SCO and MySQL announced Friday that the two would be working together to jointly deliver the commercial version of the MySQL database to SCO’s latest Unix release, OpenServer 6. OpenServer 6 already includes the Apache Web server, the Apache Tomcat JSP (Java Server Pages) server, the PostgreSQL DBMS and the MySQL Community Edition.
time to move on to PostgreSQL
(which doesn’t have an alliance with SCO)
because it is:
– free / open source
– stable
– powerfull
– extensible (pl/perl, pl/java, pl/python, …)
– free / open source
And MySQL isn’t?
– stable
And MySQL isn’t?
– powerfull
And MySQL isn’t?
– extensible (pl/perl, pl/java, pl/python, …)
And MySQL isn’t?
Wether MySQL AB does “business” with SCO or not, the MySQL codebase is still available under GPL and will be so. “omgf!!!! they’re doing business with evilh SCO!! can’t use it anymore!!!”- is just _very_ childish trolling.
Well. Look at the other side of the coin.
I rather consider this as a good thing. SCO will go bankrupt, sooner or later. Their lawsuits are _not_ going well. What happens to current SCO- customers using propietary databases on SCO UNIX? They’re basically screwed.
Well, what happens if they have MySQL running on SCO UNIX? Yes, that’s right, they can migrate to MySQL/Linux/BSD very very easily.
And another fact is that MySQL is better than PostgreSQL on one single scenario. Not in features, PostgreSQL has some very impressive features, extremely impressive. However it lacks on one single area that MySQL shines, and shines damn well: Web applications. MySQL selects are _way way_ faster than PostgreSQL’s.
It’s very easily noticeable even with single user testing. For example I support MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite in my CMS software ( http://angelinecms.info ), changing database driver from MySQL to PostgreSQL makes rendering page with 10-20 queries 20-30% slower. Let’s say 100 users browse the page, the difference is noticeable.
Ideologies are good, as long as you keep some common sense in. Ditching fully working GPL’ed, _great_ database server because it’s used by a company that you don’t happen to like, goes to zealotry. MySQL has shipped with SCO UNIX anyway for many years, so I really have hard time figuring what’s the _real_ buzz this time? It’s just SCO trying to get some positive PR.
SCO you are a bunch of two faced back stabbing leeches. Why dont you port MS SQL to your lovely OS then you and MS can truly be on the level.
-nX
MS SQL might help them more
Ehrr, in case you haven’t noticed.. it seems that MySQL (the company) is also in on this deal and figure SCO is a partner just like any other company.
So I wouldn’t really wank on about SCO this and SCO that… rather ask yourself… MySQL the GPL fanboys, how much do they care about “the cause” when it all comes down to money. Not a bit =)
But what really surprises me is what SCO needs an innoDB for?
I love MySQL, its a great product with great flexibility. But, this decision is curious at best. I can’t see new projects picking sco as a platform. Looking at sco’s revenue they aren’t selling many new installs. Like I said I hope MySQL is getting paid up front.
MySQL AB is insane. Period.
–meianoite
SCO is in the habit of suing their business partners and customers having any kind of agreements with them have proven dangerous to many organiztionst that have delt with them.
I really can’t see why MySQL is taking such a risk.
SCO is going nowhere, there is not likely bo be a lot of new SCO installations and the ones that allready exists most likely are looking for other solutions by now.
Not to mention that teaming up with SCO is bad publisity. If MySQL wasn’t such a poor database, I would probably boycott them, but I can’t as I’m using better free alternatives allready.
Love it or hate it… OpenServer is Unix. And I believe that MySQL has an obligation to support it. But due to the blackeye that SCO has dealt to the many FOSS hands that fed them… I doubt that many a large or small corporation will pay for the product delivered by them.
Also.. MYSQL supports Microsoft… And they’re allegedly notoriously backing SCO.
Solaris is UNIX too. It’s certified. It’s free and open source
>>OpenServer is Unix. And I believe that MySQL has an obligation to support it.<<
But this partnership goes *way* beyond that. Did you actually read the article? MySQL AB is trumpeting their new business partnership with scox. The article is on MySQL AB’s web-site.
Also, scox has, in the strongest possible terms, publicly denounced the GPL. You know, the license on which MySQL is based? Scox’s CEO wrote congress declaring that the GPL is just just illegally, but unconstitutional. I do not think that MySQL AB has an obligation to support a company that denounces the license on which their product is based. And I certainly don’t think MySQL is obligated form a partnership with company, and brag about that partnership.
MySQL needs money – SCO is ready to give them money. Do I see Redhat or Novell or Mandrake or IBM giving MySQL money? – Do I see Joe-Sixpack-Linux-user base buying MySQL licenses? Nope – so why do you get upset when MySQL gets in bed with your enemy?
MySQL needs money – SCO is ready to give them money. Do I see Redhat or Novell or Mandrake or IBM giving MySQL money? – Do I see Joe-Sixpack-Linux-user base buying MySQL licenses? Nope – so why do you get upset when MySQL gets in bed with your enemy?
Red Hat has no reason to, they are pushing PostgreSQL (Red Hat Database (not Red Hat Directory Server) is based on PostgreSQL), they just include MySQL for conveniance. Novell has partnered with MySQL and is selling MySQL network with their own products. Mandrake….well, I don’t really pay much attention to them honestly, but I doubt their server sales are high enough to really give them a reason to pay MySQL. I could be wrong here though. As for IBM, they are pushing their own database technologies, why would they want to give MySQL money?
HP is also selling MySQL Network with their own products.
I can see why MySQL partnered with SCO ($$$), but there can’t be that much money involved. SCO has less than $11 million in the bank (all of which Novell, IBM and Red Hat are sueing for I might add), their sales are pitiful (they jumped off of the Linux bandwagon just before it boomed into the Linux Jetliner, and hedged their bets on the never popular Unixware and the stagnant OpenServer). SCO OpenServer and Smallfoot are often used to power cash registers and such, but nothing much bigger. They never made it big in the Enterprise like Red Hat is doing now.
So what I am wondering is whether the couple million MySQL is going to make from this is worth the bad publicity MySQL is generating right now?
SCO has hired MySQL AB for a business contract. MySQL is not an ideological component, they often work with companies for a fee. This announcement is analagous to a company wire about ongoing operations, and is not significant in any way, unless you are a user of SCO UNix and feel this will impact you.
I can’t wait to see the Smoking Crack Organization go down in a blaze of glory……
and everyone breathed a collective “oh, that’s nice, I guess.”
SCO still exists?
SCO still exists?
The next few months will be interesting. Novell has filed counterclaims against SCO for owed royalties, and is sueing SCO for $25 million. SCO has $11 million in the bank. Since this case has very little to do with Linux, it won’t take as long as the IBM litigation. Novell may bankrupt SCO.
Also, Novell has asked the court to sequester the money so it is not spent since Novell states it is rightfully their money. This could mean SCO will go bankrupt before the case is even heard.
Even if it doesn’t happen, they have many counterclaims against them from IBM for things they are going to have a hard time dodging. IBM is also sueing them for patent infringement, trying to prevent them from shipping almost all of their software products.
If that fails, Red Hat has claims against them also.
SCO may have survived if they had put a muzzle on McBride, but it is clear he has cost them dearly by opening his big mouth and causing Lanham Act claims to be filed against SCO. Although it was his big mouth that increased the stock by 20X so the executives could dump the stock.
Anyways, the point of this post is, they probably won’t exist much longer. I find it very hard to believe they will survive all of the claims they have against them.
Below is a copy of my post on the MySQL forums. I sent an email to MySQL AB that is very similar:
—————–
For those who may not know, scox is not Santa Cruz Operations, scox is based in Utah, and is by far the scummiest company in the technology business – even surpassing msft.
Scox’s CEO, Darl McBride has very publically, on many occasions, and in the strongest possible terms, denounced the GPL. He even wrote the USA congress declaring that the GPL was unconstitutional!
Scox is not really a company at all. Scox is a front of crimminal activities, such as filing bogus lawsuits for the benefit of msft. And wide spread extortion attempts against all Linux users. This is not a conspiracy theory – it’s a fact.
Scox also makes it a normal practice to file nuicance lawsuits against *anybody* who does, or has ever done business with scox. Scox is presently suing: IBM (for $5B), AutoZone, Chrysler, and Novell, among others. Scox’s CFO, Sontag, is famous for saying: “contracts are what you use against people you have relationships with.”
Scox has been claiming – untruethfully – for years that scox *owns* the UNIX operating system (for starters, the name UNIX is owned by the open group).
Scox threatend lawsuits against 1500 companies, claiming that because scox owns UNIX, scox owns Linux by extension, and if you don’t pay scox $699 for Linux, scox will sue you. Scox is still saying this.
Scox has publically stated, on many occassions, that there is UNIX code in Linux. Yet scox refuses to show any evidence of this. In fact, scox has defied two court orders to produce this evidence, and was publically admonished by a federal judge (Dale Kimball) for their “astonishing lack of credible evidence.”
And this is the company with which MySQL wants to partner? My opinion of the MySQL organization just dropped dramatically.
Admittedly MySQL is a stupid to work with SCO. have they learned nothing? If they get burned then so be it. Postgres, Firebird, and others will suffice in its place.
This is really not the case anymore. In my real world web apps, I don’t notice any difference between the two anymore, especially after I tweak the postgresql.conf for for the server I am running on. I have also port some fairly large apps from Firebird to Postgresql and didn’t notice any differnce there either, and I have way more than 100 people hitting the page.
Your point may be valid on extremley low end servers like a old P90 with 128mb of ram, but on modern servers properly configured to support Postgresql there is little differnce, and for serious apps you really do need Postgresql high end features like transactions. Mysql is something I would use for a BBS, I would never consider it for something critical.
<And another fact is that MySQL is better than PostgreSQL on one single scenario. Not in features, PostgreSQL has some very impressive features, extremely impressive. However it lacks on one single area that MySQL shines, and shines damn well: Web applications. MySQL selects are _way way_ faster than PostgreSQL’s.
It’s very easily noticeable even with single user testing. For example I support MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite in my CMS software ( http://angelinecms.info ), changing database driver from MySQL to PostgreSQL makes rendering page with 10-20 queries 20-30% slower. Let’s say 100 users browse the page, the difference is noticeable. >
>MySQL selects are _way way_ faster than PostgreSQL’s.
That’s bullshit, or atleast – it depends.
I loaded postgres and mysql with the same data (about 10 million SS7 CDRs) and ran the same queries as is run in
production. There were no noticable difference.
PostgreSQL has(had?) the slight drawback that you must periodically vacuum the DB, else it gets slower.
I use sco for more than a thousand years and I feel bad that IBM didn’t live by the contract.
I use sco for more than a thousand years and I feel bad that IBM didn’t live by the contract.
Lol, care to provide a specific example? As in contract number, which clause was breached, which court filing SCO details this is in and a breach that IBM hasn’t thouroughly debunked? Just wondering of course, incase myself or the Judge (the one who said he was astonished at SCO’s lack of credible evidence) missed something that you caught. 🙂
I don´t like SCO at all, but I will still give the benefit of the doubt to MySQL since they were championing agaisnt software patentes in Europe in the policy-making war that arose from the Microsoft-fuelled patent lobbies in the European Parliament.
I would prefer that MySQL released their products under LGPL license, but I can always use the GPL. Maybe instead of critizising them for making business with SCO we should send a well-though and written letter of concern and a recomendation to swith to LGPL, at least to produce a Press Release on their part. This aside, there are plenty of free (as in freedom) and ready-to-use web applications running on top of MySQL that won´t do on PostgreSQL.
This is no denying that postgres is a superb product, that I will try to know and learn more than I have been able to date.