Well, the article really doesn't delve into much in the way of details, does it?  Just a few opinions by other writers (not users, developers, tech managers or executives...).  Where are the possible strategies, tactics, and options???  For either Oracle, Sun, or the user/customer base of both product sets? Why not try to provide a bit more focus on this? There's certainly plenty to talk about!  As the '80's-esque Wendy's commercial would say, "Where's the beef???"

There's plenty of concern about this merger, from every corner of the aforementioned audience base, for a plethora of reasons.  The current installed base of open source, PHP/MySQL-based websites and eCommerce sites alone (and the supporting and enabling products that they are built upon/around, like all of the CMS, forum, blog and social networking app providers) and even the commercially-viable/-based app market that has developed around all of the open-source Web 2.0 enabling technologies is directly and indirectly threatened by this move. 

And especially given Oracle's historical strategies and tactics surrounding proprietary and commercial exploitation of its own software, let along that which it has acquired and folded into its catalog.

One thing that Oracle and Mr. Ellison can be trusted to do:  look after themselves, and finding ways to capitalize and profit on every single transaction.  Mind you, that's not necessarily a bad thing, particularly if you are a shareholder... But no one has ever mistaken them for being either benevolent or benign.  Nothing is given away.  Ever.

In fact, the concept of "open source" is so foreign and repugnant to Oracle (like Microsoft) that, in many ways, I'm surprised they'd even be interested in acquiring Sun, in the first place - if it weren't for the singular fact/reason that Sun's open source offerings demonstrated such a significant "challenge" to their marketspace.

Having considered this m&a from a number of different perspectives, I believe, on the balance, that the move could be good for Java.  There is a very large, thriving and well-entrenched base of both users/customers and commercially-viable Java technologies, software, applications and supporting services (as mentioned in the above article) and the on-going maintenance and support requirements of the core base of Java is just not that intensive or extensive at this point.  So, at least for this part of the product set, it seems the Oracle acquisition is more of a CA-style move (i.e., "buy 'em when they're mature, have a large installed base, and the bugs/kinks are long since worked out, put minimal effort/investment into it, and ride that pony...").  This could have a minimal immediate and/or near-term impact on the existing user/customer Java base.  But then, long-term might be a different story: e.g., what's happened to every one of CA's acquired products in their quiver?

For MySQL, it's an entirely different ball game.  MySQL - like Linux before it - represents a very real and proven challenge to the status quo commercial model for system software.  Oracle has really only 2 response options to this threat:  1), Crush it (which comes with a "poo poo it" on the front end), or 2), embrace and adopt it.

Both Microsoft (remember Gates poo-pooing the Internet/World Wide Web back in the early '90s as a "fad" and "flash in the pan"? same attitude in many other/different situations has revealed a pervasive mindset there; I know, not a huge revelation, more of a "duh") and Sun itself (with Solaris vs. Linux) have tried the "crush it" strategy, all failing to discredit, quell and crush the challenger.  So each - in their own way - chose the latter "embrace and adopt" strategy.  Microsoft with Internet Explorer (and many other developed and/or acquired examples) and Sun with Java and MySQL and "OpenSolaris".

Of course, the difference between Linux (and Java really) on the one hand, and MySQL on the other hand, is huge for Oracle.  Oracle's continued to profit handsomely by the onset and surge of installed commercial production instances of Linux, as it's provided just another platform upon which they can sell, upgrade, modify, transition to, provide installation/implementation/consulting services for, etc. on top of their existing product/service and user/customer base.

This speaks well for Java, as again, it provides simply another development and installed production platform for the already-existing Oracle product and service solution set.  These aren't challengers or threats to Oracle, they are enablers.

However, MySQL is a direct challenge and threat to the Oracle base.  And as a product, it is still relatively less mature in its product life cycle, continuing to develop, grow, evolve and mature, which requires a much higher level of effort, time and investment to maintain viability and meet market expectations.

While providing scant little revenue.

Oh yeah, and also while eroding (or at least competing directly for new market in) the current database system and application software market.

One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to see how this could well play out.  We might expect to see some justification and juicy rationalization for the move to discontinue MySQL and shut it down (or perhaps more cleverly, to just put continuing, on-going support on "super slo mo", fating it to a slow, quiet death) by rationalizing that, with a few api call changes in the various PHP et al apps (and for which Oracle will be only too-eager to accomodate by providing interfaces/bridges, which would thus require no or far fewer app code changes) and because MySQL supports standard SQL language support, that everyone and every THING (apps) can "just seamlessly switch over to Oracle" database products and services.  We might even expect to see Oracle trumpet and herald this move as a 'very positive benefit' for existing MySQL users/customers, as it will now be "supported by the full weight and focus of the Oracle organization" (or something like that...).  And of course, you'd have to start paying for it.  Somehow.  Expect that, more than all of the other.

But leave MySQL alone, as it is?   No way.  not for $7.4 BILLION.

Just my 2 cents worth (actually, not even that much!).

-Scott Rutledge