Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Enters The Database Market
tekBuddha writes: "It looks like Red Hat is trying to make its way into the database market. This article on Yahoo! says Red Hat is about to announce its own product ingeniously named 'Red Hat Database' next Monday. "
It is good you don't read Anon posts, cause this one will be from an Anon for reasons.
:)
Anonymous Informant
I have some particular inside information into some of this debate but wish to remain anonymous.
Redhat is developing this database mostly because when they recently looked around for an internal database to update their aging and plague ridden Oracle Database, Oracle themselves came again to pitch their product and flubbed it.
To say they flubbed it is probably mild, Oracle came to Redhat and decided to pitch only a Windows compatible version, refusing to even think about making a Linux variant for a Linux OS company to use. Its almost like AOL going to Microsoft and saying, hey we'd like you to scrape IE and use Netscape if you want our business. Oddly enough, many of the internal Marketing department actually loved the Oracle presentation. Luckily cooler heads have prevailed. Admittedly marketing got them back by taking a month to come up with the name for the new database product
And SAPDB - SAP recently opened that one up. It is a full-fledged database, more functional than interbase or any of the other free alternatives (but bigger too).
Now, it was pretty clear that SAP opened their database as a strike against Oracle -- Oracle is moving into the SAP marketplace and hardly anyone uses SAPDB without SAP, so SAP loses no revenue. SAPDB may not be as good as Oracle, but it is no slouch. It would make sense for RedHat to pick it up and run with it, especially if they got a little backing from SAP too.
Yes, it's a meta announcement, if you will ;).
Alex Bischoff
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
The tables have actually somewhat turned in the MySQL/Postgres performance battle.
Check this out...
---
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
And why not? You don't give any reasons why doing so would put anyone at a disadvantage.
Is this the most advanced open-source database available now?
Does sap-db give you the ability to roll-forward a transaction log in a recovery situation? Can you do something like this with Postgres right now?
You mean MySQL. Microsoft SQL Server wasn't mentioned, and it is an ACID database.
In fact IBM or DB/2 weren't mentioned either. What article did you read?
Actually, one of the problems with PostgreSQL (and I am a huge PostgreSQL fan) is that it really isn't possible to upgrade it in place like you can upgrade MySQL. The core developers have changed the on disk format of every single release that I am aware of (I have played with PostgreSQL since it was known as Postgres95). This means that an upgrade of PostgreSQL requires a dump to a very large text file and a reload. This process takes quite a bit of time, and is inherently dangerous.
There has been some talk on the PostgreSQL mailing lists about writing a tool that would read the various on-disk PostgreSQL formats and change them on the fly, thus allowing the user to upgrade in place. Instead of dumping your database to a text file, upgrading PostgreSQL, and reloading your database from the text file, you could simply shut down the postmaster, upgrade PostgreSQL, run the automatic fix-it tool, and restart your new postmaster. If RedHat has written such a tool for PostgreSQL that would be very cool (and well worth $2K a year IMHO).
In other words the trick isn't replacing rpm -i postgres-..., but rather the trick is replacing rpm -Uvh postgres-...
Well, yes and no. First of all the different PostgreSQL backends are already quite adept at reading the binary formats, and the changes (from what I understand) have generally not been that large. Binary formats certainly are more fragile than human editable text, but clearly it is possible to manage binary formats fairly safely, otherwise any database would be a poor place to put your information. Second of all, since the postmaster would be off the tool could safely do a
tar zcvf backup.tgz data/
Before running the format munger. The tool would have to guarantee you had enough space before hand, but that isn't a big deal (and if you failed you could simply exit with an error message).
Besides, buman readable is only useful to a point. For example, the backups on my PostgreSQL database are big enough that I run them through split so I don't end up with a single file greater than 2G. If something happens to one of my backups recovering that data is going to be a pain (though it would probably be possible).
When upgrading I generally shut down my PostgreSQL server for an entire day as it takes a long time to upgrade (during which time the database is unavailable). When I upgrade I generally dump out the database, load the database into a test machine running the new version (while making a tarball of my data directory just in case), I then verify that all is well, upgrade my production machine's version of PostgreSQL, and then load the database into my production machine. This takes a long time. Updating the binary files would almost certainly be faster, and with proper precautions it wouldn't be any more dangerous.
Not that I am complaining. PostgreSQL's structured text file dumps (like most everything in PostgreSQL) work quite well. But it's not very fast or convenient.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Maybe they are working with some of these other companies or projects, adding RH developed software along with it and marketing sales and support to their existing and new customers? How is that really any different from what they're doing with Linux? They take Open and Free Software, add to it, package it, sell it, and offer support contracts. A nice open source turn key DB system would be nice for small to medium businesses. Given that they haven't even announced it, the reporter may have misunderstood what they are doing and seems to be just going on rumors & speculations. Wait until they actually announce the product.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
::deep sigh::
Once more, in case someone missed: Tux does serve dynamic content. (People seem to be thinking of kttpd... khttpd, the thing that comes with the kernel, serves only static pages.)
Yes, but the article implies that they're likely to call it the Redhat Database. That would lead to the equally confusing RDB acronym...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
*Cough* A good RDBMS is many things, but fast isn't one of them. The reason the industry moved to relational databases (and SQL in particular) was flexibility. Non-relational databases like Berkeley DB or BTrieve are significantly faster. The reason they're not more widely used is that the flexibility of SQL vastly outweighs the performance loss it incurs. It's a matter of using the right tool for the job. Netscape and Sendmail use Berkely DB because it makes sense to do so for what they need. Similarly, Remedy uses Oracle because it needs the flexibility more than the speed. Yes, a good RDBMS is faster than a poor one, but they're both slower than a good non-relational database.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
1: Look at what Red hat did with Tux /. postings regarding Tux vs appache vs IIS ... specificly the comment about CGI being out of date in realtion to IIS 5.0's ISAPI.
... I wonder if the chili soft ASP! people have caught wind of this yet.... could really turn a few heads.
2: look at the past few days of
3: Red Hat annouces A database.
Interesting eh?
Here's my $20.00, I'm betting Red Hat has found a way to tie a database system / databse server system into tux, and into the kerenel. Imagine the power of a kernel space http server, combined with a kernel space (or something simalar to tux) RDBMS. tied together with a API to rival ISAPI
"The clay can become a bear, but not while it lays cold and wet on the riverbank." -Orson Scott Card, Children of the m
I didn't say it didn't. I said the benchmark didn't, I quote from the article:
That said, no, I didn't know that Tux can't do dynamic content, but I'm also not foolish enough to make sweeping statements about things I don't know about.
How does Tux do dynamic content? Does it pass it up to a userland web server on the same box? On another box?
No, it is inherently suspect. If it includes enough information to reproduce the results, and they are reproducible odds that it is useful go up. If they lose odds go up more. If it is simple enough that you can see if it merely played to the strengths of that software or if it is a real test of how it might be used...well that helps too.
After all SPEC benchmarks are run by the venders (on programs and data sets that a group of venders all agreed on).
Yesterday's Tux benchmark wasn't worthless (at least not if you serve static content).
Most benchmarks are not done by impartial entities. Many are run by magazines that get advertising money from only some of the products. Some are run by the potential users that have a vested interest in picking the cheapest one.
The same thing happened with the product called "SuSE Email Server." It turned out to just be Postfix, Cyrus, and some other things pre-integrated and shipped in a nice-looking box bundled with a support agreement. Considering the magnitude of writing a database, I'd expect Red Hat's offering to be something similar. They didn't survive the Linux company shakeout and turn a profit by being stupid.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Actually, Greatbridge DOES sell PostgreSQL:
http://www.greatbridge.com/product/software.php
--
Breakfast served all day!
This seems to be a little premature, as well as
a tough market to enter. With the number of
Enterprise databases available, as well as the
free databases, it's gonna be a little crowded
out there.
Also, who would be the target customer? Those
who have the cash to spend on Oracle, are not
going to take a step down. And those with mySQL
and Post, I can't see them paying for an unproven
product... So that leave's MS and SQL2K, but I
can't imagine companies already entrenched in the
MS platform changing.
To establish a profitable customer base in such a
tough market is going to take ALOT of money, and
time. It just doesn't seem that RH is focusing
on the correct market.
Anyone, have another angle on this?
Awesome!
According to the above mentioned Yahoo article RedHat's offering will also include online backup and recovery. For small and medium sized systems this could be a really big advantage. Hopefully it will support encryption...
-
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
I am not very savvy with what the differences between various OpenSource databases are, but I have a couple of thoughts.
.com days and even though they are profitable, I am sure that the reputation up along the corporate ladder isn't the same.
Oracle is the database of choice when entering the big league. A few people are going to say that SQL Server is just as good or better, but what one usually sees is Oracle on Solaris. Oracle and Sun are in bed with eachother. If it weren't for one or the other, they would probably have had a much harder time. Sure, VERITAS is in there and gets sloppy seconds too. But the strategic corporate harmony is with Oracle and Sun. Oracle people like sun, because Oracle likes Sun. Sun people like Oracle, because Sun touts Oracle as being the best.
So now that Oracle has let Red Hat in the door to "watch", why would they jump out of this and slam the door after themselves. Why should Oracle maintain their RDBMS for Red Hat, now that Red Hat can't even stay away from offering an RDBMS? Sun and Oracle seem to have a secret code with eachother:
Sun: I swear that no Database product shall wear my name...
Oracle: I swear that no Operating System/Hardware produced by me shall compete with Sun...
Bottom line is, that Sun and Oracle already have a good reputation out there among pointy-haired bosses. Red Hat had lots of fun during the
How many Red Hat Database licenses can Red Hat sell? How long does the product need to live before it is viable with everybody in the top layer so that sales start taking off? We've got NuSphere MySQL and at least a few companies supporting PostgreSQL if that's something that is needed. Why buy Red Hat's?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's cool that Red Hat has balls... But will they succeed with this one?
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
I don't understand this at all.
OK, so, you can't use Oracle, because its proprietary. Fine, use MySQL. No, wait, that's largely banked by VA (IIRC). Also rule out Postgres, and Interbase for similar reasons.
So *develop your own*? That just makes no sense. "NIH" (Not Invented Here) kills companys, it blinds their thinking from the best tool for the job.
Why can't Red Hat just partner with NuSphere/Greatbridge/etc? Is it NIH, or something about business I just don't understand?
Last point: This has (apparently) appeared out of nowhere. Some press, but that's it. No beta program. No white papers. No conspicuous hiring of RDBMS gurus - hell, check the Borders in Durham, I doubt they've even bought a textbook on databases. What gives here? Are they going to launch a product without first having running code?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
It'd be nice if Red Hat would come up with a better name, tho.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Therefore, http://travel.state.gov is my preferred "data-BSE", although CNN is fine for less enterprise-class data requirements. For "data-BSE" metadata, I'd suggest you consult the USDA.
From the article: "The pricing has really come down" on database products, he said. "It kind of closes the door on the open-source guys."
Funny, I thought Red Hat, being a Linux Company (and now posting a profit!) understood what the GPL is and what Open Source is. I can't see them "Closing the door" as that quote states...
The real question is what kind of database? My guess is that it will be some form of SQL, but a little more advanced than MySQL in that it will be a relational database (like Pervasive SQL).
What would be a smart idea, is to have the Red Hat Database come out as a CROSS PLATFORM standard. Yes, I said cross platform. The database that we use here at work (Pervasive SQL) runs on Novell, Windows, Linux, and Solaris. When we need to provide a database solution for our customers, we can put the database on whatever type of server they prefer (more and more of our customers are choosing a Linux server however, due to cost reasons.)
Having the database run on more than one platform gives our customers a choice, our customers like that. I sadly doubt that Red Hat Database will work on anything other than Linux, but then I cannot blame Red Hat for doing that. It only makes sense for it to run on Red Hat. (AFAIK, Access only runs on Windows.)
I expect to see this database come out open (although maybe not GPL?), so it stands a chance of getting ported. It would be great to see Red Hat Database out competing Access or some other Microsoft Database on their home turf (NT).
Probably won't happen, but its nice to dream anyways.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
libxml rocks. I've been writing quite a few systems using it, and it is superb.
One thing... use libxml2!!!
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
SAP has open sourced the DB. I'm betting all my redhat stock (ehehe) that their using SAP DB.
Look at the timeing... SAP just released their DB a few weeks ago under the GPL.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Really? Sounds like a typical technical company to me :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Maybe they'll include a dialog creator (ala Glade), a scripting language (perhaps Python), and a report writer. Then we'd have some real competition for MS Access.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'm betting my money this is a repackaged version of PostgreSQL. Does anybody have details?
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
sorry... couldn't resist....
But seriously, if they can provide a product that comes close in performance I see a lot more companies going over to it. I know a lot of companies that would love to use open source but they want someone to blame when it goes wrong.
Hopefully Redhat can still turn a profit when they are the ones catching the blame.
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
My company recently moved from an all Sun/Solaris/Sybase shop to Dell/Linux/Postgres. I spent alot of time with RedHat engineers and Sales people and my name somehow got around the company, and ended up in the lap of someone who was working in their Product Development department. He gave me a call and interviewed me on my experiences with postgresql, asking me what kind of applications we were using, why we chose postgres, and where we were getting our support from. He hinted that they might be producing a postgresql product.
If RedHat is in fact using postgres, kudos to them for picking a RDBMS with row-level locking, failover, and several other enterprise level database product features. And kudos to the PGSQL team for creating a wonderful product. Our websites run much better on our new platform than our old.
indierock / punkrock band photos and more... http://www.digitaldefection.net
The article is way to non-specific to judge what RedHat is doing. If they took one of the solid Open Source databases (I would say PostgreSQL because it presently has features needed for transactional "enterprise class" multi-user databases that MySQL lacks, at least in the last version I used -- I know the developers were talking about adding these features -- such as multi-op transactions, record versioning (for non-blocking transactions) and so on) and, in essence, built a "distribution" that included all the tools folks would want around it (ODBC/JDBC stuff, admin tools, GUI tools a la Oracle Designer), and so long as they continue their habit of making the tools they roll themselves GPL'ed, I say, "What a great idea!" BTW, I'm not saying what the world needs is a Designer-like tool for PostgreSQL, but there are "softies" in the DBA world, just like there are "MSofties" in the programming and sysadmin world. Why not make a buck by giving them what they want? Heck, that's what RedHat's success is based on! They didn't write Linux (okay, so Alan Cox has been working for them for a long time, so one might say they did a lot of good; they also did the abomination that is RPM [flame on!]), but they have built a business out of selling it.
A really good packaging of PostgreSQL with lots of nifty doodads like those the "big boys" sell with their DB engines would be a good product to have.
To me, the whole Linux thing is about freedom. I can always roll my own if I want to or have to, but 95% of the time, I'd rather re-use someone else rolled-up DB environment. So long as they stick with their GPL tradition, I think this is a great idea.
Mind you, this is a vast pile of speculation based on a mere atom of fact. Not that I've ever let that stop me before...
What would the impact be, compared to the fact that Oracle would soon be running on Linux and also Informix (acquired by IBM) and DB2 would soon be running on Linux clusters ?
Oracle, Informix, and DB2 might running on Linux, but perhaps they won't be compatible with Red Hat 8? What prevents Red Hat from introducing incompatibilities into their operating system? The gcc 2.96 controversy is just the beginning of the proprietarization of Red Hat "Linux".
cpeterso
Don't you think that munging the binary database file (in one of many possible format versions) is much more dangerous than just exporting/importing a structured text file?
cpeterso
Why not do this?
SELECT DISTINCT c.name
FROM customers c, collections cl
WHERE c.id = cl.id
AND cl.debt > 0
This should work in any SQL server even if it doesn't support subselects. Have you found the subselect query to be faster/better? Or were you just trying to use an example subselect, not necessarily designing it to be "correct"?
IBM DB2 on Linux already runs on Intel clusters, and has for about 6 months (see DB2 UDB Enterprise Extended Edition). In fact, it also runs on Linux for the S/390 platform and Linux for the Itanium platform. I don't think that Oracle claims to be playing in either of those areas yet...
I'm looking forward to reading more details about Red Hat's database product. This article was just a teaser.
If they are trying to steal market from Oracle (small businesses and such), they will need their database to be transactional. Thus it's not MySQL in its current incarnation. And from what I remember in DB course, not accounting for transactions in the early stages of design, makes a hell of a time rewriting the product later.
Postgres, while transactional, lacks the performance. I have not tested it myself, but I seem to remember a bunch of benchmark articles a while back which seemed to point to this. (CORRECT ME, DON'T FLAME ME, IF I AM WRONG). It kinda makes sense for MySQL to be faster if it doesn't support LOCK.
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
Linux is just another choice, and both kick ass and crash or have weird quirks. I have yet to be able to use KOffice or even mature star office for more then an hour without barfing, i think i can leave office 95 running on my laptop for months without a single problem.
For all intents and purposes, microsoft's products are a whole in one. Without microsoft the PC would have never evolved. It would have been left to IBM or unix guys and then everything would have been screwed up.
As for innovation bs, thats for the birds. Just make your products and sell your shit. I'm not buying innovation, i'm putting my money into something that gets the job done or gives me gratification.
Oracle 9i supports too many features to list, and certainly can't be beat by anything out there yet.
XML, ODBC, JDBC, J2SEE, PL/SQL, SQL99, Flat File support (Yes, you can link flat files to the database and query them via sql now), Clustering, Apache + ModPLSQL + XML + Caching + Portal and tons of other features.
Not to mention performance increases, the huge and highly successull structures for maintaining and reporting system status. The new updated rollback and logging system as well as more security and labeling features.
It runs on RedHat and many other unix varients as well as other Unix operating system
RedHat is shooting themselves in the foot if it is only a linux product. Even IBM knows DB2 is needed on NT, and other platforms. Sure linux runs on other hardware, but hardly a business solution for enterprise environents.
Especially the fact no conversion documents, white papers or applications using the database exist. Won't cause anyone to change. You can already order 9i books and run it on Linux, Solaris and HPUX with NT version coming out soon.
While the text format of XML is what most people think of when they talk about XML, this isn't what people mean when they talk about XML databases.
XML is also a way of structuring data; trees, parents, children, attributes, etc. When people talk about XML databases, they mean a way of storing the XML data, without storing it in the XML text format.
Presumably, this sort of approach would be much faster than using the text format (and far fewer files!) but would also be much easier when to use with XML data than relational databases are. It would also allow the database to prevent races.
Solaris 8 shipped with rpm2cpio ;-)
Yes, you are correct about this. Why? Because ODBMS's are currently all non-free. I only work with free software. My point was partially that it would be nice to see such a thing GPLd because then I (and a million others) could learn the concepts, and in the purest vein of free software development, improve it.
There are plenty of free ODBMS's. Nobody uses them because most ODBMS's suck and most applications are written around RDBMS's. Shore (from UW-Madison) is probably the best free one (MIT/X style license, probably GPL-compatible but ask a lawyer) http://www.cs.wisc.edu/shore/. Zodb is also an object database (part of Zope, http://www.zope.org) that with ZEO even does distributed objects.
But ODBMS's are mostly like threads: good in very limited applications, but it's really easy to go overboard and think you have an elegant super-ODBMS design when you're really digging an unmaintainable, nonperformant mess. And for large applications (esp. once you get into the hundreds/thousands of GB+ range) ODBMSs really aren't there (yet?). Like STREAMS, nobody's ever come up with an efficient implementation and it's not because they haven't tried. Might be a clue...
Sumner
rage, rage against the dying of the light
Only if the port rpm too ;) </joke>
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
That's just not funny :) We need a moderation value for +1/-1 scary
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Don't laugh, but there is such a thing as the Linux Toolkit for AIX which contains a port of RPM among other things ....
That would be a fantastic move... as far as I know there are no other players in the databse-market, so Red Hat should be able reak in heaps of profit!
I would also look into the databae-market, which is also unexploited.
:-)
Not neccessarily open source. I would be surprised if they based it on MySQL, as there's already at least one commercial MySQL mutation out there. In addition, MySQL is not part of the database battle on Linux. MySQL is working perfectly, but is very feature limited. The database war is between high speed feature rich databases, like Sybase, DB2, Oracle. My guess would be that they're licensing Sybase, and will linuxify/redhatify it a little, like Microsoft did on Wintendo (MS-SQL).
-segfault
I find it hard to believe that they wrote their own from scratch. My personal preference is that they used PostgreSQL as a base, and went from there. If thats what they did, then look out GreatBridge!
The article states that Red Hat is specifically going after small to medium sized business, who don't see Oracle as a reasonable expense.
Oracle is expensive and charged on a per CPU (actually per Mhz) basis. So if you're building something that is expected to scale, you're looking at a lot of money.
For example, if you're building a cluster of web servers on stock x86 boxes, you'll find that the price of a single Oracle license on a single box will probably cost you in excess of five of those plain white boxes. For a small company, that is unacceptable.
Interesing move....
It's nice to see RedHat a) start making some money and b) starting to expand their efforts. However I fail to see who they are targeting this at... It seems to me, from my experience in the field, that if some company x wants a database storage solution, for something important, they will go with oracle. Home users on the other hand have long since been using mysql and postgres. I guess we'll just have to wait for the benchmarks because we all know how useful those are.
S.t.e.v.e.
I can't believe they listed MSSQL next to DB2 and Oracle! Sheesh!
Yes, MSSQL runs on expensive hardware. Oracle and DB2 run on *really* expensive hardware. And pass the ACID test. And so on.
Guh...
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
...immediately after I finally figured out how to make MySQL return a data set in random order!
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Anybody think that they'll actually try to make it protable across all Unices?
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
Also note that Greatbridge does NOT SELL PostgreSQL - it sells services. I would bet money that it is PostgreSQL that RedHat produces, and contracts out tech support to Greatbridge.
Synergies exist, there is no direct competition, and the owner is an old friend.
I think the writing is on the wall.
-Mark
Female Prison Rape in NY
When ever I think of someone starting a new
database... I think of Infocom, and Cornerstone...
look how well it worked for them ?!?
I like RedHat...I wish them luck though.
(Please keep it opensource!)
"If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
That's partially my fault for not specifying that "EVERYTHING IS SPECULATION" at this point.
Who knows exactly whether it's a "brand spanking new" database, or whether it's just an optimized MySQL.
It's still not NIH. It's just simple competition.
NIH syndrome is what happened when IBM didn't want to use something like C or AT&T Unix and instead chose to use their own in house proprietary tools / OS's instead.
This, my friend, is called competition. Yes, they're going up against the Oracle goliath, but it's competition none the less.
Fine, use MySQL. No, wait, that's largely banked by VA (IIRC)
Okay, then by that logic, Mandrake should never have based their own distribution off the Red Hat version, opting to instead, start completely from scratch. Luckily for Mandrake, they didn't follow your logic.
And maybe RedHat isn't gunning for press coverage. Tney aren't spending marketing money near to the extent that IBM, Oracle, or M$ are. Continuing in the speculation mode, maybe they just want to produce a "Economy Class" database to compete with the "Rolls Royce" Oracle.
Latest version of Oracle costs about $40k per CPU. DB2 & SQL Server are not much cheaper.
are you on crack? sql server doesn't cost anywhere near $40k per cpu. hell, the unlimited "internet" version costs $10k per instance, which could be run on any number of cpus in a smp machine.
I hate to see it when big companies try to do a lot of stuff, rather than sticking to what they are good at. Take Oracle for example, excellent DB, all their other products are total CRAP! (besides their app server, it was crap until they licensed Orion)
Besides, don't we already have enough databases? Now if they made an OODBMS, that might be cool. But for the most part I would rather they stick to making a good Linux distribution.
Troy
So, wait, you've had an 8.1.6 "what" server running? I thought you were talking about Oracle, but apparently not. Lots of us have had that sort of stability without Oracle. Are you implying something else
</cheap-joke-not-that-funny-sorry>
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If they are starting from someone else's code base, I'm betting it's PostgreSQL. It seems to me they've always had a soft spot for it.
It is sad that none of the comparisons and this discussion does not take into account Sybase. Sybase is the widely used db in Wall Street. It is a lot dearer than a comparable oracle or db2. It is quite comparable in terms of performance. Hell they even give you a free version to run on Linux. And . . (rant deleted)
I've used Interbase since 1996 and like it. If you follow the uninstall procedures (i.e run the uninstall program) as specified by Borland, then it uninstalls just fine and will not corrupt other database drivers. It's when people try to manually delete files that that they get into trouble. If you were using the BDE, manually uninstalling drivers is a bad thing in general and is not recommended.
Additionally, InterBase is not orphaned and is very much supported by Borland. I suggest you go to their website and see what they are offering. Last I checked, IB was running on a myriad of platforms and is included on the Kylix CD. I assume its also on the Delphi 6 CD...but as I don't have it...it's just an assumption.
If you are looking for a free alternative, I suggest you consider the FireBird project. It's essentially InterBase but based on the Open Sourced code. It runs under Linux and Windows.
Best tool to use for accessing InterBase or FireBird is Jason Wharton's InterBase Objects.
Finally, if you are running Windows, use a utility like CleanSweep to record your installation process. This will make a clean uninstall a piece of cake. One thing about Windows I really don't like is that there are no reference counts to files, libraries, or drivers. But, then again, I don't know of too many install programs or OS's that actually track this information. Oh well.
Okay, then by that logic, Mandrake should never have based their own distribution off the Red Hat version, opting to instead, start completely from scratch. Luckily for Mandrake, they didn't follow your logic.
Whoa there buddy. That was pretty clear sarcasm. He was highlighting the absurdity in RedHat's decision to (maybe, we don't know whether they have or not) start from scratch and build their own database system.
Yes! That guy!
Forbes has this to say about Red Hat..
NEW YORK - Red Hat Software has squeezed out a first-quarter profit distributing a product that, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't own.
So its a lot like Microsoft which has made profits distributing a product that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't work.
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
How does it work if a decision in a big company for a _new_ DB system (usually for a special purpose project) has to be made?
I'll tell you how I've seen it done in telecom. You sit around in one meeting after another, gathering a fantasy list of user requirements, only to discover that the sponsor blew their budget and expected the IT department to cover the costs.
Then, when you get to the sticker shock, you get questions like:
"What's the $250K for? Licenses? For what? Database software? Can't you just write something? After all, what's all that development time for if you're just going to go out and buy stuff from Oracle? Why are you paying all those programmers and database people if you're just going to buy it anyways?"
By that time, open source is looking to be the only option that'll come close to the user's budget. True, you've got the developers, and probably the time (wait in line), but without the funds for the big budget commercial database, open source sure beats writing from scratch.
Plus, I've yet to meet a commercial database that came pre-constructed to do exactly what I need to do for telecom billing, so it's assumed that you'll be conducting a good amount of development on the system regardless of its origin.
But please folks, stop dreaming that RH will eat away the piece of the big guys in the upperscale solution market.
No. Microsoft already has done that. In too many vertical markets, Oracle/IBM are not adding any value. At least Microsoft doesn't charge you nearly as badly based on use. (Vendors: Take a hint. Charge me on use and you'll guarantee I'll be looking for a way to get rid of you as I grow!)
Per the previous example, I've tired of Oracle quotes that demand:
- extra per processor
- extra if you're going to use the data on the Internet somehow (even if it is interfacing a Microsoft SQL server first, which is talking to the web via IIS and Oracle never sees a public IP)
- a huge chunk of change for maintenance (aka bug fixes)
Then again, it's not easy to make Larry Ellison wealthier than Gates...
You're also right that PostgresQL and other open source varients can't touch Oracle's very high end capabilities. Their stuff is "trivial" (thanks Clayton Christensen for the model), and is the only thing the very, very high end customers (5%) of Oracle can use. The other 95% do just fine with the open source alternatives.
*scoove*
oracle already runs on linux. i've run 8.1.5, 8.1.6 and 8.1.7 on redhat 6.2 without any problems. i have a development 8.1.6 server that has been up and getting hammered for almost a year now without a reboot or a restart or oracle.
The database field is a hard place to be. Infocom found this out when they tried to branch into it and failed, taking the company down with it.
Redhat is facing effectively impossible competition on the high-end (where people pay for the name) and quite good competition on the low end where we have PostgrSQL and MySQL.
I'll be interested to see them pull it off. They just made a profit! Don't blow it!
How often have you heard this story:
Headline: $company Announces Move Into $field.
$company announced today that they will be moving into $field software, with product details to be announced in roughly six months. At the news, developer interest in $field products from companies already in the market have dried up, as $company's version will likely become a major, if not the primary, industry standard.
Then, in the intervening months, all competition in the market goes belly-up, $company buys whatever former competitor they think is most useful, and becomes the Only Game In Town.
Set $company to "Microsoft" and everyone knows this story. It hasn't worked if set to "RedHat" until now.
Ideology breeds Hypocrisy. Just how much is up to you.
The best part of all this is the fact that RedHat's selling people the same things that they can download for free... and they're shitting their pants with excitement over it.
OTOH, if they actually did make a new product... I'm sure that there won't be a host of bugs that introduced to their, uh, rock solid systems by it or anything. Because everyone knows Linux is the most stablest operating system in the world blah blah blah.
Exactly what value is this adding?
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
The article has no details about what type of rollout this is expected to be. Given the amount of work that goes into creating a new database, there would have been some noise about it by now. Likely, what we're looking at is yet another Mysql/postgres in a new box, with a nifty configuration/control panel and a manual.
MySQL is included with Red Hat Linux 7 and 7.1.
Yes, I hate that word too. Try example, idea, model, mors, principle, patern, standard or world view instead.
Postgre looks good to me.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Maybe not every small/medium business can afford Oracle, etc.? Ever stop to consider that possibility from your oh-so-high-and-mighty position? That seems like a pretty reasonable market to go after: Companies that can't justify the expense of Oracle but need something more than a RDBMS hack.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
--
--
I like to watch.
It seems that Oracle is moving away from RedHat.
Probably not
Judging by the kgcc fiasco they probably won't even make it portable across linuxes.
I've been posting on the net since 1994 and I still haven't come up with a good sig!
Well, they do ship PostgreSQL, which is at least an ORDBMS. (And it's really cool!</advocacy>). Plus even the latest versions of Pg typically are a zero sweat install (rpms from the Pg site).
--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
If you really neead a "reason to use a database at all", then you clearly aren't doing anything interesting with any volume of data.
Wasn't it called "table blocking"?
Donate free food to the hungry at The Hunger site.
XML ~= RELATIONAL.
XML = hierarchial.
Just wanted to point that out, Different data modeling paradigms. You can map the two but some things are still trickier.
Jeremy
Roger, I agree with you but I take a practical approach to nearly everything I do. We develop software at work and we have to be realistic about the world in which we work.
Okay you try hiring a PHP developer who has a F*C*ING clue. Now try hiring C++ developer who has a clue. It is all about skillsets of the workforce and what you have to pay for a certain skillset. More people can "get by" with NT then they can comprehend what "chmod 666 myfile" does. Right click, Look about, (sarcasm)drool(sarcasm) click a few check boxes add a few users, Voila.
Microsoft people are definitely NOT idiots. Heh. They have avoided any serious legal issues to date and continue to own the market through their dominance. They have a bunch of bright people. You cant tell me that with so many programmers a good chunk of them arent into the open source movement. Its just fallacy to assume people dont know whats going on cause they are MS. You may not be able to buy EVERYTHING with money but damn near.
Jeremy
Oracle did not instantaneously become a enterprise scale RDBMS overnight either
;)
I mean if they continue to develop the product and add features who knows.
No not a treat yet but after a few years of sucess in the midsized world they could have a mature enough operating system and product to really make a break through. Think big big picture, not just, the next two months
Jeremy
Ohhh, an OODB. Sweet, are there any OS ones yet?
According to postgresql.org, "PostgreSQL is a sophisticated Object-Relational DBMS, supporting almost all SQL constructs, including subselects, transactions, and user-defined types and functions. It is the most advanced open-source database available anywhere. Commercial Support is also available."
Will I retire or break 10K?
Yes it is.
Australian? Join EFA
That being said, I've had lots of experience moving M$ Access apps to other databases. Email me at the address in my profile and give me more details, and I'll see what I can do to help.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
One of the BEST features about Sybase on Linux is that it's trivial to move an existing MS-SQL database off of NT -- this can often be done without changing any code. This makes it a very attractive migration path for those looking to decrease their reliance on M$.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Ohhh, an OODB. Sweet, are there any OS ones yet? Not that I know of...
If this is the case, good idea RedHat.
-jason m
from customer c
where c.id in (select cl.id
from collections cl
where cl.debt > 0)
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
That'll be all.
Ok what makes sense here? First of all the article does not get into any detail at all but here is what I see.
RedHat has been shipping Postgres in every distro for a long time. Mysql on the other hand you have to download and install yourself, we definately see a preference for Postgres.
Postgres is technically strong database but it lacks in tools. If RedHat takes it the last mile it could easily unseat mysql and I would switch in a minute.
It is all in the implementation, if they supply the tools our enterprise will buy it in a heartbeat.
Got Code?
Is this a new open source database or a version of PostGres or MySQL?
The article does not mention where they are getting the code. It is probably too big a job to start from scratch - so their only real choice is probably Postgres. Are there any other open source databases they can start with besides MySQL?
If "cooler heads" had actually won the day, you would have responded to Oracle by saying "we like your product a lot, but we are a Linux company and believe in eating our own dogfood, so come back with a new presentation which does not force us to rely on a competitor's technology and we can make this work."
Then you say that RHAT has a marketing department that works against the engineers out of spite? Sounds like a sick company to me, in the black or not.
Of course, since you posted anonymously, you could just be some short-selling wise guy trying to make Red Hat and/or Oracle sound like they don't know what they are doing, in order to manipulate the market. Or, for that matter, you could be a (re: another) Microsoft astroturfer. Or maybe you really are in the trenches of the Red Hat cubicle farm, passing along the story as you best recall from gossipping with your co-workers over a smoke-break.
(It's a well established fact that the smokers in a big company have a better idea of what other departments are up to than most managers do, because designated smoking areas has forced them to socialize with people they would not otherwise see... But since the banter of a smoking area mostly consists of people venting thier frustrations, the view one comes away with after listening to them is often a little skewed.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I was just waiting for someone to say this. Every time Microsoft tries to "force it's way" into a market, all hell breaks loose on Slashdot. However, when RHAT tries to "make it's way" into a market, not a single question is asked. I'm not endorsing either, but I think it's only fair to mention it.
-Rick
Yet another database engine...
RedHat will probaly be the only one to use it, I bet they originally wanted a more powerful DB for rpm.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What would the impact be, compared to the fact that Oracle would soon be running on Linux and also Informix (acquired by IBM) and DB2 would soon be running on Linux clusters ?
Do you think Redhat could have some clout in convincing the market that it can build a solid database compared to the solutions already out there. Agreed, that Linux is a solid server OS, but that itself wouldnt do. RedHat needs to have a solid solution which doesnt depend on Linux, but be able to stand on its own, in terms of TPS and Performance issues.
Rapid Nirvana
"The pricing has really come down" refers to the current competition between Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft keeping prices down. Because prices on databases are down, there is less profitability in databases then before which "kind of closes the door on the open-source guys." The statement has nothing to do with Red Hat, except that he's saying it's a very competitive, risky venture for them to get into.
Actually, I think most databases perform ok while their admins are on acid.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Well, the article said they had increased their R&D spending. I just didn't think that meant something as mundane as a database. Oh, well, maybe they're hiding the exotic stufff behind this cover . . .
1Alpha7
Live to be Moderated
Especially considering this will likely cut into their $895/unit sales of Linux/DB2 bundles.
I do not have a signature
The only lock-in any company has is to tie the company's data to a given OS/platform.
Red Hat has no choice but to do this- look what being application agnostic did for Novell.
________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
XML is not designed to deal efficiently with large amounts of data.
I timed XML parsing few days ago using java/xerces - it takes around .3-.5 seconds to create a DOM tree from 1K XML document, and thats on PIII 866. SAX is not much faster.
I don't know if it is Java, or bad implementation, but XML everywhere does not sound good to me anylonger.
Tried SAX with xerces the speed is almost the same. Never thought about libxml - xerces is kind of a standard now.
according to this: article
That means, if it will be available on subscription basis including backups etc, you can then run your RedHat Interchange e-commerce platform plus backend RH databases all in a nicely supportive environment for quite an affordable price.
:-) Just keep the prices affordable for the mini-mami-shops.
Looks to me as a dream come through.
Go RedHat, Go !
Don't use DOM, use SAX instead. It's much more painful, but also at least 10x faster, without the memory requirements of DOM. Also, which parser are you using? I have found that Apache Xerces is a good API but slow, and that libxml is tougher to use, but faster.
Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
OK I see your point on speed. I generally work with smaller scale applications that don't require thousands of connections per second, and don't have terrabytes of data.
As for "not doing anything interesting", I have to disagree. Have you looked at xslt? Using it in combination with some programming logic, you can do some seriously interesting things. For example, a job site I am currently working on uses many separate xml files with different purposes. Some logic comes along and stiches the files together, and then processes the whole lot using xslt. The result is similar to RDB JOIN, with the notable difference that I have ultra fine control over every input and output element. Systems like this allow me to easily generate client-specific HTML output, and special case output such as simplified xml for syndication.
Of course when speed isn't a critical issue, a database or xml will work for a system like this. In the end, it comes down to a matter of personal preference.
Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Yes, you are correct about this. Why? Because ODBMS's are currently all non-free. I only work with free software. My point was partially that it would be nice to see such a thing GPLd because then I (and a million others) could learn the concepts, and in the purest vein of free software development, improve it. The problems you mention could be overcome by free software developers.
Everyone in this little thread I've started is complaining about speed. The speed of xml sucks, the speed of RDBMS sucks. Well? Not every application needs to handle a zillion connections a second, you know. I think speed is overrated and design elegance and system maintainability is seriously underrated.Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
The article is a little light on the details, but it would sure be nice to see an object database bundled with the next RH release. The flat "tables and rows" paradigm (did I really just say that?) is ok for some things, but in most cases, I often ask myself "why not use XML instead?" An ODB would give me a better reason to use a database at all. It would be sweet to store serialized C or Java objects this way, or access them through CORBA.
Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
funny i read this - the read the RH in the "BLACK" posting - but after a few drinks.... I thought it said RH in the RED and thought it was really funny that RH would these two would be on /.
never mind.... I enjoyed the lapse.
"RH in announces entrance to DB market... RH in the RED!"
All the best rumors say so...
RedHat to BUY GreatBridge (postgreSQL) ???
If they are planning to compete with Oracle, what other GPL database is there?
If you read some of the comments to that article, in particular the responses from the article's author, you'll notice he seems extremly partial to Postgres, much more so than he did in the article.
A benchmark is inherently flawed if it isn't made by an impartial entity.
An other point entirely, which was also made in the comments, is the known flaw in glibc which causes severe MySQL performance problems on SMP systems. Running the same benchmark on a single processor machine would probably have shown quite different results, as would a patched glibc.
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
i would imagine that many business users of microsoft products purchase access for small business applications. a small database would probably be a required step towards creating a viable desktop environment. it certainly does not need to beat oracle. look at filemaker, which is actually halfway decent in the tasks for which it was meant imho.
the profit was actually in the period they were developing the database. so they were investing in r 'n d at the same time, like many businesses which intend on remaining in business.
How Realplayer will go ahead and use .rdm as well.
As it points out, this software has a target audience of small to medium sized startups.
The mechanical engineering dept that I attended for a while was convinced that all me students must learn how to use the program pro engineer for drafting and finite element analysis. I did not consider this a good strategy for making them more marketable. Most of the students that graduated winding up working for medium sized companies that could not afford the hefty price tag of pro eng. Instead, they had to go with a program that could accomplish most what they wanted at a reasonable price.
With this in mind, I believe that this phenomenon is enough to refute anyone's claim that this open-source method of doings thing can not persist.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
So, I had to abandon my Access and FP skills and learn or procure mySQL and PHP skills.
I still haven't seen anything as easy for ME to use for quick and nasty development as Access/FP. I did download AbriaSoft but couldn't get it to work - sorry guys - the fault probably lay between the keyboard and the chair!
If RH put this together well, I would certainly consider it.
But if they're going after Larry Ellison, then count me out. My clients are just getting over the "relational" in RDBMS - they're not ready for Oracle or any RH flavour thereof!
Slightly off topic (but saves me two posts) - nice to see RH in the black.
Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
How much do you bet that it will be based on an existing package?
Nobox: Only simple products.
How will this be any better then MySQL or PostgreSQL ?
Odds are that RHAT is developing a GPLed db. The article also mentions that they spent six months considering it. I imagine it occurred to them that they could use code from one of the other free DBs, so it won't be made from scratch at all. Where it is, it will likely tread upon well-known ground.
I am hoping the code is based on (and compatable with) PostreSQL or even MySQL or perhaps the recently open sourced SAPDB. The key isn't the database it's self, it's the front end tools to configure and manage the DB. That's where SQL server's strength lies, in it's extremely powerful configuration tools. Throw in it's data transformation services and you have a db that works well for small to medium sized businesses. Redhat could take this niche with a better priced, better built product then M$ with a front end that works on both windows and linux (they did a good job with source navigator).
"So you call this your free contry, tell me why it costs so much to live?" - Three Doors Down
Just as soon as it begins to make a profit Red Hat decides that it wants to branch out into developing applications.
Am I the only one who thinks that this might be a bad idea right now and that the company is looking to run before it can walk?
Red Hat has built a reputation for itself by putting together a top-notch Linux distribution and related support services, markets that still have much room for expansion, so why tie up valuable resources (man hours, cash, etc) in this venture? The database market is already heavily saturated and Red Hat doesn't have the clout to play with Oracle, SAP, etc who already have more mature products in the market place (and deeper pockets to boot).
Is this part of a wider plan at Red Hat? Is it trying to make itself the Microsoft of the Linux world? Will we see Red Hat word processors, spreadsheets and PIMs? If so, how will the open source community view such developments.
One look at the economic forecasts for the next 24 months will tell you that tough times are coming. Hopefully, in choosing to broaden its horizons rather than batten down the hatches Red Hat won't run financially aground like Be, BSD et al.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Maybe the choice between a subquery and a join is one of those space/time tradeoffs they told us about in school.
You are correct here. I was looking at a teradata query the other day where the IN and the JOIN wouldn't work b/c the query would run out of spool space. The exists was the only way to get the data out (maybe not the fastest, but it used the least amount of temp space). Keep in mind that each table had a minimum of 10 million rows.
First they announce that they're in the black, now they are going after Microsoft and Oracle? Just what kind of Tech company do they think they are, actually succeeding at being successful and all? Great work guys! Keep it going!
In the grand old tradition of sensationalism, the story has been completely blown out of proportion. What RedHat is doing is nothing more than repackaging PostgreSQL. How can you guys be such dupes?
Galactic Geek
* * * Free programmers? Why not? http://www.Geeks4Free.com * * *
I prefer the EXISTS subquery too, but only to avoid the overhead of IN (subquery) or DISTINCT. According to Oracle Performance Tuning (O'Reilly), sometimes a join is faster.
I guess the query engine has to execute the subquery once for each row passing the other conditions (and then scan the subquery results if it's an IN subquery). For some joins it could merge subsets of individual tables using a fancy data structure (and then check the results for uniqueness if it's a DISTINCT query).
Maybe the choice between a subquery and a join is one of those space/time tradeoffs they told us about in school.
Of course, why anyone would pay for something as simple as "rpm -i postgres-..." is beyond me.
http://news.excite.com/news/zd/010620/15/red-hat-d atabase
"PostgreSQL, which is well-regarded in the open source community, will be positioned by Red Hat for small and midsize businesses. Sources said that Red Hat will continue to encourage large enterprise customers to use Oracle Corp.'s Oracle and IBM's DB2 products."
They didn't survive the Linux company shakeout and turn a profit by being stupid.
That's correct, in that they didn't turn a profit. Sorry, just couldn't resist.
Invisible Agent
Invisible Agent
This post is a mirror; when a monkey stares in, no hacker gazes out.
I don't want to sound crazy... but Red Hat making their database sounds kind of Micro$oft-istic *ack, gasp*. Hear me out here... lets see... we have Oracle... we have mySQL, we have DB2 (which runs great on Redhat), basically we have a vast number of databases. Yet RedHat decides to make their own. I question their intentions... hopefully they haven't been looking towards Redmond for a business model. The day Red Hat tells me I can only use the Red Hat Database connected to Red Hat Tux 2.0 is the day I tell Red Hat that they can keep their damn ISO.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
I posted before when SAP opened up their db code that something like this may be coming. I wouldn't be surprised to see an announcment shortly that SAP runs on the new database. They've even benchmarked using Intel boxes. Could this be a precursor to SAP and Redhat launching an Oracle and DB2 free ERP solution?
---
No electrons were harmed in the transmitting of this message. EOL
It's nice to see an open source company finally finding viable niches in which they can actually make money, justifying the hype. Although the whiney open-source `advocates' who don't understand the concept of value-added might complain about the sticker price, when you're looking at salaries in the 80K/yr. range for experts on the subject, paying 2K for a year of support ends up making a lot of sense.
Three cheers for open source companies with viable business models.
I would imagine that Redhat's Database will be developed similiar to their webserver software Tux 2.0. Being integrated into the kernel. That should make the database run smoother and much faster for pulling up data.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Plenty of choice here as well.
For example one of the best "smaller" databases available Sybase SQL-Anywhere is being sold for Linux.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
Oh, don't think for a minute that Red Hat only has $600,000 to work with. That is just their profit. So many people jumped on the bandwagon when they IPO'ed that they could have 100 products and marketing campaigns fail and still buy all slashdotters dinner...
RHAT has a market cap of $734.6 MILLION right now. They aren't putting all of their eggs in one basket (and no basket is that big, anyway...).
Smart enough to be rich?
This seems a bit daring if they just got themselves out of the red . . .
Spam removed for the Internet's pleasure
Red Hat Database will be a media thing. I bet it is only full support for big customers. They shouldn't be getting an all brand new product, just support, and that is a big job!!
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
If you've had a chance to talk to any IT managers out there who are responsible for purchasing database licences, you'll notice that most wince when you mention Oracle.
As a programmer, you'll know Oracle as rock solid, fast as hell, and cross-platform. As an IT manager or purchaser, you'll know Oracle as a huge organization with extremely cocky, turf-protecting salesfolks who will try to gouge you to the best of their ability.
If you're legal/legit with your Oracle licencing, and you're running a big site, chances are you're paying in the millions of dollars for licences.
For a database. A database. Let me repeat that. A database.
Now, Oracle has developed kick-butt support over the last few years, and they can pretty much guarantee 24x7 uptime. IF you're willing to pay their insane licencing fees.
I do tech consulting for a living, and I'm already seeing my clients make the M$ choice over Oracle just because Oracle is too damn expensive. Now these are smart folks. They're not MS zealots. They've done their research, and seen that MSSQL gets you there in MOST situations. (I still prefer Oracle but...) They are then faced with a purchasing decision, and can spend __LITERALLY__ $3,000,000 on Oracle licences, or $300,000 on MS. Do the math. Oracle is becoming aware that people are going with competitors. It's starting to affect their bottom line. How do we know this? Well, they just dropped the prices on most of their databases, and changed their licensing agreements, something they wouldnt do unless they we're pressured by the market. Some would argue that they are still too expensive.
Corporate users demand 24x7 uptime from their databases. Postgres, as far as I can see, doesnt have a coordinated support strategy to address these uptime issues, which keeps PGSQL from getting really huge. Addressing these mission critical support and management issues is undoubtedly what RedHat aims to do, hopefully at a good price. Plus the'll make the DB cross-platform, which is nice.
Hmm. I think I'm selling my Oracle stock....