Re: Are we losing momentum? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Hoffmann [mailto:jeff@propertykey.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 8:54 PM
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Are we losing momentum?
>
>
> Mike Mascari wrote:
> > cbbrowne@cbbrowne.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.