Amazon’s Consumer Business Turned Off Final Oracle Database

Post by vkaku » Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 5:55 PM UTC

jhall1468 wrote: post #137

vkaku wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was also MaxDB, and a few other that Monty built. There's also Percona, WebscaleSQL and a few other forks. Amazon have been using MySQL even before all these forks happened. And not only that, if Oracle decided to pursue a lawsuit, or if MariaDB, Percona, Elasticsearch or EnterpriseDB did, Amazon will have to cough up. This is not really a thing that Amazon should be bragging about, because it makes no real sen…

Note: Amazon employee, but opinions are mine. Amazon did not replace Oracle with MySQL. You seems to talk a lot given your knowledge of how Amazon operates internally and how licensing works is... blatantly false. All of those DB's that could "pursue" a lawsuit are built on open source licenses which Amazon is not violating. But the most important point here: The idea that you have to write a database to be happy to…

Post by outworlder » Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #172

Amazon is a slightly annoying company that I rarely root for, but Oracle is a predatory company whose customer relations strategy seems to actively involve litigating them as a default assumption. Amazon is considered a paragon of IT, so their expulsion of Oracle is a useful tool at the CIO/CTO level of "nobody ever got fired for IBM" level of reasoning. Unfortunately, AWS is becoming the new IBM in that reasoning. G…

Post by Wistar » Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 6:00 PM UTC

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #172

Amazon is a slightly annoying company that I rarely root for, but Oracle is a predatory company whose customer relations strategy seems to actively involve litigating them as a default assumption. Amazon is considered a paragon of IT, so their expulsion of Oracle is a useful tool at the CIO/CTO level of "nobody ever got fired for IBM" level of reasoning. Unfortunately, AWS is becoming the new IBM in that reasoning. G…

Post by ako » Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 6:01 PM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #112

drawkbox wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2001/2003, I led a small team at an agency that converted Kraftfoods and 50+ brands from 25+ ATG Dynamo web/app CMS servers + 20+ Oracle servers to .NET 1.0 CMS on 3 web servers, 3 app servers and 3 Microsoft SQL Servers. Even then Oracle tools were horrible for developers and still are. The only reason they had that many databases was Oracle's business is licensing, massive, expensive licenses, and their sales pu…

Oracle's new licensing requirement for Java is a bit threat to that platform. My company for technical reasons can't switch to OpenJVM so we're going to pay Oracle their new licensing money but we're not doing any greenfield Java development and are going to work towards moving our Java applications to another platform. That's an n=1 example but wouldn't be surprised if others end up migrating away, causing longterm…

Post by jhall1468 » Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

vkaku wrote: post #191

jhall1468 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note: Amazon employee, but opinions are mine. Amazon did not replace Oracle with MySQL. You seems to talk a lot given your knowledge of how Amazon operates internally and how licensing works is... blatantly false. All of those DB's that could "pursue" a lawsuit are built on open source licenses which Amazon is not violating. But the most important point here: The idea that you have to write a database to be happy to…

1. When did I say that Amazon replaced Oracle with MySQL? I just said that MySQL is an Oracle database. 2. Open Source licenses that Amazon is not violating - a 3rdparty lawyer would be able to ascertain better about the extent of legality on Amazon's changes and its contribution back to open source software than you and I do. 3. Ex-Amazon employee here. My comments are purely based on my observation - and purely my…