Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Source Ingres Swings At Oracle, SQL Server

Posted by timothy on from the you-mean-there-are-free-databases dept.

Rob Westervelt writes "Computer Associates is making its open sourced Ingres DBMS widely available today on Windows and Linux, pitching its mature features and 64-bit support at Oracle and SQL Server customers."

39 comments

  1. Whats the relation to Postgres? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there one?

    1. Re:Whats the relation to Postgres? by AndyElf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google and you will find: http://opensource.ca.com/projects/ingres/forum/30/ 671168450779

      --

      --AP
  2. The competition begins! by VernonNemitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not SQL-type competition. Remember Cloudscape? Looks like CA is really trying to answer IBM's challenge!

    1. Re:The competition begins! by Larynx · · Score: 1

      The challenge is open only to individuals who on the date of their submission of an entry are Open Source Community Members, of legal age, and are legal residents of, and are physically located within the 50 United States and the District of Columbia, Canada (except Quebec Province), Mexico, United Kingdom, India, China, Australia and New Zealand. Full details of The Challenge eligibility and the official rules are available at http://ca.com/ingres/challenge.

      Why not good old europe?
      And what the heck is wrong with quebec?

      So im out of the game, back to oracle

    2. Re:The competition begins! by Mikkeles · · Score: 1
      'And what the heck is wrong with quebec?'

      Quebec has its own, peculiar laws concerning contests such that many are not allowed to be offered there. (I don't recall the details).

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  3. Uh by PickyH3D · · Score: 1
    The poster did not mention the openness of the license AND there were no obvious references to success stories for this database to reasonably compete with Oracle OR SQL Server.
    "Oracle's technology is still far superior, and they still dominate this industry and have taken clustering to larger level where you can scale multiple nodes," Yuhanna said.
    It does not put much faith in me when the VP of Ingres development says that about their own product.
    1. Re:Uh by AntsInMyPants · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but isn't it refreshing that a VP was actually honest about the features of their DB in comparison to what else is out there?

    2. Re:Uh by hey! · · Score: 1

      Sure, so they're throwing in the towel on this one.

      Rather than be contemptuous of this, let me point out this is an honorable way to do it, providing their customers with avenues for obtaining support and features that they may need, for a product they may have made a significant commitment to.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      You obviously skimmed through it to pull out that quote, but did you actually RTFA? From the paragraph preceding your excerpt:

      "...said Noel Yuhanna, a senior analyst at Cambridge, Mass.-based Forrester Research Inc.

      So, it was not a VP of Ingres development talking about their own product.
    4. Re:Uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woops, actually I even included the name of the person in the quote. I just completely ignored the name for whatever reason. Ah well, stubbornness got the best of me.

      For your information, I did read the article. I think I was focused on the emphasized quote on the left and for whatever reason my mind went crazy. Oh well. Good catch.

  4. Performance? by weapon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder what sort of performance Ingres has compared to mySQL (lets hope its better), microsoft SQL server and oracle? I know that mySQL is not all that good performance wize, and performace is a important thing with dbms's so for Ingres to be sucessful, i hope they have better peformance than mySQL (no offence ment towards mySQL)

    Weapon

    1. Re:Performance? by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 3, Insightful


      I think it is more prudent to ask how this compares to PostgreSQL and Firebird, both in terms of features and performance. mySQL runs blazing fast because it doesn't have all the bells-and-whistles, which are of course sometimes necessary for enterprise database development.

  5. this is actually not a good thing by a11 · · Score: 1

    looks solid, but this may not be the best move to take market share away from Oracle and SQL Server. Major competition is already presented with postgres and mysql. Splitting up whatever open-source rdbms presence in the corporate world today between these 3 makes each look less widely adopted.

    that's my 10 cents.

    1. Re:this is actually not a good thing by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    2. Re:this is actually not a good thing by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Oracle - most overly complicated installation. I don't believe so many versions have come out, and the installation is still so chunky with so many pieces.

      SQL server - IMHO this thing does NOT scale well. I don't know what others experienced.

      MySQL - The best. Somehow I know of no company willing to deploy this at a mission critical level.

    3. Re:this is actually not a good thing by Frantactical+Fruke · · Score: 1

      It makes for a more viable ecosystem, though. The more competitors there are, the more ideas are likely to be tried. And free software is not really on a do or die schedule. It doesn't go bankrupt, if success doesn't show up within two years.

      Mozilla could spend a leisurely four years rebuilding from scratch. As long as there are a few developers to keep the code compiling on the latest platforms, a project can even vegetate in near coma for years without terminal consequences. Look at the history of PostgreSQL, for instance.

    4. Re:this is actually not a good thing by Per+Wigren · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MySQL - The best. Somehow I know of no company willing to deploy this at a mission critical level.

      Strange, isn't it?

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    5. Re:this is actually not a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ack, unless they have open-source OleDB, ODBC, JDBC, etc. drivers, what does it matter? While Merant may make great ODBC drivers, I don't want to pay for them, strangely enough.

    6. Re:this is actually not a good thing by dema · · Score: 1

      Gee, people can post their opinions about stuff online. And other people can use it as proof of inferiority _all_ the damn time. Crazy thing, that internet.

      That same old "this is weird because I say so" / "this is broke but fixed in the latest release" website gets boring. Do your own research, come to your own conclusions.

    7. Re:this is actually not a good thing by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      MySQL has it place, but he said "mission critical level" and the links I posted has good enough explanations why that isn't MySQL's place. No need to duplicate it here.
      MySQL is fast and advanced enough for blogs and similar simple things where data integrity doesn't matter that much...

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
  6. really open source? by geg81 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    it calls a Trusted Open Source License. Despite retaining control over the products and features generated by the open source community, the Islandia, N.Y.-based company has generated a lot of interest in Ingres.


    If CA "retains control over the products and features", then it doesn't sound like it's open source. It's only open source if people have the right to fork the project and make incompatible changes. And that's an important ability because that is what, ultimately, keeps the original developers on their toes.

  7. Anyone know how flexible the license is? by jbwiv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it more BSD-like, or more GPL-like? Can commercial companies use it without paying CA for commercial licenses?

    The PostgreSQL license is what keeps drawing me back to it (aside from being a frickin' awesome database)...I can use it as much as I want without paying exorbitant fees. My company does, however, donate back to the community as much as possible.

    1. Re:Anyone know how flexible the license is? by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      Since you use this in a bussiness, you might want to know that the lisence reads:

      Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies.

      That "without fee" is a misplaced modifier, the intent is that you don't have to pay those things to do them, but the way it reads it means that you can do those things so long as you don't charge. This has been pointed out and UCB is OK with fixing the license but the PostgreSQL guys don't want to change it; "tradition!".

      Anyway, that may or maynot cause a problem for you.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    2. Re:Anyone know how flexible the license is? by mikefe · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about the FireBird database which is under a renamed MPL v1.1.

      Fyracle is a side project that allows FireBird to work directly with Oracle SQL extensions and I believe also their Stored Procedures. It also allows Compiere to work with an open source DB instead of Oracle. Most of the cost was in licensing Oracle in a Compiere solution so this looks very promising.

      --
      There: Something at a specific location.
      Their: Owned by someone.
      Please make sure your english compiles.
    3. Re:Anyone know how flexible the license is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that is one perticular attornys opinion, but I have heard it argued the other way. Regardless there are countless articles/emails that make the intent of the license clear, so the legal issues are moot. Well, unless you're trying to spread FUD, which it appears you are, since postgresql's license certainly far more flexible than either firebird/my$ql/ingres licenses, not to mention that postgresql is also used in several for-profit/with-fee commercial products, including some by multi-million dollar companies that have armies of lawyers who tend to look into these things.

  8. Can't go past Oracle by cuteseal · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It'll be hard to compete against Oracle, who is already a player in the linux market. I attended one of the Oracle-Compaq (well, now HP) conferences last year, where they were pushing linux clustering and Oracle using RAC. Oracle is tried and true, and it would take a lot of persuasion and golfing junkets to get enterprises to go down another path, methinks.

    --

    The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!

    1. Re:Can't go past Oracle by geg81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It'll be hard to compete against Oracle, who is already a player in the linux market.

      Yes, in particular since the reason most people use Oracle is the fact that everybody is running it ("you don't get fired for running the same DB software as all the other financial institutions"), not that it is necessarily actually faster or more reliable. It's hard to compete with that.

    2. Re:Can't go past Oracle by chochos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was so hard for me to persuade my client to use PostgreSQL instead of Oracle...

      Oracle: $6K for a single-processor license. We are planning to deploy a custom made application to at least 2 sites, so that's $12K right there. Plus $6K for every new site.
      PostgreSQL: $0.

      They only asked me about stability and features. PostgreSQL has stored procedures, transactions, replication, indexes... all we need. Stability? I did some stress tests and it works OK for out application.

      We're deploying PostgreSQL from now on, unless the people at the site require us to use something else (some people have to use Oracle because of company policy, etc).

      --
      Go hug some trees.
    3. Re:Can't go past Oracle by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      > Oracle: $6K for a single-processor license.

      That's probably incorrect. Maybe for 10g Standard (the lowest-end stuff). 9i RAC is $60K per processor.

      > PostgreSQL has stored procedures, transactions, replication, indexes... all we need.

      Because your company, like most others, doesn't need much - you could probably use Ingress, Sybase (for DB under 5GB) or some other free-license database.

      SQL Server, not Oracle, is threatened by Ingres, PostreSQL et al.
      Considering convenient backup, monitoring, tuning and other tools, I'd still buy SQL Server rather than use some free database, unless it's a huge DB and I needed Enterprise Edition ($$$).

  9. I recommend looking elsewhere for an RDBMS. by jbn-o · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License (CATOSL) apparently qualifies as an "open source" license, but it would probably not qualify as a "free software" license. The focus on user's software freedom found in the free software movement is important in interpreting what powers the license grants and what the license claims to regulate.

    Section 10.1 tries to control use of the program--if one's rights under the license terminates, the license claims that that user's rights to use the program terminate as well. But the FSF tells us that US copyright law doesn't permit setting conditions on merely running a computer program (outside of a license or encryption manager) and that if this were to become accepted, would extend copyright law in a dangerous way. This was part of the rationale for saying the first and second revisions of the Apple Public Source License were not free software licenses.

    Section 11.4 of the CATOSL claims that no licensee will bring a legal action under the license more than once a year. When one does bring a legal action, one is supposed to waive a jury trial and hold the trial in the state of New York. Licensees in other districts may enjoy rights which the state of New York does not recognize or grant, including the right to bring suit more than once a year; rights licensees would want to retain should they need to go to court.

    I'm sure a more thorough examination of the CATOSL would reveal more problems for users. I don't recommend getting involved with programs licensed under the CATOSL. This shouldn't pose a practical problem for anyone because there are excellent database programs under more amenable licenses, including PostgreSQL (licensed under the new BSD license) and MySQL (licensed under the GNU GPL). I also don't recommend licensing one's own programs under the CATOSL.

    --
    Digital Citizen
    1. Re:I recommend looking elsewhere for an RDBMS. by jas79 · · Score: 1

      It is free software, it is just gpl-incompatible.
      The CATOSL is similar to the Apple Public Source License version 2, which is free software acording to the FSF.

  10. Oracle, PostgreSQL or SQL Server by Meetch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, first, I'm no Microsoft fan, but if you are a Microsoft shop, and you want commercial support, there's little choice but to use SQL Server. It's a logical choice given the circumstances.

    Second, I've seen a bit of Oracle, and watched our DBAs tearing hair out over mismatches in certifications (we are forced to use RH AS2.1 for their iLearning product where I work, where everything else happily runs on EL3). However, if you're not trying to make a whole bunch of suites of Oracle software work together then it all looks ok. I must agree that they definitely have done databases right. It's hard to go past RAC for ensuring reliability!

    My previous job, I was (network|system|database|web) administrator, and (web|software) (developer|troubleshooter) in the early days, until we were able to expand the IT base a bit. That introduced me to PostgreSQL. I will always remember those days fondly. After a few years away I'm certainly very rusty, but there's nothing to stop me printing up the manuals and getting back on the rails if I ever get the time.

    With our implementation of PostgreSQL we had almost no downtime that wasn't caused by the boss, and experienced one whole inconsistency issue. That issue was patched within 48 hours of being reported. And our hideously inefficient queries just kept chugging along when I felt sure the lack of grunt would cause SOMETHING to snap... IMHO MySQL is still eating its dust in features and reliability. Stick it on reiser4 filesystems, then I reckon virtually all risk becomes genuine hardware failure.

    But hang on... it's not just open source. You can buy a license if you want commercial support! You can even run it on Windows! Not that I would, but ... wow, right?

    The only thing I can say for CA is I hope they maintain the back end better than they create their front ends. The company I work for had CA Unicenter, and since the license expired we switched to an Oracle application and haven't regretted it. It's good to keep the current vendors on their toes, but somehow I doubt they'll grab a good market share. We will see...

  11. mysql/postgresql is no match for Oracle by rjha94 · · Score: 1

    I think half the slashdot crowd now-a-days speaks just for the heck for speaking and even goes on the extent of comparing Oracle against MySQL.
    Face it, while you may like open-source/BSD/MySQL/PostGreSQL they are no match for Oracle Database server. (lets keep iLearning etc. out of it)
    1) Stored Proc support in MySQL is only now added No triggers, foreign_key support (?) , and what is there with all this InnoDB/ISAM for transactional support ? All this lack of features is really a pain in ass if you have worked with Oracle.
    2) Dont crap about oracle setup, because anyway only a DBA is supposed to install it. And if you are installing it on your Laptop you are not mission critical anyway.
    3) PostGreSQL window installer is still beta(face it).
    4) PostGreSQL/mySQL is no business competition to oracle. (even the idea is laughable) ask any Oracle sales guy.

    My God, if postGreSQL is so good vis-a-vis oracle why is Red Hat patching their kernel to run Oracle on Enterprise servers?

    yes, for slapping together 4 web pages MySQL is ok, but if i have "Money" i would anyday buy Oracle.

    yah, be a zealot , that is ok, but accept realities also.

    --
    No .sig
    1. Re:mysql/postgresql is no match for Oracle by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      if i have "Money" i would anyday buy Oracle

      Well, that's nice. You will need a lot of it. Have you priced Oracle lately? Unless you are a fairly good sized company, don't expect it to be affordable for use on a high-volume web site. A small cluster running on $50K worth of hardware was around a million dollars last time I got a quote. Sorry, I can do one HELL of a lot of development to work around any limitations based on missing features in mysql for that money. That list of missing features is shrinking rapidly with each new release.

      RedHat supports Oracle because their enterprise customers want it. Concluding that postgres sucks based on this very simple and unrelated information is bizzare. Have you considered that enterprise customers may have applications based on Oracle that they don't dersire to port?

      Oracle makes it's money on enterprise / government accounts. That's fine - good for them. There are however 100 times more smaller businesses that can't possibly afford oracle and where mysql/postgres works just fine. Businesses have very large and complex applications running on open source DB's such as MySQL and Postgres. Your comment insinuating that mysql is only good for very simplistic web apps is just goofy. I think you are the one that needs to accept reality. Yes, Oracle is very nice, has tons of features, and is enterprise class. This does not mean that all other databases suck.

    2. Re:mysql/postgresql is no match for Oracle by Larynx · · Score: 1

      i know that we sell oracle standard edition
      for about 3000 EUR.
      Clusters and/or Enterprise edition is another
      story.

  12. falling like rain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez, you can't take three steps around here without some database or other getting open-sourced. Maybe Slashdot should start posting stories when somebody decides NOT to open-source a database.

  13. It's a start by Earlybird · · Score: 1
    It's a start. But given that one of CA's goals is for "Ingres to become the dominant Open Source RDBMS amongst ISV and the Open Source development community", they have a long way to go.

    Ther are only Linux x86 and Windows builds so far, and only RPM-packaged binaries are provided. You are also required to create an account on their project site to download (!).

    And the license may be "open source", but it is not "free software".

    CA seems to want it both ways -- they want to release the product as open source and to build a user base of hackers, but they also want to control the source and the process.

    On the other hand, they have already set up mailing lists, a Subversion repository, a bug tracker and a wiki. Let's hope they can nurture their developer community with the same grace as, say, the Eclipse Foundation.

    We're also talking about a huge product here, with pretty old code, a strangely obfuscated code tree layout, and a lack of documentation. It will take years before new developers know the sources to the extent that they can comfortably hack it. Just look at the huge amount of time it took for the PostgreSQL people to grok the whole codebase.

    Incidentally, the version that has been released so far is incomplete. From the readme:

    Due to some unresolved problems, the following features are not currently supported in the Ingres r3 Open Source, but will be supported in a future release:

    * Linux Cluster support

    * Cluster Failover (Windows Only)

    * Bridge server

    * Ingres Web Deployment Option (Windows Only)

    * Parallel Query (Windows Only)

    * Online Modify (Windows Only)

    * Language Certification on Japanese, Korean, Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese.
    1. Re:It's a start by SamS_CA · · Score: 1

      Actually, the text that has been quoted is from the BETA1 README of Ingres r3 on Windows. My understanding is that most of these issues from BETA1 have been fixed in the current GA release.

  14. Comparison by Earlybird · · Score: 1

    Comparison to other databases such as MySQL, Oracle and SQL Server