all work at postgresql.So yeah, Larry has MySQL by the balls right now. MySQL AB was probably looking forward to a big GA announcement for v5 next month - but there is no good publicity for MySQL in the foreseeable future now. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Oracle has MySQL by the balls by lazarus (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @09:35PMRe:Oracle has MySQL by the balls by NickDoulas (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @09:59PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.MySQL speed by Markus Registrada (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:29PMRe:MySQL speed by adturner (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:13PMRe:MySQL speed by tgl (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:47AMForking InnoDB insufficient for MySQL because by einhverfr (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @08:42PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Clear upgrade path (Score:2) by tm2b (42473) <scotus@bab[ ]ga.org ['aya' in gap]> on Tuesday October 18, @07:16PM (#13822297) (Last Journal: Sunday October 02, @04:43AM) It's as easy case to make, to upsell someone with expanding needs from MySQL to Oracle. It makes sense the Oracle would want to bind more of those users to Oracle as an upgrade path.It's much less easy to make the case for someone to "upgrade" from PostgreSQL to Oracle. PostgreSQL would cannibalize a small-but-significant portion of Oracle's more expensive sales, once the Oracle brand name was attached to it. [ Reply to This Prevents MySQL from lowering standards (Score:3, Interesting) by jadavis (473492) on Tuesday October 18, @07:17PM (#13822302) Oracle may have purchased MySQL to prevent them from lowering the expected price of database software. If managers start to hear about MySQL costing $495 (or whatever), then they may expect a generally lower price for Oracle.Also, the type of database practices common among MySQL users, like pushing work into the application, aren't on a trajectory toward Oracle. [ Reply to ThisRe:Prevents MySQL from lowering standards by Martin Blank (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:27PMRe:Prevents MySQL from lowering standards by jadavis (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:07PMOracle did NOT buy MySQL by arjenlentz (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @07:50PM Not MyOracle (Score:3) by KrackHouse (628313) on Tuesday October 18, @07:17PM (#13822305) (http://motorsport-sim.org/) If Oracle decided to support MySQL it'd be hastening its own demise - Microsoft is avoiding the OpenDocument standard for similar reasons. Aside from acknowledging the capabilities of the competition Oracle would potentially turn MySQL's quirks into a defacto standard which could possibly turn into a real standard. If open source or at least open standards are inevitable as the software industry matures it seem like these big mega-corps that live off of proprietary software licensing will simply turn into coagulations of smart people without revenue worried about outsourcing. Maybe they'll fracture into smaller consulting firms, small is the new big, etc. and become part of the new which will be good for any business that needs a database, which is most of 'em. [unbeknownst.net] [ Reply to ThisShould have previewed! by KrackHouse (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:19PM Will it help or hurt IBM and Microsoft? (Score:1) by YA_Python_dev (885173) on Tuesday October 18, @07:17PM (#13822306) Will it help or hurt IBM and Microsoft? Yes. [ Reply to This They still don't get it (Score:1) by rhu (702367) on Tuesday October 18, @07:20PM (#13822338) It just shows how far from grokkin' the source they both are. Neither Oracle or Sun need to buy ANYTHING; if either one would simply hire a dozen decent code jocks and turn them loose on the existing open-source code base(s), donating every frikkin' line of new and/or improved code back to the project(s), they'd be the acknowleged masters of OSS database within 2 years, and every Fortune-100 wannabe would be begging to give them money in exchange for support and peace of mind. At just about a half-mil a year, it would be a bargain. [ Reply to This Ha! let them (Score:3, Interesting) by Richthofen80 (412488) on Tuesday October 18, @07:21PM (#13822339) (http://www.edgiardina.com/) What a joke. Its Oracle's own demise if they buy MySQL.The problem is that there are two MySQLs. There's 4.1 and lower, which doesn't really support the ANSI SQL standard. You know, wonderful little peeves like 'CROSS JOIN' requires an 'ON' directive because MySQL treats it like an 'INNER JOIN'. Or maybe you want to nest selects that refer to the same table, in a delete statement? Ha. Fat chance.And then there's MySQL 5.0, which supports all of the garbage in MySQL 4.1 plus a bunch of flags that let you automagically actually support the SQL standard calls. Plus you get triggers, stored procedures, and a pony.MySQL is prolific, I'll give it that. But its created a cadre of developers who don't know why 'INNER JOIN' is better than just 'select table1,table2', or that string parsing should be done on the application level, not the DB level. [ Reply to ThisRe:Ha! let them by RzUpAnmsCwrds (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:13PMRe:Ha! let them by jbplou (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:51PM ... Capitalism... ? (Score:3, Insightful) by Hasufin_Heltain (519982) on Tuesday October 18, @07:23PM (#13822361) Hmm sorry. But you know what? I don't believe much in big corporate mergers anymore. Especially after the AT&T & Cingular Wireless debacle. Oh god. Save me from the cell phone companies.Do it the old fashioned way...... build the best product.. and beat the customers away from them.So.. do they do that? No. They just buy their competitors. Sounds like they deserve to do that if they can afford it.. but well you know what? That's just one less database they have to compete with.Blah on that. [ Reply to ThisRe:... Capitalism... ? by linsys (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @07:38PM Ask yourself (Score:2) by FreshFunk510 (526493) on Tuesday October 18, @07:24PM (#13822370) Would you trust Larry Ellison?? [ Reply to ThisNo, but lets be honest. by WindBourne (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:25PM Licensing (Score:1) by AxsDeny (152142) on Tuesday October 18, @07:30PM (#13822420) (http://www.vaxcave.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 14, @07:28PM) Oracle can now charge for licenses of InnoDB. Since InnoDB is the default table type for MySQL 5.x it means any new versions that are released will, in theory, be a potential source of revenue for Oracle. This beats up the idea of MySQL as FOSS and will lead to one of two things fot the MySQL folks: The demise of MySQL or the re-engineering of the main MySQL trunk. [ Reply to This Oho Larry , please leave me alone!!! (Score:1) by managedcode (863136) on Tuesday October 18, @07:38PM (#13822493) Larry, didn't ya hear what Bill said "If the next three persons in line are deal makers, you end up buying companies and if they are developers you develop millions of lines of code". Hey, deal maker get the hella outta of here.With the recently announced purchase of Innobase, Oracle has shown it's intention to further support open source Open source software companies can be bought ? This makes the line thinner between Microsoft and OSS movement. So can Linux Trovalds & lead developers change their mind and decide to sell the Kernel ?OSS has some serious problems, I better start looking at the Redmond company. [ Reply to ThisNot Even Close by geomon (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:19PM Ensuring Oracle's Market. (Score:2) by torre (620087) on Tuesday October 18, @07:48PM (#13822566) Is it just me or doesn't the situation smell too much of an attempt to control errosion of Oracle's highly profitable data industry. I know this is overly cynical, but If I could take control of a very popular substitute program that's been nipping at my heals I'd do so to ensure they wouldn't further errode my bottom line. I mean, why offer competitive prices when you can get away with exuberant licensing fees. Its a bonus if I can make the deal look good by "supporting" a community in the process. A Win Win strategy if I ever saw one.I'm going to hold of and see... but to me this just smells as a positioning strategy where Oracle's just positiong major competetion outside the realm of it's cash gererating baby. [ Reply to This Is the OP on crack? (Score:1) by Evro (18923) <evandhoffman@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday October 18, @08:00PM (#13822673) (http://www.evanhoffman.com/news.php | Last Journal: Monday February 14, @12:15PM) With the recently announced purchase of Innobase, Oracle has shown it's intention to further support open source. Is this person high? If anyone thinks Oracle's purchase of Innobase is a sign of support for MySQL or any "Open Source" software, he's either delusional or just a spin doctor. Oracle is an extremely predatory company, more than willing to take some bad PR and lose money if it means they can take down a potential rival.http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/conte nt/dec2004/tc20041213_8884_tc024.htm?chan=gl [businessweek.com]Trying to spin this as somehow good for Open Source is almost pathetic. Sure, it may have some ancillary benefit in mindshare, like, "Oh, Oracle views MySQL as a valid competitor!" but that doesn't gain you anything in the end. [ Reply to This upgrade path to Oracle? (Score:2) by AstroDrabb (534369) on Tuesday October 18, @08:08PM (#13822735)