There are no plans. MySQL is not a bottleneck for us.

And Java was the main reason to take over Sun. So don’t worry about mysql.

Thank you very much.

What I don’t quite ‘get’ about Oracle and MySQL is just why Oracle wants/needs MySQL. I’m not familiar with MySQL related financials however how does Oracle intend to make a financial profit from MySQL? or does MySQL offer some strategic advantage? Or, as you mention, EAS, is this a competitive strategy being employed by Oracle?

MySQL 5.4 Feature Summary

“Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.

This documentation is NOT distributed under a GPL license. Use of this documentation is subject to the following terms: You may create a printed copy of this documentation solely for your own personal use …”

No, there is a guarantee they will be free, that’s the point: the GPL.

I don’t understand how Matt has reassured that MySQL will be around and free.

Matt doesn’t own MySQL/Sun/Oracle, so there’s no guarantee that they will be free.

Not saying it won’t either.

It seems to me that there is very little Oracle could that makes much difference for open source projects and web services built on open source that are happy using mySQL now. They could screw the codebase up, but that would just lend momentum to fork.

What they can do is slow mySQL down. They can divert their internal resources away from development and maintenence. They can make licensing for use in closed source products more expensive, which might drive away some 3rd party vendors and users, reducing the pool of potential competitors. The uncertainty they are already causing can cause new and existing open source projects to question their commitment and lea to them supporting something like Postgres instead of or in addition to mySQL. This ends up diluting the mySQL community.

It is hard not to imagine that this willbe good for Postgres (even though I think there are still some Postgres devs on Sun’s payroll). It’s also good for drizzle, and anyone for whom the Drizzles roadmap is more attractive than muSQL’s.

This certainly gives Oracle more influence over a disruptor that is probably eating up into their DB business from the low end and it allows them to draw revenue from people who wouldn’t otherwise be Oracle customers (or not for long) without seriously threatening pricepoints on Oracle “classic”

I think though that the acqusition is aS much about keeping Sun’s customer base out of the hands of anyone who has a real competitor to Oracle’s DB and enterprise apps.

ps: maybe Oracle bought Sun because Sun bought MySQL enabling Sun to provide full packages of software(app server/db… and hardware; 2 fisherman fishing in the same pool.
Now it’s one big ship fishing in that pool.. easier to throw some things overboard and stack other stuff in the same container?

You never miss a beat do you Matt? 🙂

Do you really think that this deal has the honest to god potential to be a watershed moment for Drizzle? How have the economics for MySQL users changed? In what ways has this change in ownership really changed anything about how the source is governed and distributed? How conscious were people of the fact that MySQL was purchased by Sun in the first place (outside of the Valley that is)? And if *that* change in ownership didn’t adversely affect MySQL users, why on earth would this one?

Kaget juga baca postingan mas Vavai di Planet Terasi, tentang akuisisi Sun Microsystems oleh Oracle. Sun itu bukan perusahaan ecek-ecek lho. Java, Solaris, OpenOffice, MySQL, VirtualBox, itu baru sebagian dari “kekayaan” Sun. Tapi justru mu…