Oracle overtures to Sun customers mum on MySQL

Oracle has much to say to Sun Microsystems customers in a front-page advertisement it placed in Thursday's European edition of The Wall Street Journal.

The advertisement commits to greater investments in Sun hardware and Solaris software, but has absolutely nothing to say about MySQL. Is this a necessary omission to appease European regulators, or is it a sign of Oracle's intentions?

In the advertisement, Oracle commits to the following:

(Credit: Oracle)

IBM, which has been cleaning up at Sun's expense, gets a warning from Oracle CEO Larry Ellison: "We're in it to win it. IBM, we're looking forward to competing with you in the hardware business."

Sun's business has tanked in the ongoing uncertainty over Oracle's takeover bid. The advertisement is clearly intended to placate customers that might otherwise flee to the apparent security of a relationship with IBM or Hewlett-Packard.

It's interesting, therefore, that Oracle gives no assurances about MySQL. This could simply be a politic action designed to sidestep the ire of the European Union, which has been investigating the effects an Oracle acquisition might have on Sun's MySQL business.

Or it could simply be a recognition that assuaging the fears of MySQL's customers is a comparatively unimportant task. MySQL was doing roughly $100 million in sales at the time Sun acquired the company. Given that Sun stands to lose billions in its hardware business the longer the Oracle bid drags on, losing a few tens of millions from MySQL is pocket change.

Besides, it's not at all clear that Oracle's decision to snag Sun has done anything to slow MySQL adoption. A vocal minority within the open-source development community has wrung its hands over the deal, but I've yet to hear MySQL's customer base, which skews toward the technology-savvy Web crowd, fretting about Oracle's impact on MySQL's business.

Oracle's advertisement is designed to shore up confidence in the CIO crowd that still buys Sun and probably has no clue that their organizations are running MySQL throughout the enterprise. At some point they'll know. But by that time, Oracle's acquisition of Sun should be complete.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

[RobertSheltonJr]

The add also leaves out any mention of JAVA, which one could argue is as important as MySQL.

[doubtthat]

I agree here as well, Oracle getting Java is not good in my estimation. Java has a much larger impact than MySql, though MySql runs a large chunk of the web.

[Magallanes]

but Oracle and Java have a long and successful story, so IMHO, java will be more embedded with oracle, specifically for web service and nothing much else for the visual part of java.

[krosafcheg]

Because there is no doubt that Java is the #1 reason for Oracle : First you get hand on a mass technology that drives most enterprises business : PC, Serveurs, mainframes, bankcard, BlueRay, ... Second, you get hand on a technology you are alredy tied to (and even more since BEA is "fullred"). Third, you get hand on a key technology that is the cornerstone of one of your main "friend" : IBM. Last, you get the best nightmare of your "best friend" (namely MS). As the couple Java / Linux is really (not adding MySQL) the major problem for MS on the market.

Since more than a decade its there, most enterprises got tons of Java legacy software. Now they can easilly target them.

This is where their annoucment fits perfectly : focus on the enterprise market.

The question is there not for Java itself but for JavaME (the mobile version). But as Google as jump on the mobile Java train. I anticipate there can be a split : Oracle for server, Google for mobile.

Last point, remember that most Sun technologies including Java (Java SE, EE, ME) are available under a Libre license (GPL). Which means, that at one point if the community is not happy with what Oracle do. Be sure, Larry will get forks ;-)

And a potential Fork is already there waiting for Oracle to make a strategical mistake : IcedTea :)

The question are more :
- how will IBM react ? act at the JCP ? etc
- what will MS do not to suffer from expected Java centric market fights between IBM and Oracle ? Can they get back to Java ground on another surprise tactical change ?

Wait & see :)

TM

[Renegade Knight]

The promise to improve hardward performance by 'tightly integrating oracle" translates into "we will do Jack to the hardware but work on fixing some of our own bloat".

I'm making money on this deal but I'd rather my stock stick with Sun than be purchased by Oracle.

[doubtthat]

Oracle already owned the main DB engine used by MySql (Innodb). To my knowledge, they have never committed to anything specific about allowing MySql to continue to use it. Now they own the whole shooting match. But MySql is open source and there are already branches of it starting. So my concern isn't really about MySql but the DB engine behind it. What will the branches of MySql use if Oracle disallows the use of Innodb?

BTW, I am getting ready to launch a website that uses MySql and yes I am concerned.

[avitous]

I don't think disallowing use of InnoDB by MySQL or its forks would be possible; InnoDB, like MySQL, is GPL.

[doubtthat]

From the Oracle website dated 10/7/2005. Does not appear to be a GPL license though maybe that has changed?

"InnoDB is not a standalone database product: it is distributed as a part of the MySQL database. InnoDB's contractual relationship with MySQL comes up for renewal next year. Oracle fully expects to negotiate an extension of that relationship. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed."

[wackzingo]

From InnoDB's website:

"InnoDB is included under the open source GNU Public License (GPL) V2 in the MySQL Enterprise Server and is suitable for a broad range of users. The MySQL Community Edition, which is likewise is available in open source under the terms of the GPLv2, also includes InnoDB."

[joskra01]

DoubtThat: if you're worried about this, then you should be using PostgreSQL instead of MySQL. No worries of a fork, a liberal license not controlled by uninterested interests, and better scalability to boot!

[doubtthat]

I wish I had checked it out sooner, but MySql seemed to be the "industry standard". I will definitely check into PostgreSQL in the future.

[Magallanes]

Under windows, Mysql really stink, even the installer is buggy, and there are not a will to change it.


So, IMHO, Sun (or Oracle) is trying to kill Mysql at least for windows.

[scdecade]

Why should Oracle spend even 2 cents on MySQL? The MySQL licensing business was less than $100 million/yr when Sun bought it. This is chump change to Oracle. All Oracle has to do is continue to offer support for whatever the open source community can build for themselves. Why would anyone have a problem with that? Nobody's looking for a free ride, right?

[gggg sssss]

the sooner Java dies the better. Exoect to see mySQL no longer being free. GPL? What GPL?

[richard993]

One has to question Oracle's intention. The acquisition of Sun is one of the most critical strategic moves. Java and in particular J2EE, have been dominant platforms in the enterprise space. Almost every large competitor uses Java as their platform of choice (SAP for example). MySQL has also been a major competitor to Oracle, traditionally in small business but now in large enterprises. If Oracle was to use Sun to bite their competitors, they couldn't kill Java (because their own platform depends on it), but it wouldn't be hard for them to kill MySQL.

[ngroupp]

I have always preferred PostgreSQL as an open-source database over MySQL . Things like, oh, ACID compliance, foreign key constraints, and auto-generated primary keys (autonumbers/sequences) that MySQL seemed to omit in the early days, really turned me off to the technology. I won't be upset to see it disappear.

[penguintopia]

Notice that the ad copy says, repeatedly "than Sun does now." That's after all the cutbacks! Let's dial back 3 to 5 years and compare then! I suspect the claims aren't so great.

[awilliams1701]

I'll agree that a couple years ago a WAMP (windows, apache, mysql, php) was a pain to do and took the better part of a day, but this is no longer the case. About a year ago i installed the most recent versions on a fresh 2003 server in just a few mins and it worked without any problems. WAMP is definately the way to go at least for me because of how easy to use it is. I'm not impressed with IIS at least not the one in 2003. I never tested IIS in 2008 (vista server) and i have never even installed 2008 r2 at all (win7 server). To be fair i'll have to try 2008 r2's IIS at some point, but i'll be really surprised if its actually any good.

[TZylstra]

Matt Asay wrote:
> Oracle's advertisement is designed to shore up confidence in the CIO crowd that still buys Sun and probably
> has no clue that their organizations are running MySQL throughout the enterprise. At some point they'll know.
> But by that time, Oracle's acquisition of Sun should be complete.

Please explain; I'm struggling to understand this paragraph. So someone from the "CIO crowd" is running MySQL on many servers throughout her enterprise, and the worst case scenario happens--Oracle cancels MySQL and does everything possible to kill it outright. The forks of MySQL currently underway get somehow retroactively killed by a magic Ellison-o-ray. So, given this worst case scenario, all those servers that the "CIO crowd" was running before the MySQLcide will continue to run MySQL at it's current version, and this imaginary member of the CIO crowd can gracefully migrate those servers to something else, say PostgreSQL, in whatever timeframe is convenient for her. The enterprise and it's work continues with no hiccups.

So where is the doom and gloom coming from? Or, to say it another way, so freakin' what?