Oracle guru speaks peace, MySQL old-guard cautious

And I would think Oracle should also. Its much easier to use PostgreSQL interchagably with Oracle than MySQL because PostgreSQL's SQL, stored procedure syntax, types and way of doing things like sequence generation are generally closer to Oracle than MySQL's are. PostgreSQL is also closer to DB2 as well, which is probably the other most capable commercial database next to Oracle.

I get the feeling that for non-PHP use, PostgreSQL is very popular.

I see PostgreSQL used in more mission-critical apps. Billing data and such. A friend of mine is a PostgreSQL admin for a national wireless carrier.

pandora.com uses postgres -

My boss and I were talking about this a little the other day. His theory is that Oracle is probably doing about the same thing Cisco did when they bought Linksys - breaking into a new market they couldn't otherwise. Acquiring MySQL gives Oracle access to the whole market of businesses that want commercial db support (a la MySQL), but can't afford/don't want to pay for a "high end" system like Oracle DB. At least that's his theory. It makes sense, but I guess we'll see if Oracle has the sense to see it. :)

I don't think your boss understands the function of Freedom w.r.t. Free Software. There was nothing stopping Oracle from building a custom GPL'd setup of MySQL, something for which they could sell support a la Red Hat. They didn't need to buy an entire company.

He understands quite well.

That said, good point...but then, why build it yourself when you can just buy out someone who already has? *looks at MS* :P

It will be interesting to see what exactly Oracle ends up doing with all the various parts of Sun....

@gus: Perhaps Oracle needed to buy the MySQL knowledge it needs to adequately support it?

Oracle probably is looking to expand their stack beyond the software, into the hardware.

MySQL really brings nothing new to the table for Oracle.

Quoting:MySQL really brings nothing new to the table for Oracle.

It brings to their table an entire industry built on LAMP servers, to which they had no access before.

With all the kazillion code and execution analysis tools at Oracle's disposal already, they didn't have to buy all of Sun Microsystems to be able to capitalize on a highly-tuned MySQL.

Quoting:why build it yourself when you can just buy out someone who already has?

Except that Sun didn't build it, either. They also bought out someone who already has. And Monty is still kicking himself for giving up custodianship of his "baby."

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm------

Did Oracle buy MsSQL or did they buy Sun Microsystems?

Are we letting the tail wag the dog, just because we see Oracle in DB space and MySQL in DB space?

Exactly, dino. That's my point.

gus3 -

Just like Microsoft-Novell. Make the whole deal about 1 little part of the whole.

Okay, dino, I'm confused and caffeine-deprived. Could you please explain the parallels? Maybe even some drawing with stick-figures...

No parallels between the deals except each had one component that everybody glommed onto.

Oracle buys Sun, which owns MySQL, so Oracle buys MySQL. True as far as it goes, but only one part of a bigger deal.

Ditto for Microsoft-Novell and the patent protection fiasco. Novell had a big deal on the table with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake and Microsoft introduced a "feature" that didn't sound like a deal-breaker. Not a smart move by Novell, unless saying no would have killed the larger deal, but not one they gave a whole lot of attention to.

Okay, that sounds more reasonable than what I thought you were saying.

(don't ask ;-)

>(don't ask ;-)

If you thought I was saying, "Clams got legs!', not only were you closer than you think, but Johnny Hart is smiling somewhere in the great beyong.