Off Topic: open source databases
in [Oracle]
|
From: joel garry on 27 May 2010 14:30 On May 27, 4:52 am, Steve Howard <stevedhow...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 9:34 pm, Mladen Gogala <gogala.mla...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:14:40 -0700, Steve Howard wrote: > > > It's replacement in the world? I would guess MySQL, based on Oracle > > > Corp.'s ownership if nothing else. > > > Hmmm, that doesn't compute, from my point of view. That is precisely why > > I opened this topic. Why would a huge corporation suddenly abandon its > > main cash cow in favor of a freebie? Slowly killing the freebie seems > > more likely to me, now that Oracle Corp. owns it. I am not sure as to why > > people are not trying to run away from MySQL, but they obviously are not. > > > --http://mgogala.byethost5.com > > I honestly think that over the longer run, Oracle is trying to figure > out how to make money from software as a service, rather than charging > for it as a product. > > So yes, they don't *own* it from a practical standpoint, as Galen > noted. However, they will support it and back it with whatever it > needs (including the read consistent model they provided it via InnoDB > a few years ago). In the process, they may discover how to make money > from it without charging for the software, which I *hope* makes it > over the to the flagship RDBMS. > > As Monty Widenius has already kind of done, someone will just fork the > code if they try to kill it, as it is already in the wild. Yes, the long run is what Mladen missed in the "main cash cow" assertion. In a nutshell, a product (or service) has hit the peak of its life cycle, not much more development costs need to be sunk, so it can be profitable for a while with little development. For someone with a strategic planning view (like Larry), it's not so much killing a cow as milking it while paying a lot more attention to growing new cows. In the past there have been a number of little cows, Oracle apps and various aquisitions that weren't turned to veal. MySQL could be a calf that will be fattened as databases become ever more commoditized. Tactically, pricing and development for all the db products can adapt to the where's-the-beef futures market as opportunities come and go. Go ahead and make the obvious jokes about what this scenario is full of, at least I didn't respond to the OP comparing the Earth to redo logs :-) Databases haven't been the center of Larry's universe for a long time. Heck, even the Catholic Church's http://religion.gaeatimes.com/2010/05/22/polish-priests-to-rebury-copernicus-as-hero-after-astronomers-remains-found-in-unmarked-grave-3016/ jg -- @home.com is bogus. Those darn computer glitches! http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_15172933?nclick_check=1
From: joel garry on 27 May 2010 17:05 On May 27, 4:52 am, Steve Howard <stevedhow...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 9:34 pm, Mladen Gogala <gogala.mla...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:14:40 -0700, Steve Howard wrote: > > > It's replacement in the world? I would guess MySQL, based on Oracle > > > Corp.'s ownership if nothing else. > > > Hmmm, that doesn't compute, from my point of view. That is precisely why > > I opened this topic. Why would a huge corporation suddenly abandon its > > main cash cow in favor of a freebie? Slowly killing the freebie seems > > more likely to me, now that Oracle Corp. owns it. I am not sure as to why > > people are not trying to run away from MySQL, but they obviously are not. > > > --http://mgogala.byethost5.com > > I honestly think that over the longer run, Oracle is trying to figure > out how to make money from software as a service, rather than charging > for it as a product. > Funnily enough, after my last post I got a junkemail that pointed at a link trumpeting "Michael Lehman achieved worldwide recognition as Sun Microsystems CFO, helping Sun manage through several business cycles to achieve a record of consistent growth," http://www.paloaltonetworks.com/news/press_releases/2010-0421-cfo.html Which made me wonder about consistent growth at Sun (it peaked with the dotcom), and eventually googled me to http://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20100513/Oracle.pdf (copyright 2009 lol) Which seems to be saying that Oracle is intent upon making money from soup to nuts service, aka vendor lock-in. I could see them perfecting this at the high-end, then attempting to move downmarket by plugging in arbitrary cheaper parts, kind of like the current db licensing scheme. MySQL and XE then become throwaway bottom end stuff just to try to lure unsuspecting MS/Dell/HP marks. I can certainly understand the We dont want customers making those decisions. They never quite tune it the way we would, said Oracle President Charles Phillips. But it seems unpolitic and condescending. jg -- @home.com is bogus. "... Larry's an outstandingly lovely, flawless man." - Jonathan Schwartz
From: Tim X on 27 May 2010 18:20 Mladen Gogala <no(a)email.here.invalid> writes: > I guess this is a legitimate topic now that MySQL is essentially an > Oracle product, too. My question, however, is not devoted to MySQL or any > other specific OSS database. I am just interested in what OSS databases > are mostly used in data centers, in addition to Oracle and why? > Specifically about MySQL, did the fact that Oracle Corp. now owns it, > lessen its appeal or even increase it? I must confess that I expected to > see a massive exodus from MySQL which did not materialize. I confess that > my understanding of the world may not be entirely correct and I will even > allow the possibility that the Earth is not flat, but this I do not > understand. I don't think Oracle's onership of MySQL (or Sun's before that) has really changed that much because they really appeal to two different markets/requirements. Many web hosting companies provide MySQL. Very few provide Oracle. I think this is mainly because a lot of web applications really only use databases in a very limited way - essentially a repository for key-value pairs. MySQL is pretty good for this type of use, while Oracle is overkill. My experience has been that most of the apps I've worked with that use Oracle are apps where the database is the main part of the application. The non-Oracle parts of the app tend to be just interfaces. The MySQL systems I've worked with, the app is usually some other 'thing' like Java, perl, ruby or PHP and the database is really just a simple data store. I think the main appeal of MySQL is that it can easily be administered by a competant sys admin or developer. There is not a lot you can tune/tweak and the feature set is quite limited. Oracle on the other hand is a much more complex beast, with a lot that can be tuned/tweaked and a much richer set of features. I have never met a good developer or sys admin who is also an up-to-date, experienced and competant Oracle admin. Postgres does appear to be gaining some ground, though I suspect a bit of this is more discussion than actual usage i.e. some are a little worried regarding what Oracle will do with MySQL, so for risk mitigation, they are considering postgres for new apps. At the same time, they are alittle worried about postgres as its a little less proven in the enterprise. From my limited experience, I find postgres to be somewhere between Oracle and MySQL. I am a little negative regarding MySQL due to issues I've had with it in the past, particularly with respect to its storage reliability and limited SQL compliance, such as not supporting subqueries (my MySQL knowledge is probably out of date - I believe its underlying storage engine is now much improved and its SQL has been extended). Postgres is also relatively easy to administer and easily within the skill set of a competant sys admin/developer. Postgres has had a reputation as being slower than either Oracle or MySQL and unlike Oracle, you don't have many options to tweak performance. It has been fine in systems I've used it for, but none of them are what I would have categorised as being under a heavy load. However, I've always preferred postgrs over mysql because it has always felt more like a real database to me where mysql always felt like a cut down somewhat crippled system. I believe there is also plans out there to fork MySQL and have an OSS version that is not controlled by Oracle. The original author of MySQL was pretty vocal regarding his oposition to Oracle, which in my opinion was pretty pathetic - he sold it for a large sum of cash to Sun, which I think forfits his rights to get huffy about what someone does with it who has paid to own it. Some of the recent Oracle support and licensing stories I've heard recently does make me wonder if postgres might not become more popular, but I think this is separate from anything related to MySQL. Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Tim X on 27 May 2010 18:25 galen_boyer(a)yahoo.com writes: > Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:14:40 -0700, Steve Howard wrote: >> >> >>> It's replacement in the world? I would guess MySQL, based on Oracle >>> Corp.'s ownership if nothing else. >> >> Hmmm, that doesn't compute, from my point of view. That is precisely why >> I opened this topic. Why would a huge corporation suddenly abandon its >> main cash cow in favor of a freebie? Slowly killing the freebie seems >> more likely to me, now that Oracle Corp. owns it. I am not sure as to why >> people are not trying to run away from MySQL, but they obviously are not. > > I don't think Oracle owns it. Nobody can "own" open source. They > bought off the main braintrust and set up agreements so those guys > wouldn't start up again. > > But, the way I understand it, anybody could continue development on MySql. Yep, they could take a fork from it and do what they want. I suspect Oracle won't even try to kill it off. Mor likely, they just won't do anyting with it and it willl slowly wither from bitrot (or be replaced by a forked version). I'm not sure Oracle even really cares. It was something they just got with the Sun bundle. It probably wasn't even included as a line item in the purchase process. Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: John Hurley on 27 May 2010 20:32
Tim: > I don't think Oracle's onership of MySQL (or Sun's before that) has > really changed that much because they really appeal to two different > markets/requirements. > > Many web hosting companies provide MySQL. Very few provide Oracle. I > think this is mainly because a lot of web applications really only use > databases in a very limited way - essentially a repository for key-value > pairs. MySQL is pretty good for this type of use, while Oracle is > overkill. > > My experience has been that most of the apps I've worked with that use > Oracle are apps where the database is the main part of the application. > The non-Oracle parts of the app tend to be just interfaces. > > The MySQL systems I've worked with, the app is usually some other > 'thing' like Java, perl, ruby or PHP and the database is really just a > simple data store. > > I think the main appeal of MySQL is that it can easily be administered > by a competant sys admin or developer. There is not a lot you can > tune/tweak and the feature set is quite limited. Oracle on the other > hand is a much more complex beast, with a lot that can be tuned/tweaked > and a much richer set of features. I have never met a good developer or > sys admin who is also an up-to-date, experienced and competant Oracle > admin. > > Postgres does appear to be gaining some ground, though I suspect a bit > of this is more discussion than actual usage i.e. some are a little > worried regarding what Oracle will do with MySQL, so for risk > mitigation, they are considering postgres for new apps. At the same > time, they are alittle worried about postgres as its a little less > proven in the enterprise. From my limited experience, I find postgres to > be somewhere between Oracle and MySQL. I am a little negative regarding > MySQL due to issues I've had with it in the past, particularly with > respect to its storage reliability and limited SQL compliance, such as > not supporting subqueries (my MySQL knowledge is probably out of date - > I believe its underlying storage engine is now much improved and its SQL > has been extended). Postgres is also relatively easy to administer and > easily within the skill set of a competant sys admin/developer. Postgres > has had a reputation as being slower than either Oracle or MySQL and > unlike Oracle, you don't have many options to tweak performance. It has > been fine in systems I've used it for, but none of them are what I would > have categorised as being under a heavy load. However, I've always > preferred postgrs over mysql because it has always felt more like a real > database to me where mysql always felt like a cut down somewhat crippled > system. > > I believe there is also plans out there to fork MySQL and have an OSS > version that is not controlled by Oracle. The original author of MySQL > was pretty vocal regarding his oposition to Oracle, which in my opinion > was pretty pathetic - he sold it for a large sum of cash to Sun, which > I think forfits his rights to get huffy about what someone does with it > who has paid to own it. > > Some of the recent Oracle support and licensing stories I've heard > recently does make me wonder if postgres might not become more popular, > but I think this is separate from anything related to MySQL. Nice summary. I don't do anything with MySQL but what you said and noted makes sense to me. |