OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/22688/_Save_MySQL_Campaign_Gains_Momentum Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Mon, 20 May 2013 00:02:42 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Meh http://www.osnews.com/thread?402457 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402457 Monty is an hypocrite. He is pushing his own personal agenda.

Cheers Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Beket_) Comments Comment by Kroc http://www.osnews.com/thread?402458 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402458 Drama: The sure-fire way to kill an open-source project. Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kroc) Comments waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402477 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402477 This is a waste of time and money from EU.
I'm really looking forward to everybody panicking and moving to PostgreSQL and FirebirdSQL. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (maaxx) Comments RE: waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402489 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402489
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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (0brad0) Comments Yawn http://www.osnews.com/thread?402490 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402490 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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (nt_jerkface) Comments RE: waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402493 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402493 Start a 'rename PostgreSQL' petition. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (nt_jerkface) Comments RE: Yawn http://www.osnews.com/thread?402496 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402496
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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (0brad0) Comments RE[2]: Yawn http://www.osnews.com/thread?402498 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402498
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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (nt_jerkface) Comments RE[2]: Yawn http://www.osnews.com/thread?402510 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402510 deletedEdited 2010-01-05 05:43 UTC Tue, 05 Jan 2010 05:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dpatch) Comments Where do I sign http://www.osnews.com/thread?402515 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402515 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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (chekr) Comments RE: Where do I sign http://www.osnews.com/thread?402529 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402529 Here you go:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=273115464971&ref=nf Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kalman) Comments Hmmm... http://www.osnews.com/thread?402533 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402533 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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kebabbert) Comments RE[2]: waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402538 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402538

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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jessta) Comments RE[3]: waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402546 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402546
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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (computeruser) Comments RE[4]: waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402563 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402563
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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE: Meh http://www.osnews.com/thread?402590 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402590 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? Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jacquouille) Comments RE[5]: waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402595 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402595
"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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rycamor) Comments All I can say... http://www.osnews.com/thread?402597 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402597 is at least I'm not the only one that doesn't care about this stupid petition. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (systyrant) Comments RE[4]: waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402598 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402598
" 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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rycamor) Comments It's all about this dual-licensing thing... http://www.osnews.com/thread?402600 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402600 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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gadget00) Comments RE[6]: waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402608 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402608 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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[7]: waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402611 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402611
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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (computeruser) Comments RE[8]: waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402616 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402616
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.


Exactly! Ironically, the PostgreSQL codebase is about 85% the size of the MySQL codebase. In speed, PostgreSQL is every bit as fast as MySQL's InnoDB tables, so the only way you get a performance advantage is to use the table type that should be the laughing stock of the DBMS world.

The fact that you have to constantly worry about what storage engine is in use, and which trade-off applies to which storage engine makes developing with MySQL much more complex, unless your app itself is dead simple. Not to mention all the other odd limitations and surprises.

Just a few of the gotchas and trade-offs I have had to work around recently:

- Clustered storage doesn't allow for temp tables, fulltext indexes, and all sorts of other normally expected SQL features.
- InnoDB tables allow for constraints and FK relationships, but don't allow fulltext indexing.
- Subqueries cannot be used in the FROM clause of a view (maddening, since that is one of the most useful things about views)
- resultsets from stored procedures cannot be used in views or subqueries.
- Temporary tables cannot be referred to more than once in a given query in a function or stored procedure, even with an alias (in other words, no self-joins or other advanced queries)
- replication breaks if MySQL is restarted while a temporary table is in use. But because of the limitations on views and stored procedures, a database of any relative complexity needs temp tables all over the place.

These few things I have mentioned off the top of my head have probably resulted in at least TWICE the complexity that would otherwise be required in my application code and database design. I am so looking forward to the days I can use PostgreSQL--or anything sane--once again. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rycamor) Comments Monty http://www.osnews.com/thread?402648 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402648 Dear Monty.

Buy it back. After all you have 1 billion.

You're a disgrace to the open source community. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (strcpy) Comments RE[2]: Meh http://www.osnews.com/thread?402674 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402674
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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (nt_jerkface) Comments RE[2]: Meh http://www.osnews.com/thread?402675 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402675 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. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Beket_) Comments RE[2]: Where do I sign http://www.osnews.com/thread?402693 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402693
Here you go:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=273115464971&ref=nf


That would mean reactivating my fb account...i think i became allergic to it ;) Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (chekr) Comments Momentum http://www.osnews.com/thread?402714 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402714 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? Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Phobos) Comments RE[7]: waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402757 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402757
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. Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments RE[5]: waste of time and money http://www.osnews.com/thread?402759 http://www.osnews.com/thread?402759 This reminds me of my favorite clueless Monty quote ever: You don't need transactions, just use table locks. Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments