The Ups and Downs of MySQL AB 210
Wannabe Code Monkey writes "Forbes has an article about a recent MySQL deal with SCO and the reaction from the open source community: "It's been a rough week for Marten Mickos, the chief executive of open source database maker MySQL AB. First his most dreaded rival, Oracle acquired a company that supplies a key piece of MySQL's software, a move that could make life difficult for Uppsala, Sweden-based MySQL, which has the most popular open source database. If that wasn't bad enough, Mickos is being denounced as a traitor by noisy fanatics in the open source software community because last month he dared to make a deal with SCO Group, a company reviled by fans of Linux and other open source software.""
Confused about licensing (Score:2)
Take said component and keep refining it.
If this is a future worry, adapt the license so that other OSS components remain OSS if future versions are commercialized.
Re:Confused about licensing (Score:4, Interesting)
We don't live in a world of moral absolutes. Businesses sometimes have to be practical at the expense of muddying the moral waters. I'm sure that if they could have avoided even taking SCO's calls they would have, but taking the money enables them to be a going concern.
Besides, the more SCO spends, the faster they will inevitably go out of business, so that can only be a good thing, right?
Re:Confused about licensing (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. But when SCO starts making money through this partnership and then turns around and uses that cash to attack the same community that SCO despises, does that make any sense?
SCO not only burned bridges, they set the entire landscape on fire. For a leading player in the F/OSS movement to then hook up with them is very disturbing. Should we expect MySQL developers to suddenly be paid by SCO? What would SCO expect in return?
When I heard the news, I se
Re:Confused about licensing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Confused about licensing (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironically, if Oracle insisted that future supported versions of InnoDB only be released as a GPL'd work - it could be one of the greates things for MySQL-the-GPL'd-product and one of the worst things to MySQL-the-company.
Re:Confused about licensing (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were a MySQL DB user, I would be planning for an outcome that did not require MySQL AB, because the company might not be in the same form a year from now. Possibly even choose something else that has a stronger community behind it, or at least a stronger company behind it.
MySQL has a big community, but it's organized not around itself, b
Learn from the IBM case. (Score:5, Insightful)
They release it under a dual license.
Now they're accepting SCO money to "partner" with them to develop MySQL so it works better on SCO's server software.
Now, do a quick search for SCO & IBM & "Project Monterey". See the parallels? And SCO has sued THREE partners/customers over code use.
The question will come down to what contracts cover what money being spent in what ways to write what code and who owns what rights to what code.
Personally, I see this as just a way for SCO go try to get possession of the MySQL code base. Only an idiot would sign a developmental contract with SCO after everything that's been revealed from the court cases.
Re:Learn from the IBM case. (Score:2)
MySQL AB has all the licenses to MySQL.
Just a terminology nit: MySQL AB neither has nor needs any licenses for MySQL. MySQL AB *owns* MySQL. They hold the copyrights, and issue licenses to others.
Now, do a quick search for SCO & IBM & "Project Monterey". See the parallels? And SCO has sued THREE partners/customers over code use.
Yeah, MySQL AB might want to think twice about doing business with a company with such a track record except for two things. First, based on the way MySQL AB's bu
Re:Learn from the IBM case. (Score:4, Insightful)
WRONG..it's called a Contingency case, they win they get paid, they lose they get nothing. This approach is very common in personal injury lawsuits.
The SCO case is a hybrid of this where Boise-Schiller took company stock as part of the fee, they win and the price goes up and they clean up, they lose SCO goes under they get only the cash part of the compensation.
Anyone getting involved that deeply with SCO must have a screw loose, SCO is just crazy enough to sue mySQL in hopes of keeping themselves alive a bit longer even after they lose to IBM (and appeal of course).
Re:Learn from the IBM case. (Score:2)
Re:Learn from the IBM case. (Score:2, Funny)
uhhhh...
From GrokLaw's interview with Marten Mickos: [groklaw.net]
no money went to SCO from MySQL, so MySQL is not supporting SCO financially
So, MySQL isn't accepting SCO money.
From The official Press Release [mysql.com]:
As part of the agreement, the companies will work together on a range of joint marketing, sales, training, business development and support programs that will benefit customers th
Re:Learn from the IBM case. (Score:2)
MySQL accepting SCO money != MySQL giving SCO money.
Get it yet?
MySQL => SCO != SCO => MySQL
Re:Learn from the IBM case. (Score:2)
The bigger problem (Score:2)
It is one thing for EnterpriseDB to enter into such a partnership and say "this is about helping our customers. Don't read more into it than that" and MySQL entering into a partnership and saying that this is about dialog and help
Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Next on Forbes: How much negativity can we pack into one sentence? Find out!
Groklaw Interviews MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos (Score:5, Informative)
* no money went to SCO from MySQL, so MySQL is not supporting SCO financially
* it was SCO seeking out the partnership, not the other way around
* MySQL had stopped supporting SCO in 2004
* MySQL did not put out the press release about the partnership. Mickos did provide a quotation for the press release however. Here's the press release in question, taken from MySQL's web site. http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article
INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (Score:2, Interesting)
Since SCO paid money to MySQL and offered development assistance to MySQL
This is my biggest concern. I no longer feel safe using MySQL. There is now a risk of getting sued by SCO down the line. Anyone who thinks this is not far fetched
Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (Score:3, Insightful)
From you:
Since SCO paid money to MySQL and offered development assistance to MySQL
did you READ the GP post?! Let me reiterate. no money went to SCO from MySQL .
Say it with me, you and all the other people who posted the exact same claim below:
no money went to SCO from MySQL
Also, NO CODE was shared. No development assistance is being shared. The ONLY thing the companies are sharing are marketin
Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (Score:2)
Say it with me, you and all the other people who posted the exact same claim below: no money went to SCO from MySQL
We've already been saying it with you, you're just apparently not reading things correctly.
Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (Score:2)
Honestly, how can you even consider that your only option is to go from MySQL to SQL Server or Oracle. Have you ever heard of PostgreSQL? It would make much more sense to replace MySQL with PostgreSQL, and then complain about having to move up to Oracle if PG doesn't work out for you. I won't bother to re-list the same features a
Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (Score:2)
Everyone seems to forget that IBM has 20 some odd claims against them from IBM, Novell and Red Hat.
Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (Score:2)
Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (Score:2)
The BSD-licensed PostgreSQL [postgresql.org] is actually *more* powerful than MySQL. Depending on your needs, it's worth looking into.
there are others, but Postgre is MySQL's primary FLOSS competitor.
Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (Score:2)
Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (Score:5, Informative)
- MVCC reduces need for locking, often called "better than row-level locking"
- Also has row level locking
- ACID compliant
- transactions, and savepoints (which are SQL nested transactions)
- point in time recovery (PITR) allows "time-travel" and parallel timelines. It's a little much to explain here, but if you encounter a problem and notice it a week later, you can go back in time, prevent the problem, and replay everything else that happened that week. All the good and none of the bad from a sci-fi book
- VERY extensible: you can make user-defined functions in any of PL/pgSQL, PL/perl, PL/python, PL/java, C, or SQL. And if that's not enough, you can write another procedural language to support your favorite language.
- You can make a user-defined aggregate function using any of those languages.
- User-defined types
- triggers
- views
- subselects
- query rewriting rules (which can be used to make any view updatable/insertable)
- constraints
- good, well-maintained, and BSD licensed replication software available.
New in 8.1 (which is beta now):
- Two-phase commit (2PC)
- IN/OUT/INOUT parameters to functions
- rudimentary table partitioning
- bitmap index scans
- autovacuum intelligently automates a long standing maintenence procedure, making the database easier to administer.
- SQL ROLES
- more options for row-level locking
Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (Score:2)
Desperately looking for replication software that could be used for single-master multi-slave replication for postgresql (1 master 10 slaves, enterprise enviroment can't afford downtime).
Which one of the projects are you talking about? The only one we've tried was so unpolished we felt that we could have kludged the table level copying functions ourselves.
Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (Score:2)
I recommend not dismissing table-level trigger-based replication. But if it doesn't work for your application, I guess you'll have to look elsewhere. PostgreSQL isn't for every possible situation. Just don't dismiss Slony because of a little configuration, it's actually a good product.
Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (Score:2)
Lots of people do.
hint: you don't win converts by talking down to them.
Was I condescending in any way? I just posted the facts when someone clearly asked for them.
I think you should not use a database based on a bunch of slashdot posts made by two groups of people
(1) People who don't use PostgreSQL but want to jump on the bandwagon, and in the process look stupid
(2) MySQL users who want to make PostgreSQL people look bad.
Instead, try the mailing lists, which (for PostgreSQL) are
Re:Groklaw Interviews MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO, you remember, is a UNIX company--they don't write all their own software, which is why their OS is POSIX. They absolutely rely on cooperation with the community to make their product marketable.
Now, they're blacklisted. Companies and projects that use community-driven models (or even market to such organizations) are clearly and unequivocally forbidden to associate in any way with SCO. It's just not worth risking the sort of backlash that hit MySQL.
Re:Groklaw Interviews MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos (Score:3, Informative)
But remember EV1? This SCO storm will pass. What will not, and what should be more important to those who use MySCO is the InnoDB buy-out. MySQL missed that opportunity, and will pay for it. Indeed it may be their downfall. But in a few weeks, the SCO issue will have passed.
Re:Groklaw Interviews MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos (Score:2)
Let their money be drained (Score:2, Funny)
a key piece ?? (Score:2, Informative)
And btw, people who need transactions and advanced features tend to use postgresql instead of mysql+innodb
yep (Score:5, Insightful)
> software. It is just one of the *many* storage backends supported by MySQL, and it's not by far
> the most used (99% of the MySQL installs i've seen only use the internally developped MyISAM
> storage engine which btw is the default one
I think that's primarily due to all the legacy 3.* mysql databases out there: not because people are running 4.01 and want to keep using myisam.
There are legitimate times to use myisam, but aside from read-only reporting (which mysql isn't very good at), or very high-volume read-mostly content management that's about it. Backends for tools like bugzilla, for wikis, etc should be on innodb:
- it's easier to develop the app (don't have to reinvent transactions)
- the application code is more portable
- you avoid data corruption problems problems with buggy do-it-yourself transaction code
- you get to rely on declarative referential integrity to help ensure that 100% of the data in the database complies with the rules of the model
> And btw, people who need transactions and advanced features tend to use postgresql instead of mysql+innodb
true - anyone who knows enough about databases to know why they should be using transactions also knows why they should be using views, stored procedures (occasionally), triggers (occasionally), and have an optimizer capable of joining 5 tables without a performance hit.
If mysql looses innodb they are in very deep trouble. Before they licensed innodb, MySQL AB insisted that:
- 99% of the programmers didn't need transactions
- that "real programmers" could easily write that code themselves in the app layer
- that all quality checks (pk/fk constraints) belonged in the app layer anyway
Once they licensed innodb they changed that tune completely
- declaring themselves an "Enterprise Database"
- the only database people needed
- bragged about their fast paced development (even tho it was purchasing not development)
- buried all their previous comments about transactions not being necessary
So, now that they've been admitting that transactions are vital - won't they look stupid loosing them? At that point, why put *any* database on mysql? Postgresql/Firebird/SQLite are all *freer* anyway. And it isn't like MySQL is going to suddenly come up with a replacement to Innodb - that's the code they couldn't write themselves before, it's the most complex code in mysql, and they apparently don't have people capable of writing it.
Re:SAP (Score:2)
I heard that SAP DB is built for mainframes, and that all the variables are cryptic, abbreviated german, and that it uses a customized build system that is really hacked together. Good luck finding programmers to work on that.
Re:SAP (Score:2)
What you just said is:
I don't know the truth, but I'll state something as fact in hopes that nobody catches me.
In actuality, MySQL's codebase isn't a mess. It's actually quite well organized, and the new releases are even more well thought-out. MySQL does a very good job of compartmentalizing sections of code so they don't inte
Re:SAP (Score:2)
Actually, it was more along the lines of: "I don't know the truth, here's what I heard, comment if I'm wrong."
I have seen PostgreSQL's source code, and it's very nice. I haven't seen the source code for MySQL or SAP DB. I stated that clearly and did not mislead anyone.
Re:SAP (Score:2)
Re:SAP DB (Score:2)
Programmers are more than willing to work on SAP itself and that's also full of cryptic abbreviated German. And for what it's worth, there are people out there who do understand German. As to SAP DB, it's probably not their fault, since Adabas was German (Software AG) anyway.
How many app developers look at the DBMS source on a regula
Re:SAP DB (Score:2)
I was referring to the difficulty of MySQL using SAP DB as a replacement storage engine. For that, MySQL developers would certainly need to look at the source.
Re:yep (Score:3, Insightful)
> Oh, you mean free like in "free to deny everybody the right to redistribute it"?
Freer as in "not encumbered by complex dual-licensing with bizarre "linking" gpl definitions that require lawyers to determine whether or not your clients require licensing".
Freer as in "not owned by a for-profit company that has a history of changing its licensing to beging making money off its popularity"
Freer as in "doesn't rely on a product owned by Oracle & Larry Ellison for vita
Re:a key piece ?? (Score:3, Informative)
I would, because it was responsible for most of the "new" features MySQL was bragging about.
And btw, people who need transactions and advanced features tend to use postgresql instead of mysql+innodb .
You misspelled "will have to" (excepting Firebird et al).
Re:a key piece ?? (Score:2, Interesting)
There are other backends for MySQL, but MyISAM doesn't work well with multiple readers+writers due to table locking / lack of MVCC, doesn't offer transactions, etc - and the BDB backend, the close
Re:a key piece ?? (Score:2)
Even if nothing bad happens, and they find a way to work it all out, this should awaken the MySQL users to the fact that they are vulnerable. Realistically, it would
Re:a key piece ?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm. Not true.
There are indeed several (not many) storage engines with MySQL. However the two most used are InnoDB and MySQL. And InnoDB is usually used when MySQL is not a
SCO is going out of business (Score:2)
-russ
Oracle is MySQL's most dreaded rival? (Score:5, Insightful)
Larry Ellison (Score:4, Insightful)
MySQL knows this and that's why they recently declared that they never intend to go after Oracle's customer base. Because they know if they even so much as think about it Larry will eat them for lunch.
Re:Larry Ellison (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, he has bought himself a dynamite PR firm that uses the image of him as a nerd. This doesn't, however, make it an honest or accurate image.
Re:Larry Ellison (Score:2)
The stories I've heard used a different word than "developed". And painted a much less charitible picture of that event. Theft ought not to be used for the copying of software, so I'm not quite certain how to describe the events as I have heard them...but his role was more that of a manager than of a coder even in the early days. I'm not denying that managers are needed, though even at the start he, and some of his associates, are reputed to have had et
Re:Larry Ellison (Score:2, Insightful)
And let me tell you right now... no database people would consider MySQL an Oracle rival any more than a NASCAR pit chief would be concerned about the new Honda Civic that may give his custom cars a run for t
Re:Larry Ellison (Score:2)
Yup Gates is still more evil.
Re:Larry Ellison (Score:2)
I don't think Bill Gates is the one at Microsoft that we should worry about - it's Steve "#@#*@(# kill Google!" Ballmer that is of most concern.
Re:Larry Ellison (Score:3, Informative)
I don't personally believe you're correct on either account.
Have you ever actually tried converting a MySQL app (written by any Joe-Schmoe) to either MSQL or Oracle? It's a damn near Herculean effort. MySQL is so non-standard WRT the rest of the SQL world most orgs would consider it not worth their time.
A complete re-write is in most cases necessary. On the other hand, Any other reasonably SQL compliant DB
Dan Lyons at his finest. (Score:3, Funny)
Hello Pot? This is Kettle.
Doesn't worry me much (Score:2, Interesting)
There are also plenty of other SQL options out there. Postgres is one I use for various things, and I've fou
Re:Doesn't worry me much (Score:5, Insightful)
I could care less about "the community" - but I decided long ago that MySQL wasn't worth it. I've been using/promoting PostgreSQL for years, and have written some rather large projects (EG: 100+ tables, millions of records) with it very, very happily.
Advantages of Postgres:
1) Many, many MANY features in common with "enterprise" database products,
2) Open License lets you do pretty much anything you like, commercial or free.
3) Good documentation
4) Very solid - in 6 years of use, I've only had a problem ONCE with postgres on a machine with bad memory.
5) Helpful community support.
6) Comes pre-installed with most server-based distros. EG: RedHat
MySQL's advantages
1) Sounds good as part of "LAMP"
2) Uses "easier" administration, EG: "connect DBNAME" instead of the more terse "\c DBNAME". (but requires more typing)
3) Licensed under the GPL. (which restricts your use in any commercial product you distribute)
4) Fewer features means there's less to learn (???)
I switched to PG years ago, and I've never looked back.
Typical Lyons Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Infantile twerps (Score:2)
SCO deal is irrelevant (Score:2)
Thanks MySQL! (Score:3, Funny)
Ever since you and joined forces [slashdot.org], my PostgreSQL hosting and consulting business has gone up. On top of that, several existing customers have begun asking how they can migrate their applications from MySQL to PostgreSQL. While I am happy to hear that you finally got yourself some stored procedures and other advanced features... it saddens me that you're doing business with a company (SCO) that thinks that one of your business models is unconstitutional. You are tainted now. However, I really just wanted to say thanks for the extra work that have you provided me. It's no secret that being a professional PostgreSQL consultant is going to be a highly valuable skill in the coming few years...there is already a shortage [ittoolbox.com]. Thanks for sending people to the world's most advanced open source database server!
Former MySQL fan,
Me
Agenda? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, I'm sure this guy isn't working from an agenda, he is definitely not thinking from some squewed hair brained bias, then again....
Oh, so thats what it is to demand money from people so they can keep what is rightfully theirs. And here I thought the correct term for demanding money from people to leave them alone was extortion. And looking back through history it seems the hard working people of this planet usually get pretty steamed up over extortion and have taken down or defied criminal and governmental organizations who commited extortion crimes. And I do believe that extortion is still a crime so SCO is not "drumming up trouble" they are running an extortion racket.
burnin
So, let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re:So, let me get this straight... (Score:2)
> free as you please. And now because he has committed himself to making a
> version for SCO, you feel entitled to giving him crap? Okay... the Linux d00ds
> of today really need to try working for a living sometime.
ah, no - more like:
This guy has played a bait & switch with a database - at first giving it away for free, then changing the licensing (using linking definitions that contradict GPL's FAQ) to hook users i
Re:So, let me get this straight... (Score:2)
The way I remember it, free software is a lot about contribution. So if you're not contributing code to MySQL or sending in bug fixes, shut up and be glad they're giving you a free database. If you don't like it then don't use it, it's really very simple. But if you're not a contributor, you really have no platform from which to moralize.
Re:So, let me get this straight... (Score:2)
"3. The current cost is $600 / year - likely to go up now that oracle owns innodb"
MySQL Community Edition is free, even for commercial use. However, it's really funny that people get their panties in a bunch when a company wants to actually charge them for its product. "You must give it to us for free, or you are evil!" LOL
"The gist of your lame argument is that you can't criticize something unless you're personally involved. What garbage. That's like sa
Re:So, let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re:So, let me get this straight... (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Dual License: Please read Myth #6:
http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/dispe lling-the-myths.html [mysql.com]
2. MySQL, all the GUI and Connectors, hell even the Support software used (Eventum) is
available under GPL, aka open source.
3. MySQL Network is not free no, but see point 2.
4. Many developers should know what they are doing and think first before making something.
Is SCO even in the top 10? (Score:2)
Forgive me, but is SCO even a player in the server market?
I have used dozens of POSIX OSes including SCO and although SCO had a good market share at one time have they not lost it? Does anyone actually run SCO in a production environment any more? Why would they not switch to Solaris (x86/AMD64), OpenBSD, FreeBSD or one of many Linux distributions?
SCO lost it as they priced it too high, poorly maintened it and it was intrinically a slow pig. When they got UNIXWare they botched this too as it's developm
Guys please... (Score:5, Interesting)
A much more important matter is Oracle buying InnoBase. (hint: InnoBase != MySQL AB). But then again, InnoDB is GPL. So, as long as they're GPL, we can still use them for GPL products.
Now the REALLY scary thing is this dual licensing stuff and MySQL requiring you to buy a license for MySQL if your product is not GPL. I'm still confused regarding the legal interpretation of it, this is a very scary issue, and the
I don't give a **** of what MySQL AB does with SCO (the GPL won't change, will it?). What worries me is the future of InnoDB and if i'll be able to use a MySQL client in my non-gpl'ed, for-profit (i.e. to earn a living) C++ or Python software without having to fear lawsuits from MySQL AB...
In fact, I think there should be an article on this subject (not that I've STFW'ed, but links would be appreciated).
Re:MySQL, SCO, and Fanatical Fools. (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose this "next guy" would be me, as I'm the first guy to reply to your post. Right?
You have some nerve, saying that SCO and I suck equally.
--
Waging war against fundamentalism is as likely to make the fundamentalists give up as 9/11 was likely to make the United States give up.
Re:MySQL, SCO, and Fanatical Fools. (Score:2)
It's not the fact that MySQL runs on UnixWare and OpenServer that people are worried about. It is the fact that the company behind MySQL is partaking in business dealings with SCO, a company who has invoked lawsuits against past partners.
Noisy? (Score:2)
I expressed a very calm concern to MySQL that partnering with SCO in any fashion gives them an illusion of legitimacy that SCO does not deserve. How does that make me a "noisy fanatic"?
Or does anyone expressing disapproval of the SCO deal qualify for that label? Isn't that being a little Republican? Along the same vein as accusing anyone not supportin
Why isn't anyone blacklisting SCO's customers? (Score:2)
They're the ones giving SCO money, and yet if SCO offers MySQL AB money to make MySQL better perform on SCO's platform, MySQL gets the heat?
Be consistent at least:
all pay SCO license fees. That's all I could Google, but they must have more.
Some truth to it (Score:2)
I'm sorry MySQL, but you should have known that there would be many people that would not take this well. If not, you've been living in a hole.
Too bad as I liked your product. But since in my case it isn't irreplacable, so long and thanks for all the queries.
Re:What piece are we talking about? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What piece are we talking about? (Score:2)
rewrite innodb? here's a better solution (Score:2)
Not likely this isn't simple code, this would take a long time to get up to speed on and really understand. Let alone enhance. Mysql wasn't able to write a transaction engine on their own - they had to licese one. Don't you think they would have written their own if they could?
But here's a great solution: mysql could use postgresql for its transaction layer. Imagine the benefits:
- no licensing costs to pass on to mysql cust
Re:rewrite innodb? here's a better solution (Score:3, Insightful)
An interesting point. One might wonder what it is that MySQL brings to the table if that happened though. Presumably, MySQL would bring nothing other than backwards compatibility with old applications. People would be jumping from MyGreSQL (or whatever this would be called) to the real PostgreSQL as fast as they could.
On the other hand...doesn't SQLite now support transactions & MVCC? And along these lines, could mysql pic
See, that's why forking won't work. (Score:2)
See, this is why they are vulnerable. There is no reason why the Innobase takeover would threaten a GPL-only application. But what really threatens MySQL is that they may be barred from *charging license fees* for InnoDB.
Re:See, that's why forking won't work. (Score:2)
Especially when MySQL AB is silent on the issue. We can only assume they have nothing reassuring to say.
Except when they open their mouths... (Score:2)
Especially when MySQL AB is silent on the issue. We can only assume they have nothing reassuring to say.
MySQL clearly has serious problems ahead. They have shut up which makes this seem even worse....
This is one area where Oracle has managed to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about MySQ
Re:rewrite innodb? here's a better solution (Score:2)
1) Bloat. Essentially you would be running MySQL on top of PostgreSQL. Doesn't seem very efficient (most of the PostgreSQL codebase is in the data storage engine).
2) If you took the SQL parser, you would get more standard behavior which would break backwards compatibility.
3) It would likely fix the non-standard truncating behavior of MySQL which would break backwards compatibility.
Basically, I see this as a worst-of-both-worlds scenario. PostgreSQL isn
Re:rewrite innodb? here's a better solution (Score:2)
yeah, but mysql is going to face most of these issues with any data storage they attempt to license: there just isn't a commodity market for plugable transaction engines.
So, they'll want to replace innodb with something. But what? Assuming that the antiquated SAPDB is just a heap of scary code is probably safe. What else? BDB is probably a dead-end - way too primitive. That brings us back to postgresql, firebird, and sqllite...
and it might cause b
Re:rewrite innodb? here's a better solution (Score:2)
and it might cause breaks with backwards compatibiity - but when the compatibility is with broken old stuff that should never have been provided anyway (accepting invalid dates, etc), then that's not the end of the world. Heck, innodb & myisam are not 100% compatible anyway.
It is the end of the world for them when it breaks their customers existing systems when people have come to expect a simple upgrade with each new version....
Re:What piece are we talking about? (Score:2)
This is not a fast process that a few good programmers can solve overnight. You need a few good programmers, a few good organizers, a few good decision makers, users involved on mailing lists, and a lot of time to figure out who does what
Re:Well now (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well now (Score:2)
Re:Well now (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MySQL has some business strategy... (Score:2)
Re:MySQL has some business strategy... (Score:3, Informative)
And if a disk crashes, you can hardly blame PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL has several great online backup systems available: Slony-I (repliaction), point-in-time recovery (PITR), and pg_dump. Use them.
You are also the first person I've heard describe PostgreSQL as a "memory hog".
My gues
Re:MySQL has some business strategy... (Score:2)
Re:MySQL has some business strategy... (Score:2)
7) Get posted on /. every other day.
8) Stir up lots of interest from folk who don't understand RDBMSs and don't realise how much better stuff like Postgres is.
9) Profit!
Seriously, we've had almost as many MySQL stories recently as Google stories...
Re:MySQL has some business strategy... (Score:2)
I'm also not sure about step 4. (I'm not a user of PHP, and also only EXTREMELY minor in my use of MySQL at all.)
The rest of your points, however, seem pretty accurate. Not a good week for MySQL. Some of it was their own doing.
P.S.: This is a good warning of why one shoul
Re:MySQL has some business strategy... (Score:2)
Can you provide evidence php is dead because of mysql?
Re:Article is flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
You can pretty much dismiss claims made by him, Laura Didio and Rob Enderle.
Furthermore (Score:2)
If you go and read the Groklaw discussions on these matters, there were a few individuals who felt that any dealing with SCO was cause for a boycott. There were also plenty of defenders for MySQL there too, which Lyons fails to mention. However, mos
Over the Top (Score:2)
It's just not worth it anymore... (Score:2)
Re:Lay down with dogs... (Score:2)
And I haven't done any business with Caldera since the days of Red Hat 5.0.