Slashdot Mirror
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."
... which focused on how businesses are looking to save money with open source (rather than using the source to innovate).
Duh. Isn't that the #1 draw for the majority of OSS users out there? Sure there are some that are in it for the politics and others who actually try to contribute, but let's face it, the majority of people use it because it's free (as in beer).
It may surprise you but most people who use open source applications do not change the code. Even the ones who know how too, don't. Why, because they don't have the time. They download it try it, if it does what they need they use it, if not then they try an other product, if they cannot find an Open Source tool that does the job then they see if there is a commercial one that does. Programming takes time, even an open source application, time costs money, so if paying 2k for MS SQL Server vs. 3 weeks of development, to get the functionality they need they will just get MS SQL and they will save money. Plus this time could be used by the programmers to create business critical code (Which earns $$$), vs. IT Infrastructure code (which costs $$$, but may save $$$$ in the future). As some of your open source developers may or may not realize your cool feature may not be used by anyone buy yourself. Heck I have a hard time to get people to used Stored Procedures in their SQL, needless to say trying to get them to use the more advanced features.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Then there was that one Java project, where the database schema mapped directly to the inheritance hierarchy of the object model. Booting the application server took longer than booting the operating system. While no raging Java fan, I can't help but think that particular issue was coder ignorance writ large. Wrote the test plan, got out of that swamp ASAP.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
From the article: They would happily trade some to get their hands on the source code and a better deal.
How many are there who would actually look at the source code of a database, work on it rather than develop new applications based on it? If database A works, then they are going to stick with database A until conditions change drastically. It hasn't happened now and doesn't seem like it will happen in the near future.
The user says "This is vital". IT staff start adding zeros to the price tag of the application. Seriously nobody in the IT dept is ever going to suggest something like mysql or postgresql for something like the corporate accounts or other financial transaction backends because people like IBM and Oracle guarantee that when the power goes out, the transaction completed, or it didn't happen at all.
And if you've paid for Oracle/DB2 and you're training your staff on and using Oracle/DB2 anyway then it doesn't make a load of sense to introduce different RDBMS systems that your DBAs and administrators are completely unfamiliar with, especially when you've got that Oracle box sitting there underutilised.
Ultimately you're right, 95% of apps could be served perfectly well by mysql, postgresql, msaccess, filemaker etc. Corporate IT depts should really create two categories of RDBMS systems, vital and casual. The vital ones being the core business operations and casual being everything else.
Deleted
I think most businesses crave accountability & reliability more than anything.
I'd be more comfortable running a system running a vendor dbms rather than an Open Source implementation - just because when shit hits the fan (which it invariably does), at least there's ultimately someone responsible for it.
Don't get me wrong; we run mySql for all small-midsize operations, but the bigger systems run Oracle purely because of this reason.
throw new NoSignatureException();
I think it depends upon the scale. There are probably many small users out there looking at OSS databases to save money on licensing. And these types will be very happy to jump on board to a 'free' proprietary product. But there are some large companies with the resources and the desire to leverage access to the source code. A good example that comes immediately to my mind is Fujitsu's involvment with PostgreSQL.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
But aren't you forgetting about this: http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 968.html
(Oracle buys the maker of Innobase - a popular backend to MySql)
This is a surprise? Maybe "back in the day" innovation was a significant part of the average business plan in the United States, but those days are long gone in today's business world where short-term financial gain is the only objective. Realistically, the only innovation going on today it that which is related to military use. Sad, really.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
and in the end, no one wants to pay that kind of money for things they don't need or won't use.
Exactly. If you don't *need* Oracle, don't use it. On the other hand; If your database is the life blood of your business and downtime can cost your business it's life. You would be a fool not to use it.
Oracle is what it is and you pay for what it is. I use a mix of many different databases, but our most critical and complexed applications run Oracle. Why? Because the only way you will lose data in a Oracle database is if you shouldn't be managing an Oracle database.
How very true. I have a consulting gig I'm working on that was resistant as all hell to not using MS database solutions.
They were resistant until I started with software costs. Linux distro - free. MySQL - free. MS Windows Server 2003 75 cal - $15,500, MS SQL 2005 75 user was close to $20,000.
Add my $7,000 development fee to that and they'd have paid $42,500 vs just the $7,000. Big difference as all they're paying for here is IP and I hand off all source and notes when the project is over. Yes, I own it and they can't share it. But they have every right to the fruits of my labor since they are paying for it. But I retain rights to the software as delivered. They are free to modify in any way they like.
Granted some non-widely used software will only offer forums, chat, and lists as support options. But most major open source packages (including MySQL) does have professional level support available. Some open source companies (like MySQL and RedHat) offer commercial support themselves directly to the customer. Other packages have vibrant support communities that have sprung up around them and even companies that are quite successful offering commercial level support for several open source packages.
Saying that the reason people don't switch to open source software is because there is no support available is simply not true. It might have been true two or three years ago but not anymore. Take some time and investigate your options and you'll find there's a lot more available out there than you might think.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
Practically all commercial databases trade efficiencies for completeness
Oracle about as complete as they come. In speed tests its pretty comparable to most other databases which are acid compliant doing the same things. There are good memory based databases which crush it but if you want to compare apples to apples I don't see any evidence for your claim.
If by effeciency you mean code size then I would agree with you the open source world has some very small databases which do a limited number of things very quickly and very well.
Whoever you paid for your commercial MySQL or PostgreSQL support contract, of course.
There are many Oracle, SQL Server and DB2 specialists on the market.
So your contention is that a high rate of turnover in the support of those applications is good?
As an early adopter of software you take on the risk while others (including competitors) learn from your mistakes.
MySQL and PostgreSQL were publically released 11 and 17 years ago, respectively. If that's your idea of "early adopter", then may I also suggest other hip new technologies you might wish to investigate, such as TCP/IP, VGA graphics, and transistor-based memory?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If you use an open source app, then your boss can yell at you when things go wrong! Hmm, actually, I see your point.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News