MySQL Archives - Zoli's Blog

Internal Email on Why a Software Company Migrates Away from MySQL

Posted on November 4, 2010 ·

Twitter is abuzz this morning with MySQL news:

What these messages refer to is that Oracle dropped InnoDB from the free Classic Edition, it is now only available starting with the $2,000 Standard Edition. A few days ago we heard support prices were increased – none of this should come as a surprise, the writing had been on the wall ever since Sun’s acquisition by Oracle. And of course it’s not only MySQL, all Open Source products are on uncertain grounds – there’s a reason why many of the OpenOffice folks split off and are now supporting the new fork, LibreOffice.

I don’t pretend to be the Open Source expert, thankfully we have one, Krish, who recently chimed in on the issue. What I want to do this morning is to take this opportunity to publish an internal email from a smart software CEO who instructed his teams to migrate away from MySQL several months ago. While he wishes to remain anonymous, this is not a leak, I am publishing it with his permission. (Yeah, I know, a leak would have made this story a lot juicier…). Here’s the email:

I posted this internally to an employee question why I am asking our company to move away from MySQL towards Postgres (instead of Ingres).

I would answer the “Why not Ingres” with one word: GPL.

Let’s step back and think about the “People are angry with what Oracle is doing with MySQL” statement. Actually why could Oracle do this with MySQL? How was it possible for Oracle to do this? After all MySQL is “open source” and could be “forked” right?

To be honest, I had long anticipated this move on the part of Oracle…

(Cross-posted @ CloudAve)

Filed Under: Technology · Tagged: CloudAve, infrastructure, linux, MySQL, oracle, sun

Open Source – Socialism? “Döm inte hunden efter håren”

Posted on November 16, 2005 ·

(updated)
No, I don’t speak Swedish … but it’s cute:-) More on it later… The recent controversy around Shai Agassi’s remarks about Open Source prompted Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL to come forward with his own prospective.

But first things first, what was the controversy? “SAP Slams Open Source” – quoted CIO Today. SAP’s very own Jeff Nolan found himself in a rather invonvenient situation (at least initially) of having to distance himself from Shai’s perceived message: “I wasn’t at the Churchill Club event so I can’t comment on the context of Shai’s comments, but I do not agree with them if they are as represented in this article.”

In his speech at the Churchill Club Shai supposedly strongly came out against Open Source and equated it to “IP Socialism”. Hm…having grown up in a communist country I certainly don’t like the way it sounds… although if we look at what he actually said in the second half of this very statement, it actually makes sense: “IP socialism is worst thing that can happen to any IP-based society…If there is no way to defend IP, then there is no reason to invest in IP. “ Remember, this comes from the guy that invests over $1B in R&D. Jeff later listened to the full podcast of the session and realized the quotes were taken out of context. See more details and a link to Shai’s own blog at ZDNet.

My two cents: the traditional Enterprise Software model (mega $ licence fees, complex and costly implementations, expensive maintainence, questionable ROI) is not sustainable. Enterprise Software companies and their whole ecosystem (Implementation partners, 3–rd party plug-ins, etc) are experiencing Pricing and Innovation pressure not just from Open Source, but the increasingly adopted On-Demand model. One can’t really expect a SAP / Oracle ..etc Executive to be truly, entirely happy about the changes being forced upon them. That said, they can try to be obstructionists, or realize the world is changing with or without them – might as well go for the ride, take the challenge / opportunity to invent new business models and survive/thrive in the New World.

Marten makes the point that SAP is the latter group: “ SAP is the first and most significant ERP vendor to publicly, officially and in actuality embrace open source. SAP was the first enterprise ERP vendor to ship on Linux. SAP has an investment in Zend, the PHP company, and a strategic partnership with MySQL. By its actions, SAP is one of the great supporters of open source.”
On legacy software companies in general: “ At the end of the day, deeds count more than words. If you support open source, you will be supported by the millions in the open source community who are working hard to shape the future of the software industry. “

I fully agree with Marten’s views … but there’s one area where I’d take a step further: “ Perhaps open source can commoditize the infrastructure components and make applications more affordable.” Not just infrastructure, IMHO. Applications are next.
SugarCRM is a pioneer in commoditizing the application (CRM) market … yet they got outwitted themselves by their own ecosystem. The trend is unstoppable, even outside Open Source. A closed-source, on-demand company, 24SevenOffice offers its innnovative, fully integrated Web-based SMB suite for about a third of NetSuite’s prices, in fact they undercut Open-Source SugarCRM themselves, when comparing the On-demand version of their product.

As for the incoming tidal wave of Open Source Applications: CRM is just the beginning, the low-hanging fruit… there are literally hundreds of business-grade Open Source applications, ranging from accounting, manufacturing, purchasing, all the way to complete ERP-like solutions, or industry-specific point solutions, like patient management for health care, restaurant management .. etc. One of the reasons why they are not used widely is that they are “trapped in the land of the Nerds” (out-of-context quote by Joe Kraus of JotSpot at the recent SDForum Collaboration SIG event, but I just could not resist using it). Really. Most Open Source apps are difficult to implement, one has to be a real techie to navigate through the maze.

This is where companies like SQLFusion can help small businesses: by providing an easy way to create their web-presence, then offering a pipeline of pre-packaged Open Source applications that can be installed, used, kept up-to-date by a single click of the mouse they bring open source apps within reach of millions who otherwise would not have the expertise to use them. (disclaimer: I am affiliated with SQLFusion)

Update (11/16) Other points of view:

IP Socialism

SAP talks smack about open source

Bigamous contrition and open source faux pas

And now SAP looooves open source?

Big Brother

Update 2 (11/19) I’ve received inquiries about the title – it is explained in Marten’s article I linked to. Btw, it looks like Scandinavian style is in fashion.

Update 3 (11/29) Water into Wine: Monetizing Open Source via On Demand – great article by Rightnow CEO Greg Gianforte, obviously describing his company, but also a perfect fit to SQLFusion’s business model described in the last paragraph about. I love it, thanks, Greg! 🙂

Update 4 (5/10) The Stalwart woke up, blew the dust off of a half-a-year-old speech by Shai Agassi, and starts the Open Source as IP Socialism debate again. (hat tip: Jeff Nolan) Nothing new, why today? Anyway, perfect timing, anyone interested in the subject should come to the Who Pays For Software? New and Old Business Models event tomorrow, where Open Source will definitely be in the focus of a star-panel.

Filed Under: Business, Enterprise Software, ERP / CRM, Open Source, SaaS, Software, Startups · Tagged: 24sevenoffice, Enterprise Software, MySQL, On-Demand, Open Source, RightNow, SaaS, sap, SQLFusion, SugarCRM

Not-So-Open-Source Applications

Posted on August 30, 2005 ·

(Updates at bottom)

“Enterprise software vendors who leverage open source, subscriptions and grid computing to meet customer needs will emerge as next-generation industry leaders. “ – says John Loiacono, EVP, Sun Microsystems.

Jeff Nolan recommends caution: “… open source and subscription licensing, two completely separate trends that often get lumped together, are not silver bullets for emerging companies.” His post is well worth reading, and I agree with most of his logic, which refers to the traditional Open Source “business model”, if there is such a thing (we’ll come back to this later):

Open Code
Broad Support Community
Paid Sales & Marketing staff
Paid core Engineering
Product Available free
Revenue from support / training / consulting… i.e. services

He then rightly concludes that this model is basically a service business, so investors should beware, when we peel the hype layer away, they don’t find the hypergrowth software business there.

Yes … but … this may just have been the “beta version” of an Open Source business model – if we can even say that. In fact we really shouldn’t: Open Source is not a business model, it’s a software production model (and philosophy), says Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL (via Jeff Clavier). Absolutely.

The two examples Jeff uses, SugarCRM and Compiere could not be further away from each other – not only in terms of their product offering, but mostly their business model.

Compiere, for all I know is closer to that “beta model” of “trying-to-make-a-buck” on Open Source, or, if I may say, the idealistic, altruistic (?) Open Source company that makes ALL it’s products ( full ERP & CRM for the SMB sector) available for free, source code included. They even let Consulting/ Implementation Partners rebrand the product under their own name. They are the “nice guys” barely making a buck on support. (Sorry, Jorg, if I am mistaken.)

SugarCRM, on the other hand is not even a purely Open Source company, it’s a hybrid. (Hey, hybrids are popular nowadays ). “ It didn’t take me long to realize that there is a HUGE part missing in the open source version “ says Simon Romanski, director of information systems at Fulfillment America, quoted by ZDNet. The title says a lot: Commercial open source, a misnomer? Well, not a misnomer, but definitely commercial software: SugarCRM sells the Pro and Enterprise versions of their product, and also charges for the On-Demand version. Even the Open Source version can be “upgraded” by paying for extensions, e.g. the $39.99/user Outlook Plugin. Hm, I would not put my Sales Organization, no matter how small, on a CRM system without Contact synchronization. By the time we configure the basic needs of a small Sales Team, chances are pricing is on par with a truly commercial software company, e.g. 24SevenOffice .
So is SugarCRM using Open Source as a marketing gimmick, riding the fashion wave? I don’t think so. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with the business model… perhaps a little heavy on the hype, like the other guy selling software using the “No Software” slogan. SugarCRM is a successful hybrid that’s partly Open Source (development, support community, viral marketing) yet generates it’s revenue from selling software like any other company.