Open Source vs. the Database Vendors 183
bhmit1 writes "BusinessWeek has another spread on open source this week. Among them is an article about open source vs. the database vendors which focused on how businesses are looking to save money with open source (rather than using the source to innovate). From the article: "The databases work fine, but as data volume grows, so do the checks to Oracle, IBM, or Microsoft. Many users aren't clamoring for more features, and some don't even use the bells and whistles they already paid for. They would happily trade some to get their hands on the source code and a better deal." Disclaimer: that quote came from Sony."
Re:Open Source + the Database Vendors (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Open Source + the Database Vendors (Score:2, Informative)
Free (beer) DB2: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/db2/udb/db2ex press/ [ibm.com]
Free (beer) SQL Server: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/express/defa ult.mspx [microsoft.com]
Now what?
Re:Not everyone cares about Coding... (Score:4, Informative)
The Slashdot hive mind may not like the idea of being tied to a particular database or vendor but in the Real World businesses choose their databases carefully and stick with them for a long time, often forever. With this in mind you exploit every single option available when programming and stored procedures along with proper filesystem layout, column indexing and schema design are key to a high performance database.
MySQL at $40 million per year. And that's fine. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, this is a problem for Oracle. Building Larry Ellison's house cost far more than MySQL generates in profit. I drive by the place all the time. Under construction, it looked like a mall. Oracle stock dropped from $50 to $12 while the house project was underway.
Re:It's the data... (Score:3, Informative)