Comments on: A MySQL Community Member Opinion of Oracle Buying Sun

By: r1b2

r1b2 — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:29:12 +0000

For me it’s like if Microsoft had bought a linux distrib, they do not have the same goals. An open source software should not be included in a company like Oracle, and should be kept independant. In any case, it is a big disappointment for the open source community

(To much power in only one hand… I don’t think it’s a good idea!)

By: Monty Widenius Is Still Trying to Save MySQL From Itself | Digitivity

Monty Widenius Is Still Trying to Save MySQL From Itself | Digitivity — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:27:08 +0000

[...] Why Oracle Won’t Kill MySQL [...]

By: 451 CAOS Theory » Everything you always wanted to know about MySQL but were afraid to ask - part three

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:25:52 +0000

[...] 16: Sheeri Cabral – A MySQL Community Member Opinion of Oracle Buying Sun “The FUD about Oracle slowing development MySQL are not valid, and not true. The motivations [...]

By: Save MySQL by letting Oracle keep it GPL | The Pythian Blog

Save MySQL by letting Oracle keep it GPL | The Pythian Blog — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:33:35 +0000

[...] A MySQL Community Member Opinion of Oracle Buying Sun [...]

By: Sheeri

Sheeri — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:57:02 +0000

Suhail — maybe that’s how it works in your environment, but Pythian has a thriving MySQL practice because MySQL is used successfully in many large enterprises for critical workloads.

By: suhail ansari

suhail ansari — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:46:23 +0000

I totally agree with you. The main point is that Oracle is used mostly in large enterprises and MySql is mostly used in non-critical workload. Oracle and MySql doesn’t compete.

By: Heidi Schmidt

Heidi Schmidt — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:20:27 +0000

I’m not sure dodger was trying to say this or not… I wouldn’t want to put words there that aren’t.

From my perspective, I would not say that Oracle sidelined Innodb.

I do think that Innodb could have given more of it’s original propeller head statistics to the embedded MySQL innodb engine.
As it is, most of the create table(s) to have more complete status output slows MySQL down and doesn’t give as much as the plugin information_schema tables show on Innodb’s site such as the ones listed here at http://www.innodb.com/doc/innodb_plugin-1.0/innodb-information-schema.html

If Oracle wanted to promote Innodb more the company would have worked harder to put it out there on OTN (oracle tech net)

It’s hard for me to say if that was an oversight or that other products were chosen for focus.

I would like to see a little bit more of the information_schema and internals of it supported in the GA release of MySQL.

For example, Oracle has had for awhile an ORA-0600 Metalink plugin executable with which you can put in the codes found in a trace file dumped to the operating system.

From there it is easier to see what part of the C code it is related to and begin to orient where to focus attention to a problem.

If show innodb engine status output could be plugged into such a link then some of the codes would make more sense (to me)

By: Paul Vallee

Paul Vallee — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:08:53 +0000

Probably dodger is referring to innodb using the plug-in interface instead of being bundled. This is for reasons other than those dodger suspects, of course.

By: Sheeri Cabral

Sheeri Cabral — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:20:40 +0000

Dodger — I’m not sure what you mean by “second stage mysql storage system” — certainly MySQL thought it was important to develop a transactional storage engine that they owned, but see my point about Falcon. If Oracle had slowed development on InnoDB, almost everyone who uses MySQL would have been crippled too.

By: dodger

dodger — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:08:37 +0000

i think your main argument with innodb is not as true as you say, cause innodb was moved to a sencond stage as mysql storage system since Oracle bought it.
i simply prefer that other company buy Sun, as everyone say IBM might be the best due their contributions at opensource world.