Oracle buys Innodb

Posted 19 Oct 2005 at 08:38 UTC by arturogf Share This

Oracle has shown it's intention to further support open source. This is key as open source enters the mainstream in business and in light of the success IBM has had with the Eclipse project, and Sun recently looking at purchasing PostgresSQL.

As some of you may already know, Oracle has move into the MySQL Market, buying its main transactional and strongest storage engine, INNODB: Oracle buys Innobase.

Would this movement affects open source database in a bad way? Do you think that it's a step from Oracle to destroy this engine in a near future? I don't think so. Oracle perhaps want to have the control over this engine to easily port MySQL applications to be under Oracle system.

ILIAS and Innodb. Perhaps it's a good time to evaluate a migration, though it is for sure a difficult step. ILIAS 4.0 would be a good appointment ;)


InnoDB can't die, posted 19 Oct 2005 at 18:58 UTC by Omnifarious » (Journeyer)

I don't understand why what Oracle does with InnoDB has any bearing on anything. I mean, sure it does if they decide to help, but if they decide not to it's not like they can tell MySQL to stop using it or improving it. And I bet InnoDB will get better faster outside of Oracle than in if they decide not to help.

It's dual-licensed, posted 20 Oct 2005 at 15:34 UTC by slamb » (Journeyer)

No one can take back the existing GPL-licensed Innodb. But MySQL AB gets money from commercial licenses of MySQL. (They insist that using the database is like linking, thus only GPLed programs can use a GPLed database.) For MySQL AB to provide commercial licenses of MySQL with Innodb, they need a commercial license of Innodb. Oracle's now in a position to end that or make it prohibitively expensive.

In any case, I think it'd be far less devastating than the panicked slashdot people are saying. For one, I think PostgreSQL is a better product anyway. It is not vulnerable to this because it's BSD-licensed, it has no significant external dependencies, and it is not dependent on one corporation. For another, doesn't MySQL has other transactional backends? Sleepycat / Berkeley DB, right?

MySQL business model, posted 21 Oct 2005 at 00:17 UTC by Omnifarious » (Journeyer)

MySQL could change it. If they were wise, they got a contract that does not allow them to be cut out of existing versions of InnoDB. So, they could change their business model for future versions.

It's possible PostreSQL is better, but I will avoid it unless it is better by a very significant margin because I do not like using BSD licensed software if I can avoid it. I feel pretty strongly that the free software community wouldn't exist without the GPL, and that it's highly counterproductive of me to be supporting the use of BSD licensed software.

Fork PG?, posted 26 Oct 2005 at 21:44 UTC by ncm » (Master)

Maybe the Free Software world needs a GPLed fork of PostgreSQL, maybe "Pestgross". (Pestgross could import code from PostgreSQL, but not the reverse.) But I doubt it.

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!

X
Share this page