--=-W2UHJkNDEHokE7PhPlCo
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 00:56, Trent Shipley wrote:
> They are *VERY* good products. Furthermore, as a user of both MS product=
s and=20
> Linux-and-friends the MS products have the advantage of user-interfaces t=
hat=20
> are degrees of magnitude better than the freeware versions. =20
Let's see. For a Enterprise level database. Do I want a platform that
is rock solid or pretty? Hmmm. Seems like a no brainer to me.
> The main problem of MS in comparison to gratis-ware is the initial price=20
> point. =20
At the Enterprise level, thte price of the software starts to become
largely unimportant. I say this because hardware and people costs dwarf
the software costs. So in a company of 5 yes Free Software is appealing
on "price", in an organizatiton of 13,000 the licensing cost is so small
in the big picture it gets lost. This why I say again and again.=20
Please don't pitch the value of Free Software as cost, but instead as
freedom!
> If you can afford them, the big commercial databases (in my book these ar=
e=20
> Oracle, DB2 and MS SQL Server) are a class above the freeware databases.
SAP-DB is GPL and pretty much Oracle compatiable. If it's good enough
to run SAP R-3 on in a company of 8,000, I think it's in this same
category. It certainly is Free Software being GPL. (Please note
calling Free Software, Freeware is really bad. Freeware is a
classification of software similar to Shareware in the 80/90's that did
not come with any freedom.)
> Enterprise level databases (Terrabytes, $20K and up.):
>=20
> Top:=20
> Oracle, DB2. Superior flexibility. (Note: SAP claims this is a *draw ba=
ck*. =20
> These products are *too* complex.)
SAP-DB
> Second tier (Only because of limited features):=20
> MS SQL Server. (Transact*SQL is a glorified scripting language. Limited=
or=20
> non-existent OO attributes. NB! It looks like SAP-DB with a GPL licence =
may=20
> be technically competitive. However, limited market penetration may mean=
=20
> that the cost to run SAP-DB could exceed those of SQL Server. Not=20
> surprisingly SAP's attitude toward its database is KISS. A database is w=
here=20
> you put data used by middle-ware. A DB should store and retrieve=20
> data--that's it. Any complexity goes in business logic implemented by a=20
> middle-ware product ... like SAP.)
I don't think this is true. I think SAP-DB is on par with Oracle. I
know the developers. SAP's mission for them since day one was to be
Oracle compatiable.
Also, while MSSQL is a good database it relies on running the Microsoft
OS which is 'not' highly scalable. This is why for large enterprises it
doesnt make much sense.
I would probably put Interbase, Informix, Sybase and FireBird is this
'mid-level database category with MSSQL. (Note: Two of those are free
software)
> Mid-level databases (100's of Gigabytes, max: Free, MySQL is dual license=
d.=20
> I'm not certain how much the non-GPL EULA costs.):=20
>=20
> -- MySQL is fast, cheap, and simple to a fault. It is widely used. It i=
s=20
> well supported and documented. It seems to be gaining market share. Rum=
ors=20
> of a deal with SAP for SAP-DB technology may result in a partial challeng=
e to=20
> MS SQL Server. Nevertheless, expect SQL Server to be a better option for=
=20
> most customers because MS can throw money at ease-of-use. =20
They are not rumors. MySQL has purchased the rights to redistribute
SAP-DB as a backend for MySQL.
> (Remember my fellow gear-heads, for 99% of our fellow travelers software =
is a=20
> means to an end. Hard to use software is nearly equivalent to useless=20
> software. Yes, you can hire an expert, but no one likes doing that. [I =
hate=20
> taking my car to the shop, for example.])
Remember to 99% of Enterprises. Software is a life blood. Cut it off
and they die. Prop. software is extremely poor performing if you do
honest risk analysis. My example of Peoplesoft is a perfect example. I
dare you to ask a Peoplesoft customer if they were crapping themselves
hearing that Oracle was going to kill the product they paid millions for
and rely on to run their organization.
> It is unlikely Postgres lacks something you need. More likely what you n=
eed=20
> probably lacks Postgres. Limited market share often means some critical=20
> (comercial) killer app has no interface to Postgress. (In fact, many kil=
ler=20
> apps only interface with the major databases. It is by no means uncommon=
to=20
> find that some business critical application has been built to work ONLY =
with=20
> MS SQL Server.)
Again I think you over estimate the need for some killer UI. Real
enterprise programmers don't need pretty UI's to be productive. I agree
for the small business owner and programmer hacking together a solution
its necessary, but it isnt a feature necessary to get good results for
the trained.
This would be like telling a BMX rider they sucked because their bike
didnt have training wheels.
> From a biz perspective MySQL is to be prefered to Postgresql. However, a=
t=20
> this point MySQL may still lack critical features (not least being=20
> extesibility). IF MySQL passes feasibility analysis use it instead of=20
> Postgres (for reasons of economics and business, *not* engineering.)
I am not sure how you deduce "from a business perspective". MySQL sucks
for certain kind of applications. It rocks for others.
> The freeware world has no real file-by-file personal database product. T=
his=20
> is often a major objection to OpenOffice.org. True, a intermediate level=
=20
> guru can install Postgress on a laptop, but the whole point of the=20
> Access/Paradox type product is to minimize the need for expert level=20
> knowledge.
I think MySQL will try to build some pretty front ends to be comparative
to Access.
--=20
Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnuenterprise.org
derek@gnue.org
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=3Ddneighbo
--=-W2UHJkNDEHokE7PhPlCo
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQA+7IT2Hb99+vQX/88RAtxBAJ9M39BuwBElUD1eIjVJ5190WysRWQCgoPCa
kVBAR0PIsVvsMBI48I1A5P4=
=W0lO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-W2UHJkNDEHokE7PhPlCo--
(text/plain)