http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=199534


in reply to OT--Define enterprise please?

I'm not sure why they bothered with this piece. Asking IBM and MS to comment on MySQL -- a product that could steal a whole lot of dollars out of their pockets -- is like asking Coke what they think of Pepsi. If Pepsi was free.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: OT--Define enterprise please?
by charnos (Friar) on Sep 20, 2002 at 17:30 UTC
    I have to agree with perrin here...I especially don't understand the title, "IBM, MS Reject MySQL". It's quite lucid that they would not embrace an Open Source DBMS when MS SQL Server and DB2 are doing fine on their own. In truth, I thought it was more like an educated version of a flame-war you might find on some other site. With incendiary comments on both sides, such as ,'"If Oracle or DB2 is the Cadillac, then we are the Ferrari," Mickos said.' by a MySQL associate, I felt that while articles like this one bring OS into the light, they also put a negative spin on the story often enough.
[reply]
Re: Re: OT--Define enterprise please?
by jlongino (Parson) on Sep 20, 2002 at 17:25 UTC
    I tend to agree. I think the opportunity for a much more interesting piece was overlooked. I wasn't too interested in what either had to say. It would have been much better if the author had focused on what the non-competing vendors had to say. I was somewhat surprised by the closing of Great Bridge though, and hope that it won't have an adverse effect on PostgreSQL. Not that I use it, but the more open-source competition, the better.

    --Jim

[reply]

In Section Meditations