Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gov't GSA Office goes MySQL

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the gov't-approved dept.

comforteagle writes "MySQL has won a five year contract with the US General Services Administration office putting it in yet another government office on top of NASA, the Dept. of Def., Los Alamos National Labs & the Census Bureau. This additional win allows around 70 Government customers to purchase and deploy MySQL."

9 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't MySQL Free by gamepro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What exactly are they paying for?

    1. Re:Isn't MySQL Free by MickoZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lot of people like it and use it. It is not that bad. Lot of people use it with success. But can you give me a list of all the OSS databases you talk about that are better (or "good database")? Seems like there is a lot from your words (maybe there is), I'm just curious about your list.

    2. Re:Isn't MySQL Free by MickoZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny thing is between my last post... I had a slow response on my localhost and I did stop mysql service (on windows). And something weird happened... the column's type changed (a char(1) to a char(0) and I doubt I did change that by error). It happened on a table that indeed was supposed to be written at. Even thought the type changed from char(1) to char(0), the old data were still having one character inside. However... all the new data were empty string as the column specification changed. Quite scary... I am a perfectionnist, I try to slack off... but those kind of thing scare me when I see them in a software... Of course I did a NET STOP MySQL (service stop) on windows... but still... that could happen on our shared host server or is there something in mysql that could prevent this (i.e don't shutdown till the operation is finish?)

    3. Re:Isn't MySQL Free by suwain_2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What exactly are they paying for?

      Are you familiar with the workings of the US Government?

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    4. Re:Isn't MySQL Free by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The article is about the addition of MySQL to their stock of databases. It doesn't say that they don't also already have many copies of Oracle and or DB2 or MS SQL. They already have databases, they are just buying more. I'm sure for many really large complex databases, they are using one of the above. They are probably buying MySQL for use in smaller databases they also need to work with. The question is why MySQL and not Postgres or any number of other fuller featured free databases. You know, databases that actually always enforce constraints as a real database should, rather than having enforcement as a new option compared to their history of not enforcing them. Using MySQL for some random persons blog is one thing, but if the goverment is putting it in a database, the numbers probably matter and data integrity should be kept a higher priority than the folks at MySQL have historically treated it.

  2. News - Sort of by HardCase · · Score: 4, Interesting

    MySQL is on the GSA schedule - but thousands upon thousands of products are available on the GSA schedule. Just being on the GSA schedule isn't particularly dramatic, though. And the headline (and even the summary) are quite a bit more breathless and quite a bit less accurate than the real story.

    -h-

  3. Re:WHAT by HaydnH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aye, subselects have been supported since 4.1.

    Personally I believe MySQL won the popularity vote against postgreSQL due to better performance because it didn't have as many features, as MySQL adds these features the performance will get worse than postgres who have had the features since the beginning and have been working mainly on reliability/performance.

    I know which I'd choose.

    --
    Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
  4. Re:Standards, schstandards by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess Oracle will feel relieved with their 'ISO SQL 92 minus datatypes and a few other essentials' product.

    I'm sure Larry Ellison cries every evening as he swims through his five-story Money Bin.

    Oracle has decided that it would be worse to break all the legacy applications already running on Oracle DBs than to force compliance with the ISO standard. Can't say I blame them.

  5. Re:You've gotta hand it to 'em by waif69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. Support and the ability to hide/bury/dispose of the source code is important and worth the money spent. The open source nature the other side of the software has provides faster development and vetting of errors faster (typically) than closed source software.

    As for the cost, often the gov't goes to extremes to keep the cost low even while maintaining certain specs to ensure safety and reliability of equipent in harsh environments. I work in the Aquisition field and understand the reasons why somethings seems to be far too costly at face value. Yes, in the past there have been people skimming off the top and pocketing some money, however the way aquisition occurs now, that has been minimized if not eliminated. Oh, and yes, some items still appear to cost too much, until you find out the specs that must be met and you learn that some companies that sell to the gov't make very small margins of profit just to have a contract that may last ten years or so to ensure a steady source of income.