Slashdot Mirror
New SQL Server Release Slips to 2005
Strudelkugel writes "CRN reports SQL Server 'Yukon' will slip to 2005, complicating plans for ISVs and creating opportunities for OSS and other competitors."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Because SQL Server 2000 is pretty much the best database around for the price.
.NET stuff anyway?
Who needs all that integrated
Not good for MS. A lot of people have been waiting on Yukon. Yukon is finally going to deliver online restoration, database mirroring with automatic failover, and support for mirrored backup sets.
Disappointing. SQL Server had really come a long way, too. Maybe 2005 won't be too late.
... they postponed yet another piece of software?? See me not being amazed here, I mean, it seems to be the trend at MS currently to announce new software and then postponing it due to "problems" ... I wonder why. Would it be because the want to see what OSS has to offer first so they can steal the ideas and then sell 'em off?
On the other side, if developers start saying this "slip" is becoming "a credibility issue", then maybe certain OSS apps will finally be accepted in full as being grown-up pieces of software. At best this will cause MS to loose a few points in goodwill with a large group of people that still (foolishly) place their trust in them.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
It's also worth the effort on Microsofts' part to get this right. After all, WinFS is going to be built on the same technology.
Vacancy for signature. Apply within.
Has any one contemplated the concept that Microsoft might actually be taking the time to make better products? I realise its taboo on slashdot to show any support to Microsoft, but the fact is that they are not stupid! Do you honestly believe they would just decide, hey, lets let linux + competitors get a foothold in our markets whilst we jack about! WRONG!
One thing anyone in the IT business should learn is to never ever under estimate microsoft.
What OSS opportunities does this create? Doesn't OSS need to close the gap with SQL 2000 before taking advantage of any slippage? How about ANSI '92 compliance for MySQL... that would be a good start!
all this slipage is a cover for the fact that ms has been listening to it's customers ( forced by some healthy oss pressure ) 1: we don't want to be forced into upgrade cycles every 12 months. enterprise systems don't work that way. 2: take the time and fix the damn bugs. we are paying for this shit lets see it work properly.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I hate to disagree with that, but we recently had a project and had the choice of which SQL to use. Customer pushed back and simply said MS.
Just because the product isn't there doesn't mean they will automatically go to another 'free' alternative- instead it means they'll simply use the older version until it wears out.
As a DBA who deals with MS SQL 2k (and 7 and 6.5) on a day to day basis (hour to hour basis?) I'm actually kind of saddened by this. I was really looking forward to playing with the TSQL/.Net paradigm shift as far as accessing data.
:)
7.0 was a huge jump from 6.5 and 2k from 7.0 was almost as significant of a jump. I will call a spade a spade and say that the evolution of the MS SQL server has really impressed me and I was looking for good things from this next version as well. I know this is the wrong place to say such things, but I've had lots of problems with other MS problems, but this one since 7.0 has been quite good. Don't even get me started on some of their other products though.
I'll just go hide in my DBA hole until 2005 I guess.
--Mike--
If I had any doubts that MS is helping OSS and slowly erasing itself, it is now clearing :-)
Jokes aside, this will seriously affect businesses that have paid for their upgrade licenses, as the licenses will expire before the sql server is released. This will make decision makers view Open Source in a new light. Atleast, in Open Source you don't pay for future vaporware in the present.
"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Many business customers have recently been coerced into signing ongoing contracts where they receive any upgrades in a particular year in exchange for a yearly fee.
These companies are going to be extremely p155ed off when they realise that all they are going to get for their money is (maybe) XP Reloaded (think ME).
Companies cannot afford to throw money down the microsoft toilet for much longer... especially when all they get is extra bugs that they didnt need in the first place, coupled with a healthy dose of lock-in and increased support costs.
Microsoft (circa 2001): "With this new licensing model, you buy "software assurance" so if a new version is released in the next two years, you're entitled to a free upgrade"
Uh huh...I see that's working out nicely...
WTF? Over?
Here's a company with many thousands of employees, more money than God, and a dominant position in almost every market segment they're in. And they STILL can't write secure code OR meet most of their delivery deadlines (deadlines which they set themselves, not ones that were imposed on them).
Meanwhile, the groups that produce products like MySQL and PostgreSQL have had steady releases, a wealth of needed features, and relatively few security incidents.
Unless you're already so heavily bought in to their infrastructure that any change would be prohibitively expensive, I can't see how it makes any sense to base your business on Microsoft's products. They're expensive, they're insecure, they're performance laggards, and you just can't rely on them for support.
Cheers,
"Early adoption of Yukon in enterprises was quite strong due to the functions and features [..]"
How can you talk about functions and features of software that has not yet been released? How can companies "early adopt" vaporware?
Yes, they can order in advance, but to me "adoption" means running something as a part of your business. Not "planning to maybe use it once you get it and if it turns out to be as good as you was promised it would be".
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
This is one of Microsoft's most important products. Finacially, there is a huge amount of "positive perception" riding on SQL server.
Businesses may run on one of their OSes, but businesses run IN SQL Server. This product can make or (more critically) brake businesses. If rumors of major problems with SQL server screwing up business were to get out, corporate perception of them would tank.
They have no real choice with this product but to try and make sure it is ready (and take more time if needed) rather than push it to market.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
It is really funny the level of fervor behind Mysql. So funny it makes you wonder if the zealots have ever used anything other to any real extent.
The company I work for software's backend can go Mysql, Postgres, Mssql, Db2, or Oracle.
For massivce connections, queries, reporting, reliability it is in this order.
1. Mssql, DB2, Oracle, all pretty much equal.
2, Postegres, tricky but holds its own.
3. Mysql, will work in the low end, forget reporting, forget huge db hits.
I like Mysql. But Mssql 7.0 hands its ass to it.
What happens is some company will be our product. Hand it over to some 25 year old self proclaimed web genius to install. Conversation is as follows.
1. "Can I have the Source?" No, it is closed, long discussion about how we suck cause our product isn't open source.
2. "Ewwww, Java, it sucks, you should rewrite in PHP" I explain it has been continually developed since 96, no way to stop the engine and write in PHP.
4."I decided to save the company some money and install Mysql" We say ok, explain issues, put them in an email and fax(CYA principle). I then advise to run Postegre, that it is more robust, and is FREE as well.
No one lists. Junior installs on Mysql, everything runs fine, site gets huge amount of traffic, database gets quirky. Management starts running huge queries on database reporting tool. Database is very slow to respond, then in a few weeks keels over.
We get called. Tech is yelling, my guys are smirking(but still polite on phone) Management, myself, and tech gets on conference. Tech starts berating me. Management starts berating me. I pull out magic email and fax with all my system recquirements, suggestions for optimal use. Hey, guess what I was write. Wait a minute, shouldn't I know best since I work for the company that writes and support the product?
Three times a week this happens with Mysql. We have 14000 customers and I swear 50 percent have some guy that thinks he knows best.... knows our product better, knows computers better...
This is a great example of where our community needs to clean up its act. And I thought I would never say that.
Mysql is good for what it is, but there are many things it is not. Learn this.
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Of course MS SQL has transactions. Any decent database software has transactions as standard. mySQL is a toy database, just one step up from storing your data in CSV files.
I really do wish mickysoft would rename their flagship database something else. Are they that arrogant that they feel the need for such a generic name? That's about like naming your product "Web Server" or "Network File Server". When someone mentions SQL server, I always have them clarify whether or not they are talking in general terms for some sort of relational backend, or are they referring to microsoft's product. Sometimes they don't even know the difference, but perhaps that is microsoft's end goal.
otherwise you'd realize you build software to specifications, one of which is "we have a site license for MS SQL Server."
That means... they tell us to build the system to operate on it, and we deliver.
Coming back to them and informing them we aren't going to listen to their needs would result in, oh, someone else having been awarded the contract.
What this article doesn't mention is that Visual Studio 2005 (formly known as Whitby) has also been delayed so that MS can release both products at the same time. (as VS.Net 2005 is supposed to be heavily integrated with the .NET features of SQL 2005)...
The thing I don't understand is why VS.NET is being delayed like this, the SQL objects should be seperate and not integrated into VS.Net anyway!
Yep, I was shocked when I first played with MySql, having heard such good things about it, and discovered how many features it lacked that I consider essential to a serious database.
I have since got over my shock and realised that MySql is really good for what it is, but is really a different kind of beast to Oracle, MSSql etc.
Dan.
CNET News reported five days ago on the 10th that both Yukon and Whidbey would be delayed and their final names. They need that time if they are going to clean up the shit HTML and JS outputed by VS. Not that they will, that would allow people to use Firefox.
Microsoft delays database, tools deliveryPhillip
Give MS a frickin' break....MS said there is going to be something like 40 *million* lines of code...
Just out of curiosity, I counted the lines of code (both c & assembler, all processors) of the 2.6.4 kernel. It is less than 5.5 million.
40 million lines of code. There's all the reason I ever need to not use it.
With 40 million lines of code, you never fix bugs, the best you can hope for is to relocate them to a really obscure place.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Joking aside, I think these delays can be attributed to the whole "Trustworthy Computing" thing and MS discovering just how much junk code was floating around in each new version. They have deep enough pockets to ride out these kind of delays but it does open a great window of opporutnity for OS X and Linux along with a raft of other OSS solutions. A break in the constant upgrade cycle is an opening we should all be working to take advantage of, from desktop tech to database admin to kernel devs.
Isn't Slashdot run on MySQL?
This is a good example of how far behind MySQL really is. I don't want to degrade the db; I have used it on several PHP/MySQL driven sites. However, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, Sybase and others have had transactions for many years. I have only been developing professionally for about 7 years (circa 97), but I started out on SQL Server 6.5 which had full support for transactions. SQL Server 7.0 had support (via MTS) for distrubuted transactions (across multiple databases). If MS had this back in 1997, you know Oracle had it before then.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
This product lacks focus," said Betsy Burton, analyst with the Gartner Group. "They're doing all sorts of stuff with it, first scalability was the issue, then XML support, then .Net activities, and then business intelligence and now security. The gut issue is, what is the purpose of this release? As a team trying to develop a product you have to know where you're going," she said.
This is the paragraph that explains it all. This product lacks focus. Why? Who knows? But if you cannot give your troops clear, concise goals, then everyone will go in a million different directions. And nothing will get done!
When this project first started out, it may have had the clear, concise goals. But then they started to add extra things to the project as it progressed. Sometimes adding a new feature or what-not means starting from scratch (if you wanna do it right).
If MS wants to do this right (and not delay the shipping date), then they should put a freeze on adding new features. Otherwise, it will either slip again, or a critical flaw will be found with the software.
My $0.02
It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
>corperations are still using MSSQL 6.5 for critical
>databases because 2000 still has some problems.
>the only other database they use is Oracle, and
>MSSQL is a tiny joke of a toy compared to it.
I suppose you have never run SQL 2000 on a decently powerful machine.
I also suppose you never put a load balancing application on top of a dozen or so SQL 2000 boxes.
Get over it. SQL 2000 is on par with Oracle, Sybase, DB2, etc.
About 6 months ago I was on the phone to some marketing company who were doing a survey on Yukon and whether or not I was contemplating deploying it.
I said no because:
1) it was too tighly integrated into AD/ windows server and we didn't any of that.
2) I didn't trust it, and wouldn't till it had been in the field for at least a year.
I think they got alot of responses like 2) (going by the marketers comments) and they prob decided to wait till the new windows server is out (2006??) and deploy on the new Trusted Computing Base thing they are wittering on about.
How the fuck did this get modded to +5?
Wow, MySQL now has an official front-end tool (instead of one of many third-party ones that it's had for ages), oohh, that'll make ALL the difference. It's got NOWHERE NEAR the feature set of MS-SQL, Oracle, PostgreSQL, or Firebird. Christ, we had to wait till version FOUR till they added native transaction support (which wasn't ever written by them), subqueries, replication, etc. and we're still not sure that it even does any of this properly now! (Each point release massively changes and/or extends features, which is stupid for a supposedly stable DB.) Sounds like a "real" DB to me that'll definitely compete with Oracle and MS-SQL, yeah right...
But because Slashdot loves MySQL this gets modded to +5 by people who don't know shit about databases, and certainly not about MS SQL Server. Great.
The only reason MySQL became popular was because it was free and ran well together with Apache on modest hardware, so ISPs could bundle it as a *simple* website backend DB. It does that pretty well (as long as you don't mind running REPAIR TABLE every now and again), but it's certainly no viable alternative to MS-SQL or Oracle. Anyone that thinks that and uses the acronym M$ in the same post really doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
SQL Server 2000 has lots of legs to run. While there are lots of people, myself included, want to get a hold of Yukon, I don't know of many (actually, any) shops out there which are like, "We NEED Yukon to ship *Now*." Companies have been pushing back to M$ for years to slow down their release cycle, build a more secure, more stable product. And now people are complaing that they are doing just that? They can't have it both ways. As anyone who codes can tell you, writing secure, stable software is *hard*. Releasing it on time is even harder. If M$ can release Yukon and it is stable, secure, and fast, I'm willing to wait till 2007, even... -Delaware Boy in 2004
Much as I love a good MS Bashing, I'll tell you what I find really lacking (personally) for PostgreSQL and other OSS RDBMSs - a good GUI management tool.
Something that helps you craft medium-complicated joins quickly with a few clicks and drags.
For example, see this screenshot from Visual Interdev working on MSSQL2k, creating a SQL Query for a stored proc. Sure, it's almost trivial to hand-write the SQL code. But it was even easier to just select a few tables, click on the fields I want, right-click on the joins (created automatically from the database structure) to change their type, and be done.
I use PGSQL for all my personal projects now, but I sorely miss the speed that a GUI editor like this allowed me.
The real problem is not so much that the Yukon date has slipped, it's that Whidbey (The next version of Visual Studio.NET and the .NET framework) is slipping with it. For who knows what reason, Microsoft decided that these products must be released together. While Yukon promises some very nice features, most people would much rather have Whidbey released now and live with SQL 2000 for awhile longer.
To top it off, MS is not even going to be releasing any service packs for Visual Studio in the meantime. There are some rather serious issues with the current version of Visual Studio that can only be fixed by calling MS for specific hotfixes. Needless to say, much of the MS developer community is up in arms.
Once they got to that version of their SQL product, they got it pretty much right.
Its one of the few solid things that microsoft puts out. Previous verisons were pretty dismal.
I doubt that most pepole will ever need the 'new' features coming down the pike. They should leave it alone, instead of screwing it up or bloating it out....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Really?
.net stuff - integrating that into the database is a bad idea.
Is it the best database for a linux or unix shop?
Is it the best database for large reporting or search applications?
Is it the best database for projects or companies with a small budget?
Ah, the answer to all of the above is 'no':
- zero portability
- parallelism and partitioning is primitive
- licensing costs for a 4-way server can easily hit $100k, and in many configurations are more expensive than other top commercial products (db2 for example).
When it comes to prototyping, sql server is at the top of my list. However, when it comes to delivering powerful capabilities, automating operations, and scripting changes - then it's at the bottom of my list.
But I will agree with you on the
slated to be released until the last quarter this year. 2005 "sounds bad", but it's only a few months.
I'm going to guess sqlxml performance blows huge chunks. I ran several dozen benchmarks comparing oledb with sqlxml. sqlxml was at best 10x slower than oledb. With 6 concurrent clients hitting sqlserver on a nice 4CPU box, sqlxml was 100x slower. So yeah, there's going to be performance issues. It's called, dump sqlxml or sell yukon with hardware XML accelerators.
Yep, I was shocked when I first played with MySql, having heard such good things about it, and discovered how many features it lacked that I consider essential to a serious database.
Have you seen versions 4.0, 4.1 or 5.0? True, 3.23 did lack many essential features.
Just calling "SQL server" suggests its the only
program that serves SQL.
The ship date news had already been reported by Mary Jo Foley, The reporter of Microsoft news, on the 10th.
1 54 6601,00.asp
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,
Steven
What is the blind spot people have about this?
Ben is Glory! Wake up people!
Anyway, check out Firebird. It's way ahead of Postgres on most counts.
-Graham
Something that helps you craft medium-complicated joins quickly with a few clicks and drags.
Don't tell me there are developers or DBA's creating stored procedures in this fashion. This is something I expect from one of my lusers using Access. The code this creates is a nightmare.
However for most other things I like the GUI too. Which is why I downloaded these GUI tools for MySQL.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
You're comparing apples to oranges. How many lines of code are in Windows' kernel? Or alternatively, how many lines of code make up the Debian installation on my system (my desktop is KDE if that makes a difference).
Today I learned something about
I have a suspicion that institutional investors in Microsoft are having their patience tested with a stock price that hasn't moved, no clear vision being stated by the company (remember .Net everything?) and no official statement about how the cash hoard will be used. Unlike OSS, Microsoft has investors that can and will influence the direction of the company.
If institutions force Ballmer out, what strategy will Microsoft pursue, and what might this mean for technology? That was the question I wanted to address. Ironically, I even stated in my post that I didn't want this to become another Microsoft v. OSS story, as there are plenty of those already. The business problems of Ballmer might not seem to be a technical story, but I think they absolutely are, as whatever Microsoft does to satisfy its big investors will have great significance for the tech world.
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
The business press doesn't talk much about postgresql - but companies, vendors, and skilled database developers & administrators are.
It has plenty of momentum, and is clearly ready and getting used in a wide variety of applications now.
MySQL does have an incredible amount of momentum, more than most products out there. However, it'll have to be completely rewritten from the ground up before it really becomes a threat to commercial products. That will probably take years to get right. Postgresql on the other hand is just filling in feature gaps - and has a much more evolutionary upgrade path ahead.
Nobody bought Sybase. Learn history.
MS and Sybase bought Watcom SQL Server to joinly develop new product. After some internal fight companies split up and released thier own SQL Servers.
Anyway MS SQL Server 7.0 was a total rewrite of old Watcom code.
I know there is a huge hate of MS products on Slashdot but most of the people just don't know the SQL Server well to comment on it.
Especially amazing to see people compare MS SQL Server to MySQL. No database developer worth his salt will put any critical data into MySQL.
MySQL has it's niche but it is not in the same league as SQL Server or Oracle. Access maybe,FoxPro, BerkleyDB are competitors of MySQL.
> For those Oracle lovers in the crowd, take a look at the benchmarks - MS SQL rules the lower and middle
> ground. It would rule the high end except lack of platform has held it back.
um, which benchmarks would those be? www.tpc.org doesn't have many benchmarks for desktop-sized servers (which is where sql server really does beat oracle/db2/etc). And as far as it being held back by its platform - without any of the parallel features of oracle/db2, and without any of the partitioning features - it has zero chance at the high-end.
It's basically *years* behind either of those two databases. This has nothing to do with windows, it has everything to do with lack of high-end database features in sql server. Microsoft has done a good job of improving the database client UI and adding usability features to low-end database functionality. But it hasn't added the high-end functionality, nor has it really delivered a great UI (for example: the SQL Server GUIs all sort date columns alphabetically rather than cronologically).
> Yukon is going to kill Oracle in the middle space because of development features.
Got news for ya, people pick databases for reasons other than development features.
How the fuck did this get modded to +5?
You talk about people who don't know shit about databases, but you know so much that you had to post anonymously. You clearly don't know shit about MySQL.
You're right that MySQL doesn't have all the features that Oracle and DB2 have, but those two databases don't have all the features that MySQL has. MySQL let's you tailor your databases/table types to what they are going to be used for. You can pick and even change on the fly the algorithm used for your tables. This let's you optimize tables that are read only or non-transactional for speed. Run your tables as MyISAM or HEAP if you have enough RAM, and the speed will blow away Oracle or IBM. If you need transactionality, then go with InnoDB tables.
You also show your ignorance by putting Microsoft in the same sentence as Oracle. If you were building a true enterprise system, MS would not even enter the equation. DB2 would be the only other option to consider besides Oracle. You bitch about MySQL and "Each point release massively changes features." Look at MS. Why do you think they are slipping so badly on the next release of SQL Server? Just take a look at their list of new features they are promising and then talk about "massive changes." This is also not surprising since this will be the first release where they've really added anything over what they got from Sybase.
"Microsoft SQL Server 2000." The word Microsoft in it outta clue you in.
Oh--"mickysoft?" What is this, a high school Linux user group in 1998?
from the article Some think Microsoft has bitten off more than it can chew with Yukon. "This product lacks focus," said Betsy Burton, analyst with the Gartner Group. "They're doing all sorts of stuff with it, first scalability was the issue, then XML support, then .Net activities, and then business intelligence and now security. The gut issue is, what is the purpose of this release? As a team trying to develop a product you have to know where you're going," she said
.NET, which really has not clarified itself much in the last two years.
Betsy clearly has no clue regarding the SQL Server product's evolution, capabilites or how these are going to change with Yukon. In fact she seems to have a very limited grasp of significance of the Yukon's release.
Unlike Oracle, SQL Server has basically hovered in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" pattern for the last 5 years. For the most part it has delivered a decent database platform, that was for a while more cost effective than oracle. Those who have used SQL Server extensively know it's limitations. Betsy's arguments about "product lacking focus" are rediculous. That's primarily becuase Yukon seeks to rectify a large number of the problems and limitations of SQL Server 2k. It's really very difficult to provide a "focused" look at a product that is changing so significantly. In fact, her complaint is very similar to those that were uttered as Microsfot was trying to formalize the definition of
It would seem that Betsy is looking for are a few jargon sound bytes that can be displayed on a single powerpoint slide. That slide would then be shown to a bunch of people who nod their head and say, "that's a sound strategic driection". Big idea's aren't sound bytes.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, they are attempting to be ambitious with Yukon. A lot of new plumbing is going in, as well as a refinement and crystalization of the current features such as SQL -> XML queries, DTS, Replication, the integration of a first class programming language among others. These are all features that we've needed for a long time.
Yukon represents a significant change in the world of RDMS's on the Windows platform. It's sad to see that influential groups such as Gartner can't recognize or have the vision to see how much (and for the better) things are going to change for SQL Server 2K shops.
So explain to me how society mods responses like this to +5 Insightful when all the guy ? (who knows, he only posts as an AC anyway) spouts is swear words and bile.
... nobody will argue against that. The fact is that many people do NOT need advanced features. Its horses for courses.
Perhaps you ought to address the real issues one by one rather than venting your spleen. It would make a much more intersting comparison. MSSQL has advantages over MySQL
MySQL has had transactions for some time, and will get triggers, views, etc. 5.0 already has stored procs, transactions, by default. Yes I know they've been around for some time in commercial offerrings, but the fact is that MySQL is OpenSource, written by volunteers. The support for MySQL is 10 times better than anything commercial I've seen, and its free.
There, I didn't use one swear word in that. Go on, try it
Surely thats down to the absence of some sort of animated paperclip ?
Download Oracle or DB2 today.
This is really helpful if you want to play around or learn them, but you need to have a pretty big machine to put them on. Figure on 1GB RAM, 2GB swap and at least 20GB disk, just to play around with ONE of them. Then add in the size of the data you'll be working with...
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Tsk, always giving MS the benefit of the doubt. Microsoft has almost ALWAYS "slipped" on major projects in the past, usually be anything up to several years. This is nothing new, and has never implied that they were about to produce a quality product in the past.
Microsoft don't "slip" on deadlines: they deliberately start out providing fake, earlier deadlines to the press. So they'll say for example "next SQL server will be out in 2004". This has two effects: (a) companies that might have been thinking about using the gap to produce a competing system consequently don't, "next great MS version will be out too soon" they say. And (b) clients using an older version that need to upgrade to something 'bigger' think "hey, next great MS version will be out soon enough, let's wait for that rather than switch to Oracle".
Then the deadline approaches and Microsoft says "whoops we're slipping". But too late for the many who've now made the decision, so they just wait out the extra time and stick with MS.
Come on, this is an OLD game from MS. Don't be so naive. Those who don't study history ..
I agree with you to an extent, although moreso for Postgres than MySQL, the latter of which is insulting and not worthy of being labelled a real database, imho.
I also think that this is exactly why open source is such a threat to the big products like Oracle and SQL Server. The big databases certainly do have a lot of features. Certainly they're capable of much more than open source products. But if you think about it really, how many of the users actualy use all of those features?
The places where OSS products can cut into the market are with all of those customers who have a big, expensive commercial database that they really don't need. If you only use your databases for inserting, updating, selecting, stored procedures and having some integrity built in, and of course if you have an admin with some idea of what they're doing, then something like postgresql may be perfectly reasonable for your needs. It's not a top level database but for what it does, it does well and just as reliably as anything else on the market. It may not be the best choice if you have extreme load conditions or whatnot, but a lot of commercial vendor's customers don't.
This is what the commmercial vendors really have to watch out for. Although most OSS databases don't offer the breadth of features, they are starting to be viable substitutes for the majority of database tasks. It's certainly possible that the commercial vendors might suddenly find a lot of their customers disappearing from underneath them.