| |||||||||||||
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)Posted Oct 18, 2006 22:19 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) by peace Parent article: Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)
MySQL currently is not a threat. But it could be.
Just the same way Linux a few years ago was not a threat to propriatory business. Because of things like this:
Postgresql will never be a threat becuase of it's license. It's not a competitor, the bsd license doesn't allow that. This is not a bad thing, this is just how I think it works. If Postgresql was ever to get as good as Oracle, then Oracle would take the code, improve on it, and release it as a closed source product. They don't even have to tell anybody what they did.
With Mysql they can't do this.
Ok, I know there is a lot of anti-MySQL sentiment with a lot of people, but look at it from the perspective of 'pointy haired boss'. You know the people that make the decisions and have less of the knowledge.
There are several facts to take into considuration:
2. That although Oracle is going to have features and capabilities that extend beyond MySQL's, the majority of low to mid range users that buy Oracle licensing don't need those.
3. MySQL costs nothing and works on everything and is practicly aviable in every single Linux distribution by default. Oracle is very expensive in comparision and is only going to work well/reliably on specific software setups.
So now imagine your point-haired boss and you are told you need a SQL server for something. Your told that you have the choice between paying for Oracle or using MySQL which is already installed on the servers and costs nothing. You are told that both can do their jobs, but both have some caveats. You don't understand the differences, but you know that both would need work to get done what you are told that your need them for.
Now do you write the check out for a few thousand dollars to buy Oracle or do you just ignore it and let them use MySQL.
Which do you think is the natural choice?
Now imagine in a few years when Mysql is basicly as good as Oracle for all but the high end stuff.
THAT is why MySQL is a threat.
But right now....
Redhat sells a lot of servers for Oracle. It's both mutually benifitial. Nowadays the majority of Oracle databases run on Linux, most of those are probably Redhat. It makes a lot of money for Redhat, it makes a lot of money for Oracle.
If Oracle tries to bypass Redhat with it's own distro then it immediately becomes one of Redhat's main goal in life to destroy Oracle's database business so that Oracle is not going to remain in a position to destroy Redhat's Linux services business. It's required for Redhat to survive. Improving MySQL is the most obvious way to accomplish this.
That is why the Motley Fool knows that the Oracle CEO is either very likely full of crap, or just about to make a blunder that will make Sun Microsystem's worst mistakes of the late 90's look minisicule in comparision.
(Log in to post comments)
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 19, 2006 0:48 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > ... Oracle would take the code, improve on it, and release it as a> closed source product. They don't even have to tell anybody what > they did.
Have you read the Postgres licence terms? You're not allowed to remove
(Maybe the commodity curve will *gradually* overtake Oracle and it will
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 19, 2006 4:22 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I don't think it realy matters if people know if Oracle was to do this (although I agree it's very unlikely at this point)
They will still buy Oracle stuff because postgresql + Oracle's improvements would be better then postgresql by itself. They may just have to work harder to justify their pricing practices. :-)
(Maybe the commodity curve will *gradually* overtake Oracle and it will
Oh ya.. A LLLOOONNNGGG way off. Not anytime this decade it looks like.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 19, 2006 2:42 UTC (Thu) by peace (guest, #10016) [Link] MySQL might be OK for certain types of websites or other single application stacks that need a data layer. I doubt anyone would trust it as a central DB for PeopleSoft, SAP, some lesser flavor of ERP, or ad-hock in-house projects that require some table space. I certainly would not trust it in this role. I would trust PostgreSQL only to a point, and I am a huge fan of Postgres.
"1. Currently, except for the high end stuff, Mysql can be made to functionally do everything that Oracle can do. Or at least most of it."
I do not agree. The similarities between Oracle and MySQL cease somewhere around "able to store and retrieve data".
"2. That although Oracle is going to have features and capabilities that extend beyond MySQL's, the majority of low to mid range users that buy Oracle licensing don't need those."
If these companies want to use MySQL for their website because that's what their developers know, then they will. If they are using any real software to manage their business, they would be looking at Oracle (or SQL Server) because that is what the application vendors will be requiring. MySQL would not even be an option and they would make anyone suggesting such a thing look very silly.
I doubt Oracle really cares how they might offend Red Hat by taking the kernel layer in-house. If a company wants Oracle they are going to talk to Oracle, not Red Hat. Red Hat comes into the equation when deciding how Oracle is going to deploy it's software. Relying on Red Hat to provide a well configured, tuned, secure and up to date Linux is a bit of a risk for Oracle. Creating an appliance that runs a highly tuned Linux kernel developed by in-house kernel devs. seems to make perfect sense and I would not be surprised to see Oracle do just that.
Kind Regards
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 19, 2006 4:17 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I donno.
I don't know a whole lot about database stuff, but I think I sometimes see the trends going on in software on a larger scale.
People said very similar things about Solaris vs Linux just a few years ago. I remember reading people saying that no real DB admin would ever consider using Linux for anything important and that commodity servers would never come close to being able to handle the same workloads that large Sparc servers can handle.
Nowadays more databases run on Linux then anything else in Unix-land. At least this seems true when you look at Oracle DB sales and such.
Also what about Oracle buying both InnoBase and Sleepycat?
While it is true that Oracle may be wanting to get into 'OSS'-land a bit more, what is definately true is that those companies produced the only database engines that enable MySQL to support transactions. It looks like Oracle was worried about MySQL going after it's low-hanging fruit.
But now Mysql openned up it's database engine plugin support for a whole host of other database stuff, including original bdb and innodb but also adding soliddb support and their own new Falcon stuff. This gives MySQL very flexible setup, it looks like.
I donno. It just seems that it's not worth just dismissing Mysql.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 17:49 UTC (Fri) by RareCactus (guest, #41198) [Link] Traditionally, MySQL's philosophy has been to play fast and loose with database guarantees. Atomicity? Concurrency? Rollbacks? Who needs those? They also don't enforce the types of fields, so that (for example) you can insert the word "BEEF" into a numerical field.
More than any other reason, this kind of sloppiness is why most database admins have contempt for MySQL. Postgresql, on the other hand, implemented things correctly, and (so I hear) most of the work is now on optimization.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 19, 2006 11:28 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] This is just silly. Of course MySQL can be trusted in an ERP system or whatever TLA rings your buzz word bell. The company is solid and the product is good.
As a matter of fact, I recall that SAP had their own official database (SAPDB) before, but it was acquired by MySQL and is now part of their product line. It doesn't get much more trustworthy than that.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 19, 2006 12:01 UTC (Thu) by peace (guest, #10016) [Link] You mean this ( http://www.sapdb.org/ ) SAPDB? It's been open source for a very long time and has nothing to do with MySQL's viability as a replacement for Oracle. SAPDB was used by SAP for demos and training and such. Anyone who actually deployed SAP did it on Oracle.
Where have you actually seen an ERP deployment that uses MySQL? I'd be curious. And I mean the likes of PeopleSoft and SAP, not SugarCRM.
I doubt you really think that you "can't get more trustworthy" than MySQL.
Kind Regards
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 19, 2006 22:42 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] With MySQL it's called MaxDB and it's SAP-certified with the SAP application suite, whatever that means.
So if you want to look for references for people using MySQL with the SapDB stuff look for 'MaxDB'.
I don't think that MySQL is realy pushing it though. I've heard that SapDB's code was more then a bit of a mess. Brings to mind the status of Netscape's code base when Mozilla aquired it.
They have that pluggable data storage engine thing that they seem to be focusing on. The idea is that you can more easily select what sort of features you want with MySQL.. Weither you want it to be done with SolidDB (Solid does commercial versions for carrier-grade RDBMS for communications industry and GPL'd their engine with the partnership of MySQL) vs InnoDB vs BDB vs the default MyISAM vs the up and coming 'FALCON' they've developed from their purchase of Jim Starkey's Netfrastructure company. Maybe they will port MaxDB to this. I don't know.
It'll be interesting to see what is going to happen to MySQL in next 3 years or so.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 15:37 UTC (Fri) by peace (guest, #10016) [Link] MaxDB /is/ SAPDB, so of course it's "SAP certified". It's a shell game that MySQL is playing, "pick the enterprise ready DB", but it is not MySQL.
Kind Regards
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 19, 2006 4:47 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] with postgres they could take a copy propriatary and try to improve it, the rest of the world (including some other very large companies) would continue useing the BSD licensed version
with mySQL they jsut buy the company and take it completely propriatary, the resto fo the world would have to form a development group to fork off the last GPL release (remember, almost all the development is done by one company and all outside contributions get assigned to that company)
it's just as easy to take MyySQL propriatary as it is Postgres (although it would require a investment of cash, which would gain them developers, customers, etc as well)
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 19, 2006 14:37 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] If Postgresql was ever to get as good as Oracle, then Oracle would take the code, improve on it, and release it as a closed source product. They don't even have to tell anybody what they did.I'm not so sure about that anymore. My understanding of copyright law is that it protects the expression of ideas, whereas patent law protects the use of ideas. If someone where to refactor mySQL code to a state where it is legally no longer considered a copy, they would in effect be "factoring away" any copyright claims. If true, this means that the GPL only protects unaltered or minimally altered code. I've asked a few people about this, but most people with a legal background don't understand the concept of code refactoring. They tend to think of code in the same light as literature.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 19, 2006 22:22 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] ""If someone where to refactor mySQL code to a state where it is legally no longer considered a copy, they would in effect be "factoring away" any copyright claims. If true, this means that the GPL only protects unaltered or minimally altered code.""
I don't think that is how it works.
The only want they'd be able to do it is 'refactor' in such a way that they simply end up replacing all the original code with their own.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 0:28 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] The only want they'd be able to do it is 'refactor' in such a way that they simply end up replacing all the original code with their own.That's not an easy thing to determine. For one thing, what about common programming idioms?
for (i = 0; i < whatever; i++) { ... }
That's so common that I don't think it's copyrightable, and would not have to be refactored to avoid copyright infringement. Nor should it be. If it was copyrightable, then the implication is that a copyright owner is able to restrict the use of ideas for which he/she does not own patents. If trivial patents are bad (and I believe that they are), then using copyright law to restrict the use of ideas is worse.So how much of any given program constitutes an original form of expression? Probably not very much. Variable and type names, and maybe the interfaces between different parts of a program. Most programs are a sequence of common idioms.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 0:40 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] So how much of any given program constitutes an original form of expression? Probably not very much. Variable and type names, and maybe the interfaces between different parts of a program.I made one glaring omission here: comments, or course, are an original form of expression. Also, maybe the layout of non-trivial data structures.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 3:14 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Copyright law doesn't restrict the rights to use ideas.
That's what software patent law does. It gives people monopoly over using certain concepts in programming.
Copyright protects work. You made something then nobody can just use it without your permission. It works the same way for a doodle on a napkin in a bar to writing multi-billion dollar applications.
You made it, you own it.
It doesn't stop somebody else from making their own programs or making their own database stuff or doodles or whatever.
""for (i = 0; i < whatever; i++) { ... }
That's so common that I don't think it's copyrightable, and would not have to be refactored to avoid copyright infringement. Nor should it be. So how much of any given program constitutes an original form of expression?""
You wrote something it's yours. If your copying somebody else's stuff without permission it's copyright infringement. It's pretty simple. A single line of generic code is just to trivial to even be considured. Nobody cares.
They have precedent set on what sort of proofs are required before you can be successfully found libal for copyright infringement.Things like the amount of matching code that is required for you to be found liable; programs designed to analis non-trivial simularities between code bases, expert testimony, etc etc
Weither or not something is derived work is up to the judge to decide. Law isn't programming, there is no rigid boundry or interpretation. It's about humans dealing with humans. If your doing something dishonest and your copying code against the license they are going to try to find a way to bust you.
""Probably not very much. Variable and type names, and maybe the interfaces between different parts of a program. Most programs are a sequence of common idioms.""
It doesn't matter weither or not something is a 'unique expression'. If a person wrote a program you can't simply copy the code with out their permission. That's all.
Your making it way to complicated.
If you want to take somebody else's code and obscure it so much that nobody can ever figure out if you stole it or not.. then that's probably something you could get away with, but it doesn't mean it's legal or it's worth the effort. You'd be better of writing your own stuff it would probably be cheaper and faster.
This is very non-theoretical stuff we are talking about. Copyright law is very well established.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 15:15 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Copyright law doesn't restrict the rights to use ideas.Yes, I think we agree on that.
Copyright protects work.My understanding is that copyright is more specific than that -- it protects the expression of ideas, not just work in general.
They have precedent set on what sort of proofs are required before you can be successfully found libal for copyright infringement.Things like the amount of matching code that is required for you to be found liable; programs designed to analis non-trivial simularities between code bases, expert testimony, etc etcWell there's "comparator" for a start: http://catb.org/~esr/comparator/comparator.html But it's not really clear what the precedent is. To the best of my knowlege all successful GPL violation law suites have involved the blatant copying of minimally modified code from one program to another. I know of no law suites that have been settled on the basis of code that has been determined to have been derived from previous work in a non-obvious way. The reason I bring all this up is because we as a community make a big fuss about licenses, but legal precedent is vague at best, except in the obvious case mentioned above. This could be a big problem down the road. I'd love to hear Eblen Moglen talk about this.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 15:38 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Part 2:
Your making it way to complicated.There are people who do that for a living. ;-) Lots of them. :-| If you want to take somebody else's code and obscure it so much that nobody can ever figure out if you stole it or not.. then that's probably something you could get away with, but it doesn't mean it's legal or it's worth the effort. You'd be better of writing your own stuff it would probably be cheaper and faster.At this point I see no point in encumbering my software with a license more restrictive than the original Apache Software License (minus clause #3), since anything beyond that probably isn't enforceable anyway, except in the trivial case of blatant copying. This is very non-theoretical stuff we are talking about. Copyright law is very well established.Yes, for literature it is, but not for source code. It's all very fuzzy.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 22, 2006 8:57 UTC (Sun) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link] > So how much of any given program constitutes an original form of expression? Probably not very much. Variable and type names, and maybe the interfaces between different parts of a program. Most programs are a sequence of common idioms.
The use and arrangement of those common idioms may, however, be expressive and subject to copyright. Recall that in copyright law for plain old literature, you don't have to re-use any particular words to be in violation -- if I release a book which has the same number of chapters as your book, with pretty much the same events happening in each, then I'm almost definitely in violation.
The general framework that at least some circuit courts use for this is the "abstraction, filtration, and comparison" test, where "abstraction" refers to looking for expressive elements at all levels, not just variable names and interfaces. E.g., one decent article I found searching around: http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 23, 2006 14:11 UTC (Mon) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Thanks for the link.
|
|||||||||||||