Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Jun 2009 21:21 UTC, submitted by linuxmag
Thread beginning with comment 366701
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-25
Considering said reports to the contrary were primarily based on the fact that:
1. Monty left.
2. Outside developers were feeling stonewalled by Sun/Oracle
3. No notable lateral movement in development had occured in a while (i.e. new storage engines)
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.
I think saying "MySQL is healthy" is a little premature. It is certainly looking healthier than it did though.