Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Jan 2010 22:41 UTC
Databases A petition launched in December by MySQL creator Michael 'Monty' Widenius to 'save' the open-source database from Oracle has quickly gained momentum, collecting nearly 17,000 signatures. Widenius on Monday submitted an initial batch of 14,174 signatures to the European Commission, which is conducting an antitrust review of Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems, MySQL's current owner. The petition calls for authorities to block the merger unless Oracle agrees to one of three "solutions", including spinning off MySQL to a third party and releasing all past versions and subsequent editions for the next three years under the Apache 2.0 open-source license.
Order by: Score:
Meh
by Beket_ on Mon 4th Jan 2010 22:57 UTC
Beket_
Member since:
2009-07-10

Monty is an hypocrite. He is pushing his own personal agenda.

Cheers

Reply Score: 6

RE: Meh
by jacquouille on Tue 5th Jan 2010 16:19 UTC in reply to "Meh"
jacquouille Member since:
2006-01-02

He might or might not be: that is hardly relevant. Regardless, it would be very strange to let Oracle acquire MySql. What are market regulation laws for?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Meh
by nt_jerkface on Tue 5th Jan 2010 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Meh"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

What are market regulation laws for?


To ensure competition, for which there is plenty in the database market.

They don't exist to make sure your favorite open source project is adequately funded and developed in a manner that you find fitting.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Meh
by Beket_ on Tue 5th Jan 2010 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Meh"
Beket_ Member since:
2009-07-10

He is and it's relevant.

Having a charlatan lead your legal crusade buys you zero credibility, from both sides' perspective.

And anyway,

1. we've seen where he brought MySQL with his actions. Let us see how Oracle will do.

2. there are official EU organs that are investigating this matter. Monty is not above law nor he will dictate how professionals will do their job.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Mon 4th Jan 2010 22:57 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Drama: The sure-fire way to kill an open-source project.

Reply Score: 5

waste of time and money
by maaxx on Tue 5th Jan 2010 00:14 UTC
maaxx
Member since:
2007-11-06

This is a waste of time and money from EU.
I'm really looking forward to everybody panicking and moving to PostgreSQL and FirebirdSQL.

Reply Score: 4

RE: waste of time and money
by 0brad0 on Tue 5th Jan 2010 01:37 UTC in reply to "waste of time and money"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

This is a waste of time and money from EU.
I'm really looking forward to everybody panicking and moving to PostgreSQL and FirebirdSQL.


I'll consider it when Postgres has as good 3rd party software support. I've come across too many applications that have no Postgres support, broken support or considerably inferior support.

The application dictates the db used, not the other way around.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: waste of time and money
by jessta on Tue 5th Jan 2010 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE: waste of time and money"
jessta Member since:
2005-08-17


The application dictates the db used, not the other way around.


That sentence show exactly what is wrong with the software industry. If your application needs to store data, it really shouldn't care how it's stored.

Reply Score: 4

computeruser Member since:
2009-07-21

If your application needs to store data, it really shouldn't care how it's stored.

I used to hear this argument a lot back when MySQL had much less features than it does today, and it was wrong back then.
Most relational database systems are much more than simple data stores. And applications should care about how data is stored if they want efficient performance from a relational database.

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Most relational database systems are much more than simple data stores. And applications should care about how data is stored if they want efficient performance from a relational database.


I disagree. *Many* of them are more, *most* of them are just a place to store, query, and backup data, for which an RDBMS of any kind is overkill. Hence the whole NoSQL movement.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: waste of time and money
by rycamor on Tue 5th Jan 2010 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: waste of time and money"
rycamor Member since:
2005-07-18

"Most relational database systems are much more than simple data stores. And applications should care about how data is stored if they want efficient performance from a relational database.


I disagree. *Many* of them are more, *most* of them are just a place to store, query, and backup data, for which an RDBMS of any kind is overkill. Hence the whole NoSQL movement.
"

MySQL has historically deviated from the standards so much that it is really hard to move from it. Curiously, moving from SQLite to PostgreSQL or Oracle is easier than moving from MySQL to either one. I think MySQL made their deficiencies into 'feature', in classic Microsoft style, and got lots of clueless PHP (and Java) programmers locked in to MySQL.

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

A lot of people say this, but I don't buy it. There isn't a major RDBMS out there that doesn't have proprietary extensions, simply because there are massive holes in the spec. For example, there are no stored procs in the spec, sprocs tend to be fairly critical, so as soon as you use one, you are locked in to that vendors implementation.

What is great about MySQL is how simple, fast, and reliable it is. The reason it is simple fast and reliable is because it doesn't do many of the things that other databases do. The reason it is so popular is because most people just need a place to persist data that can be backed up easily, and don't really care about ACID properties that are the real selling point of using an RDBMS in the first place.

Reply Score: 2

computeruser Member since:
2009-07-21

There isn't a major RDBMS out there that doesn't have proprietary extensions, simply because there are massive holes in the spec.

And yet MySQL is one of the least standards compliant databases.

For example, there are no stored procs in the spec, sprocs tend to be fairly critical, so as soon as you use one, you are locked in to that vendors implementation

If stored procedures are so critical, how did MySQL become so popular when it didn't have them until version 5.0?

What is great about MySQL is how simple, fast, and reliable it is.

Simple: definitely not. There are way too many gotchas, and the various storage engines have their own.
Fast: with MyISAM, perhaps. But then you don't get transactions. Hardly simple.
Reliable: definitely not with the non-ACIDic MyISAM.

"simple, fast, and reliable" might be true for H2 (Java embedded database) or perhaps SQLite, for the small subset of typical RDBMS functionality it has.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: waste of time and money
by Soulbender on Wed 6th Jan 2010 08:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: waste of time and money"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

A lot of people say this, but I don't buy it


You should. There's a difference between having extensions and creating incompatibilities in the standard syntax.

The reason it is so popular is because most people just need a place to persist data that can be backed up easily, and don't really care about ACID properties that are the real selling point of using an RDBMS in the first place.


True that. For most applications mysql is just used a glorified flat-file storage.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: waste of time and money
by rycamor on Tue 5th Jan 2010 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: waste of time and money"
rycamor Member since:
2005-07-18

" If your application needs to store data, it really shouldn't care how it's stored.

I used to hear this argument a lot back when MySQL had much less features than it does today, and it was wrong back then.
Most relational database systems are much more than simple data stores. And applications should care about how data is stored if they want efficient performance from a relational database.
"

You are right that an application should care, but performance is not really the issue. Performance tweaking of databases should be an orthogonal concern to GOOD MANAGEMENT of your data. As an example, PostgreSQL lets you save an incredible amount of application code by letting you specify constraints, complex datatypes, and logical relationships declaratively, and it has many safeguards built in to ensure that what you thought you inserted is exactly what you DID insert. Any application with mission-critical data--financial, scientific, whatever--would do well to steer clear of MySQL.

Yes, I know they have InnoDB and ANSI standard mode now, but after having been forced to work with it for months lately, I am still not impressed. As a for-instance, you cannot use the results of a MySQL stored procedure IN a subquery or view. HUH!!?? It's as if they have missed half the point of relational databases.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: waste of time and money
by Soulbender on Wed 6th Jan 2010 08:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: waste of time and money"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

This reminds me of my favorite clueless Monty quote ever: You don't need transactions, just use table locks.

Reply Score: 2

RE: waste of time and money
by nt_jerkface on Tue 5th Jan 2010 01:52 UTC in reply to "waste of time and money"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Start a 'rename PostgreSQL' petition.

Reply Score: 3

Yawn
by nt_jerkface on Tue 5th Jan 2010 01:50 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

So Monty cashed out but now doesn't like the new buyer?

He could take his millions and create a new fork instead of calling 1800NANNYEU.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Yawn
by 0brad0 on Tue 5th Jan 2010 02:08 UTC in reply to "Yawn"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

So Monty cashed out but now doesn't like the new buyer?

He could take his millions and create a new fork instead of calling 1800NANNYEU.


He already explained why a fork is not good enough and it is true.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Yawn
by nt_jerkface on Tue 5th Jan 2010 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Yawn"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

He already explained why a fork is not good enough and it is true.


Thanks for summarizing his position for us.

He could spend millions on a fork, millions more to improve it, millions on marketing, even a few million more to fund a distro that is optimized for it. The guy is loaded with cash.

There's really nothing worse than a whiney millionaire.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Yawn
by dpatch on Tue 5th Jan 2010 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Yawn"
dpatch Member since:
2007-08-11

deleted

Edited 2010-01-05 05:43 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Where do I sign
by chekr on Tue 5th Jan 2010 08:23 UTC
chekr
Member since:
2005-11-05

Where can I sign the petition in favour of getting this thing done? (Oracle buy Sun including MySQL) If Monty had wanted a balanced survey he would have included this option in hi survey. He did not.

Monty is doing this in his own self interest.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Where do I sign
by kalman on Tue 5th Jan 2010 09:58 UTC in reply to "Where do I sign"
kalman Member since:
2010-01-05
RE[2]: Where do I sign
by chekr on Tue 5th Jan 2010 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Where do I sign"
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05



That would mean reactivating my fb account...i think i became allergic to it ;)

Reply Score: 3

Hmmm...
by Kebabbert on Tue 5th Jan 2010 10:30 UTC
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

I know it is hard to let one's baby go. But he has sold MySQL. It is not longer his. If he breaks up with his girl friend, he is in no position to assert influence over his former girl friend?

Monty, you have sold MySQL. Let it go? It is no longer yours.

Reply Score: 3

All I can say...
by systyrant on Tue 5th Jan 2010 16:46 UTC
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

is at least I'm not the only one that doesn't care about this stupid petition.

Reply Score: 3

gadget00
Member since:
2007-02-16

I was supporting him in his 'crusade', because I didn't knew about his 'dual-license' of all the MySQL code contributed, so he could use them for his own enterprise version.

Now that he SOLD MySQL(1 billion!!), he just realized that his company will dive rock bottom if he can't borrow some other's code contributions and make money out of them?

Please...you already took the money and ran away.

Don't tell us now you 'care about the users'...(EPIC)FAIL.

Reply Score: 3

Monty
by strcpy on Tue 5th Jan 2010 20:17 UTC
strcpy
Member since:
2009-05-20

Dear Monty.

Buy it back. After all you have 1 billion.

You're a disgrace to the open source community.

Reply Score: 2

Momentum
by Phobos on Wed 6th Jan 2010 01:07 UTC
Phobos
Member since:
2008-04-30

Momentum... really?

Out of the millions of user of MySQL he just got 15000 to support him... how is that momentum?

OTOH, paying customers say the see no problem with the deal... even the competitors agree there is no issue for them (ask IBM).

The GPL version allows forking. So MySQL does not need to be saved from anyone, even in the worst case scenario. The commercial version will be safe under Oracle and clients and competition approve it.

Why is Mr Wideanus still talking?

Reply Score: 1