Re: the IN club: Oracle "unpublished" information
- From: "Alberto Dell'Era" <alberto.dellera@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:24:05 +0100
On 3/15/07, Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In addition, Oracle is not an OpenSource company, they do have internal
intellectual property to protect.
But nowadays you don't license Oracle because it has "the most clever
algorithms" - you license it because those clever algorithms
are efficiently implemented AND because Oracle is very scalable AND
because the company is so huge that it won't go away in the next 20
years AND because it's the market leader AND ...
Publishing the algorithms will simply enable (as you said in the parts
I've chopped away) professionals to better design and tune systems,
so increasing the market share. And keen enthusiastic professionals
may even point out problems (bugs), suggest refinements and enhancements
FOR FREE. An example of "peer review" in essence.
If I were a big competitor, and wanted to copy Oracle algorithms, I'd have
all the resources necessary to reverse-engineer the CBO, or simply,
I could hire a former CBO developer and have him (secretly!) tell me
what the algorithms are. Only to discover they are patented maybe ..
After all, the multiversion read consistency algorithm has been publicly known
for years ... and still it took MS more than a decade to "parrot" it.
So my point is - publishing the algorithms would be a very good move
for Oracle, with no real downsides at all. I concur with Charles 100%.
--
Alberto Dell'Era
"Per aspera ad astra"
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
