Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Oracle buys Innobase

On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 11:18:19AM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> 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.

(I'm using this as an example of more than one such comment in this
thread).

The claim in the .org bid response (which can be found at
<http://forum.icann.org/org-eval/gartner-report/msg00000.html>)
starts like this:

PostgreSQL, like many other open source database products,
has been in the market for many years with very little
adoption. Unlike the open-source operating system market,
the open-source database market has been unsuccessful due to
the complexity of customer requirements and sophistication of
the technology needed. PostgreSQL is used primarily in the
embedded system market because it lacks the transactional
features, high availability, security and manageability of
any commercial enterprise database.

Note the slide at the beginning of that from "PostgreSQL" to "open
source database products". That trick is consistent with several
other things I've seen from Oracle, including Ellison, on this topic.
The idea is to lump everything into the "open source" class, and then
attack the technically weakest member of that class. It's good
rhetoric, so I don't think anyone should believe, for a second, that
this is some kind of know-nothing answer from Oracle. It's a good
strategy.

I'll also note that I've spoken to people inside IBM's DB2 division
who have, as part of their job, keeping tabs on PostgreSQL.

This is why I think we should avoid worrying about MySQL: it gives
others an opportunity to lump us into the "open source" pile, and
dismiss the whole thing on the basis of the missing features in
MySQL.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir?
--attr. John Maynard Keynes