ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

Rocky Bytes

Support Center

TopTechTips

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows Vista

Windows XP

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

Apple/Mac

Xbox/Xbox 360

News Search

XML/RSS Newsfeeds

Pocket PC Site

FAQ's

Windows Vista

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 7

Windows 8

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows Server 2008 R2

Windows 7

Adobe CS5 Master Collection

Hardware

Microsoft Express Mouse

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Can an Open-Source Database Threaten Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM?

Time: 08:59 EST/13:59 GMT | News Source: Fortune.com | Posted By: Robert Stein

Talking last week with Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL, took me back to the golden days of 1999. Here was a fresh-faced, unbelievably enthusiastic CEO, raving about the future prospects of his product, just like so many executives I met back in those unreal times. But Mickos has a very real opportunity. The open-source movement has become a major factor across the software industry, and MySQL is the world's most popular open-source database.

Read Only Comments
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 8 of 8

This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com.

#1 By 1642 (205.177.133.219) at Thursday, March 13, 2003 10:21:34 AM

Maybe I just had a bad experience with the developers I was working with on a specific project, but I never want to use MySQL again. Microsoft SQL Server has never failed me.

#2 By 415 (199.8.71.121) at Thursday, March 13, 2003 11:22:02 AM

MySQL doesn't even compare to MS SQL Server (or Oracle), and anyone who thinks these products are equivalent knows nothing, let alone what a modern DBMS actually is.

I would liken MySQL to a client-server version of an MS Access database, and that's probably being a bit generous, because feature-wise MySQL will require 3 years just to match MS SQL 7.0 freatures. Don't be fooled by it's bandwagonesque appeal...

#3 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at Thursday, March 13, 2003 11:23:35 AM

#3 - Exactly.

#4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:50:41 PM

As long as you know the risks, it's a reasonable solution. It's not a great solution, but it's reasonable.

#5 By 6253 (12.237.219.240) at Thursday, March 13, 2003 01:57:14 PM

It's a sad reality that a lot of people who are currently using SQL Server are underutilizing it. This is the natural result of Microsoft commoditizing an otherwise high-end RDBMS. I've seen "enterprise" apps built on SQL Server databases where every single table consisted of varchar (50) columns. Know why? It's the default in the GUI, and 80% of people using Microsoft products use the default because they can and it "seems to work OK." On the other hand, organizations that spend millions on Oracle or DB2 are not about to let ordinary knowledge workers go around creating tables with wizards. Teams of DBAs have to toil for weeks over schema changes.

Because of this, SQL Server has become the most "low hanging fruit" for MySQL to raid users from. For people who don't know what it really means to make online backups with transactional integrity and negligible performance hit, MySQL seems "good enough." For people who don't "get" multidimensional data analysis, MySQL seems "good enough." For people who have no use for distributed queries, MySQL seems "good enough."

In a way, even Microsoft's ease of use has backfired in favor of MySQL. I was talking to someone on the phone who was certified in SQL Server administration but insisted that he couldn't see triggers in Enterprise Manager. I didn't have EM open in front of me, but I told him to right-click the table and find "Manage Triggers." He tells me that it's not there, there's no such thing. I ask, is there an "All Tasks" submenu? Yes, he says. Is it there? Pause...Yes.

In other words, people have gotten so accustomed to being spoonfed by Microsoft products that they're ready to give up as soon as something isn't totally obvious and in-your-face. But in MySQL, people approach every task expecting to look up some arcane command syntax, or to search for a clever script, or even to download an update and port/compile/link for their platform. But that seems easier than looking under the "All Tasks" menu because nobody expects Microsoft to require two clicks. Everybody expects MySQL to be an adventure.

#6 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at Thursday, March 13, 2003 02:26:06 PM

I've used all three and I wouldn't even come close to putting MySQL up with MS SQL or Oracle.

IronCladLou took the words right out of my mouth "MySQL to a client-server version of an MS Access database"

#7 By 415 (68.54.10.120) at Thursday, March 13, 2003 07:27:50 PM

Sybase SQL Server ... Microsoft was in a partnership with Sybase to develop SQL server for OS/2 in 1989, and in 1993 they released 4.3 for Windows NT. They cut ties with Sybase with MS SQL Server 6.0. MSSQL 7.0 was a complete rewrite, and a kick-ass one at that! ;-)

This post was edited by IronCladLou on Thursday, March 13, 2003 at 19:30.

#8 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at Thursday, March 13, 2003 09:34:17 PM

Um, unless something changed recently, MySQL isn't even relational, and for a purpose. They say that relational databases are stupid and there's nothing you can do with RDBMS that you can't do with simple selects <80

Thank you, but I like my constraints and cascades...

replica watches