List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Arthur Fuller Date:April 21 2009 11:47pm
Subject:Re: Oracle , what else ?
View as plain text  
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:
> To unsubscribe:

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