Did Oracle buy MySQL by accident?

Click here to monitor SSC

<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" target="_blank"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" alt="i" width="468" height="60"/></a>

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Log in :: Register :: Not logged in

<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" target="_top"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" alt="i" width="120" height="300"/></a>

Recent Posts

Popular Topics

Home

Home » SQLServerCentral.com » Editorials » Did Oracle buy MySQL by accident?

Add to briefcase

26 posts, Page 1 of 3

Did Oracle buy MySQL by accident?

Expand / Collapse

Author

Message

Posted Saturday, August 15, 2009 3:47 PM

Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:31 AM
Points: 511, Visits: 945

Comments posted to this topic are about the item Did Oracle buy MySQL by accident?

Post #771542

Posted Saturday, August 15, 2009 5:00 PM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:57 PM
Points: 32,906, Visits: 26,790

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

"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/

For better answers on performance questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/

Post #771548

Posted Saturday, August 15, 2009 8:54 PM

SSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, May 04, 2013 11:13 AM
Points: 9,855, Visits: 9,374

Jeff: Oracle bought SUN (for $7.4B ?) and got MySQL in the deal. It's a dark day for Open-source...

-- RBarryYoung, (302)375-0451 blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. "Performance is our middle name."

Post #771560

Posted Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:30 PM

Hall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:17 AM
Points: 3,432, Visits: 14,332

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

Post #771578

Posted Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:12 AM

Valued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:14 AM
Points: 59, Visits: 182

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.

Post #771611

Posted Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:56 AM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:56 AM
Points: 7, Visits: 176

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

Post #771632

Posted Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:14 AM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:04 AM
Points: 2, Visits: 3

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

Post #771633

Posted Monday, August 17, 2009 7:04 AM

SSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, January 07, 2013 8:29 AM
Points: 241, Visits: 262

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.

Post #771869

Posted Monday, August 17, 2009 7:10 AM

Valued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:14 AM
Points: 59, Visits: 182

Yeah. Brain cramp.

Post #771875

Posted Monday, August 17, 2009 7:30 AM

SSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, April 23, 2012 2:42 PM
Points: 234, Visits: 155

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.

Post #771887

« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

26 posts, Page 1 of 3

Permissions

Expand / Collapse