4 ms·

http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/what-if-oracle-bought-sun-microsystems-859 http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/what-if-oracle-bo... is now par

http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/what-if-oracle-bought-sun-microsystems-859 http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/what-if-oracle-bo... is now particularly interesting (from 10 days ago). It argues: MySQL is a (low-end) complementary product to the (high-end) Oracle DB Solaris fits into Oracle's strategy of controlling an OS (their RedHat derivative) Sun's hardware business could continue given Oracle have just partnered with HP to ship hardware Java is key to Oracle's application strategy IMHO, this feels like a much less strained fit than with IBM.

jhancock 18y ago
Oracle didn't have to buy Sun to have these benefits. The only reason this fits better than an IBM acquisition is because Oracle and Sun internal cultures are more aligned.
- lallysingh 18y ago
  There's benefits. First they can start making MySQL a gateway drug into Oracle. e.g. aligning syntax, a clear demarcation of features between the products, upgrade programs, documentation, support, etc.
  - jhancock 18y ago
    They could have done all you mention and saved $7 billion or so.
briansmith 18y ago
MySQL is a low-end complement to Oracle, but Oracle already had a whole range of products in the Oracle range, including a free version of Oracle (Oracle XE). If Oracle really wanted to give away a free database, they would raise the limits on Oracle XE to something practical. It is silly to spend resources developing MySQL in parallel to Oracle. I expect that MySQL will slow MySQL development (it is already glacial), and provide migration tools from MySQL to Oracle. Perhaps they will develop a MySQL front-end to Oracle and/or enhance MySQL's front-end to be more compatible with Oracle's syntax. Either way, MySQL has always been an inferior good and Oracle will ensure it always will be. Oracle just needs to keep MySQL alive enough that nobody else can start a viable business around a fork of it. I also don't think that Oracle will want to keep supporting both Linux and Solaris in the long run. Now Oracle has ZFS and BTFS; they don't need both. It will be interesting to see what they do with Solaris and its key technologies.
- blasdel 18y ago
  My hopes are on them finishing BTRFS -- it'd probably take a lot more time to butcher ZFS into something that could be shipped by Linus (It took years for XFS, and ZFS is way more proprietary about VFS shit).
  - briansmith 18y ago
    Oracle doesn't need and probably doesn't want it to be shipped by Linus. They just need to license it under the GPL and convert it to the Linux filesystem API. Then they can ship their own Oracle Unbreakable Linux with ZFS. They don't need to send in patches to integrate it into the kernel officially. Oracle can maintain its own private source control for the ZFS kernel module, refuse any third-party contributions, and put tarballs on OTN when they actually ship releases. Officially it would be GPL'd but practically it would be useless to any vendor except them and their partners (RedHat).
    - blasdel 18y ago
      They'd spend quite a bit of their social capital with the Linux community if they tried to be private that way. I've also heard rumblings that a primary motivator behind the CDDL (and GPL incompatibility) was a core group of old Solaris devs at Sun that would have been royally pissed off if their work was GPLed. I wonder if Oracle would care if they quit en masse.
      - briansmith 18y ago
        I don't think Oracle really believes there's value in "social capital". To the contrary, they seem to thrive on the fact that almost everybody despises them a little bit. If people were happy to do business with Oracle then Oracle would feel like they weren't charging enough.

jhancock 18y ago

Oracle didn't have to buy Sun to have these benefits. The only reason this fits better than an IBM acquisition is because Oracle and Sun internal cultures are more aligned.

lallysingh 18y ago
There's benefits. First they can start making MySQL a gateway drug into Oracle. e.g. aligning syntax, a clear demarcation of features between the products, upgrade programs, documentation, support, etc.
- jhancock 18y ago
  They could have done all you mention and saved $7 billion or so.

briansmith 18y ago

MySQL is a low-end complement to Oracle, but Oracle already had a whole range of products in the Oracle range, including a free version of Oracle (Oracle XE). If Oracle really wanted to give away a free database, they would raise the limits on Oracle XE to something practical. It is silly to spend resources developing MySQL in parallel to Oracle. I expect that MySQL will slow MySQL development (it is already glacial), and provide migration tools from MySQL to Oracle. Perhaps they will develop a MySQL front-end to Oracle and/or enhance MySQL's front-end to be more compatible with Oracle's syntax. Either way, MySQL has always been an inferior good and Oracle will ensure it always will be. Oracle just needs to keep MySQL alive enough that nobody else can start a viable business around a fork of it. I also don't think that Oracle will want to keep supporting both Linux and Solaris in the long run. Now Oracle has ZFS and BTFS; they don't need both. It will be interesting to see what they do with Solaris and its key technologies.

blasdel 18y ago
My hopes are on them finishing BTRFS -- it'd probably take a lot more time to butcher ZFS into something that could be shipped by Linus (It took years for XFS, and ZFS is way more proprietary about VFS shit).
- briansmith 18y ago
  Oracle doesn't need and probably doesn't want it to be shipped by Linus. They just need to license it under the GPL and convert it to the Linux filesystem API. Then they can ship their own Oracle Unbreakable Linux with ZFS. They don't need to send in patches to integrate it into the kernel officially. Oracle can maintain its own private source control for the ZFS kernel module, refuse any third-party contributions, and put tarballs on OTN when they actually ship releases. Officially it would be GPL'd but practically it would be useless to any vendor except them and their partners (RedHat).
  - blasdel 18y ago
    They'd spend quite a bit of their social capital with the Linux community if they tried to be private that way. I've also heard rumblings that a primary motivator behind the CDDL (and GPL incompatibility) was a core group of old Solaris devs at Sun that would have been royally pissed off if their work was GPLed. I wonder if Oracle would care if they quit en masse.
    - briansmith 18y ago
      I don't think Oracle really believes there's value in "social capital". To the contrary, they seem to thrive on the fact that almost everybody despises them a little bit. If people were happy to do business with Oracle then Oracle would feel like they weren't charging enough.