Is MySQL Disruptive?
from the read-the-quotes... dept
A couple weeks ago I was talking with someone from a small tech company that is using Oracle for their backend database. This is a company that needs a hefty database, and it's doing quite a lot of work for them. It's also costing them an awful lot, and they've been playing around with things like MySQL to see if it can allow them to do what they need to do at a much lower price point. While the company admits that MySQL simply can't handle what they're trying to do right now, they wonder how long that will be true. Apparently, they're not the only ones. Wired is running an article looking at how MySQL is quietly sneaking up on the bigger players. Often, new companies are using MySQL because the engineers they're hiring to build the product have used MySQL for personal projects. What struck me most about this situation, though, is the response from Microsoft in the article about the challenge from MySQL: "Typically, MySQL and other open-source database companies are used in small departments." This is a similar response to the one I've heard from Oracle employees. It's also absolutely true. However, someone should send these people a copy of Clayton Christensen's work on disruptive technologies. That's exactly how they start. The established players always ignore the upstart, pointing out that it's targeting a lower segment of the market and doesn't have all their features. What they forget is that the disruptive technology gets better - and becomes increasingly "good enough" for a larger and larger segment of their market.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
PostgreSQL
Back when MySQL was in the 2.X versions.
PostgreSQL is already a threat to Oracle. One day MySQL will catch up to where PostgreSQL is today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PostgreSQL
Then again, I'm still confused by PG, but I moved from ORCL to MySQL without many problems outside of missing features. Could 'ease of use for regular people' be a feature that's helping MySQL gain ground now while it works on other missing features?
While it's better to be powerful than simple, I think Simple makes a great jumping-off point to launch the attack vs Powerful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PostgreSQL
Having used both for years, ease of use for developers goes to PostgreSQL. I don't see that regular people really inteface with their DB engine much, rather they just want to run software X, which 7 times out of 10, mentions MySQL first as a DB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MySQL has one advantage over PostgreSQL
PostgreSQL is far superior to MySQL but doesn't have the company backing for it. Its all volunteer like Debian. Eventually, I believe this will be its advantage over MySQL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Firebird™ - Relational Database for the New Millen
While I have not used FireBird I have come close to using it when a MySQL database did not meet my needs (views). It is highly spoken of in some circles. Free, Open Source, easy to obtain, under active development, and cross-platform. As a corporate developer it seems like a much better solution.
-- jb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MySQL
1. There is nothing they can really do about it. They could give ORCL awya for free, and in some ways they do (there is not really license protection for it), but it is such a hog...
2. It is not the tables that make the difference to large companies, it is PL/SQL which has millions (billions?) of LOC written in it with all sort of fun business logic somewhere in it.
MSFT is in a similar position. Great many people who run a Windows environment have taken to using MS SQL Server, but for obvious reasons MSFT is not making it available for Linux. I may think it is a mistake not to provide a linux-based MSFT product, but Redmont does not care about my opinion. Thus, they really have no leverage to induce people into *not* using MySQL (or Postgres).
As to the main point of the article - whether MySQL is a disruptive technology I am ambivalent. To me, a disruptive technology is something that really changes the way you do something, dramatically lowering the cost of doing that something, and rendering all or most of the previous investment obscolete. Given how companies buy RDBMS products I do not think this works out for open soruce RDBMS products so far. As long as they are copying and re-implementing technology that already exists in the commercial products, they are at best an evolutionary technology that gives a small leg up to start-ups, but does not change the equation radically.
In the same sense I do not find Linux disruptive - Windows is cheap enough of a platform to run applications and is certainly fairly stable at this point. Moreover, other open source OS alternatives exist and have existed for a long time. It is the cumulative effect of open source -- free to use and modify RDBMS, Web Server, App Server, and OS that are disruptive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
No more CALs, no more per-processor licensing fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brand names
However in my day job I'm usually employed to work with the one of the usual big databases, and for enterprise use I believe it will stay that way.
Managers and salesman love the fact we have a big, brand-name as the database behind the project, so they can point to the "best-of-breed" solutions and wave the "unbreakable" flag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SAP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Daffodil DB - http://www.daffodildb.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]