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

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!

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.

[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).

Oracle is MySQL's most dreaded rival?

[IANAAC]

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

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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.