Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Locating the Real MySQL

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the place-your-bets dept.

Databases 335

An anonymous reader writes "In a blog post, Patrick Galbraith, an ex-core engineer on the MySQL Server team, raises the question: "What is the official branch of MySQL?" With Monty Widenius having left Sun and forked off MySQL for MariaDB, and Brian Aker running the Drizzle fork inside of Sun, where is the official MySQL tree? Sun may own the trademark, but it looks like there is doubt as to whether they are still the maintainers of the actual codebase after their $1B acquisition of the code a year ago. Smugmug's Don MacAskhill, who is the keynote at the upcoming MySQL Conference, has commented that he is now using the Percona version of MySQL, and is no longer relying on Sun's."

cancel ×

335 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

PostgreSQL (5, Informative)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#27395883)

http://www.postgresql.org/ [postgresql.org]

Just saying.

Re:PostgreSQL (1, Informative)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27395933)

I agree. Use it, live it, love it.

Re:PostgreSQL (4, Interesting)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396505)

Why do you like it so much? Is it faster with large datasets? Does it support backups/replication/some other great to have feature?

I'm pretty familiar with MySQL, but I've been thinking about branching out to PostgreSQL lately as I've seen a few jobs that prefer it. I'd just like some real reasons why I should prefer it, as well as any "gotchas" that might be important for a MySQL user to know. I've never had a problem with MySQL, but most of the projects I've used it on have been fairly small.

Re:PostgreSQL (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396547)

Yes, it is. Yes, it does.
More here: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/index.html

Re:PostgreSQL (4, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396627)

ACID :).

I prefer postgresql because of the stored procedures, triggers, rules, plpgsql, etc.

MySQL 5 sort of has some of that now, but when I las t used it (MySQL 4), I ended up trying to half-ass implement that stuff client side. Postgresql makes it easier to do it right.

Re:PostgreSQL (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396725)

Here [lmgtfy.com] are some sites that might help.

Re:PostgreSQL (5, Interesting)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396913)

One of the reasons I like PostgreSQL is it is more like Oracle.

If you're doing a migration from Oracle, especially one that has a lot of pl/sql functions. Here's some good advice for converting pl/sql to pl/pgsql [redhat.com] .

Also, going from PostgreSQL to Oracle seems easier as well. With PostgreSQL you can use more Oracle like features so if you need to move to Oracle, you can take advantage of some of it's advanced features instead of migrating simple tables and sql statements.

Sun was actively involved with PostgreSQL before they bought MySQL. I was really dissapointed with their decision, especially at the price.

My guess is they weren't really buying MySQL for the technology, they were buying it for the community. Overnight, a ton of MySQL users and developers were part of Sun's open source community. Building communities takes time and Sun was having a hard time doing it with some of their projects.

All it seems they did though is fund MySQL forks. Kinda messed up for the MySQL developers to do that but we don't know all the details.

$1 billion dollars could have funded a lot of improvements to PostgreSQL better clustering, replication, visual tools, and more. A better PostgreSQL could hurt Oracle more than buying MySQL. After Ellison announced he'd be moving his developers from Solaris workstations to Linux workstations, it could have been a nice comeback.

It also seems that the switch form solaris to linux might not have been developer driven [intel.com] . Even MS knows you have to keep your developers, developers, developers happy.

Re:PostgreSQL (5, Informative)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 5 years ago | (#27397365)

The Oracle pl/SQL -> PostgreSQL pl/pgSQL link you suggested was from PostgreSQL 7.1, pretty ancient at this point. PostgreSQL 8.3 Porting from Oracle [postgresql.org] is a current resource.

Re:PostgreSQL (4, Informative)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396973)

The latest version of each have brought the two much closer in terms of performance and features. Historically, MySQL has been regarded as faster for simple querying and DML statements, but lacked full ACID compliance. PostgreSQL supported more advanced features like a PL/SQL style procedure language, transaction support, and data compression.

Today, the big difference is PostgreSQL is considered better on higher-end hardware with concurrent I/O support and better multi-core support. MySQL is considered better on clusters of lower-end hardware. There is a Wiki comparing the two [wikivs.com] in much better detail.

Personally, I work with both in large production systems and can fill a few pages on likes and gripes. I'm on MySQL 4.1, so concurrency is a concern, and PostgreSQL's replication is a pain. Unless you're trying to solve a problem MySQL can't satisfy, I wouldn't switch for the sake of change. Your time is probably better spent upgrading to MySQL 5.1.

Re:PostgreSQL (0)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 5 years ago | (#27397243)

Careful about using the term "Wiki"; a lot of people think "Wiki" == "Wikipedia" || "Wiki" == "Wikipedia article".

Re:PostgreSQL (2, Insightful)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 5 years ago | (#27397335)

And others know any (Wiki) article, online, is equally suspect.

Re:PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397279)

Postgresql didn't accept Feb 30th as a valid date for years....

No decent RDBMS did...

Re:PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397361)

Early on, PostgreSQL focused on complete implementation and correct behavior over speed, then worried about adding speed later. MySQL focused on speed, and worried over correctness and completeness later. Since then, PostgreSQL has sped up a lot, and MySQL has shaped up in implementation completeness. But it won't surprise me if PostgreSQL still has a few extra features.

Re:PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396983)

Not to fond of the lack of type hinting myself - especially of late I've found the planner trips over it's self to get me the longest possible running query. It's frequently quicker to do a more basic query (or pair of more basic queries) and then do the matching in perl or php.

Re:PostgreSQL (5, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27395977)

Hey, maybe people have a reason to use MySQL - a product that only supports that db, or developers who aren't particularly familiar with what relational databases are supposed to be like.

Re:PostgreSQL (2, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396481)

Hey, maybe people have a reason to use MySQL - a product that only supports that db, or developers who aren't particularly familiar with what relational databases are supposed to be like.

I don't know why this is marked as Funny... there are far too many programs or even webapps (PHP ones in particular) that only work with MySQL.

Re:PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396717)

I don't know why this is marked as Funny...

I'll give you a hint:

there are far too many programs or even webapps (PHP ones in particular) that only work with MySQL.

There's your punchline.

Re:PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397281)

It's not that they only work with MySQL, it's that they're easier to set up quickly with MySQL.

Postgres is fine if you like that sort of thing. It's kinda/sorta like Oracle, with the same headaches that come with Oracle.

Re:PostgreSQL (2, Insightful)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27397027)

Amen. PHP/MySQL has been a defacto standard for how long now? I mean, it just works. And if there is a problem, it's well-documented. So ubiquitous, well-documented and free... Why would I choose use anything else?

Re:PostgreSQL (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397143)

ubiquitous, well-documented and free... Why would I choose use anything else

Because it's of higher quality?

Re:PostgreSQL (2, Insightful)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#27397161)

> Why would I choose use anything else? ... Because a lot of people thinks that foreign key constraints are the best and most important way (after primary keys) to secure the consistency of the application's data.

Of course, that people probably never wrote a dozen of lines of code, so they never realized that the programmer has one thousand of more powerful ways to corrupt all the application data (sadly, databases are not immune to code bugs despite any imaginative constraints.)

BTW, that same people never will understand that there exists some thing called innodb; but to be fair, it is a shame that MySQL yet defaults to the isam (i.e. not enforcing FK) engine.

Re:PostgreSQL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397173)

It also has excellent documentation, which postgres is lacking. That's how people pick up an open source tool, start developing with it, and support it for production systems

Re:PostgreSQL (3, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27395999)

It really is a very good database. I just hope more projects start using it. And that more hosting companies will as well.
I am pretty sure that that MySQL still has better client slave replication "Like Slashdot uses" than Postgres. But I could be wrong.

Enough already! (4, Informative)

Wee (17189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396019)

And now pretend that you are, like many thousands of other people, hosted in a place that doesn't offer it. Or run software which can't talk to it. Or have staff who aren't trained in its use or upkeep. Or... a hundred other things.

Enough with the knee-jerk elitism. MySQL is just fine for quite a lot of tasks, and the article isn't about the religious battle between DB packages.

-B

Re:Enough already! (4, Informative)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396111)

It's not a religious battle, it's about using the best tool for the job. MySQL may be very easy to setup, but just fyi, PostgreSQL is a snap to set up now on Windows or Linux.

Looking for reasons to use PostgreSQL?
Much better index support.
Kerberos or LDAP access controls.
Better native Unicode support.

If you're hog-tied to MySQL because of your software, well so be it. But if you have a choice, the winner should be fairly obvious.

Re:Enough already! (5, Interesting)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396279)

Actually the subject is how your data is supposed to be used.

MySQL users see the database as a program persistance layer. I am not sure WHY they are using something that pretends to be a relational database, but they are. It is the single-app approach (one app, one database).

The PostgreSQL crowd sees data and application as being separate issues. The data in theory should be able to be managed in any of a hundred different applications, all hitting the same database, without causing the nightmares in QA that this sort of thing creates in MySQL.

So is the program what is important? Or is the data there to be used by many programs?

MySQL works OK for one-app databases and many people think that is all that is needed. It breaks down outside that area, however.

Re:Enough already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397115)

Obviously, the issues you face are more important to you than the ones you don't. But, how could you leave out multi-core scaling? If that isn't the most obvious reason to use postgres ... you don't have much of a database to worry about.

Re:Enough already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397203)

I like postgresql a lot and I use it. And while it's a snap to setup, it's not always easy to maintain and make fast. There are a lot of knobs to play with and that may be part of the reason geeks like it.

The project as a whole would be well served by some sort of optimizer for the whole data base configuration itself. Maybe an install wizard like app. Just google, it's like a standard thing for a postgresql user to blog about, optimizing it for speed, there must be hundreds of "howtos" and blogs on it. Once you know it, it's all pretty easy but if you're coming in cold, you have to figure some stuff out. Take socket access, it's off by default from the source and in most Linux distribution installs; that means no jdbc, no mono.net, no ruby or python access, maybe no php too (I thought there was a libpgsql version of a php connector but I don't know.) So you go edit the postgresql.conf file, enable it, then you restart, that breaks because you just made made that file owned by root... it's a fairly silent failure typically. One you're through that you have to add some permissions in pg_hba.conf, it's straight forward enough. At this point you're probably good to go, however your performance settings will absolutely suck; there are just a couple settings you can alter in postgresql.conf (remember to fix the owner) that can radically improve general case performance and make it almost like MySQL out of the box, they almost always need to be set by the end user though. It's fairly simple stuff but it's just extra steps to some hack that just wants to start banging out a web app he's getting paid to design.

Re:Enough already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397289)

"it's about using the best tool for the job"

Absolutely. But people still use phrases like "knee-jerk elitism" to slam someone while looking like they're actually slamming their position, and they don't even have to give evidence to support their position! Sweeeet!

I'm a DB nobody who started with mysql. I looked at postgresql and was completely impressed with the quality of the docs (which I needed, let me tell you), but especially with the level of quality of the discourse in the usenet groups. Utterly professional. Open and open to all but completely hard-nosed about the quality of the product.

Both (all) RDBMSs have gotchas, but postgresql wouldn't be caught dead releasing with some of the crap mysql has put out in GAs. The only things mysql has over postgresql is its ubiquity, application lock-in (for those apps that have you locked in) and its speed in simple queries, and even the speed deficit is being lessened with every release, especially since 8.2. For anything more complex than the aforementioned simple queries the choice is easy.

But like you said, it's about the right tool for the job. But the right tool doesn't mean the only tool.

Re:Enough already! (1)

digitalaudiorock (1130835) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396291)

And now pretend that you are, like many thousands of other people, hosted in a place that doesn't offer it. Or run software which can't talk to it. Or have staff who aren't trained in its use or upkeep. Or... a hundred other things.

...or if the application you're dealing with assumes or in some way depends on the case insensitive behavior of MySQL. That alone could make switching pretty rough.

Re:Enough already! (1)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396301)

Enough with the knee-jerk elitism.

Gee, I remember a time when "Elite" was considered a good thing by educated people.

If I have open heart surgery, I wan an "Elite" doctor.

If I fly on a plane, I want an elite pilot.

If I setup a database, I want an elite database.

Re:Enough already! (1, Interesting)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396345)

Well, we discovered that "elite" is mostly hubris.

Re:Enough already! (1)

JPortal (857107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396439)

Elite is different from elitism. They are also usually mutually exclusive.

Re:Enough already! (4, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396755)

An "Elite" is a person or group that have superlative skills an ability, and are granted enhanced social status on account of this, to wit "I'm good at what I do therefore I should lead/be popular/be recognized." This is probably tolerable.

"Elitism" is a dysfunction where a person or group uses enhanced social status to asserts superlative skill and ability in order to justify their social status and to exclude others. "I'm popular/leading/recognized therefore I am good at what I do therefore I should lead/be popular/be recognized and there ain't no way those dirty punks over there are as good as us, after all they aren't as popular."

Re:Enough already! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396479)

If the host you're using requires MySQL, they probably already provide a version for you. If that's the case, this article really isn't about you -- the problem is handled by your hosting provider.

On the other hand, if you're running a server or using vpslink, you're probably in control of your own database, and can (and should) use postgres.

Re:Enough already! (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396643)

And now pretend that you are, like many thousands of other people, hosted in a place that doesn't offer it.

Well, if it's anything big, it's probably a virtual server, so you can install anything you like on it. Event pgsql.

Enough with the knee-jerk elitism.

So wanting a DB that takes things like referential integrity and error reporting seriously is elitist? Bite me.

Re:PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396343)

Yeah, and if PostgreSQL was popular you'd be pimping MySQL.

Re:PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396667)

surely you mean http://www.mysequel.com/ [mysequel.com]

Re:PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397139)

Took me less than 120 seconds to install it with yum then realise config with webmin - went for the word then libs and it was done, then get the idea of how the tables are laid out... thanks for pointing me in this direction.

Admittedly, I have been using MySQL for the past ~ years but I know the power of the extra features and that is what I would rather spend my time learning - for the obvious reasons.

Just a passing observer.

Slanti Mhath.

Re:PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397373)

I have been have the worst issues this week with EDB, I rather deal with mysql.

MariaDB link is incorrect (4, Informative)

Matchstick (94940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27395885)

The MariaDB link should be http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page [askmonty.org]

Re:MariaDB link is incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396461)

that's fucking funny... don't the slashdot editors read the articles before publishing them? god that's so stupid...

Re:MariaDB link is incorrect (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396509)

Sounds like the MySQL devs need a distributed version control system...

Re:MariaDB link is incorrect (4, Funny)

grantek (979387) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396933)

If they can't find the real MySQL, sounds like they need a unique identifier with an index...

Selling an open-source software business? (4, Interesting)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27395929)

This calls into question whether it's viable to sell a business based on open-source software.

What did Sun buy exactly? Sales and support?

Re:Selling an open-source software business? (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396001)

I was under the impression they got the trademark AND the copyrights, meaning they can release a closed source version.

Don't MySQL developers assign their copyrights to Sun?

Re:Selling an open-source software business? (5, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396021)

What did Sun buy exactly? Sales and support?

A bridge!

Hello Mr Sun CEO, I have a bridge here to sell you! Best deal you'll ever make. Pinky swear.

Re:Selling an open-source software business? (2, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396055)

This calls into question whether it's viable to sell a business based on open-source software.

I was under the impression that MySQL operated with a full-featured, proprietary, licensed, commercial version getting immediate upgrades and support, plus a less-featured open source version with releases of code (ported?) from the full-featured branch that ran some months behind the for-pay version.

If that's right, I'd say Sun bought the whole shebang, including the code and customer bases for the licensed deluxe version, not just the open-source codebase, trademark, and employment contracts of a room full of engineers.

As for the viability of "sell[ing] a business based on open-source software", why don't you bring that up with the stockholders of Red Hat? B-)

Re:Selling an open-source software business? (4, Informative)

ximenes (10) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396331)

For the database server itself, there is no difference between MySQL Community Edition and MySQL Enterprise Edition besides the release schedule. The community edition (aka the regular one everyone uses) has been pared down to 4 releases a year, which are cherry picked from the enterprise releases.

However, the source is completely available for the enterprise releases, and you are able to compile and install them yourself. This is what Percona is doing, for instance (plus some other patches).

With that said, MySQL has other software that comes along with the enterprise edition that is not open sourced to my knowledge. A query analyzer, monitoring, and other goodies. Personally I prefer to find their equivalents in the open source world, but I'm sure some people buy and use these packages.

Don't forget the COPYRIGHT! (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396659)

Oh, yes. The Copyright!

With that, Sun can:
  - License the code (non-exclusively) to customers under OTHER licenses than the open source license under which it was released.
  - Sue others for infringement when THEY use it in ways not included in the open source license.
  - Make derived works that they don't release under the open source license.

These are all things that Sun can now do and no others can (presuming Sun continues MySQL's tradition of keeping the main codebase clean of outside code for which they don't have additional non-open-source licensing).

Re:Selling an open-source software business? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396059)

.. uh, yeah. duh. and they make more money than you.

Re:Selling an open-source software business? (5, Funny)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396099)

For $1B I'd say it's plenty viable to sell an open source business. Buying one on the other hand may be open to debate.

Re:Selling an open-source software business? (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396127)

Okay.... what he said.

Anyway, I guess Sun's history is plagued with poor business decisions so this MySQL disaster shouldn't surprise anyone.

What Sun bought -- (4, Insightful)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396595)

I think what Sun was trying to buy was a little more respect from the open source community.

(At least, that's what I would prefer to think. There is a distinct possibility that that purchase price was heavily subsidized by a certain large company who is quite aware that the best way to kill a technical project is to feed it huge amounts of money.)

Yeah, they went way too far overboard, of course, to actually get that respect.

But, "'e's not dead yet."

Setting aside the brainless rumors of Sun being bought, if I found myself in charge of making the purchase meaningful, I'd be looking at spinning MySQL back out into an independent company and bringing back as many of the guys who built it as they can. Add a couple of developers with other, non-MySQL, database experience to the team, of course, but give control back to the original developers.

Also, don't ask the original developers to give up their independent products.

The MySQL project needed fresh ideas, and this could be one way to bring fresh ideas in. It'd take a long time to get real return on what they invested, but it would be better than blowing away the whole investment.

Anyway, even if the main branch dies, there will likely be some useful development from the forks.

Re:What Sun bought -- (1)

raftpeople (844215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27397013)

Setting aside the brainless rumors of Sun being bought
Why would you call them brainless, do you honestly think there is nothing to them?

Not a good precedent (5, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27395981)

I don't have any idea what the politics behind all this is, nor do I have enough interest to look it up, but it seems to me that if a company pays $1B for code, then it forks left and right and they're left with nothing but yet another version, that's not going to exactly be a good advertisement for investing in open source. While this outcome is much better than a closed source application being killed off, it still would have been much better if differences could have been worked out and Sun had something for their money.

Re:Not a good precedent (3, Interesting)

jvillain (546827) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396499)

Actually the message it sends is you can not take control just by buying out one piece of the open source world. For the record Sun is going through the same thing with Open Office. Sun really doesn't understand open source.

The official branch is where ever the big distros decide to pull from.

Re:Not a good precedent (2, Insightful)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396587)

"The official branch is where ever the big distros decide to pull from."

May I offer a rewrite?
The official branch is where ever the knowledgeable gurus decide to push into.

Re:Not a good precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396529)

I came here to post nearly the exact same thing.

I'm about as big of a supporter of open-source and both kinds of "free" software as you can get, and I can feel the M$ cronies at my office circling this story already. It's probably Sun's fault this happened, but it will do nothing positive for the open-source/free software community at large.

Allow to say: (4, Informative)

drolli (522659) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396003)

While i am *not sure* of the details, i am pretty sure that SUNs lawyers did not forget to make very definite regulations for maintainers leaving, forking of etc. As far as i undrstood, sun bought the code *and* the rights. As many people dont understand GPLed code still has an owner. Independent of that mysql may still be a trademark.

So the standard (GPL) way is to rename the project and add the staement that you modified it which *somehow* makes it different from the "official" branch (to define that, that is the branch which does not carry the notice that it was modified and which is published under the prior, maybe (tm)ed, name).

Re:Allow to say: (1)

countach (534280) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396953)

If its GPL then even the non-owners of the code have most of the important rights. I suppose they could have asked employees to sign non-compete clauses, but that would seem pretty silly for a GPL product. Besides which, why would employees of MySQL want to agree to what SUN's lawyers want, unless they were getting paid off for it?

Will the real MySQL (5, Funny)

altek (119814) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396031)

please stand up?

Re:Will the real MySQL (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396225)

Cuz I'm the real postgre, yes I'm the real postgre
All you other DBs are not relational-y
So won't the real postgre please stand up,
Please stand up, please stand up?

Somehow postgreSQL flows much more lyrically than MySQL.

Re:Will the real MySQL (4, Funny)

Arslan ibn Da'ud (636514) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396309)

The real MySQL has learned the first lesson of not being seen: not to stand up.

Re:Will the real MySQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396419)

I'm Sparticus!... er... nevermind.

Re:Will the real MySQL (4, Funny)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396541)

Hi, my name is
What, my name is
Who, my name is
My Sequel.

The real MySQL is... (5, Insightful)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396061)

...whatever is at www.mysql.com. Look, I'm not trying to be flippant, but when I'm trying to sell the boss on FOSS solutions, I need to send him a link to a site that will give him the warm-fuzzies that demonstrates that a. the tech is solid (typically mention Wikipedia for that one) and b. it's not some fly-by-night operation that will suddenly up and disappear.

I'm not trying to put the other projects down, and I can appreciate why they exist, but this is the exact reason I'm always being laughed out of meetings where they decide to buy an Oracle license, or a Microsoft OS, those guys have the message down (i.e. marketing).

I'm trying to be the in-house cheerleader for what can be done in the free/open-source communities and mixed messages just don't fly to a boss who barely skims the executive summary of whatever glossy lands on his desk any given day.

mysql.com (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396131)

The pages that come up for "mysql.com" are what I consider to be the "official" version of MySQL.

I didn't even realize the other pages were out there until this article was posted and I started reading the comments.

Not that it matters much -- I'm an http://www.postgresql.org/ [postgresql.org] fan myself.

Re:The real MySQL is... (4, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396171)

As someone who has extensive hands-on use of Oracle eBusiness, I can say it's a steaming turd with some authority. Having a vertical CRM/order management/invoicing/everything stack is an easy sell to managers, but what they don't realize is it requires significant effort to align it with your business model.

In short, Oracle is designed to sell and it does work, but only well if you're prepared to spend a fortune implementing it.

Re:The real MySQL is... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396219)

Ah, but those steaming turds are just the ticket for a consultant looking to warm his hands.

I'm a consultant, and I love steaming turds!

Re:The real MySQL is... (2, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396475)

turds work for the big iron companies too. Like IBM's enterprise solution for anything: sell the client a bunch of overcomplicated rube goldberg contraptions that require a ton of customization and services, big turds for the money sewer.

Re:The real MySQL is... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396729)

big turds for the money sewer.

And that's why, as a consultant, I'm always "flush" with cash!

Enterprise DB (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396605)

There are a lot of "Oracle required" situations that can be serviced by http://www.enterprisedb.com/ [enterprisedb.com]

They provide an implementation of PL/SQL for PostgreSQL with commercial support.

Re:Enterprise DB (1)

raftpeople (844215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27397059)

The parent post was referring to Oracle applications, the ERP software they sell that competes with SAP, not the database.

Re:The real MySQL is... (1)

raftpeople (844215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27397099)

As someone who has extensive hands-on use of Oracle eBusiness, I can say it's a steaming turd with some authority

Curious if you have specifics. I've worked both ends of the spectrum (completely integrated and best of breed for all apps with interfaces), I definately prefer the integrated approach. What you gain with best of breed you quickly lose in complexity of interfaces, loss of functionality because data from one app's model can't be easily represented in the other app's model and loss of a comprehensive view across all aspects of the business.

Re:The real MySQL is... (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396319)

I would not recommend trying to sell your boss on a FOSS solution that was bought out by a commercial company who is running it into the ground. There's other projects out there (Ex: PostgreSQL) that are better sells.

Re:The real MySQL is... (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396687)

I'm not trying to put the other projects down, and I can appreciate why they exist, but this is the exact reason I'm always being laughed out of meetings where they decide to buy an Oracle license, or a Microsoft OS, those guys have the message down (i.e. marketing).

You are being laughed out of meetings? Sounds to me like YOU need marketing experience, as well. How are you presenting your OSS solutions? More importantly, if you are in an environment where you are laughed out of meetings, WHY are you presenting your OSS solutions?

I present and offer OSS-based solutions regularly. My solutions work fantastically well, have a long-proven track record, and are taken seriously at every presentation, with excellent take-up.

I suspect that you aren't being laughed out of meetings - few people are dumb enough to do that more than once or twice. I suspect, instead, that you are either an astroturfer, or just somebody who likes to grandstand stuff without really understanding it.

Methinks you need to reconsider your strategies. (or STFU)

Re:The real MySQL is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396989)

He probably has a real job, implementing ERP systems, whereas you... what do you do, exactly? Low traffic web sites?

Let's start with the Real Official MySQL (1)

ronaldbradford (1519681) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396165)

Don't forget even MySQL has an identity crisis on *offical* versions. I wrote about this "Understanding the various MySQL Products & Variants" at http://ronaldbradford.com/blog/understanding-the-various-mysql-products-variants-2009-03-13/ [ronaldbradford.com]

Damn (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396179)

The moment I saw the headline, I immediately thought of three smart-ass tags... then I looked down and all three were taken. At least I can still tag it something obvious like 'story'

Ironic (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396189)

Here we have the one shinning open source alternative to commercial databases and it is now faced with an identity crisis because they sold their name to a company about to be bought by IBM and outsourced to China and India.

So much for that open source licenses if the many people who worked and contributed all of their time to make MYSQL to make it an enterprise level application get shafted by the few.

We've seen many terrible forks in the past but this has to take the cake and usually thatâ(TM)s the last you hear of them we all know how well SUN maintains and contributes to there open source projects as it is. It's been awhile but the last time i checked their STL library it was horribly behind. Now imagine IBM.

Time for postgress, besides it has much better GIS support.

Re:Ironic (3, Insightful)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396311)

Here we have the one shinning open source alternative to commercial databases and it is now faced with an identity crisis because they sold their name to a company about to be bought by IBM and outsourced to China and India.

Huh?

I think the two main open source alternatives to commercial databases are Firebird and PostgreSQL.

Re:Ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396363)

Yes but MYSQL was the only one that was just starting to be capable of running on large clusters using much more complex storage/data integrity/etc.

Sure the skills required to maintain it are way higher than most dba's are capable (unless your google) but it is possible and i don't see Oracle going anywhere.

We wouldn't want to leave the entire market to MSSQL now would we?

Unless the fork becomes stronger than the name I have really bad feelings about the future of "MySQL" under SUN/IBM.

Re:Ironic (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396421)

Here we have the one shinning open source alternative to commercial databases

Bart: Don't you mean shining?

Willie: Shh! You wanna get sued?

Great Sun Acquisition (3, Insightful)

gothamboy (699451) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396413)

So, then it looks like Sun acquired nothing. The real IP has walked out the door.

I'll gona try postgresql (1)

sanotto (1471085) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396451)

Just because a big gray elephant is easier to find, that some stealth dolphin...

Database software? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396457)

What, haven't you people heard of Access??

Re:Database software? (1)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396947)

Access to what? Above they talked about the difference in access to MySQL and access to PostgreSQL....

Re:Database software? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397341)

Access, the only database worse than mysql.

lolcating the real mysql (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396495)

Is it just me, or did anyone read the title as "LOLCATTING the real mysql"?

Which reminds me, I need coffee.

Its incredibly frustrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396571)

To find out for example that when you download MySQL you are not getting the "official" INNODB engine either which yuo have to build yourself on solaris.

I think the distro is becoming somewhat of a cruel joke on users.

Lively discussion (1)

CaptTofu (4109) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396597)

I could use some Yerba Mate. Writing books is exhausting, and I will soon be done. I will be able to sleep. Hooray!

I'm glad to have triggered some discussion here. I just want to improve MySQL, that's all.

Too specific, too narrow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27396653)

Come on slashdot. This isn't news for nerds at all. This is news for a small subset of SQL geeks.

In other words millions of people are seeing this on the front page and millions of people are asking.. "Who gives a shit?"
Isn't there a SQL community or database forum for stuff this arcanely narrow?

Mod me anything but troll - I'm totally serious. I have a small personal interest in Smugmug, support open source, and generally like interesting software news. But I can't even get through the summary above without zoning out and thinking about sharing my opinions on which version should be the "official" fork I stick in kdawson's eye. Use whatever serves your needs and get over yourself about anyone else caring about it.

Re:Too specific, too narrow (1)

F452 (97091) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396791)

It seems to me this is squarely in slashdot's sweet spot.

If the blurb doesn't interest you, give the story and the discussion a pass. There'll be another story soon enough that doesn't meet your specifications either.

Re:Too specific, too narrow (1)

robbak (775424) | more than 5 years ago | (#27396805)

You think that the machinations of what is either the number 1 or number 2 name in the open source world is of narrow interest?
If an executive knows the name of any Open source project, it will be either Linux, MySQL, Openoffice or apache.
Now, while I think that MySQL fading away, and leaving PostgreSQL as the leading database would be a Good Thing, MySQL is still of great importance, and it's fracturing under Sun's (Mis)Management is one of the most important things happening in IT right now.

Found it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397061)

mysql.com

Get with the new age, people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27397121)

What tree is the official MySQL tree is irrelevent. What is important is that Monty got his billion.

Where is the confusion? (4, Funny)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27397199)

MySQL resides with Sun. Period. End of discussion.

Whatever Google Says (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#27397251)

At the moment, the top listing is www.mysql.com [mysql.com] - Duh.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>