From: | Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)cvc(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ned Lilly <ned(at)nedscape(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SAP DB: The unsung Open Source DB |
Date: | 2003-07-24 15:32:44 |
Message-ID: | 3F1FFC1C.9050504@cvc.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I've never seen this work before. the only version of this scenario that works, is to buy the competitor, and learn their code, put the competitor out of business, and force the competitor's company to use a half ass bridge version for one rev of a vision, then the next version force them to your supposedly improved flagship product. Can anyone say:
Microsoft?
Oracle?
Richard Huxton wrote:
> On Thursday 24 July 2003 05:00, Ned Lilly wrote:
>
>>OPEN magazine has an interview with the head of SAP DB development, and
>>talks quite a bit about the MySQL strategy:
>>
>>http://www.open-mag.com/8422483279.shtml
>
>
> Interesting, but I'm not sure it's cleared anything up in my mind.
>
> "What is significant about the MySQL/SAP deal is that the two companies’
> strategic mix of strengths makes market growth, when it does start to happen,
> pretty much inevitable"
>
> Eh? Once X has happened, X is inevitable?
>
> SAP AG still own and will support SAP DB (fair enough) but MySQL will have
> commercial rights and will rebrand it. So I can buy SAP from MySQL but
> they're not going to do the development on it, SAP AG will (but I can't buy
> it from them). Presumably the support for MySQL's customers will be via SAP's
> team.
>
> There's a multi-year plan to "bring the code bases closer together" which
> sounds like one of those big projects that always make me nervous.
>
> The main thrust seems to be:
> 1. MySQL have a simple DB with a lot of users
> 2. SAP have a complex DB with few users
> 3. Let's bring the two together and get the best of both worlds!
>
> That's fine, but my understanding of SAP DB's failure to attract a large
> community was that:
> - it had a lot of competition (MySQL/PG/Firebird...)
> - it was tricky to compile/install
> - the codebase was far from easy to get to grips with
>
> I'm not clear how MySQL are better equipped to solve those problems than SAP
> AG. Actually, I'm not clear that they're going to if SAP AG are going to
> handle development.
>
> Maybe it's me, but other than a marketing announcement, I don't get this.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | nolan | 2003-07-24 15:33:55 | Re: psql -e |
Previous Message | tom dyson | 2003-07-24 15:29:38 | optimum postgres server configuration |