

Has Oracle been a disaster for Sun's open source? - bensummers
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Has-Oracle-been-a-disaster-for-Sun-s-open-source-1030066.html

======
sriramk
Actually, I thought the article winds up making the opposite argument from
what it thinks it is making.

To be clear, the blame for this situation for this lands on Sun. It isn't
Oracle's fault that Sun withered away to the point where it needed to be
acquired.

The article seems to show that Oracle is doing just fine by ignoring Sun's
open source assets. This line in the article "They also need to start to think
more seriously about how Oracle can contribute to Sun's open source products,
and not just the other way around." needs substantiation. If I were Larry
Ellison, I see no reason to do that right now. Especially when Sun's
contributions to open source didn't do them (Sun) a world of good in pure
financial terms.

The other interesting statement is this one "The problem is that Oracle is
naturally trying to optimise its acquisition of Sun for its own shareholders,
but seems to have forgotten that there are other stakeholders too". As a
public company, Oracle has a fiduciary obligation to protect its shareholders
interests. It has no such obligation towards the open source world at large.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Most of Sun's open source strategy didn't make them a lot of money, but
letting Java languish was not a smart move then and is not a smart move now.
(I dislike the language, but it fits well with Oracle's enterprisey business.)

------
codingthewheel
Oracle is paving the way to turn MySQL into (essentially) SQL Server Express:
a free hobbled version of an otherwise commercial database, designed to do one
thing and one thing only: pressure existing MySQL developers into moving to
(and paying for) a commercial Oracle license. MySQL is nothing more than an
onramp to Oracle. This was obvious when Sun was acquired. It's obvious now.
Every word I've heard from Oracle regarding MySQL confirms this.

This is what Oracle means by "integration".

You think the number one commercial database provider in the world is going to
help build and improve a free, robust, industrial strength database for the
_good of the open source community_? Like they could care less whether you use
a free DB or shell out for an Oracle license? Please. Oracle sees MySQL as a
huge potential market, nothing more. And this is how the evisceration begins.

~~~
barlo
Just in case you didn't know, Oracle already has an Express version of the
Oracle db. It has several limitations (mainly memory and a 5gb storage limit),
but it is completely free.

[http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/xe/index....](http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/xe/index.html)

It's currently 10g, but from rumors I've heard, the 11gR2 Express version
isn't too far away.

~~~
codingthewheel
We're running a project on it right now. I'm not sure why my comment was
downvoted-- shoot the messenger, I suppose-- but how is this relevant to the
disposition of MySql as a payramp into commercial Oracle licenses? Or are you
saying MySQL users have nothing to fear because Oracle already _has_ a free
"express" DB?

~~~
barlo
I was simply stating that Oracle already has an Express edition, since you
mentioned you thought they were going to turn MySQL into a SQLServer Express-
type product. I actually agree with your overall point. It's definitely not in
Oracle's favor to improve MySQL or attempt to increase its use. If anything,
they will continue to have a free, community edition, of MySQL, and then
probably also spin off a commercial version targeted to those that don't need
the full power of an Oracle database.

Oracle seems to make a majority of its money in support contracts, not
licensing. I think they could do quite well if they released a commercial
version of MySQL and sold support for it. (They may already do this, I'm not
sure.)

~~~
codingthewheel
Good point, and it all comes down to whether Oracle wants to play hardball. I
saw a good discussion of this a while back, even touching on the disposition
of some of the MySQL forks. Can't seem to find it anymore.

------
locopati
It's probably obvious to say this but Java 7 will be very telling for how
Oracle is going to proceed. Java needs some punching-up if it's going to
continue as a go-to language (yes, I'm well aware of the trends away from Java
and the general opinions here on HN - that doesn't change the fact that Java
is one of the most deployed production languages around and will continue to
be used/maintained for years to come).

~~~
bad_user
> _but Java 7 will be very telling for how Oracle is going to proceed_

Considering how the Java7 milestones / OpenJDK developments are going right
now, I think you're going to be disappointed.

~~~
Periodic
Would you care to elaborate?

I'm about to move to a Java shop and for a long time I've just been taking the
criticism of Java at face value. Now that I will have a stake in it I am
really interested in what people who have been with Java a long time are
seeing as the trends.

~~~
locopati
I'll venture a guess - there hasn't been enough clear focus on what Java7 will
be and there's been a long gap between 6 & 7 (4yrs versus 2yrs for previous
versions). Combined with Oracle's acquisition of Sun, there are a lot of
questions in the air. Hopefully, JavaOne in September will provide some
answers.

That said, Java is a good enough language and still quite powerful. You can do
a lot of things that are possible in other languages, but the code isn't as
concise. There are open-source libraries and frameworks for just about
everything. Spring and Google have both taken up Sun's slack.

Java's not going away any time soon because it's too widely used.

------
kierank
In spite of other products, Oracle seem to be committed to an Open Source
Virtualbox.

------
BonoboBoner
Sun's failing has been a disaster for its open source assets, not Oracle
buying them out.

