<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:osnews="http://www.osnews.com/rss2#">
	<channel>
		<title>OSNews: </title>
		<link>http://www.osnews.com/story/21603/The_State_of_MySQL</link>
		<description>Exploring the Future of Computing</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams</copyright>
		<webMaster>adam+nospam@osnews.com</webMaster>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 20:51:51 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		
		<item>
			<title>RE: The State of MySQL</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?366701</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?366701</guid>
			<description><div class="cquote">Robust development from outside the Sun/MySQL sphere, new storage engines and the return of Monty are just some of the signs that MySQL is healthy, despite may reports to the contrary. </div><br />
<br />
Considering said reports to the contrary were primarily based on the fact that:<br />
<br />
1. Monty left.<br />
2. Outside developers were feeling stonewalled by Sun/Oracle<br />
3. No notable lateral movement in development had occured in a while (i.e. new storage engines)<br />
<br />
It isnt terribly hard to make the case that things are looking much better. But that doesnt in any way invalidate the previous concerns - they were all completely valid at the time. I would argue that those very concerns are what spurred these changes in the first place.<br />
<br />
I think saying &quot;MySQL is healthy&quot; is a little premature. It is certainly looking healthier than it did though.</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (galvanash)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Link error</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?366708</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?366708</guid>
			<description>The link posted is: <a href="http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7342%22" rel="nofollow">http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7342%22</a>. This goes to a page not found error (at least within Opera). The correct link is <a href="http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7342" rel="nofollow">http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7342</a>.</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (Anon9)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
