Re: Pseudo-Off-topic-survey: Opinions about future of Postgresql(MySQL)? - Mailing list pgsql-admin
From | Christopher Browne |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Pseudo-Off-topic-survey: Opinions about future of Postgresql(MySQL)? |
Date | |
Msg-id | m3657lzo4a.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Pseudo-Off-topic-survey: Opinions about future of Postgresql(MySQL)? ("Goulet, Dick" <DGoulet@vicr.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Pseudo-Off-topic-survey: Opinions about future of Postgresql(MySQL)?
(Grega Bremec <grega.bremec@noviforum.si>)
|
List | pgsql-admin |
DGoulet@vicr.com ("Goulet, Dick") wrote: > Personal opinion here: Software packages like MySql and Ingres in > the open source world are doomed to obsolescence. Reason, they are > released by a for profit company that is trying to play up to the > open source market. Seems fair. > In MySql's case they're pouring all of their talent into MaxDB. Why, > because SAP is backing that and their making money. Give MySql a > couple more years and it will become stagnant. Are you certain that's what is taking place? Consider it stipulated that what people say on web sites may be mere marketing fluff, but consider that the things that have gotten added to MaxDB(tm) are pretty limited: a) They added the ability to use the same network protocol used by MySQL(tm); b) They introduced a way to replicate between MySQL(tm) and MaxDB(tm) databases. They make _no_ claims about there being any future to MaxDB(tm), whereas a big chunk of the marketing of MySQL(tm) discusses enhancement plans. It seems more likely to me that the opposite is taking place, namely that MySQL(tm) is the product getting all the "talent," whilst MaxDB(tm) is stagnating. > MaxDB will probably fall off the open source world at about the same > time into closed source. That assumes it starts selling heavily. I see little reason for people to suddenly wake up and realize that they want to pay $1500/CPU for something that _isn't_ Oracle or DB2. MySQL(tm) got its initial "market penetration" because it got promoted by free software advocates as a "free" database, and because it was freely usable for web hosting. In contrast, MaxDB(tm) simply hasn't got that "buzz" behind it. MySQL AB will have to spend heavily on marketing and sales reps in order to get sales, and with Oracle and IBM being billions and billions of dollars more entrenched, I just don't see that going anywhere. The risk factor is also pretty bad vis-a-vis the classic "It's free software, so you might be able to fix it yourself" thing. That notion is pretty illusory even for PostgreSQL, as there are lots of bits of the "guts" of the system that require pretty deep understanding. MaxDB(tm) is _way_ worse, in that regard, because it combines an oddball set of custom build utilities (Make just wouldn't do) with source code that combines German+Mainframe-abbreviated inscrutibility with, if I recall right, some macrology where some of the code is written in something _resembling_ Pascal. (No offense intended to Germans :-).) That points to why I find it unbelievable that MySQL AB is throwing all their talent at MaxDB(tm). I can't imagine that a company whose own "flagship" is as leaky a product as MySQL(tm) could expect to turn around a piece of software that SAP AG, with _enormously_ greater resources, found it futile to continue maintaining. There are scenarios that make sense, but not that one. -- (format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org") http://cbbrowne.com/info/multiplexor.html "What did we agree about a leader??" "We agreed we wouldn't have one." "Good. Now shut up and do as I say..."
pgsql-admin by date: