Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Drizzle Hits General Availability

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the general-availability-turns-up-face-in-wonder dept.

Databases 146

snydeq writes "MySQL fork Drizzle has been released for general availability, giving companies a viable alternative to Oracle-owned MySQL, InfoWorld reports. 'Organizations that have been seeking a less-expensive alternative to Oracle's brand of MySQL — or a variant devoid of feature bloat — now have an option that Drizzle's creators deem ready to package in Linux distributions.'"

cancel ×

146 comments

MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (-1, Offtopic)

viablos (2018696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522050)

Generally I would support open source projects, but it's time to move on from MySQL. The project took wrong direction many years ago. If you go with Oracle, go with the old enterprise database solutions. If you don't exactly care about the license, go with Microsoft Access. They both are way better than MySQL and dealing with its problems.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1, Offtopic)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522194)

If you want a real open source database, with a real commitment to not being evil, check out PostGres [postgresql.org] . I've preferred it over MySql for a really long time, for technical as well as political reasons.

MySql might have had better marketing, but for most purposes it was never the best open source database.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522504)

If you want a real open source database, with a real commitment to not being evil, check out PostGres [postgresql.org] . I've preferred it over MySql for a really long time, for technical as well as political reasons.

MySql might have had better marketing, but for most purposes it was never the best open source database.

Just out of interest - i've always wondered why Postgres seems to trail in popularity to MySQL. I know the limitations of the latter having used it far too much, does anybody know where Postgres trails MySQL?

Specifically - what's the clustering support like? Can you do hotbackup without LVM hacks? etc. I'd love to use Postgres, but need confidence that it's not got a massive deficiency somewhere.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522700)

There are many ways to do postgres clustering, what exactly do you want to achieve. Do you want to just spread out queries or do you want to do failover?

You can do hotbackups by running pg_dump while using the db, but you probably would be better served by just replicating to another machine.

We use Postgres for our main product and it seems to be ok at keeping food on my plate.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (0)

viablos (2018696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522752)

Master and slaves db setup is much better and easier with MySQL. That's why Postgres isn't ready for entreprise databases. If you're small to medium size business you basically have to use MySQL, Oracle or proprietary enterprise solutions from Microsoft. Large companies like Facebook and Google develop their own database softwares. Postgres is nice, but it's for hobbyist mostly. It just doesn't scale.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522776)

That's some awesome trolling, that is.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522824)

Complete and utter bullshit.

You seemed like a moron after that first post, now you have proved it.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

doofusclam (528746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523520)

Out of interest, what's the problem with master/slave under postgres?

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (2)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522780)

Here's just an interesting comparison between them all, but you can see Postgres supports basically everything MySQL does and then a whole lot more..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems [wikipedia.org]

Not sure how up to date that is though

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (4, Insightful)

masshuu (1260516) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522806)

As someone who has dealt with both, I can say the reason postgresql isn't as popular is because its more involved in its setup. Mysql is simpler for new people. You install it, download phpmyadmin, login as root and then start creating databases and stuff. postgresql isn't as simple. Creating a new database is a bit more involved and when i first was confronted with it, I wondered why it was so complex.

I don't even know how to take advantage of more complex stuff in postgresql either.

This is coming from someone who is mildly experinced with mysql and set up a postgresql server not knowing anything.

Its like taking a Ubuntu person and sticking them on slackware/gentoo or something. Although its similar its still radically different.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522898)

I'd love to use Postgres, but need confidence that it's not got a massive deficiency somewhere.

Take a look at Postgres...it is MUCH more like Oracle in terms of a robust RDBMS. I've heard of projects taking pretty large Oracle installs...and converting over to Postgres with minimal pain.

The main reason MySQL is more popular is that it was smaller and easier to configure...but at the cost of robustness, and initially...data integrity. It was a short cut...much like {gag} MS Access proved often to be.

Postgres takes a bit more planning, and know how to install and use, but then again...so does something like Oracle.

You could probably compare:

MySql == Access

Postgres == Oracle

If you want to make some analogies.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (2)

doofusclam (528746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523426)

I'd love to use Postgres, but need confidence that it's not got a massive deficiency somewhere.

Take a look at Postgres...it is MUCH more like Oracle in terms of a robust RDBMS. I've heard of projects taking pretty large Oracle installs...and converting over to Postgres with minimal pain.

The main reason MySQL is more popular is that it was smaller and easier to configure...but at the cost of robustness, and initially...data integrity. It was a short cut...much like {gag} MS Access proved often to be.

Postgres takes a bit more planning, and know how to install and use, but then again...so does something like Oracle.

You could probably compare:

MySql == Access

Postgres == Oracle

If you want to make some analogies.

Thank you for your replies.

I wrote the original comment - apologies, but I forgot to login (I don't login here often, I tend to lurk)

The reason I ask is because i've been suspicious of MySQL because of the dual licensing, and also because the (expensive) cluster version needs the indices to be in memory - which requires serious hardware for our setup as our data is 'long and thin'. However there is little experience of postgres here, so we spend the money.

Therefore i've never bothered with postgres, which is stupid, but I know that as many open source projects use mysql, it is the 'go to' database of choice. When speccing a database i've always asked around and people have pointed out the deficiencies of postgres as being the clustering and backup support.

To be specific - how does the clustering (any method) of postgres compare to standard mysql? What is the best way of doing hot backups? Where does the performance fall down?

I'd love to use postgres, but unfortunately i'm too busy doing other tasks to give it a good, proper test. Has anybody been through this already and do they mind sharing?

Ta,

Sean

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (3, Interesting)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523424)

Just out of interest - i've always wondered why Postgres seems to trail in popularity to MySQL. I know the limitations of the latter having used it far too much, does anybody know where Postgres trails MySQL?

In my experience (since the last quarter of the 1990s), PostgreSQL never really trailed MySQL because there was anything wrong with it, it just fell in an awkward spot along the database spectrum. On one end of the spectrum (well, Berkeley DB was at the extreme end, just above flat files, but MySQL was next in line) MySQL fit the needs of the majority of data-driven webapps at the time.

A lot of web developers didn't need a proper database and often didn't recognize when they did need one, and couldn't design a decent schema in any case. MySQL was a good match for this skillset - it was easy for someone to set up and instance, throw together some tables and start coding. Any deficiencies were often just handled by throwing the logic into the code. MySQL was also pretty darned fast, which was important due to the hardware limitations of the time, and it could scale well enough for most needs. That got it a toehold and mindshare. Over the years as the demands of the web grew, Monty and friends made sure it stayed in that sweet spot. On the other end of the spectrum, if you *really* needed a proper database or massive scalability, you were usually doing something enterprise-ish, and that usually meant there was enough money available to pay for Oracle (or MS-SQL) and a Solaris machine. You had DBAs trained to manage the beast and design proper databases. Somewhere in between was PostgreSQL. Not as fast as MySQL (being ACID compliant was harder work), more difficult to setup, more demanding of hardware, not quite as powerful as Oracle, few people were trained to use it. Being free (of charge) didn't matter, because there was generally more to lose if things went wrong than the cost of the database, so Oracle was a safer bet. So, though it was more than good enough, PostgreSQL just didn't end up being as popular as MySQL. Didn't really matter, IMHO, because PostgreSQL did just fine and found a niche of it's own where it is doing quite well. Popularity isn't everything.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524150)

These days, I think MySQL has the same problem. It's squeezed between SQLite and PostgreSQL. If you're doing complex queries, PostgreSQL is faster. If you care about your data, both have better ACID support. If you're doing simple queries without many concurrent updates, SQLite is faster. There aren't many niches left where MySQL is worth considering.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

lakeland (218447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524340)

It's mainly historical.

Postgres used to be much harder to install and maintain, making it unpopular with causal people that just wanted a DB to run their website.\
Postgres also used to have much weaker clustering support, making it unpopular with people looking for a complete system

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

Unordained (262962) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522754)

Can we centralize the "alternatives to MySQL" thread here? My vote's for Firebird [firebirdsql.org] .

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (0)

Chad Birch (1222564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522200)

Access? Really? PostgreSQL would have been a much better suggestion.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522242)

Access is a joke, even compared to MySQL.

I highly suggest you look into Postgresql.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522666)

Hahah. I know, eh? Imagine if Slashdot was running on MySQL instead of Access. Oh wait..

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522786)

Slashdot seems to be working ok. For a website MySql is an ok choice so long as you can live with its shortcomings.
If slashdot was on Access only one of us could use it at a time. Access is not a real db. Access competes with sqllite, not with anything anyone should be using for a production website.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522294)

Yes, Microsoft Access is way better than MySQL. Clearly you know what you're talking about. And if you care about software licenses, Oracle is a great way to go. Any other words of wisdom to share?

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522390)

Generally I would support open source projects, but it's time to move on from MySQL. The project took wrong direction many years ago. If you go with Oracle, go with the old enterprise database solutions. If you don't exactly care about the license, go with Microsoft Access. They both are way better than MySQL and dealing with its problems.

What on earth are you talking about?

MySQL, Oracle, and Microsoft Access all target completely different markets. Access and MySQL are not even the same kind of software.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522568)

. If you don't exactly care about the license, go with Microsoft Access.

Please dear merciful God, don't ever use the words Microsoft Access and Database in the same sentence!!!

The terms are mutually exclusive...

Geez...I wish Access had never been created, and wish it would be banned.

The messes I've had to clean up due to it and its misuse.....*sigh*

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522782)

Don't blame the tool. If it weren't for Access, than you'd be dealing with spreadsheet abominations (which would be worse, btw, since Access at least lets you define some structure). The only problem with Access is when you start using it for things that it was never meant for.

Access as a database is just fine, in much the same way that SQLite is a fine database. Neither works as a database server, even if you try to make them. OTOH, trying to make a teacher run a MySQL server, and use db administrator tools for their class of 40 doesn't work so well either.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523584)

You mean they actually fixed it?

I would not rate MSAccess as being a competitor to SQLite. It's not nearly as good. (Well, it wasn't around a decade ago...but at the time it was getting worse with each iteration.) It's sole advantage, if it is an advantage, is that it comes bundled with a programming environment. Unfortunately, they were in the habit of breaking things with every minor release. Or sometimes just because. (My general practice in debugging was to save a text copy of the program, and if I started to get compilation errors, to delete the current programs, and then re-import the text files. It usually worked. For a month or so.) Frequently the problems seemed intentional, though of course one could never prove that. And even if one could have proven malice, the EULA meant they would be held harmless.

For some reason I totally stopped ever allowing any MS software on any computer that I use. (Well, except a few fonts.)

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522576)

I'd use Access but I'm still trying to figure out Frontpage.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522592)

When will people learn. If you see a new registered user who mentions Microsoft then he's probably an astroturfer - especially if he made the first post. Stop feeding the troll.

Explanation and a list of his known alts. [slashdot.org]

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

sapgau (413511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522816)

+1

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522638)

I saw that you deny it, but you really do seem like a shill. And I even defend MS sometimes. But Access? Seriously?

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35523144)

There has been a lot of discussion about this Microsoft astroturfer. He's been outed at every turn. See the following links.

Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (1)

sapgau (413511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522730)

Access? Why?
Never pick Access as a multi-user db. At least pick SQL Sever Express if you insist on MS.

Drizzle? (2, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522078)

Really? Drizzle? That was the best they could do for a name of the new project?

Re:Drizzle? (2)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522114)

In a world of googling, tweeting, and blogging, do snazzy names really matter any more?

Re:Drizzle? (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522784)

Snazzy sound like a photo sharing app.

Re:Drizzle? (3, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522130)

PostgreSQL was already taken.

Re:Drizzle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522946)

Indeed. All three users are still using it.

Re:Drizzle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522132)

Fo' shizzle my drizzle.

Re:Drizzle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522174)

Fo' shizzle my drizzle.

So what is that a gangsta drow?

People see me Dridin' they hatin'

Re:Drizzle? (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523360)

ok, someone needs to do this parody. Weird Al already did it for generic nerds, now we need to do it for narrower and narrower niches. Do it, DO IT NOW!

Re:Drizzle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35524026)

Fo' shizzle my drizzle.

So what is that a gangsta drow?

People see me Dridin' they hatin'

llolt!

Re:Drizzle? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523354)

For sure, my druid?

Re:Drizzle? (2)

jim03 (1301949) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522196)

That is what happens when you let SnoopDogg name things.

Re:Drizzle? (3, Funny)

discord5 (798235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522210)

Really? Drizzle? That was the best they could do for a name of the new project?

This was their second choice. The first wanted to call it GonorrheaDB, but the development team agreed that they should only use that name in case Twitter was interested in using it as a backend.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

Chad Birch (1222564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522256)

Sadly, GonorrheaDB isn't really that much worse of a name than MongoDB [mongodb.org] .

Re:Drizzle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35523252)

For all of you Americans who only understand English, I'll explain this for you. The word "mongo" means a variety of negative things in a number of other languages.

As is, it means "retarded" in German and Hungarian. There are similar-sounding words in Czech, Russian, Polish and other Eastern European languages where it means "idiot" or "moron".

In some dialects of Korean and Japanese, it's slang for "sodomy".

In certain South American dialects of Spanish and Portuguese, it sounds a lot like a word for "horse shit".

However, "mongo" may actually be a very good term for describing that which is "MongoDB". It basically is a pile of horse shit that's advocated by morons and idiots, and using it does feel a lot like unexpected sodomy. Hell, it makes MySQL look like a database.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524420)

If only Linus had named his OS SyphOS, Just think of how it would have, er, "spread" by now.

Drizzle is like a stream of bat's piss (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522386)

It "shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark."

Was that one of Wilde's? Very witty . . .

Re:Drizzle? (1)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522508)

Normally here is where I would complain that SQL should have been named "squirrel" and they should have named drizzle that. But it seems since the last time I went on a rant about that, someone actually has named an SQL related utility "squirrel." So I guess I'll shut up now.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522520)

Drizzt was taken.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

troylanes (883822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522686)

For shizzle.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

NoExQQ (1961082) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522810)

I just really hope I never have to say to anyone that everything is OK because I took a Drizzledump last night.....

Re:Drizzle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35523122)

This is why we _never_ let Snoop Dogg name our products.

Re:Drizzle? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523278)

Apparently the project head was into "water sports"...

Please (1, Funny)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522098)

Please name open source projects better. "Hey boss, lets build all these sites on top of Drizzle."

Maybe some high profile OSS guys can help fund or start some kind of OSS naming service.

Re:Please (2)

discord5 (798235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522264)

Maybe some high profile OSS guys can help fund or start some kind of OSS naming service.

That's always an option, but you just know that they'll give the organization a terrible name.

Re:Please (2)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522514)

Thank you for contacting Zerrodong! The suggested names for your project follow...

Re:Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522506)

Like people do now for Drupal? serious looking in the want adds amazed at how many people like drupal.

Re:Please (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523368)

You're telling me! I keep telling my managers "We should be using subversion!" They all think I'm some kind of subversive...

Re:Please (1)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523530)

Oh, well there's you problem. Tell them they should be using Git!
Oh, wait...

Re:Please (2)

Iron Condor (964856) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523544)

Mercurial is better anyways ... :-P Seriously: if I have to sell my mgmt on "git" or "mercurial" (which don't look all that different to me) which one do you think I'm going to talk about?

Less Expensive? (1)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522158)


Less expensive? I thought MySql was free? Any MySql admins here? Are there certain features (grid, flashback, partitioning) that aren't available with the free version?

Re:Less Expensive? (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522302)

You are taking the comment out of context. Of course you can get MySQL free, but sometimes in some cases, you don't run it for free. (and for good reason)

Re:Less Expensive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522670)

By that logic you don't switch out of it for free either, so its still not at all compelling.

How does Master Shake feel about this? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522166)

Does the Drizzle know that they have named a MySQL fork after him?

Re:How does Master Shake feel about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522384)

He wrote a letter to complain, but it was black ink on black paper so they ignored it.

Re:How does Master Shake feel about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35523606)

"...he could, you know, rain 'em out. Cancelled on account of weather."

"So let me get this straight. You have to know ahead of time that they're going to commit this crime?"

Life with MySQL can be frustrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522190)

Here's my favorite bug du jour:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=23212

Basically, when you use "load infile", MySQL creates zero data rather than NULL data when the input file had NULL data. Unfortunately, 0s and empty strings can be valid data.

Now imagine this type of stuff ALL OVER THE PLACE. I wish I had built on PostgreSQL way back when I started.

Re:Life with MySQL can be frustrating (1)

squallbsr (826163) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522454)

It is these kinds of behaviors that have always kept me from ever liking MySQL. I really don't want my database trying to decide how to convert my data into something it deems acceptable. If I try to insert bad data, I want an error, not the db 'fixing' the issue for me.

Re:Life with MySQL can be frustrating (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522512)

Oh, that's cute - you thought that they did it on purpose, trying to help the user.

Re:Life with MySQL can be frustrating (1)

SJ2000 (1128057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523150)

My favourite problem was not being able to use variables for the LIMIT clause Bug #11918 [mysql.com] . Took 5 years to remedy.

Drizzle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522206)

It's the Shizzle.

Like the name. (5, Funny)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522374)

I'm just glad they didn't give it some dumb, stilted name like "LibreSQL".

Re:Like the name. (1)

LaneLester (1160709) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523682)

Good comment. I was appalled when I learned that that new OO would be called LibreOffice. It looks bad; it sounds bad. You can't tell someone about it orally without having to spell it. But as this thread illustrates, it seems that open source people have this sick need to give their products horrible names.

API License? (2)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522510)

I seem to remember that many years ago, before Sun bought MySQL AB, the license for the library needed to access the database from your own programs was GPL (not LGPL), and MySQL AB claimed you couldn't use it without open-sourcing your code, unless you paid them for a commercial-use license. Has that changed with Drizzle (i.e., have they written a new API so they can choose a different license)? Their license page [drizzle.org] says:

Drizzle is licensed under both the GPLv2 and BSD license. The core of Drizzle was forked from MySQL and thus is under GPLv2. Derived work from GPLv2 code will stay GPLv2, as the license states...

which doesn't give any detail about which parts are still GPL and which parts are now BSD.

Re:API License? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522578)

Hi Bill,
The main code is GPLv2, the libdrizzle client library is BSD and the docs are CC BY SA 3.0

Re:API License? (1)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522864)

Thanks for the reply. That's a significant feature.

Re:API License? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35523256)

I think most of the drivers are now under the BSD style license so that fixes that issue.
http://wiki.drizzle.org/JDBC

Re:API License? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35524650)

Library to access the database has been re-written from scratch and is BSD, database itself is forked and thus still GPLv2.
Drizzle - well not really raining on Sun microsystems parade of buying MySQL but the change in license for the fork was designed to be drizzle at least. Those former MySQL guys, they just didn't like Sun despite taking their billion dollars.

Who cares? No one. (0)

afabbro (33948) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522548)

I've seen nothing in Drizzle that was so compelling that it's worth going through and recertifying a whole stack of apps. In fact, I've seen nothing compelling in Drizzle at all. "Hey, we ripped out a bunch of features and we're not Oracle!" Great. I'm trying to get real work done over here. The protest march is the next street over.

Re:Who cares? No one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35524598)

Who cares? No one.
Your title is rather ironic.

Drizzle? Really? (1)

nblender (741424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522668)

Too bad "OurSQL" is taken.. Maybe "EveryoneSQL"

There is already a better alternative (0)

Algae_94 (2017070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522672)

As much as I'd like to support Master Shake's new DB, there has been a better open-source DB for years now. Check out PostgreSQL if you haven't already.

Why does Snoop Dogg carry an umbrella? (2)

BitHive (578094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522684)

Fo' drizzle.

Oracle, are you paying attention? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522732)

A large part of the Internet Technology sector thinks your company is poison. I know, I know... you don't care unless they are shareholders dumping their shares en mass.

nails all chewed off, still not getting ahead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522814)

disappointed with the new gnu online dating?

so, we'll then expect to see you at any one of the million babys+
play-dates, conscience arisings, georgia stone editing(s), photon gatherings, & a host of
other life promoting/loving events. guaranteed to activate all of our
sense(s) at once. perhaps you have seen our list of pure intentions for
you/us?

windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35523004)

No windows version?

fail.

LADP? (1)

sltd (1182933) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523020)

So now there will be Linux Apache Drizzle Php servers? Just classy.

Re:LADP? (1)

leenks (906881) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523180)

You mean Linux Drizzle Apache PHP, surely?

LDAP...

Wait a minute!! DOH!

Re:LADP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35523330)

You mean Linux Drizzle Apache PHP, surely?

LDAP...

Wait a minute!! DOH!

I thought it was LAPD....

Re:LADP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35524190)

LADP

A Los Angeles policeman with dyslexia?

2nd fork then? (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523112)

Wasn't MariaDB [mariadb.org] enough?

Re:2nd fork then? (2)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523522)

They are not quite the same. Drizzle seems to be striving for minimalism, while MariaDB is trying to follow the pre-Oracle development path. Also, MariaDB has the following albatross around its neck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Widenius [wikipedia.org] . His post-Oracle "Save MySQL" campaign was all kinds of annoying.

Re:2nd fork then? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524594)

SQL-Lite already fills this void of minimalism. Infact, it is the most popular database in the world. Its included in every iphone, Firefox installation, and android device out there.

Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35523302)

Now I can build Drupal sites on Drizzle. That's Drupizzle!

Windows is not supported by Drizzle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35523574)

but sqlite, FirebirdSQL and PostgreSQL does. If you need a database that runs on BSD, Linux, Mac and Windows, there are better choices than Drizzle.

Way to show commitment! (1)

erice (13380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35523690)

A "drizzle" is a half-assed rain. Is Drizzle a database for those aren't really sure they want one?

WTF is up with open source names (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524106)

I for one do not even try to explain to average people what open source software is, I cant get one sentence in before someone starts cracking jokes

Drizzle
LAME
GIMP
GNOME
etc ... really? you want this to be the year of the * desktop? fine make it so I dont have to spend time explaining what lame drizzle is and how it is different from a gimp gnome!

bestes creatin (1)

calzone1 (2019750) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524360)

i can*t belive it .... i dont understand :(

Drizzle creates mud (2)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 3 years ago | (#35524570)

What a waste of /. commenting. I look through the top 50 and the obsession with the fucking name is amazing. How about the fact they don't support stored procedures or triggers.

Fundamentally, stored procedures usually are not the correct architectural decision for applications that need to scale.

WTF? Stored Procs are the basis for enterprise development with a DB backend. It is the whole point of scalability. Hard coding commands is horrible for anything but small apps. I am also not a fan of Oracle, but until a better alternative is presented I will stick with MySql because it is free, and can scale much better then these guys. Sorry Drizzle, its too muddy for my tastes.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...