Giving Thanks 2009

I wrote this on a plane over the Atlantic heading to Chicago to visit my family for Thanksgiving, followed by a trip to San Francisco (my spiritual, if not familial, home). Maybe it's the maudlin sentiments from watching Julie and Julia, but I realized that I've got a lot to be thankful for this year.

The last time I was coming into Chicago was on a flight from San Francisco, all of 6 hours after I had found out I didn't have a job to come home to. It wasn't a particularly easy trip for me, and it was a pretty bittersweet trip to see my family not really knowing what I was going to do when I returned back to the UK (other than show up to be formally made redundant). Really, I didn't feel like I had a whole heck of a lot to be thankful for this time last year.

This year, I feel like things are completely different.

When I got back to London I immediately set about taking the idea which was OpenGamma and converting it to a Real Company. I pulled in two amazing cofounders, we started doing formal market research, refined the business model and strategy, and started working with potential funding sources. As I've mentioned, we closed a Series A round of investment, have started building the system that was little more than an idea and prototypes, and are pushing as hard as we can to make this a successful company.

It wasn't clear this time last year that it would happen, and a lot could have gone wrong along the way (more than actually did). I'm in a particularly rant-free mood, so let me give some thanks here.

First of all, I want to thank Jim and Elaine for joining me on the OpenGamma journey. Startups really are about founders, and I want to thank Jim and Elaine for trusting me when OpenGamma was nothing but my late-night emails and wildly-gesticulating concepts outside The Audley. You guys took a leap of faith and there's no way that we'd be where we are without all three of us working well together.

Second, I want to thank everybody who helped us pre-incorporation. We talked to a lot of people, and bounced a lot of different ideas off a lot of different people. Without people spending the time to talk to a bunch of crazy guys looking to disrupt financial technology, we never would have come down with a vision capable of being executed into a company. You guys spent time with us when you didn't need to, and when there wasn't any clear payoff to you. Thank you for spending the time and helping us refine our ideas.

I want to thank my family for standing by me and having faith in me and what we were doing. It hasn't been an easy year for all of you guys, but you've been rocks when I've been wavering and had doubts and went through difficult times. It's tough for me to keep in touch from 5,000 miles and 6 time zones, and I don't see my nieces and nephews anywhere near as much as I should do, but thanks for being there for me.

For the people at Big Bank B who took yet another leap of faith, thanks for not only giving me the opportunity to work for you while I was cementing OpenGamma, but for supporting me while I was doing it. I know I wasn't the typical candidate you were looking for, and I only hope that despite my abrasive nature and mercurial temperament I managed to perform at the level you were hoping. Your trust in bringing me in for a contract that gave me the freedom to actually launch OpenGamma hasn't been forgotten.

For my investors and board members, thanks for committing your time, energy, intellect, and capital in OpenGamma. Together, I think we'll create a fantastic business, and I thank you for joining Jim, Elaine and I on the journey.

Finally, I want to thank my husband. I know I've been all over the place over the past 12 months; I know at times I've been completely impossible to be around. I also know the sacrifices you're making giving up your partner to that harshest of mistresses, the early stage startup. But at the most critical time, when OpenGamma was one phone call from not happening, you were there for me. Sometimes I might seem like I don't appreciate you as much as I do, but trust me, I do. Thank you most of all for just being there. Without you, I doubt I would have had anything to be thankful for over the last year.

So yeah, I guess I do have a lot to be thankful for this year.

For all my USAmerican readers, eat some extra Thanksgiving dinner for me. For all my non-USAmerican readers, get yourself some turkey.

And don't worry, I'll be back to my usual abrasive, obnoxious, sarcastic, snarky, angry, ranty self soon enough.

More Adventures In Unethical Recruiting

Let's run through an entirely hypothetical situation for a second.

You're a recruiter. You find out that there might be a newly funded financial technology startup that's hiring, perhaps by looking at Blog Posts or LinkedIn Profiles. You think "hey, that's a great opportunity to get some business."

You then proceed to start calling engineers and telling them that there's a recently funded financial technology startup in stealth mode that's hiring, and they'd be brilliant to work for, and get some strong expressions of interest, including CVs.

You then contact the CEO of said company through LinkedIn and say "Hey, I see you're hiring, and I've got some candidates that are already interested!" The CEO might in theory point out to you that you in fact do not have a Master Services Agreement or any other contractual relationship with said startup, and that he's not interested in any candidates that have come through that might trigger a financial payout with a firm with which the startup lacks a pre-existing business relationship.

Now you're in a bind. The CEO flat-out says that he's not willing to sign any type of contract with you, but you've already told the candidates that you can get them introduced to the firm. You've been caught out in your lie.

I suppose what you could do is come clean with the candidates and just tell them the name of the firm and its CEO so that they can get in touch directly. In fact, the CEO might have even suggested this as a way forward for you. But I doubt you're going to do this. If you were interested in acting ethically, you might have contacted the CEO before lying to candidates.

I think more likely what you're going to do is tell the candidates that the CEO isn't interested in them in particular. And for that, and the situation that led to this mess, you earn a merit badge in Unethical Recruiting to add to your stack. You've also earned the wrath of said CEO, who will proceed to make sure that the reputations of both yourself and your firm are effectively ruined with everybody said CEO knows.

Hypothetically, of course.

Old posts now have comment registration

After a prolonged attack on a few of my older posts (and not the ones with the most traffic either; literally just three of them, but over 10 spam comments a day), I've turned on Registration to comment on the older ones.

Newer posts, all covered by Disqus, won't be affected.

Announcing the Release of the Fudge Messaging Project

Along with the rest of the OpenGamma team, I'm pleased to announce the first open release of a project we're calling Fudge Messaging [1].

What Is Fudge?

Fudge came out of a desire for a system to encode data which is:

• Hierarchical so that you can represent common document idioms (XML or JSON) using it
• Typesafe by storing the type of data along with the payload.
• Binary for compactness on the wire or on disk.
• Self-Describing in its contents so that you can introspect a message without knowing anything about any schema used for its production

In the past, we've looked at a number of different encoding schemes, and rejected them for various reasons:

• Google Protocol Buffers and Thrift are great if you have access to to the schema, and know what the type of messages on a particular communications channel are. But because they're not inherently self-describing, you can't build interesting middleware around their flow.
• XML and JSON are big (if you don't gzip them) and slow (if you do). Plus by being text-based, you have to convert everything to and from text.
• ASN.1 is conceptually nice in a lot of respects, but it's become such a niche that the tooling is utterly rubbish, and I don't see it getting any better.

Ultimately, for those of you familiar with Tibco Rendezvous, we really liked the TibrvMsg system, but couldn't use it because it's proprietary, and the implementations are surprisingly slow for something designed for low-latency messaging.

What Is The Fudge Project?

The Fudge project consists of the following major components:

• An Encoding Specification, conceptually similar to ASN.1 BER, DER, or PER, which specifies how to encode data in a linear sequence of bytes.
• A set of Reference Implementations, which adhere strictly to the encoding specification and provide access to Fudge-encoded data in a number of programming languages.
• Tools to make it easy to work with data encoded in the Fudge format.

OpenGamma is sponsoring the Fudge project, but in the classical Open Source way: we found something that was missing out there, built it to suit our needs, and have the capacity to help it grow while we use it.

Project Status

I'm not going to kid you: this is a very early stage project. We have Java and C# reference implementations (and the C# one, for example, is more advanced than the Java one in a lot of respects, mostly because it's leveraging relatively new features in the C# language). We have a wiki and Jira installation. We have code up in Github. But that's about it.

Don't let me mislead you: the Java reference implementation, for example, is rock-solid in stability and very good in performance; we use it daily here at OpenGamma. But we don't have polished releases and distributions and everything else as of yet. That will come, but we wanted to get the code out there as soon as we reasonably could.

License

We're releasing the code under the APLv2 because we believe that it's the best type of license for this type of work: it's developer friendly, as well as employer friendly.

The specification is free to use for everyone. If you're going to use the ideas but not the full specification we'd ask you to not call your project Fudge Compliant [2], but anyone can create their own Fudge implementation using whatever license they want.

Next Steps

If you're interested, take a look at the wiki, grab the code, and take a look. I hope you find it useful.

From our perspective, we're going to continue to develop the system and grow it.

Footnotes

[1]: Fast Unstructured Data Generic Encoding
[2]: Fair Disclosure: we are considering getting a trademark on the use of the word Fudge for messaging to allow us to ensure that only compliant implementations can use the name.

Monty's Almost Certainly Looking For Investment

Remember how I predicted that Monty was attempting to create such an untenable situation for Oracle that they had to dispose of the MySQL IP and put it into his hands? Remember how all of Monty's protestations were based on the fact that he doesn't have the money to buy it? Remember how I said that he might not have it now, but could probably raise it?

Yeah. He's trying.

From Reuters, Florian Mueller is touring Wall Street:

EU strategist who is former MySQL shareholder and adviser announces Silicon Valley press conference (26 October) and New York City analyst briefing (27 October) -- Florian Mueller wants to "explain positions of critics of proposed transaction in the lion's den" -- New York event due to "strong Wall Street interest in the matter."

There haven't been any protestations from Wall Street that I've seen that they're unhappy with Oracle acquiring MySQL. Rather, this has been a European affair as Monty tries to get the EU to interfere in industrial policy for his own personal benefit. So why in the world would you send your sockpuppet to Wall Street to explain any positions? What interest would Wall Street have in the matter other than to provide funding?

You might argue that he's going there to talk about the position they're taking with the EU competition commission because there are lots of people who own Oracle and/or Sun stock, and might be interested in the matter. But I think a much simpler story is at least as likely: Florian is attempting to drum up a capital raise to acquire the MySQL IP to make the problem go away for Oracle, and to convince Oracle and Sun shareholders that Monty and Florian will do whatever it takes to block the acquisition so that they'll tell Larry to let go.

Add to the Look at the Balls on that Guy category: Florian Mueller.

Java APIs and Ivy: Click-Through Agreements Suck

We've been using Ivy for project dependency management at OpenGamma since day-one. It was one of the earliest decisions we made, and I'm quite happy that we made it. Furthermore, the work that the Ivyroundup guys have done to package up Ivy-specific files has been fantastic.

That being said, there's one big, honkin problem with it: Sun and their click-through agreements to download almost any of the "interesting" APIs that you need for enterprise software development. These packages (like the JMS or JavaMail APIs) are necessary for pretty much anything that you might want to do on a real system, and you can't legally put them up for download. And unfortunately, there are a lot of them.

The workaround, of course, is that someone in your organization downloads them all, clicks-through on the agreement that is completely and utterly unenforceable, and then sticks them on a private Ivy repository and you configure your ivysettings.xml file to refer to that location, but that's not particularly scalable. And for open source projects, it just doesn't work at all.

Yeah, we've got this Ivy thing so that it automatically identifies all the dependencies and downloads them so you don't have to do anything but have Ant installed. Except for the Java stuff, which you have to manually download and put into these particular locations, and that's a 20 minute task minimum.

Kinda takes the shine off the whole experience, doesn't it?

Now given that everybody seems to know that you can handle licensing restrictions in different ways (by a disclaimer in each file and a copy of the license included), why does Sun still live in the past? Why do they require a clickthrough for something that is essentially just an explicit disclaimer of warranties and liability? Why can I download Eclipse or NetBeans without a clickthrough but not the JMS 1.1 API interface files?

Man, I hope the EU finally lets Oracle buy Sun and put this type of stupidity out of its misery.

Monty, Stallman, MySQL, Oracle, and Sun: Open Letter Wars

I've tried to confine my ranting about the current state of the Sun/Oracle/MySQL debates to my Twitter feed, but I think I need to do more than the 140 character limit allows.

Background On Recent Moves

In case you haven't been following the state of play, we've got two recent open letters sent to the EU competition commissioner:

• RMS, Knowledge Ecology International, and the Open Rights Group came out as strongly opposed to allowing the Sun/Oracle acquisition to proceed as long as MySQL was part of the acquisition.
• Monty suggested that Oracle be forced to sell MySQL as part of the Sun acquisition.

If you've been following either of my posts on the subject, you'll know I'm not a dispassionate observer in this matter, particularly where Mr. Widenius is involved.

Competition and Acquisition

First of all, let's directly address the core matter at hand, which is that Monty, RMS, and the various others appear to believe that the Database market is hopelessly consolidated and were Oracle to get its hands on the copyright to the MySQL source code that would be bad for competition.

This, to be honest, completely and utterly disregards the actual history of the database market, which has always been one of consolidation and benefits to the consumer:

• Illustra, a Berkeley spin-out, was bought by Informix
• Informix was bought by IBM
• RedBrick was bought by IBM
• RDB was bought by Oracle

While this consolidation has reduced the number of vendors in the market, as of 2007 there was still pretty hefty competition with Oracle even then only with a 44.1% share of the paid database market. As someone who has had to work professionally with Oracle, DB/2, Sybase, and Microsoft SQL/Server, I can say this is almost certainly because it's the best overall product.

Furthermore, those numbers in terms of the database revenue are completely suspect (with the exception of Microsoft's). There's a huge amount of revenue for IBM and Oracle which are tied to services and software sitting on top of the database (such as Oracle applications and IBM services), and realistically the CFOs of each company can tune the percentage of the deal that goes to the underlying database based on what numbers they want to report. The overall deal may be $1MM, but the sales person has a lot of discretion on how they price the database component.

Is there so little competition in the market that it's hurting consumers? Hardly. The recent squabble over Oracle's TPC-C pseudo-announcements indicates that the vendors actively compete with each other. Furthermore, the rate of feature expansion has been truly dramatic. Finally, the ability of firms like Vertica to rapidly jump into the market indicates that this isn't a market that requires significant levels of competitive concern on the part of regulators.

The technology industry is based on larger firms buying smaller ones. Competition authorities should rightfully be concerned only if it harms consumers in general, not whether it harms a particular subset of users.

But MySQL Is Special

With all due respect, no it isn't.

Let's consider the pseudo-market for Open Source databases. We've got:

• MySQL and its various derivatives (like Drizzle)
• PostgreSQL and its various commercial/supported versions
• Ingres
• Firebird
• LucidDB

And that's just considering the relational ones. When you consider the NoSQL movement as potential competitors (which I, for example, most certainly do), MySQL just isn't that special anymore.

While it is possible that an Oracle acquisition might be bad for MySQL consumers, it doesn't follow that MySQL is so special and perfect and pure that it harms any general category of consumers. While databases aren't perfectly replaceable, if someone found that Oracle's stewardship of MySQL was so onerous that they wanted to move off of it, it wouldn't be impossible to move to another database, either commercial or Open Source.

What that means is that you're in a classic case where the acquisition of a particular company might be harmful to consumers of that company's products, but it doesn't generically affect the market in a negative way. IBM and Microsoft will continue to compete in the commercial space, and PostgreSQL, Ingres, and LucidDB will continue to compete in the Open Source space. There's no net harm to consumers as a whole from an acquisition, even if the result of the acquisition was the complete shutdown of all commercial support for MySQL.

Oracle Is A Bad Acquirer

First of all, let's get the obvious out of the way: Oracle bought BerkeleyDB, and continued to enhance it; Oracle bought InnoDB, and continued to enhance it. At no point did they crush them to drive Oracle database revenues, or change the licenses, or stop forward momentum. So when you look at the actual track record of the company, they're in the clear.

But they might do, because they're an evil, scary corporation that MySQL turned down once before (from the Stallman piece):

Oracle made an earlier effort to buy MySQL in 2006, but the management rejected Oracle's offer, in part because Oracle would not disclose its plan for MySQL, and some members of the MySQL management team were concerned that Oracle was only acquiring MySQL to curb its advances in the marketplace.

I know a number of people involved with MySQL when it was an independent organization. While there were people who worried about that fact, senior management wasn't. More importantly, Monty was willing to sell MySQL to Oracle in 2006 for the right price. The use of the words "in part" there are telling, because the primary consideration that MySQL's senior management had wasn't some happy-clappy love for the Libre Software Movement, it was money.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what's changed in between 2006 and 2009 except that Monty is a whole heck of a lot richer. Why in 2005 and 2006 were offers ultimately rejected from Oracle based primarily on money, but now Oracle is an evil corporation that can't be trusted with MySQL? Larry's the same guy he was then, Oracle has bought BEA but they don't compete in any way with MySQL, it's the same company. Why would Monty trust Oracle back in 2006 but not now?

Force Oracle to Sell MySQL

This is Monty's solution. And it's cunning. It's particularly cunning that he says repeatedly that the obvious Monty-connected acquirer, Monty Program AB, lacks the funds to do such a purchase. Again, a half-truth.

MySQL was worth $1Bn in early 2008. Since then markets globally have tanked, but MySQL has had some good commercial strength recently within the Sun organization. So let's conservatively say that it's still worth $1Bn. Let's then say that Oracle values the acquisition of Sun highly enough to let MySQL go for less, and do a 20% haircut to $800MM. Who's got that kind of money to acquire?

• Microsoft. You think Stallman and Monty would be happy with that? No.
• IBM. #2 in the database market. Erm, raises same issues that Oracle would.
• Sybase has the market cap (super-recently) but not the cash.
• Red Hat has the market cap, but not the cash.
• Novell lacks the market cap and the cash.
• Computer Associates has the market cap and the cash, but is the place technology goes to die. They also have Ingres to work with.
• VMWare has the market cap and the cash and an acquisitive streak, but would MySQL really fit into their product strategy? I can see Spring driving people to vCloud, but can't even fathom the same kind of strategic benefit for MySQL.
• Symantec has the market cap and the cash, but their storage work has been pretty solidly focused on backup and low-level storage these days.

It doesn't look to me like there are that many companies out there that could really buy MySQL in cash and make Stallman and Monty happy.

But you don't actually need to have the cash yourself: you can use private equity money. It's happened before: BEA was funded by private equity originally to consolidate the Tuxedo market. That's why Monty's protestations ring hollow: his statement is explicitly "we don't have the money." But I think he could probably come up with it, and if he doesn't, then he needs to work with better financiers.

Finally, let's assume that Oracle really wants the rest of Sun, and considers carefully Monty's open statement that Sun is hemorrhaging $100MM of cash per month. Wouldn't it make sense for Oracle to actually just donate MySQL to pretty much anybody to make the EU issue go away? Oh, and lo and behold, Monty has two of those ready to go: Monty Program AB, and the Open Database Alliance.

To me, the current situation amounts to blackmail: we'll keep blocking your acquisition of Sun until you do what we want.

Consider The Sources

So let's look at the motivations of the major current players.

Stallman is irrelevant to any commercial discussion. His press release essentially says "I don't like the GPLv2 anymore, even though I wrote it, and it would be better if MySQL was under the GPLv3." Tough. Furthermore, RMS has no commercial experience of any kind. I fail to see how someone who has never even worked for a profitable commercial enterprise could be considered knowledgeable about how an acquisition would affect the marketplace in an anti-competitive way that harms consumers.

Furthermore, RMS' press release completely belies his previous positions regarding the possibilities for commercialization of GPL projects. He's stated in the past that offering dual licensing is only one of many ways that you can make money with the GPL being the dominant licensing model. Why all of a sudden does he believe that this is the only possibility for MySQL? Why is he so adamant that without that ability, there's no ability to derive commercial revenue from MySQL?

Monty has been slinging FUD about this acquisition for months. He was such a disruptive element inside Sun that they released him from his Non-Compete just to make him go away. Given that he's an extremely rich, disgruntled ex-employee and project founder, he has personal reasons and financial ones (under the Monty Program AB umbrella) to cause as much disruption to this deal as possible.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Monty has been playing a long game here, and I think he'll be obstructive to any potential move that Oracle would make with MySQL until the IP is under his control.

Personal Opinions Should Not Drive Competition Policy

Ultimately, you can sum up the entire argument against the Oracle/Sun acqusition due to the MySQL situation as:

• We don't like Oracle owning the MySQL IP
• Therefore, don't let Oracle own the MySQL IP

Unfortunately, saying that you personally dislike something doesn't provide a valid reason to block an acquisition on competition grounds. Saying that you don't trust Oracle doesn't alter the marketplace in a way that disadvantages customers as a whole. Saying that nobody else could make money by selling commercial licenses for MySQL doesn't mean someone else must be allowed to.

The moment the MySQL founders, who have been handsomely rewarded, took VC money they turned MySQL from being a hobby project/company, and into a major technology company and an asset. The change happened years ago, it's just that they're only starting to wise up now.

But it's happened. It's done. It's no longer anybody's pet project; it's an asset that can and should be used by whomever is willing to pay the most for the IP. As a customer, under the GPLv2, you still have rights, including the right to fork. But don't go whining that a company that made massive amounts of money for its shareholders by commercializing a technology is no longer under your control.