What is Digg?45 Comments
- SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Oracle is one of the most disorganized and poorly run tech companies around."
Who gives a ***** as long as their DBMS kicks the ***** out of every other one. - GeekyGirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I am concerned that Oracle is trying to acquire the control points within the open source ecosystem: MySQL, JBoss, Zend, etc. This would give Oracle too much control over the LAMP / LAMJ stack.
- JNitz36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ezweave wrote, "Oracle products are just horrible, really really bad. There is not enough room on this page to list all of the problems my team has had with them."
Wow, and you even claim their products are worse than Microsoft's? Glad I don't work on your team. So what is your choice dbms? Or do none of them meet your standards...
Dr. Who: Oracle doesn't have a free database? Says you. Download Oracle 10g Express edition and unleash the power. Their 10g server database is a free download too. They charge for support and licensing. Please do some research before knocking a product like that.
Riiiight. I am a oracle enthusiast and supporter. At work, our application supports it as a backend database. More of our customer base is SQL Server, so I studied MSSQL server heavily. I was not knowledgable in Oracle, so I tended not to use it unless necessary. That changed when I saw the performance difference. Although Oracle takes a lot more knowledge to setup and configure, the benefits are worth it IMO. Now, I preach about the benefits of Oracle. - inactive, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1The best mortgage rates, refinance, home loan, real estate, realty http://tophomemortgageloan.com
- ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am glad they turned them down. I have had to work with Oracle products (DB, J2EE App Server) for a few years and I firmly believe that they are worse than Microsoft. And I don't like MS at all. Oracle products are just horrible, really really bad. There is not enough room on this page to list all of the problems my team has had with them.
- bonlebon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For the love of Pete don't let them, sure we will have postgresql but it wouldn't be the same.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a pretty bold (and sensible) move on the part of Oracle; they realize they're late to the whole web-revolution where more and more Oracle is being left out in trade for PostgreSQL or MySQL.
However, /not/ being acquired might end up coming back to bite MySQL as Oracle already acquired the assets and developers of the InnoDB, a database format that MySQL relies on for some of its more advanced features.
This will be interesting to watch, good digg. - Gaferion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think that this would be bad. I have the feeling Oracle wants something maybe free to offer under their namebrand. I feel if they acquired MySQL they would not focus much resrouce to it and development would grow stagnant. They would have the initial nice free offering, but then eventually people would need to 'buy a better product' for update/features/whatever. I'm probably wrong, but I like to shy from big business.
- mesohorny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Everyone has their price. It's a business, when the price is right MySql will be owned by whoever.
Oracle is just trying to control Open Source since it is one of their biggest competitors. It's the only strategy they have against it. - tobsterius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You don't believe it?
Well then, you must not know how big buisness works... - greensky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with EZWeave. I've had the exact same experience with Oracle products and I really don't care for MS either.
- leonbev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"They wont develop two database lines at the same time. It just doesnt make sense."
Why not? IBM currently supports three database lines: Informix, DB2, and Cloudscape. I think that the reason is pretty obvious... to migrate folks who can afford it to the higher end DB2 products. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Who uses oracle anyways? I've only heard of people actually using it a few rare times.
- kingofthegreens, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oracle and MySQL have seperate purposes. No one is going to implement an enterprise level app, ERP, CRM, or otherwise that uses MySQL. Same as no one is going to make a small database driven website using Oracle. It would be good for them to come together, but keep it as MySQL, don't change it to something like Oracle Consumer Edition...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0F- Oracle, if the did or didn't.
Oracle does offer a free DB now. I have no fears for MySql, a product I use a lot.
If Oracle did take them over, I'd just use older versions. I would not touch a Oracle/MySql version. - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You don't have to worry about mySQL going away.. Its open source and always will be. Oracle is not buying it to rid itself of competitors. Why? Oracle is so huge and so widely used that it doesn't have any competitors. The only thing you could argue that comes close is MS SQL Server which is a laughable product compared to oracle. How many releases have mySQL come out with so far 4 or so? And they STILL haven't made mySQL a DBMS. We just got transactions like last release. Its most likely oracle realizes the mySQL team had a good start but just doesn't know where to go next and they are going to take mySQL to the next level. Business wise i am sure oracle is thinking hmm if we throw the oracle name on mySQL and make it not suck anymore people will use it for free. Then when they decide to take their company to an enterprise size database they will already have an insight into the power of oracle. Then they can do the oracle recommended 22 disk install which I think is a bit crazy anyhow.
- dharm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0whats with the oracle hate...
oracle is oracle, and has different uses than mysql... if you find mysql to be more beneficial after using oracle, then oracle is not what you need, you misanalyzed the requirements...
sure it can be hard to work with, yet is very powerful... especially in the dbas hands...
- OCP - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think its a good idea, maybe they will make mysql better. mysql currently isn't even a full DBMS
"Who uses oracle anyways? I've only heard of people actually using it a few rare times."
Are you kidding....oracle is the most widely used database in the entire world. you don't go one day without your information being passed through an oracle database - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I for one think that this is a good idea.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Postgres, while far better than MySQL, might actually evolve to the degree that it provides competition for Oracle itself. Sure, it'd make a nice low-to-mid level option, sitting between mySQL and Oracle proper, but there's no way that Oracle wouldn't be upselling its top-shelf products to anybody who outgrows mySQL.
Also, I agree dharm, anybody that thinks Oracle sucks and mySQL is great is simply in a different market than Oracle targets. Fortune 500 companies with data warehouses doing millions of concurrent transactions per minute tend to pay the dollar extra and do Oracle, which has a proven track record of not blowing up quite as horribly as mySQL tends to do in that environment.
I'm not trying to say that mySQL is junk, because I use it every day (as well as Oracle), just that it has a different space to work in. It's possible that eventually mySQL can eat into some of Oracle's space, but that day isn't today, and it won't be terribly soon. - spiffyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oracle is one of the most disorganized and poorly run tech companies around.
They have no strategy beyond buying helpless smaller companies (mysql) or has-beens (Siebel).
Larry hired a bunch of finance people and analysts to run his Oracle (Safra Katz and Chuck Phillips). They have no experience running or building companies and it shows.
That's why their stock has been stagnant for almost 5 years! It hasn't been above 15 for almost 5 YEARS and no hovers around 12 and 13.
Larry is an idiot and market knows it. - zetsurin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If Oracle has a clue they'd be going for PostgreSQL. MySQL 5.0 is just entering puberty stage whereas PostgreSQL has been packing it's full complement of manhood for years. You won't find many hosters willing to run something like MySQL 5.0 for quite some time anyway.
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guess oracle could buy the company/organization, but there wouldn't be anything to stop another group from forking the previous codebase. It could be iSQL.
- motionblur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Who uses oracle anyways? I've only heard of people actually using it a few rare times."
Oracle is supremely popular for non-web type apps. Our company uses it for internal corporate use and our web apps run on SQL Server. - mitcharoni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0MySQL is *not* a competitor of Oracle's, no matter what you try to tell yourselves. The places Oracle can go, MySQL can't even dream of going.
MySQl is a "toy" database that can accomplish many very simple tasks fairly well; it seems it was written for developers by developers. So if you have no real database skills and write code that reflects that, it probably works well for you.
On the other hand, if you want to get something real done, like scale a multi-terabyte database across a dozen machines, you probably want something a little more robust and effective. - Huckleberry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I may not be seeing this as such a bad idea... with such a powerful business partner in Oracle MySQL may gain that much more development... as long as Oracle keeps the open source format of the database and the development.. I have heard more and more about Oracle embracing the Open Source and While Ellison may be as evil as Bill Gates, the big pockets of Oracle could actually help MySQL...
Being acquired by a database giant would not necessarily mean the end to progress in the open source world.. but we shall see... at least for now nothing will change, but this could be a possibility in the future. - mindtrap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think Oracle is interested in MySQL only for the services market revenue stream.
If they become the major supporter of MySQL, they will get most of the services contract and implementation work which is where the money really seems to be these days. - spazer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Oracle is one of the most disorganized and poorly run tech companies around.
They have no strategy beyond buying helpless smaller companies (mysql) or has-beens (Siebel).
Larry hired a bunch of finance people and analysts to run his Oracle (Safra Katz and Chuck Phillips). They have no experience running or building companies and it shows.
That's why their stock has been stagnant for almost 5 years! It hasn't been above 15 for almost 5 YEARS and no hovers around 12 and 13.
Larry is an idiot and market knows it."
--------------------------
I am an Oracle employee and I fully agree with this statement. - chicksdigme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No diggs and not making sense. They wont develop two database lines at the same time. It just doesnt make sense.
- jedediah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Err. . . Do people really use MySQL?
I thought MySQL was mostly ignored because it doesn't really support any SQL standards. Postgres is (or at least should be) the only database open source developers work with. - Oglethorpe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0SniperGX1 said :
---------------------------------------------------
Oracle is so huge and so widely used that it doesn't have any competitors. The only thing you could argue that comes close is MS SQL Server which is a laughable product compared to oracle.
-----------------------------------------------------
Huh? Little no-name company that goes by the nickname "Big Blue" might beg to differ with you. DB2's overall DBMS market share is approx 32-34% versus Oracle's 38-2%. MS SQL Server is a distant 3rd. - DaMoB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You all probably don't know this but long time ago, the yong guys at MySQL just copy/paste this http://www.hughes.com.au/ open source project from Australia. Ask him, you'll know. Digg front page ?
- milliondollar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good news - minus one monopoly.
http://www.milliondollarhosting.net - ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I should say good OO makes the RDBMS only useful for persistence, all of the other junk Oracle throws in is really useless to alot of developers. Hence, MySQL.
- sandrat44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I was going to post: http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20060222/tc_zd/172030;_ylt=Aor98IgHxMw7i4b2xf.rIikjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
As a separate digg story, but it seems to be another view of the same posting here.
So... would it be correct to say: "Start out as open source with the hopes to be bought by the big fish?" I know it sounds insulting to the developer community, I too am a programmer and would hate to see the fruits of my ideas and hard work be fought over by jackals. But it seems to me that these moves by the MySQL boss could also be better posturing to get more out of a deal with Oracle.
I hope not. But money and/or greed have made lot's of good folks do crazy things before. Hope MySQL can fork out the InnoDB code and stick to the original ideals. While Oracle is a kick-a** DBMS, without MySQL, would many of the innovations on the web be possible today? - ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@JNItz36
I am not just talking about their database, however it is pretty poor as well. The whole design paradigm of traditional RDBMS creates heavy, non-portable and trigger/stored procedure intense designs that tend to bog down applications and increase maintenance costs. I prefer MySQL or Postgresql... proper OO design makes the RDBMS redundant, although normalization is nice. But you can do that in MySQL just fine.
Hell, I have had to do more "relational calculus" on complex SQL than really makes sense. It will be great when more people switch to something like JavaSpaces...
In my experience only IT/DBA types like Oracle. But these are the same people that wouldn't understand the differences between hashing system and bucket sort algorithms that are working behind the scenes in a DB.
Really all the bloat in a DBMS like Oracle is very passe. And I really can list more problems than I can put on this page. I have opened more service requests for bugs I have found in their Application server (for example) than should ever be present in a shipping, commercial system. Failing to meet J2EE spec seems to be par for the course for Oracle AS.
If you like the look of white papers (which many people have made it their purpose to debunk) I guess you like Oracle... - ELWOOD_BLUES, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Who uses oracle anyways? I've only heard of people actually using it a few rare times." - You have no idea of what you are talking about, do you.
Anyway, The would be buying the company and their proprietary software, not MySQL itself. - mathie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0MySQL is popular, easy to use and it's proven. The target markets being compared are also different. Think about 80-20 rule, most people don't need the level of complexity other solutions provide. 98% of businesses are small businesses anyway. MySQL is good as it is and I hope they don't get cluttered with "special" features that benefits only some certain types of application.
- jswaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I love both of these products for different reasons. But both of them together wouldn't tickle my fancy one bit.
- xedeon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ohh no they didEnt..... (ghetto hand motion) lol
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0/me really hates oracle!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No they didn't.
- Tetra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Oracle and MySQL have seperate purposes. No one is going to implement an enterprise level app, ERP, CRM, or otherwise that uses MySQL"
You're wrong.... As an Oracle DBA and a MySQL developer, I've created enterprise level apps using both systems and both have advantages and disadvantages. For applications that do not need certain advanced features that Oracle has, MySQL is a very good choice, especially for budget-conscious applications. Also, MySQL has more experts available in the community. Oracle nickles-and-dimes their clients to death with all these different support levels.
http://nerd.com/ - avgbody, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0God I hope not, and I don't even believe in God
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Tell me it isn't so!!!!! The world would explode if Oracle gets their grubby hands on MySQL.
http://www.gfx.com
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is