Computer Business Review writes: MySQL did not respond to a request for comment by press time but last week stated that it continues to negotiate with Oracle on an extension to the existing MySQL/InnoDB relationship, is working “internally and with partners on a number of alternative transactional engines” and plans “to provide more details about our storage engine strategy and roadmap at the MySQL users conference in April.”
Read more here
Information Week writes: “After Oracle bought the Finnish owner of InnoDB, MySQL talked with Sleepycat about using Berkeley DB. Thanks to the Sleepycat deal, MySQL is back talking with Oracle about renewing its InnoDB license. MySQL has other options, says Zack Urlocker, VP of marketing, including tapping another open-source database or developing its own high-speed backup engine.”
Read more here
As the industry continues to digest what Oracle’s acquisition of Sleepycat means for MySQL and its open source plans, Bruce Perens has an interesting take on the impact of proprietary vendors acquiring their way into open source
Oracle’s potential purchase of JBoss, he notes, can be seen as a move against BEA, which has made its own moves to open source previously proprietary work to protect its position against JBoss.
Read more on businessreviewonline.com
A while ago, people from the major Open Source database systems have met to form the Open Source Database Consortium – that was in October 2005.
OK, that’s not that long ago, but I hope that the ambitions to co-operate aren’t over again. It was told that a website will be created at www.osdbconsortium.org.
There’s nothing to see except a “Just a web page” note. I haven’t heard any news about this since October – I believe, it would be nice if MySQL, PostgreSQL, Firebird etc. could do some things together. That would certainly be more welcoming than any deal with a proprietary database vendor.
Read more on :Markus Popp’s blog
« Hide it
I’ve recently written two articles on this topic for Database Journal, the earlier, written after the InnoDB purchase, entitled Oracle’s purchase of InnoDB, their release of Oracle Express, and the effect on MySQL, and the most recent, just after the Sleepycat purchase, entitled Pressure on MySQL increases as Oracle purchases Sleepycat, with more to come.
Since I only do a monthly column for Database Journal, and things change quite quickly, I thought I’d post a few more thoughts on the topic.
Here’s another research paper I wrote on specific business influences on all of our favorite open source database companies, Business Factors in Open Source Database Companies
Real revolutions, the ones that last, are often quiet ones.
They aren’t shocking. They don’t rock the world. They just change the world so slowly that it’s only when you wake up one day and think about it, you realize the world isn’t the same anymore.
SearchOpenSource has an interview with Douglas Levin, CEO of Waltham. Levin has been working behind the scenes with prospective open source vendor buyers and sellers. “I think that Oracle will make other acquisitions through the year, to get into new markets, acquire new customers and acquire technologies that enable them to leverage new technologies in their installed customer base.“
Read more here
As open-source databases have grown in popularity among large enterprises and small and midsize businesses alike, many CIOs have taken a closer look at the savings associated with switching to these noncommercial alternatives.
Despite the attractive prices that are drawing more CIOs to open-source applications such as MySQL and PostgreSQL, traditional software Relevant Products/Services from Insight vendors have not exactly thrown in the towel. Some — including Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM — are fighting back by releasing free, scaled-down versions of their fully featured database products in the hopes that customers might one day upgrade.
But the question remains: Does it make good business sense to pay for a commercial database product when well-established, open-source versions pose enticing alternatives? A growing migration away from commercial software suggests that, for many customers, it does not.
« Hide it