Re: Is my MySQL Gaining ? - Mailing list pgsql-general

Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is product-placed compared
to MySQL? Do you really care whether users prefer MySQL or Postgres?

Why don't you just focus on your growing Postgres userbase, the core
product, and keep refining it (as you are). Granted you need to keep
looking around to see what other DB's offer, and keep the product fresh
and current.

As long time Oracle developer recently converted to Postgres, I think that
you would all do better to use Oracle as your benchmark instead of MySQL.
Oracle has become the enterprise defacto DB standard (through marketing
and general capability). But Oracle certainly isn't perfect - it has some
stinkers in it. The worst thing is lock-in. You get some nice features,
and then once you're committed it is very hard to get away again.

Don't just focus on the open source market, because I'll bet that there
are many commercial projects and enterprises who don't need much of a
nudge, and who would be willing to put Postgres in instead of Oracle,
Sybase or DB2.

I know the DBA of one company paying $800,000 a year in Oracle licences
and support contracts that was seriously looking at Postgres to provide
the same capability for MUCH less cost. Unfortunately, there were a few
show stoppers; no nested transaction support (#pragma autonomous), a
(perceived) lack of replication/distributed solutions, no real file level
admin (tablespaces etc). And the last straw was the amount of effort that
they would have to expend to port their app from Oracle to Postgres - due
in part to relying on features like Oracle's Context cartridge
(free text searching).

Postgres isn't far behind Oracle in terms of catch up on the missing
features, and in many way far exceeds Oracle. I suspect that within a few
versions, Postgres will match or exceed Oracle's capabilities. Right now I
would have no problem advising a client to use Postgres instead of Oracle
(except where one of the show stoppers is an issue).

What will really make sit and pay attention is when you see large
project's and clients migrate from Oracle, DB2, Sybase to postgres, and
when this gets widely reported. Perhaps the biggest danger to Postgres
then is Oracle waking up to a perceived threat from Postgres, and starting
to use its muscle to spread FUD about Postgres.

The best story I heard about Oracle (and I don't know if it's true or
not), is that Oracle would not run their internal support systems on an
Oracle DB up to version 4 (maybe 5) of Oracle due to reliability
concerns...

Stop worrying about MySQL - I'm not sure that you want those users until
they hit a deadend with MySQL and are wanting to trade up to an enterprise
solution.

I just have to add that Postgres (the db, and the postgres community) is
GREAT! I'm sold on it!

John Sidney-Woollett

Chris Travers said:
> Hi all,
> Comments inline
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
> To: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>
> Cc: <aspire420@hotpop.com>; <pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org>;
> <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
>
>
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote:
>> > 2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the
database manager.  This slows their rate of development and we will
continue to move faster than them.
>> This could be argued both ways, actually ... their model makes for less
discussions on how to implement things ... they decide to implement it, do
>> it and commit the code without having to worry about whether anyone
else
>> agrees with it ...
>> The flip side to this, of course, is the lack of input from other
developers who may (or may not) agree with how it is being implemented ...
>
> Actually my concern here is something else.  Open source is a very
different
> software development methodology than proprietary software development
is.
> Some time ago, in the MySQL manuals, I had actually see them claim that
the
> larger development community of PostgreSQL was a bad thing.
>
> See-- here is the problem:  Open Source development is at its best when
the
> core team, in addition to doing development, help to foster an
environment
> whereby the project grows in community-driven ways.  I am not sure that
a
> close corporate control over an open source project will ever lead to
optimal software because the software will end up stuck between worlds.
This is a major problem for some open source projects.
>
> I have always been a firm believer that software can be either
proprietary
> or open source, but that the two cannot be combined well into one for
general purpose tools and platforms.  I feel that this is the mistake that
> Caldera made which has lead to their fall from one of the leading
distros
> to
> the current situation where it is not even maintained anymore.  In
trying
> to
> sell Linux as if it were a proprietary platform, they allowed Red Hat in
particular to out-manuver them.  This is the same problem that Trolltech and
> MySQL AB have today, for which UserLinux has decided to use GNOME
instead
> of
> KDE, and I would be surprised if people selling proprietary apps would
choose MySQL over PostgreSQL.
>
> Simply put my point is that software can be proprietary or open source,
but
> projects which try to do both often end up losing out.  I see MySQL as
trying to do both.
>
> As much as I like the idea of open sourse software, at this time, there
is
> still a substantial market for proprietary applications, and although it
may
> fade over time (and has already done so considerably), it is a market
that
> must open source software must co-exist with rather than simply
attempting
> to assimilate or trying to belong to both communities..  This is also
why
> I
> have argued that the GPL is intended for self-contained projects, of
which
> MySQL is not, when you include the client libs.
>
> In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near
or
> long-term.  PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists.
Firebird
> is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to
learn when compared to PostgreSQL.  It has a long way to go before being as
> easy to use as PostgreSQL.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>