niflheim

dean ellis frothing at the mouth

Entries Comments


Pages

MySQL Mothership

5 May, 2009 (13:43) | MySQL

I was shown an item of interest to me this morning over at ye olde Xaprb’s blog:

Why MySQL might not benefit from having a mothership

The bit that caught my eye, shortly into the post itself, was:

The conversation went something like “I was talking to so-and-so, and he said, you know, you guys really need Sun/MySQL, because without the mother ship, things will fall apart and your own business will fail.”

While at the User Conference I had a conversation with a colleague o’ his on this very subject, causing me to wonder if the aforementioned “he” is in fact “me”.  Assuming so, that is not at all what I said, so I’ll try again.

My employer has nothing to do with anything I write here, etc.

Everyone Needs the MySQL Mothership

What I actually said was: I believe that a successful commercial enterprise called “MySQL” is necessary in order to create the types of opportunities that exist in the “MySQL Ecosystem” today.

I’m not biased because I’m responsible for running MySQL Support.  I’m “biased” because I was the DBA who made the business decisions to deploy products against MySQL for three different companies, placing not only our businesses but also our customers in the hands of MySQL.

Some of the reasons I made those decisions are no longer true of MySQL (currently, at any rate), but one of the primary reasons I selected MySQL over, say, PostgreSQL was because “MySQL” owned its product.

It was a commercial company producing an open source product.  It was not an open source project.  It was not a company with a South Park-esque business plan (”1. Monetize other people’s work  2. Who cares?   3. Profit”).

The database is not a web server, performing generally simple tasks.  The database is not the kernel, vital but invisible.  The database is not a commodity.

The database is my business and my customers’ business!

I can’t trust that to an open source project, because I need a commercial relationship.  I need accountability, responsibility, reliability.  I expect to be here tomorrow, and I need you to be there with me.

I can’t trust that to an IRC channel, a forum and a mailing list, populated by people who may not know what they are talking about, who may not care about my problems and who just may be elitist jerks preferring to insult me than to help me.

I can’t trust third party generalists.  No matter how much Linux distribution or “open source stack” vendors know about supporting their “thing”, they cannot properly support my database (”my business and my customers’ business”) because they simply cannot know it well enough.

I can’t completely trust third party specialists, however trustworthy they may be, even though I may choose to use their services.  It’s the “Tomorrow” question all over again, because specialists (by definition) don’t do everything.

If MySQL, the commercial company producing an open source product, had not existed then every one of those companies would have been forced to continue deploying against MSSQL and Oracle.

There are certainly businesses without such concerns, or who are unable or unwilling to make those particular business decisions (the .com bubble certainly did not teach anyone anything), but the particular needs I had are very much prevalent among companies actually willing to enter into business relationships with (”pay money to”) a particular vendor.

It’s rather like a developing star system (I’ll refrain from naming the star “Sun”).  If the star has sufficient mass, it will draw more things to it, perhaps at an accelerating pace.

Yes, most things will be drawn into orbit around the star itself.  We may even find that this power it wields is confining or restricting by its very nature.  But, if the star lacks sufficient mass to hold the system together, the entire thing will eventually fly apart.

In such a case the best result may be that some of the pieces form smaller, local systems and drift off to wherever, but those smaller systems will never possess the same “drawing power” as the larger system.

Or: Opportunities will always exist, but the number and nature of those opportunities depend heavily upon the “gravity of the star” organizing the system.

We all need a successful commercial venture named “MySQL” at the heart of the “MySQL solar system” in order to continue enjoying the same types of opportunities, to continue moving into new regions with ever-increasing momentum.

Some folks are happy, even happier, within the context of a “small, local system”.  I just hope that they remember to look beyond themselves and recognize that even if their own lives would be improved by destroying the star, there are millions more that would not.

Perhaps I ask too much. :)

« BSG Summation

 

Comments

Comment from William Newton
Time: May 6, 2009, 8:41 am

I’m afraid to say I either do not understand your reasoning or do not agree with it. What is the difference between the kernel and Mysql? I used to hear a similar rant against linux from my uncle against , who worked at a fortune 100 company that ran some old school Unix. Now they’re using Red hat and pleased as punch. So that attitude does exist, but it is not insurmountable. If the mothership is mothballed, Development will continue and the quality will be just as high as it was when there was a mothership.

Comment from Josh Berkus
Time: May 6, 2009, 9:12 am

Dean,

Don’t look now, but I think your mothership was just boarded by pirates from Redwood Shores. ;-)

Comment from dean
Time: May 6, 2009, 12:31 pm

I’ll work on my “Arrrrr” and “Ye scurvy dog” speeches.

MySQL is not an OS kernel, nor a web server, and I’m not going to humor folks by misapplying lessons from one to the other. Plenty of people playing that game elsewhere.

The notion that MySQL development will continue and quality will remain “just as high” without a “mothership” is a sort of delusion fostered by people who believe MySQL is or was ever an open source project written by a community of developers who weren’t on the MySQL payroll.

In any case, I’ve stated my opinion as plainly as I can without being offensive: the number and nature of opportunities available in “The MySQL Ecosystem” today are a direct result of having a successful commercial enterprise at the center of it all. Opportunities will remain without a “mothership”, but of a rather different (in a negative sense) number and nature.

Compare (or contrast) the “number and nature” of opportunities available within the ecosystems of another “open source” RDBMS and you will, hopefully, begin to understand.

Comment from Arjen Lentz
Time: May 6, 2009, 4:19 pm

Dean, the very continuity that you regard as vital has been threatened and affected by
a) MySQL’s upmarket push
b) Borked aspects of its development cycle
c) Acquisition by Sun
d) Acquisition by Oracle
All these things are directly related to it being exactly the kind of organisation that you say is essential. So, while I agree with you that some users want certain assurances, the way it’s delivered is definitely a mixed blessing and perhaps utterly self-defeating.

Also, smaller companies now can’t be served by Sun/MySQL any longer, its cost structure has just gone way beyond that. Perhaps those users are still comforted by the fact that there is a MySQL “the company” but from my experience they a) don’t know and b) don’t give a toss.

But there’s no such things as a single market with a single perspective and a single set of demands, needs and wishes. The different service providers deliver to different needs.

Comment from Olly
Time: May 6, 2009, 7:44 pm

So what you say is basically that PostgreSQL can’t be seen as an option to MySQL due to the lack of an owning company?
Or do you want to say that MySQL can’t become something like PostgreSQL due to its past?

Comment from dean
Time: May 7, 2009, 5:58 am

PostgreSQL wasn’t an option for any of those companies. EnterpriseDB has helped that to a degree, but we would certainly have selected “MySQL AB” over “EnterpriseDB” with all things considered.

MySQL could become something like PostregreSQL, but I am suggesting that the “number and nature of opportunities” would be reduced.

Similarly, I question whether there is any point at all for “MySQL to become something like PostgreSQL”: we already have PostgreSQL. My personal list of “what’s wrong with PostgreSQL” is pretty short.

Comment from Osma Ahvenlampi
Time: May 23, 2009, 7:29 am

Dean, what you’re saying certainly represents one class of customer, though I have to say I neither fully understand your argument’s difference between the kernel and the database (both are just as critical to data availability and integrity). However, your argument certainly does not represent the views of all commercial users of MySQL, and I would dare to argue that they don’t represent the views of the majority of the database’s current customer base. Now, whether you consider that base more or less important and interesting than the potential “conservative enterprise” base is up to you. There’s clearly a large potential license and support revenue potential in that market, but it’s not the disruptive future market which naturally embraces this kind of products.

Write a comment