Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  jim stephens, 12 Jul 2004 @ 3:22pm

  
  

  L. A. Times says yet another product that is "thre

  What do they mean "threatened?" seems at best silly to say that a product is "threatend", but at worst is another illustration of people not thinking when they use terms like the word "hacker". now open source is starting to be the bad guy as reported by "main stream" media, without cause.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Brian, 12 Jul 2004 @ 4:18pm

  
  

  opensource revenue blackhole

  I like the thought about mySql soaking up the marketsize like a blackhole. ;-)

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Datagod, 13 Jul 2004 @ 4:28am

  
  

  Competition is good

  Competition is good, open source or not.
  
  Microsoft has recently created multiple "freely distributable" versions of SQL server. They are crippled somewhat compared to the parent product, but are very capable.
  
  Amazing to see Microsoft cowering in fear in front of open source like that. Way to to go MYSQL!!
  
  My beef is that SQL Server only runs on a Windoze platform, at least officially.
  
  I know of people who had it running under Linux...afterall SQL is just a big C program.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Gary Potter, 13 Jul 2004 @ 7:13am

  
  

  MySql at Sabre

  Not only did Sabre recover 80% of the cost of the original application, Sabre's implementation was selected as the MySQL application of the year.
  
  http://www.acemakr.com/online/2004/06/sabre_holdings_.html

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  TK, 13 Jul 2004 @ 8:41am

  
  

  History repeating itself

  As a former Product Manager for dBase at Ashton-Tate back in the 80's, we laughed with glee as the PC database "revolution" of the time shook-up Oracle. Their cost-structures (cost of operations, salaries, commission structures) couldn't handle a sub-$1,000 dbms, even one as pathetic as dBASE was (by today's standards). The problem accelerated for Oracle as SQL Server gained ground, via the efforts of it's originator; Sybase, and the later adoption by Microsoft, and the oft-forgotten partnership w/ Ashton-Tate. Oracle's famous shake-up of the late 80's/early 90's was due in large part to this market upheaval, caused by all the competing PC database products and early servers. Now, with these businesses (both MS's and Oracle's) built on their PC database products, it's interesting to see these newer, smaller cost-structures being shaken up yet again by a free product. Since history showed that the low-cost product won the war the last time around, it seem inevitable that the same will occur here again. Microsoft however was on the *right* side of the battle the last time, AND is a student of history (even one of their own making). Methinks we'll see a LOT more "free" SQL Server offerings in the very near future...

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    eeyore, 13 Jul 2004 @ 10:29am

    
    

    Re: History repeating itself

    What exactly is the real lesson learned here when Oracle is still the major player in the database market and Ashton-Tate is a long-forgotten memory?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  achacha, 13 Jul 2004 @ 11:50am

  
  

  Oracle vs. mySQL

  The cost of operating an Oracle DB is insane, between all the DBAs you need to hire, the horrible documentation, and the poor tools; I would pick a farm of MySQL servers any day. I have to work with both unfortunately, but I shudder every time I have to think about using OCI or sqlplus... I prefer MySQL Control Center by a huge margin and mySQL libraries are infinitely easier to use and a lot more logically written.
  
  Bottom line (my opinion): OIracle was designed by product managers, MySQL was designed by developers. The difference is obvious.
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]