Slashdot Mirror
MySQL A Threat To The Big Database Vendors?
geekinexile writes: "Bloomberg is running a story on the growth of MySQL as an alternative to the big commercial database systems." The story mentions PostgreSQL as well, and presents a generally positive view of both.
1.4.3.1 Using the MySQL Software Under a Commercial License
(snip)
When you link a program with code from the MySQL software or from GPL
released clients and don't want the resulting product to be GPL, maybe because
you want to build a commercial product or keep the added non-GPL code closed
source for other reasons. When purchasing commercial licenses, you are not
using the MySQL software under GPL even though it's the same code.
-----
This means you can't use libmysql in your closed source code.
If you have a need for the scalability, reliability, high-availability in Oracle (or similar), then MySQL isn't even a consideration.
Maybe someday. But not today.
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
``We've spoken with other agencies about our open-source projects,'' she said. ``People first get interested after hearing about the budget savings.''
MapStats hasn't crashed since it was created, she said.
not bad for a low end peace of fluff.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I love MySQL, love the speed, the accessibility, the ease of deployment and its suitability for small and medium-sized projects. I'm an advocate.
... Nope. ASP and SQL Server. I cried my way to the bank.
...
But -- it can be a tough sell to the big fish.
I was hired by a Fortune 500 financial services and real estate company to do an internal project that really was not challenging development. Essentially, the requirements boiled down to a very hobbled version of Slashcode. I bid the project at X dollars, spec-ing PHP and MySQL, figuring that I was going a bit high for the actual hours involved and that I would make a nice roll of dough if they accepted. But I still knew that given the sheer size of the company, that my bid would be considered a bargain, if not a lowball.
What threw it? MySQL and PHP. What are they? (WHAT ARE THEY?!?!?!) Well, we're going to have to get through Standards and Compliance, issue an exception, and well, we'll see, we just don't know. Okay, said I, I'll do it for four times the cost and implement it entirely from scratch using ASP and SQL Server.
Great! Sold. Damn. And you have to understand I really TRIED. I wrote two papers, directed them to a bunch of links
I believe inroads will continue to be made for open source. I have faith. But I think there's still some time and a lot of tireless advocacy to come
Which says a lot more about ESR than it does about Big Unix, Linux or Microsoft...
The dirty secret of big databases is that most people don't know how to program them, how to configure them, and don't need most of the features. And even if they get everything right, they still end up with a very costly and complex solution, a solution that likely doesn't perform very well and needs a special DBA to keep it all running. That's why MySQL is successful.
Now I know everyone's going to jump down my throat with "Hey, that's going to be in 4.x.y" blah blah... these things have been in use since the stone ages, too little too late and the support still isn't on par with Sybase, MsSQL, Oracle, etc..
:-)
--scott
Hey scott, is your last name "tiger"?
Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski
They are two different products with two different uses.
MySql came along and took away the appeal of using text files as data stores for web applications and such - it gave perl scripters a simple, easy-to-understand database that works pretty darn well.
MySQL is a great product, but only for the things it does well. If you try to make it do things that it can't, of course you're gonna get burned.
If you actually *like* databases, you'll probably like PostGres better anyway - don't bother with MySql.
MySql has found its niche. Linux, Apache, Perl/PHP and MySQL are powering thousands of websites right now. I have a few myself and they work well - There is absolutely no need for me to change the database - it just works.
I wouldn't want American Express to start using it today though - they actually *need* the features that Oracle offers.
Not all databases need the kind of bomb-proofing that you can do with Oracle - some applications just need to be able to pull data quickly from simple tables.
The thing that I don't understand though, is why MySql has so much more popular appeal than PostGres - It seemed that one day, everybody just seemed to be using it. Why was that?
Cheers,
Jim
-- My Weblog.
Yahoo is using it for exactly what it's good at: Running websites. Why does it worry you they run their fintantial site? I cam't imagine why that needs something high end. Data comes in one way and gets read many times and that's the sort of use MySQL's raw speed will blow both postgres and oarcle away at.
If it was on something that needed replication, or writes were the common case I could see a problem. But I doubt either is true in this case. Instead it looks like it's being used for an application tht it will handle well.
Yahoo is only being smart; the high end databases
comsume a lot of resources and shouldn't be used where they aren't needed. It would be foolish to run the entire company on a single vendor's software.
...most people don't need Oracle.
Oracle has been used for a lot of projects where it doesn't really need to be used, usually because the company already had a licence, but sometimes because the project was way over-spec'd.
Don't get me wrong, MySQL doesn't even come close to challenging the benefits of Oracle or DB2 in replication, scalability and so on. However, in applications where you don't need them, MySQL is perfect, especially because it requires no monetary investment. (It requires other kinds of investment, of course, but everything does.)
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I work for Conectiva (Brazil), involved in a project where a minor telecom company is replacing most of their Ora*le databases to PostgreSQL. Mostly due to cost reduction (should be for a more noble cause, but...)
Note, this is the first step of a big project involving migration to free plataforms everywhere it is possible inside the company.
IMHO it's a good idea, but they must keep in mind that there already are some limitations that I'm sure it'll be solved ASAP. Of course that a little of investment in the FreeSoftware/OpenSource comunity will help a lot too, but this is subject for another project ;o)
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
It's sad how all criticisms of MySQL on slashdot are consistently modded down. Although MySQL is a fine product with a lot going for it - there is plenty to be *legitimately* critical about.
Is it that the MySQL supporters on slashdot are only familar with application programming interfaces to relational databases - and so don't understand the differences between a modern relational database and MySQL? Or are they simply pushing the product that they are most familiar with?
I've been involved in purchases of millions of dollars in relational database software over the last sixteen years; been a DBA on Oracle, Informix, and DB2; and developed on those as well as Sybase, SQL Server, Adabas (SAP-DB), Dbase IV, and Access. And I can say that there are plenty of traditional IT applications that I would try Postgresql out on - just about everything in the OLTP arena that doesn't require massive scalability. And unfortunately, there are far fewer traditional IT database applications that I would recommend MySQL for - it simply lacks too many features that are already available in postgresql, and that in the RealWorld(tm) save your bacon.
Ok, you can mod me down now.
(* Having said that, I think that is absolutely ludicrous. PostgreSQL is a serious database system, but, regardless of future potential, mySQL is not. Reading about it running the Yahoo Financial site says more about the quality of the Yahoo Financial site than it does about the quality to the mySQL DBMS. *)
You don't even know what their requirements are! Don't bash something until you see the requirements and environment it will be in. mySQL tends to favor read-intensive activities but is a little weak on write-intensive and transaction stuff.
Perhaps their needs are mostly reading. Maybe some other system dumps the data into mySQL once every midnight, and people query on it all day with little writing.
The point is that you are prematurely dismissing something without looking into specifics.
It is rarely X is always bad and Y is always good. Things have various strong points and weakpoints.
You are acting like a PHB.
Table-ized A.I.
You need to pick a database that suits your needs. For some people MySQL is all that they will ever need. For others, referential integrity, transactions, stored procedures and triggers are a requirement not an option.
I've seen instances where an app was done in Oracle when it should've been done in something like FoxPro v2.6 for DOS, and I've seen apps done in M$ Access97 that should've been done in PostGres/Oracle/Sybase/SQL Server.
Each has its place and should be chosen to fit a business model. Picking a database just because it has the most features is not always the correct solution. Picking a database because it has the least initial cost is also not always the correct solution.
Sure, MySQL is simple. Sure it doesn't do everything Oracle can do. But there are a huge number of small businesses, Churches, scools, etc which don't have huge budgets, have to work with a very limited IT department (In some cases volunteer labor) and need some sort of database capability. Used to be DBase III (And I've seen some HUGE apps implemented in DBASE.) MySQL provides the right combination of features, stability and price to compete really well in that arena.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I wish TPC www.tpc.org would do some MySQL tests and show just how it really perfoms when compared, to DB2, Oracle, and MS SQL Server.
.NET crap is doing this. Imagine XML results sets with heirachy. Tree based joins may also be in the works with this kind of power.
Why can we not put an end to this debate. I wish slashdot would just refuse to repost this crap that people keep saying to see their words be pubilshed.
It is simple, MySQL is a simple db system well suited to web-sites and application where it doesn't really fucking matter. Suppose if slashdot lost a couple of days worth of stories. Is the world going to end, NO, people will be, well whatever that feeling is when you loose data, but life will go on.
If I lost 5 minutes worth of production data, I'd probably have to find another job. People would not get their orders, we might loose a client. If I worked for the NASDAQ, it might mean real $ figures.
People who work in these high stress database positions understand the debate, and probably won't even post anything beause they are tired of it. I know I am. Learn Oracle, or SQL Server and MySQL postgres and then post your ideas, just don't learn MySQL.
Now that is not to say there is no hope for open systems, I sure hope there is because Oracle is expensive, and I hate most big companies. There is a large list of things that Postgres and MySQL have to do. Here are the big ones.
Log based transactions.
Whenever something happens to the data, the change is stored in another file, along with the data file. This way transactions can be rolled back or restored from transaction log backups without a need to restore the whole database. Get a copy of the datbase backup from a certain time and restore every transaction log backup after that and your back to your last transaction log backup. It also helps to replicate a database, and makes true "live" backups possible while a system is live without a huge performance impact, because the transaction log is also backed up, but at the last second, so when you restore the db, you also restore that log backup that was made at the last second while the database was locked.
One data file for multiple tables.
Having a seperate file for each table is like using dbase or paradox. Hell even Access has one file folks. It is needed for mysql and postgres to manage their own "file system within a file".
I think Postgres is going to do this soon according to some of the discussions.
Complete SQL-92 support.
for all the bitching we do about not supporting standards, MySQL seems to think it is all right to say, "oh they'll make it slower". Give me a break.
Locking, Locking, Locking.
This is imperitive for true transaction support. It is also complicated, deadlocks are no fun. But we must be able to do db, table, row, and key locking. This way you can lock down a row for editing, and not allow anything else to mess with it until your current transaction is done. The classic example is the checking to saving account transfer by two people at the same. MySQL and postgres are not as good of Multiuser system as the big boys. Right now postges sends a message to the application saying, this is locked retry transaction, this is just not up to real enterprise levels.
XML support.
This is a new one, but one that is going to rock the DB world. The crappy thing about current tech is that all record sets are 2 dimensional. But if you've ever done more than 3 or 4 one to many joins this can be a big bitch to scroll through. It also replicates data in the result set leading to more memory consumption, network bandwith, etc. MS SQL as part of the whole
Stop saying we will take over Oracle, and take the steps needed to make it a reality.
well, maybe not MySql, but PostgreSql do
- Supports subselects
- Supports views
- Supports triggers
- Supports stored procs
and does most the things that everyone takes for granted with a decent db server, because PostgreSql is a decent db server.Whether MySQL or Postgres, I don't care as long as open source ends up being a platform for databases. Microsoft can try to portray Linux as a niche webserver platform now, but with a solid foothold as a database platform, open software, as a platform, will be substantially harder to dislodge.
--LinuxParanoid
Okay, I just have a real simple question:
Let's say that Database package A is made by a huge corp and package B is like MySQL, free, open source, etc.. Now, let's say that functionally they're similar and that any given company could use one or the other without aching too much.
If there is a bug in package A, the corp would have monetary incentive + engineers to fix it. (This is hypothetical, so spare me real world scenarios...) If there's a bug in package B, what exactly is the incentive to get it fixed in a timely manner?
Just to be clear, I am not criticizing free software. I'm genuinely curious because I'm not fully educated on the topic.
This is an important question because larger companies are willing to pay the money for the 'package A' scenario, but only because they have a sense that spending th1e money put into it means problems are quickly correctable. (I know, reality is a different story, don't beat me up for that point.) With package B, if something's missing, they don't have much alternative other than to go ahead and use package A. Package B is free, but if they already adopted it there's time/money/effort already invested. This could prove embarrasing. It seems like it'd be hard for a company with enough money to buy and support package A would ever be interested in package B. So how does one go about convincing them?
I'd really like to understand that aspect of Open Source before I recommend MySQL or something like that to my boss.
"Derp de derp."
I have to agree with this, there are certainly many applications that require the name, stability, and configurability of one of the big providers. However, I have noticed a pretty distrubing trend, distrubing to me as a software analyst anyway, the firm I work with purchases loans as an investment, it buys a few hundered loans a year. They originally used a spreadsheet to track payments, balances, and other info about the loans. As this became unmanagable, it was decided that a database would be needed, they bought a new system and put oracle on it. By the time hardware, software, and the consultants were paid, the bill was quite large, all to track about 1500 loans! Say what you will about Access, but this was about the perfect application for it. MySQL or PostgreSQL would have worked, but no one there knew how to manage it. There are people who could be taught how to create and manage access, especially for something this small.
I also am beginning to believe that these sorts of applications of enterprise databases, for something like this, I would guess that most managmets would be quite receptive to a no liceses cost alterative to Oracle. This is starting to give me the hebejebes about investing in enterprise database companies.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Data comes in one way and gets read many times and that's the sort of use MySQL's raw speed will blow both postgres and oarcle away at.
I disagree, every test I've ever done or read in the last 3 years, postgres is as fast or faster than MySQL (using reasonable sized data not "100 test records"). Do you have a link to a benchmark on recent versions of each (without magic 3rd party patches)?
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Addressing the typical slashdot negativity when MySQL is mentioned...
MySQL, w/ InnoDB tables (binaried as MySQL-Max) supports transactions with row-level locking and multi-versioning. It also supports foreign key constraints to some degree (on delete cascade, IIRC).
MySQL w/ InnoDB is extremely fast, and this isn't just on SELECTs. UPDATE/INSERTs are much faster than in MyISAM tables. Looking back, the turning point where MySQL went from a good database to a great database is when it picked up InnoDB, IMO.
No, MySQL does not yet support stored procedures, subselects, or views. These are coming in 4.1, along with built-in hot backup support. Plus better replication. 4.0 is available now and seemingly stablizing. The biggest buzz is how thrilled people are with the query cache. At the current pace of development I imagine the above mentioned features will appear and stabilize in version 4.1 within 2 years.
Is MySQL an Oracle replacement in all circumstances? Absolutely not, but very often Oracle is wholly unnecessary for many of the tasks it's purchased for. We're currently running MySQL + InnoDB on a 36GB dataset at a load of ~500 queries/sec average against a 3 month period. Approxiamtely 30% of queries are data modifications. This is obviously not an impressive system to many of you, but I'm fairly pleased with it, especially considering that "professionals" have been telling us abandon this toy database for years. Personally, I'm glad we saved the down payment on Ellison's next yacht.
Is MySQL a PostgreSQL replacement? Probably not. There are back and forths about speed and features--PostgreSQL does support more of the features listed above--but I find MySQL to be easier to use and better supported, and the benefits to me of switching are not very apparant. Your mileage may vary. It's not the end of the world to enforce some business logic in the application layer, and it has its own benefits.
MySQL continues to impress us and the support we receive is outstanding. And that was before we even decided to purchase a yearly support contract. I have nothing but praises to sing about MySQL, and I think it can only get better.
Oh and it's free and open source. *shrug*
MySQL is basically a database as powerful as Access and others with no performance hit whatsoever. It's not that MySQL is an amazing feat of programming (a good one, but not an amazing one) but it shows what a simple database can do when performance is key. Consider /. which is run on MySQL. A personal database powers one of the best sites on the web, bar none...
Agreed. I use MySQL in a few different production environments, and it works great -- speed is good (even on old, old hardware) and the flexibility is excellent (different formats on a per-table basis). However, I find the SQL implementation somewhat lacking.
UNION support is a little late -- why did it take until 4.0.0 to implement? Furthermore, the lack of subselects makes everyday activities such as multi-table UPDATEs a little arcane. (Read the "it can't be done this way" comments on the bottom to see what I mean. AFAIK the only solution is to create a new table, do an INSERT
MySQL also lacks triggers and views -- views are kind of handy, but if given subselects, can usually be done without. Triggers, though, give one a way to enforce logic (say, relational integrity), which would be very nice to have.
Oh well. I really would like to have my cake, but I guess I'll settle for eating it...
IMHO, views and stored procedures amount to short scripts, and were added to companies making databases at the right time (pre-boom) to make a new class of database that was term'd Enterprise but realy just meant hybrid DB engines with scripting support.
Well, we are talking about relational database management systems, not a "database file". An RDBMS is the middleware between you and the database file, and facilitates crazy, insane features like concurrency control, transactional control, and most importantly security. Both views and stored procedures are very important facets of security in any modern RDBMS as they allow you to hide the internals of your database, and to only provide applications the ability to have certain constrained "I/O windows" into your database (hell, my normal design norm is to only allow interactions with stored procs, which themselves only operate through constrained views). There is nothing gimmicky about these features, and they are crucial for an "enterprise" system.
Boy it seems not a couple weeks ago we were discussing something along these lines here on SlashDot. I think I've said everything I need to say on the lacking features of MySQL, so maybe I'll chat about something else.
:)
I think everyone 'knows' of an Oracle-dependant piece of software in your shop (or school, or website, etc.) which really doesn't 'need' Oracle. We look at apps with 100 users and say - "Heck! Even flat-files would be fine for this app!". Those sorts of Oracle installs are certainly feeling the IT budget crunch. No longer can management write $80K checks to Oracle each year for support and product upgrades. They're looking for a way out and I think some of the smaller more niche products (Sybase ASE, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc.) need to be ready to step in and take them (so listen up MySQL developers and zealots!).
When we discussed this before I brought up what I thought were valid complaints (no hot backups, no binary dumps, EXPLAIN output is cryptic and could be cleaner, replication is still a little immature, etc. etc.). Regardless, some 'rebuttals' I received were the Open Source Party Line - e.g. 'Why don't you code it yourself?' or 'There's a workaround for that.' That is certainly not a healthy attitude to tell potential customers of your product. These guys dropping $100K on a RDBMS and are feeling the pain would love to pay MySQL support contracts, however if you have the attitude that somehow the end-user, who would like to actually pay you money for your product, needs to keep their mouth shut and gratefully take what you charitably give out you're not going to retain them as a customer. Like it or not, they are used to getting what they pay for. And if you're really focused on getting more Enterprise-ish people to use it then you'd best start acting like it.
Give them what they want, treat them like CLIENTS (e.g. deserving of some respect) and not simply another l33t hax0r ("Code it yourself, n00b!") and they'll beat a path to your door.
Thanks,
--
Matt
I jumped at the chance to use MySQL for a large project as a win for opensource. I carefully designed a db that would hold one billion records, as required for my project at work. Well, after a week of importing, when it came time to reindex a field, MySQL's technique was to freeze the table and make a fresh copy (thankfully I had enough room), although the copy took 3 days (during which the db wasn't available). I switched to Oracle and life has been so much better.
In the end, MySQL might handle the raw numbers that some of the big players do, but when you're working with large data sets, Oracle (and presumably others) give you more power. Take the actual physical data structure that Oracle allows you to work with: each database comprises of dynamic multiple variable length data files that can allow tables to span physical disks. MySQL will get there someday, but they're still a little behind.
_______
2B1ASK1
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From the premier site for fruitless technical job searching
Mysql: 49 hits
Postgresql: 2 hits
Oracle: 4595 hits
One could argue that the people that post on DICE are dumber than most, but there still doesn't seem to be much of a market for mysql and postgresql.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
mySQL is the right tool for *far* fewer jobs than those to which most people believe it applies. Many people end up writing code to deal with various aspects of data management that the database is supposed to take care of because they don't know that the database is supposed to take care of the data.
If you only know mySQL, you will attempt to solve your problem within the limitations of the tool. The problem is that many things can't be done in multithreaded or worse, multi-process application code to ensure integrity. If the DB won't do it, and it doesn't support transactions, then you've just gotta hope people don't ever use your application in a way that will make your data invalid.
I just don't get the appeal of mySQL. The last time I tried it, it seemed more difficult to use than postgres, and it supports a subset of the functionality. I have not done a project that doesn't require at least some basic database feature that mySQL doesn't have in years. Sure, I suppose I could've written code to emulate some of those parts of the database, but certainly not all. For the parts I could emulate, the application would most certainly run more slowly (multiple queries to emulate a subquery or what I do in a stored procedure), and the ones I couldn't would just have to be left out, which would make the applications more buggy (lack of transaction support on applications that run on multiple front-ends would simply cause the apps to fail).
Anyway, basic point is that if you don't understand your problem and/or the tools that are out there to help you solve it, you will solve it incorrectly. It may seem like it's working, but those types of implementations fail really quickly when they go multi-user.
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
I don't see why more people don't list SAP-DB with MySQL and PostgreSQL. It _is_ GPL, as well, it supports the SAP applications. It's a pretty good DB system. It's strange that it doesn't get the coverage it deservers.
Engineering and the Ultimate
MySQL (or even Postgresql) don't claim to be drop-in replacement for DB2 or Oracle. But they claim to be good enough for simple database tasks, which happen to represent a huge share of the business market (for every high-availability banking application there are a 1000 small databases storing employee holidays, classroom affectation, etc.). These small databases are not only a bigger market in term of quantity (if not in value), but some of them also grow into big databases someday.
Remember when Microsoft was doing MS-DOS, no Unix vendors would have been worried, they had much better capabilities. When millions of PCs were sold with MS-DOS they started worrying. When Windows came out they growed gray hair. Now SQL Server and Windows Server have eaten the market of smaller servers and high-end workstation. This is the strategy of eating your way from the bottom to the top, and it will also work for MySQL and Postgresql : as time passes and as they mature they eat out an ever larger chunck of the database market.
Most database-systems set up by scientific projects I've seen, have been using either Oracle or Microsoft systems. This is of course completely insane considering the need they have, and a total waste of money. Unfortunately many people read a little about databases on sites like /. and start to belive that they are setting up a large database.
After reading this thread, one can easily think that American express is running an averaged sized system with normal demands on security... The truth is that almost no school systems, museums, scientific projects etc. etc. ever need an enterprize solution. An example of the problem is an institut for Marin research in Colombia where they used Oracle. They paid $15.000 each year in licence fees to set up a database for their collections. They wanted to put it on the web and needed to pay $5.000 more. This is a simple task that Mysql, with all it's flaws, easily could manage, and without the need of an experinced Oracle techincian. There are Highschool Linux geeks in Colombia as well...
The overkill in usage of database systems around is probalby enrmous and a very good source of revenue for Oracle and Microsoft. Think about this when you are bashing the lack of advanced features in Mysql. Someone might actually belive you and buy an Oracle licence to run the member database for their local bridge club...
Guys,
Let me offer my view on the Bloomberg article. It is a huge success for the whole open source community that MySQL gets written about in a publication which is for non-techies only. It is an indication that open source development is not in vain - that open source is becoming a viable alternative even in the most conservative IT shops.
So in stead of arguing for and against this or that open source database, let's work together to become even stronger in the business world!
A key reason for MySQL's huge installed base is that Monty and David - the founders - focused on speed, reliability, and ease of management. That's why Bloomberg is writing about MySQL. And that is also the way to find paying customers who make it possible to hire more programmers and further develop the product.
I am sorry if this sounds like marketing speech. We at MySQL AB are working our butts off to conquer the business world. Now as we are doing so, it will benefit all open source databases. Will you help us?
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
> 1. Supports subselects
> 2. Supports views
> 3. Supports triggers
> 4. Supports stored procs
> 5. Does most the things that everyone takes for granted with a decent db server
Strange. Am I missing something, or am I just dumb? Firebird (open source version of Interbase from Borland) does all that, and does it well. It runs on Unix, Linux and Windoze (yes, some people need that), works very nice and fast, is reliable, costs exactly nothing, and I use it in quite a few real-world applications.
How come I never hear of it on Slashdot?
Have a look at http://sourceforge.net/projects/firebird/
Ciao,
Klaus
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
In the case of libmysql (C native-interface library of MySQL), developers are forced to pay so much money for using GPL code(libmysql) in their software as non-GPL state, plus their customers have to pay money for commercial-licensed MySQL server.
Bull. The libmysql client software is NOT GPL but rather Lesser GPL, which allows linking the client software against a proprietary application program. "A license is not required if: You include the MySQL client code in a commercial program. The client part of MySQL is licensed under the LGPL". Even then, MySQL with InnoDB is $400 per multi-processor machine, as opposed to MS SQL's $20,000 per processor for the unlimited-client license.
Microsoft doesn't require such license fee when you use OLE/DB etc. to get native access to SQL server.
Yes it does. Microsoft SQL Server is priced based either on the number of processors or on the number of machines that will access the database.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Methinks you're onto something with the idea of circular dependence. Views can ameliorate the effects of bad database design. Whether or not this is a good idea depends. Hiding implementation details can be good, but. Hiding soil conditions from architects does not make for good skyscrapers. IMNSHO MySQL does an excellent job of picking the right point of abstracting. Solving business logic within the database seems like it could get counterproductive in a hurry.
You might not be kidding, but you also don't know what you're talking about.
MySQL is the greatest thing since sliced bread for those that find that it DOES THE JOB. MySQL has done everything I need it to for my applications and does it fast. I run several websites using MySQL and it works great. I wouldn't even THINK of using SQL Server, Oracle, or any commercial software instead. In fact, the MyPhpAdmin intetrace is much BETTER than what I had to deal with when I worked with SQL Server 6.5--the last version of SQL Server I've had the misfortune to use.
Many of the features that make the big commercial databases are bloat for many of us. I prefer not to use stored procedures--keep the data in the database and the program in the program. I don't like triggers, especially during the development process. I'd rather have a subroutine that does everything that needs to be done rather than rely on a database (and tie myself to it) to trigger certain actions. I'm not fond of database-enforced relationship constraints. I'd rather my code insert the right data than have the databse reject a transaction with an error because something went wrong.
Sure, if you are Citibank and have a dozen offices around the country that all write their own scripts that modify the same data underneath then you might need stored procedures, triggers, and constraints to make sure no-one messes up the data. But for 95% of the database applications, stored procedures, triggers, and even constraints are bloat. If I can SELECT, INSERT, DELETE, and UPDATE, MySQL serves my needs.
You also seem to be missing the point. The U.S. Government is already using MySQL successfully. It has never crashed (in the case cited by the article). Yahoo is already using it and is thinking about migrating the rest of the site to it. Last I checked, Yahoo is one of the highest-traffic site on the web. I don't think they'd make a decision like this without some real investigation. If MySQL is good enough to even be considered by Yahoo, it's definitely good enough for 99.9% of the websites out there--despite your well-informed, expert opinion. I personally believe Yahoo's decision has a little more weight than soem rant by an anonymous coward on Slashdot.
Oracle and SQL Server might have their place on 0.1% of the databse applications out there. But, believe me, they aren't going to be able to run a profitable business on that 0.1% of the database market. And the rest of the market CAN consider MySQL. Or, in the case of your relgion, PostgreSQL.
The dirty secret of big databases is that most people don't know how to program them, how to configure them
This is correct.
and don't need most of the features
This is where you're wrong.
They do need the features - they just don't know they need them... so they implement the features themselves in the apps..