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..."
