Re: SAP DB: The unsung Open Source DB

And in documentation and  web support.

    1/ It's hard to find a good search engine that's PG centric. And sorry, Google only works so well when doing a
        search for highly specific technical information.
    2/ Postgres documentation does not seem to be in any of the standard, open source formats. Take a look at the
        Apache documentation for an example.

Ned Lilly wrote:

> I think your assessment is a pretty fair one.  It's definitely an announcement driven by marketing, and beating the
drumof MySQL's wide (but perhaps not too deep) installed base. 
>
> Two points I think the story missed:
>
> 1) As has been discussed on this list before, it's far from clear to me that MySQL is a good model of open source
development. Theirs is largely a community of users, not code contributors, and we've heard lots of stories about
patchesbeing rejected or substantially rewritten.  By contrast, I've always been impressed with how the PG community
managescomplexity, and how hackers can earn their way from bug reports, into minor peripheral hacks, into their first
realTODO item, into major functionality enhancements. 
>
> 2) As you mentioned, the SAP DB codebase - while very sophisticated in terms of functionality - is said to be a bit
ofa mess, a major reason it had trouble attracting open source developers. 
>
> So you've got a company with a product they control very tightly, jointly developing a multi-year, next-gen product
withanother company that controls its product tightly.  I think the chances are reasonably good that with time and
patientinvestors, they'll be able to come up with a good new product.  And if they pursue a dual-licensing strategy
likethey have today, they'll probably have a pretty good crop of users. 
>
> But I'm very skeptical that they'll ever realize the level of developer contributions that Postgres has today.
That'sthe "X factor" in successful open source projects - an ever-increasing level of code review, fixes, and
enhancementsfrom a highly skilled, self-selecting group of experts.  That's what enables Linux to outpace Windows,
despitethe fact that Microsoft is sitting on $40B+ in cash.  And that's why I'm still bullish on Postgres to stay ahead
ofMySQL in terms of features/functionality, and to continue closing the gap with Oracle.  Where Postgres continues to
bevulnerable, as we've seen from this and other recent press coverage of MySQL (front page of the Wall Street Journal
forgoodness' sake) - is in the area of marketing, and specifically the lack of a corporate sponsor of a certain size
andstature.  But that's a topic for another list ;-) 
>
> Cheers,
> Ned
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Huxton" <dev@archonet.com>
> To: "Ned Lilly" <ned@nedscape.com>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 6:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SAP DB: The unsung Open Source DB
>
>
> On Thursday 24 July 2003 05:00, Ned Lilly wrote:
>
>>OPEN magazine has an interview with the head of SAP DB development, and
>>talks quite a bit about the MySQL strategy:
>>
>>http://www.open-mag.com/8422483279.shtml
>
>
> Interesting, but I'm not sure it's cleared anything up in my mind.
>
> "What is significant about the MySQL/SAP deal is that the two companies’
> strategic mix of strengths makes market growth, when it does start to happen,
> pretty much inevitable"
>
> Eh? Once X has happened, X is inevitable?
>
> SAP AG still own and will support SAP DB (fair enough) but MySQL will have
> commercial rights and will rebrand it. So I can buy SAP from MySQL but
> they're not going to do the development on it, SAP AG will (but I can't buy
> it from them). Presumably the support for MySQL's customers will be via SAP's
> team.
>
> There's a multi-year plan to "bring the code bases closer together" which
> sounds like one of those big projects that always make me nervous.
>
> The main thrust seems to be:
> 1. MySQL have a simple DB with a lot of users
> 2. SAP have a complex DB with few users
> 3. Let's bring the two together and get the best of both worlds!
>
> That's fine, but my understanding of SAP DB's failure to attract a large
> community was that:
>  - it had a lot of competition (MySQL/PG/Firebird...)
>  - it was tricky to compile/install
>  - the codebase was far from easy to get to grips with
>
> I'm not clear how MySQL are better equipped to solve those problems than SAP
> AG. Actually, I'm not clear that they're going to if SAP AG are going to
> handle development.
>
> Maybe it's me, but other than a marketing announcement, I don't get this.