Microsoft Plays Up Open Source

An anonymous reader writes "Recently Microsoft's open source software lab posted PostgreSQL on Windows: A Primer. Postgres is one of the longest running open source databases — it has been around for nearly 11 years. The powerful object-relational database is a direct competitor to other OSS databases, as well as Microsoft's SQL Server 2005. So why is Microsoft promoting it? I get Redmond's interest in boosting anything that runs on Windows as a platform. Is this simply a case of left-hand, right-hand, or is something deeper going on?"

maybe databases aren't profitable?

[belmolis]

It is widely reported that Microsoft makes its money on Windows and Office. The other products earn little or even lose money. If this is true, it may make sense for Microsoft to attract people to Windows or keep them using Windows, by supporting PostgresSQL, even if it reduces their sales of their own database.

My enemies' enemies are my friends

[pablodiazgutierrez]

Obviously, MS is interested in weakening the position of any competitor. In this case, Oracle is a bigger player in the databases market than MS ever dreamed to be. Therefore, helping PostgreSQL damages the competition more than it does damage MS itself, which is a win for them, in terms of market share and potential risks due to loss of control over that market. Kind of the same reason why IBM supports PostgreSQL and other OSS in detriment of its own products.

Re:What's going on here?

[Nadsat]

Right--This is not news. Nothing is going on here. They are not promoting PostgreSQL at all. There is no real promotion period. I'm not sure how one would come to that conclusion (other than conspiracy fears). The website is simply a set of installation guidelines. A guide to help keep people happy with Windows OS and not leave.

Re:maybe databases aren't profitable?

[ChatHuant]

It is widely reported that Microsoft makes its money on Windows and Office. The other products earn little or even lose money

No, it isn't reported, and no, other products do make (lots of) money. It's very easy to look it up too: the breakdown of earnings per division can be found here [microsoft.com]. You can see that out of 5 divisions, 3 are operating at a gain, and two at a loss. The Entertainment and Devices Division (XBox) and Online Services Business (MSN) are in the red. Windows, Office and SQL Server are in the black

The business division of interest for this particular article is Server And Tools, makers of SQL Server. Here's what Business Week says about this division here [businessweek.com]: Microsoft's server and tools business, long Microsoft's lone growth engine, had another blowout period, posting its 18th consecutive quarter of double-digit growth. Its SQL server database software posted particularly sharp gains, up 30% for the period. That helped the division's sales jump 17% to $2.9 billion

Re:maybe databases aren't profitable?

[ChatHuant]

the figures you cite ... don't in any way refute my statement as to what is widely reported.

Uhh... Yes, they do. Sorry.

Here, for example, is a report of the type that I mentioned, which is the first hit returned by Google on "Microsoft profit breakdown Office Windows".

If you had bothered to look at the article you're citing you may have observed it was published in 2002. Long past its shelf life, in an industry as dynamic as software.

You will of course note that I indicated that I didn't know whether the reports were true. Don't be so quick to criticize.

You posted false information (even if you got moderated informative) and I corrected you. That's not criticism. It's more like a public service.

Re:Non-native

[tgl]

"Cygwin is required"? Apparently you haven't actually looked at Postgres in a few years. There's been a native port since PG 8.0.

Re:What's going on here? - But MSSQL is free too!

[killjoe]

MSSQL is only free if your database is smaller then four gigs. On the other hand DB/2 is free no matter how much data you have.

Re:Microsoft strongly prefers BSD license to GPL

[Swordfish]

You're right. You beat me to the comment. Postgres is not a threat in the sense that MySQL is. Also MySQL takes money away from MS and puts it in their own bank account, whereas Postgres does not build up a cash-hoard that can be used against MS later. Postgres is really free, as opposed to GPL, which signifies ownership by "the community". A Few years ago, MS said very publically what their list of okay licences was. That list included BSD, but did not include GPL or the Artistic licence.

Re:What's going on here?

[DrXym]

PostgreSQL is easy peasy to install on Windows, so I don't see why anyone would even think of leaving Windows just to use it. It has a nice installer which includes pgAdmin, compiled help manual and drivers for Java, ODBC and .NET. I've even hooked it up to Open Office Base before now.

My only wish is that they'd produce a PostgreSQL Engine version - basically PostgreSQL without the help or extraneous fluff which automatically installs without icons or anything. The DB is far, far smaller that MSDE (cut down MS SQL Server 2000) or MS SQL Server Express 2005, has most of the same features and no restrictions on use or database capacity. I work on a project that uses MSDE and the thing is a bitch to configure and make work. If I didn't have 1000+ SQL statements and 1 million lines of C++ to port, I would switch to PostgreSQL in an instant.

Still doesn't make much sense that MS should promote it though.

Re:I just corrected this myth here yesterday!

[bmo]

"Again (and again, and again ..) the antitrust case against MS was a civil one. MS hasn't been convicted of anything and isn't a criminal."

Riiiiight.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/us c_sec_15_00000002----000-.html [cornell.edu]

Seeya.

--
BMO

Re:Nothing to see.

[StrawberryFrog]

Seriously, people who can get by with Postgres wouldn't buy SQL server anyway - it's not even in the same league.

Most people who use databases don't make much use of the advanced features. This is why MySQL is even in the market. I like MS SQL server a lot - it's good DB server, but most of the stuff done on it could just as easily be done on PostgreSQL. Good old select, insert, update, delete covers a lot of ground. The pressure with commercial software is to add new features in new versions, regardless of if they are needed or not.

Re:Nothing to see.

[JohnFluxx]

I disagree specifically with "people who can get by with Postgres wouldn't buy SQL server anyway" - I think the problem is that people _do_ use SQL server when they can get by with Postgres.

On a different note, I've never liked the idea of having a heavy database - i.e. one with code procedures etc. It seems to make more sense to keep the database as just a database and implement your model logic in the model classes of what ever access it. That way you can change the database fairly easily and aren't tied completely to one particular database system.