Re: Bad news for Open Source databases, acording to survey

On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 10:57:16AM -0400, a little birdie told me
that Bruce Momjian remarked
> > On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 12:48:17AM -0400, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
> > > Here is an article saying open source databases will not make major
> > > inroads into large businesses during the next five years:
> > >
> > > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/datbus/article/0,,11969_796851,00.html
> >
> > What do you think this means for PostgreSQL in the large business arena?
>
> Not sure what it means or whether it is accurate.

It looks like, to put it kindly, a load of malarky to me.
While I'm not sure if the final conclusion is entirely inaccurate (though
I doubt things are as cut-and-dried as it makes it appear), the arguments
presented in the article are absurd.

I'm especially fascinated by how operating systems are simple, basic,
and easy to switch between, while DBMSen are so much more complicated.

And what about this paragraph set?
---
Support by leading vendors for Linux is understandable because
Microsoft controls the low-end OS market, and all the previously
mentioned vendors would love to mitigate their dependence on
Windows. Indeed, Microsoft's success is forcing vendors that
already sell a Unix OS (e.g., IBM and HP) to embrace Linux and
thwart Microsoft's pull-through growth (e.g., SQL Server and
.Net).

The database market is quite different. The importance and
complexity of the database platform is an opportunity to lock in
customers to a particular vendor's platform. With major DBMS
vendors striving to closely integrate their respective application
servers (mainly Oracle and IBM) with their database engines, and
hardware vendors and other major independent software vendors
following the market share, it is unlikely that OSDB support will
get a significant boost.
---
Right. No company has ever tried to lock their customers into their OS.
Only database companies.

And the 'Bottom Line' summary:
---
Bottom Line: Users' growing information databases are
infrastructure assets that should use best-of-breed solutions to
ensure availability and support.
---
Well, duh. That's a platitude. And it doesn't really relate to the rest
of the article, though it does get 10 Management Points for creative
sneaking in of marketspeak. It's a statement with the presumption "OSDB's
aren't best-of-breed", but there's nothing at all in the article that
supports that view. The closest they come is saying 'MySQL just recently
added two-phase commit and row-level locking', and seem to give the
attitude that's all that needs to be said.

Really, the whole article seems to be trying to say "There's lot of big
important companies in the DB business", and using that as basically the
sole axiom to prove "OSDB's aren't good enough and nobody will use them".

Possibly correct conclusion (though it's not exactly a binary question,
is it?), but totally meaningless justification, IMO.

--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd(at)over-yonder(dot)net
Unix Systems Administrator | fullermd(at)futuresouth(dot)com
Specializing in FreeBSD | http://www.over-yonder.net/

"The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I
haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"