List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Krishna Chandra Prajapati Date:April 22 2009 6:54am
Subject:Re: Oracle , what else ?
View as plain text  
i agree with you, Since mysql code is GPL anyone can start developing
further wither another name say 'MySQL NEW'

I don't understand how  any company can own since mysql code is GPL.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, mos <mos99@stripped> wrote:

> At 07:13 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote:
>
>> It will great if the MYSQL guys were to buy mysql from Oracle for half the
>> price that Sun paid.
>>
>
> Yeah, I'm sure Widenous is writing a check as we speak. <rofl> He is busy
> working on Maria, a stripped down branch of MySQL.
> http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/01/maria-engine-is-released.html
>
>  They would come out making lots of money and back controlling their own
>> destiny.
>>
>
> Anyone can have control of the MySQL code because it is GPL. The only thing
> stopping them is time and $$$ to organize another company, maybe call it
> MySQL CD??
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>  :-)
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Arthur Fuller <fuller.artful@stripped
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > I hereby bet the farm that this shall not occur. I have $10 to say that
>> > this
>> > shall not occur.
>> >
>> > a) Who is going to challenge the deal?
>> > b) What possible purpose would it serve to interr MySQL?
>> > c) Assuming there is some reason for b) above, why incur the wrath of
>> the
>> > MySQL community and their possible bail-outs? Nothing gained and
>> everything
>> > lost, in such a move.
>> > d) If we know anything, we know that Scott and Larry are not fools.
>> > e) In the grand scheme of things, the MySQL piece of this pie is peanuts
>> > and
>> > perhaps less. This acquisition is about the big picture (hardware
>> platform
>> > +
>> > existing Sparc base + Java, etc.). MySQL, as much as we love it, is a
>> tiny
>> > teensy part of this acquisition, and my guess is that Scott and Larry
>> are
>> > much more focussed on the other parts (e.g. end-to-end solutions
>> extending
>> > from the hardware to the middleware to the Oracle apps, etc.) and in
>> this
>> > ballpark MySQL is an interesting tidbit but not at all the focus of
>> their
>> > efforts. Think big, baby. MySQL in this context is a tiny little ripple
>> in
>> > the pond, having little or nothing to do with Scott/Larry's plans.
>> >
>> > Viewed from this perspective, MySQL becomes a viable alternative to such
>> > offerings as SQL Express from MS. If for no other reasons than marketing
>> > imperatives, I am confident that Scott and Larry will choose not to kill
>> > MySQL but rather regard it as both an entry platform and a position from
>> > which to upgrade to Oracle.
>> >
>> > Make no mistake about this. There are very sound reasons to upgrade to
>> > Oracle. Cost is of course a serious issue. But Oracle can do things, and
>> > has
>> > various top-end vehicles, that MySQL cannot approach. Consider, to take
>> > just
>> > one example, Trusted Oracle, upon which numerous banks bet their bottom
>> > dollar. Add to this the numerous Oracle Apps.
>> >
>> > I am no champion of Oracle in particular, but I do rtheecognize what
>> > platforms X and Y can do. If the game is defined as retrieval amongst
>> > several GB of data, then MySQL has a chance. If the game is retrieval
>> > amongst several PB of data, with security, then I bet on Oracle.
>> Granted,
>> > this move requires a team of DBAs etc., but if you are dealing with
>> > PetaBytes then I suggest that you think carefully about which vendor is
>> > prepared to take you there.
>> >
>> > Just my $0.02 in this debate. I don't see MySQL and Oracle as
>> competitive
>> > products. In fact I see the opposite: Oracle gets to occupy a space in
>> the
>> > open-source community while simultanwously offering an upgrade path to
>> > multi-petabyte solutions, serious security, and so on. I don't think
>> that
>> > Scott and Larry are out to hurt the MySQL community, and I'm prepared to
>> > bet
>> > that they will invest in the next version of MySQL, You might disagree
>> but
>> > I
>> > challenge you to answer Why? Sheer rapaciousness? That doesn't make
>> sense.
>> > MySQL has garnered numerous big-time players, and in what possible
>> interest
>> > would Oracle jeapordize these investments?
>> >
>> > As several writers on this thread have said, if Oracle muddies the
>> waters
>> > then they are prepared to move to PostGres and/or several other
>> > alternatives, not least to take the MySQL sources to a new playpen. It
>> is
>> > clearly not in the interests of Oracle to let this happen. Far more
>> > interesting is to fold the MySQL project into Oracle's overall Linux
>> > project. Continue to offer MySQL for free, work on transport vehicles
>> that
>> > let MySQL people migrate effortlessly to Oracle, etc.
>> >
>> > I don't mean to pretend to read Scott and Larry's minds here. But I
>> think
>> > that the MySQL part of this acquisition, while interesting, is a small
>> part
>> > of the rationale for buying Sun. The serious interest is in acquiring an
>> > end-to-end solution, as yet offered by nobody, including IBM and MS.
>> This
>> > is
>> > the most significant part of this acquisition. Imagine being the
>> > salesperson
>> > of said stack. "We have the hardware and the operating system and the
>> > middleware and the front-end. Click and go."
>> >
>> > IMO this is a truly formidable argument. In practice, it could be
>> delivered
>> > as an appliance and/or a blade. And if you don't think this is
>> formidable,
>> > then wake up and smell the coffee. This could well leap-frog certain
>> other
>> > competitors -- which is not to say they won't catch up eventually, but
>> it
>> > is
>> > to say that Oracle has raised the bar and it's time for competitors such
>> as
>> > MS to jump through several flaming hoops.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:57 PM, John Daisley <
>> > john.daisley@stripped> wrote:
>> >
>> > > MySQL will live on regardless of who owns the brand. First and
>> foremost
>> > > MySQL is a community and that community will continue to develop MySQL
>> > and
>> > > take it in the direction they want it to go. Sure Oracle could try and
>> > > force some 'features' or changes through but if the community didn't
>> like
>> > > them the community would just keep developing 'pre-oracle' MySQL, even
>> if
>> > > that happens to be under a different name.
>> > >
>> > > Personally I would be surprised if the Oracle deal goes unchallenged.
>> I
>> > > don't think Oracle really 'want' MySQL as it makes very little money
>> and
>> > > it raises competition concerns. I wouldn't be surprised if Oracle were
>> to
>> > > look at offloading MySQL to ease competition fears, perhaps to someone
>> > > like Google who are already heavily involved in the development of
>> MySQL.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 22:36 +0100, Andy Shellam wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Personally (and I hope I'm wrong) I don't believe there's room in
>> > > > Oracle's portfolio for two diverse RDBMSs, and I envisage them
>> > > > re-branding MySQL as an Oracle open-source derivative which
> begins
>> as
>> > > > being the MySQL codebase but is slowly migrated toward Oracle's
>> > > > engineering, to ease the transition for growing companies moving
>> from
>> > > > MySQL/Oracle open-source to the Oracle enterprise versions.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > MySQL General Mailing List
>> > > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>> > > To unsubscribe:
>> > > http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
>
>


-- 
Krishna Chandra Prajapati

Thread
Oracle , what else ?Gilles MISSONNIER21 Apr
  • Re: Oracle , what else ?Simon Connah21 Apr
  • Re: Oracle , what else ?Martijn Tonies21 Apr
    • Re: Oracle , what else ?Joshua D. Drake22 Apr
      • Re: Oracle , what else ?Glyn Astill23 Apr
        • Re: Oracle , what else ?Joshua D. Drake23 Apr
  • Re: Oracle , what else ?mos21 Apr
    • Re: Oracle , what else ?Andy Shellam21 Apr
    • Re: Oracle , what else ?Yves Goergen23 Apr
    • RE: Oracle , what else ?Gabriel - IP Guys23 Apr
      • RE: Oracle , what else ?Janek Bogucki28 Apr
        • RE: Oracle , what else ?John Daisley28 Apr
          • RE: Oracle , what else ?mos28 Apr
      • RE: Oracle , what else ?Janek Bogucki28 Apr
  • Re: Oracle , what else ?Martijn Tonies24 Apr
    • Re: Oracle , what else ?Joshua D. Drake24 Apr
    • Re: Oracle , what else ?mos24 Apr
Re: Oracle , what else ?John Daisley22 Apr
  • Re: Oracle , what else ?Arthur Fuller22 Apr
    • Re: Oracle , what else ?NĂ©stor22 Apr
      • Re: Oracle , what else ?mos22 Apr
        • Re: Oracle , what else ?Krishna Chandra Prajapati22 Apr
  • Re: Oracle , what else ?Martijn Tonies22 Apr
RE: Oracle , what else ?Joshua D. Drake24 Apr
  • Re: Oracle , what else ?David Sparks24 Apr
    • Re: Oracle , what else ?Glyn Astill24 Apr
      • Re: Oracle , what else ?David Sparks24 Apr
        • Re: Oracle , what else ?Glyn Astill24 Apr
          • Index time columns?Bryan Cantwell24 Apr
            • RE: Index time columns?Andrew Braithwaite27 Apr
        • Re: Oracle , what else ?Joshua D. Drake27 Apr
      • Re: Oracle , what else ?Joshua D. Drake27 Apr
    • Re: Oracle , what else ?Joshua D. Drake27 Apr