tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) writes:
> I've been trying to figure out what it is that Oracle gets out of
> this, assuming that they don't see MySQL as a serious threat to
> their core business. The most they can do is force MySQL AB to
> waste a year or so reimplementing something equivalent to InnoDB;
> which would hurt them but it's hardly likely to kill them. But with
> your scenario Oracle might actually make money out of the deal,
> which makes it make some sense.
Well, Jan and I were puzzling over the whole "why MaxDB?" thing, and
the only way we were able to rationalize MySQL AB's involvement with
THAT was the theory that MySQL AB wants to become an alternative DB
backend vendor for SAP R/3.
Oracle is the main player there, and has been for a long time.
The whole thing about SAP AG buying up SAP-DB (which has become MaxDB)
was that they were "gaming" with Oracle over database licenses.
Having their own "free" alternative to Oracle represented a useful
tool when in license negotiations.
They then discovered that the codebase was something of a mess and
that they weren't interested in maintaining it, from whence came the
"freeing" of SAP-DB.
Where MySQL AB seems to fit into this is that they have a "barely
functional" DBMS engine that nonetheless happens to be nearly
functional enough to be usable as a backend for SAP R/3.
They were pretty proudly announcing at OSCON 2005 that they had enough
functionality to support R/3...
If MySQL AB has an *actively maintained* (unlike SAP-DB) database
engine, that makes them attractive to SAP AG whether as a business
partner or as a buyout target. Either could be quite attractive to
owners and venture capital providers alike.
Of course, if the "ability to support R/3" requires InnoDB stuff, then
this means Oracle just did a nice job of cutting off this strategy...
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "cbbrowne.com")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/unix.html
Mental health is overrated!!
