Slashdot Mirror

There isn't one from MySQL AB.

Actually there is a press release on MySQL's website:

SCO Partners With MySQL AB to Lower Costs and Increase the Power & Scalability of Modern Database Solutions

As of today, MySQL 4.1 is the current release. 5.0, the current development snapshot, is the first to support stored procedures. Since the choice today is between a tested system and stored procedures, it most certainly does not "support all the Oracle procedures [I] need to build and operate an enterprice software system".

Next year? Maybe. Right now? No way, according to mysql.com.

Do you know MySQL has had transactions for years now? And SAVEPOINT transactions (like Postgres, I believe). And views in 5.0. The table-locking engine you're thinking of (MyISAM) hasn't been current for maybe 4 years. If you can't handle 100 users at once blame your design, not MySQL -- MySQL powers Slashdot :)

Do you know MySQL has had transactions for years now? And SAVEPOINT transactions (like Postgres, I believe). And views in 5.0. The table-locking engine you're thinking of (MyISAM) hasn't been current for maybe 4 years. If you can't handle 100 users at once blame your design, not MySQL -- MySQL powers Slashdot :)

True, but then again it also depends on who is bearing the news as well.

Considering you are nobody your press release wont really mean much. And I would also go so far as to say The SCO Group are nobody as well and their press releases don't mean much.

However, if Kroger made a big deal about your toothpaste purchase in the news section of their website it may actual be something to consider.

When SCO made their press release I didn't pay much attention because I have become very skeptical of any messages that come out of their organization. But it is disconcerting when MySQL considers the partnership to be news worthy as well:

http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html

burnin

Get your facts straight coward:

"As part of the agreement, the companies will work together on a range of joint marketing, sales, training, business development and support programs"

http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html

burnin

Also, the Postgres people don't try to trick you into buying a non-GPL license when you have no reason to do so.

You are correct (IANAL, but you're right). However, this is *not* what the MySQL people claim -- take a look at their commercial license webpage. The existence of this webpage is one major reason why I prefer to avoid MySQL. The people behind MySQL not have a Do No Evil stance. At least the postgres people aren't assholes.

I don't have any thoughts about the more general question, but PostgreSQL is much better at storing spatial data than MySQL. MySQL has spatial functions built in, but it only supports a subset of the OpenGIS functions (basically anything that can be done entirely with bounding boxes). PostgreSQL uses an external modulem PostGIS, which supports the full OpenGIS specification and a bunch of other extension functions besides. I've used MySQL by default simply because it is more familiar to me, but I've switched to PostgreSQL for my current project simply because of the spatial data module.

Mod parent "-1 Wrong". The partnership is more then that.

You got it wrong. If you develop GPLed Free Software, you pay no money. If you develop proprietary software (no matter if it is Freeware [i.e. free as in beer] or if you sell it) you have to pay. But if you want to develop Free/Open Source software under a GPL-incompatible OSS license, you're out of luck.

We want specified Free/Libre and Open Source Software ("FLOSS") applications to be able to use specified GPL-licensed MySQL client libraries (the "Program") despite the fact that not all FLOSS licenses are compatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License (the "GPL").

http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/comme rcial-license.html

I suggest you read their license guidelines again, because what you talk about just isn't there anymore, if it ever was.

MySQL, who has been a big hero in the open source community has join a pact with a company that practices... bad business practices.

What does this say about the business ethics of MySQL?

It's a good question. My knee-jerk reaction when I saw this story was to say, "MySQL betrayed me!" Kinda whiney. I started reading the comments, many very non-chalant about the partnership, and decided that maybe I overreacted. Then I went to the MySQL site and saw they were touting the partnership rather than disavowing it. At this point, I don't care if the Slashdot community backs MySQL -- I cannot.

It's hard for me to say that I do not want to back MySQL. They quoted me in their press release for their launch of MySQL 4.0. The companies I work for are featured in the "MySQL success stories" section of their site. I'm an advocate, and someone who has been willing to code around the MySQL shortcomings, because everything else about MySQL has been so damn perfect.

I don't know. I don't want to be harsh, but I'm also having a difficult time going along with the oddly magnanimous Slashdot groupthink. SCO is an old-fashioned villian. They're so clearly opposed to everything that I love to do, that they taint anyone who chooses to do business with them. Especially those who choose to issue press releases and brag about it.

I would still give MySQL a chance. It will take a long time for me to get off of their database. But to reconsider, I'd need to see MySQL not just remove their press release, but issue an anti-SCO press release, disbanding their partnership. I just don't see that happening, so I just cannot remain a proponent of MySQL.

MySQL, who has been a big hero in the open source community has join a pact with a company that practices... bad business practices.

What does this say about the business ethics of MySQL?

It's a good question. My knee-jerk reaction when I saw this story was to say, "MySQL betrayed me!" Kinda whiney. I started reading the comments, many very non-chalant about the partnership, and decided that maybe I overreacted. Then I went to the MySQL site and saw they were touting the partnership rather than disavowing it. At this point, I don't care if the Slashdot community backs MySQL -- I cannot.

It's hard for me to say that I do not want to back MySQL. They quoted me in their press release for their launch of MySQL 4.0. The companies I work for are featured in the "MySQL success stories" section of their site. I'm an advocate, and someone who has been willing to code around the MySQL shortcomings, because everything else about MySQL has been so damn perfect.

I don't know. I don't want to be harsh, but I'm also having a difficult time going along with the oddly magnanimous Slashdot groupthink. SCO is an old-fashioned villian. They're so clearly opposed to everything that I love to do, that they taint anyone who chooses to do business with them. Especially those who choose to issue press releases and brag about it.

I would still give MySQL a chance. It will take a long time for me to get off of their database. But to reconsider, I'd need to see MySQL not just remove their press release, but issue an anti-SCO press release, disbanding their partnership. I just don't see that happening, so I just cannot remain a proponent of MySQL.

From http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html
(emphasis added)

"About SCO

The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) is a leading provider of software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, offering SCO OpenServer for small to medium business and UnixWare for enterprise applications and digital network services. SCO's highly innovative and reliable solutions help millions of customers grow their businesses everyday, from SCO OpenServer on main street to UnixWare on Wall Street, and beyond. SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to Unix-based system software providers.

Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of thousands of resellers and developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com./ "

That's some heavy shit right there.

I have never liked MySql's take on GPL on their site: I am not sure if it is up now, or modified, but their 'reasons you need to buy a license for MySql' included: writing to media, giving to a colleague, copying source.

MySql are trying to have their GPL cake and eat it I think... rather peculiar, and nobody else seems to make note of it...

MySql... and SCO... a lie to try and get a positive pro SCO headline in the news... or a way to discredit MySql?

Either way... my first gut reaction (and I am someone who puts no price on being able to move away from a database) is to drop MySql and go back to bending over for oracle.

I would rather be on a sturdy [politically] closed source platform, than an already quakey 'open source' (deliberate quotes, because I am very suspicious of MySql's 'open source' definitions, even if they are GPL....- just their marketting edge...

MySql have an indemnification page ... for how long?

Sounds like a money making shake out... I thought SCO was dead already.

90% of parent is speculation. Let's take a look at the whole of it without the inserted personal bias:

They have a new "Open Server" coming out.
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html

Now, can we please reconsider the "Informative" label?

The Litigious Bastards partner with The Abomination that Shall Not Be Named. Sounds like a win-win for everybody else.

Please surf to their contact page, fill in your details, question them and let them know what you thoughts are about this move. Especially when you have a more important position regarding to their product: make this clear.

I cannot understand their move at all but before I'm moving all databases of my business and my customers to Postgress I would like to see this thing reconsidered by MySQL.

try this link
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=sco+site% 3Awww.mysql.com
third result

http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html

MySQL AB :: SCO Partners With MySQL AB to Lower Costs and Increase ...

http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html

This link will take you to the contact page. Luckily for me, it's not too difficult to migrate my projects over to PostgreSQL - although I will have to brush up on administration after having not used it for a couple of years...

I actually thought this was just another ludicrous press release from our favourite proprietory software vendor to give them something positive to say on the 7th, but after finding the same release on MySQL's site, it seems confirmed. I'm damned if I'm using anything from a company that deals with SCO (except MS, where I have little choice!)

This isn't one of those buy out, or stock purchasing deals, this is just SCO buying a license to have MySQL in there POS...(oops forgot the IX, or did I?) OS for commercial use. It doesn't look like MySQL is handing over IP rights of any it's code over to SCO. They are just doing the same thing they've been doing with Novell and Dell. SCO is probably the one calling this a "partnership" to try and change it's image.

They have a new "Open Server" coming out. It just goes to show that they are accepting defeat.

http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html

They realise they're OS sucks, they realise Linux is kicking it's ass, and they know they can't win. They're trying to embrace their new overlords like the spineless money hungry idiots they are.

If they attempt lawsuites such as those against Linux, MySQL can use copyright infringement against them.

Worry when you read SCO buys 55% of MySQL AB, or MySQL sells IP to SCO.

Maybe because MySQL doesn't have a dog in this fight?

MySQL 4.1 Downloads

The software available in MySQL Network and the MySQL Community Edition is available under the "dual licensing" model. Under this model, users may choose to use MySQL products under the free software/open source GNU General Public License (commonly known as the "GPL") or under a commercial license.

http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/4.1.html

Hi there Moto,

I agree that the license change will be good for Sun. Workplace using OO derived code without the improvements going back to Sun was wrong, but SISSL did allow that.

As for dual licensing being a messy, confusing business; I'm not so sure. MySQL, Trolltech (the makers of QT) Mozilla all use dual licenses.

Trolltech puts it best:

This is how it works: In return for the advantages you realize from using a Trolltech product to create your application, we require that you do one of the following:

  Either: Contribute to the continued development of the product by purchasing commercial licenses from Trolltech. This option secures you the right to distribute your application under the license terms of your choice.
  Or: Contribute to the Open Source community by placing your application under an Open Source license (e.g. the GPL). This option secures all users the rights to obtain the application's full source code, modify it, and redistribute it.

I have recently taken (and passed) certification exams for Zend PHP, MySQL Core, and LPI Linux 1. I work with these technologies every day and studied for these tests. Some of the questions were pretty difficult, and some were fairly easy. I think that anyone who has passed these tests does possess a least a minimum amount of knowledge about these subjects. Anyone can say they know something on a resume, but if you can prove you know at least a minimum before you are even interviewed... in my opinion that can only help when job hunting. And if your current employer pays for it, why not get certified for your resume's sake? But if your just trying to impress your coworkers and others already in the industry, I doubt that certs will help you out much.

But MySQL is heavily funded and developed by MySQL AB. It's far more commercial, even if it is open source, than PostgreSQL.

PostreSQL has better licensing terms compared to MySQL because of MySQL's dual-licensing terms.

You might suggest that your friend consider asking MySQL for a quote:

http://www.mysql.com/company/contact/

Their Enterprise contracts are probably a bit much for your friend's needs, but they may offer single-incident support for optimization and tuning assistance.

If he doesn't mind delving into DBA-land, he may want to buy a book. If he values the time it would take him to get up to speed and would rather spend it on other pursuits, it may well be worth the money to get some help.

Either way, he'll have to spend something (time or money) -- it's a question of how much his time is worth to him.

Discussion grows large as topic is very board.
Practically there may be 1000 reasons why MySQL is not performing fast for you which can be fixed. If
Yahoo, CNET, LiveJournal use MySQL, you can do it as well :)

Great answer comes from great question - be detailed
tell what exactly is the problem. Which query is not responding fast enough which table it is uses etc.

Best place to get help is of course MySQL forums
http://forums.mysql.com/ or MySQL mailing list.

This is of course if post goal is to get some help , if you want flame war you'd better be as low on facts as possible.

Explain syntax is an interesting and informative tool that can help optimize your indexes and queries.

That should change when version 5 is stable. It'll finally be up to par with MS. I wonder why OHUKON was left out of the survey?

IIRC mySQL AB's MaxDB has an Oracle emulation mode, and so does Firebird with Fyracle.

Sounds like you just need to get PHP and Mysql and make it database driven... then you could update the website from the web. Also, there are WYSIWYG editors made in javascript that make editing content similar to word. thats what i use at my site... or you could slap php-nuke on it like i did on my site

mysql's AES_ENCRYPT/AES_DECRYPT or ENCODE/DECODE functions are what I suggest.

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/encryption-funct ions.html

IMHO, projects under BSD license make people/companies more comfortable.

I, as well as other colleagues in my company, usually download, study, and customize the projects from Apache, such as Ant, maven, tomcat and so on. we have never concern the license issue, since we all have known projects on Apache are released under it's BSD-like license, anybody can use and change them with or without publishing their work under this license.

Meanwhile, the case when we met GPL was quite different. A few months ago, Company decided to use a open source database for internal project use. Nearly almost of colleagues proposed MySql as the favorite choice. Things were going on well until somebody studied Mysql's so-called dual-license. The folk said to us: we have to pay for it due to its license.

We argued about this issue for a long time, and with no result. Many days later, Manager talked about it in a routine meeting, then he said: "Silver, please make clear the price of MySql , and tell me; to me, if things is not certain, I will have to choose a safe way, that's it."

IMHO, projects under BSD license make people/companies more comfortable.

I, as well as other colleagues in my company, usually download, study, and customize the projects from Apache, such as Ant, maven, tomcat and so on. we have never concern the license issue, since we all have known projects on Apache are released under it's BSD-like license, anybody can use and change them with or without publishing their work under this license.

Meanwhile, the case when we met GPL was quite different. A few months ago, Company decided to use a open source database for internal project use. Nearly almost of colleagues proposed MySql as the favorite choice. Things were going on well until somebody studied Mysql's so-called dual-license. The folk said to us: we have to pay for it due to its license.

We argued about this issue for a long time, and with no result. Many days later, Manager talked about it in a routine meeting, then he said: "Silver, please make clear the price of MySql , and tell me; to me, if things is not certain, I will have to choose a safe way, that's it."

• MySQL licensing

that's a lies. The oppsite is true. If you later try to makes proprietary verions of that GPL program, you have to strip out anything that's not your.

You're absolutely right. In fact, this is why big projects like OpenOffice.org demmand that you do this:
"How to submit code to OpenOffice.org
We ask that all code submitted to OpenOffice.org be submitted via Issue Tracker . In your submission please list "Issue Type" as PATCH. Your code will be sent to the committer for the appropriate project.
1. Submit a filled-out copy of the Joint Copyright Assignment form (JCA); we have a PDF version you may print out. We explain our reasons for requiring the JCA in the Licensing FAQ. The FAQ further explain the use and advantages of using this license.
2. In order for your code to be committed to the source tree:
1. Your Joint Copyright Assignment form must have been received. This Assignment covers all submissions of code.
2. The committer must approve your code for submission." This from http://contributing.openoffice.org/programming.htm l

This is also the reason Stallman never accepted the Emacs fork XEmacs as legit, because he demmanded a slew of paper trail.
Theres a whole bunch of companies playing the dual-licensing game (you eith GPL or you buy a proprietary license), or playing the game the OP said (waiting to be bought out by a larger company). The dual-licensing game is IMHO relying on a probable GPL loophole and, AFAIK hasn't been legally tested.

Here's what www.mysql.org proposes: http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/opens ource-license.html
"You are allowed to copy MySQL binaries and source code, but when you do so, the copies will fall under the GPL license." (...) we recommend the commercial license to all commercial and government organizations. This frees you from the broad and strict requirements of the GPL license.
To all free software enthusiasts we recommend our products under the GPL license. We believe that MySQL AB is one of the world's largest companies that offers all its software under the GPL license."

So, what you have here is a company recommending the commercial license, with the explicit proviso that all your code contributions will be incorporated under the GPL, with the implicit caveat that your code will be sold under their proprietary licensing scheme. And if you read that, and contributed, it's kind of hard to argue in court that it wasn't what you meant to do.

I guess I don't understand how RedHat and MySQL make money selling these commercial licenses of GPL'd code.

MySQL mislead their customers into thinking they need to buy licenses where they do not.

http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/

I'm missing important information about the situation above, but here's my take. What's neglected here is that the JDBC drivers in question are issued under a dual license (commercial/GPL). So this sounds like a straight-forward decision not to purchase the commercial license. They could have connected to the MySQL database using say, Sun's JDBC stuff without having to GPL their code. The "No Open Source" policy is just stupid, but it's not my company.

Major projects like Apache, MySQL, X11, Perl, and PHP eschew the GPL

it is a toy database, and as such, should not be used on serious projects (i.e., anything that uses normalized data schemas and requires data integrity).

Huh?

see here for a list of companies using MySQL. Do you think any of these companies use normalized data schemas? Do you think data integrity is important to them?

People choose databases (as with any software) based on a cost to performance comparison. MySQL happens to be very fast and efficient at what it does, and for the perfect price tag. On top of that, version 5.0 includes features that address every legitimate complaint that people have had against MySQL: Stored Procedures, Views, and Triggers. Am I missing something?

Not true... Please read:
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/comme rcial-license.html

It has nothing to do with distribution. If your app is open source than you can use the GPL version of mysql, if not, then you can't.

I'm well aware that it is dual licensed, however it's not like you can just choose whichever license you want. From their license found on:

http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/comme rcial-license.html

The Commercial License is an agreement with MySQL AB for organizations that do not want to release their application source code. Commercially licensed customers get a commercially supported product with assurances from MySQL. Commercially licensed users are also free from the requirement of making their own application open source.

When your application is not licensed under either the GPL-compatible Free Software License as defined by the Free Software Foundation or approved by OSI, and you intend to or you may distribute MySQL software, you must first obtain a commercial license to the MySQL product.

Sorry, but you really have not got a clue. MySQL is GPL.

Dont buy a book about PHP AND MySQL.

Seriously, buy one for each one of them.
Then, when you've bought those two, you can stack them under your laptop and type in:

http://www.php.net/
http://mysql.com/doc/

Ready to go!

(DING!) Your wish is granted...

They are already implemented.

It was a thursday.

Here is a 1995 calendar for Sweden.

And don't bother to look here or here: the answer is not yet there.