Re: Thoughs after discussions at OSCON

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:52:29AM -0400, Rick Morris wrote:
>
>
>
>>got going for it). Thus secondly, there is the depressing observation
>>that the majority of developers haven't a clue what the relational model
>>is really good for. They want to wring every possible bit of speed out
>>of a database while piling all sorts of constraints into application
>>space. That's pretty much the norm for most open source applications I
>>have seen.
>>
>>
>
>At the risk of sending your depression into total free-fall, I'll
>note that many proprietary applications, including those developed
>for Oracle, suffer this problem as well. Programmers who understand
>a database-backed system are much less common than they should be.
>And you're _really_ hosed if the person doing the hiring doesn't
>understand relational systems: you end up with a whole raft of
>programmers, none of whom has had a Date with the clue stick. (Sorry
>about that, folks. It was irresistable.)
>
heh...

> To the extent that's true,
>however, those programmers also have practically no incentive to move
>from MySQL, save for licensing. And, as one of the PHP folks said to
>me for the second year in a row, "Why would I move? MySQL does what
>I need, and when I need to go bigger, I use Oracle." Apparently,
>"But Postgres is the one that's free," isn't an answer. Go know.
>
>
Well, I have spent years debating with the PHP folks at
forums.devshed.com, and one of the best replies I have found to that
argument is "Have you ever tried going from MySQL to Oracle? Moving from
MySQL to Oracle is a LOT more painful than moving from PostgreSQL to
Oracle".

>
>
>>without question (Any X is as good as anyone else's X). Maybe it's a
>>good idea to put out some material explaining how much difference there
>>can be in two different implementations of such a thing as
>>(views/triggers/procedures/constraints), and the pitfalls that can
>>happen because of this.
>>
>>
>
>Given the troubles IBM has, with all their advertising and white
>paper money, making such arguments against Oracle, I don't think that
>will be a rich seam. I agree that this is one of the things I'm
>troubled about in MySQL's case: they now can justly claim that they
>have transactions (well, most of the time), that they have a strict
>implementation of SQL (well, if you turn it on), that they have
>stored procedures (pretty much), that they support subqueries (in
>some positions) &c. For a long time, I considered MySQL an
>annoyance, because one was always having to discuss this toy in the
>same breath as Postgres. But while Pg has been busy polishing real
>industrial-grade features, MySQL has been _marketing_ themselves as
>industrial-grade. And since the people who read _Network World_, who
>are unfortunately also often the people in charge of IT procurement
>budgets, don't know the difference (and probably never will) between
>"subselects in some cases" and "subselects" (for instance), I think
>our problem is about to get harder.
>
>That isn't to say that (for instance) the 8.1 features aren't
>welcome, nor even that I don't appreciate what the difference is.
>But a year ago, I was bearish on the survival of MySQL through the
>MySQL AB funding period. I'm not any more, and I suppose that's why
>I'm made nervous.
>
>

Yes, I am convinced that we will never have a *majority* of developers
who know enough and care enough about PostgreSQL's serious features. All
I care about is enough to keep PostgreSQL a going concern. With that in
mind,it seems the real question is one of strategy, rather than focusing
on feature firepower:

- MySQL understands the playbook well, having taken a lesson or two from
Mr. Gates himself, I believe. They clearly understand that "saying it
makes it so" in this market. Also, they have (sorry to say) a much more
catchy name (although cloyingly cutesy). So PostgreSQL will have a hard
fight trying to win the popularity award.

- But, like you said, there are quite a few companies taking a more
serious interest in PostgreSQL. This is different from winning the
single developer. Think about the strategic difference. We all know that
many large companies use PostgreSQL for internal projects. Verio comes
to mind, here in Florida. I liken it to the number of companies that use
FreeBSD instead of Linux (also something you will find at Verio).
FreeBSD will never be as popular as Linux, but there are many companies
who use it extensively because they have found it suits their needs
perfectly; they just don't waste a lot of breath *advertising* that
fact. Companies that use Linux tend to shout it from the rooftops
because it makes good press. (Please... not trying to start a
FreeBSD-vs-Linux war, just noting a strategic similarity). Note that
there is much *less* feature distinction between it and Linux than
between My/Pg, but still, FreeBSD will always be around, because it has
achieved a sort of balance in the market. Individual users tend to use
Linux, but corporate deployments might have 1000 FreeBSD boxes that no
one ever hears about. I think that again is very similar to the
PostgreSQL use cases.

- Thus, taking the above under advisement, it would seem best not to
fight MySQL on their ground, nor to spend much time on feature
distinction, but to forge more serious relationships with organizations
who have serious needs. The guys that don't have serious data management
needs will never perceive a real reason to move to PostgreSQL, but those
who have been bitten a few times (as I was once upon a time before
moving to PostgreSQL ;-) ) are a lot more open to the possibility. I
think the ratio between FreeBSD/Linux has reached a sort of
self-correcting balance that will go on for a long time. How can we
reach that sort of balance with PostgreSQL/MySQL?

- In debunking the FUD, there are plenty of independent people whose
rants are more successful than any whitepaper put out by postgresql.org
could be. The "MySQL gotchas" page is a perfect example. So I agree;
best not to waste breath putting out "official" arguments against MySQL
or exposing this or that flaw in implementation. The independent guys
seem to carry more weight, because of perceived impartiality. The best
PR, it seems to me, is the somewhat jovial relationship between FreeBSD
and Linux (Theo de Raadt notwithstanding). Kind of an implied "we're
working on the same things" approach, even though we know there is a big
difference).

But again, I am still not as worried as you seem to be. I have been
involved in several small-to-medium project rollouts at various
companies since 2000, and every single time I had no difficulty
convincing the boss to go with PostgreSQL. Ditto with several friends of
mine. I think there is a lot more of that out there than you realize. On
these sorts of projects, you win over the head developer, not the IT
procurement guy. That's the ticket ;-).

Regards,

Rick Morris