November 20th, 2009

Oracle opponent cheers delay in mySQL decision

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 5:41 am

Categories: Database Management, GPL, General, Government, Oracle, Strategy, Sun Microsystems, mergers & acquisitions

Tags: Oracle Corp., MySQL, Open Source, Databases, Enterprise Software, Software, Data Management, Dana Blankenhorn

Florian Mueller, coordinating opposition to Oracle’s purchase of Sun Microsystems and mySQL, sent a note today cheering word that Oracle has asked for, and gotten, a six-day delay to answer European objections to the purchase. (Picture from Roberto Galoppini.)

Mueller, a former mySQL shareholder and strategic advisor, is working with mySQL co-founder Monty Widenius.

“Oracle is now apparently backtracking from previous claims that the European Commission has no credible theory of harm. If the EU’s objections were baseless, Oracle wouldn’t need more time now to develop its arguments. This is another sign of enormous weakness only three weeks after Oracle withdrew its antitrust application in Russia.

One more week won’t change the fact that MySQL competes fiercely with Oracle’s database products including its flagship ‘11g’ across all major market segments. One more week won’t transform a traditional company product like MySQL into a community project that could be developed by volunteers just because it’s open source. The best way Oracle can make use of this extra week is to think really hard about selling MySQL to a suitable third party.”

Mueller said the delay in Oracle’s response means a decision on the merger won’t come from the European Commission until January 27.

Widenius strongly disagrees with mySQL co-founder Marten Mickos on the Oracle-Sun deal. Mickos as written to EC Competition Commissioner Nellie Kroes asking that the deal go through.

My personal view is that Oracle could spin control of the code base into a foundation like Eclipse, with control based on investment, which would also enable money to flow in from mySQL stakeholders like Amazon.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison insists the delay in Europe’s approval is degrading the overall value of Sun, which also controls such important open source projects as Java and Open Office.

I do not disagree.

But due to its open source license Oracle is not gaining control of the mySQL code base, just becoming its commercial sponsor. So why not bring free money to support the code base and have something better to sell support on?

It’s reasonable that Ellison resents the interference of European bureaucrats in Oracle’s affairs. But personal feelings should not get in the way of business. This is business.

Business is just business.

November 10th, 2009

Open source be not proud

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 5:53 am

Categories: Database Management, Development, General, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, business models, java, management, mergers & acquisitions, support

Tags: Larry Ellison, Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

Open source is, in part, a release of ego.

When a program is proprietary, it’s yours. You own it. You can feed it or you can kill it.

Not so with open source. When software is made open source it is with the knowledge that its fate is shared among all stakeholders. The contributions that make it valuable may well come from outside, the direction of the software is no longer completely in the hands of its owner or sponsor.

Larry Ellison doesn’t understand this, and I suspect neither does Wall Street. Otherwise, why would the Street be cheering on Ellison’s suggestion that he’ll kill Sun to keep Euro-hands off mySQL?

More than the future of mySQL is now on the line. So are the futures of Java and OpenOffice, and all the other projects Sun Microsystems sponsors. Ellison thinks this fact should make the EC Competition Commissioner, Nellie Kroess, back off. He seems to think the U.S. government can make Kroess relent.

The key to why Ellison is wrong can be found in the paragraph above. It’s one word. I’ll wait…

The word is sponsors.

Open source companies don’t own the code bases that are in their charge. They seek to monetize the code, so the code can be expanded, so it will draw more committers. Acquia doesn’t own Drupal, and Automattic doesn’t own Wordpress. The code bases are, in fact, owned by the community, simply by virtue of being open source.

Ellison seems to think that if he snaps his fingers and brings down the wrath of heaven, then mySQL and Java and OpenOffice will cease to exist. This would be true if they were closed source. In that case they would be orphaned, and if no buyer were found support would disappear.

Open source does not work that way.

Sure it would be tough for these big projects to find new sponsors. But there are plenty of prospects around.

Google would have an interest in Java, as might Microsoft. IBM already has a stake in Open Office. I’m certain we can find another home for mySQL, too. Even Glassfish might well find a new home within the federal government.

Ellison’s threat to kill Sun’s open source projects if he does not get his way is an empty one. Someone would pick up what remaining pieces have value.

Open source, divorced from its sponsor, turns to software water, and would quickly flow through Ellison’s hands.

Go to an open source conference. Listen carefully to the commercial open source businesspeople you see there. They may talk about their kids and their companies, their hobbies and their passions, including a passion for the projects they control.

But they know those projects are more like their kids than their sailboats. They are responsible for the software they control. They do not own it. It’s not “my” software. It’s “our” software.

This is the attitude you must take if you’re to make a success of an open source business. This is why many in the proprietary world, like Larry Ellison, confuse it with communism, or socialism, or some other foreign -ism.

Open source be not proud. Open source code responds to whomever gives it the love of time. The parents aren’t those who gave it the DNA of capital, but those who gave it the love of hard work.

October 30th, 2009

Making a foundation a real solution to the mySQL mess

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 6:09 am

Categories: Database Management, Development, General, Oracle, support

Tags: Oracle Corp., MySQL, Amazon.com Inc., Open Source, Databases, Enterprise Software, Software, Data Management, Dana Blankenhorn

The mySQL mess won’t go away.

It doesn’t want to go away because mySQL is very useful. The latest demonstration? Amazon’s support of the community version of the software at its EC2 cloud.

Two forces are trying to keep the code from forking beyond all recognition.

One force is Oracle itself. You buy a unit worth $1 billion as part of a larger deal and you don’t want it dribbling through your fingers.

The other is mySQL co-founder Monty Widenius, who helped launch a group called the Open Database Alliance in May to support a new “community version” of the software.

So far only three companies have joined the ODA. A general meeting is being organized for Zurich, but it might just be a few guys sitting around a table at a bar. The group’s Twitter feed is dormant.

The problem for the ODA is as simple as do-re-me. They don’t have enough of what makes the world go around. When the check comes for the drinks in Zurich, I have to wonder who’s going to pay it, or whether they’ll make the waitron wait while those around the table hunt the cushions for enough quarter-Euros to split it.

Amazon’s move offers the chance for a reboot.

Oracle has a greater financial stake in the future of mySQL than Monty Widenius does. So does Amazon. So, very likely, do some other large players.

Instead of holding the software as semi-proprietary, which the Europeans won’t accept, or just writing a check to make it go away, which Oracle does not want to do, why not create a new foundation, on the model of Eclipse or Apache?

Those who put in the most would have the biggest say in this new group. The community would be represented, in other words, but they wouldn’t be in control. The major sponsors would be.

The mission of the new mySQL Foundation would simply be to hold the code base together, to provide a central point for updates, QA and bug fixes, to run the “official” version of the code base and plot its future direction. To run the forge, in other words.

Everyone would benefit. Oracle would get Sun, and community support. The community would get a vital development hub, well-funded. Amazon would be assured its support of mySQL, and the investment it has made in it, is not being wasted. Everyone could take the software in their preferred direction and share the results.

I guess this is all too reasonable to go anywhere. But it’s worth a shot.

October 27th, 2009

Will OpenSolaris survive Oracle?

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 5:50 am

Categories: Distributions, General, Linux Server OS, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, mergers & acquisitions, support

Tags: OpenSolaris, Oracle Corp., Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

With Apple having followed through on its promise to dump the  ZFS file system, and Oracle still preparing to take over Sun any time now, we should consider the future of the technology, and perhaps the OpenSolaris operating system it rides on.

OpenSolaris was Sun’s attempt to secure a future for what had been its proprietary Unix. It has some advantages over Linux, on which its advocates will gladly bend your ear over a couple of beers.

But there’s a curious thing about technical advantages in the age of open source. They don’t matter as much as they once did. After all, if open source can compete with proprietary products that have decades’ head start and armies of programmers behind them, how big is an open source program’s technical details?

Open source has taught some hard lessons.

It’s pretty clear that the programming of a few little features don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy software world. Oracle has its Unbreakable Linux program in which it has invested heavily. Does it really make sense for Oracle to keep carrying OpenSolaris, or is it time for Larry Ellison to tell it, “Here’s looking at you, kid” and just walk away?

Best movie ever? You decide at Amazon.com.

October 22nd, 2009

Did Stallman fisk himself?

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 10:42 am

Categories: Database Management, GPL, General, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, mergers & acquisitions

Tags: Oracle Corp., MySQL, Richard Stallman, Databases, Open Source, Storage, Enterprise Software, Software, Data Management, Hardware

Richard Stallman makes a good bogeyman for the proprietary software people because he’s not politically correct. He shoots from the lip, as they say, considering contradiction a hobgoblin for little minds.

But did he really fisk himself in arguing against the Oracle-Sun deal?

Ed Burnette certainly thinks so.

I am not so certain. Rather than bandy words, let’s talk about meaning.

The original deal between Sun and mySQL anticipated that mySQL would continue to progress as a direct GPL competitor to Oracle. (Has it really been over 20 years since Michael Douglas’ star turn as Gordon Gekko in Wall Street? Apparently so.)

That’s important because the enterprise-class database systems available under open source, like PostgreSQL, are only available under licenses other than the GPL. Licenses Stallman does not endorse.

What’s clear from reading articles by the deal’s advocates, including our own Matt Asay, is that this is no longer in the cards under Oracle. “The reality is that mySQL and Oracle compete in two different database markets,” he writes.

Fair enough. But let’s assume for a moment you have an idea that could turn into the next Twitter, the next Facebook. It’s a small idea, but these things grow fast if they’re good. Everyone rushes to the rail. You can get flooded with traffic.

So how do you scale? One common way is to switch from your mySQL database to a “big boy” database — Oracle. This is hugely expensive.

So you can either be constrained from the start or face the prospect of getting Oracle licenses before launch. Not an exciting prospect. Daunting enough that it could keep people from trying.

It’s called a barrier to entry and it exists in every business. Except the Web. Online you can still start from nothing, with nothing, and make something enormous in a very short time.

Stallman’s fear is those days end with the Oracle-Sun deal. He feels mySQL got suckered into getting bought with big promises, then Gordon Gecko swooped in and cut them off at the knees.

Is he wrong?

October 21st, 2009

mySQL starring as Peter Pan

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 6:28 am

Categories: Database Management, General, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, management, mergers & acquisitions

Tags: Oracle Corp., MySQL, Open Source, Databases, Enterprise Software, Software, Data Management, Dana Blankenhorn

The debate over mySQL comes down, in part, to a question of whether mySQL should be allowed to grow up.

Certainly this was the promise when Sun acquired mySQL, that it would grow to become a “big boy” database that could go toe-to-toe with Oracle and DB2. (Robin Williams played Peter Pan against Dustin Hoffman in 1991’s Hook, available at Amazon.com.)

Open source fans of the plan to acquire Sun (and mySQL) are either forgetting or ignoring this. I think Matt Asay tells it straight here:

The reality is that MySQL and Oracle compete in two different database markets.

That is today’s reality, and it was yesterday’s reality too. If Oracle succeeds it will be tomorrow’s reality, most certainly.

But that’s not the only possibility. As two UK-based open source advocacy groups (and Richard Stallman) wrote yesterday:

If Oracle is allowed to acquire MySQL, it will predictably limit the development of the functionality and performance of the MySQL software platform, leading to profound harm to those who use MySQL software to power applications.

This seems to be a peculiarly European view. You will note that Stallman personally endorsed this letter, not the Free Software Foundation.

(Correction: One of the groups referenced above, KEI, is based in Geneva, Switzerland, but has a UK office.)

The American view is that there are both closed source and open source alternatives to mySQL, specifically PostgreSQL and Ingres. The European view is that open source must be allowed to grow up, and communities must be allowed to compete directly with the big boys, or competition is not real.

My view remains that, if Europeans feel challenged by this transaction, open source offers them the opportunity to fork mySQL, and to invest as heavily as they need to in order to grow the software into something better. Set a course for the second star to the right and straight on till morning.

Of course, given that this is open source, the chief beneficiary of a European-funded, truly competitive mySQL code base will be Oracle. (Larry Ellison as Tinker Bell?)

September 22nd, 2009

Eurocrats killing open source softly, says Ellison

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 5:11 am

Categories: General, Government, Legal, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, java, politics

Tags: Oracle Corp., Larry Ellison, EC, Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

American billionaires, and even America’s government, seem powerless against the big bad bullies of the EC.

So Oracle CEO Larry Ellison is trying another tack. Approve my deal or open source gets it.

Ellison carefully noted that Sun, not Oracle, is losing $100 million each month the deal is not done, and that its cash bleed is accelerating. No, he won’t unload mySQL, he added, and mommas don’t let your babies grow up to be IT’ers.

It’s a subtle game. The EC is not good at subtle. It can take the Eurocrats a long time to decide what to do, and technology does not work that way.

Ellison’s words were a reminder.

So is the EC’s refusal to rubber-stamp the Oracle-Sun deal, pending more investigation, really going to hurt open source? Do the Eurocrats understand what open source is, and what it takes to make it go? Or, by pointing out the possible damage it’s doing to open source, has Oracle found the key to making the EC move?

September 18th, 2009

Does Oracle matter to open source

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 6:34 am

Categories: GPL, General, IBM, Oracle, Strategy, management

Tags: Oracle Corp., Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

Analysts looked at Oracle’s stack of chips for the last quarter and called it a bit light. (Thus this picture of Oracle’s headquarters.)

Should followers of open source care?

Maybe they should. Once it acquires Sun, Oracle will be the largest sponsor of open source projects people use every day. We’re talking Java, we’re talking mySQL, we’re talking OpenOffice.org.

Once Sun’s portfolio is in Oracle’s hands, the projects’ budgets will survive on Oracle’s sufferance, and if Oracle is fading those budgets will decline.

On the other hand maybe they shouldn’t. The big alternative to Oracle in today’s marketplace is IBM’s DB2, which has an alliance with Oracle rival SAP. IBM may be the best friend open source has, with its sponsorship of Eclipse and proof that open source can make a profit.

What is clear is that big open source projects now live in a land of giants. After years of growth under independent leadership, or under the leadership of lagging sponsors, open source managers now find themselves reporting to small divisions of giant corporations.

There is a way out, but it will take work. Building companies that fork projects outside the control of the big boys is legally possible. Linux has all sorts of forks. I reported on one, ClearOS, just the other day.

Another way out is to build open source around foundations independent from any single vendor. Think Eclipse, Apache, and Mozilla.

So long as an open source project lives under a single corporate sponsor, its fate is tied up with that of the sponsor. When the sponsor is bought, the community can either live in the new house or go out into the cold cruel world, alone.

That’s an important lesson from the Oracle-Sun story. It’s a lesson that may be hard for other corporate open source companies to accept, but there it is. If you must rely on others, the best thing to do may be to rely on a collection of them.

If open source is corporate property, how big a difference is there really between it and proprietary software? Something to think about during a long football weekend.

September 14th, 2009

Open source loves profit

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 11:50 am

Categories: Development, FOSS, GPL, General, Microsoft, Oracle, Strategy, business models, values

Tags: Software, Marc, Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

The biggest lie told about open source is that those who practice it hate making money, that they are  anti-capitalist.

(Picture from those dirty commies at Wikimedia Commons.)

Some people within the FOSS community do feel that way, of course. They are idealists first, developers second. It is thanks to such people that software is now a hollow mountain, the insides visible and little bits of open innovation pushing through the crust here and there.

It’s just silly to tar the whole movement with that broad brush, as Matt Asay does in tracking the attitudes of some to recent moves by Microsoft and Oracle.

He uses a pushquote to note the words of cartoonist and wine importer Hugh MacLeod, that “It’s easy to spot a purist. They’re the ones without any skin in the game.”

That’s some nice snark, but the reply is it depends on what you mean by skin.

GPL programmers, those who contribute code, have lots of skin in the game, real skin, skin that is more important to them than money. To disparage those in open source who value something other than a bank balance is to call the bulk of it anti-capitalist, when it’s just not.

Lots of people support the GPL because it’s the bottom of the open source incline. They operate transparently because that’s at the bottom of the open source development incline.  They have skin in the game, but their lives have fewer zeroes than yours, Matt. They get by with a little help from their friends.

Marc Fleury did a $350 million deal for JBOSS, still one of the largest open source deals on record, and that was for GPL software. Come to think of it, so is mySQL, which came out with $1 billion from Sun.

Marc is now backing another open source project, Open Remote, not because he’s gone Communist but because he knows the best way to clear an impasse of proprietary agendas is to take money out of the equation and move forward.

If you want people to help you develop your software, give them equal rights to yours. If you really want them to help you, play as straight as possible with them. You can still make money. Your community will be thrilled if you do, because they want jobs.

Microsoft doesn’t play that way. In part this is natural, because their code base cost a fortune to develop and so their contribution to open source extensions will always be out-sized compared with those of small developers, as will the benefit they derive.

If you accept those rules. Matt, by all means play by them.

Just don’t throw stones at those who would rather take their software efforts elsewhere.

September 8th, 2009

Europe can stick a fork where its mouth is

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 5:01 am

Categories: Database Management, GPL, General, Government, Legal, Oracle, business models

Tags: Foundation, Roberto, Open Source, Mergers & Acquisitions, Databases, Investment, Finance, Enterprise Software, Software, Data Management

My Italian friend Roberto Galoppini has a post up describing the complaints of European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes regarding the Oracle-Sun merger.

He offers this quote from her:

Databases are a key element of company IT systems. In the current economic context, all companies are looking for cost-effective IT solutions, and systems based on open-source software are increasingly emerging as viable alternatives to proprietary solutions. The Commission has to ensure that such alternatives would continue to be available.

Roberto suggests a public tender. My Eurocratic is as bad as my Italian (so I may be saying much the same thing) but if Europe really feels a need to protect competition through mySQL, why not just stick a fork in it? (England’s iCoste sells this lovely fork from Dobbies for 18 pounds, or roughly 21 Euros. Plus VAT.)

Either establish a foundation, or designate an existing one, based on something like Apache or Eclipse. Take a copy of the mySQL code — which lives under the GPL — and place it under the foundation.

You can probably make acceptance of foundation a condition for approving the merger. Oracle could sign easily because they are not really giving anything away.

The foundation might start work by creating documentation for the program in every European language. You can establish forges in every language as well, and use input from those groups to direct code enhancements.

You collect donations and other forms of support just like a U.S. foundation. You choose other important code bases to complete your stack.

The difference between proprietary and open source competition is that you have to use the force of the law to guarantee control in a proprietary market.

In an open source investment you just invest.

September 3rd, 2009

What the EU delay means for Oracle, Sun and us

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 5:16 am

Categories: General, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, mergers & acquisitions

Tags: Oracle Corp., Merger, Sun Microsystems Inc., European Union, Mergers & Acquisitions, Investment, Finance, Dana Blankenhorn

The EU’s decision to delay the Oracle-Sun merger is an important marker in the history of technology and business.

As a practical matter its importance is limited. The merger will eventually be approved.

Once a merger agreement is announced the company to be acquired always starts losing its independence, as some managers start maneuvering for positions in the new company while others pursue exit strategies. Were Oracle to walk away now Sun would not be viable. Another merger partner would be needed.

The importance of the move lies more in the realm of policy. European regulators are stopping, at least for a time, an American transaction that American regulators have no trouble with.

Back in the era of big navies this was called “a shot across the bow.”

Oracle’s initial statement on the matter is cool, but I do not want to be the person serving Larry Ellison his coffee this morning.  A bunch of foreigners are delaying implementation of his plans, lowering the chance of success for this merger, interfering with American business.

The EU has grounds, of course. There are thousands of Oracle and Sun employees in Europe. That is why the reaction from Redwood Shores, so far, is restrained.

But if the case drags on this could easily escalate, with American businesses demanding freedom from European interference and Europeans sniffing about monopoly power.

Eventually, those charges and those feelings are going to come out. Maybe not on this deal, but at some point some American company is going to lose patience and start raising a political stink.

What happens then is anyone’s guess. Do you have one?

June 29th, 2009

Red Hat rumors sign of business as usual

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 6:07 am

Categories: General, Oracle, Red Hat, mergers & acquisitions

Tags: Red Hat Inc., Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

The recent rumors of Oracle buying Red Hat are false, but are a good indication that business conditions are becoming normal again. (Picture from League City, Texas.)

The source of the rumor, according to our own Matt Asay, is Katherine Egbert, an analyst at Jefferies & Co. She’s trying to scare up some merger work, create some action in a slow market.

Both are healthy signs.

If brokers are fishing for merger work, it means there is capacity to do such work, and bankers have come in off the ledges they were on last fall. If action is seen as slow, that’s also good, because banking should be boring.

The substance of this particular rumor is stupid. Oracle has no need for Red Hat, since it has its own Linux business, and as Matt notes the open source buzz is in applications, not the operating system.

What we are seeing, generally, is an attempt to bring back the status quo, with highly-paid bankers and brokers controlling the economy and creating money out of paper.

That’s not happening, not because of regulation but because every recovery is different.

The next recovery will come from the work of companies like Red Hat or, more likely, from Red Hat’s customers, than from the financial services industry.

May 6th, 2009

Nagios fork warning to Oracle

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 7:52 am

Categories: Applications, Development, General, Implementations, Oracle, Strategy, java, support

Tags: Oracle Corp., Network, Fork, Nagios, Matt Asay, Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

A fork of the Nagios network monitoring tool called Icinga has officially launched, with the first stable version due October 28.

Matt Asay says this illustrates the health of the open source movement. 

Nagios is a 10 year-old project and those involved with the fork say they include members of its community advisory board and makers of Nagios add-ons.

But there is meaning here for more than Nagios. There is great meaning here for Oracle.

As Oracle prepares to take possession of open source projects like OpenOffice, Java and mySQL, the Nagios fork is a warning that open source code can’t be suppressed.

Whatever Nagios’ managers did to cause the fork, it can’t be nearly as bad as the actions Oracle has been suspected of in its approach to open source competition.

Forks of these larger projects would doubtless move even more quickly, and gain more support from both developers and users, than Icinga, which is used by network managers and not the general user community.

The open source warning to Oracle is clear and was probably put best by Tina Turner, above. You better be good to me.

April 27th, 2009

The Oracle open source credibility gap

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 3:24 pm

Categories: Applications, General, Oracle, java, management, mass market, support

Tags: Oracle Corp., Paula, Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

Paula says open source executives are suspicious, and the unscientific poll I did here confirms it.

Oracle has an open source crediblity gap.

(Harry Shearer and Michael McKean, right, with David Lander, were part of a radio comedy troupe dubbed The Credibility Gap early in their careers. It must be true, I read it on Wikipedia. They are now touring as Unwigged and Unplugged with Christopher Guest.)

Fact is that many in the open source movement distrust Oracle’s motives in buying Sun and taking over such blue-chip open source names as Java, mySQL, Open Solaris and OpenOffice.org.

The fear that Oracle will seek to destroy these projects is real. And as with the swine flu, fear has consequences.

Just as Mexico is being pummeled because people fear a bug that has (as of yet) killed no one in this country, so Oracle is hurt by its open source credibility gap.

When Oracle bought proprietary vendors like Seibel Systems it could easily make up the $5.8 billion cost on the backs of Seibel’s customers. Their code, and support for their code, disappeared into the Oracle maw and, since most were fairly scaled, they had no choice.

Oracle can’t do that with mySQL. Any attempt to change the license or kill it through non-support would be immediately followed by a community fork, which in turn would probably be followed by entrepreneurs grabbing former mySQL committers and selling support for the fork.

Things would be even tougher with OpenOffice. A good alternative, OpenOffice Symphony, is supported by IBM, which even has a viable business model for the office suite.

Java was proprietary until a few years ago, yet dozens of companies had versions of it. Making it open source was necessary to tear down that Tower of Babel. And Glassfish?

Point is, Oracle is already being hurt by this community distrust. Where CEO Larry Ellison can feel it, in the wallet.

 So long as Oracle does not make its intentions clear, and so long as fear exists that it intends to do Sun’s open source projects harm, support for those projects is going to diminish. The assets are like ripening fruit.

Until Oracle makes clear that it intends to fully support Sun’s open source projects, and by extension the open source movement itself, the value of those assets will be degraded.

April 23rd, 2009

Should the database market be interesting?

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 8:32 am

Categories: Applications, Database Management, Enterprise Policy, General, Oracle, management

Tags: Oracle Corp., Storage, Databases, Hardware, Enterprise Software, Software, Data Management, Dana Blankenhorn

The pending purchase of Sun, and thus mySQL, by Oracle is bringing yet another round of uncertainty to those who manage databases.

“The database market just became even more interesting,” writes our own Matt Asay, and I can’t disagree. But for corporate managers “interesting” is, when it comes to databases, another word for aggravating.

A database is not like any other application. Its structure makes it more like that of an operating system. Ask anyone who has ever had to switch their underlying database system. They will tell you.

This is why so many enterprise buyers are willing to pay the “Oracle Tax.” They are more willing to pay this monopoly rent than the “Microsoft Tax.” Most enterprises use a mix of operating systems, but there is usually only one database structure at the center of operations.

So when someone says the database market is becoming “interesting,” database managers reach for the Tums. (Available online at Drugstore.Com, from which the picture was taken.)

Oracle’s acquisition strategy of this decade is based on that reality. Its customers may have to pay big bucks for their licenses, but they haven’t had the conversion headaches of rivals who chose to save money.

While it is nice that IBM is supporting Enterprise DB, this doesn’t fully mask the pain database managers fear now. A choice between IBM and Oracle is more like one between Coke and Pepsi than one between, say, Adobe and The Gimp. Or Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org.

EnterpriseDB or Ingres may appear to offer an alternative to the “Oracle Tax,” but if Ingres grows who is to say Oracle won’t just buy them? They bought mySQL, didn’t they?

This question is not an academic one. It holds big implications for business generally.

Fact is just about every business of any scale relies upon databases, and database applications, for its existance. Small businesses need low-cost databases in order to get into the game, but in the Internet age they can be forced to scale quite quickly.

Making the “Oracle Tax” the price of corporate ambition is going to do more to limit the number of ambitious players than anything the Obama Administration might do.

April 22nd, 2009

Are any open source projects too big to lose

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 8:49 am

Categories: Applications, Database Management, Distributions, General, Oracle, java, support

Tags: Oracle Corp., Sun Microsystems Inc., Linux, Open Source, Asset Management, Operating Systems, Software, Operational Planning, Business Operations, Dana Blankenhorn

The pending purchase of Sun by Oracle will leave the proprietary database king in clear charge of open source’s crown jewels.

• Java
• Openoffice.org
• mySQL

These are among the most widely-used projects, and among those with the largest developer communities outside Linux itself.

There is skepticism about whether Oracle can manage these assets properly, worry that they might be treated as “cash cows,” even concerns license terms might be changed to suit the new parent.

Would the loss of any or all of these projects be “fatal” to the open source movement? As I have noted before, they can all be forked. But a fork would require the establishment of new organizations around each project, built from scratch, and the reconstruction of relations within each community.

This is not to say Sun has been a great parent. Critics have called it paternalistic, controlling, stingy with its financial or employee support. Critics have charged it has managed these projects for its own benefit, a software Mommie Dearest.

Were Oracle to do the same it would be business as usual.

But should Oracle be trusted?  Oracle offers its own Linux distro, Sun’s OpenSolaris is fruit of the same tree as Linux. Oracle has made noises about treating these assets with care, and said it values them.

So what if it doesn’t? Would the loss, through forking or starvation, of these projects be a big, small, or medium-sized disaster for open source?

I’m just asking the questions. You need to come up with the answers.

April 21st, 2009

Will Oracle-Sun deal close?

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 9:33 am

Categories: Database Management, GPL, General, IBM, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, mergers & acquisitions

Tags: Oracle Corp., Sun Microsystems Inc., IBM Corp., Mergers & Acquisitions, Corporate Law, Open Source, OpenOffice, Investment, Finance, Business Operations

While some analysts are already imagining big Sun job cuts or poring over its real estate, a few are asking the obvious follow-up.

Will this deal go through?

That’s not an academic question. Despite offering Oracle a $260 million “break-up fee,” Sun is trading at $9.18 per share, a huge jump from Friday but still short of the price Oracle is offering.

With an offer on the table Sun is now officially “in play” and it is not inconceivable that another bidder, such as IBM, could come in with a higher bid. Officially Big Blue is unruffled, but merger fans are already speculating on what might come next.

As noted yesterday, this deal makes Oracle a hardware player for the first time. It complicates matters for IBM, which has long made its money with open source and suddenly finds a rival controlling more face cards.

Avoiding this tectonic shift could push IBM to raise its bid. Or, knowing the real value of Sun’s assets, it could look somewhere else.

Second, what about the anti-trust implications? Analysts fingered worry beads for years that Oracle was monopolizing the database market with its acquisitions. Now it would control the open source alternative?

At minimum this deal will take several months to close. This means, for the first time, major open source projects like Java, OpenOffice.org, mySQL and Solaris are in limbo. There is uncertainty, something markets hate, which leaves anyone dealing with Sun hesitant.

So, how long do you think it will take to create Snorkel? And will it become a real threat to IBM, or more of an Urkel?

December 22nd, 2008

What Oracle is doing right against open source

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 7:07 am

Categories: Database Management, Enterprise Policy, General, Linux Server OS, Oracle, Strategy, business models, management

Tags: Strategy, Oracle Corp., Matt, Linux, Open Source, Operating Systems, Software, Dana Blankenhorn

Matt (friend of the blog) Asay tells Oracle today to expand its open source strategy, but I want to ask the opposite question, namely whether Oracle hasn’t got the best strategy for fighting open source.

The answer depends on whether you blame its weak earnings for the quarter on a strong dollar and the general malaise or think its failure to make many new sales hint at declining market share.

Matt’s key takeaway is that Oracle should offer a try-before-you-buy strategy to reduce its sales costs, and that makes sense. But isn’t Oracle already doing many things right, in terms of fighting against open source?

Larry Ellison’s strategy of buying up his biggest competitors and application vendors is working. We may think he overpaid, but even if the waterhole is shrinking he’s the big elephant.

This increasingly gives Oracle a lock-in for big customers. Open source competitors aren’t scaled, even when their software is.

Enterprises can turn to open source for small jobs, for one-off projects, but the main system remains Oracle so the company can bide its time and pick off the stragglers.

Oracle has also shown wisdom by going “up the stack,” concentrating on the biggest customers, the toughest jobs. This used to be called a “mainframe” strategy, back when they were mainframes.

Were Microsoft doing a better job serving these biggest customers — if Windows really scaled as its advocates pretend — it might be reaping the same benefits.

I suspect that’s what Oracle’s “Unbreakable Linux” (above) move is really all about. Linux’s strength against Windows really is the data center. Using Linux to lock in those customers further is a smart move.

Of course this leaves the consumer market, even the mid-market, vulnerable. But it’s easier going from the top-down than from the bottom-up, and perhaps Oracle is wise not to take its efforts in that direction too seriously.

Frankly I can’t think of a single proprietary vendor, even Apple, even Microsoft, that is better prepared to face the continuing open source onslaught than Oracle. It’s bigger than any rivals, its approaches heavily-fortified.

It’s not a castle that will be easy to bring down.

August 7th, 2008

Oracle seeks unbreakable contract

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 8:03 am

Categories: Distributions, General, Implementations, Linux Server OS, Oracle, Strategy, management

Tags: oracle corp., linux, unix, operating systems, open source, software, dana blankenhorn

Oracle’s position as the largest vendor at LinuxWorld illustrated an important point.

Linux is not just about sharing or open source. It can be about proprietary advantage.

In an interview with Oracle executives that advantage became clear. Oracle wants to run its clients’ entire stack. It wants to be one throat to choke. It wants an unbreakable contract.

Oracle’s announcements concentrated on the large enterprises that have become its specialty:

• VM Templates allowing more rapid deployment of enterprise applications.
• Enhanced support from partners for its Unbreakable Linux.

“Oracle’s goal is to assure that Linux continues to advance as a a leading choice in data centers,” said  Monica Kumar, senior director for Linux product marketing. “Everything we do is helping users deploy Linux solutions faster and cheaper.”

Wim Coekaerts, vice president of Linux Engineering, explained “Linux has the same quality as a traditional Unix environment, on low cost hardware.”

On his blog, however, Coekaerts emphasized the word Oracle rather than any particular technology. “This gives us a very nice top to bottom product layer,” he wrote.

Oracle is also ready for its clients’ next step, the move toward cloud computing, he said. 

“Oracle on Demand is our hosted service. That’s a good business. We use a lot of Linux in there. We use Oracle VM in there, which makes it easy to provision and consolidate systems. We can scale it how we want to scale it. “

This may sound boring. I don’t get as many talkbacks when I talk about an enterprise vendor’s success with enterprise customers as when I get snarky about Microsoft, or even Google.

But this is where the money is. Oracle knows where the money is. If the money is in Linux, Oracle is there. The snarkiest thing to be said about that is ka-ching.

May 6th, 2008

Oracle architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

Posted by Paula Rooney @ 3:12 pm

Categories: Applications, Database Management, Distributions, FOSS, GPL, Linux, Linux Server OS, Oracle, Red Hat, Strategy

Tags: Linux Distribution, Oracle Corp., Red Hat Inc., Linux, Open Source, UNIX, Operating Systems, Software, Paula Rooney

One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution — Red Hat — and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code base.

In an interview with the Linux Foundation recently, Oracle’s chief corporate architect said Oracle Unbreakable Linux is not a product but a support program and he believes that there ought to be only one Linux distribution — his rival’s code base.

“It’s really our desire to encourage the market to move to a single distribution. Red Hat has by far the largest market share in the data center, and especially for Oracle customers. So it made sense to pick Red Hat as our base,” said Edward Screven, Oracle’s chief corporate architect. “Now if the Red Hat and Novell numbers were reversed, we would have picked [Novell] SUSE.”

He contends that Red Hat and Novell should not try to compete with differentiated Linux distributions but purely on the support side of the business.

Oracle’s homegrown implementation of Red Hat – Oracle Unbreakable Linux — was misunderstood as a separate Linux distribution when it was introduced in October of 2006, he said. The database and apps vendor will continue to back Red Hat’s Linux code and won’t cause fragmentation, Screven said.

“We don’t really view ourselves as being in the distribution business. We see ourselves as being in the Linux support business,” Screven said. “I think there’s an important difference there. I mean, we don’t try to compete by creating a differentiated distribution. We don’t try to compel customers to subscribe by withholding binaries. You know, anyone on the planet can download and use Oracle Enterprise Linux binaries for free. You know, if you want support from us, you pay us. But we’re not trying to compete in the distribution business.”

The climate was a lot chillier when Oracle Unbreakable Linux launched 17 months ago, shortly after Red Hat acquired JBoss and formally entered the middleware race against Oracle.

Lest one think there’s a warming between the two rivals, Oracle is ramping up its competition with Red Hat on the support side of the business. Screven claimed that Oracle has been providing patches for its Linux customers and partners since 2003 and that Unbreakable Linux was merely a formalization of a program that existed because neither Red Hat nor Novell provide the level of enterprise support.

“The existing Linux vendors I think have a little bit different point of view and I don’t think that they were doing a very good job. You know, they were charging a lot of money for support levels that, in our minds, were insufficient for many enterprise customers,” Screven said. “And the implication is that a lot of those customers were discouraged from using Linux for mission critical systems in their data centers. Now, we really want Linux to be the default choice for Oracle customers in their data centers. So we got into the business to fix it.”

Oracle’s comments were posted on Tuesday, as Red Hat launched JBoss operations Network 2.0 as an enhanced enterprise middleware management platform.

Screven said Red Hat’s claims that Oracle cannot guarantee 100 percent binary compatibility of its patched version of RHEL with RHEL are not valid.

“Find a place where there is a functional difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux binaries and Oracle Enterprise Linux binaries. The only practical difference that I know of is the difference in label string,” he said. “Obviously, we produce a lot of conventional software running on Linux, including the database, that we develop and we test on Oracle Enterprise Linux. We do not test on Red Hat Linux, yet we release our products to our customers certified and supported on Red Hat Linux. And we can do that because we know with certainty that they are the same.”

“We’re very, very focused on making sure that what the binaries that we distribute either as, you know, individual package updates or as complete installs is completely compatible with Red Hat Linux,” Screven said in the interview, which was posted on the Linux Foundation web site Tuesday. “And, you know, our goal is to make sure we do not cause any fragmentation in the Linux market space. “