- For example, Oracle could buy some companies developing PostgreSQL and target the core developers. Without the core developers working actively on PostgreSQL, the PostgreSQL project will be weakened tremendously and it could even die as ar result.
- Or another company could hire all of the core developers from one area of MySQL. I am glad that people have the opportunity to work elsewhere.
- MySQL is the database with the highest number of installed units in all markets (except in the high enterprise market where it has only a medium size unit share).
- All markets or non-embedded markets? SQLite claims at least 500M deployments. Oracle claims there are 200M deployments of Berkeley DB.
- MySQL is causing Oracle sales losses around 1 billion usd/year (in lost sales to MySQL and because of having to do heavy discounting when competing with MySQL).
- Where does this number come from?
- Oracle did not provide any remedies to the EC and the public promises they have published are just empty promises.
- How do we know what Oracle has or has not promised? I am sure that Oracle can contact the EC without involving MPAB. Besides, I thought the hearings at the EC were private. I don't trust summaries of the hearings from anyone on either side of the issue.
- The open source software it has acquired, like InnoDB, has after being acquired, been developed secretly and slowly which is against how things are done in the open source environment.
- Compared to what? From my perspective neither Oracle/InnoDB nor Sun/MySQL have been great in this area. But so what? Both continue to improve their software and most people don't care whether or not the development process is open.
- MariaDB is an enhanced (faster, more features and less bugs) drop-in replacement of MySQL that is only available under GPL.
- The GA release of MariaDB has no bugs because there is no GA release.
- The fork can't be used with other products that are using MySQL as a building block for their closed source applications.
- Yes, it can (thanks Sheeri)
- The fork has to work in an environment where no one has to pay for it.
- I will speculate that most of the money earned by MySQL is from customers who don't have to pay. People buy support contracts because the support product is excellent, not because they must.
- As long as the products are recognized to be competing, any solution that the EC would accept has to ensure that there is as much competition in the database field before the merger as after the merger.
- Is it that simple? Is competition a binary decision?
- If MySQL were licensed under a permissive license, like BSD, then the users would benefit as they now can securely continue to use MySQL in all context. Monty Program Ab would also switch to only produce code under BSD for the MariaDB server, to ensure that also MariaDB can be used in all context. Monty Program Ab would benefit very little from of this; We cannot take money from selling BSD; We can only hope that there is a market demand for our skilled engineers.
- I would love for it to be BSD. Then I can form a company to build a custom version of it make people pay for that version. Your blog post cites EnterpriseDB for doing this. Why can't MPAB do the same?
- The companies that would benefit the most from BSD are the companies that enhance MySQL (storage engine vendors and companies providing extensions to MySQL) and companies that embed MySQL in their products, like Adobe or Cisco.
- How does saving storage engine vendors, Adobe and Cisco save the internet? This has nothing to do with the MySQL users you claim have something at risk. Storage engine vendors don't have thousands of customers. I assume app vendors who embed MySQL have more customers, but even in that case I fail to see how the internet is at risk.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Save MySQL, save the world
Things are getting interesting. MPAB continues to drive away potential supporters with the tone of their messages, the inclusion of pointless assertions, and the complete lack of references.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


Things _are_ getting interesting ? In my opinion this has been beyond interesting for a long time.
ReplyDeleteI half expect this whole debate to lead to the breakup of the European Union, the return of the cold war, and economic ruin.
I am hoarding survival supplies and hoping for the best.
;-)
I submit that what Oracle really wants is to build a large "laser" and hold the world ransom and demand billions of Dollars. Someone has to stop them! They want to destroy the Internet. They will kidnap Al Gore so that the Internet can never be rebuilt.
ReplyDeleteWord up, Nils!
ReplyDeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteMy point with Oracle buying competing companies, like companies developing PostgreSQL, is not a behavior that is in the interest of the consumers and is something that regulators should be forced to look at, not ignore because the product is 'Open Source'.
You are right about SQLite and Berkeley DB. I was speaking of MySQL in the context of the Oracle/Sun merger where we where talking about multi-user client/server databases in the SQL market. Sorry for not making this clear.
The 1 billion/year comes from MySQL strategy to be less than 1/10 the price of Oracle. With a 100 million of sales, MySQL would thus affect the market where Oracle is by far the biggest competitor with 1B. When you to this add the price reduction that Oracle has given to customers when competing with MySQL (90 % is not unheard of) and the number of deals they never got to hear of because of MySQL, you reach a much bigger number than 1billion/year in profit.
Monty Program is part of the EC process. If Oracle would have provided remedies, we would have heard about them. (All remedies must be validated by being market tested)
I would argue that most people in Open Source care that products they want to be involved with should be developed in an open manner. What is a fact is that after Oracle acquired InnoDB developed of new features slowed down to a fraction of how things was before. Most development coo-operation between InnoDB and MySQL Ab also stopped (except bug fixes). And as you know, the InnoDB team didn't even accept your patches.
I never said that MariaDB is GA; I was talking of the binary that we already have available. We are now working on releasing an RC and hope to have a final shortly afterwards.
A big part of the money MySQL earned always came from customer or trough partners that had to pay. (50 %, as far as I have been told).
The statement "As long as the products are recognized to be competing,..." is what I have been told by EC. As far as I understand it, this is the spirit of how competition cases are handled.
Regarding BSD; As I said in my blog and what is on Monty Program AB's web site, we are committed to Open Source and would never do a closed source version of MySQL. As you well know, the last 15 years of my life I have only developed Open Source Software and fight against every case when MySQL AB has tried to do closed source extensions.
It's the companies that are using MySQL as a building block that has direct revenue to gain if MySQL is accepted by their customers. They are the ones that will put money and energy to develop MySQL further. Without these, there is very few companies that can get a direct benefit of developing MySQL further and thus are willing to pay for development of MySQL. Without money in the ecosystem, no development is getting done and without development, no usable product (after it's lifetime has ended).
This is why there is very few GPL libraries around; Because it can't be used by everyone, people don't put efforts in developing them. At least not as much efforst like a product like MySQL would require.
InnoDB accepted and published in the 1.0.4 plugin the change from Ben in the Google patch to reduce contention on rw-mutex. This was a big change. I think they have accepted and published code from Percona.
ReplyDeleteMySQL accepted, rewrote and published semi-sync replication from the Google patch.
As an external developer, I prefer the more open approaches used by MariaDB and Drizzle. As as user, InnoDB and MySQL have been very responsive. They have fixed many bugs and some feature requests over the past year.
@monty: ISTM the majority of what you are posting has nothing to do with MySQL as open source software. Application vendors and storage engine developers who use MySQL "as a building block" are *not* using GPL/OSS code, they are using commercially licensed software. All that will happen if Oracle buys MySQL is that there will be a new owner of the commercial software they have chosen to build on.
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens with commercial software, and if these companies didn't have the foresight to understand the relationship with their vendor, that seems like a failure of Business Management 101. If companies don't want to play that game, they should use code that is available under an acceptable open source license, not commercially licensed software.
So please, stop exploiting the open source community as an argument that at it's heart is really about the commercial software business.
@Robert Treat:
ReplyDeletegood point. Ties in with the "open question to MP" section of my blog post at http://sitaramc.blogspot.com/2010/01/mysql-campaign-my-thoughts_01.html
Monty,
ReplyDeleteHow do we evaluate your claim that MariaDB is faster and has fewer bugs? There is no GA release. I assume the GA release must wait until MariaDB has fixed all of the bugs listed in your post on why 5.1 wasn't ready for a GA release.
Thanks for sharing such information.
ReplyDelete