Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

OT--Define enterprise please?

by jlongino (Parson)
on Sep 20, 2002 at 16:52 UTC ( #199527=perlmeditation: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

I ran across this article: IBM, MS reject MySQL from a InfoWorld e-letter and thought others might find it interesting. I wonder if the fact that both companies have their own database products has anything to do with it? Sun and Yahoo on the other hand had more favorable things to say.

Granted MySQL is not for everyone, but some of the statements made are both vague and ludicrous. I leave you with a quote by a MS manager:

With open-source, you're not going to get a platform that's as reliable or scalable or as secure as what you're going to get with a leading vendor, . . .

--Jim

Update: For those curious about the PostgreSQL Great Bridge angle.

Comment on OT--Define enterprise please?
Re: OT--Define enterprise please?
by perrin (Chancellor) on Sep 20, 2002 at 17:09 UTC
    I'm not sure why they bothered with this piece. Asking IBM and MS to comment on MySQL -- a product that could steal a whole lot of dollars out of their pockets -- is like asking Coke what they think of Pepsi. If Pepsi was free.
      I tend to agree. I think the opportunity for a much more interesting piece was overlooked. I wasn't too interested in what either had to say. It would have been much better if the author had focused on what the non-competing vendors had to say. I was somewhat surprised by the closing of Great Bridge though, and hope that it won't have an adverse effect on PostgreSQL. Not that I use it, but the more open-source competition, the better.

      --Jim

      I have to agree with perrin here...I especially don't understand the title, "IBM, MS Reject MySQL". It's quite lucid that they would not embrace an Open Source DBMS when MS SQL Server and DB2 are doing fine on their own. In truth, I thought it was more like an educated version of a flame-war you might find on some other site. With incendiary comments on both sides, such as ,'"If Oracle or DB2 is the Cadillac, then we are the Ferrari," Mickos said.' by a MySQL associate, I felt that while articles like this one bring OS into the light, they also put a negative spin on the story often enough.
Re: OT--Define enterprise please?
by dws (Chancellor) on Sep 20, 2002 at 17:19 UTC
    "Enterprise" is a fuzzy term that usually means a business-critical system that is deployed across an enterprise, as opposed to a system that supports a single department (though such a system might also be mission-critical). "Enterprise" is also used by Marketing to mean something along the lines of "a system you should expect to pay lots of money for."

    It isn't at all surprising that IBM and Microsoft would "reject" MySQL. They're competitors, after all. Expect them to throw up a lot of FUD about MySQL. That said, they do have some valid points: The bigger players have a better transaction and data integrity story, though MySQL is (slowly) catching up.

    A truth that IBM and Microsoft would prefer to ignore, though, is that many applications don't need a heavy-duty, full featured RDBMS. A really fast, fairly reliable data access method with SQL support is sufficient for a lot of applications (such as much of what Yahoo does, or discussion boards, or...). For a fairly large set of problems, MySQL is good enough.

Re: OT--Define enterprise please?
by tjh (Curate) on Sep 20, 2002 at 17:43 UTC
    Enterprise database sales have got to be down and the db vendors have to tout their current sizzle to get some attention. Also, in August, when Sun released their first Linux server, they were in "Open Source Friendly Mode" (as well as anti-MS).

    Plus, I wonder if InfoWorld is having a "slow news era." With very few changes (just the players), this article could be a template for almost any Open Source vs. Commercial Vendor piece.

    The purpose of their article eludes me...

    However, I left the article thinking the OS products got the better end of the coverage. ("just spell my name right, and often.") lol

      Enterprise database sales must be down...

      No duh! There's only one Enterprise. And it's on Wednesday nights on UPN.

      Mr. Muskrat just noticed Preceptors remark but doesn't want to change his own so hits submit.

Re: OT--Define enterprise please?
by Preceptor (Chaplain) on Sep 20, 2002 at 18:49 UTC
    Space ship, innit?
    --
    It's not pessimism if there is a worse option, it's not paranoia when they are and it's not cynicism when you're right.
Re: OT--Define enterprise please?
by ajt (Prior) on Sep 21, 2002 at 11:04 UTC

    As people have said you don't talk-up a free product that competes with your very not free product, if you want to make money. It's hardly surprising that MS and IBM would both knock the MySQL.

    When you don't have something to sell in that category, then you can talk-up the open-source product so you can sell support for it. Both Oracle and IBM now use Apache, and Novell have gone one step more now distributing PostgreSQL as standard with Novell - press release.

    What is, or is not enterprise is very much down to end-user interpretation, but I'd say if I was paying top-dollar, I'd expect good up-time and a nice engineer arriving eating humble-pie if it doesn't work. With good quality open-source software, I think enterprise class software is a bit bogus thesedays, but enterprise class-support is stil a valid term.


    --
    ajt
Re: OT--Define enterprise please?
by Steve_p (Priest) on Sep 21, 2002 at 13:28 UTC
    I'm kind of surprised that this article didn't mention Oracle and they actions toward MySQL. About a year ago, Oracle created a MySQL migration kit that allows you to convert a MySQL database to Oracle. Obviously, if the number one vendor of databases sees MySQL as a competitor, the other top database companies do (or should) also.
Re: OT--Define enterprise please?
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Sep 24, 2002 at 10:30 UTC
    It doesn't have much to do with free vs. non-free. Just because MySQL is free doesn't mean it's a great product. I do agree with MS, MySQL isn't. It just lacks too much from what you should expect from a relational database. While I don't touch MS products with a 10 foot pole, I wouldn't trust any valuable data to MySQL either. See also http://openacs.org/philosophy/why-not-mysql.html.

    Abigail

      :-) Of course, the first thing on it in big bold letters says
      NOTE: This Document was written in May 2000. Thus, it is outdated and does not represent the latest data concerning MySQL. I will attempt to find time to rewrite this with more current information soon (August 10th, 2001)
      Nevertheless, I do agree that mySQL is a toy database, even though it has learned a couple of tricks in the meantime. It isn't necessarily a bad choice - many people need little more than a .dbm can offer, and mySQL is a nice lean option. It seems to mainly run web-based messageboards these days anyway, and that it's okay for.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: perlmeditation [id://199527]
Approved by ignatz
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (12)
As of 2014-07-22 08:42 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (108 votes), past polls