re: re: re: Re: Mueller knows nothing about the Oracle market

> and that seasoned Oracle shops would never migrate because the short-term pain would be overwhelming

I don't think it's the short-term pain at all but long-term risk versus cost. if you're running Oracle then MySQL is an unknown quantity (and one without a very good reputation). The cost of data management is not the cost of one RDBMS program versus another, but the overall cost. Oracle software can be bloody expensive, but if you factor in the hardware and the annual personnel budget to manage it then you realise it's not such a large part. Also, if you are a multi-hundred-million pound company then sod the cost, your data is worth more.

And I'm ignoring the question of whether MySQL will run as nicely on those 16 processor servers as did your now-displaced Oracle.

> and aren't one of CKM's start-ups who naturally go for Oracle

I don't think he was really saying that, but it is a matter of cost/benefit. The high cost of a competent database can pay itself back very rapidly under the right circumstances. It can be worth splashing out on the big stuff because the big stuff can do straight off what might otherwise take a much more expensive programming effort on top (and it can usually do it much more reliably).

> If Oracle remove MySQL as a viable choice, they have negatively affected the competitive landscape

true. I suspect that as someone above suggested, it would be rolled into a high profile project like Apache. It's a good suggestion anyway.

What frustrates me is when people start treating RDBMS's as commodities; equivalent and interchangeable. Beyond using them in the most trivial way, they are not! There is a reason why Oracle/MSSQL is expensive. They can be extremely reliable, handle huge loads, scale well and be very low in bugs compared to almost any other software I've used. *If* you use them to their full extent, the gap between low-end and high-end dbs becomes very evident indeed. But they often aren't so they look like cost rather than value.

So I guess to some extent we were talking at cross purposes and I apologise for my offensive comment; it was entirely out of order.

re: re: Re: Mueller knows nothing about the Oracle market

Here's what I was saying...

Müller may not be right about Oracle shops migrating to MySQL, although he claims to have evidence, but he doesn't have to confine his analysis to that particular area: it's about the choice available in the entire market.

You can argue that MySQL is inadequate and that seasoned Oracle shops would never migrate because the short-term pain would be overwhelming, or that PostgreSQL/EnterpriseDB would be more of a competitor to Oracle in those shops, but the market for database products isn't static: the authorities have to consider what new customers have to choose from.

If you're a company going to manage a lot of data (and aren't one of CKM's start-ups who naturally go for Oracle, and who must have found a lucrative niche to fend off that Graham-style critique about blowing huge sums of capital on expensive furniture... and RDBMSs), then it's possible you'd consider MySQL as something you might work with (as Google and others have done for stuff, and I doubt that it's only used for Sergey and Larry's personal car cleaning roster). If Oracle remove MySQL as a viable choice, they have negatively affected the competitive landscape, whether you, I or anyone else would laugh at those people choosing it.

I suppose the title of the original comment says it all: "the Oracle market". But as I wrote, it's not really about "the Oracle market" at all. Thus, the original comment was wide of the mark. Apologies if I came across as harsh towards your counter-critique, but you weren't responding to a dyed-in-the-wool long-time MySQL devotee after all.

re: re: Re: Mueller knows nothing about the Oracle market

Okay, maybe I misinterpreted it and maybe an apology is in order. In simple terms, what were you saying?

(What CKM said is clear and makes sense)