Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

315 comments

I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (5, Insightful)

SIGALRM (784769) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160153)

Oracle Vice President of Technology Marketing Robert Shimp, whose company is among the only database providers not trending toward open source in some way, was critical of some open source moves by database makers
Of course he would say that--but the typical consumer interested in F/OSS databases are definitely not the handful of big companies that Oracle sends a team of slick salesmen to do 4 months of PowerPoint just to get one > $100,000 sale. Of what use is the "Oracle model" to the rest of us?

Mr. Shimp, get a clue... we're simply not going to buy your pitch without looking at other decent (free!) alternatives.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (3, Insightful)

dsplat (73054) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160273)

He was also critical of "orphanware". While there are reasons to be critical of orphanware announced as if it is a live project, it has some benefits. It is certainly possible for a product to reach a point in its lifecycle at which its residual value to its owner is small, or even negative if support is continued. However, at the same time, it may still be valuable to a small group of customers. Releasing it as open source at that point permits customers to make other arrangements for bug fixes and even new features.

Let's not pretend that orphanware is something that it's not. Nonetheless, there are still reasons to be pleased to see it.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (5, Insightful)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160334)

Let's be honest, some products that are OSS'd may be an old pile of junk making nothing for the company. And they see that releasing it gives them some kudos in the OSS community.

So what? There's still some more source code added to the big pot marked OSS. Someone, somewhere may be able to take it and do something else imaginative with it.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160550)

I wish I still had mod points...
That is excellent thinking, and more of what we need. At the very least a new dev can see what's been done before and _didn't_ work, thus averting the creation of more oss crap, and hopefully resulting in more oss gold instead.
-nB

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (4, Insightful)

tanguyr (468371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160287)

I think most "typical" Oracle customers are much less sticker-price sensitive than you'd think, since they realize that the cost of developers and DBAs you need to actually do something with your shiny new DB usually far outweighs the cost of the software. If anything, Oracle wins a lot of business in the db world just like Microsoft wins a lot of business in the productivity suite world: most corporate customers think "Database" = "Oracle" and never really go out there to investigate the alternatives.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160445)

There's also the fact that Oracle has a real, proven track record of reliability and scaliblity. There are bunches of companies that run huge Oracle databases on mainframe-supercomptuer hardware that can't ever be down, not even for a minute, and have done so for years.

Can something like MySQL do the same? Well, I honestly don't know. However if you are in a position where there will be extreme losses from an outage, you don't want to be the one to test and maybe find out that no, indeed it can't.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160507)

Can something like MySQL do the same?

The answer is not just "no", but "hell no". Mysql is great for what it is, and that ain't Oracle.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (2, Interesting)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160512)

There's also the fact that Oracle has a real, proven track record of reliability and scaliblity. There are bunches of companies that run huge Oracle databases on mainframe-supercomptuer hardware that can't ever be down, not even for a minute, and have done so for years.

Can something like MySQL do the same? Well, I honestly don't know. However if you are in a position where there will be extreme losses from an outage, you don't want to be the one to test and maybe find out that no, indeed it can't.


Oracle products have a place. They are expensive because of what they can do and how they can do it and they are very much worth the expense to those in the position that need them. MySQL should not be compared to the Oracle line but that doesn't make MySQL bad. It's just different.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (4, Interesting)

tanguyr (468371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160609)

It's certainly true that Oracle can sell into the corporate environment using arguments like this (company X uses Oracle to manage a three terrabyte database! And they only accept one picosecond of downtime per decade otherwise all the DBAs get disembowled with a spoon!) - mostly in the hopes of triggering some mid level IT manager's penis envy. In practise, reliability is more a function of how good your people are than what products you use - guru + MySql > idiot + Oracle any day of the week, for 99 out of 100 common cases.

This isn't Oracle bashing btw: i've got MySql installed on my workstation because all the demo apps seem to use it, but i work on Oracle - TOAD is *always* open - and i've always said that if it could cook i'd marry it.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (1)

abradsn (542213) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160795)

I don't think a company would hire an idiot to admin an expensive tool like oracle.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (3, Insightful)

arkanes (521690) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160731)

MySQL absolutely cannot compete in the market where Oracle shines. However, Oracle is used in a lot of places you don't need it. On the other hand, once you've spent a million dollars on an Oracle installation you may as well use it for everything.

Disclaimer: I'm a MySQL hater and wouldn't recommend it in any circumstance. Postgresql on the other hand is fantastic and should get a lot more love than it does. It still can't compare to Oracle in the huge installations, but it can certainly replace Oracle in all sorts of common usage.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160870)

Reminds me of a time top-3 internet company was interested in buying a .com I was involved in.

The guy doing the technical evaluation looked at our Oracle based architecture, turned to our CFO and said "you shouldn't have let them do that". "Why not?" the CFO said, "Oracle is known for scaling well."

"well, it may be true that Oracle scales technologically, but it doesn't scale financially" - was the response.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160645)

most corporate customers think "Database" = "Oracle" and never really go out there to investigate the alternatives.

That's what marketeers call successful 'branding', just like when they ask for a kleenex.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (3, Insightful)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160359)

Of course he would say that--but the typical consumer interested in F/OSS databases are definitely not the handful of big companies that Oracle sends a team of slick salesmen to do 4 months of PowerPoint just to get one > $100,000 sale. Of what use is the "Oracle model" to the rest of us?

One of the areas Oracle shines is the developer support. While not free as in speech, they already make their product free as in beer for the folks doing development work. Granted, you pay the piper when you move to production land, but one of the strong points for the OSS offerings is not having to hork about with licensing on the dev side. I know I have used Tomcat and Jboss on the dev side while a customer noodles through the decision to get BEA or IBM kit.

I'd say Oracle might be in a world of hurt on the lower end database solutions. Light weight stuff that might have required a 100k license in production land and needed the sophistication of a ten column MS Access database is numbered. Many of the OSS solutions are 'good enough' for department scale use. An interesting move on IBM's side was donating Cloudscape (now Apache Derby). They salted the field for the lower end stuff, but were clever in they used DB2's JDBC connector. Build a simple app, find out it grows into the enterprise, and you have the option to pay the same mad cash as Oracle for the full featured solution....

Slick salesmen are a lot more expensive than that. (2)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160361)


Of course he would say that--but the typical consumer interested in F/OSS databases are definitely not the handful of big companies that Oracle sends a team of slick salesmen to do 4 months of PowerPoint just to get one > $100,000 sale. Of what use is the "Oracle model" to the rest of us?

$100,000 is chump change. Entry-level real estate agents, fresh from passing the licensing exam, turn up their noses at those gigs.

A team of slick salesmen and 4 months of PowerPoint start at around $10,000,000, although $100,000,000 might be more realistic.

PS: There is a major division of our state government that has invested about $250,000,000 over the course of eight years on an ERM/CRM suite from SAP and they have, after eight years, precisely 0 [I repeat, ZERO!!!] of the constituent modules up and running and performing any meaningful work.

Re:Slick salesmen are a lot more expensive than th (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160852)

$100,000 is chump change
blah, blah, blah.. if you'd read GP's post, it uses a curious little symbol: > ...which means "greater than", in case you're interested.

Re:Slick salesmen are a lot more expensive than th (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160896)

fairly certain that the commission earned by selling $100,000 worth of software beats selling a $100,000 house by a wide margin. But, you're right Oracle clients spend a whole lot more than that on average. I've seen ODBC drivers for Oracle alone go for >$30,000

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160373)

Of what use is the "Oracle model" to the rest of us?

It's orders of magnitude faster than free alternatives, for one.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (1)

Vile Slime (638816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160557)

You get what you pay for,

My wife is a front line development manager for Oracle. And she is good, real good, in what she does.

She occasionally has to do the 3am priority one bug fix for a client. Not only does she have to suffer but so do I since I cannot sleep through her getting paged, getting up, clacking on the keyboard, etc.

But, the reality is "Just exactly how many open-source database products give you TOP TALENT who get up in the MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT to fix the bug which is currently keeping you from processing your payroll (and making 40,000 employees happy)?"

When open-source can provide that sort of support then it will be ready to compete with Oracle.

Anybody who thinks MySQL, Postgress, etc. is ever going to reach that sort of commitment needs to have their head examined.

Re:I'm sure Oracle's nice and all, but... (1)

iabervon (1971) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160694)

I've personally been at a relatively small company where we got a ~$100,000 Oracle database after one Oracle salesman showed up to talk to the developers for an afternoon. If you have a whole lot of data going through your database (millions of rows added/day), you want a big server, and Oracle is the right thing to make good use of it. Any company that's a retail chain or providing services to one is going to have this order of data, which is plenty of business for Oracle.

I think Oracle is right in saying that the competition helps them get new sales, because the availability of MySQL means that database apps for more purposes get written at the low end, and then big sites realize that they could use those apps (or more scalable versions of them) with an Oracle database. Or sites start out with OSS databases and then the load overwhelms the hardware that the database can use effectively.

I've got a fever (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160156)

And the only prescription is more S Q L!

When we're done here, baby, you'll all be using gold plated computers.

Whoever modded this 'redundant'... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160821)

Missed the subtle reference to a great Christopher Walken gag. Very nicely done, sir.

Hammer Revolution (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160160)

--;

The hammer revolution has begun!

--;

Why the disclaimer? (1, Interesting)

mOoZik (698544) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160161)

I'm curious why some submissions carry the disclaimer, "Slashdot and NewsForge are both part of OSTG." Can anyone shed some light on this? Just curious. :)

It's called being a good editor (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160193)

It's to make it clear that the relationship exists, and allows you to consider if there may be some sort of conflict of interest. For example, when MSNBC does a story on Microsoft or NBC, they always point out that they're operated as a joint venture between the two.

Re:It's called being a good editor (1)

AvantLegion (595806) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160222)

OK, I've determined a conflict of interest exists. Now what?

Re:It's called being a good editor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160246)

Ignore the story? Refute it?

Re:It's called being a good editor (4, Funny)

oexeo (816786) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160275)

> OK, I've determined a conflict of interest exists. Now what?

Removing the stupid pyramid scheme from your sig would be a good start.

Re:It's called being a good editor (2, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160437)

Now you weigh the degree to which you accept the veracity of the story accordingly, maybe confirming the accuracy through a non-conflicted source before making a bad stock investment or product purchase.

Re:Why the disclaimer? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160238)

So they let you know exactly were they stand.

If MSFT's Get the facts campagn came right out andsaid all studies funded by MSFT, and all computers that ran windows were supplied by MSFT would you have a bit more respect for them?

just a bit more.

Re:Why the disclaimer? (1)

abradsn (542213) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160900)

Can't blame them for wanting to make money off of what they pay for.

disclosure (4, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160321)

The late-1990s media buyouts created so much cross-ownership that every article can contain some hidden corporate bias, stemming from competition/cooperation between parent corporations publishing the story, and the subject of them. When the same corporation is reporting on itself, the story is extremely suspect. The media response has been to favor "full disclosure": mentioning the corporate connection in the story as a disclaimer of "objectivity".

It's not good enough. People are increasing our acceptance of this conflict of interest the more we see it, rather than rejecting it more as it grows more pervasive and therefore more dangerous. Actual competitive conflicts are necessary to get critical interpretations, not just acknowledgement that interpretations might be selfserving propaganda. At least Slashdot has these discussions of stories, in which dissent can be communicated. My favorite system was the P2P "Third Voice", a browser plugin which let the user attach popup sticky notes to any web page, stored in a DB the plugin checked against the "background" page's URL. That way, P2P commentary could effortlessly appear right in the context being presented, without requiring cooperation from the provider of the target content. The project folded, but I welcome its return. Only the flexibility, complexity and scale of the public is enough to compensate for the advantages that centralized corporate media has in lying to us.

Re:Why the disclaimer? (1)

Naikrovek (667) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160344)

because to me anyway, it is considered inbreeding when you link to yourself or an affiliate for a news story. something like "here's another site's take on it, if you don't like ours. oh yeah we're the same company as them."

personally i don't like it at all. I especially hate it when slashdot links to itself about things that have happened in the past. other sites do it, and it hate it when they do it too. if you are in the habit of reading just one site, or watching just one news station for all your news, you begin to filter your view on the world, and make yourself easier to influence. I point at my colleagues who watch Fox News and no other news channels for proof of this. Same for my colleagues who watch CNN and nothing else. Its bad in either direction.

The disclaimer is a way of legally avoiding conflict of interest concerns. It is also a way of attempting to bring more regular visitors to newsforge.

Re:Why the disclaimer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160480)

Ah! The joys of living in the commercially dominated USA. See - here in the UK we just watch the BBC. Independent and trustworthy.

Re:Why the disclaimer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160531)

Not everyone agrees that something funded by the government can be independent and/or trustworthy.

Pretty real (0, Offtopic)

JohnGrahamCumming (684871) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160173)

I mean just ask Patrick Volkerding.

Luckily, it seems that the Mayo Clinic can get your symptoms under control.

John.

How Real Is The Open Source Database Fever? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160175)

As real as Springfield Stadium's additional seating capacity fever.

As I said on newsforge (5, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160180)

I think a lot of it is PR. If you take a look at a lot of the advertisements that include the words open source, they use it like a buzzword. It gives me a kinda woozy feeling that I don't like.

Re:As I said on newsforge (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160752)

"Open Source" is a buzz word, get used to it.

Show me the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160182)

The only issue you have to ask is if your making 100k a year as a DB admin do you care if your using PostgreSQL or Oracle.

I predict that you can answer the real issue yourself yet I also see a few saying that the Open Source wins. Now I would like to know if your careers depends upon the choice, which would you choose?

I throughly enjoy PostgreSQL yet at the 100k club I would rather have the support of larger vendors like Oracle or even Microsoft.

Am I sick? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160186)

I masturbated to my cortana action figure this morning.

Saturday Night Open Source Fever? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160201)

How Real Is The Open Source Database Fever?

I don't know. Um, so real that CowboyNeal gets dressed up in a white suit for a hard Saturday Night of coding? And rolls his hands wildly one over the other while waiting for the thing to compile?

codekeg (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160219)

I'm not as interested in their Open Source beer. I want more of their Open Source speech - not just all the marketing hype we can eat, but shareable code, code, code. I want Postgres transactions in MySQL APIs. I want Oracle's scheduler in Tomcat's JVM. I want to pay them for tech support, so I can get my FrankenBase to work, making me rich, and everyone else wise. Free the source, Larry!

Re:codekeg (1)

texas (43689) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160719)

Well, I think you've got it mixed up then. You don't care about free as in speech, you want free as in beer.

beer: someone gives you some beer (or code they wrote) for free. You get the product of someone else's work; something for nothing.

speech: the freedom to say (or code) whatever it is you would like to, without having to worry about what others might think.

So, if you want code, code, code, you want free as in BEER. At least, that's how I've always understood it. Am I backwards?

Re:codekeg (1)

arkanes (521690) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160798)

Am I backwards?

Yes. Free as in Beer is what Oracle is right now. Go ahead, go download it. It's free. (Note that you can't deploy it or do anything else interesting without paying money). Free as in speech is what this guy wants because he wants to modify and absorb and grow what Oracle does, mixing it with other databases to get the best solution for him. This is what the sharing of ideas and concepts (and yes, code) is all about.

Re:codekeg (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160908)

You're not so much backwards, as inside out :). You've got the free beer/speech scenarios right, but not how they apply to my (earnest ;) demands for code.

I said " I want to pay them", so it's clear that I don't want their code "for free". I want the free dom to reuse their code in any way please. Subject to some limitations, naturally - like the GPL. I get the product of someone's work, but not for nothing: when I distribute my derived work, I have to publish the new source, too, including a copy for the people from whom I got the code. I want free code, as in speech: I want them to "speak freely" their source code, without limiting it to private, proprietary "conversations" merely among themselves.

Just my two cents ;).

It's sexy (5, Interesting)

confusion (14388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160234)

Being associated with OSS and Linux is sexy right now. We're seeing this done in droves - Sun with Solaris, SAP DB, Nokia replacing IPSO with Linux, etc. It's the in thing to do right now.

I don't see how it is going to pan out in the long term for some of these companies, though.

Jerry http://www.syslog.org/ [syslog.org]

Re:It's sexy (1)

brainchill (611679) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160366)

Actually nokia is replacing ipso with linux because it's significantly faster. I've been running checkpoint on linux since FW-1 4.1 on redhat. I remember laughing then the first time I saw a Nokia press release patting themselves on the back for being number 2 in throughput with checkpoint behind checkpoint/linux.

Re:It's sexy (1)

Meostro (788797) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160479)

Being associated with OSS and Linux is sexy right now.
Yea, it's really helping everyone on /. get the chicks.

I can see it now:

CowboyNeal: Hi, I'm CowboyNeal, and you are...?
Object of Attention: I'm not impressed
CN: Allrighty then... so what do you do?
OoA: I'm a $1000-an-hour nude model and occasional porn star. What's your job, assuming you have one?
CN: I'm working with Linux and Open Source these days.
OoA: Really! Hmm... Hey, why don't we go someplace a little more... private.

Re:It's sexy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160637)

That little conversation brings a song to mind:

Lo Lo Lo Lola....

Re:It's sexy (1)

flossie (135232) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160921)

That little conversation brings a song to mind: Lo Lo Lo Lola....

Nah, that's the old kinky version. The new Linux version is more along the lines of "Li Li Li Li Lilo".

but dont you just love IT managers (2, Interesting)

barnseyboy (842629) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160258)

who keep telling me, that they want their commercial applications re-written with an open source database backend like mysql. I never have the heart to tell them that unless they are actually are releasing the source code for their apps, that they need to purchase a commercial licence [mysql.com]

Re:but dont you just love IT managers (1)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160381)

Release it... Post a public notice in a church bulletin or free newspaper and offer to share the source code via postal mail for $0.05/page

aha the CBPL (1)

barnseyboy (842629) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160447)

church bulletin public licence!

Re:but dont you just love IT managers (2, Informative)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160390)

I don't think that's the case. It's only if you bundle mysql with an application.

I am prepared to stand corrected, but IIRC MySQL can be used on an in-house database with no additional license.

Saying that, giving something back (buying a license) helps them to keep developing it, and it's well priced.

Re:but dont you just love IT managers (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160476)

Yep. If you bundle MySQL with a commercial app you have to pay for internal use you are good to go.
At least that is the way I read it.

Re:but dont you just love IT managers (1)

jargoone (166102) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160500)

Had you read the link that the OP so kindly included, you would realize that you are wrong. At least you were prepared for it, though.

Re:but dont you just love IT managers (2, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160552)

The GPL is usually considered to not apply to internal distribution. MySQL thinks differently. What the courts think will be very interesting to find out.

Re:but dont you just love IT managers (2, Informative)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160585)

Read the third bullet point of open source license [mysql.com]

Re:but dont you just love IT managers (1)

jargoone (166102) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160774)

The parent to your original post was referring to Commercial software. This is presumably software that is sold to customers, and is therefore covered by the Commercial license.

Re:but dont you just love IT managers (3, Interesting)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160675)

I wonder though, if you wrote a software package that could use a multitude of DBs, like postgres or Microsoft SQL, if you then could offer the client the option of installing MySQL on their own machine. Your software package wouldn't actually "require" MySQL but could use it if available. Would you need a commercial license then?

What if you were hired as an employee of sed company for a month long contract and sed company wanted you to install MySQL for some of their open source apps already running, say a company intranet website running some kind of open messageboard. Then, after sed contract runs out, you sell them your software package for use with their existing MySQL server. Do you need a license then?

Re:but dont you just love IT managers (1)

jargoone (166102) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160815)

That is a very good point. The license specifically says that you have to obtain a commercial license if you require them to use MySQL. Offering an alternative database could be a way around this.

Another, much more riduculous way, would be a clause like this in your software's license: An end-user supplied DMBS is not required, but MyCommercialApp's functionality will be severely limitied without a DMBS.

Re:but dont you just love IT managers (2, Funny)

eddy the lip (20794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160824)

"... employee of sed company...and sed company wanted you to install... after sed contract runs out..."

I think you've been hanging out at the command line too long..

Re:but dont you just love IT managers (1)

MrLint (519792) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160517)

Or you can use postgres and distribute it however you like.

Re:but dont you just love IT managers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160785)

I've heard my share of developers say the same thing. It's a naughty rumor that is propagated by sites such as Slashdot ;)

I think snopes.com needs to create an article about it.

Quit spreading FUD (2, Informative)

deacon brown (733444) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160839)

Just spoke to a helpful young man (Matt) at MySQL
If you have any questions on MySQL licensing, feel free to contact us: USA and Canada: + 1-425-743-5635

Commercial license is NOT required for in-house (written and distributed) app running on one server. If we replicate to another server for web access, then we would need a commercial license.

Many small office I.T. managers may now breathe a small sigh of relief, or begin investigating http://www.postgresql.org/ [postgresql.org]

F/OSS Databases (5, Informative)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160285)

Other than the obvious mySQL and PostgreSQL, I have tried two others... CA's Ingres [ca.com] and IBM's Cloudscape [devx.com] (which is an embedded DB).

Ingres was originally intended to compete with the likes of Oracle and MS SQL Server, but never had the power or client base. OpenSourcing Ingres looks like CA's attempt to beef up both in one shot. It's not a GPL license, just a chance to peek at the source and maybe help out. The interface that ships is very much like Oracle's.

Cloudscape is nice, but not even as powerful as PostgreSQL.

I think there is a huge market still untapped for open source DB's... especially RDBMS, but alas, large companies are (of course) slow to adopt.

Re:F/OSS Databases (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160420)

Isn't Cloudscape designed to be small, and because it's Java, easy to embed in Java apps?

Re:F/OSS Databases (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160536)

Yes, and yes. It's very handy for embedded apps, and is open source.

Re:F/OSS Databases (1)

kulpinator (629554) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160671)

It's very handy for embedded apps....

Right, it's for embedded apps, so it's not really to be compared to Postgresql, since it runs on an interpreted platform and is designed to be small instead of powerful. Postgresql is designed for feature-completeness; Cloudscape fills an entirely different need.

I think there is a huge market still untapped for open source DB's... especially RDBMS

Out of curiosity, what other kind of DB is out there that isn't an RDB(MS)? Edgar Codd's system has been working pretty well, and though there are other systems, I don't know that there's huge demand for them. You're not contradicting that, but I wonder what you were thinking of.

Re:F/OSS Databases (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160786)

There are still ISAM DB's out there in use, as well as the new Object Oriented Database [intersystems.com] .

Just follow the path of nessus.. (www.nessus.org) (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160295)

mysql and others will.

grow a dependent base of users, 50K or so, then close source the project and start charging.

that's the american way ;) or french way...

Re:Just follow the path of nessus.. (www.nessus.or (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160697)

and watch a fork materialize in front of your eyes quicker than you can blink.

(If the project is important/popular enough, like mysql for instance)

Expensive DB's Put Companies Out of Profit Zone (2, Insightful)

was_ms_now_linux (834256) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160309)

The fact that even small companies are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for a SQL database solution just serves to underscrore the disconnect between business managers and information technology divisions. Business managers actually believe they need to spend these large sums to ensure data security and integriy. More so than in any other area of IT purchasing, money spent on DB is totally out of synch with the real underlying cost-benefit equation. These prices were justified back in the days when hardware was primitive and expensive, making state of the art software algorithms worth an order of magnitude more valuable than they are today. With today's hardware, virtually any credible SQL Engine code-base would run the largest corporation. The prices are purely a product of marketing and a huge gap in understanding. wwww.SoftwareObjectz.com

Re:Expensive DB's Put Companies Out of Profit Zone (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160504)

I agree with most of what you said. However, the OSS DB's don't offer higher end options such as clustering, distributed transactions, etc... While there are companies that really don't need clustering and simple data redundancy, a much larger actually do for disaster recovery, failover, etc.. Add in the cheaper cost of finding (and likely employing) an MS SQL Server expert over a PostgreSQL expert, and companies with vast data farms probably save money over the long haul going with a SQL Server or Oracle.

Re:Expensive DB's Put Companies Out of Profit Zone (2, Insightful)

kpharmer (452893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160623)

> With today's hardware, virtually any credible SQL Engine code-base would run the largest corporation.

ok, sure. You throw $2m at mysql and maybe it can provide the performance of $100k of Oracle or DB2: in running large decision-support queries.

And note: before you say that nobody needs these, keep in mind that most robust operational applications today include some business intelligence/DSS. It's mainstream stuff, and the hotting-selling component that Siebel (CRM) sells today. But mysql/postgresql/sap-db (bleh)/firebird/etc - lack the partitioning & parallelism necessary to pull off this common need at all.

And note again: don't even bother talking about the half-assed clustering solution that mysql has. It's about as credible in the large database world as their lack of transactions were two years ago in the oltp world.

Then you've got replication, high availability, etc, tec. Once again - don't bother offering up the limited/alpha capabilities of the open source databases here. They need some serious time to get those capabilities to 100% before picking up mission critical functions.

So, before talking about cost-benefit equations - you need to get more familiar with the technology. And more familiar with the larger issues within IT.

There's some cool stuff happening in the open source database world. But also a hell of a lot of hype - and some of the products are pure crap.

A question for the question (1)

AbbyNormal (216235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160322)

"Does it really matter to end users?"

The more the merrier. Sure as an IT house looking at all the numerous products out there, will take significantly more time. The end result will be more choice to the consumer than there was before.

No support for PostgreSQL? (4, Informative)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160329)

From the article:

> PostgreSQL has a much richer feature set but
> has scalability problems and doesn't have
> a company behind it providing
> enterprise-level support;

Bah. What about this [postgresql.org] ? Lots of companies there, and many of the folks involved are core PostgreSQL developers...

Re:No support for PostgreSQL? (1)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160519)

Hahaha!

He said enterprise support, not a group of 10 d00ds that help "develop" postgres.

Anyway, the "scalability problems" is still unrefuted, and I'd venture to say that needs to be solved before you start claiming "enterprise support".

Re:No support for PostgreSQL? (1)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160698)

> "scalability problems" is still unrefuted

I'm not sure how high PostgreSQL scales, although I've heard of folks running terabyte-sized databases on it. At any rate, Fujitsu is helping to fund [newsforge.com] improvements in that area, so it's only getting better.

Re:No support for PostgreSQL? (1)

saur2004 (801688) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160738)

I hear that in postgresql 8 they are going to start addressing the scaleability issue by adding tablespaces. I might have heard wrong, but if they do, I think that will go a long way to help cure this perception.

Re:No support for PostgreSQL? (1)

brennz (715237) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160811)

I never knew http://www.sra.co.jp/index-en.html was only 10 d00ds. That is right, PostgreSQL does have true enterprise support, and not from GPL-twisters either......

Re:No support for PostgreSQL? (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160661)

Huh? All companies listed are under about 35 employees, apart from one that a PG developer works at.

That's hardly a shining example.

Don't shout at me - I love PG, ever since taking the time to learn it. Kind of like Gentoo.

Re:No support for PostgreSQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160691)

how many people do you actually need for a support contract at the so called enterprise level.

Re:No support for PostgreSQL? (1)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160754)

> All companies listed are under about 35 employees

Why would that be a problem? After all, database support is something a guru can do by himself... it doesn't take an army of level one tech support folks. It's like a compiler support company - just one or two really, really smart people.

My favorite bit (2, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160346)

"We think it is good news for users, and we welcome these products to the open source world, Ingres, and the Linux world, Sybase," Mickos said. "We have predicted for some time that this would happen. It validates the MySQL business model. Two years ago, people said MySQL was a toy. Now, apparently everyone wants to be a toy!"

They said that MySQL sucks...now they're open-source, just like us, so their products must now suck also!

Orphanware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160380)

The Oracle representative is correct in some points. Ingres and Cloudscape are clearly orphanware where CA and IBM clearly saw no need for the database management systems.

But PostgreSql and MySQL are not and have good followings.

After all this open source beer, please tell me (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160396)

...where the open source urinal is.

Re:After all this open source beer, please tell me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160791)

Right here [microsoft.com]

Oracle-Mode DB Fyracle (3, Informative)

bstadil (7110) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160403)

Do not forget the Oracle mode Firebird based Fyracle [janus-software.com] It is taking on a life of its own, and can be used for a fair amount of Oracle Licenses off-load.

Based on old Borland Interbase

New eco systems ... the doubt ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160407)

... are they simply coming in and asking where the cups are? ...

This is the way ... new business eco system evolves, they are in doubt, but they cant be idle, they will experiment with the evolving system... and slowly becomes part of the new eco system.

The problem here is for the established companies ... for ex. M$ can't do this kind of experimentation, BUT M$ believes they are doing that! and ultimately they will be out of the new eco system.

Gmail (0)

ireallylovelinux (589360) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160574)

come and get it. http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-f4aa5a9253-d270c66 579-4f34d6feeb

All memory database (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160581)

At my company we talked about the all memory database, no one mentioned names, but it was hyped 9000 times faster than Oracle running in ramdisk. Its open source. Maybe someone else knows more than this.

Re:All memory database (1)

Indiges (701323) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160669)

Possibly SQLite, or HyperSonic SQL (HSQLDB) in Java :-)

from=rss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160655)

Next time remove the "&from=rss" from the article's link, please. You might be fooling Newsforge's statistics with a ton of fake RSS hits (hope they check those links have a /. referrer)

There is plenty of beer, there are plenty of cups (4, Interesting)

flossie (135232) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160679)

What does it matter if some of the applications are orphanware? Adding code to the commons must be a good thing. No-one is forced to use or develop it, but it is available for anyone who finds it useful.

<Off-topic rant>the editor of Newsforge really needs to have a word with the author of the article, I say. It is really not necessary to write "so-and-so said" in every single sentence, says me. I say that you only need to mention who said the words when the author/speaker changes. I say that it is very annoying to read that article because of the poor way that it is written.</rant>

Database is a commodity now (3, Insightful)

johnjaydk (584895) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160699)

The overlooked fact of this whole discussion is the fact that databases are becomming a commodity. Using object-relationa mapping tools like Hipernate you can completely hide the details of the underlying database from your code. This enables you to use whatever database is on sale this week and even change your mind mid-stream.

This makes it really easy for open-source databases to step-in since there is no lock-in. Later on if you figure out you need a big honking Oracle/DB2/whatever you can easily change your mind.

Like Java makes the OS and HW a commodity these tools makes the database a commodity and by definition commodities ends up being really cheap. And it's kind of hard to find cheaper than free ;-)

My favorite play is to develop on Hypersonic/McKoi and deploy on PostgreSQL. No sweat.

I'd say it's real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11160712)

At least real enough to merit a snippy /. article questioning whether the companies doing this are sincere.

Honestly, can anyone, anywhere, ever do anything for the F/OSS crowd without being the target of snide, whining comments? And more important, will the F/OSS camp ever realize how much they hurt themselves with this childishness?

If you have real evidence that company Z is lying about their level of support for F/OSS, then by all means, tell the world and help us all spread the word so we can impact the sales of that company. But this constant witch hunt mentality (as in the countless complaints from some time back that IBM was actually going to (gasp!) make money by promoting Linux) doesn't help the F/OSS movement or computer users.

Re:I'd say it's real (1)

Shut the fuck up! (572058) | more than 9 years ago | (#11160922)

Honestly, can anyone, anywhere, ever do anything for the F/OSS crowd without being the target of snide, whining comments?

Well, if you're talking about Slashdot being the F/OSS crowd then no, no they can't. In fact, snide whiny comments are the bread and butter of Slashdot. Between that and the trolls, Slashdot really doesn't have much. Slashdot is about arguing, complaining, and trolling. Nothing more. Too bad you can't set an upper threshold on comment score because there's not much content above 0.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...