Hi,

What do you feel on the comparison between these 2? Any outline on the
pro's & con's?

Nowadays, we have free versions of proprietary databases coming up like
Oracle Express Edition, MS SQL Server Express & the like. And also we
have a huge list of open-source databases. How do you choose whether to
go for a free version of a closed source database or for an open-source
DB?

Regards,
Raga

Raga wrote:
I'd opt for an Open Source database because it will remain free
perpetually, whereas a closed source may change licensing policies.

Mvh. Michael.
--
Which is more dangerous? TV guided missiles or TV guided families?
I am less likely to answer usenet postings by anonymous authors.
Visit my home page at http://michael.zedeler.dk/

Raga wrote:
there are very good open-source databases. The same is not true for all
types of software, but for databases it is.

It's hard to see many advantages in a closed source design, whereas
there are numerous advantages for open-source. Here are a few points I
can think of.

1) Unless you are willing to pay serious money for it, support on
commercial software is usually much poorer than open-source software.

With commercial software you are usually limited to having someone with
an average or often poor knowledge of the product. If you are reasonably
IT savvy, it quite possible you phone support lines on commercial
software and get someone on the other end who knows less than you. With
free software the developers are often willing to help out.

There are exceptions to this. I find support on Sun's Solaris, which is
free but commercial is *very* good from the community, including Sun
employees on Sun related newsgroups.

2) There are usually limits on the free product. Again taking Sun's
Solaris, some documentation is not available unless you pay for a
support contract.

Patches (with the exception of security ones) are not available so early
unless you are willing to pay for a support contract.

Compare that to Linux, where patches are available free all the time.

I still choose to use Solaris and not Linux, as the goal posts don't
move as much as with Linux, where you will often need a specific kernel
for software A, and a different one for software B.


3) Commercial software may well change the licensing model, as someone
else pointed out.

I found this with Sun's Solaris operating system.

Solaris 2.6 - commercial, no free options.

Solaris 7 (the next release) was free. I think there were limits on the
number of CPUs.

Solaris 8 - Free for up to 8 CPUs.

Solaris 9. This was *supposedly* free, and could be downloaded from
Sun's web site for free.

BUT the free license was so restrictive to make it next to useless if
you wanted to remain fully legal.

For example, the computer had to only be capable of holding one CPU
(irrespective of how many were actually fitted.) The computer had to be
supplied by Sun or an authorised distributor, so you could not buy a
computer from eBay and use the "free" Solaris 9 license.

Solaris 10, is really free, even for commercial use, with no limits on
the number of CPUs.

Solaris 11 - who knows?? It's anyones guess, since it is not available
yet. That is a worry.

4) There are often limits built into free versions of commercial
software. If you reach those limits you have to pay for the non-free
version.

5) Quality is usually higher on free software - particularly on UNIX
platforms.

6) Quality on some commercial software is higher. I find this
particularly on software for the PocketPC (PDA) where the free versions
are often poor. Pay $20 or so and buy the commercial software is much
better.


7) You can have much more peace of mind with open-source software, safe
in the knowledge that it will usually be ported to other platforms and
if the worst comes to the worst you can always pay someone to change it
for you. With commercial software, the company might go bust of simply
refuse to make changes. Then you are totally stuck.

Personally, unless there are compelling reasons for using free versions
of commercial software I would avoid them. And in the case of databases,
there are not compelling reasons.
--
Dave K MCSE.

MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year (AT) domain (DOT) Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)

open source vs closed source:
1. Project requirements vs DB offered functionality
2. Developer previous work experience with DBs including available free
knowledgeable human resources.
3. Customer previous work experience with DBs.
4. Predictable support expenses including possible further changes in
developed app.

If you very well know DB X and then switch to DB Y because Y is
somewhat cheaper then most probably your development expenses will be
much larger than gains you got from cheap DB. On the other hand if it
is long-term investment and for the next project you'll be able to use
Y again then probably it is worth commited finances.
I think rather many times mistake has been done to just blindly looking
in DB expenses and forgetting already existing skills, human resources
and support expenses.

Gints Plivna
http://www.gplivna.eu/