Oracle buys Sun, owner of MySQL
Ignoramus32638
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/With-IBM-out-Oracle-jumps-in-apf-14970043.html
Somehow, I do not feel too good about effects of this acquisition on
the prospects of MySQL. Oracle would not throw billions of dollars for
nothing.
i
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
Ellison emulating Bill "Embrace extend extinguish" Gates? Who'd a thunk it?
--
Remark of Dr. Baldwin's concerning upstarts: We don't care to eat toadstools
that think they are truffles.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
The Natural Philosopher
Would have thought it more the hardware end of things..lets face it,
mysql is not exactly competition for Oracle..
OTOH maybe they would like to merge the two at some level so that
upwards migration would be easier.
Apple got CUPS, but it hasn't stopped the thing from being available on
Linux.
My guess is they will view this a different way: If you want Oracle
support, buy a support package with oracle. The code is, however, free.
> i
Chuck
> preferred for running Oracle. MySQL would not have been higher than #3 for
> reasoning on the list.
But it *is* on the list even if it's #3, and this move can't be good for
MySQL, it's employees, or it's customers. Many of us migrated away from
Oracle because of their licensing costs and draconian treatment of
customers. Now we are being sucked back into the black hole we thought
we were free of.
Ignoramus32638
> But it *is* on the list even if it's #3, and this move can't be good for
> MySQL, it's employees, or it's customers. Many of us migrated away from
> Oracle because of their licensing costs and draconian treatment of
> customers. Now we are being sucked back into the black hole we thought
> we were free of.
Let me ask you a question:
Is it in Oracle's interests to continue developing MySQL as a free,
viable and powerful database system?
i
Doctor Smith
The freetards miss the point every time.
They are always hoping, and wishing and praying.
Steve Urbach
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
I am with you on this.
Where is our Government Watch puppies. Other dominant companies suck up a
competitor and they Howl.
Software Giants and they hide with their head up their ....
Best Government money can buy :/
General Schvantzkoph
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:14:49 -0500, Ignoramus32638
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>
> Oracle wants SUN because of Java. Second is that SUN is the server most
> preferred for running Oracle. MySQL would not have been higher than #3
> for reasoning on the list.
How is Java worth 7 billion dollars? How is Java worth 7 cents? It
generates no revenue. I also don't see how MySQL is worth a lot to
Oracle, although they could probably make some money on MySQL support.
Sun is a hardware company, it's never been able to make money on
software. I think this is just Larry Ellison's ego at work.
Robert Heller
There is always PostgreSQL. Which is actually more mature than MySQL
and also less of a resource hog than MySQL. I guess one of the main
reasons many people use MySQL is that LAMP makes more sense than LAPP
:-).
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
General Schvantzkoph
The IBM deal had some anti-trust implications but not this one. There
isn't much overlap between Oracle and Sun, MySQL is a minor part of Sun's
business. Also MySQL is open source so they can't kill it, in fact it's
already been forked by some MySQL developers who left Sun recently.
Craig
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:14:49 -0500, Ignoramus32638
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>
> preferred for running Oracle. MySQL would not have been higher than #3 for
> reasoning on the list.
Solaris & Java.
Nothing's more important to Oracle than those two assets. It's a pretty
exciting move for Oracle... Sad day for the "Engineers' Company."
It'd be nice if Jonathan Schwartz were either to commit seppuku or to
snip off his 'tail.
-Craig
Ignoramus32638
> The IBM deal had some anti-trust implications but not this one. There
> isn't much overlap between Oracle and Sun, MySQL is a minor part of Sun's
> business. Also MySQL is open source so they can't kill it, in fact it's
> already been forked by some MySQL developers who left Sun recently.
MySQL is a minor part of Sun's business, however database servers are
a major part of Oracle business. MySQL may not bring a lot of revenue,
but it surely kills a lot of Oracle revenue.
How likely will Oracle be to nurture and grow MySQL?
i
Jean-David Beyer
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:14:49 -0500, Ignoramus32638
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Reportedly, Oracle is buying Sun, which owns MySQL.
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/With-IBM-out-Oracle-jumps-in-apf-14970043.html
>>
>> Somehow, I do not feel too good about effects of this acquisition on
>> the prospects of MySQL. Oracle would not throw billions of dollars for
>> nothing.
>>
>> i
> I am with you on this.
>
> Where is our Government Watch puppies. Other dominant companies suck up a
> competitor and they Howl.
Not always: they do not seem to howl when banks buy other banks and become
too large to fail.
> Software Giants and they hide with their head up their ....
>
> Best Government money can buy :/
If you think so, you might find this book interesting ...
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 11:35:01 up 26 days, 17:49, 3 users, load average: 4.30, 4.24, 4.23
Steve Urbach
What MySQL? :^)
General Schvantzkoph
There have been a number of stories in the last few weeks about unhappy
MySQL developers leaving Sun and forking MySQL so even if Oracle shuts
down MySQL it won't disappear. However my guess is that they will
continue to support it and that they'll probably do a better job with it
than Sun was doing. Sun never figured out how to make money with
software, Oracle knows how to do that.
toby
32638.invalid> wrote:
> Reportedly, Oracle is buying Sun, which owns MySQL.
>
>
> Somehow, I do not feel too good about effects of this acquisition on
> the prospects of MySQL. Oracle would not throw billions of dollars for
> nothing.
Of course, this is horrible news from many angles, but don't worry:
The MySQL community is bigger than Oracle, it will fork (has already
forked, in fact), and all the significant development will occur
outside of Larry's shadow. In the long term, this may be seen as a
very good thing to have happened.
>
> i
toby
wrote:
> Ignoramus32638 wrote:
> > Reportedly, Oracle is buying Sun, which owns MySQL.
>
>
> > Somehow, I do not feel too good about effects of this acquisition on
> > the prospects of MySQL. Oracle would not throw billions of dollars for
> > nothing.
>
> Hmm. Not sure that mysql is what they were after..
>
> Would have thought it more the hardware end of things..lets face it,
> mysql is not exactly competition for Oracle..
You'd be wrong, then. To say that the two products are different is
not to say that they don't compete. Why do you think Oracle has added
"free" (crippleware) versions at the bottom end? Competition from
MySQL. It was probably also a factor in the Sleepycat and Innobase
purchases, and without any doubt a significant motive for the Sun
deal.
Yousuf Khan
Oracle can always turn MySQL into Oracle Express or something like that.
An entry level, desktop database, similar to Microsoft Access. They can
come up with easy migration tools to larger versions of Oracle, when
people want to upgrade.
Yousuf Khan
Michael Austin
You only need to look at what they HAVE done in the past. They bought
not only Sleepycat, Innodb, but also a much more powerful database
called Rdb - It was purchased some 14 years ago now and still is under
development. But, they also "borrowed" key technologies from that
engine and have incorporated them into RDBMS. Things like the optimizer,
partitioning, locally managed tablespaces (vs the old Dictionary managed
tablespaces) to mention a few...
It may still be around, but you have to understand that Oracle has a way
of finding obscure but lucrative revenue generating opportunities.
Mart van de Wege
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:14:49 -0500, Ignoramus32638
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Reportedly, Oracle is buying Sun, which owns MySQL.
>>
>>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/With-IBM-out-Oracle-jumps-in-apf-14970043.html
>>
>>Somehow, I do not feel too good about effects of this acquisition on
>>the prospects of MySQL. Oracle would not throw billions of dollars for
>>nothing.
>>
>>i
> I am with you on this.
>
> Where is our Government Watch puppies. Other dominant companies suck up a
> competitor and they Howl.
Because MySQL is not a competitor to Oracle.
Oracle *has* competition: IBM DB2 and Microsoft SQL Server. So why
should the government care if they buy up Sun?
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Doctor Smith
> Steve Urbach <drago...@NOTmindspring.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:14:49 -0500, Ignoramus32638
>> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Reportedly, Oracle is buying Sun, which owns MySQL.
>>>
>>>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/With-IBM-out-Oracle-jumps-in-apf-14970043.html
>>>
>>>Somehow, I do not feel too good about effects of this acquisition on
>>>the prospects of MySQL. Oracle would not throw billions of dollars for
>>>nothing.
>>>
>>>i
>> I am with you on this.
>>
>> Where is our Government Watch puppies. Other dominant companies suck up a
>> competitor and they Howl.
>
> Because MySQL is not a competitor to Oracle.
>
> Oracle *has* competition: IBM DB2 and Microsoft SQL Server. So why
> should the government care if they buy up Sun?
>
> Mart
I agree.
Maybe Oracle is looking at releasing "Oracle Lite" or something like that,
based upon MySQL?
Ignoramus32638
I am sure that they will come up with something creative along these
lines, one way or another they will kill the competition.
i
Hadron
This was a done deal ages ago.
You really think Sun wanted to spend a billion dollars for OSS with no
plan to make money from it?
Duh.
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
Unruh
>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/With-IBM-out-Oracle-jumps-in-apf-14970043.html
It has an open source license (GPL), and that license is still valid. If Oracle
decides to try to kill it, someone else can pick it up and continue it as
open source. Now they may stop developing it themselves but they cannot
stop others.
>i
Ignoramus32638
It is not as easy to pick up a big project like that.
i
Stephan Rose
Aren't you the shining light and beacon of everything that is optimistic?
Killing MySQL would actually be a pretty bad idea for Oracle. Aside from
the damage it would do to the companies image and reputation, it'd gain
them essentially nothing.
Take the company I'm working for right now as one example.
Do we need Oracle? No.
Could we even afford it if we wanted it? Erm, no.
If MySQL where to be 'killed' by Oracle, the above two answers would not
change. We still wouldn't need oracle and we still wouldn't be able to
buy it in the first place. So we'd just be forced to go with a more
economically priced competitor instead if MySQL wasn't an option.
However, if Oracle continues to support MySQL and continues to improve
it, things look differently. Then if suddenly we'd for instance run into
walls with MySQL and would need to upgrade to something more powerful and
Oracle offered an easy migration path, now that we have the need for it,
it'd be the only logical thing to do. Why go through the trouble of going
to a competitor when there is an in-house solution that'll be far easier
to do?
--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT
君の事思い出す日なんてないのは
君の事忘れたときがないから
ThanksButNo
32638.invalid> wrote:
MySQL is certainly NOT "free". You're confusing it with PostgreSQL.
MySQL is free to try, free to develop in, free to play around with.
When you *use* it in a commercial environment, you're expected to
pay for it.
From that perspective, Oracle is also "free". I've two or three
copies
of "free" Oracle downloaded to my machines.
\:-\
Hadron
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:53:30 -0500, Ignoramus32638
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-04-20, Chuck <chuckh19...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But it *is* on the list even if it's #3, and this move can't be good for
>>> MySQL, it's employees, or it's customers. Many of us migrated away from
>>> Oracle because of their licensing costs and draconian treatment of
>>> customers. Now we are being sucked back into the black hole we thought
>>> we were free of.
>>
>>Let me ask you a question:
>>
>>Is it in Oracle's interests to continue developing MySQL as a free,
>>viable and powerful database system?
>>
> Of course it is. But don't let that stop the same people who whined when SUN
> picked it up. It is, at least, entertaining.
Why of course? Please explain.
Michael Austin
Next you will need to learn the OUI (Oracle Universal Intaller) it is
what is used to install everything Oracle these days :)
Jerry Stuckle
Incorrect. MySQL Enterprise is a commercial product for which you must
pay. MySQL Community Edition is free and can be used without restrictions.
The biggest difference is the amount of support available.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
RonB
I hope Oracle keeps these Sun products going full tilt -- OpenOffice,
VirtualBox and mySQL. I guess it's in their interest to do that --
though I thought of mySQL as a potential competitor to Oracle's SQL product.
I'm guessing mySQL is too small in the enterprise to force Oracle to
sell it off?
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Unruh
>On Apr 20, 7:53 am, Ignoramus32638 <ignoramus32...@NOSPAM.
>32638.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2009-04-20, Chuck <chuckh1958_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But it *is* on the list even if it's #3, and this move can't be good for
>> > MySQL, it's employees, or it's customers. Many of us migrated away from
>> > Oracle because of their licensing costs and draconian treatment of
>> > customers. Now we are being sucked back into the black hole we thought
>> > we were free of.
>>
>> Let me ask you a question:
>>
>> Is it in Oracle's interests to continue developing MySQL as a free,
>> viable and powerful database system?
>MySQL is certainly NOT "free". You're confusing it with PostgreSQL.
>MySQL is free to try, free to develop in, free to play around with.
>When you *use* it in a commercial environment, you're expected to
>pay for it.
On my system (Mandriva 2009.0) the claim is that MySQL is GPL license. That
has absolutely nothing about "co0mmercial" in the license. And if you buy a
copy you can give away the copy to whomever you like. Now, it is true that
if Oracle owns the copyright ( including that of all the contributors) then
the threat of GPL removing the license is null and they can do what they
like. But they cannot withdraw previous licenses.
Chuck
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:53:30 -0500, Ignoramus32638
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> But it *is* on the list even if it's #3, and this move can't be good for
>>> MySQL, it's employees, or it's customers. Many of us migrated away from
>>> Oracle because of their licensing costs and draconian treatment of
>>> customers. Now we are being sucked back into the black hole we thought
>>> we were free of.
>> Let me ask you a question:
>>
>> Is it in Oracle's interests to continue developing MySQL as a free,
>> viable and powerful database system?
>>
> picked it up. It is, at least, entertaining.
There's big difference between Sun and Oracle. Sun had a very positive
track record with open source. Oracle is just the opposite and they are
in the habit of buying up competitors to kill them.
Chuck
> I hope Oracle keeps these Sun products going full tilt -- OpenOffice,
> VirtualBox and mySQL. I guess it's in their interest to do that --
> though I thought of mySQL as a potential competitor to Oracle's SQL
> product.
>
> I'm guessing mySQL is too small in the enterprise to force Oracle to
> sell it off?
>
Larry Ellison hates Microsoft. Open Office will continue to be
developed just to be a thorn in Microsoft's side. MySQL will probably
be allowed to die on the vine.
Chuck
> Because MySQL is not a competitor to Oracle.
You are dreaming. MySQL is direct competition for Oracle. Many
companies have dumped Oracle due to the ridiculous licensing costs. They
are finding that though Oracle may have more bells and whistles, MySQL
is perfectly capable of running their applications at a fraction of the
cost.
notbob
No kidding. Our company tried Oracle in one of our divisions as a
experimental replacement for our old unix curses-based database (H-P?).
Cost the company $6 million to customize/license it for the division's M$
based network. What a piece of crap!! Increased workload for users by
almost 100%.
I wouldn't piss on Ellison if he was on fire.
nb
RonB
That's my fear. But could the community edition of MySQL be "forked" and
someone else make up a commercial version if that happened?
I kind of liked the IBM/Sun merger idea, but I'm not a big fan of
Ellison and Oracle.
Ah well. However it works out, I guess it'll work out.
Axel Schwenke
> On Apr 20, 7:53 am, Ignoramus32638 <ignoramus32...@NOSPAM.
>>
>> viable and powerful database system?
>
> MySQL is certainly NOT "free". You're confusing it with PostgreSQL.
Bla. The MySQL source code is free. Even the Enterprise Server code
is available under GPL. Yes its GPL, not BSD license. I regard this
an advantage.
The point is this: MySQL is *also* available under a commercial
license. And some customers like that and pay for it. There is
nothing bad with this.
> When you *use* it in a commercial environment, you're expected to
> pay for it.
You should read the license terms again. You are free to *use* MySQL
in any environment. You are just not allowed to sell it as part of
your own product - except you obey the rules of the GPL or pay for
the commercial license. This is actually better than BSD-style
licensing because it prevents unfree forks.
XL
Jakub Fišer
wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:53 am, Ignoramus32638 <ignoramus32...@NOSPAM.
> 32638.invalid> wrote:
> > On 2009-04-20, Chuck <chuckh1958_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > But it *is* on the list even if it's #3, and this move can't be good for
> > > MySQL, it's employees, or it's customers. Many of us migrated away from
> > > Oracle because of their licensing costs and draconian treatment of
> > > customers. Now we are being sucked back into the black hole we thought
> > > we were free of.
> >
> > Let me ask you a question:
> >
> > Is it in Oracle's interests to continue developing MySQL as a free,
> > viable and powerful database system?
>
> MySQL is certainly NOT "free". You're confusing it with PostgreSQL.
Free as in...?
>
> MySQL is free to try, free to develop in, free to play around with.
> When you *use* it in a commercial environment, you're expected to
> pay for it.
Acually, MySQL uses dual licensing, GPL and some sort of EULA. You cannot be
forced to pay for GPL, dual licensing is there merely for commercial enviroment
where noone wants the GPL "spoil" (i.e. when you use GPL, you must pass it to
all the code which is somehow connected with the GPLed one).
If you do commercial stuff with GPL outptus, you can use GPL version and
not pay a penny.
> From that perspective, Oracle is also "free". I've two or three
> copies
> of "free" Oracle downloaded to my machines.
Not exactly true - Oracle is actually better in this - you can have an Oracle
Free (or Express or whatever it is called) in commercial enviroment for free
unless the database gets over 4GB.
Do not however take this for granted, it's been quite a time I saw this Oracle
for last time....
-miky
--
Jakub Fišer AKA m...@MikyMaus.org
ICQ: I don't see kyou - http://icq.xmpp.cz/
JID: mr.Mi...@jabber.cz
Vyhýbejte se, prosím, přílohám typu Word nebo PowerPoint:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.cs.html
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint, etc. attachments:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Michael Austin
wanna tell how you really feel?
Each database engine has it's strengths and weaknesses, but when it
comes to some of the environments I have had the privilege of working
in, I would not trust MySQL to those particular databases. The issues
would be both TPS and size. I have yet to see anyone capable of
building a MySQL db that is able to load billions of rows/day. The
partitioning features and more importantly the optimizer features
including being able to use more than one index at a time becomes a lot
more crucial when dealing with databases of that size. Next is
recoverability. When your data files are >1TB in size, being able to
recover a single block - with consistency - is far more appealing than
the idiocy of mysqldump.
For my little "blog" site, MySQL is great - although, I have toyed with
using Oracle XE (max 4GB of data - but free).
There is a lot more to choosing IT platforms (hardware, software, OS,
database) than just cost. Sure it plays a role, but, you more often than
not "get what you pay for".
Axel Schwenke
> Chuck wrote:
>>
>> Larry Ellison hates Microsoft. Open Office will continue to be
>> developed just to be a thorn in Microsoft's side. MySQL will probably
>> be allowed to die on the vine.
>
> That's my fear. But could the community edition of MySQL be "forked" and
> someone else make up a commercial version if that happened?
No way. One of the assets of Sun is the ownership of the MySQL code.
Oracle can not withdraw the GPLed code (and thus prevent a fork).
But nobody except them would ever be able to sell a commercial MySQL
license.
Other assets are the MySQL developers. If Oracle scares them away
(those that havent't been scared away by Sun already) then continuing
development on MySQL could become really ... difficult. There is still
hope; i.e. Oracle succeeded to not scare away the InnoDB guys.
Situation is quite similar for MySQL support. Oracle might be able to
continue MySQL support as usual. But if they start to "make money with
software" as they do for Oracle DB, they might find themselves without
paying customers very soon. Customers don't like feeling robbed. Most
people who migrate away from Oracle do this for economical reasons.
Not because Oracle is the technological inferior solution.
XL
Tim Smith
Unruh <unruh...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> It has an open source license (GPL), and that license is still valid.
> If Oracle decides to try to kill it, someone else can pick it up and
> continue it as open source. Now they may stop developing it
> themselves but they cannot stop others.
Maybe...maybe not. This is still an open question. If the FSF is right
and the GPL is a bare copyright license, rather than a contract, then it
probably can be revoked. That aspect of bare licenses is one of the
reasons Rosen's book on open source licensing recommends that open
source licenses be designed to work as contracts rather than as bare
licenses.
--
--Tim Smith
GreyCloud
> On Apr 20, 7:53 am, Ignoramus32638 <ignoramus32...@NOSPAM.
> 32638.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2009-04-20, Chuck <chuckh1958_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But it *is* on the list even if it's #3, and this move can't be good for
>>> MySQL, it's employees, or it's customers. Many of us migrated away from
>>> Oracle because of their licensing costs and draconian treatment of
>>> customers. Now we are being sucked back into the black hole we thought
>>> we were free of.
>> Let me ask you a question:
>>
>> Is it in Oracle's interests to continue developing MySQL as a free,
>> viable and powerful database system?
>
> MySQL is certainly NOT "free". You're confusing it with PostgreSQL.
>
For enterprise it isn't free, but for home users it is.
http://www.sun.com/software/products/mysql/getit.jsp
> MySQL is free to try, free to develop in, free to play around with.
> When you *use* it in a commercial environment, you're expected to
> pay for it.
>
$599 for starters. I haven't looked into the licensing for large setups
tho.
> From that perspective, Oracle is also "free". I've two or three
> copies
> of "free" Oracle downloaded to my machines.
>
> \:-\
We'll have to wait and see how this develops with Oracle at the helm.
--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
GreyCloud
I hadn't much luck with VirtualBox. Wouldn't even install Solaris 10.
It would install OpenSolaris, but couldn't adjust the screen resolution
and keep it that way.
Chris Browne
> Chuck wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>>
>>> I hope Oracle keeps these Sun products going full tilt -- OpenOffice,
>>> VirtualBox and mySQL. I guess it's in their interest to do that --
>>> though I thought of mySQL as a potential competitor to Oracle's SQL
>>> product.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing mySQL is too small in the enterprise to force Oracle to
>>> sell it off?
>>>
>>
>> Larry Ellison hates Microsoft. Open Office will continue to be
>> developed just to be a thorn in Microsoft's side. MySQL will probably
>> be allowed to die on the vine.
>
> That's my fear. But could the community edition of MySQL be "forked"
> and someone else make up a commercial version if that happened?
There have already been a boatload of "forks" of MySQL, between
- Drizzle
- Community Edition vs Enterprise Edition vs Cluster vs Embedded
(which mixes metaphors in various ways, but these *are*
all distinctive releases with varying release policies)
- the "which storage engine not-yet-bought-out-by-Oracle-or-IBM"
will we suggest today thing
- I don't believe that there are any of the "core" developers
left at Sun/Oracle
I don't think that's all the choices to be considered, either...
To propose a particular fork has the possible perceived-disadvantage
that the organization doing the forking would have to choose between:
a) Donating commercial usage of the code to Oracle to sell to
its customers, or
b) Licensing the relevant portions of MySQL(tm) ("a trademark of
Oracle") under the GPL, so that customers using their fork
would be obliged to sublicense under the GPL. Up until now,
"dual licensing" was treated as a *good* thing, but it would
only be Oracle that would be in a position to sell the
"traditional proprietary" form of the license, and their habits
concerning sales of licenses are pretty legendary :-).
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/linuxxian.html
"The only thing better than TV with the sound off is Radio with the
sound off." -- Dave Moon
GreyCloud
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:14:49 -0500, Ignoramus32638
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Reportedly, Oracle is buying Sun, which owns MySQL.
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/With-IBM-out-Oracle-jumps-in-apf-14970043.html
>>
>> Somehow, I do not feel too good about effects of this acquisition on
>> the prospects of MySQL. Oracle would not throw billions of dollars for
>> nothing.
>>
> I am with you on this.
>
> Where is our Government Watch puppies. Other dominant companies suck up a
> competitor and they Howl.
> Software Giants and they hide with their head up their ....
>
> Best Government money can buy :/
The anti-trust regulators were there johny-on-the-spot when IBM was
about to buy Sun.
I think that was what really soured the deal... had to do with tape
storage devices, giving IBM better than 52% of the market.
RonB
> I hadn't much luck with VirtualBox. Wouldn't even install Solaris 10.
> It would install OpenSolaris, but couldn't adjust the screen resolution
> and keep it that way.
I've had good luck with it, but I've only installed other Linuxes, XP
and Windows 2000. PC-BSD 7 is the only thing that I couldn't get
working, but it wasn't supposed to be supported.
Chris Browne
> Ignoramus32638 wrote:
>> On 2009-04-20, General Schvantzkoph <schvan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> The IBM deal had some anti-trust implications but not this
>>> one. There isn't much overlap between Oracle and Sun, MySQL is a
>>> minor part of Sun's business. Also MySQL is open source so they
>>> can't kill it, in fact it's already been forked by some MySQL
>>> developers who left Sun recently.
>>
>> MySQL is a minor part of Sun's business, however database servers are
>> a major part of Oracle business. MySQL may not bring a lot of revenue,
>> but it surely kills a lot of Oracle revenue.
>>
>> How likely will Oracle be to nurture and grow MySQL?
>
> Oracle can always turn MySQL into Oracle Express or something like
> that. An entry level, desktop database, similar to Microsoft
> Access. They can come up with easy migration tools to larger versions
> of Oracle, when people want to upgrade.
This begs the question of why they would want to.
If you need to change the semantics of your application in order to
scale up from "Oracle MySQL Lite" to "Oracle: The Real Thing", then it
would be about as easy to convert to DB2 or Microsoft SQL Server.
It would seem much more attractive to take a stripped down version of
Oracle 11i, as that has the *HUGE* benefit (to Oracle) that it doesn't
impose the need to recode such applications to change from MySQLisms
to Oracleisms.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/spiritual.html
He doesn't have much of a reputation, or so I've heard.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> b) Licensing the relevant portions of MySQL(tm) ("a trademark of
> Oracle") under the GPL, so that customers using their fork
> would be obliged to sublicense under the GPL. Up until now,
> "dual licensing" was treated as a *good* thing, but it would
> only be Oracle that would be in a position to sell the
> "traditional proprietary" form of the license, and their habits
> concerning sales of licenses are pretty legendary :-).
Maybe they'll handle it like this?
http://www.oracle.com/technologies/linux/index.html
The Oracle Unbreakable Linux support program delivers enterprise-class
support for Linux with premier backports, comprehensive management,
indemnification, testing and more, all at significantly lower cost.
(Whatever that bare "lower cost" means).
--
It is easy to find fault, if one has that disposition. There was once a man
who, not being able to find any other fault with his coal, complained that
there were too many prehistoric toads in it.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
Jerry Stuckle
> ThanksButNo wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 7:53 am, Ignoramus32638 <ignoramus32...@NOSPAM.
>> 32638.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2009-04-20, Chuck <chuckh1958_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it *is* on the list even if it's #3, and this move can't be good
>>>> for
>>>> MySQL, it's employees, or it's customers. Many of us migrated away from
>>>> Oracle because of their licensing costs and draconian treatment of
>>>> customers. Now we are being sucked back into the black hole we thought
>>>> we were free of.
>>> Let me ask you a question:
>>>
>>> Is it in Oracle's interests to continue developing MySQL as a free,
>>> viable and powerful database system?
>>
>> MySQL is certainly NOT "free". You're confusing it with PostgreSQL.
>>
>
> For enterprise it isn't free, but for home users it is.
>
> http://www.sun.com/software/products/mysql/getit.jsp
>
>> MySQL is free to try, free to develop in, free to play around with.
>> When you *use* it in a commercial environment, you're expected to
>> pay for it.
>>
>
> $599 for starters. I haven't looked into the licensing for large setups
> tho.
>
$0.00 for starters. http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/
>> From that perspective, Oracle is also "free". I've two or three
>> copies
>> of "free" Oracle downloaded to my machines.
>>
>> \:-\
>
> We'll have to wait and see how this develops with Oracle at the helm.
>
As others have said - Oracle cannot violate the GPL license. All they
can do is not develop it any more. And they can't stop forks.
Nigel Feltham
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:53:30 -0500, Ignoramus32638 wrote:
>
>> On 2009-04-20, Chuck <chuckh19...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But it *is* on the list even if it's #3, and this move can't be good for
>>> MySQL, it's employees, or it's customers. Many of us migrated away from
>>> Oracle because of their licensing costs and draconian treatment of
>>> customers. Now we are being sucked back into the black hole we thought
>>> we were free of.
>>
>> Let me ask you a question:
>>
>> Is it in Oracle's interests to continue developing MySQL as a free,
>> viable and powerful database system?
>>
>> i
>
> The freetards miss the point every time.
> They are always hoping, and wishing and praying.
And you miss the point of it being open source - it doesn't matter what
Oracle do to it, as long as it's being used there will be developers
independently developing a new fork of it. Oracle can't kill off openoffice
for the same reason, they can only shut down the staroffice version.
Palooka
> Maybe...maybe not. This is still an open question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
Palooka
Yousuf Khan
> Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Oracle can always turn MySQL into Oracle Express or something like
> > that. An entry level, desktop database, similar to Microsoft
> > Access. They can come up with easy migration tools to larger versions
> > of Oracle, when people want to upgrade.
>
> This begs the question of why they would want to.
>
> If you need to change the semantics of your application in order to
> scale up from "Oracle MySQL Lite" to "Oracle: The Real Thing", then it
> would be about as easy to convert to DB2 or Microsoft SQL Server.
>
> It would seem much more attractive to take a stripped down version of
> Oracle 11i, as that has the *HUGE* benefit (to Oracle) that it doesn't
> impose the need to recode such applications to change from MySQLisms
> to Oracleisms.
Well, I don't really know the differences between Oracle SQL and MySQL
SQL commands, I just assumed they were all just SQL. Probably my
naivete, since I'm just a Unix admin not a database developer. I just
used to manage a bunch of Oracle servers, and I know what Oracle does at
the bare-metal levels, but not at the programmer levels. So my thinking
was that MySQL doesn't have nearly the kind of performance tuning
features that an Oracle database does. So let's say a small website
starts up, they have a single PC acting as a server initially, and then
as they grow they may find they would need to add servers and the full
features of big Oracle, like clustering, bypassing the file system for
storage, etc.
Another thing to remember is that Oracle is not only inheriting MySQL
through Sun, they are also inheriting Open Office. So all of a sudden
Oracle has a big desktop presence now. Something it's never had before.
Oracle has always talked a great deal about competing against Microsoft,
now it has a chance to put its money where it's mouth is. It can choose
embrace that, and make something out of it, or not.
Yousuf Khan
CBFalconer
> Ignoramus32638 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
>> How likely will Oracle be to nurture and grow MySQL?
>
> --
> gburnore@databasix dot com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> How you look depends on where you go.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gary L. Burnore | нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
> | нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
> DataBasix | нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
> | нлГ 3 4 1 4 2 нГоГ 6 9 0 6 9 нлГ
> Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
> ===========================================================================
> Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
> ===========================================================================
FYI this sig. is 12 lines, and overwide for many systems.
Recommended maxima are 4 lines and 67 chars per line.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Michael B. Trausch
CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> FYI this sig. is 12 lines, and overwide for many systems.
> Recommended maxima are 4 lines and 67 chars per line.
79 chars per line is a reasonable minimum, I know of no standard that
requests anything less.
Why do you state 67?
--- Mike
--
A well-written program is its own heaven; a poorly-written program is
its own hell.
--- The Tao of Programming
Jerry Stuckle
> "Gary L. Burnore" wrote:
>> Ignoramus32638 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>> How likely will Oracle be to nurture and grow MySQL?
>> Very.
>> --
>> gburnore@databasix dot com
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> How you look depends on where you go.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Gary L. Burnore | нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
>> | нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
>> DataBasix | нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
>> | нлГ 3 4 1 4 2 нГоГ 6 9 0 6 9 нлГ
>> Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
>> ===========================================================================
>> Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
>> ===========================================================================
>
> FYI this sig. is 12 lines, and overwide for many systems.
> Recommended maxima are 4 lines and 67 chars per line.
>
Don't bother. Gary is a known troll who has been plonked by most of the
regulars in c.d.m and (and several other newsgroups).
terryc
> Is it in Oracle's interests to continue developing MySQL as a free,
> viable and powerful database system?
AFAIK, MySql isn't that powerful, so unless Oracle release a free
replacement for it, it real purpose will be to encourage people to
upgrade to Oracle when MySql no longer meets demand.
Oracle may see it as a way of expanding their market.
Is there still a free Pc(windowsOS) version?
AV3
> Steve Urbach wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:14:49 -0500, Ignoramus32638
>> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Reportedly, Oracle is buying Sun, which owns MySQL.
>>>
>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/With-IBM-out-Oracle-jumps-in-apf-14970043.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Somehow, I do not feel too good about effects of this acquisition on
>>> the prospects of MySQL. Oracle would not throw billions of dollars for
>>> nothing.
>>> i
>> I am with you on this.
>>
>> Where is our Government Watch puppies. Other dominant companies suck up a
>> competitor and they Howl.
>> Software Giants and they hide with their head up their ....
>>
>> Best Government money can buy :/
>
> The anti-trust regulators were there johny-on-the-spot when IBM was
> about to buy Sun.
> I think that was what really soured the deal... had to do with tape
> storage devices, giving IBM better than 52% of the market.
>
>
According to a business analysis I watched, Oracle saw Solaris going
into potentially unfriendly hands, so they jumped in when I. B. M. shied
away. With Solaris safe, and Sun a profitable corporation without
serious liabilities, the investment should eventually pay off.
--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> FYI this sig. is 12 lines, and overwide for many systems.
>> Recommended maxima are 4 lines and 67 chars per line.
>
> 79 chars per line is a reasonable minimum, I know of no standard
> that requests anything less.
>
> Why do you state 67?
Because many newsreaders wrap the output lines at an arbitrary
level (which absolutely needs to be under 80). I select 67 because
it allows several quoting sessions before the output starts to wrap
nastily. Keeping the sig under that prevents sig wraps.
ZnU
Ignoramus32638 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
> On 2009-04-20, Chuck <chuckh19...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But it *is* on the list even if it's #3, and this move can't be good for
> > MySQL, it's employees, or it's customers. Many of us migrated away from
> > Oracle because of their licensing costs and draconian treatment of
> > customers. Now we are being sucked back into the black hole we thought
> > we were free of.
>
> Let me ask you a question:
>
> Is it in Oracle's interests to continue developing MySQL as a free,
> viable and powerful database system?
There's little market overlap between MySQL and Oracle's high-end cash
cow database products. Keeping MySQL around would allow them to generate
revenue from selling support services, and would also give them
opportunities for upselling.
They aren't likely to invest much effort in making MySQL a free
replacement for their high-end database software, of course, but that
doesn't seem to be what most people wanted from MySQL anyway.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
ZnU
Ignoramus32638 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
> On 2009-04-20, General Schvantzkoph <schvan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The IBM deal had some anti-trust implications but not this one. There
> > isn't much overlap between Oracle and Sun, MySQL is a minor part of Sun's
> > business. Also MySQL is open source so they can't kill it, in fact it's
> > already been forked by some MySQL developers who left Sun recently.
>
> MySQL is a minor part of Sun's business, however database servers are
> a major part of Oracle business. MySQL may not bring a lot of revenue,
> but it surely kills a lot of Oracle revenue.
I doubt that's really the case. If MySQL somehow became completely
unavailable tomorrow, how many of its users would actually switch to
Oracle? I think the vast majority would switch to PostgreSQL.
> How likely will Oracle be to nurture and grow MySQL?
They certainly won't try to move it up-market, but as far as I can see
they benefit more from its success than its failure, as long as it
remains in the low-end of the database market.
ZnU
CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Michael B. Trausch" wrote:
> > CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> FYI this sig. is 12 lines, and overwide for many systems.
> >> Recommended maxima are 4 lines and 67 chars per line.
> >
> > 79 chars per line is a reasonable minimum, I know of no standard
> > that requests anything less.
> >
> > Why do you state 67?
>
> Because many newsreaders wrap the output lines at an arbitrary
> level (which absolutely needs to be under 80). I select 67 because
> it allows several quoting sessions before the output starts to wrap
> nastily. Keeping the sig under that prevents sig wraps.
Newsreaders shouldn't be quoting sigs in the first place.
ZnU
Chris Browne <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote:
The problem with that is that the low-end has already adopted MySQL on a
large scale, already has apps full of MySQLisms, and would be unlikely
to jump to a stripped-down Oracle 11i even if Oracle did start giving
one away tomorrow.
Keeping MySQL around for this market lets them tap into that installed
base. So what if they can't offer higher-end Oracle software as a
drop-in replacement because of technical incompatibilities? That just
gives them an excuse to sell you consulting services to help you with
the upgrade.
Mart van de Wege
> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>> Because MySQL is not a competitor to Oracle.
>
> You are dreaming. MySQL is direct competition for Oracle. Many
> companies have dumped Oracle due to the ridiculous licensing costs.
Maybe websites needing a database backend, yes. And on that Oracle isn't
making a cent anymore, no. But for a lot of other applications, MySQL is
a toy that no serious DBA would consider, and in those fields Oracle is
still making money, and it has competition.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
dennis@home
news:49ec...@news.bnb-lp.com...
> Oracle can always turn MySQL into Oracle Express or something like that.
> An entry level, desktop database, similar to Microsoft Access. They can
> come up with easy migration tools to larger versions of Oracle, when
> people want to upgrade.
You are kidding?
Access should be binned.
You can get SQLserver EE free and that is a far better database.
Last time I looked you could get a version of Oracle free too (I downloaded
it and had a play) but it had commercial restrictions.
Ramon F Herrera
> Well, I don't really know the differences between Oracle SQL and MySQL
> SQL commands, I just assumed they were all just SQL.
It's like the difference between British English vs. US English, give
or take.
-RFH
Man-wai Chang ToDie (+MS=V32B)
> the prospects of MySQL. Oracle would not throw billions of dollars for
> nothing.
1. The MySQL project might fork like XFree86
2. There is still Postgres
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04.2) Linux 2.6.28.9
^ ^ 17:13:01 up 17 days 4:32 1 user load average: 1.19 1.10 1.02
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
The Natural Philosopher
That's a very good point: Open office is in fact for me as a casual
user, streets ahead of MS office.
I would say that a stripped down SUNOS machine with all this on board
would be real competition for a win Pee Cee or an Apple..
> Yousuf Khan
Hadron
Justify that please. As "free" SW it's OK. As a replacement for MSO
(already entrenched) its simply not up to the mark. It's slow, buggy and
often ugly. Just how it is better than MSO?
>
> I would say that a stripped down SUNOS machine with all this on board
> would be real competition for a win Pee Cee or an Apple..
No. In the same way Linux desktops are not. People want to run their
existing SW. On the OS they are familiar with. The boat left
unfortunately. And Oracle are not going to give this stuff away.
>
>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
The Natural Philosopher
> ThanksButNo wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 7:53 am, Ignoramus32638 <ignoramus32...@NOSPAM.
>> 32638.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it *is* on the list even if it's #3, and this move can't be good
>>>> for
>>>> MySQL, it's employees, or it's customers. Many of us migrated away from
>>>> Oracle because of their licensing costs and draconian treatment of
>>>> customers. Now we are being sucked back into the black hole we thought
>>>> we were free of.
>>> Let me ask you a question:
>>>
>>> Is it in Oracle's interests to continue developing MySQL as a free,
>>> viable and powerful database system?
>>
>>
>> When you *use* it in a commercial environment, you're expected to
>> pay for it.
>>
>> copies
>> of "free" Oracle downloaded to my machines.
>>
>> \:-\
>
> pay. MySQL Community Edition is free and can be used without restrictions.
>
> The biggest difference is the amount of support available.
>
And that is a key point.
What costs a company bears with respect to a product that is already
developed are
- continuing development and maintenance
- sales effort
- support.
It's the latter that is, if the user base is high. the most significant
cost of all.
But if wrapped inside a 'support contract' and priced intelligently, its
also a guaranteed revenue stream.
To my mind., Sun has always been a development company: Oracle is a
massive corporate sales and support company, with less development
proportionately. What they have bought is new bits to add to that
support revenue stream.
Whether or not the development forks, or Oracle simply says 'code is
free, we charge for manuals, training, installation and so on' is a moot
point.
What they now have is everything they need, from keyboard to cluster, to
provide a complete alternative to the WinPC in a corporate environment.
I think this is the more relevant paradigm shift: The desktop will now
fork, with WinPc becoming a rather overpriced home machine (which it
always really was) and Sun hardware and software becoming the target
desktop for the corporate user of any size.
Yes, the code base of essentially 'free' software will probably also
fork, but at a corporate level, whethetr you use Linux/free versus sun,
will be a function of teh cost of ionhouse support versus 'otracle' support.
In the home, as the desktop becomes more an more an 'appliance' the same
will apply versus microsoft: If the manufacturer can do the support, a
Ubuntu or other Linux desktop is as good as a WinPc, just cheaper.
I don't see the free code community being as damaged as I see Microsoft
being damaged, really.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <5o2dnR-glLf3EXHU...@giganews.com>,
> Ignoramus32638 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-04-20, Chuck <chuckh19...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But it *is* on the list even if it's #3, and this move can't be good for
>>> MySQL, it's employees, or it's customers. Many of us migrated away from
>>> Oracle because of their licensing costs and draconian treatment of
>>> customers. Now we are being sucked back into the black hole we thought
>>> we were free of.
>> Let me ask you a question:
>>
>> Is it in Oracle's interests to continue developing MySQL as a free,
>> viable and powerful database system?
>
> There's little market overlap between MySQL and Oracle's high-end cash
> cow database products. Keeping MySQL around would allow them to generate
> revenue from selling support services, and would also give them
> opportunities for upselling.
>
> They aren't likely to invest much effort in making MySQL a free
> replacement for their high-end database software, of course, but that
> doesn't seem to be what most people wanted from MySQL anyway.
>
The only worthwhile step would be to make Mysql a platform which could
run a subset of ORACLE code, so that the upwards migration path was easier.
RolandL
>> Somehow, I do not feel too good about effects of this acquisition on
>> the prospects of MySQL. Oracle would not throw billions of dollars for
>> nothing.
>
> 1. The MySQL project might fork like XFree86 2. There is still Postgres
The MySQL project did fork a while back. Sun bought MySQL AB and hired the
developers. When they quit they forked it. Details: wikipedia MySQL. That's
the nice thing about GPL: even though <BigCorp> now owns the copyright on
the current MySQL, the code will live free under another name as long as
there's someone in the community who is interested in it.
Larry doesn't like BillG. I predict OpenOffice (or maybe StarOffice) will get
a boost, maybe even go head-to-head against MS Office. A little competition
in that area will take a lot of that fat off that cash cow.
Maxwell Lol
> You really think Sun wanted to spend a billion dollars for OSS with no
> plan to make money from it?
Is that why their stock price is so high?
Hadron
Sorry?
Peter Köhlmann
> Maxwell Lol <nos...@com.invalid> writes:
>
>> Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> You really think Sun wanted to spend a billion dollars for OSS with no
>>> plan to make money from it?
>>
>> Is that why their stock price is so high?
>
> Sorry?
>
Well, it is
--
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
J G Miller
> Sun is far more than a hardware company and has done pretty well from
> the sw point of view.
Sun Microsystems is also a software support company and has significant
contracts with many major corporations and organizations to provide
support for Sybase and, yes, Oracle.
Support contracts are, over the long term, a much better guarantee of income
and much more profitable than selling hardware, or even software installations
and licenses.
Stephan Rose
Oh for crying out loud. Hadron. WHY am I not the least bit surprised to
see you all dressed up in your MSO cheerleading outfit?
Slow? Care to elaborate what's slow about it? Please tell me you're not
whining about the couple seconds it needs to start up because that'd just
be pathetic.
Buggy? It works plenty fine for me. The spreadsheet app does exactly what
I want to do. If / when I need to write a document, the word app does
exactly what I want to do. I've never had it crash on me. So what's buggy?
Ugly? MSO's fucking RIBBON, THAT IS UGLY!
>
>
>> I would say that a stripped down SUNOS machine with all this on board
>> would be real competition for a win Pee Cee or an Apple..
>
> No. In the same way Linux desktops are not. People want to run their
> existing SW. On the OS they are familiar with. The boat left
> unfortunately. And Oracle are not going to give this stuff away.
I run my existing SW. Firefox works great. Eclipse works great. Pan works
great. Amarok works great. Evolution works great too! That's just naming
a few things of all my existing SW that runs great, and all under 64-bit
as well.
--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT
君の事思い出す日なんてないのは
君の事忘れたときがないから
Hadron
Huh? OO runs on Windows. Think rather than wring your hands.
>
> Slow? Care to elaborate what's slow about it? Please tell me you're not
> whining about the couple seconds it needs to start up because that'd just
> be pathetic.
I use it. It's slow and kludgy comared to MSO.
>
> Buggy? It works plenty fine for me. The spreadsheet app does exactly
> what
not for me. And not for the oodles of others who sometimes work with MSO
documents. Deny that to your peril.
> I want to do. If / when I need to write a document, the word app does
> exactly what I want to do. I've never had it crash on me. So what's
> buggy?
No one cares what YOU do. It is buggy for ME and is buggy for MANY
others. Read the forums.
>
> Ugly? MSO's fucking RIBBON, THAT IS UGLY!
I wouldn't know. I never used it and I daresay one can turn it off.
>
>>
>>
>>> I would say that a stripped down SUNOS machine with all this on board
>>> would be real competition for a win Pee Cee or an Apple..
>>
>> No. In the same way Linux desktops are not. People want to run their
>> existing SW. On the OS they are familiar with. The boat left
>> unfortunately. And Oracle are not going to give this stuff away.
>
> I run my existing SW. Firefox works great. Eclipse works great. Pan
> works
Great for you. Thats good cross platform OSS. Why are you such an in
denial wimp? You know FULL well what was meant.
> great. Amarok works great. Evolution works great too! That's just naming
> a few things of all my existing SW that runs great, and all under 64-bit
> as well.
Goody gum drops. So lets get this straight : you , as an existing OSS
user, can run all your SW on Linux for which versions of that SAME OSS
are available.
OK.
Thanks for screaming and jumping up and down and making ZERO point
whatsoever.
Clearly the context was to attract NEW users to the GOOD OSS and onto
the Linux platform.
I use Amarok, and its a lot more stable than it was but the general
paradigm shift needed for the UI sucks donkey's dicks. The playlist
handling is a joke. There are some GREAT features on it though.
Stephan Rose
So you're saying that if one runs OO on windows then it is a replacement
for MSO but if one runs it under Linux it isn't? I mean, why else would
you bring up the fact that it runs under windows?
>
>
>> Slow? Care to elaborate what's slow about it? Please tell me you're not
>> whining about the couple seconds it needs to start up because that'd
>> just be pathetic.
>
> I use it. It's slow and kludgy comared to MSO.
*what* is slow and kludgy? Be specific!!
>
>
>> Buggy? It works plenty fine for me. The spreadsheet app does exactly
>> what
>
> not for me. And not for the oodles of others who sometimes work with MSO
> documents. Deny that to your peril.
I frequently open MSO documents, edit them, and re-save as MSO. Works
plenty fine. About the only MSO document we've had problems with was a
docx file from the new Office 2007 that only OO around here was able to
open. None of the machines the building running Office 2003 were able to.
>
>> I want to do. If / when I need to write a document, the word app does
>> exactly what I want to do. I've never had it crash on me. So what's
>> buggy?
>
> No one cares what YOU do. It is buggy for ME and is buggy for MANY
> others. Read the forums.
Here's a hint: Forums are primarily used for *support* in many cases! So
NO SHIT! You read support forums, guess what, you will find users that
need help!! Damn, what an odd coincidence!
Man, you would seriously manage to walk into a hospital and proclaim the
entire human race is about to die because there are sick people in a
hospital.
>
>
>> Ugly? MSO's fucking RIBBON, THAT IS UGLY!
>
> I wouldn't know. I never used it and I daresay one can turn it off.
You daresay? Ok, so you don't actually know, as usual.
>>
>>>
>>>> I would say that a stripped down SUNOS machine with all this on board
>>>> would be real competition for a win Pee Cee or an Apple..
>>>
>>> No. In the same way Linux desktops are not. People want to run their
>>> existing SW. On the OS they are familiar with. The boat left
>>> unfortunately. And Oracle are not going to give this stuff away.
>>
>> I run my existing SW. Firefox works great. Eclipse works great. Pan
>> works
>
> Great for you. Thats good cross platform OSS. Why are you such an in
> denial wimp? You know FULL well what was meant.
>
>
>
>> great. Amarok works great. Evolution works great too! That's just
>> naming a few things of all my existing SW that runs great, and all
>> under 64-bit as well.
>
> Goody gum drops. So lets get this straight : you , as an existing OSS
> user, can run all your SW on Linux for which versions of that SAME OSS
> are available.
>
That actually is incorrect. Evolution is not available for windows and
hence windows could not run all my software.
>
> Thanks for screaming and jumping up and down and making ZERO point
> whatsoever.
You're the one screaming and jumping up and down waving your MSO pompoms
around dressed up in a MS cheerleading uniform.
>
> Clearly the context was to attract NEW users to the GOOD OSS and onto
> the Linux platform.
Actually the context read more something like this:
"Whaaa, OO sucks. MSO rules."
chrisv
> Quack snotted:
>>
>> Goody gum drops. So lets get this straight : you , as an existing OSS
>> user, can run all your SW on Linux for which versions of that SAME OSS
>> are available.
>
>That actually is incorrect. Evolution is not available for windows and
>hence windows could not run all my software.
>
>> Thanks for screaming and jumping up and down and making ZERO point
>> whatsoever.
Being able to accomplish the computing tasks that most peole need to
do, using Free and Open software, is "ZERO" point, "true Linux
advocate" Hadron Quack?
You are a fsckwit, Quack.
>You're the one screaming and jumping up and down waving your MSO pompoms
>around dressed up in a MS cheerleading uniform.
Hadron Quack's hatred of Linux, and of FOSS, is palpable.
>> Clearly the context was to attract NEW users to the GOOD OSS and onto
>> the Linux platform.
>
>Actually the context read more something like this:
>
>"Whaaa, OO sucks. MSO rules."
Hadron Quack argues that there's little reason for anyone to switch to
Linux. According to Hadron Quack, all the "good" OSS runs on Windwoes
as well, and people should just stick with Windows.
Did you know that Hadron Quack is a "true Linux advocate"? According
to him, anyways.
--
"choice : for the brain dead." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
ZnU
The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > Another thing to remember is that Oracle is not only inheriting MySQL
> > through Sun, they are also inheriting Open Office. So all of a sudden
> > Oracle has a big desktop presence now. Something it's never had before.
> > Oracle has always talked a great deal about competing against Microsoft,
> > now it has a chance to put its money where it's mouth is. It can choose
> > embrace that, and make something out of it, or not.
> >
>
> That's a very good point: Open office is in fact for me as a casual
> user, streets ahead of MS office.
>
> I would say that a stripped down SUNOS machine with all this on board
> would be real competition for a win Pee Cee or an Apple..
Sun doesn't really have any particular expertise on the desktop. Oracle
has even less.
Chris Browne
> On Apr 20, 6:59 pm, Chris Browne <cbbro...@acm.org> wrote:
>> Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > Oracle can always turn MySQL into Oracle Express or something like
>> > that. An entry level, desktop database, similar to Microsoft
>> > Access. They can come up with easy migration tools to larger versions
>> > of Oracle, when people want to upgrade.
>>
>> This begs the question of why they would want to.
>>
>> If you need to change the semantics of your application in order to
>> scale up from "Oracle MySQL Lite" to "Oracle: The Real Thing", then it
>> would be about as easy to convert to DB2 or Microsoft SQL Server.
>>
>> It would seem much more attractive to take a stripped down version of
>> Oracle 11i, as that has the *HUGE* benefit (to Oracle) that it doesn't
>> impose the need to recode such applications to change from MySQLisms
>> to Oracleisms.
>
> Well, I don't really know the differences between Oracle SQL and MySQL
> SQL commands, I just assumed they were all just SQL.
There are *considerable* behavioral differences...
- What does NULL mean? Oracle and MySQL have *quite* distinct
behaviors!
- What kinds of dates and times are considered valid, and how are they
stored? Again, quite distinct behaviors!
- What locking takes place when multiple connections are acting on
related data? This varies *considerably*!
- How do columns take on automatically incrementing values, as are
commonly used for internal "ID" columns?
- What kinds of data validation are done? What happens if the values
do not conform with the declared constraints? Does the DBMS return
an error, or does it silently change the data?
In each of these areas, Oracle and MySQL have *considerably* different
sets of behavior at these (and probably other) edges. It's quite
common for applications to have quite a lot of code to deal with the
respective edges.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #151. "I will not set myself up as a
god. That perilous position is reserved for my trusted lieutenant."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Yousuf Khan
> You are kidding?
> Access should be binned.
> You can get SQLserver EE free and that is a far better database.
But it has considerable setup complexities compared to Access. Many
departments just need a quick and simple database to hold departmental
data, and they don't need all of the performance that a full SQL-style
RDBMS has.
MySQL is relatively easy to setup, should be just as easy as Access on a
Windows environment. That should be very attractive to departments. An
Oracle rep might be able to get into a department offer Open Office &
MySQL, and come back in a couple of years and offer upgrades from MySQL
to Oracle, and even sell them a couple of Sun servers to hold the new
database.
> Last time I looked you could get a version of Oracle free too (I
> downloaded it and had a play) but it had commercial restrictions.
Exactly, has all kinds of restrictions. The MS Access and MySQL won't
have any imposed restrictions other than simple physical limits, i.e.
trying to do too much with them than they were designed for.
Yousuf Khan
sheldonlg
.. and Oracle does not have an auto-increment feature. You have to
create a sequence.
GreyCloud
AV3 wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote:
>> Steve Urbach wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:14:49 -0500, Ignoramus32638
>>> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32638.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reportedly, Oracle is buying Sun, which owns MySQL.
>>>>
>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/With-IBM-out-Oracle-jumps-in-apf-14970043.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Somehow, I do not feel too good about effects of this acquisition on
>>>> the prospects of MySQL. Oracle would not throw billions of dollars for
>>>> nothing.
>>>> i
>>> I am with you on this.
>>>
>>> Where is our Government Watch puppies. Other dominant companies suck
>>> up a
>>> competitor and they Howl.
>>> Software Giants and they hide with their head up their ....
>>>
>>> Best Government money can buy :/
>>
>> The anti-trust regulators were there johny-on-the-spot when IBM was
>> about to buy Sun.
>> I think that was what really soured the deal... had to do with tape
>> storage devices, giving IBM better than 52% of the market.
>>
>>
>
>
> According to a business analysis I watched, Oracle saw Solaris going
> into potentially unfriendly hands, so they jumped in when I. B. M. shied
> away. With Solaris safe, and Sun a profitable corporation without
> serious liabilities, the investment should eventually pay off.
>
>
I hope so. Sun profit last year as I have read was in negative
territory... somewhere around $1billion loss
even thought they sold about $23billion in hardware/software.
I'd like to see JavaDesktop improved on some more. Having some of the
fonts anti-aliased is pretty good,
but some apps that rely on older code use the older straight fonts and
makes reading them a bit difficult
on more modern displays.
--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
Steve Urbach
<snip>
>> - How do columns take on automatically incrementing values, as are
>> commonly used for internal "ID" columns?
>>
>> - What kinds of data validation are done? What happens if the values
>> do not conform with the declared constraints? Does the DBMS return
>> an error, or does it silently change the data?
>>
>> In each of these areas, Oracle and MySQL have *considerably* different
>> sets of behavior at these (and probably other) edges. It's quite
>> common for applications to have quite a lot of code to deal with the
>> respective edges.
>
>.. and Oracle does not have an auto-increment feature. You have to
>create a sequence.
IMHO This is a good thing :)
AI is fragile on some desktop DB's and can lose/re- sequence.
Don't worry, just "Roll your own", then you have no one to blame except
yourself :)
Chris Browne
> Chris Browne wrote:
>> - How do columns take on automatically incrementing values, as are
>> commonly used for internal "ID" columns?
> .. and Oracle does not have an auto-increment feature. You have to
> create a sequence.
Indeed.
There are two main models for this:
a) There are databases that conform to SQL-1992, in implementing
"sequence objects" whose values may be attached to tables.
This includes Oracle, DB2, PostgreSQL, and probably others.
b) Some databases instead implement "auto-incrementing columns."
Sybase seems to be the originator of this approach, which was
replicated by Microsoft and MySQL AB in their respective products.
When I said "take on automatically incrementing values," I quite
consciously did not indicate the use of one model or the other. MySQL
and Oracle are in different "camps" on this one...
Personally, I strongly prefer the use of sequences, but I wasn't
intending to promote any "moral preferences" - my purpose was to point
out that there are Real Differences that would seem likely to make it
futile to rebrand some form of MySQL as "Oracle Lite."
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> Larry doesn't like BillG. I predict OpenOffice (or maybe
> StarOffice) will get a boost, maybe even go head-to-head against
> MS Office. A little competition in that area will take a lot of
> that fat off that cash cow.
I think it's about time to ease off on Billy Boy. He is no longer
concerned with managing Microsoft, and seems to be worrying
entirely about doing good things for the world. This appears, to
me, to be the end effect of his marriage and kids. But go ahead
and pick on MS. :-)
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Michael B. Trausch" wrote:
>>> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> FYI this sig. is 12 lines, and overwide for many systems.
>>>> Recommended maxima are 4 lines and 67 chars per line.
>>>
>>> 79 chars per line is a reasonable minimum, I know of no
>>> standard that requests anything less.
>>>
>>> Why do you state 67?
>>
>> Because many newsreaders wrap the output lines at an arbitrary
>> level (which absolutely needs to be under 80). I select 67
>> because it allows several quoting sessions before the output
>> starts to wrap nastily. Keeping the sig under that prevents
>> sig wraps.
>
> Newsreaders shouldn't be quoting sigs in the first place.
However wrapping the sig on original transmission fails to leave
the correct impression.
The Natural Philosopher
> RolandL wrote:
> ... snip ...
>> Larry doesn't like BillG. I predict OpenOffice (or maybe
>> StarOffice) will get a boost, maybe even go head-to-head against
>> MS Office. A little competition in that area will take a lot of
>> that fat off that cash cow.
>
> I think it's about time to ease off on Billy Boy. He is no longer
> concerned with managing Microsoft, and seems to be worrying
> entirely about doing good things for the world. This appears, to
> me, to be the end effect of his marriage and kids. But go ahead
> and pick on MS. :-)
>
Tim Smith
sheldonlg <sheldonlg> wrote:
>
> .. and Oracle does not have an auto-increment feature. You have to
> create a sequence.
In other words, Oracle follows the SQL standard, and MySQL does not.
None of the major databases actually does a good job of following the
standard, but MySQL seems to be the most egregious violator, leading to
a lot of people finding that their database code has ended up being
MySQL-specific.
--
--Tim Smith
terryc
>> That's a very good point: Open office is in fact for me as a casual
>> user, streets ahead of MS office.
>
> Justify that please. As "free" SW it's OK. As a replacement for MSO
> (already entrenched) its simply not up to the mark. It's slow, buggy and
> often ugly. Just how it is better than MSO?
True WordPerfect Office is far better than either for real work {:-).
Open Office suffices for the casual user without the bloat and cost of MS
Office.