Does you know of a product with global potential?

[Mike]

Experienced business impressario & former VC - looking for visionary
product to create world beating company.

Hands-on approach - bringing expertise, contacts and funding
internationally to build long term value. Based London.

Mike Fish

[Neil]

Hi Mike

Sure, I've got one I think is a match. A cloud storage offering that
can be plugged into Sharepoint et al.

Let me know what kind of info you'd like.

Cheers, Neil.

[Rao Dronamraju]

A very good article on open source.

Larry seems to be more in love with MySQL than Oracle?...why doesn't he let
it go when he has Oracle?....sell it off to some third party?..did he buy
Sun because of MySQL or Sun's other technologies or both?...or is he
concerned about MySQL as competition especially in the clouds?....wants to
kill it?...

It raises some interesting questions about viability of open source in the
clouds.

http://tinyurl.com/yk4xka5

Regards,
Rao

[Jim Starkey]

Rao Dronamraju wrote:
> A very good article on open source.
>
> Larry seems to be more in love with MySQL than Oracle?...why doesn't he let
> it go when he has Oracle?....sell it off to some third party?..did he buy
> Sun because of MySQL or Sun's other technologies or both?...or is he
> concerned about MySQL as competition especially in the clouds?....wants to
> kill it?...
>

If you want some insight in Larry Ellison, look at his efforts to win
the America's Cup. He has spent many tens of millions of dollars on
boats and litigation to win the cup. He's currently wrangling with the
Swiss over boats (he won), dates (he won), and venue (case pending).
He is letting neither money, sportsmanship, nor Europeans get between
him and his objectives (notice a pattern here?).

He may want MySQL, but he doesn't need MySQL. Oracle could kill MySQL
(though not the forked clones) any time he wished by withdrawing InnoDB,
MySQL's only transactional storage engine, which Oracle bought three
years ago. Without InnoDB, MySQL could not compete with Oracle or
basically anyone else, for that matter.

Incidentally, the letter sent by Senators Kerry, Hatch, and 57 of their
compatriots quoted Sun as saying the revenue from MySQL is about 17
million Euros, about $25M US. And more that a little of that revenue
goes back to Oracle, anyway. How can anyone say that MySQL could
possibly be significant competition to Oracle, which counts their
database revenue in billions, not millions. Oracle's competition is
Microsoft and IBM.

> It raises some interesting questions about viability of open source in the
> clouds.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yk4xka5
>
>

The more interesting question is what effect the EC is going to have on
future funding for open source companies. If the EC is going to block
acquisition of any open source company on the verge of success, the
likelihood that any serious VC is going to invest in open source
companies diminishes significantly.

Ellison's actions make no rational sense. Neither do the EC's. It's
madness, madness.


--
Jim Starkey
Founder, NimbusDB, Inc.
978 526-1376

[Ricky Ho]

Lack of query support is one known limitation of NoSQL DB. There are some techniques I've used to mitigate this
limitation.
http://horicky.blogspot.com/2009/11/query-processing-for-nosql-db.html

Love to hear about your experience, comments and feedback

Rgds,
Ricky

[Matthew Baird]

"Incidentally, the letter sent by Senators Kerry, Hatch, and 57 of their
compatriots quoted Sun as saying the revenue from MySQL is about 17
million Euros, about $25M US.  And more that a little of that revenue
goes back to Oracle, anyway.  How can anyone say that MySQL could
possibly be significant competition to Oracle, which counts their
database revenue in billions, not millions.  Oracle's competition is
Microsoft and IBM."

Hi Jim,

I think that $25M in revenue is a red herring. The money Oracle is losing because companies are choosing MySQL instead of an Oracle license is why MySQL is so troubling to Oracle - that's harder to quantify.

--
~~~~~
Register Today for Cloud Slam 2010 at http://cloudslam10.com
Posting guidelines: http://groups.google.ca/group/cloud-computing/web/frequently-asked-questions
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/cloudcomp_group or @cloudcomp_group
Post Job/Resume at http://cloudjobs.net
Buy 88 conference sessions and panels on cloud computing on DVD at
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002H07SEC, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002H0IW1U or get instant access to downloadable versions at http://cloudslam09.com/content/registration-5.html

~~~~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cloud Computing" group.
To post to this group, send email to cloud-c...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cloud-computi...@googlegroups.com

[Rao Dronamraju]

Good points Jim.

But it is interesting that Larry says he is loosing $100 million a month for
EU's delay of Sun buy approval.

http://insidehpc.com/2009/09/22/ellison-sun-losing-100-million-a-month/

Considering that MySQL only makes $25 million a year for him, every month he
is loosing 4 years worth of MySQL revenues. So why hang on to MySQL?..if
that is the major roadblock for Sun acquiaition?....

[matt thompson]

As a recent ex-Sun person (who worked in the Cloud group) it was clear to me (and most of my team) that MySQL was the foundation of a strategy to make Sun much less reliant on Oracle while also appealing to the new generation of internet scale apps. From that perspective MySQL was a clear competitor to Oracle (and in the start up space, was winning in DB footprint).

If you do the math you'll come up with MySQL revenue (from services) as a bit higher than what is being discussed here, but certainly not an order of magnitude higher, so assuming revenue isn't Larry's motivation, then start thinking about this from the perspective that Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, and many other of the new "internet scale" services don't use Oracle or IBM DB technology, but do use either the standard MySQL implemententation or a custom derivitive.

Sun bought MySQL because most of the new, interesting services on the net were built on it. Larry wants it for the same reason...

As for the losing $100M/month - as much as this likely bothers Larry, right now this is mostly on the cost side. A month after the deal closes, Sun's cost structure will be radically realigned (unfortunately by laying off a large number of very good people).

--- On Mon, 11/30/09, Rao Dronamraju <rao.dro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

[Jim Starkey]

matt thompson wrote:
> As a recent ex-Sun person (who worked in the Cloud group) it was clear to me (and most of my team) that MySQL was the foundation of a strategy to make Sun much less reliant on Oracle while also appealing to the new generation of internet scale apps. From that perspective MySQL was a clear competitor to Oracle (and in the start up space, was winning in DB footprint).
>

During the acquisition I talked to Jonathan, had lunch with Greg
Papadopoulus, and talked extensively with Marten. After the
acquisition, I talked with probably a dozen Sun vice presidents. I can
honestly say that both then and now, I haven't a clue why Sun bought
MySQL or why they paid so much for it (I tend to subscribe to the
bidding war school of thought).

Nobody has the slightest idea of the number of MySQL installs --
nobody. Anyone with a number is making it up. MySQL tracks downloads,
but it's impossible to tell whether a download is an install, a failed
evaluation, a competitor, another guy added to a project, or whatever.

Yes, MySQL had a presence in the low end of technology startups. But
the "scale out" strategy was so warty that major investments in
infrastructure were required for anything web scale. Simply put, MySQL
replication wasn't ACID for updates on more than the head node. This
wasn't an issue with social networking, but for more demanding
applications working around this was manpower and time intensive.

Oh, if the $25M number is accurate, it is lower than MySQL revenues when
it was acquired, assuming apples to apples accounting systems. None of
the numbers are public, so it's very hard to tell. It is safe to say
that if Sun did in fact have a strategy, it doesn't seem to be working.

> If you do the math you'll come up with MySQL revenue (from services) as a bit higher than what is being discussed here, but certainly not an order of magnitude higher, so assuming revenue isn't Larry's motivation, then start thinking about this from the perspective that Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, and many other of the new "internet scale" services don't use Oracle or IBM DB technology, but do use either the standard MySQL implemententation or a custom derivitive.
>

Since about all MySQL sells is services, it's probably inclusive. (The
MySQL Enterprise edition is largely GPLed, so only the monitoring tools
can be considered as licensing revenue).

> Sun bought MySQL because most of the new, interesting services on the net were built on it. Larry wants it for the same reason...
>

You're probably right. But it's probably as useful to say that Ellison
wants it because Ellison want it. Or maybe he didn't until somebody
tried to take it away from him....

> As for the losing $100M/month - as much as this likely bothers Larry, right now this is mostly on the cost side. A month after the deal closes, Sun's cost structure will be radically realigned (unfortunately by laying off a large number of very good people).
>

That's true -- and sad. There has been a great deal of value destroyed
by the EC's actions.

[Rao Dronamraju]

"If you want some insight in Larry Ellison, look at his efforts to win the
America's Cup. He has spent many tens of millions of dollars on boats and
litigation to win the cup. He's currently wrangling with the
Swiss over boats (he won), dates (he won), and venue (case pending).
He is letting neither money, sportsmanship, nor Europeans get between him
and his objectives (notice a pattern here?)."

Yes, based on my own experience living in the valley and have worked with
Oracle folks on joint projects, I think Larry is one of the best executives
in the valley. Competing with MS and IBM at the same time and building a #1
Database company is proof of his executive prowess. Acquiring Sun is a
highly risky but a vertical visionary venture...a new corporate strategy for
the next decade?....back to the future as the artcle says....

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125954262100968855.html?mod=rss_Today's_Mos
t_Popular)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Starkey [mailto:jsta...@nimbusdb.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 5:49 PM
To: cloud-c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ Cloud Computing ] Open Source as a Model for Business Is
Elusive

[ken_...@compuserve.com]

Ricky Ho wrote:
>> Lack of query support is one known limitation of NoSQL DB.

One of the limitations is lack of built-in support for aggregation,
such as SQL's scalar functions. Consider a query such as:

- Lookup the average income of customers within a zip code

[Warren Davidson]

Not true for all NoSQL db's. Objectivity is probably the original NoSQL db, and thus supports a lot of things you'd expect in a db. Objectivity/DB has mechanisms similar to SQL for finding objects based on attribute. One can call “scan” functions that use predicates to find objects that fit specified criteria. The predicate language is similar to SQL and other query languages and the Objectivity/DB kernel will maintain user-definable b-tree indexes to optimize performance of these scans.

A fundamental difference from SQL, however, is that Objectivity/DB allows you to scope your search to a particular database or container, like looking for a file within a folder instead of looking through the entire disk.

You can narrow down the search because Objectivity/DB allows you to group objects logically rather than requiring that you group them by type in tables. Many objects have a principal organizing attribute beyond what kind of object it is. A bolt in a piece of machinery would likely be organized by its component. A company document would be organized by its project. A message would be organized by the date and time it was created.