MySQL and SCO Join Forces

matchboy writes "CNET is reporting that MySQL and SCO have signed a partnership to work on "joint certification, marketing, sales, training and business development work for a version of the database for SCO's new OpenServer 6 version of Unix." Why would MySQL decide to work directly with a company that has deemed the GPL as unconstitutional?"

Comments

It's simple

[Anonymous Coward]

They kidnapped their dolphin Sekila and left a note that said "You know what's great with tuna? Dolphin."

Re:It's simple

[ikkonoishi]

And they were right! Mmm mmm good.

Re:It's simple

[ikkonoishi]

Love and superior firepower.

Re:It's simple

[Overly Critical Guy]

Honestly? I don't know why someone would use MySQL over something like PostgreSQL. From numerous data integrity issues (just look at how they handle null fields) to things like this, I'm glad I chose to go with PostgreSQL last year instead of MySQL for my app. Beyond the ubiquitousness of MySQL due to great marketing, I don't see any advantages over the alternatives. It sure is nice being able to just call a simple function to get the next value in an automatic sequence, unlike MySQL and its "auto_increment" behavior.

If someone is a MySQL fan, they may regard this as a troll, but hey. MySQL has long been criticized as both a database and as an organization by many other people besides me.

Plus, they'll never live down their discouraging remarks about foreign keys in the old MySQL manual.

Re:It's simple

[toddbu]

(just look at how they handle null fields)

Would you care to elaborate?

Beyond the ubiquitousness of MySQL due to great marketing

Don't discount the importance of marketing. Although I've heard good things about PostgreSQL, you seldom ever see it mentioned in articles. It could be the greatest tool around, but if the user base is limited then you start to ask yourself questions like "Is this really well tested?" or "Are they going to be around tomorrow?" I don't know what the answer is for PostgreSQL, but I believe the answer for MySQL is "yes".

It sure is nice being able to just call a simple function to get the next value in an automatic sequence, unlike MySQL and its "auto_increment" behavior.

Why do think that this is better? In one case you call the function and then use the value, and in the other case you insert the row and then ask what the new PK is. I'm not sure how one is better than the other. Could you explain?

If someone is a MySQL fan, they may regard this as a troll

MySQL works for me, but if you can make a compelling case as to how it's better than MySQL then we'd certainly give it a look.

Plus, they'll never live down their discouraging remarks about foreign keys in the old MySQL manual.

Details please? I'm not trying to pick on you here. I'm just trying to figure out what your complaint is. The MySQL manual is huge, so you can't expect everyone to know what you're talking about.

For what it's worth, MySQL has some features that we really love, like the binary logs. We have yet to lose a single row because of database corruption. Performance is good. I'll agree that some things suck (like the way innodb handles files, even after the introduction of file_per_table), but all-in-all it's a great tool.

Re:It's simple

[mdecarle]

I know why people use MySQL: because they are using software that only runs on MySQL.

And I am one person like that. If the software for my website would run on PostgreSQL, I'ld switch right on the instance.

Re:It's simple

[Overly Critical Guy]

Would you care to elaborate?

In SQL NULL represents the the absence of a value. In MySQL an explicit NULL may also represent the next value of a pseudo-sequence and an implicit NULL may represent an implicit default value (a zero or empty string) determined by MySQL. See here and this Wikipedia article for more info.

Why do think that this is better? In one case you call the function and then use the value, and in the other case you insert the row and then ask what the new PK is. I'm not sure how one is better than the other. Could you explain?

If you're wanting to know your next ID number before inserting data, you're screwed in MySQL. MySQL uses "auto_increment" fields that just add one to the previous row's value, while PostgreSQL uses what are called sequences which are guaranteed to always return a unique value, and you use those for your ID fields. In MySQL, there's no way of finding out the next value in an auto_increment sequence until you've committed a row to the database, while PostgreSQL lets you peek at the next value in the sequence.

Details please? I'm not trying to pick on you here. I'm just trying to figure out what your complaint is. The MySQL manual is huge, so you can't expect everyone to know what you're talking about.

Here you go. The old manual criticized foreign key constraints and transactions using bizarre reasoning.

For what it's worth, MySQL has some features that we really love, like the binary logs. We have yet to lose a single row because of database corruption.

The issue with MySQL isn't database corruption, it's data integrity. A lot of things in MySQL will happen and not give you any warnings, whereas other databases are very strict about giving you a warning or even refusing the statement with an error so you can respond to it in your code. There are an alarming number of conditions where MySQL inserts things like zeros into fields without telling a single thing. You can't fully trust MySQL.

Re:It's simple

[realnowhereman]

I found this list to be particularly interesting reading. I happened to pick PostgreSQL rather than MySQL when I needed a DB; this list made me feel very glad that I did.

MySQL Gotchas

To remain fair, there is a similar list for postgresql, but to me they seem like far less serious problems.

PostgreSQL Gotchas

Re:It's simple

[toddbu]

I see, you're a SQL purist. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that I come at things from a bit of a different perspective. For example, I just worked on a project where I had to use MSSQL instead of MySQL. In one instance, I put too much data into a char field and I got an error back saying that data would be truncated. In MySQL, the data would silently be truncated and the user would be none the wiser. In a mission critical app where data loss is intolerable, the MSSQL approach is right. In most of the stuff that I work on, however, silent truncation isn't an issue. I think that people kind of inherently understand this when dealing with certain types of applications. (For the record, this was a one byte char which held gender information. So if you typed "male" then you'd get "m" back.)

I find the NULL argument kind of interesting. I was expecting something like "it doesn't work right when you sum or average". Again, I'm more than happy to let MySQL pick a default value for me if I didn't provide any. I guess that I just don't find it unreasonable that if I don't provide a value for a char/varchar/text that it'll just default to an empty string. Of course you're talking to a guy who thinks that PHP is great because "" == 0 == false.

I'll admit that the first item on the "broken foreign key" list is a little lame. The thing I find with foreign keys is that they have to be used with care. With a given subsystem, foreign keys are great. Where I tend to push back is when they cross subsystems, even when they're valid. The reason that I say this is that I once worked on a project where we had three distinct entities, and we decided that we should be able to modify the code for each of these independent of one another. When I proposed that we break a few FK relationships so that we could break apart the code, I immediately received pushback from the DBAs. I certainly understood their concern, but I didn't feel like they were looking at the bigger picture. Anyways, I lost the argument and the project died, in part because we couldn't fix the problem. (On a related note, I feel the same way about stored procs. There are times when you really need to have them, but the associated penalty is that version control virtually goes out the window. Every time I tell a DBA that I'll use stored procs when they can tell me how to version the code, they walk away without an answer. For as much a DBAs expect developers to work with them to make the database better, it's not unreasonable for developers to ask DBAs to meet their time-tested standards for good code development.)

I guess in general there are two ways to look at the world. One is to trust that everyone knows what they're doing, and what you risk is that something will snap you in the ass later on. (I freely admit to spending time tracking down misspelled variable names in PHP because there is no equivalent to "option explicit".) The other is to trust no one and validate every piece of data that comes your way. I prefer the former, you (appear to prefer) the latter. Each is valid, depending on how you view the world.

I do have one follow up question for you. You mention that you don't like having to get the PK after an insert into an auto_increment field, but I still didn't see any reason why this system doesn't work. Do you have an example where it's necessary to get the PK before the insert? Or is this just a matter of preference?

Re:It's simple

[toddbu]

Much in the same way that one man's "insightful" comment on slashdot is another man's "troll", so too is one man's "weakness" in a database another man's "strength". I refer you to my comments to the thread immediately above.

Re:It's simple

[Jaseoldboss]

In MSSQL you can control the behaviour of string truncation : SET ANSI_WARNINGS OFF "data is truncated to the size of the column and the statement succeeds."

Read the documentation though as it affects other warnings.

It's probably best to explicitly control the size of strings though. If you were writing in C you might create a buffer overrun possibility.

Re:It's simple

[itwerx]

Great links - thanks! :)

Re:It's simple

[RobNich]

A little OT, but in reference to your PHP-related comments:

Even though "" == 0 is true,
"" === 0 is not true ("" !== 0). This is VERY useful in various respects.

I develop my PHP apps with E_STRICT set as the reporting level, (http://us2.php.net/error_reporting) and use a library I found that stores every PHP error/warning in an array to display it at the end of the document (in my case, inside a JavaScript popup). This way, I get warnings for using undefined variables. If you want some code, tell me...I don't have it on my site, but if there is demand for it, I can put it there.

Re:It's simple

[LordoftheWoods]

Sounds like Microsoft, anyone?

But really... have you tried it? PgSQL tries to be compatible (except when dealing with decidedly 'broken' behavior) with MySQL, I think.

Re:It's simple

[AstroDrabb]

If you're wanting to know your next ID number before inserting data, you're screwed in MySQL. MySQL uses "auto_increment" fields that just add one to the previous row's value, while PostgreSQL uses what are called sequences which are guaranteed to always return a unique value, and you use those for your ID fields. In MySQL, there's no way of finding out the next value in an auto_increment sequence until you've committed a row to the database, while PostgreSQL lets you peek at the next value in the sequence.

To be fair, MySQL is not the only DB to do this. Microsoft SQL Server uses an "auto" increment field as well called identity columns. Once the record is inserted you better store the value of @@IDENTITY or you can have @@IDENTITY crisis This is in contrast to a sequence like in Oracle and PostgreSQL. I guess it depends on what side of the fence you started off in. I have done many projects in Oracle, MS SQL and MySQL and think that a sequence is much more handy over an auto increment/identity column, YMMV.

Re:It's simple

[Apro im]

I guess in general there are two ways to look at the world. One is to trust that everyone knows what they're doing, and what you risk is that something will snap you in the ass later on. (I freely admit to spending time tracking down misspelled variable names in PHP because there is no equivalent to "option explicit".) The other is to trust no one and validate every piece of data that comes your way. I prefer the former, you (appear to prefer) the latter. Each is valid, depending on how you view the world.

I suppose if you view the world as a wondrous opportunity to debug, the former is a valid point of view. Please don't misunderstand me - I feel that if you're extending these philosophies to other facets of life, I'm all for your perspective of trusting others. However, history has demonstrated that in any engineering discipline, especially software engineering, you must put in safeguards and make sure that people don't do the wrong thing. After all, strcpy is fine as long as people do the right thing.

Don't get me wrong - you shouldn't bug the hell out of your users by forcing them to behave in just the right way to make your program dance. But you shouldn't allow them to do the wrong thing, no matter how much you trust them. The number of disastrous failures that occured because software relied on users to "do the right thing" boggles the mind.

I don't personally have any investment in either DB, but the concept that you should not make sure that your input is correct is so passé it honestly surprised me to see somebody espouse it.

Re:It's simple

[ItCompiled!]

This is about Linus not liking slashdot: Who gives a flying rat's ...

Re:It's simple

[toddbu]

but the concept that you should not make sure that your input is correct is so passé it honestly surprised me to see somebody espouse it.

As I mentioned in another thread, there are probably tons of broken apps out there if you force feed them too much data. (For example, try putting a really long name into /. as your "real name" and see what happens, or enter a too-long phone number into Yahoo address book.) In practice we see this all over the place on the web. When was the last time your browser notified you that it was exceeding the length of a query string?

However, history has demonstrated that in any engineering discipline, especially software engineering, you must put in safeguards and make sure that people don't do the wrong thing. After all, strcpy is fine as long as people do the right thing.

I know that memcpy/strcpy are the source of many buffer overflow problems (and hence security problems), so I really can't say that your argument is all wet. On the other hand, I've spent time in a Pascal world where you can do anything without getting permission. I prefer the problems of screwing up strcpy to the problems of trying to get something to run properly in Pascal. Actually, I used to have my students write strcpy so that they could see exactly how it works, and what the implications are of a buffer overrun.

Re:It's simple

[Overly Critical Guy]

I see, you're a SQL purist. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that I come at things from a bit of a different perspective.

I'm not an SQL purist, I'm a data integrity purist. Did you read the "Gotchas" site I linked to? MySQL silently inserted an empty value for a NOT NULL field. There are an alarming number of cases where data is truncated silently, zeros are entered silently, and NULL fields leads to weird assumptions on MySQL's part--all silently. I like my databases to let me know when they're making assumptions or doing anything automatically so I can respond to it in code.

Here's another article--MySQL Oddities.

I do have one follow up question for you. You mention that you don't like having to get the PK after an insert into an auto_increment field, but I still didn't see any reason why this system doesn't work. Do you have an example where it's necessary to get the PK before the insert? Or is this just a matter of preference?

Not only do I like to be able to associate user-uploaded files with content they may be editing but haven't yet published and submitted to the database, but MySQL's auto_increment leads to situations where 0 equals 1. MySQL just ignores what you give it sometimes without warning and does its own thing. I can't trust that, not for what I do.

Now, sure, I could walk around it all and conform my code to compensate, but I think it's the job of the database to be protecting its integrity, not me.

Re:It's simple

[XO]

Great marketing?

  I have yet to see a MySQL tv ad...

  or any other ad anywhere else either.

Re:It's simple

[mdecarle]

Yes, I did try it. This software I run has a especially written database layer, that works only with MySQL.

The only option I have, is trying to rewrite that db layer ... Or I could wait and hope.

Because...

[pwnage]

Dollars always trumps the Constitution. Haven't you been paying attention to recent politics?

Re:Because...

[Beautyon]

dollars

Indeed.

I wonder how many of the people here railing against this detail-less deal downloaded and used MYSQL AND gave them a single dollar to say 'Thanks'....lets see:

mysql> select count(*) FROM users WHERE donators like %complainers%';

+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
| 0 |
+----------+

Thought so!

Re:Because...

[Gaewyn L Knight]

You must have trunc'd your database first.... cause I sure gave.

Also... count(*) is bad form... count(1) is more efficient in most SQL databases... ohh and the missing "'".

Re:Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be honest about this: the reaction to this news is 100% typical slashdot hypocrisy. *So* many MYSQL zealots are defending this as if it's some kind of minor news or just "business as usual". MySQL has just jumped into bed with SCO... *SCO*.

How long has slashdot been (justifiably) slagging off Sun for doing business with SCO? How much damage was done to that ISP when the news got about about them signing SCO's bullshit Linux license?

But hey... not MySQL, they walk on fucking water.

Pfff. MySQL and Apple zealots... cut from the same cloth. The object of your devotion can do no wrong. You make me sick. If you had the slightest integrity you would be investigating other options already -- it's not as if MySQL is actually top of the range of Free RDBMS, quite the opposite it's rather braindamaged.

Re:Because...

[Bistronaut]

What the heck database are you using? Any SQL database engine worth its salt has count(*) properly optimized.

Re:Because...

[apdt]

Like he said, MySQL....

*ducks*

Re:Because...

[inio]

PostgreSQL doesn't, for one. It also doesn't have min() and max() optimized because they refuse to special purpose functions that can be implemented with their generic function system.

Re:Because...

[ajs318]

Who needs MIN() and MAX() anyway? What's wrong with something like SELECT height FROM suspects ORDER BY height ASC LIMIT 1 ? Come to think of it, I probably would just use SELECT * ....., read the whole record into a numeric array and pull out the field I wanted. But that's just because I'm used to using the GPL version of MySQL, which isn't so much a database but a set of extensions for implementing special large associative arrays via an abstraction layer which resembles a programming language.

Anyway, the only people who don't like the GPL are the ones from whom it was meant to protect the rest of us -- the ones who want to take someone else's hard work which they intended to be for the benefit of all, then cage it up and profit from it.

Serious question for GPL-haters: Which of the Four Freedoms don't you believe in?

Re:Because...

[danro]

Maybe because MySQL is a Swedish company.
Why would they care about foreign nations constitutions, or lack thereof?

Maybe...

[GreyWolf3000]

Why would MySQL decide to work directly with a company that has deemed the GPL as unconstitutional?"

...because MySQL stands to make money off of this?

I dunno...just a guess.

Re:Maybe...

[ralinx]

...because MySQL stands to make money off of this?


yea, just think of all that potential revenue coming from those millions of SCO customers ;)

Re:Maybe...

[Solder Fumes]

Because it's TheirSQL.

Re:Maybe...

[IdleTime]

If the MySQL people think they are going to make money by partnering with SCO, they need a new leadership.

The judgment behind this decision says a lot about the company and I woukld never touch its products, no matter how good they are supposed to be.

IMHO making a partnership with SCO is a career killer.

me: I see you were CEO of MySQL?
CEO: yes
me: And you were the force behind the partnering deal with SCO?
CEO: Yes
me: Thank you for your interest in the position, but we don't need CEO's with flawed busniess logic. Next!

Re:Maybe...

[Dogtanian]

...because MySQL stands to make money off of this?

Not if Novell have anything to do with it.

(Not my comment, but I thought it was a pity to let something that insightful languish at +2 obscurity because it didn't appear near the start).

Re:Maybe...

[sk999]

Why would MySQL decide to work directly with a company that has deemed the GPL as unconstitutional?"

Or maybe because they are located in Sweden which has it's own constitution?

Re:Maybe...

[SocietyoftheFist]

I wonder how many people here run businesses or work in big businesses? MySQL AB is doing well with their relatively new subscription support model. It is quite possible they have customers using SCO's products that need support. The only knee jerk reactions are probably going to be from zealots without much financial say anyway. I don't see this effecting them at all.

Re:Maybe...

[dzafez]

Maybe PostgrSQL will finally get the popularity it is supposed to have ? Have you eve spend evenings readin code of both? The BSD-License allowes SCO to take beautyful code without telling, now they choose crappy code and have to make contracts... ... Idiots

Re:Maybe...

[Pig Hogger]

me: I see you were CEO of MySQL?
CEO: yes
me: And you were the force behind the partnering deal with SCO?
CEO: Yes
me: Thank you for your interest in the position, but we don't need CEO's with flawed busniess logic. Next!

You oughta have noticed by now that big companies do not have a commonsense that lies in the same reality plane as ours...

Re:Maybe...

[mikefe]

And here I thought it was ThereSQL...

Re:Maybe...

[Yuioup]

Please elaborate.

I seemed to have missed this story. What's that about Novell and MySQL?

Y

Re:Maybe...

[wheezl]

Damn Straight. MySQL has been about the dollars for quite a while now. And why should any one fault them for that?

I fault them for making a crap DB. Sleepycat and SQL Lite are far superior in that space. There is no reason for MySQL to exist except marketing that the fanboys eat up. I don't know why people keeep benchmarking MySQL vs. PostgreSQL. I think it is to continue the myth that MySQL is a Database. Benchmark MySQL vs. a bubble sort and it will really shine.

Re:Maybe...

[Solder Fumes]

Not sure what, if anything, you're implying.

Re:Maybe...

[Dogtanian]

No, Novell were pushing to have SCO's assets frozen because they were taking action against them and afraid that SCO would go belly-up before they got paid.

If SCO don't have the money, MySQL don't get paid.

Re:Maybe...

[ggvaidya]

Hey, just cos you haven't paid up your 699$ for Linux(TM) ...

mysql ab should have spoken with ev1

[sum.zero]

before they made this ill-conceived strategic decision.

sum.zero

MySQL Business Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - Load gun
2 - Point gun at foot
3 - Pull trigger

Re:MySQL Business Strategy

[Legendof_Pedro]

4 - Profit

?

Re:MySQL Business Strategy

[msh104]

4b - for the hospital..

Re:MySQL Business Strategy

[RAMMS EIN]

So the ???? and !!!! have shifted place now?

1. Shoot yourself in the foot
2. Ouch!!!!
3. Profit????

Re:MySQL Business Strategy

[rubycodez]

no problem, just shift that holster to the other side where the remaining good foot is. good to go another round. Really, it's open source advocates who have let RedHat and SuSE and projects such as apache and MySQL get their foot in the door in corporate america. MySQL stabs the open source commnunity in the back like this, weird things will happen...who is going to be their advocate?

Re:MySQL Business Strategy

[Dacmot]

Dude... you don't get ./ do you. Let me explain it for you:

1 - Load gun
2 - Point gun at foot
3 - ...
4 - Profit!

Re:MySQL Business Strategy

[Morosoph]

1 - Load gun
2 - Point gun at foot
3 - Pull trigger

But you misspelt gnu!

Re:MySQL Business Strategy

[DrXym]

I don't see this as being the case at all.

SCO is history. If they want to toss a little money at MySQL before they expire then where's the harm? MySQL can fix a few bugs with money that would have ended up in the grubby mits of lawyers.

I don't see any win in this for SCO at all. In fact, the more open source products they incorporate, the more homogenous their platform becomes. What incentive does anyone have for using SCO if all the components run on Linux, Solaris, BSD, OS X or even Win32? Where's the value add? Where's the compelling features? This is doubly true since if I were running a DB, the very last thing I would think of running it on would be SCO. Even if I were a SCO shop (are there any?), a database living on the network could be any OS for all they care.

Besides I suspect SCO customers are the least likely to upgrade since they wouldn't be using shitty SCO at all if they were interested in the latest and greatest. Most SCO installs are probably mangy old 486/386 boxes sitting in some ancient warehouse/EPOS system that nobody dares touch.

This could be a good thing

[djfatbody]

I will play the optimist and say that this may help the cause. Clearly SCO is on the ropes. MySQL way be the olive branch that allows SCO to exit all this and save a little face. MySQL get a platform with which to grow market share against other commercial databases.

Re:This could be a good thing

[Stormwatch]

And saving face is a good thing? I thought everyone here wanted to see SCO go down in flames...

Re:This could be a good thing

[maxwells_deamon]

The only way I could see this being a good thing is if the MYSQL folks set up the contract with a huge payoff clause if SCO fails in the next three years. Then when chapter 13 comes they can open source all of SCO's software.

Re:This could be a good thing

[pallmall1]

SCO doesn't need an olive branch. One needs only to look at their past behavior to realize they would take the branch and use it to try and whip the one who offered it. "See, they must have done something wrong, and they felt so guilty about wronging us that they gave us this olive branch," or something like that.

By partnering with SCO, MySQL has embraced their unethical, tangled web business model. This is unacceptable to me. That's why I have just started evaluating PostgreSQL for use in a company database, after already setting it up using MySQL. It's a small app, but our company is growing fast, and the DB is a critical component of managing the growing amounts of information we need to handle. MySQL has worked well, but, fortunately, they have made this SCO decision at a stage where I can replace it before deployment within our organization.

MySQL has decided to engage in business with SCO while SCO is still being run by quick-buck schemers. MySQL chose to do this, so I choose not to use their software (wish I could do the same for Microsoft stuff, but that's another topic). MySQL also is in no postition to offer any kind of "olive branch," anyway.

In other words, there's no way to polish this turd.

Judging one by the company he keeps

[MarkEst1973]

You can tell a lot about a person by looking at the people (s)he associates with.

Why, oh, why would MySql risk their reputation knowing how SCO looks to the entire open source community?

Re:Judging one by the company he keeps

[Dogtanian]

But SCO is giving credibility to GPL software

How are the same people who called the GPL 'unconstitutional' going to lend it credibility, even if they were a credible business in the first place, and not a dying company reliant on income from their existing customers (or from *suing* their existing customers)?

Please stop hogging the crack pipe.

Re:Judging one by the company he keeps

[njcoder]

"Why, oh, why would MySql risk their reputation knowing how SCO looks to the entire open source community?"

Maybe it's the open source community that needs to really look at some of the things that MySQL ab has done in the past and really think if that reputation is warranted, especially after this.

It's one thing to like and use the product it's another to like and trust the company that is backing it. All too often people have one opinion and assume the other. This also work dislike and distrust.

Re:Judging one by the company he keeps

[Halo1]

Maybe it's the open source community that needs to really look at some of the things that MySQL ab has done in the past

Yeah, like say being one of the main funders of the nosoftwarepatents.com campaign in Europe, as well as giving a lot of money to the FFII (which coordinated most of the battle against software patents in Europe).

New Playing Field

[cloudscout]

I imagine nobody is happier to hear this that PostgreSQL. Their popularity is about to skyrocket as countless OSS projects look for alternatives to MySQL.

Re:New Playing Field

[Afty0r]

Their popularity is about to skyrocket as countless OSS projects look for alternatives to MySQL.

Why is that? Is MySQL suddently going to lose features, or perform worse? Anyone who uses MySQL for what it is won't have any cause to so much as sniff at this announcement.

It may cause gnashing of teeth on /. but in the real business world people who base their business decisions on some kind of moral philosophy they subscribe to don't do very well - and consequently don't make particularly good customers.

MySQL will probably be making bank with this decision, while a few hundred slashbots moan about how awful it is... in the meantime all the people who actually PAY MySQL AB money will continue to do - and the load on their download servers may lighten a little.

Re:New Playing Field

[Anonymous Coward]

Is MySQL suddently going to lose features, or perform worse?

Yeah, because *that's* why people use MySQL - for the features.

MySQL is way behind Postgres with regards to both features and performance. People who stick with it do so becuase they know it, not because it's the best solution.

Re:New Playing Field

[Tony Hoyle]

True.. they need to sort out their win32 installer though... in craps all over system32 (before anyone says it I *know* I need to report it to them or post a fix... it just hasn't annoyed me yet enough as we primarily use MSDE on win32 anyway).

Re:New Playing Field

[Cylix]

And mysql being a decent open source database had nothing to do with where it is today.

Applications thrive on users and flourish.

To say a company were to be where it is today without all of people involved is a little silly.

They have a fairly good market imprint now and they can more then likely afford to upset some of those people.

Re:New Playing Field

[sveinb]

Yup. I've been dithering between the slow but sophisticated PostgreSQL and the quick and dirty MySQL from project to project for years. Read my lips: No more dithering!

Re:New Playing Field

[Lazy Jones]

Why is that? Is MySQL suddently going to lose features, or perform worse?

No, because most of MySQL's cheerleaders were muppets who were not interested in technical issues at all (nor could they judge them if they wanted to) and now they'll be looking for a new religion. ;-)

Re:New Playing Field

[metamatic]

I imagine people might think twice about basing their middleware on a database whose source code might be entangled in SCO contracts.

Just like I would never touch System V these days, even though I preferred it to BSD.

Re:New Playing Field

[civilizedINTENSITY]

It may cause gnashing of teeth on /. but in the real business world people who base their business decisions on some kind of moral philosophy they subscribe to don't do very well - and consequently don't make particularly good customers.

Actually there is this thing called a Mission Statement. It relates to the "Vision" thing. Most companies have both written and unwritten requirements of their corporate culture. The interesting thing is, at least to quote my Financial Strategy Prof and the textbook, there is a correlation between percieved ethical behavior and doing well as a business. At a certain point it all comes down to trust. If you can't trust a corporations business culture, then you don't want to do business with them. This does hurt the bottomline.

Re:New Playing Field

[killjoe]

You are right. Businesses have no morals and will do anything and everything to make more money. Most business people will never make a decision based on what is good for society, what is good for the world, what is good for their neighborhood, or country. Most business people will never even for a second consider the morality or immorality of their actions. TO them money is the only real ethic and moral.

The problem is the human beings do have morals, and the open source community seems the especially moral. If the open source community abandons mysql then it will no longer be able to keep up it's popularity and feature race.

Mysql is a business build on the popularity of mysql int he open source world. Once that's gone they don't really have too much else. Their product already lags most other open source databases in features.

Re:New Playing Field

[mrchaotica]

Their popularity is about to skyrocket as countless OSS projects look for alternatives to MySQL.

It may cause gnashing of teeth on /. but in the real business world people who base their business decisions on some kind of moral philosophy they subscribe to don't do very well - and consequently don't make particularly good customers.

The grandparent was talking about OSS projects, and you were talking about the real business world. Therefore, your response had very little to do with what he said, because most OSS projects aren't used by business.

Re:New Playing Field

[Anthony Boyd]

I imagine nobody is happier to hear this that PostgreSQL. Their popularity is about to skyrocket as countless OSS projects look for alternatives to MySQL.

No. I will look for alternatives, but after the way the PostgreSQL advocates have treated MySQL users, PostgreSQL is not an option. The PostgreSQL fans have taken over tons of threads about MySQL -- they rarely generate their own good press, instead they just complain vociferously about all the good press that other DBs get. They belittle the legitimate critiques that people have about PostgreSQL, frequently making derogatory comments about the person rather than the critique. They have a conveniently shifting definition of what a "real database" is, so that as MySQL adds features, they can continously say, "well, now it may do everything I said it couldn't, but it's still not good enough."

The PostgreSQL database has an ugly community. And with support & learning being community-driven in most Open Source products, I cannot see myself chosing them. Instead, it's time to look at Firebird or for smaller projects, the new MiniSQL (or whatever it's called) that PHP recently added hooks for. I've also heard of another promising free database, but I can't recall the name right now -- it might have had something to do with Andreessen's Cloud-something business.

Re:New Playing Field

[Anthony Boyd]

Addendum: apparently PostgreSQL is also partnering with SCO so now there is added incentive to choose Firebird or something else.

PS: I found the Andreessen FOSS database, it's called Derby and it's not as impressive as I'd hoped. Still, it's an option.

Re:New Playing Field

[horza]

I think I agree. I've pushed a few companies away from M$ to using MySQL and I've always been happy with it. It's been mainly inertia that's stopped myself and many of my colleagues from moving to Postgres. I will wait and see how MySQL respond before migrating all the sites to Postgres (thankfully I have a DB abstraction class which would make it a few minute job)

Phillip.

Re:New Playing Field

[Anthony Boyd]

Bwahahahaha! You prove my point by arguing about an opinion! Hilarious!

Re:New Playing Field

[llefler]

Instead, it's time to look at Firebird

I would love to be using Firebird instead of MySQL. But so far I haven't found an administrative tool that compares to MySQLAdministrator. Seems like everything for Firebird is commercial, alpha, or a dead project.

The database is solid and feature rich, but GUI tools are really lacking.

Re:New Playing Field

[HiThere]

Actually, it's more complex than that. Every DBMS has incompatible extensions to the SQL standard, except some of those who don't even fully implement it, and some of them.

A program developed for MySQL is likely to generate some non-standard SQL code. To convert to using a different DBMS, one needs to rewrite those parts of the code.

MySQL is popular because it is popular, but since it is popular, there is a large amount of code depending on the non-standard extensions. This gives them considerable market inertia.

Personally, I have BOTH MySQL and PostGreSQL installed. So I can convert software piece by piece. Others may not have enough disk space to keep both running, so they can only do development on one OR the other...and if they have an investment in MySQL...well, things become difficult.

This has, however, meant that when I develop new software it will be for PostGreSQL. (And I'll TRY to notice when I'm using a non-standard extension.)

P.S.: Some of the development will also be for SQLite, also. And now I may investigate FireBird...don't want to have too much vendor lock-in.

N.B.: I'm doing this for my own purposes. You do what you want. MySQL is still GPL, and that's a strong protection. But I don't see any reason to nobble my projects with something that I was only choosing because it was popular, when that something starts acting in ways that I consider, at best, dubious.

Re:New Playing Field

[CaptainZapp]

but in the real business world people who base their business decisions on some kind of moral philosophy they subscribe to don't do very well

You are certainly right with that comment. But if - as is mostly the case with a database engine - real business world translates to reliability of transactions and reasonable support of business rules within the database then MySQL and real business world are an oxymoron.

Re:New Playing Field

[6031769]

Actually, PostgreSQL is not partnering with SCO. Rather SCO has done a deal with EnterpriseDB who produce their own DB which is a modified version of PostgreSQL. So, while EnterpriseDB has done deals with both SCO and the PostgreSQL group, that one step removal is quite important.

Re:New Playing Field

[Anthony Boyd]

Agreed. I concede your point.

Uh - Best of Both Worlds?

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Why would MySQL decide to work directly with a company that has deemed the GPL as unconstitutional?

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

Re:Uh - Best of Both Worlds?

[skillet-thief]

The mysql dual licence was actually hiding a deeper schizophrenia that has just now showed itself. Apparently, they never believed they could really make enough money with GPL'ed software, so now they are doing this.

I'm not sure what the moral of the story might be yet, but quite possibly it is: Beware of what lurks behind the dual licence.

Re:Uh - Best of Both Worlds?

[chad9023]

I would say that MySQL does have a dog in this fight, one that's very important to them. I think that a lot of people don't understand MySQL's dual-licensing strategy. It's really quite simply: release under the GPL, and all the hobbyists, small companies, etc., are going to use, learn, and (possiblly) love your product. When those same people go to release a commercial product, they can still use the same product that they already know, but can obtain a commercial license to distribute it.

It's not that MySQL doesn't think they can't make money from a GPL'd product - they simply see that there is a market for both GPL and commercial software, and some people actually buy both.

Of course, that being said, I use Postgres, because it conforms to standards in one key area: it's not case sensitive.

Re:Uh - Best of Both Worlds?

[Tony Hoyle]

Not small companies... unless you're 100% GPL MySql is not an option (OK you can fudge it by sticking to 3.23 which is what we do (we're about 95% GPL but that 5% is *important*) but if you want decent features Sqlite is better, and Postgresql is *much* better for enterprise stuff).

Re:Uh - Best of Both Worlds?

[Homology]

The mysql dual licence was actually hiding a deeper schizophrenia that has just now showed itself. Apparently, they never believed they could really make enough money with GPL'ed software, so now they are doing this.

Huh? Their software is still GPL so you can use it for free, but if you want to extend MySQL and keep the changes for yourself then you buy the commercial license. Same thing for the GUI toolkit Qt from Trolltech, or the 3D library Coin3D for instance.

The owners of the software gives you a choice between two licenses : GPL or a commercial one. So why all these complaints for software that they let you use for free?

Re:Uh - Best of Both Worlds?

[bigsmoke]

I've been beating myself over the exact same question... It seems as if a surprising number of participants in this thread don't know what the GPL is and how it works.

Re:Uh - Best of Both Worlds?

[mikefe]

Has MySQL modified the GPL in any way from standard?

If not, then I see a small market for the non-GPL version since GPLed software can be used in a comercial setting without any problems.

Now, if someone wanted to link MySQL into their product, then there would be a use for the non-GPL license. Also, there is a use for buying support from them from a disaster recovery point of view, but wouldn't a contract with RH or Novell/Suse do that also?

Join?

[Mr.Progressive]

SELECT * FROM mysql, sco WHERE mysql_forces = sco_forces

Re:Join?

[Tethys_was_taken]

Funniest thing I've read in a long time. I wish I had mod points, but I just blew 'em away :(

PS: If this is true, and the deal goes through completely, I will be switching my website over to Postgres. Thanks for all the fish MySQL AB. It was (somewhat) good while it lasted.

Re:Join?

[JohnnyBigodes]

A comma is an INNER JOIN, dude.

Re:Join?

[fbg111]

0 rows returned.

Re:Join?

[arjenlentz]

Oh, look: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1846635,00.as p
SCO also partners with EnterpriseDB (PostgreSQL), Borland (InterBase), Computer Associates (Ingres), IBM (Informix).

Where will you go, what will you do? Ah, but wait! The article gives a pointer there, too... Oracle. They don't want to support users on that platform. So, go for it. This could be your ultimate "put your money where ...."

Darn pity it's not open source. Hmm actually, that gives you another option also: you could go for Microsoft.

Re:Join?

[Captain_Chaos]

Please!

SELECT * FROM mysql INNER JOIN sco ON mysql_forces = sco_forces

doubtful

[sum.zero]

they risk a large-scale negative reaction in order to attempt a push into a small, dying market niche.

as i have pointed out on groklaw, the companies running dbms on their unixware/openserver boxes will likely stick with their dbms when they move to another *nix.

companies hate switching dbms because it can get very messy very fast.

sum.zero

Re:doubtful

[trewornan]

SCO have a history of taking legal actions against those that enter into contracts with them. In fact just about everybody they sue has some sort of contract with them. MySQL ab are taking a real chance with this and it could cost them hugely.

Re:doubtful

[An Onerous Coward]

Well, you know the old saying: You lie down with the dogs, you wake up with a mailbox full of litigation.

I like MySQL, both as a product and as a company. They've generally done the right things, thus far. I just hope they're being careful, and I hope they understand just how silly this looks to us all. :)

Re:doubtful

[trewornan]

You forgot copyright infringement - that's another one which SCO haven't sued anybody for. Incidentally, companies frequently sue people they DON'T have contracts with.

Re:doubtful

[kilodelta]

How very true. We run MySQL on Debian and RedHat servers.

I'm rather surprised that MySQL is joining one of the Evil Empire.

Their freebie product is fantastic. We host all sorts of databases using it and the only glitches we have are our fault, not that of the dbms.

Re:doubtful

[mcrbids]

companies hate switching dbms because it can get very messy very fast.

Which is why I never did much with MySQL. I started with MySQL, but after being introduced to PostgreSQL, I've never looked back.

It's robust, traditionally has more features, scales nicely, and is completely free to use in any of my products sold in just about any manner I choose.

It also comes with RedHat - simply typing


yum -y install postgresql-server postgresql


does the trick... What's not to like? Why would I ever choose MySQL over Postgres?

Re:doubtful

[farble1670]

they risk a large-scale negative reaction in order to attempt a push into a small, dying market niche.

out in the real world, the people that actually purchase software care more about things like quality than ideological crud like this. it sounds crazy, but it's true. don't go out into the world thinking the opinions here on /. represent reality.

Re:doubtful

[ErikZ]

Oook. And then what? You've installed it, and now you've got to actually get it working.

Not running. Working. With your web pages and other systems. Unless Postgres has gotten a lot easier since the last time I've tried to be productive with it, I'll pass again.

Every time I move my site I give postgres a shot. Every time it's more trouble than it's worth.

right

[mr_tommy]

Who cares? MySQL is one of the few open source companies that seems to be making the headlines doing business in the real world! Good for them!

Re:right

[Tethys_was_taken]

FOSS companies get a lot of their business from the goodwill of their users. e.g. See: Wikipedia. A large number of SCO's endusers are part-time web developers, and amateur coders who have an OpenSource streak. Teaming up with SCO, a well-known anti-FOSS company that also happens to be MS's puppet is a statement. A statement that their users aren't the most important thing to them anymore. This isn't exactly the best way to foster goodwill.

Re:right

[Tethys_was_taken]

Goddamn it. Ignore the parent post. I meant to post this:

FOSS companies get a lot of their business from the goodwill of their users. e.g. See: Wikipedia.

A large number of MySQLAB's endusers are part-time web developers, and amateur coders who have an OpenSource streak.

Teaming up with SCO, a well-known anti-FOSS company that also happens to be MS's puppet is a statement. A statement that their users aren't the most important thing to them anymore. This isn't exactly the best way to foster goodwill.

Re:right

[unixbugs]

What you said may be true but after reading this crap I have a new project due next week:

To move it all to PGSQL

The last thing I need is for SCO to come knocking saying their code is in my damn database. It was bad enough that they tried to steal my OS, now the data on top it isn't even safe.

So I'm being speculative if not pretentious but that doesn't change the fact that I'm serious about migration. I'm getting out while MySQL is still portable to PG.

Re:right

[jadavis]

I'm getting out while MySQL is still portable to PG.

It's usually easier to go mysql->postgres than postgres->mysql (or for that matter, anything->mysql).

However, there are many incompatibilities. For some applications that type of migration can be quite a bit of work.

Re:right

[bogie]

"MySQL is one of the few open source companies that seems to be making the headlines doing business in the real world"

Ever hear of Red Hat or Novell? Guess not.

And no, not good for them. SCO is scum and any OSS company that would get into bed with them after what they have done needs to seek counseling. Not only because they are a threat to OSS in general but because they can't be trusted in the slightest. 5 years from now MySQL will be probably end up being sued by SCO.

I swear, I wonder what reality some people live in sometimes.

Why?

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Because business arrangements typically are more profitable than releasing software under the GPL, even if you sell support agreements.

Re:Why?

[oogoliegoogolie]

People that use MySql will now dump it for alternatives because they dont want to touch anything that touches SCO. MySql's market share will definitely not grow from this.

MySql didn't think this one out.

Bizarro World?

[RealisticCanadian]

Up is down, down is up! The world doesn't make any sense anymore!

Oh, wait, a business organization more interested in making money than in the 'values' it touts.... who'da thunk?

Re:Bizarro World?

[ultranova]

Up is down, down is up! The world doesn't make any sense anymore!

Oh, wait, a business organization more interested in making money than in the 'values' it touts.... who'da thunk?

It is precisely that MySQL is interested in making money that makes this such a strange move. SCO is going to go down. Even if they won't go banckrupt in the legal battle, there is no way they can ever recover their credibility, and the company is likely doomed, as is their product. What does MySQL stand to gain from this, except guilt by association ?

Something strange is going on here...

Re:Bizarro World?

[HiThere]

One thing they might gain is that the current customers of SCO will likely need to convert their databases to something that will run on another system...and this makes MySQL available for that purpose.

OTOH, if that were my purpose, I wouldn't be making public announcements extoling this deal, but perhaps tSCOg has forced their hand.

Still, I'm not choosing either PostGreSQL or SQLite for my next project rather than MySQL or SQLite. (I'm not sure how heavy a DBMS I need yet...so SQLite might be the best choice.)

heh

[rakslice]

Someone at SCO realized that they're actually going to be needing to sell some products at some point in the future.

And although being able to attach little "designed for MySQL" stickers to the box won't cut through SCO's pariah status in the Linux community, they can always flip open the "Copyright Protection Racket Subscribers List" folder if they need some chumps to direct market to.

i wish i had mod points

[sum.zero]

that was funny. thanks for the laugh =)

sum.zero

Blackballed

[crimoid]

Anyone remotely concerned with the GPL needs to blackball SCO out of existance.

Asperger's syndrome

[leereyno]

This is like Hasbro or Fisher Price teaming up with Nambla, Ebony magazine teaming up with the KKK, or Oscar Meyer teaming up with PETA.

The people at MySQL-AB must all be suffering from a severe case of asperger's syndrome that is preventing them from understanding how everyone else will view this move.

I'm not sure what MySQL is going to get out of this deal, but whatever it is, it isn't worth the REALLY BAD pr and public ill will that is going to be created.

SCO is boil on the asshole of humanity. There is no excuse for doing business with them. You can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

Lee

Re:Asperger's syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

"SCO is boil on the asshole of humanity."

That is an insult to all the assholes out there.

Re:Asperger's syndrome

[RAMMS EIN]

``I'm not sure what MySQL is going to get out of this deal, but whatever it is, it isn't worth the REALLY BAD pr and public ill will that is going to be created.''

Maybe that's exactly what they're after. Remember, negative publicity is publicity too. I've seen politicians win elections by virtue of saying patently stupid things. Apparently, this made them get noticed by the (largely not caring for politics) public, who then voted for them, as it was the only name they knew. Or at least, that's how I rationalize it. Oh, and before you mod me down or flame me, I'm not talking about Bush here.

Re:Asperger's syndrome

[Alsee]

SCO is boil on the asshole of humanity.

No, SCO is a defective gene in a virus infecting the Lyme disease bacteria infesting a bloodsucking tick on a boil on the asshole of the goatse guy.

-

Smooth talking Daryl

[mr.dreadful]

Wow, this has got to be a coup for SCO, considering what a pariah SCO has become with the open-source community. Even if SCO is offering buckets of cash to MySQL, this seems a really ill-advised decision by the MySQL people.

You are judged by the company you keep.

Frankly I'm not sure I'd hire someone with any certification offered by SCO, mainly because it shows that the person doesn't know very much about the open-source community, and why open-source is so important. Poachers like SCO must not be tolerated, and I for one will not support or endorse them in any way if I can help it.

Re:Smooth talking Daryl

[farble1670]

the folks that actually pay for mysql are a lot less likely to care about the principles help so highly by the oss community. the people that buy mysql are business people that see sco for what it is: a business trying to make money any way it can ... that's what all businesses do.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[Omnifarious]

This is a cut & paste of a piece of advertisement and marketing fluff. I don't care how good PostresSQL is, if it has people like you behind it I want no part of it.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[Anonymous Coward]

+4 informative?

It's off topic *and* a cut'n paste job from a propaganda flyer...

slashdot at its finest.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[VGPowerlord]

Incidently, PostgreSQL also conforms to most of the SQL 2003 standard as well.

April 1st?!

[skaap]

I just checked the date! and it's not April 1st .. whats going on here?!?

Re:April 1st?!

[WilliamSChips]

The editor forgot the foot icon.

That Answers My Question

[eno2001]

I've been trying to make a decision as to which open source SQL database to go with for use with the DBMail server that I plan on installing here at home. Considering that I couldn't give a rat's ass about web applications (which DBMail is not), it seems like PostgreSQL is the answer. And with the right optimizations, it's likely to be nearly as good a performer as MySQL. Fuck SCO and anyone who choses to work with them.

Re:That Answers My Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I run a cluster of DBMail IMAP servers, and I can say for a fact that after extensive benchmarking, PostgreSQL beats MySQL hands down under the load of 600 users.

I haven't tested MySQL 5 yet, but PG 8 is almost 1.5x the speed of MySQL 4.1.

Re:That Answers My Question

[Tony Hoyle]

Try SQLite if it's only processing small amounts of data.

It's *really* fast and small, much like mysql used to be, and is a nice standard SQL which supports lots of features.

Re:That Answers My Question

[farble1670]

mysql ab is going to be really upset that you've chosen to use someone else's free database in place of their free database. think of what that's going to cost them. seriously, think about it.

Re:That Answers My Question

[MSG]

If you ever *do* care about web applications, you can still get good performance from PostgreSQL if you use persistant connections from the application. Last I heard, PostgreSQL was a bit slow at accepting connections and authenticating, but if that's not normally a part of the web application's process, then it's not a concern. :)

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[malabar-fraise]

I definitly love PostgreSQL, I use it in nearly all my projects. But even if I don't like MySQL as much as PostgreSQL, I'm pretty concerned on why a well known OSS contributor is now a partner of an open source foe.

Can't help but think that......

[mormop]

Going into partnership with SCO just after Novell has applied to freeze their funds with the intention of pillaging them via the courts is not the brightest of ideas.

Maybe they're ROMulans?

[bAdministrator]

"Help! I can't learn. I'm a ROMulan..."

they need to search through stolen linux code

[ftsf]

grep isnt good enough for them, they need a database to insert all the linux code into so they can search it. and they cant use it under the GPL anymore and postgres is out of the question looks like they'll have to do business with mysql

sigh...

[bitbucketeer]

Hmmm... SCO is certainly the kind of company that, as CEO, I'd stake my company's long term survival to. NOT! Oh, and Cindy Sheehan's son says that SCO will file bankruptcy and MySQL's check will bounce.

Giving SCO more rope to hang themselves with?

[Phil246]

Surely, with SCO as desperate as they are, and MySQL being their 'lifeline', they cant go all-out on the GPL as they have been in the press incase they anger the folks at MySQL?
That being the case, is there any chance that IBM could pick up on this and run with it in their case vs SCO?
"look here judge, SCO says the GPL is evil and unconstitutional but they're partnered with a company which uses it."

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[trewornan]

The GP is a muppet but I doubt he's got much to do with PostgreSQL. In my experience they're a nice enought bunch and Postgres is a good product, don't let one idiot put you off.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[malabar-fraise]

Nah, it's your current -1 score (but it may change) that make me think "slashdot at its finest" :)

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[DAldredge]

Forgive me for posting information about a free open source database in a discussion of databases on a site that runs stories on open source and databases.

And if a simple posting on a site stops you from using a product,well, you were never qualified to make such a decision in the first place.

Two words...

[Q-Hack!]

Profit Margin.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[DAldredge]

Would it have been better to have cost the PostgreSQL project money by just posting a link? It isn't like they are a for profit org that has money to spare.

Re:Time for change!

[demachina]

" before mysql starts it's baseless lawsuits similar to SCO's."

This is silly sensationalism. Its was probably ill advised on MySQL's part to sign a partnership with SCO at this point, but the chances this has anything to do with SCO's legal insanity against Linux are about zero. MySQL probably just had some money thrown their way to do integration work on SCO's product which lots of people still use and rely on. That product and the people working on it, unfortunate as they are, have little to do with the insanity of Darl McBride and his Linux witch hunt.

MySQL being a for profit organization they probably just wanted the business.

Chances are they will regret it because they will probably lose more users and customers than they will gain from the deal with SCO.

Why?

[nurb432]

Why would they do this? To make money perhaps?

MySQL is a business.. they want more mareket.. this gives them more..

Oh, bullshit.

[The Breeze]

Is there any evidence for this other than a 1-paragraph CNET story? There's NOTHING on the mysql site about this, although there's a big thing on SCO's homepage - which, of course, doesn't seem to have any quotes from MySql.

Come on, people, think. SCO routinely issues press releases that have no relation to reality. I wouldn't be surprised if they bought a $50 incident support call or something and referred to that as "signing an agreement."

Someone from mysql needs to check in and let us know what's going on - so far, the only source for this "news" appears to be SCO, and that's no source at all.

Re:Oh, bullshit.

[JoshRosenbaum]

There's NOTHING on the mysql site about this, although there's a big thing on SCO's homepage

If you were mysql would you admit to this deal on your site? I sure as hell wouldn't. You are right that we should hear what mysql has to say about it, though.

Re:Oh, bullshit.

[styxlord]

I knew I should have invested in the "Jump to Conclusions Mat"

Re:Oh, bullshit.

[way2trivial]

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 ...

Not a real partnership...

[KajiCo]

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.

Re:Not a real partnership...

[KajiCo]

OMG an attack on my spelling and grammar how original, and how not relevant.

Re:Not a real partnership...

[Kaemaril]

It doesn't look like MySQL is handing over IP rights of any it's code over to SCO

Heh. Novell didn't hand over any copyrights to their code either, but it doesn't seem to have stopped SCO from just grabbing it and claiming they did. Read those contracts really carefully, MySQL guys...

Re:Not a real partnership...

[Spoing]

They realise they're OS sucks, they realise Linux is kicking it's ass, and they know they can't win.

That SCO's Unix sucks or not doesn't matter one bit;

1. SCO is untrustworthy; they sue customers on bogus claims that will be or have been dismissed in court. (OK...I could be wrong for some of the remaining claims, but what's the chance of that?)

2. Software with similar designs exist that do not carry the threat of lawsuits attached to them.

3. That software is much better supported by different groups; higher quality support and better competition.

Keep in mind that while Microsoft can be accused of some nasty legal tricks and dirty dealings, they don't have the problems with issue 2 and 3 making it much harder to move away from thier products.

Re:MySQL may be next target of SCO lawsuit

[WilliamSChips]

They won't be able to do another Linux FUD lawsuit. Novell is suing them for more than they're worth. Now let's just hope that they win...

Is the whole company evil, or just the top execs?

[tji]

I don't know any current SCO employees, but I have always assumed that there were quite a few normal techies working away at SCO, trying their best to ignore the crap coming from management. I know I have often disagreed with the choices/directions of management in companies I have worked for (though, obviously not to the level of SCO's choices). Some of those people have probably stayed to continue their work, despite the behavior at the top.

So, what I'm rambling on about is that the OS side of the house is probably a reasonable group of people, trying to improve a Unix platform. The litigation side of the house is a bunch of worthless bastards. MySQL is working with the former.. even though it still required approval from the latter.

Re:i will tell you why

[Dogtanian]

SCO is seeing if they can find some STOLEN CODE in MySQL

Thought the whole point about open source was that anyone could examine the code without having to enter into some tangentially-related business arrangement? Guess I was wrong.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[jadavis]

I don't care how good PostresSQL is, if it has people like you behind it I want no part of it.

Judging by the number of people who use that argument against PostgreSQL, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he were behind MySQL.

Heck, if MySQL's PR dept. can't come up with other compelling arguments, they might as well try reverse psychology.

Daryl gave someone at MySQL

[pair-a-noyd]

a lot of really, really good blowjobs.
Daryl buys chapstick by the case..

Re:Daryl gave someone at MySQL

[pair-a-noyd]

shut up Darl.. No one cares if we misspell your name.
Go back under your bridge now..

Re:Yet another reason to not use MySQL

[drgonzo59]

I wanted to use PostgreSQL for my project but the libraries to interface with the language weren't there yet (some in beta some in alpha). MySQL simply has more language libraries then PostgreSQL. It is a vicious circle. The more libraries, the more popular, the more popular - the more libraries for it...

One question?

[oogoliegoogolie]

How do you pronounce PostgreSQL?
Post-gree-seequil?
Post-gre-seequil?
Post-gres-quil?

Not trying to be funny or lame here, I seriously want to know how to say the bloody thing.

Re:One question?

[farnz]

As the devs often seem to abbreviate it to "Postgres", which I'd pronounce "Post-gres", I pronounce it as "Post-gres-Q-L".

Re:One question?

[veraction]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostgreSQL first paragraph has audio sample

Re:One question?

[MPHellwig]

here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostgreSQL

Re:One question?

[Matthew Weigel]

"Post-gres"

Re:One question?

[Anonymous Coward]

> How do you pronounce PostgreSQL?
> ...
> Not trying to be funny or lame here, I seriously want to know how to say the bloody thing.

Well it's *spelled* PostgreSQL, but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."

Re:One question?

[dfetter]

According to the FAQ, it's POST-gress-cue-ell. Other pronunciations include "POST-gress," "Pee GEE," "POST-gress-equal" and "Oracle Killer." Some people get really annoyed when you try for any of the pronunciations of "Postgre" because it reminds them of an ogre-like creature spouting bits of postmodern gibberish.

Re:One question?

[Tim C]

Sequel is a common pronounciation of "SQL". Not saying it's right (or wrong), but I've certainly heard a lot of people say it that way.

People tend to try to make a word out of any acronym they have to use regularly, it's generally easier to say.

Re:One question?

[fbg111]

Knock yourself out...

Re:One question?

[jaseparlo]

The only people I've heard say 'sequel' instead of 'ess-cue-ell' are MS devs and techs

Re:One question?

[n3k5]

People tend to try to make a word out of any acronym they have to use regularly [...]

Acronyms are words; but 'SQL' is not an acronym, it's an abbreviation.

Re:One question?

[TheSpoom]

Amen. Calling it "sequel" just leads to confusion IMHO. Just spell out acronyms unless they actually spell something, which SQL does not.

Why not let MySQL know your feelings...

[FyRE666]

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!)

Followed By

[ravenspear]

UPDATE companytypes SET mysql = 'justgotworse', sco = 'wasalreadyshitty' WHERE mysql_forces = sco_forces;

Re:Followed By

[Elliot Anderson]

DELETE * FROM companytypes WHERE sco_forces = true;

MySQL Press Release

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Huh!

[h15n]

When there's PostgreSQL, who cares about MySQL? A gun with no trigger. That's amazing....

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[trewornan]

OK I may have been a bit harsh . . . apologies.

That's the one thing that won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO is going to be driven into bankruptcy shortly after Sept.12 when Judge Kimbal puts all their liquid assets into a trust to be available to pay the license fees they owe Novell.

SCO is in no position to start any new legal actions.

On the other hand, IBM or Novell will end up owning the assets of SCO but they probably won't hold enough of a grudge to pursue MySQL for anything.

Re:That's the one thing that won't happen

[BillyBlaze]

When, exactly, was SCO in a position to start new legal actions? It hasn't stopped them before, why would it stop them now?

Re:That's the one thing that won't happen

[Zontar The Mindless]

> IBM or Novell will end up owning the assets of
> SCO but they probably won't hold enough of a
> grudge to pursue MySQL for anything.

Why on Earth would IBM or Novell want to "pursue" MySQL AB for anything?

Novell are a MySQL AB partner firm, and contribute to the MySQL code on a regular basis (to improve how it runs on NetWare, mostly). This is GPL stuff, I believe, that goes into the Community Editions. One of the platforms that MySQL releases are built on regularly on is SuSE Linux (owned by Novell).

MySQL AB have also collaborated with IBM, IIRC.

I personally don't care for Microsoft much more than I do SCO, but I don't have a problem with MySQL AB supporting users who happen to run MySQL on Windows, and I don't have a problem with MySQL AB supporting users who run MySQL on a SCO OS, either. Which, if I understand correctly, is all this deal amounts to.

Novell offer their OS customers MySQL Network. Likewise Dell. Now SCO will be doing so. Don't like SCO? Don't like Dell? Don't like Novell? Run MySQL on something else, then.

When enough people start running MySQL databases on LCARS, then MySQL AB may well develop an interest in supporting them, too. Which will be just fine with me.

Disclaimer: This post represents my own views only, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the company I work for.

uhh, step back and take a breath

[astrashe]

MySQL AB has given lots of people very useful software for free, for a long time.

Now we're supposed to hate them because of this deal?

My relationship with them has been one in which they give me free database software, don't restrict how I use it, and I give them nothing.

Even people who don't use MySQL themselves benefit from all of the dynamic web sites -- the WordPress blogs, the sites with threaded discussion boards, etc. Or from their ISPs being about to use MySQL for the backend of all sorts of critical services -- mail forwarding tables, etc.

It's like none of that matters without absolute orthodoxy on the part of MySQL AB. None of the good stuff matters, if they do one thing we don't like.

Re:uhh, step back and take a breath

[thrillseeker]

Now we're supposed to hate them because of this deal?

"Stupid is as stupid does."

SCO is quite free to buy anything they want - but you don't see Wall-Mart trumpeting that they sold 10,000,000 file folders to SCO. SCO is quite free to buy a license - but there is not requirement on MySQL AB's part to participate in any announcement about it. MySQL AB has displayed a serious lack of judgement in allowing any public announcment of the level they call a partnership with an organization held in such distrust by their vast majority of users. It's damn stupid of MySQL to either not recognize this or to commit the act without regard to their userbase.

Re:uhh, step back and take a breath

[Old Wolf]

My relationship with them has been one in which they give me free database software, don't restrict how I use it, and I give them nothing.
How did you manage to get use of the software without restrictions?

Most of us have to comply with their licence agreement. Or are you simply ignoring it and hoping they don't bother to sue you?

Re:Well that simplifies things

[gru3hunt3r]

Ditto - although we are currently a big Mysql user, my admins have been pushing me hard to buy a support contract (even though we've had no issues for 3 years) .. we were going to buy a contract just because we felt we wanted to contribute [and we're finally in a financial position to do it]

but i guarantee NOBODY in my office will even consider buying a mysql contract.

Associating your company name with SCO is like stating that a small outbreak of leporsy happened in the lunchroom -- after that I swear the green jello will never quite taste the same.

Re:Yet another reason to not use MySQL

[Kobun]

What language? Perhaps we can help.

Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bit sad that some people are willing to move databases just becuase a company they dont like has brought a license.

Head out of arse please.

Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... panic!

[mfh]

I've worked on MySQL since I started working with PHP, and I've even taught it at the college level, where I praised the database for being free and open. I can't bare to look at myself in the mirror now that they have gone and signed a deal with The Devil -- now I have to go and ammend my upcoming textbook for PostgreSQL! I could never support MySQL again.

I think postgreSQL should change their name to something I can store in my mind without having to "/// ||| \\\" the damn word (if you catch my subtle meaning).

When I first looked at this story, I thought that maybe SCO was trying to buy-in some street cred, but all they have done is ruin MySQL forever, IMHO.

You sleep with dogs, for profit, you deserve to get flees.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[Omnifarious]

*chuckle* I don't really like either of them. I think relational databases in general are evil. The only thing good about them is SQL their support of transactions.

And don't tell me that's all they are. If that's all they are, then why can't I 'ls' a table, cat a row, or insert something by creating a file?

They are evil divisions of the global filesystem namespace into pieces that need special, unique methods to deal with and administrate them. It's a ridiculous amount of overhead just to get those features.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[Tyler Eaves]

I've worked on MySQL since I started working with PHP, and I've even taught it at the college level, where I praised the database for being free and open. I can't bare to look at myself in the mirror now that they have gone and signed a deal with The Devil -- now I have to go and ammend my upcoming textbook for PostgreSQL! I could never support MySQL again.

Comments like that make me want to hunt you down and slap some sense into you. It's fecking software for christsakes.

Re:Yet another reason to not use MySQL

[MPHellwig]

I wanted to use Linux(*) for my project but there weren't drivers for my hardware yet (some in beta some in alpha). Windows simply has more applications then Linux. It is a vicious circle. The more drivers/application, the more popular, the more popular - the more drivers/application for it...

* or Free/Net/Open/DragonFly-BSD

Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[krow]

So, lets begin this statement with "these are my thoughts, not those that represent MySQL's". First of all I was one of the people who had us stop building on SCO in the first place. For a while now we have not been building for SCO, and had only been providing binaries for customers who had an existing contract with us for those binaries.

The source code for MySQL has always compiled for SCO unixen and since MySQL is open source anyone was free to compile it themselves. We don't ship Amiga binaries either but I can tell you that there is a group out there who keeps MySQL working on that platform as well. So our lack of support for SCO just meant that users were forced to either compile MySQL themselves or find a third party who were distributing the binaries.

Now why should we provide binaries for SCO? I'm of a couple of minds about this, and put some thought into it before I said "yes, lets do it" internally at MySQL.

First our users are our users no matter what platform they are on. This isn't about SCO, this is about the users of that platform who deserve to be able to get support. There are still a lot of SCO servers sitting out there and the users deserve to be treated like any other users. They didn't pick SCO's battle and many of them have legacy applications that can not be easily ported or easily rewritten. The choice of a vendor is not always an option.

Second, its about pushing open source into new territories. Years ago, I think 15 or so, I wrote a network client for the Mac. At the time a certain figurehead of the open source movement made a point of asking me "why would you ever write code for a closed source platform?". I have thought a lot about this over the years. Personally I believe that open source is not a all or nothing situation, and I believe that its going to take a while before we get to an all open source environment, which I am not at all certain will ever occur. Bringing well supported open source applications to closed source environments provides the users of these platforms a different opinion. Its an opinion that "maybe you should consider open source". I am all for spreading the gospel.

Keep in mind that our community binaries are GPL. This means that applications built on SCO that make use of these binaries must also stick within the agreement of the GPL or they have to buy licenses that in turn fund developers to work to create more GPL software. Its a win either way, we see either more GPL software being published or more GPL software being created via payment through licenses or subscriptions.

SCO OpenServer already ships with a number of other open source projects and if you look through many open source mailing lists you will see ongoing support and patches for OpenServer. What we will be doing is treating it like any other platform. Personally I hope that an open source stack on SCO creates more value for their customers and for SCO personally since I believe that this will push both SCO and their customers toward an open source path.

Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[httpdotcom]

Exactly...this announcement will have all the PgSQL punters gabbing on about how now is the time to switch...but what they fail to realize is that SCO could have included MySQL (or PgSQL) at any time in their releases (see Apache, Samba, etc). They aren't selling MySQL (or Apache or Samba). They are selling OpenServer, with a companion CD of applications that make OpenServer better (doesn't take much to make that happen).

Now, MySQL has a contract and (probably) a check to compile binaries on OpenServer. I am sure it took them about 30 minutes to make it all work.

Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[teknomage1]

Wow, the world's not ending. THat was a nice well reasoned response. I don't see why all of slashdot goes nuts everytime over such small items. I hope everyone feels silly for freaking out. Oh wait I'll probably just get modded into oblivion. Zaijian karma.

Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[Hope Thelps]

You could have provided support to customers without issuing press releases saying that you're partnering with SCO. Especially as you say it isn't about SCO.

Your comments about bringing open source applications to closed source environments sound like you've missed the point to a scary degree. People aren't aghast that you're supporting a closed source platform like Windows or AIX. It's that you're partnering with a bunch of crooks and scam artists who are targeting a lot of people who had previously seen you as a company they could do business with.

Nothing in your comment explains why you're representing yourselves to the public as being in cahoots with SCO. You could have supported the platform without doing that.

Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[SpacePunk]

MySQL isn't just providing binaries to the users or SCO's garbage. It's partnered with SCO. That's like sleeping with the crack whore of operating systems, then claiming there is no sex involved.

Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[matchboy]

I think that many people are not seeing why this is upsetting to so many other people. This is not about MySQL providing sources that run on SCO. PostgreSQL, MySQL, and many open source products already to this. The issue is that SCO, has historically over the past few years been beating the anti-open source drum, making claims, working their way towards bankruptcy, etc. Their business ethics are awful.

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?

This pact looks to be more than just getting your product to run on another UNIX-based platform. This is about what your intentions are... and in a way, only aiding the enemy that is known as SCO.

Novell is working on destroying them so that we never have to deal with them again... and MySQL joins a pact?

Please help me... explain this logic?

MySQL would not exist in its capacity without the Linux community... and it feels like they are forgetting who their friends are.

Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[krow]

What the announcement from SCO about was for the agreement that allows SCO to act as a reseller for MySQL. What does this mean? It means that they can go to their customers and sell MySQL support, aka the support that any other MySQL customer gets from MySQL. They can also sell commercial licenses where their customers need it. We do the support, not SCO.

MySQL is platform agnostic. Developers themselves use FreeBSD, OSX, Linux, Windows, and Solaris, but we ship MySQL on several other platforms as well. Our goals are in the database market, we don't ship an OS, and we try to stay out of the "which OS is better" argument.

Just like we don't resale Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, or Solaris, we do not resell SCO OpenServer as well. The partnership does benefit us by selling more support contracts, but it doesn't change the fact that we didn't and still don't sell OpenServer or any other SCO product.

At some point the courts will make a decision on SCO's case and their behavior, but no matter what in the end there will still be SCO users and they will need support.

Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[PornMaster]

Partnering is a bullshit marketing term. I don't know if you've ever worked for a multi-billion dollar company, but partnering doesn't mean shit.

For something to mean shit, there needs to be something like a joint-venture corporation funded by both parties.

Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[Anthony Boyd]

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.

Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[Alsee]

must also stick within the agreement of the GPL or they have to buy licenses that in turn fund developers to work to create more GPL software. Its a win either way

Well, either that or SCO could just violate the GPL and sue you for it.

-

Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[pallmall1]

Keep in mind that our community binaries are GPL. This means that applications built on SCO that make use of these binaries must also stick within the agreement of the GPL or they have to buy licenses that in turn fund developers to work to create more GPL software. Its a win either way, we see either more GPL software being published or more GPL software being created via payment through licenses or subscriptions.

What makes you think SCO will actually pay for those licenses? It seems to me that SCO gets mileage from being supported by MySQL in return for MySQL joining the end of the line of creditors at the bankruptcy hearings. Being able to use the MySQL name in their press releases and marketing may also end up adding a few more victims to that same line. By partnering with SCO, MySQL may help SCO con more money than they otherwise would.

Did you consider that?

Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[Anthony Boyd]

Big words from an anonymous coward. Somebody takes an ethical position and your response is to thrust your apathy forward as an example for all. What an pathetic counterargument.

Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[Anthony Boyd]

Now... put down the bong, take a deep breath, and try to grow up a little.

Ah yes, again with the inept one-liners. And you're expecting this to help your point how? By proving that you're the one acting immaturely?

You apparently have confused hysteria with ethics, and apathy with pragmatism.

If you want to call your own position "pragmatism" I'm fine with that. Go be pragmatic. But to paint people as engaging in "hysteria" -- just because they refuse to bow before your poorly argued viewpoint -- is the height of hyperbole. It's a warning signal to me that I'm dealing with someone who cannot argue on the merits of a point, but rather punches below the belt, because it's the best case to be made. And that's not a good case to be made, it's a pathetic one. Which again explains why you'd be such an anonymous coward about it.

MySQL AB seems to be a business

[defile]

And one thing businesses do is make money.

One of the ways businesses make money is by offering goods or services.

Some of the goods and services MySQL AB has offered in the past include:

• Technical support for MySQL
• Teaching MySQL
• Certification for MySQL
• Proprietary licenses for MySQL (so it can be incorporated in a software package).

I haven't followed MySQL in awhile, but it seems like SCO is actually just buying into some kind of reseller program MySQL AB is offering and calling it a partnership, which is kind of like buying some routers from Cisco and saying Cisco is your business partner.

If someone walks into your store and tries to buy something, are you going to say no?

Re:MySQL AB seems to be a business

[Reteo Varala]

I haven't followed MySQL in awhile, but it seems like SCO is actually just buying into some kind of reseller program MySQL AB is offering and calling it a partnership, which is kind of like buying some routers from Cisco and saying Cisco is your business partner.

Or kind of like buying into a UNIXWare reseller program, and then sue IBM over copyright infringement.

OMG TEH SSco is bUying MYsqL!1!!

[0x336699]

I suggest that those of you flying off of the handle and vowing to never use MySQL again try to maintain a bit of perspective. The only tangible outcome of this partnership, from what I can read, is "a version of [MySQL] for SCO's new OpenServer 6".

So, what, does this mean that MySQL AB is compiling binaries of MySQL for OpenServer?

Might as well interpret the fact that they provide Windows installers as proof that they are conspiring with Microsoft.

Get a grip.

Let MySQL know

[vinlud]

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.

MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[Anonymous Coward]

For some time now, I have been saying that MySQL is a lock-in scheme. It became obvious when MySQL switched from the LGPL license to the dual GPL + proprietary licenses. This does nothing to promote Open Source, rather, it forces proprietary developers to use MySQL under the proprietary license.

Another product that uses the GPL + proprietary lock-in licensing scheme is Qt, by Trolltech. They also use their GPL'd edition as a loss-leader, in order to promote sales of the proprietary edition of Qt.

Note that MySQL and Trolltech are both partly owned by Index Ventures. They also own a piece of Skype. See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505241 72943589

Index Ventures bought into Trolltech at about the same time that SCO ended its partial ownership of Trolltech. Prior to that, SCO Chairman Ralph Yarro, one of the engineers of SCO's attack on Linux, also sat on Trolltech's Board of Directors.

Any Linux supporter who isn't nervous about this rats nest, and who doesn't wonder about possible Microsoft involvement, given their connection with SCO, is being naive.

What it comes down to is this:

Even those who trust MySQL and Trolltech must realize that their GPL + proprietary licensing schemes lead to future lock-in, and should be avoided for that reason alone.

If you are a MySQL user, and you care about the future of Open Source, you should be looking at alternatives, such as PostgreSQL.

And if you are a KDE developer, and you care about the future of Open Source, you should be looking at porting KDE to other platforms, so you are not dependent on just Qt. Besides, Qt's licensing scheme is limiting your success. You can start by simply layering the KDE code (similar to what Apple did with Konqeror in order to create Safari), which is a good thing to do anyway.

And everyone should be watching out for long term hooks. Remember the early nineties, when the PC was an open platform, that used open, documented hardware interface standards. But then Microsoft introduced Windows, and "free" developer tools, which they gradually used to turn the open PC platform into one which would only run with Windows middleware. All the open PC hardware interfaces were turned into secret interfaces, requiring custom drivers that only worked with Windows.

Microsoft was able to take over the open PC platform because of what is called "network lock-in." This occurs due to the fact that Windows is middleware, which sits in between the PC platform, and the applications that run on top of it. The applications need Windows in order to talk to the PC hardware, and the PC hardware needs Windows in order to talk to the applications -- nobody can move away from Windows without losing access to everything else, hence the network lock-in.

Just like Windows, MySQL and Qt are middleware, with the same potential for network lock-in. Proprietary (non-GPL'd) applications that run on MySQL and Qt depend on them for access to the OS (Linux), and, because they use the proprietary licenses, they don't have the Open Source protection of being able to fork MySQL and Qt.

Think carefully about the future, people. Don't let the astroturfers, and slick salespeople lull you into a false sense of security. Pay attention to how your software is licensed. Pay attention to any dependencies your software has on other software. It's the start of the nineties all over again, and you currently have an open platform, with all the commodity benefits that will bring. You don't want to be foolish and short-sighted, and lose it again.

Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[EzInKy]

For some time now, I have been saying that MySQL is a lock-in scheme. It became obvious when MySQL switched from the LGPL license to the dual GPL + proprietary licenses. This does nothing to promote Open Source, rather, it forces proprietary developers to use MySQL under the proprietary license.

Another product that uses the GPL + proprietary lock-in licensing scheme is Qt, by Trolltech. They also use their GPL'd edition as a loss-leader, in order to promote sales of the proprietary edition of Qt.


Let me see if I get this right. If you use these libraries to develop free software you pay no money. If you use them develop proprietory software you pay money. In other words, you make money they make money, if you make no money they make no money. So what exactly is the problem again?

Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[maxwell demon]

Let me see if I get this right. If you use these libraries to develop free software you pay no money. If you use them develop proprietory software you pay money. In other words, you make money they make money, if you make no money they make no money. So what exactly is the problem again?

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.

Now why does it matter for Qt/KDE, but not for, say, GIMP? Well, simple: KDE is infrastructure. It's in a similar position as the C library or the gcc runtime library (which even the FSF makes sure can be used for non-GPLed software alike without any problems). Every program which is intended to fit seamlessly into the KDE system basically has to link Qt. And thus you effectively lose the freedom of chosing your license for your code. The situation is different for GIMP: There's generally no need for a graphics program to directly interact with GIMP. Unless you explicitly want to change or add to GIMP, you need not be interested in the GIMP license. Normal code just isn't affected. But if KDE should become the standard desktop, you'll very much be forced to use Qt for your GUI programs (or your program will just not integrate nicely). That's why the standards here are different than from ordinary code.

I don't know how much the MySQL licensing affects other code. Can you write code using MySQL without being bound by the GPL (except by buying a proprietary license, of course)? If not, how standard is the interface (i.e. can you easily write code which would without change work e.g. on both MySQL and PostgreSQL)? If the answers to both questions are "No", then it's effectively a vendor lock-in as well, because again, a database is critical infrastructure for certain applications.

Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[donscarletti]

The GPL was not designed for libraries. That's what the LGPL was designed for. These people are deliberately using the GPL for something it was not intended for to restrict usage of the software. It's like lynching someone with a helicopter rescue harness or stopping someone's heart with a defribulator.

Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[stoborrobots]

Now why does it matter for Qt/KDE, but not for, say, GIMP?

Not that I necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but you may want to note that to make your point stronger, you should probably pick something other than the GIMP for your example; GIMP is behind the GIMP toolkit, a.k.a. Gtk, which competes with Qt anyway... And Gtk and Qt play nicely together, (or at least, not antagonistically) so you can use both on the same machine, at the same time...

Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[stoborrobots]

The GPL was not designed for libraries. That's what the LGPL was designed for.

Not according to the FSF, who wrote them both...

Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library
The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL....
Which license is best for a given library is a matter of strategy, and it depends on the details of the situation. At present, most GNU libraries are covered by the Library GPL, and that means we are using only one of these two strategies, neglecting the other. So we are now seeking more libraries to release under the ordinary GPL.

Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[Angst Badger]

If you are a MySQL user, and you care about the future of Open Source, you should be looking at alternatives, such as PostgreSQL.

When PostgreSQL can handle the kind of load we throw at MySQL, you can be sure a second look will be taken at it. And before some PostgreSQL partisan turns his flame on, yes, we did test it in the past year, and it didn't cut it. To be fair, our application uses MySQL as a glorified hash table, which is MySQL's strong point; it might be different if we were doing complex joins.

In the meantime, the company I work for, which is no behemoth but which does $5 million per year in net-only sales, relies heavily on MySQL, and we use the GPLed version. Our product consists of information services, and we're pretty agnostic about the back end.

FWIW, if we were producing a distributable binary of some kind, it would definitely be back-end agnostic and not use any kind of embedded database. If your customers are using many different databases -- Oracle, MS SQL Server, MySQL, and so on -- why would you take any other approach. If it's a single-user app, there are plenty of alternatives to MySQL; SQLite would be a no-brainer for a lot of them, as would BerkeleyDB.

The real danger of lock-in where MySQL is concerned, IMHO, is the same as with every other database: proprietary extensions to SQL. That's where they'll fuck you.

Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[fireman sam]

OT warning!!!

"stopping someone's heart with a defribulator"

That is what they are used for. The electrical charge causes the muscles in the heart to contract for the duration of the charge; About 2 to 3 seconds. When the charge is released the muscles relax. This stopping of the muscles causes the muscle spasms to stop and allow (in most cases) normal heart rythm to continue.

Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[10Ghz]

Another product that uses the GPL + proprietary lock-in licensing scheme is Qt, by Trolltech. They also use their GPL'd edition as a loss-leader, in order to promote sales of the proprietary edition of Qt...

... Even those who trust MySQL and Trolltech must realize that their GPL + proprietary licensing schemes lead to future lock-in, and should be avoided for that reason alone.

Oh, not THIS crap again! I guess you would be happy if TT didn't offer ANY free toolkit at all? I mean, they are under no obligation to do so. But since they offer their library as free software, people whine. And that whining smells like hypocrisy. they basically want to use their software to earn money, but they think that the creators of the library have no right to earn money themselves. "Do as I say, not as I do!"

How exactly would TT make money? I mean, right now they earn money by selling their toolkit. And that money gets funneled in to developement of Qt. They also offer it as free software. What exactly is the problem here? You don't want to GPL your software? Fine, use something else then. You are not forced to use Qt in any shape or form. TT is under no obligation to satisfy your whims.

And what exactly is this "lock-in" crap you talk about? If TT started acting like MS or SCO, community would stop using their toolkit. KDE-folks would propably fork the last free version of Qt, and continue from there. How exactly could TT screw anyone over here? The moment they try to screw the free-software developers, they will screw themselves. Free-software developers would simply move to some other toolkit and/or fork the GPL'ed version of Qt. Where it the "lock in"? The toolkit if free, there can be no lock in. Of course TT can change the license to something else, but the software that was GPL'ed, will stay GPL'ed. They can't suddenly decide that "Qt 4.0 will have a different license", since Qt 4.0 has already been released and distributed under the GPL!

And I REALLY fail to see the problem with using free Qt as a "loss leader". This way developers can see what it has to offer for free. If they decide it's good enough for their proprietary work as well, they can buy a license, which carries some additional bell & whistles (support and ability to use non-free license). I fail to see the problem here. I mean, why exactly is it a bad thing when TT offers the community a kick-ass toolkit under the GPL? Would it be better if they didn't offer GPL-version at all? You are given kick-ass software for free, and all you can do is to whine and moan about it!

Seriously: grow the fuck up already! if you dislike Qt and/or GPL, use some other toolkit! The world is full of toolkits! wxWindows, GTK+, you name it. use those instead.

Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[skrolle2]

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.

No, you're not. I'll quote directly from the MySQL FLOSS License exception at http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss- exception.html

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").

...followed by a list of OSI- or FSF-approved licenses. They are obviously bending over backwards ensuring the spread of open-source software, so how can you claim otherwise? They put these restrictions in place simply because there were companies selling derived works without paying for it to MySQL. How is that bad?

Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[EzInKy]

And thus you effectively lose the freedom of chosing your license for your code.


You only have to worry about that if your software itself is restrictive. The GPL is perfectly compatible with any code that may be freely shared.

Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[slavemowgli]

I agree as far as MySQL is concerned, but as for Qt, it's worth noting that Trolltech has entered a contract with KDE e.V. (KDE's legal representation, a German non-profit organisation) that guarantees that all future Qt versions will continue to be available as free software. Read up on it here.

Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes

[esaul]

I would have to more or less agree. There is nothing to worry about as far as QT goes. I really like QT, and would hate for TT to suddenly cut the GPL version and 'lock in' the poor suckers who depend on it. However, this *will not* happen. The same day TT stops shipping a GPLed version, we'll just keep on developing QT in parallel under GPL (remember, we still got the source). And it will be better designed and tested because it will be open.
Now their (and MySQL's) peripheral involvement with SCO is personally repulsive, but why would we care? The source is out there, and if the company's management goes on crack with Darl, they will simply phase out, and the development will go on without them.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[jadavis]

A rational point, but I think you miss the point of a RDBMS. The point is that it's an extra abstraction layer above the filesystem, not that it provides more features.

The abstraction seperates physical data layout from the access layer. You can change the physical layout of the data for a second version of an application, and still let the first version see the data the way it always did. Two applications can see the same data in different ways. And you can prevent a buggy application from causing problems in other applications that access the same data by using constraints.

It's Open Source, so...

[Mr Europe]

Let's hope that a group of MySQL users will take the MySQL source and create a new OpenSourceSQL from it !
It's possible and legal (IANAL) so will we see it happen ?

Re:Postgres

[canuck57]

Just use Postgres dude!

Alread do, but this is worth repeating.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

MySQL is smart

[cnerd2025]

Why would MySQL AB work with them? Because SCO's dollars buy as much as anyone else's dollars. MySQL hasn't changed its license from the GPL. If it did, I'd stop using them, and so would many other geeks/nerds out there. Hold your horses. McBride may be a major-league asshole, as our President would say, but that doesn't mean SCO Group as a whole is. With their cases losing ground, they've begun to actually make some innovations. Maybe it's like the early evolution of our species. We were very few and far between living in a desolate climate (deserts in Africa) and therefore Homo sapiens adapted ways of surviving. SCO seems to finally be doing this. I don't favor the company for their stupid litigation, and I think they are still a dying company, but perhaps they will turn away from Satan and find a balance between commercial software and free softawre. One can hope, anyway...

Of course, I wouldn't put it too far out of probability that SCO will accuse MySQL AB of violating trade secrets and breach of contract. Who knows...

Because Georg Bush Made them!

[VidyaDas]

It'th all Georg Bush'th fault! He cauthed the hurricane and now he made MyEthSQ thupport ThCo!

Re:Because Georg Bush Made them!

[VidyaDas]

It'th altho Cheney'th fault too. And Condoleetha Rithe. Michael Moore thaid tho!

total dogs knackers

[GingerDog]

I don't see how MySQL could possibly benefit from SCOs O/S; if SCO collapse would MySQL support the O/S - I don't think so.

Surely MySQL are happy with Linux/Windows?

DG

This post was powered by beer.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[Metteyya]

IT's /. . We know that already.

There should be a "=0: advertising" mod option.

My guess is...

[Loonacy]

MySQL is "dual licensed" with a commercial license available. SCO probably licensed the commercial version so they could say they aren't including GPLed software in their OS.

Re:My guess is...

[FyRE666]

Erm, don't suppose you've noticed the other GPL'ed software included with whatever their latest half-assed offering is called? I'm pretty sure SCO haven't "partnered" with the other GPL projects they're relying on to make their software somewhat useful.

Switching to PostgreSQL because of this is silly

[formal_entity]

Some people saying talking about 'the open-source' community switching to PostgreSQL because of this; that's ridiculous seeing as PostgreSQL has already adopted it's product to SCO's OpenServer. They even have a FAQ about it on their site: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ_SCO.html Besides, MySQL's code is still GPL and it's still more widely deployed on web hosting companies so it would be very inconvenient to drop MySQL support for PostgreSQL.

Re:Switching to PostgreSQL because of this is sill

[iamsure]

There is a difference between making your product work on a valid platform (PGSQL), and working with the enemy to help them earn money (marketing, etc) like mysql is doing.

Re:Switching to PostgreSQL because of this is sill

[matchboy]

You can find tons of quality hosting companies. http://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_hos ting Why switch to Linux when you can find tons of stores selling computers with Windows already installed?!

Nonsense

[Donny Smith]

>Their popularity is about to skyrocket as countless OSS projects look for alternatives to MySQL.

What a nonsense! Why would I migrate my database to some other based on a piece of (completely unrelated) news?

People have much more important things to worry about (not to mention that other open source databases are not supported by nearly as many apps, so people couldn't migrate even if they wanted to). Duh!

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[bigtangringo]

Some people do it for the principle of the thing. That's a big Open Source mentality, where have you been?

Maybe this is why...

[lord sibn]

...he was the CEO, and you're still down in the cube farm trying to get your cover sheet right for those TPS reports. ;)

This is not the first time ...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

That SCO does this kind of joins ..
They seem to roll up a joint each time their CEO talks to the press ...

Also, will it be a left or a right kind of join? :)

/me switches to Postgres

[vinn]

I've been doing some side work for a small reseller. We're using MySQL on the low-end product.. fortunately I did some testing with Postgres last month and realized it would work equally well.

Looks like on Tuesday we'll begin the formal switch to Postgres. I have no sympathy for any company forming a partnership with SCO.

WHO CARES

[rtidd]

Really. If any of us were offered to have our salaries increased by 2-4 times would we say no? Even if it meant working for a company who's policies you weren't 100% comfortable with because they do (a small amount of) business with someone disreputable? This is a no brainer folks. Mergers and co-projects come and go, and that is life in the business world. (besides maybe MySQL will end up being sued for using SCO technology) What can we do about it. Plenty. Find an alternative. Postgres is a fine choice. Continue to use mysql for free, but stop paying for support and anything else mysql related. Be vocal about this to mysql. Start requesting your favorite aps have ODBC or postgres or whatever support in addition to mysql. Or add that functionality yourself. BUT sitting here bitching about it does no good. Show your contempt with your actions and your pocket book. MySQL will do as it thinks it needs to do, not as a few malcontents tell them it has to do. This is how it should be. Want it changed? Then convince MySQL they need to react differently in the future with ACTION.

Re:WHO CARES

[NickFortune]

BUT sitting here bitching about it does no good.

Sitting here bitching does a few things. It allows MySQL users a chance to vent a little; it gives MySQL a means to judge user reactions to their collaboration with SCO (they had to expect controversy) and it gives users who might have been unaware of the issues useful information when deciding whether to deploy MySQL. And it gives supporters of MySQL a chance to put the other side of the story.

This is a discussion forum. The point is to discuss issues like this. A lot of that discussion, the side of it that you disagree with, is going to sound like "bitching".

Most of what you say is useful, but STFU is never helpful.

Re:WHO CARES

[rtb61]

I don't know about you, but for me regardless of the salary offer somethings are a definite "NO" regardless of the amount offered (trolling for M$=B$ or it's PR dogs for example).

Beyond the operating system and basic office software, all the other lock ins can be readily broken, it only relatively speaking, takes a small amount of money to shift. So those companies have restriction placed upon their behaviour, push to hard and they lose everything they have. The only real downside is when another company buys it and then changes the licence conditions to specifically do as much damage as possible (an investment house drawing a line of funding from a very large competitor), it has been done before.

Oh, well.

[Pig Hogger]

Time to switch to PostGre SQL...

So long, My SQL. We liked you when you were good, but nothing lasts forever...

Probably nothing

[wayne606]

So they are going to be doing "joint certification, marketing, sales, training and business development work for a version of the database". What does that actually mean? Maybe SCO will help MySQL with some porting issues, and SCO will add a blurb to some of their marketing literature that says "we recommend MySQL for your database needs", and MySQL will add SCO to their list of supported platforms.

A lot of marketing-driven companies like SCO set up these "partnerships" left and right and make a big deal about them to generate positive publicity for themselves. For all we know, the MySQL people thought they were signing up for a standard developer's program and didn't expect press releases, mentions on slashdot, etc.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[Pig Hogger]

You sleep with dogs, for profit, you deserve to get flees.

Is that the plural of fly????

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[polyp2000]

Is there a good howto for people with a LAMP background? This news is enough to make me switch from mySQL to postgreSQL. I've looked at it a number of times before but could never figure it out.

Nick

MySQL AB is an evil company

[Anonymous Coward]

MySQL AB is an evil "open source" company.

They rode the open source wave but have changed their ways.

They used to release client libraries as LGPL to allow third party developers to connect to MyQL.

Now the C library is GPL, along with the protocol, forcing all non-GPL-friendly licenses (or those wanting to retain their source) to purchse a commercial license, which is over-priced for the MySQL "RDBMS".

They snagged up the most popular Java connector, and changed the license from LGPL to GPLfor the same reason.

They also aquired the Byte.FX .NET library, the most popular connector for MySQL and PostgreSQL, for two reasons. One of course is the change the license to GPL, the other was to discontinue development of the PostgreSQL portion, MySQL's main (and better) open source competitor.

To circumvent GPL's deficiencies, they enacted the FLOSS exception for GPL compatible licenses, provided the source is available.

So they take open source projects and turn around to force money from the developers who aren't GPL/RMS Kool-Aid drinkers.

Amazing how a crappy databse back in the 3.x days gained so much ground, having no true RDBMS features and just simple ISAM-based tables. There were plenty of much better alternatives, but MySQL successed soley because of it's driving front-end, PHP, which is a a whole 'nother post.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[Matilda the Hun]

Flees would be, I assume, some kind of bug which causes your customers to run away.

Oh, bullshit. Not!

[blackbear]

This is a SCO press release posted on the MySQL site under "partner news." I'd say that proves it's real. And MySQL AB is refering to SCO as a partner, not a customer, or end user.

I always heard of PostgreSQL

[ModernGeek]

I guess I have a project to convert tonight. Bye MySQL, it's been a nice 5 years. Every company I've worked for, I've pointed them at MySQL for all their web database needs. My fingers are changing directions now.

How hard is LAPPS vice LAMPS?

[PSaltyDS]

How hard would the migration be from a LAMPS stack (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP/SSL) to a LAPPS stack with PostgreSQL instead?

Re:How hard is LAPPS vice LAMPS?

[cr0sh]

That would likely mainly depend on two things:

1. Did you abstract the interface to your DB and tables?
2. How portable is your SQL code?

The answers to these two questions will largely determine how dificult it is to convert to another DB (any DB, not just MySQL to PostgreSQL). Please note that there are other factors as well, I am just identifying two of the largest.

The first, if you didn't address it correctly the first go around, and depending on the complexity of your application, could be a "killer" in development time to convert over. For example, if you used the "built-in" PHP MySQL interfacing code all over your application's php pages, you will run into one hell of a conversion process, a nightmare, to be honest. Every single call will have to be replaced in some manner, either with an equivalent call to whatever other interface exists in PHP, or with a call to a DB abstraction layer. If you are smart, you will go with the latter approach, so you don't have to repeat this down the line.

If you were smarter the first go around, perhaps you slightly abstracted everything, and put all the MySQL interface functions into a DB abstraction library module that you include in all your pages. It will still be a ton of work, but now you only have to modify the module, and verify it all works - if you "blackboxed" it enough, your application might not even know or care about the changes you make (barring issues from second point in the list, of course, which I will explain in a moment).

If you were really smart, you used the PEAR::DB abstraction layer, and hopefully the DB you are moving to is supported by that abstraction (and if not, here is a chance to extend PEAR::DB!). Hopefully, you put this layer behind your own layer in a library module so you only have one area to change, and with luck, nothing will break once you have your tables imported and your connection string changed for the new DB server.

Now, about point 2 - this is just as important. If you abstracted things out, with your own DB abstraction wrapper over the top of PEAR::DB or some custom abstraction library, it will be easier, but there still will be pitfalls. Basically, how well did you adhere to using "common" or ANSI SQL97 or SQL99 SQL code? In other words, how portable are your SQL selects/updates/inserts/deletes? How did you handle date/time stamps? How did you handle record IDs? How did you set up your table fields (did you use "standard" field types, or ones specific to your DBMS?). All of these (and more) are "gotchas" in the area of database applications and DB abstraction layers.

You may have a ton of SQL code to go through and change, depending on what you were selecting or updating, and how you were doing it. If you were thinking about this problem from the beginning, hopefully you set up an abstraction layer with functions or classes that allow you to pass some arguments and call a method that populates a recordset array which you can then easily use and manipulate - that is, you never or hardly ever write any SQL code, because you let your abstraction library handle that portion. In that case, you simply have to update the abstraction layer and/or any other areas where you may have had to use your own SQL code to get the job done, and you are golden. However, if you didn't do that, you have a hell of a process ahead of you.

If you didn't handle either of those situations properly - that is, if you have MySQL-dependent functions scattered throughout your PHP code, and your SQL code is highly MySQL specific in structure and syntax - unless your application is fairly small you are really going to feel the pain if you have to do a conversion.

My advice in this kind of a situation is to "bite the bullet", and start small, gradually working up: Abstract all of your MySQL specific calls to the custom DB abstraction library, where you put the MySQL specific code in place. DO THIS WITH EVERYTHING. Once you have that running, then look into taking that module and making as much of

Get real..

[BerntB]

If the MySQL people think they are going to make money by partnering with SCO, they need a new leadership.

Many companies, with products that are relatively easy to port, have a strategy to exist on all software platforms. Then customers with a heterogenous machine park can run their programs everywhere.

Those companies will automatically accept deals and help from Operating systems vendors to port their products. Even if they don't like the vendor, they have no reason to dislike the customers with a mixed server population.

Just look at all the software sold to work with Windows. Microsoft is probably the most hated software company in the world -- and have given lots of CEOs personal reasons to hate their criminal behaviour.

What would you have MySQL do?

[solman]

What would you have MySQL do?

SCO: We need MySQL on our platform and we'll pay you the cost of migration plus a hefty profit (for some reason we've been having difficulty hiring new developers recently).

MySQL: Because you hate open source, we refuse to take your money, even though we can use your money to make open source stronger. Go give it to some closed source company.

All this press release means is that MySQL will be available on another platofrm (admittedly a dying platform). Its just another step on the path to dethroning Oracle [I encourage anybody still using Oracle who has not seen MySQLs new administrative tools to take a look. In my opinion they render Oracle obsolete for any new project spending less than $1M on hardware.]

Re:What would you have MySQL do?

[Forbman]

So how does exactly MySQL make Oracle Financials, PeopleSoft, etc., irrelevant for a company to buy into?

I've worked at a couple of smallish companies now that have been big into Oracle stuff. No, they're not even "top 1000" companies.

I don't think they're running these on $1M servers. But I wouldn't be suprised if the software, support and maintenance licenses didn't cost near that much.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[Jon_Brinkley]

I'm sure he meant fleas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flea

Well...

[NitsujTPU]

CNET is reporting that MySQL and SCO have signed a partnership to work on "joint certification, marketing, sales, training and business development work for a version of the database for SCO's new OpenServer 6 version of Unix." Why would MySQL decide to work directly with a company that has deemed the GPL as unconstitutional?

Well, they've done everything else right so far...

So, who all is installing postgres?

okay ...

[the bluebrain]

so I've never used any of mySQL, postGres, et al ... but if I ever do, mySQL will be somewhere towards the bottom of the list now - not predominantly because SCO sucks, which they do, but because of the question of sustainability. If SCO sticks to their track record, mySQL will be facing a very large bill somewhere down the line, for some arcane reason, presented by SCO, and it may well break their collective necks.

Re:what crap

[Anonymous Coward]

> > ... rather, it forces proprietary developers to use MySQL under the proprietary license.

> Nothing forces anybody to do anything.

I see you are intentionally misinterpretting my words. So, here is the long version:

It [the GPL + proprietary licensing scheme] forces proprietary developers, if they want to include MySQL in their application, and if they don't want to GPL their own application, to use MySQL under the proprietary license.

> So by your logic, the GPL license forces proprietary developers to ignore the product altogether?

Of course -- unless they are prepared to GPL their own code. That's what the license says. Or are you saying that no one is "forcing" them to obey the license?

> More license options means more choice, and choice is *good*.

What crap. You are intentionally misrepresenting the situation.

The dual licensing scheme used by MySQL and Trolltech _removes_ choice. It removes the choice of proprietary developers to use MySQL and Qt under an Open Source license. The LGPL license would have given them that choice.

Let's see what Richard Stallman had to say on this topic:

"Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it."

"Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library."

"This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another--no problem for them, only for us."

MySQL and Qt are available under proprietary licenses. Therefore, rather than GPLing their own code, proprietary developers will simply use the proprietary license.

In other words, MySQL's and Trolltech's use of the GPL, instead of the LGPL, produces exactly the opposite effect to what Stallman prefers. The dual licensing scheme, rather than increasing the amount of Free software, simply encourages proprietary developers to use the proprietary versions of the libraries.

> This is like the argument against the BSD license: but... but... someone could develop their own closed source app!

That statement is completely illogical. It does not follow from what I wrote.

I am concerned about people who choose to run applications A, B, and C, becoming locked in to the underlying middleware, without realizing it. It happened before with Windows, and it could happen again with MySQL and Qt.

What you are saying is the exact opposite to what I wrote. I said that they should have used the _LGPL_, which _allows_ proprietary developers to use the code.

The advantage for the rest of us is that anyone who uses those proprietary applications are only locked in to those applications. What they avoid is the _Network Lock-in_ to the underlying middleware, which is much worse.

As to your last paragraph, I have no idea what it has to do with my original post.

I am advocating for people to be careful about the software they use, and to think about the long-term effects of the licenses for that software.

If you call that trolling, then I have to wonder what your agenda is.

Well... strange for 3 things:

[tod_miller]

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.

Re:Well... strange for 3 things:

[skrolle2]

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...

What are you talking about? What do you mean "have their cake"? MySQL is distributed under GPL. Period. That they wish for everyone to get it under their commercial license doesn't alter the fact that it is distributed under GPL.

Also, you seem to imply that their commercial license somehow is bad, but isn't it better that companies who CANNOT release their software under GPL are allowed to use and redistribute an open source database such as MySQL, than forcing those companies to redistribute a closed source database instead?

Despite all the open source love on this site, few readers seem to actually understand how the GPL or software licensing works. The copyright holder is always free to distribute his software under ANY licenses. I can create a piece of software and release it under GPL *AND* the BSD License *AND* the Apache License *AND* my own commercial license *AND* the Creative Commons License and so on. You, the user, is then free to choose which license you wish to user my software under.

Re:Well... strange for 3 things:

[tod_miller]

I knew I would get a response like this: Yes I know that MySql is GPL 'period'. Just the way they advertise this - and NO it wans't a rake at how they have a duel licensing, I understand this:

I am talking about there own definitions and marketting on their website, which seems to say (if you read it) that you need a commercial license if you copy the downloaded binary to a cd-rom, or if you give it to a colleague.

I understand it, I am just trying to see if their
10 point - do I need a 'license' (meaning a commercial, pay for license) is actually applicable, and if those 'restrictions' are allowed in the GPL.

You can charge for GPL you know. Free != free - sorry to be condecending but if you cannot read what I am saying, without jumping on it like an uninformed Free==free troll post then I might be forgiven for my bitter retort.

So once again - mysql had a list of 10 cases where you need a commercial license, and one was: if you download it as gpl, but give it to a colleague, you need a commercial license. Again, I have brought this up before, but now I cannot see it on their site, and I question it that is all.

Sick of jumped up people on /.

Re:Well... strange for 3 things:

[skrolle2]

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.

mod parent up

[dcavanaugh]

Yup, SCO is toast. The MySQL deal is soon to be irrelevent.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[mrchaotica]

They are the "fruitcakes" that make the OSS community exist. If not for the GPL, the OSS community would consist only of a few bearded BSD nerds -- who, by the way, have an even more stubborn moral outlook -- because everything of value would have been taken by the proprietary software makers.

Re:flamebait??

[Tim C]

I'm sorry, but writing code for SCO isn't even the same game as working as an executioner of innocnets, let alone in the same ballpark.

As reprehensible as SCO's actions may be, to seriously compare them to taking even a single human life is utterly insane.

Why SEQUEL makes you look an idiot

[samjam]

SEQL was the precursor to SQL, it stood for Standard English Query Language.

If you call S-Q-L sequel, people will be expecting you to talk about C+ or even C- in your next breath.

OK, I am being unfair, but it always makes me cringe when people call SQL sequel.

Sam

Re:Why SEQUEL makes you look an idiot

[yRabbit]

I've never heard anyone pronounce SQL out loud, so I always think of it as pronounced like, well, the letters SQL.

School (sqool?) or "sekk-el" or even sickle would make more sense for SQL than "sequel". Or ess-kyoo-ill.

Re:flamebait??

[HRbnjR]

The point wasn't at all to compare SCO to Nazi's, it was to state that in *any* scenario, you can't just ignore the bigger picture of what you are contributing to. It could be working for SCO, buying shoes made in a sweatshop, or at the extreme end, pulling the lever for a gas chamber.

In my opinion, all employees share some (perhaps small) fraction of responsibility for the actions of the company. Just like if you were the Nazi pulling the lever, I won't absolve you of all responsibility just because it was your job.

Re:what crap

[nacturation]

The LGPL license would have given them that choice.

My apologies -- you are correct. I had missed the part where you said it had gone from LGPL to GPL/commercial. My comment was under the incorrect understanding that it went from GPL to GPL+commercial, so ignore everything I said.

This is not good. In a number of ways.

[Qbertino]

MySQL AB is working on MaxDB, the successor to SAP DP that will be 100% MySQL compliant and be on par with the most advanced of DB technology. They have a lot of irons in the fire and the SAP DB move was considered extremely smart. SAP handed the code over to them.
Pulling a thing like this is stupid imho, and will spoil the image they gained the last 3 years significantly. I really don't know what to make of it.
Time to look at Firebird (http://firebird.sourceforge.net/) and PostrgreSQL.
I guess monopolys are never good.

Yes, I have and I would do it again

[Safety Cap]

A few years ago, I was offered a poisition in a company that turned out to do some biomed research using techinques I disagree with.

Even though it meant giving up a 35% raise, I declined the job.

People anal about pronounciation:Film at 11

[oogoliegoogolie]

Yes, I know what SQL stands for. Maybe it's a localization thing, but I've rarely heard SQL pronounced "SQL" but almost always "SEQUEL"

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[Anthony Boyd]

Comments like that make me want to hunt you down and slap some sense into you. It's fecking software for christsakes.

<sarcasm>
Yay! Morality and ethics don't apply to software! Don't worry about pop-up ads, it's just software. Don't worry about being tracked all over the Net and having your data sold, it's just software. Don't be concerned with monopolistic business practices, it's just software. We shouldn't be reacting to any negative developments in our line of work, it's just software! Let's all just walk around in a daze and make no judgments on the information we have.
</sarcasm>

Sad to see something so uninsightful and morally bankrupt got positively modded.

My Website post to MySQL AB :

[Qbertino]

Dear MySQL AB Represantative

I am a consultant and head of a small team of freelance IT experts with a focus on small business ERP, CRM and Web solutions.
Just now I have read about your companies new partnership with SCO, a company who's policy is commonly regarded as extremly questionable throughout the international IT industry. I fail to see the advantage for such a reputable company like MySQL AB joining a partnership with a company such as SCO, that has abused and disrespected open source software, open source licences and open source concepts and the even the smallest amount of common decency whilst executing their business in the last 3 years. (I do presume you have heard about the lawsuits SCO is involved in)

A considerable amount of my customers uses the MySQL Database for ERP and SCM services and products my company (based in germany) deploys, and more than once have I, as a consultant, recommended MySQL as a relyable and well documented database software. It has never failed me, and the MySQL Database has gained my trust as a professional.

Please note that I am more than irritated by the business decicision your company has made regarding this partnership with SCO and the trust I have held in MySQL AB is severely tainted. For me and my partners this may very well be a reason to more quickly and thoroughly evaluate the feasability or alternative db products and their vendors.
Please be so kind to pass this on to your superiours.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

xxx

Re:My Website post to MySQL AB :

[petrus4]

I admitted to having switched to Postgres above, but as I said then, that was primarily due to concerns about MySQL remaining open source, since as I also said there they seem to have become a company with primarily commercially oriented priorities.

However, that said, the main reason why I switched was because I'm working on something which other people are going to be able to use. If we were talking about a database app that was purely for my own use, then so long as I was reasonably confident that I could get a GPL-licensed version of MySQL, I probably would have stayed with it until they discontinued that.

I also criticised the company in my earlier comment on this article however, and I now regret having done so. A lot of Linux users (Europeans in particular, I've noticed) seem to have difficulty with the concept that software companies do not (and should not, IMHO) have to run purely according to our approval. I think part of the problem is the fact that in terms of thinking of the "Linux community" as opposed to "Linux users", we end up seeing ourselves as some sort of small, fairly closed group who for some reason feel that we have the bizarre right to expect the rest of the world to conform to our decrees. Which, of course, was the precise aim of the author of this particular concept, Richard Stallman. Stallman and his followers have succeeded in making the word "community" a swearword in my vocabulary.

If MySQL AB (or any other vendor company, for that matter) make a decision to do what we consider to be shooting themselves in the foot, then not only is that entirely their perogative, but we need to have more faith in the idea that market forces will ensure that their decision meets with predictable consequences.

We can, of course, vote with our feet and choose another database application, as I have done, and as several others in this thread appear to have done or advocated doing. However, what I think we should refrain from doing is scolding companies in an arrogant, autocratic, and whining manner when they take an action which is at odds with the expectations or Marxist ideology of the user in question.

Stallman himself might not be a Communist, but to me there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that a number of European Linux users in particular are. It's obnoxious, it's anachronistic, it's unnecessary, and it doesn't do Linux's credibility any favours, especially in the US.

Re:My Website post to MySQL AB :

[Qbertino]

Stallman himself might not be a Communist, but to me there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that a number of European Linux users in particular are.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Just because there are opinions that are considered 'leftifst' in the US doesn't mean that the rest of the world has commies for Linux users. On the contrary. And allthough I think of Stallman as notably unsympathetic, his positions aren't plain political inclinations. He can argue on his every statement with rock solid reasoning. That's why his statements have such an impact.

Re:My Website post to MySQL AB :

[Halfbaked Plan]

Why is that nonsense?

There are countries in Europe (Italy is one) where there are a significant number of people who consider themselves Communists.

Your use of the term 'commie' shows a parochial attitude. Some people don't feel bad about being called a 'Communist.'

(Note- I am not a Communist, nor do I agree with the Marxist ideology Communists espouse)

Re:My Website post to MySQL AB :

[nagora]

Stallman himself might not be a Communist, but to me there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that a number of European Linux users in particular are.

Well, so what? Are you saying that's any worse than the fact that a number of American Linux users may have voted for Bush?

Communism and capitalism are as bad as each other and are based on the same flawed idea: that people want to to the right thing. In communism this is expressed as a faith that they will work together and that people like Stalin will never appear while in capitalism it is expressed as a faith that they will allow free competitition and that people like Gates will never appear (indeed it is based on the idea that aristocrats like the Gates family will have been eliminated from the system before you start). Both are bullshit and neither work anything like as advertised, both in reality lead to mass deaths to support the elite ruling class and their interests.

Of course, on the other hand, nothing else works either; all forms of government tend to degenerate to the same state, chiefly because all forms of government are made up of people and people always want the same things - security, power, money, sex - in some combination. Sociopaths like Blair, Bush, or Mugabee will always rise to the top eventually, all just heads of the same hydra.

Hmm... seem to have woken up in a bad mood.

TWW

Re:My Website post to MySQL AB :

[petrus4]

Communism and capitalism are as bad as each other and are based on the same flawed idea: that people want to to the right thing.

No, that idea itself isn't flawed; I believe that the majority of people genuinely do want to do the right thing. However, what's lacking in both political ideologies is the perception that the people who *don't* want to do the right thing, while a minority, are generally considerably more proactive and passionate than the majority who do. That's why they get into power...Not because the majority wish to do wrong, but because they are not as proactive as the people who consciously do have bad intentions.

people always want the same things - security, power, money, sex - in some combination.

I don't believe that the majority genuinely do want power. If that's the case, why do most people work in a dead end job for eight hours a day? That's not a way to get anything other than maintaining your current position, and the truth of that doesn't require rocket science to be able to see, either.

The majority want what Man as a hunting, gathering animal has always wanted; to survive. To eat, to have a mate, to have children. Basic biological stuff.

Megalomania and sociopathy are distortions which do not occur in the majority. They occur in a minority of individuals who, for whatever reason, are defective in some way. Normal, healthy people who are getting a majority of their basic needs met don't want to take over the world; that's the desire of an extremely fearful, unhappy person who percieves the world to be so completely full of threats that s/he can never be entirely secure unless they have complete control of it. The reason why these people rise to the top is because the majority are, as I said, focused on basic survival needs. They're not focused on, or accustomed to being focused on, having to defend their larger society from such people. It's true, however, that there have been that many of such types in the last century or so, that eventually (it can be hoped, at least) over a period of several hundred or possibly several thousand years, if we live that long, we can eventually learn to detect and act on the signs of such an individual appearing in our midst. These people don't appear, or gain power, overnight. It is generally a process spanning several years.

I think you're right when you say that the answer isn't in broad political ideologies...but maybe there is one in continuing to study sociopathy, and political history, and learning to identify the factors involved in how these individuals develop.

Re:My Website post to MySQL AB :

[nagora]

I don't believe that the majority genuinely do want power.

At the least they want freedom, which is power over themselves or, to put it another way, the state of not being in someone else's power. Either way, the dynamics of power is one of the most important aspects of society.

Look at any school playground and you'll see kids doing exactly the same pecking-order activities as any other primate. We don't lose that urge to be higher up the pile when we get older. THAT's why people stay in dead-end jobs: they fear the loss of what little power/freedom they do have. Some people don't have that fear and can break out of the grind in one way or another. It may not be rocket science but understanding your position is not always the key to doing something about it.

However, I do agree that the problem people are the ones for whom the power drive has gone too far and that normal people are often blind-sided by them simply because they can't imagine anyone being like that. But then, any of the four drives I listed produces "problem people" when taken too far: sex - rapists, power - dictators, money - rail barons, security - survival nuts. For some, of course, more than one can get out of hand.

TWW

Re:flamebait??

[Anthony Boyd]

You are a very hypersensitive, egotistical person.

Your response to him is bizarre and ineffectual. It doesn't disprove or diminish his points in any way. And of course you knew this, which is why you posted your pot-shot as an anonymous coward.

LAMP vs LAPP

[yuri benjamin]

I was going to set up a small LAMP server in the near future to teach myself PHP.
Now I guess I'll have to go for a LAPP server instead (PostgreSQL instead of MySQL) or maybe even a BAPP server (BSD instead of Linux - I'll decide between Free- or Open- later).

Not a problem.

[JustNiz]

It just simplifies any db decisions I make down to a choice between postgres or sqlite now. Both are way better than MySql anyway.

Re:Just be aware

[MikeBabcock]

Some people make business decisions without any thought to profits. This is folly.

Some people make business decisions without any thought to morals. This also is folly.

MySQL's largest support group has always been that running Linux and other OSS platforms. Touting a partnership with SCO as a good thing cannot be seen as anything but a slap in the face to this community. Not because SCO is closed-source, like Mac or Windows, but because SCO has openly stated that Linux is essentially either a forgery or illegal.

I care not if MySQL provides official support for SCO platforms. I do care if MySQL gives SCO any more publicity.

Re:what crap

[nacturation]

Post Humously? You mean humorously?

Read my journal, and try with less whitespace if you still don't get it.

Time to dump MySQL

[Anonymous Coward]

I will be removing MySQL support in my projects. I hope others too. MySQL should not be partnering with SCO.

This sort of thing...

[petrus4]

...is the reason why I switched from MySQL a while back to Postgres. At the time, although MySQL still had a version licensed under the GPL, the link to it was buried in the site. What was a lot easier to find was the commercially licensed version, which they had links to/info about slathered all over the site. This caused me to worry that eventually the GPL licensed version would disappear entirely.

Although Postgres is unfortunately a bit bigger, (the elephant isn't its mascot for nothing ;-)) it's a fantastic db and is enormously scalable. The best part is that legally it also uses open source's underdog, the BSD license.

It is unfortunate that MySQL AB have shown such lack of vision in the past couple of years...but methinks they're probably about to find out that commercialistic shortsightedness carries its' own reward:- Eventual irrelevance.

Protect yourself with a persistence layer

[iconnor]

If you live in the Java world, the best way to protect yourselves is to have an object to relational layer between your code and the database.
http://www.hibernate.org/ is a neat way (but there are many others). This removes a lot of the ties to the vendor's database so that if MySQL were to do something stupid, your code is safe.
There are most certainly layers like this for other languages - I am not sure it seems hard enough just to keep up with Java.

Re:flamebait??

[16K Ram Pack]

If I was working for a company that turned into a SCO, I'd get out. I'd get out fast.

Not just on a "this is embarrasing" basis, but that I'd want to make my choice to leave and find the right company and before I looked like a rat on the sinking ship.

Re:Waaaay ahead of ya.

[NitsujTPU]

Yeah, I didn't want to say that since it's not a terribly nice thing to say, but mySQL didn't ever work properly (referential integrity anyone) back when people actually argued about it.

It got a lot better in the meantime, but failing to operate properly for me at the start really was a death-blow. I haven't checked it out in a while.

The biggest misery was that it had super-vocal supporters who really just didn't understand what a database is supposed to do.

Some clarity about dual licencing

[bigsmoke]

There seems to exist some confusion here about dual licencing. Once a project has been released under the GPL, you can't just unrelease it. All the provisions of the GPL keep applying to the software which has already been released.

If MySQL AB were to really only release MySQL under commercial licences in some alternate universe in the future, there would still be an open source developer community which can do with the the GPL'ed versions of MySQL whatever they damn well please.

I'm not sure about other developers, but one of the foremost reasons that I use GPL'ed software as the basis for my own projects is continuity. This continuity in the availability of MySQL's source can never be undone by MySQL AB, since they've already done the right thing with each version of MySQL that they released under the GPL.

Noone is complaining when a project is released under just a GPL licence. Why not? Because the viral licence has some properties that many people like.

But, sometimes there are businesses that want to use a project in their own product which is released under a more restrictive licence. This is what the commercial licences are for. Note that is actually very sound from a business perspective, because they're basically saying:

• If you are a believer in open source, use our stuff as open source and, if you release your stuff, release it as open source.
• But, if you want to release your product under a more restrictive licence, just pay us some money.

Such a form of dual licencing actually adds such liberties as which are often sought when a company bases their product on a more liberal, BSD-like licence instead of a viral licence such as the GPL. And they achieve this without making themselves vulnerable to the takers who don't give back often warned for by BSD opponents.

Also, I read a rant on this page about this being as much as a problem as QT. Which problem? Even the Windows version of QT4 has now been released under the GPL. If anyone still believes that QT has licencing problems, he's either a GPL opponent, a BSD proponent or very ill informed.

Open Source mentality

[GanryuMVP]

Some people do it for the principle of the thing. That's a big Open Source mentality, where have you been?

Some people think the Open Source mentality is about about freedom and choice, not about trying to keep our software from anyone who dares cross us.

Re:Open Source mentality

[ErikZ]

I thought it had something to do with free beer.

MySQL perform any worse... Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is MySQL suddently going to lose features, or perform worse?

After recently building a new Snort-based IDS machine, logging to a MySQL database as my very first adventure into the world of MySQL, I find it hard to believe that MySQL can perform much worse. It's a dog. Once I had 800K event records logged to the database, it totally fell on it's face. Queries were taking 3-5 minutes to complete... even on well-indexed tables. Seriously, I do not understand now what all the hub-bub was about that MySQL was supposed to be some kind of lightweight nimble database. It ain't. It sucks when you try to scale it beyond "toy" sizes. I switched the machine over to become a "Winsnort" box, and logging to an MS SQL server and now I'm getting fairly decent performance, but still not good enough. 800K records is not a "huge" database by today's standards... in fact it's rather small. My next experiment will be to log to an Oracle database to see if I can get some decent Snort/BASE perfromance.

Re:MySQL perform any worse... Ha!

[HiThere]

For a light-weight database, look into SQLite. It may suit your needs. (OTOH, if MySQL normally performed that poorly, it wouldn't be as popular as it is. You probably have some problem with your code, or possibly your design.)

That said, there have been times when I've discoverd that a fully normalized database didn't perform as well as one would wish. You might consider the inclusion of a few repeating fields in the database, if the field isn't used to search on, or you can get away with only searching on the first value. Sometimes one can save a layer of indirection, and that can save a lot of overhead...but even so, you are reporting what appears to be a problem with your system or installation.

P.S.: Some disagree with this, and say that one should ALWAYS use 3rd normal form, and certainly it will usually be the correct answer, and usually result in simpler programs, too. But in my experience it varies from application to application. (And it may be that it varies from DBMS to DBMS. I haven't broken from 3rd normal form often...and the times I found it made a big improvement were all in MSAccess...about which the less said the better.)

Treason

[abrods01]

Treason season started early this year...

Re:Is the whole company evil, or just the top exec

[Spoing]

So, what I'm rambling on about is that the OS side of the house is probably a reasonable group of people, trying to improve a Unix platform. The litigation side of the house is a bunch of worthless bastards. MySQL is working with the former.. even though it still required approval from the latter.

Those good people left a year or more ago and can be honored for the good work they have done. The ones that have remained decided to stay with criminals.

I will make it a special point of killing any potential job offer that may be made to anyone who was an SCO employee in this recient time frame. How you can cut them any slack on the unethical choice of staying with SCO when it is obvious how scummy they are I really don't understand.

Re:flamebait??

[Spoing]

The Nazi analogy

The reason mentions of NAZIs equals flamebait is simple.

Why bother?

[ylikone]

Just switch to the superior PostgreSQL.

Remember Xfree86?

[ylikone]

Look what the open source community did to them when they changed their licensing! Who is using Xfree86 anymore? It's all Xorg now.

Dumb dumb dumb on the part of MySQL. Ah well, need to start changing all my projects to PostgreSQL. I'm sure the open source community will to.

You just don't get it

[ylikone]

Open Source developers will quickly switch to PostgreSQL! Not because MySQL software changed, but because of the company it keeps and the philosophy change. When all the popular free PHP web apps out there are using PostgreSQL, why will business keep using MySQL? They won't! Just look at what happened to Xfree86! The Open Source guys switched to Xorg in a moment. ALL the business Linux distro's followed.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[Jack9]

can't bare to look at myself in the mirror now that they have gone and signed a deal with The Devil -- now I have to go and ammend my upcoming textbook for PostgreSQL! I could never support MySQL again.I figure a teacher could spell, but since you're a troll I'll forgive the fleAs mistake. Oh yeah, you're promoting knee-jerk zealotry over non-news for what reason?

PostgreSQL

[blankslate]

postgreSQL is far less limited -- and very free. use postgreSQL !

Re:flamebait??

[HRbnjR]

Heh, I hadn't heard of that, thanks!

The law's memetic function is not to end discussions, but to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or is simply a rhetorical overreach.

Well, the question then becomes, in this case, which was it?

One common objection to the invocation of Godwin's law is that sometimes using Hitler or the Nazis is a perfectly apt way of making a point.

As I have stated, I do believe it was an apt comparison. So, I think in my case that I agree with this common objection.

It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate semantic impact.

Godwin himself states that it may be appropriate, thus a discussion invocing this analogy is NOT automatically flamebait.

I will admit that this may be a case of "rhetorical overreach" on my part, and that I'm lazy and all the connotations associated with the Nazis made the analogy the easiest way to make my point. The post was made somewhat tongue in cheek, and intended to be somewhat humorous in it's use of this over-the-top analogy. Will uses such as mine lead to 'semantic dilution'? Perhaps. Unlike Godwin, I don't think it worries me though, because by the time that happens we will have long since replaced Hitler and the Nazis with Osama and Al Queda :)

Calm down

[Craig Ringer]

SCO != SCO customers

MySQL worked on SCO anyway. Note that SCO was quite free to package and ship it with the OS, for example.

To me, this seems like it's just making life a bit easier for the poor bastards stuck on the SCO platform. (I have to maintain a legacy SCO box, so I assure you I speak with full experience when I say "poor bastard").

I'm not super-fond of the idea but I just don't see what all the panic and fuss is about.

Re:flamebait??

[skepticult]

It's Godwin, not Goodwin, you waste of flesh.

Where were you when usenet died?

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[burnin1965]

"Comments like that make me want to hunt you down and slap some sense into you. It's fecking software for christsakes."

Calm down Mr. Ballmer, and put down that chair.

Oh, and by the way, the software is truely fecking software and those licenses are definitely fecking licenses. And be careful, one day one of those fecking licenses may feck you.

burnin

SCO Code Found in MySQL

[totallygeek]

This will be the next claim...

Re:flamebait??

[Spoing]

As I have stated, I do believe it was an apt comparison. So, I think in my case that I agree with this common objection.

If you want to call SCO assholes, do so. They aren't NAZIs.

If you want to take the high ground and say you have a valid analogy, you've got a real hard sell. Go ahead: What precisely do you think makes SCO and/or MySQL AB Nazi-like in an appropriate way? (That is, an insightful comparison vs. a just a rabid name calling match?)

On second thought, please do not answer...stop looking for a win here. You lost in the same way that you would have lost on Usenet. Yes, just stop using NAZIs unless you're really talking about assholes on that level; genocide, mass murder of the weak/handicapped, wide reaching political prosecution, and kicking off a world war with the intent of golbal conquest. The only society that even comes close to the scale is the USSR during Stalin's time...and there's a good case that Stalin's reign was worse. Either way, we're not talking SCO or MySQL on any even casul level.

Re:what crap

[Baricom]

In other words, MySQL's and Trolltech's use of the GPL, instead of the LGPL, produces exactly the opposite effect to what Stallman prefers. The dual licensing scheme, rather than increasing the amount of Free software, simply encourages proprietary developers to use the proprietary versions of the libraries.

I think the dual license situation of MySQL is fair. It does remove choice, but I think there's still an incentive to open source software. Money is a powerful motivator, and I think being able to use the MySQL engine free (as in beer) will motivate at least a few developers to decide to release open source instead of proprietary. It's not the best situation, but it's still a much better deal than a proprietary license.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[pallmall1]

can't bare to look at myself in the mirror now that they have gone and signed a deal with The Devil -- now I have to go and ammend my upcoming textbook for PostgreSQL! I could never support MySQL again.I figure a teacher could spell, but since you're a troll I'll forgive the fleAs mistake. Oh yeah, you're promoting knee-jerk zealotry over non-news for what reason? --bold added.

You have no space between the period after the word "again" and the word "I" starting the next sentence. Feel free to go forgive yourself.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[mrchaotica]

Actually, Microsoft got the BSD stuff they use indirectly. Nevertheless, they did indeed deprive you of the changes they made to the BSD code. Apple got their BSD code indirectly too (through aquisition of NeXT), but they are an example of the exception, not the rule, since they give away their changes anyway (which is a big factor in why I support them despite "Fair"Play).

But anyway, my point is that the vast majority of the commercial sponsorship of Linux and other GPL software would never have happened if it had been BSD, because any code a company donated would give a direct advantage to their competitor. By requiring that any other code be made available in turn, the companies feel safer because they know the playing field must stay level.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[slamb]

I think relational databases in general are evil. The only thing good about them is SQL their support of transactions. And don't tell me that's all they are. If that's all they are, then why can't I 'ls' a table, cat a row, or insert something by creating a file?

That's all they are. Their support for transactions (ACID, to be precise) would not be possible if you could do those things.

How could you possibly guarantee atomicity by appending records to files? There's no way to ensure that both or neither of two operations happen.

How could you guarantee consistency? There's no way to enforce constraints on filesystem activity.

How could you guarantee isolation? You can't make things happen at the same time.

Durability's the only one you could do. A simple fdatasync should be enough.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[slamb]

*rolls eyes* It is not 'information'. It is awful corporatese that tells me almost nothing. If you had bothered to understand it yourself and posted stuff about your personal experiences or understanding of how Postgress SQL is better than MySQL, I'd be all ears

You mean testimonials like this?

"Business Objects has always provided companies with an open business intelligence platform that offers fast and easy access to a wide variety of applications and data sources. With MySQL Network, organizations can more easily leverage their MySQL database technology with our industry leading business intelligence platform, BusinessObjects XI. Our integrated solution helps customers extend business intelligence across their entire organization reliably, easily, and affordably."

That's what I call awful corporatese. It involves impressive-sounding but generic words and phrases like "leverage", "industry-leading", and "extend business intelligence". It communicates no information.

Read the PostgreSQL blurb again. It may have frightened you with its professional writing, but it was full of well-defined technical terms and specific information. Very few of the things written there apply to MySQL.

Re:PostgreSQL

[einhe1t]

postgreSQL is far less limited -- and very free. use postgreSQL !

Far less limited? hmm, when I've compared pg and mysql, I've found postgres to be rather badly limited, that is to say, severely hobbled performance-wise, as compared to mysql.

Novell to Offer MySQL Network - 9 Aug 2005

[G3ckoG33k]

Novell to Offer MySQL Network - 9 Aug 2005

"SAN FRANCISCO (LinuxWorld Conference & Expo) - Novell and MySQL AB today announced an agreement to deliver enhanced, combined support for key components of the popular open source LAMP infrastructure stack. Under the reseller and joint-support agreement, the only accord of its kind between a Linux* vendor and MySQL AB, Novell will now offer subscriptions to the MySQL Network commercial database service directly to its customers. As a result, customers can now deploy a true enterprise-class open source foundation for their IT infrastructure with confidence."

Maybe MySQL AB are just getting ready for Novell's takeover of SCO?

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[farble1670]

i hope your publisher / university fires you for wasting time and money needlessly re-writing your textbook.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[Halfbaked Plan]

Nevertheless, they did indeed deprive you of the changes they made to the BSD code.

You think Microsoft somehow improved the BSD code? You feel deprived that it wasn't rolled back into the BSD source?

Re:Is the whole company evil, or just the top exec

[Halfbaked Plan]

I will make it a special point of killing any potential job offer that may be made to anyone who was an SCO employee in this recient time frame.

Be careful who you accuse of being unethical.

Reference, incase you doubt me

[inio]

see Here.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[Overly Critical Guy]

Maybe you should have been teaching your students a more SQL-compliant database anyway. I still shake my head at MySQL's poor handing of NULL/NOT NULL and auto-sequences.

That's it .....

[ajs318]

Cue mass migration to PostgreSQL!

For a user leaving MySQL, the main difference is in the quotes; MySQL uses 'single' or "double" quotes to delimit string literals and `back` quotes around field names which would otherwise conflict with reserved words, whereas PostgreSQL uses 'single' quotes to delimit string literals and "double" quotes around dodgy field names. {TTBOMK the "official" standard, if there is one, is 'single' quotes around string literals and tough titty if you want a field name that looks like a reserved word.} I reckon a simple patch would effectively fix the quotes issue ..... just have an option in the rcfile to allow Postgres-style quotes or MySQL-style quotes. {There is of course going to be a load of stuff being done with Perl, PHP and Python scripts that Postgres does natively ..... but we can deal with that later.}

Of course, there's nothing to stop someone forking GPL MySQL. Nobody actually uses non-GPL MySQL anyway ..... if they're going to use a payware database, they'll use MS SQL server or Oracle.

Re:That's it .....

[PigleT]

I thought the standard approach was to allow double-quotes for obscurely named fields - it works in everything I've used over the years (oracle, postgresql, ingres, ..) apart from mysql (spot the odd-idiot-out!).

Re:PostgreSQL

[blankslate]

PostgreSQL probably IS slower, but it's getting faster. Conversely mySQL is horribly feature poor but is getting more feature rich. i don't have a lot of large-scale deployment experience with either, but i suspect it comes down to: 1) if you want performance at the expense of many features, choose mySQL 2) if you want an advanced relational database, and performance is secondary to being able to actually do interesting things with your data, choose PostgreSQL. And mySQL (at least excluding beta releases) is *very* limited in most ways other than performance.

largely agreed

[cahiha]

I largely agree with your view. However, I think MySQL is not quite as dangerous as Qt in that regard, because it's a client/server system. You don't need to link with MySQL for most of its uses, so it doesn't matter that much. Qt, however, is only useful when linked. Furthermore, Qt defines its own standard, while you can fairly easily replace MySQL with another SQL server.

Problem: attempt to dissociate GPL from profit.

[jotaeleemeese]

The message these companies are sending is you can't, you will not, make money from *my* GPLed stuff.

That is not the idea of the GPL. You are welcome to make money, the oonly condition is that you redistribute the code and the moddifications to it.

I wonder if the restrictions put in place by these companies are not actually a violation of the GPL?

THis may be documented and clarified elsewhere, but at first instance it does not sound right.

Re:Problem: attempt to dissociate GPL from profit.

[Dj Offset]

The message these companies are sending is you can't, you will not, make money from *my* GPLed stuff.

Sure you can, but if you do not want to pay for Qt, you will have to give away your source code. But still, you can charge for it and make money.

Re:Problem: attempt to dissociate GPL from profit.

[10Ghz]

The message these companies are sending is you can't, you will not, make money from *my* GPLed stuff.

That is not the idea of the GPL. You are welcome to make money, the oonly condition is that you redistribute the code and the moddifications to it.

That is a complete bullshit. They are saying that "if you base your product on our GPL'ed product, your product must be licenced under the GPL. If that is unacceptable to you, you can buy a commercial license from us, or use some other product". They are NOT saying "you must not earn any money from our GPL'ed product!". They are merely requiring the user to adhere to the GPL, nothing more, nothing less. If you use their GPL'ed product, and find a way to earn money by distributing GPL'ed software, great! No-one is stopping you! TrollTech is not stopping you! If the user does not want to use GPL, they can buy a commercial license, and license their software as he sees fit. it really is that simple. By offering a commercial license, they are not denying others from making money from the GPL'ed version.

I wonder if the restrictions put in place by these companies are not actually a violation of the GPL?

If you are really wondering about that, then I guess it's safe to say that you have no idea what this thing is about, and you are generally clueless about this issue. He who writes the code can decide the license. And the creator can use multiple license if he want's to. Trolltech (and MySQL) have a product that they are selling for money. So what they are doing is similar to what many other companies are doing. But they are also distributing their product under the GPL. So their customers have MORE choice and freedoms than they would normally have. Yet some people complain and whine about it! What the hell is wrong with you people?!

I mean it goes something like this:

TrollTech: Hey folks! We have created this kick-ass toolkit. It costs a bit if you want to use it in your commercial closed-source products.

Fanatics: *yawn*

TrollTech: Oh, we are also offering it under the GPL if you are interested.

Fanatics: What the hell is this shit?! You offer it under the GPL? You suck! How dare you offer us this toolkit for free?!?!

Really, have I entered the Twilight Zone or something? Offering software under the GPL is a bad thing?

Re:Teach PostgreSQL over MySQL anwyay, please!

[AVee]

Trivial applications like Google and Yahoo, yehuh.

Yes, these are pretty trivial applictions. They may hold huge ammount of data and get huge loads but when it comes to complexity they are trivial...

I care about the repuatation of companies.

[jotaeleemeese]

And you do also, I am sure.

But for some hazy reason, companies themselves it would seem, should not care about it. Sometimes to make a bit of profit (how much profit can there be for MySQL in the SCO world?) by damaging your reputation is not worth it.

Reputation is one intangible that should be cherised. The only think I can say is that MySQL is not enhancing theirs in their wider world after this move.

From now on every time I need to evaluate a project, if MySQL is mentioned I will think "oh yea, those guys that associated themselves with SCO", which I am sure will be the lasting reaction of many technically minded people.

MySQL is pursuing this ungodly association at their peril.

Re:I care about the repuatation of companies.

[SocietyoftheFist]

I'm sorry if you don't pick the best tool for the best job. MySQL is thinking about their customers, they aren't going to abandon them because they run an SCO product. That will make me realize the support their customers.

Don't be ridiculous.

[jotaeleemeese]

Even to attempt humour you need some basic foundation of plausibility.

The CEO and Enginnering guru are not necessarily on the same carreer ladder (or maze, chose as you wish).

To imply that a CEO is more capable than a technical type because he is a CEO is ridiculous.

THe points made are valid, you have to question the entreprenurial accumen of somebody associating his company with a dying company whose businesss model for the last couple of years has been to litigate ad many former clients and associates as possible.

You would be fired....

[jotaeleemeese]

... from many (all?) Fortune 100 companies for stating such idiocity. I am not stating this a a rethorical statement to cheer up the /. crowd, I am dead serious.

Most companies worth their salt have strict guidelines, codes of conduct and policies that pretty much ammount to "a moral philosophy" as you put it.

That there are people out there still believing that companies do not have any moral standards is both scary and annoying.

FUD

[hkmwbz]

"Maybe it's the open source community that needs to really look at some of the things that MySQL ab has done in the past and really think if that reputation is warranted, especially after this."

How about you at least provide us with some specific examples rather than spewing out vague FUD-like comments?

Especially considering the fact that the "partnership" thing is SCO's claim, while the contract is actually SCO becoming a customer of MySQL. So basically what you seem to be saying is that if Saddam uses Ubuntu Linux then Ubuntu Linux must be evil.

Or what are you saying?

If MySQL has indeed partnered with SCO and are actively helping them, they should be condemned and deserve to go belly-up. But if this story is just nonsense, and you can't even produce a single example of evil behavior in the past from MySQL... Well... Give us the evidence, damn it!

Re:flamebait??

[skepticult]

My mouth is watering.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[mrchaotica]

No, I don't think they improved it -- that's why I said "changes," instead of "enhancements." ; )

MySQL committing PR Suicide?

[Wolfier]

It's my first thought...

Re:PostgreSQL

[einhe1t]

PostgreSQL probably IS slower, but it's getting faster. Conversely mySQL is horribly feature poor but is getting more feature rich.

"Horribly feature poor"? LOL, nothing like some over the top, bombastic exaggaerations to establish your credentials.

So, how is mysql feature poor? views, triggers, stored procedures, subselects, the whole checklist of items you folks have pointed out, are all there now, and mysql is still incredibly fast, and with it's clustering ability, it's quite useful for a whole lot of production applications - and at the same time, so quick and easy to get started with, that it's also a natural for beginners and their small scale projects.

Re:thats the key to it all right there

[toddbu]

Hmm, interesting. Here's an experiment to try. Go to all of the non-banking sites that you frequently visit and type in a super huge string. See what the behavior is. I bet more sites truncate data (or give a really ugly error message) than trap and handle the long string.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[Omnifarious]

Ahh, but you see, no MySQL partisan came into this forum and posted that garbage. I agree, it is even worse than the Postgress blurb. But the fact such literature exists is not a negative reflection on the database. The fact that someone who's an advocate of it chooses to post it in this forum is.

not always good or feasible

[Stu Charlton]

Object to relational layers are useful for certain classes of problems, but can be easily misused, leading to horridly performing applications. YMMV.

huh?

[Stu Charlton]

Who needs MIN() and MAX() anyway? What's wrong with something like SELECT height FROM suspects ORDER BY height ASC LIMIT 1 ?

Well, besides the verbosity of the latter, you'd have to use an inline correlated-subquery to do any form of GROUP BY style queries. Most SQL optimizers wouldn't have a clue how to compensate for such a contorted request, whereas a simple MIN/MAX aggregate function usually is an easy hint to just scan whatever B*Tree index is on the column.

Come to think of it, I probably would just use SELECT * ....., read the whole record into a numeric array and pull out the field I wanted.

Completely by-passing the SQL optimizer and the whole point of why relational databases exist. I'm in awe.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[Omnifarious]

But, that's the point of a filesystem, so you can stop caring about disks and blocks and stuff and just care about the data you have stored and what name you called it. The division between 'database' and 'filesystem' is artificial, and it's bad for everybody to keep them separate.

SCO supports PostGreSQL too you know

[Khanom]

SCO UnixWare ships with Postgres. And why wouldn't they? All MySQL is doing is updating it's support for SCO products. Why is that bad?

From the horse's mouth:

> Ned,
>
> Actually, SCO has supported us for years. They may even have contributed
> patches. Their attorneys may be evil incarnate, but their technicians are
> friendly and skilled.
>
> I notice the article doesn't mention that the last 6 versions of UnixWare have
> included PostgreSQL ...
>
> --
> -Josh Berkus
> Aglio Database Solutions
> San Francisco

Source: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql@org
URL: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2004 -06/msg00141.php

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[Omnifarious]

You stop coming up with whole new APIs and practically new OSes just so you can have your little relational database world, and you work with the kernel to get the minimum basic support needed into the filesystem for ACID. The Unix/POSIX filesystem API is old and anemic and needs a revamp.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news...

[TheSpoom]

But you are the one who is wrong. MySQL is a server. Thus, you don't generally (and by generally, I mean 99% of the time) have to actually INCLUDE MySQL in your code. Because you don't have to include it and are instead accessing a separate MySQL server, whether running locally or elsewhere, you are not bound by the GPL and can license your program any way you want.

Now, if you're making a device or custom software that includes the MySQL server code itself, that's different, but I personally have never heard of such things (though I'm sure they exist), which suggests to me that most people are doing what I'm doing: Making websites in PHP / Python / Perl / what-have-you that ACCESS MySQL servers but don't actually include MySQL code.

How else do you think commercial products like X-Cart, VBulletin and the like could exist? They're certainly not under the GPL.

Re:Submited Story MySQL and SCO signs agreement

[i_frame]

pls dciphr !

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[slamb]

You stop coming up with whole new APIs and practically new OSes just so you can have your little relational database world, and you work with the kernel to get the minimum basic support needed into the filesystem for ACID.

I don't think you understand how major an undertaking you're proposing.

Getting ACID right is hard. Let's say I'm a RDBMS developer. I have two choices:

• Write the code in userspace in a way that can be deployed on existing systems easily. It's a lot of code. It'll crash a lot while I'm developing it. Security holes might be discovered in it. That's okay. It's a user process in its own little sandbox.
• Work with kernel developers for every major OS and standardization committees to push through an entirely new API for ACID. Develop new filesystems that support it. (Yes, the actual storage would have to change.) Degrade the performance of the rest of the system, which doesn't need these constraints. Watch the whole system go down repeatedly because so much code is going into kernelspace. Have more remote root holes than Windows. Watch no one actually install it because they don't want to reformat their system for my database.

...and I'd still need to develop a database on top of it. The other thing you asked for, SQL, is not trivial either.

Read Codd's 12 rules to truly understand what a RDBMS does for you. (Google around a bit; that link doesn't describe them well.)

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[slamb]

Ahh, but you see, no MySQL partisan came into this forum and posted that garbage.

I fail to understand the logic behind avoiding solid products because someone who likes it annoyed you on slashdot. If I made decisions like that, I wouldn't use:

• PostgreSQL
• MySQL
• Oracle
• Microsoft SQL
• Linux
• Windows
• *BSD
• OS X
• Perl
• Python
• Ruby
• C++
• Java
• ...

In fact, I can't think of a single significant piece of software I would use. I'd have to get a new job.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[Omnifarious]

You don't actually have to have every single filesystem out there support it. You just need the APIs in the kernel so that if a filesystem does support it, userspace programs can make calls that use it. Non-ACID supporting filesystems will fall back to some behavior that isn't actually ACID and is easy to implement. There would be sysconfig calls you could use on a filesystem to discover exactly how good its ACID support was.

And the code that really _does_ implement ACID doesn't have to live in the kernel either. The kernel can get to it through things like FUSE.

The addition of an API for good support of transactions would make distributed filesystems much easier to write.

I realize that SQL isn't trivial. I think of SQL as a really advanced and sophisticated version of the 'find' utility. And I realize that foreign key->primary key relationships don't have an obvious mapping into the hierarchical database that is a filesystem. And that's OK. I would just be happy if the database structure mapped into the filesystem in some reasonable way, and you could manipulate the database through the Unix system call API. It can return errors if you try to do something that violates a relational integrity constrain or whatever. It's the separation of namespaces that I think is really evil.

Filesystem vs. database shouldn't have to be a design choice. And the bizarre two-headed world we have now where there's a whole ton of data that has no visibility to tools that aren't specially written to access it is just ridiculous.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[Omnifarious]

*chuckle* Yeah, that logic doesn't really hold. Though it's a big reason I don't use BSD. In truth, if I needed a full-featured database for something serious, I'd consider Postgress. Though I wouldn't consider BSD because I have philosophical issues with the very core of it.

Right now, MySQL seems to be really easy to set up and use for a random purpose, though I think SQLlite is even better. So if the database and its features weren't actually that important, I'd probably ignore Postgress because there's a lot less out there on it, and some idiot in Slashdot decided to post a marketing blurb as a comment.

Re:thats the key to it all right there

[ShieldW0lf]

Hmm, interesting. Here's an experiment to try. Go to all of the non-banking sites that you frequently visit and type in a super huge string. See what the behavior is. I bet more sites truncate data (or give a really ugly error message) than trap and handle the long string.

Lots of the web is made using FrontPage. What was your point again?

MySQL team's plan of action

[fabioaquotte]

1 - Convince SCO that they are willing to work together.
2 - Get a meeting with Darl McBride.
3 - Give Darl McBride an atomic wedgie.
4 - ???
5 - Profit!

Re:thats the key to it all right there

[toddbu]

Well, I assumed that you'd be visiting sites with dynamic content rather than static. If you're on a page built with FrontPage then it's highly unlikely that you're going to have a database backend to test.

Re:thats the key to it all right there

[ShieldW0lf]

Ok, let me spell it out for you, since you don't seem to have been hit with the clue stick quite hard enough. Most of the public web has been designed by amateurs who didn't know what they were doing. Just like all those FrontPage "web developers". To defend doing something the wrong way because everyone else is doing it wrong too is absolutely retarded.

MySQL is popular because back when it didn't have support for ANY of the features that are considered standard in a modern database it was, for that reason, very fast and lightweight. It sucked balls, but you could have a lot of people paying $10-20 a month for hosting on a single box, and if they wanted to use a real database, they could bloody well pay more for it.

So lots of people learned to use a database with their $20 a month plan, and learned all sorts of clever ways to deal with its shortcomings, and now they're proud of these skills and will argue with you till they're blue in the face about how the shortcomings aren't shortcomings and the clever hacks are a better way to do things. There isn't really much you can say to such people, because if they acknowledge that you're right, they have to concede that their vaunted skills amount to nothing more than making smelly purses out of sows ears. If you can find someone with enough humility to do THAT on slashdot, I'll strike the goatse pose on national television.

Spatial Data / GIS

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

PostgreSQL - PostGIS spatial database extention, 300+ functions plus indices.
MySQL - wimpy generic spatial text format, no functions

PostgreSQL can use the PostGIS extention to hold spatial data and give you full spatial database capabilities .... with all the tasty spatial analysis functions you'd expect - intersections, crosses, buffers, overlays, ... over 300 spatial functions with spatial indices.

And in the last year or so, PostgreSQL has been available using an windows installer, with PostGIS as an option, making all its power available to those who are not so hot with linux or similar OS's, and dont want to spend 2 weeks figuring out how to compile said software with all features working correctly thanks to the instructions that bare no resemblance to reality.

MySQL, like many other 'enterprise' databases can hold spatial data in WKT / WKB formats that can be fed to programs that can use it, but it is not a true spatial database and has ZERO spatial functions and I dont think it can generate spatial indices. Someone can fill us in on this point, I understand that a spatial extention may be in the works.

The HUGE benefit of PostgreSQL with PostGIS is that it gives you a full powered spatial database engine which works with OSS GIS softwares and web mapping programs such as MapServer, Grass, QGIS, JumP, etc ... FREE.

If on the other hand you chose to use the name brand software ... ESRI, with ArcSDE - their spatial database engine, installed on Oracle which is their preferred way of doing things, you are looking at a cost of $50,000 in software, plus $18,000 per year in license maintenance fees. These are canadian numbers, which I priced out in January 2005.

I'd rather spend that money developing a system, instead of just buying the damn software.

Re:Spatial Data / GIS

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Yes, dont bother to say it.

I attached this to the wrong article.

Re:thats the key to it all right there

[toddbu]

I see where you're coming from now. The problem is that it's not just amateur sites that silently truncate data. The first two that I tried - Slashdot (in the "real name" field) and Yahoo Address Book (in the "other number" field) both failed the test. And I have yet to find a web browser that complains when a query string exceeds the max length that's defined in the standard, so that means that potentially 100% of the Internet can truncate data somewhere along the way with absolutely no notification of any kind. So I can see how you'd think that it's just lameass web sites designed by hacks that truncate data, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

Re:PostgreSQL

[blankslate]

right. wake me up when these features get a GA release. I know subselects are out in 4.1.xx , and AFAIK the rest are version 5 which is a preview release. Cue telling me how stable mySQL preview releases are ... I'm not disputing it's "quite useful for a whole range of production applications". But given a choice I'll stick with PG.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[Jack9]

Not a journalist, thx.

Re:PostgreSQL

[einhe1t]

Nothing wrong with PG, just like there's nothing wrong with Oracle, but for a lot of scenarios I run into, mysql fits the bill pretty well. Not every database needs the features of an Oracle or a PG.

Re:PostgreSQL

[blankslate]

well, that i can agree with. And mysql does have a good range of tools - its somewhat harder to find nice query editors etc for those with less penetration.

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[jadavis]

The division between disk and filesystem is also artificial.

The extra layer of abstraction is valuable to people who use it. If you want or need to change the on disk layout and you use a filesystem, you have to change all the applications that access that data. With an RDBMS you can make changes without changing existing applications.

There are many technologies that are abstrations on top of abstrations. Every extra abstraction has a cost and a benefit. If the benefit is small to you, forget it. However, I value the benefits of an RDBMS highly for many applications (though not all), and so I use it.

Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani

[mfh]

I actually meant flees, as in people running to other products. It was a pun. /ashamed