Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Ditches MySQL, Switches To MariaDB
An anonymous reader writes "Red Hat will switch the default database in its enterprise distribution, RHEL, from MySQL to MariaDB, when version 7 is released. MySQL's first employee in Australia, Arjen Lentz, said Fedora and OpenSuSE were community driven, whereas RHEL's switch to MariaDB was a corporate decision with far-reaching implications. 'I presume there is not much love lost between Red Hat and Oracle (particularly since the "Oracle Linux" stuff started) but I'm pretty sure this move won't make Oracle any happier,' said Lentz, who now runs his own consultancy, Open Query, from Queensland. 'Thus it's a serious move in political terms.' He said that in practical terms, MariaDB should now get much more of a public footprint with people (people knowing about MariaDB and it being a/the replacement for MySQL), and direct acceptance both by individual users and corporates."
I use unencrypted XML and CSV files you insensitive clod!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
We're nobody's bitch.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Seriously, is anyone out there in geek land even considering MySQL for a brand spanking new project with no history attached to MySQL? I don't know of any. It's just a matter of time now for things to swing from MySQL to MariaDB, though I think a lot of geeks will take a good look at other options like PostgreSQL before switching. Unless Oracle does something really interesting with MySQL, it's dead... seriously... no one in the year 2120 will even remember MySQL except for unfortunate geeks working for the government and large banks who will continue doing new projects with MySQL until the end of time.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
If it's really dead like Cobol, I could spend the rest of my life doing nothing but supporting stuff using it, and make a pretty good career out of it.
That's a kind of death I can live with.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
HAH. Real businesses just store everything in word docs with the timestamps in the file name.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
The main thing Oracle Linux does is run a newer kernel version than the RHEL kernel. RHEL6 for example is based on 2.6.32, while Oracle's Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel R.2 (pdf) was running 3.0.16 when they last updated things.
Grabbing the newer kernel lets Oracle win direct performance shootouts against RedHat. They can get away with it because the only applications they're testing on it is Oracle, so if the upstream kernel breaks other things they don't care. RedHat cares about all of their supported software, so they have a lot more QA issues to deal with. Note that this little trick is also how Oracle has gotten around caring that RedHat made it harder to see what individual patches they apply to the upstream kernel in their release. They aren't using that version of kernel at all, so whatever RedHat is doing to customer their 2.6.32 branch they're ignoring.
Of course, if you're willing to do this, you can easily grab a newer Linux kernel from kernel.org yourself on regular RHEL, too. The game Oracle is playing with "Unbreakable Linux" is all marketing hype.
This is a victory for Free Software as a whole. We can argue about ACID tests another day.
Congrats to the MariaDB team for making quality fork and fulfilling the dream of the GPL: that WHEN corporations try to buy/take our code we'll simply route around the damage.
Good job Gentlemen.
Nah, Postgres sucks. Doesn't even have a decent REPAIR TABLE command or support for Februaries which have more than 29 days.
MySQL filled a niche for web application development, but not very much else. The large banks are all using old-school commercial databases: Oracle, DB2, Sybase, SQL Server. Government applications prefer PostgreSQL because of its permissive license. If they want to customize the source code for a project that isn't pubic, they can do that without having to worry about GPL compliance.
Yes.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Many hosting packages have MySQL installed as default, almost all of them in fact, and web devs are unlikely to have any interest in moving. I mean what are they going to tell their clients, someone in a far away office unconnected to anything has decided that the DB system is outdated, so you have pay us to migrate your data? Oh, says the client, will it offer me any benefits or will my site stop working? Why no, says the web dev. Please.
Inertia means a lot, and MySQL has a LOT of inertia.
Sure, why not? MySQL is crap. MySQL is crap. 10 years later, MySQL is still crap. MariaDB and Percona are less crap, but still crap.
Oracle is on-par with PostgreSQL, with some drawbacks, and you can argue and haggle--personally I think Oracle is inferior, but you'll get dissenters and they *are* in the same class. MS SQL Server is inferior--it's a good product in its space, but its space is a subset space of PostgreSQL. More to the point, Oracle and MS SQL Server are both closed, proprietary pay-ware; PostgreSQL, MySQL, DB2, and SQLite are free. That means the argument is essentially PostgreSQL vs MySQL.
PostgreSQL actually functions like a real database (MySQL does a lot of crap it shouldn't), outperforms MySQL, has working replication now (FINALLY, since around 8.0-ish, a few short years back), has BETTER replication than MySQL, and is about as easy to set up (I learned it in about 30 minutes). In general it's a better product as a database. Since it has no real drawbacks besides blunt protocol compatibility (i.e. a MySQL-specific app can't talk to PostgreSQL, either because of network presentation protocol (MySQL protocol 3306) or application protocol (MySQL-specific command language)) compared to MySQL, and many advantages, it's essentially a higher-quality and thus better piece of software.
Optimally, RedHat, Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE, etc should provide the best MySQL possible--Percona, MariaDB, whatever--while providing the guideline that PostgreSQL is a better product. Because, hell, they're already endorsing by dumping MySQL instead of simply including both Percona and MariaDB. The issue is that the political chip of saying, "X is better than Y," is very volatile. We could sit here and hash out merits and come to that exact conclusion--but even then, when we're all convinced that this is FACT and not OPINION, what do you think would happen if RedHat and Ubuntu both flatly said, "Use PostgreSQL, MySQL is crap"?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You do realize that they were the ones who sold MySQL to Oracle in the first place, right ?
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
I recently upgraded to MariaDB. Took a whole of 5 minutes with just a few seconds downtime (just ~3GB of data, though); nothing changed except I occasionally see a different name in logfiles and tools.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Pretty much the only thing anybody run on it is oracle anyways. If your going to pay through the nose for support contracts you might as well have one place supporting the whole thing.to stop the finger pointing.
No sir I dont like it.
Seriously, is anyone out there in geek land even considering MySQL for a brand spanking new project with no history attached to MySQL? I don't know of any. It's just a matter of time now for things to swing from MySQL to MariaDB, though I think a lot of geeks will take a good look at other options like PostgreSQL before switching. Unless Oracle does something really interesting with MySQL, it's dead... seriously... no one in the year 2120 will even remember MySQL except for unfortunate geeks working for the government and large banks who will continue doing new projects with MySQL until the end of time.
MySQL has too big of a momentum to just disappear (and the people keeping it alive are not governments and large banks, but rather web developers).
I'm a full-time web developer and I am just starting a new project and tossing a coin between MySQL and Postgresql. The reason why I am even considering MySQL is that all my existing code and libraries are thoroughly tested with it. Even brand spanking new projects use old libraries :)
In theory, database abstraction layer should be good enough to make everything work with pgsql, but it hasn't been tested. There are other reasons too, like other developers being uncomfortable with pgsql (namely sequences vs. mysql's auto incremented primary keys) as well as the fact that all of them will have to look for new tools for the alternative. Also, Mysql replication is very well established and easy to do and system administrators are part of the equation.
We just updated all our servers to Debian Wheezy which comes stock with MySQL 5.5, which with Innodb is half-decent. From what I see, it's still actively developed and I don't see it just disappearing... Oracle may be a place where open source software goes to die, but MySQL may change the trend.
There is nothing you tell the client. You dump the DB out of mysql and load it in maria.
Not like they are switching to something not compatible.
Teaching you LAMP?
Teaching any programs is foolish, they should teach that you need an OS, a webserver, a db and a language for your site. Knowing the basics will let you easily work on many stacks.
You do realize that they were the ones who sold MySQL to Oracle in the first place, right ?
No. Open source people never sold MySQL to Oracle.
What happened is that Monty sold MySQL to Sun, with a clause that it must not be sold to Oracle.
Oracle then bought Sun.
Here's the real solution: Don't sell it to a corporation in the first place like Monty did.
MySQL had already been owned by a corporation for more than a decade before Sun bought it. That corporation was "MySQL AB", incorporated in Sweden.
It's not even that complicated for most users - simply shut down MySQL, point MariaDB to the MySQL configuration, start MariaDB, and that's it.
I'm pretty sure Oracle couldn't care less if RedHat uses MySQL or MariaDB since it doesn't benefit greatly from either. Oracle would much rather have everyone using Oracle DB since that is where they put most of their development and support efforts and that is what makes them their money. I don't think Oracle would even continue to offer MySQL support if they weren't ordered to do so under the conditions of their buyout of Sun.
Seems like MariaDB is the greatest thing after sliced bread, but, unless you are running your own server, many hosting services are still offering mySQL as the DB to use. I was going to check out MariaDB, but for now, unless I have a requirement from a client, it doesn't seem like its worth my time to use. It is still a WAMP and LAMP world out there for the most part.
I worked on one of those and man, it was hairy. In the end we pulled it off, but it was a close shave.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
A company called Computer Associates used to be where formerly successful commercial apps went to die a slow, painful death.
Now Oracle is where OSS branches goes to die a slow, painful death.
Table-ized A.I.
But if Oracle require special performance tuning which none of the other databases does, then it does suck in 90+ percent of all usecases for sql servers(That is: The usecases where there is no fulltime person hired just to tune the database).
This is very true. I work on many different projects and move from company to company setting up web applications, usually for in-house use - well, after I'm finished, I don't have time to constantly come back and re-tune the database, nor would the company want me to do that and keep paying for an application that is essentially "completed". Also, hiring a full-time database tuner would be ridiculous for all of the cases I've been involved in (monetarily crazy and otherwise). Some places using MySQL for my application is more than enough, however, when its not, I setup PostgreSQL. It only requires a little more design time on my part and the results and great.
--
Do I even need to point out that this kind of thing hurts the perception of Open Source developers and by extension Open Source software? Then again, it's about time we have a term to replace the horribly racist "Indian Giver [wikipedia.org]" term. "MySQLGiver" maybe? "Open Source Giver"?
You're right. Such an egregious abuse could never happen with closed source software. *cough*Skype*cough*
"Watch your cornhole, bud."
Open source doesn't remove the damage here, it just contains it. Look at how much effort is being wasted by people who are switching from MySQL to MariaDB now. All of that overhead is damage to an open source community that could have been working on other things with that time. If you're smart, instead you'll switch to a truly open database, one that doesn't have a company requiring copyright assignment involved at all.
MySQL was a reasonable choice back when PostgreSQL didn't have Windows support and people needed that to do development. Now there's really no good reason to put efforts into a MySQL->MariaDB change, not when there are viable free alternatives and MariaDB has the same fundamental problem that destroyed MySQL. The right answer for an open source community is to route completely past MySQL and its ugly dual-licensed code altogether, use this transition point to migrate off there altogether.
I made the switch and couldn't be happier. I haven't done an official speed comparison but it seems that MariaDB is much more responsive. That tiny little ms counter in Sequel Pro is showing much shorter times for routine tasks.
But the fulltext indexing is not available to the default table engine. That is my one complaint.
I would be curious to know what the insider thinking is at Oracle. I suspect they thought they had the free database crowd by the balls. No doubt they had all kinds of interesting long term strategies to switch companies over from MySQL to overpriced Oracle products. Now those strategies are going to fade into nothingness.
In any large organization, guaranteeing that something you do will not get distributed outside of its original domain adds a compliance cost. The idea that compliance with a license is overhead that really does cost something has already been beaten into larger organization's heads by the terms of commercial software like Microsoft's, where audits and possible violations are a real cost of doing business.
Companies familiar with open source licenses know that if they touch GPL code but keep it private, they're on the hook for continuing the comply with the related license terms. Who can say if five years from now, today's internal application will move outside its original boundaries? Having restrictive license terms paperwork that has to follow the application around forever is exactly the kind of crap governments adopting open source software are trying to get rid of.
If you just use something with a BSD or MIT license from day one, you don't even have to worry about it. All of the paperwork and license review CYA compliance audit costs are up-front.
towards the end, Steve says to Bill "Bill, our stuff is better." To which Gates replies "You just don't get it Steve" and walks away.
Better is not always better.
Postgres may be better, but it's "hard", whether because of a lack of mindshare, or because MySQL has a cuter name, or whatever reason - so people don't use it.
Because people don't use Postgres, people don't use Postgres.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Sure, why not? MySQL is crap. MySQL is crap [arstechnica.com]. 10 years later, MySQL is still crap. MariaDB and Percona are less crap, but still crap.
You must not be a sysadmin. Everything is crap, and the job is to find out what oozes least amount of crappiness for the job at hand.
In some cases, that is MySQL (or now MariaDB). Despite being crap.
Nah, Postgres sucks. Doesn't even have a decent REPAIR TABLE command or support for Februaries which have more than 29 days.
Funnily enought February 30 actually existed in specific situations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_30
What's wrong with LynxOS/AOLserver/MariaDB/Perl?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I thought IBM owned DB2?
We haven't had any problem at all replacing MySQL with MariaDB in Fedora per se.
MySQL folks wanted to keep MySQL in Fedora *too*, and we had some fun figuring out the packaging and upgrade paths such that both new-world-MySQL and MariaDB could be in Fedora with MariaDB replacing old-world-MySQL on F18->F19 upgrades, but RHEL will very easily avoid all that by simply not including new-world-MySQL (I expect).
Companies that throw submissions upstream and then fork if they're not all accepted are not very useful to me. RedHat has one set of rules about what sorts of changes they're willing to accept in a stable release, the Linux kernel developers have another. Oracle is content to fork both and make changes, with their own policy for what is and isn't acceptable. Some of the ignored submissions are due to those policy differences, others ignored because Oracle wasn't willing to work within the community development process. Oracle doesn't considering aligning its work with other development communities to be as important as pushing them out in their own version; they'd rather brag about how they have the better answer.
In general I frown on projects that fork healthy code rather than working out how to integrate their changes into the upstream development model. No one company can develop code so great that it's worth abandoning the mainstream Linux kernel development for them, but Oracle believes they are such a company. I'm not impressed; I'll take every kernel developer in the world that worries about upstream integration instead.
When you get to the point that Oracle requires 'special tuning', you're so far beyond what MySQL is useful for its not even funny.
When you start 'tuning' Oracle, MySQL isnt an option because you're tuning features MySQL doesn't have.
You also can afford a full time Oracle DB or 20 because we're not talking about a tiny ass db used for your one sale a week shopping cart and mediawiki clone.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Uhm, my copy doesn't have 'db2' in it. Never has to my knowledge. I know db2 doesn't run on half the platforms postfix supports.
Postfix does use berkley db, perhaps you think just because it has db in its name that its the same?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager