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.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2009-07-10
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:2009-08-26
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.
Member since:
2005-11-10
Member since:
2007-11-06
Member since:2007-05-05
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.
Member since:2005-08-17
Member since:2009-07-21
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.
Member since:2006-02-05
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.
Member since:2005-07-18
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.
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.
Member since:2009-07-21
And yet MySQL is one of the least standards compliant databases.
If stored procedures are so critical, how did MySQL become so popular when it didn't have them until version 5.0?
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.
Member since:2005-08-18
You should. There's a difference between having extensions and creating incompatibilities in the standard syntax.
True that. For most applications mysql is just used a glorified flat-file storage.
Member since:2005-07-18
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.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2009-08-26
Member since:
2009-08-26
Member since:2007-05-05
Member since:2009-08-26
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.
Member since:2007-08-11
Member since:
2005-11-05
Member since:2010-01-05
Member since:2005-11-05
That would mean reactivating my fb account...i think i became allergic to it
Member since:
2007-07-27
Member since:
2007-01-18
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.
Member since:
2009-05-20
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?