The Ups and Downs of MySQL AB

Wannabe Code Monkey writes "Forbes has an article about a recent MySQL deal with SCO and the reaction from the open source community: "It's been a rough week for Marten Mickos, the chief executive of open source database maker MySQL AB. First his most dreaded rival, Oracle acquired a company that supplies a key piece of MySQL's software, a move that could make life difficult for Uppsala, Sweden-based MySQL, which has the most popular open source database. If that wasn't bad enough, Mickos is being denounced as a traitor by noisy fanatics in the open source software community because last month he dared to make a deal with SCO Group, a company reviled by fans of Linux and other open source software.""

Comments

Confused about licensing

[dada21]

I'm confused. Even if SCO acquires a component, isn't the final F/OSS release of that component still F/OSS per the GPL or whatever license it was released with?

Take said component and keep refining it.

If this is a future worry, adapt the license so that other OSS components remain OSS if future versions are commercialized.

Re:Confused about licensing

[BVis]

If taking SCO's money is what keeps the product viable, and if the final product is still F/OSS, who really gives a hoot? SCO's money spends just as easy as anything else, and the OSS community hasn't lost anything.

We don't live in a world of moral absolutes. Businesses sometimes have to be practical at the expense of muddying the moral waters. I'm sure that if they could have avoided even taking SCO's calls they would have, but taking the money enables them to be a going concern.

Besides, the more SCO spends, the faster they will inevitably go out of business, so that can only be a good thing, right?

Re:Confused about licensing

[team99parody]

The problem is that MySQL's business depended on a dual-licensing model where they selling a proprietary-licensed version of MySQL. Sure, they could keep using the GPL'd InnoDB in the GPL'd version of MySQL; but they can not incorporate the GPL'd InnoDB in the proprietary MySQL.

Ironically, if Oracle insisted that future supported versions of InnoDB only be released as a GPL'd work - it could be one of the greates things for MySQL-the-GPL'd-product and one of the worst things to MySQL-the-company.

Re:Confused about licensing

[jadavis]

The problem that MySQL DB is having right now is that it's too dependent on one company: MySQL AB. And that company is proving that it is not stable enough to count on.

If I were a MySQL DB user, I would be planning for an outcome that did not require MySQL AB, because the company might not be in the same form a year from now. Possibly even choose something else that has a stronger community behind it, or at least a stronger company behind it.

MySQL has a big community, but it's organized not around itself, but around MySQL AB. That may have to change.

Re:Confused about licensing

[jadavis]

The problem that people were having was how close the companies were getting. MySQL seemed proud to work closely with SCO, which was strange. Not necessarily bad, but some MySQL DB users are understandably concerned about the stability of MySQL AB.

Re:Confused about licensing

[toddbu]

We don't live in a world of moral absolutes.

Agreed. But when SCO starts making money through this partnership and then turns around and uses that cash to attack the same community that SCO despises, does that make any sense?

SCO not only burned bridges, they set the entire landscape on fire. For a leading player in the F/OSS movement to then hook up with them is very disturbing. Should we expect MySQL developers to suddenly be paid by SCO? What would SCO expect in return?

When I heard the news, I sent an email to MySQL telling them that I thought they were treading on very dangerous ground. If MySQL was surprised by the reaction of the community then maybe they really don't understand their base of support. I kind of feel that way anyway, since last I looked the only way to give them any money is to buy a license. I'd gladly click on a "Donate using PayPal" link and have suggested that they provide a paid club that people can sign up for to help support the cause, but so far neither has appeared.

Re:Confused about licensing

[bani]

You mean you were actually convinced by the marketspeak? I saw right through it -- mysql is saying what sco wants to hear, not what mysql actually believes.

Re:Confused about licensing

[steve_l]

I agree with you, it is dangerous ground. I think MySQL's concern over short term $$ got in the way of thinking "How will this go down with the rest of the OSS community"

As the same time, I note key OSS projects -gcc, apache- have not abandoned support for their products on legacy SCO unix, simply because even though they despise the company, there is no reason to treat the users of it badly. After all, they support the tools on Windows...

I have other issues with mySQSL, and it aint this. No, Its the way they view any form of data use (even over the wire) as being GPL-contaminating.

Re:Confused about licensing

[petermgreen]

the problem with mysql is like qt its software that was licensed in such a way as to drive sales of thier commercial product rather than helping the OSS community (why else would they GPL the client access libs?).

i can see why people wouldn't wan't to contribute to a project with such lopsided licensing (e.g. mysql AB can profit from your code in thier commercial/propietry product whilst you can't do the same)

and a hostile fork would just leave something that was impossible to use legally (at least by mysqls GPL interpretation other interpretations may vary) as a backend data store that your propietry apps can use.

therefore the safest option is almost certainly to switch to a freer DB like postgreSQL though i agree that doing so will involve a lot of short term pain

What piece are we talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forbes is a bit short on specifics - what crucial software piece was bought by Oracle. And more importantly - what license was it under?

Re:What piece are we talking about?

[lmfr]

Oracle acquired Innobase, maker of InnoDB.

Re:What piece are we talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ruby on Rails. Creative Commons.

Re:What piece are we talking about?

[bogaboga]

Time to fork Innobase right? Programmers, are you listening?

Re:What piece are we talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source programmers know *SQUAT* about database storage engines.

Re:What piece are we talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you know, it helps if you actually read the article.

Re:What piece are we talking about?

[jadavis]

A fork is possible. But what really needs to happen is the MySQL community needs to get it's act together and be independent of MySQL AB. There's a lot of community-building that needs to happen, because right now the whole development process is too dependent on MySQL AB.

This is not a fast process that a few good programmers can solve overnight. You need a few good programmers, a few good organizers, a few good decision makers, users involved on mailing lists, and a lot of time to figure out who does what and when they do it.

The project also needs direction. Will it be the same direction as when MySQL AB was calling the shots? If it changes direction, will the database cater to the same users?

Here's a potential problem I already see: You get all of the above requirements. Some of the decision makers think it's better to move in the direction of standards-compliance, strict error checking, consistency, and data integrity. The problem here is that they will always be chasing PostgreSQL, and their users will go elsewhere.

MySQL is kind of in a precarious position. If it gets "too good", it will compete with the likes of PostgreSQL and Oracle. They need to stay where they are, yet incrementally improve. It seems like any direction MySQL moves, the logical conclusion works against them.

Article is flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy has obviously made up his mind about people who support opensource. And calling Groklaw 'ground zero for paranoia'? No wonder he writes for Forbes.

Re:Article is flamebait

[sqlrob]

He made up his mind a long time ago. Do a search on google for "daniel lyons" fud.

You can pretty much dismiss claims made by him, Laura Didio and Rob Enderle.

Re:Article is flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

Groklaw IS paranoid, ultra-biased slush. She just happens to be on the side of the good guys. I just wish she'd quit refuting arguments with intelligent quips like "oh yeah? YOU'RE the loser, Maureen" and "Ha! I bet those losers can't even spell GPL". It's just embarassing for the rest of us.

Bah!

[TerminaMorte]

If that wasn't bad enough, Mickos is being denounced as a traitor by noisy fanatics in the open source software community because last month he dared to make a deal with SCO Group, a company reviled by fans of Linux and other open source software."
 
  Next on Forbes: How much negativity can we pack into one sentence? Find out!

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

So I've been working next to some lawyers recently.

We even share the same restroom.

There is a huge stack of Forbes in that restroom. Surprisingly, I was informed that it was not really toilet paper. I was a little astonished at this statement, because upon reading a few pages that was the most logical conclusion I could reach.

These guys are so biased towards the corporate elitest and greed mentality it isn't even funny. "This guy ratted on his company and we should murder him in his sleep..." or some such non-sense... ignoring the fact that the company was doing evil things.

Shit, toss on a guide on how not to get caught like Enron guys and walk away champs... they would probably sell millions and be praised by the rats that read it.

Undertstand, I like corporate america as it tends to pay well, comes with benefits, sometimes has informed coworkers and well a lot of good stuff. At least, that has been my experience in the past and soon to be future.

Groklaw Interviews MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos

[anandpur]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510112 11450706

* no money went to SCO from MySQL, so MySQL is not supporting SCO financially
* it was SCO seeking out the partnership, not the other way around
* MySQL had stopped supporting SCO in 2004
* MySQL did not put out the press release about the partnership. Mickos did provide a quotation for the press release however. Here's the press release in question, taken from MySQL's web site. http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html

Re:Groklaw Interviews MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos

[iggymanz]

don't forget last bullet point: MySQL did make a partnership with the lying, thieving, copyright violating stock fraudsters who are trying to steal Linux, extort money from users of Linux, sue their own customers who use Linux, and invalidate the GPL.
 
  Thus they are to be despised and use of their product is to be discontinued.

Re:Groklaw Interviews MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos

[tyler_larson]

The backlash against MySQL for dealing with SCO is harsh, probably unwarranted, but, most importantly, very effective at conveying the desired message: don't talk to SCO. Don't even return their phone calls.

SCO, you remember, is a UNIX company--they don't write all their own software, which is why their OS is POSIX. They absolutely rely on cooperation with the community to make their product marketable.

Now, they're blacklisted. Companies and projects that use community-driven models (or even market to such organizations) are clearly and unequivocally forbidden to associate in any way with SCO. It's just not worth risking the sort of backlash that hit MySQL.

Re:Groklaw Interviews MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Sure. Yes. Well put.

But remember EV1? This SCO storm will pass. What will not, and what should be more important to those who use MySCO is the InnoDB buy-out. MySQL missed that opportunity, and will pay for it. Indeed it may be their downfall. But in a few weeks, the SCO issue will have passed.

Re:Groklaw Interviews MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos

[killjoe]

EV1? Didn't they tried like hell to backtrack and still lost a ton of customers? Are you saying all those customers who left came back to them?\

Let their money be drained

[schestowitz]

Gosh, SCO have not run out of money yet? I thought the Web site implied they have: http://www.linuxstolescocode.com/ (hint: see error page).

SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean to say that this guy had absolutely no idea where SCO stood on their position of OSS and the GNU GPL? (Then again they keep saying something else all the time)

MySQL has some business strategy...

[koh]

1) Sell out to SCO,
2) Have Oracle buy the most feature-full database implementation we managed to get our hands on,
3) Piss off Open Source users,
4) Kill off PHP (since it's the only thing that still gets us going...)
5) ...
6) DEFICIT!

Re:MySQL has some business strategy...

[Directrix1]

The most feature full. Try Firebird or PostgresQL.

Re:MySQL has some business strategy...

[MemoryDragon]

The most hyped one os probably the better description, before MySQL, during MySQLs absolute heydey and even today, better OSS dbs exist with more features which do not carry the hidden 500 USD pricetag. But none of them have MySQLs hype engine behind it, they have one advantage though, they work!

Re:MySQL has some business strategy...

[CptWheel]

few years back (~1998/9?) I was asked to replace now-dead-sql with mysql or pgsql and I ended up with mysql, because it was much better suited for _simple_web_applications_. I didn't need transactions and needed to support less expensive white boxes, where memory hog like pg simply would not fit or would not perform well. until now, I have never been told it was bad choice by anyone using the servers, custommers, partners etc.

before suggesting other dbs one should carefully pick replacement. I wouldn't tell the following if I had no experience with pg. I don't want to turn this into mysql/pgsql flame: my story might not be easy to hear for pg-lovers, feel warned.

few moths ago, I got a job... find out why simple LAPP (linux-apache-pgsql-postfix:) fails randomly after few days. I have changed distribution from slack to woody. I have changed hardware once, then even migrated from intel to amd. moved to sarge. checked about 5 different kernel versions and zillion configuration options when compiling kernel and I did used "vendor" stable kernels as well. all machines are dying randomly, record is 19 days. well over 25 LAMP servers I give much less attention than to LAPPs work smoothly with 500+ days uptime, whether you take system or mysql server uptime. I migrated the pgsql to one stable LAMP server (running about one year at the moment) and it went down in 2 days. btw the went-down means that machine becomes simply unresponsive and even netconsole.ko is silent!! (printk over udp, worth lokking at).

have you ever repaired pg databases after disk crash? and.. how about pgdump between different versions...? and how do you like pg docs? lol, don't ever recommend me pgsql.

I don't need more featurefull. I need stable server. I'm willing to code something better, use lock-free structures, and I am willing to write more sql queries to implement some "oneliners-in-pgsql". and I build-in some regular data integrity checks into my apps. but I'm not going to use/rely on constantly failing triggers, currupted tables and killed servers. thank god that mysql is gpl. and no, I don't care if sco prays to mickos to port mysql back to sco again.

Re:MySQL has some business strategy...

[jadavis]

I can only assume you grossly misused PostgreSQL or some other software on the machine. PostgreSQL has a legendary reputation for reliability and stability, which has held up perfectly for me for years (no postgresql failures ever).

And if a disk crashes, you can hardly blame PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL has several great online backup systems available: Slony-I (repliaction), point-in-time recovery (PITR), and pg_dump. Use them.

You are also the first person I've heard describe PostgreSQL as a "memory hog".

My guess is that you made no attempt to diagnose the problem. I doubt your problems are related to a PostgreSQL bug. You could have reported your problems on pgsql-general, and I'm sure people there would have helped you as long as you provided good information.

Re:MySQL has some business strategy...

[gidds]

You missed:

7) Get posted on /. every other day.

8) Stir up lots of interest from folk who don't understand RDBMSs and don't realise how much better stuff like Postgres is.

9) Profit!

Seriously, we've had almost as many MySQL stories recently as Google stories...

Re:MySQL has some business strategy...

[HiThere]

MySQL AB hasn't done step 1). I'll admit that there was a reporter who posted a story that made it sound as if they had, possibly with coaching from tSCOg, but that doesn't make it the true. (OTOH, this article fed nicely into step 3.)

I'm also not sure about step 4. (I'm not a user of PHP, and also only EXTREMELY minor in my use of MySQL at all.)

The rest of your points, however, seem pretty accurate. Not a good week for MySQL. Some of it was their own doing.

P.S.: This is a good warning of why one should not do business with tSCOg. They will claim the relationship is something much more binding than you have agreed to. Even if they can't afford any more lawyers, they appear to still be able to afford reporters.

P.P.S.: This is further evidence of how much one should trust the press. And remember, software isn't the only thing they lie about. If they lie about the things that you can check, assume that they lie at least as much about the things that you can't check.

Re:MySQL has some business strategy...

[bani]

I wonder how you think mysql managed 4) ?

Can you provide evidence php is dead because of mysql?

Re:MySQL has some business strategy...

[CptWheel]

to make it more clear, disk crash with pg tables on it has nothing to do with current pgsql installs which bring servers down.. I was repairing some pg tables before and I simply know its a pain, but it might get better since then.

as for sw missuse, read plz thread started by my post (4msgs as of now), I have responded to a coward in a way I usually don't, but I think I haven't missused any sw, including pgsql.

as of memory hog.. current info from what top says there are 4 postmasters, 90meg total, serving (du says) 98mb of databases, while there are two mysqls 40mb total, serving >500mb dbs, and with 4times more queries per minute (31555.46 q/m, pg has ~7300). I think it got better in 5 years but I remember pg ranting about insufficient memory on 256mb ram machine, which was almost "the cream of white boxes" when I was deciding between pg/mysql. so it was memory hog for me...

Re:MySQL has some business strategy...

[bani]

all the world is a nail and postgresql is the hammer, eh?

nice black and white worldview there.

i realize it's fashionable these days to bash mysql for reason-du-jour, but it comes off like openbsd fanatics bashing linux -- it turns people away. you win few converts by calling them clueless.

but you will continue feverishly wringing your hands over how people "just don't get it". then you'll go and post more truly astounding winners on /. and drive more potential users away.

Re:MySQL has some business strategy...

[Directrix1]

To tell you the truth. I much prefer Firebird. All I did with Postgres was read their gigantic manual, before realizing that a lot of Firebird was way ahead of the curve. Man that thing practically runs itself. I have about 3 servers running for years, and I've never had as much as a hiccup with it.

Re:MySQL has some business strategy...

[jadavis]

A pg install on a good disk that crashes the server and/or corrupts the data is a major bug. Any information you have about that should be reported in detail to the pgsql-general list. If you can reproduce it, even better, and please report that to pgsql-general.

I am somewhat skeptical that you have encountered such a bug. It is more likely a problem with your disk write cache (many disks lie about having stored some given data permanently), or some other issue.

Can you please port more details? We should get to the bottom of this. What version are you using? What OS? What arch? Is write cache enabled on your disk? What leads up to a failure?

Re:MySQL has some business strategy...

[CptWheel]

I' sure it's a major bug, but I unable to reproduce it and even when it happens, I'm unable to get anything usefull out of it. I mentoined netconsole being silent, but if you know about something hand it to me :).

the only report I ever found in logs is pasted bellow, even it is not the best place for it; I don't want to report incomplette info to busy developers, but you seem interrested :). the trace below just tells me that this happend just before crash (remote nagios found machine dead few seconds after this happend). all I know is that it happen during a write to pipe, and that postmaster was running process while something like "spin_lock(); schedule();" or "preempt_disable(); schedule();" was called, causing "note: postmaster[1138] exited with preempt_count 1". this makes me sure its rather bug in kernel, which is trigerred by postgresql. user-space process should never be able to kill kernel, but mine postmaster does - but this is the only evidence I have and I guess it's not enough for either kernel or pgsql developers.

Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 20646973
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: printing eip:
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: c0119d3a
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: *pde = 00000000
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: Oops: 0000 [#1]
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: PREEMPT SMP
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: Modules linked in: iptable_filter ip_tables ipv6 genrtc dm_mod capability commoncap 8139too mii psmouse ide_cd cdrom ext3 jbd mbcache ide_generic piix ide_disk ide_core raid1 md unix font vesafb cfbcopyarea cfbimgblt cfbfillrect
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: CPU: 0
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: EIP: 0060:[task_rq_lock+42/144] Not tainted
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: EFLAGS: 00010086 (2.6.8-2-686-smp)
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: EIP is at task_rq_lock+0x2a/0x90
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: eax: 20646963 ebx: c038bd40 ecx: 00000001 edx: f6f74e70
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: esi: c038bd40 edi: f6fe8000 ebp: f6fe9e74 esp: f6fe9e64
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: ds: 007b es: 007b ss: 0068
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: Process postmaster (pid: 1138, threadinfo=f6fe8000 task=f6830b70)
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: Stack: c11273a0 00000000 f7a3c204 00000001 f6fe9ebc c011a482 f6f74e70 f6fe9eac
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: 000000d0 f6ad4c80 00000001 f6830b70 00000010 c02def80 00000000 00000000
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: 00000040 000000d0 00000082 00000000 f7a3c204 00000001 f6fe9ee4 c011c561
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: Call Trace:
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [try_to_wake_up+34/704] try_to_wake_up+0x22/0x2c0
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [__wake_up_common+65/112] __wake_up_common+0x41/0x70
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [__wake_up+68/128] __wake_up+0x44/0x80
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [pipe_writev+657/800] pipe_writev+0x291/0x320
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [pipe_write+56/64] pipe_write+0x38/0x40
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [vfs_write+237/352] vfs_write+0xed/0x160
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [sys_write+81/128] sys_write+0x51/0x80
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [syscall_call+7/11] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: Code: 8b 40 10 8b 0c 85 20 00 39 c0 ff 47 14 01 cb 31 c0 86 03 84
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: note: postmaster[1138] exited with preempt_count 1
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: bad: scheduling while atomic!
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [schedule+2191/2208] schedule+0x88f/0x8a0
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [free_pages_and_swap_cache+113/160] free_pages_and_swap_cache+0x71/0xa0
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [unmap_vmas+482/576] unmap_vmas+0x1e2/0x240
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [exit_mmap+177/464] exit_mmap+0xb1/0x1d0
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [mmput+109/160] mmput+0x6d/0xa0
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel: [do_exit+418/1328] do_exit+0x1a2/0x530
Aug 8 22:56:17 travel kernel:

Alternative RDBMS

[VincenzoRomano]

I think it's time now to give a closer look to some other open source RDBMS.
It took years to bring MySQL to where it is now. It will take hours to lay it down!
And SCO could also start sending letters to companies to claim money for MySQL licenses! :-)

a key piece ??

[six]

Although InnoDB is quite a niece piece of work, I wouldn't call it a key piece of the MySQL server software. It is just one of the *many* storage backends supported by MySQL, and it's not by far the most used (99% of the MySQL installs i've seen only use the internally developped MyISAM storage engine which btw is the default one ...

And btw, people who need transactions and advanced features tend to use postgresql instead of mysql+innodb ...

Re:a key piece ??

[Just Some Guy]

I wouldn't call it a key piece of the MySQL server software.

I would, because it was responsible for most of the "new" features MySQL was bragging about.

And btw, people who need transactions and advanced features tend to use postgresql instead of mysql+innodb .

You misspelled "will have to" (excepting Firebird et al).

Re:a key piece ??

[CodeRx]

The purchase of Innobase by Oracle is a big problem for MySQL AB. If they really want to be a grown-up database vendor, they are going to have to eventually write their own MVCC backend. And they can't easily fork off the GPL InnoDB as they make the vast amount of their money by selling non-GPL licenses of MySQL.

There are other backends for MySQL, but MyISAM doesn't work well with multiple readers+writers due to table locking / lack of MVCC, doesn't offer transactions, etc - and the BDB backend, the closest backend to InnoDB feature-wise is still not considered production quality after many many years.

From what I have seen, InnoDB has become the more popular table handler for new projects and is definately the table handler MySQL AB promotes the most. MyISAM tends to be relegated to mostly read-only tables and legacy use. I really like MySQL's concept of being able to use the right tool for the job when it comes to table handlers, but one of their best tools just got swiped by the 1000lb gorilla next-door! (Oracle may still let them license InnoDB commercially, but can stop at anytime)

Your comment on Postgresql is spot on, and with postgres getting so much easier for new users to get into (auto vacuum, native windows support), Postgresql's complete lack of annoying licensing issues, etc - things still look good for open source databases.

Re:a key piece ??

[Bulmakau]

Although InnoDB is quite a niece piece of work, I wouldn't call it a key piece of the MySQL server software. It is just one of the *many* storage backends supported by MySQL, and it's not by far the most used (99% of the MySQL installs i've seen only use the internally developped MyISAM storage engine which btw is the default one ...

Hmm. Not true.
There are indeed several (not many) storage engines with MySQL. However the two most used are InnoDB and MySQL. And InnoDB is usually used when MySQL is not appropriate - which is in write-heavy applications. I would agree that most installations use mySQL and not innodb, but as a secondary engine it's a VERY important part of MySQL.

And btw, people who need transactions and advanced features tend to use postgresql instead of mysql+innodb ...

What do they know ;)

Re:a key piece ??

[jadavis]

It's interesting how many times people, like MySQL users, can convince themselves that nothing can hurt their product. They have wrapped themselves completely around a company with $20M in VC, and they assumed it was stable enough. Some people said that they shouldn't depend on a single small company, but that was mere theory. Now it's reality.

Even if nothing bad happens, and they find a way to work it all out, this should awaken the MySQL users to the fact that they are vulnerable. Realistically, it would be a long time before the GPL version was successfully managed by independent developers. That needs to change. The MySQL community needs to be the base upon which MySQL AB runs their business, not the other way around.

PostgreSQL is a great example. Great Bridge, LLC, started a business around PostgreSQL and at that time they were the main source of development money for PostgreSQL (or at least a main source). However, everyone agreed to not let PostgreSQL depend on Great Bridge. It turns out the VCs got cold feet and backed out (most likely scared because of the downturn). PostgreSQL still had a thriving community to continue development, so little time was lost, and the product has been gaining in leaps and bounds ever since. The people hired away by Great Bridge were quickly rehired by other companies. Now there are many companies that support PostgreSQL, like Command Prompt, Fujitsu, Afilias, Software Research Associates (SRA), Aglio DB, and Red Hat to name just a few (I'm sure I left some out).

If the same thing happens to MySQL AB that happened to Great Bridge, there would be little other than shattered remains of a community. There would be GPL code and no infrastructure or community to develop it.

Learn from the IBM case.

[khasim]

MySQL AB has all the licenses to MySQL.

They release it under a dual license.

Now they're accepting SCO money to "partner" with them to develop MySQL so it works better on SCO's server software.

Now, do a quick search for SCO & IBM & "Project Monterey". See the parallels? And SCO has sued THREE partners/customers over code use.

The question will come down to what contracts cover what money being spent in what ways to write what code and who owns what rights to what code.

Personally, I see this as just a way for SCO go try to get possession of the MySQL code base. Only an idiot would sign a developmental contract with SCO after everything that's been revealed from the court cases.

Re:Learn from the IBM case.

[swillden]

MySQL AB has all the licenses to MySQL.

Just a terminology nit: MySQL AB neither has nor needs any licenses for MySQL. MySQL AB *owns* MySQL. They hold the copyrights, and issue licenses to others.

Now, do a quick search for SCO & IBM & "Project Monterey". See the parallels? And SCO has sued THREE partners/customers over code use.

Yeah, MySQL AB might want to think twice about doing business with a company with such a track record except for two things. First, based on the way MySQL AB's business model works, they have to have full ownership of the copyrights, or at least blanket permission to sublicense everything in any way they see fit. Unless their attorneys are flat incompetent, the language in the contract should be extremely clear and they should have little fear of losing a lawsuit (though that doesn't prevent them from getting sued). Second, SCO is already drowning in lawsuits they can't win. Odds are, the IBM suit will drive SCO into bankruptcy. Novell has a very good argument that SCO owes Novell nearly $30M (or is it $50M?) that SCO does not have. If there's anything left after IBM and Novell get through with SCO, Red Hat is still waiting in the wings with its own claims against SCO, and the Auto Zone case is out there as well. SCO is just about out of money, and although they've capped the legal fees in the IBM case, they're going to continue to bleed cash rapidly to fight Novell, and more cash to fight Red Hat and maybe Auto Zone when IBM ends. SCO is just about out of money, has massive legal bills still coming and little prospect of obtaining any cash.

MySQL AB is *very* unlikely to be sued by a company in such straits. No matter how insane the SCO management is, lawyers aren't going to take on a case they're not going to get paid for.

Re:Learn from the IBM case.

[twiddlingbits]

"No matter how insane the SCO management is, lawyers aren't going to take on a case they're not going to get paid for."

WRONG..it's called a Contingency case, they win they get paid, they lose they get nothing. This approach is very common in personal injury lawsuits.

The SCO case is a hybrid of this where Boise-Schiller took company stock as part of the fee, they win and the price goes up and they clean up, they lose SCO goes under they get only the cash part of the compensation.

Anyone getting involved that deeply with SCO must have a screw loose, SCO is just crazy enough to sue mySQL in hopes of keeping themselves alive a bit longer even after they lose to IBM (and appeal of course).

Re:Learn from the IBM case.

[AnObfuscator]

Now they're accepting SCO money to "partner" with them to develop MySQL so it works better on SCO's server software.

uhhhh...

From GrokLaw's interview with Marten Mickos:
no money went to SCO from MySQL, so MySQL is not supporting SCO financially

So, MySQL isn't accepting SCO money.

From The official Press Release:
As part of the agreement, the companies will work together on a range of joint marketing, sales, training, business development and support programs that will benefit customers throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. Additionally, SCO will include a trial subscription to the MySQL Network enterprise database service with each new copy of SCO OpenServer -- and offer full MySQL Network subscriptions through its reseller channel.

So neither MySQL nor SCO is writing any special code -- they're just cooperating on marketing and training support.

From a Cnet article on the subject:
Part of the bad blood in the suit stems from a flopped partnership called Project Monterey under which IBM, SCO and now-extinct Sequent agreed to create a version of Unix for Intel's Itanium processors. SCO shared expertise with IBM about how best to run Unix on Intel processors for that project, the suit said.

So, Project Monterey was a joint venture to rewrite an operating system for a new ISA. I fail to see any significant similarities between Project Monterey and the MySQL/SCO deal.

Nice FUD, though.

Re:Learn from the IBM case.

[Anonymous Coward]

"No matter how insane the SCO management is, lawyers aren't going to take on a case they're not going to get paid for."

WRONG..it's called a Contingency case, they win they get paid, they lose they get nothing. This approach is very common in personal injury lawsuits.

I think that was his point. there's no way they would win anyway, so whether it's contingency or not the final $$ outcome for the lawyers would be 0. nobody would take it up.

Re:Learn from the IBM case.

[Anonymous Coward]

no money went to SCO from MySQL, so MySQL is not supporting SCO financially

So, MySQL isn't accepting SCO money.


ehmmm... - typically accepting money from someone doesn't mean that you are supporting them financially. Only giving them money would imply supporting them financially.

Re:Learn from the IBM case.

[inode_buddha]

AFAIK the stock has been converted to up-front cash and there is no contingency provision.

Re:Learn from the IBM case.

[twiddlingbits]

I know some was cashed out, But I think there is still some out there. It gets very complicated trying to follow SCO's crazy "plan", the IBM lawyers are certainly kept busy. We can check at Groklaw, someone (Pamela) will know if it was all cashed in.

Re:Learn from the IBM case.

[Bloke down the pub]

typically accepting money from someone doesn't mean that you are supporting them financially. Only giving them money would imply supporting them financially.

Not even in Soviet Russia?

Re:Learn from the IBM case.

[MikeBabcock]

You need some grammar lessons (as do many other posters in this article discussion).

MySQL accepting SCO money != MySQL giving SCO money.

Get it yet?

MySQL => SCO != SCO => MySQL

Re:Learn from the IBM case.

[rm69990]

This was modded funny, but I don't think the guy was trying to be funny, he's just confused, or needs a grammar lesson. Maybe I'm wrong though and he really was trying to be funny.

Re:Learn from the IBM case.

[Anonymous Coward]

Loss of Reputation, Tar Brushed - FUD Factor. As they say a rabid dog cares not who it bites.

Whatever benefit they percieved, the noise on this forum has put people off. That has cost MySQL future sales/income. The money is chump change - when balanced between goodwill and risks.

SCO might claim patent/licence the SCO/MySQL/InnoDB interface, so that no client data could be migrate proprietary data off to other databases (format lock in). Then sue Mysql if they tried to help legacy customer off SCO platforms. If SCO looses the case, or runs out of money, existing customers will still be on the hook with no easy means for data migration, unless they pay. It would be clearer if this SCO entity was engineered so as to outlive the SCO entity doing the legal grunt work.

Thus Oracle should open source, or offer SCO's existing customers to 'unlock' their data. Hey Oracle, open source InnoDB, its in your interest.

If they needed money now they should have rung up IBM asking for money.Maybe IBM should offer MySQL money for a SCO and MySQL to DB2 turnkey database migrate utility to expose real intentions early.

Well now

[HoodCrowd]

Postgres, baby.

Re:Well now

[codegen]

LAMP becomes LAPP

Re:Well now

[Directrix1]

Or with Firebird you could go with FLAP.

Re:Well now

[jadavis]

A brighter LAMP: Linux Apache Middleware PostgreSQL

Re:Well now

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I use FreeBSD... FAPP FAPP FAPP!! Slashdot sez: Don't use so many caps, it's like yelling.

Re:Well now

[Anonymous Coward]

LAMP becomes LAPP

So in a sense, web application development becomes a LAPP dance? Whoa, count me in!

INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[backslashdot]

I don't give a damn about his points, they are irrelevant.

Since SCO paid money to MySQL and offered development assistance to MySQL .. How do we know they will not try to pull a stunt of saying MySQL stole ideas or misappropriated their money to incorporate new features into MySQL?

This is my biggest concern. I no longer feel safe using MySQL. There is now a risk of getting sued by SCO down the line. Anyone who thinks this is not far fetched .. so is the Linux suit .. and once they lose that they need another scam to pump up their stock. Sorry they had to sign a deal with the devil. This company SCO has declared in the past that they don't think the GPL is a legally valid document. To me it's simply not worth it to deal with the hassle. Honestly as much as I hate their companies I rather use Oracle *puke* or Microsoft SQL Server *vomit* than MySQL at this point, because i dont have to worry about being sued.

Fortunately we don't have to choose commercial because we have great alternative open source databases we can use. Sorry MySQL it's time for us to say goodbye.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Errr, because that's ridiculously paranoid, and SCO Group will go out of money before that happens.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why go with either big n expensive monsters?

Oracle is a huge monstrosity which pretty much should only be used when nothing else will do (and it works well in those cases)

MS SQL Svr works OK in some microsoft environments too (even if not /.'ers like it - mainly it's because it's a MS product), it's still a solution that works very well for a lot of places (it gets far too much criticism on here - just like anything MS made). However, it's not the universal solution to everything.

PostgreSQL lately is getting more popular. It's very good (better than all but perhaps Oracle/MSSQL/DB2), and the price is right :) Even with the v5 features in MySQL, I have no plans to make use of it. It's not just licensing/IP concerns, it's always been a data integrity thing, lack of features (which are starting to appear) and such. The only reason I can see to go with it is that lots of cheap "LAMP" hosting exists and lots of PHP apps (forums and what not) will run on that pretty much out of the box (it's easy and cheap).

Of course there's lots more alternatives (I've given a try to Matisse lately). But PostgreSQL is really amazing. I'm planning on making changes to my .Net code to use it - not exclusively - but as well as MS SQL. It makes sense if I want it to run on Mono too - why use MS SQL then? Or companies that us IIS/ASP.Net can host that way, and not have to buy MS SQL server if they don't need it (expensive) and run PostgreSQL instead (yes, I'm also aware of MSDE/SQL Server Express - which works quite well in many cases).

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[machineghost]

Fortunately we don't have to choose commercial because we have great alternative open source databases we can use.

N00b question: what open source databases can we use, that have a similiar level of power to GPL MySQL and all the commercial DBs?

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[AnObfuscator]

N00b question: what open source databases can we use, that have a similiar level of power to GPL MySQL and all the commercial DBs?

The BSD-licensed PostgreSQL is actually *more* powerful than MySQL. Depending on your needs, it's worth looking into.

there are others, but Postgre is MySQL's primary FLOSS competitor.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[AnObfuscator]

From Grandparent:
no money went to SCO from MySQL, so MySQL is not supporting SCO financially

From you:
Since SCO paid money to MySQL and offered development assistance to MySQL

did you READ the GP post?! Let me reiterate. no money went to SCO from MySQL .

Say it with me, you and all the other people who posted the exact same claim below:
no money went to SCO from MySQL

Also, NO CODE was shared. No development assistance is being shared. The ONLY thing the companies are sharing are marketing, training, and end user support. That's it.

Please stop spreading FUD against MySQL. the product and company have done a fantastic job of spreading FLOSS into areas where it was previously unknown, such as such as windows, solaris, and other "big iron unix" web servers. They should be applauded that they are, like a good company, continuing to support their end users, even the ones who run an unfortunate choice of OS.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[jadavis]

PostgreSQL. A short list of benefits:
- MVCC reduces need for locking, often called "better than row-level locking"
- Also has row level locking
- ACID compliant
- transactions, and savepoints (which are SQL nested transactions)
- point in time recovery (PITR) allows "time-travel" and parallel timelines. It's a little much to explain here, but if you encounter a problem and notice it a week later, you can go back in time, prevent the problem, and replay everything else that happened that week. All the good and none of the bad from a sci-fi book :)
- VERY extensible: you can make user-defined functions in any of PL/pgSQL, PL/perl, PL/python, PL/java, C, or SQL. And if that's not enough, you can write another procedural language to support your favorite language.
- You can make a user-defined aggregate function using any of those languages.
- User-defined types
- triggers
- views
- subselects
- query rewriting rules (which can be used to make any view updatable/insertable)
- constraints
- good, well-maintained, and BSD licensed replication software available.

New in 8.1 (which is beta now):
- Two-phase commit (2PC)
- IN/OUT/INOUT parameters to functions
- rudimentary table partitioning
- bitmap index scans
- autovacuum intelligently automates a long standing maintenence procedure, making the database easier to administer.
- SQL ROLES
- more options for row-level locking

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[jadavis]

A minor nitpick, but it's "PostgreSQL", or "postgres" for short. It's never "Postgre".

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[Anonymous Coward]

From Grandparent:
        no money went to SCO from MySQL, so MySQL is not supporting SCO financially

From Parent:
Since SCO paid money to MySQL and offered development assistance to MySQL

From You:
did you READ the GP post?! Let me reiterate. no money went to SCO from MySQL .

Did you read the parent post? Let me reiterate: Since SCO paid money TO MySQL

There, don't you feel like an idiot now?

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[fbg111]

Honestly as much as I hate their companies I rather use Oracle *puke* or Microsoft SQL Server *vomit* than MySQL at this point, because i dont have to worry about being sued.

Honestly, how can you even consider that your only option is to go from MySQL to SQL Server or Oracle. Have you ever heard of PostgreSQL? It would make much more sense to replace MySQL with PostgreSQL, and then complain about having to move up to Oracle if PG doesn't work out for you. I won't bother to re-list the same features as jadavis did in another response to your comment. Try it, it's a real database and has been for a long time, unlike MySQL.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[rm69990]

Ummm, if SCO loses the IBM suit they will also lose the counterclaims and IBM will literally eat them alive. This is because if they lose the suit, that means they lied and IBM will be sure to win their Lanham Act claims. That is if Novell doesn't get the first helping. All leftovers will go to Red Hat. Why do you think they are delaying so much in the IBM suit?

Everyone seems to forget that IBM has 20 some odd claims against them from IBM, Novell and Red Hat.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[rm69990]

Everyone seems to forget that IBM has 20 some odd claims against them from IBM, Novell and Red Hat. Damnit...meant to say they have 20 claims against them from all 3 companies, not IBM. Slashdot needs an edit function :-P

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[Maestro4k]

You're kidding right? All three things say the same thing. The Great-Grandparent says "no money went to SCO from MySQL", the Grandparent says "Since SCO paid money to MySQL" then you say "Let me reiteratre, no money went to SCO from MySQL". Well yeah that's right, and everyone agrees with you

Say it with me, you and all the other people who posted the exact same claim below: no money went to SCO from MySQL

We've already been saying it with you, you're just apparently not reading things correctly.

The concerns the Grandparent post raised are that SCO will try to pull the same type of stunt with MySQL that they have with IBM, not that they paid SCO money. Even overlooking that SCO is paying money to MySQL as part of this deal, the sheer fact there is a partnership of sorts is potentially dangerous. Would you want to partner with SCO given the tactics they've used in the lawsuit against IBM? I know I wouldn't, given their past actions that's like begging to sued. Even if a case has no merit it takes money to defend against. I hope MySQL factored that risk in when they did this deal.

I do think the outrage is a bit much but I can understand it. Most people would like to see SCO die, the sooner the better, and even deals like this that draw money from SCO's coffers may help prolong that death by giving the company the appearance of more legitimancy.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[mpcooke3]

good, well-maintained, and BSD licensed replication software available.

Desperately looking for replication software that could be used for single-master multi-slave replication for postgresql (1 master 10 slaves, enterprise enviroment can't afford downtime).

Which one of the projects are you talking about? The only one we've tried was so unpolished we felt that we could have kludged the table level copying functions ourselves.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[jadavis]

Slony. I've tried it and it works great.

I recommend not dismissing table-level trigger-based replication. But if it doesn't work for your application, I guess you'll have to look elsewhere. PostgreSQL isn't for every possible situation. Just don't dismiss Slony because of a little configuration, it's actually a good product.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[jadavis]

so why doesnt anyone use it?

Lots of people do.

hint: you don't win converts by talking down to them.

Was I condescending in any way? I just posted the facts when someone clearly asked for them.

I think you should not use a database based on a bunch of slashdot posts made by two groups of people
(1) People who don't use PostgreSQL but want to jump on the bandwagon, and in the process look stupid
(2) MySQL users who want to make PostgreSQL people look bad.

Instead, try the mailing lists, which (for PostgreSQL) are refreshingly helpful and informative.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Native replication? No? Useless.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[unixfan]

FUD!?! You are a troll!
MySQL AB is sleeping with a devout Open Source enemy! And if that's OK with you maybe you won't mind helping me with some things if I hit on your girlfriend/wife? Maybe you'll help fixing my car after I try to run you over with it too?

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Greetings fanboi... are we forgetting that MySQL signed a deal with SCO. SIGNED A DEAL for joint marketing and close cooperation. You can argue over who paid whom all day (and why exactly should we trust the MYSQL boss' word on this... he does have a big stake in telling lies), but it doesn't change the fact that MYSQL did a deal with SCO.

SCO is going out of business

[Russ Nelson]

SCO is losing business and not gaining any more business. Why would Marten take the chance of alienating his user base for the sake of a few more bucks from SCO, risking his entire business? It's not like the database field isn't competitive.
-russ

Re:SCO is going out of business

[hol]

So that SCO's customers can make the move to Open Source more easily. SCO is falling behind on the technical curve, but has a large customer base that's rather open source averse. This move by Martens legitimizes his product in the eyes of the SCO user base (not being pinko commie unamerican hackers), and those users will undoubtedly see that open source is not second-rate software. As SCO continues its decline to oblivion, this increases the chances that those customers will choose an open source os to migrate to, rather than Windows.

BTW, so why not bash MySQL for running on Windows too? What prevented customers from just compiling the MySQL source code on SCO? Nothing - it probably ran there. The money SCO paid for something that probably already ran on their product just takes money out of their litigation war chest, and that's a good thing in my eyes.

Oracle is MySQL's most dreaded rival?

[IANAAC]

I honestly don't know anyone who could actually say that with a straight face.

another error

[redcone]

"Traditional software, like that sold by Microsoft, ships with the source code kept secret."

Forbes, unsurprisingly, doesn't get that traditonal software code was all open source--Richard Stallman created the GPL and the foundations of the open source movement as a response to companies like Microsoft that were locking their software behind restrictions he found unethical, immoral and against the shared community development model that charactericized early software development.

oh well ...

[ciderpunk]

I s'pose that us "fans of Linux and other open source software" have a get out clause in that we could take MySQL's existing codebase under the GPL and develop it the way we want, free from SCO influence.

Of course it'll probably turn out that SCO wrote MySQL at some point and we'll all have to start using postgres instead.

BTW: I think the "important bit of software" made by Innobase in the article is the InnoDB table storage engine (cf. this slashdot article).

Re:oh well ...

[Tetard]

> Of course it'll probably turn out that SCO wrote MySQL at some point and
> we'll all have to start using postgres instead.

You mean, the same way that people abandoned Linux and moved to the BSDs when SCO sued ?

I actually work for SCO...

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually work for SCO.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cuz some people belive anythng they hear.

Re:I actually work for SCO...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not Fark.com, people! /not a trap, either

Re:I actually work for SCO...

[unixfan]

Hello Coward! You're just a troll, or you would have presented some actual data with that load of dung. Just like the next message...

Dan Lyons at his finest.

[DjReagan]

"It was classic Groklaw, ripe with paranoia and nonsensical conspiracy theories, and replete with loads of self-righteous huffing and puffing about morality."

Hello Pot? This is Kettle.

Doesn't worry me much

[g_dunn]

If the community decides MySQL is now the work of the devil, it's not like there aren't other solutions out there, among them just using current MySQL versions. The project will just branch off from the last open source release before the switch to Evil Commercialization (TM). The license does support this, doesn't it? I must confess, I'm not exactly sure what license MySQL uses for it's releases.

There are also plenty of other SQL options out there. Postgres is one I use for various things, and I've found it to be more powerful and more effecient than MySQL. The only drawback is that alot of apps out of the box don't support it.

Of course, that would change if everyone stopped using MySQL.

That's one thing I love about open source: The power of choice

Re:Doesn't worry me much

[mcrbids]

If the community decides MySQL is now the work of the devil

I could care less about "the community" - but I decided long ago that MySQL wasn't worth it. I've been using/promoting PostgreSQL for years, and have written some rather large projects (EG: 100+ tables, millions of records) with it very, very happily.

Advantages of Postgres:

1) Many, many MANY features in common with "enterprise" database products,

2) Open License lets you do pretty much anything you like, commercial or free.

3) Good documentation

4) Very solid - in 6 years of use, I've only had a problem ONCE with postgres on a machine with bad memory.

5) Helpful community support.

6) Comes pre-installed with most server-based distros. EG: RedHat

MySQL's advantages

1) Sounds good as part of "LAMP"

2) Uses "easier" administration, EG: "connect DBNAME" instead of the more terse "\c DBNAME". (but requires more typing)

3) Licensed under the GPL. (which restricts your use in any commercial product you distribute)

4) Fewer features means there's less to learn (???)

I switched to PG years ago, and I've never looked back.

Re:Doesn't worry me much

[bani]

so why doesnt anyone use postgresql?

maybe its the fanatic and demeaning attitude of postgresql users?

sort of like why nobody uses qmail or openbsd -- because djb and tdr have egos the size of galaxies.

hint: you don't win converts by talking down to them.

Re:Doesn't worry me much

[LurkerXXX]

No one uses Postgres? Um, sorry. Lots of us do.

No one uses OpenBSD? Lots of us use that too.

Sometimes you win converts by having a solid product with good features and reliability. Someone on some message board telling some newbie to RTFM before asking a question that's already answered in a FAQ isn't going to stop me from using a more secure, stable or full featured software. If some guy out there having a large ego is stopping you from using the right tool for the right job, I think you need to review your priorities.

Re:Doesn't worry me much

[MemoryDragon]

Actually most people who need a solid but free db engine do, but they do not constantly brag about, how this db will take over oracle or that the db is enterprise ready, while having a db which hoses itself constantly under heavy load.

Re:Doesn't worry me much

[Anonymous Coward]

way to prove his point, bucko.

Re:Doesn't worry me much

[Anonymous Coward]

you've never switched, because you've never used mysql.

Does this mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that I have to buy a license for MySQL from SCO now or risk SCO threats to take me to court?

Typical Lyons Nonsense

[tclark]

The article's author is just spouting more of his standard nonsense. Lyons doesn't get free software and he's pissed at those of us who do get it. Clicking on a link to a Lyons article never seems to justify the effort spent on the click.

Re:Typical Lyons Nonsense

[Trepalium]

Indeed. It seems all Lyons ever writes about Open Source or Free software is rants about "zealots" eating their own. He even tossed in a groklaw is full of lies statement for good measure. Frankly, he wouldn't even pass as a plausable troll here on Slashdot. Pure yellow journalism at it's worst.

Larry Ellison

[EraserMouseMan]

Don't like Microsoft? Well wait till Larry Ellison starts playing hardball. This man is ruthless and there aren't many people who disagree with that statement. His goal is to be the richest man in the world. Gates is still just a nerd at heart. MySQL only indirectly competes with Microsoft. But MySQL is directly competing with Oracle. Sooner or later they will probably find themselves in the gun-sites of Larry and it won't be pretty.

MySQL knows this and that's why they recently declared that they never intend to go after Oracle's customer base. Because they know if they even so much as think about it Larry will eat them for lunch.

Re:Larry Ellison

[Anonymous Coward]

Get real! Oracle doesn't even remotely think MySQL is a threat. Any REAL business would use a high-end database such as Oracle anyways. Frankly if I couldn't afford Oracle for my business, then the only other database I would use is PostgreSQL.

Re:Larry Ellison

[HiThere]

Gates is not and never was a nerd. I'll admit he appears, and may be and have been, socially inept. Also he was more interested in technology than the typical MBA. That's about as far has honesty will allow me to go.

OTOH, he has bought himself a dynamite PR firm that uses the image of him as a nerd. This doesn't, however, make it an honest or accurate image.

Re:Larry Ellison

[NineNine]

Oracle has been a massive, powerful company (#2 software company on the planet) for a long time. Geeks focus on MS because they all of MS running on their PC's. Database people have known about Oracle for a long, long time. People who don't know, simply don't know. It's always been that way.
 
And let me tell you right now... no database people would consider MySQL an Oracle rival any more than a NASCAR pit chief would be concerned about the new Honda Civic that may give his custom cars a run for their money. Again, this is something that people who know databases are aware of.

Re:Larry Ellison

[killjoe]

In the race of evil I don't think Ellison wins against gates. It's a close one for sure but gates is certainly more evil then Ellison. All ellison has done is to buy competitors (sometimes hostile) and compensates their shareholders with lots of money. Gates shoves a competing product down the throat of everybody using windows and drives a company into bankrupcy.

Yup Gates is still more evil.

Re:Larry Ellison

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Gates is not and never was a nerd.

Don't know what your definition of a nerd is, but Gates started in the software field as a programmer.

He developed a BASIC interpreter for the MITS Altair, a microcomputer that pre-dated the PC.

Re:Larry Ellison

[BlueLightning]

Gates is still just a nerd at heart.

I don't think Bill Gates is the one at Microsoft that we should worry about - it's Steve "#@#*@(# kill Google!" Ballmer that is of most concern.

Re:Larry Ellison

[HiThere]

He developed a BASIC interpreter for the MITS Altair

The stories I've heard used a different word than "developed". And painted a much less charitible picture of that event. Theft ought not to be used for the copying of software, so I'm not quite certain how to describe the events as I have heard them...but his role was more that of a manager than of a coder even in the early days. I'm not denying that managers are needed, though even at the start he, and some of his associates, are reputed to have had ethical lapses. But "nerd"? No, that doesn't fit in with the stories that I've heard from anywhere that didn't trace back to his PR.

Now to be totally honest, I don't know the accuracy of the sources that the other stories come from, but I *know* _he's_ a liar.

Re:Larry Ellison

[IANAAC]

MySQL only indirectly competes with Microsoft. But MySQL is directly competing with Oracle.

I don't personally believe you're correct on either account.

Have you ever actually tried converting a MySQL app (written by any Joe-Schmoe) to either MSQL or Oracle? It's a damn near Herculean effort. MySQL is so non-standard WRT the rest of the SQL world most orgs would consider it not worth their time.

A complete re-write is in most cases necessary. On the other hand, Any other reasonably SQL compliant DB wuld be at least doable. Granted, there are always going to be optimizations, but standard SQL gets you a fair bit along the way. Something the MySQL lacks. Really.

What's with the back-ticks anyway?

Re:Larry Ellison

[aCapitalist]

Do you have some evidence that Gates stole the interperter code? No you don't zealot. Gates was developing commercial software with Paul Allen at 14 or so. He was probably more of a hacker than you'll ever be. Go get the Dr. Dobbs CD of "Programmers at Work" to see some of his source code.

Lay down with dogs...

[sl4shd0rk]

wake up with fleas as the old saying goes. If MySCOql didn't want to get labeled as a sco whore, they shouldn't be sleeping with them. They knew what the deal would mean to them.

Incidentally, I've switched my Sun servers to postgres. I don't want *ANYTHING* to do with sco, mysql, or any of the dirty bastards that associate with them.

Re:Lay down with dogs...

[houseofzeus]

That's a bit unlucky then isn't it, what given Postgre have the same deal with SCO.

Re:Lay down with dogs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time, use "My$QL". It's much better.

Re:Lay down with dogs...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you don't ever eat at McDonald's then. Or use the services of any other SCO customers.

Re:Lay down with dogs...

[HiThere]

Good point. OTOH, it's been over a decade since I've eaten at a McDonalds, and I've never knowingly done business with someone who was using an SCO (or tSCOg) system.

And I haven't done any business with Caldera since the days of Red Hat 5.0.

Re:Lay down with dogs...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you just switched your databases to postgres. That must be some mission critical shit you've got there. Just like flipping a switch. Stay away from my servers.

Infantile twerps

[Wolfbone]

Jones and others' talk of "hypocrisy" and "treachery" is childish and ignorant. If they think that their facile SCO-hating and witch hunting as the clown Darl McBride inexplicably attempts to bash his company's brains out against the wall of IBM is somehow doing more for FLOSS than Marten Mickos has, they are completely deluded.

It's just not worth it anymore...

[kronocide]

Yes, MySQL has some unknown kind of business relationship with SCO so now they pwn our souls and we will have to pay for all your open source software and our families will have to start working 12-hour days at Microsoft for no pay. I hate those MySQL traitors, they've spoiled everything! Farewell, cruel world!! *bang*

yep

[kpharmer]

> Although InnoDB is quite a niece piece of work, I wouldn't call it a key piece of the MySQL server
> software. It is just one of the *many* storage backends supported by MySQL, and it's not by far
> the most used (99% of the MySQL installs i've seen only use the internally developped MyISAM
> storage engine which btw is the default one ...

I think that's primarily due to all the legacy 3.* mysql databases out there: not because people are running 4.01 and want to keep using myisam.

There are legitimate times to use myisam, but aside from read-only reporting (which mysql isn't very good at), or very high-volume read-mostly content management that's about it. Backends for tools like bugzilla, for wikis, etc should be on innodb:
    - it's easier to develop the app (don't have to reinvent transactions)
    - the application code is more portable
    - you avoid data corruption problems problems with buggy do-it-yourself transaction code
    - you get to rely on declarative referential integrity to help ensure that 100% of the data in the database complies with the rules of the model

> And btw, people who need transactions and advanced features tend to use postgresql instead of mysql+innodb ...

true - anyone who knows enough about databases to know why they should be using transactions also knows why they should be using views, stored procedures (occasionally), triggers (occasionally), and have an optimizer capable of joining 5 tables without a performance hit.

If mysql looses innodb they are in very deep trouble. Before they licensed innodb, MySQL AB insisted that:
    - 99% of the programmers didn't need transactions
    - that "real programmers" could easily write that code themselves in the app layer
    - that all quality checks (pk/fk constraints) belonged in the app layer anyway
Once they licensed innodb they changed that tune completely
    - declaring themselves an "Enterprise Database"
    - the only database people needed
    - bragged about their fast paced development (even tho it was purchasing not development)
    - buried all their previous comments about transactions not being necessary

So, now that they've been admitting that transactions are vital - won't they look stupid loosing them? At that point, why put *any* database on mysql? Postgresql/Firebird/SQLite are all *freer* anyway. And it isn't like MySQL is going to suddenly come up with a replacement to Innodb - that's the code they couldn't write themselves before, it's the most complex code in mysql, and they apparently don't have people capable of writing it.

Re:yep

[muuh-gnu]

> At that point, why put *any* database on mysql? Postgresql/Firebird/SQLite are all *freer* anyway.

Freer than GPL'd free software?
Oh, you mean free like in "free to deny everybody the right to redistribute it"?

Re:yep

[kpharmer]

> Freer than GPL'd free software?
> Oh, you mean free like in "free to deny everybody the right to redistribute it"?

Freer as in "not encumbered by complex dual-licensing with bizarre "linking" gpl definitions that require lawyers to determine whether or not your clients require licensing".

Freer as in "not owned by a for-profit company that has a history of changing its licensing to beging making money off its popularity"

Freer as in "doesn't rely on a product owned by Oracle & Larry Ellison for vital functionality"

I'd call that three good reasons why future costs of mysql are pretty unpredictable.

I don't see a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking money off thieving scum and pumping it into something better? Where's the beef? If you had a chance to take a pile of legit cash from a thief and pour it into a reasonably useful and helpful project, what would you do?

I say we all try and get SCO to sign up with our projects for cash - every penny they spend elsewhere is a penny they can't spend on litigation.

Go MySQL! Bleed the fuckers dry!

Marten Mickos sounded like a corporate sleeze

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't answer direct questions directly. If he had been really up front, nobody would be upset. It wasn't a really big deal. Mickos shot himself in the foot by sounding like some corporate bigwig obfuscating around the truth.

Stay the course

[Anonymous Coward]

...with PostgreSQL. Never had a need for mysql, it didnt have the required functionality/features PGSQL had circa PGSQL ver. 6.x, and since then, PGSQL has just gotten better, and mysql has had to play catch-up, and use 3rd parties to implement native features that PGSQL implemented in-house, 'nuff said.

Popularity was never an indicator of how well something works, look at the proliferation of Microsoft Windows.

Flame away, but you know in your hearts PGSQL IS better than mysql. You're just not ready to accept it yet.

SCO deal is irrelevant

[DrXym]

If SCO want to throw some money at MySQL for commercial support, then so what?. It might hasten SCO's demise, and the money can be used for bug fixing instead of lining some lawyer's pockets.

Thanks MySQL!

[matchboy]

Dear MySQL,

Ever since you and joined forces, my PostgreSQL hosting and consulting business has gone up. On top of that, several existing customers have begun asking how they can migrate their applications from MySQL to PostgreSQL. While I am happy to hear that you finally got yourself some stored procedures and other advanced features... it saddens me that you're doing business with a company (SCO) that thinks that one of your business models is unconstitutional. You are tainted now. However, I really just wanted to say thanks for the extra work that have you provided me. It's no secret that being a professional PostgreSQL consultant is going to be a highly valuable skill in the coming few years...there is already a shortage. Thanks for sending people to the world's most advanced open source database server!

Former MySQL fan,
Me

Re:Thanks MySQL!

[Anonymous Coward]

My company has four dedicated mysql servers that are powering our web applications. We are considering a move to postgresql because of our interest in possibly reselling our application as a package. It is my understanding that we would need a special license from mysql and now are considering the cost difference between a move to postgresql (time to recode a few pieces of our application) compared to the cost of the mysql license. Will mysql still exist in a few years or will they be bought out? There are unknown business-related concerns that popup when we consider staying with mysql. We don't know what their plan is anymore. Are they here to help the open source community and businesses (such as ours) that do rely somewhat on this open source model? The past month has shown us that our dependance of mysql is not safe for our company. After *my boss* sent me a link to this same article in Forbes, it's a no-brainer that the best solution is going to be to seriously consider postgresql as the ideal database backend to our application. The BSD model is looking more promising.

Re:Thanks MySQL!

[Kemuri]

Did I understand you correctly that you base your business on articles in
the press, or what your read on /. or even what you hear on the street?

If so, I would seriously think about actually picking up the phone and ask
MySQL AB about your options. (Yes, you can actually call somebody..)
If not, then I just missunderstood you and that's good ;)

As I have nothing personally against PostgreSQL, I just don't like people
bashing MySQL for no reason, and sure for the wrong reasons. It's getting
ridiculous. And when business start to base their business on what they
pick up in the press or *my doggy told me*, oh my..

Anyway, http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/dispe lling-the-myths.html

Ofcourse, it's your choice in the end. But I rather see a decision made on facts
than on *no-brainer* articles..

Wish you the best with your application, whatever choice you make!

Agenda?

[burnin1965]

...noisy fanatics in the open source software community...

...die-hard open-source zealots...

...it's a holy war...

...ripe with paranoia and nonsensical conspiracy theories, and replete with loads of self-righteous huffing and puffing about morality...

...open source crunchies...

Hmm, I'm sure this guy isn't working from an agenda, he is definitely not thinking from some squewed hair brained bias, then again....

...Open source fans hate SCO for drumming up trouble...

Oh, so thats what it is to demand money from people so they can keep what is rightfully theirs. And here I thought the correct term for demanding money from people to leave them alone was extortion. And looking back through history it seems the hard working people of this planet usually get pretty steamed up over extortion and have taken down or defied criminal and governmental organizations who commited extortion crimes. And I do believe that extortion is still a crime so SCO is not "drumming up trouble" they are running an extortion racket.

burnin

So, let me get this straight...

[kronocide]

This guy has given you a fast, stable database, that you can run and use for free as you please. And now because he has committed himself to making a version for SCO, you feel entitled to giving him crap? Okay... the Linux d00ds of today really need to try working for a living sometime.

Re:So, let me get this straight...

[kpharmer]

> This guy has given you a fast, stable database, that you can run and use for
> free as you please. And now because he has committed himself to making a
> version for SCO, you feel entitled to giving him crap? Okay... the Linux d00ds
> of today really need to try working for a living sometime.

ah, no - more like:

This guy has played a bait & switch with a database - at first giving it away for free, then changing the licensing (using linking definitions that contradict GPL's FAQ) to hook users in.

Then he defended bizarre deficiencies in the product by arguing that nobody needs transactions, views, stored procs, triggers, accurate exceptions, referential integrity, etc anyway.

Then he gets lucky and licenses all the most valuable parts of the current product from another company (innodb).

Then he cuts a deal with SCO to make a little cash - which helps SCO also stay in business and continue to try to destroy the GPL.

Then Oracle buys Innodb - revealing that the mysql now is just an empty husk with nothing to offer. Leaving a lot of database developers out there saying - well, duh - tell me once again why you aren't using firebird, ingres, postgresql, sqlite?

Re:So, let me get this straight...

[kronocide]

So, he's given you a fast and stable database for free. Or what part of what you just said contradicted that?

The way I remember it, free software is a lot about contribution. So if you're not contributing code to MySQL or sending in bug fixes, shut up and be glad they're giving you a free database. If you don't like it then don't use it, it's really very simple. But if you're not a contributor, you really have no platform from which to moralize.

Re:So, let me get this straight...

[kpharmer]

> So, he's given you a fast and stable database for free. Or what part of what you just said contradicted that?

> The way I remember it, free software is a lot about contribution. So if you're
> not contributing code to MySQL or sending in bug fixes, shut up and be glad
> they're giving you a free database. If you don't like it then don't use it,
> it's really very simple. But if you're not a contributor, you really have no
> platform from which to moralize.

1. why would I contribute code to a dual-licensed product for someone else to make money on, without any compensation?
2. The product isn't free - mysql ab's position on linking is bizarre and contradicts the gpl faq. Their license has changed over time. There's no reason to assume it won't become increasingly more difficult to avoid paying a fee.
3. The current cost is $600 / year - likely to go up now that oracle owns innodb
4. Many developers have unfortunately embedded mysql in otherwise good products - which taints them with possible quality errors (silent errors, truncations, etc) as well as confusing future costs.
5. The company has been involved in misinforming the public about database best practices in order to cover their deficiencies. Telling programmers to write their transaction logic is like telling programmers that built-in testing is bad, they should just eye-ball the data. And it completely opens them up to criticism.
6. I often bump into the product in commercial settings where developers have used the database, then expect me to pick up support for it. First thing I do is insist that the database be moved to just about any other product. What a pain in the ass!

The gist of your lame argument is that you can't criticize something unless you're personally involved. What garbage. That's like saying we can't say that microsoft is wrong in trying to implement DRM unless we're employees of the company. bleh.

Re:So, let me get this straight...

[kronocide]

This is the only relevant comment to my initial point:

"3. The current cost is $600 / year - likely to go up now that oracle owns innodb"

MySQL Community Edition is free, even for commercial use. However, it's really funny that people get their panties in a bunch when a company wants to actually charge them for its product. "You must give it to us for free, or you are evil!" LOL

"The gist of your lame argument is that you can't criticize something unless you're personally involved. What garbage. That's like saying we can't say that microsoft is wrong in trying to implement DRM unless we're employees of the company. bleh."

As anyone with a basic sense of reciprocation understands, that would be exactly correct if they were giving you their stuff for free. The reason we have a right to criticize Microsoft, in fact the reason we started hating them in the first place, is obviously because we are contributing, by paying for their product, and that we have to pay for it in the cases where they have us in a monopoly situation. That you don't even seem to recognize the difference is exactly what bothers me. It didn't used to be like this, something in the O/S-community has derailed.

Re:So, let me get this straight...

[Kemuri]

I think you can criticize something/someone, but you got to get your facts correct first.

1. Dual License: Please read Myth #6:
      http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/dispe lling-the-myths.html
2. MySQL, all the GUI and Connectors, hell even the Support software used (Eventum) is
      available under GPL, aka open source.
3. MySQL Network is not free no, but see point 2.
4. Many developers should know what they are doing and think first before making something.
      See point 1.
5. What?
6. See point 1.

Re:So, let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I think you can criticize something/someone, but you got to get your facts correct first.

>1. Dual License: Please read Myth #6:
> http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/dispe lling-the-myths.html

lol, you're correcting the parent's points with info from mysql's "myth-busting page"? Please

Their license, and its exceptions, and whether or not it applies, is a disaster. So much so that they used to have a licensing faq to explain it all. Which they've now apparently removed it - probably too embarassing.

Some folks will never learn - eventually they'll probably end up using the product illegally when it gradually becomes prohibitively expensive. In the meanwhile, I'm going to finally get off of it here soon and migrate to postgresql.

Re:So, let me get this straight...

[Kemuri]

As you point so rightfully out..

"Some folks will never learn .."

You are part of the 'some folks..' aswell then.

Again, I think Myth #6 explains is pretty good on the website. I guess you
know the location. Bookmark! Helps! :)

Re:So, let me get this straight...

[B4RSK]

You're missing a key point here: MySQL likes the publicity they get by trumpeting the GPL, but they do not wish to completely comply with the GPL. This is why some (becoming many) people have problems with MySQL as a company. This is a valid concern and can not be pushed off with "They are giving you something for free so don't complain." types of arguments.

Re:So, let me get this straight...

[kronocide]

If that is the issue, not "completely complying," (whatever that means) then judging from the commentary here it seems reactions are a little out of proportion to the "crime"... But of course, it's just another flame fest. The community needs its regular flame fests, and the nerds need to compensate with some righteous outrage every now and then. Never mind MySQL's history, that those people actually gave some of the most used code in the free software world to the community.

There was a time when the free software community was discussing whether they were interested in attracting "leechers," people who used their software but were not code contributors. Many didn't want any such users at all. How many of the people moralizing against MySQL have ever contributed one line of code to a project, sent a single bug report? But they are now True Believers, who can lecture to people who have made one of the most used applications in free software? Right...

rewrite innodb? here's a better solution

[kpharmer]

> Time to fork Innobase right? Programmers, are you listening?

Not likely this isn't simple code, this would take a long time to get up to speed on and really understand. Let alone enhance. Mysql wasn't able to write a transaction engine on their own - they had to licese one. Don't you think they would have written their own if they could?

But here's a great solution: mysql could use postgresql for its transaction layer. Imagine the benefits:
    - no licensing costs to pass on to mysql customers
    - improved query optimization
    - eliminates many of the annoying silent errors (truncations, conversions, etc)
    - should eliminate the postgresql-vs-mysql arguments
    - mysql could leverage from open-source momentum in postgresql
    - might improve mysql portability
    - might even allow users to easily port back & forth between postgresql & mysql
    - postgresql can't be purchased away

I'm pretty sure this would be the easiest plug-in replacement for innodb. On the other hand...doesn't SQLite now support transactions & MVCC? And along these lines, could mysql pick up greater scalability by using db2 & oracle as storage layers as well?

ken

Re:rewrite innodb? here's a better solution

[jadavis]

But here's a great solution: mysql could use postgresql for its transaction layer.

An interesting point. One might wonder what it is that MySQL brings to the table if that happened though. Presumably, MySQL would bring nothing other than backwards compatibility with old applications. People would be jumping from MyGreSQL (or whatever this would be called) to the real PostgreSQL as fast as they could.

On the other hand...doesn't SQLite now support transactions & MVCC? And along these lines, could mysql pick up greater scalability by using db2 & oracle as storage layers as well?

MySQL has a commercial version to support. They can't charge someone a license fee and tell them to go elsewhere for a good storage engine. Anything in their GPL version needs to be in their commercial version. Therefore the only kind of code they can include is BSD-like, like PostgreSQL.

I guess they could have some kind of loosely-coupled interface that used another RDBMS as a backend, but again, what does MySQL provide? It would just be a SQL translator. It would be unable to optimize, plan, or execute queries, so that leaves what? Parsing? And then it's re-parsed by the other DB engine? That certainly won't impress anyone.

When a product gets to the point where it's ONLY possible value is backwards compatibility, people port the applications away quickly. [ insert MS Windows joke here * ]

* MS Windows doesn't really compare, since it's easy to replace a set of MySQL servers with a set of PostgreSQL servers, but not easy to replace a few hundred million installations of MS Windows.

Re:rewrite innodb? here's a better solution

[einhverfr]

There are some serious downsides too. Among them:

1) Bloat. Essentially you would be running MySQL on top of PostgreSQL. Doesn't seem very efficient (most of the PostgreSQL codebase is in the data storage engine).

2) If you took the SQL parser, you would get more standard behavior which would break backwards compatibility.

3) It would likely fix the non-standard truncating behavior of MySQL which would break backwards compatibility.

Basically, I see this as a worst-of-both-worlds scenario. PostgreSQL isn't really designed to be embedded in other apps anyway which would cause a headache in breaking it apart.

However, they could use Firebird as an embeddable db engine. It is released under a derivative of the Mozilla Public License, which is fairly LGPL-like in that it lacks the derivative works clause of the GPL (or rather the only derivative works clause pertains to the license itself and not the code).

Re:rewrite innodb? here's a better solution

[kpharmer]

> There are some serious downsides too. Among them:

yeah, but mysql is going to face most of these issues with any data storage they attempt to license: there just isn't a commodity market for plugable transaction engines.

So, they'll want to replace innodb with something. But what? Assuming that the antiquated SAPDB is just a heap of scary code is probably safe. What else? BDB is probably a dead-end - way too primitive. That brings us back to postgresql, firebird, and sqllite...

and it might cause breaks with backwards compatibiity - but when the compatibility is with broken old stuff that should never have been provided anyway (accepting invalid dates, etc), then that's not the end of the world. Heck, innodb & myisam are not 100% compatible anyway.

Re:rewrite innodb? here's a better solution

[einhverfr]

and it might cause breaks with backwards compatibiity - but when the compatibility is with broken old stuff that should never have been provided anyway (accepting invalid dates, etc), then that's not the end of the world. Heck, innodb & myisam are not 100% compatible anyway.

It is the end of the world for them when it breaks their customers existing systems when people have come to expect a simple upgrade with each new version....

Use PostgreSQL

[pigiron]

MySQL has always been a joke. PostgreSQL is a full featured database system with stored procedures and a robust locking model that supports ACID transactions. Get a real open source database. Get PostgreSQL.

Re:Use PostgreSQL

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree.
Work would be much easier in PostGreSQL.

If they ever wanted / needed to substitute for mysql, all they had to do would be to cripple the instruction set, and hardwire "quickfix" command resolution - as mysql did.

Or make a more intelligent "deployment subset solution", or some other marketbabble, for essentially the same thing done smarter - with configurable extension handles, or "runtime subset compilation", or somesuch...

Maybe they already have. It's been a year and a 1/2 since I've messed with PostgreSql. My present subemployment has been developing a market system that "has to be" in mysql - due to ISPs constraints. <whine> No subqueries, and quirky null-field evaluation, for example, can make life as a tecno-serf quite 'interesting' <\\ whine>

As usual, it means that MySQL, which does charge for any sort of commercial use an amount that is reasonable - if compared to prince's ransoms charged by the "big boys" - is now officially defunct, from a common joe programming viewpoint. Same as RedHat. And Mandrake/driva/Conectiva aren't as highly regarded as they were.

We need mo'betta database systems/engines. That means OSource, well documented, easy to learn/use. Collaborative. Fully Wikkied. Lots of interfaces. UML. Eclipse. etc.

Make it hard for business blindness to stomp them out.

Is SCO even in the top 10?

[canuck57]

Forgive me, but is SCO even a player in the server market?

I have used dozens of POSIX OSes including SCO and although SCO had a good market share at one time have they not lost it? Does anyone actually run SCO in a production environment any more? Why would they not switch to Solaris (x86/AMD64), OpenBSD, FreeBSD or one of many Linux distributions?

SCO lost it as they priced it too high, poorly maintened it and it was intrinically a slow pig. When they got UNIXWare they botched this too as it's development too is stagnent. They spend too much on business hype and lawyers and not enough on product devlopment.

So for those new to the SCO story, run like hell from it.

Daniel Lyons, Paid Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. Before you mod me down to Hell, keep in mind that Dan Lyons has a long history of inflammatory , anti-F/OSS and anti-Linux articles going back to at least the start of the SCOX-vs-IBM suit. All you do is feed the ForbesTroll.

Guys please...

[Spy der Mann]

MySQL AB (the company behind MySQL) will just modify some code to add SCO Unix support. I mean, MySQL has windows support, Apache has Windows support, and Windows is "teh evil", so?

A much more important matter is Oracle buying InnoBase. (hint: InnoBase != MySQL AB). But then again, InnoDB is GPL. So, as long as they're GPL, we can still use them for GPL products.

Now the REALLY scary thing is this dual licensing stuff and MySQL requiring you to buy a license for MySQL if your product is not GPL. I'm still confused regarding the legal interpretation of it, this is a very scary issue, and the /. crowd remains silent about this. So, they're not scandalized about this dual licensing issue and the touchy circumstances , and what "linking" means regarding this (any legal info would be appreciated). But oh, MySQL modifies some code to add SCO Unix support, and the world as we know it is disappearing suddenly?.

I don't give a **** of what MySQL AB does with SCO (the GPL won't change, will it?). What worries me is the future of InnoDB and if i'll be able to use a MySQL client in my non-gpl'ed, for-profit (i.e. to earn a living) C++ or Python software without having to fear lawsuits from MySQL AB...

In fact, I think there should be an article on this subject (not that I've STFW'ed, but links would be appreciated).

Re:Guys please...

[Kemuri]

You asked about some links about the Dual License. Well, it's explained clearly
on the Dispelling The Myths website:

http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/dispe lling-the-myths.html

At the time of this writing, it was Myth #6. Hope this helps!

Re:Guys please...

[bfree]

What is your problem with the dual licensing? If you feel like it you can approach the authors of just about any GPL software and ask them to give you a copy under another license. They are free to tell you to get stuffed or name any price they wish. You are free to accept the GPL or just forget about that software. What makes you think you should be let use the Mysql client in a non-free way (they have a foss excemption for other free licenses)? Do you think you can use any GPL source in this way? If Mysql had wanted to allow such a use they could have simply licensed LGPL, I still don't understand why RMS/FSF has redclared this as a Lesser license when in fact I would personally believe it is the only sensible foss license for many types of software (I like forced source disclosure on distribution). For example why did ogg have to go BSD (and with the approval of the FSF) when surely the LGPL would have guaranteed freedom while allowing ubiquitous use.

SAP

[RahoulB]

Do they still need InnoDB? I thought that was the point of integrating the SAP DB engine - so they get transactions, relational integrity plus stored procs (coming real soon now)?

Re:SAP

[jadavis]

SAP DB is very, very different from MySQL. They can't just bolt it in and have working transactions. I haven't seen the source code for either, but I've heard that MySQL's source code is a real mess, and that SAP DB's source code is a real mess in comparison to MySQL's source code.

I heard that SAP DB is built for mainframes, and that all the variables are cryptic, abbreviated german, and that it uses a customized build system that is really hacked together. Good luck finding programmers to work on that.

Re:SAP

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure that the MAXDB lineage goes like this:
  - MAXDB used to be SAPDB
  - which used to be Adabas

I remember Adabas as a pre-relational database from around 1980 or so. It was fairly clunky even then - I can't imagine what the code looks like now.

Re:SAP

[Hrunting]

I haven't seen the source code for either, but I've heard that MySQL's source code is a real mess, and that SAP DB's source code is a real mess in comparison to MySQL's source code.

What you just said is:

I don't know the truth, but I'll state something as fact in hopes that nobody catches me.

In actuality, MySQL's codebase isn't a mess. It's actually quite well organized, and the new releases are even more well thought-out. MySQL does a very good job of compartmentalizing sections of code so they don't interfere with each other, reusing common code, abstracting the differences between architectures and operating systems, and it allows them to very quickly and very easily incorporate new database engines. I refer you to their recent inclusion of the NDB clustered storage engine and the newly developed archive and federated storage engines.

Re:SAP

[jadavis]

I don't know the truth, but I'll state something as fact in hopes that nobody catches me.

Actually, it was more along the lines of: "I don't know the truth, here's what I heard, comment if I'm wrong."

I have seen PostgreSQL's source code, and it's very nice. I haven't seen the source code for MySQL or SAP DB. I stated that clearly and did not mislead anyone.

Re:SAP

[bani]

Somehow I doubt you'll stop claiming the mysql code is messy though. It's fashionable to bash mysql these days, and nobody wants to give up their pet reason for bashing it, even if it's baseless.

Re:SAP

[jadavis]

Somehow I doubt you'll give up this argument, because you've clearly already classified me, regardless of fact.

As long as we're making baseless characterizations, I imagine you make similar classes for people's political beliefs. To you, one statement can make someone either a "liberal" or a "neocon" and you instantly know every other belief that they hold.

Damage Control

[rabeldable]

MySQL better start rebuilding bridges soon or they are gone. This is the biggest load of crap I've seen yet.

Burn me once - shame on you, burn me twice - shame on me. I wonder why it takes so many people getting burned to realize that some companies just do not play fair AND YOU SHOULD NOT GET IN BED WITH THEM!

I mean seriously, SCO... couldn't you guy's (MySQL) find someone more worthy of the partnership? This sounds like something M$ would do.

Re:Damage Control

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not PostreSQL community, but it is EnterpriseDB:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005 -08/msg00153.php

I guess EnterpriseDB doing this, partnering up with SCO for aparently same
reasons as MySQL AB, makes them bad? Oh, maybe not, because they are a PostgreSQL
company? Huh?

Not going to fight fire with fire.. but really.. :(

Noisy?

[HangingChad]

Mickos is being denounced as a traitor by noisy fanatics in the open source software community because last month he dared to make a deal with SCO Group

I expressed a very calm concern to MySQL that partnering with SCO in any fashion gives them an illusion of legitimacy that SCO does not deserve. How does that make me a "noisy fanatic"?

Or does anyone expressing disapproval of the SCO deal qualify for that label? Isn't that being a little Republican? Along the same vein as accusing anyone not supporting the war in Iraq as being unpatriotic?

Like any other business, if MySQL is in any kind of trouble, they're most likely there because of their own bad decisions or bad luck. In this case it seems more like a combination of bad judgment and bad luck. MySQL was doing quite well for a while.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice little anecdote you got there. Too bad you're talking out of your ass or you're just too stupid to admin a database.

Your methods to diagnose a problem are truly stellar. Randomly changing distributions and processor types (wtf?) and poking around in the dark is really gonna help.

Dimwit.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[CptWheel]

man, I have 25 yrs working behind my back, I use linux since '93, the 0.9x versions FYI, and I use linux on my desktop computer since '94. when I was standing before the choice, mysql or pgsql, I was quite familiar the environment I'm going to use them on, I was just not familiar with these sql servers.

and no, I didn't changed distros randomly, slack was used by former admin, I have _reinstalled_ to debian woody, and new iron was reinstalled to sarge. and I know pretty well how to compile kernel, some of my patched were accepted in the past and even I'm not active in kernel development about 5 years now, I still know what processor/mainboard change means.

as of db admin.. I regulary take care about 2.5 mil record database (small), but thats one of biggest databases in my small, ~5mil central european country.

and I am pretty sure about what I writte above, so I don't have to post anonymously.

have a nice day.

MySQL, SCO, and Fanatical Fools.

[hkmwbz]

Wow, a voice of reason...

The MySQL/SCO "partnership" is blown way out of proportions. And rather than actually trying to understand what is going on, people are all over MySQL.

As I understand it, what this deal with SCO is basically is about is that a lot of people are still using SCO products, whether we like it or not, and they are relying on MySQL. MySQL could take the "moral high ground" of screwing their customers and leave it at that. Instead, they decided to accept money from SCO to maintain MySQL for SCO's platforms, for the benefit of their customers.

One of the MySQL people even posted a comment about this back when the story about the partnership was posted on Slashdot.

You are making an excellent point: Lots of "non-evil" software is available for the "evil" Windows. Heck, most Slashdotters are Windows users. Why aren't they all over Apache, Mozilla, etc. for the Windows versions of their software?

This SCO thing is almost like mentioning child porn. The moment you do, people throw rational thought out the window and start acting like pre-programmed robots who are incapable of processing rational thoughts.

I think SCO sucks as much as the next guy, but the deal was done because it benefitted MySQL's customers, and MySQL got money from SCO for doing it, which basically means that there's less money in SCO's treasury to use for lawsuits.

Some apparently think that it's OK to screw their own customers. Who cares if Apple releases broken hardware? It's not like customers matter anyway, right?

Let's just ignore the fact that businesses have relationships with their customers, and some businesses actually don't want to make life hard for those who are paying them money...

Re:MySQL, SCO, and Fanatical Fools.

[QuickFox]

I think SCO sucks as much as the next guy,

I suppose this "next guy" would be me, as I'm the first guy to reply to your post. Right?

You have some nerve, saying that SCO and I suck equally.

--
  Waging war against fundamentalism is as likely to make the fundamentalists give up as 9/11 was likely to make the United States give up.

Re:MySQL, SCO, and Fanatical Fools.

[CyricZ]

But the Apache Foundation, Mozilla Foundation/Corporation, OpenOffice.org, etc., are not signing business deals with Microsoft. That's the difference.

It's not the fact that MySQL runs on UnixWare and OpenServer that people are worried about. It is the fact that the company behind MySQL is partaking in business dealings with SCO, a company who has invoked lawsuits against past partners.

Forbes, Lyons .... Geesh

[mobilemic]

Whenever I come across a Forbes article, I first check to make to sure it wasn't written by Daniel Lyons. Lyons is just an idiot whose articles are *always* a waste of time.

The numbers have it

[Ian.Waring]

I got told a couple of months back that Oracle had an installed base of 9,000 installations atop Linux worldwide while MySQL were increasing their footprint by 40,000 installations per day.

I just wonder if Oracle were doing to get Innodb staff to write the interface code so MySQL could be the front end for an Oracle (or Oracle RAC) based backend. Or maybe it's just a smart move when MySQL have started selling their MySQL Cluster product (albeit memory based) for circa $4000 per node.

Be interesting to see how this plays out.

Ian W.

Re:The numbers have it

[LurkerXXX]

I hope you realize the vast majority of those 40,000 installations would be on things like personal blogs etc, that Oracle would never be used for in a million years and can't rationally be considered competing in Oracles market.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Postgresql is BSD and hence SCO is allowed to bundle/resell/etc it with their OS w/o any input or agreement from anybody from the Postgresql project. As far as I know, SCO has not paid a single cent to the Postgresql people for this right.

Why isn't anyone blacklisting SCO's customers?

[defile]

They're the ones giving SCO money, and yet if SCO offers MySQL AB money to make MySQL better perform on SCO's platform, MySQL gets the heat?

Be consistent at least:

• McDonald's
• Burger King
• Pizza Hut
• Ground Round

all pay SCO license fees. That's all I could Google, but they must have more.

Over the Top

[Bilbo]

I read Groklaw a lot, and I happen to like PJ's style. Sure, she's a bit "Over the Top", but I still think she's funny. I don't take her rants too seriously, but she is good at research. You have to admit that, no matter how much PJ may or may not "spin" the stories, she always puts up the original source material, so it's ultimately up to you to form your own opinions. She also tries to enforce some level of civility in the posts. Some people call that censorship. Others call it keeping out the obvious Trolls. One thing it does have is that the signal-to-noise ratio is several orders of magnitude better than on a lot of other popular Blog sites.

Re:SAP DB

[Hognoxious]

all the variables are cryptic, abbreviated german, and that it uses a customized build system that is really hacked together. Good luck finding programmers to work on that.

Programmers are more than willing to work on SAP itself and that's also full of cryptic abbreviated German. And for what it's worth, there are people out there who do understand German. As to SAP DB, it's probably not their fault, since Adabas was German (Software AG) anyway.

How many app developers look at the DBMS source on a regular basis anyway? If it works, they'd never need to.

Some truth to it

[div_2n]

I can't speak for others, but when I read that MySQL got cozy with SCO, I added ripping out MySQL and replacing it with Postgres to every server I manage and to never install MySQL again to my to do list.

I'm sorry MySQL, but you should have known that there would be many people that would not take this well. If not, you've been living in a hole.

Too bad as I liked your product. But since in my case it isn't irreplacable, so long and thanks for all the queries.

Re:Some truth to it

[Anonymous Coward]

And I hope your boss fires you for making a political statement with the company's resources by switching for no other reason than you want to make a point and sound cool. Moron.

Re:Some truth to it

[div_2n]

Let me ask my boss . . . oh wait--that's me! I make the IT decisions. The CEO and CFO either agree to pay for it or not. They do not question my decisions since that would be micromanagment. They hired me for my expertise. Since replacing MySQL with Postgres costs . . . nothing, there is no discussion to be had.

Nice troll though. Good luck flipping those burgers.

Re:Some truth to it

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the postgresql community. the postgresql community itself is postgresql's worst enemy, and is exactly why people avoid postgresql -- because of flaming idiots like you.

The bigger problem

[einhverfr]

Many of us in the FOSS community didn't really care about this "partnership" between MySQL AB and SCO until Mickos tried to defend it as a moral thing to do in the name of dialog (see Groklaw for an interview to this effect, and a prior article on a speech he made to that regard).

It is one thing for EnterpriseDB to enter into such a partnership and say "this is about helping our customers. Don't read more into it than that" and MySQL entering into a partnership and saying that this is about dialog and helping SCO warm up to FOSS. Hello? SCO used to be a FOSS company before the lawsuits (anyone remember Caldera Linux)...

Indeed until Mickos started to try to justify the partnership in moral terms, I didn't think anytong of it.

Re:The bigger problem

[emj]

The Groklaw interview with Mikos from MySQL AB

Re:The bigger problem

[rtb61]

Yes but the established journalists will never get. Open source software, a million users a million opinions, and the software will go where the greatest effort is. Of course in presenting yourself and your company terminology is everything, partnering was a very, very bad word to use, "contracting services" and "selling proprietary licences" was sufficient. This a just another SCO marketing trick at some one elses behest and the mysql people got caught on terminology.

Personally I don't see it as a big deal as long as mysql didn't get caught in some silly marketing deal in the fine print. The marketing deal that went on in the background has to an extent done it's job and reduced competition to a particularly virulent known sco supporter's database product.

I am sure this will just blow over and everybody will get back to producing quality open source software and other people will pay more attention to terminology and marketing in the future. You would think people would have learnt from the past e.g. partnering with M$ don't worry about a contract just write your companies last will and testament ;-) (microsoft had a habit of bleeding partners dry and then buying some fresh new competitor for a small percentage of the value of their soon to be ex-partner).

Re:The bigger problem

[einhverfr]

Personally I don't see it as a big deal as long as mysql didn't get caught in some silly marketing deal in the fine print. The marketing deal that went on in the background has to an extent done it's job and reduced competition to a particularly virulent known sco supporter's database product.

Well, the issue for me is not the agreement itself. That is clearly a non-issue. It is what executives are saying about it.

See, that's why forking won't work.

[einhverfr]

MySQL has a commercial version to support. They can't charge someone a license fee and tell them to go elsewhere for a good storage engine. Anything in their GPL version needs to be in their commercial version. Therefore the only kind of code they can include is BSD-like, like PostgreSQL.

See, this is why they are vulnerable. There is no reason why the Innobase takeover would threaten a GPL-only application. But what really threatens MySQL is that they may be barred from *charging license fees* for InnoDB. Oracle could simply state, "No. We don't want you distributing this anymore" and MySQL would be SOL. This would, in effect, immediately destroy their ability to sell commercial licenses.

There are a couple of options. The first is to start trying merge the SQL-Max code with MySQL as fast as possible and get that all working so that they can use that for transactions, etc. From what I understand the code may still be a bit of a mess and may pose some manpower issues. The second is to try to go with BDB as a transactional store. IIRC, they didn't get too far with this last time.

Finally, they could redesign their licensing scheme so that, perhaps, their core engine is LGPL'd and the client libs are GPL'd/commerical licensed. It *might* be possible to give Oracle the hard end of the deal here but it would drastically complicate the commercial licensing. I.e. I don't see why client libs would arguably be derivative of InnoDB....

This is why it is risky to rely on a dual-licensed program. You never know when someone will pull the commercial license on a part that is fundamental. If MySQL only released it under the GPL, there would be no problem. However, the commercial application is what is vulnerable to third party licensing constraints.

Unlike MySQL, PostgreSQL doesn't have to worry about this. Of course, these announcements cast a long shadow over the upcoming 5.0 release.

Re:See, that's why forking won't work.

[jadavis]

Of course, these announcements cast a long shadow over the upcoming 5.0 release.

Especially when MySQL AB is silent on the issue. We can only assume they have nothing reassuring to say.

noisy fanatics

[Anonymous Coward]

Once Again .... for anybody that didn't get it the first ten times, you don't do deals or deal in any way with SCO. If you play with SCO you burn. Anyone who worked, or currently works, for SCO burns. Anyone and everyone associated with SCO right down to contracted janitorial services whoever they may be, burns.

Now I liked MySQL but Mickos was found rubbing up with McBride so MySQL now gets to burn with SCO. Mickos made the choice not me or you and he knew where the line was and he knew what would happen if he crossed it. Nor is it sufficient that the condemned simply be banished. As we are left to execute sentence we do so in the hope that the dismembered and charred remains of SCO, and now MySQL serve as a grisly signpost to others when found at the crossroads of temptation.

Evil shall be destroyed without exception.

Furthermore

[einhverfr]

Basically Lyons has a tendency of misrepresenting conversations. The only time I didn't think he did was over the bitkeeper debacle and basically McVoy's comments to me seemed to indicate he had represented McVoy accurately (which does not speak well for McVoy).

If you go and read the Groklaw discussions on these matters, there were a few individuals who felt that any dealing with SCO was cause for a boycott. There were also plenty of defenders for MySQL there too, which Lyons fails to mention. However, most of the informative posts on Groklaw were critiquing the way that MySQL reacted to the criticism. SCO has been out fishing for partnerships lately, and most of the companies which have entered into such partnerships have done so solely in the name of helping customers. My saying first that MySQL has no position on SCO's strategy and lawsuits, but entered into the partnership as a way of engaging them in a dialog on these issues (see the Groklaw interview), MySQL came across as incompetent at best and dishonest at worst.

This being said, the InnoDB thing is a serious threat to MySQL as Lyons correctly points out. The reason simply is that although InnoDB is released under the GPL, these are not sufficient grounds for MySQL to charge licensing fees to its customers. Most people fully expect Oracle to ask for quite a bit more money in exchange for the license to sublicense the code at very least.

Re:SAP DB

[jadavis]

How many app developers look at the DBMS source on a regular basis anyway? If it works, they'd never need to.

I was referring to the difficulty of MySQL using SAP DB as a replacement storage engine. For that, MySQL developers would certainly need to look at the source.

Not quite....

[einhverfr]

Just a terminology nit: MySQL AB neither has nor needs any licenses for MySQL. MySQL AB *owns* MySQL. They hold the copyrights, and issue licenses to others.

Evidently they don't own the copyrights to the InnoDB storage engine. This is the problem.... They license it from Innobase, which was bought by Oracle.

MySQL AB is *very* unlikely to be sued by a company in such straits. No matter how insane the SCO management is, lawyers aren't going to take on a case they're not going to get paid for.

Well.... Yes and no. No, MySQL is not a competitor to SCO, but neither was Daimler-Crysler Corp (DCC). Neither was Autozone. These companies were sued because they migrated away from SCO UNIX, and DCC was sued under really bogus claims such as "A statement that you are no longer using our products is not good enough. We want a list of machines using our products." The lawyers were charging hourly for the suit.

SCO was making their money off the publicity of their lawsuits. Fortunately this has turned against them. If SCO was in better financial waters, I would worry for MySQL. However, as Ambassador Molari says on B5... "Only an idiot wants to wage a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots wants to wage a war on twelve" which naturally puts SCO and RIAA on even footing in terms of the lawsuit idiocy they are waging....

Prediction....

[Anonymous Coward]

MySQL will be better than PostgreSQL on 0000-00-00.

Except when they open their mouths...

[einhverfr]

What was this I recently read on Slashdot about Mickos saying that MySQL doesn't want to attract the attention of Oracle? This was said right before the announced takeover. Quite ominously foreshadowing what came next....

Especially when MySQL AB is silent on the issue. We can only assume they have nothing reassuring to say.

MySQL clearly has serious problems ahead. They have shut up which makes this seem even worse....

This is one area where Oracle has managed to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about MySQL's viability, not by saying anything about MySQL's products, but by taking steps that put them in a position where they can largely dictate the terms under which MySQL can continue doing business.

Groklaw? Donate? LOL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Second post I see with this crap signature..

I for one never will go Groklaw site again. I will tell people not to bookmark, nor
donate a cent to your crap. You are a disgrace for people in general and opensource
in particular. Get Lost!

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't lose "a ton" of customers. They lost a lot of "fan bois", but even those where not a significant percentage of their customer base.

Slashdot posts this stuff for humour?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Forbes writing about Open Source, time for a good laugh. Read Forbes to figure out what you should've done 5 years ago. Why do the editors at Slashdot keep posting this stuff (Hemos of all people)? I read Slashdot to figure out what the cutting edge is, not to figure out what the dull minds in the main stream media, struggling to figure out open-source, are thinking.

Re:SAP DB

[Anonymous Coward]

> Programmers are more than willing to work on SAP itself and that's also full of cryptic abbreviated
> German. And for what it's worth, there are people out there who do understand German. As to SAP DB, it's
> probably not their fault, since Adabas was German (Software AG) anyway.

Adabas is about 25 years old, originally written for the mainframe I assume (that's where I originally saw it). After a few dozen twists and turns to add sql (it was pre-relational), port to various *drastically different* platforms, etc. I find no reason to assume that the codebase isn't junk.

Getting programmers to work on SAP is different - it probably has an R&D budget about, oh, 1000x as large as SAPDB. I have no doubt that MySQL could pay programmers to modify Adabas (sapdb/maxdb) to work as a transaction layer to mysql. But I'll bet it will be a herculean effort to get that working compared to innodb.

PostgreSQL vs MySQL: Any reason for MySQL anymore?

[fbg111]

Now that PostgreSQL covers all major platforms (Windows with the 8.x version), is there any technical reason to use MySQL instead of PostgreSQL anymore? PostgreSQL has a better license, is free, is free, is more of a real database with transactions, triggers, stored procs, much better relational model adherence, and all the other great things about PostgreSQL mentioned in other threads. Any reason at all?

so who cares what Forbes thinks?

[alizard]

Anybody who'd make any technology decision of any sort for a business based on a Forbes article has no business making technology decisions for a living, even if his job title is CIO or CTO. The most one should derive from such an article is a decision either to check into the product further or find some experts and see what they think.

If you have the misfortune to work for such a person, (other than updating your resume and sending it to your favorite headhunters) do a fast google on SCO's track record with respect to:

• screwing its former business partners (the basis of the IBM lawsuit)
• suing end business users (Daimler-Chysler, AutoZone) of software based on alleged use of their products based on an imaginary relationship with SCO,
• a major piece of the mySQL software (the innoDB storage engine) is owned by a major competitor of mySQL AB...
• The "noisy Linux zealots" in the article are also by and large, the people contributing Open Source code to the project, or more accurately, those who used to contribute their labor to the project.

Ask if your company really needs the kind of legal exposure use of any product from a company that voluntarily associates with SCO will provide given the above problems.

There are alternative database products like postgres or for that matter, Oracle, that are technically superior and don't have those kinds of problem.

Offhand, if one is using mySQL. . . time to check into anything else.

PP: Absurd Hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't a "backlash", it was a query into their motives, and questioning the wisdom of associating with litigious bastards known to sue their partners in a bid to float their stock.

MySQL AB answered the questions very well, and to (most) people's satisfaction.

Extending your mythical backlash into the general scope of community oriented business models is just plastic colored to look like grass.

Re:SAP DB

[Hognoxious]

Ah. I thought you meant chucking it away and replacing it.

Bill Gates is too a nerd

[bartash]

Have you ever written a basic interpreter that fits in 4K?

ibFirebird

[leonbrooks]

I haven't tried ibFirebird yet, and for most things it's not really up to PostgreSQL's level, but I have a peer who uses it with great success. It's one of several databases (all mentioned here are included) with features and syntax explicitly designed to make conversion from Oracle easy.

Besides, "not up to PostgreSQL's level" is massive overkill for most projects.

In Real Life(tm), even SQLite is overkill for most projects: SQLite is quite capable, where a SQL interface to flat files and perhaps some rudimentary indexing would be more than enough for 90% of what's out there.