They’re joining the family. Surprise! Oh, yes. What a no-brainer.

[Disclosure]: MySQL was involved in the process of moving the text you are now reading from my screen to yours. Hey, I guess I can look forward to a discount on ongoing’s MySQL charges. [Um, isn’t that free? -Ed.]

MySQL, you know, in my experience, it, well, Just Works. Runs great on our hardware and OS. Well, OK, GNU/Linux too. What else is there? For databases, nothing that matters. [Update:] I did not mean that MySQL is the only database that matters; I meant that from the database-deployment point of view, GNU/Linux and Solaris are the only operating systems that really matter.

Stand by; this is going to be fun.


Comment feed for ongoing:Comments feed

From: Bob Aman (Jan 16 2008, at 07:48)

Huh. That is pretty cool. It's a good fit for sure. Curious where this will put Sun in relation to Oracle. But... I still prefer PostgreSQL, sorry. :-)

PostgreSQL might not have the same level of it-just-works as MySQL (PostgreSQL performs poorly for many applications in the default configuration, but it often performs way better after proper tuning), but IMHO, it more than makes up for it in the elegance and syntax sanity departments.


From: Mark (Jan 16 2008, at 08:04)

I guess it's better than Oracle acquiring them, but somehow this makes me queasy.


From: MikeP (Jan 16 2008, at 08:05)

Java Enterprise SQL can't be too far off now. :-)


From: Peter Saint-Andre (Jan 16 2008, at 08:49)

No database other than MySQL matters? Clearly Sun hasn't thought so in the past, given its significant contributions to PostgreSQL.


From: Other Mark (Jan 16 2008, at 08:51)

Geez. And I thought that Open Source was a bunch of techies working free for the good of humanity. Or has Sun become a non-profit? ;-)


From: Rob Menke (Jan 16 2008, at 09:43)

Double that on PostgreSQL. Works great with JPA, even better than MySQL. MVCC has nice performance, provided you vacuum frequently.

Not to knock MySQL, but MyISAM really doesn't cut it in terms of data integrity (I know, I know, speed was the goal). InnoDB had potential, but it was worrisome when that was acquired by Oracle. Here's hoping Sun can get the new transactional engine (Falcon?) out the door.


From: Jeremy Zawodny (Jan 16 2008, at 09:56)

Excellent move on the part of Sun.


From: dfd (Jan 16 2008, at 11:02)

Tim, please tell Sun not to screw up the MySQL name by doing the same thing they did with the Java, Solaris, etc names. This is one thing that has always irritated me about Sun: the way they change the name of their products which ends up confusing their customers (old or new).


From: Aristotle Pagaltzis (Jan 16 2008, at 11:36)

Nothing that matters?! If you want Just Works, you use SQLite; when needs outgrow that, you switch to PostgreSQL. Both of these actually care about your data, if nothing else.

You’re a C programmer, Tim; take a tour through pretty much any random part of the MySQL source code, and see whether you can sustain your sympathy for it.


From: robert (Jan 16 2008, at 12:57)

without innoDB (if that's what the name is, I pay little enough attention) which is to say for most of its existence, MySql is just a sql parser in front of a filesystem. it is this primitiveness that appeals to coders to lazy to write their own I/O; and its disdain from database developers. it's really just a sort of *nix VSAM implementation (actually is ISAM under the covers), with none of the services that RDBMS provide.

and this is why PostgreSQL is preferred by database developers who run in OS; it does the heavy lifting that RDBMS can and should do.

if memory serves, Oracle bought the innoDB engine. (update: wikipedia confirms this).

not the least bit clear what Sun gets out of this.


From: Bryan (Jan 16 2008, at 18:45)

Postgres doesn't matter? Man, I'm not going to dis MySQL, it is what it is and it's good at what it's good at, but Postgres is fantastic. I'd personally choose Postgres over just about any other database out there on the market today.

If you haven't really dug into it, you're missing out. It's a fantastic product, AND it's open source.


From: Herta Hamburg (Jan 17 2008, at 00:41)

I am using MySQL since 8 years now in my web projects. In my consulting computer business I used Oracle, Sybase, DB2 a lot. These three don't "just work". MySQL really "just works". But until now, when I was requested to suggest a database for a mission-critical legacy application I never suggested MySQL.

First question: Can this change when SUN owns MySQL?

Second question: Will SUN redirect MySQL from the LAMP scope to to a OO-DB for JAVA?


From: Bob Aman (Jan 17 2008, at 04:20)

My bad. Go, go ambiguity. At least I wasn't alone in making the mistake, even if I was first to do so. I'd probably say that the BSDs matter too, but I don't use em, so I'd probably let someone else argue that.


From: Paul Doerwald (Jan 17 2008, at 05:24)

I think Sun's acquisition of MySQL makes sense. They're buying developer mindshare, and it's working really well. I think they may have overpaid (possibly 13x revenue), but I think it will work out for them. An anecdote which explains why I feel as I do:

Sun was a platinum (??) sponsor at the recent RailsConf Europe in Berlin. Generally you don't expect much from the platinum sponsors. They paid a lot of money for the privilege of addressing the full crowd for 15 minutes. Most of the paid-for keynotes fade into obscurity in my memory, but Sun's Craig McClanahan was different. He approached the crowd humbly and with respect. He gave a tech talk that made sense, was interesting and relevant. He plugged Sun, of course, but in the most inoffensive way possible. Pure class.

Platinum sponsors also got a room where they could host their own sessions. It was a small room, tucked away in a corner. I never went to any of the other platinum sponsors, but I made a major point of going to the Sun presentation. It was packed. Every bit of floor space was taken up. People were in awe. Everyone walked away happily because they'd been to a really worthwhile session.

In a single conference, my opinion on Sun changed to this: they are my friend. They support me as a developer. They spend money investing in the tools that I need. Why? Because they want to move more server equipment. I was so convinced by them that I would happily recommend Sun equipment, and if I were going to purchase, I would purchase Sun.

I think the MySQL acquisition fits the same goals. Sun is saying to the developer community (and MySQL is a BIG one): "We support you. We want you to be successful and we want to be successful with you." Sun is gathering the credibility in tech to actually mean what they say. They've open-sourced their crown jewels (Java, Solaris, UltraSparc) and they're hoping that we'll trust, recommend and buy them.

Sun has had several profitable quarters in a row now after many bleak years. It's working. MySQL will add to it in a big way.


author · Dad
colophon · rights
picture of the day
January 16, 2008
· Business (126 fragments)
· · Sun (63 more)

By .

The opinions expressed here
are my own, and no other party
necessarily agrees with them.

A full disclosure of my
professional interests is
on the author page.

I’m on Mastodon!