Slashdot Mirror
mSQL: It's Baaaccckkkkk
Leomania writes "In this press release on the mSQL (aka Mini SQL) website, it appears that mSQL is once again under development. A new release is slated for February 15th, and support will be available starting February 1st."
Yeah, take away the competition so we don't have any choices. There are enough text editors, quit developing them because everybody uses the same one anyway, right? Wrong.
Choice is good, and the competition between the different choices makes each contender better. I could go on about how much I disagree with your idea, but this hangover is killing me.
-- toolie
No, there is PostgreSQL at the high end, MySQL at the medium-low end, and sleepycat at the really-low-end.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Linux kernel developers are adding kernel-space performance boosts to compete against IIS' (supposed?) kernel-space file redirector.
cpeterso
"What does "open-source competition" have to do with it? Keep in mind msql is *not* OSS."
ok, granted. sorry, i haven't looked at msql in a long while.
but, don't you think this lends even more weight to my question? who's going to use msql, when there are better, more established open-source (or free software, take your pick) sql backends already?
and my first post wasn't a troll, to whatever moron moderated it as one.
--
Well not knowing much about mSQL, I would suppose that it was competitor to all the other database available. As to how good it is, I wouldn't know. Finally, even though I should know better than respond to a troll, Linux is currently second in the server market with 24% and rising. That constitutes competition.
Well, in my opinion, the idea of competition neing good for software development id also outdated.
Competition is nice, but the most important thing is not competition, but having a choice.
Nothing would make me happier if, instead of halving a choice between half a dozen different poorly implemented solutions, there was just one excellent solution.
But the problem isn't that there are half a dozen different solution in your example, it's that they're all poor. It's not always the case that multiplicity correlates with quality.
The best open source projects have a monopoly, and suck all the development effort for that field - The Kernel and Apache for example.
So, by your definition, nobody is working on BSD. The researchers who come up with new networking protocols traditionally prefer BSD. Do they not count? Do the BSD security nuts not count? The reason why there is a lot of effort in Linux and Apache is because they are very open-ended and have a wide scope for extensibility. Most of the developers are working on the extensible parts, not the core.
Why do we need several different versions of SQL to be on the go? It would be far better if there were just one, and the quality of the product would improve also.
That's the beauty of standards. There *is* only one SQL available. All the implementations of SQL have different redeeming factors. Do you need Oracle 8 just to power your weblog?
Does my bum look big in this?
What does "open-source competition" have to do with it? Keep in mind msql is *not* OSS. Just because you can get the source does not mean that it is open
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
we've already got mysql, which works great for projects that need a small & fast sql backend. and for projects that need more enterprise-level features, there's postgresql. or oracle, for that matter.
so, why do we need an updated msql? i know, i know, open-source competition and all that. but really. who's going to use this?
--
Competition and natural monopolies are not mutually exclusive concepts. The kernel and Apache have natural monopolies because they were on the point, and continue to advance to the satisfaction of their users. If they were to falter, it is competition that would bring forth a competitor to topple them. Aside from HURD and other ossible kernel competitors, there exist multiple minor kernel forks as patches and development continues on old branches of the tree, so Linus' kernel really doesn't have a stifling monopoly that prevents competition as you imagine.
Programs can also exist as monopolies within a certain field, while losing out to another program in a different field. For example `ls' reigns supreme in the linux desktop world, while `busybox' holds a relative monopoly for embedded devices. Real or imagined, there exists a perception of multiple playing fields for SQL databases, and until a given database gains enough momentum in all of these fields to naturally draw mindshare and become a monopoly, it does no good to browbeat competitors under the banner of `Unity at All Costs'.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
you know, DBI on OpenVMS isn't a good way to get increased preformance.
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
In early 2000, David Hughes' ISP (Fast Access Network, aka FAN [fan.net.au]) was acquired by Asia Online. David was part of that acquisition, and had various management duties at Asia Online that overlapped with the period that I was there. I left in November, myself. I'm guessing that David is restarting mSQL development in order to answer the "what do I do now?" question and that he is no longer with Asia Online, though I do not know that definitively. Someone referred to an "antelope" on the website. That's most likely a buck deer, as David's long-standing nickname is "bambi".
Already done by MS SQL Server.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
mSQL is for simple data structures a lot more faster than MySQL. If the DB grows you can change to at anytime to mysql without changing the source by using an interface like DBI.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
(Not that I didn't find it funny, but I thought it was somewhat inappropriate for a corporate website, ya know? :-)
Everyone hurry, there is still time to write your own database implementation.
Beware though, several names should be reserved: Linus gets lSQL.
oSQL nSQL and fSQL go to OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD respectively. Apple will want aSQL, which will actually just be fSQL with the first letter changed. Stallman will write GNUsql, which much to his chagrin, will be called gSQL.
Mircrosoft will sue Hughes, claiming that the m in mSQL stands for Microsoft.
And I want bSQL. Cause its just BS.
The best open source projects have a monopoly, and suck all the development effort for that field - The Kernel and Apache for example.
By "The Kernel", do you mean Linux? Remember that Linus choice to create a Linux, even though Minix and FreeBSD already existed. If he had felt, like you do, that competition is a waste of time, there would be no Linux today. If software monopoly is so great, then why was Minix (or Windows) not good enough to meet Linus' needs way back when?
And not all "open source competition" is from other open source projects. Linux 2.4 has performance improvements because of competition from Windows 2000. Apache 2.0 is introducing a new threading model because of competition from IIS.
cpeterso
"Quick Igor, get the wooden stake! The garlic's not working!"
"Yeth, Mathter."
"And now the axe! I should have listened to old man Ellison when he said you had to properly dispose of these things."
"Thall we be burning it, Mathter?"
"One step at a time, Igor. To properly dispose of a vampire SQL package, you have to make sure none of the embers escape, or we'll have to deal with this all over again!"
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
The reason to use mSQL is to store a small amount of non-essential data for extremely rapid retrieval. It is easy to use, and, for the record, does have PHP driver support. Not that there is that much to support anyway :)
Seriously, though, if you're going to criticize mSQL, you have to be willing to acknowledge that the only leg-up MySQL has (before the row-level lock gets finished) on mSQL is the ability to write functions. And it doesn't even have a procedural language, just C-functions! So don't stand all high-and-mighty looking down on mSQL from your MySQL pedastal - it's not that high off the ground.