>From where I am in corporate land, many of the corporations using this will >either be large and have many DBAs to support many different types of >databases or they will be small Linux shops that have a very open source >mentality. Either way, they (we) are very much desiring a low cost alternative >to Oracle. In this economy, many, if not all, corporations are looking to >pinch every penny they can. Oracle is an easy way to do so. If the Spacewalk >project isn't careful, we will drive many of these corporations away. If a >company is putting in a Spacewalk server, they are looking to save money. >Generally speaking, if they are willing to pull for an Oracle database, most >would be willing to pull for a Satellite server rather than a Spacewalk server >because the Satellite server comes with support. In general, those >implementing Spacewalk have the mental prowess to install and manage a >PostgreSQL server by themselves anyhow. Anymore these days, corporations are >not necessarily looking to consolidate all their databases, they are looking >to consolidate the ones that cost them money due to the benefits they receive >if they do. I would definitely echo Duncan's comment that PostgreSQL should be >the primary focus for development and Oracle should be kept around at most as >a supported environment but definitely not a heavily developed one.
Jonathan Hooker Desktop Support - Engineering Garmin International [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andy Speagle Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-devel] Moving postgres support forward El mar, 04-05-2010 a las 04:27 -0500, [email protected] escribió: > I'd echo this sentiment. Having worked on a number of large corporate > Satellite installations, I can't think of a single client who wouldn't > jump at the chance of ditching the extra Oracle licenses involved. Indeed... but many larger organizations won't even blink at this license. > Maintaining support for an Oracle back end may be a requirement, but > from my own experience, moving to PostgreSQL as the primary > development effort would not raise any eyebrows in corporate-land. It > would also help broaden the appeal of Spacewalk amongst the open > source development community as coders for other distros will likely > (IMO) view the Oracle dependency as a blocker to them investing their > time. Opening the path for other distros to develop Spacewalk as > their management tool can only be a good thing I reckon. I will be quite happy to see the database options expand, but I assert that many organizations standardize their database environments and build a wealth of support infrastructure around them. Having to implement a new database architecture to support Spacewalk/Satellite could be quite unpalatable. Unless I'm mistaken, reducing administrative overhead is one goal of the spacewalk/satellite projects. The addition of another database architecture to support would be counter-productive for some organizations. While I agree that opening doors for smaller organizations to use the products on PostgreSQL is desirable, I would not like to see this happen as the expense of the existing user base. -- Andy Speagle Systems & Storage Administrator UCATS - Wichita State University O: 316.978.3869 C: 316.617.2431 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
