Oracle's contributions are less clear-cut, particularly if you don't count all the acquired "achievements."
I’d be surprised if Oracle released the trademark without a fight to the end. They have a special way of decimating open source projects.
Evaluated by how useful they are to society at large, many businesses should not exist forever--or even for very long. Xerox PARC, Kodak, and Netscape are examples of companies (or, in PARC's case, a division of a company) that contributed significantly to their fields before becoming defunct. Those contributions aren't worsened or inferior, somehow, because the companies that engineered them are gone.
Whether or not a company is still in business only tells you whether a company is good at keeping itself alive. Over time, that quality is increasingly disconnected from whether a company produces valuable goods or services.
At a couple points my org had hiring crunches and leadership’s short term solution was to find employees from other orgs that could be “loaned” to us. The quality was universally jaw-droppingly low. I had to do code reviews and they would do the craziest junior-developer no-standards stuff that would cause their PRs to get rejected repeatedly, because not only did they make dumb decisions, they didn’t even understand the explanations of why they were dumb decisions. It was infuriating and a horrible waste of time, and the second time around, we tried to say we don’t want that kind of help, but leadership insisted that the free manpower was not optional.
Had it not been for Oracle, Java would have died on version 6, and it remains to be seen what would have happened from anything else.
Both Java the language and OpenJDK the main runtime & development kit have had much more money and manpower poured into them under Oracle than they ever had previously. Both continue to advance rapidly after almost dying pre-Oracle acquisition.
MySQL 8 (released in 2018) was a massive release that brought many long awaited features (like CTEs) to the database, although MySQL's development have stalled during the past few years.
Oracle employs several Linux kernel developers and is one of major contributors (especially to XFS and btrfs): https://lwn.net/Articles/1022414
Not top 3 or even top 10, but better than most companies out there.
That's all I can remember.
edit: after thinking about it for a couple more minutes, they're also the main developer of GraalVM — the only high quality FOSS AOT compiler for Java (also mentioned by a sibling comment), and are writing one of the major relatively lightweight modern alternatives to Spring (the other two being Micronaut and Quarkus): https://helidon.io
9.0 is finally released and we are now at 9.3. While nothing big or exciting with every release but development is steady. MySQL 8.0 will reach EOL in April 2026 so every should move to 8.4 LTS soon(ish) and 9.7x should also be LTS by then. I know most on HN is about Postgres but modern MySQL is decent. I think a lot of people still have MySQL from 5.0 era. Which is also somewhat true with Java as well.
I think Oracle do contribute lot of open source code, they just dont get the credit or brag about it.
Many already moved to MariaDB, because development stalled after Oracle bought Sun (which bought MySQL).
I will probably never forget the rage I felt at discovering the reason my scripts broke between Debian versions was because "apt-get install mysql" started silently installing MariaDB instead, which was close but subtly different enough. (I am honestly surprised considering an Oracle trademark is involved, no lawsuits were filed over this.)
People actually used to like the products that made these companies explode. Windows 2000 was cool; Facebook was cool; Google was cool. Whenever they stop being pure unadulterated evil for a few minutes, very quickly a lot of people are willing to forgive them and welcome them back into polite society.
But as long as most geeks can remember, Oracle has never been cool. At its peak, the company enabled a world of snooty BOFH DBAs, selling unreasonably expensive products to well-oiled middle-managers. And then they started "acqui-squeezing" adjacent products, blackmailing their own customers, and suing everyone in sight. They could cure cancer tomorrow, gifting all the related IPs to the world, and most geeks would still see them as scum trying to whitewash their image - and they would probably be right. There are some great engineers in Oracle, but their management is all that is wrong with capitalism.
SQL is kind of shitty, but the relational database model is so great that it makes up for it. And until the rise of entity component systems, SQLite, PostgreSQL, and MariaDB, all the decent implementations were proprietary software. Separately, although SQL's implementation of transactions is even more broken than its implementation of the relational model, transactional concurrency is also great enough to make up for SQL, and, again, all the usable implementations used to be proprietary.
I don't disagree, but that's not what I said. Yes, it was a good product; but everything else that came with it was already shit. It empowered DBAs, not developers, and enterprise people, not hobbyists; for these reasons (and others), it was just not something that most people liked.
Popularity is not simply a function of technical value.
Which RDBMS software has/have become the best in the world after that?
I think you could make reasonable arguments for SQLite, Postgres, MariaDB, Impala, Hive, HSQLDB, SPARK, Drill, or even Numpy, TensorFlow, or Unity's ECS, though those last few lack the "internal representation independence" ("data independence") so central to Codd's conception.
What's your opinion?
Also, though, horizontal scaling is a lot less important now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. https://www.servethehome.com/2025-server-starting-point-inte... says AMD has 192 cores per socket, and you can get two-socket motherboards, so 384 cores total. And you can stick 12 128GiB DDR5-6000 DIMMs in it, so 1.5 tebibytes of RAM, and a single SSD is 30 terabytes, and SSDs can commit a transaction group durably in typically 0.1 milliseconds. And those 384 cores (EPYC 9005, so Zen 5c, https://www.servethehome.com/amd-epyc-9005-turin-turns-trans...) are 2.25GHz and typically about 2.2 instructions per clock (https://chipsandcheese.com/p/zen-5-variants-and-more-clock-f...), and they support AVX512.
As one rough estimate, 2.25GHz with AVX512 (at 1 IPC) means you can do 36 billion column-oriented 32-bit integer operations per core per second, which with 384 cores means 13 trillion 32-bit integer operations per core per second. On one server. So if you have a query that needs to do a linear scan of a column in a 13-million-row table, the query might take 300μs, but you should be able to do a million such queries per second. But normally you index your tables so that most queries don't need to do such inefficient things, so you should be able to handle many more queries per second than that!
(Each socket has 12 DDR5 channels, totaling 576 gigabytes per second to DRAM per socket or 1.13 terabytes per second across the two of them, so you'll get worse performance if you're out of cache. And apparently you can use 512GiB DIMMs and get 6 tebibytes of RAM!)
So, if you need more than one server for your database, it's probably because it's tens or hundreds of terabytes, or because you're handling tens of millions of queries per second, or because your database software is designed for spinning rust. Spinning rust is still the best way to store large databases, but now the cutoff for "large" is approaching the petabyte scale.
I think the space of databases that are under ten terabytes and under ten million queries per second is large enough to cover almost everything that most people think of when they think of "databases".
Servers fail, any serious business obviously needs more than one server. And many need more than one data centre, just for redundancy. The more modern Oracle clusters act in a similar manner to RAID arrays, with virtual databases replicated across clusters of physical servers in such a way that a loss of a physical server doesn’t impact the virtual databases at all.
I was talking about horizontal scalability, not failover. You don't need horizontal scalability, or for that matter any special software features, for failover. (Though PITR is nice, especially if your database is running a business.) With cloud computing vendors, you may not even need a second server to fail over to; you can bring it up when the failure happens and pay for it by the hour.
The features you're talking about made a lot of sense 30 years ago, maybe even 20 years ago. They still make a lot of sense if you need to handle hundreds of millions of queries per second or if you have hundreds of terabytes of data. But, for everything else, you can get by with vertical scaling, which is a lot less work. Unlike backups or rearchitecting your database, it's literally a product you can just buy.
(A lot of the open-source relational databases I listed also support clustering for both HA and scalability; I just think those features are a lot less important when you can buy an off-the-shelf server with tebibytes of RAM.)
I’m not arguing with that, I’m just pointing out why very large organisations still use Oracle.
The kinds of databases where your business stops working if the database does are OLTP databases (often, databases of transactions in the financial sense), and they aren't hundreds of terabytes or tens of millions of transactions per second. Oracle itself doesn't scale to databases so big or with such high transaction rates that they can't run on one server in 02025. (It does scale to databases so big or with such high transaction rates that Oracle can't run them on one server in 02025, but that's just because Oracle's VAXCluster-optimized design is inefficient on current hardware.)
People run Oracle because it's too late for them to switch.