Spending Time to Save $$$ or Spending $$$ to Save Time...

Mårten Mickos the CEO of MySQL hit upon a key trend occurring in the web core which is also known as SAAS, web hosting services,  the internet cloud, etc. . "Some people spend time to save $$$ and some people spend $$$ to save time."  In the open source arena the majority of folks (actually it's a pretty vast majority) are spending the time to save the $$$.  50,000 downloads a day of the most popular open sourced database is an eye opener.  That certainly sounds like a vibrant and active community to me!  People who help develop, enhance, promote, utilize, advocate, lead, govern, market, plan, discuss, etc. There is power in numbers  Are individuals using this database?  Yes in the droves.  Are companies using the database?  Wikipedia, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, SecondLife are using MySQL.  Would banks be interested in this technology alternative?  That is a good question.  Are some enterprise companies experimenting with CentOS today?  The answer is "yes."  Can you purchase commercial grade support on CentOS?  It is probably a barrier for certain application deployments in the enterprise today.  Seems like the potential is there... Commercial grade support from a Fortune 500 company can broaden the reach to new customers. A company that  generates new technology rather than simply gather and glue technology together in a distro can be an advantage as well as an attraction.

Does an open source business model want to shift enterprise customers from spending the time to spending the $$$.  Of course. When those customers are ready to do so on their terms because it is a business decision.  Think of "free" but drop the letter 'r' (for me it's easy since I'm from Boston) and you have "fee" for commercial grade deployment-- which typically means support, various service offerings and SLAs.  If you become "the" largest open source company in the world you drive for new and repeat customers via opportunities not by mouse traps.  Opportunities are generated by downloads, partners, OEMs and direct sales.  While the MySQL acquisition is subject to closing and regulation approvals it is clearly a move that complements nicely an existing software business that is growing.

How much data is currently being stored via this relational database?  I imagine it is many tables of stored data and many more tables of the relations between those tables of stored data.  Can MySQL help drive synergies with storage products and other offerings? 

A big yes.

This is making too much sense.


Comments:

"Wikipedia, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, SecondLife are using MySQL. Would banks be interested in this technology alternative?"

NO. Banks would never go for it. Banks molest and rape databases with such violence that MySQL would never survive it; it's a miracle Oracle does, but even Oracle sometimes barely makes it.

Banks need such high level of support, even Oracle support can barely cope with it; and even Sun, with their renown quality of support, wouldn't be able to provide \*that\* kind of support that Oracle has to cope with.
When a bank tells Oracle "jump", Oracle asks "how high"? Sun does not have that kind of mentality, and Sun is not organized in such a way as to be able to cope with it.

Besides, banks use Oracle functionality which MySQL doesn't even yet have on a roadmap. ASM, RAC, DG, OID, AWR, advanced authentication, PL/SQL native compilation, ...

MySQL is a mere toy compared to Oracle.

Posted by UX-admin on February 02, 2008 at 06:52 AM EST #

PCs and UNIX were at one time referred to as toys and snake oil...

Posted by guest on February 02, 2008 at 08:37 AM EST #

PCs at one time couldn't even come close in performance or features of a Commodore Amiga.

Commodore busted and PC kept evolving, but the point here is, unlike Commodore, Oracle isn't going away. So even if more cash is thrown into MySQL development, MySQL would be able to beat Oracle only if we assume Oracle will stand still.

Which Oracle won't. Besides, it will take tons and tons of cash and years of development for MySQL to just catch up to Oracle in terms of Oracle's features today. By that time, Oracle will have long moved on.

Posted by UX-admin on February 02, 2008 at 07:27 PM EST #

counter point is never say "never" in high tech. time is very good at waiting most things out.

Posted by guest on February 03, 2008 at 03:23 AM EST #

Yeah, now you just have to figure out what to do with all that business logic for mission critical business processing emdedded in the DB via PL/SQL, tuned to insanity by expensive consultants, and bound deeply to the ways Oracle functions.

Why would a bank go out of her way to migrate to some MySQL when she invested hundreds of millions into running her business on an Oracle database?

Who is going to migrate all that deeply embedded PL/SQL business logic?

And who is going to pay for it?

And how many more hundreds of millions is it going to cost, per bank?

Posted by UX-admin on February 07, 2008 at 09:51 AM EST #

Why would a bank go out of her way to migrate to some MySQL when she invested hundreds of millions into running her business on an Oracle database?
Because everything a bank invest in have to show up on the "bottom line"
So If the could save some 100 Millions a year on removing Oracle, trust me in time they will...

Posted by guest on February 22, 2008 at 12:17 AM EST #

Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.
About

The blog of Bob Porras - Vice President, Data, Availability, Scalability & HPC for Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Search

Categories
Archives
« April 2014
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
   
       
Today