Обсуждение: Bad news for Open Source databases, acording to survey
Here is an article saying open source databases will not make major inroads into large businesses during the next five years: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/datbus/article/0,,11969_796851,00.html -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 12:48:17AM -0400, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > Here is an article saying open source databases will not make major > inroads into large businesses during the next five years: > > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/datbus/article/0,,11969_796851,00.html What do you think this means for PostgreSQL in the large business arena? gh > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 12:48:17AM -0400, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > Here is an article saying open source databases will not make major > > inroads into large businesses during the next five years: > > > > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/datbus/article/0,,11969_796851,00.html > > What do you think this means for PostgreSQL in the large business arena? Not sure what it means or whether it is accurate. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 10:57:16AM -0400, a little birdie told me that Bruce Momjian remarked > > On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 12:48:17AM -0400, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > > Here is an article saying open source databases will not make major > > > inroads into large businesses during the next five years: > > > > > > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/datbus/article/0,,11969_796851,00.html > > > > What do you think this means for PostgreSQL in the large business arena? > > Not sure what it means or whether it is accurate. It looks like, to put it kindly, a load of malarky to me. While I'm not sure if the final conclusion is entirely inaccurate (though I doubt things are as cut-and-dried as it makes it appear), the arguments presented in the article are absurd. I'm especially fascinated by how operating systems are simple, basic, and easy to switch between, while DBMSen are so much more complicated. And what about this paragraph set? --- Support by leading vendors for Linux is understandable because Microsoft controls the low-end OS market, and all the previously mentioned vendors would love to mitigate their dependence on Windows. Indeed, Microsoft's success is forcing vendors that already sell a Unix OS (e.g., IBM and HP) to embrace Linux and thwart Microsoft's pull-through growth (e.g., SQL Server and .Net). The database market is quite different. The importance and complexity of the database platform is an opportunity to lock in customers to a particular vendor's platform. With major DBMS vendors striving to closely integrate their respective application servers (mainly Oracle and IBM) with their database engines, and hardware vendors and other major independent software vendors following the market share, it is unlikely that OSDB support will get a significant boost. --- Right. No company has ever tried to lock their customers into their OS. Only database companies. And the 'Bottom Line' summary: --- Bottom Line: Users' growing information databases are infrastructure assets that should use best-of-breed solutions to ensure availability and support. --- Well, duh. That's a platitude. And it doesn't really relate to the rest of the article, though it does get 10 Management Points for creative sneaking in of marketspeak. It's a statement with the presumption "OSDB's aren't best-of-breed", but there's nothing at all in the article that supports that view. The closest they come is saying 'MySQL just recently added two-phase commit and row-level locking', and seem to give the attitude that's all that needs to be said. Really, the whole article seems to be trying to say "There's lot of big important companies in the DB business", and using that as basically the sole axiom to prove "OSDB's aren't good enough and nobody will use them". Possibly correct conclusion (though it's not exactly a binary question, is it?), but totally meaningless justification, IMO. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Unix Systems Administrator | fullermd@futuresouth.com Specializing in FreeBSD | http://www.over-yonder.net/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"
Sounds like some spin from Oracle, IBM or Mico$oft. Never trust what you read on the net (including THIS e-mail). From personnel experience (never to be trusted either) I would say that Postgres experience is a good item to have on your resume. Ken > Here is an article saying open source databases will not make major > inroads into large businesses during the next five years: > > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/datbus/article/0,,11969_796851,00.html > > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue > + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
This article appears to be a pretty weak opinion piece - the author has little understanding of PostgreSQL and the support infrastructure that exists. The article makes numerous references to mysql which is clearly the low end of the Open Source database market. Postgres is very close to where it needs to be to compete head to head with Oracle, db2, and MSSQL server. As a web application data server our experiences have been wonderful. We have deployed postgresql on production servers and will be replacing Oracle on one of the leading B2B marketplaces in the floral industry. That being said, the vacuum improvements, recovery, and replication features are sorely needed and disqualify postgresql from being considered in many scenarios. It may be possible for postgresql to meet these requirements, but would be less expensive to deploy Oracle (In terms of development time, testing, and risk management). We have found that corporations are very interested in open source databases, although they don't always realize it ;) - It takes some education. Where postgresql development has come a long way and is very successful, we all need evangelize and educate the market to ensure it's place in the industry today and in the future. -Ryan Mahoney CTO Payment Alliance, Inc. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.251 / Virus Database: 124 - Release Date: 4/26/01
--- Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > Here is an article saying open source databases will not make > major > inroads into large businesses during the next five years: > > > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/datbus/article/0,,11969_796851,00.html Those same weak arguments were used to discredit Linux as a valid OS just a couple years ago. They dissappeared with the increasing vendor support (Dell, IBM, etc) just as GreatBridge and Red Hat are doing so now for PostgreSQL. Plus, with so many youngsters coming out of college armed with experience with open source tools like PostgreSQL it is silly to assume that the current DB giants will reign supreme years from now given such powerful alternatives. I could go on with endless arguments to prove the logic of that article incorrect but for most of you it would simply be a waste of time. We have been there and heard that all before. PostgreSQL will continue to grow as the community around it grows and I have faith in that as I would imagine most of you do as well. Regards, Brent __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 12:48:17AM -0400, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > > Here is an article saying open source databases will not make major > > > inroads into large businesses during the next five years: > > > > > > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/datbus/article/0,,11969_796851,00.html > > > > What do you think this means for PostgreSQL in the large business arena? > > Not sure what it means or whether it is accurate. > > "Open source database companies will not be able to compete with the price, performance, maturity, and functionality of the commercial vendors" price? A *free* product not being able to compete with the *price* of a commercial one? Sounds funny at least... is IBM going to pay us to use DB2? B-) .TM. -- ____/ ____/ / / / / Marco Colombo ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager / / / ESI s.r.l. _____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@ESI.it
On Saturday, July, 2001-07-07 at 06:49:44, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Here is an article saying open source databases will not make major > inroads into large businesses during the next five years: > > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/datbus/article/0,,11969_796851,00.html smells FUD by a mile. Intentional facts omissions and easily thrown judgements without any proof. Part of anti-Open Source war I think. regards -- Marek Pętlicki <marpet@linuxpl.org> Linux User ID=162988
Marco Colombo <marco@esi.it> writes:
> "Open source database companies will not be able to compete with the price,
> performance, maturity, and functionality of the commercial vendors"
> price? A *free* product not being able to compete with the *price* of
> a commercial one?
I suppose he's talking about the open-source support companies, like
RedHat, Great Bridge, PostgreSQL Inc, etc, who are hoping to sell you
support and consulting services at a very definitely nonzero price.
(Still a lot less than an Oracle license, though.)
The long-term viability of that business model remains to be proven.
But what this argument fails to realize is that the open-source project
will still go on, even if all those companies go broke. Postgres has
never depended for its existence on any particular company, and I
certainly hope that it never will.
I concur with the general opinion that this article is mostly hot air...
regards, tom lane
It sounded to me like an analyst defending a long position in ORCL. ;-) Mike Mascari mascarm@mascari.com Tom Lane wrote: > > Marco Colombo <marco@esi.it> writes: > > "Open source database companies will not be able to compete with the price, > > performance, maturity, and functionality of the commercial vendors" > > > price? A *free* product not being able to compete with the *price* of > > a commercial one? > > I suppose he's talking about the open-source support companies, like > RedHat, Great Bridge, PostgreSQL Inc, etc, who are hoping to sell you > support and consulting services at a very definitely nonzero price. > (Still a lot less than an Oracle license, though.) > > The long-term viability of that business model remains to be proven. > But what this argument fails to realize is that the open-source project > will still go on, even if all those companies go broke. Postgres has > never depended for its existence on any particular company, and I > certainly hope that it never will. > > I concur with the general opinion that this article is mostly hot air... > > regards, tom lane
> Here is an article saying open source databases will not make major > inroads into large businesses during the next five years: > > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/datbus/article/0,,11969_796851,00.html > This kind of discussion was made for MS SQL Server years ago. (MS SQL Server will not be used by large businesses) Now, many companies are using MS SQL Server as back end DB (ERP, etc) The same thing may happen to PostgreSQL Open Source DB is very attractive option to ERP and other venders, since they can cut down installation cost with open source db. It is a matter of time, isn't it? -- Ohgaki, Yasuo Mail: yohgaki@dd.iij4u.or.jp
Blah Blah Blah
Who cares if GMC or some other big company want to throw a huge
amount of computer resources and money for support personnel and
contracts!
I have worked with Oracle. It is a pig on resources, a nightmare
and daymare to administer. Like all proprietary software bug fixes
and enhancements take for ever, and the price for service contracts
and software are large. I have migrated all our databases into
PostgreSQL and we have never been happier. We no longer need to
spend countless hours on the phone to get help and have turned
our Sun equipment into DNS and mail servers. We did not see a
performance increase at the time we switched, but there has been
speed improvements since. The official Oracle documentation is
horrible but there are some good third party books. The
documentation for PostgreSQL when I first switched was incomplete,
but sufficient to get me up and running in a lot less time than
oracle did.
Since then new Linux distributions can configure and install
PostgreSQL server and clients from the initial install the job
of getting a server up and going is simplified. Webmin now by
default comes with an interface for PostgreSQL, but is NOT perfect.
There are more and more add-on modules to server software that
allow PostgreSQL connectivity, and I have built some of my own
without to much difficulty.
With all the API's for different programming languages and
connectivity solutions {ODBC, JDBC ...} PostgreSQL is an excellent
solution for self sufficient people and organizations. If you
like throwing money around donate it to PostgreSQL and or go
out and pay a fair bit for RedHat Database, which is just Linux
and PostgreSQL which have been optimized for each other and are
supported by a single vendor {not enough to convince me}.
Guy Fraser
PS :
I would like to thank Tom and all the rest people at PostgreSQL
for there excellence in support and creation of great software.
--
There is a fine line between genius and lunacy, fear not, walk the
line with pride. Not all things will end up as you wanted, but you
will certainly discover things the meek and timid will miss out on.