×

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!

MySQL's Creator On Why the Future Belongs To MariaDB

samzenpus posted 1 year,19 days | from the new-big-thing dept.

Databases 208

angry tapir writes "When Oracle purchased Sun, many in the open source community were bleak about the future of MySQL. According to MySQL co-creator Michael "Monty" Widenius, these fears have been proven by Oracle's attitude to MySQL and its community. In the wake of the Sun takeover, Monty forked MySQL to create MariaDB, which has picked up momentum (being included by default in Fedora, Open SUSE and, most recently, Slackware). I recently interviewed Monty about what he learned from the MySQL experience and the current state of MariaDB."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

208 comments

10.0.1 Alpha (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301609)

That will show them, huh?

You gotta be kidding me. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301635)

MariaDB is for lamers. Informix is where it's at.

stirring the pot (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301653)

Personally I think the future belongs to Postgres. :)

Me, too! (1)

sidragon.net (1238654) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301755)

Because everyone in the open source community has this insufferable "Me, too!" attitude, resulting in half a dozen needlessly duplicative efforts.

Re:Me, too! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301841)

If we have to select the needlessly duplicative one to ditch, then lets ditch mysql. It is the weaker product.

Oh! Negative moderation. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301955)

Rather than actually discuss an obvious failing of open source communities at large--a failing that applies directly to commonly-used databases--let's just suppress the opinion. There ya go!

Re:Me, too! (5, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302171)

Having worked with many different SQL Databases. MySQL, Microsoft SQL, DB2, Informix.... I have found that PostgreSQL is actually a really damn good Database system. Its fast powerful and very configurable. Sure the other guys will have some advantages over PostgreSQL, but I found PostgreSQL has the advantages where I find it counts for my use, for heavy processing, not just storing and retrieving data.

Re:Me, too! (2, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302799)

Can I point existing code at Postgres rather than MySQL and have it work?

If not, that's kind of a problem.

Re:Me, too! (4, Informative)

i.r.id10t (595143) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302907)

Depends on what the code is. For example, if you've been using PDO in PHP, then probably no problem, since there is an abstraction layer between your code and the actual SQL calls.

Re:Me, too! (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302767)

You say "needlessly duplicative" like it's a bad thing.

Because it is. (1)

sidragon.net (1238654) | 1 year,19 days | (#43303097)

Yes, it is. In this case, we have two different projects that are both hard at work on inventing the wheel. We all know exactly how we want the wheel to work, but because we're dividing our efforts we're getting two wheels that work very similarly, and aren't truly interchangeable.

A SQL database is meant to store and retrieve data in a very specific way, and do those tasks as quickly and reliably as possible. The mathematics that define how best to accomplish these goals is a common factor. So why the hell do we have two independent projects chasing those goals?

You tell me: what is the benefit? (And don't start spouting terms "monoculture," because that's baloney. This isn't a biological ecosystem we're talking about here, and even if you use that term, Apache proved it wasn't a problem a long time ago.)

Re:stirring the pot (1)

isopropanol (1936936) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301819)

Word. I prefer Postgres. But then again I have not done a comparison in a very long time. I know that MySQL (and by extension MariaDB) has been ACID compliant for several years if you pick the right backend, but does anyone know if either supports Views and stored procedures?

Re:stirring the pot (4, Informative)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301863)

Both support views and stored procedures and have since version 5.

Re:stirring the pot (1)

isopropanol (1936936) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301959)

Cool, thanks. it's been a while since I did a complicated DB project; perhaps it's time to fire up a VM and try 'em out. How about triggers?

Re:stirring the pot (2)

drfrog (145882) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302157)

postgresql+1
just because something is popular doesnt make it the right choice

AFAIK mysql/maria still relies on innodb for transactions ! plus all the myriad of mysql type mishandling of null values.
its a horror show of popularity.

use a proper database and stop having to work around dysfunctional programming

Re:stirring the pot (3, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302991)

Actually MariaDB and Percona both support XtraDB which is a transactional backend that's a drop in replacement for InnoDB. MariaDB also supports the new Aria storage engine which can be both transactional and non-transactional depending on your needs (determined by option in Create Table statement).

Re:stirring the pot (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43303029)

InnoDB and MyISAM are the far two most popular.

they both support views and SProcs. Neither have materialized views, though :( [not without setting your own triggers, anyways]

god (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301681)

why not just use postgres?

jeez

why not just use postgres? (5, Informative)

rvw (755107) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301849)

why not just use postgres?

jeez

Many providers don't offer this in their cheap standard package. That's a major problem for Postgres I think. Then many popular webapps like Wordpress or Magento are mysql only, and I don't think it will happen soon that they will work with Postgres. Oh and if they did, most of their plugins won't work, so nobody will make the move.

Re:why not just use postgres? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302463)

It's a good decade or so since I've had anything to do with SQL but how can that be true? Is it because people are locked into MySQL's SQL dialect and database format?

Isn't that an argument for MariaDB which sounds like it should have more or less the same dialect/db format?

Re:why not just use postgres? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302549)

MariaDB is based on MySQL and tries really hard to maintain binary compatibility with most of MySQL.

Postgres, while an excellent database, has some differences and thus it might take a bit of extra code for people to adapt to it.

You're right, though, any properly coded application will have abstracted the data layer so that you can easily port to another database if it's required.

Re:why not just use postgres? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302853)

Not only that, Postgres isn't as oblivious to your crappy schema decisions... it complains loudly and rightly so.

Two greatest things to see being used by large players on the web : Python and Postgres.

Re:god (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301915)

Cuz it's shite, nobody knows how to use it and it isn't deployed anywhere.

Re:god (1)

jellomizer (103300) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302179)

I have. It is just that most people with MySQL deployments or MS SQL deployments just use the Database as a basic CRUD system. So you install it and it let it go. PostgreSQL is a real DB system.

Re: god (2)

montjoy0 (106031) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302309)

Shite? Seriously? Postgres handles data more safely than MySQL. It has less risk of getting taken over by a giant like Oracle. It's fast. It's Free. Are you just trolling or what?

Re:god (5, Informative)

gmack (197796) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302291)

why not just use postgres?

jeez

Ironically, the fact that PostgreSQL is a better DB makes it easier to convert from PostgreSQL to MySQL than the reverse. MySQL attempts to error correct your SQL queries while PostgreSQL is much more strict. The upshot of this is that queries that works and are tested in MySQL have a good chance of not working and need to be checked (doubly so if the original programmer tried to be clever).

The company I work for is in the beginnings of a transition. Our PHP and C software have an easy switch to convert between the two databases but now we get to check to make sure every query works and returns the same results in both databases. The cleanup of our queries will be good in the long term but for now it's a LOT of work.

Re:god (1)

jessecurry (820286) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302381)

I made the switch years ago and have never looked back. I was really glad that Heroku adopted Postgres as their standard database and even began providing Postgres as a service (https://postgres.heroku.com), it makes my life easier.

In other words (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301687)

Oracle is now behaving like Monty's old company MySQL AB, trying to force volume users to pay to play. Remember MySQL AB's rigid enforcement of the GPL, with a dual licensing option? I wonder if MariaDB is subject to the same type of licensing games.

Re:In other words (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302489)

MySQL AB could dual-license MySQL because they owned the copyright on the code (outside contributors had to assign their copyrights over). Oracle owns the MySQL copyrights now. MariaDB, as a fork of the GPL code, is only available with a GPL license. He can't relicense it.

Why "Maria" DB? (0, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301701)

Why is it named "Maria" DB? She only provided access to herself for money (well, Mary, same thing). Why not "Jesus" DB, at least he saved?

Re:Why "Maria" DB? (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301723)

Because JesusDB would drop tables for your sins. Perhaps NoahDB would be better. Built-in disaster recovery - it saves just enough data to replicate everything after the disaster is over.

Re:Why "Maria" DB? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301769)

NoahDB is not bad, a duplicate record of each kind.

How about JewDB though? You know it has to be good with business transactions. You definitely don't want a AlQaidaDB, it'll blow up ever so often and the DHS will be on your ass at all times.

Re:Why "Maria" DB? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302063)

al-Qaeda already means "the base"
wiki:
Experts debate whether or not the al-Qaeda attacks were blowback from the American CIA's "Operation Cyclone" program to help the Afghan mujahideen. Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, has written that al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were "a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies", and that "Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."[278]

Re:Why "Maria" DB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302997)

Because JesusDB would drop tables for your sins. Perhaps NoahDB would be better. Built-in disaster recovery - it saves just enough data to replicate everything after the disaster is over.

JesusDB will resurrect after 3 days. Though not instant recovery, a complete recovery model without transaction log is a God given, isn't it?

Re:Why "Maria" DB? (4, Interesting)

sjwt (161428) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301751)

I was thinking why not name it OurSQL

Re:Why "Maria" DB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301825)

That would have actually been pretty clever.

Re:Why "Maria" DB? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302119)

NotLarry'sSQL would've been better.

Re:Why "Maria" DB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301765)

Why is it named "Maria" DB? She only provided access to herself for money (well, Mary, same thing). Why not "RonPaul" DB, for the world's true lord and savior?

There, fixed that to meet your belief system. You're welcome.

Re:Why "Maria" DB? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301827)

Why is it named "Maria" DB? She only provided access to herself for money (well, Mary, same thing). Why not "Jesus" DB, at least he saved?

Because he is from Sweden, a feminist nanny state, where anything feminine is associated with success,power and wealth, and anything masculine is associated with violence,crime and filth.

Be sure to watch the documentary Sweden's Gender Wars, if you want to see a femininst professor accuses white Swedish men to slaughter and eat hundreds of babies each year. Yes,literally. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn3cHsHnUPM [youtube.com]

Posted AC for fears of retaliation.

Re:Why "Maria" DB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302587)

Posted AC for fears of retaliation.

Retaliation for telling lies? What's wrong with that?

Re:Why "Maria" DB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302665)

Posted AC for fears of retaliation.

Retaliation for telling lies? What's wrong with that?

Did you watch the documentary Sweden's Gender War yet?

Did you watch the Norwegian documentary "brainwash" (Hjernevask)

Didn't think so. Don't want you world-view challenged, huh.

So good he wants to sell it twice. (2)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301719)

Nice dream.

Monty said that? Oh, of course he did... (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301733)

The part he left unsaid was "MariaDB is the future because that's where I will make my money".

Remember, this is the guy that tried to get a merger court to give him the rights to MySQL back again after he sold them to Sun for a nice sum of money.

Re:Monty said that? Oh, of course he did... (1)

Aardpig (622459) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301739)

Citation?

Re:Monty said that? Oh, of course he did... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301939)

I believe he is referring to the efforts to divest the MySQL trademark and copyright from Oracle as a condition of the acquisition of Sun by Oracle by EU courts. Not very nefarious as it was under the assumption that Oracle would destroy MySQLs viability in the future.

The more interesting part [pcworld.com] of that whole issue was when you look at how the US pressured the EU court to approve the merger unconditionally.

Re:Monty said that? Oh, of course he did... (3, Interesting)

KiloByte (825081) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301813)

The part he left unsaid was "MariaDB is the future because that's where I will make my money".

Except that he put a lot of effort and money into organizing a team of developers for the last four years. Just compare what's going on in Oracle's land vs this fork.

It's another case of OpenOffice vs LibreOffice.

What's Oracle doing so badly? (5, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301775)

I would like to know what specifically Oracle is doing so badly. I've been watching MySQL for a while as we use it at work, and it seems that a lot of advancements have been made in MySQL since the Oracle takeover. They've released 5.5 and 5.6. They haven't let it stagnate. They've released a ton of new features. They still have the free version easily available on their website. It seems like their prices have gone up if you want the supported version, but there are other providers out there.

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301871)

What is Oracle doing so badly? Well, for starters, they're being Oracle.

I guess that is reason enough.

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (5, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302057)

Yeah, I wouldn't use MySQL regardless for anything serious, but I've still played around with it and used it for prototype projects, and frankly the .NET connector and GUI management tools have made far more progress under Oracle than they were making beforehand.

That's not to defend Oracle either of course, but I think it's unfair to say Oracle has let MySQL stagnate, they haven't, and that's not a reason to ditch MySQL. The fact Oracle are scum and that MySQL is still crap regardless are better reasons to ditch MySQL, but certainly not lack of progress.

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302135)

Sorry, but you're a windows user. Your opinion counts for nothing.

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (-1, Flamebait)

Xest (935314) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302389)

Aww the nostalgia, I haven't seen a real life OS zealot in a long time.

I though you all died off along with the dream of the year of the Linux desktop.

Have you considered applying to CITES for reverting back to critically endangered status? I believe they currently have you listed as extinct.

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302635)

You're a fucking idiot and you deserve to be shot.

- A Linux user

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302831)

Ha ha, please mod the parent as being funny. A lot of layers to the troll.
Or he is right ? Windows don't matter .. sniffle/whaaa. Way to ruin my day.

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302411)

I think that MySQL is a great database that suffers from a bad reputation due to a lot of history. Stay away from MyISAM, and it can be a great database. I find it actually does a few key things a lot better than some of their competitors, and you can always start out for free, which is a big advantage for start-ups. Postgres is just about the only other free alternative but has a lot of issues of it's own. Someone pointed out MySQL installer not working, well, if you want to complain about Postgres, how about no case insensitive collation?

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302987)

Stay away from MyISAM, and it's no faster, and usually slower, than Postgres, which can also handle a lot more load.

MySQL has a long history of not caring about data integrity. February 31st was a valid date according to MySQL for YEARS.

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302077)

For quite some time Oracle couldn't even make a working Windows installer (when it tried to set up the root password and similar stuff you had to kill the installer and complete the last steps manually).

If a company can't even get a fucking installer to work I certainly don't want to find out which parts of the database engine they managed to break.

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43303015)

Haha... I sooooo agree with Oracle Installers on Windows. They've been a total joke for years, I'm not sure WTF they were thinking. I'd be at customer sites back with Oracle 8 and you'd have to copy the disk, then use another installer patch since the one on the media was bad (how did they make it past any QA with a non-working installer?!?!?). The installer is "better" today, but it's still not clean, and the default tools they ship with have all kinds of quirks that you get used to where you have to go part-way through, close and start over to get it working.

Still today they patch like crazy with poor documentation on what changed or why I need that patch, and it feels like Oracle's main product hasn't really improved in any meaningful way for YEARS.

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302121)

1. They don't fix bugs in anything like a remotely timely manner.

2. They are removing functionality with each release.

3. Their intention is to slowly kill MySQL & InnoDB because this combination is good enough for the majority of database applications, which is killing Oracle in long term. Generic Intel boxen running Linux/BSD with decent RAID are more than adequate to replace the older choice of big Sun/IBM boxen using Oracle's and IBM's weird licensing fees, resulting is IT costing significantly less to buy, license and support.

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302689)

lol. MySQL's competition isn't oracle, it's MS Access. There were some .com companies that wasted VC money on sun/oracle when they should have gone linux/postgres (or mysql) but if you're considering oracle, you're not considering mysql.

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302187)

Oracle didn't release patches to fix undisclosed security problems and forced Debian to release a new version of MySQL. Oracle don't work well with distribution package maintainers. Do they expect distributions to release a new vanilla MySQL package every time Oracle says they have fixed some undisclosed problems?

Due to the non-disclosure of security patch information from Oracle, we are forced to ship an upstream version update of MySQL 5.1. There are several known incompatible changes, which are listed in...

http://www.debian.org/security/2012/dsa-2429

Re:What's Oracle doing so badly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302391)

I work for Oracle (not an official spokesperson) and we use MySQL inside a lot of our own products. So we have a desire to see it supported and enhanced.

What they did was not account for Monty (2, Interesting)

Excelcia (906188) | 1 year,19 days | (#43303091)

The only thing Oracle is doing wrong is thinking that no one could be bold enough to try and sell the same product twice.

It's a gutsy move. It really is. Sell MySQL to Sun. Claim Sun's purchaser is doing __________ (fill in the blank with whatever evil nasty thing you like) with it. But that's ok, MariaDB will save you from that. Distributions flood to it to get away from the nasty big evil corporation, and suddenly Monty has legally taken back control of what he sold for a cool billion dollars.

The best part about it, is if Oracle says anything about it, then it just looks like they are trying to trash talk the little guy who is just trying to do the right thing for
the community.

And before you think of flaming the idea, remember, Monty is very much the businessman. He almost invented using the GPL as a weapon. He stopped releasing any connector or client licensed as LGPL so he could claim that even using MySQL as a back-end for something else required the entire front-end to be GPLed too - either that or pay him for a commercial license.

The next company to buy something from Monty better get an iron clad agreement never to fork it.

Audio, anyone? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301791)

Why isn't there an audio of this interview? This should be routine now. While I appreciate efforts to provide this dialogue, I hope the author(s) don't expect that folks will always want to read through all the verbiage.

I would have been able to listen to the interview while on my way to work. But thanks anyway and sorry, I had to get this off my chest.

Re:Audio, anyone? (1)

rvw (755107) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301945)

Why isn't there an audio of this interview? This should be routine now. While I appreciate efforts to provide this dialogue, I hope the author(s) don't expect that folks will always want to read through all the verbiage.

I would have been able to listen to the interview while on my way to work. But thanks anyway and sorry, I had to get this off my chest.

You know, with MariaDB, confessions are still confidential. When this one is sold to Microsoft or Apple, JesusDB will support speech input and output and it can communicate with AngelDB and stuff. Only when goDB will be around, it will answer questions like this itself on slashdot.

Re:Audio, anyone? (1)

radiumsoup (741987) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302013)

because the demand for unedited audio is low enough that it's not usually worth the effort of authors to provide it - and if you include doing voiceovers for the author's own commentary, which generally happens after the interview is complete and the author has the time to verify and rebut statements made by the interviewee, you're talking about a LOT more work than simply putting out a text-based article.

You could always try text-to-speech.

Ego Check (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301811)

From TFA: "Some of the new code by Oracle is surprisingly good, but unfortunately the quality varies and a notable part needs to be rewritten before we can include it in MariaDB"

Uh... considering the utter and total lack of quality surrounding MySQL for years (much of it written by this guy), and considering that Oracle has engineered incredibly reliable and extensible enterprise databases, I don't know where the "surprise" comes from. You can hate on Oracle for being evil, and I agree that they are a lot of the time, but you can also bet that they have a whole lot of very smart people who know how to implement a database. Keep in mind, while I don't trust Oracle, they did release all of this code under an open source license for the Maria people to use(or in this case, criticize in the same way the pot criticizes the kettle).

Re:Ego Check (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301927)

They had to.

Otherwise, MySQL would be dying even faster.

Re:Ego Check (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302211)

Yes. I took a trip one day to the MySQL codebase, and it is incredibly ugly. It was a horror to read it.

Re:Ego Check (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302223)

You can hate on Oracle for being evil, and I agree that they are a lot of the time, but you can also bet that they have a whole lot of very smart people who know how to implement a database.

This used to be true. Rumor has it that all the smart software developers left Oracle a number of years ago. My perception these days is that the software devs at Oracle couldn't code themselves out of a wet paper bag.

Actually, it is a success for the GPL. (2)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43301907)

Without the GPL, Mariadb would not exist.

Re:Actually, it is a success for the GPL. (1)

petermgreen (876956) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302081)

IIRC mysql try to claim the GPL applies not just to their client libraries but to any reimpmentation of their protocol. So even if you didn't use their client libraries your software still had to be GPL.

http://mysqlha.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/can-protocol-be-gpl.html [blogspot.co.uk]

Is that term enforcable? will oracle try to enforce it? I don't know but I do know that it's enough to make me wary of using mySQL or any fork thereof in anything I design in future.

Did Oracle even know what they were buying? (1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301917)

Oracles purchased of MySQL never made sense: A popular but very lightweight database? I once used it on an enterprise project and it was too buggy and had terrible locking and reliability problems. If your database is down you're losing lots of money - we lost $50K an hour. InnoDB helped a bit, but in the end we found it MySQL unworkable and moved to PostgreSQL. Oracle is an enterprise company which makes kazillions selling enterprise software to, you know, enterprises. Maybe some ill-informed executive thought they could use MySQL to target the low-end of the market, but eventually realised MySQL just wasn't up to the task and *that* is why they abandoned it.

Re:Did Oracle even know what they were buying? (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301963)

Oracle didn't buy Sun for MySQL, it bought it for Java. Everything else was a distraction that it now has to do something with.

Re:Did Oracle even know what they were buying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302075)

Oracle previously purchased InnoDB, which is the only 'respectable' way to run MySQL.

I can see the logic from Oracle's perspective. Sometimes smaller LAMP projects take off and become critical infrastructure. It can be difficult to migrate from one rdbms to another. There's an opportunity to sell MySQL support licenses and it gets Oracle's salesmen in the door.

Re:Did Oracle even know what they were buying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302003)

Everyone knew MySQL's strengths and weaknesses. Oracle bought Sun for Java, Solaris, and SPARC. MySQL came along with the package, and Oracle welcomed the chance to neuter a popular free competitor to their flagship DB.

Re:Did Oracle even know what they were buying? (2)

Xest (935314) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302085)

If you were making $50k an hour, is there any reason you were using lightweight databases in the first place when given that income you could've trivially just stumped up for something a bit more reliable like Oracle or MSSQL Server?

Cited numbers (1)

gmuslera (3436) | 1 year,19 days | (#43301949)

"Although MySQL is still widely used — Db-engines.com ranks it as the third most popular RDBMS after Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server, compared to MariaDB coming in at #35 — "

They should had read their methodology [db-engines.com] before citing them wrong. It is not what is more used (as mysql is basically the default db used by most popular web apps, should be more in the order of popularity of php than in the oracle, like it or not) but what have more active discussion around in certain circles. Even if you think that that measurement "matters" they are talking about "most popular RDBMS" and in the list of RDBMS (not general DBs) MariaDB is #17 (and as mostly transparent replacement of mysql, probably should be in reality between the top 10)

Re:Cited numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43302755)

I would have thought that sqlite should be in those numbers.
It is used on pretty much everything.

Where Linux goes - a sign of where the action is? (2)

staalmannen (1705340) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302007)

Although (irrespective if we believe the specific numbers or not) ~1% of desktop users are Linux users, I think that 1% is a very significant one containing much of the people doing community contributions to open source projects (either patches or good bug reports). Because of this, I think the fate of the two ex-Sun projects OpenOffice and MySQL is very uncertain, despite having a massively higher user share thanks to MacOSX and Windows users and an established brand. Long-term, I think the developer mind share is more significant and that is obtained by being the default option in various Linux distros.

NoSQL stuff is better for web applications (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | 1 year,19 days | (#43302819)

Everyone wants Mongo and Redis and all that jazz these days anyway...and quite frankly, they ARE better for web applications.

I predict MySQL/MariaDB/whatever will slowly fall out of favor in the next few years.

What about FireBirdSQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#43303129)

It seems nobody here has mentioned firbirdsql as a nice replacement, its license lets you use it on commercial products is pretty versatile.
You can access database in the typical client/server way or embedded (more similar to sqlite)

Anyone that requires a RDBM should check it out: http://www.firebirdsql.org/

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...