NuSphere is adding row-level locking. They were one of the companies that invested in MySQL and allowed it to be GPLed. The press release talking about it is at: http://nusphere.com/releases/103000.htm
They say it is targeted to be available in spring 2001. It sounds like they are implementing yet another storage architecture. They say it will have transactions also. So if you want transactions you will have two table types to choose from Gemini (NuSpheres new one) and bdb that is new with 3.23. So we are seeing open source competition between different modules within an open source project. And it seems each new one is better than the last.
The big question left unanswered by this press release is what the mSQL developers intend to do that will make them competitive again. There was a time when mSQL was the most cost effective SQL database on the market because MySQL didn't yet exist and postgresql was just postgress which didn't use SQL. So the competition was between mSQL and huge full blown databases like Oracle, Sybase, Informix,... (none of which supported Linux yet) It was in this market that mSQL gained its following. For being the inexpensive underdog that had few features but also low overhead. But many things have changed since then MySQL has conquered the minimal feature but fast domain and together with postgressql the free^H^H^H^H open source databases now rule the small and medium database world. The big boys have moved in and ported to Linux and you can download most of them for free as development platforms but must pay to run them commercially. And all of these databases have had very active development over the last five years that have made this a very different market than it used to be.
But what has mSQL done? Well, with 2.0 they added keys and became a sort of stable. They also created their own web scripting language (Lite/w3-sql) which came out before PHP became popular but since the early development of PHP it has looked like a relative but a younger brother at best. All this and they have always charged $200 per license. And the last release was Aug 1999.
So this leaves me with the big question, what are they going to do to be competitive? I suppose they could be but I don't know what it would take. For starters they will need to become truely open source because there is no other way they could develop fast enough. Do they have plans that are new and revolutionary? Or do they just intend to clean up their code and expect all thier former users that have given up on them and left for greener pastures to return?
I used mSQL 2.0 before I learned about MySQL and realized that it was faster (in almost everything), more stable, more feature rich, and free for web servers. Since then MySQL has improved a lot while mSQL has only had maintenance releases to the 2.0.x tree. They have fallen very much behind it will be interesting if they just pretend that they are on par or if they catch up. Good luck to them, they have a very uphill climb ahead.
But you can't freely use it for hardly anything. Even if you want to use the definition of free software simply not costing anything you must be able to use it for free not just get the source for free.
Slashdot Mirror
NuSphere is adding row-level locking. They were one of the companies that invested in MySQL and allowed it to be GPLed. The press release talking about it is at: http://nusphere.com/releases/103000.htm
They say it is targeted to be available in spring 2001. It sounds like they are implementing yet another storage architecture. They say it will have transactions also. So if you want transactions you will have two table types to choose from Gemini (NuSpheres new one) and bdb that is new with 3.23. So we are seeing open source competition between different modules within an open source project. And it seems each new one is better than the last.
The big question left unanswered by this press release is what the mSQL developers intend to do that will make them competitive again. There was a time when mSQL was the most cost effective SQL database on the market because MySQL didn't yet exist and postgresql was just postgress which didn't use SQL. So the competition was between mSQL and huge full blown databases like Oracle, Sybase, Informix, ... (none of which supported Linux yet) It was in this market that mSQL gained its following. For being the inexpensive underdog that had few features but also low overhead. But many things have changed since then MySQL has conquered the minimal feature but fast domain and together with postgressql the free^H^H^H^H open source databases now rule the small and medium database world. The big boys have moved in and ported to Linux and you can download most of them for free as development platforms but must pay to run them commercially. And all of these databases have had very active development over the last five years that have made this a very different market than it used to be.
But what has mSQL done? Well, with 2.0 they added keys and became a sort of stable. They also created their own web scripting language (Lite/w3-sql) which came out before PHP became popular but since the early development of PHP it has looked like a relative but a younger brother at best. All this and they have always charged $200 per license. And the last release was Aug 1999.
So this leaves me with the big question, what are they going to do to be competitive? I suppose they could be but I don't know what it would take. For starters they will need to become truely open source because there is no other way they could develop fast enough. Do they have plans that are new and revolutionary? Or do they just intend to clean up their code and expect all thier former users that have given up on them and left for greener pastures to return?
I used mSQL 2.0 before I learned about MySQL and realized that it was faster (in almost everything), more stable, more feature rich, and free for web servers. Since then MySQL has improved a lot while mSQL has only had maintenance releases to the 2.0.x tree. They have fallen very much behind it will be interesting if they just pretend that they are on par or if they catch up. Good luck to them, they have a very uphill climb ahead.
But you can't freely use it for hardly anything. Even if you want to use the definition of free software simply not costing anything you must be able to use it for free not just get the source for free.