<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="Wj3C7c">On Jan 17, 2008 9:31 AM, George Rosamond <<a href="mailto:email@example.com" target="_blank">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:<br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>Bob Ippolito wrote:<br>> On Jan 16, 2008 9:34 PM, Francisco Reyes <<a href="mailto:email@example.com" target="_blank">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:<br>>> George Rosamond writes:<br>>><br>
>>> <a href="http://blogs.mysql.com/kaj/sun-acquires-mysql.html/" target="_blank">http://blogs.mysql.com/kaj/sun-acquires-mysql.html/</a><br>>><br>>>> What does the acquisition of MySQL by Sun mean for MySQL users?
<br>>>> Given Sun's proven track record as the largest contributor to Open Source,<br>>> Maybe my job doesn't give me time to read as many news as I used to... but<br>>> has Sun really contributed that much to open sourse?
<br>>><br>>> Digging around I see: OpenOffice, OpenSolaris and open Java<br>>> <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1889" target="_blank">http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1889</a><br>>
> Well there's OpenSolaris, or at least parts of it such as ZFS and<br>> dtrace. They've also put out press releases about PostgreSQL, though I<br>> don't know what their actual contribution was... probably just Solaris
<br>> related hardware and performance work. Java is a big deal, though it<br>> would've been a lot better for everyone had they opened it a couple<br>> years ago.<br><br></div>There's been lots on this on the NYPHP talk list.
<br><br>I need to read the Sun site a bit more thoroughly about their licensing,<br>particularly with OpenSolaris, before I'd call it open source though.<br>Most references note that their open source licensing isn't exactly that.
<br><br>What is clear, however, is that if the traditional database stack is<br>often Oracle on Solaris, what does this mean. . . database-lite stack of<br> MySQL on OpenSolaris?<br><br>Or is it leverage against Oracle?
<br>Does Sun see this as a way of getting consulting work based on open<br>source software? So why didn't they just start hacking away at MySQL<br>more to do that . . . it's not like the GPL'd license is going to change
<br>when they purchase it.<br><br>I find it hard to believe that MySQL as a firm is worth $1 billion.<br><br>Pretty amazing to see a technology acquisition like this in the midst of<br>the stock indices plummeting, the credit crunch mess and housing collapse.
<br><div><div></div><div><br>g</div></div></blockquote></div></div><div><br>It probably started when Oracle declared a sort of "break point" with the<br>announcement that they were going to release their own Linux. Even long-
<br>time Solaris+Oracle stacked customers would begin thinking, "Well hey,<br>if this is Linux coming _DIRECTLY_ from Oracle, then wouldn't it make<br>sense to simply go that way?". Stability or not, they'd go with the Oracle
<br>branded -nux simply because its coming from Oracle.<br><br>Perhaps Sun was thinking to itself, "2 can play that game"?<br>Perhaps you may soon be hearing things like, "Even though Oracle is<br>reputable piece of software, you won't be needing half of the features
<br>that their product offers for your use case. MySQL has been engineered<br>to work optimally with our operating system, giving you the best in<br>stability that we could possibly deliver to you. Sign up for our Sun<br>
SolarDB Support plan...."<br><br>As for the $1 billion price tag, I really think its more a result of<br>perceived hype. You get a good idea of that if you look at the most<br>recent example before this, where Schwartz changed Sun's stock
<br>ticker from SUNW to JAVA. When asked why, the answer was<br>"Java is Everywhere!"<br><br>Theres also the matter of Sun's transition into a much more software-<br>based company; they're planning to close down a lot of their datacenters.
<br>So this is probably the first in a series of moves to attempt to consolidate<br>stakes in what is supposedly considered as "bulwark" software <br>in the Open Source world.<br><br>MySQL, whether its better or worse than the alternatives, undoubtedly has
<br>a massive footprint in both the free and commercial domain. I'm thinking if<br>Apache was backed by a commercial company in much the same way that<br>MySQL is, it would probably have been acquired next. There is a good
<br>chunk of change to be made on support when customers start deploying<br>MySQL on Solaris with Sun's blessing.<br><br>I remember reading someone's suggestion that the overall trend<br>is that tech companies are moving to provide more and more
<br>"stacked solutions" to their clients, instead of simply "components". <br>For example, you can not only get just an operating system from Red Hat,<br>but a full-on "solution", which is RHEL + the JBoss stack and associated
<br>wares. We also all know about how Oracle does not only offer its<br>database system, but now full-blown data "solutions", which include an<br>operating system, database, OLAP and other tools/stacks/doohickeys.
<br><br>BTW, George, even with the financial situation getting uglier and uglier,<br>it still won't ever be difficult for an entity that large to borrow money for<br>acquisitions and other moves. I'm pretty sure the financial lords have
<br>already things drawn and quartered in the unlikely event that their<br>"investment" was in danger.<br></div></div>