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!

cancel ×

137 comments

Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1, Insightful)

sander (7831) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525108)

The part about pushing people to consider alternatives seems to be founded on very thin ice - the alternatives do not actually offer you the functionality you woudl have to pay for in case of using "Oracle" MySQL, and also, if you use Oracle MySQL to get the for pay features and support, you would select teh system you run it on based on what is supported - just the same as you do with any database you pay support for.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525178)

What in god's name are you blathering about? You see this--> . That's a fucking period. They're pretty important if you want to avoid sounding a like a blabbering moron. Granted, you may need to do more than just improve your punctuation if you'd like to make any progress on that front, but everyone needs to start somewhere.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525436)

Well, he did use it... once.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525232)

What kind of functionality do you want that PostgreSQL can't provide?

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525264)

Job security: corrupted MyISAM/InnoDB, senseless tuning, corrupted replication all ensure lasting employment.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525624)

Whereas postgreSQL isn't used in major projects because it's too damn slow for non-trivial real world usage. Twat.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526430)

Ah, yes - a nice MySQL versus PostgreSQL flame war makes a refreshing change from our usual Apple versus Linux versus Microsoft flame wars.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#37527326)

Postgre Ogres are the least entertaining of all trolls...

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37527388)

And you can always spin it into GPL vs BSDL flame war for bonus points - it's like two in one!

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37527594)

So true. I mean other than that whole .org tld, what does postgresql do that could be considered non-trivial, eh? dumbfuck.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525644)

Comparable performance.

MySQL does the job on much less hardware.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

fusiongyro (55524) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526274)

Either you can't be bothered to edit the configuration file, or you don't care about your data still being there tomorrow.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526302)

Either you can't be bothered to edit the configuration file, or you don't care about your data still being there tomorrow.

So if I don't edit the configuration file, PostgreSQL will delete all my data? Fantastic!

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37526446)

So everybody who refuses to investigate every line of configuration suddenly doesn't care about his data?

Whatever (perceived) problem with reliability of MySQL DBs exists can be fixed with a back-up. (And back-ups are sort'a mandatory anyway.) You do it once - and it just works afterward.

I do not see how one similarly cheap can fix (permanently) the Postgre's relatively high costs of administration.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

Man Eating Duck (534479) | more than 2 years ago | (#37528464)

Either you can't be bothered to edit the configuration file, or you don't care about your data still being there tomorrow.

PostgreSQL even has pretty sensible defaults out of the box compared to other heavy-duty DBs according to my very humble experience. Once I tried out a variety of "Enterprise-level" DBs when our IT department simply couldn't manage to fix our dog-slow production DB2 server which hosts a fairly simple db accessed by fairly complex queries, some of which would require minutes to run. I'm by no means a DB admin, but were pretty exasperated by their lack of competence, and decided to try my hand.

The results were something like this (MySQL was not an option at the time due to a lack of enforced referential integrity, among other things):

* Oracle: Even slower by default, not worth the effort to tune for a non-expert. I tried, but didn't get very far.
* SQL server: Slightly faster with a little basic tuning
* PostgreSQL: Blazingly fast, as in orders of magnitude ahead of the three commercial ones, with default options and no tuning at all.

At first I thought I'd missed something obvious with pg, but it returned everything it should, it was simply incredibly more efficient for this use case than the alternatives. Queries which required about two minutes on the huge DB2-server would run in less than two seconds on my desktop in pgsql.

As it turned out the IT guys refused to run anything which didn't cost heaps of money (that was literally their opinion, free/cheap was not an option, Oracle would have been fine). In the process of tuning I also learned a little bit about performance analysis, and managed to turn the DB2 server into something usable by creating a few indexes. Still PostgreSQL would run circles around it, I still don't know why, but it might create indexes as needed or something like that.

If someone who actually know anything about DBs could comment on this huge performance difference I'd love to read it!

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

Coldfinger (954122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525826)

A pronounceable name

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526682)

Post - gress - skwull. Ain't that hard :P . At least they didn't name it after some obscure dodecasyllabic Aztec god.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (2)

qpqp (1969898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37528448)

At least they didn't name it after some obscure dodecasyllabic Aztec god.

There's no such concept. According to Wikipedia the longest name is: "Itztlacoliuhqui-Ixquimilli - god of stone, obsidian, coldness hardness, and castigation. Aspect of Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli"

Refs:
http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/aztec-mythology.php?_gods-list [godchecker.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_mythology [wikipedia.org]

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526216)

For basic functionality Postgres and MySQL have equivalent functionality. Postgres is starting to catch up with replication and I suspect it will be better than MySQL's. However, it wouldn't kill the Postgres guys to add a few things to make it easier for MySQL users to migrate. The *gres types are very anal about standards and I'd agree that MySQL has done some user friendly but craptastic things to their SQL dialect. Why not make a standard package of mysql wrappers written as procedures or something with postgres that users can enable?

I just migrated a web app from MySQL 4.1 to Postgres 9.0. The worst part was differences with dates and the pickyness of postgres with joins. In postgres or ingres, the order of joins matters and group by/order by/having and distinct are subtly different.

Conversely, I saw a lot of strange problems at my previous employer with Percona when they migrated from MySQL 5.0. We had a lot of queries act up, weird sort orders, etc. It wasn't a deal breaker, but it was a nightmare for QA and developers to get the app ported in a week. Half the bugs were database related.

I'm sticking with MySQL for my own projects. 5.5 is rather nice.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37526460)

I just migrated from homosexuality to heterosexuality. The worst part was the lack of a penis and the utter disgust at anal sex, anal fisting, and rim jobbing. With women, they need to wear a strap on to fuck me up the ass and even then, they refuse to give me a reach-around.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (2)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37527810)

In most database systems the join order matters, especially if you use ansi style syntax. This is a known way to improve query performance. Order the joins to so that you limit as much as possible the number of rows returned early on; and as simply as possible using highly selective queries where the columns involved in the join has either unique or a high percentage of unique values (>90%). Then place the more complex/less selective joins (i.e. on columns with less unique values) or any necessary subqueries following. I'm surprise you never noticed this in MySQL, or perhaps you were using non-ansi style queries.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525266)

Hate to admit it, but a +insightful is in order.

I hope free and open alternatives can compete somewhat so that at least some people can make do with them and leave evil Oracle behind.

Of course, legally Oracle is well within their rights to pursue an "open core" model and lock you in with proprietary extensions or whatever, but legal and right(tm) isn't always the same. Fuck those fucking fuckers!

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (2)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525654)

Insightful? I have no clue what features is he talking about (and I guess I'm not alone), but there are solutions far better than MySQL. If you check what was commercialized, you can see it's damn damn basic functionality (e.g. the ability to use PAM authentication, or the features of MySQL Enterprise Backup). But the infinitely more important question for all MySQL users should be "What will be commercialized in the future?"

And that's not FUD, that's a question everyone should ask before using any product (not just MySQL).

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (3, Funny)

dintech (998802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525278)

No, Oracle. Another example of where you're not listening to the community. We told you to go "fuck" yourself.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525838)

Maybe they ARE listening, and their response is "Yeah? Well fuck you right back."

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525392)

1) Forks such as MariaDB and Percona already offer more functionality than MySQL.
2) If you're worried about that sort of thing, you can buy an excellent support package or contracting agreement from Percona.

In fact these days I'm not even sure why anyone would use Oracle MySQL instead of MariaDB or Percona.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525768)

Pretty much everywhere I have worked uses MySQL. Nowhere that I have worked pays for it or uses any pay-for features. Most use the free and open source phpMyAdmin as an interface although my current workplace uses Navicat. Maybe they/we are missing out on some good stuff but it certainly is practical to go without.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525928)

Yea, and you could probably use SQLite in its place. The point is that the OSS version is a very primitive system. If you want it to do something other than function as a network accessible collection of spreadsheet pages that speaks SQL, then you need to pay for it.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

Synn (6288) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526698)

This is completely bullshit. I've designed MySQL clusters that, in the initial rollout, needed to be able to handle 200k inserts per second and then be able to scale up from there. And we did it on EC2 for 1k a month worth of systems.

MySQL is an extremely powerful tool.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (2)

JordanL (886154) | more than 2 years ago | (#37528430)

Why do tech-minded people always seem to need to create obtuse and obviously false exaggerations for the purpose of conveying their point? Use your words and say what you mean.

Posts like this don't make you look clever, they make you look like a caricature.

There are plenty of ways to administer the free version of MySQL to get very good performance and options. Just because you have not been able to do that does not mean it cannot be done.

I think the point that was being made, however, was that if you want to put in that much effort, why wouldn't you use a database like Postgres that actually was built for you to do that?

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526076)

Nowhere that I have worked pays for it

Which is how it ended up in Sun's hands, which is how it ended up in Oracle's hands. If it is doing a great job for the company and your saving thousands of dollars not having to buy MsSQL or DB2 etc... why not toss the developer a couple dollars per copy? I mean $30 per machine to keep something alive is a damn good deal.

Re:Pushing to look at alternatives, really? (1)

lgarner (694957) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526802)

MySQL licensing has always been a whole lot more than a "couple dollars" per host. And MySQL AB never had an option to pay what you feel like.

Finally (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525110)

FIRST COMMENT!!

Anyways, I'm glad people are finally realizing that open core does not work.

Re:Finally (1)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525530)

What is this 'open core' you're talking about? And how do the steps of Oracle, an uber-commercial corporation prove that 'open core' does not work?

Re:Finally (2)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525632)

He's NOT using an alternative name for open source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_core [wikipedia.org]

"Open core (a.k.a. proprietary relicensing[1]) is a business model where an open source product is also made available commercially with non-open-source additions. The name "open core" came into use in early 2010 but the business model had already existed for many years."

"open core" is mentioned in the article. To be honest, it's the first I've heard of it too, but it's a pretty good name for this model.

Re:Finally (1)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525910)

OK, I haven't heard about this term before. Shame on me ...

In that case I have to agree with the OP - the open core does not work. More precisely, it does not work for the users because they don't get the freedoms, just s nicely wrapped lock-in. I think Simon Phipps explains that quite nicely (see the link on the wiki page).

I'm not that sure if it works for Oracle, that's a different question. Maybe they'll achieve their goals, whatever they are.

Nonsense. (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525112)

It's OurSQL now, freetards.

Re:Nonsense. (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525302)

Is anybody even slightly surprised. Oracle is a company which prides itself on gouging enterprise customers for huge amounts of money. The CEO owns one of the worlds largest yachts, etc., etc.

Me? This doesn't even warrant an eyebrow raise.

Re:Nonsense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525438)

So annoying.

And Shuttleworth gets around on one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Global_Express [wikipedia.org]

And, oh, Larry Page? I think the point is clear...

Becoming wealthy and being FOSS friendly are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Nonsense. (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525452)

Also notice how quickly they sued Google after acquiring Sun.

That and how they tried to shred the old sun website which would probably establish promissory estoppel.

Re:Nonsense. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525906)

Right, because no one else has a copy (wayback machine) and no lawyer would think to call them out for destroying evidence and force them to pull out a backup for proof.

Re:Nonsense. (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526254)

Right, because no one else has a copy (wayback machine) and no lawyer would think to call them out for destroying evidence and force them to pull out a backup for proof.

You are operating under the (probably false) pretense that they are not ignorant, illogical beings used to making problems of various types disappear through the liberal application of money and power.

Re:Nonsense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37526842)

They were able to sue quickly because Sun knew all about how Google was violating their licenses and they handed that over to Oracle on a silver platter. If anything they probably used the prospect of a lucrative lawsuit to bolster their value. Sun was not the altruistic party in all of that mess.

They intentionally designed the licensing for Java so that implementations in the manner prescribed by Google would require payment. They were fully aware of what Google was doing but lacked the means to pursue it themselves. If they actually did care about Google and want to protect them from Oracle rather than discuss at length those violations with Oracle's lawyers they could have simply granted a free license to Google to cover whatever Google had done.

Same old thing... (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525140)

...that happens with everything Oracle touches. MySQL users will switch to MariaDB just as OO.org users switched to LibreOffice.

Re:Same old thing... (2)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525212)

I wonder how long it'll be before they start screwing with VirtualBox...

Re:Same old thing... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525224)

I'm surprised there's been no talk of a VirtualBox fork yet. But yeah I'm sure it won't be long now...

Re:Same old thing... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525410)

They already did. It was minor -- moving the 'closed' extensions into a plugin rather than having two separate versions -- and not a big deal in itself, except I haven't been able to make USB work right ever since...

Re:Same old thing... (2)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525792)

USB in guests still works fine for me (well maybe "fine" is too strong of a word... let's just say it didn't seem to get any worse when they switched to the plugin architecture). I run a Ubuntu 10.04 host with Windows and Linux guests of various flavors, so YMMV if your setup is different.

The minor weirdness I've noticed is that the Open Source binaries which are available on their site (without the plugin) have no remote console capability, even though the OSE version available on most Linux distros has a built-in VNC console server. So they effectively still have two separate versions...

Re:Same old thing... (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526328)

USB in guests still works fine for me (well maybe "fine" is too strong of a word... let's just say it didn't seem to get any worse when they switched to the plugin architecture). I run a Ubuntu 10.04 host with Windows and Linux guests of various flavors, so YMMV if your setup is different.

The minor weirdness I've noticed is that the Open Source binaries which are available on their site (without the plugin) have no remote console capability, even though the OSE version available on most Linux distros has a built-in VNC console server. So they effectively still have two separate versions...

I've been using the binary version (via Gentoo) of VirtualBox, and it "supports" Terminal Services for connecting to the console. Never works of course.

Are you implying that the compiled version has VNC instead? If so, I'll start recompiling right now - I don't see why they chose Terminal Services for connecting to one instance...

Re:Same old thing... (1)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526528)

My understanding is the Terminal Services (a.k.a. RDP) support is part of the proprietary plugin; the version most distros have in their repositories has VNC support enabled. AFAIK it is a compile time switch in the OSE version.

Try typing VBoxHeadless --help and see if any VNC options are listed.

I have one system (at home) that is running the OSE version from the Ubuntu VirtualBox PPA, and it definitely supports VNC.

Re:Same old thing... (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526594)

My understanding is the Terminal Services (a.k.a. RDP) support is part of the proprietary plugin; the version most distros have in their repositories has VNC support enabled. AFAIK it is a compile time switch in the OSE version.

Try typing VBoxHeadless --help and see if any VNC options are listed.

I have one system (at home) that is running the OSE version from the Ubuntu VirtualBox PPA, and it definitely supports VNC.

Brilliant! Thanks for the tip, will give it a go.

Re:Same old thing... (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526648)

My understanding is the Terminal Services (a.k.a. RDP) support is part of the proprietary plugin; the version most distros have in their repositories has VNC support enabled. AFAIK it is a compile time switch in the OSE version.

Try typing VBoxHeadless --help and see if any VNC options are listed.

I have one system (at home) that is running the OSE version from the Ubuntu VirtualBox PPA, and it definitely supports VNC.

You're absolutely right - app-emulation/virtualbox has support for VNC, app-emulation/virtualbox-bin has RDP.

I had no idea VBox supported VNC. Thanks again, that'll save me a few headaches!

Re:Same old thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37527098)

Funnily, VirtualBox is the one community that they didn't screw with. In fact, it became even more open under Oracle than it was under Sun.

However, everything else, from what I've seen, has been really mismanaged.

Re:Same old thing... (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525550)

...just as every single Hudson user is switching to Jenkins

The only users Oracle is keeping are, the Windows 98 users, the users that refuse to upgrade to anything.

Re:Same old thing... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525608)

People still use Windows 98 these days!? 8-(

Re:Same old thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525616)

Will switch to MariaDB? More like HAVE switched to MariaDB. The only thing missing now is full distro support.

Re:Same old thing... (1)

Karzz1 (306015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525670)

The only thing missing now is full distro support.

As I recall, a few months ago Gentoo made "mysql" a virtual slot and defaults now to mariadb as the actual database.

Re:Same old thing... (1)

DaveHowe (51510) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526056)

MariaDB is not much if any better - Ok, I can see his original point - he shared the source to MySQL so that he could get the benefits of community bugfixing, but retained the commercial rights so that he could sell commercial usage licences and still make money.

I can also see how, when offered a buttload of money by SUN, he could get up front and in one lump sum what he might make in years of normal trading - and SUN, having no db solution of its own to compete, was as good a new owner as any.

However, with MariaDB he is trying to have his cake and eat it too - he wishes to start a new "community" edition of MySQL so he can still steer the project, despite having taken his pieces of silver and ran once already. Despite (or even because of) his "experience" in running the MySQL project, I would not consider him a particularly good choice to control a fork.

Surely only an issue for Windows... (4, Insightful)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525158)

...and any other OS without package management

Most Linux distros will simply just point the mysql packages to mariadb (or whatever fork), and end-users will not have to do (or know) anything

Upgrade, continue as usual, and wonder why the windows people are jumping up & down...

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (4, Informative)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525238)

Just out of curiosity, I did upgrade to MariaDB about a week ago, and I was pleasantly surprised how easy the transition went.

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (3, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525252)

Nice to see someone try to push the "Windows" angle...

In all truth, this doesn't affect anyone at all - MySQL is GPLed so, according to RMS, it should already be protected from Big Bad Oracle... Is Oracle really required to move MySQL forward? If not, then why the complaints - and if so, then does the fact that it is GPLed really mean anything at all?

In reality, Oracle has been bound by its merger with Sun to actually offer more assurances than Sun was ever required to offer - 4 years of support. What did Sun offer? Nothing.

Technically, MySQL should be in a better position after the Oracle merger...

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (1)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525304)

You've missed the point of my post, but never mind

MySQL is safe because it's GPLed, allowing the code can be forked, hence MariaDB et al

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525482)

No, infact I didn't miss it at all - but you seem to have missed mine.

If MySQL is GPLed, and can be forked, then why the interest in what Oracle does to the trunk?

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525642)

FUD and postgreSQL weenies trolling. Negative articles generate rage and lots of clicks. Posting a "nothing to see here" story doesn't generate ad impressions. The bigger the opinionated BS an article can generate in responses, the better the "author" is for the newsoutlet. Clicks = Money. That's all there is to it.

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37526458)

I am afraid you did, in fact, miss the point.

The statement relates to:
1- An assumption that Oracle will finish screwing up MySQL; perhaps by withholding critical security updates, necessitating either buying there product or an upgrade.
2- Those who are already running MySQL on there servers for some production purpose.

On Linux; thanks to an assumption of GPL and some quite evolved package managers that have the concept that an event like this may hapeen- switching from MySQL to MariaDB or another fork is very simple; the package manager handles all the overwrites, and since it's a fork initially all functionality remains the same. You change your root package, and it upgrades from then on, can even be done on a 'live' system (though you should check it on a dummy system first, just in case).

On the windows side of things, baring someone building a conversion tool, it will not be this simple. Because of the way that windows works you could end up with MySQL and MariaDB running simultaneously; so you'll have to manually port over your databases, and then uninstall MySQL (But be sure that when uninstalling MySQL it does not take out some of MariaDBs files in the process; so testing this whole procedure on a dummy system first is required.). It's not a lot more steps, nor a lot more complicated; but it is more time intensive and has more room for failure.

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37527114)

You seem to be going a lot out of your way there to make the Windows path seem difficult, when infact its not really any different to your Linux version of events - there is no magic reason why only MySQL databases on Linux retain compatibility between the MySQL trunk and your fabled fork, if it works for Linux, then it will work for Windows. Stop MySQL, install the fork, tell it the location of the database files and configuration files, do some testing, and then remove MySQL. Wow, that was infinitely more convoluted than your Linux steps...

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (1)

Synn (6288) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526728)

No, infact I didn't miss it at all - but you seem to have missed mine.

If MySQL is GPLed, and can be forked, then why the interest in what Oracle does to the trunk?

The interest is that it looks like the trunk is a dead end. This gives more press to MariaDB and could eventually mean distros drop MySQL going forward in favor of it.

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (1)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525736)

That's not true. MySQL always had dual licensing - GPL and MySQL License. MySQL always held all the rights to the source code. This is basically the reason why MySQL never formed a truly open developer community, as that would make this 'license drop' impossible (or much more difficult). Now Oracle owns MySQL, thus all the rights.

They may drop GPL licensing any time they want (OK, there were some promises to EU) and provide further versions only under their own license. Will that happen tomorrow? I don't think so. Will that happen next year? I don't know? And I doubt Oracle has an exact plan what to do with MySQL.

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (2)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525982)

That doesn't change anything what so ever.

If they drop GPL tomorrow, you don't lose anything. You still have the source from today. You just won't have the source from tomorrow or days in the future.

You aren't going to lose anything if they change license schemes, you simply won't continue to get a free ride FROM ORACLE, you'll have to get it elsewhere.

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (1)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526388)

Sure you do lose lot of things. What about bugfixes, for example?

Yes, you can use the sources from the GPL-times, the businesses really don't want to do that on their own. And forking a project successfully really is not that simple as it loks like. There are forks of MySQL, and maybe one of them will be a success in the future (I'd be glad to see that), but which one? And what are the guarantees?

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525314)

Is Oracle really required to move MySQL forward? If not, then why the complaints - and if so, then does the fact that it is GPLed really mean anything at all?

It means that anyone can fork it and continue to move it forward.

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (2)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525728)

Most Linux distros will simply just point the mysql packages to mariadb (or whatever fork), and end-users will not have to do (or know) anything

I don't see this happening. MySQL is still open source and available, even if the extensions are not, so it will continue to be distributed by open source distributions. The name is also trademarked, so pointing to mariadb or otherwise when the user goes to install MySQL is a trademark violation.

Re:Surely only an issue for Windows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525796)

Aye, I went to install mysql on opensuse yesterday, it simply pointed me to mariadb and everything functioned as normal.

I dont get the discussion (5, Informative)

drolli (522659) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525240)

Oracle offers some added value if you need it. If you are stuck on mysql for some reason and you project outgrew what the free verions handles, it may be reasonable to pay some money for well defined support of new features.

If you don't need it (and that applies to me and most people here), then just happily use the free version. If you are not convinced the support for the new features is worth the money, then don't buy it.

So, yes, oracle may have forked it. They are neither the first company to do something like this (see ghostscript) nor will they be the last. History shows that usually the commercial "value-added" distribution may be marginal in the installed base, but if the company plays the cards right its customers and the company can profit from the commercial version.

Re:I dont get the discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525282)

Because Oracle cannot be trusted. Oracle is clearly no friend of foss. Consider Oracle's lawsuit against Google. Java is supposed to be free, but I guess Oracle never got the memo. I think foss developers would be wise to steer clear of Oracle anything.

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525334)

Troll harder. Free software still has licenses. I think Google is actually obeying the license terms, but Oracle are trying to prove that they aren't.

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525464)

Why did the old Sun website go poof right before trial then?

I cite this groklaw article to detail things: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110810152617279 [groklaw.net]

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525874)

Google doesn't distribute Android under the GPL, and because of that, they haven't been granted the rights to use any patents or copyright related to Java. The quotes from Sun in that Groklaw article don't contradict this.

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526204)

The GPL has nothing to do with it.

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526352)

The GPL has everything to do with it, as it's the only way any Java patents or copyrights can be legally used.

Re:I dont get the discussion (2)

drolli (522659) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526670)

This statement is plainly wrong. The patent grant for jvm implementors was never about open source, but always about implementing the platform as specified.

Re:I dont get the discussion (2)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526762)

The problem is that Google didn't implement a conforming JVM, so there was no grant to use the patents. They could have gotten around this by forking the GPL version of Java, but they didn't want to.

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526998)

No they could not have. They would have avoided a license problem but not the patent problem.

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37527694)

Sun explicitly licensed their code under the GPL, which includes the permission to copy, distribute, and modify under the GPL, so there would have been no patent violation.

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37527444)

My impression was that Google implemented a "JVM" (or so Oracle says) for mobile devices. And patent grant never applied to those (because Sun wanted to monetize J2ME).

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37527788)

What's a JVM or not is defined by the standards originally set out by Sun. Google didn't like the standard for mobiles so they decided to go with their own, one that was largely compatible with existing Java code but was not claimed to be Java (avoiding the trouble that Microsoft got into back in the 90s with their Java extensions). They avoided the trademark issues, but they ran into patent and copyright issues instead.

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525504)

You dont understand it. oracle has to obey not license terms at all. Its their code.

Re:I dont get the discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525600)

Can someone translate that post into English?

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525868)

You don't understand it. Oracle has to obey no license terms at all. Its their code.

Re:I dont get the discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37527064)

Oracle has to obey no license terms at all. Its their code.

Ahhh, you mean "code" as in "code of ethics"? That's sounds very Ellisian.

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525988)

What? Oracle accused Google of not obeying the license.

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526126)

No. They don't sue them for not obeying the license. They sue them for patent violations.

Re:I dont get the discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525604)

Whoosh! Clearly went over your head. Unless Oracle has indemnified its user base of the product in question, the license has nothing to do with it. In fact, according to the license terms and YOUR logic, Oracle never filed suite against Google. But, well, we all know they did just like we all know you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525966)

according to the license terms and YOUR logic, Oracle never filed suite against Google

What the hell are you talking about?

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

Cable (99315) | more than 2 years ago | (#37527262)

Oracle bought out Sun and inherited these things.

Oracle cannot be trusted because they sued Google? What makes Google more trustworthy? Will they give you the source code to Gmail?

Java was like Netscape once, a free product and they made money by donations or selling the development or server tools. But Microsoft made Visual J++ and others had bastardized Java and it lost compatability. So Sun sued them over it and then changed how Java was licensed before Oracle bought them out.

So basically since Java is so popular and due to lawsuits and changes in licenses Oracle is not to be trusted? Java can be downloaded for free still.

Re:I dont get the discussion (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 2 years ago | (#37527640)

Oracle offers some added value if you need it. If you are stuck on mysql for some reason and you project outgrew what the free verions handles, it may be reasonable to pay some money for well defined support of new features.

So how often does your company deal with government mandated use of MySQL standards? Does Oracle charge you based on how much memory you use, and how much traffic you get? Talk to someone who has to deal with their asinine practices, then you'll start to understand why people are getting so pissed at Oracle. Their either get a kick out of pissing off their end users, or they just don't give a shit since people have to use them.

Makes me wonder (1)

yourmommycalled (2280728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37525500)

I clicked on "unrest" link and lo and behold it takes me to Monty's blog where he whines about what Oracle is doing to "his" mysql. It seems to me that he sold "his" database to Sun for "approximately $1 billion in total consideration" (http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html) Seems he wasn't too worried about the foss community when he sold mysql to Sun. Now that he finds that he isn't the center of attention any more he starts stomping his feet and holding his breath until he turns blue. He suddenly is worried about how open mysql is? I keep hearing about how bad oracle is, maybe you better look at just how "open" google is. I find google several orders of magnitude worse than oracle.

Heeding the advice of its frustrated customers ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37525814)

... Oracle has decided to fork itself.

I'd have no problem.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37526326)

I'd have no problem telling them to go fork themselves...

My greatest hope for Oracle... (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37526738)

Is that it will go fork itself...

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...