--=-W2UHJkNDEHokE7PhPlCo
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 00:56, Trent Shipley wrote:
> They are *VERY* good products.  Furthermore, as a user of both MS product=
s and=20
> Linux-and-friends the MS products have the advantage of user-interfaces t=
hat=20
> are degrees of magnitude better than the freeware versions. =20

Let's see.  For a Enterprise level database.  Do I want a platform that
is rock solid or pretty?  Hmmm. Seems like a no brainer to me.

> The main problem of MS in comparison to gratis-ware is the initial price=20
> point. =20

At the Enterprise level, thte price of the software starts to become
largely unimportant.  I say this because hardware and people costs dwarf
the software costs.  So in a company of 5 yes Free Software is appealing
on "price", in an organizatiton of 13,000 the licensing cost is so small
in the big picture it gets lost.  This why I say again and again.=20
Please don't pitch the value of Free Software as cost, but instead as
freedom!

> If you can afford them, the big commercial databases (in my book these ar=
e=20
> Oracle, DB2 and MS SQL Server) are a class above the freeware databases.

SAP-DB is GPL and pretty much Oracle compatiable.  If it's good enough
to run SAP R-3 on in a company of 8,000, I think it's in this same
category.  It certainly is Free Software being GPL.  (Please note
calling Free Software, Freeware is really bad.  Freeware is a
classification of software similar to Shareware in the 80/90's that did
not come with any freedom.)

> Enterprise level databases (Terrabytes, $20K and up.):
>=20
> Top:=20
> Oracle, DB2.  Superior flexibility.  (Note: SAP claims this is a *draw ba=
ck*. =20
> These products are *too* complex.)

SAP-DB

> Second tier (Only because of limited features):=20
> MS SQL Server.  (Transact*SQL is a glorified scripting language.  Limited=
 or=20
> non-existent OO attributes.  NB! It looks like SAP-DB with a GPL licence =
may=20
> be technically competitive.  However, limited market penetration may mean=
=20
> that the cost to run SAP-DB could exceed those of SQL Server.  Not=20
> surprisingly SAP's attitude toward its database is KISS.  A database is w=
here=20
> you put data used by middle-ware.  A DB should store and retrieve=20
> data--that's it.  Any complexity goes in business logic implemented by a=20
> middle-ware product ... like SAP.)

I don't think this is true.  I think SAP-DB is on par with Oracle.  I
know the developers.  SAP's mission for them since day one was to be
Oracle compatiable.

Also, while MSSQL is a good database it relies on running the Microsoft
OS which is 'not' highly scalable.  This is why for large enterprises it
doesnt make much sense.

I would probably put Interbase, Informix, Sybase and FireBird is this
'mid-level database category with MSSQL. (Note: Two of those are free
software)

> Mid-level databases (100's of Gigabytes, max: Free, MySQL is dual license=
d.=20
> I'm not certain how much the non-GPL EULA costs.):=20
>=20
> -- MySQL is fast, cheap, and simple to a fault.  It is widely used.  It i=
s=20
> well supported and documented.  It seems to be gaining market share.  Rum=
ors=20
> of a deal with SAP for SAP-DB technology may result in a partial challeng=
e to=20
> MS SQL Server.  Nevertheless, expect SQL Server to be a better option for=
=20
> most customers because MS can throw money at ease-of-use. =20

They are not rumors.  MySQL has purchased the rights to redistribute
SAP-DB as a backend for MySQL.

> (Remember my fellow gear-heads, for 99% of our fellow travelers software =
is a=20
> means to an end.  Hard to use software is nearly equivalent to useless=20
> software.  Yes, you can hire an expert, but no one likes doing that.  [I =
hate=20
> taking my car to the shop, for example.])

Remember to 99% of Enterprises.  Software is a life blood.  Cut it off
and they die.  Prop. software is extremely poor performing if you do
honest risk analysis.  My example of Peoplesoft is a perfect example.  I
dare you to ask a Peoplesoft customer if they were crapping themselves
hearing that Oracle was going to kill the product they paid millions for
and rely on to run their organization.

> It is unlikely Postgres lacks something you need.  More likely what you n=
eed=20
> probably lacks Postgres.  Limited market share often means some critical=20
> (comercial) killer app has no interface to Postgress.  (In fact, many kil=
ler=20
> apps only interface with the major databases.  It is by no means uncommon=
 to=20
> find that some business critical application has been built to work ONLY =
with=20
> MS SQL Server.)

Again I think you over estimate the need for some killer UI.  Real
enterprise programmers don't need pretty UI's to be productive.  I agree
for the small business owner and programmer hacking together a solution
its necessary, but it isnt a feature necessary to get good results for
the trained.

This would be like telling a BMX rider they sucked because their bike
didnt have training wheels.


> From a biz perspective MySQL is to be prefered to Postgresql.  However, a=
t=20
> this point MySQL may still lack critical features (not least being=20
> extesibility).   IF MySQL passes feasibility analysis use it instead of=20
> Postgres (for reasons of economics and business, *not* engineering.)

I am not sure how you deduce "from a business perspective".  MySQL sucks
for certain kind of applications.  It rocks for others.


> The freeware world has no real file-by-file personal database product.  T=
his=20
> is often a major objection to OpenOffice.org.  True, a intermediate level=
=20
> guru can install Postgress on a laptop, but the whole point of the=20
> Access/Paradox type product is to minimize the need for expert level=20
> knowledge.

I think MySQL will try to build some pretty front ends to be comparative
to Access.

--=20
Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnuenterprise.org
derek@gnue.org

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=3Ddneighbo

--=-W2UHJkNDEHokE7PhPlCo
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+7IT2Hb99+vQX/88RAtxBAJ9M39BuwBElUD1eIjVJ5190WysRWQCgoPCa
kVBAR0PIsVvsMBI48I1A5P4=
=W0lO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-W2UHJkNDEHokE7PhPlCo--