Drizzle Hits General Availability

snydeq writes "MySQL fork Drizzle has been released for general availability, giving companies a viable alternative to Oracle-owned MySQL, InfoWorld reports. 'Organizations that have been seeking a less-expensive alternative to Oracle's brand of MySQL — or a variant devoid of feature bloat — now have an option that Drizzle's creators deem ready to package in Linux distributions.'"

Comments

MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[viablos]

Generally I would support open source projects, but it's time to move on from MySQL. The project took wrong direction many years ago. If you go with Oracle, go with the old enterprise database solutions. If you don't exactly care about the license, go with Microsoft Access. They both are way better than MySQL and dealing with its problems.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[dkleinsc]

If you want a real open source database, with a real commitment to not being evil, check out PostGres. I've preferred it over MySql for a really long time, for technical as well as political reasons.

MySql might have had better marketing, but for most purposes it was never the best open source database.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[Chad Birch]

Access? Really? PostgreSQL would have been a much better suggestion.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[h4rr4r]

Access is a joke, even compared to MySQL.

I highly suggest you look into Postgresql.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Microsoft Access is way better than MySQL. Clearly you know what you're talking about. And if you care about software licenses, Oracle is a great way to go. Any other words of wisdom to share?

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[afabbro]

Generally I would support open source projects, but it's time to move on from MySQL. The project took wrong direction many years ago. If you go with Oracle, go with the old enterprise database solutions. If you don't exactly care about the license, go with Microsoft Access. They both are way better than MySQL and dealing with its problems.

What on earth are you talking about?

MySQL, Oracle, and Microsoft Access all target completely different markets. Access and MySQL are not even the same kind of software.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a real open source database, with a real commitment to not being evil, check out PostGres. I've preferred it over MySql for a really long time, for technical as well as political reasons.

MySql might have had better marketing, but for most purposes it was never the best open source database.

Just out of interest - i've always wondered why Postgres seems to trail in popularity to MySQL. I know the limitations of the latter having used it far too much, does anybody know where Postgres trails MySQL?

Specifically - what's the clustering support like? Can you do hotbackup without LVM hacks? etc. I'd love to use Postgres, but need confidence that it's not got a massive deficiency somewhere.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[cayenne8]

. If you don't exactly care about the license, go with Microsoft Access.

Please dear merciful God, don't ever use the words Microsoft Access and Database in the same sentence!!!

The terms are mutually exclusive...

Geez...I wish Access had never been created, and wish it would be banned.

The messes I've had to clean up due to it and its misuse.....*sigh*

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd use Access but I'm still trying to figure out Frontpage.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

When will people learn. If you see a new registered user who mentions Microsoft then he's probably an astroturfer - especially if he made the first post. Stop feeding the troll.

Explanation and a list of his known alts.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw that you deny it, but you really do seem like a shill. And I even defend MS sometimes. But Access? Seriously?

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[Tolkien]

Hahah. I know, eh? Imagine if Slashdot was running on MySQL instead of Access. Oh wait..

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[h4rr4r]

There are many ways to do postgres clustering, what exactly do you want to achieve. Do you want to just spread out queries or do you want to do failover?

You can do hotbackups by running pg_dump while using the db, but you probably would be better served by just replicating to another machine.

We use Postgres for our main product and it seems to be ok at keeping food on my plate.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[sapgau]

Access? Why?
Never pick Access as a multi-user db. At least pick SQL Sever Express if you insist on MS.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[viablos]

Master and slaves db setup is much better and easier with MySQL. That's why Postgres isn't ready for entreprise databases. If you're small to medium size business you basically have to use MySQL, Oracle or proprietary enterprise solutions from Microsoft. Large companies like Facebook and Google develop their own database softwares. Postgres is nice, but it's for hobbyist mostly. It just doesn't scale.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[Unordained]

Can we centralize the "alternatives to MySQL" thread here? My vote's for Firebird.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[jjohnson]

That's some awesome trolling, that is.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[rrossman2]

Here's just an interesting comparison between them all, but you can see Postgres supports basically everything MySQL does and then a whole lot more..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems

Not sure how up to date that is though

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't blame the tool. If it weren't for Access, than you'd be dealing with spreadsheet abominations (which would be worse, btw, since Access at least lets you define some structure). The only problem with Access is when you start using it for things that it was never meant for.

Access as a database is just fine, in much the same way that SQLite is a fine database. Neither works as a database server, even if you try to make them. OTOH, trying to make a teacher run a MySQL server, and use db administrator tools for their class of 40 doesn't work so well either.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[h4rr4r]

Slashdot seems to be working ok. For a website MySql is an ok choice so long as you can live with its shortcomings.
If slashdot was on Access only one of us could use it at a time. Access is not a real db. Access competes with sqllite, not with anything anyone should be using for a production website.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[masshuu]

As someone who has dealt with both, I can say the reason postgresql isn't as popular is because its more involved in its setup. Mysql is simpler for new people. You install it, download phpmyadmin, login as root and then start creating databases and stuff. postgresql isn't as simple. Creating a new database is a bit more involved and when i first was confronted with it, I wondered why it was so complex.

I don't even know how to take advantage of more complex stuff in postgresql either.

This is coming from someone who is mildly experinced with mysql and set up a postgresql server not knowing anything.

Its like taking a Ubuntu person and sticking them on slackware/gentoo or something. Although its similar its still radically different.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[sapgau]

+1

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[h4rr4r]

Complete and utter bullshit.

You seemed like a moron after that first post, now you have proved it.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[cayenne8]

I'd love to use Postgres, but need confidence that it's not got a massive deficiency somewhere.

Take a look at Postgres...it is MUCH more like Oracle in terms of a robust RDBMS. I've heard of projects taking pretty large Oracle installs...and converting over to Postgres with minimal pain.

The main reason MySQL is more popular is that it was smaller and easier to configure...but at the cost of robustness, and initially...data integrity. It was a short cut...much like {gag} MS Access proved often to be.

Postgres takes a bit more planning, and know how to install and use, but then again...so does something like Oracle.

You could probably compare:

MySql == Access

Postgres == Oracle

If you want to make some analogies.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

There has been a lot of discussion about this Microsoft astroturfer. He's been outed at every turn. See the following links.

• mangu (126918) on the shill's first-post habit
• AC sympathetic to Microsoft gets annoyed by shill
• rtfa-troll (1340807) explains behavior of Microsoft shills
• BasilBrush (643681) noticing the shill's post timestamps
• AC confronts the shill
• me, linking the shill's known accounts

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[c0d3g33k]

Just out of interest - i've always wondered why Postgres seems to trail in popularity to MySQL. I know the limitations of the latter having used it far too much, does anybody know where Postgres trails MySQL?

In my experience (since the last quarter of the 1990s), PostgreSQL never really trailed MySQL because there was anything wrong with it, it just fell in an awkward spot along the database spectrum. On one end of the spectrum (well, Berkeley DB was at the extreme end, just above flat files, but MySQL was next in line) MySQL fit the needs of the majority of data-driven webapps at the time.

A lot of web developers didn't need a proper database and often didn't recognize when they did need one, and couldn't design a decent schema in any case. MySQL was a good match for this skillset - it was easy for someone to set up and instance, throw together some tables and start coding. Any deficiencies were often just handled by throwing the logic into the code. MySQL was also pretty darned fast, which was important due to the hardware limitations of the time, and it could scale well enough for most needs. That got it a toehold and mindshare. Over the years as the demands of the web grew, Monty and friends made sure it stayed in that sweet spot. On the other end of the spectrum, if you *really* needed a proper database or massive scalability, you were usually doing something enterprise-ish, and that usually meant there was enough money available to pay for Oracle (or MS-SQL) and a Solaris machine. You had DBAs trained to manage the beast and design proper databases. Somewhere in between was PostgreSQL. Not as fast as MySQL (being ACID compliant was harder work), more difficult to setup, more demanding of hardware, not quite as powerful as Oracle, few people were trained to use it. Being free (of charge) didn't matter, because there was generally more to lose if things went wrong than the cost of the database, so Oracle was a safer bet. So, though it was more than good enough, PostgreSQL just didn't end up being as popular as MySQL. Didn't really matter, IMHO, because PostgreSQL did just fine and found a niche of it's own where it is doing quite well. Popularity isn't everything.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[doofusclam]

I'd love to use Postgres, but need confidence that it's not got a massive deficiency somewhere.

Take a look at Postgres...it is MUCH more like Oracle in terms of a robust RDBMS. I've heard of projects taking pretty large Oracle installs...and converting over to Postgres with minimal pain.

The main reason MySQL is more popular is that it was smaller and easier to configure...but at the cost of robustness, and initially...data integrity. It was a short cut...much like {gag} MS Access proved often to be.

Postgres takes a bit more planning, and know how to install and use, but then again...so does something like Oracle.

You could probably compare:

MySql == Access

Postgres == Oracle

If you want to make some analogies.

Thank you for your replies.

I wrote the original comment - apologies, but I forgot to login (I don't login here often, I tend to lurk)

The reason I ask is because i've been suspicious of MySQL because of the dual licensing, and also because the (expensive) cluster version needs the indices to be in memory - which requires serious hardware for our setup as our data is 'long and thin'. However there is little experience of postgres here, so we spend the money.

Therefore i've never bothered with postgres, which is stupid, but I know that as many open source projects use mysql, it is the 'go to' database of choice. When speccing a database i've always asked around and people have pointed out the deficiencies of postgres as being the clustering and backup support.

To be specific - how does the clustering (any method) of postgres compare to standard mysql? What is the best way of doing hot backups? Where does the performance fall down?

I'd love to use postgres, but unfortunately i'm too busy doing other tasks to give it a good, proper test. Has anybody been through this already and do they mind sharing?

Ta,

Sean

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[doofusclam]

Out of interest, what's the problem with master/slave under postgres?

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[HiThere]

You mean they actually fixed it?

I would not rate MSAccess as being a competitor to SQLite. It's not nearly as good. (Well, it wasn't around a decade ago...but at the time it was getting worse with each iteration.) It's sole advantage, if it is an advantage, is that it comes bundled with a programming environment. Unfortunately, they were in the habit of breaking things with every minor release. Or sometimes just because. (My general practice in debugging was to save a text copy of the program, and if I started to get compilation errors, to delete the current programs, and then re-import the text files. It usually worked. For a month or so.) Frequently the problems seemed intentional, though of course one could never prove that. And even if one could have proven malice, the EULA meant they would be held harmless.

For some reason I totally stopped ever allowing any MS software on any computer that I use. (Well, except a few fonts.)

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[TheRaven64]

These days, I think MySQL has the same problem. It's squeezed between SQLite and PostgreSQL. If you're doing complex queries, PostgreSQL is faster. If you care about your data, both have better ACID support. If you're doing simple queries without many concurrent updates, SQLite is faster. There aren't many niches left where MySQL is worth considering.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[lakeland]

It's mainly historical.

Postgres used to be much harder to install and maintain, making it unpopular with causal people that just wanted a DB to run their website.\
Postgres also used to have much weaker clustering support, making it unpopular with people looking for a complete system

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[geminidomino]

This coming from a poster who actually recommended using MS Access with a straight face.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[shutdown -p now]

MySql == Access

Ironically, even Access has full ACID transactions.

(yes, I know it's not quite what you meant)

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[shutdown -p now]

Access most certainly is a database - it organizes data for consistency and efficient operations. It's a single-user DB, and it's designed for relatively small (hundreds of megabytes at most) amounts - and yes, it is unfortunately abused way beyond its design constraints; but it is a database.

In fact, it's even a relational one. It has strict schema and actually enforces it (unlike MySQL ISAM, which thinks that "FOREIGN KEY" is some kind of fancy comment). It has proper transactions with isolation levels. It's not particularly ANSI SQL conformant, but then few RDBMSes are (Access is just worse than most).

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[GooberToo]

Just out of interest - i've always wondered why Postgres seems to trail in popularity to MySQL. I know the limitations of the latter having used it far too much, does anybody know where Postgres trails MySQL?

People will tell you a lot of things and some of them might actually be factors. The real reasons are pretty simple; marketing, platform preference, and user ignorance. Obviously there are other factors, but these are first and foremost.

Back when MySQL was just beginning to get any attention, a lot of people were actively looking at PostgreSQL. The problem is, PostgreSQL supported Win32 poorly. In fact, the Win32 port at the time, was actually a unsupported Cygwin port which came with lots of caveats and baggage. Caveats and baggage is not something people want in a database. Needless to say, lots of developers didn't want their platform dictated by their choice of database. This was an instant win for MySQL despite the fact that at the time, MySQL was a tonka toy compared to PostgreSQL.

Next was marketing. MySQL lied, lied, lied, and lied some more. If you look, you can find lots of MySQL's old white papers which are purposely full of misinformation and lies. They purposely lied about benchmarks, created benchmarks which tailored to MySQL's strengths (which rarely had anything to do with the real world), so on and so. Given the choice between a database which MySQL consistently said was dramatically slower, and worse, didn't really support Win32, the choice seemed pretty clear. MySQL actually made references to PostgreSQL versions which were not even supported at the time. Typically they would benchmark again one or two *major* versions back of PostgreSQL, so they could have a performance edge. I can still remember reading a benchmark in which they compared MySQL to a version of PostgreSQL which hadn't even been supported for half a decade. The rule of thumb back then was, if MySQL said anything about performance, features, or reliability, it was lie. Ya, it literally was that bad. Unfortunately, most MySQL users didn't know any better.

Last was the simple fact that most MySQL developers at the time, and even largely true to this day, have absolutely no clue what's important in a database. Most of these people had no clue what scalability meant (MySQL traditionally scales poorly but is extremely fast for single user - which is what most developer's test and therefore come to a very wrong conclusion). Worse, MySQL developers would constantly argue that no one really needed referential integrity, triggers, stored procedures, sub-selects, ACID is completely optional, nor is a query optimizer of any real significance. I kid you not, that really is much of the defense MySQL had at the time.

Again, there absolutely are other facts, but the three above greatly empowered, if not accelerated, MySQL's acceptance to the detriment of PostgreSQL. Of course, it didn't help that MySQL had convinced everyone that MySQL was lightening fast and extremely scalable and yet third parties typically found MySQL to be one of the least scalable databases (usually landing middle to dead last of the pack) and frequently couldn't even finish basic benchmarks. And its important to remember, these benchmarks ultimately punished most other databases because they were written to use the least common denominator (for the sole purpose of allowing MySQL to be benchmarked), which ruled out much faster features like stored procedures, triggers, and referential integrity. Which really means, if someone wants to take advantage of common database features, MySQL was horribly slow and far, far less scalable for real world applications.

Obviously things have changed since then. MySQL has come a long way. Its now capable of consistently completing benchmarks and has a number of more advanced features. Regardless, for scalability, performance, and a wide selection of rich features, MySQL is still largely playing catch-up to PostgreSQL. Which is why PostgreSQL is still pushed in front of MySQ

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[GooberToo]

Master and slaves db setup is much better

Has never been true. Though IIRC, MySQL does support multi-master which PostgreSQL does not.

and easier with MySQL.

Used to be true but is no longer the case.

That's why Postgres isn't ready for entreprise databases.

And yet its commonly used in the enterprise side by side with Oracle. PostgreSQL commonly competes with Oracle. Hell, in many cases, it actually replaces Oracle.

If you're small to medium size business you basically have to use MySQL

Only if you have absolutely no clue what the hell you're talking about.

Postgres is nice, but it's for hobbyist mostly.

Reallying laying on the troll thick...

It just doesn't scale.

Except for the common cases where it performs better than MySQL and Oracle.

Desperate for attention much?

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[GooberToo]

Slashdot seems to be working ok

You do realize Slashdot has fairly frequently unplanned outages? I've also had maybe a little more than a half dozen messages lots by Slashdot over the years, and I'm just one user. How many thousands or tens of thousands of posts have been lost over the years?

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if its a web site or not. The real question is, is your data important to you? If the answer is yes, MySQL should fall to the bottom of your list of choices.

Access competes with sqllite

I keep reading people saying that but Access is actually far, far richer than sqlite. For single user systems, while I loath to admit it, Access is likely a superior solution. sqlite really competes against the likes of bdb. Which really, many people passover but is a surprisingly good database for what it is; but what it isn't is SQL.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[tehcyder]

This coming from a poster who actually recommended using MS Access with a straight face.

Says the person who might as well have written "there is no open source spreadsheet anywhere near as good as Microsoft Escel" in his sig...

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[tehcyder]

MySql == Access

Ooh, that's just bitchy.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[Tolkien]

Slashdot seems to be working ok

You do realize Slashdot has fairly frequently unplanned outages? I've also had maybe a little more than a half dozen messages lots by Slashdot over the years, and I'm just one user. How many thousands or tens of thousands of posts have been lost over the years?

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if its a web site or not. The real question is, is your data important to you? If the answer is yes, MySQL should fall to the bottom of your list of choices.

Uhh. When exactly have these fairly frequent unplanned outages happened? I don't remember having seen slashdot have any outages except when they were updating the database because the comment table index hit the upper limit. There wasn't even an outage when it got hacked (not cracked, the guy told the developers how he did it) and I had been lurking slashdot for years before I created this account. My UID would be near yours if not lower GooberToo, had I created an account when I started lurking.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[GooberToo]

They've experienced several just in the last week or so. They are fairly common regardless what you may think.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[h4rr4r]

Still nothing compared to the problems they would have running a website on Access. Postgresql should of course be what they switch to.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[Celestialwolf]

Looks like your signature worked.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago

[geminidomino]

Actually, if that's what you read, that says more about you than me.

I really miss ExpressCalc...

Drizzle?

[Attila Dimedici]

Really? Drizzle? That was the best they could do for a name of the new project?

Re:Drizzle?

[ArsonSmith]

In a world of googling, tweeting, and blogging, do snazzy names really matter any more?

Re:Drizzle?

[gandhi_2]

PostgreSQL was already taken.

Re:Drizzle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fo' shizzle my drizzle.

Re:Drizzle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fo' shizzle my drizzle.

So what is that a gangsta drow?

People see me Dridin' they hatin'

Re:Drizzle?

[jim03]

That is what happens when you let SnoopDogg name things.

Re:Drizzle?

[discord5]

Really? Drizzle? That was the best they could do for a name of the new project?

This was their second choice. The first wanted to call it GonorrheaDB, but the development team agreed that they should only use that name in case Twitter was interested in using it as a backend.

Re:Drizzle?

[Chad Birch]

Sadly, GonorrheaDB isn't really that much worse of a name than MongoDB.

Re:Drizzle?

[skids]

Normally here is where I would complain that SQL should have been named "squirrel" and they should have named drizzle that. But it seems since the last time I went on a rant about that, someone actually has named an SQL related utility "squirrel." So I guess I'll shut up now.

Re:Drizzle?

[Kingrames]

Drizzt was taken.

Re:Drizzle?

[troylanes]

For shizzle.

Re:Drizzle?

[517714]

Snazzy sound like a photo sharing app.

Re:Drizzle?

[NoExQQ]

I just really hope I never have to say to anyone that everything is OK because I took a Drizzledump last night.....

Re:Drizzle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. All three users are still using it.

Re:Drizzle?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why we _never_ let Snoop Dogg name our products.

Re:Drizzle?

[Anonymous Coward]

For all of you Americans who only understand English, I'll explain this for you. The word "mongo" means a variety of negative things in a number of other languages.

As is, it means "retarded" in German and Hungarian. There are similar-sounding words in Czech, Russian, Polish and other Eastern European languages where it means "idiot" or "moron".

In some dialects of Korean and Japanese, it's slang for "sodomy".

In certain South American dialects of Spanish and Portuguese, it sounds a lot like a word for "horse shit".

However, "mongo" may actually be a very good term for describing that which is "MongoDB". It basically is a pile of horse shit that's advocated by morons and idiots, and using it does feel a lot like unexpected sodomy. Hell, it makes MySQL look like a database.

Re:Drizzle?

[Locke2005]

Apparently the project head was into "water sports"...

Re:Drizzle?

[dgatwood]

For sure, my druid?

Re:Drizzle?

[HeckRuler]

ok, someone needs to do this parody. Weird Al already did it for generic nerds, now we need to do it for narrower and narrower niches. Do it, DO IT NOW!

Re:Drizzle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fo' shizzle my drizzle.

So what is that a gangsta drow?

People see me Dridin' they hatin'

llolt!

Re:Drizzle?

[jd2112]

If only Linus had named his OS SyphOS, Just think of how it would have, er, "spread" by now.

Re:Drizzle?

[GaryOlson]

Was the development team trying to infer that if you get in bed with Oracle and try to pull away, you will be left with an untreatable and nasty systemic problem?

Re:Drizzle?

[shutdown -p now]

There are similar-sounding words in Czech, Russian, Polish and other Eastern European languages where it means "idiot" or "moron".

What would be the Russian word that sounds similar to "mongo" and means "idiot"? 'cause I'm Russian and I don't know one...

Re:Drizzle?

[Compaqt]

SqlDog? ("sequel dog")

Re:Drizzle?

[GooberToo]

It basically is a pile of horse shit that's advocated by morons and idiots

Thought you might enjoy this, if you haven't already seen it.

Re:Drizzle?

[AC-x]

"Drizzle - A database for the cloud"
"Lightweight database for Web applications and Cloud infrastructure"

I see what they did there.

Re:Drizzle?

[tehcyder]

"Mong" is UK slang for an idiot, or just something really crap/smelly/horrible, deriving rather charmlessly from "mongoloid", the old-fashioned term for what is now called Down syndrome.

Re:Drizzle?

[Thelasko]

Really? Drizzle? That was the best they could do for a name of the new project?

Fo' Shizzle

Re:Drizzle?

[home-electro.com]

Me too. If anything, the first association that comes to my head is "Mango", which is neutral, and Mongol if I force myself to look for another one - but it really is a stretch, since Mongol is not part of my everyday vocabulary.

Re:Drizzle?

[GooberToo]

I always associate it with a a very large, dumb person. I always assumed that's where it got its name. Capable of some heavily lifting but completely without out any smarts. Basically, all brawns and no brains. Regardless, seems like a good fit even if its not by intension.

"Oh no. Oh no. Don't do that. If you shoot him, you'll just make him mad."

Please

[gad_zuki!]

Please name open source projects better. "Hey boss, lets build all these sites on top of Drizzle."

Maybe some high profile OSS guys can help fund or start some kind of OSS naming service.

Re:Please

[discord5]

Maybe some high profile OSS guys can help fund or start some kind of OSS naming service.

That's always an option, but you just know that they'll give the organization a terrible name.

Re:Please

[Anonymous Coward]

Like people do now for Drupal? serious looking in the want adds amazed at how many people like drupal.

Re:Please

[gad_zuki!]

Thank you for contacting Zerrodong! The suggested names for your project follow...

Re:Please

[Locke2005]

You're telling me! I keep telling my managers "We should be using subversion!" They all think I'm some kind of subversive...

Re:Please

[SheeEttin]

Oh, well there's you problem. Tell them they should be using Git!
Oh, wait...

Re:Please

[Iron Condor]

Mercurial is better anyways ... :-P Seriously: if I have to sell my mgmt on "git" or "mercurial" (which don't look all that different to me) which one do you think I'm going to talk about?

Re:Please

[shutdown -p now]

Just tell them it's "Hg", rather than "Mercurial".

Better yet, tell them that you're going to use MVC (Mercurial Version Control). If they google that, they'll find out that, whatever the hell it is, everyone says it's a good thing to do.

Less Expensive?

[BigJClark]

Less expensive? I thought MySql was free? Any MySql admins here? Are there certain features (grid, flashback, partitioning) that aren't available with the free version?

Re:Less Expensive?

[C_Kode]

You are taking the comment out of context. Of course you can get MySQL free, but sometimes in some cases, you don't run it for free. (and for good reason)

Re:Less Expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic you don't switch out of it for free either, so its still not at all compelling.

How does Master Shake feel about this?

[h4rr4r]

Does the Drizzle know that they have named a MySQL fork after him?

Re:How does Master Shake feel about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

He wrote a letter to complain, but it was black ink on black paper so they ignored it.

Re:How does Master Shake feel about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...he could, you know, rain 'em out. Cancelled on account of weather."

"So let me get this straight. You have to know ahead of time that they're going to commit this crime?"

Re:How does Master Shake feel about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it too late to fork into FumeDB?

Life with MySQL can be frustrating

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my favorite bug du jour:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=23212

Basically, when you use "load infile", MySQL creates zero data rather than NULL data when the input file had NULL data. Unfortunately, 0s and empty strings can be valid data.

Now imagine this type of stuff ALL OVER THE PLACE. I wish I had built on PostgreSQL way back when I started.

Re:Life with MySQL can be frustrating

[squallbsr]

It is these kinds of behaviors that have always kept me from ever liking MySQL. I really don't want my database trying to decide how to convert my data into something it deems acceptable. If I try to insert bad data, I want an error, not the db 'fixing' the issue for me.

Re:Life with MySQL can be frustrating

[lwsimon]

Oh, that's cute - you thought that they did it on purpose, trying to help the user.

Re:Life with MySQL can be frustrating

[SJ2000]

My favourite problem was not being able to use variables for the LIMIT clause Bug #11918. Took 5 years to remedy.

Drizzle

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the Shizzle.

Like the name.

[wcrowe]

I'm just glad they didn't give it some dumb, stilted name like "LibreSQL".

Re:Like the name.

[LaneLester]

Good comment. I was appalled when I learned that that new OO would be called LibreOffice. It looks bad; it sounds bad. You can't tell someone about it orally without having to spell it. But as this thread illustrates, it seems that open source people have this sick need to give their products horrible names.

Re:Like the name.

[billcopc]

Dude... I'm french (well I used to be), and I think LibreOffice is a shit name. It's a word 99% of the world can't properly speak or spell, and all because of that dumb FLOSS acronym that came about because the english word "Free" lacks specificity. English is the Visual Basic of human languages: easy, popular, but man does it ever suck for all but the most basic tasks.

Drizzle is like a stream of bat's piss

[PolygamousRanchKid]

It "shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark."

Was that one of Wilde's? Very witty . . .

API License?

[Bill Dimm]

I seem to remember that many years ago, before Sun bought MySQL AB, the license for the library needed to access the database from your own programs was GPL (not LGPL), and MySQL AB claimed you couldn't use it without open-sourcing your code, unless you paid them for a commercial-use license. Has that changed with Drizzle (i.e., have they written a new API so they can choose a different license)? Their license page says:

Drizzle is licensed under both the GPLv2 and BSD license. The core of Drizzle was forked from MySQL and thus is under GPLv2. Derived work from GPLv2 code will stay GPLv2, as the license states...

which doesn't give any detail about which parts are still GPL and which parts are now BSD.

Re:API License?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Bill,
The main code is GPLv2, the libdrizzle client library is BSD and the docs are CC BY SA 3.0

Re:API License?

[Bill Dimm]

Thanks for the reply. That's a significant feature.

Re:API License?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most of the drivers are now under the BSD style license so that fixes that issue.
http://wiki.drizzle.org/JDBC

Re:API License?

[Anonymous Coward]

Library to access the database has been re-written from scratch and is BSD, database itself is forked and thus still GPLv2.
Drizzle - well not really raining on Sun microsystems parade of buying MySQL but the change in license for the fork was designed to be drizzle at least. Those former MySQL guys, they just didn't like Sun despite taking their billion dollars.

Re:API License?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mind you, the GPL never forced you to open source your code per se.

Only if you distribute your derivatives, then it applies. As long as you don't distribute, you're free to do as you please.

Who cares? No one.

[afabbro]

I've seen nothing in Drizzle that was so compelling that it's worth going through and recertifying a whole stack of apps. In fact, I've seen nothing compelling in Drizzle at all. "Hey, we ripped out a bunch of features and we're not Oracle!" Great. I'm trying to get real work done over here. The protest march is the next street over.

Drizzle? Really?

[nblender]

Too bad "OurSQL" is taken.. Maybe "EveryoneSQL"

Re:Drizzle? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

YourSQL?

How about SequelSQL?

Re:Drizzle? Really?

[mortonda]

how about OpenSQL?

There is already a better alternative

[Algae_94]

As much as I'd like to support Master Shake's new DB, there has been a better open-source DB for years now. Check out PostgreSQL if you haven't already.

Why does Snoop Dogg carry an umbrella?

[BitHive]

Fo' drizzle.

Re:Why does Snoop Dogg carry an umbrella?

[Anonymous Coward]

I entered the thread looking for this exact post. I'm quite satisfied now, thank you.

Oracle, are you paying attention?

[erroneus]

A large part of the Internet Technology sector thinks your company is poison. I know, I know... you don't care unless they are shareholders dumping their shares en mass.

Re:Oracle, are you paying attention?

[bartwol]

So I've spent years building my application on top of MySQL. And MySQL has done its job just fine...before Oracle and since.

Now comes along a fork, a new database, that solves *what* problem for me?

I'm looking for an effective DBMS (which I have in MySQL), not a company (or CEO) to love.

Are *you* paying attention? To *what*?

Re:Oracle, are you paying attention?

[flimflammer]

It solves nothing for you right now, until Oracle decides to muck with things and change them around as they see fit, until you feel like the end result is less and less the MySQL you know and love and more the brain child of new management.

Oracle has been screwing with all sorts of products that Sun managed since the acquisition. This is entirely precautionary. No one is telling you to make the switch. It's just there if you eventually have a need for it.

nails all chewed off, still not getting ahead?

[Anonymous Coward]

disappointed with the new gnu online dating?

so, we'll then expect to see you at any one of the million babys+
play-dates, conscience arisings, georgia stone editing(s), photon gatherings, & a host of
other life promoting/loving events. guaranteed to activate all of our
sense(s) at once. perhaps you have seen our list of pure intentions for
you/us?

windows

[Anonymous Coward]

No windows version?

fail.

LADP?

[sltd]

So now there will be Linux Apache Drizzle Php servers? Just classy.

Re:LADP?

[leenks]

You mean Linux Drizzle Apache PHP, surely?

LDAP...

Wait a minute!! DOH!

Re:LADP?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Linux Drizzle Apache PHP, surely?

LDAP...

Wait a minute!! DOH!

I thought it was LAPD....

Re:LADP?

[Anonymous Coward]

LADP

A Los Angeles policeman with dyslexia?

2nd fork then?

[toriver]

Wasn't MariaDB enough?

Re:2nd fork then?

[c0d3g33k]

They are not quite the same. Drizzle seems to be striving for minimalism, while MariaDB is trying to follow the pre-Oracle development path. Also, MariaDB has the following albatross around its neck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Widenius. His post-Oracle "Save MySQL" campaign was all kinds of annoying.

Re:2nd fork then?

[Billly Gates]

SQL-Lite already fills this void of minimalism. Infact, it is the most popular database in the world. Its included in every iphone, Firefox installation, and android device out there.

Re:2nd fork then?

[SQL Error]

Albatross shmalbatross. I'm using MariaDB for a 6TB production system and it works flawlessly.

Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I can build Drupal sites on Drizzle. That's Drupizzle!

Windows is not supported by Drizzle

[Anonymous Coward]

but sqlite, FirebirdSQL and PostgreSQL does. If you need a database that runs on BSD, Linux, Mac and Windows, there are better choices than Drizzle.

Way to show commitment!

[erice]

A "drizzle" is a half-assed rain. Is Drizzle a database for those aren't really sure they want one?

NO FAKERS

[SubtleGuest]

There is only one Drizzle- http://video.adultswim.com/aqua-teen-hunger-force/who-is-the-drizzle.html

WTF is up with open source names

[Osgeld]

I for one do not even try to explain to average people what open source software is, I cant get one sentence in before someone starts cracking jokes

Drizzle
LAME
GIMP
GNOME
etc ... really? you want this to be the year of the * desktop? fine make it so I dont have to spend time explaining what lame drizzle is and how it is different from a gimp gnome!

Re:WTF is up with open source names

[flimflammer]

I have been wondering this for a long time. A lot of open source software names make no sense and even seem to downright downplay their usefulness before you even see them.

The biggest example is GIMP. What is the first thing you think of when you see the word GIMP? Limp. Cripple... You're telling the general public that the software is weak and quite possibly substandard. It might not be true, but first impressions mean a lot, and these silly names don't instill a lot of confidence.

Drizzle is a strange name. If you look at it based solely on its definition, it's a weak form of rain. Small, minute. The name might look "cool" but what are you telling the greater public with all these "snazzy" names?

Re:WTF is up with open source names

[Anonymous Coward]

Which average people are you explaining the name of a RDBMS to? Which Desktop system is it preventing the adoption of?

Re:WTF is up with open source names

[swestcott]

OH man GIMP we have a graphics person here and back when we had a smaller IT budget he needed photo shop but we did not have the money for it so I without thinking first said well GIMP works well and I can show you how to use it well everyone is staring at me and it all comes crashing down the graphics guy has metal braces on both legs and needs crutches to move around .... So red faced I say I did not name it that no I do not know why it is called that ...somehow we suddenly had the money to buy a copy of photo shop

bestes creatin

[calzone1]

i can*t belive it .... i dont understand :(

Drizzle creates mud

[Bucc5062]

What a waste of /. commenting. I look through the top 50 and the obsession with the fucking name is amazing. How about the fact they don't support stored procedures or triggers.

Fundamentally, stored procedures usually are not the correct architectural decision for applications that need to scale.

WTF? Stored Procs are the basis for enterprise development with a DB backend. It is the whole point of scalability. Hard coding commands is horrible for anything but small apps. I am also not a fan of Oracle, but until a better alternative is presented I will stick with MySql because it is free, and can scale much better then these guys. Sorry Drizzle, its too muddy for my tastes.

Re:Drizzle creates mud

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because enterprises have a history of doing things a certain way, doesn't make it the right choice. Stored procedures are a ugly way of handling business logic and were obsolete before they were even introduced.

Re:Drizzle creates mud

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, the adults are trying to have a conversation, go back to your room and play with your toys.

Re:Drizzle creates mud

[Anonymous Coward]

Drizzle, although modular in nature, is primarily designed for enterprise apps, but for OLTP jobs of enormous scale. It will sit in a space where MYSQL ( with all of its missing / lacking enterprise features like materialized views and what not), is too feature heavy but Hadoop/ cassandra, ect are too light on features. It is not designed to replace oracle, DB2, or MS SQL server.

Re:Drizzle creates mud

[Anonymous Coward]

Stored fucking procedures. Keep the logic in the application code and keep the data in the database. Stored fucking procedures put the logic in the database and make about as much conceptual sense as hardcoding all of your reference data inside the application code. Good bloody luck porting to a different database when the need arises.

And if you're going to use the abomination known as triggers, provide some mechanism for them to be disabled on the fly AND log whenever they are fired.

Re:Who cares? No one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? No one.
Your title is rather ironic.

They wanted name to speak for itself

[RelliK]

... but jizzle was already taken.

Obligatory

[lymond01]

Really? Drizzle? That was the best they could do for a name of the new project?

Fo' shizzle!

Drizzle Is Gonna Be HU-UUUUGE!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was designed in Seattle where it drizzles all the time and that's why it was called drizzle. This is exactly what the world needs right now (besides free pizza for breakfast every day)... a well rethought alternative to MySQL optimized for web sites. It's even got a great license. It's gonna be HUUUUGE in five years. HUUUUGE I tell you. Really big.

Right

[black_lbi]

giving companies a viable alternative to Oracle-owned MySQL

How about a real alternative, like PostgreSQL?

What Snoop Dogg carries an umbrella for?

[Tribbin]

"Fo' drizzle"

There's cheaper than free?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Organizations that have been seeking a less-expensive alternative to Oracle's brand of MySQL"

Presumably, Drizzle give _me_ money if I download it?

MySQL

[Compaqt]

>I'm using MariaDB for a 6TB production system and it works flawlessly.

Good to hear that, one heard rumors of MySQL eating data years back, though you can't be sure if that was due to operator error, but the old MySQL attitude of "who needs atomicity" probably didn't help.

Would you care to share any pointers? I'm sure you're using a 64-bit OS. RHEL or Ubuntu/Debian?

And what about replication? For high availability/scaling or backups? Does mysqldump give you a consistent dump? (I.e, if the dump takes 15 min, and within that time a row was dropped from table A, and later associated rows from table B, the backup will contain either both the A row+friends, or neither.)

Single master/multiple master?

Datatype for primary keys?

Does it croak on ALTER TABLE?