Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Invests In MySQL/Oracle Competitor

Posted by kdawson on from the here-store-this dept.

stoolpigeon writes "IBM has made a move to support open source RDBMS PostgreSQL by investing in EnterpriseDB, a company that supports PostgreSQL as well as selling their own proprietary extensions to the database product. IBM participated in a $10 million funding round, though the article doesn't say how much they invested. In the past EnterpriseDB has primarily advertised itself as an Oracle competitor, though the article says, 'Derek Rodner, EnterpriseDB's director of product strategy, explained that Postgres Plus 8.3 also adds in new application quick starts which are supposed to help with installation issues. They will also help in EnterpriseDB's battle against MySQL for open source database supremacy.'"

10 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. db2... by fatp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why isn't this a competitor of db2?

    1. Re:db2... by afidel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      DB2 just doesn't scale down as well as some of the others so it doesn't get as much exposure to the masses, if you check out things like the TCP-H results you'll notice at the 10TB level DB2 is #1 and #3, it's typically used for very large databases running on IBM big iron. It's yet another IBM technology that kind of sits in the corner running some of the largest financial systems in the world without getting a lot of exposure.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:db2... by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not rare for IBM to sell stuff which competes against products its subunits make.

      You can have one IBM unit recommending/selling Cisco products which compete against more expensive IBM products by another IBM unit. You need some Sun stuff to work with some Microsoft stuff? IBM will say they'll do it.

      From what I see, IBM is about providing choice, and helping customers make that choice for $$$$ :).

      If there isn't much choice you don't need as much "consulting" and support. For example if your choices are: reinstall, or format and reinstall, I don't think you'll want to pay a lot.

      --
  2. Re:MySQL databae supremacy by Daimaou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I completely agree. PostgreSQL used to be a bit slow, but for the last few years, there just isn't a reason to choose MySQL over PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL's license is certainly better and all the great features and SQL standards compliance makes it a no brainer, I think.

  3. Re:MySQL databae supremacy by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    2002 called. It wants its MySQList retort back.

    MySQL is no longer easier to use than PostgreSQL. PG is now availabe for Windows with a nice packaged msi installer. It is as easy or easier to install under Linux/BSD/other POSIX, and is (if you assume the same level of experience with both system) far easier to administer.

    Not only that, MySQL's community consists of many newbies, which makes getting help on complex issues difficult. PG on the other hand has a vibrant community consisting of highly skilled DBAs and the PG core developers themselves. I've often had help from the PG core dev team members. Finding similarly skilled MySQL help is like trying to find Dodos in Manhattan.

    --
    I hate printers.
  4. Re:MySQL databae supremacy by thedarknite · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That may well be true now, because the last time I tried using PostgreSQL was nearly two years ago and it was a configuration nightmare that was poorly documented for windows. But if PostgreSQL is so much easier to use now than MySQL, why is MySQL still that default database for hosted websites, and why do most open source web applications that I've looked at recommend a LAMP/WAMP stack?

    Incidentally, you do know that Slashdot runs on MySQL don't you?

    --
    A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
  5. Re:PostgreSQL ROCKS by sirket · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I love postgres- use it to handle millions of queries per day- but let's not kid ourselves: postgres replication in the form of slony blows. I have a master DB and it plublishes to a dozen read only databases. Managing that with slony just plain sucks. The simple fact is that setting up replication with mysql is dirt simple and that's part of why people use it.

    I'm thinking of giving EnterpriseDB and their custom replication engine a try.

    -sirket

  6. Re:MySQL databae supremacy by Niten · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sadly, there's still the whole WordPress thing -- the darn program was never intended to work with anything other than MySQL at the back end. At one point there was an effort to "port" WordPress to PostgreSQL, but that fork has long since stagnated. And adding support for other databases is not on the WordPress team's short list.

    I wouldn't know the actual numbers any better than the next guy, but it's clear that WordPress is one of the top reasons MySQL retains such a dominant market share in the Web segment. Until WordPress adds support for multiple back-ends, MySQL will always be, at minimum, just as entrenched a product as WordPress is.

    I hope that Movable Type's recent open-sourcing will eventually help effect more widespread adoption of PostgreSQL. Unlike WordPress, MT was designed from the ground up with forward-thinking features like database abstraction; it currently supports the Berkeley Database format, SQLite, PostgreSQL, and MySQL, and adding support for additional back-ends is relatively easy. Perhaps if Movable Type can chip away at WordPress's market share a bit, it will in turn help relax MySQL's stranglehold on the Web market.

  7. Re:Still waiting for a decent GUI by jaseuk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe because nobody wants to complain about a missing GUI when the product is free. But anyway I've found 4 GUIs for Postgresql in a quick search, not counting Navicat. I've never used it but it looks very nice. I've used PG Admin, which is great for simple work. Most of these are better than Access, which is just a toy, but not as good as Microsoft's query analyzer (now called "server management studio" I believe).

    You've missed the point with Access. Access is a very simple to use application development environment. Someone with minimal database and programming experience can cobble together straightforward applications. Discounting Microsoft Access as a toy really shows ignorance of the power of the platform, the database engine may have been limited particularly with scaling and multiuser performance, but it's SQL feature set was far superior to MySQL for many years supporting features such as subselects, constraints and foreign keys.

    I'm not an Access fan by any stretch of the imagination, but it has a niche that is not filled by pretty much any other commercial or open-source database in that a "power user" can put together an application.

  8. Re:MySQL databae supremacy by LurkerXXX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As the other poster said, inertia.

    I run a few mysql servers in addition to postgresql and mssql servers. I LOATHE mysql. Yet I use it in a few cases. Why? Because there are a few applications I need to run which were unwisely written to only support mysql. If postgresql or any other database support is ever added to them (or I ever find the extra time to add it myself) I'll switch in a heartbeat. But for now, since I need to run those applications, I am stuck using mysql.

    So don't think every mysql server running out there is running it because the admin thinks it's the best or even just-as-good of a database. (It isn't)