Except that this particular market segment is almost certainly better off with an open source DB.
Also: why is MySQL always the "reference implementation" for database comparisons? MySQL just doesn't cut it in many important ways. Not to say it's not useful for some tasks, but it really isn't in the same league as the major databases, at all.
It's explained why in the article.
> As an advocate for the DB2 team I often hear people ask, “Why would you use DB2 when MySQL is free and Open Source?”.
But even in the OS world, MySQL is not the only game in town. Postgres, obviously, is probably the biggest contender, but there's a bunch of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_source_database_m...
> Why is MySQL always the "reference implementation" for database comparisons?
Why is it? What put it in that position? How did the other databases "fail" to become that reference implementation? I'm pretty sure it's not because MySQL is an easy comparison.
The problem is people use the question in a different context. As in, why didn't the person use <insert random database here>. The answer to this question is easy: because MySQL is so popular.
I don't understand how this escapes people who obviously want other people to use their software. MySQL sounds too Fisher-Price, but is passable at least. Now "Oracle": that sounds awesomely powerful. And "DB2" sounds awesomely IBMish.
The reality is obviously different, but it is definitely a naming style from a different generation.