Thread: backhanded compliment from Larry Ellison
In a recent article Larry Ellison was discussing "Unbreakable Linux" (Oracle 9iRAC on Red Hat) where he said that because of the robust security and reliability of its database, Oracle did not feel threatened by Open Source databases such as MySQL and Postgres. He was then quoted as saying "They are a bigger threat to [Microsoft] SQL Server than Oracle." Not a ringing endorsement, but I have to agree because I think we beat sql server hands down. The only thing we don't do is run on windows natively, but if we get that in 7.4, we should be able to eliminate sql server from the database market :-) Full Story: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3004965&thesection=technology&thesubsection=general Robert Treat
Robert, > He was then quoted as saying "They are a bigger threat to [Microsoft] > SQL Server than Oracle." I've always felt the same. In fact, I tried to persuade the president of Great Bridge to target SQL Server before taking on Oracle, without success. Oracle has a market advantage that has nothing to do with features, and everything to do with good image marketing. Despite that, we are forcing them to our economic model ... over the last 5 years, Oracle's license revenue has shrunk while their service revenue has climbed steadily. IBM understood this from the get-go, and has focused on support & service for DB2, making discount/bundled licenses readily available. To put it another way: People who buy Oracle 9i or IBM DB2 are not buying a database, they are buying a company. We can't fight that directly, and should not try. > Not a ringing endorsement, but I have to agree because I think we > beat > sql server hands down. The only thing we don't do is run on windows > natively, but if we get that in 7.4, we should be able to eliminate > sql > server from the database market :-) There are still some respects where we trail MS SQL Server: 1) slower performance on massive data updates 2) point-in-time recovery 3) in-database replication tools 4) GUI DBA tools (i.e. tools to manage configuration params, backup, process management) 5) automated version upgrade/patching Also, keep in mind that 80% of MS SQL server purchases are an included part of vertical applications ... that is, people are not buying MS SQL Server, they are buying ELBS or Great Plains Accounting. These purchases we will not influence until we can get similar commercial vertical apps to adopt postgresql. Anybody know someone at AccPac Innternational? This is a good opportunity -- MS SQL Server is weak and not getting better, and MS's acquisition of Great Plains was a dismal failure -- financial software is sold on support, and MS support sucks -- so we could pick up and entire industry segment if we make the right alliances. Just a thought. -Josh Berkus
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:16:29 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: >Robert, > >>He was then quoted as saying "They are a bigger threat to >>[Microsoft] >>SQL Server than Oracle." > >I've always felt the same. In fact, I tried to persuade the >president of Great Bridge to target SQL Server before taking on >Oracle, without success. I've got to disagree with LarryE on this one, although I agree with many of Josh's points in that last email. As I've written lately and Josh pointed out here: > ... over the last 5 years, >Oracle's license revenue has shrunk while their service revenue has >climbed steadily. ..while we cannot say the same about Microsoft's license revenues. Oracle and PostgreSQL run on the same platforms, but PostgreSQL does not yet run natively on Windows. We'll get there, but until we do PostgreSQL cannot nearly be the competitive consideration in MS shops that it is in Oracle shops. I know that Oracle and PostgreSQL use more similar procedural languages than PostgreSQL and MS SQL Server do, making conversion (at least theoretically) slightly easier from Oracle than from MS. Speaking as a PostgreSQL newbie and a Linux newbie, but as the president of a small and therefore supposedly nimble company: getting out of Windows 2000 and MS SQL Server and into Linux and PostgreSQL is not an easy task, and that's more the OS than the DBMS. Maybe Larry defines the word "threat" as something in the future, a bad thing that hasn't happened yet. As in the big kid who beat you up and took your lunch money earlier today is no longer a threat, he's a painful reality. Since we'll have a big effect on MS eventually, and PostgreSQL has been having a big effect on Oracle for some time now, well, in that sense, I guess Larry is right, it may be more of a "threat" to MS. PostgreSQL is already *more* than a threat to Oracle, it's a promise. Anyway, Josh is right: alliances are as important as marketing and support and having a top-notch product to the success of PostgreSQL going forward. I have no doubt we'll see more and more firms building their software on PostgreSQL over time. - Shane McChesney
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 12:16, Josh Berkus wrote: > Robert, > > > He was then quoted as saying "They are a bigger threat to [Microsoft] > > SQL Server than Oracle." > > I've always felt the same. In fact, I tried to persuade the president > of Great Bridge to target SQL Server before taking on Oracle, without > success. > I don't think you can really take on microsoft until you have native windows support. For the few commercial companies that have a native postgresql solution now, they should be marketing that like crazy. <snip> > > Also, keep in mind that 80% of MS SQL server purchases are an included > part of vertical applications ... that is, people are not buying MS SQL > Server, they are buying ELBS or Great Plains Accounting. These > purchases we will not influence until we can get similar commercial > vertical apps to adopt postgresql. > yep, but I think our lack of a native windows version has kept a lot of these companies from adopting us more so than anything else. > This is a good opportunity -- MS SQL Server is weak and not getting > better, and MS's acquisition of Great Plains was a dismal failure -- > financial software is sold on support, and MS support sucks -- so we > could pick up and entire industry segment if we make the right > alliances. > Robert Treat
I agree, though I think the motivation for his quote was more to elevate Oracle above the rest. By implying that PostgreSQL will give MS a run for its money, he implies that both MS and PostgreSQL are in the same class-yet inferior to Oracle. It's a wonderfully crafted statement. I'm taking it as praise, with promotion of Oracle on the side, which is to be expected. I also agree that when PostgreSQL goes native win32, all heck will break loose in terms of competition and deployments. I'm pretty tech savvy, but I found it not an easy thing to get it running under windows. Mostly, it was not-up-to-date or lacking documentation on the web (mostly regarding the IPC service), but enough searching got me what I needed to know. This however is insufficient when courting the window's market. I'm afraid you'll need a gui installer and gui administration tool for the click-n-fix MCS[E|A]s that would be in charge of it. Gaining their acceptance is key for PostgreSQL to succeed in the enterprise. -J -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Shane McChesney Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:44 PM To: josh@agliodbs.com; pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] backhanded compliment from Larry Ellison On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:16:29 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: >Robert, > >>He was then quoted as saying "They are a bigger threat to >>[Microsoft] >>SQL Server than Oracle." > >I've always felt the same. In fact, I tried to persuade the >president of Great Bridge to target SQL Server before taking on >Oracle, without success. I've got to disagree with LarryE on this one, although I agree with many of Josh's points in that last email. As I've written lately and Josh pointed out here: > ... over the last 5 years, >Oracle's license revenue has shrunk while their service revenue has >climbed steadily. ..while we cannot say the same about Microsoft's license revenues. Oracle and PostgreSQL run on the same platforms, but PostgreSQL does not yet run natively on Windows. We'll get there, but until we do PostgreSQL cannot nearly be the competitive consideration in MS shops that it is in Oracle shops. I know that Oracle and PostgreSQL use more similar procedural languages than PostgreSQL and MS SQL Server do, making conversion (at least theoretically) slightly easier from Oracle than from MS. Speaking as a PostgreSQL newbie and a Linux newbie, but as the president of a small and therefore supposedly nimble company: getting out of Windows 2000 and MS SQL Server and into Linux and PostgreSQL is not an easy task, and that's more the OS than the DBMS. Maybe Larry defines the word "threat" as something in the future, a bad thing that hasn't happened yet. As in the big kid who beat you up and took your lunch money earlier today is no longer a threat, he's a painful reality. Since we'll have a big effect on MS eventually, and PostgreSQL has been having a big effect on Oracle for some time now, well, in that sense, I guess Larry is right, it may be more of a "threat" to MS. PostgreSQL is already *more* than a threat to Oracle, it's a promise. Anyway, Josh is right: alliances are as important as marketing and support and having a top-notch product to the success of PostgreSQL going forward. I have no doubt we'll see more and more firms building their software on PostgreSQL over time. - Shane McChesney ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
> There are still some respects where we trail MS SQL Server: > 1) slower performance on massive data updates > 2) point-in-time recovery > 3) in-database replication tools > 4) GUI DBA tools (i.e. tools to manage configuration params, > backup, process management) > 5) automated version upgrade/patching I'd like to add one more line to that list, which is definitly holding us back from using it in a few situations: 6) Integrated Windows login. Meaning once you're on the domain, you have your permissions in the database server. I know we're all supposed to use web based applications and do our security there and just log in with a fixed account in the database, but in reality a huge amount of applications are still just client<->RDBMS. And not requiring every user to remember *yet another* password is a huge selling point for MS SQL. Might work with Kerberos in some way - haven't tried that since we're still on NT4 on the clients. NTLM is the one that works across different windows versions... //Magnus
Could the Samba software/people help with that? It seems that they should have a generic library that all apps should be able to link to. If not, I think it'd be a good idea... (Great, yet another RPM dependency...) -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 4:33 AM To: Josh Berkus; Robert Treat; pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] backhanded compliment from Larry Ellison > There are still some respects where we trail MS SQL Server: > 1) slower performance on massive data updates > 2) point-in-time recovery > 3) in-database replication tools > 4) GUI DBA tools (i.e. tools to manage configuration params, > backup, process management) > 5) automated version upgrade/patching I'd like to add one more line to that list, which is definitly holding us back from using it in a few situations: 6) Integrated Windows login. Meaning once you're on the domain, you have your permissions in the database server. I know we're all supposed to use web based applications and do our security there and just log in with a fixed account in the database, but in reality a huge amount of applications are still just client<->RDBMS. And not requiring every user to remember *yet another* password is a huge selling point for MS SQL. Might work with Kerberos in some way - haven't tried that since we're still on NT4 on the clients. NTLM is the one that works across different windows versions... //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Magnus, > I'd like to add one more line to that list, which is definitly > holding > us back from using it in a few situations: > 6) Integrated Windows login. > > Meaning once you're on the domain, you have your permissions in the > database server. Hmmm ... not sure that's such a desirable feature. The "integrated login" was the source of one of the SQL server worms. And delving into the MS authentication protocols is probably a good way to waste a couple of 100 hours as well as get sued by MS under the DCMA. I also tend to *not* use user's logins for the database, relying instead on encrypted application logins and application security to manage user rights. Mind you, in one of my clients' heterogenous shops, we have integrated login, effectively ... the office has an integrated Samba/NIS authentication server, and one of the databases uses PAM authentication, thus providing client --> server authentication for both Postgres and SQL Server. Works great, though WIndows XP will cause problems with the setup eventually. -Josh Berkus