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!

Mickos Says MySQL Code Better Than Ever Under Oracle

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the good-stewardship dept.

Databases 117

jbrodkin writes "Oracle hasn't done much to foster a community around open source projects, but the former CEO of MySQL said Oracle's expertise has helped boost the database to new heights from a technology perspective. 'Many in the community will ... feel that it's not as open and open source as it used to be and that's true,' Marten Mickos said. 'But the core product, the actual code, is in better shape than ever. And I think they will keep it that way.' Mickos, now head of Eucalyptus, left Sun before the Oracle merger because he correctly predicted that the company could not survive on its own."

cancel ×

117 comments

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

The article... (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36020756)

Seems to like the buzzword "cloud computing a lot". If I didn't know better I'd guess this was a cleverly disguised plug for "Eucalyptus".

But I will not be so cynical. If Oracle continue to develop mySQL and the underlying code-base improves (as well, of course, the actual SQL and language/database interface as a whole) then that's all good.

Re:The article... (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36020810)

And, they will only charge $10,000 per user to use it. At least it's a little less than Oracle SQL.

Re:The article... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36020926)

Oracle charges about $2,000 per server each year to use MySQL, and about $200 per user or $6,000 per processor for Oracle (perpetual licence).
With $10,000 you can get the MySQL Cluster edition (which is the highend version) for an unlimited number of users.

Re:The article... (4, Interesting)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36020966)

Oracle Enterprise is actually $47,500 per core base rate. Where it gets interesting is the fact that different processors are given different "core factors" based on their performance and/or Oracle's business interests that you multiply by the base price; so, for instance, Power7 and Itanium 9300 both have a core factor of 1.0 (full price) whereas various SPARC chips have 0.5 or 0.25.

Re:The article... (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021200)

I once tried to price Oracle licenses... I eventually gave up. The rules were insane.

Now they're charging for MySQL? Is this like Oracle Linux, where you are paying for the "support" or are they properly charging you?

"It's brilliant engineering and they are under the GPL license, completely open source, fantastically built, a low number of bugs, well tested and QA'd. All of that is fantastic," Mickos said. "But where you see it already changing is that in community engagement, discussion forums, bug databases, online documentation, you see how they are moving MySQL into the same mode as other Oracle products. Many in the community will react against it and feel that it's not as open and open source as it used to be and that's true. That's why you see new companies springing up and catering to that need. But the core product, the actual code, is in better shape than ever. And I think they will keep it that way."

So, the code is still open, and may be actually improving, that's good. But the support/forums/etc are changing, well that's okay, the community can always run that by itself if Oracle sucks.

Either way, there's always PostgreSQL!

Re:The article... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021288)

I once tried to price Oracle licenses... I eventually gave up. The rules were insane.

I had to try and do that restrospectively - management signed a new deal with them and didn't tell IT until 6 months later. This was at a reseller, there were different products there, some priced one off, some by time, some revocable, some not ... what a clusterfuck.

Re:The article... (2)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021710)

> Now they're charging for MySQL? Is this like Oracle Linux, where you are paying for the "support" or are they properly charging you?

The community version is still freely downloadable, as it has always been. Supported versions are freely downloadable too, but of course you have to cough up for maintenance contracts. That, too, is how it has always been.

I don't much look at the actual code, so I can't comment on the quality of that; but more bugs seem to get closed and more features seem to get developed than before. I'm not complaining.

Re:The article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021760)

I once tried to price Oracle licenses... I eventually gave up. The rules were insane.

Now they're charging for MySQL? Is this like Oracle Linux, where you are paying for the "support" or are they properly charging you?

"It's brilliant engineering and they are under the GPL license, completely open source, fantastically built, a low number of bugs, well tested and QA'd. All of that is fantastic," Mickos said. "But where you see it already changing is that in community engagement, discussion forums, bug databases, online documentation, you see how they are moving MySQL into the same mode as other Oracle products. Many in the community will react against it and feel that it's not as open and open source as it used to be and that's true. That's why you see new companies springing up and catering to that need. But the core product, the actual code, is in better shape than ever. And I think they will keep it that way."

So, the code is still open, and may be actually improving, that's good. But the support/forums/etc are changing, well that's okay, the community can always run that by itself if Oracle sucks.

Either way, there's always PostgreSQL!

please see this tutorial to understand oracle licensing :
http://www.oraclelicensestore.com/en/oracle-licensing-basic-tutorial

It's actually quite simple. For the Standard Edition 1 and Standard Edition, just the number of CPU is taken into account. For the Enterprise Edition, the number of cores and their manufacturers is taken into account.
The most commonly deployed CPUs from Intel, Xeon series, are for instance 0.5 factor per core. Which means that a quad core is 0.5x4 = 2. So 2 CPU licences for 1 Quad core physical CPU. For the CPU that have a 1.0 factor per core, it is indeed 1x4 =4 CPU licences for 1 physical CPU.
For the core factor table, see : http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/contracts/processor-core-factor-table-070634.pdf

Re:The article... (4, Insightful)

anegg (1390659) | more than 3 years ago | (#36022936)

please see this tutorial to understand oracle licensing : http://www.oraclelicensestore.com/en/oracle-licensing-basic-tutorial [oraclelicensestore.com]

It's actually quite simple.

You use that phrase "quite simple" - I do not think it means what you think it means.

If a tutorial is required to understand the licensing, its not "quite simple."

Re:The article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36022020)

My post was about Oracle Stardard One which is the edition you may choose if you are not a Fortune 500 company.
BIG companies can afford purchasing 100,000 for databases and they may need the most performant ones (Oracle EE is one of them).

In fact, if you want to purchase a perpetual licence for a small commercial application then Oracle can even be cheaper than MySQL.
Anyway, the most intelligent decision is to use JPA/Hibernate like technologies to have an acceptable cost when migrating a database management system.

Re:The article... (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36023278)

I think I'm the only Java developer in the world that just doesn't *get* JPA. I mean I understand the argument for it, I understand what it's supposed to do, I've just never experienced a successful project written with it... either by me or any other team. It seems okay during the prototype stage but once it gets into production it seems like invariably there is some issue that occurs deep inside your JPA implementation and the result is pretty much to rewrite the data access layer to use old school connections.

Re:The article... (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021192)

No, they don't charge that (they can't) unless you choose not to distribute your source code under the GPL as well.

Re:The article... (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021238)

You can sell GPL licensed software. Nothing prevents you. You just need to find people willing to buy it while some random joe made his copy available for free on the Net. Oracle probably has a clients willing to pay for MySQL.

Re:The article... (1)

anegg (1390659) | more than 3 years ago | (#36023034)

One of the clients willing to pay for GPL licensed software is the US government. There is a belief in some circles in some agencies that any free software must be filled with security risks, but if you pay money for software, it will have far fewer security risks. (Or perhaps the belief is that if you pay money for it, and it has a security problem, you can somehow hold the person to whom you paid your money responsible in some ill-defined mystical manner [which I personally believe is unlikely to stand up to the lawyer-priests and their spells of plausible deniability].) This belief holds even if the software you buy is exactly the same as the software you download for free. The act of paying money for the software is part of a ritual magic that imbues the purchased code with magical proofs against security risks. Try it!

One agency's staff developed a means of achieving efficiency of cost under this magical system. They buy Red Hat Linux, which magically imbues every single piece of free software packaged with the Red Hat Linux distribution with the magical protection against security risks. Even those pieces of free software from normally untouchable sources [i.e., distribution points clearly recognized as being outside the boundaries of the United States].

Rituals such as this are apparently an important part of the "defense in depth" strategy for protecting critical infrastructure. Or is that security-theatre writ large? I always get them confused.

Re:The article... (1)

anegg (1390659) | more than 3 years ago | (#36023066)

One of the clients willing to pay for GPL licensed software is the US government.

Sorry! Replace "GPL licensed" with "free" as my comment was intended to apply not only to GPL-licensed software but all types of free software.

Re:The article... (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021476)

Oracle charges about $2,000 per server each year to use MySQL

I thought MySQL was under the GPL? You can't charge for using GPL'd software.

Re:The article... (3, Informative)

JonJ (907502) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021668)

I thought MySQL was under the GPL? You can't charge for using GPL'd software.

MySQL has always been available under a dual license, and you can charge for GPL'd software.

Re:The article... (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021852)

Incorrect. You can't charge (other than a modest processing fee) for the source code of GPL'd binary. You can certainly charge someone to receive the binary in the first place, and you're only required to give the source (free of charge) to those that received a copy of the binary from you. You are under no requirement to give source to someone that does not have the binary (though most gpl developers do).

However, even so.. if Oracle owns all the rights to the source code, then they can remove the GPL at any time. That won't stop previous versions from continuing to be GPL and forkable, but Oracle is under no requirement to continue releasing any software they own the full rights to under the GPL.

Re:The article... (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021976)

The thing is, if someone received MySQL under the GPL, they are perfectly at liberty (in fact they are encouraged) to redistribute it to anyone who wants it along with the source code.

You can charge someone to receive the binary (i.e. a reasonable charge to cover costs and maybe something for your time) but you can not charge them simply to use the software. Obviously, they can't use it if they can't get it in the first place.

Yes, if they own the copyright to MSQL (in its entirety) they can relicense it any way they like.

What are the "business reasons" for paying for Oracle's MySQL vs. a Free one?

The moral of the story is: steer well clear of Oracle.

Re:The article... (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#36022164)

You can charge anything you want for GPL software. $1b if you want. Your call.

But when the software is distributed, you must provide the source code free of charge. And you cannot prevent your customer from distributing said source code.

As far as Oracle is concerned, if they keep on improving MySQL and if they keep the community edition free, then it's all for the best. Why complaining?

Re:The article... (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36024028)

>Why complaining? /. Oracle-phobia

Re:The article... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36022374)

Probably the same business reasons for paying for MySQL AB's MySQL or Sun's MySQL. Actually, MySQL AB was far worse in their licensing (ie, connecting to a MySQL database causes GPL infection!!!!).

Re:The article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36023612)

if Oracle owns all the rights to the source code, then they can remove the GPL at any time.

I dont think thats right. To change the GPL they would have to get permission from everyone who contributed to the code. INAL, but Im pretty sure its not something they can do on a whim. Doesn't mean they wont try...

Re:The article... (1)

butlerm (3112) | more than 3 years ago | (#36024738)

The word of the day is "copyright assignment". q.v.

Re:The article... (4, Informative)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021732)

You have no idea what you're talking about, apparently. Get informed before you start whining.

The community editions of MySQL and Cluster (NDB) are still as freely downloadable as ever. If you want support, you'll have to cough up. I know, it's terribly bad form of them to not support you for free. Oh, except for the mailing lists, on which quite a few of the lead developers and some pretty good DBAs are active.

As for the Oracle licenses, you seem to be stuck in 1990 or something. Oracle pricing is way to complicated to explain here - even if I did understand all of it - but list price is one hell of a lot more expensive than what you say.

Re:The article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021968)

You may visit https://shop.oracle.com/ and then tell yourself "I won't troll in slashdot once again"
You can't use MySQL for commercial purposes for free. It is not only about free "downloading" and pay per support.

Re:The article... (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36022090)

Uh, yes, you can, you just need to make sure your code is licensed under an OSI-approved license.

Re:The article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36023488)

People have wasted thousands of hours trying to explain (in this case, MySQL's) dual licensing to otherwise intelligent people. They continue to fail. The OP is not "whining" per se, or an indication of the recipient's intelligence, but the failure of the culture in general to keep from soiling its own intellectual property nest. Or it's a failure of communication; something the internet was supposed to rectify. I think it's a demonstrated failure of the GPL for allowing dual licensing to begin with. You either want people to have your code or you do not. You do not wave the GPL flag and at the same time allow these little wormholes to exist so that the corporate dev money can keep coming in. GPL software is "open", it is not "Free". If it was they wouldn't need their silly little beer analogy.

Re:The article... (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 3 years ago | (#36027350)

Open is the wrong term. GPL software is libre(free), not gratis(free). It's also Open, but that term means something different and doesn't describe the essential property of GPL. Open software always existed (while there were computers, of course). Open just means you can see the source. It doesn't imply any further conditions. GPL has further conditions which are intended (usually successfully) to ensure that the software continues to remain libre (free) as it is improved.

N.B.: By this I do not mean to imply that GPL software isn't gratis. It usually is. But that's not one of the conditions. Though there is a condition that you can't charge someone you distribute a copy to (whether paid for or not) for distributing it to others.

The confusion between the two meanings of free is inherent in English, not in the logic. The free as in "free beer" thing is just a way of explaining an ambiguity that other languages necessarily have. It's used because many people prefer to avoid importing foreign words to patch ambiguities in English. (And these are often in the audience being addressed.)

Re:The article... (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021180)

Well, hang on; that depends on what license you need. For many users I'd guess that the GPL version would be fine.

Re:The article... (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36020868)

I hope so because mysql runs like ass in the cloud.

Re:The article... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021168)

I hope so because mysql runs like ass in the cloud.

How so?

On several large scale projects I worked on (online games) our servers were pushing (at peak) up to 5000k queries per second.. and this was a relational database.

Being a seasoned DBA I have found that most database issues (whether MySQL, PostGres, or Oracle) are related to the following:

1. Horrifying SQL statements written by amateurs that have no idea what they are doing to the server
2. Horrifying ORM's that uses a cascade of queries to do things that a single query can resolve.
3. People that have no clue how to tune their database to their application.

Most, if not all of the issues are related to the developer and *this* my friend is the real problem.

Re:The article... (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 3 years ago | (#36024756)

Someone mod this wise DBA +1 Insightful!

Re:The article... (1)

microbox (704317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36026144)

Here here. Large consultancy firms would save their clients money by investing more resources in mentoring and code reviews, which would raise the level of skill of their consultants. Many of these people were not that interested in programming in the first place, and once they got a job, then fitting in, and playing well with the clients seems to be all that is important.

Re:The article... (1)

petman (619526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021882)

...ass in the cloud.

I don't know that expression. What does it mean?

Re:The article... (0)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36022392)

Have ever released a stinky fart where the odor just lingers? If not, hang out with Cowboy Neil sometime.

Re:The article... (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#36023114)

It may be a reference to the lack of a sex life.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36020784)

Couldn't have gotten much worse. I still bet it's taking years for bugs and bad design decisions to be fixed.

Who knows... (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36020802)

Maybe the code is better, maybe it isn't. We may never know!

And we'll care less over time. Not open anymore, move on. Get over it.

PostgreSQL will stay open, and stay strong.

Re:Who knows... (2)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36020822)

PostgreSQL will stay open, and stay strong.

Until Oracle buys them up too.

I've always preferred PostgreSQL anyway. It never acted as squirrely as mySQL always did for me (personal opinion).

Re:Who knows... (4, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36020870)

PostgreSQL will stay open, and stay strong.

Until Oracle buys them up too.

Unlike MySql, there seems not [postgresql.org] to be a single entity that owns the copyright for PostgreSQL. Meaning: Oracle would have trouble to buy all the copyrights, probably it will think twice before doing trying to do it (and at the secind round of thinking, will actually stop of even attempting).

Julian Assange (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021300)

I just noticed that Julian Assange is one of the contributors in that list.

Re:Julian Assange (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021440)

So ? If someone contributes good code, it gets accepted.

Isn't that the point of open source ?

It doesn't matter if you are a small disabled child in his bedroom, a big corporation or a movie star.

Re:Julian Assange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021736)

It doesn't matter if you are a small disabled child in his bedroom, a big corporation or a movie star.

No, but it might be worthy of mention if it is a well known name you normally associate with something else.

Re:Who knows... (4, Informative)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021606)

I'm a PostgreSQL contributor. Oracle can't buy my copyright. There are dozens of other code contributors just like me in that regard, working for many companies. It was possible to buy MySQL because most of the code was developed by MySQL Ab, and copyright assignments required for contributions to be merged. See Some thoughts on Copyright Assignment [gnome.org] for more details. That's not the case for PostgreSQL.

Furthermore, the PostgreSQL community has already been through the process of having a single corporation "buy" many of the top contributors, when a company named Great Bridge hired many of them. The disruption to the PostgreSQL community of Great Bridge failing [open-mag.com] was such that even starting in that direction is actively rejected now. So even if a company did start gobbling up developers one at a time, they would face increasing resistance at obtaining the remaining ones.

Re:Who knows... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021818)

I'm a PostgreSQL contributor. Oracle can't buy my copyright.

It may consider buying the rest of it and replacing your contribution.

So even if a company did start gobbling up developers one at a time, they would face increasing resistance at obtaining the remaining ones.

It would be when the "second thought" kicks in.

Anyway, thanks for the reply and, even more, thanks for contributing to PostgreSQL.

Re:Who knows... (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36025790)

Replacing some contributions is hard. There may be a lot of other code that is arguably a derived work. The only sure-fire way to deal with it would be to freeze the code at a point before the contribution, then do a clean-room reimplementation of everything that was added later. That may be hard to put it mildly.

Re:Who knows... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36022890)

Part of what the whole MySQL saga should be teaching open source devs is that open source projects controlled by a single for-profit company are usually a bad idea. The reason is that the for-profit company can be bought out or have other business changes which dramatically affect the project. It sounds like PostgreSQL got close to having the same problem, and as a db user I'm sure glad it extracted itself from that.

Re:Who knows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36023946)

Where does "for-profit" come in? If you remove the subtle yet irrelevant anti-capitalism dig from the statement, then I think more people would agree with your statement.`

Re:Who knows... (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36024358)

Can you buy non-profits?

Re:Who knows... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36027140)

"For-profit" comes in for two reasons:
  1. Non-profits are much harder to control with outside cash. It's not impossible (case in point: One Laptop Per Child), but it's more difficult for a takeover to happen. Such takeovers are bad because they can force a project to be abandoned or FUBARed, and the only thing the developers and users can do to defend themselves is to fork the project.
  2. Non-profits are generally trying to produce as much useful software as cheaply as possible, while for-profits are generally trying to produce software that's useful enough to be popular (so they can sell services, consulting, and related tools) but no more useful than that (because that increases costs and reduces sales of the ancillary products).

If you want to make money related to open source software, I see 2 good ways to do it:
1. Sell the addition of features to a package. For instance, I was working for a cell company that wanted to adapt a project that had been written for GSM phones to work with CDMA phones, so we hired a developer to make the modification and contribute it back to the trunk. We got what we needed at a fraction of the price of a commercial solution, the developer got an appropriate fee for his services, and the project got a new feature, so everybody won.
2. Sell applications built on open source software rather than open source software. For instance, selling the nifty website you built on top of your open source database, rather than selling the database.

Re:Who knows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36025018)

I'm a PostgreSQL contributor. Oracle can't buy my copyright. ...

Sorry, but I call bullshit.

Are you raising a family? Have any plans to?

If Oracle wants your copyright, and thinks they can use it to make a lot of money, they could cut you a check that would go a long way to helping your kids get a better start in life.

And you sit there and say, "Oracle can't buy my copyright." Like your so much better than those who "sell out".

Again, I say BULLSHIT. [wired.com]

Re:Who knows... (1)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36025308)

I'm not raising a family and have no plans to. In addition, I have contract obligations that it would take me a year to begin unraveling, such that I could consider that form of buy-out. My professional career is based on open source software solutions, and I have already gone hungry rather than take a job working as an Oracle DBA. I've also not worked at all when the main option available was working on Microsoft software. You can't call bullshit on me, coward.

Re:Who knows... (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#36023144)

That would probably bring an anti-trust investigation. As long as Oracle is making money with MySQL, I doubt they would want to risk the publicity. Besides if Postgress or other DBF gets that good, open source users would just fork and move on anyway. Its the open aspect that is the greatest strength of the software, not any temporary benchmarks regarding specific code.

Re: PostgreSQL will stay open, and stay strong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021498)

Now I'm a big fan of PostgreSQL, especially of its strong developer community -- and I'll prefer it to MySQL on technical reasons alone any day.

But the quoted phrase of yours verges on FUD. MySQL code is GPL, that means it'll stay open too. You might be forced to call it by another name -- but who cares?

Re:Who knows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021836)

"Not open anymore"
this is so not true ! and coming from someone that probably is too lazy to dig out what's really going on and relies on "what i heard is" stories ! MySQL community edition is developed and maintained bug time better that before. Just use Google and your brains to get some of the feedback on the 5.5 for instance...
What MySQL is pushing is their commercial offer, with world-class support based on Oracle SLA and excellent Monitoring + back-up tools.
YOu don't want to use the tools, fine, you don't have to pay anything to use MySQL. But for a small fee, compared to Postgres or services offers, you get excellent value for the money imho.

PostgreSQL: good for FOSS and business too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36023448)

When Oracle jacked up the price for commercial distribution of MySQL, we switched to Postgre and never looked back.

I know there are people out there who think that GPL is the only valid FOSS license and that no open-source code should ever be sold as part of a commercial product. But the existence of licenses like PostgreSQL, Apache, and MIT makes it possible for a lot of small, innovative software companies (like ours!) to survive and compete against giants like Microsoft and Oracle.

Lenient open-source licenses help keep the software ecosystem healthy. As someone who makes a living in that ecosystem, I'm grateful to all the people who create and contribute to open-source projects.

MySQL's founder would probably dissagree (5, Interesting)

ya really (1257084) | more than 3 years ago | (#36020846)

Mickos Says MySQL Code Better Than Ever Under Oracle

I think the founder of MySQL would disagree, since he forked MySQL and started MariaDB. MySQL 5.5 was a long time coming and added quite a bit, but much of what it added was already in the stable MariaDB by the time it came out. Some of the linux distros such as debian are looking to add or switch to mariadb. I switched to MariaDB a while ago and development in MySQL looked like it was starting to stagnate. Not to go dragging out things, but look into Maria, it has quite a few bug patches, performance enhancements, features and such that MySQL lacks and may never have if Oracle splits off community development features from the "enterprise" version.

Re:MySQL's founder would probably dissagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36020956)

How about naming one Linux distro that would "switch" to Maria as if their base system ever included MySQL in the first place. Offering it in the package repository is hardly a sea change.

Maria's claim to fame is Aria, and it's another god damned nontransactional piece of crap like MyISAM.

Re:MySQL's founder would probably dissagree (4, Informative)

ya really (1257084) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021194)

Couldn't be anymore obvious you're trolling, but others might like to know it does have transactions [askmonty.org] , and it's ACID compliant. It wont officially replace MySQL ever because so much software depends on the actual name MySQL for linking to and Oracle would probably have a problem with a distribution keeping folders linked to the name even if it isn't using the Oracle Maintained MySQL. However, most of the main distros (debian, ubuntu, gentoo, etc) will or already do have it in their official repositories and MariaDB also has their own signed repositories for Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and more listed on their downloads page.

Re:MySQL's founder would probably dissagree (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021150)

There was a mildly serious MySQL exploit announced just a few weeks ago. Not that this is something unheard of but still -- 'better than ever'?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/28/mysql_hack/

correctly predicted? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021046)

So Sun actually went under?

Re:correctly predicted? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36022782)

Yeesh, you seem to be quite out of the loop! It feels like it happened in the last 6 months, but apparently it was in 2009 [oracle.com] .

Re:correctly predicted? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36026574)

My point was precisely that Oracle bought Sun, ruining any chance of finding out if Sun could survive on their own or not. Sun did not go out of business.

Ha! (-1, Offtopic)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021098)

I haven't used MySQL at all, so i can't speak directly to it. However i did spend most of today trying to get Oracle set up for the new guy in the office. When we realized we had installed the wrong reason (we needed x86 rather than x64 for reasons that would take too long to go into) it took 15-30 minutes and several false starts just to figure out how to uninstall the old version. Oracle's installers suck. Oracle's "deinstallers" suck even more. Once you've got Oracle installed you find that their drivers are finicky. Then you find that the API is limited, the error messages are often ambiguous, the help available online is limited, and Oracle's website sucks.

I feel kind of ashamed saying it, but from the perspective of both a user and a programmer Microsoft SQL is better in just about every way. Maybe Oracle is much better for DBAs who have to support huge enterprise databases rather than tiny test databases, i dunno, but the face Oracle presents to everyone else is a sadistic one. This has been double so since Microsoft deprecated Oracle support in ADO. [msdn.com] I thought supporting Oracle was painful before, but then i had to deal with ODAC! Half of me wants to curse Microsoft for the pain that put me through, while the other half forlornly hopes that perhaps that will convince people to stop using Oracle and it will die. (Unfortunately it's my job to suffer so our users don't notice the difference, and i'm sure there are a lot of other programmers in the same position, so it probably won't happen.)

It's clearly a very personal and obviously biased opinion, but when someone doing anything at all related to SQL says that Oracle is really helping them out, i want to laugh and laugh and laaaaaaugh. And then start crying.

*sigh* I should go to sleep now. I have to get up early tomorrow, go into work, and deal with Oracle some more. *shudder*

Re:Ha! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021254)

When we realized we had installed the wrong reason (we needed x86 rather than x64 for reasons that would take too long to go into) it took 15-30 minutes and several false starts just to figure out how to uninstall the old version.

15-30 minutes?! Come back when it takes hours.

Re:Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36022380)

Install in a virtual machine - we have development, QA and production Oracle running in VMware. Then when you screw up the install you revert to the snapshot you took before you started. And once you have one DB installed, you can clone them as licensing permits...

Re:Ha! (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 3 years ago | (#36022030)

Well thats the idea, if you buy oracle you buy also into their consulting and/or training hours. Oracle can perform really well and can host loads of data if you have a person who knows his way around, if not and you are short on time forget about it.
Oracle is something along the lines of we want banks big businesses etc... as customers and those do not care about expensive trainings and consulting hours, they never cared about the small time developers.

Re:Ha! (1)

rhvarona (710818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36022874)

In my previous job I had to support customers with multi-petabyte databases on SQL Server 2008 and Oracle 10R2/11R2.  SQL Server is significantly easier to install and manage.  The tools to perform administrative operations such as creating new databases, doing database backups, profiling database server activity, measuring performance are much easier to work with on SQL Server.

SQL Server pricing also works out to less than half what Oracle charges per socket.  Last time I priced it out, Oracle came to around $20,000 per socket and SQL Server was under $10,000 per socket.

IMO the only advantage that Oracle has is better high end scalability on very large database servers: multi-petabyte, > 64 core and > 128 spindles/flash drives.

Supposedly SQL Server 2010 has significantly narrowed that scalability gap, but I left the company before they switched.

What I recommend to my customers is:
Databases with small transaction volumes and few concurrent connections: MySQL, PostgreSQL, or SQL Server free edition
Medium databases with moderate transaction volumes (10GB to 1TB): PostgreSQL or SQL Server
Large database with high transaction volumes (1TB to 100TB): PostgreSQL (if you have inhouse DBA with optimization experience) or SQL Server
Very large database (100TB to 10PT): SQL Server if performance requirements can be met with mid-sized hardware (up to 8 sockets, 64 cores), otherwise Oracle
Girnourmous databases (>10PT): Oracle if performance requirements can be met with large-sized hardware (8 to 32 sockets) or using the extremely costly Oracle Exadata custom database hardware stack, otherwise one of the specialty databases such as Teradata

Re:Ha! (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36024948)

Maybe Oracle is much better for DBAs who have to support huge enterprise databases rather than tiny test databases

Well yeah. There is no question SQLServer is much more user friendly and easy. The reason to use Oracle is because you want a database which exceeds what SQLServer can do on standard hardware. And in today's world that's a big system.

As an aside. Oracle is a pain to uninstall on Windows. Its actually pretty easy on Unix, but the install is more complex.

duh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021106)

Well obviously the code is better shape than before... there'd be something wrong if it stayed the same or was worse, unless they totally didn't work on it at all.

What's important, and not mentioned, is whether or not its in better shape than IF it stayed in open source hands. Which, from the other forks out there, doesn't seem to be the case.

Anyway, it may not be that bad a thing after all, just puts another option out there for us. If we want open source, we'll just get it from one of the other forks

Wow, get a load of this guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021146)

"I would tend to think I was a wonderful CEO and I did everything absolutely right." Said without the least bit of irony. And people take the rest of what he says seriously?

Re:Wow, get a load of this guy (1)

headLITE (171240) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021512)

He did manage to sell the company for a fourth of what Oracle later paid for Sun despite everybody being allowed to copy the source code...

Better shape than ever? (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021260)

Better shape than ever? Is that newspeak for slightly less shit than it was before?

Re:Better shape than ever? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36022302)

doubleplus even.

Re:Better shape than ever? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36026404)

It sucks less. Just like Windows 95.

So you mean that ... (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021290)

... Oracle funded the further development of MySQL?
And that they made MySQL better that it was?
Oracle, the leader od commercial DB put money in one of the most popular opensource DB?
That's possible of course, but it sounds quite weird as far as marketing and sales policies. Ha!

MySQL still segfaults (4, Interesting)

mattbee (17533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36021446)

I've been through lots of version upgrades in the 5.1 series with a couple of our managed hosting customers, and they simply don't appear to be able to make a stable release. One customer's car loan system segfaulted after 600-odd days (surpriiiise!), another seems to break it every 100 or so. The latter had a support contract with MySQL AB and I dealt with them personally - what seemed really worrying was, even though this customer was paying £6000 per year, it *still* didn't seem important to anyone at the other end that a "stable" / "general availability" release of their flagship database was segfaulting. I had filed bugs, with backtraces and sample data, offered them them root passwords so they could do whatever they needed to catch the bug, but no thanks, we can't take control of your server.

To anyone that might say "but why not use 5.5, surely 5.1 is ancient history!" I'd say - this customer has been through 4, 5.0 and 5.1 and not found a single release that will stay up for more than a couple of hundred days. This customer is a MySQL "power user" who got burned on every new feature that was introduced. Stored procedures, the geospatial functions, massive sub-SELECTS - anything new tends to crash it even more often than before, and he's often had to back out and rewrite features as a result. So major version upgrades aren't considered lightly.

MySQL is going to need more than a press release to convince me that they have a commitment to high-quality code. I'll continue to plan my installations around the assumption that it dies under heavy traffic.

Re:MySQL still segfaults (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021636)

Seriously,
did you try memtest86?
dump the data and reload?
are you using it under *bsd, yet not setting sysctl according to the manual?

mysql is ungood, but it never crash that often...
(unless,... you are using stored procedure.)

Re:MySQL still segfaults (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36023938)

mysql is ungood, but it never crash that often... (unless,... you are using stored procedure.)

And some people wonder why I still don't take MySQL seriously and never use it for new development.

Re:MySQL still segfaults (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021646)

I'd suggest migrating to PostgreSQL :)

Re:MySQL still segfaults (3, Insightful)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 3 years ago | (#36022050)

All I can say is, use PostgreSQL, if you need professional support, there are various options linked from the PostgreSQL homepage.

Re:MySQL still segfaults (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36022798)

It's probably a mistake to use bleeding edge features in any product of this kind. This includes Oracle's own RDBMS as well.

Re:MySQL still segfaults (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36026548)

It's a bigger mistake to include bleeding edge features in general/stable releases. No stable release should ever be more unstable than the previous stable release.

Re:MySQL still segfaults (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36023040)

All I can say is, use PostgreSQL, if you need professional support, there are various options linked from the PostgreSQL homepage.

He said he uses massive sub-SELECTS. PostgreSQL has massive problems with them, assuming you expect the DB to return results the same day.

Re:MySQL still segfaults (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36024096)

He said he uses massive sub-SELECTS. PostgreSQL has massive problems with them, assuming you expect the DB to return results the same day.

My database is tiny with only a few hundred million tuples and might not be the best counterexample, but I've only logged a couple dozen slow queries (defined here as taking 1.000s or longer) in the last day. I guess I've never seen any problems with subselects that wouldn't have been issues if they were top-level queries, eg huge joins on unindexed tables and other things like that.

Re:MySQL still segfaults (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36023732)

600-odd days is really good for MySQL! If you want better stability go for PostgreSQL next time (also quirky, but in my experience much more stable when using more complex queries).

Re:MySQL still segfaults (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36024930)

Can you refer us to the relevant bugs? Or if you didn't report it, please provide the backtrace.

Re:MySQL still segfaults (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36025326)

My MySQL 5.1 has never crashed even under heavy load. It has processed billions of queries without down time in almost a year.

better but unavailable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36021518)

"not as open and open source as it used to be and that's true,...But the core product, the actual code, is in better shape than ever."

Well then that amounts to fuck all squared.

Oracle: wake the fuck up. The core product IS that it's open source.

Re:better but unavailable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36022062)

This needs to be modded up.

With all of Oracle's expertise and resources, sure, why not--I'll bet they could make MySQL really great! But you're delusional if you believe they're going to continue to keep this free...

If they can't monetize the free/open side of this business, they'll dump it, or else figure out a way to make it proprietary and charge you for it. That's their duty to their shareholders, and they apparently perform it very well.

I'm not surprised that they bailed out of OpenOffice, but I *am* surprised they haven't started pushing the OracleSuperJVM(tm) ("Now only $999 per CPU!"). That shoe will drop soon enough, I suppose.

oxymoron (1, Interesting)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 3 years ago | (#36022596)

it's not as open and open source as it used to be and that's true,' Marten Mickos said. 'But the core product, the actual code, is in better shape than ever

if it's not open source then the code is in worse shape then before

Re:oxymoron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36022692)

Now, that's just stupid. the community may not be better; the support may not be better; but the code itself can certainly be more stable, faster, lighter, functional or even just easier to read; which is exactly what the comment was addressing.

Re:oxymoron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36023542)

Nice try, but it still is open source. Not your FSF kiddie type of OSS, but nobody cares about that as long as the job gets done.

BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36023436)

This is simply a ploy by Mickos to improve his standing with Oracle.

Of course: all OSS consumed by Oracle improves (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36023692)

Thanks to them, we now have all sorts of thriving and improving forks. Drizzle, MariaDB, Nexenta, LibreOffice...

Re:Of course: all OSS consumed by Oracle improves (1)

lscotte (450259) | more than 3 years ago | (#36024392)

Don't forget Jenkins (well, actually Hudson is now the fork of itself)

Misleading Title (1)

xombo (628858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36025822)

This article is an advert for the guy's cloud computing company, that's probably highly reliant on MySQL. One quote about the current state of MySQL became the leading headline how and why, exactly?

*snort* (1)

MadCat (796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36027066)

Wait, is this the same Mickos that first sold out to Sun, then proceeded to rail against Sun for "not keeping MySQL MySQL", then railed harder at Oracle when they acquired Sun, even going as far as to write open letters to the community and stating he wanted MySQL back? That Mickos?

That Mickos is a greedy two-bit hypocrite with a penchant for playing the victim.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?