Re: Oracle alternatives

Walt Weaver apparently said,on my timestamp of 8/05/2005 3:13 AM:

> We have over 400 "commodity" Intel boxes running Linux and MySQL. We
> use master-to-master replication for failover, and each master box is
> replicated to a slave. We're currently in the process of setting up
> cross-datacenter replication too. It's easy and fast.

Same experience here. Both with Oracle and MySQL. They both do a great job given the appropriate need. Nothing wrong with that.

> I'm not going to denigrate any database. They all work well. I'm not
> going to call one "a toy", "trash", or "overpriced". If it works for
> my needs I'll use it.

Oracle had a perfect opportunity to be what MySQL is now. Back in the days of early release 8 many inside and outside Oracle asked for a simplified subset V7 release to be available, cheap as anything and obviating the need for anyone to chase other products. Many of the short-term "market experts" inside Oracle at the time thought that was a bad idea. We can see nowadays how "bad" it was, with the success of MySQL and how well it filled that hole.

Oracle has only got its own greediness and stupidity to blame for the success of MySQL. And bad-mouthing the product ain't gonna solve the problem one bit.

Would I "replace" Oracle with MySQL? No way! Would I "replace" MySQL with Oracle? No bloody way! Has Oracle missed the boat completely on cheap databases? Darn right they did!

Both types of product have a place. The MySQL one, Oracle missed due to sheer myopic stupidity. Their problem: stuff their "marketeers".

Postgres? No thanks: anything based on Ingres and that irresponsible twit Stonebraker, to me spells disaster. Couldn't care less if nowadays it has lots of buttons and pretty lights.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
dbvision_at_iinet.net.au

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l