Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Oracle buys Innobase - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Chris Travers |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Oracle buys Innobase |
Date | |
Msg-id | 4353EAEB.1070501@travelamericas.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Oracle buys Innobase (Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>) |
Responses |
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Oracle buys Innobase
|
List | pgsql-general |
Scott Marlowe wrote: >I'd bet they read plenty, but don't necessarily understand a lot, >judging by their pitiful fud campaign when Afilias proposed using >postgresql as a database behind .org. They tried to say PostgreSQL >didn't support transactions. So, while we may be on their screens, and >I'm sure some marketeer there tries to keep up with some of the traffic >here, the actual comprehension seems pretty low judging by their past >statements. > >Actually, I kinda hope it stays that way. > > Ok. I should have said "serious target." MySQL has been a serious target for a number of years. I think we are still the unknown bugaboo to them. I.e. I see no evidence that Oracle is taking the PostgreSQL threat seriously, and the FUD campaign is more evidence that they don't (there are plenty of areas where Oracle has an edge over PostgreSQL-- the idea that "PostgreSQL doesn't support transactions" can only indicate that this was a cursory and hasty attack and maybe even a wakeup call for them, or maybe they got us mixed up with MySQL w/MyISAM). The real question is whether after the .org campaign occurred, we are now a higher-profile target that is taken more seriously. Personally, I would doubt it for reasons mentioned below. The thing is, we may be a head-to-head competitor with Oracle in many areas, but we are pretty minor compared to Sybase, Microsoft, and IBM at the moment. I.e. while we are an emerging threat, Oracle has plenty of clear and present threats to its market share to deal with. Therefore, I am willing to bet that we are probably a distant target, somewhere after Ingress II and maybe even Firebird/Interbase. This is based on the assumption that in any significantly large corporation, there will be a lot of legacy competitive effort and that the rampup time to look at new threats is really pretty large. I.e. at Microsoft when I left (2003), Java and Sun were still higher competitive priorities than Linux (and still very much in a middle-phase). From what I have read after leaving, I think that Microsoft's strategy is still in an opening phase mostly consisting of GetTheFUD and internal product research. MySQL is different. They established a large user base early on, and people have a tendency (wrongly) to think of them as The Open Source RDBMS. So I am willing to be that Oracle has been ramping up a competitive strategy against them for at least five years (they showed a clear competitive strategy against them as early as 2000). The fact that they are an easier target complicates matters for them, but I think that this is more of a transition to an end-game strategy by Oracle than anything else. I will be worried if and when Oracle demonstrates any intelligent competitive strategy against us. A poorly orchestrated and hasty FUD campaign does not qualify. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
pgsql-general by date: