What Does Oracle’s Buyout of Sun Mean to Open Source?

UnixGuy

Wazi Articles What Does Oracle’s Buyout of Sun Mean to Open Source?

binarysoul

It's bad news. When a corporation takes over open-source, they close the source.

UnixGuy

let's hope not...

Hyper-Me

I work with a guy that thinks MySQL is superior to both MS SQL and Oracle databases. He's even tried installing MS products and force them to use MySQL which generally isnt gonna happen.

I've been making fun of him and saying I hope MySQL goes away

I dont really wish it does, but its funny making him all pissy over it.

dynamik

And Sun owns MySQL

/headache

elover_jm

And i think they are about to buyout MySQL..... I guess they are targeting Small to Medium size companies with their product which microsoft SQL Server now enjoys.

eMeS

First, the article that you've linked is from May 1st. Much as happened since then.

Sun's ownership of MySQL is what's holding up completion of the buyout.

The EU was scheduled to rule on the buyout in early September, but declined for more time to review the situation. My understanding is that now the EU will decide "around the first of the year".

A couple of things:

1) The EU is concerned about what Oracle will do with MySQL, given that Oracle is in the business of selling database technology, not giving it away.

2) The EU is concerned about protecting some of SAP's market.

Personally, I think that the 2nd item is a lot of what's held up the buyout.

It's very likely that Oracle will be forced to spin MySQL AB back into it's own company if the takeover of Sun is to proceed.

MS

RobertKaucher

Hyper-Me wrote: »

I work with a guy that thinks MySQL is superior to both MS SQL and Oracle databases. He's even tried installing MS products and force them to use MySQL which generally isnt gonna happen.

I've been making fun of him and saying I hope MySQL goes away

I dont really wish it does, but its funny making him all pissy over it.

Start calling it MyOracle.

Hyper-Me

Someone is absolutely brilliant....

eMeS

Hyper-Me wrote: »

Someone is absolutely brilliant....

I got neg rep too...it said, "Stop being a *****." Was this from you?

Nothing you said in this thread I felt warranted the neg rep you received, and as I told you in my PM, I was not the source of your neg rep.

I'm somewhat judicious in my use of the rep feature, negative or positive, and I usually remember to put my handle in the rep response...

MS

HeroPsycho

Hyper-Me wrote: »

Someone is absolutely brilliant....

Why do you insist on whining everytime someone neg reps you? Trust me, it has no bearing on whether or not you get laid.

P.S. No, it wasn't me.

RobertKaucher

HeroPsycho wrote: »

Why do you insist on whining everytime someone neg reps you? Trust me, it has no bearing on whether or not you get laid.

Then what's the point in having it? If my rep isn't going to help me score, I may just quit this forum entirely!

HeroPsycho

Well, I do know that if you get more rep than dynamik, he'll hump your leg. That's why I personally invite negative rep as much as possible.

dynamik

HeroPsycho wrote: »

Well, I do know that if you get more rep than dynamik, he'll hump your leg. That's why I personally invite negative rep as much as possible.

Don't you mean that's why you neg rep me as much as possible?

UnixGuy

HeroPsycho wrote: »

Why do you insist on whining everytime someone neg reps you? Trust me, it has no bearing on whether or not you get laid.

P.S. No, it wasn't me.

I think because he's giving the rep much importance, people are using it to bug him.

No it's not me either, I never give anybody neg rep yet. I don't think I'll ever give it.

UnixGuy

You are absolutely right about the date of the article. I've been following the approval of the buyout closely, and Sun keeps updating us by email.


My intentions is to show how important this buyout is, specially that some people are not really aware of Sun's importance/contribution to the OpenSource world.

I don't know what will happen, but I'm sure after this buyout, a lot of things will change forever.

eMeS wrote: »

First, the article that you've linked is from May 1st. Much as happened since then.

Sun's ownership of MySQL is what's holding up completion of the buyout.

The EU was scheduled to rule on the buyout in early September, but declined for more time to review the situation. My understanding is that now the EU will decide "around the first of the year".

A couple of things:

1) The EU is concerned about what Oracle will do with MySQL, given that Oracle is in the business of selling database technology, not giving it away.

2) The EU is concerned about protecting some of SAP's market.

Personally, I think that the 2nd item is a lot of what's held up the buyout.

It's very likely that Oracle will be forced to spin MySQL AB back into it's own company if the takeover of Sun is to proceed.

MS

eMeS

UnixGuy wrote: »

You are absolutely right about the date of the article. I've been following the approval of the buyout closely, and Sun keeps updating us by email.


My intentions is to show how important this buyout is, specially that some people are not really aware of Sun's importance/contribution to the OpenSource world.

I don't know what will happen, but I'm sure after this buyout, a lot of things will change forever.

You're right...it is very important. Personally I wish that IBM had purchased Sun instead of Oracle. My concern is more for the future of Java and how that will affect IBM's product line, which is almost 100% Java/Eclipse based, than the future of MySQL.

Here's how I think this plays out...MySQL gets spun out and the change of control occurs in early January. I also think that Java is too big on its own for Oracle to do much with it, but it won't be driven the same way it was by Sun.

Another interesting thing is what happens to the agreement between Oracle and HP once Oracle has its own hardware....

MS

tenrou

I thought Oracle had already canceled/said it wont renew it's deal with HP? I fully expect Sparc to be the defacto platfrom for Oracle implimentation in the future.

I'm pure Microsoft so I've not got much of an input at the moment but if the commisson rules on spinning of MySQL surely that removes a large chunk of the reason for Oracles purchse? I doubt they care about Java and the hardware business isn't going to recoup the take over value.

UnixGuy

eMeS wrote: »

You're right...it is very important. Personally I wish that IBM had purchased Sun instead of Oracle. My concern is more for the future of Java and how that will affect IBM's product line, which is almost 100% Java/Eclipse based, than the future of MySQL.

Here's how I think this plays out...MySQL gets spun out and the change of control occurs in early January. I also think that Java is too big on its own for Oracle to do much with it, but it won't be driven the same way it was by Sun.

Another interesting thing is what happens to the agreement between Oracle and HP once Oracle has its own hardware....

MS

I agree that Java is too big for Oracle, and I can't predict what's going to happen with that.

I was glad that IBM didn't take the contract because I was afraid IBM will kill Solaris for AIX and SPARC for its own hardware products line


It'd be nice if MySQL gets spun out.

Regarding Oracle/HP, they already called it off, I put a link few months ago about that.

eMeS

tenrou wrote: »

I'm pure Microsoft so I've not got much of an input at the moment but if the commisson rules on spinning of MySQL surely that removes a large chunk of the reason for Oracles purchse? I doubt they care about Java and the hardware business isn't going to recoup the take over value.

Are you implying that Oracle bought Sun because of MySQL?

Unlikely. Oracle doesn't need another database product. Especially not a free one.

Sun purchased MySQL primarily as an additional source of sales leads. Largely Sun left MySQL AB intact.

I'd say it's most likely that Oracle wants Sun for the hardware and OS business, as well as the various patents that Sun holds.

MS

eMeS

UnixGuy wrote: »

I agree that Java is too big for Oracle, and I can't predict what's going to happen with that.

This is the million dollar question in this whole deal.

UnixGuy wrote: »

I was glad that IBM didn't take the contract because I was afraid IBM will kill Solaris for AIX and SPARC for its own hardware products line

From a de facto standpoint they've done that already. Every other OS and hardware vendor has been poaching from Sun since the dot com bust, and the rate of poach has accelerated while the takeover has been in limbo. You're right though, if IBM flat out purchased Sun, Sun would have become akin to what Compaq, and ultimately HP, did with DEC.

Also, it's likely that IBM stopped pursuing the deal because DOJ would not have approved that purchase.

UnixGuy wrote: »

It'd be nice if MySQL gets spun out.

Very likely is my understanding.

UnixGuy wrote: »

Regarding Oracle/HP, they already called it off, I put a link few months ago about that.

Didn't know this...it's a bit surprising since the deal was relatively new from what I remember.

MS

Hyper-Me

HeroPsycho wrote: »

Why do you insist on whining everytime someone neg reps you? Trust me, it has no bearing on whether or not you get laid.

P.S. No, it wasn't me.

I dont do it everytime, i do it when someone neg reps me for a stupid ass reason.

What part of my post said anything about thinking MS SQL was better than MySQL? All I said was that you cant install most MS products into a MySQL DB....thats microsofts doing, not mine.

Why do you insist on being a jackass every 10 minutes?

tenrou

Sorry I may be being stupid here but I can't see why Oracle wouldn't want MySQL. They get to buy an opposing product and either shelf it or monetize it. Either way they are going to seriously benefit from it.

The Solaris OS has been losing ground to competing OSes from what I've read and been told and Sparcs highly threaded CPU architecture is far more suited to smaller web transactions. It could end up being detrimental for Oracle to force users onto a hardware platfrom that perfoms negatively to current x64 options.

HeroPsycho

Hyper-Me wrote: »

Why do you insist on being a jackass every 10 minutes?

Dude, I'm not the one negative repping you. I'm only asking because you're not helping yourself by whining about it. People are just gonna keep doing it because it clearly bothers you.

But hey, so be it if trying to give a suggestion constitutes being a jackass, by all means, keep doing what you're doing. Can't argue with the results!

eMeS

tenrou wrote: »

Sorry I may be being stupid here but I can't see why Oracle wouldn't want MySQL. They get to buy an opposing product and either shelf it or monetize it. Either way they are going to seriously benefit from it.

Because MySQL is not a true competitor to Oracle's database products. Not even close. That's like saying MS Access competes with Oracle. MySQL and Oracle's products do not compete in the same market space.

Additionally, there's a rule of thumb that basically says "once people have had something for free, they are very unlikely to want to pay for it". Sun didn't start charging for MySQL when they acquired MySQL AB, and neither would Oracle.

tenrou wrote: »

The Solaris OS has been losing ground to competing OSes from what I've read and been told and Sparcs highly threaded CPU architecture is far more suited to smaller web transactions. It could end up being detrimental for Oracle to force users onto a hardware platform that performs negatively to current x64 options.

I might be off target, but I just don't know what you mean by x64? Do you mean x86 or x86-64? Solaris runs on x86-64, so Oracle could conceivably sell the SPARC hardware or other hardware as it's a fit. Remember, they will acquire significant manufacturing know how/capacity from Sun. They could keep making SPARC stuff or they could license something from Intel or AMD...who knows what they might do. Acquiring the capability gives them many many options.

I would suspect that they had to make some commitments to DOJ about keeping the SPARC stuff going. It's popular with the military, and many of the Navy's ships are heavy users of Sun Ray.

I think what you really mean is the host OS, or in the case of Oracle's database products Unix vs. Linux vs. Windows.

I don't know this to be a fact, but I'd put money on Oracle's sales largely being for databases hosted on Unix and/or Linux, with the Windows side making up a small (tiny) percentage. In fact, in any production environment where I've encountered Oracle databases they've either been on some variant of Unix or Linux. At one point they used to have some products that ran in a mainframe environment as well.

There's some people on here who will probably challenge your comment. While I agree that Solaris has lost market share, I don't know that you can say that Oracle's products run better on x86 architecture. In fact, in my experience their products tended to run equally bad on all platforms. Additionally, Sun sells a lot of hardware to the military, and as I learned in a thread here earlier this year, in the EMEA market.

I think if you look at Oracle as a company, and compare them to their largest competitor, which is IBM, the biggest difference is the lack of their own hardware and OS products.

MS

eMeS

HeroPsycho wrote: »

Dude, I'm not the one negative repping you. I'm only asking because you're not helping yourself by whining about it. People are just gonna keep doing it because it clearly bothers you.

But hey, so be it if trying to give a suggestion constitutes being a jackass, by all means, keep doing what you're doing. Can't argue with the results!

Besides, the statement is really inaccurate, because everyone knows that you're a jackass every 2 minutes.

Seriously, Hero is probably one of the most laid-back, easy to get along with and well-respected people on this board, so I can't see that calling him names adds much value.

MS

UnixGuy

tenrou wrote: »

Sorry I may be being stupid here but I can't see why Oracle wouldn't want MySQL. They get to buy an opposing product and either shelf it or monetize it. Either way they are going to seriously benefit from it.

The Solaris OS has been losing ground to competing OSes from what I've read and been told and Sparcs highly threaded CPU architecture is far more suited to smaller web transactions. It could end up being detrimental for Oracle to force users onto a hardware platfrom that perfoms negatively to current x64 options.

Oracle's CEO "Larry" said formally that Oracle's intention is to deliver application to desk solution. He also said he wants to increase investment in SPARC and Sun Storage. He said he will optimize SPARC chip and Solaris to give better performance when running Oracle DB.


We used to suffer when upgrading hardware that runs Oracle DB because Oracle charges per CPU core...so Oracle has a way to charge "nicely" when it comes to hardware and licensing.


As far as IT professionals concerned, specially people like me (Sun Hardware/Solaris specialists), it's always safer and better for us to diversify our experience so we can have better understanding of technology and eventually take better business decisions.

eMeS

UnixGuy wrote: »

Oracle's CEO "Larry" said formally that Oracle's intention is to deliver application to desk solution. He also said he wants to increase investment in SPARC and Sun Storage. He said he will optimize SPARC chip and Solaris to give better performance when running Oracle DB.

Yeah, and getting Sun Ray allows him to achieve the "thin-client" stuff he was rambling about in the early 90's.

MS

RobertKaucher

Have you guys heard the latest on this? Does not look like the EU is going to approve...

eMeS

RobertKaucher wrote: »

Have you guys heard the latest on this? Does not look like the EU is going to approve...

Link?

Link? (7 characters)

RobertKaucher

It was on NPR's Market Place Morning Report. It seems the European Commission is really getting hung up on what happens with MySQL. here is the only thing I could find but it was not the story I heard this morning (though they were similar).

Commission may block Oracle-Sun deal | Marketplace From American Public Media