By: ChrisW Again

ChrisW Again — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:20:28 +0000

And another thing… I don’t know why the article is making such a fuss about nasty old open-source, when Oracle has been busy pushing its open-source compatibility in many areas for years, and the same page includes links to lots of Oracle articles and software relating to open-source-ish things like Linux, PHP and Java. Maybe Lewis R. Cunningham just needs to get with the program…

By: ChrisW

ChrisW — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:57:27 +0000

Aw, that’s a bit harsh, isn’t it, especially when our own government ministers can’t seem to tell the difference between open-source and proprietary software? I agree that the article’s author is pretty stupid to pretend Oracle XE is anything other than a proprietary solution. However, its licence does allow it to be used in much the same way as many OS databases are used. Obviously, Oracle are aiming XE at the people who might start out with MySQL e.g. for a prototype web application, but then consider upgrading to a commercial RDBMS as their application matures. The practical limitations on Oracle XE (limit on processors, databse size etc) may not be much of a problem for a prototype app, while the easy upward compatibility might well prove especially tempting to people who already have an investment in Oracle at the enterprise level. And the free support from other users via Oracle TechNet forums is generally excellent and easily on a par with the best OS support forums. Oracle XE is also a great way for developers to play with an easy-to-install and reasonably functional version of Oracle (includes APEX, PL/SQL, Oracle Locator but not Spatial, and so on) free of charge. Oracle XE is a perfectly valid choice for some purposes, but it’s clearly not an open-source solution, just as you say. So I’d say it’s not broken, just differently functional…

Comments on: In which Archaeogeek checks the date in case it’s April Fools

By: ChrisW Again

By: ChrisW