Comments on: Open Source Databases: Shallow But Widespread http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/ because technology is just another ecosystem Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:58:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.2-alpha By: Steve http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-348800 Steve Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:55:19 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-348800 When OSS ERP systems are more regularly deployed with an OSS DB as a back end. That will systematically increase enterprise OSS DB usage. Right now I think that when you buy an ERP/CRM system they recommend Oracle/MS SQL and DB2. When you look at OSS solutions MySQL is the standard thing to use and Postgres can easily be used to replace MySQL if so desired. When OSS ERP systems are more regularly deployed with an OSS DB as a back end. That will systematically increase enterprise OSS DB usage.

Right now I think that when you buy an ERP/CRM system they recommend Oracle/MS SQL and DB2. When you look at OSS solutions MySQL is the standard thing to use and Postgres can easily be used to replace MySQL if so desired.

]]> By: Henry Keultjes http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-348678 Henry Keultjes Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:03:30 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-348678 http://www.openqm.org is functionally identical to IBM's UniVerse and UniData and similar proprietary enterprise databases that together have millions of seats. Henry Keultjes Database Scientifics Mansfield Ohio USA http://www.openqm.org is functionally identical to IBM’s UniVerse and UniData and similar proprietary enterprise databases that together have millions of seats.

Henry Keultjes
Database Scientifics
Mansfield Ohio USA

]]> By: KRW http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-348612 KRW Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:52:30 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-348612 "As time goes by, the argument from the database support team that they don’t and will not support Postgres grows weaker. It starts to look like a refusal to learn something new rather than a sound technical argument. But it won’t be up to them forever." Couldn't have stated that better myself. We've been using the open source SAPDB on a Linux x64 platform in a mission critical role for years now. What you don't hear is that the server never needs reboots (thanks Linux) and the db just runs and runs without complaint. It can handle loads far greater than our sister db MS-SQL v7 which constantly needs attention. The load on the MS-SQL server is far less and yet needs more resources and attention. OSS-DBs aren't ready for mission critical ... PA-Leeeeez! “As time goes by, the argument from the database support team that they don’t and will not support Postgres grows weaker. It starts to look like a refusal to learn something new rather than a sound technical argument. But it won’t be up to them forever.”

Couldn’t have stated that better myself. We’ve been using the open source SAPDB on a Linux x64 platform in a mission critical role for years now. What you don’t hear is that the server never needs reboots (thanks Linux) and the db just runs and runs without complaint. It can handle loads far greater than our sister db MS-SQL v7 which constantly needs attention. The load on the MS-SQL server is far less and yet needs more resources and attention. OSS-DBs aren’t ready for mission critical … PA-Leeeeez!

]]> By: Mike Johnson http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-347711 Mike Johnson Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:13:22 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-347711 Your analysis of the database market is right that there's a split between "enterprise" databases and the web side, but I think your idea of future inroads is a little off. Applications are moving swiftly to being entirely web based in large corporations. Easier to deploy, easier to write, easier to maintain, and no install. It means you don't have to talk to the desktop guys or change 1000 desktops to deploy, just throw up a web server. If you're running open source for that already, the proprietary databases are marginalized to running backend, legacy apps. Sooner or later somebody's got to ask "why are we spending $1 million a year in Oracle fees when most of our stuff is running on these free open source databases anyhow?" My company was bought out by a bank and they've been (somewhat unwillingly) running several Postgres databases for around 5 years now. Never had a problem with them, they just run. As time goes by, the argument from the database support team that they don't and will not support Postgres grows weaker. It starts to look like a refusal to learn something new rather than a sound technical argument. But it won't be up to them forever. Your analysis of the database market is right that there’s a split between “enterprise” databases and the web side, but I think your idea of future inroads is a little off.

Applications are moving swiftly to being entirely web based in large corporations. Easier to deploy, easier to write, easier to maintain, and no install. It means you don’t have to talk to the desktop guys or change 1000 desktops to deploy, just throw up a web server. If you’re running open source for that already, the proprietary databases are marginalized to running backend, legacy apps.

Sooner or later somebody’s got to ask “why are we spending $1 million a year in Oracle fees when most of our stuff is running on these free open source databases anyhow?”

My company was bought out by a bank and they’ve been (somewhat unwillingly) running several Postgres databases for around 5 years now. Never had a problem with them, they just run.

As time goes by, the argument from the database support team that they don’t and will not support Postgres grows weaker. It starts to look like a refusal to learn something new rather than a sound technical argument. But it won’t be up to them forever.

]]> By: Anne Truitt Zelenka » links for 2008-03-28 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-346489 Anne Truitt Zelenka » links for 2008-03-28 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:55:06 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-346489 [...] tecosystems » Open Source Databases: Shallow But Widespread (tags: open-source databases enterprise web revenue volume) This entry was written by Anne Z and posted on March 28, 2008 at 5:54 pm and filed under Delicious Links. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « links for 2008-03-24 [...] [...] tecosystems » Open Source Databases: Shallow But Widespread (tags: open-source databases enterprise web revenue volume) This entry was written by Anne Z and posted on March 28, 2008 at 5:54 pm and filed under Delicious Links. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « links for 2008-03-24 [...]

]]> By: Niraj J http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-346384 Niraj J Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:25:06 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-346384 On "But what is more plausible over the longer term". The Enterprise penetration of open source DB is a function of the success web startup's and their speed to transform themselves into large enterprises.(typically revenue > 1 billion) As you correctly pointed out , there is no point of competing in the Enterprise DB space (As defined today) . my guess is that the current Enterprise DB space will evolve and split into specialized Databases like (GFS , Hadoop based DB) , HP Neoview , CouchDB , simple DB , commodity RDBMS(my SQL) . I would think that thought leaders for Enterprise DB vendors would have already started to look at their RDBMS business as cash cow rather than a growth business. On “But what is more plausible over the longer term”.

The Enterprise penetration of open source DB is a function of the success web startup’s and their speed to transform themselves into large enterprises.(typically revenue > 1 billion)

As you correctly pointed out , there is no point of competing in the Enterprise DB space (As defined today) . my guess is that the current Enterprise DB space will evolve and split into specialized Databases like (GFS , Hadoop based DB) , HP Neoview , CouchDB , simple DB , commodity RDBMS(my SQL) .

I would think that thought leaders for Enterprise DB vendors would have already started to look at their RDBMS business as cash cow rather than a growth business.

]]> By: Mike Dolan http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-346126 Mike Dolan Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:44:05 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-346126 Is it the database that's important or the interfaces through which you access and manage data? When looking at shallow/deep, the answer to that question could make a big difference in the conclusion about where these databases will/can play. Yes, I'm being intentionally vague ;-) Is it the database that’s important or the interfaces through which you access and manage data? When looking at shallow/deep, the answer to that question could make a big difference in the conclusion about where these databases will/can play. Yes, I’m being intentionally vague ;-)

]]> By: Matthew Aslett http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-346105 Matthew Aslett Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:11:32 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/03/27/open-source-databases-shallow-but-widespread/#comment-346105 Thanks for the comment Stephen. So far the reaction to the report has centered on that one (admittedly key) finding that adoption has been widespread but shallow, but there is clearly more to it than that, and we do see and mention opportunities ahead for both adoption and revenue growth. As I wrote the other day: "The adoption of open source software for non-mission-critical applications and new projects will continue, and we expect to see open source databases gradually surround proprietary database deployments. At this stage, mainstream customers will begin to reevaluate their core database management offerings and examine whether open source is a viable option for mission-critical applications." Thanks for the comment Stephen. So far the reaction to the report has centered on that one (admittedly key) finding that adoption has been widespread but shallow, but there is clearly more to it than that, and we do see and mention opportunities ahead for both adoption and revenue growth. As I wrote the other day: “The adoption of open source software for non-mission-critical applications and new projects will continue, and we expect to see open source databases gradually surround proprietary database deployments. At this stage, mainstream customers will begin to reevaluate their core database management offerings and examine whether open source is a viable option for mission-critical applications.”

]]>