August 15, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Did Oracle buy MySQL by accident?
August 15, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I didn't know Oracle bought MySQL. Thanks for the info.
Heh... reminds me of the days when IBM bought Lotus. Lotus 1-2-3 was HUGE before IBM bought it. Does anyone actually use it anymore? Does anyone remember Lotus Smart Suite which was an integrated package of apps similar to Microsoft Office?
It will be interesting to see what happens with MySQL now that "big red" has bought it.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 15, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Jeff: Oracle bought SUN (for $7.4B ?) and got MySQL in the deal. It's a dark day for Open-source...
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
August 15, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Heh... reminds me of the days when IBM bought Lotus. Lotus 1-2-3 was HUGE before IBM bought it. Does anyone actually use it anymore? Does anyone remember Lotus Smart Suite which was an integrated package of apps similar to Microsoft Office?
I used Lotus back in 2006 as a mail a server, client and calender for meetings you can look up any of your team member and schedule a meeting and they can accept or reject it.
Jeff: Oracle bought SUN (for $7.4B ?) and got MySQL in the deal. It's a dark day for Open-source...
Oracle replaced IBM which would have given IBM three of the 8 major RDBMS on the market not that Oracle is any better. I think both the US justice department and EU are inverstigating that is also the reason IBM dropped out of the bidding.
The person who created MySQL quit Sun before the sale and one of the reasons Sun paid one billion dollars for MySQL was ANSI SQL expert Peter Gulutzan in Canada so both US and EU could ask for MySQL to be either sold or put in a none profit trust for the Sun sale to be final.
IBM owns Informix through pressure from Walmart and have not spent much money improving Informix, then there is DB2, DB2 AS400 and Iseries which I have used with Oracle 9i but some companies run as is. I don't think large software companies should buy other large software companies like Exxon and Mobil we all thought oil will always be less than $50
While the regulators are at it INNO DB must also be part of the package because most commercial uses of MySQL require INNO DB.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
August 16, 2009 at 7:12 am
MySql is something of a Red Herring (passing through the Red Gate headed upstream to spawn) in the Oracle/Sun deal to my way of thinking, from the beginning.
Larry has a history. That history is an obsession with beating IBM to death. Oracle produced the first relational database, based on Dr. Codd's work, before IBM. The software acquisition binge has been to further that end. So is the Sun acquisition, but not to get java. java is already theirs, to the extent they want it.
The reason for the deal was the hardware stack, both as it is now, and what it can be. The latter is the key to understanding the deal. Historically, Oracle as run like dog poo on IBM mainframes. This is due to intimate knowledge of the internals of the (now) z/processor, and the contrary roots of Oracle as unix software.
With the Sun stack (especially with SSD now a integral part), Larry now has an offering to replace the IBM mainframe habitat. Since Oracle can't run on the IBM mainframe, turn the Sun iron into an Oracle mainframe. They've tried it with the HP database machine, with some success, but that required collaboration. Now Larry has a full playground in which to work.
MySql is not a useful steppingstone to Oracle. Postgres is (was and will be, too). Oracle is an MVCC database, while MySql and DB2 are traditional lockers. Unless InnoDB is written to MVCC semantics (how much work that requires, I don't know), MySql isn't an entry level Oracle. It's just another piece that's come along for the ride.
August 16, 2009 at 9:56 am
Oracle is an MVCC database, while MySql and DB2 are traditional lockers. Unless InnoDB is written to MVCC semantics (how much work that requires, I don't know), MySql isn't an entry level Oracle. It's just another piece that's come along for the ride.
Incorrect. The InnoDB & Falcon engines use MVCC.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/innodb-multi-versioning.html
August 16, 2009 at 10:14 am
Oracle will do the same to MySQL as IBM did to Lotus, as Microsoft did to Foxpro, etc. That is, let it die, or worse -- remember that MS released a "new" version of Foxpro after the purchase, and the new version was FUBAR, for the most part, as a result of which Foxpro users were forced to abandon ship.
I don't know how smart Ellison really is, but the last few years of performance by Oracle don't support a belief that he's a marketing genius of any kind. With MySQL gone as a supported freeware (or ebbing away rapidly), Ellison's best course of action, IMHO, would be to release a low-end Oracle DB with a verrrrry smooth MySQL transition wizard included, priced below SQL Server
August 17, 2009 at 7:04 am
I guess Oracle's strategy would be to stop releasing or supporting any future versions of MySQL, thereby preventing competition from the open-end market for their DBMS products anymore. Microsoft /IBM will still remain the core rivals for them.
August 17, 2009 at 7:10 am
Yeah. Brain cramp.
August 17, 2009 at 7:30 am
Hi,
Look what Oracle did with Virtual Iron...they wanted some code out of it, and then throw away the corpse. This very well could be the case with MySql. I'm not trying to be overly negative; however if they do that with V.I. then why not MySql? They shouldn't ignore the low hanging fruit they could get with V.I. and MySql; but I'm not sure they care about that.
Jason.
August 18, 2009 at 11:09 am
Larry has a history. That history is an obsession with beating IBM to death. Oracle produced the first relational database, based on Dr. Codd's work, before IBM. The software acquisition binge has been to further that end. So is the Sun acquisition, but not to get java. java is already theirs, to the extent they want it
The late brilliant Jim Grey version is different and I have to take that. Sun's Java is JDK that is like C# with Ecma that is not related in most cases with vendor extensions because Oracle through BEA and other purchases may actually be dealing with many unrelated Java versions. I prepared for Sun SCJP a while back before taking the C# exams.
MySql is not a useful steppingstone to Oracle. Postgres is (was and will be, too). Oracle is an MVCC database, while MySql and DB2 are traditional lockers. Unless InnoDB is written to MVCC semantics (how much work that requires, I don't know), MySql isn't an entry level Oracle. It's just another piece that's come along for the ride.
Per the link below both INNODB and the new Sun developed Falcon are MVCC. If Oracle wants to beat IBM then Oracle needs to find out why IBM is always selling hardware divisions and aggressively adding software assets like separate Dimension modeling BI team in Cognos and Prediction modeling team in SSPS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiversion_concurrency_control
😉
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
August 18, 2009 at 11:53 am
Oracle bought Digital’s Rdb database that runs on the VMS platform to eliminate the competition. They couldn’t compete in the VMS world, because Digital included an Rdb run-time license with the OS, and Rdb had more advanced features than Oracle. First they sued Digital to stop them from including the run-time. Later, they bought Rdb and immediately raised support costs to be even higher than Oracle and stopped development to kill it off. Notice that they didn’t even mention Rdb in the list of database products in their announcement?
Looks like a road-map for what will happen to MySQL.
August 18, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Per the link below both INNODB and the new Sun developed Falcon are MVCC. If Oracle wants to beat IBM then Oracle needs to find out why IBM is always selling hardware divisions and aggressively adding software assets like separate Dimension modeling BI team in Cognos and Prediction modeling team in SSPS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiversion_concurrency_control
😉
Yeah, I know. As I've already posted, brain cramp. IBM keeps buying various "service" companies because, like the banks and insurance companies, they think that return on real capital is higher when you don't have to actually have physical assets. That only goes so far. And they, mostly, depend on the z/390/370/360 platform. If Larry can best the platform, he wins both hardware and software battles. Oracle has already demonstrated that the MVCC database wins. All except DB2 (modulo 9.7, sort of) now do MVCC.
I remain convinced that Larry's goal is to replace the IBM mainframe platform. Do that, and he wins the software battle too, by default. He thinks big, and this is a Big Strategy. It's not a tactic. Java is a tactic.
August 18, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Michael Valentine Jones (8/18/2009)
Oracle bought Digital’s Rdb database that runs on the VMS platform to eliminate the competition. They couldn’t compete in the VMS world, because Digital included an Rdb run-time license with the OS, and Rdb had more advanced features than Oracle. First they sued Digital to stop them from including the run-time. Later, they bought Rdb and immediately raised support costs to be even higher than Oracle and stopped development to kill it off. Notice that they didn’t even mention Rdb in the list of database products in their announcement?Looks like a road-map for what will happen to MySQL.
Actually, they bought RDB to get the Clustering management and RDB's MVCC stuff. RDB was already on the chopping block and VMS already in sharp decline and no longer strategic for Oracle
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
August 20, 2009 at 7:50 am
Maybe MYSQL was getting too much functionality. Oracle's charging model - massive upfront cost and then only renting the licence - will never compete with the outright purchase model of SQL Server. Their model makes the TCO for SMB's prohibitive, so as long as MS keeps improving SQL Server they will not have anything to fear from Oracle. MYSQL could give Oracle a vehicle for a low-cost solution, or as a previous post suggested, a cut-down starter version of oracle.
DaveT
BR DaveT
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply