Ellison compromises on MySQL control? Larry Ellison is reported to be considering a compromise with the European Union over MySQL, having recently vowed to "vigorously" fight regulators. The New York Post has reported that to help close the deal, Ellison is willing to create a separate entity within the combined Oracle and Sun Microsystems that's home to MySQL. …
"Commission's statement of objections over its ownership of MySQL and the potential impact it might have on competition."
MySQL being owned by Oracle will have exactly zero effect on competition. They are not *in* competition with one another. They aren't even in the same class. That's like regulators worrying about the effects of competition if Aston Martin were to buy a golf cart manufacturer.
The point is that if you take all the web based watanabe one hit wonder companies that base their start ups using MySQL, then some grow, Oracle would be able to give them a path to Oracle's products.
Again, the EU missed the point. Oracle represents a dominant force by becoming a company able to deliver the *entire* stack from hardware through to the actual end application.
IBM and HP both stopped short of that.
If the goal is to really allow and promote competition, then Oracle would be better controlled by splitting off their end user applications , meaning their ERP solutions. Oracle Financials, PeopleSoft, JDEdwards, etc all in a separate company. Then Oracle would be limited to hardware, software (infrastructure) and services and would be on the same playing field as IBM and HP, thus competition is preserved.
The whole MySQL is nothing more than a show of power and a fatal mistake on the part of the EU.
Thank you for your clear, concise and in-depth explanation of exactly why all those people is Brussels are so wrong. Obviously, you are a very qualified individual, perfectly at home explaining both the legal, technical and economic ramifications of the deal on MySQL development, and your inside-line into Larry & Co's thoughts - I assume through your astounding extra-sensory powers - allow you an unrivalled insight into exactly why Larry & Co should be trusted unconditionally. Please, start work now on that World peace issue as you are obviously the best person for that job too.
Or, it could just be that you're some frothing Sunshiner/Oraclista without a clue of how competition law, the market or open source development actually work. Actually, I'm going with the latter.
Not in competition?
When did one of them stop being an SQL Database? or have I missed something vital.
A better analogy might be Aston Martin and a Mini. But at the moment the Aston is "the main player on the block" so they might charging Aston prices but they aren't a niche player.
MySQL might not be the best choice for Multi-terabyte enterprise databases needing a couple of TB of RAM to house the SGA and scaling to run efficiently to 256 HW threads. But there are a lot of customers who are buying what you classify as an Aston, but actually they aren't intending to cross continents at Autobahn speeds. They just need a run about to pop to the shops and take the kids to school.
It is not unreasonable for the regulators to feel that if Oracle have control over MySQL then there will be less choice of DB supplier.
If Oracle want to own Sun (we know they didn't want the HW business they told the SEC they didn't ... remember) and don't care about MySQL then they should hive it off somewhere safe from any possible interference. But then what would they be left with? Java is a great piece of SW but it is basically given away for free.
I don't understand all the fear in the mysql community about Oracle assuming control. Honestly, the makers of the world's premier database engine could only make the hack that is mysql better. I use and appreciate mysql, but damned if it doesn't occasionally feel like banging stones together.
Time series data? Your choice of equally, but subtly differently, broken datetime and timestamp. Want fine grain access control? Go ahead, use a view, but it'll choke because it can't use any underlying indexes. Foreign keys? Yeah, you can declare them, just don't expect them to, you know, enforce a constraint.
I understand the EU's concern about limiting competition, and they probably have a good point, but I have a hard time seeing how this could possibly result in a worse product for MySQL's users.
"Java is a great piece of SW but it is basically given away for free." .... Dazed and Confused Posted Sunday 6th December 2009 00:49 GM
Ah yes, Java, what would the game be like without its trojan heart and stealthy presence. Indeed, a great piece of ubiquitous SW.
Is Oracle, a Sunny Bubble too ...... Snake Oilers with nothing of real substance behind them.
Anonymous Coward Posted Saturday 5th December 2009 23:18 GMT --- Thanks, but the EU commissioners beg to differ. They have ample qualifications to make this call. Do you have the ample qualifications required to contradict them? Please detail.
I think the first and foremost qualification is how to read.
For example, I have not read in any enterprise application, which uses Oracle as it's primary database storage as an option, which also makes MySQL available as primary database storage option.
Perhaps there is an enterprise application, that requires a database, that offers MySQL as an option or Oracle... I just have not read any installation instructions that suggest this to be the case.
So, I suggest the qualification of "how to read" as the qualification to "contradict" the "EU commissioners" as they "beg to differ".
"AC cause they have ears." ..... Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 7th December 2009 00:35 GMT
Don't worry about it, AC, they are either deaf or their analysis and control element/brain/common higher senses are not functioning in anything other than sub-prime, which is also the sad and bad part about capitalism which can pay for brilliance, but it is extremely expensive and guarantees ZilCH, for it may be that true brilliance cannot be bought. ........ and only on extended cascading loan.
Such a shame to see a great product like MySQL start sliding down the slippery slope of Oracle profit-glut. Our organisation has been a major backer of MySQL but is now in the process of moving 34 core MySQL databases onto PostgreSQL. A major project but there is absolutely no doubt that MySQL has no future with big red.
"Hi Matt, what exactly did your comments add to the conversation?" Well, Thommy, very little of value, I admit. It's just I'm getting a tad tired of the "can't-you-damn-Yourohpeons-just-do-as-you're-told" line. It seems to completely escape most Septics but the combined European economy is actually a rival in size to the US's, hence the upset this is causing Larry. Maybe if Mr Victim had actually framed some form of argument to support his views, as you also seem to have forgotten to do, he might have received a less sarcastic reply. Indeed, in much the same way as if Larry & Co had actually tried to work with the Commission instead of immediately accusing them of being anti-Septic h8rs just out to protect SAP.
From my viewpoint, I actually want the deal to go through A-SAP (<=sorry, couldn't resist!). Whilst the Sunshiners pick themselves up off the floor I'll explain why. We are a SAP and Oracle customer, so I actually want the two working well together, not looking for ways to cause each other pain (believe me, working with SAP and Oracle is pain enough!). It's a case of better the Devil you know, because the other options are simply too demonic to comtemplate. I was looking round for the closest open window to jump out of when the IBM salesgrunts suggested running SAP with DB2, but luckily the board weren't that silly. For me, MySQL is neither here nor there - we have no plans to use it, it's not advanced enough to fill the Oracle role nor replace M$ SQL Server at the low-to-mid-range DB tasks. And there are other open-source options. But if Oracle and SAP really go to war then it will probably be Microsoft that will benefit the most.
So, I actually want SAP and Oracle to kiss and make up. Hard-hearted maybe, but I don't care about MySQL, it can be borged or split off into a seperate company (and if needed, MariaDB can be there for the day we decide we're tired of the Larrytax). Whilst the frothing of the Sunshiners is always amusing, the Sun hardware biz is such a Norweigean Blue it only has comedy value now, and I'd rather have SAP and Oracle working well, thanks. What I need now is for Larry to eat a bit of humble pie, deal with the Commission and promise to be a good boy, and then the rest of us can quit worrying about emegency plans for migrations to PostgreSQL or M$ SQL Server.
Anonymous Posted Posted Monday 7th December 2009 00:35 GMT --- For example, I have not read in any enterprise application, which uses Oracle as it's primary database storage as an option, which also makes MySQL available as primary database storage option.
TeeCee Posted Monday 7th December 2009 10:21 GMT --- Er, SAP?... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/01/mysql_sap_certification/
Well, there seems to be one enterprise application in the world which offers MySQL as an alternative to Oracle!
Is there a second? Going... Going...
Almost a week and ONLY ONE enterprise software customer was identified using MySQL as a competitive database offering to Oracle RDBMS...
Is there a second? Going... Going... GONE!
Funny, or should one say sad, that the EC folks still can't figure out that the transactional RDBMS engine in MySQL is largely handled by Oracle's InnoDB... MySQL without transactional processing can NEVER be competitor to Oracle RDBMS, or any other RDBMS for serious applications.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
