Thanks for the thoughtful replies, and the context - I'm mostly in agreement, and do hope that both Oracle and Microsoft step up as corporate sponsors (not to mention other companies that have been sold for eight or nine figures).
My hope is that we can give credit where credit is due, and acknowledge that Microsoft has made significant strides as an open-source partner. I want to encourage this behavior, as I've witnessed a change since Satya Nadella came on board. They have made life much easier for many of us in the Django community. My reply was primarily due to what I perceived as overly-harsh comments which don't seem to reflect the current-day Microsoft. Take care, Tim On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 2:23:35 PM UTC-4 f.apo...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Tim, > > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 5:02:00 PM UTC+2 Tim Allen wrote: > >> The DB popularity index at db-engines.com has regularly listed the top >> four as Oracle, MySQL, Microsoft SQL Server, and PostgreSQL, in that order. >> I notice some comments in this thread about Microsoft being for-profit... >> well, what about Oracle? I don't see Oracle on the Support Django page >> either, yet two of their databases have support in core. MSSQL is the only >> one of the big-four RDBMS's without support in core Django. That seems to >> be a pretty big hole in Django's offering. >> > > I understand that comparing to existing databases seems like to make an > argument for MSSQL but it is not that easy. First off, Django was released > way earlier than Oracle acquired MySQL -- I think it is understandable that > we do not simply drop support for a database just because Oracle buys it. > Postgres and MySQL (or now MariaDB) are both easily installable via every > Linux distribution and have been there since the beginning. Support for > Oracle itself (iirc) was added because the team at that point in time > thought it would enable Django to get access to areas where it hadn't > access before. Oracle itself has (imo) been proven to be quite a burden > over time and there had been discussion about removing it from core more > than once. > > Truth to be told, if the inclusion request for MSSQL gets serious we will > have to start a discussion about whether or not we simply nuke all database > backends (aside from sqlite maybe) from core. I'd be slightly in favor of > simply setting a policy for core that it should only include backends of > OSS databases. Why? Because it is way easier to install those on various > systems than their commercial alternatives (even if there are test licenses > and possibly free containers around there). > > >> They have put a lot of time and effort into this project, and I think >> they're well on their way to where they need to be for the long-term goal >> of being in core Django. > > > I applaud to that, but I still do not understand why a well maintained > database backend needs to be inside core? And I am not just talking about > database backends here, we are saying no to pretty much every library > inclusion. > > >> A lot of the questions being asked of Microsoft in this thread just don't >> seem fair to me - we're not asking the same of Oracle, Redis Enterprise >> Software, or any of the other commercial products that Django has built-in >> support for. Why Microsoft and not the others? >> > > We are asking Oracle but we are also not getting far, and simply kicking > it out is not something we do easily. As for Redis, as far as I am > concerned (and to the extend we support it) is open source. > > Cheers, > Florian > >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/efd08dee-e86f-4fef-a39a-5fb89448fc48n%40googlegroups.com.
