Open Source vs. the Database Vendors

bhmit1 writes "BusinessWeek has another spread on open source this week. Among them is an article about open source vs. the database vendors which focused on how businesses are looking to save money with open source (rather than using the source to innovate). From the article: "The databases work fine, but as data volume grows, so do the checks to Oracle, IBM, or Microsoft. Many users aren't clamoring for more features, and some don't even use the bells and whistles they already paid for. They would happily trade some to get their hands on the source code and a better deal." Disclaimer: that quote came from Sony."

Comments

Re:Open Source + the Database Vendors

[LurkerXXX]

You ARE joking, right? Oracle is free to use for development, just not production. If you really use Oracle, you should already know this.

Re:Open Source + the Database Vendors

[obnoxio]

Free (beer) Oracle: http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database /xe/index.html

Free (beer) DB2: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/db2/udb/db2ex press/

Free (beer) SQL Server: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/express/defa ult.mspx

Now what?

Re:Not everyone cares about Coding...

[GebsBeard]

That this gets modded insightful is an embarrassment. Every DBA worth two shakes of a dead rats ass can tell you putting stored procedures in the DB cuts down on network traffic and improves application responsiveness. Every time a query is passed across the network it has to be compiled to p-code. Multiply that by X users and the system grinds to a halt. Ease of implementation and clarity also shoot through the roof with proper use of stored procedures. And the scalability problems you speak of don't exist, since you can instance your database just like your app server.

The Slashdot hive mind may not like the idea of being tied to a particular database or vendor but in the Real World businesses choose their databases carefully and stick with them for a long time, often forever. With this in mind you exploit every single option available when programming and stored procedures along with proper filesystem layout, column indexing and schema design are key to a high performance database.

MySQL at $40 million per year. And that's fine.

[Animats]

So MySQL generates only $40 million in revenue per year. That's OK. That's enough for perhaps 400 people. How many programmers do you really want working on a database? Beyond 50 or so, they'll probably add more bugs than they fix. And they'll be tempted to put stuff in the database that shouldn't be there.

Of course, this is a problem for Oracle. Building Larry Ellison's house cost far more than MySQL generates in profit. I drive by the place all the time. Under construction, it looked like a mall. Oracle stock dropped from $50 to $12 while the house project was underway.

Re:It's the data...

[jadavis]

There are lots of companies offering support for PostgreSQL. If you need it to be a "big, enterprise-class" company, how about (as one example) Sun Microsystems, which offers 24/7 postgresql support?