You're viewing a single thread.
Oracle are the VirtualBox people, right? I just installed that program today to try desktop Linux for the first time. I'm inferring from the comments under this post that Oracle apparently has some sort of negative reputation in the Linux community...? Frankly, I feel like a real troy-returning-with-pizza.jpeg right now.
Some context for you:
Oracle has humorously called out RedHat for a recent broken promise to the open source community.
But, Oracle is best known in the Open Source community for their purchase of Sun Microsystems resulting in Sun's massively successful open source database MySQL going from the #1 database in use in the world to not even cracking the top ten.
Many factors contributed, but most notable was a sudden drop in servers available to serve the documentation and help pages for MySQL.
Oracle (coincidentally?) makes a great deal of money from their closed source Oracle Database. An inferior (in my opinion) direct competitor to MySQL.
It's entirely possible that Oracle did not buy Sun Microsystems with the sole intent to kill off the most popular open source database of all time.
For those who agree that Oracle might be totally innocent in that, I agree it's possible - and I have a bridge I would like to sell.
Oracle does acquire competitors just to kill them off. The only way you survive an acquisition is if you are a product that they do not have yet, and that they need you more than you need them.
but it doesn’t change the fact that many organizations chose between those two databases plenty of times before Oracle acquired Sun.
Sure, but the choice is: can we not use Oracle and if the answer is yes, then they won't.
I understand what you're saying. I am a database engineer and have worked on several with the business model of taking customers away from Oracle/SQL server/DB2. But I wouldn't call our products competitors to those. Well, maybe SQL server but that's a different story. You can't really be competition if you can't serve the same customer base in terms of capabilities.
Also, whenever Oracle or DB2 actually wanted to keep a customer, they just made a low enough offer that made them attractive (remember they don't have a list price) and we'd be left standing. In fact, I'm pretty sure we were used several times just to get those two to make a better offer...
An inferior (in my opinion) direct competitor to MySQL.
There is no comparison between the two. They don't even compete in the same market. Oracle is an enterprise level database with features MySQL doesn't even dream of yet, whether it is security, performance or just reliability alone. The problem with it is that the company is horrible and extorts people who actually have an use case which requires them to use oracle. They've built the infrastructure in such a way that one can't just buy a database and use it by themselves, they need to buy services form the company forever. And there isn't really a fixed price for those services. Oracle basically charges as much as it thinks the client can afford.
Sun bought MySQL in 2008. Oracle bought Sun in 2009, but not for MySQL, they just kinda got it as a package deal. The real target was java. There wasn't any plan to keep developing it and MySQL wasn't making enough money on its own to be able to fund it's own growth. There wasn't some plot from Oracle to kill off MySQL, they simply didn't bother with it.
And by the way, there is a non Oracle MySQL alternative called MariaDB.
I've migrated workloads off of Oracle onto MySQL. They are absolutely competing products.
We can both name 11 things Oracle can do that MySQL cannot, but it doesn't change the fact that many organizations chose between those two databases plenty of times before Oracle acquired Sun.
MariaDB was invested in at additional cost to the open source community after Oracle bought Sun. It's existence doesn't absolve Oracle of the path their ownership put MySQL on.
Oracle is like Apple but for b2b. Everything is vendor lock in and very expensive. They don’t treat their employees particularly well. They don’t like adhering or supporting standards.
I remember a quote once that being evil was actually their business model.
Truth be told they’re probably just as evil as anywhere else, they’re just very loud about it.
On Windows at least, not sure why you would bother with virtual box now there is either WSL2 or hyper-v VMs
My friend, I'm planning on switching to desktop Linux, and you sincerely expect me to make rational, informed decisions? /j
/srs It's because I'm an idiot, Jim.
WSL has many issues which are not getting fixed, and rather classified as "won't fix, as out of scope". Further, WSL isn't supported on Windows Server, which is really annoying if you're dealing with M$ only infrastructure at your company and hoping to use WSL as an alternative way of deployment.
It's basically just a "cheapish" way of keeping Devs on Windows, preemting any semblance of competition by Linux desktop environments from forming. They know they lost the server market, but they can cling on to the Desktop environment market as much as possible, at the same time eating into apple's market share in this specific power user market. Not that Apple cares that much anyway, they're content with selling iPhones.