On 11/30/2005 1:18 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 11:55:56PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> > Plus Oracle has the same time that MySQL AB must spend on catching
>> > up with todays InnoDB - for maybe improving it significantly?
>>
>> Hmm. You're suggesting the thought that Oracle might make
>> substantial upgrades to InnoDB, which might lead to a concommitant
>> increase in price? Interesting...
>
> Those upgrades also might lead to a concommitant *decrease* in price,
> as in giving it away for free. This would make it very difficult to
> come up with reasons to pay for the newfangled MySQL engine,
> especially should Oracle choose to spend some money on a marketing
> campaign for its improvements.
I thought more in the direction of a significant *imbalance* in price
vs. value. Let's assume for a few seconds that MySQL AB can manage to
come up with an alternative storage engine, that the InnoDB relicense
renewal fails and that Oracle does release a new InnoDB version that is
way more powerfull than MySQL's alternative. Well, the last point isn't
really necessary because I don't think MySQL can produce something as
powerfull as the current InnoDB in the timeframe we're talking about.
What happens here is that the *free* GPL version of MySQL will be more
powerfull than the *commercial* licensed MySQL. How do you sell that?
What Oracle really does in the above scenario is to force MySQL AB out
of the software licensing business, which can scale high and produce
lots of money, into a pure service business where more money equals more
work. Oracle knows the power of license-dollars too well. The power of
those dollars is what kept Oracle ahead so far.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
