Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)
Posted Oct 19, 2006 4:17 UTC (Thu) by drag
In reply to: Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)
Parent article: Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)
I don't know a whole lot about database stuff, but I think I sometimes see the trends going on in software on a larger scale.
People said very similar things about Solaris vs Linux just a few years ago. I remember reading people saying that no real DB admin would ever consider using Linux for anything important and that commodity servers would never come close to being able to handle the same workloads that large Sparc servers can handle.
Nowadays more databases run on Linux then anything else in Unix-land. At least this seems true when you look at Oracle DB sales and such.
Also what about Oracle buying both InnoBase and Sleepycat?
While it is true that Oracle may be wanting to get into 'OSS'-land a bit more, what is definately true is that those companies produced the only database engines that enable MySQL to support transactions. It looks like Oracle was worried about MySQL going after it's low-hanging fruit.
But now Mysql openned up it's database engine plugin support for a whole host of other database stuff, including original bdb and innodb but also adding soliddb support and their own new Falcon stuff. This gives MySQL very flexible setup, it looks like.
I donno. It just seems that it's not worth just dismissing Mysql.
to post comments)