MESSAGE
| DATE | 2010-01-02 |
| FROM | Paul Robert Marino
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] MySQL issues
|
well the truth is there is no danger of a monopoly because Oracle is
dieing in the data warehouse market and has been dead in the web market
for years. Oracle cant afford to drop MySQL because its their chance to
get back into the web market. In the data warehouse market databases
like Green Plumb and Netezza both of which are base on the BSD licensed
PostgreSQL code base have been dominating the market along with other
PostgreSQL variants. the nice thing is that these companies have been
contributing back to the PostgreSQL code base hence the rapid
development of new versions over the last 7 years the latest one being
version 8.4.2 released on 2009-12-14. the funny thing is that these
PostgreSQL variants cost more then the oracles closest to equivalent
product but they are capable of performance rates that blow all of their
competition out of the water. Oh incidentally the other database
mantioned in the article EnterpriseDB is also a PostgreSQL variant.
As far as Oracle's the argument to change the license that's
nothing surprising. Oracle was of the opinion that they made GNU/Linux a
viable platform when they ported all of their database products (Oracle,
Sybase, and Informex) over and that the GPL community owed them; however
the GPL community has always felt that Oracle has proffited off of GPL
software but never given any thing back to it. Oracle has also felt that
that the development of MySQL pushed them out of the web market and that
the GPL community was biting the hand that fed them in the early days.
further more there has been a lot of speculation that Oracle will do one
of their old tricks, namely that after they change the license they will
fork a proprietary version branded with the oracle name and let the free
speech portion of the code die.
On a side note the reason why Oracle lost the web market has nothing to
do with price. The primary reason is that Oracle does not support the
LIMIT or OFFSET SQL directives and use subqueries in their place which
makes it highly inefficient for the type of dynamic partial reports that
websites generate constantly (any time a result is split across multiple
pages such as an online retailer product listing that show 25 per page).
On 1/2/2010 8:37 PM, Paul Charles Leddy wrote:
> Ya, I am extremely divided.
>
> This is a historic event in my mind. Especially with the split between
> Monty/RMS vs Moglen/Groklaw.
>
> Grand history. Take your time. You don't have to choose sides. None of
> us may know enough. Ever.
>
> And. I think it is a learning experience for me to see that a lot
> comes down to where the money is, more than I thought. At least, that
> is the counter claim on both parts.
>
> I assume money is the root of all evil. That's besides the point, but
> might be a good stand to take in the end.
>
> One big question for me is about monopoly. One of the means of
> maintaining the social system we have -- I am reading
> "Turbo-Capitalism by Luttwak, btw, I don't make these things up mysqlf
> -- is that no one should have an outright monopoly. That's agreed. We
> need to at least keep up appearances. So, remind me, what was the
> answer to the fact that Oracle will have a monopoly if they suck in
> MySQL?
>
> I am also skeptical -- if you are curious to know -- that MySQL's GPL
> status can't save in via forking. It would be historic, right? Correct
> that no other huge project has forked and survived?
>
> Anyways, I think it would take a LOT of work, but Monty could do it,
> if he wanted, and people would go w/ him. What am I missing here? The
> large corporate perspective? Definitely. Enlighten me. Crazy?
>
> Can anyone clarify the dual-license deal in a paragraph w/ less than
> 10 sentences? I am still unsure on that measure.
>
|
|
