Is MySQL Slowly Turning Closed Source?

mpol writes "Sergei from MariaDB speculated on some changes within MySQL 5.5.27. It seems new testcases aren't included with MySQL any more, which leaves developers depending on it in the cold. 'Does this mean that test cases are no longer open source? Oracle did not reply to my question. But indeed, there is evidence that this guess is true. For example, this commit mail shows that new test cases, indeed, go in this "internal" directory, which is not included in the MySQL source distribution.' On a similar note, updates for the version history on Launchpad are not being updated anymore. What is Oracle's plan here? And is alienating the developer community just not seen as a problem at Oracle?"

Comments

Oracle doesn't care about developer people

[Anonymous Coward]

And is alienating the developer community just not seen as a problem at Oracle?

Pretty much exactly this.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people

[kimvette]

Anyone asking this question has obviously never dealt with Oracle.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. This has been obvious for some time (InnoDB) which is why many needing similar functionality have moved on to PostgreSQL. Of course there so many options these days, and as usual the choice depends on the application.

Oracle: ZFS, MySQL, VirtualBox, Java...

And quite frankly ZFS and Java do not integrate well with many Linux distributions. Avoid oracle or face a never ending string of hidden costs.

I know many X-Sun employees, Oracle is not earning a good reputation with the science and engineering folks. Once their brand dries up like Cisco's is, it will be all down hill from there.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Anybody asking this question is obviously not aware of the OpenOffice saga.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people

[erroneus]

That's to be expected. The people at Oracle are selling to MBA/Executives who believe the fact that they have heard the brand name and see it everywhere they go means something. It doesn't matter that it's over-priced or that their sales model is not presentative of what they actually deliver, the MBAs see value in expensive things and believe it is worth it. Meanwhile, MySQL had been gaining market share and living in areas where Oracle wants to live. So they buy the product thinking they are buying the real estate it sits on. They know at some level they aren't buying the territory but they think that by boiling the frog, they can somehow get more out of it.

While Postgres is probably the obvious choice to migrtate into, especially for new projects, I still kind of want to have an M in my LAMP. Stupid, I know, but it's true. I don't want LAPP... bad childhood memories.

Oracle demonstrated what dumbasses they are with OpenOffice. The community proved there is less value in a name than Oracle want to believe.

So go ahead, Oracle... buy more names and see what it gets you. In the end we still see everything associated with you as an extension of you and we don't actually LIKE you because of who you are, not what your name is. You'd think with a name like Oracle they would be more insightful than they are.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people

[c0lo]

While Postgres is probably the obvious choice to migrtate into, especially for new projects, I still kind of want to have an M in my LAMP. Stupid, I know, but it's true. I don't want LAPP... bad childhood memories.

Well, MariaDB is still M, is is not?

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people

[maroberts]

I don't want LAPP...

Don't projects get Finn-ished when you use LAPP?

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people

[forgot_my_nick]

>Java is free like in libre, the reference implementation is under the GPLv2: OpenJDK

Java is NOT free as in Libre. While OpenJDK is the "reference implementation" (which in Oracles terminology means "Blame the Apache Foundation") it does not and will never include the closed source goodies in Oracle Java.

In addition, Linux distros are no longer allowed to redistribute Oracle Java due to some bizarre Ellinsionian fiat. (probably they want you to use Snoracle Linux). So If you still need Oracle Java for whatever reason, you have to install it yourself. However despite Larry's best efforts, the Community (thanks!) has come through with scripts and native packages to install recent Oracle Java on any Linux distro you can think of.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people

[RichardJenkins]

Clearly they were so overwhelmed by their success with OpenOffice they want to replicate it with MySQL.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people

[M1FCJ]

At least he's not using FreeBSD, Apache, PostgreSQL and PHP...

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people

[Greyfox]

Not many bad childhood memories for that. Unless you get caught at it. "Jimmy... what have we told you about using PHP? It'll make you go blind!"

Missed title opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is MySQL Slowly Turning TheirSQL?"

Just use Postgresql

[SplashMyBandit]

Postgresql is also a Free Software multi-platform database. It was designed properly (unlike MySQL, Postgresqlwas designed with transactions in mind), has excellent internationalization support (proper 3 and 4 byte UTF, unlike MS SQL-Server with its UCS-2 or blob unicode [unless the very latest version has fixed this]).

Personally I prefer Postgresql to MySQL. While Postgresql looks more 'plain vanilla' I actually find it more straightforward to get easy things done (that is, pgadminIII doesn't look so flashy but I found it is much easier to get connected and get going than mysqlworkbench). YMMV of course, but if you are concerned about corporate control and the future of MySQL taking a look at Postgresql won't harm you - it is a nice(r) place to land if you have to.

Re:Just use Postgresql

[slack_justyb]

Additionally, postgresql implements more of SQL99 than most others out there.

"Real" BOOLEAN support, CTE using WITH (which MySQL is actually the only real enterprise DB that doesn't offer this), support for FETCH cursors, HOLD cursors, one of the best implementations of date math (maybe only DB2 does this better), blows MySQL out of the water hands down on window functions (seriously MySQL, no SQL OVER support? REALLY?!), also (I know this may seem trivial) but MySQL doesn't even implement SQL OVERLAY.

In many ways postgresql brings a LOT of modern SQL to the table that it makes MySQL seem hokey, if not downright convoluted. I cannot speak for Oracle's 11g, but I've found postgresql just as capable at doing whatever it is I need to get done as I can in DB2, MS-SQL is just it's own beast altogether. However, MySQL lacks so much functionality that you constantly have to revert to procedures to get anything done.

Now I will say to MySQL's credit, that it is one of the easiest DBs to admin for and they support a good subset of SQL2003, but it's not enough, it leaves a lot to want for. I know a lot of people have invested a lot into MySQL, but the lack of a lot of modern functions that a lot of other DBs enjoy out of the box, makes using MySQL a chore to write for. Thank goodness it's easy to scale and admin, because if it didn't have that going for it, then we'd have LAPP stacks. However, this is just another pot shot for MySQL. Slowly closing source code, no test scripts, dodgy support for some of the most useful (IMHO) features of standard SQL. I don't want to diss anyone who works on the project, they have done a mighty nice job, but there are more and more negatives building up, that the scales are starting to tip in opposition to MySQL. No disrespect, but we're at that point that people on the fence are really going to look hard at the competition.

Finally, and totally off topic. IBM YOU SUCK! Seriously, you can't make a freaking function to create a CSV list from a set of rows?! I have to cast the result set to XML and then work backwards from there? Everyone else has one! I wouldn't curse you if I wasn't forced to use your product. There, glad I got to air that out.

Re:Just use Postgresql

[innocent_white_lamb]

Perhaps you should be looking at Sqlite, which is a "a self-contained, serverless, zero-configuration, transactional SQL database engine" (as it says on their webpage).
 
You can run it interactively (or through a bash script or something) with the sqlite3 command line shell, or (most efficiently) hook it into your own programs and use it to do all kinds of clever SQL stuff directly within your program.
 
Oh yeah, it's also explicitly public domain, so you can use it for any purpose and in any application whatsoever.

Re:Just use Postgresql

[he-sk]

There are one-click installers available for Windows and OS X. On Linux, you would obviously the package management version.

You also don't have to run PostgreSQL as root at all. I develop on OS X and typically run an installation from my home directory. (I also compile my own version, but you don't have to do that.)

Re:Just use Postgresql

[fisted]

I've tried numerous times to drive a car, and every time i found it less easy than the motorcycle which i'm used to for 10 years.

Therefore, from an objective point of view it can be concluded that cars are more difficult to drive than motorcycles.

Thanks for listening, so where's my +5 Insightful like parent has?

Re:Just use Postgresql

[Anonymous Coward]

You are very right. MySQL is like PHP. That's why people shouldn't use both.

Avoid stuff where you can have bugs like this:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=31001
http://pwnhome.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/php-crypt-bug/
http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/

And watch the MySQL jokers try to fix this:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=65111
And somehow cause this:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=65745

I'm a crap programmer, but I prefer to use libraries, tools and languages that are less crap than my stuff. That way at least I spend more time dealing with my own incompetence than someone else's.

Re:Just use Postgresql

[mlwmohawk]

Not only are you wrong, you are really really wrong here.

Not only can you run PostgreSQL "out of the box" but you can run multiple instances of it with their own directory. You *never* run postgresql as root as it is not allowed.

Install or put postgresql in your path, it is really is this simple:

initdb -D /your/path/to/database
pg_ctl -D /home/markw/pgtest/data -l logfile start
createdb mydatabase
psql mydatabase

Now, you can configure your version of postgresql to be on a different port than others, you can run it as any non-privileged user. You can configure it to be occupy a pretty small resource footprint or configure it to be huge. You can put a database on almost any file system.

Anyone who says MySQL is easier is smoking crack.

Re:Just use Postgresql

[mlwmohawk]

The database really isn't that important. It only becomes important once a DBA gets their hands on it and starts implementing LOGIC at the database instead of doing the logic in the application and fast, dumb, simple queries at the database.

That is not true at all. In fact wildly wrong. A good database is the tool you use to manage your data. If your system is properly designed, it is part of your application. A good database will manage concurrency, data integrity, and more. The idea that you move this out into the application geometrically increases complexity, or more likely, is ignored at your peril.

Just a simple query:
select * from songs where name like 'love%';
Assuming you have a non-trivial amount of songs, i.e. a song web site, this query can show a poorly implemented index. Once you start getting into sub-selects and joins, a good database can do quite well, a bad database, i.e. MySQL will fall down.

People who view the database as nothing but dumb storage usually end up implementing similar features in their code. They won't be as efficient, won't be standard, will cause the data to be processed more than it needs to be, and can't be tested as well as the database's system.

A good architect will know where and when it makes sense to do something in a database verses the application. Ignoring the capabilities of a database for some idealogical purity is ridiculous.

IMHO...

[ZeroPly]

Look, by no means FORK! am I a SQL expert, but I still feel FORK! compelled to express my FORK! opinon here. Face it folks, Oracle FORK! is evil. That said, if there is some way FORK! to create a parallel version, a version FORK! not intended to pay for a yacht, I would FORK! be all for it.

Re:IMHO...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, like MariaDB, as mentioned in the summary (hint: 3rd word) ?

MariaDB

[euxneks]

MariaDB is a drop in replacement for MySQL which was forked a while ago: http://mariadb.org/

Re:Translation

[MaerD]

oracle is actually an acronym: One Rich Asshole Ceo, Larry Ellison

Re:MySQL sweet spot

[hobarrera]

MySQL is lighter than PostgreSQL.
SQLite is an embeded database; it's really a different sort of tool altogether.

Damn! I should google everything....

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, I didn't know that! I saw MariaDB and I didn't think to google to find out who or what that is supposed to be.

I guess I'm spoiled by proper editing and writing where it should have been phrased as such:

"Sergei from MariaDB, a MySQL Fork, speculated on some changes within MySQL 5.5.27."

But never mind, we should all google and research everything posted here because, not only do most folks talk out of their asses, but by missing some detail like that gives some pedant a chance to post something to make himself feel superior for knowing some esoteric and minor piece of information.

WHY is still anyone using mysql, when there is PG?

[someones]

WHY is still anyone using mysql, when there is Postgresql?

Just fork it

[jonwil]

Forking worked for Libreoffice, I dont see why it couldn't work for MySQL...

Re:Translation

[Bill Dimm]

I believe it is One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison

MySQL tombstone: G.I.F.

[epine]

Postgres support is typically volunteer-maintained by one person

This would double overnight if MySQL were declared pariah non grata, which is precisely the negotiation taking place in this kind of discussion thread.

Speaking of PNG, you do recall the Unisys GIF debacle? When MySQL dies, may its tombstone read G.I.F.