On 10/16/2005 5:25 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Chris Travers wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
They do not "own" MaxDB. They license it, just like Innodb.
Damn, do they ever have alot of "loose ends" ... what part, exactly,
constitutes "MySQL" vs third party add ons?
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Chris Travers wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
They do not "own" MaxDB. They license it, just like Innodb.
Damn, do they ever have alot of "loose ends" ... what part, exactly,
constitutes "MySQL" vs third party add ons? :)
If MaxDB, InnoDB, and DBD engines are all
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
They do not "own" MaxDB. They license it, just like Innodb.
Damn, do they ever have alot of "loose ends" ... what part, exactly,
constitutes "MySQL" vs third party add ons? :)
If MaxDB, InnoDB, and DBD engines are all licensed, then they have problems.
MyISAM?
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
This is what Lubet, former Oracle sales mistress, has
to say about that: "I'm pretty sure, as an ex-Oracle
employee, that the sentence in the release about
'We'll certainly be happy to renew the contract,' that
it was written by Larry and that he wa
This is what Lubet, former Oracle sales mistress, has
to say about that: "I'm pretty sure, as an ex-Oracle
employee, that the sentence in the release about
'We'll certainly be happy to renew the contract,' that
it was written by Larry and that he was laughing out
loud as he [dictated it]."
Ma
On 10/15/2005 6:22 AM, Thomas Beutin wrote:
Maybe they lost the development of the know how for the only transaction
safe table type of the current mysql releases, but they still "own" the
former Adabas/MaxDB/SAP-DB code with transaction safe tables. Probably
they force the "union" of mysql an
CSN wrote:
There are some articles on eweek about this:
Oracle Finds the Flaw in MySQL's Business Plan
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1869989,00.asp
"This is what Oracle says in its release: "InnoDB's
contractual relationship with MySQL comes up for
renewal next year. Oracle fully expects
There are some articles on eweek about this:
Oracle Finds the Flaw in MySQL's Business Plan
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1869989,00.asp
"This is what Oracle says in its release: "InnoDB's
contractual relationship with MySQL comes up for
renewal next year. Oracle fully expects to negotiate
John Dean wrote:
> Hi
>
> That is terrific news being a former employee of MySQL - Oracle buys
> Innobase. I was never a fan of MySQL, personally but when Marten Mikos and
> the rest of the business wonks joined the Company I knew then it was time
> to get out. I met the author of Innobase once
We have entered a new phase in the possible attacks on PostgreSQL.
The purchase of InnoDB clearly shows Oracle is ready to expend money to
slow down competitive database technology. Now that MySQL has been
attacked, we should expect to be the next target.
Let's assume Oracle is willing to spend
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:41:42PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On a side note, have you considered submitting a case study about the
> work you're doing? One place where MySQL AB and it's zealots likes to
> beat PostgreSQL over the head is with it's list of clients. It'd be nice
> to be able to s
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 00:49, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What is Oracle after? Small DB technology? They already have rdb.
> > Firebird, back in the Groton Database Corporation days, was built to be
> > compatible with rdb. Marrying those technologies through modific
Terence wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? Why not
just use PostgreSQL in the first place?
Simplicity.
Simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. Which of a dozen or so
different storage engines should I use for table X? If I mix an
Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder") writes:
> > On Saturday 08 October 2005 21:07, Chris Browne wrote:
> >> 2. The code base was pretty old, pretty creaky, and has a *really*
> >> heavy learning curve.
> >>
> >> It was pretty famous as being *really* difficult t
p for Java.
> > IMO-YMMV.
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of snacktime
> > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:14 AM
> > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle bu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What is Oracle after? Small DB technology? They already have rdb.
> Firebird, back in the Groton Database Corporation days, was built to be
> compatible with rdb. Marrying those technologies through modification of
> existing gateways makes more technological sense tha
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? Why not
just use PostgreSQL in the first place?
Simplicity. A huge user base. No one is questioning that pg is a
superior product :)
http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/marketshare/ *
*with a pinch of salt
On a side note, have you considered submitting a case study about the
work you're doing? One place where MySQL AB and it's zealots likes to
beat PostgreSQL over the head is with it's list of clients. It'd be nice
to be able to say that the Mayo Clinic is using PostgreSQL.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 0
On 10/10/2005 1:32 PM, Dann Corbit wrote:
From:
http://www.filmsite.org/whof4.html
Valiant: Come on. Nobody's gonna drive this lousy freeway when they can take
the Red Car for a nickel.
Doom: Oh, they'll drive. They'll have to. You see, I bought the Red Car so I
could dismantle it.
I don't t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marc G. Fournier") writes:
> Stupid question here, but how susceptible is Oracle to "monopolistic
> practices", similar to what M$ is going through with the DoJ in the
> US? This seems to be *very* close to the line, if it isn't over it
> ... no?
No. The market for databases i
TED]
> > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:17 AM
> > To: Marc G. Fournier
> > Cc: Dann Corbit; snacktime; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:47:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:47:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > Stupid question here, but how susceptible is Oracle to "monopolistic
> > practices", similar to what M$ is going through
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:47:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Stupid question here, but how susceptible is Oracle to "monopolistic
> practices", similar to what M$ is going through with the DoJ in the
> US? This seems to be *very* close to the line, if it isn't over it
> ... no?
It may w
AK and Sun's claim of language
ownership for Java.
IMO-YMMV.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of snacktime
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:14 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Inn
sion of MySQL. Ranks right up there with
> > MS's gutting of STAK and Sun's claim of language ownership for Java.
> > IMO-YMMV.
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of snacktime
> > Sent: Monday, Octob
me
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:14 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://lnk.nu/prnewswire.com/4dv.pl
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pervasive Software htt
D] On Behalf Of snacktime
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:14 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://lnk.nu/prnewswire.com/4dv.pl
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pervasive
On 10/10/05, Greg Sabino Mullane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A good question. I think one answer is the MySQL name. Many open-source
> advocates seem enamored of MySQL, but you can never pin them down about
> exactly what it is they love so much about it. Maybe we can rebrand
> PG as "MiSQL" or
On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://lnk.nu/prnewswire.com/4dv.pl--Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]Pervasive Software
http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461--
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? Why not just
>use PostgreSQL in the first place?
really.
to my mind, the best thing the PostgreSQL community can do for the
MySQL community is provide simple, easy to use migration tools
and documentation.
che
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/09/2005 08:16:22 AM:
> >
> > This is the first time I can think of where software being GPL'd might
> > actually hurt the open-source community.
The MySQL license has been modified so that it is, IMHO, not compatible
with the GPL. The basic tenet of the GPL is tha
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:53:17 -0500
Dan Armbrust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that PostgreSQL is NOT released under GPL is the reason that
> people like me are here - MySQL's license drove us away from them.
> Their change of the driver licensing prevents us from shipping new
> drivers
Brent Wood wrote:
>Two? I haven't used Firebird, but have heard lots of positive comments
>from users. Firebird/Postgres/MySQL together maybe? Or with all the
>embedded SQLlite users out there, perhaps all four :-)
i can't think of a single good reason why anyone in the PostgreSQL
community wo
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
The other answer may be the license: plugging PG into the MySQL system
(which is about as technically feasible trying to breed a porpoise
and an elephant) keeps MySQL GPL, which is another reason many people
like it.
The fact that PostgreSQL is NOT released under GP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? Why
> not just use PostgreSQL in the first place?
A good question. I think one answer is the MySQL name. Many open-source
advocates seem enamored of MySQL, but you can never pin them d
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, CSN wrote:
>
> Maybe this is a crazy idea, I don't know how
> technically or legally feasible it is, but I really
> like the idea of the two open-source communities
> uniting to battle Oracle.
>
Two? I haven't used Firebird, but have heard lots of positive comments
from user
On 10/9/05, Rick Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation?
>
> MySQL brings to the table an impressive AI interface that knows what you
> really meant to do and thus does away with those pesky error messages.
>
> Afte
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation?
MySQL brings to the table an impressive AI interface that knows what you
really meant to do and thus does away with those pesky error messages.
After all, who wants to be told that -00-00 is not a date, or
Yep, those were two of my very first questions too. ;)
CSN
--- "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the
> equation? Why not just
> use PostgreSQL in the first place?
>
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, CSN wrote:
>
> > Look what somebody sugg
Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? Why not just
use PostgreSQL in the first place?
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, CSN wrote:
Look what somebody suggested!
---
If the worst happens and Oracle tries to squash
InnoDB, there may alread
Look what somebody suggested!
---
If the worst happens and Oracle tries to squash
InnoDB, there may already be such an alternative out
there.
I wonder what it would take to add (and optimize)
Postgres storage engine support to MySQL? I don't know
exact
Chris Browne wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder") writes:
On Saturday 08 October 2005 21:07, Chris Browne wrote:
2. The code base was pretty old, pretty creaky, and has a *really*
heavy learning curve.
It was pretty famous as being *really* difficult to build; throw
tog
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder") writes:
> On Saturday 08 October 2005 21:07, Chris Browne wrote:
>> 2. The code base was pretty old, pretty creaky, and has a *really*
>> heavy learning curve.
>>
>> It was pretty famous as being *really* difficult to build; throw
>> together
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 03:16:22PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 05:01:50PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > Though AFAIK there wouldn't be anything illegal about someone with a
> > commercial license of MySQL using the GPL'd version of InnoDB... but of
> > course if
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 05:01:50PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Though AFAIK there wouldn't be anything illegal about someone with a
> commercial license of MySQL using the GPL'd version of InnoDB... but of
> course if they did that they'd have GPL'd software again, so no reason
> to pay for the co
On Saturday 08 October 2005 21:07, Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder") writes:
> > Didn't MySQL AB acquire SAPdb (which was Adabas D before)? AFAIK
> > (and you're welcome to correct me since I might very well be wrong)
> > SAPdb supports transactions and foreign keys. If t
Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When they announced at OSCON that MySQL 5.0 would have all of the
> features essential to support SAP R/3, that fit the best theories
> available as to why they took on "MaxDB", namely to figure out the
> minimal set of additions needed to get MySQL to be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder") writes:
> Didn't MySQL AB acquire SAPdb (which was Adabas D before)? AFAIK
> (and you're welcome to correct me since I might very well be wrong)
> SAPdb supports transactions and foreign keys. If that's the case
> MySQL AB might be in a position to offer the b
On Oct 8, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
Didn't MySQL AB acquire SAPdb (which was Adabas D before)? AFAIK (and
you're
welcome to correct me since I might very well be wrong) SAPdb supports
transactions and foreign keys. If that's the case MySQL AB might be
in a
position to offer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Thomas F. O'Connell") writes:
> On Oct 8, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/05, Mitch Pirtle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> This basically means that InnoDB table support must come out of the
>>> commercial MySQL.
>>
>> For that matter, I'm not sure they can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I confess I find this weird too. I can't see why someone wouild want
> to distribute their own private label version of MySQL, unless they
> were making significant changes, and then I can't see why anyone
> would want to buy such a version.
The suits do this for peace
On Oct 8, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Are there any lessons to be learned from this with regards to
PostgreSQL?
Like Marc said, doesn't seem to be a worry to the Postgres community .
. .
Unless this is all really an Oracle ploy to grab the competition to the
their real fut
On Saturday 08 October 2005 17:35, Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >> What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
> >> the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
> >>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 02:11:54PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> What am I missing?
>
> [ many answers ]
>
> Ahhh ... I did not realize they were selling a commercial version with
> a dual license. I had thought they were selling support contracts.
>
> I confe
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Mike Nolan wrote:
All of which seems to beg the question: why did not MySQL buy
Innobase themselves? As far as I've read, the terms of the
transaction were not disclosed. I guess it's possible that MySQL
didn't have the financial reach to pull off the deal.
Maybe they didn'
> All of which seems to beg the question: why did not MySQL buy
> Innobase themselves? As far as I've read, the terms of the
> transaction were not disclosed. I guess it's possible that MySQL
> didn't have the financial reach to pull off the deal.
Maybe they didn't think it was necessary. I
On Oct 8, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
On 10/8/05, Mitch Pirtle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This basically means that InnoDB table support must come out of the
commercial MySQL.
For that matter, I'm not sure they can release MySQL under a
commercial license while incorporating 3rd p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
>> the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
>> commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to a
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 02:11:54PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What am I missing?
[ many answers ]
Ahhh ... I did not realize they were selling a commercial version with
a dual license. I had thought they were selling support contracts.
I confess I find this weird too. I can't see why
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
>> the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
>> commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to
On 10/8/05, Mitch Pirtle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This basically means that InnoDB table support must come out of the
> commercial MySQL.
For that matter, I'm not sure they can release MySQL under a
commercial license while incorporating 3rd party GPL works, without
the express permission of
On 10/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed,
> commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the
> GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release.
They can only do the GPL stuff in the GPL-lice
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed,
> commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the
> GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release.
> What am I missing?
MySQL AB wants to make money by selling non-GPL versions
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 02:11:54PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> > What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
> > the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
> > commercially lice
On Oct 8, 2005, at 5:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed,
commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the
GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release.
MySQL owns their code so they can release it with wha
El Sáb 08 Oct 2005 18:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> > What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
> > the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
> > commercially licensed version,
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
> the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
> commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the
> code in their base. So
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 10/8/2005 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need to
brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.
What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to en
Jan Wieck wrote:
To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need
to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.
Maybe Oracle will buy Sleepycat too, and foreclose that option ;-)
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In
Hi
That is terrific news being a former employee of MySQL - Oracle buys
Innobase. I was never a fan of MySQL, personally but when Marten Mikos and
the rest of the business wonks joined the Company I knew then it was time
to get out. I met the author of Innobase once at the first MySQL employee
On 10/8/2005 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need
to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.
What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to enforce
a patent based on the fact that t
Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 10/8/2005 4:34 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian schrieb:
> >> Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.
> >
> > http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400
> >
> > InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused.
> >
> > My guess: a fork in the future.
>
On 10/8/2005 4:34 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
Bruce Momjian schrieb:
Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400
InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused.
My guess: a fork in the future.
This whole GPL forking thing is still the same as i
Title: RE: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
(This is via Exchange Web client, I apologize in advance for any htmlitudeiness of this message)
What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the commercially
Bruce Momjian schrieb:
> Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400
InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused.
My guess: a fork in the future.
Regards, Andreas
--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
uninten
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.
Given that MyISAM is still their first love, I don't think that outcome
is preposterous at all. If Oracle tries to squeeze too hard, that's
probably exactly what they'll do. It'll put a bit of a dent in their
claims to having transac
Aly S.P Dharshi wrote:
>
> > Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.
>
> This will happen eventually, there is no doubt, Sun seems like its
> going to eventually integrate PostgreSQL into Solaris as a pkg most
> likely:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;116679278;fp;16;fpid;
Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.
This will happen eventually, there is no doubt, Sun seems like its
going to eventually integrate PostgreSQL into Solaris as a pkg most
likely:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;116679278;fp;16;fpid;0
Hopefully that should make PostgreSQL
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> http://lnk.nu/prnewswire.com/4dv.pl
Amazing. You have to love the totally unrelated license mention Oracle
added to the press release:
InnoDB is not a standalone database product: it is distributed as a
part of the MySQL database. InnoDB's contractual rela
79 matches
Mail list logo
