Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Unshakeable MySQL
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | MySQL AB is a company that deeply understands that open source software
> | is an excellent business tool, and how to best apply it. They
> | understand that the software and its source code are a great
> | customer engagement mechanism, and that the product they sell
> | to solve customer problems is
> `----
>
> http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/01/unshakeable_mys.html
>
> More thoughts on Unbreakable MySQL
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "If Oracle is actually considering this, then they still really
> | really don't get it," notes Stephen Walli, while Alex Fletcher
> | thinks it is "Oracle attempting to bottle and clone naturally
> | forming disruption while it continues to refine its competitive
> | strategy."
> `----
>
>
http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2007/02/more_thoughts_o.html
>
>
>
> Related:
>
> Enterprise Unix Roundup: Oracle, Enterprise Linux Pioneer?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Under no circumstances should it be thought that Oracle is doing
> | this out of any sense of altruism, and therein lies the rub.
> | Oracle wants to knock Red Hat off the top of the enterprise Linux
> | mountain -- no ifs, ands, or buts. And, if Mickos is correct, it will
> | want to do the same to MySQL. Even with selfish motivations, Oracle may
> | have stumbled on the formula that only FLOSS allows.
> `----
>
> http://www.serverwatch.com/eur/article.php/3657116
>
>
> Walli: Oracle Doesn't Get It
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Walli says if Oracle is seriously considering a MySQL support
> | service, the database giant ?really, really? doesn?t get it.
> | In doing so, the company would be offering its customers a
> | competing product that is, in fact, better than its own
> | products, for a fraction of the cost. What could that do,
> | Walli asks, but destroy Oracle?s own installation base?
> `----
>
>
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/index.php/2007/01/31/walli-oracle-doesnt-get-it/
>
>
> Will Oracle launch Unbreakable MySQL?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "They have hinted to us that they will," said Mickos, indicating
> | that the database giant is planning to repeat its October 2006
> | Unbreakable Linux plan, which saw it undercut Red Hat with
> | enterprise Linux support.
> `----
>
>
http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2007/01/will_oracle_lau.html
>
>
> Customer Backlash Against Oracle's Buggy Linux Product?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | And there is other feedback showing that Oracle's Linux is extremely
> | buggy, and it keeps crashing, and Oracle has generated quite a bit of
> | backlash and animosity from the broader open source community towards
> | Oracle. So, I guess the question is, is it realistic to think that
> | Oracle is just going to ride this experiment into the ground, or would
> | you expect them to possibly withdraw their offering from the
> | marketplace?
> `----
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/061222/22921_id.html?.v=1
>
>
> Unbreakable Linux still unproven, analyst warns
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | IT managers running Red Hat Linux should think carefully before
> | making the switch to Unbreakable Linux, the new Linux distribution
> | that Oracle Corp. announced last month.
> `----
>
>
http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1233083,00.html
>
>
> Oracle F2Q07 (Qtr End 11/30/06) Earnings Call Transcript
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In the first 30 days, we had 9,000 downloads of Unbreakable Linux
> | from our website and hundreds of customers connecting their servers
> | to our network.
> `----
>
> http://seekingalpha.com/article/22626
I really don't like these anti Oracle posts. Oracle are a database vendor
and MySQL is therefore a competitor. Of cause Oracle will promote their own
database as any vendor does. They can't whip the masses into using Oracle,
people will use it if the application calls for it. The huge difference in
cost is enough to seperate the two database engines into different
sections. No one would pay for Oracle to write a little addressbook, or
many of the smaller databases in use.
But, if I was given the contract to do a complete recreation of say the
Natwest Bank's database, with their 'x' number of main servers and 'y'
number of sub-servers plus 'z' numbers of clients. I wouldn't put MySQL
onto the list of possible database engines at all.
I would put Unidata and Oracle on that list though. Because I know that I do
not need to worry about the capabilities of those two on large quantities
of data and the problems of slave servers and many clients. These are big
beasts and easily capable of taking on the big jobs that are quite simply
out of MySQL's league altogether.
But then the cut down Oracle (I don't know if it is still available, I
haven't seen it around) intended to take the smaller jobs and was given
away freely, wasn't really as good as postgres or MySQL. No doubt just as
capable, but it didn't feel as clean and slick in real use. Maybe they just
cut it down too far, I know that every so often I would go for a typical
Oracle tool and find it wasn't part of the kit.
MySQL has it's place, but so does Oracle, the managers of the big databases
have no choice at the moment but to wait for the big boys in the database
world to come up with the Linux versions that are at least as reliable and
powerfull as the UNIX version. That is why we need Oracle, they have the
key to Linux's next major advances in the server main frame market. Look at
the success of Unidata since it was released for Win Servers (as well as
it's usual UNIX version), Win Server people needed a major db engine and
now they have it, it is building in popularity simply because it is so very
capable of taking on jobs that at one time you simply wouldn't have
concidered for a Win Server.
So leave Oracle alone, let the markets and the available db jobs decide on
which engine is needed. Because the alternative is for the big boys to go
to Win Servers and then Linux loses out big time.
|
|
