Fedora 19 Nixing MySQL in Favor of MariaDB

See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. by phaunt · 2013-01-22 01:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

Here is a comparison of MariaDB vs MySQL.
Probably most important to Fedora is this:

Truly Open Source

All code in MariaDB is released under GPL, LPGL or BSD. MariaDB does not have closed source modules like the one you can find in MySQL enterprise edition. In fact, all the closed source features in MySQL 5.5 enterprise edition are found in the MariaDB open source version.
MariaDB includes test cases for all fixed bugs. Oracle doesn't provide test cases for new bugs fixed in MySQL 5.5.
All bugs and development plans are public.
MariaDB is developed by the community in true open source spirit.

Wikipedia, too, is moving from MySQL to MariaDB.

Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. by David+Gerard · 2013-01-22 02:57 · Score: 4, Informative

Debian is planning to do the same (the thread containing approval from relevant people at Ubuntu too), for much the same reasons.

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. by cshark · 2013-01-22 04:10 · Score: 2

Two things that amaze me about this
1. That Debian isn't the first to do it. They're usually on top of this.
2. That it's taken this long to happen. We knew something like this would happen in the Linux community when Oracle took over MySQL. And there were some promising forking efforts that started immediately. Then, silance... for years. Now it's happening all at once, which is good.
Does anyone know if Maria is a MySQL fork? Or if it's totally new code? My cursory scan of the website hasn't revealed anything to this end.

--
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. by logjon · 2013-01-22 04:24 · Score: 1

Does anyone know if Maria is a MySQL fork?
Signs point to "yes."

--
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. by eric_herm · 2013-01-22 04:51 · Score: 1

On top on innovation ? Not really. Debian has become too big to innovate fast, and Debian is a little bit too often in freeze ( like 20% of time ) due to release pressure.
Mageia did it last year, so of course, this is doable, but for something of the size of debian, moving from mysql to mariadb is not easy to do, as you have dependency all over the archive.
Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. by hairyfeet · 2013-01-22 07:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ya know, you gotta give the little twerp that sold MySQL credit, he not only gets a big fat check but he then forks what he sold and gets all his customers back! Smart as hell, I'll give him that, as nowhere else but FOSS could you sell something and keep it at the exact same time

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. by hublan · 2013-01-23 01:03 · Score: 2

Um. He sold it to Sun. It wasn't until Sun got sold to Oracle -- a move which he fought against -- that the fork happened.

--
My spoon is too big.
Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. by hairyfeet · 2013-01-23 07:43 · Score: 1

And that right there shows the weird relationship that FOSS has compared to proprietary software and you can see why some companies wouldn't want to go anywhere near FOSS. I mean show me ANY other tech where you can continue to dictate what happens to something you had sold? To use a /. car analogy this would be like you selling a van and then telling the new owners who they can and can't give rides to.
But like I said give the little twerp credit, when the company that paid him good money for his software wouldn't kiss his behind he took it back WHILE keeping all the money. How many can actually say they have been able to have their cake and eat it too?

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Postgresql by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 01:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just use it.

Re:Postgresql by GloomE · 2013-01-22 01:12 · Score: 1

At the risk of drunken understating...
+1
Re:Postgresql by egr · 2013-01-22 01:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Off-topic. Fedora already has PostgreSQL in its repositories. The point of the move is to replace MySQL, not to have some killer database.
Re:Postgresql by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 01:27 · Score: 1

Well obviously. But they need a MySQL compatible DB in the repos for software that inconsiderately uses MySQL instead of Postgres.
Re:Postgresql by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 01:46 · Score: 1

You can't build a LAMP stack with PostgreSQL! The closest you can get is LAPP, but nobody wants a LAPP stack - it sounds like something Spaghatta Nadle would use for makeup.
Re:Postgresql by petermgreen · 2013-01-22 01:46 · Score: 4, Informative

Unfortunately it's not that simple.
For example I have an application that uses a case insensitive collation. Afaict postgresql does not support this. There are ways to implement the same functionality (create an index on the uppercased version of the columns value) but it would mean changing every query that hits the columns in question.
For new stuff I will definately be choosing postgresql over mysql though.
P.S. does anyone know of a tool that can be used to design postgresql database schemas and export create/update scripts? (like mysql workbench does for mysql)

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Postgresql by vlm · 2013-01-22 01:59 · Score: 2

P.S. does anyone know of a tool that can be used to design postgresql database schemas and export create/update scripts? (like mysql workbench does for mysql)
Could it be as simple as keep using mysql workbench (which I've never used) and pipe it thru SQLfairy aka SQL::Translator (a sourceforge project) to convert from mysql to postgresql?
I have a simple automated system that mysqldumps all my schema, then shoves them thru sqlfairy to convert to DOT (you'd be converting to postgresql, which I know sqlfairy claims to be able to do), then shoves the DOTs thru graphviz to convert to png diagrams, then creates a simple webpage to link to each db diagram. Easy and fast and fun and automatic. Also pretty boring unless you properly define your foreign keys.
Over the decades I've found its rather hard to machine translate, expect plenty of hand editing fine tuning unless its truly a miracle product and the format specs on both sides are incredibly well defined, or are very simple..

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Postgresql by Thundersnatch · 2013-01-22 02:01 · Score: 1

The closest thing to case-insensitive collation is the citext data type. It works basically transparently as a case-insensitive replacement for varchar and text.
The major feature keeping $dayjob from using PostgreSQL over MSSQL in new development is the lack of an accent-insensitive collation. Making an index using a custom function marked IMMUTABLE that calls (lower(unaccent(text)), and then calling the same function in nearly every query, is simply too hackish to stomach.
Re:Postgresql by h4rr4r · 2013-01-22 02:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

Sounds like you need to fix your application.
Re:Postgresql by wisty · 2013-01-22 02:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

By design, Postgresql is simply not as good a key-value store as MySQL / MariaDB. Innodb stores the data along with the primary index (technically cluster index), so it's fast to look up data by the primary key. Postgres is a better database, though.
Re:Postgresql by RabidReindeer · 2013-01-22 03:01 · Score: 1

You can't build a LAMP stack with PostgreSQL! The closest you can get is LAPP, but nobody wants a LAPP stack - it sounds like something Spaghatta Nadle would use for makeup.
Got something against reindeer?
Re:Postgresql by bad-badtz-maru · 2013-01-22 03:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Set your LC_COLLATE environmental variable on the PG server (and any client machines). PG probably isn't finding a setting, so it's defaulting to "C". If you switch it to something like en_US, collation will be case-insensitive. You may have to reindex after making the change.
Re:Postgresql by DrXym · 2013-01-22 04:37 · Score: 1

Not much use for complex projects expecting something as straightforward a migration path away from MySQL as possible.
Re:Postgresql by nuonguy · 2013-01-22 04:38 · Score: 1

Have you heard of pgmodeler?

PostgreSQL Database Modeler, or simply, pgModeler is an open source tool for modeling databases that merges the classical concepts of entity-relationship diagrams with specific features that only PostgreSQL implements. The pgModeler translates the models created by the user to SQL code and apply them onto database clusters from version 8.0 to 9.1. **
Re:Postgresql by cshark · 2013-01-22 05:54 · Score: 1

Why not just migrate to one of the newer, cooler, noSQL databases? Some of them are maturing quite well.

--
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Re:Postgresql by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 06:15 · Score: 1

I don't use databases. I use programs.
The programs use databases. I give the programs what they ask for.
Re:Postgresql by petsounds · 2013-01-22 07:03 · Score: 1

Postgres has a case-insensitive data type extension available called citext.
Re:Postgresql by rtaylor · 2013-01-22 08:23 · Score: 1

Hmm. You can specity a COLLATION to use on each column (or index I believe) but you would need to find or make a collation which does what you want and call it "en_SIMPLE" or something.
CREATE TABLE test1 (
a text COLLATE "en_SIMPLE"
b text -- Default collation
);
You can even define it on the fly in the Selects if preferred
SELECT * FROM test1 ORDER BY a COLLATE "en_SIMPLE";
SELECT * FROM test1 ORDER BY a COLLATE "en_US";
The question is, how do you create a new collation.

--
Rod Taylor
Re:Postgresql by doom · 2013-01-22 10:59 · Score: 1

Postgresql 9.2 shipped with covering indexes. Postgres also has the "hstore" feature, which might-or-might-not be a good key-value store solution, depending on exactly what you're doing.
Re:Postgresql by jjohnson · 2013-01-22 12:18 · Score: 1

Because NoSQL isn't an alternative to an RDBMS except where an RDBMS is a bad choice in the first place. They're complementary technologies, doing well what the other doesn't. If you're appropriately set up with MySQL (or Postgres, or Oracle), then any NoSQL solution will be a bad move no matter how mature.

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Re:Postgresql by bad-badtz-maru · 2013-01-23 02:43 · Score: 1

Yeah, I was wondering about that, wasn't sure if reindexing would be sufficient.
Re:Postgresql by True+ChAoS · 2013-01-24 04:21 · Score: 1

Take a look at NaviCat. They have versions that cover all of the major DB's including PostGres, it previews all code changes to a script window, will export scripts and has a free version.

--
WARNING: May contain traces of nut
Re:Postgresql by jpkunst · 2013-01-26 21:02 · Score: 1

You know what? These "just use Postgresql" posts in every MySQL-related story are about as interesting as GNAA or goatse. The mere mention of Postgresql is making me sick at this point. Is that the goal here? Are these posts actually part of an anti-Postgresql astroturfing campaign?
Re:Postgresql by scorp1us · 2013-02-05 03:47 · Score: 1

The goal is to educate people that there is a Real FREE and Open database out there. Postgres is on par with oracle in terms of features.
MySQL has never been free, though there was a open source exemption.
What happened was PHP hit the web and people needed a database MySQL was "free-ish" and easy to install, so people started using it. PostgreSQL was, well, the installation file had a TOC. It was overkill for a lot of the hobby sites. MySQL continued to grow with the help of their "open source exclusion" in the the license. That exclusion is now gone - commercial sites should be buying licenses.
Meanwhile MySQL was fast, but sub-par. They eventually added all the ACID features, and when they did the speed went away and you got something that performed like how PostgreSQL had been performing all along. Not to mention that PostgreSQL is more standards compliant.
I could go on but you get the point, though I suspect you don't care. The people who keep mentioning PostgreSQL do care, and they know that it is is flat out better than MySQL, and truly open and free.

--
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.

We've begun the move away from MySQL also by C_Kode · 2013-01-22 01:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

We've begun to move away from MySQL offical release also. Although we went with Percona rather than MariaDB.

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 01:58 · Score: 5, Informative

They are fairly comparable in features and performance in most cases while both are arguably superior to MySQL. MariaDB uses code from Percona (XtraDB) and tends to be more bleeding edge while Percona is more conservative and stable. MariaDB is a community effort whereas Percona is an actual company who you can call (pay) for support if needed (they will support any flavor of MySQL but Percona is obviously their area of expertise).They are both good products in their own way and give back a lot to the community. .02
Feature/Perfornace Comparisons:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12671634/mariadb-vs-drizzle-vs-percona-sever-vs-mysql
http://vbtechsupport.com/657/
http://vbtechsupport.com/606/
Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also by webmistressrachel · 2013-01-22 02:17 · Score: 1

"Submitted by someone who lost data with some of the earlier MariaDB releases." - AC
Submitted by a Percona shill, perhaps? Nobody praises consultants except consultants, and people who work for consultants. Who's to say it performs more reliably than the other fork?

--
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also by drinkypoo · 2013-01-22 02:53 · Score: 1

ve begun the move away from MySQL also (Score:3, Insightful)
by C_Kode (102755) Alter Relationship on 01-22-13 5:10 (#42655885) Journal
We've begun to move away from MySQL offical release also
Who are you? Why do I care what C_Kode on slashdot does? I think you left out an important article, like the value of "we".

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also by drinkypoo · 2013-01-22 03:29 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if I like you or not. Say something funny or quizzical.
What's that supposed to mean? Don't call me, I'll call you.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also by NotBorg · 2013-01-22 05:43 · Score: 1

Because everyone cares what "drinkypoo" has to say.

--
I want this account deleted.
Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also by fatphil · 2013-01-22 06:00 · Score: 1

His sig says "Internet Python Users Group (iPyUG.com)", which looks like a pretty standard BB that doesn't like my choice of browser (well, my lack of javascript), and not a heavy user of databases. So I'm still not really bursting with confidence that his recommendation is a good one.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also by webmistressrachel · 2013-01-22 07:48 · Score: 1

Complete rubbish, if this were an argument about the morales in the record industry, you'd take the opposite tack. MySQL AB is the struggling artist, now out in the street. Oracle is the evil company making most of the money from repeat sales of struggling artist's music, already recorded. Percona is the DJ / Promotor type remixes the music, legally, and adds hip street cred (read marketing).
The truth is, OSS is supposed to be about removing the capital barrier, and giving the struggling an artist a reward for it's work. So this whole squabble over MySQL is missing the point - and the only people doing the right thing in all of this are the Maria team. I hope they succeed where MySQL AB failed.

--
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also by dstyle5 · 2013-01-22 08:03 · Score: 1

Especially poo drinkers.
Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also by drinkypoo · 2013-01-22 11:30 · Score: 1

Because everyone cares what "drinkypoo" has to say.
Apparently many do, but even if they don't (or didn't) it would still be a valid question.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Yes. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 01:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

The point of the move is to replace MySQL, not to have some killer database.

And for those of us who are tied to MySQL, it's nice to have an alternative now without the hassle of moving to a completely different DBM.

Migrating by mwvdlee · 2013-01-22 01:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

How easy is it to migrate from MySQL to MariaDB?
Is it truely drop-in replacement as in "you can develop to MySQL, then run MariaDB in production without worrying"?
Does it require converting current tables? Will it take a 10GB database all day to convert or will MariaDB just use the raw MySQL data files automagically?

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?

Re:Migrating by hholzgra · 2013-01-22 01:58 · Score: 5, Informative

> Is it truely drop-in replacement as in "you can develop to MySQL, then run MariaDB in production without worrying"?
yes, unless you use some of the non-GPL extra features like e.g. authentication plugins or pool-of-threads. For these MariaDB has GPL replacements but the implementation and configuration may differ ...
> Does it require converting current tables?
Data format of MyISAM and InnoDB tables is the same, so "no" in general. mysql system database may differ a bit, but nothing the mysql_upgrade tool can't fix, and you'll have the same issues when develop against an older MySQL version and deploying to a newer one ...
> Will it take a 10GB database all day to convert or will MariaDB just use the raw MySQL data files automagically?
It will use existing raw files just fine. mysql_upgrade may take a few minutes max., but not all day ... (unless you're migrating from an older MySQL version and mysql_upgrade needs to recreate some indexes ... but that would happen when upgrading to a more current MySQL release, too, and wouldn't be MariaDB specific
The only point where it isn't a simple "try and revert if you don't like it" drop in replacement is if mysql_upgrade changed mysql.* system tables and you want to roll back to regular MySQL ... but then again this is also the case when trying to upgrade to a more recent MySQL release and then deciding to roll back to a previous older one again ... so you should always have a backup to restore the original system tables from ... but you'd do a full backup before any version migrations anyway, wouldn't you?
Re:Migrating by TheBlackMan · 2013-01-22 01:58 · Score: 5, Informative

I have recently migrated 2 of my servers from MySQL to MariaDB with about 1,5mil unique users. The only problems i had were some configuration (my.cnf) changes. Except that, none at all.
Re:Migrating by deKernel · 2013-01-22 02:15 · Score: 2

Uhm these are all very good questions, but here is a suggestion: verify this for yourself!
Re:Migrating by bcrowell · 2013-01-22 05:08 · Score: 1

Here's what worked for me on debian. See https://kb.askmonty.org/en/how-can-i-upgrade-from-mysql-to-mariadb/

mysql --version # I'm running 5.0, am supposed to upgrade to mysql 5.2 or later to run mariadb 5.2 mysql_upgrade -p # upgrades me to 5.1, no 5.2 available; will just try installing mariadb 5.2 and see if it works mysqldump -u root -p --all-databases > whole_database.sql # shouldn't be needed, but just in case mysqladmin -u root -p shutdown apt-get remove mysql-server

Now install MariaDB.
https://kb.askmonty.org/en/installing-mariadb-deb-files/

apt-key adv --recv-keys --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com 0xcbcb082a1bb943db cat /etc/issue # tells me I'm running debian 6.0, which is squeeze, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian#Release_history # use this web ui to generate text to put in sources.list # https://downloads.mariadb.org/mariadb/repositories/ cat >/etc/apt/sources.list.d/MariaDB.list # ...cut and paste into this newly created file apt-get update apt-get install mariadb-server mysql -u root -p # still called mysql for compatibility, but it comes up and identifies itself as mariadb show databases; # all still there, no need to restore from backup

The mysql binary, etc., are all still named the same thing for compatibility, so, e.g., there's no need to change the cron jobs that back up my database.

--
Find free books.

Ha Ha by EETech1 · 2013-01-22 01:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

That is one thing I always loved about Open Source Software, you can't hold it hostage. If something happens to threaten the project, its fork you, and bye bye!

The users and developers take what was there (and theirs) pack up and resume life a usual somewhere else, and give the finger to all the Larrys that come along and try to (ab)use them as part of their own personal plot.

If you take care of them they will stay, and you might even see your user and developer base grow, but try and take advantage of them and you will soon be left with nothing. They take the short term pain of starting over instead of the long term pain of taking orders from someone who does not have their best interests in mind.

Cheers!

Re:Ha Ha by Kardos · 2013-01-22 02:17 · Score: 2

The lesson here is: Don't let Oracle touch anything open source, or you're going to be forking in a year or two
Re:Ha Ha by cheesybagel · 2013-01-22 03:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem with Oracle is they always do it like this. First they acquire a major competitor in a major cash transaction then they milk it for a couple of years firing most of the development team and selling licenses while they can. Then they cease support altogether. They are not interested in further developing anything they acquire. It is all slash and burn. Their main expertise was never development it is sales and support.

Update: 01/22 14:01 GMT by LarryEllison: by LulzAndOrder · 2013-01-22 02:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Larry Ellison responded with the comment, "you are all spelling it wrong, I renamed it MY sql some time ago."

Re:Too bad SQL is not like W3C standards by Billly+Gates · 2013-01-22 02:40 · Score: 2

Every vendor wants their own proprietary extenstions, and even fight each other on who gets the most proprietary lockin, apis, and extensions on top of their own SQL to maximize pain leaving their shit ecosystem. ADO.NET, ODBC, and other things where you can't just use sql, but another vendor $$$ framework that locks you in further and add dozens of lines of ugly code and before you add another proprietary layer of Vendor X SQL inside it.

Then gee you can't leave it. Larry grins and then raises the cost knowing you are hostage etc (dramatization here).

HTML and CSS was that way in the 1990s as well. We bash IE 6 here but Netscape didn't follow standards either. Today that is fixed.Why can't we do that with data access?

What will it take for all of them to work together like ansi ascii text, C++, or HTML?

I admit Oracle and SQL Server will be a bitch to get rid of in the enterprise due to these sneaky moves, but slowly change will come when PostgresSQL, MariaDB, and others who want to play nice come up with one standard, one way to do things, and get oustracized here on slashdot as crap if they do not follow the spec? This is 2013 and these proprietary games are oldschool before the internet when corps were in a pissing match on who could make the most crappiest proprietary system out there so customers could never leave... cough unix.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Database? As part of an operating system? by sunderland56 · 2013-01-22 02:46 · Score: 2

Why is *any* database a part of an OS? This isn't required functionality. It isn't even day-to-day useful as a browser, or a word processor.

After installing the base OS, a distro can offer to optionally install packages - such as a database - but I don't see why that choice should be limited to just one example. Make both MySQL and MariaDB available, and any others you want.

Re:Database? As part of an operating system? by drinkypoo · 2013-01-22 02:55 · Score: 1

Why is *any* database a part of an OS? This isn't required functionality. It isn't even day-to-day useful as a browser, or a word processor.
If their components use it, it's part of the OS. If their components don't use it, it's not part of the OS just because you say it is; it's simply bundled with the OS. If they use it then they need it and your objection is invalid. If they don't use it, then it's not part of the OS and your objection is invalid. Either way...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Database? As part of an operating system? by nine-times · 2013-01-22 03:32 · Score: 2

Well I'm sure part of the issue here isn't whether it's technically "part of the OS", but rather a question of the repositories. Since Linux distros these days generally include a package manager linked to a set of official/supported repositories, anything in those repositories becomes, in a sense, part of the operating system that they're distributing.
Fedora has to decide what they'll include in their repositories, what they'll treat as "supported", and what they'll list as "deprecated". Sure, you can go along afterwards and install all kinds of other things from source, but most people will use the repositories if they can, so what Fedora decides to include is an important issue.
Re:Database? As part of an operating system? by squiggleslash · 2013-01-22 04:07 · Score: 1

On a server a browser or wordprocessor is close to useless. Also, on the web browser front, have you investigated what's in a modern browser these days?
Meanwhile on both end-user and server platforms, a well designed, well integrated, DBMS is an extremely useful component to have for, well, storing data. Not that anyone would argue that of MySQL, but it says a lot that, for example, SQLite is part of Android.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Database? As part of an operating system? by fatphil · 2013-01-22 06:15 · Score: 1

Is is understandable that an OS would come with a package management system.
It is understandable that package management systems could have a DB backend.
=> It's understandable that a database might be part of the OS.

Even if it's not noticeably so (i.e. not a standalone package) then there's almost certainly an ad-hoc one hiding in a statically linked library anyway. Which is the less preferable option, IMHO, there's really no need to roll-your-own DBMS any more.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863

slashdotted? by luis_a_espinal · 2013-01-22 03:11 · Score: 2

Tehe, mariadb.org no workie.

Not necessarily by kc9fyx · 2013-01-22 03:17 · Score: 1

Bad reporting by Phoronix here. The feature has been proposed, but it has not yet been voted on by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo). It may or may not be approved for Fedora 19. I don't want to speak for Jaroslav Reznik, but he doesn't necessarily support the proposal. As the Fedora Program Manager, it's part of his job to post these proposed features to the mailing list for discussion prior to the FESCo vote.

Re:Not necessarily by fatphil · 2013-01-22 07:55 · Score: 1

> Bad reporting by Phoronix

-1 redundant (but the rest of your post is +1 insightful, don't worry) ;-)

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863

Who trusts Monty Widenius? by jjohnson · 2013-01-22 03:30 · Score: 2

MariaDB is Monty Widenius' fork after leaving Oracle. MySQL is in Oracle's hands in the first place because Widenius sold MySQL to Sun. The man responsible for MySQL is also responsible for the fragmentation of the community into a bunch of forks with growing incompatibility problems.

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.

Re:Who trusts Monty Widenius? by icsx · 2013-01-22 04:16 · Score: 1

The things were different back then before the sell. While MySQL was sold, the deal turnet more crap and the original developers and owners left Oracle for this reason.

Remember that MySQL was sold to SUN, not to Oracle so he had possibly no idea or no power to stop SUN being acquired by Oracle.
Re:Who trusts Monty Widenius? by jjohnson · 2013-01-22 04:59 · Score: 1

If you sell to one tech company, you're buying into subsequent sales of that tech company. Acquisitions happen all the time--Oracle buying Sun surprised no one, and Widenius didn't give a shit because he got a big payout. Now he wants to repeat it.

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Re:Who trusts Monty Widenius? by jjohnson · 2013-01-22 05:02 · Score: 2

Besides MySQL, MariaDB and Percona, there's Dribble that's actually a viable fork. One's official, one's competing by the original founder, one's got all the experts at clustering, and one's just kind of there as well. So now, instead of one weak-ass database, you have four that are mostly the same but not identical, which will bite you in the ass at some unspecified point in the future.
Back when it was just MySQL, it was a reasonable choice because it had known strengths and weaknesses. Now you've got shitty fragmentation. If you're starting a new project, which fork do you go with?
Easy answer: Postgres.

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.

Re:Percona by geminidomino · 2013-01-22 03:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

So the developers of MariaDB took all their experience and knowledge that they obtained at Oracle while working on MySQL and created a direct competitor product to their prior company's product?

Yep, and he was SUCH a sneaky, underhanded shit that he left the company a whole YEAR before Oracle even knew they had it.

Derp.

Re:Percona by alexgieg · 2013-01-22 03:40 · Score: 2

So the developers of MariaDB took all their experience and knowledge that they obtained at Oracle while working on MySQL

No. Oracle purchased bits and pieces of technologies used by MySQL (the product), while MySQL (the company) was purchased by Sun. Then Sun itself was purchased by Oracle, which ended up owning both those previous pieces as well as the core of MySQL. In any case, none, or very little, of the technologies that go into MySQL were developed by or at Oracle. And even if something was, since MySQL, being GPL, comes with full blown, official patent licenses to all employed technologies to anyone who downloads, uses, changes or redistributes it (when one selects to GPL-license something, one also selects to license all patents one owns that go into that something), it'd be free for the use no matter what. So, they're in the clear. Those guys left Oracle to continue working on what they were doing before even joining Oracle in the first place. Nothing, absolutely nothing, requires them to stay with Oracle, or play in Oracle's interests. And Oracle itself is fine with it. Because they explicitly said so in the GPL license. Which they could have changed if they so wished, but didn't.

--
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.

Re:Percona by cheesybagel · 2013-01-22 03:50 · Score: 1

MySQL was created by an European company called MySQL AB. It was later acquired by Oracle where development has mostly languished. The MySQL AB founder decided to found MariaDB by forking MySQL. Underhanded my ass. Did you read what Oracle did with InnoDB? They undermined MySQL to the point where they felt they had to sell more like it.

Re:Percona by cheesybagel · 2013-01-22 03:51 · Score: 1

Oh and MySQL is GPLed software so anyone can fork it if they want to.

Don't do it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 03:57 · Score: 1

I use mariadb in a production situation and actually regret the move from mysql. Mariadb is cool or at least as "cool" as any mysql variant can be (bias: I'm from a postgresql background and tend to choose that for any personal project). But it has some stability problems that I didn't have with mysql. I know how to crash any mariadb server (though it'll just restart) with a handful of queries (provided I have table creation rights), and yes, I filed a bug report. Over 6 months ago. (I also have some situations where maria fucks up (and mysql didn't) but it involves some data that I was never able to distill down to a small recreatable test case.) Mariadb is "over-optimized." Don't use it.

Re:Too bad SQL is not like W3C standards by NJRoadfan · 2013-01-22 04:21 · Score: 1

I wrote a .NET application back in 2004 that used ADO.NET to interface with a MySQL database. It was quite painful to code compared to just using MS SQL. Once I got the connector working (it wasn't a mature product at the time), the final application worked pretty well.

Debian, MySQL, and Oracle by doom · 2013-01-22 06:51 · Score: 1

On top on innovation ? Not really. Debian has become too big to innovate fast, and Debian is a little bit too often in freeze ( like 20% of time ) due to release pressure.

And really, Debian's big selling point is their "stable" branch. They're famous for being slower to change things than other distros (which increasingly seems like a big advantage to me, in a world where everyone thinks they have a right to broadcast UI changes to you at the designer's whim).

Anyway, while the threat from Oracle taking over MySQL has always been obvious, I don't think the other shoe has ever really dropped, has it? A situation to keep an eye on, but not necessarily any need to act quickly.

Re:Too bad SQL is not like W3C standards by Rich0 · 2013-01-22 07:04 · Score: 1

Part of the problem is that ANSI SQL is fairly unfeatured. That's why everybody adds to it.

ANSI SQL really needs some official extensions so that much of the proprietary nonsense can go away.

Re:Percona by Xphile101361 · 2013-01-22 07:19 · Score: 1

So the developers of MariaDB took all their experience and knowledge that they obtained at Oracle while working on MySQL and created a direct competitor product to their prior company's product? I don't care why they did it, it's underhanded and doesn't speak well to the character of those people.

Yes they did. Just like game developers who go to a different studio and create competing games, a doctor who goes to a different hospital to treat patients, or a truck driver who goes to a different trucking company. All of these people changed jobs and are in direct competition with their previous employers. I find their character to be of a much better quality than yours.

nice move by nixofortune · 2013-01-22 11:39 · Score: 1

Nice move. I find MariaDB better than MySQL in any way. Small things like statistics, user prompt makes it more user friendly. Performance is better. With big data set you don't need benchmark, you can see it. Replacement of MyISAM with crash safe Aria engine, for those who think MyISAM is quicker. nicely optimized Percona-XtraDB replacement of InnoDB engine. Build in Sphinx. better replication performance. some extra information in the binary and slow logs. Plenty of new features coming in next MariaDB 10 release like multi-source replication and full text search in InnoDB engine. When I joined our company, the first thing I did replaced all MySQL 5.0 - 5.1 databases with MariaDB 5.5. The process of migrating is painless. few things to remember: pay attention to my.cnf file. better use MariaDB template and put what ever needs in it. move origial my.cnf out of the way. The same about mysql.d config folders.

I think this will be good by apexwm · 2013-01-24 03:11 · Score: 1

I think this will be a good thing. This is for similar reasons that Fedora also chose LibreOffice over OpenOffice. Fedora continues to be an open distribution and I trust their judgement on which products they choose to include with the distribution.

Slashdot Mirror

Fedora 19 Nixing MySQL in Favor of MariaDB

76 of 116 comments (clear)