Oracle To Offer A Free Database

An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet News reports that Oracle is likely to announce a free version of its Oracle 10g Database. Oracle Database 10g Express Edition will be free for development and production use, and could even be distributed with other products. What does this mean for the future of MySQL and PostgreSQL?" From the article: "By introducing a free entry-level product, Oracle intends to get more developers and students familiar with its namesake database, Mendelsohn said. Those customers, Oracle hopes, will eventually upgrade to a higher-end version."

what a wimpy database

[defMan (175410)]

Database XE is free for runtime usage with the following limitations:

• Supports up to 4GB of user data (in addition to Oracle system data)
• Single instance only of Oracle Database XE on any server
• Only uses and executes on one processor in any server
• Can use up to 1GB RAM

Re:what a wimpy database

[Professor_UNIX (867045)]

This seems like it's aimed at Microsoft's "free" MSDE rather than open source databases like Postgres or MySQL. The specs are on par with MSDE.

Re:what a wimpy database

[defMan (175410)]

Aha, i didn't know this. That explains the specs a bit more.

I don't see it as competition to opensource offerings, because a) it's not opensource and b) it's extremely limited. It's main use is to install it on a developer machine to make sure they don't mess with the real database.

And anyone considering this for embedded should probably go for sqlite [sqlite.org] instead.

Re:what a wimpy database

[EraserMouseMan (847479)]

You should RTFA. The strategy is directly aimed at gaining more usage from the people who typically would choose MySQL or PostressSql.

Microsoft's SqlServer 2005 express has the same strategy. But Oracle is doing this for the same reason Microsoft is --> they are getting jealous of the Open Source database market share.

My personal prediction is that Oracle's lite version won't catch on because Oracle's db is so dang complicated to set up correctly and the tools stink in comparison.

Re:what a wimpy database

[smitty_one_each (243267)]

The thing about PostGreSQL that trumps the competition, IMHO, is that you can build in support for tools such as Python on the DB server.

PL/pgSQL bears a resemblance to PL/SQL, and both languages are servicable enough. Oracle cooks in its own JVM. While Java is an undeniably powerful tool, one feels relatively enslaved to the JVM, compared to the bliss of simple, clear Python code.

Re:what a wimpy database

[LLuthor (909583)]

PostgreSQL also can embed a JVM for writing stored procudures and user functions and aggregate functions, but its not very well supported (yet). PG does have quite a few companies behind it so I doubt it will stay that way for long.

PG probably has the best language support of all DBs. Is there any major language that doesn't have a PG interface in 8.1?

Re:what a wimpy database

[Goo.cc (687626)]

I believe that these limitations mirrors Microsoft's SQL Server 2005 Express Edition, which is where they probably got them from.

SQL Express

[MajorDick (735308)]

these requirments are nearly Identical to SQLExpress, the renamed MSDE from MS.

But on a windows system WOW is it handy for building apps with embeeded db , (1000 times better than Access, both in performance reliablity and coding for it.)
Hopefully Oragle will make it that easy for Unix/Linux?Solaris development.

Re:what a wimpy database

[Jeppe Salvesen (101622)]

So what? If it comes with the required features, I'll still be able to make sure my product works with Oracle - without paying Oracle a dime. In my view, that's perfectly reasonable - since my customers will buy the expensive Oracle versions..

Re:what a wimpy database

[Dan_Bercell (826965)]

MS has always offered a free database, MSDE

Re:what a wimpy database

[ShootThemLater (5074)]

I think that for embedded database storage, this would be overkill

Not necessarily. Some vendors offer products that use a database to (say) store metadata. It's not unusual for such vendors to only offer support for databases where there is sufficient proven commercial demand - and (right or wrong) in many fields, that means Oracle, DB2, MSSQL. Sure, something like MySQL would be far better suited for embedded use, but that would be a whole other platform to do QC on etc. and it might not make comm

Re:what a wimpy database

[ShootThemLater (5074)]

I'm just thinking of the overhead of Oracle, which may not be that suited to an embedded application. Of course, if this free version has lower hardware requirements, then yes that would be appropriate. However in this case I doubt that this would be suitable for say, mobile devices.

I agree, it has a significant overhead - particularly in memory and disk footprint. I should clarify though - when I referred to mobile use, I was thinking of users with reasonably high end laptops who need to use a database-

It Could Backfire

[obender (546976)]

Unless Oracle puts together a better administration interface than the current bunch of tools people might actually learn to stay away from it.

Re:It Could Backfire

[mysticwhiskey (569750)]

If anyone and his dog could administer an Oracle database, what will happen to the professional Oracle DBA's? THINK OF THE DBA'S!!! ;)

Re:It Could Backfire

[rabel (531545)]

Yeah, well I am an OCP DBA from version 8 through 10g and I'll be the first one to tell you to *keep your mouth shut* It's a piece of cake to manage these databases and the big DBA secret is that any moron can do this job. Oracle goes out of their way to make it all completely freaking whacked-out complicated to do anything, but it's still just command line nonsense. Spend 15 minutes reading the concepts manual, pirate a copy of T.O.A.D. and you can be a DBA too.

You wanna know what it takes to be an Or

Re:It Could Backfire

[kpharmer (452893)]

While it's true that keeping a tiny oracle vanilla database running can be very simple - especially if you don't care much about the data, and aren't developing on it (canned app).

It is not simple to admin if:
- you've got development trying a lot of different ideas - and you're spending all your time researching issues
- you've got a ton of data
- you've got business critical data and need to configure for maximum reliability
- you get into a slightly

Re:It Could Backfire

[oni (41625)]

Have you ever seen a Database "constructed" by someone who knows nothing about Database design?

That would describe 90% of the databases I've ever seen. Then people are amazed when they realize that there are questions that their data CANNOT answer, not because the information isn't there, but because of they way they've organized it.

I'll give examples if anyone is interested.

Re:It Could Backfire

[oni (41625)]

What I've seen a lot of are databases designed by programmers - good programmers too, these guys weren't slouches. They didn't have any formal training in databases or maybe they hadn't paid attention. Programmers tend to approach database design by thinking, "what data structures do I need to get out of this?" Someone more experienced in database design approaches the problem by thinking, "what relationships are here and how do I model them?"

Here's a real-world example. A web-based application that I was hired to extend and maintain included a system for users to exchange the lesson plans they created on the site with other users. In doing this, the users built up something like a buddy list. "These are the people that I often share with." Or you can think of it as being like an address book.

With me so far? OK, the programmer (who was very sharp - probably better at this than I am) approached the database thinking, "what data do I need from this thing," and decided that what he needed was a comma delimited list of userIDs. So he physically stored the buddy list in the database in like a char(500) as a comma delimited list.

That was actually great for what he was doing. He was just showing a user their buddy list. Unfortunately, that isn't normalized. So, there is a question you can ask which can't be answered by the data. That question is, "how many people have userID 50 as one of their buddies?"

See, the correct way of doing this is to have a many-to-many relationship which you implement with a table containing just two columns, userID and BuddyID. So if I'm user 12 and users 13,14, and 15 are my buddies, I have three rows in that table:

UserID BuddyID
12 13
12 14
12 15

Now if I need to ask, "how many people have userID 50 as one of their buddies" I can do select count(*) from X where BuddyID = 50

BTW, I actually fixed this one not by normalizing but with a hack. I appended 0 to the front and back of the buddy list, then I could do select count(*) from user where buddylist like '%,50,%' But hacks aren't how I make my living. I'd prefer to do things the right way. What my boss wanted was, every time you look at this page it shows you who has you set as a buddy. Kind of like what Slashdot does with the "fans" page. If it was normalized, that would be a scan of an indexed column. It would be lighting fast. so fast the page would practically load before you even clicked the link. But doing a "like" on a big char field is slow.

There are I'm sure still other questions that the un-normalized database cannot answer. Also there are problems with deleting users and, the big one, overflowing that char(500). "How many buddies can a person have?" I was asked. "It depends" I said. If all my buddies are low number IDs, I can have a lot. If my buddies are high number IDs, I can have fewer. It's all just huge mess! Of course, it worked according to the original specification though.

I have a lot of respect for the guy who wrote it. And I'm not tooting my own horn either. I've have other people look at databases I've designed and just torn them to pieces. This is just one example where I just happen to know that he did it the wrong way.

OK support in Visual Studio

[spectrokid (660550)]

Actually their new plug in for Visual Studio is not bad at all. Personally I think it is better then JDevelloper, provided you don't code Java, of course. The main thing I have against Oracle is that I can't make e.g. an Access file which works out of the box on every computer. You always need to get the drivers set up properly first, and you can't do that without (local) administrator rights. That is where MS (obviously) can shamelessly profit from their monopoly.

SQL For Fun?

[Goo.cc (687626)]

I've been meaning to ask this for a while on Slashdot, but how many people here use a SQL database as part of a hobby or for fun?

I currently have PostgeSQL running on my Tiger box. I initially installed it just to experiment with SQL and database normalization, but now I keep my comic book inventory on it. (I know that this is like swatting a fly with a nuclear weapon but I enjoy using PostgreSQL and it is FREE software.)

As for Oracle's announcement, I think that it can be a good thing, provided you are willing to live with their restrictions and only need support for Linux (x86?) and Windows.

Re:SQL For Fun?

[Dystopian Rebel (714995)]

I initially installed it just to experiment with SQL and database normalization, but now I keep my comic book inventory on it.

Welcome to /. O Kindred Spirit! Your journey has been long, but now you have found us and you may rest.

I know that this is like swatting a fly with a nuclear weapon

That's a game scheduled for release at Christmas.

Move along, move along ...

[Daniel Dvorkin (106857)]

... this is crippleware. It's no threat to MySQL, PostgreSQL, or any other open source DBMS, because the developers of those databases are working to put as many features as possible into their free products, while Oracle is deliberately taking features out. This will probably be a good resource for people who want to learn Oracle on their own time, or organizations already using Oracle that want to test a new rollout without having to pay additional fees via Oracle's baroque pricing scheme, but that's about it.

Re:Move along, move along ...

[popeyethesailor (325796)]

Well, Oracle has always been freely available for non-production use.. They even mail out their entire range of software(DB, App server,dev tools etc) free of cost.

I once received 10g for linux, and the box had every latest release of Oracle software for Linux. They're quite developer-friendly; just as MS is. For production use however..

Re:Move along, move along ...

[Daniel Dvorkin (106857)]

Sounds to me like the difference is that you're allowed to use this new edition for (limited) production use as well. Now, I'm sure there are a ton of small shops currently using the free, "non-production" edition for production apps, but of course they're not really supposed to; this gives them a legal route. But I still think the deliberately crippled nature of the product makes it unattractive relative to the open source contenders, in terms that even PHB's will understand: "Boss, if we go with 'free' Oracle, we're going to run into that disk space limit pretty fast, and then we'll have to pay $$$."

Re:Move along, move along ...

[electroniceric (468976)]

Oracle also has a number of certifications that make it very attractive in certain industries like defense, healthcare, etc. I work in the medical field, and a free 4GB-max "validated" Oracle database is a huge boon to a wide variety of medical ISV's. Given that's it free to redistribute, the OSS/proprietary thing kind of takes a backseat for a lot of these ISVs.

By the same token, I also don't think it's going to drive sales in the way they think it will. Databases are slowly but surely going commodity, at least at the lower end of the market, and this merely reinforces that trend. And along with that, there's an increasingly robust set of tools to obviate the differences between these database for most uses that don't demand extreme peformance, from Hibernate and ORM packages to ADODB and other database-independence layers in PHP to .NET's layered data architecture.

As a Postgres user, I'm hopeful that Sun's proclaimed interest in Postgres will result in this kind of "validation". However, given Sun's reputedly somewhat lackadaisical commitment to staffing OOo, I'm not holding my breath. With Postgres' extensibility and extremely high-caliber core developer base, I think a strong commitment to validation by Sun could make it a real contender in the medium enterprise space. Validate it, clean up a few features (notably auto-vacuum and passable auto-tuning, maybe some multi-master replication), throw in a simple deployment for ORM or database indirection, and you've effectively moved that commoditization up one layer from the small website developer level.

In the long run, I don't see how this gets Oracle out of the need to transition its core revenue off of its database licenses.

Re:Move along, move along ...

[KiloByte (825081)]

The problem with Oracle is, it doesn't scale at all. It is meant to do grid computing, but can't really do anything smaller.

How often do you need to use a cluster for your data? If you are a major organization, then you will, but the majority of installations are pretty small. Firewall/website logs. Customer data. And so on.

I have once developed a workshift-tracking application for a company with around 200 employees. A couple of years later, the total data takes 17MB. Why would you use Oracle if MySQL works faster and takes 1% of the resources? A minimal installation of Oracle 10g takes ~800MB of memory, and will take over ten hours to install on a machine with 512MB ram, on the other hand, on my firewall (486, 32MB ram) MySQL can handle Apache logs (only about 200k hits, though) taking a split second for any reasonable query.

Oracle works better for clusters.
MySQL works better for a single machine.

MySQL is a lot faster. Oracle takes distributed processing a lot better.
But uhm, where does a crippled version fit in the picture?

They must own stock in Maxtor

[by Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, Oracle has bought a major disk drive company. Have you ever downloaded or tried to install Oracle? It's easily 10 Gigs of useless crud, wrapped around a few CD's of material actually relevant to your particular setup. For Linux, they publish it as a set of binary bundles that have to be strung together so that you can *then* take apart the tarball. What a waste of disk space!

The approach shows up in everything they do. Build a huge, conglomerated edifice of software to provide the one brick you actually need, rather than keeping components modular and portable. It's like making people install a whole radio station just to get a pair of headphones.

Re:They must own stock in Maxtor

[quantum bit (225091)]

Uhm, no. It isn't that big at all. About 2 gig for the db server.

2 gig?!?!?! For a DB server?! Not big at all?!!!!!

$ ls -l /usr/ports/distfiles/postgresql/

-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 7825300 Oct 3 20:25 postgresql-base-8.0.4.tar.bz2
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2227623 Oct 3 20:26 postgresql-docs-8.0.4.tar.bz2
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 389944 Apr 10 2005 postgresql-jdbc-8.0-311.src.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 133881 Oct 3 20:26 postgresql-opt-8.0.4.tar.bz2

But will it be easy to install?

[samuel4242 (630369)]

The main reason I like MySQL is it works five minutes after I finish downloading it. And it's much smaller than Oracle so I can download it quickly. I spent two days trying to make Oracle work on an Linux box and it never did. The price ain't the only reason I like open source. :-)

And you thought Bill was the Prince of Darkness

[flipper65 (794710)]

By all means, dive into Oracle, it will be a pleasure to see the Ellison flames replace the Gates flames.

Everybody's doing it

[Dekortage (697532)]

So MySQL and PostgreSQL have been free... then IBM announces a free version of DB2... then Microsoft says it's going to release SQL Server Express for free. So Oracle is playing catch-up. I wouldn't expect a major migration from MySQL to anything else; the conversion costs would be too high. But in the future, choice is a good thing.

Re:MS has always offered free SQL Server

[LLuthor (909583)]

MS Access is "supposed" to be the interface to it. Access is actually a very nice interface and handles all of the SQL Server (2000) features extremely well, from simple views to complex stored procedures and macros.

I haven't yet had a chance to play around with SQL Server 2005, but I understand that the entire .NET framework and runtime has been deeply integrated with it, and as such, all .NET languages can be used to create first class database objects like stored procedures, and even custom data types.

Smart move, but it could be a trap :)

[OpenSourced (323149)]

I think that's a smart move by Oracle. From a long time ago they have allowed full download of their databases for testing purposes. I have a copy of Oracle 9 running in my machine to make tests of software I develop. So my customers with Oracle have better service. Probably some copies of the database will end up as production units, but few companies will trust its bussiness data to an illegal piece of software.

So Oracle has realized that the free availability hasn't cut into their sales. The next step is logical. You give away an entry-level database (entry-level users would probably use an illegal copy, or worse, an open source db), and then wait till the needs grow and they need the real thing. If the needs don't grow, well, who need those little-bussiness-that-don't-grow as customers, anyway ?

I see the thing as mainly good for the users and developers. Of course it'll cut into Open Source databases, but they'll still have their niche. After all, you should be careful with what you do with this free Oracle. Oracle can change its mind in two year's time and leave you with all your data and processes in a database that won't be supported or upgraded anymore. You'd have fallen into Oracle's trap. That's much more difficult to happen with an Open Source database.

Will Separate FOSS Fans From Freebie Fans

[reallocate (142797)]

Offering gratis but capable versions of closed proprietary software may or may not turn out to be a good marketing move, but it would certainly separate those who like FOSS from those who like freebies. Given the fact that the vast majority of FOSS users have no interest in modifiying source code, or the capability, I suspect most of us fall into the freebie camp.

Super!

[Lao-Tzu (12740)]

As a software developer in the petroleum industry, I find that all of our clients use Oracle for their database needs. The release of this product will allow us to test and tweak applications to work against Oracle without purchasing the database. This works out great for us. I don't want to use Oracle in any way, but now I have the capability to use it in the most minimal way that will allow me to sell and support software.

My prefered database system is PostgreSQL. It would seem that no level of marketing skill can convince anyone in this industry that Free Software has value. Funny...

As long it's not free-as-in-speech...

[vhogemann (797994)]

I'll not touch it.

Not trying to be a troll here, but why use Oracle when they won't support our Distro of choice (Debian)?

At work we have good experiences with Firebird, we have several databases, some over 1.6GB size, with more than 50 concurrent connections. And there was no downtime or corruption problems since the thing went to production, almost 3 years now.

Ok, Oracle has big advantages over Firebird. But they're worth moving away from Debian, a distro we trust and are confortable with? Are these advantages worth the extra money spent on licences for Oracle and it's supported Linux distros?

I work at a public institution, the healthcare department of Rio de Janeiro City, and there's barely enought money to run the hospitals, to buy medicine and such. Sure we could use this free Oracle, but we made such a long way until now using only OpenSource solutions. Why would we change now?

Just my 2c.

Expect more of this..

[ahodgkinson (662233)]

Given the perceived popularity of MySQL, Oracle obviously feels it needs to react in order to prevent a slide in its market share. This is interesting, given that Oracle is one of the world's largest software companies and makes most of its money selling top-end systems to large enterprises, which isn't (yet) MySQL's playing field.

MySQL is good enough for many smaller software projects and is therefore capturing mind share in the developer world. Oracle obviously realizes this leads to a trickle up effect as software developers with MySQL experience will probably start to recommend it for other, larger, projects.

Oracle is trying counteract this by attempting to capture developer's mind share, rather than battling directly for market share. This is a long-term strategy and its success will depend on how well Oracle interacts and reacts with the Open Source developer community.

From the few comments posted here, mainly those stating how big and complex the Oracle system is, I wonder if Oracle actually gets it. If the learning (and administering) curve is really that steep, Oracle may be better off if it releases a light (in size and complexity) version that is easy to get up and running on small projects. A second recommendation would be to make sure Oracle 10 is included by default on most popular Linux distributions (which will be difficult, given it's size and complexity).

While I am impressed by Oracle's move, I'll be surprised if it gets them the gains they are hoping for. I don't think they realize the commitment this move will require in the Open Source world in order to be successful. Open Source is one of the few playing fields where actions still count more than PR.

This makes me wonder if another major software company will follow with a drastic reaction when the Linux desktop and the Open Office suite are truly ready for prime time.

We live in interesting times!

Still has restrictions

[waif69 (322360)]

If you look at the EULA you will see that this has a time restriction. "...provided to you by Oracle solely for evaluation purposes until January 31, 2006."

Obviously this is just a ploy to get developers to write apps on Oracle then, when the application has gotten fat, they will have to pay the fees for a version of Oracle that can support the app or rewrite the whole thing.

I think that only good reason to obtain 10g is to learn Oracle. If I was working at a company that was moving to Oracle, or at least talking about it, I would DL this to learn it for improved job opportunities.

Just my $.02.

Question

[CaptainZapp (182233)]

Could this be a badly disguised jab at the good burgers from Sybase [sybase.com], who offer their flagship product, slightly restricted, under the name Adaptive Server Enterprise Express Edition (cough) [sybase.com] (Link takes you to the registration form) since almost a year?

In my opinion Oracle is one of the least trustworthy software vendors and I sure as hell wouldn't bank my company on them, regardless of the price they ask.

What does this mean for [...] MySQL and PostgreSQL

[doedel (852791)]

Well, it doesn't affect them at all. And not Mr. Mendelsohn got that wrong but TFA and our /. poster.

You could download and test Oracle's DBs for free for quite a while - but only now you can use them for free in a production environment. That's clearly aimed at MS' offerings like MSDE and SQL Server Express and not at MySQL or PostgreSQL.

Also Oracle is an enterprise DB and MySQL, PostgreSQL or even MS SQL Server can not be compared to it in that regard. This also means you need trained staff to administer it - forget about just downloading and using it. Tried to get a demo of Oracle's XML Publisher working - I know what I'm talking about ;-).

So if your shop is already using Oracle's DBs this is a nice offer for the occasional small project. But for everyone else, just stay with what you know and love - whether it's MySQL, PostgreSQL, MS SQL Server or something else.

Tester's heaven

[Craig Ringer (302899)]

Whether or not you'd like to use Oracle yourself, this is good news for software developers. It means they can deploy and test against a running version of Oracle with no need to worry about "developer program" memberships, trials that expire, and similar crud.

This'll be very helpful for me in ensuring that my code is portable across databases (at least PostgreSQL and Oracle).

I.T. departments will approve

[mnemotronic (586021)]

Many companies have dedicated I.T. departments with at least a few people who are Oracle admins. Once a company has faith in a product (or has built s significant infrastructure upon a product), it becomes very difficult to switch the foundation. Giving away a small edition that would, from the sales pitch, appear to compete head-on with MySql and PostGRE, is a smart move. Take the case of a company where there are developers considering or starting their own "stealth" db apps - I don't mean the Oracle db admins, I mean the engineer who read about PHP and MySql and wants to try a small task-tracking system for his group. She or he knows that the company uses, and has blessed Oracle, so that might lend some weight to using the XE package rather than the "unproven" (from the IT department's point of view) FOSS database. In addition, Oracle has an enormous amount of administrative tools and documentation. MySQL and PostGRE really can't compare in that arena (IMHO). The downside, in my experience, is that Oracle administration really does require someone who has take a heap of Oracle admin classes.

Re:First Post

[badfish99 (826052)]

If MySQL will do what you want, then you don't need Oracle.

But if your database is really big enough to need Oracle, then MySQL certainly won't be in the running as an alternative.

Re:First Post

[kpharmer (452893)]

> If MySQL will do what you want, then you don't need Oracle.

Not necessarily true, the idea of 'just use the best tool for the job' is very myopic. For exammple, in a 500-person organization with say, twenty database servers, has a need for consistency. Why? Because otherwise they waste a lot of time:
- training dbas and developers on sql extentions and limitations
- training dbas on multiple database backup and restore methods, issues, and management
- manag

Re:First Post

[kcelery (410487)]

it is interesting to find that no one is suggesting 'a beowulf cluster of free Oracles'.

What features do you need?

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

"... I always come up against limitations that I can't live with..."

May I ask, what features do you need that aren't in SQLite [sqlite.org] or PostgreSQL [postgresql.org]?

Another question: I wonder if the free version of Oracle will work with Compiere ERP + CRM [sourceforge.net], at least for testing?

Here is a Comparison of Oracle, MySQL and PostgreSQL DBMS [fnal.gov].

ZDNet article: Oracle to offer free database [zdnet.com].

I was not able to find the list of limitations on the Oracle web site. Anyone?

Re:What features do you need?

[Jaseoldboss (650728)]

It's in the Data Sheet (pdf warning).

http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database /xe/pdf/dbxe_datasheet.pdf [oracle.com]

• Available on 32-bit Linux and Windows
• Installs using native installers
• English (single byte character set) and International (Unicode) versions available with support for 10 major languages
• Supports up to 4GB of user data
• Utilizes a single CPU on multi-processor or multi-core machines
• Can use up to 1GB RAM (single instance only)
• Fully upgradeable to other Oracle Database 10g editions
• Ora

Re:First Post

[Zathrus (232140)]

Oracle is a rubbish dinosaur that hasnt aged all that well

And this is insightful?

It's a baseless accusation. The poster doesn't even attempt to provide any proof for it. Oracle is continuously leads the pack in benchmarks, it has more features than you can shake a stick at, is incredibly stable, and has features that MySQL is just starting to catch up with (wow, MySQL finally got views! How wonderfully 1980s.)

coz IBM said if it dont do what you want, work round to it. Oracle said, ok we'll patch it.

So suddenly not adding features and refusing to respond to your userbase is a good thing? No wonder IBM's lost most of the market outside of mainframes and minis.

MySQL is excellent for what it is, a website database server

Well this much is true at least. But I still wouldn't use it much beyond a toy website. PostgreSQL or Firebird are better for the same price -- both in features and in stability/reliability.

cant see many php developers going to the trouble of using oracle

The trouble? You clearly don't know what you're talking about now. Oracle is far easier/better to write SQL for since it's both more flexible and closer to the SQL "standard" (and that's a pretty sad statement). There's also far more information out there for help with Oracle than there is with MySQL, not to mention that Oracle is something very useful to put on your resume/CV -- MySQL isn't totally unknown anymore, but Oracle is still better as far as that goes.

Now if you want to rightfully bash Oracle then talk about their miserable installer and bundled administration tools. They suck. They've always sucked. And they're not getting better IMO. Oracle's on a buying spree right now, and I so wish that they'd buy out Quest Software and bundle TOAD (Windows) or tORA (*nix) with their servers. The Java crap they use now blows. The other (and related) issue is that administering an Oracle server can be a daunting task, and there's not a great deal of (free) literature available for it. Oragle 10g has made strides here with the database doing a lot of self-fixing and tuning, but it could be better (or at least better documented). Of course, one reason that MySQL doesn't need as much here is because there simply as much that can be done to it. Flexibility has a price.

PHP and Oracle

[sinkemlow (843906)]

Exactly. I'm an amature PHP coder, which means I cut my teeth on PHP and MySQL. Last year, however, I was forced into a position where I needed to working with an Oracle database. I spent a couple of hours reading up on OCI8 and after a quick recompile of PHP, I was working with the Oracle database through PHP.

After getting the basic framework of the PHP application together, my reaction was, "Wow, so this is what they mean when they say *real* database." I had very little difficulties working with the new database, and very quickly began to appreciate the extra features Oracle had to offer. After about a week of working with Oracle, I found it quite hard to fall back into the old PHP+MySQL routine (although the mysqli extension has made this easier).

So I would say the average PHP light coder should have no problems transitioning to an Oracle database. I sure didn't.

Re:Oracle Licensing

[mzito (5482)]

Oracle is licensed by the processor or by "named user", not by simultaneous connections. For standard edition, its $15k per processor, or $300 per database user (plus a minimum of 5 users). For enterprise edition its $40k per processor or $800 per named user, with a minimum of 25 named users per processor in the system. This is before you add any of the expensive options like RAC, Partioning, etc. that can add $20k each to the price.

There's also standard edition one, which is cheaper than either and supports some of the advanced features of both. It's designed to compete with some of the SQL server shops that have HA requirements but aren't willing to pay for oracle enterprise edition.

Of course, all of these prices are list, and for good negotiators, discounts upwards of 50% off list are not uncommon.

Thanks,
Matt