Oracle To Offer A Free Database

An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet News reports that Oracle is likely to announce a free version of its Oracle 10g Database. Oracle Database 10g Express Edition will be free for development and production use, and could even be distributed with other products. What does this mean for the future of MySQL and PostgreSQL?" From the article: "By introducing a free entry-level product, Oracle intends to get more developers and students familiar with its namesake database, Mendelsohn said. Those customers, Oracle hopes, will eventually upgrade to a higher-end version."

Comments

what a wimpy database

[defMan]

Database XE is free for runtime usage with the following limitations:

• Supports up to 4GB of user data (in addition to Oracle system data)
• Single instance only of Oracle Database XE on any server
• Only uses and executes on one processor in any server
• Can use up to 1GB RAM

Re:what a wimpy database

[Professor_UNIX]

This seems like it's aimed at Microsoft's "free" MSDE rather than open source databases like Postgres or MySQL. The specs are on par with MSDE.

Re:what a wimpy database

[smittyoneeach]

The thing about PostGreSQL that trumps the competition, IMHO, is that you can build in support for tools such as Python on the DB server.

PL/pgSQL bears a resemblance to PL/SQL, and both languages are servicable enough. Oracle cooks in its own JVM. While Java is an undeniably powerful tool, one feels relatively enslaved to the JVM, compared to the bliss of simple, clear Python code.

Re:what a wimpy database

[Goo.cc]

I believe that these limitations mirrors Microsoft's SQL Server 2005 Express Edition, which is where they probably got them from.

Re:what a wimpy database

[LLuthor]

PostgreSQL also can embed a JVM for writing stored procudures and user functions and aggregate functions, but its not very well supported (yet). PG does have quite a few companies behind it so I doubt it will stay that way for long.

PG probably has the best language support of all DBs. Is there any major language that doesn't have a PG interface in 8.1?

Re:what a wimpy database

[Dan_Bercell]

MS has always offered a free database, MSDE

It Could Backfire

[obender]

Unless Oracle puts together a better administration interface than the current bunch of tools people might actually learn to stay away from it.

Re:It Could Backfire

[mysticwhiskey]

If anyone and his dog could administer an Oracle database, what will happen to the professional Oracle DBA's? THINK OF THE DBA'S!!! ;)

Re:It Could Backfire

[oni]

What I've seen a lot of are databases designed by programmers - good programmers too, these guys weren't slouches. They didn't have any formal training in databases or maybe they hadn't paid attention. Programmers tend to approach database design by thinking, "what data structures do I need to get out of this?" Someone more experienced in database design approaches the problem by thinking, "what relationships are here and how do I model them?"

Here's a real-world example. A web-based application that I was hired to extend and maintain included a system for users to exchange the lesson plans they created on the site with other users. In doing this, the users built up something like a buddy list. "These are the people that I often share with." Or you can think of it as being like an address book.

With me so far? OK, the programmer (who was very sharp - probably better at this than I am) approached the database thinking, "what data do I need from this thing," and decided that what he needed was a comma delimited list of userIDs. So he physically stored the buddy list in the database in like a char(500) as a comma delimited list.

That was actually great for what he was doing. He was just showing a user their buddy list. Unfortunately, that isn't normalized. So, there is a question you can ask which can't be answered by the data. That question is, "how many people have userID 50 as one of their buddies?"

See, the correct way of doing this is to have a many-to-many relationship which you implement with a table containing just two columns, userID and BuddyID. So if I'm user 12 and users 13,14, and 15 are my buddies, I have three rows in that table:

UserID BuddyID
12 13
12 14
12 15

Now if I need to ask, "how many people have userID 50 as one of their buddies" I can do select count(*) from X where BuddyID = 50

BTW, I actually fixed this one not by normalizing but with a hack. I appended 0 to the front and back of the buddy list, then I could do select count(*) from user where buddylist like '%,50,%' But hacks aren't how I make my living. I'd prefer to do things the right way. What my boss wanted was, every time you look at this page it shows you who has you set as a buddy. Kind of like what Slashdot does with the "fans" page. If it was normalized, that would be a scan of an indexed column. It would be lighting fast. so fast the page would practically load before you even clicked the link. But doing a "like" on a big char field is slow.

There are I'm sure still other questions that the un-normalized database cannot answer. Also there are problems with deleting users and, the big one, overflowing that char(500). "How many buddies can a person have?" I was asked. "It depends" I said. If all my buddies are low number IDs, I can have a lot. If my buddies are high number IDs, I can have fewer. It's all just huge mess! Of course, it worked according to the original specification though.

I have a lot of respect for the guy who wrote it. And I'm not tooting my own horn either. I've have other people look at databases I've designed and just torn them to pieces. This is just one example where I just happen to know that he did it the wrong way.

SQL For Fun?

[Goo.cc]

I've been meaning to ask this for a while on Slashdot, but how many people here use a SQL database as part of a hobby or for fun?

I currently have PostgeSQL running on my Tiger box. I initially installed it just to experiment with SQL and database normalization, but now I keep my comic book inventory on it. (I know that this is like swatting a fly with a nuclear weapon but I enjoy using PostgreSQL and it is FREE software.)

As for Oracle's announcement, I think that it can be a good thing, provided you are willing to live with their restrictions and only need support for Linux (x86?) and Windows.

They must own stock in Maxtor

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, Oracle has bought a major disk drive company. Have you ever downloaded or tried to install Oracle? It's easily 10 Gigs of useless crud, wrapped around a few CD's of material actually relevant to your particular setup. For Linux, they publish it as a set of binary bundles that have to be strung together so that you can *then* take apart the tarball. What a waste of disk space!

The approach shows up in everything they do. Build a huge, conglomerated edifice of software to provide the one brick you actually need, rather than keeping components modular and portable. It's like making people install a whole radio station just to get a pair of headphones.

But will it be easy to install?

[samuel4242]

The main reason I like MySQL is it works five minutes after I finish downloading it. And it's much smaller than Oracle so I can download it quickly. I spent two days trying to make Oracle work on an Linux box and it never did. The price ain't the only reason I like open source. :-)

Everybody's doing it

[Dekortage]

So MySQL and PostgreSQL have been free... then IBM announces a free version of DB2... then Microsoft says it's going to release SQL Server Express for free. So Oracle is playing catch-up. I wouldn't expect a major migration from MySQL to anything else; the conversion costs would be too high. But in the future, choice is a good thing.

Re:Move along, move along ...

[popeyethesailor]

Well, Oracle has always been freely available for non-production use.. They even mail out their entire range of software(DB, App server,dev tools etc) free of cost.

I once received 10g for linux, and the box had every latest release of Oracle software for Linux. They're quite developer-friendly; just as MS is. For production use however..

Smart move, but it could be a trap :)

[OpenSourced]

I think that's a smart move by Oracle. From a long time ago they have allowed full download of their databases for testing purposes. I have a copy of Oracle 9 running in my machine to make tests of software I develop. So my customers with Oracle have better service. Probably some copies of the database will end up as production units, but few companies will trust its bussiness data to an illegal piece of software.

So Oracle has realized that the free availability hasn't cut into their sales. The next step is logical. You give away an entry-level database (entry-level users would probably use an illegal copy, or worse, an open source db), and then wait till the needs grow and they need the real thing. If the needs don't grow, well, who need those little-bussiness-that-don't-grow as customers, anyway ?

I see the thing as mainly good for the users and developers. Of course it'll cut into Open Source databases, but they'll still have their niche. After all, you should be careful with what you do with this free Oracle. Oracle can change its mind in two year's time and leave you with all your data and processes in a database that won't be supported or upgraded anymore. You'd have fallen into Oracle's trap. That's much more difficult to happen with an Open Source database.

Re:First Post

[badfish99]

If MySQL will do what you want, then you don't need Oracle.

But if your database is really big enough to need Oracle, then MySQL certainly won't be in the running as an alternative.

Expect more of this..

[ahodgkinson]

Given the perceived popularity of MySQL, Oracle obviously feels it needs to react in order to prevent a slide in its market share. This is interesting, given that Oracle is one of the world's largest software companies and makes most of its money selling top-end systems to large enterprises, which isn't (yet) MySQL's playing field.

MySQL is good enough for many smaller software projects and is therefore capturing mind share in the developer world. Oracle obviously realizes this leads to a trickle up effect as software developers with MySQL experience will probably start to recommend it for other, larger, projects.

Oracle is trying counteract this by attempting to capture developer's mind share, rather than battling directly for market share. This is a long-term strategy and its success will depend on how well Oracle interacts and reacts with the Open Source developer community.

From the few comments posted here, mainly those stating how big and complex the Oracle system is, I wonder if Oracle actually gets it. If the learning (and administering) curve is really that steep, Oracle may be better off if it releases a light (in size and complexity) version that is easy to get up and running on small projects. A second recommendation would be to make sure Oracle 10 is included by default on most popular Linux distributions (which will be difficult, given it's size and complexity).

While I am impressed by Oracle's move, I'll be surprised if it gets them the gains they are hoping for. I don't think they realize the commitment this move will require in the Open Source world in order to be successful. Open Source is one of the few playing fields where actions still count more than PR.

This makes me wonder if another major software company will follow with a drastic reaction when the Linux desktop and the Open Office suite are truly ready for prime time.

We live in interesting times!

Still has restrictions

[waif69]

If you look at the EULA you will see that this has a time restriction. "...provided to you by Oracle solely for evaluation purposes until January 31, 2006."

Obviously this is just a ploy to get developers to write apps on Oracle then, when the application has gotten fat, they will have to pay the fees for a version of Oracle that can support the app or rewrite the whole thing.

I think that only good reason to obtain 10g is to learn Oracle. If I was working at a company that was moving to Oracle, or at least talking about it, I would DL this to learn it for improved job opportunities.

Just my $.02.

Re:Oracle Licensing

[mzito]

Oracle is licensed by the processor or by "named user", not by simultaneous connections. For standard edition, its $15k per processor, or $300 per database user (plus a minimum of 5 users). For enterprise edition its $40k per processor or $800 per named user, with a minimum of 25 named users per processor in the system. This is before you add any of the expensive options like RAC, Partioning, etc. that can add $20k each to the price.

There's also standard edition one, which is cheaper than either and supports some of the advanced features of both. It's designed to compete with some of the SQL server shops that have HA requirements but aren't willing to pay for oracle enterprise edition.

Of course, all of these prices are list, and for good negotiators, discounts upwards of 50% off list are not uncommon.

Thanks,
Matt

Tester's heaven

[Craig Ringer]

Whether or not you'd like to use Oracle yourself, this is good news for software developers. It means they can deploy and test against a running version of Oracle with no need to worry about "developer program" memberships, trials that expire, and similar crud.

This'll be very helpful for me in ensuring that my code is portable across databases (at least PostgreSQL and Oracle).

Re:First Post

[Zathrus]

Oracle is a rubbish dinosaur that hasnt aged all that well

And this is insightful?

It's a baseless accusation. The poster doesn't even attempt to provide any proof for it. Oracle is continuously leads the pack in benchmarks, it has more features than you can shake a stick at, is incredibly stable, and has features that MySQL is just starting to catch up with (wow, MySQL finally got views! How wonderfully 1980s.)

coz IBM said if it dont do what you want, work round to it. Oracle said, ok we'll patch it.

So suddenly not adding features and refusing to respond to your userbase is a good thing? No wonder IBM's lost most of the market outside of mainframes and minis.

MySQL is excellent for what it is, a website database server

Well this much is true at least. But I still wouldn't use it much beyond a toy website. PostgreSQL or Firebird are better for the same price -- both in features and in stability/reliability.

cant see many php developers going to the trouble of using oracle

The trouble? You clearly don't know what you're talking about now. Oracle is far easier/better to write SQL for since it's both more flexible and closer to the SQL "standard" (and that's a pretty sad statement). There's also far more information out there for help with Oracle than there is with MySQL, not to mention that Oracle is something very useful to put on your resume/CV -- MySQL isn't totally unknown anymore, but Oracle is still better as far as that goes.

Now if you want to rightfully bash Oracle then talk about their miserable installer and bundled administration tools. They suck. They've always sucked. And they're not getting better IMO. Oracle's on a buying spree right now, and I so wish that they'd buy out Quest Software and bundle TOAD (Windows) or tORA (*nix) with their servers. The Java crap they use now blows. The other (and related) issue is that administering an Oracle server can be a daunting task, and there's not a great deal of (free) literature available for it. Oragle 10g has made strides here with the database doing a lot of self-fixing and tuning, but it could be better (or at least better documented). Of course, one reason that MySQL doesn't need as much here is because there simply as much that can be done to it. Flexibility has a price.

Re:Move along, move along ...

[electroniceric]

Oracle also has a number of certifications that make it very attractive in certain industries like defense, healthcare, etc. I work in the medical field, and a free 4GB-max "validated" Oracle database is a huge boon to a wide variety of medical ISV's. Given that's it free to redistribute, the OSS/proprietary thing kind of takes a backseat for a lot of these ISVs.

By the same token, I also don't think it's going to drive sales in the way they think it will. Databases are slowly but surely going commodity, at least at the lower end of the market, and this merely reinforces that trend. And along with that, there's an increasingly robust set of tools to obviate the differences between these database for most uses that don't demand extreme peformance, from Hibernate and ORM packages to ADODB and other database-independence layers in PHP to .NET's layered data architecture.

As a Postgres user, I'm hopeful that Sun's proclaimed interest in Postgres will result in this kind of "validation". However, given Sun's reputedly somewhat lackadaisical commitment to staffing OOo, I'm not holding my breath. With Postgres' extensibility and extremely high-caliber core developer base, I think a strong commitment to validation by Sun could make it a real contender in the medium enterprise space. Validate it, clean up a few features (notably auto-vacuum and passable auto-tuning, maybe some multi-master replication), throw in a simple deployment for ORM or database indirection, and you've effectively moved that commoditization up one layer from the small website developer level.

In the long run, I don't see how this gets Oracle out of the need to transition its core revenue off of its database licenses.

PHP and Oracle

[sinkemlow]

Exactly. I'm an amature PHP coder, which means I cut my teeth on PHP and MySQL. Last year, however, I was forced into a position where I needed to working with an Oracle database. I spent a couple of hours reading up on OCI8 and after a quick recompile of PHP, I was working with the Oracle database through PHP.

After getting the basic framework of the PHP application together, my reaction was, "Wow, so this is what they mean when they say *real* database." I had very little difficulties working with the new database, and very quickly began to appreciate the extra features Oracle had to offer. After about a week of working with Oracle, I found it quite hard to fall back into the old PHP+MySQL routine (although the mysqli extension has made this easier).

So I would say the average PHP light coder should have no problems transitioning to an Oracle database. I sure didn't.