Re: Are we losing momentum?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Hoffmann [mailto:jeff(at)propertykey(dot)com]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 8:54 PM
> To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Are we losing momentum?
>
>
> Mike Mascari wrote:
> > cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com wrote:
> >>I wouldn't be too sanguine about that, from two perspectives:
> >>
> >> a) There's a moving target, here, in that Microsoft seems to be
> >> looking for the next "new thing" to be the elimination of
> >> the use of "files" in favor of the filesystem being treated
> >> as a database.

This is a very, very good idea. In fact IBM has been doing it for
years. For that matter, so has OpenVMS. What's that -- 30 year old
technology?

I have always thought that a native file system should be a hierarchy
like Adabas(IBM Mainframe), DBMS(OpenVMS) or Raima(PC's & UNIX) for a
model. It is a very natural fit. The OS contains disk devices which
contain directories, subdirectories, and files. Set ownership model
seems to fit perfectly.

> > They ought to get their database up to speed first, it
> seems to me. I
> > agree Microsoft's view of data management is a moving target.
>
> Not to mention the fact that there's a significant number of NT 4
> servers still out there -- what is that, 7 years old? A lot
> of places
> aren't upgrading because they don't need to & don't want to shell out
> the cash. (And it should go without saying that Microsoft is
> none too
> happy with it.) With Windows 2K3 just coming out and who
> knows how much
> longer until the next version (or ther version after that, who knows
> when these "features" will actually show up), there's still a
> significant window in there for conventional database servers,
> especially for the price conscious out there.

SQL*Server is a very good database. The optimizer is outstanding for
complex queries.

There are clearly places where PostgreSQL does have a distinct
advantage. Price a 1000 user system for SQL*Server and PostgreSQL and
you will see that we can hire a couple of DBA's just for the price
difference. Since you can purchase PostgreSQL support, that is no
longer a significant advantage for MS.

And about MySQL:
It's also commercial. You are not supposed to use it except for a
single machine for personal use unless you are a non-profit organization
or unless absolutely everything you do is GPL[1]. Hence, you have to
license it to deploy applications. In order to have transactions, you
have to use another commercial product that they bolt into MySQL --
Sleepycat software's database. Now you have two license systems to
worry about.

Compared to PostgreSQL, both of these tools cost an arm and a leg.
SQL*Server is closed. You have to rely on MS to fix any problems that
crop up. MySQL has a very restrictive license [for those who might
happen to bother to read such things] for both modifications to the code
and also redistribution of applications.

[1] I realize that people cheat on this all the time. In theory, they
could all go to jail for it. It is certainly not a risk I would be
willing to take. I have also bumped into people who had no idea that
commercial use requires a commercial license for MySQL. There are
probably lots of people in that boat too.